Harmful tipping points in the natural world pose some of the gravest threats faced by humanity. Their triggering will severely damage our planet’s life-support systems and threaten the stability of our societies.
This report is for all those concerned with tackling escalating Earth system change and mobilising transformative social change to alter that trajectory, achieve sustainability and promote social justice.
Considers Earth system tipping points. These are reviewed and assessed across the three major domains of the cryosphere, biosphere and circulation of the oceans and atmosphere. We then consider the interactions and potential cascades of Earth system tipping points, followed by an assessment of early warning signals for Earth system tipping points.
Considers tipping point impacts. First we look at the human impacts of Earth system tipping points, then the potential couplings to negative tipping points in human systems. Next we assess the potential for cascading and compounding systemic risk, before considering the potential for early warning of impact tipping points.
Considers how to govern Earth system tipping points and their associated risks. We look at governance of mitigation, prevention and stabilisation then we focus on governance of impacts, including adaptation, vulnerability and loss and damage. Finally, we assess the need for knowledge generation at the science-policy interface.
Focuses on positive tipping points in technology, the economy and society. It provides a framework for understanding and acting on positive tipping points. We highlight illustrative case studies across energy, food and transport and mobility systems, with a focus on demand-side solutions (which have previously received limited attention).
3.3.3.2 Multi-level, multi-phase, and multi-network governance
Responding effectively to ESTPs requires drawing on the competences and resources of actors at multiple levels, usually embedded in different organisational networks. It is important that these linkages between actors at various levels and organisations are established and functioning before a response is required (i.e. in the pre-tipping phase 1 of a tipping process, see Figure 3.3.1). It is these ‘connective capacities’ that allow actors to coordinate across scales, domains and sectors in response to a tipping event (Folke et al., 2005; Edelenbos et al., 2013; Galaz et al., 2016). At the same time, strongly connected, interdependent systems can be a source of instability. Care is required when building connective capacities to avoid introducing new sources of instability, abstaining, for instance, from tight coupling and instead prioritising decentralised coordination (Perrow, 1999; Scheffran, 2008; Helbing, 2013; Leonard, 2021).
Figure 3.3.3 presents a multi-level, multi-phase, multi-network governance response scheme, highlighting the importance of actors and institutions across all levels to be involved in tipping points impact governance. The multiple scales include local, regional, national and global governance institutions. The multiple phases expand on Figure 3.3.1, differentiating between anticipation, detection and four different time horizons of impact response after the transgression of a tipping point, from immediate to 1,000+ years.
Figure 3.3.3: Multi-level, multi-phase ESTPl impact governance. Governance institutions at local, national, regional and global level and their involvement in ESTP governance at different phases of ESTPs and their impacts. The thickness represents the importance of the respective governance institutions in a given phase. The arrows represent interactions. All interactions are two-ways with the main purpose being coordination, resource distribution, knowledge exchange and backup planning. Interactions at the regional level can include sectoral planning and cross-border initiatives. Civil society is tasked with monitoring and ensuring accountability at each governance level.
It is difficult to accurately predict the timing, scope and location of a tipping event and its various impacts. Therefore, developing and maintaining a diversity and redundancy of resources (human and economic), institutions (non-governmental to international organisations) and knowledge (scientific to local) is important to prepare for the unexpected (see 3.1.2.2). While these institutions together comprise enormous resources for problem-solving, a key challenge is to coordinate them to adequately respond to the impacts of tipping points to enable their rapid mobilisation when needed. A networked, decentralised, polycentric impact governance approach would facilitate access to these diverse resources and empower agency by balancing self-organisation and coordination (Folke et al., 2005; Bodin and Crona, 2009; Helbing et al., 2015; Galaz et al., 2016). In some instances, governance capacities and resources might be weak or lacking at particular scales or sites, or responsibilities might not be matched with required resources. Identifying and filling such gaps with a view to ESTPs will be an important component of pre-tipping governance. For example, current adaptation approaches often defer adaptation planning to the level of local governance, which has been criticised as inadequate (Nyberg et al., 2022). This might be even more the case for ESTP impact governance. While local government and community groups are key actors in the multi-level governance set-up, they alone will not have the capacity to respond to the effects of tipping points. National governments will play a crucial role to facilitate local response in collaboration with local actors and non-governmental actors (Nyberg et al., 2022).
