Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-4 (section)

=== 4.5.3 Implementing Adaptation ===

<div id="section-4-5-3-block-1"></div>

Article 7 of the Paris Agreement provides an aspirational global goal for adaptation, of ‘enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability’ (UNFCCC, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1469|1469]]</sup> . Adaptation implementation is gathering momentum in many regions, guided by national NDC’s and national adaptation plans (see Cross-Chapter Box 11 in this Chapter).

Operationalizing adaptation in a set of regional environments on pathways to a 1.5°C world requires strengthened global and differentiated regional and local capacities. It also needs rapid and decisive adaptation actions to reduce the costs and magnitude of potential climate impacts (Vergara et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1470|1470]]</sup> .

This could be facilitated by: (i) enabling conditions, especially improved governance, economic measures and financing (Section 4.4); (ii) enhanced clarity on adaptation options to help identify strategic priorities, sequencing and timing of implementation (Section 4.3); (iii) robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks; and (iv) political leadership (Magnan et al., 2015; Magnan and Ribera, 2016; Lesnikowski et al., 2017; UNEP, 2017a) <sup>[[#fn:r1471|1471]]</sup> .

<div id="section-4-5-3-1"></div>

<span id="feasible-adaptation-options"></span>
==== 4.5.3.1 Feasible adaptation options ====

<div id="section-4-5-3-1-block-1"></div>

This section summarizes the feasibility (defined in Cross-Chapter Box 3, Table 1 in Chapter 1 and Table 4.4) of select adaptation options using evidence presented across this chapter and in supplementary material 4.SM.4.3 and the expert-judgement of its authors (Table 4.12). The options assessed respond to risks and impacts identified in Chapter 3. They were selected based on options identified in AR5 (Noble et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1472|1472]]</sup> , focusing on those relevant to 1.5 '''°''' C-compatible pathways, where sufficient literature exists. Selected options were mapped onto system transitions and clustered through an iterative process of literature review, expert feedback, and responses to reviewer comments.

Besides gaps in the literature around crucial adaptation questions on the transition to a 1.5°C world (Section 4.6), there is inadequate current literature to undertake a spatially differentiated assessment (Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 1). There are also limited baselines for exposure, vulnerability and risk to help policy and implementation prioritization. Hence, the compiled results can at best provide a broad framework to inform policymaking. Given the bottom-up nature of most adaptation implementation evidence, care needs to be taken in generalizing these findings.

Options are considered as part of a systemic approach, recognizing that no single solution exists to limit warming to 1.5°C and adapting to its impacts. To respond to the local and regional context – and to synergies and trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development – packages of options suited to local enabling conditions can be implemented.

Table 4.12 summarizes the feasibility assessment through its six dimensions with levels of evidence and agreement and indicates how the feasibility of an adaptation option may be differentiated by certain contextual factors (last column).

<div id="section-4-5-3-1-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-4.12"></span>
<!-- START TABLE -->
'''Table 4.12'''

Feasibility assessment of examples of 1.5°C-relevant adaptation options, with dark shading signifying the absence of barriers in the feasibility dimension, moderate shading indicating that, on average, the dimension does not have a positive or negative effect on the feasibility of the option, or the evidence is mixed, and light shading indicating the presence of potentially blocking barriers. No shading means that sufficient literature could not be found to make the assessment. NA signifies that the dimension is not applicable to that adaptation option. For methodology and literature basis, see supplementary material 4.SM.4.

<span id="abbreviations-used-1"></span>
'''Abbreviations used'''

Ec: Economic – Tec: Technological – Inst: Institutional – Soc: Socio-cultural – Env: Environmental/Ecological – Geo: Geophysical

