Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-5 (section)

== 5.3 Climate Adaptation and Sustainable Development ==

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

Adaptation will be extremely important in a 1.5°C warmer world since substantial impacts will be felt in every region ( ''high confidence'' ) (Chapter 3, Section 3.3), even if adaptation needs will be lower than in a 2°C warmer world (see Chapter 4, Sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.5, 4.5.3, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 4). Climate adaptation options comprise structural, physical, institutional and social responses, with their effectiveness depending largely on governance (see Glossary), political will, adaptive capacities and availability of finance (see Chapter 4, Sections 4.4.1 to 4.4.5) (Betzold and Weiler, 2017; Sonwa et al., 2017; Sovacool et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r80|80]]</sup> . Even though the literature is scarce on the expected impacts of future adaptation measures on sustainable development specific to warming experiences of 1.5°C, this section assesses available literature on how (i) prioritising sustainable development enhances or impedes climate adaptation efforts (Section 5.3.1); (ii) climate adaptation measures impact sustainable development and the SDGs in positive (synergies) or negative (trade-offs) ways (Section 5.3.2); and (iii) adaptation pathways towards a 1.5°C warmer world affect sustainable development, poverty and inequalities (Section 5.3.3). The section builds on Chapter 4 (see Section 4.3.5) regarding available adaptation options to reduce climate vulnerability and build resilience (see Glossary) in the context of 1.5°C-compatible trajectories, with emphasis on sustainable development implications.

<span id="sustainable-development-in-support-of-climate-adaptation"></span>
=== 5.3.1 Sustainable Development in Support of Climate Adaptation ===

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

Making sustainable development a priority, and meeting the SDGs, is consistent with efforts to adapt to climate change ( ''very high confidence'' ). Sustainable development is effective in building adaptive capacity if it addresses poverty and inequalities, social and economic exclusion, and inadequate institutional capacities (Noble et al., 2014; Abel et al., 2016; Colloff et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r81|81]]</sup> . Four ways in which sustainable development leads to effective adaptation are described below.

First, sustainable development enables transformational adaptation (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2.2) when an integrated approach is adopted, with inclusive, transparent decision-making, rather than addressing current vulnerabilities as stand-alone climate problems (Mathur et al., 2014; Arthurson and Baum, 2015; Shackleton et al., 2015; Lemos et al., 2016; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2017b) <sup>[[#fn:r82|82]]</sup> . Ending poverty in its multiple dimensions (SDG 1) is often a highly effective form of climate adaptation (Fankhauser and McDermott, 2014; Leichenko and Silva, 2014; Hallegatte and Rozenberg, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r83|83]]</sup> . However, ending poverty is not sufficient, and the positive outcome as an adaptation strategy depends on whether increased household wealth is actually directed towards risk reduction and management strategies (Nelson et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r84|84]]</sup> , as shown in urban municipalities (Colenbrander et al., 2017; Rasch, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r85|85]]</sup> and agrarian communities (Hashemi et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r86|86]]</sup> , and whether finance for adaptation is made available (Section 5.6.1).

Second, local participation is effective when wider socio-economic barriers are addressed via multiscale planning (McCubbin et al., 2015; Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner-Kerr, 2015; Toole et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r87|87]]</sup> . This is the case, for instance, when national education efforts (SDG 4) (Muttarak and Lutz, 2014; Striessnig and Loichinger, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r88|88]]</sup> and indigenous knowledge (Nkomwa et al., 2014; Pandey and Kumar, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r89|89]]</sup> enhance information sharing, which also builds resilience (Santos et al., 2016; Martinez-Baron et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r90|90]]</sup> and reduces risks for maladaptation (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018; Gajjar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r91|91]]</sup> .

Third, development promotes transformational adaptation when addressing social inequalities (Section 5.5.3, 5.6.4), as in SDGs 4, 5, 16 and 17 (O’Brien, 2016, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r92|92]]</sup> . For example, SDG 5 supports measures that reduce women’s vulnerabilities and allow women to benefit from adaptation (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2015; Van Aelst and Holvoet, 2016; Cohen, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r93|93]]</sup> . Mobilization of climate finance, carbon taxation and environmentally motivated subsidies can reduce inequalities (SDG 10), advance climate mitigation and adaptation (Chancel and Picketty, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r94|94]]</sup> , and be conducive to strengthening and enabling environments for resilience building (Nhamo, 2016; Halonen et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r95|95]]</sup> .

