Search Climate Insights Directory

Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to sea level rise, flooding, and cyclones, leading the government to establish early adaptation frameworks like the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP). While the country has created dedicated institutions and funds, such as the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF), adaptation efforts have predominantly focused on large-scale infrastructure in coastal urban areas, often neglecting sectors like livestock and regions prone to drought. Despite being a major recipient of international climate finance, disbursement remains fragmented, and there is a significant gap between planned budgets and actual leveraged funds.

The document defines vertical integration in the NAP process as the creation of intentional linkages between national and sub-national adaptation efforts to ensure local realities inform national plans and that NAPs enable local action. It identifies three core enabling factors: institutional arrangements, information sharing, and capacity development. The guide details how to integrate sub-national perspectives into planning, coordinate the implementation of adaptation options, and link M&E systems to capture local lessons. It emphasizes the importance of gender sensitivity, the inclusion of indigenous peoples and vulnerable groups, and the leveraging of existing decentralization processes and local funding mechanisms.

The document outlines a flexible approach to vertical integration in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), emphasizing the need to link national strategies with local realities. It identifies three core enabling factors—institutional arrangements, information exchange, and capacity development—that support the iterative cycle of planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The guide provides specific questions and strategies to ensure sub-national diversity, gender sensitivity, and the inclusion of vulnerable groups are reflected in national policies, while ensuring national plans are actionable at the local level. It includes case studies from Colombia, Nepal, and Morocco to illustrate practical applications of these principles.

The document defines vertical integration in the context of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) as a continuous effort to ensure local realities are reflected in national plans and that national plans enable subnational adaptation. It outlines a flexible, iterative approach centered on three enabling factors: institutional arrangements, information sharing, and capacity building. The guide provides specific strategies for integrating subnational perspectives into planning, coordinating implementation and resource allocation, and establishing linked M&E systems to ensure a bidirectional flow of learning between national and local actors.

The document provides a structured review of literature concerning the gendered aspects of DDR. It highlights a systemic tendency to view women primarily as victims or 'camp followers' rather than active combatants, which leads to their exclusion from DDR benefits. It also examines how hegemonic masculinity drives violence and how the lack of gender-sensitive planning in post-conflict settings—such as in Aceh or Sierra Leone—marginalizes female ex-fighters. Conversely, it notes more inclusive patterns in Latin American peace processes, such as those in Colombia and El Salvador.

The report analyzes the intersection of climate change, World Heritage sites, and tourism, arguing that climate change acts as a 'threat multiplier' that degrades the outstanding universal value (OUV) of these sites while simultaneously threatening the tourism economies that depend on them. Through 30 case studies across 29 countries, it demonstrates that impacts range from glacier melt and sea-level rise to increased wildfire regimes and ocean acidification. The document emphasizes that while sustainable tourism can support conservation, unplanned development often increases site vulnerability. It concludes with recommendations for intergovernmental organizations, governments, and site managers to integrate climate science into management plans, reduce tourism's carbon footprint, and empower local and indigenous communities in adaptation efforts.

The Global Snow Leopard and Ecosystem Protection Program (GSLEP) conducted a two-part workshop in Kathmandu from 20-27 April 2016. The first part focused on 'climate-smart' landscape management planning using the 'Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation' framework, integrating climate scenarios to identify threats and prioritize strategies. The second part focused on coordinating geospatial mapping across the snow leopard range, establishing standardized definitions for habitat and climate refugia, and developing data-sharing protocols. Participants from nine range countries worked on templates and GIS shapefiles to support the GSLEP goal of securing 20 landscapes by 2020.

The document examines climate information services in BRACED countries, noting that while access is increasing, end-users struggle with data quality, inappropriate spatial scales, and poor communication. It details regional weather drivers like the ITCZ in Africa and the monsoon in Asia, and argues for a service-oriented approach that integrates localized, two-way communication into resilience programming to improve decision-making at the community level.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for protecting biodiversity and mitigating climate change compared to industrial forestry and absolute protection regimes. It highlights that CFM can reduce deforestation rates and enhance carbon storage while securing the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The document warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the 'financialization of nature,' which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. It recommends that governments recognize collective land tenure and that international frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, prioritize CFM over traditional Protected Areas to meet conservation goals.

The document advocates for community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protection regimes. It asserts that CFM effectively reduces deforestation, protects biodiversity, and supports climate mitigation and adaptation by empowering indigenous peoples and local communities. The text identifies key success factors such as land tenure security and warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of community control.

The document advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a critical tool for biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation. It presents evidence that CFM often outperforms strict protection regimes in reducing deforestation, particularly when supported by secure land tenure and local autonomy. The briefing highlights the role of CFM in carbon sequestration and climate adaptation, while warning against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialisation of nature, which it claims threaten community rights and traditional governance.

