the global environment facility: funding for adaptation or adapting to funds?

8/14/2019 The Global Environment Facility: Funding for Adaptation or Adapting to Funds?

1/26


2/26

The Global Environment Facility: Funding for Adaptation or Adapting to Funds?

Annett Mhner & Richard J.T. Klein

Stockholm Environment Institute

Krftriket 2B106 91 Stockholm

Sweden

Tel: +46 8 674 7070

Fax: +46 8 674 7020

E-mail: [email protected]: www.sei.se

Communications Manager: Anh NguyenPublications Manager: Erik Willis

Web Manager: Howard CambridgeFront cover photo courtesy of IISD/ENB

Photographer: Leila Mead

Copyright 2007 by the Stockholm Environment Institute

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-pro t purposes, without special permission from the

copyright holder(s) provided acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or other commercial purpose, without

the written permission of the copyright holder(s).


3/26

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY:FUNDING FOR ADAPTATION OR ADAPTING TO FUNDS?

Annett MHNER1 and Richard J.T. KLEIN2

Climate & Energy Working Paper, Stockholm Environment Institute, June 2007

Abstract. International support for adaptation to climate change has evolved into an intricate system of financial instruments, including four global funds: the GEF Trust Fund, the Least Developed CountriesFund, the Special Climate Change Fund and the Adaptation Fund. Previous research on adaptationfunding focused on the financial adequacy of these global funds, as well as on economic and ethical di-mensions of the funds technical adequacy, as reflected by their efficiency and fairness. This paper as-sesses the funds technical adequacy from a governance perspective, as revealed by their responsivenessto the needs of developing countries. These needs are expressed as various forms of guidance on the useof the funds. The paper analyses the adherence by the GEF to guidance from the UNFCCC Conferenceof the Parties, and the adherence by the Implementing Agencies of the GEF to guidance from the GEF.It concludes that the funds are not technically adequate for responding to developing countries needs,owing both to the complex design of the funds and to poor implementation of the guidance. This findingmay be of relevance to the development of additional guidance on the Adaptation Fund, as well as con-tribute to discussions on the availability of adaptation funding under the GEF Trust Fund and on the roleof the funds under a post-2012 international climate policy regime.

Key words: climate change, adaptation, financial instruments, funding, technical adequacy, adherence,UNFCCC, GEF, Implementing Agencies, developing countries.

1. Introduction

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) commitsdeveloped countries to assist developing countries in meeting costs of adaptation to theadverse effects of climate change. The World Bank (2006a) concludes that the incre-mental costs to adapt to projected climate change in developing countries are likely to beof the order of USD 1040 billion per year, whilst Oxfam International (2007) estimatesthis number to be over USD 50 billion per year. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change estimates that if no action is taken to mitigate climate change, overalldamage costs will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product(GDP) each year, with higher losses in most developing countries (Stern, 2007).

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is currently the entity entrusted with the op-eration of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, and as such provides the instru-ments for the transfer of financial resources from developed to developing countries.

1 The author conducts PhD research whilst also being assigned to the UNFCCC Secretariat as an Associ-ate Expert. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the UNFCCC Secretariat and the United Nations. The e-mail address for correspondence [email protected] Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.


4/26

2 ANNETT MHNER AND RICHARD J.T. KLEIN

The instruments for adaptation funding via the GEF are the GEF Trust Fund, the LeastDeveloped Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund. As of 30 April 2007these three funds have received allocations and pledges of around USD 200 million intotal (UNFCCC, 2006a; GEF, 2007a). In addition, the Adaptation Fund under the KyotoProtocol of the UNFCCC receives a 2% share of proceeds from the Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM). The actual amount of money that will be available from this fund isuncertain as it depends on the extent of use of the CDM and on the price of carbon. Ac-cording to the World Bank (2006b), it is likely to total USD 100500 million by 2012.

The World Bank (2006b) notes that the total amount of funding for adaptation projected to be available by 2012 falls well short of the estimated amounts needed to coverthe costs of adaptation, and considers this to be the major impediment to adaptationfunding:

An assessment of the current financial instruments shows that, while they are technically ade-quate to respond to the challenge of achieving climate-resilient development, the sums of money flowing through these instruments need to be substantially increased (p. 40).

However, developing countries have expressed the additional concern that the com-plexity of current arrangements constrains their access to funds for adaptation projectactivities (UNFCCC Decision 3/CP.12). Without questioning the need for additionalfunding, this paper therefore takes a closer look at the purported technical adequacy of the financial instruments. It presents an assessment of technical adequacy from a gov-ernance perspective, based on the adherence by the GEF to guidance from the UNFCCCConference of the Parties (COP), and on the adherence by GEF Implementing Agencies(IAs) to guidance from the GEF.

An assessment of the governance aspect of the technical adequacy of current finan-cial instruments is particularly timely. The GEF is in the process of reviewing, revisingand focusing its climate change strategy, whilst Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are consid-ering further guidance on the management of the Adaptation Fund. In addition, Partiesto the UNFCCC are discussing financial support for adaptation as part of a post-2012climate regime. Such support is seen as crucial if developing countries are to engage ac-tively in mitigation.

The paper is structured as follows. The next section describes the development of fi-nancial instruments under the UNFCCC and the GEF response to the adaptation needsof developing countries. Section 3 presents a framework for assessing the technical ade-quacy of these instruments and develops criteria for conducting the assessment. Sections4 and 5 then analyse the adherence by the GEF to COP guidance and the adherence by

IAs to GEF guidance, respectively. Section 6 discusses the results and their implicationsfor policy, whilst Section 7 presents conclusions, recommendations and priorities forfuture research.

2. The Development of Financial Instruments for Adaptation

Financial instruments for adaptation are developed, designed and implemented through agovernance system depicted in Figure 1. It aims at meeting developing countries needs


5/26

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY: FUNDING FOR ADAPTATION OR ADAPTING TO FUNDS? 3

Providing guidance onadaptation funding through

programming papersDisbursing adaptation funding

for approved projects

Providing guidance onadaptation funding through

decisions

Expressing needs andnegotiating modalitiesfor adaptation funding

Elaborating on needsand modalities foradaptation funding

Developingcountries

UNFCCCConference of the

Parties

GEFImplementing and

ExecutingAgencies

Implementingprojects that respondto adaptation needs

Proposing projects basedon adaptation needs

GEFCouncil,

Assembly andSecretariat

Figure 1. Development of financial instruments for adaptation under the UNFCCC and the GEF.

for adaptation by providing funding for actual adaptation projects in accordance withguidance developed for the respective instruments.

