What Are Participatory Climate Vulnerability Assessments, and Why Do They Matter?

Climate change is not affecting everyone equally. The communities most exposed and vulnerable to climate impacts are often the ones with the least voice in the decisions that shape their future. Closing that gap is at the heart of locally led adaptation (LLA), also referred to as community-based adaptation (CBA): an approach that places communities at the centre of climate adaptation decision making. Rather than prescribing solutions from the outside, LLA aims to strengthen communities' agency in identifying their own priorities and designing their own solutions.

A participatory climate vulnerability assessment (PCVA) is the essential first step in this process. It is a facilitated process that combines community knowledge with scientific climate data to map current and future climate risks, and to understand how those risks affect distinct gender and social groups within a community differently.

Getting this right matters. A poorly conducted PCVA (rushed, superficial, or failing to capture the diverse perspectives) leads to poorly designed adaptation plans. Resources go to the wrong priorities. Vulnerable groups are left out. Opportunities to build genuine resilience are missed.

"This project allowed the communities to have an input, instead of assuming what they want or what they are going through; the communities are speaking for themselves, instead of going with preconceived ideas of what is needed."

CBA SCALE+ project partner

Despite more than 20 years of practice, scaling LLA meaningfully remains elusive. Many assessments that call themselves participatory are still extractive in practice. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirmed in its 2022 Sixth Assessment Report that LLA can successfully enhance adaptive capacity. Yet the persistent challenge is implementing it at a scale that meaningfully reflects the social diversity of communities and the urgency of the crisis.

A new report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, CARE, and partners offers a field-tested account of what keeps going wrong and what practitioners can do about it. It draws on PCVAs conducted in nearly 100 communities across Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe between 2024 and 2025, as part of the CBA SCALE+ project. While many of the challenges identified have already been documented, they persist today. Here’s why.

Why Are Participatory Climate Vulnerability Assessments Harder Than They Look?

We know communities need to lead efforts to strengthen their resilience to climate change impacts. But doing this well (respectfully, rigorously, and at scale) is far harder than it looks. Three challenges in particular resonate from the CBA SCALE+ experience.

Adapting and Responding to Overlapping Crises

In early 2024, Zambia declared a state of national emergency. Zimbabwe followed weeks later. A prolonged drought driven by El Niño had been devastating harvests since mid-2023. Cereal yields in Zambia fell 43% below the 5-year average. In Zimbabwe, the figure was 50%. Communities across the project area were hungry, water-scarce, and under acute stress.

In this context, conducting a PCVA didn’t seem like a priority to the communities and local governments, who were understandably focused on food relief, not multi-decade planning. Some partner organizations, with histories of humanitarian work in the same areas, were expected to provide emergency assistance that the project was not designed to deliver. When flexible emergency funding was not available, trust began to erode. Communities that had committed to engaging with the process started to pull back.

This kind of polycrisis context, when climate, economic, and political crises overlap and reinforce each other, is increasingly the normal operating environment for climate adaptation practitioners.

This means that flexible funding mechanisms need to be built into project design from the start, not scrambled for after a crisis hits. Equally critical is honest expectation management. Communities in survival mode cannot meaningfully engage with 30-year climate projections unless their immediate reality is first acknowledged. The project teams that rebuilt trust most effectively were those that adapted their engagement (through shorter sessions, more flexibility, transparent communication about delays) while finding ways to address urgent needs alongside longer-term work.

Bridging Community Knowledge and Climate Science

Even without a drought emergency, one of the hardest tasks in any PCVA is integrating what communities know from lived experience with what climate science tells us about future risks.

Communities hold rich knowledge of their local environments, built over generations: how rainfall has shifted over decades, which crops no longer perform as they once did, and where seasonal flooding has become more frequent. While irreplaceable, this knowledge is, by definition, rooted in observed experience. Climate projections, on the other hand, describe what climate variables such as temperature and rainfall may look like in 2040 or 2060; a future no one has yet lived through.

The CBA SCALE+ team encountered four recurring barriers to bridging this gap.

• The first is framing. Framing the PCVA primarily as a participatory exercise may have unintentionally signalled that scientific climate projections were optional, rather than central to the analysis.
• The second is capacity. Translating technical climate projections into accessible, locally meaningful messages requires both scientific fluency and skilled facilitation. That combination is rare, and the report found that some project teams lacked the confidence to engage communities meaningfully with future climate data.
• The third is present bias: the human tendency to prioritize immediate concerns over long-term risks. This is particularly true for communities already under stress: Getting people to think about 2050 when 2024 is already a crisis requires deliberate, skilled facilitation.
• The fourth is trust in the messenger. In some communities, scientific information was received with skepticism, particularly when it came from the government. The credibility of the person delivering the information shaped whether communities were willing to engage with it.

