Search Climate Insights Directory

The brief outlines the necessity for multinational corporations to adopt just adaptation strategies to protect workers, communities, and supply chains from climate risks, proposing seven recommendations to avoid maladaptation and systemic instability.

The document argues that nature-based solutions (NbS) often fail to achieve their potential because planning ignores the complexities of scale. It highlights that NbS have longer time-lags than grey infrastructure, spatial dependencies that transcend individual sites, and jurisdictional barriers that complicate governance. The authors recommend a shift toward quantitative targets, 'no regrets' strategies, and cross-jurisdictional coordination to avoid large-scale maladaptation.

The report evaluates the climate action plans and policies of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire using the UCS Resilience Gap Framework. It identifies a regional trend where mitigation and adaptation efforts remain siloed and equity goals are often articulated in policy but poorly implemented. Maine and Vermont are highlighted as regional leaders in alignment with the framework, while New Hampshire is noted for having an outdated plan and a lack of state leadership. The assessment reveals a widespread failure across all six states to account for maladaptation in their planning.

The policy brief advocates for a synergistic approach to the climate and biodiversity crises within the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). It argues that Africa must take a leadership role to ensure that climate finance and implementation are 'nature-positive' and based on Nature-based Solutions (NbS) to prevent maladaptations, such as monoculture afforestation. The document emphasises that successful outcomes require the participatory inclusion of local and rural communities and the integration of urban ecological infrastructures.

The Independent Integrity Unit (IIU) report details its activities from September 2021 to February 2022, focusing on investigations, policy implementation, risk assessment, capacity building, and awareness raising. Key achievements include the implementation of a Case Management System, the approval of Investigation Standards, and the launch of a thematic brief on avoiding maladaptation at COP26. The IIU also reported on case statistics, including the dismissal of a senior manager for misconduct, and the development of an integrity risk rating tool for projects.

The document details the disproportionate impact of climate change on Central Africa, highlighting significant temperature increases, biodiversity loss, and economic decline. It emphasizes the critical need for transformative adaptation and increased climate finance to mitigate future risks to health, food security, and infrastructure.

The document analyzes how socio-economic vulnerabilities—including gender, age, disability, and minority status—increase the risk and impact of climate-related hazards in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It highlights that disadvantaged groups are more likely to live in hazard-prone areas and lack the resources to adapt. The brief argues for inclusive policymaking and warns that both adaptation and mitigation strategies can lead to 'maladaptation' or detrimental socio-economic effects if not carefully designed to protect the most vulnerable populations.

The document outlines a methodological plan to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptation finance in sub-Saharan Africa, specifically focusing on projects funded by multilateral climate funds and bilateral donors from the UK and Sweden. It proposes a theory of change to link financial inputs and project design to outcomes such as reduced climate risk and vulnerability. The protocol details a multi-pronged search strategy across academic and grey literature, and a synthesis approach combining meta-analysis, framework synthesis, and qualitative comparative analysis. However, the authors note that funding for the review was discontinued in March 2021, and the review will not be completed as described.

The policy brief argues that climate adaptation measures often have cross-border effects that can redistribute vulnerability or create 'maladaptation' if not managed through a lens of justice and connectedness. It introduces a framework combining procedural and distributive justice with a systemic understanding of global connectivity to prevent the shifting of risks from wealthy to vulnerable actors. Using case studies from the Brazilian coffee supply chain and the Blue Nile Basin, the authors demonstrate how coordinated international action and improved efficiency can mitigate regional tensions and human security risks. The brief concludes with recommendations for strengthening multilateral cooperation, developing shared normative principles, and crafting incentives to prevent 'risk-dumping'.

The report identifies a significant 'Valley of Death' between the production of climate science and its practical application in resilience and adaptation. While short-term forecasting is generally accurate and used, decadal information is urgently needed but largely unavailable, leading some practitioners to misuse long-term projections. The study argues that a 'science-first' approach is ineffective and recommends that the CLARE programme adopt a user-driven, transdisciplinary structure that prioritizes co-production, capacity building for 'discerning users', and the development of knowledge brokers to bridge the gap between scientists and decision-makers.

