Chapter 5: Food, Fibre and Other Ecosystem Products
Executive Summary
Harnessing youth innovation and vision alongside other SDGs such as gender equity, Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and urban and rural livelihoods, will support effective climate change adaptation to ensure resilient economies in food systems (high confidence). Adaptation strategies that address power inequities lead to co-benefits in equity outcomes and resilience for vulnerable groups (medium confidence). Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge facilitate adaptation strategies for ecosystem provisioning, especially when combined with scientific knowledge using participatory and community-based approaches (high confidence). {5.4.4.3, Table 5.6, 5.6.3, 5.8.4, 5.9.2, 5.9.4.1, 5.9.5, 5.10.2.2, 5.12.7, 5.12.8, 5.13.4, 5.13.5, 5.14.1.1, 5.14.1.2, 5.14.1.4,5.14.2.1, Box 5.13, 5.14.2.2 }
5.1 Introduction
[...]
5.1.3 Chapter Framework
Table 5.1 | Adaptation strategies assessment in food, fibre and other ecosystem provisioning services
| Adaptation strategies/options |
Systems |
Benefits |
Constraints or enablers |
Confidence |
Relevant sections |
| [...] |
|
– Changing the relative emphasis on crops and livestock
– Changing crop varieties and livestock breeds and species
|
Crops– livestock mixed system particularly in the tropics and subtropics |
–Increase resilience |
Gender inequalities can act as a risk multiplier |
Medium |
(5.5.4; 5.10.4) |
| [...] |
|
– Integrated multi-sectoral food system adaptation approaches that address food production, consumption and equity issues
– Nutrition and gender-sensitive agriculture programmes, adaptive social protection and disaster risk management are examples
|
Production and post-harvest |
– Protect vulnerable groups against livelihood risks – Enhance responsiveness to extreme events |
Differentiated responses based on food security level and climate risk can be effective |
Medium |
(5.12.4) |
| – Rights-based approaches, including legislation, gender transformative approaches to agriculture, recognition of rights to land, seeds, fishing areas and other natural resources, and community-based adaptation |
Production and post-harvest |
– Improved food security and nutrition for marginalised groups – Increased resilience through capacity-building of marginalised groups – Address questions of access to resources for marginalised groups |
Focus on meaningful participation in governance, design and implementation of adaptation strategies of those groups who are vulnerable, including gender. Can be conflicts and trade-offs, such as between addressing land rights or traditional fishing grounds |
Medium |
(5.12.4) |
5.4 Crop-Based Systems
[...]
5.4.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities within Production Systems
[...]
5.4.2.3 Gender and other social inequities
Social inequities such as gender, ethnicity and income level, which vary by time and place and may overlap, can compound vulnerability to climate change for producers within cropping systems (high confidence) (Table 5.3, Arora-Jonsson, 2011; Djoudi et al., 2013; Carr and Thompson, 2014; Mbow et al., 2019; Rao et al., 2019a; NyantakyiFrimpong, 2020a). Rather than binary and static categories (i.e., men versus women), social vulnerabilities are dynamic and intersect; to understand vulnerability, the specific socio-cultural identities and political and environmental context need to be studied in relation to climate stress (Thompson-Hall et al., 2016; Rao et al., 2019a; NyantakyiFrimpong, 2020a).
[...]
Table 5.3 | Examples of social inequities in cropping systems that compound climate change vulnerability
| Social inequity |
How social inequity increases vulnerability to climate change in cropping systems |
|
Gender inequity can create and worsen social vulnerability to climate change impacts within cropping systems (high confidence) (Carr and Thompson, 2014; Sugden et al., 2014; Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner-Kerr, 2015; Rao et al., 2019a; Ebhuoma et al., 2020; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a; see Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18).
|
– Men and women have different access to and decision-making control over resources such as seeds, systemic differences in land tenure and agricultural employment, and their responsibilities, workloads and response to climate stresses differ due to systemic gender inequities and socio-cultural norms, which intersect with other inequities (e.g., income level, ethnicity) to compound vulnerability (Rao et al., 2019a; Ebhuoma et al., 2020; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a).
– In a study in northern Ghana, for example, poor widows with poor health had fewer resources to rely on during droughts than married women, particularly those married to local leaders; in contrast, due to gendered expectations, during floods low-income men suffered greater consequences (Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a).
– Adaptation strategies such as migration can compound that vulnerability, but importantly, the specific gendered vulnerability intersects with other inequities which are context specific (Sugden et al., 2014; Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a; Cross-Chapter Box MIGRATE in Chapter 7).
|
[...]
Table 5.5 | PPB as cultivar improvement adaptation method
| Region |
Crop(s) used for breeding |
Results |
| West Africa |
Sorghum and pearl millet |
– Released sorghum and millet varieties which were selected for climate variability (e.g., drought), low soil fertility, pest and disease resistance, gendered preferences for processing, and nutrition (Camacho-Henriquez et al., 2015; Weltzien et al., 2019).
– Farmers who adopted these varieties increased yield, income and food security, alongside increased technical knowledge of plant breeding, and increased breeders’ understanding of local farmers’ varietal requirements (Trouche et al., 2016).
– Joint learning with scientists led to increased genetic gain both in terms of operational scale and focused breeding for diverse farmer priorities (Weltzien et al., 2019).
|
5.5 Livestock-Based Systems
[...]
5.5.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities
[...]
5.5.2.6 Gender and other social inequities
Vulnerability to climate change depends on demography and social roles (Mbow et al., 2019). Gender inequities can act as a risk multiplier, with women being more vulnerable than men to climate-changeinduced food insecurity and related risks (high confidence) (CrossChapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18). Women and men often have differential and unequal control over different productive assets and the benefits they provide, such as income from livestock (Ngigi et al., 2017; Musinguzi et al., 2018). Indigenous livestock keepers can be more vulnerable to climate change, partly due to ongoing processes of land fragmentation (Hobbs et al., 2008), historical land dispossession, discrimination and colonialisation, creating greater levels of poverty and marginalisation (Stephen, 2018). Adaptation actions may also be affected by gender and other social inequities (Balehey et al., 2018; Dressler et al., 2019). Men and women heads of household may access institutional support for adaptation in different ways (Assan et al., 2018). Further research is warranted to evaluate alternative gendered and equity-based approaches that can address differences in adaptive capacity within communities.
