Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-6 (section)

=== 6.2.3 Integrated response options based on risk management ===

<div id="section-6-2-3-1-risk-management-options"></div>

<span id="risk-management-options"></span>
==== 6.2.3.1 Risk management options ====

<div id="section-6-2-3-1-risk-management-options-block-1"></div>

Integrated response options based on risk management are described in Table 6.12, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base for the effects of the response options.

<div id="section-6-2-3-1-risk-management-options-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-6.10"></span>
<!-- START TABLE -->
'''Table 6.10'''

<span id="integrated-response-options-based-on-value-chain-management-through-demand-management."></span>
'''Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management.'''

<!-- TABLE -->
{| class="wikitable"
|-

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

|-

Dietary change

Sustainable healthy diets represent a range of dietary changes to improve human diets, to make them healthy in terms of the nutrition delivered, and also (economically, environmentally and socially) sustainable. A ‘contract and converge’ model of transition to sustainable healthy diets would involve a reduction in over-consumption (particularly of livestock products) in over-consuming populations, with increased consumption of some food groups in populations where minimum nutritional needs are not met. Such a conversion could result in a decline<br />
in undernourishment, as well as reduction in the risk of morbidity and mortality due to over-consumption.

A dietary shift away from meat can reduce GHG emissions, reduce cropland and pasture requirements, enhance biodiversity protection, and reduce mitigation costs. Additionally, dietary change can both increase potential for other land-based response options and reduce the need for them by freeing land. By decreasing pressure on land, demand reduction through dietary change could also allow for decreased production intensity, which could reduce soil erosion and provide benefits to a range of other environmental indicators such as deforestation and decreased use of fertiliser (nitrogen and phosphorus), pesticides, water and energy, leading to potential benefits for adaptation, desertification, and land degradation.

Chapter 5; Section 6.4.4.2

Aleksandrowicz et al. 2016; Bajželj et al. 2014a; Bonsch<br />
et al. 2016; Erb et al. 2016; Godfray et al. 2010; Haberl et al. 2011; Havlík et al. 2014; Muller et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2013; Springmann et al. 2018; Stehfest et al. 2009; Tilman and Clark 2014; Wu et al. 2019

|-

Reduced post- harvest losses

Approximately one-third of the food produced for<br />
human consumption is wasted in post-production operations. Most of these losses are due to poor storage management. Post-harvest food losses underlie the food system’s failure to equitably enable accessible and affordable food in all countries. Reduced post-harvest food losses can improve food security in developing countries (while food loss in developed countries mostly occurs at the retail/consumer stage). The key drivers for post-harvest waste in developing countries are structural and infrastructure deficiencies. Thus, reducing food waste at the post-harvest stage requires responses that process, preserve and, where appropriate, redistribute food to where it can be consumed immediately.

Differences exist between farm food waste reduction technologies between small-scale agricultural systems and large-scale agricultural systems. A suite of options includes farm-level storage facilities, trade or exchange processing technologies including food drying, on-site farm processing for value addition, and improved seed systems. For large- scale agri-food systems, options include cold chains for preservation, processing for value addition and linkages to value chains that absorb the harvests almost instantly into the supply chain. In addition to the specific options to reduce food loss and waste, there are more systemic possibilities related to food systems. Improving and expanding the ‘dry chain’ can significantly reduce food losses at the household level. Dry chains are analogous to the cold chain and refers to the ‘initial dehydration of durable commodities to levels preventing fungal growth’ followed by storage in moisture- proof containers. Regional and local food systems are now being promoted to enable production, distribution, access and affordability of food. Reducing post-harvest losses has the potential to reduce emissions and could simultaneously reduce food costs and increase availability. The perishability and safety of fresh foods are highly susceptible to temperature increase.

Chapter 5

Ansah et al. 2017; Bajželj<br />
et al. 2014b; Billen et al. 2018; Bradford et al. 2018; Chaboud and Daviron 2017; Göbel et al. 2015; Gustavsson et al. 2011; Hengsdijk and de Boer 2017; Hodges et al. 2011; Ingram et al. 2016; Kissinger et al. 2018; Kumar and Kalita 2017; Ritzema et al. 2017; Sheahan and Barrett 2017a; Wilhelm et al. 2016)

|-

Reduced food waste (consumer or retailer)

Since approximately 9–30% of all food is wasted, reducing food waste can reduce pressure on land (see also reducing post-harvest losses).

Reducing food waste could lead to a reduction in cropland area and GHG emissions, resulting in benefits for mitigation. By decreasing pressure on land, food waste reduction could allow for decreased production intensity, which could reduce soil erosion and provide benefits to a range of other environmental indicators such as deforestation and decreases in use of fertiliser (N and P), pesticides, water and energy, leading to potential benefits for adaptation, desertification, and land degradation.

Alexander et al. 2016; Bajželj et al. 2014b; Gustavsson et al. 2011; Kummu et al. 2012; Muller et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2013; Vermeulen et al. 2012b

|-

Material substitution

Material substitution involves the use of wood or agricultural biomass (e.g., straw bales) instead of fossil fuel-based materials (e.g., concrete, iron, steel, aluminium) for building, textiles or other applications.

Material substitution reduces carbon emissions – both because the biomass sequesters carbon in materials while re-growth of forests can lead to continued sequestration, and because it reduces the demand for fossil fuels, delivering a benefit for mitigation. However, a potential trade-off exists between conserving carbon stocks and using forests for wood products. If the use of material for substitution was large enough to result in increased forest area, then the adverse side effects for adaptation and food security would be similar to that of reforestation and afforestation. In addition, some studies indicate that wooden buildings,

if properly constructed, could reduce fire risk compared<br />
to steel, creating a co-benefit for adaptation. The effects<br />
of material substitution on land degradation depend on management practice; some forms of logging can lead to increased land degradation. Long-term forest management with carbon storage in long-lived products also results in atmospheric CO2 removal.

Chapter 4

Dugan et al. 2018; Eriksson et al. 2012; Gustavsson et al. 2006; Iordan et al. 2018; Kauppi et al. 2018; Kurz et al. 2016; Leskinen et al. 2018; McLaren 2012; Miner 2010; Oliver and Morecroft 2014; Ramage et al. 2017; Sathre and O’Connor 2010; Smyth et al. 2014

|}
<!-- END TABLE -->

<div id="section-6-2-3-1-risk-management-options-block-3"></div>

<span id="table-6.11"></span>
<!-- START TABLE -->
'''Table 6.11'''

<span id="integrated-response-options-based-on-value-chain-management-through-supply-management."></span>
'''Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management.'''

<!-- TABLE -->
{| class="wikitable"
|-

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

|-

Sustainable sourcing

Sustainable sourcing includes approaches to ensure that the production of goods is done in a sustainable way, such as through low-impact agriculture, zero-deforestation supply chains, or sustainably harvested forest products. Currently around 8% of global forest area has been certified in some manner, and 25% of global industrial roundwood comes from certified forests. Sustainable sourcing also aims to enable producers to increase their percentage of the final value of commodities. Adding value to products requires improved innovation, coordination and efficiency in the food supply chain, as well as labelling to meet consumer demands. As such, sustainable sourcing is an approach that combines both supply- and demand- side management. Promoting sustainable and value- added products can reduce the need for compensatory extensification of agricultural areas and is a specific commitment of some sourcing programmes (such as forest certification programmes). Table 7.3 (Chapter 7) provides examples of the many sustainable sourcing programmes now available globally.

Sustainable sourcing is expanding but accounts for only<br />
a small fraction of overall food and material production; many staple food crops do not have strong sustainability standards. Sustainable sourcing provides potential benefits for both climate mitigation and adaptation by reducing drivers of unsustainable land management, and by diversifying and increasing flexibility in the food system to climate stressors and shocks. Sustainable sourcing can lower expenditure for food processors and retailers by reducing losses. Adding value to products can extend a producer’s marketing season and provide unique opportunities to capture niche markets, thereby increasing their adaptive capacity to climate change. Sustainable sourcing can also provide significant benefits for food security, while simultaneously creating economic alternatives for the poor. Sustainable sourcing programmes often also have positive impacts on the overall efficiency of the food supply chain and can create closer and more direct links between producers and consumers. In some cases, processing of value-added products could lead to higher emissions or demand for resources in the food system, potentially leading to small adverse impacts on<br />
land degradation and desertification challenges.

Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Chapter 5; Section 6.4

Accorsi et al. 2017; Bajželj et al. 2014a; Bustamante et al. 2014; Clark and Tilman 2017; Garnett 2011; Godfray et al. 2010; Hertel 2015; Ingram et al. 2016; James and James 2010; Muller et al. 2017; Springer et al. 2015; Tayleur et al. 2017; Tilman and Clark 2014

|-

Management of supply chains

Management of supply chains include a set of polycentric governance processes focused on improving efficiency and sustainability across the supply chain for each product, to reduce climate risk and profitably reduce emissions. Trade-driven food supply chains are becoming increasingly complex and are contributing to emissions. Improved management of supply chains can include

1) better food transport and increasing the economic value or reduce risks of commodities through production processes (e.g., packaging, processing, cooling, drying, extracting) and 2) improved policies for stability of food supply, as globalised food systems and commodity markets are vulnerable to food price volatility. The 2007–2008 food price shocks negatively affected food security for millions, most severely in Sub-Saharan Africa. Increasing the stability of food supply chains is a key goal to increase food security, given that climate change threatens to lead to more production shocks in the future.

