Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-12 (section)

=== 12.5.1 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems and Their Services ===

<div id="h2-11-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

CSA is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, hosting unique socioecosystems that will be strongly impacted by climate change ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#12.3|Section 12.3]] ; Cross-Chapter Paper 1; [[#CAF--2014|CAF, 2014]] ; [[#Camacho%20Guerreiro--2016|Camacho Guerreiro et al., 2016]] ; [[#IPBES--2018a|IPBES, 2018a]] ; [[#Li--2018|Li et al., 2018]] ; [[#Retsa--2020|Retsa et al., 2020]] ). Warming has generated extreme heat events in many parts of CSA ( [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ) that, together with droughts and floods, will seriously affect the integrity of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in the entire region ( [[#12.3|Section 12.3]] ; [[#CAF--2014|CAF, 2014]] ). A reduction in net primary productivity in tropical forests and glacier retreat in the Andes, for example, are expected to cause significant negative socioecological impacts ( [[#Feldpausch--2016|Feldpausch et al., 2016]] ; [[#Lyra--2017|Lyra et al., 2017]] ; [[#Cuesta--2019|Cuesta et al., 2019]] ) (Case Study, 12.7.1). Biodiversity hotspots in the region are well assessed in the literature compared to other regions of the world, especially the Atlantic Forest, Mesoamerica and Cerrado (Section [https://www.ipcc.ch/chapter/12#CCP1.2.2 CCP1.2.2] ; [[#Manes--2021|Manes et al., 2021]] ). Up to 85% of evaluated natural systems (species, habitats and communities) in the literature for biodiversity hotspots since AR5 were projected to be negatively impacted by climate change ( ''high confidence'' ), with 26% of projections predicting species extinctions (Section [https://www.ipcc.ch/chapter/12#CCP1.2.2 CCP1.2.2] ; [[#Manes--2021|Manes et al., 2021]] ). IKLK play an important role in adaptation and are vital components of many socioecological systems, while also being threatened by climate change ( ''high confidence'' ) (Box 7.1) ( [[#Valdivia--2010|Valdivia et al., 2010]] ; [[#Tengö--2014|Tengö et al., 2014]] ; [[#Mistry--2016|Mistry et al., 2016]] ; [[#Harvey--2017|Harvey et al., 2017]] ; [[#Diamond--2018|Diamond and Ansharyani, 2018]] ; [[#Camico--2021|Camico et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="12.5.1.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="challenges-and-opportunities"></span>
==== 12.5.1.1 Challenges and Opportunities ====

<div id="h3-33-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

The conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture, pasture and other land uses in CSA has been identified as a major challenge to climate-change adaptation in the region ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Scarano--2018|Scarano et al., 2018]] ; [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ). In the last three decades, SA has been a significant contributor to the growth of agricultural production worldwide (OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2015), driven partly by increased international demand for commodities, especially soybeans and meat ( [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ). Between 2001 and 2015 about 65% of all forest disturbance in the region was associated with commodity-driven deforestation ( [[#Curtis--2018|Curtis et al., 2018]] ). High rates of native vegetation conversion in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru threaten important ecosystems (Amazon, Cerrado, Chacos and Llanos savannahs, Atlantic rainforest, Caatinga and Yungas) ( [[#Graesser--2015|Graesser et al., 2015]] ; [[#FAO--2016c|FAO, 2016c]] ). Almost two-thirds of soy consumed in EU+ comes from Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay ( [[#IDH--2020|IDH, 2020]] ), increasing conversion risk in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco. Despite growing commodity production traceability, in 2018 only 19% of the soybean meal consumed in EU+ was certified deforestation-free and 38% compliant with the FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines ( [[#IDH--2020|IDH, 2020]] ), which poses a serious challenge at the international level ( [[#Negra--2014|Negra et al., 2014]] ; [[#Curtis--2018|Curtis et al., 2018]] ; [[#Lambin--2018|Lambin et al., 2018]] ; [[#IDH--2020|IDH, 2020]] ).

