The heat waves, droughts, typhoons, floods, and wildfires we are witnessing today continue to serve as a painful reminder that we are living in a climate system that is undergoing fundamental change—and that this is affecting ecosystems, infrastructure, communities, and businesses all over the world. Consequently, questions such as “Are we prepared for all these effects of climate change?”, “How will we prepare?”, and “How prepared are we?” have been asked with increasing frequency in recent years.
In terms of preparing for all these effects, “Adaptation”—and, of course, the related concept of “Adaptation Finance”—has become one of the core concepts of international climate negotiations for over 25 years. With COP31 set to take place in Antalya this November, it seems certain that this will be one of the most important items on the agenda. While adaptation finance certainly serves primarily as a form of “defense” against climate threats, it is becoming clear that this approach alone is not sufficient. Recent studies show that adaptation finance and investments can also yield economic, social, and environmental benefits.
A report titled “Strengthening the Case for Investing in Climate Adaptation: The Triple Return on Resilience Approach,” prepared under the leadership of the World Resources Institute—an independent, nonprofit research organization—and published last year, vividly illustrates this situation. According to the report, which analyzed 320 adaptation investments across 12 countries during the 2014–2024 period, every $1 invested in adaptation has the potential to yield more than $10.50 in benefits over a 10-year period. While the total cost of the assessed investments amounts to $133 billion, these investments are estimated to generate benefits totaling approximately $1.4 trillion.
Given this, the priority should be to avoid losses by mitigating the damage caused by climate shocks. Following that, the primary objectives should be the economic gains resulting from adaptation efforts—such as increasing productivity, investment, and growth—and subsequently achieving shared social and environmental benefits, including improved health, ecosystem conservation, and a higher quality of life.
$365 Billion Is Needed Annually
Looking at the current state of adaptation financing, the gap between intentions and results is glaringly obvious. The “adaptation gap”—the difference between the funding needed to adapt to the effects of climate change and the funding actually provided—is enormous. Limited public budgets, particularly in least developed and developing countries, create a significant funding gap. This situation leads to a serious injustice, especially for countries that contribute the least to the climate crisis but are most exposed to its impacts. While discussions often emphasize the need to make adaptation projects financially viable, they do not sufficiently clarify what this might mean in financial terms. The problem is often defined as a lack of capital. In reality, however, the problem usually stems from a lack of cash flow. Indeed, it is impossible to finance an adaptation activity unless cash flow is secured from somewhere.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme’s 2025 Adaptation Gap Report, based on modeled costs, the annual need is projected to reach $310 billion by 2035. However, in a calculation based on projecting the needs outlined in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) forward in line with current trends, this figure rises to $365 billion annually.
In contrast, international public adaptation financing flows to developing countries totaled $26 billion in 2023. This means that developing countries’ adaptation financing needs are 12 to 14 times greater than current financing flows.
A Significant Portion of Funding Comes from Loans Rather Than Grants
Despite all these shortcomings, the issue of climate change adaptation finally took center stage at COP30, held last year in Belém, Brazil. In fact, a historic commitment was made to triple adaptation funding by 2035, and this was hailed as a turning point. At COP30, decisions were also made to increase grants and concessional loans, reduce high-interest debt, and strengthen capacity-building and technical support mechanisms to facilitate the implementation of adaptation projects. In addition, there was consensus on making financing accessible, particularly for the most vulnerable countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing states, and African nations.
However, despite all these decisions, while tripling financing by 2035 may seem like progress, even this development is far too slow. Indeed, the least developed countries, in particular, are skeptical about whether the pledged funding will actually reach the communities already experiencing the effects of the climate crisis. For these countries, the issue is not merely how much funding has been pledged; it is also about where the money goes and who decides how it is allocated. The fact that climate finance often gets stuck at the national or international level, with very few resources reaching local actors—who are best positioned to respond to the climate crisis—and that a significant portion of this financing is provided as loans rather than grants, increases these countries’ debt burden; it creates, so to speak, a debt spiral. Consequently, African countries, small island states, least developed countries, and G77 nations are calling for more ambitious targets to be set in this regard.
Adaptation Financing Will Take Center Stage in Antalya
Of course, these countries are entirely justified in their demands, because reducing vulnerability to climate impacts—along with adaptation—also requires faster and more resilient development. Figures on climate finance, however, generally cover only the third element: targeted adaptation interventions. Yet, resilient and rapid development is of vital importance, especially for the world’s poorest countries.
For example, people living in poverty are always more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Therefore, reducing poverty is one of the most effective ways to reduce vulnerability to climate change. Of course, in doing so, it is also necessary to factor in a climate-resilient development process. In this regard, COP31, which will take place in about three months, is of immense importance. It is expected that demands such as increasing adaptation financing once again, converting the “triple” target into concrete annual commitments, and establishing more concrete roadmaps regarding which countries will contribute how much will come to the fore.
Furthermore, ensuring that this financing works more closely with the Loss and Damage Fund established at COP28 in Dubai will remain on the table throughout the negotiations. In addition, prioritizing early warning systems, water management, agriculture, health, and climate-resilient infrastructure, as well as the development of common indicators to measure the impact of adaptation projects, appear to be other key topics that will come to the fore.
The negotiations in Antalya will serve as a crucial test to assess the extent to which the global financial architecture has truly been reformed to meet climate finance needs, as reflected in the progress recorded in the decisions adopted at COP30. Climate diplomacy will also seek to clarify how and at what pace the gap between intentions and results regarding adaptation financing will begin to narrow, because as the impacts of climate change intensify, it is abundantly clear that the costs of adaptation are multiplying.
Date: 27 August 2026
