Nearly a decade ago, the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) was established with the adoption of the Paris Agreement, reflecting the international community’s commitment to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. In 2023, 11 thematic and dimensional targets were adopted to guide the achievement of the goal and a process was established to identify indicators to assess progress. A proposed set of indicators put forward by the group of technical experts tasked to support this process will serve as a basis for discussions during the mid-year climate negotiations in Bonn starting on 16 June, with the final set expected to be agreed at COP30 in Belém.
As countries work to refine the indicator set over the coming months, what insights can we learn from existing international reporting frameworks? A new Climate Change Expert Group (CCXG) paper outlines some key considerations for negotiators.
Hitting the ground running or learning by doing
The development of a new indicator set inevitably calls into question what needs to be measured and how. Should priority be given to what can be measured with already available resources? Or should efforts focus on indicators that would generate more relevant information, even if data or capacity to report on them may not initially be available?
While the answer may lie somewhere in-between, an iterative approach with periodic assessments of the approach taken to course correct will be important. As an example, the framework for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) initially included indicators considered useful but without established methodologies and standards, so-called “tier III indicators.” Through annual adjustments and two comprehensive reviews, tier III indicators have either matured conceptually, or been replaced, refined or deleted. Whereas a focus on new indicators can guide efforts in the collection of new data or the development of new capacity, valuable time can also be lost in testing the feasibility of indicators that may not mature. In comparison, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) reporting framework focused from the outset on indicators that can immediately be operationalised.
Bringing together the pieces of the puzzle
Assessing progress towards the GGA will rely on national reporting to the UNFCCC. The transmission of information on countries’ adaptation efforts at the local and national level to the global level, will require: i) the integration of GGA targets in national adaptation planning processes (as relevant reflecting national circumstances), ii) the inclusion of the forthcoming GGA indicators in national monitoring, evaluation and learning systems, and iii) periodic reporting on indicators through UNFCCC reporting instruments.
Since reporting on adaptation is voluntary, it is possible that not all relevant information on countries’ adaptation efforts gets reported, or that the information reported is not comparable. Experience from the SDG Voluntary National Reviews and reporting on the Aichi biodiversity targets have shown that when reporting is voluntary and against an indicative list of indicators, it will be inconsistent, limiting its contribution to global assessments of progress. To address this challenge, the KMGBF monitoring framework includes five types of indicators, of which reporting on two - i.e. headline and binary indicators - is mandatory. To limit the reporting burden, countries can draw on data already collected and managed by so-called custodian organisations; alternatively, they can report their own data. While countries will continue to report on adaptation through established international reporting instruments, the use of global databases where these are available, and should countries wish to use them, could increase the harmonisation of the data reported.
Building the tools for the job
The development of the GGA indicator set requires a complementary focus on strengthening countries’ data and statistical capacities to report. Assessments of progress made towards the GGA are to be informed by reporting on the GGA indicators covering all countries, capturing the needs and contributions of different segments of society, and across levels of governance. A key barrier to such data disaggregation, as illustrated in reporting for other international frameworks, are data availability and countries’ statistical reporting capacities. Early engagement with the statistical systems that facilitate national reporting will therefore be important. For the SDG Voluntary National Reviews, the development of data roadmaps has facilitated deeper engagement by the national statistical systems on reporting and supported the broader development of national statistical systems.
What’s next?
In Bonn, negotiators are expected to provide guidance on how to refine the proposed set of GGA indicators ahead of a final decision expected in Belem. The CCXG will continue to support countries in this process, with discussions at the next CCXG Global Forum on the Environment and Climate Change on 16-17 September 2025 focusing on issues related to potential GGA indicators on enabling factors for the implementation of adaptation action, including means of implementation.
