On their way to Chamber Hall which yesterday hosted the 1st session of the Glasgow Dialogue, Parties were greeted by a very special welcome committee organized by various civil society groups.
ECO was delighted that this message quickly found an echo in the room. AOSIS reminded the hall that the Glasgow Dialogue was not their first choice and the only reason they agreed to it at COP26, was under the condition that the Dialogue would lead to the creation of a Loss & Damage facility at COP27.
Having raised the need to address loss and damage since the creation of the UNFCCC almost 30 years ago, vulnerable countries, understandably, won’t back down. Delaying a decision by another 3 years, while climate impacts only worsen, is simply not acceptable. And let’s face it, the current financial architecture does not provide an adequate response to all existing loss and damage needs, let alone future needs.
For instance, there is no or very limited available finance to support island communities who face the consequences of slow-onset processes like sea-level rise; populations who lose their farmlands, are forcibly displaced, and witness the disappearance of their traditional cultures. ECO found the presentations of efforts supported by the World Bank, the GCF and the CREWS initiative quite interesting, but they primarily focus on minimizing loss and damage and leave aside the bulk of losses and damages which deeply infringe human rights. In addition, ECO understands donors count this towards their adaptation finance.
ECO demands that this dialogue must not repeat what had happened in the past dialogues but instead paves the constructive next steps to new and additional loss and damage finance, and how a loss and damage finance facility could channel a significant chunk of that to address affected communities and people’s needs – going beyond the humanitarian system and insurance schemes.