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

== 17.2 Risk Management and Adaptation Options ==

<div id="h1-3-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

There has been substantial progress in risk management and adaptation responses around the world, as demonstrated in the sectoral and regional chapters of this report and illustrated in Chapter 16. This section presents an overview of different options available to manage risk, explaining how they are currently governed and the extent to which they can be applied around the world. The section contains an assessment of the ways in which different options are being combined to create adaptation portfolios, and describes how incremental and transformational change is starting to be considered. Based on the human dimension of climate change, as described in Chapter 8, vulnerability, inequality and poverty influence these portfolios of adaptation and transformational change. Particularly for change where residual risks remain that may lead to exceeding the limits of adaptation, increasingly transformational adaptation and policy innovation will be important. [[#17.2.1|Section 17.2.1]] assesses options for climate risk management from around the world that reduce, manage or retain climate-related risks and assesses their contribution to reducing vulnerability and exposure, how they are governed, and the benefits to humans and ecosystems. [[#17.2.2|Section 17.2.2]] presents portfolios of risk management, including the design principles and observed variations across the globe, before it discusses the need and potential for transformational adaptation to complement incremental adaptation, for which we present evidence across the report for selected adaptation options and some key risks. The Cross-Chapter Box LOSS in this Chapter synthesises recent literature and assesses key strands of the international policy dialogue on Loss and Damage, which discusses options that help to deal with impacts and residual risks in vulnerable countries.

<div id="17.2.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-options-for-climate-risk-management"></span>
=== 17.2.1 Adaptation Options for Climate Risk Management ===

<div id="h2-4-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

This section assesses options for climate risk management (CRM) across common risk settings that have been grouped into Representative Key Risks (RKRs; see [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.5.2.2|Section 16.5.2.2]] ). These risk management and adaptation actions target the components of risk: hazards, vulnerabilities and exposure associated with sudden or slow-onset events (see [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1|Chapter 1]] for more details on the definition of risk).

For each of the RKRs, three commonly discussed adaptation options are identified across the regional, sectoral and cross-chapter papers of this report. These 24 options have been selected to cover a representative variety of strategies to adapt to climate change, while a particular adaptation option can be relevant to many of the RKRs. For example, the adaptations listed under the RKR of ‘Food security’ are also related to the RKR on ‘Human health’ ( [[#Ebi--2015|Ebi and Prats, 2015]] ). See SM17.1 for more detail. The list is not comprehensive of all possible adaptations listed in the regional and sectoral chapters. For example, this does not include adaptations by institutions who might become unable to cope with increasing pace and magnitude of extreme events (Chapter 11).

<div id="17.2.1.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-options-and-their-contribution-to-reduce-vulnerability-and-exposure"></span>
==== 17.2.1.1 Adaptation Options and Their Contribution to Reduce Vulnerability and Exposure ====

<div id="h3-9-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Table 17.1 provides examples of each of these 24 adaptation options from across AR6 WGII. Detailed information about sectors and regions where these adaptations are being discussed can be found in the indicated chapters. Note that this list is curated to ensure a diversity of options; therefore, most of the options will apply to more than one RKR.

Of this list of adaptation options, many focus on reducing vulnerability to climate change ( ''high confidence'' ), as vulnerability is one of the components of risk (see [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1|Chapter 1]] and Chapter 8). Vulnerability is the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected, including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt (see [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1|Chapter 1]] for more details). In the world’s threatened ecosystems, reducing vulnerability often means reducing other non-climate negative pressures on ecosystems, such as pesticide use or fishery overexploitation ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.3|Section 3.3]] ).

Vulnerability reduction is also a major focus in human systems, and this includes development of investments that help people adapt to climate change. Examples include irrigation or diversifying crops. Building infrastructure resilient to climate-related risks is another example; many of the structural and physical adaptation options can reduce sensitivity to disasters, such as elevating houses or doing beach nourishment in coastal areas ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.5|Section 15.5]] ). Extreme events often catalyse investment in adaptation to reduce vulnerability for the future ( [[#Kreibich--2017|Kreibich et al., 2017]] ; [[#Slavíková--2021|Slavíková et al., 2021]] ).

Next to vulnerability reduction, a large number of adaptation options focus on reducing exposure to climate change ( ''high confidence'' ). Selecting low-risk locations is the most basic example of reducing exposure; for example, private companies are relocating factories to reduce flood-related disruptions to their supply chain ( [[#Neise--2019|Neise and Revilla Diez, 2019]] ), and species are autonomously adjusting their ranges to a changing climate ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.4|Section 2.4]] ). Land use planning or investing in resilient infrastructure can avoid exposure in rapidly urbanising areas; however, the design and enforcement of these regulations can negatively impact marginalised people ( [[#Anguelovski--2016|Anguelovski et al., 2016]] ).

Managed retreat is an example of exposure reduction that, while often controversial, is increasingly being considered and implemented (CCP 2.2.2, [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.3.4|Section 15.3.4]] ; Cross-Chapter Box LOSS in this Chapter; [[#Siders--2019|Siders et al., 2019]] ). Examples include the US Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which, among other activities, has helped people resettle outside of flood zones, and a ‘no-build zone’ established in the Philippines after Typhoon Haiyan ( [[#Hino--2017|Hino et al., 2017]] ). However, relocation is not always an option; immobility is sometimes involuntary, such as in the case of ‘trapped’ populations in Zambia ( [[#Nawrotzki--2018|Nawrotzki and DeWaard, 2018]] ; [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.2.1|Section 8.2.1.3]] ).

Adaptation efforts can have negative impacts on ecosystems and vulnerable groups ( ''high confidence'' ); see Figure 17.3 and [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] for further information on maladaptation. While ‘hard’ structural investments have been popular to reduce exposure to climate extremes, barrier-type measures provide protection only up to a certain limit, and are designed to fail in more extreme events. Given the risk of catastrophe from a climate extreme overcoming a physical barrier, policy advancements in recent years encourage any investment in structural measures to be complemented by ‘softer’ vulnerability reduction measures, such as accommodating building construction ( [[#Wesselink--2016|Wesselink, 2016]] ).

When it comes to ‘softer’ vulnerability reduction initiatives, these were traditionally seen as ‘no regrets’ options for adaptation. However, subsequent studies have cautioned that notion as vulnerability is a dynamic quality, and can be co-created while development or adaptation efforts are being implemented ( [[#Schipper--2006|Schipper and Pelling, 2006]] ; [[#Tempels--2014|Tempels and Hartmann, 2014]] ; [[#Dilling--2015|Dilling et al., 2015]] ). Some scholars have suggested the application of a ‘do no harm’ principle to climate change adaptation efforts ( [[#Mayer--2016|Mayer, 2016]] ).

'''Table 17.1 |''' Selected adaptation options per Representative Key Risk (RKR; see [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.5.2.2|Section 16.5.2.2]] ), with examples of each option from across the report. Many of the adaptation options are relevant to multiple RKRs, and have been selected to be representative of the wide variety of adaptation options implemented or suggested around the world.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! RKR

! Adaptation option

! Examples from regional and sectoral chapters and cross-chapter papers

|-
| rowspan="3"| Risk to coastal socio-ecological systems

| Coastal accommodation

| Raising of dwellings, raising of coastal roads ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.5.2|Section 15.5.2]] ), amphibious building designs (CCP2), improved drainage ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-11#11.3.5.3|Section 11.3.5.3]] )

|-
| Coastal infrastructure

| Seawalls, beach and shore nourishment (Sections 3.6, 15.5.1), breakwater structures ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.5.1|Section 15.5.1]] ), dykes, revetments, groynes or tidal barriers. ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.3.4|Section 6.3.4.8]] ), land reclamation ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.5.2|Section 15.5.2]] )

|-
| Strategic coastal retreat

| Retreating from coastal areas ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6|Section 3.6]] , Cross-Chapter Box SLR in Chapter 3, [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.3.5.1|Section 6.3.5.1]] , CCP2), relocation/resettlement (CCP2)

|-
| rowspan="3"| Risk to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems

| Restore/create natural areas

| Marine protected areas (FAQ 3.5), active restoration of coral reefs ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.3|Section 3.6.2.3.2]] ), ridge-to-reef management (CCP1), restoring dunes (CCP4), planting salinity-tolerant trees ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] )

