Resilient Futures Initiative

Case studies

Solution Integrate sustainability intelligence (including physical climate risk screening, regulatory/market analysis, and capex planning) into investment committee underwriting and asset management, and create asset-specific adaptation plans when risks exceed thresholds to protect long-term value and liquidity. Key challenge Climate-related physical risks and evolving regulations can create uncompensated costs and threaten long-term asset value and liquidity if not identified, priced, and mitigated during underwriting and ownership. Context Hines uses “investment intelligence” to support sustainable value creation across the real estate lifecycle from deal origination through asset management and exit. Its investment committee (IC) process includes a dedicated sustainability section in IC memos that assesses financially material factors such as physical climate and extreme weather risk, energy and carbon intensity, CRREM misalignment year, local regulatory context, capex plans for efficiency/sustainability improvements, and green building certification gaps. Hines also engages externally with peers and public-sector actors, including participation in OECD working sessions on place-based risks in real estate investment. Solution in practice Hines completes climate risk assessments for all new acquisitions and applies a screening threshold to flag high-risk assets during IC due diligence. If a property exceeds the threshold, asset teams evaluate and confirm municipal- and asset-level adaptation measures and develop a physical climate risk management plan intended to reduce potential impacts and support long-term resilience. In 2025, three assets (one in each of the Americas, Asia, and Europe) were initially flagged as high-risk; by creating a physical climate risk management plan for each, Hines lowered the risk to an acceptable level and proceeded with the purchases. Ongoing decision-making is supported by third-party data providers that monitor trends such as extreme weather hazards, building performance requirements, sustainable finance/disclosure policies, and tenant demand for green buildings, informing acquisition, capex planning, and scenario-based performance evaluation. Impact / outcome Three assets flagged high-risk in 2025 were brought to acceptable risk through climate risk management plans and acquired. Next steps Build shared approaches for assessing, pricing, and managing place-based climate risks across the real asset ecosystem by strengthening collaboration among governments, investors, banks, insurers, developers, and individuals, and by advancing common policy and climate objectives that enable a more resilient and sustainable real asset market. Organizations involved Authoring: Hines Implementation partners Data Providers; Regulators & Policymakers; Asset Owners & Managers
Global
Integrating physical climate risk screening and adaptation planning into investment committee underwriting — Hines
Solution Build a national platform where government, insurers, lenders, utilities and developers all contribute the hazard, claims, defence and exposure data they hold and access what they need, so that every party sees the same view of flood risk. Key challenge Even where models can accommodate place-based resilience, they depend on data no single party holds: hazard maps, claims experience, infrastructure records, planning codes, building design details and exposure data sit with different institutions, and each sees only part of the picture. Context Flooding is Ireland's costliest peril, with recent events causing more than €800 million ($934 million) in damage. Household insurance penetration is high, with about 98% of homes holding cover, but flood cover is the exception. Insurers classified entire neighbourhoods as uninsurable based on crude location data; as one parliamentary committee put it, it is impossible to get flood insurance for a dwelling within 100 metres of a river even if it is an apartment 100 feet off the ground. The government built flood defences, but insurers had no reliable means of verifying the standard or effectiveness of those defences, and so did not reflect them in pricing data. A 2014 agreement between the government and the insurance industry was meant to fix this but had little practical effect. The result: the state was investing in protection, and homeowners were not seeing the benefit. The issue affects high flood-risk zones across urban, peri-urban and rural areas and all property types. Solution in practice The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)'s Grantham Research Institute proposed a national flood-risk data platform where all parties contribute what they know and access what they need. Government agencies would provide data on flood defences and hazard maps. Insurers would provide claims data showing where losses actually occur. Lenders, utilities and developers would both use the platform and feed it, because their decisions shape future risk. Similar platforms already work elsewhere: Austria, Germany, Australia and France all run national flood-data systems that insurers use in pricing. Ireland's version would go further by connecting the entire property value chain in one place. Impact / outcome Proposal stage; has prompted a 2026 Lloyd's Lab and Department of Finance flood-resilience Program. Next steps While the proposal has emerging institutional support, further incentives are needed to operationalize the platform. It has also spurred related innovation: in 2026, Lloyd's Lab partnered with Ireland's Department of Finance on a dedicated flood-resilience Program, with several start-ups developing improved flood-resilience data - the next step is to start sharing it. The playbook sets out two areas where innovation is required. Data sharing needs shared infrastructure and standardized formats: hyperlocal data sharing is needed across the property value chain, via two complementary routes - open platforms giving all stakeholders the same baseline data (such as Resilience Arc), and consistent standards that make proprietary data comparable even where it cannot be shared, with collaboration with organizations such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, which is expanding its disclosure frameworks to include extreme weather risk and resilience metrics. Clear governance, updates and common standards for critical datasets: policy-makers and regulators can oversee who owns, updates, validates and can access critical datasets, alongside guidance on appropriate use - government hazard maps are often designed to identify danger to life rather than estimate property damage, so using them for insurance pricing can produce misleading outputs, and may also be outdated. A structural tension remains: actors holding the most granular claims and loss data have built competitive advantage on it, and sharing carries genuine commercial and legal risk; without their participation shared platforms may remain reliant on less precise public datasets. Progress requires engagement with reinsurers and catastrophe model vendors to agree common standards for how place-based resilience is reflected across key datasets. Organizations involved Authoring: Marsh Actors: Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE); Lloyd's Lab; Department of Finance, Ireland Implementation partners Regulators & Policymakers; Insurers; Investors & Banks; Infrastructure Owners & Operators; Data Providers; Property value chain stakeholders
Ireland
Building a national flood risk data platform — Ireland
