Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-18 (section)

==== 18.2.5.3 Combining Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development Options ====

<div id="h3-5-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

In practice, adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development interventions are likely to be implemented in portfolio packages rather than as individual discrete options in isolation ( ''high agreement'' , ''limited evidence'' ). However, there is a dearth of literature estimating optimal portfolios of global adaptation and mitigation strategies. This is not surprising given the geographic-specific nature of climate impacts and adaptation and the information and computational complexity of representing that detail, as well as mitigation options and interactions. There are, however, different literatures relevant to considering potential combinations of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development.

At the most aggregate level, there is a long-standing literature exploring economically optimal global trade-offs between climate risks and mitigation (e.g., [[#Manne--1992|Manne and Richels, 1992]] ; Nordhaus, 2017; [[#Rose--2017|Rose, 2017]] ), as well as global stochastic analysis exploring global risk hedging for a small number of uncertainties (e.g., ( [[#Lemoine--2014|Lemoine and Traeger, 2014]] ). Recent work has found optimal global emissions and climate pathways to be highly sensitive to uncertainties and plausible alternative assumptions, with uncertainties throughout the causal chain from society to emissions to climate to climate damages shown to imply a wide range of different possible economically optimal pathways ( [[#Rose--2017|Rose, 2017]] ). Among other things, this work identifies assumptions consistent with limiting warming to different temperature levels. For example, the combination of potential annual climate damages of 15% of global GDP at 4°C of warming and a less sensitive climate system were consistent with an economically efficient global pathway limiting warming to 2°C. In addition, this work highlights the importance of characterising and managing uncertainties. These types of global aggregate analyses inform discussions regarding long-run global pathways and goals but are not designed to inform local planning.

As discussed in [[#18.2.5.3.1|Section 18.2.5.3.1]] , there are synergies and trade-offs in mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. For instance, the literature on the global cost-effectiveness of mitigation pathways provides insights regarding aggregate synergies and trade-offs between mitigation and sustainable development (e.g., Figure 18.5). Furthermore, linkages between mitigation and adaptation options have been shown, such as expected changes in energy demand due to climate change interacting with energy system development and mitigation options, changes in future agricultural production practices to manage the risks of potential changes in weather patterns affecting land-based emissions and mitigation strategies, or mitigation strategies placing additional demands on resources and markets. This increases pressure on and costs for adaptation, or ecosystem restoration that provides carbon sequestration and natural and managed ecosystem resiliency benefits, but also could constrain mitigation and impact consumer welfare (WGIII AR6).

Nonlinearities are an important consideration in evaluating risk management combinations. Nonlinearities have been estimated in global and regional mitigation costs and potential economic damages from climate change ''(very high confidence'' ) ((Riahi et al., 2022); (Clarke et al., 2014; [[#Burke--2015|Burke et al., 2015]] ; [[#Rose--2017|Rose, 2017]] ). Nonlinear mitigation costs mean increasingly higher costs for each additional incremental reduction in emissions (or incremental reduction in global average temperature). Nonlinear increases in estimated economic climate damage means increasingly higher damages for each additional incremental increase in climate change (e.g., global average temperature). However, the evidence on whether damages increase at an increasing or decreasing rate is mixed ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16|Chapter 16]] CWGB: ECONOMIC). Nonlinearities are also suggested in estimated changes in key risks and adaptation costs (Chapters 2 to 16). However, to date, they have not been as explicitly characterised. These nonlinearities imply nonlinearities in climate risk management synergies and trade-offs with sustainable development. Not only do trade-offs vary by climate level, as do synergies, but they increase at an increasing rate and their relative importance can shift across climate levels ( ''very high confidence'' ). Some of this is evident in results such as those shown in Figure 18.5 for mitigation (keeping in mind differences in sample sizes across temperature levels). Uncertainty about the degree of nonlinearity in mitigation, climate damages, key risks and adaptation costs creates uncertainties in the strength of the trade-offs and synergies, but also represents opportunities. For instance, additional mitigation options and more economically efficient policy designs have been shown to reduce mitigation costs and the nonlinearities in mitigation costs ( ''very high confidence'' ) (Riahi et al., 2022). The same is true for adaptation options and adaptation costs.

Infeasibilities of mitigation and adaptation options (Sections 18.4.2.2.1, 18.4.2.2.2), as well as global pathways (Riahi et al., 2022) , are also relevant to consideration of combinations of risk management options. Infeasibility of options implies higher costs and greater cost nonlinearity due to fewer and/or more expensive options, while infeasibility of pathways bounds some of the uncertainty about the pathways relevant to decision making and planning.

