How the Glasgow Dialogue can deliver finance for victims of the climate crisis

A top priority for many developing countries at last month’s UN climate talks was to secure finance for “loss and damage” – the cost of major climate change impacts that can no longer be avoided, from major crop failures to homes becoming uninhabitable.

Loss and damage are already happeningThis is causing people to be in poverty and threatening their human right. The economic costs of developing countries are expected reach $2.5 trillion by 2030. $200–580 billion. Eight years after the founding of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and DamageDespite this, many of the communities affected are still receiving only Minimal help, mainly as post-disaster humanitarian aid.

Cop26 was a visionary event for activists and negotiators from developing countries. make-or-break point for loss and damage. They fought for a dedicated fund, but it wasn’t created. Eventually, however, exclusionFrom the negotiated outcome. Instead, the “Glasgow Dialogue” was established to explore ways to fund loss and damage.   

The process will continue through 2024. This means that those in immediate need may not receive any assistance for many years. This Cop decision is the first to recognize the need for dedicated loss- and damage finance. This is an opportunity to seize. 

In a recent Briefing paper, my colleagues and I laid out principles for financing loss and damage that could help guide the upcoming discussions:  

1. Provide needs-based financing The current climate finance target for $100 billion per year is arbitrary and not based upon any scientific assessment of what is needed. Finance for loss or damage should be determined based on actual needs. This will require a close examination of the situation in each country to determine how finance should be distributed among affected communities.  
2. Ensure national ownership National-level systems should be used to distribute finance – such as national disaster funds or national entities recognised by the Green Climate Fund. Country ownership could be critical in ensuring that finance reaches the populations that are most vulnerable and in need. 
3. Additional loss and damage financing: Given that many severe climate change impacts are already unavoidable, and that existing climate finance flows, especially for Adaptation, are known to fall short of developing countries’ needs, any dedicated loss and damage finance flows should be Additional to the $100 billion per year that developed countries have already pledged – not reallocated from other equally important purposes. 
4. There is no strict liability. While financial assistance should be provided on the basis if solidarity, it should also recognize that countries have different levels of responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions and their ability to respond to climate change. Requiring recipient countries to prove liability – that is, that developed countries’ emissions caused the losses and damages they are experiencing – could be very prohibitively difficult and acrimonious. Youth, indigenous communities, and other parties should be allowed to file lawsuits if they feel it is appropriate.  
5. Recognize the urgency of damage and loss: Vulnerable communities are already facing major climate change impacts, and they need finance as soon as possible. This means new approaches will be needed to enable finance to flow more quickly. And to ensure that communities aren’t left without support until 2024, countries could follow Scotland’s example and provide finance directly much sooner.

A humanitarian priority is to make tangible progress in reducing loss and damage finance. It is also essential to safeguard the perceived legitimacy of the negotiations and protect vulnerable countries’ development gains. These principles will allow climate negotiators to break the impasse over loss and damage and provide much needed support to those at the frontlines of climate changes.

Zoha ShawooStockholm Environment Institute associate scientist