1. The problem
Extreme weather events have increased dramatically over the last few years. This scenario was predicted by IPCC as the earth is passing the 1.5-degree temperature increase above pre-industrial levels. I will bring a perspective from the Amazon, where I live and have been working for the past several decades. Regions like the Amazon are crossing the tipping point. Forests are becoming drier and more vulnerable to forest fires, which is a driver of ecosystem degradation. Degradation results in reduction of evapotranspiration of forests, affecting rainfall patterns and resulting in longer dry seasons. This, in turn, increases the flammability of forests. Increase in regional temperature further contributes to an observed frequency of forest fires. For example, in the first seven months of 2024 the Brazilian Amazon had a 77% increase in forest fires compared to 2023, even in the context of a 50% reduction of deforestation.
There are several signs that the Amazon has already passed the tipping point. The river system of the Amazon is a result of a balance of tributaries coming from the north (Venezuela and Colombia), the south (states of Mato Grosso, Rondônia and Tocantins in Brazil) and from the west (Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia). Changes in rainfall regimes throughout the region have altered the balance of this river system. The observed consequences are the recent events: an all-time (since 1903) record flood in 2021 and again in 2022, followed by record droughts in 2023 and 2024. In southern Brazil, an all-time record flood in 2024. In 2024 São Paulo, the largest city of Latin America, also had a record storm. The list is long and is all over the world.
Increased frequency and magnitude of extreme events have played an important role in the debate on climate change. These events have served the purpose of rising climate change to the forefront of national debate. Climate sceptics have lost ground in Brazil, as the majority of the population associates these extreme events to climate change. The record flood in Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil was perceived by 94% of Brazilians to be associated with climate change.[1] Extreme events have had dramatic consequences for people, especially the poor, who are the most vulnerable to climate change.
The case for climate justice has gained a new momentum. There is a need to give greater emphasis to climate adaptation and climate justice. We have entered the Era of Adaptation. This can be defined as a new epoch in human history where all societies will have to adapt to different climate conditions. This does not mean that mitigation of climate change should be abandoned. On the contrary, there is a need to increase action to avoid breaking another landmark: the 2-degree limit.
The problem is that adaptation has received very little attention. More worrisome, an analysis of international public adaptation finance flows to developing countries estimates these at US$21 billion in 2021 – a 15% decrease compared to 2020. As of 2024, the global Adaptation Fund has allocated just over US$ 1.1 billion.[2] This is less than 1% of the estimated costs of adaptation, which range between US$215 and 387 billion/year for developing countries this decade, according to UNEP’s Adaptation Gap Report. An analysis of international public adaptation finance flows to developing countries estimates these at US$21 billion in 2021 – a 15% decrease compared to 2020. Considering all funding to adaptation, the finance gap has grown significantly since previous assessments.[3] The estimated costs/needs of adaptation are now approximately 10-18 times as much as international public adaptation finance flows. These costs are projected to rise over future decades, further aggravating climate injustice.[4]
The United Nations (UN) has a core principle around climate negotiations since the historic Rio 92 Conference, when the Climate Convention was signed. This is the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. This means that all parties share the responsibility to tackle climate change, but in different ways, based on historic emissions and development status. As of 2015, the USA was responsible for 40% of global CO2 emissions. The European Union (EU-28) was responsible for 29%. Countries classified by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as Annex I nations (ie, most industrialised countries) were responsible for 90% of excess emissions. The Global North was responsible for 92% of historic emissions.[5] There is a moral and ethical obligation of the Global North to increase funding to the Global South for climate adaptation.
In addition to the funding challenge, there is a problem of the adaptation implementation strategy. There is a historic bias towards investing in artificial technological solutions compared to nature-based ones. Furthermore, there is a bias towards investing in capital-intensive solutions compared to pro-poor alternatives. This paper addresses the problem of how to deploy adaptation finance on the ground. I argue that a people-centered approach to deliver nature-based solutions for climate adaptation is the most cost-effective and most capable of reducing poverty and inequality, thus addressing the climate justice goal.
2. A dual solution
A dual solution to tackle climate adaptation is to focus on nature and people. This can be referred to as: people-centered approaches to deliver nature-based solutions for climate adaptation. This means that there are two components of this dual solution, each with a different rationale.
By people-centered approach I mean a focus on the poor, which are the most vulnerable to climate change and also those with the smallest historic and present carbon footprint. According to the World Economic Forum, the lowest-income countries produce one-tenth of emissions, but are the most heavily impacted by climate change. Vulnerable populations in these countries suffer damaging outcomes in terms of health, food and water, education and more.[6]
According to the World Bank, the 74 lowest income countries will be more affected by the effects of climate change compared to the 1980s. They have already experienced approximately eight times as many natural disasters in the past 10 years. By 2050, unchecked climate change might force more than 200 million people to migrate within their own countries, pushing up to 130 million people into poverty and unravelling decades of hard-won development achievements. The challenge to end extreme poverty even in the face of climate change, in order to succeed, will need to integrate climate considerations into development work. And we will need to act fast, because as climate impacts increase, so will the difficulty and cost of eradicating poverty.[7]
In relation to nature-based approaches for climate adaptation, I argue that these solutions are the most cost effective and with greater potential of reducing poverty and inequality. The European Commission defines nature-based solutions as “solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience. Such solutions bring more, and more diverse, nature and natural features and processes into cities, landscapes and seascapes, through locally adapted, resource-efficient and systemic interventions”. Nature-based solutions support the delivery of a range of ecosystem services.
