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

== 18.1 Ways Forward for Climate Resilient Development ==

<div id="h1-2-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

The links between climate change and development have been long recognized by various research communities ( [[#Nagoda--2015|Nagoda, 2015]] ; [[#Winkler--2015|Winkler et al., 2015]] ; [[#Webber--2016|Webber, 2016]] ; [[#Carr--2019|Carr, 2019]] ) and have been assessed by Working Group II in every IPCC Assessment Report since AR3 ( [[#Smit--2001|Smit et al., 2001]] ; [[#Yohe--2007|Yohe et al., 2007]] ; [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ). For the AR 1-3 reports, these links were largely framed in the context of sustainable development, a concept that has been well described in the literature for decades ( [[#Brundtland--1987|Brundtland, 1987]] ). The AR5 introduced the framing of climate-resilient pathways, which narrowed the discussion around sustainable development to specifically address the contributions of mitigation and adaptation actions to the reduction of risk to development and the various institutions, strategies and choices involved in risk management ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ). That assessment concluded that identifying and implementing appropriate technical and governance options for mitigation and adaptation as well as development strategies and choices that contribute to climate resilience are central to the successful implementation of such strategies. The AR5 also recognised that transformation of current development pathways in terms of wider political, economic and social systems may be necessary ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ).

The literature presenting research findings on climate resilient development (CRD) and pathways and processes for successfully achieving CRD has expanded significantly in the several years since the AR5 ( ''very high confidence'' ). This includes both qualitative studies of development as well as illustrative, quantitative analyses of development trajectories linked to specific scenarios, such as the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) ( [[#18.2.2|Section 18.2.2]] ). Furthermore, the literature describing the role of system transitions and societal transformation in enabling climate action (Box 18.1, [[#18.3|Section 18.3]] ), compliance with the Paris Agreement (Sections 18.1.3, 18.2.1) and achievement of the SDGs ( [[#18.1.3|Section 18.1.3]] ; Box 18.4) has expanded significantly ( ''very high confidence'' ). This expansion is comprised of studies spanning a broad range of disciplinary perspectives, some of which have been underrepresented in prior IPCC assessments ( ''high agreement'' , ''limited evidence)'' ( [[#Minx--2017|Minx et al., 2017]] ; [[#Pearce--2018b|Pearce et al., 2018b]] ).

This chapter therefore focuses on assessing this more recent literature and the diverse scientific understandings of CRD and the pathways for pursuing it. Notably, this chapter takes off where Chapters 16 and 17 end: recognising the decision-making context to address the representative key risks and their intersections with development, among others. This chapter therefore highlights not only how climate risk undermines CRD, but also how current patterns of development contribute to climate risk, both generally and in different sectoral and regional contexts. In particular, this chapter focuses on achieving CRD through systems transitions, discussing these in relation to societal transformation, and how different actors engage one another in order to pursue policy and practice consistent with CRD.

<div id="18.1.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="understanding-climate-resilient-development"></span>
=== 18.1.1 Understanding Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-1-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Past IPCC Assessment Reports have consistently examined extensive literature on the links between climate change, adaptation and sustainable development ( [[#Smit--2001|Smit et al., 2001]] ; [[#Klein--2007|Klein et al., 2007]] ; [[#Yohe--2007|Yohe et al., 2007]] ). However, studies that explicitly refer to CRD as a concept or a guide for policy and practice remain modest ( ''very high confidence'' ). The concept of CRD appeared in scholarly literature and development program documents over a decade ago ( [[#Kamal%20Uddin--2006|Kamal Uddin et al., 2006]] ; [[#Garg--2007|Garg and Halsnæs, 2007]] ) and has been used in more recent IPCC assessment reports and special reports (e.g., [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ). Similarly, the use of the term climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs) dates to 2009 ( [[#Ayers--2009|Ayers and Huq, 2009]] ), but its use accelerated after appearing in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) publications around the launch of the Green Climate Fund ( [[#UNFCCC--2011|UNFCCC, 2011]] ). While this chapter prioritises the CRD literature, it also recognises that a broad range of literature, disciplinary expertise and development practice is relevant to the concept of CRD.

Much of this literature is assessed in recent IPCC Special Reports ( [[#Rogelj--2018|Rogelj et al., 2018]] ; [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ; [[#Bindoff--2019|Bindoff et al., 2019]] ; [[#Hurlbert--2019|Hurlbert et al., 2019]] ; [[#Oppenheimer--2019|Oppenheimer et al., 2019]] ), but new studies have continued to emerge. More specific uses of CRD found in the literature describe development that seeks to achieve poverty reduction and adaptation to climate change simultaneously without explicit mention of mitigation ( [[#USAID--2014|USAID, 2014]] ), as well as mitigation and poverty reduction, described as ‘low-carbon development’, without explicit mention of adaptation ( [[#Alam--2011|Alam et al., 2011]] ; [[#Fankhauser--2016|Fankhauser and McDermott, 2016]] ). Other similar terms include ‘climate safe’, ‘climate compatible’ and ‘climate smart’ development ( [[#Huxham--2015|Huxham et al., 2015]] ; [[#Kim--2017b|Kim et al., 2017b]] ; [[#Ficklin--2018|Ficklin et al., 2018]] ; [[#Mcleod--2018|Mcleod et al., 2018]] ), each with varying nuances. Climate compatible development, coined by [[#Mitchell--2010|Mitchell and Maxwell (2010)]] , specifically describes a ‘triple win’ of adaptation, mitigation and development ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2017|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2017]] ; [[#Favretto--2018|Favretto et al., 2018]] ) (see also [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.6|Section 8.6]] ). In this spirit, AR5 specifically referred to CRD as ‘ ''development trajectories that combine adaptation and mitigation to realize the goal of sustainable development'' ’ ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ). This chapter builds on the AR5 and, for the purposes of assessment, formally defines CRD as ''a process of implementing greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation measures to support sustainable development for all.'' This extension of the earlier definition reflects the emphasis in recent literature on equity as a core element of sustainable development as well as the objective of the SDGs to ‘ ''create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities'' ’ ( [[#United%20Nations--2015|United Nations, 2015]] : 3/35).

