For all latest news, follow the Daily Sun's Google News channel.
On 26 August, an ice-and-rock avalanche high in one of Nepal's Himalayan watersheds sent a torrent of debris and water down the Bhotekoshi–Trishuli–Narayani River system. By mid-September, Nepal's disaster authority had counted 1,386 dead and more than 5,000 missing. The government's rapid assessment put the initial economic loss and damage at no less than US$2.69 billion, and recovery needs at a minimum of $4.71 billion.
On 22 October, the Board of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) held its first-ever meeting in response to Nepal's call for help, provisionally allocating $21.6 million by consensus. This milestone also reveals that the global loss and damage system has only half passed its test, one Bangladesh should study before COP31 negotiators meet in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 November.
Precision matters: Nepal has received no money. The Board invited Nepal to submit a pilot funding request outside the normal window. Of the $21.6 million, $1.6 million covers oversight fees. The request still requires the Fund's technical review and Board approval, with no deadline set for either. Headlines claiming the Fund had "given" Nepal $20 million got ahead of the facts. There is a deeper gap. The FRLD has no rapid disbursement window yet. Nepal's response had to be improvised through the Fund's start-up rules, known as the Barbados Implementation Modalities (BIM), which were designed for a regular call for proposals, not for emergencies.
Agreed at COP27 in 2022 and operationalised at COP28 in Dubai, the FRLD helps especially vulnerable developing countries address losses that adaptation cannot prevent. These include economic losses (homes, crops and roads) and non-economic losses (lives, health, culture and community ties). Alongside the Warsaw International Mechanism for knowledge and policy and the Santiago Network for technical assistance, it completes a framework spanning knowledge, support and finance. In practice, finance remains the weakest pillar.
According to the Fund's report to COP31, pledges totalled about $822.7 million, but only about $485.8 million had been received by July 2026. That difference matters: a pledge is a promise, a contribution is money paid in, and a disbursement is money that reaches a country. Vulnerable communities are left waiting in the gaps between each step.
Demand far exceeds supply. The first call drew 176 requests from 119 countries seeking $2.8 billion. In July, the Board increased the start-up fund from $250 million to $342 million, enough for about one in eight requests. No requests have been approved; initial decisions are expected at the Board's tenth meeting in Manila in mid-December. Civil society groups warned in July that without new funding, the Fund could run out of money by the end of 2027.
Bangladesh should view Nepal's experience as a preview. It faces cyclones, floods, riverbank erosion, coastal salinity and resulting displacement. Official figures estimate $2.3 billion in climate-related disaster damage from 2009 to 2014; the National Adaptation Plan projects up to 19.9 million people could be internally displaced by 2050. The Department of Environment's study on a national loss and damage framework admits that Bangladesh lacks a standard method for measuring and recording climate-related losses. Without evidence, the country cannot quantify its needs or submit fundable proposals.
The developing framework aims to close that gap with a national definition of loss and damage and assessments 2–3 days, 2–3 weeks, and 3–6 months after disasters. It outlines methods for quantifying non-economic losses, including cultural heritage, community cohesion, and mental health. Planned work includes cyclone and salinity-intrusion pilots, a study of climate-driven coastal displacement, and preparation of proposals to the Fund. This is the right direction, but a framework on paper is not yet a system in use. Its value will depend on formal endorsement, on ministries actually applying it after the next cyclone and on whether it feeds a pipeline of fundable proposals.
That pipeline remains thin. In late June, Bangladesh had one request in the Fund's queue: $20 million over four years for ecosystem restoration and community participation, submitted through the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and still in the initial screening phase. Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF)’s request had not entered the pipeline because the national focal point's endorsement letter was missing. This administrative gap highlights what Nepal's experience shows: speed depends on a responsive focal point, endorsed proposals, reliable loss data, and national institutions that can access funds directly rather than through international agencies.
Nepal and Bangladesh are not the same case. Nepal's crisis was a single, sudden catastrophe in mountain terrain. Much of Bangladesh's loss unfolds slowly, through salinity, erosion and gradual displacement. No extraordinary Board meeting would be convened for those. A system built around dramatic disasters alone will miss much of what Bangladesh loses.
Bangladesh's draft COP31 position, aligned with the Least Developed Countries Group and G77 and China, sets sound priorities: substantial new and additional funding, faster pledge disbursement, and an ambitious, grant-based Fund replenishment in 2027. It also urges stronger direct access for governments and entities, simpler and faster procedures, better coordination among the Fund, Warsaw Mechanism and Santiago Network, and support for economic and non-economic losses, including slow-onset events and displacement. Three priorities merit particular weight.
First, provide substantial grant funding. COP31 guidance should urge developed countries to convert outstanding pledges into signed contributions and set a replenishment target and timetable. Loans undermine loss-and-damage finance: Nepal government data cited at the meeting showed about $6.38 in loans per grant dollar in climate-tagged external finance. Countries should not borrow to recover from crises they barely caused. Second, establish a standing rapid-response window. Board members stressed the Nepal decision sets no precedent, but it should define a minimum standard. The Fund's permanent model needs clear triggers, simple templates and fixed timelines to avoid extraordinary meetings. Third, ensure access for affected people. Bangladesh should support direct access for national entities, budget support, and a small-grants window that civil society and youth groups say frontline communities need. Slow-onset and non-economic losses must be fundable in practice, not merely named in decisions.
Responsibility is clear: developed countries must provide funding, the Board build the modalities, and the COP give firm guidance. Bangladesh must also put its house in order by endorsing and implementing its national framework, clearing proposal bottlenecks, and strengthening coordination among the environment, disaster management and finance ministries.
Nepal's set-aside shows the Fund can act. At COP31, the question is whether it can act fast enough and with sufficient funding to matter. Success won’t be measured by extraordinary meetings or pledge totals, but by whether families in Rasuwa and farmers on salt-damaged land in Satkhira receives support while there is still time to make a difference. Bangladesh must arrive in Antalya ready to make that case, and ready at home to use the funds.
__________________________________
The writer is a Research Consultant,
CEGIS (Centre for Environmental and
Geographic Information Services), under
the Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of Bangladesh