5.8 Ocean-Based and Inland Fisheries Systems
[...]
5.8.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities
[...]
5.8.2.2 Social vulnerabilities, including gender and marginalised groups and cultural services
There is high confidence that climate change is and will continue to be a threat to the livelihood of millions of fishers, with the most vulnerable being those with fewer opportunities and less income (Barange and Cochrane, 2018; Section 3.4.3). The social vulnerability can differ largely between locations, even between relatively close coastal or inland communities (Bennett et al., 2014; Maina et al., 2016; Ndhlovu et al., 2017; Martins et al., 2019) and among inhabitants within a location, depending on factors such as access to other economic activities, education, health, adults in the household, and political connections (high confidence) (Senapati and Gupta, 2017; Abu Samah et al., 2019; Lowe et al., 2019).
Indigenous coastal communities consume 1.5–2.8 million metric tonnes of fish per year (about 2% of global yearly commercial marine catch), and reach a per capita consumption estimated to be 15 times greater than that of non-Indigenous country populations (Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2016). There is high confidence that some Indigenous fishing communities are particularly vulnerable to climate change through a reduced capacity to conduct traditional harvests because of limited access to, or availability of, fish resources (Weatherdon et al., 2016), with consequences that include dietary shifts with significant nutritional and health implications (Marushka et al., 2019), displacement and loss of cultural identity (Sullivan and Rosenberg, 2018) and loss of social, economic and cultural rights (Finkbeiner et al., 2018). Areas of high risk for Indigenous Peoples include the Arctic, coastal communities with a high dependency on marine and freshwater fisheries, and Small Island States and Territories (Finkbeiner et al., 2018; Hanich et al., 2018, Section CCP6.2.5.1).
Women play a crucial role along the entire fisheries value chain, providing labour force in industrialised and small-scale fisheries all around the world (FAO, 2020d). For small-scale fisheries alone, women represent about 11% of the labour force, and their activity is generally in subsistence fisheries, highlighting their role in household food security (Harper et al., 2020). In general, gendered division of labour tends to cause lower salaries for women and different perception and experience of risk to climate change impacts (high confidence) (Lokuge and Hilhorst, 2017).
[...]
5.8.4 Adaptation
Adaptive capacity is strongly associated with social capital (i.e., the networks, shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups) (high confidence) (Stoeckl et al., 2017; D’agata et al., 2020) and depends on to what extent stakeholders are aware of climate change and their perception of risk (Ankrah, 2018; Martins and Gasalla, 2018; Chen, 2020). Improving information flows allows for a more efficient co-management implementation (medium confidence) (Vasconcelos et al., 2020). Utilisation of local and Indigenous knowledge has the potential to facilitate adaptation (Bindoff et al., 2019), not only because it represents actual experiences and autonomous adaptations, but also because it facilitates reaching shared understanding among stakeholders and adoption of solutions. Challenges to hybridising local ecological knowledge and scientific knowledge include differences in stakeholder or governance perceptions about the validity of each knowledge set and issues of expertise and trust (Harrison et al., 2018). Engaging Indigenous Peoples and local communities as partners across climate research ensures this knowledge is utilised, enhancing the usefulness of assessments (Bindoff et al., 2019) and facilitating the co-construction and implementation of sustainable solutions (medium confidence) (Braga et al., 2020; Bulengela et al., 2020). Building climate resilience in the fishing sector also involves recognising gender and other social inequities (Call and Sellers, 2019), and ensuring that all stakeholders are equally involved in the adaptation plans, including their design and the capacity-building training programmes.
5.9 Ocean-Based and Inland Aquaculture Systems
[...]
5.9.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities
[...]
5.9.2.1 Gender and other social vulnerability and roles in aquaculture
There are regional differences in women’s roles, responsibilities and involvement in adaptation strategies in the aquaculture sector. Women comprise 14% of the 2018 global aquaculture workforce of 20.5 million (FAO, 2020c), representing up to 42% of the salmon workforce in Chile (Chávez et al., 2019), predominantly in processing roles (Gopal et al., 2020). In the majority of lower-middle-income countries, seaweed culture is dominated by women in family-owned businesses as in Zanzibar and the Philippines (Brugere et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2020), where women are not always paid directly but contribute to family incomes (high confidence) (Msuya and Hurtado, 2017; Brugere et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2020). In India, women collect stocking juveniles and assist in pond construction; in Bangladesh, women do the same tasks as men; and in Ghana, women undertake post-harvest fishing activities (Lauria et al., 2018). Women employed in aquaculture cooperatives gained adaptive capacity, which reduced gender inequities (medium confidence) (Farquhar et al., 2018; Gonzal et al., 2019), but lack of financial access for women can create gender inequity at larger commercial scales (Gurung et al., 2016; Call and Sellers, 2019). Women in aquaculture experience competing roles between employment, childcare and home duties (high confidence) (Morgan et al., 2015; Lauria et al., 2018; Chávez et al., 2019; see CrossChapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18) and differ from men in terms of perceptions of environmental risk, climate change and adaptation behaviour, with limited contributions to decision making (medium confidence) (Barange and Cochrane, 2018). Therefore, effective climate aquaculture adaptation options need to address gender inequity, such as suitable technology designs that fit with social norms and access to credit to facilitate independent uptake (medium evidence, high agreement) (Morgan et al., 2015; Oppenheimer et al., 2019). Generalised best practices for gender-sensitive approaches to adaptation are relevant for aquaculture (UNFCCC, 2013).
