José Gesti, Water for Climate Pavilion Envoy on the Global Goal on Adaptation and Senior Climate Advisor at Sanitation and Water for All (SWA) shared insights on the discussions at COP29 and outlined what lies ahead in advancing these critical adaptation efforts.
From communities displaced by fierce floods in East Africa and Spain, to record-breaking drought in the Amazon, 2024 has demonstrated the vulnerabilities of communities all over the world.
The UAE Global Framework for Climate Resilience and the Global Goal on Adaptation (also known as the GGA) aim to protect communities from the worst impacts of climate change. A critical component of the Framework is ensuring water and sanitation systems are equipped to withstand the shocks of a changing climate.
At COP29, negotiators are grappling with one of the most challenging aspects of the Global Goal on Adaptation: defining measurable indicators for adaptation progress. With nearly 9,000 potential indicators proposed, negotiators face a Herculean task to whittle down to those that are both meaningful and feasible. They also need to avoid placing undue reporting burdens on nations already stretched thin.
José Gesti, Water for Climate Pavilion Envoy on the Global Goal on Adaptation and Senior Climate Advisor at Sanitation and Water for All (SWA), has been actively involved in these discussions, particularly regarding water-related indicators. In an interview, he shared insights on the discussions at COP29 and outlined what lies ahead in advancing these critical adaptation efforts.
Where did the idea for the Global Goal on Adaptation come from?
The Global Goal on Adaptation originates from Article 7 of the Paris Agreement, which calls for enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change. Adaptation means that we recognize that climate change is having adverse effects on our planet, and will continue to do so. Therefore, we need to take action to prevent or minimize climate impacts. Nearly every country in the world is a party to the Paris Agreement, and they send negotiation teams to COP to hammer out global climate policy.
For people not in the policy space, what are targets and indicators and how do these translate into climate policies in our own countries and communities?
That’s a key question we’re asking at COP29: how do we convert something as high level as a COP framework into reality on the ground?
Targets and indicators are essentially tools to measure and guide progress. Targets define the goals we want to achieve and when we want to achieve them by — for example, reducing water scarcity and enhancing global resilience to floods, droughts, heatwaves, and rising sea levels by 2030. Or ensuring we have climate-resilient water and sanitation systems by 2030. Indicators, on the other hand, are the metrics we use to track whether we’re meeting those targets. For example, an indicator might measure the percentage of a population with access to drinking water during a drought.
At the global level, these targets and indicators give us a shared framework—a common language—for tackling climate adaptation. This has to now translate into national policies and it has to cascade down as soon as possible into local action.
For instance, a country might take a global target on water resilience and develop local policies to upgrade water infrastructure, implement conservation programs, or create early warning systems for droughts. These actions are tailored to local conditions and needs, but the new framework will enable us to assess global progress toward adaptation by aggregating and summing up local progress.
How will COP29 push the Global Goal on Adaptation forward?
As of now, the main focus is the on-going work program for developing indicators against the targets that were established at COP28. We’re mid-way through the two-year work program, with the final results scheduled to be presented at COP30.
But this is more than just a “transitional COP.” Our discussions here are critical because negotiators need to establish a common understanding of what they want the outcome to be next year. They also need to provide clear instructions to the 78 experts working on indicator development. These experts have expressed concerns that they don’t have a clear picture of what is expected from them. This meeting is the only opportunity for negotiators to legally agree and provide those instructions before the June intersessional (in between COPs) climate conference in Bonn.
What are the main issues that countries are negotiating?
Most countries agree on having global indicators, but a few countries are advocating for only having local or national indicators. This isn’t in the interest of the water community. We’ve fought hard for a global agreement with global targets, and those targets must come with global indicators. This is essential for sustaining the advocacy efforts we’ve initiated at the national level with ministries of water resources and sanitation. We need to empower them to implement climate-resilient solutions on the ground. One compromise being discussed is the idea of developing global indicators with the option to report on local indicators. This approach could help negotiators reach an agreement by the end of COP29 and still support the water community’s efforts to drive action at both national and local levels.
Over 9,000 indicators have been submitted for the Global Goal on Adaptation. Does this concern you?
It’s true that thousands of indicators have been proposed by parties and observers, including the water sector. But the goal isn’t simply to reduce the number from thousands to a handful. The problem is that while many of these indicators are related to climate adaptation, they don’t adequately measure progress on adaptation, at least not without being refined or adjusted.
The key questions aren’t just about the quantity of indicators but their quality and purpose. What are the objectives behind them? What methodology will be used to collect data? What baseline are we comparing against? How will national statistical offices be involved? These are fundamental considerations that need to be addressed.
Some parties are already suggesting limits, like having five indicators per target, but I think it’s too early for that discussion. For example, water has several distinct elements — climate-induced scarcity, climate-related water hazards, climate-resilient water supply, climate-resilient sanitation – each requiring tailored measurement approaches.
Financing is often cited as a barrier to successful adaptation. What other decisions need to be made at COP29 to ensure that funding for adaptation flows to where it’s most needed?
COP29 is being called the “finance COP” and it provides a perfect opportunity to close the adaptation finance gap. The 2024 UNEP Adaptation Gap Report shows the current adaptation finance gap is now estimated at US$187-359 billion per year.
We are urging the water community to advocate for the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) to include a dedicated sub-goal for climate adaptation financing, as well as a strong link to the UAE Framework and the implementation of its targets.
