Thousands of delegates from around the world are gathering in Belém, Brazil, for the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), marking a profound return to the country where the global fight against climate challenges began.
At the opening of the climate talks, Brazilian President Lula da Silva declared COP30 the “COP of truth” and said it was “time to take the scientific warnings seriously.” However, in the negotiation rooms and corridors, the tropical air is charged with many things: despair, complexities and hope.
On the list of a packed agenda in Belém are intense conversations to approve a list of indicators that will enable the implementation of the Global Goal for Adaptation (GGA). “Having a clear picture of how adaptation measures impact macroeconomic stability and development outcomes is certainly helpful when it comes to developing policies and tracking progress,” highlighted Mr Mohammed Adow, Executive Director, Powershift Africa, a Nairobi-based Climate think tank.
To fully understand GGA, you have to go back to the Paris Agreement that was agreed upon a decade ago. Countries signed a treaty to ensure that temperatures remain well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while trying to cap warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Under Article 7.1 of the Paris Agreement, GGA was established with an aim to enhance adaptive capacity, bolster resilience and reduce vulnerability of nations to climate change. During negotiations under the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action in 2013, the Africa Group of Negotiators (AGN) proposed the concept.
For African countries, climate adaptation is not a choice but a matter of survival. Given that Africa is responsible for only 0.5 per cent of historical emissions and 3 to 4 per cent of current emissions, African countries primarily engage in COP and Paris Agreement processes to ensure progress on adaptation action and support.
Dr Richard Muyungi, the AGN Chairperson, Climate Envoy and Advisor to the President of Tanzania, emphasised to Africa Climate Insights that adaptation is a priority for Africa. “We believe that we need to have a Global Goal on Adaptation, as we do have the Global Goal on Mitigation. Of course, you cannot have a single Global Goal on Adaptation, but at least you can have a pathway, where you want to go. For example, you need ecosystem resilience. You need to reduce the losses and damages due to climate change. You need to ensure that there is an adaptation, which is consistent with the needs of the developing countries. We need to ensure that there will be resources….”
Unlike mitigation, which has single metrics such as reduction of CO2 emissions, adaptation is more complex since it involves local variations and contexts. Globally, countries have experienced varying climate shocks, from droughts to floods, implying that while the impacts felt are on a global scale, adaptation measures should be designed specifically addressing the level of risks different countries experience.
“To put things into perspective, African countries cannot approach the temperature goal in the same way they approach GGA. While emission reduction and decarbonization can be lucrative and economically feasible, making it accessible to any developing country willing to invest and mobilise private sector actors, adaptation is difficult to fund from financial sources other than public resources,” explained Imane Saidi, Senior researcher in diplomacy and cooperation at IMAL initiative for climate and development.
Further, she noted, African countries are already spending an average of 0.95 per cent of GDP on climate adaptation, and this figure can escalate to 4 per cent for certain countries, such as Seychelles and Botswana.
“Consequently, considering the tight fiscal spaces of African countries, keeping up with the escalating adaptation needs of vulnerable communities and ecosystems is extremely hard for national budgets. This is why the Global Goal on Adaptation and adaptation finance has been and continues to be a top priority for Africa’s climate agenda.”
At COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, countries developed the Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh work programme. This was a two-year planning endeavour to figure out the approaches to developing targets and measuring progress. The programme resulted in the adoption of the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience at COP28, held in Dubai in 2023.
Initially, experts came up with an enormous list of more than 9,000 indicators. The list was later reduced to 490. At the 62nd sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB62) of the UNFCCC, which serve as the engine room of the COP processes, a consolidated list of 100 indicators, drawn from 11 non-binding targets across two major categories – sectoral and process targets, was presented.
Specifically, sectoral targets span a range of sectors, including water, health, food and agriculture, and infrastructure, all geared towards building resilience and reducing climate-induced water scarcity. Process targets touch on developing national adaptation plans, early warning systems and monitoring, evaluation and learning systems.
The current focus on defining concrete indicators for GGA has been one of the key focuses at COP30. This is because a region like Africa, bearing the brunt of the climate crisis, is driving a critical push to ensure that the GGA framework moves beyond academic or high-level policy metrics, but rather concludes development of detailed indicators, including the level of technology, financing and capacity building required – dubbed the Means of Implementation (MOI).
