Thread by @brandoncwu

Hopefully you're seeing all the #WBOutOfLDF tweets today as the #LossAndDamage Ministerial meeting is set for 10am-1pm Eastern. Why is it so important for the new L&D Fund to be established as an independent entity and not be housed under the World Bank? Short thread 👇

First (1), as the graphic indicates, the WB has a bad track record and a credibility problem. It's a massive fossil fuel financier, has funded countless projects that have violated human rights, and has been an extremely difficult partner for the Green Climate Fund.

The World Bank framework for Financial Intermediary Funds (FIFs) states that "World Bank policies and procedures also apply to hosted FIF secretariats." If the LDF is established as a FIF under the WB, what happens when WB policy is directly contradictory to UNFCCC principles?

Which brings us to problem (2) and it's a REALLY BIG one: FIFs can only disburse money through multilateral development banks or UN entities - so direct access to funds by national govts or institutions (much less CSOs, community-based organizations, etc) would be impossible.

Direct access has long been a priority for developing countries & civil society because it reduces transaction costs, ensures capacity is being built in-country, and improves recipient control. Making direct access impossible for the #LossAndDamage Fund is an absolute red line.

Problem (3): it's unclear how other WB administrative policies such as eligibility criteria for receiving funding might run afoul of the more inclusive eligibility for finance under the UNFCCC. If a WB-run LDF cannot support ALL developing countries, that's another major red flag

Problem (4): the World Bank is governed on a shareholder basis - the more you pay in, the more control you have. It's unclear in what ways the L&D Fund would be accountable to the Bank's undemocratic board of directors as opposed to its own Board or the UNFCCC COP/CMA.

Problem (5): the World Bank is just that - a bank. It's oriented towards lending. The #LossAndDamage Fund must be a grants-based fund using exclusively non-debt-creating instruments. Countries often have to take emergency loans post-disaster; the LDF must provide an alternative.

The US and EU are pushing for the WB to host the LDF, and they will say that all these issues can be negotiated away with the WB. But if the #TC & #COP28 decide to put the LDF under the Bank, the Bank holds ALL the power in those negotiations. Say goodbye to #UNFCCC principles.

This is a non-exhaustive list of potential problems with the World Bank hosting the new #LossAndDamage Fund - just what came to mind as I crafted this thread. There are almost certainly more issues that will arise upon closer inspection of the FIF framework and other WB policies.

In short: #WBOutOfLDF!!!!! The new #LossAndDamage Fund must be established as a new, independent entity so that it can be fully fit-for-purpose, driven by recipient countries, aligned with principles of equity and fairness, and not beholden to rich contributor countries.