THE World Cup final in New Jersey nearly faced disruption because of air pollution drifting south from Canada. Smoke from wildfires in Northern Ontario blanketed Toronto in an orange haze for days and spread into New York and New Jersey. Two days before the Argentina-Spain final, US President Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on Canada, accusing it of "willful negligence" in preventing the wildfires that sent "filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air" into the US. The match went ahead. Spain became the new World Cup champion.
The weather has no boundaries. It does not recognize country borders. I grew up in Toronto in the 1980s when our biggest climate issues were acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. Acid rain was caused by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from heavy industries, mostly from the US. Back then, this transboundary environmental crisis was dealt with by treaties, cooperation and collaboration. Now it’s about pointing fingers and trade threats.
The Philippines has long suffered a disproportionate share of climate disasters while contributing less than 0.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) in 2013 demonstrated the destructive power of a super typhoon and strengthened the country's call for climate justice — that climate change is not only an environmental issue but also an ethical, political and human rights concern.
When the UN Sustainable Development Goals were adopted in 2015, countries were encouraged to put climate change policies in the forefront of development. The Philippines has consistently supported the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, established at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, recognizing that while all countries share responsibility for protecting the environment, wealthier nations with greater historical emissions should shoulder a larger share of the burden. This principle was the backbone of the campaign for a global loss and damage fund.
That campaign achieved a breakthrough at COP27 in 2022 in Egypt, with the creation of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD). I was with the Philippine delegation to COP28 in 2023 in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, headed by then-Environment secretary Toni Yulo Loyzaga, when the FRLD was operationalized with a pledge of $768 million from wealthier nations. The Philippines won the bid to be the host of the FRLD board in Manila, while the World Bank is the host of the secretariat.
I recently met with Ibrahima Cheikh Diong, executive director of the FRLD after the ninth board meeting in Manila. Expectations were high that the board would start disbursing grants from the initial $250 million funding. Just last year, it launched its first call for funding requests. The Fund received 176 proposals from 119 countries worth approximately $2.8 billion. The overwhelming response confirms what climate-vulnerable nations have been saying for years — the need is urgent, widespread and growing.
These numbers also reveal an uncomfortable truth. Even after the board increased the available funding from $250 million to $350 million, the available resources remain only a fraction of what countries are asking for, almost $3 billion. The gap between need and funding is no longer a technical issue, it is a question of global priorities.
This matters because climate change is no longer a future scenario. The Philippines was preparing for the possible impact of Super Typhoon Inday during the board meeting. We are reminded once again that disasters come without waiting for lengthy approval processes or bureaucratic negotiations. Fortunately, the storm caused less damage than anticipated, thanks in part to our country’s preparedness and early warning systems. Preparedness saves lives, and rapid access to climate finance is essential.
Still, good intentions alone will not rebuild homes, restore livelihoods, or protect communities. The fund can only be as effective as the resources placed behind it. With requests already approaching $3 billion during its first funding cycle, the current capitalization simply cannot match the scale of global climate loss and damage.
In early July, the World Bank said it would stop using its climate finance target, which aimed for 45 percent of its funding to support climate-related projects. Instead, it will focus on overall development outcomes while continuing to support climate projects requested by countries and monitor climate-related progress. This could mean uncertainty about the future of climate finance in programs like flood protection, drought resilience, coastal defenses, and climate-smart agriculture. It could also mean reduced emphasis on adaptation such as infrastructure and engineering projects and nature-based solutions.
For countries that are highly exposed to climate risks such as many small island states, drought-prone African countries, and low-lying coastal nations like the Philippines, the main concern is not that World Bank climate financing will stop, but that there is now less institutional assurance that climate projects will continue receiving a consistent share of funding.
The FRLD represents one of the most significant achievements in international climate cooperation. But history will judge it not by the number of meetings it holds or policies it adopts. It will be judged by whether it delivers meaningful assistance to the people it was created to serve.
The world has already acknowledged the problem. It has established the institution. Now it must summon the political will to provide the resources before the next disaster strikes.