<!-- TABLE -->
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! System
! Adaptation Option
! Evidence
! Agreement
! Ec
! Tec
! Inst
! Soc
! Env
! Geo
! Context
|-
| Energy System Transitions
| Power infrastructure, including water
| Medium
| High
|
| Depends on existing power infrastructure, all generation sources and those with intensive water requirements
|-
| rowspan="9"| Land &amp; Ecosystem Transitions
| Conservation agriculture
| Medium
|
| Depends on irrigated/rainfed system, ecosystem characteristics, crop type, other farming practices
|-
| Efficient irrigation
| Medium
|
| Depends on agricultural system, technology used, regional institutional and biophysical context
|-
| Efficient livestock systems
| Limited
| High
|
| Dependent on livestock breeds, feed practices, and biophysical context (e.g., carrying capacity)
|-
| Agroforestry
| Medium
| High
|
| Depends on knowledge, financial support, and market conditions
|-
| Community-based adaptation
| Medium
| High
|
| Focus on rural areas and combined with ecosystems-based adaptation, does not include urban settings
|-
| Ecosystem restoration &amp; avoided deforestation
| Robust
| Medium
|
| Mostly focused on existing and evaluated REDD+<br />
projects
|-
| Biodiversity management
| Medium
|
| Focus on hotspots of biodiversity vulnerability and<br />
high connectivity
|-
| Coastal defence &amp; hardening
| Robust
| Medium
|
| Depends on locations that require it as a first<br />
adaptation option
|-
| Sustainable aquaculture
| Limited
| Medium
|
| Depends on locations at risk and socio-cultural context
|-
| rowspan="4"| Urban &amp; Infrastructure System Transitions
| Sustainable land-use &amp; urban planning
| Medium
|
| Depends on nature of planning systems and enforcement mechanisms
|-
| Sustainable water management
| Robust
| Medium
|
| Balancing sustainable water supply and rising demand, especially in low-income countries
|-
| Green infrastructure &amp; ecosystem services
| Medium
| High
|
| Depends on reconciliation of urban development<br />
with green infrastructure
|-
| Building codes &amp; standards
| Limited
| Medium
|
| Adoption requires legal, educational, and enforcement mechanisms to regulate buildings
|-
| Industrial System Transitions
| Intensive industry infrastructure resilience and water management
| Limited
| High
|
| Depends on intensive industry, existing infrastructure and using or requiring high demand of water
|-
| rowspan="8"| Overarching Adaptation Options
| Disaster risk management
| Medium
| High
|
| Requires institutional, technical, and financial capacity in frontline agencies and government
|-
| Risk spreading and sharing: insurance
| Medium
|
| Requires well-developed financial structures and public understanding
|-
| Social safety nets
| Medium
|
| Type and mechanism of safety net, political priorities, institutional transparency
|-
| Climate services
| Medium
| High
|
| Depends on climate information availability and usability, local infrastructure and institutions, national priorities
|-
| Indigenous knowledge
| Medium
| High
|
| Dependent on recognition of indigenous rights, laws, and governance systems
|-
| Education and learning
| Medium
| High
|
| Existing education system, funding
|-
| Population health and health system
| Medium
| High
|
| NA
| Requires basic health services and infrastructure
|-
| Human migration
| Medium
| Low
|
| Hazard exposure, political and socio-cultural<br />
acceptability (in destination), migrant skills and<br />
social networks
|}
<!-- END TABLE -->

<div id="section-4-5-3-1-block-3"></div>

When considered jointly, the description of adaptation options (Section 4.3), the feasibility assessment (summarized in Table 4.12), and discussion of enabling conditions (Section 4.4) show us how options can be implemented and lead towards transformational adaptation if and when needed.

The adaptation options for energy system transitions focus on existing power infrastructure resilience and water management, when required, for any type of generation source. These options are not sufficient for the far-reaching transformations required in the energy sector, which have tended to focus on technologies to shift from a fossil-based to a renewable energy system (Erlinghagen and Markard, 2012; Muench et al., 2014; Brand and von Gleich, 2015; Monstadt and Wolff, 2015; Child and Breyer, 2017; Hermwille et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1473|1473]]</sup> . There is also need for integration of such energy system transitions with social-ecological systems transformations to increase the resilience of the energy sector, for which appropriate enabling conditions, such as for technological innovations, are fundamentally important. Institutional capacities can be enhanced by expanding the role of actors as transformation catalysts (Erlinghagen and Markard, 2012) <sup>[[#fn:r1474|1474]]</sup> . The integration of ethics and justice within these transformations can help attain SDG 7 on clean energy access (Jenkins et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1475|1475]]</sup> , while inclusion of the cultural dimension and cultural legitimacy (Amars et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1476|1476]]</sup> can provide a more substantial base for societal transformation. Strengthening policy instruments and regulatory frameworks and enhancing multilevel governance that focuses on resilience components can help secure these transitions (Exner et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1477|1477]]</sup> .

For land and ecosystem transitions, the options of conservation agriculture, efficient irrigation, agroforestry, ecosystem restoration and avoided deforestation, and coastal defence and hardening have between ''medium and robust evidence'' with ''medium to high agreement'' . The other options assessed have limited or no evidence across one or more of the feasibility dimensions. Community-based adaptation is assessed as having ''medium evidence'' and ''high agreement'' to face scaling barriers. Scaling community-based adaptation may require  structural changes, implying the need for transformational adaptation in some regions. This would involve enhanced multilevel governance and institutional capacities by enabling anticipatory and flexible decision-making systems that access and develop collaborative networks (Dowd et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1478|1478]]</sup> , tackling root causes of vulnerability (Chung Tiam Fook, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1479|1479]]</sup> , and developing synergies between development and climate change (Burch et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1480|1480]]</sup> . Case studies show the use of transformational adaptation approaches for fire management (Colloff et al., 2016a) <sup>[[#fn:r1481|1481]]</sup> , floodplain and wetland management (Colloff et al., 2016b) <sup>[[#fn:r1482|1482]]</sup> , and forest management (Chung Tiam Fook, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1483|1483]]</sup> , in which the strengthening of policy instruments and climate finance are also required.

