Abstract

Worldwide only about four percent of the estimated $500 billion-plus in public and private climate finance in 2017 was destined for adaptation. However, institutions like the World Bank are positioning themselves for a transformation in adaptation finance, seeking to provide substantially more adaptation finance as distinct from financial support for greenhouse gas mitigation. This article explores the recent emergence of adaptation as a higher priority and how a longer-term time horizon is necessary if a transformation in climate change governance is to occur which places greater emphasis on sustainable development goals relating to improvement of circumstances of citizens in the most climate-vulnerable nations, mostly in the Global South. The article also considers the important debate in the climate change policy literature over the extent to which funds supporting adaptation are going to lower-income nations or people, as might be anticipated given the view that the poor are more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change. Data linking World Bank project funding to climate change adaptation and mitigation, derived from a keyword-matching approach, show that from 2010 to 2018, the share of climate-change-related finance devoted to adaptation in World Bank projects increased considerably. The data indicate that adaptation funding tends to be directed more to more climate-vulnerable nations and those with greater state fragility, but not to low-income countries versus high-income countries. Implications are considered for how this change might be “scaled up” to achieve a transformational status.

Highlights

  • While climate change has been a source of international concern and action, at least since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drew worldwide attention to the problem in 1992, dedicated funding for “climate finance” has drawn increased international attention over the past decade

  • They argue that the lack of consensus on a financial accounting system means that UN nations are forever comparing apples and oranges in judging what even constitutes climate finance. (Weikmans and Roberts ([1], pages 100–102) raise concerns about climate finance accounting taken from the Rio marker methodology, adopted by Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries in 1998

  • By counting in Project Appraisal Documents (PADs), the occurrence of certain keywords that represent different themes, one can get at least a rough idea of the different levels of focus on the themes, including themes related to climate change

Read more

Summary

Introduction

While climate change has been a source of international concern and action, at least since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drew worldwide attention to the problem in 1992, dedicated funding for “climate finance” has drawn increased international attention over the past decade. Buchner et al [3] present figures for 2017–2018 indicating that support for adaptation was only a bit over 5 percent out of the total publicprivate mix of climate finance. (Weikmans and Roberts ([1], pages 100–102) raise concerns about climate finance accounting taken from the Rio marker methodology, adopted by OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries in 1998. Via this methodology, development assistance from these nations is counted in several climate-related areas (mitigation, adaptation, biological diversity, and desertification), regardless of whether these climate areas are principal targets of funding, or just minor ones.

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call