Ten years on from the landmark Paris Agreement, the stage had been set for COP30 – dubbed ‘the implementation COP’ – to deliver real progress for those facing the impacts of the climate crisis. So often overlooked, adaptation was finally at the forefront, but the opportunity to create a gear shift in adaptation action was squandered.

Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance representatives joined others from all over the world in Belém, Brazil, pushing for much-needed action on adaptation. From river-monitoring sensors in Peru to disaster alert networks in Malawi and floating fish nets in Indonesia, we’ve seen the difference it makes to climate-vulnerable communities when they have the resources – financial and otherwise – to adapt to the challenges caused by the climate crisis. With the COP Presidency prioritizing adaptation like never before, now was the moment to achieve ambitious outcomes.

“Adaptation has been consistently underfunded and this COP was a rare opportunity to rebalance the scales. Sadly, that opportunity was missed.”

Debbie Hillier – Head of the Zurich Climate Resiliance Alliance for Mercy Corps

Agreement on adaptation finance leaves too much unclear

The Alliance had been calling for a new adaptation finance commitment to be agreed at COP30, to replace the Glasgow Climate Pact’s expiring target. In Belém, developing countries got behind the Least Developed Countries Group’s demand for US$120bn a year by 2030, and pushed for this consistently and clearly through the two weeks. What was eventually decided, however, fell well short.  

The final agreement that calls for efforts to triple adaptation finance left significant questions unanswered – the tripling of what, and by whom? – and allowed the target date to slip to 2035. Instead, as with all too many climate finance agreements in the past, there is only vague ambition where there should be accountability. As our ‘Fair Shares’ series of reports with ODI made clear when it turned its focus to adaptation, ambiguity in the Glasgow Climate Pact had hindered progress on adaptation. It follows that this new agreement will be no different in that regard. 

The tripling also includes finance from all sources, not just public, grant-based finance. Many will therefore continue to expect too much from the private sector when it comes to closing the adaptation finance gap, or will make their contributions in the form of non-concessional loans that risk triggering damaging debt crises.  

The text does urge developed countries to “increase the trajectory” of provision of adaptation finance; this is welcome, but this text doesn’t sufficiently capture their legal obligation to provide finance, as underscored by the ICJ ruling earlier this year.  

Indicators agreed – but much work to be done

An agreement on indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) was a critical part of the COP30 adaptation package. Going in to COP, 100 indicators had been developed by technical experts with the aim that they could be used to measure global progress on adaptation. 

Ultimately, the Presidency proposed a list of 59 indicators late in the negotiations that lack clarity and measurability, and there was very limited opportunity for Parties to discuss their feasibility or propose alternatives. This led to pushback from some countries in the final session of COP30, with the Presidency having to concede to further work at Bonn next year. In any case, even a near-perfect set of indicators could not lead to real change, without funding to back them up. Monitoring and evaluation of adaptation needs will never lead to progress on its own; as Power Shift Africa’s Mohamed Adow put it, “weighing the cow won’t make it fatter”.  

“COP30 was meant to be the implementation moment, but the outcomes show that we are still struggling to match ambition with action. Without clearer commitments, predictable finance, and stronger accountability, the world risks moving too slowly while climate impacts accelerate.”
Tommy Chimpanzi – Programme Coordinator, Concern Worldwide 

What next for adaptation? 

Now that COP30 is over, it’s hard not to rue the failure of the ‘Implementation COP’ to live up to its name. We arrived seeking a step change in the provision of adaptation finance – and a subsequent improvement in the prospects of communities most vulnerable to climate shocks – but we left contemplating weak agreements that will do little to change the status quo.  

The National Adaptation Plans text was finally agreed (after a delay of over three years), but many countries remain unhappy due to the lack of any reference to finance to support NAP implementation.  

Work will continue to review and refine the GGA indicators in the next two years, under the “Belém-Addis vision”, culminating at COP32 in Ethiopia. One clear step forwards is that the proposed indicators on gender and local/Indigenous knowledge were included in the final list; these open the door for future work on gender and other aspects of vulnerability in the next two years. 

On finance, a two-year work programme has been agreed, including on the provision of finance – this could offer further opportunities to promote the kind of finance that vulnerable communities need.  

Every day, the Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance works with communities and partners that display unwavering commitment in the race to adapt to the climate crisis before it’s too late. We will renew our efforts, and urge all other actors to do the same.