Vulnerable Groups & Climate Adaptation: Inclusion in National Adaptation Plans in Asia-Pacific & Latin America
Abstract
Climate change has far-reaching consequences for both the environment and society, but its impacts vary significantly depending on geographic location and individual vulnerabilities. Governments have a critical role to play in reducing vulnerabilities and increasing resilience, including through their adaptation planning. However, there is a lack of assessment on how well governments are filling their role in this regard. Through a review of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by countries in the Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions, this article provides an original assessment of how governments are enacting climate adaptation for vulnerable groups. The analysis found that 12 countries dedicated a section of their NAPs to the adaptation of vulnerable populations, while 8 countries did not. Across the two regions, a total of 155 adaptation actions were identified, with a greater number of actions in the Asia-Pacific region. Key policies commonly referenced in the NAPs included awareness-raising programs and the inclusion of vulnerable groups in decision-making processes. While many countries identified women and gender as a primary vulnerable group, the inclusion of other vulnerable populations was less consistent, with some groups mentioned only once or excluded entirely. This suggests that future NAPs should broaden their focus to include a more diverse range of vulnerable groups and adaptation actions.
Keywords
Climate Science; Environmental Effects on Ecosystems; Climate Policy; National Adaptation Plans; Vulnerable Populations
Introduction
As climate change causes an increase in the severity of natural disasters and fluctuations in precipitation and temperature, humans must adapt to the changing environment.1 Around the world, individuals, communities, and governments are already implementing adaptation projects, plans, and policies.2 However, not all people are equally exposed or vulnerable to climate change impacts, with historically marginalized communities often facing the most severe climatic effects.3 Factors such as living in areas prone to pollutants and natural disasters, lack of access to health care, limited education and low-income livelihoods, and existing medical conditions and disabilities all make vulnerable populations more susceptible to climate change.4 Consequently, the needs of vulnerable populations must be considered explicitly when implementing adaptation projects.
This is especially true in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific, regions which suffer from significant wealth and social inequality. Here, countries are responding by implementing policies and outlining planned adaptation actions through their National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), which are submitted to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to identify policies and projects that address medium and long-term adaptation needs.5 The NAP aims to build a climate-resilient nation by adopting and implementing adaptation plans that support healthy ecosystems and societies while also promoting sustainable economic growth.6 While every country is encouraged to create a NAP, NAPs differ across countries, based on both the unique climate circumstances of each nation as well as their economic and political landscape.7 The variation across countries also means that the needs and perspectives of vulnerable groups are taken into account to varying extents. In order to ensure that vulnerable groups in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific are able to successfully adapt to climate change, we must first assess how they are being incorporated into their countries’ NAPs. To date, such an analysis has not been conducted. This paper fills that gap by examining the different NAP actions specifically targeting vulnerable populations by assessing the adaptation policies and vulnerable groups mentioned by countries in the Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions.
Methods
While National Adaptation Plans are submitted directly to the United Nations Environmental Programme, countries are empowered to create and structure their NAPs around the issues most critical to them. Thus, NAPs are a reflection of the country’s priorities, as opposed to imposed priorities by the UN system. Though not all planned actions are actually implemented,8 NAPs provide a roadmap for the actions that, if funding and political will are achieved, countries would be positioned to implement. In order to assess the adaptation planning priorities for vulnerable groups across countries, I examined the NAPs for countries in the Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions.
The only inclusion criterion was that the NAP had an English version available. For the Latin America region, this led to the exclusion of Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. All countries in the Asia-Pacific region had English versions. Across each action plan, I recorded all of the vulnerable groups mentioned throughout the plan; whether there was a dedicated section to vulnerable populations; and each action targeted at vulnerable populations. Next, I qualitatively coded each specific action into the type of action that it was, such as “policy,” “training,” and “planning and budgeting.” The qualitative coding process was inductive and iterative, with the ultimate resulting categories of policy, training, infrastructure, disaster preparedness, finance, awareness programs, research, planning and budgeting, capacity building, agricultural improvements, inclusion in decision-making, and developing programs. Across these twelve categories, there were 155 total actions.