<div id="18.2.5.3.1" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="trade-offs-and-synergies-in-adaptation-mitigation-and-climate-resilient-development"></span>
===== 18.2.5.3.1 Trade-offs and synergies in adaptation, mitigation and climate resilient development =====

<div id="h4-4-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Since AR5, a growing body of literature has emerged that frames adaptation processes as endogenous socioeconomic dynamics, exogenous driving forces and explicit decisions ( [[#Barnett--2014|Barnett et al., 2014]] ; [[#Maru--2014|Maru et al., 2014]] ; [[#Butler--2016|Butler et al., 2016]] ; [[#Kingsborough--2016|Kingsborough et al., 2016]] ; [[#Werners--2018|Werners et al., 2018]] ). Central to this framing is a shift away from viewing adaptation as discrete sets of options that are selected and implemented to manage risk, to thinking about adaptation as a social process that evolves over time, includes multiple decision points, and requires dynamic adjustments in response to new information about climate risk, socioeconomic conditions and the value of potential adaptation responses ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Haasnoot--2013|Haasnoot et al., 2013]] ; [[#Wise--2016|Wise et al., 2016]] ). This aligns adaptation with aspects of development thinking, including questions around the capacity and agency of different actors to effect change, the governance of adaptation, and the contingent nature of adaptation needs and effectiveness on the future evolution of society and climate change risk.

While ensuring development and adaptation produce synergies that allow for the achievement of sustainable development is challenging, modelling exercises suggest that there are pathways where synergies among the SDGs are realised ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ; [[#Van%20Vuuren--2019|Van Vuuren et al., 2019]] ) ( [[#18.5|Section 18.5]] ), particularly if longer time horizons are used. These pathways require progress on multiple social, economic, technological, institutional and governance aspects of development, including building human capacity, managing consumption behaviour, decarbonisation of the global economy, improving food and water security, modernising cities and infrastructure, and innovations in science and technology ( [[#Van%20Vuuren--2019|Van Vuuren et al., 2019]] ) ( [[#18.3|Section 18.3]] ). In addition, Olsson et al, ( [[#Olsson--2014|Olsson et al., 2014]] ) and [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al. (2018)]] emphasise the importance of integrating considerations for social justice and equity in the pursuit of sustainable development ( [[#Gupta--2017|Gupta and Pouw, 2017]] ).

The significant overlaps and linkages between development and adaptation practice and a lack of conceptual clarity about adaptation pose a conundrum for scholars (e.g., [[#Bassett--2013|Bassett and Fogelman, 2013]] ; [[#Webber--2016|Webber, 2016]] ), who raise concerns that this potentially leads to trade-offs or mislabelling ( [[#Few--2017|Few et al., 2017]] ). This framing of adaptation and development can result in competition between attainment of sustainable development and policies to reduce the impacts of climate change ( [[#Ribot--2011|Ribot, 2011]] ). Such trade-offs are illustrated by ( [[#Moyer--2019|Moyer and Bohl, 2019]] ) who use a baseline development trajectory based on current trends to project progress on SDGs by 2030. This work concluded that only marginal gains are likely to be achieved under that pathway over the next decade ( [[#Barnes--2019|Barnes et al., 2019]] ).

Emerging evidence also suggests that many adaptation-labelled strategies may exacerbate existing poverty and vulnerability or introduce new inequalities, for example by affecting certain disadvantaged groups more than others, even to the point of protecting the wealthy elite at the expense of the most vulnerable ( [[#Eriksen--2019|Eriksen et al., 2019]] ). Pelling et al. (2016) find that adaptation has been conceived and implemented in such a manner that most projects preserve rather than challenge the status quo. Specifically, the potential for knowledge and the goals of adaptation to be contested by different actors and stakeholders and the need to sustain progress over extended periods of time can constrain the ability to effectively implement actions that lead to sustainable development outcomes that are protected from the impacts of climate change while also delivering climate mitigation outcomes, that is, for CRD ( [[#Bosomworth--2017|Bosomworth et al., 2017]] ; [[#Bloemen--2019|Bloemen et al., 2019]] ). This creates the possibility for specific adaptation actions to result in outcomes that undermine greenhouse gas mitigation and/or broader development goals ( [[#Fazey--2016|Fazey et al., 2016]] ; [[#Wise--2016|Wise et al., 2016]] ; [[#Magnan--2020|Magnan et al., 2020]] ). For example, a study in Bangladesh revealed how local elites and donors used adaptation projects as a lever to push vulnerable populations away from their agrarian livelihoods and into uncertain urban wage labour ( [[#Paprocki--2018|Paprocki, 2018]] ). These types of outcomes are categorised as maladaptation, interventions that increase rather than decrease vulnerability, and/or undermine or eradicate future opportunities for adaptation and development ( [[#Barnett--2010|Barnett and O’Neill, 2010]] ; [[#Juhola--2015|Juhola et al., 2015]] ; [[#Magnan--2016|Magnan et al., 2016]] ; [[#Antwi-Agyei--2017|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2017]] ; [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper, 2020]] ). This inadvertent impact on equity appears to fundamentally contradict a benevolent understanding of transformative adaptation that also champions social justice ( [[#Patterson--2018|Patterson et al., 2018]] ), thus posing long-term maladaptation in opposition to transformative adaptation ( [[#Magnan--2020|Magnan et al., 2020]] ).

