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

=== 5.14.1 State of Adaptation of Food, Feed, Fibre and Other Ecosystem Products ===

<div id="h2-57-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Since AR5, several adaptation reviews have been done ( [[#Ford--2015|Ford et al., 2015]] ; [[#Lesnikowski--2016|Lesnikowski et al., 2016]] ). In a review of 1159 peer-reviewed sources, [[#Berrang-Ford--2021b|Berrang-Ford et al. (2021b)]] found that observed adaptations in food, fibre and other ecosystem products have consisted mainly of changes in autonomous behaviour changes, such as changing planting time, followed by technological/infrastructure and ecosystem-based adaptation approaches, the majority of which have occurred in Africa and Asia (Figures 5.20 and 5.21, Table 5.22). Several adaptation options addressed multiple SDGs (e.g., 2, 6, 8, 12) (Figure 5.21).

<div id="_idContainer085" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:b41ed2ff75d9ec3f7f91a415a3342193 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_019.png]]

'''Figure 5.19 |''' '''State of adaptation by region and type of response (based on 1159 peer-reviewed references that addressed adaptation in food, fibre and other ecosystem products sector; source: Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI) database (Berrang-Ford et al.''' ''', 2021a).''' The bars indicate the amount of evidence for the category ''x'' region.

Assessment of adaptation options was done for 15 potential options for land and ecosystem transitions (SM5.7, Figure 5.22a). Several adaptation options have high to medium feasibility, with ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' about the adaptive capacity resilience building potential of options in relation to climate change impact drivers ( ''high confidence'' ). Policy and planning and production shifts have limited evidence for feasibility. Most options are technically and physically feasible, with generally high political and social acceptability and environmental feasibility, but have limited evidence for institutional feasibility. Most adaptation options have medium to high microeconomic feasibility ( ''high confidence'' ) but ''limited evidence'' for macroeconomic viability.

<div id="_idContainer091" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:6841b99fbe0d5aa33f0d7512c25da42a IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_022.png]]

'''Figure 5.22 |''' '''Assessment of 11 feasibility indicators (six categories), five effectiveness indicators and maladaptation of adaptation options based on 287 peer-reviewed papers.''' See SM5.7 for methods and data. Scores ranging from 1 (low) to 3 (high) were obtained by averaging five or more papers for each option and indicator. Blank cells were not assessed because of insufficient literature.

Among five effectiveness indicators (SM5.7, Figure 5.22b), most options have ''robust evidence'' of reduced risk vulnerability to climate change, with low scores for local governance, substitution of plant or animal type, community forest management, livelihood diversification and climate services. Higher-scored options to reduce risk included increasing biodiversity (at landscape and field level), community seed banks, conventional breeding (plant and animals), mixed systems and agroecological approaches ( ''medium confidence'' ), suggesting multiple co-benefits of these options. Most options have high scores for enhancing social well-being and economic and environmental benefits ( ''medium confidence'' ) but limited evidence for strengthening institutions for most options. There were low scores for potential maladaptation ( ''medium confidence'' ).

'''Table 5.23 |''' State of adaptation in food, fibre and other ecosystem products by actors and vulnerabe groups (source: GAMI database; [[#Berrang-Ford--2021a|Berrang-Ford et al., 2021a]] )).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Actors'''

! '''''N''''' '''(%)'''

! '''Vulnerable groups'''

! '''Planned,''' '''''N''''' '''(%)'''

! '''Implemented,''' '''''N''''' '''(%)'''

|-
| ''International or multi-national governance institutions''

| 72 (6%)

| ''Women''

| 134 (12%)

| 118 (10%)

|-
| ''National government''

| 264 (23%)

| ''Youth''

| 22 (2%)

| 24 (2%)

|-
| ''Local government''

| 267 (23%)

| ''Elderly''

| 31 (3%)

| 28 (2%)

|-
| ''Sub-national government''

| 89 (8%)

| ''Low income''

| 201 (17%)

| 258 (22%)

|-
| ''Private sector corporations''

| 56 (5%)

| ''Disabled''

| 2 (0%)

| 3 (0%)

|-
| ''Private sector SMEs''

| 80 (7%)

| ''Migrants''

| 12 (1%)

| 18 (2%)

|-
| ''Civil Society — international/multi-national/national''

| 117 (10%)

| ''Indigenous''

| 95 (8%)

| 85 (7%)

|-
| ''Civil Society — sub-national or local''

| 257 (22%)

| ''Ethnic minorities''

| 32 (3%)

| 32 (3%)

|-
| ''Individuals or households''

| 1087 (94%)

|
|}

<div id="_idContainer087" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:93ce548539bd2c960acf37bba4d04ae7 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_020.png]]

'''Figure 5.20 |''' '''Observed adaptation across regions in food, fibre and other ecosystem products based on the GAMI database (Berrang-Ford et al.''' ''', 2021a).''' The bars indicate the number of evidence for the options ''x'' region.