Multiple spatial scales: Given the diversity of tipping-point impacts and their geographic distribution, even among tipping points of the same kind (e.g. the disintegration of different ice sheets), governance efforts should carefully consider the need for tipping point-specific approaches. Further, tipping processes demand a distribution of multi-dimensional governance responsibilities in a polycentric system of actors. For some aspects of impact governance, global coordination or even rulemaking might be needed, while planning and implementation takes place primarily at other scales (OECD 2021). The case of climate change adaptation is insightful here: a global adaptation goal, information-sharing in the UNFCCC (e.g. with NDCs and reporting requirements) guide global adaptation efforts, while adaptation planning requires national and local action, and implementation is almost always a local (e.g. city-level) task. The question of resources and finance has important global dimensions (the provision of climate finance by high-income countries) and can involve international financial institutions. There are also cross-scale issues within countries, e.g. to what extent do national governments provide support and funding for local adaptation planning and measures.
In the context of ESTPs, regional governance bodies such as the European Union or African Union, but also non-government bodies such as the OECD, might play an important role in developing regional responses and cross-border initiatives. While it is not yet clear to what extent governance arrangements at the scale of specific tipping systems (e.g. West African monsoon or tropical coral reefs) is needed to support impact governance, we suggest that there would be significant benefits in coordinating activities at this scale and in learning from each other’s experience of different adaptation approaches.
National governments will play an important role in identifying which tipping point risks they are exposed to and how to prepare for potential impacts. A range of existing national policy measures and activities, related to, for example, climate change adaptation, disaster preparation or immigration, will need to be updated and likely adjusted to account for ESTP risks. Further, social cohesion is regarded as a foundation for societal resilience and transformative adaptation, and should be fostered (Grimalda and Tänzler, 2018; Orazani et al., 2023). Institutional capacity building to equip local authorities and communities to respond in just ways to Earth system destabilisation is another important task for national governments.
Multiple temporal scales: Various institutions will also play different roles regarding the different phases and temporal scales of ESTP impact governance. Time-specific governance efforts range from anticipation in the pre-tipping phase (see Figure 3.3.1) to long-term governance for impacts over several hundred years in the reorganisation phase. Institutions ranging from the local to global level should be involved in pre-tipping learning, planning and capacity building. Long-term governance with time horizons beyond this century is not yet part of the toolbox of global governance in the 21st Century, and capacity building and innovation is needed in this regard. Actors like national governments and international organisations might in many cases be more suitable to this task than actors in industry or civil society due to their higher potential for continuity (see Figure 3.3.3).
Legitimacy and trust: Successful polycentric governance of tipping point impacts requires legitimacy – i.e. the shared understanding that the actions taken are fair and appropriate. Legitimacy facilitates trust, which is crucial for coordinating a networked response (Moynihan, 2008; Young, 2011; Galaz et al., 2016). One way to increase this is through public engagement in impact governance, which gives citizens agency, empowering them to develop transformative adaptation strategies and competencies to protect themselves and their communities (Oliver et al., 2023). For instance, ESTP impact governance may involve abandoning certain economic or agricultural activities in areas with ecological regime shifts (e.g. coral reef die-off or extrapolar glacier retreat) and establishing new ones. Involving local communities in decision making and transformative pathways implementation will be crucial for legitimacy and buy-in. The format and mechanisms of public engagement (e.g. online climate assembly platforms) are crucial to achieve these positive effects and avoid inequality of participation (Nisbett et al., 2022). We suggest a potential framework for community involvement based on Oliver et al., (2023) and OECD (2021) in Figure 3.3.4.
Figure 3.3.4: Community involvement in ESTP governance. The suggested scheme for community involvement in ESTP governance builds on Oliver et al. (2023) and OECD (2021) and envisions three phases: participatory systems mapping, intervention mapping and interventions implementation & assessment. In each phase the involved actors are communities, authorities and experts.