Similarly, mitigation efforts, while reducing emissions, can also increase climate impacts vulnerability and undermine adaptation efforts. The same can be said for some poverty alleviation and sustainable development efforts that increase vulnerability for specific segments of the population. For example, in Central America, an evaluation of 12 rural renewable energy projects (either forthe clean development mechanism, early warning systems or rural electrification goals) found that some mitigation and poverty alleviation projects increased vulnerability to families—by excluding them, not adhering to local safety and quality codes and standards, or significantly altering community power dynamics and contributing to conflict ( [[#Ley--2017|Ley, 2017]] ; [[#Ley--2020|Ley et al., 2020]] ).

Synergies between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development might be promoted by prioritising those CRD strategies most likely to generate synergies ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ; [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al., 2020]] ). This could include focusing on poverty alleviation that improves adaptive capacity (e.g., [[#Kaya--2016|Kaya and Chinsamy, 2016]] ; [[#Kuper--2017|Kuper et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ley--2017|Ley, 2017]] ; [[#Sánchez--2017|Sánchez and Izzo, 2017]] ; [[#Stańczuk-Gałwiaczek--2018|Stańczuk-Gałwiaczek et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ley--2020|Ley et al., 2020]] ); renewable energy systems that improve water management and preservation of river ecological integrity (e.g., [[#Berga--2016|Berga, 2016]] ; [[#Rasul--2016|Rasul and Sharma, 2016]] ); or internalising positive externalities, such as subsidies for mitigation options thought to also improve water use efficiency (e.g., [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ). Similarly, trade-offs might be managed by prioritising strategies such as disqualifying mitigation options thought to have negative social implications ( [[#18.2.5.3.1|Section 18.2.5.3.1]] ), internalising externalities, such as placing a fee or constraint on a negative externality or related activity (Dubash et al., 2022) ( [[#Bistline--2018|Bistline and Rose, 2018]] ), or using complementary policies, such as transfer payments to offset negative mitigation, adaptation or sustainable development strategy implications ( ''very high confidence'' ) (e.g., [[#McCollum--2018b|McCollum et al., 2018b]] ). [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al. (2018)]] discusses the latter, noting, for instance, the possibility of complementary sustainable development payments to avoid global energy access, food security and clean water trade-offs (Box 4.7).

SR1.5 and AR6 assessments of system transitions also find opportunities for synergies and managing trade-offs ( [[#18.3|Section 18.3]] ; Cross-Chapter Box FEASIB). Within each system, mitigation and adaptation options are assessed for their specific benefits and the impacts they can have on one another, as well as with sustainable development. For example, within energy system transitions, the three adaptation options (power infrastructure resilience, reliability of power systems, efficient water use management) have strong synergies with mitigation. While not all mitigation options have strong synergies, the trade-offs can be managed when adaptation and SDGs are also considered. Under land and other ecosystems system transitions, the main trade-off is the competition for land use between potential alternative uses, for example, sustainable agriculture, afforestation/reforestation, purpose-grown biomass for energy. On the other hand, assessment of urban and infrastructure system transitions finds mainly synergies between mitigation and adaptation options with trade-offs that are considered manageable, and there is growing evidence of rural landscape infrastructure benefits to adaptation.

Overall, this literature is relatively new and still developing. It highlights the importance of societal priorities and policy design for realizing synergies. However, the literature is not well developed in terms of how to optimize mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development interventions to achieve multiple priorities.

