Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

== Box 7.1 Relevant findings of recent IPCC reports ==

<div id="section-7-1-1-findings-of-previous-ipcc-assessments-and-reports-block-1"></div>

Climate change and sustainable development pathways

“Climate change poses a moderate threat to current sustainable development and a severe threat to future sustainable development” (Denton et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r3|3]]</sup> ; Fleurbaey et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r4|4]]</sup> ).

Significant transformations may be required for climate-resilient pathways (Denton et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r5|5]]</sup> ; Jones et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r6|6]]</sup> ).

The design of climate policy is influenced by (i) differing ways that individuals and organisations perceive risks and uncertainties, and (ii) the consideration of a diverse array of risks and uncertainties – as well as human and social responses – which may be difficult to measure, are of low probability but which would have a significant impact if they occurred (Kunreuther et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r7|7]]</sup> ; Fleurbaey et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r8|8]]</sup> ; Kolstad et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r9|9]]</sup> ).

Building climate-resilient pathways requires iterative, continually evolving and complementary processes at all levels of government (Denton et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r10|10]]</sup> ; Kunreuther et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r11|11]]</sup> ; Kolstad et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r12|12]]</sup> ; Somanthan et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r13|13]]</sup> ; Lavell et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1570|1570]]</sup> ).

Important aspects of climate-resilient policies include local level institutions, decentralisation, participatory governance, iterative learning, integration of local knowledge, and reduction of inequality (Dasgupta et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r14|14]]</sup> ; Lavell et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r15|15]]</sup> ; Cutter et al. 2012b <sup>[[#fn:r16|16]]</sup> ; O’Brien et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r17|17]]</sup> ; Roy et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r18|18]]</sup> ).

Climate action and sustainable development are linked: adaptation has co-benefits for sustainable development, while “sustainable development supports, and often enables, the fundamental societal and systems transitions and transformations that help limit global warming” (IPCC 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r19|19]]</sup> ). Redistributive policies that shield the poor and vulnerable can resolve trade-offs between mitigation objectives and the hunger, poverty and energy access SDGs.

'''Land and rural livelihoods'''

Policies and institutions relating to land, including land tenure, can contribute to the vulnerability of rural people, and constrain adaptation. Climate policies, such as encouraging cultivation of biofuels, or payments under REDD+, will have significant secondary impacts, both positive and negative, in some rural areas (Dasgupta et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r20|20]]</sup> ).

“Sustainable land management is an effective disaster risk reduction tool” (Cutter et al. 2012a <sup>[[#fn:r21|21]]</sup> ).

'''Risk and risk management'''

A variety of emergent risks not previously assessed or recognised, can be identified by taking into account: (i) the “interactions of climate change impacts on one sector with changes in exposure and vulnerability, as well as adaptation and mitigation actions”, and (ii) “indirect, trans-boundary, and long-distance impacts of climate change” including price spikes, migration, conflict and the unforeseen impacts of mitigation measures (Oppenheimer et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r22|22]]</sup> ).

“Under any plausible scenario for mitigation and adaptation, some degree of risk from residual damages is unavoidable” (Oppenheimer et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r23|23]]</sup> ).

'''Decision-making'''

“Risk management provides a useful framework for most climate change decision-making. 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 socio-economic and biophysical changes” (Jones et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r24|24]]</sup> ).

“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” (Jones et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r25|25]]</sup> ).

“Scenarios are a key tool for addressing uncertainty”, either through problem exploration or solution exploration (Jones et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r26|26]]</sup> ).

'''Governance'''

There is no single approach to adaptation planning and both top-down and bottom-up approaches are widely recognised.“Institutional dimensions in adaptation governance play a key role in promoting the transition from planning to implementation of adaptation” (Mimura et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r27|27]]</sup> ). Adaptation is also essential at all scales, including adaptation by local governments, businesses, communities and individuals (Denton et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r28|28]]</sup> ).

“Strengthened multi-level governance, institutional capacity, policy instruments, technological innovation and transfer and mobilisation of finance, and changes in human behaviour and lifestyles are enabling conditions that enhance the feasibility of mitigation and adaptation options for 1.5°C-consistent systems transitions” (IPCC 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r29|29]]</sup> ).

Governance is key for vulnerability and exposure represented by institutionalised rule systems and habitualised behaviour and norms that govern society and guide actors, and “it is essential to improve knowledge on how to promote adaptive governance within the framework of risk assessment and risk management” (Cardona 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r30|30]]</sup> ).

<span id="treatment-of-key-terms-in-the-chapter"></span>
=== 7.1.2 Treatment of key terms in the chapter ===

<div id="section-7-1-2-treatment-of-key-terms-in-the-chapter-block-1"></div>

While the term '''risk''' continues to be subject to a growing number of definitions in different disciplines and sectors, this chapter takes as a starting point the definition used in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) (IPCC 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r31|31]]</sup> ), which reflects definitions used by both Working Group II and Working Group III in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5): “The potential for adverse consequences where something of value is at stake and where the occurrence and degree of an outcome is uncertain” (Allwood et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r32|32]]</sup> ; Oppenheimer et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r33|33]]</sup> ). The SR15 definition further specifies: “In the context of the assessment of climate impacts, the term risk is often used to refer to the potential for adverse consequences of a climate-related hazard, or of adaptation or mitigation responses to such a hazard, on lives, livelihoods, health and well-being, ecosystems and species, economic, social and cultural assets, services (including ecosystem services), and infrastructure.” In SR15, as in the IPCC SREX and AR5 WGII, risk is conceptualised as resulting from the interaction of vulnerability (of the affected system), its exposure over time (to a hazard), as well as the (climate-related) impact and the likelihood of its occurrence (AR5 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r34|34]]</sup> ; IPCC 2018a, 2012). In the context of SRCCL, risk must also be seen as including risks to the implementation of responses to land–climate challenges from economic, political and governance factors. Climate and land risks must be seen in relation to human values and objectives (Denton et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r35|35]]</sup> ). Risk is closely associated with concepts of vulnerability and resilience, which are themselves subject to differing definitions across different knowledge communities.

Risks examined in this chapter arise from more than one of the major land–climate–society challenges (desertification, land degradation, and food insecurity), or partly stem from mitigation or adaptation actions, or cascade across different sectors or geographical locations. They could thus be seen as examples of '''emergent risks''' : “aris[ing] from the interaction of phenomena in a complex system” (Oppenheimer et al. 2014, p.1052). Stranded assets in the coal sector due to proliferation of renewable energy and government response could be examples of emergent risks (Saluja and Singh 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r36|36]]</sup> ; Marcacci 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r37|37]]</sup> ). Additionally, the absence of an explicit goal for conserving freshwater ecosystems and ecosystem services in SDGs (in contrast to a goal – ‘life below water’ – exclusively for marine biodiversity) is related to its trade-offs with energy and irrigation goals, thus posing a substantive risk (Nilsson et al. 2016b <sup>[[#fn:r38|38]]</sup> ; Vörösmarty et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r39|39]]</sup> ).

'''Governance''' is not previously well defined in IPCC reports, but is used here to include all of the processes, structures, rules and traditions that govern, which may be undertaken by actors including governments, markets, organisations, or families (Bevir 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r40|40]]</sup> ), with particular reference to the multitude of actors operating in respect of land–climate interactions. Such definitions of governance allow for it to be decoupled from the more familiar concept of government and studied in the context of complex human–environment relations and environmental and resource regimes (Young 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r41|41]]</sup> ). Governance involves the interactions among formal and informal institutions through which people articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their legal obligations, and mediate their differences (UNDP 1997 <sup>[[#fn:r42|42]]</sup> ).

<span id="roadmap-to-the-chapter"></span>
=== 7.1.3 Roadmap to the chapter ===

<div id="section-7-1-3-roadmap-to-the-chapter-block-1"></div>

This chapter firstly discusses risks and their drivers, at various scales, in relation to land-climate challenges, including risks associated with responses to climate change (Section 7.2). The consequences of the principal risks in economic and human terms, and associated concepts such as tipping points and windows of opportunity for response are then described (Section 7.3). Policy responses at different scales to different land-climate risks, and barriers to implementation, are described in Section 7.4, followed by an assessment of approaches to decision-making on land-climate challenges (Section 7.5), and questions of the governance of the land-climate interface (Section 7.6). Key uncertainties and knowledge gaps are identified in Section 7.7.

<span id="climate-related-risks-for-land-based-human-systems-and-ecosystems"></span>