COP Outcomes on Loss and Damage
A. Summary of Key Outcomes (Last 5 COPs):
COP24 (2018) & COP25 (2019): Before recent progress, the formal mechanism for loss and damage existed but lacked strong financial backing. The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) was created earlier (at COP19 in 2013) to address climate impacts in vulnerable countries, and its technical arm, the Santiago Network, was finalized by COP25 to catalyze technical assistance. However, no dedicated funding mechanism was established at these COPs.
COP26 (2021):-Glasgow: At COP26 in Glasgow, parties did not agree on a finance facility for loss and damage but established the Glasgow Dialogue to discuss potential funding arrangements through 2025. The Santiago Network also gained formal functions to provide technical assistance. While these steps moved the conversation forward, there was no concrete financial commitment for loss and damage at this stage.
COP27 (2022):-Sharm el‑Sheikh: COP27 marked a historic breakthrough by agreeing to establish a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund. Governments decided to set up new financial arrangements and a transitional committee to recommend how the fund should operate, including governance, sources of finance, and eligibility, with the expectation of operationalization at the next COP. This outcome was widely celebrated as a significant step towards climate justice, although many details were left unresolved.
COP28 (2023):-Dubai: At COP28, Parties operationalized the Loss and Damage Fund based on the transitional committee’s recommendations. Key steps included the approval of the Fund’s governing instrument, establishing an independent secretariat and board, and designating an interim trustee/host (the World Bank) for the Fund’s early period. Initial pledges, including sizeable commitments from some countries, were announced, though total funding remains far below estimated needs.
COP29 (2024): At COP29 in Azerbaijan, the Loss and Damage Fund became officially active and began distributing funds for projects such as emergency housing and infrastructure repair. Some sources report that pledges surpassed ~US$768 million, and initial disbursements were approved. However, challenges persist: slow disbursement timelines, limited transparency, and unclear access modalities. Major emitters’ participation and long‑term financing remain key issues.
B. Assessment of Satisfaction (Likert Scale): 3 Neutral: Progress has been mixed or insufficient.
C. Justification for This Assessment:
Progress Exists But Remains Uneven: The establishment and operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund represent important milestones after decades of advocacy by vulnerable nations. The transition from dialogue (COP26) to establishing (COP27) and operationalizing (COP28 and COP29) a dedicated fund demonstrates measurable progress in global negotiations.
Still Insufficient in Scale and Delivery: Despite these structural achievements, the scale of financial pledges remains far below the estimated needs of developing countries facing compounding climate losses, which could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually by 2030. Further, slow fund disbursement, unclear eligibility, and governance issues continue to hinder real‑world impact.
Equity and Justice Dimensions Are Incomplete: While the Fund’s creation acknowledges historic responsibility and equity principles, operational details about resource mobilization (e.g., who pays and how much), access transparency, and inclusion of non‑economic losses are still unresolved or under debate. This leaves vulnerable communities waiting for meaningful support.
Political and Economic Barriers Continue: Ongoing geopolitical friction, including some countries’ reluctance to commit large sums or fulfill pledges, illustrates how political will and economic interests influence whether financial commitments translate into climate justice outcomes.
Concluding Reflection: Overall, the past five COPs show a clear evolution in recognizing loss and damage, moving from technical acknowledgement to a functioning financial instrument. However, significant gaps remain in financing, accountability, and equitable access. This mixed progress justifies a neutral satisfaction level and underscores the need for sustained political commitment, innovative finance mechanisms, and stronger equity frameworks to bridge policy success with tangible climate resilience outcomes.