Developing nations face serious obstacles in implementing adaptation goals, including limited data, unclear metrics, and insufficient financing. Political priorities and climate uncertainty further hinder progress. To overcome these, experts urge finalizing practical indicators, boosting finance, strengthening national systems, and enhancing monitoring to ensure inclusive, effective, and accountable adaptation efforts globally.
As the UN Climate Meetings (SB62) enter a decisive phase in Bonn, nations are grappling with how to turn the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) from lofty aspirations into measurable actions, especially amid rising climate impacts.
The negotiations, running from 16 to 26 June, are shaping up to be a key milestone ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where final decisions are expected on operationalizing the GGA under the Paris Agreement.
Building resilience through GGA
Established under Article 7 of the Paris Agreement, the GGA aims to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability across countries, particularly the most climate-vulnerable. But while the goal is broadly supported, countries remain divided on how to define, measure, and finance progress.
At the heart of the GGA are six thematic focus areas adopted at COP28 in Dubai: water and food security, health and well-being, ecosystems and biodiversity, infrastructure and human settlements, poverty eradication and livelihoods, and cultural heritage and Indigenous knowledge.
Progress and stalemates
A key development from the May 2025 UAE–Belém work programme was the dramatic reduction of potential indicators from 9,529 to 490 — a move aimed at improving clarity and usability. However, consensus remains elusive.
The Group of 77 and China have emphasized that these indicators must be aligned not only with Article 7 of the Paris Agreement but also with the global temperature goal under Article 2. They’ve called for clearer guidance for technical experts, better coordination, and the elimination of inconsistent or duplicate indicators.
Crucially, they argue that Means of Implementation (MoI) indicators — covering finance, technology transfer, and capacity building — must not be sidelined. Without robust support mechanisms, they warn, the GGA risks becoming a hollow promise.
Adaptation still lags behind mitigation
A persistent challenge in the GGA debate is the lack of quantifiable targets. Unlike the 1.5°C mitigation benchmark, adaptation progress is inherently context-specific and qualitative. This makes global assessment difficult and underlines the need for localized approaches backed by international cooperation.
Experts and negotiators also highlight substantial gaps in data availability, early warning systems, and adaptation planning tools, especially in the Global South.
The equity dimension
The GGA discussion has also spotlighted deep equity concerns. Vulnerable nations continue to stress the need for gender-sensitive adaptation strategies and equitable financial flows. They are pushing for a stronger role for equity in adaptation design, monitoring, and evaluation — echoing the core principle that those least responsible for climate change should not bear its heaviest burdens without support.
Adaptation in focus: Key implementation challenges
Participants identified a set of critical obstacles hindering effective adaptation action, especially for developing nations: Professor A.K.M. Saiful Islam, one of Bangladesh’s official negotiators at SB62 and a climate scientist from the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) highlighted the following challenges.
- Lack of measurable indicators: The absence of clear, consistent metrics hampers global tracking of adaptation progress.
- Data and capacity gaps: Many Global South countries lack the tools, technical expertise, and institutional infrastructure necessary for adaptation planning.
- Climate uncertainty: The unpredictable nature of climate impacts makes long-term planning inherently difficult.
- Equity and inclusion: Ensuring fair support for vulnerable communities remains politically sensitive and operationally complex.
- Governance Barriers: Competing priorities, including economic development, often sideline adaptation efforts in national agendas.
- Inadequate finance: Despite repeated pledges, adaptation funding remains insufficient and unreliable.
- Global–Local disconnect: Adaptation solutions are highly context-specific, challenging the translation of global goals into localized action.
SB62 Recommendations: From framework to action
Professor A.K.M. Saiful Islam also highlighted some actions. In response to these pressing issues, the workshop put forward a set of targeted recommendations aimed at strengthening the adaptation framework:
- Indicator Finalization: Experts called for clear, evidence-based, and streamlined indicators that can be used across diverse national contexts.
- Boosting Finance: Participants urged the development of innovative financing instruments to close the growing adaptation finance gap and deliver predictable funding to vulnerable nations.
- Capacity Building: Strengthening national systems, including institutions and technical expertise, was deemed essential for the success of GGA.
- Monitoring and Accountability: Proposals included the establishment of standardized monitoring and reporting systems to ensure transparency and progress tracking.
- Political Prioritization: Stronger political will and institutional reforms were encouraged to embed adaptation into national development agendas.
Looking ahead to COP30
The SB62 session is a critical testing ground. It must demonstrate real movement on measurable adaptation indicators and secure commitments to resource mobilization. Without these steps, hopes for adopting a robust GGA framework in Belém could falter.
The negotiations in Bonn offer one of the last chances to restore trust between developed and developing countries and to ensure that adaptation — long treated as the “poor cousin” of mitigation — finally receives the clarity, support, and urgency it demands.
