Opinion
Among the various objectives of climate adaptation policies is the need to identify who is most likely to suffer harm and what forms of support should be prioritized. Traditionally, a significant portion of assessments continue to describe vulnerability using individual variables and population categories. However, these types of methods present significant obstacles that must and can be overcome to achieve more efficient, solutions-based adaptation. What Indicators Show—and What They Leave Out The current IPCC framework defines vulnerability as the propensity or predisposition to suffer adverse effects. Climate risk arises from the combination of the occurrence of a climate hazard, exposure to it, and the ability of the exposed population to adapt to it—a concept known as vulnerability. The distinction between these three elements matters: living in a place exposed to a heat wave does not pose the same risk in a well-insulated home as it does in one without ventilation, nor for an independent person with support as it does for someone facing isolation or dependency. In practice, many indices that attempt to measure vulnerability translate this complexity into variables available in censuses and administrative records. A review of 230 studies on social vulnerability, climate, and health found a strong concentration of indicators such as age, sex, income, poverty, unemployment, education, and population density; and a much lesser presence of structural and institutional dimensions (Li, Toll, and Bentley, 2023). One might say that this phenomenon is understandable, since these data are comparable, periodic, and geographically traceable. However, we often find that the statistical availability of data ends up defining what is considered relevant, which deviates from scientific rigor. On the other hand, vulnerability indices based solely on individual attributes can indicate where disadvantages accumulate, but they struggle to explain why two neighborhoods with similar demographic profiles respond differently to a flood or a heat wave. Factors that may vary between them include neighborhood trust, support networks, relationships with public services, the presence of community organizations, channels for disseminating alerts, shared memories of past emergencies, and the capacity to organize social movements. The Problem of Labeling a Category as a “Group” The second barrier we encounter in traditional methods, from the perspective of solution-based strategies, is semantic—which does not mean that its effects do not have a negative impact on reality. In various official contexts, such as calls for public aid, strategies, and projects, the term “vulnerable groups” is frequently used to lump together very different realities. This term encompasses children, older adults, single-parent households, undocumented migrants, and women who have experienced gender-based violence. Some categories refer to life stages; others, to legal, family, or violence-related situations. However, none of them allows us to assume that those who share the label know one another, recognize themselves as a group, or have a common network. According to this administrative usage, the word “group” usually refers to a set of people classified by a specific individual characteristic. However, the way the term is used suggests the idea of a preexisting collectivity that does not necessarily exist among the people who share that characteristic. However, the way the term is used suggests the existence of a preexisting collective that does not necessarily exist among the people who share that characteristic. Furthermore, this use of individual and objective indicators to define a collective can lead to the homogenization of very different experiences and shift the focus from the processes that produce inequality to the supposed characteristics of the group, thereby stigmatizing it. The literature on human rights has already warned that the label of “vulnerability” can reinforce images of passivity, dependence, or the need for guardianship, while also obscuring capabilities and internal differences (Mayrhofer, 2024). But in reality, this obstacle to designing effective adaptation policies is not resolved by eliminating all categories. The ultimate goal of public administrations is to identify inequalities in order to guarantee specific rights. The key is not to confuse a population category—which is useful for detecting a potential disadvantage—with a real community, nor to automatically turn it into a homogeneous recipient of an externally designed solution. This semantic confusion favors or promotes projects in which the diagnosis will always be subordinated to the available solutions. Population category, community, and collective actor A more precise categorization could distinguish at least three levels. A population category brings together people who share an attribute relevant to the analysis. A community implies a series of sustained relationships, a certain degree of mutual recognition, shared practices, or ties to a territory, even if there is no full agreement among its members. A collective actor emerges when part of that community develops coordination mechanisms, formulates common objectives, and acquires the capacity to intervene, thereby becoming an agent. Level What it allows us to assert What should not be assumed Population category There is a common characteristic relevant to the analysis Relationships among its members or shared objectives Community There are shared ties, practices, resources, or affiliations Consensus, internal equality, or formal organization Collective actor There is some capacity for coordination and action toward common objectives Automatic representation of all individuals in the category This distinction helps avoid at least two mistakes. The first is attributing community ties to people who merely share a classification. The second is idealizing any community as a space of support. Networks can facilitate the sharing of information, care, and collective action, but they can also reproduce inequalities, restrict access to resources, or concentrate community work among certain individuals. That is why it is important to understand their existence, quality, distribution, and connections to external institutions. Research on social capital and climate resilience confirms their importance but also warns that their effects depend on who the network serves and in what context (Carmen et al., 2022). From Vulnerable People to Processes of Vulnerabilization Another limitation of the traditional approach to vulnerability is that it fails to account for the dynamism inherent in human and social relationships. The term “vulnerable” implies static characteristics—whether personal or collective—regardless of the socioeconomic relationships within which
Opinion
Henry Kissinger travelled to Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) in 1974 to present a proposal to the Saudi royal family that might alleviate the financial problems arising from the oil crisis, the Vietnam War and the abandonment of the gold standard, in order to prevent a significant loss of its economic power and influence worldwide. The deal with the House of Saud was this: in exchange for advanced military equipment and training, along with security guarantees, Saudi Arabia would use U.S. dollars exclusively for oil pricing and sales[1]. Other OPEC countries followed suit by 1975, even though they didn’t get the same deal as Saudi Arabia. Since virtually everyone in the world imported oil from the OPEC, everyone in the world now needed dollars. This restored the demand for the dollar in foreign exchange markets. This reinforced the dollar’s dominance as global reserve currency. The dollar was no longer backed by gold, but by black gold standard. From that point on, the world had to get hold of dollars in order to buy oil. The easiest way to hold dollars was to buy US government debt. This paved the way, in the decades that followed, for the creation of a global financial system dependent on US interests. Changing world Thanks to the petrodollar, the US has created a system of geopolitical control unprecedented in history. Although dollars are now created primarily within the private financial system rather than through the Federal Reserve, the system linking the dollar to the oil trade maintains a framework of geopolitical control. The world has been in demand for dollars for decades because it needs them to buy oil, which gives the US financial system considerable leverage, whether through sanctions in the case that the transactions pass through New York correspondent banks (the CHIPS clearing system) or through private-sector mechanisms. This has been the main framework of the system for 50 years, but recently something has changed. The change began with the rise of the so-called Global South on the geopolitical stage, at the same time as the control mechanisms linked to the dollar were becoming an excessively tight straitjacket for their national sovereignties. In this regard, we see two key trends towards liberation: trading oil in currencies other than the dollar and withdrawing from the SWIFT payment system. It was not the first move, but it was certainly one of the most significant: Saudi Arabia decided not to renew this petrodollar agreement when it expired on June 9, 2024. This allowed Saudi Arabia to start selling oil in currencies other than just the US dollar, potentially weakening the dollar’s dominance if this marks the first step towards creating a system to replace the market that the dollar has been propping up. The creation of BRICS as a forum for collaboration among countries of the Global South represents a symbolic and practical counterweight to US dominance, as demonstrated by its new payment system. By seeking to bypass the US-controlled SWIFT payment system, these countries also avoid the growing economic sanctions imposed on nations that do not align with US interests. Although BRICS Pay is still evolving and not yet fully operational, it is part of a broader strategic effort to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar, strengthen financial sovereignty, and create an alternative global payment infrastructure outside Western-controlled systems[2]. Geopolitics in full speed mode In recent years, and particularly in recent months, the US has made a number of moves that can be understood as an attempt to maintain its dominance over the energy market whilst preserving the dollar’s international role and reducing the risks of its gradual loss of reserve currency status. This strategy rests on a triple form of control: In reality, the current US approach does not differ greatly from the historical ‘petrodollar system’. The first two moves of control concern the physical aspect of the ‘petrodollar concept’, whilst the third belongs to its monetary dimension. However, perhaps what is new in this case lies, on the one hand, in the degree of aggressiveness displayed – something new for our generation – and, on the other hand, in some of the specific tactics employed, such as those aimed at controlling transit routes. Regarding the latter, it is worth noting that this could jeopardise freedom of navigation on the seas, a principle largely guaranteed by the US Navy, and taken for granted in the global economic system for many decades. Control over oil fields The origins of the petrodollar helped the US exert influence over a large proportion of the oil fields in Western Asia. The subsequent establishment in 1981 of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) amongst the countries of the Persian Gulf – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrein, UAE, Qatar, Oman- further strengthened US influence in the region, which boasts the highest concentration of fossil fuel resources. Here, the US administration has repeatedly intervened: it has waged two wars in Iraq in recent decades; in Iran, it installed the Shah in the mid-20th century, instigated the war led by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq against Iran in the 1980s following the