Ending poverty and stabilizing climate change will be two unprecedented global achievements and two major steps toward sustainable development. But the two objectives cannot be considered in isolation: they need to be jointly tackled through an integrated strategy. This report brings together those two objectives and explores how they can more easily be achieved if considered together. It examines the potential impact of climate change and climate policies on poverty reduction. It also provides guidance on how to create a “win-win†? situation so that climate change policies contribute to poverty reduction and poverty-reduction policies contribute to climate change mitigation and resilience building. The key finding of the report is that climate change represents a significant obstacle to the sustained eradication of poverty, but future impacts on poverty are determined by policy choices: rapid, inclusive, and climate-informed development can prevent most short-term impacts whereas immediate pro-poor, emissions-reduction policies can drastically limit long-term ones.

Adaptive social protection (ASP) helps to build the resilience of poor and vulnerable households to the impacts of large, covariate shocks, such as natural disasters, economic crises, pandemics, conflict, and forced displacement. Through the provision of transfers and services directly to these households, ASP supports their capacity to prepare for, cope with, and adapt to the shocks they face—before, during, and after these shocks occur. Over the long term, by supporting these three capacities, ASP can provide a pathway to a more resilient state for households that may otherwise lack the resources to move out of chronically vulnerable situations. Adaptive Social Protection: Building Resilience to Shocks outlines an organizing framework for the design and implementation of ASP, providing insights into the ways in which social protection systems can be made more capable of building household resilience. By way of its four building blocks—programs, information, finance, and institutional arrangements and partnerships—the framework highlights both the elements of existing social protection systems that are the cornerstones for building household resilience, as well as the additional investments that are central to enhancing their ability to generate these outcomes. In this report, the ASP framework and its building blocks have been elaborated primarily in relation to natural disasters and associated climate change. Nevertheless, many of the priorities identified within each building block are also pertinent to the design and implementation of ASP across other types of shocks, providing a foundation for a structured approach to the advancement of this rapidly evolving and complex agenda.

FAO recognizes that those living in rural areas whose livelihoods depend heavily on natural resources, are disproportionately affected by climate risks because of their great likelihood of living in high-risk geographical locations as well as their high vulnerability to, and limited capacity to cope with, climate hazards due to low incomes, lack of savings, weaker social networks, low asset bases and heavy reliance on agriculture and natural resources. Protecting poor and vulnerable small scale producers from the negative impacts of climate risks is an imperative in order to reach FAO’s strategic objectives and achieve Sustainable development goal one and two. Managing Climate risks through social protection sheds light on social protection as an effective investment to safeguard the livelihood of small scale producers and strengthen their essential role in ensuring food security across the globe.

This book provides an authoritative insight on the Loss and Damage discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research and policy linked to this discourse and articulating its multiple concepts, principles and methods. Written by leading researchers and practitioners, it identifies practical and evidence-based policy options to inform the discourse and climate negotiations. With climate-related risks on the rise and impacts being felt around the globe has come the recognition that climate mitigation and adaptation may not be enough to manage the effects from anthropogenic climate change. This recognition led to the creation of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage in 2013, a climate policy mechanism dedicated to dealing with climate-related effects in highly vulnerable countries that face severe constraints and limits to adaptation. Endorsed in 2015 by the Paris Agreement and effectively considered a third pillar of international climate policy, debate and research on Loss and Damage continues to gain enormous traction. Yet, concepts, methods and tools as well as directions for policy and implementation have remained contested and vague. Suitable for researchers, policy-advisors, practitioners and the interested public, the book furthermore: • discusses the political, legal, economic and institutional dimensions of the issue• highlights normative questions central to the discourse • provides a focus on climate risks and climate risk management. • presents salient case studies from around the world.

This publication serves as a roadmap for exploring and managing climate risk in the U.S. financial system. It is the first major climate publication by a U.S. financial regulator. The central message is that U.S. financial regulators must recognize that climate change poses serious emerging risks to the U.S. financial system, and they should move urgently and decisively to measure, understand, and address these risks. Achieving this goal calls for strengthening regulators’ capabilities, expertise, and data and tools to better monitor, analyze, and quantify climate risks. It calls for working closely with the private sector to ensure that financial institutions and market participants do the same. And it calls for policy and regulatory choices that are flexible, open-ended, and adaptable to new information about climate change and its risks, based on close and iterative dialogue with the private sector. At the same time, the financial community should not simply be reactive—it should provide solutions. Regulators should recognize that the financial system can itself be a catalyst for investments that accelerate economic resilience and the transition to a net-zero emissions economy. Financial innovations, in the form of new financial products, services, and technologies, can help the U.S. economy better manage climate risk and help channel more capital into technologies essential for the transition. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5247742

This book elaborates on different aspects of the decision making process concerning the management of climate risk in museums and historic houses. The goal of this publication is to assist collection managers and caretakers by providing information that will allow responsible decisions about the museum indoor climate to be made. The focus is not only on the outcome, but also on the equally important process that leads to that outcome. The different steps contribute significantly to the understanding of the needs of movable and immovable heritage. The decision making process to determine the requirements for the museum indoor climate includes nine steps: Step 1. The process to make a balanced decision starts by clarifying the decision context and evaluating what is important to the decision maker by developing clear objectives. In Step 2 the value of all heritage assets that are affected by the decision are evaluated and the significance of the building and the movable collection is made explicit. Step 3. The climate risks to the moveable collection are assessed. Step 4: Those parts of the building that are considered valuable and susceptible to certain climate conditions are identified. Step 5. The human comfort needs for visitors and staff are expressed. Step 6: To understand the indoor climate, the building physics are explored. Step 7. The climate specifications derived from step 3 to 5 are weighed and for each climate zone the optimal climate conditions are specified. Step 8: Within the value framework established in Step 1, the options to optimize the indoor climate are considered and selected. Step 9: All options to reduce the climate collection risks are evaluated by the objectives established in Step 1.