Ipcc Ar6 Wgii Annex-I

Annexes
2809
SPM
AI Global to Regional Atlas
Coordinating Editors: Hans-Otto Pörtner (Germany), Andrés Alegría (Germany/Honduras)
Editorial Team: Vincent Möller (Germany), Elvira S. Poloczanska (UK/Australia), Katja Mintenbeck
(Germany), Sandra Götze (Germany)
AR6 WGII Chapter Representatives: Aditi Mukherji (Chapter 4), Carolina Adler (Chapter
17/CCP5), Christopher H. Trisos (Chapter 9), Christopher Lennard (Chapter 9), David S. Gutzler
(Chapter 14), David Wrathall (Chapter 8), Delphine Deryng (Chapter 5), Donovan Campbell
(Chapter 15), Elham Ali (Chapter 4), Gerald Nelson (Chapter 5), Guéladio Cissé (Chapter 7),
Jamon Van Den Hoek (Chapter 8), Jeff Price (Chapter 2/CCP1), Joanna McMillan (Chapter 8),
Joern Birkmann (Chapter 8), John Pinnegar (Chapter 15), Kevin Hennessy (Chapter 11), Kirstin
Holsman (Chapter 14/CCP6), Laura Ramajo Gallardo (Chapter 12), Laurent Bopp (Chapter 3),
Lea Berrang Ford (Chapter 16), M. Silvia Muylaert de Araujo (Chapter 18), Marie-Fanny Racault
(Chapter 3), Marjolijn Hassnoot (Chapter 13), Mark Costello (Chapter 11/CCP1) Mark Pelling
(Chapter 6), Nicholas P. Simpson (Chapter 9), Nicola Stevens (Chapter 2/CCP4), Piero Lionello
(Chapter 13/CCP4), Rebecca Harris (Chapter 2/CCP3), Richard Dawson (Chapter 6/CCP2), Tabea
Katharina Lissner (Chapter 4), Timon McPhearson (Chapter 6), Valeria Moreno Rudloff (CCP5)
Veruska Muccione (Chapter 13), Winston Chow (Chapter 6/CCP2), Wolfgang Cramer (Chapter
1/CCP4), Wolfgang Kiessling (Chapter 3/CCP1), Yukiko Hirabayashi (Chapter 4), Zelina Zaiton
Ibrahim (Chapter 16)
This annex should be cited as:

IPCC, 2022: Annex I: Global to Regional Atlas [Pörtner, H.-O., A. Alegría, V. Möller, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck,
S. Götze (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor,
E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2811–2896, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.028.
2811
Annex I Global to Regional Atlas
AI.1 Introduction AI.1.1 Risk Framework
The WGII Global to Regional Atlas integrates and expands on the The Atlas includes mapping of the different components of risk. Risk
key messages in WGII chapters and cross-chapter papers to provide in this report is defined as the potential for adverse consequences
summaries of vulnerability, impacts, exposure, adaptation and risk for human or ecological systems, recognising the diversity of values
complementing the narrative in the Summary for Policymakers. Where and objectives associated with such systems. In the context of climate
AI useful for a more complete storyline, complementary maps and figures change impacts, risks result from dynamic interactions between
from the three AR6 Special Reports are included. Figures are grouped climate-related hazards with the exposure and vulnerability of the
in topical clusters: (1) Biodiversity, Biogeography, Habitability, Health, affected human or ecological system. In the context of climate change
(a) Wild Species, (b) Humans, (c) Livestock and Crop Production, (d) responses, risks result from the potential for such responses not
Fish Stocks and Fisheries (Section AI.2.1); (2) Water-Related Challenges achieving the intended objective(s), or from potential trade-offs or
for Cities, Settlements and Key Infrastructure, (a) Drought, (b) Flooding negative side effects (Annex II: Glossary). Risk management is defined
(Section AI.2.2); (3) Global to Regional Risks (including economic), as plans, actions, strategies or policies to reduce the likelihood and/or
and Adaptive Capacities (Section AI.2.3); and (4) From Adaptation to magnitude of adverse potential consequences, based on assessed or
Climate Resilient Development (Section AI.2.4). Within each topical perceived risks (Annex II: Glossary). {1.2.1.1}
cluster, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) storyline is followed
depending on the material available, from observed impacts (and Vulnerability is a component of risk, but also an important focus
adaptation) and projected impacts and risks, adaptation and enabling independently. Vulnerability in this report is defined as the propensity
conditions to climate resilient development. or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a
variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility
The Atlas provides visual support to key findings of the Assessment to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt (Annex II: Glossary).
Report, allowing a broader display of material and case studies. The Over the past several decades, approaches to analysing and assessing
Atlas is not intended to be comprehensive. The underlying scientific vulnerability have evolved. An early emphasis on top-down, biophysical
basis for each figure/map is indicated by references to sections of the evaluation of vulnerability included—and often started with—
underlying report. These references are listed within curly brackets { exposure to climate hazards in assessing vulnerability. From this starting
and } at the end the corresponding caption texts. point, attention to bottom-up, social and contextual determinants of
vulnerability, which often differ, has emerged, although this approach
is incompletely applied or integrated across contexts (Rufat et al., 2015;
Spielman et al., 2020; Taberna et al., 2020). Vulnerability is now widely
understood to differ within communities and across societies, also
changing through time (Jurgilevich et al., 2017; Kienberger et al., 2013;
Risk in IPCC assessment through time
(a) The AR5 risk graphic (b) AR6 additions: response risk and complexity
Impacts
Climate Socioeconomic
processes
Natural variability Vulnerability Vulnerability
Socioeconomic
Anthropogenic pathways Key risks
Climate Change
Adaptation and - Representative key risk
Hazard Risk Mitigation actions Hazard Risk - Variation by warming,
develpment and
Governance adaptation scenarios
- interactions across key
risks
Exposure Exposure
Reasons for concerns
- Illustrative pathways
- Global expert judment
Emissions and land-use chance
Figure AI.1 | Risk in IPCC assessments.

(a) An explicit risk framing emerged in the IPCC SREX (IPCC, 2012) and WGII AR5 (IPCC, 2014).
(b) In the current AR6 assessment, the role of responses in modulating the determinants of risk is a new emphasis (the ‘wings’ of the hazard, vulnerability and exposure ‘propellers’
represent the ways in which responses modulate each of these risk determinants {Figure 1.5}
2812
Global to Regional Atlas Annex I
see also Chapter 16). In the WGII AR6, assessment of the vulnerability (e.g., coral reefs, tropical forests), geological (e.g., mountains) or
of people and ecosystems encompasses the differing approaches that anthropogenic (e.g., megacities) formation, and for which it is useful
exist within the literature, both critiquing and harmonising them based to consider the common climate features. Typological regions are
on available evidence. In this context, exposure is defined as the generally discontinuous (such as monsoon areas, mountains and
presence of people; livelihoods; species or ecosystems; environmental megacities) and are specifically used to integrate across similar
functions, services and resources; infrastructure; or economic, social or climatological, geological and human domains. {1.3.3}
cultural assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected AI
(Annex II: Glossary). Potentially affected places and settings can be Fourth, the IPCC-WGI reference regions have been used for the regional
defined geographically, as well as more dynamically, for example synthesis of historical trends and future climate change projections. A
through transmission or interconnections through markets or flows of recent update of these regions presented in AR6 WGI Atlas and used
people. {1.2.1.1} throughout AR6, offer an opportunity for refinement due to the higher
atmospheric model resolution (including CMIP6). The number of land
The WGII AR6 assessment focuses primarily on adverse consequences of and ocean regions is 46 and 15, respectively, representing consistent
climate change. However, climate change also has positive implications regional climate features.
(benefits and opportunities) for certain people and systems. {16.1.2}
AI.1.3 Links to Working Group I

AI.1.2 Regionalisation
The WGII Atlas links to WGI through global and regional climate
As climate change is a multi-scale phenomenon from the local to the information {WGI Chapter 12 [Ranasinghe et al., 2021], WGI Atlas
global, the assessment of climate risks and climate change impacts [Gutiérrez et al., 2021]}. Regional climate change information for
is strongly spatial, with a focus on regional climate change. The term impacts and for risk assessment draws on analysis of global and
‘regions’ is used in different ways throughout the interdisciplinary regional climatic variables that link climate conditions to sectors.
AR6 assessment as the use of the term varies across disciplines. It is
alternately used to point to a particular geography, relate physical
distance or proximity, or categorise areas based on common biological,
topographical characteristics, or elevation in relation to sea level. Its
meaning depends on context. {1.3.3}
First, there are chapters dedicated to regional assessment in AR6 WGII

(Chapters 9–15 and Cross-Chapter Paper 4), and within the content
of these and other chapters of AR6, the term region is often used to
describe continental and sub-continental regions, oceanic regions,
hemispheres, or more specific localities within these geographic areas.
Building on the continental domains defined in AR5 WGII (IPCC, 2014)
and to ensure consistency with the AR6 WGI Atlas (Gutiérrez et al.,
2021), AR6 WGII uses a Continental Set of Regions, namely Africa, Asia,
Australasia, Europe, North America, Central and South America, Small
Islands, Polar Regions and the Ocean. For AR6, the continental regions
include the land together with the coastal ocean. {1.3.3}
Second, the term regions is used to categorise areas around the globe
with common topographical characteristics or biological characteristics.
For example, Chapter 2 introduces regions in its discussion of biomes,
as in arid, grassland, savanna, tundra regions, tropical, temperate
and boreal forested regions. Chapter 3 adds reference to an area’s
orientation with bodies of water, using terms such as deltaic, coastal,
intercoastal, freshwater and salty. On top of this, Cross-Chapter 2
uses a coastal region typology based on physical geomorphology
considering elevation, coastal type and topography (see Cross-Chapter
Paper 2; Barragán and de Andrés, 2015; Haasnoot et al., 2019a; Kay
and Adler, 2017). {1.3.3}
Third, cross-chapter papers are dedicated to typological regions,

defined in the AR6 Glossary (Annex II) as regions that share one or more
specific features (known as ‘typologies’), such as geographic location
(e.g., coastal), physical processes (e.g., monsoons), and biological
2813
Physical drivers of climate change: Temperature
Observed mean temperature (°C)

Period 1995–2014
AI
<-10 0 10 20 30 >40
Projected changes (°C)
<-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 >6
Agreement
Low High
Mean temperature change at +4.0°C Global Warming

SSP5 8.5 relative to period 1995–2014
CMIP6 - Annual (20 models)


Figure AI.02 | Physical drivers of climate change: Temperature. {AR6 WGI Interactive Atlas, Gutiérrez et al., 2021}
2814
Physical drivers of climate change: Precipitation
Observed total Precipitation (mm/day)

Period 1995–2014
AI
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Projected changes (%)
<-55 -40 -20 0 20 40 >55
Agreement
Low High
Maximum 1–day precipitation change (RX1day) (%)

at +4.0°C Global Warming


Figure AI.03 | Physical drivers of climate change: Precipitation. {AR6 WGI Interactive Atlas, Gutiérrez et al., 2021}
2815
Physical drivers of climate change: Dissolved oxygen in the ocean

Oxygen concentrations affect aerobic processes, such as energy metabolism, and anaerobic microbial processes, such as denitrification.
Hence, projected decreases in dissolved oxygen concentration will impact organisms and their geographic distribution patterns in ways
that depend upon their oxygen requirements, which are highest for large, multicellular organisms.
Surface Near seabed

AI Baseline
2000–2019
RCP2.6
2090–2100
RCP8.5
2090–2100
μmol / m3
< 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Figure AI.04 | Physical drivers of climate change: Dissolved oxygen in the ocean. {Assis et al., 2017}
2816
Evidence of climate change impacts in many regions of the world

14,000
Studies driven by precipitation Studies with other drivers
Mostly attributable
12,000 Partially attributable
Not attributable
AI
10,000 Studies driven by temperature
Mostly attributable
Partially attributable
Number of publications
8,000 Not attributable
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Coastal
Human
Mountain
Rivers
Terrestrial
Other
Coastal
Human
Mountain
Rivers
Terrestrial
Other
Coastal
Human
Mountain
Rivers
Terrestrial
Other
Coastal
Human
Mountain
Rivers
Terrestrial
Other
Coastal
Human
Mountain
Rivers
Terrestrial
Other
Coastal
Human
Mountain
Rivers
Terrestrial
Other
Weighted studies per grid cell
0 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200
Figure AI.05 | Evidence of climate change impacts in many regions of the world. Global density map shows climate impact evidence, derived by machine learning from
77,785 studies. Bar charts show the number of studies per continent and impact category. Bars are coloured by the climate variable predicted to drive impacts. Colour intensity
indicates the percentage of cells a study refers to where a trend in the climate variable can be attributed (partially attributable: >0% of grid cells, mostly attributable: >50% of
grid cells). From Callaghan et al. (2021). {Figure 1.1}
2817
Projected changes in global marine species richness in 2100 compared to 2006