Islamic Revolution, has imposed economic sanctions on the country for years, and has recently attacked it alongside Israel with the permission of most GCC members. Last year, the US initiated a blockade against Venezuela, the country with the largest proven oil reserves. In early 2026, it carried out an invasion of the country, kidnapping its president with the stated intention of controlling Venezuela´s oil industry. Control over the routes of physical flows The evidence suggests that pressure on strategic bottlenecks or critical chokepoints in international trade is also aimed at ‘containing’ China. In 2025, the US supported Panama’s decision to terminate the contract with the Hong Kong-based company CK Hutchison Holdings to manage the Panama Canal. Between March and May 2025, the US also launched attacks in Yemen, codenamed Operation Rough Rider, in the context of the Red Sea crisis. During the same year, the US administration repeatedly threatened to take control of Greenland (Denmark), most likely with
Opinion
The DANA has highlighted the need for, and the benefits of, a highly organised framework for comprehensive and interdisciplinary research that enables us to draw lessons from complex phenomena in order to adapt as a society,thereby reducing the associated risks and potential damage, so that these lessons can also be applied to similar situations in other regions.A study of this nature, in addition to its undoubted scientific value, would have unprecedented socio-political significance, as it would enable the creation of structures and the establishment of mechanisms and processes to facilitate comprehensive research into other phenomena and in other locations.Consequently, we propose promoting a comprehensive, sustained and coordinated study involving the three levels of government, using open data, common metrics and an evaluation-learning cycle; organising knowledge within a network to inform public policy; building a coordinated knowledge network centred on the DANA; and systematically linking research and public policy to advance resilience. This approach would enable us to capitalise on the lessons learnt from the 2024 DANA in the Valencian Community and strengthen preparedness for future events across the region. This extract forms part of the chapter written by Ekona and Professor Olga Mayoral for the report What We Must Learn from the Valencia Storm, which was presented on 9 June 2026 at the Centre for Contemporary Culture (OCCC). It forms part of the 2025 Cross-cutting Report by the Institute of Catalan Studies (IEC), co-published with the University of Valencia Press (PUV). It brings together the views and reflections of Ekona and 21 other experts on the storm disaster that affected the Valencian Community in October 2024. The report What We Must Learn from the Valencia Storm can be found at the following link (in Catalan): https://puv.uv.es/documents/get/document/id/7857/allo_que_hem_aprendre_dana_valencia_mostra.pdf
Opinion
The DANA of October 29, 2024 not only altered the territory of the Albufera Natural Park (PNA), but also transformed its research ecosystem. The increase in studies, the broadening of approaches, and the emergence of new collaborations reveal a drive toward more integrated forms of research. In a context where the Scientific Commission already articulates the knowledge of the PNA, the value of moving toward a multidimensional vision to improve the understanding and management of the territory is evident. The DANA has acted as an integrating factor in the research ecosystem linked to the PNA. It has driven an evolution in the scientific community, motivating groups traditionally focused on specific areas to broaden or redefine their objects of study to incorporate dimensions that were previously outside their focus. At the same time, it has increased the social and institutional visibility of research activity, reinforcing recognition of its public value. This process has resulted in new hires, interdisciplinary collaborations, and meeting spaces between teams and actors that previously operated in a fragmented manner. This emerging dynamic suggests the possibility of a paradigm shift: moving from fragmented knowledge production to more comprehensive, coordinated research focused on land management. However, doubts remain as to whether this trend is merely a temporary reaction to the seriousness of the event or whether it marks the beginning of a more structural transformation in the organization of research in the PNA. In a scenario where the evolution were temporary, the effects would be limited to resolving specific problems arising from the episode, with no lasting implications. On the other hand, if this is the beginning of a phase of profound change, the benefits of moving towards greater integration would be broader and more sustained. These benefits are consistent with the revised conceptual frameworks on comprehensive and interdisciplinary research, highlighting the advantages of a coordinated approach over the partial studies carried out to date. The new emerging trend described above raises two challenges: Moving in this direction would make it possible to build a robust infrastructure of applied knowledge, strengthen the resilience of the Natural Park, and provide a model that can be replicated in other territories exposed to complex climate risks. To consolidate this transition towards more integrated research, the coordinating role of existing structures, such as the Scientific Commission of the Albufera Natural Park and the Albufera Biological Station (EBA), would be key. These structures act as stable platforms for articulating, providing continuity, and facilitating the transfer of scientific knowledge to land management. O. Mayoral and P. Cotarelo Summary of a poster presented at the Second Conference of the Scientific Committee of the Governing Board of the Albufera Natural Park, entitled “L’Albufera. I ara què?” (The Albufera. What now?), held at the Botanical Garden of the University of Valencia on November 26 and 27, 2025.
