The results show that structural vulnerability does not appear to be a significant determinant of per capita adaptation commitments, except at the most extreme levels. By contrast, income per capita and, above all, the quality of governance emerge as major explanatory factors. Donors thus tend to allocate more resources to countries with limited fiscal space, while conditioning these allocations on the presence of sufficient institutional capacity, combining poverty targeting with institutional selectivity based on implementation capacity. A differentiated analysis reveals that grants are the most responsive to structural climate vulnerability, whereas concessional and non-concessional loans primarily respond to criteria related to income, creditworthiness, and governance.