Finance must follow the suffering: Farah Kabir slams weak commitment behind Loss and Damage pledges

As world leaders gather in Brazil for COP30, Farah Kabir, Country Director of ActionAid Bangladesh, brings a message from the people living on the frontlines of the climate crisis — justice must start with those who suffer the most.

Speaking to The Business Standard in a written interview ahead of the summit in Belém, she said that while the creation of the Loss and Damage Fund was historic, it still lacks real money and urgency.

So far, rich nations have pledged only about $788 million, while developing countries need around $400 billion every year to recover from climate disasters.

Farah Kabir says this huge gap shows how little seriousness there is about helping vulnerable nations.

She called for simple, grant-based support that reaches local people directly instead of pushing countries deeper into debt. "We adapt because we must," she said, "but we cannot adapt to extinction." 

As we look ahead to COP30, what is the single most important message you want to convey from the communities in Bangladesh to the world leaders gathering in Brazil?

The single most important message from the communities of Bangladesh to world leaders at COP30 is this: Climate justice must start with those most impacted — not as an afterthought, but as the driving force behind global climate decisions. They must be placed at the centre of every climate negotiation, every dollar of finance, and every decision on energy and development.

Communities across Bangladesh — farmers, coastal families, women, youth, indigenous people, and climate-displaced groups — are calling for a just global response that genuinely centres the needs, voices, and resilience of those on the frontlines. They are demanding a world where climate action is fair, locally led, and fully funded. 

This means operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund in a way that delivers direct, grant-based support to affected communities rather than creating more debt. It also requires international recognition of both economic and non-economic losses, ranging from destroyed homes and livelihoods to the erosion of cultural heritage and psychological well-being. 

Without strong global mitigation, the scale of climate impacts will soon exceed any capacity to adapt. Bangladesh's position is clear, "We adapt because we must, but we call for mitigation because we cannot adapt to extinction."

A just transition must prioritise decent jobs, dignity, and access to renewable energy for marginalized populations, instead of channeling benefits to corporations. 

Finally, gender equality and youth leadership must be upheld in both decision-making and implementation, so that adaptation strategies reflect the lived realities of those who bear the heaviest burdens.

As one of the world's most climate-vulnerable countries, Bangladesh is not seeking charity, but fairness and accountability. Communities here are already adapting and innovating — but they cannot carry this burden alone. If climate-vulnerable people continue to be unheard, global climate policy will continue to be unjust.

The position paper on COP30, that Action Aid and a dozen other NGOs developed, states that "finance must follow the suffering". However, given the slow disbursement and complex access rules of the new Loss and Damage Fund, what specific, immediate actions does Bangladesh demand at COP30 to ensure this fund becomes a lifeline for communities now, not a bureaucratic promise for the future?

While the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund was historic, climate-vulnerable people in Bangladesh cannot wait through years of technicalities and political delays. Cyclones, floods, salinity intrusion, and displacement are happening now. Support must arrive at the pace of crisis, not the pace of global negotiation.

Bangladesh is therefore urging COP30 to ensure the Fund is fully operational by 2025–26, with dedicated rapid-response windows that can disburse resources within days of a disaster. 

This must be accompanied by simplified access pathways for community-based organisations, women-led groups, youth networks, and local government bodies — ensuring that resources flow directly to the people experiencing the impacts, rather than being trapped in administrative layers.

Furthermore, Bangladesh insists that the Fund must provide grants, not loans. Any model that places additional debt burdens on already climate-distressed nations is fundamentally unjust and will be opposed. 

Finally, COP30 must recognise and finance non-economic loss and damage — including the loss of culture, identity, tradition, and mental well-being — which communities consistently highlight as among the most painful consequences of climate change. 

Bangladesh's position calls for a "grants-first" architecture to avoid worsening debt. With many pledges currently structured as loans, how can historical emitters be held accountable to provide real grants?

The global recognition of the link between climate vulnerability and debt is now undeniable. Around 70% of climate finance is still being delivered as loans, and most of this supports mitigation rather than adaptation. 

UNCTAD estimates that nearly half of all low-income countries are already at high risk of debt distress. ActionAid's own research shows that 93% of the countries most vulnerable to climate change are either already in, or at high risk of, debt crisis. Many nations are being forced to reduce investment in essential services because debt servicing consumes national budgets.