5.9.4 Aquaculture Adaptation
[...]
5.9.4.1 Adaptation planning
Aquaculture is often viewed as an adaptation option for fisheries declines, thereby alleviating food security from losses of other climate change impacts (Sowman and Raemaekers, 2018; Johnson et al., 2020) such as Pacific Islands freshwater aquaculture, Bangladesh cropaquaculture systems or Viet Nam rice–fish cultivations (Soto et al., 2018). Many adaptations are specific to regions, countries or sectors, implemented on a regional to national scale (FAO, 2018c; Galappaththi et al., 2020b). Adaptation likelihood (potential), effectiveness and risk of maladaptation was assessed per major FAO production region for inland, brackish and marine aquaculture (Figure 5.16) production systems. Potential adaptation measures to reduce production loss can be built upon existing adaptation planning and guidelines, to reduce the risk of maladaptation including feedback loops (e.g., FAO, 2015; Bueno and Soto, 2017; Dabbadie et al., 2018; FAO, 2018c; Poulain et al., 2018; Brugère et al., 2019; Pham et al., 2021; Soto et al., 2021). Large climate change adaptation strategies for the aquaculture sector exist, such as in the USA (Link et al., 2015), Australia (Hobday et al., 2017) and South Africa (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2016). Lower-income countries often lack financial, technical or institutional capacity for adaptation planning (Galappaththi et al., 2020b), but examples include Bangladesh and Myanmar (FAO, 2018c), with programmes offering adaptation funding (Dabbadie et al., 2018). Early participation of stakeholders in adaptive planning has promoted action and ownership of results (high confidence), such as in India and the USA (Link et al., 2015; FAO, 2018c; Soto et al., 2018) Early outreach, education and knowledge gap assessments raise awareness, where utilisation of local knowledge and Indigenous knowledge and scientific involvement support informed adaptive planning and uptake for all stakeholders (high confidence) (Cooley et al., 2016; FAO, 2018c; Rybråten et al., 2018; Soto et al., 2018; McDonald et al., 2019; Galappaththi et al., 2020b), as perceptions of climate risk and capacity will vary (Tiller and Richards, 2018). Supporting the active involvement of women helps address gender inequity and perceived risk, particularly for smallholder farmers (high confidence) (Morgan et al., 2015; Barange and Cochrane, 2018; FAO, 2018c; Avila-Forcada et al., 2020). However, regional and national political influences, financial and technical capacity, governance planning and policy development will ultimately support or hinder adaptation for aquaculture (high confidence) (Cooley et al., 2016; FAO, 2018c; Galappaththi et al., 2020b; Greenhill et al., 2020).
[...]
5.9.4.3 Farm site selection, infrastructure and husbandry
[...]
Assessment of the likelihood and effectiveness of a range of adaptation options for potential implementation in the near-term for inland freshwater and brackish aquaculture, and marine aquaculture systems
Please refer to page 793 to see Assessment referred above, which mentions gender equity.
5.10 Mixed Systems
[...]
5.10.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities
[...]
5.10.2.2 Social vulnerabilities
As in other production systems, Indigenous groups, gender, race and other social categories can result in heightened vulnerability to climate change in mixed production systems owing to historical and current marginalisation and discrimination (high confidence) (ParraguezVergara et al., 2016; Baptiste and Devonish, 2019; Moulton and Machado, 2019; Popke and Rhiney, 2019; Fagundes et al., 2020). A study of the Mapuche Indigenous group in Chile found that marginalisation and discrimination worsened their vulnerability and observed impacts of climate change because they had less access to services and lower incomes and were not as high a priority as other groups (ParraguezVergara et al., 2016). Among fisherfolk on Lake Wamala, Uganda, Musinguzi (2018) found evidence of considerable diversification to crop and livestock production as a means of increasing households’ food security and income, but women had greater workloads and less control over new income sources than men. Ngigi (2017) evaluated adaptation actions within households in rural Kenya and found that women tended to adopt adaptation strategies related to crops, and men to livestock and agroforestry activities. Chingala (2017) found substantial gender and age-related differences in control of access to animal feed, animal health and water resources in beef producers in mixed crop–livestock systems in Malawi. In a review of agriculture–aquaculture systems in coastal Bangladesh, Hossain et al. (2018) showed that existing policies and adaptation mechanisms are not adequately addressing gender power imbalances, and women continue to be marginalised, leading to increasing feminisation of food insecurity. Such studies highlight the need to consider gender and other social inequities when examining adaptation in mixed production systems, particularly in situations in which men and women have different levels of control over productive assets (Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18).
Table 5.12 | Some of the biophysical and socioeconomic benefits of agroforestry.
| Contribution |
Pathway |
References
|
| [...] |
| Enhanced gender balance |
Via providing women with more diversified income sources |
Kiptot et al. (2014), Ngigi et al. (2017), Benjamin et al. (2018) |
5.12 Food Security, Consumption and Nutrition
5.12.1 Introduction
There are multiple drivers of food security, including changing dietary patterns, urbanisation and population growth (HLPE, 2017b; FAO et al., 2018; Swinburn et al., 2019). Vulnerability to climate change impacts on food insecurity and malnutrition is worsened by other underlying causes, including poverty, multiple forms of inequity (e.g., gender, racial, income), low access to water and sanitation, macroeconomic shocks and conflict (Smith and Haddad, 2015; Clay et al., 2018; FAO et al., 2018; Cook et al., 2019). Climate change frequently acts to compound these drivers of food insecurity (Table 5.14).
5.12.5 Adaptation Options for Food Security and Nutrition
[...]
