Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

==== 6.4.2.2 Output-Driven Institutional Change ====

<div id="h3-44-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Output-driven institutional change is shaped by organisational products such as strategies, plans, policies and evaluative metrics ( [[#Patterson--2019|Patterson and Huitema, 2019]] ; [[#Bellinson--2019|Bellinson and Chu, 2019]] ) (See Table 6.8). There are numerous examples of institutional change through planning outcomes. For example, Manizales, Colombia has included climate adaptation into long-established environmental policy (Biomanizales) and a local environmental action plan (Bioplan), which follows on from a long coherent trajectory of climate change policy (Hardoy and Velásquez Barrero, 2014). A significant number of North American cities have integrated adaptation into long-range plans, while fewer cities integrate adaptation in sustainable development plans or sectoral plans ( [[#Aylett--2015|Aylett, 2015]] ). Canadian cities are more likely to have a plan specifically focused on adaptation rather than having adaptation integrated into municipal long-range planning ( [[#Aylett--2015|Aylett, 2015]] ). In the European Union, adaptation plans depended on national climate legislation or, in fewer cases, the influence of an international climate network (Reckien et al., 2018b). A comparative report from the Covenant of Mayors, however, suggests that the adaptation pillar needs development to demonstrate the effectiveness of adaptation responses and their integration with mitigation goals (Bertoldi et al., 2020). Municipalities in Sweden have been called ‘pre-reactive’ because adequate strategic guidelines are in place to frame the accessibility, aesthetics and adaptability of waterfront developments ( [[#Storbjörk--2015|Storbjörk and Uggla, 2015]] ). Some Asian cities also report high output effectiveness, where they are more likely to indicate senior local government officials’ performance management contracts, the budgeting procedures of local government agencies and the procedures that local government agencies use for budgeting infrastructure spending ( [[#Aylett--2015|Aylett, 2015]] ). Despite this evidence, there is a gap in understanding the general trends of planning and institutional change in Africa, Asia, East Europe and the Middle East.

Institutional change processes are complex, contested and sporadic (Patterson, de Voogt and Sapiains, 2019). Such processes are often inhibited by unclear planning mandates, conflicting development priorities, lack of leadership and resource and capacity shortfalls (Anguelovski et al. 2014). There is no one size fits all approach to institutional change, which works ''in situ'' , and benefits from clearly defined plans and an incremental approach to revising new elements and addressing gaps or failures ( [[#Beunen--2017|Beunen et al., 2017]] ). A longitudinal view of institutional change allows for assessing actors and dynamics involved in integrating adaptation into the sectoral agendas or governance arrangements mentioned above ( [[#Patterson--2019|Patterson and Huitema, 2019]] ).

'''Table 6.8 |''' Examples of institutional and policy instruments to enable adaptation

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Objective

! Type of instrument

! Description

! Examples

! Assessment

|-
| rowspan="4"| Policy

| Information instruments

| A diverse range of activities such as training, research and development, and awareness campaigns to produce and share information

| Urban-LEDS II Capacity Building Workshop for cities in Laos arranged for local government by ICLEI Southeast Asia Secretariat and UN-Habitat (UN-Habitat, 2019)

| Information instruments tend to be low-cost and low-risk options, but their impact is unpredictable and the effects may be uneven ( [[#Henstra--2016|Henstra, 2016]] ). In the example of the workshops in Laos (UN-Habitat, 2019), the result was to map vulnerable sectors and build capacity for mainstreaming

|-
| Voluntary instruments

| Practices such as codes, labelling, management standards or audits, voluntarily, that can provide incentives for adaptation

| Singapore’s National Water Agency’s Voluntary Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (Voluntary WELS) ( [[#Tortajada--2013|Tortajada and Joshi, 2013]] )

| A problem with voluntary instruments is that implementation varies. Uptake is likely to be more common among organisations self-identifying as ‘champions’ and less effective among other actors to bring about far-reaching change (Haug et al., 2010)

|-
| Economic instruments

| Taxes or subsidies can be used to promote adaptive activities

| US Office for Coastal Management NOAA Coastal Resilience Grants Program ( [[#NOOA--2019|NOOA, 2019]] )

| Economic incentives can be effective as they ‘engage local stakeholders and provide price signals that stimulate individual adaptation’ ( [[#Filatova--2014|Filatova, 2014]] ). However, uptake of incentives may be low (Sadink, 2013; [[#Henstra--2016|Henstra, 2016]] ) and resource intensiveness and potential regressive effects (equity impacts) must be considered ( [[#Henstra--2016|Henstra, 2016]] )

|-
| Regulatory instruments

| These include a range of mandatory requirements through controls, bans, quotas, licensing, standards often applied when a specific outcome is required

