Published

2 years ago

November 15, 2023

Alice Rush

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.)

Climate adaptation finance provided by developed countries must increase significantly to reach the 2025 goal. — Climate adaptation-specific finance commitments, $bn, from developed to developing countries per year for the period 2017-2021. Source: UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2023. Chart by Carbon Brief.

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.

South Asia has seen the lowest rates of adaptation finance disbursement — Disbursement ratios for bilateral, adaptation-specific finance globally and across different regions, 2017-2021. “Regional” finance represents finance for projects in multiple countries. Source: UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2023.

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

Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn

Published

7 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Alice Rush

Doubts over whether governments will maintain ambitious targets on boosting the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) are a threat to the industry’s growth and play into the hands of fossil fuel companies, investors warned this week.

Several executives from airlines and oil firms have forecast recently that SAF requirements in the European Union, United Kingdom and elsewhere will be eased or scrapped altogether, potentially upending the aviation industry’s main policy to shrink air travel’s growing carbon footprint.

Such speculation poses a “fundamental threat” to the SAF industry, which mainly produces an alternative to traditional kerosene jet fuel using organic feedstocks such as used cooking oil (UCO), Thomas Engelmann, head of energy transition at German investment manager KGAL, told the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Investor conference in London.

He said fossil fuel firms would be the only winners from questions about compulsory SAF blending requirements.

What is Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)?

The EU and the UK introduced the world’s first SAF mandates in January 2025, requiring fuel suppliers to blend at least 2% SAF with fossil fuel kerosene. The blending requirement will gradually increase to reach 32% in the EU and 22% in the UK by 2040.

Another case of diluted green rules?

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, CEO of French oil and gas company TotalEnergies Patrick Pouyanné said he would bet “that what happened to the car regulation will happen to the SAF regulation in Europe”.

The EU watered down green rules for car-makers in March 2025 after lobbying from car companies, Germany and Italy.

“You will see. Today all the airline companies are fighting [against the EU’s 2030 SAF target of 6%],” Pouyanne said, even though it’s “easy to reach to be honest”.

While most European airline lobbies publicly support the mandates, Ryanair Group CEO Michael O’Leary said last year that the SAF is “nonsense” and is “gradually dying a death, which is what it deserves to do”.

EU and UK stand by SAF targets

But the EU and the British government have disputed that. EU transport commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas said in November that the EU’s targets are “stable”, warning that “investment decisions and construction must start by 2027, or we will miss the 2030 targets”.

UK aviation minister Keir Mather told this week’s investor event that meeting the country’s SAF blending requirement of 10% by 2030 was “ambitious but, with the right investment, the right innovation and the right outlook, it is absolutely within our reach”.

“We need to go further and we need to go faster,” Mather said.

UK aviation minister Keir Mather speaks at the SAF Investor conference in London on February 24, 2026. (Photo: SAF Investor)

SAF investors and developers said such certainty on SAF mandates from policymakers was key to drawing the necessary investment to ramp up production of the greener fuel, which needs to scale up in order to bring down high production costs. Currently, SAF is between two and seven times more expensive than traditional jet fuel.

Urbano Perez, global clean molecules lead at Spanish bank Santander, said banks will not invest if there is a perceived regulatory risk.

David Scott, chair of Australian SAF producer Jet Zero Australia, said developing SAF was already challenging due to the risks of “pretty new” technology requiring high capital expenditure.

“That’s a scary model with a volatile political environment, so mandate questioning creates this problem on steroids”, Scott said.

Others played down the risk. Glenn Morgan, partner at investment and advisory firm SkiesFifty, said “policy is always a risk”, adding that traditional oil-based jet fuel could also lose subsidies.

A fuel truck fills up the Emirates Airlines Boeing 777-300ER with Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), during a milestone demonstration flight while running one of its engines on 100% (SAF) at Dubai airport, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, January 30, 2023. REUTERS/Rula Rouhana

Asian countries join SAF mandate adopters

In Asia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Japan have recently adopted SAF mandates, and Matti Lievonen, CEO of Asia-based SAF producer EcoCeres, predicted that China, Indonesia and Hong Kong would follow suit.

David Fisken, investment director at the Australian Trade and Investment Commission, said the Australian government, which does not have a mandate, was watching to see how the EU and UK’s requirements played out.

The US does not have a SAF mandate and under President Donald Trump the government has slashed tax credits available for SAF producers from $1.75 a gallon to $1.

Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?

SAF and energy security

SAF’s potential role in boosting energy security was a major theme of this week’s discussions as geopolitical tensions push the issue to the fore.

Marcella Franchi, chief commercial officer for SAF at France’s Haffner Energy, said the Canadian government, which has “very unsettling neighbours at the moment”, was looking to produce SAF to protect its energy security, especially as it has ample supplies of biomass to use as potential feedstock.

Similarly, German weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall said last year it was working on plans that would enable European armed forces to produce their own synthetic, carbon-neutral fuel “locally and independently of global fossil fuel supply chain”.

Scott said Australia needs SAF to improve its fuel security, as it imports almost 99% of its liquid fuels.

He added that support for Australian SAF production is bipartisan, in part because it appeals to those more concerned about energy security than tackling climate change.

The post Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn appeared first on Climate Home News.

Doubts over European SAF rules threaten cleaner aviation hopes, investors warn

Climate Change

Southern Right Whales Are Having Fewer Calves; Scientists Say a Warming Ocean Is to Blame

Published

7 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Alice Rush

After decades of recovery from commercial whaling, climate change is now threatening the whales’ future.