RCP8.5
≈+4.3°C
AI
RCP4.5
≈+2.5°C
Change in species richness

for a suite of taxonomic groups based on 12,796 marine species globally
Loss Gain
<-1,000 -250 -50 0 50 250 >1,000
Figure AI.6 | Projected changes in global marine richness in 2100 compared with 2006. Differences between current (year 2006) and projected (year 2100) species
richness for Representative Concentration Pathways RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 (García Molinos et al., 2016).
2818
AI.2 Global to Regional Maps
AI.2.1 Biodiversity, Biogeography, Habitability, Health
AI.2.1.1 Wild Species
AI
Observed changes in the distribution of plant functional types
caused by climate change or combination of land use and climate change
Plant functional
Pl f i l type changes
h Terrestrial
T i l bi
biomes
Forest cover change Tropical broadleaf forests Temperate grasslands/savannas/shrublands

Forest cover gain Tropical coniferous forests Flooded grasslands
Herbaceous cover gain Temperate broadleaf forests Montane grasslands
Shrub/woodland cover gain Temperate conifer forests Tundra
Forest/woodland decline Boreal forests Mediterranean type ecosystems
Herbaceous cover loss Tropical grasslands/savannas/shrublands Deserts and xeric shrublands
Figure AI.07 | Observed shifts in distribution of plant functional types. Observed shifts in the distribution of plant functional types over 1700–2020. Shifts in plant
functional types are indicative of shift in biome function and structure. {Box 2.1, Figure Box 2.1.1}
2819
AI
% change % change % change
2820
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Annex I
(a) Eastern Africa

(b) Middle Africa
(c) Northern Africa
Mean change
across regions
(d) Southern Africa
Shrub cover
Bare ground
live biomass
Above ground
(e) Western Africa
(f) Central Asia
(g) Eastern Asia
(h) Southern Asia
*
(i) Western Asia
(j) Australia & New Zealand
(k) Central America
k
(l) South America
n
(m) Eastern Europe
(n) North america
* Truncated bar reaches 82%
l
Changes in 2050 under RCP8.5 relative to 1971–2000
(a) Eastern Africa

(b) Middle Africa
Annual
(c) Northern Africa
Tree cover
net primary
(d) Southern Africa
productivity
live biomass
Below ground
(e) Western Africa
e
(f) Central Asia
c
(g) Eastern Asia
b
Projected responses of rangeland plants to CO2 fertilization
(h) Southern Asia
d
(i) Western Asia
i
a
(k) Central America
f
(l) South America
h
(m) Eastern Europe
m
(n) North america
g
(a) Eastern Africa
(b) Middle Africa
(c) Northern Africa
plant responses to CO2 fertilization. Regions as defined by the United Nations Statistics Division. (Boone et al., 2018) {5.5.3; Figure 5.11}
Herb cover
Soil carbon
net primary
(d) Southern Africa

productivity
Herbaceous
(e) Western Africa
j
(f) Central Asia
(g) Eastern Asia
(h) Southern Asia
(i) Western Asia
(k) Central America
(l) South America
(m) Eastern Europe
(n) North america
Figure AI.08 | Projected responses of rangeland plants to CO2 fertilization. Regional percent changes in land cover and soil carbon from ensemble simulation results and
Global to Regional Atlas
People living in land area of high conservation importance

These are a priority areas for nature conservation because they contain a high number of (endemic) species that occur nowhere else.
Freshwater
Terrestrial
Both
Other AI
= 10 million people in 2015
2,037 million people occupy 1,313 million people occupy
55 33
million km2 of highly important million km2 of highly important
terrestrial ecosystems freshwater ecosystems
21terrestrial
million km of overlapping
2
and freshwater
ecosystems
3,989 million more people occupy the remaining 147 million km2 of land
Figure AI.09 | People living in land area of high conservation importance. {CCP1.2.1.3, Figures CCP1.1, CCP1.2}
2821
Present and Present habitat loss

at +1.09°C global warming level
projected
habitat losses
of climatically suitable
space across areas of
AI high importance for
biodiversity conservation
Projected habitat loss

at +1.5 °C global warming level
Very high loss
High loss
Medium loss
Low loss
Projected habitat loss
at +2.0 °C global warming level
Very low loss
143 areas Projected habitat loss

of high importance at +3.0 °C global warming level
for terrestrial
biodiversity conservation
cover approx. 54,380,000 km2
50 km2
4,000,000 km2
Other land area is approx. 180,000 km2
Figure AI.10 | Present and projected habitat losses of climatically suitable area in terrestrial biodiversity hotspots. Projected loss for present day (around 1°C
warming) and at global warming levels of 1.5°C, 2°C and 3°C. Maps (right-hand column) show the regional distribution of losses in five categories of loss (very low loss 0–20%,
low loss 20–40%, medium loss 40–60%, high loss 60–80%, very high loss 80–100%). The clusters of circles (middle column) show losses in the five categories of loss in each of
the 143 hotspot areas of high importance for terrestrial biodiversity conservation with circles scaled by area size. {CCP1, Figure CCP1.6; Table CCP1.1}
2822
Projected change in marine fish biomass

Simulated change averaged over 2090–2099, relative to 1990–1999
SSP1-2.6
AI
SSP5-8.5
Percent change
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40%
Figure AI.11 | Projected change in marine animal biomass. Simulated global biomass changes of animals. Spatial patterns of simulated change by 2090–2099 are
calculated relative to 1995–2014 for SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5. The ensemble projections of global changes in total animal biomass updated based on Tittensor et al. (2021) include
6–9 published global fisheries and marine ecosystem models from the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project (Fish-MIP, Tittensor et al., 2018, 2021), forced
with standardised outputs from two Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) Earth System Models (ESMs). {3.4.3; Figure 3.21}
2823
Projected change in marine zooplankton biomass

Simulated change by 2090–2099, relative to 1995–2014
SSP1-2.6
AI
SSP5-8.5
Percent change
Areas of
model non-agreement
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40%
Figure AI.12 | Projected change in marine zooplankton biomass. Spatial patterns of simulated change by 2090–2099 are calculated relative to 1995–2014 for SSP1-
2.6 and SSP5-8.5. The ensemble projections of global changes in zooplankton biomasses updated based on Kwiatkowski et al. (2019) include, under SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5,
respectively, a total of 9 and 10 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) Earth System Models (ESMs). Unhatched areas represent regions where at least 80% of models
agree on the sign of biomass anomaly. {3.4.3.4, Figure 3.21}
2824
Projected change in marine phytoplankton biomass

SSP1-2.6
AI
SSP5-8.5
Percent change
Areas of
model non-agreement
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40%
Figure AI.13 | Spatial patterns of simulated change in total phytoplankton biomass. Spatial patterns of simulated change by 2090–2099 are calculated relative to
1995–2014 for SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5. The ensemble projections of global changes in phytoplankton biomasses updated based on Kwiatkowski et al. (2019) include, under SSP1-
2.6 and SSP5-8.5, respectively, a total of 9 and 10 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) Earth System Models (ESMs). Unhatched areas represent regions where at
least 80% of models agree on the sign of biomass anomaly. {3.4.3.4, Figure 3.21}
2825
Projected change in marine benthic animal biomass

SSP1-2.6
AI
SSP5-8.5
Percent change
-40% -30% -20% -10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40%
Figure AI.14 | Spatial patterns of simulated change in total benthic animal biomass. Spatial patterns of simulated change by 2090–2099 are calculated relative to
1995–2014 for SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5. Globally integrated changes in total seafloor benthos biomass have been updated based on Yool et al. (2017) with one benthic model
(Kelly-Gerreyn et al., 2014) forced with the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) Earth System Models (ESMs). {3.4.3.4, Figure 3.21}
2826
Percentage of species
exposed to potentially
dangerous climate +4.0°C
conditions
AI
Percentage of
biodiversity
exposed
>80%
+3.0°C
60%
40%
20%
10%
0.5%
+2.0°C
0.1%
+1.5°C
Figure AI.15 | Projected exposure of biodiversity. Global warming levels modelled across the ranges of more than 30,000 marine and terrestrial species. Figure based on
Trisos et al. (2020). {CCP1; Figure 3.20}
2827
Projected loss of
terrestrial and freshwater
biodiversity
at different global warming levels
compared to pre-industrial period
AI Present biodiverity loss
at +4°C global warming level
Percentage of
biodiversity loss
75–100%
50–75% Projected biodiversity loss

25–50%
0–25%
Projected biodiversity loss
Projected biodiversity loss

at +1.5°C global warming level
Figure AI.16 | Projected loss of terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity compared to pre-industrial period. Change indicated by the proportion of species (modelled
n = 119,813 species globally) for which the climate is projected to become unsuitable across their current distributions. {Figure 2.6}
2828
AI.2.1.2 Livestock and Crop Production
Regional impacts to major crop yields and food production loss events
Sudden losses of production in all food Over the past 30 years, major crop yields
production systems have been increasing Observed and projected impacts from climate change
decreased by 4–10% globally due to
since 1960s. The major drivers of the to crop yield productivity
climate change (high confidence). AI
increase are climate hazards including
droughts, floods and storms.
Maize Rice Soybean Wheat
0.03 Obs.Proj. Obs.Proj. Obs.Proj. Obs.Proj.
Increasing Africa /
food production loss events
0.022 Asia
0.01 Australasia /
Central and /
0 South America
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Europe / /
North
Aquaculture Fisheries Livestock Crops /
America
Global / / /
Direction of impact Level of confidence in attribution to climate change

Observed
/ = not observed or insufficient evidence
Positive Negative Mixed Projected*
*Mid-century at RCP4.5 (~2°C Global Warming Level)
Low Medium High
Crops Fisheries
Livestock Aquaculture
Frequency
of food production loss events
Period 1961–2013
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Figure AI.17 | Regional impacts to major crop yields and food production loss events. Trends in food production shocks in different food supply sectors since 1961
(Cottrell et al., 2019). Projected impacts are for Representative Concentration Pathway RCP4.5 mid-21st century, taking into account adaptation and CO2 fertilization for crop yield
productivity. {Figure 5.3; Sections 5.5.3, 5.4.1; Figure FAQ 5.1; Figure 9.22; Sections 15.3.4, 15.3.3}
2829
Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of wheat
AI
Wheat
(Triticum
aestivum)
High Yield Constraint Score (YCS)

The YCS integrates the five stresses
depicted below which provide an
indication of where each stress is
predicted to be negatively impacting the
relative magnitude of the stress.
Soil Pests and

nutrients diseases
Ozone Heat Aridity

stress
Low
Figure AI.18 | Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of wheat. Larger map depicts the combined effect of five stresses on yield represented as
a Yield Constraint Score (YCS) on a five-category scale from low stress to high stress (Mills et al., 2018). Higher temperatures enhance not only ozone production but also ozone
uptake by plants, thus exacerbating yield loss and quality damage. Data are available at Sharps et al. (2020). All data are presented for the 1 × 1° (latitude and longitude) grid
squares where the mean production of wheat was >500 tonnes (0.0005 Tg). {5.4.1; Figure 5.4}
2830
Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of soybean
AI
Soybean
(Glycine max)

Soil Pests and

nutrients diseases
Ozone Heat Aridity

stress
Low
Figure AI.19 | Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of soybean. Larger map depicts the combined effect of five stresses on yield represented as
a Yield Constraint Score (YCS) on a five-category scale from low stress to high stress (Mills et al., 2018). Higher temperatures enhance not only ozone production but also ozone
uptake by plants, thus exacerbating yield loss and quality damage. Data are available at Sharps et al. (2020). All data are presented for the 1 × 1° (latitude and longitude) grid
squares where the mean production of soybean was >500 tonnes (0.0005 Tg). {5.4.1; Figure 5.4}
2831
Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of rice
AI
Rice
(Oryza sativa)

Soil Pests and

nutrients diseases
Ozone Heat Aridity

stress
Low
Figure AI.20 | Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of rice. Larger map depicts the combined effect of five stresses on yield represented as a Yield
Constraint Score (YCS) on a five-category scale from low stress to high stress (Mills et al., 2018). Higher temperatures enhance not only ozone production but also ozone uptake
by plants, thus exacerbating yield loss and quality damage. Data are available at Sharps et al. (2020). All data are presented for the 1 × 1° (latitude and longitude) grid squares.
{5.4.1; Figure 5.4}
2832
Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of maize
AI
Maize
(Zea mays)

Soil Pests and

nutrients diseases
Ozone Heat Aridity

stress
Low
Figure AI.21 | Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of maize. Larger map depicts the combined effect of five stress on yield represented as a Yield
Constraint Score (YCS) on a five-category scale from low stress to high stress (Mills et al., 2018). Higher temperatures enhance not only ozone production but also ozone uptake
by plants, thus exacerbating yield loss and quality damage. Data are available at Sharps et al. (2020). All data are presented for the 1 × 1° (latitude and longitude) grid squares.
{5.4.1; Figure 5.4}
2833
Projected changes in global maize production Areas where <70% of the climate-crop model
combinations agree on the sign of impact
AI
Median production changes

