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

=== 5.3.4 Demand-side adaptation ===

<div id="section-5-3-4-demand-side-adaptation-block-1"></div>

Adaptation in the demand side of the food system involves consumption practices, diets, and reducing food loss and waste. Recent studies showed that supply-side adaptation measures alone will not be sufficient to sustainably achieve food security under climate change (Springmann et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r608|608]]</sup> ; Swinburn et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r609|609]]</sup> ; Bajželj et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r610|610]]</sup> ). As noted by Godfray (2015) <sup>[[#fn:r611|611]]</sup> , people with higher income demand more varied diets, and typically ones that are richer in meat and other food types that require more resources to produce. Therefore, both supply-side (production, processing, transport, and trade) and demand-side solutions (for example, changing diets, food loss and waste reduction) can be effective in adapting to climate change (Creutzig et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r612|612]]</sup> ) (see Section 5.5.2.5 for food loss and waste).

The implications of dietary choice can have severe consequences for land. For example, Alexander et al. (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r613|613]]</sup> , found that if every country were to adopt the UK’s 2011 average diet and meat consumption, 95% of global habitable land area would be needed for agriculture – up from 50% of land currently used. For the average USA diet, 178% of global land would be needed (relative to 2011) (Alexander et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r614|614]]</sup> ); and for ‘business as usual’ dietary trends and existing rates of improvement in yields, 55% more land would be needed above baseline (2009) (Bajželj et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r615|615]]</sup> ). Changing dietary habits have been suggested as an effective food route to affect land use (Beheshti et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r616|616]]</sup> ) and promote adaptation to climate change through food demand.

Most literature has focused on demand-side options that analyse the effects on climate change mitigation by dietary changes. Little focus has been brought on demand-side adaptation measures to adjust the demand to the food challenges related to drivers such as market, climate change, inputs limitations (for example, fossil fuels, nitrogen, phosphorus), food access, and quality. Adding to that, the high cost of nutritious foods contributes to a higher risk of overweight and obesity (FAO 2018d <sup>[[#fn:r617|617]]</sup> ). Adaptation measures relate also to the implications of easy access to inexpensive, high-calorie, low-nutrition foods which have been shown to lead to malnutrition (Section 5.1). Therefore, adaptation related to diet may be weighed against the negative side effects on health of current food choices.

Reduction in the demand for animal-based food products and increasing proportions of plant-based foods in diets, particularly pulses and nuts; and replacing red meat with other more efficient protein sources are demand-side adaptation measures (Machovina et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r618|618]]</sup> ) (Section 5.5.2). For example, replacing beef in the USA diet with poultry can meet caloric and protein demands of about 120 to 140 million additional people consuming the average American diet (Shepon et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r619|619]]</sup> ). Similar suggestions are made for adopting the benefits of moving to plant-based protein, such as beans (Harwatt et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r620|620]]</sup> ).

The main reason why reducing meat consumption is an adaptation measure is because it reduces pressure on land and water and thus our vulnerability to climate change and inputs limitations (Vanham et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r621|621]]</sup> ). For animal feed, ruminants can have positive ecological effects (species diversity, soil carbon) if they are fed extensively on existing grasslands. Similarly, reducing waste at all points along the entire food chain is a significant opportunity for improving demand-side adaptation measures (Godfray 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r622|622]]</sup> ).

It is important to highlight the opportunities for improving the feed-to-meat conversion considered as a form of food loss. However, the unique capacity of ruminants to produce high-quality food from low-quality forage, in particular from landscapes that cannot be cropped and from cellulosic biomass that humans cannot digest could be seen as an effective way to improve the feed:meat ratio (Cawthorn and Hoffman 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r623|623]]</sup> ).

In summary, there is potential for demand-side adaptation, such as adoption of diets low in animal-sourced products, in conjunction with reduction in food loss and waste to contribute to reduction in food demand, land sparing, and thus need for adaptation.

<span id="institutional-measures"></span>