Dual Challenges, Shared Wins: Unlocking Climate Financing for Nutrition

Dual Challenges, Shared Wins: Unlocking Climate Financing for Nutrition | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Dual Challenges, Shared Wins: Unlocking Climate Financing for Nutrition Chiara Dell’Aira, Natalia Rovelo-Velazquez, Sarah LaHaye, Xiu Xin Catherine Lok, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6272252/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background : The intertwined challenges of climate change and malnutrition amplify each other, with climate change exacerbating malnutrition, particularly in vulnerable populations; and food systems significantly contributing to emissions and environmental degradation. Addressing these issues together offers opportunities for shared gains, yet funding streams for these sectors remain siloed and misaligned. Objective : This study developed a scoring methodology to assess the compatibility of climate funds with financing nutrition-smart actions where synergies align with climate funds’ primary goals, referred to as the " scope for nutrition integration” . Methods : Using the Climate Funds Update database, 18 active climate funds were systematically reviewed and rated based on their potential for financing nutrition-smart activities. The study included a descriptive characterization of funds to identify entry points and understand their geographic reach, size, and focus. The scoring methodology considered four criteria: mandate alignment with nutrition objectives, flexibility in funding structure, visibility of nutrition action, and publicly available precedents for nutrition-related projects. Results : Out of the 18 climate funds analyzed, 12 had strong scope for nutrition integration, 3 had some scope, and 3 had limited scope. Many of these funds offer promising opportunities given their large financing availability. Most funds' descriptive characterization revealed a social inclusion focus, representing important entry points for integrating nutrition-smart activities even in funds with seemingly less integration potential. Climate funds with comprehensive climate action approaches combining mitigation, adaptation, and resilience exhibited the strongest alignment with nutrition integration potential. Mitigation funds were the most limited in their scope for financing nutrition-smart activities, but important untapped opportunities exist for nutrition-smart climate mitigation. A case study of the Green Climate Fund’s investment in Burundi highlights how climate finance can support both climate adaptation and improved nutrition outcomes, emphasizing the need for purposeful, evidence-based integration of nutrition. Conclusions : This paper provides a practical framework for identifying opportunities to integrate nutrition-smart activities within climate financing, aiming to enhance resilience, strengthen adaptation efforts, and advance climate mitigation goals through a nutrition lens. By doing so, global stakeholders can address the dual crises of climate change and malnutrition, driving transformative outcomes for people and the planet. nutrition financing climate fund co-benefits nutrition-smart activities Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Climate change and nutrition are deeply interconnected. By 2050, climate change is projected to increase the global burden of undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies by 10%, exacerbating food insecurity, deepening the nutrition crisis and affecting poverty trends [ 1 ]. At the same time, food systems—central to human nutrition—are responsible for over 30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with consumption of unhealthy diets driving a significant share of this impact [ 2 , 3 ]. Despite these linkages, climate and nutrition are rarely connected in practice, missing a crucial opportunity to harness financing in a way that enhances climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience objectives whilst also addressing the global challenge of malnutrition [ 4 ]. The effects of climate change on nutrition are far-reaching, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations. Rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and extreme weather events disrupt ecosystems, reduce agricultural productivity, destabilize food supply chains, and increase food prices, limiting access to affordable, diverse, and nutritious diets [ 5 – 8 ]. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels also diminish the nutritional quality of staple crops, increasing the risk of micronutrient deficiencies [ 9 , 10 ]. Climate-related health risks, such as vector- and waterborne diseases, further weaken nutritional status, especially among already malnourished individuals [ 11 ]. In a similar vicious cycle, excessive heat exposure during pregnancy heightens the risk of low birthweight and reduces breastfeeding rates, particularly among undernourished women [ 12 , 13 ]. These cycles of increased vulnerability reduce people’s resilience and ability to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, especially among children, women, and indigenous communities in low- and middle-income countries, who face heightened exposure and susceptibility, and have limited coping capacities [ 14 ]. Nutrition-smart activities are a powerful but underutilized tool for building climate resilience. Scaling impactful nutrition interventions—with a focus on key sectors such as agriculture, water management, health and social protection—is essential to strengthen human capital and buffer against climate impacts for the most vulnerable. For example, cash transfers in Zambia have helped poor rural households increase food consumption and reduced severe food insecurity by over 20% during extreme weather events. In Pakistan, micronutrient supplements given to women pre-conception through birth have reduced the risk of adverse birth outcomes from heat stress [ 15 ]. Similarly, nutrition is an untapped priority for climate adaptation, with only 28% of National Adaptation Plans including nutrition considerations [ 16 ]. This oversight misses a critical opportunity to ensure people remain well-nourished in the face of climate change. Nutrition actions that could enhance adaptation include, for instance, investing in drought-resistant and biofortified crops to enhance access to nutritious foods under shifting climate conditions, and strengthening health systems by integrating nutrition into adaptation planning to protect maternal and child health during climate shocks [ 17 ]. Beyond adaptation and resilience, food system transformation is essential for climate mitigation. The rising consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and overconsumption of animal-source products in high-income settings are major drivers of GHG emissions [ 18 ]. Food loss and waste, which account for 8–10% of global emissions, further exacerbate food and nutrition insecurity and climate change [ 19 , 20 ]. Shifting toward sustainable dietary patterns could reduce global emissions by 17% while simultaneously improving nutrition. This need for integrated action is further underscored by the staggering cost of inaction, with diet-related emissions projected to impose USD 1.7 trillion in social costs annually by 2030 [ 21 ]. Greater alignment between climate and nutrition is urgently needed to drive effective, mutually reinforcing solutions. Nonetheless, progress on integrated climate and nutrition action remains hindered by a fragmented financial structure. The 2024 Investment Framework for Nutrition highlights the severe underfunding of nutrition, with a $ 128 billion annual gap needed to meet maternal- and child-focused nutrition targets via evidence-based interventions over the next decade [ 4 ]. Meanwhile, although climate financing is still insufficient to fully address the scale of challenges, there has been substantial growth in climate finance flows, reaching $ 1.3 trillion annually in public and private funds [ 22 ]. Despite the evident linkages between climate and nutrition, these investments rarely integrate the latter. An analysis of official development assistance (ODA) funding to climate in 2019–2021 conducted by the Initiative on Climate Action and Nutrition (I-CAN) found that only 1% of grants explicitly mentioned nutrition, accounting for $ 3.6 billion out of a total $ 289 billion in climate financing [ 16 ]. Furthermore, despite the fact that agrifood systems contribute around one-third of global GHG emissions, funding for the agrifood sector accounts for only 4.3% of global climate finance dedicated to both mitigation and adaptation efforts [ 23 ]. The limited consideration of nutrition impacts in climate investments reflects a missed opportunity to optimize their investments to deliver the biggest impacts on climate objectives through often unexplored nutrition-smart actions where synergies naturally align with funds’ primary goals. To unlock these opportunities, an integrated investment approach is needed, leveraging climate funds for nutrition-smart interventions that deliver both climate and nutrition objectives, in full respect of their primary functions and mandates. Such efforts can bridge existing gaps in funding and strategy, focusing on enhancing synergies and ensuring alignment with the principles of equity and sustainability underscored by the 2015 Paris Agreement. By doing so, global stakeholders can accelerate progress toward addressing the dual crises of climate change and malnutrition, delivering transformative outcomes for people and the planet. This paper does not criticize or assess funds’ performance or design, but rather seeks to map opportunities for climate funds to support nutrition-smart actions where complementary to their climate objectives. Specifically, it sets out the process for developing a scoring methodology for evaluating the compatibility of climate funds with nutrition-smart actions and summarizes the key findings. By establishing clear criteria, this methodology will provide a structured approach to assessing the potential for climate financing mechanisms to support integrated climate and nutrition activities, hereby referred to as the scope for nutrition integration . Objectives: Develop a replicable scoring methodology to evaluate the scope of climate funds for financing nutrition-smart activities, creating a standardized approach for assessing their alignment with nutrition objectives. Apply the scoring methodology to the Climate Funds Update (CFU) database, systematically reviewing and rating active funds based on their scope for nutrition integration. Provide a case study to illustrate how climate financing can effectively address both climate change and nutrition challenges, providing practical insights into leveraging climate funds for nutrition co-benefits. This paper aims to serve as a practical framework for identifying opportunities to integrate nutrition-smart investments within climate financing, focusing on synergies that align with and support the core mandates of the assessed funds. By doing so, it also encourages funders to consider streamlining and enhancing the inclusion of nutrition considerations in climate financing mechanisms. Methods This study employed a comprehensive descriptive characterization of climate financing funds, followed by structured scoring to evaluate their scope for financing nutrition-smart activities. The primary data source was the CFU database, which provided the main list of funds for analysis (n = 28) [ 24 ]. CFU was selected due to its credibility, comprehensiveness, and focus on multilateral climate change funds. The database systematically compiles and tracks data on climate finance, drawing from fund websites, official reporting, and other reliable sources, with additional verification through correspondence with fund managers. A systematic three-step approach was employed to identify and evaluate relevant climate funds. First, a preliminary exploration of the CFU fund list led to the identification of 28 potential climate funds. The information from the CFU list was systematically triangulated with the funds’ official websites. Of these, 10 were excluded because their funding windows had closed or they were no longer operational, reducing the number of eligible funds to 14 as of December 2024. During a subsequent screening process, 4 additional climate-finance funds were identified. These funds were actively funding projects but had not yet been updated in the CFU database. After incorporating these funds, the final dataset for analysis comprised 18 funds. Secondly, the official websites of the eligible funds were explored to extract key descriptive attributes and categorize the funds accordingly. These attributes included: (1) fund size (total monetary value available for all projects); (2) climate action focus of the fund, which may be exclusively on mitigation, adaptation, resilience, or on an combination of these; (3) geographic focus (national, regional, or global) and (4) social inclusion focus, including whether the fund emphasizes the prioritization of people-centered approaches, a gender focus, or other equity considerations. Supplementary Table S.1 provides a detailed description of each of these attributes and the descriptive categories that were defined to categorize funds accordingly. This approach provided a thorough understanding of each fund’s main priorities, overall characteristics, and funding scope, forming the foundation for the subsequent scoring process. Additionally, the output of this descriptive process also provides a quick reference for interested fund applicants to find information on the relevant active funds. This descriptive process was followed by a systematic evaluation of the funds to determine their scope for nutrition integration. The evaluation was based on a structured scoring framework, which was constructed inductively, through an iterative process as the review of the funds progressed. The resulting scoring framework presented four criteria: (1) the extent to which the fund’s mandate explicitly or implicitly supported nutrition-related goals, (2) the flexibility of the fund’s structure to integrate nutrition components, (3) the presence of clearly visible nutrition activities across sectors, including both robust evidence-based options (refer to Table S.2.) and less established ones, among the examples of potential activities to be financed presented in the fund’s externally facing resources, and (4) the existence of publicly available records of previous projects with nutrition or nutrition-smart components. Each criterion