Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Vulnerability-based allocations in loss and damage finance

Nature Climate Change volume 13, pages 1055–1062 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The recent creation of a loss and damage fund under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was heralded as a major breakthrough for Global South negotiators. As details of the fund are currently being negotiated, some analysts are calling for ‘objective’ means through which funding would be allocated to ‘particularly vulnerable’ developing countries. On the basis of a review of past debates relating to the identification of priority beneficiaries of international adaptation finance, we caution that such an approach is likely to bring division and delay. Quantitative vulnerability indicators remain conceptually fraught and methodologically complex. Furthermore, the adoption of vulnerability indicators will not fully depoliticize allocation decisions, given the power dynamics between and among contributor and beneficiary countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harvey, F., Morton, A. & Greenfield, P. COP27: EU agrees to loss and damage fund to help poor countries amid climate disasters. The Guardian (18 November 2022); https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/18/cop27-eu-agrees-to-loss-and-damage-fund-to-help-poor-countries-recover-from-climate-disasters

  2. Falzon, D. et al. Tactical opposition: obstructing loss and damage finance in the United Nations climate negotiations. Glob. Environ. Politics https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00722 (2023). This article uncovers four periods of L&D finance obstruction and outlines a typology of 14 tactics countries have used to delay progress, knowledge of which can help L&D finance advocates better anticipate and respond to these tactics in future climate negotiations.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Funding Arrangements for Responding to Loss and Damage Associated with the Adverse Effects of Climate Change, Including a Focus on Addressing Loss and Damage Decision -/CP.27 -/CMA.4 (UNFCCC, 2022).

  4. Schipper, E. L. F. Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 15, 82–92 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Leiter, T. Too little, too slow? Climate adaptation at the United Nations climate change negotiations since the adoption of the Paris Agreement. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 16, 243–258 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lai, M., Robinson, S., Salas, E., Thao, W. & Shorb, A. Climate justice for small island developing states: identifying appropriate international financing mechanisms for loss and damage. Clim. Policy 22, 1213–1224 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan, M. R., Robinson, S., Weikmans, R., Ciplet, D. & Roberts, J. T. Twenty-five years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens. Clim. Change 161, 251–269 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (United Nations, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Owen, G. Equity and justice as central components of climate change adaptation. One Earth 4, 1373–1374 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. UNFCCC COP 1: Summary Report, 28 March–7 April 1995 (IISD, 1995); https://enb.iisd.org/events/unfccc-cop-1/summary-report-28-march-7-april-1995

  11. Bali Action Plan (UNFCCC, 2007).

  12. Copenhagen Accord (UNFCCC, 2009).

  13. Cancun Agreements (UNFCCC, 2010).

  14. Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T. & Khan, M. Power in a Warming World: The New Global Politics of Climate Change and the Remaking of Environmental Inequality (MIT Press, 2015).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015).

  16. Weikmans, R. The Normative Foundations of International Climate Adaptation Finance (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Horstmann, B. Operationalizing the adaptation fund: challenges in allocating funds to the vulnerable. Clim. Policy 11, 1086–1096 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Klein, R. J. Identifying countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change: an academic or political challenge. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 3, 284–291 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Klein, R. J. T. & Mohner, A. The political dimension of vulnerability: implications for the Green Climate Fund. IDS Bull. 42, 15–22 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Murphy, D., Tirpak, D., Drexhage, J. & Gagnon-Lebrun, F. Encouraging Developing Country Participation in a Future Climate Change Regime (IISD, 2009); https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/developing_country_participation_in_climate.pdf

  21. Schalatek, L. A Matter of Principle(s)—A Normative Framework for a Global Compact on Public Climate Finance (Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moore, F. C. ‘Doing adaptation’: the construction of adaptive capacity and its function in the international climate negotiations. St Antony’s Int. Rev. 5, 66–88 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas, D. S. G. & Twyman, C. Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Glob. Environ. Change 15, 115–124 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Paavola, J. & Adger, N. Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol. Econ. 56, 594–609 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dellink, R. et al. Sharing the burden of financing adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 411–421 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Füssel, H.-M., Hallegatte, S. & Reder, M. in Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability. Linking Climate and Development Policy (eds Eden-Hofer, O. et al.) 311–330 (Springer, 2012).

  27. Stadelmann, M., Persson, A. ̊, Ratajczak-Juszko, I. & Michaelowa, A. Equity and cost-effectiveness of multilateral adaptation finance: are they friends or foes? Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 14, 101–120 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Persson, A. & Remling, E. Equity and efficiency in adaptation finance: initial experiences of the adaptation fund. Clim. Policy 14, 488–506 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuhl, L. Policy making under scarcity: reflections for designing socially just climate adaptation policy. One Earth 4, 202–212 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ciplet, D., Roberts, J. T. & Khan, M. The politics of international climate adaptation funding: justice and divisions in the greenhouse. Glob. Environ. Politics 13, 49–68 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mendelsohn, R. Efficient adaptation to climate change. Clim. Change 45, 583–600 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fankhauser, S. & Burton, I. Spending adaptation money wisely. Clim. Policy 11, 1037–1049 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Arndt, C. The politics of governance ratings. Int. Public Manag. J. 11, 275–297 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Langbein, L. & Knack, S. The worldwide governance indicators: six, one, or none? J. Dev. Stud. 46, 350–370 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Betzold, C. & Weiler, F. Allocation of aid for adaptation to climate change: do vulnerable countries receive more support? Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 17, 17–36 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Weiler, F., Betzold, C. & Dornan, M. Vulnerability, good governance, or donor interests? The allocation of aid for climate change adaptation. World Dev. 104, 65–77 (2018). In contrast to previous research, this article demonstrates that donors partially take recipient country vulnerability into account when allocating adaptation finance and that countries that are more physically exposed are more likely to receive more aid on a per capita basis, as are low-income countries and SIDS.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mori, A., Rahman, S. M. & Uddin, M. N. Climate financing through the adaptation fund: what determines fund allocation? J. Environ. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496519877483 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Doshi, D. & Garschagen, M. Understanding adaptation finance allocation: which factors enable or constrain vulnerable countries to access funding? Sustainability 12, 4308 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Islam, M. M. Distributive justice in global climate finance—recipients’ climate vulnerability and the allocation of climate funds. Glob. Environ. Change 73, 102475 (2022). This article finds that the most vulnerable countries are not receiving the highest amounts of adaptation funding and, similar to a previous study41, also finds that countries receive decreasing amounts beyond a certain level of vulnerability.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Robertsen, J., Francken, N. & Molenaers, N. Determinants of the Flow of Bilateral Adaptation-Related Climate Change Financing to Sub-Saharan African Countries LICOS Discussion Paper 373 (Catholic Univ. Leuven, 2015).

  41. Saunders, N. Climate Change Adaptation Finance: Are the Most Vulnerable Nations Prioritised? (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2019); www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/climate-change-adaptation-finance-are-the-most-vulnerable-nations-prioritised.pdfIn contrast to previous research, this working paper finds that the relationship between climate vulnerability and adaptation finance is concave, and presents evidence of diminishing and then negative returns to vulnerability.

  42. Michaelowa, K., Michaelowa, A., Reinsberg, B. & Shishlov, I. Do multilateral development bank trust funds allocate climate finance efficiently? Sustainability 12, 5529 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Garschagen, M. & Doshi, D. Does funds-based adaptation finance reach the most vulnerable countries? Glob. Environ. Change 73, 102450 (2022). This article finds that many of the most vulnerable countries, particularly African LDCs, have not been able to access GCF funds and that institutional capacity is an important factor in determining a country’s access to funds but not whether it actually gets funds.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries in 2016–2020: Insights from Disaggregated Analysis (OECD, 2022); https://doi.org/10.1787/286dae5d-en

  45. Robinson, S. & Dornan, M.International financing for climate change adaptation in small island developing states. Reg. Environ. Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1085-1 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Reckien, D. What is in an index? Construction method, data metric, and weighting scheme determine the outcome of composite social vulnerability indices in New York City. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 1439–1451 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Weiler, F. & Kloeck, C. Donor interactions in the allocation of adaptation aid: a network analysis. Earth Syst. Gov. 7, 100099 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Füssel, H.-M. & Klein, R. J. T. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim. Change 75, 301–329 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Nygaard, L. P. & Schjolden, A. N. E. Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim. Policy 7, 73–88 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. IPCC Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).