Investing in actions aimed at protection, restoration and the sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems represents a good approach to maintaining critical ecosystem services and constitutes part of a common strategy for adaptation, mitigation and disaster risk reduction in the region ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Kabisch--2016|Kabisch et al., 2016]] ; [[#Scarano--2018|Scarano et al., 2018]] ). These strategies also satisfy international forest and water conservation agendas in terms of optimising resources and solutions ( [[#Strassburg--2019|Strassburg et al., 2019]] ). Global conservation and sustainable development commitments, such as the Aichi Targets (Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD]), Sustainable Development Goals (UN), the NDCs under the Paris Agreement and the New York Declaration on Forests, strongly rely on nature-based solutions (NbS) to achieve their objectives ( [[#Brancalion--2019|Brancalion et al., 2019]] ) (Figure 12.12). The COVID-19 outbreak also brought attention to the need to preserve tropical forests as a means of preventing spillover of viruses from wildlife to humans, with concerns over that risk in the Amazon ( [[#Allen--2017b|Allen et al., 2017b]] ; [[#Dobson--2020|Dobson et al., 2020]] ; [[#IPBES--2020|IPBES, 2020]] ; [[#Ferreira--2021|Ferreira et al., 2021]] ). These represent an important opportunity for ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) to be at the core of NbS for climate change, access finance and promote climate resilient development pathways in CSA.

The Declaration on Protected Areas and Climate Change, presented by 18 CSA countries during the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties 21 (COP21), highlights the fundamental role of protected areas in providing the so-called GI needed to implement climate-change mitigation and adaptation and safeguard the provision of essential ecosystem services and the livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities ( [[#Gross--2016|Gross et al., 2016]] ). Protected area in CSA are underfunded ( ''very high confidence'' ). Latin American (including Mexico) governments allocate just about 1% of their national environmental budgets on protected areas (about USD 1.18 ha −1 on average). This figure only covers 54% of their basic needs, resulting in insufficient management. The financing gap to achieve optimal needs for protected areas in CSA is approximately USD 700 million yr −1 ( [[#Bovarnick--2010|Bovarnick et al., 2010]] ). This seriously compromises the management and delivery capacity of protected areas for climate-change adaptation and preparedness for ongoing ecological transformation ( [[#van%20Kerkhoff--2019|van Kerkhoff et al., 2019]] ). Furthermore, to become a relevant mechanism for resilience, protected areas need to be managed for this purpose ( [[#Mansourian--2009|Mansourian et al., 2009]] ). About 40% of protected areas in Latin America and the Caribbean (including Mexico) have undertaken management effectiveness evaluations ( [[#UNEP-WCMC%20and%20IUCN--2020a|UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2020a]] ). This is hardly representative of Aichi’s Target 11, although far better than the 11% global average. Collaborations with Indigenous Peoples and local communities are also an important issue to consolidate protected areas ( [[#Gross--2016|Gross et al., 2016]] ). In addition to protected areas as solutions for climate-change adaptation and mitigation, there is also a need to protect or restore ecosystems outside the protected areas, as illustrated by the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor ( [[#Imbach--2013|Imbach et al., 2013]] ).

Despite some local and specific assessments (e.g., [[#Warner--2016|Warner (2016)]] ), there is a significant gap when it comes to identifying barriers to adaptation or maladaptation in the region ( [[#Dow--2013|Dow et al., 2013]] ). In their NCs, NDCs and/or NAPs, most countries identified inadequate financing and access to technology as barriers to adaptation relevant to terrestrial and freshwater socioecosystems ( ''high confidence'' ). Insufficient institutional coordination is also frequently mentioned ( [[#Rangecroft--2013|Rangecroft et al., 2013]] ; [[#Cameron--2015|Cameron et al., 2015]] ). These limitations could be partially addressed through multi-lateral cooperation, incorporation of synergies from local to national scales, local empowerment and poverty alleviation ( [[#Rangecroft--2013|Rangecroft et al., 2013]] ; [[#Harvey--2017|Harvey et al., 2017]] ; [[#Murcia--2017|Murcia et al., 2017]] ; [[#Calispa--2018|Calispa, 2018]] ; [[#Chain-Guadarrama--2018|Chain-Guadarrama et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="12.5.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="governance-and-financing"></span>
==== 12.5.1.2 Governance and Financing ====

