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

=== 12.5.2 Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems and Their Services ===

<div id="h2-12-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Ocean and coastal ecosystems provide suitable habitats for a high number of species that support important local fisheries, the tourism sector and the regional economy ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.5|Section 3.5]] ; Table 3.9; [[#González--2017|González and Holtmann-Ahumada, 2017]] ; [[#Venerus--2017|Venerus and Cedrola, 2017]] ; [[#CEPAL--2018|CEPAL, 2018]] ; [[#Carvache-Franco--2019|Carvache-Franco et al., 2019]] ; SROCC [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.4|Section 5.4]] , [[#Bindoff--2019|Bindoff et al., 2019]] ). There is ''high confidence'' that CSA ocean and coastal ecosystems are already being impacted by climate change (Figure 12.9, 12.10; Table SM12.3; [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.4|Section 3.4]] ; [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.4|Section 5.4]] in SROCC, [[#Bindoff--2019|Bindoff et al., 2019]] ) and are highly sensitive to non-climatic stressors (Figure 12.8; Table SM12.3; [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.4|Section 3.4]] ). Projections for CSA ocean and coastal ecosystems warn about significant and negative impacts ( ''high confidence'' ), which include major loss of ecosystem structure and functionality, changes in the distributional range of several species and ecosystems, major mortality rates and increasing numbers of coral bleaching events (Figure 12.9; Figure 12.10; Table SM12.3; [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.4|Section 3.4]] ; SROCC Sections 5.3, 5.4, [[#Bindoff--2019|Bindoff et al., 2019]] ).

CSA sub-regions are highly dependent on ocean and coastal ecosystems and, thus, vulnerable to climate change ( [[#FAO--2018|FAO, 2018]] ). Fisheries and aquaculture contribute significantly to food security and livelihoods by creating employment (more than two million people), income and economic growth for the region ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.5|Section 3.5]] ; [[#FAO--2018|FAO, 2018]] ). More than 45% of the total fisheries in CSA are based on marine products ( [[#CEPALSTAT--2019|CEPALSTAT, 2019]] ). Peru, Chile, Argentina and Ecuador are among the 15 countries with the largest marine capture production worldwide ( [[#Gutiérrez--2016a|Gutiérrez et al., 2016a]] ; [[#FAO--2018|FAO, 2018]] ; [[#Vannuccini--2018|Vannuccini et al., 2018]] ), while more than 90% of the hydrological resources produced by aquaculture in CSA have a marine origin ( [[#CEPALSTAT--2019|CEPALSTAT, 2019]] ). There is ''high confidence'' about important current and future impacts of climate-change hazards in marine resources used by fisheries; however, there is ''low evidence'' regarding impacts on regional economies (Figure 12.9, 12.10; Table SM12.3).

<div id="12.5.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-measures-and-strategies-applied-to-oceans-and-coasts-of-central-and-south-america"></span>
==== 12.5.2.1 Adaptation Measures and Strategies Applied to Oceans and Coasts of Central and South America ====

<div id="h3-36-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Similar to those strategies pointed out by WGII AR5 Chapter 27 ( [[#Magrin--2014|Magrin et al., 2014]] ) and [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3|Chapter 3]] ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.5|Section 3.5]] ; [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2|Section 3.6.2]] ; Box SLR in Chapter 3), adaptation strategies in ocean and coastal ecosystems in CSA remain focused on ecosystem protection and restoration and the sustainable use of marine resources ( ''high confidence'' ). There is ''low evidence'' on how coastal urban areas and tourist settlements of CSA countries are adapting to SLR and extreme events ( [[#Calil--2017|Calil et al., 2017]] ; [[#Villamizar--2017|Villamizar et al., 2017]] ). Some of these strategies include planned relocation ( [[#Dannenberg--2019|Dannenberg et al., 2019]] ) and the use of grey infrastructures like seawalls and bulkheads ( [[#Silva--2014|Silva et al., 2014]] ; [[#Isla--2018|Isla et al., 2018]] ).