<div id="_idContainer089" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:513a63d93ec2f2ce5b59de040b203bd6 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_021.png]]

'''Figure 5.21 |''' '''How different response types address the SDGs based on GAMI.'''

<div id="5.14.1.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="nature-based-solutions-or-ecosystem-based-adaptation"></span>
==== 5.14.1.1 Nature-based solutions or ecosystem-based adaptation ====

<div id="h3-65-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

There is growing evidence that nature-based solutions (NBS), which emphasise ecological approaches and biodiversity conservation (Chapter 1), have high potential to transform land and aquatic systems into climate-resilient systems ''(medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Albert--2017|Albert et al., 2017]] ; [[#Brugère--2019|Brugère et al., 2019]] ; [[#Galappaththi--2020b|Galappaththi et al., 2020b]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ; Cross-Working Group Box BIOECO; Cross-Chapter Box NATURAL in Chapter 2).

<div id="5.14.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="climate-services"></span>
==== 5.14.1.2 Climate services ====

<div id="h3-66-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Climate services, understood as the production, translation, communication and use of climate information in decision-making processes, can contribute to adaptation efforts in agricultural systems ( ''medium agreement'' , ''low evidence'' ). Climate services can support decision makers in agriculture by providing tailored information that can inform the implementation of specific adaptation options (Vaughan, 2018; [[#Buontempo--2019|Buontempo et al., 2019]] ; [[#Dobardzic--2019|Dobardzic et al., 2019]] ; [[#Hank--2019|Hank et al., 2019]] ).

For some high- and medium-income countries, evidence suggests that climate services have been underutilised ( [[#Mase--2014|Mase and Prokopy, 2014]] ), with ''limited evidence'' in these countries of the impact of climate services on yields, income, and food security and nutrition. In low-income countries, use of climate services can increase yields and incomes and promote changes in farmers’ practices ( ''low confidence'' ) ( [[#Roudier--2014|Roudier et al., 2014]] ; [[#Roudier--2016|Roudier et al., 2016]] ; [[#Tarchiani--2017|Tarchiani et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ouedraogo--2018|Ouedraogo et al., 2018]] ). There is ''low confidence'' that climate services are delivering on their potential, whether they are being accessed by the vulnerable, and how these services are contributing to food security and nutrition ( [[#Ouedraogo--2018|Ouedraogo et al., 2018]] ; [[#Vaughan--2019|Vaughan et al., 2019]] ).

Improved design and delivery of climate services can enhance effectiveness ( ''medium confidence'' ) ''.'' Ways to enhance the impact of climate services include integrating information from multiple sources at different scales ( [[#Bouroncle--2019|Bouroncle et al., 2019]] ), participatory collection and analysis of climate information (Loboguerrero AM, 2018; [[#Tesfaye--2019|Tesfaye et al., 2019]] ; Rossa, 2020), and making forecast information available in local languages and as verbal communications for farmers who cannot read ( [[#Nkiaka--2019|Nkiaka et al., 2019]] ).

In countries with limited climate data, crowd sourcing (outsourcing data collection to the public) ( [[#Minet--2017|Minet et al., 2017]] ) and digital tools present an opportunity for addressing climate risk ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Osgood--2018|Osgood et al., 2018]] ; Thornton, 2018; [[#Partey--2020|Partey et al., 2020]] ; [[#Sotelo--2020|Sotelo et al., 2020]] ). Bundling additional services such as market information with climate information may be effective at plugging information gaps ( ''low confidence'' ) ( [[#Chatuphale--2018|Chatuphale and Armstrong, 2018]] ; Tsan et al., 2019; [[#Tesfaye--2019|Tesfaye et al., 2019]] )

There may be inequality in access to climate services; their use may tend to benefit large-scale operations and disadvantage small- and medium-scale farmers and others who face issues of access due to social and economic inequity; also some groups such as pastoralists have not yet benefitted from climate services ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Furman--2014|Furman et al., 2014]] ; [[#Muema--2018|Muema et al., 2018]] ; [[#Awazi--2019|Awazi et al., 2019]] ; [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2019|Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2019]] ; [[#Paudyal--2019|Paudyal et al., 2019]] ; [[#Vaughan--2019|Vaughan et al., 2019]] ; [[#Nidumolu--2020|Nidumolu et al., 2020]] ; [[#Partey--2020|Partey et al., 2020]] ). Other challenges include technology ignorance, data privacy and security, data access permissions, software and system compatibility, and understanding how to use and derive value from accessed data ( [[#Chatuphale--2018|Chatuphale and Armstrong, 2018]] ; [[#Drewry--2019|Drewry et al., 2019]] ). More work is needed to understand the factors that prevent farmers and fishers from benefitting from this new information. Recent assessments suggest that access to, and value of, climate and weather information can be enhanced by the development of digital tools (including radio, text messages, etc.) appropriate to the specific needs of different vulnerable groups, as well as by including these groups in their development and building their capacity ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Camacho--2019|Camacho and Conover, 2019]] ; [[#Gumucio--2020|Gumucio et al., 2020]] ; [[#Sultan--2020|Sultan et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="5.14.1.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="insurance-as-a-climate-impact-risk-management-tool"></span>
==== 5.14.1.3 Insurance as a climate impact risk management tool ====

<div id="h3-67-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Insurance is a financial adaptation strategy increasingly used in agriculture and aquaculture. A relatively new approach to agricultural insurance risk is the use of financial derivative products, such as index-based agricultural insurance (IBAI), marketed by financial institutions to farmers to help them deal with weather-related production risks ( [[#Isakson--2015|Isakson, 2015]] ; [[#Jensen--2017|Jensen and Barrett, 2017]] ). The basic idea is to rely on easily observed weather indices, such as precipitation or temperature, that co-vary with farm production. Insurance payments are received when the metric trigger for a region is reached, eliminating the need to collect farm-specific information. Proponents of index insurance argue that it can resolve the information costs and incentive problems inherent in rural financial markets, such as adverse selection, and allow provision of insurance coverage at a fraction of the costs of loss-based polices ( [[#Jensen--2017|Jensen and Barrett, 2017]] ). Buyers of index policies do not have to prove their ownership of assets with weather-related losses. This lowers transactions costs and makes it more affordable to insure small plots of land.

The creation of index insurance requires significant prior research and extensive data that may not be available or sufficient in lower-income countries, including identifying the most appropriate farm and climate variables to include and financial and regulatory support from the public sector ( [[#Economic%20Commission%20for%20Latin%20America%20and%20the%20Caribbean%20and%20Central%20American%20Agricultural%20Council%20of%20the%20Central%20American%20Integration%20System--2013|Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and Central American Agricultural Council of the Central American Integration System, 2013]] ; Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and System, 2014). Some insurance providers bundle it with other services, such as fertilizer use or seeds that may not be useful to particular farmers and can increase their overall capital costs ( [[#Isakson--2015|Isakson, 2015]] ). Although proponents see IBAI as a way to mitigate farmers’ risks associated with more variable weather patterns ( [[#Greatrex--2015|Greatrex et al., 2015]] ), critics argue that derivative-based insurance products tend to benefit wealthier farmers and fail in assisting the poorest and most marginalised farmers ( [[#Isakson--2015|Isakson, 2015]] ; [[#Taylor--2016|Taylor, 2016]] ). Thus far, there is ''low agreement'' and ''medium evidence'' regarding the adaptation potential of derivatives-based insurance products, signalling a need for further research in this area.

<div id="5.14.1.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="community-based-adaptation-approaches"></span>
==== 5.14.1.4 Community-based adaptation approaches ====