Increasing forest cover (CCP7), detect and manage forest pests ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-11#11.3.4.3|Section 11.3.4.3]] )

|-
| Reduce ecosystem stress

| Reduce pollution and eutrophication ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.3.3|Section 3.3.3]] ), reduce anthropogenic pressures on the Great Barrier Reef (Box 11.2), sustainable fisheries harvest ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2|Section 3.6.2]] ), increasing connectivity between natural areas ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.6.2|Section 2.6.2]] )

|-
| Ecosystem-based adaptation

| Marine habitats to protect against storm surge ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6|Section 3.6]] ), agroecology ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.1|Section 5.1]] 4.1.1), coastal and marine vegetation and reefs ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.3.3.4|Section 6.3.3.4]] ), vegetation corridors, greenspace, wetlands (FAQ 6.3), mangrove habitat restoration (Sections 8.5.2.2, 9.8.5.1), restoring coasts, rivers, wetlands to reduce flood risk ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.6.3|Section 2.6.3]] , CCP1), urban green space to reduce temperatures ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.6.3|Section 2.6.3]] )

|-
| rowspan="3"| Risks associated with critical physical infrastructure, networks and services

| Infrastructure retrofitting

| Air conditioning ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.3.4|Section 6.3.4]] ), using thermosiphons for permafrost degradation ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-10#10.4.6.4.1|Section 10.4.6.4.1]] ), increasing rooftop albedo (for reflectivity) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-11#11.3.5.3|Section 11.3.5.3]] ), shading (Section 13.A.4)

|-
| Building codes

| Drainage systems ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), architectural and urban design regulations ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.3.4.2|Section 6.3.4.2]] ), infrastructure standards initiatives (CCP6), Chile’s Sustainable Housing Construction Code ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.5.5.3|Section 12.5.5.3]] )

|-
| Spatially redirect development

| Zoning/land use planning ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.3.2|Section 6.3.2.1]] ), spatial development planning to regulate coastal development (CCP2)

|-
| rowspan="3"| Risk to living standards and equity

| Insurance

| Agricultural insurance and micro-credit (Sections 4.5.2.1, 10.4.5.5), index-based insurance, market and price insurance ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.1|Section 5.1]] 4.1.3), flood insurance ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-10#10.5.3.2|Section 10.5.3.2]] ), collective insurance schemes ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.5.7|Section 12.5.7.5]] )

|-
| Diversification of livelihoods

| Combining income-generating activities within fisheries sector ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.2|Section 3.6.2.2]] )

Community level adaptation by Pangnirtung Inuit through diversification to stabilise income and food resources (CCP6)

|-
| Social safety nets

| Food for work programmes ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), school feeding programmes ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4.2.1|Section 7.4.2.1.3]] ), social protection programmes, such as unemployment compensation ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-10#10.5.6|Section 10.5.6]] )

|-
| rowspan="3"| Risk to human health

| Availability of health infrastructure

| Safe drinking water infrastructure ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), temperature-controlled low-income housing ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-11#11.3.6.3|Section 11.3.6.3]] ), health care clinics ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.4|Section 6.4]] case study), place-specific mental health infrastructure and ‘nature therapy’ ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-14#14.4|Section 14.4.6.8]] )

|-
| Access to health care

| Access to health care services ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-11#11.3.6.3|Section 11.3.6.3]] ), access to health, nutrition services and healthy environments (water and sanitation) (Section 7.6), enhanced access to culturally appropriate mental health resources; ‘Telemedicine’ (information technologies and telecommunications for health and public health service delivery) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.6.1|Section 12.6.1.5]] )

|-
| Disaster early warning

| Early warning of marine heatwaves ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.3|Section 3.6.2.3.3]] ) early warning for pests ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.12.5|Section 5.12.5]] ), Heat Action Plans (HAP) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4.2.1|Section 7.4.2.1.2]] ), raising public awareness through campaigns (FAQ13.3)

|-
| rowspan="3"| Risk to food security

| Farm/fishery improvements

| Changing fishing gear or vessel power ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.2|Section 3.6.2.2.3]] ), change crop variety or timing ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] , CCP5, [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.5|Section 8.5]] ), close productivity gaps ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.12.5|Section 5.12.5]] ), biotechnology ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.12.5|Section 5.12.5]] ), irrigation schemes ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-9#9.12|Section 9.12.5.3]] ), integrated crop/livestock systems ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.10.1|Section 5.10.1]] ), relocating livestock linked to improved pasture management ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-13#13.5.2|Section 13.5.2]] )

|-
| Food storage/distribution improvements

| Improve transportation infrastructure and trade networks, shortened supply chains (Sections 5.12.5, 9.12.5.3), improved food storage (Sections 5.12.5, 7.4.2), local food production/chains (Cross-Chapter Box COVID in Chapter 7)

|-
| Behaviour change in diets and food waste

| Reduce food loss and waste ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.12.5|Section 5.12.5]] ), shifts to more plant-based diets ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4.5.2|Section 7.4.5.2]] ), creating demand for organically sourced food ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-10#10.5.3.2|Section 10.5.3.2]] )

|-
| rowspan="3"| Risk to water security

| Water capture/storage

| Farm ponds and revival of water bodies ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), rain gardens, bioswales or retention ponds ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.3.3.6|Section 6.3.3.6]] ), water storage tanks ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-10#10.5.3.2|Section 10.5.3.2]] ), multi-purpose water reservoirs and dams (CCP5)

|-
| Efficient water use/demand

| Precision/drip irrigation ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-9#9.4|Section 9.4]] ), cooperative policies across multiple sectors (CCP4), changing water consumption patterns (CCP4)

|-
| Efficient water supply/distribution

| Constructing irrigation infrastructure ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), inter-basin transfers ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.3.3.6|Section 6.3.3.6]] ), water reuse (Section 13.A.3), slum/water upgrading ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.4.3|Section 6.4.3]] )

|-
| rowspan="3"| Risk to peace and migration

| Seasonal/temporary mobility

| Fishing fleet mobility to follow species distribution ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.2|Section 3.6.2.2.2]] ), mobility for seasonal employment and remittances ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] , Cross-Chapter Box MIGRATE in Chapter 7), legal/illegal labour migration (CCP3), pastoralist seasonal migrations (Cross-Chapter Box MIGRATE in Chapter 7)

|-
| Cooperative governance

| Transboundary fishing agreements ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.4.1|Section 3.6.4.1]] ), ocean governance ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.2|Section 3.6.2.2]] ), collective water management ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), indigenous water-sharing systems ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), enforcing the land rights of indigenous populations (CCP7), adaptive co-management in Arctic fisheries (CCP6), international compact on migration (Cross-Chapter Box MIGRATE in Chapter 7), policies for adaptive governance ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.5|Section 8.5]] )

|-
| Permanent migration

| Resettlement of flood-prone communities ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5.2|Section 4.5.2.1]] ), rural–urban migration ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.1|Section 6.1]] case study), internal migration (Box 10.2), international migration and remittances (Sections 8.6.3, 14.4.7.3)

|}

<div id="17.2.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="governance-of-adaptation-options"></span>
==== 17.2.1.2 Governance of Adaptation Options ====

<div id="h3-10-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

For each adaptation option identified for the RKRs (Table 17.1), this section presents an assessment of how decisions are made and how the adaptations are being governed. The following section then covers benefits to humans and ecosystems, and potential for maladaptation is covered in [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] . See SM17.1 for more information on the assessment methods and underlying citations.

The following analysis of adaptation options provides a synthesised overview of adaptation globally, but does not prescribe how important each adaptation should be in specific locations. [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16|Chapter 16]] finds that the ‘scope’ and ‘speed’ of adaptation is limited in many areas.

When it comes to decision-making, most of these 24 adaptations rely strongly on formal decision-making ( ''high confidence'' ), which follows the procedures of a group of people rather than ad hoc individual action. Formal decisions play a particularly strong role in the adaptations identified for infrastructure, early-warning systems and water systems ( [[#Kolen--2014|Kolen and Helsloot, 2014]] ; [[#Calvello--2015|Calvello et al., 2015]] ; [[#Zhao--2017|Zhao et al., 2017]] ; [[#Belčáková--2019|Belčáková et al., 2019]] ; [[#Teo--2019|Teo et al., 2019]] ).

In contrast, informal or individual-led decision-making is more common in several food security-related and livelihood-related adaptations, such as changes to diets, livelihood diversification and seasonal migration ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Li--2017|Li et al., 2017]] ; [[#Radel--2018|Radel et al., 2018]] ; [[#Robinson--2020|Robinson et al., 2020]] ). People who have experienced climate shocks are more likely to take individual decisions to implement adaptation measures, and in countries where people are more exposed to extreme events, autonomous adaptation is more common ( [[#Koerth--2017|Koerth et al., 2017]] ; [[#Aerts--2018b|Aerts et al., 2018b]] ; [[#van%20Valkengoed--2019|van Valkengoed and Steg, 2019]] ).

