For years, the international community has been seeking to improve adaptation to the effects of climate change, which continues to accelerate. 

In 2015, the Paris Agreement provided for the identification of a Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) aimed at strengthening adaptation capacities, increasing resilience to climate change, and reducing vulnerability to such changes. After being left unaddressed for several years, a framework for the GGA was finally adopted at COP28 in 2023 to provide a common direction for adaptation across all countries. However, due to the lack of indicators to measure the efforts made, this framework remained rather vague and not particularly binding. 

At COP30, which took place in Brazil from November 10 to 21, 2025, efforts continued to define a series of indicators to track and assess progress in adapting to climate change. The final text adopted on the GGA includes a list of 59 voluntary, non-prescriptive indicators. They are intended to inform national approaches to monitoring adaptation measures and progress. The list includes indicators in several sectors, like water, health and ecosystems, and indicators on cross-cutting issues such as means of implementation and capacity-building. The final text also provides for the establishment of the Belém-Addis vision on adaptation, a process which aims to refine the Belém adaptation indicators by 2027.

However, this text has led to mixed reactions among the Parties, particularly regarding the importance of anchoring the indicators to solid scientific bases and the ambiguity of the technical process governing the ongoing work. The importance attributed to this work at the international level invites us to reflect on the importance of measurement in adaptation.

Why is measurement essential?

Monitoring and evaluation systems make it possible to verify how useful particular actions are, their performance in achieving the objectives set, and the effectiveness of the means used to implement them. These systems promote transparency and accountability, in addition to offering learning opportunities. They help us better understand why a measure works in one context (the conditions for success), but fails in another (the obstacles), and to identify shortcomings in the means of implementation. In this way, they contribute to the continuous improvement of the actions taken. 

Monitoring and evaluating the strategies and actions implemented is an essential step in the iterative adaptation cycle. Such monitoring allows initiatives to be adjusted and helps with allocating resources and efforts where they are most useful in strengthening climate resilience. 

Multiple indicators to monitor and evaluate adaptation 

The objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5 °C is clear, and the monitoring indicators (e.g. CO2 equivalent) are relatively well established and are associated with fairly precise measurements. Conversely, the goal of adapting to climate change is a more abstract concept. Measuring and quantifying climate change adaptation is more complex since the objectives can vary depending on the risks (e.g. the effect of extreme heat on human health or coastal erosion on infrastructure).

Several types of indicators may be needed to monitor progress in adaptation and to account for the environmental, social and economic dimensions specific to the context in which the measures are taken. Quantitative indicators are often required to describe the specific characteristics of each issue and each territory. 

In adaptation, there are three main categories of indicators: 

1. Process-based indicators, which track the means of implementing actions. This would include, for example, the adoption of a regulatory framework to manage water bodies, which also governs land use planning to reduce flood risks.
2. Results-based indicators, which assess the performance of the solutions implemented. For example, they can determine whether, after the implementation of a measure targeting areas at a very high risk of flooding, buildings or activities have actually been moved or development work has been carried out.
3. Impact- or outcome-based indicators, which assess the effect of the solutions implemented. They help determine whether the measures have achieved their ultimate objectives, such as reducing the number of buildings affected during a flood. 

Despite their usefulness, impact- or outcome-based indicators can be difficult to use since the results of the strategies implemented often take time to materialize. Furthermore, it is not always straightforward to attribute greater climate resilience to the implementation of an action. For example, it can be difficult to assess whether an awareness campaign led to a decrease in the number of people affected during a heat wave.

In any case, it is important to combine indicators with contextual data, including the social and demographic aspects. For example, in the case of urban greening initiatives, instead of just counting the number of trees planted, one could assess whether the areas targeted for plantings were the highest priority ones and whether the most vulnerable populations benefited from this action. Combining different types of indicators makes it possible to monitor and evaluate the action at different stages of the adaptation process. It allows for a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the progress made and the success factors for increasing resilience.
 

Measurement for better adaptation in Quebec 

While adaptation is well underway in Quebec, developing indicators to track and evaluate its progress remains a challenge. Despite this, several initiatives have emerged in recent years.
In Quebec, the Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques provides certain adaptation indicators within the framework of the 2030 Plan for a Green Economy. The federal government has established a monitoring and evaluation framework for the National Adaptation Strategy. This framework aims to measure collective progress in adaptation, particularly with regard to solutions originating from different regions of the country.

Other organizations also contribute to the definition of indicators. For example, the G15+ has established the Indicators of Well-Being in Quebec. They seek to broaden the notion of progress beyond mere economic growth by integrating social, environmental and quality of life dimensions. In the same spirit, the Observatoire Grand Montréal offers the Indicateurs vitaux du Grand Montréal (vital indicators of Greater Montréal), which include components on the environment and natural areas to assess the overall health of the city and the challenges ahead. 

Together, these initiatives will improve the measurement of progress and provide guidance for climate adaptation in Quebec and Canada. It is essential to make the most of this monitoring by learning from it. Since adaptation is iterative, understanding the characteristics of successful strategies, as well as their limitations, makes it possible to improve their implementation and strengthen climate resilience over the long term.

An ongoing effort
The decision taken at COP30 regarding the GGA indicators was a step forward for adaptation worldwide. These international efforts can lay the groundwork for the establishment of common indicators in adaptation, facilitating their harmonization and the sharing of information at different scales (local, regional and national). This should help ensure some consistency in the actions taken and guide the work toward a common adaptation goal. 

It is worth remembering that measuring progress in adaptation not only allows us to assess the effectiveness of processes and the results of actions taken, but also to create a common basis for learning. Despite its complexity, this process contributes to collectively strengthening resilience from the local level to the international level.