COP outcomes on loss and damage ( last 5 COPs)
Summary of Key Outcomes
COP24 (Katowice, 2018)
Loss and damage was formally anchored within the Paris Agreement implementation through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) but progress remained largely technical. Discussions focused on knowledge-sharing and coordination, with no dedicated finance mechanism, leaving vulnerable countries dissatisfied.
COP25 (Madrid, 2019)
COP25 strengthened the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage, intended to provide technical assistance to vulnerable countries. However, negotiations failed to agree on financing arrangements, reinforcing concerns that loss and damage was being recognized rhetorically but not addressed financially.
COP26 (Glasgow, 2021)
Developing countries pushed strongly for a Loss and Damage Finance Facility, but this was blocked by developed countries. The outcome was the Glasgow Dialogue, a three-year discussion process on funding arrangements widely criticized as delaying urgent action despite growing climate impacts.
COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022)
A historic breakthrough occurred with the agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, marking the first formal recognition that finance is needed to address irreversible climate impacts. However, key issues such as who would pay, who would benefit, and how the fund would operate were left unresolved.
COP28 (Dubai, 2023)
COP28 operationalized the Loss and Damage Fund, agreeing on governance arrangements and an interim hosting by the World Bank. Initial pledges were announced, signaling progress. However, the scale of funding was very small compared to actual loss and damage needs, and concerns remained around accessibility, equity, and long-term sustainability.
Assessment of Satisfaction
Rating: 3 – Neutral
My assessment is neutral because progress on loss and damage has been symbolically significant but practically insufficient. The establishment and operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 and COP28 represent historic milestones after decades of resistance from developed countries. For climate-vulnerable countries like Ghana, facing coastal erosion, flooding, and livelihood losses, this recognition is long overdue and politically important.
However, major shortcomings remain. Financial commitments so far are far below actual needs, access modalities are still unclear for local and community-level actors, and there is limited attention to non-economic losses such as cultural heritage, displacement, and loss of identity. Equity concerns persist, particularly around contributor responsibility and the risk of over-reliance on voluntary pledges.
Overall, while the trajectory from COP24 to COP28 shows clear movement from dialogue to fund creation, the pace and scale of action do not yet match the urgency and lived realities of vulnerable countries. Without predictable, adequate, and accessible finance, loss and damage risks becoming another well-recognized concept with limited impact on the ground.