Next, I analyzed the actions across each country in order to assess the variation of types of actions targeting vulnerable groups across countries and across regions. Along with the specific actions and the frequency of the various actions mentioned by different countries, I also calculated the median and average of all of the actions across countries. I then analyzed the vulnerable groups mentioned, which totaled 25 unique groups with 84 mentions within the NAPs. Finally, I conducted a combined analysis whereby I assessed the vulnerable groups by country in order to assess where certain vulnerable groups may be underrepresented within each region.
Results and Discussion
The Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions have a total of 155 actions planned to help vulnerable populations adapt to climate change. There are 37 actions across six countries in the Latin America region and 118 actions across fourteen countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Figure 1. Percent of adaptation actions within NAPs in Latin American and Asian-Pacific countries
Amongst all the NAPs, the most common action is “awareness programs,” which was mentioned 26 times, making up 16.8% of the total actions (Figure 1). Awareness programs generally involve educational schemes, either targeted directly at vulnerable communities or increasing awareness generally about the unique challenges they face. For instance, Fiji called for an awareness program described as “preparation, translation, printing and distribution of information brochures combined with TV and radio shows about the impact of climate change and appropriate response on health and protection measures during extreme weather events and other measures to prevent occurrence of climate sensitive diseases with specific attention on vulnerable population groups.”9 It focuses on distributing information to educate vulnerable populations and helping them to safely respond to extreme weather events and their impacts, thereby empowering vulnerable groups to play an active role in adaptation through awareness. This kind of awareness program was also evidenced in Kuwait and Bangladesh, where NAPs included programs targeted at “involving the local community” in marine protection and providing education around social forestry, respectively.10 Another form of awareness program was evidenced in Pakistan, which announced a program targeted at “develop[ing] learning materials to integrate gender and social inclusion, and how they link with climate change and disasters, into school, college, and university curricula.”11 While still an educational scheme, this awareness program targets the general population and seeks to create an understanding of the challenges faced by underrepresented populations.
The second most common action is “inclusion in decision-making,” with 21 actions making up 13.5% of the total actions (Figure 1). Inclusion in decision-making focuses on including vulnerable populations in important decision-making processes so that their perspectives and needs are incorporated into the final outcome. In Bangladesh, an example of inclusion in decision-making included the “prepar[ation of] local adaptation plans inclusive of the issues and perspectives of women, the elderly, persons with disabilities and other socially disadvantaged people.”12 It centers around both the contribution of diverse perspectives and creating actions aimed at helping specific vulnerable populations. Another form of inclusion in decision-making was evidenced by Suriname, who sought to “[m]ake climate adaptation activities more inclusive by broadening the identification of critical stakeholders to include a balance of industry and private sector representatives in more meaningful ways.”13 While not directly targeted at vulnerable populations, this action was included under the overarching goal of “equitable participation by vulnerable and underrepresented constituents in climate adaptation implementation,” showing that inclusion in decision-making may involve the impacts on vulnerable populations while not directly including them.
