Dialogue Recording and Synthesis. Resilience in a Time of Disasters. The Tasks of Now.

Dialogue Recording and Synthesis. Resilience in a Time of Disasters. The Tasks of Now.

Tamzin Ractliffe|03 March 2025

An Open Dialogue with Susi Moser and Eva Rehse

Dr. Susi Moser is a researcher specialising in climate adaptation and transformation with over 30 years of experience. She is the founder of The Adaptive Mind Project, which focuses on building psycho-social capacities and skills for professionals working in the climate space. Recognised as a leader in the adaptation field, Susi and her colleague, Joyce Coffey of Climate Resilience Consulting, have conducted some of the first ever assessments of the climate adaptation field as a field of practice beginning with a 2017 report funded by The Kresge Foundation. This sought to understand the ‘state of the field’ and identify needs for moving forward. In 2024 the Packard Foundation, in partnership with the Kresge, Hewlett, and Walton Foundations, funded an update to this 2017 assessment in an effort to inform their own philanthropic investment and engage foundations that may not have previously worked on climate resilience but are beginning to consider it.

In this Open Dialogue, Susi was in discussion with Eva Rehse, Network and Ecosystems Director at WINGS, on what philanthropy could do now to strengthen climate resilience. You can watch the recording at https://youtu.be/hPY7fnFqh4U and find the links and notes below.

Key Themes

Understanding Resilience

The conversation began with personal reflections on resilience. Susi explained that understandings of resilience have evolved from simply coping with disasters to encompassing adaptation and transformation.

“Resilience is … the ability to keep on giving… some store, some redundance, some ability to give. What we found with all the people we talked to is that resilience is the ability to keep going in all ways, physically, psychologically, socially, economically, culturally, politically, even as things around us fall apart. We might not use fancy words, but that’s what people want to do right now.” — Susi Moser

This definition emphasises resilience as a multidimensional capacity to maintain function and continuity across various domains of life (physical, psychological, social, economic, cultural, and political) specifically during times of breakdown or disruption. It represents a synthesis of perspectives from the field practitioners they interviewed for the updated assessment.

The 4P Framework for Climate Resilience

Susi explained the “4P framework” for assessing the state of the climate resilience field, first developed in the 2017 report, and reassessed in 2024:

  1. Purpose: What is the field trying to accomplish? Unlike in 2017, there is now more consensus on objectives.
  2. People: Who is doing this work? The report identifies significant shifts in who is involved, with many important players having entered the field, but some still missing.
  3. Practice: What methods are being used to build resilience? This covers best practices, as well as communication and coordination.
  4. Pillars of support: What policy and funding structures exist? This area faces severe challenges under the new administration.

The last one, and in many ways, the one that is now most in question is what we call the pillars of support. And by that we mean both policy and the funding to support the work in the field, and that had under the Biden administration shifted significantly over the first Trump years, if you will, and that, of course, is now profoundly endangered on both sides, right on the funding side, as well as the policy directives.” — Susi Moser

Main Findings of Susi’s report

1. Funding Inadequacy

Despite increased investment, climate resilience funding remains “vanishingly tiny” compared to other philanthropic priorities and nowhere near what is needed.

“There is what philanthropy typically prioritises – art and health and education, those big topics, right? And then the environment is a tiny portion of that, and the climate piece is a tiny portion of that, and most of that goes to mitigation, and then the last bit is for resilience. And so, you know, I will just say that while there has been an enormous increase in the amount of funding, it is vastly inadequate to the task that is at hand.” Susi

2. Lack of Evaluation

There has been insufficient investment in monitoring, evaluation, and learning from early initiatives, creating a significant missed opportunity. It also severely slows down learning from ongoing efforts at a time when good efforts should be emulated in many more places.

“What we haven’t seen… is a lot of investment in actually monitoring, evaluation and learning from those early examples, [to find out] what is actually worth doing. And so, to me, that is a real loss or a real missed opportunity, and that’s really not any better compared from 2017 to now. No philanthropy has been willing to fund a very careful assessment.” Susi

3. Communication Challenges

The field has not invested adequately in communicating successes and lessons learned. Susi highlighted the difference in quantum of investment in communication:

“I was speaking with one person for this most recent Packard report, who does a lot of work in communication, and he compared it to Hollywood. When Hollywood produces a movie, say, for $100 million, they invest another $100 million for the communication of the movie. That’s unheard of [in resilience]. I mean, for us, it’s maybe a 2% part of whatever grant we might get.”

