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

==== 5.14.2.5 Constraints on adaptation finance for food, feed, fibre and other ecosystem products ====

<div id="h3-74-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Flow of adaptation finance in the agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture and forestry sectors is impeded by weak measurement and benchmarking of financial and resilience outcomes ( [[#Kramer--2019|Kramer et al., 2019]] ; [[#Negra--2020|Negra et al., 2020]] ), and challenges in assessing repayment capacity of investee producers and companies ( ''medium confidence'' ). Immature information systems (e.g., weak analytics, fragmented standards) ( [[#Woodard--2019|Woodard et al., 2019]] ; [[#Negra--2020|Negra et al., 2020]] ) inhibit effective due diligence and impact assessment, contributing to uncertainty and low investor confidence ( [[#Havemann--2020|Havemann et al., 2020]] ; [[#NGFS--2020|NGFS, 2020]] ). Improved characterisation of adaptation finance strategies (e.g., insurance, subsidies, blended finance) requires increased transaction volume ( [[#Millan--2019|Millan et al., 2019]] ) and analysis of financial (e.g., risk–return profile, investor demand) and resilience (e.g., reduced vulnerability) effects.

Use of climate-resilient financial strategies and instruments is limited by weak incentives, which commonly take the form of high upfront costs ( [[#Verdolini--2018|Verdolini et al., 2018]] ), high transaction and intermediation costs ( [[#Havemann--2020|Havemann et al., 2020]] ) and relatively long pay-off time. Tenant producers may not experience benefits from adaptation investments ( [[#Woodard--2019|Woodard et al., 2019]] ). Investors seek low-risk, liquid investments and credit-worthy counterparties ( [[#Havemann--2020|Havemann et al., 2020]] ), yet small- and medium-sized producers and supply chain actors often lack access to formal credit. Given limited experience and weak information for adaptation finance, sub-optimal outcomes may include imbalanced allocation of public and private finance (e.g., to less vulnerable regions and producers; to lower-resilience investments; to short-term benefits) as well as inequitable division of risks and returns (e.g., within blended finance structures) ( [[#Clapp--2017|Clapp, 2017]] ; [[#World%20Bank--2018|World Bank, 2018]] ; [[#Attridge--2019|Attridge and Engen, 2019]] ). Additionally, while risk-sharing finance strategies can deliver adaptation benefits, they do not inherently reduce overall risk and commonly cover only specified types of risks ( [[#Kellett--2014|Kellett and Peters, 2014]] ; [[#Watson--2015|Watson et al., 2015]] ).

Methods to strengthen adaptation finance include updating regulations and policies to support adaptation finance instruments (e.g., climate accounting standards), requiring climate-risk disclosure, improved information-sharing among public and private sector actors and devolving funding to local actors ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Global%20Commission%20on%20Adaptation--2019|Global Commission on Adaptation, 2019]] ; [[#Millan--2019|Millan et al., 2019]] ).

<div id="box-5.12:-is-climate-smart-agriculture-overlooking-gender-and-power-relations?" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 5.12: Is Climate-Smart Agriculture Overlooking Gender and Power Relations?'''
<div id="h2-71-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an approach that aims to increase agricultural productivity, enhance food security, adapt to climate change and, where possible, reduce GHG emissions. The effective implementation of climate-smart practices is conceptually linked to an enabling environment in which policies, institutions and finance can re-orient agricultural systems, thereby supporting development and enhancing food security in a changing climate ( [[#Lipper--2014|Lipper et al., 2014]] ; [[#Karttunen--2017|Karttunen et al., 2017]] ). However, the concept has received criticism based on the absence of conceptual clarity of the interrelations between productivity, food security, adaptation and mitigation ( [[#Arenas-Sanchez--2019|Arenas-Sanchez et al., 2019]] ) and because of limited evidence on the efficacy of CSA for achieving adaptation and mitigation outcomes at a global scale ( [[#Arslan--2015|Arslan et al., 2015]] ; [[#Lamanna--2016|Lamanna et al., 2016]] ; [[#Chandra--2018|Chandra et al., 2018]] ). Some argue that CSA operates within an apolitical framework that tends to minimise issues concerning power, inequity and access, and is overly focused on technical approaches ( [[#Taylor--2017|Taylor, 2017]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ). CSA is explicitly referenced by more than 30 countries in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) ( [[#Ross--2016|Ross et al., 2016]] ), but measuring the degree of its implementation still represents a challenge.

There is ''low agreement'' , ''medium evidence'' on the relationship between CSA and equity (Allen, 2018; [[#Karlsson--2018|Karlsson et al., 2018]] ). CSA can potentially benefit women if they are able to take advantage of improvements in productivity, food security and adaptation decision making as a result of the implementation of CSA practices. Nevertheless, these advantages can be unequally realised given male domination in receiving information and extension services, as well as financial or resource access ( [[#Jost--2016|Jost et al., 2016]] ). Some ( [[#Huyer--2020|Huyer and Partey, 2020]] ) argue that CSA may undermine gender equity ( [[#Collins--2018|Collins, 2018]] ), entrench and solidify power ( [[#Haapala--2018|Haapala, 2018]] ), and result in the disproportional allocation of new labour-intensive activities to women ( [[#Jost--2016|Jost et al., 2016]] ). Uptake of some climate-smart technologies can further marginalise the most disadvantaged local groups ( [[#Roncoli--2009|Roncoli et al., 2009]] ; [[#Haapala--2018|Haapala, 2018]] ). Unequal sharing of benefits and burdens with respect to emission reduction costs among different agricultural groups has also been observed ( [[#Budiman--2019|Budiman, 2019]] ).

In contrast, emerging research points to the potential of CSA as a supporting condition for gender equity, provided that equity and power concerns are explicitly included in the approach ( [[#Chanana-Nag--2020|Chanana-Nag and Aggarwal, 2020]] ). Some CSA technologies and practices, such as direct seeding, green manuring and laser land levelling, can have a significant role in reducing the gender gap in labour burden for women in agriculture ( [[#Khatri-Chhetri--2020|Khatri-Chhetri et al., 2020]] ). The use of participatory approaches can facilitate community-based adaptation of gender-sensitive CSA practices (Rosimo, 2018). CSA may also empower both men and women: in two villages in India, CSA adoption empowered both sexes in decision making and use and control of income ( [[#Hariharan--2018|Hariharan et al., 2018]] ).

In general CSA programmes have tended to overlook questions of inequity ( ''medium confidence'' ), including limited attention to social conditions that promote Business-As-Usual pathways, although this is now changing. Addressing questions of rights, social injustice, unequal power relations and inequity would help make CSA-related policy responses more effective in addressing vulnerability ( [[#Chandra--2017|Chandra et al., 2017]] ; [[#Clapp--2018|Clapp and Isakson, 2018]] ; [[#Karlsson--2018|Karlsson et al., 2018]] ; [[#Westengen--2018|Westengen et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ellis--2019|Ellis and Tschakert, 2019]] ; [[#Eriksen--2019|Eriksen et al., 2019]] ; [[#Westengen--2019|Westengen et al., 2019]] ).

<div id="box-5.13:-supporting-youth-adaptation-in-food-systems" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 5.13: Supporting Youth Adaptation in Food Systems'''
<div id="h2-72-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Young people are key agents in agrifood systems: both a vulnerable group, and one that can foster systemic change ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Brooks--2019|Brooks et al., 2019]] ; Figure X; [[#IFAD--2019|IFAD, 2019]] ; [[#Flynn--2021|Flynn and Sumberg, 2021]] ; [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ). Food systems are the largest source of employment for young people, but do not always provide adequate livelihoods or decent working conditions ( [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ). Regions with more youthful populations—such as Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Central America—are both highly vulnerable to climate change impacts and reliant on agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries for livelihoods ( [[#Brooks--2019|Brooks et al., 2019]] ; [[#IFAD--2019|IFAD, 2019]] ; [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ). Rural youth in these sectors are particularly vulnerable, often with less access to land, water, capital and other resources, shaped by family and social relations, and fewer opportunities ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Chingala--2017|Chingala et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ricker-Gilbert--2018|Ricker-Gilbert and Chamberlin, 2018]] ; [[#IFAD--2019|IFAD, 2019]] ; [[#Yeboah--2020|Yeboah et al., 2020]] ; [[#Flynn--2021|Flynn and Sumberg, 2021]] ; [[#Nhat%20Lam%20Duyen--2021|Nhat Lam Duyen, 2021]] ). In these vulnerable regions, climate change compounds other drivers such as poverty to increase youth out-migration to urban areas or other regions ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Zin--2019|Zin et al., 2019]] ; [[#Weinreb--2020|Weinreb et al., 2020]] ; [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ; [[#Stoltz--2021|Stoltz et al., 2021]] ; [[#Voss--2021|Voss, 2021]] ), which can further worsen rural economies. Young low-income rural women may be particularly marginalised and vulnerable due to systemic gender inequities in access to land, credit, employment, institutions and other resources ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Sah%20Akwen--2017|Sah Akwen, 2017]] ; [[#IFAD--2019|IFAD, 2019]] ; [[#Flynn--2021|Flynn and Sumberg, 2021]] ).

Youth play a critical role in all sectors of the food system ( [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ; Figure Box 5.13.1), and some are actively pursuing work and innovation in agrifood systems ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Sah%20Akwen--2017|Sah Akwen, 2017]] ; 2019; [[#Yeboah--2020|Yeboah et al., 2020]] ; [[#Flynn--2021|Flynn and Sumberg, 2021]] ). Climate change impacts may reduce youth employment options in food systems in some regions, while they are often politically marginalised ( [[#Brooks--2019|Brooks et al., 2019]] ; [[#IFAD--2019|IFAD, 2019]] ; [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ). At the same time, due to heightened awareness about climate change, youth may be more willing to apply climate adaptation strategies ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Ali--2017|Ali and Erenstein, 2017]] ; [[#Jiri--2017|Jiri et al., 2017]] ; [[#Sah%20Akwen--2017|Sah Akwen, 2017]] ; [[#Chamberlin--2021|Chamberlin and Sumberg, 2021]] ; [[#Doherty--2021|Doherty et al., 2021]] ). Agrifood policy implementation of adaptation strategies could increase inclusive participation of youth to meet their needs ( [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ). Inclusive investments in water management, infrastructure, agrifood science, and policies that increase youth access to land, credit, knowledge, education, skills and other crucial resources can support dignified and rewarding agrifood employment ( [[#Ahsan--2016|Ahsan and Mitra, 2016]] ; [[#Brooks--2019|Brooks et al., 2019]] ; [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ). Digital technologies can support agrifood adaptations, but digital divides must be overcome to avoid worsening inequities ( [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ). Initiatives which protect and strengthen youth engagement and employment in the all points of the food system, including recognition of youth’s critical role and agency through rights-based approaches, can support sustainable food transitions ( [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ). Harnessing youth innovation and vision to address climate change alongside other SDGs such as gender inequity and rural poverty will be a crucial strategy to ensure resilient economies in food systems ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Laube--2016|Laube, 2016]] ; [[#Brooks--2019|Brooks et al., 2019]] ; [[#IFAD--2019|IFAD, 2019]] ; [[#Abay--2021|Abay et al., 2021]] ; [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ).

[[File:15b45d66eecc294638de6296f51ceb58 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_Box_5_13_1.png]]

'''Figure Box 5.13.1 | Youth agency, engagement and employment in food system ( [[#HLPE--2021|HLPE, 2021]] ).'''

<div id="5.14.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="climate-resilient-development-pathways"></span>