Loss and damage outcomes from the last five COPs
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 to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund as part of new funding arrangements. For many developing countries, this was a historic recognition of their long‑standing demands for support to address climate impacts that cannot be adapted to.
COP28 – Dubai (2023): The Loss and Damage Fund was formally operationalised, and initial financial pledges were announced. However, total pledged amounts remained extremely small compared with estimated needs, which ran into hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Concerns also persisted about fund governance, accessibility for vulnerable countries and communities, and long‑term adequacy and predictability of finance.
Level of satisfaction
My rating: 2 – Dissatisfied
Justification of my assessment
I recognise that COP27 and COP28 delivered historic progress by agreeing to create and then operationalise a Loss and Damage Fund. Symbolically and politically, this is a major step forward after decades in which loss and damage were marginalised, reframed, or avoided. For many vulnerable countries, simply getting acknowledgement that support is needed for irreversible climate impacts is a significant achievement.
However, looking across the last five COPs as a whole, I am not satisfied with the pace or scale of progress. For three consecutive COPs (24–26), discussions were dominated by procedural delays and resistance from high‑emitting countries to any implication of responsibility or compensation. During this period, no dedicated finance facility was created, and affected communities continued to bear the cost of climate impacts with minimal international support.
Even after the breakthrough at COP27, the outcomes still fall short in practice. The amounts pledged to the Loss and Damage Fund at COP28 are vastly below estimated needs, and they are neither predictable nor guaranteed. Key questions remain unresolved: how quickly and fairly funds will flow; how directly they will reach the most vulnerable; how non‑economic losses—such as cultural heritage, identity, and displacement will be recognised; and how to ensure that support is based on equity and historical responsibility.
For countries like Eswatini and many others in the Global South, the gap between political recognition and real finance remains wide. Loss and damage have finally moved from the margins to the centre of negotiations, but the response is still too slow, too small, and too uncertain compared to the scale and urgency of climate impacts. For these reasons, I judge the overall outcomes as Dissatisfied (2) rather than neutral or satisfied.