was scored on a three-point scale (1 to 3), with 1 representing the least potential for nutrition integration and 3 the most. After scoring each criterion, funds were assigned a final composite score ranging from 0 to 8 points, reflecting three levels of overall scope for nutrition integration: level 1: limited scope (score: 0–2); level 2: some scope (score: 3–5); level 3: strong scope (score: 6–8). The scoring methodology, including details on weighting and categorization criteria, is outlined in Supplementary Table S.3. To ensure consistency and methodological rigor, three of the authors (CD, NRV, MVC) collaboratively scored an initial sample of 3 funds to calibrate their interpretation of the scoring framework. This process involved independently applying the framework, comparing results, and identifying any discrepancies in scoring. Differences in interpretation were systematically discussed, and necessary refinements were made to enhance clarity and reliability. Once a shared understanding was established, one of the authors (NRV) proceeded to score the remaining funds, while another (CD) conducted additional randomly selected reviews. Any remaining inconsistencies were addressed through structured consensus discussions, reinforcing the robustness and reliability of the scoring approach. To illustrate how climate finance can support both nutrition and climate-related interventions, a relevant project example was synthesized and presented into a case study. A recent project from a highly relevant context, financed through a fund categorized as Level 3 (strong scope for nutrition integration) was selected for this purpose. The case study provides a real-world example of how climate financing mechanisms can be leveraged to support nutrition-smart programming. Results Table 1 provides a descriptive overview of the study’s 18 climate funds of interest, including their geographic focus, official name, fund size, social inclusion focus (people-centered, gender-focused and/or other equity focus), and climate action focus. Of the 18 climate funds analyzed, 15 (83.3%) operate at a global level, financing projects in multiple regions and countries. One fund, the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), operates at the regional level across 6 Central African countries: Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and the Republic of the Congo, to support implementation of the Paris Agreement [40]. The remaining 2 funds operate at the national level: the Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF) [42], managed under the Government of Indonesia, and the Amazon Fund, focused on the Amazon rainforest in Brazil [41]. The funds analyzed vary significantly in size, reflecting their diverse objectives and geographic reach. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the largest by a substantial margin, with a total size of USD $51.96 billion, highlighting its critical role in global climate finance. Other significant funds include the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) with USD $5.4 billion and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) 8 with USD $5.33 billion. Most of the other funds range from several hundred million to a few billion dollars, supporting a wide array of climate-related initiatives across different sectors. The smallest fund included in the analysis was the ICCTF, with USD $16.5 million, reflecting its narrow country focus. Understanding the priorities of climate funds—including their focus on social inclusion and the type of climate action they support—is essential for identifying opportunities to integrate nutrition-smart interventions into climate financed activities. The descriptive analysis reveals that all assessed climate funds incorporate social inclusion in some form, with most emphasizing a comprehensive approach that includes people-centered strategies, a gender focus, and other equity considerations. While social inclusion seems to be a consistent focus, climate action priorities show more variation, with some funds focusing on mitigation, others emphasizing adaptation and resilience, and many adopting a mixed approach. Several major funds, including the GCF, GEF, and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), support all three dimensions—adaptation, resilience, and mitigation—offering broad opportunities for integrated climate and nutrition investments. Notably, most adaptation-focused funds (10 out of 13) also emphasize resilience, demonstrating a strong commitment to strengthening communities’ ability to withstand climate shocks. Meanwhile, 5 funds—such as the CTF and the UN-REDD Programme—focus exclusively on mitigation, primarily targeting emissions reduction. Table 2 presents the results of the systematic evaluation of the 18 funds to assess their scope for nutrition integration' categorizing them into 3 tiers: Level 1 (limited), Level 2 (some), and Level 3 (strong). Over half of the funds (12/18) demonstrate strong potential for financing nutrition, signaling substantial opportunities for integration. Conversely, only a few funds showed limited compatibility with financing nutrition activities, with 3 funds classified as Level 1 and another 3 as Level 2. Figure 1 further visualizes the funds’ level of overall scope for integration by their climate action focus. Overall, the figure suggests that funds with a stronger scope for nutrition integration tend to align with more comprehensive climate action approaches. The CTF, Partnership for Market Implementation (PMI), and Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low Income Countries (SREP) are the funds that scored the lowest in in scope for nutrition integration (Level 1). These funds scored 0 across all criteria, indicating that: they have no explicit or implicit alignment with nutrition-related goals in their mandate, their funding structures have strict criteria with minimal flexibility for nutrition-related components, their externally available materials do not reference nutrition actions, and there currently are no public records of past nutrition-related investments. As shown in Figure 1, these funds fall under exclusive mitigation action, more specifically on clean energy, technology and market-based mechanisms, which may make the inclusion of nutrition in their objectives less intuitive. The analysis revealed a second set of funds with moderate (Level 2) scope for nutrition integration. These are the Forest Investment Program (FIP), Forest Carbon Partnership Facility - Carbon Fund (FCPF-CF), and UN-REDD Programme, which are focused on forest management. Similarly to Level 1 funds, most Level 2 funds appear to focus more narrowly on mitigation (Figure 1), with the exception of the FIP, which has a comprehensive climate action focus, and have either limited or no explicit mandate alignment with nutrition. FIP and UN-REDD are more flexible, which is reflected in their explicit inclusion of nutrition in their focus, while FCPF-CF’s structure remains rigid in the ability to incorporate nutrition-smart activities. Publicly available records suggest some precedent for funding nutrition-relevant components, but these remain sporadic. The remaining funds (n=12) were classified as having strong scope for nutrition integration, scoring highly across all 4 criteria. Within this category, 2 subgroups emerged. The first subgroup (n=6) consists of funds with limited mandate alignment but strong implementation potential, such as CAFI, the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), the Amazon Fund, GCF, ICCTF, and the Global Climate Change Alliance+ (GCCA+). Despite nutrition not being a core component of their mandates, these funds have flexible structures and have already financed some nutrition-smart activities. The second subgroup (n=6) includes funds with explicit or strong alignment with nutrition, such as the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Program (ASAP+), the Adaptation Fund, GEF, LDCF, the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), and the BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL). These funds not only have the flexibility to integrate nutrition but also explicitly align with nutrition goals, making them the most promising avenues for investment. With the exception of the SCCF, all Level 3 funds were found to prioritize integrated climate action. These funds either focus on a comprehensive approach that includes adaptation, resilience, and mitigation, or combine adaptation with resilience or mitigation ( Figure 1 ). This pattern suggests that funds that include adaptation in their focus, and those with a multifaceted climate action approach, present greater compatibility to financing nutrition-smart activities. As shown in Table 2 under the third scoring criterion (i.e. visibility of nutrition action), 14 out of 18 funds explicitly reference nutrition-related activities in their publicly available materials as examples of potential financing areas. Among these, 12 funds go further by highlighting not just general nutrition activities, but also specific, highly effective interventions recognized as "best buys" for improving nutrition outcomes in the Investment Framework for Nutrition 2024 [4] (see Table S.2 for a list of these interventions). Figure 2 further displays the specific best-buy interventions referenced by each of the 12 funds, grouped into sector-specific categories. Most climate funds have a narrow focus on the types of nutrition interventions they visibly reference. Nutrition-smart agriculture appears most frequently, referenced by all 12 funds, followed by water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and water insecurity, referenced by 7 funds. However, only one fund (GEF) explicitly mentions supporting key health sector interventions, specifically vector-borne infection control in pregnancy. Notably absent from fund materials are other critical, climate-relevant 1 health interventions, including prenatal and child micronutrient supplementation, macronutrient and micronutrient supplements for young children, and breastfeeding promotion. Similarly, safety net programs—such as cash or food transfers and vouchers—are not explicitly referenced in the examples provided by any fund. To assess the potential financing capacity for nutrition, Figure 3 presents total funding volumes (in USD) categorized by level of scope for nutrition integration. The GCF, which has strong scope (Level 3), is excluded from the visualization due to its disproportionate size. Overall, the figure highlights a substantial pool of funding, beyond that of the GCF, that is potentially available to financing nutrition—primarily from Level 3 funds (green) and, to a lesser extent, Level 2 funds (orange), including several mid- and large-sized funds. To illustrate how climate finance can be leveraged for nutrition, the textbox below presents a case study from a Level 3 fund. The GCF provided a $25 million investment to One Acre Fund in Burundi, a country facing high rates of malnutrition and climate vulnerability. This project demonstrates how climate finance can be directed toward smallholder farmers to support both climate adaptation and improved nutrition outcomes. Case Study 1: "Scaling Up Climate Resilience Solutions for Burundian Smallholders." In 2024, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) provided a $25 million award to a non-profit social enterprise, One Acre Fund, to scale a market-based model for improving smallholder crop production and climate resilience in Burundi. Burundi presents a unique context for climate-finance investments targeting nutrition: it has one of the highest stunting rates in the world, with over 55% of children in rural areas affected[45]; over 80% of the population is engaged in subsistence agriculture[46], dependent on rainfall patterns for securing their livelihoods; and the country has one of the world’s highest poverty rates, at 62% of the population[47]. These factors combine to make it uniquely vulnerable to the integrated risks of climate change and malnutrition. While this profile of population represents one of the highest need-case for climate finance for adaptation, only 0.3% of global climate finance reaches smallholder farmers like those in Burundi today.[48] Increasing the proportion of climate finance reaching smallholders not only offers the opportunity to support farmers in adequately adapting to climate change and adopting practices that mitigate the impact of farming on the environment, it also presents a promising mechanism to deploy climate finance to deliver nutrition gains, given the role smallholders play in land stewardship and food production, as well as the high rates of malnutrition among smallholder communities. GCF’s investment in One Acre Fund’s Burundi program is focused on crop production, climate resilience, and food security, providing a foundation for the integration of several nutrition activities. This includes activities aimed at preserving ecosystem services in support of food production, for example agroforestry to prevent erosion and land degradation, as well as soil health training and promotion of nitrogen-fixing legumes. The service-delivery model also targets food supply chains, including training and provision of inputs to increase and diversify production and safe storage of nutrient-dense and, in some cases, biofortified staple crops, with a focus on both homestead production for self-consumption and activities linking smallholder farmers to markets. Lastly, data on food security and household dietary diversity is regularly collected. One Acre Fund’s unique smallholder direct service model opens up additional opportunities to reinforce nutrition co-benefits. This could include, for example, nutrition training coupled with financial incentives to encourage and enable smallholders to consume healthy, diverse diets; promotion of indigenous, climate-resilient, nutritious crop varieties; or activities linking demand with supply of diverse, nutritious food to incentivize diversified production. One Acre Fund regularly runs trials to test and scale innovative methods to introduce these interventions into its service delivery model, enabling it to improve and expand the entry points and impact of its crop production services on nutrition. GCF’s investment in One Acre Fund was its first investment under the pilot Project Specific Assessment Approach (PSAA), an initiative intended to streamline and broaden access to GCF finance for new partners, countries, and technologies. Given the multi-faceted challenges of reaching rural smallholders who disproportionately suffer from