Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper argues that ignoring gender and power inequalities in climate change adaptation is maladaptive and leads to further exclusion. It advocates for 'gender-transformative adaptation'—which seeks to change the fundamental attributes of a system and address the root causes of vulnerability—across the natural environment, food security, sustainable cities, infrastructure, industry, and finance. The authors highlight how intersecting inequalities (income, ethnicity, age, etc.) compound vulnerability and recommend rigorous, participatory gender analyses to inform policy and project design. Key findings include the risk of 'elite capture' in the green economy and the critical need for women's land and resource rights to enable nature-based solutions.

The paper argues that ignoring gender and power inequalities in climate adaptation is maladaptive and recommends transforming social structures to ensure equitable resilience. It analyzes six key systems—natural environment, food security, sustainable cities, infrastructure, industry, and finance—demonstrating how patriarchal norms and intersecting inequalities (such as class, ethnicity, and age) disproportionately burden women and marginalized groups. The authors advocate for rigorous gender analyses, the redistribution of care work, and the inclusion of diverse voices in decision-making to move beyond tokenistic gender mainstreaming toward systemic, gender-transformative change.

The document is a transcript of a briefing on coastal resilience in the Northeast US. It details the Massachusetts Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program, the Waterfront Alliance's efforts to build consensus in the New York City metro area, and the Island Institute's work with rural coastal and island communities in Maine. The discussion emphasizes the role of nature-based solutions, the challenges of funding and capacity in rural areas, and the need for equitable, risk-informed governance to address sea level rise and coastal flooding.

The document critiques biodiversity offsetting markets, asserting that they are conceptually flawed and practically ineffective. It argues that nature cannot be accurately priced or restored to its original state, and that such markets often lead to land grabbing and human rights violations. Instead, the author proposes a return to binding environmental regulations and sustainable practices like agroecology to protect ecosystems.

The briefing critiques the shift in biodiversity policy from conservation to 'restoration' through financial markets. It argues that biodiversity offsetting—where developers pay to recreate habitats to justify destroying existing ones—is based on the flawed premise that nature can be monetized and replaced. The author cites high failure rates in restoration projects, the inability of markets to price public goods or scarcity, and the risk of land grabbing. Instead of market tools, the document advocates for binding environmental laws and sustainable practices like agroecology to protect biodiversity.

The report evaluates floating treatment wetlands (FTWs) as a nature-based solution for eutrophication in shallow lakes. Through primary research at the IISD-Experimental Lakes Area (IISD-ELA) and a case study of Pelican Lake, Manitoba, the study demonstrates that FTWs—particularly those using cattails—effectively sequester phosphorus and nitrogen. While plant biomass contributes to nutrient removal, the report emphasizes that the microbial biofilm on roots provides up to 80% of the total treatment. For Pelican Lake, the study estimates that 5% surface coverage could reduce total phosphorus levels by 10% to 50%, though FTWs must be combined with watershed-level strategies to meet provincial water quality standards.

WRI President & CEO Andrew Steer states that while the UN Climate Action Summit saw commitments from 67 countries to enhance climate plans and 66 working toward carbon neutrality, major economies fell short of necessary ambition. Progress was instead driven by the private sector and subnational actors, including 87 businesses committing to 1.5 degree C targets and over 100 cities aiming for net-zero emissions by 2050.

The 'Building a Resilient Future Day' outcome document outlines a multi-stakeholder effort to move beyond incremental change toward transformative climate resilience. It identifies 70 specific actions and emphasizes the need for risk-informed decision-making, nature-based solutions, and the integration of climate action with food security and conflict prevention. The report highlights the critical role of local communities, youth, and women in decision-making and calls for decentralized funding to reach grassroots levels. Key focus areas include the transformation of food systems, the implementation of early warning, early action (EWEA) systems, and the development of resilient urban infrastructure. The document aligns these efforts with the UN Climate Action Summit's Call for Action and the Global Commission on Adaptation's Year of Action.

The briefing discusses the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, highlighting the need to accelerate action due to IPCC warnings and youth-led climate strikes. It notes that while mitigation has seen progress with 183 parties submitting NDCs, adaptation remains severely under-implemented, particularly in developing countries. The author advocates for the integration of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) into global strategies, noting its dual benefit for resilience and carbon sequestration, especially in Africa.

The report outlines key priorities for building climate resilience in the Asia-Pacific, emphasizing a systems approach to adaptation, the necessity of intersectional and inclusive programming, and the scaling of innovative blended finance. It advocates for shifting from reactive disaster response to proactive preparedness through early warning systems and nature-based solutions, while ensuring local communities are central to decision-making.

