DanChurchAid has released a damning assessment of international adaptation finance flows showing that public funding for climate resilience in developing countries reached just $35.4 billion in 2023 from developed nations, a figure dwarfed by the hundreds of billions required annually to protect vulnerable communities from escalating droughts, floods, sea-level rise and food insecurity.

The report, titled “Delivering on Adaptation: An Assessment of International Adaptation Finance Flows”, draws on publicly available OECD Climate-Related Development Finance data to map bilateral and multilateral support.

It warns that despite repeated political promises, actual delivery remains far below what is needed.

The Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance estimates adaptation and resilience needs could hit $250 billion per year by 2030, while the UN Environment Programme projects costs rising to $310–365 billion annually by 2035.

Yet in 2023 international public adaptation finance totalled only around $26 billion when measured strictly as adaptation-only flows, leaving a gap more than ten times larger than current provision.

At COP26 in Glasgow, developed countries pledged to at least double adaptation finance by 2025. At COP30 in Belém they committed to tripling it by 2035 under the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance.

The DanChurchAid study finds these targets are slipping. Official development assistance, the main source of climate finance, fell 9 percent in 2024 and is projected to drop another 9–17 percent in 2025, casting serious doubt on future scaling.

Bilateral finance from OECD countries totalled $16.5 billion in adaptation-related flows in 2023 (including half of cross-cutting activities).

However, adaptation is rarely the principal objective. Only 22 percent of projects reported to the OECD CRDF database identify adaptation as the main goal; 66 percent treat it as significant but secondary, while 12 percent show no adaptation focus at all.

Mitigation continues to dominate, capturing 58 percent of total bilateral climate finance compared with adaptation’s 22 percent and cross-cutting activities at 19 percent.

Major providers such as Japan (14 percent of its climate finance to adaptation), Germany and France (both 17 percent) allocate far less than half their climate portfolios to resilience.

Smaller donors perform better: Ireland directed 74 percent, the Netherlands 69 percent, Canada 59 percent, Sweden 59 percent and New Zealand 60 percent.

The United Kingdom reported zero adaptation-only projects in 2023, with all activities classified as cross-cutting or mitigation-focused.

When half of cross-cutting finance is attributed to adaptation, bilateral flows edged up just 1 percent from $16.3 billion in 2022 to $16.5 billion in 2023. Large donors showed mixed results.

The European Union, France, Germany and the United Kingdom all recorded declines (down 3 percent, 5 percent, 25 percent and 42 percent respectively). Canada posted a dramatic 196 percent increase, Austria 169 percent, while Portugal, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland and Norway also registered triple-digit growth from smaller bases.

Grants remain the preferred instrument, accounting for 73 percent of bilateral adaptation finance. Concessional loans made up 21 percent, largely from France and Japan, which together push the grant-equivalent value down to $13.7 billion.

Measured against gross national income, the Netherlands (0.10 percent of GNI), Norway (0.08 percent), France and Germany (both 0.07 percent) lead among large providers.

Per capita, Norway ($76 per person) and the Netherlands ($62) top the list.

Support for the most vulnerable nations remains inadequate. Only $651 million – just 4 percent of total bilateral adaptation finance – reached Small Island Developing States, despite their extreme exposure to rising seas and extreme weather.

Australia stood out, directing 48 percent of its adaptation funds to SIDS; New Zealand allocated 30 percent. Most big donors sent 3 percent or less.

Least Developed Countries fared better, receiving 32 percent ($5.3 billion), with strong shares from the United Kingdom (59 percent), Belgium (58 percent), Ireland (49 percent) and several others.

Multilateral channels delivered $18.9 billion in adaptation-related finance from developed countries in 2023, down 2 percent from 2022.

Multilateral Development Banks, which dominate this space, remain heavily mitigation-focused: 67 percent of their climate finance targets emissions reduction, only 30 percent adaptation.

The World Bank, the largest single provider, allocated 37 percent to adaptation ($8.5 billion).

Regional banks showed more balance – the African Development Bank reached 63 percent adaptation, the Caribbean Development Bank 84 percent.

UNFCCC climate funds performed strongly, more than doubling adaptation finance to $2.4 billion, led by the Green Climate Fund (73 percent adaptation) and the fully dedicated Adaptation Fund.

The IMF Resilience and Sustainability Trust and other multilateral bodies also increased sharply, though from smaller baselines.

Across all multilateral providers, nearly half the adaptation finance (49 percent) came as non-concessional loans and 24 percent as concessional loans.

Only 20 percent was delivered as grants.

This loan-heavy mix slashes the grant-equivalent value to just $5.6 billion – less than one-third of the headline figure.

MDBs alone saw their reported $14.8 billion shrink to $3.7 billion in grant terms.

When developing-country contributions to multilateral institutions are included, total public adaptation finance rises to $42.5 billion (including cross-cutting) or $34.7 billion for adaptation-only flows.

Yet the report stresses that only developed-country finance counts toward the Glasgow doubling goal.

The authors conclude that ambition on paper is not translating into delivery.

Adaptation remains a secondary priority for most providers, project sizes are smaller than mitigation initiatives, and the structure of finance – grants versus loans, targeting of LDCs and SIDS – continues to limit real impact.

With ODA declining and new collective goals looming, the trajectory for tripling adaptation finance by 2035 looks uncertain at best.

DanChurchAid calls for urgent action: clearer tracking of adaptation-specific flows, a decisive shift toward grant-based support for the poorest nations, and immediate scaling of finance to match the escalating needs of frontline communities already living with the brutal consequences of a warming planet.

The front cover photograph of Panam community in South Sudan – where climate-disrupted weather has shattered traditional farming – serves as a stark reminder that lives and livelihoods hang in the balance.

The full 30-page report, researched by INKA Consult and finalised by DanChurchAid, is available publicly and provides detailed tables, methodology notes and annexes for further scrutiny.

In Malawi and across the region, the findings underscore the pressing need for scaled-up international support to build resilience before the next flood, drought or failed harvest arrives.

By Winston Mwale, AfricaBrief