Assessing the credibility of how climate adaptation aid projects are categorised

This article presents the findings of a re-evaluation of all 5,200 aid projects that OECD donors reported for 2012 as "climate change adaptation"-related, based on the "Rio marker" classification system. The findings confirm those from the academic and grey literature that the ab...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Development in practice 2017-05, Vol.27 (4), p.458-471
Main Authors: Weikmans, Romain, Timmons Roberts, J., Baum, Jeffrey, Bustos, Maria Camila, Durand, Alexis
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adaptation
Aid - Aid effectiveness, Monitoring and Evaluation
Classification
Climate change
Cooperation
Credibility
Data quality
Developed countries
Development policies
Development programs
Donors
Environment (built and natural) - Climate change
Financial reporting
Global warming
Governance and public policy
Industrialized nations
International cooperation
International economic organizations
Mainstreaming
Quality control
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This article presents the findings of a re-evaluation of all 5,200 aid projects that OECD donors reported for 2012 as "climate change adaptation"-related, based on the "Rio marker" classification system. The findings confirm those from the academic and grey literature that the absence of independent quality control makes the adaptation Rio marker data almost entirely unreliable. This lack of credibility impedes meaningful assessments of progress toward the mainstreaming of adaptation in development cooperation activities. It also erodes trust in international climate negotiations, given that these data are frequently used in the financial reporting of developed countries to the UNFCCC.
ISSN:0961-4524
1364-9213
DOI:10.1080/09614524.2017.1307325