EU rejection of the G77+China proposal on a loss and damage facility at COP26

17.11.2021

Question for written answer  E-005157/2021
to the Commission
Rule 138
Mick Wallace (The Left)

The outcome from COP26 on loss and damage is a dialogue, and not any sort of financing facility. This is deeply disappointing as it postpones desperately needed action to avert, minimise and address loss and damage – the impacts of which developing countries and particularly small developing island states are already dealing with.

The EU sided with other historic emitters (the UK, the USA and others) to reject the call of over 135 Parties to finally establish a funding facility, a proposal from the G77+China, which would have been called the Glasgow loss and damage facility. The justifications given by the EU for not supporting this proposal to date do not hold water.

Can the Commission explain in detail exactly why it did not accept the proposal from the G77+China on establishing a financing facility for loss and damage?

The demand from developing countries to establish a separate financing arm for loss and damage has been a long‑standing one, and is seen as part of the whole package at COP26. Does the Commission see the connection between its intransigence on the loss and damage financing facility and that of other Parties in other areas, notably on the paragraph in the cover decision on fossil fuels?