Since the start of this session ECO has been looking for some guidance on climate finance. However, the complexities of these negotiations – debates about the Adaptation Fund serving under the guidance of the CMA or/and CMP; the technical discussions about accounting modalities; and the possibility of including finance in the Global Stocktake – have us completely lost.
It took the CVF press conference to bring things back into focus. “As long there is a chance to stop global warming at a level that lets humanity survive and thrive, we should seize it,” the climate commissioner from the Philippines said, adding, “This is why we continue to advance the call for world leaders to keep to the 1.5 goal and to recalibrate climate finance.”
Before bidding farewell to the negotiators for a little while, ECO wants to remind them that outside this bubble, speaking about finance also reaffirms the importance of urgent climate action, and brings trust into the new climate regime. Developed countries have already committed to mobilise US$100 billion and while this commitment is welcome, let’s not forget that the costs for addressing climate change within developing countries are significantly higher.
As we move towards COP23, we want to share three priorities.
First, ECO cannot imagine that a first COP chaired by a vulnerable Pacific island in times of a well-recognized ambition gap, could conclude without a strong finance outcome. The roadmap doesn’t erase the need to scale up finance provided to poor countries. More efforts are required to raise adaptation finance, which remains a gap, and to reach the balance of mitigation and adaptation support stated in the Paris Agreement.
Delivering adequate climate finance should become a key priority for negotiators. It’s necessary to ensure that finance reaches the most vulnerable in a transparent way and helps build more resilient societies. When ministers convene for a high-level dialogue on finance at COP24, we expect they will exhibit strong ambition, not only on mobilizing and providing finance, but also on linking support with the Facilitative Dialogue 2018 upwards (remember this when you consider the FD at COP23). And finance discussions should focus on innovative mechanisms, such as carbon levies or revenues from air or sea transport.
Second, it would be a shame if finance negotiators spend all their time in lovely Fiji (aka lovely Bonn), talking only about the Adaptation Fund serving the Paris Agreement when the AF’s financial resources are what makes the real difference for vulnerable communities affected by climate change: a testament to the good work the AF has already done.
