LOSS AND DAMAGE OF THE LAST 5 COPs
The path of loss and damage from COP26 to COP30 shows how institutions have changed significantly. COP26 in Glasgow set the stage by defining the Santiago Network’s technical assistance roles and moving forward the Warsaw International Mechanism's workplan. However, no specific funding was set up. The big news came at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, where the Parties made the historic choice to set up the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) and formed a Transitional Committee to plan how it would work. COP28 in Dubai moved quickly. On the first day, it accepted the Committee's suggestions, put the fund at the World Bank on a temporary basis, and got initial pledges of about $770 million.
COP29 in Baku then fully set up the fund by choosing the Philippines as the host country for the Board, naming its first Executive Director, and making deals with the World Bank. It also included loss and damage in the larger $300 billion NCQG climate finance framework, but there was no separate allocation for it.
Even though institutions have made progress, there is still a huge gap between what they want to do and what they actually do. The FRLD made its first request for funding under the Barbados Implementation Modalities at COP30 in Belém. This was the start-up phase, which offered $250 million in grants. However, the fund only had about $431.52 million total, and less than half of the pledges were actually paid out, even though The New Humanitarian estimated that the annual needs were in the hundreds of billions.
The last COP30 resolution didn't mention accountability or reparations, PlanAdapt, which shows how the fight between developing countries that want obligation-based finance from historical emitters and developed countries that want voluntary contributions continues. The WIM's third review is finished, and the decision to start a State of Loss and Damage Report are important steps forward in the process. The first formal replenishment cycle will begin in 2027, and it will be a major test. But as the architecture gets better, the main problem is still turning institutional frameworks into the resources that climate-vulnerable communities need right away.
I am dissatisfied:
There are a number of ongoing tensions between these five COPs. The most controversial question is still who pays. Developed countries have opposed calling loss and damage finance compensation or liability, while developing countries argue that historical emitters should be held responsible. The funding situation is very bad; even the most generous pledges only cover a small part of what is needed. Access methods are still being worked on, and there are worries that bureaucratic processes could slow down the flow of money to communities in need.
The FRLD, the Santiago Network, and the WIM are still getting to know each other better. COP30 made some progress toward making things more consistent, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Lastly, the fact that contributions are voluntary instead of required or assessed makes it hard to know how long the fund will last. The first official replenishment in 2027 will be a big test.