This is a presentation of the state of play of Climate Adaptation Marker Quality Review, created by Valérie Gaveau from the OECD DCD Secretariat, presented at the DAC 15th ENVIRONET Workshop on Climate Finance in Paris. For more information, please contact Stephanie Ockenden (stephanie.ockenden@oecd.org).

1. CLIMATE ADAPTATION
MARKER: QUALITY
REVIEW
OECD ENVIRONET workshop on Rio markers, climate and
development finance, 24-25 June 2013
DCD/DAC/STAT(2013)5

2. Presentation structure
Background – adaptation marker
Findings of the quality review
Options to improve
2

3. • Adopted by the DAC end 2009
• Implemented starting with 2010 flows
• An activity should be classified as adaptation-
related if it « intends to reduce vulnerability
of human or natural systems to the impacts of
climate change and climate-related risks, by
maintaining or increasing adaptive capacity
and resilience. »
Background – adaptation marker
3

4. Findings of the quality review
Assessment based on activity descriptions
 examples
Reflects the context-specific nature of adaptation projects…
… but prompts criticisms, e.g. Germanwatch paper.
For score “principal”,
clear focus on adaptation.
For score “significant”,
seldom explicit focus on
adaptation.
Examples:
Sustainable agriculture and
fisheries.
Disaster risk reduction and
preparedness.
Improved access to drinking
water and sanitary supply.
Examples:
Securing water supply in the
context of climate change.
Climate change adaptation
initiative.
Research on the impact of climate
change on marine biosphere.
4

5. Findings of the quality review
Reporting is not consistent for contributions to pooled funds
• Ex: Global Water Partnerships, ICCO
alliance
• May be considered as an
overstatement.
Principal/significant
score applied to org. that
partially work towards
adaptation.
• Some members report their contributions to
GEF climate funds as bilateral instead of
multilateral. This can lead to double-
counting.
• For the same fund, some members apply
score “principal”, others “significant”
and others “not targeted”, e.g. UNREDD.
Reporting not
comparable among
members for the same
fund.
5

6. Findings of the quality review
Differences between adaptation and mitigation
• Wide variations in scores among members.
• Score “principal” is low for adaptation, high for mitigation.
• Mitigation is a clear objective in large-value projects e.g.
energy;
• Climate-resilient projects address other prime objectives.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Share of activities marked "principal" in total adaptation-related aid
Share of activities marked "principal" in total mitigation-related aid
6

7. Findings of the quality review
Large overlap between adaptation and mitigation
Adaptation activities
Mitigation activities
USD 9
billion
USD 16
billionOverlap
43%
7

8. Findings of the quality review
Large overlap between adaptation and mitigation
Adaptation
-“only”
52% overlap
39% overlap
Overlap with
mitigation
Principal score
USD 3 billion
Significant score
USD 6 billion
8
Total adaptation-related aid = 9 billion, of which overlap= 4 billion

9. Findings of the quality review
Predominant sectors
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
principal score significant score
ENV.
ENV.
AGR.
WATER
WATERWATER
AGR.
Humanitarian
Humanitarian
Other
Other
9

10. For discussion: options to improve
the adaptation marker data
Alternative options to improve the
adaptation marker data
Measuring
climate
finance
Quality
review
MDB
approach
10

11. Brainstorming: options to improve
the adaptation marker data
What can be done now:
 IMPROVE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS: explicitly refer to the adaptation
objective.
 REFINE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA OF THE ADAPTATION MARKER
based on purpose, context and activity linkage (MDB approach).
 INTRODUCE INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL CODES to identify bilateral
contributions to pooled funds (e.g. UN-REDD).
 INTRODUCE A SUB-SECTOR in the general environment category to
identify policy work for adaptation.
What can be discussed further:
 Adjustments to the methodology
 Moving towards a more quantitative method
11

12. Brainstorming- cont’d
For large projects, identify
components addressing
adaptation, and only count
those components as “climate
finance”.
Is a “marker” with scoring
system “principal”/ “significant” the
right method for measuring adaptation-
related aid?
ADJUSTMENTS TO
THE
METHODOLOGY
MOVE TOWARDS A
MORE QUANTITATIVE
APPROACH
12
YES (best approximation) NO (climate-resilient projects address other prime objective)
Avoid overstatement by:
- Ruling out applying the
“significant” score to large
programmes only partially
working towards the objective.
- Ruling out scoring an activity as
“principal” for both adaptation
and mitigation.
- Only counting as “climate
finance” those activities marked
as “principal”.
Mapping scores to percentages would
be artificial