Key Points from the Last 5 COPs:

• COP23–COP26: Gradual recognition of loss and damage (L&D) as a distinct pillar; work under the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) focused on knowledge sharing and technical support, but financial commitments remained limited.

• COP27: Historic establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund to support vulnerable countries; initial pledges made, but funding is insufficient and operational guidelines are still under development.

Assessment:

• Rating: 2 – Dissatisfied

COP26 – Glasgow (2021)

• Put Loss & Damage firmly on the negotiating track by launching the Glasgow Dialogue (2022–2024) to discuss funding arrangements for L&D — a political opening after years of stalemate.

• Agenda‑setting and process creation (Dialogue; Santiago Network), but no dedicated finance.

COP27 – Sharm el‑Sheikh (2022)

• Historic decision to establish funding arrangements, including a dedicated L&D Fund, with a Transitional Committee tasked to design how it would work for adoption at COP28.

• Fund agreed in principle (a breakthrough), but amounts, sources, governance, and eligibility remained to be worked out in 2023.

Summary of Key Outcomes: Over the last five COPs (COP24 to COP28), the issue of loss and damage has seen gradual but limited progress:

• COP24 (2018, Katowice): Recognized the importance of addressing loss and damage in the Katowice Climate Package but focused mainly on technical support rather than financial mechanisms.

• COP25 (2019, Madrid): Negotiations highlighted the urgency of financial support for vulnerable countries, but disagreements over funding responsibility stalled concrete commitments.

• COP26 (2021, Glasgow): Reaffirmed the need for financial support and established technical discussions on funding mechanisms, though no formal fund was operationalized.

• COP27 (2022, Sharm El-Sheikh): A historic milestone with the formal establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund, aiming to support vulnerable countries facing climate-induced impacts. Initial pledges were announced, signaling recognition of climate justice obligations.

• COP28 (2023, Dubai): Progress focused on operationalizing the fund, with discussions on prioritizing vulnerable nations, yet pledges remain insufficient compared to estimated needs. Non-economic losses, such as…

Over the last five Conferences of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the issue of “loss and damage” has gained increasing attention. A major milestone occurred at COP27 in Egypt, where countries agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund to support vulnerable nations suffering from climate impacts. This was a historic step after many years of negotiations. During COP28 in Dubai, the fund was officially operationalized and some initial financial pledges were made by developed countries.

Earlier conferences such as COP26 highlighted the urgency of addressing climate-related damages but failed to create a concrete financial mechanism at the time. More recent discussions at COP29 and COP30 have continued to focus on financing and governance challenges.

Evaluation: 3 : Neutral

I consider the progress neutral. While the creation of the Loss and Damage Fund is an important achievement, financial commitments remain limited compared to the…

In Benin, one of the most important climate policies is the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and the country’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. These frameworks aim to strengthen resilience to climate change, particularly in sectors such as agriculture, water resources, and coastal management. Their effectiveness comes from international support, cooperation with development partners, and the integration of climate concerns into national development strategies.

However, some policies still struggle to achieve their expected results. For example, coastal protection initiatives along the Atlantic coast face challenges due to limited funding, rapid coastal erosion, and weak local implementation. Institutional coordination and limited technical capacity also slow down progress.

International frameworks such as the Paris Agreement are important for global coordination, but they may not be sufficient without stronger commitments, financial support, and technology transfer for developing countries.

Political stability, economic resources, and public awareness strongly influence climate policy outcomes. Lessons from countries like Bangladesh, which…

Over the last five UN climate conferences under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the issue of loss and damage has gained increasing global attention. At COP26, countries acknowledged the urgency of addressing climate-related losses but failed to establish a dedicated fund, instead launching the Glasgow Dialogue to discuss financing options. A major breakthrough occurred at COP27, where parties agreed to create a Loss and Damage Fund to support vulnerable countries suffering from climate impacts. At COP28, the fund was officially operationalized, and several countries announced initial financial pledges, although the total amount remained relatively small compared to global needs. Earlier progress also built on the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage established at COP19, which laid the foundation for international cooperation on this issue.

Assessment (Likert Scale): 3 – Neutral

I would rate the overall progress as neutral because the COP process has made important symbolic and institutional progress, but…

From the last five conferences, the journey of "loss and damage" within the UNFCCC has been one of historic diplomatic breakthroughs shadowed by profound financial failure. From COP26 in Glasgow to COP29 in Baku, the narrative has shifted from denial to recognition, but has stalled at implementation.

The turning point came at COP27, where a decades-long fight by vulnerable nations finally succeeded with the historic agreement to establish a dedicated fund for loss and damage. This breakthrough was operationalized with surprising speed at COP28, as the fund was formally created and seeded with initial pledges. However, this is where the progress ends and the dissatisfaction begins.

