Established after COP25, the Loss and Damage Youth Coalition is an international network of over 1,500 young activists, negotiators, and working professionals from more than 90 countries across the Global South and North. Through advocacy, evidence-based research, and direct engagement with national and global policymakers, we work to ensure that loss and damage action swiftly reaches the communities who need it most. We operate through five working groups—Advocacy, Research, Storytelling, Communication, and Training—and catalyse youth-led actions at all levels to hold leaders accountable for taking concrete action to address loss and damage, the biggest intergenerational injustice of our generation. In parallel, we engage with funders to catalyse tangible finance for youth-led action to address the loss & damage action in developing countries through our Loss & Damage Youth Grant making Council. So far, over USD 500,000 has been disbursed across 20 projects in 10+ countries.
The Fund to Respond to Loss and Damage has been operationalised under the COP 28 decision, following a COP 27 decision that established the fund and a transition committee to oversee its operationalisation, as well as the funding arrangement to address economic and non-economic loss and damage. The fund is hosted with the World Bank being the interim trustee, bound to uphold the 11 conditions set to ensure that the fund is able to meet the needs, including direct access to all developing countries, and the fund has a board hosted in the Philippines with an oversight role of the operations of the FRLD secretariat and receiving guidance from the COP and CMA, and the Board is set to meet at least three times a year.
LDYC welcome the progress made so far, especially the operationalisation and launch of the Barbados Implementation Modalities (BIM) an initial two-year start-up phase (ending in 2026) with a funding envelope of USD 250 million where developing countries can request funds ranging from 5 Million to 20 Million USD per request per countries to support action to respond to loss and damage in a country driven approach. It is important to note that the direct access for developing countries under the BIM is via a list of implementing entities, with the modalities of direct access to be developed in B8 so that by B9, direct access funding requests can be considered for approval.
Based on the outcome of the COP 30 on matter related to loss and damage finance including but not limited to the WIM review, Guidance to FRLD Board, the NDC’s of developing countries; we are still concerned with the lack of proper reflection of the scale of the needs for developing countries vis a vis the available finance to support action to address loss and damage, and the growing limitations jeopardizing the direct access of developing countries while ensuring a country driven approach. We stand to elevate the urgency of a predictable, adequate, and grant-based finance with direct access to developing countries and frontline communities, to take action to respond to loss and damage.
As we go for the B8 scheduled to take place in Zambia from 22 to 24 April 2026, we are presenting this statement with the key elements for the board to consider in their session so as to ensure that the fund operation matches the urgency and the reality on the ground
- The Resource Mobilisation Strategy of the fund should be based on predictable finance without undermining the role of developed countries, while setting a fair and equitable means for the fund to receive finance from a wide variety of sources. The FRLD shouldn’t be relying on voluntary pledges, as the latter have to have a clear timeline for turning the pledges into contributions, allowing the secretariat and the board to follow up on these commitments. The FRLD has received only USD 821.05 million pledges to date, while only USD 585.02 million have been converted into actual contributions. While we recognise the FRLD Board’s effort to explore the innovative sources of finance for loss and damage, as a global youth organization, we underscore that such efforts must not dilute the legal obligation of developed countries to provide new, adequate, predictable, and grant-based finance to respond to loss and damage, nor should this be a basis for granting a seat to the private sector in the Fund. (More information captured in the coalition submission to the RMS).
- The B9 is the time to approve the funding request received under the BIM; hence, all access modalities, including direct budget support, need to be finalised at B8. The modalities of direct budget support should be finalised under the risk management to ensure that the risk framework doesn’t jeopardise the ability of developing countries to access the direct budget support, ensure the country’s sovereignty, and ensure that the risk assessment is limited to projects as appropriate. The BIM’s initial results and assessment methodology need to avoid disadvantaging developing countries with limited institutional capacity that are on the frontlines of climate change’s adverse impacts. These are important elements and critical at this B8, since the BIM pipeline already confirms countries’ interest in submitting funding requests, which will also inform the need to consider increasing the BIM scale at B9 to maximise the number of funding requests the FRLD can respond to.
- The country support system under the FRLD should add value to the landscape of available support for developing countries’ ability to access support to address loss and damage; hence, it should focus on enhancing countries’ ability to access the funds under the FRLD. The country support system should add value to the ability of countries to access the fund to respond to loss and damage, and strengthen the institutions to take actions, while not duplicating the technical assistance mechanism under the Santiago network, as both support have distinctive mandates and complementary value for developing countries who are at the frontline of the negative impacts of climate change.
- The High-Level Dialogue should revamp its purpose to position itself to coordinate efforts to take action to respond to loss and damage from actors outside the UNFCCC, while promoting country and community experience in taking concrete action, so as to develop recommendations on scaling up based on the need, as well as the current gaps of developing countries. The second dialogue should be a coordinated discussion on the major questions: 1) the integration of the ICJ AO within the LnD actions within the UNFCCC and beyond, 2) the synergies within the UNFCCC bodies on LnD (Exom, SN, and FRLD) within the funding arrangement and the role and action of outside actors, and 3) the role and the integration of the wide variety of sources for action to respond to loss and damage within the FRLD. We believe that with this, the dialogue to be held in 2026 might reduce the fragmentation, particularly with the complexity of actors involved in aspects of loss and damage from MDBs, IMF, UN agencies and other climate funds while minting the value of the fund in addressing the priority gaps in a country-driven approach for action to address loss and damage.
- The decision on loss and damage should be anchored in Article 9 (1) of the UNFCCC, the NCQG, and other related financial decisions under the UNFCCC, as guided by the ICJ AO. The advisory opinion (AO) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has reaffirmed that Parties have the obligation to prevent climate harm and provide finance to address loss and damage, reinforced by the International Law Commission’s (ILC) principle of full reparation. Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement further affirms that developed countries shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties. In addition, Article 2.1(c) states that finance flows should be consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development, which implies new, additional, grant-based, and predictable finance for loss and damage. Therefore, a substantial and primary share of the loss and damage finance must come from developed countries.
- LDYC reinforces its request to be recognised as a non-traditional observer to the FRLD process. As one of the global voices on loss and damage, since its establishment, we have been presenting youth voices within the COP process, SBS, and the ad hoc meetings on loss and damage, aiming to elevate not only the sense of urgency but also the ability of frontline communities and youth as active stakeholders for concrete action on loss and damage. Reference made the the GI and to the para 26(c) of decision B.4 D7 we re-articulate firmly our request to be part of the “non-traditional” observer to contribute within our global coverage, lived practical experience in catalysing finance at the frontline level for loss and damage action, expertise of the emerging young leaders on loss and damage and its interlinkage nature for equitable climate justice at the local, national and international level.
LDYC believes that the Board of the FRLD understand the sense of urgency to ensure that the BIM is fully operationalised with the milestone of approving the funding request at B9, and the need to engage in the long-term operational model which will strengthen the life cycle of the Fund anchored in the resource mobilisation strategy that meet the need, scale, and priorities of developing countries and frontline communities to take action to respond to loss and damage.