2021 adaptation finance decisions

Legal assistance paper

All reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information at the time the advice was produced (please refer to the date produced below). However, the materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and may have been superseded by more recent developments. They do not constitute formal legal advice or create a lawyer-client relationship. You should seek legal advice to take account of your own interests. To the extent permitted any liability is excluded. Those consulting the database may wish to contact LRI for clarifications and an updated analysis.

Date produced: 01/09/2022


1. Does the request by the COP (in Decision 4/CP.26 para.9) to some developed country Parties to significantly increase their provision of adaptation finance, including by, as appropriate, considering doubling adaptation finance with the aim of achieving a balance between mitigation and adaptation, differ, in substance, from that by the CMA (in Decision decision 1/CMA.3 para.18) urgingdeveloped country Parties to at least double their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties from 2019 levels by 2025, in the context of achieving a balance between mitigation and adaptation in the provision of scaled-up financial resources? What is the difference? What legal arguments could be made by parties to say that the CMA request is the more authoritative of the two?

2. What is meant by “doubling”, “at least double” and “collective provision”? How is this going to be calculated? What will be the baselines? How will this be operationalised?

3. Based on UNFCCC practice, through which process could parties take the issue of adaptation finance forward? E.g. could they propose an agenda item? And if so, under which body? Or are there other options, for instance setting up a work programme?