Last week, world leaders, development officials, and civil society and private sector representatives gathered in New York for the U.N. Climate Summit. The meeting lies outside U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations, and its goal was to spur support for a global climate agreement in Paris next year. Climate finance nonetheless made its way into the agenda, as France and a number of donors pledged $1.3 billion to the Green Climate Fund.
How would GCF spend this money?
A multilateral mechanism that has yet to gain momentum, GCF only recently decided its disbursement priorities. At its board meeting in Bali, Indonesia, earlier this year, GCF agreed to split its allocation: spend equally between mitigation and adaptation activities.
Two years ago, the end of the fast-start finance period — a collective $30 billion commitment that developed countries, according to their own reporting, exceeded by at least $3 billion — sparked some interest in striking a balance between these two activities. Meant to provide a balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation, FSF galvanized significant support for the latter, which some say is a neglected component of the climate change discussion. But despite the funding increase for adaptation during the FSF period, much of the contributions were still earmarked for mitigation activities: adaptation finance accounted for just 12 percent of top contributors’ FSF, according to the World Resources Institute.