Implications of a single Decision for both the Warsaw International Mechanism review and the Joint Report of the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage

All reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information at the time the advice was produced (please refer to the date produced below). However, the materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and may have been superseded by more recent developments. They do not constitute formal legal advice or create a lawyer-client relationship. You should seek legal advice to take account of your own interests. To the extent permitted any liability is excluded. Those consulting the database may wish to contact LRI for clarifications and an updated analysis.

Advice to Q91-24 Implications of single decision Download

Background:

In the context of the negotiations on the 2024 WIM review and joint report of the WIM ExCom and the Advisory Board of the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage (SNLD), the question has arisen as to whether a single decision could address these two agenda items. In the past, outcomes on the WIM review and its annual report have been included in one decision and in two separate decisions.

Query:

What are the implications of having a single decision covering both the WIM review and the joint annual report of the WIM ExCom and the Advisory Board of the SNLD vs two separate decisions (bearing in mind that as long as the governance issue remains unresolved there will need to be mirror decisions under the CMA and the COP)?

Summary of Advice:

Both a single decision and two separate decisions have precedent and this is a matter for the parties to decide.

A single decision structure covering both the WIM review and joint annual report could offer procedural efficiency and enhanced coherence, potentially streamlining negotiations and ensuring better alignment between review findings and implementation measures. This approach, taken at COP 25/CMA 2 in 2019, can create a more integrated framework that articulates the relationships between review outcomes and operational responses.

Conversely, separate decisions for the review and the annual report, which may require additional coordination, could offer distinct advantages in the current context. This treatment could facilitate a more focused approach to possible areas of disagreement, providing greater flexibility in managing different negotiating dynamics – reducing the risk that disagreement in one area might impede progress on others.

Based on the analysis below, a balanced approach is recommended. The most prudent may be to begin discussions under the two agenda items – the WIM review and the joint annual report – separately, developing decision text accordingly. As discussions progress and parties express a preference for streamlining the outcome, flexibility could be maintained to potentially discuss the two issues jointly and have one decision.