What worked? A gradual, trust-based approach. Seasonal weather forecasts are shorter-term predictions that communities can connect to immediate decisions about planting and livestock. Teams that started with those forecasts found that when they proved accurate, communities became more open to longer-term projections.

"Building trust is slow. Last year, the traditional community predictions and the scientific predictions matched, so the communities were more willing to listen to the scientific knowledge."

CBA SCALE+ project partner

Building community confidence in climate science requires time, repeated interactions, trusted local messengers, and visual tools that make abstract data tangible.

Meaningfully Engaging Local Governments

For LLA actions to move from community plans into funded, implemented reality, local governments need to be genuine partners, not just formal signatories or occasional attendees.

The CBA SCALE+ experience showed that meaningfully engaging local governments is essential, but challenging. Across the three countries, teams encountered gaps in local officials' technical capacity on climate adaptation, competing pressures from drought emergencies, and in some cases, pre-existing tensions between civil society organizations and government actors that affected collaboration.

At the same time, the project's strongest outcomes came precisely where local governments were most engaged. In Mozambique, early and sustained collaboration with district-level councils meant that PCVA results fed directly into the local adaptation plans of two districts. In Zimbabwe, regular updates to government extension workers through existing communication channels helped keep the process connected to formal planning systems.

Local government involvement must begin at the outset of a PCVA, not at the validation stage. Officials brought in early become advocates for the process and champions for its results within formal systems. Those invited only at the end remain, at best, passive endorsers.

The Knowledge Is Already There: A Call to Do This Better

In Zimbabwe, project teams documented how some communities had already adapted their cropping patterns and livestock types to changing climate conditions; responses developed through observation and necessity, without external support. They identified community-led initiatives that deserved to be scaled up: drought-tolerant seed multiplication programs, locally enforced wetland protection rules, and diversified livelihood strategies built around shifting seasonal patterns.

In Zambia, the PCVA process revealed that 4 of the 12 focus communities relied primarily on legal mining rather than agriculture—a fact that fundamentally changed what climate adaptation needed to look like for those communities and that no existing secondary data had captured.

These findings were only possible because the process was genuinely participatory: communities were given space to speak for themselves, rather than having their realities assumed in advance. They also demonstrate the value of PCVAs in generating nuanced, context-specific information. Such insights are critical for identifying adaptation measures that build on existing strengths while addressing priority needs.

The challenge, then, is building the systems (the funding structures, the facilitation capacity, the inter-institutional trust, the policy frameworks) that allow existing community knowledge to surface, be taken seriously, and be acted upon.

That requires NGOs to resist the temptation to arrive with pre-packaged solutions. It requires funders to accept that genuine participation takes time and cannot be compressed into a short project cycle. It requires local governments to show up as partners in collective learning, not as authorities dispensing directives.

The lessons from this report have been documented before. The challenges persist because the structural conditions that generate them (tight timelines, inflexible funding, insufficient investment in local capacity) have not changed significantly.

Closing that gap is not just good practice. For the nearly 100 communities in Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe that took part in this process, and the many millions more living on the frontlines of climate change, it is a matter of urgency.
 

The quotes in this article come from partners who wished to stay anonymous. All photos are from Margret Ngonga, CARE Zambia.

The Community-based Adaptation: Scaling-up Community Action for Livelihoods and Ecosystems (CBA SCALE+) project is implemented by a consortium led by CARE Deutschland along with IUCN, FANRPAN, IISD and local partners, with financial support from The International Climate Initiative.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, community-based adaptation (CBA) can successfully reduce climate risks, thus generating sustainable changes for the most vulnerable communities. However, despite being implemented for over 20 years, the current policy environment and lack of funding for this approach do not support wide adoption.

To better understand why, as part of the CBA Scale+ project, experts from the International Institute for Sustainable Development reviewed 53 policy documents related to climate change, adaptation, climate-sensitive sectors, and sustainable development from the African Union, Mozambique, Southern African Development Community, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

The research showed that only 6% of the 53 policies reviewed explicitly mentioned CBA or locally led adaptation. Of the 16 policies that were reviewed in more depth, there were none that strongly integrated all of the key enabling elements for CBA to be scaled up in the region.  However, there are entry points in key policies, and opportunities exist to overcome the gaps, recognizing that adaptation planning is an iterative process.