<div id="18.2.5.3.2" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="risk-management-combinations-with-lower-to-higher-climate-change"></span>
===== 18.2.5.3.2 Risk management combinations with lower to higher climate change =====

<div id="h4-5-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Given the global climate system is committed to additional future warming, different portfolios of adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development interventions are relevant for climate risk management. The different strands of literature discussed above can be integrated to help inform thinking about combinations of approaches to climate risk management. Globally, low climate change projections, versus higher climate change projections, imply greater mitigation, lower climate risks and less adaptation. This implies greater mitigation trade-offs in terms of overall economic development, food crop prices, energy prices and overall household consumption, but lower climate risk, with sustainable development synergies such as human health and lower adaptation trade-offs, and an uneven distribution of effects ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ).

Sustainable development considerations could be used to prioritise mitigation options, but as noted earlier, there are trade-offs, with a potentially significant impact on the economic cost of mitigation, as well as a potential trade-off in terms of the climate outcomes that are still viable (Riahi et al., 2022). For instance, all of the 1.5°C scenarios used in [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC (2018a)]] deploy carbon dioxide removal technologies ( [[#Rogelj--2018|Rogelj et al., 2018]] ). Without these technologies, most models cannot generate pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C, and those that are able to adopt strong assumptions about global policy development and socioeconomic changes. Sustainable development might also affect the design of policies by prioritising specific sustainable development objectives. However, there are trade-offs here as well, with costs and the distribution of costs varying with alternative policy designs. For instance, prioritising air quality has climate co-benefits but does not ensure the lowest cost climate strategy ( [[#Arneth--2009|Arneth et al., 2009]] ; [[#Kandlikar--2009|Kandlikar et al., 2009]] ). Similarly, prioritising land protection has a variety of co-benefits but could increase food prices significantly, as well as the overall cost of climate mitigation ( [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ). In this context, with lower climate risk and adaptation levels and larger mitigation effort, managing mitigation trade-offs could be a sustainable development priority. Furthermore, sustainable development could also be tailored to facilitate adaptation and manage mitigation costs.

Globally, high climate change projections imply lower mitigation effort, higher climate risks and greater adaptation. This implies lower mitigation trade-offs, but greater climate risk with greater demand of adaptation and potential for trade-offs in terms of competing sustainable development priorities. Sustainable development considerations could affect adaptation options. For instance, constraining options such as relocation or facilitating adaptation capacity and community resilience. Sustainable development might also be tailored to affect the climate outcome by shaping the development of emissions. In this context, with greater climate risk and adaptation levels and less mitigation effort, facilitating adaptation addressing adaptation costs and trade-offs could be a sustainable development priority.

Locally, there are many qualitative similarities to the global perspective in thinking about risk management combinations across lower versus higher levels of warming. However, there is one very important difference. Local decision makers are confronted with uncertainty about what others will do beyond their local jurisdiction. With future climate a function of the sum of global decisions, sustainable development planning needs to consider the possibility of more and less emissions reduction action globally and the potential associated climates. This implies the need for sustainable development to manage for the possibility of higher levels of warming by further facilitating adaptation and managing adaptation trade-offs. Prioritising sustainable development locally is also supported by the insight that the impacts on poverty depend at least as much or more on development than on the level of climate change ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Wiebe--2015|Wiebe et al., 2015]] ; [[#Hallegatte--2017|Hallegatte and Rozenberg, 2017]] ).

With surpassing 1.5°C a distinct possibility, considering higher levels of warming is a necessity. CRD could be pursued with additional adaptation, recognizing increasing challenges for adaptation and sustainable development with higher warming, just as there are increasing challenges for mitigation and sustainable development with limiting warming to lower levels. There are many possible pathways for pursuing climate resilient development, though our understanding of the possibilities with different levels of warming is currently limited (e.g., David [[#Tàbara--2018|Tàbara et al., 2018]] ; [[#O’Brien--2018|O’Brien, 2018]] ). The current literature suggests that different mixes of adaptation and mitigation strategies, and sustainable development and trade-off management priorities, measures and reallocations ( [[#18.5.3|Section 18.5.3.1]] ), will be appropriate for different expected climates and locations ( [[#18.1.2|Section 18.1.2]] ); while trade-offs between climates will be dictated by relative nonlinearities, feasibilities, shifts in priorities, and trade-off and reallocation options across future climates.