Citizen-led adaptation approaches need to be integrated with other efforts by local and national governments within a multi-level framework. Adapting these approaches for tipping point governance likely requires the involvement of scientific experts and the acknowledgment that adaptation may not be an option in response to certain impacts (i.e. directly addressing the possibility of adaptation limits).
Box 3.3.2
Institutions for multi-level, multi-phase, and multi-network ESTP impact governance in the Amazon
Governance of the Amazon rainforest represents a complex and multi-faceted challenge due to the conflicting interests and demands placed upon its ecosystem services. Spanning the territories of nine nations, the Amazon houses various Indigenous groups, resource users and extractive industries. This multifaceted landscape has driven efforts to harmonise often-competing priorities between exogenous and endogenous forces through the institutionalisation of polycentric climate governance (PCG) approaches (Ostrom et al., 2010; Abdala, 2015). Effective governance becomes pivotal, especially when considering potential tipping points arising from the interplay of climate change, deforestation, degradation and fire (D’Almeida et al., 2007; Wright et al., 2017; Butt et al., 2020; Leite‐Filho et al., 2020). The projected impacts of Amazon dieback, which could be triggered at between 2°C and 6°C global warming, are summarised in Table 3.3.1.
The triggering of the Amazon dieback tipping point would have region-wide and even global impacts. At the regional level, the main cooperation instrument deployed to promote regional coordination is the Amazon Cooperation Treaty (ACT) and its supporting forum, the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organisation (ACTO). While ACTO has contributed to the reduction of regional discrepancies and fostered regional cooperation, its broader effectiveness as part of a polycentric governance framework remains debated. One limitation is that its membership is confined to nation states, causing some misalignment between ACTO’s initiatives and the sub-national decisions of its members. This restriction also hinders the development of potential cross-boundary initiatives that could help address tipping-point drivers.
Stakeholders have responded to this absence of effective integration between regional and sub-national scales of governance through increasing participation in jurisdictional-scale intergovernmental forums, such as the Governors’ Climate and Forests Task Force (GCF). The GCF currently enhances coordinated efforts against deforestation and encourages sustainable development pathways at the sub-national level (Burkhart et al., 2017). Its mandate could be extended to integrate tipping-point governance, such as water scarcity management and transformative adaptation to an ecological regime shift.
Participation of, and engagement with, local knowledge and perspectives is both a key dimension of climate justice and associated with improved governance and adaptation outcomes (Marshall, 2009; Schroeder, 2010). However, in the case of cross-scale Amazonian governance, Indigenous communities are underrepresented in decision-making protocols, particularly at the national and regional levels. The right to participate in regular ACTO meetings as observers is not explicitly afforded to Indigenous communities, nor are the latter effectively consulted in the design of policy, programmatic activities, or budget allocation (Garcia, 2011). This has decreased the legitimacy of governing authorities (Burkart et al., 2017) and undermined the effectiveness of governance efforts.
However, there are examples of effective approaches to polycentric governance in specific local contexts, where the involvement of local cooperative initiatives fosters legitimacy and social capital between stakeholders. The Brazilian state of Acre is considered as having developed one of the world’s most advanced state-wide programmes for low-emission rural development, including adaptation. The state’s experimentation with forest-based development and forest citizenship to address the complex challenges of sustainable forest-based development have given rise to a comprehensive approach that links policies across sectors, involves civil society, and builds institutional capacity (Schmink et al., 2014). This approach includes community and state forest management, expansion of forest-product value chains, forestry education, and technical assistance for different resource user groups (Schmink et al., 2014). Notable is the structural inclusion of the Indigenous Working Group (IWG), representing Acre’s 15 ethnic groups (de Wit, 2019) in its Commission for Validation and Accompaniment (CEVA). CEVA monitors Acre’s State System of Incentives for Environmental Services (SISA), which is primarily tasked with reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), but which could be expanded to ESTP impact governance. The integration of the IWG in CEVA was found to have had a positive impact on Indigenous communities’ internal social cohesion alongside increased trust between communities and the state.
On the other end of local-global spectrum, the question arises as to what role global institutions such as the UNFCCC could play in an Amazon dieback tipping point scenario. This would likely increase adaptation needs in the region and result in loss and damage (including loss of cultural practices, etc), suffered particularly by Indigenous communities.