All adaptation options can occur under a range of governance arrangements ( ''high confidence'' ), with cases of either private, public or community governance typically playing the dominant role, as depicted in Figure 17.2. Public governance is the most frequent governance type for most adaptations considered. This is particularly true for social safety nets and spatial planning, where governments are often required to lead adaptation efforts ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Mesquita--2016|Mesquita and Bursztyn, 2016]] ; [[#Hssaisoune--2020|Hssaisoune et al., 2020]] ; [[#Wang--2021|Wang et al., 2021]] ). While government actors do the day-to-day management of these systems, civil society and international organisations also play a role in shaping agendas and priorities of government actors ( [[#Nagle%20Alverio--2021|Nagle Alverio et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="_idContainer008" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:571c4f480731825e8124cd58a563fa9c IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_002.png]]

'''Figure 17.2 |''' '''Governance of 24 major risk management options, grouped by relevance to the Representative Key Risks.''' Each option depicts the relative governance roles, between communities/individuals, private sector and public sector. The intensity of the colour refers to the level of confidence in the assessment.

The private sector plays a large role in governance of insurance, minimising ecosystem stressors, and livelihood diversification ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Allen--2018|Allen et al., 2018]] ; [[#Mimet--2020|Mimet et al., 2020]] ; [[#Alam--2020a|Alam et al., 2020a]] ). While having a key role in shaping and implementing many other adaptations, the private sector is not often the governing entity.

There are a number of adaptation options that tend to be governed by communities and individuals, including adaptations to farming and fishery practices and ecosystem-based adaptations ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Reid--2016|Reid, 2016]] ; [[#Basupi--2019|Basupi et al., 2019]] ; [[#Giffin--2020|Giffin et al., 2020]] ; [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson and Mclean, 2020]] ). In rapidly urbanising areas of Asia and Africa, individual- or community-led adaptation is the norm in informal settlements that have poor governance structures. Residents of Mathare slum in Nairobi have established methods to pool risks, such as pooling labour to police looting during flood events and developing community health centres in churches ( [[#Thorn--2015|Thorn et al., 2015]] ). This is in addition to risk reduction measures such as building structures to withstand rising water levels ( [[#Thorn--2015|Thorn et al., 2015]] ). Residents in Bangkok have built walls around settlements, dug informal drainage channels to vacant lots, and filled areas of land ( [[#Limthongsakul--2017|Limthongsakul et al., 2017]] ). In these cases, individual-led adaptation can have negative side effects, such as the building of flood defences in affluent communities increasing the flood impacts in less affluent regions of a city ( [[#Limthongsakul--2017|Limthongsakul et al., 2017]] ).

<div id="17.2.1.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="benefit-to-humans-and-ecosystems"></span>
==== 17.2.1.3 Benefit to Humans and Ecosystems ====

<div id="h3-11-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

While some of the 24 adaptation options are specific to certain risk contexts (e.g., coastal areas, agricultural production), others are more widely applicable (e.g., early-warning systems, health care systems, creation/restoration of natural areas). Figure 17.3 depicts which of these are most context specific, for example benefitting less than 1 billion people. This is contrasted with the extent to which each adaptation option is beneficial to ecosystem services. Many of the more generalisable adaptations have also been shown to have benefits to ecosystem services, such as nature restoration and changes to diets/food waste ( ''medium confidence'' ). While health care systems and the establishment of health-related infrastructure can be widely used as adaptation options, their design and application to date have not generally benefitted ecosystems or ecosystem services ( ''medium evidence'' , ''low agreement'' ).

<div id="_idContainer010" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:39c55a30d83a82aece7d2e7058e6a0f8 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_003.png]]

'''Figure 17.3 |''' '''Benefit of representative adaptation options to humans and ecosystems.''' The breadth of applicability of each adaptation option benefiting humans is estimated by the degree to which each adaptation can be applied across multiple contexts, depicted on the x axis. The benefit of each adaptation option for ecosystems and ecosystem services is depicted on the y axis. See Annex A for literature underpinning each assessment. This figure uses the 24 representative adaptation options from Table 17.1 and Figure 17.2. Confidence levels are represented by dots.

As a general method related to adaptive management, ‘early warnings’ are the most frequently discussed adaptation option to deal with a changing climate across all key risks, sectors and regions. Early-warning systems are an adaptation that can benefit more than 5 billion people ( ''high confidence'' ). Examples range from short-term disaster early-warning systems to revision of sea level rise plans based on monitoring. For example, the humanitarian community is investing in forecast-based financing systems to prepare for extreme events ( [[#Coughlan%20de%20Perez--2015|Coughlan de Perez et al., 2015]] ; [[#MacLeod--2021|MacLeod et al., 2021]] ). Forecasts are also used to manage hydropower dams ( [[#Ahmad--2020|Ahmad and Hossain, 2020]] ), to trigger interventions before public health emergencies ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4.2|Section 7.4.2]] ) and to alert fishermen of algal blooms in the world’s oceans ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.3|Section 3.6.2.3.3]] ). Table 17.2 provides examples of adaptations using early-warning systems that have been used to address each of the key risks.

In addition to immediate investments that reduce vulnerability and exposure, monitoring and early-warning systems allow people to take additional actions when there is an imminent event on the horizon (e.g., temporary evacuation during extreme events rather than permanent migration). This allows for ongoing adaptive decision-making ( [[#Alessa--2016|Alessa et al., 2016]] ; [[#Ebi--2016|Ebi et al., 2016]] ; [[#Barnard--2017|Barnard et al., 2017]] ; [[#Haasnoot--2018|Haasnoot et al., 2018]] ). However, these systems are only cost-effective for forecastable and actionable hazards, and require effective institutional governance ( [[#Wilkinson--2018|Wilkinson et al., 2018]] ; [[#IPCC--2019c|IPCC, 2019c]] ).

'''Table 17.2 |''' Examples of adaptation investments and early-warning system options for adaptive management for each of the key risks in Chapter 16.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Key risk

! Adaptive early-warning systems-based measures

|-
| Risk to coastal socio-ecological systems

| Storm surge early warnings ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.5.7|Section 15.5.7]] )

Early warnings of water-borne disease ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.3|Section 3.6.2.3.3]] )

|-
| Risk to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems

| Fishery marine heatwave warnings and mobile fishing equipment ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.3|Section 3.6.2.3]] , Chapter 13)

Forecast of shifts and regime changes in ecosystems ( [[#Pace--2015|Pace et al., 2015]] ; [[#Bauch--2016|Bauch et al., 2016]] ; [[#Burthe--2016|Burthe et al., 2016]] ).

|-
| Risks associated with critical physical infrastructure, networks and services

| Early warning for infrastructure and services (Sections 13.2.2.1, 10.4.6.4.1)

|-
| Risk to living standards and equity

| Adaptive social protection systems ( [[#Schwan--2018|Schwan and Yu, 2018]] ; [[#Ulrichs--2019|Ulrichs et al., 2019]] ; [[#Daron--2021|Daron et al., 2021]] ).

|-
| Risk to human health

| Heat health early-warning systems ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4.2.1|Section 7.4.2.1.2]] )

Health and disease monitoring and outbreak prediction (Sections 7.4.2.1.1, 12.5.6)

|-
| Risk to food security

| Forecasting rainfall and droughts for seed selection ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-10#10.5.2.2.3|Section 10.5.2.2.3]] )

Food price early warnings ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4.2.1|Section 7.4.2.1.3]] )

|-
| Risk to water security

| Early warnings for flood and drought (Sections 4.4.1, 10.5.2.2.3, 15.5.7)

|-
| Risk to peace and migration

| Transboundary flood early warnings ( [[#Tuncok--2015|Tuncok, 2015]] ).

|}

<div id="17.2.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="combining-adaptation-options-portfolios-of-risk-management-and-risk-governance"></span>
=== 17.2.2 Combining Adaptation Options: Portfolios of Risk Management and Risk Governance ===

<div id="h2-5-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

While the above assessments underlying Figures 17.2 and 17.3 isolate specific risk management options for specific risks, several adaptation measures are present in any given location, affecting the overall risk of a particular place. Policymakers are charged to evaluate risk comprehensively, deciding on a variety of measures that are effective, feasible and aligned with other policy goals for a specific place, or implementing a new activity because of how it complements the existing package of risk management activities ( [[#Girard--2015|Girard et al., 2015]] ).

<div id="17.2.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="from-risk-prevention-to-risk-financing-and-risk-retention"></span>
==== 17.2.2.1 From Risk Prevention to Risk Financing and Risk Retention ====

<div id="h3-12-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Portfolios of adaptation options generally include actions to reduce vulnerability and exposure, complemented by risk financing mechanisms that help people avoid the impacts of loss events, particularly very rare ones. There is also explicit or implicit risk retention, where further risk management is not desirable, cost-effective or feasible ( [[#Mechler--2021|Mechler and Deubelli, 2021]] ). Risk financing can include a variety of instruments, with insurance as the most widely known. Formal insurance uptake is lower in developing and emerging economies than in wealthier countries ( [[#Ali--2020|Ali et al., 2020]] ). To overcome some of the barriers to insurance uptake, index-based insurance has been offered for agriculture and livestock in many developing economies, with varying levels of success ( [[#Chantarat--2013|Chantarat et al., 2013]] ; [[#Isakson--2015|Isakson, 2015]] ; [[#Dewi--2018|Dewi et al., 2018]] ). In recent years, regional disaster insurance pools for sovereign states have been established, such as the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) ( [[#Iyahen--2018|Iyahen and Syroka, 2018]] ). Insurance can encourage the quantitative evaluation of climate-related risks and adaptation limits, and it can incentivise risk reduction by charging lower premiums for less risky situations ( [[#Schäfer--2019|Schäfer et al., 2019]] ).

While insurance is increasingly accepted as an adaptation option ( [[#Linnerooth-Bayer--2015|Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler, 2015]] ), positive outcomes are not guaranteed ( ''high confidence'' ). First, there are concerns as to whether this will shift responsibility to the most vulnerable people to pay premiums ( [[#Surminski--2016|Surminski et al., 2016]] ). There is also high risk for insurance to cause maladaptation ( [[#Müller--2017|Müller et al., 2017]] ); for example, [[#Annan--2015|Annan and Schlenker (2015)]] showed that insured crops were less well adapted to heat stress. To avoid this, people simultaneously invest in insurance and adaptations that reduce vulnerability/exposure ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Surminski--2016|Surminski et al., 2016]] ; [[#Highfield--2017|Highfield and Brody, 2017]] ; [[#Schäfer--2019|Schäfer et al., 2019]] ; [[#Reguero--2020|Reguero et al., 2020]] ).

The combination of interventions that reduce risk and risk financing for residual risk (often through insurance for sudden-onset events, or social protection for risks including those linked to slow-onset processes) will reduce collective risk to a certain level. For very extreme and potentially catastrophic events, it is often impossible (or financially infeasible) to fully reduce vulnerability and exposure, and people, communities and countries therefore retain risk requiring the ''ex post'' management of unavoided and unavoidable residual impacts in case of events.

Ex-post risk management relies on national assistance, social safety nets ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4.2.1|Section 7.4.2.1.3]] ; [[#Béné--2012|Béné et al., 2012]] ; [[#Elmi--2019|Elmi and Minja, 2019]] ) and support from social networks as well as lending from international institutions ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Hochrainer-Stigler--2014|Hochrainer-Stigler et al., 2014]] ). Even in places where normalised losses have stabilised in recent years with investments in adaptation, effective planning to manage losses remains necessary ( [[#Jongman--2018|Jongman, 2018]] ). Resilient recovery can support adaptation goals in periods of losses and damages ( [[#Slavíková--2021|Slavíková et al., 2021]] ).

To coordinate between a suite of applicable risk management interventions, the concept of risk layering has been discussed and used in (financial) risk governance of disaster risk management ( [[#Mechler--2006|Mechler et al., 2006]] ; [[#Cummins--2009|Cummins and Mahul, 2009]] ; [[#Clarke--2011|Clarke and Mahul, 2011]] ) and climate risk management ( [[#Lal--2012|Lal et al., 2012]] ; [[#Mechler--2014|Mechler et al., 2014]] ; [[#Herron--2015|Herron et al., 2015]] ; [[#Schäfer--2016|Schäfer et al., 2016]] ; [[#Mechler--2021|Mechler and Deubelli, 2021]] ). Incremental risk prevention and preparedness as well as risk financing occurs within national systems. Over the years, regional cooperation, such as through the regional sovereign insurance pools in the Caribbean, the Pacific and Africa, but also transboundary risk management elsewhere have become more important ( ''medium confidence'' ) (see [[#Martinez-Diaz--2019|Martinez-Diaz et al., 2019]] ). Also, with risks increasingly experienced as severe and existential ( [[#Boyd--2017|Boyd et al., 2017]] ), global governance and solidarity have been invoked (see [[#Linnerooth-Bayer--2019|Linnerooth-Bayer et al., 2019]] ; [[#Pill--2021|Pill, 2021]] ), largely as part of the policy discourse on Loss and Damage ( [[#Mechler--2019|]] [[#Mechler--2019|Mechler et al., 2019]] ) with further momentum provided by discussions on the global goal of adaptation and recognition of climate risk as transboundary ( [[#Benzie--2019|Benzie and Persson, 2019]] ; Cross-Chapter Box INTERREG in Chapter 16). Transformational risk management has emerged where incremental and ''in situ'' adaptation is not effective in managing risks, such as for managed or strategic retreat for communities facing severe coastal and riverine flooding ( [[#Siders--2019|Siders et al., 2019]] ). Transformation has not been well documented, including as to its governance ( [[#17.2.2.5|Section 17.2.2.5]] ).

<div id="_idContainer013" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:27b3a1a407fc4af14b45b5fd4a48c932 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_004.png]]

'''Figure 17.4 |''' '''A graphical representation of layered risk management.''' Risks can be reduced or managed by risk finance (insurance and other means), but some residual risk remains, particularly for high-impact unavoided and unavoidable risk, which is retained implicitly or explicitly. Where incremental and ''in situ'' adaptation is not effective in managing risks, transformational adaptation supports systemic change. Risk management occurs in national systems, and regional insurance systems have stimulated regional collaboration. Particularly for high impact risks and impacts in specific events, international assistance is required. Policy domains on disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) as well as Loss and Damage overlap in their governance of risk management. Figure building on [[#Mechler--2014|Mechler et al. (2014)]] ; [[#Cummins--2009|Cummins and Mahul (2009)]] ; [[#Lal--2012|Lal et al. (2012)]] ; [[#Mechler--2021|Mechler and Deubelli (2021)]] .

<div id="17.2.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="global-variation-in-portfolios-of-risk-management"></span>
==== 17.2.2.2 Global Variation in Portfolios of Risk Management ====

<div id="h3-13-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

While many studies assess adaptation trends by geographical region or by sector, the amount of residual risk varies across countries with different income and governance structures. Vulnerability, poverty and inequality, which constitute the human dimensions of climate change, affect how these portfolios of adaptation options are structured around the world (Chapter 8). Figure 17.5 depicts several illustrative ‘typologies’ of how risk is addressed. While no country or location fits any one typology, this illustrates a range of risk portfolios found in different contexts.

<div id="_idContainer015" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:c895701fd34b950fbc999e5187b45e3f IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_005.png]]

'''Figure 17.5 |''' '''Several illustrative typologies for how risk has been managed.''' The first is ‘extensive protection’, in which the bulk of investments is made in reducing exposure, through protection up to limits (e.g., flood levees) and including retreat. The second category is ‘moderate investment focused on adaptive capacity’, in which the bulk of investment is made in reducing vulnerability (e.g., improved housing). The third category is ‘little adaptation investment’, in which there is little investment in either reducing vulnerability or exposure, and the bulk of risk is residual, borne by the population.

Extensive protection category

The first category in this typology, that of ‘extensive protection’, requires substantial financial investment (Figure 17.5). In higher-income contexts, this is often more feasible than in contexts with limited resources, and adaptation investments are more likely to include structural measures to reduce exposure, complemented by vulnerability-reducing measures and insurance protection ( ''medium confidence'' ). While this typology is not universally representative of high-income areas (within or between countries), expensive exposure-reduction measures tend to be easier to implement in high-income countries. For example, flood protection is largest in countries with larger amounts of public spending and least amounts of corruption ( [[#Scussolini--2016|Scussolini et al., 2016]] ). It is seen as more economically efficient to invest in expensive protection measures in wealthy regions, under different scenarios of sea level rise and river flooding, although these calculations have equity and justice implications ( [[#Peduzzi--2017|Peduzzi, 2017]] ; [[#Lincke--2018|Lincke and Hinkel, 2018]] ). After flood events happen in regions with high levels of protection, damages are comparatively limited, and people tend to continue living in close proximity to the protected river ( [[#Mard--2018|Mard et al., 2018]] ). In contrast, flood displacement is higher in low-income countries ( [[#Kakinuma--2020|Kakinuma et al., 2020]] ).

