Summary of Key Outcomes on Loss and Damage (COP25 – COP29)
COP25 (Madrid, 2019): Established the Santiago Network for averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage. Its purpose is to catalyze technical assistance to vulnerable developing countries. However, the conference failed to agree on a funding mechanism, leaving the critical question of finance unresolved and creating significant frustration among vulnerable nations.
COP26 (Glasgow, 2021): Saw loss and damage rise higher on the agenda due to sustained pressure from the G77 and civil society. The main outcome was the establishment of the Glasgow Dialogue to discuss funding arrangements. While this formalized the conversation on finance, it was a compromise that again delayed the creation of an actual fund, representing process over tangible progress.
COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022): A landmark decision was reached with the agreement to establish new funding arrangements and a dedicated fund for loss and damage. This was a historic political victory for vulnerable countries after decades of advocacy. A Transitional Committee was formed to work out operational details, such as the fund’s structure, sources, and beneficiaries. However, critical decisions on who would pay and who would benefit were postponed.
COP28 (Dubai, 2023): Focused on operationalizing the fund agreed in Sharm el-Sheikh. The conference formally launched the Loss and Damage Fund and secured initial pledges totaling approximately USD $700 million from some developed and developing countries. The World Bank was named as the interim host for a four-year period, a contentious point for many who view the institution as slow and inequitable. While the launch was a milestone, pledges were a tiny fraction of the estimated needs (hundreds of billions annually), and core issues like predictable, scaled-up finance and the fund’s long-term governance remained unclear.
COP29 (Baku, 2024 – anticipated based on trends): The primary focus is expected to be the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance, which will directly impact the ambition for loss and damage funding. A key development has been the proposal to include a specific "Adaptation and Loss & Damage Window" within the new finance goal. While this represents progress in mainstreaming loss and damage into the core finance negotiation, the success hinges on the scale and quality of the final financial target and whether contributions are grants-based, not loans.
Assessment of Satisfaction
Rating: 3 - Neutral
I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; progress has been mixed or insufficient.
Justification for Assessment
My neutral rating reflects a clear-eyed view of the historic political breakthroughs achieved against the backdrop of woefully inadequate practical action and finance. The trajectory from COP25 to COP29 shows undeniable procedural and institutional progress, but it remains critically misaligned with the accelerating scale of devastation in vulnerable communities.
Reasons for Acknowledging Progress (The "Satisfied" Side of Neutral):
Political Victory: The establishment of the fund at COP27 was monumental. It shattered a longstanding taboo and formally recognized the obligation of developed nations to address irreversible impacts, a core demand of climate justice.
From Dialogue to Institution: The journey from the Glasgow Dialogue (COP26) to a launched fund (COP28) within two years is relatively swift in UNFCCC terms. It demonstrates that sustained pressure from the Global South can shift entrenched positions.
Mainstreaming into Finance: The push for a dedicated Loss and Damage window in the NCQG at COP29 is strategic. It moves the issue from a side conversation into the heart of the most important finance negotiation, which is essential for long-term viability.
Reasons for Profound Dissatisfaction (The "Dissatisfied" Side of Neutral):
The Vast Finance Gap: The ~$700M pledged at COP28 is almost an insult against documented needs. For context, the economic loss from a single cyclone can exceed this amount, and Africa alone faces adaptation costs of $50 billion annually. Pledges are voluntary, not based on a fair-share assessment of responsibility, and are a drop in the ocean.
Dilution of Language and Justice: The final COP27/28 agreements carefully avoid terms like "liability" and "compensation." The reliance on "contributions" rather than "obligations" lets historical polluters off the hook for their fair share. Justice is acknowledged in principle but evaded in practice.
Operational Hurdles and Access: Hosting the fund at the World Bank, even temporarily, raises serious concerns about high overhead costs, slow disbursement, and limited direct access for the most vulnerable communities. There is a real risk the fund will replicate the bureaucracies that plague existing climate finance.
Sidelining Non-Economic Losses: The operational focus remains overwhelmingly on tangible, quantifiable economic losses. The irreplaceable loss of cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge, community cohesion, and biodiversity—the heart of many communities' identity—remains inadequately addressed in funding mechanisms and reporting.
Reactive vs. Proactive: The current framework still treats loss and damage as solely about response and rehabilitation after disaster. There is insufficient focus and funding for non-economic losses and for addressing slow-onset events like sea-level rise, salinization, and desertification, which permanently displace communities and erase territories.