Community-Based Adaptation: An effective approach

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change notes that approximately 40% of the global population is now “highly vulnerable” to the harsh realities of climate change. Southern Africa’s ecosystems, communities, and infrastructure face significant risks due to climate change, and the region has already experienced widespread losses and damages. People have always lived with a degree of climate-related risk, but those risks are changing and increasing, and the growing uncertainty is heavily impacting the livelihoods of people in Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

CBA, an approach aligned with locally led adaptation principles, has been recognized as an effective way to reduce climate risks and generate sustainable changes for the most vulnerable communities. It involves processes led by local actors, including subnational authorities and local organizations, to engage at-risk communities to understand their experiences with climate change and assess how risks may change in the future. This enables the identification of adaptation priorities designed to reduce the harm from current and future climate conditions, combining local knowledge with scientific climate information. CBA is tailored to local socio-economic contexts and fosters inclusive governance and effective adaptation, as well as trust between governments and communities. Involving marginalized groups in decision making enhances the community's capacity to monitor climate impacts and address the drivers of vulnerability.

Seven Key Policy-Enabling Factors for CBA

Globally, half (51%) of the national adaptation plans (NAPs) submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as of July 31, 2023, include an explicit reference to CBA, including Mozambique's NAP, and 40% reference locally led adaptation. Despite growing recognition in countries’ adaptation plans and the proven potential of CBA, there remain barriers to its implementation at a scale that is in line with the urgency of the climate crisis and the needs of vulnerable communities. Without an enabling policy environment, technical and financial resources for adaptation will not reach the communities that most need to build their resilience to climate change. 

Our research, therefore, sought to develop a framework of key enabling factors needed to scale the implementation of CBA. We reviewed existing adaptation frameworks, such as the locally led adaptation principles, as well as others, such as the CARE Adaptation Good Practice Checklist, and considered how they could be reflected at a policy level. We narrowed these down to seven enabling factors that we believe will influence the extent to which CBA is implemented at scale. For each of these factors, specific criteria were identified to assess the extent to which they are present in policy documents.

Figure 1. Seven key enabling factors for CBA Scale – Source: CBA Scale+

Understanding the Existing Policy Environment for CBA in Southern Africa

In order for the CBA Scale+ project to support CBA implementation at scale in Southern Africa, we need to better understand what enabling factors for CBA were or were not included in policies. To this end, our research analyzed climate change, development, and sectoral policy documents from the African Union, Mozambique, Southern Africa Development Community, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Among these, all of the documents mentioned climate change, with 86% mentioning adaptation and/or resilience to at least some extent. This shows some progress in the integration of adaptation in sectoral and development policies.

However, 64% included only passing references to climate change adaptation and/or resilience, and only 6% (three documents) included explicit references to CBA. None of the documents referenced locally led adaptation.

Based on this preliminary analysis, our research explored 16 documents that included a substantial amount of information on adaptation and mentioned subnational levels of governance and/or actors in relation to adaptation. We evaluated these documents against the criteria of our CBA enabling factors framework to assess how well the enabling factors are reflected.

Enabling Implementation of CBA at scale: Gaps and entry points

The review of policy documents revealed both gaps with respect to the enabling factors for CBA and potential entry points for a more systematic approach to move toward implementation at scale.

Gaps in the Enabling Environment for CBA

Integration of Adaptation in Subnational Development Planning

For CBA implementation to reach scale, adaptation needs to be integrated into the subnational development plans that drive the allocation of resources at the local level. This is not widely recognized—just over half of the documents analyzed (56%) established a clear mandate for integrating adaptation in local development planning. Further, this crucial mandate is not highlighted in the Southern Africa Development Community policies analyzed, leaving room for improvement at the regional level.

Mechanisms for Collaboration With Civil Society Actors

Adaptation actions will be implemented by a range of actors, including civil society organizations (women’s groups, local non-governmental organizations, farmers’ cooperatives, etc.) and communities, so it is critical that institutionalized arrangements for adaptation engage these actors and facilitate collaboration among them and with local government authorities. Only 44% of the policies highlight mechanisms for ongoing collaboration with non-governmental actors.

Communicating With Local Actors

Commitments to communicate about adaptation processes to local actors are weak. Only 19% of the documents mention the importance of communicating about adaptation processes to subnational authorities and/or local organizations and communities. This is essential to ensure that local actors are able to participate in and influence adaptation decision making processes, a central aspect of the CBA approach.

