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

=== 5.12.5 Adaptation Options for Food Security and Nutrition ===

<div id="h2-44-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Since AR5, there has been increased research on adaptation options that address climate risks for food security and nutrition. In this section, cultivar improvements, urban and peri-urban agriculture, changing dietary patterns, integrated multi-sectoral approaches and rights-based approaches are assessed for their potential as an adaptation option that addresses food security and nutrition. Feasibility and effectiveness assessment of several options is in [[#5.1|Section 5.1]] 4.

<div id="5.12.5.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="potential-barriers-and-challenges-for-genetically-modified-crops-to-address-food-security-and-nutrition"></span>
==== 5.12.5.1 Potential, barriers and challenges for genetically modified crops to address food security and nutrition ====

<div id="h3-62-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

While biotechnology can be used as an adaptation strategy ( [[#5.4.4.3|Section 5.4.4.3]] ), there is low confidence that genetically modified (GM) crops can increase food security and nutrition in smallholder farming systems relative to alternative agronomic strategies ( [[#National%20Academies%20of%20Sciences%20Engineering%20and%20Medicine--2016|National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2016]] ; [[#Qaim--2016|Qaim, 2016]] ). Some underline their potential in building resilience to changing climatic conditions, in the form of enhanced drought/heat tolerance, pest/disease protection and/or reduced land usage, thus serving to bolster food security and nutrition ( [[#Sainger--2015|Sainger et al., 2015]] ; [[#Muzhinji--2021|Muzhinji and Ntuli, 2021]] ). Others suggest that the empirical evidence supporting GM crops as a climate-resilience strategy remains thin ( [[#Leonelli--2018|Leonelli, 2018]] ). Technical and social barriers and potential solutions are summarised in Table 5.15.

'''Table 5.15 |''' Barriers, challenges and potential solutions for GM crops.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''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|Dowd-Uribe, 2014]] ), and confusion around proper growing practices that can accelerate resistance ( [[#Iversen--2014|Iversen et al., 2014]] ; [[#Fischer--2015|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|Bonny, 2017]] ) mean that benefits from released GM crops tend to be captured disproportionately by farmers with more land, wealth and education ( [[#Afidchao--2014|Afidchao et al., 2014]] ; [[#Ali--2018|Ali and Rahut, 2018]] ; [[#Azadi--2018|Azadi et al., 2018]] ) but also increase debt levels for growers ( [[#Dowd-Uribe--2014|Dowd-Uribe, 2014]] ; [[#Leguizamón--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--2016|Gouse et al., 2016]] ), while in others the introduction of GM crops could increase workload and devalue womens’ role as seed savers ( [[#Carro-Ripalda--2014|Carro-Ripalda and Astier, 2014]] ; [[#Addison--2016|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--2016|Dowd-Uribe and Schnurr, 2016]] ; [[#Stone--2017|Stone and Glover, 2017]] ), strict management regimes that clash with the realities of smallholder agricultural systems ( [[#Iversen--2014|Iversen et al., 2014]] ; [[#Whitfield--2015|Whitfield et al., 2015]] ), and a lack of attention to farmer decision making ( [[#Schnurr--2019|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--2019|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|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--2015|Kole et al., 2015]] ; [[#Haque--2018|Haque et al., 2018]] ; [[#Zaidi--2019|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--2017|Giller et al., 2017]] ; [[#Stone--2017|Stone, 2017]] ; [[#Montenegro%20de%20Wit--2019|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'' ).

|}

<div id="5.12.5.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="urban-and-peri-urban-agriculture-vertical-and-horizontal"></span>
==== 5.12.5.2 Urban and peri-urban agriculture, vertical and horizontal ====

<div id="h3-63-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Urban areas have more than half of the global population and consume about 70% of the total food supply ( [[#FAO--2019b|FAO, 2019b]] ). The urban population is projected to grow further to about 70% of the global population by 2050 ( [[#UN--2018|UN, 2018]] ). Direct evidence supporting climate resilience of urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is limited and contextual, but there is ''medium confidence'' of multi-functional benefits from UPA, depending on regions and types of UPA ( [[#Artmann--2018|Artmann and Sartison, 2018]] ; [[#Kareem--2020|Kareem et al., 2020]] ). UPA takes different forms of production, and can be broadly classified into four categories, depending on operating characteristics and capital inputs (Table 5.16) ( [[#Goldstein--2016|Goldstein et al., 2016]] ). Controlled environments can protect crops, livestock and fish from extreme weather events or pest and disease outbreak ( [[#Mohareb--2017|Mohareb et al., 2017]] ). Innovative indoor farming such as vertical farming can be highly productive with minimal water and nutrient supply but can be capital intensive with high energy demand ( [[#O’Sullivan--2019|O’Sullivan et al., 2019]] ), and those with aquaponics can be water demanding ( [[#Love--2015|Love et al., 2015]] ). Currently, commodities are often limited to crops with short growing seasons such as leafy vegetables. Vertically grown crops are more expensive than field-grown produce and, thus, not accessible for low-income urban dwellers ( [[#Al-Kodmany--2018|Al-Kodmany, 2018]] ). Community and institutional unconditioned (outdoor) farms and gardens are better positioned to provide increased access to healthy food to those who need it ( [[#Eigenbrod--2015|Eigenbrod and Gruda, 2015]] ; [[#Goodman--2019|Goodman and Minner, 2019]] ).

