Search Climate Insights Directory

The document presents a working framework for an intersectional approach to climate risk assessments (CRAs), developed through a co-production workshop in May 2025. This approach aims to move beyond oversimplified views of vulnerability by analyzing how intersecting systems of inequity create structural barriers. The framework is currently being tested via participatory case study research in Nepal and South Africa.

The document outlines the procedural steps for verifying climate resilience in investments, detailing how to apply global and local thresholds to adapting measures and how to conduct investment-level assessments for adapted and enabling activities. It emphasizes the use of science-based climate projections, the identification of material climate impacts, and the prevention of maladaptation.

The report introduces a qualitative framework for public finance providers—including donor governments, MDBs, and DFIs—to evaluate the quality of adaptation interventions. It categorizes quality across three levels: project (direct resilience), market (incentives and scale), and system (structural shifts). The tool uses a three-stage diagnostic (Initial, Progressing, Transformative) across criteria such as climate risk integration, target population reach, and the minimization of maladaptation. The report also includes data analyses showing a disconnect between national adaptation priorities and sectoral ODA flows, particularly in energy and health, and a misalignment between sovereign debt risk and the choice of finance instruments in moderate-risk countries.

The paper proposes a six-step intersectional framework for climate risk assessments (CRAs) to move beyond general geographic or sectoral analysis. It emphasizes identifying 'intersecting systems of inequity'—such as racism, ableism, and patriarchy—to understand why specific groups face disproportionate or unique climate impacts. The framework is currently being tested through action research in Nepal and South Africa.

The document outlines a comprehensive approach to developing adaptation indicators, emphasizing that they must be grounded in a Theory of Change (ToC) and national context rather than solely in global frameworks. It details a 10-step process (grouped into design, implementation, and learning phases) to move from clarifying objectives to institutionalizing data collection and conducting regular reviews. The guide highlights the importance of using a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators, ensuring gender and social inclusion (GESI) through data disaggregation, and piloting systems before full-scale rollout to ensure feasibility and data quality.

The document argues that TotalEnergies SE has misled investors by claiming alignment with the Paris Agreement while continuing to increase fossil fuel production. It highlights the systemic financial risk climate change poses to global portfolios and asserts that TotalEnergies' disclosures—including claims about the role of natural gas as a transition fuel and the 'substitution' argument for continued extraction—are inaccurate. The authors call for an AMF investigation into potential breaches of the AMF General Regulations, the European Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), and the French Monetary and Financial Code.

The report details a framework for assessing climate risks to India's power sector, distinguishing between chronic stresses (e.g., temperature, drought) and acute extremes (e.g., floods, cyclones). It introduces the Asset-Specific Climate Risk Factor (ACRF) for spatial screening and Expected Annual Impact (EAI)—measured as Expected Annual Loss (EAL) for generation and Energy Not Served (ENS) for networks—to quantify operational disruptions in MWh. The methodology includes a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) framework to evaluate the economic viability of resilience measures by comparing investment costs against avoided energy losses and repair expenditures.

The document advocates for ending the artificial separation of climate mitigation and adaptation, arguing that treating them as parallel streams wastes resources and undermines sustainable development. It emphasizes that climate change is a systemic condition of development rather than a standalone sector. Using examples from Asia's energy, food, and water systems, the text demonstrates how integrated planning—such as combining low-carbon buildings with heat resilience—creates essential synergies. The author calls for structural shifts in governance, including the institutionalization of climate risk assessments for all infrastructure and a move by international donors from funding discrete projects to supporting holistic development programs.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) and KCB Bank Kenya Limited propose a 10-year, USD 96.9 million blended finance programme to increase climate resilience and reduce GHG emissions in Kenya. The programme targets 'hardest-to-reach' MSMEs and farmers, particularly in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs), through a tiered vulnerability cluster framework. Key interventions include a USD 65 million CST facility consisting of concessional loans and a USD 20.3 million GCF guarantee to de-risk lending. The project aims to reduce 3.93 million tCO2e and reach 935,692 beneficiaries, with a strong focus on women-led enterprises and the integration of digital lending and climate risk assessment tools.