Solution Provide a free guidebook plus facilitated cohort and “Quick Start” support to help under-resourced local leaders identify climate vulnerabilities and emissions sources, prioritize strategies, and produce actionable climate resilience plans aligned to local needs. Key challenge Small and mid-sized communities often lack the budget and bandwidth to take climate action, even when relevant strategies exist across local planning documents. Context Geos Institute created Climate Ready Communities in response to the needs of small and mid-sized communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Building on more than 15 years of community work through its ClimateWise initiative, the program is structured around a free “Practical Guide to Building Climate Resilience” and a step-by-step roadmap to help local leaders understand vulnerabilities and emissions, develop strategies, and translate them into an actionable plan reflecting local needs, values, and realities. Since 2019, the guide has been downloaded over 2,000 times, and partnerships formed in 2023 and 2025 expanded delivery models and the inclusion of both adaptation and mitigation. Solution in practice Climate Ready Communities is delivered through a guidebook-centered planning process and (in its current form) a cohort model led by an expert facilitator, where multiple communities work through the planning steps together and learn from peers. For communities that are under-resourced but positioned to move quickly, the “Quick Start Process” provides facilitated support (including a Navigator) to identify and prioritize resilience actions already approved in existing plans, surface strategies embedded in local documents, clarify remaining gaps, and define actionable next steps to build momentum toward resilience goals. Impact / outcome Guide downloaded 2,000+ times since 2019; cohort and Quick Start support for under-resourced communities. Next steps Adapt and translate the guidebook-and-cohort model for insurability outcomes by aligning planning outputs to insurance-relevant risk information (e.g., standardized hazard exposure and mitigation action tracking), and recruit additional delivery partners (e.g., regional collaboratives, universities, and facilitator networks) to scale cohorts and Quick Start support for under-resourced communities while maintaining a consistent, step-by-step process that leads to implementable actions. Organizations involved Authoring: Geos Institute Implementation partners Civil Society Organizations; Data Providers
USA
Step-by-step climate resilience planning roadmap and cohort facilitation — Geos Institute Climate Ready Communities
Solution Model wildfire loss under multiple forest fuel-treatment scenarios using a catastrophe risk model modified for fuel landscape changes to quantify avoided average annual loss and net present value of mitigation. Key challenge Fuel reduction needs are vast and costly, and communities lack replicable, decision-grade quantification of avoided losses needed to prioritize and finance mitigation at scale. Context Recent wildfire seasons in the United States have produced severe impacts, including 10.2 million acres burned and an estimated $17.1 billion in losses in 2020. A century of fire suppression has increased fuel loads, while hotter and drier conditions linked to climate change exacerbate fire risk. With about 50 million homes in the wildland-urban interface and growth continuing, the scale of mitigation required is large and current public investment levels are far below estimated needs across the western U.S. Solution in practice AFF and Moody’s (formerly RMS) applied the RMS US Wildfire HD Model to Grass Valley, California (population at risk stated as 76,000) and modified the modeling to reflect changes to the fuel landscape from hazardous fuels reduction. The analysis tested eight treatment scenarios varying the share of landscape treated (3.7% to 18.4%), fuel types, and treatment directionality, then estimated impacts on average annual loss to infrastructure and the net present value of fuel modification over a 15-year period. The modeled scenarios indicated 21–59% avoided average annual loss to infrastructure and an estimated $13–$17 million net present value under certain treatment and maintenance assumptions. Impact / outcome 21-59% avoided average annual loss to infrastructure; USD 13-17m net present value over 15 years (modelled). Next steps Extend the modeling to additional asset classes (such as carbon, water quality, and human health) and incorporate changing climate conditions, while also developing a community-level financial mechanism that can fund fuel treatments at scale based on the quantified avoided-loss benefits. Organizations involved Authoring: Moody's RMS; American Forest Foundation (AFF) Implementation partners Data Providers
USA
Quantifying avoided infrastructure loss from hazardous fuels reduction — Grass Valley, California (American Forest Foundation & Moody’s/RMS)
Solution Create a special district parcel tax on properties inside a defined wildfire hazard boundary, generating stable multi-year revenue for place-level vegetation management, evacuation route protection and fire patrols that no individual property owner can deliver alone. Key challenge Wildfire mitigation in the Oakland Hills competed for general fund dollars against every other city priority amid a USD 177 million budget shortfall, leaving the risk-reduction work that determines whether homes in the area remain insurable both chronically underfunded and repeatedly interrupted. Context The 1991 East Bay Hills fire burned 1,500 acres, killed 25 people, destroyed more than 3,500 homes and caused about USD 2.99 billion in losses in 2023 dollars. Since then Oakland has funded fire prevention through a succession of assessment districts that lapsed repeatedly: a Wildfire Prevention Assessment District from 1992 to 1997, only basic services from 1997 to 2003, a ten-year reinstatement from 2003, and a failed ballot measure in 2013. The affected area is the peri-urban wildland-urban interface of the Oakland Hills, where the median household income is greater than USD 120,000. Insurers have issued non-renewal notices and raised premiums across the area, and non-renewals continue to grow and expand into locations previously considered insurable by carriers. In May 2024 the city adopted its first Vegetation Management Plan, a ten-year plan covering approximately 1,924 acres of city-owned land and 308 miles of roadway - but with no dedicated funding to deliver it, leaving mitigation competing against other priorities within a general fund facing a nearly USD 177 million shortfall. Solution in practice In November 2024 voters inside Oakland's Wildfire Prevention Zone - Cal Fire's Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone plus adjacent properties, around 25,000 parcels - approved Measure MM with roughly 70% support, clearing the required two-thirds threshold. The tax took effect on 1 July 2025 and runs for 20 years, levying USD 99 per single-family home and USD 65 per apartment or condominium, with non-residential parcels charged by frontage and square footage and annual CPI-linked increases capped at 5%. It raises an estimated USD 2.67 million in its first year, dedicated to implementing the Vegetation Management Plan: expanded roadside clearing to protect emergency evacuation routes, enhanced fire patrols on high-danger days, expanded goat grazing for fuel reduction, and public education for residents, businesses and property owners. Annual parcel inspections deliberately remain on the general fund so that new revenue goes to mitigation rather than administration. An oversight committee receives an independent audit of expenses and an annual report, and makes recommendations directly to City Council. Exemptions apply for very low-income homeowners (at or below 60% of area median income) and seniors below 80% AMI; the tax is halved for nonprofit-owned senior, disabled and low-income rental housing; and the city's Rent Adjustment Program prevents the cost being passed to most tenants. In parallel, the 2024 cohort of the Howden / Resilient Cities Network / Sustainable Markets Initiative Global Risk and Resilience Fellowship worked with the City of Oakland resilience team from March to October 2024, giving city leaders an understanding of underwriter and carrier perspectives, a toolkit for engaging carriers on withdrawal decisions, and a realistic view of what can be done locally to reduce the protection gap. Impact / outcome Measure MM passed with about 70% support; about USD 2.67m in year one for vegetation management across ~25,000 parcels. Next steps The Howden Fellowship’s key recommendation to the City of Oakland and its counterparts was to continue mitigation and education efforts, with a view to ensuring homeowners can reduce their risk exposure as much as possible; a focus on risk reduction matters because a solution to the lack of access to affordable insurance relies heavily on changes to State regulation in California, which the city has no direct control over. Educating the public about mitigation and insurance matters will support more informed and timely decision-making and can help communities avoid underinsurance or lapses in coverage, and in addition to preventing the start and spread of wildfires, mitigation efforts will encourage carriers to begin or continue to write policies in Oakland. The Fellowship gave City stakeholders a better understanding of underwriter and carrier perspectives on homeowners insurance, a toolkit to engage with carriers around the factors resulting in withdrawal of cover, and a clear understanding of what can realistically be done to reduce the insurance protection gap. On the regulatory side, the playbook cites Colorado’s HB 1182, passed in 2025, which requires insurers to account for property, community and landscape-scale mitigation in both pricing and coverage decisions, and offers a model other jurisdictions could adopt to incentivize this behavior. Under Measure MM, an oversight committee receives an independent audit of expenses and an annual report on funded activities and makes recommendations directly to Oakland City Council. Organizations involved Authoring: Resilient Cities Network; SPUR Actors: City of Oakland; Howden; Sustainable Markets Initiative Implementation partners Local Governments; Regulators & Policymakers; Civil Society Organizations; Insurers