Past, present and future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the direct result of both natural and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which are, in turn, a function of past and current patterns of human and economic development ( ''very high confidence'' , WGI SPM [ [[#IPCC--2021b|IPCC, 2021b]] ]). This includes development processes that drive land use change, extractive industries, manufacturing and trade, energy production, food production, infrastructure development and transportation. These patterns of development are therefore drivers of current and future climate risk to specific sectors, regions and populations ( [[#Byers--2018|Byers et al., 2018]] ), as well as the demand for both mitigation and adaptation as a means of preventing climate change from undermining development goals. The SDGs represent targets for supporting human and ecological well-being in a sustainable manner. Yet, while progress is being made towards a number of the SDGs, success in achieving all of the SDGs by 2030 across all global regions remains uncertain ( ''high agreement'' , ''medium evidence'' ) ( [[#United%20Nations--2021|]] [[#United%20Nations--2021|United Nations, 2021]] ). Moreover, current commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not yet consistent with limiting changes in global mean temperature elevation to well-below 2°C or 1.5°C ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ) (see also [[#18.2|Section 18.2]] ).

Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are just one of a number of planetary boundaries which define safe operating spaces for humanity and therefore opportunities for achieving sustainable and CRD. Exceeding these boundaries poses increased risk of large-scale abrupt or irreversible environmental changes that would threaten human and ecological well-being ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Rockström--2009a|Rockström et al., 2009a]] ; [[#Rockström--2009b|Rockström et al., 2009b]] ; [[#Butler--2017|Butler, 2017]] ; [[#Schleussner--2021|Schleussner et al., 2021]] ). Other planetary boundaries reported in the literature such as biodiversity loss, changes in land systems and freshwater use are also directly influenced by patterns of development as well as climate change (Sections 18.2, 18.5). Current rates of species extinction, conversion of land for crop production and exploitation of water resources exceed planetary boundaries, thereby undermining CRD. Moreover, studies indicate that achievement of the SDGs, while consistent with maintaining some planetary boundaries, could undermine others ( [[#O’Neill--2018|O’Neill et al., 2018]] ; [[#Hickel--2019|Hickel, 2019]] ; [[#Randers--2019|Randers et al., 2019]] ) ( [[#18.2|Section 18.2]] ), suggesting significant shifts in current patterns of development are necessary to maintain development within planetary boundaries.

Exceedance of planetary boundaries contributes to human and ecological vulnerability to climate change and other shocks and stressors. People and regions that already face high rates of natural resource use, ecosystem degradation and poverty are more vulnerable to climate change impacts, compounding existing development challenges in regions that are already strained ( [[#IPCC--2014a|IPCC, 2014a]] ; [[#Hallegatte--2019|Hallegatte et al., 2019]] ). The International Monetary Fund, for example, found that for a medium- and low-income developing country with an annual average temperature of 25°C, the effect of a 1°C increase in temperature is a reduction in economic growth by 1.2% ( [[#Acevedo--2018|Acevedo et al., 2018]] ). Countries whose economies are projected to be hard hit by an increase in temperature account for only about 20% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2016, but are home to nearly 60% of the global population. This is expected to rise to more than 75% by the end of the century. These economic impacts are a function of the underlying vulnerability of low- and middle-income developing economies to the impacts of climate change ( [[#18.5|Section 18.5]] ). Such vulnerability was also evidenced and enhanced by the COVID-19 pandemic which slowed progress on the SDGs in multiple nations ( [[#Naidoo--2020|Naidoo and Fisher, 2020]] ; Srivastava et al., 2020; [[#Bherwani--2021|Bherwani et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="18.1.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="pathways-for-climate-resilient-development"></span>
=== 18.1.2 Pathways for Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-2-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

One approach for operationalising the concept of CRD in a decision making context is to link the concept of CRD to that of pathways (Figure 18.1). A pathway can be defined as ‘ ''a trajectory in time, reflecting a particular sequence of actions and consequences against a background of autonomous developments, leading to a specific future situation'' ’ ( [[#Haasnoot--2013|Haasnoot et al., 2013]] ; [[#Bourgeois--2015|Bourgeois, 2015]] ). As such, a pathway represents changes over time in response to policies and practices, as well spontaneous and exogenous events. For example, the SR1.5 report suggested that CRD pathways are ‘ ''a conceptual and aspirational idea for steering societies towards low-carbon, prosperous and ecologically safe futures'' ’ ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] : 468), and a way to highlight the complexity of decision making processes at different levels. Here, consistent with the aforementioned definition of CRD, we define CRD pathways as ''development trajectories that successfully integrate mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development'' .

<div id="_idContainer004" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:b8cfcc9e17aad4913cb9c0862ee388fe IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_18_001.png]]

'''Figure 18.1 |''' ''''''Climate Resilient Development Pathways are development trajectories that successfully integrate GHG mitigation and adaptation efforts to support sustainable development for all.''''''

''''''(a)'''''' Climate resilient development is a process that takes place through continuous societal choices towards higher CRD (illustrative green pathways) or lower CRD (illustrative red pathways).

'''(b)''' CRD is described by five development dimensions – people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet – on which the SDGs build (18.2).

Some societal choices have mixed outcomes for CRD (illustrative orange pathways). This figure builds on figure SPM.9 in AR5 WGII depicting climate resilient pathways by describing how CRDPs emerge from societal choices about adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development within multiple arenas – rather than solely from discrete decision points (18.4). Dimensions of CRD characterize both development outcomes as well as the interactions and societal choices that make up the development process. Societal choices, often contested, are made in arenas of engagement through interactions between key actors in civil society, the private sector and government (see Figure 18.2). The quality of interactions, such as degree of inclusion and empowerment of diverse voices, determine whether societal choices and associated actions shift development towards or away from CRD. The five CRD dimensions underline the close interconnectedness between the biosphere and humans, the two necessarily intertwined in interactions, actions, transitions, and futures (see Figure 18.3). There is a narrow and closing window of opportunity to make transformational changes to move towards and not away from development futures that are more climate-resilient and sustainable (Box 18.1). Pathways not taken (dotted line) illustrate that opportunities have been missed for higher CRD pathways due to past societal choices and increasing temperatures. Present societal choices determine whether we shift towards higher CRD in future or whether pathways will be limited to lower CRD '''.'''

