With consultations on loss and damage nearing half-time here in sunny Sharm el-Sheikh, ECO is disappointed to report that — despite the excessive air-conditioning — meeting rooms have been full of little more than hot air.
In terms of the process, things have been difficult. Loss and Damage is a critical issue for this COP, yet room sizes have simply been too small, meaning that observers — and even parties — got kicked out of consultations today. ECO thanks the EU representative for recognising the role of civil society in pushing the loss and damage agenda, and for asking for an overflow room for observers.
In terms of substance, familiar battle lines are being drawn. G77+China and AOSIS have clear positions and are holding their lines. Any attempts to sow divisions have so far been unsuccessful.
Indeed, the first of their asks seems to have been achieved: recognition of the loss and damage finance gap. As the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda said on Tuesday, this should not be perceived as a controversial issue.
There is more debate on the need for a new loss and damage financing facility, that this funding should be new and additional, and precisely what should be agreed at this COP. Developed countries are keen to highlight all the work that needs to be done before any such fund could be agreed upon. Perhaps a bit like the ‘merchants of doubt’ — who claimed that there was no certainty about the link between cigarettes and cancer, and climate deniers who have exploited any gaps however small in scientific knowledge — they call for more information, more data, more research, more workshops, more reports, before anything can be concretely taken forward.
We know that the funding gaps exist; we know there is a need. There simply isn’t enough money being made available, as Pakistan is currently finding out as it tries to respond to devastating floods. In this context, the call for more workshops feels like bad faith negotiating.
Could it be that developed countries are pledging small sums (a few million, when what is needed is billions) to take the heat out of the discussion? And that they will propose procedural outcomes as a way of kicking this into the long grass? Yes, there’s a need for a work plan to develop the details, but this should be with a clear view of the required outcome: a new fund.
Developed nations have failed to mitigate the climate crisis. They have failed to provide adequate finance and support for adaptation. And now, by all appearances, they are attempting to delay decision-making on loss and damage facility creation and avoid any concrete commitments here in Sharm el-Sheikh.
With limited time for negotiations to take place, ECO urges these negotiators to reconsider and address the third key aspect of loss and damage finance: a commitment to a dedicated loss and damage finance facility.
COP27 is an African COP, and a climate justice COP. In the third informal negotiations we saw developed countries show how little they understand climate justice. They showed their cards clearly by offering a united set of procedural outcomes that is detached from the urgency needed.
2024 is too late. Negotiators, your delay is killing people.
The time is now, and we cannot come out of this COP with nothing but hot air.