All eyes are now on the Amazon as the COP30 global climate change conference gets underway in Belém, Brazil. Much of the attention will be on countries’ commitments to reducing their carbon emissions to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis and slow global heating.
However, the world faces escalating impacts of climate change, some of which are never going away even if we drastically reduced our emissions today. The question of how we can adapt to this new reality is just as crucial as cutting emissions, especially for countries already deeply affected by floods, heatwaves and wildfires of increasing frequency and intensity.
Historically overlooked and under-resourced, adaptation has gained significant momentum recently, including at June’s Bonn Climate Conference, and the recent United Nations General Assembly. Crucially, this year’s COP Presidency has also made it clear that it considers adaptation a priority, and that adaptation finance must be part of the COP30 package.
Despite all this, there’s currently nowhere in the agenda where we can expect an answer to the crucial question: How exactly will climate adaptation efforts be paid for?
No adaptation without funding
Countries are expected to agree on a set of indicators to track progress towards the Global Goal for Adaptation (GGA), established as part of the Paris Agreement. These indicators are designed to help countries monitor key climate resilience metrics, such as access to water, operationalization of early warning systems, mortality caused by extreme heat, and many more.
Finalizing this framework will make it possible to identify where investments in adaptation are most lacking, which sectors attract the most funding, and where specific groups – including women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and local and Indigenous communities – face greater risks.
It’s not perfect, of course; reporting on specific indicators will remain voluntary, and largely dependent on each country’s financial and technical capacity for monitoring. Nevertheless it is a significant milestone, signifying a shift from negotiations to implementation.
The elephant in the room, though, remains the question of finance. While the GGA indicator framework will effectively track global funding flows for adaptation, it must be accompanied by a new adaptation finance commitment. For all the progress made on assessing needs, without clarity on finance COP30 won’t be able to kickstart a new phase of adaptation implementation that the world desperately needs.
A new adaptation finance goal
Finance is, unsurprisingly, always a contentious issue at COP. Consistent failures by developed countries to mobilize the promised $100 billion per year for climate finance, agreed in Copenhagen in 2009, have chipped away at developing countries’ trust in the process.
The last positive story regarding adaptation finance came out of COP26, when developed countries pledged to double their provision of funds for climate adaptation. That agreement – the Glasgow Climate Pact – expires this year, leaving no time to lose in establishing a new and more ambitious commitment. Least developed countries (LDCs) are now calling for a tripling of adaptation finance; agreeing this at COP30 would send a strong signal that developed countries are serious about meeting rising adaptation needs and closing the widening finance gap.
Limitations of the private sector
With aid budgets shrinking and developed countries facing competing domestic pressures, the private sector is increasingly seen as a potential solution for closing the climate finance gap.
However, new research from the Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance lays bare the limitations of private investment in adaptation. While opportunities to expand the role of the private sector exist – particularly in agriculture and water infrastructure projects, and particularly in middle-income countries – its overall potential remains narrow. For example, coastal flood protection represents the single highest adaptation cost globally, yet offers minimal opportunities for financial returns, which leaves public finance as the only viable way to fund it. Meanwhile in LDCs, private finance is estimated to meet only around 5% of adaptation needs.
While private finance for adaptation should be encouraged where it can be effective, it’s not a substitute for the scale and reliability of public finance, which is indispensable to closing the $300 billion annual gap in adaptation finance. International public finance must be drastically scaled up and provided as grants or highly concessional loans to prevent creating or exacerbating debt crises. Bold approaches, such as repurposing harmful fossil fuel subsidies, can unlock the transformative change required to protect those most at risk from rapidly escalating climate impacts.
Seize the opportunities for adaptation
As momentum builds on adaptation, now is the time to recognize it for what it truly is: an essential lifeline for communities threatened by climate-related disasters, which can protect lives and livelihoods – now, and in the future.
Numerous studies point to the economic and social benefits of investing in adaptation, demonstrating how such investments significantly reduce future losses. But besides financial prudence, adaptation is also a question of historical responsibility; as the ruling by the International Court of Justice earlier this year made clear, many countries made commitments to support the most climate-vulnerable countries as they face increasing risks. It’s past time to honour them.
The slow pace of climate negotiations is a recurring frustration at every COP, and outcomes often fall short of what’s needed to face the scale of the climate crisis. At COP30, the world has an opportunity to move from pledges to action. But this will only be possible if adaptation finance is adequate, predictable, equitable and accessible – and reaches those who need it most.
This blog was published by the World Economic Forum on 10th November 2025. You can view the original here.