SHOW ME THE MONEY
229
The Adaptation Fund’s allocation is guided by the following principles, among others: the level of vulnerability, level of urgency and risks arising from delay; and ensuring access to the fund in a balanced and equitable manner’.40 What remains unresolved, however, is how to measure levels of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘urgency’, and then the successful prioritization of projects that are being funded with scarce resources. The resulting ambiguity has made it impossible for developing countries to reach agreement on which countries to prioritize for adaptation funding. Some countries have suggested the development of a ‘vulnerability index’, assuming that such an index could provide an objective answer to the question. As argued by Klein, however, a vulnerability index will not resolve the ambiguity; because the ‘level of vulnerability’ is not a measurable and quantifiable attribute that can be objectively determined.41 In fact, parties have experience with the use of indices to guide resource allocation decisions for mitigation. The former Resource Allocation Framework of the GEF combined two indices to facilitate objective and transparent decisions on a politically sensitive issue, but there has been much criticism over the framework. At the 25th GEF Council Meeting in June 2005, countries raised strong objections to the proposal of a Resource Allocation Framework. Among other things, they stated, ‘[w]e specifically oppose the ranking and categorization of recipient countries through non-transparent assessments based on questionable criteria. GEF resources should not be pre-allocated on such a basis’.42 It remains unclear whether or not any vulnerability index will receive a warmer welcome. Use of adaptation finance
While the prioritization of resources among countries should be informed by countries’ level of vulnerability, prioritization within countries is country-driven – i.e. based on criteria set by the countries themselves. These criteria should be developed through a transparent and participatory process. The UNFCCC has provided some guidance for in-country prioritization related to the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs), which states that, along with the level or degree of the adverse effects of climate change, least developed countries should consider poverty reduction to enhance adaptive capacity, synergy with other multilateral environmental agreements and cost-effectiveness when selecting priority adaptation activities.43 Ensuring that, once adaptation finance has been delivered, it is used for the intended purpose and has a valuable impact raises the issue of the monitoring and evaluation of adaptation outputs and outcomes. Measuring the performance of
GLOBAL_CORRUPTION_CS4.indb 229
3/15/2011 9:42:26 AM