Loss and Damage in Climate Change Law: The Evolution from the Paris Agreement to the Establishment of a Dedicated Funding Mechanism

Introduction

The concept of loss and damage has emerged as one of the most significant developments in international climate law over the past decade (UNFCCC, 2020)[1]. This article examines the evolution of loss and damage mechanisms from their initial recognition in the Paris Agreement to the historic establishment of a dedicated funding mechanism at COP27[2]. As climate change impacts intensify beyond what adaptation measures can address, the loss and damage framework represents a crucial third pillar of climate action alongside mitigation and adaptation.

Conceptual Framework of Loss and Damage

Defining Loss and Damage

Loss and damage refers to the negative effects of climate change that occur despite mitigation and adaptation efforts (UNEP, 2022)[1]. According to the UNFCCC online guide, loss and damage encompasses both extreme weather events and slow onset events that result in unavoidable impacts[1]. The concept is distinguished by its focus on consequences that have not been or cannot be avoided through traditional climate response mechanisms.

The impacts are categorized into two primary types: economic losses and non-economic losses[1]. Economic losses affect resources, goods, and services commonly traded in markets, including damage to infrastructure, property, and agricultural productivity[2]. Non-economic losses, while harder to quantify in monetary terms, encompass irreparable damages such as loss of life, cultural heritage, biodiversity, and traditional knowledge[25][31].

The Relationship with Adaptation and Mitigation

Under the Paris Agreement, countries recognized the importance of "averting, minimizing and addressing" loss and damage (UNFCCC, 2015)[24]. This three-pronged approach establishes loss and damage as the crucial third pillar of climate action[13]. Loss and damage occurs when mitigation efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient and when adaptation measures are unsuccessful or impossible to implement[2].

The relationship between these concepts is particularly evident when considering adaptation limits. The IPCC acknowledges that as climate change magnitude increases, so does the likelihood of exceeding adaptation limits, with both "soft" limits (where options exist but lack financial resources) and "hard" limits (where no reasonable prospects exist for avoiding intolerable risks)[13].

Legal Framework under the Paris Agreement

Article 8 Provisions

Article 8 of the Paris Agreement provides the foundational legal framework for addressing loss and damage[24]. The article recognizes the importance of averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage associated with adverse climate effects, including extreme weather events and slow onset events[24]. Significantly, Article 8 establishes that sustainable development plays a role in reducing loss and damage risks.

The article places the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage under the authority and guidance of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Paris Agreement (CMA), with provisions for enhancement and strengthening[24]. Article 8(4) outlines eight areas of cooperation and facilitation, including early warning systems, emergency preparedness, slow onset events, and comprehensive risk assessment[24].

Liability and Compensation Limitations

A critical limitation within the Paris Agreement framework is the explicit exclusion of liability and compensation. Decision 1/CP.21, paragraph 51 states that Article 8 "does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation"[30]. This provision was the condition under which developed countries, particularly the United States, agreed to include loss and damage references in the Paris Agreement[19].

This exclusion has significant implications for the legal interpretation of Article 8 and subsequent loss and damage mechanisms[30]. While the provision limits traditional state responsibility approaches, it does not preclude the development of solidarity-based financial mechanisms.

The Warsaw International Mechanism

Establishment and Mandate

The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) was established in 2013 at COP19 as the primary vehicle under the UNFCCC process to address loss and damage[5]. The WIM aims to enhance knowledge and understanding, strengthen dialogue and coordination, and enhance action and support for addressing loss and damage in developing countries particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts[5].

The WIM operates through an Executive Committee comprising 20 members, with equal representation from Annex I and non-Annex I Parties[1]. The mechanism has established five thematic expert groups covering slow onset events, non-economic losses, comprehensive risk management, displacement, and action and support[8].

Functions and Limitations

The WIM's mandate encompasses three main functions: enhancing knowledge and understanding of comprehensive risk management approaches, strengthening dialogue and coordination among stakeholders, and enhancing action and support including financing and technology[5]. However, the mechanism has faced criticism for focusing primarily on knowledge-gathering rather than providing direct financial support[11].

