ACCESS4ALL Group

Summary of Key Outcomes (COP 23-27)

COP 27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022) - Historic Breakthrough

Major Achievement: Establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund

• First time in UNFCCC history that developed nations agreed to a dedicated financial mechanism for loss and damage

• Creation of a transitional committee to operationalize the fund

• Represented decades of advocacy by vulnerable nations, particularly small island developing states (SIDS) and least developed countries (LDCs)

• Mandate to develop recommendations on fund structure, governance, and sources of financing

COP 28 (Dubai, 2023) - Operationalization

Significant Progress:

• Fund officially operationalized with the World Bank as interim host (for four years)

• Initial pledges totaling approximately $700+ million from various countries including UAE ($100M), EU countries, UK, US ($17.5M), and Japan

• Board structure established with representation weighted toward developing countries

• Agreement that all developing countries are eligible to access funds, with priority for particularly vulnerable nations

• Continued debates over whether funding should be grants-based versus loans

COP 26 (Glasgow, 2021) - The Glasgow Dialogue

Key Development: Establishment of the Glasgow Dialogue on Loss and Damage

• Three-year dialogue process to discuss funding arrangements

• Explicit recognition that existing mechanisms were insufficient

• Developed nations resisted creating a new fund, proposing instead to use existing channels

• Tension between "facility" versus "fund" terminology

• Santiago Network on Loss and Damage became operational to provide technical assistance

COP 25 (Madrid, 2019) - Santiago Network Creation

Important Step: Establishment of the Santiago Network

• Technical assistance mechanism to help vulnerable countries address loss and damage

• Avoided financial commitments while acknowledging technical needs

• Operationalization delayed until COP 26

• Minimal concrete progress on finance

COP 23 (Bonn, 2017) - Fiji Presidency

Foundation Building:

• First COP presidency by a Pacific Island nation (Fiji)

• Elevated loss and damage visibility in negotiations

• Expert dialogue on slow-onset events (sea-level rise, desertification)

• Little concrete progress on finance, but important narrative-building

• Continued pushback from developed nations on liability and compensation

Assessment: Level 2 - Dissatisfied

Justification for Assessment

Reasons for Dissatisfaction

1. Inadequate Scale of Financial Commitments

The $700+ million pledged at COP 28, while symbolically important, is grossly insufficient compared to actual needs. Recent estimates suggest that developing countries face $400+ billion annually in climate-related loss and damage by 2030, potentially reaching $580 billion by 2030 according to some analyses. The current pledges represent less than 0.2% of estimated annual needs—a staggering gap that undermines the fund's practical impact.

2. Decades of Delay and Resistance

Vulnerable nations have been advocating for loss and damage finance since the 1990s. The Warsaw International Mechanism was established in 2013, yet it took another decade to secure a dedicated fund. This delay has occurred while communities faced mounting climate disasters—cyclones devastating Pacific islands, droughts causing famine in East Africa, and sea-level rise threatening entire nations with extinction. The opportunity cost of this delay is measured in lives, livelihoods, and irreversible cultural losses.

3. Structural and Governance Concerns

• World Bank hosting: The interim arrangement placing the fund within the World Bank—an institution historically associated with debt burdens for developing countries—raises concerns about accessibility and conditionalities

• Grant vs. loan ambiguity: Insufficient clarity on whether assistance will be provided as grants (appropriate for loss and damage) or loans (which would add debt burdens to climate victims)

• Contributor base: No mandatory contributions or clear expectations for historical emitters to provide proportionate funding based on responsibility

4. Narrow Scope and Exclusions

• Non-economic losses largely unaddressed: Cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge, biodiversity, and community displacement receive minimal attention in mechanisms and funding frameworks

• Slow-onset events: While acknowledged, chronic impacts like sea-level rise, glacial melt, and desertification lack adequate dedicated mechanisms

• Migration and displacement: Climate-induced migration remains contentious, with no clear framework for "climate refugees"

5. Equity and Justice Gaps

The outcomes fail to adequately reflect the polluter pays principle. Countries most responsible for historical emissions (representing less than 20% of the global population but over 70% of cumulative emissions) have contributed minimal funding relative to their responsibility. Meanwhile, nations with negligible emissions face existential threats. The US pledge of $17.5 million is particularly inadequate given its historical emissions profile.

6. Lack of Predictable, Automatic Funding Mechanisms

Current funding relies on voluntary pledges rather than automatic, predictable mechanisms. Proposals for innovative financing sources (e.g., fossil fuel levies, international aviation/maritime taxes, financial transaction taxes) have been discussed but not implemented, leaving the fund dependent on political goodwill.

Modest Acknowledgment of Progress

Despite overall dissatisfaction, I acknowledge three positive developments:

1. Breaking the taboo: COP 27's establishment of the fund broke a decades-long political impasse where developed nations refused to acknowledge financial responsibility

2. Institutional architecture: A governance structure with developing country representation provides some foundation for future expansion

3. Political momentum: The breakthrough has energized civil society and vulnerable nations to continue advocating for scaled-up ambition

Why Not "Very Dissatisfied" (Level 1)?

The establishment of the fund itself, however inadequate, represents genuine progress after 30 years of negotiations. The architecture now exists to build upon, even if current commitments are woefully insufficient. This prevents a rating of "very dissatisfied," which would suggest no progress whatsoever.

Why Not "Neutral" (Level 3)?

A neutral rating would suggest mixed progress that balances positive and negative outcomes. The reality is that negative aspects—inadequate funding, structural concerns, and the human cost of decades of delay—substantially outweigh the positive symbolic breakthrough. Vulnerable communities continue to suffer catastrophic losses without adequate support, making "neutral" too generous an assessment.

Conclusion

The loss and damage outcomes across COPs 23-27 represent too little, too late. While the establishment of a dedicated fund at COP 27 and its operationalization at COP 28 constitute important political victories, the practical outcomes remain deeply inadequate to address the scale and urgency of climate-induced losses facing vulnerable nations.

True satisfaction would require: exponentially scaled-up funding commitments (hundreds of billions annually), automatic financing mechanisms, grant-based assistance without conditionalities, comprehensive coverage of non-economic losses, and genuine reflection of the polluter pays principle. Until these elements materialize, the current outcomes amount to symbolic gestures that fail to meet the moral and practical imperatives of climate justice.

The communities watching their islands disappear beneath rising seas, farmers facing consecutive crop failures, and families displaced by intensifying storms cannot afford incremental progress measured in decades. They need transformative action now—and current COP outcomes fall devastatingly short of that standard.