USA
A voter-approved wildfire parcel tax funding place-level fuel reduction - Oakland Measure MM, California
Solution Secure permanent agricultural conservation easements on privately held floodplain farmland and implement farm-level Agricultural Conservation Plans to improve soil health and reduce runoff and flood impacts. Key challenge Runoff-driven water quality degradation and flood risk in an interconnected watershed spanning urban and rural areas, requiring durable protection of productive floodplain farmland and adoption of conservation practices. Context The Milwaukee River and connected streams face excessive phosphorus, sediment and bacteria from runoff across both urban and rural landscapes, threatening watershed health. Protecting productive farmland along waterways is positioned as vital for preserving the watershed and strengthening resilience to severe weather. The Working Soils® Program focuses on permanently protecting privately held working lands within the watershed floodplain while keeping them in agricultural production. Solution in practice The Conservation Fund works with landowners to secure agricultural easements on priority floodplain parcels, allowing owners to retain title and continue farming while permanently restricting uses inconsistent with conservation goals. Participating landowners and operators then collaborate with Natural Resources Conservation Service staff to implement an Agricultural Conservation Plan intended to enhance soil health and proactively mitigate future flooding. The Milwaukee River Watershed Conservation Partnership was created to coordinate collaboration and investment in conservation practices, and from 2016–2021 NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program (Farm Bill) funding supported targeted activities and results. Impact / outcome Permanent easements on priority floodplain farmland with farm conservation plans (NRCS funding 2016-2021). Next steps The Making Allies partnership initiative is now actively continuing to safeguarding floodplains, mitigating flood risk, preserving agricultural lands, improving water quality and delivering nutritious food — all while offering valuable support to local farmers. Organizations involved Authoring: The Conservation Fund Actors: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); Milwaukee River Watershed Conservation Partnership Implementation partners Civil Society Organizations; Regulators & Policymakers; Infrastructure Owners & Operators
USA
Permanent agricultural easements to protect floodplains — Milwaukee River Watershed (Working Soils Program)
Solution Maintain and restore forests around production plants (thinning, pruning, planting) and implement certified water stewardship to increase groundwater recharge and replenish more water than operations withdraw. Key challenge High dependence on reliable water supplies creates financial and operational risk from water stress, requiring sustained watershed recharge and stewardship beyond the plant boundary. Context Suntory launched the Natural Water Sanctuary Initiative in 2003 to cultivate water resources and preserve biodiversity in forests surrounding its plants, explicitly treating water dependency as a significant financial risk. The initiative uses forest maintenance to improve water source recharge and is paired with broader integrated water resource management (reducing operational water use and managing wastewater). Suntory also positions its approach within the broader global water sustainability movement via the Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS), a standard created by NGOs including WWF and The Nature Conservancy together with companies. Solution in practice Suntory has expanded the Natural Water Sanctuary Initiative to more than 12,000 hectares across 26 locations in 16 prefectures in Japan, and reports that these sanctuaries recharge more than double the amount of groundwater used by its Japanese plants. The work includes thinning, pruning, and planting to enhance recharge capabilities, and it is implemented with local governments, NGOs, educational institutions, and communities, including monitoring of groundwater levels. Suntory has also pioneered AWS Certification in Japan and extended sanctuary-style efforts internationally to sites including the Maker’s Mark distillery grounds in the US as well as locations in France, Scotland, and Mexico. Impact / outcome 12,000+ ha across 26 sites recharge more than double the groundwater used by Suntory's Japanese plants. Next steps Expand and replicate the forest-and-stewardship model with partners in additional water-stressed basins, using AWS (and related monitoring) to standardize practices and demonstrate outcomes. Support Suntory’s stated targets to replenish more water than it uses in at least 50% of its owned plants globally by 2030 (including all in highly water-stressed areas), with a long-term pathway to 100% by 2050 by strengthening local collaborations, ongoing groundwater monitoring, and operational water-use reduction and wastewater management. Organizations involved Authoring: Suntory Actors: WWF; Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS); The Nature Conservancy Implementation partners Civil Society Organizations; Local Governments; Regulators & Policymakers
Japan
Forest-based groundwater recharge and water stewardship — Suntory Natural Water Sanctuary (with WWF/AWS)
Solution Develop a credit that recognizes both the carbon and the flood-reduction benefits of protecting and restoring coastal wetlands, so that the resilience value of a natural system carries a recognized financial value across the finance ecosystem rather than being captured only as carbon. Key challenge Mangroves, seagrasses and salt marshes provide a protective barrier against incoming coastal storms, but that resilience value is not captured across financial actors - there is no recognized financial value for the flood-reduction benefit that insurers, lenders and investors can act on. Context Coastal wetlands deliver multiple benefits simultaneously, including carbon sequestration and storm surge attenuation. Carbon markets already price the first; nothing prices the second. The result is that conservation and restoration are financed, if at all, on the carbon case alone, while the flood risk reduction that most directly affects property losses and insurability goes unrecognized. The challenge is creating a recognized financial value for the resilience benefits of coastal wetlands that actors across the finance ecosystem will accept. Solution in practice The Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance (ORRAA) is partnering with The Nature Conservancy and AXA XL, an insurance company, to create Blue Carbon Resilience Credits for mangrove ecosystems in the Caribbean. The aim is to allow corporations to offset their carbon footprint while also supporting resilience by reducing flooding in highly vulnerable coastal areas through wetland conservation and restoration. Based on a pre-feasibility study across two sites covering 10,000 hectares of mangroves, ORRAA estimates that restoring these sites could avoid more than USD 140 million a year in property damages and reduce flood risk for more than 750 people. The Nature Conservancy is now working with local partners to establish a recognized baseline for the project, including updated mangrove site maps, and is examining blended finance mechanisms that bring actors together to scale additional projects. Impact / outcome Restoring 10,000 ha of mangroves could avoid USD 140m+ a year in property damage and reduce flood risk for 750+ people (pre-feasibility). Next steps Blue Carbon Resilience Credits now need to be adopted by additional actors to scale the initiative across additional