The limitations of the WIM became increasingly apparent as climate impacts intensified, leading to growing demands from vulnerable countries for dedicated financial mechanisms beyond the WIM's coordination and knowledge-sharing mandate[11].

The COP27 Breakthrough: Establishing the Loss and Damage Fund

Historic Agreement

COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh marked a historic breakthrough with the agreement to establish new funding arrangements, including a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund[9]. This decision came after decades of advocacy by small island developing states and least developed countries, representing a significant victory for climate justice[7].

The establishment of the fund was particularly significant as it marked the first time loss and damage funding was included on the formal COP agenda[9]. The agreement established a Transitional Committee tasked with making recommendations for operationalizing both the funding arrangements and the dedicated fund[9].

Transitional Committee Process

The Transitional Committee, composed of 24 country representatives, was mandated to develop recommendations on institutional arrangements, fund modalities, governance structures, and funding sources[9]. The committee conducted five meetings throughout 2023, informed by workshops and synthesis reports on existing funding arrangements[1].

Key considerations included the current landscape of institutions providing loss and damage support, identification of gaps in existing mechanisms, priority areas for solutions, and potential funding sources[1]. The committee's work culminated in recommendations for consideration at COP28.

COP28 Operationalization of the Fund

Key Decisions

COP28 achieved the operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund on the opening day of the conference[26]. The decision established key operational elements including a new independent secretariat and governing board, designation of the World Bank as interim trustee and host for four years, and approval of the Governing Instrument providing allocation criteria[26].

The fund's purpose is defined as assisting developing countries particularly vulnerable to adverse climate effects in responding to economic and non-economic loss and damage[29]. The scope encompasses climate-related emergencies, sea level rise, displacement, relocation, migration, and climate information needs[29].

Initial Pledges and Limitations

Initial funding pledges at COP28 totaled approximately $700 million, including contributions from the UAE ($100 million), Germany ($100 million), the UK (£60 million), and the United States ($17.5 million pending Congressional approval)[26]. However, these pledges represent only a fraction of the estimated annual needs of $290-580 billion by 2030[7].

The designation of the World Bank as interim trustee has raised concerns among developing countries regarding access procedures and alignment with their needs[26]. Questions remain about long-term financing commitments and the fund's ability to operate at the scale required.

Funding Mechanism Analysis

Scale and Adequacy

The Loss and Damage Fund faces significant challenges regarding scale and adequacy. Conservative estimates suggest that at least $100 billion annually will be needed by 2030, with some projections reaching $671 billion annually[7]. The current pledges of approximately $768.4 million as of April 2025 represent less than 0.1% of projected needs[13].

The funding gap highlights the need for innovative financing mechanisms beyond traditional voluntary contributions[16]. Potential approaches include market-based mechanisms, levies, and expanded donor base including philanthropic organizations[16].

Allocation Criteria and Access

The fund's allocation mechanism represents a critical design feature affecting its effectiveness. Recommendations suggest adopting criteria based on recipient countries' climate vulnerability, historical emissions contributions, and existing climate policies[16]. The European Union Solidarity Fund model provides insights for managing allocation caps and preventing resource depletion from individual events[16].

Access procedures must balance simplification for vulnerable countries with appropriate safeguards and accountability measures[16]. The fund should prioritize grant-based financing given the limited financial returns from loss and damage interventions[16].

Challenges and Implementation Issues

Definitional Ambiguities

A significant challenge lies in the absence of an official UN definition of loss and damage[2]. This definitional gap creates uncertainty regarding eligible activities and potential overlap with adaptation and disaster risk reduction funding[27]. The distinction between economic and non-economic losses, while conceptually useful, often proves artificial in practice as many impacts have both monetary and non-monetary dimensions[40].

Attribution and Causation

Determining the extent to which specific losses and damages are attributable to climate change presents scientific and legal challenges[37]. While attribution science is advancing, establishing clear causal links remains complex, particularly for slow onset events and compound risks[37].

