Assessing the credibility of how climate adaptation aid projects are categorised

Weikmans, Romain; Roberts, J. Timmons; Baum, Jeffrey; Bustos, María Camila; Durand, A. Mark

doi:10.1080/09614524.2017.1307325

Cited by 87 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Maldives, which ranked first of all SIDS on an average of the University of Notre Dame's Global Adaptation Index for exposure between 2010 and 2014, received the 18th largest commitment of approximately US$23 million (Robinson and Dornan 2017). These studies should, however, be considered with caution, given the poor quality of adaptation finance data (e.g., see Kono and Montinola 2019;Weikmans et al 2017), and the lack of reliable vulnerability indicators (e.g., see Füssel 2010; Klein 2009).…”

Section: Who Should Get Adaptation Finance?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Who Should Get Adaptation Finance?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Developed countries claimed that US$ 10.1 billion of bilateral development aid that year was "adaptation related", with US$ 2.7 billion "explicitly targeting adaptation as a principal objective". However, Weikmans et al (2017) found that only US$ 2.4 billion appeared to be genuinely adaptation related, and only US$ 1.2 billion targeted adaptation as a "principal objective". Human errors, the OECD DAC's broad definitions of adaptation, political incentives to miscategorize, and lack of clarity about what activities constitute "adaptation" are probably all to blame (Junghans & Harmeling, 2012).…”

Section: Bilateral Public Flowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Several studies (e.g. Junghans & Harmeling, 2012;Oxfam, 2012;Weikmans, Roberts, Baum, Bustos, & Durand, 2017) have called into question the quality of the "mitigation" and "adaptation" Rio markers data. All of them highlight the fact that the current reporting systemwhich exclusively depends on developed countries' self-reportingis prone to huge overestimations.…”

Section: Bilateral Public Flowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Far fewer projects than the developed countries reported were found to be relevant to what can be considered climate change mitigation and adaptation. For example, Weikmans et al (2017) re-evaluated 5200 projects that countries reported as "adaptation related" to the OECD for 2012. Developed countries claimed that US$ 10.1 billion of bilateral development aid that year was "adaptation related", with US$ 2.7 billion "explicitly targeting adaptation as a principal objective".…”

Section: Bilateral Public Flowsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The international climate finance accounting muddle: is there hope on the horizon?

Weikmans

Roberts

2017

Climate and Development

Self Cite

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sources and governance of climate finance have been widely debated since the 2009 climate change summit in Copenhagen, when rich countries promised to provide US$ 30 billion in additional climate finance by 2012 and to mobilize US$ 100 billion a year by 2020 to address the mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. Have developed countries respected their financial commitments? Which countries have been the main beneficiaries of international climate money? As simple as these questions may seem, answers to them have proved to be highly controversial and have contributed to a continuous erosion of trust between Parties in international climate negotiations. This article explores the controversies around international climate finance figures. It examines how the lack of internationally agreed modalities to account for climate finance has given rise to a plethora of accounting and reporting practices that leads to widely contrasting statements on climate finance. We show that, despite some gaps, the Paris Agreement's "enhanced transparency framework" could lead to marked improvements in the way climate finance is accounted and reported.

show abstract

“…While there are other codes such as 'Basic water supply and sanitation' that also include sanitation projects, research has shown that there is a dilution of sanitation within drinking-water and sanitation ODA finance 50 . This database is thought to reflect large overestimations, with far fewer projects than what is reported likely to be relevant to climate change mitigation and adaptation 51 .…”

Section: Is Climate Finance Part Of the Problem Or The Solution?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable sanitation and gaps in global climate policy and financing

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although sanitation systems are fundamental for human health and sustainable development, limited focus has been placed on their contributions to climate mitigation and adaptation. Climate change threatens existing systems, as well as efforts to increase services for 2.3 billion people who lack even a basic sanitation service. At the same time, the sanitation and wastewater sector directly produces emissions associated with breakdown of organic matter, and treatment processes require large energy inputs. In light of these challenges, we describe gaps in how sanitation is being addressed in mitigation and adaptation, discuss how this results in little inclusion of sanitation in climate policy and financing at the global level, and implications of these gaps for different sanitation systems and geographic regions. Finally, we describe the need for planning frameworks to facilitate integration of climate change into sanitation policy and programming. This will be critical to increasing understanding of sanitation and climate change linkages among stakeholders, and more effectively including sanitation in climate action.

show abstract

Assessing the credibility of how climate adaptation aid projects are categorised

Cited by 87 publications

References 8 publications

Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens

Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens

The international climate finance accounting muddle: is there hope on the horizon?

Sustainable sanitation and gaps in global climate policy and financing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About