Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Cross-Chapter-Paper-5 (section)

== CCP5.4 Options for Adaptation and Climate Resilient Development Pathways ==

<div id="CCP5.4.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp5.4.1-synthesis-of-adaptation-responses-to-reducing-key-risks"></span>
=== CCP5.4.1 Synthesis of Adaptation Responses to Reducing (Key) Risks ===

<div id="h2-10-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

More than half of the studies having a focus on mountains (423 articles) extracted from the GAMI data set report that adaptation responses contribute to reducing climate risks ( [[#Berrang-Ford--2021|Berrang-Ford et al., 2021]] ; [[#McDowell--2021b|McDowell et al., 2021b]] ) (SMCCP5.3.2). However, the extent of adaptation in terms of time (i.e., speed), scale of change (i.e., scope) and depth of change (i.e., degree to which a change is substantial) is low in mountain regions, with the level of agreement across studies varying from one region to the other ( ''medium confidence'' ) (Figure CCP5.7, SMCCP5.3.2). In regions where risk levels remain moderate, a low adaptation extent might be sufficient to constrain risks (Figures CCP5.5 and 5.6, [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.3.2.4|Section 16.3.2.4]] ).

<div id="_idContainer023" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:93f5e0a158c44994e5687ad1019be80f IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_CCP5_007.png]]

'''Figure CCP5.7 |''' '''Extent of planned and implemented adaptation actions observed in mountain regions shown in terms of three dimensions:''' '''i) speed (timeframe within which adaptations are implemented), ii) scope (scale of changes observed from adaptation action), and iii) its depth (i.''' e ., degree to which a change reflects something new) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.3.2.4|Section 16.3.2.4]] ). The data are obtained from the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI) reanalysis for mountains (SMCCP5.3.2) ( [[#Berrang-Ford--2021|Berrang-Ford et al., 2021]] ; [[#McDowell--2021b|McDowell et al., 2021b]] ).

Adaptation responses in mountains are mainly incremental changes from existing practices ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#McDowell--2019|McDowell et al., 2019]] , 2021b; [[#Rasul--2020|Rasul et al., 2020]] ), signalling that the potential of current and planned adaptation responses to reduce risks in the future will not be adequate to mitigate high to very high risks. For example, measures to contain floods or landslides (KR1) are designed with specific magnitudes and types in mind, often assuming stationarity of return periods ( [[#Montanari--2014|Montanari and Koutsoyiannis, 2014]] ; [[#Gariano--2016|Gariano and Guzzetti, 2016]] ). In the case of events showing decreasing return periods, risk mitigation standards need to be elevated to provide for more protection in the future ( [[#Felder--2018|Felder et al., 2018]] ; [[#François--2019|François et al., 2019]] ). The portfolio of adaptation options to mitigate risks from changing water resources (KR2) is large but challenging and includes integrated catchment management, implementation of multiple use of water strategies, improved water governance (including community-based and participatory water governance), overcoming power inequalities among users and sectors and balancing economic pressure and sustainable development ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Bekchanov--2016|Bekchanov and Lamers, 2016]] ; [[#Yapiyev--2017|Yapiyev et al., 2017]] ; [[#Jalilov--2018|Jalilov et al., 2018]] ; [[#Drenkhan--2019|Drenkhan et al., 2019]] ; [[#Allen--2020|Allen et al., 2020]] ; [[#Aggarwal--2021|Aggarwal et al., 2021]] ; [[#Huang--2021|Huang et al., 2021]] ) (SMCCP5.3.2). There is ''limited evidence'' on the effectiveness of adaptation responses to reduce the severity of ecosystem change (KR3) (also see [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.3.1|Section 16.3.1]] ). Prevention rather than control and eradication efforts can contribute to curbing biological invasions of alien species in the short turn, whereas colonisation by native trees following land use abandonment can be more effective in the long run ( [[#Carboni--2018|Carboni et al., 2018]] ). Reducing intensified grazing, agricultural expansion and conservation management in buffer zones of protected areas can limit the altitudinal range shift of endemic species ( [[#Kidane--2019|Kidane et al., 2019]] ).