Getting Finance to the Local Level

Getting finance to the local level is a priority for CBA actions to be implemented at scale. Half of the policies recognized the need for climate adaptation finance to reach the local level, but only 25% highlighted a mechanism to do so.

Entry Points for Scaling up CBA

Recognition of the Role of Local Actors

Engagement of local actors is at the heart of the CBA approach, and most of the documents analyzed recognized the importance of engaging local communities and/or institutions in the adaptation processes. Most of the policy documents (88%) highlighted subnational authorities as important actors for adaptation, and all but one (94%) also recognized the importance of engaging civil society actors in adaptation planning and action.  One of these is Mozambique’s NAP, which mentions, for example, the need to mobilize women-led community grassroots organizations in gender assessments to inform adaptation plans. However, there is less emphasis on the leadership of local actors—less than half of the documents (44%) explicitly address this issue.

Alignment With Relevant Policies

Adaptation isn’t implemented in isolation—it is closely linked with objectives related to sustainable development and biodiversity, requiring alignment of policies in these different areas to create opportunities for integrated approaches like CBA. All of the policies analyzed acknowledge the linkages between ecosystems, biodiversity, and/or sustainable development and adaptation.  Half of the documents elaborate the nature and adaptation linkages, while 40% provide details on linkages with sustainable development. For example, the 8th National Development Plan of Zambia highlights the country’s intention to pursue adaptation strategies that promote environmental sustainability.

Capacity Strengthening

Subnational authorities and local actors—including civil society organizations, community-based organizations, and others—need a range of capacities to contribute to scaling up CBA. All but one of the documents analyzed (94%) recognized the need to strengthen the capacities of either subnational authorities or local actors (though only 44% recognized the need to strengthen the capacities of both). For example, the national climate policy of Zimbabwe includes a specific chapter on education, training, and awareness and mentions the capacities of local authorities, farmers, and practitioners working with communities.

Recognition of Diverse Knowledge Systems

Three quarters of the policies reviewed mention local, traditional, or Indigenous knowledge, with most including details on how this knowledge will be used and integrated in adaptation initiatives. This shows great progress in terms of integration. For example, Mozambique’s NAP highlights the systematization and documentation of scientific, technical and local knowledge about climate as one of the tasks to be carried out by research institutes. Recognition of the need for different knowledge systems can compel more participatory approaches to adaptation, including CBA.

Commitments to Gender Equality and Social Inclusion

Adaptation is only effective if it generates equitable benefits for people of all genders and social groups, including Indigenous Peoples and youth. A commitment to target adaptation efforts toward the people who need them most can be an important driver for CBA. Most of the documents analyzed (81%) mentioned gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) in relation to adaptation, showing progress on the integration of GESI, and at least one policy per country gave more details on how this could be done. For example, Zambia’s NAP used gender and inclusiveness as 2 out of 10 criteria to prioritize their adaptation actions. Building on the strongest policies from each country, other country and Southern Africa Development Community policies should strengthen the integration of GESI.

Where to Go From Here?

CBA has demonstrated its effectiveness in building resilience among vulnerable communities in Southern Africa and beyond. Our analysis underscores that important progress has been made in integrating the enabling factors for CBA in policies, creating entry points that can be used to move toward implementation at scale. At the same time, the gaps reveal that there are significant opportunities to enhance this integration. The explicit recognition of the CBA approach in the policy documents is crucial, as well as increasing financial support to local actors and fostering community-based actors’ leadership. With the upcoming updates to nationally determined contributions and the iterative nature of NAPs, there is a promising window to embed CBA more deeply into policy and practice. If we seize that opportunity, we can leverage the strengths of CBA to build resilience where it’s needed most and at a scale that reflects both the severity of the climate crisis and the urgent needs of the most vulnerable.

The Community-based Adaptation: Scaling-up Community Action for Livelihoods and Ecosystems (CBA SCALE+) project is implemented by a consortium led by CARE Deutschland along with IUCN, FANRPAN, IISD and local partners, with financial support from The International Climate Initiative (IKI).

NbS for adaptation can enhance biodiversity and strengthen climate resilience for both communities and ecosystems. However, communities are made up of diverse people with different needs, who experience the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss in distinct ways.

Knowing this, how can we ensure that NbS for adaptation benefit everyone?

It all starts with planning.

Planning for NbS for adaptation requires recognizing how different people are impacted by climate change, understanding the factors that influence their vulnerability and exposure to climate hazards, and working with them to identify which adaptation options might work for them.

