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

=== 5.4.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities within Production Systems ===

<div id="h2-9-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Since AR5, vulnerability assessment has become a pivotal component of risk analysis associated with climate hazards, climate change and climate variability ( [[#UNDRR--2019|UNDRR, 2019]] ) ''.'' Vulnerability assessment can be sectoral or regional but involves social and ecological indicators. This section presents examples of vulnerability assessment to climatic hazards and social vulnerabilities.

<div id="5.4.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="vulnerability-to-climatic-hazards"></span>
==== 5.4.2.1 Vulnerability to climatic hazards ====

<div id="h3-5-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Drought is a major risk component in cropping systems globally, with substantial economic loss ( [[#Kim--2019b|Kim et al., 2019b]] ), livelihood impacts ( [[#Shiferaw--2014|Shiferaw et al., 2014]] ; [[#Miyan--2015|Miyan, 2015]] ) and ultimately health risks such as malnutrition ( [[#Phalkey--2015|Phalkey et al., 2015]] ; [[#Cooper--2019|Cooper et al., 2019]] ). Vulnerability to drought can be estimated with a range of indicators ( [[#Hagenlocher--2019|Hagenlocher et al., 2019]] ). Meza (2020) showed that drought risks could be exacerbated or moderated by regional differences in vulnerability (Figure 5.5). For instance, high-level risks observed in southern Africa, western Asia and central Asia result from high vulnerability (low coping capacity), whereas risk levels are relatively low despite the high exposure by relatively high adaptive capacity to drought in other regions.

<div id="_idContainer015" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:476b52ef017212d4e44c55cc4346ac26 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_005.png]]

'''Figure 5.5 |''' '''Hazard and exposure indicator score (a), vulnerability index (b) and drought risk index (c), for rainfed agricultural systems between 1986 and 2015.''' Drought hazard indicator is defined as the ratio of actual crop evapotranspiration to potential crop evapotranspiration, calculated for 24 crops. Vulnerability index is the country-scale weighted average of a total of 64 indicators including social and ecological susceptibility indicators, and coping capacity. Risk index is calculated by multiplying hazard/exposure indicator score and vulnerability index ( [[#Meza--2020|Meza et al., 2020]] ).

Regional-scale assessment also highlights the importance of adaptive capacity. For instance, rice and maize production in Viet Nam Mekong Delta has high exposure to multiple climate hazards such as flooding, sea level rise, salinity intrusion and drought ( [[#Parker--2019|Parker et al., 2019]] ). Risks can be moderated by a relatively high adaptive capacity because of infrastructure, resources and high education levels ( [[#Parker--2019|Parker et al., 2019]] ). Another regional study demonstrated that erratic rains and high temperatures in southern and southeastern Africa increased the vulnerability of agricultural soils, thereby exacerbating impacts of prolonged and frequent droughts (Sonwa et al., 2017a; See also Box 5.4).

Farm-scale assessment exemplifies context-sensitive vulnerability to climate hazards. Studies of coffee growers in Central America demonstrated that key vulnerability indicators varied greatly between regions and between farms, ranging from a lack of labour, postharvest infrastructure, conservation practices and transport that limits access to market, technical and financial assistance ( [[#Baca--2014|Baca et al., 2014]] ; [[#Bouroncle--2017|Bouroncle et al., 2017]] ). These region- and scale-specific vulnerability indicators assist in identifying ways to enhance resilience to climate hazards ( ''high confidence'' ).

<div id="5.4.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="inequities-in-cropping-systemsother-crops-and-regional-disparities"></span>
==== 5.4.2.2 Inequities in cropping systems—other crops and regional disparities ====

<div id="h3-6-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

While those working with major crops have benefited from the release of new cultivars, those growing other crops are typically reliant on a heritage cultivars or landraces. While Indigenous knowledge and local smallholder knowledge and practices play an important role in supporting agrobiodiversity which provides genetic diversity resistant to climate-related stresses, a global and national focus in international research, subsidies and support for a few crop species has contributed to an overall decline in agrobiodiversity ( [[#FAO--2019e|FAO, 2019e]] ; [[#Song--2019|Song et al., 2019]] ) Similarly, there is a lack of agronomic innovation and research to service ‘minor’ crops ( [[#Moriondo--2015|Moriondo et al., 2015]] ; [[#Manners--2018|Manners and van Etten, 2018]] ). Even some high-value commodities grown outside high-income countries suffer from imbalances in the focus of available credit, research and innovation ( [[#5.4.4.3|Section 5.4.4.3]] ; [[#Glover--2014|Glover, 2014]] ; [[#Fischer--2016|Fischer, 2016]] ; [[#Farrell--2018|Farrell et al., 2018]] ). There is a possibility that a lack of adaptive capacity and policy support will drive these growers to move away from these diverse crops, further reducing the resilience of food systems by increasing risk of crop loss from pests, disease and drought and potential loss of Indigenous or local knowledge ( [[#5.13|Section 5.13.5]] , Table Box 5.1.1). In the Andean Altiplano of Bolivia, for example, Indigenous farmers have traditionally managed a diverse set of native crops which are drought and frost-tolerant, using cultural practices of seed selection and exchange, but have faced an increase in pests and diseases and a decline of traditional crops due to climate-change-related stresses, out-migration and intensification drivers ( [[#Meldrum--2018|Meldrum et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="5.4.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="gender-and-other-social-inequities"></span>
==== 5.4.2.3 Gender and other social inequities ====