Successful implementation of supply chain management practices is dependent on organisational capacity, the agility and flexibility of business strategies, the strengthening<br />
of public-private policies and effectiveness of supply- chain governance. Existing practices include a) greening supply chains (e.g., utilising products and services with

a reduced impact on the environment and human health),<br />
b) adoption of specific sustainability instruments among agri-food companies (e.g., eco-innovation practices ),<br />
c) adopting emission accounting tools (e.g., carbon and water foot-printing), and d) implementing ‘demand forecasting’ strategies (e.g., changes in consumer preference for ‘green’ products). In terms of food supply, measures to improve stability in traded markets can include i) financial and trade policies, such as reductions on food taxes and import tariffs, (ii) shortening food supply chains (SFSCs), (iii) increasing food production, (iv) designing alternative distribution networks, (v) increasing food market transparency and reducing speculation in futures markets, (vi) increasing storage options, and (vii) increasing subsidies and food-based safety nets.

Chapter 5

Barthel and Isendahl 2013; Haggblade et al. 2017; Lewis and Witham 2012; Michelini et al. 2018; Minot 2014; Mundler and Rumpus 2012; Tadasse et al. 2016; Wheeler and von Braun 2013; Wilhelm et al. 2016; Wodon and Zaman 2010; World Bank 2011

|-

Enhanced urban food systems

Urban areas are becoming the principal territories<br />
for intervention in improving food access through innovative strategies that aim to reduce hunger and improve livelihoods. Interventions include urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry and local food policy and planning initiatives such as Food Policy Councils and city-region-wide regional food strategies. Such systems have demonstrated inter-linkages of the city and its citizens with surrounding rural areas to create sustainable, and more nutritious food supplies for the city, while improving the health status of urban dwellers, reducing pollution levels, adapting to and mitigating climate change, and stimulating economic development. Options include support for urban and peri-urban agriculture, green infrastructure (e.g., green roofs), local markets, enhanced social (food) safety

nets and development of alternative food sources and technologies, such as vertical farming.

Urban territorial areas have a potential to reduce GHG emissions through improved food systems to reduce vehicle miles of food transportation, localised carbon capture and food waste reduction. The benefits of urban food forests that are intentionally planted woody perennial food-producing species, are also cited for their carbon sequestration potentials. However, new urban food systems may have diverse and unexpected adverse side effects with climate systems, such as lower efficiencies

in food supply and higher costs than modern large-scale agriculture. Diversifying markets, considering value-added products in the food supply system may help to improve food security by increasing its economic performance and revenues to local farmers.

Akhtar et al. 2016; Benis and Ferrão 2017; Brinkley et al. 2013; Chappell et al. 2016; Dubbeling 2014; Goldstein et al. 2016; Kowalski and Conway 2018; Lee-Smith 2010; Barthel and Isendahl 2013; Lwasa et al. 2014, 2015; Revi et al. 2014; Specht et al. 2014; Tao et al. 2015

|-

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

|-

Improved food processing and retailing

Improved food processing and retailing involves<br />
several practices related to a) greening supply chains<br />
(e.g., utilising products and services with a reduced impact on the environment and human health), b) adoption<br />
of specific sustainability instruments among agri-food companies (e.g., eco-innovation practices), c) adopting emission accounting tools (e.g., carbon and water foot-printing), d) implementing ‘demand forecasting’ strategies (e.g., changes in consumer preference for ‘green’ products) and, e) supporting polycentric supply- chain governance processes.

Improved food processing and retailing can provide benefits for climate mitigation since GHG-friendly foods can reduce agri-food GHG emissions from transportation, waste and energy use. In cases where climate extremes and natural disasters disrupt supply chain networks, improved food processing and retailing can benefit climate adaptation by buffering the impacts of changing temperature and rainfall patterns on upstream agricultural production. It can provide benefits for food security by supporting healthier diets and reducing food loss and waste. Successful implementation

is dependent on organisational capacity, the agility and flexibility of business strategies, the strengthening of public- private policies and effectiveness of supply-chain governance.

Chapter 2; Chapter 5

Avetisyan et al. 2014; Garnett et al. 2013; Godfray et al. 2010; Mohammadi et al. 2014; Porter et al. 2016; Ridoutt et al. 2016; Song et al. 2017

|-

Improved energy use in food systems

Agriculture’s energy efficiency can be improved to reduce the dependency on non-renewable energy sources. This can be realised either by decreased energy inputs, or through increased outputs per unit<br />
of input. In some countries, managerial inefficiency (rather than a technology gap) is the main source for energy-efficiency loss. Heterogenous patterns of energy efficiency exist at the national scale and promoting energy-efficient technologies along with managerial capacity development can reduce the gap and provide large benefits for climate adaptation. Improvements in carbon monitoring and calculation techniques such as the foot-printing of agricultural products can enhance energy-efficiency transition management and uptake in agricultural enterprises.

Transformation to low-carbon technologies such as renewable energy and energy efficiency can offer opportunities for significant climate change mitigation,<br />
for example, by providing a substitute to transport fuel<br />
that could benefit marginal agricultural resources, while simultaneously contributing to long-term economic growth. In poorer nations, increased energy efficiency in agricultural value-added production, in particular, can provide large mitigation benefits. Under certain scenarios, the efficiency of agricultural systems can stagnate and could exert pressure on grasslands and rangelands, thereby impacting on land degradation and desertification. Rebound effects can also occur, with adverse impacts on emissions.

Al-Mansour F and Jejcic V 2017; Baptista et al. 2013; Begum et al. 2015; Gunatilake et al. 2014; Jebli and Youssef 2017; Van Vuuren

et al. 2017b

|}
<!-- END TABLE -->

<div id="section-6-2-3-1-risk-management-options-block-4"></div>

<span id="table-6.12"></span>
<!-- START TABLE -->
'''Table 6.12'''

<span id="integrated-response-options-based-on-risk-management."></span>
'''Integrated response options based on risk management.'''

<!-- TABLE -->
{| class="wikitable"
|-

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

|-

Management of urban sprawl

Unplanned urbanisation leading to sprawl and extensification of cities along the rural-urban fringe has been identified as a driver of forest and agricultural land loss and a threat to food production around cities. It<br />
has been estimated that urban expansion will result in<br />
a 1.8–2.4% loss of global croplands by 2030. This rapid urban expansion is especially strong in new emerging towns and cities in Asia and Africa. Policies to prevent such urbanisation have included integrated land-use planning, agricultural zoning ordinances and agricultural districts, urban redevelopment, arable land reclamation, and transfer/purchase of development rights or easements.

The prevention of uncontrolled urban sprawl may provide adaptation co-benefits, but adverse side effects for adaptation might arise due to restricted ability of people to move in response to climate change.

Barbero-Sierra et al. 2013; Bren d’Amour et al. 2016; Cai et al. 2013; Chen 2007; Francis et al. 2012; Gibson et al. 2015; Lee et al. 2015; Qian et al. 2015; Shen et al. 2017; Tan et al. 2009

|-

Livelihood diversification

When households’ livelihoods depend on a small number of sources of income without much diversification, and when those income sources are in fields that are highly climate dependent, like agriculture and fishing, this dependence can put food security and livelihoods at risk. Livelihood diversification (drawing from a portfolio of dissimilar sources of livelihood as a tool to spread risk) has been identified as one option to increase incomes and reduce poverty, increase food security, and promote climate resilience and risk reduction.

Livelihood diversification offers benefits for desertification and land degradation, particularly through non-traditional crops or trees in agroforestry systems which improve soil. Livelihood diversification may increase on-farm biodiversity due to these investments in more ecosystem-mimicking production systems, like agroforestry and polycultures. Diversification into non-agricultural fields, such as wage labour or trading, is increasingly favoured by farmers as

a low-cost strategy, particularly to respond to increasing climate risks.

Adger 1999; Ahmed and Stepp 2016; Antwi-Agyei et al. 2014; Barrett et al. 2001; Berman<br />
et al. 2012; Bryceson 1999; DiGiano and Racelis 2012; Ellis 1998, 2008; Little et al. 2001; Ngigi et al. 2017; Rakodi 1999; Thornton and Herrero 2014

|-

Use of local seeds

Using local seeds (also called seed sovereignty) refers<br />
to use of non-improved, non-commercial seeds varieties. These can be used and stored by local farmers as low-cost inputs and can often help contribute to the conservation of local varieties and landraces, increasing local biodiversity. Many local seeds also require no pesticide or fertiliser use, leading to less land degradation in their use.

