ACCESS4ALL Group

The evolution of Loss and Damage (L&D) over the last five Conferences of the Parties (COPs) reflects a transition from high-level debate to operational reality, though significant justice gaps remain. At COP25 in Madrid (2019), the focus was primarily technical, resulting in the establishment of the Santiago Network to provide technical assistance to vulnerable countries. However, it wasn’t until COP26 in Glasgow (2021) that the pressure for dedicated finance reached a fever pitch, leading to the Glasgow Dialogue, a three-year process to discuss funding arrangements. The most historic breakthrough occurred at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh (2022), where parties finally agreed to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund, a move seen as a major victory for the Global South. COP28 in Dubai (2023) saw the immediate operationalization of this fund with initial pledges totaling roughly $700 million. Most recently, at COP29 in Baku (2024), the focus shifted to the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), with developing nations pushing for trillions in support, though the final pledges remained far below the estimated $400 billion annual need.

My dissatisfaction stems from the stark contrast between the procedural success of creating the fund and the material failure to adequately finance it. While the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 was a monumental milestone for climate justice, the actual financial commitments—totaling only $768 million as of mid-2025—represent a mere "tiny fraction" of the hundreds of billions required annually by vulnerable nations. Furthermore, non-economic losses (NELD), such as the loss of indigenous knowledge, cultural heritage, and social cohesion, remain largely marginalized in funding discussions, which prioritize quantifiable infrastructure damage over intangible human impacts.

The historical context of these negotiations shows a persistent trend of "soft" adaptation limits being treated as inevitable outcomes rather than results of systemic financial neglect. While the operationalization of the fund is a step forward, the reliance on voluntary pledges rather than mandatory, scale-appropriate contributions means that the burden of climate-induced migration and reduced productivity continues to fall on those least responsible for global emissions. Until international frameworks address the absolute "hard" limits faced by ecosystems like coral reefs and low-lying islands through massive, predictable transfers of wealth, the outcomes of these COPs will remain a symbolic victory rather than a substantive solution to the climate crisis.