EbA has been effective in mountain regions at reducing risks from floods (e.g., restoration of buffer zones and floodplains) and landslides (e.g., protective forests) ( [[#Muccione--2016|Muccione and Daley, 2016]] ; [[#Klein--2019b|Klein et al., 2019b]] ; [[#Lavorel--2019|Lavorel et al., 2019]] ). Ecosystem-based measures have been implemented for water management purposes to supply clean water and improve water quality ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.6.6|Section 4.6.6]] ). Furthermore, they provide scope for conservation and improvement of habitats, e.g., forest ecosystems ( [[#Nagel--2017|Nagel et al., 2017]] ; [[#Lamborn--2019|Lamborn and Smith, 2019]] ) ( ''high agreement, medium evidence'' ). However, repeated and recurrent disturbances that increase recovery times can reduce the effectiveness of EbA ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Sebald--2019|Sebald et al., 2019]] ; [[#Scheidl--2020|Scheidl et al., 2020]] ).

Adaptation in mountain areas is currently constrained predominantly by soft limits related to existing social, economic and political conditions ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Gioli--2014|Gioli et al., 2014]] ; [[#Sansilvestri--2016|Sansilvestri et al., 2016]] ). Progress in overcoming soft limits is currently minimal due to insufficient engagement with socioeconomic and political issues in existing adaptation ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#McDowell--2019|McDowell et al., 2019]] , 2021b) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.4.5.3|Section 8.4.5.3]] , Cross-Chapter Box LOSS in Chapter 17). This is expected to lead to an expansion of residual risks as risk severity increases ( [[#McDowell--2021b|McDowell et al., 2021b]] ).

<div id="CCP5.4.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp5.4.2-challenges-opportunities-and-solution-space-for-adaptation-in-mountains"></span>
=== CCP5.4.2 Challenges, Opportunities and Solution Space for Adaptation in Mountains ===

<div id="h2-11-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The effects of climate change on mountain environments pose significant challenges for people, ecosystems and sustainable development, with issues such as difficult access, environmental sensitivity and socioeconomic marginalisation making adaptation particularly complex. Furthermore, varied and dynamic biophysical characteristics as well as high sociocultural diversity preclude one-size-fits-all responses; adaptation planning and action in mountains rooted in context-specific socioecological and climatic realities are more effective ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Hock--2019|Hock et al., 2019]] ; [[#Lavorel--2019|Lavorel et al., 2019]] ; [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ). Despite these challenges, there is growing evidence of opportunities for advancing effective responses to climate risks in mountain areas ( [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.3|Section 16.3]] ; Cross-Chapter Box NATURAL in Chapter 2).

The solution space for adaptation represents a realm of possibility for addressing climate risks; it is shaped by both socioeconomic and climatic factors that influence who adapts, when they adapt and how they adapt to climate change ( [[#Haasnoot--2020|Haasnoot et al., 2020]] ) (Sections 1.5.1 and 17.4). The space includes both planned and autonomous responses ( [[#Hock--2019|Hock et al., 2019]] ; [[#McDowell--2019|McDowell et al., 2019]] ). Autonomous responses can be appropriate when local resilience is high ( [[#Mishra--2019|Mishra et al., 2019]] ; [[#Ford--2020|Ford et al., 2020]] ); however, many mountain communities continue to face socioeconomic challenges that constrain their adaptive capacity ( ''high confidence'' ). Planned adaptations are a critical component of the solution space, although external interventions can also reinforce, redistribute or create new vulnerabilities when they proceed without sincere engagement with local communities ( [[#Eriksen--2021|Eriksen et al., 2021]] ). The solution space also evolves as social and climatic conditions change and can be capped by social and biophysical limits to adaptation that render further responses to climate change inaccessible, unfeasible or ineffectual. Such limits are already observed and are ''likely'' to become more widespread as climatic stressors move beyond historical experience ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#IPCC--2018|IPCC, 2018]] ; [[#Hock--2019|Hock et al., 2019]] ; [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-17#17.3|Section 17.3]] ; Cross-Chapter Box DEEP in Chapter 17).

Evidence shows the significant potential of adaptation actions such as NbS or multiple uses of water approaches but with a need to carefully evaluate environmental, economic and social co-benefits and trade-offs ( ''high agreement, medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Yang--2016|Yang et al., 2016]] ; [[#Drenkhan--2019|Drenkhan et al., 2019]] ; [[#Lavorel--2019|Lavorel et al., 2019]] ; [[#McDowell--2019|McDowell et al., 2019]] ; [[#Palomo--2021|Palomo et al., 2021]] ). The potential for adaptation to contribute to sustainable development and transformative change in mountains is also becoming increasingly evident ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Palomo--2021|Palomo et al., 2021]] ), yet there is currently ''limited evidence'' with respect to the long-term effectiveness of adaptations in achieving such outcomes ( [[#Balsiger--2020|Balsiger et al., 2020]] ). To better achieve the adaptation potential in mountains, adaptation finance and private-sector inclusion and contribution are key enablers ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Mishra--2019|Mishra et al., 2019]] ; [[#UNEP--2021|UNEP, 2021]] ).