There is growing recognition of the need for transformational adaptation within the agricultural sector but ''limited evidence'' on how to facilitate processes of deep, systemic change (Dowd et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1484|1484]]</sup> . Case studies demonstrate that transformational adaptation in agriculture requires a sequencing and overlap between incremental and transformational adaptation actions (Hadarits et al., 2017; Termeer et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1485|1485]]</sup> , e.g., incremental improvements to crop management while new crop varieties are being researched and field-tested (Rippke et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1486|1486]]</sup> . Broader considerations include addressing stakeholder values and attitudes (Fleming et al., 2015a) <sup>[[#fn:r1487|1487]]</sup> , understanding and leveraging the role of social capital, collaborative networks, and information (Dowd et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1488|1488]]</sup> , and being inclusive with rural and urban communities, and the social, political, and cultural environment (Rickards and Howden, 2012) <sup>[[#fn:r1489|1489]]</sup> . Transformational adaptation in agriculture systems could have significant economic and institutional costs (Mushtaq, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1490|1490]]</sup> , along with potential unintended negative consequences (Davidson, 2016; Rippke et al., 2016; Gajjar et al., 2018; Mushtaq, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1491|1491]]</sup> ,  and a need to focus on the transitional space between incremental and transformational adaptation (Hadarits et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1492|1492]]</sup> , as well as the timing of the shift from one to the other (Läderach et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1493|1493]]</sup> .

Within urban and infrastructure transitions, green infrastructure and sustainable water management are assessed as the most feasible options, followed by sustainable land-use and urban planning. The need for transformational adaptation in urban settings arises from the root causes of poverty, failures in sustainable development, and a lack of focus on social justice (Revi et al., 2014a; Parnell, 2015; Simon and Leck, 2015; Shi et al., 2016; Ziervogel et al., 2016a; Burch et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1494|1494]]</sup> , and necessitates a focus on governance structures and the inclusion of equity and justice concerns (Bos et al., 2015; Shi et al., 2016; Hölscher et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1495|1495]]</sup> .

Current implementation of urban ecosystems-based adaptation (EbA) lacks a systems perspective of transformations and consideration of the normative and ethical aspects of EbA (Brink et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1496|1496]]</sup> . Flexibility within urban planning could help deal with the multiple uncertainties of implementing adaptation (Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2014; Radhakrishnan et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1497|1497]]</sup> , for example, urban adaptation pathways were implemented in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in New York, which is considered as tipping point that led to the implementation of transformational adaptation practices.

Adaptation options for industry focus on infrastructure resilience and water management. Like with energy system transitions, technological innovation would be required, but also the enhancement of institutional capacities. Recent research illustrates transformational adaptation within industrial transitions focusing on the role of different actors and tools driving innovation, and points to the role of nationally appropriate mitigation actions in avoiding lock-ins and promoting system innovation (Boodoo and Olsen, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1498|1498]]</sup> , the role of private sector in sustainability governance in the socio-political context (Burch et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1499|1499]]</sup> , and of green entrepreneurs driving transformative change in the green economy (Gibbs and O’Neill, 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1500|1500]]</sup> . Lim-Camacho et al. (2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1501|1501]]</sup> suggest an analysis of the complete lifecycle of supply chains as a means of identifying additional adaptation strategies, as opposed to the current focus on a part of the supply chain. Chain-wide strategies can modify the rest of the chain and present a win-win with commercial objectives.

The assessed adaptation options also have mitigation synergies and trade-offs (assessed in Section 4.5.4) that need to be carefully considered, while planning climate action.

<div id="section-4-5-3-2"></div>

<span id="monitoring-and-evaluation"></span>
==== 4.5.3.2 Monitoring and evaluation ====

<div id="section-4-5-3-2-block-1"></div>

Monitoring and evaluation (M&amp;E) in adaptation implementation can promote accountability and transparency of adaptation financing, facilitate policy learning and sharing good practices, pressure laggards, and guide adaptation planning. The majority of research on M&amp;E focuses on specific policies or programmes, and has typically been driven by the needs of development organizations, donors, and governments to measure the impact and attribution of adaptation initiatives (Ford and Berrang-Ford, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1502|1502]]</sup> . There is growing research examining adaptation progress across nations, sectors, and scales (Reckien et al., 2014; Araos et al., 2016a, b; Austin et al., 2016; Heidrich et al., 2016; Lesnikowski et al., 2016; Robinson, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1503|1503]]</sup> . In response to a need for global, regional and local adaptation, the development of indicators and standardized approaches to evaluate and compare adaptation over time and across regions, countries, and sectors would enhance comparability and learning. A number of constraints continue to hamper progress on adaptation M&amp;E, including a debate on what actually constitutes adaptation for the purposes of assessing progress (Dupuis and Biesbroek, 2013; Biesbroek et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1504|1504]]</sup> , an absence of comprehensive and systematically collected data on adaptation to support longitudinal assessment and comparison (Ford et al., 2015b; Lesnikowski et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1505|1505]]</sup> , a lack of agreement on indicators to measure (Brooks et al., 2013; Bours et al., 2015; Lesnikowski et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1506|1506]]</sup> , and challenges of attributing altered vulnerability to adaptation actions (Ford et al., 2013; Bours et al., 2015; UNEP, 2017a) <sup>[[#fn:r1507|1507]]</sup> .

<span id="synergies-and-trade-offs-between-adaptation-and-mitigation"></span>