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

=== 8.6.2 Decision-making Approaches for Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-17-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

A range of different traditional economic decision support tools can be used to help guide resource allocation in relation to climate change adaptation (e.g., cost–benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, multi-criteria analysis) (Watkiss et al., 2016), with a strong focus on monetary values and the present and near-term. There are also tools to assess uncertainty (e.g., iterative risk management) and to guide decision making under uncertainty over longer time frames (through, e.g., real options analysis, robust decision making involving substantial numbers of scenarios, portfolio analysis and rule-based decision support for uncertainty where maximum regrets are minimised). Use of these tools nevertheless requires human capital and skills, and more commonly they are applied to public rather than private (individual/ household) adaptation decision processes. Tools grounded in economics can lack sufficient consideration of which groups in society might gain and lose out from particular options ( [[#Sovacool--2015|Sovacool et al., 2015]] ; [[#Stringer--2019|Stringer et al., 2019]] ), neglecting to appreciate non-monetary factors (like well-being) which are non-economic, less tangible and harder to put a value on (see [[#8.3|Section 8.3]] ).

This section lists several groups of strategies, including mainstreaming and coherence; dealing with complexities through broader and innovative governance; provision of funding and the associated cost and benefit analysis; and focusing on the community and addressing underlying equity through transformational adaptation.

<div id="8.6.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="policy-coherence-policy-integration-and-broader-governance-approaches"></span>
==== 8.6.2.1 Policy Coherence, Policy Integration and Broader Governance Approaches ====

<div id="h3-34-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Mainstreaming and policy coherence is one of the most proposed strategies for dealing with adaptation and mitigation as a coherent approach, in the context of good governance. Politics, power and interests influence the prospects of achieving integrated climate policy and development goals in practice ( [[#Naess--2015|Naess et al., 2015]] ). Institutional incoherence has led to inefficiency and ineffectiveness ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ). To achieve more coherent institutions and synergies, four major enabling conditions have been identified: (a) planned and/or existing national laws, policies and strategies, (b) existing and planned financial means and measures, (c) institutional arrangements in the country with specific reference to climate change issues and (d) planned and/or existing programmes and initiatives in the country ( [[#Kabisch--2016|Kabisch et al., 2016]] ). Another strategy offered is to develop a ‘dual track approach’ at local/municipality/city level by having a local climate plan and/or mainstreaming plan ( [[#Duguma--2014b|Duguma et al., 2014b]] ). This can lead to effective implementation of climate actions and diffusion of climate issues into local sector policies ( [[#Reckien--2019|Reckien et al., 2019]] ). Effective climate policy integration (CPI) calls for four levels of coherence ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ), namely between internal coherence (mitigation and adaptation policies objectives and policies), external coherence (climate change and development objectives), vertical integration (mainstream climate change into sectoral policies) and horizontal integration (overarching governance structures for cross-sectoral coordination).

Progress of policy integration varies from the global to local level. Progress in mainstreaming and coherence is emerging globally and has slowly made it down to the national level ( [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al., 2017]] ). Adaptation and mitigation should be mainstreamed into planning and implementation on food security programmes, and cross-cutting oversights are required to integrate land restoration, climate policy, food security and disaster risk management into a coherent policy framework ( [[#Woolf--2015|Woolf et al., 2015]] ).

There has been an increase in the literature examining adaptation and mitigation synergy in the Nationally Determined Contributions submitted by countries to the UNFCCC. Agriculture and energy are the two priority sectors for which there have been significant pledges and commitments from countries, with, to some extent, good alignment between adaptation and mitigation. This alignment can provide good opportunities to integrate both into national sectoral policies ( [[#Antwi-Agyei--2018a|Antwi-Agyei et al., 2018a]] ). This suggests that inclusive and sustainable economic and social development can be achieved if national governments focus on developing coherent, cross-sector approaches that deliver potential triple wins of mitigation, adaptation and development.

Different governance approaches, such as polycentric governance, adaptive governance, multi-level governance, collaborative governance or network governance, are increasingly utilised to understand the processes of transitioning towards CRD. The potential of polycentric governance approaches for promoting both climate mitigation and adaptation is well established ( [[#Cole--2015|Cole, 2015]] ; [[#Abbott--2017|Abbott, 2017]] ; [[#Morrison--2017a|Morrison et al., 2017a]] ; [[#Warner--2018|Warner et al., 2018]] ). Polycentric governance deals with active steering of local, regional, national and international actors, and instigates learning from experience across multiple actors, levels of decision making and temporal scales ( [[#Ostrom--2010|Ostrom, 2010]] ). It is the source of power to achieve collective goals. Polycentric actors have the framing power, power by design and pragmatic power ( [[#Morrison--2017b|Morrison et al., 2017b]] ). Polycentric governance offers new opportunities for climate action through more opportunities for communication, trust-building, policy experimentation and learning ( [[#Cole--2015|Cole, 2015]] ). Adaptive governance is understood as various interactions between actors, networks, organisations and institutions towards achieving a desired state of social-ecological systems ( [[#Chaffin--2014|Chaffin et al., 2014]] ). It requires a structure of nested institutions, diversity at different levels, connected by formal and informal social networks ( [[#Dietz--2003|Dietz et al., 2003]] ). As [[#Brunner--2010|Brunner and Lynch (2010)]] observe, the emergence of community-based initiatives in addressing climate change marks the emergence of adaptive governance.