Finally, it is important to note that there is currently limited information available regarding the following: (1) local implications of 1.5°C versus warmer futures with respect to local climate outcomes, avoided impacts and sustainable development implications and interactions, given that applying global conclusions to local, national and regional settings can be misleading; (2) local context-specific synergies and trade-offs with respect to adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development for 1.5°C futures; and (3) standard indicators for monitoring factors related to CRD ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="box-18.3" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 18.3 | Climate Resilient Development in Small Islands'''
<div id="h2-24-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Small islands are particularly vulnerable to climate change and many are already pursuing climate resilient development pathways that enable integrated responses ( [[#Allen--2018a|Allen et al., 2018a]] ; [[#Mycoo--2018|Mycoo, 2018]] ; [[#Hay--2019|Hay et al., 2019]] ; [[#Robinson--2021|Robinson et al., 2021]] ). Countries such as Belize have opted for a systems approach and are working across the sustainable development goals (SDGs) to increase integration ( [[#Allen--2018a|Allen et al., 2018a]] ). This includes rethinking disaster reconstruction mechanisms in the Caribbean and introducing more diversified and sustainable tourism economies that can better withstand external shocks such as disruptions and loss of markets from COVID-19 ( [[#Sheller--2021|Sheller, 2021]] ). In the Seychelles, various government and tourism industry initiatives are focused on the promotion of sustainable tourism ventures that lower emissions, protect and promote biodiversity conservation (e.g., new marine protected areas with mitigation and adaptation benefits), and are climate resilient ( [[#Robinson--2021|Robinson et al., 2021]] ). In 2016, the Seychelles signed the world’s first nature-for-debt swap, wherein a non-governmental organisation (NGO; The Nature Conservancy) agreed to pay off Seychelles’ public debt to the Paris Club (foreign creditors) in return for the Seychelles government establishing marine conservation areas ( [[#Silver--2018|Silver and Campbell, 2018]] ).

One key area where enhanced climate risk integration is critical is infrastructure-related decisions, especially on coastal areas ( [[#World%20Bank--2017|World Bank, 2017]] ). However, despite increasing awareness of climate risks and experienced impacts, decisions on, for example, infrastructure locations still reflect cultural preferences. For example, Hay et al. (2019) report that, despite recommendations to relocate the redevelopment site of the Parliamentary Complex in Samoa away from the coast, multiple cultural and historical factors influenced the decisions to redevelop at the original site. In the Solomon Islands, however, emerging evidence suggests that adaptation efforts to enhance the resilience of infrastructure are also serving to help urban areas address problems associated with rapid urbanisation and provide new opportunities for sustainable development ( [[#Robinson--2021|Robinson et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="_idContainer017" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Box 18.3

Energy system transitions in small islands can produce synergies with SDG implementation and can lead to transformational outcomes. The Pacific Island territory of Tokelau has demonstrated a nationwide energy transition, sourcing 100% of their energy needs from solar power ( [[#Michalena--2018|Michalena and Hills, 2018]] ), and many other countries such as Fiji, Niue, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Cook Islands also have 100% renewable energy targets. Benefits of small island distributed energy systems (such as solar photovoltaic [PV] systems) include less need for large, centralised infrastructure; reduced reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets; enhanced international climate negotiations power; and enhanced local job markets/skills ( [[#Dornan--2015|Dornan, 2015]] ; [[#Cole--2017|Cole and Banks, 2017]] ; [[#Weir--2018|Weir, 2018]] ). Additionally, renewable systems can enhance resilience to hydro-meteorological disasters ( [[#Weir--2020|Weir and Kumar, 2020]] ). For example, well-secured ground-based PV systems withstood cyclones in the Pacific Island of Tonga during cyclone Gita and across the Caribbean during Hurricane Maria, with power restored in days rather than weeks associated with more centralised systems ( [[#Weir--2020|Weir and Kumar, 2020]] ). Yet a multitude of challenges remain. In the Pacific islands region, these include: the high up front capital investment of renewables; lack of private sector investment; limited renewable energy data for policymaking; land tenure/rent costs; ongoing infrastructure maintenance skills and requirements; political turnover; failed experimentation; difficulty in obtaining and transporting replacement parts; and a highly corrosive environment for equipment ( [[#Dornan--2015|Dornan, 2015]] ; [[#Cole--2017|Cole and Banks, 2017]] ; [[#Lucas--2017|Lucas et al., 2017]] ; [[#Weir--2018|Weir, 2018]] ; [[#Weir--2020|Weir and Kumar, 2020]] ). The example of Pacific energy transitions demonstrates that a nuanced and context specific analysis of synergies and trade-offs for energy transitions is required to lessen the impact on fragile economies and maximise benefits for remote populations.

