From Plans to Action: What Happened at the Loss and Damage Fund Board Meeting in Zambia

Key Takeaways from the Meeting

• The Board adopted a decision on direct budget support (DBS) where developing countries can now receive funding from the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) through direct access via direct budget support through national governments.
• The Board launched the country support system (CSS) to help developing countries prepare funding requests and strengthen national systems.
• The Board is on track to move from designing its initial operational modalities and setting up its governance structures to approving real funding requests.
• The Board also continued discussions on framing the resource mobilisation strategy to be adopted at B9.  

A Turning Point for the Fund

The eighth Board meeting (B8) of the FRLD took place from 22–24 April 2026 in Livingstone, Zambia. The meeting marked an important shift for the Fund. At B8, the focus shifted toward implementation, showing how concrete the whole process is getting with first project proposals coming in. The secretariat provided a report in which ten countries have submitted their proposals.

This matters because developing countries facing climate disasters are under growing pressure. Floods, droughts, storms, and rising sea levels are already causing major economic and non economic losses and damages. Many governments are looking to the Fund for financial resources to respond to these challenges.  

At a time when governments are rapidly mobilising billions for war, military expansion, and geopolitical competition, climate finance is increasingly treated as negotiable, delayed, or politically inconvenient. International climate funds are being forced to compete for shrinking public resources, while commitments to vulnerable countries continue to fall behind the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.

This growing imbalance exposes a troubling global reality: resources can be found quickly for conflict, but far less urgency is shown when it comes to supporting communities already suffering devastating climate impacts. That makes it even more even more critical for the FRLD to demonstrate that it can deliver support quickly, fairly, and effectively to those on the frontlines of climate change.

What did the Board agree on?

1. Direct Access via Direct Budget Support Through National Governments

One of the biggest outcomes of B8 was the approval of risk management modalities that establish a process for all developing countries to access funding through direct access via direct budget support to national governments. These are modalities for managing risk while still enabling access directly through the governments.

This means funding from the FRLD can move through national government financial systems rather than only through international intermediaries. Many developing countries have strongly advocated this approach because it promotes country ownership of resource use and allows national institutions to play a stronger role in responding to climate impacts.

2. Adoption of the Country Support System

The Board adopted the CSS, which includes an approved envelope of 7.5 million USD, with 250,000 USD as the country cap.

The CSS is designed to help countries:

• Prepare funding requests to the FRLD,
• Strengthen national systems needed to access funding,
• Support national ministries and focal points, and
• Build the capacities of national entities that may help implement projects.

Importantly, the Board plans to launch a call for proposals at B9 once it finalises more details.

For many developing countries, this support could make a major difference. The Fund was established to ensure that it is simplified and easily accessible to developing countries with consideration that a lot of countries do not have L&D policies, plans and coordination mechanisms in place. This is to ensure that this is not a limitation factor to having developing countries access the funding.  

3. Discussions on the Fund’s Long-Term Future

B8 also focused on the Fund's long-term model.

The Board decided on a two-stage approach for developing the Fund’s long-term resource mobilisation strategy, which is to be presented for consideration at its next meeting. In practice, this means the Fund is beginning to think beyond its start-up phase–the BIM–and to consider how it will attract sustainable funding over the coming years.

This discussion is particularly important because it has already been agreed that the Fund’s first replenishment process will start in 2027. The task at hand is not only securing new pledges, but also converting existing pledges from developed countries into real financial contributions. As of 13 May 2026, a total of 822.06 million USD has been pledged to the Fund by 27 contributors. However, contribution agreements are in place for only 592 million USD and just 456.14 million USD has been paid into the trust fund. Out of which 250 million USD has been allocated towards the BIM and the 7.5 million USD envelope for the CSS.

When reviewing the timelines for contributions in the status of resources document, we find that several contribution agreements span multiple years. This means that some funds are not scheduled to be delivered until as late as 2028.

Board members also discussed the need to develop the Fund’s long-term operational model alongside the temporary BIM arrangements currently being used.

4. Engagement with the World Bank

Board members discussed matters related to the Hosting and Trustee agreement with the World Bank. We understand that the Board has agreed to a process to resolve concerns raised regarding possible inconsistencies between these agreements and the Fund’s Governing Instrument and decisions agreed at COP 28 in Dubai. The discussion is timely, as we also know that the Board will begin discussing the independent review in 2027. This review will provide the opportunity for Parties to consider whether to continue with the World Bank as an interim host of the Fund or change to a standalone institution.

