Fighting Climate Chaos: National Working Groups (NWGs) Driving Resilience through Climate Mapping, Local Adaptation, and Policy

As climate-related risks intensify globally, nations are increasingly seeking adaptive strategies that go beyond top-down governance to include local voices, scientific data, and cross-sectoral coordination. This article examines how National Working Groups (NWGs) in Uganda, the United States, and Canada are addressing climate chaos through an integrated model of climate vulnerability mapping, community-based adaptation workshops, and policy drafting aligned with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These NWGs function as vital platforms connecting science, policy, and society, enabling context-specific solutions that build both local and systemic resilience. 

In Uganda, NWGs identify drought-prone and flood-risk zones using participatory GIS tools to inform smallholder farming strategies, water conservation, and localized adaptation planning. In the United States, federally supported NWGs employ high-resolution geospatial tools to map hurricane vulnerability and greenhouse gas hotspots, complemented by community workshops and large-scale adaptation funding. Canada’s NWGs, notably in Indigenous communities, emphasize ecosystem restoration through knowledge-sharing workshops and align reforestation strategies with carbon pricing policies and provincial NDCs. 

A central contribution of this study is its analysis of the enabling factors that shape NWG effectiveness—ranging from governance structures and data access to sociopolitical inclusion and financing mechanisms. Through a comparative lens, the article explores how these conditions influence the design, implementation, and impact of NWG-led adaptation efforts. The findings offer strategic insights for scaling participatory, data-informed, and policy-integrated approaches to climate adaptation globally, reinforcing the need for strong national coordination frameworks backed by local agency and international collaboration. 

Introduction 

The intensifying impacts of climate change are no longer abstract projections—they are present, urgent, and unevenly distributed across global regions. From prolonged droughts in East Africa to intensifying wildfires in Canada and rising sea levels along American coastlines, the vulnerabilities are growing more complex and interconnected (IPCC, 2023). As nations grapple with how to safeguard their populations and ecosystems, it has become increasingly clear that top-down policy alone is insufficient. Effective climate adaptation must integrate local realities, scientific knowledge, participatory tools, and responsive governance mechanisms. 

One of the emerging institutional innovations addressing this need is the formation of National Working Groups (NWGs)—cross-sectoral platforms that facilitate climate action through coordination among government agencies, civil society, academic institutions, and local communities. Functioning at the intersection of science and policy, NWGs play a pivotal role in translating global frameworks—such as the Paris Agreement and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—into context-specific adaptation strategies (Higham et al., 2024). Yet, NWGs are not homogenous; their functionality and impact are profoundly shaped by enabling conditions such as governance capacity, political will, data infrastructure, and social inclusion frameworks. 

This article presents a comparative study of NWGs in Uganda, the United States, and Canada, three countries representing diverse economic systems, governance models, and climate vulnerabilities. While Uganda navigates resource constraints and climate-sensitive rural livelihoods, the United States combines advanced technological capacity with fragmented climate governance. Canada, meanwhile, stands out for its integration of Indigenous knowledge systems and decentralized environmental policymaking. 

Through the lens of three interlinked functions—climate vulnerability mapping, local adaptation workshops, and policy drafting—this study explores how NWGs in each country mobilize scientific data, stakeholder engagement, and policy instruments to build climate resilience. We also analyze the structural enablers that shape each country’s approach: from federal funding streams and carbon pricing in North America to grassroots partnerships and donor-led mapping in Uganda. 

Key enabling factors include: 

• Technological Infrastructure: The USA’s access to high-resolution geospatial data enables sophisticated risk mapping, while Uganda often relies on donor-supported GIS and mobile tools. 
• Governance and Decentralization: Canada and Uganda both exhibit decentralized frameworks that empower local actors, while the USA’s federal-local disconnect can both empower innovation and hinder national coherence. 
• Civic Engagement and Knowledge Systems: Canada’s Indigenous-led models foster ecological restoration through deep place-based knowledge. Uganda’s NWGs integrate farmer and fisherfolk inputs, while the USA emphasizes technical training through community resilience hubs. 
• Policy Instruments and Financing: Uganda explores carbon finance and aligns NWG actions with its NDCs. The USA leverages adaptation funds through FEMA and federal climate packages. Canada couples carbon pricing with reforestation incentives. 

The article proceeds in six sections. Following this introduction, Section 2 examines how NWGs facilitate climate vulnerability mapping, highlighting both the tools employed and the social-political contexts that shape their application. Section 3 focuses on local adaptation workshops and how they operationalize participatory communication, particularly among farmers, fisherfolk, and Indigenous communities. Section 4 turns to policy drafting and financing mechanisms, analyzing how NWGs support alignment with national climate goals and foster enabling environments for action. Section 5 offers a comparative analysis, surfacing cross-country lessons, including the role of enabling factors and the implications for future replication and scale. Finally, Section 6 concludes with a call to action for enhancing NWG support systems and fostering international learning coalitions. 