4. Equity Progress

Philanthropy has successfully lifted up equity and justice in adaptation work, and that has helped to make that central to resilience-building.

Susi: “To really think more deeply about [this]: are we just trying to put band aids on disasters and trying to come back from that, versus [are we] really trying to get at the root causes and bring people to the table who have always not been at the table.”

5. Tool Proliferation

The field has developed “10,000 tools” but often in an uncoordinated manner without sufficient assessment of effectiveness. Partly this is driven by people saying they need something very specific, and partly by people not looking around or not hearing about tools that may already exist.

Susi: “There was a lot of investment early on in the development of – I want to be almost literal here – the 10,000 tools, like everyone and their uncle funded some kind of tool. And so, we have, I don’t know how many tools for green infrastructure, and so on and so forth, right? It’s just an overwhelming amount. It was not coordinated, it was not thoughtful, necessarily.”

The Absence of Comprehensive Evaluation

One of the most critical gaps Susi identified is the lack of systematic evaluation of adaptation efforts. She elaborated that while the U.S. has the Congressionally mandated U.S. National Climate Assessment, which provides updates on adaptation every four years, these are essentially “pulse checks” rather than rigorous evaluations of effectiveness. She described this lack of learning as a significant missed opportunity: “There has never been a quantitative or any other kind of serious evaluation that I’m aware of. There is lots of tracking. Where did the money go… but in terms of a true evaluation, …. did we achieve what we wanted? That does not exist.”

Implications for Practice

This knowledge gap has several significant consequences:

  1. Redundant efforts: Practitioners continue “repeating the same things over and over, learning separately, not from each other” which is “simply a waste of time.”
  2. Missed policy opportunities: Susi noted that even recent federal infrastructure funding for resilience efforts came without “a requirement attached that people actually report back on what is working… such a missed opportunity.”
  3. Slow progress: Without shared learning, the field cannot accelerate: “If you want to speed up… the resilience buildings effort at all, then learning is the most useful thing to do.”

Susi argued that this evaluation gap, combined with inadequate communication of successes, represents one of the most critical areas for improvement. She suggested that if she “were to wave my magic wand, things that would actually accelerate and help us out tremendously, it would be in the MEL [Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning] space and in the communication space.”

This analysis underscores a fundamental challenge in the climate adaptation field: despite decades of work and significant investment, we still lack systematic understanding of which approaches work best and why, creating a critical barrier to scaling effective solutions during a time of urgent need.

Current Challenges in US Climate Funding

A central concern was the recent change in US administration and its implications for climate resilience funding. As Susi highlighed: “At least in my own experience with US philanthropy here is that it somehow feels like philanthropy has gone dark over the last few weeks. And I’d be so curious to hear from everyone here why that is… instead of jumping in and trying to buffer the blow that is coming right now, trying to capture all these defunded efforts that are so essential to resilience, there isn’t a lot of activity, actually, or a lot of decisions, a lot of clarity, a lot of speaking out.”

Eva Rehse explained the strategic nature of this response, elaboring on the significant amount of work that is happening within philanthropic foundations to respond to this moment strategically.

The chat discussion revealed diverse perspectives on philanthropy’s current response. Michael Lerner suggested that “philanthropy has gone dark because foundations fear losing their 501c(3)s [tax status],” while Lucy Bernholz observed that in “philanthropy, universities, large nonprofits – silence is deafening.” However, Lerner also noted that “at the same time that the big players have gone dark out of fear, there is a tidal wave of grassroots outrage growing.”

Several strategic approaches were suggested in the discussion. Lucy proposed that foundations “can use Donor Advised Funds (DAFs) to ‘hide’ their giving and then keep funding who they were” funding before and could “lead a major divestment effort of Tesla, META and AMAZON and not have to TELL anyone.” Others noted that “brave funders are not backing down” with “one emerging strategy [being] to support transpolitical ‘canopies of care’ NGOs to build a sense of shared commitment to people and communities.”