There is ''medium confidence'' that EbA is the main strategy used in CSA coral reef ecosystems. The set of strategies applied include the protection, restoration (e.g., coral gardening, larval propagation) and conservation of coral reef areas through the application of spatial ocean zoning schemes such as marine protected areas (MPAs), marine managed areas (MMAs), national parks, wildlife refuges, special zones of marine protection, special management zones, responsible fishing areas and the establishment of management plans with some level of participatory processes. These strategies are complemented by actions that promote the development of research and education programmes, recreational and cultural activities, the use of community-based approaches and the creation of national specific laws ( [[#Graham--2017|Graham, 2017]] ) and the adherence to international treaties (e.g., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora [CITIES], AGENDA 21, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat) ( [[#Cruz-Garcia--2015|Cruz-Garcia and Peters, 2015]] ; [[#Gopal--2015|Gopal et al., 2015]] ; [[#Graham--2017|Graham, 2017]] ; [[#Bayraktarov--2020|Bayraktarov et al., 2020]] ).

Adaptation measures in mangrove ecosystems are mainly focused on the application of EbA strategies ( ''high confidence'' ). These measures include the application of restoration programmes, the creation of management plans, which also have significant co-benefits with mitigation ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.6.2.1|Section 3.6.2.1]] ), and the establishment of coastal protected areas, followed by the development of research activities and the creation of specific mangrove policies through new laws and resolutions (e.g., Colombia) ( [[#Cvitanovic--2014|Cvitanovic et al., 2014]] ; [[#Krause--2014|Krause, 2014]] ; [[#Blanco-Libreros--2015|Blanco-Libreros and Estrada-Urrea, 2015]] ; [[#Carter--2015|Carter et al., 2015]] ; [[#Estrada--2015|Estrada et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ferreira--2016|Ferreira and Lacerda, 2016]] ; Oliveira- [[#Filho--2016|Filho et al., 2016]] ; [[#Rodríguez-Rodríguez--2016|Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2016]] ; [[#Alvarado--2017|Alvarado et al., 2017]] ; [[#Álvarez-León--2017|Álvarez-León and Álvarez Puerto, 2017]] ; [[#Baptiste--2017|Baptiste et al., 2017]] ; [[#Borges--2017|Borges et al., 2017]] ; [[#Jaramillo--2018|Jaramillo et al., 2018]] ; [[#Salazar--2018|Salazar et al., 2018]] ; [[#Armenteras--2019|Armenteras et al., 2019]] ; [[#Blanco-Libreros--2019|Blanco-Libreros and Álvarez-León, 2019]] ; [[#Maretti--2019|Maretti et al., 2019]] ; [[#Ellison--2020|Ellison et al., 2020]] ).

The use of territorial planning tools, the promotion of sustainable resource exploitation, the adherence to certification schemes and the implementation of management instruments, such as ecosystem-based management (EbM), followed by the use of an integrated coastal zone management, coastal marine spatial planning and capacity building, ecological risk assessments, have been the main strategies used to ensure the sustainability of marine resources in fisheries across EEZs of CSA ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Hellebrandt--2014|Hellebrandt et al., 2014]] ; [[#Gelcich--2015|Gelcich et al., 2015]] ; [[#Singh-Renton--2015|Singh-Renton and McIvor, 2015]] ; [[#Gutiérrez--2016a|Gutiérrez et al., 2016a]] ; [[#Karlsson--2016|Karlsson and Bryceson, 2016]] ; [[#Oyanedel--2016|Oyanedel et al., 2016]] ; [[#Debels--2017|Debels et al., 2017]] ; [[#Isaac--2017|Isaac and Ferrari, 2017]] ; Mariano [[#Gutiérrez--2017|Gutiérrez et al., 2017]] ; [[#Barragán--2018|Barragán and Lazo, 2018]] ; [[#Bertrand--2018|Bertrand et al., 2018]] ; [[#Lluch-Cota--2018|Lluch-Cota et al., 2018]] ; [[#Guerrero-Gatica--2020|Guerrero-Gatica et al., 2020]] ). Other strategies include the application of local regulations (e.g., closed seasons) ( [[#Fontoura--2016|Fontoura et al., 2016]] ) and the use of participative programmes ( [[#Hellebrandt--2014|Hellebrandt et al., 2014]] ; [[#Arroyo%20Mina--2016|Arroyo Mina et al., 2016]] ; [[#Matera--2016|Matera, 2016]] ).