Period 2069–2099 under SSP5-8.5
Median production
acrosschanges
climate and crop models for
Period 2069–2099current
undergrowing
SSP5-8.5regions (>10 ha)
across climate and crop models for
current growing regions (>10 ha)
Decreasing Increasing Regions with

production production low or no production
<−40%−30% −20% −10% −5% 5% 10% 20% 30% >40%
−10
Projected changes in production relative to 1983–2013 −20

mean and interquartile ranges
−30
SSP1-2.6
Maize
(Zea mays) −40
SSP5-8.5
−50
1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Figure AI.22 | Projected changes in global maize production. Map shows median yield changes (2069–2099) under SSP5-8.5 across climate and crop models for current
growing regions (>10 ha). The time series in the lower graph is shown as relative changes to the 1983–2013 reference period under SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5. Shaded ranges
illustrate the interquartile range of all climate and crop model combinations (5 GCMs × 8 GGCMs). The solid line shows the median climate and crop model response (and a 30-year
moving average). All data are shown for the default (CO2) (Jägermeyr et al. 2021). {5.4.3.2}
2834
Projected changes in global wheat production Areas where <70% of the climate-crop model
combinations agree on the sign of impact
AI
Median production changes

Period 2069–2099 under SSP5-8.5
across climate and crop models for
current growing regions (>10 ha)
Decreasing Increasing Regions with

production production low or no production
<−40%−30% −20% −10% −5% 5% 10% 20% 30% >40%
50%
Projected changes in production relative to 1983–2013
(mean and interquartile ranges) 40%
SSP1-2.6 30%
SSP5-8.5 20%
10%
Wheat
(Triticum 0
aestivum)
1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Figure AI.23 | Projected changes in global wheat production. Map shows median yield changes (2069–2099) under SSP5-8.5 across climate and crop models for current
growing regions (>10 ha). The time series in the lower graph is shown as relative changes to the 1983–2013 reference period under SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5. Shaded ranges
illustrate the interquartile range of all climate and crop model combinations (5 GCMs × 8 GGCMs). The solid line shows the median climate and crop model response (and a 30-year
moving average). All data are shown for the default (CO2) (Jägermeyr et al. 2021). {5.4.3.2}
2835
Risks to rainfed agriculture

Observed period 1986–2015
Indicator scores
AI for rainfed
agriculture
High
Hazard and exposure

indicator score
Low
Areas with no crops Vulnerability index
Areas with no data
Data averaged over 1.5° hexagons
Drought risk index
Figure AI.24 | Rain-fed agriculture: drought risks, hazards, exposure and vulnerability indicators. Hazard and exposure indicator score, vulnerability index and
drought risk index for rain-fed agricultural systems between 1986 and 2015. Drought hazard indicator is defined as the ratio of actual crop evapotranspiration to potential crop
evapotranspiration, calculated for 24 crops. Vulnerability index is the country-scale weighted average of a total of 64 indicators including social and ecological susceptibility
indicators, and coping capacity. Risk index is calculated by multiplying hazard/exposure indicator score and vulnerability index (Meza et al., 2020). {Figure 5.5}
2836
Extreme stress for livestock

driven by temperature and humidity
Cattle
Days per year
when livestock is AI
under extreme stress
366 days Early 21st Century
SSP1-2.6
End of 21st Century
1 day
0 days
Areas with no livestock
SSP5-8.5
End of 21st Century
Figure AI.25a | Extreme stress for livestock driven by temperature and humidity. Change in the number of days per year above ‘extreme stress’ values from early
21st century (1991–2010) to end of century (2081–2100) estimated under SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5 using the Temperature Humidity Index (THI). Mapped for species current global
distribution (Gilbert et al., 2018) (grey areas, no change). (Thornton et al., 2021). {Figure 5.12}
2837

Goats
Days per year
AI when livestock is
SSP1-2.6
End of 21st Century
1 day
0 days
SSP5-8.5
End of 21st Century
Figure AI.25b | Extreme stress for livestock driven by temperature and humidity. Change in the number of days per year above ‘extreme stress’ values from early
2838

Chicken
Days per year
SSP1-2.6
End of 21st Century
1 day
0 days
SSP5-8.5
End of 21st Century
Figure AI.25c | Extreme stress for livestock driven by temperature and humidity. Change in the number of days per year above ‘extreme stress’ values from early 21st
century (1991–2010) to end of century (2081–2100) estimated under SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5 using the Temperature Humidity Index (THI). Mapped for species current global
2839

Sheep
Days per year
AI when livestock is
SSP1-2.6
End of 21st Century
1 day
0 days
SSP5-8.5
End of 21st Century
Figure AI.25d | Extreme stress for livestock driven by temperature and humidity. Change in the number of days per year above ‘extreme stress’ values from early
2840

Pigs
Days per year
SSP1-2.6
End of 21st Century
1 day
0 days
SSP5-8.5
End of 21st Century
Figure AI.25e | Extreme stress for livestock driven by temperature and humidity. Change in the number of days per year above ‘extreme stress’ values from early
2841
AI.2.1.3 Humans
Temperature and humidity-driven reduction in first-hour physical capacity for outdoor work
Lower insets and arrows point to the only locations across the globe where the first hour loss of physical work capacity* is 40% for the early
century and end century SSP1-2.6 scenario. Other locations will have large capacity losses over the course of a work day. End century impacts
will be much greater and more widespread under SSP5-8.5.
AI
Days per year when outdoor
physical work capacity is
reduced by at least 40%
366 days
SSP5-8.5 (2081–2100)
1 day
0 days
Historical (1991–2010) SSP1-2.6 (2081–2100)
* The research for the representation of lost physical work capacity was undertaken in a controlled environment. The worker was on a treadmill operating at a constant speed for
one hour in a room with controlled temperature and humidity. These conditions approximate work in a field with no wind (which would reduce heat effects) and no direct exposure
to solar radiation (which would worsen heat effects). In addition, work capacity declines as hours in the field extend beyond one hour. Research is underway to take these additional
factors into account.
Figure AI.26 | Temperature and humidity-driven reduction in physical work capacity for humans working outdoors. Projected increase in the number of days per
year where physical work capacity is less than 60% based on average daily air temperature and relative humidity. Physical work capacity is defined as the maximum physical work
output that can be reasonably expected from an individual performing moderate to heavy work in a ‘cool’ reference environment of 15°C. {Figure 5.18}
2842
Mortality risk for humans and climate change

Projections shown are independent of regions’s population density
Difference
RCP4.5 RCP8.5 RCP4.5 – RCP8.5
Period
2020–2039
AI
Period
2040–2059
Period
2080–2099
Changes in temperature-related annual mortality rates per 100,000
Additional deaths per 100,000 Avoided deaths per 100,000
>330 300 285 255 135 45 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 45 135 255 285 300 >330
Figure AI.27 | Full mortality risk and climate change. Change in full risk mortality due to increases in temperatures. Estimates come from a model accounting for both the
costs and the benefits of adaptation, and the map shows the climate model weighted mean estimate across Monte Carlo simulations conducted on 33 climate models (Carleton
et al., 2018). {Figure 9.35, Section 9.10.1}
2843
Projected geographical shift of the human temperature niche

For millennia, human populations have resided in the same narrow part of the climatic envelope available on the globe, characterized by a major
mode around ≈11°C to 15°C mean annual temperature. Maps show current and projected geographical shift of the this temperature niche.
AI
Current
Suitability
High
Low
2070 / RCP8.5
Dashed lines in the maps indicates

the 5% percentile of the probability distribution
Suitability
change
Positive
(Potential sink areas)
Difference
Neutral
Negative
(Potential source areas)
Figure AI.28 | Projected geographical shift of the human temperature niche. Geographical position of the human temperature niche projected on the current situation
and the Representative Concentration Pathway RCP8.5 projected 2070 climate. These maps represent relative human distributions (summed to unity) for the imaginary situation
that humans would be distributed over temperatures following the stylised double Gaussian model fitted to the modern data. Difference between the maps, visualising potential
source and sink areas for the coming decades if humans were to be relocated in a way that would maintain this historically stable distribution with respect to temperature. (Xu
et al., 2020) {Table 8.7; Section 8.4.5.6}
2844
Global distribution of population exposed to hyperthermia from extreme heat and humidity
Projections shown
not taking heatwaves
into account
Days per year

New York
New York Beijing
B e i ji n g
when air temperature
and humidity
Tokyo
Toky o AI
Cairo
C a ir o
conditions turn Karachi
K arachi
D e lh i
Delhi S hanghai
Shanghai
Dhaka
D haka
deadly and pose Mexico City
Mexico C i ty Mumbai
M um bai
a risk of death K o lk a ta
Kolkata
Manila
M a n i la
Historical period LLagos
agos
366 days 1991–2005
Named cities are the largest Kinshasa
K in s h a s a
15 urban areas by population
size during each time period
respectively São Paulo
São P a u lo
N eew
wY o rk
York TTokyo
okyo
i r o LLahore
C aairo a h o r e D eelhi
lh i i r o K aabul
C aairo b u l D eelhi
lh i
M eexico
x i c o C iity
ty K aarachi
ra c h i a k a S hhanghai
D hhaka anghai K aarachi
ra c h i D hhaka
aka
l k a t a M aanila
n ila N iiam
a m eeyy K hhartoum K oolkata
lk a ta
LLagos
agos M uum a i K oolkata
m bbai a r t o u m M uum m bbai
ai M aanila
n ila
LLagos
agos N aairobi
ir o b i
RCP2.6 K iinshasa
nshasa K iinshasa
nshasa
i l o n g w e D aarr eess S aalaam
LLilongw la a m
S ããoo P aaulo
u lo B llantyre
a n ty re
1 day
RCP4.5
RCP8.5
Year 2050 Year 2100
Figure AI.29 | Global population exposed to hyperthermia from extreme heat. Global distribution of population exposed to hyperthermia from extreme heat and
humidity. Maps indicate the historical and projected number of days in a year in which conditions of air temperature and humidity surpass a common threshold beyond which
conditions turned deadly and pose a risk of death (Mora et al., 2017). Largest fifteen urban areas by population size/number of citizens during 2020, 2050 and 2100 respectively,
as projected by Hoornweg and Pope (2017). {Figure 6.3; Section 6.2.3.1}
2845
Present-day global distribution of camps for refugees and internally displaced people
Background of days with temperature exceeding 35°C in 2041–2060
AI
Distribution
of 3,741 camps
registered to the United
Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) and 4,012
camps for Internally Displaced People
(IDP). Both of these are temporary
solutions, but some of the UNHCR camps
already exist for decades.
IDP UNHCR Number > 500
camps camps of camps
100
50
25
<5
<0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 > ´100

Days with temperature exceeding 35°C in 2041–2060, relative to 1850–1900
CMIP6, SSP2-8.5
Figure AI.30 | Present day global distribution of camps for refugees and internally displaced people. The global distribution of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UNHCR) refugee and internally displaced people (IDP) settlements (as of 2018) overlaid with projected days with temperature exceeding 35°C in 2041–2060 relative
to 1850–1900 under SSP2–8.5. {Figure Box 8.1.1; Box 8.1}
2846
Estimated relative human dependence on marine ecosystems
AI
Types of human dependence on marine ecosystems

Coastal Nutritional Economic Overall
protection dependence dependence dependence
Figure AI.31 | Estimated relative human dependence on marine ecosystems. Relative human dependence on marine resources for coastal protection, nutrition, fisheries
economic benefits and overall. Each bar represents an index value that semi-quantitatively integrates the magnitude, vulnerability to loss and substitutability of the benefit. Indices
synthesise information on people’s consumption of marine protein and nutritional status, gross domestic product, fishing revenues, unemployment, education, governance and
coastal characteristics. Overall dependence is the mean of the three index values after standardisation from 0 to 1 (details are found in Table 1 and supplementary material of Selig
et al., 2019). This index does not include the economic benefits from tourism or other ocean industries, and data limitations prevented including artisanal or recreational fisheries
or the protective impact of saltmarshes (Selig et al., 2019). Values for reference regions established in the WGI AR6 Atlas (Gutiérrez et al., 2021) were computed as area-weighted
means from original country-level data. {Figure 3.1}
2847
AI.2.1.4 Fish Stocks and Fisheries
Global vulnerabilities to current and projected climate change

(a) Projected changes in the number of extreme heat stress days for cattle from early to end of century.
AI
Cattle
Potential movement of cattle Additional days per year of extreme heat stress
from areas of high heat stress risk 10–50 days
Current cattle distribution to areas of lower heat stress risk 50–100 days
SSP1-2.6 >100 days
IPCC climate regions SSP5-8.5
Figure AI.32a | Regional vulnerabilities to impacts of current and projected climate change on marine fishery and terrestrial livestock resources.
(a) Projected changes in the number of extreme heat stress days for cattle from early (1991–2010) to end of century (2081–2100) under SSP1-2.6 and SSP5-8.5, shown as
arrows rooted in the most affected area in each IPCC sub-region pointing to the nearest area of reduced or no extreme heat stress. Arrows are shown only for sub-regions where
>1 million additional animals are affected. Shaded areas are those with >5000 animals per 0.5° grid cell in the early 21st century (Thornton et al., 2021). {Figure MOVING PLATE.1
in Chapter 5}
2848
Global vulnerabilities to current and projected climate change

