CLIMATE CASH SHOWDOWN: Africa battles EU ‘delaying tactics’ at COP31 over $120bn climate adaptation lifeline

The fight to triple adaptation finance from $40-billion per year to at least $120-billion annually is turning into a fertile battlefield at the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31), as developed nations continue to push back against African demands for concrete delivery plans.

The standoff follows an effort by wealthy nations, led by the European Union, to block the tripling of adaptation finance from being adopted on the formal summit agenda on Monday. While the issue was initially absorbed into broader discussions on climate finance and the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), fierce behind-the-scenes lobbying pushed it back into the draft cover decision by Friday, 14 November. 

Speaking to Daily Maverick on the sidelines of the South African Pavilion, Environment Minister David Maynier credited fierce behind-the-scenes negotiations by South Africa’s chief negotiator, Maesela Kekana, alongside the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) and the BASIC bloc (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), for keeping the issue alive. 

The technical negotiations have come to a close, and the COP31 presidency released its reflections on the cover decision, an overarching political summary that wraps together the main goals, values and high-level messages from the first week of negotiations.

Tripling adaptation finance made it onto the draft cover decision, highlighting the issue raised by developing nations on Monday, and returned to the agenda in some form by Friday, 14 November.

“There’s a lot of behind-the-scenes work being done by our chief negotiator, Maesela Kekana, working in consort obviously with the African group and of course the Basic Group. As a result of some behind-the-scenes negotiations and arm-twisting, the group were very successful in the first instance in ensuring that the climate finance work programme is at least on the agenda. This gives us the opportunity going forward to ensure that we negotiate, particularly with developed countries, about their obligations to provide support to developing countries,” Maynier said.

While this shows some promise, it’s important to pay attention to the language nations use when discussing tripling adaptation because while the issue has made it into the negotiating rooms, developed nations have only promised to pursue tripling adaptation finance but have said nothing about how exactly that will be achieved.

“‘Tripling’ is a word. A baseline, a milestone and a name next to the cheque are a promise. Until the text has the second, the first is a slogan, and the countries that did least to cause overshoot keep paying for it,” said Oscar Soria, co-chief executive and cofounder of The Common Initiative. 

The Common Initiative is a nonprofit think-tank and advocacy group that works to put biodiversity and ecological restoration at the centre of global financial reform.

In its analysis of the cover decision, The Common Initiative noted that, on the finance front, the final text would most likely recall finance commitments without a new number.

Attempts to conflate tripling with climate finance

Developed nations and the AGN are at loggerheads over where and how to discuss tripling adaptation finance.

During a Climate Action Network (CAN) media briefing, Pooja Dave, the organisation’s adaptation lead, said $120-billion was not enough.

Citing the UNEP Gap report, she said tripling would cover only 30% of developing countries’ actual needs, estimated at $420-billion per year by 2025. This leaves a gap of about 70%.

Dave said it is critical to anchor the tripling commitment and delivery plan for adaptation finance directly within the GGA framework. This links finance to the implementation, tracking and monitoring of specific adaptation targets across various sectors (food, health, agriculture).

Developed nations are pushing back against tripling adaptation finance in the GGA agenda, but are advocating for it to be discussed in the climate finance stream.  

A negotiator who spoke to Daily Maverick on condition of anonymity said this was a deliberate attempt by the developed nations to “dilute” the language.

They said that having the tripling adaptation conversation in the climate finance work programme would risk conflating the tripling of adaptation finance with the developed nations’ obligation to take the lead in mobilising at least $300-billion annually by 2035 for developing countries.

The negotiator said that developing countries are concerned that once the $300-billion annual climate goal is reached, developed nations would lump the tripling of adaptation finance with that achievement instead of treating it as a standalone goal.

Dave said this was a delaying tactic by developed nations to ensure that the how and when are not established before Addis.

This presents a problem because it means that when COP32 rolls around next year in Addis Ababa, it would be starting from scratch on ironing out a pathway to deliver $120-billion to developing nations yearly by 2035. 

Loss and damage

Another thing South Africa is looking to get out of this COP31 is an increase to the money paid into the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage.

Daily Maverick previously reported that South Africa is one of 119 countries that have submitted more than 170 funding proposals to the loss and damage fund. The country submitted a $20-million proposal to restore the flood-affected areas in Kruger National Park and associated conservation landscapes after historic floods in January 2026, which caused about R1-billion (roughly $30-million) in total infrastructure and structural damage.

Maynier shied away from revealing much about how negotiations on that front are going, saying talks are still in the early phase.

He said replenishing the loss and damage fund would be the subject of his weekend’s meeting.

“I have a bilateral meeting on the whole question during the course of the weekend,” Maynier said.

“Where we’ll be speaking about the [loss and damage fund] in general, but also speaking specifically about our proposal, which, of course, is to fund, to the tune of $20-million, flood recovery in the Kruger National Park,” he added. 

With technical talks wrapping up in the early hours of Sunday without resolving the core finance disputes, the heaviest political battles now shift to ministers’ plates when negotiations resume on Monday, 16 November. 

According to the Common Initiative, early in the week, all eyes will be on the release of the first draft COP31 cover decision and updated finance texts to see whether the $120-billion adaptation pledge survives as a standalone commitment, or is buried inside broader finance discussions. At the same time, Monday’s informal talks on the loss and damage fund will test whether African and developing nations can secure firm rules for rapid, grant-based payouts – or whether wealthy blocs like the EU succeed in blocking formal guidance altogether. 

If the deadlocks on tripling adaptation finance are not resolved by the end of the conference, it will mean that when COP32 rolls around next year in Addis Ababa, it will be starting from scratch on ironing out a pathway to deliver $120-billion to developing nations yearly by 2035. DM