Nature for People and Places
How subnational governments are seeing returns from nature-based solutions
Climate impacts are escalating on every continent, placing growing pressure on infrastructure, local economies, and human health. At the same time, biodiversity loss is accelerating, weakening the natural systems that communities depend on to stay safe and adapt to a changing climate. These challenges are interconnected, and the response to them must be as well.
Subnational governments sit on the front line of these impacts and are increasingly expected to respond. They must protect people from increasing climate risks, build healthy and resilient places to live, and safeguard the ecosystems that underpin long-term prosperity. For years, climate adaptation, biodiversity conservation, and public health have largely been addressed through separate policies and actions, but that siloed approach is changing.
Nature-based solutions (NbS)[1] and landscapes and jurisdictional approaches (LA/JA)[2] are showing that a single intervention can deliver benefits across all three areas, turning nature from a competing priority into a strategic investment. This focus on adaptation doesn’t mean stepping back from mitigation – cutting emissions remains a foundation of subnational climate action, with adaptation building on this work rather than replacing it.
When governments and the private sector invest in nature, positive returns are seen across adaptation, human health, and local economies: restoring floodplains absorbs storm surges; bringing back lost habitats while planting diverse native tree species reduces the urban heat island effect, traps air pollution, and enlivens public life.
In cities, states and regions, nature is not just an amenity, but essential infrastructure for health, resilience, and economic strength. The question is no longer whether nature belongs in climate action planning, but how quickly governments can embrace it.
This report examines how disclosure is helping subnational governments identify and act on nature-related impacts and dependencies alongside climate, strengthening resilience, advancing biodiversity goals, and improving human health and well-being through integrated solutions.
It draws on data disclosed by 1,005 cities, states and regions across 80 countries, representing 1.32 billion people. This data was collected in partnership with CDP’s requesting partners and reported in 2025 through CDP-ICLEI Track and the CDP Questionnaire for States and Regions.
Key insights
Cities, states and regions are at the forefront of implementing global goals. 70% of cities, states and regions with adaptation goals are prioritizing nature-based solutions, contributing to global goals such as the Global Biodiveristy Framework and the Global Goal on Adaptation.
Subnational governments are treating nature-based solutions as core adaptation measures rather than optional climate-focused initiatives. 55% of cities, states and regions reported implementing nature-based solutions and 53% of states and regions report implementing landscape and jurisdictional approaches. Nature now ranks among the most common types of adaptation project underway, a sign of its growing role in building climate resilience.
Subnational governments are seeking significant investment in adaptation and nature. Adaptation-focused projects are seeking US$33.51 billion in finance, including US$2.85 billion for nature-related projects.
Nature-based solutions deliver meaningful well-being co-benefits, with health as a top co-benefit. Subnational governments rank nature among the top action types for health co-benefits, with 65% of cities, states and regions identifying at least one public health co-benefit from their nature-based solutions. This matters as governments confront the most commonly reported climate hazards of 2025, extreme heat, heat stress, urban flooding and heavy precipitation, which strain the communities and services they are responsible for.
Building on these insights, this report makes the case for disclosure as the foundation for turning ambition into progress: improving local economic resilience and affordability, strengthening multilevel governance, and unlocking the funding needed to scale nature and adaptation projects.
Cities, states and regions are at the forefront of implementing global goals
Subnational governments are essential to translating global commitments into action on the ground. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) set a global ambition to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. It includes Target 8, which calls for nature-based solutions for climate resilience, and Target 12, which calls for a significant increase in the area and quality of green and blue spaces in urban and densely populated areas.[3]
Alongside it, the Global Goal on Adaptation under the Paris Agreement calls for enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability to climate change, providing benchmarks for future Global Stocktakes and countries’ National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).
Global goals and national commitments set the direction, but they are only realized in places. Cities, states and regions are where nature, climate risks and communities intersect, making subnational governments central to delivering adaptation and nature goals, and building resilience.
