ECO feels that there has been a slight misunderstanding and would like to clear the air. The unprecedented decision on Day 1 of COP28 to operationalise the Loss and Damage Fund was indeed energising. After 30 years of struggle and disappointment, vulnerable countries and populations could finally say: we have been seen and heard. The flurry of initial loss and damage finance pledges are important. However, pledges that add up to hundreds of millions of USD thus far, while hundreds of billions are needed, are an indication of unfinished business at COP28. And unfortunately, not all of it is new and additional money: Parties, you should not rob Peter to pay Paul.
ECO is also worried by the narrative that COP28 has already wrapped up action on Loss and Damage finance and now, we can move on. The truth is that the decision text on the Loss and Damage finance is far from delivering climate justice. For ECO, it is critical to ensure that the GST addresses significant gaps from the decision and raises the bar to ensure that the political momentum for scaled-up, ongoing and predictable Loss and Damage finance does not fade away. Hopefully, this is what Parties talked about during the various inf-infs that took place yesterday.
So how can the GST help? First, the GST should acknowledge the reality of losses and damages already burdening developing countries and identify the scale of the loss and damage needs – hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention the lives, livelihoods and other non-economic loss and damage. To respond to such severe climate impacts, governments have been forced to divert budgets from healthcare and education, among other things, hampering development progress and affecting people’s well-being. In many cases developing countries have been forced to take on expensive loans to pay for loss and damage, driving them further into debt.
Second, for ECO, it is a no-brainer that the GST should clearly spell out the obligations for historical emitters to lead on massively scaled-up loss and damage finance (while we are at it, to be coherent, ECO calls on Parties to integrate a sub-goal on Loss and Damage in the NCQG).
Third, the GST should urge creditors to cancel debt and reform debt restructuring approaches and give a strong signal that the Loss and Damage Fund will not contribute to the debt crisis by delivering public, grants-based finance.
Fourth, the GST should make clear that human rights must be at the heart of the response to loss and damage, including making sure that financing to address it is gender-responsive. A human rights-based approach to loss and damage is crucial as people face loss of livelihoods, cultural heritage and lands, and to ensure that those most marginalised are reached.
Fifth, the GST should ensure that developing countries receive the necessary support to assess the loss and damage, both economic and non-economic, they suffer from. In order to take stock of something, you must be able to measure it. Right now, many developing countries are not able to measure existing and future loss and damage needs. The Santiago Network should play a key role in setting up national inventories, strengthening national capacity and providing technical and financial resources, including to affected communities.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that increased burning of fossil fuels and inadequate funding for adaptation will result in greater loss and damage. The Global Stocktake (GST) must firmly recognize the continuum to encourage ambition across all pillars of climate action.
The Loss and Damage Fund approved at COP28 – and the pledges made so far – were a start, but the GST should do its job and must ratchet up the Loss and Damage finance commensurate to the current and future needs.