Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Funding coastal and marine fisheries projects under the climate change
regime
Solène Guggisberg1
Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (NILOS), Utrecht University, Newtonlaan 201, 3584 BH Utrecht, the Netherlands

A B S T R A C T

The oceans and fisheries are strongly impacted by climate change and acidification, and will increasingly be so. Four multilateral funds have been created under the
climate change regime in order to support developing countries’ adaptation. These funds finance a number of projects mostly or partly related to marine and coastal
fisheries. They include measures of a structural nature meant to modify laws, policies or strategies and to improve one’s understanding of climate change impacts on
fisheries; measures to improve fish stocks’ resilience to climate change, by reducing harvesting and ecosystem-related stressors; and measures to improve fishing
communities’ resilience in terms of food security and livelihoods. A majority of the marine fisheries projects focuses on the countries that are most vulnerable to the
impacts of climate change on marine fisheries. However, many vulnerable countries still do not receive financial support for adaptation in the marine fisheries sector.
The four multilateral funds operate with insufficient and unequal levels of transparency regarding several stages of projects’ cycles; this raises issues of efficiency and
accountability. The four funds also do not provide a harmonized and searchable marker dedicated to fisheries; this lack of transparency makes it impossible for the
international community to comprehensively monitor progress in the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals 13 and 14. In any case, the existence of
adaptation projects focused on coastal and marine fisheries may serve to promote the mainstreaming of ocean-related questions into the climate change regime.

1. Introduction
Fisheries contribute to food security and the livelihoods of millions
of people around the globe. The dire status of fish stocks, mainly due to
overfishing and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, is a cause
for concern. In addition to the high levels of fishing pressure on stocks
[1], climate change is acting as an additional stressor. The Paris
Agreement, the most recent international treaty dedicated to re-
sponding to climate change, aims to hold the increase of global tem-
peratures below 2-degree Celsius, with the ambition to limit such in-
crease to 1.5-degree Celsius. Even if mitigation, that is the reduction of
emissions of greenhouse gases and use of carbon sinks and removal
procedures, is successful towards these goals, it is recognized that cli-
mate change will have adverse impacts [2,3]. Such impacts on the
marine environment will be even longer lasting than those on land,
since oceans react more slowly than the atmosphere to changes in cu-
mulative greenhouse gases emissions [4].
Climate change will–and already does–impact the oceans and
coastal and marine fisheries. According to the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report on Oceans Systems, the
warming of the atmosphere leads to an average increase in oceans’
temperature, which impacts fish productivity and spatial distribution,
with fish moving towards the poles where water is colder [5–7].
Moreover, and although ocean acidification is a phenomenon related to,
rather than caused by, climate change, increased carbon dioxide (CO2)
levels in the atmosphere lead to a decrease in oceans’ pH levels. This
impacts coral reef ecosystems, in the form of reduced rates of coral
formation, as well as other calcifying organisms such as some plankton
species, and fish [5,8–11]. Finally, de-oxygenation of increasingly large
parts of the oceans also triggers deleterious impacts on many marine
species [5,12–13].
These physical and chemical impacts on oceans and marine fisheries
will not be felt equally around the world. Not only are developing
countries relying heavily on fishery products for food security and li-
velihoods, and hence are more vulnerable to decreased productivity of
stocks, but fish stocks’ redistribution is also expected to further the
imbalance between the global North and South [14]. The IPCC 5th
Assessment Report states that climate change “will cause a 30 to 70%
increase in the fisheries yield of some high-latitude regions by 2055
(relative to 2005), a redistribution at mid-latitudes, but a drop of
40–60% in the tropics and the Antarctic, based on 2 °C warming above
preindustrial values” [5].
Affected communities, States, and regions will consequently have to
adapt. In 2007, the IPCC pointed out that adaptation was the only
available and appropriate response for certain impacts of climate
change [15]. Adaptation is defined as an “adjustment in natural or
human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or
their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial

E-mail address: s.a.guggisberg@uu.nl.

1
Acknowledges support from the Nippon Foundation Nereus Program, a research collaboration between Utrecht University and 17 partner institutions.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.015
Received 27 June 2018; Received in revised form 7 November 2018; Accepted 7 November 2018
0308-597X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Guggisberg, S., Marine Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.015
S. Guggisberg Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

opportunities” [15]. Autonomous natural adaptation takes place in

USD 2200 million (for adaptation and mitigation projects)

of which approx. 638 million (29%) have been spent for
Also reference to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
For adaptation: livelihoods of people and communities;
marine environments through processes such as shifts in distribution

infrastructure and built environment; ecosystem and

ecosystem services; health, food and water security
[4]. The focus here is on planned active human system adaptation,

All developing countries parties to the UNFCCC

which is complex and costly [16]. Climate finance is meant to help
certain categories of States meet their adaptation needs. Such support is
derived from the common but differentiated responsibility enshrined in

20 substantive adaptation projects [46]

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). This 1992 treaty explicitly stipulates that developed coun-
tries must “provide new and additional financial resources” to assist

Adaptation and mitigation

developing countries both in meeting their obligations and in adapting
to the impacts of climate change. Many bilateral and multilateral ave-

adaptation [46,47]
nues exist to channel financial support for adaptation to climate
change, both through funding specifically earmarked for climate
change and through traditional official development assistance. The
focus here is exclusively on the four multilateral funds set up under the

2010
GCF
climate change regime to support climate change adaptation.
This article examines the adaptation projects, financed under the

ecosystem-based adaptation; food security; forests; multisector

Agriculture; coastal zone management; disaster risk reduction;
climate change adaptation funding regime, which address fisheries. It

Vulnerable developing countries parties to the Kyoto Protocol

first introduces the four multilateral funds directly created under the

projects; rural development; urban development; water

regime in order to support adaptation (Section 2). It then identifies the
number of projects that are mainly or partly related to coastal and
marine fisheries, proposes a typology of the funded measures, and
analyzes them (Section 3). This article then discusses important defi-

63 substantive adaptation projects [45]

ciencies in the information made publicly available by the funds and it
points to the need for them to increase the levels of transparency at all
stages of a projectʼs cycle (Section 4). It finally suggests practical ways
through which the climate change funds could improve transparency
(Section 5). Investigating the climate change regime as a source of

USD 418.1 million [45]

funding for ocean conservation and sustainable fisheries is important
not only because it represents one of the growing pools of resources
potentially available to States dependent on fisheries, but also because

management
Adaptation

adaptation may be one way to promote the mainstreaming of ocean-

related questions into the climate change regime.
2001
AF

2. Four funds
4 financing windows of which the 2 first are active:

All vulnerable developing countries (Non-Annex I

USD 287.9 million (for adaptation projects) [44]

Agriculture and food security; water resources management; coastal zone

Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is expected to be

management; infrastructure, including transport and energy; disaster risk
adaptation; technology transfer; mitigation in

extremely costly. It was already made clear in Article 4(4) of the

selected sectors; economic diversification

66 substantive adaptation projects [44]

UNFCCC that developed country parties would have to assist devel-
oping countries in meeting such costs. Four multilateral funds have
been established under the UNFCCC regime to support adaptation
management; natural resources management; health [43]

countries) parties to UNFCCC

projects: the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special

Climate Change Fund (SCCF), the Adaptation Fund (AF), and the Green
Climate Fund (GCF). Each fund has slightly different goals, intended
recipients, and functioning. A few of their characteristics are presented
here below (see also Table 1), but an in-depth study of their operational
frameworks, a comparison of their specificities, or a discussion of cli-
mate finance are beyond the scope of this article [17–19].
SCCF

2001

Two funds, the LDCF and the SCCF, were established under the
Overview of the four multilateral climate change funds.

UNFCCC in 2001. They rely mainly on contributions from UNFCCC

adaptation projects [44]
USD 1175 million [44]

Annex II States (industrialized countries that were member of the

countries parties to

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in

Least developed

197 substantive

1992) and a number of Annex I States (Annex I countries and countries

Adaptation

with economies in transition). The two funds are administered by the

UNFCCC

Global Environmental Facility (GEF), a financial organization instituted

LDCF

2001

by States, international organizations, non-governmental organizations,

and the private sector to fund environmental projects in developing
countries [20]. To be eligible for financing under either of these climate
Number of projects funded

change funds, the governmental or non-governmental proponent of a

amounting to (as of

project must be endorsed by the relevant national GEF Operational

Intended recipients

Approved projects
Substantive focus

Focal Point and must partner with one of the ten GEF implementing
(as of 2017)

agencies [21]. As stated in its strategy, “[t]he goal of the GEF Adap-
Established in

tation Program is to increase resilience to the adverse impacts of cli-

2017)
Sectors

mate change in vulnerable developing countries, through both near-

Table 1

and long-term adaptation measures in affected sectors, areas and

communities; leading to a reduction of expected socio-economic losses

2
S. Guggisberg
associated with climate change and variability” [22]. Both funds ex-
clusively finance the additional costs of adapting to climate change, in
opposition to the business-as-usual costs under a scenario where cli-
mate change is absent [23–25]. Hence, for projects that consist of both
development and climate change adaptation components, the recipient
country has to find another source of financing for the business-as-usual
part of the costs. The LDCF was established to meet the adaptation
needs of least developed countries, by supporting them in putting to-
gether and implementing the National Adaptation Programmes of Ac-
tion (NAPA) required under Article 4(1)(b) of the UNFCCC [20]. A
precondition to accessing the funds is hence to have filed oneʼs NAPA.
The SCCF is a general fund available to developing countries, which
finances adaptation measures as well as other activities such as tech-
nology transfer, capacity building, or economic diversification.
The AF was established under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol
in 2001. It receives earmarked money under the Kyoto Protocol–2% of
Certified Emission Reductions issued for a clean development me-
chanism (CDM) project–as well as individual donations by countries;
with the large drop in CDM value, the fund now is mostly reliant on
voluntary contributions. It is supervised and managed by the
Adaptation Fund Board. Its goal is to “[a]ssist developing country
Parties to the Kyoto Protocol that are particularly vulnerable to the
adverse effects of climate change in meeting the costs of adaptation; […
and f]inance concrete adaptation projects and programmes that are
country driven and are based on the needs, views and priorities of
eligible Parties” [26]. The AF funds the full cost of adaptation, meaning
“the costs associated with implementing concrete adaptation activities
that address the adverse effects of climate change”, with no require-
ment for co-financing [27]. A praised novelty of the AF is direct access
[28]: national implementing entities, once successfully accredited, can
directly access financing and manage projects endorsed by the desig-
nated authorities of the country where the project is to take place,
without going through a regional or multilateral agency [29]. Accred-
itation is a process meant to verify that the entity which will receive
funds follows fiduciary and safeguard standards, as well as implements
social, environmental, and gender-related safeguards [30]. In addition
to the documentation provided on the website [31–33], support
throughout the accreditation process is available in the form of
Readiness Grant Funding [34], including for South-South cooperation
projects [35]. It also remains possible to rely on regional or multilateral
agencies to develop and implement projects.
Finally, the GCF was established in 2010 under the UNFCCC to
channel the funds pledged by developed countries at the Copenhagen
and Cancun Conferences of the Parties (CoPs) [36]; it can receive
funding from public and private entities. It is overseen by the GCF
Board. The GCF funds both mitigation and adaptation projects; it “will
promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient
development pathways by providing support to developing countries to
limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the
impacts of climate change, taking into account the needs of those de-
veloping countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of cli-
mate change” [37]. The GCF “will finance agreed full and agreed in-
cremental costs” [38] and is still developing its implementation of these
two approaches to funding [39]. A direct access modality is available
under the GCF, with accreditation open to national and regional enti-
ties. As in the AF, accreditation verifies the ability to respect fiduciary
standards, and implement environmental, social, and gender-related
standards. In addition to the step-by-step online description of the
procedure to follow [40,41], support may be available through the
Readiness Support programme [42]. Funding for projects can also be
channeled through international institutions.
3
Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
3. Coastal and marine fisheries-related projects and measures
3.1. Methodology
A methodology was developed to determine whether there are
projects aimed at supporting adaptation to the impacts of climate
change on coastal and marine fisheries that are funded under the four
climate change funds presented in Section 2, and if so what kind of
measures they comprise. As will be discussed further in Section 4.3,
there is no automatic search function provided by the four funds to
identify fisheries-related projects.
On the basis of the lists of projects available on the webpages of the
four funds [48–50], a search for keywords (“fish*”, “marine”, “coast*”)
within project titles was undertaken to pre-identify projects of potential
relevance. This list of projects, together with all the projects located in
Small Island Developing States (SIDS), were then examined project-by-
project to determine which ones actually focus at least partly on coastal
and marine fisheries; these are projects that include one or several set(s)
of measures specifically aimed at fish, fisheries, or the communities
which depend on them. Projects that are only incidentally related to
fisheries are omitted; such projects include measures which may have
fortuitous effects on fisheries (e.g. restoration of coral reefs or in-
stallation of hard break water structures), but which are focused on
other objectives (e.g. coastal protection). It is acknowledged that this
categorization contains subjective elements. With the present research
centered on coastal and marine fisheries, projects focused exclusively
on inland, wetland, or mangrove fisheries are also excluded, although
the mangrove ecosystem is important for many coastal and marine fish
stocks at certain life stages [51,52].
A preliminary keyword search carries the distinct possibility that
some relevant projects were missed, due to names not reflecting the
projects’ full contents. In light thereof, the list provided in the next
section must be considered indicative only. The numerical results most
probably underrepresent the real values since the methodological issue
identified is one leading to false negatives.
3.2. Projects identified
Amongst the identified projects (Table 2), the main focus of some is
fisheries (marked as “1” in the fourth column), while others include
some fisheries-related measures under the umbrella of other objectives
(marked as “2”). This subdivision between mainly and partly fisheries-
related projects is subjective to some extent. Out of the 25 identified
projects, 12 are mostly focused on fisheries and 13 are partly so.
In terms of distribution, projects are spread among the four funds:
six are financed under the AF; 15 under the LDCF; three under the
SCCF; and one under the GCF. To compare the proportion of fisheries-
related projects vis-à-vis all adaptation projects under the four funds
(values available until 2017, see Table 1), the projects approved in
2018 or pending approval are deducted from the totals. In average, the
proportion of coastal and marine fisheries-related projects across the
four funds represents 6.1% of all adaptation projects, with values in a
similar bracket for each individual fund: 6.3% for the AF; 5% for the
GCF; 6.6% for the LDCF; and 4.5% for the SCCF.
A variety of implementing entities are present, most of which are
multilateral agencies or banks, with the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and
the World Bank most represented, responsible for respectively nine,
four, and three projects. Only four out of the 25 projects are im-
plemented in direct access by national implementing entities: these are
PROFONANPE in Peru, Centre de Suivi Ecologique in Senegal, and the
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme in
Vanuatu. The AF provides a marker to identify the sector most relevant
to describe a project; out of the six projects financed under that fund,
three are listed as coastal management, two as multisector projects, and
one as related to food security.
 Table 2
Overview of fisheries-related projects financed under the four multilateral funds.
S. Guggisberg

