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

===== 3.5.3.2.3 Role of informal actors =====

Several studies show that informal actors of the Arctic can influence decision making process of the Council and shift the Council towards more cooperation with different actors to enhance the co-production of knowledge (Duyck, 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r2202|2202]]</sup> ; Makki, 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r2203|2203]]</sup> ; Keil and Knecht, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r2204|2204]]</sup> ). Recently, non-state observers at the Council, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature  and the Circumpolar Conservation Union have played a role in raising awareness on climate change responses and contributing to the work of the Council’s Working Groups and Expert Groups (Keil and Knecht, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r2205|2205]]</sup> ).

Within the Antarctic Treaty System, several non-state actors play a major role in providing advice and influencing the governance of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. Among the most prominent actors are formal observers such as the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, and invited experts such as the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators and the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition. At meetings of CCAMLR, the Scientific Committee’s 2009 report on Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (Turner et al., 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r2206|2206]]</sup> ) precipitated an Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts on Climate Change in 2010 (Antarctic Treaty Meeting of Experts, 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r2209|2209]]</sup> ). The outcomes of the meeting led the Antarctic Treaty’s Committee for Environmental Protection to develop a Climate Change Response Work Programme (ATCM, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r2210|2210]]</sup> )

<div id="section-3-5-3-2international-climate-governance-and-law-implications-for-international-cooperation-block-5"></div>

<span id="table-3.5"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 3.5'''
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
Summary of the assessment of practices, tools and strategies that can contribute to climate resilient pathways. Practices are shown with the potential extent of their contribution to resilience building, considering also seven general strategies (Biggs et al., 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r2207|2207]]</sup> ; Quinlan et al., 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r2208|2208]]</sup> ; Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1). Also shown is the current level of their application in polar regions and key conditions facilitating implementation.
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:0c22ef5cf12e0b1df3b86e48bbbb56fb table3.5.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<span id="towards-resilient-pathways"></span>