(b) Ocean sensitivity for living marine resources within FAO regions and projected average fishing resource shifts in location
i
iv
AI
ii
iii
v
vi
Fishing resources
Ocean sensitivity Projected shifts by 2100 Examples of vulnerabilities, conflicts and opportunities for marine resource usage
1.0 Small-scale Industrial Catch i New Arctic fisheries opportunities with poleward fish migrations
fisheries fisheries proportion
0.8 <40% ii Climate regime shift triggers reform of cooperative management under Pacific Salmon Treaty
0.6 40–70%
iii Species exits and increased competition between small-scale and large scale fisheries
>70%
0.4 iv Conflicts over climate-induced migrations of commercial stocks and food sovereignty
RCP2.6
0.2 RCP8.5 v High regional dependency on tuna for economy and food security
0.0 vi New opportunities for migrating species of commercial interest
Figure AI.32b | Regional vulnerabilities to impacts of current and projected climate change on marine fishery and terrestrial livestock resources.
(b) Ocean areas are delineated into Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) regions. Ocean sensitivity is calculated from aggregated sensitivities from
Blasiak et al. (2017) S1 country data based on number of fishers, fisheries exports, proportions of economically active population working as fishers, total fisheries landings and
nutritional dependence, which was subsequently reanalysed for each FAO region depicted here. Arrows denote projected average commercial and artisanal fishing resource shifts
in location under Representative Concentration Pathways RCP2.6 and under RCP8.5 scenarios by 2100. Numbered circles highlight examples of vulnerabilities (Bell et al., 2018a),
conflicts (Miller et al., 2013; Blasiak et al., 2017; Østhagen et al., 2020), or opportunities for marine resource usage (Robinson et al., 2015; Stuart-Smith et al., 2018; Meredith et al.,
2019). {Figure MOVING PLATE.1 in Chapter 5}
2849
Current fisheries adaptive capacity and risks related to human diets

(a) Documented fisheries adaptive capacity to climate change
AI
Adaptive Capacity Index
Fishing resources 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Figure AI.33a | Current fisheries adaptive capacity to climate change and regional dependence on seafood micronutrients in human diets.
(a) Fisheries management adaptive capacity is a function of the following: averaged gross domestic product (GDP) World Development Indicators for 2018 (World Bank, 2020);
climate awareness assessments of 30 of the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) recognized most recent Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
with direct fisheries linkages; governance effectiveness index based on six aggregate indicators (voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism,
government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruption) from 2018 World Governance Indicator (World Bank, 2019) data; and heterogeneity of countries
within each FAO zone (highly heterogeneous regions are less likely to establish sustainable and efficient fisheries management for the entire FAO zone). Adaptative capacity index
ranges from 1 (high) to 0 (no adaptative capacity). Ocean areas are delineated into FAO regions. {Figure MOVING PLATE.3 in Chapter 5}
2850
Current fisheries adaptive capacity and risks related to human diets

(b) Regional seafood-relevant micronutrient deficiency risk (Calcium, Iron, Zinc, Vitamin A) in human diets
AI
No dependence Nutritional dependence Full dependence

No data
Fishing resources 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure AI.33b | Current fisheries adaptive capacity to climate change and regional dependence on seafood micronutrients in human diets.
(b) Nutritional dependence of regional human populations on micronutrient supply from marine fisheries. (Beal et al. 2017). {Figure MOVING PLATE.3 in Chapter 5}
2851
Climate change risk to fisheries in Africa

(a) Inland/freshwater fisheries
Present Global
warming
2.4°C
AI
Global
warming
>4°C
>1.05 (High) >11.2

0.57–1.05 7.8–11.2
0.26–0.55 3.3–7.8
0.05–0.21 0.3–3.2
<0.04 (Low) <0.3
No data No data
Countries with
Index of current Average number of high overlap of
dependence on climate-change vulnerable, dependence and future threat
inland fisheries commercially harvested, freshwater fishes species to fisheries from climate change
Figure AI.34a | Climate change risk to fisheries in Africa.

(a) Countries’ reliance on inland fisheries was estimated by catch (total, tonnes) (FAO, 2018b; Fluet-Chouinard et al., 2018), per capita catch (kg per person per year) (FAO, 2018b),
percent reliance on fish for micronutrients, and percent consumption per household (Golden et al., 2016). Z-scores of each metric were averaged for each country to create a
composite index describing ‘current dependence on freshwater fish’ for each country with darker blue colours indicating higher dependence. Projected concentrations (numbers) of
vulnerable freshwater fishery species averaged within freshwater ecoregions under >2°C global warming and >4°C global warming estimated from recent past (1961–1992) to the
end of the 21st century (2071–2100) (Nyboer et al., 2019). Numbers of vulnerable fish species translate to an average of 55–68% vulnerable at >2°C and 77–97% vulnerable at
<4°C global warming. Darker shades indicate higher concentrations of vulnerable fish species. Countries (in shades of green) that have an overlap between high dependence on
freshwater fish and high concentrations of fishery species that are vulnerable to climate change under two warming scenarios. {Figures 9.26}
2852
Climate change risk to fisheries in Africa

(b) Marine fisheries
Global
warming
1.6°C
Present AI
Global
warming
>4°C
60–70%
>23% 51–60%
18–23% 41–50%
7–17% 28–40%
3–7% 13–27%
<3% > 13%
No data No data
Countries with
Dependence on Projected decrease in high overlap of
marine foods maximum catch potential (MCP) dependence and future threat
for nutrition of marine fisheries to fisheries from climate change
Figure AI.34b | Climate change risk to fisheries in Africa.

(b) Marine fisheries comparing countries’ current percent dependence on marine foods for nutrition compared with projected change in maximum catch potential (MCP) from
marine fisheries. The percentage of animal sources foods consumed that originate from a marine environment. Countries with higher dependence are indicated by darker shades
(Golden et al., 2016). Projected percent change in MCP of marine fisheries under 1.6°C global warming and >4°C global warming from recent past (1986–2005) to end of 21st
century (2081–2100) in countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) (Cheung William et al., 2016). Darker shades indicate greater percent reduction (negative values). Countries (in
shades of green) that have overlap between high nutritional dependence and high reduction in MCP under two warming scenarios. {Figure 9.25}
2853
AI.2.2 Water-related Challenges
Regional synthesis of assessed changes in water and consequent impacts

Central and Small
Austral- South Medite- North Island
AI Africa Asia asia America Europe rranean America States Arctic Antarctic Global
Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj. Obs. Proj.
Mean precipitation
Heavy precipitation
and pluvial flood
Cryosphere
Runoff and
streamflow
River flood
Physical
Drought
Groundwater
Water quality
Soil Erosion and

sediment load
Agriculture
Human systems
Energy
Water, sanitation
& hygiene (WaSH)
Urban and
municipal sector
systems
Ecosystems
Eco-
Direction of change Confidence level
Physical Increase Decrease Mixed Projected Impacts empty = Not assessed
Human systems Observed Impacts

and ecosystems Positive Negative Mixed
Low Medium High
Figure AI.35 | Regional synthesis of changes in water and consequent impacts on ecosystems and human systems. For physical changes, increase/decrease refers to
changes in the amount or frequency of the measured variable, and the level of confidence refers to confidence that the change has occurred. For impacts on ecosystems and human
systems, plus or minus marks depicts whether an observed impact of hydrological change is positive (beneficial) or negative (adverse), respectively, to the given system, and the
level of confidence refers to confidence in attributing an impact on that system to a climate-induced hydrological change. Circles indicate that within that region, both increase and
decrease of physical changes are found, but are not necessarily equal, or beneficial and adverse assessed impacts on ecosystems and human systems. Empty fields indicate variables
not assessed due to limited evidence. Agriculture refers to impacts on crop production. Energy refers to impacts on hydro- and thermoelectric power generation. {Figure 4.20}
2854
AI.2.2.1 Drought
Current global drought risk

averages for period 1901–2010
(a) Drought hazard

AI
Vulnerability
Desert or cold region Hazard
Index Hazards Risk
No data Low Moderate High Very high
(<0.25) (0.25–0.5) (0.5–0.75) (0.75–1.0)
Exposure
Figure AI.36a | Current global drought risk and its components.

(a) Drought hazard computed for the events between 1901 and 2010 by the probability of exceedance the median of global severe precipitation deficits, using precipitation data
from the Global Precipitation Climatology Center (GPCC) for 1901–2010. {Figure 4.9}
2855

(b) Drought vulnerability
AI
Vulnerability
Desert or cold region Vulnerability
Index Hazards Risk
(<0.25) (0.25–0.5) (0.5–0.75) (0.75–1.0)
Exposure
Figure AI.36b | Current global drought risk and its components.

(b) Drought vulnerability is derived from an arithmetic composite model combining social, economic and infrastructural factors proposed by UNISDR (2004). {Figure 4.9}
2856

(c) Drought exposure
AI
Vulnerability
Desert or cold region Exposure
Index Hazards Risk
(<0.25) (0.25–0.5) (0.5–0.75) (0.75–1.0)
Exposure
Figure AI.36c | Current global drought risk. Current global drought risk and its components.
(c) Drought exposure computed at the sub-national level with the non-compensatory Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) model (Cook et al., 2014). {Figure 4.9}
2857

(d) Drought risk
AI
Vulnerability
Desert or cold region Risk
Index Hazards Risk
(<0.25) (0.25–0.5) (0.5–0.75) (0.75–1.0)
Exposure
Figure AI.36d | Current global drought risk and its components.

(d) Drought risk based on the components of hazard, vulnerability and exposure, scored on a scale of 0 (lowest risk) to 1 (highest risk) with the lowest and highest hazard, exposure
and vulnerability (Carrão et al., 2016). {Figure 4.9}
2858
Importance of mountain water resources for lowland areas and populations

(a) Importance of mountain regions for lowland water resources (2041–2050, SSP2-RCP6.0)
AI
Light shade = Lowland areas
Extent of importance and dependence
Share of mountain No surplus Negligible Minor Supportive Essential Essential Essential but
area in total and but vastly
catchment sufficient insufficient insufficient
area <5%
Figure AI.37a | Dependence of land surface areas and population on mountain water resources 1961–2050. Results are shown as decadal averages for lowland
population in each category of dependence on mountain water, from no surplus and negligible to essential.
(a) Global mountain regions and their differentiated importance for lowland water resources.
2859
Importance of mountain water resources for lowland areas and populations

(b) Lowland population dependence on mountain water resources (2041–2050, SSP2-RCP6.0)
AI
Light shade = Mountain regions
Extent of importance and dependence
Share of mountain No surplus Negligible Minor Supportive Essential Essential Essential but
area in total and but vastly
catchment sufficient insufficient insufficient
area <5%
(c) Lowland population dependence on mountain water resources over time SSP2-RCP6.0 SSP1-RCP4.5 SSP3-RCP6.0
7 (6.26 billion people) (5.87 billion people) (6.65 billion people)
6
Lowland
population 5
(billions of 4
people) 3
2
1
0
1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s 2010’s 2020’s 2030’s 2040’s 2040’s 2040’s
Figure AI.37b | Dependence of land surface areas and population on mountain water resources 1961–2050.
(b) Lowland population and their differentiated dependence on mountain water resources, both for the scenario combination SSP2-6.0 and for the time period 2041–2050.
(c) Number of lowland population and their differentiated dependence on mountain water resources from the 1960s to the 2040s for three different scenario combinations (based
on Viviroli et al., 2020). {Figure CCP5.2}
2860
Risks to livelihoods and the economy from changing mountain water resources
between 1.5°C and 2°C global warming level in AR6 WGI reference regions
NWN
ESB
WCE AI
EEU
CNA WCA
WNA
TIB
MED
SAS EAS
SAH ARP
NCA
SEA
WAF
NEAF
CAF
NES
NWS SEAF
WSAF
SWS SES SAU
Mountain regions Risk Confidence

AR6 WGI Very high High
reference regions Medium
High
Low
Dotted border between TIB and SAS is due to discrepancies Moderate
between studies referring to the Southern Himalaya as part
Low
of SAS, and the new AR6 WGI reference region delineations
which include most of the Southern Himalaya in TIB.
Figure AI.38 | Risk to livelihoods and the economy from changing mountain water resources. The majority of studies assessed focus on impacts up to mid-century
(2030–2060) and for Representative Concentration Pathways RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP6.0, which was converted into the corresponding warming level range 1.5–2.0°C global
warming level (GWL) (see Cross-Chapter Box CLIMATE in Chapter 1). Methodological details are provided in Section SMCCP5.4, Figure SMCCP5.1, Table SMCCP5.16 and
SMCCP5.18. Due to the limited evidence available to determine risks against high GWLs, and the relatively high uncertainties associated with future irrigation trends for the second
half of the century (see, e.g., Viviroli et al., 2020), assessment of risks associated with GWLs greater than 2.0°C GWL was not conducted. {Figure CCP5.6}
2861
AI.2.2.2 Flooding
Extreme sea level events

Due to projected global mean sea level (GMSL) rise, local sea levels that historically 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
occurred once per century (historical centennial events, HCEs) are projected to
become at least annual events at most locations during the 21st century. The height of
a HCE varies widely, and depending on the level of exposure can already cause severe
AI impacts. Impacts can continue to increase with rising frequency of HCEs. Black: Locations where HCEs White: Locations where HCEs
already recur annually recur annually after 2100
(a) Year when HCEs are projected to recur once per year on average
RCP2.6
RCP8.5
Figure AI.39a | The effect of regional sea level rise on extreme sea level events at coastal locations.
(a) The year in which historical centennial events (HCEs) are expected to recur once per year on average under Representative Concentration Pathways RCP8.5 and RCP2.6, at the
439 individual coastal locations where the observational record is sufficient. The absence of a circle indicates an inability to perform an assessment due to a lack of data but does
not indicate absence of exposure and risk. The darker the circle, the earlier this transition is expected. The likely range is ±10 years for locations where this transition is expected
before 2100. White circles (33% of locations under RCP2.6 and 10% under RCP8.5) indicate that HCEs are not expected to recur once per year before 2100.
2862
Extreme sea level events

