As world leaders gather in Belém for COP30, the focus will be how countries intend to implement the Paris Agreement, ten years after it was adopted.

Countries are at an inflection point: new national climate action plans must put the world on a path to limiting global warming to 1.5°C. For developing countries, this means bringing together ambition, financing and an enabling environment to drive climate action.

Funding is a serious challenge – developing countries will need at least $310 billion per year by 2035 on adaptation needs – to protect lives, livelihoods, and economies. This is 12 times as much as current international public adaptation finance flows, according to the latest figures by the UN Environment Programme.

Yet even within these immense needs, there is a group that is furthest left behind: fragile and conflict-affected countries. The uncomfortable truth is that the countries that most need climate funding are the least likely to receive it.

Fragile and conflict-affected countries are on the frontlines of climate change.

Of the top 25 most vulnerable countries to climate change 16 are fragile or conflict-affected. Around 70 per cent of acutely food insecure people live in fragile or conflict-affected situations. And around 70 per cent of refugees and 80 per cent of internally displaced people originate from countries on the front lines of the climate crisis.

And yet – by one account – fragile and conflict-affected countries receive only one quarter of the climate finance they need. In 2020, people living in countries affected by high-intensity conflict received $2.74 in spending per person – roughly half of the amount allocated to those in areas with medium-intensity conflict ($5.06) or social and institutional fragility ($5.25).

These are places where droughts and floods destroy already-scarce infrastructure, where governance is weak, and where communities are displaced again and again. The injustice is stark: the people with the fewest resources to adapt are being left behind by a system supposedly designed to help them.

There are many reasons for this. Donors are reluctant to take the risk where there is limited institutional or financial capacity. So climate finance tends to go to stable, low-risk environments, rather than the most vulnerable ones.

This needs to change.

A quarter of humanity lives in places affected by conflict. Not only do we have a moral responsibility to support them, there is also a clear strategic and political imperative to do this. Risk aversion fuels instability. As climate shocks intensify, competition over land, food, and water can grow sharper and fuel further insecurity. Adaptation can be key to tackling the root causes of conflict and fragility.

UNOPS – the organization that I lead – provides practical solutions to support humanitarian, development and peace operations. Over half of our work is in fragile and conflict-affected areas. We have seen what happens when you create enabling conditions and capacity to ensure that climate finance reaches where it matters most.

In Afghanistan, years of conflict have severely affected essential services. In partnership with the World Bank and others, we are restoring and expanding access to safe drinking and irrigation water, strengthening rural community resilience.

In Yemen, with World Bank support, we help restore urban services, integrate climate-resilient design into recovery efforts, and rehabilitate roads, solar-powered facilities, and water systems. These initiatives help millions rebuild their lives and lay foundations for a more resilient Yemen.

Climate action is inherently tied with sustainable development. If the international community is serious about meeting global adaptation and development goals, it must make available finance that can operate in fragile environments. That means increasing financial access and the capacity of governments to absorb funds, and tailoring support to unstable circumstances.

Better coordination and partnerships with local authorities, NGOs and civil society groups are crucial, as they have the local insight and expertise. Equally crucial is the need to redefine risk: inaction carries its own cost in instability, migration, and humanitarian needs. Importantly, we need to work hard on strengthening early warning systems, to ensure everyone, everywhere, is protected by an alert system by 2027.

Private investors, too, have a role. The growth of blended finance and impact investment shows that capital can be mobilized even in difficult markets when risk-sharing mechanisms exist. What’s missing is the political will to apply these innovations where they’re most urgently needed.

The logic is simple: when we leave the most vulnerable behind, we all pay the price.

COP30, hosted in the world’s largest rainforest, offers a chance to reset that logic, and to prove that climate finance can reach those who need it most, no matter how fragile their circumstances.