1. Summary of Key Outcomes on “Loss and Damage” from the Last 5 COPs
COP24 (2018) & COP25 (2019)
Although these early COPs did not yield major financing breakthroughs, COP25 in Madrid advanced institutional groundwork by agreeing to establish the Santiago Network under the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) to catalyze technical support for loss and damage in vulnerable countries.
COP26 – Glasgow (2021)
At COP26, there was no new dedicated financing mechanism for loss and damage, which was widely criticized by developing countries. Instead, negotiators agreed to the Glasgow Dialogue on Finance for Loss and Damage, a procedural space to discuss how financing might be mobilized in the future, but no new funds were pledged or agreed.
COP27 – Sharm el-Sheikh (2022)
COP27 marked a historic breakthrough: Parties formally agreed to create a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund for vulnerable countries, responding to decades of advocacy by developing nations. This included establishing a Transitional Committee to design the fund’s modalities, governance, and eligibility criteria.
Despite this milestone, key details—such as exact funding sources, contributions, and payout rules—were left unresolved.
COP28 – Dubai (2023)
COP28 built on COP27 by operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund, enshrining it as part of the financial mechanism of the Convention and the Paris Agreement, and appointing leadership to manage it. Several countries pledged initial support, though commitments remain well below the scale needed by vulnerable nations.
COP29 (2024)
At COP29 the focus was on reviewing progress on the Warsaw International Mechanism and linking loss and damage finance to broader climate finance goals, though negotiation on governance clarifications and full operational systems remains ongoing.
Major milestones across these five COPs:
Institutionalization of loss and damage under the Warsaw International Mechanism and Santiago Network (COP25 and earlier foundations).
Creation of a formal Loss and Damage Fund (COP27).
Operationalization of the Fund and initial pledges (COP28).
Ongoing refinement of governance and reporting mechanisms (COP29).
While there has been steady progress on institutional and technical fronts, tangible financial support remains limited and contested.
2. Likert Scale Assessment
Rating: 3 – Neutral
Reasoning: Progress has been meaningful institutionally—particularly by making loss and damage finance a formal element of the UNFCCC architecture with a dedicated fund. However, practical outcomes in terms of actual financial support, predictable funding streams, and operational clarity have been partial and insufficient relative to the scale of impacts experienced by vulnerable nations.
3. Justification of Assessment
a) Institutional Gains vs. Practical Finance
The establishment and operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund is an undeniably significant milestone: it moves loss and damage from mere recognition to a structured financial mechanism. Without a dedicated fund, prior negotiations had little capacity to support countries suffering irreversible harms (e.g., damaged infrastructure or lost livelihoods).
b) Limited Funding and Implementation Challenges
Despite this progress, several critical gaps persist:
The size and predictability of financial commitments remain far too low, and developed countries have so far contributed modest amounts compared with needs. Initial total pledges—often less than required—highlight that actual finance delivery lags behind commitments.
There remains no clear legally binding obligation for wealthy emitters to contribute based on historical responsibility, liability, or compensation.
c) Ongoing Governance and Equity Debates
Negotiators continue to dispute who should control governance structures (e.g., under UNFCCC vs. Paris Agreement bodies), reflecting unresolved equity and justice questions.
d) Real-World Impacts and Vulnerability
The urgency of loss and damage finance is underscored by observed climate impacts in vulnerable countries—such as economic losses, displacement, food insecurity, and human suffering that adaptation alone cannot address. The IPCC and civil society emphasize that loss and damage is already happening now, not only in the future.
Conclusion
The last five COPs show clear progression on loss and damage—from initial institutional recognition to the creation and early operationalization of a dedicated fund. However, the fundamental challenge of mobilizing sufficient, predictable, equitable, and fast-disbursing finance remains unresolved. The Paris Agreement’s Article 8 recognition of loss and damage underscores its importance, yet current outcomes reflect the complex interplay of geopolitics, historical responsibility debates, and financial constraints that slow practical implementation.
A balanced view recognizes progress, but also deep limitations—hence a neutral (3) Likert rating that highlights the need for stronger, more enforceable action moving forward.