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

=== 5.11.4 Adaptation in the Post-harvest Supply Chain ===

<div id="h2-39-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The SRCCL ( [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al., 2019]] ) findings on adaptation support targeting food value chains and intervention types to the needs of specific locations. Furthermore, adaptation choices will need to be dynamic as climate change impacts are expected to worsen over time.

As discussed above and in [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-6#6.2.5|Section 6.2.5]] , climate change is expected to cause increasingly severe effects on infrastructure needed for food security: roads and harbours for transport, water storage facilities for irrigation and storage facilities able to withstand climate-related damage. Three categories of adaptation could be considered: adoption of technologies already in use elsewhere, including Indigenous and local knowledge, or available or near ready that become profitable as impacts become more severe; development of new technologies; and taking advantage of changing comparative advantage across regions. Specific examples of post-harvest technical adaptation options that are already available but could be more widely adopted include solar driers, cold storage facilities and transport and use of ultrasonic humidification of selected fruits and vegetables, a technology that has been shown in Europe to reduce losses in each post-harvest stage by 20% or more ( [[#Fabbri--2018|Fabbri et al., 2018]] ). Hermetic storage containers using community-based farmer research networks to scale out ( [[#Singano--2020|Singano et al., 2020]] ; Wenndt et al., 2021) also show promise. Another innovation is to introduce ''Aspergillus'' fungi that do not produce aflatoxins in biocontrol formulations, as is being undertaken in the Aflasafe project in Kenya ( [[#Bandyopadhyay--2016|Bandyopadhyay et al., 2016]] ).

International trade changes are a potentially important adaptation mechanism for both the short-term effects of climate variability and long-term changes in comparative advantage with globally substantial benefits but that are distributed unevenly ( [[#Mosnier--2014|Mosnier et al., 2014]] ; [[#Baldos--2015|Baldos and Hertel, 2015]] ; [[#Fuss--2015|Fuss et al., 2015]] ; [[#Costinot--2016|Costinot et al., 2016]] ; [[#Hertel--2016|Hertel and Baldos, 2016]] ; [[#Gouel--2021|Gouel and Laborde, 2021]] ). One estimate is that, with a reduction in tariffs as well as institutional and infrastructural barriers, the negative impacts of climate change globally would be reduced by 64%, with hunger-affected import-dependent regions seeing the greatest benefit. However, in hunger-affected export-oriented regions, partial trade integration might lead to increased exports at the expense of domestic food availability ( [[#Janssens--2020|Janssens et al., 2020]] ). It is possible for policy changes that result in increased trade flows to also increase the potential for maladaptation, for example by encouraging conversion of environmentally sensitive areas to agriculture ( [[#Fuchs--2020|Fuchs et al., 2020]] ; 5.13.3).

As discussed in [[#5.4|Section 5.4]] , climate change is expected to increase variability in yields. As long as the variability is not correlated across regions, trade flows within a year can partially compensate, with in-period exports from countries less affected to those that are. Alterations in trade flow patterns to accommodate these impacts will reduce the negative effects so long as this variability is not correlated across regions ( [[#UK--2015|UK, 2015]] ; [[#Janetos--2017|Janetos et al., 2017]] ).

In terms of food safety impacts, [[#Lake--2018|Lake and Barker (2018)]] highlight a range of approaches to enhance preparedness for more serious foodborne disease effects from climate change: adoption of novel surveillance methods to speed up detection and improve intervention in foodborne outbreaks; genotype-based approaches to surveillance of food pathogens to enhance spatiotemporal resolution in tracing and tracking of illness; improving integration of plant, animal and human surveillance systems under the rubric of One Health, increased commitment to cross-border and global information initiatives; and improved clarity regarding the governance of complex societal issues such as the conflict between food safety and food waste and strong user-centric (social) communications strategies to engage diverse stakeholder groups.

The range of potential adaptation approaches from production to transportation to reduce food loss and waste is captured in Figure 5.17 ( [[#Galford--2020|Galford et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="_idContainer069" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:e8a55e05dd07b01d08795772fb30145c IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_017.png]]

'''Figure 5.17 |''' '''Examples of food loss and waste (FLW) interventions at five stages in the food value change (Galford et al.''' ''', 2020).'''

The importance of reducing food loss and waste due to climate change is widely recognised, but literature on cost-effective reductions is sparse, particularly in low-income countries ( [[#Parfitt--2010|Parfitt et al., 2010]] ). A list of farm and post-harvest methods to reduce food loss ( [[#Sheahan--2017|Sheahan and Barrett, 2017]] ) includes potential farm interventions such as varietal choice, education in harvest and post-harvest handling, hermetic storage technologies (see above), chemical sprays and integrated pest management techniques in storage. The evidence on their effectiveness, especially in the face of increased climate change impacts, is limited.

<div id="5.12" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="food-security-consumption-and-nutrition"></span>