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

=== 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>