Ultimately, this article contributes to both climate policy and communication literature by foregrounding the institutional architecture and participatory dynamics of NWGs. It demonstrates that while national contexts differ, the strategic coupling of mapping, engagement, and policy—when backed by appropriate enabling conditions—can produce scalable, just, and effective climate adaptation frameworks. 

Climate Vulnerability Mapping 

Climate vulnerability mapping constitutes the foundational process through which National Working Groups (NWGs) operationalize risk-informed adaptation strategies. By spatially identifying hazard-prone areas and overlaying them with indicators of social, ecological, and infrastructural vulnerability, NWGs provide empirical grounds for prioritizing interventions and directing policy responses. The utility of these mapping initiatives is not merely technical; it is profoundly political and participatory, shaping who gets seen, heard, and protected in the climate adaptation agenda. Across Uganda, the United States, and Canada, the approaches to climate vulnerability mapping vary widely, influenced by the enabling factors intrinsic to each country’s governance structures, data infrastructure, and modes of civic engagement. 

Uganda: Participatory Mapping Under Resource Constraints 

In Uganda, National Working Groups (NWGs) operate within a context characterized by limited technical and financial resources but enriched by a strong tradition of participatory governance and decentralized decision-making. Within this landscape, climate vulnerability mapping has emerged as both a scientific and community-centered endeavor. With the support of international partners such as FAO, UNDP, and CGIAR, NWGs have coordinated the deployment of participatory GIS (PGIS) tools to identify climate-sensitive regions—particularly drought-prone areas in the northeastern Karamoja subregion and flood-risk zones in low-lying districts such as Kasese and Teso. 

The mapping process is embedded in the work of Uganda’s NWGs, which bring together stakeholders from the Ministry of Water and Environment, district planning units, civil society organizations, and academic institutions (Shikuku et al., 2023). A notable innovation is the integration of the SHARP (Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists) toolkit. This approach allows community members—particularly smallholder farmers and fisherfolk—to contribute lived experiences and local knowledge to spatial datasets, enhancing the relevance and contextual accuracy of the maps. 

To strengthen scientific validity, NWGs collaborate with universities and NGOs to incorporate hydrological modeling, satellite imagery, and historical climate trend analysis into the mapping process. These outputs directly inform District Development Plans (DDPs) and are central to Uganda’s National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), influencing the design of climate-smart agricultural extension services and targeted early warning systems. 

Despite these advances, several persistent challenges limit the scale and effectiveness of vulnerability mapping in Uganda. These include inconsistent data resolution across districts, limited access to ICT infrastructure at the local level, and a continued reliance on external technical expertise for data processing and interpretation (Buyana & Walubwa, 2025). 

Nonetheless, the effectiveness of Uganda’s NWG-led mapping initiatives is underpinned by a set of enabling factors. These include a strong institutional commitment to decentralized planning, robust partnerships with donor agencies and NGOs, the cultural legitimacy of participatory knowledge systems, and the strategic alignment of mapping outputs with Uganda’s NDC and NAP frameworks. Together, these elements have positioned vulnerability mapping as a central pillar of Uganda’s climate adaptation strategy. 

United States: High-Resolution Data, Complex Governance 

In the United States, climate vulnerability mapping is supported by one of the world’s most advanced geospatial data ecosystems, underpinned by high-resolution satellite imagery, predictive modeling, and extensive public data infrastructure. Federal agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed and operationalized an array of decision-support tools—including the National Risk Index, the Climate Resilience Toolkit, and Hazus—that inform climate risk assessment at federal, state, and local levels (Hamilton et al., 2018). These tools are utilized by NWGs across different jurisdictions to map hazards such as hurricanes, wildfires, sea-level rise, and urban heat islands. In coastal states like Florida, Louisiana, and New York, NWGs collaborate with universities, emergency management agencies, and community organizations to apply geospatial data in identifying critical zones of exposure and designing localized adaptation measures. 

A key evolution in U.S. vulnerability mapping is the incorporation of social vulnerability indices, mandated by initiatives such as the Justice40 framework. This policy requires that at least 40% of federal climate and infrastructure investments benefit disadvantaged communities, encouraging NWGs to integrate equity-focused metrics into spatial analyses (Berry et al., 2018). Tools such as the Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) and Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool allow mapping efforts to highlight the disproportionate exposure of low-income, Indigenous, and racially marginalized populations to climate hazards. These developments have reshaped the role of NWGs as both technical and socio-political entities, tasked with ensuring that mapping informs equitable climate planning. 

However, the U.S. model is constrained by its fragmented climate governance. While some states—such as California, New York, and Massachusetts—have institutionalized NWGs with legal authority, dedicated funding, and data-driven mandates, others exhibit political resistance or lack administrative capacity to operationalize mapping outputs. This fragmentation has significant implications, particularly in the face of escalating climate emergencies. The California wildfires, especially those in the Los Angeles region between 2017 and 2025, exposed critical gaps in vulnerability mapping and risk communication. Investigations revealed that although fire risk was well-documented in spatial datasets, interagency coordination failures, delayed community evacuation alerts, and underinvestment in Indigenous fire management knowledge compromised NWG responses (Kolden, 2019; Daniels, 2022). Moreover, vulnerabilities in migrant worker communities—who faced disproportionate exposure to air pollution and displacement—were insufficiently represented in many local-level assessments. 

