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

==== 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>