Poor countries could be barred from seeking compensation for losses and damages from rising seas, worsening storms and other climate impacts under a proposal in the latest draft of a new global climate change deal expected to be agreed today.

The "loss and damage" proposal, backed by the United States and other countries, could help vulnerable nations gain access to insurance and other support to cut their financial risks from climate stresses, experts said.

But the proposal, one of two, would explicitly rule out the prospect of poor countries that suffer devastating losses from climate change seeking compensation under the agreement from rich nations, whose emissions have been largely responsible for causing the problems, they said.

"This pretty clearly throws poor and vulnerable people under the bus, and it has really troubling legal implications," said Brandon Wu, a senior policy analyst for ActionAid USA and a longtime tracker of finance and justice issues at the talks.

His colleague Harjeet Singh, ActionAid's global lead on climate change, said the provision, if adopted, could push climate-affected countries to sue for compensation under general international law, instead of dealing with loss and damage under the agreement.

But for island nations that may see their land disappear to rising seas, and other vulnerable countries that could face huge financial losses from climate change, "we are taking away their right forever to demand justice" under the new agreement, Singh said.

Without the threat of lawsuits to drive aggressive action on climate change, "the pressure is off" on wealthier polluting nations, he said.

Wu said one worry if the proposed language was adopted is that it could have implications for the success of climate lawsuits outside the UN climate deal, and could "narrow the scope of what loss and damage can do" even within the deal.

Early lawsuits or human rights complaints seeking damages from oil, gas and coal companies have recently been filed in countries from Germany to the Philippines. These could help drive divestment from fossil fuel companies, as investors fret over the implications for their reputations and profits, lawsuit backers say.

Any kind of legal precedent that polluters are not liable for climate damage could potentially threaten that divestment push, which would be "really unfortunate", Wu said.

Similarly, the provision - if included in the final deal - could have a "chillingeffect" on discussions around ways to deal with loss and damage that could be seen as evokingliability or compensation.

"People will say, This is going to lead us down the path to (talking about) liability, so we can't have this conversation,"’ hesaid.