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

== CCP6.4 Climate Resilient Development Pathways ==

<div id="h1-5-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

The polar regions are expected to experience many economic development opportunities as a result of climate change, including increased accessibility for shipping and attractiveness for fisheries and tourism (CCP6.2.3.1, CCP6.2.4). For polar regions, equitable climate resilient development requires diverse perspectives in planning and implementation. In the Arctic, cultural, social and economic dimensions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities are critical ( [[#Ritsema--2015|Ritsema et al., 2015]] ; [[#Huntington--2021|Huntington et al., 2021]] ). For both poles, there are global cultural connections to polar systems ( [[#Roberts--2021|Roberts et al., 2021]] ), along with important global and local needs for sustained ecosystems and their services, in the face of diminishing polar zonal conditions ( [[#Cavanagh--2021|Cavanagh et al., 2021]] ; [[#Murphy--2021|Murphy et al., 2021]] ; [[#Solomonsz--2021|Solomonsz et al., 2021]] ).

Sustainable pathways integrating across sectors, and taking account of local and global connections, can be readily achieved in polar regions to balance trade-offs between economic, ecological and sociocultural imperatives, yet challenges remain ( [[#Murphy--2021|Murphy et al., 2021]] ). Notably, terrestrial areas of greatest interest for infrastructure development, agriculture and visitation potential are often also the same areas that have been identified as culturally and ecologically significant ( [[#PEW--2016|PEW, 2016]] ; [[#Eliasson--2017|Eliasson et al., 2017]] ; [[#Grant--2021|Grant et al., 2021]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Development of low-impact shipping corridors in Arctic Canada is an example of an effective mechanism where climate-resilient infrastructure can be prioritised and where regulation (voluntary and enforced) focused on cascading climatic risks can be implemented ( [[#Chénier--2017|Chénier et al., 2017]] ; [[#Dawson--2020|Dawson et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="CCP6.4.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.4.1-challenges-to-climate-resilient-development-pathways"></span>
=== CCP6.4.1 Challenges to Climate Resilient Development Pathways ===

<div id="h2-9-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Decision making in polar regions is complicated by globalisation processes and the complexity of governance arrangements from local to global instruments and differing stakeholder perspectives and needs ( [[#Hughes--2018|Hughes et al., 2018]] ; [[#Stephen--2018|Stephen, 2018]] ; [[#Huntington--2021|Huntington et al., 2021]] ; [[#Murphy--2021|Murphy et al., 2021]] ; [[#Solomonsz--2021|Solomonsz et al., 2021]] ). Substantial interest in and management of polar resources from non-polar states can lead to decision making that lacks explicit consideration of local impacts and responses, thus reducing the effectiveness of adaptation and, in some cases, causing maladaptation. Participatory decision making is increasingly used in some sectors, but high costs of participation, a focus on consensus, and systematic erosion of resources can undermine outcomes ( [[#Mumby--2017|Mumby et al., 2017]] ; [[#Parlee--2018|Parlee and Wiber, 2018]] ; [[#Mendenhall--2020|Mendenhall et al., 2020]] ). In the Arctic, the societal burden of climate change impacts and risks will manifest at the local level, and thus the importance of local scale leadership and involvement in decision making is essential for effective adaptation ( [[#AMAP--2017|AMAP, 2017]] ).

Many losses and damages within Indigenous contexts are not able to be monetised but can be profound, such as loss of Indigenous languages ( [[#CAFF--2013|CAFF, 2013]] ), loss of IK associated with nomadic lifestyles and cultures (Box CCP6.2), and loss of geographical knowledge associated with an intimate knowledge of landscapes across seasons ( [[#Brattland--2018|Brattland and Mustonen, 2018]] ), changing landscapes resulting in solastalgia and ecological grief ( [[#Cunsolo--2018|Cunsolo and Ellis, 2018]] ), and some Indigenous practices and cultural assets, such as burial grounds, nomadic camp sites, graveyards, seasonal dwellings, and routes and pathways causing disruptions to mind and memory ( [[#Mustonen--2016|Mustonen and Mustonen, 2016]] ). Recognising these intangible losses and damages is critical for understanding how to achieve climate resilience in the Arctic ( [[#Tschakert--2019|Tschakert et al., 2019]] ; [[#Sawatzky--2020|Sawatzky et al., 2020]] ).

