There are deep structural flaws in how capital for climate resilience is assembled, priced, and deployed. The adaptation capital stack, that carefully layered arrangement of debt, equity, and guarantees supposedly designed to finance climate resilience, is less a sophisticated financial structure than an elaborate pretence that the market is working.

In 2024, multilateral development banks provided a record $137 billion in climate finance, yet adaptation received just 31% of the total. The Green Climate Fund, explicitly mandated to split funding equally between adaptation and mitigation, has managed only 46% for adaptation.

The private sector exhibits even starker preferences. A mere 3% of climate finance reaches adaptation activities, while mitigation attracts the lion's share. Venture capitalists chase mobility unicorns while adaptation startups receive "glaringly low" investment despite representing 12% of climate tech companies. The capital stack's architecture reflects this bias: it is optimised for mitigation projects with clear carbon-reduction metrics and revenue streams, not adaptation's diffuse benefits and public-goods characteristics.

At the base of the adaptation capital stack sits concessional finance - loans offered at below-market rates by development institutions and donor governments. This layer is supposed to make projects viable by reducing financing costs, extending repayment periods, and absorbing risks that commercial lenders won't touch. The theory is elegant. The practice is dismal.

Concessional finance represented only 11% of total climate finance in 2019-2022, far below what adaptation requires. Worse, much of what is labelled "concessional" arrives as loans rather than grants, adding to developing countries' already unsustainable debt burdens. Climate finance has become "an ill-designed instrument" that often increases recipient countries' financial vulnerability rather than reducing it.

The fundamental problem is arithmetic. If concessional capital must absorb all the risk and subsidy required to make adaptation projects viable, it needs to increase at least fivefold by 2030 just to meet Paris Agreement goals. Yet, official development assistance from wealthy countries is stagnant or declining. The promised $100 billion annually in climate finance - a commitment made in 2009 - was first met in 2022. Asking concessional finance to bridge a $180-210 billion annual funding gap is a fantasy.

Enter "blended finance", the adaptation capital stack's supposed salvation. The concept sounds creative: use concessional public capital strategically to de-risk projects and "crowd in" private investment at multiples of 1:5, 1:7, or higher; mobilising the trillions sitting in pension funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds.

Except that the mobilisation ratios are fiction. The Green Climate Fund, climate finance's flagship institution, claims its $16 billion in approved funding will mobilise $61.5 billion total - a ratio of roughly 1:3. Dig deeper and the picture dims further: most ‘private’ finance comes from state-owned enterprises, development finance institutions, and semi-public entities. Genuinely private capital remains scarce, particularly for adaptation.

The reason is straightforward: adaptation often generates high economic returns but low financial returns. Building flood defences protects billions in property value, but who captures that value? Improving drought resistance helps smallholder farmers survive, but their ability to pay for services is limited. Private finance can potentially meet only 20% of adaptation needs, and then only in middle-income countries and narrow sectors like commercial agriculture and water utilities. Asking private capital to fill a gap created by insufficient public funding is asking water to flow uphill.

The capital stack's response to private sector reluctance has been first-loss tranches - concessional capital that absorbs initial losses, theoretically making projects safe enough for commercial investors. The Africa Finance Corporation's $750 million fund exemplifies the approach, using Green Climate Fund first-loss capital to attract private investment.

This works, occasionally, at the project level, but it can’t scale. First-loss capital is expensive - it requires public or philanthropic sources willing to accept below-market returns or outright losses. There isn't enough of it to cover the hundreds of billions in annual adaptation investment needed. Moreover, it creates perverse incentives: private investors demand first-loss protection for increasingly marginal projects, while genuinely risky but high-impact adaptation in the poorest communities gets ignored because no amount of first-loss capital can generate commercial returns there.

The uncomfortable truth is that first-loss capital functions less as a market-creation tool than as a subsidy transfer mechanism from taxpayers to private investors. It socialises risk while privatising returns - a politically sustainable model in theory, economically inefficient in practice, and wholly inadequate at the required scale.

Perhaps the capital stack's most cruel failure is its inability to reach the communities that need adaptation the most. The Green Climate Fund, despite creating "direct access" modalities to bypass international intermediaries, has seen less than 10% of climate finance reach the local level. The reasons are structural: complex application processes, stringent fiduciary requirements, and minimum project sizes that exclude community-based adaptation.

Community-based adaptation projects typically need $50,000 to $500,000 - too small for major financiers whose transaction costs often exceed project value. The capital stack's solution has been aggregation: pooling multiple small projects to reach an investable scale. Yet aggregation requires local intermediaries with technical capacity and fiduciary standards that few exist in vulnerable communities. It's a catch-22: communities can't access finance without capacity, but can't build capacity without finance.

The result is that adaptation finance flows overwhelmingly to middle-income countries with existing institutional infrastructure, while least developed countries - facing the most severe climate impacts with the least adaptive capacity - receive scraps. The climate adaptation capital stack isn't just inefficient; it's often regressive.

The 2024 Adaptation Gap Report makes grim reading. Adaptation costs in developing countries could reach $340 billion annually by 2030. Wealthy countries have pledged to double adaptation finance from 2019 levels, which would bring it to roughly $40 billion, leaving a $300 billion shortfall. The gap isn't closing; it's widening.

The capital stack as currently constructed cannot bridge this chasm. It is built on questionable assumptions: that concessional capital will scale dramatically, that private capital can be mobilised at high ratios, and that innovative instruments can substitute for real resources. The structure produces enough success stories for glossy reports while failing at the system level.

What's needed isn't optimisation of existing mechanisms but fundamental reconstruction. That means accepting uncomfortable truths: adaptation in the poorest, most vulnerable communities will require grants, not loans. Developed countries must dramatically increase climate finance - real money, delivered not just pledged.

The adaptation capital stack needs money, delivered through accessible mechanisms to the places that need it most. Until the international community confronts that reality, the elaborate financial architecture will remain what it is today: a monument to ingenuity in service of inadequacy.

Know someone interested in adapting to a warmer world? Share Liveable with someone who should be in the know.

Or copy and paste this link to share with others: https://research.liveable.world/subscribe