Subnational governments are turning global ambition into local commitments. Globally, 77% of disclosers (773 of 1,005) reported 4,287 adaptation goals. Many of these goals reflect a growing recognition that protecting people from climate hazards depends on a functioning environment: around 70% subnational governments (or 538 out of 773 governments reporting adaptation goals) set 1,543 adaptation goals that address biodiversity loss, loss of green space, and/or soil degradation and erosion.
That ambition is turning into action. 55% of cities, states and regions have at least one NbS deployed against the climate hazards they reported most, a sign that subnational governments increasingly treat NbS as core adaptation measures.
Terms explained
Both NbS and LA/JAs are complementary and effective interventions to act and build socio-ecological resilience at scale. However, they are not the same. To understand the differences and similarities between NbS and LA/JAs, please refer to our article on Nature-based Solutions, and Landscape and Jurisdictional Approaches.
LA/JAs support NbS and other interventions across an entire landscape or jurisdiction, helping align action around shared goals and complementary public policies for human well-being, land use, water, marine and waste systems, biodiversity, mitigation, and adaptation.
Subnational governments are treating nature-based solutions as core adaptation measures rather than optional climate-focused initiatives
Nature functions as physical infrastructure, absorbing shocks that would otherwise overwhelm the systems governments rely on. They work in the same way as traditional conventional infrastructure, often at a lower cost and with fewer trade-offs. Urban wetlands, bioswales, and restored floodplains absorb and manage excess water, reducing flood risk and pressure on drainage systems. Green roofs and living walls lower ambient temperatures and lessen the impact of extreme heat. Mangrove and salt marsh restoration, along with living shorelines, reduce coastal erosion and buffer storm surges. Beyond this protection, nature-based solutions deliver added benefits for biodiversity, air quality, public health and quality of life, making them a foundation that healthy cities, states and regions depend on.
Across the globe, 89% of cities, states and regions (889 of 1,005) reported a total of 6,355 climate adaptation actions in 2025. Roughly one in five (19%, or 1,228 of 6,355) were nature-based, making them the second most common type of adaptation action reported.
More than half of all reporting governments are already putting these measures to work. Overall, 55% of cities, states and regions reported at least one nature-based solution, most commonly ecological restoration, investment in green infrastructure, and afforestation and reforestation. 53% of states and regions reported implementing LA/JAs.
Visit these city, state and region profiles in the CDP Adaptation and Action Explorer to learn more about their climate hazards and adaptation actions.
Priorities vary by region, reflecting local ecosystems and climate risks. Subnational governments in Latin America and Africa are prioritizing ecological restoration, while those in Europe, the United States, and Canada are focusing on expanding green infrastructure. India, Japan and countries across Southeast Asia are placing greater emphasis on afforestation and reforestation.
These patterns hold at the country level. The United States reported the highest number of green infrastructure, watershed preservation, and afforestation and reforestation solutions of any country. The United Kingdom led on ecological restoration and biodiversity actions, Portugal reported the most bushfire reduction and ecological corridor initiatives, and Mexico led on biodiversity monitoring. This reflects regional differences in environmental, socio-economic and governance contexts. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach, cities, states and regions are choosing solutions suited to the ecosystems and climate risks they face.
Subnational governments are seeking significant investment in adaptation and nature
Nature-based projects make up a meaningful share of the subnational finance pipeline. In 2025, 702 cities and states and regions reported 2,871 climate projects with a combined value of US$236.1 billion, of which US$114.3 billion in investment is still needed.[4]
Nature-based projects are a notable portion of this: 292 governments, 42% of those disclosing projects, reported 508 distinct nature projects, making up 18% of all projects disclosed.
Adaptation-focused projects account for US$33.51 billion of the finance subnational governments are seeking, with US$2.85 billion needed specifically for nature-related projects in 2025.
Case study: Porto Alegre, Brazil
Arroio Dilúvio Urban Regeneration Project
The Nova Ipiranga Urban Consortium Operation (Regenera Dilúvio) project in Porto Alegre is a US$332.1 million plan to restore the Arroio Dilúvio corridor across 1,624 hectares and 16 neighborhoods, combining sanitation, drainage, green-blue infrastructure, public space, mobility, and social housing improvements.
