Search Climate Insights Directory

The report finds that while 98% of analyzed NAPs reference education, there is a significant gap in systemic integration. Only 40% include the education sector in impact, risk, and vulnerability assessments, and only 16% address all three components of a climate-resilient education system: curriculum change, resilient infrastructure, and educational continuity. While 84% of NAPs include education-related priorities, only 27% provide cost estimates for these actions. Institutional gaps are prominent, with only 11% of NAPs showing evidence that education ministries were consulted during the design process. The report also notes that while 94% of NAPs mention children and youth, only 23% reference their rights.

The NAP Global Network Strategy to 2030 aims to move developing countries from the formulation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) to active implementation. The strategy is built on three pillars: national-level technical support, South-South peer learning, and knowledge generation. Key priorities include supporting Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), enhancing monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) systems, and amplifying the voices of underrepresented groups and civil society. The Network seeks approximately USD 28–30 million over the strategy period to maintain its operations and support for partner countries.

The document highlights the risks of planning water and energy sectors in isolation, particularly as climate change increases water stress and impacts hydropower. It proposes the combined use of the Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) and Water Evaluation and Adaptation Planning (WEAP) tools, alongside macroeconomic modelling, to identify trade-offs and synergies. Case studies in Rwanda and Central Asia illustrate how this integrated approach can prevent GDP losses and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The brief further suggests that such integration helps countries align their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) to optimize limited climate finance.

The authors propose a 'strategic resilience' framework to elevate climate change adaptation from 'low politics' in environment ministries to the heart of government. Using a UK case study, the paper highlights the failure of traditional territorial adaptation to address cross-border risks—which propagate via trade, finance, people, and biophysical routes. It warns against the 'securitization' of adaptation by defence ministries and suggests three pathways for reform: empowering environment ministries, establishing central coordinators, or creating dedicated ministries of resilience.

The Water Evaluation and Adaptation Planning (WEAP) platform is a scenario-based modelling tool used in 190 countries to integrate supply- and demand-side perspectives for water resilience. It enables users to simulate climate-driven scenarios, evaluate adaptation strategies such as infrastructure upgrades and demand management, and analyze trade-offs at the water-energy-food nexus through integration with the Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) and macroeconomic models. WEAP supports both top-down and locally led initiatives across various scales, from local watersheds to transboundary river basins.

The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) is an international framework established under the Paris Agreement to monitor and evaluate climate adaptation progress. While an overarching framework was agreed in 2023, the process now focuses on defining specific indicators to be finalized at COP30 in Belém. These indicators, covering both outcomes (e.g., water stress levels) and means of implementation (e.g., finance), aim to replace vague pledges with measurable targets. The document highlights a critical adaptation financing gap, noting that developing countries' needs are estimated at USD 310-365 billion annually, far exceeding current flows. It argues that quantifiable metrics can incentivize investment, citing research that every dollar invested in adaptation can generate over ten dollars in benefits over a decade.

The inventory describes the emergence of diverse multilevel governance (MLG) coordination mechanisms for climate action—covering adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage—over the last thirty years. It aims to provide national teams, subnational decision-makers, and non-state actors with information on existing mechanisms to support the NAP process and to help international development practitioners avoid duplicating efforts.

The document highlights a critical adaptation finance gap in Africa, noting that the continent requires between $187–359 billion annually but faces an 80% shortfall in adaptation investment. It identifies the South African G20 presidency as a strategic opportunity to shift climate finance from debt-creating loans to grants and concessional funding. Key recommendations include scaling locally led adaptation, implementing debt-for-climate swaps, and reforming Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to ensure at least 50% of climate finance for African Least Developed Countries is provided as grants or highly concessional finance.

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.

As of 31 August 2025, the GCF has a total pledged amount of USD 30 billion and has committed USD 18 billion to 314 projects across 133 countries. The portfolio is split between adaptation (58% in grant-equivalent terms) and mitigation (42%). The Fund's accredited entity network consists of 153 entities, 66% of which are direct access entities. The Readiness Programme portfolio has grown to USD 749.1 million. The current pipeline includes 142 concept notes and 66 funding proposals requesting a combined USD 12.3 billion in GCF financing, which exceeds the projected commitment authority for 2026–2027. The Secretariat is implementing pipeline optimization measures to retire inactive proposals and align with the 2024–2027 Strategic Plan.

The report finds that international adaptation finance for SIDS is severely insufficient, averaging just over USD 2 billion annually in 2021–2022, while assessed needs are approximately USD 12 billion. It highlights that 44% of this finance was provided as debt, posing macroeconomic risks, and notes a high concentration of funds, with 10 SIDS receiving 67% of tracked finance. The document calls for a six-fold increase in flows, a shift from ODA eligibility to a multidimensional vulnerability index, and improved tracking of both public and private investments.

