COP30: The major arguments as Parties debate GGA indicators

Negotiations at COP30 in Belém entered a tense and technical phase on November 18th as Parties clashed over one of the most politically charged issues on the table; the adoption of indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).

What began as a routine discussion quickly revealed deep divisions over how adaptation should be measured, tracked, and financed.

The debate, which unfolded in a packed negotiation room under the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), revolved around whether COP30 should finalise and adopt the full set of GGA indicators this week, or allow for further refinement after the conference.

Developed countries, led by Australia, Japan, and the European Union, urged Parties to “adopt now, refine later”, arguing that the process had dragged on long enough, and that the indicators needed to be operationalised so that countries can start reporting progress.

Japan went a step further, proposing a clear workplan through to 2030 to progressively strengthen and align the indicators with national adaptation tracking systems. But not everyone was convinced.

Developing countries, particularly from the African Group of Negotiators (AGN), the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and the Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), cautioned against rushing adoption without addressing what they view as fundamental inconsistencies in the framework, especially around means of implementation (MOI) and Parties’ differentiated responsibilities.

For these groups, the indicators are not just a technical tool, but a political signal of whether adaptation will finally be treated and supported with the same seriousness as mitigation.

In interviews conducted by Power Shift Africa, many spoke on the fear that hasty adoption could cement an incomplete or inequitable system that fails to reflect the real needs of climate-vulnerable nations.

The fight over finance & Kenya's position

At the heart of the dispute lies a familiar fault line: money and equity.

Developing countries insist that indicators for the GGA must explicitly track the provision and receipt of finance, technology transfer, and capacity building in line with the Paris Agreement, the core enablers of adaptation, from developed to developing countries.

The African Group of Negotiators, together with the  the Arab Group, and AILAC, reiterated the LDC’s call for tripling adaptation finance by 2030, aligning their messaging across other agenda items.

Kenya and Chile reinforced the same demand under Article 9.1 discussions, while Grupo Sur, comprising Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, brought it up in negotiations on National Adaptation Plans, a coordinated effort to ensure that the finance question is addressed in every relevant track.

However, developed countries pushed back. The EU and Japan argued that there is no mandate under the GGA to negotiate finance levels, since the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) process already covers that substantively.

Instead, they proposed that adaptation indicators should reflect all types of funding, whether public, private, or blended, so long as they support adaptation outcomes. But, for many developing nations, this flexibility sounds like a loophole. 

Reacting to the impasse, Mohamed Adow, Director of Climate and Energy Policy think tank Power Shift Africa, said: “Rushing through weak indicators would lock in a system that counts promises, not progress. The Global Goal on Adaptation must measure delivery, not delay.

You can’t have real adaptation without the means to adapt. Finance and sharing technology are not side notes the, but the backbone of climate resilience. If COP30 ends with adaptation indicators that sideline finance, it will prove yet again that the world’s poorest are being asked to run a race without shoes.

Kulthoum Omari Motsumi, the AGN Lead Coordinator for the GGA and Technical Advisor of the Africa Adaptation Initiative (AAI), said: "The current indicator list is inconsistent with Parties’ differentiated responsibilities and turns a support obligation into a domestic spending requirement.”

When adaptation finance is not delivered, African countries are forced to reallocate the dwindling public resources away from health, education, and social protection. Or, worse, to take on new debt, paying twice for a problem they did not cause.

Beyond the financing debate, many delegations stressed the need to ensure that the GGA indicators do not become an isolated reporting mechanism. Several Parties from the North have previously warned against duplicating existing frameworks such as NAPs and the GST.

African and Global South negotiators argue that the GGA indicators represent the first global attempt to systematically measure adaptation progress under the Paris Agreement, a historic step toward balancing the climate agenda.

They argue, too, that if the framework sidelines finance or weakens accountability, it could undermine trust just as the world faces escalating climate impacts.

For now, the battle lines are drawn; between urgency and equity, between pragmatism and principle. And as COP30 enters its decisive days, the outcome of the adaptation indicators debate could well determine whether this summit is remembered as a breakthrough for resilience, or another missed opportunity in the long struggle for climate justice.

This article was published in association with Juma Ignatius of Power Shift Africa.