As illustrated in Figure 18.1, the ultimate aim of CRDPs is to support sustainable development for ensuring planetary health and human well-being. CRD is both an outcome at a point in space and time, as observed through SDG achievement indicators, but also a process consisting of actions and social choices made by multiple actors—government, industry, media, civil society, and science ( [[#18.4|Section 18.4]] ). These actions and social choices are performed within different dimensions of governance—politics, institutions (norms, rules), and practice, and bounded by ethics, values and worldviews. The development outcomes and processes pertain to political, economic, ecological, socio-cultural, knowledge-technology and community arenas (Figure 18.2). A CRDP will, for example, aspire to achieve ecological outcomes in terms of planetary health and achievement of Paris Agreement goals as well as human well-being, solidarity and social justice, in addition to political, economic and science–technology outcomes. These outcomes are enabled by achieving progress in core system transitions that catalyse broader societal transformations (Figure 18.3).

<div id="_idContainer008" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:2348beff1d99dffcc62bb51b7426ba60 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_18_003.png]]

'''Figure 18.3 |''' ''''''Transformative actions and system transitions characterize Climate Resilient Development Pathways''''''

'''(a)''' Societal choices that generate fragmented climate action or inaction and unsustainable development perpetuate business as usual and entrenched systems.

'''(b)''' Societal choices that support CRD involve transformative adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development actions that drive five systems transitions (energy, land and other ecosystems, urban and infrastructure, industrial and societal). There is close interdependence between these systems. The system transition framework allows for a comprehensive assessment of the synergies and trade-offs between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. For example, land and water use in one system impacts the other systems and their surrounding ecosystems, thus reflecting how agricultural practices can have an impact on energy usage in urban centers. Finally, societal system transitions within each of the other systems enable the transitions to occur (18.3, Box 18.1).

<div id="_idContainer006" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:cd413a9a83b940db10f02ba21e3b66b7 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_18_002.png]]

'''Figure 18.2 |''' ''''''Societal choices made in arenas of engagement shape actions and systems.'''''' The settings, places and spaces in which key actors from government, civil society and the private sector interact to influence the nature and course of development can be called arenas of engagement, including political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, knowledge-technology and community arenas (18.4) For instance, political arenas include formal political settings such as voting procedures to elect local representatives as well as less formal and transparent political arenas. Streets, town squares and post-disaster landscapes can become sites of interaction and political struggle as citizens strive to have their voices heard. Arenas of engagement can take the form of “struggle arenas” – in which power and influence are used to include/exclude, set agendas, and make and implement decisions – with inevitable winners and losers. The quality of interactions in these arenas leads to development outcomes that can be characterized as CRD dimensions that underpin the SDGs – people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet (see Figure 18.1).

'''(a)''' Interactions characterized by inequitable relations and domination of some actors over others may lead to societal choices away from CRD, including mitigation and adaptation actions that exacerbate vulnerability among marginalized groups.

'''(b)''' Prospects for moving towards CRD increase when governance actors work together constructively in these different arenas. Interactions and actions that are inclusive and synchronous, as opposed to fragmented or contradictory, enable system transitions and transformational change towards CRD (see Figure 18.3). Most societal choices and associated decisions are characterized by a mix of the dimensions shown in (a) and (b), with mixed outcomes for CRD.

'''(c)''' Arenas exist across scales from the local to national level, and beyond. Community arenas of engagement constitute the many interactions between governance actors and the political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, knowledge-technology arenas, reflecting emergent societal choices across scales. Together, the decisions made by multiple actors within and across these arenas of engagement form societal choices. Unlocking the potential of these societal choices and associated mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development actions is central to advancing human well-being and planetary health.

While there are many possible successful pathways to future development in the context of climate change, history has shown that pathways that are positive for the vast majority often induce notable impacts and costs, especially on marginal and vulnerable people ( [[#Hickel--2017|Hickel, 2017]] ; [[#Ramalho--2019|Ramalho, 2019]] ), placing them in direct contradiction with the commitment to ‘leave no one behind’ ( [[#United%20Nations--2015|United Nations, 2015]] ). Similarly, contemporary scenario analyses find that there are plausible development trajectories that lead towards sustainability (Figure 18.1, [[#18.2.2|Section 18.2.2]] ). Yet, a number of plausible trajectories that perpetuate or exacerbate unstainable forms of development also appear in the literature (Figure 18.1, [[#18.2.2|Section 18.2.2]] ). A significant challenge lies in identifying pathways that address current climate variability and change, while allowing for improvements in human well-being. Furthermore, while a given pathway might lead to a set of desired outcomes for one region or set of actors, the process of getting there may come at high environmental, socio- and economic cost to others ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Raworth--2017|Raworth, 2017]] ; [[#Faist--2018|Faist, 2018]] ). Frequently, considerations of social difference and equity are not prioritised in the evaluation of different development choices. The assumption that a growing economy lifts opportunity for all could, for example, further marginalise those who are the most vulnerable to climate change ( [[#Matin--2018|Matin et al., 2018]] ; [[#Diffenbaugh--2019|Diffenbaugh and Burke, 2019]] ; [[#Hickel--2021|Hickel et al., 2021]] ).

Placing pathways and climate actions within development processes implies a broadening of enablers to include the ethical–political quality of socio-environmental processes that are required to shift such processes in directions that support CRD and the pursuit of sustainability outcomes. This chapter therefore departs from the AR5s alignment of CRD with adaptation pathways and the emphasis on decision points that enable one to manage (or fail to manage) climate risk, towards a framing that integrates a range of possible futures each offering different opportunities, risks and trade-offs to different actors and stakeholders (see WGII AR5, [[#IPCC--2014b|IPCC, 2014b]] , Figure SPM.9). Instead, CRD emerges from everyday formal and informal decisions, actions, and adaptation or mitigation policy interventions. This is inclusive of system transitions, increased resilience, environmental integrity, social justice, equity, and reduced poverty and vulnerability, all facets of human well-being and planetary health. Rather than encompassing a formula or blueprint for particular actions, sustainable development is a process that provides a compass for the direction that these multiple actions should take (Anders, 2016). This creates opportunities for actors to apply a diverse toolkit of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development interventions, thereby opening up the solution space.

