How do we balance urgency with diligence?

This question dominated the latest Board meeting (B.4) of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), held earlier this month in the Philippines. It was the first meeting since the end of COP29 that failed to include a loss and damage (L&D) funding target under the new annual finance goal of USD300-billion from developed countries. 

It was also the first meeting in the Philippines since being chosen as its host, a nation that was reeling from being struck by six storms in four weeks. In another year marked by underwhelming commitments and overwhelming impacts of extreme weather and slow onset events, there was even more pressure on the body to answer this question.

It was evident on the discussions on which thematic areas to prioritize and measures to implement first. It was also seen on deliberations about setting up mechanisms for non-government actors to be involved in the decision-making process, from accessing the funding to attending Board meetings as observers.

After the four-day event, that question was answered, but perhaps not in a satisfactory way. That does not mean that there was no progress made in this meeting.

The positives

The biggest development from B.4 is that there is now a clear plan for the initial functioning of the FRLD. Arguably the biggest priority is designing early interventions to enable “bottom-up” country-owned approaches on responding to L&D, with technical and financial support. This would likely include rapid disbursement in the form of grants to countries hit by climate-induced extreme weather events.

Aligned with this, the secretariat will develop a proposal containing details on how to implement ‘Phase One’, which covers the first half of 2025. This will cover an initial allocation framework among countries [and communities], modalities and instruments for accessing and disbursing available funding, and a strategy for monitoring, reporting, and evaluation.

Another ‘Phase One’ priority is transitioning from the current interim secretariat to an independent one. B.4 also decided on an allotted budget for its establishment, with a workplan to be developed that would also support the work of new Executive Director Ibrahima Cheikh Diong. 

But perhaps the most critical sustainability issue to monitor is the development of a long-term resource mobilization plan, which would include the body supporting the conversion of pledges into disbursable money. Its formulation is critical for not only the next phase of the operationalization that would focus on scaling up its actions, but ensuring the FRLD can continue to function for years to come.

On another front, the attending observers made a notable impact in the proceedings at B.4. During the second day, they conducted a ‘community access’ workshop with the entire Board to inform them about principles and examples on this key ask from civil society groups and communities. This session was welcomed by the members and a best practice on inclusivity of the FRLD’s process going forward.

Another win for the observers is influencing the Board to defer its decisions on proposed policies on Active Observers’ participation and consultative forums to B.5 next year. This was done to ensure that all decisions on the direct participation of the most vulnerable stakeholders must require inputs from said stakeholders, and only be made if they are given enough time to be consulted. 

The negatives

That said, there are concerns from the Board’s decision on a temporary ‘blanket’ accreditation approach, which would allow observer organizations under other financing mechanisms to become accredited under the FRLD. It will take effect at the end of B.5 and would last no more than three years.  

While made to speed up the FRLD’s operationalization, this decision also sidelines the issue on how to effectively reach out to community-based organizations. Despite being among those that should be prioritized in terms of access, these entities often lack legal status; this would prevent them from accessing the aforementioned grants-based disbursement that is to be an early priority.

The issue of direct access is a reflection of the difficult choices made at B.4 when accounting for both urgency and diligence. So did the matter of proposed additional rules of procedure of the Board that, while ultimately adopted, did not go smoothly.

The discussions nearly got derailed at one point, as Board members got into a heated debate about the rules for conducting future meetings. It effectively turned into a classroom lecture on the pros and cons of virtual meetings, as if we were transported to the late 2000s when this technology started really becoming popular.

While determining the rules of procedure is obviously important for a body of this nature, the way the discussions were conducted on this specific issue reminded everyone of the divide between developed and developing countries. The Board could also have used those minutes to fully focus on figuring out how to respond to the needs of the most vulnerable instead of worrying about their own arrangements. 

Numerous issues on overall coordination also emerged during the entire event. Most key documents related to agenda items were only shared the night before to the observers and even to Board members. While this was attributed to the limited time for preparations due to COP29, similar incidents were also seen in previous meetings of the body.

Despite these negatives, B.4 succeeded in setting up ‘Phase One’ of the FRLD’s functioning. And similar to an eponymous period of Marvel movies, it is up to the Board during the ‘set-up’ phase to ensure that all features seamlessly fit together to enable it to move in the desired direction and achieve intended outcomes. 

And unlike what has happened with the film franchise, we hope to see the FRLD sustain its long-term forward momentum for years to follow, in this case for the sake of the most vulnerable.