Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-3 (section)

===== 3.6.3.3.3 Governance dimension (institutional settings, decision making) =====

<div id="h4-27-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Ocean governance has become increasingly complex as new initiatives, new international agreements, institutions and scientific evidence arise at global, national and subnational scales ( ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Bindoff--2019a|Bindoff et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Scobie--2019b|Scobie, 2019b]] ), limiting the present effectiveness of adaptation ( [[#IPCC--2019c|IPCC, 2019c]] ). Marine climate governance is within the normatively contested marine governance space ( [[#Frazão%20Santos--2020|Frazão Santos et al., 2020]] ), which is influenced by geopolitics ( [[#Gray--2020|Gray et al., 2020]] ) and profit maximisation ( [[#Flannery--2016|Flannery et al., 2016]] ; [[#Haas--2021|Haas et al., 2021]] ) in ways that can entrench exclusionary processes in decision making, science management and funding ( [[#Levin--2018|Levin et al., 2018]] ). This limits just and inclusive ocean governance ( [[#Bennett--2018|Bennett, 2018]] ), perpetuates historical and cultural extractive practices and climate inaction, and leaves little space for Indigenous-led adaptation frameworks and approaches ( [[#Nursey-Bray--2019|Nursey-Bray et al., 2019]] ). At the national level, ocean governance for climate-change adaptation is often transversal, requiring consideration of biophysical and environmental conditions ( [[#Furlan--2020|Furlan et al., 2020]] ) while fitting into existing economic ( [[#Kim--2020|Kim, 2020]] ) and political processes. Adaptation governance that couples existing top-down structures with decentralised and participatory approaches generates shared goals and unlocks required resources and monitoring ( [[#Gupta--2016|Gupta et al., 2016]] ; [[#Haas--2021|Haas et al., 2021]] ).

Communities and governments at all levels increasingly use decision-making frameworks (e.g., structured decision making) or decision-analysis tools to evaluate trade-offs between different responses, rather than applying generic best practices to different physical, technical or cultural contexts ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Watkiss--2015|Watkiss et al., 2015]] ; [[#Haasnoot--2019|Haasnoot et al., 2019]] ; [[#Palutikof--2019|Palutikof et al., 2019]] ). Increased effort has also been devoted to developing climate services (actionable information and data products) that bridge the gap between climate prediction and decision making ( [[#Hewitt--2020|Hewitt et al., 2020]] ). Climate services have the potential to inform decision making related to disaster-risk reduction, adaptation responses, marine environmental management (e.g., fisheries management and MPA management) and ocean-based climate mitigation (e.g., renewable-energy installations) ( [[#Le%20Cozannet--2017|Le Cozannet et al., 2017]] ; [[#Gattuso--2019|Gattuso et al., 2019]] ; [[#Gattuso--2021|Gattuso et al., 2021]] ). Although improving observational and modelling capacity is important to developing ocean-focused services, particularly in high-risk regions like SIDS where regional climate projections are scarce (WGI AR6 Chapter 9; [[#Morim--2019|Morim et al., 2019]] ; [[#Fox-Kemper--2021|Fox-Kemper et al., 2021]] ), data are not the only limiting factor in decision making ( [[#Weichselgartner--2019|Weichselgartner and Arheimer, 2019]] ). Focusing on user engagement, relationship building and the decision-making context ensures that climate services are useful to, and used by, different stakeholders ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Soares--2018|Soares et al., 2018]] ; [[#Mackenzie--2019|Mackenzie et al., 2019]] ; [[#Weichselgartner--2019|Weichselgartner and Arheimer, 2019]] ; [[#Findlater--2021|Findlater et al., 2021]] ; [[#West--2021|West et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="3.6.3.3.4" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="mitigation"></span>