Loss and Damage Outcomes Across COPs
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 for financial assistance for irreversible climate impacts. A transitional committee was formed to operationalize the fund.
COP28 (2023) – The Loss and Damage Fund was formally operationalized with governing arrangements adopted and a board meeting held; the World Bank was designated as an interim trustee, and financial pledges were made by several countries. Discussions continued on disbursement criteria and transparency.
Assessment: Satisfaction with Loss and Damage Outcomes
Likert Scale:⭐️⭐️⭐️ (3 – Neutral: Progress has been mixed or insufficient)
Justification
The establishment and operationalization of a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund across COP27 and COP28 are significant milestones for climate justice. After decades of advocacy by vulnerable nations, the fund represents the first formal mechanism intended to compensate countries suffering from irreversible climate impacts beyond adaptation.
However, satisfaction remains moderate because progress on actual finance delivery lags behind political commitments. Although some countries pledged funds at COP28 — including notable contributions from EU states and the UAE — the total pledges remain far below the scale of need, with persistent gaps in delivery and access barriers for developing countries.
Moreover, political setbacks such as the U.S. withdrawal from the fund’s board and uncertainty over long-term funding sources highlight ongoing challenges in global climate cooperation. This undermines confidence in the fund’s capacity to deliver meaningful justice outcomes for the most affected nations.
In summary, while the creation and early operational steps of the Loss and Damage Fund are historic and represent real progress, insufficient finance, slow implementation, and political opposition still limit its effectiveness. Continued advocacy, scaling of commitments, transparent governance, and equitable access mechanisms are necessary to bridge the gap between policy and impactful climate justice.