The reality is that the approximately $700 million pledged is a symbolic gesture, a rounding error against the hundreds of billions in annual losses suffered by developing countries. The decision to host the fund at the World Bank, with its debt-based, bureaucratic model, co…

In the past five United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conferences of the Parties (COPs), the issue of loss and damage has transitioned from a contentious topic to an acknowledged component of climate action, although progress in this area remains inconsistent.

COP26 (Glasgow, 2021) acknowledged the urgency of loss and damage but failed to establish a dedicated finance facility. Instead, it launched the Glasgow Dialogue, which focused on discussions rather than concrete financial commitments, an outcome widely criticized by vulnerable countries.

The 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27), held in Sharm El-Sheikh in 2022, represented a significant advancement with the decision to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, acknowledging that the impacts of climate change are already inflicting irreversible damage. Nevertheless, the determination of essential operational specifics was postponed.

At COP28 (Dubai, 2023), the fund was operationalized, and initial pledges of just over USD 700 million were announced. While symbolically important, this…

Over the last five Conferences of the Parties under the UNFCCC, progress on “loss and damage” has evolved from recognition to partial operationalization, though significant gaps remain. At COP26, discussions acknowledged the urgency of loss and damage but failed to establish a dedicated financing facility, instead launching the Glasgow Dialogue. COP27 marked a major breakthrough with the agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, signaling long-awaited recognition of climate justice concerns from vulnerable nations. At COP28, the fund was formally operationalized, with initial pledges made, although contributions were widely criticized as insufficient relative to actual needs. COP29 focused on scaling up financing arrangements and governance structures, but disagreements over funding sources and responsibilities persisted. Most recently, COP30 continued efforts to refine implementation, with emphasis on access mechanisms for vulnerable countries and inclusion of non-economic losses such as biodiversity and cultural heritage.

On the Likert scale, I rate my satisfaction…

he evolution of the Loss and Damage framework across the last five Conferences of the Parties represents a move from abstract technical debate to the creation of a tangible financial institution, yet this progress remains overshadowed by a massive scale of unmet need. At COP25 in Madrid, the primary outcome was the establishment of the Santiago Network, which was designed to provide technical expertise rather than direct money. This was followed by the Glasgow Dialogue at COP26, which many viewed as a delay tactic because it initiated a three-year conversation on funding instead of creating a fund immediately. The deadlock finally broke at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh with the historic agreement to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund, a moment hailed as a triumph for climate justice. By COP28 in Dubai, the fund was officially operationalized and saw initial pledges of roughly $700 million, while COP29 in Baku focused…

Over the last five COPs, the issue of loss and damage has gradually moved from discussion to more concrete action, although progress has been slow.

At COP24 in Katowice in 2018, countries continued work under the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage. The focus was mainly on improving coordination, knowledge sharing, and technical support, but there was no agreement on creating a dedicated funding mechanism.

At COP25 in Madrid in 2019, the Santiago Network was established. This network was designed to provide technical assistance to developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate impacts. While this was an important institutional step, developing countries were disappointed that no finance facility was agreed at that time.

At COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, the Glasgow Dialogue was launched. This created a formal space for countries to discuss how to finance loss and damage. However, it still did not result in a new…

Key Outcomes: Over the last five COPs, progress on loss and damage included recognition of vulnerable countries’ needs, establishment of the Santiago Network for technical support, and pledges for funding. However, concrete financial disbursement and mechanisms for non-economic losses remain limited, and debates over responsibility and equity continue.

Satisfaction Level: 2 – Dissatisfied

Justification: While recognition of loss and damage is an important step, funding commitments are slow and implementation unclear. Communities like those in Uttar Bedkashi Union, facing recurrent cyclones, salinity intrusion, and flood-related losses, still lack timely financial support and technical assistance. Non-economic losses, such as cultural and livelihood disruption, are largely unaddressed. The equity gap between vulnerable and developed nations remains a major barrier to effective action.

This assessment reflects the gap between high-level COP commitments and tangible support for highly climate-vulnerable communities.

Over the last five COPs, “loss and damage” has shifted from a politically sensitive issue to a central pillar of climate justice discussions. Below is a brief synthesis of key developments:

COP25 (Madrid, 2019) – The Santiago Network on Loss and Damage was established to provide technical assistance to vulnerable countries. However, no dedicated funding mechanism was agreed upon, which led to frustration among developing nations.

