How much finance should be provided to support climate change adaptation and by whom? How should it be allocated, and on what basis? Over the years, various actors have expressed different normative expectations on climate finance. Which of these expectations are being met and which are not; why, and with what consequences? Have new norms and rules emerged, which remain contested? This article takes stock of the first 25+ years of adaptation finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and seeks to understand whether adaptation finance has become more justly governed and delivered over the past quarter century. We distinguish among three “eras” of adaptation finance: (1) the early years under the UNFCCC (1992–2008); (2) the Copenhagen shift (2009–2015); and (3) the post-Paris era (2016–2018). For each era, we systematically review the justice issues raised by evolving expectations and rules over the provision, distribution, and governance of adaptation finance. We conclude by outlining future perspectives for adaptation finance and their implications for climate justice.

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2014 was the most comprehensive to date. Yet it left several gaps with regards to the impacts, implications and responses to climate change in small island developing states (SIDS). SIDS are recognized as a special grouping of developing countries. Located in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, Caribbean, and Pacific regions, they comprise 58 countries that are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and its impacts. With adaptation to climate change viewed as a viable and necessary complement to mitigation, academic interest in adaptation in these complex geographies is increasing. Despite this, not enough is known about the body of knowledge relating to adaptation in SIDS. This article systematically reviews 208 articles, books, book chapters, conference papers, and notes, and synthesizes the nature and extent of the research evidence before and after AR5 (i.e., from 1990 to 2014, and from 2015 to 2018). It specifically explores shifts in (a) when, where and by what means knowledge is being produced (e.g., subject areas, methodologies), and the ways in which adaptation is being framed (i.e., conceptually, operationally), (b) the narratives, consensuses, and tensions across the key emerging themes in the literature, and (c) the knowledge gaps that exist. It also outlines a future research agenda, which is an important consideration not only for multi‐scale actors working to help solve the global climate challenge, but also for the scholars preparing the Small Islands Chapter of the Sixth Assessment Report due in 2021.This article is categorized under: Climate and Development > Sustainability and Human Well‐Being Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies

Locally led adaptation (LLA) has recently gained importance against top-down planning practices that often exclude the lived realities and priorities of local communities and create injustices at the local level. The promise of LLA is that adaptation would be defined, prioritised, designed, monitored, and evaluated by local communities themselves, enabling a shift in power to local stakeholders, resulting in more effective adaptation interventions. Critical reflections on the intersections of power and justice in LLA are, however, lacking. This article offers a nuanced understanding of the power and justice considerations required to make LLA useful for local communities and institutions, and to resolve the tensions between LLA and other development priorities. It also contributes to a further refinement of LLA methodologies and practices to better realise its promises. Ultimately, we argue that the utility of the LLA framing in promoting climate justice and empowering local actors needs to be tested empirically.