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

=== 5.10.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities ===

<div id="h2-33-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="5.10.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="assessing-vulnerability-in-mixed-systems"></span>
==== 5.10.2.1 Assessing vulnerability in mixed systems ====

<div id="h3-49-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Important information gaps exist concerning the costs and benefits of many adaptation options in mixed systems, where the interactions between farming enterprises may be complex. Among communal crop–livestock farmers in Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, Bahta (2016) reported high levels of vulnerability to drought and highlighted the need for more coordination between monitoring agencies in terms of reliable early-warning information that can be communicated appropriately, between farmers’ organisations and the private sector to facilitate adaptation options that can overcome feed shortages such as fodder purchases in times of drought, and between government departments at the national and provincial level that address the concerns and needs of affected communities. Nyamushamba (2017) reviewed the use of indigenous beef cattle breeds in smallholder mixed production systems in southern Africa. Some of these breeds exhibit adaptive traits such as drought and heat tolerance and resistance to tick-borne diseases. However, their adaptation potential in crossbreeding programmes is essentially unknown, as most African cattle populations are still largely uncharacterised.

<div id="5.10.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="social-vulnerabilities"></span>
==== 5.10.2.2 Social vulnerabilities ====

<div id="h3-50-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

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'' ) ( [[#Parraguez-Vergara--2016|Parraguez-Vergara et al., 2016]] ; [[#Baptiste--2019|Baptiste and Devonish, 2019]] ; [[#Moulton--2019|Moulton and Machado, 2019]] ; [[#Popke--2019|Popke and Rhiney, 2019]] ; [[#Fagundes--2020|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 ( [[#Parraguez-Vergara--2016|Parraguez-Vergara 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--2018|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).

<div id="5.10.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="projected-impacts-6"></span>