Fund Country Name of project Mainly 1 or partly Year Implementing entity Sector (when available)
2 focused on approved
fisheries

AF Belize Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation 1 2014 World Bank Coastal Management
Project
AF Cook Islands Strengthening the Resilience of our Islands and our 2 2011 UNDP Multisector Projects
Communities to Climate Change
AF Federated States of Micronesia Practical Solutions for Reducing Community Vulnerability 1 2018 Micronesia Conservation Trust Multisector Projects
to Climate Change in the Federated States of Micronesia
AF Mauritius, Seychelles Restoring marine ecosystem services by rehabilitating 1 pending UNDP Food security
coral reefs to meet a changing climate future
AF Peru Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change on Peruʼs 1 2016 PROFONANPE Coastal Management
Coastal Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries
AF Senegal Adaptation to Coastal Erosion in Vulnerable Areas 2 2010 Centre de Suivi Ecologique Coastal Management
GCF Vanuatu Climate Information Services for Resilient Development in 2 2016 Secretariat of the Pacific Health, food and water security; livelihoods of
Vanuatu Regional Environmental people and communities; ecosystems and
Programme ecosystem services; infrastructure and built
environment
SDG 15 Life on land
LDCF Angola Addressing Urgent Coastal Adaptation Needs and Capacity 2 2014 UNEP
Gaps in Angola
LDCF Bangladesh Community-based Climate Resilient Fisheries and 1 2014 FAO
Aquaculture Development in Bangladesh
LDCF DRC Resilience of Muandaʼs Communities from Coastal 2 2014 UNDP
Erosion, Democratic Republic of Congo
LDCF Gambia Strengthening Adaptative Capacities to Climate Change 1 2018 UN Industrial Development

4
through Capacity Building for Small Scale Enterprises and Organization
Communities Dependent on Coastal Fisheries in The
Gambia
LDCF Gambia Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and 2 2012 UNDP
Communities to Climate Change in the Republic of
Gambia
LDCF Guinea-Bissau Strengthening the Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas 2 2017 UNDP
and Communities to Climate Change in Guinea Bissau
LDCF Kiribati Enhancing National Food Security in the Context of Global 1 2014 UNDP
Climate Change
LDCF Madagascar Adapting Coastal Zone Management to Climate Change in 2 2013 UNEP
Madagascar Considering Ecosystem and Livelihoods
LDCF Myanmar FishAdapt: Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity and 1 2015 FAO
Resilience of Fisheries and Aquaculture-dependent
Livelihoods in Myanmar
LDCF São Tomé and Príncipe Strengthening Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to 1 2018 African Development Bank
Climate Change in São Tomé and Príncipeʼs Agricultural
and Fisheries Sectors
LDCF São Tomé and Príncipe Sao Tome and Principe Adaptation to Climate Change 2 2010 World Bank
LDCF Togo Strengthening Climate Resilience of Infrastructure in 2 2014 African Development Bank
Coastal Areas in Togo
LDCF Tuvalu Effective and Responsive Island-level Governance to 1 2012 UNDP
Secure and Diversify Climate Resilient Marine-based
Coastal Livelihoods and Enhance Climate Hazard
Response Capacity
LDCF Vanuatu Adaptation to Climate Change in the Coastal Zone in 2 2013 UNDP
Vanuatu
LDCF Yemen Integrated Coastal Zone Management 2 2009 World Bank
(cancelled)
(continued on next page)
Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
S. Guggisberg Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

3.3. Types of fisheries-related measures supported

One can divide the measures to support adaptation to climate

change impacts on coastal and marine fisheries and fisheries-dependent
communities in three categories: structural measures (Table 3), mea-
sures focused on the fish and/or its habitat (Table 4), and measures
directed at the communities relying on fisheries (Table 5). In addition
Sector (when available)

to these measures, knowledge management efforts are mentioned in

most if not all projects and are designed to disseminate lessons learnt,
document best-practices, and facilitate replication of the projects’
measures.
First, the aims of structural and research-related measures are to
enable the legal, institutional, and policy frameworks to better take into
account climate change impacts on fisheries and to ensure that the
necessary knowledge is available to adopt adequate adaptation mea-
sures. In terms of structural changes, specific laws must for example be
amended to implement measures that enhance resilience to climate
Implementing entity

change impacts, or to strengthen the framework for networks of marine

protected areas (MPAs). Also, climate-related impacts on fisheries are to
be included in national policy and strategies and the specific issues of
fisheries mainstreamed into climate change adaptation strategies.
Another type of measures included in many projects aims to assess the
UNDP
FAO

FAO

precise risks and vulnerabilities that climate change causes for fisheries
as well as to monitor the climate-related impacts on fisheries or their
habitats. Assessments of vulnerability are necessary as preliminary
steps to the development of efficient responses. Most of the projects
approved

including such measure are funded under the LDCF; this may be be-
2015

2014

2009
Year

cause least developed countries do not have the resources to undertake

these assessments on their own. Fisheries-related projects funded by all
Mainly 1 or partly

funds also include measures to gather relevant data, as well as monitor

and study the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Finally, a few
2 focused on

projects specifically aim to develop models and prediction systems.

fisheries

Second, a certain number of measures are related to fisheries

management and the marine environment itself; they aim to increase
1

fish stocks’ natural resilience by reducing other stressors. Some mea-

Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in

sures’ objectives can be generally considered as traditional fisheries

Communities to Address the Risk of Climate Change and
Climate Change Adaptation in the Eastern Caribbean

management, such as the operationalization of vessel monitoring sys-

Strengthening the Capacity of Vulnerable Coastal

tems, the provision of patrol boats, the establishment of no-take zones

in fish spawning areas, or still the endorsement of an ecosystem-ap-
proach to fisheries. Other measures explicitly intend to implement a
climate-resilient fisheries management, such as through community
the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector

monitoring of quotas, but without always clarifying how this would

differ from traditional fisheries management. The majority of measures
in this second category aim to improve the status of fish stocks by fo-
Extreme Weather Events

cusing on protecting or restoring relevant coastal and marine ecosys-

tems. Many projects revolve around coral reef protection or re-
Name of project

habilitation, while a few others focus on coastal and marine ecosystems

Fisheries Sector

more generally. In addition to the coral reef-specific establishment of

nurseries and out-planting, measures include the promotion of selective
fishing gear to decrease the impacts on the environment and the es-
tablishment of (networks of) MPAs. Some measures’ main focus is to
provide fish with replenishment sites or refugia to better withstand the
Dominica, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago,
Antigua And Barbuda, St. Kitts And Nevis

impact of climate change, while others have the objective of protecting

St. Vincent and Grenadines, Grenada,

the marine environment for ecosystem services related to both liveli-

hoods and coastal protection. The projects designed for the protection
of coral reefs for the sole purpose of coastal protection are not included
here.
Third, a certain number of measures are aimed to improve the re-
silience of the communities which depend on fisheries. This includes a
number of infrastructure projects to support fishing communities living
Table 2 (continued)

