CGIAR@COP30: Loss and Damage Negotiation Updates

For vulnerable countries and communities, climate change is already causing devastation that no amount of adaptation can prevent. These unavoidable climate impacts – from deadly heatwaves and floods to slow-onset crises like sea-level rise – are termed “Loss and Damage” (L&D). In recognition of this reality, recent UN climate summits have taken historic steps. COP27 (2022) established, and COP28 (2023) operationalized, a new Loss and Damage Fund to help vulnerable nations recover from climate-induced losses. As COP30 begins, this Fund is at a crossroads between promise and implementation. Initial momentum was significant: moments after the fund’s approval, countries pledged over $600 million, and by the close of COP28, about $700 million was committed – a hard-won victory after decades of advocacy by developing countries. Yet, these pledges are a proverbial drop in the bucket. Climate-related economic losses in developing countries are estimated around $400 billion per year, meaning the pledged amount is less than 0.2% of what’s needed annually. At COP30 in Belém, the focus is on turning this fund into a robust mechanism: securing more contributions, establishing governing arrangements, and defining how the money will be accessed and used. Equally, attention is on strengthening the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) – the UNFCCC’s arm for addressing L&D through knowledge, coordination, and support. The outcome here is deeply personal for hard-hit communities worldwide: it’s about whether help will arrive when climate disaster strikes, and whether it will be enough to rebuild lives and livelihoods.

In October 2024, CGIAR produced an issue brief series ahead of COP29, with one detailing how scientific evidence, especially related to food systems, can guide decisions and improve outcomes of the new Loss and Damage Fund. Despite limited progress on the Warsaw Mechanism at COP29, Parties finalized procedural rules for the Santiago Network Advisory Board, paving the way for future operational effectiveness.

What to Watch at COP30

In Belém, the credibility of the Loss and Damage Fund will hinge on several outcomes. First, resource mobilization: will more countries step up with contributions? The $700m pledged is a start, but COP30 needs to dramatically increase that figure. Eyes are on major emitters and wealthy nations – will they commit new and additional funding? There’s talk of innovative sources (like a levy on fossil fuel profits or aviation) to fill the L&D Fund; any movement or statements on that could be significant. CGIAR will be attentive to whether any funding is earmarked for agriculture or food security, though it’s likely to be broadly framed. Second, governance and access: COP30 is expected to finalize how the fund will be managed and how countries can request money. A big point of debate has been ensuring developing countries have a strong say in fund decisions. The transitional committee likely recommended a structure; if COP30 approves one that’s acceptable to all, the fund can become operational in 2025. From CGIAR’s perspective, what matters is that the funding can actually reach local levels and not be mired in red tape. For example, if a country gets money for loss and damage, does it have mechanisms to quickly distribute aid to farmers and fishers? CGIAR could assist nations in developing such mechanisms (like trigger-based payout systems for farmers), and will look for signals that the fund encourages such readiness. Third, the scope of what’s covered: will the fund only address extreme event losses or also slow-onset issues (like salinization of farmland)? Many agricultural impacts are slow but devastating – e.g. steadily declining crop yields as temperatures rise. How COP30 decisions outline the fund’s scope will influence whether those kinds of losses can be addressed. Similarly, non-economic losses (cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge, etc.) might be acknowledged; for farming communities, loss of traditional agricultural knowledge or local seed varieties is intangible yet real. It’s likely COP30 will keep definitions broad to allow flexibility. Additionally, the fate of the Warsaw International Mechanism is on the table. At COP29, there were setbacks – some felt the WIM’s review outcome was weakCOP30 could reinvigorate it by aligning the WIM’s workplan with the new fund (so knowledge feeds into action). Possibly, a decision might integrate the Santiago Network’s efforts more closely, meaning more coordinated technical support for implementing L&D measures in agriculture (like developing crop insurance schemes or community-led climate risk management). CGIAR, being an entity with technical expertise, will likely engage with the Santiago Network – we’ll watch for any calls for contributions or collaboration where CGIAR can offer its data or tools. Finally, an overarching watchpoint: political will. Loss and damage has been contentious, touching on issues of liability and fairness. A successful COP30 on L&D would be one where the narrative shifts from contention to solidarity – where developed countries acknowledge the urgency and commit to concrete support, and developing countries feel their voices and science (including local climate impact data) are reflected in decisions. CGIAR’s role is not political but providing the evidence base for that urgency and guiding effective use of funds. If COP30 yields a well-resourced, accessible L&D Fund and a strong mandate to continue tackling loss and damage (with farmers and food security explicitly considered), it will mark a turning point. It would mean the world is taking responsibility for climate harms here and now – and helping those on the frontlines, many of them food producers, to recover and build resilience for the future. CGIAR will continue to champion those front-line communities by equipping them with science, and now, hopefully, the support they deserve.