sites. The Nature Conservancy is working with local partners to establish a recognized baseline for the project, including updated mangrove site maps, and is examining blended finance mechanisms that bring actors together to scale additional projects. The playbook identifies application to other perils as the area where further innovation is required: the resilience credits offer an approach that could be extended to other perils, and excessive rain may be particularly well suited to this, since municipalities typically hold information on drainage capacity which could support the development of comparable metrics for surface water resilience, thereby incentivizing further investments. Under action area 4c the playbook also notes that AXA and SCOR have explored insurance products designed around nature restoration, where the insured asset is the ecosystem itself and the policy incentivizes the ongoing management that keeps it functioning as a risk buffer - a principle replicable wherever a natural system performs a protective function that can be measured, verified and credited. Organizations involved Authoring: World Economic Forum; Marsh Actors: Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance (ORRAA); The Nature Conservancy; AXA XL Implementation partners Insurers; Civil Society Organizations; Investors & Banks; Data Providers; Regulators & Policymakers
Latin America
Capturing the value of coastal wetlands through Blue Carbon Resilience Credits - Caribbean
Solution Use high-resolution flood and loss models with detailed property exposure data to quantify how coastal wetlands reduce storm-surge flood damages and annual flood losses, enabling these risk-reduction benefits to be reflected in insurance-standard risk modelling. Key challenge Wetlands’ risk-reduction benefits are often not measured in ways that meet insurance-sector modelling standards, making it harder to align conservation with risk reduction and insurability goals. Context With increasing exposure to coastal hazards in the northeastern USA, interest is growing in nature-based solutions for risk reduction. Hurricane Sandy (2012) caused devastating storm-surge flooding and was the second costliest hurricane in US history; damages in the northern Atlantic are largely driven by storm surge and are aggravated by population growth, urban development, and sea-level rise. In New Jersey’s Barnegat Bay, more than 25% of salt marshes have been lost over the past century due to infilling and development, though losses have been limited since the 1970s by the New Jersey Coastal Wetlands law, and structural defenses like shoreline armoring can be costly and harm ecosystems. Solution in practice The study applies high-resolution flood and loss models and an extensive property exposure database (tools widely used by the insurance sector) to estimate the protective value of temperate coastal wetlands. Regionally, it finds wetlands avoided about $625 million in direct flood damages during Hurricane Sandy. Locally in Barnegat Bay (Ocean County, NJ), it pairs the modelling with a database of synthetic storms to estimate an average 16% reduction in annual flood losses from salt marshes, with higher reductions at lower elevations, thereby quantifying wetlands’ ecosystem service as measurable flood-risk reduction. Impact / outcome Wetlands avoided about USD 625m in flood damage during Hurricane Sandy; salt marshes cut annual flood losses by 16% on average in Barnegat Bay. Next steps Advance collaboration between ecological modelling and the risk modelling industry so wetland risk-reduction benefits are consistently modelled to industry standards, improving the accuracy of risk assessment and supporting decisions that align conservation with flood-risk reduction where appropriate. Organizations involved Authoring: Scientific Reports (Nature Portfolio) - peer-reviewed study Implementation partners Data Providers; Regulators & Policymakers; Civil Society Organizations
USA
Coastal wetlands flood damage reduction valuation — Northeastern USA
Solution Have a community foundation purchase parametric cover on behalf of a place, so that a pre-agreed hazard trigger releases funds within days to frontline nonprofits and pre-identified priority neighbourhoods that hold little or no conventional coverage of their own. Key challenge In Greater Miami's most vulnerable neighbourhoods households hold little or no conventional cover, and the nonprofits acting as first responders have no pre-arranged liquidity, while indemnity claims and federal assistance take months or years to arrive - precisely the period in which recovery outcomes are determined. Context Miami-Dade is among the most hazard-exposed counties in the United States, with dense urban and coastal urban neighbourhoods exposed to hurricanes and extreme rainfall. The Miami Foundation runs the Miami Disaster Resilience Fund, a permanent, revolving collaborative fund supporting disaster preparedness and equitable long-term recovery, and convenes the Miami Strong Disaster Resilience Network, a collective of grassroots organizations across the county. The constraint on that fund was timing rather than intent: traditional insurance policies generally involve lengthy claims processes requiring proof of damages, and it can take months or even years after a catastrophic event before policyholders receive payment. Solution in practice For the 2024 disaster season the Foundation purchased a parametric insurance policy, becoming one of the first US philanthropic institutions to do so. The policy pays out on a measurable, pre-defined trigger - the windspeed and proximity of an arriving storm - with payment issued immediately on trigger and in as few as ten days, against months or years for indemnity claims. Payouts flow into the Miami Disaster Resilience Fund and are moved rapidly to the nonprofits acting as first responders in their own communities, amplifying the Fund’s capacity and giving pre-crisis certainty about how much will be available. Resilient Cities Network documents a closely related South Florida application in which a parametric policy provides immediate post-flooding resources for communities with the greatest vulnerabilities and limited traditional coverage, developed with three municipalities so that priority neighbourhoods are identified in advance and funding flows quickly after extreme rainfall. The Foundation frames the policy explicitly as a proof of concept for how foundations respond to climate disasters. Impact / outcome Parametric policy pays out on trigger in as few as 10 days, funding frontline nonprofits. Next steps The Miami Foundation frames the policy as a proof of concept, demonstrating the potential of parametric insurance in amplifying disaster response funds, and invites contributions to the Miami Disaster Resilience Fund and participation in the Miami Strong Disaster Resilience Network by nonprofits engaged in disaster preparedness, relief, recovery or resiliency across Miami-Dade County. Resilient Cities Network notes that other cities are testing parametric triggers based on rainfall intensity, wind speed or water levels, which pay out automatically when thresholds are reached and allow agencies to accelerate recovery without waiting for conventional damage assessments; delivery involves finance and budget offices, emergency management agencies, insurance providers and risk-modelling specialists, community foundations and local partners, and public works and environment teams. The playbook action area 2c sets out the corresponding opportunity: the community-based model is relevant wherever individual insurance take-up is low, civil society organizations play a key role as trusted intermediaries between insurers and the communities they serve, and communities, insurers and local governments could explore adaptations suited to their own institutions and regulatory settings - with initiatives such as the Insurance for Good Solutions Catalyst offering a starting point for identifying partners and existing solutions. Organizations involved Authoring: Resilient Cities Network Actors: The Miami Foundation; Miami Strong Disaster Resilience Network Implementation partners Civil Society Organizations; Insurers; Local Governments; Data Providers
USA
Philanthropic parametric cover for rapid post-disaster community payouts - The Miami Foundation, South Florida
