Reduce vulnerability, build resilience, and enhance rural livelihoods

Reducing rural poverty is particularly important in the context of climate change because people living in poverty or economically precarious situations are most likely to be negatively impacted by climate change and are least likely to be able to recover from shocks. Additionally, building resilience and adapting to climate change can be expensive or inaccessible to those living in poverty, furthering their vulnerability to climate change. For example, climate-smart, resilient agriculture can require significant up-front investments, expensive inputs, and higher implementation costs – additional expenses that many farmers, particularly smallholder farmers, cannot afford without additional income or financial support. The inability to adapt their agricultural practices then exposes farmers to greater risks from climate change-related shocks.

While rates of rural poverty have decreased in recent years, extreme poverty still poses a major challenge in rural areas, especially in countries such as South Sudan, Honduras, and Zambia, where, as of 2015, over 50% of the rural population lived below the national poverty line.

Unfortunately, since the development of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, the prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity has been moving in the wrong direction. As of 2022, 2.4 billion people (30% of the global population) were moderately or severely food insecure. This number has remained steady since 2020, after increasing significantly from 2019 to 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Building climate resilience is crucial for enhancing livelihoods as well as reducing poverty and addressing other inequalities that climate change will otherwise intensify. Well-chosen adaptation actions can also help to avoid future climate-related losses and even provide strong economic returns. To build climate resilience equitably and effectively, countries must develop plans, strategies, laws, and policies to guide their adaptation actions and access the finance required to implement them.  

As of August 2023, 168 countries – or 85% – had at least one national adaptation planning instrument in place. Of the 29 countries without an adaptation planning instrument in place, 14 are in the process of developing one, and five are pursuing funding to support their adaptation planning. These adaptation planning instruments include national adaptation plans, adaptation communications, national climate change laws and policies, and national communications. 

Accelerating global action on climate adaptation is critical to reducing vulnerability and building resilience, but significantly larger financial resources are urgently required. In addition to various environmental and social gains, adaptation can generate substantial economic returns. Depending on the sector, investments in adaptation and improved resilience can produce rates of return ranging from 2:1 to 10:1 or even higher in certain scenarios.  

Total tracked finance for climate adaptation has risen over the years to roughly USD 63 billion in 2022 – up 29% from  2020. However, these funds pale in comparison to estimated needs. Developing countries alone, for example, will require anywhere from USD 215 billion to USD 387 billion per year this decade to adapt. To meet adaptation needs, finance flows must quadruple by 2030. While both public and private finance for adaptation must increase dramatically, particular focus on mobilizing private investments is warranted as the vast majority of tracked adaptation finance flows from public actors – 98% in 2021 to 2022.

Indigenous Peoples and local communities are among the most vulnerable to climate change impacts and urgently need resources with which to plan and implement adaptation measures. Yet only a small fraction of adaptation funds reach them, and worse still, they rarely have much authority with adaptation decision-making processes. By one estimate, less than 10% of total international climate finance was directed to the local level (where most implementation of adaptation actions must take place) between 2006 and 2016, and only 7% of climate finance overall was transparent enough to be tracked and included in this analysis. Improving direct access to finance provides Indigenous Peoples and local communities with decision-making power and authority over how adaptation funds are spent, increasing the odds that they will benefit and that adaptation actions will be more equitable and effective.  

How much climate adaptation finance reaches local communities remains a crucial and mostly unanswered question, as it is largely not tracked. However, it is an important data gap to highlight, given the increasing recognition of the importance of ensuring climate finance meets the needs of those most at risk.

While public participation in decision and policy making, a key element of empowering communities, is difficult to measure directly given the subjective nature of what makes participation effective or meaningful, government consultation with civil society organizations is one mechanism for public participation in decision-making that can be measured. This indicator, based on the 2024 Democracy Report from Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem), presents data on whether policymakers consistently consult with civil society organizations.

The 2024 Democracy Report flagged that, in 30 countries, governments are increasing their control over the existence of civil society organizations, and in 35 countries, the repression of civil society organizations is increasing.  Concerningly, the percentage of countries where policymakers consistently consult with civil society organizations has dropped over the past years, from 29% in 2012 to 21% in 2023.

Having a range of diverse and active civil society organizations allows individuals to seek out and join organizations through which they can advocate for change. This global indicator from Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) assesses whether there is a diverse array of civil society organizations (not primarily state-sponsored) that members of the public can voluntary participate. However, the presence of civil society does not mean that everyone participates nor does it indicate how effective or influential these organizations are in policymaking.

In 2023, 84% of countries met the threshold of having many diverse civil society organizations. This figure has largely remained steady since 2003.

All members of society should have full access to civic life. This indicator tracks the ability of women to participate in civic life. It is based on a global indicator from Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) that assesses whether women are prevented from participating in civil society organizations and whether civil society organizations working on women’s issues are prevented from taking part in the civic discourse. Here, we present the inverse: the share of countries where women are allowed to participate. 

