M Rezaul Karim Chowdhury / M.A hasan
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, adopting the Belém Adaptation Indicators and calling for 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 mobilized for developing
countries in 2024. Of the USD 101.6 billion in public finance, 67 percent—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 accessible, 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 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.

Writer: M Rezaul Karim Chowdhury, Executive Director, COAST Foundation
and M. A. Hasan, Head, Climate Change, COAST Foundation