(a)Impact governance in the UNFCCC
Similar to our discussion of prevention efforts (see 3.2.3), several features of climate change governance under the UNFCCC, in particular the Paris Agreement (PA), are relevant for impact governance related to ESTPs. These could be adjusted to take into account the risks of large-scale, nonlinear change processes in the Earth system. Relevant stipulations include those related to adaptation (global goal in Art. 2 (1b) and Art. 7 PA), loss and damage (Art 8 PA), finance, technology and capacity-building support (Articles 9, 10, 11), the Global Stocktake (Article 14 PA) and the obligation to regularly submit NDCs (Article 4 (2) PA).
The characteristics of tipping points and their impacts present formidable challenges for the existing global framework on adaptation. The global goal on adaptation (Art. 2 (1b) and Art. 7 (1)) sets out to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change by supporting national-scale action. The interpretation of this goal should consider the latest scientific evidence regarding ESTPs, and the specific challenges they present (see 3.3.2). This implies, for instance, including tipping points in impact risk and adaptation needs assessments across scales and sectors, addressing ESTPs in adaptation plans and reports, and emphasising transformative adaptation. The Paris Agreement recognises the multi-scale nature of adaptation governance (Art. 7 (2) PA), and the imperative of adaptation being country-driven, taking into account major differences between affected communities around the world. This applies in the context of ESTPs: countries need to assess their exposure to potential tipping-point impacts and determine – in a process that involves national and sub-national actors – how to prepare for and adapt to the expected changes. However, given the important scale of the tipping system, we recommend that adaptation governance increasingly considers regional coordination and cooperation regarding adaptation among all countries affected by a specific tipping process.
While the IPCC reports that progress has been made on adaptation around the world (IPCC, 2022b), there is still a long way to go, and tipping risks have not yet been factored in adaptation strategies. There are significant risks of insufficient or maladaptive approaches, and the possibility that tipping processes push communities towards and across adaptation limits.
Based on our arguments related to Earth system reorganisations and irreversibility, loss and damage (L&D) provisions will play an ever-growing role in this domain of governance. Loss and damage is increasingly recognised as the ‘third pillar’ of climate change governance in addition to adaptation and mitigation (Broberg, 2021). L&D is subject of Article 8 PA, recognising “the importance of averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change”. These impacts are often described as “beyond what can be adapted to” (Huq et al., 2013; UNFCCC, 2018). As outlined above, transgressing ESTPs will make the occurrence of impacts beyond the feasibility range of adaptation much more likely.
While there is yet no official definition for L&D, a range of phenomena fall into this category, including impacts of extreme weather events, migration and displacement, and slow-onset events (e.g. sea level rise, glacial retreat, salinisation), which can cause economic and non-economic losses (NEL). The former refers to loss of income, business operations and infrastructure, while the latter concerns losses that are intangible and cannot be expressed in monetary terms. NELs are related to culture, Indigenous knowledge, sovereignty, health, or loss of territory. NELs are challenging to address or even identify, making the development of governance mechanisms difficult and slow. Given that ESTPs can result in the loss of whole territories or ecosystems, with implications for the cultural practices that were embedded in these territories and ecosystems, it is likely that breaching ESTPs would result in higher non-economic L&Ds.
Following COP27 agreements in 2022, a new L&D fund for vulnerable countries is currently being designed. ESTPs and their potential impacts should be taken into account in this process. The fund is expected to rely heavily on attribution science for any L&D claims made. If ESTPs are transgressed, the future attribution models used should include ESTPs to allow communities to make L&D claims on the basis of tipping-point impacts. Given that vulnerabilities to ESTPs are not the same as overall climate change vulnerabilities, the question arises whether (currently) affluent countries affected by ESTPs (e.g. Europe under an AMOC collapse scenario) would be eligible to access L&D funds, given they will also be expected to contribute as one of main (historic) emitters. Furthermore, the current proposals for an L&D fund tie it closely to current global finance institutions and mechanisms. Since the crossing of tipping points could destabilise the financial system (see 2.3.6), it is important to ask how the L&D fund can itself be made resilient against this ESTP impact. Finally, for L&D to effectively support communities that will be most affected by ESTPs, which often suffer from intersecting disadvantages and marginalisation, processes and actors need to be in place that can provide knowledge on L&D mechanisms and ESTPs at the local level. Empowering communities to demand compensation or other forms of support will be key for the availability of resources for re-building and transformation.