5.12.5.1 Potential, barriers and challenges for genetically modified crops to address food security and nutrition
| Barriers and challenges |
Examples and potential solutions to barriers |
| Major challenges as a food security and nutrition adaptation include the introgression of GM traits into host varieties (Dowd-Uribe, 2014), and confusion around proper growing practices that can accelerate resistance (Iversen et al., 2014; Fischer et al., 2015). The combination of the kinds of traits and restrictions that come from the predominant intellectual property rights instruments used in their commercialisation, and concentration of plant and animal breeding industry (Bonny, 2017) mean that benefits from released GM crops tend to be captured disproportionately by farmers with more land, wealth and education (Afidchao et al., 2014; Ali and Rahut, 2018; Azadi et al., 2018) but also increase debt levels for growers (Dowd-Uribe, 2014; Leguizamón, 2014). Underlying gender inequities also play a critical role in shaping food security and nutrition outcomes associated with the introduction of GM crops, in part due to unequal control over income and agricultural decision making; in some cases, women reported decreased workload and enhanced decision-making power (Gouse et al., 2016), while in others the introduction of GM crops could increase workload and devalue womens’ role as seed savers (Carro-Ripalda and Astier, 2014; Addison and Schnurr, 2016). Major hurdles for GM crops include translating promising research results into real-world farming systems and consumer trust in the food product. Experimental programmes have been dogged by issues, including complications with the introgression of GM traits into high-performing varieties (Dowd-Uribe and Schnurr, 2016; Stone and Glover, 2017), strict management regimes that clash with the realities of smallholder agricultural systems (Iversen et al., 2014; Whitfield et al., 2015), and a lack of attention to farmer decision making (Schnurr, 2019). |
One case study is the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) programme, a public–private partnership that transplants a cold shock protein B, known as Droughtgard, into maize in order to mitigate yield losses from drought. Proponents suggest that this GM venture, which will be distributed free to smallholder farmers, represents the best strategy for ensuring stable yields in the face of climatic change across Africa (Kyetere et al., 2019). Critics argue that WEMA maize is not a good fit with the smallholder farming systems it is designed to benefit, with particular concerns around how farmers will access the extra inputs, credit and labour that WEMA maize requires to be successful (Schnurr, 2019). Emergent genome-edited crops are considered a more precise, accessible and accelerated means of targeting stressors that matter to poor farmers, but evidence is limited (Kole et al., 2015; Haque et al., 2018; Zaidi et al., 2019). A more iterative and flexible adaptation approach beyond just genomic improvement to tackle the multiplicity of factors limiting smallholder production is anticipated to increase the likelihood that these promising technologies can enhance food security and nutrition (medium confidence) (Giller et al., 2017; Stone, 2017; Montenegro de Wit, 2019). To address food security and nutrition, future breeding needs to move from just enhancing agronomic traits of a single crop to improving multiple traits of multiple crops suited to local conditions that will increase climate resilience of farming systems. To make breeding technologies scale-neutral, the policy structure needs to support and protect smallholders (medium confidence). |
5.12.7 Integrated Multisectoral Food Security and Nutrition Adaptation Options
A study in Lesotho examined the extent to which climate change increased the likelihood of an acute drought in 2007, and a related food crisis (Verschuur et al., 2021). Given land degradation, reliance on rainfed agriculture and food imports from neighbouring South Africa, the study recommended crop diversification, increased use of drought tolerant crop varieties and expanded trade partners in the medium to long term, to both strengthen regional food production and reduce risk of crop failure and the likelihood of climate-induced drought from trade partners reducing food imports (Verschuur et al., 2021). A longitudinal study of smallholder coffee farmers in Nicaragua found that crop diversification, alongside crop management and varietal improvement, would help farmers strengthen food security long term in the face of climate hazards such as drought and coffee leaf rust (Bacon et al., 2021). Another medium- to long-term adaptation response is to address systemic gender, land tenure and other social inequities as part of an inclusive approach (Bezner Kerr et al., 2019; Khatri-Chhetri et al., 2020; Bacon et al., 2021). This long-term strategy could be part of a human-rights-based approach (HRBA, 5.12.8)
5.12.8 Incorporating Human Rights-Based Approaches into Food Systems
A human rights-based approach (HRBA), endorsed by the UN, is one strategy for addressing core inequities that are key drivers for food insecurity and malnutrition of particular groups such as low-income consumers, children, women, small-scale producers and different regions of the world (FAO, 2013; Claeys and Delgado Pugley, 2017; Caron et al., 2018; Le Mouël et al., 2018; Springmann et al., 2018; Tramel, 2018; HLPE, 2019; Willett et al., 2019). Climate change impacts, mitigation and adaptation approaches can also worsen inequities (Eastin, 2018; Borras et al., 2020). HRBA includes core principles of participation, accountability, non-discrimination, transparency, human rights, empowerment and rule of law, which can be integrated into policymaking and implementation as part of transforming the food system (FAO, 2013; Caron et al., 2018; Toussaint and Martínez Blanco, 2020). The right to well-being can serve as the overarching umbrella of HRBA to addressing climate change within food systems and includes a right to health, right to food, cultural rights, the rights of the child and the right to healthy environment (Swinburn et al., 2019). An HRBA has a specific focus on those groups who are vulnerable due to poverty, discrimination and historical inequities and involves meaningful participation of vulnerable groups in governance, design and implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies, including gender responsiveness and integration of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge (UNHRC 2017; Caron et al., 2018; Mills, 2018). There can be conflicts and trade-offs, such as between addressing land rights or traditional fishing grounds, the right to food, and addressing climate justice concerns (Mills, 2018; Borras et al., 2020; Section 5.13). Adaptation strategies that incorporate HRBA include legislation, programmes that address gender inequities in agriculture, agroecology, recognition of rights to land, fishing areas and other natural resources, protection of culturally significant seeds, and community-based adaptation that explicitly involves marginalised groups in governance (Mills, 2018; Tramel, 2018; Huyer et al., 2019; Borras et al., 2020; Section 5.14).