Opinion
The climate crisis represents one of the most urgent and complex challenges of our time, with environmental, social, political, and ethical implications. This chapter argues that climate change should not be addressed solely as curricular content but, due to its particularities, can be used as a multidimensional and cross-cutting indicator to evaluate the quality of teacher training. To this end, it focuses on the purpose of the training process, how it is constructed, and how it is pursued in the context of today’s reality. In particular, it analyzes the notion of political agency as the purpose of climate competence, which is still underrepresented in initial teacher training. It proposes that this competence should not be limited to transmitting scientific information or encouraging individual behaviors, but should include the development of capacities to intervene in decision-making processes and in the design of public responses to the climate crisis. The text is structured around three main objectives: to examine the current shortcomings of training programs in relation toclimate literacy; to argue why political agency should underpin the purpose and form part of the core teaching competencies; and to propose conceptual and methodological tools for its integration into the curriculum. Throughout the chapter, analytical frameworks, training needs maps, and active methodologies are presented that enable progress toward critical and situated literacy. Finally, possible lines of research aimed at diagnosing and improving the incorporation of this competence at different levels and in different areas of the education system are outlined. O. Mayoral and P. Cotarelo The above text is part of the summary of an article published in spanish at the following link: https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/ceneam/grupos-de-trabajo-y-seminarios/investigacion/XVIII%20Seminario%20Investigaci%C3%B3n%20Educacion%20Ambiental%20y%20
Opinion
The United Nations has highlighted the role of universities in promoting and implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) defined in the Agenda 2030. University education and research, their capacity for innovation, social leadership, and privileged position for forging intersectoral alliances make them essential actors in the eco-social transition. In the context of a project to create and develop a university observatory to monitor the implementation of the SDGs of the Agenda 2030 at the UCM, a system is being created to measure the university’s performance in implementing the 2030 Agenda, in line with social concerns, the concerns of the university community, and the institutional statements of the representatives of the entity itself. The methodology used was based on the OECD and JRC’s “Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators” to create a composite indicator that would allow complex phenomena to be summarized in a simple way, enable easy comparison between similar actors, and provide representative information. The data sources used were diverse: online sources; direct consultations through the channels offered by the University; interviews with relevant actors from the University with different profiles, experiences, and approaches to the subject; direct data collection through on-site observation; and a survey conducted through the University’s Student Observatory. To define the indicators, a group of 30 researchers from different faculties used three levels of analysis of university activity: campus, teaching and research, institutional discourse and practices. As a result, indicators were established for each of these three levels of analysis in relation to all the SDGs. After the normalization, weighting, and aggregation process, a composite indicator was consolidated from more than 400 indicators, divided equally across the three levels of analysis. Reliable data was obtained for only one-third of these indicators in the first year of application (2024). The result of the composite indicator under these conditions gave the University a medium-low performance rating. Although the number of indicators used to construct the composite indicator is sufficient to give value to the university’s medium-low rating, these results must be corroborated in subsequent years with data collection work to achieve degrees of representativeness closer to 100%. On the other hand, it should be noted that both the number of indicators that make up the composite indicator and their standards are also part of a living process that will be fed each year from the initial results. The review of the system’s indicator standards will set progressively more ambitious targets until the optimum is reached for each of them and as a whole in 2030. P. Cotarelo The above text is part of the summary of an article published in spanish at the following link (pp. 349-358): https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/ceneam/grupos-de-trabajo-y-seminarios/investigacion/XVIII%20Seminario%20Investigaci%C3%B3n%20Educacion%20Ambiental%20y%2
Opinion