(b)Climate-related mobility
ESTP impacts are expected to increase the movement of people within and across countries. As tipping processes unfold: accelerating sea level rise, more frequent and severe extreme weather events, and the collapse of certain ecosystems and water sources are likely to increase climate-related mobility in many regions of the world. This can take different forms, including migration, displacement, planned retreat, and immobility. Voluntary migration may be an alternative to in situ adaptation, while other forms of movement, for example., forced or involuntary migration, may instead be a failure to adapt, perhaps due to insufficient public investment in adaptation measures, and a lack of anticipatory planning, leading to Loss and Damage (Pill, 2020). At the same time, ESTP impacts can increase the number of trapped or immobile populations (see chapter 2.3 and 2.4). Distinguishing among three dimensions of climate-induced human mobility–migration, displacement, and immobility–is important as each responds to different and multiple drivers, affects distinct populations, has distinct impacts, and requires different management strategies. Both those who move and those who do not move may face increased vulnerability (Black et al., 2013). Managing, anticipating, and planning for increases in temporary and permanent, voluntary and involuntary, and international and internal climate-induced population movement poses increasingly urgent governance challenges.
The ability of countries to adapt to rising sea levels varies significantly, and many coastal areas are projected to reach their adaptation limits this century, even without taking into account the transgression of tipping points. Over the past decade, weather-related events have already displaced twice as many people annually as conflict and violence, and this number is likely to grow. The United Nations International Organization for Migration (IOM) forecasts up to one billion environmental migrants by the year 2050 without taking into account the additional mobility pressures created by ESTPs. Furthermore, some nations, such as low-lying islands, are becoming increasingly uninhabitable, requiring, in extreme cases, the movement of entire populations to receiving countries. This raises new international legal questions related to self-determination and the ‘right to relocation’, statelessness and how to create continued political statehood after the submersion of a state’s territory, and how to define exclusive economic zones or sovereign waters (Risse, 2009).
While displacement today is mostly temporary, as tipping points unfold and permanently change parts of the world (e.g., turning the Amazon rainforest into a savanna), displacement may become increasingly permanent. There is a need to anticipate these movements and understand where they are unavoidable and where they might reflect under-investment in communities. Governance reform is needed to strengthen the rights of people and obligations of governments in countries of origin, transit and destination (Kraemer, 2017). Existing reform proposals include the introduction and recognition of “climate passports” that follow the historical model of the “Nansen Passport”— internationally recognized refugee travel documents first issued by the League of Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees to stateless refugees following WWI (BMZ, 2021).
Climate-induced mobility is a complex, dynamic, and multi-dimensional issue domain. The movement of people will happen both within and across countries, necessitating robust domestic and global governance. There is currently no firmly institutionalised global governance framework for cross-border migration. Recent progress towards such a framework includes the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) adopted by most UN member states in 2018. The GCM is a non-binding cooperation framework and provides a foundation for strengthening legal and institutional conditions for cross-border migration in the future. The IPCC has pointed to expansion of opportunities for human mobility as one measure to reduce vulnerability to climatic changes. In this context, the IPCC has highlighted that expanding opportunities for human mobility can reduce vulnerability to changes in the climate and enhance human security, particularly for exposed populations that lack resources for planned migration (Adger et al., 2014).
Planned relocation is one approach to expanding opportunities for human mobility. The planned or managed movement of communities or people away from high or at-risk areas to new locations is a specific climate mobility governance challenge with international, national, and sub-national dimensions. While one aim of impact governance is to minimise displacement through local resilience building and adaptation measures, planned relocation is likely to become increasingly necessary due to environmental changes that cannot be adapted to and due to persistent under-investment in adaptation measures (Stal, 2011; Ferris, 2012; Martin et al., 2014; Ahmed and McEvoy, 2014). As a result, planned relocation as a policy response to environmental changes has gained recent attention (Koslov, 2016; Hino et al., 2017).