COP26 (Glasgow, 2021) – The Glasgow Dialogue on loss and damage finance was launched to continue discussions on funding arrangements. While loss and damage gained stronger recognition, concrete financial commitments were still missing.

COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022) – A historic breakthrough occurred with the agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund. This marked the first formal recognition of the need for dedicated financial support for vulnerable countries experiencing climate impacts.

COP28 (Dubai, 2023) – The Loss and Damage Fund was operationalized, and initial…

After reading about the COPs that have taken place so far, I think the outcomes differ. Sometimes a breakthrough would be obtained while in some cases, nothing would be addressed.

1. COP24 Katowice (2018)

The Paris Agreement rulebook was finalised, and loss and damage were recognised within global stocktake and reporting frameworks. However, no financial mechanism or major support commitments were agreed.  Parties agreed on reporting mainstreaming and integrating L&D into implementation guidance, but no dedicated finance or compensation mechanism was created. This reflected a persistent gap between policy acknowledgement and actionable support for vulnerable nations.

Rating: 2 Dissatisfied

Reason: While progress on recognition is important absence of financing or support commitments meant little real world help was agreed.

 2. COP25 Madrid (2019)

COP 26 (Glasgow, 2021)

The Glasgow Climate Pact acknowledged the necessity of Loss and Damage through the Santiago Network and the Glasgow Dialogue. However, the conference primarily focused on mitigation and adaptation, reaffirming a commitment to provide $100 billion annually—a target that has historically been unmet. Despite launching a Global Goal on Adaptation and securing $350 million for the Adaptation Fund, a massive gap persists between adaptation costs and available resources.

COP 27 (Sharm El-Sheikh, 2022)

A landmark breakthrough occurred with the decision to establish and operationalize a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund. Despite this, the broader $100 billion annual joint fund remained unfulfilled. This COP also highlighted the staggering $5.8–$5.9 trillion needed by developing countries for the pre-2030 period, noting that multilateral development banks had yet to fully engage in addressing L&D.

COP 28 (Dubai, 2023)

The first day of the conference saw the formal adoption of the Loss and…

Over the last five COPs, loss and damage has clearly moved from a politically sensitive idea to a formal part of the climate regime, with the creation of a dedicated fund and clearer institutional architecture. Still, finance remains far below the real needs of vulnerable countries, and many details on access, scale, and non‑economic losses are unresolved, so the gap between promises and concrete support is still large.

There has been historic progress in recognising loss and damage and setting up mechanisms, but delivery is too slow compared to the impacts communities are already facing. My main concern is that negotiations often produce new pledges and structures without guaranteeing predictable, needs‑based finance. For these outcomes to be truly satisfactory, future COPs will need to focus less on designing new instruments and more on filling them with real resources, simplifying access for vulnerable countries, and ensuring that non‑economic losses and local…

COP 25

The Loss and Damage outcome was very dissatisfied. The developed nations indeed refused to commit to a consensus during COP 25 but the least developed countries and of course the most affected also refuse to commit to decision to initiate the process using available local structures. 'Charity they say begins at home'

COP 26

The outcome was very dissatisfied. Again parties during this conference were unable to reach a consensus. Affected nations needed to take pragmatic action to confront the situation because damages were increasing in magnitude by each day of no decisive action taken.

COP27

The out was dissatisfied. Indeed the loss and damage fund was established but I believe the parties commitment were insufficient considering the fact that there was no dedicated lodgments of funds vis a vis the delays in taking such a significant decision

Over the last five COP meetings, loss and damage has received growing attention. A major step was taken at COP27, where countries agreed to create a Loss and Damage Fund. This was important because vulnerable countries had been asking for this for many years. At

COP28, the fund was officially launched and some countries announced financial pledges. Earlier COPs also discussed support for vulnerable nations, but progress was slow and mostly focused on dialogue rather than concrete action.

Despite these developments, I would rate my satisfaction as 3-Neutral. The creation of the fund is a positive achievement, but the actual money promised so far is small compared to the scale of losses faced by developing countries. Many communities are already dealing with floods, storms, and other climate impacts, yet financial support remains limited and uncertain.

Overall, there is progress, but it is not enough. The decisions made show recognition of…

1. COP24 (Katowice, 2018)

·         Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) continued as the primary institutional architecture for loss and damage, with decisions touching on reporting and transparency within the Paris rulebook.

·         There were no dedicated financing arrangements introduced yet, and discussions largely focused on technical and knowledge-sharing elements rather than money or compensation.

2. COP25 (Madrid, 2019)

·         Loss and damage was a major negotiation topic, especially in the context of reviewing the WIM.

·         Parties highlighted that existing commitments were insufficient, and vulnerable nations pressed for more finance.

