Search Climate Insights Directory

The Stockholm Environment Institute's systemic climate adaptation framework provides a normative guide to make adaptation policy more coherent, equitable, and robust. It is built on three core pillars: systemic risk framing, policy interlinkages, and deep uncertainty management. These pillars translate into six guiding principles—interconnected by design, shared risk ownership, co-benefits and everyday value, no-regrets and anti-maladaptation, equity and just resilience, and adaptive governance under deep uncertainty. The framework is intended as 'adaptable scaffolding' for stress-testing decisions, such as national strategies or investment pipelines, rather than a rigid checklist.

The report critiques South Africa's National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (NCCAS) 2020 and its 2025 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for failing to address the root causes of current vulnerability, such as poverty and inequality. It argues that focusing solely on system resilience—such as 'climate smart agriculture'—without reducing existing vulnerabilities like food insecurity leads to 'maladaptation' and risks a 'downward spiral of undevelopment.' The author proposes shifting from 'incremental adaptation' (technical adjustments) to 'transformative adaptation' (system transitions), incorporating a distributive justice framework similar to that used in energy transitions to ensure that the structural causes of vulnerability are dismantled.

The document establishes a conceptual framework for analyzing the future of state governance in the Global South. It defines state governance as the structures and processes used to exercise authority and manage resources, emphasizing a shift away from Global North-centric democratic models toward 'accountable governance'. The research employs a foresight-driven approach to investigate how technology, economic transitions, and geopolitical shifts influence governance trajectories across seven defined regions of the Global South.

The document introduces a conceptual framework for evaluating gender equity and sustainable livelihoods in renewable energy value chains (REVCs). Using a social reproduction lens, it moves beyond simple employment metrics to examine the interplay between paid and unpaid labour, care responsibilities, and structural inequalities. The framework is structured around three dimensions: the global distribution of value, work and livelihoods, and ecological justice. It is intended as an assessment tool for policymakers and researchers to ensure that the transition to net zero emissions does not reproduce existing patterns of dependence or inequality, with illustrative applications mentioned for South Africa, Kenya, and Ghana.

The framework examines the potential for renewable energy industrialisation to advance a just energy transition by focusing on localisation strategies and the link between economic and social upgrading. It employs a Global Production Networks (GPN) perspective, integrated with Marxist, feminist, and ecological political economy, to analyse value creation and power relations. To operationalise these theories, the project uses an assessment matrix to evaluate employment quality, ownership patterns, and capability development in local firms.

The guide explains that climate vulnerability is driven by intersecting systems of inequity—such as racism, ableism, and patriarchy—which create structural barriers and conditions like poverty or social isolation. It advocates for moving beyond single-issue analyses to identify and challenge the root causes of vulnerability, ensuring adaptation efforts reach the most marginalized populations.

The document defines a climate change adaptation investment plan (CCAIP) as a set of investment-ready priority activities linked to specific financial sources. It outlines a structured approach to bridging the adaptation financing gap by diversifying funding across domestic, international, public, and private sources using instruments such as grants, bonds, and blended finance. The text emphasizes the necessity of political leadership, particularly from ministries of finance, and the integration of gender-responsive and socially inclusive (GESI) considerations to ensure equitable outcomes. It further distinguishes CCAIPs from broader NAP financing strategies, noting that while the latter identifies overall needs and gaps, the CCAIP focuses on narrow, time-bound, and actionable investment packages ready for immediate implementation.

The document defines the education sector's role in climate adaptation, identifying its vulnerability and its potential to build community resilience. It details the components of a climate-resilient education system, focusing on resilient infrastructure, integrated teaching and learning, and school safety and continuity management.

The document outlines the establishment of small-scale fishing zones (KVS) in South Africa as a mechanism to protect the livelihoods of vulnerable coastal communities and preserve marine biodiversity. It describes KVS as designated marine areas managed through a co-management framework involving small-scale fishers and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). The document highlights that since 2023, over 170 small-scale fishing cooperatives have been established, with fishing rights granted for 15 years. These zones aim to provide preferential access to resources, integrate local and scientific knowledge, and potentially serve as Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) to contribute to the global 30x30 biodiversity target.

The document describes Small-Scale Fishing Zones (SSFZs) as designated marine areas in South Africa designed to prioritise small-scale fishing practices through a co-management framework involving fishers and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). These zones aim to empower historically marginalised coastal communities by providing preferential access to resources and a role in local governance. The text highlights that SSFZs can serve as 'other effective area-based conservation measures' (OECMs), contributing to the Global Biodiversity Framework's '30x30' target to conserve 30% of the world's land and ocean by 2030. WWF South Africa supports this transition by helping communities establish co-operatives and implement ecosystem restoration pilot projects.

The document argues that nature-based solutions (NbS) for climate adaptation can unintentionally worsen existing conflicts if the broader social, economic, and environmental contexts are ignored. It advocates for 'conflict-sensitive NbS', which are specifically designed to minimize conflict risks and enhance peacebuilding opportunities by considering the causes, actors, and dynamics of conflict to ensure that people and ecosystems thrive together.

The report addresses the integrity problems inherent in carbon offsets, noting that no mechanism can entirely guarantee permanence or additionality. It proposes moving away from treating offsets as perfect and instead using an 'equivalence' concept to determine how many imperfect offsets equal one perfect offset based on carbon concentrations or warming potential. The author suggests that acknowledging these risks can prevent the abandonment of offsets that still provide value, such as delaying tipping points, provided that claims (like net-zero) are adjusted to reflect uncertainty and avoided damages.

The paper argues that while the quantity of climate finance is widely discussed, its quality—defined by its ability to catalyze transformational change—remains under-analyzed and non-standardized. It introduces a three-tiered framework for assessing quality: the project level (direct, measurable results), the market level (stimulating supply and demand for climate solutions), and the system level (structural shifts toward low-emission and equitable economies). The author defines 'transformational climate finance' as high-quality finance that moves beyond one-off projects to influence broader markets and systems. The document identifies ten dimensions for achieving this transformation and notes that while project-level measurement is common, market- and system-level indicators are currently limited among public providers. The goal is to foster global consensus and standardization of quality metrics to optimize the deployment of scarce public resources.

The report argues that while the quantity of climate finance is widely tracked, its quality—defined as the degree to which it induces structural shifts toward low-emission, climate-resilient, and equitable economies—remains under-analyzed and non-standardized. It introduces a three-level analytical framework (project, market, and system) to move beyond one-off interventions toward 'transformational climate finance.' The study identifies ten dimensions for assessing transformational potential, including affordability, equity and justice, and programmatic approaches. It also reviews existing measurement tools used by institutions like the IFC, GCF, and UK ICF, noting a convergence in project-level tracking but significant fragmentation in market and system-level assessments.

The paper advocates for expanding the integration of One Health and Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) frameworks. It argues that current efforts are too narrow, focusing mainly on animal faeces in households while ignoring other transmission pathways like animal handling. The authors propose a broader approach to improve biosecurity and address systemic issues such as food insecurity, animal welfare, and nutrient-driven ecosystem degradation.

The document clarifies the distinctions and synergies between Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and Landscape and Jurisdictional Approaches (LA/JAs). While NbS are typically project-level interventions that leverage nature for societal benefits, LA/JAs are broader socioecological management strategies designed to align multiple stakeholders and goals at a landscape or political scale. The briefing argues that NbS are most effective and durable when embedded within LA/JAs, which provide the necessary governance, long-term planning, and policy alignment to scale impacts and meet global commitments such as the Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement.

The report proposes the minerals-energy-food (MEF) complex as an evolution of the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus. It argues that the WEF nexus fails to account for the global trade of commodities, the critical role of minerals in the energy transition, and the systemic power asymmetries between resource-rich low-income countries and wealthy consuming nations. The MEF complex integrates three commodity clusters (minerals, energy, food), three local mediating factors (water, land, labour), and five higher-order global factors (global governance, trade, supply chains, geopolitics, and climate change). Using examples from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Brazil, and Ukraine, the authors demonstrate how these components interact to create cascading risks and unequal exchange. The report concludes with a research and policy agenda focused on data transparency, risk ownership, governance mapping, and inclusive participation.

The document argues that NDC credibility depends on target clarity, institutional capacity, policy adoption, and policy outcomes. It explains how Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) provide the necessary data to assess these components and help countries refine future NDCs. For example, Andorra improved its 2035 NDC credibility by switching from a business-as-usual scenario to an absolute emission reduction goal to increase transparency.

The document proposes a "transition finance nexus" framework to illustrate how transition pathways, planning, assessment, and finance interact in the banking sector. It argues that these elements are interdependent and that improving any single part strengthens the entire system, creating a circular process for scaling transition finance. The framework is based on consultations with 15 organizations, including banks and NGOs.

The document outlines a proposal for a national Traditional Knowledge Database in Mozambique to prevent the loss and misappropriation of biodiversity-related knowledge. It details a multi-tiered access system—ranging from community representatives to the general public—and an interoperability framework designed to link with scientific repositories like BioNoMo and RECIMO. The proposal emphasizes community-centric governance, including Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and traditional dispute resolution, to ensure that knowledge holders maintain control over their cultural heritage and benefit from its use.