on the coast in dealing with sea-level rise or infrastructure destruction

Thailand
Country

caused by extreme weather events. Such measures can for example

Chile

consist in the construction of coastal protection to protect fish landing

or processing facilities and the provision of shelters for canoes. There
Fund

SCCF

SCCF

SCCF

are other measures related to the dangers caused by extreme-weather

events at sea, such as the training of fishermen, provision of equipment,

5
S. Guggisberg Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Projects including structural and research-related measures.
Structural changes to legal, institutional, and policy frameworks
AF Belize Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project
LDCF Bangladesh Community-based Climate Resilient Fisheries and Aquaculture Development in Bangladesh
LDCF Kiribati Enhancing National Food Security in the Context of Global Climate Change
LDCF Myanmar FishAdapt: Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity and Resilience of Fisheries and Aquaculture-dependent Livelihoods in Myanmar
LDCF Vanuatu Adaptation to Climate Change in the Coastal Zones of Vanuatu
SCCF Chile Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector
Assessing risks and vulnerabilities; monitoring climate-related impacts
AF Peru Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change on Peruʼs Coastal Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries
GCF Vanuatu Climate Information Services for Resilient Development in Vanuatu
LDCF Angola Addressing Urgent Coastal Adaptation Needs and Capacity Gaps in Angola
LDCF Bangladesh Community-based Climate Resilient Fisheries and Aquaculture Development in Bangladesh
LDCF Kiribati Enhancing National Food Security in the Context of Global Climate Change
LDCF Myanmar FishAdapt: Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity and Resilience of Fisheries and Aquaculture-dependent Livelihoods in Myanmar
LDCF São Tomé and Príncipe Strengthening Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in São Tomé and Príncipeʼs Agricultural and Fisheries Sectors
LDCF Tuvalu Effective and Responsive Island-level Governance to Secure and Diversify Climate Resilient Marine-based Coastal Livelihoods and
Enhance Climate Hazard Response Capacity
SCCF St. Vincent and the Grenadines Climate Change Adaptation in the Eastern Caribbean Fisheries Sector
et al.

Table 4
Projects including measures focused on the fish and/or its habitat.
(Climate-resilient) fisheries management
AF Belize Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project
LDCF Guinea-Bissau Strengthening the Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities to Climate Change in Guinea Bissau
LDCF São Tomé and Príncipe Strengthening Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in São Tomé and Príncipeʼs Agricultural and Fisheries Sectors
Protection or restoration of coastal and marine ecosystems
AF Belize Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project
AF Federated States of Micronesia Practical Solutions for Reducing Community Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Federated States of Micronesia
AF Kenya Integrated Programme To Build Resilience To Climate Change & Adaptive Capacity Of Vulnerable Communities In Kenya
AF Mauritius, Seychelles Restoring marine ecosystem services by rehabilitating coral reefs to meet a changing climate future
AF Peru Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change on Peruʼs Coastal Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries
LDCF Madagascar Adapting Coastal Zone Management to Climate Change in Madagascar Considering Ecosystem and Livelihoods
LDCF Tuvalu Effective and Responsive Island-level Governance to Secure and Diversify Climate Resilient Marine-based Coastal Livelihoods and
Enhance Climate Hazard Response Capacity
LDCF Vanuatu Adaptation to Climate Change in the Coastal Zone in Vanuatu
LDCF Yemen Integrated Coastal Zone Management

vessel design modifications to improve safety at sea, and early warning
systems. Finally, a last type of measures intends to increase the food
security or economic resilience of communities. This can consist in
improving fish shelf life, increasing the value of fishing activities (e.g.
value-added processing, use of fish waste for productive purposes),
offering trainings to diversify livelihoods (e.g. towards aquaculture,
(eco)tourism, vocational training), or providing revolving funds or in-
surances to support fishermen in the face of adverse circumstances.
3.4. Analysis of results
Many of the measures listed here above have been identified in
scientific and technical literature as relevant to climate change adap-
tation in general [53], or for coastal and marine fisheries in particular
[4,54–63]. The adaptation measures funded under the 25 identified
projects are varied and, in aggregate, they cover all the areas of
adaptation that may be required in the coastal and marine fisheries
field. However, individual projects, in general, only focus on one or two
of these types of measures. This piecemeal reality might be triggered by
specific needs from countries; coastal States can be more or less exposed
and sensitive to the impacts of climate change on marine fisheries or
benefit from different levels of existing adaptive capacity. It may also be
due to a lack of awareness that adapting to the impacts of climate
change will require measures at the structural level together with
measures to increase the resilience of fish stocks and human commu-
nities dependent on them.
A certain number of the measures funded in the above-mentioned
projects are clearly called for by climate change. For example, the
structural and research-related measures all derive from the need to
adapt to climate change. Other measures, in particular those related to
the fish stocks and/or their habitats, could also be required and im-
plemented in the absence of climate change, under traditional fisheries
management. In the third category of measures, the need for actions
related to infrastructure and extreme-weather events is triggered by
climate change, but the measures to improve food security and eco-
nomic resilience could be envisaged in a development aid project un-
related to climate change. This does not mean that these measures
should not be funded under climate change adaptation, but rather
highlights the difficulty in clearly delineating development from cli-
mate change adaptation [64]. Where the LDCF and SCCF only finance
the additional costs due to climate change (v. business-as-usual), this
difficulty is significant. However, if one looks at the number of coastal
and marine fisheries projects funded under the LDCF and SCCF which
focus on increasing stocks’ resilience, food security, and economic re-
silience, the blurred lines between development and climate change
measures seem not to have been a hindrance to receiving support from
these multilateral funds, at least so far.
In terms of geographical distribution of the projects, 11 are based in
Africa, six in the Pacific, four in Asia, and four in the Caribbean,
Central- and South-America. Nearly half of the projects (12 out of 25)
are aimed at improving adaptation in SIDS. Surprisingly, three re-
cipients are neither SIDS nor least developed countries (Chile, Peru,
Thailand). A majority of the coastal and marine fisheries projects fo-
cuses on the countries that are most vulnerable in terms of the impacts
of climate change on marine fisheries [65]. However, the reverse cor-
relation is not true: more than half of the first quartile of countries
identified as most vulnerable are not the recipients of funding for
coastal and marine fisheries projects from the multilateral climate

