Question for Tom: Donors are barely interested in funding disaster risk reduction initiatives, so why would they want to get involved in paying out for loss and damage, beyond emergency relief? And what could get them more interested (Sandy etc)?
New fund not the issue in Doha. GCF to be build up to promote adaptation/ mitigation rapidly. #lossanddamage mech. is about more than money
@Megan Much adaptation finance is already going to DRR. I see this stream being strengthened by the loss and damage issue to become one of the key ways that DRR is funded globally and potentially to out grow ODA and humanitarian finance assistance.
@meera, The debate has moved beyond whether the WP should continue or not, as the need has been fully realised. It is now a matter of engaging on a long term solution track
@meera: agree with Koko/Kashmala, unfortunately #lossanddamage will stay with us, so we need UNFCCC leadership. Also issue for 2015 process
Insurance and other risk transfer approaches can provide compensation and rehabilitation funds in certain situations. In developing the mechanism, a much more detailed understanding is necessary of both the applicability of risk transfer options and their limitations.
@abjata I see that there is a greater committment to providing climate finance/financial resources for Africa to help African countries adapt and this is an preferred route for richer countries rather than taking the difficult decisions about reducing their own emissions. Problem is that we need both.
@saleem, its an uphill task that we will continue to remain committed to.
@Saleemzal: COP18 has to ensure more comprehensve, permanent approach, but will not solve all problems. Also, responsibilities evolve...
Question for Koko: Is there any progress on insurance mechanisms for #lossanddamage beyond the Caribbean facility? Would any of these come under the UNFCCC at all? And should they be regional? What about index insurance programmes for farmers - could they be scaled up under this work programme?