Risk financing, especially insurance, is also common in higher-income countries with well-developed insurance markets and higher levels of insurance penetration than in lower-income countries, illustrated by the purple bar in Figure 17.5 ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Linnerooth-Bayer--2019|Linnerooth-Bayer et al., 2019]] ). Of climate-related disasters, floods and storms cause the largest amount of reported economic losses; however, at least 40% of these losses are uninsured, even in the regions with high insurance penetration ( [[#Baur--2018|Baur et al., 2018]] ). Government involvement in insurance schemes is associated with higher penetration rates of the general population ( [[#Paleari--2019|Paleari, 2019]] ). While some, predominantly high-income countries can make use of disaster contingency funds or dedicated budget items, these do not exist or are not well endowed to adequately support relief, recovery and reconstruction ( [[#Linnerooth-Bayer--2015|Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler, 2015]] ). To help stabilise public finance in regions with little market-based insurance coverage and fiscal response mechanisms, regional public insurance pools have been set up with donor assistance, such as in the Caribbean, Africa and the Pacific for flood and droughts ( [[#Schäfer--2016|Schäfer et al., 2016]] ; [[#Surminski--2016|Surminski et al., 2016]] ; [[#Linnerooth-Bayer--2019|Linnerooth-Bayer et al., 2019]] ).

Moderate investment focused on adaptive capacity

In contrast to the ‘extensive protection’ scenario, many regions of the world bear greater resemblance to the second typology in Figure 17.5 ‘moderate investment focused on adaptive capacity’ ( ''medium confidence'' ). These contexts see greater adaptation funding invested in capacity building activities to reduce vulnerability, rather than structural or ecosystem-based protection measures to reduce exposure ( [[#Biagini--2014|Biagini et al., 2014]] ). Because of limited international and domestic finance for large structural investments to reduce exposure, the most prevalent adaptation choices in low-income contexts are household-level vulnerability-reducing measures ( [[#Koerth--2017|Koerth et al., 2017]] ).

Lack of access to finance can be one of the reasons countries engage more readily in adaptive capacity-building activities. Countries that rank highly on the Corruption Perceptions Index engage less in technological solutions for risk management ( [[#Berrang-Ford--2014|Berrang-Ford et al., 2014]] ). In addition, countries with higher levels of corruption receive less adaptation aid ( [[#Betzold--2017|Betzold and Mohamed, 2017]] ; [[#Weiler--2018|Weiler et al., 2018]] ). Countries are more likely to receive adaptation aid if they import goods from a donor country, or are a former colony of that donor ( [[#Betzold--2017|Betzold and Mohamed, 2017]] ; [[#Weiler--2018|Weiler et al., 2018]] ). In countries with poor governance and limited aid flows, remittances make up a substantial portion of finance available to the local population for risk management ( [[#Samuwai--2018|Samuwai and Hills, 2018]] ).

Risk financing does play a large role in the ‘moderate investment’ category; there are a variety of instruments in use globally. Many countries in the Global South have created national policies and a number of regional catastrophe risk insurance pools, subsidised by international assistance, which make pay-outs to the national government of affected nations when an extreme event happens and have helped to build risk awareness (Clarke et al., 2015; [[#Thirawat--2017|Thirawat et al., 2017]] ). Beyond this, residual risk is often borne directly by affected people ( [[#Andrianarimanana--2015|Andrianarimanana, 2015]] ).

Little adaptation investment typology

In the third typology, there are limited resources for adaptation, and populations bear large amounts of residual risk (depicted by the purple bar in the third typology in Figure 17.5, ‘little adaptation investment’). SIDS can often find themselves in this situation, because small populations, small economies, lack of economies of scale, subsistence livelihoods and other challenges mean risk reduction and risk financing are both costly (Chapter 15).

Another example of this third typology are people living in conflict-affected areas. These populations are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change ( [[#Basher--2006|Basher, 2006]] ; [[#OCHA--2011|OCHA, 2011]] ; [[#IPCC--2012|IPCC, 2012]] ; [[#Zommers--2014|Zommers and Singh, 2014]] ; [[#Marktanner--2015|Marktanner et al., 2015]] ; [[#Walch--2018|Walch, 2018]] ; [[#Eckstein--2019|Eckstein et al., 2019]] ; [[#Peters--2019|Peters et al., 2019]] ). In conflict-affected areas similar to the third category of ‘little adaptation investment’, a combination of high vulnerability and relatively less support for adaptation means that there is a large amount of ‘residual risk’, in which residents cope with the impacts of extreme events on a regular basis ( ''high confidence'' ). For example, deaths from ‘natural’ disasters are 40% higher in areas that are undergoing armed conflict ( [[#Marktanner--2015|Marktanner et al., 2015]] ) (Box 17.2).

<div id="17.2.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-beyond-risk-exploiting-opportunities"></span>
==== 17.2.2.3 Adaptation beyond Risk: Exploiting Opportunities ====

<div id="h3-14-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Several studies and many government planning documents reference how people can benefit from a changed climate, beyond reducing risks. For example, several regions are expecting an increase in visitors to eco-tourism sites or national parks with a changing climate (Fisichelli, 2015; [[#Lwasa--2015|Lwasa, 2015]] ). In Europe, several national adaptation plans include planning for potential benefits of a changing climate, including reduced winter mortality and improved conditions for hydropower ( [[#Biesbroek--2010|Biesbroek et al., 2010]] ). Recognising the need for economic diversification, people working in certain industries, such as coastal management, perceive climate change as a factor increasing the need for their services ( [[#Fatorić--2017|Fatorić et al., 2017]] ). Northern countries are taking advantage of ice-free waters for shipping routes in the Arctic ( [[#Eguiluz--2016|Eguiluz et al., 2016]] ; [[#Melia--2016|Melia et al., 2016]] ; [[#IPCC--2019c|IPCC, 2019c]] ). In Africa, opportunistic adaptation has been observed by smallholder farmers, to plant crops that are better suited for a changing climate ( [[#Lalou--2019|Lalou et al., 2019]] ). Similar agricultural adaptation in Pakistan has been associated with improved food security and reduced poverty ( [[#Ali--2017|Ali and Erenstein, 2017]] ; [[#Rahman--2020|Rahman et al., 2020]] ). In each of these cases documenting benefits, there are also potential negative impacts on other populations or ecosystems, such as ecosystem impacts from increased Arctic shipping ( [[#Ng--2018|Ng et al., 2018]] ).

While adaptation is rarely focused on taking advantage of opportunities presented by a changed climate, there are numerous co-benefits of adaptation opportunities, from health to reduced emissions to ecosystem services ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Watts--2015|Watts et al., 2015]] ; [[#Geneletti--2016|Geneletti and Zardo, 2016]] ; [[#Spencer--2016|Spencer et al., 2016]] ). There is also literature proposing that the actual process of adaptation planning can enable people to take advantage of opportunities, including, for example, opportunities for larger policy and governance reform ( [[#Coleman--1965|Coleman and Sandhu, 1965]] ; [[#Ernst--2017|Ernst and Preston, 2017]] ; [[#Brown--2017a|Brown et al., 2017a]] ).

<div id="17.2.2.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="the-spectrum-from-incremental-to-transformational-adaptation-in-risk-management-portfolios"></span>
==== 17.2.2.4 The Spectrum from Incremental to Transformational Adaptation in Risk Management Portfolios ====

<div id="h3-15-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

[[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1#1.4|Section 1.4.5]] noted that transformational adaptation is increasingly being considered necessary to allow a system to extend beyond its (soft) limits as incremental adaptation cannot guarantee to avoid intolerable risks. [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.4|Section 16.4]] presents evidence on RKRs where a need for transformational adaptation and climate risk management has been identified in order to further reduce climate risks and avoid breaching adaptation limits. The following section identifies how the 24 adaptation options representative of the RKRs may support incremental and transformational risk management/adaptation that can lead to small, medium and large systemic change, often as part of portfolios of options. This subsection further discusses the role of transformational adaptation vis á vis incremental adaptation by reviewing evidence across chapters (see also Box 17.3). The Cross Chapter Box on Loss and Damage further expands on the international debate regarding the role of decision-making on incremental and transformational adaptation for dealing with residual risks to address soft as well as hard adaptation limits (see Cross-Chapter Box LOSS in this Chapter).

As the literature distinguishes active transformation to shape future risks from passive and unintended transformation ( [[#Lonsdale--2015|Lonsdale et al., 2015]] ; Chapter 1), the section queries how to inspire actors to consider how to develop or implement transformational adaptation to complement incremental adaptation/risk management when and where appropriate.

In contrast to a broadening literature on conceptualisation and policy proposal, there has been little evidence reported in the literature on transformational adaptation and risk management at scale of implementation ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Klein--2017|Klein et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ajibade--2019|Ajibade and Egge, 2019]] ; [[#Tàbara--2019|Tàbara et al., 2019]] ; [[#Mechler--2021|Mechler and Deubelli, 2021]] ). [[#Deubelli--2021|Deubelli and Venkateswaran (2021)]] review evidence on largely non-governmental organisation (NGO)-implemented community-level adaptation for floods, heat and drought across the globe. They suggest that transformational adaptation success, while multi-facetted and challenging, depends on the availability of appropriate enabling environments including experiential and niche learning, alignment of transformational change objectives with strategic (government or other actor’s) priorities, strong bottom-up governance grounded in local contexts, phased long-term program support and appropriate financing.

