Climate Policy and Advocacy Training Course

Participants can assemble an evidence base that supports a specific adaptation policy ask.

• Hazard, exposure and vulnerability distinguished within climate-risk assessment
• IPCC risk framework applied to local adaptation policy questions
• Climate projections interpreted with uncertainty, timescales and decision relevance
• Vulnerability assessment evidence drawn from disaggregated community data
• Triangulating scientific findings, administrative records and participatory research
• Evidence-quality criteria: relevance, credibility, representativeness and timeliness

Participants can assess whether proposed adaptation policies distribute benefits, risks and decision-making fairly.

• Climate justice principles: distributive, procedural, recognitional and restorative justice
• Gender analysis identifies differentiated climate impacts, roles and barriers
• Locally led adaptation principles applied to programme and policy choices
• Intersectional vulnerability analysis avoids treating communities as homogeneous groups
• Free, prior and informed consent in indigenous peoples' engagement
• Do-no-harm screening for advocacy positions affecting marginalised groups

Participants can frame a bounded adaptation problem and formulate a feasible policy ask.

• Problem-tree analysis separates root causes, consequences and institutional failures
• Policy asks specify action, decision-maker, instrument, deadline and resource requirement
• SMART criteria test advocacy objectives for focus and measurability
• Comparing regulatory, fiscal, planning and service-delivery policy instruments
• Policy options assessed against effectiveness, equity, feasibility and cost
• Issue framing connects adaptation outcomes with public priorities and mandates

Participants can identify political interests, institutional incentives and constraints affecting an adaptation policy change.

• Political economy analysis examines actors, incentives, institutions and power
• Formal mandates mapped across ministries, legislatures and local authorities
• Informal rules and patronage patterns affecting adaptation resource allocation
• Winners and losers identified for proposed adaptation policy reforms
• Political feasibility assessed through interest, influence and implementation capacity
• Context monitoring identifies elections, fiscal cycles and institutional restructuring

Participants can prioritise stakeholders and tailor engagement approaches using a documented power analysis.

• Stakeholder mapping categorises decision-makers, influencers, allies and affected groups
• Power-interest grid prioritises engagement effort and relationship management
• Force-field analysis identifies drivers and barriers to policy change
• Actor positions assessed using support, opposition, influence and salience
• Relationship maps reveal brokers, gatekeepers and coalition fault lines
• Engagement plans match stakeholder interests with realistic requests and channels

Participants can construct an adaptation advocacy theory of change with testable assumptions and strategic pathways.

• Theory of change links activities, influence pathways and policy outcomes
• Backward mapping starts with the desired adaptation policy decision
• Assumptions documented for political access, evidence uptake and coalition behaviour
• Influence pathways compare insider engagement, public mobilisation and litigation
• Milestones distinguish outputs, interim outcomes and policy implementation signals
• Risk register assigns mitigations, owners and review triggers

Participants can plan and synthesise policy research into defensible adaptation advocacy evidence.

• Research questions tied directly to policy asks and decision criteria
• Document review protocol captures commitments, gaps, responsibilities and deadlines
• Key informant interviews designed with purposive sampling and consent procedures
• Evidence matrix compares findings, sources, limitations and advocacy implications
• Costed adaptation evidence distinguishes avoided losses, benefits and distributional effects
• Citation practice separates verified facts, analysis, testimony and recommendations

Participants can identify funding gaps and use budget evidence to support adaptation advocacy.

• Adaptation finance sources: domestic budgets, climate funds and development finance
• Budget-cycle stages identify advocacy moments before allocations become fixed
• Programme budgets read through classifications, line items and execution rates
• Climate budget tagging assessed for methodology, transparency and limitations
• Public expenditure tracking follows allocations from ministry budgets to services
• Financing asks connect adaptation priorities with realistic fiscal and funding options

Participants can establish a coalition structure that supports coordinated and accountable adaptation advocacy.

• Coalition value proposition defines shared interests, contribution and policy purpose
• Partner due diligence reviews legitimacy, capacity, risks and representation
• Memoranda of understanding clarify roles, decision rights and resource commitments
• Shared advocacy agendas distinguish non-negotiables from adaptable positions
• Consensus, consent and voting rules selected for coalition decisions
• Conflict-management protocol addresses disagreement, confidentiality and public representation

Participants can produce concise adaptation policy products for officials, legislators and funding decision-makers.

• Policy brief structure: problem, evidence, options, recommendation and implementation
• Executive summaries state the policy ask within the opening paragraph
• Message house aligns core message, proof points and audience concerns
• Infographics present climate-risk evidence without overstating certainty
• Legislative briefing notes link proposed measures to statutory responsibilities
• Recommendation wording assigns accountable actors, timelines and measurable commitments

Participants can design ethical communications that build support for a defined adaptation policy objective.

• Audience segmentation differentiates officials, media, communities, donors and private actors
• Framing analysis tests values, language and anticipated counterarguments
• Message testing uses comprehension, credibility, relevance and action criteria
• Media engagement plan specifies spokespeople, briefing materials and response procedures
• Digital mobilisation selected when it supports identified influence pathways
• Community storytelling protocols protect consent, dignity, safety and data rights

Participants can prepare and conduct structured engagement with public decision-makers on adaptation priorities.

• Meeting objectives define desired commitments, minimum outcomes and red lines
• Decision-maker dossiers summarise mandates, interests, positions and prior statements
• Briefing packs combine policy asks, evidence, implementation options and contacts
• Question funnels move discussions from broad concerns toward specific commitments
• Interest-based negotiation separates positions, underlying concerns and workable options
• Follow-up trackers record commitments, deadlines, responsible officials and next actions

Participants can manage ethical, operational and reputational risks in adaptation advocacy activities.

• Advocacy risk assessment covers legal, security, digital and reputational threats
• Civic-space analysis identifies restrictions on association, speech and assembly
• Safeguarding procedures protect participants during consultations and public events
• Data protection practices govern collection, storage, consent and sharing
• Conflict-sensitive messaging avoids exacerbating social tensions or resource disputes
• Incident response protocols assign escalation routes and external communications authority

Participants can monitor influence progress and adapt advocacy tactics using structured evidence.

• Advocacy monitoring framework links indicators to influence pathways and assumptions
• Outcome harvesting captures observed changes and tests contribution claims
• Process indicators track meetings, coalition participation and evidence dissemination
• Policy-tracking dashboard records commitments, milestones, delays and implementation gaps
• After-action reviews identify decisions, lessons, adaptations and accountability actions
• Learning loops schedule evidence review before major tactical decisions

Participants can build, review and present a complete adaptation policy advocacy strategy for a defined policy decision.

• Policy issue selection confirms scope, decision point and intended adaptation outcome
• Evidence base synthesised into a concise problem statement and policy rationale
• Stakeholder and power maps identify priority targets, allies and opponents
• Theory of change sets influence pathways, assumptions, milestones and risks
• Advocacy plan integrates policy asks, tactics, communications and coalition roles
• Budget, timeline and monitoring framework assign resources, owners and indicators
• Peer review tests feasibility, equity, evidence quality and political relevance
• Presentation briefing communicates the strategy, decisions requested and next steps