When I look at the last five COPs (COP26 to COP30 discussions in progress), the story of “loss and damage” honestly feels like a slow negotiation between urgency and hesitation. It’s almost like the world agreed the problem exists first, then spent years debating how serious it actually is and who should pay for it.
At COP26 (Glasgow), loss and damage was still largely treated as something “too sensitive” to finance directly, even though vulnerable countries had been pushing for it for years. What came out of it was more of a dialogue promise than a concrete funding mechanism. At COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh), there was finally a breakthrough: the agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund. That was a major symbolic victory, especially for developing countries, it felt like recognition had finally happened. But even then, the fund was not fully operational or properly financed yet. At COP28 (Dubai), the focus shifted to operationalizing the fund. Countries agreed on initial structures and some early pledges, but again, the funding levels were far below what is actually needed. Then at COP29 (Baku) discussions continued around scaling finance and making contributions more predictable, but debates around who pays, how much and whether it should be grants or loans are still very much unresolved. By COP30 discussions, the pattern is becoming clear, recognition is improving, but implementation is still lagging behind urgency.
So overall, there is progress, but it feels slow compared to the scale of loss and damage already happening on the ground.
My level of satisfaction: 2 – Dissatisfied
I would say I am dissatisfied, not because nothing has been done, but because the pace and scale of action still don’t match the reality of climate impacts, especially in vulnerable countries.
On one hand, I acknowledge that the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 was a historic moment. It was something developing countries had been pushing for for decades, so that recognition alone matters. It also shows that climate justice is finally entering formal negotiation spaces in a more concrete way, not just moral arguments. However, when I look at the bigger picture, the dissatisfaction comes from three main gaps. First is the funding gap. The pledges made so far are still very small compared to the actual costs of climate-related losses, which are already running into hundreds of billions globally. Second is the slow operationalisation. A fund can exist on paper, but if it is not fully functional and accessible, then it doesn’t change much for affected communities. Third is the ongoing equity debate, especially around responsibility. The question of “who pays” is still heavily politicised, which slows down real action.
And maybe the most important point for me is this; while negotiations continue at COP level, people in places like flood-prone regions, coastal communities and vulnerable urban settlements are already living the reality of irreversible losses on homes, livelihoods, sometimes even cultural identity. That gap between negotiation speed and lived experience is what makes satisfaction difficult.
So yes, there has been progress. But it still feels like the system is carefully moving around urgency rather than fully responding to it.