(b) Difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6
The difference map shows locations where the HCE becomes annual Difference Difference no relative sea level
at least 10 years later under RCP2.6 than under RCP8.5. >10 years later <10 years later rise before 2100
AI
(c) Schematic effect of regional sea level rise on projected extreme sea level events (not to scale)
Historical Centennial extreme sea level Events (HCEs)

become more common due to sea level rise 1/century
HCE 1/decade
1/century 1/year
Sea level
height and 1/decade 1/month
recurrence
frequency 1/year
mean sea level
1/month sea
level
mean sea level rise
Recent past Future
Figure AI.39b | The effect of regional sea level rise on extreme sea level events at coastal locations.
(b) An indication at which locations this transition of HCEs to annual events is projected to occur more than 10 years later under RCP2.6 compared with RCP8.5. As the scenarios
lead to small differences by 2050 in many locations, results are not shown here for RCP4.5.
(c) Schematic illustration of extreme sea level events and their average recurrence in the recent past (1986–2005) and the future. As a consequence of mean sea level rise, local
sea levels that historically occurred once per century HCEs are projected to recur more frequently in the future. {4.2.3, Figures 4.10, 4.12}
2863
Relative trends in projected regional shoreline change (advance/retreat relative to 2010)
RCP4.5
2050
AI
RCP4.5
2100
Shoreline retreat (erosion) Shoreline advance (accretion)
200m 50m 50m 200m
Figure AI.40a | Relative trends in projected regional shoreline change. Advance/retreat relative to 2010. Frequency distributions of median projected change by 2050
and 2100 under RCP4.5. Projections account for both long-term shoreline dynamics and sea level rise and assume no impediment to inland transgression of sandy beaches. Data
for Small Island States are aggregated and plotted in the Caribbean. Data from Vousdoukas et al. (2020b). Values for reference regions established in the WGI AR6 Atlas (Gutiérrez
et al., 2021) were computed as area-weighted means from original country-level data. For model assumptions and associated debate, see Vousdoukas et al. (2020a) and Cooper
et al. (2020a). {Figure 3.14}
2864
Relative trends in projected regional shoreline change (advance/retreat relative to 2010)
RCP8.5
2050
AI
RCP8.5
2100
Shoreline retreat (erosion) Shoreline advance (accretion)
200m 50m 50m 200m
Figure AI.40b | Relative trends in projected regional shoreline change. Advance/retreat relative to 2010. Frequency distributions of median projected change by 2050
and 2100 under RCP8.5. Projections account for both long-term shoreline dynamics and sea level rise and assume no impediment to inland transgression of sandy beaches. Data
for Small Island States are aggregated and plotted in the Caribbean. Data from Vousdoukas et al. (2020b). Values for reference regions established in the WGI AR6 Atlas (Gutiérrez
et al., 2021) were computed as area-weighted means from original country-level data. For model assumptions and associated debate, see Vousdoukas et al. (2020a) and Cooper
et al. (2020a). {Figure 3.14}
2865
Population living in small islands that may be exposed to coastal inundation by 2100 under RCP4.5
For selected islands, each dot represents the corresponding percentage of the population occupying vulnerable land, that may be
exposed to coastal inundation either by permanently falling below mean higher high water (MHHW), or temporarily falling below the local
annual flood height.
AI
Island’s population exposed to coastal inundation

<10% 10–30% 31–50% >50%
Figure AI.41 | Population living in small islands that may be exposed to coastal inundation. Projected percentage of current population in selected small islands
occupying vulnerable land (the number of people on land that may be exposed to coastal inundation—either by permanently falling below mean higher high water, or temporarily
falling below the local annual flood height (adapted from Kulp et al., 2019, using the CoastalDEM_Perm_p50 model). Positions on the map are based on the capital city or largest
town. {Figure 15.3}
2866
Projected number of people at risk of a 100-year coastal flood

Calculated for sea level rise and population change, based on current protection levels
SSP1-2.6
AI
25 10%
10 5% Time period when risk thresholds are exceeded

5 1%
1 0.5% 2021 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2150
0.10 0.1%
0.01 0.01%
Millions Percentage Earlier risk Delayed risk
of people of region’s
at risk population
In following pages. SSP2-4.5 SSP5-8.5
2867

SSP2-4.5
AI
25 10%

5 1%
1 0.5% 2021 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2150
0.10 0.1%
0.01 0.01%
at risk population
SSP2-2.6 In previous page In following page SSP5-8.5
2868

SSP5-8.5
AI
25 10%

5 1%
1 0.5% 2021 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2150
0.10 0.1%
0.01 0.01%
at risk population
SSP2-2.6 SSP2-4.5 In previous pages.
Figure AI.42 | Projected number of people at risk of a 100-year coastal flood. The size of the circle represents the number of people at risk per reference regions
established in the WGI AR6 Atlas (Gutiérrez et al., 2021) and the colours show the timing of risk based on projected sea level rise (Haasnoot et al., 2021) under three different
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Darker colours indicate earlier in setting risks. The left side of the circles shows absolute population at risk and the right side the share of
the population in percentage. {Figure CCP2.3}
2869
Selected regions at risk of potential sea level rise
Permanent RCP8.5
flooding
due to RCP4.5
sea level
rise
AI RCP2.6
Area built-up by 2014 Present Sea Level
((a)) D
Dar es S
Salaam,
l B
Bagamoyo and Stonetown (Tanzania)
Present day 2050 2100
50 km
Figure AI.43 | Selected African cities exposed to sea level rise. Selected African cities exposed to sea level rise include
(a) Dar es Salaam, Bagamoyo and Stone Town in Tanzania (East Africa) in this page and
(b) Lagos in Nigeria and Cotonou and Porto-Novo in Benin (West Africa), and
(c) Cairo and Alexandria in Egypt (North Africa) in the following two pages. Orange shows built-up areas in 2014. Shades of blue show permanent flooding due to sea level rise by
2050 and 2100 under low (RCP2.6), medium (RCP4.5) and high (RCP8.5) greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Darker colours for higher emissions scenarios show areas projected
to be flooded in addition to those for lower emissions scenarios. The figure assumes failure of coastal defences in 2050 and 2100. Some areas are already below current sea level
rise and coastal defences need to be upgraded as sea level rises (e.g., in Egypt), others are just above mean sea levels and they do not necessarily have high protection levels, so
these defences need to be built (e.g., Dar Es Salam and Lagos). Blue shading shows permanent inundation surfaces predicted by coastal digital elevation model (DEM) and Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) given the 95th percentile K14/RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, for present day, 2050 and 2100 sea level projection for permanent inundation
(inundation without a storm surge event) and RL10 (10-year return level storm) (Kulp and Strauss, 2019). Low-lying areas isolated from the ocean are removed from the inundation
surface using connected components analysis. Current water bodies are derived from the SRTM water body dataset. Orange areas represent the extent of coastal human settlements
in 2014 (Corbane et al., 2018). See Figure CCP4.7 for projections including subsidence and worst-case scenario projections for 2100. {Figure 9.29}
2870
Permanent RCP8.5
flooding
due to RCP4.5
sea level
rise
RCP2.6 AI
(b) LLagos (Ni

(Nigeria)
i ) andd C
Cotonou
t and Porto-Novo (Benin)
Present
day
2050
2100
50 km
2871
Permanent RCP8.5
flooding
due to RCP4.5
sea level
rise
AI RCP2.6
((c)) Cairo
C i andd Al
Alexandria
d i (E
(Egypt)
t
Present
day
2050
2100
50 km
2872
Risk of historical and projected river flooding Vulnerability
Hazards Risk
(a) Flood water
Exposure
AI
Historical risk
(1961–2005)
Projected risk
(2051–2070)
Flood water
depth (metres)
Very high
>10
High
5–10
Moderate
1–5
Low
<1
Figure AI.44a | Risk of historical and projected river flooding.

(a) Hazard. Modelled mean global fluvial flood water depth (Tanoue et al., 2016, 2021) based on a land surface model and a river and inundation model driven by reanalysis
climate forcing of 5 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) global climatic models (GCMs). The annual maximum daily river water was allocated along elevations, and
inundation depth was calculated for each year and averaged for the target period. {Figure 4.8}
2873
Hazards Risk
(b) Flood protection standard
Exposure
AI
Historical risk
(1961–2005)
Projected risk
(2051–2070)
Flood
protection level
(Return period)
Very high
<5
High
5–50
Moderate
50–100
Low
>100
Figure AI.44b | Risk of historical and projected river flooding.

(b) Vulnerability. Local flood protection standard (return period) at sub-country scale (Scussolini et al., 2016) based on published reports and documents, websites and personal
communications with experts. Note that the vulnerability of this map reflects local flood protection such as complex infrastructure and does not fully reflect the other source of
vulnerabilities, including exposure. {Figure 4.8}
2874
Hazards Risk
(c) Population distribution
Exposure
AI
Historical risk
(1961–2005)
Projected risk
(2051–2070)
Population
density
(persons/km2)
Very high
>100
High
50–100
Moderate
5–50
Low
>5
Figure AI.44c | Risk of historical and projected river flooding.

(c) Exposure. Population distribution per 30 arc second grid cell (Klein Goldewijk et al., 2010, 2011). {Figure 4.8}
2875
Hazards Risk
(d) Population exposed to river flooding
Exposure
AI
Population
density
(persons/km2)
Very high
>100
High Historical risk

50–100
(1961–2005)
Moderate
5–50
Low
<5
Projected risk
with no adaptation
(2051–2070)
Projected risk
with adaptation
(2051–2070)
Figure AI.44d | Risk of historical and projected river flooding.

(d) Risk as population exposed to flood (number of people where inundation occurs) per 30 arc-second grid cell. Population under inundation depth >0 m as in panel (a) was
counted when the return period of annual maximum daily river water exceeds the flood protection standard as in panel (b). {Figure 4.8}
Projected changes in river flooding

Changes in 2071–2100 relative to 1970–2000
Return period
(years)
1,000
AI
Decrease
500 flood
frequency
250 SSP1-2.6
125
105
95
75
50
25
Increased SSP2-4.5
5 flood
frequency
High model
agreement
SSP5-8.5
Figure AI.45a | Projected changes in river flooding. Multi-model median return period (years) for the 20th century 100-year river flood, based on a global river and
inundation model, CaMa-Flood, driven by runoff output of 9 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) Models in the SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. All
changes are estimated in 2071–2100 relative to 1970–2000. A dot indicates regions with high model consistency (more than 7 models out of 9 show the same direction of change).
{Figure 4.17}
2877
Projected changes in river flooding = SSP5 population scenario of CMIP6

Global and regional potential exposure of the population = Constant population scenario of CMIP5
Relative exposed population = Constant population scenario of CMIP6
0 1% 2% 3% 4%
4.0°C X
AI 3.0°C X
Global 2.0°C X
1.5°C X
Historical
4.0°C X
3.0°C X
Africa 2.0°C X
1.5°C X
Historical
4.0°C
3.0°C X
Asia 2.0°C X
1.5°C X
Historical
4.0°C X
3.0°C X
Australasia 2.0°C X
1.5°C X
Historical
4.0°C X
Central and
3.0°C X
2.0°C X
South America 1.5°C X
Historical
4.0°C X
3.0°C X
Europe 2.0°C X
1.5°C X
Historical
4.0°C X
3.0°C X
North America 2.0°C X
1.5°C X
Historical
Figure AI.45b | Projected changes in river flooding. Global or regional potential exposure (% of the total population affected by flooding) under different warming levels
with constant population scenario of CMIP5 (Alfieri et al., 2017) and with population scenario of SSP5 of CMIP6 (Hirabayashi et al., 2021b). Inundation is calculated when the
magnitude of flood exceeds current flood protection (Scussolini et al., 2016). Note that number of GCMs used to calculate global warming level of 4.0°C is less than that for other
global warming levels, as the global mean temperature of some GCMs did not exceed 4°C. {Figure 4.17}
2878
AI.2.3 Global to Regional Risks (Including Economic) and

Adaptive Capacities
Burning ember diagrams of regional and global risk assessments