both climate change and malnutrition, innovative and nimble financing programs such as PSAA may be increasingly important for enabling large-scale climate finance to deliver nutrition outcomes. Discussion This study highlights a major opportunity: many active climate funds are well-positioned to integrate nutrition-focused interventions and thereby to enhance achievement of both climate and nutrition objectives. Notably, some of the largest and most multifaceted funds, such as the GCF, offer substantial fiscal space for scaling up action that will deliver these mutually reinforcing benefits. Leveraging these funds presents a critical opportunity to enhance climate mitigation, resilience, and adaptation through a nutrition lens, while also harnessing much-needed resources to address malnutrition at a time of growing financial constraints. Beyond identifying a large number of funds that have clear pathways for nutrition inclusion (Level 3), this study has also uncovered valuable opportunities within seemingly limited-scope funds for nutrition integration (Level 2 and Level 1). One such pathway is through social inclusion, which is a core focus of all the assessed climate funds, offering an important entry point for integrating nutrition-smart actions. Groups that tend to be at risk of being excluded, such as women and indigenous communities, are disproportionately affected by both climate and malnutrition challenges, but also play a key role in building resilience and enabling adaptation and mitigation solutions. Incorporating nutrition actions within climate-related investments that focus on social inclusion can enhance impacts on equitable and sustainable development. This approach is in line with the principles of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which emphasize human rights, the right to health, and gender equality. For example, integrating policies and actions that create an enabling environment for women to breastfeed is fundamental for social inclusion objectives, delivers far-reaching benefits for health and nutrition, and supports climate goals. Breastfeeding is a ‘clean technology’, and enhancing the ability of women to breastfeed will reduce GHG emissions linked to the industrial production of commercial milk formula. Supporting breastfeeding also yields up to $ 44.4 in economic returns for every dollar invested due to the impacts on child mortality and human capital development [ 4 ]. Moreover, breastfeeding enhances climate resilience by providing a safe, locally available food source for infants during crises [ 49 , 50 ]. Another untapped opportunity lies within mitigation-focused funds. While these funds generally scored lower in terms of their scope for nutrition integration in our analysis, they still present indirect opportunities for supporting nutrition-smart actions. On top of the aforementioned mitigation potential of breastfeeding, many more opportunities exist within the broader food system, where climate and nutrition goals can align to deliver impactful solutions. Current trends in rising GDP and urbanization are driving dietary shifts, with increased consumption of refined sugars, oils, and animal-source foods. If this continues, food production and land use could contribute to an 80% increase in GHG emissions by 2050 [ 51 ]. UPFs are a key example, accounting for up to one-third of diet-related GHG emissions in high-income countries [ 52 ]. Failing to address agrifood systems within climate mitigation efforts could prevent the world from achieving the goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels [ 23 ]. Reducing the production and consumption of UPFs offers an important entry point to align mitigation and nutrition goals. Harnessing climate mitigation finance to drive production and consumption of healthier diets will amplify impacts on GHG emissions and the environment whilst simultaneously benefiting human health and well-being. Funds targeting forest management also demonstrate some scope for nutrition integration, offering a promising but underexplored opportunity to dig into the role that forests play in food and nutrition security, diets, and livelihoods. Forests and tree-based agricultural systems support an estimated one billion people globally, providing wild foods, micronutrient-rich fruits, and essential ecosystem services for sustainable food production. However, large-scale industrial expansion threatens these contributions, particularly in tropical regions where forest-dependent communities rely on diverse forest foods [ 5 ]. These funds could explore entry points such as supporting indigenous and local communities, which are disproportionately affected by both climate and nutrition challenges but also serve as stewards of forest ecosystems. Integrating nutrition-smart approaches into forest conservation strategies can enhance food access, improve dietary diversity, and contribute to a more sustainable and equitable food system. While it is clear that there are concrete opportunities to enhance how climate finance can deliver both climate and nutrition objectives, it will be important to avoid ‘nutri-washing’—whereby nutrition is included superficially in programming, without delivering tangible benefits. The integration of nutrition objectives and actions must be done purposefully and effectively. From our analysis, it is evident that nutrition-smart agriculture is a central focus for funds that are compatible with financing nutrition, yet there is space to also explore alternative opportunities outside of this sector. This study outlines several recently validated nutrition interventions in different sectors that have proven effective in low- and middle-income countries (refer to S.2). By ensuring that investments are aligned with the latest evidence and incorporating different interventions, funds can maximize their effectiveness and support transformative co-benefits for nutrition and climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience. Additionally, when climate funds do choose to invest in agriculture-focused programs, we would encourage incorporating proven nutrition-smart elements that are known to effectively improve co-benefits (summarized in Table S.2, row on agriculture). The One Acre Fund case study provides an example of a good starting point of a nutrition-smart agriculture program that could consider gradually introducing demand-side interventions alongside supply-side solutions to enhance its potential to impact nutrition and simultaneously strengthen participants’ resilience. While integrating nutrition and climate goals creates opportunities for co-benefits, we emphasize that these synergies must not overshadow the primary focus on climate action. We recommend striking a balance by maintaining climate goals as the central focus, while promoting evidence-based actions that enhance nutrition outcomes whenever possible. For instance, malaria prevention—the only health sector high-impact strategy supported by one of the funds in this analysis—not only plays a vital role in maternal and child nutrition but is also an important critical climate adaptation activity due to the increased risk of disease transmission associated with rising temperatures. This study aligns closely with the priorities of the 2025 Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit in Paris, highlighting the urgent need for the integration of nutrition into complementary global priorities, and for mobilizing resources through mechanisms beyond traditional donor-country ODA. By proposing a framework that leverages climate finance to support nutrition-smart interventions, global stakeholders can enhance resilience, strengthen adaptation efforts, and advance climate mitigation goals—ultimately driving transformative outcomes for people and the planet. The study has some limitations. First, one of our criteria for scoring the level of scope for nutrition integration gave slightly more weight to funds that emphasized evidence-based nutrition interventions identified as the most effective "best buys" for nutrition, as outlined in the recently published Investment Framework for Nutrition [ 4 ] (refer to S.2). While this evidence is derived from high-quality reviews, we acknowledge that these interventions primarily focus on Sustainable Development Goal 2.2 outcomes and are most relevant for low- and middle-income contexts. Yet, we note that, whilst the inclusion of other nutrition activities was scored slightly lower, it was still rated positively, allowing for a more nuanced assessment that includes both established and promising interventions. An additional limitation of this assessment is that the list of climate funds we evaluated may not be fully representative of the broader landscape of available funds, and we were constrained by the publicly available information for each fund. Funds that did not openly present themselves as supportive of financing nutrition, or did not provide sufficient public information, may have been rated with a lower score. While we examined a range of documents and sources to rate each fund, there may be additional details not captured in our review that could have influenced the scores. At the same time, we believe that transparency is an essential element of a fund committed to supporting broader goals, and we encourage climate funds to openly communicate their intention to support nutrition or other Environmental, Social, and Governance goals. Conclusions This study highlights the significant opportunities within currently active climate funds to integrate nutrition-smart interventions, enhancing climate mitigation, resilience, and adaptation through a nutrition lens. Leveraging these funds can mobilize much-needed resources, in alignment with the 2025 Paris N4G Summit and the 2024 Investment Framework for Nutrition’s call to close the financing gap for nutrition, while strengthening climate funds’ impacts on their primary goals. While most funds were found to have scope for supporting nutrition activities, further opportunities may be unlocked by leveraging strategic entry points. To maximize impact, nutrition must be intentionally and effectively integrated, and the inclusion of evidence-based solutions from both traditional and less commonly considered sectors should be considered. By balancing climate goals with nutrition-smart interventions, climate funds can unlock transformative co-benefits, fostering both environmental and human well-being, especially for vulnerable populations. List of Acronyms Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs) Official Development Assistance (ODA) Initiative on Climate Action and Nutrition (I-CAN) Climate Funds Update (CFU) Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI) Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF) Green Climate Fund (GCF) United States Dollars (USD) Clean Technology Fund (CTF) Global Environment Facility (GEF) Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) UN-REDD Programme (UN-REDD) Partnership for Market Implementation (PMI) Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low Income Countries (SREP) Forest Investment Program (FIP) Forest Carbon Partnership Facility - Carbon Fund (FCPF-CF) Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) Global Climate Change Alliance+ (GCCA+) Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP+) Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL) Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) United States Dollars (USD) Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Project Specific Assessment Approach (PSAA) Small-Quantity Lipid-Based Nutrient Supplements (SQ-LNS) Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF) Multiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS) Micronutrient Powders (MNP) Behavior Change Communication (BCCs) Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable Consent for publication: Not applicable Availability of data and materials: The analysis is based on data available on the public domain Competing interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest Funding: Financial support for this work was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Government of Japan through the World Bank Nutrition Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Scaling Up Nutrition Authors' contributions: CD conceptualized the objectives, contributed to developing the methodology and the analysis, and drafted the full manuscript. NRV contributed to the methodology and carried out the data analysis, contributed to drafting the paper. SL conceptualized and drafted the case study. SN and SD provided critical inputs and comments that led to the final draft. XXCL contributed to the development of the case study and provided comments to the early drafts. MVC provided inputs for the conceptualization and drafting of the study. Acknowledgements: We thank Jess Colston for her insights. We are extremely grateful to Abigail Perry for her careful comments and insights that led to the final version of this paper. Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. No responsibility for them should be attributed to those institutions. References Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), editor. Technical Summary. Clim Change 2022 – Impacts Adapt Vulnerability Work Group II Contrib Sixth Assess Rep Intergov Panel Clim Change [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 11]. p. 37–118. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-change-2022-impacts-adaptation-and-vulnerability/technical-summary/124D9019DECBF96BDB2979ABF494644D Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, Monforti-Ferrario F, Tubiello FN, Leip A. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food. 2021;2:198–209. Xiong X, Zhang L, Hao Y, Zhang P, Shi Z, Zhang T. How urbanization and ecological conditions affect urban diet-linked GHG emissions: New evidence from China. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2022;176:105903. Shekar M, Okamura KS, Vilar-Compte M, Dell’Aira C. Investment Framework for Nutrition. Washington, DC: World Bank.; 2024. Sunderland TCH. Food security: why is biodiversity important? Int For Rev. 2011;13:265–74. Mirzabaev A, Bezner Kerr R, Hasegawa T, Pradhan P, Wreford A, Cristina Tirado Von Der Pahlen M, et al. Severe climate change risks to food security and nutrition. Clim Risk Manag. 2023;39:100473. Burke M, Hsiang SM, Miguel E. Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature. 2015;527:235–9. Gitz V, Meybeck A, Lipper L, Young CD, Braatz S. Climate Change and Food Security: Risks and Responses. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2016. Report No.: 110, 3-36. Ebi KL, Loladze I. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change will affect our food’s quality and quantity. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3:e283–4. Beach RH, Sulser TB, Crimmins A, Cenacchi N, Cole J, Fukagawa NK, et al. Combining the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on protein, iron, and zinc availability and projected climate change on global diets: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3:e307–17. Romanello M, Walawender M, Hsu S-C, Moskeland A, Palmeiro-Silva Y, Scamman D, et al. The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action. The Lancet. 2024;404:1847–96. Review of Evidence of Interventions to Improve Nutrition Outcomes During Climate Shocks and Stressors: Evidence Review Report | USAID Advancing Nutrition [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.advancingnutrition.org/resources/review-evidence-interventions-improve-nutrition-outcomes-during-climate-shocks-stressors Shankar K, Ali SA, Ruebel ML, Jessani S, Borengasser SJ, Gilley SP, et al. Maternal nutritional status modifies heat-associated growth restriction in women with chronic malnutrition. PNAS Nexus. 2023;2:pgac309. UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). Chapter 3: Climate Change: Exacerbating Poverty and Inequality.” In World Social Report: Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World [Internet]. New York, NY: UNDESA; p. 81–107. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content /uploads/sites/22/2020/02/World-Social-Report-2020-Chapter-3.pdf. Standing Together for Nutrition (ST4N). The Climate Crisis and the Nutrition Crisis Are Intertwined: The need and the opportunity for policy action to address both crises simultaneously. Washington, DC: Micronutrient Forum; 2025; Lok XXC, Colston J, Haddad L. Accelerating action and opening opportunities: a closer integration of climate and nutrition. Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN); 2023. FAO. Climate action and nutrition. 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 17]; Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cc8415en Beal T, Gardner CD, Herrero M, Iannotti LL, Merbold L, Nordhagen S, et al. Friend or Foe? The Role of Animal-Source Foods in Healthy and Environmentally Sustainable Diets. J Nutr. 2023;153:409–25. Cederberg C, Sonesson U. Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention; study conducted for the International Congress Save Food! at Interpack 2011, [16 - 17 May], Düsseldorf, Germany. Gustavsson J, editor. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2011. UNEP, editor. The heat is on: a world of climate promises not yet delivered. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2021. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. [Internet]. Rome: FAO; 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9692en Buchner B, Naran B, Padmanabhi R, Stout S, Strinati C, Wignarajah D, et al. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023. Climate Policy Initative; 2023. Sutton, WR, Lotsch A, Prasann A. Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System. Washington, DC: World Bank Group; 2024. Climate Funds Update - [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/ Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) - Climate Funds Update [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/adaptation-for-smallholder-agriculture-programme-asap/ afadmin. AF [Internet]. Adapt. Fund. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.adaptation-fund.org/ BioCarbon Fund - Climate Funds Update [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/biocarbon-fund/ Clean Technology Fund | Climate Investment Funds [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.cif.org/topics/clean-technologies Home | Forest Carbon Partnership Facility [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/ Forest Investment Program | Climate Investment Funds [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.cif.org/topics/sustainable-forests GEF-8 Replenishment [Internet]. Glob. Environ. Facil. 2022 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/who-we-are/funding/gef-8-replenishment Homepage | Green Climate Fund [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.greenclimate.fund/ Least Developed Countries Fund - LDCF [Internet]. Glob. Environ. Facil. 2024 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/what-we-do/topics/least-developed-countries-fund-ldcf Partnership for Market Implementation | PMI [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://pmiclimate.org/ Pilot Program for Climate Resilience | Climate Investment Funds [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.cif.org/topics/climate-resilience Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries | Climate Investment Funds [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.cif.org/topics/energy-access Special Climate Change Fund - SCCF [Internet]. Glob. Environ. Facil. 2024 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/what-we-do/topics/special-climate-change-fund-sccf UN-REDD. UNREDD Programme [Internet]. UNREDD Programme. 2024 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.un-redd.org/home Global Climate Change Alliance+ | Environmental Migration Portal [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/global-climate-change-alliance Central Africa Forest Initative (CAFI). Central Africa Forest Initative (CAFI) [Internet]. Accel. Reforms Cent. Afr. 2025. Available from: https://www.cafi.org/welcome Amazon Fund - Climate Funds Update [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/amazon-fund/ Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund - Climate Funds Update [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/indonesia-climate-change-trust-fund/ The Enhanced Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme [Internet]. IFAD. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.ifad.org/en/initiatives/enhanced-adaptation-smallholder-agriculture-programme Who We Are | ISFL [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/who-we-are Nutrition | UNICEF Burundi [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/burundi/nutrition Burundi [Internet]. IFAD. [cited 2025 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.ifad.org/en/w/countries/burundi Public Documents | The World Bank [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 17]. Available from: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/webdocs Closing the climate finance gap [Internet]. One Acre Fund. [cited 2025 Mar 17]. Available from: https://oneacrefund.org/our-impact/climate-resilience/closing-climate-finance-gap Long A, Mintz-Woo K, Daly H, O’Connell M, Smyth B, Murphy JD. Infant feeding and the energy transition: A comparison between decarbonising breastmilk substitutes with renewable gas and achieving the global nutrition target for breastfeeding. J Clean Prod. 2021;324:129280. Smith JP. A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications. Int Breastfeed J. 2019;14:49. Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 2014;515:518–22. Anastasiou, K.; Baker, P.; Hadjikakou, M.; Hendrie, G.A.; Lawrence, M. A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems. J Clean P [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2025 Mar 11];368, 133155. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362165569_A_conceptual_framework_for_understanding_the_environmental_impacts_of_ultra-processed_foods_and_implications_for_sustainable_food_systems Footnotes Relevance to climate action of these interventions is presented in Table S.2 . Tables Table 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Unlockingclimatefinancingfornutrition3.20.25supplementaryforsubmission.docx Tables1and2.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6272252","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":433286854,"identity":"601fbfb5-43fb-478c-a6d5-2a13fe64ecc9","order_by":0,"name":"Chiara Dell’Aira","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"World Bank Group","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chiara","middleName":"","lastName":"Dell’Aira","suffix":""},{"id":433286856,"identity":"3bab1ff5-b7e1-4443-8511-0777b41f6e9d","order_by":1,"name":"Natalia Rovelo-Velazquez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"World Bank Group","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Natalia","middleName":"","lastName":"Rovelo-Velazquez","suffix":""},{"id":433286858,"identity":"6435be46-2ba6-451a-a139-d3b8c7f44c91","order_by":2,"name":"Sarah LaHaye","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarah","middleName":"","lastName":"LaHaye","suffix":""},{"id":433286859,"identity":"ba50181b-4650-492a-89ca-c0696220e3f0","order_by":3,"name":"Xiu Xin Catherine Lok","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiu","middleName":"Xin Catherine","lastName":"Lok","suffix":""},{"id":433286860,"identity":"12cd95d6-7ca6-4830-8940-716143467b43","order_by":4,"name":"Stella Nordhagen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stella","middleName":"","lastName":"Nordhagen","suffix":""},{"id":433286861,"identity":"9cd1d5af-8c95-45ad-8e74-a07f2dde176d","order_by":5,"name":"Stephen Dorey","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"World Bank Group","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Stephen","middleName":"","lastName":"Dorey","suffix":""},{"id":433286862,"identity":"4eee05ca-0b46-45bc-b811-e30c9d044124","order_by":6,"name":"Mireya Vilar-Compte","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"World Bank Group","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mireya","middleName":"","lastName":"Vilar-Compte","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-20 20:08:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6272252/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6272252/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79265503,"identity":"20316e1c-7e01-4c5c-b21f-458f144628de","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 10:02:04","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":102771,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClimate Funds by Level of Scope for Nutrition Integration and Climate Action Focus\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6272252/v1/cb7213487ca8beb3cd5aa9ae.png"},{"id":79264533,"identity":"62982f2a-9fcd-4dbc-9520-4200048f011c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 09:54:04","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101110,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisible examples of established nutrition action by climate funds\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: this figure includes the subset of 12 funds that scored = 2 (“established nutrition action visibility”) in the third scoring criterion that assesses “visibility of nutrition action”. Refer to Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6272252/v1/a5d82b1fcb78bb4864996d09.png"},{"id":79264500,"identity":"09003e4c-0dd3-4a3a-b450-c1a26ce6ad56","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 09:54:02","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":203549,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Size and their Level of Scope for Nutrition Integration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6272252/v1/724eccbc1219c1f5baf2b6e2.png"},{"id":93713185,"identity":"05cbca2d-e1ec-4b01-9c78-c8743a1add09","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-16 18:46:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":956486,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6272252/v1/b2b4f503-c5bd-4de0-902e-fe7a41bcff67.pdf"},{"id":79264495,"identity":"1415a03f-f22b-4b95-9582-19339e266980","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 09:54:02","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":31434,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Unlockingclimatefinancingfornutrition3.20.25supplementaryforsubmission.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6272252/v1/d16596140c0bcc663c554f61.docx"},{"id":79265508,"identity":"5ad82ad5-25ab-4004-9d4d-b8b19340bdfe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 10:02:05","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":49511,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables1and2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6272252/v1/d3b8142909eb0968e23ce1cf.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Dual Challenges, Shared Wins: Unlocking Climate Financing for Nutrition","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eClimate change and nutrition are deeply interconnected. By 2050, climate change is projected to increase the global burden of undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies by 10%, exacerbating food insecurity, deepening the nutrition crisis and affecting poverty trends [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. At the same time, food systems\u0026mdash;central to human nutrition\u0026mdash;are responsible for over 30% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with consumption of unhealthy diets driving a significant share of this impact [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite these linkages, climate and nutrition are rarely connected in practice, missing a crucial opportunity to harness financing in a way that enhances climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience objectives whilst also addressing the global challenge of malnutrition [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effects of climate change on nutrition are far-reaching, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations. Rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and extreme weather events disrupt ecosystems, reduce agricultural productivity, destabilize food supply chains, and increase food prices, limiting access to affordable, diverse, and nutritious diets [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR6 CR7\" citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels also diminish the nutritional quality of staple crops, increasing the risk of micronutrient deficiencies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Climate-related health risks, such as vector- and waterborne diseases, further weaken nutritional status, especially among already malnourished individuals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. In a similar vicious cycle, excessive heat exposure during pregnancy heightens the risk of low birthweight and reduces breastfeeding rates, particularly among undernourished women [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. These cycles of increased vulnerability reduce people\u0026rsquo;s resilience and ability to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, especially among children, women, and indigenous communities in low- and middle-income countries, who face heightened exposure and susceptibility, and have limited coping capacities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNutrition-smart activities are a powerful but underutilized tool for building climate resilience. Scaling impactful nutrition interventions\u0026mdash;with a focus on key sectors such as agriculture, water management, health and social protection\u0026mdash;is essential to strengthen human capital and buffer against climate impacts for the most vulnerable. For example, cash transfers in Zambia have helped poor rural households increase food consumption and reduced severe food insecurity by over 20% during extreme weather events. In Pakistan, micronutrient supplements given to women pre-conception through birth have reduced the risk of adverse birth outcomes from heat stress [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, nutrition is an untapped priority for climate adaptation, with only 28% of National Adaptation Plans including nutrition considerations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. This oversight misses a critical opportunity to ensure people remain well-nourished in the face of climate change. Nutrition actions that could enhance adaptation include, for instance, investing in drought-resistant and biofortified crops to enhance access to nutritious foods under shifting climate conditions, and strengthening health systems by integrating nutrition into adaptation planning to protect maternal and child health during climate shocks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond adaptation and resilience, food system transformation is essential for climate mitigation. The rising consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and overconsumption of animal-source products in high-income settings are major drivers of GHG emissions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Food loss and waste, which account for 8\u0026ndash;10% of global emissions, further exacerbate food and nutrition insecurity and climate change [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Shifting toward sustainable dietary patterns could reduce global emissions by 17% while simultaneously improving nutrition. This need for integrated action is further underscored by the staggering cost of inaction, with diet-related emissions projected to impose USD 1.7 trillion in social costs annually by 2030 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Greater alignment between climate and nutrition is urgently needed to drive effective, mutually reinforcing solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNonetheless, progress on integrated climate and nutrition action remains hindered by a fragmented financial structure. The 2024 Investment Framework for Nutrition highlights the severe underfunding of nutrition, with a \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e128\u0026nbsp;billion annual gap needed to meet maternal- and child-focused nutrition targets via evidence-based interventions over the next decade [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Meanwhile, although climate financing is still insufficient to fully address the scale of challenges, there has been substantial growth in climate finance flows, reaching \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e1.3 trillion annually in public and private funds [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite the evident linkages between climate and nutrition, these investments rarely integrate the latter. An analysis of official development assistance (ODA) funding to climate in 2019\u0026ndash;2021 conducted by the Initiative on Climate Action and Nutrition (I-CAN) found that only 1% of grants explicitly mentioned nutrition, accounting for \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e3.6\u0026nbsp;billion out of a total \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e289\u0026nbsp;billion in climate financing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, despite the fact that agrifood systems contribute around one-third of global GHG emissions, funding for the agrifood sector accounts for only 4.3% of global climate finance dedicated to both mitigation and adaptation efforts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. The limited consideration of nutrition impacts in climate investments reflects a missed opportunity to optimize their investments to deliver the biggest impacts on climate objectives through often unexplored nutrition-smart actions where synergies naturally align with funds\u0026rsquo; primary goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo unlock these opportunities, an integrated investment approach is needed, leveraging climate funds for nutrition-smart interventions that deliver both climate and nutrition objectives, in full respect of their primary functions and mandates. Such efforts can bridge existing gaps in funding and strategy, focusing on enhancing synergies and ensuring alignment with the principles of equity and sustainability underscored by the 2015 Paris Agreement. By doing so, global stakeholders can accelerate progress toward addressing the dual crises of climate change and malnutrition, delivering transformative outcomes for people and the planet.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper does not criticize or assess funds\u0026rsquo; performance or design, but rather seeks to map opportunities for climate funds to support nutrition-smart actions where complementary to their climate objectives. Specifically, it sets out the process for developing a scoring methodology for evaluating the compatibility of climate funds with nutrition-smart actions and summarizes the key findings. By establishing clear criteria, this methodology will provide a structured approach to assessing the potential for climate financing mechanisms to support integrated climate and nutrition activities, hereby referred to as the \u003cem\u003escope for nutrition integration\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eObjectives:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelop a replicable scoring methodology to evaluate the scope of climate funds for financing nutrition-smart activities, creating a standardized approach for assessing their alignment with nutrition objectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eApply the scoring methodology to the Climate Funds Update (CFU) database, systematically reviewing and rating active funds based on their scope for nutrition integration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eProvide a case study to illustrate how climate financing can effectively address both climate change and nutrition challenges, providing practical insights into leveraging climate funds for nutrition co-benefits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper aims to serve as a practical framework for identifying opportunities to integrate nutrition-smart investments within climate financing, focusing on synergies that align with and support the core mandates of the assessed funds. By doing so, it also encourages funders to consider streamlining and enhancing the inclusion of nutrition considerations in climate financing mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a comprehensive descriptive characterization of climate financing funds, followed by structured scoring to evaluate their scope for financing nutrition-smart activities. The primary data source was the CFU database, which provided the main list of funds for analysis (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. CFU was selected due to its credibility, comprehensiveness, and focus on multilateral climate change funds. The database systematically compiles and tracks data on climate finance, drawing from fund websites, official reporting, and other reliable sources, with additional verification through correspondence with fund managers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA systematic three-step approach was employed to identify and evaluate relevant climate funds. First, a preliminary exploration of the CFU fund list led to the identification of 28 potential climate funds. The information from the CFU list was systematically triangulated with the funds\u0026rsquo; official websites. Of these, 10 were excluded because their funding windows had closed or they were no longer operational, reducing the number of eligible funds to 14 as of December 2024. During a subsequent screening process, 4 additional climate-finance funds were identified. These funds were actively funding projects but had not yet been updated in the CFU database. After incorporating these funds, the final dataset for analysis comprised 18 funds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecondly, the official websites of the eligible funds were explored to extract key descriptive attributes and categorize the funds accordingly. These attributes included: (1) fund size (total monetary value available for all projects); (2) climate action focus of the fund, which may be exclusively on mitigation, adaptation, resilience, or on an combination of these; (3) geographic focus (national, regional, or global) and (4) social inclusion focus, including whether the fund emphasizes the prioritization of people-centered approaches, a gender focus, or other equity considerations. Supplementary \u003cb\u003eTable S.1\u003c/b\u003e provides a detailed description of each of these attributes and the descriptive categories that were defined to categorize funds accordingly. This approach provided a thorough understanding of each fund\u0026rsquo;s main priorities, overall characteristics, and funding scope, forming the foundation for the subsequent scoring process. Additionally, the output of this descriptive process also provides a quick reference for interested fund applicants to find information on the relevant active funds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis descriptive process was followed by a systematic evaluation of the funds to determine their scope for nutrition integration. The evaluation was based on a structured scoring framework, which was constructed inductively, through an iterative process as the review of the funds progressed. The resulting scoring framework presented four criteria: (1) the extent to which the fund\u0026rsquo;s mandate explicitly or implicitly supported nutrition-related goals, (2) the flexibility of the fund\u0026rsquo;s structure to integrate nutrition components, (3) the presence of clearly visible nutrition activities across sectors, including both robust evidence-based options (refer to Table S.2.) and less established ones, among the examples of potential activities to be financed presented in the fund\u0026rsquo;s externally facing resources, and (4) the existence of publicly available records of previous projects with nutrition or nutrition-smart components. Each criterion was scored on a three-point scale (1 to 3), with 1 representing the least potential for nutrition integration and 3 the most. After scoring each criterion, funds were assigned a final composite score ranging from 0 to 8 points, reflecting three levels of overall scope for nutrition integration: level 1: limited scope (score: 0\u0026ndash;2); level 2: some scope (score: 3\u0026ndash;5); level 3: strong scope (score: 6\u0026ndash;8). The scoring methodology, including details on weighting and categorization criteria, is outlined in Supplementary Table S.3.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo ensure consistency and methodological rigor, three of the authors (CD, NRV, MVC) collaboratively scored an initial sample of 3 funds to calibrate their interpretation of the scoring framework. This process involved independently applying the framework, comparing results, and identifying any discrepancies in scoring. Differences in interpretation were systematically discussed, and necessary refinements were made to enhance clarity and reliability. Once a shared understanding was established, one of the authors (NRV) proceeded to score the remaining funds, while another (CD) conducted additional randomly selected reviews. Any remaining inconsistencies were addressed through structured consensus discussions, reinforcing the robustness and reliability of the scoring approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo illustrate how climate finance can support both nutrition and climate-related interventions, a relevant project example was synthesized and presented into a case study. A recent project from a highly relevant context, financed through a fund categorized as Level 3 (strong scope for nutrition integration) was selected for this purpose. The case study provides a real-world example of how climate financing mechanisms can be leveraged to support nutrition-smart programming.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e provides a descriptive overview of the study\u0026rsquo;s 18 climate funds of interest, including their geographic focus, official name, fund size, social inclusion focus (people-centered, gender-focused and/or other equity focus), and climate action focus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOf the 18 climate funds analyzed, 15 (83.3%) operate at a global level, financing projects in multiple regions and countries. One fund, the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), operates at the regional level across 6 Central African countries: Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and the Republic of the Congo, to support implementation of the Paris Agreement [40]. The remaining 2 funds operate at the national level: the Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF) [42], managed under the Government of Indonesia, and the Amazon Fund, focused on the Amazon rainforest in Brazil [41].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe funds analyzed vary significantly in size, reflecting their diverse objectives and geographic reach. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the largest by a substantial margin, with a total size of USD $51.96 billion, highlighting its critical role in global climate finance. Other significant funds include the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) with USD $5.4 billion and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) 8 with USD $5.33 billion. Most of the other funds range from several hundred million to a few billion dollars, supporting a wide array of climate-related initiatives across different sectors. The smallest fund included in the analysis was the ICCTF, with USD $16.5 million, reflecting its narrow country focus.