6
S. Guggisberg Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 5
Projects including measures directed at the communities relying on fisheries.
Infrastructure
AF Senegal Adaptation to Coastal Erosion in Vulnerable Areas
LDCF DRC Resilience of Muandaʼs Communities from Coastal Erosion, Democratic Republic of Congo
LDCF Gambia Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities to Climate Change in the Republic of Gambia
LDCF Guinea-Bissau Strengthening the Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities to Climate Change in Guinea Bissau
LDCF São Tomé and Príncipe Sao Tome and Principe Adaptation to Climate Change
Extreme-weather events
LDCF Angola Addressing Urgent Coastal Adaptation Needs and Capacity Gaps in Angola
LDCF Bangladesh Community-based Climate Resilient Fisheries and Aquaculture Development in Bangladesh
LDCF Gambia Strengthening Adaptative Capacities to Climate Change through Capacity Building for Small Scale Enterprises and Communities
Dependent on Coastal Fisheries in The Gambia
LDCF Kiribati Enhancing National Food Security in the Context of Global Climate Change
LDCF Myanmar FishAdapt: Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity and Resilience of Fisheries and Aquaculture-dependent Livelihoods in Myanmar
LDCF São Tomé and Príncipe Sao Tome and Principe Adaptation to Climate Change
LDCF São Tomé and Príncipe Strengthening Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in São Tomé and Príncipeʼs Agricultural and Fisheries Sectors
LDCF Togo Strengthening Climate Resilience of Infrastructure in Coastal Areas in Togo
LDCF Tuvalu Effective and Responsive Island-level Governance to Secure and Diversify Climate Resilient Marine-based Coastal Livelihoods and
Enhance Climate Hazard Response Capacity
SCCF Chile Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector
SCCF St. Vincent and the Grenadines Climate Change Adaptation in the Eastern Caribbean Fisheries Sector
et al.
Food security and economic resilience
AF Belize Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project
AF Cooks Islands Strengthening the Resilience of our Islands and our Communities to Climate Change
AF Peru Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change on Peruʼs Coastal Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries
LDCF Gambia Enhancing Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities to Climate Change in the Republic of Gambia
LDCF Gambia Strengthening Adaptative Capacities to Climate Change through Capacity Building for Small Scale Enterprises and Communities
Dependent on Coastal Fisheries in The Gambia
LDCF Guinea-Bissau Strengthening the Resilience of Vulnerable Coastal Areas and Communities to Climate Change in Guinea Bissau
LDCF São Tomé and Príncipe Strengthening Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in São Tomé and Príncipeʼs Agricultural and Fisheries Sectors
LDCF Togo Strengthening Climate Resilience of Infrastructure in Coastal Areas in Togo
LDCF Tuvalu Effective and Responsive Island-level Governance to Secure and Diversify Climate Resilient Marine-based Coastal Livelihoods and
Enhance Climate Hazard Response Capacity
LDCF Yemen Integrated Coastal Zone Management
SCCF Chile Strengthening the Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector
SCCF St. Vincent and the Grenadines Climate Change Adaptation in the Eastern Caribbean Fisheries Sector
et al.
SCCF Thailand Strengthening the Capacity of Vulnerable Coastal Communities to Address the Risk of Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events

change funds. It is unclear whether these countries have submitted
unsuccessful proposals or have not submitted any project proposal re-
lated to coastal and marine fisheries to the four multilateral funds. The
reasons behind this gap between vulnerability and access to adaptation
support need to be assessed in order to best rectify the misalignment.
4. Need for more transparency in the funds’ operations
The multilateral climate change funds operate with insufficient
transparency regarding several stages of a projectʼs cycle. Information
made available also differs between the four multilateral funds.
Improved and harmonized levels of transparency is fundamental in
terms of efficiency, in order to make the best use of limited resources.
Moreover, since at least some of the money comes from public sources,
multilateral funds and project recipients alike must be accountable for
their spending. Finally, the international community has made pledges
to help adaptation in developing countries and towards Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs); to monitor progress towards these collec-
tive aims, one needs information to identify the sectors supported in
each project as well as to assess the results of said projects.
policy [68], it lists the project and program funding proposals on its
website 21 days before the following Board meeting [69].
Public access to all proposals received, and not simply those ac-
cepted, across all four funds, would help develop appropriate strategies
to respond to the misalignment between vulnerability and funding
identified in Section 3.4. If the most vulnerable countries that do not
receive any funding have submitted unsuccessful proposals, it is ne-
cessary to support them in improving their applications as the need for
funding is there, together with a clear expression of these States’ desire
to increase the resilience of their marine fisheries sectors. If the most
vulnerable countries that do not receive any funding have not applied
for any, the multilateral funds arguably should reach out to understand
the States’ reasons, raise awareness as to the availability of funds for
coastal and marine fisheries projects, and address any major obstacle
identified in the process. While support to climate change adaptation
under multilateral funds is meant to be driven by the recipient country
[26,38,70], the funds may also have a responsibility to ensure that their
support is provided where it is most needed.
4.2. Information on progress of projects and their results

4.1. Public access to all proposals received
Currently, the four multilateral funds apply different levels of
transparency with regard to the proposals they receive. On the one
hand, the LDCF and SCCF do not list the proposals received which were
unsuccessful. On the other hand, the AF and the GCF do provide such
information. The AF lists the proposals and concepts currently under
review on its website [66] as well as provides information on past
proposals [67]. As to the GCF, in line with its information disclosure
Currently, the four multilateral funds provide different types of in-
formation on the projects’ implementation and results. The GEF re-
quires that LDCF and SCCF projects send annual monitoring reports and
be independently evaluated at mid-term and when concluded [23,24].
Of these reports, only the final evaluations seem to be publicly available
[71]. In the case of the projects examined presently, some fulfill the
requirement of publishing the final evaluation [72], while others are
missing this key document [73]. Other projects still should be com-
pleted according to the agreed timeframe, but no information is