AI
(a) Global surface temperature change (b) Reasons for Concern (RFC)
Increase relative to the period 1850–1900 Impact and risk assessments assuming low to no adaptation
°C
5 Risk/impact
Projections for different scenarios
Very high
SSP1-1.9
High
SSP1-2.6 (shade representing very likely range)
4 Moderate
SSP2-4.5
Undetectable
SSP3-7.0 (shade representing very likely range)
••
SSP5-8.5
•
Transition range
3
••
Confidence level
assigned to
transition
••
2 range
••••
••
••
•••
••
••
•
Low Very high
•••
1.5
•••
••
Historical average
1
•••• ••••
temperature increase
•••
•••
••••
in 2011–2020 was
1.09°C (dashed line)
range 0.95–1.20°C
0
1950 2000 2050 2100 RFC1 RFC2 RFC3 RFC4 RFC5
Unique and Extreme Distribution Global Large scale
threatened weather of impacts aggregate singular
systems events impacts events
(c) Regional level risk assessments
Africa Australasia
°C
4
••
3
•••
•••
•••
•
•••
•••
2
•••
••
••
••
••
1.5
••• ••
••• •••
••
•• ••• •••
•• •••
1
••••••
••••••
••• •••
•••
•••
•••
•••
0
Food production Biodiversity Mortality and Loss of kelp forests in Loss of natural and Cascading impacts Failure of institutions and
from crops, fisheries and morbidity from heat southern Australia and human systems in on cities governance systems to
and livestock ecosystems and infectious disease southeast New Zealand low-lying coastal areas and settlements manage climate risks
Australia
°C Level of
4 adaptation
High
••
3
• ••
Low to
•
•• ••
••
••
moderate
••
2
••
••
••
•••
••
1.5 Low or
current
•••
•••
1
•••• •••
••• •••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
0
Loss and degradation Loss of alpine Forest ecosystem Disruption/decline in Increase in
of coral reefs biodiversity collapse or transition in agricultural production in heat-related
southern Australia eastern and southern mortality
Australia
2879
Mediterranean Europe
°C
4
•••
•
••
3
•••
•••
••
••
••• ••• ••
••
2
•••
••
AI
•
••• •••
•••
••• •• •
•••
••
•• •
1.5
••• •••
••
••
1
••
•••
••
•••
•
0
Water quality Wildfires Freshwater and Marine Food Health and Coastal Delayed Terrestrial Marine Delayed risks
and availability terrestrial ecosystems production wellbeing risks impacts of ecosystems ecosystems for the cultural
ecosystems and security sea level rise dissruptions dissruptions heritage and
long-living
infrastructure
Europe
°C
•
4
•
••
•
••
3
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
••
2
••
••
••
•••
•• ••
1.5
••• •••
••
1
••
••
••
•••
••
••
•••
0 •••
Risk of inland flooding Risk of coastal flooding Losses Risk of heat stress, Risk of water scarcity to Risk of water scarcity to
to people and to people and in crop production mortality and morbidity people in southeastern people in westerncentral
infrastructures infrastructures to people Europe Europe
North America
°C
4
••
••
••
••
3
•
••
•
••
••
••
2
•••
••
•
••
••
1.5
••
•••
••
••
1
•••
•••
•••
••
••
••
••
••
0
Freshwater Snow and ice Heavy Water Agriculture Forestry Tourism Transportation Fisheries Energy Construction
scarcity decline precipitation quality and
-droughts; -seasonal flooding impacts mining
aridification flows
North America
°C
4
Risk/impact
•
•
••
•
•
Very high
3
••
High
••
Moderate
•••
2 Undetectable
•
1.5 Confidence
••
•••
•••
1
••••
•••
•••
•••
•••
••
••
••
•••
Low Very
•••
•••
0 high
Nordic skiing and Alpine skiing Beach tourism and Parks and protected
snowmobiling coral reef snorkeling areas visitation Transition range
2880
Arctic Antarctic
°C
4
•
•••
••
••
•
3
•••
••
•
•
••
•
2 AI
••
•
••
••
••
1.5
•• ••• ••
••
••
••
1
••
•••
•••
••
••
••
•••
•••
0
Sea-ice Marine Sea birds Fisheries Infrastructure Local Coastal Sea-ice Marine Sea birds Fisheries
ecosystems mammals mobility erosion ecosystems mammals
(d) Ecosystem risk assessments

Risks to terrestrial and 5°C Risks to 5°C
••
°C freshwater ecosystems ocean ecosystems
•
4
•
•••
••
••
•••
••
••
••
3
••
••
•••
••
•••
2
••
••
1.5
••
••
•• •••
•••
•••• •••
••
•••
1
••••
•••
••••
•••
••
•••
•••
0
Biodiversity Structure Tree Wildfire Carbon Warm water Kelp Seagrass Epipelagic Rocky Salt
loss change mortality increase loss corals forests meadows shores marshes
(e) Climate sensitive health outcomes under three adaptation scenarios

Heat-related morbidity
°C and mortality Ozone-related mortality * Malaria Scenario narratives
4
* Mortality projections Limited adaptation:
include demographic Failure to proactively adapt;
3 trends but do not include low investment in health
•
future efforts to improve systems

••
air quality that reduce

••
ozone concentrations. Incomplete adaptation:

2
•••
Incomplete adaptation
•••
•• ••••
1.5 planning; moderate

•••
•••
••••
••••
investment in health
1 systems
••••
••••
••••
••••
••••
••••
Proactive adaptation:
0 Proactive adaptive
Limited Incomplete Proactive Limited Incomplete Proactive Limited Incomplete Proactive management; higher
adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation investment in health
systems
Dengue and other diseases carried
°C Lyme disease West Nile fever
by species of Aedes mosquitoes Risk/impact
4
Very high
High
•
3
••
••
Moderate
••
Undetectable
••
2
•••
•••
Confidence
1.5
••• ••••
••• ••••
•••
••••
•••
1
•••
••
•••
•
••••
••••
••••
••••
Low Very
high
0
Limited Incomplete Proactive Limited Incomplete Proactive Limited Incomplete Proactive Transition range
adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation adaptation
Figure AI.46 | Burning ember diagrams of regional and global risk assessments. {Reasons for concern (RFC): Sections 16.6.3.1–16.6.3.5; 16.6.4; Table SM16.18;
SM16.6. Africa: 9.2; Table 9.2; Table SM 9.1. Australia and New Zealand/ Australia: Table 11.14; SM 11.2. Mediterranean: CCP4.3.2–8; SMCCP4.2. Europe: 13.10.2; 13.10.2.1–
13.10.2.4; SM13.10. North America: 14.6.2; 14.6.3; Table 14.3, SM14.4. Arctic: CCP6.3.1; Table CCP6.5; SMCCP6.6. Ecosystems: Table 2.5; Table 2.S. 4 Ocean: IPCC (2019). Health:
7.3.1; Ebi et al. (2021).}
2881
AI.2.4 From Adaptation to Climate Resilient

Development
Evidence of transformative adaptation by sector and region

AI Central Small
Austra- and South North Islands Evidence of
Sector Africa Asia lasia America Europe America states transformational adaptation
Cities
Depth
Food Low Medium
relates to the degree
to which change Health
reflects something
Oceans Confidence
new, novel, and
different from existing Poverty
norms or practices. Terrestrial / Low Medium High
Water
Cities
Scope
refers to the scale of Food /
change - geographic insufficient information
Health or very low confidence
or institutional.
Oceans
Poverty
Terrestrial /
Water
Cities /
Speed
of change refers to Food /
the dimension of time Health
within which changes
Oceans
are happening.
Poverty / /
Terrestrial / /
Water /
Cities /
Limit
Evidence that limits Food
are being challenged Health
or overcome.
Oceans
Poverty /
Terrestrial /
Water /
Cities
Overall
state of evidence of Food
transformational Health
adaptation.
Oceans
Poverty
Terrestrial /
Water
Figure AI.47 | Evidence of transformative adaptation by sector and region. Evidence of transformative adaptation is assessed based on the scope, speed, depth and
ability to challenge limits of responses reported in the scientific literature Studies relevant to multiple regions or sectors are included in assessment for each relevant sector/region.
Evidence of transformational adaptation does not imply effectiveness, equity or adequacy. {16.3.2; Figure 16.6}
2882
Drought is exacerbating water management challenges which vary across regions

with respect to anticipated water scarcity conditions by 2050
AI
(b)
(a) (e)
(c)
(d)
Water Management
scarcity challenge
High
Severe
Medium
None to
Medium (f)
slightly Low
Zoomed-in map segments of six most affected regions of differing management challenges with respect to anticipated water scarcity conditions by 2050.
(a) Western United States / Northern Mexico (b) Central Europe / Western Mediterranean (c) Middle East
Berlin
Denver London Tehran
San Francisco
Las vegas Paris Bagdad
Amman
Los AngelesPhoenix
Dallas Cairo
Rome
Madrid Medina Riyadh Dubai
Monterrey Algier Tunis Jeddah
Casablanca
Mexico City
(d) East Asia (e) India / Pakistan (f) Southern Africa

Shenyang Lahore
Beijing Delhi
Seoul Karachi Windhoek
Ahmedabad Gaborone
Xi’an Kolkata Johannesburg
Nanjing
Chengdu Wuhan Shanghai Mumbai
Durban
Bangalore Cape Town

Hongkong
Figure AI.48 | Drought is exacerbating water management challenges which vary across regions with respect to anticipated water scarcity conditions by
2050. Local levels of policy challenges for addressing water scarcity by 2050, considering both the central estimate (median) and the changing uncertainty in projections of the
Water Scarcity Index (WSI) from the present day to 2050. Projections used five Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) climate models, three global hydrological models
from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP), and three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). Reproduced from Greve et al. (2018). {Figure Box 4.1.1;
Box 4.1}
2883
Observed water-related adaptation responses with positive outcomes

(a) Map depicting 319 case studies of current water related adaptation responses with documented beneficial outcomes of adaptation
AI
Number of studies
1 10 20 30 40
(b) Fraction of top six adaptation responses to total responses

Adaptation response categories (n = number of case studies) Top six response categories per region as fraction of total responses
Improved cultivars and agronomic practices (n=128) Africa 374 responses

Changes in cropping pattern and crop systems (n=133)
Migration and off-farm diversification (n=84) Asia 431 responses
Water and soil moisture conservation (n=100)
On-farm irrigation and water management (n=109) Australasia 12 responses
Collective action, policies, institutions (n=88)
Indigenous knowledge & local knowledge based adaptations (n=39) Central and 65 responses
Economic/financial incentives (n=49) South America
Agro-forestry and forestry interventions (n=53)
Urban water management (n=19) Europe 42 responses
Flood risk reduction measures (n=31)
Livestock and fishery related (n=59) North America 42 responses
Training and capacity building (n=55)
Remaining categories Small islands and States 7 responses
0 25% 50% 75% 100%

(c) Beneficial outcomes of adaptation per region across five dimensions. Innerlines correspond to the top six adaptation response categories from previous panel.
Ecological 60 60 4 10 10 10
Economic Water
Institutional Vulnerable
Africa Asia Australasia Central and Europe North America
South America
Figure AI.49 | Observed water-related adaptation responses with positive outcomes.

(a) Location of case studies of water-related adaptation responses (996 data points from 319 studies). In these 996 data points, at least one positive outcome was recorded in
one of the five outcome indicators. These outcome indicators are economic/financial, outcomes for vulnerable people, ecological/environmental, water-related, and socio-cultural
and institutional.
(b) In most instances, the top six adaptation categories include nearly 75% of the studies.
(c) Due to a small number of studies in Small Island States, a spider diagram was not generated. {Figure 4.27}
2884
Projected effectiveness of water-related adaptation Confidence High

Effectiveness to reduce projected climate risk and residual risk retained after adaptation Medium
Low
Adaptation options Effectiveness Residual impact
per Global Warming Level
Co-benefit
Large
Moderate
Small
Negligible
Negligible
Small
Moderate
Large
Mal-
adaptation
AI
1.5°C 2°C 3°C 4°C
Africa Changes in cropping pattern and crop systems

Energy related adaptations
Multiple agricultural adaptation options
On farm irrigation and water management
Water and soil moisture conservation
Agro-forestry and forestry
Improved cultivars and agronomic practices
Changes in cropping pattern and crop systems

Australasia Energy related adaptations

Europe Flood risk reduction measures
Urban water
Figure AI.50a | Projected effectiveness of water-related adaptation options. Effectiveness in returning the system to a study-specific baseline state relative to the
projected climate impact; and level of residual risk retained after adaptation, relative to baseline conditions. Regional summaries are based on sIPCC regions. Warming levels refer
to the global mean temperature (GMT) increase relative to a 1850–1900 baseline. For each data point, the study-specific GMT increase was calculated to show effectiveness at
1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C and 4°C. Based on the ability of an implemented option to return the system to its baseline state, the effectiveness is classified based on the share of risk the
option can reduce: large (>80%); moderate (80–50%); small (<50–30%); insufficient (<30%). Where the system state is improved relative to baseline, co-benefits are identified.
Residual impacts show the share of remaining impacts after adaptation has been implemented: negligible (<5%); small (5 to <20%); moderate (20 to <50); large (≥50%). Where
risks increase after adaptation, data points are shown as maladaptation. All underlying data are provided in SM4.8. {Figure 4.28}
2885

Low
Co-benefit
Large
Moderate
Small
Negligible
Negligible
Small
Moderate
Large
Mal-
adaptation
AI
1.5°C 2°C 3°C 4°C

Central and On farm irrigation and water management
South Energy related adaptations
America On farm irrigation and water management

Asia Changes in cropping pattern and crop systems
Flood risk reduction measures

North Energy related adaptations
America Improved cultivars and agronomic practices
Figure AI.50b | Projected effectiveness of water-related adaptation options.
2886

Low
Co-benefit
Large
Moderate
Small
Negligible
Negligible
Small
Moderate
Large
Mal-
adaptation
AI
1.5°C 2°C 3°C 4°C

Global On farm irrigation and water management
Urban water
Global
distribution
Urban water
Figure AI.50c | Projected effectiveness of water-related adaptation options.
2887
AI
Evidence Evidence Evidence
2888
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Annex I
Adjustment of planting dates

Agricultural diversification
Agroecology
(a) Africa
Agroforestry
(e) Europe
Climate services
(c) Australasia
options per region. {Figure 5.20}

Climate-smart strategies
Community-based adaptation
Cultivar & species improvement
Fertilizer
Insurance
Irrigation
Livelihood diversification & migration
Other financial mechanisms
Shifting harvest location

Agroecology
(b) Asia
Agroforestry
Climate services
(f) North America
Fertilizer
Insurance
State of adaptation across region and specific adaptation options
(d) Central and South America
Irrigation

(g)
Agroecology
(f)
Agroforestry
(d)
Climate services
(a)

(e)
(g) Small Island States
Fertilizer
Insurance
(b)
Irrigation
(c)

fibre, and other ecosystem products based on Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI) database (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021a). The bars indicate the amount of evidence for the
Global to Regional Atlas
Figure AI.51 | Evidence of observed adaptation across regions in food, fibre and other ecosystem products. Observed adaptation options across regions in food,
Who is responding, by geographic region and sector?

