by Rosana John, LLM (Environmental Law and Policy)
On 1 July 2024, Hurricane Beryl tore through Grenada’s northern sister isles, Carriacou and Petite Martinique, leaving a trail of devastation.
More than 90% of buildings were destroyed on the 2 islands, which together form part of Grenada’s tri-island state.
Since then, recovery has moved forward in phases. Early relief was bolstered by regional insurance and creative financial tools that bought Grenada precious time and liquidity. But a year later, many families are still living under tarps, schools are only partly restored, and farming and fisheries remain stalled. Beneath the surface of reconstruction lies a deeper issue: the global system for climate finance is still not built for countries like Grenada.
What helped and what didn’t
Grenada was able to activate its coverage from the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF), receiving US$44 million within days. It also triggered a special clause in its debt agreements, known as a hurricane clause, which allows for the automatic deferral of debt payments in the event of a natural disaster. Grenada was the first country to activate such a clause, temporarily suspending repayments on up to US$30 million. This innovative financing tool preserved fiscal space for urgent recovery needs without requiring the country to negotiate new terms or incur additional debt.
These measures only covered a portion of what was needed. Many of the hardest-hit homes were uninsured. Aid from donors and international agencies came, but often in the form of slow-moving loans or modest grants, and this pattern repeats itself across the Caribbean. After each storm, recovery is funded just enough to patch over the damage but not enough to build long-term resilience, especially in the communities most vulnerable to begin with.
A system that misunderstands vulnerability
One of the biggest barriers is how the global finance system defines vulnerability. Many international climate funds, including the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and large portions of World Bank climate financing, still use Gross National Income (GNI) per capita as a key eligibility metric. In this system, if a country appears “middle income” on paper, as Grenada does, it may be seen as too wealthy to qualify for grant-based support, even if it is structurally fragile and climate-vulnerable.
That is why the push for a Multidimensional Vulnerability Index (MVI) has been gaining momentum. The Caribbean Development Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, and the Alliance of Small Island States have all supported its development as a fairer way to assess need. In July 2024, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution urging international financial institutions and donors to use the MVI in allocating resources, marking a significant step toward institutional recognition of structural vulnerability as a key criterion for access to finance.
The MVI considers a country’s dependence on tourism or imports, its exposure to climate shocks, the strength of its infrastructure, and other factors that shape real-world vulnerability. For places like Grenada, where a single storm can cause losses worth more than 100% of annual revenues, this is the kind of lens that makes sense. As new climate finance mechanisms like the Loss and Damage Fund take shape, using the MVI as a guide could help ensure funds actually reach the countries that need them most.
A global legal shift toward climate justice
In March 2023, the United Nations General Assembly, led by a resolution sponsored by Vanuatu, formally requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on states’ obligations in respect of climate change. Grenada joined more than 130 countries in supporting the initiative, and several Caribbean nations, including Grenada, submitted written or oral statements to the Court. The opinion is expected later in 2025.
This process seeks to clarify whether international law requires countries to prevent and remedy the harm caused by climate change. While the advisory opinion will not be legally binding, it is expected to shape global norms and increase pressure on high-emitting states to finance adaptation, mitigation, and recovery. For small islands, it offers the possibility of reframing climate finance not as charity but as a matter of reparation.
Toward a fairer system
To be truly fair, the global climate finance system needs to move beyond old metrics and embrace the realities of structural risk. That means:
- Incorporating the Multidimensional Vulnerability Index into all major climate funds, not just new ones like the Loss and Damage Fund but also existing ones like the Green Climate Fund and Global Environment Facility
- Prioritising grants, not loans, for disaster recovery, especially in countries like Grenada where public debt is already high and climate shocks are recurring
- Making disaster risk insurance more equitable by subsidising premiums for small island states. Countries like Grenada are already paying into mechanisms like the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility, despite contributing little to the climate crisis. It is fundamentally unfair that those most vulnerable must pay to protect themselves from damage they did not cause
- Structuring green bonds and debt-for-nature swaps in ways that are transparent, community-driven, and free of conditions that limit a country’s ability to invest in resilience while also providing long-term debt relief and funding for adaptation
- Ensuring local leadership in recovery, including women, youth, and rural communities who often bear the greatest losses but have the least influence over funding decisions
These are not radical ideas. They are necessary corrections to a system that was not designed with the Caribbean in mind.
One year later
In the year since Beryl, we’ve seen resilience in the face of devastation. But we’ve also seen the limits of a system that still doesn’t fully recognise what it means to be vulnerable in a climate crisis.
Last year, I explored legal responses to these realities. One year on, the call is sharper: not just to respond but to repair. That means fixing how the world funds recovery, not just for Grenada but for every small island on the front lines of a crisis they did not cause.
Rosana John is an Attorney-at-Law with a Master’s Degree in Environmental Law and Policy from UCL, which she pursued through a Chevening Scholarship.
During her academic tenure, her research focused on identifying equitable and practical sources of finance to mitigate Loss and Damage, a contribution that garnered her the Maxi Alexander Prize for Research in Environmental Law and Policy in 2018.
Presently, she spearheads Dentons Delany’s Caribbean-wide ESG Steering Committee, where she provides strategic guidance to corporations on implementing sustainability best practices.
