Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-5 (section)

==== 5.4.2.2 Food security and hunger ====

<div id="section-5-4-2-2-block-1"></div>

Stringent climate mitigation pathways in line with ‘well below 2°C’ or ‘1.5°C’ goals often rely on the deployment of large-scale land-related measures, like afforestation and/or bioenergy supply (Popp et al., 2014; Rose et al., 2014; Creutzig et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r236|236]]</sup> . These land-related measures can compete with food production and hence raise food security concerns (Section 5.4.1.3) (P. Smith et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r237|237]]</sup> . Mitigation studies indicate that so-called ‘single-minded’ climate policy, aiming solely at limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C without concurrent measures in the food sector, can have negative impacts for global food security (Hasegawa et al., 2015; McCollum et al., 2018b) <sup>[[#fn:r238|238]]</sup> . Impacts of 1.5°C mitigation pathways can be significantly higher than those of 2°C pathways (Figures 5.4 and 5.5). An important driver of the food security impacts in these scenarios is the increase of food prices and the effect of mitigation on disposable income and wealth due to GHG pricing. A recent study indicates that, on aggregate, the price and income effects on food may be bigger than the effect due to competition over land between food and bioenergy (Hasegawa et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r239|239]]</sup> .

In order to address the issue of trade-offs with food security, mitigation policies would need to be designed in a way that shields the population at risk of hunger, including through the adoption of different complementary measures, such as food price support. The investment needs of complementary food price policies are found to be globally relatively much smaller than the associated mitigation investments of 1.5°C pathways (Figure 5.3) (McCollum et al., 2018b) <sup>[[#fn:r240|240]]</sup> . Besides food support price, other measures include improving productivity and efficiency of agricultural production systems (FAO and NZAGRC, 2017a, b; Frank et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r241|241]]</sup> and programmes focusing on forest land-use change (Havlík et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r242|242]]</sup> . All these lead to additional benefits of mitigation, improving resilience and livelihoods.

Van Vuuren et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r243|243]]</sup> and Grubler et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r244|244]]</sup> show that 1.5°C pathways without reliance on BECCS can be achieved through a fundamental transformation of the service sectors which would significantly reduce energy and food demand (see Chapter 2, Sections 2.1.1, 2.3.1 and 2.4.3). Such low energy demand (LED) pathways would result in significantly reduced pressure on food security, lower food prices and fewer people at risk of hunger. Importantly, the trade-offs with food security would be reduced by the avoided impacts in the agricultural sector due to the reduced warming associated with the 1.5°C pathways (see Chapter 3, Section 3.5). However, such feedbacks are not comprehensively captured in the studies on mitigation.

<div id="section-5-4-2-3"></div>

<span id="lack-of-energy-accessenergy-poverty"></span>