Disagreements have ensued over where to establish the secretariat of a network that is tasked to implement global approaches aimed at averting and addressing loss and damage problems associated with climate change, a development that threatens to put such efforts in jeorpardy.
The body, called the Santiago Network, was also formed to contribute to the effective implementation of functions of the Warsaw International Mechanism, in line with some of the provisions of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) Paris Agreement.
The CoP established the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts to address loss and damage associated with impacts of climate change, including extreme events and slow onset events, in developing countries that are prone to the same.
However, the network’s board has come under a barrage of criticism from, among others, the Pan- African Climate Justice Alliance (Pacja), Civil Society Network on Climate Change (Isonecc), Oxfam, Save the Children, Care, Concern Worldwide, Habitat for Humanity Malawi, Christian Aid, ActionAid, Give Directly and Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (Sciaf), who have condemned board members for disregarding cost-benefit analysis findings by holding a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland.
This is because the first meeting of the Advisory Board of the Santiago Network was held in Switzerland from March 18 to 20 this year, when delegates considered the technical report by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNODR) on the cost-effectiveness, including a cost-benefit analysis, of locations around the world as options of the location for the secretariat.
However, the organisations have, in a statement, said they are “gravely concerned that the Advisory Board blatantly and contemptuously ignored recomendations from UNOPS-UNDRR and selected a third candidate— Geneva— that ranked third in the analysis”.
They further say they are “aggrieved that the hosting right for a platform which embodies the struggles of the communities at the frontline of the climate crisis, and whose location should symbolise the very palpable rationale of tackling loss and damage has once again been unjustly snatched from a third country through a clandestinely nefarious process of manipulation, carrot dangling and intimidation”.
The organisations also lament the power imbalance in the Loss and Damage Fund’s Board, accusing developed countries of using their monetary and material prowess to reduce developing countries’ representatives to “decorations in the board”.
Isonecc, Pacja and the others also express disappointment with the amount of pledges made to the Loss and Damage Fund.
“Disappointed by the partly pledges of $700 million to the Loss and Damage Fund, fatally insufficient to meet the recovery responses to a single episode of climate disaster such as that caused by Cyclone Freddy in Malawi estimated at $900 million; [we] declare as follows: The Advisory Board decision in Geneva is null and void. [We also] condemn, in the strongest possible [way], the apparent subversion of the laid-down procedures by the Advisory Board, and call upon appointing authorities, especially those from Africa and other developing countries, to investigate the possibility of collusion, carrot-dangling and manipulation by the industrialised countries.
“In order to regain the lost [sic] glory, the Advisory Board should, with immediate effect, reverse their ill-intentioned decision and adopt the recommendations from UNOPS-UNDRR by unanimously picking Nairobi as the host…,” they say in the statement.
The development comes after Pacja, Cisonecc and Government of Malawi representatives— in partnership with Trocaire, Oxfam, Concern Worldwide, Save the Children, Habitat for Humanity, Give Directly, Care International, Sciaf, ActionAid, Pelum Association and Christian Aid— held their own meeting in Lilongwe from March 20 to 22 this year.
The meeting, which was the third Regional Conference on Loss and Damage, was aimed at providing African stakeholders with a platform at which to develop strategies for accelerating loss and damage funds.
