In a disheartening turn of events, a pivotal meeting addressing the pressing issue of climate “loss and damages” preceding COP28 has concluded in a deadlock. Sources deeply entrenched in the negotiations have revealed that nations from both the global north and south failed to forge an agreement.
The establishment of a dedicated fund to assist vulnerable countries in managing climate-related “loss and damage” was a prominent achievement during last year’s COP27 discussions in Egypt. However, the specifics of this fund’s operation were deferred for further deliberation.
Throughout this year, a series of discussions aimed to unearth a consensus on fundamental aspects such as the fund’s structure, beneficiaries, and contributors. Notably, richer nations have insisted on China’s participation in funding, posing a significant challenge.
A transition committee tasked with laying the groundwork for the fund convened late into the night in Aswan, southern Egypt. Regrettably, the delegates failed to reach a consensus, postponing the decision to a subsequent meeting scheduled for November 3 to 5 in the United Arab Emirates.
The impasse reached a critical juncture when disagreements arose regarding the custodianship of the funds. A schism emerged between those advocating for management under the World Bank, criticized for its perceived Western bias, and proponents of a novel independent structure. Many developing nations support the latter approach, albeit acknowledging the complexities involved in replenishing such an entity with new funds.
The inability to secure an agreement is a stark manifestation of the profound divide between affluent and less prosperous nations. Harjeet Singh, the Head of Global Political Strategy for Climate Action Network International, decried the conduct of developed nations. He accused them of endeavoring to designate the World Bank as the fund’s host, evading discussions on the requisite financial scale, and flagrantly disregarding their obligations under preexisting international climate accords.
Rachel Cleetus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists, expressed her disappointment, asserting that this outcome is a significant setback for communities grappling with relentless climate impacts. She criticized the United States and other affluent countries for seemingly prioritizing evading or downplaying their responsibilities rather than engaging in bona fide negotiations.