To distinguish incremental from transformational adaptation, Lonsdale et al. (2015), building on [[#Mustelin--2013|Mustelin and Handmer (2013)]] , identify criteria related to framing, learning and decision-making, space and time, power, and type of change management. [[#Tàbara--2019|Tàbara et al. (2019)]] , additionally discuss transformation in light of informing climate pathways, strategies and solutions. Broadly considering these criteria, they identify 12 dimensions with additional discussion of change with regard to systems and dynamics, options and solutions, agency, and the consideration of equity (see also Chapters 1, 6, 18 for more discussion). In particular, the following key aspects for understanding the spectrum from incremental to transformational adaptation are of relevance: change, within or across the system; agency, single or heterogenous; a role for visioning and normative futures; the type of learning required (from first order, business-as-usual, to second order); and how equity and distributional issues are explicit.

Applying these key aspects to the list of 24 adaptation options from Table 17.1, certain options are assessed to be more transformational, often requiring large system changes that go beyond addressing individual risks. Adaptations that are more transformational offer potential to lead to systemic change. Less transformational adaptations allow people to address specific climate-related risks while maintaining existing systems (see SM17.1 for more details; see also Box 17.3).

For example, several adaptations related to the RKR on risks to peace and migration, namely permanent migration, and cooperative governance, require moderate to high levels of transformation ( ''high confidence'' ). Some behavioural adaptations, such as changing diets and reducing food waste, can also require large transformations in land use and food culture ( ''medium confidence'' ). Spatial planning, including urban zoning, also tends to be more transformational ( ''medium confidence'' ).

On the other end of the spectrum, disaster early-warning systems tend to be incremental rather than transformational ( ''high confidence'' ), because they enable people to maintain/protect existing systems. Several other adaptations allow people to maintain livelihoods and systems in the face of changing risks. For example, improvements in agricultural and fishing practices can be done with moderate transformation to systems ( ''medium confidence'' ). Similarly, insurance tends to require less transformation, as it can allow people to maintain existing systems while being more resilient to climate-related shocks ( ''medium confidence'' ).

None of the 24 adaptation options are consistently beneficial for vulnerable and marginalised groups ( ''high confidence'' ). For each adaptation, there are examples of how it has been implemented in a way that benefits poor, low-income, ethnic groups and/or females, and other examples of implementation in different contexts that have worsened the risks for those groups specifically. For example, while the goal of cooperative governance can be to support the marginalised, these same marginalised groups are usually excluded from participating in the design of the solutions, and many articles criticise governance results as protecting only the interests of the wealthier and more powerful parties in the negotiations, especially in governance of migration ( [[#Groutsis--2015|Groutsis et al., 2015]] ; [[#Pijnenburg--2018|Pijnenburg et al., 2018]] ). This reinforces the need for context-specific planning to ensure marginalised groups will benefit from an adaptation plan. See Table 17.3 for examples of how each adaptation option can have or not have equity benefits.

'''Table 17.3 |''' The 24 adaptation options from Table 17.1 grouped and coloured by their potential for transformation. (See Appendix A for assessment methodology.) Adaptations in red tend to require small amounts of transformation, adaptations in orange tend to require middling levels of transformation, and adaptations in yellow tend to require large levels of transformation, or systemic change. Each option is paired with examples of how that adaptation can be done in a way that does not benefit or worsens, the situation for marginalised groups, as well as an example in which that adaptation has benefitted those groups. Examples of equity focus on benefits to poor, low-income, ethnic groups, or females.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Adaptation

! Example of the adaptation excluding or worsening the situation for marginalised groups

! Example of the adaptation benefitting marginalised groups

|-
| colspan="3"| Less transformation (small systemic change)

|-
| Insurance b

| Index-based insurance policies in Mongolia were accessible primarily to wealthy herders ( [[#Taylor--2016b|Taylor, 2016b]] ).

| The availability of capital after disaster events can avoid a poverty trap from disasters ( [[#Alam--2020a|Alam et al., 2020a]] ).

|-
| Coastal accommodation c

| Accommodation strategies in Jakarta have led to a false sense of security in an impoverished and vulnerable neighbourhood ( [[#Esteban--2017|Esteban et al., 2017]] ).

| The mosaic restoration project provided training for women to support local accommodation of climate changes on Yap ( [[#Krishnapillai--2018|Krishnapillai, 2018]] ).

|-
| Early-warning systems c

| People of higher socioeconomic status tend to receive warnings, while marginalised groups can be left out ( [[#Baudoin--2016|Baudoin et al., 2016]] ).

| Famine and drought early-warning systems have helped avoid starvation among the world’s most vulnerable people ( [[#Funk--2019|Funk et al., 2019]] ).

|-
| Water use/demand c

| Small farmers were unable to access supports to implement drip irrigation in Morocco, and uptake was greater among wealthy farmers ( [[#Jobbins--2015|Jobbins et al., 2015]] ).

| Retrofits for water use efficiency were made available free of charge to low-income communities in the USA ( [[#Lee--2013|Lee and Tansel, 2013]] ).

|-
| Coastal hard protection b

| Construction of hard barriers increased flood risk for several low-income communities in Bangladesh ( [[#Adnan--2020|Adnan et al., 2020]] ).

| Successful coastal embankments can help people avoid poverty traps in Bangladesh by reducing exposure to flood events ( [[#Borgomeo--2017|Borgomeo et al., 2017]] ).

|-
| colspan="3"| Moderate transformation (medium systemic change)

|-
| Infrastructure retrofitting b

| Low-income people often do not own their homes, and there are few incentives for landlords to upgrade ( [[#Tardy--2019|Tardy and Lee, 2019]] ).

| Energy policy could promote solar infrastructure in Nigeria, which can offer electrification in underserved regions ( [[#Ohunakin--2014|Ohunakin et al., 2014]] ).

|-
| Building codes c

| Building codes in Nepal and Bangladesh often fail to increase resilience because many buildings are built informally ( [[#Ahmed--2019|Ahmed et al., 2019]] ).

| Slum upgrading projects in Latin America reduced the vulnerability of informal settlements by improving built infrastructure ( [[#Núñez%20Collado--2020|Núñez Collado and Wang, 2020]] ).

|-
| Farm/fishery practice b

| Many agriculture improvement strategies create higher workloads for women and do not directly enfranchise them, as seen in Uganda, Ghana and Bangladesh ( [[#Jost--2015|Jost et al., 2015]] ).

| Improved crop varieties have supported the income of low-income farmers in Zambia ( [[#Khonje--2015|Khonje et al., 2015]] ).

|-
| Diversification of livelihoods a

| Diversifying livelihoods can increase women’s workloads, in a review of semiarid regions across Africa and Asia ( [[#Rao--2020|Rao et al., 2020]] ).

| A study on diversity of income sources in Ghana indicated that diversification can make people less vulnerable to extreme events ( [[#Baffoe--2017|Baffoe and Matsuda, 2017]] ).

|-
| Social safety nets b

| Social protection systems in Bangladesh focus on specific groups in rural areas, and they often fail to reach urban poor and other very disadvantaged people ( [[#Coirolo--2013|Coirolo et al., 2013]] ).

| Adaptive social protection can help poor people avoid the impact of extreme events by scaling up support at critical moments ( [[#Bowen--2020|Bowen et al., 2020]] ).

|-
| Infrastructure for health c

| The development of sanitary water infrastructure in Germany had less benefit in areas with higher income inequality ( [[#Gallardo-Albarrán--2020|Gallardo-Albarrán, 2020]] ).

| Improvements to water and sanitation infrastructure that avoid people fetching water are associated with improvements to women’s health ( [[#Geere--2020|Geere and Hunter, 2020]] ).

|-
| Food storage/distribution b

| Increasing/improving livestock markets can favour high-income livestock producers ( [[#Gautier--2016|Gautier et al., 2016]] ).

| Investments in large produce storage houses has supported indigenous livelihoods in the face of climate change ( [[#Mugambiwa--2018|Mugambiwa, 2018]] ).

|-
| Restoration/creation of natural areas b

| Urban greening programmes in the USA avoided minority neighbourhoods or caused displacement of people of colour ( [[#Anguelovski--2016|Anguelovski et al., 2016]] ; [[#Watkins--2016|Watkins et al., 2016]] ).

| Afforestation reduced landslide risk for informal settlements in Brazil ( [[#Sandholz--2018|Sandholz et al., 2018]] ).

