Cerac Post-COP30 Reflections
The UN Climate Change Conference in Belém closed with a familiar mix of urgency, frustration and cautious hope. COP30 revealed a world increasingly aware of the mounting dangers of climate disruption, but also increasingly divided on how to respond. Negotiations dragged into the final hours as countries clashed over finance, transitioning away from fossil fuels or halting deforestation to keep global warming in check. While mitigation outcomes remain far from what science demands, adaptation emerged as a relatively brighter spot in an otherwise strained negotiation landscape.
Adaptation: one of the few areas of real progress
In a context where global cooperation feels fragile, it is notable that adaptation received heightened political attention. The Belém Package sends several clear signals:
- Commitment to triple adaptation finance by 2035, extending and replacing the goal agreed in Glasgow in 2021;
- Adoption of a voluntary, non-prescriptive list of 59 indicators meant to track global progress under the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).
- Conclusion of the Baku Adaptation Roadmap, which outlines work from 2026 to 2028 ahead of the next Global Stocktake;
- Adoption of the long-awaited decision on the National Adaptation Plans (NAP) assessment, recognising both progress and persistent obstacles in developing countries’ planning efforts;
- Launch of the Belém Health Action Plan to enhance the health sector’s resilience to climate change, with an initial investment of USD 300 million to support this international commitment.
These steps matter. They reaffirm that adaptation is no longer the footnote of climate diplomacy but a core pillar of the global response, because climate impacts are accelerating faster than mitigation efforts.
But the fractures are visible, and dangerous
Yet the positive headlines also hide deeper shortcomings. The decision to triple adaptation finance is symbolically important, but its timeline and ambiguity fall short of the expectations of developing countries. Moving the target from 2030 to 2035 delays urgent action and risks widening the adaptation finance gap at the very moment climate impacts intensify. Moreover, without a clear baseline, the goal becomes harder to measure and easier to avoid.
The adaptation indicators, meanwhile, became hostages in a larger political struggle over finance. The final set of 59 indicators does cover critical elements, but the process leading to adoption was marred by last-minute changes that undermined the credibility of a technical product refined over two years. Confusion in the closing plenary reflects this weakened consensus.
The next steps remain vague, with hints of further revisions until 2027. This creates a risk of missing the essential window of the second Global Stocktake, which depends on coherent, predictable guidance for monitoring adaptation progress. Instead, the process now enters a period of uncertainty.
What COP30 means for Belgium, and why we cannot be bystanders
Adaptation is a global challenge faced by all, but responsibility remains asymmetrical. Even though the Paris Agreement expects all countries to communicate on adaptation planning processes and the implementation of actions, the flexibility of existing reporting systems leads to fragmentation and inconsistencies. Developing countries rely on UN formats under the NAP, while developed countries tend to use domestic processes and rarely align with global templates.
Moreover, one of COP30’s inadvertent lessons is that adaptation still appears, politically, as a developing-country issue. The UNFCCC’s own historical architecture contributes to this perception: the NAP process was designed specifically for vulnerable countries, and climate adaptation finance flows from developed to developing countries. But this asymmetry no longer reflects reality.
Climate risk is not remote, nor is it confined to the Global South. For Belgium and Europe, climate impacts are already reshaping our daily reality. The Belgian Climate Risk Assessment (BCRA) identifies a range of growing hazards, including increasingly frequent heatwaves and urban heat stress that raise mortality and put severe pressure on public health; recurring droughts and water scarcity that threaten agriculture, inland navigation and ecosystems; and rising risks of flooding and extreme precipitation, which endanger homes, transport networks, critical infrastructure and insurance systems.
“We cannot afford to let adaptation remain an afterthought in international discussions. Our safety, our prosperity and our stability depend on mobilising action: here, and far beyond our borders.”
Luc Bas, Director of Cerac
Moreover, Belgium may not face the same existential vulnerabilities as small island states or least-developed countries, but it is nonetheless deeply exposed to cascading climate risks. The country’s agriculture, energy systems, trade routes and financial markets are tightly interconnected with regions already hit hardest by climate shocks. These global disruptions translate into domestic impacts, including supply-chain interruptions affecting essential goods; food price volatility driven by droughts or crop failures in key exporting regions; energy market instability caused by extreme events that disrupt global production and transport routes; and increased migration pressures and geopolitical tensions as climate stress intensifies in fragile states.
The failure of multilateralism is therefore not an abstract geopolitical concern: it is an existential threat to our society, our economy and our security. For Cerac, this gives rise to two important reflections:
- The necessity to strengthen Belgium’s domestic adaptation efforts, building coherent and forward-looking resilience planning, taking inspiration from the new indicator framework, despite its weaknesses, to guide Belgium’s own adaptation monitoring and help align our processes with global expectations.
- The need to advocate for stronger multilateral action, supporting adaptation internationally through predictable finance for developing countries, technical cooperation and transparent reporting.
A moment to recommit, not retreat
We must be honest: COP30 did not deliver the level of ambition the world needs. Yet it also showed that progress remains possible. And despite an increasingly difficult geopolitical landscape, multilateralism endures : imperfect and under strain, yet still capable of producing meaningful outcomes.
Adaptation has also entered the centre of the multilateral climate agenda, with new instruments in place, but also warnings. Belgium, like all countries, must recognise that global resilience and national resilience are inseparable. Meeting this challenge will require sustained cooperation and a determination to rise above political divisions. Otherwise, it will risk eroding our collective ability to respond in time.