The document argues that mangrove restoration requires more than planting seedlings, necessitating rigorous scientific planning, inclusive community engagement, and strong governance. It warns that poorly planned efforts can disrupt hydrological regimes, increase erosion, and exacerbate gender inequalities or tenure conflicts. Drawing on Convention on Biological Diversity guidelines, the brief recommends conducting long-term environmental monitoring, using native climate-resilient species, engaging Indigenous Knowledge holders, and upholding free, prior, and informed consent.

The document argues that climate adaptation is critically under-financed because markets struggle to price 'continuity' (avoided damages). It suggests moving from fragmented projects to integrated, nationally led 'Country Platforms' that coordinate public, private, and concessional finance. The author highlights African innovations such as parametric insurance (ARC) and the R4 Rural Resilience Initiative, and provides an 8-step playbook for operationalizing resilience investments through diagnosis, tagging, layered finance, devolution, regulation, insurance reform, outcome-based payments, and transparent communication.

The report details the Climate Adaptation Investment Planning (CAIP) framework, a five-step process designed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to bridge the gap between national adaptation planning and financial implementation. Piloted between 2022 and 2025 in Armenia, Bhutan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Mongolia, and Nepal, the framework emphasizes aligning adaptation with national fiscal cycles, using systemic climate risk diagnostics, and grouping priorities into comprehensive investment packages. Key findings indicate that while most adaptation packages yield high economic returns, financial viability for private investment remains limited and sector-dependent. The report advocates for a country-led, iterative approach that integrates ministries of finance from the outset to ensure adaptation is embedded in public financial management systems.

Reclaim Finance and co-signatories argue that TotalEnergies has failed to adequately address concerns regarding the Papua LNG project, citing lack of transparency in climate and human rights assessments, failures in obtaining Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous Peoples, and insufficient evaluation of biodiversity and cumulative impacts.

A coalition of NGOs, including Reclaim Finance, asserts that TotalEnergies' response to their complaint about the Papua LNG project is insufficient. They highlight critical gaps in transparency regarding climate risk assessments, human rights impacts, and biodiversity studies. The authors argue that the project risks emitting 220 million tonnes of CO2, threatening endangered species and indigenous rights, while failing to provide clear information to local communities or adhere to the Equator Principles and IFC standards.

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 report analyzes power outage data from 2014 to 2024 in the central United States, specifically the MISO+ region, finding that all of the 100 worst outage days were caused by extreme weather. It highlights that the 10 most severe events occurred after 2020 and were often compound disasters, such as hurricanes combined with flooding or winter storms with tornadoes. The document argues that climate change is intensifying these risks—increasing the frequency of derechos, the rainfall of hurricanes, and the potential for severe winter outbreaks—while disproportionately impacting socially vulnerable communities. It recommends that utilities, states, and regional operators implement comprehensive climate risk assessments, accelerate the clean energy transition, and engage in meaningful community partnership to build a resilient grid.

The document outlines the benefits of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process for the education sector, specifically how it elevates priorities in national decision-making and strengthens the case for financing. It details the relevance of four NAP stages—Impact, Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment (IVRA); Planning; Implementation; and Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL)—and provides ten specific actions for education ministries to ensure climate risks to schools, students, and teachers are addressed.

The report finds that while OECD pension funds are increasing their climate target-setting and internal governance, their portfolios remain heavily exposed to expansionist fossil fuels. Progress is strongly linked to national regulatory environments, with the Netherlands, Denmark, and the UK leading. A critical lever for future impact is the governance of the asset owner–asset manager relationship, where leading funds are moving toward more active mandates, stricter stewardship oversight, and in some cases, the internalization of asset management to ensure alignment with net-zero goals.

The complaint argues that the Papua LNG project, a joint venture led by TotalEnergies, lacks necessary climate and human rights assessments, fails to obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from Indigenous Peoples, and threatens critical biodiversity. It specifically targets MUFG bank, claiming it may be misleading other financial institutions about the project's compliance with the Equator Principles.