<div id="12.5.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-success-in-ocean-and-coastal-ecosystems-of-central-and-south-america"></span>
==== 12.5.2.2 Adaptation Success in Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems of Central and South America ====

<div id="h3-37-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

There is ''low evidence'' about how the strategies and actions taken and implemented in ocean and coastal systems of CSA have contributed to advance in the protection and conservation of ocean and coastal ecosystems. However, some important advances are visible in Colombian Pacific areas with coral reefs (new conservation plans, research monitoring and conservation practices) ( ''low confidence'' ) ( [[#Cruz-Garcia--2015|Cruz-Garcia and Peters, 2015]] ; [[#Alvarado--2017|Alvarado et al., 2017]] ; [[#Bayraktarov--2020|Bayraktarov et al., 2020]] ). In Panama, actions taken have allowed the protection of a high number of marine areas with coral reefs, as well as the incorporation of management approaches that include several sectors such as fisheries, tourism, coral protection and coral conservation ( ''low confidence'' ) ( [[#Alvarado--2017|Alvarado et al., 2017]] ). In the case of Costa Rica, 80% of coral habitats are located inside of MPAs, multiple research coral-related activities have been performed, and several training activities have favoured the engagement of the local community in their protection against climate and non-climate hazards ( ''low confidence'' ) ( [[#Alvarado--2017|Alvarado et al., 2017]] ).

There is ''low evidence'' of how the incorporation of mangroves as Ramsar sites, the reforms of legislations (e.g., fines and stronger regulations), and the creation of reserves and private protection initiatives (e.g., Belize Association of Private Protected Areas BAPPA), and capacity-building projects or new educational programmes have promoted the protection of mangroves in CSA countries such as Honduras, Guatemala and Belize ( [[#Cvitanovic--2014|Cvitanovic et al., 2014]] ; [[#Carter--2015|Carter et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ellison--2020|Ellison et al., 2020]] ). In Brazil, between 75–84% of mangroves are under some level of protection which has improved the forest structures, and multiple research programmes (e.g., Mangrove Dynamics and Management, MADAM, and ‘GEF-Mangle’) have been developed ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Krause--2014|Krause, 2014]] ; Medeiros et al., 2014; [[#Estrada--2015|Estrada et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ferreira--2016|Ferreira and Lacerda, 2016]] ; Oliveira- [[#Filho--2016|Filho et al., 2016]] ; [[#Borges--2017|Borges et al., 2017]] ; [[#Maretti--2019|Maretti et al., 2019]] ; [[#Strassburg--2019|Strassburg et al., 2019]] ). In Colombia, research projects (e.g., Mangroves of Colombia Projects, MCP), the installation of a geographic information system for mangroves (e.g., SIGMA Sistema de Información para la Gestión de los Manglares en Colombia), surveillance monitoring plans (e.g., EGRETTA Herramientas para el Control y Vigilancia de los Manglares), and the establishment of protected areas have contributed to decrease loss of the mangrove forest ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Blanco-Libreros--2015|Blanco-Libreros and Estrada-Urrea, 2015]] ; [[#Rodríguez-Rodríguez--2016|Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2016]] ; [[#Álvarez-León--2017|Álvarez-León and Álvarez Puerto, 2017]] ; [[#Baptiste--2017|Baptiste et al., 2017]] ; [[#Jaramillo--2018|Jaramillo et al., 2018]] ; [[#Salazar--2018|Salazar et al., 2018]] ; [[#Armenteras--2019|Armenteras et al., 2019]] ; [[#Blanco-Libreros--2019|Blanco-Libreros and Álvarez-León, 2019]] ).