(a) Number of publications reporting engagement of each actor in adaptation-related responses during the period (2013–2019)
Central Small
Austra- and South Island North
Africa Asia lasia America Europe States America Cities Food Health Oceans Poverty Terrestrial Water
AI
Households or individuals
Civil society
Private sector
Local government
National or
sub-national government
International/Multi-national
governance institutions
Number of publications
0 20 50 100 200 300 1,000
(b) Type of adaptation responses by global region

Africa
100
Percentages reflect the number of articles mentioning each

type of adaptation over the total number of articles for that region
Small
Island Asia
Technological/Infrastructural States
Institutional
Behavioural/Cultural
Nature-based
North Australasia
America
Central
Europe and South
America
Figure AI.52 | Who is responding, by geographic region and sector?

(a) Cell contents indicate the number of publications reporting engagement of each actor in adaptation-related responses. Darker colours denote a high number of publications.
(b) Percentages reflect the number of articles mentioning each type of adaptation over the total number of articles for that region. Radar values do not total 100% per region
since publications frequently report multiple types of adaptation; for example, construction of drainage systems (infrastructural), changing food storage practices by households
(behavioural) and planting of tree cover in flood prone areas (nature-based) in response to flood risk to agricultural crops. Data updated and adapted from Berrang-Ford et al.
(2021b), based on 1682 scientific publications reporting on adaptation-related responses in human systems. {Figure 16.4; Figure 16.5}
2889
The urban adaptation gap to current climate risks: inequality in all world regions
Extreme Frequent Occasional
events impacts impacts
and/or on on Occasional
Adaptation actions deployed chronic risk wellbeing wellbeing discomfort No risk
Current adaptation Planned adaptation All currently possible adaptation

AI
Higher = Exposed population with highest (20%) income
Inequality The urban adaptation gap
Lower = Exposed population with lowest (20%) income (residual risk after adaptation actions)
Adaptation to Adaptation to Adaptation to Adaptation to Adaptation to

rain/river flooding storm/coastal flooding heatwaves water security food security
Higher
Africa
Lower
Asia Higher
Central
and South Lower
Asia Higher
North
and East Lower
Higher
Australasia
Lower
Central Higher
and South
America Lower
Higher
Europe
Lower
North Higher
America Lower
Small Higher
Islands Lower
Figure AI.53 | The urban adaptation gap. This is a qualitative assessment presenting individual, non-comparative data for world regions from 25 AR6 Contributing Lead
Authors and Lead Authors, the majority from regional chapters. Respondents were asked to make expert summary statements based on the data included within their chapters
and across the AR6 report augmented by their expert knowledge. Multiple iterations allowed opportunity for individual and group judgement. Urban populations and risks are very
diverse within regions making the presented results indicative only. Variability in data coverage leads to the overall analysis having medium agreement, medium evidence. Major
trends identified in Section 6.3.1 at least meet this level of confidence. Analysis is presented for current observed climate change-associated hazards and for three adaptation
scenarios: (1) current adaptation (based on current levels of risk management and climate adaptation), (2) planned adaptation (assessing the level of adaptation that could be
realised if all national, city and neighbourhood plans and policies were fully enacted), (3) transformative adaptation (if all possible adaptation measures were to be enacted).
Assessments were made for the lowest and highest quintile by income. Residual risk levels achieved for each income class under each adaptation scenario are indicated by five
adaptation levels: no risk, occasional discomfort, occasional impacts on well-being, frequent impacts on well-being, extreme events and/or chronic risk. The urban adaptation gap
is revealed when levels of achieved adaptation fall short of delivering ‘no risk’. The graphic uses IPCC Regions and has split Asia into two regions: North and East Asia, and Central
and South Asia. {Figure 6.4}
2890
Evidence on constraints and limits to adaptation by region and sector

Central
and South North Small
Africa Asia Australasia America Europe America Island States
Water Evidence
Terrestrial and High

freshwater ecosystems AI
Poverty, livelihoods and
sustainable development
Ocean and Medium
coastal ecosystems
Wellbeing and
communities
Food, fibre and other Low
ecosystem products
Cities, settlement and
key infrastructure
Figure AI.54 | Evidence on constraints and limits to adaptation by region and sector. Low evidence: <20% of assessed literature has information on limits, literature
mostly focuses on constraints to adaptation; medium evidence: between 20% and 40% of assessed literature has information on limits, literature provides some evidence of
constraints being linked to limits; High evidence: > 40% of assessed literature has information on limits, literature provides broad evidence of constraints being linked to limits. Data
from Thomas et al. (2021), based on 1682 scientific publications reporting on adaptation-related responses in human systems. {Figure 16.7; 16.A.1}
2891
Constraints to achieve adaptation to climate change by region and sector

Governance, Information, Governance, Information,
institutions awareness institutions awareness
Social/ Human and and Social/ Human and and
Economic Cultural capacity policy Financial technology Physical Biological Economic Cultural capacity policy Financial technology Physical Biological
Africa Asia
Water
AI
Terrestrial and
freshwater ecosystems
Ocean and
coastal ecosystems
Wellbeing and
communities
Food, fibre and other
ecosystem products
key infrastructure
Australasia Central and South America
Water
Terrestrial and
Ocean and
coastal ecosystems
Wellbeing and
communities
ecosystem products
key infrastructure
Europe North America
Water
Terrestrial and
Ocean and
coastal ecosystems
Wellbeing and
communities
ecosystem products
key infrastructure
Small Islands
Water Constraint
Terrestrial and Primary
Poverty, livelihoods and Secondary
sustainable development Minor
Ocean and
coastal ecosystems
Wellbeing and Insuficient data
communities
ecosystem products
key infrastructure
Figure AI.55 | "Constraints to achieve adaptation to climate change by region and sector. Constraints are categorised as: (1) Economic: existing livelihoods, economic
structures and economic mobility; (2) Social/cultural: social norms, identity, place attachment, beliefs, worldviews, values, awareness, education, social justice and social support;
(3) Human capacity: individual, organisational and societal capabilities to set and achieve adaptation objectives over time including training, education and skill development;
(4) Governance, institutions and policy: existing laws, regulations, procedural requirements, governance scope, effectiveness, institutional arrangements, adaptive capacity and
absorption capacity; (5) Financial: lack of financial resources; (6) Information/awareness/technology: lack of awareness or access to information or technology; (7) Physical:
presence of physical barriers; and (8) Biologic/climatic: temperature, precipitation, salinity, acidity and intensity and frequency of extreme events including storms, drought and wind.
Insufficient data: there is not enough literature to support an assessment (fewer than five studies available); Minor constraint: <20% of assessed literature identifies this constraint;
secondary constraint: 20–50% of assessed literature identifies this constraint; primary constraint: >50% of assessed literature identifies this constraint. Data from Thomas et al.
(2021), based on 1682 scientific publications reporting on adaptation-related responses in human systems. {Figure 16.8; 16.A.1 }
2892
Distribution of adaptation finance across different regions and different types of finance
(a) Distribution of adaptation finance across different regions and different types of finance in 2015–2016
Central Asia and

Eastern Europe
AI
Western
Europe
Trans-regional
Midle East and

North Africa
Americas
Latin America
and Caribbean East Asia
and Pacific
South Asia
Finance type Sub-Saharan
Size relative to amount Africa
of finance (billions of USD)
Grants
Low-cost project debt

Unknown Other
Project-level oceania
market rate debt and equity
Unknown
(b) Flow and distribution of globally tracked adaptation and resilience finance in 2018
Users Private/Public Instrument Sector Region
per
capita
Balance sheet Sub-Saharan Africa (17%) USD 1.71

Infrastructure, energy and
Private (1.7%) built environment
Grant
East Asia and Pacific (8.1%) USD 0.80
Adaptation
(75.3%) Agriculture, forestry and
natural resource management Latin America & Caribbean (7.4%) USD 2.86
South Asia (10.5%) USD 0.76

Concessional
Public (98.3%) Cross-sectoral
Transregional (44.1%)
Non-concessional Water, wastewater and
waste management
Multiple Policy and capacity building

