Principles for delivering adaptation finance

This briefing aims to stimulate debate on the relevant principles and mechanisms for effective adaptation delivery. It highlights the context of the debate noting that funding must increase significantly to match the needs of developing countries. Therefore, negotiators must decide on appropriate principles and mechanisms to maximise the viability and effectiveness of adaptation activities.

The briefing outlines criticisms of the current delivery architecture. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) presently manages three major funds mandated to support climate change adaptation in developing countries. Evidence shows that GEF has disproportionately funded projects in countries with relatively low poverty rates. Other criticisms include complex governance structures, difficult access to funding, a lack of transparency and greater emphasis on project, rather than programmatic, approaches.

Proposed principles for delivering adaptation finance include the following.

• Country ownership: tailored mechanisms for eligible states should allow autonomy in prioritising adaptation actions through dialogue with other in-country stakeholders.
• Prioritising the most vulnerable: adaptation should be integrated into poverty reduction strategies. Where this is not possible, regional institutions should provide delivery mechanisms.
• Mutual accountability: governance of both international adaptation delivery mechanisms and country-level structures must be transparent, equitable in representation and power, and possess clear lines of accountability.
• Harmonisation: minimise operational overlap and counter fragmentation through greater integration, such as multi-donor trust funds.
  

The briefing includes a matrix outlining which of the various principles are compatible with which delivery mechanism. A combination of mechanisms complete with social protection for building adaptive capacity is viewed as the only option that fulfils all the desired principles. The briefing also discusses lessons learned, particularly regarding the benefits and limitations of tailored programme-based approaches, which are regarded as being more effective than project-based initiatives. Despite being more expensive, project-based delivery is still necessary in countries which lack capacity to implement such strategies.