When attending or observing a critical global climate meeting, one of the words you least expect to hear is “Shakespeare.”

Yet this was said at least twice during the eighth board meeting, or B8, of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, or FRLD, held in Livingstone, Zambia. This was in the context of ensuring that the language in the decision text made grammatical sense and was clear of unintended ambiguity upon interpretation.

In a way, it neatly captured what transpired during the board’s first meeting since the launch of the call for proposals for the Barbados Implementation Modalities, or BIM, the FRLD’s $250 million pilot program designed to help developing countries address losses and damages.

If we are sticking to Shakespeare-related analogies, then it is vital to get the figurative script just right. In other words, given the need to balance the urgency of delivering grant-based aid and exercising due diligence, it is understandable that so much attention was paid to the details during this meeting.

However, there are a few challenges the board had to account for in Zambia. Arguably the most significant of these is the logistics of running the BIM or the Fund itself.

Angel supporters?

The ongoing assault against climate action by the current U.S. leadership includes pressuring the World Bank to ditch its climate agenda as early as this June. This would include its role as interim trustee of the FRLD. If it does happen, and let’s not pretend that it is unrealistic, it will hinder, at the minimum, the short-term operationalization of the FRLD and BIM, which are just getting started.

While the hosting and trustee agreements were discussed in a closed session at B8, it is unlikely that this issue was not in the minds of the board. It is an issue that needs to be addressed to prevent the Fund from turning into something of a tragedy.

Another major problem is that without even disbursing a single cent to a developing country yet, the Fund is already at risk of being broke by next year. This is because without additional commitments or pledges from developed countries being turned into actual money, the Fund’s disbursable resources of nearly $450 million would be rapidly depleted by the high demand for support and operational expenses.

This is why issues pertaining to the management of commitment authority and the status of its long-term resource mobilization strategy were also discussed at B8, despite the latter not being scheduled for a decision until the next meeting in July.

Rewrites and revisions?

Time is already not on the side of the Fund, considering the scale of extreme climate impacts that must be addressed.

But with high expectations to deliver, funding and logistical challenges to address, and a diversity of perspectives to accommodate, B8 at times felt like a play being subjected to multiple rewrites and revisions.

Parts of the figurative script are seemingly being written out of order, including two key elements where no decisive agreement was reached. One of these is the results management framework, which assesses how approved BIM projects will use their funds effectively and transparently. The other is assessment methodology, or the way the board will evaluate funding proposals. This did not even have a decision because the three-day meeting ran out of time.

There were also observations at B8 reminiscent of what happens before a play begins. There were the usual casting changes, also known as first-time board members. There were concerns about following unwritten rules backstage, also known as rules of procedure during the meeting.

B8 was not without positive developments, though. The country support system to aid developing nations in accessing the Fund was adopted. These countries will also now have a choice for direct access via direct budget support as part of the BIM. The board also adopted a policy on oversight fees, although it applies only to the BIM and not future windows of the Fund.

Nonetheless, the BIM is intended to be like the Hamlet of global climate finance: innovative and unprecedented on the global stage. Instead, the outcomes of B8 indicate that its ambitious intentions remain at risk of being limited by procedural and logistical difficulties.

Will the BIM be extended? Will there be projects approved at B9?

The board and the Secretariat have less than three months after B8 to finish the script and provide answers to these questions, and many more. The B9 agenda is so loaded that there is legitimate concern some of the proposed agenda items will not even be tackled at this meeting. Nonetheless, this is the challenge of managing the FRLD, with everyone expecting something akin to a breakthrough performance.

This July, the eyes of a global audience will be watching to see if the BIM is more than just hype.