‘Global North not meeting financial obligations to support NAP process in developing countries’
The 30th Conference of the Parties (COP 30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) happening in Belem, Brazil has been dubbed as the ‘adaptation COP’, among other things but the negotiations have been stuck on talks or no talks about adaptation finance. This includes negotiations on the indicators to assess various targets under the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). Down To Earth spoke to Wanun Permpibul, activist and executive director of non-profit Climate Watch Thailand, about the scale of adaptation finance needed, the finances on offer and the role of private finance in adaptation.
Excerpts:
Akshit Sangomla (AS): What is the status of the Adaptation Fund at COP30? Is there a call for increase in the flow of finances into the fund or are there any pledges regarding this?
Wanun Permpibul (WP): Countries like mine (Thailand), really need to get finances from the Adaptation Fund, especially for the communities on the ground. We have seen that getting money from the Adaptation Fund or adaptation finance is quite the challenge, in terms of access and the scale of the available fund. The fund is not really responding to the needs of the Global South because the scale is small. If you look at the amount of money in the fund and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Adaptation Gap Report 2025, you will see the shortage of the fund. Developed countries are really pushing for the inclusion of private finance to fill in the adaptation finance gap but private money is not going to be enough to respond to the growing needs of adaptation finance in developing countries. The UNEP report did say that if you mobilise finance from the private sector it would respond to only 15 per cent of the adaptation needs. So, the Adaptation Fund has to be grant-based with money coming in from the public sector. In terms of building the adaptive capacity of those on the ground being affected by the impacts of climate change. They are in need of financial support to build their capacities. Whatever the governments and private sector are doing in terms of greenwash and false solutions is already impacting the lives, livelihoods and cultures of the people on the ground. We are keeping an eye on the pledges for the Adaptation Fund.
AS: What is the scale of finance required for fulfilling the adaptation needs of developing countries?
WP: Last year, when it was the finance COP, the civil society organisations were referring to figures of US$ 5 trillion a year for climate finance that would include mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. What we got was only a drop in the ocean — US$ 300 billion with an attempt to mobilise US$ 1.3 trillion. The scale needed is huge and the amount available is really small. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the largest fund for climate actions where it should be 50 per cent each for mitigation and adaptation but the proportion of mitigation is much larger. We have to push for greater disbursement of the GCF for adaptation.
AS: A lot of developing countries have been asking for a tripling of adaptation finance at COP 30. What is the status of that?
WP: The Glasgow Climate Pact, under which a doubling of adaptation finance had to be achieved, ends in 2025. So, we need to secure the space to push for tripling of adaptation finance and we are looking for that. Countries are currently negotiating on this.
AS: For developing the NAPs many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America would require Means of Implementation. Many of them are lagging behind because they do not have the money to carry out assessment activities needed to make the NAPs. What is being talked about at COP30 on this?
WP: Both — in terms of the formulation of NAPs and their implementation money if needed. Currently, even if a country has a NAP in place the responsibility of implementing it is falling on the country’s own budget. The Global North is not meeting its financial obligations to support the NAPs process in developing countries. Not all developing countries have NAPs and still need money to formulate their NAPs. We have been monitoring the implementation of NAPs in some of the Mekong countries — Laos, Vietnam and Thailand. The money is coming in but it is in the form of loans. You have the NAP but the implementation of that is happening using loans. Thailand is also using its own budget. If you look at our budget we have some other priorities to respond to but like access to healthcare, access to education, eradication of poverty but now these budgets have to compete with building resilience and adaptation for communities. This is really unfair.
AS: Developed countries have been saying that the adaptation finance gap can be filled with private finance and mobilisation on the basis of private finance. How does private finance even work in adaptation and what could be the possible problems with it?
WP: The UNEP Adaptation Gap Report gives us a figure of 15 per cent coverage of adaptation finance from private finance. Let me give one example. The GCF has provided money to Thailand for an adaptation project. The money is coming into Thailand through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ) and the name of the project is Thai Rice: Strengthening Climate-Smart Rice Farming. The project is asking Thai farmers to build resilience and to use different technologies to grow rice so that they money can be used for different adaptation measures. But farmers need to get loans from the private sector to change to these new technologies of growing rice. That’s how private finance is coming into adaptation. They are also providing loans to access the technologies to grow rice that will reduce the emission of methane. This is a problem as the money from the GCF is a grant but it is opening up the space for the private sector to provide finance as well. During the time of approving this project at the GCF, it was said that if this project was implemented well in Thailand it could be implemented in other countries that export rice as a best practice. The project is not just and is becoming a burden for the communities. The burden in the sense that they are the ones bearing the costs of the impacts of a changing climate like long-term droughts and flash floods and they are also getting loans. They are not sure about getting yield for their crops and if they don’t get the yield, they will have to get another loan.
AS: The debt burden of communities in developing countries is increasing because of loss and damage and the process of adaptation to the changes that are occurring. How do we manage this debt burden within the UNFCCC and the COP processes?
WP: Civil society organisations are planning a lot of actions for addressing the debt burden. If there is a mobilisation of finance from the private sector and the Multinational Development Banks (MDBs), it will increase the debt burden of developing countries. Last year’s New Collective Quantified Goal has opened up the space for such mobilisation and there will be more disbursement of loans from the private sector and MDBs to developing countries.