4 Integration into Development: Translating International …
61
impacts of developing countries. In 2010, the CoP adoption of the Cancun Agreement (UNFCCC 2011) had affirmed that adaptation must be addressed with the
same level of priority as mitigation and that new and additional funding should
be provided to developing countries, setting the background for the Paris Climate
Accord. Under these international policy frameworks for adaptation, finance for
adaptation was framed primarily concerning terms of shared responsibility. Adaptation gained greater international policy momentum under the 2007 Bali Action
Plan, and the Copenhagen Accord of 2009 (Michaelowa and Stadelmann 2018:64).
Following the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, it was confirmed that more extensive
adaptation than was happening, was required to reduce vulnerability to future climate
change. The Conference of Parties (CoP) to the UNFCCC agreed to the Bali Action
Plan in 2007 (UNFCCC 2008) and launched a comprehensive process to enable the
full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term
cooperative action. The basis for the allocation of resources for adaptation being first
enacted in the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
which stated that developed Parties ‘shall also assist the developing country Parties
that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting
costs of adaptation’ (UNFCCC 1992, Article 4, paragraph 4).
Since this time, globally, the rate of adaptation finance has grown steadily
regarding support via projects, total commitments and as aid earmarked for adaptation
(Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2012; Scoville-Simonds 2016). With future finance
for climate activities expected to be of the same order of magnitude as that of development aid (Scoville-Simonds 2016). Currently, the majority of public adaptation
finance flows between developed to developing countries as official development
assistance (ODA) development aid, which is earmarked as adaptation or adaptation related (Scoville-Simonds 2016). With adaptation-ODA at over USD 10 billion
annually, adaptation-ODA currently comprises the largest input to adaptation finance
overall, by a significant margin (Scoville-Simonds 2016).
Indonesia’s Climate Finance Landscape for Adaptation
Programming
In 2016, global ODA to Indonesia allocations for adaptation (both loans and grants)
were at US $2,253 million according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) data held on ODA (OECD 2018). This figure is more than
double of what these amounts were 5 years earlier (Ampri et al. 2014). Although
tracking the flow of climate finance into actions remains problematic (Ampri et al.
2014), according to reports analysing data from between 2012 and 2016, 68% of
climate finance to Indonesia was directed to activities implemented on the ground,
with 30% of those directed specifically to the capacity and knowledge building
areas (Falconer and Glenday 2016; Ampri et al. 2014). The majority of international
finance flows to central government ministries and agencies at 97% with only a small
percentage going to local administrations, despite climate actions being implemented
61
impacts of developing countries. In 2010, the CoP adoption of the Cancun Agreement (UNFCCC 2011) had affirmed that adaptation must be addressed with the
same level of priority as mitigation and that new and additional funding should
be provided to developing countries, setting the background for the Paris Climate
Accord. Under these international policy frameworks for adaptation, finance for
adaptation was framed primarily concerning terms of shared responsibility. Adaptation gained greater international policy momentum under the 2007 Bali Action
Plan, and the Copenhagen Accord of 2009 (Michaelowa and Stadelmann 2018:64).
Following the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, it was confirmed that more extensive
adaptation than was happening, was required to reduce vulnerability to future climate
change. The Conference of Parties (CoP) to the UNFCCC agreed to the Bali Action
Plan in 2007 (UNFCCC 2008) and launched a comprehensive process to enable the
full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term
cooperative action. The basis for the allocation of resources for adaptation being first
enacted in the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
which stated that developed Parties ‘shall also assist the developing country Parties
that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting
costs of adaptation’ (UNFCCC 1992, Article 4, paragraph 4).
Since this time, globally, the rate of adaptation finance has grown steadily
regarding support via projects, total commitments and as aid earmarked for adaptation
(Michaelowa and Michaelowa 2012; Scoville-Simonds 2016). With future finance
for climate activities expected to be of the same order of magnitude as that of development aid (Scoville-Simonds 2016). Currently, the majority of public adaptation
finance flows between developed to developing countries as official development
assistance (ODA) development aid, which is earmarked as adaptation or adaptation related (Scoville-Simonds 2016). With adaptation-ODA at over USD 10 billion
annually, adaptation-ODA currently comprises the largest input to adaptation finance
overall, by a significant margin (Scoville-Simonds 2016).
Indonesia’s Climate Finance Landscape for Adaptation
Programming
In 2016, global ODA to Indonesia allocations for adaptation (both loans and grants)
were at US $2,253 million according to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) data held on ODA (OECD 2018). This figure is more than
double of what these amounts were 5 years earlier (Ampri et al. 2014). Although
tracking the flow of climate finance into actions remains problematic (Ampri et al.
2014), according to reports analysing data from between 2012 and 2016, 68% of
climate finance to Indonesia was directed to activities implemented on the ground,
with 30% of those directed specifically to the capacity and knowledge building
areas (Falconer and Glenday 2016; Ampri et al. 2014). The majority of international
finance flows to central government ministries and agencies at 97% with only a small
percentage going to local administrations, despite climate actions being implemented