COP24 (Katowice, 2018) & COP25 (Madrid, 2019)

Focus: Further institutionalisation of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM), originally established at COP19 (2013), and early discussions on enhancing finance and technical support for loss and damage. While no dedicated finance was agreed, loss and damage began to feature more prominently in official agendas, especially during WIM reviews and transparency discussions.

COP26 (Glasgow, 2021)

Progress: The Paris Agreement (2015) already recognised loss and damage under Article 8, but COP26 saw limited progress on finance. Negotiators agreed to the Glasgow Dialogue to explore arrangements for funding loss and damage, but no dedicated fund or major financial commitments materialised. Vulnerable countries continued to push for concrete support, yet rich nations resisted liability or compensation language.

COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022)

Breakthrough: For the first time ever, Parties agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, a dedicated finance mechanism aimed at supporting developing countries to respond to severe climate impacts they cannot…

Évaluation de la satisfaction

​Sur la base de l'ampleur de la crise (comme nous l'avons vu pour le Tchad ou le Bangladesh) face à la réponse institutionnelle :

​Évaluation : 2/5 — Insatisfait

​Échelle de Likert : Insatisfait (Je reconnais des progrès institutionnels, mais les résultats concrets sur le terrain restent dérisoires face à l'urgence).

​3. Justification de l'évaluation

​Mon insatisfaction ne porte pas sur le travail des diplomates du Sud (qui a été héroïque), mais sur le fossé qui sépare la politique de papier de la réalité climatique.

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).

• COP26 (Glasgow, 2021): The Glasgow Dialogue was established as a three-year process to discuss funding arrangements. While technical assistance through the Santiago Network gained support, a formal funding facility was blocked by developed nations.

• COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022): A historic breakthrough occurred when parties reached a consensus to establish a dedicated Fund for responding to Loss and Damage. A Transitional Committee was formed to design the fund's operational modalities.

• COP28 (Dubai, 2023): The Fund was formally operationalized on the first day of the conference. Initial pledges reached approximately $700 million, and the World Bank was named as the interim host for the fund.

• COP29 (Baku, 2024): Administrative finalization took place, including the signing of host country and trustee agreements. The Fund was integrated into the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance to prepare for disbursement.

• COP30 (Belém, 2025): The implementation phase began with the first call for funding requests under the Barbados Implementation…

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)

Summary of Key Outcomes (COP24–COP28)

COP24 (2018) There is consensus to loss and damage but no dedication to funding. There are technical considerations at play

COP25 (2019) – There is still no consensus on funding loss and damage due to climate change

COP26 (2021) – No progress but recognition on need to fund loss and damage

COP27 (2022) – The establishment of Loss and damage fund is commendable as a transitional and operationalisation mechanism are established

COP28 (2023) – Congratulations to the operationalisation of the loss and damage fund

Summary of Key Outcomes (COP24–COP28)

COP24 (2018) – Loss and damage continued to be recognized under the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), but no dedicated finance pathway had been agreed, and discussions remained mainly technical and conceptual, focusing on understanding impacts rather than funding solutions.

COP25 (2019) – Loss and damage was again discussed, but negotiations failed to deliver strong commitments on finance. Many developing countries pushed for a finance facility, but resistance from wealthier states limited progress. Overall outcomes remained procedural rather than action-oriented.

COP26 (2021) – Parties agreed to initiate the Glasgow Dialogue, a two-year process to consider how to finance loss and damage, acknowledging the need for funding but without establishing a specific fund. This was a modest step but fell short of delivering a mechanism for finance.

COP27 (2022) – A historic breakthrough occurred when Parties agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, recognizing decades-long calls from vulnerable countries…

COP 3 ,1997, Kyoto, Japan was Satisfied (with caveats). Adopted the Kyoto Protocol, the first ever treaty with legally binding emission reduction targets for developed countries. It was a landmark agreement, though its impact was limited as key nations like the US did not ratify it and major developing economies were exempt.

COP 21, 2015 Paris,France, was Satisfied. A universally recognized success for producing the Paris Agreement, a permanent framework where all nations (developed and developing) set their own climate targets (Nationally Determined Contributions NDCs). It created a bottom up structure for ambition and accountability that has proven durable.

COP 26, 2021,Glasgow, UK, was Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Maintained momentum post Paris. Outcomes included a commitment to "phase down" unabated coal power and increased focus on the 1.5°C temperature goal, but the agreements were seen by many as insufficient to meet the required 2030 goals.

COP 27, 2022, Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt,…

COP28 (2023): Very satisfied, as the fund was officially operationalized.

COP27 (2022): Very satisfied as there was historic agreement to establish Loss and Damage Fund.