The third most common action is “research,” with 17 actions making up 11% of the total actions (Figure 1). Research involves collecting and interpreting data to effectively target actions on vulnerable populations. In Brazil, research programs “develop methodologies for identification and measurement of social vulnerabilities, taking into account the diversity of groups and territories in different biomes.”14 Here, Brazil focuses on research initiatives that measure vulnerability across various social groups. This form of research can also be seen in the Marshall Islands, where research programs involve the “[c]ollection, update and use of sex disaggregated data and gender analysis to inform the implementation of programs and projects and to ensure that resources allocated for adaptation actions benefit the most vulnerable groups.”15 There are also research programs focused primarily on analyzing data, such as Sri Lanka’s “partnership programme of academics, CSO members and researchers for gathering, compiling, documentation and analyzing of traditional local knowledge systems on climate and indigenous forecasting to be used in developing participatory community-based adaptation programmes.”16
While not as common, there are a range of other actions mentioned. Following research, agricultural improvements are mentioned 16 times, making up 10.3% of the total actions (Figure 1). An example of agricultural improvement programs in Timor-Leste includes “[i]ntegrat[ing] water conservation, water use management, and climate risk reduction approaches into Tarabandu (customary rules – also included under policies).”17 The fifth most common action is developing programs, which was mentioned 15 times, making up 9.0% of the total actions. An example of developing programs in Marshall Islands is “[e]stablish[ing] programs to strengthen gender-responsive capacities within the public sector – both in numbers and skills.”15 The sixth most common action is disaster preparedness which was mentioned 11 times, making up 7.1% of the total actions. In Bangladesh, disaster preparedness programs include “[e]nsuring adequate space, facilities and equitable access to disaster preparedness such as through the establishment of multipurpose and climate-resilient cyclone and flood shelters with safe WASH, lactation and maternities facilities, disability friendly entries and rooms, etc.”12 The eighth most common action is policy, with 10 actions making up 6.5% of the total actions. Training actions were also mentioned 10 times. An example of policy actions in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is “[e]laboration of a portfolio of [climate change adaptation] priority actions for the key sectors for the medium term with verification that each measure aligns with the NESDP and established sectoral strategies and plans.”18 An example of training actions in Pakistan includes “[p]rov[ing] comprehensive training programs focusing on sustainable land and watershed management, and biodiversity conservation at the local level.”11 Finance is the ninth most common action mentioned, with 9 actions making up 5.8% of the total actions. For instance, in Papua New Guinea finance programs aim to “increase sustainable income generating opportunities for women and diversify economies to reduce risks of climate impacts and improve access to food for children and families.”19
The least common action was infrastructure, with 5 actions making up 3.2% of the total actions. In Bangladesh, infrastructure actions include “[b]uilding climate-resilient houses and health-care facilities with accessible communication facilities.”12 In Sri Lanka, infrastructure actions include “enhancing the capacity of infrastructure in urban settlements.”16 The second and third least common actions are capacity building and planning and budgeting, each with 8 actions making up 5.2% of the total actions. For instance, Fiji’s capacity-building programs include “strengthen[ing] capacities of national level government entities to enhance planning processes.”9 In the Marshall Islands, planning and budgeting actions involve “integrat[ing] climate change considerations into budget development and resource allocation processes.”15
Vulnerable groups
Through the National Adaptation Plans examined, 12 countries had a dedicated section to the adaptation of vulnerable populations, whereas 8 countries did not. Typically, when there wasn’t a dedicated section, vulnerable populations were mentioned throughout other topic-focused sections. In the 20 countries examined, 24 distinct vulnerable groups were identified. The most common vulnerable groups mentioned were women/gender (15), elderly (8), persons with disabilities (7), vulnerable/marginalized groups (7), children (6), poor (6), and youth (6). Farmers/pastoralists (5), indigenous peoples (3), villages/settlements (3), and fishers (2) were the next most common groups (Figure 2). The least common vulnerable groups mentioned were transgender, religious minorities, Quilombolas (a specific Afro-Brazilian community), pregnant women, micro, small and medium enterprises in business, local communities, and LGBTI+ (Figure 2). These vulnerable groups were all mentioned once by one of the 20 countries examined.
Figure 2. Vulnerable groups included in NAPs in Latin American and Asian-Pacific countries
Out of all of the countries, Papua New Guinea mentioned the most vulnerable populations. Papua New Guinea had 9 targeted vulnerable populations, followed by Nepal and Kiribati, each with 8 vulnerable populations. The median number of vulnerable populations across all countries was 3.5, and the average was 4.1. While most countries highlighted at least one vulnerable group, Tonga, Sri Lanka, and Fiji didn’t mention any specific vulnerable populations. Notably, Sri Lanka did include a section on “[b]uilding adaptive capacity of communities,” and Fiji included actions targeted at vulnerable populations broadly.9, 16 However, Tonga did not address vulnerable communities in any distinguishable manner throughout its NAP.
