meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation-2c425f8a15396dd9.pdf

This April 2018 briefing by the Stockholm Environment Institute, IDDRI, and ODI argues that climate adaptation is currently undervalued in international negotiations because it is viewed as a local problem. The authors advocate for a 'transboundary' framing of climate risk to address the interconnections between people, ecosystems, and economies in a globalised world, suggesting that the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement provide the necessary tools to move toward a coordinated global adaptation response.

• The authors argue that international climate negotiations undervalue adaptation by treating it as a local issue, which hinders the ambition needed for a global adaptation agenda. While the Paris Agreement aims to treat adaptation "in balance" with mitigation, mitigation remains the primary focus of international governance.
• Climate risk is described as "borderless" due to globalisation, with impacts in one country creating risks in others through four primary pathways: trade (disrupting supply chains), biophysical (altering transboundary ecosystems), people (migration and tourism), and finance (affecting overseas investments and remittances).
• The briefing identifies a lack of shared terminology to describe transboundary climate risk, which complicates the synthesis of evidence. The authors suggest the IPCC could lead the development of consistent terminology to distinguish between global-scale risks, regional-scale risks, teleconnections, and adaptation responses that affect vulnerability in other locations.
• Progress on National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) has been slow; as of February 2018, only 10 countries had submitted their NAP out of more than 130 developing country Parties. While the Green Climate Fund (GCF) provides up to USD 3 million per country for NAP preparation, only 17 of 47 proposals had been approved or endorsed as of March 2018.
• The authors propose that the UNFCCC's global stocktake should evolve beyond aggregating national contributions to specifically track and assess transboundary climate risks and regional or global adaptation responses, potentially curated by third parties.
• The document highlights that transboundary risk assessments have primarily been conducted by developed countries, particularly in Europe (including Finland, the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and the EU), which incorrectly frames it as a rich-country problem despite high exposure in developing countries.

APA

Stockholm Environment Institute (n.d.). meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation-2c425f8a15396dd9.pdf. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation.pdf

Chicago

Stockholm Environment Institute. meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation-2c425f8a15396dd9.pdf. n.d. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Stockholm Environment Institute |title=meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation-2c425f8a15396dd9.pdf |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stockholmenvironmentinstitutendmeetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation2c425f8a15396dd9pdf, author = {{Stockholm Environment Institute}}, title = {{meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation-2c425f8a15396dd9.pdf}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/meetingtheglobalchallengeofadaptation.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }