Editing IPCC:AR6/SROCC/Chapter-5 (section)

==== 5.5.2.3 Ocean-based Climate Change Adaptation Frameworks ====

<div id="section-5-5-2-3ocean-based-climate-change-adaptation-frameworks-block-1"></div>

Adaptation action in pursuit of a climate resilient development pathway is likely to have a deeper transformative outcome than stepwise or ad hoc responses (Cross-Chapter Box 2 in Chapter 1). Recent literature highlighting the effectiveness of components of adaptation planning includes quantitative assessments of vulnerability in ecosystems (Kuhfuss et al., 2016), species (Cheung et al., 2015; Cushing et al., 2018), and communities (Islam et al., 2013; Himes-Cornell and Kasperski, 2015b), and integrated assessments of all of the above (Peirson et al., 2015; Kaplan-Hallam et al., 2017; McNeeley et al., 2017; Ramm et al., 2017; Mavromatidi et al., 2018). Seasonal and decadal forecasting tools have improved rapidly since AR5, especially in supporting management of living marine resources (Payne et al., 2017) and modelling to support decision making processes (Čerkasova et al., 2016; Chapman and Darby, 2016; Jiang et al., 2016; Justic et al., 2016; Joyce et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2017). Decision making processes are supported by economic evaluations (Bujosa et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2015), evaluations of ecosystem services (MacDonald et al., 2017; Micallef et al., 2018), participatory processes (Byrne et al., 2015) and social learning outcomes, the development of adaptation pathways, frameworks and decision making (Buurman and Babovic, 2016; Dittrich et al., 2016; Michailidou et al., 2016a; Osorio-Cano et al., 2017; Cumiskey et al., 2018), and indicators to support evaluation of adaptation actions (Carapuço et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2016) through monitoring frameworks (Huxham et al., 2015). Climate change adaptation responses are more effective when developed within institutional frameworks that include effective planning and cross-sector integration.

Evidence-based decision making for climate adaptation is strongly supported in the literature (Endo et al., 2017; Thorne et al., 2017) through better understanding of coastal ecosystems and human adaptation responses (Dutra et al., 2015; Cvitanovic et al., 2016), as well as consideration of non-climate change related factors. Relevant research includes the topics of: multiple-stakeholder participatory planning (Archer et al., 2014; Abedin and Shaw, 2015); trans-boundary ocean management (Gormley et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2016); ecosystem-based adaptation (Hobday et al., 2015; Dalyander et al., 2016; McNeeley et al., 2017; Osorio-Cano et al., 2017); and community-based adaptation with socioeconomic outcomes (Merkens et al., 2016). Research on applying ‘big data’ and high end computational capabilities could also help develop a comprehensive understanding of climate and non-climate variables in planning for coastal adaptation (Rumson et al., 2017). New knowledge from these research areas could substantially improve planning, implementation and monitoring of climate adaptation responses for marine systems, if research processes are participatory and inclusive ( ''medium confidence'' ).

Despite such interest, evaluations of the planning, implementation and monitoring of adaptation actions remain scarce (Miller et al., 2017). In a global analysis of 401 local governments, only 15% reported on adaptation actions (mostly large cities in high income countries), and 18% reported on planning towards adaptation policy (Araos et al., 2016). Thus, integrated adaptation planning with non-climate change related impacts remains an under-achieved ambition, especially in developing countries (Finkbeiner et al., 2018). Challenges reported for adaptation planning include uncoordinated, top-down approaches, a lack of political will, insufficient resources (Elias and Omojola, 2015; Porter et al., 2015), and access to information (Thorne et al., 2017).

Characteristics of successful adaptation frameworks include: a robust but flexible approach, accounting for deep uncertainty through well-coordinated participatory processes (Dutra et al., 2015; Jiao et al., 2015; Buurman and Babovic, 2016; Dittrich et al., 2016); well-developed monitoring systems (Barrett et al., 2015; Bell et al., 2018b); and taking a whole systems approach (Sheaves et al., 2016), with the identification of co-benefits for human development and the environment (Wise et al., 2016). The coastal adaptation framework literature is dominated by Australian, North American and European cities, with fewer studies from African and Caribbean sites, least developed countries and SIDS (Kuruppu and Willie, 2015; Torresan et al., 2016).

In contrast with the many examples of proposed frameworks for climate resilient coastal adaptation, few studies have assessed their success, possibly due to the time-lag between implementation, monitoring, evaluation and reporting. Nevertheless, there is substantial support for ‘no regrets’ approaches addressing both proximate and systematic underlying drivers of vulnerability (Sánchez-Arcilla et al., 2016; Pentz and Klenk, 2017; Zandvoort et al., 2017) with leadership, adaptive management, capacity and the monitoring and evaluation of actions considered useful in governance responses (Dutra et al., 2015; Doherty et al., 2016). More extensive learning processes could help build decision makers’ capacity to tackle systemic drivers, guide pursuance climate change appropriate policies (Barange et al. 2018) and to scrutinise potentially maladaptive infrastructural investments (Wise et al., 2016). More effective coordination across a range of stakeholders, within and between organisations, especially in developing countries, would strengthen the global coastal adaptation response ( ''medium confidence'' ).

<div id="section-5-5-2-4the-role-of-education-and-local-knowledge-in-adapting-to-climate-change"></div>

<span id="the-role-of-education-and-local-knowledge-in-adapting-to-climate-change."></span>