It means identifying how adaptation priorities differ within and among groups and what factors might enable—or inhibit—their ability to access and share in the benefits of nature.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change (2022) says that equity and justice are key considerations in climate change adaptation, and these principles cannot be advanced without attention to the adaptive capacity and disproportionate risks experienced by vulnerable people.

Globally, we know that people’s vulnerability to climate change varies depending on social factors, such as gender, sexuality, age, socio-economic status, race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, nationality, and ability, among others. We also know that people have different roles and responsibilities in the access, use, and management of natural resources, and this, too, can influence vulnerability to climate change. There is also now evidence that attention to gender and social differences improves the effectiveness of adaptation efforts overall. Additionally, policy initiatives focused on global biodiversity conservation (such as the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions and Target 23 of the Global Biodiversity Framework) also highlight the importance of considering gender equality and social inclusion (GESI).

Including more diverse perspectives in resource governance and conservation efforts can also yield better results, given the unique and specialized relationships with nature possessed by different groups, such as women and Indigenous Peoples.

Having this information on how different groups interact with nature and how they are impacted by climate change and biodiversity loss is critical to the development of effective NbS for adaptation.

If NbS for adaptation are not designed with these differences in mind, they will miss the mark, which may lead to maladaptation and worsen vulnerabilities for some groups.

So, how can you collect this essential information during the planning process?

Understanding Gender and Social Issues in NbS for Adaptation: Our approach

IISD experts leading the CAPA Initiative, a 3-year project funded by Global Affairs Canada, recommend starting the planning of nature-based adaptation projects with an integrated climate risk assessment.

Seeking to promote natural solutions and strengthen climate resilience in Belize and the Greater Virunga and Kavango-Zambezi landscapes*, they first gathered information on climate change and biodiversity loss and assessed how these issues impact communities within or adjacent to the Protected Areas.

*Fiji's integrated climate risk assessment is currently ongoing.

A key aim of the process was to better understand the different impacts of these issues based on gender and other social factors. This information was gathered by integrating GESI criteria into the climate risk assessment. This involved attention to GESI both in the questions the assessment aimed to answer (for example, assessing the relative decision-making power and opportunities of different groups in conservation planning processes) and in the process undertaken (for example by ensuring gender-responsive methodologies were used to collect data through separate, confidential focus group discussions that were inclusive of underrepresented groups, such as women and youth).

The assessments, implemented together with the World Wide Fund for Nature Africa and the Wildlife Conservation Society in Belize, analyzed gender differences and helped to determine which groups within the landscapes are considered “underrepresented” regarding their participation in and leadership of natural resource and/or Protected Areas management.

In Belize and the Greater Virunga landscape, the groups identified as underrepresented consist of youth and Indigenous Peoples: the Garifuna in Belize and the Batwa populations in the Greater Virunga landscape. In the Kavango-Kambezi landscape, they consist of youth and persons with disabilities. Across the landscapes, women were identified as facing barriers due to gender inequality. These groups became the focus of the assessments, which enabled the CAPA initiative to better understand the unique constraints and opportunities they experience to design NbS for adaptation activities that could encourage their active participation and leadership.

What follows are three key take-aways that highlight important insights gathered from the assessments and how this information will help project partners plan for just and effective, fit-for-purpose NbS for adaptation.

Key Take-Away #1: People of different genders and social groups rely on different livelihood activities, which influences their adaptation priorities

Findings from the assessments demonstrated that men, women, and underrepresented groups undertake different livelihood strategies according to roles, responsibilities, and cultural norms that influence their daily activities. Gendered roles within key resource sectors mean that women and men are affected by the impacts of climate change in different ways. For example, in both the Greater Virunga and Kavango-Zambezi landscapes, women are often responsible for gathering water and fuelwood, as well as procuring food, which becomes more arduous during drought.

In Belize, fishing is dominated by men, who are strongly affected by declining fish stocks due to rising sea temperatures. The degree of dependence on a particular resource or livelihood strategy also plays a role in vulnerability to climate change. For example, climate hazards have resulted in Belize’s Garifuna communities scaling back their traditional farming practices. In the Kavango-Zambezi landscape, people with disabilities are facing challenges in cultivating home gardens—a key source of food security—because the river they previously relied on has dried up.

These differences in livelihood activities influence people’s priorities when it comes to adaptation. In Belize, youth expressed a preference for options that gave them hands-on, practical experience, such as coral, mangrove, and beach restoration, while women were least interested in options linked to forests and forestry due to safety concerns. In both the Greater Virunga and Kavango-Zambezi landscapes, both men and women expressed an interest in NbS for adaptation that were linked to the diversification of livelihoods to build resilience.