Actions by countries
Out of the Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions examined, Bangladesh had the highest number of actions targeted at vulnerable populations, with 27 distinct action plans (Figure 3). It was followed by the Marshall Islands with 23 action plans and Pakistan with 20 action plans (Figure 3). Despite the high number of action plans evidenced in the top three countries, the median number of action plans amongst the 20 countries remained at 5.5 and the average at 7.75, showing that most countries have below a quarter to two-fifths of the number of action plans as the top three countries. Still, almost every country had at least two actions targeted at vulnerable groups. However, Tonga, a country in the Asia-Pacific region, had no climate adaptation plans targeted at vulnerable populations.
Figure 3. Adaptation actions targeted at vulnerable groups in NAPs by country
In order to provide an understanding of the state of climate adaptation planning targeted at vulnerable populations, this paper examines the inclusion of vulnerable groups in National Adaptation Plans in the Latin American and Asia Pacific regions. Overall, countries in the Asia Pacific region have more actions listed in their NAPs, exceeding countries in the Latin American region by 81 actions. While this study included more countries from the Asia Pacific region because fewer NAPs from Latin America had English translations, the proportion of actions per country was still higher in Asia Pacific. In Latin America, there were an average of six actions targeted at vulnerable groups per country, while in Asia-Pacific there were about eight. This shows the emphasis placed on climate adaptation actions for vulnerable groups by countries in the Asia Pacific region.
Type of Action
Awareness programs were the most common action mentioned in both regions. While justifications for the chosen actions are not included, both regions likely value awareness programs due to their ability to increase education levels and, thus, empower people to take action. By educating vulnerable groups about the impacts of climate change or the general population about the specific needs of vulnerable groups in the context of climate change, people are more aware of the dangers, which increases the likelihood that more people make choices that improve their own resilience, implement inclusive adaptation measures, and engage in actions that help alleviate climate change for all. However, the fact that awareness programs are the most common action also shows a potential neglect of the needs of vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations often lack the capacity and resources that support adaptation. Awareness programs only focus on educating them on the dangers they face or others about their unique vulnerabilities, but do not provide concrete protection against climate threats or a valid adaptation solution.
The second most common action mentioned was inclusion in decision-making which provides vulnerable populations a chance to engage in decision-making processes that they may otherwise be excluded from. This action gives vulnerable populations the potential to communicate with the government or other powerful entities about their unique climate adaptation needs. However, it is unclear how meaningful participation will be, as countries did not clarify the roles that vulnerable groups will have or provide concrete accountability mechanisms that ensure feedback from vulnerable groups is incorporated. For instance, countries could include vulnerable populations in discussions but fail to incorporate their thoughts or ideas in the final decision, ultimately making their inclusion meaningless.
The third most common action was research. Most research discussed in the NAPs focuses on identifying the needs of vulnerable groups, locating them, or even recognizing who the vulnerable groups are. While this information is valuable, the fact that it is one of the most common actions suggests that countries are neglecting to implement actions that help vulnerable populations adapt to climate change based on the research conducted. It may be that countries first need the information gleaned from the research to be able to implement adaptation actions, but based on the speed and scale at which climate change is affecting the Latin America and Asia Pacific regions, adaptation actions for vulnerable groups must be prioritized.
It is concerning that the three least common actions are infrastructure, capacity building, and planning and budgeting, which were each included in Latin American and Asian Pacific countries’ NAPs less than 10 times. The least common action is infrastructure which ensures the protection and well-being of vulnerable populations by strengthening public health infrastructures, enhancing capacity in urban settlements, and recommending appropriate development priorities to enhance community resilience. Currently, many of the infrastructure actions remain cursory, with the main action being a recommendation to decision-making bodies or an enhancement of current systems, without clarification about how the enhancement will happen or what is needed to ensure decision-makers prioritize infrastructure development. Despite its lack of emphasis, infrastructure is highly beneficial for vulnerable populations by providing climate-resilient shelter for vulnerable populations, protecting them from both slow-onset and rapid-onset climate change events. In addition to individual-level infrastructure, some infrastructure actions also incorporate community-level infrastructure that protects well-being, such as hospitals, and offer essential supplies, such as water and food, in the wake of extreme climate-induced disaster events. As countries continue to update their NAPs in the future, they should place an increasing focus on infrastructure. Building on their current prioritization of research, countries could promote climate-resilient infrastructure development based on the findings about vulnerable populations’ infrastructure needs.