<div id="h3-34-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

All CSA countries have formulated policies that include measures relevant for socioecosystem adaptation in their NCs, NDCs and NAPs, with an emphasis on protecting and restoring water and forests ( ''high confidence'' ). Existing proposed measures, instruments and programmes, however, do not yet reflect the vision needed to integrate the ecosystem and human dimensions of vulnerability. Administration coordination and the progress in adaptive ecosystem management are still in their early stages, due in part to the lack of stable financial resources and scientific knowledge and IKLK about adapting ecosystems to climate change ( [[#Bustamante--2020|Bustamante et al., 2020]] ). Brazil was an exception, showing dramatic policy-driven reduction in deforestation in the Amazon between 2004–2012, with a concomitant 70% increase in soy production, the most profitable Amazon crop ( [[#Hansen--2013|Hansen et al., 2013]] ; [[#Nepstad--2014|Nepstad et al., 2014]] ). Policies included territorial planning (protected areas, Indigenous territories and land tenure), satellite monitoring and market and credit restrictions on high-deforesting municipalities, plus some incentives to small farmers (Boucher et al., 2013; [[#Hansen--2013|Hansen et al., 2013]] ; [[#Nepstad--2014|Nepstad et al., 2014]] ; [[#Castelo--2015|Castelo, 2015]] ; [[#Cunha--2016a|Cunha et al., 2016a]] ). It is important to highlight the important role of Indigenous territories, in addition to protected areas, in forest conservation in the Amazon ( ''high evidence, medium agreement'' ) ( [[#Schwartzman--2013|Schwartzman et al., 2013]] ; [[#Barber--2014|Barber et al., 2014]] ; [[#Nepstad--2014|Nepstad et al., 2014]] ; [[#Walker--2014b|Walker et al., 2014b]] ). These policies were partially funded by results-based compensation through the Amazon Fund. Since 2012, however, policies and institutions have weakened, and Amazon deforestation rates have started to rise ( [[#Carvalho--2019|Carvalho et al., 2019]] ), becoming more acute in recent years ( [[#Silva%20Junior--2021|Silva Junior et al., 2021]] ). Conservation incentives, a new complementary and allegedly cost-effective approach, is increasingly being implemented in the region ( [[#Magrin--2014|Magrin et al., 2014]] ). They include PES, REDD+, environmental certification and conservation easements, but remain controversial, and more research is needed on their effectiveness, possible negative side effects, participatory management systems and collective decision-making processes ( [[#Larson--2011|Larson and Petkova, 2011]] ; [[#Locatelli--2011|Locatelli et al., 2011]] ; [[#Pinho--2014|Pinho et al., 2014]] ; [[#Strassburg--2014|Strassburg et al., 2014]] ; [[#Mistry--2016|Mistry et al., 2016]] ; [[#Gebara--2017|Gebara and Agrawal, 2017]] ; [[#Scarano--2018|Scarano et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ruggiero--2019|Ruggiero et al., 2019]] ; [[#To--2019|To and Dressler, 2019]] ; [[#Vallet--2019|Vallet et al., 2019]] ).