Coordination with Existing Mechanisms

The loss and damage funding arrangements must coordinate with existing climate finance mechanisms to avoid duplication and ensure complementarity[29]. This includes alignment with adaptation finance, disaster risk reduction funding, and humanitarian assistance[1].

Future Prospects and Recommendations

Scaling Up Finance

The operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund represents an important first step, but substantial scaling up is required[13]. This necessitates exploring diverse funding sources including carbon pricing mechanisms, financial transaction taxes, and fossil fuel levies[16].

Strengthening Access Modalities

Future development should focus on streamlining access procedures for vulnerable countries while maintaining appropriate governance standards[16]. Direct access modalities and simplified approval processes can enhance the fund's responsiveness to urgent needs.

Integration with National Planning

Effective implementation requires integration with national adaptation plans, disaster risk reduction strategies, and sustainable development frameworks[1]. This integration can enhance coherence and maximize the impact of loss and damage interventions.

Conclusion

The evolution from the Paris Agreement's Article 8 to the establishment of a dedicated Loss and Damage Fund represents a significant advancement in international climate law and policy[9]. While the fund's operationalization marks a historic achievement for climate justice, substantial challenges remain regarding scale, access, and implementation[26].

The success of the loss and damage framework will ultimately depend on sustained political commitment, adequate financial resources, and effective operational mechanisms that can deliver support to the most vulnerable communities[16]. As climate impacts continue to intensify, the loss and damage mechanism will likely become an increasingly central component of the international climate response.

The journey from conceptual recognition to operational reality demonstrates both the power of sustained advocacy by vulnerable countries and the complexities of translating climate justice principles into functional international mechanisms[7]. Moving forward, the focus must shift from establishment to effective implementation, ensuring that the Loss and Damage Fund can fulfill its promise of supporting those most affected by climate change impacts beyond the limits of adaptation.

United Nations Environment Programme. (2022). *Submission by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [Loss and Damage]*. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/42429

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2015). *Paris Agreement*. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2020). *Online Guide on Loss and Damage*. https://unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/workstreams/loss-and-damage

World Resources Institute. (2025). *What Is 'Loss and Damage' from Climate Change? 8 Key Questions Answered*. https://www.wri.org/insights/loss-damage-climate-change

UNFCCC. (2022). *COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on New "Loss and Damage" Fund for Vulnerable Countries*. https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-and-damage-fund-for-vulnerable-countries

Global Witness. (2023). *How Does the Loss and Damage Fund Work for Climate Justice?* https://www.globalwitness.org/en/blog/how-does-loss-and-damage-fund-work-climate-justice/

Lowy Institute. (2024). *A Climate Loss and Damage Fund That Works*. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/climate-loss-damage-fund-works

Platform on Disaster Displacement. (2021). *Face To Face With The Warsaw International Mechanism*. https://disasterdisplacement.org/resource/warsaw-international-mechanism-members-and-experts/

Columbia Law School. (2023). *Observations from COP28 on the Loss and Damage Fund*. https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2023/12/20/observations-from-cop28-on-the-loss-and-damage-fund/

Legal Response. (2016). *Loss and Damage in Paris and State Responsibility*. https://legalresponse.org/legaladvice/loss-and-damage-in-the-paris-agreement-and-cop-decision-and-state-responsibility/

Stockholm Environment Institute. (2022). *Designing a Loss and Damage Fund for the UNFCCC*. https://www.sei.org/projects-and-tools/projects/designing-a-loss-and-damage-fund/

Newman, R., & Noy, I. (2023). The global costs of extreme weather that are attributable to climate change. *Nature Communications*, 14, 6103. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41888-1

Broberg, M. (2020). Loss and damage after Paris: more bark than bite? *Climate Policy*, 20(6), 661-668. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1778885

LSE Grantham Research Institute. (2024). *What is 'Non-Economic' Loss and Damage (NELD)?* https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-non-economic-loss-and-damage-neld/