COP25 (2019): Very satisfied because the Santiago Network to connect vulnerable countries with technical assistance had started.

COP26 (2021): Satisfied because the Glasgow Dialogue was launched, and funding and funding arrangements discussed, however, no funding was agreed upon.

COP29 (2024): Very satisfied as efforts to scale and to sustain funding, while debates on continues to include other key components.

A. Summary of Key Outcomes (Last 5 COPs):

1. COP24 (2018) & COP25 (2019): Before recent progress, the formal mechanism for loss and damage existed but lacked strong financial backing. The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) was created earlier (at COP19 in 2013) to address climate impacts in vulnerable countries, and its technical arm, the Santiago Network, was finalized by COP25 to catalyze technical assistance. However, no dedicated funding mechanism was established at these COPs.

2. COP26 (2021):-Glasgow: At COP26 in Glasgow, parties did not agree on a finance facility for loss and damage but established the Glasgow Dialogue to discuss potential funding arrangements through 2025. The Santiago Network also gained formal functions to provide technical assistance. While these steps moved the conversation forward, there was no concrete financial commitment for loss and damage at this stage.

3. COP27 (2022):-Sharm el‑Sheikh: COP27 marked a historic breakthrough by agreeing to establish a dedicated Loss and…

The evolution of Loss and Damage (L&D) over the last five Conferences of the Parties (COPs) reflects a transition from high-level debate to operational reality, though significant justice gaps remain. At COP25 in Madrid (2019), the focus was primarily technical, resulting in the establishment of the Santiago Network to provide technical assistance to vulnerable countries. However, it wasn’t until COP26 in Glasgow (2021) that the pressure for dedicated finance reached a fever pitch, leading to the Glasgow Dialogue, a three-year process to discuss funding arrangements. The most historic breakthrough occurred at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh (2022), where parties finally agreed to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund, a move seen as a major victory for the Global South. COP28 in Dubai (2023) saw the immediate operationalization of this fund with initial pledges totaling roughly $700 million. Most recently, at COP29 in Baku (2024), the focus shifted to the New Collective Quantified Goal…

Over the last five COPs, major milestones include formal recognition of loss and damage, the decision to establish a Loss and Damage Fund at COP27, and its initial operationalization discussions at COP28, though funding remains limited. Financial commitments are far below the real needs of vulnerable countries. While political recognition has improved, implementation, access to finance, and attention to non-economic losses remain weak. Overall, progress reflects growing awareness but insufficient delivery of climate justice for the Global South.

Over the last 5 COPs, key milestones on loss and damage include:

COP25 (2019): Established the Santiago Network to connect vulnerable countries with technical assistance.

COP26 (2021): The Glasgow Dialogue was launched to discuss funding arrangements, but no new finance was agreed.

COP27 (2022): Historic agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, a major political breakthrough.

COP28 (2023): The Fund was operationalized, with initial pledges totaling around $700 million (e.g., UAE $100M, EU $245M).

COP29 (2024): Focused on scaling and sustaining the Fund, with ongoing debates over predictable, grant-based finance and inclusion of non-economic losses.

Last month, we tested a simple circular-economy idea: seed pens (paper pens that can be planted after use).

This wasn’t just a “craft activity” — it was a behaviour-design experiment: Can climate action become simple enough to fit into everyday life?

In 18 days: ✅ 20 teenagers learned the process and produced seed pens

✅ 120+ seed pens were made by youth

✅ 200+ households joined conversations on plastic waste and climate-friendly habits

We worked with 5 women and reused 6kg textile waste to create products + climate impact.

Would love your feedback — feel free to drop a comment on the LinkedIn post 😊

👉 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jobayer-bin-hossain_amranotunnetwork-bracyouthplatform-changemakers-activity-7416698024963383296-vr6F?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAECFxr4BkHTjOaMiziguDi6fvt2Xd5bMqac

• COP24 (2018): Reviewed Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) functions.

• COP25 (2019): Established Santiago Network for technical support.

• COP26 (2021): Launched Glasgow Dialogue on funding arrangements.

• COP27 (2022): Agreed on a Loss and Damage Fund and Transitional Committee.

• COP28 (2023): Began operationalizing the Fund with initial pledges (~$770M).

• COP29 (2024): Signed host/administrative agreements; strengthened institutional framework.

Over the last 5 COPs, key milestones on loss and damage include:

• COP25 (2019): Established the Santiago Network to connect vulnerable countries with technical assistance.

• COP26 (2021): The Glasgow Dialogue was launched to discuss funding arrangements, but no new finance was agreed.

• COP27 (2022): Historic agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, a major political breakthrough.

