Search Climate Insights Directory

The document reports that mean annual temperatures in Ethiopia have risen by 0.5 to 1.3°C since the 1960s, with a significant decrease in the frequency of cold nights. While national data is limited, trends from 1981-2000 indicate a decline in short rains (February to April) and slight increases in long rains (June to August) and late-year precipitation (October and November), posing risks to rain-fed agriculture and food security. Additionally, flood events are becoming more frequent, with major disruptions noted in 1997 and 2006.

The paper explores the impact of development interventions on local adaptive capacity in Ethiopia using the Local Adaptive Capacity (LAC) framework, which identifies five key characteristics: assets base, knowledge and information, institutions and entitlement, innovation, and flexible forward-looking governance. It argues that development partners must reassess the scale and scope of their interventions to better support individual and community agency and utilize evidence-based decision-making to foster a continuous process of learning and innovation.

The report examines the intersection of climate variability and development in Ethiopia, specifically focusing on how farmers and pastoralists are affected by drought and floods. It draws on research conducted by Haramaya University and government officials in the Oromiya, Afar, and Amhara Regional States to argue that climate adaptation efforts must be aligned with broader development plans to be effective.

The document argues that climate change planning in Ethiopia is under-invested and requires an approach that manages prediction uncertainty by fostering adaptive capacity. It draws on 2010-11 research conducted by Haramaya University and government officials across three Ethiopian sites to evaluate how existing interventions in social protection, sustainable livelihoods, and disaster risk management can be improved to better support vulnerable rural communities.

The document highlights the vulnerability of Uganda's agriculture-dependent economy to rainfall fluctuations and the challenges of obtaining accurate meteorological data due to infrastructure gaps and conflict. It focuses on climate trends and projections in Bundibugyo, Gulu, and Kotido to inform policy-makers on increasing the adaptive capacity of rural livelihoods.

The report details a pilot study using the ADAPTool to assess 15 mining-related policies across Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The analysis focused on climate change stressors—specifically drought, excessive moisture, and increased temperatures—across four mining phases: exploring and siting, development, operations, and closure and remediation. In Manitoba, 37 vulnerabilities and 48 adaptation actions were identified, while Saskatchewan identified 44 vulnerabilities and 66 adaptation actions. The findings indicate a lack of policy support for transportation and building-related actions, as well as an inadequate use of foresighting and scenario planning to integrate mitigation measures into mining policies despite significant climate risks.

The document discusses the necessity of localised adaptation to climate change and the potential to 'scale out' community-based adaptation (CBA) solutions. It defines scaling out as providing "more quality benefits to more people over a wider geographical area, more equitably, more quickly, and more lastingly". Rather than focusing on high-level policy, the paper examines how local actors can pilot and showcase innovations until they are replicated. Based on CDKN's work in Bangladesh, Colombia, and eastern and southern Africa, the paper identifies four key elements common to successful scaling: networks and partnerships, documenting evidence and learning, adaptive capacity, and institutional channels and finance mechanisms.

The document argues that scaling out community-based adaptation (CBA) requires moving beyond isolated pilots to a systemic approach that integrates adaptive capacity, strategic partnerships, and documented evidence. It identifies four key enabling factors: building comprehensive adaptive capacity (assets, institutions, knowledge, innovation, and decision-making), leveraging diverse networks including the private sector, producing rigorous cost-benefit evidence, and utilizing flexible institutional and finance mechanisms. Case studies from Niger, Colombia, Zambia, and Bangladesh illustrate different pathways to scale, ranging from informal farmer networks and municipal government planning to commercial contract farming and international research platforms.

The paper examines how adaptive capacity—comprising assets, institutions, knowledge, innovation systems, and governance—interacts with social protection measures to enhance income and capabilities in agroforestry systems. In Zambia, the adaptive capacity of farmers strengthened their social protection to reduce drought impacts, while in Honduras, formal social protection measures improved adaptive capacity. The author argues that understanding these linkages is essential for planning adaptation initiatives and identifying specific areas of adaptive capacity for investment to ensure social protection measures are effective.

The report evaluates mining policies in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to determine if they support planned climate adaptation and possess the autonomous capacity to respond to unanticipated changes. Using the ADAPTool, the analysis identifies gaps in transportation and building-related adaptation, a lack of foresight methods like scenario planning, and a reliance on outdated historical baselines. While environmental assessment acts scored highly for their breadth and stakeholder engagement, most policies are purely regulatory and lack a mix of economic or institutional instruments. The report recommends updating baselines with climate projections, ensuring closure funds are sufficient for future scenarios, and establishing a multi-province working group to address sector vulnerabilities.