Labour migration is increasingly recognised as a significant factor that can contribute to climate resilient development pathways for small islands. In the Pacific islands region, labour mobility schemes are already allowing for climate change adaptation and economic development to occur in labour migrants’ countries of origin ( [[#Smith--2015|Smith and McNamara, 2015]] ; [[#Klepp--2016|Klepp and Herbeck, 2016]] ; [[#Dun--2020|Dun et al., 2020]] ). [[#Dun--2020|Dun et al. (2020)]] demonstrates that temporary or circular migrants from the Solomon Islands, working in Australia under its Seasonal Worker Programme (similar programmes operate in other developed countries), are using the money they earn to invest in adaptation and development activities back home. Similarly, labour migrants from Vanuatu, Kiribati and Samoa contribute to development and ''in situ'' climate change adaptation (at a household, village and regional level) that enable discussions about more resilient futures for their countries ( [[#Barnett--2018|Barnett and McMichael, 2018]] ; [[#Parsons--2018|Parsons et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="box-18.4" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 18.4 | Adaptation and the Sustainable Development Goals'''
<div id="h2-25-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represents near-term positive sustainability as well as indicating the quality of development processes and actions (inclusion and social justice, alternative development models, planetary health, well-being, equity, solidary, different forms of knowledge and human–nature connectivity) that enable climate resilient development (CRD) in the long term (Sections 18.2.2.2, 18.2.5.3). A key question is the extent to which adaptation actions (or non-action) may contribute to (or undermine) SDG achievement and, in particular, shift the quality of development processes and engagement within the political, economic, ecological, socio-ethical and knowledge-technology arenas, and hence contribute to climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs).

Table Box 18.4.1 (below) provides a set of examples of how adaptation actions can either contribute to or undermine SDG achievement for SDGs 2, 3, 6, 11 and 16. In general, formal adaptation policies as well as household and community-based adaptation strategies can generate positive outcomes, particularly if they are responsive to the local context and needs, with real participation and leadership by target populations ( [[#Remling--2016|Remling and Veitayaki, 2016]] ; [[#Buckwell--2020|Buckwell et al., 2020]] ; [[#McNamara--2020|McNamara et al., 2020]] ; [[#Owen--2020|Owen, 2020]] ). For example, integrated adaptation approaches to the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus aiming to build resilience in those sectors can lead to increased resource use efficiency and coherent strategies for managing the complex interactions and trade-offs among the water, energy and food SDGs ( [[#Mpandeli--2018|Mpandeli et al., 2018]] ; [[#Nhamo--2020|Nhamo et al., 2020]] ). One such approach could involve cultivating indigenous crops suited to harsh growing conditions, which would allow for agricultural expansion for food and energy without increased water withdrawals ( [[#Mpandeli--2018|Mpandeli et al., 2018]] ). Overall, adaptation commitments aiming to build resilience of vulnerable populations have typically shown to contribute to SDGs focused on ending extreme poverty (SDG 1), improving food security (SDG 2), improving access to water (SDG 6), ensuring clean energy (SDG 7), tackling climate change (SDG 13) and halting land degradation and deforestation (SDG 15) ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018]] ).

However, evidence also suggests limitations of adaptation actions, with the objectives and actions often being too narrow to address social justice and enable CRD. As such, adaptation actions can sometimes undermine SDG achievement through exacerbating social vulnerability, inequity and uneven power relations ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018]] ; [[#Atteridge--2018|Atteridge and Remling, 2018]] ; [[#Paprocki--2018|Paprocki, 2018]] ; [[#Mikulewicz--2019|Mikulewicz, 2019]] ; [[#Satyal--2020|Satyal et al., 2020]] ; [[#Scoville-Simonds--2020|Scoville-Simonds et al., 2020]] ). This is due to adaptation practices often not accounting for the differentiated ways in which minority groups are especially vulnerable. For example, designs of emergency shelters should consider the fear of social stigma or abuse faced by women and girls ( [[#Pelling--2019|Pelling and Garschagen, 2019]] ).

