As COP30 approaches (November 2025, Belém, Brazil), global attention turns again to the challenge of financing climate adaptation. Agriculture sits at the center of this discussion as it is both highly vulnerable to climate change and essential for livelihoods. A recent study conducted by WRI estimated that for every $1 invested in climate adaptation, $10.50 in benefits are generated in 10 years, with an average return of 27% in agriculture (Brandon et al., 2025). Despite this potential benefit, many farmers are still slow to adopt climate change adaptation measures. Why?

There is a huge literature on the barriers to the implementation of climate change mitigation measures. Here I highlight the ones I believe are the main ones: high initial investments, lack of information and risk perception, social norms and cultural factors, and institutional context.

High initial investments. Climate-smart practices such as agroforestry, drip irrigation, or soil conservation require initial investments that many farmers, especially the smaller ones, cannot afford. Credit is often inaccessible or costly, and adaptation benefits can take many years to materialize. In Ethiopia, for example, Deressa et al. (2009) found that one of the main barriers to adaption in the Nile Basin was financial constraints. According to the study, the lack of credit and extension services significantly reduced the likelihood that farmers would adopt any climate-response strategy. More recent studies suggest that this trend has not changed in most developing countries (e.g., Mofolo et al., 2021; Lamichhane et al., 2022).

Lack of information and risk perception. Some farmers interpret climate variability as part of normal weather cycles rather than long-term change (Arbuckle et al., 2013). Without credible information or advisory services, they may see no need to adjust their traditional practices. Niles et al. (2016), for example, found that farmers’ belief in climate change strongly predicted adoption of adaptation measures among farmers in the U.S. and New Zealand.

Behavioral barriers. Even when finance and information are available, behavioral barriers can limit adoption of adaption measures by farmers. Studies show that risk aversion, trust in traditional knowledge, and social norms play decisive roles in farmers’ decision-making process. Studies have shown, for example, how cultural attachment to traditional practices constrained the uptake of new soil and water management techniques (Wordofa et al. 2020). Such findings might highlight the fact that adaptation is a social process as well as a technical one.

Institutional context. In many countries, policies are inconsistent across sectors. Without clear rights or long-term incentives, farmers hesitate to invest. Below et al. (2012) demonstrated that where local institutions were weak in Tanzania and Kenya, adaptation rates fell sharply. In the same lines, Branca et al. (2011, FAO) emphasized that enabling policies and extension networks are prerequisites for scaling up climate-smart agriculture.

As COP30 approaches, aligning climate finance with the realities faced by farmers offers a pragmatic path forward. Strengthening adaptation will require not only financial resources but also access to information, supportive institutions, and an understanding of the social and cultural factors that shape farmers’ decisions.

References

• Arbuckle, J.G., Morton, L.W. & Hobbs, J. Farmer beliefs and concerns about climate change and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation: Evidence from Iowa. Climatic Change 118, 551–563 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0700-0
• Below, T., Mutabazi, K. D., Kirschke, D., Franke, C., Sieber, S., Siebert, R., & Tscherning, K. (2012). Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic household-level variables? Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 223–235.
• Branca, G., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., & Jolejole, M. C. (2011). Climate-smart agriculture: A synthesis of empirical evidence of food security and mitigation benefits. FAO Working Paper. https://www.fao.org/4/i2574e/i2574e00.pdf
• Brandon, C., B. Kratzer, A. Aggarwal, and H. Heubaum. 2025. “Strengthening the investment case for climate adaptation: A triple dividend approach.” Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.25.00019.
• Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., & Yesuf, M. (2009). Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 248–255.
• Lamichhane, P., Hadjikakou, M., Miller, K.K. et al. Climate change adaptation in smallholder agriculture: adoption, barriers, determinants, and policy implications. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 27, 32 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-022-10010-z
• Mofolo, T. C., Kheleli, M. R. (2021). Identifying Challenging Barriers to Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change: A Case of Leribe District, Lesotho. International Journal of Scientific Advances (IJSCIA), Volume 2| Issue 3: May-Jun 2021, Pages 246-252, URL: https://www.ijscia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Volume2-Issue3-May-Jun-No.77-246-252.pdf
• Niles, M. T., Lubell, M., & Brown, M. (2015). How limiting factors drive agricultural adaptation to climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystem & Environment, 200(1), 178-185.
• Wordofa, M.G., Okoyo, E.N. & Erkalo, E. Factors influencing adoption of improved structural soil and water conservation measures in Eastern Ethiopia. Environ Syst Res 9, 13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-020-00175-4