COP29 – What Has It “Delivered” for Climate Adaptation and Loss Damage?
The COP29 was labelled the “Climate Finance COP”. Many reports have been shared about the outcomes in view of increasing financial flows and setting a new global climate finance target, the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). The negotiation eventually settled for $300bn per year provided annually by 2035. Expectations were high, see some pre-COP29 insights by WRI, Amnesty International, IISD, Grist). Many representatives of countries in the Global South and climate-vulnerable nations have expressed their disappointment, fearing that many communities will be left to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change without the financial and practical support they need.
Negotiation Aspects Relating to Climate Adaptation
The Paris Agreement established a goal to enhance adaptation, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change. But this “Global Goal on Adaptation” (GGA), as it’s called, still hasn’t been set. COP28 yielded some results when countries agreed to a framework for global climate resilience that included a range of targets, and established a two-year work programme, the so-called UAE–Belém work programme on indicators, to determine which indicators would be used to measure progress against the global adaptation goal.
Negotiators were meant to make further progress at COP29 by selecting indicators, but discussions were derailed. The Negotiations on the GGA produced mixed results (see draft decision on GGA). Parties successfully nailed down a clearer process and guidelines for selected experts to suggest indicators to measure progress against the seven thematic targets. This not only gives them a strong position to agree on the final milestones at COP30 next year, but also highlights the need to include stakeholders other than national delegations, and emphasises the need to work across the targets to find synergies between them.
There was also an important recognition of the need to connect the GGA to finance, leading to an agreement that the indicators would include measures to track whether sufficient finance has been provided to reach the goal. Another welcome development is that the dialogue emphasised equity, prioritising marginalised communities and leveraging Indigenous knowledge to ensure adaptation measures are sustainable and culturally relevant.
However, decisions did not include any concrete or quantitative financial commitments for supporting the implementation of the GGA – and with no adaptation subgoal in the NCQG, it remains unclear how these efforts will be funded. What’s more, it was decided that reporting on the indicators would be optional, meaning countries can pick and choose which measures they report on, making it harder to see global progress and – most alarmingly – allowing countries to hide where they are doing badly.
An important point was whether there should be indicators for “means of implementation,” which refers to capacity-building, technology transfer and financial support. Some developing countries advocated for means-of-implementation indicators while some developed nations argued against them. Ultimately, a compromise was reached to develop “enablers of implementation” for adaptation, which are not quantifiable. Such enablers include means of implementation but also refer to things like governance and transparency. Delegates agreed to include the GGA on the agenda for future meetings.
National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) were also a key topic for discussion. NAPs allow countries to set out plans for how they will adapt to the impacts of climate change by reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. Although considerable progress was made during the negotiations, countries failed to reach agreement on key issues, and new text on NAPs was ultimately not included in the final COP29 decision. The draft text worked on at COP29 will form the basis for debates in Bonn in June.
Next Steps on Climate Adaptation
A hybrid technical workshop is planned for mid-2025 to facilitate experts’ work on the GGA, with the aim of developing a set of no more than 100 globally and nationally applicable indicators to be considered at COP30. This is meant to help build an inclusive, data-driven and transformative adaptation framework, with minimal reporting burdens and accommodating diverse national contexts. Additionally, a special event will take place at the 2025 climate talks in Bonn, where the IPCC will provide an update on its work in this area, including the ongoing revision of its 1994 technical guidelines for assessing impacts and adaptations.
Negotiations Aspects Relating to Loss and Damage
COP28 resulted in the launch of a “fund for responding to loss and damage”. At COP29, developing countries and climate-justice groups were adamant that loss and damage should be covered by the NCQG, perhaps as a sub-goal within the overall target. Developed countries were generally reluctant to expand the range of activities that must be supported by the climate-finance target. In the end, parties agreed that loss and damage will not be addressed by NCQG finance. The final NCQG text mentions “loss and damage” three times, but merely “acknowledges” that “gaps remain” in dealing with it and that it requires public, grant-based finance.
Beyond the negotiations, it was particularly notable that more countries and subnational entities announced pledges to the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), established in 2023 to help developing countries address losses and damages. Australia, Austria, Luxembourg, New Zealand, South Korea and Sweden pledged funds, as well as Wallonia, a region in Belgium. These pledges add $85 million to the $674.4 million already pledged to the fund — still a far cry from the $580 billion in yearly losses and damages anticipated by 2030. It will be important to verify that these pledges represent new and additional finance, rather than repackaging previous commitments.
While these pledges were welcomed, the feeling among observers was captured by UN chief António Guterres, who told attendees that the “initial capitalisation” of the fund had not “come close to righting the wrong inflicted on the vulnerable”.
Furthermore, countries conducted a review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), which takes place every five years. The WIM has three main purposes in supporting responses to “loss and damage,” or the impacts of climate change that are so severe they cannot be adapted to. These include:
- enhancing knowledge and understanding of risk management;
- strengthening dialogue, coherence, coordination and synergies among relevant stakeholders;
- and enhancing action and support (such as finance, technology transfer and capacity building).
Furthermore, there was also a call from the G77 and China for the creation of a regular loss and damage “gap report”. These documents could mirror the annual “adaptation gap report” produced by the UN Environment Programme, which includes cost estimates. Developed countries were more hesitant about the creation of such a report, questioning how frequent and detailed it would be.
Next Steps on Loss & Damage
At the Bonn climate talks, countries will once again review the WIM and attempt to achieve consensus. Countries should also make good on their pledges to the FRLD as soon as possible as well as add more funds.
Find more info on the outcomes of COP29 by Carbon Brief, WRI, WaterAid and PlanAdapt’s blog ‘CLIMATE ADAPTATION at SCALE – Think Big and Smart! New Paradigms are Needed!’