<div id="h3-68-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Community-based adaptation (CbA) strategies, which involve locally driven, place-based adaptation approaches, can help build adaptive capacity to climate change impacts, but require explicit attention to power dynamics, respect for local and Indigenous knowledge systems, adequate resources, future climatic trends and coordination at multiple levels of governance to be effective ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Spires--2014|Spires et al., 2014]] ; [[#Fernández-Giménez--2015|Fernández-Giménez et al., 2015]] ; [[#Nagoda--2015|Nagoda, 2015]] ; [[#Ashley--2016|Ashley et al., 2016]] ; [[#Berner--2016|Berner et al., 2016]] ; [[#Ensor--2016|Ensor et al., 2016]] ; [[#Avtar--2019|Avtar et al., 2019]] ; [[#Lam--2019|Lam et al., 2019]] ; [[#Silwal--2019|Silwal et al., 2019]] ; [[#McNamara--2020|McNamara et al., 2020]] ; [[#Piggott-McKellar--2020|Piggott-McKellar et al., 2020]] ; Rossa, 2020; [[#Uchiyama--2020|Uchiyama et al., 2020]] ). Since AR5, there is strong evidence that participation of local stakeholders in adaptation planning and implementation improves communities’ capacity to monitor and respond to climate change impacts on food, fibre and forestry systems, provided that adequate resources and local knowledge on climate change exist. Participatory monitoring of climate change impacts and participatory scenario development to develop community action plans are examples, which can help strengthen community preparation for and response to climate impacts.

Community-based monitoring of forests, coral reefs, seagrass and mangroves are examples of local natural resource assessment that can support food security and livelihoods while informing regional and national climate change planning tools ( [[#Carter--2014|Carter et al., 2014]] ; [[#Gevaña--2018|Gevaña et al., 2018]] ; [[#Avtar--2019|Avtar et al., 2019]] ). Negotiation among many stakeholders at multiple scales, including inclusive mechanisms to address power inequities in governance structures and communities, may be needed for CbA to be effective ( [[#Avtar--2019|Avtar et al., 2019]] ; [[#McNamara--2020|McNamara et al., 2020]] ). Indigenous knowledge and community-based management of fisheries and aquaculture in the Arctic and Asia ( [[#Roux--2019|Roux et al., 2019]] ; [[#Chen--2020|Chen and Cheng, 2020]] ; [[#Galappaththi--2020a|Galappaththi et al., 2020a]] ; [[#Schott--2020|Schott et al., 2020]] ; [[#Galappaththi--2021|Galappaththi et al., 2021]] ) provide adaptive strategies for sustainable use. ( [[#Iticha--2019|Iticha and Husen, 2019]] ). Community-based climate services in the Andes (managed through a collaboration of smallholder producers and an international partnership) built capacity and knowledge of climate change dynamics as well as trust in local climate institutions, providing meaningful information for regional responses to climate change impacts (Rossa, 2020). Community-based participatory scenario planning can help identify multiple climate stressors and vulnerabilities to develop effective adaptation plans ( [[#Fernández-Giménez--2015|Fernández-Giménez et al., 2015]] ; [[#Bennett--2016|Bennett et al., 2016]] ; Cross-Chapter Box MOVING PLATE this chapter).

An assessment of 32 different CbA initiatives in the Pacific Islands, including addressing risks to food security, found high-performing projects had six key entry points: effective methods to improve adaptive capacity, appropriate to the local context, which moved beyond narrow geographical definitions of community to consider equity of impact, and ecosystem-based approaches, jointly addressing climatic and non-livelihood pressures and consideration of future climatic trends ( [[#McNamara--2020|McNamara et al., 2020]] ). Low-performing initiatives, in contrast, were not sustained; these overlooked future climatic trends in their initiatives, such as beehive susceptibility to climate extremes, and had dependent, unequal relationships that lacked genuine local approval or ownership and did not fit local values and context ( [[#Spires--2014|Spires et al., 2014]] ; [[#McNamara--2020|McNamara et al., 2020]] ; [[#Piggott-McKellar--2020|Piggott-McKellar et al., 2020]] ). CbA initiatives can also suffer from not having adequate local knowledge of potential strategies to address future climatic scenarios, and may lead to maladaptation, increasing socioeconomic inequities in communities ( [[#Nagoda--2015|Nagoda, 2015]] ). Addressing inequity in power dynamics and building technical adaptive capacity of local people are some of the ways that CbA initiatives can support more resilient food systems ( [[#McNamara--2020|McNamara et al., 2020]] ).

