Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-1 (section)

=== 1.5.2 Enabling Transformation ===

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

As one important theme, this Sixth Assessment report assesses who needs to take what actions and when in order that transformations unfold at sufficient speed and scale to meet the Paris Agreement, the SDGs and other policy goals. A number of literatures inform these assessments.

Various literatures describe multiple, co-evolving societal elements which organise themselves into stable regimes that, under some circumstances, can undergo significant change. The sustainability transitions literature provides one central focus for understanding such processes and potential intervention points for actors seeking change ( [[#Köhler--2019|Köhler et al., 2019]] ). This literature identifies three, interacting scales: the micro, meso and macro.( [[#Geels--2004|Geels, 2004]] ; [[#Köhler--2019|Köhler et al., 2019]] ) The micro level reflects changing individual choices, attitudes and motivations. The meso reflects socio-technical systems, ‘a cluster of elements, including technology, regulations, user practices and markets, cultural meanings, infrastructure, maintenance networks and supply networks’ ( [[#Geels--2004|Geels, 2004]] , p. 436). The macro reflects the cultures, institutions, norms, governance and other broad organising features of society. The sustainability transitions literature generally focuses on change that originates and occurs within the meso scale, while the transformation literature focuses on change within and among all scales. This Working Group II report often considers three interacting scales labelled personal, practical and political ( [[#O’Brien--2013|O’Brien and Sygna, 2013]] ). Working Group III often employs the multi-level perspectives framework ( [[#Geels--2004|Geels, 2004]] ) and the more actor-oriented three domains of decision making framework (WGIII Section 1.6.4; [[#Grubb--2014|Grubb et al., 2014]] ;) to describe related societal scales.

These literatures describe similar processes through which these interacting elements generate significant system change. In the sustainability transitions literature, the process begins with a stable system of actors, technologies and institutions ( [[#Köhler--2019|Köhler et al., 2019]] ). Radical innovations begin in niches or protected spaces, sometimes introduced by new entrants or outsiders. Successful innovations expand in scale, scope and geographically, and ultimately help generate new regimes. Incumbent actors can support or resist innovations through combinations of government policies, economic forces and institutional and behavioural pressures. Such processes can, but need not, follow a common S-curve pattern of initial adoption, take-off, acceleration and stabilisation ( [[#Rotmans--2001|Rotmans et al., 2001]] ). The multi-level perspectives literature in WGIII similarly describes innovations as moving from niches to socio-technical regimes, at first mediated by and then potentially altering exogenous socio-technical landscapes (WGIII Section 1.6.4; [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-1/Smith--2010 Smith et al., 2010] ).

The socio-ecological systems literature, a main source of the resilience concept, focuses on the system elements of society and ecosystems, their interdependence and on how they change in response to shocks (Section 1.2.1.4). Coupled human and natural systems maintain their vital functions through what are called adaptive cycles that begin with growth, reach a period of stasis, experience a disruption and then reorganise. This repeating cycle can leave the system unchanged or transition it to new states. Human agency can alter system characteristics so that after any disruption the system will reorganise into a different, more desired state, guide the reorganisation in desired directions after a system shock (such as a natural disaster) or provide the shock that catalyses a reorganisation.

These literatures view incremental and transformational change as linked processes. In the transformational adaptation literature, [[#Park--2012|Park et al. (2012)]] consider incremental and transformational adaptation as two concentric and linked action-learning cycles with similar steps that include monitoring and learning. Systems generally reside in the incremental cycle but can temporarily jump to the transformational cycle before returning to the incremental, albeit in a state with fundamentally changed attributes. Shifts from the incremental to transformational cycle are made possible by knowledge and skills, as well as adjustments to vision, agendas and coalitions achieved through monitoring and learning. The incremental cycle is characterised by reactive responses to external drivers and performance evaluation relative to past performance. Shifts to the transformational cycle are characterised by more pro-active responses and more expansive problem framings.

The socio-ecological and sustainability transitions literature describes transitions as often nonlinear, characterised by tipping point behaviour with periods of relative stability interspersed with periods of more rapid change as thresholds are crossed ( [[#van%20Ginkel--2020|van Ginkel et al., 2020]] ). Actors seeking transformation may take incremental steps that aim to induce such tipping point behaviour ( [[#Otto--2020b|Otto et al., 2020b]] ). For instance, full accounting of climate risk in insurance and financial lending decisions could similarly act as such social tipping point interventions for adaptation ( [[#Hill--2019|Hill and Martinez-Diaz, 2019]] ). Transformations need not, however, be equitable or smooth. Historical examples suggest the potential for rigidity traps, in which suppression of innovation and a high degree of connectivity in a system delay an eventual transformation, which, when it eventually occurs, unfolds as exceptionally harsh ( [[#Hegmon--2008|Hegmon et al., 2008]] ).

Many actors can contribute to launching or blocking significant system change. Pelling et al. (2015) highlights power relationships within and among activity spheres that influence the process of transformational adaptation and distribution of risks. In the sustainability transitions literature each set of actors—including those from academia, politics, industry, civil society and households—brings their own resources, capabilities, beliefs, strategies and interests, which affects their interest, objectives, ability to affect the process and their ability to affect others ( [[#Kern--2018|Kern and Rogge, 2018]] ).

There is no consensus in the literature on the best means for actors to pursue deliberate transformation (Section 1.5.1) and the extent to which actors can guide the process. The transitions and some transformation literature derive from a complex systems perspective ( Section 1.3.1.2; [[#Köhler--2019|Köhler et al., 2019]] ; [[#Linnér--2019|Linnér and Wibeck, 2019]] ) in which behaviours can be understood but not predicted (Chapter 17; [[#Mitchell--2009|Mitchell, 2009]] ). These literatures suggest that interventions in such systems will rarely result in them evolving along some pre-determined pathway. Rather, successful interventions more often resemble iterative processes of action, observation and response, which are described in the literature with terms such as iterative risk management (Section 17.2.1), clumsy solutions ( [[#Thompson--1998|Thompson and Rayner, 1998]] ; [[#Linnér--2019|Linnér and Wibeck, 2019]] ), probe and response (Chapter 17; [[#French--2013|French, 2013]] ) and what [[#Young--2017|Young (2017)]] calls adaptive governance.

These literatures view transformation as a collective action challenge among actors with both common and differing values, interests and capabilities interacting over time with a mix of cooperation and competition ( [[#Young--2017|Young, 2017]] ; [[#Dasgupta--2018|Dasgupta et al., 2018]] ). Concepts such as radical incremental transformation ( [[#Göpel--2016|Göpel, 2016]] ), direct incrementalism (Grunwald 2007) and progressive incrementalism ( [[#Levin--2012|Levin et al., 2012]] ) envision strategies in which actors pursue incremental actions in one or more niches that move the current system towards tipping points which, once crossed, will drive the system to a new state ( [[#Tàbara--2018|Tàbara et al., 2018]] ). The incremental actions aim to promote learning, remove barriers to change ( [[#Dasgupta--2018|Dasgupta et al., 2018]] ; [[#Baresi--2020|Baresi et al., 2020]] ), create a series of wins that generate momentum and generate positive feedbacks (e.g., by creating constituencies) such that the speed and scale of the climate action grows over time ( [[#Levin--2012|Levin et al., 2012]] ). However, incremental strategies can fail to move fast enough, can succumb to path-dependency that locks in initially helpful but long-term adverse responses (such as the well-known levee effect) (Sadoff 2015; Haasnoot 2019) or can result in a transition that meets some goals (e.g., environmental) but not others (e.g., equity) ( ''high confidence'' ).

This report describes decision frameworks and tools that can help those involved in such a process—acting independently or collectively—identify, evaluate, seek compromise on and then implement sequences of solutions that lead to pathways with more desirable outcomes and avoid pathways with less desirable outcomes (Section 17.3.1). For instance, adaptive (also called adaptation) pathways (Cross-Chapter Boxes SLR in [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3|Chapter 3]] and DEEP in Chapter 17) explicitly chart alternative sequences of actions including near-term steps, indicators to monitor and contingency actions to take if pre-determined monitoring thresholds are breached. Employed in contexts with multiple actors and contested values, adaptive pathways frame deliberate transformation as both a near-term decision problem focused on physical, financial and natural resources, as well as a social change process of co-evolving knowledge, policies, institutions, values, rules and norms ( [[#Fazey--2016|Fazey et al., 2016]] ). Transition management ( [[#Loorbach--2010|Loorbach, 2010]] ), rooted in the sustainability transitions literature, supports arenas of actors that co-produce visions of future change, plan pathways and recruit additional actors into the change process.

As a central feature, such frameworks and tools embrace: (a) multiple objectives and measures (Section 1.4.1.2) to help identify and consider trade-offs among parties with a diversity of interests, values and objectives and (b) multiple scenarios that enable stress-testing of proposed actions to identify conditions in which they would fail to meet their goals and thus inform consideration of ways to make those actions more robust and resilient over multiple futures in the near and longer term (Chapter 17; Cross-Chapter Box DEEP in Chapter 17). A focus on single or overly aggregated measures (Section 1.4.1.2) and single scenarios can privilege some actors’ views over others, reduce transparency and make it more difficult to identify resilient and equitable solutions to complex, deeply uncertain, non-linear and contested problems ( [[#Schoen--1994|Schoen and and Rein, 1994]] ; [[#Renn--2008|Renn, 2008]] ; [[#Jones--2014|Jones et al., 2014]] ; [[#Lempert--2020|Lempert and Turner, 2020]] ) ( ''medium confidence'' ).

Nonetheless, most concepts of deliberate transformation also emphasise the importance of common goals and principles within a process of goal setting, acting on those goals, M&amp;E and readjustment. Such goals encourage pro-active action, help align the activities of multiple, loosely co-ordinated actors ( [[#Göpel--2016|Göpel, 2016]] ; [[#Dasgupta--2018|Dasgupta et al., 2018]] ) and provide benchmarks against which to measure progress ( [[#Young--2017|Young, 2017]] ). The Paris Agreement and SDGs aim to provide such common goals for the world as a whole and implement what some have described as goal-based as opposed to rule-based governance for galvanising collective action ( [[#Sachs--2015|Sachs, 2015]] ; [[#Kanie--2017|Kanie and Biermann, 2017]] ). As intended, many public sector, private sector and civil society actors have developed their own goals that aim to align with the Paris Agreement and the SDGs (see Section 1.1). The existence of goals that help people envision a future significantly different than present can be one, often key, difference between decision processes that pursue transformational as opposed to incremental change ( [[#Park--2012|Park et al., 2012]] ; Chapter 17). Narratives that help explain where a community is, where it wants to go and how it intends to get there are an important enabler of transformation (Sections 1.5.1; 1.2.3; [[#Linnér--2019|Linnér and Wibeck, 2019]] ; [[#Fazey--2020|Fazey et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="1.5.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="climate-resilient-development"></span>