ACCESS4ALL Group

1. COP24 (Katowice, 2018)

·         Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) continued as the primary institutional architecture for loss and damage, with decisions touching on reporting and transparency within the Paris rulebook.

·         There were no dedicated financing arrangements introduced yet, and discussions largely focused on technical and knowledge-sharing elements rather than money or compensation.

2. COP25 (Madrid, 2019)

·         Loss and damage was a major negotiation topic, especially in the context of reviewing the WIM.

·         Parties highlighted that existing commitments were insufficient, and vulnerable nations pressed for more finance.

·         However, no substantive finance decision or dedicated fund was created at COP25. Finance remained largely a matter for future negotiation.

3. COP26 (Glasgow, 2021)

Important foundational steps:

·         Glasgow Dialogue: Parties agreed to start the Glasgow Dialogue on funding arrangements for loss and damage, replacing earlier calls for a dedicated facility. This was a negotiation mandate rather than a direct financing commitment.

·         Santiago Network: Operational elements for the Santiago Network (technical assistance) were further defined.

·         No direct finance commitments or dedicated fund yet; developed parties resisted creating a standalone facility at this stage.

4. COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022)

Historic breakthrough:

·         Parties agreed to establish a new Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) and accompanying funding arrangements to support vulnerable countries facing climate impacts.

·         A Transitional Committee was set up to operationalise the fund by COP28, though key details on eligibility, donors, and governance were still being negotiated.

·         This marked the first time loss and damage finance was elevated to a decision agenda item, acknowledging the need to support countries beyond adaptation.

5. COP28 (Dubai, 2023)

Operational progression:

·         Parties adopted arrangements to operationalise the Loss and Damage Fund and initial contributions were made (over US$661 million pledged).

·         Efforts focused on defining how the fund and broader financing mechanisms would function, coordinate with existing instruments (like the Santiago Network and WIM), and support climate-vulnerable nations.

·         This push for operationalisation aimed to transition from political consensus to financial support delivery.

6. COP29 & COP30 (2024–2025)

Incremental but mixed progress:

·         COP29 established the new climate finance goal (NCQG) and tripled general climate finance commitments — but without explicitly embedding loss and damage finance within that target. Critics noted a missed opportunity to equitably anchor loss and damage support in overarching climate finance goals.

·         COP30 delivered modest incremental gains: the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) began operational work, and technical and institutional measures (like review of WIM and strengthening Santiago Network support) were advanced. However, pledges remained low relative to need, and debates about equitable access and non-economic losses (e.g., cultural, social, displacement) continued.

Likert Scale Assessment

On the Likert Scale Assessment, my rating is 2 – Dissatisfied

Justification for Rating

A.   Progress

Ø  Creation and Operationalisation of a Fund:

The establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) at COP27 was a major political breakthrough, decades in the making. Its operationalisation at COP28 signalled concrete steps toward financing support — a key milestone after years of advocacy.

Ø  Institution Building:

The Transitional Committee, WIM review reforms, and the scaling up of the Santiago Network now provide structural platforms to address financial and technical support needs.

Ø  Increased General Climate Finance:

Broader climate finance goals (e.g., tripling climate finance at COP29) indirectly support vulnerable countries, even if loss and damage is not explicitly within those targets.

B.   Ongoing Shortfalls

Ø  Insufficient Funding Pledges:

Financial pledges to the Loss and Damage Fund remain far below the scale of needs estimated by vulnerable nations — yearly estimated loss figures can reach hundreds of billions. The amount pledged, though meaningful politically, does not reflect actual estimated needs.

Ø  Equity and Justice Gaps:

There’s persistent debate over equity, principles like historical responsibility, and whether the fund should be grant-based rather than debt-creating. These topics have stalled meaningful, predictable financing.

Ø  Non-Economic Loss and Damage:

Real-world impacts like displacement, cultural losses, and biodiversity decline are recognized but not yet sufficiently integrated into finance mechanisms. Non-economic loss categories often lack dedicated resources.

Ø  Delayed Operational Details & Access:

Despite political commitments, operational clarity (who pays, who benefits, how to access funds) remains a work in progress, constraining real-world delivery.

Ø  COP29 & COP30 Limitations:

Recent negotiations slowed momentum on loss and damage finance. The new collective goal did not anchor loss and damage finance directly, and COP30 ended with modest advances but not the transformative support vulnerable communities urgently need.