COP26: poor countries no longer want to pay for the damage of the climate crisis

Published on : 11/08/2021 – 09:23

The challenges of COP26 are numerous, each more difficult and explosive than the next, but one of the points of tension concerns the unfulfilled promise of billions of climate aid from rich countries.

In 2009, the latter had promised to the poorer and more exposed countries to increase their aid for the fight against climate change to 100 billion dollars per year by 2020. Noting their failure, they presented just before the COP a “plan of delivery “planning to fulfill this commitment in 2023.

“You are the first to suffer and the last to receive help”

The pill goes badly among the most threatened. Especially since they are mostly insignificant contributors to global warming. And that most of the funds allocated to them go to emission reduction measures. As a result, they feel like they are paying twice, in the wallet and in kind.

“You are the first to suffer and the last to receive aid,” admitted UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres during a meeting at the COP of the countries of the Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF). And to urge “to do more to protect vulnerable peoples from the clear and current dangers of climate change”.

And it is precisely these “current” dangers that those most threatened want to see specifically taken into account. The fight against global warming and its effects is indeed based on “mitigation”, fight against emissions for example, and “adaptation”, preparation to face the foreseeable consequences. Vulnerable countries want to add to this the “loss and damage” they are already suffering.

This theme is well mentioned in the Paris agreement and an “international mechanism” even exists on the issue, but rich countries are reluctant to have it on the table as such. “It is mainly fear and even paranoia over questions of liability and possible compensation” explains Yamine Dagnet of the World Resources Institute think tank. “But it’s not about that, it’s about what’s going to happen when these little islands disappear.” The theme was well mentioned in a pre-COP declaration of the “coalition of high ambition”, which brings together “small” and “large” countries.

The tension is growing

But the rich want to make it part of the “adaptation” component of funding. Component which reaches for the moment only a quarter of the sums released, counts 75% for the mitigation, while the UN like the poor countries claim at least the parity. Especially since the estimated needs for assistance to the most vulnerable are “300 billion per year by 2030” according to Antonio Guterres.

And that it is precisely “the failure to finance adaptation that has turned into loss and damage”, underlines Abul Kalam Azad, envoy of the Bangladeshi presidency of the CVF. “We need additional funding separate from the annual target” (100 billion) for loss and damage, insists Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Minister of Economy and Climate Change of the Fiji Islands.

And financing that does not add to the debt burden of the countries concerned, he insists: “To charge us interest on money intended to increase our resilience would be cruel. As making us pay the mafia of fossil fuels responsible for the terror inflicted on us by this crisis “.

Debt relief against adaptation investments is also one of the solutions mentioned. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) also insists in taking stock of the first week of the COP that the “loss and damage” be included in the “global balance (of funding), now and with targets quantified “.

Many NGOs are also campaigning in this direction, such as the Climate Action Network coalition, which calls for “a plan that truly meets the needs of people on the front lines of the climate crisis”.

Separate envelope, precise schedule or new commitments, the poorest no longer want to wait on the issue, which could turn into a sticking point. Because “the tension is rising” in the negotiations, underlines Yamine Dagnet.

As witnessed by Reverend James Bhagwan of the Pacific Conference of Churches, for whom this whole debate highlights “gross inequalities in climate change.” “In the Pacific, loss and damage means life or death,” he said. The taking into account of this aspect of the financing “must be done in the coming days. If they (the rich countries) do not accept, the judicialization will be the only option”.

With AFP