President Obama’s climate-related diplomatic capacity in Cancún will be severely limited by incoming and current members of the U.S. Congress who consider climate change science too uncertain to serve as a basis for economic policy change or simply a fraudulent conspiracy to undermine the U.S. economy. However, we agree with President Obama that even in the absence of an agreement about climate change, short-term initiatives can benefit not just Americans, but people—and indeed, natural resources—all over the world. These initiatives can be undertaken without an agreement about long-term financing for a Global Climate Fund, called for by the G-77 and China, and discussed in October during the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Tianjin, China. Because the terms to operationalize a Global Climate Fund are regarded by developed countries as part of a “package deal,” it is very unlikely that the Global Climate Fund will be agreed upon in Cancún.2

A substantial increase in UNFCCC funds for “fast-start” climate finance for adaptation, not requiring a UNFCCC decision on long-term finance, is considerably less ambitious than what civil society organizations and developing countries are demanding.3 But “fast-start,” on-the-ground successes in adaptation by 2012 could establish a strong foundation for a subsequent decision on long-term finance in which the UNFCCC would have a major operational role. This is not the first, nor certainly the most detailed proposal for adaptation finance,4 but it tries to take into account the current state of play and developed country commitments for fast-start finance for 2010–2012.

A successful short-term finance strategy would include:
1) apportioning half of the $30 billion promised by developed countries in fast-start funding for adaptation projects to achieve the “balanced” funding formula promised in the Copenhagen Accord;

2) allocating, at a minimum, 20 percent of the $15 billion to the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund, to build UNFCCC operational capacity;

3) using the UNFCCC subsidiary bodies to help the Adaptation Fund target projects in the most climate-change vulnerable countries (least-developed countries, Africa and small island states), a majority of which are likely to concern agricultural adaptation;

4) ensuring that the consultations to design, implement and evaluate adaptation projects involve representatives of the populations most vulnerable to climate change, e.g., farmer organizations, in the case of agricultural adaptation projects.

If these steps are taken, adaptation benefits from many projects would be measurable, yielding a substantive basis for subsequent UNFCCC decisions about adaptation finance. Furthermore, the UNFCCC’s project oversight and monitoring capacity will be enhanced to match its normative obligations.