RAY OF HOPE AS COP30 NEGOTIATORS MOVE FORWARD ON NATIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS AMID LINGERING DIVIDES
COP30, Belém
On the third day of COP30 negotiations, countries took a cautious but significant step forward in talks on National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), agreeing to use the informal notes from COP29 as the basis for this year’s discussions. The decision, while procedural, was welcomed by many as a sign of movement in a process long bogged down by disagreements over finance, technology, and the question of responsibility between developed and developing nations.
For years, negotiations on NAPs have been fraught with contention, primarily around the extent to which developed countries should support developing nations in formulating and implementing their adaptation plans. These plans are central to helping vulnerable countries prepare for and respond to the escalating impacts of climate change, and require not only national ownership but also international support in the form of finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building.
Delegates noted that the slow pace of NAP formulation across many countries reflected deep structural barriers, especially the lack of predictable funding. Several parties pointed to the “support and financial gaps” that continue to delay the development of NAPs, arguing that without stronger backing, progress on adaptation will remain uneven and painfully slow.
Against this backdrop, the agreement to begin negotiations from Paragraph 6 of the COP29 informal note, focused on Means of Implementation (MoI), was seen as a modest breakthrough. Both the European Union and Australia endorsed this approach, saying they welcomed the focus on MoI but cautioned that no new elements should be added to the existing language. They argued that the text already provides a sound framework for discussions, and re-opening the wording could derail progress.
Still, for many developing country negotiators, the insistence on avoiding new language could limit ambition, but the question remains whether the existing text adequately captures the scale of support needed to turn NAPs from plans on paper into real-world adaptation action.
As the session unfolded, the draft text was projected on the screen, with delegates offering suggested edits, insertions, and clarifications in real time, a familiar rhythm in the marathon of climate diplomacy. Each phrase, comma, and qualifier carried political weight, reflecting the tug-of-war between ambition and caution, and between those demanding stronger commitments and those urging restraint.
Observers noted that while the exchanges were technical, the underlying politics were anything but. Developed countries have long resisted any language that could be interpreted as creating new financial obligations, while developing nations, many on the frontlines of climate impacts, continue to push for stronger assurances of support.
The focus on Means of Implementation is particularly crucial because it addresses the backbone of adaptation efforts: who pays, how much, and through what mechanisms. But, despite the cautious optimism, the road ahead remains uncertain. The informal note from COP29, which failed to produce a conclusion text, is now serving as both a foundation and a reminder of the fragility of consensus in this process. Negotiators will spend the coming days revisiting key paragraphs line by line, in the hope of reaching an agreed outcome that can be forwarded to ministers before the close of COP30.
The stakes are high. National Adaptation Plans are meant to guide countries in identifying their most urgent adaptation needs, ranging from coastal protection and drought resilience to health systems and food security, and to integrate these priorities into national development strategies. Yet, without sufficient international support, many developing countries remain stuck at the planning stage, unable to move toward full implementation.
For small island states and least developed countries, this impasse carries real-world consequences. Delayed adaptation translates into higher losses from storms, floods, and heatwaves, and greater strain on already stretched public finances. The Adaptation Gap Report, released ahead of COP30, warned that developing countries’ adaptation finance needs are now 10 to 18 times higher than current international flows. Against that sobering backdrop, even modest procedural progress is seen as welcome.
Still, negotiators are aware that hope alone won’t deliver results. The next few days will be crucial in determining whether COP30 can produce a conclusion text on NAPs, something that eluded COP29, which ended with only an informal note. The aim this time is to move beyond that stage and agree on a framework that strengthens the formulation, assessment, and implementation of NAPs in line with the Global Goal on Adaptation.
As the discussions resume, all eyes will be on whether the carefully worded paragraphs on Means of Implementation can bridge the trust gap between developed and developing countries. Many believe that the fate of the NAPs negotiations will serve as a bellwether for the broader adaptation agenda at COP30.
If the talks stall again, it would signal yet another year of delay for countries struggling to build resilience against worsening climate impacts. But if they succeed, even incrementally, it could mark a turning point in how the global community approaches adaptation: with finance, fairness, and urgency at its core.
For now, negotiators are walking a fine line between pragmatism and ambition. The coming days will reveal whether this cautious momentum can finally translate into action, or whether, once again, adaptation will be left waiting in the wings.