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

== 18.6 Conclusions and Research Needs ==

<div id="18.6.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="knowledge-gaps"></span>
=== 18.6.1 Knowledge Gaps ===

<div id="h2-21-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Research to improve the understanding of CRD currently exists in a nascent state, because, as noted in the AR5, ‘ ''integrating climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, and sustainable development is a relatively new challenge'' ’ ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ). While a large volume of literature has emerged since the AR5 that spans the nexus of sustainable development, CRD and climate action, the identified research gaps in AR5 ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ) continue to be priorities for informing CRD. These include enhancing understanding of mainstreaming of climate change into institutional decision making, managing risk under conditions of uncertainty, catalysing system transitions and transformation, and processes for enhancing participation, equity and accountability in sustainable development ( ''very high confidence'' ).

The more recent literature adds significant context to the concept of CRD, but also introduces broader perspectives regarding its significance in the arena of climate action. Hence, concepts that are both complementary to, and competitive with, CRD, such as ‘climate safe’, ‘climate compatible’ and ‘climate smart’ development ( [[#Huxham--2015|Huxham et al., 2015]] ; [[#Kim--2017b|Kim et al., 2017b]] ; [[#Ficklin--2018|Ficklin et al., 2018]] ; [[#Mcleod--2019|Mcleod et al., 2019]] ) ( [[#18.1.1|Section 18.1.1]] ). These different framings of the intersection between sustainable development and climate action are used in different communities of research and practice, which complicates efforts to provide clear guidance to decision makers regarding the goals of CRD and how best to achieve it. This is attributable in part to persistent conceptual confusion and disciplinary divides over more fundamental concepts such as resilience and sustainability ( [[#Rogers--2020|Rogers et al., 2020]] ; [[#Zaman--2021|Zaman, 2021]] ), not to mention contested perspectives regarding development ( [[#Lo--2020|Lo et al., 2020]] ; [[#Song--2020a|Song et al., 2020a]] ; [[#Morton--2021|Morton, 2021]] ) ( ''medium agreement'' , ''medium evidence'' ).

Reconciling different perspectives on CRD is not simply a matter of academic debate. Climate action, resilience and sustainable development are all active areas of policy and practice with significant economic, social, environmental and political implications ( [[#18.1.3|Section 18.1.3]] ). Hence, enhancing the role of CRD as a practical framework for development and a guide for action may necessitate improving the science–policy discourse regarding CRD ( [[#Winterfeldt--2013|Winterfeldt, 2013]] ; [[#Jones--2014|Jones et al., 2014]] ; [[#Ryan--2019|Ryan and Bustos, 2019]] ). This includes consideration for risk and science communication; decision analysis and decision support systems; and mechanisms for knowledge co-production between scientists and public policy actors ( ''very high confidence'' ).

In addition, the AR6 WGII report highlights a number of elements of CRD that are associated with significant knowledge gaps and uncertainties. As a result, enhancing the value of CRD as a unifying concept in development would benefit from further conceptualisation and socialisation of the concept, as well as efforts to address the following knowledge gaps:

* The challenges posed by different levels of global warming to achieving CRD and the magnitude and nature of the adaptation gap (and associated finance needs) that must be addressed to enable climate resilience.
* The efficacy of different adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development interventions in reducing climate risk and/or enhancing opportunities for CRD in the short, medium and long term.
* How different CRD pathways can be designed such that they illustrate opportunities for the practical pursuit of CRD in a manner consistent with principles of inclusion, equity and justice.
* How deliberative, participatory learning can be integrated into approaches to CRD to enhance the representation of diverse actors, forms of knowledge, governance regimes, economic systems and models for decision making in CRD.
* The synergies and trade-offs associated with the implementation of different policy packages and the design principles and development contexts that enhance the ability to successfully manage potential trade-offs.
* The limits of incremental system transitions to achieving CRD on a timeline that reflects the urgency associated with the Paris Agreement and the SDGs.
* The capacity of governments, social institutions and individuals to drive large-scale social transformations that open up the solutions space for CRD.
* Best practices for avoiding maladaptation and ensuring that adaptation interventions are designed so they do not exacerbate vulnerability to climate change to support CRD.

