Tracking Funding for Climate Efforts in Developing Countries

1. Tracking in funding of climate efforts in developing countries and potential for tracking with georeferencing and crowdsourcingTimmons Roberts Brown University/AidDataSpecial thanks to Christian Peratsakis and AidDataPreparatory Workshop for Third Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2011 Tracking of Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery Investments in International Aid 13-14 April 2011, Helsinki, Finland

2. Assessments of Need and Pledges at Copenhagen and Cancun • Now many estimates of adaptation/resilience need: UNDP, World Bank, Oxfam, IIED; vary from 10 to over 200b/year • Copenhagen Accord promised “New and Additional” funds • $30billion in “Fast Start Finance” 2010-2012 • “scaling up” to $100 billion/year by 2020 But: • Public and private • Loans and grants • No baseline set • Much variation in donor categorization, lack standards and registry

3. Learning from experience tracking climate adaptation funding 2008 -- Categorization of 115,000 projects in OECD DAC 2000-2006 2009 -- Categorization of 2,225 DFID projects 2007-2008 portfolio on 12 climate adaptation schemes 2010 -- ffort to code all of PLAID 1.9.2, precursor to AidData 1.0 and experiment with naïve bayesian “machine coding” 2011 -- GFDRR/AidData categorization of 70,000 projects 2011 -- Crowd-sourcing pilot in Uganda with UNICEF 2011 -- CCAPS—Univ. of Texas/MINERVA Africa vulnerability and fragile states—identification, georeferencing, enhancement

4. Humble Beginnings: First efforts to categorize by climate In 2008, PLAID coders categorized a random sample of 115,000 projects from the OECD CRS 2000-2006 on a six-point climate coding system: 1: Mitigation: Energy efficiency and reducing emissions 2: Mitigation: Renewable energy 3: Mitigation: Other 4: Adaption studies and plans 5: Adaption action 6: Natural disaster prevention

5. 115,000 projects 2000-2006 DAC Coded For Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

6. The largest natural disaster projects we encountered

7. Gordon Brown pledge of climate adaptation funding agency need to decide “what counts as adaptation” In 2009, DFID contracted AidData to categorized all 2,226 projects in DFID’s 2008-9 portfolio Goal was to understand which projects would be captured by different categorization schemes Expert review at June 2009 Bonn UNFCCC negotiations A case study: DFID

8. The categorizations 1. OECD “Rio Markers” (Mitigation) 2. OECD Draft Adaptation Markers   3. Mitigation and Adaptation Planning and Action 4. High-Carbon vs. Low-Carbon Adaptation 5. Adaptation "Models" (WRI 1) 6. The "Targetedness Continuum” (WRI 2) 7. Adaptation Strategies Employed (WRI 3) 8. Vernon’s (DFID) Triangle Categorization 9. LDC/Lesotho 2008 position on adaptation 10. EU Framework for Action on Adaptation 11. Nairobi Work Programme 12. Bellagio Framework 13. Qualifies for Waxman-Markey Bill Adaptation Funding 14. World Bank Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) Qualifying Requirements

9. 12 categorizations of 2,226 DFID projects

10. OECD Climate Adaptation Marker • 1 – Significant objective: Adaptation to climate change was an important, but not principal objective. Minimum criteria: a.) It is intended to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems to the impacts of climate change by increasing adaptive capacity and resilience and reducing climate related risk; or b.) It aims to develop the necessary capacity to forecast the impacts of climate change, to assess climate risks and vulnerability or to develop climate risk management responses  • 2 – Principal objective: Climate change adaptation is an explicit objective of the activity and fundamental in its design; a principal objective meets the minimum criteria of a significant objective, while answering negatively to the question “Would the activity have been undertaken without this objective?”

11. WRI “targetedness continuum” Weathering the Storm McGray 2009 • 0 – No noted adaptation features of project • 1 –  Addressing the Drivers of Vulnerability: At the development end of the spectrum, activities reduce poverty and address other fundamental shortages of capability that make people vulnerable to harm. • 2 –  Building Response Capacity: Adaptation activities focus on building robust systems for problem solving. •  3 –  Managing Climate Risk: •  4 –  Confronting Climate Change: Actions focus almost exclusively on addressing impacts associated with climate change.  • 99 – Not sufficient data to categorize

12. DFID Triangle (Vernon 2008) 0 – Not targeted: Outside the DFID Adaptation Circle. 1 – “Good development practice”: Educated, healthy people working in a diversified economy are less vulnerable overall and better able to deal with climatic shocks and change 2 – Climate ‘proofing’ climate-sensitive development measures and efforts to reduce vulnerability 3 – Expanding climate-relevant development measures and efforts to build resilience and reduce vulnerability, e.g. disaster risk reduction (incremental shifts).  4 – Undertaking climate-specific measures to target climate risks (new approach). • 99 – Insufficient data to categorize

13. Figure 2 Figure 1 Figure 3 Figure 4

14. A consensus measure?

17. AdaptationWatch promoting transparency & accountability in climate adaptation

18. Conclusions • Promises require a climate funding registry and tracking • Need for independent categorization of projects • There was a fairly remarkable consensus that about 3-3.5 percent of DFID projects in 2008-09 were narrowly defined as adaptation • Over 30 times as many projects fall under a broad definition of adaptation as the narrow adaptation classification • Several options exist for categorization—could nest DRR inside climate adaptation funding • Much future research needed

19. Contact Us • Timmons Roberts, Brown University, USA timmons@brown.edu • Aiddata.org

20. Extra slides

21. Population Density and Active World Bank Projects

22. Poverty and Active World Bank Projects

23. 31 3

25. 2006 disaster risk reduction projects