What happened on adaptation at COP30?
This blog post updates the post from Nov. 17 to reflect the final decisions relevant to adaptation taken at COP30.
The importance of adapting to our changing climate is getting more attention at the international negotiations as we begin to breach the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. Key issues were questions surrounding how nations report progress on their adaptation efforts to become more resilient, and on how adaptation–especially in developing nations–gets financed.
In 1992 in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil at the Earth Summit, nations came together and adopted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This agreement, subsequently signed and ratified by the United States and most other countries, states its ultimate objective as the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
Since then, most of the high-level attention has been on greenhouse gas emission reduction measures to achieve that objective. In 2015, the Paris Agreement was reached that gave us specific global temperature objectives. Its overarching goal is to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”
Global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to climb, increasing the levels of these gases in our atmosphere and in turn pushing the average global temperature ever higher. Though some countries, including the United States, have reduced their emissions in recent years, global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are projected to rise by 1.1% in 2025 (a total of over 38 billion metric tons), reaching a record high, according to the Global Carbon Project. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are now at about 425 parts per million, over 50% above pre-industrial levels, and almost 20% above their levels at the time of the 1992 Earth Summit. We are now beginning to breach the 1.5°C goal. But some good news is that current emission trajectories show us avoiding what could have been a future 4°C world. Still, tremendous work will be needed to keep the 2°C Paris goal within reach (and whether it’s feasible to return to a 1.5°C global warming level later in the century is another matter).
This all points to the importance of adaptation, not only for the international negotiations but for all of us in the real world. Adaptation refers to measures that avoid and lessen the risks associated with a warming and changing climate, and thus make a community, a nation or a business more resilient. The Conference of the Parties or COP returned to Brazil for the first time since 1992 in the city of Belem. Adaptation was high on the agenda, and will likely remain so at future international climate negotiations, but the outcomes on finance and adaptation indicators left a number of questions unanswered.
What set the stage for the adaptation discussion at this COP?
The original 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change contained language pointing to the importance of adaptation. All countries were called on to, “Cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change; develop and elaborate appropriate and integrated plans for coastal zone management, water resources and agriculture, and for the protection and rehabilitation of areas, particularly in Africa, affected by drought and desertification, as well as floods.”
The 2015 Paris Agreement, mostly known for setting the temperature objectives, also contained Article 7 devoted to adaptation. This established “the global goal on adaptation of 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.” The Paris Agreement further called on nations to develop national adaptation plans and to provide communications on their adaptation actions.
In a subsequent COP26 in 2021, a work program was adopted for the global goal on adaptation, recognizing the challenges in assessing progress towards greater resiliency through adaptation compared to the more straightforward nature of assessing progress in evaluating emission reduction targets. When a country or a business is on track (or not) to meet its emission targets, we have all the tools we need to estimate and track those emissions to clearly indicate if things are on track. With adaptation, on the other hand, we don’t quite have a standard way of measuring how we’re moving the needle towards greater resilience. Work was directed with this in mind and occurred through a series of workshops and to take into account, among other sources, reports of the IPCC Working Group II (which has been devoted to assessing the literature on climate change impacts and adaptation).
This work led to, at COP28 in 2023, the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience. This framework was also intended to further the original global goal on adaptation of the Paris Agreement and to measure nations’ progress towards becoming more resilient in the face of adverse climate risks. Specifically, it had the goal that, “by 2030 all Parties have designed, established and operationalized a system for monitoring, evaluation and learning for their national adaptation efforts.” It also “urged” countries to achieve a number targets by 2030 in their national adaptation plans including:
Significantly reducing climate-induced water scarcity
Attaining climate-resilient food and agricultural production and supply and distribution of food
Attaining resilience against climate change-related health impacts, promoting climate-resilient health services and significantly reducing climate-related morbidity and mortality, particularly in the most vulnerable communities
Reducing climate impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity
Increasing the resilience of infrastructure and human settlements
Looking towards the current COP30 in Belem, a two-year UAE–Belém work program was tasked with developing indicators that could be used to more consistently and objectively measure progress nations are making towards becoming more resilient. 78 experts were enlisted to narrow the candidate list down to 100 indicators (this past June the number of candidate indicators stood at 500) to help set the stage for what’s being discussed now at COP30 in Belem.
So what are examples of some of these 100 indicators? Here’s a representative subset of the indicators put forward by the technical experts in the areas of water, food production, public health, biodiversity, human settlements, poverty eradication, protection of cultural heritage, as well as whether nations have processes in place to develop adaptation plans:
Change in water stress levels over time
Proportion of critical water and sanitation infrastructure systems that are built or retrofitted to withstand climate-related hazards
Proportion of population using drinking water services that are safely managed and climate resilient
Proportion of area under management for food and agricultural production utilising practices and technologies relevant to climate change adaptation
Proportion of food and agricultural value chain actors that have adopted practices and technologies relevant to climate change adaptation
Prevalence of undernourishment associated with climate-related drivers and events
Change in the rate of mortality associated with heat exposure
Change in the annual rate of reported heat-related occupational injuries and deaths
Percentage of health facilities built or retrofitted to be climate resilient based on national, regional or global guidance
Extent and capacity of regulating ecosystem services that reduce exposure and vulnerability to climate risks/impacts
Extent of ecosystems that contribute to climate resilience covered by protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures
Number of Parties that incorporate transboundary climate risks and adaptation measures for connected infrastructure and settlement systems in their National Adaptation Plans or equivalent documents
Proportion of population living below the international poverty line in areas highly exposed to climate-related hazards
Proportion of population covered by climate risk insurance
Percentage of at-risk cultural and natural heritage sites with adaptation measures implemented
Number of Parties that have established multi-hazard early warning systems
Number of Parties that have adopted national legislation or other legislative frameworks on adaptation
Number of Parties that have designed a system for monitoring, evaluation and learning for their national adaptation efforts
In the end this full set of 100 indicators was not adopted. There was reporting over the course of the COP30 negotiations about some nations, particularly from Africa, voicing concerns about the additional burden that would be involved to regularly report on the full set of adaptation indicators. The final document gaveled on the last day of COP30 contained an annex containing 59 indicators. However, a number of parties voiced their dismay that this final list was compiled without transparency and that the document was gaveled without any final negotiation. It’s clear the adaptation indicators will continue to be a subject of further negotiation so that they’re credible and useful to the process and to advancing resilience.
What about finance?
The other large issue at COP30 was how and to what extent adaptation should be financed, especially in developing countries. As part of the 2023 COP28, the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience called for developed country Parties to at least double their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties from 2019 levels by 2025.
The UN Environment Programme’s Adaptation Gap Report (2025) updated the cost of adaptation finance needed in developing countries. Based on modeling costs, including looking at different future warming scenarios (from IPCC), the estimate is $310 billion per year in 2035 (note that by 2035 the different climate scenarios from RCP 2.5, 4.5, 6.0 will not make a huge difference because by 2035 those scenarios still cluster together). When based on extrapolated needs expressed in Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans, this figure rises to $365 billion a year. Meanwhile, international public adaptation finance flows to developing countries were $26 billion in 2023, down from $28 billion the previous year. This makes adaptation financing needs estimated or identified for developing countries 12-14 times as much as current flows.
During the COP30 negotiations targets of between $120 billion and $150 billion were put forward.
The final text gaveled at COP30 “calls for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035”. Observers were quick to point out this lacks any clear reference to a baseline, which in previous texts had been relative to 2025. There are also questions about the public vs. private make up of this finance goal.
