Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

== 17.1 Objectives and Framing of the Chapter ==

<div id="17.1.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="introduction"></span>
=== 17.1.1 Introduction ===

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

Addressing the impacts and risks associated with observed and projected climate change (Chapter 16) is fundamentally and intricately tied to the decision-making options available to manage those risks. Climate risk decision-making focuses on the processes needed to identify and characterise those risks as well as generate plans and policies to reduce the likelihood and/or magnitude of adverse potential consequences, based on assessed or perceived risks (derived from the definition of risk and risk management in Chapter 1). This chapter presents an assessment of the evidence on climate risk decision-making as a set of processes that involve a range of actors in different contexts resulting in diverse outcomes. The climate risk decision makers and their actions are the central focus of the assessment. The chapter is an assessment of the evidence of the decision-making options that are available in practice, and functions as a central pivot point between the identification of key climate risks (Chapter 16) and the means to integrate and leverage action on climate risk decision-making into the broader requirements of climate resilient development pathways (Chapter 18). This section introduces the main entry points on decision-making that have framed this assessment (Sections 17.1.1.1–17.1.1.5), as well as the key terms used to frame this assessment and its organisation in this chapter ( [[#17.1.2|Section 17.1.2]] ).

A central framing point is the connection between climate risk decision-making and adaptation. Adaptation for human systems in this report is introduced in [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1|Chapter 1]] and defined in the Glossary as ‘the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities’. In natural systems, adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual climate and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects (see IPCC 6th Assessment Report [AR6] Glossary [Annex II]). In this chapter, we consider adaptations that may be implemented by people, whether they be to support human, managed, or natural systems, and the processes and factors that underpin adaptation in these diverse settings. Different types of adaptation have been distinguished in Chapter 1, including anticipatory versus reactive, autonomous versus planned, and incremental versus transformational (IPCC WGII glossaries; Chapters 16–18). These dichotomies and interactions are assessed here. Implementation of adaptation through iterative risk management decision-making emphasises that anticipating and responding to climate change does not consist of a single set of judgements at a single point in time, but rather an ongoing cycle of assessment, action, reassessment, learn and response (Chapter 1).

<div id="17.1.1.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="decision-making-for-managing-climate-risks-in-ar6"></span>
==== 17.1.1.1 Decision-Making for Managing Climate Risks in AR6 ====

<div id="h3-1-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Climate Agreement, the UN Sendai Framework Disaster Risk Reduction and the UN Habitat New Urban Agenda, helped push climate risk management and adaptation forward from the global to the national level, from the planning stage into implementation, and provide benchmarks for adaptation progress. To assess adaptation progress ( [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] ), the interplay between top-down (institutional) and bottom-up (individual/social/community) processes, multi-scale interaction (local, regional, national and international), iterative risk management, differing forms of knowledge, and equity are especially crucial (particularly Sections 17.2, 17.4). Parallel to these advances is an understanding and assessment of appropriate decision support tools, methods and evaluation metrics ( [[#17.3|Section 17.3]] ).

Since AR5, significant advances have been made in regard to the understanding of the drivers of decision-making and contexts in which climate risk decision-making takes place. Climate risk decision-making generally, and adaptation specifically, has been a focus within the IPCC special reports in the sixth assessment cycle. An overall goal of climate risk management is to eliminate or reduce the risk to levels that are socio-politically and economically acceptable. Risk management to an acceptable level may not be feasible because of limits or barriers to adaptation. Future potential risks are a more complex matter given the need to define time scales and spatial extent, and uncertainties. In the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ), the risks associated with climate-related impacts were found to be higher under emission scenarios above 1.5°C, raising awareness for the need to limit the impacts of warming through the acceleration of climate mitigation and both incremental and transformational adaptation ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ).

The AR6 IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) ( [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ) added the dimensions of pace, intensity and scale of climate impacts and adaptation or mitigation responses and adverse consequences. Relevant land-based adverse consequences include those on lives, livelihoods, health and well-being, economic, social and cultural assets and investments, infrastructure, services (including ecosystem services), ecosystems and species.

While a generic understanding of the decision-making process has emerged from the literature, the chapter assesses how these components and their dimensions interact across a range of temporal (short, long term as defined in the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [SROCC]), scalar (household to global), institutional/governance (formal, informal, bottom-up, top-down) and magnitude (micro adaptation, small scale; macro adaptation, large scale) ( [[#17.2|Section 17.2]] ). The IPCC SRCCL placed emphasis on acknowledging co-benefits and trade-offs to avoid barriers to implementation, with particular attention to land use decisions. It states that this coordination can be supported by building networks of decision makers across scales and sectors, including local stakeholders from vulnerable groups, and by adopting and implementing policies in a flexible and iterative manner ( [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ).