There is ''low evidence'' whether the establishment of MPAs and the creation of legal instruments have allowed the development of new research activities have increased the environmental awareness, decreased the illegal extraction, and improved the local coordination which have promoted the sustainable use of marine resources, and improved the community-government cooperation in marine ecosystems ( [[#Alvarado--2017|Alvarado et al., 2017]] ). The experience in countries like Chile demonstrates the importance of implementing robust management plans that guarantee the protection objectives and the sustainability through the implementation of EbA measures such as MPAs ( [[#Petit--2018|Petit et al., 2018]] ).

There is ''low confidence'' about how measures adopted are ensuring the sustainability of marine resources used by fisheries. In Peru, industrial fisheries follow an adaptive management approach (i.e., stock assessments, catch limits), while in Chile, small-scale fisheries of benthic-demersal resources is managed through the granting of exclusive territorial use rights (called TURFS) with established quotas defined by the central authority ( [[#Bertrand--2018|Bertrand et al., 2018]] ). In addition, MPAs in Chile play a key role in climate-change adaptation for fisheries ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Gelcich--2015|Gelcich et al., 2015]] ; [[#Petit--2018|Petit et al., 2018]] ), and an increasing amount of funds have been invested in initiatives to reduce the vulnerability of fishery and aquaculture sectors to climate change ( [[#OECD--2017|OECD, 2017]] ). Since 2016, Argentina has been developing a strategy to implement EbM on fisheries with support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) programme. Also, Argentina and Chile are promoting the local consumption of seafood and the certification of its fishery products ( [[#OECD--2017|OECD, 2017]] ), while Brazil and Chile have advanced in their response to climate change through the development of new research studies and methodologies incorporating research institutions ( [[#Nagy--2015|Nagy et al., 2015]] ). Uruguay is incorporating stakeholders in its climate-change adaptation strategies ( ''low confidence'' ) ( [[#Nagy--2015|Nagy et al., 2015]] ), while Colombia is supporting the capacity building of fishers, promoting livelihood diversification to increase the resilience of the sector ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Hellebrandt--2014|Hellebrandt et al., 2014]] ; [[#Arroyo%20Mina--2016|Arroyo Mina et al., 2016]] ; [[#Matera--2016|Matera, 2016]] ). Chile and Peru have made certain advances in the development of guidelines for the management of the coast line and the implementation of the EbM, which has favoured the collaboration of diverse and multiple stakeholders (fishers, academics, municipal institutions), the development of outreach and educational activities, the creation of networks and the interests of other fishery communities to implement EbM ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Hellebrandt--2014|Hellebrandt et al., 2014]] ; [[#Gelcich--2015|Gelcich et al., 2015]] ; [[#Gutiérrez--2016a|Gutiérrez et al., 2016a]] ; [[#Oyanedel--2016|Oyanedel et al., 2016]] ; [[#Guerrero-Gatica--2020|Guerrero-Gatica et al., 2020]] ). In countries like Peru and Chile, there is an increasing presence of intergovernmental and international cooperation agencies, in addition to new funding (e.g., GEF) and projects (Inter-American Development, SPINCAM) related to change adaptation for the fishery sector ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Galarza--2015|Galarza and Kámiche, 2015]] ; [[#Barragán--2018|Barragán and Lazo, 2018]] ).

<div id="12.5.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="national-climate-change-commitments-for-ocean-and-coasts"></span>
==== 12.5.2.3 National Climate Change Commitments for Ocean and Coasts ====

<div id="h3-38-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Beyond the protection, conservation and climate-change adaptation strategies implemented on CSA ocean and coastal areas and their ecosystems, a high number of adaptation goals to address climate-change impacts on ocean and coastal ecosystems and their services are incorporated into most of the national climate-change adaptation commitments of CSA countries (Table 12.7).

<div id="_idContainer021" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:30870558b6410378baba00050cf7ffa9 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_12_007.png]]

'''Figure 12.7 |''' '''Sectoral distribution of vulnerability levels to climate change for sub-regions.''' The vulnerability levels are based on studies that include: (a) databases with climate-change vulnerability indexes by country and sector, (b) studies that apply climate-change vulnerability indexes by sector at the local, national, regional or global scale, and (c) studies that define some vulnerability level based on the authors’ expert judgment.

