At COP30 in Belém, nations finally operationalised the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) by adopting a definitive set of metrics to track our collective resilience. This decision marks the end of an extensive review and refinement process.

September 25, 2024: The UNFCCC published a compilation of 5,339 indicators gathered from Party submissions and stakeholder contributions. Recognising that such a vast list was impossible to implement, a technical group of 78 experts was tasked with reviewing and refining these metrics.

May 23, 2025: Through a series of technical workshops, these experts consolidated and subsequently published a list of 490 indicators.

September 9, 2025: As the deadline for Belém approached, the technical experts were mandated to prioritise global relevance and feasibility, resulting in a sharpened proposal of precisely 100 indicators.

However, the final political negotiations at COP30 descended into politicking at its worst. In a bid to reach a consensus, the Presidency pushed through a series of heavily reworded indicators far removed from the experts’ original proposal. The result is the set of 59 Belém Adaptation Indicators—a voluntary, non-prescriptive suite of metrics that now serves as the world’s first shared approach to tracking climate resilience.

Below is the complete, categorised list of the 59 indicators across 11 thematic areas:

(1) Level of water stress, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable, accounting for relevant climate hazard intensity and/or frequency;

(2) Level of water use efficiency, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(3) Proportion of critical water and sanitation infrastructure systems that are resilient to climate-related hazards under different warming scenarios, as appropriate for regions and contexts, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(4) Proportion of the total area of basins and cryosphere for which a climate adaptation plan has been developed and implemented on the basis of different warming scenarios, as appropriate for regions and contexts where applicable;

(5) Proportion of the population using safe and affordable potable water services that are climate-resilient, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(6) Proportion of the population using sanitation services that are safely managed and climate-resilient, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(7) Extent of measures taken to improve and extend water, sanitation and hygiene services to populations disproportionately affected by climate change and to vulnerable groups relative to needs;

(8) Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality for drinking water supply, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(9) Number of people per 100,000 supported in planned relocation processes in response to water-related hazards, where adaptation measures were taken to ensure the safety of populations.

(10) Proportion of area under management for food and agricultural production utilising practices and technologies relevant to climate change adaptation;

(11) Extent of implementation of institutional frameworks for knowledge transfer, research and development, and extension services supporting climate change adaptation in the areas of food and agriculture relative to needs;

(12) Level of degraded areas that are under management for food and agricultural production, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(13) Level of food and agricultural yield in areas that are under management for food and agricultural production, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(14) Proportion of the population with equitable access to adequate food and nutrition, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable.

(15) Rate of mortality associated with climate impacts compared with counterfactual rates, including as an outcome of adaptation actions or coverage of early warning systems where applicable;

(16) Level of incidence of climate-sensitive infectious diseases, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(17) Rate of morbidity associated with climate impacts compared with counterfactual rates, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(18) Proportion of the population vulnerable to climate change with access to mental health and psychosocial support;

(19) Extent to which climate health services have remained at full capacity during and following climate-related events relative to pre-event service capacity;

(20) Percentage of health facilities that are resilient to climate-related hazards under different warming scenarios, as appropriate for regions and contexts, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(21) Coverage of essential health services that are supported by adaptation measures to ensure continuity during and following climate-related events;

(22) Proportion of health practitioners who have received capacity-building support pertaining to climate change adaptation and health.

(23) Proportion of climate-resilient ecosystems that are providing services to populations that depend on them;

(24) Proportion of ecosystem areas with adaptation actions implemented towards enhanced resilience and services;

(25) Level of resilience of ecosystems, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(26) Level of threat status of ecosystems, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(27) Level of threat status of species, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(28) Level of adaptive capacity, resilience and vulnerability to climate impacts resulting from the implementation of ecosystem-based adaptation actions and nature-based solutions according to information reported by Parties, as appropriate.

(29) Proportion of settlement upgrading programmes implemented that include climate change adaptation measures and maintain sustained engagement at the local level;

(30) Proportion of infrastructure and human settlements vulnerable to climate-related hazards and other extreme events relocated to a safer location.

(31) Level of population living in poverty, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(32) Proportion of the population in climate-vulnerable areas with access to social protection services;

(33) Level of social protection systems that consider climate risk management aspects and can respond to climate change impacts.

(34) Percentage of at-risk cultural and natural heritage sites and elements with adaptation measures implemented to enhance resilience to climate-related hazards under different warming scenarios, as appropriate for regions and contexts, guided by traditional, local or Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and practices, disaggregated, as appropriate, by tangible and intangible cultural elements;

(35) Proportion of cultural heritage protected from climate impacts through digitisation measures for preservation and recovery, and by storing movable heritage in climate-resilient facilities;

(36) Percentage of cultural heritage and sites with adaptation measures and emergency preparedness plans in place for climate change-related hazards under different warming scenarios, as appropriate for regions and contexts;

(37) Level of establishment of institutional arrangements for the provision of regular training on climate change adaptation that incorporates guidance from traditional, local and Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge where applicable;

(38) Percentage of climate adaptation measures focused on cultural heritage that maintain sustained engagement with Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities.

