Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Cross-Chapter-Paper-6 (section)

== CCP6.3 Key Risks and Adaptation ==

<div id="CCP6.3.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.3.1-key-risks"></span>
=== CCP6.3.1 Key Risks ===

<div id="h2-7-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Key risks arising from changing climate hazards are presented in Table CCP6.6 (details in SMCCP6.4). Changing levels and magnitude of climate hazards translate into different levels of risks for ecosystems, industry, society and infrastructure (Figure CCP6.4) (see [[#Meredith--2019|Meredith et al., 2019]] Figures 3.5, 3.10 (Arctic), Figure 3.6 (Antarctic). In the Arctic, these risks are often also shaped by non-climatic factors ( [[#Huntington--2019|Huntington et al., 2019]] ; [[#Ford--2021|Ford et al., 2021]] ), including ongoing colonial legacies, land dispossession, landscape fragmentation and resulting challenges in the valuing and meaningful use of IK and LK (Box CCP6.2) ( [[#Huntington--2019|Huntington et al., 2019]] ; [[#Kelman--2019|Kelman and Næss, 2019]] ; [[#Ford--2020|Ford et al., 2020]] ). Available literature enabled assessment of particular polar assets based on projected future risk and including consideration of non-climatic compounding factors under 1°C, 2°C, 3°C and 4°C global warming above pre-industrial level, including sea ice ecosystems, marine mammals, sea birds, fisheries, infrastructure (Arctic only), local mobility (Arctic only) and coastal erosion (Arctic only) (Figure CCP6.5) (details in SMCCP6.4).

<div id="_idContainer031" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:ec235c8a818afe7c384074d9a67a204a IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_CCP6_005.png]]

'''Figure CCP6.5 |''' '''Burning ember of the relative risks to select assets in the polar regions as a function of global mean surface temperature increase since pre-industrial times including: (1) sea ice ecosystems, (2) marine mammals, (3) sea birds, (4) fisheries, (5) infrastructure (Arctic only), (6) local mobility (Arctic only) and (7) coastal erosion (Arctic only).''' The supporting literature and methods are provided in SMCCP6.5

<div id="_idContainer029" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:f20dbcd2122c0753aaaa75eb4afe92bc IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_CCP6_004.png]]

'''Figure CCP6.4 |''' '''Rapid assessment for relative risk by sector (''' '''''y''''' '''-axis) and climate hazard (''' '''''x''''' '''-axis) for polar regions based on an assessment of asset-specific vulnerability and exposure across climate hazards (see SMCCP6''' '''.''' '''4 for methodological details).''' For each unique combination, the hazard by sector risk was ranked as very high (very high risk and ''high confidence'' ), high (significant impacts and risk, ''high to medium confidence'' ), medium (impacts are detectable and attributable to climate change, ''medium confidence'' ) or low/not detected/positive (risk is low or not detectable). Blank cells are those where the assessment was not applicable or not conducted. Risks identified through the rapid assessment were further evaluated in the chapter assessments (see corresponding sector text for full assessment of risk and impacts).

'''Table CCP6.5 |''' Key risks (KR) and illustrative examples in polar regions identified through the processes described in [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16|Chapter 16]] and SMCCP6.4.

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

! Direct and indirect factors contributing to risk

|-
| KR1. Risk to marine ecosystems and species (CCP6.2.2; CCP6.2.3)

| * Warming, MHW, sea ice loss, glacial and IS melt, OA, invasive species, harmful algae blooms
* Narrow thermal niches, altered marine habitat, hampered calcification, higher corrosivity for CaCO 3 shell/skeleton, phenological mismatch, physiological/life history effects, sensitive food web relationships, reduced trophic (energy) transfer efficiencies, increased light availability, nutrient limitation, and changes to salinity, stratification, oxygen levels

|-
| KR2. Risk to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and species (CCP6.2.4)

| * Warming, hydrological changes, terrestrial heat waves, change in rain and snow events, increased wild- and mega-fire events in Arctic, permafrost thaw, and erosion
* Vegetation browning/greening, narrow thermal niches, physiological/ life history effects, sensitive food web relationships, parasites and disease

