Developing countries require hundreds of billions of dollars in investment every year to help them adapt to the rising threat of climate change.
Without this investment, more extreme floods, fires and hurricanes will place many more lives at risk and millions of people in the global south will be pushed into extreme poverty.
Yet, as it stands, there are major gaps in global adaptation finance.
In the new Adaptation Finance Gap Update, part of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Adaptation Gap Report 2023, we examine recent trends in adaptation funding.
Specifically, we focus on the flow of public adaptation funds from the governments of developed countries to developing countries, since the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
In this article, we identify three major gaps in adaptation finance and explain why these gaps have emerged even as nations commit to scaling up these funds.
Financial shortfall
Adaptation costs for developing countries are estimated at between $215bn and $387bn annually this decade, according to the latest Adaptation Finance Gap Update report.
Spending from the public funds of developed nations, while not the only source of adaptation finance, remains a crucial source, especially for low-income countries.
As it stands, people in the least developed countries (LDCs) and small-island states are often more exposed to climate hazards and more likely to be killed by climate-related disasters. This is despite the fact that these nations bear very little responsibility for causing climate change.
Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries agreed to achieve a balance in the amount of climate finance to adaptation and mitigation. However, far more funds have been channelled towards cutting emissions than preparing for climate impacts.
The commitments made by developed countries so far fall drastically short of the costs and needs expressed by developing countries.
Observed flows of public adaptation finance from these nations have been well below $30bn each year.
At the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, developed countries pledged to double their adaptation finance contribution by 2025. However, as the chart below shows, progress towards this goal has fluctuated since the baseline year of 2019 (figures are not yet available for 2022 and 2023.)
In 2019, adaptation finance was estimated in our analysis at $19.2bn. To meet the commitment of doubling this amount by 2025, developed countries should aim to contribute at least $38.4bn per year toward developing countries.
However, a promising 31% increase in funding observed in 2020 was followed by a subsequent 15% decrease in 2021, complicating the path to achieving the target. It is noteworthy that while adaptation finance declined, finance for mitigation – that is, cutting emissions – continued to grow.
To reach the goal of doubling the finance, a consistent 16% average annual increase is required going forward.
Lack of local finance
Local organisations, people and communities are at the forefront of experiencing climate change impacts. Often, they are the most engaged and innovative in developing sustainable solutions to navigate these challenges.
Therefore, it is critical that these local entities are meaningfully involved in funded adaptation projects. However, there has been a lack of clarity on how much adaptation funding is intentionally directed to benefit local communities.
Our analysis provides comprehensive estimates of adaptation finance that mainly focuses on local communities, which cover both bilateral and multilateral sources.
Previous assessments have only covered dedicated climate funds such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Adaptation Fund and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Despite their significance, these sources still only constitute a minor share – roughly 9% – of total public adaptation finance.
Our assessment reveals that less than 17% of total international public adaptation finance was allocated to projects with a specific focus on local communities.
Even though this represents an increase from a previous estimate of about 10%, it underscores a persistent and pressing need to increase financial support to local communities.
Struggling to reach the ground
Effective use of funds is essential to ensure that they serve their intended purpose, rather than inadvertently creating new challenges.
However, our research reveals that a significant portion of funding does not even reach its target.
Between 2017 to 2021, we estimate that only 66% of the allocated funds were successfully disbursed to their recipient countries. The remaining funds have not reached developing countries, for various reasons including project delays and lack of capacity.
In contrast, 98% of general development finance, covering other issues such as education and healthcare, was successfully disbursed within the same period.
This highlights the unique barriers in disbursing funds for adaptation projects. These include inadequate understanding of local markets during project planning, limited climate policy knowledge among decision-makers and bureaucratic delays in fund approval and disbursement.
The adaptation disbursement gap varies regionally. South Asia received merely 51% of allocated funds, whereas sub-Saharan Africa, home to most LDCs, had a higher disbursement ratio of 79%.
This discrepancy is likely due to sub-Saharan Africa receiving a higher amount of grants, which tend to have better disbursement ratios.
It is essential to note that these figures predominantly represent data from bilateral sources, meaning funding provided country-to-country.
Comprehensive data on disbursements from multilateral organisations, including the World Bank and other development banks, remains limited. This is significant as most (61%) international public adaptation finance for the global south comes from these sources.
Moving forward
Our analysis shows that adaptation finance goes beyond being a single aggregate number and requires alignment with local situations.
It also indicates that a collaborative approach involving both finance providers and recipients is required to identify and solve existing gaps.
Bridging these gaps could drive a shift towards climate justice, wherein vulnerable, developing countries are not excessively burdened by climate change. Conversely, neglecting them could exacerbate loss and damage in those countries.
Negotiations at the upcoming COP28 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) present an opportunity for world leaders to establish measures to address these gaps.
The post Guest post: Three major gaps in climate-adaptation finance for developing countries appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: Three major gaps in climate-adaptation finance for developing countries
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News