For decades, international efforts have prioritised emissions reduction, often overshadowing adaptation. Consequently, the vast majority of tracked climate finance goes to mitigation, while only a small share of funds goes to adaptation. The global climate finance has hit ~$1.5 trillion, essentially driven largely by renewable energy and low-carbon technology investment. However, adaptation investment remains meagre, at roughly tens of billions per year, which is far short of the estimated need – $187–359 billion/year. This mitigation bias has practical consequences. Without equitable robust adaptation investment, vulnerable communities continue to suffer growing losses from extreme and erratic weather behaviour. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment warns that climate impacts already outstrip our ability to cope, and that current adaptation finance is almost entirely reliant on governments.

Historically, climate change associated governance have strongly inclined towards mitigation strategies, like Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC’s initial mechanisms focussed on emission reduction; most likely because it is convenient to quantify and track the trajectory of the carbon emissions, providing space for devising adequate strategies to manage the emissions. In contrast, adaptation has been viewed as reactive, localise and unquantifiable, thereby making its measurement a cumbersome endeavour. Needless to say, situating mitigation and adaptation on equal footing is fairly a complex governance challenge, most likely because of its multi-level operations. It is imperative to understand that, reducing emissions is a global public good, while resilience is mostly local. Consequently, aligning policies across national, regional and community levels is a surely a matter of predicament. Adaptation efforts are more difficult to quantify and are very specific to the locations and geographies of implementation, thereby making it hard to measure progress and allocate funds accordingly.

Different countries and blocs approach the mitigation/adaptation trade-off in strikingly diverse ways. On one hand, the developed economies typically emphasise emission cuts and technology (wind, solar, EVs), backed by strong climate legislation and carbon targets alongside financing international adaptation, while, the Small Island States and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), which face immediate threats from climate change, consistently call for more adaptation mechanisms for the climate impacts they are already suffering. Meanwhile, major emerging economies strike a middle path. For instance, India, China and the like-minded developing countries stress on historical responsibility of the developed world, and seek to persuade them to lead mitigation efforts and pay for adaptation in poorer countries. This stance, however, seems to be changing with time. Many developing nations complained of watered-down negotiations, wherein these debates illustrated as to how equity concerns shape national stances on mitigation vs adaptation funding, thereby showcasing a perplexed global picture. 

It is imperative to note that adaptation itself spans a wide array of sectors and interventions. It includes building flood-resilient infrastructure, developing drought-tolerant crops, restoring coastal ecosystems, and deploying early warning systems. In Asian countries like Bangladesh, for instance, mangrove restoration and cyclone shelters have saved countless lives, while Vietnam’s floating homes and flood-resilient housing offer another example of locally tailored adaptation. These efforts not only protect communities but also enable development under climate stress. Yet, despite their proven value, these and similar such projects across the world continue to remain underfunded and underreported. The challenge lies in measuring the adaptation as mentioned earlier, which lacks universal indicators and the progress may possibly be context specific and qualitative in nature. This ambiguity complicates fund allocations, monitoring and accountability.

COP29 in Baku built on this mitigation vs adaptation stance, by launching a Baku Adaptation Roadmap and formally putting the Global Goal on Adaptation on the agenda. International agreements and institutions continue to push countries toward balanced climate action. The Paris Agreement (2015) enshrines both goals of limiting warming to 1.5–2°C (mitigation) and enhancing adaptive capacity. Besides, the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), launched under the Paris Agreement, aims to address this gap by developing robust frameworks for tracking adaptation outcomes. Despite this, even with these advances, most countries recognise that without stronger climate governance and much greater finance for adaptation, the gap shall persist.

Besides, the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), launched under the Paris Agreement, aims to address this gap by developing robust frameworks for tracking adaptation outcomes. As a result, each country’s Nationally Determined Targets (NDCs), now must report on both emissions targets and adaptation efforts, wherein they struggle to report regarding their efforts in this direction. The IPCC’s reports, like the 2022 Synthesis, keep policymakers informed that even as emissions cuts are scaled up, adaptation must accelerate (calling for enhanced mobilisation of finance and capacity for resilience). Unfortunately, the language remained weakened for all efforts of climate change adaptation and the outcome still signalled the scale of resources governments now intend to muster.

Fixing this requires political will and better policy design, allocating funds for resilience measures, strengthening institutions to deliver adaptation plans, and integrating adaptation goals into national development strategies. Globally, richer or developed nations must honour their commitments. The IPCC and UN reports repeatedly stress that without scaled-up adaptation finance and capacity-building, climate goals cannot be fully achieved. The only silver lining is that of the emerging consensus at the global level on acknowledging these realities. Though, COP28 and COP29 have formally put adaptation on equal footing with mitigation in their frameworks, whether that translates into on-the-ground action shall be the test for 2025 and beyond. 

The private sector has a critical role to play in adaptation finance, with encouraging innovative tools like blended finance, green bonds and climate insurance that can mobilize private capital. Public-private partnerships, such as the African Risk Capacity and InsuResilience, demonstrate how risk-sharing mechanisms can enhance resilience. However, barriers like unclear returns, regulatory risks and lack of data deter investment. Therefore, governments must create enabling environments to attract private sector participation, to reframe adaptation as opportunity rather than considering it as a burden. Building climate-resilient infrastructure can boost long-term economic stability, can drive innovation, create jobs and deliver co-benefits in health, biodiversity, and gender equity. For instance, urban greening could not only reduce heat stress but also improve air quality and mental well-being. Acknowledging these synergies can help mainstream adaptation into national development strategies.

International frameworks are evolving, with the Paris Agreement enshrining both mitigation and adaptation measures, with COP28 and COP29 formally elevating adaptation within their agendas. Looking ahead, success will depend on whether adaptation is truly mainstreamed. Transparent finance tracking, integrated development plans, and global solidarity must become the norm. Upcoming milestones of COP30 and mid-term NDC reviews offer opportunities to push for adaptation. The path forward is clear: use every tool – domestic policy, international cooperation, private investment – to build both a low-carbon and climate-resilient future. Consequently, the most effective climate strategy shall be the one that treats mitigation and adaptation not as rivals, but as two sides of the same coin in safeguarding our world.

Safeguarding our shared future required more than merely ambition; it requires solidarity, urgency, and unwavering resolve. Climate change is not a distant threat but a present crisis, unravelling lives and livelihoods across the world and mitigation may not provide us with a resilient shield against escalating climate uncertainties. Therefore, adaptation must rise as its equal, with every dollar invested in resilience is a lifeline extended to the vulnerable, a promise of survival, dignity, and hope. The world must act not out of charity, but out of justice and equity. If we fail to unite mitigation and adaptation as twin pillars of climate action, we shall perhaps risk building a low-carbon world that remains precariously unprepared for what lies ahead.

Srishti Hatwal and Mihir Dubey are Master’s students of Natural Resource and Governance at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad.