ACCESS4ALL Group

The trajectory of loss and damage negotiations over the last five COPs shows a slow shift from political recognition toward creating a functional financial institution.

· COP24 (2018) & COP25 (2019): These conferences focused on technical discussions and strengthening the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM). A key institutional step was the establishment of the Santiago Network for technical assistance. However, concrete discussions on dedicated finance were consistently deferred or resisted by developed nations.

· COP26 (2021): While loss and damage gained significant political visibility, the outcome was limited to establishing the "Glasgow Dialogue" to discuss funding. The failure to agree on a finance facility was seen as a major disappointment for vulnerable countries.

· COP27 (2022): This conference was a historic breakthrough. Parties agreed to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund, creating a Transitional Committee to design it. This was a major victory for climate justice advocacy.

· COP28 (2023): The fund was formally operationalized with the World Bank as interim host. Initial financial pledges were secured (exceeding USD 600 million), but the scale was widely criticized as being far below the estimated needs.

My Level of Satisfaction: 2 - Dissatisfied

I am not satisfied with the overall progress and outcomes. While the creation of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 was a crucial institutional milestone, the actual results fall far short of what is required by the climate crisis.

Justification for My Assessment

My dissatisfaction is rooted in three critical gaps between political agreements and tangible, just action:

1. Inadequate and Unpredictable Finance: The initial pledges to the fund are modest—totaling under $700 million—which is a fraction of the estimated needs. For example, the economic cost of a single climate disaster can exceed this amount. Furthermore, contributions remain voluntary, lacking the predictable, scaled finance (in the order of hundreds of billions annually) required to address irreversible losses.

2. Unresolved Equity and Justice Issues: Key debates on fair burden-sharing, liability, and compensation remain unresolved. Developed countries have resisted language that implies legal responsibility, which is central to the climate justice demands of vulnerable nations. The governance and access rules for the fund are still being debated, risking that the most affected communities may face barriers to receiving support.

3. Insufficient Action on Non-Economic Losses: The outcomes continue to prioritize measurable economic losses. There is still inadequate integration of non-economic losses, such as loss of cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge, and community cohesion, which are devastating for frontline communities.

In summary, while the last five COPs have laid an important institutional foundation, the progress has been too slow and the commitments too weak. For vulnerable countries facing existential threats today, the current outcomes do not yet deliver meaningful climate justice or match the urgency of the crisis.