Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a governance framework for achieving climate-resilient development in Africa, stressing that resilience must be mainstreamed into central government planning rather than treated as a separate agenda. It identifies a hierarchy of responsibility where central governments lead coordination, line ministries implement sector-specific policies, and local communities provide essential bottom-up perspectives. A significant portion of the brief focuses on the necessity of transboundary cooperation through Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and River and Lake Basin Organisations (RLBOs) to manage Africa's 53 shared river basins. Finally, it emphasizes that successful implementation depends on engaging non-state actors, including private businesses and civil society, through financial incentives and consultation.

The document advocates for Robust Decision Making (RDM) to manage climate uncertainty in water sector investments. It proposes a screening process to categorize investments into no/low regret, climate change risky, and climate change justified options, prioritizing those that provide benefits regardless of the climate scenario. It emphasizes addressing the 'adaptation deficit'—the backlog of investments needed to protect against existing climatic fluctuations—and suggests using sensitivity analysis and benefit-cost appraisals to refine development portfolios.

The document discusses the French government's use of a broad, multi-ministerial steering committee to prepare for COP21, emphasizing the need to integrate development and environmental agendas. It argues that breaking down institutional barriers between public and private finance, and between local and international scales, is essential for effective climate action and sustainable development.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) provides detailed comments on the proposed National Water Amendment Bill, focusing on the protection of water source areas, the integration of climate change resilience, and the strengthening of public participation and enforcement mechanisms in water licensing.

This Climate Resilience Assessment (CRA), conducted by Environmental Resources Management Southern Africa Pty (Ltd) in January 2017, evaluates climate-related risks for the proposed 1,200 MW Thabametsi coal-fired power station in Lephalale, Limpopo Province, South Africa. The report identifies key vulnerabilities related to increasing temperatures, water scarcity, and extreme weather events, proposing adaptation measures to enhance the project's long-term resilience.

The Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme provides a globally recognised framework for labelling debt instruments, assets, and entities aligned with a 1.5°C pathway. Since 2012, it has certified over USD350bn of Use of Proceeds Green Bonds as of 30 September 2025. The scheme utilizes a network of Approved Verifiers to ensure climate integrity across various certification types, including Use of Proceeds, Asset, Entity, and Sustainability-linked debt. A 2025 update expanded the standard to include a Resilience Taxonomy for projects strengthening resilience to physical climate risks. Eligible sectors span energy, industry, transport, agrifood, and infrastructure.

The document outlines the Climate Bonds Standard and Certification Scheme, a voluntary labeling system designed to align financial investments with the 1.5ºC global warming limit. It details the three-step process for bioenergy bond certification—pre-issuance, issuance, and post-issuance—and specifies the eligibility criteria for bioenergy projects. These criteria include greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits, indirect land-use change (iLUC) risk reduction, and climate resilience plans. The guide highlights Brazil's successful bioenergy programs, such as RenovaBio, and provides a case study of FS Agrisolutions Indústria de Biocombustíveis Ltda. regarding corn-based ethanol production.

The Climate Bonds Standard Version 3.0 provides a framework for certifying bonds that fund climate-aligned projects. It aligns with the Green Bond Principles and requires issuers to meet pre-issuance and post-issuance criteria regarding the use of proceeds, project selection, and reporting. Certification is overseen by the Climate Bonds Standard Board and requires independent verification. The standard utilizes a Taxonomy of Green Definitions and sector-specific technical criteria to determine project eligibility, covering areas such as solar, wind, and low carbon buildings.

The Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) is a spreadsheet-based framework used to classify investments that strengthen resilience to physical climate risks. It organizes investments into seven themes—including Resilient Infrastructure and Resilient Natural Systems—and requires that qualifying investments make a substantial contribution to resilience, manage maladaptation risks, and do no significant harm to climate mitigation. The CBRT differentiates between adapted and enabling investments, as well as activities and measures, providing a structured pathway for debt issuances, such as bonds and loans, to be certified under the Climate Bonds Standard.

The Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) provides a structured framework for identifying and qualifying investments that enhance climate resilience. It categorizes investments across seven themes and various sectors, requiring that each investment addresses at least one physical climate hazard. To be eligible, investments must demonstrate a substantial contribution to resilience, manage maladaptation risks, and adhere to 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) principles regarding climate mitigation and environmental protection. The CBRT distinguishes between 'Adapted' and 'Enabling' investments, as well as 'Activities' and 'Measures', and offers different evaluation pathways—automatic, simplified, or process-based—depending on the investment type. The framework is intended for use by government agencies, financial institutions, real-economy sectors, and market stakeholders to support the issuance and verification of resilience-linked bonds and loans.

The Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) is a classification framework for climate resilience investments, designed to accelerate finance allocation toward adaptation. It organizes investments by seven themes, sectors, and subsectors, requiring that they respond to specific physical climate hazards. To qualify, investments must make a 'substantial contribution to climate resilience', manage maladaptation risks, and 'do no significant harm (DNSH)' to climate change mitigation. The CBRT distinguishes between 'adapted' and 'enabling' investments, and between 'activities' and 'measures', applying different assessment levels—ranging from automatic eligibility to complex process-based assessments—depending on the investment type.

The Climate Bonds Network is a global community of over 110 members, including banks, investors, and governments, designed to drive the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy. Membership provides access to market intelligence, networking opportunities, and a structured training curriculum covering GSS+ bonds, transition finance, and adaptation and resilience. The network offers three membership levels—Network Member, Network Supporter, and Network Champion—with varying degrees of visibility, dedicated support, and access to private briefings and technical reviews.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) has established the Hydropower Criteria to help investors identify hydropower projects that support the Paris Agreement. To be certified, projects must pass a two-part assessment: Mitigation Criteria, which set specific greenhouse gas (GHG) emission thresholds based on the operational date, and Adaptation & Resilience (A&R) Criteria, which use the ESG Gap Analysis Tool to ensure adherence to international best practices across 12 environmental and social dimensions. Certification requires independent verification by accredited assessors licensed by the International Hydropower Association (IHA). The criteria exclude indirect emissions from construction and the economic viability of projects, focusing instead on climate integrity and social responsibility.

The document outlines a seven-step process for issuing green bonds for climate resilience, covering eligibility criteria, project identification, framework development, verification, and reporting. It emphasizes the importance of aligning with international standards to ensure investor credibility and provides guidance on distinguishing between system-level resilience investments and the adaptation of specific assets.

The Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) establishes a science-based classification system to direct capital toward climate resilience. It categorizes investments into four types—adapting measures, adapted activities, enabling measures, and enabling activities—and organizes them across seven thematic areas. To prevent greenwashing, the CBRT requires investments to demonstrate a 'Substantial Contribution' to resilience, manage maladaptation risks, and 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) to climate mitigation and other environmental goals. The methodology emphasizes a graduated screening approach, ranging from automatically eligible investments to complex local threshold assessments, and ensures interoperability with the EU Taxonomy and MDB Joint Methodology.

The Bioenergy Criteria Background document outlines the framework for certifying bioenergy projects as climate-aligned. It establishes a temporal declining trajectory for life-cycle GHG emissions, aiming for near-zero emissions by 2050. The document defines eligible biomass feedstocks—categorized into agricultural, forestry, processing waste, and aquatic biomass—and sets strict sustainability requirements to prevent negative impacts on biodiversity, food security, and carbon stocks. Special emphasis is placed on mitigating methane emissions in the biogas and biomethane value chain through the adoption of 'best-practice' scenarios and leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. Additionally, it provides a framework for assessing the adaptation and resilience of bioenergy assets against climate-related hazards.

The document outlines a 'Rescue Plan for Europe' to address the failure of previous ocean safeguarding strategies. It proposes a detailed timeline of legislative and regulatory actions from 2020 to 2030, focusing on ending overfishing, eliminating pollution, and protecting biodiversity. The plan advocates for a transition to low-impact fishing, the establishment of highly protected marine areas, and a total ban on deep-sea mining and new offshore oil and gas exploration to ensure ocean resilience against climate change.

The paper argues that Canada faces an 'implementation deficit' in climate adaptation, where high-level commitments have not translated into concrete action due to poor interdepartmental coordination and a lack of systematic mainstreaming. It proposes several policy options to embed adaptation into government decision-making, including the use of statute law, central policy directives, the creation of a dedicated adaptation policy unit, and the enhancement of ex ante appraisal tools.

The document argues that Canada has historically struggled to translate high-level climate adaptation aspirations into concrete action due to a lack of interministerial coordination and systematic integration. It proposes moving beyond voluntary, informal approaches toward a 'whole-of-government' approach. Key recommendations include enacting a national climate change adaptation law, issuing centralized policy directives, establishing a dedicated central adaptation policy unit, and utilizing ex ante evaluation tools. The paper highlights the UK's Climate Change Act as a successful model of legislative accountability and notes that most OECD countries possess specialized units for adaptation coordination, a feature currently lacking in Canada.

The document argues that Canada currently lacks a formalized national system for monitoring and evaluating climate adaptation, with most existing efforts focused on policy implementation (outputs) rather than actual resilience gains (outcomes). It proposes a framework based on four building blocks—context, content, operationalization, and communication—and outlines nine best practices. These include legislating a federal mandate, integrating Indigenous Knowledge Systems, and combining quantitative indicators with qualitative methods to better understand how adaptation actions reduce vulnerability.