Building resilience into ports in turbulent times

1. How do you see the role of ports evolving in the face of escalating climate risks, and can infrastructure resilience truly keep pace with the accelerating impacts of climate change?

Rising global temperatures are injecting more energy into the climate system, intensifying storms and increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as storm surges, sea-level rise, and flooding. These escalating climate risks pose significant challenges to ports, which are critical to both local and global trade networks. Infrastructure can keep pace - but only if we take action. As crucial financial generators for many countries, ports must evolve to withstand climate impacts so trade disruptions can be prevented and supply chains safeguarded.

To meet these challenges, ports must implement adaptive infrastructure, such as increasing the height of sea walls to combat rising sea levels, and operational measures to enhance resilience under changing climate conditions. It is important to remember, however, that adaptation cannot be treated as a ‘one-and-done’ intervention; climate risks are ever-changing and therefore ports must continuously monitor resilience measures. As part of this monitoring, they should regularly revisit and update climate risk assessments to reflect new data, projections, and observed impacts. Infrastructure upgrades should evolve accordingly to remain effective over time.

That’s where Resilience4Ports (R4P) comes in. As a global, multi-stakeholder initiative, our goal is to strengthen and accelerate the resilience of ports and the communities that depend on them. As ports face growing pressures from climate change and technological advances (decarbonisation and digitalisation), R4P provides a structured, scalable approach to addressing systemic risk and enabling adaptation. The programme is led by the International Coalition for Sustainable Infrastructure (ICSI), with core support from the UN High Level Climate Champions, Arup,  and Lloyd’s Register Foundation. The initiative emphasises that establishing and maintaining resilience is not a static goal but an ongoing, iterative process embedded in decision-making, investment planning, and governance. This is the topic of R4Ps latest publication launched at COP30, ‘Port Decision Makers’ Guide to Climate Risk Assessment’. By applying this adaptive and forward-looking approach, port infrastructure can more realistically keep pace with the accelerating impacts of climate change.

2. The guide focuses on a holistic approach to climate risk, including digital systems. How important is it to integrate technology in resilience planning, and what challenges does this integration pose?

Technology is fundamental to effective climate resilience planning and should include climate data platforms, digital twins, early-warning systems, asset-monitoring tools, and decision-support systems. These enable ports to shift from reactive responses to anticipatory, risk-informed decision-making by helping ports better understand the interdependencies between physical infrastructure, operations, energy systems, and information networks, which is essential given the systemic and cascading nature of climate risks.

The integration of digital systems does present several challenges. These include data gaps and uncertainty, interoperability issues with legacy infrastructure, cybersecurity risks, as well as limited technical capacity and funding particularly in smaller or developing ports. Beyond technical barriers, there is also a significant organisational and cultural challenge: effectively embedding digital insights into governance structures and long-term investment decisions requires changes in institutional practices and leadership mindsets. The R4P approach helps address this challenge by framing digital tools as enablers of resilience rather than standalone solutions.

Digitalisation, when properly implemented, enhances the efficiency of port operations. Maintaining up-to-date software, robust cybersecurity measures, and redundant backup systems is essential to ensure continuity of critical services during disruptions. Ports with resilient digital infrastructures are more likely to be able to operate even during cyber incidents or system failures, thereby maintaining stakeholder trust. In addition, ports run efficiently with the assistance of digital tools can reduce carbon emissions by lowering the time docked conventional fuelled vessels must wait to pass through. Such preparedness strengthens confidence among customers and investors alike as it demonstrates effective risk management, implementation of novel technology and a long-term commitment to resilience. 

3. Given that climate risk assessments won’t stop sea levels from rising, how do you balance the urgent need for adaptation with the broader global imperative to reduce emissions and prevent further damage?

While CRAs cannot prevent sea levels from rising, they are essential for ensuring that adaptation and mitigation efforts are pursued in a balanced and mutually reinforcing way. Adaptation and resilience are too often treated as separate or secondary to the net-zero agenda though the reality is much the opposite. Resilience must be embedded within ports’ energy transition and decarbonisation strategies, with adaptation placed on an equal footing with mitigation.

Ports play a critical role in global efforts to limit climate change and achieve the Paris Agreement goals[1]. As hubs of critical infrastructure, they are central to enabling the supply, storage, and distribution of alternative fuels. However, this infrastructure must be designed with resilience in mind, particularly given the new hazards introduced by emerging energy systems. If ratified, the IMO net-zero framework[2] is poised to take on a pivotal role in mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation, especially for ports in the Global South that currently face significant funding constraints.

At the same time, ports must decarbonise their own operations. Some of the ports supported by R4P have already begun deploying renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, as well as providing shore power to vessels at berth. This allows ships to switch off diesel generators, reducing emissions and improving local air quality. 

CRAs help ensure that mitigation investments themselves are climate-resilient, reducing the risk of maladaptation or stranded assets. In this way, adaptation is not in competition with mitigation; rather, it is a prerequisite for credible, durable, and effective long-term emissions reduction.

4. Resilience4Ports calls for collaboration rather than competition across the port ecosystem. In practice, how realistic is this cooperative model within the often competitive and profit-driven maritime industry?

While the maritime industry is inherently competitive and profit-driven, collaboration on climate resilience is realistic but, more significantly, is necessary for ports’ survival. Climate risks are systemic and transboundary by nature; disruptions at a single port can cascade across global supply chains, affecting shipping lines, cargo owners, insurers, and economies far beyond national borders. This shared exposure works as a strong collective incentive for cooperation on climate data, risk assessment methodologies, standards, and scenario planning even among competitors.

A clear understanding of the risks ports are subject to underpins Resilience4Ports’ collaborative approach. At COP29, R4P launched a Call to Action[3] to build a global network of ports committed to jointly addressing resilience challenges. The growing number of signatories reflects a clear recognition across the industry that collaboration delivers tangible value. Through this initiative, R4P is an advocate for implementing a set of key commitments for ports: understanding and managing climate risks, embedding resilience into business models and operational processes, working in harmony with local communities and society, and actively sharing knowledge and experience.

To support port leaders in putting these commitments into practice, R4P developed CRA guidance[4] to help ports systematically identify and manage climate risks. In addition, R4P publishes progress reports that capture lessons learned and practical experiences from participating ports, enabling others to benefit and collaborate more effectively. In this way, cooperation does not undermine competition; rather, it strengthens the overall resilience of the port ecosystem on which all market participants depend.   

5. How can developing ports, especially those in vulnerable regions, access the necessary climate finance mechanisms to implement these risk assessments and adaptation strategies effectively?

Accessing climate finance remains a significant challenge for developing ports, particularly those in highly vulnerable regions. However, structured CRAs are a critical enabler rather than a barrier to financing. By clearly identifying risks, vulnerabilities, and priority adaptation measures, CRAs strengthen the investment case for support from multilateral development banks, climate funds, development finance institutions, and blended finance mechanisms, many of which are outlined in the CRA guidance.[5]

In practice, this approach is already delivering results. Take the Port of Banjul, a signatory port of R4P; it is an economic lifeline for The Gambia but faces losing up to 3% of its revenue due to intensifying climate change. About 80% of the cargo coming in and out of the country passes through the port but rising sea levels and flooding threatens to cause catastrophic consequences. The Gambia is below sea level and predictions show that if climate change in the area continues at its current pace, in the next 50 years, the country will be submerged by rising sea levels. To mitigate this risk, the port carried out a Climate Risk Assessment (CRA). Through the Africa Adaptation Acceleration Programme, the port is now looking to modernise its infrastructure and expand investment opportunities to increase the height of pivotal connecting roads into the port and extend jetties to ensure operations are future-proofed against ever-challenging weather and climate conditions.

Beyond conducting risk assessments, several complementary strategies can further improve access to climate finance. These include aligning port adaptation with national development plans, demonstrating benefits such as job protection, trade continuity, and food and energy security. 

Building capacity and technical assistance, often supported by international organisations and non-governmental organisations such as the ICSI are essential. These efforts help port authorities navigate complex funding requirements, meet fiduciary and technical standards, and develop bankable, investable resilience projects that can effectively turn climate risk assessments into on-the-ground action.

6. To what extent do you believe policymakers and the private sector share responsibility for climate resilience in ports, and how can governance frameworks be improved to ensure accountability and action?

Climate resilience in ports is fundamentally a shared responsibility between policymakers and the private sector. Policymakers act as a key driver in establishing clear and coherent regulatory frameworks, integrating climate risk considerations into spatial planning, permitting, and infrastructure standards, and providing the long-term policy certainty needed to unlock investment in resilience. They are also responsible for aligning port resilience objectives with national adaptation plans, transport strategies, and development priorities.

Meanwhile, the private sector, which owns and operates a significant share of port infrastructure and services, is responsible for translating these frameworks into action. This includes commissioning CRAs, investing in resilient infrastructure and operations, and embedding climate considerations into corporate governance, asset management, and long-term business strategies. Insurers, lenders, and investors also have an important part in incorporating climate risk into financial decision-making and incentivising resilience through pricing and disclosure requirements.

Governance frameworks can be strengthened with strong coordination across stakeholders, well-established responsibilities, and clear mechanisms for accountability and transparency. Global forums such as the International Maritime Organization, particularly in relation to maritime decarbonisation, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, through its focus on adaptation and resilience, help shape and align international policy directions. Transforming these global commitments into national regulation and port-level action, – supported by measurable targets, reporting requirements, and performance monitoring – is essential for ensuring the shared responsibility and sustained resilience outcomes.