More Than an Empty Bucket? The Competing Rationalities in the Operationalization of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage

Abstract In 2023, the UN climate conference celebrated the successful operationalization 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.” We use a governmentality analysis based on Mitchell Dean to explore 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 total, four competing rationalities have been at play: optimizing, additional voluntary support, scaling finance to needs, and historical responsibility. We 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.