Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-12
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== 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>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-12
(section)
Add languages
Add topic