Play store
The world has listened to climate promises for years. Every climate summit brings new targets, new funds and new roadmaps. Yet for climate-vulnerable countries and communities, the most important questions are becoming increasingly simple: Where is the money that was promised? How much has actually reached those who need it? And what has changed in people’s lives as a result?
At COP31, the priority should therefore not be another round of announcements, but the political will and accountability needed to deliver on commitments already made.
At COP29, a new climate finance goal of at least USD 300 billion a year by 2035 for developing countries was agreed, alongside efforts to scale finance from all public and private sources towards USD 1.3 trillion annually. At COP30, the adoption of the Belém Adaptation Indicators and a call to triple adaptation finance by 2035 marked further steps forward. These are important developments on paper. But the gap between commitments, actual needs and the flow of finance remains dangerously wide.
Adaptation finance illustrates this gap most clearly. According to UNEP’s Adaptation Gap Report 2025, developing countries may need around USD 310–365 billion a year for adaptation by 2035. Yet international public adaptation finance stood at only USD 26 billion in 2023. The financing need could therefore be roughly 12 to 14 times the current flow. This is not simply a funding gap; it is a profound climate justice gap.
The quality of finance is an equally serious concern. According to figures reported by developed countries, a total of USD 136.7 billion in climate finance was provided or mobilised for developing countries in 2024. Of the USD 101.6 billion in public finance, 67 percent, or around USD 68.5 billion, was delivered as loans, while grants accounted for only USD 29.7 billion. If climate action is financed primarily through loans, countries already facing climate shocks are being asked to take on new financial risks in the name of solving a crisis they did not create.
For a country like Bangladesh, this is not an abstract climate policy debate. A shortage of climate finance means less access to safe water and livelihoods in coastal areas, weaker adaptation capacity for farmers, delayed recovery after disasters, greater food security risks and additional costs for poor households. Climate finance is therefore also a question of development, poverty reduction, food security and social justice.
This is where the question of fairness becomes unavoidable. The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement are built around principles such as Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), the Polluter Pays Principle and Article 9 of the Paris Agreement. Their central message is clear: countries with greater historical responsibility and greater capacity must shoulder greater responsibility. When countries that have contributed comparatively little to the crisis are forced to finance adaptation through debt, the basic idea of climate justice is turned on its head.
Developing countries are already under severe debt pressure. UNCTAD estimates that their external debt reached USD 12.3 trillion in 2025, while debt repayments in the same year were around USD 1.6 trillion. At the same time, the need for long-term investment in climate adaptation is rising rapidly. If climate finance creates additional debt, it can weaken economic capacity at precisely the moment when countries need more resources to protect their people.
Our position at COP31 should therefore be clear: we need delivery, not another round of headline figures. The USD 300 billion goal agreed at COP29 and the broader effort to scale climate finance towards USD 1.3 trillion must be linked to clear timelines, annual milestones, transparent reporting and accountability. For adaptation and the most vulnerable countries, finance must be new and additional, adequate, predictable and grant-based.
Increasing the volume of finance is not enough; where the money goes matters just as much. Climate finance must not get trapped in complicated applications, lengthy approval processes and excessive conditions. It must reach local institutions and affected communities in ways that are simple, fast and transparent. People living with climate impacts should not be treated merely as project beneficiaries. They must have a meaningful role in planning, implementation and evaluation.
The same question applies to Loss and Damage. Establishing a fund cannot be treated as the end of the story. When people are hit by disasters, their needs are immediate. If finance remains stuck in lengthy approval procedures, what is its value? Loss and Damage finance must be adequate, new and additional, rapidly and directly accessible, and primarily grant-based.
Alongside climate finance, the 1.5°C limit is facing an equally serious test. The COP28 Dubai Consensus called for a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. Yet implementation remains far behind the scale of the challenge. Limiting new fossil-fuel expansion, rapidly scaling up renewable energy, improving energy efficiency and setting country-level timelines and measurable targets are essential. Without these steps, 1.5°C will remain a diplomatic slogan rather than a pathway for action.
But there is also an important principle of fairness here. It is easy to tell developing countries to move away from fossil fuels. It is much harder, and more just, to provide the finance, technology, skills and alternative energy systems needed to make that transition possible. The transition must be fast, fair and financed.
The 59 Belém Adaptation Indicators adopted at COP30 are an important step towards measuring progress on adaptation. But national averages cannot tell the full story. To understand whether adaptation is actually working in a coastal char, a salinity-affected village or a small farmer’s household, we need local evidence and people’s participation. Changes in livelihoods, income, food and water security, and resilience must be measured. Those for whom adaptation is intended must also have a meaningful role in defining what success looks like.
Ultimately, the question before COP31 is not complicated. Will the world once again announce large numbers and ambitious promises, or will it finally move towards delivery? Asking poor and vulnerable countries to pay for a crisis they did not create is not justice. We are not asking for charity. We are asking for responsibility, delivery on existing commitments and fair climate finance.
The message from COP31 should therefore be unequivocal: do not make the future of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Most Vulnerable Countries (MVCs) more dangerous. Do not place the burden of a crisis they did not create on their shoulders. Move climate finance from the accounting of promises to measurable improvements in people’s lives. Climate justice is not charity. It is a historical responsibility.