'''Panel (a)''' shows the vulnerability and confidence levels for each sub-region.

'''Panel (b)''' indicates the references used and the level of vulnerability by sub-region. The numbers within the table indicate the reference used for the assessment in the following order: (1) [[#Aitken--2016|Aitken et al. (2016)]] ; (2) [[#Anderson--2018b|Anderson et al. (2018b)]] ; (3) Bañales-Seguel et al. (2018); (4) [[#Bouroncle--2017|Bouroncle et al. (2017)]] ; (5) [[#CAF--2014|CAF (2014)]] ; (6) Carrão et al. (2016); (7) [[#Donatti--2019|Donatti et al. (2019)]] ; (8) [[#Eguiguren-Velepucha--2016|Eguiguren-Velepucha et al. (2016)]] ; (9) [[#FAO--2020a|FAO (2020a)]] ; (10) [[#FAO--2020b|FAO (2020b)]] ; (11) [[#FAO--2021a|FAO (2021a)]] ; (12) [[#FAO--2021b|FAO (2021b)]] ; (13) [[#FAO--2021c|FAO (2021c)]] ; (14) [[#FAO--2021|FAO et al. (2021)]] ; (15) FAO and [[#ECLAC--2020|ECLAC (2020)]] ; (16) Ferreira Filho and Moraes (2015); (17) [[#Filho--2016|Filho et al. (2016)]] ; (18) Fuentes-Castillo et al. (2020); (19) [[#FSIN%20and%20Global%20Network%20Against%20Food%20Crisis--2021|FSIN and Global Network Against Food Crisis (2021)]] ; (20) [[#Global%20Health%20Security%20Index--2019|Global Health Security Index (2019)]] ; (21) [[#Godber--2014|Godber and Wall (2014)]] ; (22) Handisyde et al. (2017); (23) [[#Hannah--2017|Hannah et al. (2017)]] ; (24) [[#Immerzeel--2020|Immerzeel et al. (2020)]] ; (25) [[#Inform%20Risk%20Index--2021|Inform Risk Index (2021)]] ; (26) [[#Koutroulis--2019|Koutroulis et al. (2019)]] ; (27) Krishnamurthy et al. (2014); (28) [[#Lapola--2019a|Lapola et al. (2019a)]] ; (29) [[#Li--2018|Li et al. (2018)]] ; (30) [[#Lin--2020|Lin et al. (2020)]] ; (31) [[#Mansur--2016|Mansur et al. (2016)]] ; (32) [[#Martins--2017|Martins et al. (2017)]] ; (33) [[#Menezes--2018|Menezes et al. (2018)]] ; (34) [[#Nagy--2018|Nagy et al. (2018)]] ;35) [[#ND-Gain--2020|ND-Gain (2020)]] ; (36) [[#Northey--2017|Northey et al. (2017)]] ; (37) [[#Olivares--2015|Olivares et al. (2015)]] ; (38) [[#Pacifici--2015|Pacifici et al. (2015)]] ; (39) [[#Qin--2020|Qin et al. (2020)]] ; (40) [[#Romeo--2020|Romeo et al. (2020)]] ; (41) [[#Liu--2021|Liu and Chen (2021)]] ; (42) [[#Silva--2019b|Silva et al. (2019b)]] ; (43) [[#Soto%20Winckler--2019|Soto Winckler and Del Castillo Pantoja (2019)]] ; (44) [[#Soto--2019|Soto et al. (2019)]] ; (45) [[#Tomby--2019|Tomby and Zhang (2019)]] ; (46) [[#Venegas-González--2018b|Venegas-González et al. (2018b)]] ; (47) [[#Yeni--2017|Yeni and Alpas (2017)]] ; (48) Marengo et al. (2017); (49) Bedran-Martins et al. (2018); (50) [[#Confalonieri--2014a|Confalonieri et al. (2014a)]] . Detailed methodology can be found in SM12.2.