According to the V-Dem Code Book, as of 2023, 74% of countries allow women and/or women’s interest groups to participate in civil society organizations. While this figure steadily increased from 2000 to 2020, since 2022, it has been backsliding.

In the last decade, Indigenous Peoples and local communities have raised substantial awareness at the international level of the critical role they play in safeguarding the world’s forests and other ecosystems. At the same time, environmental defenders face high rates of criminalization, physical violence, and assassinations. Indigenous Peoples and local communities are among the groups most likely to mobilize for environmental protection and face even higher rates of criminalization, violence, and assassinations than other groups. In a systematic mapping of climate-related resistance movements, violence was most common over projects related to hydropower, biomass, pipelines, and coal extraction. 

At least 196 land and environmental defenders were killed in 2023, according to Global Witness, which ranks the mining, extractives, fishing, and logging sectors as the deadliest for defenders. Some killings are facilitated by governments through systematic and deliberate suppression of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and grassroots environmentalists. Governments justify their actions through legal mechanisms such as penal laws and anti-terrorist legislation.

Extension services play a vital role in equipping farmers with the necessary knowledge and technical support to develop profitable, sustainable agricultural practices, including those that increase productivity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A metric for assessing the effectiveness of these services is the proportion of farmers who benefit from continuous and reliable access to them. 

While there is not a consistent source of data on access to extension services, a 2020 IFPRI report found that, since the 1990s, the number of global extension agents has increased, and they are from a wider variety of public and private organizations; although, the availability of these services can vary significantly from one country or region to another. The report also found that there has been a decrease in government funding for extension services, many extension agents and services lack the capacities and resources to fully meet farmers’ needs. Reaching women and youth remains an ongoing challenge. Additionally, as public extension services have a more diverse array of participating organizations and funding sources, there is a growing need for coordination, monitoring, and capacity building.

Access to markets can play a positive role in poverty reduction and economic growth promotion, and this is necessary for the development of profitable, sustainable agriculture. The proportion of the global rural population residing within a two-kilometer radius of an all-weather road is a commonly employed indicator for gauging market accessibility. Although, the impact of road access on market participation depends on various factors, including the road network’s design, the presence of complementary infrastructure, and local economic conditions. 

An estimated one billion individuals still reside more than two kilometers away from such vital road infrastructure, according to the Global Road Safety Facility. Enhancing accessibility to rural roads can alleviate poverty through increased agricultural output, local market expansion driven by improved transport, and increased wages and employment opportunities. 

Access to electricity is essential for various agricultural tasks from irrigation to crop processing. This factor is a key ingredient for building resilience, enhancing rural livelihoods, and supporting the development of profitable, sustainable agriculture. Empirical investigations have indicated that the expansion of electricity availability contributes to an increase in the time allocated to income-generating activities. 

Access to electricity varies among regions, countries, and communities, as well as between urban and rural areas. As of 2014, access to electricity was notably more limited in rural areas, with 27% of the rural global population lacking access compared to only 4% of their urban counterparts. However, a positive trend can be seen in the overall rate of global electrification. In 1990, approximately 71% of the world’s population had access to electricity, and this figure rose to nearly 85% by 2021. As of 2020, about 80% of those deprived of electricity lived in rural areas, with three-quarters of those without electricity situated in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Lack of secure land tenure is pervasive worldwide and is a commonly identified barrier to shifting to profitable, sustainable agriculture and restoring forest and land ecosystems. Documentation of rights contributes to tenure security and can create incentives for farmers to make longer-term investments in their croplands. Rights that are secure and of a set duration can also be the foundation for investing in restoration efforts where the benefits accrue over time. 

Yet, in countries where deforestation and forest conversion for commodity agriculture are a pervasive problem, such as Indonesia and Côte d’Ivoire, less than half of all adults have legal documentation of their rights to land.

Secure land rights play an essential role in enabling the restoration of ecosystems; defending lands that are under threat; supporting the development of profitable, sustainable agriculture; and reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. In addition to formal documentation of land rights, communities and individuals need assurances that their land rights are secure and that they will accrue the benefits of, for example, improving cropland and pasture productivity, reestablishing trees, rewetting peatlands, or restoring mangroves. Without believing that they have long–term rights to land, they may have little incentive to devote their time, labor, and resources to such projects, particularly those that generate benefits over longer periods. 

As of 2020, nearly one billion people worldwide believe they could lose part of their land or their right to use it within five years.  

Forests and other land ecosystems are under continuous and increasing economic pressures, such as the expansion of agriculture and other extractive activities like mining and logging. Protecting ecosystems from these pressures will require policies that discourage conversion, such as payments for ecosystem services, which increase the financial attractiveness of standing forests and have been successful in many contexts at reducing deforestation. 

In 2018, the total global value of payments for ecosystem services was estimated at USD 36 billion in annual transactions.

Strengthening Indigenous Peoples’ tenure security offers one highly effective, relatively low-cost strategy to protect the world’s remaining intact forests, at least 36% of which stretch across these communities’ territories. Several studies find that, in the tropics, deforestation across Indigenous lands is significantly lower than in nearby forests, and in some cases, comparable to or less than losses within strictly protected areas. 