Solution Rebuild wildfire-damaged communities to the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home (WPH) standards (Base/Plus) and pair with community-wide mitigation (e.g., Zone 0), using modeled Average Annual Loss reductions to support insurer underwriting and discounts. Key challenge Wildfire-driven insurability constraints—high modeled losses (AAL) can limit private-market availability and push communities into the FAIR Plan unless risk is reduced and credibly evidenced. Context After the January 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires, which killed 31 people and destroyed more than 16,000 structures, the region faces a time-limited opportunity to rebuild nearly 30,000 homes within the burn perimeters in ways that materially reduce future wildfire losses. The California Department of Insurance and NAIC highlight that Average Annual Loss (AAL) is heavily used in insurer decisions and rate filings, so measurable AAL reductions could shift communities from reliance on the FAIR Plan to access to competitive private coverage. Solution in practice CDI and NAIC modeled the effect of rebuilding with science-based building and landscaping standards—IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home (WPH)—across the Altadena and Palisades area, using the Moody’s wildfire catastrophe model via NAIC’s Catastrophe Risk Management Center of Excellence. The study found rebuilding to WPH Base could reduce AAL by 31% and WPH Plus by 35%, and it recommends adopting WPH Plus for Los Angeles fire rebuilds at an estimated marginal cost of ~3% per home, paired with community-wide mitigation such as Zone 0 requirements; it also recommends funding WPH evaluations for low-income homeowners and connecting rebuilt homes to insurance discounts through CDI’s Safer from Wildfires program. The approach is reinforced by evidence from Paradise (post-2018 Camp Fire) where newer and hardened homes with defensible space survived at higher rates, and Paradise’s municipal adoption of WPH as a rebuilding benchmark coincided with insurers returning and some residents seeing materially lower insurance bills compared to the FAIR Plan. Impact / outcome Rebuilding to Wildfire Prepared Home Base/Plus could cut AAL by 31%/35% at about 3% extra cost per home. Next steps Align state and local rebuilding requirements around WPH Plus and complementary community-wide mitigation (including Zone 0), and ensure evaluation/certification capacity so homeowners can earn WPH designations at scale, with targeted funding for low-income households. Translate modeled AAL reductions into clear insurer underwriting pathways and consumer-facing insurance discounts (e.g., via Safer from Wildfires) so resilience actions are directly linked to availability and affordability of private coverage, reducing reliance on the FAIR Plan. Organizations involved Authoring: California Department of Insurance (CDI); National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Actors: Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS); Moody's Implementation partners Regulators & Policymakers; Data Providers; Local Governments; Insurers
USA
Rebuilding to IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home standards could cut Average Annual Loss — Los Angeles, California (Altadena & Palisades)
Solution Use a community development financial institution, seeded with bank and philanthropic capital and backed by a state loan-loss guarantee, to offer rebuild mortgages with lower liquidity requirements and flexible cashflow underwriting for homeowners who cannot access conventional construction loans after a disaster. Key challenge After the 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires, most displaced households remained unable to rebuild because conventional construction lending requires liquidity and cashflow profiles that underinsured, displaced homeowners cannot meet - leaving them at risk of losing homeownership entirely. Context The January 2025 Pacific Palisades and Eaton fires displaced thousands of Los Angeles households across established urban and suburban residential communities. A survey of more than 2,300 fire-impacted residents found that most families remained displaced as the costs of temporary housing and rebuilding continued to rise. Insurance settlements alone were insufficient, and the conventional construction loan market did not serve borrowers whose income and liquidity had been disrupted by the event. The specific financing gap was identified through FORGE LA, a collaborative initiative to identify financial gaps in disaster recovery, led by The Center by Lendistry, Lendistry's strategic nonprofit partner. Solution in practice In August 2026 Lendistry Home Loans launched the Disaster Recovery Mortgage Pilot, seeded with a USD 15 million commitment from Bank of America and USD 5 million from the California Community Foundation through its Los Angeles Wildfire Rebuilding and Renewal Fund. The pilot lowers liquidity requirements and applies more flexible cashflow underwriting standards while still meeting statutory ability-to-repay requirements, targeting community members at risk of losing homeownership who cannot access construction loan products. It launched shortly after California’s 2026-27 state budget established a USD 100 million Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Program providing loan-loss guarantees and reduced interest rates for impacted homeowners - public risk-sharing that allows the lender to price and underwrite the product. Bank of America positioned the CDFI route as complementary to its own Rebuild Solution for existing mortgage clients (extended forbearance, a line of credit and preservation of the original lower interest rate), recognizing that non-clients needed a separate channel. The Program was announced ahead of applications opening, in early autumn 2026, to give homeowners equitable opportunity to prepare to apply. Impact / outcome USD 20m seed capital for rebuild mortgages backed by a USD 100m state loan-loss guarantee Program; applications open early fall 2026. Next steps Loan applications for the Disaster Recovery Mortgage Pilot will be available in early fall of 2026. Lendistry Home Loans announced the Program in advance of applications opening to allow equitable opportunity for homeowners to prepare to apply, directing homeowners to www.disasterrecoverymortgage.com to learn more and sign up for updates. The pilot is designed to work alongside California's Disaster Rebuilding Assistance Program, a USD 100 million Program established in the 2026-27 state budget providing loan-loss guarantees and reduced interest rates for impacted homeowners, which helps lenders mitigate risk while providing responsible financing to affected communities. This maps directly onto the playbook action area 2a: mortgage lenders and retail banks have the longest financial relationship with any property, often 25 years or more, yet play a limited role in funding resilience today, and examples like this remain exceptions rather than standard practice. Organizations involved Authoring: Lendistry Home Loans Actors: Bank of America; California Community Foundation; The Center by Lendistry; State of California Implementation partners Investors & Banks; Civil Society Organizations; Regulators & Policymakers; Local Governments
USA
A CDFI disaster recovery mortgage for wildfire-displaced homeowners - Lendistry Home Loans, Los Angeles
Solution Structure long-term Resilience Purchase Agreements (RPAs) between nature restoration projects and corporate buyers to generate stable contracted cashflows from ecosystem services, making catchment-scale nature restoration investable for institutional asset owners such as pension funds. Key challenge Degraded natural landscapes (rivers, wetlands, peatlands) increase flood and drought risk for businesses and communities, but nature restoration has lacked the contracted revenue streams and institutional-grade structures needed to attract private capital at scale. Context UK flooding, drought, and degraded water quality compound into a significant annual economic cost for businesses and communities. Rebalance Earth was established to make nature an investable asset class by structuring nature restoration projects as productive natural capital assets generating long-term contracted income. The fund targets UK urban and rural catchments where degraded landscapes compound water risk for infrastructure operators, utilities, food and beverage companies, and local authorities. West Yorkshire Pension Fund (LGPS) provided £25m in cornerstone seed capital for the RE(DARWIN) fund, recognizing nature-based resilience as a long-term institutional investment aligned with the UK Mansion House agenda. Solution in practice Rebalance Earth structures Resilience Purchase Agreements (RPAs) — long-term