Climate Justice or a Political Lollypop?

For the Global South, climate justice remains an urgent demand as vulnerable countries struggle with the devastating consequences of climate change. However, the global financial system established to support them is increasingly criticised for failing to deliver meaningful assistance.

The creation of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 was hailed as a historic breakthrough. Yet, Nepal's experience highlights the gap between political commitments and the realities faced by climate-vulnerable nations.

The catastrophic Bhote Koshi-Trishuli disaster in August 2026 devastated communities, roads and hydropower facilities in Nepal, with recovery needs estimated at US$4.7 billion. Against this backdrop, the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) Board's provisional allocation of US$20 million offers limited relief compared with the scale of destruction.

The funding shortage is widespread. The Fund's first funding cycle received 176 requests from 119 countries, seeking US$2.8 billion, while only US$342 million was set aside.

Beyond inadequate resources, the Fund's structure has raised concerns. The COP28 decision operationalising it explicitly states that funding arrangements do not involve liability or compensation. Critics argue that this weakens climate justice by allowing developed countries to contribute voluntarily rather than recognising binding financial responsibility for historical emissions.

Access remains another major obstacle. Developing countries must navigate complex funding criteria, technical submissions and institutional procedures, creating additional difficulties for nations with limited technical capacity.

There are also fears that growing reliance on private finance, insurance and blended financing could deepen financial dependency. Countries already burdened by debt should not have to borrow to recover from climate-induced disasters. Loans, critics argue, are not climate justice.

The International Court of Justice's landmark 2025 Advisory Opinion added another dimension to accountability. Although it did not assign liability to specific countries, it clarified that states cannot disregard their international obligations and that reparation may be owed where a direct causal link between wrongful conduct and damage is established.

The FRLD must therefore complement, not replace, the wider pursuit of climate accountability.
Climate-vulnerable nations are not seeking charity. They demand predictable, adequate and grant-based support. Without fundamental reforms, the Fund risks managing the consequences of climate injustice rather than delivering the justice it was established to advance.