@Kit At some point more of this debate will move into the legal sphere and the issues of liability (e.g. historical emissions) will come into sharper focus - that is my prediction anyway. The UNFCCC will not be the place for this be tackled in full
Thanks for the sum-up, Koko. Anybody else?
@davidrossati @Meera If the GCF gets off the ground with good money pledged and a solid delivery mechanism, then I'd like to see it tested as a route for address L&D as well. Much consideration and design work to be done first to get this right
@Meera, by way of example, CDKN has conducted a series of casestudies that reflect the reality of #lossanddamage at the very local level. It has clear policy recommendations for Party delegates to take up at Doha for consideration of the WP. Casestudies to be launched at Doha on Nov 27
@David: I would not support GCF window on #lossanddamage now, should build up work on mitigation and adaptation first, GCF already complex
For Doha we need the prevention aspects to be working well - that really is the priority if poor people are to be protected. While L&D is an important issue to be working on in parallel, it is largely an admission of failure on the part of the international community. Cutting emissions and supporting adaptation is critical
@everyone: thanks as well buy I have to step out now because of other duties, Doha is just few days away, see some of you there
Thanks, experts - the discussion also makes me wonder how well is #lossanddamage understood by the wider public outside the research community and UN talks. It is more complicated than it seems, and more awareness-raising might not be a bad thing...
If you know anyone who missed this live debate, let them know they can come to this site and read through the comments at their leisure.....