scholarly journals Understanding Adaptation Finance Allocation: Which Factors Enable or Constrain Vulnerable Countries to Access Funding?

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 4308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepal Doshi ◽  
Matthias Garschagen

The most vulnerable countries often face a double burden in relation to climate change—they are at high risk to the impacts and are least equipped to cope and adapt. Global climate policy since the Convention in 1992, until most recently with the global goal on adaptation in the Paris Agreement, has manifested the importance of prioritizing adaptation support to the most vulnerable countries. The main objective of this study is to understand the enabling and constraining factors that play a role in the process of allocating and accessing global adaptation assistance. We adopted a mixed-methods approach combining two major streams of analysis. First, this paper aims to track bilateral adaptation finance to all so-called developing countries, as bilateral support has been the largest share of international adaptation finance. Second, the paper draws on semi-structured expert interviews and looks at the country level to identify the factors beyond vulnerability that play a role in the distribution of adaptation finance from a recipient’s and a donor’s perspective, using India and Germany as examples. The analysis yields three main findings. First, countries’ vulnerability as measured by standard metrics does not seem to be the prime factor explaining the distribution of available bilateral adaptation assistance. This is in contrast to the political narrative in the emerging climate finance architecture. Second, interview data identified other factors beyond vulnerability that play a role from a donor perspective, such as the perceived capacity to manage and implement projects, the commitment given to climate change and other political priorities. Third, from a recipient perspective, rather than its vulnerability level in a global comparison, strong institutional capacity played a prominent role in attracting adaptation finance. Looking out into the future, the findings underscore the practical and political challenges in relation to a vulnerability-oriented prioritization of funding and they point towards the need to increase countries’ capacities to attract and manage international adaptation support. The findings also raise questions on how to overcome the vexing conflict in the emerging adaptation finance architecture between accommodating for donors’ requirements of high fiduciary standards and enabling access by the most vulnerable countries, which are often short of resources and institutional capacities.

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 155
Author(s):  
Apostolos Xyraphis

This paper focuses on the political and economic significance of Africa for a declining Europe, from a Greek vision and perspective. We argue that major ongoing developments (covid-19 included) and those perspectively announced pose dilemmas and the burden of engineering of choice, to decision-makers. As there are no country-level solutions that could be sufficient to address contemporary complex issues such as migration flows, pandemias, sustainable growth, climate change and multiple inequalities, we explore a possible new moral basis for future Euro-African coordination and collaboration.


2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 901-926 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alyssa Gilbert

With the rising popularity of emissions trading schemes and the private sector call for a global carbon market, it seems as though there is the chance to solve climate change by simply providing a clear price signal. But how easy will this be, both technically and practically? This paper provides an overview of the challenges in policy design terms involved in directly linking existing emissions trading schemes, and the status of planned emissions trading schemes, in order to set the potential of establishing a policy framework for a global carbon market in a realistic frame. The paper begins by outlining what linking is and setting out the advantages and risks of linking schemes. The key criteria to consider in order to establish compatibility for linking are explored, and then a summary of existing or planned schemes is given to highlight some of the technical challenges involved in linking emissions trading schemes together. The paper goes on to describe how a linked scheme could be set up and then moves on to the political arena, looking more closely at the political benefits and risks of linking and then discussing whether or not linking emissions trading schemes is an element of, or an alternative to, a global climate policy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 921 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Burman

Abstract Taking Boaventura de Sousa Santos' argument that there is no global social justice without global cognitive justice as its starting point, this article suggests that there is no global climate justice without global cognitive justice (implying both ontological justice and epistemological justice). If we take "the ontological turn" in anthropology and other disciplines and its focus on indigenous ontologies seriously, however, we seem to end up in a situation that is difficult to maneuver in relation to conventional understandings of climate justice. When discussing climate change in relation to multiple ontologies, there are two risks: 1) reproducing what I call "the coloniality of reality", arguing that indigenous ontologies are actually nothing but a cultural (mis-) representation of the world; 2) reproducing a conservative relativism that leads to nothing but the maintenance of status quo and that bears a resemblance to climate change denial. A thorough ethnographic understanding of what I would call "the moral meteorology" of the Andes and a broadened understanding of climate change, however, make it possible to navigate between the Scylla of coloniality and the Charybdis of relativism and to articulate a radical critique of fossil-fueled capitalism from a relational ontology, demanding climate justice while denouncing coloniality, and discussing the political ontology of climate change without ignoring its political ecology - and vice versa. Key words: Coloniality; climate justice; cognitive justice; political ontology; political ecology; Aymara


2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-40
Author(s):  
Wayne Ganpat ◽  
Marcus Ramdwar

This study examined the challenges to the achievement of food security goals and the role of Extension Advisory Services (EAS) at a time when the world is faced with the double burden of an immediate pandemic in the midst of ongoing climate change events. EAS have always played vital roles in past emergencies around the world and are being challenged to respond timely and appropriately in these times. The purpose of this paper was to (i) describe the impacts of disruptive changes on food systems across the world, (ii) present key agricultural education and extension responses to such changes and (iii) make recommendations to strengthen EAS responses. There was a focus on Covid-19 and climate change as disruptive changes. An internet-mediated approach to source information and a review of published literature were used to gather information. Results detailed the several impacts of Covid-19 and climate change in seven regions of the world, the impacts of both disruptive events on the four pillars of food security, and some global responses in the areas of agricultural education and extension to meet present challenges. Recommendations included the strengthening and deepening of collaboration of all extension service providers at country level to ensure coordinated responses, building stronger community resilience and extension research directed to assist the reengineering of extension organizations in terms of structure, leadership and management. Keywords: agriculture; extension; climate change; pandemic; food security


Author(s):  
David Vogel

This chapter compares regulations that address the risks of air pollution—one of the most critical dimensions of environmental regulation. It specifically examines the policies in the United States and Europe and their decisions toward the health and environmental risks of mobile (vehicular) source pollutants, ozone-depleting chemicals, and global climate change. The politics of global climate change reveals a very divergent pattern. In this case, the preferences of American policy makers were more polarized than in Europe. American public policies toward the risks of global climate change have been significantly affected by partisan differences, which increased substantially during the 1990s. By contrast, European policies toward global climate change have been much less affected by differences in the political preferences of center-left and center-right policy makers.


2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 238-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tori L. Jennings

Abstract The two principal policy approaches to global climate change include mitigation and adaption. In recent years, the interest in adaptation and “resilience” has increased significantly in part because anthropogenic climate change appears unavoidable and mitigation agreements are difficult to achieve. This article takes a critical look at the emerging discourse over climate change adaptation and resilience. By drawing upon critiques of environmental resource management and adaptive comanagement, this paper argues that taking the concept of adaptation for granted as an appropriate bottom-up strategy for coping with anthropogenic climate change not only ignores the political and economic contexts in which this environmental strategy developed, but might also unintentionally subvert the vulnerable communities it intends to benefit. Using an ethnographic case study of the 2004 Boscastle Harbour flood in North Cornwall, England, this paper explores the paradoxical way in which adaptation and resilience work within the apparatus of the neoliberal state, which aims to shift responsibility for social and environmental problems to the individual. By better understanding the political and economic processes embedded in the concepts of adaptation and resilience, researchers will be more effective at finding equitable solutions to human ecological problems. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is vital in order to reduce the impacts of climate change that are happening now and increase resilience to future impacts (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document