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

==== 6.3.1.3 Integrated response options based on risk management ====

<div id="section-6-3-1-3-integrated-response-options-based-on-risk-management-block-1"></div>

In this section, the impacts on climate change mitigation of integrated response options based on risk management are assessed. In general, because these options are focused on adaptation and other benefits, the mitigation benefits are modest, and mostly unquantified.

Extensive and less dense urban development tends to have higher energy usage, particularly from transport (Liu et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r354|354]]</sup> ), such that a 10% reduction of very low-density urban fabrics is correlated with 9% fewer emissions per capita in Europe (Baur et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r355|355]]</sup> ). However, the exact contribution to mitigation from the prevention of land conversion in particular has not been well quantified (Thornbush et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r356|356]]</sup> ). Suggestions from select studies in the USA are that biomass decreases by half in cases of conversion from forest to urban land uses (Briber et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r357|357]]</sup> ), and a study in Bangkok found a decline by half in carbon sinks in the urban area in the past 30 years (Ali et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r358|358]]</sup> ).

There is no literature specifically on linkages between livelihood diversification and climate mitigation benefits, although some forms of diversification that include agroforestry would likely result in increased carbon sinks (Altieri et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r359|359]]</sup> ; Descheemaeker et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r360|360]]</sup> ). There is no literature exploring linkages between local seeds and GHG emission reductions, although use of local seeds likely reduces emissions associated with transport for commercial seeds, though the impact has not been quantified.

While disaster risk management can presumably have mitigation co- benefits, as it can help reduce food loss on-farm (e.g., crops destroyed before harvest or avoided animal deaths during droughts and floods meaning reduced production losses and wasted emissions), there is no quantified global estimate for this potential.

Risk-sharing instruments could have some mitigation co-benefits if they buffer household losses and reduce the need to expand agricultural lands after experiencing risks. However, the overall impacts of these are unknown. Further, commercial insurance may induce producers to bring additional land into crop production, particularly marginal or land with other risks that may be more environmentally sensitive (Claassen et al. 2011a). Policies to deny crop insurance to farmers who have converted grasslands in the USA resulted in a 9% drop in conversion, which likely has positive mitigation impacts (Claassen et al. 2011a <sup>[[#fn:r361|361]]</sup> ). Estimates of emissions from cropland conversion in the USA in 2016 were 23.8 MtCO2e, only some of which could be attributed to insurance as a driver.

Table 6.20 summarises the mitigation potentials for risk management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence is based.

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

<span id="table-6.20"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.20'''

<span id="mitigation-effects-of-response-options-based-on-risk-management."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Mitigation effects of response options based on risk management.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:e906c9471e5bcf0cb5442ba0218b5ca4 table-6.20.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<span id="potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-for-delivering-adaptation"></span>