Search

Wealthy countries spend increasing amounts of aid to support adaptation to climate change in developing countries and have committed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to prioritize adaptation aid to those 'particularly vulnerable' to climate change. While research has started to track this aid, it has not yet examined its allocation across all donor and recipient countries. We thus do not know to what extent vulnerable countries indeed receive more support for adaptation. We address this research gap and ask: how does this commitment to prioritizing particularly vulnerable countries translate into actual adaptation aid allocation? To what extent do vulnerable countries receive more adaptation aid? We address these questions though a quantitative analysis of data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on bilateral adaptation aid from 2011 through 2014. In contrast to other studies, we find that vulnerability-or more precisely, vulnerability indicators-matter for adaptation aid allocation. Countries that are more exposed to climate change risks, such as extreme weather events or sea level rise, receive more adaptation aid, both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of all adaptation aid. These results indicate that collectively (even if not at the level of each individual donor) donors align their bilateral adaptation aid allocation with global promises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports published within the issue which include the dynamics of climate finance system, the emergence of climate finance in international negotiations, and the systemic perspective on climate change.

Although there is a substantial amount of research that studies how environmental interest groups/non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) influence international environmental negotiations, both the theoretical work and the empirical evidence were not yet able to answer comprehensively if this makes it more likely that states, in turn, commit to stronger environmental agreements. This article seeks to contribute to clarifying this. First, the authors argue that a higher degree of ENGO access to official negotiations and a larger number of ENGOs actively participating during bargaining processes can facilitate outcomes of environmental negotiations. The authors then analyze quantitative data on international environmental regimes and their members' commitment levels from 1946 to 1998 and obtain robust support for their claims. However, the rationale on the introduced explanatory factors also implies that the impact of ENGO access on states' commitment levels should vary conditional on the number of ENGOs actively participating. The paper finds evidence for such an interaction, although the results go against our expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]