Nature-based solutions are recognised as multi-purpose solutions that are often having larger co-benefits than traditional technical measures. The EU Adaptation Strategy, updated in 2021, puts a strong emphasis on ecosystem-based approaches, and particularly on nature-based solutions. Ecosystem-based adaptation focuses on ecosystem restoration and enhancement of ecosystem services to protect society against negative impacts of climate change. As climate change impacts become more obvious, e.g., droughts, flooding or extreme temperatures, the urgency of adaptation measures increases.[8] Nature-based solutions (NbS) encompass a range of ecosystem-based approaches that aim to increase resilience to climate change. NbS are typically stakeholder-driven and tailored to regional conditions.[9]
3. Conclusions
People-centered approaches to deliver nature-based solutions can play a major role for climate adaptation in developing countries. They can bring multiple benefits to people and nature, including potential co-benefits to mitigation of climate change. For example, resilience of food production systems can be enhanced by programs to control soil erosion and promote watershed management. Tree planting in urban areas can alleviate heat and its consequences for human health and well-being.
Nature-based solutions can be labour-intensive and thus contribute to reduction of inequalities. Pro-poor nature restoration can have positive outcomes for both adaptation and mitigation. Labour-intensive agroforestry systems can sequester carbon (50-100 tons CO2eq/hectare) and at the same time provide tree-based resilient food production systems.
People-centred approaches to deliver nature-based solutions need to developed through participatory, bottom-up approaches to design adaptation plans. This is essential to draw on traditional and local knowledge systems of indigenous peoples to design and implement adaptation strategies and thereby increase their efficiency and efficacy.
These approaches have to be incorporated in education programs. There is a moral and ethical issue that needs to be addressed. Poor people have to know what science predicts for their region so as to develop their own adaptation strategies. These programs should focus on developing youth leadership for adaptation to climate change.
A systemic approach for climate adaptation is needed. Sectoral policies or narrow programs with a single focus lack long-term efficacy. There is a need to understand the complexity of impacts of climate change on individuals, families, communities, regions and countries. These impacts include mental health, food security, political stability and conflicts – among others.
Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should prioritize people-centered approaches to deliver nature-based solutions to deliver multiple goals. This requires multidisciplinary thinking and knowledge, including education programs for sustainable use of biodiversity.
Adaptation finance is insufficient. Nature-based and labour-intensive pro-poor solutions require substantial increase in funding. There is a moral and ethical obligation of developed countries to mitigate climate injustice. Adaptation finance flows declined as a proportion of total climate finance. While mitigation finance has accelerated dramatically in the last years to USD 1.2 trillion annually, adaptation finance saw a more modest increase. It is important to note that adaptation finance needs are rising. The global adaptation funding gap continues to widen concerningly, driven by accelerating climate impacts and lack of international cooperation.
The private sector, including business and philanthropy, has been almost entirely focused on mitigation. Greater attention should be given to nature-based and labour-intensive pro-poor solutions that can have potential benefits to both adaptation and mitigation.
Debt remains the primary financial instrument for adaptation. Multilateral financing institutions should reassess foreign debt of poorest countries and develop debt-for-climate adaptation to allow investment in nature-based and labour-intensive pro-poor solutions.
Adaptation is intertwined with peace-making, humanitarian aid and conflict resolutions. Coordinated action on these actions can increase their efficiency and effectiveness. Proactive adaptation action can avoid or minimize spending on humanitarian aid later. Nature-based and labour-intensive pro-poor solutions should be an integral part of the peace process in conflict zones around the world.
[2] https://www.adaptation-fund.org/ accessed 10/20/2024.
[3] State and Trends in Climate Adaptation Finance 2023. Dharshan Wignarajah, Morgan Richmond, Sean Stout, Guillermo Martinez, Ken Schell-Smith and Rajashree Padmanabhi. December 14, 2023.
[4] https://weadapt.org/knowledge-base/vulnerability/unep-adaptation-gap-report-2023/#:~:text=Adaptation%20finance%20gap,from%20the%20previous%20AGR%20estimate. Accessed 10/20/2024
[5] Hickel, J. 2020.Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30196-0/fulltext
[6] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/climate-crisis-poor-davos2023/ Accessed 10/20/2024.
[8] European Union – Climate Adapt 2024. https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/eu-adaptation-policy/key-eu-actions/NbS
[9] 6th IPCC Report – Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/