COP24 (Katowice, 2018) & COP25 (Madrid, 2019)
Focus: Further institutionalisation of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM), originally established at COP19 (2013), and early discussions on enhancing finance and technical support for loss and damage. While no dedicated finance was agreed, loss and damage began to feature more prominently in official agendas, especially during WIM reviews and transparency discussions.
COP26 (Glasgow, 2021)
Progress: The Paris Agreement (2015) already recognised loss and damage under Article 8, but COP26 saw limited progress on finance. Negotiators agreed to the Glasgow Dialogue to explore arrangements for funding loss and damage, but no dedicated fund or major financial commitments materialised. Vulnerable countries continued to push for concrete support, yet rich nations resisted liability or compensation language.
COP27 (Sharm el-Sheikh, 2022)
Breakthrough: For the first time ever, Parties agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund, a dedicated finance mechanism aimed at supporting developing countries to respond to severe climate impacts they cannot adapt to. This was a historic decision after decades of negotiation. A Transitional Committee was created to draft operational details for COP28.
COP28 (Dubai, 2023) & Post-COP28 Developments (2024/2025)
Operationalisation:
The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) was operationalised with a governance structure and interim host (World Bank) agreed, along with eligibility and financing arrangements.
Initial pledges for the Fund totalled several hundred million dollars—an important start but far below actual needs.
Work continued on the Santiago Network to provide technical assistance to vulnerable countries.
Assessment Using the Likert Scale
My Evaluation: 2 – Dissatisfied
Reasoning:While the creation and operationalisation of a Loss and Damage Fund are historic steps and significant symbolic victories for climate justice, actual financial mobilisation and delivery remain insufficient relative to the scale of climate impacts. Financial pledges are modest and slow, and key issues such as equitable contributions, accessibility, and support for non-economic losses are still under debate rather than meaningfully addressed. The Fund’s governance and delivery mechanisms are still being shaped, and this transitional nature limits real-world support