Despite existing COP commitments, the mechanisms to hold developed countries accountable for providing grant-based finance remain weak. 

Therefore, developing nations — alongside civil society — must amplify their voice in global platforms to demand a fair and just financing architecture. 

While the Loss and Damage Fund approved $250 million for initial interventions in late 2025, access to climate finance has historically been slow and uneven. The true test ahead is whether the Fund can break that pattern and genuinely enable equitable, simplified access for the countries and communities that need it most.

The current Loss and Damage Fund is just about $788 million. How useful is that?

The initial excitement around the establishment of the Fund has not translated into meaningful financial commitment. As of 30 June 2025, total pledges amount to only $788.8 million. 

Yet developing countries require at least $400 billion every year to address loss and damage. This means the current funding represents less than 0.2% of what is actually needed. The gap reflects not just insufficiency but a lack of seriousness in acknowledging the scale of the climate crisis faced by vulnerable nations. 

A credible fund must align with climate justice principles — including the "polluter pays" principle — and must be adequate, fair, and transparent.

What is the current climate debt situation in Bangladesh?

Bangladesh contributes just 0.3% of global emissions, yet experiences some of the world's most severe climate impacts. The country loses approximately $3 billion every year to disaster-related damages. 

Meeting adaptation needs alone requires an estimated $8.5 billion annually, while current climate spending is only around $1.2 billion. 

Similarly, the broader transition to a green economy is estimated to require at least $12 billion per year. This leaves a multi-billion-dollar financing gap — a structural injustice that disproportionately burdens those who have contributed least to the crisis.

The position paper highlights the "irony" of Bangladesh's heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels despite having immense renewable potential. What is the key barrier to a rapid shift to renewables?

The core challenge is the entrenched political-economic network built around fossil fuel imports. Over time, systems of vested interests, contractual guarantees, and rent-seeking grew around coal, LNG, and oil. 

Quick rental power plants that were meant to be temporary have become profit-generating fixtures. Large-scale fossil infrastructure financed through foreign loans complicates the path to early phase-out due to repayment and geopolitical implications. 

Meanwhile, pricing and subsidy structures continue to distort the energy market in favor of fossil fuels, discouraging renewable investment. 

Bangladesh's renewable transition is therefore not hindered by a lack of resources or technology, but by a deeply embedded economic and governance structure tied to fossil revenues. Transforming this system requires transparency, decentralisation, and policy consistency.

There is also a debate that Bangladesh should focus on adaptation rather than mitigation. What is your position on this?

Bangladesh must prioritise adaptation because we live with climate impacts daily. However, adaptation alone cannot secure our future. 

Without strong global mitigation, the scale of climate impacts will soon exceed any capacity to adapt. Bangladesh's position is clear, "We adapt because we must, but we call for mitigation because we cannot adapt to extinction." 

We are advancing renewable deployment, strengthening community-led resilience, and contributing to international cooperation — but high-emitting nations must dramatically reduce emissions now.

As Bangladesh engages in Article 6 carbon markets, how can we ensure these markets benefit local communities and do not allow polluters to avoid real emissions cuts?

Carbon trading must never become a substitute for actual emissions reduction. Bangladesh will insist that carbon credits represent real, verifiable reductions with no double-counting, inflated baselines, or ecological harm. 

Every project must demonstrate additionality and undergo independent oversight. Communities must be protected through free, prior, and informed consent, with a fair share of revenues reaching them directly, including for women and marginalised groups. 

Furthermore, Bangladesh plans to allocate part of the carbon revenue to national adaptation and loss-and-damage funds, ensuring that carbon market participation strengthens resilience rather than undermines equity.

At least 20% of adaptation finance is demanded to go directly to locally led, gender-responsive initiatives. How can COP30 ensure grassroots access?

The priority is to remove the procedural and technical barriers that make climate finance difficult to access. The implementation of the National Adaptation Policy must be grounded locally, working closely with relevant ministries, local authorities, and community institutions. 

Direct access mechanisms must be established for women-led and youth-led organizations so they can design and implement context-specific solutions for their own communities. 

Climate finance distribution should be participatory, decentralised, and accountable — ensuring resources reach the people who are not only affected most but also leading real change.

Disclaimer: This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews' Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.