This understanding of CRD implies that different actors—governments, businesses and civic organisations—will have to design and navigate their own CRD pathways towards climate-resilient and sustainable development. This includes determining the appropriate balance of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development actions and investments that are consistent with individual actors’ development circumstances and goals, while also ensuring that the collective actions remain consistent with global agreements and goals (such as the SDGs, Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement; [[#18.1.3|Section 18.1.3]] ), planetary boundaries and other principles of CRD including social justice and equity ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ). Empowering individual actors to pursue CRD in a context-specific manner while coordinating action among actors and a diversity of scales, local to global, is a key challenge associated with achieving CRD ( ''high agreement'' , ''limited evidence'' ).

<div id="18.1.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="policy-context-for-climate-resilient-development"></span>
=== 18.1.3 Policy Context for Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-3-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

As reflected in [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1|Chapter 1]] of the AR6 WGII report, CRD is emerging as one of the guiding principles for climate policy, both at the international level ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Segger--2016|Segger, 2016]] ), as reflected in the Paris Agreement (Article 2, [[#UNFCCC--2015|UNFCCC, 2015]] ), and within specific countries ( [[#Simonet--2016|Simonet and Jobbins, 2016]] ; [[#Kim--2017b|Kim et al., 2017b]] ; [[#Vincent--2018|Vincent and Colenbrander, 2018]] ; [[#Yalew--2020|Yalew, 2020]] ). This framing of development recognises the risks posed by climate change to development objectives ( [[#18.2|Section 18.2]] ; see also Chapter 16); the opportunities, constraints and limits associated with reducing risk through adaptation; synergies and trade-offs between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development (Sections 18.2.5, 18.5, Box 18.4); and the role of system transitions in enabling large-scale transformations that limit future global warming to less than 1.5°C, while boosting resilience ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ) ( [[#18.3|Section 18.3]] , Box 18.1).

Since the AR5, the volume of research at the nexus of climate action and sustainable development has changed markedly ( ''very high confidence'' ). A rapidly growing, multi-disciplinary literature has emerged on CRD ( [[#Mitchell--2015|Mitchell et al., 2015]] ; [[#Clapp--2019|Clapp and Sillmann, 2019]] ; [[#Hardoy--2019|Hardoy et al., 2019]] ; [[#Yalew--2020|Yalew, 2020]] ) and associated pathways ( [[#Naess--2015|Naess et al., 2015]] ; [[#Winkler--2016|Winkler and Dubash, 2016]] ; [[#Brechin--2017|Brechin and Espinoza, 2017]] ; [[#Solecki--2017|Solecki et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ellis--2019|Ellis and Tschakert, 2019]] ) ( [[#18.2.2|Section 18.2.2]] ). Nevertheless, the concept of resilience generally, and CRD specifically, has come under increasing criticism in recent years ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Joakim--2015|Joakim et al., 2015]] ; [[#Schlosberg--2017|Schlosberg et al., 2017]] ; [[#Mikulewicz--2018|Mikulewicz, 2018]] ; [[#Mikulewicz--2019|Mikulewicz, 2019]] ; [[#Moser--2019|Moser et al., 2019]] ), suggesting the need to enhance understanding of how resilience is being operationalised at the programme and project level and the net implications for human and ecological well-being.

This expansion of research has been accompanied by a shift in the policy context for climate action including an increasingly strong link between climate actions and sustainable development. In particular, the SDGs represent a near-term framework linking sustainability and human development in a manner that not only addresses planetary health and human well-being, but also help better plan and implement mitigation and adaptation actions to achieve these linked goals ( [[#Conway--2015|Conway et al., 2015]] ; [[#Griscom--2017|Griscom et al., 2017]] ; [[#Allen--2018b|Allen et al., 2018b]] ; [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ; P.R. Shukla E. Calvo Buendia, 2019). The SDGs explicitly identify climate action (SDG 13) among the goals needed to achieve sustainable development. Meanwhile, the text of the Paris Agreement makes explicit mention of the importance of considering climate ‘in the context of sustainable development’ (Articles 2, 4, 6) or as ‘contributing to sustainable development’ (Article 7) (Article 7, [[#UNFCCC--2015|UNFCCC, 2015]] ). Similarly, sustainable development appears prominently within the text of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction ( [[#UNDRR--2015|UNDRR, 2015]] ) and the Global Assessment Reports on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR, 2019). At the local- or household-level, a growing literature recognises that climate impacts tend to exacerbate existing inequalities within societies, even at the level of gender inequalities within households ( [[#Sultana--2010|Sultana, 2010]] ; [[#Arora-Jonsson--2011|Arora-Jonsson, 2011]] ; [[#Carr--2013|Carr, 2013]] ). Thus, climate change impacts threaten even short-term gains in sustainable development (18.2, Box 18.4), which could be rolled back over longer adaptation and mitigation horizons. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to have reversed gains over the past several years in terms of global poverty reduction ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Phillips--2020|Phillips et al., 2020]] ; [[#Sultana--2021|Sultana, 2021]] ; [[#Wilhelmi--2021|Wilhelmi et al., 2021]] ) (Cross-Chapter Box COVID in Chapter 7), reflecting the risks posed by global, systemic threats to development.

