Challenges in developing climate adaptation tools

Very excited to share my latest piece from Forbes, focusing on the business case for climate adaptation. Many thanks is due to Benjamin Zehr (Reciprocal), Tamer El-Raghy (Acumen Resilient Agriculture Fund (ARAF)), Alina Truhina (The Radical Fund) and Emilie Mazzacurati (Tailwind) for lending their time and insights for this article. If anyone is developing a fund, studio, accelerator, etc. focusing on climate adaptation, I would love to hear from you. Here's the TLDR: - We need to meticulously build the business case around climate adaptation. For years we rarely talked about adaptation because it would constitute “giving up”. After-all, why adapt to a warming planet when renewable energy, electric vehicles and carbon capture technologies can limit global warming? - However, as the planet becomes hotter, and staying below the 1.5 C threshold is less likely, we have to adapt. But the adaptation funding gaps are enormous, over 300 BN annually according to some, and potentially over 1 TN according to others. - There is no single explanation for the gap, but we know at least a few key reasons: 1) Adaptation tends to be highly localized, so finding one-size fits all approaches that can scale globally can be a challenge in investors' eyes. 2) Pipelines of adaptation-focused companies are nascent and still growing in many parts of the world; 3) Perceived low returns on investment - many investors still think adaptation solutions are public goods, which yield low or no returns; 4) Impact measurement hurdles - unlike mitigation, there is no single "north start" or success indicator for adaptation. So how do we start building a business case? 1) First, we have to educate the market. For a while we did not discuss adaptation, so there is a time lag we are fighting against. Many people when they hear "climate investment” and “climate technology” still think of energy and mobility. 2) Second, we need to think beyond venture capital - many different types of capital need to be used to fund adaptation - grants, debt, ETF's, etc. 3) Third, we need to be comfortable with not having a single metric that represents adaptation impact. Just as adaptation solutions are often highly-localized, many will have a unique theory of change. 4) Fourth we need to look at new company building models like venture studios/builders. We need to make sure we're building a pipeline that not only attracts investors, but is sustainable and durable, standing the test of time. 5) Fifth, we need to know where demand will be most predictable and bankable. For example, large corporates will likely have growing demand for adaptation solutions. 6) Lastly, we may need to stop using the term “adaptation” as an asset class or business vertical. Adaptation has far too many dimensions and use cases to be lumped under one heading. Many thanks again to the amazing experts who lent their time here, and would love to hear any and all comments!

When we face extreme heat, the common advice is: “Buy an air conditioner,” “Get a cooler,” or “Use a fan.” These responses feel intuitive—because they reflect the solutions we already know. But what happens when there is no stable electricity? When power bills are unaffordable? When the home is a single-room structure with a tin roof where an AC simply won’t work? This disconnect reveals a deeper issue. Across climate, energy, and air pollution challenges, we often propose solutions that assume supportive systems—electricity, finance, infrastructure—already exist. But in much of the Global South, these systems are fragmented, missing, or inaccessible. Our intentions may be good, but without asking uncomfortable questions, we risk recommending tools that are simply unusable. This isn’t a rejection of innovation. It’s a call for critical prioritization. We often hear that “all work is important.” And while that’s true, we must also ask: Important for whom? At what time scale? And under what conditions? A long-term research breakthrough and a short-term cooling shelter both matter—but they serve different purposes. When working with communities facing urgent risks, feasibility, timing, and equity must guide our actions. These are not abstract concerns. For hundreds of millions across the Global South, this is daily life. Many climate “solutions” today are designed with assumptions—reliable electricity, formal housing, affordable energy, inclusive financing. Without these foundations, such solutions become products of privilege, not tools of resilience. We don’t need just more solutions. We need a fundamental shift in how we define them. That means moving beyond innovation-as-default, and toward a systems approach—one that centers lived reality, works within real-world constraints, and builds long-term capability. Resilience doesn’t begin with what we can deploy. It begins with what people can sustain. Ajay Nagpure