|-
| KR3. Risk to commercial and private infrastructure (CCP6.2.6)

| * Permafrost freeze–thaw, extreme heat and precipitation, rapid warm-thaw events, storms, increased wave activity, storm surges, flooding, landslides and erosion
* Roads, airstrips, railways, ports, commercial buildings, private homes, ice cellars, traditional snow/ice/water travel routes, other infrastructure
* Permafrost freeze–thaw and SLR impacting cultural assets, including cultural heritage sites

|-
| KR4. Risk to food and nutritional security (CCP6.2.5)

| * Warming, OA, sea ice loss, permafrost loss, changes to precipitation, wildfires, hydrological changes
* Access to marine areas increased, to coastal and terrestrial areas decreased; effects on subsistence and commercial species

|-
| KR5. Increased polar shipping traffic with cascading risks for navigation, safety, ecosystems and culture (CCP6.2.4; CCP6.2.5; Box CCP6.2; FAQ CCP6.1)

| * Substantial reduction in sea ice extent and thickness
* Marine subsistence species; coastal communities; Inuit hunters; ship operators; tourism operators; mining companies

|-
| KR6. Increased mental health challenges and impacts on Indigenous Peoples and culture (CCP6.2.6.4; CCP6.2.7; CCP6.2.8. Box CCP6.2; FAQ CCP6.3)

| * Warming temperature; heatwaves; ice changes; changes in snow cover; permafrost thaw; coastal erosion; changing landscapes

|-
| KR7. Risk from polar change for global processes and SLR (FAQ CCP6.1)

| * Reduction in Arctic sea ice, sheets and glaciers have implications for planetary albedo and ocean stratification and salinity, acceleration of global warming, potential effects on global overturning circulation and Northern Hemisphere weather patterns
* Cultural and resource connections to global sustainable development

|}

<div id="CCP6.3.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.3.2-adaptation"></span>
=== CCP6.3.2 Adaptation ===

<div id="h2-8-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="CCP6.3.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.3.2.1-current-adaptation"></span>
==== CCP6.3.2.1 Current adaptation ====

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

Across polar regions, adaptation responses to climate change impacts have ranged from rapid and incremental (e.g., shifting phenologies, alternative harvest or herding strategies) to large and transformative (e.g., switching livelihoods, social–ecological system transformation) (Figure CCP6.6). Some adaptation measures and opportunities induce novel risks to other sectors or systems resulting in cascading and compounding consequences that are sometimes hard to predict or prepare for ( [[#Huntington--2015|Huntington et al., 2015]] ) (Table CCP6.6). Adaptation planning and implementation is greater in the Arctic than Antarctic regions, in part due to disparate magnitudes of realised climate impacts and change between regions (Figure CCP6.2; Table CCP6.1) but also because of the differing governance systems in place ( [[#Meredith--2019|Meredith et al., 2019]] ). In the Antarctic region, a climate action plan has been developed for terrestrial systems but not for the Southern Ocean ( [[#Meredith--2019|Meredith et al., 2019]] ), although strategies for adapting to climate change have been proposed, including incorporation of precaution in decision making ( [[#Constable--2017|Constable et al., 2017]] ). In the Arctic, climate change information is increasingly integrated into research, policy and decision making including incorporation of climate change projections, forecasts and early warnings ( [[#AMAP--2017|AMAP, 2017]] ; [[#AMAP--2018a|AMAP, 2018a]] ; [[#Marshall--2019|Marshall et al., 2019]] ; [[#Dorn--2020|Dorn and Zador, 2020]] ; [[#Hollowed--2020|Hollowed et al., 2020]] ; [[#Stram--2021|Stram et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="_idContainer046" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:b48b194c7c7e129dcfcf5278c2afd21d IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_CCP6_006.png]]

'''Figure CCP6.6 |''' '''Assessment of feasibility and effectiveness of adaptation options by KR in the polar regions (Table CCP6.''' '''6).'''