<div id="5.14.1.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="local-and-regional-food-systems-strengthening-and-food-sovereignty"></span>
==== 5.14.1.5 Local and regional food systems’ strengthening and food sovereignty ====

<div id="h3-69-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Food sovereignty brings together adaptation options based on agroecological methods, access to resources, collective and CbA ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ). Addressing food security and nutrition in light of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities is considered to arise from a mixture of globalised supply chains and local production, not one or the other ( [[#Blesh--2019|Blesh et al., 2019]] ; [[#Stringer--2020|Stringer et al., 2020]] ). Evidence on strengthening local and regional food systems with a food sovereignty approach, in terms of access to resources (land, seeds, water), shortened food chains and CbA strategies suggest that these strategies can positively contribute to climate change adaptation in many contexts ( ''medium confidence'' ) (SRCCL) but can also lead to conflict especially regarding management of mobile resources such as fisheries ( [[#5.8|Section 5.8]] , Cross-Chapter Box MOVING PLATE this chapter). All these options can build adaptation through actions that strengthen local capacities and the power to act within food systems. Securing and recognising tenure for Indigenous Peoples ( [[#Hurlbert--2019|Hurlbert et al., 2019]] ) and local communities ( [[#Oates--2020|Oates et al., 2020]] ) can improve their ability to adapt by increasing the incentive to invest in resilient infrastructure and sustainable land management practices. Community seed banks and networks strengthen local seed systems and realise farmers’ rights favouring access to a variety of local genetic resources, with landraces often more adapted to the local social, cultural and ecological environment and needs, and better adapted to harsh environments without external inputs ( [[#Mousseau--2015|Mousseau, 2015]] ; [[#Bisht--2018|Bisht et al., 2018]] ; [[#Maharjan--2018|Maharjan and Maharjan, 2018]] ; [[#Otieno--2018|Otieno et al., 2018]] ; [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al., 2019]] ). This plays a key role in PPB ( [[#5.4.4|Section 5.4.4.5]] ; [[#FAO--2019e|FAO, 2019e]] ). The integration of informal and formal seed system elements is important for the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers (Westengen and Brysting, 2014; [[#Westengen--2016|Westengen and Berg, 2016]] ; [[#FAO--2019e|FAO, 2019e]] ).

Strengthening both local and regional food systems is a strategy to increase resilience ( [[#Schipanski--2016|Schipanski et al., 2016]] ; [[#Palmer--2017|Palmer et al., 2017]] ), resource use efficiency ( [[#Mu--2019|Mu et al., 2019]] ) and self-reliance ( ''medium evidence'' , ''low agreement'' ) ( [[#Griffin--2015|Griffin et al., 2015]] ; [[#Chapin--2016|Chapin et al., 2016]] ; [[#Karg--2016|Karg et al., 2016]] ). Collective trademarks ( [[#Quiñones-Ruiz--2015|Quiñones-Ruiz et al., 2015]] ) and participatory guarantee systems ( [[#Niederle--2020|Niederle et al., 2020]] ) are examples of innovative institutional strategies to strengthen local and regional food systems. In the urban context, the city region food system (CRFS) approach is motivated by reducing dependence on international trade and associated instability and to facilitate local decision making ( [[#Karg--2016|Karg et al., 2016]] ). CRFS includes a network within a regional landscape around one urban centre and surrounding peri-urban and rural regions ( [[#Blay-Palmer--2018|Blay-Palmer et al., 2018]] ). UPA is promoted as an effective strategy to adapt to climate change in different contexts (see [[#5.12.5|Section 5.12.5.3]] , [[#Dubbeling--2015|Dubbeling, 2015]] ; [[#Lwasa--2015|Lwasa et al., 2015]] ). To cope with the effects of climate change, strengthening regional food systems is becoming an explicit part of urban and regional policy, being tested in many different cities worldwide ( [[#Dubbeling--2017|Dubbeling et al., 2017]] ; [[#Blay-Palmer--2018|Blay-Palmer et al., 2018]] ; [[#Berner--2019|Berner et al., 2019]] ; [[#Sellberg--2020|Sellberg et al., 2020]] ; [[#van%20der%20Gaast--2020|van der Gaast et al., 2020]] ). Strengthening both local and regional food systems has to be balanced against limitations and trade-offs, since modelling exercises of regionalisation scenarios show urban agriculture cannot achieve food security in areas with rapid population growth ( [[#Le%20Mouël--2018|Le Mouël et al., 2018]] ). Furthermore, international trade can compensate in cases where the regional system fails due to extreme events or other related climate shocks ( [[#5.11|Section 5.11.8]] ).