The report examines eight innovative financial instruments—including the Adaptation Benefit Mechanism, biodiversity credits, carbon taxes, carbon trading, credit guarantees, debt-for-nature/climate resilience swaps, pooled investment funds, and sovereign green/sustainability-linked bonds—to bridge the climate finance gap in developing countries. It identifies common barriers such as limited institutional capacity, lack of robust project pipelines, and underdeveloped local capital markets. The document emphasizes that while these instruments can signal a government's commitment to climate action, their success depends on a supportive enabling environment characterized by effective leadership, clear taxonomies, and robust climate data. For least developed countries (LDCs), the report suggests a phased approach, first strengthening basic financial and legal prerequisites before focusing on 'climate investability'. It concludes with specific recommendations for donors and development partners to provide technical assistance, anchor investments, and pilot projects to scale up private sector mobilization.

The report analyzes three case studies to demonstrate how purposeful, collective learning can improve climate adaptation planning. In Côte d’Ivoire, a national platform fostered a community of practice on the gender-climate nexus. Peru established a platform to integrate Indigenous Peoples' ancestral knowledge into its NAP. Rwanda implemented a monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) system to refine adaptation priorities. The report identifies key enabling factors such as inclusive leadership, legal institutionalization, and a culture of public accountability, while noting that sustained financial support remains a primary challenge for maintaining learning momentum.

The document assesses the UN climate regime's transition to the 'implementation era' following the completion of the Paris Agreement rulebook. It identifies systemic inefficiencies, including a predominance of procedural decisions (87%) over substantive ones, overlapping mandates among 17 constituted bodies, and significant funding gaps for adaptation. The authors argue that the regime is hindered by a de facto veto system based on consensus and the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists. Key recommendations include adopting formal voting rules, closing the Kyoto Protocol's remaining structures to save an estimated €62 million over five years, and operationalizing new governance platforms like a UN Climate Council. The brief also emphasizes the need to address structural drivers of the crisis, such as overconsumption and corporate impunity, while leveraging the 2025 ICJ Advisory Opinion to strengthen legal accountability for both states and non-state actors.

The declaration calls for the 'decolonization of knowledge' and the operationalization of Locally Led Adaptation (LLA) principles to ensure African communities are central to climate action. It proposes the creation of a Local Climate Fund (FCL) and a readiness fund for the local private sector to reduce reliance on private financing that leads to 'climate over-indebtedness' in Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The document urges African governments to institutionalize a National Energy Transition Council and democratize energy entrepreneurship. Internationally, it demands that high-emitting countries mobilize at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 to support developing nations and prioritize grants over debt-increasing loans.

The report assesses the integration of monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) systems within National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) across 62 countries. It finds that while most NAPs acknowledge MEL implementation, few provide concrete timelines, and less than half incorporate gender-responsive indicators. The document emphasizes that MEL is essential for assessing adaptation effectiveness, ensuring accountability, and fulfilling international reporting requirements under the Paris Agreement.

The report outlines national and international strategies for Senegal to manage transboundary climate risks, emphasizing the need for formal recognition in policy documents and the development of regional cooperation frameworks.

The report finds that while 100% of reviewed NAP documents acknowledge the importance of MEL, significant gaps remain in institutional capacity and financial resources. Only 18% of countries have dedicated MEL units and 29% mention dedicated financing. While output-level indicators are common (55%), impact-level indicators are used by only 31% of countries. The report also highlights a lack of structured implementation, with only 39% of documents including a roadmap or timeline for MEL rollout. Integration of gender-responsive indicators is emerging (45%), but disaggregation by age, disability, and geography remains low.

The report analyzes the intersection of climate and trade policy frameworks to enhance technology transfer for climate change adaptation in the Global South. It examines the roles of the UNFCCC and WTO, identifies barriers to technology transfer, and provides recommendations for aligning national adaptation plans with trade policy mechanisms to improve climate resilience.

The report examines how technology transfer for climate change adaptation is handled within the UNFCCC and WTO frameworks, noting that these policy domains have largely evolved in isolation. It defines adaptation technology as comprising hardware, software, and orgware, and highlights that while trade is recognized as a driver for transfer, it is rarely explicitly integrated into national adaptation plans (NAPs) or technology needs assessments (TNAs). The author identifies significant divergences between developed and developing countries over intellectual property rights (IPRs) and the role of government incentives. Analysis of Small Island Developing States' BAEF reports reveals that high import duties and reliance on foreign imports are key barriers. The report recommends involving trade experts in the NAP process and developing actionable guidance to operationalize technology transfer.