7
S. Guggisberg
available online regarding their implementation stage [74]. The AF has
a project performance and reporting policy, requiring as a minimum an
annual report on the progress of projects [75]. Independent final eva-
luations are also to be submitted [76] and, for projects longer than four
years, additional mid-term evaluations are envisaged [77]. All docu-
ments are publicly available on the website. These requirements are
generally well respected in relation to the projects examined here [78].
For projects funded under the GCF, the accredited entity must transmit
annual performance reports as well as mid-term and final evaluation
reports to the GCF [79]. The only GCF coastal and marine fisheries
project may be too recent to indicate whether these requirements are
well complied with, but, at present, annual reports of other projects do
not appear to be publicly available online.
The reporting and evaluation policies of all four funds would benefit
from being harmonized. In particular, reports on progress of projects
and their results should be made publicly available in a timely manner.
Since the four funds depend, to different levels, on public money,
transparency regarding progress and results is necessary to ensure ac-
countability towards the funders, that is the tax payers of contributing
countries. Moreover, on-going monitoring helps to determine the key
factors and measures triggering success; best practices can then be
developed and efficient measures replicated, with or without support
from the multilateral funds. While such substantive analysis may be
undertaken internally, these funds are tools to reach a public good
objective, here adaptation to climate change, and they should not keep
information to themselves if it can be of service to the international
community.
4.3. Standardized and sector-specific markers
Currently, the four multilateral funds do not have a dedicated,
standardized, and searchable marker identifying fisheries-related pro-
jects. The AF divides projects by specific sectors and provides an online
search function. However, fisheries or marine resources is not one of the
existing markers; the projects identified here as fisheries-related fell
under coastal management, food security, and multisector categories.
The GCF makes reference to relevant sectors and SDGs online, but
without a search function. The former category does not include a
fisheries-related marker, while the latter could point to projects related
to marine life (SDG 14). In practice, it is unclear whether this second
marker is used comprehensively; the GCF project “Climate Information
Services for Resilient Development in Vanuatu” only lists SDG 15 (Life
on land) while it includes a strong fisheries component. The two other
funds do statistically subdivide projects by sector in their annual re-
ports, but they do not provide categories online. In any case, fisheries is
not one of the existing markers appearing in the annual reports.
Standardized and sector-specific markers are a prerequisite if the
international community is to efficiently monitor progress in the im-
plementation of adaptation actions related to fisheries. In particular,
the international community has pledged, through SDGs 13 and 14, to
take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts and to
conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for
sustainable development. States have undertaken to follow-up and re-
view the progress made in implementing the goals and targets and
declared that “[q]uality, accessible, timely and disaggregated data will
be needed to help with the measurement of progress and to ensure that
no one is left behind” [80]. Data about the progress made in adapting
fisheries to climate change and about the support provided to devel-
oping countries cannot be comprehensive if the four multilateral cli-
mate change funds do not categorize projects in specific sectors cov-
ering all SDGs.
Moreover, a clear fisheries marker would serve developing coun-
tries. Project proponents wanting to develop a proposal related to
fisheries will be interested to know whether and under which fund si-
milar proposals have been successful. They may also draw inspiration
from the specific measures used by others, or still contact a relevant
8
Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
recipient country for advice. Hence, by facilitating sector-specific re-
search on their websites, the funds would contribute, in an easy and
cost-efficient way, to disseminating knowledge and lessons-learnt, as
well as to facilitating replication of adaptation measures.
While defining criteria to qualify a project as fishery-related may be
complex, such a marker already exists under other frameworks, from
which the multilateral funds could take inspiration. In particular, the
OECD Rio Markers, set up to monitor and statistically report on the
development finance flows, contain an indicator for fishing [81], al-
though it aggregates inland and marine fisheries. The selection of re-
levant markers under the OECD framework is based on the stated ob-
jectives of the project “and not primarily in relation to their relevance
or outcomes or possible positive side-effects” [82]. In addition to the
sector-specific marker, a score indicates whether the objective is
“principal” or “significant”; the choice between these qualifiers–ex-
pressed respectively by the values “1” and “2”–depends on whether the
activity would have been undertaken (or designed in the same way)
without the relevant objective [82].
The OECD provides an indicative list of activities which can be
identified as related to climate change adaptation in the fishing sector.
These consist of “[p]romoting changes in fishing practices to adapt to
changes in stocks and target species [; i]ntroducing flexibility in the
gear that is used, the species that are fished, the fishing areas to be
managed, and the allocations that are harvested (adaptation score 1)
[and m]apping changes in the range of fish species and strengthening
the monitoring of fish stocks to determine the impacts of climate
change (adaptation score 2)” [82]. Although they are not mentioned,
the other types of measures identified above in Section 3.3 (i.e. mea-
sures directed at communities dependent on fisheries) would probably
also qualify as aiming to “improve the conditions of the sector by in-
creasing its resilience to climate change” [82].
5. Concluding remarks
The four multilateral climate change funds finance a number of
projects mostly or partly related to coastal and marine fisheries. Three
categories of measures have been identified: measures of a structural
nature meant to modify laws, policies or strategies and to improve oneʼs
understanding of climate change impacts on fisheries; measures to
improve fish stocks’ resilience to climate change, by reducing har-
vesting and ecosystem-related stressors; and measures to improve
fishing communities’ resilience in terms of food security and liveli-
hoods. These identified measures, in aggregate, cover all areas of
adaptation needed in marine fisheries. However, individual projects
usually focus on only one or two types of measures, raising questions as
to the reasons behind such a piecemeal approach. Some measures are
clearly related to adaptation, while others appear to have more of a
development angle. This could arguably impact the ability of States to
access resources under some of the multilateral funds, some of which
only finance the additional costs of climate change. The majority of
coastal and marine fisheries projects focuses on the most vulnerable
countries in terms of the impacts of climate change on fisheries. It is
nevertheless noteworthy that a number of these very vulnerable
countries are not the recipient of support by multilateral funds.
The four multilateral funds do not apply similar levels of transpar-
ency regarding several stages of a projectʼs cycle: some publicize the
projects they receive but reject, while others do not. Also, only some
funds provide regular information on the progress and results of the
projects they finance. This makes it more complicated to develop
strategies to rectify the partial misalignment between vulnerability and
access to support. It also raises issues related to the funds’ account-
ability to the public. The following practices of the more recently es-
tablished funds, the AF and GCF, should be replicated by the LDCF and
SCCF:
(1) publish the list of all received projects online;
S. Guggisberg
(2) publish the mid-term and final evaluation reports online and in a
timely manner;
(3) require and publish annual progress reports online.
Moreover, the four multilateral funds differ in how they categorize
the sector(s) to which each project corresponds. The international
community must be able to identify the projects focused on specific
sectors–one of which should be fisheries–in order to efficiently monitor
the progress made in implementing SDGs, here SDGs 13 and 14. Sector-
specific markers would also help potential recipient countries to iden-
tify the most adequate fund to file certain types of applications, draw
inspiration from fisheries-related measures that have already been im-
plemented, and, if relevant, find other recipient countries with similar
experiences to contact for advice. It is consequently fundamental that
the funds
(1) further subdivide the sectors they have already identified as re-
levant, ideally using the Rio Markers and/or all the SDGs, hence
adding one for fisheries;
(2) harmonize amongst themselves the sectors they use as markers;
(3) make their websites searchable according to these markers.