The majority of adaptations in the Arctic are occurring at sub-regional levels in response to both observed and projected climate change, with evidence of increasing regional level action driven by climate planning processes of subnational governments ( [[#AMAP--2017|AMAP, 2017]] ; [[#Labbé--2017|Labbé et al., 2017]] ; [[#AMAP--2018a|AMAP, 2018a]] ; [[#Canosa--2020|Canosa et al., 2020]] ). Implemented adaptation includes alterations to building codes and infrastructure design ( [[#Shiklomanov--2017|Shiklomanov et al., 2017]] ; [[#Flynn--2019|Flynn et al., 2019]] ; [[#Standards%20Council%20of%20Canada--2020|Standards Council of Canada, 2020]] ), surveillance ( [[#Ruscio--2015|Ruscio et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ford--2019|Ford and Clark, 2019]] ; [[#Meredith--2019|Meredith et al., 2019]] ), information sharing ( [[#Berner--2016|Berner et al., 2016]] ), changes to survey and monitoring design ( [[#Stevenson--2019|Stevenson and Lauth, 2019]] ), hazard mapping ( [[#Flynn--2019|Flynn et al., 2019]] ), use of new technologies ( [[#Tejsner--2018|Tejsner and Veldhuis, 2018]] ; [[#Galappaththi--2019|Galappaththi et al., 2019]] ), the development of regional and municipal adaptation plans ( [[#Labbé--2017|Labbé et al., 2017]] ), shifting stocks and changes in fishery operations and location ( [[#Jørgensen--2019|Jørgensen et al., 2019]] ; [[#Fedewa--2020|Fedewa et al., 2020]] ; [[#Thompson--2020|Thompson et al., 2020]] ), alterations to subsistence harvesting activities ( [[#Anderson--2018|Anderson et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ford--2018|Ford et al., 2018]] ; [[#Galappaththi--2019|Galappaththi et al., 2019]] ), co-production of knowledge ( [[#Raymond-Yakoubian--2018|Raymond-Yakoubian and Daniel, 2018]] ) and application of IK for resource management ( [[#Robards--2018|Robards et al., 2018]] ) and to monitor storms ( [[#Rosales--2021|Rosales et al., 2021]] ; [[#Simonee--2021|Simonee et al., 2021]] ). Pan-Arctic and national-level adaptation remains limited ( [[#Ford--2014|Ford et al., 2014]] ; [[#Canosa--2020|Canosa et al., 2020]] ), although there have been few efforts to examine the nature of adaptation responses in Arctic regions and large gaps in understanding.

Illustrative examples of direct and cascading risks, enabling principles of climate resilience pathways, anticipated future conditions (with certainty levels and compounding risks for key sectors within polar regions) are outlined in Table CCP6.6. A list of adaptation options responding directly to the challenges outlined for each sector, including an analysis of adaptation effectiveness and feasibility and cross referenced with KR assessed in this chapter (Table CCP6.5), is provided in Figure CCP6.6.