Enabling conditions for effective mapping in the U.S. include unparalleled access to open geospatial data, advanced remote sensing technologies, and federal funding streams through programs such as FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) initiative and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These provide NWGs with tools and resources to turn spatial knowledge into tangible interventions. However, institutional silos, variable political will, and an underdeveloped framework for cross-jurisdictional coordination often weaken the translation of vulnerability mapping into comprehensive adaptation policy (Moser & Hart, 2015). 

In sum, while the technical sophistication of the U.S. system empowers NWGs to produce granular and multi-dimensional vulnerability maps, the realization of their full potential is heavily dependent on the political and institutional contexts within which they operate. The U.S. experience demonstrates that data availability alone does not guarantee effective adaptation; the integration of mapping into policy and practice hinges on governance coherence, stakeholder engagement, and equitable resource distribution. 

Canada – Indigenous-Led Mapping and Ecosystem-Based Risk Assessment 

In Canada, climate vulnerability mapping reflects a distinctive model grounded in both high scientific capacity and a growing commitment to Indigenous leadership and ecological restoration. National Working Groups (NWGs) function within a federal structure that delegates substantial authority to provinces and Indigenous governments, enabling a diversity of approaches tailored to local contexts. Vulnerability mapping in Canada increasingly embraces integrative methodologies that combine biophysical risk modeling with Indigenous knowledge systems. Central to this process is the “Two-Eyed Seeing” framework, which advocates for viewing the world through both Western scientific and Indigenous knowledge lenses (Bartlett et al., 2012). This paradigm shift has informed community-led projects in the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and British Columbia, where mapping is used to track changes in permafrost, wildfire patterns, biodiversity loss, and cultural landscape integrity. 

National agencies such as Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Natural Resources Canada, and the Canadian Forest Service provide technical guidance and data platforms that support NWG-led vulnerability assessments. Tools such as CanRisk, the Canadian Climate Data and Scenarios (CCDS) portal, and the ClimateData.ca hub allow NWGs to incorporate climate projections, fire weather indices, and ecological sensitivity metrics into mapping outputs. These tools are often deployed in collaboration with Indigenous Guardians programs, Métis and First Nations stewardship teams, and provincial climate adaptation offices. 

One of the most innovative dimensions of Canada’s approach is the integration of ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) into vulnerability assessments. NWGs have supported mapping of carbon-rich landscapes, forest fire corridors, and water catchment zones as part of broader reforestation, carbon sequestration, and species protection plans. This has become especially critical in the wake of increasingly severe wildfire events, such as the Fort McMurray wildfire (2016) and the British Columbia fire seasons of 2021–2023, which underscored the need for vulnerability mapping that anticipates cascading ecological and infrastructural impacts (McGee et al., 2019; Government of Canada, 2023). While data availability is not a major constraint, key challenges persist, including fragmented jurisdiction between federal and provincial agencies, limited integration of Indigenous spatial data into formal planning systems, and slow policy uptake of mapped priorities. 

Enabling conditions for NWG-led mapping in Canada include extensive open-access data infrastructure, well-funded research institutions, and policy frameworks that support Indigenous participation and environmental stewardship. National adaptation funding streams—such as the Climate Adaptation and Resilience Program (CARP) and the Natural Climate Solutions Fund—offer financial and technical support to translate mapping into action. However, gaps remain in mainstreaming Indigenous spatial governance, harmonizing mapping standards across jurisdictions, and ensuring that vulnerability data is effectively embedded into provincial legislation and land-use policy (Ford et al., 2018; Pham & Saner, 2021). 

In essence, Canada’s experience highlights the transformative potential of vulnerability mapping when it is co-produced with communities, aligned with ecosystem restoration goals, and supported by multi-level governance. Yet, it also demonstrates that even with advanced tools and political will, the path from mapped knowledge to policy action is shaped by ongoing struggles over jurisdiction, equity, and epistemological inclusion. 

Comparative Analysis of Mapping Practices 

Taken together, the experiences of Uganda, the United States, and Canada reveal that climate vulnerability mapping is not a purely technical exercise but a deeply socially embedded and politically mediated process. In Uganda, participatory mapping thrives amid resource constraints due to strong community engagement, donor-supported tools such as the SHARP toolkit, and alignment with decentralized governance structures. Despite challenges such as low-resolution data and limited ICT access, Uganda’s NWGs demonstrate how local knowledge systems and civil society partnerships can drive actionable spatial planning. 