Table 5.17 | Examples of adaptation responses to drought and floods by food security level and time frame. Adapted from Ilboudo Nébié et al. (2021) Table 4, with information from Bahadur et al. (2015); Costella et al. (2017); Gros et al. (2019); Ulrichs et al. (2019); Medina Hidalgo et al. (2020); Bacon et al. (2021); and Verschuur et al. (2021).
| Food insecurity level and time frame of adaptation |
| Adaptation response to drought or floods |
Acute, short term |
Moderate, medium term |
Chronic, long term |
Resilience type |
| Gender transformative or responsive agriculture programmes |
|
X |
X |
Adaptive capacity: can adjust to long-term climate risks and disasters, reduce vulnerability to future shocks |
5.13 Climate-Change-Triggered Competition, Trade-offs and Nexus Interactions in Land and Ocean
[...]
5.13.1 Impacts of Global Land Deals on Land Use, Vulnerable Groups and Adaptation to Climate Change
Land deals, also known as large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs), describe recent changes in access to land globally (Borras et al., 2011). Since 2000, at least 160 million hectares have been under negotiation (Land Matrix, 2021). Land deals surged after the 2007– 2008 food price crisis and farmland investment boom (Fairbairn, 2014), with a diverse range of drivers (Arezki et al., 2015; Zoomers and Otsuki, 2017; Conigliani et al., 2018) including land-based climate change interventions (Dunlap and Fairhead, 2014; Davis et al., 2015a; Hunsberger et al., 2017; Franco and Borras, 2019). Examples are the expansion of biofuel crops (e.g., Yengoh and Armah, 2016; Aha and Ayitey, 2017), afforestation and reforestation (A/R) projects (Olwig et al., 2016; Richards and Lyons, 2016; Scheidel and Work, 2018), REDD+ (Bayrak and Marafa, 2016; Ingalls et al., 2018), conservation areas (Lunstrum, 2016; Schleicher et al., 2019), renewable energy installations (e.g., Sovacool, 2021) or natural disaster management (e.g. Uson, 2017).
Land deals raise important social justice questions (Franco et al., 2017; Hunsberger et al., 2017; Borras and Franco, 2018b; Borras et al., 2020; Sekine, 2021) (high confidence). Specific impacts of land deals vary according to their purpose, location, actors, land use history and procedural aspects. However, multi-case analyses identify severe adverse impacts (Table 5.18). LSLAs are a significant driver of tropical forest loss (Davis et al., 2020), increasing emissions through deforestation (Liao et al., 2021) and industrialisation of agriculture (Rosa et al., 2021). LSLAs entail large water appropriations (Breu et al., 2016; Chiarelli et al., 2016; Adams et al., 2019), affecting local populations’ access to water and food security (Dell’Angelo et al., 2018; Veldwisch et al., 2018). By increasing exported crops, and limiting local populations’ access to land, LSLAs produce food security risks (Marselis et al., 2017; Müller et al., 2021b). Negative livelihoods impacts arise through enclosure of assets, elite capture (Oberlack et al., 2016), crowding out of small farmers (Nolte and Ostermeier, 2017) and reducing local populations’ access to commons (Dell’Angelo et al., 2016; Giger et al., 2019). Indigenous People are affected, facing high levels of violence in land acquisition conflicts (Dell’Angelo et al., 2021). The social burdens of land deals tend to be gendered (e.g., Fonjong et al., 2016; Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner Kerr, 2017; Atuoye et al., 2021).
Local populations can experience declining access to livelihood resources and deteriorating food security, increasing gendered vulnerabilities (Yengoh et al., 2015; Faye and Ribot, 2017; Atuoye et al., 2021). Vulnerable groups displaced by land deals may face higher exposure to climate change (Dell’Angelo et al., 2017). LSLAs affecting common-pool resources governed by Indigenous institutions jeopardise the resilience and adaptive capacity of local socio-ecological systems (Dell’Angelo et al., 2016; D’Odorico et al., 2017; Hak et al., 2018; Haller, 2019; Haller et al., 2020). Growing land tenure insecurity may force farmers to engage in unsustainable farming and forestry practices (Aha and Ayitey, 2017; Gabay and Alam, 2017) and hinder agroecological innovations to manage climate risks (Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020b). Social justice concerns and vulnerability of local populations can be addressed by promoting land redistribution and recognition, particularly for customary lands of Indigenous and ethnic minorities, and land restitution to those who were forcibly displaced (Franco et al., 2015; Borras and Franco, 2018a).
Table 5.18 | Adverse social and ecological risks and impacts of agricultural land deals on land use and vulnerable groups.
| Land use dimensions |
Impacts and implications |
References (2014 to present) |
| Gender |
Impacts and implications of land deals are sometimes experienced in different ways by different genders (high confidence). |
Case study examples
Tsikata and Yaro (2014)
Yengoh et al. (2015)
Fonjong et al. (2016)
Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner Kerr (2017)
Elmhirst et al. (2017)
Bottazzi et al. (2018)
Ndi (2019)
Osabuohien et al. (2019)
Porsani et al. (2019)
Atuoye et al. (2021)
|
5.13.2 Trade-offs Generated by Agricultural Intensification and Expansion
Agricultural intensification seeks to increase agricultural productivity per input unit, reducing the pressure on land use and generating positive impacts in GHG emissions (Mbow et al., 2019), but valuing the final effect requires common metrics in terms of carbon capture or emission reductions (Searchinger et al., 2018). It has been suggested to address multiple SDGs (SDG2, SDG13, SDG15) but only occasionally leads to simultaneous positive ecosystem service and well-being outcomes (Rasmussen et al., 2018). When the process relies only on increasing input use, there is a risk of generating adverse outcomes that may override positive effects, such as CO2 emissions, (McGill et al., 2018), NOx emissions (Hickman et al., 2017), soil salinisation and groundwater depletion (Doody et al., 2015; Daliakopoulos et al., 2016; Fragaszy and Closas, 2016; Foster et al., 2018; Flörke et al., 2019). Agricultural intensification could meet short-term food security and livelihood goals, but reduces biological and landscape diversity, and ecosystem services (high confidence) (Campbell et al., 2017; Balmford et al., 2018; Springmann et al., 2018; Ickowitz et al., 2019; Mbow et al., 2019). Agricultural intensification can also affect livelihoods of small-scale producers, compromising food security. It can increase low-waged casual farm work, increasing gender and income inequity (Bigler et al., 2017; Clay and King, 2019; Table 5.18).