<div id="h3-7-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Social inequities such as gender, ethnicity and income level, which vary by time and place and may overlap, can compound vulnerability to climate change for producers within cropping systems ( ''high confidence'' ) (Table 5.3, [[#Arora-Jonsson--2011|Arora-Jonsson, 2011]] ; [[#Djoudi--2013|Djoudi et al., 2013]] ; [[#Carr--2014|Carr and Thompson, 2014]] ; [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al., 2019]] ; [[#Rao--2019a|Rao et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2020a|Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a]] ). Rather than binary and static categories (i.e., men versus women), social vulnerabilities are dynamic and intersect; to understand vulnerability, the specific socio-cultural identities and political and environmental context need to be studied in relation to climate stress (Thompson- [[#Hall--2016|Hall et al., 2016]] ; [[#Rao--2019a|Rao et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2020a|Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a]] ).

'''Table 5.3 |''' Examples of social inequities in cropping systems that compound climate change vulnerability.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Social inequity'''

! '''How social inequity increases vulnerability to climate change in cropping systems'''

|-
| '''Gender inequity''' can create and worsen social vulnerability to climate change impacts within cropping systems ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Carr--2014|Carr and Thompson, 2014]] ; [[#Sugden--2014|Sugden et al., 2014]] ; [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2015|Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner-Kerr, 2015]] ; [[#Rao--2019a|Rao et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Ebhuoma--2020|Ebhuoma et al., 2020]] ; [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2020a|Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a]] ; see Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18).

| * Men and women have different access to and decision-making control over resources such as seeds, systemic differences in land tenure and agricultural employment, and their responsibilities, workloads and response to climate stresses differ due to systemic gender inequities and socio-cultural norms, which intersect with other inequities (e.g., income level, ethnicity) to compound vulnerability ( [[#Rao--2019a|Rao et al., 2019a]] ; [[#Ebhuoma--2020|Ebhuoma et al., 2020]] ; [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2020a|Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a]] ).
* In a study in northern Ghana, for example, poor widows with poor health had fewer resources to rely on during droughts than married women, particularly those married to local leaders; in contrast, due to gendered expectations, during floods low-income men suffered greater consequences ( [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2020a|Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a]] ).
* Adaptation strategies such as migration can compound that vulnerability, but importantly, the specific gendered vulnerability intersects with other inequities which are context specific ( [[#Sugden--2014|Sugden et al., 2014]] ; [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2020a|Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a]] ; Cross-Chapter Box MIGRATE in Chapter 7).

|-
| Globally, '''smallholder food producers''' are more vulnerable than large-scale producers to climate change impacts ( ''high confidence'' ).

| * Smallholder food producers are more vulnerable in part because of limited policy, infrastructure and institutional support, low credit access, viable markets and limited political voice in policy debates ( [[#HLPE--2013|HLPE, 2013]] ; [[#Karttunen--2017|Karttunen et al., 2017]] ; [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al., 2019]] ; [[#Nyantakyi-Frimpong--2020a|Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2020a]] ).
* Smallholder producers’ vulnerability may be increased by heavy reliance on one crop for income, particularly if the crop requires significant capital investments ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Toufique--2014|Toufique and Belton, 2014]] ; [[#Craparo--2015|Craparo et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ovalle-Rivera--2015|Ovalle-Rivera et al., 2015]] ).
* For example, smallholder coffee producers in southern Mexico and Central America are more vulnerable due to a range of factors, including unstable and low coffee prices, limited institutional support for small-scale producers, low negotiation capacity and access to markets, and heavy reliance on one crop for income (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and System, 2014; [[#Ovalle-Rivera--2015|Ovalle-Rivera et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ruiz%20Meza--2015|Ruiz Meza, 2015]] ; [[#Hannah--2017|Hannah et al., 2017]] ; [[#Bacon--2021|Bacon et al., 2021]] ). Pest and disease outbreaks such as coffee leaf rust, extreme climatic events, ongoing conflict, poor governance and low viability of livelihoods increased migration and high levels of food insecurity for this group ( [[#Robalino--2015|Robalino et al., 2015]] ; [[#Hannah--2017|Hannah et al., 2017]] ; [[#Donatti--2019|Donatti et al., 2019]] ) which also varied by institutional- and farm-level responses, land size and income level ( [[#Quiroga--2020|Quiroga et al., 2020]] ; [[#Bacon--2021|Bacon et al., 2021]] ).

|-
| '''Farmworkers''' are another social group with heightened vulnerability to climate change ( ''medium confidence'' ).

| * Farmworkers often experience job insecurity, food insecurity, poor working conditions, poverty and social marginalisation. Climate change impacts can compound their vulnerability, for example by worsening working conditions through increased temperatures and humidity ( [[#5.12.3.1|Section 5.12.3.1]] ), or increase unreliability of work due to rainfall irregularity, flooding or drought, and can put them more at risk during climatic extreme events such as wildfires ( [[#Turhan--2015|Turhan et al., 2015]] ; [[#Greene--2018|Greene, 2018]] ; [[#Mendez--2020|Mendez et al., 2020]] ; [[#Tigchelaar--2020|Tigchelaar et al., 2020]] ).

|}

<div id="5.4.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="projected-impacts-1"></span>