The need for self-determination for Indigenous Peoples and local communities in decision making and cooperation across Arctic nations to manage a rapidly changing Arctic is increasingly recognised, particularly in a shipping and wildlife management context where climate impacts will be transboundary and multi-sectoral ( [[#Spence--2017|Spence, 2017]] ; [[#Forbis--2018|Forbis and Hayhoe, 2018]] ; [[#Ford--2019|Ford and Clark, 2019]] ; [[#Dawson--2020|Dawson et al., 2020]] ) (CCP6.2.6; Box CCP6.2). Effective Indigenous and community-led adaptation efforts have been implemented across the Arctic to alleviate climate and non-climate stressors and build resilience through restoration and conservation ( [[#Huntington--2017|Huntington et al., 2017]] ; [[#Brattland--2018|Brattland and Mustonen, 2018]] ; [[#Hudson--2020|Hudson and Vodden, 2020]] ; [[#Mustonen--2020|Mustonen and Feodoroff, 2020]] ; [[#Uboni--2020|Uboni et al., 2020]] ; [[#Huntington--2021|Huntington et al., 2021]] ). For example, IK and science has been used by the Skolt Sámi in Finland to attenuate warming, drought and water quality impacts on salmonids through restoration of spawning and nursery habitats in the Vainosjoki River catchment ( [[#Brattland--2018|Brattland and Mustonen, 2018]] ; [[#Mustonen--2020|Mustonen and Feodoroff, 2020]] ; [[#Ogar--2020|Ogar et al., 2020]] ). This ecological restoration of damaged habitats for fish represents community-led actions. In Aasiaat, Greenlandic hunters have implemented community-based oceanographic and ecological monitoring to convey IK observations of rapid change to the government and scientists. A special aspect of land use in the Russian North is the preservation of nomadic lifestyles of the Nenets and Chukchi ( [[#Mustonen--2016|Mustonen and Mustonen, 2016]] ), and while these traditional economies have undergone rapid change due to non-climate drivers, their land uses, observational frameworks and cultural matrixes remain of high importance in the context of climate change. Endemic responses (self-agency from within the culture) and Indigenous governance enable adaptation to the rapid and accelerating changes under way ( [[#Mustonen--2018a|Mustonen et al., 2018a]] ). Therefore, community-based monitoring and inclusion of IK in dialogue with science has been an effective mechanism to detect and respond to climate change.

'''Table CCP6.6 |''' Assessment of risks needing adaptation by sector in the polar regions.

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

! '''Direct and cascading risks'''

! '''Enabling principles of climate resilience pathways'''

! '''Anticipated future conditions/level of certainty'''

! '''Compounding risks (non-climatic factors)'''

|-
| [[File:6573275ef2f7905ff8e6bbff0fae7d09 ccp6-icon1.jpg]]

Coastal settlements

(CCP6.2.5)

| Change in extent of sea ice with more storm surges, thawing of permafrost, SLR and coastal erosion

| Local leadership and community-led initiatives to initiate and drive processes, responsive agencies, established processes for assessments and planning, geographic options

| Increasing number of communities needing relocation ( ''medium confidence'' ), rising costs for mitigating erosion ( ''high confidence'' )

| Limitations of government budgets, other disasters that may take priority, policies deficiencies for addressing mitigation and relocation

|-
| [[File:5929cf3b5ba003b4d1cddbaf4df50172 ccp6-icon2.jpg]]

Human health

(CCP6.2.6)

| Increased food insecurity, waterborne disease, emerging pathogens, injury and death, and negative mental health outcomes

| Resources to support public programmes; Indigenous self-determination; access to technology; supporting IK systems; interdisciplinary and integrated decision making

| The intersection of social determinants of health will modify or mediate climate change impacts on health ( ''very high confidence'' )

| Underlying health conditions, advances in diagnosis and treatment, and other health system shocks (e.g., COVID)

|-
| [[File:33866bb385dbfd19c0df0addb1a04934 ccp6-icon3.jpg]]

Transportation (aviation, rail, road, ice roads)

(CCP6.2.4.3)

| Permafrost thaw, sea ice change, storm surge, coastal erosion, changing precipitation patterns (ice pellets, hail) and extreme events create risks to transportation infrastructure with consequences to navigation, economics, safety and security

| Financial and human resources for: climate-resilient infrastructure research, development and implementation; improved weather, water, ice and climate forecasting at appropriate scales; improved communications infrastructure; local search and rescue

| Limits to adaptation exist ( ''high confidence'' ), but strategic investments in technologically innovative infrastructure that offers mitigation co-benefits will greatly enhance adaptation effectiveness ( ''very high confidence'' )

| Level of local, regional and national infrastructure development, commitment of national and state level government to sustainable development pathways, global economic and political trends, commodity prices, unforeseen system shocks

|-
| [[File:f48ed6c42042add2319579c48d9a8623 ccp6-icon4.jpg]]

