ACCESS4ALL Group

1. Summary of Key Outcomes (COP24–COP28)

COP24 (2018)—Warsaw International Mechanism Advance Although COP24 did not establish new finance for loss and damage, it continued strengthening the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM)—the core UNFCCC body dedicated to driving global cooperation on loss and damage, including knowledge, coordination, and support functions for vulnerable developing countries. UNFCCC

COP25 (2019)—Santiago Network Established COP25 agreed to launch the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage under the WIM, intended to catalyze technical assistance and capacity building for developing countries to avert, minimize, and address loss and damage. UNFCCC

COP26 (2021) – Glasgow Dialogue on Financing: Although loss and damage remained a prominent concern, COP26 did not achieve a dedicated fund. Instead, Parties agreed to the Glasgow Dialogue—a multi‑year discussion platform to explore financing arrangements for loss and damage. This was progress on process, but not a financing commitment. UNEP-CCC

COP27 (2022)—Historic Fund Decision COP27 in Sharm el‑Sheikh marked a breakthrough. Parties agreed to establish new funding arrangements and a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund to assist developing countries hit hardest by climate impacts. A Transitional Committee was created to recommend how to operationalize the fund and financing mechanisms ahead of COP28. UNFCCC+1

COP28 (2023)—Operationalization of the Fund COP28 was the first meeting to take decisions on how to operationalize the Loss and Damage Fund. Governments approved institutional arrangements, advanced governance decisions, and generated several hundred million dollars in pledges toward the fund—although far below needs. The first Board of the Fund has since held its historic inaugural meeting. UNEP-CCC+1

Post‑COP28 Progress (2024) Following COP28, the Board of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage held its first official session, a key step toward making the fund functional. UNFCCC

2. Likert Scale Assessment of Satisfaction

Rating: 3 – Neutral: Progress has been mixed or insufficient.

3. Justification for My Assessment

Progress and Milestones:✔ Recognition and institutional mechanisms have steadily improved. Since COP19 established the Warsaw International Mechanism, the agenda has moved from conceptual recognition toward real policy and institutional tools for loss and damage.

✔ COP27’s decision to create a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund was historic and long‑awaited, ending decades of demand for financial support for the hardest‑hit vulnerable nations.

✔ COP28’s operationalization decisions and Board formation are practical steps toward transforming words into action, enabling financing and technical assistance.

Shortcomings and Remaining Challenges:✖ Despite establishing the fund, actual financing levels are far below the scale of projected loss and damage needs, with only modest pledges so far. Many vulnerable countries still face massive gaps when it comes to meaningful, predictable finance.

✖ Major debates persist over sources of funding, governance, and equitable access, with some critics arguing that interim arrangements (e.g., World Bank hosting) could limit control by vulnerable countries.

✖ The inclusion of non‑economic losses (cultural, social, psychological impacts) remains an area for further progress. While frameworks exist within the WIM and Santiago Network, financing and implementation lag behind recognition in principle.

Equity and Justice Dimensions: Development and climate justice advocates stress that loss and damage finance must not create additional debt burdens or impose conditionalities on developing countries, and that the historic responsibility of high‑emitting countries should be acknowledged in financial commitments. Progress toward these justice goals remains limited, though the establishment of the fund is itself a partial step toward climate justice.

4. Conclusion

Across the last five COPs, the outcomes related to loss and damage reflect important institutional and policy achievements—from the Warsaw International Mechanism and Santiago Network to a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund and its initial operationalization. However, the practical implementation, scale of finance, and justice implications are still emerging, with real‑world needs outpacing commitments. Therefore, while the overall trend is positive, the pace and scale of outcomes justify a neutral satisfaction rating, acknowledging both progress and significant remaining gaps.