Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-8 (section)

=== 8.5.1 Adaptation Options to Climate Change Hazards Focusing on Vulnerable Groups ===

<div id="h2-14-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

In light of the severe adverse consequences of climate change for the poorest populations, whose livelihoods are frequently dependent on vulnerable ecosystems, it is essential to enhance knowledge about sustainable and appropriate adaptation strategies and measures, as well as recognise and respond to limits to adaptation as reported in AR5 ( [[#Somorin--2010|Somorin, 2010]] ; [[#Noble--2014|Noble et al., 2014]] ; [[#Connolly-Boutin--2016|Connolly-Boutin and Smit, 2016]] ). There is increasing evidence on the adaptation options that enhance the ability of different socio-ecological systems to become resilient in the long term in ways that do not exacerbate poverty and inequality, and on which adaptations may have little or no impact, or even adverse effects (maladaptation). Analysis of climate hazards can provide an indication of required adaptation strategies, however, most important is the focus on exposure and vulnerability. The novelty of the AR6 is the assessment of existing response capacities to cope and adapt to climate changes and associated hazards. There is increasing knowledge about the differential adaptation options within and across social groups and the influence of (enabling) conditions that enhance or limit these options.

From the analysis in the IPCC AR5, there is ''high agreement'' that engineered and technological adaptation options are still the most common adaptation responses. However, there is increased recognition of the value of ecosystem-based, institutional and social measures, including the provision of climate-linked safety nets for those who are most vulnerable ( [[#IPCC--2014a|IPCC, 2014a]] ). Climate adaptation measures are increasingly integrated within wider policy, development strategies and spatial planning frameworks. Such integration streamlines the adaptation planning and decision-making process and embeds climate-sensitive thinking in existing and new institutions and organisations across scales and levels.

In past decades, a number of categories of adaptation options have been identified and are discussed in [[#8.5|Section 8.5]] . Adaptation options are categorised in various ways, such as in terms of grey and green adaptation or hard and soft measures ( [[#Depietri--2013|Depietri et al., 2013]] ; [[#Chambwera--2014|Chambwera et al., 2014]] ; [[#Grimm--2015|Grimm et al., 2015]] ). Grey measures refer, for example, to technological and engineering solutions to improve adaptation of infrastructures or to protect a specific land use or city from adverse consequences of climate hazards ( [[#OECD--2018|OECD, 2018]] ). Accordingly, ecosystem-based approaches, including natural infrastructure, can provide an effective complement or substitute for traditional built (or ‘grey’) infrastructure. For example, watershed restoration can protect sources of drinking water and reduce the need for subsequent treatment. Green measures often encompass ecosystem-based (or nature-based) approaches. These make use of the multiple services provided by ecosystems to improve resilience and adaptive capacity or to reduce risk. Soft adaptation measures include policy, legal, social, management and financial measures that can alter human behaviour and support adaptive governance, contributing to improved adaptation capacity, increased awareness, and change in values and actions on climate change issues.

Adaptation actions frequently include deliberate, coordinated, proactive policy decisions based on the awareness that conditions have changed or will change and that action is required to avert impacts or return to, maintain or achieve a desired state ( [[#Carter--1994|Carter et al., 1994]] ). Governance provides an important contextual framing, particularly in contexts where it is weak or contested (e.g., some of the Sahel zone). In these cases, it can mean that adaptation options stem largely from the local level. Adaptation processes can be categorised as individual, collective, proactive, reactive, autonomous, coordinated or natural ( [[#Chambwera--2014|Chambwera et al., 2014]] ). Apart from governments, other actors, organisations and institutions (including non-state agencies and private industry actors) also play an important part in adaptation processes, and consequently the discussion of enabling environments for sustainable or successful adaptation has to consider these different scales and actors. For example, while autonomous adaptations are mainly undertaken by private actors, triggered by climate change-induced market or welfare changes, planned adaptations can be carried out by both private and public actors. Natural adaptations appear within ecosystems as a reaction to climate change, as well as other factors, and incorporate innumerable possible actions that are context specific, ranging from managerial approaches to technological innovations and ecosystem-based approaches ( [[#Huq--2004|Huq et al., 2004]] ). [[#Sanchez--2017|Sanchez et al. (2017)]] draws attention to preconceived ideas about some adaptation measures that are either considered good or bad without proper evaluation. It is argued that the association ‘hard-bad’ and ‘soft-good’ is not necessarily true; the impacts of adaptation can only be established through a case-by-case assessment. The decision to select a more or less intensive adaptation measure should integrate all approaches, social, environmental, technical and economic, in a multi-criteria analysis. This analysis should value, ''inter alia'' , social and environmental sensitivity, benefits and drawbacks or trade-offs with climate, including all the adaptation options, among them the ‘no action’ alternative.