Shipping

(Box CCP6.1; FAQ CCP2)

| Sea ice reduction leading to increased shipping related to trade, tourism, fisheries, resource development and re-supply with cascading risks from ships such as: increased under-water noise, potential introduction of invasive species, fuel spill risks, release of black carbon and air emissions, impacts to cultural resources, implications for subsistence hunting and food security, increased accidents and incidents

| Financial support for ship-building technologies (e.g., low-emission fuels, propulsion technologies, hull strength); development of robust multi-national agreements (in addition to existing agreements); inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in decision making; investment in multi-national and longitudinal research on shipping impacts; and enhancing modern digital maritime charting

| Ship traffic will continue to grow in polar regions ( ''high confidence'' ), with Arctic trade routes becoming increasing accessible ( ''very high confidence'' ) albeit with more challenging navigation due to increases in mobile ice in the near-term compared with late century when ice is expected to diminish completely during the shipping season ( ''high confidence'' )

| Geopolitical and sovereignty debates; shipping insurance premiums; global economic trends; commodity prices; national policies and politics; level of infrastructure investment; availability of search-and-rescue assets, and modern charting

|-
| [[File:9a5ea3caf19bf30934dca45bb6acf4dd ccp6-icon5.jpg]]

Infrastructure

(CCP6.2.5)

| Loss and damage to infrastructure from permafrost thaw affecting stability of ground; coastal erosion; SLR

| Resources for assessments, mitigation, and where needed, relocation

| Increasing cost to maintain infrastructure and greater demand for technological solutions to prevent damages ( ''high confidence'' )

| Strength of regional and national economies, other disasters that divert resources

|-
| [[File:964ed511dbff14703abc49da0c0f50a6 ccp6-icon6.jpg]]

Non-renewable resource extraction (Arctic only)

(CCP6.2.4.1)

| Reduced sea ice improves access to non-renewable resources in remote Arctic regions, while warming temperature and thawing permafrost affect production levels, quality, and reliability and season length of ice roads, leading to increased operational costs

| Investment in climate-resilient infrastructure and low-emission transportation (shipping) and investment in solar powered ships and low-impact modular mining camp infrastructure

| Increase in mining in newly accessible marine regions ( ''medium confidence)'' , frequent false starts (i.e., due to climatic and non-climatic factors) ( ''high confidence'' ) and high levels of operational uncertainty (i.e., commodity prices, economic trends, climate risks) ( ''very high confidence'' )

| Commodity prices; global economic trends and shocks; Indigenous rights and decisions; changing regulatory environments, geopolitics, global demand for resources

|-
| [[File:2cb89917699946ef833bf5bd15f5be20 ccp6-icon7.jpg]]

Tourism

(CCP6.2.4.2)

| Increased demand for polar tourism activities including development of ‘last chance tourism’ market; increased tourism improves economic conditions but leads to increased environmental and cultural impacts

| Financial resources for service and infrastructure development; Indigenous self-determination and development of co-management approaches for natural and cultural attractions; development of multi-stakeholder/rightsholder tourism task teams

| Polar tourism demand will continue to increase, especially for cruise and yacht experiences ( ''high confidence'' ) and enhance risks related to ship groundings, accidents and incidents ( ''medium confidence'' )

| Limited search and rescue capacity, poor infrastructure, aging expedition cruise ship fleet, uncharted waters, geological and sovereignty debates, global economic trends, unforeseen events (i.e., severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), COVID-19) altering tourism demand patterns

|-
| [[File:a92890ab9f36d5dd9cd84cc5d8b4d3bc ccp6-icon8.jpg]]

Reindeer herding

(CCP6.2.3.1; 6.2.3.2; 6.2.5; Box CCP6.2)

| Rain-on-snow events causing high mortality of herds, especially in the autumn season; shrubification of tundra pasture lowering forage quality

| Flexibility in movement to respond to changes in pastures, secure land use rights; adaptive management; continued economic viability and cultural tradition; self-determination in decision making; adequate support for communication and technological services; Indigenous rights upheld and protected

| Increased frequency of extreme events and changing forage quality adding to vulnerabilities of reindeer and herders ( ''high confidence)'' ; adaptation limits are being approached

| Change in market value of meat; overgrazing; land use policies affecting access to pasture and migration routes, property rights; cost of feed

|-
| [[File:f2b374ce50ecfc5001538e6ba18ff889 ccp6-icon9.jpg]]

Commercial fisheries

(CCP6.2.3)

| Loss of sea ice, warming waters and MHWs transform ecosystems in the Arctic with impacts on fisheries including declines in multiple regions; changes to Antarctic ecosystems affect southern fisheries productivity and distribution

| Implementation of adaptive management that is closely linked to monitoring, research and low cost and inclusive public participation in decisions, high-resolution forecast and projection tools, climate-informed survey and monitoring design

| Changes in availability and location of fishery resources will impact fish operations in the EBS and Barents Sea as well as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources area. Declines in catch impact livelihoods, coastal communities, and pose a risk to regional and global food and nutritional security ( ''very high confidence'' )

| Changes in global demand for seafood, demand and markets, changes in gear, changes in policies affecting property rights. Changes due to offshore development and transportation

|-
| [[File:5ac92509521a66e4b7dd2de6459a5a81 ccp6-icon10.jpg]]

Marine subsistence

(CCP6.2.3; CCP6.2.3.1)

| Changes in species distribution and abundance (not all negative); impediments to access of harvesting areas especially sea ice; increased interactions with shipping; safety; changes in seasonality; reduced harvesting success and process of food production (processing, food storage; quality); threats to culture and food security

| Systems of adaptive co-management that allow for species switching, changes in harvesting methods and timing, secure harvesting rights, communication and relationship building, co-production of knowledge

| Changes in distribution and abundance of resources combined with more regulations related to species at risk. Adaptation at the local, individual, and household level under low mitigation scenarios will be costly and possibly undermined by the scale and pace of change, including climate shocks and extreme events ( ''medium confidence'' )

| Changes in cost of fuel, land use affecting access, food preferences, harvesting rights; colonialism, international agreements to protect vulnerable species

|-
| [[File:c3995df064aaa4e70d03aeac9f098c09 ccp6-icon11.jpg]]

Marine ecosystems

(CCP6.2.1)

| Warming, sea ice loss, OA resulting in poleward contraction of polar zones, invasive species introduction, displacement of polar species, and restructuring of food webs

| Reduce effects of external and compounding risks and increase application of EBM to meet biodiversity and management goals. Conservation of genetic diversity and biodiversity to preserve resilience, and supplementation and assisted migration may be needed

| Without institutional investment in sustaining climate resilience in ecosystems across sectors, there is a high risk of failure ( ''high confidence'' )

| Novel and expanding activities in ice-free areas (shipping; fishing), energy development and mineral extraction, increased tourism, global markets and demand for polar resources, population growth and community relocation to coastal areas

|-
| [[File:e31a1aaeda922f69080353b94022d18d ccp6-icon12.jpg]]

Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems

(CCP6.2.2)

| Warming, hydrology changes (reduced ice on lakes and rivers, flooding, snow) and permafrost thaw lead to impacts on polar terrestrial and freshwater systems, food webs, the distribution of polar fish, implications for peat systems with consequent changes on dependent animal assemblages and increasingly favourable conditions for parasites and pathogens. Increased risk of wildfires in the Arctic

| Improving biodiversity and redundancy to enhance resilience. Efforts to minimise and prevent extinctions; preservation of ecosystem processes and habitats during critical life stages; coordinated governance; measures and planning that consider dynamic interactions within and among social and ecological systems are more effective

| Without institutional investment in sustaining climate resilience in ecosystems across sectors there is a high risk of failure ( ''high confidence'' ). Arctic regions have greater understanding of resilience needs, but coordination is not widespread. Antarctic has established action plans to identify key management needs for conserving terrestrial and freshwater biota.

| Novel and expanding activities in ice-free areas (shipping; fishing), energy development and mineral extraction, increased tourism, global markets and demand for polar resources, population growth and community relocation to coastal areas

|}

<div id="CCP6.3.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.3.2.2-adaptation-gaps"></span>
==== CCP6.3.2.2 Adaptation gaps ====

