COP Outcomes
Over the last 5 COPs, key milestones on loss and damage include:
COP25 (2019): Established the Santiago Network to connect vulnerable countries with technical assistance.
COP26 (2021): The Glasgow Dialogue was launched to discuss funding arrangements, but no new finance was agreed.
COP27 (2022): Historic agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, a major political breakthrough.
COP28 (2023): The Fund was operationalized, with initial pledges totaling around $700 million (e.g., UAE $100M, EU $245M).
COP29 (2024): Focused on scaling and sustaining the Fund, with ongoing debates over predictable, grant-based finance and inclusion of non-economic losses.
Assessment: 2 – DissatisfiedWhile establishing the Fund was a historic justice win, progress remains deeply inadequate. Pledges are a tiny fraction of the estimated $400+ billion needed annually by vulnerable countries. Commitments are largely voluntary, non-binding, and resemble repurposed aid, failing to ensure new, additional, and scaled finance. The slow operationalization and exclusion of liability/compensation reflect continued power imbalances in negotiations. For communities facing irreversible losses, these steps remain symbolic without transformative, predictable funding
Loss and Damage Outcomes: COPs 23-27
Summary of Key Outcomes
The last five COPs revealed a slow, contested evolution in addressing loss and damage. COP 23 (Bonn, 2017) launched the Fiji Clearing House for risk transfer but secured no new funding. COP 24 (Katowice, 2018) reviewed the Warsaw International Mechanism without resolving its funding gaps, while COP 25 (Madrid, 2019) established the unfunded Santiago Network and saw developed nations block proposals for dedicated finance. COP 26 (Glasgow, 2021) created the Glasgow Dialogue and generated initial pledges of approximately $400 million, but postponed agreement on a dedicated fund. COP 27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022) marked a historic breakthrough with agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, though critical details remained unresolved. COP 28 (Dubai, 2023) operationalized this fund with the World Bank as interim trustee and secured initial pledges of $700 million—a figure dwarfed by estimated annual needs of $290-580 billion and rising to $400-600 billion by 2030.
Assessment: 2 - Dissatisfied
I am dissatisfied with the overall outcomes for loss and damage across these COPs, despite acknowledging significant institutional progress. While the establishment and operationalization of a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund represents a historic achievement after three decades of advocacy by vulnerable nations, the response remains fundamentally inadequate to the scale of harm. Current pledges of $700 million represent less than 0.25% of annual needs, revealing an unconscionable gap between recognition and resources. The 31-year timeline from Vanuatu's initial 1991 proposal to the 2022 fund agreement demonstrates systematic delay by developed nations, during which vulnerable communities have experienced catastrophic, irreversible losses. Critical barriers persist: developed nations continue refusing to acknowledge liability or historical responsibility, the voluntary contribution model allows major emitters to participate minimally, World Bank governance raises accessibility concerns for the most vulnerable, and no clear replenishment mechanism exists. Furthermore, non-economic losses—cultural heritage, territorial displacement, traditional knowledge systems—remain marginalized in a discourse focused on quantifiable damages. The operationalization of the fund provides a framework for future scaling, preventing a "very dissatisfied" rating, but for communities currently losing homelands to rising seas, facing deadly climate impacts, and experiencing cultural erasure, these outcomes represent too little, too late. Satisfaction would require funding at a scale matching actual needs (hundreds of billions with mandatory contributions), acknowledgment of historical responsibility, direct access mechanisms for vulnerable communities, and comprehensive frameworks addressing irreversible harms. Until the response matches the magnitude of injustice—where those who contributed least to climate change suffer its worst impacts—dissatisfaction remains the only honest assessment.Loss and Damage Outcomes: COPs 23-27
Summary of Key Outcomes
The last five COPs revealed a slow, contested evolution in addressing loss and damage. COP 23 (Bonn, 2017) launched the Fiji Clearing House for risk transfer but secured no new funding. COP 24 (Katowice, 2018) reviewed the Warsaw International Mechanism without resolving its funding gaps, while COP 25 (Madrid, 2019) established the unfunded Santiago Network and saw developed nations block proposals for dedicated finance. COP 26 (Glasgow, 2021) created the Glasgow Dialogue and generated initial pledges of approximately $400 million, but postponed agreement on a dedicated fund. COP 27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022) marked a historic breakthrough with agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, though critical details remained unresolved. COP 28 (Dubai, 2023) operationalized this fund with the World Bank as interim trustee and secured initial pledges of $700 million—a figure dwarfed by estimated annual needs of $290-580 billion and rising to $400-600 billion by 2030.
Assessment: 2 - Dissatisfied
I am dissatisfied with the overall outcomes for loss and damage across these COPs, despite acknowledging significant institutional progress. While the establishment and operationalization of a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund represents a historic achievement after three decades of advocacy by vulnerable nations, the response remains fundamentally inadequate to the scale of harm. Current pledges of $700 million represent less than 0.25% of annual needs, revealing an unconscionable gap between recognition and resources. The 31-year timeline from Vanuatu's initial 1991 proposal to the 2022 fund agreement demonstrates systematic delay by developed nations, during which vulnerable communities have experienced catastrophic, irreversible losses. Critical barriers persist: developed nations continue refusing to acknowledge liability or historical responsibility, the voluntary contribution model allows major emitters to participate minimally, World Bank governance raises accessibility concerns for the most vulnerable, and no clear replenishment mechanism exists. Furthermore, non-economic losses—cultural heritage, territorial displacement, traditional knowledge systems—remain marginalized in a discourse focused on quantifiable damages. The operationalization of the fund provides a framework for future scaling, preventing a "very dissatisfied" rating, but for communities currently losing homelands to rising seas, facing deadly climate impacts, and experiencing cultural erasure, these outcomes represent too little, too late. Satisfaction would require funding at a scale matching actual needs (hundreds of billions with mandatory contributions), acknowledgment of historical responsibility, direct access mechanisms for vulnerable communities, and comprehensive frameworks addressing irreversible harms. Until the response matches the magnitude of injustice—where those who contributed least to climate change suffer its worst impacts—dissatisfaction remains the only honest assessment.