{"id":3501,"date":"2019-06-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-06-25T23:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/climatenetwork.org\/2019\/06\/26\/loss-and-damage-funding-gap-evidence-from-humanitarian-support\/"},"modified":"2019-06-26T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-06-25T23:00:00","slug":"loss-and-damage-funding-gap-evidence-from-humanitarian-support","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatenetwork.org\/2019\/06\/26\/loss-and-damage-funding-gap-evidence-from-humanitarian-support\/","title":{"rendered":"Loss and Damage Funding Gap: Evidence from Humanitarian Support"},"content":{"rendered":"
In the loss and damage negotiations, ECO sometimes hears the argument that no additional sources of finance are needed. Some say, for example, that humanitarian finance is available to address the impacts of weather disasters. But what are the facts? The latest Humanitarian Finance Update from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) shows that, out of the total amount assessed as humanitarian funding requirements of US$ 26.42 billion, only 18.6%, equivalent to US$ 4.91 billion have been made available. That number rises only slightly if funding outside the UNOCHA coordinated overview is taken into account (another US$ 2.76 billion). ECO has pulled together a table of some of the recent weather-related disasters that have caused massive human suffering, and which remain underfunded. These disasters clearly demonstrate that there is a massive funding gap. There are other similarly underfunded crises where climate change is a contributing factor.<\/p>\n