<div id="18.6.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="conclusions"></span>
=== 18.6.2 Conclusions ===

<div id="h2-21-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The concept of CRD presents an ambitious agenda for actors at multiple scales—global to local, particularly in the manner in which it reframes climate action to integrate a broader set of objectives than simply reducing GHG emissions or adapting to the impacts of climate change. Specifically, recent literature extends policy goals for climate action beyond avoiding dangerous interference with the climate system to adopt normative goals of meeting basic human needs, eliminating poverty and enabling sustainable development in ways that are just and equitable. This creates a policy landscape for climate action that is not only richer, but also more complex in that it situates responses to climate change squarely within the development arena. Current policy goals associated with the Paris Agreement, Sendai Framework and the SDGs imply aggressive timetables. Yet, as noted in the AR5 and supported by more recent literature ( [[#18.2.1|Section 18.2.1]] ), the world is neither on track to achieve all of the SDGs nor fulfil the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting the increase in the global mean temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit warming 1.5°C. ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ). This places aspirations for CRD in a precarious position. Transitions will be necessary across multiple systems ( [[#18.1.3|Section 18.1.3]] ). While some may be already underway, the pace of those transitions must accelerate, and societal transformations may be necessary to enable CRD (Sections 18.3, 18.4, Box 18.1).

Given the pace of climate change and the inherent challenge of sustainable development, particularly in the face of inevitable disruptions and setbacks such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Cross-Chapter Box COVID in Chapter 7), the feasibility of achieving CRD is an open question. Rapid changes will be required to shift public and private investments, strengthen institutions and orient them towards more sustainable policies and practices, expand the inclusiveness of governance and the equity of decision making, and shift societal and consumer preferences to more climate-resilient lifestyles. Nevertheless, the collective body of recent literature on CRD, system transitions and societal transformation, combined with the assessments within recent IPCC Special Reports ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ; [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ; [[#IPCC--2019d|IPCC, 2019d]] ) indicate that there are a broad range of opportunities for designing and implementing adaptation and mitigation options that enable the climate goals in the Paris Agreement to be achieved while enhancing resilience and meeting sustainable development objectives. However, options should be considered alongside the mechanisms by which societies can engage to create the conditions that can support the implementation of those options ( [[#18.4|Section 18.4]] ). This includes formal policy mechanisms pursued by governments, the catalysation of innovation by private firms and entrepreneurship, as well as informal, grassroots interventions by civil society. While there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution for CRD that will work for all actors at all scales, exploring different pathways by which actors can achieve their development and climate goals can make valuable contributions to developing effective strategies for CRD.

A fundamental challenge for achieving CRD globally is reconciling different perspectives on CRD. As noted in the AR5, ‘ ''as policy makers explore what pathways to pursue, they will increasingly face questions about managing discourses about what societal objectives to pursue'' ’ ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] : 1124). Since the AR5, such discourses have become prominent in policy debates over climate action and sustainable development because of different nations, communities and subpopulations having different understandings of what constitutes CRD. Aggressive efforts to rapidly reduce GHG emissions or enhance resilience to climate change, for example, could have negative externalities for the development objectives of some actors. This potential for trade-offs complicates efforts to build consensus regarding what constitutes appropriate climate and development policies and practices and by whom. The CRD pathways preferred by one actor are likely to be contested by others. This means operationalising concepts such as CRD in practice is likely to necessitate ongoing negotiation.

Ultimately, one of the critical developments within the literature is the emergence of procedural and distributive justice as key criteria for evaluating climate action and CRD more specifically. This trend not only recognises the need to prevent vulnerable human and ecological systems from experiencing disproportionate harm from the changing climate, but also the need to prevent those same systems from being harmed by mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development policies and practices. Failure to adequately engage with equity and justice when designing sustainability transitions could lead to maladaptation, aggravated poverty, reinforcement of existing inequalities, and entrenched gender bias and exclusion of Indigenous and marginalised communities ( [[#Jenkins--2018|Jenkins et al., 2018]] ; [[#Fisher--2019|Fisher et al., 2019]] ; [[#Schipper--2020b|Schipper et al., 2020b]] ). These consequences could ultimately slow, rather than accelerate, CRD. Hence, developing programmes and practices for prioritising equity in effective transition risk management is an important dimension of enabling CRD.

As indicated by the literature assessed within this chapter, keeping windows of opportunity open for CRD will necessitate urgent action, even under diverse assumptions regarding how future mitigation and adaptation interventions evolve. If nations are to collectively limit warming to well below 2°C, for example, unprecedented emissions reductions will be necessary over the next decade ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] ). These reductions would necessitate rapid progression of system transitions ( [[#18.3|Section 18.3]] ). If, despite the Paris Agreement, future emissions trajectories take the world beyond 2°C, a greater demand will be placed on adaptation as a means of enhancing the resilience of development. Given the long-lived nature of human systems, and the built environment in particular, significant adaptation investments would be needed over the near-term to meet this demand. Yet, it is important to note that, even in the absence of consideration for climate change, substantial development needs exist for communities around the world at present. Hence, a robust strategy for the pursuit of CRDPs is a near-term focus on portfolios of policies and practices that promote human and ecological well-being.

<div id="frequently-asked-questions" class="h1-container"></div>