- Since 2015’s Paris climate agreement, poor, climate-vulnerable nations have made a case for wealthy, industrialized nations (responsible for most climate change) to pay hundreds of billions for climate adaption and resilience. But while making big promises, actual funding by wealthy nations has repeatedly fallen far short of what’s needed.
- One possible reason: The real-world value of adaption and resilience projects has long been grossly underestimated due to incomplete data. A new study uses a novel methodology to put a comprehensive dollar value on such projects. It found that every $1 invested yields $10.50 in environmental and social benefits over a decade.
- Known as the “triple dividend of resilience,” this new methodology counts not only avoided climate change damages, but also economic gains (such as improved infrastructure and job creation) as well as broader environmental enhancements (improved public health and biodiversity protections, for example).
- It’s hoped this new analysis will offer policymakers and NGOs leverage at November’s COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil, as they try to convince wealthy nations and financial institutions to unlock the many billions needed by vulnerable nations in adaption and resilience funding to weather escalating climate change impacts.
From one U.N. climate summit to the next, the struggle has intensified to secure sufficient financing from wealthy, industrialized nations to aid the world’s poorest, climate-vulnerable countries in their efforts to avoid climate catastrophe — even as the gulf widens between what has been paid out for climate adaptation and resilience, and what is truly needed.
The U.N. in 2024 estimated this gap now totals as much as $359 billion in annual unmet requirements.
But a new report by the World Resources Institute (WRI) argues that nations and financiers have been thinking all wrong about adaptation and resilience: By evaluating it only as a means to avoid potential climate losses, it grossly underestimates the true value of each dollar spent.
The authors found that the investments now being made are far more valuable to countries and communities than previously understood or acknowledged. To prove this valuation, WRI analyzed 320 adaptation and resilience investments across 12 countries (mostly in tropical Asia, Africa and Latin America) totaling $133 billion between 2014 and 2024. The final WRI report estimates that when evaluated far more broadly, every $1 invested yields $10.50 in benefits over a decade — an aggregated potential worth for those 320 projects totaling $1.4 trillion.
Calculating the ‘triple dividend of resilience’
This groundbreaking finding is based on what WRI dubs the “triple dividend of resilience.” As with traditional valuations, WRI researchers calculated anticipated avoided losses from climate disasters.
But they then went much further, accounting for economic gains made through improved infrastructure, risk management and job creation. They also assigned a dollar value to social and environmental enhancements, such as improved public health and biodiversity protections tied to the investments.
The latter two elements are typically not among the goals measured, or even discussed, when adaptation and resilience financing is sought. Yet the benefits accrue just the same.
The authors argue that countries and global financiers — many of whom will gather in Bonn, Germany, on June 16 for mid-year U.N. climate negotiations — should take all three elements into consideration when determining the true return on resilience investments.
“What we’re trying to do here is close the gap on what are good investments, and making the case for these investments,” Carter Brandon, WRI economist and co-author of the report, told Mongabay. “In essence, these investments are more profitable than you think they are, and here’s the methodology you can follow to convince yourself.”
Brandon, formerly with the World Bank’s division on environment and climate change, will be in Bonn to make the case for the WRI report findings with global policymakers and financiers.
“This research has pried open the lid of what resilience is truly worth. And even that first glimpse is staggering,” Sam Mugume Koojo, co-chair of the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action from Uganda, said in a statement. “It’s time for leaders to recognize climate adaptation is not just a safety net, but a launch pad for development.”
Turning climate finance assumptions on their head
Last November, in advance of COP29 in Azerbijian, Andrew Deutz, a WWF finance expert, told Mongabay that “people keep talking about this COP as being the finance COP. But to be honest, from this meeting going forward, every COP will be a finance COP.”
This will be particularly true when the world convenes in Belém, Brazil, this November for COP30, a critical moment in time when the WRI report could help make a difference.
At past COPs, wealthy, industrialized countries — those most responsible for the emissions driving climate change — failed to contribute significantly to a host of climate mitigation funds, with the billions paid out always falling hundreds of billions short of what’s needed. That, despite ever-louder demands from climate-vulnerable nations.
WRI says it hopes the evidence in its report will encourage wealthy nations to provide more adaptation and resilience funding at COP30, and that vulnerable nations will use the report to make stronger justifications for the projects they’re eager to launch.
“I am personally unsatisfied with the level of dialogue going on because it doesn’t actually even ask: What should countries do, what should they prioritize, what should they even want? It turns out a lot of countries don’t know,” Brandon said. “If the amount of finance magically doubled — which won’t happen — would countries even know what to do with it? I would say the answer is no.”
That’s why WRI wanted to drill down to assess what is really working on the ground, where billions are already being invested in climate resilience. This is the first time such a detailed analysis has been undertaken, he noted. The goal of the “triple dividend” method was to understand both quantitative and qualitative impacts over a 10-year time frame.
“What we now can see is that this investment is not only good for resilience,” Brandon said, “but it’s also a really strong investment in development and public health.”
Actual, but uncounted, benefits
Among the examples the WRI report highlights to illustrate “triple dividend” impacts, Brandon described a $507 million river management project in Durban, South Africa, aimed primarily at reducing flood risk. The initiative is funded by the C40 Cities Finance Facility, which arranges global climate-mitigation funding.
“This water project basically cleans up a river, cleans up and restores wetlands, and stabilizes the water supply,” Brandon said, explaining the project’s flood prevention expectations. “It also improves water quality through nature so that water availability and quality during times of drought were improved.
But then comes the litany of uncounted benefits: “It also improves the ecology of the river. It improves people’s health all along the river because it reduces waste, pollution and diarrheal diseases. And by using nature and protecting wetlands, it’s also sequestering more carbon. These are real benefits to which we can attach a monetary value that hasn’t been considered previously.”
A WRI blog post co-written by the new report’s researchers describes numerous other projects, including the Ethiopia Resilient Landscapes and Livelihoods Project, funded with $119 million from the World Bank. The project “restored degraded landscapes in selected watersheds through measures such as hillside terraces and tree planting” — results that were anticipated.
But compounding the World Bank’s return on investment is this: The project “trained communities in sustainable farming and grazing practices. Together, these measures could improve soil health, reduce erosion and enhance watersheds, making the area more resilient to floods and droughts while also improving crop and livestock production,” the WRI blog post noted.
Through its novel, in-depth analysis, WRI is recommending that governments begin to view adaptation and resilience strategies more broadly to include economic, social, and a range of public health and environmental benefits when pursuing millions in financial support.
“This evidence gives leaders and non-state actors exactly what they need heading into COP30: A clear economic case for scaling adaptation,” said Dan Ioschpe, appointed by COP leaders in Brazil to advocate for greater climate finance. “Belém must become a turning point — mainstreaming resilience into national and local priorities and unlocking the full potential of non-state actors’ leadership.”
Banner image: Community-led urban gardens have long existed in the city of Salvador, Brazil. Those gardens are often spearheaded by local residents, as seen here in the Hortas Urbanas SSA Project, launched around 2014.
Justin Catanoso, a regular Mongabay contributor, is a professor of journalism at Wake Forest University in the United States.
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.