Adaptation frequently responds to an observed or anticipated ‘trigger’ for response, such as the looming loss of land to sea level rise ( [[#Barnett--2014|Barnett et al., 2014]] ). Identifying adaptation needs stemming from climate risks and vulnerabilities provides a foundation for selecting a sequence of adaptation options that connect through time, a long-term adaptation pathway ( [[#Wise--2014|Wise et al., 2014]] ; [[#Turnheim--2015|Turnheim et al., 2015]] ). National, sectoral or local adaptation plans are ''likely'' to include a number of measures that are implemented jointly from across various categories, including structural, institutional and social options. While structural or physical adaptation encompasses measures for the engineered built environment it also can encompass nature-based solutions, which include ecosystem-based protection measures, for example to buffer risks and hazard exposure to extreme weather events. The category of ‘soft’ adaptation measures—changes in societal values or practices—is often linked to issues of education, information and behavioural changes to support communities within specific adaptation processes to climate change and climate hazards. Institutional adaptation deals with adaptation actions and measures introduced through new legal frameworks, laws and regulations for new institutions or policies for risk reduction and adaptation. This category can also encompass the development of new organisations that have a mandate to support adaptation ( [[#Noble--2014|Noble et al., 2014]] ). The appropriateness and accessibility of adaptation options under these categories for supporting the poor and most vulnerable groups differs. In many cases large-scale structural measures are not affordable for many poor communities. Despite this important potential of Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction of communities, it is often shunned by practitioners ( [[#Dube--2018|Dube and Munsaka, 2018]] ). It is further argued by practitioners that Indigenous knowledge lacks documentation, it is not found in all generational classes, it is contextualised to particular communities and the knowledge cannot be scientifically validated. However, there is also evidence that both local communities and disaster risk reduction practitioners can benefit from the Indigenous knowledge of communities ( [[#Dube--2018|Dube and Munsaka, 2018]] ).

In practice, adaptation refers to initiatives such as a policy, plan, project or decision that are designed to change and/or respond to something in the context of existing risks and hazards. For example, a farmer might adapt to drought by deciding to harvest their crop earlier; a municipality can decide to build a sea wall to adapt to increased flood risk.

The increasing complexity of adaptation practice means that institutional learning is an important component of effective adaptation ( [[#Noble--2014|Noble et al., 2014]] ). It is paramount that approaches to selecting adaptation options continue to emphasise incremental change to reduce impacts while achieving co-benefits. There is increasing evidence that transformative changes may be necessary in order to prepare for climate change impacts and adaptation options in the context of climate hazards ( [[#Noble--2014|Noble et al., 2014]] ). Transformation for some actors at some levels may equate with incremental change and transitions for other actors and scales. While attention to flexibility and safety margins is becoming more common in selecting adaptation options, many see the need for more urgent and transformative changes in our perception and paradigms about the nature of climate change, adaptation and their relationship to other natural and human systems.

In this context, there are many potential adaptation options available for a marginal change of existing agricultural and other livelihood systems, often variations of existing climate risk management. According to [[#Howden--2007|Howden et al. (2007)]] , implementation of these options is ''likely'' to have substantial benefits under moderate climate change for some existing cropping systems. Apparently, there are limits to their effectiveness under more severe climate changes. Hence, more systemic changes in resource allocation need to be considered, such as targeted diversification of production systems and livelihoods. [[#Howden--2007|Howden et al. (2007)]] further argue that achieving increased adaptation action will necessitate integration of climate change-related issues with other risk factors, which implies integrating non-climatic factors, such as climate variability and market risk, and with other policy domains, such as sustainable development. An increasing number of research programmes seek to support adaptation to climate change through the engagement of large-scale transdisciplinary networks that span countries and continents ( [[#Cundill--2019|Cundill et al., 2019]] ).

Based on analysis of different adaptation options, there is ''high agreement'' that the many barriers to effective adaptation will require a comprehensive and dynamic policy approach covering a range of geographical scales and multiple actors across scales, taking into consideration both climatic and non-climatic stress factors ( [[#Eriksen--2015|Eriksen et al., 2015]] ). For instance, from the agricultural perspective, this could imply the understanding by farmers of change in risk profiles to the establishment of efficient markets that facilitate response strategies. It is also important to note that science, too, has to adapt employing a range of approaches, based on the fact that multidisciplinary problems require multidisciplinary solutions. Towards enhancing resilience, a focus on integrated rather than disciplinary science alone could be of utmost importance as well as strengthening of the interface with key stakeholders, ranging from decision makers, practitioners, policymakers and scientists.

<div id="8.5.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="enabling-environments-for-adaptation-in-different-socioeconomic-contexts"></span>