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

In a study of adaptation progress across the Arctic from 2004 to 2019, 233 cases of adaptation were documented, with the majority of actions primarily behavioural and reactionary in nature and undertaken in the subsistence harvesting sector, with resource management, and infrastructure and transportation other prominent sectors where adaptation responses were documented to be occurring ( [[#Canosa--2020|Canosa et al., 2020]] ). The study found few changes in the profile of adaptation over time, except for an increase in responses being motivated solely by climate impacts, and few cases of transformational change, although it should be noted that a lack of data on adaptation actions makes documenting trends challenging. Human health is generally under-represented in adaptation initiatives, along with adaptations being developed within larger Arctic settlements ( [[#Ford--2014|Ford et al., 2014]] ; [[#Canosa--2020|Canosa et al., 2020]] ), and in many sectors decisions continue to be made without explicit inclusion of climate change impacts and risk in planning and design ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Cherry--2017|Cherry et al., 2017]] ; [[#Lauta--2018|Lauta et al., 2018]] ; [[#Meredith--2019|Meredith et al., 2019]] ). There is ''limited evidence'' of transformational adaptation taking place in the policy arena (e.g., [[#U.S.%20Executive%20Order%2013990--2021|U.S. Executive Order 13990, 2021]] ), but many examples of how impacts and responses to climate change have transformed social–ecological connections, traditions, markets, trade and livelihoods of Arctic residents and Indigenous Peoples ( [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ).

<div id="CCP6.3.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.3.2.3-maladaptation-and-limits-to-adaptation"></span>
==== CCP6.3.2.3 Maladaptation and limits to adaptation ====

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

In polar regions, multiple entities operate simultaneously to manage lands and resources, resulting in layered approaches and policies for the same sector or region, only some of which are synergistic and a few of which may counter each other (e.g., Southern Ocean: [[#Solomonsz--2021|Solomonsz et al., 2021]] ). Climate change and attendant uncertainty can undermine stakeholder confidence in management, leading to less effective management even when scientific understanding is stable ( [[#Mumby--2017|Mumby et al., 2017]] ). In the Arctic, large landscapes, dispersed population centres, limited resources and settler colonialism are structural barriers to effective planning, emergency response, and relief and recovery from climate impacts ( ''medium confidence'' ), which limit adaptation and sometimes exacerbate climate and non-climate pressures on social and ecological systems ( [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ford--2020|Ford et al., 2020]] ; [[#Snook--2020|Snook et al., 2020]] ).

Adaptation strategies that are beneficial in the short term can result in long-term maladaptive outcomes. For Indigenous Peoples, strategies that fail to address colonialism, inequities and injustices undermine effective adaptation ( [[#Canosa--2020|Canosa et al., 2020]] ; [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper, 2020]] ; [[#Ford--2021|Ford et al., 2021]] ). Large ‘responsiveness gaps’ between impacts and implementation, approaches that fail to consider dynamic responses within social and ecological systems (which amplify or attenuate climate impacts), and a paucity of ''a priori'' planning can contribute to maladaptation ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Pentz--2017|Pentz and Klenk, 2017]] ; [[#Turner--2020b|Turner et al., 2020b]] ). For example, rationalisation (privatisation) can stabilise fisheries and incentivise long-term sustainability under stationary conditions, yet also promote low diversity in harvest (or livelihood) portfolios, and when combined with behaviours to offset climate driven declines in yield (e.g., effort or price), rationalisation can create lock-in to declining stocks, increasing the risk of income variability and collapse ( [[#Kasperski--2013|Kasperski and Holland, 2013]] ; [[#Pinkerton--2015|Pinkerton and Davis, 2015]] ; [[#Holland--2017|Holland et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ojea--2017|Ojea et al., 2017]] ; [[#Anderies--2019|Anderies et al., 2019]] ; [[#Fisher--2021|Fisher et al., 2021]] ). Policies that foster stewardship yet also allow for diversification in fisheries may further attenuate climate shocks to individual fisheries ( [[#Kasperski--2013|Kasperski and Holland, 2013]] ; [[#Fisher--2021|Fisher et al., 2021]] ) and stabilise catches (e.g., US Bering Sea pollock fleet ( [[#Watson--2018|Watson and Haynie, 2018]] )). Inclusive and participatory decision making underpins long-term resilience to climate change ( ''medium confidence'' )( [[#Flynn--2018|Flynn et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ford--2020|Ford et al., 2020]] ), but a high cost of participation can disproportionately favour entities with strong investment, ample resources and extreme viewpoints such that decision outcomes are not in the broad interest of polar societies ( [[#Lynham--2017|Lynham et al., 2017]] ).

