Equity and efficiency in adaptation finance: initial experiences of the Adaptation Fund

The Adaptation Fund, established under the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has now been approving funding for adaptation projects for more than two years. Given its particular institutional status and specific focus on concrete adaptation, it is particularly relevant to study the initial experiences of it for any future upscaling of international adaptation finance, despite the fact that its own resources are getting scarce. Alternative rationales for allocating funds, based on equity and efficiency concerns at both international and subnational levels, are here tested against the criteria and priorities of the Fund and decisions made on project approval. It is concluded that equity concerns appear to be the primary motivation and that allocation is <i>de facto</i> made between states rather than by considering inequity between subnational communities. However, the currency of vulnerability for determining equitable outcomes in allocation decisions has not been formalized, despite its central importance to the Fund. Instead, uniform national caps have been introduced. Such an equality approach can be considered inequitable. Finally, it is noted that although the Adaptation Fund Board has continuously developed its proposal review practices and adopted a learning-by-doing approach, it should provide both a further specification of the evaluation criteria and a compilation of best practices from approved proposals, and moreover enhance the transparency of the review process, all of which would clarify its core priorities for current and future project proponents.

适应基金（Adaptation Fund）依托《联合国气候变化框架公约》（United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC）框架下的《京都议定书》（Kyoto Protocol）设立，迄今已为气候适应项目审批资金逾两载。鉴于其特殊的制度定位与聚焦实体化气候适应的核心目标，尽管自身资金储备日趋紧张，对其初期实践经验开展研究，对于未来推动国际气候适应融资的规模化发展仍具有重要意义。本文基于国际与次国家层面的公平与效率考量，提出若干替代性资金分配逻辑，并对照该基金的评判标准、优先级设定以及项目审批决策对其进行了验证。研究结论显示，公平考量实为资金分配的核心动因，且资金分配事实上（de facto）仅在主权国家间开展，并未考量次国家社群间的不平等问题。然而，尽管脆弱性对于该基金而言具有核心重要性，用于判定分配决策公平性结果的脆弱性通用标准仍未实现制度化。取而代之的是，基金采用了统一的国家额度上限机制，此种形式上的平等做法实则有失公平。最后，研究指出：尽管适应基金委员会（Adaptation Fund Board）持续优化提案评审流程并采用了边干边学的实践模式，但其仍需进一步细化评估标准、汇编已获批提案中的最佳实践案例，并提升评审流程的透明度——上述举措均可为当前及未来的项目申报方厘清基金的核心优先级。