Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-18 (section)

==== 18.4.2.3 Institutional Capacity ====

<div id="h3-13-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Institutional capacity for system transitions refers to the capacity of structures and processes, rules, norms and cultures to shape development expectations and actions aimed at durable improvements in human well-being. The AR5 highlighted the need for strong institutions to create enabling environments for adaptation and GHG mitigation action ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ). Institutions stand within the social and political practices and broader systems of governance that ultimately drive adaptation and development processes and outcomes. They are thus produced by them and can become tools by which some actors constrain the actions of others ( [[#Gebreyes--2018|Gebreyes, 2018]] ). As a consequence, they and can become a significant barrier to change, whether incremental or more transformational ( ''very high confidence'' ). The post-AR5 focus on transformational adaptation and resilience present in the literature suggests that institutions that enable system transitions towards CRD are secure enough to facilitate a wide range of voices, and legitimate enough to change goals or processes over time, without reducing confidence in their efficacy.

The limited literature on institutions and pathways relevant to system transitions and CRD suggests that institutions are most effective when taking a development-first approach to adaptation. This is consistent with the principles of CRD which emphasise not simply reducing climate risk, but rather making development processes resilient to the changing climate. There is agreement in this literature that such an approach allows for the effective integration of climate challenges into existing policy and planning processes ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Pervin--2013|Pervin et al., 2013]] ; [[#Kim--2017b|Kim et al., 2017b]] ; [[#Mogelgaard--2018|Mogelgaard et al., 2018]] ). However, this approach generally rests on an incremental framing of institutional change ( [[#Mahoney--2009|Mahoney and Thelen, 2009]] ) based on two critical assumptions. The first is that existing processes and institutions are capable of bringing about system transitions that generate desired development outcomes and thus can be considered appropriate vehicles for the achievement of CRD. A large critical literature questions the efficacy of formal state and multilateral institutions. The evidence for the ability of local, informal institutions to achieve development goals remains uneven, with robust evidence of positive impacts on public service delivery, but more ambiguous evidence on behaviour changes associated with strengthened institutions ( [[#Berkhout--2018|Berkhout et al., 2018]] ). The second is that the mainstreaming of adaptation will bring about changes to currently unsustainable development practices and pathways, instead of merely strengthening development as usual by subsuming adaptation to existing development pathways and allowing them to endure in the face of growing stresses ( [[#Eriksen--2015|Eriksen et al., 2015]] ; Godfrey-Wood and Otto Naess, 2016; [[#Scoville-Simonds--2020|Scoville-Simonds et al., 2020]] ). There is evidence that countries with poor governance have limited adaptation planning or action at the national level, even when other determinants of adaptive capacity are present ( [[#Berrang-Ford--2014|Berrang-Ford et al., 2014]] ). This suggests that, in these contexts, adaptation efforts are likely to be subsumed to existing government goals and actions, rather than having transformational impact.

<div id="18.4.2.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="science-technology-and-innovation"></span>