<div id="_idContainer019" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Box 18.4

Such maladaptive adaptation practices can undermine SDG achievement through increasing vulnerability of marginalised groups by failing to address the underlying root causes of vulnerability and poverty that are related to political economy, power dynamics and vested interests more broadly, instead treating the symptoms as the cause ( [[#Magnan--2016|Magnan et al., 2016]] ; [[#Ajibade--2019|Ajibade and Egge, 2019]] ; [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper, 2020]] ). For example, evidence exists of flood defence measures through large-scale infrastructure development leading to the violent displacement of poor communities, forcibly resettling people in areas far from their employment or pushing up land and housing costs without providing compensation ( [[#Fuso%20Nerini--2018|Fuso Nerini et al., 2018]] ; [[#Reckien--2018|Reckien et al., 2018]] ). Moreover, sectoral approaches to adaptation that fail to acknowledge the linkages between SDGs can counter development efforts and generate further trade-offs ( [[#Terry--2009|Terry, 2009]] ; [[#Rasul--2016|Rasul and Sharma, 2016]] ; [[#von%20Stechow--2016|von Stechow et al., 2016]] ; [[#Klinsky--2017|Klinsky et al., 2017]] ; [[#Hallegatte--2019|Hallegatte et al., 2019]] ).

The literature recommends a set of strategies for ensuring that adaptation actions are aligned with SDG achievement and do not further perpetuate poverty and inequality. These include ensuring that marginalised voices are central to adaptation decision making, with participatory approaches that empower and compensate affected communities ( [[#Moser--2011|Moser and Ekstrom, 2011]] ; [[#Broto--2015|Broto et al., 2015]] ; [[#Pelling--2019|Pelling and Garschagen, 2019]] ; [[#Palermo--2020|Palermo and Hernandez, 2020]] ). Gender mainstreaming and gender transformative approaches within climate policies can also help ensure gender-sensitive design of adaptation projects, with appropriate equity analyses of policy ( [[#Klinsky--2017|Klinsky et al., 2017]] ) decisions to identify the actual implications of trade-offs for vulnerable groups ( [[#Beuchelt--2013|Beuchelt and Badstue, 2013]] ; [[#Alston--2014|Alston, 2014]] ; [[#Bowen--2017|Bowen et al., 2017]] ; [[#Fuso%20Nerini--2018|Fuso Nerini et al., 2018]] ).

In addition, a substantial literature also argues for policy coherence measures that adopt whole-of-government approaches and mainstream and nationalise SDG targets within national climate policies ( [[#Nilsson--2012|Nilsson et al., 2012]] ; [[#Le%20Blanc--2015|Le Blanc, 2015]] ; [[#Ari--2017|Ari, 2017]] ; [[#Collste--2017|Collste et al., 2017]] ; [[#Dzebo--2017|Dzebo et al., 2017]] ; [[#Nilsson--2019|Nilsson and Weitz, 2019]] ). Institutional coordination mechanisms that aim to break down silos between different agencies and actors at the national level are suggested as beneficial for avoiding trade-offs between adaptation actions and SDGs ( [[#Mirzabaev--2015|Mirzabaev et al., 2015]] ; [[#Howlett--2018|Howlett and Saguin, 2018]] ; [[#Scherer--2018|Scherer et al., 2018]] ). However, these need to be paired with an investigation of the deep-seated ideologies and vested interests that are creating goal conflicts and negatively impacting marginalised groups to begin with ( [[#Purdon--2014|Purdon, 2014]] ; [[#Bocquillon--2018|Bocquillon, 2018]] ). Ultimately, adaptation measures need to acknowledge and address the underlying drivers that make certain groups particularly vulnerable, such as social disenfranchisement, unequal power dynamics and historical legacies of colonialism and exploitation ( [[#Magnan--2016|Magnan et al., 2016]] ; [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper, 2020]] )

'''Table Box 18.4.1 |''' Examples of linkages between adaptation and the SDGs. For several key SDGs aligned with the concept of CRD, the table below identifies evidence from the literature where adaptation policies and practices contribute to achievement of the SDG, as well as where they undermine achievement of the SDG.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''''SDG'''''

! '''''Evidence of adaptation contributing to SDG'''''

! '''''Evidence of adaptation undermining SDG'''''

|-
| SDG 2: Zero Hunger

| Adaptation measures implemented by smallholder farmers (e.g., adjustments in farm operations timing, on-farm diversification, soil–water management) exhibit higher levels of productivity and technical efficiency in food production ( [[#Bai--2019|Bai et al., 2019]] ; [[#Sloat--2020|Sloat et al., 2020]] ; [[#Khanal--2021|Khanal et al., 2021]] )