|-
| Minimising ecosystem stressors a

| Fish quota reduction had negative economic impacts when done quickly ( [[#Barbeaux--2020|Barbeaux et al., 2020]] ).

| South Africa’s Working for Water programme employed poor people to control invasive species ( [[#van%20Wilgen--2016|van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016]] ).

|-
| Ecosystem-based adaptation b

| Payments to Indigenous groups in return for protecting conservation land can be less than their original livelihoods and disadvantage those not receiving the payments, such as women ( [[#Bedelian--2017|Bedelian and Ogutu, 2017]] ).

| Integrated water resource management is proposed in the Caribbean as a way to maintain ecosystem services while improving economic welfare ( [[#Mycoo--2017|Mycoo, 2017]] ).

|-
| Water supply/distribution b

| Water tariffs during the Cape Town drought negatively impacted poor households ( [[#Millington--2021|Millington and Scheba, 2021]] ).

| City Water Forums in Nepal have focused on equitable water allocation as an adaptation ( [[#Pandey--2017|Pandey and Bajracharya, 2017]] ).

|-
| Seasonal/temporary mobility b

| Women tend to have greater restrictions on mobility than men ( [[#Lama--2018|Lama, 2018]] ).

| Indigenous communities in Guatemala use temporary migration to manage rainfall variability ( [[#Ruano--2014|Ruano and Milan, 2014]] ).

|-
| colspan="3"| Most transformation (largest systemic changes needed)

|-
| Spatial planning b

| Spatial planning in American cities has often resulted in less green space in ethnic minority neighbourhoods ( [[#Connolly--2021|Connolly and Anguelovski, 2021]] )

| While difficult, strategic approaches to urban planning can promote inclusive development ( [[#Chu--2017|Chu et al., 2017]] ).

|-
| Diets/food waste a

| Low-income groups have less opportunity to diversify diets if certain foods become more expensive or difficult to obtain ( [[#Reynolds--2019|Reynolds et al., 2019]] ).

| Changing dietary intake during heatwaves (e.g., eating cooler foods) is seen as a low-cost adaptation accessible to low-income people in the UK ( [[#Porter--2014|Porter et al., 2014]] ).

|-
| Health care systems b

| Facilities in poor communities are often poorly sited and can lack capacity to support people during climate-related extreme events ( [[#Codjoe--2020|Codjoe et al., 2020]] ).

| Universal health coverage can be highly beneficial to poor people ( [[#Atun--2015|Atun et al., 2015]] ), when needed for climate-related health outcomes.

|-
| Water capture/storage b

| Many Indigenous populations have been negatively affected by loss of their land when displaced for dam construction ( [[#Siciliano--2017|Siciliano and Urban, 2017]] ).

| Improving water harvesting supports marginalised populations in dryland areas ( [[#Bobadoye--2016|Bobadoye et al., 2016]] ).

|-
| Cooperative governance b

| International cooperation among national governments regarding migration can encourage human rights abuses and increase migration ( [[#Crawley--2018|Crawley and Skleparis, 2018]] ).

| International cooperation has the potential to remove barriers to adaptation in informal settlements in developing countries by sharing knowledge and expectations ( [[#Oberlack--2014|Oberlack and Eisenack, 2014]] ).

|-
| Permanent migration c

| Permanent migration from small island nations can entail a loss of identity for Indigenous groups ( [[#Bordner--2020|Bordner et al., 2020]] ).

| Migration supported by social protection systems can be sustainable for poor populations ( [[#Schwan--2018|Schwan and Yu, 2018]] ).

|-
| Strategic coastal retreat c

| Minority groups faced tensions with host communities when relocated in India, and faced difficulties in terms of fishing access and land size ( [[#Mortreux--2018|Mortreux et al., 2018]] ).

| In several cases of post-disaster relocation, community members initiated the retreat and there were broader benefits to society ( [[#Hino--2017|Hino et al., 2017]] ).

|}

Notes:

(a) ''low confidence''

(b) ''medium confidence''

(c) ''high confidence''

<div id="17.2.2.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="incremental-and-transformational-adaptation-for-managing-risk-in-the-context-of-adaptation-limits"></span>
==== 17.2.2.5 Incremental and Transformational Adaptation for Managing Risk in the Context of Adaptation Limits ====

<div id="h3-16-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

With evidence on soft and hard limits being experienced in natural and human systems, including in terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems, coastal and island systems, agriculture, health systems, urban spaces and tourism (Table 16.5, 16.4.2, ''medium confidence'' ), transformation is also being considered to expand the adaptation space beyond soft limits and before hard limits are being reached. As a key area of advancement since AR5, this section assesses the relationship of residual risks, limits and incremental as well as transformational adaptation integrating the assessment of limits in [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.4|Section 16.4]] with [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-17 Chapter 17] adaptation and risk management assessment along a spectrum of adaptation change. [[#17.2.2.5|Section 17.2.2.5]] thus contributes to understanding in which systems and regions transformational adaptation is increasingly required and considered once incremental adjustments are exhausted in the context of soft and hard limits.

Assessing risk and limits requires in-depth analysis of the adaptability of human and natural systems under different warming and risk levels, also considering socioeconomic exposure and vulnerability drivers, informed by perspectives on what breaching limits means, especially if significant change and losses and damages occur (Sections 16.4, 8.4). Assessments differ between natural systems (where adaptation potential is often very limited; [[#Klein--2014|Klein et al., 2014]] ) and human systems where incremental and transformational adaptation can help to extend soft limits so that hard limits are not met or to buy time until hard limits are reached with higher levels of warming.

The assessment synthesises global and regional evidence across regional and thematic report chapters along a continuum from observed to projected impacts and risks, the spectrum of incremental and transformational adaptation, and finally any evidence on soft and hard limits. We present regional evidence for two types of salient natural and human systems and RKRs: RKR-B (risk to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems), where we assess risks from marine heatwaves to coral reefs; and RKR- E (risk of heat on human health as a human system). Both RKRs and systems are facing substantial (residual) risk, characterised by adaptation limits and sharing heatwaves as the hazard, for which climate change has been considered the major driver of increasing intensity and frequency ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#IPCC--2021|IPCC, 2021]] ). The assessment synthesises evidence on transformation as reported in the chapters as well as categorises identified adaptation options along an adaptation spectrum according to the criteria discussed in [[#17.2.2.4|Section 17.2.2.4]] , specifically whether adaptation leads to systems’ change or only change within a system is driven by multi-scale agency and considers equity impacts specifically.

Figure 17.6 organises global and regional findings for observed and projected health risks from heat (RKR-E) from chapters across the report and organises options according to findings on the potential for transformational change as presented in [[#17.2|Section 17.2]] and Table 17.3. The discussion shows that heat has become a significant health risk globally, incurring severe mortality and morbidity in all world regions with annual heat-related deaths estimated around 300,000 with millions affected ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-9#9.3.1|Section 9.3.1]] ). Evidence shows that adaptation and risk management can be effective in reducing (relative) risks in developed countries, with inconclusive evidence in low-middle-income states (Sections 9.2.4.1, 13.7.3, 13.6). In absolute terms, risk in terms of heat-related mortality and morbidity is projected to increase under medium and high heating scenarios in many regions, even with implemented adaptation. By 2050 (compared with 1961–1991 and for a mid-range emissions scenario), an excess of 94,000 deaths yr −1 is projected globally as attributable to climate change ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-9#9.3.1|Section 9.3.1]] ).

[[File:7d6c2934e958db15bf4bfa4b36f25b0c IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_006.png]]

'''Figure 17.6 |''' '''Understanding the spectrum of incremental to transformational planned adaptation for managing climate related heat risk to health including associated soft and hard adaptation limits (Representative Key Risk-E (RKR-E)).''' Evidence from regional and thematic chapters. The figure from the WGI Atlas shows the change in extreme hot days (above 35°C) across regions for a medium-term scenario and medium global warming relative to 1850–1900. See Table SM17.19.

Planned and implemented adaptation interventions in all regions have remained largely incremental, while uptake is being intensified in some regions; options have included air conditioning (as autonomously deployed), public cooling spaces, heat action plans that incorporate early warning and response and heat-adapted building design (Sections 9.9.5, 11.3.6, 12.5.6.1.1,13.11.3, 13.11.3, 15.6.2).

Given increasing risks projected and soft and hard limits already reported, transformation is being considered as a complement potentially leading to systemic and transformational change. Adaptation, if upgraded to also consider transformational interventions, will thus help to reduce heat risks ( ''medium'' to ''high confidence'' , ''limited evidence'' ), albeit with reduced effectiveness at higher levels of warming, particularly in regions (Africa, Asia) where lethal heatwaves are projected to occur almost annually towards later in the 21st ( ''medium confidence'' ) (Sections 9.1, 10.4.7).

