The climate negotiations get complicated
By Regina Banks
This post was originally published with the Austin Chronicle on November 20, 2025.
Before COP30 even began – and throughout most of the first week – the halls of Belém echoed with the familiar chorus of pre-negotiated talking points. Parties, from national delegations to civil society observers, dutifully recited the lines they arrived with:
- “We support the UNFCCC process.”
- “We must act in a way that every decision contributes to life on Earth.”
- “We must ensure climate, gender, and migration justice, and justice between generations.”
- “Our commitment is to chart the pathways to a just transition.”
And of course, the ontological claim from the COP Presidency, declared during the opening plenary of the high-level forum:
“It is possible to grow, produce, and preserve at the same time.”
These lofty claims float easily through plenary sessions and press briefings. But once the text appears in print – once there are brackets, sub-paragraphs, and actual obligations on the table – negotiators get down to brass tacks. And that’s when the truth of those claims begins to be tested.
My focus for the past several COPs has been the Loss and Damage track, and in the past few days the tone inside informal consultations has shifted dramatically. Gone is the soft diplomatic language. In its place? Raised voices. Delegates openly threatening to invoke Rule 16 – the procedural equivalent of slamming the brakes, forcing the issue into a “no-decision” outcome and punting it to next year.
The flashpoint: direct access to funds.
The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) – now an operating entity under the UNFCCC’s Financial Mechanism – is designed to meet the rapidly growing needs of communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis, particularly in vulnerable developing countries. Its mandate is clear:
- finance recovery efforts from climate-related losses and damages
- empower communities not only to rebuild, but to rebuild with dignity
- support country-led, locally driven solutions
- ensure interventions align with real needs, real contexts, and real priorities
In other words: the people living the losses should have a say in shaping the responses.
Direct access is not a procedural detail. It is a justice issue.
For decades, vulnerable communities have had to navigate intermediaries – international institutions, multilateral development banks, layers of bureaucracy – just to receive resources that are rightfully theirs. Direct access shifts that dynamic. It puts agency where it belongs: with those experiencing the irreversible impacts of climate change.
This is why negotiations over this point have become so charged. Direct access threatens old power structures. It demands trust in frontline communities. And it makes the promises of “country-led, locally driven solutions” real rather than rhetorical.
The U.S. faith community and civil society played a crucial role in securing the very existence of the Loss and Damage fund. (It’s one of the proudest accomplishments of my climate justice career.) Our commitments were shaped by solidarity with displaced, marginalized, and climate-impacted communities at home and around the world.
That commitment continues now. We remain steadfast in advocating for direct access to FRLD resources so that rebuilding and recovery are not dictated from afar but arise from within affected communities themselves.
Because at the end of the day, commitments to “grow, produce, and preserve at the same time” mean very little if the people who are losing their homes, histories, and futures don’t have access to the tools they need to survive, thrive, and build something new.