<div id="12.5.1.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-options-to-avert-and-reduce-key-risks-to-terrestrial-and-freshwater-ecosystems"></span>
==== 12.5.1.3 Adaptation Options to Avert and Reduce Key Risks to Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems ====

<div id="h3-35-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Research, monitoring systems and other initiatives for knowledge management are promoted in the region on terrestrial and freshwater socioecosystem adaptation ( ''high confidence'' ) (NCs, NDCs and NAPs, https://unfccc.int ). In Chile, for example, the Eco-social Observatory of Climate Change Effects for High Altitude Wetlands of Tarapacá has been collecting information on physical, biological and social variables since 2013 ( [[#Uribe%20Rivera--2017|Uribe Rivera et al., 2017]] ). Other examples in the Andes are the GLORIA-Andes network ( [[#Cuesta--2017a|Cuesta et al., 2017a]] ), the Andean Forest Network ( [[#Malizia--2020|Malizia et al., 2020]] ) and the Initiative of Hydrological Monitoring in the Andes (IMHEA), with measures to optimise watershed management and protection and reduce the risk of water insecurity ( [[#Correa--2020|Correa et al., 2020]] ).

Poverty is a driver of climate-change risk, while the sustainable use of ecosystems fosters adaptation ( [[#Kasecker--2018|Kasecker et al., 2018]] ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Most of the 398 ecosystem-based adaptation hotspots identified in Brazil on this premise are located in some of the ecosystems that are most vulnerable to climate change ( [[#Kasecker--2018|Kasecker et al., 2018]] ). Although conservation and restoration are reported as being effective at reducing risk ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Anderson et al., 2010; [[#Borsdorf--2013|Borsdorf et al., 2013]] ; [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; [[#Pires--2017|Pires et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ramalho--2021|Ramalho et al., 2021]] ), their effectiveness depends on the integration of conservation actions with enhancements of local socioeconomic conditions ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Scarano--2015|Scarano and Ceotto, 2015]] ; [[#Pires--2017|Pires et al., 2017]] ; [[#Kasecker--2018|Kasecker et al., 2018]] ; [[#de%20Siqueira--2021|de Siqueira et al., 2021]] ; [[#Vale--2021|Vale et al., 2021]] ).

Since AR5, there has been an increase in the number of adaptation measures through natural resource and ecosystem service management. The main approaches are EbA and community-based adaptation (CbA) ( ''high confidence'' ) (NCs, NDCs and NAPs, https://unfccc.int ). IKLK can be very detailed and usually relates to people’s priorities as identified by collective decision-making (Box 7.1) ( [[#Hurlbert--2019|Hurlbert et al., 2019]] , SRCCL Section 7.6.4; SRCCL Cross-Chapter Box 13 ILK; [[#de%20Coninck--2018|de Coninck et al., 2018]] , SR1.5 [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.3.5|Section 4.3.5.5]] ). In Manaus, central Amazon, fishermen perceive reductions in fish size, diversity and capture levels caused by droughts, while recognising that floods hinder access to fishing grounds ( [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; [[#Camacho%20Guerreiro--2016|Camacho Guerreiro et al., 2016]] ). In the Amazon floodplains, small-scale fisher and farmer communities incorporate their knowledge on natural hydrologic and ecological processes into management systems that reduce climate-change risk and impacts ( [[#Oviedo--2016|Oviedo et al., 2016]] ). Smallholder grain farmers in Guatemala and Honduras implement EbA practices based on local knowledge (e.g., live fences, home gardens, shade trees in coffee plantations, dispersed trees in corn fields and other food insecurity risk reduction practices) ( [[#Harvey--2017|Harvey et al., 2017]] ; [[#Chain-Guadarrama--2018|Chain-Guadarrama et al., 2018]] ). There is, therefore, great potential for terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem adaptation to climate change in CSA, provided the right incentives and sociocultural protective measures are in place ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#12.5.10.4|Section 12.5.10.4]] ; Table SM12.7).

Disarticulation between policy and implementation is a common problem. Ecuadorian climate public policy points towards a CbA approach, but it is often downsized when implemented ( [[#Calispa--2018|Calispa, 2018]] ). Important adaptation actions have been undertaken in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, both in policymaking and institutional arrangements, but they tend to be poorly coordinated with policies on development, land planning and other sectoral policies ( [[#Ryan--2012|Ryan, 2012]] ). Some type of community participation mechanisms is present in most country strategies, but their levels of implementation vary considerably ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Ryan--2012|Ryan, 2012]] ; [[#Pires--2017|Pires et al., 2017]] ; [[#Calispa--2018|Calispa, 2018]] ).

