Prioritise loss and damage grants to communities

A proposal by the UN Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) suggests prioritising governments in their disbursement of money to reduce risks and respond to climate induced loss and damage. Loss and damage happens when adaptation limits to climate change are exceeded, especially in times of extreme weather such as floods and prolonged drought.

The Loss and Damage Fund was established in 2022, at the COP27 climate talks, after decades of push and pull following developed nations’ efforts to thwart it. It was later operationalised. As the special committee on the fund meets in Barbados next week, it has indicated that in its first disbursement, it will prioritise governments’ support over direct aid to communities most at risk of climate disasters.

The government support will focus on programmatic approaches, readiness support (including early warning systems, and awareness on slow developing risks such as rise of sea levels), and rapid disbursement to national governments (say in actual disaster response), to strengthen resilience.

These would be great developments, as concerns the Loss and Damage Fund, except that they should not be at the cost of small grants to vulnerable communities. The whole idea of pushing for the Loss and Damage fund was to enable the communities most at risk to access immediate and direct assistance and prevent further and longer suffering in the face of climate-driven disasters like floods, droughts, and cyclones.

For instance, in 2022, floods in Pakistan caused $30 billion damages, according to official government data, with an additional $16 billion required for reconstruction. Earlier in 2019, when Cyclone Idai ravaged Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi, displacing millions, it necessitated huge humanitarian aid, but not all help was coordinated by the individual governments.

While governments somehow respond to such calamities, small grants sent directly to communities would enable people avoid bureaucracies and quickly replenish food supplies, reconstruct their homes, restore their livelihoods,  besides accessing clean water and better healthcare. Waiting longer for the small grants to affected communities would likely drive more communities to poverty and even more vulnerability.

• .

  Keep Reading

• 
  Vihiga County passes new law empowering communities to lead climate action
• 
  How climate change has fuelled a health crisis
• 
  Till death do us part: Man battles divorce, defends religious vows
• 
  Science week ends calls for strong partnerships to transform food systems

The least developed countries, for which the Loss and Damage funds would be most needed, also struggle with governance inconsistencies, corruption, tribalism and politicisation of nearly every issue, all which may affect disbursement of such finances as Loss and Damage. It cannot therefore be assumed that national authorities would efficiently allocate resources to those most in need.

There are examples of senseless behaviours even in the most desperate situations, including relief food and other aid for victims of extreme weather ending up in shops and private stores. In Kenya, there were Covid billionaires through procurement fraud and missing medical supplies, when everyone was desperate to save loved ones’ lives.

People have been stuck in camps after being internally displaced, not because there was inadequate aid or allocated funds, but because of delays or misallocations. For this fund, the small grants to people must not wait.

The Loss and Damage financing is not just about financial aid. It is also about justice, meaning fairness to the least contributors to the climate chaos. Promptly supporting such communities would help them cope with the problems devoid of governments’ administrative processes. It also means participatory and inclusive climate action.

This can be done best by civil society and NGOs actively engaged with needy cases, as happened in Mozambique during the 2019 Cyclone Idai. And with the climate calamities increasing in frequencies and intensity, it will be unfair for vulnerable communities to wait until 2026 or beyond to receive the small grants.

Meanwhile, developed countries should promptly fulfill their financial commitments to help raise the $400 billion needed annually to address loss and damage in developing nations.