• COP28 (2023): The Fund was operationalized, with initial pledges totaling around $700 million (e.g., UAE $100M, EU $245M).

• COP29 (2024): Focused on scaling and sustaining the Fund, with ongoing debates over predictable, grant-based finance and inclusion of non-economic losses.

1. Summary of Key Outcomes on “Loss and Damage” from the Last 5 COPs

COP24 (2018) & COP25 (2019)

Although these early COPs did not yield major financing breakthroughs, COP25 in Madrid advanced institutional groundwork by agreeing to establish the Santiago Network under the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) to catalyze technical support for loss and damage in vulnerable countries.

COP26 – Glasgow (2021)

At COP26, there was no new dedicated financing mechanism for loss and damage, which was widely criticized by developing countries. Instead, negotiators agreed to the Glasgow Dialogue on Finance for Loss and Damage, a procedural space to discuss how financing might be mobilized in the future, but no new funds were pledged or agreed.

COP27 – Sharm el-Sheikh (2022)

IntroductionLoss and damage has emerged as one of the most contentious and morally charged issues within international climate negotiations. It refers to the economic and non-economic harms caused by climate change that cannot be avoided through mitigation or adaptation alone. For decades, vulnerable developing countries—particularly Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs)—have called for recognition, support, and compensation for irreversible climate impacts such as sea-level rise, extreme weather events, loss of livelihoods, and cultural erosion. This discussion critically examines the outcomes related to loss and damage from the last five Conferences of the Parties (COPs) under the UNFCCC, assessing both progress made and persistent gaps, and evaluates overall satisfaction with these outcomes.

Summary of Key Outcomes on Loss and Damage (Last Five COPs)

COP24 – Katowice, Poland (2018)COP24 primarily focused on finalizing the Paris Agreement Rulebook to guide implementation, transparency, and reporting. Loss and damage featured under…

COP24 – Katowice (2018): Loss and damage was recognised under the Paris Agreement through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM), but discussions stayed largely technical. No dedicated finance mechanism was created, and developing countries’ calls for concrete funding arrangements were postponed to future meetings.

COP25 – Madrid (2019):  Loss and damage gained more political visibility, but negotiations stalled. Developed countries strongly resisted language that might imply liability or compensation. Outcomes centred on further dialogue and procedural steps rather than new funding or institutional change.

COP26 – Glasgow (2021): Climate‑vulnerable countries and civil society pushed for a specific Loss and Damage Finance Facility. Instead, parties agreed only to the “Glasgow Dialogue” on loss and damage funding—essentially a promise to continue talking, without establishing a facility or committing money. This was widely seen as falling short in light of escalating climate impacts.

COP27 – Sharm el‑Sheikh (2022): This COP marked a major political breakthrough: parties agreed…

The United States’ withdrawal from international climate treaties and organizations weakens global cooperation, undermines collective commitments, and risks slowing progress on climate action. On the other hand, it also damages U.S. credibility, reduces funding for global initiatives, and creates gaps in leadership at a time when coordinated responses are critical as emphasized by SDG #17.

Historically, the U.S. has been a major driver of global climate negotiations. Its exit signals retreat from leadership, leaving space for other powers such as the EU, China among others to shape standards and commitments. The UN climate chief described the move as a “colossal own goal”, noting that this decision actually harms both U.S. economic interests and global cooperation.

The U.S. contributions to climate bodies and funds, such as the Green Climate Fund, have been significant. This withdrawal, therefore, reduces financial support for adaptation and mitigation efforts in vulnerable communities, creating uncertainty for developing…

Summary of Key Outcomes

COP24 (Katowice, 2018)

Loss and damage was formally anchored within the Paris Agreement implementation through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) but progress remained largely technical. Discussions focused on knowledge-sharing and coordination, with no dedicated finance mechanism, leaving vulnerable countries dissatisfied.

COP25 (Madrid, 2019)

COP25 strengthened the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage, intended to provide technical assistance to vulnerable countries. However, negotiations failed to agree on financing arrangements, reinforcing concerns that loss and damage was being recognized rhetorically but not addressed financially.

COP26 (Glasgow, 2021)

I am not satisfied with the progress and outcomes.

Loss and Damage Outcomes from the Last Five COPs (COP24–COP28)

COP24 (Katowice, 2018)

• Key outcome: Loss and damage was formally anchored in the Paris Agreement’s implementation guidelines through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM).

• Progress: Recognition of loss and damage as a standalone pillar alongside mitigation and adaptation.

• Limitations: No dedicated finance mechanism; discussions remained largely technical and procedural.