<div id="8.6.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="the-waterenergyfoodnexus-approach"></span>
==== 8.6.2.2 The Water–Energy–Food–Nexus Approach ====

<div id="h3-35-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Increasing demands for water, energy, food and materials are putting pressure on resource supply, and hence the nexus approach can inform transition pathways for interlinked resource systems ( [[#Johnson--2019|Johnson et al., 2019]] ). The nexus approach, especially the water–energy–food nexus, is used to examine synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation ( [[#Howells--2014|Howells and Rogner, 2014]] ). As reviewed by [[#Wiegleb--2018|Wiegleb and Bruns (2018)]] , early use of the concept was by the World Economic Forum in 2008 where it was emphasised that issues of economic growth need to be considered within water, energy and food resource systems. This was later published as ''Water Security: The Water–Food–Energy–Climate Nexus'' . Another key activity was the Bonn2011 Nexus conference. Then, in 2015, The Nexus Dialogue Programme was held by the UN and EU Commissions as an approach to implement the SDGs. UN Water underscores the water–energy–food nexus as central to development ( [[#Newell--2019|Newell et al., 2019]] ). It notes that demand for water, food and energy are rising due to a growing population, rapid urbanisation, changing diets and economic growth, and in most cases, the lack of knowledge on the water–energy–food nexus has often led to mismatches in prioritisation and decision making which hinders sustainable development ( [[#Mitra--2020|Mitra et al., 2020]] ). However, the benefits of nexus approach are not always easily quantified and often accrue to local communities over time ( [[#Amjath-Babu--2019|Amjath-Babu et al., 2019]] ).

A well-coordinated and integrated nexus approach offers opportunities to build resilient systems while harmonising interventions, mitigating trade-offs and hence improving sustainability ( [[#Biggs--2015|Biggs et al., 2015]] ). This can be achieved through greater resource mobilisation and coordination, policy convergence across sectors and targeting nexus points in the broader landscape ( [[#Mpandeli--2018|Mpandeli et al., 2018]] ). Studies utilising the nexus approach to climate change in different places show considerably different results. In the southern African region, climate change is already affecting water–energy–food resources and exerting further pressure on already scarce resources. It is proposed that adaptation can be achieved through cross-sectoral management of resources, by adopting water management practices, aiming to produce more food and energy with less water resources and adopting cleaner and renewable sources of energy. This will result in saving water and ensuring energy security in a region that depends on hydro and coal energy sources ( [[#Mpandeli--2018|Mpandeli et al., 2018]] ). Applying the nexus approach to the Hindu Kush Himalayan region identified three challenges: increasing population and declining agricultural land, stagnating or declining food production and increasingly water- and energy-intensive food production despite water and energy scarcity ( [[#Rasul--2016|Rasul and Sharma, 2016]] ). Nexus smart adaptation policies need to be complemented with system-wide adaptation, policy coherence and sectoral coordination that targets poverty and vulnerability linkages ( [[#Rasul--2016|Rasul and Sharma, 2016]] ).

<div id="8.6.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="community-based-approach"></span>
==== 8.6.2.3 Community-based Approach ====

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

Another important strategy to better determine impacts of adaptation and mitigation and to promote inclusivity, transparency and accountability is the community-based approach. This approach also supports adaptation and mitigation indirectly through the strengthening of capacity and social capital. For example, in Bangkalan, Indonesia, the presence of high social capacity and readily available free agricultural inputs are two decisive factors for effective climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as for enhancing community livelihood ( [[#Sunkar--2018|Sunkar and Santosa, 2018]] ). The calls to consider Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous People to support integrated strategies in adaptation and mitigation are increasing ( [[#Ford--2016|Ford et al., 2016]] ; [[#Altieri--2017|Altieri and Nicholls, 2017]] ; [[#Brugnach--2017|Brugnach et al., 2017]] ). Detailed knowledge of local socio-ecological contexts may offer transformational processes to harness synergies ( [[#Thornton--2017|Thornton and Comberti, 2017]] ). A study in the Ukraine on cooperatives shows that it offers a well-established livelihood strategy and means to support agriculture smallholders. Moreover, social capital fulfils key roles in the process of capacity building and implementation of sustainable measures ( [[#Kopytko--2018|Kopytko, 2018]] ). In Indonesia, a well-known programme focusing on community-led adaptation and mitigation activities is Proklim. It empowers communities to learn about climate change impacts, record data and plan actions for climate change (Muttaqin and Yulianti, 2019). Multi-stakeholder, participatory planning processes are beneficial to help farmers to screen and prioritise rural livelihood strategies in Indonesia. The necessity of CRD is reflected in standard development interventions: water management, intensification and diversification of agriculture and aquaculture, education, health, food security and skill building for farmers ( [[#Wise--2016|Wise et al., 2016]] ).

<div id="8.6.3." class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="future-adaptation-finance-and-social-and-economic-changes-within-the-context-of-poverty-livelihoods-equity-equality-and-justice"></span>