Justification for my rating
Justification for my rating:
3 – Neutral
I would rate my satisfaction with the outcomes on loss and damage as 3 (Neutral) because the last five COPs have produced important progress, but the response is still not sufficient compared with the scale of the problem faced by vulnerable countries.
Historically, loss and damage negotiations were difficult because developing countries, particularly small island states and vulnerable developing countries, had long pushed for stronger recognition and financial support for climate-related losses that cannot be avoided through adaptation. A major institutional step came at COP19 in 2013, when the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) was established to address loss and damage from both extreme events and slow-onset impacts.
The biggest breakthrough came at COP27 in 2022, when countries finally agreed to establish new funding arrangements and a dedicated Fund for responding to Loss and Damage. This was significant because the issue had been debated internationally for years without a dedicated funding mechanism. COP27 also advanced the Santiago Network, which is intended to provide technical assistance to vulnerable developing countries.
At COP28 in 2023, the Fund was operationalized, with an agreed governing instrument, a dedicated secretariat and a Board. This was another major achievement because it moved the issue from simply recognizing the need for finance toward creating an actual institutional mechanism through which support could be provided.
However, I am not fully satisfied because financial commitments remain inadequate relative to the scale of loss and damage. Vulnerable countries face increasingly severe floods, droughts, storms, sea-level rise and other climate impacts, while the resources available to address these losses remain limited. The UNFCCC itself continues to identify significant gaps in responding to the increasing scale and frequency of both economic and non-economic losses.
Another important concern is non-economic loss and damage. Climate change does not only destroy infrastructure, crops and income. It can also result in displacement, loss of cultural heritage, biodiversity, livelihoods, community ties and other values that are difficult to put a monetary value on. The WIM has established work specifically addressing non-economic losses, but the UNFCCC notes continuing difficulties in collecting data and assessing these losses.
There is also an important equity and climate-justice dimension. Many developing countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change have contributed relatively little to historical global greenhouse-gas emissions, yet they can face disproportionate consequences. From an equity perspective, therefore, establishing a fund is only meaningful if sufficient, predictable and accessible finance reaches the countries and communities experiencing the greatest impacts.
Overall, I consider the progress encouraging but incomplete. COP27’s creation of the Loss and Damage Fund and COP28’s operationalization of it represent historic achievements. COP29 and COP30 have continued efforts to strengthen the Fund and the wider loss-and-damage architecture. However, concerns about the adequacy of financial resources, accessibility of funding, non-economic losses and fairness in burden-sharing prevent me from rating the outcome as “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied.”
Therefore, my rating is 3 – Neutral: there has been meaningful historical progress, but the international response has not yet matched the urgency, scale and justice demands of loss and damage experienced by vulnerable nations.