Loss and Damage Outcomes from the Last Five COPs (COP24–COP28)
COP24 (Katowice, 2018)
Key outcome: Loss and damage was formally anchored in the Paris Agreement’s implementation guidelines through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM).
Progress: Recognition of loss and damage as a standalone pillar alongside mitigation and adaptation.
Limitations: No dedicated finance mechanism; discussions remained largely technical and procedural.
COP25 (Madrid, 2019)
Key outcome: Creation of the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage, intended to provide technical assistance to vulnerable countries.
Progress: Institutional support for capacity building.
Limitations: No funding window; COP25 was widely viewed as a failure in advancing loss and damage finance.
COP26 (Glasgow, 2021)
Key outcome: Strong advocacy by vulnerable countries for a loss and damage finance facility.
Progress: Political visibility increased; Santiago Network operational discussions advanced.
Limitations: Developed countries blocked the creation of a finance facility; outcome fell short of expectations.
COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022)
Key outcome: Historic agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund.
Progress: First formal acknowledgment that loss and damage require dedicated finance.
Limitations: No clarity on funding sources, scale, or governance at the time of agreement.
COP28 (Dubai, 2023)
Key outcome: Operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund, including interim hosting arrangements and initial pledges.
Progress: Pledges totaling several hundred million USD; fund became functional.
Limitations: Pledges remain far below estimated needs (hundreds of billions annually); concerns over governance, accessibility, and long-term sustainability persist.
Satisfaction Assessment (Likert Scale)
Selected Rating: 2 – Dissatisfied
Justification of Assessment
While recent COPs—especially COP27 and COP28—represent symbolic and political breakthroughs, the overall progress on loss and damage remains insufficient relative to the scale and urgency of impacts faced by vulnerable countries.
Positive developments include:
Formal recognition of loss and damage as a core climate justice issue.
Establishment and operationalization of a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund.
Increased acknowledgment of non-economic losses, such as cultural heritage and displacement.
However, key shortcomings justify dissatisfaction:
Financial inadequacy: Current pledges are negligible compared to actual needs, which are estimated in the hundreds of billions annually.
Delayed justice: Vulnerable countries have advocated for loss and damage finance for decades; meaningful action only emerged recently.
Equity concerns: Contributions remain voluntary, with no clear accountability framework for high-emitting countries.
Operational uncertainty: Questions remain about access, governance, and whether funds will reach affected communities quickly and equitably.
In real-world terms, communities continue to experience irreversible losses—land, livelihoods, ecosystems, and cultural identity—while global responses remain incremental.