'''Table 5.16 |''' Urban agriculture classifications based on operating characteristics and capital inputs ( [[#Goldstein--2016|Goldstein et al., 2016]] ; [[#O’Sullivan--2019|O’Sullivan et al., 2019]] ), and a summary of literature search on positive and negative aspects.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan="3"| '''Summary of urban and peri-urban agriculture and evidence for improved food security and nutrition'''

|-
! colspan="3"| ''Urban agriculture has two components: vertical (e.g., grown on or in buildings) and horizontal (grown on land within urban boundaries, in backyards and marginal spaces). The horizontal component of urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) has gained attention because of multiple functions that could improve food systems and ecosystem services under climate change ( [[#Revi--2014|Revi et al., 2014]] ; [[#Artmann--2018|Artmann and Sartison, 2018]] ; [[#FAO--2019b|FAO, 2019b]] ; [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al., 2019]] ; Chapter 6).''

''UPA cannot fully feed urban dwellers within its boundaries but can make an important contribution to local food security and nutrition ('' ''medium confidence'' '') ( [[#Martellozzo--2014|Martellozzo et al., 2014]] ; [[#Badami--2015|Badami and Ramankutty, 2015]] ; [[#Algert--2016|Algert et al., 2016]] ; [[#Mohareb--2017|Mohareb et al., 2017]] ; [[#Clinton--2018|Clinton et al., 2018]] ; [[#Kriewald--2019|Kriewald et al., 2019]] ). UPA is also expected to play important roles in ecosystem functions in addition to alleviating food shocks caused by natural disasters and reducing food mileage.''

|-
! '''''Categories''''' '''and Description'''

! '''Synergies'''

! '''Trade-offs'''

|-
| ''Ground-based Unconditioned''

| rowspan="4"| * Multi-species cropping can increase access to diverse healthy foods and reduce food costs for low-income households ( [[#Algert--2016|Algert et al., 2016]] ; [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ).
* Green cover helps to attenuate heat island effects, and reduce runoff and flood risks ( [[#Lwasa--2015|Lwasa et al., 2015]] ; [[#Di%20Leo--2016|Di Leo et al., 2016]] ; [[#Gondhalekar--2017|Gondhalekar and Ramsauer, 2017]] ; [[#Artmann--2018|Artmann and Sartison, 2018]] ; [[#Small--2019|Small et al., 2019]] ).
* Green garden spaces can reduce vulnerability to heat stress and food insecurity for low-income neighbourhoods and address racial inequities in access to green spaces if UA governance addresses equity concerns ( [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ; [[#Titz--2019|Titz and Chiotha, 2019]] ; [[#Halvey--2020|Halvey et al., 2020]] ; [[#Hoffman--2020|Hoffman et al., 2020]] ).
* Multi-species cropping helps to conserve biodiversity ( [[#Lovell--2010|Lovell, 2010]] ; [[#Goldstein--2016|Goldstein et al., 2016]] ).
* Skill building and job opportunities ( [[#Lovell--2010|Lovell, 2010]] ; [[#Mok--2014|Mok et al., 2014]] ; [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ), sometimes in regions and for groups that have been socially and economically disadvantaged ( [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ).
* CES benefits through cultivation of specific crops, cultural learning, sharing culinary and garden knowledge and strengthening social networks for socially marginalised ethnic, racial groups ( [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ; [[#Nadeau--2019|Nadeau et al., 2019]] ).
* UPA provides social and health co-benefits such as increased social interaction and physical and mental health benefits ( [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ; [[#White--2017|White and Bunn, 2017]] ).
* Can divert organic waste produced in cities as compost, to reduce water contamination and input costs ( [[#Menyuka--2020|Menyuka et al., 2020]] ).

