Search Climate Insights Directory

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 report examines the drivers of basic-needs deforestation, such as subsistence farming and woodfuel collection, and evaluates interventions like formalization, clean cooking technology, and REDD+ funding. It highlights the difficulty of measuring progress due to data gaps and emphasizes that successful interventions require social safeguards and good governance to protect livelihoods while reducing forest loss.

The document examines the design, selection, implementation, and scaling of Challenge Funds (CFs) specifically for resilience building. It compares GRP's operational experience with a broader literature review of various international CFs, such as the African Enterprise Challenge Fund and the Global Innovation Fund. Key findings emphasize the need for clear definitions of resilience, the value of multi-stage application processes to support local innovators, and the necessity of long-term strategies to move innovations beyond the 'valley of death' toward sustainable scale. The report concludes with specific recommendations for future resilience-focused challenges, highlighting the importance of adaptive management and robust, long-term impact evaluations.

The report evaluates ten Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) Round 1 projects, which supported over 5 million people. Key findings highlight the effectiveness of 'layering' interventions, participatory design, and close government partnerships in increasing resilience. Successes include the deployment of early warning systems reaching 1.2 million people in Uganda, the empowerment of urban slum women in South Asia, and the implementation of road water harvesting benefiting 3 million people in Ethiopia. The synthesis emphasizes that combining traditional tools like microcredit with innovative digital technology and inclusive social strategies creates sustainable, transformational change.

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.

The document defines anti-agricultural bias as a condition where policies and market failures disadvantage farmers relative to other economic sectors. It details four primary economic indicators for measuring this bias: the Nominal Rate of Protection, the Nominal Rate of Assistance, the Relative Rate of Assistance, and the Effective Rate of Protection. The report argues that while historical bias was driven by explicit taxes on agriculture and subsidies for industry, contemporary bias in non-transformed economies often stems from market failures, such as poor infrastructure and unbalanced market power. Through case studies of 12 countries, the report demonstrates that bias is often heterogeneous across different crops; for example, rice often benefits from protection via regional tariffs, while cash crops like tea or cashew nuts are frequently taxed. Specific country analyses reveal that in nations like Ethiopia and Zambia, high anti-agricultural bias is driven by low output prices and export bans, despite the presence of agricultural import tariffs.

The report analyzes agricultural transformation across 117 countries from 1970 to 2015, identifying six phases of transformation and five structural contexts based on land fertility, availability, and population dynamics. It argues that successful transformation requires a tailored mix of 'push' strategies (increasing agricultural productivity) or 'pull' strategies (growing non-agricultural sectors), depending on a country's endowments. Key drivers of success include removing 'anti-agricultural bias' in price policies, strategic public investment in R&D and extension services, and critical institutional reforms such as land redistribution. The report provides specific policy recommendations for 13 focus countries in Africa and Asia, matching them with historically successful 'analogue' countries based on their 2015 structural contexts.

The report assesses Ethiopia's development path to 2040, highlighting a tension between rapid GDP growth and lagging human development indicators. While the country has seen significant improvements in health and agricultural yields, it faces critical bottlenecks in primary education completion, basic infrastructure (WASH), and gender equality. The analysis warns that political liberalisation may create short-term instability due to ethnic factionalism and an 'anocratic' regime type. The report contrasts a positive 'Abiynomics' scenario, driven by targeted investments in human capital and governance, with a 'Dark Days' scenario characterized by political regression and economic decline.

The report examines South Africa's historical and recent involvement in Burundi, highlighting a transition from significant military and diplomatic leadership during the Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement to a more peripheral role following Burundi's 2015 political crisis. While South Africa has provided tangible support in electoral capacity building and civil service training, the report finds that bilateral agreements have been implemented in a fragmented manner. It emphasizes the value of 'citizen diplomacy' through civil society and academic exchanges, particularly in supporting Burundi's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The authors argue that South Africa should leverage its remaining political capital and technical expertise through a holistic strategy that navigates complex regional dynamics involving the East African Community (EAC) and the International Conference for the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR).

The paper examines how digitising financial services can expand access to formal finance for underserved populations. It highlights South Africa's success in achieving high account ownership rates but argues that the focus must shift from simple access to 'quality financial inclusion'—emphasising productive usage, financial literacy, and the reduction of cash dependency in the informal economy. The author recommends a coordinated national strategy and enhanced public-private partnerships to address structural barriers and digital divides.

The Stockholm Environment Institute presents a seven-stage iterative framework for development interventions designed to move beyond the dichotomy of top-down and bottom-up approaches. By integrating service design and behavioural science, the toolkit emphasizes co-definition of problems and rapid prototyping to ensure interventions meet actual user needs. The effectiveness of this approach is illustrated through a case study of mango farmers in Kenya, where the toolkit revealed a misalignment between funder goals (fruit quality) and farmer priorities (fruit quantity).

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 analyzes the vulnerability of MSMEs in low- and middle-income countries to physical and transition climate risks, highlighting how these risks are amplified through value chains. It identifies significant barriers to adaptation, including limited access to climate data, finance, and technical skills. The authors argue for a participatory, inclusive approach where MSMEs are not only resilient but also act as providers of adaptation goods and services, supported by state policies, large businesses, and financial institutions.

The document assesses the multifaceted threats climate change poses to global food security, highlighting that while some high-latitude regions may see productivity gains, the global South—especially sub-Saharan Africa—faces severe risks of yield losses and increased hunger. It argues for a systemic approach to adaptation, moving beyond autonomous adjustments to planned strategies. Key priorities include increasing public investment in agricultural research, adopting Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA), expanding irrigation, and improving the resilience of food value chains. The authors emphasize that adaptation must be balanced with greenhouse gas mitigation and social equity, particularly regarding gender and youth in agriculture.

The document argues that agroecology—combining science, practice, and social movements—provides a framework for transforming food systems to be more climate-resilient. It details how applying ecological principles (such as biodiversity and soil health) at various scales (field, farm, landscape, and food system) can mitigate climate risks. The paper provides evidence from Africa, India, and Europe, highlighting specific practices like agroforestry and Zero Budget Natural Farming. It concludes that scaling these approaches requires addressing market failures, reforming perverse policies, and shifting from a top-down technology transfer model to a co-creation of knowledge approach.

The paper examines how social protection instruments—specifically cash transfers and public works programs—can be leveraged to build climate resilience. It identifies a substantial overlap between social protection and climate adaptation, noting that both target the most vulnerable. The authors propose three strategic shifts: enhancing the effectiveness of existing systems, integrating climate risk management (such as forecast-based early action), and layering social protection with other risk management tools like insurance. The document highlights that while social protection strongly supports absorptive and adaptive resilience, more work is needed to achieve transformative resilience.

The paper examines the risks climate change poses to rural livelihoods in Asia, Africa, and Central America, noting that current adaptation efforts are insufficient. It advocates for a systemic transformation involving policy reform, digital agriculture, innovative finance, and the scaling of climate-resilient technologies. The authors propose five distinct pathways for adaptation—ranging from market integration and farming system shifts to exiting agriculture—tailored to different household types such as those 'stepping up', 'stepping out', 'hanging in', or those who are 'food insecure'.

At its 23rd meeting, the GCF Board approved 10 new projects totaling USD 266.90 million in GCF funding, which, with co-financing, will support over USD 1.45 billion in climate action across 10 developing countries. The Board adopted several key governance frameworks, including a compliance risk policy, an updated policy on the prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH), and procedures for decision-making when consensus is not reached. Additionally, the Board established that the first replenishment period will run from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2023 and approved four new Accredited Entities.