Some climate smart agriculture measures (e.g., intercropping) can significantly increase yields and contribute to zero hunger ( [[#Lipper--2014|Lipper et al., 2014]] ; [[#Arslan--2015|Arslan et al., 2015]] ; [[#Saj--2017|Saj et al., 2017]] )

| Some adaptation policies can increase land and food prices, negatively impacting smallholder farmers ( [[#Fuso%20Nerini--2018|Fuso Nerini et al., 2018]] ; [[#Zavaleta--2018|Zavaleta et al., 2018]] ; [[#Albizua--2019|Albizua et al., 2019]] )

Potential trade-offs for food production through adaptation actions within the water or energy sector, if integrated approaches not taken ( [[#Howells--2013|Howells et al., 2013]] ; [[#FAO--2014|FAO, 2014]] ; [[#Biswas--2016|Biswas and Tortajada, 2016]] )

|-
| SDG 3: Good Health and Wellbeing

| Increased resilience of societies and reduced vulnerability through investments in public health care and access ( [[#Marmot--2020|Marmot, 2020]] ; [[#Mullins--2020|Mullins and]] [[#White--2020|White, 2020]] )

Adaptation measures that leverage solidarity, equity and nature connectedness contribute to physical and psychological health and well-being ( [[#Gambrel--2009|Gambrel and Cafaro, 2009]] ; [[#Capaldi--2015|Capaldi et al., 2015]] ; [[#Soga--2016|Soga and Gaston, 2016]] ; [[#Woiwode--2020|Woiwode, 2020]] )

| Societal measures beyond adaptation required to address underlying causes of inequities that drive poor health and well-being, including cuts in public spending and neoliberalisation and commodification of healthcare ( [[#Hall--2020|Hall, 2020]] ; [[#Walsh--2020|Walsh and Dillard-Wright, 2020]] )

|-
| SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

| Integrated water resources management as an adaptation strategy ( [[#Tan--2018|Tan and Foo, 2018]] ; [[#Sadoff--2020|Sadoff et al., 2020]] )

| Potential trade-offs for water security through adaptation actions within the food or energy sector, if integrated approaches not taken ( [[#Howells--2013|Howells et al., 2013]] ; [[#Rasul--2016|Rasul and Sharma, 2016]] ; [[#Mpandeli--2018|Mpandeli et al., 2018]] )

Local, regional or national ‘grabs’ for water from shared resources with poorly defined property rights ( [[#Olmstead--2014|Olmstead, 2014]] )

|-
| SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

| Vulnerability reducing adaptation measures that aim to upgrade informal settlements, create affordable housing and protect populations living in disaster prone areas ( [[#Major--2018|Major et al., 2018]] ; [[#Sanchez%20Rodriguez--2018|Sanchez Rodriguez et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ajibade--2019|Ajibade and Egge, 2019]] )

| Need to ensure that adaptation measures understand how power dynamics and cultural norms shape urban form and communities’ vulnerability and adaptive capacity ( [[#Sanchez%20Rodriguez--2018|Sanchez Rodriguez et al., 2018]] )

Risk of built infrastructure aiming to increase resilience ignoring local population needs and creating low-skilled jobs that concentrate land, capital and resources in the hands of the elite ( [[#Ajibade--2019|Ajibade and Egge, 2019]] )

|-
| SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

| Potential for adaptation projects to support livelihood incomes and resource management, and thereby reduce tensions and the risk of conflicts ( [[#Matthew--2014|Matthew, 2014]] ; [[#Dresse--2018|Dresse et al., 2018]] ; [[#Barnett--2019|Barnett, 2019]] )

| Studies from Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal found that climate change adaptation-related policies and projects were an underlying cause of natural resource-based conflicts, as well as land dispossession and exclusion, entrenchment of dependency relations, elite capture and inequity ( [[#Sovacool--2018|Sovacool, 2018]] ; [[#Sultana--2019|Sultana et al., 2019]] )

Adaptation projects can reinforce top-down knowledge and decision-making processes, asymmetric power relations and elite capture of adaptation resources ( [[#Nightingale--2017|Nightingale, 2017]] ; [[#Eriksen--2021b|Eriksen et al., 2021b]] )

Need for conflict-sensitive adaptation approaches that aim to ‘do no harm’ ( [[#Babcicky--2013|Babcicky, 2013]] ; [[#Ide--2020|Ide, 2020]] )

|}

<div id="18.3" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="transitions-to-climate-resilient-development"></span>