Heather Porter, representing a foundation perspective, offered important context on how philanthropy is responding: “A lot of us are up really, really late and really, really, really early, trying to guarantee, make guarantees to our funded partners that have been well vetted by us and are doing the work in the world that we’re here for them, and are supporting them in the ways that we can today, all the while trying to understand what is a 30-60, 90 day plan look like, because we don’t know… every day is different.”

Alternative Communication Strategies

Susi shared a powerful example of how to communicate effectively when conventional language is constrained: “I was asked just yesterday to give a presentation to young fellows in a program in the AmeriCorps program here, which is federally funded, right?… I was also handed a list of the words I can’t use. So, whatever we’ve just been talking about, I couldn’t use any of those words, governance, you know, adaptation, climate resilience, whatever… What I ended up doing is actually using poetry, myth, and storytelling, and that was incredibly powerful. You know, after an hour, I had 120 people who are actually really inspired to keep going while they were really depressed at the beginning and fearful.”

She emphasised the power of cultural narratives in communicating transformation: “There are mythologies many centuries old, 1000 years old, that tell us of this moment …[where we are] you know. I’m thinking of the seventh fire prophecy of the Anishinaabe, to choose in this moment whether or not we will light the next fire, the eighth fire, or whether we’re going to go up in flame, and that’s the end of human society. That’s the choice, right? Or whether it’s the Shambhala warrior prophecy or any other cultural narrative about these profound choices.”

The chat discussion revealed several perspectives on language and framing. Lucy Bernholz pointed out that “avoiding keywords is a subversive strategy for AI-aided coup leaders,” highlighting the political dimension of language choices. Stanley Wu raised the question of “whether Resilience language is the best at this moment,” with Godelieve Van Heteren clarifying that “it is not merely a question of ‘using language’. It is rather a question about what ‘collective formation/practices’ are fit for purpose.” Alexis Frasz suggested that

“there is great potential for resilience practices to be a non-partisan, unifying framework. Much more so than climate mitigation for example.”

Angela Raven Roberts proposed

“Resilience AND Response-ability – a more generative approach.”

Recommended Actions for Philanthropy

Immediate Actions:

Hire displaced experts:

Susi: “Hundreds and thousands of scientific or subject matter experts are being let go right now. That’s such a loss of the brain trust of the federal government. Yes, people who have worked for decades to build up that institutional knowledge and expertise. And to catch that, to find people places to work, find jobs, not lose them. I’ll give you a very concrete example what philanthropy could do. Many people in many foundations that I’m familiar with do not have resilience expertise on their staff. Well, right now, there’s all these people out there looking for a job. Hire them. They’re the best people that you can get!”

Fund vetted projects:

Susi: “There are dozens and dozens of projects that have been vetted, that have been put together with a lot of effort by communities, by organisations, to be ready to essentially carry them out. [Federal programs were oversubscribed and so they didn’t get funded, but they are excellent.] Why reinvent the wheel? Catch those people, get the list of the projects and fund those.”

Collaborate across foundations:

Susi: “Lock shoulders. The Packard Foundation was part of a funder coalition. They made a pledge in September 2024 when Biden came out with his National Resilience Framework… Have funder summits to think about the strategies together. You know, we need people coming from all angles at this problem, and that would be a far more aligned effort.”

Long-term Investment:

Support monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL):

Susi: “If you want to speed up the resilience building effort at all, then learning is the most useful thing to do.”

Invest in and use alternative communication approaches:

Susi: “When Hollywood produces a movie for $100 million, they invest another 100 million for the communication… That makes sure that you know about it.”

Focus on transformation, not just maintenance:

Susi: “We try to keep going in the Great Unravelling, while we actually try to affect the Great Turning to a life sustaining society.” [These terms come from Joanna Macy.]

Intersectionality & collaboration because climate touches everything

Heather  emphasised the need to transcend the siloed approach to funding pointing out, “this is fundamentally intersectional – everywhere we’re investing, in all of the work that we’re doing.”

The chat discussion expanded on Susi’s emphasis on “multisolving” (last week’s Open Dialogue with Beth Sawin) with participants highlighting that climate resilience sits at the intersection of multiple systems and sectors. Sebastian Africano emphasized the peer-to-peer dimension, noting the importance of “working with nonprofits and communities as partners rather than as just ‘grantees’, initiating collaboration between funders on program strategy, reporting and challenging each other to co-invest, and also pushing boards to listen and follow the lead of CEOs and staff.”