Yet, an analysis of legal frameworks in 73 countries covering 85% of Earth’s land finds that, despite holding and using at least half of the world’s land, Indigenous Peoples, people of Afro-descendent, and local communities legally own just 11% of global land. While the total area of land legally designated for and owned by these groups increased by just over 100 million hectares (Mha) from 2015 to 2020, at least 1,375 Mha of community lands – an area roughly the size of Antarctica – has not yet been recognized under national laws and regulations. 

Recognizing and honoring the rights of Indigenous Peoples is essential to reduce vulnerability, build resilience, and enhance rural livelihoods. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) is an expression of the fundamental right of Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination. It allows them to give, withhold, or withdraw their consent for a project that may impact them or their territories. Additionally, that consent should arrive without intimidation or coercion through processes defined by the affected Indigenous Peoples. FPIC is a well-established principle in international law, articulated in the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). However, Indigenous leaders have been critical of the lack of implementation and enforcement of FPIC. A first step for many countries would be to ensure that there are legal mechanisms to enable enforcement. 

Currently, we are unable to identify a global data source assessing FPIC implementation.

Harms to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including violations of the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), often go hand in hand with tropical deforestation. This is due to the fact that the production of commodities that drive deforestation – such as beef, soy, palm oil, and timber – often occurs in areas that overlap with Indigenous lands. For example, JBS meatpacking plants, which supply many European supermarkets, were recently found to have purchased beef from farms illegally located in the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau Indigenous Territory in the Brazilian Amazon. 

Global Canopy’s Forest 500 assessment measures the strength of FPIC commitments by 350 companies with the highest exposure to tropical deforestation. To receive a perfect score, companies must also commit to only proceed with operations if Indigenous peoples have given consent. In the 2023 Forest 500 Assessment, companies on average met just 17.6% of Forest 500’s criteria for strong FPIC commitments, and 200 out of the 350 companies received a score of zero, meaning they met none of Forest 500’s criteria. This is a big drop from the average of 21% in 2022.

Harms to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including violations of the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), often go hand in  hand with tropical deforestation. This is due to the fact that the production of commodities that drive deforestation – such as beef, soy, palm oil, and timber – often occurs in areas that overlap with Indigenous lands.  

Global Canopy’s Forest 500 assessment measures the extent to which the 350 companies with the highest exposure to tropical deforestation comply with labor rights and FPIC for Indigenous peoples. In Forest 500’s 2023 Assessment, companies complied with just 19.6% of the criteria on average. This is an increase in the average of 15% from 2022 but still dismally low.

Harms to Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including violations of the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), often go hand in hand with tropical deforestation. This is because the production of commodities that drive deforestation – such as beef, soy, palm oil, and timber – often occurs in areas that overlap with Indigenous lands. For example, the large meatpackers Minerva and Frigorifico Concepción were found to be sourcing from ranchers responsible for illegal land grabbing of Indigenous lands in Paraguay since 2018, and yet, major financiers such as HSBC, BlackRock, and Santander have continued to invest in these companies.  

Despite these risks, across the 150 financial institutions with the highest exposure to tropical deforestation in their portfolios – as evaluated in Global Canopy’s Forest 500 assessment – the average score of the strength of requirements that clients and holdings must test for FPIC of Indigenous Peoples is only 24% as of Forest 500’s 2023 Assessment. Scores have improved steadily since 2018 and 2019, when financial institutions received an average score of 15%, but remain far too low. A full 100% is achieved by financial institutions who require clients and holdings to test for FPIC of Indigenous peoples and local communities before acquiring new interests, developments, or expansions and not proceed with these operations unless consent has been given.

Indigenous Peoples and local communities hold or use at least half of the world’s lands, and ample evidence supports their essential, effective role as forest stewards. Indigenous land alone harbors at least 36% of global intact forests. Developing and updating National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity provides a critical opportunity for governments to engage Indigenous Peoples and local communities as full and equal partners in achieving global biodiversity targets.  

In one recent assessment of these biodiversity strategies, fewer than one-third of 27 assessed countries engaged Indigenous Peoples and local communities in developing their most recent NBSAPs. Even fewer countries engaged women from these communities. Consultations that did occur were often inadequately funded, had a limited scope, and did not provide meaningful opportunities for Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ voices to be heard. Some countries are involving Indigenous Peoples and local communities in NBSAP updates due in October 2024. However, tight budgets and timeframes may limit effective engagement. 

NBSAPs founded on a rights-based approach that empowers communities, leverages their knowledge and skills, and ensures respect for their rights offer the best path for achieving ambitious and long-lasting biodiversity conservation gains. However, only one-third of assessed NBSAPs include provisions for strengthening the rights of Indigenous Peoples and/or local communities as a biodiversity strategy. None of the NBSAPs reviewed have clear safeguards to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, despite extensive evidence of biodiversity conservation efforts violating these rights.