For the Antarctic, the governance for managing climate impacts is emerging, particularly for terrestrial and nearshore habitats ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Hughes--2018|Hughes et al., 2018]] ; [[#Chown--2019|Chown and Brooks, 2019]] ). However, it is poorly developed for marine ecosystems, despite its importance for decision making ( [[#Trebilco--2020|Trebilco et al., 2020]] ; [[#Goldsworthy--2021|Goldsworthy and Brennan, 2021]] ). A diversity of stakeholders is involved in developing evidence-based management for the region, which presents challenges for adaptation planning ( [[#Solomonsz--2021|Solomonsz et al., 2021]] ), particularly in identifying sustainable practices in a changing environment ( [[#Constable--2017|Constable et al., 2017]] ; [[#Brooks--2018|Brooks et al., 2018]] ). Spatial management for enhancing the resilience of endemic polar biodiversity is increasingly proposed as the best option for managing risks of climate change ( [[#Chown--2019|Chown and Brooks, 2019]] ).

<div id="CCP6.4.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.4.2-inclusive-integrated-co-management"></span>
=== CCP6.4.2 Inclusive, Integrated Co-management ===

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

Inclusive, low-cost participatory decision making can deliver equitable responses to climate change ( ''high confidence'' ). Land use, maritime activities and subsistence fishery and other extracted resources in the polar regions are co-managed through multi-lateral and national government bodies. The capacity of governance systems in some Arctic regions to respond to climate change has strengthened recently ( ''high confidence'' ). Synthetic themes in adaptation for the Arctic have emerged from and since SROCC and include flexibility through diversity in livelihoods, and subsistence and harvest portfolios; co-management of resources; adaptive and ecosystem-based approaches; adoption of advanced technology, forecasts and longer-term projections to improve safety and resources management; and imperative need for low-cost, inclusive and participatory decision making ( [[#Kasperski--2013|Kasperski and Holland, 2013]] ; [[#Brattland--2018|Brattland and Mustonen, 2018]] ; [[#Parlee--2018|Parlee and Wiber, 2018]] ; [[#Galappaththi--2019|Galappaththi et al., 2019]] ; [[#Holsman--2020|Holsman et al., 2020]] ; [[#Huntington--2021|Huntington et al., 2021]] ; [[#Melbourne-Thomas--2021|Melbourne-Thomas et al., 2021]] ; [[#Mustonen--2021|Mustonen and Van Dam, 2021]] ). This was demonstrated in community-level adaptation by Pangnirtung Inuit to climate change impacts on fisheries ( [[#Galappaththi--2019|Galappaththi et al., 2019]] ). Inclusive approaches to co-management, especially those that enable diverse perspectives, embrace conflict, and address equity and justice across power holders, can help alleviate the risk and promote solutions ( [[#Raymond-Yakoubian--2017|Raymond-Yakoubian et al., 2017]] ; [[#Brattland--2018|Brattland and Mustonen, 2018]] ; [[#Parlee--2018|Parlee and Wiber, 2018]] ; [[#Raymond-Yakoubian--2018|Raymond-Yakoubian and Daniel, 2018]] ; [[#Snook--2020|Snook et al., 2020]] ). Integration across levels of management and diverse regional perspectives can reduce climate risks and support equitable adaptation measures ( [[#Allison--2015|Allison and Bassett, 2015]] ; [[#Raymond-Yakoubian--2017|Raymond-Yakoubian et al., 2017]] ; [[#Raymond-Yakoubian--2018|Raymond-Yakoubian and Daniel, 2018]] ; [[#Holsman--2020|Holsman et al., 2020]] ).

