Search Climate Insights Directory

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 document argues that Africa's vulnerability to climate change is exacerbated by weak environmental information systems and a lack of data-driven policy. It categorizes information needs into three types: responsive (rapid data for early warning and disaster response), proactive (long-term bio-physical projections and sectoral data), and robust (managing uncertainty through regional climate models). The author highlights South Africa's use of the Wide Area Monitoring Information System (WAMIS) and the Disaster Management Act of 2002 as models for integrating disaster risk reduction into local development planning. The paper concludes that African nations must leverage international networks like the Group on Earth Observation (GEO) to overcome technical capacity gaps and avoid 'mal-adaptation' costs.

The document argues that climate change disproportionately harms disadvantaged people and that current policies are failing to achieve gender equality and low-carbon commitments. It calls for the integration of gender equality and low-carbon development goals to avoid 'maladaptation' and ensure just transitions. The call to action provides specific recommendations for governments, multilateral organisations, the private sector, and LGBTQIA+ movements to foster gender-equitable 'green' and 'blue' economies, improve women's access to resources, and increase the climate literacy of gender equality movements.

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 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 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.

Climate Strategies argues that climate adaptation must move beyond a technical exercise to a justice-centered approach that addresses the structural drivers of vulnerability. Drawing on its South to South Just Transitions (S2S) programme, the submission highlights that adaptation actions can create winners and losers, risking the further marginalization of vulnerable populations if not managed through a Just Transition lens. The document identifies best practices in countries like South Africa, Australia, and the EU, while noting significant barriers in the Global South, such as data gaps on lived experiences and the disconnection between mitigation and adaptation policies. It calls for the JTWP to facilitate shared frameworks for operationalizing equity, tracking social outcomes, and mapping transboundary risks.

The document examines the concept of 'just resilience,' which seeks to ensure that climate adaptation does not create new winners and losers or reinforce existing marginalisation. It identifies three core dimensions of justice—distributive, procedural, and recognition—and argues that adaptation must address structural drivers of vulnerability such as wealth, gender, and ethnicity. The paper highlights maladaptation risks, where technical solutions can inadvertently increase long-term risks or displace vulnerable groups. It reviews policy examples from Australia, South Africa, the EU, and Canada, and discusses emerging trends like the rights of nature and locally led adaptation. Finally, it addresses barriers to implementation, including resource constraints and the need for equitable international climate finance mechanisms.

The report analyzes social protection as a tool for climate resilience, highlighting its ability to provide shock-responsive support, facilitate sustainable natural resource management, and cushion the impacts of low-carbon transitions. It identifies a gap in long-term structural adaptation and notes that while multilateral climate funds are increasingly engaging with social protection, integration remains fragmented and often prioritizes project-based interventions over systemic strengthening.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) promotes climate-resilient infrastructure to prevent cascading failures caused by extreme weather and to reduce emissions from cement and steel production. GCF employs six core principles, including the use of nature-based solutions and systemic risk assessments, to unlock public and private capital. Current initiatives include developing valuation methodologies for nature-based solutions in Jamaica, strengthening infrastructure pipelines in Ghana, hurricane-proofing buildings in Antigua and Barbuda, and financing an electric Light Rail Transit system in Costa Rica.

The document summarizes a consultation held on May 17-18, 2022, involving 50 experts to address gaps in resilience measurement. It establishes principles and 3-to-5-year priorities for four key areas: ensuring evidence is demand-driven and co-produced with communities; integrating psychosocial well-being while accounting for cultural bias; improving the mapping and analysis of complex systems; and leveraging resilience frameworks to better measure climate adaptation and future-oriented capacities.

CRiSTAL (Community-based Risk Screening Tool – Adaptation and Livelihoods) is a decision-support tool developed by IUCN, IISD, SEI, and Intercooperation to help project managers understand the links between climate, livelihoods, and project activities. The tool uses a four-step analytical framework implemented via Microsoft Excel to identify climate hazards, assess their impact on livelihood resources, and adjust project activities to enhance adaptive capacity and minimize maladaptation. Since its 2007 launch, it has been applied in over 20 countries, following initial field tests in Mali, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Nicaragua, and Sri Lanka.

The document describes CRiSTAL (Community Risk Identification and Adaptation Tool), a framework developed by IUCN, IISD, SEI, and Intercooperation to analyze the links between climate threats, local livelihoods, and project activities. The tool uses a two-module process—Climate Context and Livelihoods, followed by Adaptation Planning and Management—to help project planners avoid maladaptation and enhance community resilience. It relies on a combination of scientific climate data and community consultations, with data managed via Microsoft Excel. Since its 2007 launch, it has been applied in over 20 countries, following initial field tests in Mali, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Nicaragua, and Sri Lanka.

The document outlines revisions made to a systematic review protocol following stakeholder consultation in late 2020. Key changes include narrowing the geographic focus to sub-Saharan Africa, refining the set of analyzed funders to include specific bilateral and multilateral sources, and updating the search strategy to prioritize project names over specific climate hazards. The review team also introduced a causal-process-tracing theory of change (pToC) to better visualize links between interventions and outcomes, while clarifying that only projects with adaptation as a principal objective will be included.

The document defines transformative adaptation in agriculture as intentional responses that fundamentally alter production systems, locations, or technologies. It argues that while incremental adaptation is often preferable, severe climate impacts will increasingly necessitate transformative shifts to avoid maladaptation and conflict. The paper proposes the use of 'transformative pathways'—coordinated sequences of short- and medium-term actions—and 'decision windows' based on climate projections and crop models to signal when systemic change is required. It calls for governments to integrate these considerations into national adaptation plans (NAPs) and for international bodies, including the UNFCCC, FAO, UNDP, and UNEP, to align their guidelines and funding to support these systemic transitions, emphasizing that such processes must be inclusive and gender-responsive to prevent inequitable outcomes.

The document argues that while policymakers are increasingly incorporating climate adaptation into development plans, a significant 'implementation gap' remains where policies do not translate into concrete action. It proposes a framework of five interlocking enabling factors—policy frameworks, leadership, coordination mechanisms, information/tools, and financial processes—to bridge this gap and avoid maladaptation.