How do donors integrate climate policy and development cooperation? An analysis of the development aid policies of 42 donor countries

This article assesses how donor countries integrate climate action into their development aid policies. An analytical framework is developed for the systematic comparison of development aid policies along three dimensions: hierarchy of policy objectives, types of measures the donors implement, and linkages to international climate negotiations. Analyzing the development aid policies of 42 donors, we find that only three have redesigned their development aid policies to fully integrate climate policy concerns. Instead, donors treat climate change as a thematic priority area. This includes several donors that are currently not obliged to provide climate finance under the UNFCCC. Furthermore, five major donor countries emphasize the use of diverse foreign policy tools to support climate action in developing countries. Importantly, we identify how other development goals (poverty, gender) are integrated with climate policy goals. Only two donor countries clearly separate development aid and climate finance. Luxembourg states that its climate finance pledge is additional to development, while New Zealand has a separate climate finance strategy where the allocation of funds is based on climate mitigation effectiveness concerns. <b>Key policy insights</b>Climate finance channelled through development aid programs is treated as a thematic priority area and mostly steered by existing development aid priorities and partnerships rather than requirements for effective climate policy.Despite more than 15 years of debate on new and additional climate finance, donors still do not spell out the principle of additionality in their policy documents. This applies both to Annex II and non-Annex II donor countries.Two donors have published separate climate finance strategies but for different purposes: New Zealand to separate between development and climate policy goals and Ireland to ensure alignment between its development goals and climate finance pledges.Few donors differentiate between climate adaptation and mitigation as two different cross-cutting issues with different trade-offs and synergies.Aid donor policies and instruments to leverage private capital are more advanced for climate mitigation than for adaptation. Climate finance channelled through development aid programs is treated as a thematic priority area and mostly steered by existing development aid priorities and partnerships rather than requirements for effective climate policy. Despite more than 15 years of debate on new and additional climate finance, donors still do not spell out the principle of additionality in their policy documents. This applies both to Annex II and non-Annex II donor countries. Two donors have published separate climate finance strategies but for different purposes: New Zealand to separate between development and climate policy goals and Ireland to ensure alignment between its development goals and climate finance pledges. Few donors differentiate between climate adaptation and mitigation as two different cross-cutting issues with different trade-offs and synergies. Aid donor policies and instruments to leverage private capital are more advanced for climate mitigation than for adaptation.

本文评估了捐助国将气候行动纳入本国发展援助政策的具体路径。本研究构建了一套分析框架，可从三大维度对发展援助政策开展系统比较：政策目标层级、捐助方实施的措施类型，以及与国际气候谈判的关联。通过对42个捐助国的发展援助政策进行分析，研究发现仅有3个国家对本国发展援助政策进行了重新设计，以全面融入气候政策考量。其余捐助国仅将气候变化视为一项主题优先领域，其中包括当前无需根据《联合国气候变化框架公约》（UNFCCC）提供气候资金（climate finance）的多个捐助方。此外，有5个主要捐助国强调运用多元化外交政策工具，助力发展中国家的气候行动。值得注意的是，本研究还明确了其他发展目标（减贫、性别平等）如何与气候政策目标相融合。仅有2个捐助国明确区分了发展援助与气候资金：卢森堡明确表示其气候资金承诺独立于发展援助之外，而新西兰则制定了独立的气候资金战略，其资金分配以气候减缓（climate mitigation）成效为核心依据。<b>核心政策洞察</b>通过发展援助项目拨付的气候资金被视为一项主题优先领域，其分配主要遵循既有发展援助优先级与伙伴关系框架，而非有效气候政策的相关要求。尽管围绕新增性气候资金的议题已辩论超过15年，但捐助国仍未在其政策文件中明确阐明新增性原则（additionality principle），这一情况同时适用于附件二缔约方捐助国与非附件二缔约方捐助国。仅有2个捐助国发布了独立的气候资金战略，但二者的目的各不相同：新西兰旨在区分发展政策与气候政策目标，爱尔兰则旨在确保本国发展目标与气候资金承诺保持一致。鲜有捐助国将气候适应（climate adaptation）与气候减缓视为两类存在不同权衡（trade-offs）与协同效应（synergies）的跨领域议题（cross-cutting issues）加以区分。捐助国用于撬动私人资本的政策与工具，在气候减缓领域的发展程度要高于气候适应领域。通过发展援助项目拨付的气候资金被视为一项主题优先领域，其分配主要遵循既有发展援助优先级与伙伴关系框架，而非有效气候政策的相关要求。尽管围绕新增性气候资金的议题已辩论超过15年，但捐助国仍未在其政策文件中明确阐明新增性原则，这一情况同时适用于附件二缔约方捐助国与非附件二缔约方捐助国。仅有2个捐助国发布了独立的气候资金战略，但二者的目的各不相同：新西兰旨在区分发展政策与气候政策目标，爱尔兰则旨在确保本国发展目标与气候资金承诺保持一致。鲜有捐助国将气候适应与气候减缓视为两类存在不同权衡与协同效应的跨领域议题加以区分。捐助国用于撬动私人资本的政策与工具，在气候减缓领域的发展程度要高于气候适应领域。