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):…

*COP Outcomes (Last 5 COPs): Loss & Damage Progress 📊*

- *COP24 (2018):* Loss & damage discussed, no big breakthroughs 🚫

- *COP25 (2019):* Santiago Network launched for tech help 🌐

- *COP26 (2021):* Glasgow Dialogue on funding started 💬

- *COP27 (2022):* Loss & Damage Fund created 💰

- *COP28 (2023):* Fund adopted, details pending 📝

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 evolution of loss and damage within UNFCCC negotiations from 2018 to 2025 evidences significant institutional progress to create mechanisms for finance, technical support, and reporting. However, the scale of finance, pace of implementation, and depth of equity integration remain insufficient against the accelerating real-world crisis experienced by frontline countries. Given this mixed outcome, a neutral assessment (3) reflects recognition of important advances while also acknowledging that progress does not yet meet the magnitude of needs or climate justice expectations.

Over the last five COPs (COP24–COP28), progress on loss and damage has moved slowly but visibly, though with clear limitations. At COP24 (Katowice, 2018), loss and damage was formally anchored within the Paris Agreement’s implementation framework through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM), but discussions remained largely technical, with no dedicated finance. COP25 (Madrid, 2019) advanced institutional arrangements by strengthening the WIM and establishing the Santiago Network, aimed at providing technical assistance to vulnerable countries, yet it again failed to deliver concrete financial commitments. A major shift occurred at COP26 (Glasgow, 2021), where loss and damage gained strong political visibility, but developed countries resisted calls for a finance facility, resulting only in a “dialogue” rather than funding—widely viewed as inadequate by vulnerable nations. The most significant breakthrough came at COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022) with the historic decision to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, marking a milestone for climate justice and recognition of irreversible…

In the last five COPs, loss and damage has gained more attention. The biggest step was at COP27, where countries agreed to create a Loss and Damage Fund to help vulnerable nations. At COP28, some money was pledged, but the amount is still small and not enough. Earlier COPs mainly focused on talks and reports, with slow progress and many delays.

My satisfaction level: 2 Dissatisfied

I am not satisfied because, although the fund was created, real money and action are still limited. Poor and climate-vulnerable countries continue to suffer from floods, heat, and sea-level rise, but support is slow. Non-economic losses like loss of homes, culture, and livelihoods are still not fully addressed. Rich countries are also not giving enough funding. More strong action and fair support are needed to turn promises into real help.

Over the last five COPs, loss and damage has gradually gained prominence. Early discussions at COP24 and COP25 focused on technical support through the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network, but finance commitments were minimal. COP27 marked a historic breakthrough with the agreement to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund and a Transitional Committee to operationalize it, signaling recognition of climate justice for vulnerable nations. At COP28, the Fund was formally operationalized, with the World Bank as interim host and initial pledges secured, though these remain modest. COP29 and COP30 continued discussions, but predictable, scaled financing and clear eligibility criteria are still lacking. Overall, while institutional progress has been made, the scale and reliability of support are insufficient, leading to a neutral assessment (3/5) in terms of satisfaction with outcomes, as vulnerable countries still face significant gaps in addressing both economic and non-economic climate losses.

Summary of Key Outcomes on Loss and Damage from the Last Five COPs

Over the past five Conferences of the Parties (COPs 24 to 28), loss and damage has gained increasing recognition within the UNFCCC framework, reflecting growing urgency around climate impacts that cannot be adapted to or mitigated.

• COP24 (2018, Katowice): The Katowice Climate Package included technical discussions on loss and damage but did not establish new funding mechanisms. It reinforced the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) as the main platform for loss and damage, focusing on knowledge sharing and enhancing understanding.

• COP25 (2019, Madrid): Negotiations on loss and damage remained stalled, particularly around finance. There was growing demand from vulnerable countries for dedicated financial support, but no significant breakthroughs were achieved.

• COP26 (2021, Glasgow): Marked a historic milestone with the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund, formally recognizing the need for financial support specifically addressing loss and damage. However, details on…

Over the last five COPs, “loss and damage” advanced from recognition to partial operationalization. COP26 acknowledged the issue but offered no dedicated fund. COP27 marked a breakthrough with agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund. COP28 (Dubai) operationalized the fund, though pledges totaled under $700 million—far below needs. COP29 emphasized scaling finance, with civil society urging billions annually. Ongoing debates persist over governance, scale, and equitable access.

Satisfaction (Rating 3): Progress is notable, but funding remains inadequate and debates unresolved. A mid-level rating reflects partial success but unmet expectations.

Over the last five COPs, loss and damage has gained visibility. COP25–26 focused on technical support through the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network, but finance remained limited. COP27 was a breakthrough with the agreement to create a Loss and Damage Fund, though details on contributions and disbursement were unresolved. COP28–29 included pledges and broader climate finance goals, but binding commitments and sufficient funding for vulnerable countries are still lacking.

Satisfaction (I would rate 2):

While progress has been made in recognizing loss and damage, implementation and financing are insufficient relative to the urgent needs of vulnerable nations. Without clear commitments from wealthy countries, climate justice and the scale of support required remain unaddressed.

Key Outcomes on Loss and Damage (Last 5 COPs)

COP24 (Katowice, 2018)

Loss and Damage was recognized under the Paris Agreement through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM), but discussions remained largely technical. No concrete finance mechanism was established, and developing countries’ demands for funding were deferred.

COP25 (Madrid, 2019)

Loss and Damage gained political visibility, but negotiations stalled. Developed countries resisted any language implying liability or compensation. Outcomes focused on dialogue rather than action.

COP26 (Glasgow, 2021)

Overall assessment: Moderately dissatisfied

My level of dissatisfaction reflects the clear gap between political recognition of loss and damage and the tangible support delivered to vulnerable countries.

From a historical perspective, loss and damage has been debated for over three decades, gaining formal recognition through the Warsaw International Mechanism (COP19) and Article 8 of the Paris Agreement. While recent COPs particularly COP27 and COP28 marked a political breakthrough by agreeing to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund, this progress is largely institutional rather than transformational.

Financial commitments remain the weakest element. Initial pledges to the fund are modest and fall far short of the scale of losses already being experienced by vulnerable nations. Climate-induced disasters, slow-onset events, and irreversible losses require financing in the order of tens to hundreds of billions annually, yet current contributions amount to only a fraction of that need. Moreover, many pledges are voluntary, non-binding,…

• COP26 (Glasgow): Established the three-year Glasgow Dialogue on loss and damage funding, a key step in bringing the issue to the forefront of negotiations.

• COP27 (Sharm El Sheikh): Reached a breakthrough agreement to establish new funding arrangements and a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund (LDF) to assist vulnerable developing countries. A Transitional Committee was also created to develop recommendations for operationalization.

• COP28 (Dubai): Achieved a historic decision on the opening day to operationalize the LDF, with initial pledges exceeding $600 million. It was agreed the World Bank would temporarily host the fund.

• COP29 (Baku): Finalized key legal agreements, including the Trustee Agreement with the World Bank and the Host Country Agreement with the Philippines, allowing the Fund to become fully operational and begin financing projects in 2025.

• COP30 (Belém): Launched the "Barbados Implementation Modalities" (BIM) call for funding requests for the LDF's start-up phase, allocating $250 million for initial projects…

Over the last five UNFCCC COPs (COP24–COP28), loss and damage has gradually gained attention, though progress has been mixed. COP24 maintained discussions under the Warsaw International Mechanism without new finance. COP25 created the Santiago Network for technical assistance, but funding and operational details were limited. COP26 advanced the Glasgow Dialogue to explore finance, yet no dedicated fund was established. A breakthrough came at COP27 with the agreement to create a Loss and Damage Fund, and COP28 operationalized it with initial pledges exceeding USD 600 million and governance structures in place. Despite this progress, the scale and predictability of funding remain insufficient for the needs of vulnerable countries. Considering these achievements and ongoing challenges, my satisfaction is neutral (3 on the Likert scale). While the institutional and financial mechanisms now exist, their effectiveness depends on sustained finance, transparency, and implementation to truly deliver climate justice.

The trajectory from COP25 to COP29 reflects a transition from acknowledging loss and damage to building institutions and starting operational delivery. This shift is a major achievement, especially considering decades of inaction. However, significant gaps remain — particularly in resource availability, equity commitments, and real-world deployment of funds — which make the progress meaningful but insufficient at this stage.

Neutral (3) captures that mix: historic progress has been made, but the outcomes so far — while foundational — do not yet match the scale, urgency, or equity needed by the most climate-impacted countries.

While the creation of the fund is an important milestone, I remain dissatisfied. Financial commitments are limited, access mechanisms are unclear, and non-economic losses receive little attention. For countries like Bangladesh, facing irreversible losses, current outcomes fall far short of climate justice.

This shows that stronger political will, predictable finance, and fair burden-sharing are still urgently needed.

Over the last five COPs, progress on loss and damage has been slow yet meaningful. Earlier COPs primarily focused on dialogue, such as the Santiago Network, which aimed to provide technical support but was hindered by a lack of funding. A significant breakthrough occurred at COP27 when countries agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, recognizing the needs of vulnerable nations. COP28 played a crucial role in operationalizing the fund and securing initial pledges; however, the amounts pledged fell significantly short of the actual needs. More recent COPs have continued discussions on governance and access, with ongoing debates about responsibility, equity, and the scale of financing required.

To address the increasing impacts of climate change, adaptation must start at the local level—especially in vulnerable regions. However, a common challenge is the lack of hands-on experience in designing, implementing, and maintaining climate-resilient infrastructure.

This is why skill-building and practical training are essential. We need to equip communities, engineers, and local leaders with the knowledge to integrate adaptation into infrastructure projects from flood-resistant drainage and reinforced housing to nature-based solutions like green embankments and urban wetlands.

1. Summary of Key Outcomes (COP24–COP28)

COP24 (2018)—Warsaw International Mechanism Advance Although COP24 did not establish new finance for loss and damage, it continued strengthening the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM)—the core UNFCCC body dedicated to driving global cooperation on loss and damage, including knowledge, coordination, and support functions for vulnerable developing countries. UNFCCC

COP25 (2019)—Santiago Network Established COP25 agreed to launch the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage under the WIM, intended to catalyze technical assistance and capacity building for developing countries to avert, minimize, and address loss and damage. UNFCCC

COP26 (2021) – Glasgow Dialogue on Financing: Although loss and damage remained a prominent concern, COP26 did not achieve a dedicated fund. Instead, Parties agreed to the Glasgow Dialogue—a multi‑year discussion platform to explore financing arrangements for loss and damage. This was progress on process, but not a financing commitment. UNEP-CCC

COP27 (2022)—Historic Fund Decision COP27…

Over the past five UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties (COPs), the topic of loss and damage (L&D) has gradually gained visibility, reflecting the urgent need to address climate impacts that exceed countries’ adaptation capacities. Key milestones include the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) in COP19, aimed at enhancing knowledge, coordination, and support for L&D; ongoing discussions to operationalize financial mechanisms under WIM; and the COP27 agreement to create a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund for vulnerable countries, with commitments to mobilize resources from developed nations. Debates during COP28 continued to focus on the scale and predictability of funding, as well as the inclusion of non-economic losses such as cultural heritage, social cohesion, and ecosystem services. While some progress has been made in formalizing institutional arrangements and increasing political recognition, implementation and funding commitments remain limited, and equity concerns persist regarding the allocation of resources to the most affected communities.

Satisfaction Evaluation: 2…