By Teresa Tomassoni

Southern right whales—once driven to near-extinction by industrial hunting in the 19th and 20th centuries—have long been regarded as a conservation success. After the International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling in the 1980s, populations began a slow but steady rebound. New research, however, suggests climate change may be undermining that recovery.

Southern Right Whales Are Having Fewer Calves; Scientists Say a Warming Ocean Is to Blame

Climate Change

Analysis: Constituency of Reform’s climate-sceptic Richard Tice gets £55m flood funding

Published

8 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Alice Rush

The Lincolnshire constituency held by Richard Tice, the climate-sceptic deputy leader of the hard-right Reform party, has been pledged at least £55m in government funding for flood defences since 2024.

This investment in Boston and Skegness is the second-largest sum for a single constituency from a £1.4bn flood-defence fund for England, Carbon Brief analysis shows.

Flooding is becoming more likely and more extreme in the UK due to climate change.

Yet, for years, governments have failed to spend enough on flood defences to protect people, properties and infrastructure.

The £1.4bn fund is part of the current Labour government’s wider pledge to invest a “record” £7.9bn over a decade on protecting hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses from flooding.

As MP for one of England’s most flood-prone regions, Tice has called for more investment in flood defences, stating that “we cannot afford to ‘surrender the fens’ to the sea”.

He is also one of Reform’s most vocal opponents of climate action and what he calls “net stupid zero”. He denies the scientific consensus on climate change and has claimed, falsely and without evidence, that scientists are “lying”.

Flood defences

Last year, the government said it would invest £2.65bn on flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) schemes in England between April 2024 and March 2026.

This money was intended to protect 66,500 properties from flooding. It is part of a decade-long Labour government plan to spend more than £7.9bn on flood defences.

There has been a consistent shortfall in maintaining England’s flood defences, with the Environment Agency expecting to protect fewer properties by 2027 than it had initially planned.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has attributed this to rising costs, backlogs from previous governments and a lack of capacity. It also points to the strain from “more frequent and severe” weather events, such as storms in recent years that have been amplified by climate change.

However, the CCC also said last year that, if the 2024-26 spending programme is delivered, it would be “slightly closer to the track” of the Environment Agency targets out to 2027.

The government has released constituency-level data on which schemes in England it plans to fund, covering £1.4bn of the 2024-26 investment. The other half of the FCERM spending covers additional measures, from repairing existing defences to advising local authorities.

The map below shows the distribution of spending on FCERM schemes in England over the past two years, highlighting the constituency of Richard Tice.

Flood-defence spending on new and replacement schemes in England in 2024-25 and 2025-26. The government notes that, as Environment Agency accounts have not been finalised and approved, the investment data is “provisional and subject to change”. Some schemes cover multiple constituencies and are not included on the map. Source: Environment Agency FCERM data.

By far the largest sum of money – £85.6m in total – has been committed to a tidal barrier and various other defences in the Somerset constituency of Bridgwater, the seat of Conservative MP Ashley Fox.

Over the first months of 2026, the south-west region has faced significant flooding and Fox has called for more support from the government, citing “climate patterns shifting and rainfall intensifying”.

He has also backed his party’s position that “the 2050 net-zero target is impossible” and called for more fossil-fuel extraction in the North Sea.

Tice’s east-coast constituency of Boston and Skegness, which is highly vulnerable to flooding from both rivers and the sea, is set to receive £55m. Among the supported projects are beach defences from Saltfleet to Gibraltar Point and upgrades to pumping stations.

Overall, Boston and Skegness has the second-largest portion of flood-defence funding, as the chart below shows. Constituencies with Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs occupied the other top positions.

Chart showing that Conservative, Reform and Liberal Democrat constituencies are the top recipients of flood defence spending — Top 10 English constituencies by FCERM funding in 2024-25 and 2025-26. Source: Environment Agency FCERM data.

Overall, despite Labour MPs occupying 347 out of England’s 543 constituencies – nearly two-thirds of the total – more than half of the flood-defence funding was distributed to constituencies with non-Labour MPs. This reflects the flood risk in coastal and rural areas that are not traditional Labour strongholds.

Reform funding

While Reform has just eight MPs, representing 1% of the population, its constituencies have been assigned 4% of the flood-defence funding for England.

Nearly all of this money was for Tice’s constituency, although party leader Nigel Farage’s coastal Clacton seat in Kent received £2m.

Reform UK is committed to “scrapping net-zero” and its leadership has expressed firmly climate-sceptic views.

Much has been made of the disconnect between the party’s climate policies and the threat climate change poses to its voters. Various analyses have shown the flood risk in Reform-dominated areas, particularly Lincolnshire.

Tice has rejected climate science, advocated for fossil-fuel production and criticised Environment Agency flood-defence activities. Yet, he has also called for more investment in flood defences, stating that “we cannot afford to ‘surrender the fens’ to the sea”.

This may reflect Tice’s broader approach to climate change. In a 2024 interview with LBC, he said:

“Where you’ve got concerns about sea level defences and sea level rise, guess what? A bit of steel, a bit of cement, some aggregate…and you build some concrete sea level defences. That’s how you deal with rising sea levels.”

While climate adaptation is viewed as vital in a warming world, there are limits on how much societies can adapt and adaptation costs will continue to increase as emissions rise.