Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

=== FAQ 17.5 | How do we know whether adaptation is successful? ===

<div id="h2-31-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Adaptation aims to reduce exposure and vulnerability to climate change by responding to dynamic and multi-scalar combinations of climatic risks. What might be seen as successful at one scale or at one point in time might not be at another, particularly if climate risks continue to rise. Moreover, the benefits of adaptation interventions may not reach all intended beneficiaries or everyone affected by climate impact and risk, causing different people to have different views on how successful adaptation has been.

There is, therefore, no universal way to measure adaptation success, but there is ''high agreement'' that success is associated with a reduction of climate risks and vulnerabilities (for humans and ecosystems) and an equitable balancing of synergies and trade-offs across diverse objectives, perspectives, expectations and values. Adaptation that is successful is also commonly expected to be inclusive of different socioeconomic groups, especially the most vulnerable, and to be based on flexible and integrative planning processes that take into account different climate scenarios.

Conceptually, the opposite of successful adaptation is maladaptation, that is, when adaptation responses produce unintended negative side effects such as exacerbating or shifting vulnerability, increasing risk for certain people or ecosystems, or increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Among the adaptation options assessed in this report (Figure FAQ17.5.1), physical infrastructure along coasts (e.g., sea walls) has the highest risk for maladaptation over time through negative side effects on ecosystem functioning and coastal livelihood opportunities. However, such adaptations may appear valuable in the short and even longer term for already densely populated urban coasts, demonstrating that an adaptation can be differently judged based on the context it is implemented in (Figure FAQ17.5.1). Many other adaptation options have a larger potential to contribute to successful adaptation (Figure FAQ17.5.1), such as nature restoration, providing social safety nets and changing diets/minimising food waste.

Assessments of adaptation need to be transparent about how they are measuring success. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&amp;E) can be used to track progress and evaluate success and to identify if course corrections during adaptation implementation are needed to achieve the envisaged objectives. Given the diversity of adaptation actions and contexts, no one-size-fits-all approach to M&amp;E and no common reference metrics for adaptation exist. To date, assessments of progress of adaptation have often focused on processes and outputs (i.e., actions taken, such as adaptation plans adopted) that are easier to measure than the effects of these actions in terms of long-term reduction of risks and vulnerabilities. However, knowledge about the outcomes in terms of reducing climate risk, impact and vulnerability is critically required to know if adaptation has been successful.

Tracking progress, in particular outcomes and impacts of adaptation, involves a number of challenges. First, to determine progress over time, risk and vulnerability assessments need to be repeated at least once after starting an adaptation process. This is rarely done, as it demands resources that are usually not factored into the adaptation response. Second, attributing changes in climate risks and vulnerabilities to the adaptation response is often difficult due to other influencing factors, such as socioeconomic development over time. Expected causal relationships between responses and their outcomes should already be outlined during the adaptation planning phase, for example by mapping the way from activities to outcomes, and they should be monitored during implementation. Third, as adaptation can occur in multiple forms and target multiple temporal and spatial scales, the engagement of a diversity of stakeholders is vital to understanding how responses enable adaptation and adaptation success across vulnerable groups. Although stakeholder engagement can be time intensive and costly, in particular when reaching out to populations that are usually not part of policy and planning processes, it can support evaluating co-benefits and trade-offs of adaptation responses. Consideration and analysis of co-benefits and trade-offs along with a focus on short, medium and long time horizons of adaptation goals, which is usually possible through flexible and strong institutions, facilitate successful adaptation and reduce the likelihood of maladaptation.

[[File:8d4a8c6aeb7ea3387c356e6d85a03c2d IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_17_FAQ_17_5_1.png]]

'''Figure FAQ17.5.1 |''' '''Contribution of adaptation options to potentially successful adaptation and to the risk of maladaptation.''' Note: A similar figure is part of [[#17.5.1|Section 17.5.1]] .

Box FAQ 17.5

<div id="references" class="h1-container"></div>