The second least common action is capacity building which enhances individuals’ abilities or resources needed to adapt to climate change. Capacity building should be prioritized by more countries, as it empowers individuals to adapt to changing circumstances and provides a foundation for other actions. For instance, one form of adaptation might be to provide farmers with climate-resistant seeds on a one-time basis, while another would be to teach them a non-climate-related livelihood-generating activity. In the former case, the farmers would likely be able to adapt to the effects of climate change during one season, while in the latter they would be able to maintain their livelihoods even in the face of devastating and constant climate impacts.
The third least common action is planning and budgeting which includes planning initiatives, prioritizing adaptation needs, incorporating diverse perspectives and prioritizing vulnerable populations in adaptation plans, economic inclusion, and budget allocation. Planning and budgeting is a meta-level action that has the potential to significantly shape the other actions that countries have included in their NAPs, as the kinds of stakeholders incorporated into an adaptation project or the amount of funds dedicated to community engagement have tangible effects on vulnerable populations across a wide range of adaptation actions. As countries begin to receive financing for projects from the Loss and Damage fund, the planning and budgeting process will be crucial for ensuring that they successfully maximize the effectiveness and equity of their actions.
Vulnerable Groups
Across both regions, vulnerable groups were mentioned 81 times, though they were mentioned about 4.1 times per country in the Asia-Pacific region (57 times total) and about 3.4 times per country in the Latin American region (24 times total). Notably, however, every country in Latin America mentioned vulnerable groups at least once, whereas three countries in Asia-Pacific (Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Tonga) did not mention vulnerable groups at all. Although each country had minimal differences in their vulnerable populations identified, women/gender was mentioned the most. Specifically, women/gender was mentioned 15 times, making up 17.9% of all groups identified. This signifies a general consensus on the importance of including women’s perspectives on climate change-related issues. The spread of women’s voices and ideas in climate change programs allows the government and organizations not only to provide targeted programs to support women effectively but also the greater community in climate adaptation.20
While the emphasis that countries are placing on women should be applauded, there is still cause for concern as many other highly vulnerable groups are hardly considered. For instance, fishers are mentioned twice, making up a mere 2.4% of all vulnerable groups mentioned. Although fishers are neglected as populations in need of support for climate adaptation, they are significantly affected by the ocean impacts of climate change, including acidification and increasing ocean temperatures.21 These disasters not only disrupt biodiversity, but also the production chain, decreasing the availability of fish for their subsistence and livelihoods.22 This close connection that fishers have to the ocean makes it especially concerning that they are mentioned only twice in twenty NAPs.
Surprisingly, three countries did not mention vulnerable groups at all, amounting to 3.5% of the sample. Despite Asia Pacific countries having a higher average of actions per country compared to Latin America countries, Fiji, Sri Lanka, and Tonga (countries in the Asia Pacific region) did not mention any vulnerable populations, even though most countries mentioned multiple vulnerable populations and had specific actions to support their climate adaptation. It is concerning that either some countries don’t view climate change as a disaster that affects the health and well-being of vulnerable populations or they lack an efficient plan to target communities that are in need of help.
