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

=== 5.3.5 Institutional measures ===

<div id="section-5-3-5-institutional-measures-block-1"></div>

To facilitate the scaling up of adaptation throughout the food system, institutional measures are needed at global, regional, national, and local levels (Section 5.7). Institutional aspects, including policies and laws, depend on scale and context. International institutions (financial and policies) are driving many aspects of global food systems (for example, UN agencies, international private sector agribusinesses and retailers). Many others operate at local level and strongly influence livelihoods and markets of smallholder farmers. Hence, differentiation in the roles of the organisations, their missions and outcomes related to food and climate change action need to be clearly mapped and understood.

Awareness about the institutional context within which adaptation planning decisions are made is essential for the usability of climate change projection (Lorenz 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r624|624]]</sup> ) (Chapter 7). In the planning and operational process of food production, handling and consumption, the environment benefits and climate change goals can be mainstreamed under sustainable management approaches that favour alternative solutions for inputs, energy consumption, transformation and diet. For instance, land-use planning would guide current and future decision-making and planners in exploring uncertainty to increase the resilience of communities (Berke and Stevens 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r625|625]]</sup> ). One of the important policy implications for enhanced food security are the trade-offs between agricultural production and environmental concerns, including the asserted need for global land-use expansion, biodiversity and ecological restoration (Meyfroidt 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r626|626]]</sup> ) (Section 5.6).

There are a number of adaptation options in agriculture in the form of policy, planning, governance and institutions (Lorenz 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r627|627]]</sup> ). For example, early spatial planning action is crucial to guide decision-making processes and foster resilience in highly uncertain future climate change (Brunner and Grêt-Regamey, 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r628|628]]</sup> ). Institutions may develop new capacities to empower value chain actors, take climate change into account as they develop quality products, promote adoption of improved diet for healthier lifestyles, aid the improvement of livelihoods of communities, and further socioeconomic development (Sehmi et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r629|629]]</sup> ). Other adaptation policies include property rights and land tenure security as legal and institutional reforms to ensure transparency and access to land that could stimulate adaptation to climate change (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r630|630]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-5-3-5-1-global-initiatives"></div>

<span id="global-initiatives"></span>
==== 5.3.5.1 Global initiatives ====

<div id="section-5-3-5-1-global-initiatives-block-1"></div>

Climate change poses serious wide-ranging risks, requiring a broader approach in fighting the phenomenon. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its annual Conferences of the Parties (COPs) has been instrumental in ensuring international cooperation in the field of tackling the impacts of climate change in a broader framework (Clémençon 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r631|631]]</sup> ). The National Adaptation Plan (NAP) programme under the UNFCCC was established to: identify vulnerable regions; assess the impacts of climate change on food security; and prioritise adaptation measures for implementation to increase resilience. The National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) was also established to support least-developed countries (LDCs) in addressing their particular challenges in adaptation, to enhance food security among other priorities.

The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r632|632]]</sup> ) is a major victory for small island states and vulnerable nations that face climate change-related impacts of floods and droughts resulting in food security challenges. Adaptation and mitigation targets set by the parties through their nationally determined commitments (NDCs) are reviewed internationally to ensure consistency and progress towards actions (Falkner 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r633|633]]</sup> ).

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) also plays a significant role in designing and coordinating national policies to increase adaptation and food security. The five key strategic objectives of FAO (help eliminate hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition; make agriculture, forestry and fisheries more productive and sustainable; reduce rural poverty; enable inclusive and efficient agricultural and food systems; and increase the resilience of livelihoods to climate threats) (FAO 2018e <sup>[[#fn:r634|634]]</sup> ), all relate to building resilience and increasing global adaptation to climate variability.

In support of the Paris Agreement, FAO launched a global policy, ‘Tracking Adaptation’ with the aim of monitoring the adaptation processes and outcomes of the parties to increase food security and of making available technical information for evaluation by stakeholders. In response to the estimated world population of 9.7 billion by 2050, FAO adopted the Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) approach to increase global food security without compromising environmental quality (Section 5.6). FAO supports governments at the national level to plan CSA programmes and to seek climate finance to fund their adaptation programmes.

The Global Commission on Adaptation, co-managed by World Resources Institute (WRI) and the Global Center on Adaptation, seeks to accelerate adaptation action by elevating the political visibility of adaptation and focusing on concrete solutions (Global Commission on Adaptation 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r635|635]]</sup> ). The Commission works to demonstrate that adaptation is a cornerstone of better development, and can help improve lives, reduce poverty, protect the environment, and enhance resilience around the world. The Commission is led by Ban Ki-moon, 8th Secretary-General of the United Nations, Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, and Kristalina Georgieva, CEO, World Bank. It is convened by 17 countries and guided by 28 commissioners. A global network of research partners and advisors provide scientific, economic, and policy analysis.

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

<span id="national-policies"></span>
==== 5.3.5.2 National policies ====

<div id="section-5-3-5-2-national-policies-block-1"></div>

The successful development of food systems under climate change conditions requires a national-level management that involves the cooperation of a number of institutions and governance entities to enable more sustainable and beneficial production and consumption practices.

