Who is adaptation for? Vulnerability and adaptation benefits in proposals approved by the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund

AbstractSince the Adaptation Fund (AF) became operational in 2007, there has been a vivid discussion about equity and efficiency in how resources (predicted to be scarce) are governed and allocated. One complicating factor is that allocation is often discussed between countries rather than between sub-national causes and groups, and while this approach follows from the UNFCCC context, it is problematic because it ignores the fact that vulnerability is a locally contextualized phenomenon. This paper empirically analyses the portrayal of vulnerability and adaptation benefits in project proposals approved by the AF, and thereby comments on the normative principles of equity and efficiency when allocating funds to developing countries and their vulnerable communities. It does this by evaluating actual decisions made by the AF, which has been operating for some time. We qualitatively analyse all proposals approved as of December 2012 by the Fund's Board. First, we compare the ways that 'particular vulnerability' is justified or not, especially in light of the minimal guidance available. Second, we compare project proponent's statements (or lack thereof) on economic, social, and environmental benefits arising from the suggested projects, and who they would accrue to. Lessons learned with regard to allocation will also be important for the development of the Green Climate Fund, considering that resources are likely to be scarce for some time in comparison with predicted funding needs.Keywords: Adaptation Fundclimate financeallocationequityefficiencyvulnerability Notes1 While the AF is the only fund which exclusively finances concrete adaptation to climate change (Grasso Citation2011), other existing funding mechanisms which address adaptation under the UNFCCC include the Least Developed Country Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund, both managed by the Global Environment Facility. In contrast to the AF, they are financed through voluntary contributions by industrialized countries.2 It is important to note that these computer-based programmes are not for analytical purposes, but rather for supporting the structuring and organization of text-based material (Diaz-Bone & Schneider, Citation2003) and although computer-based, the coding itself is done manually.3 To the best of our knowledge, the AF has not rejected any proposals. Proponents whose concepts do not get endorsed, or whose full project/programme proposals do not obtain approval always have the option of resubmitting the proposal at a later stage.4 Note that there is no official UN listing of developing countries, meaning all non-Annex I Parties are currently considered developing countries under the AF.5 An exhaustive review of the range of theories of the vulnerability context and their various schools goes beyond the scope of this paper. Here, we simply discuss a few recent key approaches. For a more extensive discussion of the different conceptual frameworks, see e.g. Adger (Citation2006) and Füssel (Citation2007).6 The differentiation between (i) vulnerability as an outcome of climate change and (ii) contextual vulnerability as setting the frame in which climate risks are dealt with and adapted to, suggested by O'Brien et al. (Citation2007), roughly corresponds to the end-point and starting-point distinction proposed by Kelly and Adger (Citation2000; see also Füssel, Citation2009).7 Numbers are based on a computerized count. Nicaragua is excluded because the format of the proposal did not allow text analysis. This is also the case for Figure 6.8 For this aspect, we paraphrased statements regarding the country's vulnerability from the 'Project/Programme Background and Context' of every proposal before analysing the argumentation made.9 For this section, we analysed the 'Project/Programme Objectives' and 'Project/Programme Components and Financing' sections of each proposal and classified them along the definitions and examples provided by McGary et al. (Citation2007). McGray et al. (Citation2007, p. 23) emphasize that 'as benefits a continuum, the lines between the categories are blurry' and this also holds true to the assignment of a proposed adaptation effort to one category. The placement of projects in categories is difficult and somewhat subjective, other scholars may come up with a different division.10 Note that this requirement has changed over time, with 'groups within communities' and 'gender considerations' being added recently.11 Where 'number of households' are cited in proposals, we assume four people per household.