Progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation: The long, winding road to a vague framework

Analysis note of the Global Observatory of Climate Action

• Author: Tania Martha Thomas, Research Officer at the Observatory
• Date: December 2023
• Summary:
  • Defining adaptation
  • The growing adaptation deficit
  • The road so far: Paris, Glasgow, Sharm el-Sheikh, Dubai…
  • …and onwards?

The Paris Agreement in 2015 established a “Global Goal on Adaptation” (GGA), intending to place adaptation to climate change at par with mitigation – by developing a goal for adaptation, parallel to the mitigation goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. The GGA aims to create a global framework, doted with specific targets, to guide adaptation actions around the world. However, lacking a quantifiable and universal metric, adaptation is much more complex to measure and enact than mitigation, anchored in the universal indicator of tonnes of CO2. Progress towards developing the GGA has also been relatively slow, weighed down additionally by the ever-present question of financing, until the adoption of a still somewhat vague framework at COP28.

Defining adaptation

The principal difficulty in getting different countries that are signatories to the Paris Agreement to align their views on the GGA stems from the definition of adaptation and how it translates into action on the ground. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptation in human systems as “[…] the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities.” The UNFCCC, on its website, defines adaptation as “changes in processes, practices and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change.” 

The process of adaptation is thus extremely context-based and locally-rooted, what counts as adaptation for a particular community, city, region, or country depends on its climatic, geographic, socio-economic and even political characteristics. It also changes in dimension depending on time-scales and types of responses (technological, institutional, behavioural and cultural, nature-based). It could range from building flood defences or solutions to heat stress, to early warning systems for extreme weather, to drought-resistant crops, to redesigning economic or governmental operations. To sum up, there is no one solution that works for everyone. 

Proposed by the African Group of Negotiators in 2013, the Global Goal on Adaptation was formalised in Article 7.1 of the Paris Agreement, with the aim of “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change.”

The Cancun Adaptation Framework adopted at COP16, even before the Paris Agreemet, established the Adaptation Committee, as well as the National Adaptation Plan process wherein parties are encouraged to adopt and renew their NAPs. The Paris Agreement then established Adaptation Communications that need to be submitted by States, on the priorities and progress of their adaptation actions. According to the 2023 Adaptation Gap Report, five-sixths of all Parties to the UNFCCC have at least one national level plan, policy or strategy in place for adaptation. 

The growing adaptation deficit

While mitigating climate change implies reducing the rise of temperatures and ensuing effects, adaptation implies being resilient against current and expected changes, and extreme weather events. After a natural crisis, whatever is irreparably destroyed is classified as loss and damage – thus is the importance of adaptation. The IPCC in its 6th cycle of reports identified 3.6 billion people, nearly half the world’s population, are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. As temperatures continue to rise, this number is set to increase. Yet, the UNEP’s 2023 Adaptation Gap Report showed that the implementation of adaptation plans is stagnating in developing countries. Adaptation actions supported by the four main international climate funds have decreased in number, while increasing in value due to the presence of larger projects. At the same time, the adaptation finance gap, i.e., the difference between current financial flows and adaptation needs, stands at between 194 and 366 billion dollars per year. The financial needs for adaptation are 10 to 18 times greater than current international public financial flows for adaptation, or at least 50% greater than previous estimates. 

The OECD report on climate finance provided and mobilised from 2013 to 2021, which aims to track progress towards the $100 bn climate finance goal, showed that in 2021, finance mobilised by developed countries for developing countries reached $89.6 billion, an increase of 7.6% on the previous year. However, financing for adaptation fell by 14% ($4 billion), resulting in a 27% share of climate financing flows in 2021. While at COP26, the final text “urged” countries to double adaptation finance flows by 2025, current trends until 2021 seem to render this goal unrealistic without a serious push in figures. 

According to Climate Policy Initiative, climate finance flows touched $1.3 tn in 2021-22, doubling from their 2019-20 levels, though driven mostly by an acceleration in mitigation finance. Adaptation finance in 2021-22 as per CPI figures reached a record high $63 bn, up by 28% from 2019-20, though now accounting for less than 5% of total climate finance (7% in 2019-20).

The Adaptation fund, which was created in 2001 and has been approving funding since 2009, received a cumulative $1.3 billion in contributions from 26 countries as of 9  December 2023, about midway through the COP. 

The issue of financing adaptation is indeed the second factor that has been slowing down negotiations on the GGA so far  – developing countries have been pushing for the GGA to include a financial element, though not technically required for such a framework. 

The road so far: Paris, Glasgow, Sharm el-Sheikh, Dubai…

Though it was established with the Paris Agreement in 2015, the GGA was the subject of few UN negotiations until 2021. It was picked up at COP26, once again at the initiative of the African Group, leading to the launch of the two-year Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh Work Programme on the GGA. The aim of this programme, carried out by the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC (SBI and SBSTA),  was to “better understand, conceptualize and ultimately achieve” resilience to climate impacts. The work programme would enhance adaptation support and action, and also measure progress towards the goal itself (which at the time did not even have a framework) under the Global Stocktake. 

The 2023 Report of the Work Programme summarised the discussions from the workshops held over the two years, including proposals for overarching targets, and specific targets on the assessment of impacts, vulnerabilities and risks, adaptation planning, the implementation of adaptation, monitoring, evaluation and learning. The report also contained recommendations in terms of themes to be considered under the GGA framework, indicators that would help to operationalize the framework, the role of stakeholders, and the means of implementation. This report fed directly into the negotiations at COP28 in Dubai and the first Global Stocktake as well. 

At Dubai, adaptation talks took a backseat, overshadowed by the furore around the fossil fuel “phase out” and the increasing attention paid to loss and damage. Draft texts on adaptation and the GGA did not appear until well into the conference, and negotiations were largely stuck on procedural matters until the very last moment. Aside from the issue of North-South finance flows and the inclusion of a financial target in the GGA framework, the historical responsibility of developed countries was another sticking point. 

The final agreement that was adopted this year contained much “weaker” elements on both finance and the common but differentiated responsibilities of countries. Countries had finally agreed on the themes to be covered by the goal  – water, food, health, ecosystems, infrastructures, poverty eradication and cultural heritage – though these made no appearance in the final text. Although the Dubai decision finally defines the framework of the GGA (i.e.,  a structured approach towards the objectives that countries will try to achieve), it remains in the realm of « guidelines », using vague language like “attaining resilience” and “reducing impacts” and leaving the choice to States, while skirting any specific targets.

Among what was agreed upon in the Framework are that the Parties shall establish: 

• Impact, vulnerability and risk assessments by 2030
• Multi-hazard early warning systems by 2027
• Climate information services for risk reductions and systematic observation by 2027
• Country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and transparents national adaptation plans by 2030.

Carbon Brief notes critiques of the final decision, understanding of the desire for national choice over actions, but lamenting the lack of an actionable and measurable framework, without any quantifiable targets. 

… and onwards?

Unlike many developing countries had hoped for, Parties did not establish a specific agenda item to continue discussing the GGA. The final decision on adaptation matters did however establish a new two-year work programme to work on indicators, measuring progress achieved towards the targets of the GGA adopted at COP28. The Adaptation Committee, established under the Cancun Adaptation Framework in 2010, is to support the implementation of the GGA with technical guidance and training, while also developing recommendations to improve reporting. At the same time, the decision also affirms that no additional reporting burden is placed on the Parties, who are invited to voluntarily include quantitative and qualitative information on their adaptation progress in other reporting requirements under the Paris Agreement.