In accordance with Article 4.8 of the UNFCCC, the Parties shall give full considera-tion to funding to meet the specific needs and concerns of developing country Partiesarising from the adverse effects of climate change. During negotiations at the annualConference of the Parties (COP) the supreme decision-making body of the UNFCCC developing countries express their needs and concerns and pursue their interest in adap-tation funding. The UNFCCC has a number of provisions for financial support for ad-aptation.3 For example, Article 4.4 commits developed country Parties and other devel-oped Parties included in Annex II to assist the developing country Parties that are par-ticularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adapta-tion to those adverse effects. Financial resources are provided on a grant or concessionalbasis by a financial mechanism that, in accordance with Article 11, functions under theguidance of and is accountable to the COP. Guidance is received in the form of COP de-cisions. The COP thus establishes financial instruments with specific priorities (i.e. ,which activities are to be funded), eligibility criteria (i.e. , who can receive funding) andpolicies, including disbursement criteria (i.e. , what share of a project can be funded).

Article 21.3 entrusted the GEF, on an interim basis, with the operation of the finan-cial mechanism of the UNFCCC. The status of the GEF was upgraded from an interimto a formalised entity operating the financial mechanism at COP-4 in 1998 (UNFCCCDecision 3/CP.4). The GEF provides new and additional funding to meet the agreed in-cremental costs of projects to generate global environmental benefits in climate change

3 See Verheyen (2002) for a comprehensive overview of these provisions.


6/26


and other areas (GEF, 1994). The remaining costs of projects are to be borne either bythe recipient country and/or by other bilateral or multilateral donors. The GEF is fundedby donor countries, some of which are also recipients, who commit resources every fouryears through a replenishment process. During the fourth GEF Replenishment in 2006,32 donor countries pledged USD 1 billion to support activities in the area of climatechange between 2007 and 2010 (GEF, 2006a). In addition to climate change, the GEFsupports projects related to biodiversity, international waters, land degradation, theozone layer and persistent organic pollutants.

The GEF implements COP decisions: it operates the financial instruments by estab-lishing operational programmes, providing programming documents and allocating re-sources. Developing countries can further pursue their interest in adaptation funding andfurther negotiate operational modalities at meetings of the GEF Council, which takeplace twice a year to decide on the operation of the financial instruments. Once a finan-cial instrument is operational, eligible countries can propose projects based on their ad-aptation needs through one of the three IAs of the GEF: the United Nations Develop-ment Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) andthe World Bank. Seven additional Executing Agencies, including regional developmentbanks, contribute to the implementation of GEF projects.

3. Analytical Framework

In its comment on current financial instruments for adaptation (cited verbatim in Section1), the World Bank (2006b) distinguishes between the technical adequacy of the finan-cial instruments and the sums of money flowing through these instruments (the lattermay be considered non-technical or financial adequacy). It mentions an assessment thatconcludes that the current financial instruments to support adaptation in developingcountries are technically adequate. However, developing countries do not subscribe tothis conclusion (e.g. , UNFCCC, 2006b, 2007a,b). The World Bank (2006b) does notprovide a definition of technical adequacy or a reference to the assessment, whichhampers a verification of the details of the assessment, including the criteria used toevaluate technical adequacy. This section therefore presents an alternative frameworkfor analysing the technical adequacy of the current financial instruments for adaptation.

Sagastiet al. (2005) list adequacy as the first of eight key attributes of effective in-ternational development financing systems (see Figure 2). They state that it refers both

to the total amount of development financing and to the match between financial instru-ments and the needs of developing countries. It can thus be inferred that adequacy as de-fined by Sagastiet al. (2005) combines technical adequacy and financial adequacy asdistinguished by the World Bank (2006b).

The needs of developing countries as relevant to adaptation funding include both theneed to be able to access funds and the need to be able to use these funds in line with thecountrys adaptation requirements. Sagastiet al. (2005), who do not address the par-ticularities of GEF funding, consider only the latter type of needs in their definition of adequacy. However, when considering the adequacy of financial instruments for adapta-


7/26


Responsiveness

Adequacy

Financial adequacy

Technical adequacy Fairness

Efficiency

Priorities

Eligibility

Disbursement

Sagastiet al. , 2005 World Bank, 2006 This paper UNFCCC Article 11

Predictability

Responsiveness

Diversity and choice

Capacity toabsorb shocks

Complementarity todomestic resource

mobilisation

Voice, representationand accountability

Flexibility, efficiencyand learning

Effectiveness

Responsiveness

Adequacy

Financial adequacy

Technical adequacy Fairness

Efficiency

Priorities

Eligibility

Disbursement

Sagastiet al. , 2005 World Bank, 2006 This paper UNFCCC Article 11

Predictability

Responsiveness

Diversity and choice

Capacity toabsorb shocks

Complementarity todomestic resource

mobilisation

Voice, representationand accountability

Flexibility, efficiencyand learning

Effectiveness

Figure 2. Analytical framework for assessing the technical adequacy of global financial instruments foradaptation to climate change.

tion, the former type of needs is equally relevant: developing countries have expressedconcerns about the difficulties they encounter in accessing funds for adaptation on anumber of occasions (e.g. , UNFCCC Decision 3/CP.12; UNFCCC, 2007a). From thepoint of view of Sagastiet al. (2005) these concerns would refer to other key attributesof effective international development financing systems, namely responsiveness; voice,representation and accountability; and flexibility, efficiency and learning.4 Elements of these three attributes are considered part of technical adequacy for the purpose of thispaper, as they relate to the accessibility of funds.

Expanding on Sagastiet al. (2005), technical adequacy thus reflects the match be-tween financial instruments for adaptation and the dual needs of developing countries tobe able to access funds and to be able to use them in line with their adaptation require-ments.5 To enable an assessment of technical adequacy it is considered that a match be-tween financial instruments and the two needs exists if: The application and approval process is efficient; Decision-making procedures are fair;

4 Predictability and complementarity to domestic resource mobilisation are also contentious issues withrespect to adaptation funding, but they are related to financial adequacy (i.e. , sufficiency of funds) morethan to technical adequacy and therefore not considered here.5 Whether or not this interpretation of technical adequacy corresponds to that of the World Bank (2006b)remains unclear until the original assessment is available for further analysis.


8/26


The financial instruments respond to developing countries needs.A full evaluation of the technical adequacy of financial instruments for adaptation

then requires considering three aspects: efficiency, fairness and responsiveness. TheGEF Evaluation Office (EO) has assessed efficiency as part of its third overall perform-ance study of the GEF (GEF EO, 2005) and as part of its evaluation of the GEF activitycycle and modalities (GEF EO, 2006). Qualitative analyses of the fairness of decision-making on GEF funding for adaptation have been conducted by Mace (2005), Paavolaand Adger (2006) and Mller (2007). This paper presents an assessment of the respon-siveness of the existing financial instruments to developing countries adaptation needs.It is based on an analysis of, first, the adherence by the GEF to guidance from the COP(as COP decisions) and, second, the adherence by IAs to guidance from the GEF (in theform of programming papers; see Figure 1). Full adherence to guidance would mean thatadaptation projects respond to developing countries needs.

