WHAT ARE WE TRACKING IF NOT THE MONEY? INSIDE THE BATTLE FOR AN ADAPTATION FINANCE INDICATOR AT COP30
Imagine trying to track the progress of a marathon while blindfolded. That, in essence, is what the world is doing in adaptation finance if we don’t embed a means of implementation indicator at COP30, and the moral logic here is impossible to ignore. If mitigation is meticulously measured in tonnes of carbon reduced and megawatts of renewable capacity installed, why shouldn’t adaptation finance be tracked with equal rigour? To omit finance from adaptation indicators is to deny the debt owed by those who built their prosperity on centuries of unchecked emissions, and it is to treat adaptation as optional when, for millions, it is existential.
At COP30, the fight for an adaptation finance indicator is neither a technical triviality nor a nice-to-have. It is foundational, and it speaks to the question of what exactly we are tracking when we monitor adaptation outcomes. If we track drought-resilience, crop survival, coastal defences or heat-proof cities without tracking the finance flows that enable those outcomes, then we risk producing nice graphs of aspiration with no backing in reality.
The United Nations Environment Programme estimates that adaptation costs for developing countries alone will exceed US$310 billion to US$365 billion annually by the mid-2030s. (UNEP - UN Environment Programme) In contrast, public adaptation finance flows remain around the tens of billions, a fraction of need. (Financial Times)
At COP29 in Baku the global community agreed on a new phase, the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance. The aim is to scale up support to developing countries via public and private flows, but adaptation remains severely under-financed. Against that backdrop, the push for an adaptation finance indicator is a recognition that no adaptation without finance is the hard truth.
What does an adaptation finance indicator do, and why does it matter?
An indicator is more than a number. It is a signal of accountability. Of means. For adaptation, it means tracking three core dimensions: the amount of finance provided, the amount accessed by vulnerable countries, and the extent to which it is grant-based or concessional rather than debt-inducing. Indicators without finance reduce adaptation to soft narratives.
First, we must ask: What are we tracking if not the money? We can count the number of early warning systems, hectares of climate-resilient crops, or kilometres of coastal defence, but those metrics assume the enabling finance was there. Without knowing how much was invested, from where and under what terms, the picture is incomplete and misleading.
Second, finance is the entry ticket. Adaptation is rarely commercially lucrative in the short term; its pay-off is social and long-term, thus private capital alone is unlikely to deliver at scale without public backing. That is why public, grant-based finance flows matter more than fancy financial engineering. Without an indicator tracking MoI, the risk is that we count physical infrastructure while ignoring that debt-driven finance may shift burden to the vulnerable countries themselves.
Third is the legal and moral dimension. The Paris Agreement sets adaptation on par with mitigation in its goals. But in practice, mitigation gets the lion’s share of finance. A finance-related indicator for adaptation thus aligns with the equity and justice core of the agreement. It signals that adaptation is not a secondary issue, but a priority deserving measurement, accountability and delivery.
Where the negotiations stand
The work on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), adopted under the Paris Agreement, includes the development of a set of indicators to track adaptation progress, including those related to Means of Implementation. Experts under the UAE–Belém work-programme have been pushing MoI indicators, yet major gaps remain, especially around adaptation finance. What stands out is that there is no fully agreed indicator that quantifies how much adaptation finance is flowing, how much reaches vulnerable countries, and how much is grant-based. At COP30, the debate is expected to centre on “operationalising” the GGA indicators.
Why Africa is leading the push
For African countries, the inclusion of an adaptation finance indicator is existential. The continent is already disproportionately exposed to climate risks, yet it receives some of the lowest per-capita adaptation finance flows. Many African states face multiple overlapping vulnerabilities such as weak infrastructure, climate-sensitive economies, limited fiscal space and mounting debt. An adaptation indicator without finance means that the continent’s adaptation projects become just talking-points as they are not backed actions. Africa is therefore calling for an indicator that tracks the amount of adaptation-specific finance committed and disbursed to African countries; the proportion that is grant or grant-equivalent, ensuring debt is not replaced by dependence; how much reached national and local institutions, communities and vulnerable groups; equitable distribution tht focuses on regions with weakest adaptive capacity and exposure; and support that is predictable, timely and accessible, not captured in high-cost intermediaries or loans with strings. Without tracking these, adaptation becomes a bucket list of projects rather than a funded, measurable response to reality.
