ST Explains: Why is it tricky for countries to agree at COP30 on how to adapt to climate change?

BELEM, Brazil – With UN climate summit COP30 set to end on Nov 21, an agreement among countries on a key expected outcome of the summit – how they should measure progress on adapting to climate impacts – has been held up by concerns about financing.

Adaptation refers to actions that help reduce vulnerability to climate impacts, such as building

sea walls

to keep out rising tides, or early warning systems to reduce lives lost to typhoons.

Neglected and under-resourced for years, adaptation has seen slow progress, as much of the world’s attention has been focused on mitigation, or efforts to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

But as climate change starts manifesting in the form of more extreme weather events globally, the Brazilian host of this year’s climate talks has called on the nearly 200 countries party to the Paris Agreement to make implementing adaptation strategies a priority.

Countries in Brazil’s Belem city for COP30 are hammering out an agreement on a set of indicators for how countries can

measure progress

on implementing such measures.

However, an initial draft of the decision on adaptation released on Nov 18 was littered with square brackets – which reveal a lack of consensus between countries.

The Straits Times explains the sticking points.

Why is measuring progress on adaptation important?

The faster the climate changes and the longer adaptation efforts are postponed, the more difficult and expensive responding to climate change will be.

Having a list of standardised indicators will allow nations to better track their strengths and weaknesses against the impacts of climate change.

For example, if countries start tracking deaths due to heat exposure and see a growing trend of such mortalities, they can start taking steps to reduce this.

Ahead of the conference, experts had whittled down an initial list of thousands of indicators to just 100. They include indicators that track whether countries have early warning systems, and whether they measure the proportion of water and sanitation infrastructure systems that can withstand climate-related hazards.

If countries agree that this set of indicators should be adopted, it will guide global adaptation efforts by showing where and how well adaptation plans are performing.

Dr Theresa Wong, head of science for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II Technical Support Unit, who was part of the panel of experts consulted on the indicator list, said that reporting on the indicators is voluntary, and that not all countries will do so for all the indicators.

The IPCC is the UN’s climate science body. Working Group II focuses on the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, and ways to deal with the impacts.

Dr Wong said countries may choose to report on indicators that are relevant to the particular risks each country faces. “The indicators as a whole are meant to support countries to plan better and implement more effective responses to climate change,” she added.

Dr Wong noted that reports from the IPCC have warned that when emissions go up, the current responses to climate change impacts may become less effective in safeguarding lives and livelihoods.

She added: “Having a means to monitor and track whether actions are effective or not using adaptation indicators, and crowding in global science and support for these processes, is all the more critical.”

Already, people and infrastructure are experiencing climatic changes beyond their expectations.

At an event on heat resilience at the Singapore Pavilion on Nov 18, Brazil’s National Secretary of Urban Environment, Water Resources and Environmental Quality Adalberto Maluf stressed the urgency of rolling out solutions to deal with extreme heat, recalling how Rio de Janeiro endured temperatures that felt above 50 deg C earlier in the year.

“Actually that’s why we brought you here to Belem, to the Amazon, so you can feel the heat when it’s around 30 deg C to 35 deg C,” he said, a nod to the sweltering conditions that participants have endured during the summit.

“And believe me, it’s impossible to live with,” he added. “Extreme weather events are hitting us too hard, but extreme heat is not something that we’ve prepared ourselves for.”

Why is it so hard for countries to agree on metrics to track adaptation?

In speeches outlining their countries’ positions on climate change, environment ministers and high-level representatives have broadly agreed that adapting to climate change is important.

But there are areas of contention holding up progress.

Primarily, there is disagreement over whether the set of 100 indicators should be immediately adopted, or if they should be adopted in phases, reviewed, or postponed for adoption at a later date.

There is also the option for the list of indicators to be “taken note of”, which is a weak form of acceptance in UN speak that implies countries need not commit to using it.

Developing countries are concerned about whether they have the resources to measure vulnerabilities in the first place, and how they can finance efforts to implement measures to adapt. They are asking developed countries for more funds to help them do so.

One proposal being debated is whether developed countries should triple the amount of adaptation finance they provide to developing countries from 2025 levels by 2030, reaching a sum of at least US$120 billion (S$157 billion) or US$150 billion per year by 2030.

Another point of contention is how indicators involving transboundary issues should be settled.

Parties have agreed that climate change impacts are often transboundary in nature, and can involve complex, cascading risks that can benefit from cooperation across jurisdictions on global adaptation solutions.

However, some parties are concerned that such transboundary indicators would place additional obligations and liabilities on national governments.

Why is adaptation finance so critical for developing countries?

Financing adaptation is likely the biggest challenge to be hashed out.

Climate Change think-tank E3G’s associate director Rob Moore said: “Governments have just a few days to turn the tide after a year of aid cuts and private sector wavering, and to secure the legacy of Brazil’s vision for how the investment gap can be bridged.

“Whether they will be able to agree on a new goal for adaptation finance for vulnerable countries remains up in the air and will be a key theme in the closing days.”

Other than discussions over the amount of adaptation finance that should flow from developed to developing nations, the quality of finance is also a key issue for poorer nations.

Activists are urging parties to prioritise grant-based finance, instead of just loans, such that the developing countries are not punished with more debt.

The Climate Action Network, which represents more than 2,000 organisations, said: “Developed countries are wrapped up in showing support for indicators, but without grant-based and predictable finance, there is no implementation to mark against.”

On a positive note, about US$135 million was pledged to the Adaptation Fund during the second week of COP30 by donor countries including Germany Spain and Sweden.

The Adaptation Fund was established in 2001 to finance adaptation projects and programmes in vulnerable developing countries.

What will an optimistic outcome on adaptation for South-east Asia look like?

In South-east Asia, progress on adaptation-related topics at the international climate negotiations will give countries a mandate to intensify domestic and international support for adaptation efforts, said Dr Wong.

This will include ensuring the needed investment flows into these programmes, she added.

Minister for Sustainability and the Environment Grace Fu told ST on Nov 18 that Singapore hopes to reference the set of indicators in developing its first national adaptation plan.

Such plans identify medium- and long-term adaptation needs and develop ways to address them.