Alexis Frasz suggested exploring “greater potential for philanthropic, public sector, grassroots collaboration around adaptation in specific places (localities, bio regions, etc),” highlighting the importance of place-based, cross-sector approaches to building resilience.

Global South Perspectives

Stacy Alvarez de la Campa from Barbados offered crucial context on how philanthropy is perceived in the Global South and advocated for horizontal rather than just more vertical relationships:

” Many of us prefer to use the term “capacity building”, rather than philanthropy, because the latter has some unpleasant neo-colonial associations. We have, collectively in the region, experienced the concept of philanthropy being more about maintaining a certain school or a certain image which is that we will always need help, and that’s the resilience that built into it, that that will never change. And that is not really about really empowering communities so that eventually they don’t need that system. … What we’re looking to do is try to see again, in the region, because of the post-colonial fragmentation of who we are and our connections to each other, how can we start to build connections that are more horizontal, as opposed to kind of going, you know, vertically, up or down.”

She also challenged conventional terminology:

“We don’t use the term small island developed states anymore. We say big ocean states. If you look at the globe from where the Pacific Ocean is, it’s huge. We are large ocean states. We’re big ocean states. We’re not small island developed states.”

The discussion in the chat emphasized that “Indigenous philanthropy is not just about generosity but also about reciprocity.” As Patrick Mpedzisi elaborated,

“Reciprocity is premised on the tenets of shared values and mutuality of peoples and with the environment hence resilience is viewed within a holistic concept.”

Stacey also noted in the chat that “In 2021 only about 4% of climate financing trickled to islands in the Global South,” highlighting why “we have to create our own financing mechanisms based on Indigenous methodologies.”

Philanthropy’s Role and Limitations

Participants acknowledged that philanthropy cannot fill the funding gap left by government withdrawal:

The reality is that [traditional, institutional] philanthropy is not able to fill this gap, not as it is currently. The numbers don’t add up. [Instead]  … this is the moment for us where we need to break out of our narrow understanding of philanthropy and really reimagine this whole architecture that we’ve all been part of. It’s not just about one way of giving. It’s about individual generosity. It’s about the movements of giving, the unusual actors, the dependencies that exist and why they exist. How can we reimagine those [paradigms] and build on cultures of giving that can look very different” Eva Rehse

System Change vs. Reform: Philanthropy’s Position

A provocative question in the chat asked whether “philanthropy [is] essentially as ‘invested in the continuation of the current system’ as business?” Several participants offered perspectives on this question. Alexis Frasz suggested that philanthropy is, “at least in part (with some exceptions), invested in reform of the system, not radical change. At least at the board/structure level (even if some program staff are more interested in systems change).”

Lucy Bernholz pointed out that “for a LOT of donors, foundations and philanthropy and DAFs are merely financial vehicles,” suggesting that focusing energy on “those who already want to matter/make a difference” might be more effective than trying to convert all of philanthropy to transformative approaches.

Joe Redston added a metacrisis perspective, noting that “the system isn’t broken – it doesn’t need fixing – it’s functioning exactly as it [was designed to].” It produces exactly the outcomes, dependencies, and problems that it was designed to produce, highlighting the need to reimagine rather than repair existing systems.

Private Sector Engagement

The discussion touched on the complex relationship with the private sector with Susi pointing out that “we haven’t quite come to sort of commercialising and really economising adaptation in the same way. I don’t know if we should, in all cases, by any stretch of the imagination, as long as we keep having the same paradigms of profit making to bring to this, I think we’re not deeply transforming. AND: the reality is that the private sector needs to be a player at the table, given its magnitude and importance in all of our lives.”

Inner and Outer Transformation

The conversation also emphasised that personal transformation must accompany systemic change:

Susi: “This is what so many are now trying: to create spaces in which we actually build our capacities, again, to go through this very difficult internal transformation… it is oriented toward, in some sense, first restoring enough to so we can even learn and sit down and do that deep work; to engage in very deep healing at the level of dealing with the traumas that we’re experiencing all in the climate space right now or the centuries of layered traumas, collective trauma that we all, personally and collectively have gone through.”

Susi further explained her work on The Adaptive Mind Project, which focuses on building capacity for inner transformation. It is a skill building initiative, a capacity building initiative for people who work in the climate space. She emphasised that the inner work is not separate from but essential to outer change: “We’re simply not going to get through the outer change and do it deeply enough if we don’t do also the inner work.“

Reimagining Systems Rather Than Maintaining Them

A powerful discussion about the choice between maintaining current systems or fundamentally transforming them. As Susi emphasised in her question: “What are we ultimately wanting here: if we want to just maintain the late-stage capitalism and all its dysfunction, then, well, just invest in the next disaster and the next disaster and the next one. [if we want deeper transformation, then] change the narrative. Change the nature of human relationships[, and the relationships between humans and nature].”

Geopolitical Dimensions of Climate Resilience

Michael Lerner offered a broader geopolitical context for the discussion: “It’s hard to have this discussion absent a deep analysis of geopolitics. We are headed back to the 19th century geopolitics with spheres of influence created by ‘civilizational states'” Within this new geopolitical reality, he suggested “it is at least possible that these major powers will agree on some shared goals for both mitigation and adaptation. Philanthropy could advance this dialogue. This of course ignores equity and other humane goals. But it may be what is possible.”

This perspective highlights the tension between pursuing ideal outcomes and working within geopolitical constraints to achieve progress on climate resilience.

Key Questions Raised

How do philanthropies balance short-term crisis response with long-term transformation?

Susi: “It sort of sets up a dichotomy, as if we would do something different in the short term versus the long term… Whatever we invest in now in the short term… invest the money in a way that is consistent with the long-term regeneration of systems.” The criteria and principles they offered in the 2024 report for Packard may serve as relevant guides for how to do that.

Is “resilience” the right framing in the current political climate?

Susi: “For me, the framing is always a question of who you’re talking with… for now, we can at least use the word in the US context.” But resilience has many different interpretations, and it is crucial for people to grapple with these differences as they try to advance the cause.

Is there a difference between climate resilience and adaptation? Are the terms interchangeable?

Given the US government’s attack on climate disruption, how will things change in the coming months—are there implications for philanthropy which will have a (negative) trickle effect on other issues?

Three questions:

  1. Is there any coherent agreement/consensus in the field about what in a better world funding flows/policies would have to look like to make an impact systemically (or is the story still very fragmented).
  2. Would the ‘resilience’ entry point be tactically the smartest or should this be a moment to have some ‘confluence’ between field parties who are now still fending separately under another banner.
  3. Are there other ways to stop the ‘taking back’ (in other words: are we actually so week as collectives that we let this happen?)

How can we better evaluate climate resilience efforts?

Susi: “Monitoring, evaluation, learning are essentially rare and very spotty practices right now in the climate resilience building efforts across the US.” But investment and requirements attached to philanthropic funding could really help here.

How can philanthropy transform itself to better serve communities?

Eva invited reflection on the question: What role does philanthropy play? Is it giving us funding to create the spaces to have these conversations? Is it to take risks? Is it to pilot ideas that others can scale?”

Gerry Salole offered important insights about the need for strategic clarity and resource allocation explaining the Ethiopian game of chess called centage: “The beginning has a period where both players put pieces on the board instantly. They don’t wait for each other. They build the best strategy they can, as quickly as they can before the game starts, and they move the pieces… And the Trump administration, in the last month has been doing centage. They’ve been moving fast and furious along all the different fronts. And I would expect us to react to that by replacing, by reacting, by putting things in place.”

He also emphasised the need to identify new resource sources:

“As a world with less aid, with more armaments and with governments that are sorely trying to put resources on the table becomes apparent. Surely, we have to start thinking about, where are new resources going to come from? And part of that might be – indeed, I’ve been arguing for a long time – we need to start looking at remittance money. We need to start looking at illicit flows. We need to start looking at fines to organisations that have been involved in illicit flows or in drug money and so on.”

Closing Thoughts

The conversation ended with an emphasis on action and the need to use existing tools and frameworks more effectively:

Eva: “We have the tools, we have the language, we have the framing, we have the people, and we have the organisations… This is really the moment where we need to rely on and strengthen our collective and individual resilience in order to reimagine the system in which we operate.”

Susi: “I just hope [our report for Packard] goes into many, many more hands, and is actually not just a report on the shelf but becomes sort of a tool for helping to inform the really critical decisions that you are now making and thank you for making them.”

Additional Resources Shared During the Discussion

Participants shared numerous resources that complement the report’s findings:

Chat Notes “as is” and links:

What does ‘resilience theory’ say about how to act in situations in which we now find ourselves?I fFind it very revealing how we still do not seem to be able to apply a lot of our thinking about these topics to ourselves. I keep going back to this paper which provides an interesting lens to view our times through: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21693293.2017.1411445

In the Fall, the UN passed a historic Declaration of Future Generations Act (https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/declaration-on-future-generations) – Is this something that philanthropy can coalescence around?

Seelos’s approach seems like a good way to build toughness + stay under the radar: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/zero_problem_philanthropy

Building toughness (mental and physical) can be valuable for its own sake and can have a positive side effect of increasing resilience. Dienstbier, Richard A. “Arousal and Physiological Toughness: Implications for Mental and Physical Health.” Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology (1989): 216. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=psychfacpub

I hate to be so pessimistic, but I don’t think there will be solid widespread change in foundation behaviour until they directly feel “the many” crises

I wonder if there is greater potential for philanthropic, public sector, grassroots collaboration around adaptation in specific places (localities, bio regions, etc).

Is philanthropy as ‘invested in the continuation of the current system’ as business? [Apologies if that’s a naive question – I’m pretty new to all this]

Not a dumb question by my mind. For a LOT of donors foundations and philanthropy and DAFS are merely financial vehicles. No time to convert folks – need to help those who already want to matter/make a difference

Many would respond yes to this question. see e.g.: https://www.postcapitalistphilanthropy.org/

Hello, I am joining from Barbados, and I am a member of the Garifuna Indigenous community originating from St. Vincent and the Grenadines. This is an interesting conversation and shows the importance of us in the Global South forming South-South avenues of funding and collaboration, rather than a dependence on the Global North which many of us have come to experience as being deeply exploitative.

I believe it is, at least in part (with some exceptions), invested in reform of the system, not radical change. At least at the board / structure level (even if some program staff are more interested in systems change)

There’s a peer-to-peer component in all this (I guess that’s why we’re here). Like Eva said, working with nonprofits and communities as partners rather than as just “grantees”, initiating collaboration between funders on program strategy, reporting and challenging each other to co-invest, and also pushing boards to listen and follow the lead of CEOs and staff – we’re not going to get far if we’re working in service of foundation boards instead of communities and their needs.

I really am concerned that there seems to be very limited capacity to come at this without the “baggage” that very narrow understanding of “philanthropy” – dominated by a singular US centric take on philanthropy brings with it. Given the inability of philanthropy to use swimming-pool resources to replace the Sea money available to the rapidly retreating state?

Resilience practices for me have always been about supporting transformation for they spring from another reading/sense of what is desirable (and feasible). In my youth we would say: la luna continua. It will. We are NOT going back. Cheers! Warm regards to all.

Psychological flexibility = Awareness + Openness + Valued Engagement | https://stevenchayes.com/the-most-important-skill-set-in-mental-health-2/ I think psychological flexibility may be a good starting point for a broader and collective form of flexibility. Maybe generative flexibility? Social transformation and human development are inseparable. We need to be paying more attention to human interiority – growing capacity for greater maturity. A deep understanding of the biology of political orientation can be beneficial: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22400141/

Shifting to a transformation frame was wonderfully stated. A great societal I-turn to an ecological civilization where all life can flourish.

A vast amount of funding has gone into the climate field. the greatest effort in the history of philanthropy. much more on mitigation than adaptation. who has analysed its impact? has anyone done a serious evaluation of how it could be directed better?

In 2021 only about 4% of climate financing trickled to islands in the Global South. So, I believe we have to create our own financing mechanisms based on Indigenous methodologies.

Indigenous philanthropy is not just about generosity but also about reciprocity

Short (10m) film on Philanthropy in/with/for Indigenous communities and long-term climate resilience: https://twp.org/trust

Recent Thoughts

Categories

Posted in , ,