There is increasing recognition that inclusive and comprehensive adaptation approaches can be more successful ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Allen--2018|Allen et al., 2018]] ; [[#Hock--2019|Hock et al., 2019]] ; [[#Huggel--2020a|Huggel et al., 2020a]] , b). Stakeholders such as local communities and government entities often prioritise different dimensions of climate-related risks ( [[#López--2017|López et al., 2017]] ; [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ). Adaptation initiatives that identify locally relevant climate stressors and risks through knowledge co-production have the potential to be more acceptable and effective ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Huggel--2015|Huggel et al., 2015]] ; [[#Muccione--2016|Muccione et al., 2016]] ; [[#Allen--2018|Allen et al., 2018]] ; [[#Quincey--2018|Quincey et al., 2018]] ; [[#Balsiger--2020|Balsiger et al., 2020]] ; [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] , 2021b) (Cross-Chapter Box DEEP in Chapter 17). However, tenable co-production requires recognition of the validity and integrity of diverse knowledges systems, including those held by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as well as the provision of sufficient time and resources for meaningful engagement between stakeholder groups ( [[#Howarth--2016|Howarth and Monasterolo, 2016]] ; [[#Bremer--2017|Bremer and Meisch, 2017]] ; Schoolmeester and Verbist, 2018; [[#McDowell--2019|McDowell et al., 2019]] ; [[#Ford--2020|Ford et al., 2020]] ). Power imbalances and knowledge politics continue to impede the inclusion of historically underrepresented voices in adaptation planning and action ( [[#Ojha--2016|Ojha et al., 2016]] ; [[#Mills-Novoa--2017|Mills-Novoa et al., 2017]] ). Citizen science plays an additional role in facilitating the inclusion of multiple knowledge traditions ( [[#Buytaert--2014|Buytaert et al., 2014]] ; [[#Dickerson-Lange--2016|Dickerson-Lange et al., 2016]] ; [[#Tellman--2016|Tellman et al., 2016]] ; [[#Njue--2019|Njue et al., 2019]] ).

Progress in addressing climate risks requires targeting the root causes of vulnerability, which are often socioeconomic in origin and can include poverty, marginalisation and inequitable gender dynamics ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Ribot--2014|Ribot, 2014]] ; [[#Carey--2017|Carey et al., 2017]] ; [[#Shukla--2018|Shukla et al., 2018]] ; [[#McDowell--2019|McDowell et al., 2019]] ). Promoting resilience in many mountain regions requires responses that address the social determinants of susceptibility to harm. Context-specific manifestations of such determinants (and leverage points for positive action) can be identified through participatory processes with affected populations, with action on social determinants of climate change vulnerability having important co-benefits for equity, justice and sustainability. Addressing the root causes of vulnerability can also resolve soft limits to adaptation, thereby increasing the solution space ( [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ).

There is growing evidence of the potential for coordination and monitoring networks to overcome existing data deficiencies, to fill knowledge gaps and to streamline implementation, all of which currently impede adaptation in mountains ( [[#Salzmann--2014|Salzmann et al., 2014]] ; [[#Muccione--2016|Muccione et al., 2016]] ; [[#Ryan--2019|Ryan and Bustos, 2019]] ; [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ; [[#Shahgedanova--2021|Shahgedanova et al., 2021]] ; [[#Thornton--2021|Thornton et al., 2021]] ; Price et al., Accepted/In press). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that key conventions related to mountains, such as the Alpine Climate Board (SROCC section 2.4 ( [[#Hock--2019|Hock et al., 2019]] )), provide opportunities for accelerating adaptation efforts through mainstreaming responses into other policies aimed at addressing climate-related risks ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Balsiger--2020|Balsiger et al., 2020]] ). Regional cooperation among countries and transboundary landscape and river basin governance initiatives are an important mechanism for advancing adaptation in mountains ( ''high agreement, medium evidence'' ) ( [[#Molden--2017|Molden et al., 2017]] ; [[#Mishra--2019|Mishra et al., 2019]] ; [[#Balsiger--2020|Balsiger et al., 2020]] ), particularly as many mountain ranges and mountain ecosystem services are transboundary in nature.

