Climate adaptation: investable projects need a clear asset owner and a measurable service

Converting a large need into a specific project

Climate adaptation is frequently discussed through the scale of unmet financing needs. That context matters, but a business cannot sell directly to a global funding gap. It needs a purchaser, an asset or service at risk and an intervention that can be specified and maintained. Opportunities may involve drainage maintenance, water efficiency, cooling, resilient storage or better operating information. Each requires a different technical assessment and commercial arrangement.

UNEP's Adaptation Gap Report 2025 describes a substantial shortfall in adaptation finance for developing countries. This article does not translate that shortfall into a revenue forecast. Instead, it offers an editorial framework for identifying projects that businesses in BRICS markets can evaluate responsibly. The central question is which organisation has both an interest in reducing a defined exposure and a credible way to fund the required work.

Establish the asset and its operational dependency

A warehouse vulnerable to flooding, a factory reliant on a constrained water supply and a public building exposed to heat present different problems. The project should begin with qualified assessment of the specific conditions and the decisions available to the owner. A broad climate-risk score can help prioritise attention, but it does not replace engineering, operational knowledge or the views of people using the site.

The business case should describe what interruption means in practice. Does it stop production, damage inventory, restrict access or increase the cost of keeping a service available? Some consequences can be quantified from records, while others require careful estimation. Uncertainty should remain visible. Presenting a precise monetary benefit without a clear method can weaken the project rather than make it more persuasive.

Identify the budget and the purchasing route

An asset owner may fund preventive work through maintenance, capital investment or a broader refurbishment project. A public body may require a specific procurement and approval process. A tenant may benefit from an improvement but lack authority to alter the building. These distinctions determine who can commission the work and how quickly a proposal can advance.

A supplier should therefore separate technically sensible projects from commercially ready opportunities. The latter need an accountable sponsor, a feasible scope and a funding route. A list of exposed sites is not equivalent to an order pipeline. Business development should record unresolved ownership and budget questions alongside technical findings so that management does not confuse social need with near-term revenue.

Use scenarios to examine resilience benefits

An illustrative evaluation can compare ordinary operating costs with the consequences of a limited interruption and a more severe disruption. Test how the proposed intervention performs under each scenario and which dependencies remain outside its scope. These are planning cases rather than predictions of a particular event. Technical specialists should guide the assumptions appropriate to the location and asset.

Costs include design, installation, maintenance, staff preparation and eventual renewal. A system that works only when poorly funded maintenance is performed may provide less practical protection than its design suggests. The contract should make these obligations visible. Finance teams can then compare alternatives over a relevant service period rather than choosing solely by the lowest initial purchase price.

Delivery and evidence support future funding

• Define acceptance criteria that can be checked after installation or service delivery.
• Record who inspects, maintains and operates each element of the intervention.
• Keep assumptions and known limitations with the project documentation.
• Review performance after relevant operating conditions, without overstating what one observation proves.

For smaller companies, a focused maintenance or monitoring service may offer a more manageable entry point than a large infrastructure project. The service still needs competent design and a clear customer benefit. Recurring work can create a record of asset condition and response that supports future investment decisions. It can also reveal where a seemingly simple improvement is constrained by another part of the system.

BRICS collaboration should connect complementary capabilities

Businesses across BRICS markets may bring experience in different climates, construction methods and service environments. Partnerships can support learning and technical delivery, but solutions should be assessed locally. An approach developed for one pattern of rainfall, building type or water supply may not transfer unchanged. Local users and operators need a role in validating the design and its maintenance requirements.

The geopolitical discussion of climate finance should also remain distinct from the status of a specific contract. A policy statement or funding announcement may create an opportunity to investigate, not a guarantee that a project will be financed. Suppliers should verify the programme, eligible activities and purchasing process before including it in their forecast.

A business case grounded in operational responsibility

Management should connect site assessments, proposals, approvals, project milestones and ongoing service records. This provides a view of which opportunities have moved beyond concept and which completed projects still carry maintenance obligations. The strongest adaptation businesses will be able to explain what they deliver, who benefits and what evidence supports the value. That is a more useful basis for growth than treating the size of the climate challenge as an automatic measure of commercial demand.