The United States showcases the power—and limitations—of advanced geospatial technologies. Federal platforms like FEMA’s Hazus model and NOAA’s Climate Resilience Toolkit offer high-resolution insights into hazard exposure, yet their effectiveness is heavily influenced by state-level governance coherence and political context. While initiatives like Justice40 promote equity integration, recent events such as the California wildfires have exposed how mapping outputs can fail to inform timely, inclusive response due to interagency fragmentation and the marginalization of vulnerable communities. 

Canada, by contrast, illustrates the transformative potential of Indigenous-led mapping embedded within a framework of ecosystem-based risk assessment. Through the application of the Two-Eyed Seeing approach, NWGs have integrated Indigenous spatial knowledge with national climate models to assess wildfire corridors, permafrost thaw, and biodiversity loss. Supported by open-access data platforms and institutional legitimacy, Canada’s mapping efforts exemplify the value of epistemological pluralism. Yet, jurisdictional fragmentation and slow policy uptake continue to limit the impact of these insights on provincial legislation and long-term land-use planning. 

Across all three cases, the effectiveness of NWG-led mapping is shaped not only by data and tools but by a constellation of enabling and constraining factors—including technological infrastructure, governance design, civic participation, and the capacity to translate spatial knowledge into just and responsive adaptation policy. The comparative findings suggest that mapping must be situated within broader institutional ecosystems that prioritize equity, integration, and actionability, reaffirming the centrality of NWGs in building climate resilience from the ground up. 

Table 1: Comparative Analysis – Climate Vulnerability Mapping Across Uganda, USA, and Canada 

Local Adaptation Workshops 

Local adaptation workshops have emerged as a pivotal mechanism through which National Working Groups (NWGs) bridge national climate planning with grounded, community-driven action. These workshops function not only as platforms for information exchange but as arenas of co-production, where scientific data, traditional knowledge, and local priorities are synthesized into tangible adaptation strategies. Across Uganda, the United States, and Canada, the structure, objectives, and impacts of adaptation workshops vary significantly, shaped by differing governance models, institutional cultures, and degrees of community empowerment. However, a shared principle cuts across these contexts: climate adaptation is most effective when it is deliberative, inclusive, and tailored to the lived realities of vulnerable populations. 

In Uganda, NWGs play a direct and facilitative role in organizing local adaptation workshops at both the district and community levels. These workshops often engage smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk, local government planners, and extension workers to identify climate stressors, assess existing coping strategies, and collaboratively develop climate-smart solutions. A key thematic focus is on climate-smart agriculture, including improved seed varieties, soil and water conservation techniques, agroforestry, and seasonal crop calendars informed by localized forecasts (Shikuku et al., 2023). NWGs, often in partnership with NGOs such as the Uganda National Meteorological Authority (UNMA), use these workshops to introduce simplified climate data products (e.g., rainfall projections, drought indices) to local actors, thereby enhancing decision-making capacity. 

Workshops are also instrumental in building social capital, as they bring together diverse stakeholder groups to generate consensus on resource use, adaptation priorities, and mechanisms for accountability. One innovation is the use of participatory scenario planning (PSP) sessions, where community members analyze multiple climate futures and assess trade-offs under different adaptation pathways (Roncoli et al., 2011). Despite their success, Uganda’s adaptation workshops face constraints such as limited follow-up funding, language barriers in technical dissemination, and the need for deeper integration with national budgeting processes. Nonetheless, they remain a vital mechanism through which NWGs translate mapped vulnerabilities into actionable resilience strategies at the local level. 

In the United States, local adaptation workshops are more decentralized and often led by municipal governments, academic institutions, or non-profit organizations—frequently in coordination with state or regional NWGs. These workshops are typically embedded within broader resilience planning processes, such as city-level climate action plans, resilience hubs, and community-based preparedness initiatives. For example, in coastal cities such as Miami, Charleston, and New Orleans, NWGs have convened adaptation workshops that bring together city planners, infrastructure engineers, public health officials, and residents from flood-prone neighborhoods. These engagements focus on designing green infrastructure (e.g., permeable pavements, urban wetlands), flood defense systems, emergency evacuation plans, and—more recently—clean energy transitions (Moser & Pike, 2015). 

A distinguishing feature of the U.S. model is the use of technical facilitation tools such as climate risk visualizations, social vulnerability indices, and real-time scenario simulations to engage stakeholders with diverse levels of expertise. In many cities, workshops also include equity-focused design charrettes to incorporate the perspectives of historically marginalized populations—particularly Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities disproportionately impacted by climate hazards. These efforts have been amplified through federal initiatives like the Justice40 framework and FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which tie funding to participatory engagement standards (U.S. GAO, 2022). However, participation in such workshops remains uneven across states, with political will, institutional capacity, and funding availability influencing their prevalence and effectiveness. Additionally, while workshops often result in innovative pilot projects, the scaling and institutionalization of these locally designed solutions into state or federal adaptation policy remains inconsistent. 

