COP30 in Belem, Brazil: From Pledege to Pract on Global Adaptation Goal

 

Climate change adaptation indicators

Global Goal on Adaptation Indicators: From Pledge to Practice

Climate change is no longer a distant future threat—it is already reshaping lives, ecosystems, and economies. This growing reality has raised the stakes not only for reducing emissions (mitigation) but also for preparing societies to absorb and adapt to inevitable changes. Under the Paris Agreement, Article 7 sets out the “Global Goal on Adaptation” (GGA): to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development (UNFCCC, n.d.).
At COP30 in Belém, Brazil, Parties reached a landmark moment by agreeing on a consolidated set of 59 voluntary, non-prescriptive indicators to track progress toward that goal (COP30, 2025; LSE, 2025). While this is an important milestone, the shift from pledge to practice will require serious work on definition, governance, measurement, financing, and equity.

This article explores why indicators matter, the key features of the COP30 agreement on the GGA indicators, their promise and limitations, how they link to broader adaptation practice (especially given your focus on communities, transparency, and justice), and what next steps are required for this promise to become meaningful.

Why do adaptation indicators matter?

Indicators are much more than data points: they help translate high-level commitments into measurable, actionable, accountable frameworks. In the adaptation context, they serve several functions:

1. Benchmarking and tracking progress – Without indicators, adaptation efforts remain unquantified and difficult to compare across countries or over time.

2. Accountability and transparency – Indicators make visible who is acting, who is not, and where gaps remain, thereby fostering clearer public scrutiny.

3. Guiding investment and resource allocation – Donors, multilateral agencies and national governments need metrics to prioritise, monitor and evaluate adaptation-related finance and programmes.

4. Supporting learning and improvement – Over time, sound indicators allow practitioners to assess what adaptation works, what doesn’t, and why—and adjust accordingly.

5. Linking adaptation to sustainable development and justice – Because adaptation disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, indicators that integrate equity (e.g., youth, gender, Indigenous communities) help ensure that adaptation is inclusive rather than technocratic.

Given the historically weak progress in adaptation finance, access and outcomes, indicators are a critical piece of the puzzle.

COP30’s agreement: 59 indicators and the next frontier

At COP30, Parties approved the so-called “Belém Package,” which includes, among other things, the adoption of 59 voluntary indicators to track progress under the Global Goal on Adaptation (COP30, 2025; Carbon Pulse, 2025). These indicators span multiple sectors—water, food & agriculture, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, and livelihoods—and include cross-cutting issues such as finance, technology, and capacity building. (COP30, 2025)

Key features of this package include:

• Voluntary and non-prescriptive nature: The indicators are not binding and do not dictate a fixed set of national priorities. Each country retains flexibility in how it uses them. (Carbon Pulse, 2025)

• Comprehensive and integrative: The indicators cover the whole adaptation spectrum—from institutional capacity and policy frameworks to outcomes, impacts, and resilience of ecosystems and communities. (LSE, 2025)

• Two-year work programme: The Belém decision establishes a two-year “UAE–Belém” work programme to further refine, align and operationalise the indicators. (UNFCCC, n.d.; LSE, 2025)

• No new dedicated finance commitments linked: While the indicator set was approved, the COP30 outcome did not tie the indicators to new financial commitments or strict monitoring mechanisms. (Carbon Pulse, 2025)

• Emphasis on reporting via National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and adaptation communications: The indicators are intended to integrate with existing planning instruments, strengthening coherence and tracking. (Earth.Org, 2025)

Together, these features reflect a credible step forward—but also highlight that the work ahead is far from complete.

What this means for adaptation practice and communities

For practitioners, youth networks, community-led organisations, and advocates—especially those working on adaptation in vulnerable regions—the indicator framework offers both opportunities and risks.

Opportunities

• Localization of metrics and accountability: With a standardized global framework, local actors can ask: “How does my country measure up on Indicator X? How are local communities included?” This is a tool for advocacy and transparency.

• Tracking equity and inclusion: Since the indicators include capacity, livelihoods and institutions, there is room to push for data on gender, Indigenous rights, youth, and marginalised groups—aligning with human-development goals.

• Better planning and evaluation: Governments and organisations can embed indicators into NAPs and adaptation strategies, thereby improving monitoring and learning loops.

• Accessing resources: Donors and financial institutions increasingly seek measurable outcomes. A credible indicator set may make adaptation projects more fundable if they align with the GGA framework.

Risks and limitations

• Voluntary nature may dilute impact: Because the indicators are non-binding, countries may adopt them rhetorically without robust implementation or data collection.

• Data-intensive burden for vulnerable countries: Many developing countries lack the statistical capacity, disaggregated data, baseline assessments or adaptation communications needed to use these indicators meaningfully.

• Disconnect between measurement and action: Indicators may become a reporting exercise detached from actual adaptation delivery—i.e., governments may collect data but not translate it into community resilience investments.

• Risk of “one size fits all” overshadowing local realities: Global indicators may fail to account for contextual factors, culture, local knowledge, Indigenous adaptation strategies or grassroots resilience efforts unless intentionally designed for subsidiarity.

• No new finance guarantee: Since the indicator agreement did not tie to new funding, there is a risk that indicators become symbolic rather than transformative.