Access to major adaptation support programmes such as through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), national governments, multi- and bi-lateral aid arrangements, the private sector and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has been relatively limited to support adaptation action in mountain regions, indicating significant unutilised support options for increasing the solution space in mountains ( [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ). Enhanced uptake of available support and funding could help to ease the adaptation burden for mountain communities. This will require addressing soft limits to adaptation, which currently constrain the ability of actors to identify, access and mobilise resources for planned adaptations ( [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ).

More inclusive adaptation approaches, engagement with the root causes of vulnerability, improved coordination and monitoring activities and upscaling of support for adaptation are key enablers and are indicative of a substantial solution space for adaptation in mountain regions ( ''high confidence'' ). However, trajectories of climate change and the prospect of hard limits to adaptation, which are often biophysical in origin, portend climate futures that could overwhelm adaptation efforts. Success therefore hinges on increasing the quality and quantity of adaptation efforts, including through transformative action, as well as enhanced mitigation efforts, consistent with the recommendations of IPCC SR 1.5C ( [[#IPCC--2018|IPCC, 2018]] ) (Cross-Chapter Box PROGRESS in Chapter 17).

<div id="CCP5.4.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp5.4.3-climate-resilient-and-sustainable-development-in-mountains"></span>
=== CCP5.4.3 Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Development in Mountains ===

<div id="h2-12-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

With accelerating warming and compounding risks increasing above 1.5°C warming, the need for climate resilient development in mountains is evident and intricately linked to achieving the SDGs and equity ( ''high confidence'' ). In this context, [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-18|Chapter 18]] draws attention to climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs) as processes that strengthen sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while promoting fair and cross-scalar adaptation and mitigation. Pathways that strengthen climate-resilient sustainable mountain development are starting to receive attention ( [[#Chelleri--2016|Chelleri et al., 2016]] ; [[#Trabacchi--2016|Trabacchi and Stadelmann, 2016]] ; AlpineConvention, 2021). This section treats four domains of emerging evidence related to climate resilient development in mountains: 1) climate actions that support both adaptation and mitigation, 2) Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge in support of climate resilient development, 3) climate resilient development in climate policy and planning and 4) mainstreaming of climate action into development pathways.

NbS can be pursued in mountains that will mitigate climate change and its impacts while at the same time contributing to improving livelihoods, social and economic well-being and sustainable environmental management ( ''high confidence'' ) ''.'' A global review of 93 NbS in mountains, such as afforestation, protection of existing forests, agroforestry and climate-smart agriculture, confirm the potential of NbS for change towards sustainable trajectories ( [[#Palomo--2021|Palomo et al., 2021]] ). Agroforestry is widely cited for delivering on food security as well as increasing resilience and mitigating climate change ( [[#Mbow--2014|Mbow et al., 2014]] ; [[#Amadu--2020|Amadu et al., 2020]] ; [[#Gidey--2020|Gidey et al., 2020]] ). Also, the prudent use of biomass for wood-based bioenergy in mountains can mitigate the impacts of climate change, reduce vulnerability to disturbance events such as fires and enhance rural socioeconomic development ( [[#Beeton--2017|Beeton and Galvin, 2017]] ). Yet there can be trade-offs contingent upon place-based and context-specific social and environmental factors, such as between the use of bio-energy, agricultural production and conservation concerns ( [[#Beeton--2017|Beeton and Galvin, 2017]] ). Evidence from the world’s mountains highlights the importance of cross-scale partnerships and interdisciplinary, bottom-up approaches that facilitate stakeholders in envisioning locally tailored, climate-resilient and sustainable development pathways ( [[#Chelleri--2016|Chelleri et al., 2016]] ; [[#Capitani--2019|Capitani et al., 2019]] ; [[#Klein--2019b|Klein et al., 2019b]] ; [[#Pandey--2021|Pandey et al., 2021]] ).