Consistent disclosure through CDP gave funders a clear diagnosis of local needs and demonstrated alignment with the ESG criteria used by development banks. Building on that, CDP’s ClimAction matchmaking events helped the city present the project to potential financiers and specialists, test its investment narrative, identify gaps, and strengthen its visibility.
These engagements advanced discussions with financiers including the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES). Disclosure improved the city’s transparency and project readiness, and the project is now being structured with BNDES under Brazil’s Climate Fund.
View images from the preliminary design of the project:
Rain Gardens in Complementary Green Areas
Porto Alegre is also seeking funding for a project entitled Rain Gardens in Complementary Green Areas (Jardins de Chuva em Áreas Verdes Complementares). The city is frequently affected by flooding caused by heavy rainfall, which disrupts economic, social and environmental development in the areas affected.
The project will transform complementary green spaces into rain gardens, using existing public infrastructure to capture and manage stormwater during periods of intense rainfall, an important step towards more resilient municipal stormwater management.
As an NbS, it is expected to improve quality of life, enhance thermal comfort, increase soil permeability, and add landscape value across the city.
Visit Porto Alegre’s profile in the CDP Adaptation and Action Explorer to learn more about the municipality’s adaptation actions and projects.
Nature-based solutions deliver meaningful well-being co-benefits
Investing in nature is an investment in healthier communities. Nature-based solutions deliver measurable benefits for public health by reducing heat exposure, improving air quality, supporting mental well-being, and creating opportunities for active lifestyles.
In 2025, extreme heat, heat stress, urban flooding and heavy precipitation weighed most heavily on health systems. These hazards contributed to impacts from heat-related illness to physical injuries and deaths due to extreme weather events, while also straining the services subnational governments provide.
This burden falls unevenly, hitting vulnerable groups the hardest, and a shortage of financial and technical capacity remains the single greatest constraint on governments’ ability to respond.
NbS can ease the strain caused by climate hazards while delivering wider societal benefits.
The co-benefits most frequently reported by disclosing governments span environmental, health, social and economic outcomes, and include:
improved biodiversity and ecosystem services;
better air quality;
greater education and public awareness of climate issues;
increased green space; and
improved mental well-being and quality of life.
Nature-based solutions have been recognized by subnational governments as one of the top adaptation action types providing most health co-benefits with 65% of cities, states and regions (355 out of 550) identifying at least one public health co-benefit from their nature-based solution.
The top health co-benefits identified include:
improved air quality;
improved mental health and well-being;
reduced health impacts from extreme heat or cold weather; and
improved physical health.
Identifying where action is still needed
Although the progress highlighted shows that subnational governments are working towards achieving the Global Biodiversity Framework and Global Goal on Adaptation, significant gaps remain in advancing the interconnected adaptation, biodiversity, and health agenda.
46% of subnational governments have not yet set nature-related adaptation goals to inform their climate action plans. Moreover, only 69% (692 of 1005) have reported assessing the impacts of climate change on their health systems and outcomes, while 45% (454 of 1005) are not yet implementing nature-based solutions that deliver benefits for either nature or health.
Disclosure can help provide the evidence needed to integrate health and nature into climate action. It helps subnational governments understand where environmental risks affect human health and well-being, direct investment to interventions that generate multiple co-benefits, and monitor whether these actions are achieving their intended outcomes.
Cities, states and regions can identify opportunities to improve public health, strengthen climate resilience, and protect nature simultaneously by reporting on climate hazards, adaptation goals and actions, climate projects, and health indicators.
By making this progress visible and comparable, disclosure strengthens accountability, informs investment, and helps cities, national governments, investors, and networks target support where it’s needed most.