Fourth, when sustainable development promotes livelihood security, it enhances the adaptive capacities of vulnerable communities and households. Examples include SDG 11 supporting adaptation in cities to reduce harm from disasters (Kelman, 2017; Parnell, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r96|96]]</sup> ; access to water and sanitation (SDG 6) with strong institutions (SDG 16) (Rasul and Sharma, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r97|97]]</sup> ; SDG 2 and its targets that promote adaptation in agricultural and food systems (Lipper et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r98|98]]</sup> ; and targets for SDG 3 such as reducing infectious diseases and providing health cover are consistent with health-related adaptation (ICSU, 2017; Gomez-Echeverri, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r99|99]]</sup> .

Sustainable development has the potential to significantly reduce systemic vulnerability, enhance adaptive capacity and promote livelihood security for poor and disadvantaged populations ( ''high confidence'' ). Transformational adaptation (see Chapter 4, Sections 4.2.2.2 and 4.5.3) would require development that takes into consideration multidimensional poverty and entrenched inequalities, local cultural specificities and local knowledge in decision-making, thereby making it easier to achieve the SDGs in a 1.5°C warmer world ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ).

<span id="synergies-and-trade-offs-between-adaptation-options-and-sustainable-development"></span>
=== 5.3.2 Synergies and Trade-Offs between Adaptation Options and Sustainable Development ===

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

There are short-, medium-, and long-term positive impacts (synergies) and negative impacts (trade-offs) between the dual goals of keeping temperatures below 1.5°C global warming and achieving sustainable development. The extent of synergies between development and adaptation goals will vary by the development process adopted for a particular SDG and underlying vulnerability contexts ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ). Overall, the impacts of adaptation on sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing inequalities in general, and the SDGs specifically, are expected to be largely positive, given that the inherent purpose of adaptation is to lower risks. Building on Chapter 4 (see Section 4.3.5), this section examines synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and sustainable development for some key sectors and approaches.

''Agricultural adaptation'' : The most direct synergy is between SDG 2 (zero hunger) and adaptation in cropping, livestock and food systems, designed to maintain or increase production (Lipper et al., 2014; Rockström et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r100|100]]</sup> . Farmers with effective adaptation strategies tend to enjoy higher food security and experience lower levels of poverty (FAO, 2015; Douxchamps et al., 2016; Ali and Erenstein, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r101|101]]</sup> . Vermeulen et al. (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r102|102]]</sup> report strong positive returns on investment across the world from agricultural adaptation with side benefits for environment and economic well-being. Well-adapted agricultural systems contribute to safe drinking water, health, biodiversity and equity goals (DeClerck et al., 2016; Myers et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r103|103]]</sup> . Climate-smart agriculture has synergies with food security, though it can be biased towards technological solutions, may not be gender sensitive, and can create specific challenges for institutional and distributional aspects (Lipper et al., 2014; Arakelyan et al., 2017; Taylor, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r104|104]]</sup> .

At the same time, adaptation options increase risks for human health, oceans and access to water if fertiliser and pesticides are used without regulation or when irrigation reduces water availability for other purposes (Shackleton et al., 2015; Campbell et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r105|105]]</sup> . When agricultural insurance and climate services overlook the poor, inequality may rise (Dinku et al., 2014; Carr and Owusu-Daaku, 2015; Georgeson et al., 2017a; Carr and Onzere, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r106|106]]</sup> . Agricultural adaptation measures may increase workloads, especially for women, while changes in crop mix can result in loss of income or culturally inappropriate food (Carr and Thompson, 2014; Thompson-Hall et al., 2016; Bryan et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r107|107]]</sup> , and they may benefit farmers with more land to the detriment of land-poor farmers, as seen in the Mekong River Basin (see Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3).

''Adaptation to protect human health'' : Adaptation options in the health sector are expected to reduce morbidity and mortality (Arbuthnott et al., 2016; Ebi and Otmani del Barrio, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r108|108]]</sup> . Heat-early-warning systems help lower injuries, illnesses and deaths (Hess and Ebi, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r109|109]]</sup> , with positive impacts for SDG 3. Institutions better equipped to share information, indicators for detecting climate-sensitive diseases, improved provision of basic health care services and coordination with other sectors also improve risk management, thus reducing adverse health outcomes (Dasgupta et al., 2016; Dovie et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r110|110]]</sup> . Effective adaptation creates synergies via basic public health measures (K.R. Smith et al., 2014; Dasgupta, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r111|111]]</sup> and health infrastructure protected from extreme weather events (Watts et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r112|112]]</sup> . Yet trade-offs can occur when adaptation in one sector leads to negative impacts in another sector. Examples include the creation of urban wetlands through flood control measures which can breed mosquitoes, and migration eroding physical and mental well-being, hence adversely affecting SDG 3 (K.R. Smith et al., 2014; Watts et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r113|113]]</sup> . Similarly, increased use of air conditioning enhances resilience to heat stress (Petkova et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r114|114]]</sup> , yet it can result in higher energy consumption, undermining SDG 13.

