With the three proposals on a COP22 decision on long-term finance, negotiators must have had something to chew on over the weekend. Surely, combining the contrasting views on finance such as those of Canada on behalf of a few Umbrella Countries with those of the G77/China is just the treatment to overcome a CAN party hangover.
ECO is not surprised that the EU is keen to see the $100 Billion Roadmap welcomed, nor that the Umbrellas wish to go even further by inserting OECD figures into the decision (drawn from the 2016 Biennial Assessment). That almost looks like hoping that the COP would implicitly accept the donor countries’ methodology on what and how to count – somewhat bypassing the ongoing SBSTA discussions on accounting modalities for support- including overrating the climate-relevance of provided funds and counting market-rate loans at face-value.
These nasty technical issues aside, everyone concerned about the growing adaptation needs in developing countries will have noticed that all sides have understood that something must be done about the existing imbalance between mitigation and adaptation in the allocation of finance. The EU and the Umbrellas seem to be fine with the COP welcoming an increase in adaptation finance and be done with it. Not exactly a call to action. In contrast, the G77 calls on developed countries to quadruple adaptation finance.
Poles apart as it seems, but this is what the ministers are coming over for, right? They need to ensure a decent outcome of COP22 by assuring developing countries that enhanced efforts will be undertaken to go beyond current plans and projections on adaptation finance.