Current goals in national and sectoral adaptation plans attempt to promote research and monitoring (e.g., new research actions, modelling, knowledge management), the development of new legislative tools and policies (e.g., inter-institutional and territorial coordination, improvement of public policies), the conservation of ocean and coastal ecosystems and their biodiversity (e.g., creation of new MPAs, protection tools), the management of climate risks (e.g., warning systems), the management of productive activities (e.g., diversification of resources), the promotion of the construction of new infrastructure and technology (e.g., grey-green infrastructure [GGI]), the creation of new financial tools (e.g., types of insurance), improved the capacity building (e.g., education, awareness), water and residue management (e.g., sewage and freshwater availability), social inclusion (e.g., strategies to support vulnerable sectors, gender inclusion) and the incorporation of traditional practices (e.g., restoring traditional practices including Indigenous knowledge [IK]). However, the amount and type of adaptation goals differ enormously from country to country (Figure 12.12).

<div id="_idContainer033" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:132cb4a771760696aad3436e9a5196b7 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_12_012.png]]

'''Figure 12.12 |''' '''Type and amount of adaptation goals identified in NAPs for ocean and coastal systems of CSA countries.'''

'''Table 12.7 |''' National plans with adaptation goals for ocean and coasts in CSA.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''CSA co''' '''unt''' '''ry'''

! '''Adaptation initiative'''

! '''Year'''

|-
| Argentina

| Plan Nacional de Adaptación y Mitigación al Cambio Climático 1

| 2019

|-
| Brazil

| National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (Volume 1); General Strategies 2

| 2016

|-
|
| National Climate Change Adaptation Plan (Volume 2); Sectoral and thematic strategies 3

| 2016

|-
| Chile

| Plan Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático 4

| 2014

|-
|
| Plan Sectorial de Adaptación al Cambio Climático en Biodiversidad 5

| 2014

|-
|
| Plan Sectorial de Adaptación al Cambio Climático en Pesca y Acuicultura 6

| 2015

|-
|
| Plan de Adaptación y Mitigación de los Servicios de Infraestructura al Cambio Climático 7

| 2017

|-
|
| Plan de Adaptación al Cambio Climático Sector Salud 8

| 2017

|-
| Colombia

| Plan Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático 9

| 2016

|-
| Costa Rica

| Política Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático 10

| 2018

|-
| Ecuador

| Plan Nacional de Cambio Climático 11

| 2015

|-
| El Salvador

| Plan Nacional de Cambio Climático 12

| 2015

|-
| Guatemala

| Plan de Acción Nacional de Cambio Climático 13

| 2018

|-
| Guyana

| Política de Adaptación y Plan de Implementación 14

| 2001

|-
| Honduras

| Plan Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio 15

| 2018

|-
| Nicaragua

| Plan de Adaptación a la Variabilidad y el Cambio Climático en el Sector Agropecuario, Forestal y Pesca 16