<div id="box-5.11:-agroecology-as-a-transformative-climate-change-adaptation-approach" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 5.11: Agroecology as a Transformative Climate Change Adaptation Approach'''
<div id="h2-70-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Agroecological approaches can increase food system resilience ( ''robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ), while some agroecological practices such as agroforestry can provide mitigation measures ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#5.10.4.2|Section 5.10.4.2]] , Table Box 5.11.1, [[#Altieri--2015|Altieri et al., 2015]] ; [[#Martin--2016|Martin and Willaume, 2016]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2021|Bezner Kerr et al., 2021]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ). Studies testing agroecological approaches have shown ''robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' of increasing adaptation effectiveness through reducing risk, improving food security and yield stability, reducing input costs, and other supporting and provisioning ecosystem services ( [[#5.4.4.4|Section 5.4.4.4]] [[#Diacono--2017|Diacono et al., 2017]] ; [[#Pandey--2017|Pandey et al., 2017]] ; [[#Schulte--2017|Schulte et al., 2017]] ; Calderón, 2018; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2019|Bezner Kerr et al., 2019]] ; [[#Côte--2019|Côte et al., 2019]] ; [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2021|Bezner Kerr et al., 2021]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ). Effective locally relevant agroecological approaches involve participatory processes, co-creation of knowledge with farmers and attention to social inequities ( [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2021|Bezner Kerr et al., 2021]] ; [[#Santoso--2021|Santoso et al., 2021]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ). To address smallholder vulnerability to climate change impacts, however, additional policy support beyond agroecology will be needed that is context specific; for example, addressing farmer capacity, limited political power to access land, water, seeds and other key natural resources, structural gender inequities, policy and market disincentives that support large-scale monocultures ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Anderson--2019a|Anderson et al., 2019a]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Holt-Giménez--2021|Holt-Giménez et al., 2021]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ).

'''Table Box 5.11.1 |''' Dimensions of agroecological transitions as a transformative climate change adaptation strategy, benefits, trade-offs and constraints to implementation.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Different dimensions of agroecological transitions as a transformative climate change adaptation strategy'''

! '''Links to climate change impacts, benefits, trade-offs and constraints to implementation with examples'''

|-
| ''Environmental'' : Agroecology can support long-term productivity and resilience of food systems by sustaining ecosystem services such as pollination, SOC, pest and weed control, soil microbial activity, crop yield stability, water quality and biodiversity ( ''high confidence'' , see [[#5.4.4.4|Section 5.4.4.4]] , Cross-Working Group Box BIOECONOMY this chapter and Cross-Chapter Box NATURAL in Chapter 2). ( [[#Isbell--2017|Isbell et al., 2017]] ; [[#Kremen--2018|Kremen and Merenlender, 2018]] ; [[#LaCanne--2018|LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018]] ; [[#Beillouin--2019b|Beillouin et al., 2019b]] ; [[#Dainese--2019|Dainese et al., 2019]] ; [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ).

| * Biodiversity of functional species groups and responses to climate hazards play an important role in building stability and productivity in agroecological systems (5.4.4.4). A 5-year study, for example, in Asia, Africa and Latin America found that smallholder farmers (&lt;2 ha) increased yields by 25% through promoting pollination ( [[#Garibaldi--2016|Garibaldi et al., 2016]] ).
* Landscape complexity is an important feature of agroecology which can increase resilience to extreme events, such as pest and disease outbreaks or floods, and provide multi-purpose benefits (Sections 5.4.4; 5.10.4.2) ( [[#Paolotti--2016|Paolotti et al., 2016]] ; [[#Reed--2016|Reed et al., 2016]] ; [[#Kremen--2018|Kremen and Merenlender, 2018]] ; [[#LaCanne--2018|LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018]] ; [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Holt-Giménez--2021|Holt-Giménez et al., 2021]] ).
* Context-specific: some agroecological systems and practices have lower average crop productivity than conventional systems, while others can have higher overall crop productivity and farm profitability ( [[#LaCanne--2018|LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018]] ; [[#Barbieri--2019|Barbieri et al., 2019]] ; [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ).

|-
| ''Socio-cultural'' : Effective locally relevant agroecological approaches involve participatory processes, co-creation of knowledge with farmers and attention to social inequities, in doing so building farmer capacity ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Bharucha--2020|Bharucha et al., 2020]] ; [[#Holt-Giménez--2021|Holt-Giménez et al., 2021]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ).