Mountains are the home of many cultures and diverse Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge (systems), which can and do provide strong support for place-based integrated adaptation and mitigation strategies ( [[#Merino--2019|Merino et al., 2019]] ). Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge reinforce community adaptive capacity, yet governance structures and processes, including the deliberate design and implementation of climate policy, can constrain that capacity from being realised ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Hill--2013|Hill, 2013]] ; [[#McDowell--2014|McDowell et al., 2014]] ; [[#Wyborn--2015|Wyborn et al., 2015]] ; Klepp and Chavez-Rodriguez, 2018; [[#Lavorel--2019|Lavorel et al., 2019]] ). Communities, particularly poor and remote mountain communities, are vulnerable to climate change, and there is a need for capacity-building in research, policy development and implementation to pursue climate resilient development ( [[#Manton--2014|Manton and Stevenson, 2014]] ). Climatic stressors and socioeconomic changes are changing traditional genderscapes in mountain communities ( [[#Goodrich--2019|Goodrich et al., 2019]] ). There is increasing evidence on the roles that gendered diversity in knowledge, institutions and everyday practices can play in addressing barriers and creating opportunities for achieving resilience, adaptive capacity and sustainability in societies ( [[#Gioli--2014|Gioli et al., 2014]] ; [[#Ravera--2016|Ravera et al., 2016]] ; [[#Su--2017|Su et al., 2017]] ; [[#Udas--2018|Udas et al., 2018]] ; [[#Goodrich--2019|Goodrich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Sujakhu--2019|Sujakhu et al., 2019]] ).

Concerning climate policy and planning for climate resilient development in mountains, a review of mountain-specific priorities in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) submitted to the UNFCCC shows that countries have prioritised improving agricultural outputs by introducing climate-smart crops and upgrading and building climate-resilient irrigation infrastructure ( [[#UNFCCC--2020|]] [[#UNFCCC--2020|]] [[#UNFCCC--2020|UNFCCC, 2020]] c). Countries that have submitted their NAPAs to the UNFCCC have prioritised improving ecosystem resilience through conserving agro-biodiversity in mountains. Countries have also focused on achieving food security in mountain regions and laying foundations for food availability, stability, access and safety amid increasing climate risks ( [[#UNFCCC--2020|]] [[#UNFCCC--2020|]] [[#UNFCCC--2020|UNFCCC, 2020]] a).

In the NDCs where mountain regions are specifically mentioned, countries have prioritised climate-resilient solutions, including developing a low-carbon green economy through implementing low-carbon transport systems and encouraging sustainable waste management practices, as well as developing infrastructure for climate-resilient agriculture, the sustainable management of forests and the biodiversity conservation. Several countries have specifically pledged to build climate-resilient mountain infrastructure taking into account future climate uncertainties. Countries have also identified the need for capacity-building of national stakeholders and have pledged to provide relevant climate information ( [[#UNFCCC--2020|]] [[#UNFCCC--2020|]] [[#UNFCCC--2020|UNFCCC, 2020]] b).

Similar pledges have been announced in formal institutional arrangements such as the Alpine Convention and the Carpathian Convention. The Alpine Convention’s climate action plan prioritises reaching a climate-neutral and climate-resilient Alps by 2050. For this, implementation pathways for specific sectors have been identified ensuring coherence with global and regional goals such as the Paris agreement, SDGs, EU and climate legislation (AlpineConvention, 2021). Likewise, the Carpathian Convention’s working group on climate change has presented a long-term vision towards combating climate change through amending the article of the convention to focus specifically on climate change adaptation and mitigation ( [[#Carpathian%20Convention--2020|Carpathian Convention, 2020]] ).

Sustainable and climate-resilient mountain development is predicated on effective and timely climate action building on cross-scalar partnerships among researchers, stakeholders and decision makers to jointly identify desired futures and pathways and assess trade-offs and synergies between climate action and the SDGs ( ''high agreement, medium evidence'' ) ( [[#Klein--2019a|Klein et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Pandey--2021|Pandey et al., 2021]] ). Understanding of the complexity of mountain ecosystems as well as path dependency from earlier and current decisions is of critical importance for the sustainable future of mountain regions ( [[#Satyal--2017|Satyal et al., 2017]] ; [[#Chanapathi--2020|Chanapathi and Thatikonda, 2020]] ; [[#Berkey--2021|Berkey et al., 2021]] ). Framing pathways through questions such as for whom or for what is climate action positive and which trade-off should be accepted, and why can serve as a tool for addressing sustainable development goals while avoiding lock-ins or unsustainable path dependencies ( [[#Chelleri--2016|Chelleri et al., 2016]] ). Increasingly, climate action is mainstreamed into sustainable development, which signifies a shift from climate policy as an end point to a continuing process for managing change and facilitating long-term sustainable development. The Ethiopian government’s climate-resilient green economy (CRGE) strategy is an example of such a shift ( [[#Simane--2017|Simane and Bird, 2017]] ) as are emerging initiatives to build back greener in response to COVID-19 impacts ( [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="CCP5.5" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="ccp5.5-key-assessment-limitations-and-relevant-knowledge-gaps"></span>