The analysis assumes that COP decisions do reflect developing countries adaptationneeds, even though they are the result of negotiations in which the interests of develop-ing countries compete with those of developed countries. The assumption is consideredvalid in view of the collective bargaining power of the developing countries, the impor-tance attached to country-driven priority setting (taking into account policy documentssuch as National Communications, National Adaptation Programmes of Action and Pov-erty Reduction Strategy Papers) and the fact that the COPs provide the only global fo-rum for developing countries to pursue their interest in adaptation funding.

In the next two sections adherence is analysed using the three aforementioned ele-ments of funding guidance as indicators: priorities, eligibility and disbursement. Theanalysis is based on a review of publicly available documents, including COP decisions,documents from the GEF and its IAs, as well as project documents.

4. GEF Adherence to COP Guidance

At its first session in 1995 the COP laid out the initial guidance for the provision of fi-nancial support for adaptation from the GEF Trust Fund. Parties agreed that adaptationshould comprise short, medium and long-term strategies, and set up a three-stage ap-proach to adaptation funding in developing countries. Stage I and II encompass plan-ning, developing policy options and capacity building for adaptation, whilst Stage IIIenvisions actual measures to facilitate adequate adaptation (UNFCCC Decision

11/CP.1). The COP requested the GEF to provide full-cost funding for adaptation ac-tivities in the context of formulating National Communications, including studies of thepossible impacts of climate change.6

As regards Stage I and II adaptation funding, the GEF has so far adhered to COPguidance in terms of priorities, eligibility and disbursement. The GEF has provided full-

6 Article 12 of the UNFCCC requires all Parties to prepare National Communications, which include anational inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, an overview of steps taken to implement the UNFCCC,and other information Parties consider relevant to the achievement of the objective of the UNFCCC.


9/26


cost funding for all eligible 139 developing countries7

and twelve countries with econo-mies in transition to develop their initial and in some cases second and even third Na-tional Communications. In response to guidance from 1998 on Stage II activities(UNFCCC Decision 2/CP.4), projects funded by the GEF include Capacity Buildingfor Stage II Adaptation to Climate Change in Central America, Mexico and Cuba,Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change in the Caribbean and Assessments of Impacts of and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors.

The revised Climate Change Strategy discussed at the GEF Council meeting in De-cember 2006 (GEF, 2006b) makes no mention of support for Stage I and II adaptationactivities. The GEF (2006a) argues that Stage I activities have been supported throughinitial National Communications, and that support for Stage II activities is available aspart of funding for the second National Communications. Funding for countries secondand subsequent National Communications is secured only until 2009 under an umbrellaproject approved during the third replenishment period of the GEF; it is unclear howfunding for National Communications would be provided after 2009. Moreover, by lim-iting Stage II activities to preparing National Communications the GEF narrows the fo-cus for adaptation funding. It excludes activities such as co-operation in preparing foradaptation to the impacts of climate change and elaboration of appropriate and inte-grated plans for coastal zone management, water resources and agriculture, which havebeen part of COP guidance (UNFCCC Decisions 11/CP.1 and 2/CP.4). Hence adherenceto COP guidance on funding priorities is doubtful.

The COP has never provided explicit guidance for Stage III adaptation funding.However, in 2001 the COP identified fourteen adaptation-related activities to be sup-ported under the GEF Trust Fund, including enhancing technical training for integratedclimate change impact, vulnerability and adaptation assessments, promoting the transferof adaptation technologies, establishing adaptation pilot projects and supporting system-atic observation and monitoring networks and early warning systems in developingcountries (UNFCCC Decision 5/CP.7). In UNFCCC Decision 6/CP.7 the COP decidedthat the GEF should provide financial resources to developing country Parties, in par-ticular the least developed countries (LDCs) and the small island developing states(SIDS), for activities identified in UNFCCC Decision 5/CP.7.

The GEF has thus far made operational one of the fourteen activities: it has set up thestrategic priority Piloting an Operational Approach to Adaptation (SPA) to providesupport for the establishment of adaptation pilot projects. In November 2003 the GEFCouncil earmarked USD 50 million for the SPA. The GEF programming papers on the

SPA (GEF, 2004a and 2005) provide no details on eligibility criteria, althoughUNFCCC Decision 1/CP.10 explicitly invites developing country Parties to make use of the SPA. GEF adherence on the priorities for funding is only partial, despite the fact thatthe COP restated its 2001 guidance in 2004 (in UNFCCC Decisions 1/CP.10 and8/CP.10 the COP requested the GEF to make available further financial and technical re-sources to implement the actions identified in UNFCCC Decision 5/CP.7). As for guid-ance on disbursement, the COP has not expressed whether the full or partial costs of ad-

7 The GEF considers as developing countries all countries not included in Annex I to the UNFCCC.


10/26


aptation projects are to be covered. However, the GEF Council has requested the GEFSecretariat and the IAs to ensure that projects under the GEF Trust Fund are consistentwith the principles of the Trust Fund, including criteria concerning incremental costsand global environmental benefits (GEF, 2004b).

Global environmental benefits in the area of climate change are reductions in green-house gas emissions or the uptake of greenhouse gases by sinks, which do not necessar-ily occur in an adaptation project. According to its initial operational guidelines (GEF,2004a), the SPA funds activities within a natural resources management context thatgenerate global environmental benefits, and adaptation measures that provide other major development benefits (e.g. , WEHAB: water, energy, health, agriculture, biodiver-sity). The updated programming paper of 2005 states that the SPA supports pilot anddemonstration projects that address local adaptation needs and generate global environ-mental benefits, which can include reducing the risk of biodiversity loss, acceleratingsustainable land management and integrated coastal zone management (GEF, 2005).Criteria for the disbursement of funding under the SPA thus differ from the provision inthe Instrument of Establishment of the GEF (1994), which is to fund only the incre-mental costs associated with transforming a project that has national benefits into onethat generate global environmental benefits.8

To determine the amount of GEF funding available for projects under the SPA, theGEF requires project proponents to outline a series of scenarios. Countries first have tooutline a baseline scenario, which includes activities that countries are undertaking aspart of their ongoing development efforts. Second, countries need to construct an alter-native GEF scenario that includes activities that would generate global environmentalbenefits in the absence of climate change. Third, activities need to be added to the alter-native GEF scenario that will ensure the robustness of the global environmental benefitsby improving the resilience of the systems concerned. The difference between the costsassociated with the baseline scenario and the alternative GEF scenario are considered theincremental costs of the proposed project. Those incremental costs associated with in-creasing resilience are to receive funding from the SPA, whilst those associated withgenerating global environmental benefits are to be funded from other programmes underthe GEF climate change focal area or from other focal areas (e.g. , biodiversity and landdegradation). Projects under the SPA thus receive GEF funding in the form of a doubleincrement: one for adaptation and one for generating global environmental benefits(GEF, 2005). The remaining costs of a project need to be co-financed by either the re-cipient country and/or other bilateral or multilateral donors.

In addition to the support available from the GEF Trust Fund, three distinct funds toprovide new and additional funding for adaptation were established by the COP in 2001:the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund(SCCF) under the UNFCCC, and the Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol.9 Boththe LDCF and the SCCF are operational and managed by the GEF.

8 Enabling activities such as National Communications are exempt from the requirement to generateglobal environmental benefits. 9 See Dessai (2003) and Schipper (2005) for an overview and background on the establishment of these


11/26


In line with COP guidance (UNFCCC Decisions 5/CP.7 and 7/CP.7) the LDCF ismandated to finance the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Pro-grammes of Action (NAPAs) and other elements of the LDC work programme, such asthe provision of training and strengthening the capacity of meteorological and hydro-logical services. NAPAs present an opportunity for LDCs to identify priority activitiesthat respond to their urgent and immediate adaptation needs. In UNFCCC Decision27/CP.7 the COP requested the GEF to provide the LDCs with funding from the LDCFto meet the agreed full cost of preparing the NAPAs. Two years later the COP requestedthe GEF to take into account criteria for supporting the implementation of NAPAs on anagreed full-cost basis (UNFCCC Decision 6/CP.9). This guidance was updated in 2005with the COP requesting the GEF to provide full-cost funding to meet the additionalcosts of activities, which are the costs imposed on vulnerable countries to meet theirimmediate adaptation needs as identified and prioritised in the NAPAs (UNFCCC Deci-sion 3/CP.11).

In UNFCCC Decisions 5/CP.7 and 7/CP.7 the COP mandated the SCCF to financeactivities, programmes and measures relating to climate change, including for adapta-tion. The COP specifically mandated support for adaptation in the areas of water re-sources management, land management, agriculture, health, infrastructure development,fragile ecosystems, including mountainous ecosystems, and integrated coastal zonemanagement, as well as support for monitoring of diseases and vectors, capacity build-ing for disaster risk management and information networks for rapid response to ex-treme weather events (UNFCCC Decision 5/CP.7). As for eligibility, UNFCCC Deci-sion 7/CP.7 states that the SCCF should provide funding to developing country Parties.Two years later Parties agreed that the SCCF should serve as a catalyst to leverage addi-tional resources from bilateral and other multilateral sources, without providing detail onthe share of GEF support available for projects (UNFCCC Decision 5/CP.9).

Article 12.8 of the Kyoto Protocol established the Adaptation Fund, which is to fi-nance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that areParties to the Protocol (UNFCCC Decision 10/CP.7). The COP serving as the Meetingof the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) has provided guidance on the managingprinciples of the Adaptation Fund (UNFCCC/KP Decisions 28/CMP.1 and 5/CMP.2),but it has not yet decided on priorities, eligibility criteria and disbursement criteria.10 Adecision on the financial institution to operate the fund has not yet been made either butis expected at CMP-3. Adherence to CMP guidance therefore cannot yet be analysed.

The GEF provided operational guidance to IAs and developing countries in program-

ming papers on the LDCF and SCCF in 2004 (GEF, 2004c,d). The guidance on theLDCF was updated in 2006 (GEF, 2006c). With regard to eligibility the programmingpapers adhere to COP guidance. Only LDC Parties are eligible under the LDCF, whilstall non-Annex I Parties are considered eligible developing country Parties for funding

additional financial instruments.10 For the Kyoto Protocol the CMP assumes the role of the COP in providing guidance to the entity orentities entrusted with the operation of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, in line with Article 11of the Kyoto Protocol.


12/26


Size of project GEF fundingunder the LDCF

Size of project GEF fundingunder the SCCF

in USD million portion in % in USD million portion in %up to 0.3 up to 1000.3 to 0.5 up to 750.5 to 6.0 up to 50 up to 1.0 up to 50

6.0 to 18.0 up to 33 1.0 to 5.0 up to 33above 18.0 up to 25 above 5.0 up to 25

Table 1. Sliding scale for GEF adaptation funding under the LDCF and SCCF (GEF, 2004d, 2006c).

under the SCCF (GEF, 2004). As for priorities, the GEF programming paper on theSCCF includes all activities included in the COP guidance. However, adherence is in-

complete in the case of the LDCF. In 2005 the COP decided that the operation of theLDCF should be consistent with supporting the implementation of activities of the LDCwork programme (UNFCCC Decision 3/CP.11). In spite of this guidance, the GEF pro-vides programming for the preparation and implementation of NAPAs but not for theother elements of the LDC work programme.

In terms of adherence to disbursement guidance, the GEF takes the view that theLDCF and the SCCF are independent from the GEF Trust Fund, which means that pro-visions of funding the incremental costs do not apply. Hence projects under the LDCFand the SCCF do not have to generate global environmental benefits. The GEF has in-stead created the concept of additional costs in its programming papers for the SCCFand the LDCF. Additional costs are imposed by climate change to make developmentclimate-resilient. In contrast to the SPA, funding under the LDCF and the SCCF there-

fore comes in only one increment, which is the difference between a baseline (i.e. , de-velopment activities that would be pursued in the absence of climate change) and an al-ternative GEF adaptation scenario (i.e. , activities that respond to the adverse impacts of climate change) (GEF, 2006c).

Recognising that anex-ante calculation of the additional cost of adaptation is com-plex, the GEF has developed a sliding scale for LDCF and SCCF funding, which servesas a proxy for estimating the additional costs (Table 1). Under the sliding scale smallerprojects receive proportionally more GEF funding than bigger projects since they are as-sumed to have a higher adaptation component (GEF, 2006c). Table 1 also shows thatGEF funding under the LDCF is more favourable than under the SCCF. This respondsto guidance from the COP, which requested the GEF to take into account the circum-stances of LDCs when developing the co-financing scale (UNFCCC Decision 3/CP.11).

The sliding scale provides an indication of the possible maximum amount of GEFfunding for any given project size, but the relevant programming papers do not specifyhow the actual amount is determined, leaving it instead to the discretion of the IAs andthe developing countries proposing the projects. The use of the sliding scale is optional,but countries opting to request a higher proportion of adaptation funding than foreseenunder the sliding scale need to use the baseline and the alternative GEF adaptation sce-narios to justify the costs (GEF, 2006c).


13/26


5. Implementing-Agency Adherence to GEF Guidance

As of May 2007 a total of 34 adaptation projects are either in the pipeline (i.e. , listedto be reviewed and approved), approved or under implementation under the SPA, theLDCF and the SCCF (UNFCCC, 2006a; GEF, 2007b).11 Figure 3 depicts how the IAssubmitting or implementing these projects have adhered to GEF guidance as far as thedisbursement of funds is concerned. It shows that projects under the SPA receive ahigher portion of GEF funding than projects financed under the SCCF or the LDCF. Forthe SPA there is no GEF guidance similar to the sliding scales of the SCCF and theLDCF; the relevant programming paper gives no indication of the expected GEF portionfor adaptation projects under the SPA (GEF, 2005). UNDP has interpreted the SPAsdouble increment as a 50:50 funding ratio12 between GEF funding and other projectfunding. Such a high GEF portion seems reasonable in view of the fact that the SPAfunds both the adaptation costs and the costs of generating global environmental bene-fits.

However, only two projects (one from Mozambique and one from Sri Lanka) featuresuch a double increment, whereby GEF funding is provided through the SPA and theLand Degradation focal area (see Figure 3). The other projects only receive funding un-der the SPA. This would suggest that either these projects do not generate global envi-ronmental benefits or the costs for generating global environmental benefits are fundedby the SPA. The former is the case in the Colombian project Integrated National Ad-aptation Plan: High Mountain Ecosystems, Colombias Caribbean Insular Areas andHuman Health. The project document refers only to adaptation benefits, not to globalenvironmental benefits (Government of Colombia and World Bank, 2005). The latter isthe case for the West African project Adaptation to Climate Change: Responding toCoastline Change and its Human Dimensions in West Africa through Integrated CoastalArea Management. The project document includes a baseline and an alternative GEFscenario generating global environmental benefits. These benefits are generated by in-creasing the capacity of participating countries to design and implement sustainablestrategies, and to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diver-sity of coastal and marine resources (Government of Senegalet al. , 2006). However, thecosts for generating global environmental benefits are not financed via the Biodiversityfocal area but by the SPA. In both the Colombian and the West African case, the respec-tive IAs have not adhered to GEF guidance.

IAs have so far adhered to GEF guidance with respect to disbursement under the

LDCF. As of May 2007, 44 of the 49 eligible LDCs have received full-cost funding forpreparing their NAPAs13 (UNFCCC, 2006a); seventeen NAPAs have been completed.Six NAPA projects (from Bangladesh, Bhutan, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger and Samoa)have been approved for LDCF pipeline entry, meaning that they have been identified to

11 An overview of all GEF adaptation projects is provided in Annexes 13.12 http://www.undp.org/gef/adaptation/funds/04c_i.htm. Website accessed on 9 June 2007.13 All 44 LDCs opted for expedited access to funding under the LDCF and in line with the GEF pro-gramming for NAPA preparation received the maximum amount of USD 200,000.


14/26


Sri Lanka (with funding fromLand Degradation)

Mozambique(with funding

from Land Degradation)

ColombiaCBA

West Africa

Caribbean

KiribatiHungary

SE Africa

ALM

NigerSamoa

Bangladesh

MalawiBhutan

Mauritania

Sri LankaMozambique

Zimbabwe

Regional Andes

Global Health

India

Guyana

Mexico

Egypt

Ecuador

Chile, FijiMaldives

MozambiqueTanzania

Ethiopia

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0

Size of Adaptation Project(in USD million)

S h a r e o f

G E F F u n

d i n g

( i n

U S D m

i l l i o n

)

Figure 3. Adaptation projects and their share of GEF funding. Projects funded under the SPA are de-picted as circles, under the SCCF as squares and under the LDCF as triangles. The sliding scales of theLDCF and SCCF are shown as a solid line and a dashed line, respectively (cf. Table 1). They featureplateaus so as to avoid punitive conditions for projects near the lower boundary of each step on the twosliding scales. Such projects may request the maximum total grant size available to projects in the stepbelow (GEF, 2006c). For reasons of clarity the project Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in AridLands (USD 51.63 million), the Chinese project Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change intoWater Resources Management and Rural Development (USD 55 million), the Climate Change Adap-tation Project of the Philippines (USD 55 million) and the Pacific Islands Adaptation to ClimateChange Project (USD 82.4 million) are not shown.

be consistent with the LDCF eligibility criteria (GEF, 2007b). Of these projects, only theone from Bhutan (Reducing Climate Change Induced Risks and Vulnerabilities fromGlacial Lake Outbursts Floods (GLOFs) in Punakha-Wangdi and Chamkhar Valleys)applies for a substantially higher proportion of GEF adaptation funding than envisagedunder the sliding scale. However, in line with GEF guidance the project document justi-fies this higher GEF proportion by providing a baseline and an alternative adaptationscenario for each of the three envisaged outcomes of the project (capacity-building fordisaster risk management, artificial lowering of lake levels and installation of an early-warning system) (Government of Bhutan and UNDP, 2006).

As for the SCCF, four of the six projects approved by May 2007 either receive or areexpected to receive more GEF funding than envisaged under the sliding scale. Thesefour projects (proposed by Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe) all haveprovided information on the adaptation costs as stipulated by GEF guidance. For exam-ple, Mozambique, which receives the highest share of GEF funding of the three Copingwith Drought and Climate Change projects, elaborates on the reasoning of the adapta-tion costs as follows (Government of Mozambique and UNDP, 2006):


15/26


The baseline scenario for this project represents a business-as-usual wherein Mozambiqueundertakes only those activities in its baseline development planning. This envisages a situationin which rural communities continue to use their current coping strategies, which will becomeinadequate as drought increases in frequency and intensity. The project will improve the resil-ience of the social systems to cope with drought. SCCF funding will cover the difference be-tween relative costs associated with the baseline scenario and the alternative scenario. In its project document Incorporating Climate Change in Integrated Water Re-

sources Management in Pangani River Basin Tanzania also elaborates on costs associ-ated with a baseline and an alternative adaptation scenario. However, it also includes inan annex details of the incremental costs associated with global benefits in the area of biodiversity (Government of Tanzania and UNDP, 2005). Specifics on the global envi-ronmental benefits are required under the SPA but not under the SCCF. Such mistaken

adherence might suggest that the GEF guidance was not well understood by the IA pro-posing the project.As far as eligibility is concerned, the use of the LDCF shows adherence to GEF

guidance since only LDCs have received support. However, projects receiving fundingunder the SPA or the SCCF show incomplete adherence to GEF guidance. For example,Hungary, an EU member state with an economy in transition, has received support underthe SPA for its project Lake Balaton Integrated Vulnerability Assessment, Early Warn-ing and Adaptation Strategies. To date the SCCF has funded projects from developingcountries only, but the UNDP website14 refers to a project in another EU member statewith an economy in transition: Building National and Local Adaptation Capacity toExtreme Water Events in Bulgaria. Regardless of the definition of developing coun-tries (i.e. , whether or not they are synonymous with non-Annex I countries), support

for Hungary and Bulgaria diverges from COP or GEF guidance: both are Annex-Icountries and therefore not eligible for funding under the SPA or the SCCF.As regards funding priorities, the use of the LDCF has adhered to GEF guidance as

funded projects encompass only the preparation and implementation of NAPAs. Adher-ence under the SPA and the SCCF is less complete. The GEF programming paper on theSPA (GEF, 2005) states that the SPA will support projects that address local adaptationneeds and generate global environmental benefits. However, a number of funded projects directly benefit development sectors. For example, the Colombian project supportsadaptation in the health sector (Government of Colombia and World Bank, 2005). GEFguidance on the SCCF includes all priority activities included in the COP guidance, butit prioritises development projects over projects that generate global environmentalbenefits (GEF, 2004d, 2005):

Projects that generate both local (development-focused) and global benefits will be eligibleunder the SPA if their benefits are considered to be primarily global in nature. If the projectsfocus is primarily on benefits in development sectorssuch as health, agriculture, water or in-frastructurethe proposed projects will have to access GEF funding through the new funds15.

14 http://www.undp.org/gef/adaptation/projects/06c.htm. Website accessed on 9 June 2007.15 The LDCF and the SCCF.


16/26


On its website UNDP sharpens this distinction by stating that the SPA is an ecosys-tem-focused fund whilst the SCCF focuses on development16. At the same time, how-ever, IAs and developing countries recognise the impossibility of separating betweenecosystem benefits and development benefits. For example, the Community Based Ad-aptation project document emphasises the need for integration as follows (Governmentof Bangladeshet al. , 2006):

In general, community based adaptation projects will fall into two broad categories aimed pri-marily at: increasing the adaptive capacity of a community or communities, often through eco-system and natural resource management activities; and increasing the resilience of an ecosys-tem or natural resource, often involving measures to engage surrounding communities, and of-ten indirectly building the coping capacity of dependent communities.

Many projects proposed or approved under the SCCF have a primary focus on eco-

systems, which does not correspond with GEF guidance or its interpretation by UNDP.For example, the project in Guyana focuses on the management of coastal zones, whilstBolivia, Peru and Venezuela focus on piloting adaptation measures in the mountainousecosystems of the Andean Region.

6. Discussion

As argued in Section 2, developing countries can express their needs and concerns andpursue their interest in adaptation funding at UNFCCC COPs and elaborate them to theGEF, thus influencing the guidance provided by the COP and the GEF on the use of ex-isting global funds for adaptation. The analysis in Sections 4 and 5 has shown that over-all adherence to this guidance (i.e. , GEF adherence to COP guidance and IAs adherenceto GEF guidance) is incomplete. This then raises the question as to whether or not theobserved lack of adherence has diminished the ability of developing countries to meettheir adaptation needs. The analysis presented in this paper assumes that COP decisionsdo reflect developing countries adaptation needs.

The financial instruments established by the COP have specific priorities, eligibilitycriteria and disbursement criteria, each of which should be subject to COP and GEFguidance. Non-adherence concerning priorities constrains developing countries in un-dertaking certain adaptation activities. For example, the GEF has yet to develop opera-tional guidance (in the form of programming papers) to be able to make available furtherfinancial and technical resources for the activities mentioned in paragraph 7 of UNFCCC Decision 5/CP.7 as requested in Decision 8/CP.10). Without such guidancedeveloping countries cannot apply for funding for these activities. Non-adherence oneligibility reduces the availability of funding to those countries that are eligible for ad-aptation support. Non-adherence with respect to the disbursement of funds either in-creases the cost of adaptation projects for recipient countries or reduces the availabilityof funding to other eligible countries.

16 http://www.undp.org/gef/adaptation/funds/04_1.htm. Website accessed on 9 June 2007.


17/26


It is important to understand the nature and reasons for non-adherence to guidance if the situation is to be improved. The analysis in Sections 4 and 5 suggests that non-adher-ence relates to both the design and the implementation of guidance. The design of guid-ance can lead to non-adherence if guidance is unspecific or ambiguous. For example, theCOP has not defined adaptation costs in a way that allows the GEF to make a clear dis-tinction between adaptation and development. As a result, the GEF has developed andapplied the concepts of additional and incremental costs to determine its share of projectfunding. Calculations using these concepts invariably raise the question as to which partof a project concerns adaptation, to be funded by the GEF, and which part concerns de-velopment, which is the recipient countrys responsibility. The introduction of the slid-ing scales for the LDCF and the SCCF have simplified the process of determining theGEF share of funding, but they have been designed in a way as to lead to different mar-ginal values of GEF funding depending on the size of a project (see Figure 3). Thiscould lead to strategic behaviour by developing countries seeking to maximise GEFfunding for their projects.

Even if guidance is relatively unambiguous, implementation of the guidance can stillcontradict the design intent. For example, COP guidance stipulates that funding underthe SPA and the SCCF be available only to developing countries, yet countries witheconomies in transition have received or are about to receive funding as well. In othercases non-adherence to guidance results from a mix of design and implementation is-sues. For example, the COP requests complementarity between the different funds(UNFCCC Decision 7/CP.7), yet the same adaptation activities are supported by morethan one fund. To avoid confusion and facilitate implementation, the GEF and its IAsdistinguish between the development-focused SCCF and the ecosystem-focused SPA.However, the Coping with Drought and Climate Change projects received funding forproject preparation under the SPA (UNFCCC, 2006a), whilst project implementation isnow funded under the SCCF (GEF, 2007b). Such shifting of projects between fundscould lead to confusion amongst developing countries and create another incentive forstrategic behaviour: to apply to those funds that have the most resources available. In-stead of being provided with straightforward opportunities for adaptation funding, de-veloping countries need to adapt their projects so as to secure support for their proposedadaptation activities.

As outlined in Section 3, the technical adequacy of financial instruments is deter-mined by efficiency and fairness as well as adherence to guidance (i.e. , responsivenessto developing countries needs). As far as efficiency is concerned, GEF EO (2006) con-

cluded that the GEF activity cycle is not efficient, that the situation has grown worseover time and that GEF modalities have not made full use of trends towards new formsof collaboration that serve to promote efficiency. According to GEF EO (2006), the cy-cle management of the GEF lags behind international good practice in terms of effi-ciency. Mace (2005), Paavola and Adger (2006) and Mller (2007) conclude that thereis also room for improvement when it comes to the fairness of GEF decision-making.

In view of the fact that the current global funds for adaptation are not only techni-cally but also financially inadequate (World Bank, 2006b; Bouwer and Aerts, 2006; Ox-fam International, 2007), the question arises as to whether or not alternative arrange-


18/26


ments for adaptation funding, such as bilateral and multilateral official development as-sistance (ODA), could address the concerns of developing countries and better meettheir needs. On the one hand the amount of money provided by ODA is much largerthan what is available under the global funds; on the other hand adaptation would haveto compete with other, more immediate development priorities. In addition, ODA has itsown set of eligibility and disbursement criteria, on which developing countries havelimited influence. Moreover, support for adaptation is a commitment under theUNFCCC, whereas ODA is voluntary. Financially and technically adequate global fundsfor adaptation are crucial if international climate policy after 2012 is to be a truly globalendeavour, whereby global funds serve as a catalyst for providing additional resourcesfrom bilateral and multilateral sources.

7. Conclusions, Recommendations and Priorities for Future Research

This paper has assessed the technical adequacy of global adaptation funds from a gov-ernance perspective. It has developed an analytical framework in which technical ade-quacy is defined along three dimensions: efficiency, fairness and responsiveness to de-veloping countries needs. The framework has been applied by taking adherence to guid-ance as a measure for responsiveness, using priority activities, eligibility criteria and dis-bursement criteria as indicators. Previous research has shown that the current globalfunds are technically inadequate with respect to their efficiency and fairness. This paperconcludes that the funds are also technically inadequate when it comes to responding todeveloping countries needs. Both the complex design of the funds and poor implemen-tation of the guidance are to blame.

