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

==== 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>