  51. IPCC Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation 32 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  52. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  53. IPCC Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  54. Otto, I. M. et al. Social vulnerability to climate change: a review of concepts and evidence. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1651–1662 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Araos, M. et al. Equity in human adaptation-related responses: a systematic global review. One Earth 4, 1454–1467 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Weikmans, R. Comprendre la mobilisation financière internationale autour de l’aide à l’adaptation au changement climatique. Crit. Int. 4, 121–139 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sharma, J. & Ravindranath, N. H. Applying IPCC 2014 framework for hazard-specific vulnerability assessment under climate change. Environ. Res. Commun. 1, 051004 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Barnett, J., Lambert, S. & Fry, I. The hazards of indicators: insights from the environmental vulnerability index. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 98, 102–119 (2008). This article focuses on the EVI and warns against the use of quantitative indicators for measuring environmental performance, comparing countries and/or allocating finance.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kaly, U. et al. Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) to Summarise National Environmental Vulnerability Profiles SOPAC Technical Report 275 (SOPAC, 1999); https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267821112_Environmental_Vulnerability_Index_EVI_to_summarise_national_environmental_vulnerability_profiles

  60. Climate Vulnerability Monitor 2010: The State of the Climate Crisis (DARA, CVF, 2010); https://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/CVM_E-01082011.pdf

  61. ND-GAIN Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative (ND-GAIN) (Univ. Notre Dame, 2023); https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/methodology/

  62. Busby, J., Smith, T. & Krishnan, N. Climate security vulnerability in Africa mapping 3.0. Political Geogr. 43, 51 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kaly, U., Pratt, C. R. & Mitchell, J. The Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) 2004 SOPAC Technical Report 384 (SOPAC, 2004); https://gsd.spc.int/sopac/evi/Files/EVI%202004%20Technical%20Report.pdf

  64. Nazari Nooghabi, S. et al. Social, economic and environmental vulnerability: the case of wheat farmers in Northeast Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 816, 151519 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Baishakhy, S. D., Islam, M. A. & Kamruzzaman, M. Overcoming barriers to adapt rice farming to recurring flash floods in haor wetlands of Bangladesh. Heliyon 9, e14011 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Thomas, K. et al. Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: a social science review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.565 (2018). This article focuses on disproportionate climate vulnerability and encourages attention on the root causes of vulnerability.

  67. Rufat, S., Tate, E., Emrich, C. T. & Antolini, F. How valid are social vulnerability models? Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109, 1131–1153 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Roberts, J. T. & Weikmans, R. Fragmentation, failing trust and enduring tensions over what counts as climate finance. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 17, 129–137 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Robinson, S. Climate change adaptation in SIDS: a systematic review of the literature pre and post the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.653 (2020).

  70. Foley, A. et al. Understanding ‘islandness’. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2023.2193249 (2023).

