Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-12 (section)

=== 12.5.10 Feasibility Assessment of Adaptation Options ===

<div id="h2-20-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

This section assesses the feasibility of selected adaptations options by sector, relevant for CSA, in five dimensions (economic, technological, institutional, social, environmental and geophysical), according to the methodology developed by [[#Singh--2020a|Singh et al. (2020a)]] . Table 12.11 shows the summary of results and Table SM12.7 the details of the assessment and the supporting literature.

'''Table 12.11 |''' Feasibility assessment of selected adaptation options for CSA region.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! rowspan="2"| System

! rowspan="2"| Adaptation option

! rowspan="2"| Evidence

! rowspan="2"| Agreement

! colspan="6"| Dimension assessed

|-
! Economic

! Technological

! Institutional

! Social

! Environmental

! Geophysical

|-
| Food, fibre and other ecosystem products

| Agroforestry

| ''Medium''

| ''High''

| Insignificant barriers

| Mixed effect

| Significant barriers

| Mixed effect

| Insignificant barriers

| Mixed effect

|-
| Health and well-being

| EWSs

| ''Robust''

| ''High''

| Insignificant barriers

| Mixed effect

| Significant barriers

| Mixed effect

| Insignificant barriers

| Mixed effect

|-
| Water

| Multi-use of water storage approaches

| ''Robust''

| ''Medium''

| Insignificant barriers

| Mixed effect

| Mixed effect

| Mixed effect

| Mixed effect

| Insignificant barriers

|-
| Freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems

| EbA

| ''Medium''

| ''High''

| Insignificant barriers

| Mixed effect

| Mixed effect

| Insignificant barriers

| Insignificant barriers

| Insignificant barriers

|}

<div id="12.5.10.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="food-fibre-and-other-ecosystem-products-agroforestry"></span>
==== 12.5.10.1 Food, fibre and other ecosystem products: agroforestry ====

<div id="h3-65-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

For agrifood systems, the adoption of agroforestry provides for more diverse and sustainable agricultural production, where farmers maintain or improve their current production by incorporating suitable trees that ameliorate climatic conditions. Thus, in the same unit of land, these systems incorporate exotic tree species or managed native forests into farming systems allowing for the simultaneous production of trees, crops and livestock with different spatial arrangements or temporal sequences. On the other hand, it is recognised that the initial investment and time until trees start to produce may create an economic vulnerability. Therefore, there is a need to design adequate programmes and allocate resources for agroforestry system implementation and technical assistance and training ( ''medium confidence'' ). Also, some market schemes such as PES and certification can help to reduce this vulnerability.

<div id="12.5.10.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="health-and-well-being-early-warning-systems"></span>
==== 12.5.10.2 Health and Well-being: Early-warning Systems ====

<div id="h3-66-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

For the health sector, we assessed the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of climate-driven EWSs under natural extreme events and epidemic situations. We found institutional dimensions to be potential barriers. These included the legal and regulatory feasibility, institutional capacity and administrative feasibility, transparency and political acceptability ( ''high confidence'' ). The fewest barriers were identified for the economic and environmental dimensions.

One of the main institutional challenges is the lack of policy with climate–health linkages. Opportunities include a national plan for the health sector to address the impacts of climate change by formalising collaborations via agreements memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Another key barrier is that relatively few institutions in the region have the human technical and administrative capacity to implement and operate an EWS. Regional platforms may provide a solution for technical assistance at national levels.

On the other hand, the economic dimensions faced relatively few barriers, although the initial costs of designing, implementing, equipping and maintaining the system are a potential barrier for health-related sectors with reduced budgets. However, the health benefits and economic savings (due to averted epidemics or damage from disasters) may offset these costs. The resilience built into the health sector by these systems may be applicable to other economic sectors that could benefit from the early warning of an immenent extreme event and associated health impacts.

<div id="12.5.10.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="watermulti-use-water-storage-approaches"></span>
==== 12.5.10.3 Water—Multi-use Water Storage Approaches ====

<div id="h3-67-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

For the water sector, geophysical and economic dimensions do not pose a major barrier thanks to the potential reduction of flood hazard exposure, physical-technical viability of project implementation, different suitable economic mechanisms for joint public-private financing and more efficient water use. However, limited institutional capacities and the social-environmental impacts of large water infrastructure ( [[#12.5.3|Section 12.5.3]] ) reduce the institutional, social, environmental and, to some extent, technological feasibility. This may be a potential barrier to the adaptive approach of multi-use water storage ( ''medium confidence'' ).

<div id="12.5.10.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="freshwater-and-terrestrial-ecosystemsecosystem-based-adaptation"></span>
==== 12.5.10.4 Freshwater and Terrestrial Ecosystems—Ecosystem-based Adaptation ====

<div id="h3-68-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

In the terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem sector, we assessed the feasibility of implementing EbA options in the CSA region. Given that EbA encompasses a wide range of projects, techniques and political and socioeconomic arrangements, extreme care should be taken when applying these general findings to particular cases. EbA can enhance food sovereignty and carbon stocks and foster SDGs by protecting and restoring ecosystems’ health and productivity. EbA is a strategy that frequently involves bottom-up decision-making and local communities’ empowerment and usually contributes to inequality reduction. EbA tends to benefit vulnerable groups, but aspects such as the impact on socioeconomic inequalities when implemented should be taken into account.

In general, EbA does not require advanced technologies for local communities. However, limitations in technical assistance and funding for specific key technologies and training may act as a barrier for EbA adoption ( ''medium confidence'' ). EbA practices can reduce risk in several ways by increasing awareness among communities and providing food diversity and production. EbA is recognised as a desirable policy for most stakeholders in CSA, particularly because as a strategy it incorporates environmental and social concerns. Nonetheless, it is important that all stakeholders agree on the goals and methods for EbA to be effective. A lack of institutional coordination, clear goals and strategies were identified as a potential barrier for EbA implementation. EbA is heavily based in local and IK, as well as academic ecological knowledge.

For the adaptation options analysed, significant barriers and mixed effects were observed for the institutional dimension, which indicates the relevance of the design and implementation of public policies and institutional arrangements for effective adaptation in the region. Considering the results, there is a need to advance initiatives, programmes and projects that facilitate adaptation to climate change. In the same way, barriers were apparent in the technological dimension, which indicates the importance of increasing access and diffusion of appropriate techniques and technologies in order to face the challenges of climate change in the region.

<div id="12.6" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="case-studies"></span>