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

===== 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>