loss and damage analysis
COP26 (Glasgow, 2021)
Poor countries asked for a special fund to deal with climate damage.Outcome: No fund was created. Instead, countries agreed to keep talking through the Glasgow Dialogue.Criticism: Vulnerable nations were disappointed because no new money was given.
COP27 (Sharm El-Sheikh, 2022)
Big breakthrough: Countries agreed to set up a Loss and Damage Fund to help vulnerable nations.Outcome: The idea was accepted, but details like who pays and how much were left undecided.Significance: First time the fund was officially recognized in UN climate talks.
COP28 (Dubai, 2023)
Major step: The Loss and Damage Fund became operational. Initial pledges: About $700 million was promised by the EU, UAE, US, and others.Criticism: This was far below the trillions needed each year, so pledges felt more symbolic than real help.Positive: A clear system for managing the fund was created, and it included both economic and non-economic losses (like culture and identity).
COP29 (Baku, 2024)
Focus moved to long-term climate finance. Outcome: Countries agreed on a new finance goal of $300 billion per year by 2035 for developing nations. Loss and Damage: Some wanted it to be a separate part of this goal, but actual funding was still very limited. Criticism: Vulnerable nations said immediate money was missing, and civil society demanded billions, not millions.
COP30 (Belém, Brazil, 2025)
Review of existing systems: the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and the Santiago Network (which helps with technical support). Outcome: Reporting and coordination were improved. Ongoing debate: How to grow the Loss and Damage Fund and make financing predictable. Criticism: Still no clear long-term commitments or binding promises from rich countries.
Assessment of Loss and Damage Outcomes (COP26–COP30)
I am not satisfied with the results of the last five COPs on loss and damage. The main reason is that action has been very slow. It took years of talks before countries finally agreed to set up and run the Loss and Damage Fund. This shows a lack of urgency and responsibility, as if no one wants to take charge of the problem.
Some money was pledged, but it was far too little compared to what is needed. The biggest step was making the Loss and Damage Fund operational, with about $700 million promised by the EU, UAE, US, and others. But this amount is tiny compared to the trillions needed every year. The pledges felt more like a formality than real help.
On the positive side, there was progress in building a clear system to manage the fund and in recognizing both economic losses (like damage to property and jobs) and non-economic losses (like culture and community). This is important because climate change affects more than just money—it affects people’s identity and way of life.
Still, there is no clear plan for long-term funding, and negotiations remain slow. Vulnerable countries continue to suffer serious impacts while waiting for meaningful support.