There is an ecosystem bias in adaptation priorities for research and implementation, hindering the development of comprehensive adaptation programmes. Most scientific research on adaptation in Peru focuses on the highlands and coastal regions, while mitigation research focuses on forests ( [[#Chazarin--2014|Chazarin et al., 2014]] ). Combined adaptation and mitigation strategies can produce positive results, but they are often disconnected ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ). Most reviewed cases in agriculture and forestry in Latin America (84% of 274 cases) reported positive synergies between adaptation and mitigation. Nevertheless, research on Latin American forests tend to focus on mitigation, while studies on agriculture are usually oriented towards adaptation ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] , 2017).

Rural communities in the Cusco region, Peru, ground their ability to adapt to climate change on four cultural values, known in Quechua as ''ayni'' (reciprocity), ''ayllu'' (collectiveness), ''yanantin'' (equilibrium) and ''chanincha'' (solidarity), but policies oriented towards so-called modernisation undermine these traditional mechanisms. Adaptation strategies could benefit from integrating these and other insights from traditional cultures, fostering risk reduction and transformational adaptation towards intrinsically sustainable systems ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Walshe--2016|Walshe and Argumedo, 2016]] ).

Protected areas have become an important component as enablers of national climate-change adaptation strategies. They increase ecosystems’ adaptive potential, reducing climate risk and delivering numerous ecosystem services and sustainable development benefits while playing an important role in climate-change mitigation ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Mackey--2008|Mackey et al., 2008]] ; [[#Dudley--2010|Dudley et al., 2010]] ; [[#Gross--2016|Gross et al., 2016]] ; [[#Bebber--2017|Bebber and Butt, 2017]] ; [[#Dinerstein--2019|Dinerstein et al., 2019]] ; [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ). CSA already has a greater percentage of land (24.1%) under protected status than the world average (14.7%) ( [[#UNEP-WCMC%20and%20IUCN--2020b|UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2020b]] ). Some countries, including Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Venezuela, have already met or surpassed the 30% CDB and IUCN goal ( [[#Dinerstein--2019|Dinerstein et al., 2019]] ), and others, like Costa Rica and Honduras, are very close to doing so. In some cases, the establishment of protected areas not accompanied by collective decision-making processes has displaced local people or denied them access to natural resources, increasing their vulnerability to climate change ( [[#Brockington--2015|Brockington and Wilkie, 2015]] ).

In addition to better managing and expanding protected area networks, other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), recently defined by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity ( [[#Dudley--2018|Dudley et al., 2018]] ), could also enhance ecosystem resilience ( ''low confidence'' ). Private protected areas in the mountain regions of the Americas (e.g., Andes) play an important role in closing the gaps in fragmented biomes and expanding protection in underrepresented areas ( [[#Hora--2018|Hora et al., 2018]] ). In Brazil, there is also huge potential for conservation and sustainable management in private areas, as roughly 53% of the country’s native vegetation is within private land ( [[#Lapola--2014|Lapola et al., 2014]] ; [[#Soares-Filho--2014|Soares-Filho et al., 2014]] ).

Large-scale restoration is also seen as pivotal to limiting both climate change ( [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ) and species extinction ( [[#IPBES--2018a|IPBES, 2018a]] ) ( ''very high confidence'' ). A new multi-criteria approach to optimising multiple restoration outcomes (for biodiversity, climate-change mitigation and cost), for example, indicate that SA has the greatest extension of converted lands, evenly distributed in the top 50% of global priorities ( [[#Strassburg--2020|Strassburg et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="12.5.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ocean-and-coastal-ecosystems-and-their-services"></span>