ECO gets the feeling that negotiators prefer to talk about the past rather than about the future…
In 2016, the development of a technical paper that elaborates sources of and modalities for accessing financial support for addressing loss and damage was mandated. The Secretariat had a very long time to prepare it and yet it was only released two days before SB50 started. However, we do believe that this paper provides a good starting point to discuss sources and modalities for L&D finance. It usefully gives examples of loss and damage and to some extent addresses the intersection between adaptation, humanitarian and development programs. It highlights how difficult it is to report on loss and damage financing, as it is not accounted for separately.
However, ECO believes that there are major problems with the paper, which are primarily rooted in its mandate: By focusing solely on existing funding, it delivers a backwards-looking analysis of financial contributions to avert, minimize and address L&D. The ill-designed mandate excludes a forward-looking component from the technical paper. It contains no references to (future) needs, additional innovative sources or institutional arrangements to channel funding.
In the current negotiations on the WIM review, ECO notes that negotiators are experiencing the same struggle with back- and forward-looking components. But analysing the past without sketching a way forward, will be of very limited use – especially when looking at the scenarios science delivers. And for the ToRs of the WIM Review itself: The backwards-looking character of the technical paper makes it of very limited use as the only reference to finance in the WIM review – as that also has a component reflecting the vision of the WIM.
ECO sees the paper as a starting point. For the review of the WIM to succeed, however, ECO calls on Parties to take a forward-looking approach and dive deeper into understanding the needs of vulnerable countries, including various cost estimates that are out there. It sounds like a good summer reading before finalising the next set of submissions as an input to the review, and of course in preparation for the COP itself.