| 2013

|-
| Peru

| Plan Nacional de Adaptación al Cambio Climático del Peru 17

| 2021

|-
| Suriname

| Suriname National Adaptation Plan 18

| 2019

|-
| Uruguay

| Plan Nacional de Respuesta al Cambio Climático 19

| 2010

|-
| Belize

| Not Available

| 2019

|-
| Panamá

| Not Available

|
|-
| Venezuela

| Not Available

|
|}

References: 1 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Ambiente%20y%20Desarrollo%20Sostenible%20de%20la%20República%20de%20Argentina--2019|Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de la República de Argentina, 2019]] ) 2 ( [[#Ministry%20of%20Environment%20of%20Brazil--2016a|Ministry of Environment of Brazil, 2016a]] ) 3 ( [[#Ministry%20of%20Environment%20of%20Brazil--2016b|Ministry of Environment of Brazil, 2016b]] ) 4 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Medio%20Ambiente%20de%20Chile--2014b|Ministerio de Medio Ambiente de Chile, 2014b]] ) 5 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Medio%20Ambiente%20de%20Chile--2014a|Ministerio de Medio Ambiente de Chile, 2014a]] ) 6 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Economía%20Fomento%20y%20Turismo%20de%20Chile--2015|Ministerio de Economía Fomento y Turismo de Chile, 2015]] ) 7 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Medio%20Ambiente%20de%20Chile--2017|Ministerio de Medio Ambiente de Chile, 2017]] ) 8 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Salud%20de%20Chile--2017|Ministerio de Salud de Chile, 2017]] ) 9 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Ambiente%20y%20Desarrollo%20Sostenible%20de%20Colombia--2016|Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de Colombia, 2016]] ) 10 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Ambiente%20y%20Energía%20de%20la%20República%20de%20Costa%20Rica--2018|Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía de la República de Costa Rica, 2018]] ) 11 ( [[#Gobierno%20Nacional%20de%20la%20República%20del%20Ecuador--2015|Gobierno Nacional de la República del Ecuador, 2015]] ) 12 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Medio%20Ambiente%20y%20Recursos%20Naturales%20de%20El%20Salvador--2015|Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de El Salvador, 2015]] ) 13 ( [[#Consejo%20Nacional%20de%20Cambio%20Climático%20y%20la%20Secretaría%20de%20Planificación%20y%20Programación%20de%20la%20Presidencia%20de%20Guatemala--2018|Consejo Nacional de Cambio Climático y la Secretaría de Planificación y Programación de la Presidencia de Guatemala, 2018]] ) 14 ( [[#National%20Ozone%20Action%20Unit%20of%20Guyana--2016|National Ozone Action Unit of Guyana, 2016]] ) 15 ( [[#Secretaría%20de%20Recursos%20Naturales%20y%20Ambiente%20del%20Gobierno%20de%20la%20República%20de%20Honduras--2018|Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente del Gobierno de la República de Honduras, 2018]] ) 16 ( [[#Ministerio%20Agropecuario%20y%20Forestal%20de%20Nicaragua--2013|Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal de Nicaragua, 2013]] ) 17 (Ministerio del Ambiente Gobierno del Perú, 2021) 18 ( [[#Government%20of%20Suriname--2019|Government of Suriname, 2019]] ) 19 ( [[#Ministerio%20de%20Vivienda%20Ordenamiento%20Territorial%20y%20Medio%20Ambiente%20de%20la%20República%20de%20Uruguay--2010|Ministerio de Vivienda Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente de la República de Uruguay, 2010]] )

<div id="12.5.2.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="limits-and-barriers-to-adaptation-in-ocean-and-coastal-ecosystems"></span>
==== 12.5.2.4 Limits and Barriers to Adaptation in Ocean and Coastal Ecosystems ====

<div id="h3-39-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Although current NAPs and many other actions and strategies focus on improving the conservation and restoration of ocean and coastal ecosystems, as well as the suitability of marine resources throughout CSA, these measures are still not able to reduce the vulnerability and sensitivity of these ecosystems to climate-change hazards ( ''high confidence'' ) (Figure 12.6; Table SM12.3; [[#Leal%20Filho--2018|Leal Filho, 2018]] ; [[#Nagy--2019|Nagy et al., 2019]] ). There is ''high confidence'' that sandy beach ecosystems of CSA countries have suffered significant losses of dunes as a consequence of the construction of infrastructures that have caused interruptions in the natural dynamic of beaches, reducing protection against tides, waves, extreme events or tsunamis ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Amaral--2016|Amaral et al., 2016]] ; [[#Bernardino--2016|Bernardino et al., 2016]] ; [[#González--2017|González and Holtmann-Ahumada, 2017]] ; [[#Obraczka--2017|Obraczka et al., 2017]] ). Also, adaptation measures to cope with SLR and coastal extreme events sometimes fail because they exacerbate coastal erosion and damage ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Spalding--2014|Spalding et al., 2014]] ; [[#Lins-de-Barros--2018|Lins-de-Barros and Parente-Ribeiro, 2018]] ). There is ''medium evidence'' but ''high agreement'' that the most serious barriers limiting the success of adaptation strategies in ocean and coastal systems in CSA stem from a lack of coordination (e.g., absence of participatory processes, overlapping among fishing and protection activities), lack of knowledge (e.g., poor monitoring, poor control and surveillance, no long-term studies) and lack of adequate metrics for evaluating adaptation actions informing decision makers hinder the continuity and adjustment of measures and lead to weak governance (e.g., perverse incentives, resource overexploitation, conflicts), a lack of financial resources and long-term commitments (e.g., crisis, lack of budgets, market fluctuations), weak policies, cultural constraints, poverty, low flexibility, lack of awareness of climate risks and lack of engagement by stakeholders ( [[#Leal%20Filho--2018|Leal Filho, 2018]] ; [[#Nagy--2019|Nagy et al., 2019]] ; [[#Moreno--2020b|Moreno et al., 2020b]] ; [[#Aburto--2021|Aburto et al., 2021]] ).