What happens if we ignore finance indicators?
If COP30 finalises adaptation indicators without including a robust mechanism for tracking finance, the risks would strike at the very heart of climate justice and credibility. Without clear finance indicators, we will be flying blind, mistaking activity for achievement and paperwork for progress.
For vulnerable nations, especially across Africa, this oversight would widen an already gaping equity divide. These countries might dutifully report adaptation efforts, but without finance to sustain them, they will inevitably fall further behind. Tracking actions while ignoring the money lets wealthy nations claim moral and political credit for global adaptation progress, while sidestepping their responsibility to deliver the funds that make those actions possible.
But perhaps the most dangerous consequence is the collapse of accountability. Finance is the lever of responsibility. When commitments are made but not tracked, there’s no way to verify delivery, no way to confront failure, and no way to build trust. A finance-blind indicator system chips away at the foundation of the Paris Agreement, which is built on transparency and accountability. To ignore finance tracking is to strip the climate regime of its moral and procedural integrity. It’s rather like boasting about how many bridges you’ve built without ever asking who paid for them, whether the community can maintain them, or whether they even connect to anything useful.
What, then, should an effective adaptation finance indicator look like?
It must first capture timeliness, tracking finance in sync with adaptation actions so that we can see whether resources are arriving when they are most needed. It should also ensure comprehensiveness, including both public and private flows, but clearly distinguishing between grants and loans to avoid conflating debt with support.
Next comes access and effectiveness: the indicator must measure not just what has been promised, but what has actually reached vulnerable countries, communities, and sectors. This is where adaptation either succeeds or fails. Then there’s equity, the question of who gets what, and why. Finance must be tracked across regions and income levels, with particular focus on the least-capable countries and marginalised groups including women, youth, and Indigenous Peoples.
Sustainability is equally essential. We must know whether adaptation finance is concessional and non-debt creating, designed for long-term resilience rather than short-term optics. Finally, the indicator should capture linkage to outcomes, ensuring that finance flows can be reasonably connected to tangible adaptation results such as improved early warning systems or climate-proof infrastructure, while recognising that outcomes cannot always be wholly attributed to finance alone.
This explains why we insist that Africa should push hard for an explicit set of indicators within the Global Goal on Adaptation framework that track means of implementation, particularly adaptation finance, whether committed, disbursed, or accessed. There must be agreement on a baseline and periodic updates on finance flows to developing countries. The data should be publicly disaggregated by country, instrument, sector, and recipient level, whether national, local, or community, to ensure transparency and traceability.
Equally, these indicators should be embedded in the transparency framework so that adaptation finance becomes a regular feature of climate review processes such as Biennial Transparency Reports and National Adaptation Plans. And, crucially, the indicator must be tied to a concrete global target; for instance, tripling adaptation finance by 2030, as many African countries have demanded. Without a clear goal, tracking becomes a bureaucratic exercise instead of a tool for justice.
The moral logic here is impossible to ignore. If mitigation is meticulously measured in tonnes of carbon reduced and megawatts of renewable capacity installed, why shouldn’t adaptation finance be tracked with equal rigour? To omit finance from adaptation indicators is to deny the debt owed by those who built their prosperity on centuries of unchecked emissions. It is to treat adaptation as optional when, for millions, it is existential.
Africa’s message to COP30 is therefore direct and uncompromising: you cannot have adaptation without finance. Without money, there can be no early warning systems, no resilient infrastructure, no food security, no protection for public health. And without finance tracking, we will never know whether progress came from genuine support or political theatre.