Nature-as-a-Service contracts — under which corporates pay for catchment-scale nature restoration (rivers, wetlands, peatlands) to reduce their operational exposure to flooding and water stress. The RPAs generate stable cashflows that service institutional investor returns. The platform uses AI, remote sensing, and geospatial mapping to identify and underwrite restoration projects, and applies independent measurement frameworks to translate ecological performance (e.g. flood peak attenuation, water retention) into contracted payment triggers. Rebalance Earth targets mobilizing over £10 billion in nature restoration capital across the UK over the next decade, with a live pipeline of catchment, coastal, and upland projects structured for institutional investment. Impact / outcome GBP 25m cornerstone from West Yorkshire Pension Fund; targets GBP 10bn+ of nature restoration capital over a decade. Next steps A coalition could work with Rebalance Earth and institutional asset owners to standardize RPA contract terms and ecological performance metrics across catchments, enabling replication in additional geographies and asset classes. Organizations involved Authoring: Rebalance Earth Actors: West Yorkshire Pension Fund Implementation partners Investors & Banks; Civil Society Organizations; Local Governments; Data Providers
United Kingdom
Rebalance Earth
Solution Establish a cross-jurisdictional public entity to plan, coordinate, and advance resilience projects for flooding, sea level rise, and other water-related climate risks across an entire county Key challenge Climate risks do not align with city boundaries, but planning, funding, and delivery are often fragmented across jurisdictions Context One Shoreline was established in 2020 as an independent public agency to address the water-related impacts of climate change across San Mateo County. It provides a regional platform for planning, project development, funding, and coordination where no single city can address the full risk alone. Solution in practice One Shoreline advances shoreline resilience plans, creek and flood resilience projects, planning policy guidance, early warning systems, and multi-jurisdictional project development across the county. Its work includes Brisbane, the southern Bayside cities, San Bruno Creek, and other shoreline and flood-prone areas. Impact / outcome County-wide agency (since 2020) advancing shoreline, creek and flood resilience projects across San Mateo County. Next steps Advance multi-jurisdictional shoreline resilience plans, develop future-conditions guidance for public infrastructure, build funding-ready project pipelines, and test links between property-level risk reduction and improved insurability. Organizations involved Authoring: One Shoreline (San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District) Implementation partners Local Governments; Investors & Banks; Regulators & Policymakers; Civil Society Organizations
USA
One Shoreline — San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District
Solution Provide step-by-step instructions for supplementing historic climate data with specific, regional, forward-looking climate change projections in the design of city facilities, applied consistently across nearly all municipal capital projects. Key challenge Codes and standards that regulate the design of facilities already incorporate historic weather data to determine how to design for today’s conditions, but historic data does not accurately represent the projected severity and frequency of future storms, sea level rise, heat waves and precipitation - threatening to undermine capital investments and impede critical services over the full useful life of facilities designed today. Context New York City faces challenges resulting from a rapidly changing climate. Many capital projects, including infrastructure, landscapes and buildings ("facilities"), will experience extreme flooding, precipitation and heat events, and the intensity and severity of these events will increase over the 21st century. With 520 miles of coastline across its five boroughs, several low-lying locations across the dense urban area will experience monthly tidal inundation resulting from higher seas. The New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) prepares and regularly refines projections for the metropolitan region, covering temperature and extreme heat events, precipitation and sea level rise by the 2050s and 2080s. Solution in practice The Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines, developed by the Mayor’s Office of Climate & Environmental Justice (previously the Mayor’s Office of Resiliency and, before that, the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency) in collaboration with city agencies that oversee capital project development, provide a consistent methodology for engineers, architects, landscape architects and planners to design facilities that are resilient to changing climate conditions. They complement the use of historic data in existing codes and standards, and are built on NPCC projections with the intent that they are updated as those projections are refined. An initial version was released in April 2017; Version 2.0 followed in April 2018 after a year-long expert testing and review phase; Version 4.0 was published in September 2020 and Version 4.1 in May 2022. The Guidelines are used throughout the design process - from capital planning initiation, as a reference in requests for proposals, through a conceptual or study phase to final design - for all new construction and substantial improvements, and apply to all City capital projects except coastal protection projects such as sea walls, bulkheads and levees, for which the City is developing separate guidance. All new projects and substantial improvements assess risks to climate hazards in the context of the project’s purpose. More than 20 City agencies contributed, including Environmental Protection, Transportation, City Planning, Buildings and Design & Construction. Impact / outcome Consistent forward-looking design methodology applied across City capital projects, developed with 20+ City agencies (v4.1, May 2022). Next steps Future versions of the Guidelines will explore additional climate stressors as the science evolves, in coordination with the New York City Panel on Climate Change. NYC is undertaking a study to assess projected changes to extreme wind hazards and identify risks to the city’s built environment, as firm projections on future wind conditions have not yet been developed. The City is separately developing guidance for coastal protection projects, which currently sit outside the scope of the Guidelines. Organizations involved Authoring: NYC Mayor's Office of Climate & Environmental Justice Actors: New York City Panel on Climate Change (NPCC) Implementation partners Local Governments; Regulators & Policymakers; Data Providers; Property value chain stakeholders
USA
Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines - NYC Mayor’s Office of Climate & Environmental Justice
Solution Use a statutory resilience district to draw a boundary around the beneficiaries of a resilience investment and pool multiple funding levers - tax increment financing, benefit assessments, resilience bonds and grants - into a single vehicle, supported by technical assistance that moves communities from concept to investment-ready. Key challenge Resilience investment benefits many parties - homeowners, businesses, insurers, lenders and government - over decades, while the costs are concentrated and immediate, so no single actor has sufficient incentive to act and communities remain dependent on one-off grants rather than stable long-term financing. Context California's Senate Bill 852 (2022) authorized the creation of resilience districts, giving communities a legal mechanism to pool funding across beneficiaries and invest collectively in long-term risk reduction. Legal authority alone, however, does not make a district financeable: communities still need to define a boundary, select the right combination of funding levers for their fiscal context and institutional relationships, and reach a standard of project design that insurers, lenders and investors will accept. The pilot communities span California and Connecticut, two states at different stages of resilience district legislation. Solution in practice To translate the statute into practice, California Forward and Resilient Cities Catalyst launched the Resilience District Incubator in 2025, selecting five pilot communities in California and Connecticut, including the