Flood-damaged Nepal wants help from the global climate Loss and Damage Fund – but it’s waiting, along with 118 other countries

In August 2026, Nepal suffered a catastrophic flood triggered by a glacier collapse in the Himalayas, which killed over 1,400 people and left thousands missing. The disaster destroyed riverside communities, buried homes in mud and rock, and damaged more than a dozen hydropower dams, cutting off about 10% of Nepal’s electricity. The flood was described as a Himalayan tsunami by Nepal’s Foreign Minister Shisir Khanal, who linked it directly to climate change caused by global greenhouse gas emissions. Nepal, which contributes almost no emissions itself, argued that wealthy, high-emitting countries should be held legally and morally responsible for the damage, framing the request for compensation as a matter of justice rather than charity.

The Loss and Damage Fund was established in 2022 during a U.N. climate conference to provide financial support to developing countries facing irreversible losses from climate change. Its purpose is to compensate nations for harm caused by climate change, such as extreme weather events or slow-onset problems like rising sea levels. The fund operates on a voluntary contribution model, meaning countries are not legally obligated to donate. However, contributions are not considered admissions of liability for climate change. As of September 2026, the fund has received pledges totaling $820 million from wealthy nations, but only about $250 million to $300 million has been delivered. Despite 119 countries submitting funding requests totaling $2.8 billion, no money has been disbursed yet.

Nepal has formally requested $20 million from the Loss and Damage Fund to help with recovery from the August 2026 flood. However, the country estimates its total recovery needs at $4 billion to $5 billion, nearly 10% of its national economy. Nepal’s request is modest compared to the scale of destruction, but it serves as a critical test for the fund’s credibility and responsiveness. The government argues that the money is not aid but compensation for harm caused by climate change, emphasizing that Nepal’s negligible emissions do not justify bearing the full cost of the disaster. The fund’s board has yet to approve any disbursements, despite urgent calls for action.

The flood in Nepal was linked to rapid glacier melt in the Himalayas and Hindu Kush mountains, which together hold one of the world’s largest volumes of ice. Studies show these glaciers are losing ice at double the rate since 2000 due to rising global temperatures. When glaciers retreat, they create unstable slopes and glacial lakes that can burst, causing devastating floods. The Paris climate agreement of 2015 aimed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, but the world is not on track to meet this goal. A September 2026 U.N. report confirmed that the planet is now likely to exceed this threshold, increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events worldwide.

Despite 119 countries submitting requests totaling $2.8 billion, the Loss and Damage Fund has not yet disbursed any money as of September 2026. Wealthy nations, including the U.S., which withdrew its support in 2025, have pledged $820 million but delivered only a third of that amount. The fund’s board, responsible for approving disbursements, has faced criticism for delays, with some analysts suggesting the slow pace may be deliberate. At its June 2026 meeting, the board considered four requests but approved none. An emergency meeting was requested in September 2026 to address Nepal’s crisis, but the board’s response remains unclear. The fund’s slow actions risk undermining its credibility and the principle of shared global responsibility for climate change.

The Loss and Damage Fund carries significant symbolic weight, as it represents the first formal recognition of climate compensation as distinct from charity. Vulnerable countries fought for years to establish this principle in international climate negotiations, hoping it would lead to tangible support. However, wealthy nations have resisted framing contributions as acknowledgments of liability for climate change, despite the fund’s voluntary nature. If the fund acts promptly and fairly, it could set a precedent for future climate justice efforts, including potential legal actions through international tribunals. The fund’s modest financial resources could also encourage broader changes in how humanitarian and climate finance systems respond to disasters, shifting from reactive aid to proactive, anticipatory action.