The GGA target has been challenging for countries to come up with. This is because the definition of adaptation is much more complex than mitigation
Photo: Joel Michael / CSE The first draft text of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) came out on the fifth day of the 28th Conference of Parties (COP 28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai.
Parties have generally agreed upon the overarching target, thematic targets and specific targets for the framework of the GGA. But developing country Parties rejected the text. On December 5, a new text was introduced with some improvements and options on some of the contentious issues.
The framework of GGA is one of the major negotiations being carried out at the climate conference. The GGA is being developed as a framework of targets for countries on their progress on adaptation similar to the temperature goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
The temperature goal asks of countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions such that Earth’s average temperature rise since pre-industrial times remains below 1.5°C, which is the ambitious target or below 2°C.
The GGA target has been challenging for countries to come up with. This is because the definition of adaptation is much more complex than mitigation which simply means reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Adaptation could mean anything from coastal communities becoming more resilient to frequent and intense tropical cyclones to mountain communities becoming more resilient to melting glaciers.
In the text from December 4, many developing countries pointed out missing language around the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), the gap in adaptation finance, targets around finance and mechanisms around accountability.
Many of these were bracketed which meant that these parts were still being discussed by the negotiators and there is no consensus on them. In the December 4 text on GGA, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) was bracketed. In the December 5 text, the CBDR-RC principle is placed as an option to be put into the text. The second option surprisingly does not have any text currently.
CBDR-RC simply means that developed countries, which have greater historical emissions, are responsible for the current climate crisis and have to lead the way towards tackling the crisis and share a greater burden.
It represents the idea of equity among signatories to the Paris Agreement and has been central to the negotiations under the UNFCCC after the Paris Agreement was ratified.
Other bracketed paragraphs in the text were around the gap in finance for adaptation that was highlighted by the recent United Nations Environment Programme’s Adaptation Gap Report. The report released in November 2023, states that the adaptation finance gap is not closing—not by a long shot.
The annual adaptation costs in developing countries alone are currently estimated to reach the upper range of $215-387 billion per year by 2030 and $280-500 billion by 2050.
This is possibly a gross underestimation of the costs which countries are already incurring with increased frequency of extreme weather events.
The adaptation finance gap — which is the difference between estimated adaptation finance and actual finance being made available — stands within a staggering range of $194 billion to $366 billion. This is 10-18 times the actual finance flows to the countries and 50 per cent more than the earlier estimate.
The acknowledgement of this huge gap in the money that countries need to adapt to the impacts of climate change and what they are getting from the developed countries is essential for the GGA framework to be implemented in a fair manner.
In the December 5 text, in one of the options on a part of the ‘finance and means of implementation’ section there is a financial target of $400 billion per year of adaptation finance by 2030. This has been proposed by a developing country Bloc/group. The paragraph also highlights the connection between the GGA and the ambitious temperature target of 1.5°C.
Another paragraph highlights the adaptation finance gap and the doubling of adaptation finance. In the other option, which was earlier bracketed, neither a financial target, adaptation finance gap or reference to the temperature target is mentioned.
In the text introduced on December 5, the overarching target of GGA has been agreed upon as the following:
Decides that the GGA framework should guide long term transformational and incremental adaptation efforts towards reducing vulnerability and enhancing adaptive capacity and resilience, as well as the collective well-being of all people, the protection of livelihoods and economies, and the preservation and regeneration of nature, for current and future generations, taking into account the best available science and the worldviews and values of Indigenous Peoples, to support the achievement of the GGA articulated in Article 7.1 of Paris Agreement.
Then there are seven thematic targets around availability of water, climate resilient food systems, universal health coverage, restoration and enhancement of natural ecosystems, resilience of human settlements, reduction of poverty and protection of tangible cultural heritage.
Apart from this, there are also four specific targets on Impact, vulnerability and risk assessment; Planning; Implementation; and Monitoring Evaluation and Learning. The first two targets are to be achieved by 2025 and the last two by 2030.
In the target on ‘Impact, vulnerability and risk assessment’ the achievement of early warnings for all by 2027, an initiative being spearheaded by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has also been included.
The ‘Planning’ target is around the development of the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and other strategies to help communities adapt to a changing climate. The NAPs are developed by countries as a guidance to drive adaptation measures. The text says such planning measures should be “country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory, inclusive and transparent”.
The ‘Implementation’ target is connected to the first two targets and assesses to what extent NAPs have been implemented by countries and by what extent the vulnerability of communities identified by the first target has been reduced.
The last target on ‘Monitoring Evaluation and Learning’ (MEL) basically checks whether a MEL system has been establishment by countries and they have the required institutional capacity to put it into function.
Overall the targets are comprehensive and cover most aspects of the complex web of adaptation actions. Though some civil society organisations wanted a target specific to adaptation in the mountains and along the coasts.
Under cross cutting considerations, the GGA text highlights the importance of a science based approach to adaptation and ensuring that the framework is “country-driven, gender-responsiveness, participatory and fully transparent approaches, human-rights-based approach and ensure intergenerational equity and social justice, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, including children, youth and persons with disabilities.”
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
.png)
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.