Canada’s approach to local adaptation workshops is uniquely shaped by the leadership of Indigenous communities, particularly in northern and remote regions where climate impacts on forests, wildlife, and permafrost are acute. NWGs in Canada, often composed of provincial ministries, Indigenous governance bodies, and federal agencies like Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), support workshops that prioritize knowledge-sharing, intergenerational learning, and ecosystem restoration planning. These workshops typically focus on land-based adaptation strategies, such as forest fire management through traditional burning practices, reforestation using culturally significant species, and biodiversity protection tied to Indigenous land-use rights (Ford et al., 2018). 

An exemplary model is the Guardians Program, wherein Indigenous youth and Elders jointly assess ecological changes, monitor climate indicators, and contribute to the development of adaptation policies. These efforts are reinforced through funding from the Climate Adaptation and Resilience Program (CARP) and the Indigenous Climate Leadership Fund, which ensure that workshops move beyond consultation to sustained engagement and implementation. The workshops also play a diplomatic role by negotiating epistemological pluralism—reconciling Indigenous cosmologies and Western science in climate decision-making (Whyte, 2020). Nonetheless, gaps persist, including a lack of standardized mechanisms for integrating workshop outcomes into provincial land-use planning, as well as occasional tensions between Indigenous sovereignty and provincial regulatory frameworks. 

A comparative analysis reveals both convergence and divergence in how local adaptation workshops function across these three contexts. In Uganda, workshops are tightly linked to subsistence agriculture and rural livelihoods, driven by urgent adaptation needs and supported by NGO facilitation. The United States emphasizes technical sophistication and infrastructure planning, but faces barriers to equity and policy uptake. Canada foregrounds Indigenous worldviews and ecosystem restoration, advancing a rights-based approach to adaptation. Across all three countries, enabling factors—such as decentralization, civic agency, funding mechanisms, and epistemological legitimacy—determine the quality and impact of workshop-based adaptation. 

Critically, adaptation workshops are not one-off events but institutional touchpoints in a broader ecosystem of climate governance. They serve as feedback loops where local priorities inform national planning and where NWGs can foster trust, co-produce knowledge, and test scalable solutions. When supported by adequate resources and policy pathways, these workshops become engines of social innovation, resilience learning, and climate justice. 

Comparative Table 2 – Local Adaptation Workshops Across Uganda, USA, and Canada 

Policy Drafting and Climate Finance Integration 

The translation of climate vulnerability mapping and community engagement into formal policy frameworks is a defining function of National Working Groups (NWGs). Beyond coordination and consultation, NWGs serve as policy intermediaries, aligning local realities with national climate objectives, most notably Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Across Uganda, the United States, and Canada, NWGs play varying roles in policy drafting—from direct authorship of adaptation plans to advisory input on carbon pricing mechanisms. Their influence is shaped by institutional design, political context, and access to climate finance instruments. 

In Uganda, NWGs play a proactive role in shaping climate policy at both national and sub-national levels. Since the formulation of its NDC in 2015, Uganda has prioritized adaptation sectors such as agriculture, water, forestry, and health—areas where NWGs are most active. These groups, which include ministries (e.g., Water and Environment, Finance, Agriculture), civil society representatives, and donor agencies, contribute directly to the development and revision of Uganda’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and Climate Change Bill (Ministry of Water and Environment, 2022). Policy recommendations emerging from local adaptation workshops and spatial mapping exercises are channeled through NWGs into strategic frameworks that target resilience-building in vulnerable communities. 

A notable policy innovation in Uganda is the exploration of carbon finance mechanisms, including integration with REDD+ and voluntary carbon markets. NWGs have played a facilitative role in identifying carbon credit opportunities—particularly in forest conservation and agroforestry—by aligning them with climate vulnerability maps and community-level adaptation priorities (Kaggwa et al., 2023). However, challenges remain in ensuring equitable access to carbon finance, especially for marginalized smallholders. Furthermore, limited institutional capacity, bureaucratic inertia, and fragmented implementation across ministries constrain the full integration of NWG recommendations into binding legislation and national budget allocations. Nevertheless, the commitment to NDC alignment and ongoing institutional reforms have positioned NWGs as key agents in bridging grassroots adaptation and climate policy formulation. 

In the United States, NWGs operate within a highly decentralized policy environment, where climate adaptation responsibilities are dispersed across federal, state, and municipal levels. At the federal level, NWGs often feed into the development of frameworks such as the National Climate Resilience Framework (2023) and the Federal Adaptation and Resilience Group (FARG). These bodies integrate technical inputs from agencies like FEMA, the Department of Energy, and NOAA, as well as policy insights from local adaptation experiments facilitated by NWGs (U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit, 2023). However, due to the absence of a centralized national adaptation law, NWG influence is largely advisory and project-based. 

Policy drafting is often spearheaded at the state and city level, with NWGs acting as knowledge brokers and technical advisors. In California, for example, NWGs have contributed to the Climate Adaptation Strategy (2021) by integrating wildfire mapping and environmental justice indicators into land-use and building codes. Additionally, NWGs play a role in shaping access to federal climate finance, including the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Justice40, and FEMA’s BRIC program—all of which require community engagement and data-backed prioritization criteria. While these tools have expanded the policy influence of NWGs, structural barriers—such as political polarization, inconsistent policy mandates, and limited coordination across states—continue to impede comprehensive climate governance. Moreover, while carbon pricing is employed in some states (e.g., California’s Cap-and-Trade program), there is no unified national carbon pricing framework, limiting NWGs’ leverage on this front. 

