The report uses an exploratory comparative analysis of adaptation governance across selected countries and US states to examine both the recognition of systemic risks (i.e. how these are framed in strategies and assessments), and how systemic thinking is put into action (i.e. the extent to which it is embedded in mandates and funding streams, and in appraisal, monitoring, and accountability).

Evidence is drawn from a desk-based review of regional, national and subnational strategies and closely related resilience frameworks; a short expert survey covering multiple regions; and semi-structured interviews with adaptation coordinators and policy specialists across levels of governance.

Key messages

• Adaptation policies increasingly talk about interconnected and systemic climate risks, but far fewer act on them through mandates, budgets, appraisal rules, delivery systems, and accountability.
• In the reviewed cases, the main implementation gap is not a lack of recognition of climate risk, but weak operational routines that still default to hazard- and sector-based approaches.
• Systemic climate risks emerge through interactions between sectors, infrastructure networks, ecosystems, and social vulnerabilities – meaning progress in one area can unintentionally create risks elsewhere.
• Managing deep uncertainty may call for moving beyond “predict-then-act” planning towards iterative approaches that remain robust across a range of futures, including tail risks and non-linear change – a lesson suggested by the cases examined in this report.
• Policy coherence remains a bottleneck: competing objectives across portfolios are often left unresolved, and co-benefits are frequently neglected because coordination and incentives are not designed to capture them.
• Climate risks may be shaped more by “non-climate” policies that amplify exposure and vulnerability – such as land use, infrastructure standards, fiscal rules and public procurement – than by adaptation strategies and policies that seek to reduce them.

• In cases where systemic approaches are advancing, they tend to be supported by cross-sector coordination that is adequately resourced, decision-relevant risk information, and incentives that reward prevention and long-term resilience rather than short-term recovery.
• The cases examined in this report reinforce well-established insights that without explicit attention to distributional outcomes, adaptation can shift risks onto marginalized groups, reinforce existing inequalities, or generate maladaptation.
• The evidence base and literature informing systemic adaptation is geographically uneven. The findings should therefore be treated as illustrative, and the proposed framework used as adaptable scaffolding to inform future research rather than a universally transferable model.
• The proposed framework can support selective stress-testing of plans, investments, or reforms by helping to identify interdependencies, trade-offs, co-benefits, and potential risk shifting before decisions are locked in.

Intended audience

This report is written for policymakers and practitioners responsible for designing, coordinating, financing, and implementing adaptation across levels of governance. It is particularly relevant for central/national coordinating bodies and finance functions, sector ministries and regulators (e.g. infrastructure, health, energy, water, agriculture, land use), and subnational and local authorities managing planning and service delivery. It will also be useful to civil protection and disaster risk management agencies, climate advisory bodies, and analysts supporting risk assessments and investment appraisal.

Note: PDF updated on 1 June 2026 to remove duplication.