Search Climate Insights Directory

This technical brief from the Climate Adaptation and Protected Areas (CAPA) Initiative provides a framework and checklist for practitioners and policy-makers to assess and design nature-based solutions (NbS) for climate change adaptation, focusing on gender-responsiveness, social inclusion, and conflict sensitivity.

The document outlines a process for enhancing the climate resilience of Manitoba's watersheds by embedding adaptation planning into the existing Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP) process. It provides a step-by-step guide across six stages—preplanning, gathering information, plan drafting, review, approval, and implementation—to help local authorities identify climate hazards, prioritize risks using a risk matrix, and implement climate-resilient actions. The guide distinguishes between 'traditional actions' and 'climate-resilient actions,' emphasizing the need to avoid maladaptation. It includes practical tools such as a menu of climate-resilient actions (e.g., wetland restoration, riparian management), guidance on using the Climate Atlas of Canada for data, and a monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) framework to track the effectiveness of adaptation measures.

The CCFLA and Urban-Act National Assessment Tool provides a framework for national governments to evaluate the regulatory, financial, and institutional conditions that affect urban climate finance. The tool consists of 64 dimensions across four categories: Climate Policy, Budget and Finance, Climate Data, and Vertical and Horizontal Coordination. It aims to identify strengths and gaps in national frameworks to facilitate recommendations for improving subnational access to finance, having been piloted in India and Indonesia.

The R3Lab Toolkit offers a framework for insurance regulators to balance the promotion of innovation with consumer protection. It outlines a process starting with innovation gap and ecosystem assessments, followed by the application of a 'toolbox' comprising regulatory adjustments (e.g., sandboxes, tiered licensing), supervisory improvements (e.g., streamlined approvals, suptech), proactive engagement (e.g., newsletters, workshops), and monitoring via KPIs and social listening. The guide emphasizes that the choice of tools must be fit-for-context and supported by top leadership buy-in and internal capacity building.

The document operationalizes 12 integrity principles for benefit-sharing mechanisms (BSMs) in nature-based solutions (NbS) through four governance pillars: full and effective participation, transparency and accountability, fairness, and effectiveness. It provides a framework for conducting jurisdictional context analysis and offers specific guidance on identifying stakeholders, avoiding elite capture, managing resource flows, and establishing grievance redress mechanisms to ensure that environmental results translate into equitable socioeconomic benefits.

The Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) Methodology establishes a science-based framework to scale private and public financing for climate adaptation and resilience. It categorises investments into four types—adapting measures, adapted activities, enabling measures, and enabling activities—across seven thematic areas including Resilient Infrastructure and Resilient Natural Systems. The methodology employs a tiered screening process to ensure a "measurable reduction in vulnerability (or exposure)" while managing maladaptation risks and ensuring no significant harm to climate mitigation. The framework is designed for global applicability and interoperability with existing standards like the EU Sustainable Finance Taxonomy and the MDB Joint Methodology.

The document argues that traditional, securitised responses to violent extremism are inadequate for the current 'post-organisational' threat environment, which is characterised by ideological hybridisation, transnational networks, and algorithmic amplification. It advocates for a 'public health approach' that targets underlying vulnerabilities through four tiers of prevention: primordial, primary, secondary, and tertiary. The playbook details 'tried and tested' models—such as digital citizenship education, counternarratives, and direct engagement—alongside innovative strategies including 'inoculation' (pre-bunking), real-time correction of narratives, and the disruption of extremist ecosystems. It concludes with practical guidance on monitoring, evaluation, safeguarding, and operational security for practitioners.

The document outlines a structured approach to implementing MEL systems across the iterative cycle of National Adaptation Planning. It emphasizes the need for pragmatic, phased development tailored to national contexts, integrating gender equality and social inclusion (GESI), and utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data to foster adaptive management and transparency.

The Net Zero Finance Tracker (NZFT) methodology establishes a system for monitoring how financial institutions transition from climate intentions to real-world results. It employs a three-dimensional assessment framework—Targets, Implementation, and Impact—using a combination of qualitative tiered badges and quantitative metrics. The current version focuses on 553 members of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), representing USD 85 trillion in assets. The methodology emphasizes transparency, concreteness, and ambition, utilizing data from approximately 30 providers to track indicators such as mitigation targets, TCFD disclosures, and project-level clean energy financing.

The guidance introduces the 'Triple A' framework (Ambition, Action, and Accountability) and five specific 'Hallmarks' to evaluate corporate transition plans. It emphasizes that credible plans must feature science-based, time-bound targets covering all material GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3), detailed financial plans, and strong board-level governance. The document warns against the over-reliance on carbon offsets and the use of national NDCs as a substitute for sectoral science-based pathways, while advocating for annual third-party verification to ensure transparency and accountability.