 COP30 Week 1 Summary

The Loss and Damage (L&D) track – covering both the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for knowledge/coordination and the Santiago Network for technical assistance – had a mixed Week 1. This agenda deals with helping countries cope with climate impacts that are beyond adaptation, a matter of growing urgency as floods, droughts, and other disasters intensify. 

On one hand, technical work did advance. Parties reviewed reports and adopted some conclusions on the functioning of WIM and the Santiago Network’s work, essentially tidying up annual business. Notably, the SBI/SBSTA plenaries on Saturday adopted texts for certain sub-items (reporting and procedural matters) as presented, which provided a sense of partial accomplishment. However, big-picture questions were left hanging. Much of the informal note capturing substantive ideas was not agreed. In fact, for two key sub-items, it was formally noted that the informal notes have “no status” and do not reflect consensus, meaning negotiators will have to revisit those issues in the future. 

The core divide is familiar: developing countries are urging wealthy nations to deliver predictable, accessible support for Loss & Damage, and to make the WIM more action oriented.  

Developing countries pushed for clearer coordination between the WIM, Santiago Network, and the Fund to ensure timely support when disasters hit. They also emphasized the need for predictable, accessible finance. Developed countries, while supporting the Fund in principle, were more cautious—resisting text that might imply liability or lock in governance structures prematurely. A quiet but important debate emerged over whether current ideas should shape future decisions. 

Meanwhile, real-world urgency looms: ~$700 million has been pledged, but annual climate-related losses top $400 billion. Week 2 must shift from discussion to delivery 

CGIAR produced research last year on how food systems science can inform L&D responses, the slow pace of agreement is concerning. Communities we work with (smallholder farmers, pastoralists, etc.) are already suffering losses that overwhelm their adaptation limits. We hope the political phase in Week 2 injects urgency, so that COP30 delivers not only acknowledgments of loss and damage, but concrete support channels to help vulnerable people recover and build resilience. 

COP30 Day 7 | November 17 2025

Negotiations on the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage are becoming increasingly tense, with clear opposition between developed country Parties on one side, and the Arab Group and LDCs on the other side, who believe that the concerns of developing countries are not sufficiently addressed in the current text (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/FRLD_cop30_2.pdf)

Their main demands include:
* Expanding access to the Fund to all developing countries (currently reflected in the text)
* More resources for the Fund and the need for a clear resource mobilization strategy.
* The inclusion in paragraph 13 (on the Barbados Implementation Modalities) of a mention to paragraph 12 of the COP28 decision, emphasizing the historical responsibility of developed countries. They argue that paragraph 13 should recognize that developed countries have a historical responsibility (in accordance with paragraph 12 of COP28) and include explicit commitments that developed countries must provide more funding. This paragraph remains bracketed.
The EU (supported by Japan) strongly opposes the inclusion of these references, arguing that this amounts to “cherry-picking” parts of the COP28 decision and that the Fund text should not single out this paragraph. The Arab Group insists that it will not accept a text without these references, warning that not mentioning them would be a step backward, a position that the EU has refuted.

COP30 Week 2 Summary