Editor's note: Rizwan Basir is a sociologist who works as a senior technical specialist at Climate Resourcing Coordination Center (CRCC) based in Islamabad, Pakistan. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.

Availability versus Accessibility

Disaster after disaster is looming. The long-lasting and heavy monsoon rains have left Pakistan submerged under water, rubble of broken homes, and crippling political socio-economic instability. The economic losses, as estimated by the $250 billion debt-ridden government of Pakistan, have so far exceeded the $30 billion mark. Needless to say, the country cannot generate these funds on its own, and must rely on external support to recover.

Global development and climate financial assistance is available. However, while the former calls for Pakistan to plead for aid, the latter expects it to compete. Plead, it must; but compete it cannot. One may argue that the financing architecture is designed to be available, but not fully accessible – disaster-hit Pakistan had to strategically "prove its climate-vulnerability" in the international arena for the development aid to get disbursed. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) on October 24 signed an agreement with Pakistan to provide a $1.5 billion loan for budgetary support and help flood-related rehabilitation and reconstruction activities. Posed often as a win-win, loans have proven to be quite the contrary – especially for Pakistan.

As for climate financing, funds such as Green Climate Fund (GCF) – the $17.3 billion intergovernmental climate fund launched in 2014 – are designed to be competed for. Such funds demand that countries prove their climate-vulnerability by following an overly-structured, lengthy and resource-intensive path if they wish to access the funds available. Bureaucracy trumps urgency and necessity. For ill-resourced countries such as Pakistan, the lack of technical capacity to apply for these funds is an additional barrier, which they have to overcome.

International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and climate funds must empathize. Expectations from the debt-ridden, ill-resourced, and now a flood-hit Pakistan with negligible Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, to plead or compete for financing seems unjustified at best.

Burden of proof

Historically, "being disaster-hit" and "to be deserving of support" have remained mutually exclusive. Be it pleading or competing for financial assistance, to prove ones climate-vulnerability is a customary pre-requisite. The Germanwatch Global Climate Risk Index, an analysis based on one of the most reliable socio-economic datasets on the impacts of extreme climate, is the most quoted climate-vulnerability index by countries facing climate-risk. Pakistan, in particular, has repeatedly used its ranking to attract international aid. But how representative of the truth are these rankings?

Global Risk Index, 2021 briefing paper clarifies that the index must not be mistaken for a comprehensive climate vulnerability scoring. It only reflects direct impacts (direct losses and fatalities) and does not capture indirect impacts (intersection of factors such as holistic economic conditions, gendered socio-cultural-political impacts, religion and minorities, food scarcity, mental and physical health traumas, etc.) due to data limitations. The internal validity of the index is highly compromised – the rankings give an extremely reductive view of reality.

Climate-risk is much more than just direct impacts. It is multi-faceted, kaleidoscopic, and densely intersectional. Once triggered, it can exponentially exacerbate risks around it – the 128,000 currently displaced, unsheltered, starved, traumatized, and pregnant women of Pakistan are the tragic proof. Pakistan, as it stands, cannot be ranked objectively – as any other country facing such catastrophes.

IFIs and climate funds must rethink existing systems, which put a burden of proof on countries at risk. They must reconstruct norms, which force vulnerable countries to use such indices to build their cases of climate-vulnerability. Climate financing must be made automated, objective, accountable, compatible, timely and effective. It must take the weight off the shoulders of disaster-hit countries, not add to them.

Potentially viable thought-way: Scale-up of climate insurance

COP 27, scheduled to be held in Egypt this month, must initiate discourse on scale-up of climate insurance. Climate insurance is arguably one of the most objective, transparent and sustainable financial instruments available. It defies the one-size-fits-all principle and ensures that response is compatible to country's needs.

Expanding its access among climate-vulnerable countries is urgently required. Not only can climate insurance strengthen their climate safety nets, but also build long-term resilience of their communities through programmed provision of timely and effective financial assistance.

Moreover, this could free disaster-hit countries from the additional pains of pleading, competing and proving their vulnerability repeatedly. Countries can focus their efforts on assisting rather than asking for it. Multiple global success stories, Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) being one of them, strongly support this claim.

Lastly, evidently, poorer countries cannot afford such a facility. Rich countries have repeatedly argued against setting up a new loss and damage facility in favor of utilizing existing funds more efficiently. Re-routing adaptation-focused funds to scale-up climate insurance could be the middle ground we're all hoping to reach. And as a desperate hope from the needy: It may very well, finally, shift the existing discourse from "who to blame" to "who to help."

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)