5.13.5 Climate Change and Climate Response Impacts on Indigenous People
Table 5.20 | Summary of the emerging literature on potential risks of maladaptation
| Description of adaptation strategy |
Potential negative impacts |
Maladaptation typology (1 = rebounding vulnerability, 2 = shifting, 3 = eroding SDGs) and confidence level |
Regions and countries affected |
Groups affected |
References |
| Community-based adaptation strategies |
Local gender and other social inequities can lead to ‘elite capture’ that reinforces inequity; power dynamics between the funding agency and local participants can make local community involvement tokenistic. There may be inadequate attention to socio-cultural preferences and structural factors which foster maladaptation such as inappropriate crops or animals used. |
1, 3
high
|
Pacific Islands, Africa, Asia |
Small-scale food producers; Indigenous communities, other vulnerable groups such as women and low-caste groups |
McNamara and Buggy (2017) Jamero et al. (2018), Singh (2018) Bezner Kerr et al. (2019) Piggott-McKellar et al. (2020), Westoby et al. (2020) |
Local communities’ ability to participate in project design, implementation and monitoring is directly linked to the autonomy and independence of local institutions (Pye et al., 2017), their ability to formulate by-laws (Wolde et al., 2016) and handle funds in a transparent way (medium evidence, high agreement) (Witasari, 2016). It is further dependent on cohesion in the community (Cagalanan, 2016), the existence of clear rules delineating community membership and the presence of elders and community members with relevant local knowledge (Robinson et al., 2016b), and gender and out-migration dynamics affecting participation structures (robust evidence, medium agreement) (Cormier-Salem and Panfili, 2016; Witasari, 2016; Wolde et al., 2016; Jurjonas and Seekamp, 2019).
5.14 Implementation Pathways to Adaptation and Co-benefits
[...]
5.14.1 State of Adaptation of Food, Feed, Fibre and Other Ecosystem Products
[...]
5.14.1.3 Insurance as a climate impact risk management tool
[...]
|
Box 5.11: Agroecology as a Transformative Climate Change Adaptation Approach
Agroecological approaches can increase food system resilience (robust evidence, medium agreement), while some agroecological practices such as agroforestry can provide mitigation measures (medium confidence) (Section 5.10.4.2, Table Box 5.11.1, Altieri et al., 2015; Martin and Willaume, 2016; HLPE, 2019; Bezner Kerr et al., 2021; Snapp et al., 2021). Studies testing agroecological approaches have shown robust evidence, medium agreement of increasing adaptation effectiveness through reducing risk, improving food security and yield stability, reducing input costs, and other supporting and provisioning ecosystem services (Section 5.4.4.4 Diacono et al., 2017; Pandey et al., 2017; Schulte et al., 2017; Calderón, 2018; Bezner Kerr et al., 2019; Côte et al., 2019; Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019; Bezner Kerr et al., 2021; Snapp et al., 2021). Effective locally relevant agroecological approaches involve participatory processes, co-creation of knowledge with farmers and attention to social inequities (Bezner Kerr et al., 2021; Santoso et al., 2021; Snapp et al., 2021). To address smallholder vulnerability to climate change impacts, however, additional policy support beyond agroecology will be needed that is context specific; for example, addressing farmer capacity, limited political power to access land, water, seeds and other key natural resources, structural gender inequities, policy and market disincentives that support large-scale monocultures (high confidence) (Anderson et al., 2019a; HLPE, 2019; Holt-Giménez et al., 2021; Snapp et al., 2021).
Table Box 5.11.1 | Dimensions of agroecological transitions as a transformative climate change adaptation strategy, benefits, trade-offs and constraints to implementation.
| Different dimensions of agroecological transitions as a transformative climate change adaptation strategy |
Links to climate change impacts, benefits, trade-offs and constraints to implementation with examples |
| Socio-cultural: Effective locally relevant agroecological approaches involve participatory processes, co-creation of knowledge with farmers and attention to social inequities, in doing so building farmer capacity (HLPE, 2019; Bharucha et al., 2020; Holt-Giménez et al., 2021; Snapp et al., 2021). |
– Agroecology can emphasise social justice concerns, including gender inequities, considered crucial for climate change adaptations in food production to have positive impacts on food security and nutrition (Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18; (Smith and Haddad, 2015; HLPE, 2019; Sylvester and Little, 2020).
– In some contexts, agroecological systems can draw on and support Indigenous knowledge, farming systems, networks and socio-cultural values (Catacora-Vargas et al., 2017).
|
| [...] |
| Economic: Agroecology can support socioeconomic resilience, through reducing reliance on purchased inputs, enhancing local and regional economies (HLPE, 2019; Bharucha et al., 2020; Holt-Giménez et al., 2021). |
– Multi-level policies and programmes that support urban and peri-urban networks with agroecological producers, including farmers’ markets, public procurement (e.g., school meals, hospitals), incentives for short food value chains, and participatory guarantee certification schemes which build producer–consumer networks are all ways to support agroecological transitions by consumers (high confidence) (Catacora-Vargas et al., 2017; Pérez-Marin et al., 2017; Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al., 2018; Anderson et al., 2019a; HLPE, 2019; Borsatto et al., 2020; González de Molina, 2020).
– Transitions to agroecology at a global scale, however, may require considerable dietary shifts which vary by region, and have implications for total food production and farm-level revenues, especially in the short term (medium confidence, (Muller et al., 2017; Seufert and Ramakutty, 2017; Barbieri et al., 2019; Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2019b; Smith et al., 2020a).
