 I've just returned home from a grueling two weeks in Warsaw, attending the 19th Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This particular meeting was not a package deal, so each negotiating item and decision were taken separately and thus on Friday, when it was supposed to finish on Friday evening, a number of items were indeed finished and decisions made, particularly on adaptation and red or reducing emissions from degradation and deforestation. However, there were three things that didn't get finished on Friday and they went on negotiating in parallel overnight, well into Saturday morning and then Saturday afternoon the Presidency called everybody back in the plenary to try to resolve them. The three were firstly on finance where developing countries were asking for a promise, an intermediate promise from the developed countries before they reached the promise of $100 billion a year by 2020 for a figure before that for roughly $50 billion by 2016 or 17. The developed countries did not give any package promise, although each of them said they would give some money. The silver lining was they actually did agree to the $100 million which was being demanded for adaptation to the adaptation fund, so that's a little bit of good news on the finance front. This will now go to the summit called by the UN Secretary General Mr. Ban Ki-moon in September 2014 where he has invited heads of governments to come again with some promises of the money that they are going to be, that they have promised from 2020 onwards for $100 billion and how much they will give before 2020. So the finance issue continues to bedevil the negotiations but efforts are being made to try and resolve it. The second issue was how do we get from Warsaw to 2015 at the 21st Conference of Parties in Paris where we can actually achieve a deal and not have the fiasco that we had in Copenhagen a few years ago and one of the lessons from Copenhagen was that we shouldn't leave everything till the end in Paris and try and do some intermediate steps. And the intermediate step from the UNFCC point of view is the next conference of parties which will be in December 2014 in Lima, Peru. So we need something then and as I said the UN Secretary General will be convening heads of state a couple of months before that in September in New York. So those are the two intermediary steps. In New York at the Secretary General's meeting he is focused on funding. He wants to know how much the money is going to come and at Lima the focus was on mitigation targets. So how much emission reductions what country is prepared to do and this time around it was all countries not just the annex one of the rich countries. And in the negotiating tracks this particular track it's called the ad hoc Durban program or platform. And so it's the ADP that was held up again all night negotiations in the end they had to break the plenary to allow countries to have a huddle. It was primarily China and India versus Europe and America with the other countries sitting on the sideline. And there was a resolution which was a very weak resolution that everybody will try their best. It was not as hard as many countries wanted in terms of firm commitments but nevertheless it is a commitment from all countries including India, China, Brazil and South Africa which are the big developing countries who are fast growing in their emissions and need to take actions and are willing to take actions but they are less willing to make commitments firm commitments. And that's where we left that. So not very satisfactory outcome on the ADP and the run up to 2015. Finally the issue that I've been following and working on throughout the two weeks was loss and damage. The good news there is we do indeed have a new Warsaw international mechanism on loss and damage just for something we fought for. The developing country is very strongly against very, very tough opposition from developed countries. In the end the developed countries did concede and they have allowed the forming of a new Warsaw international mechanism. The less good news on that is that the developing countries had wanted this completely separated from adaptation. They felt loss and damage was a new subject, a new area. It did not need to be under adaptation. It didn't deserve to be under adaptation. What the developed countries had initially said was that this should be a task force under the adaptation committee. That we successfully challenged and got them to withdraw. But in the end what we did have to agree to very reluctantly is that it stays under the Cancun adaptation framework, but not the adaptation committee. It sounds arcane, but it's very important that we now have a separate loss and damage mechanism still under Cancun adaptation framework with the two year review period. So after two years we can revisit that, but it is separate from the adaptation committee and therefore it's a fairly new mechanism that allows us a lot of flexibility to do new things. So on the whole I would count the Warsaw international mechanism as a win, although only a partial win. And also I would characterize it as the beginning of work on loss and damage and not the end. We were not ending in Warsaw, we were looking to set a path to continue to work on this and this allows us to continue. And it allows us to continue in a consensus manner. All countries have now agreed. So the division with the NX1 is no longer there. It's something we all will work on together and we look forward to working on this issue in the coming months and years. And I will be continuing to report back on progress on this particular issue loss and damage, which I am now following much more closely than I used to before I used to work on adaptation now, much more on this new issue of loss and damage.