In Canada, NWGs engage directly in multi-level policy drafting, with a strong emphasis on reconciliation, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience. Canadian climate policy is characterized by federal-provincial coordination, which allows NWGs—often composed of provincial adaptation offices, Indigenous governance institutions, and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)—to co-create climate strategies that reflect regional specificities. Canada’s NDC emphasizes both mitigation and adaptation, with clear commitments to natural climate solutions, reforestation, and Indigenous leadership in resilience planning (Government of Canada, 2023). 

NWGs have contributed to the drafting of the National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) and the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, incorporating insights from vulnerability mapping and local workshops into policies on wildfire management, permafrost protection, and ecosystem restoration. Carbon pricing has been institutionalized at the national level through the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (2018), and NWGs have played a role in identifying carbon sequestration opportunities linked to community-based restoration efforts. Additionally, NWGs help shape the distribution of funds through the Climate Adaptation and Resilience Program (CARP) and the Natural Climate Solutions Fund, ensuring that policy is both place-based and equity-oriented. 

Yet, institutional challenges persist. There remains an implementation gap between policy ambition and on-the-ground delivery, particularly in integrating Indigenous climate governance into provincial statutes. Moreover, jurisdictional overlaps occasionally delay the scaling of pilot initiatives proposed through NWG channels. Still, Canada demonstrates how NWGs, when empowered with financial instruments, open data, and legitimacy frameworks, can embed localized adaptation into national climate policy with a high degree of policy coherence. 

In comparative perspective, NWGs function as policy nodes—aggregating climate data, participatory insights, and governance innovation to influence climate policy across multiple levels. In Uganda, NWGs are deeply embedded in national adaptation planning, albeit constrained by institutional bottlenecks and resource dependence. In the U.S., NWGs operate within a fragmented policy landscape where influence is project-based and varies by political context. Canada exemplifies a rights-based and ecosystem-focused approach, with NWGs leveraging both Indigenous and scientific knowledge systems to guide policy across jurisdictions. Across all three countries, the impact of NWGs on policy drafting is conditional on institutional clarity, resource access, and the legal recognition of participatory planning as a legitimate input into national governance. 

Decolonizing Policy Drafting and Climate Finance Integration 

Efforts to localize and institutionalize climate adaptation policy must grapple with the legacy and ongoing influence of colonial power structures in global climate governance, particularly as they manifest through the mechanisms of development finance and external policy conditionalities. In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Uganda, climate policy drafting is not only a technocratic or participatory process—it is also a negotiation of sovereignty in the face of external agendas shaped by donor interests, multilateral frameworks, and transnational NGOs. NWGs in Uganda often operate within policy ecosystems influenced by development cooperation agreements, climate finance eligibility requirements (e.g., GCF accreditation), and donor-aligned project implementation logics that subtly prioritize “bankable” solutions over locally defined resilience pathways (Atela et al., 2016; Kaggwa et al., 2023). 

In practice, this has resulted in policy drafts and climate finance strategies that are heavily shaped by the language and metrics of international actors. For example, Uganda’s engagement with carbon finance mechanisms, while promising, is increasingly being framed through external definitions of offset viability and market logic, potentially sidelining more community-responsive approaches to adaptation. The reliance on NGOs and international technical consultants—while addressing immediate capacity gaps—can lead to a form of outsourced policy authorship, where ownership by national institutions is diluted (Ford et al., 2015). Although NWGs aim to aggregate local knowledge and data, the ultimate framing of priorities often reflects donor-aligned templates, especially where funding is contingent upon demonstrating alignment with external performance indicators. 

In contrast, high-income countries (HICs) such as the United States and Canada exhibit greater autonomy in setting their adaptation policy agendas. While still subject to international climate reporting obligations, their NWGs are embedded in state-funded and politically sovereign structures with fewer dependencies on external finance. In the United States, for example, federal adaptation programs such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) or FEMA’s BRIC initiative are domestically designed and reflect national strategic priorities. However, even within these contexts, internal colonialisms—particularly toward Indigenous communities—persist. Canada, despite its progressive adaptation frameworks, continues to face criticism for the limited legal incorporation of Indigenous governance systems and for selectively integrating Indigenous knowledge in ways that serve mainstream policy agendas, rather than transferring decision-making authority (Whyte, 2020; Latulippe & Klenk, 2020). 

The cross-examination of processes and outcomes reveals stark contrasts. In Uganda, policy drafting is frequently driven by project timelines, donor reporting structures, and externally framed targets, limiting the scope for long-term, community-driven transformation. Results are often measured in terms of donor-defined outputs (e.g., hectares reforested, number of workshops conducted) rather than lived improvements in adaptive capacity. In Canada and the U.S., although institutional power is domestically held, the persistence of top-down policy cultures and tokenistic engagement with affected communities can undermine true co-creation. Thus, while LMICs face structural limitations to decolonizing climate finance and policy, HICs confront ideological and systemic inertia that inhibits deeper democratization of climate governance. 

