By Nushrat Chowdhury

Local communities feel the impacts of climate change firsthand, yet rarely do they have resources to withstand them. They end up experiencing more loss and damage. Communities in developing countries, in particular, bear the brunt of the climate crisis despite contributing the least to its causes.  

Historically, financing for local-level initiatives has been alarmingly low. Research by IIED revealed that between 2003 and 2016, less than 10 percent of climate finance explicitly targeted the local level. Similarly, the 2023 Adaptation Gap Report found that only 17 percent of adaptation finance from 2017 to 2021 supported community-focused adaptation projects. The persistent lack of action exacerbates climate-related losses and damages, especially in the Global South.  

The newest multilateral fund under the UNFCCC, the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), aims to directly support frontline communities, including vulnerable groups and Indigenous Peoples, through mechanisms like small grants. A coalition of countries has advocated for a dedicated “community window” within the FRLD. This window would provide simplified, direct access to adequate funding tailored to the needs of affected communities. Such an approach must be locally led, responsive, demand-driven, and just. It would empower communities to make decisions about how financial resources are used, allowing them to design, implement, and prioritise programmes based on their specific needs. 

In Bangladesh, Christian Aid and the Nowabenki Gonomukhi Foundation implemented the Cyclone-Based Early Actions to Reduce Disaster Loss and Damage project. Local organisations secured funding to reduce cyclone risks in their communities.   

For instance, Asma Khatun (35) led the Dakshin Bedkashi Sardar Para Mahila Samiti in developing a proposal for small-scale projects. The association secured funds to construct connecting roads and a wooden bridge, improving access to educational institutions that also serve as cyclone shelters. This initiative was implemented in consultation with stakeholders, including community members and local government organisations. (For the full case study, see Community access to the Loss and Damage Fund – Christian Aid, page 24.)  

The FRLD must address the ongoing financing gap at the local level by trusting and supporting local organisations, which have the expertise and understanding of their communities’ needs. In addition, the FRLD should provide capacity-building and technical assistance to help communities access funds and implement their priorities effectively. 

Nushrat Chowdhury works with Christian Aid in Bangladesh.

 PHOTO: Paul Jeffrey/ACT

By Ada Virnes and Niko Humalisto  

At the COP29 climate negotiations in Baku, much of the controversy around climate finance centres on the quantity, that is, how much is needed to meet the needs of developing countries. Even though it is critical that the amount reflects scientific estimates – now adding up to trillions rather than billions – this narrow focus does little justice to the more nuanced interpretations about what “meeting the needs” means in practice, especially when it comes to coping with the climate crisis and enabling a just transition where no one is left behind.  

Data shows that most public climate finance to developing countries mobilized by developed countries has been targeted to mitigation projects and to middle-income countries. This is even more striking when it comes to private climate finance.  

These finance flows sideline the needs of the poorest countries to protect the rights of vulnerable citizens against the fast-unfolding planetary climate crisis. This bias has several reasons, the key being that most of the finance is provided in the form of debt.  This is even though public climate finance is primarily mobilized from official development aid (ODA).  

In this multilayered and multisectoral climate finance architecture, are there actors that would be better equipped to deliver climate finance that truly meets people’s needs? To answer this question, we began teasing out differences between the different groups of actors through which climate finance is channelled. The starting point was to examine how non-governmental organizations (NGOs) performed when compared with other channels such as multilateral organizations, funds, and private sector institutions. These are rarely highlighted in climate finance studies. 

We limited the scope of the study to Finland, a somewhat typical EU member state that allocates around 150 million euros annually to climate finance via its ODA. Examining all Finland’s ODA projects from 2020-2022, as reported to the OECD, we focused on projects that had a significant focus on either climate change adaptation, mitigation or both. We then estimated the shares of climate finance for each project based on their focus. Then we used the Chi square test to determine whether Finnish NGOs consider key markers related to just transition and human rights in their climate work more often than do the other funding channels.  

NGO results 

The results leave little room for doubt. In their climate work, NGOs focus more often on adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and least developed countries than do other channels – and the differences are statistically significant. NGOs were also significantly more often engaged in advancing issues that have high relevance in just transition, for example gender and disability inclusion or democratic governance. Even though the NGO projects received just six percent of Finland’s international climate finance, their number covered over two thirds of the examined climate finance portfolio. 

These findings have unavoidable political consequences. In addition to NGOs operating in a transparent manner without massive administrative costs, it appears that they comply with other human rights-related criteria set for development policy and just transition. They also target countries vulnerable to climate change with adaptation-oriented projects, which specifically address the challenge of allocating private climate finance.  

In fulfilling the commitments of doubling adaptation finance6 or reaching gender mainstreaming in climate finance, Finnish CSOs are pioneers. They form a diverse and indispensable addition to Finland’s climate finance. Their work is effective in combining climate action with multiple positive outcomes in the area of social development. Nonetheless, it should be noted that examining the statistical data on funding decisions does not reveal anything about the results achieved by the projects, thus limiting the assessment of effectiveness.  

The key problem, however, is that Finland – like many other countries – lacks specific policies that would steer climate finance toward achieving specific outcomes, such as disability inclusion. Rather, key indicators are geared to evaluating progress in terms of cumulative emission reduction or strengthening carbon sinks. These are highly important goals, but do not alone address the needs of those on the frontlines of the climate crisis.  

