The landscape of
institutions and funding
arrangements for loss
and damage:
What questions to ask?
Charlene Watson
21st March 2023

The what determines the how
• A clear gap in ‘addressing’ loss
and damage
• Emerging but not complete
information on needs
• Necessary to match funding
arrangements to discrete needs:
• Rapid vs slow onset
• Differential vulnerabilities
• Non economic losses and damages
Image extracted from the independent GST finance working
group publication linking the GST with the NCQG

Multiple relevant institutions and architectures
• Clear role for international
concessional finance flows
• Links to UNFCCC processes,
including New Collective
Quantified Goal to international
financial system reform
• Gaps in existing international
concessional finance architectures
(humanitarian, disaster risk
reduction, climate finance)

Value in going beyond sources and channels
of aid and climate finance
Image extracted from the independent GST finance working
group publication on phasing out fossil fuel finance
• e.g. domestic public finance levers

Conclusion
• Multiple types of institutions and financial arrangements that can
address the range of loss and damages in respect of needs and
each have pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses
• Strike a balance between reporting and accountability needs
(seeking more labelling from both provider and recipient perspective)
with getting the breadth of needs addressed for the mosaic
• Can a principle-based approach with focus on outcomes, guide
which institution does what, with all actors consciously active?