COP Outcomes - Loss Damage
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)
Vulnerable countries pushed hard for a Loss and Damage Finance Facility. The result was a “Glasgow Dialogue”—a process to talk about funding, not deliver it. This was widely seen as inadequate given escalating climate impacts.
COP27 (Sharm El-Sheikh, 2022)
A major milestone: agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund. This was a breakthrough for climate justice after decades of advocacy by developing countries and civil society.
COP28 (Dubai, 2023)
The Loss and Damage Fund was operationalized, with initial pledges announced. However, total funding remained extremely low compared to actual needs, and concerns persisted about accessibility, governance, and long-term sustainability.
Level of Satisfaction: 2 – Dissatisfied
Justification
While COP27 and COP28 represent historic progress by formally establishing and operationalizing a Loss and Damage Fund, overall outcomes across the last five COPs remain insufficient and delayed relative to the scale of climate impacts faced by vulnerable countries.
For years (COP24–COP26), loss and damage discussions were characterized by avoidance, procedural delays, and political resistance particularly from high-emitting developed nations concerned about liability. These delays translated into real-world suffering, especially in the Global South, where communities experience irreversible economic and non-economic losses.
Although COP27 marked a turning point, the financial commitments made at COP28 fall far short of estimated needs, which run into hundreds of billions annually. Additionally, unresolved issues around fund governance, access for affected communities, and recognition of non-economic losses (culture, identity, displacement) limit the fund’s effectiveness.
The progression shows movement, but far too slow, reactive rather than proactive, and still constrained by geopolitical power imbalances. Loss and damage has finally been acknowledged—but not yet adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The last five COPs reveal a pattern: recognition without responsibility, promises without proportionate finance. Until loss and damage finance becomes predictable, adequate, and accessible, COP outcomes will continue to fall short of climate justice for vulnerable nations.