The WGII AR5 Report noted that adapting to the risks associated with climate change becomes more challenging at higher levels of global warming ( [[#IPCC--2014a|IPCC, 2014a]] ). This was evidenced by contrasting impacts and adaptive capacity for 2°C and 4°C of warming. This relationship between levels of warming, climate risk and reasons for concern (see Chapter 16) is also relevant to the concept of CRD. For example, recent literature on CRD emphasises the urgency of climate action that achieve significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the implementation of adaptation options that result in significant gains in human and natural system resilience ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Haines--2017|Haines et al., 2017]] ; [[#Shindell--2017|Shindell et al., 2017]] ; [[#Xu--2017|Xu and Ramanathan, 2017]] ; [[#Fuso%20Nerini--2018|Fuso Nerini et al., 2018]] ). This was explored extensively in the IPCC’s SR1.5 report in its comparison of impacts associated with 1.5°C versus 2°C climate objectives and synergies and trade-offs with the SDGs ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ). However, the SR1.5 report and other literature also identified potential trade-offs between aggressive mitigation and the SDGs (see also [[#Frank--2017|Frank et al., 2017]] ; [[#Hasegawa--2018|Hasegawa et al., 2018]] ). This indicates that while future magnitudes of warming are a fundamental consideration in CRD, such development involves more than just achieving temperature targets. Rather, CRD considers the possible transitions that enable those targets to be achieved, including the evaluation of different adaptation and mitigation options and how the implementation of these strategies interacts with broader sustainable development efforts and goals. This interdependence between patterns of development, climate risk and the demand for mitigation and adaptation action is fundamental to the concept of CRD ( [[#Fankhauser--2016|Fankhauser and McDermott, 2016]] ). Therefore, climate change and sustainable development cannot be assessed or planned in isolation of one another.

<div id="18.1.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="assessing-climate-resilient-development"></span>
=== 18.1.4 Assessing Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-4-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

In operationalising the aforementioned definitions of CRD and CRDP, this chapter builds its assessment around five core elements that provide insights relevant to policymakers actively pursuing the integration of climate resilience into development. First, as noted above, climate change poses a potential risk to the achievement of development goals, including global goals such as the SDGs, as well as nationally or locally specific goals. Accordingly, Chapter 16’s discussion of key risks, their implications for the SDGs and the options for risk management are fundamental to the pursuit of CRD. This includes the opportunities for implementing adaptation, mitigation or other risk management options. Yet the management of climate risk must be accompanied by interventions that address social and ecological vulnerabilities that enhance climate risk.

Second, CRD is dependent on achieving transitions in key systems including energy, land and ecosystem, urban and infrastructure, and industrial systems ( ''very high confidence'' ) (Box 18.1, Figure 18.3). In this context, CRD links to the discussion of system transitions in the SR1.5 report ( [[#IPCC--2018b|IPCC, 2018b]] ; [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ). However, in building on the SR1.5, here the assessment of CRD also recognises the importance of transitions in societal systems that drive innovation, preferences for alternative patterns of consumption and development, and the power relationships among different actors that engage in CRD. In particular, the rate at which actors can achieve system transitions has important implications for the pursuit of CRD. Transitions that are slow to evolve or that are more incremental in nature may not be sufficient to enable CRD in comparison with faster transitions that contribute to more fundamental system transformations.

Third, equity and social justice are consistently identified in the literature as being central to CRD ( ''very high confidence'' ; Sections 18.1.1, 18.3.1.5, 18.4, 18.5). This includes designing and implementing adaptation, resilience and climate risk management options in a manner that promotes equity in the allocation of the costs and benefits of those options. Similarly, the literature on CRD emphasises equity should be pursued in the implementation of options for greenhouse gas mitigation, transitions in energy systems and low-carbon development. This emphasis on equity is consistent with the SDGs which place an emphasis on reducing inequality and achieving sustainable development for all.

Fourth, success in CRD and alignment of development interventions to CRDPs is contingent on the presence of multiple enabling conditions ( ''very high confidence'' , [[#18.4.2|Section 18.4.2]] ), that operate at different scales ranging from those that provide capacity to implement specific adaptation options to those that enable large-scale transformational change (Box 18.1). The qualities that describe sustainable development processes (e.g., social justice, alternative development models, equity and solidarity, as described above and in Figure 18.1) lead to short-term outcomes and conditions, such as those represented by SDGs, that in an iterative fashion enable or constraint subsequent efforts towards CRD. For example, success or failure in achieving the SDGs or the Paris Agreement would shape future efforts in pursuit of CRD and the options available to different actors.

Fifth, CRD involves processes involving diverse actors, at different scales operating within an environmental, developmental, socioeconomic, cultural and political context, as typified in the SDG and the Paris Agreement negotiations ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Kamau--2018|Kamau et al., 2018]] ) ( [[#18.4|Section 18.4]] ). The dependence of CRD on processes of negotiation and reconciliation among diverse actors and interests leads to the dismissal of the notion that there is a single, optimal pathway that captures the objectives, values and development contexts of all actors, even for a particular sector, country or region. Rather, preferences for different pathways and specific actions in pursuit of those pathways will be subjected to intense scrutiny and debate among diverse actors within various arenas of engagement ( [[#18.4|Section 18.4]] ), meaning the settings, places and spaces in which key actors from government, civil society and the private sector interact to influence the nature and course of development.

<div id="18.1.5" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="chapter-roadmap"></span>
=== 18.1.5 Chapter Roadmap ===

<div id="h2-5-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

This chapter engages with understanding CRD and the pathways to achieving it by building on the concepts introduced in [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1|Chapter 1]] of this Working Group II report, as well as the regional and sectoral context presented in other chapters ( [[#18.5|Section 18.5]] ). Notably, this chapter takes off where Chapters 16 and 17 end: recognising the significance of the representative key risks for CRD and the decision making context of different actors who are implementing policies and practices to pursue different CRD pathways and manage climate risk. Therefore, this chapter assesses options for pursuing CRD and the broader system transitions and enabling conditions in support of CRD.

This chapter hosts three Cross-Chapter Boxes, which have their natural home here. The Cross-Chapter Box on Gender, Justice and Transformative Pathways (Cross-Chapter Box GENDER) assesses literature specifically on gender and climate change to uncover the importance of a justice focus to facilitate transformative pathways, both towards CRD, as well as a means to achieving gender equity and social justice. The Cross-Chapter Box on The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Understanding and Adapting to Climate Change (Cross-Chapter Box INDIG) highlights that achieving CRD requires confronting the uncertainty of a climate change future. There are many perspectives about what future is desired and how to reach it. Integrating multiple forms of knowledge is a strategy to build resilience and develop institutional arrangements that provide temporary solutions able to satisfy competing interests ( [[#Grove--2018|Grove, 2018]] ). Indigenous knowledge is proven to enhance resilience in multiple contexts (e.g., [[#Chowdhooree--2019|Chowdhooree, 2019]] ; [[#Inaotombi--2019|Inaotombi and Mahanta, 2019]] ). Meanwhile, Cross-Chapter Box FEASIB acts as an appendix to the WGII report, synthesising information on the feasibility associated with different adaptation options for reducing risk.