The Case for Disclosure
Improving local economic resilience, development and affordability
Local authorities increasingly shoulder the work of maintaining infrastructure and building resilience, often without matching resources. By systematically assessing risks and reporting priorities, subnational governments can direct limited resources towards the most effective investments and signal where financing is needed. This aligns adaptation with private investment, helping mobilize capital to close funding gaps, improve the affordability of climate action, reduce future losses, and build long-term economic resilience.
Resilience also shapes where businesses operate. Climate hazards interrupt production, supply chains and transport; places that invest in resilient infrastructure offer more stable operating conditions. The financial stakes are visible in the data, with 23% of subnational governments identifying financial and insurance activities as highly exposed to intensifying climate hazards.
Despite this, significant gaps remain and nearly half of cities, states and regions (46%) report that budget constraints limit adaptation. More than 60% have unfunded adaptation needs, leaving businesses and investors exposed to risks that resilience infrastructure could reduce.
Strengthening multilevel governance
Disclosed data and information connect local action to national frameworks, showing where subnational plans align with or contribute to the next government level and/or national government goals, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans, and global commitments. Credible, comparable, and decision-useful data enables this alignment, also enabling investors and policymakers to assess risk, measure progress, and align incentives so finance can flow to the necessary level and at the scale required.
The data reveals both momentum and action needed. Of the 615 disclosers reporting on engagement with other levels of government, 80% (490) are not yet engaging on integrating plans and other climate components into their NAPs – a governance gap that disclosure can help close.
The Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships (CHAMP) is a platform to enhance collaboration between national and their subnational governments in climate policy and finance for action. CHAMP was designed to bridge the gap between local action and national policies. Of the 75 CHAMP country signatories, 42 include cities, states and regions that disclosed through CDP, together representing 746 subnational governments.
Unlocking funding and finance
By quantifying and publishing project investment needs, subnational governments give investors and funders the information needed to re-direct capital towards priority climate and nature projects.
The climate finance gap is significant. 44% of adaptation-related projects are still in the early stages of action, with a substantial pipeline of nature and adaptation work waiting to be unlocked. Subnational governments have identified US$33.51 billion of financing needed for climate adaptation projects, including US$2.85 billion specifically for nature-based projects, giving funders and national partners a clear signal of where investment is needed. When governments disclose these needs through CDP, that data reaches the investors, funders, and national partners positioned to act on it, closing the loop between local ambition and the capital required to deliver it.
CDP’s new Adaptation and Action Explorer turns that disclosed data into a tool investors and partners can act on. It integrates disclosure data, hazard data from the Google Earth Engine, and AI to bring hazard, action, and readiness data together in a single view, making the pipeline of nature and adaptation easier to find, compare, and prioritize. For funders and national partners deciding where to direct capital, that means reported project needs become practical insights they can act on.
Footnotes
1. The 2025 questionnaire captures these measures as “ecosystem-based actions.” In the 2026 reporting cycle, this category has been renamed as “nature-based solutions (NbS),” and actions previously counted as ecosystem-based that do not meet the NbS definition are recorded in separate categories. For the purposes of this report, we are using the term “nature-based solutions” as a catch-all term.
2. These two approaches overlap but are not interchangeable. Both NbS and LA/JA are defined in the call-out box in Section 1.
3. Targets 8 and 12 sit within a wider set of biodiversity commitments that subnational action advances, including Target 2 on ecosystem restoration, Target 11 on nature’s contributions to people, Target 14 on mainstreaming biodiversity across all levels of government, and Target 15 on facilitating assessment and disclosure to reduce biodiversity-related risks.
4. These figures differ from those in CDP’s 2025 Global Snapshot for two reasons. The Snapshot captured data as of October 1, 2025, roughly six weeks before the 2025 disclosure cycle officially closed on November 19, 2025. It also analyzed only city disclosure data, whereas this report reflects disclosure from cities, states and regions.
5. Health outcomes are changes in the physical or mental health of an individual or community that can be attributed to climate change, while heath systems are the people, institutions, and resources organized to promote, restore, and maintain health, including service provision, infrastructure, and technologies, and the effects of climate change on them.