As the world prepares for the 30th Conference of Parties (COP30) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—widely dubbed the “Adaptation COP”—a new report has exposed an alarming disconnect between global climate finance and the urgent need to safeguard human health.
The report, titled “The Nexus of Adaptation and Health Finance,” published by the Berlin-based think tank Adelphi, highlights that while 87% of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) include health priorities, less than 0.1% of the $2.54 billion identified need for health adaptation has actually been funded through multilateral climate mechanisms.
Since 2004, only 0.5% of total multilateral climate finance — about $173 million — has been directed toward adapting health systems to a changing climate. This chronic underinvestment persists despite mounting evidence that climate change is a public health emergency, with projections warning of up to 15.6 million deaths by 2050 due to extreme heat, disease outbreaks, and collapsing infrastructure.
The Adaptation-Health Funding Chasm
According to the report, the gap between what countries need and what they receive for climate-health adaptation is widening at a dangerous pace. While governments worldwide are grappling with worsening health impacts — from heat stress and respiratory diseases to climate-induced malnutrition — they remain critically under-resourced to respond.
Even the limited climate-health funding that does exist is unevenly distributed. Roughly two-thirds of the funds have gone to East Asia and the Pacific, one-quarter to Sub-Saharan Africa, and none to country-specific health adaptation projects in South Asia — a region projected to experience 18% of the world’s future climate-related health impacts.
Moreover, only 4% of total climate-health funds have reached fragile or conflict-affected areas, leaving vulnerable communities exposed to worsening disasters, disease, and displacement.
India’s Predicament: Planning vs. Payout
The funding gap is particularly concerning for India and its South Asian neighbors. India faces an escalating public health threat from extreme heatwaves, erratic monsoons, and vector-borne diseases such as dengue and malaria.
Despite having frameworks like the National Adaptation Fund on Climate Change and various state-level climate action plans, the available resources fall far short of the challenge. A recent government estimate suggests India will need over $2.4 trillion by 2050 to effectively tackle climate risks.
New Delhi’s success in rolling out large-scale welfare programs with climate co-benefits—such as clean cooking fuel initiatives and rural electrification—demonstrates the potential for integrated climate-health policies. But experts warn that without global, grant-based climate finance, India will be forced to bear a disproportionate share of costs, straining its domestic budget and limiting resilience-building efforts.
At COP30, set to be held in Belem, Brazil, India is expected to take a leading role in pushing for mechanisms such as a Global Resilience Fund, aimed at ensuring sustained, non-debt-creating funding for adaptation and health system strengthening.
COP30: A Moment of Reckoning
With COP30 focusing explicitly on adaptation and the anticipated launch of the Belem Health Action Plan, the report’s release is timely and urgent. It calls on global leaders to:
- Prioritize grant-based international finance to prevent debt traps for developing nations.
- Channel funds directly to national priorities, as defined in countries’ adaptation plans.
- Foster deeper collaboration between climate and health ministries to integrate resilience strategies.
Experts stress that the numbers are not just fiscal data points—they represent lives at stake. The underfunding of climate-health adaptation, they warn, could translate into millions of preventable deaths and a global health crisis financed by inaction.
“Climate change is not only an environmental or economic issue — it’s a direct public health emergency,” the report concludes. “Without immediate, transformational investment in resilient health systems, the human cost could be catastrophic.”