In assessing the opportunities and constraints associated with the pursuit of sustainable development, this chapter proceeds in [[#18.2|Section 18.2]] to assess the links between sustainable development and climate action, including examination of current patterns of development and consideration for synergies and trade-offs among different strategies and options. Then, in [[#18.3|Section 18.3]] , the chapter assesses five systems transitions to identify the shifts in development that would enable CRD. [[#18.4|Section 18.4]] assesses the role of different actors in the pursuit of CRD as well as the public and private arenas in which they engage. [[#18.5|Section 18.5]] synthesises CRD assessments from different WGII sectoral and regional chapters to identify commonalities and differences. The chapter concludes in [[#18.6|Section 18.6]] with a summary of key opportunities for enhancing the knowledge needed to enable different actors to pursue CRD.

<div id="box-18.1" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 18.1 | Transformations in Support of Climate Resilient Development Pathways'''
<div id="h2-22-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Transformational changes in the pursuit of climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs) involve interactions between individual, collective and systems change (Figures 18.1–18.3). There are complex interconnections between transformation and transition ( [[#Feola--2015|Feola, 2015]] ; [[#Hölscher--2018|Hölscher et al., 2018]] ), and they are sometimes used as synonyms in the literature ( [[#Hölscher--2018|Hölscher et al., 2018]] ). Much of the transitions literature focuses on how societal change occurs within existing political and economic systems. Transformations are often considered to involve deeper and more fundamental changes than transitions, including changes to underlying values, worldviews, ideologies, structures and power relationships ( [[#Göpel--2016|Göpel, 2016]] ; [[#O’Brien--2016|O’Brien, 2016]] ; [[#Kuenkel--2019|Kuenkel, 2019]] ; [[#Waddock--2019|Waddock, 2019]] ). Systems transitions alone are insufficient to achieve the rapid, fundamental and comprehensive changes required for humanity and planetary health in the face of climate change ( ''high confidence'' ). Transformative action is increasingly urgent across all sectors, systems and scales to avert dangerous climate change and meet the SDGs ( [[#Pelling--2015|Pelling et al., 2015]] ; [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ; [[#IPCC--2021b|IPCC, 2021b]] ; [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] ; Vogel and [[#O’Brien--2021|O’Brien, 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). The SR1.5 identified transformative change as necessary to achieve transitions within land, water and ecosystems systems; urban and infrastructural systems; energy systems; and industrial systems. This box summarises key points in the transformations literature relevant to CRD.

Transformative actions aimed at ‘deliberately and fundamentally changing systems to achieve more just and equitable outcomes’, ( [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] : 2) shift pathways towards climate resilient development (CRD) ( ''high confidence)'' . Transformative action in the context of CRD specifically concerns leveraging change in the five dimensions of development (people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet) that drive societal choices and climate actions towards sustainability ( [[#18.2.2|Section 18.2.2]] ; Figure 18.1). Climate actions that support CRD are embedded in these dimensions of development; for example, social cohesion and equity, individual and collective agency, and democratising knowledge processes have been identified as steps to transform practices and governance systems for increased resilience ( [[#Ziervogel--2016b|Ziervogel et al., 2016b]] ; [[#Nightingale--2020|Nightingale et al., 2020]] ; [[#Colloff--2021|Colloff et al., 2021]] ; Vogel and [[#O’Brien--2021|O’Brien, 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Transformative actions towards sustainability and increased well-being, which are dominant components of CRD, include those that explicitly redress social drivers of vulnerability, shift dominant worldviews, decolonialise knowledge systems, activate human agency, contest political arrangements, and insert a plurality of knowledges and ways of knowing ( [[#Görg--2017|Görg et al., 2017]] ; [[#Fazey--2018a|Fazey et al., 2018a]] ; [[#Brand--2020|Brand et al., 2020]] ; [[#Gram-Hanssen--2021|Gram-Hanssen et al., 2021]] ; [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] ). They alter the governance and political economic arrangements through which unsustainable and unjust development logics and knowledges are implemented ( [[#Patterson--2017|Patterson et al., 2017]] ; [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] ) by shifting the goals of a system or altering the mindset or paradigm from which a system arises, for example, from individualism and nature-society disconnect to solidarity and nature-society connectedness along the CRD dimensions in Figure 18.1, and connecting inner and external dimensions of sustainability ( [[#Göpel--2016|Göpel, 2016]] ; [[#Abson--2017|Abson et al., 2017]] ; [[#Wamsler--2018|Wamsler and Brink, 2018]] ; [[#Fischer--2019|Fischer and Riechers, 2019]] ; [[#Horcea-Milcu--2019|Horcea-Milcu et al., 2019]] ; [[#Wamsler--2019|Wamsler, 2019]] ).

There is no blueprint for how transformation is generated. An expanding literature suggests that transformation takes place through diverse modalities and context-dependent actions ( [[#O’Brien--2021|O’Brien, 2021]] ). Transformation may require actions that disrupt moral or social boundaries and structures that are perpetuating unsustainable systems and pathways (Vogel and [[#O’Brien--2021|O’Brien, 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Extreme events and long-term climatic changes can trigger a realigning of practices, politics and knowledge ( [[#Carr--2019|Carr, 2019]] ; [[#Schipper--2020b|Schipper et al., 2020b]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). While some see opportunities for generating social and political conditions needed for CRD in such actions and events ( [[#Beck--2015|Beck, 2015]] ; [[#Han--2015|Han, 2015]] ; [[#Shim--2015|Shim, 2015]] ; [[#Mythen--2016|Mythen and Walklate, 2016]] ; [[#Domingo--2018|Domingo, 2018]] ), this is not guaranteed. Climate shocks, when managed within socio-political systems in ways that safeguard rather than alter practices and structures, can also reinforce rather than shift the status quo ( [[#Mosberg--2017|Mosberg et al., 2017]] ; [[#Carr--2019|Carr, 2019]] ; [[#Marmot--2020|Marmot and Allen, 2020]] ; [[#Arifeen--2021|Arifeen and Nyborg, 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Further, in the absence of equitable and inclusive decision making and planning, realignments resulting from disruptive actions and events can limit inclusiveness and lead to poor or coercive decision-making processes that undermine the equity and justice foundations of sustainable development ( [[#Orlove--2020|Orlove et al., 2020]] ; [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] ) and lead to adverse socio-environmental outcomes that generate transformations away from CRD (Vogel and [[#O’Brien--2021|O’Brien, 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' , see also CROSS-CHAPTER BOX 2).