Having information on these differences in livelihoods and preferences is key to planning NbS for adaptation that can benefit everyone.

Key Take-Away #2: Resource access and control strongly influence barriers and opportunities for NbS for adaptation

Across the CAPA landscapes, the assessments highlighted the critical role that land tenure and other natural resource access and control issues play in shaping people’s livelihood opportunities and, consequently, their vulnerability to climate impacts.

In Belize, more women are interested in taking up livelihood strategies such as farming, yet many lack ownership of key assets, including land. Indigenous groups such as the Batwa in the Greater Virunga landscape and the Shangaani in the Kavango-Zambezi landscape have seen their traditional territories appropriated to create Protected Areas. In the latter, local communities have access to buffer zones with key natural resources, yet traditional authorities (often men) govern the use of communal resources. In the former, both men and women have access to ecosystem services, yet land is primarily owned by men who make decisions on land allocation and associated activities. Lack of land ownership is linked to less decision-making power regarding natural resource management in the Greater Virunga landscape.

NbS for adaptation are long-term investments in climate resilience and biodiversity conservation outcomes, which require secure land access or ownership. It is simply not feasible to expect community members to invest in long-term solutions if they face immediate climate risks and lack secure tenure. It is important to recognize that some groups, such as women, may not benefit in the same way if NbS for adaptation activities, such as land restoration, are prioritized over others. This is why it is helpful to gather information on the gender and social dimensions of resource access and use it to plan NbS for adaptation that can deliver equitable benefits to communities.

Key Take-Away #3: Women and underrepresented groups play important roles in natural resource management but often experience structural challenges and capacity gaps

In all three landscapes, the assessments revealed persistent barriers that limit the meaningful participation of women and other underrepresented groups in decision making related to NbS for adaptation. In the Greater Virunga and Kavango-Zambezi landscapes, most local Protected Areas management plans have demonstrable gaps in inclusivity. Often, women are present in planning meetings to give a semblance of participation, but the final decisions and plans do not reflect their concerns, needs, or goals. Similarly in Belize, the Garifuna are not always consulted on the management of ecosystems that hold cultural and traditional importance.

In Kavango-Zambezi, women noted a desire for technical skills to enable their participation in agroforestry. In Belize, women and youth are highly motivated to participate in NbS for adaptation, yet they lack confidence in their ability to influence conservation and Protected Areas management priorities.

Mapping conservation and natural resource management structures to understand capacities, needs, and gaps is essential to planning NbS for adaptation. Often, women and underrepresented groups provide leadership within community-level groups. In Greater Virunga, there are many women involved in savings and loan programs, as well as livelihoods-related groups that deal with conservation issues. However, many of these groups are informal and lack broader decision-making power, technical skills, and access to information. The sustainability and success of NbS for adaptation is contingent on improved and inclusive governance over the long term, and women and underrepresented groups are key players in these efforts.

What Do These Findings Mean for Planning NbS for Adaptation?

In learning from CAPA, it is clear that NbS for adaptation must be planned with consideration for how people’s unique identities influence their interactions with the natural world and their capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change. This can be accomplished by conducting an integrated climate risk assessment that incorporates GESI and using the findings to inform NbS for adaptation options.

Gathering this information can help identify creative ways to ensure different groups can benefit from various NbS for adaptation actions. What matters is finding balance in the planning of NbS for adaptation options, being honest about who may benefit and who may not, and ensuring options address different needs, capacities, and priorities. Planning NbS for adaptation with this information in mind will ensure that the solutions proposed are effective, inclusive, and sustainable.

For more on inclusive NbS for climate adaptation, see our guide for practitioners and communities here.  

This piece was largely informed by the reports produced by the two integrated assessment consultancy teams in the African landscapes and in Belize, which will be published and shared on the CAPA website. In the African landscapes, the consultancy team that performed the assessment consisted of the following: Luckson Zvobgo (Climate Change Context; NbS for Climate Adaptation; Governance, Gender, and Social Context); Evidence T. Kasinganeti (Governance, Gender, and Social Context as well as Conflicts Context); Sandra Bhatasara (Governance, Gender, and Social Context); Felix Kalaba (Ecosystem Context); and Andreas L. S. Meyer (Biodiversity; Climate Change Context). In Belize, the consultancy team Compass Communication and Research performed the assessment with assistance from the Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation Planning Team.