This may involve urban redesign using nature-based solutions (such as green roofs and infrastructure) as well as rescheduling of outdoor labour or cross-sectorial coordination. Integrated approaches across interdependent systems (e.g., ecosystem-based approaches and climate-sensitive urban design) are being proposed. Also, it may mean bolstering social safety nets and health systems that better attend to heat impacts by providing universal coverage. Societal and political transformations to reduce climate change risks for vulnerable groups are considered particularly relevant in some regions (Sections 9.4.2.1.2, 9.9.5, 10.4.6.4.3, 12.5.3.2, 13.6.2.1, 14.6). Yet, across all regions there is ''limited evidence'' on proposed transformational adaptation and very little evidence regarding implementation ( ''high confidence'' ).

As a consequence, studies project soft limits to be further reached as increased mortality and morbidity will add stress to health systems, and labour productivity will be severely hampered, impacting economic systems ( ''medium'' to ''high confidence'' ) at medium to higher levels of global warming (Sections 7.2.4.1, 9.10, 10.4.4.4, 11.9.1, 13.6.2.3, 13.7.2, 13.7.4, 13.10.2.1, 13.8, 15.3.4.9).

Hard limits may be breached in some regions where critical heat tolerance thresholds are projected to be surpassed at medium to higher levels of global warming, such as physiological survivability thresholds, which, for example, may render urban outdoor labour in Asia, Africa and North America infeasible (Sections 10.4.6.3.2, 14.8, Box 9.1).

Marine heatwaves have affected tropical coral reefs, which are analysed as part of RKR-B (Table SM17.20). Coral reefs across the tropics have recently seen massive bleaching events (such as for the Great Barrier Reefs) ( ''very high confidence'' ). Risks are projected to be further exacerbated by increases in intensity, frequency and duration of marine heatwaves ( ''high confidence'' ) as well as impacts from extreme events such as tropical cyclones ( ''low'' to ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.4.2|Section 3.4.2]] ).

Although there is some evidence of autonomous natural thermal adaptation, as indicated by the presence of stress-tolerant symbionts adapted to higher thermal thresholds observed in the Persian Gulf, there is ''low confidence'' ( ''limited evidence'' , ''low agreement'' ) that enhanced thermal tolerance can be maintained over time ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3|Chapter 3]] Box 5) as the adaptability in natural system is considered very limited and risks are driven by water temperature. Evidence suggests that already at further warming of 1.5°C coral reefs are put at high risk ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.4.2.1|Section 3.4.2.1]] ).

Planned adaptation can help to buy some limited time, including through recovery and restoration efforts that target resistant coral populations and interventions to culture heat-tolerant algal symbionts as well as by setting up marine protected areas. Under higher warming levels, transformation has been proposed as possibly complementing available management approaches with high-risk interventions, including enhanced corals and reef shading, which may help to sustain some coral reef systems beyond 1.5°C of global warming. Modelling has shown, however, that the effectiveness of such high-risk interventions declines beyond 2°C of global warming (Figure 3.23, [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.4.2.1|Section 3.4.2.1]] ) ( ''medium confidence'' ).

Already for limited warming beyond 1.5°C for mid-century with increasing intensity and frequency of marine heatwaves, hard limits are projected to become manifest in terms of widespread decline and loss of structural integrity ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.4.2.1|Section 3.4.2.1]] ), including for the two largest such systems, the Great Barrier Reef and the Mesoamerican coral reef ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-11#11.3.2|Section 11.3.2]] , Box 11.2, Tables 11.14, 12.4).

In terms of planned adaptation options that would provide benefits to populations, evidence suggests these are very limited and uncertain and bring along substantial risks to people, culture and ecosystems ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.5.2|Section 3.5.2]] , Cross-Chapter Box SLR). Concurrent with the loss of coral reefs, important ecosystem services, including to fishery, tourism and coastal protection, would be lost. Transformational adaptation, while requiring difficult choices to be made, is being discussed to help overcome soft limits through livelihood diversification for alternative income sources, assisted migration and planned relocation of communities dependent on the services provided by the reef ecosystem ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.5.2|Section 3.5.2]] ).

<div id="box-17.2" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 17.2 | Climate Risk Management in Conflict-Affected Areas'''
<div id="h2-19-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Consequences of conflict that exacerbate vulnerability to climate change include: displacement, loss of access to employment leading to illegal livelihoods, gender-based violence, lack of land tenure, low literacy, poor access to social and health services, destruction, looting and theft of key assets, such as houses, food stocks and livestock, among others ( [[#Jaspars--2009|Jaspars and Maxwell, 2009]] ; [[#Chandra--2017|Chandra et al., 2017]] ; [[#Anguita%20Olmedo--2019|Anguita Olmedo and González Gómez del Miño, 2019]] ). Such impacts perpetuate cycles of poverty ( [[#World%20Bank--2013|World Bank, 2013]] ), making conflict-affected populations more susceptible to suffer from climate-related events ( [[#Basher--2006|Basher, 2006]] ; [[#Coughlan%20de%20Perez--2019|Coughlan de Perez et al., 2019]] ). For example, in Mindanao, Philippines, poverty is closely linked to long-standing armed conflicts; both climate change and conflict have significantly increased smallholder vulnerability, resulting in loss of livelihoods, financial assets, agricultural yield and the worsening of debt problems ( [[#Chandra--2017|Chandra et al., 2017]] ). In Colombia, displacement induced by conflict has pushed the population to live in high-risk areas such as steep slopes susceptible to landslides and river banks exposed to flooding ( [[#Albuja--2011|Albuja and Adarve, 2011]] ). This conflict-induced vulnerability, with little adaptation activity, has in turn resulted in climate-related disasters ( [[#Kuipers--2019|Kuipers, 2019]] ; [[#Siddiqi--2019|Siddiqi et al., 2019]] ).

Conflict can also limit the effectiveness of adaptation measures that do exist; a study across Africa, the Caribbean and Asia concluded that poor governance can limit the effectiveness of early-warning systems in these regions ( [[#Lumbroso--2016|Lumbroso et al., 2016]] ). Poor state services have health consequences and can limit social support networks ( [[#Peters--2018|Peters, 2018]] ). States are unable (even if they are willing) to assist or protect citizens in disasters. Non-governmental stakeholders play a large role in these contexts, but questions of long-term implications and accountability remain unaddressed ( [[#Peters--2018|Peters, 2018]] ).

Climate risk management and adaptation in conflict-affected contexts is challenging, first, given the complex and dynamic nature of vulnerability ( [[#Hilhorst--2003|Hilhorst, 2003]] ; [[#Frerks--2004|Frerks et al., 2004]] ) and, second, given factors such as weak or non-existent disaster risk governance, restricted access, human rights violations, power dynamics between parties in conflict, and environmental degradation, among others ( [[#Kloos--2013|Kloos et al., 2013]] ; [[#Marktanner--2015|Marktanner et al., 2015]] ; [[#ICRC--2016|ICRC, 2016]] ; [[#Quinn--2017|Quinn et al., 2017]] ; [[#Field--2018|Field and Kelman, 2018]] ; [[#Siddiqi--2018|Siddiqi, 2018]] ). Climate can also be a contributing factor to conflict ( [[#Mach--2019|Mach et al., 2019]] ). There is little peer-reviewed documentation available on adaptation in climate-affected contexts, and what exists is narrowly focused on agriculture at the expense of other sectors, such as cities, infrastructure and humanitarian operations (Sitati et al., accepted).

To address risks to livelihoods, conflict-sensitive livelihood programming has used vouchers to meet immediate needs, legal support to resolve land disputes, and disaster preparedness planning to identify safe places for displacement ( [[#Jaspars--2009|Jaspars and Maxwell, 2009]] ). For example, cooperation in the Philippines between Moro Islamic Liberation Front and United Nations agencies included training of farmers in disaster risk reduction, drought management and production of improved crop varieties to support a transition away from subsistence farming ( [[#Walch--2018|Walch, 2018]] ). In Mali, negotiations on fertilizer access and safe transport to agricultural lands were brokered by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and in Afghanistan, conflict-sensitive approaches have promoted ecosystem-based adaptation to support reforestation ( [[#Walch--2018|Walch, 2018]] ; [[#Mena--2020|Mena and Hilhorst, 2020]] ). Despite several examples of conflict-sensitive adaptation practices, little is known about the effectiveness of such efforts in reducing climate risks in these complex contexts (see [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] for further discussion of ‘effectiveness’).

<div id="17.3" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="decision-making-processes-of-risk-management-and-adaptation"></span>