The proposal should identify economic (non-financial) incentives for the private sector to finance adaptation solutions. The proposal should address all of the following aspects:

• Developing calculations and the most appropriate methodologies for calculating the economic rationale for financing adaptation solutions, aimed at convincing the private sector to finance them. This could include, but is not limited to, the following: (i) calculations of the risks/losses caused by climate change; (ii) calculations of the economic benefits of the adaptation solutions across different time horizons (e.g. with new or retained revenues/contributions that the implementation of the adaptation solution could generate, avoided costs/losses, cost of inaction, lower insurance costs, attribution and monetisation of co-benefits (including social and environmental co-benefits)); and (iii) calculations of the overall cost/benefit.

Ideally, if all benefits are calculated, they can outweigh the costs. Such calculations and economic rationales may need to be different for the different climate risks and key community systems.

• Identifying how to overcome in innovative ways the main barriers to the financing of climate adaptation solutions by the private sector (both from the investor and investee point of view) and how to improve the economic rationale and developing and test innovative ways to economically incentivise (in non-financial ways) the private sector to finance them. This could include an increased and improved range of investment concepts or strategies, financing mechanisms and/or business models, etc. These innovative ways may need to be different for the different climate risks and key community systems.
• Testing the above by developing minimum 8 case studies, in 3 different Member States / Associated Countries. The case studies should work on adaptation solutions that require financing but have not yet found financing. Each case study should explicitly encompass a calculation of the economic rationale for financing (as per above) and, where in this calculation all benefits taken together do not exceed the cost and hence this is not a sufficient incentive, propose and test innovative ways to economically incentivise (in non-financial ways) the private sector to finance the proposed adaptation solutions. In at least 3 of the cases the adaptation solutions should be nature-based adaptation solutions. It will be considered as a positive element if the case studies cover a variety of climate hazards and key community key community systems identified in the Mission Implementation Plan, namely critical infrastructure, health & well-being, water management, land use & food systems, ecosystems.

To reasonably achieve the expected outcomes, the project consortia should include participation of relevant private sector actors from the business and financial sectors and their commitment to further contribute to the deployment of the solutions identified in the cases studies or to support the development of the business plan for the climate resilience investments beyond the duration of the project.

Due to its nature, this topic requires the effective contribution of social sciences and humanities (SSH) disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities.

In addition to the standard dissemination obligations, the results of this action should be promoted towards the Mission’s Community of Practice, to allow broad replication. The format should be adapted to the target audience being the private sector, so presenting the case studies and the lessons learnt in a practical and attractive manner.