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding the priorities of climate funds\u0026mdash;including their focus on social inclusion and the type of climate action they support\u0026mdash;is essential for identifying opportunities to integrate nutrition-smart interventions into climate financed activities. The descriptive analysis reveals that all assessed climate funds incorporate social inclusion in some form, with most emphasizing a comprehensive approach that includes people-centered strategies, a gender focus, and other equity considerations. While social inclusion seems to be a consistent focus, climate action priorities show more variation, with some funds focusing on mitigation, others emphasizing adaptation and resilience, and many adopting a mixed approach. Several major funds, including the GCF, GEF, and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), support all three dimensions\u0026mdash;adaptation, resilience, and mitigation\u0026mdash;offering broad opportunities for integrated climate and nutrition investments. Notably, most adaptation-focused funds (10 out of 13) also emphasize resilience, demonstrating a strong commitment to strengthening communities\u0026rsquo; ability to withstand climate shocks. Meanwhile, 5 funds\u0026mdash;such as the CTF and the UN-REDD Programme\u0026mdash;focus exclusively on mitigation, primarily targeting emissions reduction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e presents the results of the systematic evaluation of the 18 funds to assess their scope for nutrition integration\u0026apos; categorizing them into 3 tiers: Level 1 (limited), Level 2 (some), and Level 3 (strong). Over half of the funds (12/18) demonstrate strong potential for financing nutrition, signaling substantial opportunities for integration. Conversely, only a few funds showed limited compatibility with financing nutrition activities, with 3 funds classified as Level 1 and another 3 as Level 2. \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1\u003c/strong\u003e further visualizes the funds\u0026rsquo; level of overall scope for integration by their climate action focus. Overall, the figure suggests that funds with a stronger scope for nutrition integration tend to align with more comprehensive climate action approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CTF, Partnership for Market Implementation (PMI), and Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low Income Countries (SREP) are the funds that scored the lowest in in scope for nutrition integration (Level 1). These funds scored 0 across all criteria, indicating that: they have no explicit or implicit alignment with nutrition-related goals in their mandate, their funding structures have strict criteria with minimal flexibility for nutrition-related components, their externally available materials do not reference nutrition actions, and there currently are no public records of past nutrition-related investments. As shown in Figure 1, these funds fall under exclusive mitigation action, more specifically on clean energy, technology and market-based mechanisms, which may make the inclusion of nutrition in their objectives less intuitive.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed a second set of funds with moderate (Level 2) scope for nutrition integration. These are the Forest Investment Program (FIP), Forest Carbon Partnership Facility - Carbon Fund (FCPF-CF), and UN-REDD Programme, which are focused on forest management. Similarly to Level 1 funds, most Level 2 funds appear to focus more narrowly on mitigation (Figure 1), with the exception of the FIP, which has a comprehensive climate action focus, and have either limited or no explicit mandate alignment with nutrition. FIP and UN-REDD are more flexible, which is reflected in their explicit inclusion of nutrition in their focus, while FCPF-CF\u0026rsquo;s structure remains rigid in the ability to incorporate nutrition-smart activities. Publicly available records suggest some precedent for funding nutrition-relevant components, but these remain sporadic.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe remaining funds (n=12) were classified as having strong scope for nutrition integration, scoring highly across all 4 criteria. Within this category, 2 subgroups emerged. The first subgroup (n=6) consists of funds with limited mandate alignment but strong implementation potential, such as CAFI, the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), the Amazon Fund, GCF, ICCTF, and the Global Climate Change Alliance+ (GCCA+). Despite nutrition not being a core component of their mandates, these funds have flexible structures and have already financed some nutrition-smart activities. The second subgroup (n=6) includes funds with explicit or strong alignment with nutrition, such as the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Program (ASAP+), the Adaptation Fund, GEF, LDCF, the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), and the BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL). These funds not only have the flexibility to integrate nutrition but also explicitly align with nutrition goals, making them the most promising avenues for investment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith the exception of the SCCF, all Level 3 funds were found to prioritize integrated climate action. These funds either focus on a comprehensive approach that includes adaptation, resilience, and mitigation, or combine adaptation with resilience or mitigation (\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1\u003c/strong\u003e). This pattern suggests that funds that include adaptation in their focus, and those with a multifaceted climate action approach, present greater compatibility to financing nutrition-smart activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs shown in \u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e under the third scoring criterion (i.e. visibility of nutrition action), 14 out of 18 funds explicitly reference nutrition-related activities in their publicly available materials as examples of potential financing areas. Among these, 12 funds go further by highlighting not just general nutrition activities, but also specific, highly effective interventions recognized as \u0026quot;best buys\u0026quot; for improving nutrition outcomes in the Investment Framework for Nutrition 2024 [4] \u0026nbsp; (see \u003cstrong\u003eTable S.2\u003c/strong\u003e for a list of these interventions). \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003efurther displays the specific best-buy interventions referenced by each of the 12 funds, grouped into sector-specific categories. Most climate funds have a narrow focus on the types of nutrition interventions they visibly reference. Nutrition-smart agriculture appears most frequently, referenced by all 12 funds, followed by water, sanitation, and hygiene\u0026nbsp;(WASH) and water insecurity, referenced by 7 funds. However, only one fund (GEF) explicitly mentions supporting key health sector interventions, specifically vector-borne infection control in pregnancy. Notably absent from fund materials are other critical, climate-relevant\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e health interventions, including prenatal and child micronutrient supplementation, macronutrient and micronutrient supplements for young children, and breastfeeding promotion. Similarly, safety net programs\u0026mdash;such as cash or food transfers and vouchers\u0026mdash;are not explicitly referenced in the examples provided by any fund.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess the potential financing capacity for nutrition, \u003cstrong\u003eFigure 3\u003c/strong\u003e presents total funding volumes (in USD) categorized by level of scope for nutrition integration. The GCF, which has strong scope (Level 3), is excluded from the visualization due to its disproportionate size. Overall, the figure highlights a substantial pool of funding, beyond that of the GCF, that is potentially available to financing nutrition\u0026mdash;primarily from Level 3 funds (green) and, to a lesser extent, Level 2 funds (orange), including several mid- and large-sized funds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo illustrate how climate finance can be leveraged for nutrition, the textbox below presents a case study from a Level 3 fund. The GCF provided a $25 million investment to One Acre Fund in Burundi, a country facing high rates of malnutrition and climate vulnerability. This project demonstrates how climate finance can be directed toward smallholder farmers to support both climate adaptation and improved nutrition outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"612\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 612px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCase Study 1: \u0026quot;Scaling Up Climate Resilience Solutions for Burundian Smallholders.\u0026quot; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 612px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn 2024, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) provided a $25 million award to a non-profit social enterprise, One Acre Fund, to scale a market-based model for improving smallholder crop production and climate resilience in Burundi. Burundi presents a unique context for climate-finance investments targeting nutrition: it has one of the highest stunting rates in the world, with over 55% of children in rural areas affected[45]; over 80% of the population is engaged in subsistence agriculture[46], dependent on rainfall patterns for securing their livelihoods; and the country has one of the world\u0026rsquo;s highest poverty rates, at 62% of the population[47]. These factors combine to make it uniquely vulnerable to the integrated risks of climate change and malnutrition. While this profile of population represents one of the highest need-case for climate finance for adaptation, only 0.3% of global climate finance reaches smallholder farmers like those in Burundi today.[48] Increasing the proportion of climate finance reaching smallholders not only offers the opportunity to support farmers in adequately adapting to climate change and adopting practices that mitigate the impact of farming on the environment, it also presents a promising mechanism to deploy climate finance to deliver nutrition gains, given the role smallholders play in land stewardship and food production, as well as the high rates of malnutrition among smallholder communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGCF\u0026rsquo;s investment in One Acre Fund\u0026rsquo;s Burundi program is focused on crop production, climate resilience, and food security, providing a foundation for the integration of several nutrition activities. This includes activities aimed at preserving ecosystem services in support of food production, for example agroforestry to prevent erosion and land degradation, as well as soil health training and promotion of nitrogen-fixing legumes. The service-delivery model also targets food supply chains, including training and provision of inputs to increase and diversify production and safe storage of nutrient-dense and, in some cases, biofortified staple crops, with a focus on both homestead production for self-consumption and activities linking smallholder farmers to markets. Lastly, data on food security and household dietary diversity is regularly collected.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne Acre Fund\u0026rsquo;s unique smallholder direct service model opens up additional opportunities to reinforce nutrition co-benefits. This could include, for example, nutrition training coupled with financial incentives to encourage and enable smallholders to consume healthy, diverse diets; promotion of indigenous, climate-resilient, nutritious crop varieties; or activities linking demand with supply of diverse, nutritious food to incentivize diversified production. One Acre Fund regularly runs trials to test and scale innovative methods to introduce these interventions into its service delivery model, enabling it to improve and expand the entry points and impact of its crop production services on nutrition.