Ms Siobhan Curran:

On the subgoals of the NCQG, the three pillars of climate finance should be reflected in this context. These should be mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. There is no figure yet. If we took €1 trillion as a floor, and it should definitely be a floor, this would be based on an assessment of needs that exists in relation to mitigation finance of €300 billion, adaptation finance of €300 billion and loss and damage finance of €400 billion. We believe the structure of the subgoals should be balanced in this way, with more funds going for loss and damage. Historically, no funding has gone towards the costs of loss and damage.

Within that context, the quality aspect is key. Our big call is, essentially, for public, grant-based finance. This is what we see as the obligation of developed countries. The big problem with climate finance to date is that it has been primarily focused on loans, which creates more debt for countries. A statistic shows that 43% of countries suffering severe debt problems paid more in debt payments to lenders than they received in climate finance between 2019 and 2021. Countries are being saddled with debt and not getting the finance they need. We need to flip the system around in this regard. This point must be very clear. It must be crystal clear in the new goal that this funding will primarily be public, grant-based finance. There will be some concessional loans as part of mitigation.

As Mr. Fitzpatrick said, the big problem with the €100 billion figure was that it was an arbitrary, political one. No one can honestly say they know what the climate impacts are we are going to experience and, therefore, what they are going to cost. We can, however, cost NDCs. We have budgets attached to them. There is also the UNFCCC standing committee on finance that does assessments of need in the various areas. There has not been a loss and damage finance gap report. We strongly advocate for this and we would really like to see a commitment to it emerging from this COP. In the absence of a formal loss and damage gap report, we would work off a figure of a floor of €400 billion, which is the latest data projecting loss and damage costs.

Within that and related to it, the new sources of finance are very important. We do not want states to say the figure has risen dramatically and they are going to focus on private finance. We need to be sourcing and mobilising new sources of public finance. If we look at loss and damage and adaptation finance, these elements need grant-based finance. Profits should not be made from supporting people surviving a drought or from those displaced from their communities.

The last point made by the Senator was crucial in respect of the need to disconnect the obligation to deliver climate finance from Article 2.1(c) around financial flows because they are fundamentally different. Both aspects will, potentially, have major impacts. When we look to Ireland and at our own financial flows, the ActionAid report from last year estimated that €6.2 billion of finance flows through Irish investment managers on its way to the global south to fossil fuels and harmful agribusiness. It is clear that, domestically, we also need to look at these financial flows and how we are regulating, because Ireland has a unique position in respect of the companies resident here.