The CRiSTAL Food Security 2.0 tool is a decision-support system implemented via Microsoft Excel to analyze the resilience of community food systems against climate threats. It employs a holistic 'food system wheel' framework consisting of five dimensions: food utilization and consumption, access, availability, supporting resources and services, and supporting organizations and policies. The tool guides users through a six-module process: introduction, context analysis (community and climate), food system analysis, resilience analysis, selection of SMART indicators, and automatic report generation. It emphasizes the use of participatory rural appraisal methods, such as livelihood strategies, threat and resource mapping, and vulnerability matrices, to gather primary data from local communities, which is then triangulated with secondary scientific data. The tool aims to identify specific climate vulnerabilities and develop measurable indicators to monitor food system resilience over time.

The FIPAT guidebook outlines a structured analytical process for national and sub-national governments to strengthen food system resilience against climate variability. The tool is divided into two main sections: Section A focuses on mapping the food system, identifying climate risks, and developing resilience indicators; Section B evaluates the capacity of specific public policies to support resilience actions, enhance actor capacity, and maintain system stability. The process emphasizes stakeholder engagement and iterative learning to identify policy gaps and develop tailored recommendations for food security.

The FIPAT manual describes a structured process for enhancing food system resilience against climate variability. It guides users through two main sections: Section A, which focuses on mapping food systems, identifying climate risks, and developing resilience indicators; and Section B, which assesses how specific public policies support resilience measures, actor capacity, and overall system stability. The tool emphasizes a participatory approach involving government officials and stakeholders to ensure that policy gaps are identified and addressed through a resilience-based lens.

The ADAPTool Guidebook describes a structured process for evaluating whether public policies are 'adaptive'—meaning they can respond effectively to both anticipated and unanticipated shocks. The tool assesses policies against seven core characteristics: integrated and forward-looking analysis, multistakeholder deliberation, automatic policy adjustment, self-organization and social networking, decentralization of decision-making, promoting variation, and formal policy review and continuous learning. The process involves a scoping phase to define geographic scope and stressors, data collection via interviews or research, and a synthesis phase that ranks policies based on 'planned adaptability' (response to known stressors) and 'autonomous adaptability' (response to unforeseen changes).

The report evaluates the capacity of provincial policies in Canada to support climate adaptation and their own inherent flexibility to change. Using the ADAPTool, it analyzes policies across agriculture, forestry, and water sectors, finding that while many policies support information sharing and decentralized decision-making, they often lack direct support for critical adaptation actions and formal review mechanisms.

The document outlines SEI's approach to climate adaptation, emphasizing that vulnerability is driven more by socioeconomic conditions than by climate exposure. It argues that adaptation and development are inextricably linked and that adaptation has inherent limits, meaning it cannot replace mitigation. The briefing also details SEI's global initiatives, such as the weADAPT platform and the Asia Adaptation Knowledge Platform, and identifies future research priorities including the role of gender, culture, and the private sector in adaptation.

The study estimated that the La Vieja river basin receives approximately 15 tons of pollutant load per day, primarily from domestic sources. By integrating WEAP and QUAL2K tools, the project modeled 12 tributary sources and identified six sub-basins responsible for 96% of the pollutant load. The analysis included a participatory XLRM process to identify 14 uncertainties and 10 management strategies, while incorporating 30 climate change scenarios for the 2010-2050 period to support institutional decision-making.

The study examines the role of transformative learning in engaging 24 Swedish forestry stakeholders from Kronoberg and Västerbotten counties with climate change adaptation. While focus group discussions increased general knowledge and awareness, they had limited impact on the perceived urgency of action, as many stakeholders viewed climate impacts as distant or contradicted by personal experience. The findings suggest that engagement is highest when scientific knowledge is linked to stakeholders' specific objectives and past experiences with extreme weather, and that deep-rooted distrust in climate science remains a significant barrier.

The document argues that while climate change is unlikely to be the sole direct cause of conflict, it acts as a 'threat multiplier' that intersects with poor political governance and socio-economic vulnerabilities to increase the risk of violence. In the Zambezi basin, this manifests as competition over dwindling water and food supplies, migration-induced tensions, and the manipulation of resource scarcity by political elites. Case studies of Bulawayo and Chinde highlight how chronic water shortages, flooding, and political marginalisation create flashpoints for unrest. The author emphasizes that strengthening Local Adaptive Capacity (LAC) and community resilience through grassroots organisations and traditional governance can mitigate these risks.

The Climate Risk Assessment Guide – Central Asia establishes a framework to downscale climate impact understanding to support sub-national risk management. It integrates climate change assessment with disaster risk assessment, focusing on six types of capital: human, natural, social, financial, physical, and political. The methodology combines an impact-based assessment (using monetary damage and Delphi-based livelihood scoring) with a perception-based assessment to identify gaps between expert data and local views. The guide emphasizes the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for data management and provides a structured process for creating climate risk profiles to prioritize management actions.