Does funds-based adaptation finance reach the most vulnerable countries?. (March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Garschagen, Matthias; Doshi, Deepal
• Is Part Of: Global environmental change. Volume 73(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-03
• Subjects: Climate change adaptation -- Adaptation finance -- Vulnerability -- Green Climate Fund -- Finance tracking; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Human ecology -- Periodicals; Nature -- Effect of human beings on -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Environnement -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Écologie humaine -- Périodiques; Homme -- Influence sur la nature -- Périodiques; Environmental policy; Human ecology; Nature -- Effect of human beings on; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.7
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102450
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0959-3780

Abstract

Graphical abstract: Highlights: Prioritizing the most vulnerable countries is a key goal of global climate change finance. For the first time, we comprehensively assess whether the biggest climate fund, the GCF, achieves this goal. Many of the most vulnerable countries have not been able to access GCF funds, particularly LDCs in Africa. Institutional capacity is a major factor in determining a country's access to funding. Capacity development and simplified approval tracks need to be strengthened in the emerging climate finance architecture. Abstract: The evolving architecture of global climate change adaptation finance is shifting towards fund mechanisms with competitive application and allocation principles. At the same time, prioritization of the most vulnerable countries is a key goal within this emerging architecture. The paper analyses whether the Green Climate Fund (GCF), by far the largest climate change fund, has so far delivered on its promise to prioritize the most vulnerable countries. For our analysis, we consider the USD 2.5 billion GCF funding allocated until the end of the first mobilization phase and disaggregate it project-by-project into its mitigation and adaptation related amounts. We then analyze the adaptation flows in terms of the recipient country's level of vulnerability and institutional capacity. We further analyze whether funds are being accessed through independent national entities or international intermediaries and whether recipient countries have developing country priority status. The results show that funds-based adaptation finance creates an ambiguous picture: On the one hand, the GCF is on track in allocating its funds largely to country groups which its statutes aim to prioritize, particularly LDCs, African countries and SIDS. At the same time, the proposal process results in the fact that many countries with the highest climate vulnerability but weak government institutions and fragile state-bureaucracies have missed out and not been able to access project funding, mostly LDCs in Africa and conflict-ridden countries. Further, most countries have not yet been able to access project funds independently through their national entities, limiting direct access and country ownership – the strengthening of which is a major goal of the fund. The findings suggest that simplified approval tracks need to be strengthened in the emerging climate finance architecture so that populations in countries with the lowest institutional capacity but highest vulnerability are not being left behind in the long-run.