<div id="17.1.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="approaches-to-assess-and-synthesise-options-for-managing-risk"></span>
==== 17.1.1.2 Approaches to Assess and Synthesise Options for Managing Risk ====

<div id="h3-2-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

This chapter utilises several points of departure to assess climate risk management that emerge from AR5 and AR6, specifically. SR Climate Change and Land, especially [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7|Chapter 7]] ( [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ; [[#Hurlbert--2019|Hurlbert et al., 2019]] ) and throughout SROCC (). These works provide foundational assessment of evidence on decision-making systems that connect different spatial and temporal scales and diverse cultural contexts in which climate risk management takes place, the varying interactions of decision makers and their stakeholder groups, and the barriers and enablers to decision-making, including governance, finance and knowledge ( [[#17.4|Section 17.4]] ).

Another significant advance is that, instead of cataloguing decision-making strategies, the literature has now evolved to the point where adaptation progress, effectiveness and efficiency can be more meaningfully assessed through increased monitoring and evaluation capacity, although the ability to measure success and effectiveness is not fully developed and is hampered by lack of data, agreed methods and terms, and time to fully evaluate adaptation actions (see Sections 17.3.3 and 17.5, Cross-Chapter Box PROGRESS in this Chapter). The ambition to describe effectiveness and success illustrates further maturation of the literature on climate risk decision-making as a system process. Overall, the process of climate risk decision-making remains dynamic, and the chapter attempts to assess a variety of proactive management approaches being developed and tested to address adverse, diverse and complex risks in a wide range of developing and developed country contexts (Figure 17.1). The chapter provides a synthesis of how these new approaches are reflected in the sectoral and regional chapters and cross-chapter papers of this report (Chapters 2–15; Cross-Chapter Papers 1–7). Specifically, the goal is to provide a line of sight between the sectoral and regional chapters and cross-chapter papers’ decision-making assessment to sections in this chapter. This synthesis also helps to present the varying and context-driven character of adaptation strategies now in practice and being considered.

<div id="_idContainer005" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:2a98e8fd81b65cc20c916c72849fb91b IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_001.png]]

'''Figure 17.1 |''' '''Schematic representation of the climate risk management decision-making process as introduced in [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1|Chapter 1]] (Figure 1''' '''.''' '''6) and the key elements of this chapter that address additional aspects of this process.''' In Chapter 17, climate risk management (middle box) is framed as the iterative response (i.e., what society could do and how it could be done) to the climate risks described in Chapter 16, with outcomes (ideally reduced risk) that can support (or perhaps hinder) climate resilient development, as assessed in Chapter 18. Decision makers from diverse contexts sit at the centre of the climate risk decision-making process and interact with and drive these processes as they play out. The main sections of [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-17 Chapter 17] (bottom panel of boxes) address a wide range of issues (keywords in bottom panel) that manifest at one or more stages of climate risk management processes, illustrated by icons for section numbers and Cross-Chapter Boxes in the interactive risk management process.

<div id="17.1.1.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="key-risks-considered-in-the-assessment-of-climate-risk-decision-making"></span>
==== 17.1.1.3 Key Risks Considered in the Assessment of Climate Risk Decision-Making ====

<div id="h3-3-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

In AR6 ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16|Chapter 16]] and cross-chapter papers), over 100 key risks have been identified across regions and sectors, which have the potential to manifest into severe impacts that are relevant to the interpretation of UNFCCC Article 2, specifically on the objective to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. These risks are ''likely'' [[#footnote-000|2]] to become more severe under higher warming scenarios and social-ecological conditions that yield high exposure and vulnerability to the associated climate-related hazards. In this report, these key risks have been grouped into categories represented by eight overarching risks (called Representative Key Risks, RKRs) relating to: (1) coastal socio-ecological systems; (2) terrestrial and ocean ecosystems; (3) critical physical infrastructure, networks and services; (4) living standards; (5) human health; (6) food security; (7) water security; and (8) peace and human mobility (Chapter 16). Decision-making options for managing these risks, such as selecting the relevant adaptation options to implement, require an assessment of the local context in which these impacts are likely to be experienced, as well as the local to global collective implications of those actions (Sections 17.2 and 17.5).

