Discuss the importance of the Loss and Damage Fund for developing countries such as India, and the challenges in putting it into operation.

Loss and damage is climate harm that neither mitigation nor adaptation can prevent. Examples are lost crops, homes and land. COP19 created the Warsaw International Mechanism to address it [2]. COP27 at Sharm el-Sheikh (2022) then set up a dedicated Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) [1]. The Fund is a real step towards climate justice, but it is still more a structure than a source of money.

Importance for developing countries such as India

• Climate justice: The Fund puts CBDR-RC into practice. Countries that polluted first help pay for harm that falls mostly on the Global South [1].
• A third pillar of climate action: Loss and damage now stands beside mitigation and adaptation. Paris Agreement Article 8 recognises it [2], and the Fund now gives it a source of finance [1].
• Rising need: Full implementation of current NDCs still leads to 2.3–2.5°C of warming (UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2025) [3]. That makes more loss and damage certain.
• India's exposure: India's long coastline, Himalayan states and farming that depends on the monsoon face cyclones, floods and heatwaves. Money for recovery and rebuilding supports the SDG-13 goal of resilience.
• Institutional progress: The Fund has its own Board and Secretariat. Its first Executive Director, Ibrahima Cheikh Diong, has been in office since 1 November 2024 [4].

Challenges in operationalisation

• Small, voluntary money: The Fund runs on separate, one-off pledges. The Trustee's reports show these come to a small fraction of the need [5].
• Not part of the main finance goal: COP29's NCQG sets at least $300 billion a year by 2035, with a roadmap towards $1.3 trillion [6]. It sets aside no fixed share for loss and damage.
• Loans versus grants: If loans can be counted as climate finance, disaster-hit countries take on more debt. The cost then moves back onto the victims.
• Who can access it: Rules on who qualifies and how money reaches affected communities are still being settled, so the Fund cannot yet promise predictable support.
• Low ambition: New NDCs have "barely moved the needle", which keeps adding to the damage [3].

The Fund turns climate justice from a principle into an institution, but without predictable money it cannot keep its promise. India and the LMDC should press for a fixed share for loss and damage when the NCQG is reviewed, grant-based support, and clear rules on what counts as climate finance. India's own credible NDC would give these demands more weight. Together, these steps would help the Paris goal of fairness and the 1.5°C ambition.