Advertisement

Conclusion

Chapter
  • 329 Downloads

Abstract

In this concluding chapter, we first briefly look back at the research question and the research design of this book, as well as the theoretical expectations we derived from theory and past work for our empirical analyses. We then draw together our findings from the empirical analyses, both quantitative and qualitative. We briefly summarise key results, with a focus on similarities and differences across the three stages of our empirical analysis. To what extent do donors keep their promises and provide adaptation aid with priority to the most vulnerable? What about other factors? How do recipient merit and donor interests influence adaptation aid allocation? How do these factors play out at the aggregate level for all donors combined, and at the country level for Germany, Sweden, and the UK? How do the results for the case study countries differ from the aggregate results, but also from each other? To what extent, and how, do the interviews confirm or depart from the statistical results?

Keywords

Recipient Merit Germany Sweden United Kingdom Donor Interests Recipient Need Allocation Stage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. AdaptationWatch. (Weikmans et al.) 2016. Towards Transparency. The 2016 Adaptation Finance Transparency Gap Report. AdaptationWatch. White Paper. Available online at http://www.adaptationwatch.org/.
  2. Ayers, J.M., and A.C. Abeysinghe. 2013. International Aid and Adaptation to Climate Change. In The Handbook of Global Climate and Environmental Policy, Chap. 28, ed. R. Falkner, 486–506. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, S. 2014. Subnational Climate Justice? Adaptation Finance Distribution and Climate Vulnerability. World Development 58: 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird, N. 2011, August. Going Beyond Aid Effectiveness to Guide the Delivery of Climate Finance. odi Background Note. Overseas Development Institute, London.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J., N. Bird, and L. Schalatek. 2010, June. Climate Finance Additionality: Emerging Definitions and Their Implications. Climate Finance Policy Brief No.2. Heinrich Böll Stiftung. The Green Political Foundation. Available online at https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6032.pdf.
  6. Carty, T., J. Kowalzig, and A. Peterson. 2016, November. Climate Finance Shadow Report 2016: Lifting the Lid on Progress Towards the $100 Billion Commitment. Oxfam International. Available online at http://www.oxfamnovib.nl/Redactie/Pdf/bp-climate-finance-shadow-report-031116-en.pdf.
  7. Ciplet, D., J.T. Robert, and M. Khan. 2013. The Politics of International Climate Adaptation Funding: Justice and Divisions in the Greenhouse. Global Environmental Politics 13(1): 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, R.B., and S. Klasen. 2013. Of Donor Coordination, Free-Riding, Darlings, and Orphans: The Dependence of Bilateral Aid Commitments on Other Bilateral Giving. cesifo Working Paper No. 4177.Google Scholar
  9. Donner, S.D., M. Kandlikar, and S. Webber. 2016. Measuring and tracking the flow of climate change adaptation aid to the developing world. Environmental Research Letters 11(5): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duus-Otterström, G. 2015. Allocating Climate Adaptation Finance: Examining Three Ethical Arguments for Recipient Control. International Environmental Agreements 16(6): 655–670.Google Scholar
  11. Ha, S., T. Hale, and P. Ogden. 2016. Climate Finance in and between Developing Countries: An Emerging Opportunity to Build On. Global Policy 7(1): 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoeffler, A., and V. Outram. 2011. Need, Merit, or Self-Interest—What Determines the Allocation of Aid? Review of Development Economics 15(2): 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huhtala, A., S. Curto, and P. Ambrosi. 2010, May. Monitoring Climate Finance and oda. World Bank Issues Brief 1.Google Scholar
  14. Junghans, L., and S. Harmeling. 2012. Different Tales from Different Countries: A First Assessment of the OECD ‘Adaptation Marker’. Germanwatch Briefing Paper.Google Scholar
  15. Klein, R.J. 2009. Identifying Countries that are Particularly Vulnerable to the Adverse Effects of Climate Change: An Academic or a Political Challenge? Carbon & Climate Law Review 3(3): 284–291.Google Scholar
  16. Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 2007, August. Guidelines: Decisive Factors for Country Focus. Memorandum of the Department for Development Policy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  17. oecd. 2013. oecd Development Co-operation Peer Review: Sweden 2013. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. oecd. 2016. OECD.Stat Extracts. Available online at http://stats.oecd.org/.
  19. Peterson Carvalho, A., and P. Terpstra. 2015. Tracking Adaptation Finance: An Approach for Civil Society Organizations to Improve Accountability for Climate Change Adaptation. Oxfam America Inc. and World Resources Institute. Available online at http://www.wri.org/publication/tracking-adaptation-finance.
  20. Roberts, T.J., and R. Weikmans. 2015, December. The Unfinished Agenda of the Paris Climate Talks: Finance to the Global South. Brookings Series: Understanding COP21 and Beyond, Number 24. December 22. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/12/22-cop21-unfinished-agenda-finance-global-south-roberts-weikmans.
  21. Roberts, J.T., and R. Weikmans. 2017. Postface: Fragmentation, Failing Trust and Enduring Tensions over What Counts as Climate Finance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 17(1): 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roberts, T.J., R. Weikmans, and C. Jones. 2017. Allocating Climate Adaptation Finance: Shifting Positions in the Scholarly and Policy Realms.Google Scholar
  23. Robertsen, J., N. Francken, and N. Molenaers. 2015. Determinants of the Flow of Bilateral Adaptation-Related Climate Change Financing to Sub-Saharan African Countries. LICOS Discussion Paper 373/2015. Catholic University Leuven.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, J.B., T. Dickinson, J.D.B. Donahue, I. Burton, E. Haites, R.J. Klein, and A. Patwardhan. 2011. Development and Climate Change Adaptation Funding: Coordination and Integration. Climate Policy 11: 987–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stadelmann, M., J.T. Robert, and A. Michaelowa. 2010, November. Keeping a Big Promise: Options for Baselines to Assess “New and Additional” Climate Finance. Centre for Comparative and International Studies (ETH Zurich and University of Zurich) Working Paper Nr. 66.Google Scholar
  26. unfccc. 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Document FCCC/INFORMAL/84.Google Scholar
  27. unfccc. 2007. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth session, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007 Addendum Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its thirteenth session. Document FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1.Google Scholar
  28. unfccc. 2009. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. Addendum. Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its fifteenth session. Document FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1.Google Scholar
  29. unfccc. 2015, December. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Decision 1/CP.21. Document FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1.Google Scholar
  30. Weikmans, R. 2016. Le rôle de la coopération au développement dans le financement international de l’adaptation au changement climatique. In La nouvelle géographie du développement. Coopérer dans un monde en mutation, ed. A. Zacharie, 175–185. Brussels: Éditions Le Bord de l’Eau.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.The School of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations