Search Climate Insights Directory

The research demonstrates that value-led design can bridge the gap between abstract climate data and local knowledge, allowing pastoralist communities to develop adaptation strategies that are scientifically informed yet culturally resonant. By employing the multi-level perspective (MLP) as a participatory tool, the approach aims to advance equity, prevent maladaptation, and support systemic transitions toward regenerative futures in arid and semi-arid lands.

The research paper advocates for centering human rights in ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) by aligning implementation with Section C of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). It highlights that while EbA can be more cost-effective and equitable than top-down approaches, it requires a human rights-based approach (HRBA) to avoid maladaptation and the displacement of communities. Through case studies in Benin (sacred forest protection) and Kenya (rangeland restoration in Mount Marsabit), the document illustrates how integrating Indigenous knowledge and participatory governance enhances resilience. The author recommends establishing national coordination mechanisms to track EbA across sectors and leveraging global networks to scale rights-based evidence, noting that currently less than 0.2% of climate finance specifically targets locally led outcomes.

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 document advocates for a human rights-based approach (HRBA) to ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), emphasizing that biodiversity-led climate strategies are most effective when they address power imbalances and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. It highlights Section C of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) as a critical guide for ensuring equity and avoiding maladaptation. Case studies from Benin, focusing on the protection of sacred forests through Indigenous knowledge, and Kenya, focusing on rangeland restoration in Mount Marsabit via pastoralist stewardship, demonstrate how inclusive practices enhance resilience. The brief recommends establishing national coordination mechanisms to track EbA across sectors and increasing climate finance for locally led actions, noting that currently less than 0.2% of such finance specifically targets locally led outcomes.

The Stockholm Environment Institute's systemic climate adaptation framework provides a normative guide to make adaptation policy more coherent, equitable, and robust. It is built on three core pillars: systemic risk framing, policy interlinkages, and deep uncertainty management. These pillars translate into six guiding principles—interconnected by design, shared risk ownership, co-benefits and everyday value, no-regrets and anti-maladaptation, equity and just resilience, and adaptive governance under deep uncertainty. The framework is intended as 'adaptable scaffolding' for stress-testing decisions, such as national strategies or investment pipelines, rather than a rigid checklist.

The report identifies a recurring 'implementation gap' where adaptation policies increasingly use the language of systemic risk—interconnected hazards, cascading impacts, and deep uncertainty—but continue to operate through hazard- and sector-based routines. Through comparative analysis of the EU, ASEAN, and the US, it finds that mandates, funding, and monitoring systems remain fragmented, often ignoring policy trade-offs and distributional inequities. It concludes by proposing a framework based on systemic risk framing, policy interlinkages, and deep uncertainty management to help decision-makers stress-test investments and avoid maladaptation.

The report critiques South Africa's National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (NCCAS) 2020 and its 2025 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for failing to address the root causes of current vulnerability, such as poverty and inequality. It argues that focusing solely on system resilience—such as 'climate smart agriculture'—without reducing existing vulnerabilities like food insecurity leads to 'maladaptation' and risks a 'downward spiral of undevelopment.' The author proposes shifting from 'incremental adaptation' (technical adjustments) to 'transformative adaptation' (system transitions), incorporating a distributive justice framework similar to that used in energy transitions to ensure that the structural causes of vulnerability are dismantled.

The paper analyzes water injustice across OECD countries, finding a primary focus on water scarcity and identifying distributive, procedural, and recognitional injustices. It argues that current responses are insufficient to address root causes and recommends a systems perspective and local context focus for future governance.

The document outlines a three-goal approach for climate finance vehicles to manage climate risk and build resilience. Goal 1 focuses on a five-step process to identify and manage physical climate hazards to align with international standards like the ISSB and Paris Agreement. Goal 2 guides the creation of an evidence-backed adaptation thesis to secure investor commitments, particularly for those targeting Multilateral Development Bank (MDB) funding. Goal 3 provides a methodology for designing impact measurement frameworks, including theories of change and indicator tables, to track resilience outcomes and avoid maladaptation.

The report analyzes climate adaptation projects in Afghanistan, the DRC, Haiti, the Horn of Africa, Mexico, Myanmar, and Papua New Guinea. It finds that while insecurity often leads to risk-averse site selection and implementation delays, projects that integrate conflict-climate nexus analysis and prioritize bottom-up, community-led approaches can mitigate conflict and foster peace. The authors recommend flexible implementation, holistic monitoring and evaluation, and the explicit inclusion of conflict mitigation in project objectives to avoid maladaptation and 'backdraft'.

The Climate Bonds’ Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT) is a classification system designed to help infrastructure issuers identify and certify investments that enhance climate resilience. It covers over 1,400 investments across seven themes, including health, agri-food, and energy systems. The taxonomy employs a tiered eligibility framework requiring a 'substantial contribution to resilience', 'no maladaptation risk', and 'Do No Significant Harm (DNSH)' to other sustainability goals. Investments are categorized as whitelisted (automatically aligned), subject to technical specifications (binary pass/fail checks), or requiring a process-based approach for flexible placeholders. The guide outlines two primary use cases: developing a project pipeline by filtering for material climate hazards and mapping existing projects to verify eligibility for thematic bonds. Currently in an interim phase, the CBRT is designed for interoperability with the EU Taxonomy, the MDB joint methodology, and the LAC Common Framework.

The report examines climate adaptation in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, the Horn of Africa, Mexico, Myanmar, and Papua New Guinea. It finds that while instability often leads to risk-averse site selection and implementation delays, projects that integrate conflict-sensitivity and community-led approaches can mitigate these challenges and potentially contribute to peacebuilding. The analysis highlights the necessity of flexible implementation, the use of fragility assessments, and the importance of addressing root causes of vulnerability to avoid maladaptation and 'backdraft'—unforeseen negative spillover effects.

The policy brief distinguishes between incremental and transformational adaptation, highlighting that the latter is necessary when climate impacts cross viability thresholds. It identifies significant barriers to transformational adaptation in Africa, including financial gaps, weak legal frameworks, and a lack of standardized metrics. The authors recommend that South Africa's G20 presidency champion the development of adaptation scenarios, the enactment of climate change laws, and the creation of an Africa-based framework for measuring systemic impact to move beyond reactive, short-term climate responses.

The document outlines a certification framework for climate resilience investments under the Climate Bonds Resilience Taxonomy (CBRT). It introduces interim criteria that bypass draft technical screening criteria until they are validated by Technical Working Groups. To be certifiable, investments must demonstrate a substantial contribution to climate resilience, manage maladaptation risks, and do no significant harm to climate mitigation objectives. The framework distinguishes between different investment types—Adapted Activities, Adapting Measures, Enabling Activities, and Enabling Measures—with specific evidence requirements for each, particularly regarding investment-level assessments and the use of science-based climate projections.

The document provides a framework for certifying climate resilience investments through three primary components: making a substantial contribution to resilience, managing maladaptation risks, and ensuring no significant harm to climate mitigation. It defines specific requirements for 'adapted' and 'enabling' investments, including the need for investment-level assessments based on science-based projections and the use of multiple climate scenarios such as SSP5-8.5. These interim criteria are intended to be replaced progressively by validated, sector-specific criteria and proxies developed by technical working groups.

The report analyzes how climate change acts as a driver of conflict in Nigeria, specifically through resource competition, livelihood loss, and displacement. It details the interaction between environmental stressors and security issues, such as farmer-herder clashes and recruitment into armed groups like Boko Haram. The document proposes a five-step sequence to mainstream conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding into the National Adaptation Plan (NAP), ranging from institutional framework development to the inclusion of peacebuilding markers in monitoring and evaluation.

The document argues that environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS) exceed USD 2 trillion annually, creating perverse incentives that drive biodiversity loss and climate change. It proposes a theory of change based on the 'Multiple Streams and Policy Windows Framework'—defining the problem, identifying solutions, and creating political support—to catalyze reform. The playbook outlines 25 specific opportunities for philanthropic engagement, ranging from independent national assessments and technical support for Global South governments to the creation of 'first-mover clubs' of governments. It emphasizes that transparency alone is insufficient and that durable reform requires the co-development of repurposing strategies to support vulnerable groups and businesses transitioning away from harmful subsidies.

The document examines the EECCLiRe project's efforts to implement ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) among coffee farmers in Ruteng and Bajawa, Flores. It identifies significant climate disruptions, including unpredictable rainfall and extreme events like a 2017 drought and 2020 storm, which have pushed some farmers toward horticulture. The brief highlights the tension between scientific methods—such as tree rejuvenation—and spiritual beliefs, as well as barriers like poor digital infrastructure for weather alerts and the loss of agricultural labor due to youth migration. It argues for a holistic EbA approach that combines traditional ecological insights with modern science and addresses gender and generational dynamics to avoid maladaptation.

The Center for Climate and Security (CCS) has submitted comments on the Zero Order Draft of the First National Nature Assessment (NNA1), prepared by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). CCS supports the draft's inclusion of anthropogenic ecosystems, biotic eruptions, and the link between global nature loss and U.S. security. However, CCS recommends that the NNA1 expand its analysis to include unprotected, privately owned nature as a source of hazard aversion and incorporate benefit-cost analyses comparing nature-based solutions with synthetic alternatives. Additionally, CCS urges the inclusion of maladaptation risks to human and national security, citing examples from São Tomé and Príncipe and Vanuatu where climate finance projects failed to account for social inequalities and power dynamics.