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGCF\u0026rsquo;s investment in One Acre Fund was its first investment under the pilot Project Specific Assessment Approach (PSAA), an initiative intended to streamline and broaden access to GCF finance for new partners, countries, and technologies. Given the multi-faceted challenges of reaching rural smallholders who disproportionately suffer from both climate change and malnutrition, innovative and nimble financing programs such as PSAA may be increasingly important for enabling large-scale climate finance to deliver nutrition outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights a major opportunity: many active climate funds are well-positioned to integrate nutrition-focused interventions and thereby to enhance achievement of both climate and nutrition objectives. Notably, some of the largest and most multifaceted funds, such as the GCF, offer substantial fiscal space for scaling up action that will deliver these mutually reinforcing benefits. Leveraging these funds presents a critical opportunity to enhance climate mitigation, resilience, and adaptation through a nutrition lens, while also harnessing much-needed resources to address malnutrition at a time of growing financial constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond identifying a large number of funds that have clear pathways for nutrition inclusion (Level 3), this study has also uncovered valuable opportunities within seemingly limited-scope funds for nutrition integration (Level 2 and Level 1). One such pathway is through social inclusion, which is a core focus of all the assessed climate funds, offering an important entry point for integrating nutrition-smart actions. Groups that tend to be at risk of being excluded, such as women and indigenous communities, are disproportionately affected by both climate and malnutrition challenges, but also play a key role in building resilience and enabling adaptation and mitigation solutions. Incorporating nutrition actions within climate-related investments that focus on social inclusion can enhance impacts on equitable and sustainable development. This approach is in line with the principles of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which emphasize human rights, the right to health, and gender equality. For example, integrating policies and actions that create an enabling environment for women to breastfeed is fundamental for social inclusion objectives, delivers far-reaching benefits for health and nutrition, and supports climate goals. Breastfeeding is a \u0026lsquo;clean technology\u0026rsquo;, and enhancing the ability of women to breastfeed will reduce GHG emissions linked to the industrial production of commercial milk formula. Supporting breastfeeding also yields up to \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e44.4 in economic returns for every dollar invested due to the impacts on child mortality and human capital development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, breastfeeding enhances climate resilience by providing a safe, locally available food source for infants during crises [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother untapped opportunity lies within mitigation-focused funds. While these funds generally scored lower in terms of their scope for nutrition integration in our analysis, they still present indirect opportunities for supporting nutrition-smart actions. On top of the aforementioned mitigation potential of breastfeeding, many more opportunities exist within the broader food system, where climate and nutrition goals can align to deliver impactful solutions. Current trends in rising GDP and urbanization are driving dietary shifts, with increased consumption of refined sugars, oils, and animal-source foods. If this continues, food production and land use could contribute to an 80% increase in GHG emissions by 2050 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. UPFs are a key example, accounting for up to one-third of diet-related GHG emissions in high-income countries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. Failing to address agrifood systems within climate mitigation efforts could prevent the world from achieving the goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5\u0026deg;C above pre-industrial levels [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Reducing the production and consumption of UPFs offers an important entry point to align mitigation and nutrition goals. Harnessing climate mitigation finance to drive production and consumption of healthier diets will amplify impacts on GHG emissions and the environment whilst simultaneously benefiting human health and well-being.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunds targeting forest management also demonstrate some scope for nutrition integration, offering a promising but underexplored opportunity to dig into the role that forests play in food and nutrition security, diets, and livelihoods. Forests and tree-based agricultural systems support an estimated one billion people globally, providing wild foods, micronutrient-rich fruits, and essential ecosystem services for sustainable food production. However, large-scale industrial expansion threatens these contributions, particularly in tropical regions where forest-dependent communities rely on diverse forest foods [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. These funds could explore entry points such as supporting indigenous and local communities, which are disproportionately affected by both climate and nutrition challenges but also serve as stewards of forest ecosystems. Integrating nutrition-smart approaches into forest conservation strategies can enhance food access, improve dietary diversity, and contribute to a more sustainable and equitable food system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile it is clear that there are concrete opportunities to enhance how climate finance can deliver both climate and nutrition objectives, it will be important to avoid \u0026lsquo;nutri-washing\u0026rsquo;\u0026mdash;whereby nutrition is included superficially in programming, without delivering tangible benefits. The integration of nutrition objectives and actions must be done purposefully and effectively. From our analysis, it is evident that nutrition-smart agriculture is a central focus for funds that are compatible with financing nutrition, yet there is space to also explore alternative opportunities outside of this sector. This study outlines several recently validated nutrition interventions in different sectors that have proven effective in low- and middle-income countries (refer to S.2). By ensuring that investments are aligned with the latest evidence and incorporating different interventions, funds can maximize their effectiveness and support transformative co-benefits for nutrition and climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience. Additionally, when climate funds do choose to invest in agriculture-focused programs, we would encourage incorporating proven nutrition-smart elements that are known to effectively improve co-benefits (summarized in Table S.2, row on agriculture). The One Acre Fund case study provides an example of a good starting point of a nutrition-smart agriculture program that could consider gradually introducing demand-side interventions alongside supply-side solutions to enhance its potential to impact nutrition and simultaneously strengthen participants\u0026rsquo; resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile integrating nutrition and climate goals creates opportunities for co-benefits, we emphasize that these synergies must not overshadow the primary focus on climate action. We recommend striking a balance by maintaining climate goals as the central focus, while promoting evidence-based actions that enhance nutrition outcomes whenever possible. For instance, malaria prevention\u0026mdash;the only health sector high-impact strategy supported by one of the funds in this analysis\u0026mdash;not only plays a vital role in maternal and child nutrition but is also an important critical climate adaptation activity due to the increased risk of disease transmission associated with rising temperatures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aligns closely with the priorities of the 2025 Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit in Paris, highlighting the urgent need for the integration of nutrition into complementary global priorities, and for mobilizing resources through mechanisms beyond traditional donor-country ODA. By proposing a framework that leverages climate finance to support nutrition-smart interventions, global stakeholders can enhance resilience, strengthen adaptation efforts, and advance climate mitigation goals\u0026mdash;ultimately driving transformative outcomes for people and the planet.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study has some limitations. First, one of our criteria for scoring the level of scope for nutrition integration gave slightly more weight to funds that emphasized evidence-based nutrition interventions identified as the most effective \"best buys\" for nutrition, as outlined in the recently published Investment Framework for Nutrition [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e] (refer to S.2). While this evidence is derived from high-quality reviews, we acknowledge that these interventions primarily focus on Sustainable Development Goal 2.2 outcomes and are most relevant for low- and middle-income contexts. Yet, we note that, whilst the inclusion of other nutrition activities was scored slightly lower, it was still rated positively, allowing for a more nuanced assessment that includes both established and promising interventions. An additional limitation of this assessment is that the list of climate funds we evaluated may not be fully representative of the broader landscape of available funds, and we were constrained by the publicly available information for each fund. Funds that did not openly present themselves as supportive of financing nutrition, or did not provide sufficient public information, may have been rated with a lower score. While we examined a range of documents and sources to rate each fund, there may be additional details not captured in our review that could have influenced the scores. At the same time, we believe that transparency is an essential element of a fund committed to supporting broader goals, and we encourage climate funds to openly communicate their intention to support nutrition or other Environmental, Social, and Governance goals.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the significant opportunities within currently active climate funds to integrate nutrition-smart interventions, enhancing climate mitigation, resilience, and adaptation through a nutrition lens. Leveraging these funds can mobilize much-needed resources, in alignment with the 2025 Paris N4G Summit and the 2024 Investment Framework for Nutrition\u0026rsquo;s call to close the financing gap for nutrition, while strengthening climate funds\u0026rsquo; impacts on their primary goals. While most funds were found to have scope for supporting nutrition activities, further opportunities may be unlocked by leveraging strategic entry points. To maximize impact, nutrition must be intentionally and effectively integrated, and the inclusion of evidence-based solutions from both traditional and less commonly considered sectors should be considered. By balancing climate goals with nutrition-smart interventions, climate funds can unlock transformative co-benefits, fostering both environmental and human well-being, especially for vulnerable populations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"List of Acronyms","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenhouse Gas (GHG)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUltra-Processed Foods (UPFs)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOfficial Development Assistance (ODA)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInitiative on Climate Action and Nutrition (I-CAN)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClimate Funds Update (CFU)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCentral African Forest Initiative (CAFI)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreen Climate Fund (GCF)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States Dollars (USD)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClean Technology Fund (CTF)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGlobal Environment Facility (GEF)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeast Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUN-REDD Programme (UN-REDD)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePartnership for Market Implementation (PMI)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScaling-Up Renewable Energy Program for Low Income Countries (SREP)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eForest Investment Program (FIP)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eForest Carbon Partnership Facility - Carbon Fund (FCPF-CF)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpecial Climate Change Fund (SCCF)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGlobal Climate Change Alliance+ (GCCA+)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP+)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInitiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWater, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnited States Dollars (USD)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNutrition for Growth (N4G)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProject Specific Assessment Approach (PSAA)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmall-Quantity Lipid-Based Nutrient Supplements (SQ-LNS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eReady-to-Use Therapeutic Foods (RUTF)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultiple Micronutrient Supplementation (MMS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicronutrient Powders (MNP)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBehavior Change Communication (BCCs)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cul type=\"disc\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConsent for publication: Not applicable\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAvailability of data and materials: \u0026nbsp;The analysis is based on data available on the public domain\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCompeting interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunding: Financial support for this work was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Government of Japan through the World Bank Nutrition Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Scaling Up Nutrition\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions: CD conceptualized the objectives, contributed to developing the methodology and the analysis, and drafted the full manuscript. NRV contributed to the methodology and carried out the data analysis, contributed to drafting the paper. SL conceptualized and drafted the case study. \u0026nbsp;SN and SD provided critical inputs and comments that led to the final draft. XXCL contributed to the development of the case study and provided comments to the early drafts. MVC provided inputs for the conceptualization and drafting of the study.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAcknowledgements: We thank Jess Colston for her insights. We are extremely grateful to Abigail Perry for her careful comments and insights that led to the final version of this paper.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDisclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated. No responsibility for them should be attributed to those institutions.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), editor. Technical Summary. Clim Change 2022 \u0026ndash; Impacts Adapt Vulnerability Work Group II Contrib Sixth Assess Rep Intergov Panel Clim Change [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 11]. p. 37\u0026ndash;118. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/climate-change-2022-impacts-adaptation-and-vulnerability/technical-summary/124D9019DECBF96BDB2979ABF494644D\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, Monforti-Ferrario F, Tubiello FN, Leip A. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food. 2021;2:198\u0026ndash;209.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiong X, Zhang L, Hao Y, Zhang P, Shi Z, Zhang T. How urbanization and ecological conditions affect urban diet-linked GHG emissions: New evidence from China. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2022;176:105903.