Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

That was the European Union's position.

As we went into the second week and closing stages of the COP, there were a series of frantic negotiations where we listened to various countries. I credit the representatives of the Czech Presidency of the Council of the European Union, who were leading the EU team, with making the right call. I was involved, along with Vice-President Frans Timmermans and others, in making the call that the countries most in need due to the loss and damage were correctly insisting that there had to be a fund. We accepted that we would change our position, in that the key principle of a fund would be agreed at this COP meeting. That helped break the deadlock in the negotiations and brought the prospect of a deal closer.

The subsequent days of the conference were quite frustrating. Having agreed to a fund and on talking about what type of fund it should be, we found ourselves in the very frustrating position that there was no movement from the other side. There was a fixed position that it had to be done under the 1992 rules, that nothing else would work and that they would not move an inch. On the Saturday - these conferences often run days over time - it was looking increasingly bleak because the text that had been agreed by the Egyptian presidency - a neutral presidency of the COP - did not in any way take on board our concerns. At a press conference on Saturday morning, European Union ministers and Vice-President Frans Timmermans said publicly that no deal was better than a bad deal, which is what we thought was on the table. I was glad that there was finally movement towards a very good outcome during the closing day.

I was particularly proud of the good work of the Irish civil servants involved. It was an Irish civil servant who was speaker for the European Union on the loss and damage issue. Our climate envoy is an expert on the issue and has an extensive background in development aid work. From the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, we had the top lawyer within the EU team advising us. The State put a lot of resources into having a capable team of civil servants who were able to represent the European Union in the latter stages of those negotiations and agree critical wording and changes.

One of the issues we were arguing for throughout the conference, as well as leading up to it and now, is that the funding should be targeted at the most vulnerable countries, although not exclusively or not by denying other countries. Pakistan would have a real case for loss and damage, particularly as it has been destroyed this year by flooding influenced by climate change. The current arrangements in international climate finance across the globe for mitigation and adaptation are that the poorest countries, the small and developing countries, the less developed countries get only a tiny fraction of the overall funding. That has to change. I was very proud that it was an Irish negotiating team representing and working with the European negotiating team that was able, at the very last minute, to stitch that key wording in. It was a proud moment in our country's diplomatic history. It is not a small agreement, with nearly 200 countries agreeing this significant change.

What we also pushed and pressed for and got in the final text is that the funds, of which there will be a mosaic, will not just be done within the parameters of Article 11 of the 1992 convention, but that it would be set up within the parameters of the Paris Agreement, which is much more up to date in terms of how it reflects the real world. That was real progress. In addition, Europe stated all week that we have to look at other sources of funding such as from aviation, shipping and the fossil fuel industry. While the wording on that is quite opaque, in that it refers to innovative funding sources, that is what it means. We have an opportunity to garner such funding to protect the poorest in our world, which would be a significant advance for climate justice.

Lastly and probably most importantly, but least noted in the headlines, I refer to one of the key things on which we agreed and that will now be put in place. It is the reform of the multinational development banks, the World Bank, the IMF, the use of special drawing rights and other mechanisms to create, what the Minister from the Maldives referred to as a mosaic of solutions. She was absolutely right. At the start of COP, the Prime Minister of Barbados made the simple point that the underlying injustice in the global financial system has to be addressed and not just by tinkering around the edges. The fact that developing, small island states pay 14% interest on the money they borrow, while we in the West pay 4%, and the fact that they are the ones who experience the most difficulty in getting access to debt relief or finance after a catastrophic climate event, requires us to look at that aspect of the system. That is what will happen now.

We agreed to establish a transitional committee. This will be done in the coming weeks. The committee will look to provide specifics on what is a political commitment to the loss and damage funding-approach, which is significant. I am proud that the Irish team played such a significant part in this important and historic development.