This briefing proposes a set of principles for delivering adaptation finance and uses these to assess the efficacy of different country-level adaptation delivery mechanisms. Currently, accessing adaptation funding is difficult, governance processes lack transparency and decision making favours projects rather than programmatic approaches. Instead, effective delivery of integrated adaptation could be guided by principles of country ownership, prioritising the most vulnerable, mutual accountability and harmonisation. Countries should be allowed to set their own adaptation priorities and should be supported by flexible, tailored delivery mechanisms that promote programmatic approaches.
There is consensus that funding for adaptation in developing countries must reach $28-67 billion per year by 2030. Negotiators must now agree how to raise additional funds and must decide on principles and mechanisms for delivering and spending the money that will be widely supported.
The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol developed an institutional framework that established procedures for resource transfers from accountable institutions to countries eligible for adaptation funding. However, donors and partner countries argue that the current institutional architecture’s governance structures are complex and weighted in favour of donor countries.
The suggested principles are derived from synthesis of principles already included in the UNFCCC and cited in submissions, plus emerging lessons from development assistance. Country ownership is critical. In addition, the allocation of adaptation funding should prioritise the most vulnerable countries and funding mechanisms must channel resources effectively to those most in need.
- Country ownership: Eligible states should be allowed to set their own adaptation priorities through dialogue with other in-country stakeholders, supported by flexible, tailored finance delivery mechanisms that promote programmatic approaches to adaptation. Some states will require capacity building on managing fiduciary risk to improve accountability and transparency before programme-based approaches can be supported. Other countries will require assistance to scale up adaptation efforts and to create effective institutions and planning approaches for adaptation. Project-based funding may be needed to catalyse and test scaling-up possibilities.
- Prioritising the most vulnerable: Where pro-poor state-led processes are reaching the most vulnerable, integrating adaptation into poverty reduction strategy papers and national social protection mechanisms is an option. Rights or needs-based delivery mechanisms may need to supplement support to the state; people are often poor and vulnerable because they are excluded from accessing state resources. In many cases, a blend of delivery channels also involving civil society, regional and UN organisations is likely to be most effective at reaching all groups, while simultaneously developing state capacity.
- Mutual accountability: The governance of delivery mechanisms must be transparent, equitable in representation and power, and must involve clear lines of accountability. Adaptation monitoring and evaluation structures should be transparent, locally-owned, formulated in partnership with other stakeholders and subject to clear accountability measures.
- Harmonisation: Delivery mechanisms at the country level must not duplicate functions or become unnecessarily fragmented. Measures to counter fragmentation at this level may include multi-donor trust funds. Once eligibility criteria are set, eligible states should be able to access financial and technical resources directly, with minimal transaction costs.