In fact, the multilateral funds should already be using the Rio
Markers, since multilateral institutions are responsible to report mul-
tilateral aid to the OECD [82] and climate change adaptation is sub-
stantively covered [82]. While reporting is voluntary, the four funds
appear to participate and provide data yearly. However, they report an
aggregated amount, and do not specify the sector to which the funds are
allocated [83]. This creates a large blind spot, well-beyond fisheries, in
the monitoring of development finance. An important and much-
needed change is consequently that the four multilateral funds start
reporting to the OECD in accordance with the sector-specific markers.
A last but important advantage to adopting a ‘fisheries’ marker is
that it would increase the visibility of the sectorʼs presence in the cli-
mate change adaptation regime. Already, the non-negligible number of
projects related to coastal and marine fisheries that are funded by cli-
mate change funds for adaptation serves an important role beyond
supporting specific communities and States. Indeed, such projects en-
sure that fisheries and, more generally coastal and marine ecosystems,
are part of the climate change regime. Oceans originally were absent
from this area of law and policy, except in that they serve as carbon
sinks [84–87]. This is changing, in particular with the Ocean Pathway
launched at CoP23, which promotes an ocean inclusive UNFCCC pro-
cess [88], the mention of marine topics in a majority of States’ Na-
tionally Determined Contributions (NDCs) [89], and the upcoming
IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere, which is expected
for 2019 [90]. However, progress is still needed if one considers for
example that there is still no Working Group for the Ocean within the
UNFCCC process, that most Annex I countries did not mention marine
topics in their NDCs [89], or that ocean acidification remains on the
margin of the policy discussion in the climate change regime [91].
Hence, in addition to the top-down initiatives to integrate oceans into
climate change, funding projects to help communities adapt to the
climate change impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems represents a
powerful bottom-up approach. While other sources of funding may be
available for fisheries-related adaptation projects, applying to the cli-
mate change funds could contribute to establishing oceans and marine
living resources as mainstream topics in the climate change regime.
References
[1] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), The State of the World Fisheries and
Aquaculture : over 30% of stocks are overfished, 58% are fully-fished, and only
about 10% currently remain underfished, Rome, 2016.
[2] J.-P. Gattuso, et al., Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different an-
thropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios, Science 349 (6243) (2015) (aac4722).
[3] A.K. Magnan, et al., Implications of the Paris agreement for the ocean, Nat. Clim.
9
Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Change 6 (2016) 732–735.
[4] D.D. Miller, et al., Adaptation strategies to climate change in marine systems, Glob.
Change Biol. 24 (1) (2018) e1–e14.
[5] Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Part A: Global and
Sector Aspects, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (CUP, 2014), Chapter 6.
[6] W.W.L. Cheung, et al., Large‐scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch po-
tential in the global ocean under climate change, Glob. Change Biol. 16 (1) (2010)
24–35.
[7] A.L. Perry, et al., Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes, Science
308 (5730) (2005) 1912–1915.
[8] O. Hoegh-Guldberg, et al., Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean
acidification, Science 318 (5857) (2007) 1737–1742.
[9] K.R.N. Anthony, et al., Ocean acidification causes bleaching and productivity loss in
coral reef builders, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105 (45) (2008) 17442–17446.
[10] K. Kroeker, et al., Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean
acidification on marine organisms, Ecol. Lett. 13 (11) (2010) 1419–1434.
[11] I. Nagelkerke, et al., Ocean acidification alters fish populations indirectly through
habitat modification, Nat. Clim. Change 6 (2016) 89–93.
[12] D. Breitburg, et al., Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters,
Science 359 (6371) (2018) (eaam7240).
[13] R.F. Keeling, K. Arne, N. Gruber, Ocean deoxygenation in a warming world, Annu.
Rev. Mar. Sci. 2 (2010) 199–229.
[14] V.W.Y. Lam, et al., Projected change in global fisheries revenues under climate
change, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016) 1–8.
[15] Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (CUP, 2007).
[16] T. Wheeler, R. Tiffin, Costs of adaptation in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, in:
M. Parry (Ed.), Assessing the costs of adaptation to climate change – a review of the
UNFCCC and other recent estimates, International Institute for Environment and
Development, London, 2009, pp. 29–39 for the aggregated sectors of agriculture,
forestry and fisheries, the figure of USD 11.3–12.6 billion for the year 2030 is
conservative.
[17] A. Ballesteros et al., Power, Responsibility, and Accountability – Re-Thinking the
Legitimacy of Institutions for Climate Finance, WRI Report, Washington D.C., 2010.
[18] L. Boisson de Chazournes, Is there room for coherence in climate financial assis-
tance? Laws 4 (2015) 541–558.
[19] J. Skovgaard, J. Pickering and C. Betzold (eds), Special Issue: managing fragmen-
tation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance,
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, vol. 17(1), 2017.
[20] J. Verschuuren, Climate change adaptation under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change and related documents, in: J. Verschuuren (Ed.),
Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Law, Edward Elgar Publishing,
Chelthenham, Northampton, 2013, pp. 16–31.
[21] GEF, Accessing Resources under the Least Developed Countries Fund, 2011,
〈https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/23469_LDCF_1.pdf〉.
[22] GEF, GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for the Least
Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund, 5 May 2014, GEF/
LDCF.SCCF.16/03/Rev/01, 〈https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-
meeting-documents/GEF.LDCF_.SCCF_.16.03%2C_Programming_Strategy_on_
Adaptation_to_Climate_Change_for_the_LDCF_and_the_SCCF%2C_5-20-14_4.pdf〉.
[23] GEF, Programming Paper for Funding the Implementation of NAPAs under the LDC
Trust Fund, 12 May 2006, GEF/C.28/18: Decision 3/CP.11, Further guidance for
the operation of the Least Developed Countries Fund, 〈https://www.thegef.org/
sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/GEF.C.28.18_5.pdf〉.
[24] GEF, Programming to Implement the Guidance for the Special Climate Change Fund
Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change and its Ninth Session, 15 October 2004, GEF/C.24/
12, 〈https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/council-meeting-documents/C.24.
12_5.pdf〉.
[25] GEF, Clarification on the Concept of Additional Costs of Adaptation to Climate
Change, 7 May 2012, GEF/LDCF.SCCF.12/Inf.04, 〈https://www.thegef.org/sites/
default/files/council-meeting-documents/Clarification_on_Additional_Cost_8_May_
4.pdf〉.
[26] AF, Annex 1: Strategic Priorities, Policies and Guidelines of the Adaptation Fund
Adopted by the CMP, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/01/OPG%20ANNEX%201.pdf〉.
[27] AF, Update on the scope of application of the full cost of adaptation reasoning
criterion, 12 March 2018, AFB/PPRC.22/25, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/
wp-content/uploads/2018/03/AFB.PPRC_.22.25_Update-on-the-Scope-of-
Application-of-the-Full-cost-of-adaptation-reasoning.pdf〉.
[28] B. Horstmann, A. Chandani Abeysinghe, The adaptation fund of the Kyoto Protocol:
a model for financing adaptation to climate change? Clim. Law 2 (3) (2011)
415–437.
[29] AF, Climate Adaptation Finance: Direct Access, April 2018, 〈https://www.
adaptation-fund.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Direct-Access-English-April-
2018-WEB-FINAL.pdf〉.
[30] AF, Accreditation, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/apply-funding/
accreditation/〉.
[31] AF, Accreditation Application, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/apply-funding/
accreditation/accreditation-application/〉.
[32] AF, NIE Accreditation Toolkit, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/07/Accreditation-Toolkit-English-14.pdf〉.
[33] AF, Guidance on Accreditation Standards (Approved by the AFB in 2016), 2016,
〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Guidance-on-
Accreditation-Standards.pdf〉.
S. Guggisberg
[34] AF, Readiness Programme for Climate Finance, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/
readiness/〉.
[35] AF, South-South Cooperation Grants, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/
readiness/readiness-grants/south-south-cooperation-grants/〉.
[36] UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in
Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010, Addendum, Part Two: Action
taken by the Conference of the Parties at its sixteenth session, 15 March 2011,
FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add. 1, 〈https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/
07a01.pdf〉.
[37] GCF, Initial strategic plan for the GCF, 2016, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/
documents/20182/761223/Initial_Strategic_Plan_for_the_GCF.pdf/bb18820e-abf0-
426f-9d8b-27f5bc6fafeb〉.