(39) Level of establishment of multi-hazard early warning systems;

(40) Level of conduct of assessments of climate hazards, climate change impacts, and exposure to risks and vulnerabilities based on different global warming scenarios, as appropriate for regions and contexts;

(41) Level of establishment of multi-hazard monitoring and impact-based forecasting systems, including monitoring stations;

(42) Number of people per 100,000 that are covered by early warning information through local governments or through national dissemination mechanisms;

(43) Percentage of the population in a country exposed to or at risk from climate-related disasters protected through pre-emptive evacuation measures following early warning;

(44) Level of establishment of climate information services for risk reduction and systematic observation to support improved climate-related data, information and services;

(45) Extent of usage of climate risk information and comprehensive risk assessment based on different global warming scenarios, as appropriate for regions and contexts, to inform the formulation of national adaptation plans, policy instruments, and planning processes and/or strategies.

(46) Status of having national adaptation plans, policy instruments, and planning processes and/or strategies in place;

(47) Status of having gender-responsive adaptation plans, policy instruments, and planning processes and/or strategies in place;

(48) Existence of national adaptation plans, policy instruments, planning processes and strategies that have been informed by traditional knowledge, knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local knowledge systems.

(49) Extent of implementation of national adaptation plans, policies and strategies relative to planned implementation thereof;

(50) Number of deaths and missing persons associated with climate-related hazards, per 100,000 people, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(51) Net savings as a percentage of gross domestic product from avoided losses, including as an outcome of adaptation actions where applicable;

(52) Amount of finance for climate adaptation reported in line with chapters IV, V and VI, as relevant and as appropriate, of the annex to decision 18/CMA.1, disaggregated by the parameters listed in paragraphs 123, 125, 133 and 134, as applicable, of the same decision, which includes the amount of international public finance for climate adaptation provided by developed countries and received by developing countries for the implementation of national adaptation plans, policy instruments, and planning processes and/or strategies;

(53) Technology development and transfer for climate adaptation reported in line with chapters IV, V and VI, as relevant and as appropriate, of the annex to decision 18/CMA.1, disaggregated by the parameters listed in paragraphs 127, 136 and 138, as applicable, of the same decision, which includes technology development and transfer support for climate adaptation provided by developed countries and needed and received by developing countries for the implementation of national adaptation plans, policy instruments, and planning processes and/or strategies;

(54) Capacity-building for climate adaptation reported in line with chapters IV, V and VI, as relevant and as appropriate, of the annex to decision 18/CMA.1, disaggregated by the parameters listed in paragraphs 129, 140 and 142, as applicable, of the same decision, which includes capacity-building support for climate adaptation provided by developed countries and needed and received by developing countries for the implementation of national adaptation plans, policy instruments, and planning processes and/or strategies.

(55) Extent of design of a system for monitoring, evaluation and learning for national adaptation efforts relative to needs;

(56) Level of operationalisation of a system for monitoring, evaluation and learning for national adaptation efforts;

(57) Level of periodic publication of monitoring, evaluation and learning findings regarding the implementation of national adaptation efforts;

(58) Level of integration of monitoring, evaluation and learning system findings into national adaptation efforts;

(59) Level of institutional capacity to fully operate systems for monitoring, evaluation and learning for national adaptation efforts.

The final set of 59 indicators is heavily weighted toward process, i.e. how countries plan and govern, rather than outcomes, like physical changes in resilience. This reflects the reality that many nations are still in the early stages of building their adaptation architecture.

The transition from the technical expert group's proposal of 100 indicators to the final adopted list of 59 represents a significant shift from technical idealism to political realism. While the expert group aimed for comprehensive, granular data coverage, the final negotiations at COP30 applied a political ‘filter’, coalescing around a list palatable to all Parties, particularly regarding reporting burdens and financial liability.

There is a clear unevenness in how different thematic areas are treated. Water and Health are the most robustly defined categories, likely because these sectors have well-established global baselines, e.g., SDG 6 for water, and WHO frameworks for health. In contrast, Infrastructure and Poverty have far fewer indicators, possibly due to the difficulty of defining universal resilience standards for housing and livelihoods.

Many of the adopted indicators, like #26 Ecosystem Services or #37 Traditional Knowledge Integration, lack established global methodologies or datasets. This means the first few years of the Belém framework will likely be spent just defining how to measure these items, rather than reporting actual progress. The decision text acknowledges this by establishing a two-year work program to develop the necessary methodologies.

The adoption of the Belém Adaptation Indicators kicks off a critical four-year operational phase. From 2026 to 2027, the "Belém-Addis Vision" will guide countries in voluntarily piloting the 59 metrics and refining technical methodologies to close data gaps. Simultaneously, the "Baku Adaptation Road Map" will mobilise the necessary support for developing nations to begin implementation.

By 2028, countries are expected to integrate these metrics into their national reporting. This testing phase culminates in 2029, following the second Global Stocktake, when Parties will formally review the framework. This pivotal moment will determine if the indicators require adjustment, enabling the system to evolve from a voluntary pilot into a robust protocol for tracking global climate resilience.

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