Improvements are necessary at all levels to enhance the funds responsiveness to de-veloping countries needs. The COP could provide more explicit guidance in terms of priority activities and eligibility. For example, the COP could clarify the relationshipbetween Stage III adaptation activities under the GEF Trust Fund and adaptation activi-ties under the LDCF and SCCF. The GEF, which has been requested by COP to givedue priority to adaptation activities (UNFCCC Decision 2/CP.12), could make opera-tional all COP guidance on adaptation as part of its revised strategy on climate change.

Future research could focus on the feasibility and desirability of a special adaptationprogramme, possibly subsuming the LDCF and the SCCF under the GEF Trust Fund.Similar to the current GEF Resource Allocation Framework for mitigation (GEF,

2006d), adaptation funding could be based on specific country allocations that reflectcountries respective vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Decisions on such allocationswould have to be informed by relevant research.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Seventh European Conference on the Human Di-mensions of Global Environmental Change: Earth System Governance: Theories and Strategies for


19/26


Sustainability (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2426 May 2007). The authors would like to thankYoussef Nassef, Benito Mller, Anthony Patt, Mikael Romn, the participants in the 2007 AmsterdamConference and the participants in the ADAM PhD workshop on Livelihoods, Vulnerability and Policy(Rstnga, Sweden, 1113 December 2006) for their helpful comments. Richard Klein acknowledgesfunding from the European Commission under project number FP6-018476-2 (Adaptation and Mitiga-tion Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy; ADAM) and from the Swedish Foundation forStrategic Environmental Research (Mistra) under its Climate Policy Research programme (Clipore).

References

Bouwer, L.M. and J.C.J.H. Aerts, 2006: Financing climate change adaptation. Disasters , 30(1) , 4963,doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00306.x.

Dessai, S., 2003: The Special Climate Change Fund: origins and prioritisation assessment.Climate Pol-icy, 3(3) , 295302, doi:10.1016/S1469-3062(03)00053-6.GEF, 1994: Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility. Report

of the GEF Participants Meeting, 1416 March 1994, Geneva, Switzerland, 62 pp.GEF, 2004a:GEF Assistance to Address Adaptation . GEF/C.23/Inf.8/Rev.1, Washington, DC, USA, 18

pp.GEF, 2004b: Joint Summary of the Chairs. GEF Council Meeting, 1921 May 2004, Washington, DC,

USA, 12 pp.GEF, 2004c: Elements to be Taken into Account in Funding the Implementation of NAPAs under the

LDC Fund . GEF/C.24/Inf.7, Washington, DC, USA, i+13 pp.GEF, 2004d: Programming to Implement the Guidance for the Special Climate Change Fund Adopted

by the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changeat its Ninth Session . GEF/C.24/12. Washington, DC, USA, iii+19 pp.

GEF, 2005: Operational Guidelines for the Strategic Priority Piloting An Operational Approach to

Adaptation (SPA). GEF/C.27/Inf.10, Washington, DC, USA, ii+10 pp.GEF, 2006a: Summary of Negotiations on the Fourth Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund. GEF/A.3/6, 2930 August, Cape Town, South Africa, v+61 pp.

GEF, 2006b: Focal Area Strategies for GEF-4. Working Drafts and Proposed Process . GEF/C.30/5,Washington, DC, USA, ii+59 pp.

GEF, 2006c: Programming Paper for Funding the Implementation of NAPAs under the LDC Trust Fund . GEF/C.28/18, Washington, DC, USA, iv+20 pp.

GEF, 2006d: Resource Allocation Framework: Indicative Resource Allocations for GEF-4, for the Bio-diversity and Climate Change Focal Areas . Washington, DC, USA, 12 pp.

GEF, 2007a: Status Report on the Climate Change Funds as of April 30, 2007. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.2/ Inf.2, Washington, DC, USA, 10 pp.

GEF, 2007b: LDCF and SCCF Programming Update. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.2/Inf.3, Washington, DC,USA, ii+13 pp.

GEF Evaluation Office, 2005:OPS3: Progressing Toward Environmental Results. Third overall per-formance study of the GEF, Office of Monitoring and Evaluation of the Global Environment Facil-ity, Washington, DC, USA, xv+247 pp.

GEF Evaluation Office, 2006: Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities. Joint Evaluation of the GEF Evaluation Office and the Evaluation Offices of the Implementing and Executing Agenciesof the GEF. GEF/ME/C.30/6, Washington, DC, USA, iii+25 pp.

Government of Bhutan and UNDP, 2006: Reduce Climate Change-Induced Risks and Vulnerabilities from Glacial Lake Outbursts in the Punakha-Wangdi and Chamkhar Valleys . Project DevelopmentFacility, request for PDF-B approval, 33 pp.


20/26


Government of Colombia and World Bank, 2005:Colombia: Integrated National Adaptation Program.Project Brief on a proposed grant from the GEF Trust Fund to the Government of Colombia.Washington, DC, USA, 79 pp.

Government of Mozambique and UNDP, 2006:Coping with Drought and Climate Change . Medium-sized project proposal, request for GEF funding, 79 pp.

Government of Tanzania and UNDP, 2005: Incorporating Climate Change in Integrated Water Re-sources Management in Pangani River Basin. Medium-sized project proposal, request for GEFfunding, 53 pp.

Governments of Bangladesh, Bolivia, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Sa-moa, Vietnam and UNDP, 2006:Community-Based Adaptation . GEF project document, 135 pp.

Governments of Senegal, The Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Cape Verde and UNDP, 2006: Ad-aptation to Climate Change: Responding to Coastline Change and its Human Dimensions in West

Africa through Integrated Coastal Area Management (ACCC). GEF project document, 128 pp.Mace, M.J., 2005: Funding for adaptation to climate change: UNFCCC and GEF developments since

COP-7. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law , 14(3) , 225246,doi:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2005.00445.x.

Mller, B., 2007: Nairobi 2006: Trust and the Future of Adaptation Funding . Oxford Institute for En-ergy Studies, Oxford, UK, 26 pp.

Oxfam International, 2007: Adapting to Climate Change: Whats Needed in Poor Countries, and WhoShould Pay. Oxfam Briefing Paper 104, Oxfam International Secretariat, Oxford, UK, 47 pp.

Paavola, J. and W.N. Adger, 2006: Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecological Economics , 56(4) ,594609, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.015.

Sagasti, F.R., K. Bezanson and F. Prada, 2005:The Future of Development Financing: Challenges and Strategic Choices. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK, xvi+238 pp.

Schipper, E.L.F., 2006: Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC Process. Review of EuropeanCommunity and International Environmental Law , 15(1) , 8292, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2006.00501.x.

Stern, N., 2007:The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, xix+692 pp.

UNFCCC, 2006a: Report of the Global Environment Facility to the Conference of the Parties. FCCC/ CP/2006/3, UN Office at Geneva, Switzerland, iv+71 pp.

