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

==== 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>