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

==== 6.3.5.3 Integrated response options based on risk management ====

<div id="section-6-3-5-3-integrated-response-options-based-on-risk-management-block-1"></div>

In this section, the impacts on food security of integrated response options based on risk management are assessed.

Evidence in the USA indicates ambiguous trends between sprawl and food security: on the one hand, most urban expansion in the USA has primarily been on lands of low and moderate soil productivity with only 6% of total urban land on highly productive soil; on the other hand, highly productive soils have experienced the highest rate of conversion of any soil type (Nizeyimana et al. 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r693|693]]</sup> ). Specific types of agriculture are often practiced in urban-influenced fringes, such as fruits, vegetables, and poultry and eggs in the USA, the loss of which can have an impact on the types of nutritious foods available in urban areas (Francis et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r694|694]]</sup> ). China is also concerned with food security implications of urban sprawl, and a loss of 30 Mt of grain production from 1998 to 2003 in eastern China was attributed to urbanisation (Chen 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r695|695]]</sup> ). However, overall global quantification has not been attempted.

Diversification is associated with increased welfare and incomes and decreased levels of poverty in several country studies (Arslan et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r696|696]]</sup> ; Asfaw et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r697|697]]</sup> ). These are likely to have large food security benefits (Barrett et al. 2001 <sup>[[#fn:r698|698]]</sup> ; Niehof 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r699|699]]</sup> ), but there is little global quantification.

Local seed use can provide considerable benefits for food security because of the increased ability of farmers to revive and strengthen local food systems (McMichael and Schneider 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r700|700]]</sup> ); studies have reported more diverse and healthy food in areas with strong food sovereignty networks (Coomes et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r701|701]]</sup> ; Bisht et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r702|702]]</sup> ). Women, in particular, may benefit from seed banks for low-value but nutritious crops (Patnaik et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r703|703]]</sup> ). Many hundreds of millions of smallholders still rely on local seeds and they provide for many hundreds of millions of consumers (Altieri et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r704|704]]</sup> ; McGuire and Sperling 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r705|705]]</sup> ). Therefore, keeping their ability to do so through seed sovereignty is important. However, there may be lower food yields from local and unimproved seeds, so the overall impact of local seed use on food security is ambiguous (McGuire and Sperling 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r706|706]]</sup> ).

Disaster risk management approaches can have important impacts on reducing food insecurity, and current warning systems for drought and storms currently reach over 100 million people. When these early warning systems can help farmers harvest crops in advance of impending weather events, or otherwise make agricultural decisions to prepare for adverse events, there are likely to be positive impacts on food security (Fakhruddin et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r707|707]]</sup> ). Surveys with farmers reporting food insecurity from climate impacts have indicated their strong interest in having such early warning systems (Shisanya and Mafongoya 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r708|708]]</sup> ). Additionally, famine early warning systems have been successful in Sahelian Africa to alert authorities of impending food shortages so that food acquisition and transportation from outside the region can begin, potentially helping millions of people (Genesio et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r709|709]]</sup> ; Hillbruner and Moloney 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r710|710]]</sup> ).

Risk-sharing instruments are often aimed at sharing food supplies and reducing risk, and thus are likely to have important, but unquantified, benefits for food security. Crop insurance, in particular, has generally led to (modest) expansions in cultivated land area and increased food production (Claassen et al. 2011a <sup>[[#fn:r711|711]]</sup> ; Goodwin et al. 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r712|712]]</sup> ).

Table 6.52 summarises the impact on food security of 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 in based.

<div id="section-6-3-5-3-integrated-response-options-based-on-risk-management-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-6.52"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.52'''

<span id="effects-on-food-security-of-risk-management-options."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Effects on food security of risk management options.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:5f2e2c90759844fe7e364eb13b09a87e table-6.52.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<span id="summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security"></span>