The Loss and Damage Youth Coalition was established following COP25, to serve as a global network of young activists, negotiators, storytellers, researchers, and working professionals from the Global South and North. We aim to hold leaders accountable for taking concrete action to address loss and damage, which is the largest intergenerational injustice today.
As the 4th meeting of the Advisory Board (AB) of the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage (SNLD) convenes on April 15 in Geneva, the stakes are higher than ever. This is a key meeting to further shape the Santiago Network’s outreach, knowledge sharing, resource mobilization, and technical assistance among others-particularly to communities and countries most impacted by the increasingly severe impacts of climate change. The discussions at this critical juncture must go well beyond procedural clarity and deliver real commitments, placing justice, equity, and frontline communities in the heart of implementation. In the list of background documents published for AB4, we find a number of important areas that require further improvement for the SNLD to meet its mandate.
First, on the development of knowledge products, by Santiago Network as part of WIM, we acknowledge the network’s efforts but remain concerned about the top-down and overly-technocratic approach. The exclusion of community-based and Indigenous knowledge systems undermines the very principles of equity and demand-driven support. It is also essential to clarify the different roles between the WIM Excom, which holds the mandate for developing knowledge products, while the role of the Santiago Network should stick to facilitating technical assistance. We also consider that prepared resources need to prioritize commitments to language accessibility (i.e., translations), digital inclusion, and co-creation with the most vulnerable communities to develop the capacity to request technical assistance. We call on the Advisory Board to embed participatory processes and local ownership in the knowledge framework so those on the frontlines are also seen as creators and stewards of knowledge.
On technical assistance and funding, we welcome the intention to ensure synergy and complementarity between the technical assistance guidelines and the managing funding guidelines provided for technical assistance. The process flow for managing funding for technical assistance is complicated and time-consuming. Therefore, we urge the Advisory Board to simplify the access process and reduce bureaucratic hurdles for most vulnerable countries with less adaptive capacity and organizations, bodies, networks and experts (OBNEs), and in particular for rights-based organisations of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, migrants, children, youth, persons with disabilities, and persons in vulnerable situations. Additionally, the technical assistance model should follow a trial and test model, while empowering national loss and damage contact points who will ensure a country-driven approach.
The zero draft of the outreach strategy is broad. We appreciate the focus to enable timely requests for technical assistance in a need-driven approach prepared through an inclusive country-driven process, rather than dedicated from global levels. This approach appears to be limited to government action, without utilizing opportunities for trust-building and ownership at the grassroots level. The outreach events and webinars organised by the SNLD to provide OBNEs with a better understanding of the network’s functions and operating modalities, among others, should also be a space to hear from diverse local and national stakeholders and take in account the unique needs and national policies that are in existence in a country for an enriched feedback process.
We also recognise the breadth of discussions from AB3, and the non-exhaustive summary which resulted, in the area of minimum percentage of technical assistance to communities who are particularly impacted by climate change. The draft timeline for proposals on minimum percentage in 2026 is not aligned with the urgency of escalating climate threats. Developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the climate crisis and vulnerable communities cannot wait, as they have already waited long enough. While due diligence is important, priority should be given to speed up the different steps outlined in paragraph 30 of the discussion paper. The simplified $50,000 access envelope, though welcome, is insufficient. We call on the Advisory Board to consider adopting the proposal on minimum percentage by the end of 2025, while also engaging with parallel steps.
Last but not least, the draft resource mobilization strategy must include concrete targets for disbursement that ensure direct access to regional structures and local communities, outline inclusive engagement with donors and civil society, and embed local accountability. Mobilization and provision of finance for the Santiago Network on Loss & Damage should be clear and predictable as the latter contributes to the larger landscape of the funding arrangements for the Fund for Responding to Loss and damage