Climate adaptation works. So why is the world still dragging its feet?
COP30 was billed as the “COP of implementation”, but negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation show that turning promises into action remains fraught with political tension and unresolved technical gaps
Two years ago, the adaptation agenda seemed to have taken a backseat at the Dubai COP. With a decade having passed since the establishment of the Paris Agreement in 2015, as well as the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), the President of the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) in Brazil labelled this COP the 'COP of implementation'.
His letters prior to the opening, and the statements made at the start of the summit, reiterated that adaptation would take centre stage at this COP — 'the COP of truth informed by science'. This is a testament to the urgency of adaptation in a world that has failed to limit warming to 1.5°C.
Following the 'finance COP', which left many disappointed, it is also a highly appropriate label, as commitments now need to be translated into realities.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
What is the GGA?
The Paris Agreement (PA) created the three pillars of the UNFCCC's response to climate action: mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. Article 7, consisting of 14 paragraphs, outlines the agreements and commitments made by Parties on adaptation.
Article 7.1 established the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), defining it as "enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the temperature goal referred to in Article 2".
However, unlike the relative ease of setting and tracking the temperature goal in Article 2, adaptation — which is highly context- and sector-specific — does not have a common reference metric to collectively assess progress.
Since COP26 in 2021 and the launch of the Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme, a framework for the GGA has been under development. At COP28, seven thematic targets (water, health, biodiversity, food, infrastructure, poverty and heritage) and four adaptation cycle targets (climate risk and vulnerability assessments; planning; implementation; and monitoring, evaluation and learning) were adopted as part of the framework.
Over the past two years, 78 technical experts have worked to develop indicators to measure these targets. In simpler terms, a monitoring framework for global adaptation has been taking shape, and COP30 is expected to adopt the proposed list of 100 indicators.
So, where are we in the GGA negotiation rooms after a week?
Parties negotiating the draft text last week mainly discussed or contested the following issues:
Means of Implementation (MoI):
Contentions over MoI indicators — which include access to and quality of finance, and capacity- and technology-transfer — continue. A primary concern has been the potential shifting of the adaptation finance burden onto developing countries; therefore, indicators such as those tracking domestic budget allocations have been proposed for deletion.
Moreover, indicators need to better reflect the quality of finance, accessibility, and the extent of capacity transfer.
Adaptation Finance:
The Glasgow Climate Pact goal of doubling collective global adaptation finance from 2019 levels reaches its deadline at the end of 2025. The Group of 77 (G77) and China, along with observers, are calling for a tripling of adaptation finance by 2030 compared with 2025 levels.
The EU, the UK and Japan, however, oppose introducing quantitative finance commitments within the indicator discussions.
Adoption at COP30:
The African Group, Arab Group and the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) have opposed adopting the indicators at COP30, arguing they are not yet ready and require further political and technical refinement for adoption at COP32.
Others have stated that the indicators are ready and that refinements can be undertaken later.
Modalities for Post-Belém Work and the Baku Adaptation Roadmap (BAR):
The LMDCs want the BAR to be the main platform for testing and revising indicators, while New Zealand and Japan have suggested that indicator refinement and review take place after the second Global Stocktake (GST) — which should be informed by the GGA framework — in 2028.
Additionally, there are disagreements over who should lead the post-Belém work: the Adaptation Committee or the Secretariat.
Transformational Adaptation:
This issue has faced highs and lows since COP28. The Dubai GGA outcome emphasised strengthening efforts towards both "long-term transformational and incremental adaptation" and requested the Secretariat to define transformational adaptation under the GGA work programme.
A technical paper was produced ahead of COP29; however, divisions remain regarding whether to formally acknowledge the approach within the global discourse.
The Arab Group and India have reiterated that no single adaptation approach should be highlighted, while the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has called for case studies on transformational adaptation to be included under the BAR.
Canada has proposed developing specific transformational adaptation indicators under the BAR.
These diverging views remain in the latest draft text.
The final stretch
The technical discussions have been slow, and the President has urged all Parties to conclude consultations by 18 November. The final text is yet to be released.
Ministers arrived this week to provide political guidance. Once the ministerial co-facilitators submit their reports, the President will convene a "Mutirãov", involving ministers and heads of delegation — similar in purpose to last year's "Qurultay".
Whether the outcomes will also mirror those of last year remains to be seen.
Drawing Parallels
The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), the centrepiece of COP29, was the outcome everyone was watching. Despite strong objections to the finance quantum in the second-week draft text (a floor of USD 300 billion annually, far short of the trillions required) and a delayed close of the COP, the text was adopted.
Without dwelling on its pros and cons, it is reasonable to expect that, similarly, the GGA indicators will be adopted at COP30 — despite disputes over the timing of their adoption. And we believe they should be.
The framework must be a living one, and without rolling it out for implementation, we are only losing time and narrowing opportunities for refinement. That would be counterproductive, especially when the Adaptation Gap Reports keep showing how far apart current progress and climate impacts remain.
But adaptation works. What is crucial is ensuring the means to implement it — i.e. the MoI — including dedicated, high-quality finance and capacity-building programmes at the local level.
Bangladesh has yet to submit its first BTR, but among the 99 countries that have, 81 included an adaptation section, and 54% reported monitoring and evaluation as a key challenge.
Beyond tracking global progress, this framework will drive action across many countries, much as the outcomes of COP7 and COP16 led to the development of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) and later National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).
The NAP progress report shows that 67 developing countries have completed their NAPs — a significant achievement of the multilateral process.
The next steps involve ensuring accessible, high-quality finance and implementation, and that is where the GGA framework has the potential to deliver further progress.
Madiha Chowdhury is a Technical Expert in Climate Justice and Governance at Helvetas Bangladesh. Milton Kumar Saha is a Technical Expert in Climate Migration and Resilience Building at Helvetas Bangladesh. Mohammad Mahmodul Hasan is the Head of Programme for Water, Food and Climate at Helvetas Bangladesh.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
