COP Outcomes on Loss and Damage
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 the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), which had been established earlier in 2013. However, progress at COP24 was limited largely to technical discussions, capacity building, and information sharing. Crucially, there was no advancement on finance for loss and damage, reflecting ongoing reluctance from developed countries to engage with issues that could imply liability or compensation. As a result, loss and damage remained marginal, despite growing climate impacts globally.
COP25 – Madrid, Spain (2019)COP25 was widely anticipated as a moment to advance loss and damage finance, but it ultimately failed to meet expectations. A notable outcome was the creation of the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage (SNLD), designed to provide technical assistance to vulnerable countries in addressing loss and damage. While the establishment of the SNLD was a step forward, it lacked clear funding arrangements and operational clarity. Developing countries strongly pushed for a dedicated finance facility, but this demand was resisted by developed nations. Consequently, COP25 reinforced the perception of political avoidance and inequity, deepening frustration among climate-vulnerable states.
COP26 – Glasgow, United Kingdom (2021)At COP26, loss and damage gained unprecedented visibility, driven by increased climate disasters and coordinated advocacy by developing countries and civil society. Vulnerable nations demanded the creation of a Loss and Damage Finance Facility, but this proposal was rejected. Instead, COP26 resulted in the establishment of the Glasgow Dialogue, a three-year process aimed at discussing funding arrangements for loss and damage. While the dialogue signaled recognition of the issue, it was widely criticized for prioritizing talk over action, particularly as communities were already experiencing irreversible climate harms. For many, COP26 represented a missed opportunity to move from acknowledgment to concrete support.
COP27 – Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt (2022)COP27 marked a historic breakthrough in loss and damage negotiations. After decades of advocacy, parties agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund to assist developing countries particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts. This decision was widely celebrated as a victory for climate justice and multilateralism. However, the agreement deferred key details to a transitional committee, including governance structures, eligibility criteria, sources of funding, and scale. While symbolic and politically significant, the outcome did not immediately translate into financial relief for affected communities, highlighting the gap between agreement and implementation.COP28 – Dubai, United Arab Emirates (2023)COP28 focused on operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund, including decisions on institutional arrangements and initial funding pledges. Several developed countries made financial commitments, signaling progress beyond rhetoric. However, the total amount pledged was far below the estimated needs, which are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually by mid-century. Additionally, concerns emerged about the voluntary nature of contributions, potential bureaucratic barriers, and whether funding would be new and additional rather than reallocated from existing aid. While COP28 represented a step toward implementation, it also exposed the limitations of current political will.
Level of Satisfaction with COP Outcomes on Loss and DamageLikert Scale Rating: 2 – Dissatisfied
Justification for AssessmentDespite notable milestones, particularly at COP27 and COP28, I remain dissatisfied with the overall outcomes on loss and damage across the last five COPs. This dissatisfaction stems from the slow pace of progress, inadequate financial commitments, and persistent equity gaps in the climate governance framework.First, the timeline of loss and damage negotiations reflects a troubling delay. Climate-vulnerable countries have raised this issue since the early 1990s, yet it took nearly 30 years for a dedicated fund to be formally established. During this period, climate impacts intensified, resulting in displacement, loss of lives, destroyed infrastructure, and irreversible cultural and ecological losses. The delayed recognition underscores structural inequalities within the global climate regime.Second, while the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund is significant, its financial scale is deeply insufficient. Initial pledges at COP28 amount to only a fraction of what is required to address current and future losses. This shortfall raises concerns about whether the fund can meaningfully support recovery and resilience or merely serve as a symbolic gesture. Moreover, the absence of binding obligations allows high-emitting countries to contribute inconsistently, weakening accountability.Third, non-economic losses—such as loss of cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge, social cohesion, and mental wellbeing—remain inadequately addressed. Although these losses are increasingly acknowledged in policy language, they are difficult to quantify and are often sidelined in funding mechanisms that prioritize measurable economic damage. This narrow approach fails to capture the full human cost of climate change, particularly for indigenous and marginalized communities.Fourth, equity and justice considerations remain central but unresolved. Those who have contributed least to global greenhouse gas emissions continue to experience the most severe impacts, while historical emitters resist language associated with responsibility or liability. The reliance on voluntary contributions rather than predictable, needs-based finance undermines the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC).Finally, the real-world implications of delayed and insufficient action are severe. Communities facing floods, droughts, sea-level rise, and climate-induced migration often lack immediate access to resources for recovery. This exacerbates poverty, deepens inequality, and hinders progress toward sustainable development goals. For these communities, loss and damage is not a theoretical debate but a lived reality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while recent COPs have delivered important symbolic and institutional advancements on loss and damage, particularly through the establishment and operationalization of a dedicated fund, these outcomes fall short of the urgency and scale required. Progress has been incremental rather than transformative, and justice considerations remain inadequately addressed. Until loss and damage finance is sufficient, predictable, accessible, and grounded in equity, the COP process will continue to struggle to meet the needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations. For meaningful progress, future COPs must move beyond recognition toward robust implementation that prioritizes justice, solidarity, and real-world impact.