Volume 1
Global climate change and sustainable development : third report of Session 2001-02 / International Development Committee.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. International Development Committee
- Date:
- 2002
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Global climate change and sustainable development : third report of Session 2001-02 / International Development Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.
48/92 page 46
![74. Neil Adger, Tyndall Centre, told us that at Marrakech (CoP-7) the GEF was given responsibility for another new fund, the Adaptation Fund.” Bilateral donor agencies and national governments are obviously the main players in terms of planning for the future and adaptation. But, with responsibility for so many different funds, GEF is well placed to coordinate much of the international activity and ensure information is shared.” It could ensure that knowledge gained from adaptation work carried out in developing countries was shared efficiently and effectively.” 75. GEF is the main source of funding for adaptation. Projects are funded in a three- stage process: Stage I for studies and planning only; Stage II for planning and capacity building; and, Stage III for further capacity building as well as actual implementation of adaptation measures. The International Institute for Environment and Development considered that this was a rather cumbersome process. Very few activities have been funded under Stage II and none have been funded under Stage III. 76. Bilateral and multilateral donors should ensure guidelines and procedures are simple | and straightforward so that the most vulnerable developing countries can access GEF funding easily for work on adaptation to climate change.~* GEF must address the needs of developing countries including: ¢ needs for adaptation; ¢ needs for understanding adaptation processes; and, ¢ needs to consider migration as a potentially sustainable adaptation strategy both locally and internationally.’ 77. DFID estimated that the UK had provided around £215 million to GEF since its inception. Negotiations are currently under way for the 3 replenishment of the GEF, to cover the period from 2002 to 2006. The UK has called for a fifty per cent increase in the funds available from US$2bn to US$3bn.* Adrian Davis, DFID, told us that the increase was to cover work arising from deteriorating global environmental trends and the new responsibilities GEF was being asked to take on.*” Decisions on the replenishment were . being delayed by the US and Japan, who together accounted for about forty per cent of the GEF. The US was two years, or US$220 million, in arrears on the GEF~*” and was unlikely to settle these arrears in a single payment. We support DFID’s call for an increase in funding available to the GEF provided that first, any additional resources are new resources and other development activities were not jeopardised, and secondly, DFID worked to ensure that a clear allocation was made within GEF for funding work on adaptation beyond capacity building and preparation of NAPAs. During the replenishment discussions DFID should use its influence to ensure climate change is not lost among the myriad other GEF activities.” 78. The GEF is essentially an environmental fund, with rules appropriate to global environmental concerns; there must be global benefits from work it funds and that the funding it provides must be additional or incremental. However, while these rules are relatively easy to apply to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, they are difficult to translate to climate adaptation (or at least to adaptation for human livelihoods). The costs are often not incremental and it is difficult to distinguish at present between the long-term 2 2 Ry 72 [para 21] 2477 228Ev 6 [para 32] 229 6](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b32221356_0001_0048.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
