Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.4.2.1 Development Pathways can Build Greater Capacity for Both Adaptation and Mitigation ====

<div id="h3-48-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Previous IPCC assessments have reflected on making development more sustainable (IPCC et al. 2001; [[#Sathaye--2007|Sathaye et al. 2007]] ; Fleurbaey et al. 2014). Other assessments have highlighted how ecosystem functions can support sustainable development and are critical to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement ( [[#IPBES--2019b|IPBES 2019b]] ). IPCC SR1.5 found that sustainable development pathways to 1.5°C broadly support and often enable transformations and that ‘sustainable development has the potential to significantly reduce systemic vulnerability, enhance adaptive capacity, and promote livelihood security for poor and disadvantaged populations ( ''high confidence'' )’ ( [[#IPCC--2018b|IPCC 2018b]] : [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.3.1|Section 5.3.1]] ). With careful management, shifting development pathways can build greater adaptive and mitigative capacity, as further confirmed in recent literature ( [[#Schramski--2018|Schramski et al. 2018]] ; [[#Harvey--2014|Harvey et al. 2014]] ; [[#Ebi--2014|Ebi et al. 2014]] ; [[#Rosenbloom--2018|Rosenbloom et al. 2018]] ; Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015; [[#Singh--2018|Singh 2018]] ; [[#IPBES--2019b|IPBES 2019b]] ). The literature points to the challenge of design of specific policies and shifts in development pathways to achieve both mitigation and adaptation goals.

<div id="Governance and institutional capacity" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="governance-and-institutional-capacity-1"></span>
===== Governance and institutional capacity =====

<div id="h4-4-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Governance and institutional capacity necessary for mitigation actions also enables effective adaptation actions. Implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions can, however, encounter different sets of challenges. Mitigation actions requiring a shift away from established sectors and resources (e.g., fossil fuels) entail governance challenges to overcome vested interests ( [[#Piggot--2020|Piggot et al. 2020]] ; [[#SEI--2020|SEI et al. 2020]] ). Mitigation-focused initiatives from non-state actors tend to attain greater completion than adaptation-focused initiatives ( [[#NewClimate%20Institute--2019|NewClimate Institute et al. 2019]] ).

<div id="Behaviour and lifestyles" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="behaviour-and-lifestyles"></span>
===== Behaviour and lifestyles =====

<div id="h4-5-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

On the level of individual entities, adaptation is reactive to current or anticipated environmental changes but mitigation is undertaken deliberately. [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5|Chapter 5]] considers behavioural change, including the reconsideration of values and what is meant by well-being, and reflecting on a range of actors addressing both adaptation and mitigation. Shifting development pathways may be disruptive (Cross-Chapter Box 5), and there may be limits to propensity to change. Some studies report that climate change deniers and sceptics can be induced to undertake pro-environmental action if those actions are framed in terms of societal welfare, not climate change (Bain et al. 2012; [[#Hornsey--2016|Hornsey et al. 2016]] ). Concrete initiatives to change behaviour and lifestyles include the Transition Town movement, which seeks to implement a just transition – both in relation to adaptation and mitigation – in specific localities ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al. 2018]] ).

<div id="Finance" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="finance"></span>
===== Finance =====

<div id="h4-6-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Finance and investment of mitigation actions must be examined in conjunction with funding of adaptation actions, due to biophysical linkages and policy trade-offs (Box 15.1). Most climate funding supports mitigation efforts, not adaptation efforts ( [[#Buchner--2019|Buchner et al. 2019]] ) ( [[#Halimanjaya--2012|Halimanjaya and Papyrakis 2012]] ). Mitigation projects are often more attractive to private capital (Abadie et al. 2013; [[#Buchner--2019|Buchner et al. 2019]] ). Efforts to integrate adaptation and mitigation in climate change finance are limited ( [[#Kongsager--2016|Kongsager et al. 2016]] ; [[#Locatelli--2016|Locatelli et al. 2016]] ) There is a perception that integration of mitigation and adaptation projects would lead to competition for limited finance available for adaptation ( [[#Locatelli--2016|Locatelli et al. 2016]] ). Long-standing debates ( [[#Ayers,%C2%A0J.M.%20and%C2%A0S.%20Huq--2009|Ayers and Huq 2009]] ; [[#Smith--2011|Smith et al. 2011]] ) whether development finance counts as adaptation funding remain unresolved. See [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-15|Chapter 15]] for more in-depth discussion relating investment in funding mitigation and adaptation actions.

<div id="Innovation and technologies" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="innovation-and-technologies"></span>
===== Innovation and technologies =====

<div id="h4-7-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Systems transitions that address both adaptation and mitigation include the widespread adoption of new and possibly disruptive technologies and practices and enhanced climate-driven innovation ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC 2018a]] ). See [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-16|Chapter 16]] for an in-depth discussion of innovation and technology transfer. The literature points to trade-offs that developing countries face in investing limited resources in research and development, though finding synergies in relation to agriculture (Adenle et al. 2015). Other studies point to difference in technology transfers for adaptation and mitigation (Biagini et al. 2014). Adaptation projects tend to use existing technologies whereas mitigation climate actions are more likely to rely on novel technologies. Innovations for mitigation are typically technology transfers from developed to less-developed countries (Biagini et al. 2014), however this so-called North-South technology transfer pathway is not exclusive (Biagini et al. 2014), and is increasingly challenged by China’s global role in implementing mitigation actions ( [[#Chen--2018|Chen 2018]] ; [[#Urban--2018|Urban 2018]] ). Indigenous knowledge can be a unique source for techniques for adaptation ( [[#Nyong--2007|Nyong et al. 2007]] ) and may be favoured over externally generated knowledge ( [[#Tume--2019|Tume et al. 2019]] ).

<div id="Policy" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="policy"></span>
===== Policy =====

<div id="h4-8-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Adaptation-focused pathways might reduce inequality, if adequate support is available and well-distributed ( [[#Pelling--2019|Pelling and Garschagen 2019]] ). Some studies suggest that cities might plan for possible synergies in adaptation and mitigation strategies, currently done independently ( [[#Grafakos--2019|Grafakos et al. 2019]] ). The literature suggests that cities might identify both mitigation and adaptation as co-benefits of interventions targeted at developmental goals ( [[#Dulal--2017|Dulal 2017]] ).

<div id="4.4.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="specific-links-between-mitigation-and-adaptation"></span>