Overall assessment: Moderately dissatisfied
My level of dissatisfaction reflects the clear gap between political recognition of loss and damage and the tangible support delivered to vulnerable countries.
From a historical perspective, loss and damage has been debated for over three decades, gaining formal recognition through the Warsaw International Mechanism (COP19) and Article 8 of the Paris Agreement. While recent COPs particularly COP27 and COP28 marked a political breakthrough by agreeing to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund, this progress is largely institutional rather than transformational.
Financial commitments remain the weakest element. Initial pledges to the fund are modest and fall far short of the scale of losses already being experienced by vulnerable nations. Climate-induced disasters, slow-onset events, and irreversible losses require financing in the order of tens to hundreds of billions annually, yet current contributions amount to only a fraction of that need. Moreover, many pledges are voluntary, non-binding, and subject to donor priorities, undermining predictability and trust.
Regarding operationalization, steps have been taken to establish governance structures and interim arrangements, which is a positive development. However, the fund is not yet fully functional at scale, and clear, rapid, and accessible disbursement mechanisms are still under development. For countries facing immediate climate impacts such as displacement, infrastructure collapse, and livelihood loss delays in access to finance significantly reduce the fund’s real-world value.
The treatment of non-economic losses including loss of lives, culture, heritage, identity, and ecosystems remains inadequate. Although acknowledged in negotiations, these losses are poorly integrated into funding frameworks and lack clear methodologies for support. This omission is critical, as non-economic losses often represent the most profound and irreversible impacts for vulnerable communities.
Finally, equity considerations remain insufficiently addressed. Countries with the least responsibility for historical emissions continue to bear the greatest burden of climate impacts, while major emitters have not committed financial contributions proportionate to their responsibility and capacity. The continued emphasis on voluntary contributions rather than obligation weakens the principle of climate justice.
In conclusion, while recent COP outcomes represent an important symbolic and institutional advance, they do not yet constitute an effective or equitable response to loss and damage. The limited scale of finance, slow operational progress, weak treatment of non-economic losses, and unresolved equity concerns justify a professional assessment of cautious dissatisfaction. Meaningful success will depend on scaling up predictable finance, ensuring rapid access for vulnerable countries, and embedding equity and justice at the core of implementation.