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

=== 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>