In light of this, decolonizing adaptation policy and climate finance entails more than just enhancing participation. It demands epistemic justice, fiscal autonomy, and a commitment to redistributive governance models that center historically marginalized voices—not only as informants but as decision-makers. NWGs, when properly structured and empowered, can serve as institutional vehicles for reclaiming policy space, fostering inclusive sovereignty, and resisting the quiet reproduction of colonial hierarchies in the climate adaptation arena. 

Fig 1: Power Flows and Influence in Climate Policy Drafting and Finance Integration 

Cross-Regional Lessons and Opportunities 

The comparative analysis of National Working Groups (NWGs) across Uganda, the United States, and Canada reveals both the diverse forms of climate governance emerging globally and the shared institutional mechanisms through which resilience is being co-produced. Despite vast differences in economic capacity, technological infrastructure, and political systems, NWGs in all three countries have demonstrated the potential to act as critical bridges between climate science, policy frameworks, and the lived realities of vulnerable populations. However, their effectiveness is conditioned by structural enablers—including access to resources, legitimacy of participatory knowledge, and coherence in multi-level governance. 

One clear insight is that vulnerability mapping must be embedded in political and institutional ecosystems to be effective. In Uganda, participatory mapping thrives under decentralization and donor support, converting community knowledge into spatial plans that feed into NAPs and district-level policies. In the U.S., while federal data systems provide granular risk models, fragmented governance and inconsistent political will often weaken the translation of these maps into binding, equitable action. Canada’s incorporation of Indigenous spatial knowledge through Two-Eyed Seeing offers an alternative epistemological framework, but challenges remain in embedding these insights into enforceable legal instruments. Across contexts, mapping achieves policy traction when it is accompanied by cross-scale legitimacy and capacity for iterative feedback. 

Local adaptation workshops further demonstrate how NWGs can democratize climate governance when institutional pathways for uptake are present. Uganda’s workshops reflect participatory innovation grounded in survival imperatives, engaging farmers and fisherfolk in climate-smart agriculture. The U.S. showcases how workshops embedded in city planning—supported by federal funds like BRIC and the Justice40 framework—can produce technical resilience innovations. Canada’s workshops emphasize cultural continuity, ecological stewardship, and intergenerational knowledge, led by Indigenous communities. Yet, across all three cases, a recurring challenge is ensuring that the outputs of these engagements are sustained, scaled, and formally institutionalized—not relegated to pilot projects or community reports. 

The policy dimension reveals the widest divergence in NWG influence. In Uganda, NWGs are embedded in national adaptation and carbon finance planning but are constrained by bureaucratic silos and donor-driven timelines. In contrast, U.S. NWGs operate within fragmented jurisdictions but benefit from domestic financing and institutional power—though federalism often undermines coherence. Canada’s NWGs reflect a more integrated policy environment, leveraging Indigenous leadership and federal funding to drive reforestation and restoration goals. However, even in the Global North, barriers to full-scale implementation persist, particularly when participatory outputs challenge the status quo of bureaucratic norms or private sector interests. 

Critically, the decolonial analysis introduced in Section 4 underscores that the ability to draft sovereign, inclusive policy is unevenly distributed. Uganda and other LMICs must navigate climate finance conditionalities and externally designed frameworks that risk undermining local epistemologies and priorities. The U.S. and Canada, while more autonomous in setting policy, are not immune to colonial dynamics—particularly in their treatment of Indigenous governance structures. Thus, decolonization in climate adaptation is as much about redistributing authority as it is about amplifying marginalized voices. 

From these comparative experiences, several cross-regional lessons and opportunities emerge: 

• NWGs function best when embedded in multi-scalar governance ecosystems, with clear legal mandates and institutional bridges between national, regional, and local levels. 
• Participatory processes must be paired with institutional accountability mechanisms—ensuring that local insights translate into funding, programming, and policy shifts. 
• Data and technology are not neutral tools; their legitimacy and uptake depend on whether they are co-owned by communities and used to challenge, not reinforce, existing power imbalances. 
• Carbon finance strategies should be developed through inclusive, transparent frameworks, especially in LMICs, to prevent extractive models from dominating adaptation pathways. 
• Indigenous and local knowledge systems must be recognized not as supplementary, but as foundational to climate governance—demanding co-decision-making authority, not just consultation. 
• Global adaptation alliances must support horizontal learning across NWGs, creating platforms for shared methodologies, regional knowledge exchange, and advocacy for policy coherence at the international level. 

In essence, the comparative value of NWGs lies in their adaptive flexibility: their ability to act as both knowledge brokers and governance reformers, shaped by local contexts but increasingly interconnected through transnational climate networks. Scaling NWG success across regions will require not only resource mobilization and technical support, but a reimagination of what counts as knowledge, who gets to decide, and how justice is embedded in the very architecture of adaptation policy. 

