CLIMATE ADAPTATION MARKER: QUALITY REVIEW

OECD ENVIRONET workshop on Rio markers, climate and

development finance, 24-25 June 2013

DCD/DAC/STAT(2013)5

Presentation structure

Background – adaptation marker

Findings of the quality review

Options to improve

2

• Adopted by the DAC end 2009

• Implemented starting with 2010 flows

• An activity should be classified as adaptation-related if it « intends to reduce vulnerability of human or natural systems to the impacts of climate change and climate-related risks, by maintaining or increasing adaptive capacity and resilience. »

Background – adaptation marker

3

Findings of the quality review Assessment based on activity descriptions

examples

Reflects the context-specific nature of adaptation projects… … but prompts criticisms, e.g. Germanwatch paper.

For score “principal”, clear focus on adaptation.

For score “significant”, seldom explicit focus on adaptation.

Examples:

Sustainable agriculture and fisheries.

Disaster risk reduction and preparedness.

Improved access to drinking water and sanitary supply.

Examples:

Securing water supply in the context of climate change.

Climate change adaptation initiative.

Research on the impact of climate change on marine biosphere.

4

Findings of the quality review Reporting is not consistent for contributions to pooled funds

• Ex: Global Water Partnerships, ICCO alliance

• May be considered as an overstatement.

Principal/significant score applied to org. that

partially work towards adaptation.

• Some members report their contributions to GEF climate funds as bilateral instead of multilateral. This can lead to double-counting.

• For the same fund, some members apply score “principal”, others “significant” and others “not targeted”, e.g. UNREDD.

Reporting not comparable among members for the same

fund.

5

Findings of the quality review Differences between adaptation and mitigation

• Wide variations in scores among members.

• Score “principal” is low for adaptation, high for mitigation. • Mitigation is a clear objective in large-value projects e.g.

energy; • Climate-resilient projects address other prime objectives.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Share of activities marked "principal" in total adaptation-related aid

Share of activities marked "principal" in total mitigation-related aid

6

Findings of the quality review Large overlap between adaptation and mitigation

Adaptation activities

Mitigation activities

USD 9 billion

USD 16 billion Overlap

43%

7

Findings of the quality review Large overlap between adaptation and mitigation

Adaptation-“only”

52% overlap

39% overlap

Overlap with mitigation

Principal score USD 3 billion

Significant score USD 6 billion

8

Total adaptation-related aid = 9 billion, of which overlap= 4 billion

Findings of the quality review Predominant sectors

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

principal score significant score

ENV.

ENV.

AGR.

WATER

WATER WATER

AGR.

Humanitarian

Humanitarian

Other

Other

9

For discussion: options to improve

the adaptation marker data

Alternative options to improve the adaptation marker data

Measuring climate finance

Quality review

MDB approach

10

Brainstorming: options to improve

the adaptation marker data

What can be done now:

IMPROVE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS: explicitly refer to the adaptation objective.

REFINE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA OF THE ADAPTATION MARKER based on purpose, context and activity linkage (MDB approach).

INTRODUCE INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL CODES to identify bilateral contributions to pooled funds (e.g. UN-REDD).

INTRODUCE A SUB-SECTOR in the general environment category to identify policy work for adaptation.

What can be discussed further: Adjustments to the methodology Moving towards a more quantitative method

11

Brainstorming- cont’d

For large projects, identify components addressing adaptation, and only count those components as “climate finance”.

Is a “marker” with scoring system “principal”/ “significant” the

right method for measuring adaptation-related aid?

ADJUSTMENTS TO THE

METHODOLOGY

MOVE TOWARDS A MORE QUANTITATIVE

APPROACH

12

YES (best approximation) NO (climate-resilient projects address other prime objective)

Avoid overstatement by: - Ruling out applying the

“significant” score to large programmes only partially working towards the objective.

- Ruling out scoring an activity as “principal” for both adaptation and mitigation.

- Only counting as “climate finance” those activities marked as “principal”.

Mapping scores to percentages would be artificial