In this interview, GGKP spoke with Nicholas Taylor, Climate Adaptation and Resilience Lead at GGGI, to unpack key insights on why adaptation finance is not yet reaching scale and what can be done to address this gap. The discussion builds on GGGI’s recent policy brief developed with Cadlas, “Country-Led Programmatic Approaches for Scaling Adaptation Finance in LDCs and SIDS,” published by the NDC Partnership. Drawing on evidence and country experiences from the publication, the conversation explores practical pathways to move from planning to implementation.
1. Why is adaptation still not happening at scale despite all the plans in place?
In many countries, the challenge is no longer about identifying climate adaptation priorities—it is about delivering them. Governments have already developed National Adaptation Plans and climate strategies, yet implementation remains limited. The reality is that adaptation needs are rising rapidly, with estimated requirements of USD 310–365 billion annually by 2035, while finance flows are still far below that level, for example international public finance for climate adaptation in developing countries was USD 26 billion in 2023 (UNEP, 2025). This gap is widely recognized, with adaptation finance still not scaling at the pace required and remaining significantly below needs.
What we consistently see is that countries may know exactly what they need—whether it is strengthening coastal infrastructure or supporting climate-resilient agriculture—but they lack systems that can translate these priorities into sustained investment. In practice, national plans often lack the granularity and institutional mechanisms required to translate priorities into investable pipelines.
This is precisely the gap we explored together with NDC Partnership and Cadlas in our recent policy brief “Country-Led Programmatic Approaches for Scaling Adaptation Finance in LDCs and SIDS”.
2. What does “fragmented climate finance” look like in reality for adaptation?
Fragmentation becomes very visible on the ground. Instead of one coherent investment program, countries often manage multiple small projects funded by different partners, each with its own objectives, timelines, and reporting systems. As highlighted in the policy brief, this project-based approach leads to weak alignment between donor priorities and national needs, slow disbursement, and limited scale.
This fragmentation is also reflected structurally: climate finance is dominated by disconnected flows, often driven by external priorities, with limited coordination across sectors and institutions.
For example, in small island states, separate projects may address coastal erosion, water systems, and disaster risk—but without coordination, they fail to reinforce each other. This also makes it difficult to build pipelines of bankable investments, which in turn discourages private sector engagement, particularly given perceived risks and weak revenue models associated with adaptation investments.
3. So what is the solution—what are “country-led programmatic approaches”?
Country led programmatic approaches are one way of moving from isolated projects to integrated systems. On the national level, “country-led programmatic approaches” are essentially about putting governments in the driver’s seat to organize climate finance around long-term national priorities. Rather than reacting to external funding, countries define a structured investment framework that aligns public and private finance, domestic and international flows, within one coordinated platform. These approaches create structured, coordinated multistakeholder platforms that align government priorities with financiers and enable the mobilization of diverse sources of capital at scale.
A practical example is the Bangladesh Climate and Development Partnership (BCDP), which brings together ministries of finance, planning, agriculture, and environment under a single governance board, generating a robust project pipeline aligned with national frameworks including the NAP, Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100, and the updated NDC, while simultaneously mobilizing finance from development partners and integrating climate risks into fiscal planning.
However, I would caution against seeing it as the be all and end all – other tools could also support the national governments in achieving similar goals. For example, GGGI launched the SAFA Facility with collaboration with Adaptation Fund in October 2025, it is designed to serve as a “conveyor belt” for climate-vulnerable countries by leveraging the expertise from both organizations. It is composed of two pillars, SAFA-R (Readiness Window) and SAFA-F (Special Purpose Vehicle), and will implement a phased approach ensuring a steady pipeline of adaptation projects, first providing readiness support before aggregating projects for structured financing.
4. What needs to be in place for this approach to work?
What becomes clear is that this transformation is fundamentally institutional. Strong government ownership—often anchored in ministries of finance or the prime minister’s office—is essential to ensure alignment with national budgets and priorities.
Equally important is coordination: successful approaches bring together multiple ministries, development partners, and private actors under a unified framework, often through whole-of-government approaches and structured coordination mechanisms.
In our join work with NDC Partnership and Cadlas, we also emphasize the importance of evidence-based planning, where investments are prioritized using climate risk assessments, cost-benefit analysis, and development priorities.
In addition, some enabling conditions to consider include:
early engagement of finance partners, including private sector actors
strengthened institutional capacity and technical support
integration of local and subnational actors into planning and delivery
South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership, for example, demonstrates how high-level political endorsement can mobilize cross-sectoral coordination and investment platforms.
5. If a country wants to advance its climate adaption finance, what are the first practical steps?
What the evidence shows is that countries do not need to wait for perfect conditions—they can start by building the system step by step. The first step is to establish clear governance structures and mandates, ensuring that roles across ministries are defined and anchored in national systems.
From there, countries can identify and prioritize investments based on risk and development impact, and then design financing strategies that match projects with appropriate funding sources and instruments. Building pipelines of bankable projects is critical, often supported by technical assistance, project preparation facilities, and iterative institutional strengthening.
For instance, Bangladesh used early technical support to map institutions and design coordination mechanisms before scaling up its climate investment platform. Similarly, Tajikistan transitioned from donor-supported processes to a more country-led system as capacity strengthened. This iterative, learning-by-doing approach—where planning, financing, and implementation continuously inform each other—is central to scaling adaptation finance in practice, this is also reflected in the Green Climate Fund`s Climate Investment Planning and Mobilization Framework.
