Loss and Damage Across Five COPs: Progress Achieved, But Still Insufficient After reviewing the outcomes from COP25 to C
After reviewing the outcomes from COP25 to COP29, my overall assessment is 2 out of 5 — Dissatisfied. While the period includes several historic milestones, the pace and scale of progress remain far below what vulnerable countries require.
What Has Improved
Across these five COPs, the global process finally acknowledged the urgency of loss and damage.
COP27 established the Loss and Damage Fund, marking a major political breakthrough.
COP28 operationalized the Fund and secured initial pledges.
The Santiago Network gained a host institution and formal governance structure, enabling it to begin providing technical assistance.
These developments represent meaningful institutional progress after years of negotiation.
Why the Overall Outcome Remains Unsatisfactory
1. Financial commitments are far below actual needs
The Fund has received approximately US$661 million in pledges, despite estimates showing that developing countries face hundreds of billions of dollars in annual loss and damage. Many pledges remain unconverted into formal agreements, and the NCQG adopted at COP29 did not include a dedicated allocation for loss and damage.
2. Governance disputes continue to stall progress
The unresolved question of whether the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) should be governed by the COP alone or jointly with the CMA has persisted since COP25. This five-year deadlock undermines coherence across the WIM, the Santiago Network, and the Loss and Damage Fund.
3. Slow operationalization of the Santiago Network
Although established at COP25, the Network took four COPs to become operational. This delay has real consequences for countries that urgently need technical support to address escalating climate impacts.
4. Non-economic losses remain largely unaddressed
Despite growing recognition, issues such as cultural loss, displacement, biodiversity decline, and loss of traditional knowledge still lack concrete financial mechanisms or dedicated support structures.
5. Limited real-world impact
The 2024 WIM Review described the mechanism as “detached” and having “limited on-the-ground impact.” This reflects a broader gap between institutional progress and tangible support for affected communities.
Final Assessment
The architecture for addressing loss and damage now exists, but architecture alone does not protect communities from rising seas, intensifying storms, or irreversible cultural and ecological losses. Without adequate finance, clear governance, and faster implementation, the progress achieved remains insufficient.
Final Rating: 2/5 — Dissatisfied.The steps taken are historic, but they do not yet meet the scale of need or the expectations of vulnerable nations.