  71. CVF Members (CVF, 2022); https://thecvf.org/members/

  72. Takayabu, I. et al. Climate change effects on the worst-case storm surge: a case study of Typhoon Haiyan. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 064011 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lagmay, A. M. F. et al. Devastating storm surges of Typhoon Haiyan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 11, 1–12 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Randil, C., Siriwardana, C. & Sandaruwan Rathnayaka, B. A statistical method for pre-estimating impacts from a disaster: a case study of floods in Kaduwela, Sri Lanka. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 76, 103010 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Robinson, S. & Carlson, D. A just alternative to litigation: applying restorative justice to climate-related loss and damage. Third World Q. 42, 1384–1395 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Sultana, F. The unbearable heaviness of climate coloniality. Political Geogr. 99, 102638 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Robinson, S. Climate change adaptation trends in small island developing states. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 22, 669–691 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Anjum, G. & Fraser, A. Vulnerabilities associated with slow-onset events (SoEs) of climate change: multi-level analysis in the context of Pakistan. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 50, 54–63 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Weikmans, R., Roberts, J. T., Baum, J., Bustos, M. C. & Durand, A. Assessing the credibility of how climate adaptation aid projects are categorised. Dev. Pract. 27, 458–471 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Roberts, J. T. et al. Rebooting a failed promise of climate finance. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00990-2 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Füssel, H.-M. How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and vulnerability to climate change: a comprehensive indicator-based assessment. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 597–611 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Malcomb, D. W., Weaver, E. A. & Krakowka, A. R. Vulnerability modeling for sub-Saharan Africa: an operationalized approach in Malawi. Appl. Geogr. 48, 17–30 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Nightingale, A. J. Power and politics in climate change adaptation efforts: struggles over authority and recognition in the context of political instability. Geoforum 84, 11–20 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Estoque, R. C. et al. Has the IPCC’s revised vulnerability concept been well adopted? Ambio 52, 376–389 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ford, J. D. et al. Vulnerability and its discontents: the past, present, and future of climate change vulnerability research. Clim. Change 151, 189–203 (2018). This article tracks and evaluates concerns over the use of vulnerability approaches in climate change research and calls for efforts to revitalize vulnerability research with emphasis to be placed on developing new empirical studies that bridge research and practice.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Kuhlicke, C. et al. Spinning in circles? A systematic review on the role of theory in social vulnerability, resilience and adaptation research. Glob. Environ. Change 80, 102672 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Funtowicz, S. From risk calculations to narratives of danger. Clim. Risk Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2020.100212 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Pickering, J., Vanderheiden, S. & Miller, S. Ethical Issues in the United Nations Climate Negotiations: A Preliminary Analysis of Parties’ Positions (Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, 2009); https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seumas-Miller/publication/228384390_Ethical_issues_in_the_United_Nations_climate_negotiations_a_preliminary_analysis_of_parties%27_positions/links/0f31752e2ed720e778000000/Ethical-issues-in-the-United-Nations-climate-negotiations-a-preliminary-analysis-of-parties-positions.pdf

  89. Robinson, S. in Limits to Climate Change Adaptation (eds Leal, F. W. & Nalau, J.) Ch. 14, 263–281 (Springer, 2018); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64599-5_15

  90. Eriksen, S. H., Nightingale, A. J. & Eakin, H. Reframing adaptation: the political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 523–533 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Barnett, J. Global environmental change II: political economies of vulnerability to climate change. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 44, 1172–1184 (2020). This progress report emphasizes that climate vulnerability is fundamentally an issue of the political economy and explains the relationship between constructions of vulnerability, the actors with interests in it and the institutions that create it.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Béné, C., Wood, R. G, Newsham, A. & Davies, M. Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? (IDS, 2012); http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Wp405.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank C. Jones, H. August, Q. Roberts and T. Culver for early research assistance. This work was supported by the Academy of Finland under grant no. 333127 (R.W.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, Colby College, Waterville, ME, USA

    Stacy-ann Robinson

  2. Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    J. Timmons Roberts

  3. Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki, Finland

    Romain Weikmans

  4. Department of Political Science, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Romain Weikmans

  5. Department of Sociology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Danielle Falzon

Authors
  1. Stacy-ann Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Timmons Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Romain Weikmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Danielle Falzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.R., J.T.R., R.W. and D.F. all made significant contributions to the conceptualization, drafting and revision of this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stacy-ann Robinson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Florian Weiler, Md. Mofakkarul Islam and Siri Eriksen for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robinson, Sa., Roberts, J.T., Weikmans, R. et al. Vulnerability-based allocations in loss and damage finance. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 1055–1062 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01809-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01809-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing