Who is adaptation for? Vulnerability and adaptation benefits in proposals approved by the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund

Abstract

Since the Adaptation Fund (AF) became operational in 2007, there has been a vivid discussion about equity and efficiency in how resources (predicted to be scarce) are governed and allocated. One complicating factor is that allocation is often discussed between countries rather than between sub-national causes and groups, and while this approach follows from the UNFCCC context, it is problematic because it ignores the fact that vulnerability is a locally contextualized phenomenon. This paper empirically analyses the portrayal of vulnerability and adaptation benefits in project proposals approved by the AF, and thereby comments on the normative principles of equity and efficiency when allocating funds to developing countries and their vulnerable communities. It does this by evaluating actual decisions made by the AF, which has been operating for some time. We qualitatively analyse all proposals approved as of December 2012 by the Fund's Board. First, we compare the ways that 'particular vulnerability' is justified or not, especially in light of the minimal guidance available. Second, we compare project proponent's statements (or lack thereof) on economic, social, and environmental benefits arising from the suggested projects, and who they would accrue to. Lessons learned with regard to allocation will also be important for the development of the Green Climate Fund, considering that resources are likely to be scarce for some time in comparison with predicted funding needs.

Addressing Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Together: A Global Assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Projects

“…We expected to find that many PDDs would have the potential to demonstrate benefits to both adaptation and mitigation. As in previous studies (Marion Suiseeya and Caplow 2013;Remling and Persson 2014) …”

“…Other analyses of PDDs have identified the same limitation, as very few PDDs report adverse outcomes (Marion Suiseeya and Caplow 2013). PDDs are written by project proponents often to compete for funding or to obtain a certification, which may explain why they tend to overlook risks of negative effects and overstate positive aspects (Remling and Persson 2014). When projects integrating adaptation and mitigation are completed, additional research could analyze the actual outcomes and the challenges faced by project developers in practice, as done in Kongsager and Corbera (2015).…”

The political economy of climate adaptation

“…Ford et al surveyed 1,741 studies of climate change adaptation between 2006 and 2009 and reached a troubling conclusion: instead of helping the most vulnerable economic or social sectors, projects were contributing to the ones that had already received large shares of adaptation funding [1]. Remling and Persson analyzed 27 projects supported under the UNFCCC's Adaptation Fund and found that none of them attempted to address inequality or remediate unequal power structures [2].…”

Synergies between adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance

“…Although we acknowledge the need to explore the opinions of other groups on the integration of adaptation and mitigation, we focus on representatives of climate funds because of their central position between international policies and local or national actions and role in decision-making (Remling and Persson, 2014). The authority of donor countries contributing to multilateral funds is devolved on a day-to-day basis to the secretariats of these funds (Ballesteros et al, 2010), and similar devolution occurs from the governments of donor countries to their agencies in charge of climate funding.…”

“…The authority of donor countries contributing to multilateral funds is devolved on a day-to-day basis to the secretariats of these funds (Ballesteros et al, 2010), and similar devolution occurs from the governments of donor countries to their agencies in charge of climate funding. The managers, technical experts and board members of these secretariats and agencies can be highly influential in setting project eligibility criteria or evaluation procedures and approving projects (Ballesteros et al, 2010;Remling and Persson, 2014) and can thus influence the degree of integration of adaptation and mitigation in their portfolios. This paper aims to provide new insight into how these key stakeholders perceive and act on this integration.…”