| rowspan="4"| * Can increase the value of land and thereby push out lower-income households via gentrification ( [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ).
* Unconditioned UPA is under strong pressure from other lucrative land use demands and can be difficult to maintain without addressing urban social inequities, ( [[#Martellozzo--2014|Martellozzo et al., 2014]] ; [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ; [[#White--2017|White and Bunn, 2017]] ).
* Yields are lower than conventional, rural production, and water demand is high ( [[#Goldstein--2016|Goldstein et al., 2016]] ; [[#Bisaga--2019|Bisaga et al., 2019]] ).
* Air, soil and water quality in urban areas can disturb crop production and reduce food safety ( [[#Eigenbrod--2015|Eigenbrod and Gruda, 2015]] ; [[#Titz--2019|Titz and Chiotha, 2019]] ), and create health risks from contamination ( [[#Mok--2014|Mok et al., 2014]] ), causing mixed or even negative public perceptions against the produce ( [[#Specht--2019|Specht et al., 2019]] ; [[#Menyuka--2020|Menyuka et al., 2020]] ). Trace metal contamination in soils and plants is an increased risk in outdoor UPA ( [[#Eigenbrod--2015|Eigenbrod and Gruda, 2015]] ; [[#Titz--2019|Titz and Chiotha, 2019]] ).
* May provide limited job and income opportunities in low-income urban areas ( [[#Daftary-Steel--2015|Daftary-Steel et al., 2015]] ; [[#Biewener--2016|Biewener, 2016]] ).
* Outdoor fields are exposed to rising temperatures and urban heat islands ( [[#Chapman--2017|Chapman et al., 2017]] ). Low water availability may be another limit for UPA as a form of adaptation ( [[#Kareem--2020|Kareem et al., 2020]] ; [[#Tankari--2020|Tankari, 2020]] ). In coastal cities, sea level rise and flooding from climate change impacts may make significant portions of cities unuseable for UPA ( [[#Algert--2016|Algert et al., 2016]] ; [[#Kareem--2020|Kareem et al., 2020]] ).

|-
| Traditional, peri-urban field farms, market gardens, community farms, community gardens, home gardens.

|-
| ''Building-integrated Unconditioned''

|-
| Rooftop gardens, balcony agriculture, and green wall, but production quantity is small.

|-
| ''Ground-based Conditioned''

| rowspan="4"| * Controlled environments can protect crops, livestock and fish from extreme weather events or pest and disease outbreak ( [[#Mohareb--2017|Mohareb et al., 2017]] ).
* Some building-integrated conditioned farms can utilise wastewater and waste heat from buildings or other urban source ( [[#De%20Zeeuw--2011|De Zeeuw et al., 2011]] ; [[#Thomaier--2015|Thomaier et al., 2015]] ; [[#Mohareb--2017|Mohareb et al., 2017]] ).
* Innovative indoor farming such as vertical farming (VF) is highly productive with minimal water and nutrient supply, but highly energy-demanding ( [[#O’Sullivan--2019|O’Sullivan et al., 2019]] ).
* Some initiatives combine with social justice goals and use abandoned buildings in low-income neighbourhoods to grow diverse food types for addressing food security of low-income groups ( [[#Thomaier--2015|Thomaier et al., 2015]] ; [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ).

| rowspan="4"| * Power outages and/or system failure can easily destroy the production system ( [[#Small--2019|Small et al., 2019]] ).
* Initial costs and energy requirements are substantially higher than those of unconditioned farms ( [[#Goodman--2019|Goodman and Minner, 2019]] ; [[#O’Sullivan--2019|O’Sullivan et al., 2019]] ).
* GHG emissions may be higher than conventional rural agriculture ( [[#Santo--2016|Santo et al., 2016]] ) and full mitigation potential only realised with low-energy systems (WGIII, 12.4).
* Commodities are often limited to short-cycled crops such as leafy vegetables and herbs, and the produce is more expensive, making it difficult for the urban poor to access ( [[#O’Sullivan--2019|O’Sullivan et al., 2019]] ).

|-
| Horticultural farms using glasshouses or polyhouses. Often exist on the city fringes.

Aquaponics that grow fish in aquaculture systems and re-use nutrient-rich wastewater. One of the few options that provide proteins in urban farms.

|-
| ''Building integrated Conditioned''

|-
| Rooftop glasshouses, fully indoor, artificially lit plant factories. Recent advancements include production using vertical stacks to produce more food per land area.

Indoor aquaculture is also included.

|}

Many UPA farmers are migrant workers or other socially marginalised racial and ethnic groups and often limited by access to land ( [[#Lawanson--2014|Lawanson et al., 2014]] ; [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ). There is ''high agreement'' that proactive policies for urban design accounting for food–energy nexus and social inclusion including addressing questions of governance and rights to green urban spaces are necessary to enhance food provisioning and to gain multiple functions of UPA ( [[#Lwasa--2014|Lwasa et al., 2014]] ; [[#Horst--2017|Horst et al., 2017]] ; [[#Mohareb--2017|Mohareb et al., 2017]] ; [[#Siegner--2018|Siegner et al., 2018]] ; [[#O’Sullivan--2019|O’Sullivan et al., 2019]] ; [[#Titz--2019|Titz and Chiotha, 2019]] ; [[#Halvey--2020|Halvey et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="5.12.6" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="changing-dietary-patterns"></span>