{"id":5939,"date":"2025-07-25T13:59:03","date_gmt":"2025-07-25T13:59:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.powershiftafrica.org\/blogs\/too-vague-too-late-was-the-bonn-gga-text-a-long-con"},"modified":"2026-10-28T09:47:12","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T09:47:12","slug":"too-vague-too-late-was-the-bonn-gga-text-a-long-con","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/blogs\/too-vague-too-late-was-the-bonn-gga-text-a-long-con\/","title":{"rendered":"Too vague, too late: Was the Bonn GGA text a long con?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In this analysis of the Global Goal on Adaptation text from the SB62 talks, JUMA IGNATIUS<\/strong>, our senior adaptation advisor, argues that while there was progress in refining the indicators, the final language in the text was so vague that it could open dangerous loopholes of interpretation and cherry-picking by the Global North.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2025 Bonn Climate Meetings are behind us, and the buzz around the final draft text of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) is deafening. Yet, I remain cautiously skeptical. Is it time to celebrate? I think not just yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be fair, the Bonn outcome offers some much-needed progress. It provides clearer direction to experts tasked with developing the 100 adaptation indicators set to be adopted at COP30 in Bel\u00e9m. These indicators must be measurable, adaptation-specific, and aligned with the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inclusion of indicators addressing the\u202fmeans of implementation, particularly access, quality, and finance, is a significant win for developing countries. These have long been sticking points for the Global South, which has consistently called for adaptation to be backed by resources, not rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But let\u2019s not mistake movement for momentum. As the saying goes, the taste of the pudding is in the eating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take Paragraph 15(h), for example. It directs experts to include indicators not only for means of implementation but also for \u201cother factors that enable implementation.\u201d The questions to ask are: What exactly are these \u201cfactors\u201d? Who defines them? And who measures them?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The language is so vague it opens a dangerous loophole that could easily be used to dilute accountability or delay the actual delivery of resources. For developing countries, this is a trap cloaked in technocratic ambiguity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even more troubling is how the text invokes Articles 9, 10, 11, and 13 of the Paris Agreement. Article 9.1 is unequivocal: developed countries\u202fSHALL\u202fprovide financial resources to developing nations. But rather than affirm this direct obligation, the GGA text lumps it into a broader reference to \u201cArticle 9.\u201d That opens the door to cherry-picking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 9.3, for instance, shifts the emphasis from obligation to encouragement, calling on developed countries to\u202fLEAD\u202fin mobilising finance globally. This kind of textual vagueness offers a convenient escape hatch for wealthy nations to sidestep their core responsibilities under the guise of multilateral effort. They can just as easily invoke what others have, or haven\u2019t, done under 9.3 to deflect scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s no secret who got us into this climate mess. The principles of\u202fCommon But Differentiated Responsibilities\u202fand\u202fPolluter Pays remain cornerstones of climate justice, but they\u2019re increasingly at risk of being reinterpreted into irrelevance and transformed from commitments into platitudes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And let\u2019s not overlook the politics of timing. The GGA text was finalised in the dying hours of Bonn, when many Global South delegations were running on empty, their teams stretched thin or already departed. A coincidence? Perhaps. But if history has taught us anything, it\u2019s that strategy often hides behind fatigue. It wouldn\u2019t be the first time that a \u201cconsensus\u201d text was sneaked through while key voices were absent or too exhausted to push back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, there are gains to acknowledge. But let\u2019s not be lulled into complacency. This is no Canaan moment for the GGA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

African and other developing country negotiators, experts, and diplomats must remain vigilant, especially in the upcoming technical workshops that will refine and ensure the quality of the indicators. This is where the real battle begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The focus must now shift to ensuring that what looks promising on paper is translated into\u202freal,\u202fequitable, and\u202ftimely support on the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anything less, and the Bonn GGA text may go down in history as a beautifully written con.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ignatius Juma is a senior policy advisor on climate adaptation and resilience at Power Shift Africa<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In this sharp analysis of the Bonn Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) text, Juma Ignatius argues that while technical progress was made on adaptation indicators, the vague and ambiguous language risks undermining accountability. Without clearer commitments, especially on finance, developing nations could be left navigating a dangerously diluted framework. The real test, he says, lies ahead: turning paper promises into equitable, measurable support on the ground.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":5940,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[28],"topic":[],"class_list":["post-5939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blogs","tag-adaptation"],"acf":{"url":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5939","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5939"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5939\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9555,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5939\/revisions\/9555"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5940"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5939"},{"taxonomy":"topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/powershiftafrica.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topic?post=5939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}