ECO was always a fan of chemistry lessons at school. Understand the elements correctly; consider compounds, composition, structure, and you can get the reaction you are looking for on your litmus test.
And as set out in ECO first COP26 issue, finance to support addressing (including recovering from) Loss and Damage, will be ECO’s litmus test for COP26. Parties must respond to climate-induced losses and damages around the world, and deliver new and additional financial resources to address it.
But the proposed solution is not looking good. So ECO would like to remind ministers and negotiators how to get the perfect formula for addressing Loss and Damage.
Globally, we have already entered the era of Loss and Damage. ECO appreciates that, at least in the last draft cover decision ECO saw, parties reiterate the urgency of scaling up action and support, including finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, for averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage, and urge contributors and funds to provide enhanced and additional support. And that Parties also welcome agreement on functions and processes for the operationalisation of the Santiago network. The proper operationalisation of a needs-based Santiago Network will be an important catalyst for action on loss and damage. To get that catalytic action right parties need to remember to fund the Secretariat adequately.
But without commitments to add in new and additional financing, or to set up the right financing structures, we’re going to continue to abandon people hit by climate disasters, particularly women and girls, leaving them with huge losses and damages. A disastrous reaction.
Luckily, ECO has heard that there are proposals for a Glasgow Loss and Damage Finance Facility floating around. The facility should be designed to be gender responsive and to handle the scale of financing needed to support addressing, including recovering from, loss and damage (and not merely sit under the Santiago network to fund no more than technical assistance). Parties don’t need to do all the hard-thinking now; they can task the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Standing Committee on Finance to get that work underway for COP27. Such a work programme should include an initial assessment of the scale of finance needed, which should be regularly assessed through annual Loss and Damage finance gap reports. An even more important element is the identification of existing and new sources of finance, over and above the annual US$100billion climate finance goal.
Finally, parties should ensure that loss and damage finance is included as a separate category, alongside mitigation and adaptation in the post-2025 finance goal, and must be reported separately in the common tabular format used for recording support provided to developing countries. Parties should also ensure the Global Stocktake includes an assessment of progress made towards addressing loss and damage.
ECO is waiting with its litmus paper for the finalisation of the negotiations, and looks forward to the right outcome.