Ada Virnes and Niko Humalisto work for ACT Alliance Finnish member Felm. Niko is a member of ACT’s Climate Justice advocacy group. 

PHOTO: Simon Chambers/ACT

In Misiones, Argentina, the Crece Selva Misionera project is making strides in addressing deforestation and promoting sustainable farming. Developed by the Hora de Obrar Foundation, the project tackles critical challenges – including biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and climate change – through reforestation and agroforestry.   

Misiones boasts one of the largest remnants of the Atlantic Forest, a biodiversity hotspot that spans Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay. However, less than eight percent of this forest remains intact, primarily due to agricultural expansion, infrastructure projects, and illegal logging. This environmental degradation not only threatens wildlife but also undermines the livelihoods of local communities, many of whom live in poverty.   

Through Crece Selva Misionera, 190,000 native trees have been planted across 390 hectares since 2020, with a goal of 250,000 trees this year. The initiative integrates native species into agricultural systems, enhancing crop resilience and restoring degraded land. For yerba mate producers like Marino Jungblut, agroforestry combines traditional farming with environmental stewardship.   

Marino, a lifelong farmer, transformed his farm by reintroducing native trees, creating a thriving ecosystem where yerba mate and local plants coexist. “The idea is to conserve the land and nature so that our descendants can continue enjoying this gift from God,” he says.   

The project has positively impacted over 2,200 people through awareness campaigns and training. Collaboration with local nurseries has increased the availability of native seedlings, fostering a sustainable supply chain. 

 “Before Crece Selva Misionera, local producers did not demand native species in significant quantities. So, the nurseries did not take the risk of producing. Today, stable demand for native species is guaranteed by the project to between four and six nurseries,” says Nahuel Gravano, Hora de Obrar’s environmental projects leader.  

Agroforestry also enhances soil quality, supports water retention, and mitigates extreme weather impacts. This approach has inspired other farmers to adopt sustainable practices, amplifying the project’s impact.   

Despite its success, scaling up the initiative requires additional resources. Increased funding would enable broader implementation of agroforestry, benefiting both the environment and local communities. As Hora de Obrar works toward its ambitious reforestation goals, it demonstrates the power of collaboration in protecting Misiones’ natural heritage for future generations.   

By integrating reforestation with sustainable farming, Crece Selva Misionera not only addresses the urgent need for forest restoration but also sets a replicable model for climate adaptation and rural development. 

This article is drawn from a longer one by Hora de Obrar. PHOTO: Andy Wedekamper/Hora de Obrar

By Andrew Fuys

Climate change impacts all of us, wherever we live, work, or go to school.  And in all parts of the world, people are creating economies and societies that are more resilient to climate change, ones in which clean, renewable energy is combined with sustainable use of water, land, and other natural resources.  In many places, local and national governments have begun making public resources available, to complement the private resources that so many families, communities, and businesses have been mobilizing themselves.  

While these steps are promising, the reality of climate change demands even more urgent action.  For starters, the costs of adapting to the ways our climate has already changed – and, especially, of addressing the growing threats that climate hazards pose to lives and livelihoods – only continue to rise.   

Policymakers know that investing in preparedness and risk reduction saves money in the long run: the US government, for example, reports that as much as six dollars are saved for every one dollar spent on hazard mitigation.  But still, too often public resources are made available only after disasters strike, not before. By that point, it’s too late to prevent harm, especially for people who live in the most vulnerable situations.  Just last month, communities in the US experienced this firsthand, when two hurricanes supercharged by historically warm ocean water caused devastation across the southeastern part of the country. 

COP29 is a critical moment for national governments to invest in community-led action to adapt to climate change. Locally led adaptation not only reduces the risks posed by climate change, it creates new opportunities for people to build skills and earn a living in ways that restore ecosystems, protect biodiversity, and ensure that no one is left behind economically or socially.  And in situations where remaining in place is simply no longer an option, adaptation can contribute to the safety and dignity of people who are moving out of harm’s way.  

What is needed to get there?  Global assessments of adaptation efforts show that governments collectively need to mobilize at least 10 times the amount of public adaptation funding that has been flowing to date.  And depending on how much, or how little, progress is made in transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy, this figure could be even higher, up to 18 times the current funding levels.  In dollar terms, this comes to $215 billion to $387 billion per year, through the year 2030.   

Church World Service and other ACT Alliance members work alongside climate impacted communities in all regions of the world – communities that have contributed little or nothing to global climate pollution in the first place.  We hear firsthand how women, men, girls and boys are using their own knowledge, technical skills, peer networks, and limited financial resources to cope with climate impacts.  And we also hear them calling on the nations of the world to join them in this effort – particularly nations that are historic climate polluters, and those which today are disproportionately causing climate change.    

The accelerating climate crisis requires a truly global response. This must include firm commitments by national governments at COP29 to increase dedicated, grant-based adaptation finance, and to expand and simplify the ways in which impacted communities can access these critically needed resources.  Climate vulnerable communities are already doing way more than their fair share. The question is, will the climate polluting countries of the world step up their own actions?  As COP29 continues, the people of the world – and, indeed, of future generations – are awaiting the answer. 

Andrew Fuys is Senior Technical Advisor for Climate and Migration at CWS.  He lives in the Bronx, New York, on the ancestral lands of the Lenape people. 

A “silenced” demonstration at COP29 urging climate action. PHOTO: Albin Hillert/LWF