Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

=== 17.1.3 Outline of the Chapter ===

<div id="h2-3-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The chapter is organised around the broad narrative of climate risk decision-making and management (Figure 17.1), building from the assessment of risks within RKRs (Chapter 16) and options available to address these risks and within a broader context of climate resilient development pathways (Chapter 18). Decision-making is considered to be a reflexive and recursive process where different evidentiary threads and information inputs become relevant to the understanding and assessment of factors underlying specific decisions. Additionally, this is also a discursive process, whereby actors and institutions’ interpretations of climate risks are also key to these deliberations.

Decision-making processes of risk management and adaptation are varied and numerous. [[#17.2|Section 17.2]] assesses the risk management and adaptation options already in practice. [[#17.3|Section 17.3]] assesses decision-support methods and tools available for application and the effectiveness of these in supporting climate decision-making across degrees of uncertainties and levels of governance and expected reach (scale) across populations from households to international cooperation. Closely interlinked across the decision-making process are the enabling and catalysing conditions for decisions on adaptation and risk management ( [[#17.4|Section 17.4]] ). [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] synthesises evidence on maladaptation and adaptation successes, and assesses the current knowledge on M&amp;E of adaptation, including financial accounting, to support learning on those, respectively. Here, M&amp;E is considered distinct from the tracking of financial flows related to adaptation, given that financial accounting does not necessarily provide information on the implementation of adaptation measures and their results (see also [[#17.2.1.2|Section 17.2.1.2]] ). Finally, in [[#17.6|Section 17.6]] , decision-making, climate risk responses and their relevance for climate resilient development are presented, where evidence on their respective contributions to facilitate actions in the adaptation solution space within a broader context for development is shown (Chapter 18). Throughout the decision-making process, crucial feedback loops are present that define the results of specific actions and recursive nature of climate risk management and adaptation.

<div id="box-17.1" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 17.1 | How Is Success in Adaptation Characterised in Chapter 17?'''
<div id="h2-18-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Whether an adaptation is considered successful is context specific. It depends on who evaluates adaptation and at what time as well as on the ability to compare the outcome of adaptation with a hypothetical situation without adaptation and without other parallel changes, such as development interventions ( [[#Singh--2021|Singh et al., 2021]] ; Dilling et al., 2019). The ability to compare the risk situation post and prior adaptation is complicated through the long time horizons at which adaptation outcomes often become apparent (Cross-Chapter Box ADAPT in Chapter 1; [[#17.5.1|Section 17.5.1]] ; Dilling et al., 2019).

However, a wealth of information has recently become available on how success and effectiveness of adaptation could be assessed, defined or investigated in certain settings (Patt and Schröter, 2008; Morecroft Michael et al., 2019; [[#Tubi--2021|Tubi and Williams, 2021]] ) or across a larger set of adaptations (Hegger et al., 2012; [[#Eriksen--2015|Eriksen et al., 2015]] ; [[#Gajjar--2019a|Gajjar et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Owen--2020|Owen, 2020]] ; [[#Singh--2021|Singh et al., 2021]] ). Accordingly, successful adaptation is understood as effective adaptation, in that it reduces climate impacts, vulnerabilities and risk, and additionally balances synergies and trade-offs across diverse objectives, perspectives, expectations and values ( [[#Eriksen--2015|Eriksen et al., 2015]] ; [[#Juhola--2016|Juhola et al., 2016]] ; [[#Gajjar--2019a|Gajjar et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Owen--2020|Owen, 2020]] ; [[#Singh--2021|Singh et al., 2021]] ). Across this report, four factors are identified as enabling conditions of successful adaptation, which include a focus on recognitional, procedural and distributional justice as well as flexible and strong institutions that seek policy integration and account for long-term goals.

To operationalize ‘success’ in this chapter, it is characterised by the degree to which an adaptation response benefits (1) human systems (number of people), (2) ecosystems or ecosystem services, (3) marginalised ethnic groups, (4) women and girls, (5) and low-income populations, and can be characterised as (6) transformational adaptation, and (7) contributing to greenhouse gas emission reductions ( [[#17.5.1|Section 17.5.1]] ). Overarching to these factors are uncertainty and potential path dependency of decisions that may result in lock-in and maladaptation in the long term, and recognition that what is successful in the near term is not necessarily successful in the long term.

Success in adaptation is antithetical to maladaptation. Maladaptation refers to current or potential future negative consequences, including failed or partially successful adaptation (or risk reduction) but also trade-offs or side effects of adaptation (see Glossary, Annex II). Thus, success of adaptation and maladaptation form the ends of a continuum that represents the balancing of synergies and trade-offs across regions, populations or sectors ( [[#Singh--2016|Singh et al., 2016]] ; [[#Magnan--2020|Magnan et al., 2020]] ; [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper, 2020]] ). Every adaptation action may be placed along such a continuum reflecting the empirical evidence of adaptation practices and their assessment ( [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] ).

<div id="17.2" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="risk-management-and-adaptation-options"></span>