Planned relocation, also referred to as managed retreat or resettlement, covers a range of cases, including the relocation of communities within a country or region (e.g., moving coastal communities to locations further inland) and across borders (e.g., relocating small-island populations to another country). This process can be driven by the community itself or happen with government support and guidance. As such, the process and associated challenges vary substantially across cases. The term is not defined under international law, and views on its key elements, including resource allocation and distribution, engagement in decision-making process, and recognition, differ among various entities including governments and legal experts. Furthermore, it challenges widely held values around freedom of movement, psychological attachments to place, and the community social fabric, and has historically been associated with racist policies and inadequate community consultation, inadequate complaint mechanisms, and limited post-relocation support (Schade, 2013; Arnall, 2019). While planned relocation has had a poor record in terms of socioeconomic impacts, it also has the potential to save lives and reduce risks (Ferris and Weerasingh, 2020). However, currently the absence of national and local frameworks, meaningful community-consultation, and sufficient anticipatory plans pose challenges for successful planned relocation efforts. Case studies suggest that planned relocation processes initiated and driven by affected communities have better outcomes than government-driven processes (Bower et al., 2023). Careful and advanced planning, legal and institutional frameworks, and adequate financial resources are also important (Ferris and Weerasingh, 2020).
In recent years, there have been a growing number of examples of sizable, planned relocation efforts that help illustrate the broad range of governance challenges associated with this approach. The government-managed relocation of indigenous tribes living on Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana set the precedent for climate-induced planned relocation in the United States (Davenport and Campbell, 2016). The small island community lost 98 percent of its territory due to subsidence, erosion, and the construction of Mississippi River levees (Ferris and Weerasinghe, 2020), and by 2017, a large part of the population had left the island due to repeated flooding. The remaining residents, mostly members of small indigenous groups, struggled to obtain financial support for relocation due to lack of federal recognition of the tribes until receiving a grant from the US government in 2016. The Jean Charles Choctaw tribe has since released a statement (2022) that the state’s handling of the relocation was conducted “without meaningful consultation with, or the explicit consent from, our Tribal leadership”. Principles of consultation, consent, and support are included in the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which was adopted in 2009 by all 182 states of the UN, including the U.S. The Isle de Jean Charles case illustrates the need for an organised effort by a designated (federal) agency focused on community resettlements, with greater advanced planning, more money, fewer bureaucratic hurdles, and increased sensitivity to community needs.
In 2022, the Biden Administration set a new precedent for government support for planned relocation due to climate change by allocating $75 million to relocate three Native tribes from their current tribal lands (two in Alaska and one in Washington state) (Newburger, 2022). However, the funding is insufficient to rebuild homes, schools, and other community necessities. There is still no designated federal agency to manage these resettlements, nor clear national and local frameworks to ensure that the relocation benefits communities and involves meaningful community consultation.
Other countries with sizeable areas at risk from sea level rise and extreme weather have made similar efforts, including Vietnam, the Philippines (following the devastation caused by Typhoon Haiyan), and Fiji. Some Small Island Developing States (SIDS) face existential threats from sea level rise, which will be exacerbated by the crossing of ESTPs. In 2017, Fiji had already relocated three communities to higher ground and has plans to move another 43 villages. To facilitate this process, they developed guidelines for planned relocation (Fiji and GIZ, 2018). However, it is anticipated that several SIDS may need to move their populations to other countries in the future (Vaha, 2018). In 2014, Kiribati purchased land from Fiji, becoming the first nation to purchase land in another country specifically for relocation of its people due to climate change.
As the urgency and scale of planning for the relocation of entire communities and even nations grow, a coordinated, local, national, and international governance of climate risk and adaptation will need to incorporate planned relocation among its portfolio of impact governance responses. This will require multi-level coordination both within and across countries, and the development of novel governance and legal frameworks. These frameworks might build on existing rules and provisions for the resettlement of refugees, and they might fall under the L&D mechanism of the UNFCCC. But these governance instruments will need to be adjusted to consider the relocation of entire populations, challenges related to sovereignty and self-determination, and responsibility for unprecedented losses and the substantial material, social and psychological costs associated with moving entire communities and populations.
View the full Report [PDF 78mb]
