Search Climate Insights Directory

Togo has adopted a government-wide, multisectoral approach to climate change adaptation, treating it as a development issue central to its Vision 2030 goals. The country is systematically mainstreaming adaptation into national planning and the domestic budget, led by the Ministry of Planning and the Ministry of Economy and Finance. Key climate threats identified include heatwaves, droughts, floods, rainfall variability, and sea level rise, affecting priority sectors such as agriculture, coastal zones, health, human settlements, and water.

Albania implemented a pilot exercise to mainstream climate change adaptation into its 2018-2020 Medium-Term Budget Process, involving seven budget programs across four ministries. The process focused on identifying adaptation measures at various levels of government programming and improving the tracking of expenditures through the national financial system. The government intends to use this data for reporting to the UNFCCC and the European Union, with a long-term goal of potentially establishing a multi-sectoral government program on climate change if the mainstreaming process is deemed successful by international assessments.

The report details a workshop conducted by the NAP Global Network with the Ethiopian government to transition from the finalization of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP-ETH) to its implementation. It outlines five strategic priorities for adaptation: mainstreaming into policies, building institutional capacity, establishing sustainable funding, advancing research, and improving knowledge management. The document also assesses the opportunities and challenges regarding vertical integration, noting that while political commitment and existing governance structures are strengths, financial constraints and capacity gaps at sub-national levels remain significant hurdles.

The document examines the tension between 'mainstreaming' climate change adaptation—integrating it into development, business, and other policy sectors—and treating it as a specialized 'silo' of expertise. Drawing on the Adaptation Futures 2016 conference, it argues that neither approach is inherently superior; rather, the choice depends on the specific purpose and context. While mainstreaming promotes resource efficiency and policy coherence (particularly regarding poverty reduction), the author notes that it can make adaptation progress invisible, complicating monitoring, evaluation, and the tracking of earmarked finance. The brief highlights the expansion of mainstreaming into business operations and city planning, while recommending a pragmatic approach that recognizes the value of both integrated and stand-alone adaptation efforts.

The report advocates for a shift from 'science-first' to 'policy-first' (or 'decision-first') adaptation methods, which prioritise development objectives and immediate policy windows over purely model-driven impact assessments. This approach is illustrated through a case study in Rwanda, where climate information was integrated into the Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (ASIP2) specifically for the tea and coffee sectors. The process involved identifying policy entry points, assessing current and future climate risks—such as rising temperatures and rainfall variability—and sequencing interventions into low-regret options, land-use planning, and early planning for future risks like pests and diseases. The report emphasises that for adaptation to be successful, it must be linked to specific financing sources, such as Rwanda's national climate and environment fund (FONERWA), and include iterative evaluation and learning mechanisms.

The document outlines a spectrum of approaches for integrating climate adaptation into sectoral planning, ranging from sector-driven to nationally driven models, using examples from several developing countries to illustrate how different pathways can achieve climate-resilient development.

The report details strategies for achieving political commitment to National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and explores various pathways for integrating adaptation into sectoral policies. It emphasizes the necessity of strong in-country coordination, the use of clear narratives to engage powerful ministries, and the role of south-south cooperation in building technical capacity.

The report details strategies for achieving political commitment and sectoral integration in National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes, based on a workshop with representatives from 14 countries. It identifies three dimensions of political support—expressed, institutional, and budgetary—and proposes framing adaptation as complementary to existing development goals to avoid 'initiative overload'. The document outlines a spectrum of integration approaches, ranging from sector-driven to nationally-driven, and emphasizes the necessity of strong in-country coordination and south-south cooperation to ensure climate-resilient development.

The document outlines a framework for mainstreaming climate change adaptation by combining stakeholder engagement with quantitative spatial modelling. Using the 'Farms to Regions' (F2R) project in Eastern Ontario as a case study, it describes a process of identifying regional drivers, developing qualitative and quantitative scenarios (including a Business-As-Usual baseline), and simulating these futures using the Envision modelling platform. The guide emphasizes the use of integrated decision units (IDUs) to map impacts on farm income and environmental services, providing a toolkit for planners to evaluate trade-offs and develop robust adaptation strategies.

The document outlines the transition from short-term National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) to medium- and long-term National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for Least Developed Countries (LDCs). It emphasizes the need for iterative planning, the use of 'no-regret' strategies to manage data uncertainty, and the integration of climate adaptation into national development strategies. The briefing highlights significant funding gaps, noting that LDCF resources fall short of demand and that LDCs require approximately US$ 5 billion to implement NAPAs alone. It also discusses the role of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the importance of establishing robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks to track adaptation effectiveness and climate finance.

The report finds significant institutional gaps in Trinidad and Tobago's readiness for climate adaptation across food production, coastal zone management, and tourism. While basic climate data is available via the Trinidad and Tobago Meteorological Service, there is a critical lack of sector-specific vulnerability assessments, formal prioritisation processes, and national platforms for information exchange. Coordination is strongest in coastal zone management through a Cabinet-appointed Steering Committee, but overall mainstreaming of adaptation into national planning remains limited, with current efforts led by the Environmental Management Authority to integrate climate priorities into development sectors.

The paper introduces the Climate Resilience Mainstreaming Building Block (CRMBB) framework, which guides government planners in integrating climate resilience into policy objectives, spatial scales, and temporal planning cycles. It identifies three primary policy responses: climate-proofing, climate-first, and development-first. The CRMBB framework consists of three building blocks: an enabling environment (political will and information services), policy and planning (policy frameworks, institutional arrangements, and financial frameworks), and projects and programmes. Case studies from Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Kenya, The Gambia, and Rwanda demonstrate a trend toward country-led, programmatic approaches over externally driven, project-based initiatives.

The document argues that 'mainstreaming' adaptation—integrating it into existing policies and plans—is the most effective way to scale up resilience in the Asia and Pacific region. It describes mainstreaming as an iterative, multi-year process that must occur across national, sectoral, and sub-national levels to avoid policy conflicts and ensure efficient resource use. Key entry points identified include poverty reduction strategy papers, national development plans, and sectoral strategies for water and disaster risk reduction. The brief emphasizes that successful integration requires extensive stakeholder engagement, including vulnerable populations, and the translation of climate data into scaled-down, usable information for local planners.

The report examines the 'mainstreaming' of climate change adaptation into development planning to increase efficiency and avoid policy conflicts. It analyzes three guiding frameworks (Huq and Ayers, UNDP-UNEP, and OECD) and evaluates entry points across different governance levels. The analysis highlights challenges in the Asia-Pacific region, such as the disconnect between disaster management and climate policy, and suggests strategies including the use of a 'climate lens' for screening projects and the adoption of 'no-regrets' strategies.

The report examines a sample of nine climate risk screening and assessment tools used by bilateral/multilateral donors and international NGOs. It categorizes adaptation tools into process guidance, data provision, and knowledge-sharing types, noting a dichotomy between top-down, impacts-driven donor approaches and bottom-up, vulnerability-driven NGO approaches. Key findings highlight a 'usage gap' where practitioners prefer synthesis documents over complex data tools, and a difficulty in moving from risk assessment to concrete adaptation action. The authors recommend continued training, better integration between data and process tools, and the development of a common risk management framework and terminology to reduce duplication and confusion in the development community.

The policy brief examines how local climate adaptation lessons are 'upscaled' to inform higher-level decision-making. It introduces a framework based on two axes—epistemology (realism vs. constructionism) and intent of inquiry (universalism vs. contextualism)—to categorize how case studies mediate between local efforts and political goals. By analyzing projects in Sweden, Canada, and Indonesia, the brief demonstrates that methodological choices determine whether research supports planned regulatory policy or non-coercive, self-organized adaptation. It emphasizes the need to balance benefits between community stakeholders, policy makers, and researchers.

The document evaluates the initial efforts of at least six development agencies to screen their project portfolios for climate risks and vulnerabilities. It argues that while agencies recognize climate change as a threat, they often overlook how development patterns influence vulnerability. The paper advocates for a comprehensive approach to integrating adaptation into sectoral decision-making and provides guidance for systematic portfolio screening.

The document argues that adaptation is essential because some climate impacts are already unavoidable, regardless of mitigation efforts. It highlights a critical funding gap for developing countries, where current financial flows may need to increase by two orders of magnitude. The authors emphasize that adaptation is an iterative process linked to broader development goals, such as poverty reduction and good governance. To improve effectiveness, the paper recommends 'mainstreaming' adaptation into national planning and creating transparent, principle-based funding mechanisms, such as levies on carbon market transactions, to ensure that support for developing nations is new and additional rather than absorbed into existing official development assistance.

The document highlights a significant funding shortfall for climate adaptation in developing countries, noting that estimates of annual needs range from USD 9 billion to over USD 109 billion. It examines the tension between 'mainstreaming' adaptation into Official Development Assistance (ODA)—which enhances sustainability but is viewed by developing nations as a way for donors to avoid new funding—and 'stand-alone' adaptation, which is easier to track as new and additional funding. The brief advocates for the Adaptation Fund's model of direct representation for developing countries and suggests exploring private sector insurance-related options to bridge the funding gap.

The document examines Ethiopia's efforts to integrate climate adaptation into national policy, specifically highlighting the water sector as the primary medium for climate impacts. While Ethiopia has established a National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and is developing the Carbon Neutral Climate Resilience Ethiopia (CNCR-E) programme, progress is hindered by resource shortages, fragmented governance across ministries, and technical capacity constraints. The text warns that international finance mechanisms focusing on 'additional' funding may inadvertently encourage peripheral 'add-on' projects rather than integrating adaptation into routine sector planning and budgeting.