“likelihood of higher level and longer term impact”, but the UN-REDDþ evaluation rated the same as “moderately unsatisfactory”. Although the NICFI and
UN-REDDþ evaluations overlap to a large extent (NICFI being the biggest
donor to REDDþ initiatives), the difference may be due to a willingness or
reluctance to look into the future. On global level impact the evaluations that
were willing to enter into a somewhat reflective and speculative mode – i.e. the CIF
and NICFI evaluations – came to similar conclusions as the GEF, that funding in
these climate change initiatives remains relatively small to global needs and may
also be unpredictable – thus putting a huge question mark on the global level impact
of climate change interventions.
The main thesis of the Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF, that success
at the micro level is not leading to a change in trends at the macro level because of
funding issues, is thus supported in the CIF and NICFI evaluations. Various
elements are mentioned in the funding gap: the subsidies for non-sustainable use
of natural resources which are substantially higher than funding of international
action against climate change; the relative low amount of funding versus the
identified global needs; and the unpredictability of funding in the coming years.
The core of the micro-macro paradox is further substantiated in the older World
Bank evaluations and the briefing note that the Evaluation Cooperation Group of
the multilateral banks developed for COP17 in Durban in 2010.
2.4 Surviving the Negative Effects of Climate Change
While the onslaught of climate change continues unabated, the relevance and
urgency of adaptation to changing circumstances has been increasing. While this
is still questioned in developed countries where climate change deniers hold office,
many if not all developing countries are working on national priority and action
plans for adaptation to climate change. While support for adaptation did not figure
prominently in the early years of climate action after the Earth Summit in 1992, it
has come to the foreground and is now seen as of equal importance as mitigation in
guidance of the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change. The international
portfolio for support to countries on adaptation is not as mature as the portfolio on
mitigation. Furthermore, international agreement on a comprehensive framework
for adaptation – what adaptation is, what it would be composed of and how it should
be measured – is still developing. While UNFCCC and the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change have done important work in providing a first understanding of
adaptation and how countries can develop national priority plans for adaptation
action, evaluations have not yet delivered a critical mass of evaluative evidence.
It could be argued that it is not necessary to look at adaptation from a global
perspective. To adapt or not adapt is not something that happens on a global scale.
While greenhouse gas emissions lead to climate change for the globe, adaptation is
by definition more local – if one country is well adapted, it does not lead to better
adaptation in its neighboring countries. Furthermore, while greenhouse gas
2 Action on Climate Change: What Does It Mean and Where Does It Lead To?
23
UN-REDDþ evaluations overlap to a large extent (NICFI being the biggest
donor to REDDþ initiatives), the difference may be due to a willingness or
reluctance to look into the future. On global level impact the evaluations that
were willing to enter into a somewhat reflective and speculative mode – i.e. the CIF
and NICFI evaluations – came to similar conclusions as the GEF, that funding in
these climate change initiatives remains relatively small to global needs and may
also be unpredictable – thus putting a huge question mark on the global level impact
of climate change interventions.
The main thesis of the Fifth Overall Performance Study of the GEF, that success
at the micro level is not leading to a change in trends at the macro level because of
funding issues, is thus supported in the CIF and NICFI evaluations. Various
elements are mentioned in the funding gap: the subsidies for non-sustainable use
of natural resources which are substantially higher than funding of international
action against climate change; the relative low amount of funding versus the
identified global needs; and the unpredictability of funding in the coming years.
The core of the micro-macro paradox is further substantiated in the older World
Bank evaluations and the briefing note that the Evaluation Cooperation Group of
the multilateral banks developed for COP17 in Durban in 2010.
2.4 Surviving the Negative Effects of Climate Change
While the onslaught of climate change continues unabated, the relevance and
urgency of adaptation to changing circumstances has been increasing. While this
is still questioned in developed countries where climate change deniers hold office,
many if not all developing countries are working on national priority and action
plans for adaptation to climate change. While support for adaptation did not figure
prominently in the early years of climate action after the Earth Summit in 1992, it
has come to the foreground and is now seen as of equal importance as mitigation in
guidance of the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change. The international
portfolio for support to countries on adaptation is not as mature as the portfolio on
mitigation. Furthermore, international agreement on a comprehensive framework
for adaptation – what adaptation is, what it would be composed of and how it should
be measured – is still developing. While UNFCCC and the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change have done important work in providing a first understanding of
adaptation and how countries can develop national priority plans for adaptation
action, evaluations have not yet delivered a critical mass of evaluative evidence.
It could be argued that it is not necessary to look at adaptation from a global
perspective. To adapt or not adapt is not something that happens on a global scale.
While greenhouse gas emissions lead to climate change for the globe, adaptation is
by definition more local – if one country is well adapted, it does not lead to better
adaptation in its neighboring countries. Furthermore, while greenhouse gas
2 Action on Climate Change: What Does It Mean and Where Does It Lead To?
23