Five priority themes for turning indicators into meaningful adaptation

For the indicator framework to shift adaptation practice in line with your values (creativity, transparency, human development, nature-centred approach), five priority themes stand out:

1. Baseline-setting and data foundation

Before progress can be tracked, robust baselines must exist. Countries must improve data on vulnerable populations, ecosystems, climate exposures, adaptation capacities and financing flows. Local data collection (including youth-led monitoring!) should be supported.

2. Linking indicators to finance and action

Indicators must guide resource allocation—not simply measure after the fact. Donors, MDBs and national governments should align adaptation finance flows with indicators (e.g., funding projects in sectors highlighted by indicators) and monitor whether investments yield indicator improvements.

3. Community participation and inclusivity

Indicator frameworks should include metrics on participatory governance, Indigenous knowledge, gender-sensitive adaptation, and youth engagement. For example: “Number of adaptation decisions with meaningful youth/Indigenous participation” or “proportion of adaptation finance reaching frontline communities”.

4. Adaptive learning and iterative improvement

Because adaptation is context-dependent and evolving, the indicator framework should not be static. Countries and multi-stakeholder actors must periodically review what indicators measure, adjust as needed, and feed learning back into policy and programmes. The two-year UAE–Belém work programme offers a chance to refine indicators. (LSE, 2025)

5. Transparency, accountability and disclosure

Public dashboards, national reports, and civil-society tracking should make indicator performance visible and comparable. This aligns with your values of transparency and integrity. For example, youth-led platforms could monitor national adaptation indicators, press governments on weak performance, and highlight best-practice models.

Key Challenges Ahead

While indicators offer promise, they face major structural challenges:

• Financing the “adaptation gap”: The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that adaptation costs for developing countries will range from US$194 to US$366 billion annually by 2030. (UNEP, 2023) Without significant resource scaling, indicators may measure adaptation shortfalls rather than successes.

• Capacity disparities between countries: Many least-developed countries (LDCs) lack the institutional, statistical and financial capacity to meaningfully implement and report on indicators—deepening adaptation inequality.

• Integration of adaptation with mitigation and development: Indicators must avoid being siloed—adaptation must be embedded in broader development planning, climate mitigation, biodiversity, social resilience and economic diversification.

• Measuring “success” vs avoiding failure: Many adaptation processes focus on preventing loss or damage rather than generating positive outcomes. Indicators need to capture both outcomes and avoid negative impacts.

• Translating global indicators to local relevance: Global-level metrics may struggle to connect to community-level realities. Bridging that gap is critical for equity, legitimacy and effectiveness.

Why this matters for your work — creativity, mentoring, and transformational change

Given your commitment to human development, transparency, community empowerment, youth engagement and nature-centred leadership, the GGA indicator framework offers a rich point of convergence:

• Use the indicators as mentoring tools for youth interns—teach them how adaptation is measured globally, then ask: “How would our local community measure up?”

• Develop interactive dashboards or visual tools showing national indicator performance, adaptation finance flows, and local community adaptation stories—tying data with narrative.

• Advocate for direct-access funding models that link adaptation investment to measurable indicator improvements in local communities, especially youth-led or Indigenous-led initiatives.

• Embed participatory data-collection methods—train youth or community groups to gather baseline data, monitor adaptation outcomes, report locally, and feed into national indicator systems.

• Promote storytelling around indicators—use case studies of how a metric (e.g., “percentage of agricultural land under climate-smart practices”) has transformed a rural community, connecting global frameworks to lived experience.

Conclusion: From Pledge to Practice

The COP30 decision to adopt 59 voluntary indicators under the Global Goal on Adaptation represents a meaningful pivot: the world is signalling that adaptation must be measurable, comparable and accountable. That shift from vague promises to structured measurement is essential.

However, measurement alone does not deliver adaptation. The real challenge lies in ensuring that indicators translate into finance, action, justice, and community-driven resilience. Without dedicated funding, strong institutional capacity, and inclusive governance, the indicator framework risks being symbolic.

For adaptation to truly support vulnerable communities and foster creative, nature-respecting, equitable outcomes—as you envision—the indicators must become tools of empowerment, not administration. They should enable youth, Indigenous groups, front-line communities, and local practitioners to ask questions, gather data, measure outcomes, challenge inaction, and track real change.

The two-year UAE–Belém work programme offers a critical window to shape this shift. As the global community moves from “what we aim to do” to “how we will know we did it,” your role—as mentor, creator, community builder, advocate—can help ensure the promised measurement becomes meaningful transformation.

References

Carbon Pulse. (2025, November 22). COP30: Global Goal on Adaptation lands with consolidated indicators, no new finance. Retrieved from https://www.carbon-pulse.com/460317/
COP30 Brazil. (2025). COP30 approves Belém Package. Retrieved from https://cop30.br/en/news-about-cop30/cop30-approves-belem-package1
Earth.Org. (2025, November 14). Climate adaptation at COP30: What to expect. Retrieved from https://earth.org/climate-adaptation-at-cop30-what-you-need-to-know/
Grantham Research Institute – LSE. (2025, November 5). Expert group proposes list of global adaptation indicators: key input to COP30. Retrieved from https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/expert-group-proposes-list-of-global-adaptation-indicators-key-input-to-cop30/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). Global goal on adaptation. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/workstreams/gga
United Nations Environment Programme. (2023). Adaptation Gap Report. Retrieved from https://www.unep.org/adaptation-gap-report-2023