objectives USD 5.13
(24.7%) Equity
USD 3.88
Disaster risk management
USD 4.14
Non-specified Non-specified
USD 61.86
USD 4.30
US and Canada (2.9%)
Central Asia and Eastern Europe (4.0%)
Middle East and North Africa (3.6%)
Other Oceania (0.01%)
Western Europe (2.5%)
Figure AI.56 | Distribution of adaptation finance across different regions and different types of finance.
2893
(a) Data for period 2015–2016, as tracked by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI).
(b) Each strand shows the relative proportion of finance flowing from one category to another (for example from private or public sources to different instruments). Categories from
left to right are: Use = whether the finance is solely for adaptation or for adaptation and other objectives, including mitigation; Public/Private = whether the finance comes from
public or private sources; Instrument, the financing instrument; Sector = the broad sectoral allocation; Region = the geographical distribution of funding (proportion of total in %
and per-capita allocation). Data for year 2018 from different sources, through different instruments into different sectors and regions as collated by CPI (2020). {Figure FINANCE.2
in Chapter 17; Figure FAQ17.2.1}
AI
2894
References
Alfieri, L., et al., 2017: Global projections of river flood risk in a warmer world. Smith, P. Mannini, M. Taconet and J. Plummer (eds.)]. The State of World
Earth’s Future, 5(2), 171–182, doi:10.1002/2016ef000485. Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), FAO, Rome, Italy. 277 pp.
Assis, J., et al., 2017: Bio-ORACLE v2.0: Extending marine data layers for Fluet-Chouinard, E., S. Funge-Smith and P.B. McIntyre, 2018: Global hidden
bioclimatic modelling. glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 27, 277–284, doi:10.1111/ harvest of freshwater fish revealed by household surveys. Proc. Natl. Acad.
geb.12693. Sci., 115(29), 7623, doi:10.1073/pnas.1721097115. AI
Barragán, J.M. and M. de Andrés, 2015: Analysis and trends of the world’s García Molinos, J., et al., 2016: Climate velocity and the future global
coastal cities and agglomerations. Ocean Coast. Manag., 114, 11–20. redistribution of marine biodiversity. Nature Clim Change, 6, 83–88,
Beal, T., et al., 2017: Global trends in dietary micronutrient supplies and doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2769.
estimated prevalence of inadequate intakes. PLoS ONE, 12(4), e175554, Gilbert, M., Nicolas, G., Cinardi, G., Van Boeckel, T. P., Vanwambeke, S. O.,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175554. Wint, G. R. W., & Robinson, T. P. (2018). Global distribution data for cattle,
Bell, J.D., et al., 2018a: Climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptations: buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks in 2010. Scientific
Western and Central Pacific Ocean marine fisheries. In: Impacts of Climate Data, 5(1), 180227. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.227
Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture: Synthesis of Current Knowledge, Golden, C.D., et al., 2016: Nutrition: Fall in fish catch threatens human health.
Adaptation and Mitigation Options. [Barange, M., T. Bahri, M. C. M. Nature, 534(7607), 317–320, doi:10.1038/534317a.
Beveridge, K. L. Cochrane, S. Funge-Smith and F. Poulain (eds.)]. Food and Greve, P., et al., 2018: Global assessment of water challenges under uncertainty
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 305–324. in water scarcity projections. Nat. Sustain., 1(9), 486–494, doi:10.1038/
ISBN 978-9251306079. s41893-018-0134-9.
Berrang-Ford, L., et al., 2021a: The Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative Gutiérrez, J.M., R.G. Jones, G.T. Narisma, L.M. Alves, M. Amjad, I. V. Gorodetskaya,
(GAMI): Part 1 – Introduction and overview of methods. protocolexchange, M. Grose, N.A.B. Klutse, S. Krakovska, J. Li, D. Martínez-Castro, L.O. Mearns,
doi:10.21203/rs.3.pex-1240/v1. S.H. Mernild, T. Ngo-Duc, B. van den Hurk, and J.-H. Yoon, 2021: Atlas. In:
Berrang-Ford, L., et al., 2021b: A systematic global stocktake of evidence on Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. in press. Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Blasiak, R., et al., 2017: Climate change and marine fisheries: Least developed Climate Change. [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C.
countries top global index of vulnerability. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e179632, Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179632. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi,
Boone, R., et al., 2018: Climate change impacts on selected global rangeland R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
ecosystem services. Glob Change Biol, 24(3), 1382–1393, doi:10.1111/ Haasnoot, M., et al., 2019a: Generic adaptation pathways for coastal archetypes
gcb.13995. under uncertain sea-level rise. Environ. Res. Commun., 1(7), 71006.
Callaghan, M., et al., 2021: Machine learning-based evidence and attribution Haasnoot, M., et al., 2021: Long-term sea-level rise necessitates a commitment
mapping of 100,000 climate impact studies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 966–972 to adaptation: A first order assessment. Clim. Risk Manag., 34, doi:10.1016/j.
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01168-6 crm.2021.100355.
Carleton, T., et al., 2018: Valuing the Global Mortality Consequences of Hirabayashi, Y., et al., 2021b: Global exposure to flooding from the new CMIP6
Climate Change Accounting for Adaptation Costs and Benefits. University of climate model projections. Sci Rep, 11(1), 3740, doi:10.1038/s41598-021-
Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper, Vol. 2018- 83279-w.
51. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3224365. University of Chicago, Chicago. Hoornweg, D. and K. Pope, 2017: Population predictions for the world’s largest
Carrão, H., G. Naumann and P. Barbosa, 2016: Mapping global patterns of cities in the 21st century. environ urban, 29(1), 195–216.
drought risk: An empirical framework based on sub-national estimates of IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance
hazard, exposure and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang., 39, 108–124, Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.012. of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros,
Cheung William, W.L., G. Reygondeau and T.L. Frölicher, 2016: Large benefits to T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.
marine fisheries of meeting the 1.5°C global warming target. Science (New Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University
York NY), 354(6319), 1591–1594, doi:10.1126/science.aag2331. Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp
Cottrell, R.S., et al., 2019: Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat. IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part
Sustain., 2(2), 130–137, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0210-1. A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Cook, W.D., K. Tone and J. Zhu, 2014: Data envelopment analysis: Prior to Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
choosing a model. Omega, 44, 1–4, doi:10.1016/j.omega.2013.09.004. [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir,
Cooper, J.A.G., et al., 2020a: Sandy beaches can survive sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Chang., 10(11), 993–995, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-00934-2. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
Corbane, C., et al., 2018: GHS built-up grid, derived from Landsat, multitemporal University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA.
(1975-1990-2000-2014), R2018A. European Commission, Joint Research IPCC, 2019: Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing
Centre (JRC), Brussels. Climate [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor,
CPI, 2020: Updated View of the Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019. E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B.
Rob Macquarie, Baysa Naran, Paul Rosane, Matthew Solomon, Cooper Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. In press
Wetherbee. Climate Policy, I, London, https://www.climatepolicyinitiative. Jägermeyr, J., et al., 2021: Climate change signal in global agriculture emerges
org/publication/updated-view-on-the-global-landscape-of-climate- earlier in new generation of climate and crop models. Nat. Food Press,
finance-2019. Accessed 2021. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-101657/v1.
Ebi, K., et al., 2021: Burning embers: synthesis of the health risks of climate Jurgilevich, A., A. Räsänen, F. Groundstroem and S. Juhola, 2017: A systematic
change. Environ. Res. Lett., 16(4), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abeadd. review of dynamics in climate risk and vulnerability assessments. Environ.
FAO, 2018b: The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Meeting the Res. Lett., 12(1), 13002.
Sustainable Development Goals [Barange, M., J. Alder, U. Barg, S. Funge-
2895
Kay, R. and J. Adler, 2017: Coastal Planning and Management. CRC Press, Stuart-Smith, J., et al., 2018: Southernmost records of two Seriola species in
London. an Australian ocean-warming hotspot. Mar. Biodivers., 48(3), 1579–1582,
Kelly-Gerreyn, B.A., et al., 2014: Benthic biomass size spectra in shelf and doi:10.1007/s12526-016-0580-4.
deep-sea sediments. Biogeosciences, 11(22), 6401–6416, doi:10.5194/bg- Taberna, A., T. Filatova, D. Roy and B. Noll, 2020: Tracing resilience, social
11-6401-2014. dynamics and behavioral change: a review of agent-based flood risk models.
Kienberger, S., T. Blaschke and R.Z. Zaidi, 2013: A framework for spatio-temporal Socio-Environ. Syst. Model., 2, 17938.
scales and concepts from different disciplines: the ‘vulnerability cube’. Nat. Tanoue, M., Y. Hirabayashi and H. Ikeuchi, 2016: Global-scale river flood
AI Hazards, 68(3), 1343–1369. vulnerability in the last 50 years. Sci Rep, 6, 36021, doi:10.1038/srep36021.
Klein Goldewijk, K., A. Beusen and P. Janssen, 2010: Long-term dynamic Tanoue, M., R. Taguchi, H. Alifu and Y. Hirabayashi, 2021: Residual flood damage
modeling of global population and built-up area in a spatially explicit way: under intensive adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. In Press.
HYDE 3.1. Holocene, 20(4), 565–573. Thomas, A., et al., 2021: Global evidence constraints and limits to human
Klein Goldewijk, K., A. Beusen, G. Van Drecht and M. De Vos, 2011: The HYDE adaptation. Reg Environ Change, 21, doi:10.1007/s10113-021-01808-9.
3.1 spatially explicit database of human-induced global land-use change Thornton, P.K., G.C. Nelson, D. Mayberry and M. Herrero, 2021: Increases in
over the past 12,000 years. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 20(1), 73–86. extreme heat stress in domesticated livestock species during the twenty-first
Kulp, S. and B. Strauss, 2019: New elevation data triple estimates of global century. Glob. Chang. Biol., doi:10.1111/gcb.15825.
vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding. Nat Commun, 10(4844), Tittensor, D.P., et al., 2018: A protocol for the intercomparison of marine fishery
doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z. and ecosystem models: Fish-MIP v1.0. Geosci. Model Dev., 11(4), 1421–
Kwiatkowski, L., O. Aumont and L. Bopp, 2019: Consistent trophic amplification 1442, doi:10.5194/gmd-11-1421-2018.
of marine biomass declines under climate change. Glob Change Biol, 25(1), Tittensor, D.P., et al., 2021: Next-generation ensemble projections reveal higher
218–229, doi:10.1111/gcb.14468. climate risks for marine ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Chang. Accepted.
Meredith, M., M. Sommerkorn, S. Cassotta, C. Derksen, A. Ekaykin, A. Hollowed, Trisos, C.H., C. Merow and A.L. Pigot, 2020: The projected timing of abrupt
G. Kofinas, A. Mackintosh, J. Melbourne-Thomas, M.M.C. Muelbert, G. ecological disruption from climate change. Nature, 580(7804), 496–501,
Ottersen, H. Pritchard, and E.A.G. Schuur, 2019: Polar Regions. In: IPCC doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9.
Special Report on the Ocean and Crysosphere in a Changing Climate [Pörtner, UNISDR, 2004: Living with risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives:
H. O., D. C. Roberts, V. Vmasson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, Version 1. In: Living with risk: A global review of disaster reduction
K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama and N. M. initiatives: Version 1. UN. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Weyer (eds.)], In press. pp. 203–320. (ISDR). Secretariat; World ….
Meza, I., et al., 2020: Global-scale drought risk assessment for agricultural Viviroli, D., et al., 2020: Increasing dependence of lowland populations on
systems. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20(2), 695–712, doi:10.5194/ mountain water resources. Nat. Sustain., doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0559-9.
nhess-20-695-2020. Vousdoukas, M.I., et al., 2020a: Reply to: Sandy beaches can survive sea-level
Miller, K. A., G.R. Munro, U.R. Sumaila and W.W.L. Cheung, 2013: Governing rise. Nat. Clim. Chang., 10(11), 996–997, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-00935-1.
marine fisheries in a changing climate: a game-theoretic perspective. Can. J. Vousdoukas, M.I., et al., 2020b: Sandy coastlines under threat of erosion. Nat.
Agric. Econ., 61(2), 309–334, doi:10.1111/cjag.12011. Clim. Chang., 10(3), 260–263, doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0697-0.
Mills, G., et al., 2018: Closing the global ozone yield gap: quantification and World Bank, 2019: The World Governance Indicators. https://info.worldbank.
cobenefits for multistress tolerance. Glob Chang Biol, 24(10), 4869–4893, org/governance/wgi/.
doi:10.1111/gcb.14381. World Bank, 2020: The World Development Indicators: GDP (current US$).
Mora, C., et al., 2017b: Global risk of deadly heat. Nature Clim Change, 7, 501. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD.
Nyboer, E.A., C. Liang and L.J. Chapman, 2019: Assessing the vulnerability of Xu, C., et al., 2020: Future of the human climate niche. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,
Africa’s freshwater fishes to climate change: A continent-wide trait-based 117(21), 11350–11355, doi:10.1073/pnas.1910114117.
analysis. Biol. Conserv., 236, 505–520, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.003. Yool, A., et al., 2017: Big in the benthos: future change of seafloor community
Østhagen, A., J. Spijkers and O.A. Totland, 2020: Collapse of cooperation? The biomass in a global, body size-resolved model. Glob Change Biol, 23(9),
North-Atlantic mackerel dispute and lessons for international cooperation 3554–3566, doi:10.1111/gcb.13680.
on transboundary fish stocks. Marit. Stud., 19(2), 155–165, doi:10.1007/
s40152-020-00172-4.
Robinson, L.M., et al., 2015: Rapid assessment of an ocean warming hotspot
reveals “high” confidence in potential species’ range extensions. Glob.
Environ. Change., 31, 28–37, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.003.
Rufat, S., E. Tate, C.G. Burton and A.S. Maroof, 2015: Social vulnerability to
floods: review of case studies and implications for measurement. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduct., 14, 470–486.
Scussolini, P., et al., 2016: FLOPROS: an evolving global database of flood
protection standards. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16(5), 1049–1061,
doi:10.5194/nhess-16-1049-2016.
Selig, E.R., et al., 2019: Mapping global human dependence on marine
ecosystems. CONSERVATION LETTERS, 12(2), e12617, doi:10.1111/
conl.12617.
Sharps, K., et al., 2020: Yield Constraint Score (YCS) for the effect of five crop
stresses on global production of four staple food crops. NERC Environmental
Information Data Centre, https://doi.org/10.5285/d347ed22-2b57-4dce-
88e3-31a4d00d4358. Accessed on 2020-11-26 17:25
Spielman, S.E., et al., 2020: Evaluating social vulnerability indicators: criteria
and their application to the Social Vulnerability Index. Nat Hazards, 100(1),
417–436.
2896

Ipcc Ar6 Wgii Annex-I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipcc Ar6 Wgii Annex-I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annexes

Coordinating Editors: Hans-Otto Pörtner (Germany), Andrés Alegría (Germany/Honduras)

This annex should be cited as:

AI.1 Introduction AI.1.1 Risk Framework

Risk in IPCC assessment through time

Figure AI.1 | Risk in IPCC assessments.

AI.1.3 Links to Working Group I

First, there are chapters dedicated to regional assessment in AR6 WGII

Third, cross-chapter papers are dedicated to typological regions,

Physical drivers of climate change: Temperature

Observed mean temperature (°C)

Projected changes (°C)

Mean temperature change at +4.0°C Global Warming

Mean temperature change at +2.0°C Global Warming

Mean temperature change at +1.5°C Global Warming

Physical drivers of climate change: Precipitation

Observed total Precipitation (mm/day)

Projected changes (%)

<-55 -40 -20 0 20 40 >55

Maximum 1–day precipitation change (RX1day) (%)

Maximum 1–day precipitation change (RX1day) (%)

Maximum 1–day precipitation change (RX1day) (%)

Physical drivers of climate change: Dissolved oxygen in the ocean

Surface Near seabed

< 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Evidence of climate change impacts in many regions of the world

8,000 Not attributable

Weighted studies per grid cell

0 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200

Projected changes in global marine species richness in 2100 compared to 2006

Change in species richness

AI.2 Global to Regional Maps

AI.2.1 Biodiversity, Biogeography, Habitability, Health

AI.2.1.1 Wild Species

Forest cover change Tropical broadleaf forests Temperate grasslands/savannas/shrublands

(a) Eastern Africa

* Truncated bar reaches 82%

(a) Eastern Africa

(e) Western Africa

(h) Southern Asia

(d) Southern Africa

(e) Western Africa

People living in land area of high conservation importance

= 10 million people in 2015

2,037 million people occupy 1,313 million people occupy

Present and Present habitat loss

Projected habitat loss

Very low loss

143 areas Projected habitat loss

Other land area is approx. 180,000 km2

Projected change in marine fish biomass

-40% -30% -20% -10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40%

Projected change in marine zooplankton biomass

Projected change in marine phytoplankton biomass

Projected change in marine benthic animal biomass

-40% -30% -20% -10% 0 10% 20% 30% 40%

50–75% Projected biodiversity loss

Projected biodiversity loss

AI.2.1.2 Livestock and Crop Production

Direction of impact Level of confidence in attribution to climate change

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Climatic and environmental stresses on global production of wheat

High Yield Constraint Score (YCS)