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

=== FAQ CCP5.4 | What types of adaptation options are feasible to address the impacts of climate change in mountain regions under different levels of warming, and what are their limits? ===

<div id="h2-16-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

''The feasibility of adaptation to address risks in mountain regions is influenced by numerous factors, many of which are unique to mountain people and their environment. Adaptation efforts in mountains mainly consist of small, largely autonomous steps. Robust and flexible adaptation measures have a better chance of addressing risks, but eventually large systemic transformation will be needed in the face of higher levels of warming. Empirical evidence on what works and what does not is largely absent but urgently needed.''

The term feasibility refers to climate goals and adaptation options that are possible and desirable. Feasibility is influenced by factors such as economic viability, availability of technical resources, institutional support, social capital, ecological and adaptive capacity and biophysical conditions. Establishing the feasibility of options under changing climatic and socioeconomic conditions is not an easy task, mostly because even present feasibility is difficult to assess in mountains due to a lack of systematic information on opportunities and challenges of adaptation in practice.

Underlying environmental conditions, such as limited space, shallow soils, exposure to numerous hazards, climate-sensitive ecosystems and isolation, make it particularly difficult to implement adaptation at scales relevant for implementation. Common adaptation options are often implemented at the individual, household or community level. These options are incremental and have generated observable results and outcomes. Adaptation actions that involve partial changes that do not dramatically alter established practices and behaviours seem to have better chances of being implemented than systemic or structural changes. Formal or planned adaptation efforts that are more institutionally driven constitute only a small proportion of observed adaptation in mountain regions. Where adaptation options are implemented, they often target not only climate change but an array of other issues, priorities and pressures experienced by and in those communities (e.g., livelihood diversification in farming practices).

Whether or not adaptation options are feasible says little about their effectiveness, i.e., the degree to which adaptation has been or will be successful in reducing the risks of negative impacts. Adaptation is difficult to disentangle from other factors that contribute to both increasing and decreasing risks. Since adaptation in mountains is often autonomous and unplanned, measuring its effectiveness is complex and missed by more conventional, formal or structured monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

Evidence suggests that promising measures undertaken in mountains are those that are robust under uncertain futures, allow for adaptive planning and management and respond to multiple interests and purposes. For example, multi-purpose water reservoirs can alleviate multiple stressors and address several risks, such as those from natural hazards and water shortages. Capacity-building and awareness-raising can go a long way towards ensuring that these measures are also socially acceptable if combined with more structural and systemic changes. Indeed, transformations happen slowly in mountains and it is unlikely that small steps and incremental measures will be able to cope with more severe and pervasive risks.

Overall, empirical evidence on the effectiveness of adaptations at reducing risk is largely lacking but is urgently needed to better understand what works and what does not under certain circumstances.

<span id="faq-ccp5.5-why-are-regional-cooperation-and-transboundary-governance-needed-for-sustainable-mountain-development"></span>