– To address smallholder vulnerability to climate change impacts, additional policy support beyond agroecology will be needed that is context specific; for example, addressing farmer capacity, limited political power to access land, water, seeds and other key natural resources, structural gender inequities, policy and market disincentives that support large-scale monocultures (Anderson et al., 2019a; Holt-Giménez et al., 2021; Snapp et al., 2021).
|
|
5.14.2 Enabling Conditions for Implementing Adaptation
[...]
5.14.2.1 Addressing social inequities in food systems
Addressing gender and other social inequities (e.g., racial, ethnicity, age, income, geographic location) in markets, governance and control over resources is a key enabling condition for climate-resilient transitions in land and aquatic ecosystems (high confidence) (Pearse, 2017; Vermeulen et al., 2018; Blesh et al., 2019; Rao et al., 2019b; Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18, Section 5,13,1; Tavenner et al., 2019). Adaptation strategies can have negative impacts on marginalised social groups and worsen socioeconomic inequities unless explicit efforts are made to address unequal power dynamics and differences in access to resources in agricultural, fisheries, aquaculture, livestock and forestry systems (high confidence) (Glemarec, 2017; Haji and Legesse, 2017; Nagoda and Nightingale, 2017; Nightingale, 2017; Rao et al., 2019b; Huyer and Partey, 2020; Mikulewicz, 2020; Taylor and Bhasme, 2020; Eriksen et al., 2021). Technical approaches to adaptation that ignore inequities can worsen them; see, for example, the case study on Climate Smart Agriculture (Box 5.12). Enabling environments support inclusive decision making, capacity building, shifts in social rules, norms and behaviours and access to resources for marginalised groups for climate change adaptation (e.g., Tschakert et al., 2016; Ziervogel, 2019; Eriksen et al., 2021; Garcia et al., 2021).
|
Box 5.8: Climate Adaptation and Maladaptation in Cocoa and Coffee Production
The choice of cropping system will have wide-reaching consequences for climate vulnerability and climate justice. Coffee and cocoa are often a main source of income for small-scale producers who are among the most vulnerable to climate hazards (Bacon et al., 2014; Schroth et al., 2016). Most of their produce is exported by large corporations and sold to relatively better-off consumers. In the context of climate justice, underlying structural inequities (socioeconomic, ethnicity, gender, caste), marginality and poverty help to shape the vulnerabilities of small-scale farmers to climate hazards (Beckford and Rhiney, 2016; Schreyer et al., 2018). Climate change may compound their vulnerability, if for example the loss of pollination services leads to a reduction in productivity (Avelino et al., 2015). Adaptation needs to consider the inequities associated with the commodity chain, and the adaptative capacity of producers as they seek to move into the more advanced processing stages of the commodity chain to realise higher returns from their exports (OvalleRivera et al., 2015). Blue Mountain Coffee is a ‘specialty’ coffee associated with a protected area forest ecosystem that attracts a high price premium owing to its distinct flavour and aroma. The livelihoods of coffee farmers in this region are characterised by multiple socioeconomic, environmental and institutional stressors related to climate change, pests, plant diseases and production costs. Some coping strategies employed by these coffee farmers have increased their susceptibility to future climate impacts (Guido et al., 2019). Davis (2017) showed that these coffee farmers’ food security challenges could be alleviated by improved marketing of fruit tree products under shade coffee farming systems. Adaptation measures in such systems need to consider co-benefits and negative trade-offs, especially in vulnerable communities, to avoid widening further the inequities, rural livelihood loss, migration and marginalisation, and ensure progress towards the SDGs (high confidence).
|
[...]
5.14.2.3 System transformation and policy enablers
[...]
|
Box 5.13: Supporting Youth Adaptation in Food Systems
Young people are key agents in agrifood systems: both a vulnerable group, and one that can foster systemic change (high confidence) (Brooks et al., 2019; Figure X; IFAD, 2019; Flynn and Sumberg, 2021; HLPE, 2021). Food systems are the largest source of employment for young people, but do not always provide adequate livelihoods or decent working conditions (HLPE, 2021). Regions with more youthful populations—such as Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Central America—are both highly vulnerable to climate change impacts and reliant on agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries for livelihoods (Brooks et al., 2019; IFAD, 2019; HLPE, 2021). Rural youth in these sectors are particularly vulnerable, often with less access to land, water, capital and other resources, shaped by family and social relations, and fewer opportunities (high confidence) (Chingala et al., 2017; Ricker-Gilbert and Chamberlin, 2018; IFAD, 2019; Yeboah et al., 2020; Flynn and Sumberg, 2021; Nhat Lam Duyen, 2021). In these vulnerable regions, climate change compounds other drivers such as poverty to increase youth out-migration to urban areas or other regions (medium confidence) (Zin et al., 2019; Weinreb et al., 2020; HLPE, 2021; Stoltz et al., 2021; Voss, 2021), which can further worsen rural economies. Young low-income rural women may be particularly marginalised and vulnerable due to systemic gender inequities in access to land, credit, employment, institutions and other resources (medium confidence) (Sah Akwen, 2017; IFAD, 2019; Flynn and Sumberg, 2021).
