The second week of the climate summit in Madrid is already advanced. Political leaders are still debating without having reached concrete agreements. It is expected that these will be published throughout this week. But what exactly is being talked about at the summit?

Well, despite the complexity and the multitude of meetings, debates and conferences that are taking place in various pavilions and halls in parallel, everything can be summed up in three specific points. Damages and losses, ambition plans and market carbon.

One of the main objectives of COP25 is the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM). The WIM was approved in 2013 to address loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change in countries of the Global South. At COP25, the aforementioned mechanism is being evaluated to update it to a new period.

That is why, within this mechanism review framework, one of the major points of discussion is that of damages and losses. The debate focuses on how to finance social emergency actions and restoration of damaged areas due to the effects of climate change.

This new period, starting in 2020, the WIM should have more and more flexible funds, that is something that all parties agree on. More flexibility so that a rapid response can be given to those dramatic situations, and more funds to be able to cover the growing demand that is expected in the future.

But there is also a third point, durability. What has not been repaired so much up to now, more funds are needed to be able to maintain the aid beyond the immediate period of intervention. Al Gore recalled this in his speech at the COP. After reviewing the multitude of recent catastrophes on a global scale, he remarked that Puerto Rico needed help after the hurricane, but still needs it. Disasters in societies that are vulnerable and not adapted to the impacts of climate change also need more time to recover. That is why the words climate justice are increasingly heard both in presentations and in informal conversations.

Despite agreeing that more funds are needed. That is where the interests of one and the other parties clash. The demand of the countries of the South is clear, more and better financing to face the impacts generated by climate change in their countries. And obviously, they look at the enriched world, as it is the main cause of the climate emergency. The claim is given once again under the umbrella of climate justice. The countries that have contributed the least to global warming are the most vulnerable to its effects. On the other hand, Western countries assume their role when it comes to contributing more generously to these funds, but they also call on the rest of the countries and international agents to increase their contribution, as claimed by the UK climate minister this morning.