[38] GCF, Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund, 〈https://www.
greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/574763/Governing_Instrument.pdf/
caa6ce45-cd54-4ab0-9e37-fb637a9c6235〉.
[39] GCF, Interrelated policy matters on incremental cost and full cost, concessionality,
and co-financing, 8 June 2018, GCF/B.20/19, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/
documents/20182/1087995/GCF_B.20_19_-_Interrelated_policy_matters_on_
incremental_cost_and_full_cost__concessionality__and_co-financing.pdf/ffc5dad4-
1584-8c6b-b7c5-44fe5ed090ec〉.
[40] GCF, Getting Accredited, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/how-we-work/getting-
accredited〉.
[41] GCF, Step by Step: How to Become an Accredited Entity, 〈https://www.
greenclimate.fund/gcf101/getting-accredited/accreditation-process#step-self-
assessment-check〉.
[42] GCF, Readiness Support, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/gcf101/empowering-
countries/readiness-support〉.
[43] GEF, GEF Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change – Least
Developed Countries Fund, Special Climate Change Fund, 2014, 〈https://www.
thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/GEF_AdaptClimateChange_CRA_0.pdf〉.
[44] GEF, Report of the Global Environment Facility to the Twenty-third Session of the
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, 3 August 2017, 〈https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/documents/
Final%20COP%2023%20Report%20August%203.pdf〉.
[45] Report of the Adaptation Fund Board – Note by the Chair of the Adaptation Fund
Board, Kyoto Protocol Meeting of the Parties Thirteen session Bonn, 6–17
November 2017, FCCC/KP/CMP/2017/6, 〈https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/
2017/cmp13/eng/06.pdf〉.
[46] Report of the Green Climate Fund to the Conference of the Parties – Note by the
secretariat, UNFCCC Conference of the Parties Twenty-third session Bonn, 6–17
November 2017, FCCC/CP/2017/5, 〈https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2017/
cop23/eng/05.pdf〉.
[47] GCF, Portfolio Dashboard, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/what-we-do/portfolio-
dashboard〉 (based on values of 12 June 2018).
[48] GEF, Projects, 〈https://www.thegef.org/projects〉.
[49] AF, Projects Table view, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/projects-programmes/
project-information/projects-table-view/〉.
[50] GCF, Projects + Programmes, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/what-we-do/
projects-programmes〉.
[51] M.M. Igulu, et al., Mangrove habitat use by Juvenile Reef Fish: meta-analysis re-
veals that tidal regime matters more than biogeographic region, PLoS One 9 (12)
(2014) e114715.
[52] FAO, The Worldʼs Mangroves 1980–2005, A thematic study prepared in the fra-
mework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment, FAO Forestry Paper No. 153,
Rome, 2007.
[53] C. Biagini, et al., A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adap-
tation financed through the Global Environmental Facility, Glob. Environ. Change
25 (2014) 97–108.
[54] K. Brander, Impacts of climate change on fisheries, J. Mar. Syst. 79 (3-4) (2010)
389–402.
[55] R.Q. Grafton, Adaptation to climate change in marine capture fisheries, Mar. Policy
34 (3) (2010) 606–615.
[56] A. Heenan, et al., A climate-informed, ecosystem approach to fisheries manage-
ment, Mar. Policy 57 (2015) 182–192.
[57] A. McIlgorm, et al., How will climate change alter fishery governance? Insights
from seven international case studies, Mar. Policy 34 (1) (2010) 170–177.
[58] K.E. Mills, et al., Fisheries management in a changing climate: Lessons from the
2012 ocean heat wave in the Northwest Atlantic, Oceanography 26 (2) (2013)
191–195.
[59] M.L. Pinsky, M. Fogarty, Lagged social-ecological responses to climate and range
shifts in fisheries, Clim. Change 115 (3-4) (2012) 883–891.
[60] C.M. Roberts, et al., Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to cli-
mate change, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 114 (24) (2017) 6167–6175.
[61] H.A.M. Shaffril, A.A. Samah, J. Lawrence, Climate change: Social adaptation stra-
tegies for fishermen, Mar. Policy 81 (2017) 256–261.
[62] C. Shelton, Climate change adaptation in fisheries and aquaculture – compilation of
initial examples, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1088, Rome, 2014.
10
Marine Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
[63] J.-P. Troadec, Adaptation opportunities to climate variability and change in the
exploitation and utilisation of marine living resources, Environ. Monit. Assess. 61
(1) (2000) 101–112.
[64] J.B. Smith, et al., Development and climate change adaptation funding: coordina-
tion and integration, Clim. Policy 11 (3) (2011) 987–1000.
[65] R. Blasiak, et al., Climate change and marine fisheries: least developed countries top
global index of vulnerability, PLoS One 12 (6) (2017) e0179632, https://doi.org/
10.1371/ journal.pone.0179632.
[66] AF, Proposals & Concepts Currently Under Review, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.
org/projects-programmes/proposals-concepts-under-review/〉.
[67] E.g. AF, 31st AFB Meeting, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/meeting/31st-afb-
meeting/〉.
[68] GEF, Information Disclosure Policy, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/disclosure/
policy〉.
[69] GEF, Board Meetings – documents, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/boardroom/
board-meetings/documents〉.
[70] GEF, Country Ownership of GEF Projects: Elements for Strengthened Country-level
Coordination and Ownership, and Greater Outreach and Communication, 11
September 1998, GEF/C.12/8, 〈https://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/
council-meeting-documents/GEF.C.12.8_5.pdf〉.
[71] GEF, Guidelines for GEF Agencies in Conducting Terminal Evaluations for Full-sized
Projects, 〈https://www.gefieo.org/sites/default/files/ieo/evaluations/files/gef-
guidelines-te-fsp-2017.pdf〉.
[72] SCCF, Strengthening the Capacity of Vulnerable Coastal Communities to Address
the Risk of Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events.
[73] LDCF, Sao Tome and Principe Adaptation to Climate Change.
[74] LDCF, Effective and Responsive Island-level Governance to Secure and Diversify
Climate Resilient Marine-based Coastal Livelihoods and Enhance Climate Hazard
Response Capacity.
[75] AF, Project Performance & Reporting, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/projects-
programmes/project-performance/〉.
[76] AF, Operational Policies and Guidelines for Parties to Access Resources from the
Adaptation Fund, amended in October 2017, 〈https://www.adaptation-fund.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/08/OPG-amended-in-October-2017-1.pdf〉.
[77] AF, Evaluation Framework, 1 September 2011, AFB/EFC.6/4, 〈https://www.
adaptation-fund.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/AFB.EFC_.6.4%20Evaluation
%20framework.pdf〉.
[78] The only project with an unclear status is that in the Cook Islands (AF,
Strengthening the Resilience of our Islands and our Communities to Climate
Change), which was to last 5 years, started in 2012, but is still marked “under
implementation”.
[79] GCF, Decision B.11/10*, Agenda item 15: Initial monitoring and accountability
framework for accredited entities, 〈https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/
20182/76153/DECISION_B.11_10_-_Initial_monitoring_and_accountability_
framework_for_accredited_entities.pdf/b06dddfc-2d18-4675-9d2f-d3e81de6ba99〉.
[80] UNGA, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21
October 2015, A/Res/70/1.
[81] OECD Statistics, Aid activities targeting Global Environmental Objectives, 〈https://
stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RIOMARKERS〉, Marker 313.
[82] OECD, Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System
(CRS) and the Annual DAC Questionnaire, Annexes – modules D and E, DCD/
DAC(2016)3/ADD2/FINAL, 14 April 2016, 〈https://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/
DCD-DAC(2016)3-ADD2-FINAL%20-ENG.pdf〉, Annex 18. Rio markers.
[83] OECD Statistics, Aid activities targeting Global Environmental Objectives, 〈https://
stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RIOMARKERS〉, under the Membersʼ total
use of the multilateral system database: the full amounts reported by the AF (code
47111), LDCF (code 47129), SCCF (code 47130), and GCF (code 41317) are the
same as the amounts marked as “Sector: 99810: Sectors not specified”.
[84] The term “ocean” is mentioned in the UNFCCC (Article 4(1)(d)) in relation to re-
servoirs and sinks; it is absent from the Kyoto Protocol; and finally it is mentioned in
the Preamble of the Paris Agreement.
[85] Y.A. Eddebbar, N.D. Gallo, L.B. Linsmayer, The oceans and the UN framework
convention on climate change, Bull. Liminology Oceanogr. 24 (3) (2015) 69–72.
[86] D. Freestone, Special issue: climate change and the law of the Sea, Carbon Clim.
Law Rev. 3 (4) (2009).
[87] G. Galland, E. Harrould-Kolieb, D. Herr, The ocean and climate change policy, Clim.
Policy 12 (6) (2012) 764–771.
[88] UNFCCC, The Ocean Pathway: Towards an Ocean Inclusive UNFCCC Process,
CoP23 Fiji, Bonn 2017–2018, 〈https://cop23.com.fj/the-ocean-pathway/〉.
[89] N.D. Gallo, D.G. Victor, L.A. Levin, Ocean commitments under the Paris Agreement,
Nat. Clim. Change 7 (2017) 833–838.
[90] IPCC, Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC),
〈https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srocc/〉.
[91] E. Harrould-Kolieb, D. Herr, Ocean acidification and climate change: synergies and
challenges of addressing both under the UNFCCC, Clim. Policy 12 (3) (2012)
378–389.