<div id="17.1.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="objectives-and-key-terms"></span>
=== 17.1.2 Objectives and Key Terms ===

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

<div id="17.1.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="drivers"></span>
==== 17.1.2.1 Drivers ====

<div id="h3-4-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

AR5 provides a broad overview of drivers as the determinants of climate decision-making by individuals and organisations, including social, institutional and regulatory contexts, cultural values and norms, economic resources and constraints, and the availability of information and of tools to process it. This chapter expands the discussion of the contexts for decision-making in a number of ways ( [[#17.4|Section 17.4]] ), including an examination of informal as well as formal decisions, an attention to emerging actors, particularly social movements, and consideration of several dimensions of governance. It expands the treatment of decision processes, with particular attention to framing and to the integration of multiple time frames (Sections 17.3 and 17.6).

Since AR5, there has been an increasing ambition for adaptation, signalled by growing attention to the adaptation gaps and deficits, which call for extensive and intensive levels of action ( [[#Chen--2016|Chen et al., 2016]] ; [[#UNEP--2017|UNEP, 2017]] ; [[#Tompkins--2018|Tompkins et al., 2018]] ; [[#Valente--2020|Valente and Veloso-Gomes, 2020]] ; [[#UNEP--2021a|UNEP, 2021a]] ), as well as increased attention to co-benefits between climate risk reduction and other benefits, such as equity and biodiversity conservation ( [[#Colloff--2017|Colloff et al., 2017]] , [[#17.5.1|Section 17.5.1]] ; [[#Smith--2020|Smith et al., 2020]] ). Climate risk decision-making as an object of study has emerged in a more central location within the literature as adaptation moves from planning into the realm of practice. The broad sense of urgency (summarised in [[#Wilson--2019|Wilson and Orlove, 2019]] ; [[#Wilson--2021|Wilson and Orlove, 2021]] ) shows growth of the term ‘urgency’ in both scholarly publications and the popular press since 2014, building on earlier increases starting around 2005, and a dramatic spike of the terms ‘climate crisis’ and ‘climate emergency’. Paralleling this call for more extensive and rapid action is the emergence of the term ‘transformational’ adaptation and decision-making. Transformational adaptation (defined and deeply examined in Chapters 1 and 16 and [[#17.2|Section 17.2]] ) highlights efforts that involve large-scale, systemic change ( [[#Wilson--2020|Wilson et al., 2020]] ) and involves ‘adapting to climate change resulting in significant changes in structure or function that go beyond adjusting existing practices including approaches that enable new ways of decision-making on adaptation’ ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ). The complex relationship between incremental adaptation and transformational adaptation is presented and reviewed in [[#17.2|Section 17.2]] . Furthermore, the literature since the AR5 report has moved beyond the question of limits and barriers to adaptation as relevant aspects for decision-making to additionally assessing drivers of change, with increasing focus devoted to more nuanced and differentiated contexts for action.

<div id="17.1.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="enabling-conditions"></span>
==== 17.1.2.2 Enabling Conditions ====

<div id="h3-5-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

AR5 extensively assessed the conditions of adaptation with a focus on the role of governance, finance, knowledge and capacity. AR6 extends this examination of adaptation and the decision-making process around it by focusing on enablers. Adaptation enablers are defined as those conditions or properties that specifically promote or advance the adaptation process (Chapter 1). Enablers are positively associated with likelihood that adaptation planning occurs, and strategies will be put into practice. Three broad enabling conditions are presented in the chapter ( [[#17.4|Section 17.4]] ): governance (legislation, regulation, institutions, litigation), finance (needs, sources, intermediaries, instruments flows, equity) and knowledge (capacities, climate services, big data, Indigenous/local knowledge, co-production, boundary organisations). As an extension of enabling conditions, the chapter also examines catalysing conditions for adaptation ( [[#17.4.5|Section 17.4.5]] ). Catalysing conditions motivate and accelerate the process of decision-making, leading to more frequent and potentially substantial adaptations. The chapter recognises that the relative influence of enabling conditions and catalysing conditions is set within the human dimensions of climate change including vulnerability, inequality, poverty and the achievement/non-achievement of SDGs (Figure 8.1).

<div id="17.1.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="mechanisms-for-decision-making"></span>
==== 17.1.2.3 Mechanisms for Decision-Making ====

<div id="h3-6-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

The mechanisms and conditions for decision-making provide the basis for the chapter. AR5 provided a detailed chapter on the support of climate decision-making. [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-2|Chapter 2]] of AR5 ( [[#Jones--2014|Jones et al., 2014]] ) concluded, with ''high confidence'' , that risk management provides a useful framework for most climate change decision-making, and that iterative risk management is most suitable in situations characterised by large uncertainties, long time frames, the potential for learning over time, and the influence of both climate as well as other socioeconomic and biophysical changes. Furthermore, decision support is situated at the intersection of data provision, expert knowledge and human decision-making at a range of scales from the individual to the organisation and institution.

