Search Climate Insights Directory

The toolkit argues that climate change impacts are not gender-neutral and that adaptation investments may reinforce existing inequalities if gender considerations are ignored. It provides a framework for integrating gender-responsive principles across the entire NAP process, from initial stocktaking and vulnerability assessments to implementation strategies and monitoring. The document details specific 'entry points' and 'enabling activities'—such as institutional arrangements, capacity development, and gender-responsive budgeting—to ensure that adaptation benefits are equitably distributed. It also provides a suite of six key tools, including gender analysis and multi-criteria analysis, to operationalize these principles.

The document serves as a supplement to the UNFCCC Technical Guidelines for the NAP process, offering a flexible framework to address gender inequalities in climate adaptation. It details specific 'entry points' within the NAP cycle—from launch and vulnerability assessment to implementation and monitoring—where gender considerations can be integrated. The toolkit emphasizes that climate impacts are not gender-neutral and that failing to address gender dynamics can inadvertently increase social inequality. It provides practical tools for gender analysis, inclusive facilitation, multi-criteria analysis for prioritization, and gender-responsive budgeting. Case studies from countries such as Peru, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and Fiji illustrate the application of these principles in national planning and the use of international finance, such as the Green Climate Fund, to empower women as agents of change.

The document serves as a supplement to the UNFCCC Technical Guidelines for the NAP process, arguing that climate change impacts are not gender-neutral and that adaptation effectiveness depends on addressing gender inequalities. It outlines specific 'entry points' within the NAP cycle—from preparatory work and vulnerability assessments to implementation strategies and monitoring—where gender considerations must be integrated. The toolkit defines key concepts such as gender equality, equity, and intersectionality, and provides six essential tools: gender analysis, gender-responsive facilitation, multi-criteria analysis, gender mainstreaming, gender-responsive monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and gender-responsive budgeting. It includes case studies from countries such as Peru, Guinea, Madagascar, Burkina Faso, Fiji, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Mexico, and Kenya to illustrate the practical application of these principles.

The report finds that investment in electricity access and clean cooking remains significantly below the levels required to achieve universal energy access by 2030. While USD 36 billion was committed to electricity access in high-impact countries, only USD 12.6 billion benefited residential customers, far short of the USD 51 billion annual need. Clean cooking investment is even more critical, with only USD 32 million tracked against an annual requirement of USD 4.4 billion. The report highlights a severe lack of investment in Sub-Saharan Africa and warns that continued financing of fossil fuel power plants is incompatible with the Paris Agreement and the SDGs.

The report identifies significant funding gaps for universal energy access, noting that 2017 electricity access finance for new households reached only a quarter of the required annual investment. It highlights critically low investment in Sub-Saharan Africa and a severe shortfall in clean cooking finance, which represents less than 1% of the needed amount. Additionally, it argues that continued investment in fossil fuel power plants is incompatible with the Paris Agreement and the SDGs.

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 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 examines the challenges of measuring climate change adaptation, noting that most existing frameworks are designed for project-level monitoring rather than national or global assessment. It argues against a 'one-size-fits-all' metric, suggesting instead that metrics be tailored to specific purposes—such as identifying needs, tracking implementation, or assessing effectiveness. The paper highlights evolving practices in agriculture, urban planning (using the City of Melbourne as a case study), and multilateral development bank (MDB) financing, while recommending the integration of qualitative data, new technologies like earth observation, and alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve the comparability and transparency of adaptation tracking.

The document is a guide for creating enabling legal frameworks for community forestry, emphasizing iterative and participatory reform processes. It provides a comprehensive set of questionnaires across ten thematic areas—including land tenure, allocation, governance, and market access—to ensure that laws protect the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples while promoting sustainable forest management.

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 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 assessment finds that green finance for forests is severely insufficient, totaling under USD 22 billion since 2010, and represents only 1.5% of total climate mitigation commitments from developed countries and multilateral institutions. While some domestic initiatives and Green Climate Fund projects show progress, private sector investment remains dominated by traditional 'grey finance' with few mandatory safeguards to prevent deforestation in commodity supply chains.

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 analyzes the financial system's failure to integrate physical climate risks into investment decision-making, which creates a growing adaptation financing gap. It identifies twelve key barriers—including inadequate public support, moral hazard, and low technical capacity—and proposes six systemic recommendations for the Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA). These include accelerating climate-relevant financial policies, developing robust risk management practices, and utilizing public institutions to catalyze private investment through blended finance and innovative instruments like resilience bonds.

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 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'.