Eight countries did not have a dedicated section for climate adaptation of vulnerable populations. Instead, their actions targeting vulnerable groups were scattered in different sections of their report. This potentially evidences that vulnerable groups are involved in different parts of the country’s actions and that they are integrated into the broader climate action plans. Integration throughout the plan could make actions targeted at vulnerable groups less at risk of being deprioritized based on funding considerations. However, this may also show that there is not enough focus on specific vulnerable groups to help those in need, as the eight countries failed to provide them with a dedicated section. Ultimately, future research should assess the outcomes of the planned adaptation actions in each country and compare the effectiveness of those that specifically targeted vulnerable groups in a dedicated section and those that did not to better understand the significance of this decision.
Conclusion
In response to the increasing speed and intensity of climate change, countries have created NAPs to implement climate adaptation plans and policies. NAPs submitted by the Latin America and Asia Pacific regions have mainly focused on adaptation actions, such as awareness programs to distribute education materials and use the media to showcase impacts of climate change and call for appropriate responses. There is, however, a wide variation in the inclusion of vulnerable populations. Among the NAPs assessed here, women/gender were the most common, with most vulnerable groups only mentioned once. The lack of emphasis on vulnerable groups and the lack of diversity of adaptation policies shows that more work needs to be done to assist the climate adaptation of vulnerable populations in Latin America and the Asia Pacific.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my mentor Gabriela Nagle Alverio for her guidance throughout the research and writing process. She helped me understand the various concepts and furthered my interest in environmental policies. I would also like to thank my parents for always supporting me and being so understanding.
References
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
Klein, R. J. T.; Nicholls, R. J.; Thomalla, F.; Davis, M. E.; Hinkel, J.; Kumar, V.; et al. The Role of Vulnerability in Adaptation to Climate Change: A Case Study of the Philippines Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 2015, 20 (5), 715–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1015946 (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
Moser, S. C.; Boykoff, M. T.; Zavaleta, J.; et al. Climate Change and Adaptation: A Review of the Literature on the Social and Economic Impacts of Climate Change in the Caribbean Clim. Dev. 2017, 9 (S1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1318747 (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
Benevolenza, M. A.; DeRigne, L. The Impact of Climate Change and Natural Disasters on Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review of Literature. J. Poverty 2018, 22 (4), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2018.1527739.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). National Adaptation Plans. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/topics/climate-action/adaptation/national-adaptation-plans (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plans: Overview. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/topics/resilience/workstreams/national-adaptation-plans/overview (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). National Adaptation Plans. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/topics/climate-action/adaptation/national-adaptation-plans (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
Leiter, T. Do Governments Track the Implementation of National Climate Change Adaptation Plans? An Evidence-Based Global Stocktake of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 125, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.017.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Fiji. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP_Fiji.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Kuwait (2019-2030). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Kuwait-NAP-2019-2030.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Pakistan. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/National_Adaptation_Plan_Pakistan.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Bangladesh (2023). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP-Bangladesh-2023.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Suriname (April 2020). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Suriname-NAP_apr%202020.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Brazil (2016). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP_Brazil_2016_EN.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Republic of the Marshall Islands (2023). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP-RMI-2023.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Sri Lanka (2016). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP-Sri-Lanka-2016.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Timor-Leste (2021). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP-Timor-Leste-2021.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2019). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines-2019.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). National Adaptation Plan: Papua New Guinea (2023). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/NAP-PNG-Finale-2023.pdf (accessed Nov 26, 2024).
Duflo, E. Women Empowerment and Economic Development. J. Econ. Lit. 2012, 50 (4), 1051–1079. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.4.1051.
Savo, V.; Morton, C.; Lepofsky, D. Impacts of Climate Change for Coastal Fishers and Implications for Fisheries. Fish Fish. 2017, 18 (5), 877–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12212.
Yaisien, Y.; Fayek, Y.; Sharawi, H. Climate Change and Its Profound Effects on Marine Climate. Fusion Multidiscip. Res. 2023, 4 (2), Article 52. https://fusionproceedings.com/fmr/1/article/view/52.
Authors
Ashley Du is a sophomore at Westridge School for Girls. She is the west coast activation leader for the nonprofit refuse and reuse and is interested in further exploring the field of environmental policies.