UNFCCC, 2006b: Report on the Latin American Regional Workshop on Adaptation . FCCC/SBI/2006/ 19, UN Office at Geneva, Switzerland, 10 pp.

UNFCCC, 2007a: Report on the African Regional Workshop on Adaptation . FCCC/SBI/2007/2, UN Of-fice at Geneva, Switzerland, 15 pp.

UNFCCC, 2007b: Report on the Expert Meeting on Adaptation for Small Island Developing States .FCCC/SBI/2007/11, UN Office at Geneva, Switzerland, 17 pp.

Verheyen, R., 2002: Adaptation to the impacts of anthropogenic climate change the international legalframework. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law , 11(2) , 129143,doi:10.1111/1467-9388.00312.

World Bank, 2006a:Clean Energy and Development: Towards an Investment Framework. DC2006-0002, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, x+146 pp.

World Bank, 2006b: An Investment Framework for Clean Energy and Development: A Progress Report. DC2006-0012, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, xiv+92 pp.


21/26

Annex 1. Overview of GEF adaptation projects under the SPA of the GEF Trust Fund as of October 2006 (UNFCCC, 2006a).

Size GEFCountry or Region Project Primary Area or Sector(M USD) (M USD

Under implementation

Colombia Integrated National Adaptation Plan: High MountainEcosystems, Colombia's Caribbean Insular Areas andHuman Health

Coastal zones, health,mountainous ecosystems

17.47 5.57

Global Adaptation Learning Mechanism Knowledge management 1.37 0.7Hungary Lake Balaton Integrated Vulnerability Assessment,

Early Warning and Adaptation StrategiesDisaster risk management,water resources

4.08 0.99

Kiribati a,b Kiribati Adaptation Program Phase II PilotImplementation

Coastal zones, waterresources

6.70 1.90

Regional (Dominicab, St. Luciab, St.Vincent & the Grenadinesb)

Implementation of Pilot Adaptation Measures inCaribbean Coastal Areas

Coastal zones 6.40 2.40

Regional (Kenya, Madagascara,

Mozambiquea, Rwanda

a, Tanzania

a)

Integrating Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate

Change into Sustainable Development Policy Planningand Implementation in Southern and Eastern Africa

Land management, water

resources

2.27 1.00

Approved

Globa l (Bangladesha, Bolivia, Nigera,Samoaa,b, Guatemala, Jamaicab,Kazakhstan, Morocco, Namibia,Vietnam)

Community Based Adaptation Coastal zones,mountainous ecosystems,land management, waterresources

9.54 5.01

Mozambique a Zambezi Valley Market Led Smallholder Development Land management 27.55 1.5(5.05 LD

Regional (Senegala, Gambiaa, GuineaBissaua,b, Mauritaniaa, Cape Verdea,b)

Adaptation to Climate Change: Responding toShoreline Change and its Human Dimensions in WestAfrica through Integrated Coastal Area Management

Coastal zones 8.00 4.00

Sri Lanka Participatory Coastal Zone Restoration and SustainableManagement in the Eastern Province of Post-TsunamiSri Lanka

Coastal zones, landmanagement

14.84 1.90(5.37 LD

a Least Developed Country (LDC)b Small Island Developing State (SIDS)c Receives additional GEF funding under the focal area Land Degradation


22/26

Annex 2. Overview of GEF adaptation projects under the SCCF as of May 2007 (GEF, 2007b).


Approved

Ethiopia a Coping with Drought and Climate Change Disaster risk management,land management

2.86 1.00

Guyana b Guyana Conservancy Adaptation Project Coastal zones, waterresources

20.00 3.80

Kenya Kenya Adaptation to Climate Change in Arid Lands Land management 51.63 6.7

Mozambique a Coping with Drought and Climate Change Disaster risk management,land management

1.89 0.96

Tanzania a Mainstreaming Climate Change in Integrated WaterResources Management in the Pangani River Basin

Water resources 2.57 1.00

Zimbabwe Coping with Drought and Climate Change Disaster risk management

Land management

2.14 0.98

In the pipeline

Global (Barbadosb, Bhutana, China,Fijib, Jordan, Kenya, Uzbekistan)

Piloting Climate Change Adaptation to Protect HumanHealth

Health 24.47 6.47

Regional (Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela) Design and Implementation of Pilot Climate ChangeAdaptation Measures in the Andean Region

Mountainous ecosystems,water resources

27.39 7.29

Regional (Cook Islandsb, FSMb, Fijib,Naurub, Nuieb, Papua New Guineab,Samoaa,b, Solomon Islandsa,b, Tongab,Tuvalua,b, Vanuatua,b)

Pacific Islands Adaptation to Climate Change Coastal zones, foodsecurity, water resources

82.40 11.60

China Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change intoWater Resources Management and Rural Development


Chile Targeted Research on Climate Change Impacts onSouthern Mid-Latitude Ice Masses


Ecuador Adaptation to Climate Change through effective Water

Governance


Egypt Adaptation to Climate Change in the Nile Delta Coastal zones, waterresources

9.20 4.00


23/26

Fiji Adaptation to Climate Change in the Tourism Sector inFiji Islands

Tourism 2.00 1.00

India Climate-Resilient Development and Adaptation Coastal zones, foodsecurity, water resources

20.25 4.25

Maldives Implementing Tourism Adaptation to Climate Change Tourism 2.00 1.00Mexico Protection of Environmental Services of Coastal

Wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico to the Impacts of Climate Change through Improved Water ResourceManagement

Coastal zones, waterresources

13.80 4.80

Philippines Climate Change Adaptation Project Disaster risk management 55.00 5.0

a Least Developed Country (LDC)b Small Island Developing State (SIDS)


24/26

Annex 3. Overview of GEF adaptation projects under the LDCF as of May 2007 (GEF, 2007b).


In the pipeline

Bangladesh a Strengthening Adaptive Capacities to Address ClimateChange Threats on Sustainable Development Strategiesfor Coastal Communities in Bangladesh

Coastal zones, disasterrisk management

9.25 3.1

Bhutan a Reduce Climate Change Induced Risks andVulnerabilities from Glacial Lake Outbursts Floods(GLOFs) in Punakha-Wangdi and Chamkhar Valleys

Disaster risk management 7.38 3.63

Malawi a Climate Adaptation for Rural Livelihoods andAgriculture

Disaster risk management,food security, landmanagement

27.65 3.26

Mauritania a Reducing Vulnerability of Arid Oasian Zones toClimate Change and Variability through ImprovedWatershed Management


Niger a Implementing NAPA Priority Interventions to BuildResilience and Adaptive Capacity of the AgricultureSector to Climate Change in Niger

Food security, waterresources

6.25 2.1

Samoa a,b Integrated Climate Change Adaptation in Samoa disaster risk management,food security, health,ecosystems

4.1 2.09

a Least Developed Country (LDC)b Small Island Developing State (SIDS)


25/26


26/26

the global environment facility: funding for adaptation or adapting to funds?

Documents