Increased flexibility in management measures, greater investment in ecosystem monitoring, and more inclusive participatory methods and communication may help foster high levels of local investment and resilience and promote adaptive pathways ( [[#Cinner--2016|Cinner et al., 2016]] ; [[#Weymouth--2019|Weymouth and Hartz-Karp, 2019]] ), although explicit measures may be needed to reduce costs and increase representation, enhance transparency, embrace dissent and clarify accountability are needed as these are not inherent outcomes ( [[#Lynham--2017|Lynham et al., 2017]] ; [[#Parlee--2018|Parlee and Wiber, 2018]] ). EBM, which includes provisions aimed at sustaining critical connections within and among social and ecological systems, enhances resilience and attenuates climate impacts on ecosystems and provisioning services; for example, EBM enhances climate resilience for Antarctic krill and Northeast Arctic cod fisheries ( [[#Troell--2017|Troell et al., 2017]] ; [[#Meyer--2020|Meyer et al., 2020]] ) and forestalls fishery collapse in the Bering Sea in the near term ( [[#Holsman--2020|Holsman et al., 2020]] ). Increasing likelihood of transboundary resources, interactions and novel commerce may strain existing regulatory and international agreements, suggesting that ''a priori'' governance agreements designed to manage climate risks and aimed at attenuating potential conflicts over resources and regions may be important for resolving these issues ( [[#Parlee--2018|Parlee and Wiber, 2018]] ; [[#Mendenhall--2020|Mendenhall et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="CCP6.4.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.4.3-enabling-climate-resilience-in-the-arctic-self-determination-and-indigenous-peoples-rights"></span>
=== CCP6.4.3 Enabling Climate Resilience in the Arctic: Self-determination and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights ===

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

Climate change disproportionately impacts Indigenous Peoples (Box CCP6.2), which directly affects their livelihoods, health and Sustainable Development Goal targets. For residents in the Arctic, a sustainable development pathway has been found to be highly effective if a self-determined development model is employed ( ''very high confidence'' ). Known determinants of Indigenous self-determined development in regions in the Arctic, include: (1) Indigenous self-determined decision making (and inherent sovereignty); (2) effective and culturally legitimate institutions of government; (3) strategic vision and strategic thinking; and (4) public-spirited, nation-building leadership ( [[#Cornell--1992|Cornell and Kalt, 1992]] ; [[#Cornell--1998|Cornell and Kalt, 1998]] ; [[#Cornell--2007|Cornell and Kalt, 2007]] ; [[#Ritsema--2015|Ritsema et al., 2015]] ). For Indigenous Peoples, advances in recognition of self-governance, land and resource sovereignty, and resource co-management, particularly in the North American Arctic but also elsewhere, provide a strong basis for responding to climate impacts ( [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ; [[#Robards--2018|Robards et al., 2018]] ). These developments expand the solution space ( [[#Haasnoot--2020|Haasnoot et al., 2020]] ) for responding to climate impacts, although historical and ongoing forms of colonialism in research and government institutions continues to undermine Indigenous self-determination and reinforce climate change vulnerability ( [[#Marino--2015|Marino and Lazrus, 2015]] ; [[#Whyte--2019|Whyte et al., 2019]] ; [[#Ford--2020|Ford et al., 2020]] ; [[#Snook--2020|Snook et al., 2020]] ). Readiness for adaptation across Arctic nations continues to be challenged by a number of factors, including the existence of pressing socioeconomic challenges, institutional and governmental barriers, lack of meaningful inclusion of IK in government planning and response, and lack of financial resources ( [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ; [[#Loring--2016|Loring et al., 2016]] ; [[#AMAP--2017|AMAP, 2017]] ; [[#Ford--2017|Ford et al., 2017]] ; [[#Birchall--2019|Birchall and Bonnett, 2019]] ) ( [[#AMAP--2018a|AMAP, 2018a]] ). In Alaska, for example, the need to relocate high-risk villages has been recognised by researchers, decision makers and communities themselves for some time, and while progress is being made in some locations ( [[#Ristroph--2017|Ristroph, 2017]] ), institutional barriers have generally resulted in negligible progress ( [[#Bronen--2013|Bronen and Chapin, 2013]] ; [[#Marino--2015|Marino and Lazrus, 2015]] ; [[#Albert--2018|Albert et al., 2018]] ; [[#Rosales--2021|Rosales et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="CCP6.5" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="ccp6.5-summary-and-conclusion"></span>