Page - (000044) - in Evaluating Climate Change Action for Sustainable Development

“likelihood of higher level and longer term impact”, but theUN-REDDþ evalua- tion rated the same as “moderately unsatisfactory”. Although the NICFI and UN-REDDþ evaluations overlap to a large extent (NICFI being the biggest donor to REDDþ initiatives), the difference may be due to a willingness or reluctance to look into the future. On global level impact the evaluations that werewilling toenter intoasomewhat reflectiveandspeculativemode–i.e. theCIF andNICFI evaluations – came to similar conclusions as theGEF, that funding in these climate change initiatives remains relatively small to global needs andmay alsobeunpredictable–thusputtingahugequestionmarkontheglobal level impact of climate change interventions. Themain thesisof theFifthOverallPerformanceStudyof theGEF, that success at themicro level isnot leading toachange in trendsat themacro levelbecauseof funding issues, is thus supported in the CIF and NICFI evaluations. Various elements arementioned in the funding gap: the subsidies for non-sustainable use of natural resources which are substantially higher than funding of international action against climate change; the relative low amount of funding versus the identified global needs; and the unpredictability of funding in the coming years. The core of themicro-macro paradox is further substantiated in the olderWorld Bank evaluations and the briefing note that the EvaluationCooperationGroup of themultilateral banks developed forCOP17 inDurban in2010. 2.4 Surviving theNegativeEffects ofClimateChange While the onslaught of climate change continues unabated, the relevance and urgency of adaptation to changing circumstances has been increasing.While this is still questioned indevelopedcountrieswhereclimatechangedeniersholdoffice, many if not all developing countries are working on national priority and action plans for adaptation to climate change.While support for adaptationdidnotfigure prominently in the early years of climate action after theEarthSummit in 1992, it hascometo the foregroundand isnowseenasofequal importanceasmitigation in guidanceof theUNFrameworkConvention forClimateChange.The international portfolio for support to countries onadaptation is not asmature as theportfolio on mitigation. Furthermore, international agreement on a comprehensive framework foradaptation–whatadaptationis,what itwouldbecomposedofandhowitshould bemeasured–isstilldeveloping.WhileUNFCCCandtheIntergovernmentalPanel onClimateChangehavedone importantwork inprovidingafirst understandingof adaptation and how countries can develop national priority plans for adaptation action, evaluations havenot yet delivered a criticalmass of evaluative evidence. It could be argued that it is not necessary to look at adaptation from a global perspective.Toadapt ornot adapt is not something that happensonaglobal scale. Whilegreenhousegasemissions lead toclimatechange for theglobe,adaptation is bydefinitionmore local – if one country iswell adapted, it does not lead to better adaptation in its neighboring countries. Furthermore, while greenhouse gas 2 ActiononClimateChange:WhatDoes ItMean andWhereDoes ItLeadTo? 23