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

=== 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>