The climate risk management decision-making process follows a set of general considerations. The detail of each decision is often highly context specific. Climate risk decision-making is bound to the question of how and under what circumstance it is appropriate to alter, reduce or transfer and retain risk. Different types of risk (e.g., gradual compared with catastrophic) and conditions of risk (e.g., known versus uncertain) are associated with different types of responses (e.g., incremental versus transformational). As the risk decision process proceeds, individuals and organisations will formally or informally utilise any number of mechanisms to guide, aid or facilitate the decision-making process. Decision-making can then take place in a linear set of steps or through a complex iterative process involving reflexive and recursive steps.

<div id="17.1.2.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="costs-and-non-monetised-loss-benefits-synergies-and-trade-off"></span>
==== 17.1.2.4 Costs and Non-monetised Loss, Benefits, Synergies and Trade-Off ====

<div id="h3-7-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

AR5 provided an extensive discussion of the costs to human and natural systems associated with climate risks. It recognised the challenges which long time frames, uncertainty and the differing values held by stakeholders create for the monetisation of losses. The AR6 SROCC built on the discussion of cultural values—typically also difficult to monetise—through a consideration of cultural ecosystem services and cultural forms of valuation, with cases from high mountain areas and polar regions ( [[#Hock--2019|Hock et al., 2019]] ; [[#Meredith--2019|Meredith et al., 2019]] ; [[#IPCC--2019c|IPCC, 2019c]] ). AR6 expands this discussion of multiple forms of valuation in several ways. It considers regulation and litigation as mechanisms for promoting the consideration of both monetisable and non-monetisable losses in decision-making (Cross-Chapter Box LOSS in this Chapter). AR5 treated the issues of equity and justice primarily with regard to mitigation, especially in WGIII AR5 [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3|Chapter 3]] (Kolstad et al., 2014); these issues in the adaptation sphere are considered extensively in this chapter in areas such as finance, governance, success of adaptation, maladaptation, and monitoring and evaluation. The discussions of maladaptation and success of adaptation ( [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] ) consider questions of synergies and trade-offs across values and goals, while the consideration of decision processes and tools shows opportunities to use co-benefits to promote effective decision-making, including approaches to decision-making under conditions of deep uncertainty ( [[#17.3|Section 17.3]] ; Cross-Chapter Box DEEP in this Chapter). Successful adaptation across the report (as specified in Chapter 1) is associated with conditions when co-benefits are high and (negative) trade-offs are low.

<div id="17.1.2.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="monitoring-and-evaluation"></span>
==== 17.1.2.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ====

<div id="h3-8-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

This chapter assesses the evidence of monitoring and evaluation (M&amp;E) (see AR6 Glossary, Annex II) and their approaches as part of the adaptation process at the national, local and project level as well as in global assessments ( [[#17.5.2|Section 17.5.2]] ; Cross-Chapter Box PROGRESS in this Chapter). M&amp;E can serve multiple functions, for example, to: (1) facilitate an understanding on whether and how interventions work in achieving intended objectives; (2) inform ongoing and future implementation; and (3) provide information that helps to substantiate upward and downward accountability (Preston et al., 2009; [[#UNFCCC--2010b|UNFCCC, 2010b]] ; [[#Pringle--2011|Pringle, 2011]] ; [[#Spearman--2011|Spearman and McGray, 2011]] ) (see BOX 17.1 for more discussion). This chapter also addresses the relevance of iterative learning as part of the design of M&amp;E processes, as a means by which actors and institutions engaged in M&amp;E acquire new insights on how these processes work (or not) to achieve set objectives.

<div id="17.1.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="outline-of-the-chapter"></span>
=== 17.1.3 Outline of the Chapter ===

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

The chapter is organised around the broad narrative of climate risk decision-making and management (Figure 17.1), building from the assessment of risks within RKRs (Chapter 16) and options available to address these risks and within a broader context of climate resilient development pathways (Chapter 18). Decision-making is considered to be a reflexive and recursive process where different evidentiary threads and information inputs become relevant to the understanding and assessment of factors underlying specific decisions. Additionally, this is also a discursive process, whereby actors and institutions’ interpretations of climate risks are also key to these deliberations.

