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

== Box 5.1 Gender, food security and climate change ==

<div id="section-5-1-3-climate-change-gender-and-equity-block-1"></div>

Differentiated impacts, vulnerability, risk perception, behaviours and coping strategies for climate change related to food security derive from cultural (gendered) norms. That is, the behaviours, tasks, and responsibilities a society defines as ‘male’ or ‘female’, and the differential gendered access to resources (Paris and Rola-Rubzen 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r82|82]]</sup> ; Aberman and Tirado 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r83|83]]</sup> ; Lebel et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r84|84]]</sup> ; Bee 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r85|85]]</sup> ). In many rural areas women often grow most of the crops for domestic consumption and are primarily responsible for storing, processing, and preparing food; handling livestock; gathering food, fodder and fuelwood; managing domestic water supply; and providing most of the labour for post-harvest activities (FAO 2011a <sup>[[#fn:r86|86]]</sup> ). They are mostly impacted through increased hardship, implications for household roles, and subsequent organisational responsibilities (Boetto and McKinnon 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r87|87]]</sup> ; Jost et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r88|88]]</sup> ). Water scarcity can particularly affect women because they need to spend more time and energy to collect water, where they may be more exposed to physical and sexual violence (Sommer et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r89|89]]</sup> ; Aipira et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r90|90]]</sup> ). They may be forced to use unsafe water in the household increasing risk of water-borne diseases (Parikh 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r91|91]]</sup> ). Climate change also has differentiated gendered impacts on livestock-holders’ food security (McKune et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r92|92]]</sup> ; Ongoro and Ogara 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r93|93]]</sup> ; Fratkin et al. 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r94|94]]</sup> ) (Supplementary Material Table SM5.1).

'''Gender dimensions of the four pillars'''

Worldwide, women play a key role in food security (World Bank 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r95|95]]</sup> ) and the four pillars of food security have strong gender dimensions (Thompson 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r96|96]]</sup> ). In terms of '''food availability''' , women tend to have less access to productive resources, including land, and thus less capacity to produce food (Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 7).

In terms of food access, gendered norms in how food is divided at mealtimes may lead to smaller food portions for women and girls. Women’s intra-household inequity limits their ability to purchase food; limitations also include lack of women’s mobility impacting trips to the market and lack of decision-making within the household (Ongoro and Ogara 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r97|97]]</sup> ; Mason et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r98|98]]</sup> ; Riley and Dodson 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r99|99]]</sup> ).

In terms of '''food utilisation''' , men, women, children and the elderly have different nutritional needs (e.g., during pregnancy or breast-feeding).

In terms of food stability, women are more likely to be disproportionately affected by price spikes (Vellakkal et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r100|100]]</sup> ; Arndt et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r101|101]]</sup> ; Hossain and Green 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r102|102]]</sup> ; Darnton-Hill and Cogill 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r103|103]]</sup> ; Cohen and Garrett 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r104|104]]</sup> ; Kumar and Quisumbing 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r105|105]]</sup> ) because when food is scarce women reduce food consumption relative to other family members, although these norms vary according to age, ethnicity, culture, region, and social position, as well as by location in rural or urban areas (Arora-Jonsson 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r106|106]]</sup> ; Goh 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r107|107]]</sup> ; Niehof 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r108|108]]</sup> ; Ongoro and Ogara 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r109|109]]</sup> ).

'''Integrating gender into adaptation'''

Women have their own capabilities to adapt to climate change. In the Pacific Islands, women hold critical knowledge on where or how to find clean water; which crops to grow in a wet or dry season; how to preserve and store food and seeds ahead of approaching storms,

floods or droughts; and how to carry their families through the recovery months. They also play a pivotal role in managing household finances and investing their savings in education, health, livelihoods, and other activities that assist their families to adapt and respond to climate effects (Aipira et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r110|110]]</sup> ). Decreasing women’s capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change also decreases that of the household (Bryan and Behrman 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r111|111]]</sup> ).

However, gender norms and power inequalities also shape the ability of men, women, boys, girls and the elderly to adapt to climate risks (Rossi and Lambrou 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r112|112]]</sup> ). For example, women pastoralists in the Samburu district of Kenya cannot make decisions affecting their lives, limiting their adaptive capacity (Ongoro and Ogara 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r113|113]]</sup> ).

