COP Outcomes on Loss and Damage
COP 30 (2025, Belém) – Implementation Under Pressure
Overall framing: Marketed as the “Implementation COP”, but outcomes revealed persistent political divisions, especially on finance and fossil fuels.
Climate finance: Adoption of the Mutirão decision, launching a 2-year Climate Finance Work Programme to follow up on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). Political momentum toward scaling finance to USD 1.3 trillion/year by 2035, but no binding commitments.
Adaptation: Political signal to triple adaptation finance by 2035, though ambition was weakened (delayed timeline, no baseline). Failure to agree on robust adaptation indicators undermined accountability and tracking of progress.
Loss and damage (indirect): Continued recognition of needs through finance discussions, but no major new breakthroughs on adequacy or predictability beyond earlier COP decisions.
Mitigation / fossil fuels: Despite support from 88 countries, no agreement on a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels or on fossil fuel subsidy reform. New processes launched (Belém Mission to 1.5, Global Implementation Accelerator) with unclear operational hooks.
Equity and inclusion: A notable success was the adoption of a strong Gender Action Plan, reinforcing gender-responsive and intersectional climate action.
Overall assessment: Incremental progress and important political signals, but delivery and ambition remain misaligned with urgency, especially for vulnerable countries.
COP29 (2024, Baku)
Direction of travel: Continued focus on scaling up finance, improving access and delivery, and clarifying how loss and damage fits within the wider climate finance architecture.
Main gap: The central unresolved issue remained adequacy and predictability—moving from “launching” the fund toward making it genuinely fit for purpose at scale.
COP28 (2023, Dubai)
Major milestone: Operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund (governance arrangements agreed and initial capitalization began through early pledges).
Additional progress: Further clarity on institutional setup and support channels (including how technical assistance and implementation support can be coordinated).
Main gap: Pledges were far below needs, and questions remained about predictable replenishment and easy access for frontline communities.
COP27 (2022, Sharm el-Sheikh)
Major milestone: Agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund and broader “funding arrangements” to support countries particularly vulnerable to climate impacts.
Main gap: The fund was announced, but key questions were left open (who pays, how much, governance, access rules).
COP26 (2021, Glasgow)
Major outcomes:
Launch of the Glasgow Dialogue to discuss arrangements for loss and damage funding (a process, not a fund).
Continued movement on making the Santiago Network operational.
Main gap: Vulnerable countries pushed for a facility/fund; the result was mainly dialogue and incremental steps.
COP25 (2019, Madrid)
Major outcome: Creation of the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage to catalyze technical assistance (knowledge, coordination, support) for vulnerable countries.
Main gap: No dedicated financing mechanism; loss and damage remained largely “recognized” rather than funded.
Satisfaction rating (Likert): 2 – Dissatisfied
I’m dissatisfied overall, even though COP27–COP28 were historic steps. The creation and operationalization of the fund represent real progress in climate justice terms, but the outcomes remain misaligned with the urgency and scale of loss and damage:
Finance is still insufficient compared to real-world loss and damage needs faced by vulnerable nations.
Predictability remains weak: pledges and one-off contributions do not equal sustainable, long-term support.
Equity tensions persist: debates continue over who should contribute, and how responsibility is shared given historical emissions and current capacity.
Non-economic losses (culture, identity, displacement, social cohesion) are still harder to recognize and compensate systematically, even though they are central to community well-being.
Access and delivery challenges remain a risk: if funding is slow or overly complex to access, frontline communities may see limited benefit.
What explains success or failure
Political, economic, and social factors strongly shape results:
Political: consensus-based COP negotiations slow ambition; donor politics shapes fund design.
Economic: competing global crises and domestic fiscal pressures reduce contributions.
Social: unequal power relations can sideline the most affected groups unless access and governance are designed to be inclusive.
Lessons and needed reforms
From Bangladesh and other vulnerable contexts, the key lesson is that strong national plans are not enough without predictable international support. To bridge the policy–action gap, reforms could include:
Reliable replenishment of the Loss and Damage Fund (not ad hoc pledges)
Simplified access for vulnerable countries and local actors
Explicit attention to non-economic losses in assessment and support frameworks
Stronger accountability and transparency on delivery, not just announcements