COP Outcomes on Loss and Damage
Loss and damage has gradually moved from the margins of climate negotiations to the center of global climate justice debates. Over the last five Conferences of the Parties, there has been visible progress, but also persistent gaps between political commitments and the realities faced by vulnerable countries.
Summary of Key Outcomes from the Last Five COPs
At COP24 in Katowice (2018), loss and damage was addressed mainly through the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism. While this reinforced its importance, there were no concrete commitments on finance, leaving many vulnerable countries frustrated.
COP25 in Madrid (2019) marked a key institutional step with the establishment of the Santiago Network, aimed at providing technical assistance to countries facing loss and damage. However, the Network remained largely non operational for several years, limiting its immediate impact.
During COP26 in Glasgow (2021), developing countries pushed strongly for a dedicated loss and damage finance facility. This demand was not met. Instead, the Glasgow Dialogue was launched to discuss funding arrangements. While this kept the issue alive, it delayed concrete financial solutions.
A major breakthrough came at COP27 in Sharm el Sheikh (2022), where parties agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund. This was a historic moment, recognizing that adaptation and mitigation alone are insufficient for many countries already experiencing irreversible impacts.
At COP28 in Dubai (2023), the Loss and Damage Fund was operationalized, with initial pledges made and governance arrangements agreed upon. While symbolically important, the pledged amounts remain very small compared to the actual needs of vulnerable countries.
Level of Satisfaction
2 – Dissatisfied
Justification of Assessment
While I acknowledge the political significance of establishing and operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund, I remain dissatisfied with the overall outcomes. For decades, vulnerable countries have demanded recognition and support for losses they did not cause. Although recent COPs have finally acknowledged this injustice, the response has been slow and insufficient.
Financial commitments so far fall far below the estimated annual needs of developing countries. Many pledges are voluntary, unclear in delivery timelines, and not new or additional finance. This raises concerns about whether the fund will deliver meaningful support on the ground.
Non economic losses, such as loss of culture, identity, land, and ecosystems, are increasingly mentioned but still poorly addressed in operational terms. Communities facing displacement, cultural erosion, and psychological harm often receive limited recognition within funding mechanisms.
Equity remains a central concern. Historical responsibility and capacity to pay are not yet clearly reflected in contributions. Without predictable, adequate, and grant based finance, loss and damage risks becoming more symbolic than transformative.
Conclusion
The last five COPs show that progress on loss and damage is possible, but only under sustained pressure from vulnerable nations and civil society. Recognition has improved, but delivery remains weak. For loss and damage to truly address climate injustice, future COPs must move beyond dialogue and symbolism toward scaled up, accessible, and equitable support that reflects the lived realities of affected communities.