How much does Africa want?
According to Imane, Africa wants a needs-based approach to adaptation finance, moving away from constructively ambiguous targets that lack scientific bases, such as the Glasgow pledge of doubling adaptation finance from $20 billion to $40 billion.
A failure for GGA at COP30, she said, “would further deepen the mistrust developing countries, including African nations, have for developed countries in the UNFCCC process.”
“We are still negotiating. Our experts have gone to the extent of coming up with 100 indicators. We have had real discussions on whether to remain with 100 or go less than 100, and therefore, subject this further to the political discussions. For example, we could remain with the existing indicators but ensure that in the guide rail, we mention clearly that these indicators are not meant to dilute the sovereignty of countries, so there will not be imposition of the need to implement these indicators. Secondly, these indicators must be supported, whatever type of indicators, so they must be linked to the means of implementation.
And thirdly, that we are implementing these indicators or achieving them in the context of the principles of the Convention, the Paris Agreement,” explained Dr Muyungi.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), in its 2025 Adaptation Gap Report dubbed “Running on Empty”, notes that adaptation financing has been severely insufficient. Against the annual financing needs of developing countries, which range from $310 billion to $365 billion by 2035, financing flows from developed nations to developing countries declined from $28 billion to $26 billion in 2023.
Mitigation received the lion’s share of the financing, at 57 per cent, with adaptation receiving only 28 per cent. The remaining 15 per cent was allocated to cross-cutting initiatives. Additionally, the report notes that 58 per cent of adaptation financing received was in the form of debt, raising concerns about affordability and exacerbating debt distress for many nations. The ripple effect from this is communities fully exposed to climate risks, risking lives and livelihoods.
While raising concerns over adaptation being underfunded and undervalued, COP30 President Designate André Corrêa do Lago noted: “People do not speak in acronyms; they speak in flooded homes and failed harvests, local economies collapsing after storms, schools and hospitals destroyed, women leading community responses. The imbalance between mitigation and adaptation weakens collective resilience and perpetuates structural imbalance.”
As the conference enters its second week, negotiations are underway, specifically on MOIs, with developed nations calling for a holistic adoption of the indicators, arguing that the process had been protracted and that this would ensure clarity and accountability.
Developing countries, however, are cautious about rushing to adopt the indicators, with little room given to address the support needed to actualise the indicators. Led by the AGN, Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and AILAC, developing countries note that support must be guaranteed before they agree to have their own adaptation actions measured. They fear that the GGA will become a tool to hold them accountable for their lack of resilience while ignoring the failure of developed nations to provide the promised funding, thereby diluting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
On November 18, upon the release of the first draft by the UNFCCC which showed significant disagreements between developed and developing nations, the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), a coalition of civil societies in Africa, insisted that financing adaptation cannot be optional, and that the adaptation indicators could not be discussed without also considering the required means of implementation. “This is a worrisome state because parties have no basis for negotiation on the most crucial ingredient for the delivery of GGA,” they noted in a press statement.
Another key ask for Africa, as Africa Climate Insights had learned, was indicators that allow effective monitoring of the provision of technology transfer, capacity building, and adaptation finance. African negotiators averred that they are important inputs to the Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) and the second Global Stocktake (GST).
Teresa Anderson, the Global Lead on Climate Justice for ActionAid International, noted that AGN has a good reason for caution. “There is still no certainty that there will be money available to implement the adaptation tasks they are setting themselves.”
Reflecting on the disappointing finance outcome in Baku, she added, “To be honest, the terrible climate finance outcome we saw at COP29 is the reason for this delay. We are reaping the bitter harvest from Baku, where rich countries’ refusal to provide real finance has taken the wind out of the sails of so many climate discussions.”
The final draft outcome on COP30 touching on matters GGA has confirmed these worries, with the final resolution emphasizing that the Belém indicators are voluntary, non-prescriptive and do not create new financial obligations or commitments. It also stresses that the indicators ‘shall not become a barrier and shall not be used under any circumstances as a condition for developing country parties to access funding under the Convention and the Paris Agreement.’