''Coastal adaptation'' : Adaptation to sea level rise remains essential in coastal areas even under a climate stabilization scenario of 1.5°C (Nicholls et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r115|115]]</sup> . Coastal adaptation to restore ecosystems (for instance by planting mangrove forests) supports SDGs for enhancing life and livelihoods on land and oceans (see Chapter 4, Sections 4.3.2.3). Synergistic outcomes between development and relocation of coastal communities are enhanced by participatory decision-making and settlement designs that promote equity and sustainability (van der Voorn et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r116|116]]</sup> ''.'' Limits to coastal adaptation may rise, for instance in low-lying islands in the Pacific, Caribbean and Indian Ocean, with attendant implications for loss and damage (see Chapter 3 Box 3.5, Chapter 4, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5, Box 5.3).

''Migration as adaptation'' : Migration has been used in various contexts to protect livelihoods from challenges related to climate change (Marsh, 2015; Jha et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r117|117]]</sup> , including through remittances (Betzold and Weiler, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r118|118]]</sup> . Synergies between migration and the achievement of sustainable development depend on adaptive measures and conditions in both sending and receiving regions (Fatima et al., 2014; McNamara, 2015; Entzinger and Scholten, 2016; Ober and Sakdapolrak, 2017; Schwan and Yu, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r119|119]]</sup> . Adverse developmental impacts arise when vulnerable women or the elderly are left behind or if migration is culturally disruptive (Wilkinson et al., 2016; Albert et al., 2017; Islam and Shamsuddoha, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r120|120]]</sup> .

''Ecosystem-based adaptation'' : Ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA) can offer synergies with sustainable development (Morita and Matsumoto, 2015; Ojea, 2015; Szabo et al., 2015; Brink et al., 2016; Butt et al., 2016; Conservation International, 2016; Huq et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r121|121]]</sup> , although assessments remain difficult (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2.2) (Doswald et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r122|122]]</sup> . Examples include mangrove restoration reducing coastal vulnerability, protecting marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and increasing local food security, as well as watershed management reducing flood risks and improving water quality (Chong, 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r123|123]]</sup> . In drylands, EBA practices, combined with community-based adaptation, have shown how to link adaptation with mitigation to improve livelihood conditions of poor farmers (Box 5.1). Synergistic developmental outcomes arise where EBA is cost effective, inclusive of indigenous and local knowledge and easily accessible by the poor (Ojea, 2015; Daigneault et al., 2016; Estrella et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r124|124]]</sup> . Payment for ecosystem services can provide incentives to land owners and natural resource managers to preserve environmental services with synergies with SDGs 1 and 13 (Arriagada et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r125|125]]</sup> , when implementation challenges are overcome (Calvet-Mir et al., 2015; Wegner, 2016; Chan et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r126|126]]</sup> . Trade-offs include loss of other economic land use types, tension between biodiversity and adaptation priorities, and conflicts over governance (Wamsler et al., 2014; Ojea, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r127|127]]</sup> .

''Community-based adaptation'' : Community-based adaptation (CBA) (see Chapter 4, Sections 4.3.3.2) enhances resilience and sustainability of adaptation plans (Ford et al., 2016; Fernandes-Jesus et al., 2017; Grantham and Rudd, 2017; Gustafson et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r128|128]]</sup> . Yet negative impacts occur if it fails to fairly represent vulnerable populations and to foster long-term social resilience (Ensor, 2016; Taylor Aiken et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r129|129]]</sup> . Mainstreaming CBA into planning and decision-making enables the attainment of SDGs 5, 10 and 16 (Archer et al., 2014; Reid and Huq, 2014; Vardakoulias and Nicholles, 2014; Cutter, 2016; Kim et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r130|130]]</sup> . Incorporating multiple forms of indigenous and local knowledge is an important element of CBA, as shown for instance in the Arctic region (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.5.5, Box 4.3, Cross-Chapter Box 9) (Apgar et al., 2015; Armitage, 2015; Pearce et al., 2015; Chief et al., 2016; Cobbinah and Anane, 2016; Ford et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r131|131]]</sup> . Indigenous and local knowledge can be synergistic with achieving SDGs 2, 6 and 10 (Ayers et al., 2014; Lasage et al., 2015; Regmi and Star, 2015; Berner et al., 2016; Chief et al., 2016; Murtinho, 2016; Reid, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r132|132]]</sup> .

There are clear synergies between adaptation options and several SDGs, such as poverty eradication, elimination of hunger, clean water and health ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ), as well-integrated adaptation supports sustainable development (Eakin et al., 2014; Weisser et al., 2014; Adam, 2015; Smucker et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r133|133]]</sup> . Substantial synergies are observed in the agricultural and health sectors, and in ecosystem-based adaptations. However, particular adaptation strategies can lead to adverse consequences for developmental outcomes ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ). Adaptation strategies that advance one SDG can result in trade-offs with other SDGs; for instance, agricultural adaptation to enhance food security (SDG 2) causing negative impacts for health, equality and healthy ecosystems (SDGs 3, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 15), and resilience to heat stress increasing energy consumption (SDGs 3 and 7) and high-cost adaptation in resource-constrained contexts ( ''medium evidence, medium agreement'' ).

<span id="adaptation-pathways-towards-a-1.5c-warmer-world-and-implications-for-inequalities"></span>
=== 5.3.3 Adaptation Pathways towards a 1.5°C Warmer World and Implications for Inequalities ===

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

In a 1.5°C warmer world, adaptation measures and options would need to be intensified, accelerated and scaled up. This entails not only the right ‘mix’ of options (asking ‘right for whom and for what?’) but also a forward-looking understanding of dynamic trajectories, that is adaptation pathways (see Chapter 1, Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1), best understood as decision-making processes over sets of potential action sequenced over time (Câmpeanu and Fazey, 2014; Wise et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r134|134]]</sup> . Given the scarcity of literature on adaptation pathways that navigate place-specific warming experiences at 1.5°C, this section presents insights into current local decision-making for adaptation futures. This grounded evidence shows that choices between possible pathways, at different scales and for different groups of people, are shaped by uneven power structures and historical legacies that create their own, often unforeseen change (Fazey et al., 2016; Bosomworth et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2017; Murphy et al., 2017; Pelling et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r135|135]]</sup> .

Pursuing a place-specific adaptation pathway approach towards a 1.5°C warmer world harbours the potential for significant positive outcomes, with synergies for well-being possibilities to ‘leap-frog the SDGs’ (J.R.A. Butler et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r136|136]]</sup> , in countries at all levels of development ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ). It allows for identifying local, socially salient tipping points before they are crossed, based on what people value and trade-offs that are acceptable to them (Barnett et al., 2014, 2016; Gorddard et al., 2016; Tschakert et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r137|137]]</sup> . Yet evidence also reveals adverse impacts that reinforce rather than reduce existing social inequalities and hence may lead to poverty traps ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Nagoda, 2015; Warner et al., 2015; Barnett et al., 2016; J.R.A. Butler et al., 2016; Godfrey-Wood and Naess, 2016; Pelling et al., 2016; Albert et al., 2017; Murphy et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r138|138]]</sup> .

Past development trajectories as well as transformational adaptation plans can constrain adaptation futures by reinforcing dominant political-economic structures and processes, and narrowing option spaces; this leads to maladaptive pathways that preclude alternative, locally relevant and sustainable development initiatives and increase vulnerabilities (Warner and Kuzdas, 2017; Gajjar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r139|139]]</sup> . Such dominant pathways tend to validate the practices, visions and values of existing governance regimes and powerful members of a community while devaluing those of less privileged stakeholders. Examples from Romania, the Solomon Islands and Australia illustrate such pathway dynamics in which individual economic gains and prosperity matter more than community cohesion and solidarity; this discourages innovation, exacerbates inequalities and further erodes adaptive capacities of the most vulnerable (Davies et al., 2014; Fazey et al., 2016; Bosomworth et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r140|140]]</sup> . In the city of London, United Kingdom, the dominant adaptation and disaster risk management pathway promotes resilience that emphasizes self-reliance; yet it intensifies the burden on low-income citizens, the elderly, migrants and others unable to afford flood insurance or protect themselves against heat waves (Pelling et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r141|141]]</sup> . Adaptation pathways in the Bolivian Altiplano have transformed subsistence farmers into world-leading quinoa producers, but loss of social cohesion and traditional values, dispossession and loss of ecosystem services now constitute undesirable trade-offs (Chelleri et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r142|142]]</sup> .

A narrow view of adaptation decision-making, for example focused on technical solutions, tends to crowd out more participatory processes (Lawrence and Haasnoot, 2017; Lin et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r143|143]]</sup> , obscures contested values and reinforces power asymmetries (Bosomworth et al., 2017; Singh, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r144|144]]</sup> . A situated and context-specific understanding of adaptation pathways that galvanizes diverse knowledge, values and joint initiatives helps to overcome dominant path dependencies, avoid trade-offs that intensify inequities and challenge policies detached from place (Fincher et al., 2014; Wyborn et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2017; Gajjar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r145|145]]</sup> . These insights suggest that adaptation pathway approaches to prepare for 1.5°C warmer futures would be difficult to achieve without considerations for inclusiveness, place-specific trade-off deliberations, redistributive measures and procedural justice mechanisms to facilitate equitable transformation ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ).

<div id="section-5-3-3-block-2" class="box"></div>

<span id="box-5.1-ecosystem--and-community-based-practices-in-drylands"></span>