City of San Rafael, the County of Los Angeles and the City of Bridgeport. The incubator provides each community with technical assistance, peer learning and expert input from advisers spanning finance, insurance and risk modelling. The funding mechanisms available to districts include tax increment financing, benefit assessments, resilience bonds and grants, with the right combination determined by local fiscal context and institutional relationships. Four design features make the model work: a defined geographical boundary that captures the beneficiaries of resilience investment; multiple funding levers pooled into a single vehicle, reducing reliance on one-off grants; technical and governance support to move communities from concept to being investment-ready; and an advisory group spanning insurers, lenders and risk specialists to validate project design. Impact / outcome Five pilot communities in California and Connecticut receiving technical assistance (pilot stage). Next steps The model is still in its pilot stage, but it provides a replicable template for how communities can move beyond one-time funding towards stable, long-term financing for place-based resilience. The next step is demonstrating that private asset owners within district boundaries can be active contributors, not just beneficiaries. The playbook sets out the corresponding action under action area 2a: the resilience district concept offers a route for private actors, and asset owners and managers could engage with business improvement districts and similar structures to explore how resilience measures might be funded collectively at district level, allowing the owners who benefit from a safer place to contribute to creating it. The playbook also identifies, under action area 2b, the need for more replicable blended vehicles combining government grants, low-cost loans from public or development banks and private investment in standardized structures that, once developed in one municipality, can be adopted elsewhere rather than rebuilt deal by deal. Organizations involved Authoring: World Economic Forum; Marsh Actors: California Forward; Resilient Cities Catalyst; City of San Rafael; County of Los Angeles; City of Bridgeport Implementation partners Local Governments; Regulators & Policymakers; Insurers; Investors & Banks; Civil Society Organizations
USA
Building the template for resilience districts - California Forward Resilience District Incubator
Solution Translate forward-looking climate projections into standardized, mandatory design criteria so that all municipal capital projects are built to withstand future — not historical — climate conditions. Key challenge Municipal infrastructure projects in New York City were being designed using historical climate data that no longer reflects future conditions, leaving new and substantially renovated public assets exposed to sea level rise, extreme heat, and intensifying storms over their full useful lives. Context New York City faces compounding urban climate risks: sea levels are projected to rise significantly by mid-century, extreme heat events are intensifying, and major precipitation events are becoming more frequent and severe. Prior to Local Law 41 of 2021, no binding requirement existed to apply climate projections consistently across New York City's more than 20 capital agencies. Solution in practice The NYC Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines (CRDG), developed by the Mayor's Office of Climate Resiliency, translate future climate projections into actionable technical design criteria for city capital projects. Version 4.1 (May 2022) provides hazard-specific guidance across extreme heat, increased precipitation, sea level rise and tidal inundation, and coastal storms, differentiated by facility type. Local Law 41 of 2021 mandated a pilot Program under which more than 20 city capital agencies are designing approximately 40 projects to the CRDG standard. A full resilient design mandate is scheduled to begin on 31 December 2026. Impact / outcome About 40 projects across 20+ agencies designed to the guidelines under Local Law 41; full mandate from 31 December 2026. Next steps The NYC CRDG model — a statutory mandate, a shared technical standard, and a phased implementation Program — demonstrates how cities can systematically de-risk public capital investment through shared climate data. A coalition could work with other major cities to develop analogous mandatory design standards, particularly in fast-growing urban centers where capital investment decisions being made now will define climate exposure for 30–50 years. Organizations involved Authoring: NYC Mayor's Office of Climate & Environmental Justice Implementation partners Local Governments; Regulators & Policymakers; Data Providers; Property value chain stakeholders
USA
Mandating forward-looking climate design standards for municipal infrastructure — New York City
Solution Use the RiskReserve Tool to quantify communities’ future financial losses from weather, natural hazards, and economic shocks through the municipal budget, establishing a baseline that guides reserve-setting, investment choices, and resilience financing priorities. Key challenge Moving from abundant plans and recommendations to implementable, scalable financing pathways for resilience given growing risks and unclear funding at the needed scale. Context Communities across the United States face increasing exposure to extreme weather, natural hazards, aging infrastructure, and economic disruption, creating a widening gap between risk and investment. While many jurisdictions understand the risks and have produced plans and studies, implementation is hindered by uncertainty over how to pay for solutions at the scale required and by resilience being underpriced in relevant financing markets (e.g., municipal bonds). Solution in practice Resilient America, a program of The Resiliency Company (an independent nonprofit), enables governments, investors and the community to measure and value risk and resilience actions using practical analytics and replicable models. Its RiskReserve Tool quantifies future financial losses via the municipal budget to establish a baseline of risk that supports more informed decisions on reserves, investments, and resilience priorities, helping stakeholders (including governments, investors, insurers, businesses, and residents) align around practical financing strategies that convert resilience from planning into measurable action. In 2025, the Resiliency Co also underwrote an independently authorized and reviewed article based on interviews with issuers, investors, rating agencies, insurers, and market experts to examine the opportunity and challenges for resilience in the municipal bond market and why resilience remains underpriced. Impact / outcome RiskReserve Tool quantifies future fiscal losses to set a risk baseline for reserves and resilience financing. Next steps The Resilient America Summit's core finding was that resilience financing is a coordination problem, not a cost-benefit problem. Tools like the RiskReserve Tool already exist to translate physical risk into fiscal risk in terms governments and investors recognize; the gap is connecting that evidence to the actors and structures needed to deploy capital at scale. A coalition should focus on three steps: first, embedding RiskReserve-style risk quantification into standard government financial planning processes. Second, connecting quantified risk assessments to market financing structures — resilience bonds, revolving loan funds, and parametric insurance. Third, supporting the replication of multi-jurisdictional resilience authority models, such as the Resilience Authority of Annapolis, which demonstrated that independent, blended-capital structures can direct $0.94 of every dollar directly to projects. Organizations involved Authoring: The Resiliency Company (Resilient America) Actors: Resilience Authority of Annapolis Implementation partners Civil Society Organizations; Local Governments; Investors & Banks; Insurers; Regulators & Policymakers
USA
Quantifying municipal climate risk to guide reserves and resilience finance — Resilient America (The Resiliency Company)
