This year has been deadly for those most vulnerable to climate change. Record temperatures in South Asia, floods in Brazil and Kenya, and many other extreme weather events have cost lives and destroyed livelihoods. As the climate crisis continues to escalate, vulnerable communities on the front lines urgently need support, so they can rebuild and recover from climate disasters for which they have minimal responsibility.
At the last two COPs, developed countries raised hopes that they would lend a hand to help those affected, finally recognising that climate action means owning up to responsibility for damage caused, and supporting those affected. That momentum took us through to agreeing on the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF), a historic moment when the world stood in solidarity, and developed countries finally said: “We are in this together.”
But at SB60, the tone has changed.
Developed countries are now refusing to include loss and damage in the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG).
WTF, guys?
And this time, we don’t just mean “Where’s The Finance?”
Loss and damage must be an explicit sub-goal of NCQG financing, or the hard-won LDF will remain unfunded. Sadly, ECO hears some countries say that loss and damage cannot be part of the NCQG because it is not specified under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. ECO sought legal advice and found that there is ample scope to include a sub-goal on loss and damage in the NCQG:
There is nothing in the COP/CMA decisions that indicates that loss and damage cannot be within the scope of the NCQG. As this is a Party-led process, Parties are free to agree to include this in the scope.
According to the COP21 decision, the NCQG would take into account the needs and priorities of developing countries, who clearly identify loss and damage as a need.
The LDF is an entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention, which also serves the Paris Agreement, pointing to the inclusion of loss and damage in climate finance.
While the setup of the Fund is well underway, its sustainable capitalisation is still out of reach. The contributions announced at COP28 are not enough to address the increasing loss and damage in any sustained manner, or at the scale required. For that to happen, the LDF needs to be well and sustainably funded.
Developed countries need to stop hiding behind legalistic excuses. ECO has heard some developed countries say they want ideas on how to build bridges with countries most affected by the climate crisis. Here is one: If you want to build bridges to the most vulnerable countries, build on three strong pillars. First, commit to including loss and damage in the NCQG. Second, commit to properly capitalising the LDF in a sustainable manner. Third, make the LDF a central element of the future climate finance architecture.