The report advocates for community forest management (CFM) as a superior strategy for environmental conservation and social justice. It provides evidence that forests managed by indigenous peoples and local communities often have lower deforestation rates and higher carbon storage than state-protected areas. The document identifies secure land tenure, local autonomy in decision-making, and strong social capital as critical success factors. It also warns against 'false solutions' like REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims can lead to land grabbing and the erosion of traditional knowledge. The report concludes by recommending that governments prioritize collective land rights and traditional knowledge over market-based conservation mechanisms.

The document presents community forest management (CFM) as a superior alternative to industrial logging and strict protected areas for preserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change. It highlights that CFM can be more effective at reducing deforestation, as evidenced by data from Brazil and Costa Rica, and provides critical livelihood support to approximately 1.6 billion people. The text identifies key success factors for CFM, including secure land tenure, local decision-making autonomy, and strong social capital. Conversely, it warns against 'false solutions' such as REDD+ and the financialization of nature, which it claims risk land grabbing and the erosion of traditional governance. The document concludes by recommending the prioritization of decentralized, authentic CFM and the legal protection of indigenous and local community rights to ensure ecological and social justice.

The briefing advocates for Community Forest Management (CFM) as a superior model for forest conservation and climate action compared to industrial logging and state-led protected areas. It highlights CFM's role in carbon storage and biodiversity protection, while warning against market-based mechanisms like REDD+ that may lead to land grabbing. The document recommends that governments recognize communal land tenure and prioritize CFM to meet international biodiversity targets.

The document examines the role of technical assistance (TA) in mobilizing climate finance, arguing that TA can be as valuable as financial assistance by addressing knowledge, policy, and risk gaps. Through case studies of GIZ programs in Chile, Mexico, Vietnam, and the Pacific Islands, it identifies five key TA pathways: policy advice, project development support, data provision, program coordination, and institutional capacity building. The analysis estimates that GIZ-managed TA funding of €43 million mobilized between €37-233 million in public finance and up to €412 million in private finance, though it notes high uncertainty in quantifying indirect mobilization due to time lags and complex causality.

Friends of the Earth Asia Pacific presents a series of community-driven projects—such as solar cooperatives in South Korea and community forest management in Indonesia—as scalable models for a just transition. The report argues that Asia faces entwined crises of extreme poverty and climate change, necessitating a shift away from 'business as usual' toward economic systems that prioritize people and the planet. It concludes with ten specific policy demands for Asian leaders, including the end of fossil fuel subsidies, the adoption of a UN Treaty on multinational business accountability, and the implementation of regional plans for a 100% renewable energy transformation.

The CDKN-ICLEI First Learning Workshop in Quito, Ecuador, brought together 51 participants from 16 projects to identify enablers and barriers to sub-national climate compatible development (CCD). The workshop focused on moving from planning to implementation, resulting in a revised set of assumptions about effective CCD and the identification of critical knowledge gaps in planning, scaling, and conceptualisation. These outcomes informed seven core learning questions that project partners will address through the creation of 'Inside Stories'—reflective, evidence-based analyses of their learning processes. Regional discussions highlighted that in Asia, CCD is often framed as 'climate-smart' or 'climate-friendly' and requires strong links to poverty alleviation and gender issues, while in Latin America and the Caribbean, local framing and political will are seen as key drivers for sustainability.

The document examines how hard currency loans create asset-liability mismatches in infrastructure projects within emerging and frontier markets. It argues that IFIs should move away from direct lending and instead use guarantees and credit enhancements to leverage private capital and stimulate local currency financing. The paper details specific financial tools, such as local currency bonds and derivatives, to mitigate currency, political, and project risks.

The 2015 Climate Knowledge Brokers (CKB) Group workshop, held in Copenhagen, aimed to refine the CKB Manifesto and explore how to better meet the diverse needs of climate information users. Participants identified five user categories—unaware, ignored, without access, without time, and overwhelmed—and discussed tailored brokering strategies for each. The workshop also featured 'Knowledge Sharing Clinics' for peer-to-peer problem solving and proposed the creation of 'nodes' (working groups) to advance specific themes like monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Future goals include expanding the network's geographic diversity, particularly in Africa and Asia, and developing a 'Climate Knowledge Grid' to reduce information duplication and improve decision-making support.

The report evaluates SNV's interventions in four countries, finding that a systemic approach combining user understanding, market linkages, and enabling environments is key to scaling clean cooking solutions. It proposes a revised theory of change emphasizing a trajectory from lower-tier to advanced technologies to achieve health and climate goals.