We expect the Bank to work with the Board to ensure compliance with prior agreements, including direct access to the Fund for all developing countries.  

5. Dialogue with Civil Society

The Board took time to engage with civil society, as is customary during Board meetings. This is important because civil society brings voices from the front lines and serves as a reminder to the Board of the impacts communities face. At the same time, civil society gives a reminder of the broader international context and technical input on how to develop policies that actually serve these communities.

These conversations reflected an evolving relationship between the Board and external stakeholders as expectations around transparency and participation continue to grow.

What Still Needs More Work?

Although B8 made clear progress, several important issues remain unfinished.

One of the biggest unresolved areas is the results measurement framework. This framework will help determine how the Fund measures project impact and whether funding is achieving its intended goals. Board members provided extensive feedback, and further revisions are expected by B9 for consideration of the Board.

The Board also discussed and took note of the assessment methodology that will be used to assess project proposals. While the methodology is already used internally, Board members raised questions about certain final stages of project approvals to ensure balance across different types of loss and damage, geographies and types of countries. More discussion is expected at B9 regarding how the final package of projects for the BIM will be decided.

The discussion on the concept for the second high-level dialogue received significant feedback from the Board. This needs to be reflected by the Secretariat in consultation with the United Nations Secretary General’s office, which co-hosts the dialogue. The Board will be expected to review and agree to the revised concept to enable this second dialogue to happen later in 2026.

Other operational issues were delayed due to time constraints, including the work plan of the Board.

Why the Next Meeting Matters

If the timeline stays on track, the Board is expected to approve the first projects under the BIM at B9 in July. That would mark the first time the Fund begins moving money toward actual activities on the ground.

The Board is also expected to:

• Finalise the long-term resource mobilisation strategy and launch the first replenishment process,
• Continue work on outstanding operational frameworks for the BIM,
• Launch the Country Support System call for proposals, and
• Continue developing the Fund’s longer-term operating model.

At the same time, questions remain about how quickly the Fund can scale up, how many and what projects will enter the pipeline, and how the Board will manage approvals across B9 and B10, noting that the Secretariat may not be able to do a complete review of those proposals submitted closest to the deadline. At B8, a report was provided on the pipeline of funding requests, in which 10 countries submitted their proposals. Only 5 of these proposals were considered complete and could be assessed by the Secretariat but it is expected that more countries will submit ahead of the 15 June deadline.

The Board also still needs clarity on B10 scheduled later in the year, including whether timing conflicts ahead of COP 31 could delay decision-making. Pre-COP has been scheduled during the existing B10 meeting dates and there are concerns that the meeting may need to move to December which is post COP 31.

Why This Meeting Mattered

B8 did not solve every challenge facing the Fund, but it showed that the FRLD is beginning to move beyond policy discussions toward implementation.

For vulnerable countries, the real test will now be whether the Fund can deliver meaningful support quickly enough to respond to worsening climate impacts.

The decisions adopted in Zambia, including direct access via direct budget support through national governments and the CSS, are intended to make the Fund more accessible and more country-driven. But their success will depend on how they work in practice once funding requests begin moving through the system.

The next phase will determine whether the Fund can become a credible and effective part of the global climate finance system.

Glossary of Key Terms

Confused as to what some of these terminologies mean? Find below a glossary of terms for reference.

Barbados Implementation Modalities: The start-up phase of the FRLD is made up of an initial envelope of 250 million USD to fund Loss and Damage response projects across all developing countries.

Country Support System: A framework to help countries build the capacity to apply for and manage funding. The Board will launch a call for proposals at B9 once other details are finalised

Operating Entity: An international organisation entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism, which is for the provision of financial resources on a grant or concessional basis to all developing countries. The FRLD is an operating entity. Other examples include the Adaptation Fund  (AF), Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). They are accountable to the COP, CMA and CMP, which set their policies, program priorities and eligibility criteria.

Resource Mobilisation: The process of securing new and additional financial resources for the Fund.

Replenishment Cycle: A scheduled period where contributor nations pledge new funding to keep the Fund operational