Just recently, Cyclones Idai and Kenneth killed more than 1,000 people in Mozambique and neighbouring countries, forcing the sixth poorest country in the world to take on an extra US$118 million in debt. The climate crisis’ impacts are increasing, and it is imperative that the international community start addressing them adequately.
Six years after its establishment, it is high time to fully operationalize the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), by putting in place a finance arm and by agreeing on new scalable sources of finance. The review of the WIM that Parties will perform at COP25 needs to fulfill its promise to enhance action and support. For that, Parties need to engage in a full-fledged discussion on the availability of finance to address loss and damage (L&D) beyond adaptation and similar finance provided, the needs of vulnerable countries, and potential sources to reduce the gap between the two.
At SB50, ECO would like to see Parties agree on the terms of reference for this review, ensuring it is fit for purpose and enables the WIM to meet its objectives and fulfill its functions. This needs to include whether (i) the mechanism is meeting the challenge of loss and damage currently faced by vulnerable developing countries, and (ii) if it is capable of meeting future loss and damage needs. The review should address any gaps in the implementation of its original mandate, and in the current and future needs of vulnerable developing countries.
And, dear negotiators from developed countries, do not forget: the WIM has been set up to assist particularly vulnerable developing countries. So ECO expects that you have all read the submissions on the WIM review by LDCs, AOSIS and the African Group of Negotiators, and that you have taken their key suggestions to heart. ECO will watch out for your responses.
But ECO also feels the need to keep an eye on the UNFCCC Secretariat’s approach. How can its main press release on expectations for the SB50 session NOT even mention the WIM and preparatory work for the review? Is talking about “accelerating resilience-building efforts” an attempt to downplay the importance of loss and damage? ECO struggles to imagine a legitimate excuse for this, particularly for those vulnerable countries whose challenges need to be at the core of the loss and damage discussion.