Global Goal on Adaptation at SB62: key milestone on the road to COP30

|

English Version

What’s at stake?

With less than 150 days remaining until COP30, the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) of the Paris Agreement has reached a pivotal moment. Key decisions must now be made in Bonn, as Parties work toward agreeing on a final set of indicators to support GGA implementation, expected to be finalized by COP30.

Following the Baku mandate on COP 29, a global group of 78 experts was tasked with reducing an initial list of over 9,000 indicators to a final set of no more than 100. Although the group submitted its final report in May 2025 and made substantial progress in the refinement process, the current shortlist still includes 490 indicators— far from the intended target (see image below).

These indicators are structured around seven thematic areas^[1] and four dimensional targets^[2], and should follow three main outcomes:

(i) be globally applicable to inform analyses of global adaptation trends;

(ii) constitute a menu that enables Parties to choose which indicators are more adequate to their national circumstances [para 20] and

(iii) support aggregation of information for the next Global Stocktake [para 23].

In other words, rather than comparing countries’ progress or prescribing how they should implement policies at the national level, the list of indicators should track global progress on the GGA targets.

The main issues to be addressed in Bonn revolve around the criteria for prioritizing these indicators and the potential need to extend the recently expired expert group’s mandate. What criteria will guide the prioritization of these indicators? If the mandate is extended, what risks could this pose to finalizing the indicators in time for COP30?

Several options are on the table, including the creation of a global core list of 100 indicators, supplemented by an opt-in/opt-out system for thematic, regional, and national indicators. Any chosen approach should recognize that the quality of the prioritized indicators is just as important as the feasibility of completing the process by COP30. Finding this balance is essential to finally enable its implementation.

From 9,000 to 100: the challenging refinement process of indicators

Experts nominated by Parties and convened by the SB Chairs were organized into eight expert groups—one for each thematic target and one covering the four cross-cutting dimensional targets, according to their expertise.

The guiding principle was to develop indicators that draw on existing datasets and align with established frameworks— such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Moreover, the UAE Framework explicitly calls for incorporating means-of-implementation (MOI) indicators in qualitative and quantitative forms.

Relying on already well-established could enhance coherence on existing data and reporting systems. On the other hand, many developing countries face limitations in institutional and technical capacity to collect and monitor such data. In this context, MOI indicators are essential to ensure that Parties receive the necessary support to report their progress effectively.

When it comes to the substance of the indicators, some categories are expected to be particularly contentious in Bonn. Among them are those related to MOI, considered a red line for many developing countries, as they touch on commitments related to finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building. According to the delivered report on indicators, MOI indicators account for 28% of the current list, in which 11% are specifically focused on finance.

While the COP29 decision on the GGA replaced the term means of implementation (MOI) with enabling factors of implementation, the expert group continued to treat MOI as an operational category. However, different interpretations of what qualifies as MOI across expert groups have resulted in methodological inconsistencies, raising concerns about the overall coherence and reliability of these indicators. Other controversial areas include indicators that aim to capture social inequalities through disaggregated data, such as by race, gender, and migration status.

A hybrid workshop under the UAE–Belém Work Programme will take place on 16 June in Bonn and will be a key moment to advance this process and address the outstanding issues raised above.

[1] (a) Water supply and sanitation; (b) Food and agricultural production; (c) Health impacts and health services; (d) Ecosystems and biodiversity; (e) Infrastructure and human settlements; (f) Poverty eradication and livelihoods, and (g) Cultural heritage and knowledge.

[2] (a) Impact, vulnerability and risk assessment; (b) Planning; (c) Implementation; and (d) Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning.