Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/TS (section)

==== TS.5.6.2 Food Systems ====

<div id="h3-1-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

'''Realising the full mitigation potential from the food system requires change at all stages from producer to consumer and waste management, which can be facilitated through integrated policy packages (''' '''''high confidence''''' ''').''' Food systems are associated with 23–42% of global GHG emissions, while there is still widespread food insecurity and malnutrition. Absolute GHG emissions from food systems increased from 14 to 17 GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 in the period 1990–2018. Both supply- and demand-side measures are important to reduce the GHG intensity of food systems. Integrated food policy packages based on a combination of market-based, administrative, informative, and behavioural policies can reduce cost compared to uncoordinated interventions, address multiple sustainability goals, and increase acceptance across stakeholders and civil society ( ''limited evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ) ''.'' Food systems governance may be pioneered through local food policy initiatives complemented by national and international initiatives, but governance on the national level tends to be fragmented, and thus has limited capacity to address structural issues like inequities in access. (Figure TS.18, Table TS.5, Table TS.6) {7.2, 7.4, 12.4}

[[File:a1089d0ce8d599427cec711ba4074362 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_TS_18.png]]
'''Figure TS.18''' '''|''' '''Food-system GHG emissions from the agriculture, and land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), waste, and energy and industry sectors.''' {Figure 12.5}

'''Table TS''' '''.5 |''' '''Food system mitigation opportunities.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| colspan="2"| '''Food system mitigation options (I: incremental; T: transformative)'''

| '''Direct and indirect effect on GHG mitigation (+/0/–)''' a

| '''Co-benefits/adverse effects''' b

|-
| rowspan="5"| Food from agriculture, aquaculture and fisheries

| (I) Dietary shift, in particular increased share of plant-based protein sources

| D+ ↓ GHG footprint

| A+ Animal welfare

L+ Land sparing

H+ Good nutritional properties, potentially ↓ risk from zoonotic diseases, pesticides and antibiotics

|-
| (I/T) Digital agriculture

| D+ ↑ logistics

| L+ Land sparing

R+ ↑ resource-use efficiencies

|-
| (T) Gene technology

| D+ ↑ productivity or efficiency

| H+ ↑ nutritional quality

E0 ↓ use of agrochemicals; ↑ probability of off-target impacts

|-
| (I) Sustainable intensification Land-use optimisation

| D+ ↓ GHG footprint

E0 Mixed effects

| L+ Land sparing

R– Might ↑ pollution/biodiversity loss

|-
| (I) Agroecology

| D+ ↓ GHG/area, positive micro-climatic effects

E+ ↓ energy, possibly ↓ transport FL+ Circular approaches

| E+ Focus on co-benefits/ecosystem services

R+ Circular, ↑ nutrient and water use efficiencies

|-
| Controlled environment agriculture

| (T) Soil-less agriculture

| D+ ↑ productivity, weather independent

FL+ Harvest on demand

E– Currently ↑ energy demand, but ↓ transport, building spaces can be used for renewable energy

| R+ Controlled loops ↑ nutrient- and water-use efficiency

L+ Land sparing

H+ Crop breeding can be optimised for taste and/or nutritional quality

|-
| rowspan="4"| Emerging food production technologies

| (T) Insects

| D0 Good feed conversion efficiency

FW+ Can be fed on food waste

| H0 Good nutritional qualities but attention to allergies and food safety issues required

|-
| (I/T) Algae and bivalves

| D+ ↓ GHG footprints

| A+ Animal welfare

L+ Land sparing

H+ Good nutritional qualities; risk of heavy-metal and pathogen contamination

R+ Biofiltration of nutrient-polluted waters

|-
| (I/T) Plant-based alternatives to animal-based food products

| D+ No emissions from animals, ↓ inputs for feed

| A+ Animal welfare

L+ Land sparing

H+ Potentially ↓ risk from zoonotic diseases, pesticides and antibiotics; but ↑ processing demand

|-
| (T) Cellular agriculture (including cultured meat, microbial protein)

| D+ No emissions from animals, high protein conversion efficiency

E– ↑ energy need

FLW+ ↓ food loss and waste

| A+ Animal welfare

R+ ↓ emissions of reactive nitrogen or other pollutants

H0 Potentially ↓ risk from zoonotic diseases, pesticides and antibiotics; ↑ research on safety aspects needed

|-
| rowspan="4"| Food processing and packaging

| (I) Valorisation of by-products, FLW logistics and management

| M+ Substitution of bio-based materials

FL+ ↓ of food losses

|
|-
| (I) Food conservation

| FW+ ↓ of food waste

E0 ↑ energy demand but also energy savings possible (e.g., refrigeration, transport)

|
|-
| (I) Smart packaging and other technologies

| FW+ ↓ of food waste

M0 ↑ material demand and ↑ material efficiency

E0 ↑ energy demand; energy savings possible

| H+ Possibly ↑ freshness/reduced food safety risks

|-
| (I) Energy efficiency

| E+ ↓ energy

|
|-
| rowspan="5"| Storage and distribution

| (I) Improved logistics

| D+ ↓ transport emissions

FL+ ↓ losses in transport

FW– Easier access to food could ↑ food waste

|
|-
| (I) Specific measures to reduce food waste in retail and food catering

| FW+ ↓ of food waste

E+ ↓ downstream energy demand

M+ ↓ downstream material demand

|
|-
| (I) Alternative fuels/transport modes

| D+ ↓ emissions from transport

|
|-
| (I) Energy efficiency

| E+ ↓ energy in refrigeration, lightening, climatisation

|
|-
| (I) Replacing refrigerants

| D+ ↓ emissions from the cold chain

|
|}

a Direct and indirect GHG effects: D – direct emissions except emissions from energy use, E – energy demand, M – material demand, FL – food losses, FW – food waste; direction of effect on GHG mitigation: (+) increased mitigation, (0) neutral, (–) decreased mitigation.

b Co-benefits/adverse effects: H – health aspects, A – animal welfare, R – resource use, L – land demand, E – ecosystem services; (+) co-benefits, (–) adverse effects. {Table 12.8}

'''Table TS.''' '''6 |''' '''Assessment of food system policies targeting (post-farm gate) food-chain actors and consumers.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! ''Level G: global/multinational; N: national; L: local''

! ''Transformative potential''

! ''Environmental effectiveness''

! ''Feasibility''

! ''Distributional effects''

! ''Cost''

! ''Co-benefits'' a ''and adverse side effect''

! ''Implications for coordination, coherence and consistency in policy package'' b

|-
| '''Integrated food policy packages'''

| '''NL'''

|
| ''can be controlled''

| ''cost efficient''

| '''+ balanced, addresses multiple sustainability goals'''

| Reduces cost of uncoordinated interventions; increases acceptance across stakeholders and civil society ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| Taxes on food products

| GN

|
| ''regressive''

| low # 1

| ''– unintended substitution effects''

| High enforcing effect on other food policies; higher acceptance if compensation or hypothecated taxes ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| rowspan="2"| GHG taxes on food

| rowspan="2"| GN

| rowspan="2"|
| rowspan="2"| ''regressive''

| rowspan="2"| low # 2

| ''– unintended substitution effects''

| rowspan="2"| Supportive, enabling effect on other food policies, agricultural/fishery policies; requires changes in power distribution and trade agreements ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' )

|-
| + high spillover effect

|-
| rowspan="2"| Trade policies

| rowspan="2"| G

| rowspan="2"|
| rowspan="2"| impacts global distribution

| rowspan="2"| complex effects

| + counters leakage effects

| rowspan="2"| Requires changes in existing trade agreements ( ''medium'' ''evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| +/– effects on market structure and jobs

|-
| Investment into research and innovation

| GN

|
| none

| medium

| + high spillover effect + converging with digital society

| Can fill targeted gaps for coordinated policy packages (e.g., monitoring methods) ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| Food and marketing regulations

| N

|
| low

|
| Can be supportive; might be supportive to realise innovation; voluntary standards might be less effective ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' )

|-
| Organisational-level procurement policies

| NL

|
| low

| + can address multiple sustainability goals

| Enabling effect on other food policies; reaches large share of population ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| Sustainable food-based dietary guidelines

| GNL

|
| none

| low

| + can address multiple sustainability goals

| Little attention so far on environmental aspects; can serve as benchmark for other policies (labels, food formulation standards, etc.) ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' )

|-
| Food labels/ information

| GNL

|
| education level relevant

| low

| + empowers citizens

+ increases awareness

+ multiple objectives

| Effective mainly as part of a policy package; incorporation of other objectives (e.g., animal welfare, fair trade); higher effect if mandatory ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium'' ''agreement'' )

|-
| Nudges

| NL

|
| none

| low

| + possibly counteracting information deficits in population subgroups

| High enabling effect on other food policies ( ''medium'' ''evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|}

Effect of measures:   negative   none/unclear   slightly positive   positive 

Notes: #1 Minimum level to be effective 20% price increase; #2 Minimum level to be effective USD50–80 tCO 2 -eq. a In addition, all interventions are assumed to address health and climate change mitigation. b Requires coordination between policy areas, participation of stakeholders, transparent methods and indicators to manage trade-offs and prioritisation between possibly conflicting objectives; and suitable indicators for monitoring and evaluation against objectives.

'''Diets high in plant protein and low in meat and dairy are associated with lower GHG emissions (''' '''''high confidence''''' ''').''' Ruminant meat shows the highest GHG intensity. Beef from dairy systems has lower emissions intensity than beef from beef herds (8–23 and 17–94 kgCO ''2'' -eq (100 g protein) ''–1'' , respectively) when some emissions are allocated to dairy products. The wide variation in emissions reflects differences in production systems, which range from intensive feedlots with stock raised largely on grains through to rangeland and transhumance production systems. Where appropriate, a shift to diets with a higher share of plant protein, moderate intake of animal-source foods and reduced intake of saturated fats could lead to substantial decreases in GHG emissions. Benefits would also include reduced land occupation and nutrient losses to the surrounding environment, while at the same time providing health benefits and reducing mortality from diet-related non-communicable diseases. (Figure TS.19) {7.4.5, 12.4}

<div id="_idContainer061" class="Basic-Text-Frame"></div>

[[File:5cdd59f7745e0d8b1e84d32d8bfe52b7 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_TS_19.png]]

'''Figure TS.19''' '''|''' '''Regional differences in health outcome, territorial per-capita GHG emissions from national food systems, and share of food system GHG emission from energy use.''' GHG emissions are calculated according to the IPCC Tier 1 approach and are assigned to the country where they occur, not necessarily where the food is consumed. Health outcome is expressed as relative contribution of each of the following risk factors to their combined risk for deaths: Child and maternal malnutrition (red), Dietary risks (yellow) or High body-mass index (blue). {Figure 12.7}

'''Emerging food technologies such as cellular fermentation, cultured meat, plant-based alternatives to animal-based food products, and controlled environment agriculture, can bring substantial reduction in direct GHG emissions from food production (''' '''''limited evidence,''''' '''''high agreement''''' ''').''' These technologies have lower land, water, and nutrient footprints, and address concerns over animal welfare. Realising the full mitigation potential depends on access to low-carbon energy as some emerging technologies are relatively more energy intensive. This also holds for deployment of cold-chain and packaging technologies, which can help reduce food loss and waste, but increase energy and materials use in the food system. (Table TS.5) {11.4.1.3, 12.4}

<div id="TS.5.7" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ts.5.7-carbon-dioxide-removal-cdr"></span>