| Building codes to enhance structural stability for storm resilience in Moore, Oklahoma (US) (Ramseyer, Holliday and Floyd, 2016)

| Regulatory instruments can be effective in changing and institutionalising adaptation behaviours (Nilsson, Gerger Swartling and Eckerberg, 2012; [[#Henstra--2016|Henstra, 2016]] ), but outcomes depend on the strength of implementation (e.g., monitoring, transparency, mechanisms for accountability)

|-
| rowspan="3"| Process

| Visioning

| Events that bring together different stakeholders to produce a city vision

| Rotterdam Resilient City participatory processes to create resilience strategies (Resilient Rotterdam, 2016)

| There may be challenges in translating complex climate science into understandable and meaningful forms (Sheppard et al., 2011) and creating inclusive processes that allow for co-creation of visions, for example, by involving new digital platforms ( [[#Baibarac--2019|Baibarac and Petrescu, 2019]] )

|-
| Baseline studies

| Focus on understanding the current conditions in a neighbourhood or city from an interdisciplinary perspective

| ''Flood Risks, Climate''

''Change Impacts''

''and Adaptation Benefits''

''in Mumbai,'' an OECD assessment study (Hallegatte, Ranger and Bhattacharya, 2010)

| Baseline studies can be mobilised to track the progress of adaptation actions in multiple sectors over time. In the example of the study in Mumbai (Hallegatte, Ranger and Bhattacharya, 2010), the analysis includes different climate scenarios and quantification of how adaptation could reduce economic loss

|-
| Development priorities

| Specific methods to ensure an open definition of multiple priorities and contrasting values that will inform the planning process

| Participatory housing upgrading through the Baan Mankong Program in Bangkok (Thailand) (Berquist, Daniere and Drummond, 2015)

| Participatory planning can help navigate which action to take to build resilience and, at the same time address prioritised social concerns (Cloutier et al., 2015). As with all participatory processes, issues of recognition, access/inclusion and potential capture of the process by actors in power must be considered

|-
| rowspan="4"| Planning

| Profiles

| Develop a common understanding of how different sectors interact with adaptation and the governance capacity

| New York City Panel on Climate Change 2019 Report (Nycpcc, 2019)

| As with baseline studies, the development of profiles can inform plans for adaptation action, which considers social priorities and synergies across various sectors. Multiple forms of knowledge should be considered in the development of profiles (Codjoe, Owusu and Burkett, 2014)

|-
| Risk assessment

| This includes a range of instruments to evaluate the impact of risk

| Climate risk assessment for Buenos Aires, conducted by the World Bank (Mehrota et al., 2009)

| Risk assessments can be a useful starting point for adaptation. However, assessments do not directly prescribe adaptation options but must be seen as the basis for debate (Yuen, Jovicich and Preston, 2013). A common challenge is a lack of data at the city level (Maragno, Dalla Fontana and Musco, 2020; Cloutier et al., 2015)

|-
| Impact assessment tools

| Tools such as strategic impact assessments or sustainability assessments provide a means to assess the impact of specific policies and programmes concerning adaptive capacity

| Economic Impact Assessment

of Climate Change in Key

Sectors in Nepal ( [[#Government%20of%20Nepal--2014|Government of Nepal, 2014]] )

| Embedding climate risks into impact assessment tools (either mandatory or voluntary) builds resilience by integrating climate objectives into plans and specific projects ( [[#Richardson--2012|Richardson and Otero, 2012]] ), and they are seen as a legitimate tool in many contexts ( [[#Runhaar--2016|Runhaar, 2016]] )

|-
| Monitoring systems and indicators

| Systems to take measurements at regular intervals to specify progress against objectives and revise the planning process

| Climate Change Adaptation Indicators for London ( [[#London%20climate%20change%20partnership--2018|London climate change partnership, 2018]] )

| Monitoring systems are essential to make sure that formal objectives are met. However, many urban climate adaptations do not have monitoring and evaluation components ( [[#Woodruff--2016|Woodruff and Stults, 2016]] ) and there is no standard set of indicators to monitor adaptation or resilience (Brown, Shaker and Das, 2018; [[#Ford--2016|Ford and Berrang-Ford, 2016]] )

|-
| Management

| Budgets and audits

| Methods for the periodic revision of adaptation plans and policies

| Helsinki metropolitan area climate change adaptation monitoring strategy ( [[#HSY--2018|HSY, 2018]] )

| As with monitoring, budgets and audits can be incorporated into the adaptation planning process to ensure reflexivity and accountability. Low levels of implementation and monitoring of adaptation plans suggest that the uptake may be low (although the evidence is limited)

|}

<div id="6.4.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="solution-spaces-to-address-the-policy-action-gap"></span>