More than an empty bucket? The competing rationalities in the operationalization of the fund for responding to Loss and Damage

This study explores the rationalities that have competed in shaping finance for loss and damage toward specific ends, and how the fund is designed as a result. In 2023, the UN climate conference celebrated the successful operationalisation of new funding arrangements (FAs), including the new Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) from climate change.

However, given how little money has been received by the fund, the FRLD has been compared to an “empty bucket.” In total, four competing rationalities have been at play: optimising, additional voluntary support, scaling finance to needs, and historical responsibility. Τhe authors show that governing takes place through an empty fund aiming to empower recipients toward self-help and resilience. As questions of historical responsibility and liability have been silenced, the FRLD has been emptied of its radical potential for climate justice.