The loss and damage fund is a crucial step in moving forward with the damages caused by climate change. Further, in the global justice movement, the fund is a crucial step, mentioned by a COP27 negotiator in the Island State of Palau. Natural disasters do not occur in one place, as Pakistan is affected by floods and Africa is suffering from drought. Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Jagan Chapagain mentioned that promises are being broken as families are suffering from extreme climate events. Further, “Chapagain added that, in the period COP27 took place, the IFRC has had to respond to 74 floods globally, four named tropical storms, wildfires in ten countries, the displacement of 185 000 people in Ethiopia, and continuing food insecurity in Afghanistan and across Africa” (Lancet Planet Health, 2022). Moreover, a Landmark Report of 2020 states that if there is no action now then there is going to be a double in the amount of people who require humanitarian assistance by 2050. These natural extremities are going to create a large financial cost, statistics show, “from 3.5 – 12 billion US dollars today to US$20 billion per year by 2030.” Further, Patricia Schwerdtle, a Climate Advisor to Doctors Without Borders said, “What can’t be mitigated or adapted to, will be suffered”. Moreover, “This suffering will be endured disproportionately by people living in poverty, excluded from health care, and those living in fragile and conflict affected states. Humanitarians, like health professionals, have a key role to play in witnessing, documenting, and communicating the risks, loss, and damage due to climate change.”

After climate disasters there are homes that need to be rebuilt, governments will need funds to also rebuild homes, roads and hospitals. Further, communities will require social protection which all be possible with a climate fund stated by Teresa Anderson, the Global Lead on Climate Justice for ActionAid International. What is more sad is that the countries who hardly contribute to climate change through greenhouse gases for instance are being affected by climate change. Meena Raman, Head of Programmes at Third World Network defined what the loss and damage fund is “Loss and damage has always been an orphan issue in the multilateral climate regime, and there can be no further delay in addressing the ravages of climate disasters”.

Surprisingly, the loss and damage fund was actually proposed three decades ago by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). The loss and damage fund is also included in the Paris Agreement but was worded in a way to avoid compensation and liability, which is what has been stated by the US when discussed. In 2019, COP25, China and G77 contributed to loss and damage in two ways: “(1) the creation of a technical body for carrying out research and providing technical support on loss and damage and (2) the creation of a fund through which rich polluting countries will pay poorer developing countries suffering from climate change impacts.”  The first proposal was accepted but then rejected by high demand parties such as the USA and the EU. The topic then arose in 2021 at COP26 when the G77 wanted to create a finance facility. In 2022 with the G77 the loss and damage had been put forward with Pakistan vouching for the group, Dr Saleemul Huq, Director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development mentioned “This unity of the G77 at COP27 was an important factor in persuading the developed countries”. Countries who are vulnerable need to be heard the most and a space for multilateral conversations as added by Raman. 

There are still lots of questions around the loss and damage fund such as how is the fund going to be managed, who is going to add to the fund and many more questions that still need to be clarified and answered. The article mentions that these questions will only be answered in COP28, “These questions will be addressed by a 24-member Transitional Committee, tasked to come up with a proposal by COP28 in December, 2023.” It is expected that the fund will be operational in COP28 but promises will not be fulfilled. Lancelot Planet Health mentions, “the establishment of a fund does not necessarily translate in climate finance commitments, with the poor progress to deliver the promised US$100 billion in annual climate funding from wealthy nations at COP27 a case in point.” Shinde mentions that in order for the fund to be progressive and work, motivation will be the key driver. Raman also mentions that, “We need direct access, with rapid reaction times and minimal bureaucracy, to respond as soon as possible to extreme weather events, slow onset events, or non-economic losses”. The adaptation fund and the Green Climate fund are not so reliable and responsive as the funding would take years to come. The article mentions that, “They often struggle to reach local communities and the most vulnerable. Therefore, a loss and damage fund should have a greater emphasis on last mile delivery of support to communities in need.” Another mentions that fossil fuel companies need to pay up for their damage to the environment. 

It is believed that COP27 did not address the causes of climate change with the burning of fossil fuels and the constant anthropogenic actions on nature. What has been discussed and tackled was the climate change consequences. Alok Sharma mentions, “We needed to clearly acknowledge that limiting warming to 1·5°C is the only way to prevent climate chaos, so countries’ emissions reduction efforts need to be scaled up dramatically so that global emissions halve by 2030,” said Madeleine Diouf, Chair of the Least Developed Countries Group. World Health Organization, Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reacted to the omission by saying “lives will continue to be lost until fossil fuel addiction is taken care of”.