Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/SPM (section)

== C Enabling response options ==

<div id="article-enabling-response-options-block-1"></div>

'''C.1'''<br />
'''Appropriate design of policies, institutions and governance systems at all scales can contribute to land-related adaptation and mitigation while facilitating the pursuit of climate-adaptive development pathways ( ''high confidence'' ). Mutually supportive climate and land policies have the potential to save resources, amplify social resilience, support ecological restoration, and foster engagement and collaboration between multiple stakeholders ( ''high confidence'' ). (Figure SPM.1, Figure SPM.2, Figure SPM.3) {3.6.2, 3.6.3, 4.8, 4.9.4, 5.7, 6.3, 6.4, 7.2.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.4.7, 7.4.8, 7.5, 7.5.5, 7.5.6, 7.6.6, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 7}'''

C.1.1<br />
Land-use zoning, spatial planning, integrated landscape planning, regulations, incentives (such as payment for ecosystem services), and voluntary or persuasive instruments (such as environmental farm planning, standards and certification for sustainable production, use of scientific, local and indigenous knowledge and collective action), can achieve positive adaptation and mitigation outcomes ( ''medium confidence'' ). They can also contribute revenue and provide incentive to rehabilitate degraded lands and adapt to and mitigate climate change in certain contexts ( ''medium confidence'' ). Policies promoting the target of land degradation neutrality can also support food security, human wellbeing and climate change adaptation and mitigation ( ''high confidence'' ). (Figure SPM.2) {3.4.2, 4.1.6, 4.7, 4.8.5, 5.1.2, 5.7.3, 7.3, 7.4.6, 7.4.7, 7.5}

C.1.2<br />
Insecure land tenure affects the ability of people, communities and organisations to make changes to land that can advance adaptation and mitigation ( ''medium confidence'' ). Limited recognition of customary access to land and ownership of land can result in increased vulnerability and decreased adaptive capacity ( ''medium confidence'' ). Land policies (including recognition of customary tenure, community mapping, redistribution, decentralisation, co-management, regulation of rental markets) can provide both security and flexibility response to climate change ( ''medium confidence'' ). {3.6.1, 3.6.2, 5.3, 7.2.4, 7.6.4, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 5}

C.1.3<br />
Achieving land degradation neutrality will involve a balance of measures that avoid and reduce land degradation, through adoption of sustainable land management, and measures to reverse degradation through rehabilitation and restoration of degraded land. Many interventions to achieve land degradation neutrality commonly also deliver climate change adaptation and mitigation benefits. The pursuit of land degradation neutrality provides impetus to address land degradation and climate change simultaneously ( ''high confidence'' ). {4.5.3, 4.8.5, 4.8.7, 7.4.5}

C.1.4<br />
Due to the complexity of challenges and the diversity of actors involved in addressing land challenges, a mix of policies, rather than single policy approaches, can deliver improved results in addressing the complex challenges of sustainable land management and climate change ( ''high confidence'' ). Policy mixes can strongly reduce the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems to climate change ( ''high confidence'' ).  Elements of such policy mixes may include weather and health insurance, social protection and adaptive safety nets, contingent finance and reserve funds, universal access to early warning systems combined with effective contingency plans ( ''high confidence'' ). (Figure SPM.4} {1.2, 4.8, 4.9.2, 5.3.2, 5.6, 5.6.6, 5.7.2, 7.3.2, 7.4, 7.4.2, 7.4.6, 7.4.7, 7.4.8, 7.5.5, 7.5.6, 7.6.4}

'''C.2'''<br />
'''Policies that operate across the food system, including those that reduce food loss and waste and influence dietary choices, enable more sustainable land-use management, enhanced food security and low emissions trajectories ( ''high confidence'' ). Such policies can contribute to climate change adaptation and mitigation, reduce land degradation, desertification and poverty as well as improve public health ( ''high confidence'' ). The adoption of sustainable land management and poverty eradication can be enabled by improving access to markets, securing land tenure, factoring environmental costs into food, making payments for ecosystem services, and enhancing local and community collective action ( ''high confidence'' ). {1.1.2, 1.2.1, 3.6.3, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.8, 5.5, 6.4, 7.4.6, 7.6.5}'''

C.2.1<br />
Policies that enable and incentivise sustainable land management for climate change adaptation and mitigation include improved access to markets for inputs, outputs and financial services, empowering women and indigenous peoples, enhancing local and community collective action, reforming subsidies and promoting an enabling trade system ( ''high confidence'' ). Land restoration and rehabilitation efforts can be more effective when policies support local management of natural resources, while strengthening cooperation between actors and institutions, including at the international level. {3.6.3, 4.1.6, 4.5.4, 4.8.2, 4.8.4, 5.7, 7.2, 7.3}

C.2.2<br />
Reflecting the environmental costs of land-degrading agricultural practices can incentivise more sustainable land management ( ''high confidence'' ). Barriers to the reflection of environmental costs arise from technical difficulties in estimating these costs and those embodied in foods. {3.6.3, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.6.6, 5.7, 7.4.4, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 7}

