THE MOMENTUM FOR NATIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS

• Work on the draft text of the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) has finally moved into operational mode at COP30.
• The issue of finance was the most debated, although it remains unfinished.
• As the second week begins, a draft COP decision is on the table, which also includes specific references to human rights, but still contains many brackets.

Adaptation is among the most significant themes at COP30, although the updates received on Saturday regarding Ethiopia’s possible intentions for COP32 now cast some doubt.

The issue is being discussed across two separate negotiation tracks: the Global Goal on Adaptation, which we address here, and the agreement on the collective assessment of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), recognized by all Parties as urgent and essential instruments for climate resilience.

In this track, after the difficulties that emerged both at COP29 and at the intermediate negotiations in Bonn, COP30 has finally provided the momentum to move forward concretely on the informal note.

Under the SBI63 agenda, during the first week of negotiations, the co-facilitators asked Parties to focus on the modalities for revising the draft text. Thanks in part to the spontaneous use of informal-informals improvised in the corners of meeting rooms, it was possible to agree to move forward with a gradual revision of the draft, working section by section.

The dialogue then moved directly onto the text, in a collaborative and compromise-oriented environment which, already on the first day of work, made it possible to consolidate several paragraphs, remove redundant sections, and streamline others that were complementary. There was a clear willingness to converge on the pending paragraphs, thanks to several bridging proposals put forward by different actors.

The successful approach was not to dwell on the sections where consensus was lacking, leaving them to be discussed in the context of the inf-inf consultations. This made it possible to move more quickly through the document and aim to finalize it over this COP.

The presence of many references to finance required delegations to hold several side consultations with their own experts on the matter, who were often not in the room. After all, the economic dimension of adaptation had proven crucial from the very first statements—particularly those expressed by countries considered to be developing—so it was predictable that the issue would take center stage across the various negotiation tables in this track, including the one on National Adaptation Plans.

For the Arab Group, references to the Means of Implementation (MOI) should not include “all sources of financing” or “private-sector financing,” elements that are currently included only in brackets in the text. Egypt expressed a similar position, emphasizing that private financial flows are not governed by the UNFCCC accountability architecture.

Europe, supported by Australia, stressed in the first session the need to work primarily on the existing text, avoiding the addition of new elements.

Going into more details, on Wednesday the starting point was precisely the section (5) Financial and Technical Support, with a particular focus on the Means of Implementation of the NAPs, considered fundamental by the least developed countries.

Paragraph 16 of the draft, concerning the financing provided to developing countries to formulate and implement National Adaptation Plans through the various available instruments, currently contains three versions in the text, including a “bridging version” proposed by Canada to mediate between the European Union and G77+China versions. The paragraph emphasizes the need to further increase funding and highlights concerns about the gap between climate finance flows and the actual needs for planning and implementing NAP actions. The paragraph is currently stalled, awaiting discussion during the second week of COP30.

Moving forward, the data on the activities of the Green Climate Fund have been updated: as of October 2025, it has approved 144 National Adaptation Plans and other adaptation planning grants for 121 countries, totaling 320 million dollars.

The Least Developed Countries (LDCs) put forward a bridging paragraph proposal on paragraph 21 of the draft, mentioning the obligations of developed countries under the Convention and the Paris Agreement, according to which they must provide and increase finance, technology transfer, and capacity building for the formulation and implementation of NAPs in all developing countries. This proposal received support from several other groups, including AOSIS, the SUR Group, AILAC, and LMDC. The Australian delegation stated that this formulation would create excessive dependence of NAP implementation on international support and therefore promoted the “softer” version put forward by the European Union, that mentions the support of developed countries as one of several available instruments.

Developing countries (LMDC) also emphasized the importance of reaffirming the obligations and responsibilities under the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has been ratified by all countries. Nevertheless, the paragraph was left pending.

The consultation then moved to the next section– (6) Support Needs – which also mentions the MEL system (Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning). Developing countries (LMDC) argued that some paragraphs contained unclear concepts and proposed streamlining this part through cuts. Together with the African Group, they specifically suggested removing the reference to enabling conditions. Australia then intervened to clarify that one of the concepts expressed is intended to show that NAP function is not solely about finance or means of implementation but requires a broader set of factors addressing the entire process to ensure policy instruments are effective. Australia emphasized that enabling conditions are mentioned because developing specific policies is an important part of adaptation commitments, and including it shows what the means of implementation should achieve. The Australian intervention was supported by Canada and the European Union, while acknowledging that the paragraph could be simplified. This section also remains pending, with paragraphs placed in brackets. The Parties then reformulated and removed some elements of a paragraph regarding information-sharing platforms and the integration of adaptation.

At this point, on Friday afternoon, the atmosphere became more fatigued compared to the enthusiasm of the previous sessions. This was noted by the European delegation itself, which urged not to spend too much time on headings and to move more quickly through the text of the document.

Finally, later that same evening, an additional rapid working session was held, during which the co-facilitators essentially asked the Parties whether they considered that the text discussed could be presented in the second week of COP30 as a draft decision rather than as an informal note, in order to proceed with the work under the COP framework. After an exchange of views, the room approved the text as a draft decision, demonstrating the willingness to move forward concretely to reach a conclusion in Belém. The published document, however, includes an introductory note emphasizing that it does not intend to prejudice any future work of the Parties, nor prevent them from expressing other views in the future.

Despite the forward momentum, the discussion essentially focused on two of the eight sections of the text, although one of these concerns the crucial issue of finance and means of implementation.

Finally, although not specifically discussed, it is worth noting the presence in the text of the section 4 – Inclusive Approaches – in which, currently in brackets, the importance of adopting a gender-responsive approach, respectful of human rights, is highlighted, as well as intergenerational equity and the engagement of indigenous peoples, local communities, and a broader range of stakeholders, including vulnerable groups, persons with disabilities, and people experiencing human mobility related to the adverse impacts of climate change.

It is still unclear how the weekend updates on adaptation will affect the developments in this track, but overall, the process still seems open, and the NAPs have certainly had a swift start. Reassured by this collaborative attitude, we will continue to follow the developments at this negotiation table, which has finally managed to get unstuck.

Article by Giada Fenocchio, delegate of the Italian Climate Network.

Cover image: photo by UN Climate Change – Kiara Worth