Tabe 3: Cross-Regional Summary Table – NWG Adaptation Mechanisms 

Repositioning NWGs for a Resilient, Equitable Climate Future 

This study has critically examined how National Working Groups (NWGs) in Uganda, the United States, and Canada function as institutional nodes in translating climate vulnerability data, participatory processes, and multilevel governance into policy-relevant adaptation strategies. Across diverse political economies and climate risk profiles, NWGs have emerged as adaptive governance platforms capable of integrating scientific tools, local knowledge, and policy innovation. They mediate the interface between global climate mandates—such as the Paris Agreement’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—and context-specific adaptation imperatives, thereby shaping the trajectory of national and sub-national resilience planning. 

One of the most compelling findings of this analysis is that NWGs play a dual role as both technical conveners and political brokers. In Uganda, NWGs channel participatory mapping, farmer-led innovations, and donor coordination into national adaptation planning, despite structural constraints. In the United States, NWGs draw from robust geospatial infrastructure and federally mandated equity frameworks to facilitate localized resilience strategies—though governance fragmentation remains a persistent obstacle. In Canada, NWGs co-create policy alongside Indigenous communities, aligning ecosystem-based adaptation with carbon pricing and restoration goals, albeit with limited authority to enforce cross-jurisdictional integration. 

While the promise of NWGs is evident, this study also uncovers a set of systemic challenges and threats that must be addressed for these platforms to fulfill their potential: 

• Governance fragmentation and jurisdictional incoherence (particularly in federal systems like the U.S. and Canada) often impede the translation of local adaptation knowledge into national legislative frameworks (Moser & Hart, 2015). 

• Dependence on external funding and donor-driven policy templates, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) like Uganda, undermines local ownership and creates asymmetries in decision-making power (Atela et al., 2016). 

• Limited integration of Indigenous and marginalized community governance systems into official climate decision-making processes continues to restrict the epistemic scope of adaptation planning (Latulippe & Klenk, 2020). 

• Short-term project cycles and inconsistent policy uptake threaten the long-term institutionalization of workshop-derived insights and spatial planning tools (Ford et al., 2015). 

Despite these constraints, there are also critical opportunities for reimagining NWGs as levers for systemic resilience transformation. First, NWGs can serve as platforms for horizontal learning across regions—facilitating the exchange of methodologies, technologies, and participatory tools that are adaptable to varying political and ecological contexts. Second, NWGs are well-positioned to drive climate finance localization, ensuring that carbon markets, adaptation funds, and ecosystem service payments are designed and distributed equitably. Third, NWGs—when inclusive and empowered—can help redefine national adaptation success away from metrics of technical compliance toward measures of social equity, ecological sustainability, and procedural justice (Whyte, 2020; Siders et al., 2019). 

To realize these opportunities, a coherent and just climate governance future must be underpinned by the following strategic propositions: 

1. Legally Mandate NWGs Across All Scales: NWGs should be institutionalized with legal authority to shape national and sub-national climate policy and funding priorities. Their roles must be embedded in legislation, not just strategy documents, ensuring longevity and accountability. 

2. Ensure Fiscal Equity and Finance Sovereignty: Climate finance frameworks should move beyond top-down disbursement models. Mechanisms such as direct access modalities and nationally controlled climate trust funds can empower NWGs in LMICs to align funding with localized priorities (Kaggwa et al., 2023). 

3. Promote Epistemic Justice and Governance Pluralism: NWGs must be designed as multi-epistemic institutions where Indigenous knowledge systems, oral histories, and traditional ecological practices are granted equal authority in climate planning—not token inclusion (Whyte, 2020; Latulippe & Klenk, 2020). 

4. Establish Global NWG Learning Alliances: Transnational cooperation among NWGs should be facilitated through international platforms such as the UNFCCC Adaptation Committee, the Global Resilience Partnership, and regional climate forums. These alliances can support knowledge sharing, policy innovation, and joint advocacy for just transitions. 

5. Reframe Adaptation Indicators Toward Human and Ecological Outcomes: Success metrics for adaptation must move beyond technical checklists to include indicators of community empowerment, governance transparency, ecological integrity, and intergenerational justice. 

Ultimately, this paper reaffirms that NWGs are not just administrative conveniences; they are potential catalysts for transformative resilience. Their ability to navigate between grassroots innovation and state policy, between scientific data and lived experience, and between donor frameworks and national sovereignty places them at the heart of the climate adaptation frontier. However, realizing this potential will require intentional shifts in power, structure, and political will. As the climate crisis intensifies, NWGs represent one of the most promising institutional formats for grounded, participatory, and policy-relevant adaptation. Ensuring their legitimacy, sustainability, and inclusivity must be a global priority—one that recognizes that resilience is not only built in data centers or government offices but in the daily struggles and wisdom of communities facing the climate frontline. 

References