Participation in decision-making and politics, division of labour, resource access and control, and knowledge and skills (Nelson and Stathers 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r114|114]]</sup> ) are some of the barriers to adaptation. Women’s adaptive capacity is also diminished because their work often goes unrecognised (Rao 2005 <sup>[[#fn:r115|115]]</sup> ; Nelson and Stathers 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r116|116]]</sup> ). Many of women’s activities are not defined as ‘economically active employment’ in national accounts (FAO 2011a <sup>[[#fn:r117|117]]</sup> ). This non-economic status of women’s activities implies that they are not included in wider discussions of priorities or interventions for climate change. Their perspectives and needs are not met; and thus, interventions, information, technologies, and tools promoted are potentially not relevant, and even can increase discrimination (Alston 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r118|118]]</sup> ; Edvardsson Björnberg and Hansson 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r119|119]]</sup> ; Huynh and Resurreccion 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r120|120]]</sup> ).

Where gender-sensitive policies to climate change may exist, effective implementation in practice of gender equality and empowerment may not be achieved on the ground due to lack of technical capacity, financial resources and evaluation criteria, as shown in the Pacific Islands (Aipira et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r121|121]]</sup> ). Thus, corresponding institutional frameworks that are well-resourced, coordinated, and informed are required, along with adequate technical capacity within government agencies, NGOs and project teams, to strengthen collaboration and promote knowledge sharing (Aipira et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r122|122]]</sup> ).

'''Women’s empowerment: Synergies among adaptation, mitigation, and food security'''

Empowering and valuing women in their societies increases their capacity to improve food security under climate change and make substantial contributions to their own well-being, to that of their families and of their communities (Langer et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r123|123]]</sup> ; Ajani et al. 2013 and Alston 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r124|124]]</sup> ) ( ''high confidence'' ). Women’s empowerment includes economic, social and institutional arrangements and may include targeting men in integrated agriculture programmes to change gender norms and improve nutrition (Kerr et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r125|125]]</sup> ). Empowerment through collective action and groups-based approaches in the near-term has the potential to equalise relationships on the local, national and global scale (Ringler et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r126|126]]</sup> ). Empowered women are crucial to creating effective synergies among adaptation, mitigation, and food security.

In Western Kenya, widows in their new role as main livelihood providers invested in sustainable innovations like rainwater harvesting systems and agroforestry (this can serve as both adaptation and mitigation), and worked together in formalised groups of collective action (Gabrielsson and Ramasar 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r127|127]]</sup> ) to ensure food and water security. In Nepal, women’s empowerment had beneficial outcomes in maternal and children nutrition, reducing the negative effect of low production diversity (Malapit et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r128|128]]</sup> ). Integrated nutrition and agricultural programmes have increased women’s decision-making power and control over home gardens in Burkina Faso (van den Bold et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r129|129]]</sup> ) with positive impacts on food security.

<span id="food-systems-in-ar5-sr15-and-the-paris-agreement"></span>
=== 5.1.4 Food systems in AR5, SR15, and the Paris Agreement ===

<div id="section-5-1-4-food-systems-in-ar5-sr15-and-the-paris-agreement-block-1"></div>

Food, and its relationship to the environment and climate change, has grown in prominence since the Rio Declaration in 1992, where food production is Chapter 14 of Agenda 21, to the Paris Agreement of 2015, which includes the need to ensure food security under the threat of climate change on its first page. This growing prominence of food is reflected in recent IPCC reports, including its Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014a <sup>[[#fn:r130|130]]</sup> ) and the Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C (SR15) (IPCC 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r131|131]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-5-1-4-1-food-systems-in-ar5-and-sr15"></div>

<span id="food-systems-in-ar5-and-sr15"></span>
==== 5.1.4.1 Food systems in AR5 and SR15 ====

<div id="section-5-1-4-1-food-systems-in-ar5-and-sr15-block-1"></div>

The IPCC Working Group (WG) II AR5 chapter on Food Security and Food Production Systems broke new ground by expanding its focus beyond the effects of climate change primarily on agricultural production (crops, livestock and aquaculture) to include a food systems approach as well as directing attention to undernourished people (Porter et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r132|132]]</sup> ). However, it focused primarily on food production systems due to the prevalence of studies on that topic (Porter et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r133|133]]</sup> ). It highlighted that a range of potential adaptation options exist across all food system activities, not just in food production, and that benefits from potential innovations in food processing, packaging, transport, storage, and trade were insufficiently researched at that time.

