After Nepal’s recent disaster, it wants to test whether COP31 can deliver climate justice

On August 26, the Rasuwa disaster swept away infrastructure, hydropower plants, and entire towns near Nepal’s border with Tibet. It killed 1,455 people, injured nearly 7,000, and left 5,285 unaccounted for. Nepal estimates recovery and reconstruction will cost $4.7 billion.

The disaster caused both physical destruction and lasting personal loss. Urika Tamang’s husband, a teacher in Timure, was killed. She is now struggling to pay for his Ghewa, a Tamang ritual for the deceased. Her family’s experience shows why recovery involves more than rebuilding roads and power plants.

Nepal appealed to the UN Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage for an exceptional, rapid response. The country wants help to arrive while communities need it, not years later. It also hopes its appeal will establish a precedent and show whether the Fund can deliver climate justice during an active crisis.

The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage is an international mechanism linked to the UN climate system. It is meant to help countries deal with climate impacts that cannot simply be prevented or reversed. Its purpose includes supporting recovery after disasters and providing rapid assistance when vulnerable communities urgently need it.

Any country that is party to both the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement can appeal to the Fund for disasters caused by changing climate conditions. The Fund prioritises least developed countries and small island developing states. Scientific studies connecting an event to climate change can strengthen a request.

Nepal’s emergency appeal is an important test of that design. The Fund was created with rapid response among its fundamental purposes, but it has not released a dollar since being established in 2022. Its first funding round exposed a major gap between need and available resources.

The Fund’s first funding round revealed a vast mismatch between demand and supply. Developing countries submitted requests worth $2.8 billion. The Fund had only $342 million available. That means it lacked $2.458 billion compared with the requests submitted.

The available money could cover only 12 percent of those requests. In practical terms, most proposals could not receive the support sought, even though they came from countries facing climate-related losses. This shortage limits the Fund’s ability to respond quickly and at the scale disasters require.

The gap also explains why Nepal’s appeal matters beyond one country. Nepal has not requested a specific amount for its emergency appeal. It wants even a small payment to establish a precedent, demonstrate the Fund’s value, and encourage countries that pledged money to make the mechanism more effective for vulnerable least developed countries.

The Fund was established in 2022, but it depends on voluntary contributions from countries. That makes its resources uncertain and far smaller than developing countries’ needs. In its inaugural funding round, requests reached $2.8 billion, while only $342 million was available.

The Fund is also still working through its early procedures. Nepal’s rapid-response appeal is unusual because no such request had previously reached the Fund. Nepal submitted three proposals under the regular funding window, while the Fund was still deciding which of 176 proposals to support. These facts show a mechanism still being tested.

As a result, the Fund has not released a dollar to any country, despite rapid response being one of its stated purposes. Nepal’s case could clarify whether the Fund can act during an emergency and could pressure contributors and the Fund’s board to improve delivery.

Slow or inadequate climate finance leaves countries managing urgent destruction with insufficient support. Roads, towns, hydropower plants, homes, and livelihoods may remain damaged while families need food, shelter, income, and care. Delays can also make recovery harder and more expensive.

Loans create another burden. Nepal is taking on more loans to rebuild after the Rasuwa disaster, while its estimated recovery and reconstruction needs reach $4.7 billion. Families also face personal costs. Urika Tamang is struggling to pay for her husband’s Ghewa ritual after he was killed in the disaster.

The central climate-justice concern is whether countries suffering major losses should have to borrow to recover from climate-related disasters. The article contrasts money pledged but not yet delivered with loans that increase obligations. Nepal’s appeal seeks timely support and may test whether international solidarity can provide grants or other assistance at the speed vulnerable communities need.

Climate scientists use attribution studies to estimate whether human-caused warming made an event more likely or more severe. They examine observations, weather records, physical processes, and climate models. Researchers compare the actual event with an estimate of how similar conditions would behave in a world without human-caused warming. This method identifies climate change’s contribution, not necessarily its sole cause.

For Nepal, a World Weather Attribution analysis examined the floods. Manjeet Dhakal said the region had unusually warm conditions just before Langtang Lirung collapsed. The collapse triggered a rock-ice avalanche that became a debris flood. July and August 2026 were described as the warmest months of the year, warming faster than the planet as a whole.

Such studies can strengthen requests to the Loss and Damage Fund. The article says evidence linking a disaster to climate change helps support an appeal. However, attribution is part of the case for assistance, not a guarantee that funding will arrive.

Climate justice is the idea that climate responsibilities and consequences should be shared fairly. It considers who contributed most to global warming, who faces the greatest risks, and who has the resources to respond. It also asks whether affected communities receive timely support without being pushed deeper into debt.

Nepal’s disaster illustrates the issue. The Rasuwa event killed 1,455 people, destroyed infrastructure, and created $4.7 billion in recovery needs. Nepal is a least developed country, and its emergency appeal seeks help from a Fund designed to address irreversible climate impacts. Families such as Urika Tamang’s are dealing with both grief and immediate costs.

The justice question is whether global solidarity works in practice. Pledged money has not yet reached any country through the Fund, while loans add obligations. Nepal wants even a small payment to establish a precedent and push the system toward faster, more reliable support for vulnerable countries.