Reactions to Loss and Damage Fund TC5 Meeting
4 November 2023
4 November 2023: Reactions below from civil society observers to the 5th Transitional Committee meeting on the Loss and Damage Fund held in Abu Dhabi
Liane Schalatek, Associate Director, Heinrich Böll Foundation Washington
liane.schalatek@us.boell.org
“This is not the Loss & Damage Fund that we wanted; this is not the Loss & Damage Fund that vulnerable communities and people in developing countries already suffering from devastating losses and damage deserve. It lacks a strong commitment to human rights, and does give insufficient guarantees that affected communities will directly benefit from and have a say in decision-making about its funding. The agreement that was gaveled lacks any indication of scale, further marches climate finance provision from obligation to voluntarism, with developed countries denying any historical responsibility and shirking commitments, and settles the new fund institutionally with the World Bank as host, instead of providing new thinking and new structures through a standalone fund. This was not climate justice provided but naked power politics by developed countries, led by the US, at its worst. Now the real work begins to ensure that this fund is not an empty shell and is filled with ambition and capital.”
Harjeet Singh, Head of Global Political Strategy, Climate Action Network International, hsingh@climatenetwork.org
“It is a sombre day for climate justice, as rich countries turn their backs on vulnerable communities, allowing those who have contributed the least to the climate crisis to suffer its most severe consequences. The reluctance of wealthy nations to fulfill their financial responsibilities, in spite of historical obligations, has starkly revealed their true intentions and their indifference to the plight of the developing world.
“Rich countries, particularly the USA, have not only coerced developing nations into accepting the World Bank as the host of the Loss and Damage Fund but have also evaded their duty to lead in providing financial assistance to those communities and countries most in need of support to recover from the intensifying impacts of climate change.
“The current set of recommendations to operationalise the Loss and Damage Fund falls short of providing vulnerable communities with adequate assurance that their financial needs for coping with climate impacts and rebuilding their lives will be met.”
Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director, Climate and Energy Program, Union of Concerned Scientists, rcleetus@ucsusa.org
“The final outcome reflects richer nations, including the United States, continuing to evade their primary responsibility to contribute to a climate Loss and Damage fund for low- and middle-income countries facing a devastating onslaught of extreme climate impacts. Wealthy nations also steamrolled developing countries into accepting a lopsided compromise to locate the fund at the World Bank, an institution with a donor-driven lending model and an undemocratic governance structure that raises serious concerns about its ability to host the Loss and Damage Fund.
“The deeply compromised outcome on Loss and Damage from this Transitional Committee meeting will have serious reverberations at COP28. The United States and other rich countries will have to dig deep to overcome the significant trust and ambition deficit they’ve created, so that COP28 can deliver climate action in line with the latest science that the world so desperately needs.”
Isatis M. Cintrón-Rodriguez, Director, Climate Trace PR, isatis.cintron@gmail.com
“The TC5 is a denial of climate justice. The agreement operationalizes a fund that is not fit for purpose and doesn’t provide the necessary provisions to reach those in need. The indentation to evade historical responsibilities was evident. It was heartbreaking to see developing countries accepting a fund almost in tears. Developing countries have come to the table with a sense of urgency, given that their communities are in the fight for survival. This process has been an exploitation of vulnerable countries. Developed countries have taken advantage of the negotiation in good faith to impose, twist arms, and oppose the most basic principles that have been recognized in climate multilateralism. This fund falls short of the challenge of addressing loss and damage, it doesn’t have scale, financial obligations, shared governance with affected groups, or basic principles of climate justice and equity.”
Lien Vandamme, Senior Campaigner, Center for International Environmental Law
lvandamme@ciel.org
“This process has been derailed by delay and denial tactics by the US & other rich historic polluters. It was never about justice, and this Loss and Damage Fund will not deliver it. The so-called interim arrangement under the World Bank risks ending up as a permanent hosting situation and will undermine the Fund’s ability to meet the needs and priorities of communities. There’s no obligation for rich historic polluters to pay, no indication of the scale of the Fund, no affected communities in the driver’s seat and – critically – no guidance that the Fund will operate consistent with human rights obligations.
The massive time and energy that were put into fighting back against unjust proposals by developed countries distracted from the actual task at hand to design a Loss and Damage Fund that would provide effective remedy for communities suffering harms from the climate crisis. That the US finally could not even agree with the massively watered down text after cornering developing countries into accepting it, is a testimony to its lack of good faith effort to actually deliver an effective Fund.”
Rachel Simon, International Climate Finance Policy Coordinator, Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe
“We are profoundly disappointed with the outcome of the fifth and final meeting preceding COP28 of the transitional committee meeting on the loss and damage fund and funding arrangements. The USA played a particularly damaging role, but developed countries overall pressured developing countries to accept a set of recommendations that does not adhere to basic principles of climate justice and equity. The failure of the rich countries to commit to financing the Loss and Damage Fund is a betrayal of the vulnerable communities facing the brunt of the climate crisis.
While some EU members of the committee were more constructive, we did not witness the EU playing a meaningful role in building bridges with developing countries to find more climate just solutions. The EU’s stance must reflect accountability, not evasion. At COP28, the EU must stop hiding behind the US, and apply pressure on both the US and other developed countries. Climate justice demands real action, not mere lip service.”
ENDS
For queries, please email Dharini Parthasarathy, dparthasarathy@climatenetwork.org