strategic-resilience-7eaea711986443b1.pdf

This research paper by the Stockholm Environment Institute proposes a new governance paradigm called "strategic resilience" to address the failures of traditional climate change adaptation. The authors argue that adaptation is currently hindered by its placement within relatively weak environment ministries and a narrow focus on territorial impacts. By relocating adaptation to the center of government and integrating it into a broader resilience agenda, states can better manage complex, cross-border climate risks and avoid a "securitization" approach dominated by defense logics.

• The authors define "strategic resilience" as the capacity of a government to proactively manage a complex array of global challenges, including cross-border and cascading climate impacts, in a coherent manner that reflects societal objectives. This approach aims to build the capacity to withstand and recover from multiple shocks while pursuing strategic national goals.
• Traditional climate change adaptation is often ineffective because it is treated as "low politics" and managed by environment ministries. These ministries typically lack the political influence and coordination capacity to lead adaptation across other key government sectors like trade, finance, and foreign affairs, especially when dealing with risks that originate outside national borders.
• Cross-border climate change impacts, which require adaptation in one country due to initial impacts in another, are often ignored in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). These risks propagate through four main pathways: trade, finance, people, and biophysical routes, and are assessed as being significantly greater in scale than direct domestic climate impacts.
• The authors warn against a "securitization" approach to adaptation, where defense ministries lead the agenda. While military planners are skilled at scanning risk horizons, they tend to use zero-sum logic, dividing the world into allies and enemies, which can lead to less collaborative international policies and less effective global resilience investments.
• A case study of the UK reveals that while the country was an early innovator in identifying cross-border risks, progress has been slow. The UK has experimented with a "risk ownership" model in its Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3), assigning specific risks to departments such as the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) and the Treasury, and created a senior Climate Resilience Board co-chaired by the Cabinet Office and Defra.
• The authors propose three potential pathways for evolving adaptation governance: granting environment ministries more power to hold other actors accountable, establishing national coordinators at the center of government, or creating dedicated national ministries of resilience to combine domestic and international agendas.

APA

Stockholm Environment Institute (n.d.). strategic-resilience-7eaea711986443b1.pdf. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/strategic-resilience.pdf

Chicago

Stockholm Environment Institute. strategic-resilience-7eaea711986443b1.pdf. n.d. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/strategic-resilience.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Stockholm Environment Institute |title=strategic-resilience-7eaea711986443b1.pdf |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/strategic-resilience.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stockholmenvironmentinstitutendstrategicresilience7eaea711986443b1pdf, author = {{Stockholm Environment Institute}}, title = {{strategic-resilience-7eaea711986443b1.pdf}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/strategic-resilience.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }