If one were to design a torture chamber for a climate diplomat, it would likely resemble the humid, high-stakes pressure cooker of Belém. Yet, it was here in the gateway to the Amazon that the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) sought to finally answer a question that has bedevilled the UN process for a decade: how does one measure humanity’s ability to survive a warming world? The answer, delivered after a fortnight of fractious negotiation, was the Belém Adaptation Indicators.

The summit, branded by its hosts as the ‘COP of Implementation’, concluded with the adoption of 59 metrics designed to track the elusive Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). On paper, this is a triumph of technocracy over inertia. For the first time, the world has a unified dashboard to assess resilience in health, water, agriculture, and infrastructure. In practice, however, the ledger of survival has been written in vanishing ink. The indicators are voluntary, the funding to achieve them is delayed, and the most politically sensitive metrics were left on the cutting room floor.

While cutting emissions has a clear metric—tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—measuring ‘resilience’ is notoriously slippery. Is a country more resilient because it built a sea wall, or less resilient because the wall destroyed a mangrove forest?

The Belém text attempts to impose order on this chaos. The final list of 59 indicators, whittled down from an initial sprawl of around 10,000 potential data points, covers eleven thematic areas. There are notable normative victories. The World Health Organization (WHO) and its allies successfully lobbied for the inclusion of eight specific health indicators, tracking everything from heat-related mortality to the resilience of healthcare infrastructure. Similarly, the cultural heritage sector, long ignored in the hard-nosed world of climate economics, secured five indicators that explicitly value Indigenous knowledge and the protection of heritage sites.

These are not trivial wins. By formalising these metrics, the UNFCCC has effectively mandated that health ministries and cultural departments become central actors in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), rather than peripheral observers.

However, the robustness of the measuring tape matters little if no one is required to use it. The diplomatic battle in Belém was fought less over what to measure and more over who is liable when the measurements turn red. The European Union, wary of creating a legal framework that could underpin future claims for compensation, insisted on language that defanged the entire apparatus.

The final decision emphatically states that the indicators are "voluntary, non-prescriptive, non-punitive, facilitative, and global in nature". They are explicitly designed not to create "additional reporting burdens" or serve as a basis for comparison between parties. This ‘sovereignty shield’, supported vehemently by the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) to avoid having their own adaptation efforts judged as conditionalities for aid, effectively turns the global adaptation framework into a suggestion box.  

As critics have noted, a dashboard without warning lights is of limited utility. By making reporting entirely optional, the framework risks introducing a selection bias, where nations report only their successes, thereby obscuring the true extent of global vulnerability.

Perhaps the most glaring omission in the final text was the removal of "transboundary risks”. Climate change is the ultimate borderless threat; glacial melt in the Himalayas poses a threat to water security in both India and Pakistan, just as drought in the Amazon affects rainfall patterns across South America.

Yet, in a triumph of Westphalian paranoia over hydrological reality, references to transboundary risks were excised from the final list. India, along with Pakistan, strongly objected to any indicators that might subject their management of shared river basins to international scrutiny. The result is a set of indicators that treats each nation as a climatic island, ignoring the cascading risks that define the modern world. As one analyst noted, the removal reflects a refusal to acknowledge that adaptation in one country is often contingent on the actions of its neighbour.  

If the indicators are the vehicle for adaptation, finance is the fuel. Here, the outcome of COP30 was most acrimonious. Developing nations, represented by the G77 and China, had pushed for a ‘Means of Implementation’ indicator that would rigorously track the provision of finance by wealthy nations. They argued that measuring a country’s resilience without measuring the financial support promised to it is statistically dishonest.  

The compromise was the "Mutirão decision"—named after a Brazilian term for collective effort. It calls for a tripling of adaptation finance by 2035. While this sounds ambitious, it represents a significant delay. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) had fought for a 2030 deadline, with Mohamed Adow of Powershift Africa suggesting the 2035 date leaves “vulnerable countries without support to match the escalating needs”.

Furthermore, the grant-based finance demanded by the V20 (Vulnerable Twenty) group to avoid debt traps was only partially acknowledged. The final text emphasises mobilising finance from all sources, a diplomatic euphemism that often prioritises loans and private capital over the public grants that adaptation projects desperately need.

Recognising that the 59 indicators are not yet ready for prime time—many lack baselines or standardised methodologies—delegates agreed to a new process: the Belém-Addis Vision. This two-year roadmap aims to "operationalise" the indicators by COP32 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in 2027.  

Optimists view this as a necessary period of refinement, a chance to let the "Baku Adaptation Roadmap" do the technical heavy lifting. Pessimists, however, see a bureaucratic trap. The Stockholm Environment Institute warns that this defers implementation into yet another "protracted political process". By delaying the hard work of standardisation to 2027, the world risks losing two more years of actionable data.

COP30 will be remembered as the moment the world agreed on the grammar of adaptation but refused to write the cheque. The Belém Adaptation Indicators are a sophisticated bureaucratic construct, a testament to the ability of the UN system to produce complexity in the face of crisis. But the ‘Belém Paradigm’ is one of voluntary ambiguity.

We now have a ruler. We know what to measure. COP30 has gifted us a dashboard of flashing red lights, meticulously categorised and globally standardised. But without the political courage to act on these warnings, we have merely constructed the metrics to watch the floodwaters rise.

Know someone interested in adapting to a warmer world? Share Liveable with someone who should be in the know.

Or copy and paste this link to share with others: https://research.liveable.world/subscribe