The IPCC WG III AR5 chapter on Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) (Smith et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r134|134]]</sup> ) assessed mitigation potential considering not only the supply, but also the demand side of land uses, by consideration of changes in diets; it also included food loss and waste. AR5 focused on crop and livestock activities within the farm gate and land use and land-use change dynamics associated with agriculture. It did not take a full food system approach to emissions estimates that include processing, transport, storage, and retail.

The IPCC WG II AR5 Rural Areas chapter (Revi et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r135|135]]</sup> ) found that farm households in developing countries are vulnerable to climate change due to socio-economic characteristics and non-climate stressors, as well as climate risks (Dasgupta et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r136|136]]</sup> ). They also found that a wide range of on-farm and off-farm climate change adaptation measures are already being implemented and that the local social and cultural context played a prominent role in the success or failure of different adaptation strategies for food security, such as trade, irrigation or diversification. The IPCC WG II AR5 Urban Areas chapter found that food security for people living in cities was severely affected by climate change through reduced supplies, including urban-produced food, and impacts on infrastructure, as well as a lack of access to food. Poor urban dwellers are more vulnerable to rapid changes of food prices due to climate change.

Many climate change response options in IPCC WG II and WG III AR5 (IPCC 2014b <sup>[[#fn:r137|137]]</sup> ) address incremental adaptation or mitigation responses separately rather than being inclusive of more systemic or transformational changes in multiple food systems that are large-scale, in depth, and rapid, requiring social, technological, organisational and system responses (Rosenzweig and Solecki 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r138|138]]</sup> ; Mapfumo et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r139|139]]</sup> ; Termeer et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r140|140]]</sup> ). In many cases, transformational change will require integration of resilience and mitigation across all parts of the food system including production, supply chains, social aspects, and dietary choices. Further, these transformational changes in the food system need to encompass linkages to ameliorative responses to land degradation (Chapter 4), desertification (Chapter 3), and declines in quality and quantity of water resources throughout the food-energy-water nexus (Chapter 2 and Section 5.7).

The IPCC Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C found that climate-related risks to food security are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C (IPCC 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r141|141]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-5-1-4-2-food-systems-and-the-paris-agreement"></div>

<span id="food-systems-and-the-paris-agreement"></span>
==== 5.1.4.2 Food systems and the Paris Agreement ====

<div id="section-5-1-4-2-food-systems-and-the-paris-agreement-block-1"></div>

To reach the temperature goal put forward in the Paris Agreement of limiting warming to well below 2°C, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C, representatives from 196 countries signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015) in December 2015. The Agreement put forward a temperature target of limiting warming to well below 2°C, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. Under the Paris Agreement, Parties are expected to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. Article 2 of the Agreement makes clear the agreement is within ‘the context of sustainable development’ and states actions should be ‘in a manner that does not threaten food production’ to ensure food security.

Many countries have included food systems in their mitigation and adaptation plans as found in their NDCs for the Paris Agreement (Rosenzweig et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r143|143]]</sup> ). Richards et al. (2015) analysed 160 Party submissions and found that 103 include agricultural mitigation; of the 113 Parties that include adaptation in their NDCs, almost all (102) include agriculture among their adaptation priorities. There is much attention to conventional agricultural practices that can be climate-smart and sustainable (e.g., crop and livestock management), but less to the enabling services that can facilitate uptake (e.g., climate information services, insurance, credit). Considerable finance is needed for agricultural adaptation and mitigation by the least developed countries – in the order of 3 billion USD annually for adaptation and 2 billion USD annually for mitigation, which may be an underestimate due to a small sample size (Richards et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r144|144]]</sup> ). On the mitigation side, none of the largest agricultural emitters included sector-specific contributions from the agriculture sector in their NDCs, but most included agriculture in their economy-wide targets (Richards et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r145|145]]</sup> ).