Youth play a critical role in all sectors of the food system (HLPE, 2021; Figure Box 5.13.1), and some are actively pursuing work and innovation in agrifood systems (medium confidence) (Sah Akwen, 2017; 2019; Yeboah et al., 2020; Flynn and Sumberg, 2021). Climate change impacts may reduce youth employment options in food systems in some regions, while they are often politically marginalised (Brooks et al., 2019; IFAD, 2019; HLPE, 2021). At the same time, due to heightened awareness about climate change, youth may be more willing to apply climate adaptation strategies (medium confidence) (Ali and Erenstein, 2017; Jiri et al., 2017; Sah Akwen, 2017; Chamberlin and Sumberg, 2021; Doherty et al., 2021). Agrifood policy implementation of adaptation strategies could increase inclusive participation of youth to meet their needs (HLPE, 2021). Inclusive investments in water management, infrastructure, agrifood science, and policies that increase youth access to land, credit, knowledge, education, skills and other crucial resources can support dignified and rewarding agrifood employment (Ahsan and Mitra, 2016; Brooks et al., 2019; HLPE, 2021). Digital technologies can support agrifood adaptations, but digital divides must be overcome to avoid worsening inequities (HLPE, 2021). Initiatives which protect and strengthen youth engagement and employment in the all points of the food system, including recognition of youth’s critical role and agency through rights-based approaches, can support sustainable food transitions (HLPE, 2021). Harnessing youth innovation and vision to address climate change alongside other SDGs such as gender inequity and rural poverty will be a crucial strategy to ensure resilient economies in food systems (high confidence) (Laube, 2016; Brooks et al., 2019; IFAD, 2019; Abay et al., 2021; HLPE, 2021).
|
5.14.2.4 Finance needs and strategies for adaptation
Current understanding of finance flows and needs for adaptation in crop agriculture, livestock, fisheries, aquaculture and forest products relies primarily on top-down projections, with limited data (UNFCCC, 2018; Buchner et al., 2019; Jachnik et al., 2019). By one estimate, in 2017/2018, agriculture, forestry and land use received 24% of public adaptation finance (totaling USD 7 billion; half via multilateral development finance institutions and one-quarter from governments) and 35% of international grants (with 71% used for adaptation) (Buchner et al., 2019). According to data from OECD (2020), finance flows for agriculture, forestry and fisheries have risen fairly linearly from ca. USD 1.46 billion in 2010 (the year the Rio marker on climate change adaptation was introduced) to ca. 5.5 billion in 2018. Over the entire tracked period, the three subsectors combined received a total of USD 29.82 billion for activities with principal and significant adaptation components.4 However, the data set only includes climaterelated development finance from bilateral, multilateral and private philanthropic sources, whereas private sector finance flows are not captured as this is notoriously difficult to track (UNEP, 2016; OECD, 2020; cross-ref to Cross-Chapter Box FINANCE in Chapter 17). Most of the funding (85%) was directed towards agriculture, with forestry (12%) and fisheries (3%) receiving significantly less, but across the subsectors, there is consistency in the sense that policy and administrative management and development receive the lion’s share of support, which is predominantly given in the form of grants (72%), while debt instruments (26%) and equity and shares in collective investment vehicles (2%) contribute less. From a regional perspective, 80% were directed to Africa (47%), Asia-Pacific (27%), and Latin America and Caribbean States (7%), whereas Eastern Europe and Western Europe and Other States received (2%) each and 17% were destined for ‘developing countries’ without regional tags. Finally, it is noteworthy that 38% of adaptation finance in agriculture, forestry and fisheries is marked as also having mitigation benefits, and roughly a quarter of funding is reported as having principal or significant gender objectives.
5.14.3 Climate Resilient Development Pathways
Climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs) introduced in AR5 (Denton, 2014) can briefly be described as ‘development trajectories that integrate adaptation and mitigation to realise the goal of sustainable development’ (see IPCC (2019a)) for a more extensive definition). Several characteristics were proposed in SR1.5 by which such CRDPs could be identified: consistency with principles of sustainable development; ability to deliver poverty reduction; ability to enhance social, gender, racial, ethnic and intergenerational equity; ability to deliver resilience to climate change and other shocks and stresses; and ability to protect species, biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services. There is an increasing literature, assessed in SR1.5, on adaptation pathways approaches, generally for specific regions, locations and subsectors.
|
FAQ 5.5: Climate change is not the only factor threatening global food security: other than climate action, what other actions are needed to end hunger and ensure access by all people to nutritious and sufficient food all year round?
Our food systems depend on many factors other than climate change, such as food production, water, land, energy and biodiversity. People’s access to healthy food can be also be affected by factors such as poverty and physical insecurity. We are all stakeholders in food systems, whether as producers or consumers, and we can all contribute to the goal of a food-secure world by the choices we make in our everyday lives.
Today more than 820 million people are hungry, and hunger is on the rise in Africa. Two billion people experience moderate or severe food shortages, and another 2 billion suffer from overnutrition, a state of obesity or being overweight from unbalanced diets, with related health impacts such as diabetes and heart disease. The changing climate is already affecting food production. These effects are worsening, affecting food production from crops, livestock, fish and forests in many places where people already do not have enough to eat. Food prices will be affected as a result, with increasing risk that poorer people will not be able to buy enough for their families. Food quality will increasingly be affected too.
Our ability to grow and consume food depends on many factors other than climate change. There are tight connections between food production, water, land, energy and biodiversity, for example. Other factors like gender inequity, poverty, political exclusion, remoteness from urban centres and physical insecurity can all affect people’s access to healthy food.
Food systems are complicated (Figure FAQ5.5.1). To improve food production, supply and distribution, we need to make changes throughout the food supply chain. For instance: improving the way farmers access the inputs needed to grow food; improving the ways in which food is grown, with climate and market information, training and technical know-how, water-saving and water-harvesting technologies; adopting new low-cost and less carbon-intensive storage and processing methods; and creating local networks of producers and processors For food consumers, we could consider shifts to different diets that are healthier and make more efficient use of natural resources; depending on context, these could involve rebalancing consumption of meat and highly processed foods, reducing food loss and waste, and preparing food in more energy-efficient ways. Policymakers can enable such actions through appropriate price and trade policies, implementing policies for sustainable and low-emission agriculture, providing safety nets where needed, and empowering women, youth and other socially disadvantaged groups.
Our food systems need to be robust and sustainable; otherwise we will not be able to manage the additional pressures imposed on them by climate change. We can all contribute to this goal.
|