How Behavioral Science Diagnosed—and Could Have Rescued—a Failing Climate Resilience Project in Fiji In reviewing the #WHO’s recently released draft Global Action Plan on Climate Change and Health I was struck by the absence of a  role for behavioral science. It prompted me to share examples of how behavioral science could help achieve the plan's goals. When we talk about climate adaptation, we often focus on infrastructure: seawalls, irrigation systems, and renewable energy. But what happens when communities don’t adopt or support the solutions we offer? That’s exactly the challenge a climate resilience project faced in Fiji. The initiative aimed to protect coastal villages from erosion through ecosystem-based interventions, like planting vetiver grass to stabilize riverbanks. The science was solid. The environmental need was urgent. Yet uptake was low. Enter behavioral science. A team of behavioral researchers was brought in to understand the disconnect. Their findings were both simple and profound: For many villagers, land wasn’t just physical space—it was a part of their identity. The sea encroaching on land was felt not only as a climate threat but as a dilution of cultural identity and ancestral belonging. The original project had framed erosion as a technical issue. In reality, it was deeply psychological and social. Interviews revealed other critical barriers. When adopting natural infrastructure like vetiver meant reducing the immediate usability of farming land, villagers hesitated. As humans, we tend to prefer familiar, predictable risks over uncertain, ambiguous ones. That uncertainty was a major obstacle. Behavioral interviews showed that 43% of respondents were unsure about the relative effectiveness of natural versus hard infrastructure. Opinions were evenly split on whether vetiver was more effective than seawalls. Only half believed that the intervention would personally benefit them. A common refrain was the lack of information: “We’ve received no trainings/awareness on vetiver grass and its benefits.” “We’ve heard about it during the community planting program but there was no training or awareness done.” These insights enabled behavioral scientists tp propose a revised approach: ✅ Reframe messaging to highlight cultural preservation. ✅ Engage communities in co-design to ensure traditional knowledge guided intervention choices. ✅ Use storytelling to embed behavioral change in shared narratives. ✅ Map social norms to identify influencers who could lead adoption. Climate programs must recognize: adaptation is not just a technical challenge, it's a behavioral one. Source: Dekens, J., Bujold, P., & Mannle, K. (2024). Behavioural Science for Climate Change Adaptation: A case of ecosystem-based adaptation in Fiji. #BehavioralScience #ClimateAdaptation #GlobalHealth #ImplementationScience #CommunityResilience #HealthPolicy #SocialNorms #Fiji #ClimateResilience #BehaviorChange #Equity #WHO #CultureAndClimate

I recently had the opportunity to discuss with Marcia Toledo Sotillo, director of #adaptation and #resilience at the UN High-Level Climate Champions, about our experience in democratizing climate risk assessment. The Race to Resilience campaign, led by the High-Level Climate Champions, has set an ambitious goal: enhance the resilience of 4 billion people by 2030 by mobilizing action from the so-called "non-state actors" - local communities, NGOs, companies... Assessing and understanding climate risks is the first step of this transformation. Thanks to five decades of intensive research in climate science and earth system modeling, information about future climate and its impacts is available at unprecedented precision and depth. However, accessing and interpreting this data can be almost impossible for non-state actors, as it requires very specific technical and scientific expertise. Since 2019, Callendar has been bridging this gap by developing tools that transform scientific data into ready-to-use, localized information. Our solutions cater to a wide range of stakeholders, from billion-dollar industrial projects to individuals. In 2024, we delivered climate risk assessments - such as submersion, heatwave or wildfire - to over 230,000 people in France. While a far cry of the 4 billion target, it represents a scalable model that can be replicated globally. I strongly believe that delivering high-quality, actionable climate impact assessments to half of humanity within 5 years is technically feasible. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for adaptation. Climate impacts vary greatly from one place to another and solutions must be tailored to local contexts. To be truly effective, our approach requires both global endorsement and local collaboration, ensuring that communities have access to tools and support tailored to their specific needs.