Evidence for transformative actions largely exists at the community or city level. While identifying how to rapidly and equitably generate transformations at a global scale has remained elusive, there is ''high agreement'' but ''limited evidence'' from studies of ecosystem services that suggest facilitating a wide range of locally appropriate management decisions and actions can bring about positive global-scale outcomes ( [[#Millennium%20Ecosystem%20Assessment--2005|Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005]] ). Diverse local efforts to transform towards sustainability in the face of climate change have been observed, such as community mobilisation for equitable and just adaptation actions and alternative visions of societal well-being ( [[#Shi--2020b|Shi, 2020b]] ) and farmer-led shifts in agricultural production systems ( [[#Rosenberg--2021|Rosenberg, 2021]] ). There has been an increase in transformative actions taking place through city-level resilience building aimed at shifting inequitable relations and opening up space for a plurality of actors ( [[#Rosenzweig--2018|Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2018]] ; [[#Ziervogel--2021|Ziervogel et al., 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ).

<div id="_idContainer009" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Box 18.1

Prospects for transformation towards CRD increase when key governance actors work together in inclusive and constructive ways through engagement in political, knowledge-technology, ecological, economic and socio-cultural arenas ( ''high confidence'' , [[#18.4.3|Section 18.4.3]] ). Yet the interactions between key governance actors involve struggles and negotiations in addition to collaborations ( [[#Kakenmaster--2019|Kakenmaster, 2019]] ; [[#Muok--2021|Muok et al., 2021]] ). Transformative actions meet resistance by precisely the political, social, knowledge and technical systems and structures they are attempting to transform ( [[#Blythe--2018|Blythe et al., 2018]] ; [[#Shi--2021|Shi and Moser, 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). There is expanding evidence that many adaptation efforts have failed to be transformative, but instead entrenched inequities, exacerbated power imbalances and reinforced vulnerability among marginalised groups and that, instead, marginalised groups and future trends in vulnerability need to be placed at the centre of adaptation planning ( [[#Atteridge--2018|Atteridge and Remling, 2018]] ; [[#Mikulewicz--2019|Mikulewicz, 2019]] ; [[#Owen--2020|Owen, 2020]] ; [[#Eriksen--2021a|Eriksen et al., 2021a]] ; [[#Eriksen--2021b|Eriksen et al., 2021b]] ; [[#Garschagen--2021|Garschagen et al., 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Beyond the enablers, drivers or modalities, another question tackled in the literature is how to evaluate transformation by establishing criteria for transformation assessments ( [[#Ofir--2021|Ofir, 2021]] ; [[#Patton--2021|Patton, 2021]] ; [[#Williams--2021|Williams et al., 2021]] ), experience-based lessons on managing transformative adaptation processes ( [[#Vermeulen--2018|Vermeulen et al., 2018]] ), climate policy integration ( [[#Plank--2021|Plank et al., 2021]] ), investment criteria ( [[#Kasdan--2021|Kasdan et al., 2021]] ) and political economy analysis frameworks for climate governance ( [[#Price--2021|Price, 2021]] ).

<div id="box-18.2" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 18.2 | Visions of Climate Resilient Development in Kenya'''
<div id="h2-23-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The government of Kenya’s (GoK) ambition through Vision 2030 is to create a globally competitive and prosperous country with a high quality of life by 2030. It aims to transform Kenya into a newly-industrialising, middle-income country providing a high quality of life to all its citizens in a clean and secure environment.

( [[#Government%20of%20Kenya--2008|Government of Kenya, 2008]] ). Dryland regions in Kenya occupy 80–90% of the land mass, are home to 36% of the population ( [[#Government%20of%20Kenya--2012|Government of Kenya, 2012]] ) and contribute about 10% of Kenya’s gross domestic product (GDP) ( [[#Government%20of%20Kenya--2012|Government of Kenya, 2012]] ), which includes half of its agricultural GDP ( [[#Kabubo-Mariara--2009|Kabubo-Mariara, 2009]] ). In dryland regions, pastoralism has long been the predominant form of livelihood and subsistence ( [[#Catley--2013|Catley et al., 2013]] ; [[#Nyariki--2019|Nyariki and Amwata, 2019]] ). The GoK seeks to improve connectivity and communication infrastructure within the drylands to better exploit and develop livestock, agriculture, tourism, energy and extractive sectors ( [[#Government%20of%20Kenya--2018|Government of Kenya, 2018]] ). It argues that the transformation of dryland regions is crucial to enhance the development outcomes for the more than 15 million people who inhabit these areas ( [[#Government%20of%20Kenya--2016|Government of Kenya, 2016]] : 17) and to help the country to realise its wider national ambitions including a 10% year on year growth in GDP ( [[#Government%20of%20Kenya--2012|Government of Kenya, 2012]] ). A key element within this vision is the promotion and implementation of the Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia (LAPSSET) project. The LAPSSET Corridor consists of two elements: the 500 meter wide Infrastructure Corridor where the road, railway, pipelines, power transmission and other projects will be located and the Economic Corridor of 50 km on either sides of the infrastructure corridor which will be contain other industrial investments ( [[#Enns--2018|Enns, 2018]] ). Supporters of the LAPSSET project argue that it will help achieve priorities laid out in the Vision 2030 by opening up poorly connected regions, enabling the development of pertinent economic sectors such as agriculture, livestock and energy, and supporting the attainment of a range of social goals made possible as the economy grows ( [[#Stein--2019|Stein and Kalina, 2019]] ).

However, the development narrative surrounding LAPSSET remains controversial in its assumptions, not least because it is being promoted in the context of a highly complex and dynamic social, economic and biophysical setting ( [[#Cervigni--2016|Cervigni and Morris, 2016]] ; [[#Atsiaya--2019|Atsiaya et al., 2019]] ; [[#Chome--2020|Chome, 2020]] ; [[#Lesutis--2020|Lesutis, 2020]] ). Some of the key trends driving contemporary and likely future change in dryland regions are changing household organisation, evolving customary rules and institutions at local and community levels, and shifting cultures and aspirations ( [[#Catley--2013|Catley et al., 2013]] ; [[#Washington-Ottombre--2013|Washington-Ottombre and Pijanowski, 2013]] ; [[#Tari--2014|Tari and Pattison, 2014]] ; [[#Cormack--2016|Cormack, 2016]] ; [[#Rao--2019|Rao, 2019]] ). Dryland regions are also witnessing demographic growth and change in land use patterns linked to shifts in the composition of livestock (for example from grazers to browsers), a decrease in nomadic and increase in semi-nomadic pastoralism, and transition to more urban and sedentary livelihoods ( [[#Mganga--2015|Mganga et al., 2015]] ; [[#Cervigni--2016|Cervigni et al., 2016]] ; [[#Greiner--2016|Greiner, 2016]] ; [[#Watson--2016|Watson et al., 2016]] ). At a landscape level, land is becoming more fragmented and enclosed, often associated with increases in subsistence and commercial agriculture and the establishment of conservancies and other group or private land holdings ( [[#Reid--2014|Reid et al., 2014]] ; [[#Carabine--2015|Carabine et al., 2015]] ; [[#Nyberg--2015|Nyberg et al., 2015]] ; [[#Greiner--2016|Greiner, 2016]] ; [[#Mosley--2016|Mosley and Watson, 2016]] ). In addition, there are political dynamics associated with Kenya Vision 2030 and decentralisation, the influence of international capital, foreign investors and incorporation into global markets ( [[#Cormack--2016|Cormack, 2016]] ; [[#Kochore--2016|Kochore, 2016]] ; [[#Mosley--2016|Mosley and Watson, 2016]] ; [[#Enns--2020|Enns and Bersaglio, 2020]] ), as well as increasing militarisation and conflict in the drylands ( [[#Lind--2018|Lind, 2018]] ). Allied to these social and political dynamics are ongoing processes of habitat modification and degradation and biophysical changes linked in part to climate variability ( [[#Galvin--2009|Galvin, 2009]] ; [[#Mganga--2015|Mganga et al., 2015]] ). The interconnected nature of these drivers will intersect with LAPSSET in myriad ways. For example, the implementation of LAPSSET may accentuate some trends, such as increases in land enclosure and a shift towards more urban and sedentary livelihoods ( [[#Lesutis--2020|Lesutis, 2020]] ). Conversely, the perceived threat LAPSSET could pose to pastoral lifestyles may lead to greater visibility, solidarity and strength of pastoralist institutions ( [[#Cormack--2016|Cormack, 2016]] ).

<div id="_idContainer011" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Box 18.2

There is a recognised need to adapt and chose development pathways that are resilient to climate change while addressing key developmental challenges within dryland regions, notably, poverty, water and food insecurity, and a highly dispersed population with poor access to services ( [[#Government%20of%20Kenya--2012|Government of Kenya, 2012]] ; [[#Bizikova--2015|Bizikova et al., 2015]] ; [[#Herrero--2016|Herrero et al., 2016]] ). The current vision for development of dryland regions comes with both opportunities and threats to achieve a more climate-resilient future. For example, the growth in and exploitation of renewable energy resources, made possible through increased connectivity, brings climate mitigation gains but also risks. These risks include the uneven distribution of costs in terms of where the industry is sited compared with where benefits primarily accrue, and may exacerbate issues around water and food insecurity as strategic areas of land become harder to access ( [[#Opiyo--2016|Opiyo et al., 2016]] ; [[#Cormack--2018|Cormack and Kurewa, 2018]] ; [[#Enns--2018|Enns, 2018]] ; [[#Lind--2018|Lind, 2018]] ). While LAPSSET will bring greater freedom of movement for commodities, benefitting investors, improving access to markets and urban centres, supporting trade or ease of movement for tourists supporting economic goals, it can also result in the relocation of people and impede access to certain locations for the resident populations. Mobility is a key adaptation behaviour employed in the short and long term to address issues linked with climatic variability ( [[#Opiyo--2014|Opiyo et al., 2014]] ; [[#Muricho--2019|Muricho et al., 2019]] ). With modelled changes in the climate suggesting decreases in income associated with agricultural staples and livestock-dependent livelihoods, development that constrains mobility of local populations could retard resilience gains ( [[#Ochieng--2017|Ochieng et al., 2017]] ; [[#ASSAR--2018|ASSAR, 2018]] ; [[#Enns--2018|Enns, 2018]] ; [[#Nkemelang--2018|Nkemelang et al., 2018]] ). The likely increase in urban populations and the growth in tourism and agriculture may lead to increases in water demand at a time when water availability could become more constrained owing to the reliance on surface water sources and the modelled increases in evapotranspiration due to rising mean temperature, more heatwave days and greater percentage of precipitation falling as storms ( [[#ASSAR--2018|ASSAR, 2018]] ; [[#Nkemelang--2018|Nkemelang et al., 2018]] ; [[#USAID--2018|USAID, 2018]] ). These pressures could make it harder to meet basic health and sanitation goals for rural and poorer urban populations, issues compounded further by likely increases in child malnutrition and diarrheal deaths linked to climate change ( [[#WHO--2016|WHO, 2016]] ; [[#ASSAR--2018|ASSAR, 2018]] ; [[#Hirpa--2018|Hirpa et al., 2018]] ; [[#Nkemelang--2018|Nkemelang et al., 2018]] ; [[#Lesutis--2020|Lesutis, 2020]] ). Development must pay adequate attention to these interconnections to ensure that costs and benefits of achieving climate mitigation and adaptation goals are distributed fairly within a population.

<div id="18.2" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="linking-development-and-climate-action"></span>