Use of local seeds is important in the many parts of<br />
the developing world that do not rely on commercial<br />
seed inputs. Promotion of local seed-saving initiatives<br />
can include seed networks, banks and exchanges, and non-commercial open source plant breeding. These locally developed seeds can help protect local agrobiodiversity and can often be more climate resilient than generic commercial varieties, although the impacts on food security and overall land degradation are inconclusive.

Bowman 2015; Campbell and Veteto 2015; Coomes et al. 2015; Kloppenberg 2010; Luby et al. 2015; Van Niekerk and Wynberg 2017; Patnaik et al. 2017; Reisman 2017; Vasconcelos et al. 2013; Wattnem 2016

|-

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

|-

Disaster risk management

Disaster risk management encompasses many<br />
approaches to try to reduce the consequences of climate- and weather-related disasters and events<br />
on socio-economic systems. The Hyogo Framework for Action is a UN framework for nations to build resilience to disasters through effective integration of disaster risk considerations into sustainable development policies. For example, in Vietnam a national strategy on disasters based on Hyogo has introduced the concept of a ‘four- on-the-spot’ approach for disaster risk management of: proactive prevention, timely response, quick and effective recovery, and sustainable development. Other widespread approaches to disaster risk management include using early warning systems that can encompass 1) education systems, 2) hazard and risk maps, 3) hydrological and meteorological monitoring (such as flood forecasting

or extreme weather warnings), and 4) communications systems to pass on information to enable action. These approaches have long been considered to reduce the risk of household asset damage during one-off climate events and are increasingly being combined with climate adaptation policies.

Community-based disaster risk management has been pointed to as one of the most successful ways to ensure that information reaches the people who need to be participants in risk reduction. Effective disaster risk management approaches must be ‘end-to-end,’ reaching communities at risk and supporting and empowering vulnerable communities to take appropriate action. The most effective early warning systems are not simply technical systems of information dissemination, but utilise and develop community capacities, create local ownership of the system, and are based on<br />
a shared understanding of needs and purpose. Tapping into existing traditional or local knowledge has also been recommended for disaster risk management approaches<br />
to reducing vulnerability.

Ajibade and McBean 2014; Alessa et al. 2016; Bouwer et al. 2014; Carreño et al. 2007; Cools et al. 2016; Djalante et al. 2012; Garschagen 2016; Maskrey 2011; Mercer 2010; Schipper and Pelling 2006; Sternberg and Batbuyan 2013; Thomalla et al. 2006; Vogel and O’Brien 2006

|-

Risk-sharing instruments

Risk-sharing instruments can encompass a variety of approaches. Intra-household risk pooling is a common strategy in rural communities, such as through extended family financial transfers; one study found that 65% of poor households in Jamaica report receiving transfers, and such transfers can account for up to 75% of household income or more after crisis events. Community rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs) have long been used for general risk pooling and can be a source of financing to cope with climate variability as well. Credit services have been shown to be important for adaptation actions and risk reduction. Insurance of various kinds is also a form of risk pooling. Commercial crop insurance is one of the most widely used risk-hedging financial vehicles, and can involve both traditional indemnity-based insurance that reimburses clients for estimated financial losses from shortfalls, or index insurance that pays out the value of

an index (such as weather events) rather than actual losses; the former is more common for large farms in the developed world and the latter for smaller non-commercial farms in developing countries.

Locally developed risk-pooling measures show general positive impacts on household livelihoods. However, more commercial approaches have mixed effects. Commercial crop insurance is highly subsidised in much of the developed world. Index insurance programmes have often failed

to attract sufficient buyers or have remained financially unfeasible for commercial insurance sellers. The overall impact of index insurance on food production supply and access has also not been assessed. Traditional crop insurance has generally been seen as positive for food security as it leads to expansion of agricultural production areas and increased food supply. However, insurance may also ‘mask’ truly risky agriculture and prevent farmers from seeking less risky production strategies. Insurance can also provide perverse incentives for farmers to bring additional lands into crop production, leading to greater risk of degradation.

Akter et al. 2016; Annan and Schlenker 2015; Claassen et al. 2011a; Fenton et al. 2017; Giné<br />
et al. 2008; Goodwin and Smith 2003; Hammill et al. 2008; Havemenn and Muccione 2011; Jaworski 2016; Meze-Hausken<br />
et al. 2009; Morduch and Sharma 2002; Bhattamishra and Barrett 2010; Peterson 2012; Sanderson<br />
et al. 2013; Skees and Collier 2012; Smith and Glauber 2012

|}
<!-- END TABLE -->

<div id="section-6-2-3-1-risk-management-options-block-5" class="box"></div>

<span id="ccb7-bioenergy-and-bioenergy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-beccs-in-mitigation-scenarios"></span>