Review of COP Outcomes on Loss and Damage: Kenya’s Perspective
Loss and damage matters have gradually shifted from the periphery of climate negotiations to the very core of global climate justice discourse. Despite visible progress across the last five Conferences of the Parties (COPs), persistent gaps remain between political commitments and the lived realities of vulnerable countries such as Kenya and Africa as a whole.
COP24 – Katowice (2018): Loss and damage was addressed primarily through the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism. While this reinforced its institutional importance, no concrete financial commitments were made, leaving vulnerable countries deeply frustrated.
COP25 – Madrid (2019): The establishment of the Santiago Network marked an important institutional step, intended to provide technical assistance to countries experiencing loss and damage. However, the Network remained largely non-operational for several years, severely limiting its immediate impact.
COP26 – Glasgow (2021): Developing countries strongly advocated for a dedicated loss and damage finance facility. This demand was rejected. Instead, the Glasgow Dialogue was launched to discuss funding arrangements. While this kept the issue on the agenda, it effectively postponed concrete financial solutions.
COP27 – Sharm el Sheikh (2022): A historic breakthrough was achieved with the agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund. This milestone recognized that adaptation and mitigation alone are insufficient for countries already experiencing irreversible impacts.
COP28 – Dubai (2023): The Loss and Damage Fund was operationalized, with initial pledges and governance arrangements agreed upon. However, the pledged amounts remain negligible compared to the actual needs of vulnerable countries, including Kenya.
Very Dissatisfied - While the establishment and operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund is politically significant, I would say as Kenya, we remain very dissatisfied with the overall outcomes. For decades, vulnerable countries have demanded recognition and support for losses they did not cause. Although recent COPs have finally acknowledged this injustice, the response has been slow, fragmented and insufficient.
Justification of Assessment
Financial inadequacy: Current commitments fall far below the estimated annual needs of developing countries. Many pledges are voluntary, lack clear delivery timelines, and do not constitute new or additional finance. This raises serious doubts about whether the Fund will deliver tangible support to affected communities.
Neglect of non-economic losses: Losses such as culture, identity, land, and ecosystems are increasingly mentioned but remain poorly addressed in operational terms. Communities facing displacement, cultural erosion and psychological harm continue to receive minimal recognition within funding mechanisms.
Equity concerns: Historical responsibility and capacity to pay are not adequately reflected in contributions. Without predictable, adequate, and grant-based finance, loss and damage risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
The last five COPs demonstrate that progress on loss and damage is possible though under sustained pressure from vulnerable nations and civil society. Recognition has improved, yet delivery remains weak and inequitable. For loss and damage to truly address climate injustice, future COPs must move beyond dialogue and symbolism toward scaled-up, accessible and equitable support that reflects the lived realities of affected communities in Kenya and across the Global South.
---------------------------------------------