Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

=== 7.5.1 Formal and informal decision-making ===

<div id="section-7-5-1-formal-and-informal-decision-making-block-1"></div>

Informal decision-making facilitated by open platforms can solve problems in land and resource management by allowing evolution and adaptation, and incorporation of local knowledge ( ''medium confidence'' ) (Malogdos and Yujuico 2015a <sup>[[#fn:r995|995]]</sup> ; Vandersypen et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r996|996]]</sup> ). Formal centres of decision-making are those that follow fixed procedures (written down in statutes or moulded in an organisation backed by the legal system) and structures (Onibon et al. 1999 <sup>[[#fn:r997|997]]</sup> ). Informal centres of decision-making are those following customary norms and habits based on conventions (Onibon et al. 1999 <sup>[[#fn:r998|998]]</sup> ) where problems are ill-structured and complex (Waddock 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r999|999]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-5-1-1-formal-decision-making"></div>

<span id="formal-decision-making"></span>
==== 7.5.1.1 Formal Decision Making ====

<div id="section-7-5-1-1-formal-decision-making-block-1"></div>

Formal decision-making processes can occur at all levels, including the global, regional, national and sub-national levels (Section 7.4.1). Formal decision-making support tools can be used, for example, by farmers, to answer ‘what-if’ questions as to how to respond to the effects of changing climate on soils, rainfall and other conditions (Wenkel et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1000|1000]]</sup> ).

Optimal formal decision-making is based on realistic behaviour of actors, important in land–climate systems, assessed through participatory approaches, stakeholder consultations and by incorporating results from empirical analyses. Mathematical simulations and games (Lamarque et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1001|1001]]</sup> ), behavioural models in land-based sectors (Brown et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1002|1002]]</sup> ), agent-based models and micro- simulations are examples useful to decision-makers (Bishop et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1003|1003]]</sup> ). These decision-making tools are expanded on in Section 7.5.2.

There are different ways to incorporate local knowledge, informal institutions and other contextual characteristics that capture non- deterministic elements, as well as social and cultural beliefs and systems more generally, into formal decision-making ( ''medium evidence, medium agreement'' ) (Section 7.6.4). Classic scientific methodologies now include participatory and interdisciplinary methods and approaches (Jones et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1004|1004]]</sup> ). Consequently, this broader range of approaches may capture informal and indigenous knowledge, improving the participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making processes, and thereby promote their rights to self-determination (Malogdos and Yujuico 2015b <sup>[[#fn:r1005|1005]]</sup> ) (Cross-Chapter Box 13 in Chapter 7).

<div id="section-7-5-1-2-informal-decision-making"></div>

<span id="informal-decision-making"></span>
==== 7.5.1.2 Informal decision-making ====

<div id="section-7-5-1-2-informal-decision-making-block-1"></div>

Informal institutions have contributed to sustainable resources management (common pool resources) through creating a suitable environment for decision-making. The role of informal institutions indecision-making can be particularly relevant for land-use decisions and practices in rural areas in the global south and north (Huisheng 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1006|1006]]</sup> ). Understanding informal institutions is crucial for adapting to climate change, advancing technological adaptation measures, achieving comprehensive disaster management and advancing collective decision-making (Karim and Thiel 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1007|1007]]</sup> ). Informal institutions have been found to be a crucial entry point in dealing with vulnerability of communities and exclusionary tendencies impacting on marginalised and vulnerable people (Mubaya and Mafongoya 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1008|1008]]</sup> ).

Many studies underline the role of local/informal traditional institutions in the management of natural resources in different parts of the world (Yami et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1009|1009]]</sup> ; Zoogah et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1010|1010]]</sup> ; Bratton 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r1011|1011]]</sup> ; Mowo et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1012|1012]]</sup> ; Grzymala-Busse 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1013|1013]]</sup> ). Traditional systems include: traditional silvopastoral management (Iran), management of rangeland resources (South Africa), natural resource management (Ethiopia, Tanzania, Bangladesh) communal grazing land management (Ethiopia) and management of conflict over natural resources (Siddig et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r1014|1014]]</sup> ; Yami et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1015|1015]]</sup> ; Valipour et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1016|1016]]</sup> ; Bennett 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1017|1017]]</sup> ; Mowo et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1018|1018]]</sup> ).

Formal–informal institutional interaction could take different shapes such as: complementary, accommodating, competing, and substitutive. There are many examples when formal institutions might obstruct, change, and hinder informal institutions (Rahman et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1019|1019]]</sup> ; Helmke and Levitsky 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r1020|1020]]</sup> ; Bennett 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1021|1021]]</sup> ; Osei-Tutu et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1022|1022]]</sup> ). Similarly, informal institutions can replace, undermine, and reinforce formal institutions (Grzymala-Busse 2010). In the absence of formal institutions, informal institutions gain importance, requiring focus in relation to natural resources management and rights protection (Estrin and Prevezer 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1023|1023]]</sup> ; Helmke and Levitsky 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r1024|1024]]</sup> ; Kangalawe et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1025|1025]]</sup> ; Sauerwald and Peng 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1026|1026]]</sup> ; Zoogah et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1027|1027]]</sup> ).

Community forestry comprises 22% of forests in tropical countries in contrast to large-scale industrial forestry (Hajjar et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1028|1028]]</sup> ) and is managed with informal institutions, ensuring a sustainable flow of forest products and income, utilising traditional ecological knowledge to determine access to resources (Singh et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1029|1029]]</sup> ). Policies that create an open platform for local debates and allow actors their own active formulation of rules strengthen informal institutions. Case studies in Zambia, Mali, Indonesia and Bolivia confirm that enabling factors for advancing the local ownership of resources and crafting durability of informal rules require recognition in laws, regulations and policies of the state (Haller et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1030|1030]]</sup> ).

<span id="decision-making-timing-risk-and-uncertainty"></span>