The briefing identifies significant challenges in tracking adaptation finance, such as context dependency and lack of standardized reporting. It proposes a three-category framework to distinguish between asset-focused, system-focused, and sectoral benchmark investments. To capture missing data, the authors suggest four technical approaches: keyword searches, sales data analysis, policy matching, and geographic matching. Initial assessments of Climate Bonds Initiative and CDP data show potential for capturing private finance, while the document recommends integrating adaptation into national planning and collaborating with data providers to enhance transparency.

The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) has introduced the Climate Resilience Principles to integrate climate adaptation and resilience into the Climate Bonds Standard. The framework distinguishes between asset-focused investments (ensuring an asset's performance over its lifespan) and system-focused investments (delivering broader systemic benefits). It requires issuers to conduct physical climate risk assessments—covering hazards, exposure, and vulnerability—and demonstrate that investments are 'fit-for-purpose' and do not cause maladaptation. The Principles also address the potential for 'mitigation trade-offs,' where emissions requirements might be relaxed for projects providing exceptional resilience benefits. These Principles will be used by Technical Working Groups to create sector-specific certification criteria.

The paper introduces a three-step framework—enabling environments, mobilization, and delivery of adaptation benefits—to analyze how the private sector can be engaged in climate adaptation. Testing the framework in Kenya and Rwanda reveals that while both countries have established broad policy and regulatory frameworks, actual mobilization of private finance for adaptation remains limited and difficult to track. The authors find that private investments often lack explicit adaptation labeling and that a lack of awareness among private actors, combined with weak enforcement of existing policies, hinders progress. The study highlights the risk of maladaptation and 'climate-washing' and recommends integrating adaptation criteria into environmental impact assessments (EIAs) to better monitor outcomes and prevent counterproductive investments.

The document examines the intersection of climate change, security, and adaptation, arguing that climate impacts act as 'threat multipliers' that can destabilize states and international relations. It highlights risks such as transboundary water conflicts, food insecurity, Arctic geopolitical shifts, and mass migration. The authors warn against 'maladaptation'—adaptation efforts that inadvertently increase inequality or tension—and advocate for a 'preventive' approach. Key recommendations include creating multidimensional early warning systems, implementing risk-tolerant and 'nexus' financing for insecure regions, and ensuring adaptation strategies are timely, strategically targeted, and informed by political economy analysis to avoid exacerbating existing social and political frictions.

The document argues that climate services—the production and use of climate knowledge for decision-making—are essential for adaptation but are currently underdeveloped and misaligned with user needs in the developing world. It identifies critical gaps in the use of long-term climate projections, which are often unsuitable for planning horizons of 10-30 years, and calls for a shift toward resilience-based approaches and improved national meteorological service (NMS) capacity. The authors propose ten recommendations focused on co-production between providers and users, filling observational data gaps, and reforming data policies to treat meteorological data as a public good.

The Ghana National Adaptation Plan Framework establishes a coordinated, sectoral-based approach to climate adaptation. Led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the framework aims to integrate climate resilience into national development planning, engage the private sector, and ensure gender-responsive and community-based adaptation strategies across key sectors including agriculture, water, and health.

The briefing contends that the distinction between adaptation and development projects is counter-productive and that adaptation should be viewed as 'doing development differently in response to climate change.' It proposes a framework for maximizing the impact of scarce adaptation finance by establishing strong climate rationales, building national adaptive capacity across four key areas, and shifting toward devolved decision-making to empower local communities.

The paper frames climate change adaptation as a development challenge, arguing that while financial resources are often a constraint, non-financial barriers such as market failures, governance issues, and behavioral biases are equally critical. It highlights that adaptation and development are inextricably linked, and that 'climate-informed' development can significantly reduce economic losses and poverty. The document reviews various global and local cost estimates, noting that these vary widely based on the reference point used. It recommends a broad definition of adaptation and a focus on removing structural obstacles to maximize the benefits of resilience investments.

The authors find that practitioners and policy-makers give only superficial attention to the risk of adaptation activities redistributing vulnerability, and that conceptual research on maladaptation has not yet translated into sufficient empirical evidence regarding the distributional impacts of real-world adaptation.

The document outlines the transition of climate adaptation research from descriptive impact assessments to a fourth generation focused on acceleration and implementation. Drawing on the Adaptation Futures 2016 conference, it proposes research priorities across five key messages: managing interconnected risks, fostering diverse partnerships, engaging the private sector, reinforcing the link between research 'on' and 'for' adaptation, and shifting monitoring from process to progress.