Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

One crucial thing in terms of the outcome of this COP is that we have a clear distinction between the financial obligations of developed countries under Article 9 and the broader issue of Article 2.1(c), which Senator Higgins has raised. There has been an ongoing and deliberate attempt for the past three years during the NCQG discussions to blur these two issues. That is highly problematic.

A lot of the debate has focused on core public finance provision, which we agree with, but there is also the wider mobilisation goal. When we speak about a wider mobilisation goal, from our perspective we are talking about innovative sources of revenue that focus on new and progressive forms of taxes. We discussed a tax on fossil fuel production. There are also international initiatives for international levies on aviation and shipping. What a lot of developed countries mean by this wider mobilisation goal is private finance and finance coming from the sector, which, as we have already outlined, is highly problematic. In terms of a good outcome, we would have that clear distinction between Article 9 and Article 2.1(c) being very different things, and then language on innovative sources which highlights some examples of the taxes we have talked about already.