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

==== 8.6.1.1 Climate Resilient Development ====

<div id="h3-32-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

CRD relies on identifying synergies between different strategies and actions in the field of climate change, primarily between mitigation actions with adaptation benefits ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ), adaptation actions with mitigation benefits ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Sánchez--2017|Sánchez and Izzo, 2017]] ), processes that promote both mitigation and adaptation measures, and policies and strategies that promote integrated mitigation and adaptation measures ( [[#Zhao--2018|Zhao et al., 2018]] ). At the same time, adaptation and mitigation actions can be evaluated in terms of their co-benefits, the social, economic or other benefits of actions in addition to avoiding climate change impacts ( [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al., 2020]] ). The clearest co-benefits of mitigation are associated with economic development through low-carbon industrialisation ( [[#IPCC--2014c|IPCC, 2014c]] ; [[#Jakob--2014|Jakob et al., 2014]] ; [[#Lu--2017|Lu, 2017]] ). Co-benefits can include contributing to economic growth, reducing competition for resources, improved integration of scientific input to policy development and implementation, or improving political participation and social licensing in large-scale projects (e.g., hydropower) ( [[#Hennessey--2017|Hennessey et al., 2017]] ). Adaptation can support mitigation and contribute to co-benefits in various ways: ensuring development-based natural resource management ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Suckall--2015|Suckall et al., 2015]] ; [[#Reang--2021|Reang et al., 2021]] ), integrating water resources management ( [[#Liang--2016|Liang et al., 2016]] ; [[#Sharifi--2021|Sharifi, 2021]] ), practicing sustainable agriculture ( [[#Bustamante--2014|Bustamante et al., 2014]] ; [[#Duguma--2014a|Duguma et al., 2014a]] ; [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ; [[#Reang--2021|Reang et al., 2021]] ), ensuring the protection of ecosystem services ( [[#Pandey--2017a|Pandey et al., 2017a]] ; [[#Baumber--2019|Baumber et al., 2019]] ), conserving biodiversity ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ; [[#Loboguerrero--2019|Loboguerrero et al., 2019]] ; [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al., 2019]] ) and managing bioenergy resource ( [[#Dovie--2019|Dovie, 2019]] ).

The key challenge for CRD is addressing climate change from the perspective of development: addressing the fundamental development obstacles that limit capacity for adaptation. Where development is not sustainable, especially if it is not equitable, capacity for adapting is greatly reduced—a phenomenon known as the adaptation gap (Figure 8.14; [[#Birkmann--2021a|Birkmann et al., 2021a]] ; [[#UNEP--2021|UNEP, 2021]] ). Figure 8.14 depicts the effect of development trajectories (as described in the SSPs framework) on capacity for adaptation, a key determinant of eventual outcomes. Achieving CRD through coupling adaptation with equitable sustainable development under and low emissions profiles that limit warming to 1.5°C (i.e., sustainability scenario) is necessary to close the adaptation gap. Even if emissions are kept low and 1.5°C emissions targets are achieved, if poverty and inequality remain high, then impacts are expected to remain high and may overwhelm capacity for adaptation. High poverty and high inequality in a society (i.e., inequality scenario) reduce the likelihood that countries are able to manage risk and avoid residual impacts, such as also documented in the assessment above (see Sections 8.2; 8.3; 8.4). Unsustainable development trajectories reduce capacity for adaptation and may result in highly unequally distributed residual impacts from climate change. Even despite rapid, equitable development and modest emissions reductions efforts necessary to limit warming to 2°C (i.e., the middle of the road scenario), there is still risk of unequal distribution of impacts. Under all high emissions scenarios (&gt;3°C warming), universal residual impacts are unavoidable.

<div id="_idContainer051" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:36e0a624eda4698829f155f27bcd1690 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_8_014.png]]

'''Figure 8.14 |''' '''Conceptual figure illustrating the link between sustainable development and the adaptation gap.''' Even if emissions are kept low, if poverty and inequality remain high, then impacts are expected to remain high and may overwhelm capacity for adaptation.

Mitigation planning has not sufficiently considered poverty reduction policies, the basis for narrowing the adaptation gap (see also Figure 8.14). Many synergies between climate change mitigation and poverty reduction have been identified, although sometimes with ''limited evidence'' . The mitigation measures that have been most evaluated include clean development mechanisms (CDM), programmes aimed at reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), voluntary carbon offsets and biofuel production. However, while these mitigation programmes stimulate economic growth, they may contribute to processes that trade-off against equitable development and threaten to further impoverish forest communities, such as large-scale land acquisitions ( [[#Carter--2017|Carter et al., 2017]] ; [[#Schaafsma--2021|Schaafsma et al., 2021]] ) and fortress conservation (see IPCC SR 1.5°C, [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5|Chapter 5]] ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ); and see also [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6|Chapter 6]] of this report).

The IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land ( [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ) states that agriculture, food production and deforestation are major drivers of climate change and calls for coordinated action to tackle climate change that can simultaneously improve land, food security and nutrition, and help to end hunger. There are five land challenges identified including climate change mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security. This report identified three major categories of climate response options that show promise for achieving mitigation and increasing capacity for adaptation while addressing poverty: SLM options, value chain management and risk management options ( [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC, 2019a]] ). For example, programmes supporting no-till agriculture and residue retention allow small-scale farmers to participate in mitigation and adaptation activities, with long-term benefits to soil health and food, energy and water security ( [[#Wright--2014|Wright et al., 2014]] ). Likewise, the installation of a solar powered drip irrigation system simultaneously reduces emission, improves water security and increases farmers’ income ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ). Response options in terms of SLM options, and value chain and risk management involve interlinkages between land-based climate strategies, synergies and trade-offs (see Chapter 6). On the other hand, a key trade-off is the potential for maladaptation, where one adaptation intervention at one time, location or sector could increase the vulnerability at another time, location or sector, or increase the vulnerability of the target group to future climate change ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Eriksen--2011|Eriksen et al., 2011]] ). A cause of increasing concern to adaptation planners is the understanding of maladaptation has changed subtly to recognise that it arises inadvertently, from poorly planned adaptation actions, but also from carefully deliberated decisions where wider considerations place greater emphasis on singular or short-term outcomes ahead of broader, longer-term threats, or discount, or fail to consider, the full range of interactions arising from the planned actions across scales ( [[#Eriksen--2021|Eriksen et al., 2021]] ). Research identifies the challenge of avoiding maladaptation as one of reducing long-term structural vulnerability. Accordingly, one can consider CCD and maladaptation as two sides of the same coin. Scholars of ‘sustainable adaptation’ define it as adaptation that contributes to socially and environmentally sustainable development pathways, which takes into account both social justice and environmental integrity ( [[#Eriksen--2011|Eriksen et al., 2011]] ). The parallels in maladaptation include the underlying drivers of vulnerability, namely socio-environmental processes such as conflict, marginalisation, economic restructuring, exploitation, institutional fragility and so forth ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018b|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018b]] ; [[#Neef--2018|Neef et al., 2018]] ).

Harnessing opportunities for mitigation, adaptation and development in an effective manner may lead to ‘triple wins’ under CRD, though empirical evidence is extremely rare for such triple win strategies that address mitigation, adaptation and development in an effective manner ( [[#Tompkins--2013|Tompkins et al., 2013]] ). Integration of mitigation, adaptation and development is being initiated and operationalised through projects by several developing countries to achieve main national development priorities, such as poverty reduction, increased employment opportunities, energy security and transportation ( [[#Denton--2014|Denton et al., 2014]] ; [[#Stringer--2014|Stringer et al., 2014]] ). Important follow-on questions are pressing social questions about how trade-offs are deliberated, who wins and loses and who decides (see [[#8.4|Section 8.4]] and [[#Ellis--2019|Ellis and Tschakert, 2019]] ). Likewise, the efficiency, effectiveness and feasibility trade-offs of climate policies must be considered (i.e., can programmes in developing countries be economically efficient and provide opportunities to achieve sustainable development targets for developing countries?) ( [[#Dang--2003|Dang et al., 2003]] ). Moreover, questions about co-benefits must consider the benefit–cost ratio of mitigative versus adaptive action for assets saved from destruction by climate impacts, for example ( [[#Stadelmann--2014|Stadelmann et al., 2014]] ). Implementing a mitigation or adaptation option may positively or negatively, directly or indirectly, affect the feasibility and effectiveness of other options, such as soil management leading to soil organic carbon ( [[#Locatelli--2015|Locatelli et al., 2015]] ; [[#de%20Coninck--2018|de Coninck et al., 2018]] ). Farmers and local people are often also being encouraged to undertake mitigation and adaptation activities leading to long-term benefits, such as cultivation of no-till wheat with residue retention leading to low emissions along with saving energy and water ( [[#Wright--2014|Wright et al., 2014]] ).

Moreover, a regulatory structure for evaluation of mitigation and adaptation actions is required to understand the co-benefits of these two actions. For example, the choice of adaptation actions can be made according to their effectiveness per unit of money invested such as economic assets saved from destruction of climate change impacts and benefits can be evaluated in terms of economies, people and the environment, such as human lives and health protected rather than the emission reduction by mitigation strategies ( [[#Stadelmann--2014|Stadelmann et al., 2014]] ).

<div id="8.6.1.2." class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="climate-resilient-development-synergies-and-trade-offs-by-sector"></span>