| * Agroecology can emphasise social justice concerns, including gender inequities, considered crucial for climate change adaptations in food production to have positive impacts on food security and nutrition (Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18; ( [[#Smith--2015|Smith and Haddad, 2015]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Sylvester--2020|Sylvester and Little, 2020]] ).
* In some contexts, agroecological systems can draw on and support Indigenous knowledge, farming systems, networks and socio-cultural values ( [[#Catacora-Vargas--2017|Catacora-Vargas et al., 2017]] ).

|-
| ''Food security and nutrition'' : Agroecological practices can increase household food security and nutrition for producer households, with more evidence in low- and medium-income countries ( ''high confidence'' ) (Darrouzet-Nardi, 2016; [[#Demeke--2017|Demeke et al., 2017]] ; [[#Jones--2017a|Jones, 2017a]] ; [[#Kangmennaang--2017|Kangmennaang et al., 2017]] ; [[#Pandey--2017|Pandey et al., 2017]] ; [[#Luna-Gonzalez--2018|Luna-Gonzalez and Sorensen, 2018]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2019|Bezner Kerr et al., 2019]] ; [[#Boedecker--2019|Boedecker et al., 2019]] ; [[#Mulwa--2020|Mulwa and Visser, 2020]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2021|Bezner Kerr et al., 2021]] ; [[#Santoso--2021|Santoso et al., 2021]] ).

| * Combinations of practices, such as intercropping, crop rotation and crop diversification, often outperform individual practices for yield and food security outcomes ( [[#Beillouin--2019b|Beillouin et al., 2019b]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2021|Bezner Kerr et al., 2021]] ).
* Agroecological systems more effectively support food security and nutrition when complemented by nutrition and health education, participatory research and other public policies and programmes which address access to knowledge ( ''high confidence;'' ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2021|Bezner Kerr et al., 2021]] ; 7.4).

|-
| ''Economic'' : Agroecology can support socioeconomic resilience, through reducing reliance on purchased inputs, enhancing local and regional economies ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Bharucha--2020|Bharucha et al., 2020]] ; [[#Holt-Giménez--2021|Holt-Giménez et al., 2021]] ).

| * Multi-level policies and programmes that support urban and peri-urban networks with agroecological producers, including farmers’ markets, public procurement (e.g., school meals, hospitals), incentives for short food value chains, and participatory guarantee certification schemes which build producer–consumer networks are all ways to support agroecological transitions by consumers ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Catacora-Vargas--2017|Catacora-Vargas et al., 2017]] ; [[#Pérez-Marin--2017|Pérez-Marin et al., 2017]] ; Mier y Terán Giménez [[#Cacho--2018|Cacho et al., 2018]] ; [[#Anderson--2019a|Anderson et al., 2019a]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Borsatto--2020|Borsatto et al., 2020]] ; [[#González%20de%20Molina--2020|González de Molina, 2020]] ).
* Transitions to agroecology at a global scale, however, may require considerable dietary shifts which vary by region, and have implications for total food production and farm-level revenues, especially in the short term (medium confidence, ( [[#Muller--2017|Muller et al., 2017]] ; [[#Seufert--2017|Seufert and Ramakutty, 2017]] ; [[#Barbieri--2019|Barbieri et al., 2019]] ; [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Smith--2019b|Smith et al., 2019b]] ; [[#Smith--2020a|Smith et al., 2020a]] ).
* To address smallholder vulnerability to climate change impacts, additional policy support beyond agroecology will be needed that is context specific; for example, addressing farmer capacity, limited political power to access land, water, seeds and other key natural resources, structural gender inequities, policy and market disincentives that support large-scale monocultures ( [[#Anderson--2019a|Anderson et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Holt-Giménez--2021|Holt-Giménez et al., 2021]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ).

|-
| ''Long-term investment'' : Timeframes are an important consideration, as an agroecological transition involves multiple overlapping stages, of reducing chemical inputs, experimenting with and applying new agroecological practices and adjusting them, redesigning the farm, strengthening short value chains and producer networks ( [[#Gliessman--2014|Gliessman, 2014]] ; [[#Padel--2020|Padel et al., 2020]] ).