'''Carbon dioxide removal (CDR)''' . A key aspect regarding the implementation of measures to achieve the Paris Agreement goals involves measures related to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) through bioenergy (Sections 5.5 and 5.6). To reach the temperature target of limiting warming to well below 2°C, and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C, large investments and abrupt changes in land use will be required to advance bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), afforestation and reforestation (AR), and biochar technologies. Existing scenarios estimate the global area required for energy crops to help limit warming to 1.5°C in the range of 109–990 Mha, most commonly around 380–700 Mha.

Most scenarios assume very rapid deployment between 2030 and 2050, reaching rates of expansion in land use in 1.5°C scenarios exceeding 20 Mha yr <sup>-1</sup> , which are unprecedented for crops and forestry reported in the FAO database from 1961. Achieving the 1.5°C target would thus result in major competing demands for land between climate change mitigation and food production, with cascading impacts on food security.

This chapter assesses how the potential conflict for land could be alleviated by sustainable intensification to produce food with a lower land footprint (Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Section 5.6). To accomplish this, farmers would need to produce the same amount of food with lower land requirement, which depends on technology, skills, finance, and markets. Achieving this would also rely on demand-side changes including dietary choices that enable reduction of the land footprint for food production while still meeting dietary needs. Transitions required for such transformative changes in food systems are addressed in Section 5.7.

<div id="section-5-1-4-3-charting-the-future-of-food-security"></div>

<span id="charting-the-future-of-food-security"></span>
==== 5.1.4.3 Charting the future of food security ====

<div id="section-5-1-4-3-charting-the-future-of-food-security-block-1"></div>

This chapter utilises the common framework of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) (Popp et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r146|146]]</sup> ; Riahi et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r147|147]]</sup> and Doelman et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r148|148]]</sup> ) to assess the impacts of future GHG emissions, mitigation measures, and adaptation on food security (Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1, Sections 5.2 and 5.6).

New work utilising these scenario approaches has shown that the food system externalises costs onto human health and the environment (Springmann et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r149|149]]</sup> ; Swinburn et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r150|150]]</sup> ; Willett et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r151|151]]</sup> ), leading to calls for transforming the food system to deliver better human and sustainability outcomes (Willett et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r152|152]]</sup> ; IAP 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r153|153]]</sup> ; Development Initiatives 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r154|154]]</sup> ; Lozano et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r155|155]]</sup> ). Such a transformation could be an important lever to address the complex interactions between climate change and food security. Through acting on mitigation and adaptation in regard to both food demand and food supply we assess the potential for improvements to both human health and the Sustainable Development Goals (Section 5.6).

This chapter builds on the food system and scenario approaches followed by AR5 and its focus on climate change and food security, but new work since AR5 has extended beyond production to how climate change interacts with the whole food system. The analysis of climate change and food insecurity has expanded beyond undernutrition to include the over-consumption of unhealthy mass-produced food high in sugar and fat, which also threatens health in different but highly damaging ways, as well as the role of dietary choices and consumption in GHG emissions. It focuses on land-based food systems, though highlighting in places the contributions of freshwater and marine production.

The chapter assesses new work on the observed and projected effects of CO <sub>2</sub> concentrations on the nutritional quality of crops (Section 5.2.4.2) emphasising the role of extreme climate events (Section 5.2.5.1), social aspects including gender and equity (Box 5.1, and Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 7), and dietary choices (Section 5.4.6, 5.5.2). Other topics with considerable new literature include impacts on smallholder farming systems (Section 5.2.2.6), food loss and waste (Section 5.5.2.5), and urban and peri-urban agriculture (Section 5.6.5). The chapter explores the potential competing demands for land that mitigation measures to achieve temperature targets may engender, with cascading impacts on food production, food security, and farming systems (Section 5.6), and the enabling conditions for achieving mitigation and adaptation in equitable and sustainable ways (Section 5.7). Section 5.8 presents challenges to future food security, including food price spikes, migration, and conflict.

<span id="impacts-of-climate-change-on-food-systems"></span>