Adaptation finance is chronically underfunded relative to mitigation, and locally led adaptation more so again. The harder problem, though, is not how much is committed — it is how little of what is committed actually reaches local level.
We traced climate finance flows across four disbursement channels, from commitment through to funds actually reaching a local implementing body. The commitment, disbursement and local-level figures diverge at every stage, and the gap between them is where most locally led adaptation ambition quietly stalls.
Instruments matter here. Results-based financing performed better on local reach than grant modalities routed through multiple intermediary layers, largely because each additional intermediary both retains a management fee and adds a reporting cycle that delays disbursement further.
What closes the gap
The most consistent predictor of funds actually reaching local implementers was the number of intermediary organisations between the original commitment and the ground — not the total amount committed, and not the originating institution. Every additional layer reduced both speed and the proportion of funds that arrived intact.
For funders serious about locally led adaptation, the practical lever is structural: shorten the disbursement chain, or build instruments — like direct results-based payments to sub-national or community implementers — that bypass it.