ACCESS4ALL Group

Justification for my rating:

3 – Neutral

I would rate my satisfaction with the outcomes on loss and damage as 3 (Neutral) because the last five COPs have produced important progress, but the response is still not sufficient compared with the scale of the problem faced by vulnerable countries.

Historically, loss and damage negotiations were difficult because developing countries, particularly small island states and vulnerable developing countries, had long pushed for stronger recognition and financial support for climate-related losses that cannot be avoided through adaptation. A major institutional step came at COP19 in 2013, when the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) was established to address loss and damage from both extreme events and slow-onset impacts.

The biggest breakthrough came at COP27 in 2022, when countries finally agreed to establish new funding arrangements and a dedicated Fund for responding to Loss and Damage. This was significant because the issue had been debated internationally…

I agree with your observation that “the people who have the most power are not the ones who are most affected.” This was also one of the main conclusions I reached from my stakeholder mapping. My mapping similarly placed government agencies, international donors and key project management institutions in the Manage Closely quadrant because of their ability to influence funding, policy, regulations and project implementation.

One difference in our perspectives is that I gave slightly more emphasis to the distinction between formal power and influence. I placed local communities, NGOs and researchers primarily under Keep Informed, because although they may have limited formal decision-making power, they can have considerable influence through local knowledge, advocacy, community mobilisation and technical expertise. Your description of communities as both “implementers and beneficiaries” highlights why their influence can sometimes be greater than the formal mapping initially suggests.

I also agree with your point about the interdependence between stakeholders.…

Comparing Climate Resilience in the Philippines and Zimbabwe

In comparison with the Philippines, Zimbabwe faces different but related climate challenges, particularly droughts, floods, heatwaves and irregular rainfall, which are being intensified by climate change. Rural and low-income communities, especially those dependent on rain-fed agriculture, are among the most affected because climate shocks reduce crop yields, livestock productivity, water availability and household incomes. Similar to the mangrove restoration initiative in the Philippines, Zimbabwean communities use nature-based and community-led solutions, including water harvesting, conservation agriculture, tree planting, wetland protection and livelihood diversification to strengthen resilience. Government institutions, local authorities, NGOs and development partners also support communities through climate-smart agriculture, disaster preparedness, early-warning systems, food assistance and environmental conservation programmes. However, unlike the Philippines, where mangrove restoration provides coastal protection against storm surges, Zimbabwe is a landlocked country, so its adaptation efforts focus more on managing drought, water scarcity, land degradation and flooding. Both…