Some important limits and barriers have been detected for productive systems such as fisheries and tourism in CSA ( ''medium confidence: medium evidence, high agreement'' ). Major Brazilian fisheries do not follow an ecosystem approach to management, although some small-scale fisheries apply a precautionary approach ( [[#Singh-Renton--2015|Singh-Renton and McIvor, 2015]] ). The management of Peruvian artisanal (medium and small-scale) fisheries is minimal and is governed by a lack of regulations, control and management actions ( [[#Bertrand--2018|Bertrand et al., 2018]] ). In Argentina, recreational marine fisheries have been largely unregulated, and there exists a lack of monitoring programmes, which has contributed to the overexploitation of some key coastal stocks ( [[#Venerus--2017|Venerus and Cedrola, 2017]] ). Moreover, womenfisher in CSA are excluded of the decision-making processes ( [[#FAO--2016b|FAO, 2016b]] ; [[#Bruguere--2017|Bruguere and Williams, 2017]] ). Due to the lack of monitoring programmes, it is unknown how this tourist industry will respond to long-term changes driven by climate change ( [[#Weatherdon--2016|Weatherdon et al., 2016]] ).

<div id="12.5.2.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="challenges-and-opportunities-1"></span>
==== 12.5.2.5 Challenges and Opportunities ====

<div id="h3-40-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

There is ''low evidence and high agreement'' that empowering local stakeholders (e.g., multi-lateral fisheries agreements) improves public awareness and simplifies regulations and increases the flexibility and sustainability of marine resources managed in fisheries under future scenarios ( [[#Weatherdon--2016|Weatherdon et al., 2016]] ; [[#Kalikoski--2019|Kalikoski et al., 2019]] ). Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) has emerged as a suitable tool to minimise the risk to climate change, avoid ecosystem degradation and related services ( [[#Gullestad--2017|Gullestad et al., 2017]] ). Further, when EBFM includes climate complexity and the relationships among species within the ecological systems it contributes to maintain long-term socioeconomic benefits ( [[#Long--2015|Long et al., 2015]] ). There is ''high confidence'' that EbA is more successful and feasible than hard coastal defences for the protection, management and restoration of ocean and coastal ecosystems and their resources ( [[#Spalding--2014|Spalding et al., 2014]] ; [[#González--2017|González and Holtmann-Ahumada, 2017]] ; [[#Scarano--2017|Scarano, 2017]] ).

There is ''high confidence'' that ecological and social resilience is improved by the presence of adequate metrics to evaluate adaptation measures to allow dynamic changes; and by increasing basic research and climate data ( [[#Moreno--2020b|Moreno et al., 2020b]] ). Resilience also increases with the existence of EWSs, improved local institutions, the construction of adequate infrastructure, major funding for capacity building and the enhanced engagement and empowerment of women ( [[#FAO--2016b|FAO, 2016b]] ; [[#Harper--2017|Harper et al., 2017]] ; [[#Frangoudes--2018|Frangoudes and Gerrard, 2018]] ; [[#Gallardo-Fernández--2018|Gallardo-Fernández and Saunders, 2018]] ; [[#Leal%20Filho--2018|Leal Filho, 2018]] ).

<div id="12.5.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="water"></span>