Decision-making processes of risk management and adaptation are varied and numerous. [[#17.2|Section 17.2]] assesses the risk management and adaptation options already in practice. [[#17.3|Section 17.3]] assesses decision-support methods and tools available for application and the effectiveness of these in supporting climate decision-making across degrees of uncertainties and levels of governance and expected reach (scale) across populations from households to international cooperation. Closely interlinked across the decision-making process are the enabling and catalysing conditions for decisions on adaptation and risk management ( [[#17.4|Section 17.4]] ). [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] synthesises evidence on maladaptation and adaptation successes, and assesses the current knowledge on M&amp;E of adaptation, including financial accounting, to support learning on those, respectively. Here, M&amp;E is considered distinct from the tracking of financial flows related to adaptation, given that financial accounting does not necessarily provide information on the implementation of adaptation measures and their results (see also [[#17.2.1.2|Section 17.2.1.2]] ). Finally, in [[#17.6|Section 17.6]] , decision-making, climate risk responses and their relevance for climate resilient development are presented, where evidence on their respective contributions to facilitate actions in the adaptation solution space within a broader context for development is shown (Chapter 18). Throughout the decision-making process, crucial feedback loops are present that define the results of specific actions and recursive nature of climate risk management and adaptation.

<div id="box-17.1" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 17.1 | How Is Success in Adaptation Characterised in Chapter 17?'''
<div id="h2-18-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Whether an adaptation is considered successful is context specific. It depends on who evaluates adaptation and at what time as well as on the ability to compare the outcome of adaptation with a hypothetical situation without adaptation and without other parallel changes, such as development interventions ( [[#Singh--2021|Singh et al., 2021]] ; Dilling et al., 2019). The ability to compare the risk situation post and prior adaptation is complicated through the long time horizons at which adaptation outcomes often become apparent (Cross-Chapter Box ADAPT in Chapter 1; [[#17.5.1|Section 17.5.1]] ; Dilling et al., 2019).

However, a wealth of information has recently become available on how success and effectiveness of adaptation could be assessed, defined or investigated in certain settings (Patt and Schröter, 2008; Morecroft Michael et al., 2019; [[#Tubi--2021|Tubi and Williams, 2021]] ) or across a larger set of adaptations (Hegger et al., 2012; [[#Eriksen--2015|Eriksen et al., 2015]] ; [[#Gajjar--2019a|Gajjar et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Owen--2020|Owen, 2020]] ; [[#Singh--2021|Singh et al., 2021]] ). Accordingly, successful adaptation is understood as effective adaptation, in that it reduces climate impacts, vulnerabilities and risk, and additionally balances synergies and trade-offs across diverse objectives, perspectives, expectations and values ( [[#Eriksen--2015|Eriksen et al., 2015]] ; [[#Juhola--2016|Juhola et al., 2016]] ; [[#Gajjar--2019a|Gajjar et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Owen--2020|Owen, 2020]] ; [[#Singh--2021|Singh et al., 2021]] ). Across this report, four factors are identified as enabling conditions of successful adaptation, which include a focus on recognitional, procedural and distributional justice as well as flexible and strong institutions that seek policy integration and account for long-term goals.

To operationalize ‘success’ in this chapter, it is characterised by the degree to which an adaptation response benefits (1) human systems (number of people), (2) ecosystems or ecosystem services, (3) marginalised ethnic groups, (4) women and girls, (5) and low-income populations, and can be characterised as (6) transformational adaptation, and (7) contributing to greenhouse gas emission reductions ( [[#17.5.1|Section 17.5.1]] ). Overarching to these factors are uncertainty and potential path dependency of decisions that may result in lock-in and maladaptation in the long term, and recognition that what is successful in the near term is not necessarily successful in the long term.

Success in adaptation is antithetical to maladaptation. Maladaptation refers to current or potential future negative consequences, including failed or partially successful adaptation (or risk reduction) but also trade-offs or side effects of adaptation (see Glossary, Annex II). Thus, success of adaptation and maladaptation form the ends of a continuum that represents the balancing of synergies and trade-offs across regions, populations or sectors ( [[#Singh--2016|Singh et al., 2016]] ; [[#Magnan--2020|Magnan et al., 2020]] ; [[#Schipper--2020|Schipper, 2020]] ). Every adaptation action may be placed along such a continuum reflecting the empirical evidence of adaptation practices and their assessment ( [[#17.5|Section 17.5]] ).

<div id="17.2" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="risk-management-and-adaptation-options"></span>