The document advocates for Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) as a critical mechanism to overcome the limitations of siloed sectoral approaches to climate change adaptation. It defines ILM as a process where diverse stakeholders collaborate to manage natural resources sustainably at a local scale, typically ranging from 100 to 10,000 km2. The authors identify five key features of effective ILM: multi-stakeholder institutions, structured cross-sector planning, synergistic interventions, aligned public policies, and coordinated investment portfolios. Using the Imarisha Naivasha initiative in Kenya as a case study, the paper demonstrates how ILM can resolve resource conflicts and build resilience. It concludes with recommendations for the Global Commission on Adaptation to foster ILM platforms, improve inter-agency planning, mobilize private sector investment, and build research systems for climate-resilient landscapes.

The document analyzes the vulnerability of global economic infrastructure to climate hazards such as flooding, extreme temperatures, and permafrost melt. It argues for a comprehensive approach to adaptation that integrates climate risk analysis 'upstream' into the planning, design, and financing stages of the infrastructure lifecycle. Key findings highlight significant risks to road networks, thermoelectric and hydropower plants, and water supplies, while proposing solutions ranging from nature-based 'Sponge Cities' to performance-based engineering standards and programmatic financing.

The document advocates for the integration of nature-based solutions (NbS)—categorized into green and natural infrastructure—as a resilient alternative or supplement to traditional 'gray' manmade infrastructure in the U.S. It details how NbS can mitigate coastal storm damage, inland flooding, and extreme heat while providing co-benefits like carbon sequestration and improved water quality. The text provides specific cost comparisons and case studies from various U.S. cities and states to demonstrate the economic and environmental efficacy of these approaches.

The report analyzes perspectives from 84 NYDF endorsers, including governments, companies, NGOs, and indigenous peoples. It finds that while many individual actions have been taken, global deforestation has accelerated by 44% since 2014, and the world is not on track to meet its collective forest goals. The document identifies eight key lessons, emphasizing that high-level commitments must transition to measurable implementation supported by strong governance, secure land tenure for indigenous peoples, and a paradigm shift in forest finance to move from 'grey to green' investments.

The report evaluates the five-year progress of the New York Declaration on Forests (NYDF), concluding that while localized successes exist, global efforts are not on track to meet 2020 and 2030 goals. It identifies eight core lessons, emphasizing that political will, strong governance, and secure land tenure for indigenous peoples are critical for success. The document highlights a significant gap between high-level commitments and ground-level implementation, noting that deforestation has accelerated by up to 44% since 2014. It calls for a paradigm shift in financing, moving from 'grey' to 'green' finance, and a stronger integration of nature-based solutions into national climate agendas.

The report evaluates the experiences of over 80 NYDF signatories, including governments, companies, NGOs, and indigenous peoples. It finds that while individual projects show success, global progress is insufficient, with tropical deforestation increasing by 44% since 2014. The document identifies eight key lessons, emphasizing that high-level political will, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and secure land tenure for indigenous peoples are critical for success. It highlights systemic failures in finance, where investments in deforestation drivers vastly outweigh those for forest protection, and calls for a paradigm shift toward 'nature-based solutions' and 'green finance' to meet climate and biodiversity goals after 2020.

The report finds that despite widespread commitments, global progress toward the NYDF goals is insufficient, with tropical deforestation increasing by 44% since 2014. Through consultations with 84 signatories, the document identifies eight key lessons, emphasizing that high-level political will, secure land tenure for indigenous peoples, and a shift from 'grey' to 'green' finance are critical for success. While some localized successes in REDD+ and sustainable supply chains are noted, systemic barriers—including corruption, lack of transparency in agricultural commodities, and the criminalization of forest defenders—continue to hinder large-scale implementation.

The Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) Water Window Challenge supported over 500,000 people across eight countries through 12 projects focused on flood resilience. The synthesis identifies that success was driven by 'layering' interventions—combining livelihood support, early warning systems (EWS), and infrastructure—and by deep stakeholder engagement. Key achievements include the establishment of 347 women-led community-based organizations in Sri Lanka, the support of 265,000 individuals in Indonesia through transboundary coordination, and the deployment of EWS reaching over 84,000 households in the India-Nepal border region. The report emphasizes that flexible, adaptive management and strong partnerships are essential for innovating and scaling resilience efforts in volatile climatic contexts.

The report identifies five key intervention areas for building resilience: nature-based solutions, empowering marginalized groups, information and technology, inclusive financial services, and low-cost infrastructure. It argues that effective resilience programming must be systemic by design, utilize layered and linked interventions, create agile networks, promote equity and inclusion, and prioritize iterative learning and scaling. Evidence from GRP's USAID and Z Zurich Foundation challenges, as well as 42 partner programs, demonstrates that these approaches can protect development gains and improve well-being in the face of climate and economic shocks.

The document analyzes 44 resilience programs to determine which design elements contribute to success in helping vulnerable populations persist, adapt, and transform in the face of shocks. Key findings highlight the importance of community-led vulnerability assessments, the role of savings as a critical resilience buffer, and the necessity of integrating climate risk interventions into local governance and market systems.