Solution Convene fire districts, HOAs, researchers and technology providers to identify, prioritize and implement the highest-impact wildfire mitigations for homes, streets and shared spaces, supported by a replication playbook. Key challenge Communities need a practical, replicable way to determine and implement the wildfire mitigations that matter most across homes and shared spaces. Context The Fire Smart Community Pilot launched in spring 2025 in the Tahoe region to create more fire-ready communities by combining local fire district expertise, willing homeowners associations, wildfire researchers, and new technologies. Pilot projects are underway in six communities, and the effort is framed as a demonstration of comprehensive wildfire defense that can be replicated across the western United States. Solution in practice The program brings together partner organizations and tech companies working on wildfire resilience to support residents with expert guidance, tools and resources, then helps participating communities identify, prioritize and implement wildfire risk mitigations across individual homes as well as neighborhood infrastructure like streets and shared spaces. A step-by-step playbook has been published so other communities can replicate the pilot approach beyond Tahoe. Impact / outcome Pilots under way in six communities; replication playbook published. Next steps Use the published playbook to replicate the pilot model in additional communities across the West, continuing to convene fire districts, HOAs, researchers and technology providers to apply the same identify-prioritize-implement process at neighborhood scale. Organizations involved Authoring: Tahoe Fund Implementation partners Local Governments; Civil Society Organizations; Insurers; Data Providers; Property value chain stakeholders
USA
Creating fire-ready neighborhood pilots — Tahoe Fund (Lake Tahoe)
Solution Apply an insurance-grade, five-step climate risk assessment to a utility's most critical facilities to quantify the cost of failing to adapt, then extend the analysis to cascading impacts across other infrastructure providers, businesses, insurers and lenders at city-region scale. Key challenge Neither the city-region authority nor the water utility could quantify what it would cost if critical water infrastructure were not adapted to future flood risk, and the cascading consequences for transport, electricity, businesses, insurers and lenders sat outside anyone’s assessment - so the true impact of climate risk was being systematically underestimated across both public and private sectors. Context Greater Manchester has experienced several severe flood events over the past decade that have damaged homes, businesses and infrastructure across its urban and peri-urban areas, causing millions of pounds in economic losses. Storm Desmond in December 2015 alone caused financial losses to United Utilities of approximately GBP 19.5 million; Storms Desmond and Eva together are estimated to have caused GBP 1.6-2.3 billion in economic loss, with insured losses of GBP 900 million to GBP 1.2 billion. Average annual rainfall in the region increased by about 7% from 1961 to 2004, while winter precipitation rose by as much as 50% over the same period. UK Climate Projections 2021 indicate extreme rainfall events will occur with greater frequency, with winter precipitation potentially increasing in intensity by up to 30% by the 2050s, and modelling indicates peak river flows could rise by 70% by the 2070s under high emissions scenarios. Between June and November 2024, insurance Fellows were seconded through the Global Risk and Resilience Fellowship - a partnership between Howden, the Resilient Cities Network and the Sustainable Markets Initiative - to work with Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), United Utilities, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). Solution in practice The project built a five-step climate risk assessment methodology combining JBA Risk Management's 5-metre resolution fluvial and pluvial flood modelling with insurance industry loss models, climate consulting and analytics. Step 1 mapped United Utilities' 3,000+ facilities and over GBP 3 billion of insured value, applied criticality and vulnerability criteria across 19 facility types, and narrowed to the five facilities most critical to Greater Manchester’s water supply (combined facility value GBP 114.8 million). Step 2 modelled present-day and future exposure at the 1-in-1,000-year return period across baseline, 2030s, 2050s and 2080s horizons under RCP2.6/SSP1 and RCP8.5/SSP5. Average Annual Loss - a proxy for insurance premium - was shown to rise 23% by 2100 across the five facilities, with existing flood protection mitigating AAL by around 10%; under RCP8.5, today's 1-in-1,000-year fluvial event becomes a 1-in-509-year event by 2080 and the pluvial equivalent a 1-in-472-year event. Step 3 developed climate risk narratives and a risk matrix aligned to United Utilities’ risk appetite across financial, operational downtime, customers affected, reputational, environmental and health and safety consequences, with Transport for Greater Manchester and Electricity North West engaged to identify cascading risks. Step 4 produced a costed, complexity-scored menu of adaptation options across governance, finance, physical and technological, nature-based, and knowledge and behavioral categories, screened against UKCIP no-regrets, low-regrets, win-win and flexible/adaptive criteria and flagged for maladaptation risk, with co-benefits identified for each. Step 5 set out the system-level picture: business interruption, supply chain disruption and property damage cascading through to lenders and insurers, with SME loan defaults rising 2.6 times within two years of a flood event, interest rates up 6.4 basis points for businesses in flood-prone areas or lending withdrawn entirely, premiums 25% above average and excesses reaching GBP 25,000. Impact / outcome Average Annual Loss across five critical facilities shown to rise 23% by 2100; costed menu of adaptation options and a replicable methodology. Next steps The report sets out three key insights for United Utilities. First, there are insurance and other benefits to applying the methodology across the full portfolio: doing so would provide a quantitative flood profile of each facility, enabling United Utilities to discuss and structure a bespoke coverage Program with its insurance partners - for example grouping facilities by risk profile, excluding or reducing coverage for lower-risk facilities and securing higher coverage for higher-risk ones - and a more comprehensive view of where to focus adaptation investment. Second, a quantitative cost-benefit analysis is needed: the report provides the cost of inaction, highlights gaps in current understanding of climate risk and proposes a qualitative cost-benefit analysis of adaptation solutions, and the next step is to model the proposed solutions quantitatively; United Utilities could also discuss high-priority adaptation measures with its insurer to demonstrate their value and how they can support a stronger insurance Program. Third, collaborative adaptation matters: a focused approach to data gathering and the establishment of a collaborative group with other major infrastructure providers would be the most effective mechanism for ongoing dialogue on interdependencies. For government, the report highlights a lack of corporate involvement in conversations around climate risks to major infrastructure providers, recommends including corporate perspectives in decision-making, and identifies a credible risk that stakeholders across the UK public and private sectors are underestimating the true impact of climate risks - calling for mechanisms for data sharing among agencies and infrastructure providers. The methodology is designed as a blueprint for other utility companies and major infrastructure providers, can be applied to hazards beyond flooding, and is well placed to be amplified in the UK Government Resilience Framework or other municipal resilience frameworks, with national government having a role in setting enabling policies and standards, amplifying best practice, and convening senior decision makers to align incentives for resilience building. Organizations involved Authoring: Resilient Cities Network Actors: Howden; Sustainable Markets Initiative; Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA); United Utilities; Cabinet Office; Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG); JBA Risk Management; Transport for Greater Manchester; Electricity North West Implementation partners Insurers; Local Governments; Infrastructure Owners & Operators; Regulators & Policymakers; Data Providers
United Kingdom
Quantifying the cascading cost of failing to adapt water infrastructure to flooding - Greater Manchester

Resilient Futures Initiative

A World Economic Forum Initiative
© 2026 All rights reserved
Privacy Policy & Terms of Service