COP25 (Madrid, 2019)

Loss and damage matters have gradually shifted from the periphery of climate negotiations to the very core of global climate justice discourse. Despite visible progress across the last five Conferences of the Parties (COPs), persistent gaps remain between political commitments and the lived realities of vulnerable countries such as Kenya and Africa as a whole.

• COP24 – Katowice (2018): Loss and damage was addressed primarily through the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism. While this reinforced its institutional importance, no concrete financial commitments were made, leaving vulnerable countries deeply frustrated.

• COP25 – Madrid (2019): The establishment of the Santiago Network marked an important institutional step, intended to provide technical assistance to countries experiencing loss and damage. However, the Network remained largely non-operational for several years, severely limiting its immediate impact.

• COP26 – Glasgow (2021): Developing countries strongly advocated for a dedicated loss and damage finance facility. This demand was rejected. Instead, the Glasgow…

Over the last five COPs, progress on loss and damage has finally shifted from discussion to action, especially with COP27 establishing the Loss and Damage Fund and COP28 operationalizing it with initial pledges. However, earlier COPs offered mostly dialogues with limited finance, and even now funding remains far below what vulnerable countries need, with unresolved justice and equity issues. Overall, I would rate my satisfaction as 3 – Neutral, because while important milestones have been achieved, the pace, scale of finance, and real support for impacted countries are still insufficient.

Embarking on modern agricultural activities can prevent our forest trees in Sierra Leone

Loss and damage has gradually moved from the margins of climate negotiations to the center of global climate justice debates. Over the last five Conferences of the Parties, there has been visible progress, but also persistent gaps between political commitments and the realities faced by vulnerable countries.

Summary of Key Outcomes from the Last Five COPs

At COP24 in Katowice (2018), loss and damage was addressed mainly through the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism. While this reinforced its importance, there were no concrete commitments on finance, leaving many vulnerable countries frustrated.

COP25 in Madrid (2019) marked a key institutional step with the establishment of the Santiago Network, aimed at providing technical assistance to countries facing loss and damage. However, the Network remained largely non operational for several years, limiting its immediate impact.

During COP26 in Glasgow (2021), developing countries pushed strongly for a dedicated loss and damage finance facility. This…

COP27 established the Loss and Damage Fund as a major breakthrough to support vulnerable nations, with subsequent COPs advancing its operationalization . COP26 laid groundwork through recognition but no dedicated facility, while COP28-30 built on this with pledges, governance, and reviews. Key progress spans fund setup, initial funding over $700 million, and integration into broader climate finance goals.COP26 Outcomes Glasgow recognized loss and damage needs but rejected a finance facility amid opposition from major economies . The Glasgow Dialogue initiated discussions on funding arrangements.COP27 Break through Sharm el-Sheikh created the fund and a transitional committee for implementation by COP28, plus the Santiago Network for technical support.COP28 Advances Dubai operationalized the fund with $700 million in pledges and appointed its leadership under UNFCCC oversight.COP29 ProgressBaku adopted formal fund arrangements, enhancing links to climate finance mechanisms.COP30 DevelopmentsBelém completed the Warsaw International Mechanism review, issued fund guidance linking to new finance goals, and…

COP24 – Katowice (2018)

At COP24, discussions kept the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) as the formal structure for loss and damage, but no new dedicated finance or funding mechanisms were agreed. Emphasis was mainly on technical work rather than delivery.

COP25 – Madrid (2019)

COP25 continued to review WIM and advanced planning for the Santiago Network (for technical assistance), but no concrete finance commitments were made. Loss and damage remained a contentious issue without substantive funding outcomes.

COP26 – Glasgow (2021)

COP26 initiated the Glasgow Dialogue on potential finance arrangements for loss and damage and acknowledged the need to scale support. However, no specific fund was established and discussions remained exploratory.

For over three decades, the concept of Loss and Damage was the "third pillar" of climate action that remained largely unfunded and politically sidelined. While Mitigation seeks to prevent the crisis and Adaptation aims to live with it, Loss and Damage addresses the harsh reality of impacts that are beyond human ability to adapt. For vulnerable global south nations like Bangladesh and Kenya, this isn't a theoretical debate; it is about the irreversible loss of ancestral lands to rising seas and the destruction of livelihoods by unprecedented droughts. This discussion examines the last five years of negotiations, tracking the journey from a technical network to a fully operational global fund.

Summary of the outcomes of the last five Conference of parties from COP25 to COP 29.