| * In the short term, without policy support, the costs of implementing agroecological practices at the farm scale can outweigh ecological and adaptation benefits, although the timeframe required is context-specific ( [[#Padel--2020|Padel et al., 2020]] ).
* In the long term, implementing agroecological practices can increase yields, yield stability and farm profitability, reduce risks, and build resilience alongside ecological, health and social co-benefits, but impacts are context-specific ( [[#5.4.4.4|Section 5.4.4.4]] , [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2021|Bezner Kerr et al., 2021]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ).
* In Malawi, for example, studies indicate that smallholder producers using agroecological practices improved food security and nutrition, livelihoods and provisioning ecosystem services after 2 years ( [[#Kangmennaang--2017|Kangmennaang et al., 2017]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2019|Bezner Kerr et al., 2019]] ; [[#Kansanga--2021|Kansanga et al., 2021]] ), while in the UK, farmers transitioning to agroecological practices took 3 or more years to realise benefits ( [[#Padel--2020|Padel et al., 2020]] ).

|-
| ''Policy tools'' : Investment in agroecological approaches that are designed for socio-ecological context, farmer-led schools, co-learning platforms, and networks of farmers, scientists, private sector and civil society can support agroecological transitions at a regional scale ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Coe--2014|Coe et al., 2014]] ; [[#Catacora-Vargas--2017|Catacora-Vargas et al., 2017]] ; [[#Pérez-Marin--2017|Pérez-Marin et al., 2017]] ; Mier y Terán Giménez [[#Cacho--2018|Cacho et al., 2018]] ; [[#Anderson--2019a|Anderson et al., 2019a]] ; [[#González%20de%20Molina--2020|González de Molina, 2020]] ; [[#Lampkin--2020|Lampkin et al., 2020]] ; [[#Padel--2020|Padel et al., 2020]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ). Policies can provide incentives (e.g., price premiums, access to credit, extension service, taxes, regulation) to support agroecological transitions by producers ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Gerard--2020|Gerard et al., 2020]] ; [[#SAPEA--2020|SAPEA, 2020]] ).

| * Farm scale and landscape diversity can affect the capacity for producers to implement agroecological systems. Small to mid-sized farms can more effectively integrate agroecological methods such as increasing landscape diversity, on-farm diversity and intercrops ( ''medium confidence)'' ( [[#Garibaldi--2016|Garibaldi et al., 2016]] ; [[#Herrero--2017|Herrero et al., 2017]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ). Barriers to adopting agroecological practices for small to mid-sized farms include limited market options, subsidy and policy disincentives, lack of extension support, knowledge and insecure land tenure ( [[#Jacobi--2017|Jacobi et al., 2017]] ; [[#Kongsager--2017|Kongsager, 2017]] ; [[#Hernández-Morcillo--2018|Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2018]] ; [[#Iiyama--2018|Iiyama et al., 2018]] ; [[#Anderson--2019a|Anderson et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Gerard--2020|Gerard et al., 2020]] ).
* Barriers for large farms to transition to agroecological practices include knowledge gaps, cost, significant infrastructure and farm design changes, labour, psycho-social adjustments, policy disincentives and market lock-ins ( [[#Hill--2014|Hill, 2014]] ; [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Lampkin--2020|Lampkin et al., 2020]] ).
* Some policies and initiatives support large-sized farms to transition to agroecology ( [[#Zhou--2014|Zhou et al., 2014]] ; [[#Liebman--2015|Liebman and Schulte, 2015]] ; [[#Ajates%20Gonzalez--2018|Ajates Gonzalez et al., 2018]] ; [[#Bellon--2018|Bellon and Ollivier, 2018]] ; [[#Lampkin--2020|Lampkin et al., 2020]] ; [[#Padel--2020|Padel et al., 2020]] ).

|-
| Other drivers of agroecological transitions can include crises (environmental, economic or social), social movements, changing socio-cultural values, addressing social inequities, and discourse ( [[#Pérez-Marin--2017|Pérez-Marin et al., 2017]] ; Mier y Terán Giménez [[#Cacho--2018|Cacho et al., 2018]] ; [[#Anderson--2019a|Anderson et al., 2019a]] ).

| Further research could provide context-specific information about economic and ecological benefits of some practices and combinations, with effective policies to support their implementation ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Rosa-Schleich--2019|Rosa-Schleich et al., 2019]] ; [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ). Institutional support to monitor the ecosystem services climate change mitigation and adaptation impact of agroecological systems can inform policy, using systematic methods and indicators (e.g., [[#Barrios--2020|Barrios et al., 2020]] ; [[#Mottet--2020|Mottet et al., 2020]] ) including annual reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ( [[#Snapp--2021|Snapp et al., 2021]] ).

|}

Box 5.11

Box 5.11

<div id="5.14.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="enabling-conditions-for-implementing-adaptation"></span>