Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens

Abstract

How much finance should be provided to support climate change adaptation and by whom? How should it be allocated, and on what basis? Over the years, various actors have expressed different normative expectations on climate finance. Which of these expectations are being met and which are not; why, and with what consequences? Have new norms and rules emerged, which remain contested? This article takes stock of the first 25+ years of adaptation finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and seeks to understand whether adaptation finance has become more justly governed and delivered over the past quarter century. We distinguish among three "eras" of adaptation finance: (1) the early years under the UNFCCC (1992-2008); (2) the Copenhagen shift (2009-2015); and (3) the post-Paris era (2016-2018). For each era, we systematically review the justice issues raised by evolving expectations and rules over the provision, distribution, and governance of adaptation finance. We conclude by outlining future perspectives for adaptation finance and their implications for climate justice.

Climate change adaptation in SIDS: A systematic review of the literature pre and post the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

“…The vulnerability of SIDS to the impacts of climate change requires urgent adaptation interventions. But while SIDS have undertaken many initiatives (Robinson, 2017a), the flows of international adaptation financing have not kept pace with recipient country needs or demands (Khan, Robinson, Weikmans, Ciplet, & Roberts, 2019). Countries’ dissatisfaction with the modalities for accessing financing through the Green Climate Fund and other mechanisms is growing (Robinson & Dornan, 2017).…”

Transparency requirements under the Paris Agreement and their (un)likely impact on strengthening the ambition of nationally determined contributions (NDCs)

“…Fifth, transparency on international support, and climate finance in particular, is key, as ambitious mitigation action by developing nations partially depends on broadly-held perceptions of equitable action by developed countries (see Khan, Robinson, Weikmans, Ciplet, & Roberts, 2019;Roberts & Weikmans, 2017;Pauw, Castro, Pickering, & Bhasin, this issue). Delivering on finance promisesand there being confidence also in the validity of the claims of amounts deliveredare especially crucial for developing nations to accept that the conditionalities in their NDCs have been met and that they can put in place more ambitious mitigation targets.…”

A just alternative to litigation: applying restorative justice to climate-related loss and damage

“…In view of the limitations of climate litigation, we propose an alternative, non-judicial approach: restorative justice. While action through the courts can pursue several types of justice, eg procedural, recognition, neoliberal, distributive, compensatory and corrective (see Khan et al 2020), restorative justice is an alternative to conventional justice systems, which are inadequate (Van Ness and Heetderks Strong 2010), fail to address society's interconnectedness (Sherman and Strang 2007) and are ignorant of victims' needs (Gavrielides 2007). Used both within and outside the criminal justice system, restorative justice is widely understood as 'a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future' (cited in Gavrielides 2007, 44).…”

“…Climate change violates basic human rights, including the right to be free of harm (Schlosberg and Collins 2014), and many countries have come to recognise the right to enjoyment of healthy environments as constitutional or statutory rights (Bruch 2019). However, the current global climate regime inadequately supports climate justice (Khan et al 2020; McCauley and Heffron 2018) -climate justice considerations are relegated to the non-binding portions of the 2015 Paris Agreement, for example, with only a note in the preamble of their 'importance for some' (cited in Beauregard et al 2021, 2). Restorative justice, with its focus on the protection of the most vulnerable from further harm (Bruch 2019), can help fill this gap in the governance architecture.…”