Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-8 (section)

=== 8.2.3 Observed Impacts and Responses and their Relevance for Decision Making ===

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

Many countries base their adaptation strategies on National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), which often correlate different levels of decision making and governance ( [[#Golrokhian--2016|Golrokhian et al., 2016]] ). Whereas the involvement of national governments is needed for designing appropriate responses to climate change, recent studies underscore the need to also consider IKLK within adaptation and risk reduction strategies, thus fostering stronger linkages with local communities, leading to improved vertical integration between different strategies, programmes and actors ( [[#Ford--2016|Ford et al., 2016]] ; [[#Vij--2017|Vij et al., 2017]] ; [[#Singh--2020|Singh et al., 2020]] ). The relevance of addressing the issue of vulnerability and poverty to reduce the climate change risks has been demonstrated within the assessed literature on the impact of climate change ( [[#Hallegatte--2017|Hallegatte et al., 2017]] ). In this regard, it is noticeable that not many NAPAs explicitly aim to reduce poverty, even though poverty reduction is associated with vulnerability reduction to climate change ( [[#Demski--2017|Demski et al., 2017]] ).

Next to issues of observed impacts and responses to climate change, it is important to assess observed barriers in implementing climate change responses. The discussion of barriers is complemented later in the chapter with an assessment of the enabling environments for adaptation (see [[#8.5.1|Section 8.5.1]] ). Some of the most common barriers outlined in the scientific literature are summarised in Table 8.3.

'''Table 8.3 |''' Some common barriers in implementing climate change responses and their implications.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Dimensions

! Barriers in implementing effective climate change responses

! Implications

|-
| Governance

| Unfavourable political frameworks ( [[#Gupta--2016|Gupta, 2016]] )

| Governance structures can undermine autonomous adaptation ( [[#8.4|Section 8.4]] ; Table 8.6); inability to include gender differentiated vulnerabilities in governance schemes ( [[#Bryan--2017|Bryan et al., 2017]] )

|-
| Social

| Attitudes to risks and cultural values may hamper responses ( [[#Billi--2019|Billi et al., 2019]] )

| Social norms of reciprocity and cohesion may erode as a consequence of climate change responses ( [[#Volpato--2019|Volpato and King, 2019]] ); socio-cultural conditions as key barriers to gender differentiated support to impact reduction ( [[#Bryan--2017|Bryan et al., 2017]] )

|-
| Institutional

| Limited availability coordination and prioritisation processes ( [[#Patterson--2019|Patterson and Huitema, 2019]] )

| Lack of anticipatory risks undermining local efforts to cope with hazards ( [[#Singh--2019a|Singh et al., 2019a]] )

|-
| Behavioural

| Psychological distress may cause insecurity and behaviour of some groups may increase vulnerability ( [[#Van%20Lange--2018|Van Lange et al., 2018]] )

| Psychological distress associated with loss of attachment to a place has also been observed among vulnerable communities in regions such as South Asia ( [[#Maharjan--2020|Maharjan et al., 2020]] )

|-
| Financial

| Limited financial resources to support adaptation projects ( [[#Khan--2019|Khan et al., 2019]] )

| Lack of financial resources and assets among urban poor increase their exposure and vulnerabilities to the increasing climate hazards ( [[#Salim--2019|Salim et al., 2019]] )

|-
| Structural

| Unsuitable infrastructure may increase exposure ( [[#Chinowsky--2015|Chinowsky et al., 2015]] ; [[#Vallejo--2017|Vallejo and Mullan, 2017]] )

| Structural marginalisation of Indigenous Peoples and their IKLK can exacerbate risks of maladaptation among SIDS countries ( [[#McNamara--2014|McNamara and Prasad, 2014]] ; [[#Aipira--2017|Aipira et al., 2017]] ; [[#Granderson--2017|Granderson, 2017]] ); infrastructure projects to adapt to climate change impacts may increase the vulnerability of poor slum people

|-
| Technical

| Lack of access to technologies which may support adaptation (e.g., climate services) ( [[#Bel--2018|Bel and Joseph, 2018]] )

| The highest level of illiteracy among women prevent their engagement to access technology and risk reductions in vulnerable communities ( [[#Balehey--2018|Balehey et al., 2018]] )

|}

There are various characteristics of responses to climate change, which aim to protect livelihoods and prevent poverty expansion (i.e., an enlargement of the group of people already affected by poverty). Some of them are:

* Timely: meaning that responses need to take place within a matter of weeks or months and not over years ( [[#Wise--2014|Wise et al., 2014]] ).
* Targeted: with a focus on the affected communities and groups, to help alleviate the pressures they are under (e.g., [[#Aleksandrova--2020|Aleksandrova, 2020]] ).
* Sustainable: with long-lasting results leading to self-sufficiency of the affected communities and their resource base, as opposed to short-term ones relying on external support (e.g., [[#Caetano--2020|Caetano et al., 2020]] ).
* Integrated: the impact of climate change is multifaceted and far reaching and requires the engagement of various actors (e.g., the vulnerable community, government agencies, local and international nongovernmental organisations, civil societies, media) ( [[#Ayal--2020|Ayal et al., 2020]] ).

Finally, responses such as those outlined in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2, need to ensure the active participation of local stakeholders considering their diverse interests, so that they are grounded in reality. In addition, responses need to be complemented with operational procedures and time frames so that they can be more systematically pursued and implemented ( [[#Alves--2020|Alves et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="8.3" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="human-vulnerability-spatial-hotspots-observed-loss-and-damage-and-livelihood-challenges"></span>