• COP 25. This Conference of Parties was held in Madrid in 2019. It lead to the establishment of the Santiago network which was created…

  
  

Loss and damage outcomes from COP21 (2021) to COP25 (2025) show slow but tangible progress, from institutional reviews to funding operationalization, yet fall short of vulnerable nations' needs.​

Key Outcomes Summary

COP21 (Glasgow, 2021): Established the Glasgow Dialogue on funding for loss and damage, launching technical discussions on finance arrangements without new commitments; advanced Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) workplan.​

COP22 (Sharm El-Sheikh, 2022): Operationalized the Santiago Network for technical assistance on loss and damage, strengthening knowledge sharing for developing countries.​

COP23 (Dubai, 2023): Historic decision at COP28 to establish the Loss and Damage Fund (FRLD), agreeing on institutional setup and host (WB interim), though pledges totaled just $700M initially.​

COP24 (Baku, 2024): Finalized FRLD operational rules, board composition (24 members), and access modalities; pledges reached $800M but disbursements lagged.​

- COP29 (2024): The Loss and Damage Fund was operationalized, with pledges rising to $759 million. Developed nations committed to channeling at least $300 billion annually into developing countries by 2035 for climate action. However, this fell short of the $1.3 trillion annual target demanded by developing nations ¹ ².

• 3 - Neutral: I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; progress has been mixed or insufficient.

- COP28 (2023): The Loss and Damage Fund was launched, with initial pledges of over $700 million.

• 4 - Satisfied: I am reasonably satisfied with the progress and outcomes.

- COP27 (2022): A deal was reached to create a fund to help poor countries being battered by climate disasters, marking a diplomatic win for vulnerable nations.

• 4 - Satisfied: I am reasonably satisfied with the progress and outcomes.

Key Outcomes of Last 5 COPs on Loss and Damage:

COP27 (2022): Established a dedicated fund for loss and damage, with initial pledges exceeding $700 million.

COP28 (2023): Operationalized the Loss and Damage Fund, with countries pledging financial support.

COP29 (2024): Focused on scaling up finance for loss and damage, with discussions on filling the fund.

COP30 (2025): Emphasized cooperation and implementation, with a focus on adaptation finance and just transition.

Satisfaction Level: 3 - Neutral

COP 30 (2025, Belém) – Implementation Under Pressure

• Overall framing: Marketed as the “Implementation COP”, but outcomes revealed persistent political divisions, especially on finance and fossil fuels.

• Climate finance: Adoption of the Mutirão decision, launching a 2-year Climate Finance Work Programme to follow up on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). Political momentum toward scaling finance to USD 1.3 trillion/year by 2035, but no binding commitments.

• Adaptation: Political signal to triple adaptation finance by 2035, though ambition was weakened (delayed timeline, no baseline). Failure to agree on robust adaptation indicators undermined accountability and tracking of progress.

• Loss and damage (indirect): Continued recognition of needs through finance discussions, but no major new breakthroughs on adequacy or predictability beyond earlier COP decisions.

• Mitigation / fossil fuels: Despite support from 88 countries, no agreement on a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels or on fossil fuel subsidy reform. New processes launched (Belém…

Summary of Key Outcomes on Loss and Damage (COP25 – COP29)

COP25 (Madrid, 2019): Established the Santiago Network for averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage. Its purpose is to catalyze technical assistance to vulnerable developing countries. However, the conference failed to agree on a funding mechanism, leaving the critical question of finance unresolved and creating significant frustration among vulnerable nations.

COP26 (Glasgow, 2021): Saw loss and damage rise higher on the agenda due to sustained pressure from the G77 and civil society. The main outcome was the establishment of the Glasgow Dialogue to discuss funding arrangements. While this formalized the conversation on finance, it was a compromise that again delayed the creation of an actual fund, representing process over tangible progress.

COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022): A landmark decision was reached with the agreement to establish new funding arrangements and a dedicated fund for loss and damage. This was a…

Over the last five Conferences of the Parties (COP25–COP29), the issue of loss and damage has gradually moved from political marginalization to partial institutional recognition, though major gaps remain.

• COP25 (Madrid, 2019): Loss and damage remained contentious. While the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) was reviewed, no concrete financing mechanism was established. Discussions largely focused on technical assistance rather than compensation or finance, reflecting strong resistance from developed countries.

• COP26 (Glasgow, 2021): COP26 marked an important political moment with the creation of the Glasgow Dialogue, intended to discuss arrangements for loss and damage finance. However, proposals for a dedicated funding facility were rejected, causing frustration among vulnerable countries.

• COP27 (Sharm El-Sheikh, 2022): This COP represented a historic breakthrough with the agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, recognizing the need for financial support for vulnerable countries experiencing irreversible climate impacts. However, operational details were deferred, and funding sources remained unclear.

• COP28 (Dubai, 2023):…