Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. I want to come in on a few of the issues. I understand it is very important that Ireland will have this responsibility in having a key role in some of the finance aspects that are to be discussed and with regard to adaptation in particular.

I have a couple of questions about the NCQG. As I understand it, this is one of the big issues that will be discussed - the idea of the new collective quantified goal on climate finance. It comes from a context where the $100 billion in climate finance was certainly not delivered in the way that had been promised. It has been pointed out by NGOs that only between $28 billion and $35 billion in grant-based finance came through in 2022. The majority of the climate finance that has come through is in loans. Those who are experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, and who have in many cases done the least to cause it, are having to borrow from countries which they are already indebted to, or from private finance, in order to deal with the consequences of climate change or to adapt to it.

With regard to the question of the NCQG on climate finance, what proportion of that should or will be in the form of grant-based or public funding, or what proportion of that will he be pressing for, versus the idea of private funding? Private funding, particularly loans, come at a cost. I remember at one of the previous COPs testimony from, I think, Barbados, that the country had to borrow money three times to build a bridge because it kept getting destroyed by ever more extreme climate events. Each time, the country ended up in further debt even though it was not the cause of these extreme climate events. There is a problem if more loans and debt are added to developing countries to deal with the consequences. Will the Minister address that in respect of looking at the new collective quantified goal on climate finance?

On the idea of the multilayered goal, while loans are part of that, on the other side there is what could be argued is the debt owed in terms of loss and damage. There seems to have been a reluctance to have a sub-goal explicitly on loss and damage. Will the Minister comment on whether there should be a sub-goal within the new quantified goal that is explicitly for loss and damage? Again, that almost amounts to debt moving in the other direction in terms of it being owed by developing countries for the loss and damage caused by the actions of developed countries.

Will the Minister comment on what the target might be? Will it be $1 trillion, as NGOs have been calling for, in grant-based public funding, rather than loan-based funding? There is the question of a sub-goal on loss and damage and whether there will be clear definitions on excluding loans from that new collective quantified goal. I ask the Minister to comment on those matters.

Separately, there seems to have been a bit of a blurring of the line between Article 2.1 of the Paris Agreement, which concerned a reform of finance generally to ensure finance flows would be consistent to pathways for lower greenhouse gas emissions. Again, that is almost about a reform of the finance sector as an area that can cause harm, but instead it seems to be that has been looped into the NCQG to say participating in that would be enough.

I have a last finance question and if have an opportunity later, I might come back with another question on the COP. I would like the Minister to comment on two concerns I have. Europe has cut its overseas development aid by €2 billion. Does the Minister anticipate that cut having an impact on the environment in the discussions that are happening? We do not want to see cuts in development aid to justify increased spending on climate as they are separate. Ireland has a very proud record of not having tied aid or payments. Is there a danger of having tied conditionalities attached to this climate finance? An example might be access to the minerals located in many of these developing countries. There is the question of ensuring we do not have inappropriate conditionalities or tied asks attached to that financing and those other questions about the level of financing, subgoals for loss and damage and exclusions of loans as well as the importance for a separate approach to Article 2.1, which is around best practice in finance generally and is not answerable by the existence of the NCQG.