Browse all documents

2017-6-29-adaptation-v-development-letter-to-gcf-21ae9ce90058dfa8.pdf

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

A letter from a coalition of civil society organizations to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Board urging the adoption of a holistic approach to climate adaptation that recognizes the overlap between adaptation and traditional development activities.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The authors argue that the distinction between "development" and "adaptation" is largely artificial, as vulnerability to climate change is highly correlated with development deficits. They assert that adaptation funding must address underlying causes of vulnerability and socioeconomic conditions, rather than focusing solely on physical impacts.
  • The GCF Board is criticized for preferring quantifiable, technological adaptation projects—such as early warning systems and physical infrastructure—over activities that increase adaptive capacity. The authors suggest that effective adaptation should include livelihood diversification, education, public health initiatives, and improving women's rights and access to resources.
  • The Board's failure to reach consensus on funding proposals from Bangladesh and Ethiopia indicates a need for better guidance for project proponents. The authors recommend that the GCF require an explicit theory of change to link activities to resilience and utilize expertise from other funds, such as the Adaptation Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the Least Developed Countries Fund.
  • The letter advocates for programmatic approaches to adaptation support rather than one-off projects, particularly for the most vulnerable countries. It suggests the GCF should fund the full cost of interventions that lead to climate resilience instead of focusing narrowly on incremental cost financing.

Cite the original document

APA
Center for International Environmental Law (2017). 2017-6-29-adaptation-v-development-letter-to-gcf-21ae9ce90058dfa8.pdf. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-6-29-Adaptation-v-Development-Letter-to-GCF.pdf
Chicago
Center for International Environmental Law. 2017-6-29-adaptation-v-development-letter-to-gcf-21ae9ce90058dfa8.pdf. 2017. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-6-29-Adaptation-v-Development-Letter-to-GCF.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=2017-6-29-adaptation-v-development-letter-to-gcf-21ae9ce90058dfa8.pdf |date=28 June 2017 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-6-29-Adaptation-v-Development-Letter-to-GCF.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw20172017629adaptationvdevelopmentlettertogcf21ae9ce90058dfa8pdf, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{2017-6-29-adaptation-v-development-letter-to-gcf-21ae9ce90058dfa8.pdf}}, publisher = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2017}, month = jun, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2017-6-29-Adaptation-v-Development-Letter-to-GCF.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated