As an Australian following #LossAndDamage Fund negotiations -- which hit a very pointy end this week #TC4 -- a few reflections on how disappointing Australia's actions are in this forum...
🧵
Early on Australia said it would "represent Pacific interests" on the Transitional Committee writing #LossAndDamage Fund rules. This lasted about as long as @senatorwong's commitment to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the Pacific. Are we at 4 new #coal mines? Or is it 5 now?
.@AOSISChair - who is representing small island developing states in Caribbean & Pacific - have been clear they want a #LossAndDamage Fund that:
1 Includes all developing countries, with a fair allocation to ensure SIDS needs are met
2 Has enough money (I would say $400bn a year)
3 Is an Operating Entity of the @UNFCCC - important because it brings in equity and historic responsibility - ie: obligation for rich and polluting countries like Australia to pay.
4 Is a standalone Fund, not run by the World Bank. Why? For a bunch of reasons but mostly as the World Bank provides loans which are 100% not appropriate for #LossAndDamage.
Other reasons the World Bank is a bad idea are here:
Australia has pushed back against LITERALLY EVERY ONE of these points at #TC4. It's joined the US in bullying for the World Bank. It's said no to an Operating Entity. It doesn't even want to set the scale of funds needed, it prefers a Fund without a goal 🤯
These are positions I would expect of a Scott Morrison or Tony Abbott govt. Why is this govt acting antithetical to the Pacific?
Please reconsider, realign with the Pacific and get on the right side of history ahead of #COP28 @albomp @bowenchris @senatorWong @patconroy1
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
An excellent paper from @island_scholar @TimmonsRoberts @RomainWeikmans @danielle_falzon
Particularly relevant as the Transitional Committee #TC4 grapples with "vulnerability" and allocation of funding in operationalisation of the #LossAndDamage Fund
In 1992 the #UNFCCCrecgonised particularly vulnerable as “low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems"
Studies conducted since have provided conflicting evidence of the role of vulnerability in the flow of adaptation finance. But it's clear donor interest and recipient "merit" (perceptions of governance) influence funding.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change @SRclimatechange has just dropped an *amaze-balls* report to the UN General Assembly, starting later this month. Governments will have to respond. documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/…
We are being confronted with an enormous climate change crisis of catastrophic proportions. It is happening now.
The result of a catastrophically inadequate response from historical emitters / developed countries.
The members of the Group of 20 account for 78% of emissions over the past decade. Noting: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Korea and USA are falling short
By contrast, the 55 most vulnerable economies have lost over half their economic growth potential owing to the #climatecrisis.