In a context marked by climate change and growing social, economic and environmental exposure to risk, disaster risk reduction (DRR) has become a strategic priority. We are no longer talking only about specific emergencies, but about a structural phenomenon that affects human security, economic stability and sustainability. Disasters, which are becoming increasingly frequent and complex, are the visible symptom of a system that needs anticipation, cooperation and shared knowledge. In this regard, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 was adopted by UN Member States on 18 March 2015 at the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in the Japanese city of Sendai, Miyagi Prefecture. The overall objective of this framework is to achieve a substantial reduction in disaster risk and losses in terms of lives, livelihoods and health, as well as in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of individuals, businesses, communities and countries over the coming years. Its specific targets are as follows: Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction The Global Platform is a forum for exchanging information, discussing the latest developments, sharing knowledge and establishing partnerships between different sectors, with the aim of increasing the implementation of disaster risk reduction through better communication and coordination between different stakeholder groups. This platform allows governments, NGOs, scientists, professionals in different fields, and United Nations organisations to share experiences and agree on strategic guidelines for the implementation of the Sendai Framework. Regional Platforms are multisectoral forums that reflect the commitment of governments to improve coordination and carry out activities for disaster risk reduction, while establishing links with national and international initiatives. Similarly, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) promotes the establishment of multisectoral coordination mechanisms for DRR, such as National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction, in order to highlight the relevance, added value and cost-effectiveness of a coherent and coordinated approach to disaster risk reduction at the national level. In Spain, the creation of this National Platform would not start from scratch, as the National Disaster Risk Reduction Plan already exists. This plan, which forms part of the National Civil Protection System, already establishes the necessary strategic architecture to either be used directly as the space from which to direct DRR research and actions, or as an inspirational model for creating an ad hoc body specifically dedicated to this mission. The urgency of creating this Platform Anticipating risk is now a matter of public and collective responsibility. The increasing frequency of extreme events, the exposure of critical infrastructure and the inequality in response capacity require a stable coordination structure that operates on a permanent and cross-cutting basis. Only an integrated vision, combining science, territorial planning and institutional cooperation, can offer a coherent response to the challenges of this new reality. The creation of this Platform is a strategic necessity. The justification is based on two interconnected pillars: 1. The new reality of disasters: the complexity, intensity and frequency of some disasters are increasing, very often due to climate change. Extreme weather events, increasingly linked to this phenomenon, know no administrative boundaries or sectoral competences. Today’s disasters are not isolated events, but interconnected crises. A forest fire is not just a problem for firefighters; it affects biodiversity, air quality, public health, the local economy and infrastructure. Understanding this network of interdependencies is key to anticipating and reducing impacts before they turn into disasters. Managing it effectively requires a comprehensive vision that can only be achieved through ongoing multisectoral coordination. 2. Consistency and efficiency: acting in isolation and in a fragmented manner is inefficient and costly. A National Platform enables a consistent and coordinated approach. This means: – Avoiding duplication between different administrations. – Sharing information: creating a flow of data and intelligence on risks that benefits all stakeholders. – Optimising resources: investing more intelligently in prevention, preparedness and response, obtaining a greater return in terms of safety for citizens. – Giving relevance: raising disaster risk reduction to the highest political priority, recognising its crucial value for the country’s sustainable development. Towards a Culture of Prevention The true value of a National Platform for DRR goes beyond emergency management when disaster has already struck. Its most important mission is to foster a culture of prevention. Instead of simply being reactive—waiting for the worst to happen before acting—this Platform would enable proactive work to identify risks before they materialise, strengthen critical infrastructure, educate the population, plan land use more safely, and ensure that our early warning systems are as robust as possible. Promoting a culture of prevention also promotes equity. Disasters hit the most vulnerable communities hardest (those living in precarious housing, in risk areas or with less access to information). A National Platform can become an instrument for strengthening territorial and social justice, ensuring that no one is left behind in the face of climate and environmental impacts. Anchored in existing structures such as those derived from the National Disaster Risk Reduction Plan, and backed by the National Civil Protection Council, the Platform would have the authority and capacity to drive this change in mindset, moving risk reduction from the technical sphere to the heart of the country’s strategic planning. P. Cotarelo and O. Mayoral