The document argues that the real estate industry must move beyond operational energy reporting to include embodied carbon in Scope 3 climate disclosures. It highlights increasing pressure from major investors like BlackRock and CalPERS, as well as potential SEC regulations, to standardize these disclosures. The guide recommends transitioning from spend-based to mass-based emissions accounting using Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and life-cycle assessments (LCA) to accurately track up-front emissions from building materials.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) outlines a values-based approach to scientist-community partnerships, emphasizing mutual respect, transparency, and the integration of community and Indigenous knowledge. The guide provides a step-by-step process for initiating collaborations, overcoming professional and social barriers, and ensuring equitable outcomes through tools like Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and restorative justice practices.

The document defines seafood jurisdictional initiatives (JIs) as place-based efforts that combine policy and market-based approaches to achieve holistic sustainability at ecological and political scales. It argues that while traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) efforts are valuable, they lack the scale to address systemic barriers like climate change, biodiversity loss, and labor rights. The guide outlines the roles of market partners in incentivizing governments through preferential sourcing and long-term contracts, and provides a step-by-step approach for prioritizing jurisdictions and determining investment. It emphasizes that JIs are complementary to CRI efforts and require long-term commitments—often 8 to 20 years—supported by robust monitoring, verification, and community-led governance.

The document defines seafood jurisdictional initiatives (JIs) as place-based efforts combining policy and market-based approaches to achieve holistic sustainability. It argues that traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) efforts are insufficient for global scale and systemic issues. The handbook outlines a three-step implementation process: scoping, co-designing, and co-implementing, emphasizing the necessity of government leadership, multistakeholder collaboration, and long-term blended finance.

The document outlines the concept of seafood Jurisdictional Initiatives (JIs) as place-based, multistakeholder efforts that combine policy reform and market-based incentives to address systemic sustainability challenges. It contrasts JIs with traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) projects, arguing that JIs are better suited for tackling cumulative impacts, climate resilience, and social equity across entire production geographies. The guide details a three-step implementation process—scoping, co-designing, and co-implementing—and emphasizes the critical roles of government leadership, private-sector engagement, and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and local communities. It also provides guidance on establishing monitoring, reporting, and verification frameworks to ensure the credibility of sustainability claims.

The guidelines advocate for jurisdictional initiatives (JIs) as a complementary approach to traditional certification, ratings, and improvement (CRI) efforts. While CRI focuses on individual farms or fisheries, JIs operate at a broader scale to address systemic issues like climate resilience, biodiversity loss, and labor rights through policy reform and multistakeholder collaboration. The document outlines key enablers for success, including government leadership, long-term blended finance, and ecosystem-based management. It also provides frameworks for monitoring, reporting, and verifying claims, emphasizing that performance outcomes typically take eight to 20 years to materialize. Case studies, such as the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) for tuna and a shrimp aquaculture project in Indonesia, illustrate the application of these principles.

The report introduces a four-component framework to help countries manage nature-related risks and opportunities while meeting international obligations like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The framework covers baseline assessment, initiative identification, instrument selection, and governance structures to improve economic well-being and climate outcomes through nature protection and restoration.

The document argues that climate coverage must move beyond problem-focused reporting to include evidence-based solutions. It categorizes climate solutions into policy, economy, technology, civil society, and culture, urging journalists to prioritize the political and economic battles over purely technological fixes. The guide emphasizes the urgency for marginalized communities and provides specific examples, such as the US Inflation Reduction Act, to illustrate how to analyze the effectiveness and limitations of climate policies.

The We Mean Business Coalition's framework for Responsible Policy Engagement (RPE) addresses the 'advocacy gap' where corporate climate commitments are not matched by their political influence. It defines RPE as engagement that supports policy interventions to reduce emissions in line with net zero by 2050. The report identifies drivers for RPE, including investor pressure via the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying and increased scrutiny from civil society and regulators. It outlines a business case for RPE based on risk reduction, regulatory certainty, and reputation. The core of the document is a resource library categorized into five action areas: committing to speak up, establishing governance, direct engagement, aligning trade associations, and allocating advocacy spending. It emphasizes the 'ambition loop,' where corporate advocacy spurs ambitious government policy, which in turn enables companies to meet their own climate targets.

The document argues that climate coverage must expand beyond problem-focused reporting to include solutions to empower audiences and policymakers. It defines solutions journalism as rigorous, evidence-based reporting that investigates the effectiveness and limitations of responses to the climate crisis. The guide emphasizes equity and justice, noting that marginalized communities—including indigenous peoples, who manage lands containing "approximately the 80% of the biodiversity that remains in the world"—are often the most impacted yet least responsible for the crisis. It categorizes potential story leads into five areas: policy and government (e.g., carbon pricing and subsidies), economy and business (e.g., scrutinizing "greenwash" and "net zero" claims), technologies and practices (distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation), civil society (evaluating the "theory of change" behind activism), and culture (the role of arts and celebrities). The guide concludes that while not all reporting should be solutions-oriented, integrating this mindset is essential to providing a complete picture of the climate emergency.