For example, Nepal has developed a novel multi-level institutional partnership, under the Local Adaptation Plan of Action (LAPA), which is an institutional innovation that aims to better integrate local adaptation planning processes and institutions into national adaptation processes. That includes collaboration with farmers and other non-governmental organisations (Chhetri et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r636|636]]</sup> ). By combining conventional technological innovation process with the tacit knowledge of farmers, this new alliance has been instrumental in the innovation of location-specific technologies thereby facilitating the adoption of technologies in a more efficient manner.

National Adaptation Planning of Indonesia was officially launched in 2014 and was an important basis for ministries and local governments to mainstream climate change adaptation into their respective sectoral and local development plans (Kawanishi et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r637|637]]</sup> ). Crop land-use policy – to switch from crops that are highly impacted by climate change to those that are less vulnerable – were suggested for improving climate change adaptation policy processes and outcomes in Nepal (Chalise and Naranpanawa 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r638|638]]</sup> ).

Enhancement of representation, democratic and inclusive governance, as well as equity and fairness for improving climate change adaptation policy processes and outcomes in Nepal were also suggested as institutional measures by Ojha et al. (2015) <sup>[[#fn:r639|639]]</sup> . Further, food, nutrition, and health policy adaptation options such as social safety nets and social protection have been implemented in India, Pakistan, Middle East and North Africa (Devereux 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r640|640]]</sup> ; Mumtaz and Whiteford 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r641|641]]</sup> ; Narayanan and Gerber 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r642|642]]</sup> ).

Financial incentives policies at the national scale used as adaptation options include taxes and subsidies; index-based weather insurance schemes; and catastrophe bonds (Zilberman et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r643|643]]</sup> ; Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r644|644]]</sup> ; Ruiter et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r645|645]]</sup> and Campillo et al. 2017). Microfinance, disaster contingency funds, and cash transfers are other mechanisms (Ozaki 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r645|645]]</sup> and Kabir et al. 2016[reference number=1439).

<div id="section-5-3-5-3-community-based-adaptation"></div>

<span id="community-based-adaptation"></span>
==== 5.3.5.3 Community-based adaptation ====

<div id="section-5-3-5-3-community-based-adaptation-block-1"></div>

Community-based adaptation (CBA) builds on social organisational capacities and resources to address food security and climate change. CBA represents bottom-up approaches and localised adaptation measures where social dynamics serve as the power to respond to the impacts of climate change (Ayers and Forsyth 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r646|646]]</sup> ). It identifies, assists, and implements development activities that strengthen the capacity of local people to adapt to living in a riskier and less predictable climate, while ensuring their food security.

Klenk et al. (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r647|647]]</sup> found that mobilisation of local knowledge can inform adaptation decision-making and may facilitate greater flexibility in government-funded research. As an example, rural innovation in terrace agriculture developed on the basis of a local coping mechanism and adopted by peasant farmers in Latin America may serve as an adaptation option to climate change (Bocco and Napoletano, 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r648|648]]</sup> ). Clemens et al. (2015) <sup>[[#fn:r649|649]]</sup> indicated that learning alliances provided social learning and knowledge-sharing in Vietnam through an open dialogue platform that provided incentives and horizontal exchange of ideas.

Community-based adaptation generates strategies through participatory processes, involving local stakeholders and development and disaster risk reduction practitioners. Fostering collaboration and community stewardship is central to the success of CBA (Scott et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r650|650]]</sup> ). Preparedness behaviours that are encouraged include social connectedness, education, training, and messaging; CBA also can encompass beliefs that might improve household preparedness to climate disaster risk (Thomas et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r651|651]]</sup> ). Reliance on social networks, social groups connectivities, or moral economies reflect the importance of collaboration within communities (Reuter 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r652|652]]</sup> ; Schramski et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r653|653]]</sup> ).

Yet, community-based adaptation also needs to consider methods that engage with the drivers of vulnerability as part of community-based approaches, particularly questions of power, culture, identity and practice (Ensor et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r654|654]]</sup> ). The goal is to avoid maladaptation or exacerbation of existing inequalities within the communities (Buggy and McNamara 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r655|655]]</sup> ). For example, in the Pacific Islands, elements considered in a CBA plan included people’s development aspirations; immediate economic, social and environmental benefits; dynamics of village governance, social rules and protocols; and traditional forms of knowledge that could inform sustainable solutions (Remling and Veitayaki 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r656|656]]</sup> ).

With these considerations, community-based adaptation can help to link local adaptation with international development and climate change policies (Forsyth 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r657|657]]</sup> ). In developing CBA programmes, barriers exist that may hinder implementation. These include poor coordination within and between organisations implementing adaptation options, poor skills, poor knowledge about climate change, and inadequate communication among stakeholders (Spires et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r658|658]]</sup> ). A rights-based approach has been suggested to address issues of equality, transparency, accountability and empowerment in adaptation to climate change (Ensor et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r659|659]]</sup> ).

In summary, institutional measures, including risk management, policies, and planning at global, national, and local scales can support adaptation. Advance planning and focus on institutions can aid in guiding decision-making processes and foster resilience. There is evidence that institutional measures can support the scaling up of adaptation and thus there is reason to believe that systemic resilience is achievable.

<span id="tools-and-finance"></span>