Opinion
Current events present us with apparent paradoxes, such as the fact that we live in a world of global connections with vast amounts of information available on any subject almost in real time, but we are often unaware of the details of the place we live in and on which we depend for the most basic activities. We may know more about the capitals of the Western world than we do about the geological history of our valley, river or mountain, and we may be more familiar with international trends than with rainfall patterns, prevailing winds or the processes of regression or advancement of our coastline after storms. However, in the context of climate change, this lack of knowledge about our territory has become a very risky luxury. Beyond the map: living, multidimensional knowledge However, knowing a territory is not just about being able to point out its borders on a map. It means understanding its ecology, history, culture and human relationships. It means understanding, for example, why one ecosystem is resilient to fire and another is not, or how past land management conditions present risks. It is about appreciating its anthropology, its collective memory and its stories, which have been able to read the signs of the climate over generations. Knowing the territory also involves recognising the different types of ‘situated knowledge’ that explain it: scientific, technical, peasant, traditional or emotional knowledge. Situated knowledge, which arises from direct experience with the environment, complements academic science and enriches local decision-making. All of these contribute essential pieces of the same reality, where daily observation and direct experience are as valuable as satellite data or technical reports. The aim of gaining a better and more comprehensive understanding of the territory is to provide people with a ‘territorial lens’ through which to interpret their reality, understanding, for example, that a neighbourhood built on a dry riverbed is not just an urban planning fact, but a future flood risk. This ‘lens’ allows us to connect knowledge and responsibility, and to understand that every local decision is part of an interconnected system. Tools for a local educational revolution The need for a ‘territorial lens’ to interpret reality challenges society as a whole. Therefore, knowledge about the local environment must be based on an educational ecosystem adapted to social and generational realities. In this context, the development of ‘climate-territorial competence’ becomes key. This competence can be defined as the ability to understand the territory in which one lives, identify climate-related risks and vulnerabilities, and act individually and collectively to prevent, mitigate and adapt, participating in local management and governance. The European GreenComp framework on sustainability competences provides a useful reference for guiding this competence. Among its 12 competences, systemic thinking, contextualisation of problems and collective action stand out, all of which are closely linked to territorial knowledge. The integration of these elements into the educational curriculum ensures that anyone who passes through our education system acquires a solid foundation in landscape reading, risk analysis and commitment to their environment. This type of teaching approach should include elements such as: Knowledge as an antidote to vulnerability Although it may be uncomfortable to admit, it is necessary to recognise that vulnerability is unevenly distributed. Vulnerability to the effects of climate change or other phenomena is not the same for all people or at all stages of life. It depends on social, economic and gender factors. For example, an elderly person living alone on the ground floor, without a family network and with reduced mobility, is inherently more vulnerable to flooding than a young person on a high floor. Knowledge of the territory is a ‘critical equaliser’ as it empowers the most vulnerable people, giving them the cognitive and practical resources to understand their risk and know how to act. Climate justice begins by recognising that not all communities face the same threats or have the same resources to deal with them. Knowing the territory, then, is not only an educational issue, but also an ethical and political one. Towards an informed and resilient citizenry An integrated plan for knowledge of the territory is a fundamental strategy for adapting to climate change and building social resilience. It is the difference between being passive spectators of disasters and being active agents of our own safety. It is a profoundly democratic initiative that returns the power of knowledge to society. It does so because it fosters a ‘rooted’ citizenry, with deep roots in understanding their environment, capable of enjoying it and reading the warning signs, participating in solutions and caring for the place they consider their home. Feeling that the territory is our own is the first step towards caring for it collectively, towards recognising it as an extension of our own history and our shared life. In a world of climate emergency, hyperlocal knowledge, acquired by walking, observing and listening, becomes the first line of defence, the basis of our safety. O. Mayoral and P. Cotarelo
