Ministerial Consultations on Funding Arrangements for Responding to Loss and Damage

Excellencies, colleagues, Aotearoa New Zealand was pleased to be an early supporter of the historic decision at COP 27 to establish a fund and other new funding arrangements to address loss and damage. And let me share why.

In Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, the Pacific, the impacts of climate change are a rapidly worsening reality and an existential threat. In March this year, two Category 4 cyclones struck Vanuatu within 48 hours, causing devastation and affecting over 80% of the population. And the dramatic floods and fires in many other parts of the world also show that climate change losses and damages will not be limited to island nations.

Given the urgent reality of loss and damage we have rightly been working to an ambitious timeline to operationalise the Loss and Damage Fund at COP 28, through the vital work of the Transitional Committee. This urgency is also why we announced an initial contribution for activities to address loss and damage at COP 27. We acknowledge Denmark’s contribution and call on other developed countries to make a pledge towards this fund at COP28. We cannot and should not wait.

The proof point of success will be how responsive the fund is to address the needs of developing states like those in the Pacific.

But in our haste to stand up the Fund we must not forget the lessons we’ve learnt from experience with other climate funds. We have an opportunity to establish a fund that is genuinely innovative and effective. One that is accessible, and responsible to those who need it most.

Success on loss and damage at COP 28 depends on agreeing a governing instrument that is fit-for-purpose and providing clear direction for the Board to efficiently complete the final steps towards the Fund’s operation. The Board will need to have representation from the most vulnerable, like the Pacific, who we saw struggled to have a voice on the Transitional Committee.

But how do we know if the Fund will be fit-for-purpose? With just 10 weeks until COP 28, and the final Transitional Committee meeting before us, now is the time to ask ourselves the tough questions and make some firm commitments:

• Will this Fund be quickly operational, through smart administrative and legal decisions on its establishment? Or will we let down the vulnerable communities already suffering loss and damage by choosing an unnecessarily long and painful road requiring many years of haggling to even begin?
• Will this Fund be accessible to small countries and support nationally-led loss and damage programmes? Or will we recreate the complex accreditation and project-by-project approvals processes that are a burden on small administrations?
• Will this Fund address priority gaps in the loss and damage funding landscape, such as for slow onset events and the loss of language and culture? Or will we create fragmentation and only duplicating existing funding arrangements?
• Will this Fund be inclusive, through a gender-responsive design and meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples and other most-affected communities? Or will we creates structures of disadvantage ignoring the wisdom of those we seek to support?
• How we answer these questions will determine success at COP 28. Quickly operational, accessible and programmatic, addressing gaps, accountable and inclusive. These principles will determine whether the new Fund is fit-for-purpose and we need to adopt an early approach of active learning and continual improvement of how this Fund is operationalised.

I also call on all of us to approach this challenge of through a process of active learning.

Addressing loss and damage is a reality and we must act now – both to save lives today and to generate the knowledge and understanding that can inform an effective collective response – including the Fund’s design.

While finalising how we will deliver our loss and damage finance commitment from COP 27, we have heard from partners in the Pacific a range of priorities that exemplify what the Fund must support. These include:
o capacity building for coordinated national loss and damage strategies and impact assessments;
o capitalising existing national disaster response and reconstruction funds; and
o education and memorials to maintain cultural ties to land being lost to sea level rise.

These are just some examples of what we can already be getting on with and do today.

Colleagues, it is by taking action now and establishing a Fund that is fit for the future that we will deliver on the Sharm El-Sheikh Loss & Damage mandate. If we learn the lessons from our past, and continue learning into the future, I am confident we can meet the great expectations that are upon us.

Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou, tēnā koutou katoa. Thank you.