Discussion Forum: COP Outcomes on Loss and Damage
The last five COPs, from COP26 in Glasgow to COP30 in Belém, show a gradual but important evolution in the international response to climate-related loss and damage. The progress has been significant in terms of establishing institutions and funding mechanisms but major gaps remain in the scale, predictability and equity of financial support.
COP26 – Glasgow, 2021
COP26 did not establish a dedicated loss and damage fund, but it created two important foundations for future progress. First, the Glasgow Climate Pact established the Glasgow Dialogue, a process for discussing arrangements for financing activities to avert, minimize and address loss and damage. Second, COP26 strengthened the Santiago Network, which is intended to connect vulnerable developing countries with technical assistance for addressing loss and damage.
Therefore, COP26 was more about creating a pathway for future action than delivering financial support.
COP27 – Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022
COP27 represented the biggest political breakthrough in this period. After many years of negotiations, Parties agreed to establish new funding arrangements, including a dedicated Fund for responding to loss and damage, particularly for developing countries that are especially vulnerable to climate impacts. A Transitional Committee was also created to develop recommendations for operationalizing the Fund.
This was historically important because vulnerable countries had long demanded an international mechanism to address climate impacts that cannot simply be avoided through mitigation or adaptation.
COP28 – Dubai, 2023
COP28 moved from establishing the Fund to operationalizing it. Parties approved the Fund's Governing Instrument, decided that it would have a dedicated Board and independent secretariat, and designated it as an entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention and the Paris Agreement. The Fund's mandate explicitly covers both economic and non-economic loss and damage, including impacts from extreme weather and slow-onset events.
However, the initial financial pledges were far below the scale of needs. As of April 2025, the UNFCCC reported USD 768.4 million pledged by 27 contributors.
COP29 – Baku, 2024
COP29 focused on making the Fund more operational. Parties finalized the arrangements governing the relationship between the COP, CMA and the Fund's Board, bringing those arrangements into force. COP29 also welcomed progress in operationalizing the Santiago Network. Importantly, work on non-economic losses continued, including attention to biodiversity, ecosystem services, cultural heritage and habitability.
COP29 also agreed on a new collective climate-finance goal of at least USD 300 billion annually by 2035 for developing countries, while calling for efforts to scale overall climate finance to USD 1.3 trillion annually by 2035. However, this broader climate-finance goal should not be interpreted as dedicated loss-and-damage finance.
COP30 – Belém, 2025
COP30 marked further progress in moving the Loss and Damage Fund from institutional design toward actual implementation. The COP welcomed the Fund's Barbados Implementation Modalities, which provide grants for 2025–2026 to support bottom-up, country-led and country-owned responses to loss and damage. It also welcomed the launch of the Fund's call for funding requests.
By the end of 2025, UNFCCC reported financial pledges to the Fund of approximately USD 817 million. COP30 also concluded the third review of the Warsaw International Mechanism, reinforcing the broader institutional architecture for addressing loss and damage.
My Satisfaction Level: 3 – Neutral
I would rate my satisfaction with the overall outcomes as 3 out of 5 (Neutral). I am encouraged by the substantial institutional progress, but I believe the financial response remains insufficient compared with the scale and urgency of loss and damage faced by vulnerable countries.
The most positive development is the transformation of loss and damage from a long-standing political demand into a functioning international institutional framework. COP26 established the Glasgow Dialogue, COP27 created the Fund, COP28 operationalized it, COP29 finalized its institutional arrangements, and COP30 moved toward actual grant-based implementation. This represents a remarkable progression over only five COPs.
Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the scale and predictability of finance. Around USD 817 million in pledges by the end of 2025 is an important starting point, but it is difficult to view it as proportionate to the enormous and growing costs of climate-related losses and damages. The IPCC finds that climate impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable communities that have historically contributed the least to climate change, while climate impacts can also reduce economic growth and further constrain the financial resources available for adaptation, particularly in developing and least developed countries.
Another important issue is non-economic loss and damage. Climate change can cause losses that cannot easily be expressed in monetary terms, including cultural heritage, identity, social cohesion, biodiversity, health and a sense of place. The IPCC emphasizes that non-economic losses are particularly important for vulnerable populations and have historically been overlooked in assessments and adaptation planning. The fact that the Fund's mandate includes both economic and non-economic losses is therefore a positive development.
Finally, the issue of equity and historical responsibility remains unresolved. Many vulnerable developing countries have contributed relatively little to cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions but face severe climate impacts. The IPCC confirms that vulnerable communities that have historically contributed the least to climate change are disproportionately affected. At the same time, the agreed loss-and-damage funding arrangements are based on cooperation and facilitation and explicitly do not establish liability or compensation.
Overall, I see the last five COPs as a major institutional success but an incomplete climate-justice response. The world has moved from debating whether loss and damage deserves a dedicated mechanism to building an actual Fund capable of providing grants to affected countries. However, the next challenge is much larger: ensuring that the Fund receives predictable, adequate and accessible finance and that support reaches the communities experiencing both economic and non-economic losses. For this reason, 3 – Neutral best reflects my assessment: the progress is real and significant, but it is not yet sufficient.