There are significant limits to adaptation in the polar regions related to the rate of warming and cascading changes that are occurring, which is equivalent to double and sometimes triple the global average depending on the region ( [[#Bush--2019|Bush and Lemmen, 2019]] ; [[#IPCC--2021|IPCC, 2021]] ). The rapid pace of change, such as sea ice loss, can outpace ecological processes and induce substantial ecological shifts (CCP6.2) ( ''medium confidence'' ). The speed of climate change in the Arctic limits options for adaptation in communities who rely on a narrow resource base, when adaptation involves loss of culture and livelihoods, and when the costs of adaptation make it infeasible ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ), such as for reindeer herding (Table CCP6.6; Figure CCP6.6; Figure CCP6.7) ( [[#Meredith--2019|Meredith et al., 2019]] ). Adapting infrastructure in response to a rapidly changing cryosphere will be limited by available technologies and the relatively higher costs associated with updating infrastructure over vast polar regions ( [[#Schneider%20von%20Deimling--2021|Schneider von Deimling et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="_idContainer048" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:9f44dbd8fcec6addc812c98ed71a3d4a IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_CCP6_007.png]]

'''Figure CCP6.7 |''' '''Climate change impacts, risks and potential for adaptation in Arctic (upper panel) and Antarctic (lower panel) social–ecological systems.'''

<span id="faq-ccp6.4-when-will-climate-change-impacts-in-polar-regions-surpass-our-ability-to-adapt"></span>
=== FAQ CCP6.4 | When will climate change impacts in polar regions surpass our ability to adapt? ===

<div id="h2-17-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

''When environmental variability is within the range of the current adaptive management approaches, the social–ecological system can thrive. However, the rapidly changing polar systems are causing disruptions to societies, economies and ecosystems. The current management systems are yet to develop procedures for managing rapid change being experienced in warming waters, sea ice declines, permafrost thaw and erosion, and poleward shifts in species. These challenges are expected to become more pronounced within a few decades rather than later this century.''

Polar regions are naturally dynamic environments. Ecosystems in polar regions, and the people who rely on them, have adapted to natural variability and dynamic nature of polar environments. Fish populations in polar regions are known to exhibit cycles of productivity, and shift their distribution across hundreds of kilometres in response to changes in winter sea ice cover and concomitant summer ocean conditions. Management of the productive fisheries in polar regions is also designed to allow for these changes, using adaptive and ecosystem-based approaches that buffer populations from overexploitation and also stabilise fisheries, livelihoods and food resources. Indigenous Peoples diversify their subsistence harvest across species and resources and, therefore, similarly stabilise food and nutritional security.

When environmental variability is within the range of these adaptive measures, the social–ecological system can thrive. Thus, there are fundamental components in place in polar regions already to help ecosystems and people adapt to some degree of climate change. However, as climate change impacts like warming waters, sea ice loss, permafrost thaw and erosion systematically alter components of the system, shift species increasingly poleward, and disrupt linkages between species and people, the ability to adapt is reduced. There are critical tipping points (e.g., sea ice melt, permafrost thaw) where changes may cascade, self-reinforce and accelerate, outpacing adaptation actions and force natural and human systems irreversibly (on the scale of human existence) into novel regimes. The risk of crossing tipping points is greater and the probability much increased after mid-century under scenarios without global carbon mitigation (SSP5 8.5), where changes are largest and most rapid.

<div id="CCP6.4" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.4-climate-resilient-development-pathways"></span>