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShekar M, Okamura KS, Vilar-Compte M, Dell\u0026rsquo;Aira C. Investment Framework for Nutrition. Washington, DC: World Bank.; 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSunderland TCH. Food security: why is biodiversity important? Int For Rev. 2011;13:265\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMirzabaev A, Bezner Kerr R, Hasegawa T, Pradhan P, Wreford A, Cristina Tirado Von Der Pahlen M, et al. Severe climate change risks to food security and nutrition. Clim Risk Manag. 2023;39:100473.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurke M, Hsiang SM, Miguel E. Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature. 2015;527:235\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGitz V, Meybeck A, Lipper L, Young CD, Braatz S. Climate Change and Food Security: Risks and Responses. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2016. Report No.: 110, 3-36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEbi KL, Loladze I. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and climate change will affect our food\u0026rsquo;s quality and quantity. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3:e283\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeach RH, Sulser TB, Crimmins A, Cenacchi N, Cole J, Fukagawa NK, et al. Combining the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on protein, iron, and zinc availability and projected climate change on global diets: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3:e307\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomanello M, Walawender M, Hsu S-C, Moskeland A, Palmeiro-Silva Y, Scamman D, et al. The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action. The Lancet. 2024;404:1847\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReview of Evidence of Interventions to Improve Nutrition Outcomes During Climate Shocks and Stressors: Evidence Review Report | USAID Advancing Nutrition [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 14]. Available from: https://www.advancingnutrition.org/resources/review-evidence-interventions-improve-nutrition-outcomes-during-climate-shocks-stressors\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShankar K, Ali SA, Ruebel ML, Jessani S, Borengasser SJ, Gilley SP, et al. Maternal nutritional status modifies heat-associated growth restriction in women with chronic malnutrition. PNAS Nexus. 2023;2:pgac309.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). Chapter 3: Climate Change: Exacerbating Poverty and Inequality.\u0026rdquo; In World Social Report: Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World [Internet]. New York, NY: UNDESA; p. 81\u0026ndash;107. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content /uploads/sites/22/2020/02/World-Social-Report-2020-Chapter-3.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStanding Together for Nutrition (ST4N). The Climate Crisis and the Nutrition Crisis Are Intertwined: The need and the opportunity for policy action to address both crises simultaneously. Washington, DC: Micronutrient Forum; 2025;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLok XXC, Colston J, Haddad L. Accelerating action and opening opportunities: a closer integration of climate and nutrition. Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN); 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO. Climate action and nutrition. 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 17]; Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cc8415en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeal T, Gardner CD, Herrero M, Iannotti LL, Merbold L, Nordhagen S, et al. Friend or Foe? The Role of Animal-Source Foods in Healthy and Environmentally Sustainable Diets. J Nutr. 2023;153:409\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCederberg C, Sonesson U. Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention; study conducted for the International Congress Save Food! at Interpack 2011, [16 - 17 May], D\u0026uuml;sseldorf, Germany. Gustavsson J, editor. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2011.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNEP, editor. The heat is on: a world of climate promises not yet delivered. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2021.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. [Internet]. Rome: FAO; 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9692en\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuchner B, Naran B, Padmanabhi R, Stout S, Strinati C, Wignarajah D, et al. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023. Climate Policy Initative; 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSutton, WR, Lotsch A, Prasann A. Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System. Washington, DC: World Bank Group; 2024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClimate Funds Update - [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) - Climate Funds Update [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/adaptation-for-smallholder-agriculture-programme-asap/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eafadmin. AF [Internet]. Adapt. Fund. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.adaptation-fund.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBioCarbon Fund - Climate Funds Update [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/biocarbon-fund/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClean Technology Fund | Climate Investment Funds [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.cif.org/topics/clean-technologies\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHome | Forest Carbon Partnership Facility [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForest Investment Program | Climate Investment Funds [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.cif.org/topics/sustainable-forests\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGEF-8 Replenishment [Internet]. Glob. Environ. Facil. 2022 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/who-we-are/funding/gef-8-replenishment\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHomepage | Green Climate Fund [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.greenclimate.fund/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeast Developed Countries Fund - LDCF [Internet]. Glob. Environ. Facil. 2024 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/what-we-do/topics/least-developed-countries-fund-ldcf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePartnership for Market Implementation | PMI [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://pmiclimate.org/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePilot Program for Climate Resilience | Climate Investment Funds [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.cif.org/topics/climate-resilience\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScaling Up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries | Climate Investment Funds [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.cif.org/topics/energy-access\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpecial Climate Change Fund - SCCF [Internet]. Glob. Environ. Facil. 2024 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.thegef.org/what-we-do/topics/special-climate-change-fund-sccf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUN-REDD. UNREDD Programme [Internet]. UNREDD Programme. 2024 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.un-redd.org/home\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlobal Climate Change Alliance+ | Environmental Migration Portal [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://environmentalmigration.iom.int/global-climate-change-alliance\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCentral Africa Forest Initative (CAFI). Central Africa Forest Initative (CAFI) [Internet]. Accel. Reforms Cent. Afr. 2025. Available from: https://www.cafi.org/welcome\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmazon Fund - Climate Funds Update [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/amazon-fund/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIndonesia Climate Change Trust Fund - Climate Funds Update [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://climatefundsupdate.org/the-funds/indonesia-climate-change-trust-fund/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Enhanced Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme [Internet]. IFAD. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.ifad.org/en/initiatives/enhanced-adaptation-smallholder-agriculture-programme\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWho We Are | ISFL [Internet]. [cited 2025 Feb 4]. Available from: https://www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/who-we-are\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNutrition | UNICEF Burundi [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/burundi/nutrition\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurundi [Internet]. IFAD. [cited 2025 Mar 17]. Available from: https://www.ifad.org/en/w/countries/burundi\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePublic Documents | The World Bank [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 17]. Available from: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/webdocs\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClosing the climate finance gap [Internet]. One Acre Fund. [cited 2025 Mar 17]. Available from: https://oneacrefund.org/our-impact/climate-resilience/closing-climate-finance-gap\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLong A, Mintz-Woo K, Daly H, O\u0026rsquo;Connell M, Smyth B, Murphy JD. Infant feeding and the energy transition: A comparison between decarbonising breastmilk substitutes with renewable gas and achieving the global nutrition target for breastfeeding. J Clean Prod. 2021;324:129280.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith JP. A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications. Int Breastfeed J. 2019;14:49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 2014;515:518\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnastasiou, K.; Baker, P.; Hadjikakou, M.; Hendrie, G.A.; Lawrence, M. A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems. J Clean P [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2025 Mar 11];368, 133155. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362165569_A_conceptual_framework_for_understanding_the_environmental_impacts_of_ultra-processed_foods_and_implications_for_sustainable_food_systems\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Relevance to climate action of these interventions is presented in \u003cb\u003eTable S.2\u003c/b\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 and 2 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"nutrition financing, climate fund, co-benefits, nutrition-smart activities","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6272252/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6272252/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e: The intertwined challenges of climate change and malnutrition amplify each other, with climate change exacerbating malnutrition, particularly in vulnerable populations; and food systems significantly contributing to emissions and environmental degradation. Addressing these issues together offers opportunities for shared gains, yet funding streams for these sectors remain siloed and misaligned.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjective\u003c/strong\u003e: This study developed a scoring methodology to assess the compatibility of climate funds with financing nutrition-smart actions where synergies align with climate funds’ primary goals, referred to as the \"\u003cem\u003escope for nutrition integration”\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e: Using the Climate Funds Update database, 18 active climate funds were systematically reviewed and rated based on their potential for financing nutrition-smart activities. The study included a descriptive characterization of funds to identify entry points and understand their geographic reach, size, and focus. The scoring methodology considered four criteria: mandate alignment with nutrition objectives, flexibility in funding structure, visibility of nutrition action, and publicly available precedents for nutrition-related projects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e: Out of the 18 climate funds analyzed, 12 had strong scope for nutrition integration, 3 had some scope, and 3 had limited scope. Many of these funds offer promising opportunities given their large financing availability. Most funds' descriptive characterization revealed a social inclusion focus, representing important entry points for integrating nutrition-smart activities even in funds with seemingly less integration potential. Climate funds with comprehensive climate action approaches combining mitigation, adaptation, and resilience exhibited the strongest alignment with nutrition integration potential. Mitigation funds were the most limited in their scope for financing nutrition-smart activities, but important untapped opportunities exist for nutrition-smart climate mitigation. A case study of the Green Climate Fund’s investment in Burundi highlights how climate finance can support both climate adaptation and improved nutrition outcomes, emphasizing the need for purposeful, evidence-based integration of nutrition.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e: This paper provides a practical framework for identifying opportunities to integrate nutrition-smart activities within climate financing, aiming to enhance resilience, strengthen adaptation efforts, and advance climate mitigation goals through a nutrition lens. By doing so, global stakeholders can address the dual crises of climate change and malnutrition, driving transformative outcomes for people and the planet.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Dual Challenges, Shared Wins: Unlocking Climate Financing for Nutrition","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-03-26 09:53:43","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6272252/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4c61efbb-f4be-40ae-b80b-21d10dc52ecc","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-16T18:38:28+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-03-26 09:53:43","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6272252","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6272252","identity":"rs-6272252","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}