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

=== 5.5.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities ===

<div id="h2-13-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="5.5.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="rising-temperature-and-heat-stress"></span>
==== 5.5.2.1 Rising temperature and heat stress ====

<div id="h3-19-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Most domestic livestock have comfort zones in the range 10–30°C, depending on species and breed ( [[#Nardone--2006|Nardone et al., 2006]] ). At higher temperatures, animals eat 3–5% less per additional degree of temperature, reducing their productivity and fertility. Heat stress suppresses the immune and endocrine system, enhancing susceptibility of the animal to disease ( [[#Das--2016b|Das et al., 2016b]] ). Recent stagnation in dairy production in West Africa and China may be associated with increased periods of high daily temperatures ( ''low confidence'' ) ( [[#Rahimi--2020|Rahimi et al., 2020]] ; [[#Ranjitkar--2020|Ranjitkar et al., 2020]] ). Increases in the productive capacity of domestic animals can compromise thermal acclimation and plasticity, creating further loss. Escalating demand for livestock products in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) may necessitate considerable adaptation in the face of new thermal environments ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Collier--2015|Collier and Gebremedhin, 2015]] ; [[#Theusme--2021|Theusme et al., 2021]] ). Heat effects on productivity have been summarised for pigs ( [[#da%20Fonseca%20de%20Oliveira--2019|da Fonseca de Oliveira et al., 2019]] ), sheep and goats ( [[#Sejian--2018|Sejian et al., 2018]] ), and cattle ( [[#Herbut--2019|Herbut et al., 2019]] ). The direct effects of higher temperatures on the smaller ruminants (sheep and goats) are relatively muted, compared with large ruminants; goats are better able to cope with multiple stressors than sheep ( [[#Sejian--2018|Sejian et al., 2018]] ). Under SSP5-8.5 to mid-century, land suitability for livestock production will decrease because of increased heat stress prevalence in mid and lower latitudes ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Thornton--2021|Thornton et al., 2021]] ).

<div id="5.5.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="livestock-water-needs"></span>
==== 5.5.2.2 Livestock water needs ====

<div id="h3-20-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Livestock production may account for 30% of all water (blue, green and grey) used in agriculture ( [[#Mekonnen--2010|Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2010]] ) and can negatively affect water quality. Cropland feed production accounts for 38% of crop water consumption ( [[#Weindl--2017|Weindl et al., 2017]] ). High-input livestock systems may consume more water than grazing or mixed systems, though water used per kg beef produced, for example, depends on country, context and system ( [[#Noya--2019|Noya et al., 2019]] ). In systems where feed production is rainfed, livestock and crop water productivity may be comparable ( [[#Haileslassie--2009|Haileslassie et al., 2009]] ). Direct water consumption by livestock is &lt;1–2% of global water consumption ( [[#Hejazi--2014|Hejazi et al., 2014]] ). Rising temperatures increase animal water needs, potentially affecting access of herders and livestock to drinking water sources ( [[#Flörke--2018|Flörke et al., 2018]] ).

<div id="5.5.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="rising-temperatures-and-livestock-disease"></span>
==== 5.5.2.3 Rising temperatures and livestock disease ====

<div id="h3-21-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Climate change will have effects on future distribution, incidence and severity of climate-sensitive infectious diseases of livestock ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Bett--2017|Bett et al., 2017]] ). In an assessment of climate sensitivity of European human and domestic animal infectious pathogens, 63% were sensitive to rainfall and temperature, and zoonotic pathogens were more climate-sensitive than human- or animal-only pathogens ( [[#McIntyre--2017|McIntyre et al., 2017]] ). Over the last 75 years, &gt;220 emerging zoonotic diseases, some associated with domesticated livestock, have been identified, several of which may be affected by climate change, particularly vector-borne diseases ( [[#Vaillancourt--2016|Vaillancourt and Ogden, 2016]] ; see Cross-Chapter Box ILLNESS in Chapter 2). Walsh et al. (2018) identified both temperature and rainfall as influential factors in predicting increasing anthrax outbreaks in northern latitudes. Growing infectious disease burdens in domesticated animals may have wide-ranging impacts on the vulnerability of rural livestock producers in the future, particularly related to human health and projected increases in zoonoses ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Bett--2017|Bett et al., 2017]] ; [[#Heffernan--2018|Heffernan, 2018]] ; [[#Rushton--2018|Rushton et al., 2018]] ; [[#Meade--2019|Meade et al., 2019]] ).

<div id="5.5.2.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="livestock-and-socioeconomic-vulnerability-to-climate-change"></span>
==== 5.5.2.4 Livestock and socioeconomic vulnerability to climate change ====

<div id="h3-22-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

There is ''limited evidence'' about the role of livestock in addressing socioeconomic vulnerability. Although agriculture in parts of North America has become more sensitive to climate over the last 50 years, livestock have helped to moderate this effect, being less sensitive to increasing temperatures than some specialised crop systems ( [[#Ortiz-Bobea--2018|Ortiz-Bobea et al., 2018]] ). Increasing frequency and severity of droughts will affect the future economic viability of grassland-based livestock production in the North American Great Plains ( [[#Briske--2021|Briske et al., 2021]] ). Purchasing more forage and selling more livestock have reduced household vulnerability in semi-arid parts of China over the last 35 years ( [[#Bai--2019|Bai et al., 2019]] ). A greater focus on sheep production away from cropping has increased the resilience of farming systems in Western Australia in low-rainfall years, although with mixed environmental effects ( [[#Ghahramani--2018|Ghahramani and Bowran, 2018]] ). More insights are needed as to where and how livestock can affect the vulnerability of farmers and pastoralists.

<div id="5.5.2.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="effects-of-climate-on-the-health-and-vulnerability-of-livestock-keepers"></span>
==== 5.5.2.5 Effects of climate on the health and vulnerability of livestock keepers ====

<div id="h3-23-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Vulnerability to the health impacts of climate change will be shaped by existing burdens of ill health and is expected to be highest in poor and socioeconomically marginalised populations ( ''high agreement'' , ''limited evidence'' ) ( [[#Labbé--2016|Labbé et al., 2016]] ). In addition to projected changes in infectious disease burdens, labour capacity in a warming climate is anticipated to decrease further, beyond the &gt;5% drop estimated since 2000 ( [[#Watts--2018|Watts et al., 2018]] ). Loss of labour capacity may greatly increase the vulnerability of subsistence livestock keepers ( ''high agreement'' , ''limited evidence'' ).

<div id="5.5.2.6" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="gender-and-other-social-inequities-1"></span>
==== 5.5.2.6 Gender and other social inequities ====

<div id="h3-24-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Vulnerability to climate change depends on demography and social roles ( [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al., 2019]] ). Gender inequities can act as a risk multiplier, with women being more vulnerable than men to climate-change-induced food insecurity and related risks ( ''high confidence'' ) (Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18). Women and men often have differential and unequal control over different productive assets and the benefits they provide, such as income from livestock ( [[#Ngigi--2017|Ngigi et al., 2017]] ; [[#Musinguzi--2018|Musinguzi et al., 2018]] ). Indigenous livestock keepers can be more vulnerable to climate change, partly due to ongoing processes of land fragmentation ( [[#Hobbs--2008|Hobbs et al., 2008]] ), historical land dispossession, discrimination and colonialisation, creating greater levels of poverty and marginalisation ( [[#Stephen--2018|Stephen, 2018]] ). Adaptation actions may also be affected by gender and other social inequities ( [[#Balehey--2018|Balehey et al., 2018]] ; [[#Dressler--2019|Dressler et al., 2019]] ). Men and women heads of household may access institutional support for adaptation in different ways ( [[#Assan--2018|Assan et al., 2018]] ). Further research is warranted to evaluate alternative gendered and equity-based approaches that can address differences in adaptive capacity within communities.

<div id="5.5.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="projected-impacts-2"></span>