**Transboundary climate and adaptation risks to multi-country natural resource management and nature-based adaptation initiatives and links with national adaptation planning processes** Transboundary climate and adaptation risks (TCARs) are risks that cross national borders – the transboundary climate change impacts and the transboundary effects of adaptation (positive or negative) made by one or more countries that have repercussions for other countries. They can be transmitted to countries sharing borders or with distant partners along a number of pathways, such as: - Biophysical: e.g. climate and adaptation impacts to shared natural resources - Movement of people: continuum of displacement (involuntary) to voluntary migration; transhumance and urbanisation; and migration policies - Financial flows: e.g. foreign direct investments - Trade: livestock, agricultural inputs and exports, policies and trade agreements, etc. While some African countries do recognise some types of transboundary climate impacts (predominantly biophysical) and call for joint management of national adaptation planning processes with neighbouring countries, systematic regional TCAR assessments and joint management mechanisms remain lacking ([Nadin and Roberts, 2018][1]; [Benzie et al., 2018][2]; ODI, SEI and IDDRI - unpublished). Burkina Faso’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP) mentions cross-border transhumance and links it with increased conflict risk, calling for the reduction of large-scale cattle mobility on a national and cross-border basis. Uganda’s NAP acknowledges how shifting rivers due to altered flows could require redrawing borders with the Democratic Republic of Congo (ODI, SEI and IDDRI – unpublished). At the same time, there are multi-country initiatives like the [Great Green Wall][3] (GGW), to tackle some perceived transboundary climate change impacts. The GGW was created to slow transboundary desertification and resulting impacts on livelihoods, including reducing ‘frustrations boiling over with more migration and more conflict over a shrivelling resource base’ (Great Green Wall, 2019). However, NAP processes may be divorced from large-scale natural resource and livelihood management, or nature-based resilience initiatives like the GGW. Furthermore, the transboundary implications of national adaptation planning on the GGW are not yet reflected in its strategy and activities, at least as can be gleaned from publicly available documents. For instance, how Burkina Faso’s NAP reference toward reducing transhumance fits with the GGW’s aim of ‘growing a reason to stay to help break the cycle of migration’ is not clear. *This project will compare and contrast perceptions of TCARs among three groups of decision makers from the: African Group of Negotiators, Great Green Wall and the NAP processes.* In some countries, there will be overlaps between the groups. [1]: https://www.odi.org/publications/11088-moving-towards-growing-global-discourse-transboundary-adaptation [2]: https://www.odi.org/publications/11096-meeting-global-challenge-adaptation-addressing-transboundary-climate-risk [3]: https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall