Date of Award
Spring 5-18-2026
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Master of Public Policy (MPP)
First Advisor
Jessica Seddon
Subject Area(s)
Ecology, Economics, Environmental science, Management, Organizational behavior, Political Science
Abstract
The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), established at COP28 in 2023, represents a historic diplomatic breakthrough in multilateral climate finance, yet its design reflects the compromises necessary to secure political agreement rather than a just institutional architecture. This thesis evaluates the FRLD and two prominent reform proposals—the Bridgetown Initiative 3.0 and Esther Duflo's Grand Bargain—against a novel framework that provides a more precise way to evaluate the “justness” of different arrangements. This framework encompasses three dimensions: compensatory, distributive, and procedural justice. [JS1] A dimension of justice is achieved in a two-fold manner; first, through rhetorical commitments in founding documents, and secondly, operational mechanisms proposed for institutional design. Drawing on qualitative document analysis supported by descriptive word frequency data, this thesis finds that the FRLD is strongest on procedural justice through developing-country board representation and formal safeguards for institutional autonomy, but weakest on distributive justice, where voluntary contributions are disconnected from historical emissions or economic capacity. Compensatory justice is partially realized through speed and flexibility provisions, but the Fund’s application-based model follows a development finance logic rather than a compensatory one. When applying the framework to reform proposals, Bridgetown demonstrates that distributive justice can be operationalized through levy-based mechanisms without invoking moral obligation, while the Grand Bargain shows that explicit polluter pays logic can be linked to automatic, damage-benchmarked disbursement. Three design principles are proposed for a more just reimagining of L&D finance: obligation-based and formula-driven contributions, automatic and damage-proportional disbursement, and procedurally just governance with institutional autonomy. This thesis advances the literature on loss and damage financing by disaggregating and clarifying what a more just institutional architecture entails.
[JS1]This 3-D framework is a contribution to the literature. It provides a more precise way to talk about and evaluate the "justness" of different arrangements. Don't forget that this is a novel framework - that you then apply!
Recommended Citation
Cheung, Sarah, "A Just Reimagining of the Loss & Damage Fund" (2026). Master in Public Policy Theses. 3.
https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/publicpolicy_theses/3
This Article is Open Access
Included in
Business Analytics Commons, Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Economic Policy Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Finance and Financial Management Commons, Public Policy Commons, Strategic Management Policy Commons