C.2.3<br />
Adaptation and enhanced resilience to extreme events impacting food systems can be facilitated by comprehensive risk management, including risk sharing and transfer mechanisms ( ''high confidence'' ). Agricultural diversification, expansion of market access, and preparation for increasing supply chain disruption can support the scaling up of adaptation in food systems ( ''high confidence'' ). {5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.5}

C.2.4<br />
Public health policies to improve nutrition, such as increasing the diversity of food sources in public procurement, health insurance, financial incentives, and awareness-raising campaigns, can potentially influence food demand, reduce healthcare costs, contribute to lower GHG emissions and enhance adaptive capacity ( ''high confidence'' ). Influencing demand for food, through promoting diets based on public health guidelines, can enable more sustainable land management and contribute to achieving multiple SDGs ( ''high confidence'' ). {3.4.2, 4.7.2, 5.1, 5.7, 6.3, 6.4}

'''C.3'''<br />
'''Acknowledging co-benefits and trade-offs when designing land and food policies can overcome barriers to implementation ( ''medium confidence'' ). Strengthened multi-level, hybrid and cross-sectoral governance, as well as policies developed and adopted in an iterative, coherent, adaptive and flexible manner can maximise co-benefits and minimise trade-offs, given that land management decisions are made from farm level to national scales, and both climate and land policies often range across multiple sectors, departments and agencies ( ''high confidence'' ). (Figure SPM.3) {4.8.5, 4.9, 5.6, 6.4, 7.3, 7.4.6, 7.4.8, 7.4.9, 7.5.6, 7.6}'''

C.3.1.2<br />
Addressing desertification, land degradation, and food security in an integrated, coordinated and coherent manner can assist climate resilient development and provides numerous potential co-benefits ( ''high confidence'' ). {3.7.5, 4.8, 5.6, 5.7, 6.4, 7.2.2, 7.3.1, 7.3.4, 7.4.7, 7.4.8, 7.5.6, 7.5.5}

C.3.2<br />
Technological, biophysical, socio-economic, financial and cultural barriers can limit the adoption of many land-based response options, as can uncertainty about benefits ( ''high confidence'' ). Many sustainable land management practices are not widely adopted due to insecure land tenure, lack of access to resources and agricultural advisory services, insufficient and unequal private and public incentives, and lack of knowledge and practical experience ( ''high confidence'' ). Public discourse, carefully designed policy interventions, incorporating social learning and market changes can together help reduce barriers to implementation ( ''medium confidence'' ). {3.6.1, 3.6.2, 5.3.5, 5.5.2, 5.6, 6.2, 6.4, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6}

C.3.3<br />
The land and food sectors face particular challenges of institutional fragmentation and often suffer from a lack of engagement between stakeholders at different scales and narrowly focused policy objectives ( ''medium confidence'' ). Coordination with other sectors, such as public health, transportation, environment, water, energy and infrastructure, can increase co-benefits, such as risk reduction and improved health ( ''medium confidence'' ). {5.6.3, 5.7, 6.2, 6.4.4, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4.8, 7.6.2, 7.6.3}

C.3.4<br />
Some response options and policies may result in trade-offs, including social impacts, ecosystem functions and services damage, water depletion, or high costs, that cannot be well-managed, even with institutional best practices ( ''medium confidence'' ). Addressing such trade-offs helps avoid maladaptation ( ''medium confidence'' ). Anticipation and evaluation of potential trade-offs and knowledge gaps supports evidence-based policymaking to weigh the costs and benefits of specific responses for different stakeholders ( ''medium confidence'' ). Successful management of trade-offs often includes maximising stakeholder input with structured feedback processes, particularly in community-based models, use of innovative fora like facilitated dialogues or spatially explicit mapping, and iterative adaptive management that allows for continuous readjustments in policy as new evidence comes to light ( ''medium confidence'' ). {5.3.5, 6.4.2, 6.4.4, 6.4.5, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 7}

'''C.4'''<br />
'''The effectiveness of decision-making and governance is enhanced by the involvement of local stakeholders (particularly those most vulnerable to climate change including indigenous peoples and local communities, women, and the poor and marginalised) in the selection, evaluation, implementation and monitoring of policy instruments for land-based climate change adaptation and mitigation ( ''high confidence'' ). Integration across sectors and scales increases the chance of maximising co-benefits and minimising trade-offs ( ''medium confidence'' ). {1.4, 3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 4.8, 4.9, 5.1.3, Box 5.1, 7.4, 7.6}'''

C.4.1<br />
Successful implementation of sustainable land management practices requires accounting for local environmental and socio-economic conditions ( ''very high confidence'' ). Sustainable land management in the context of climate change is typically advanced by involving all relevant stakeholders in identifying land-use pressures and impacts (such as biodiversity decline, soil loss, over-extraction of groundwater, habitat loss, land-use change in agriculture, food production and forestry) as well as preventing, reducing and restoring degraded land ( ''medium confidence'' ). {1.4.1, 4.1.6, 4.8.7, 5.2.5, 7.2.4, 7.6.2, 7.6.4}

C.4.2<br />
Inclusiveness in the measurement, reporting and verification of the performance of policy instruments can support sustainable land management ( ''medium confidence'' ). Involving stakeholders in the selection of indicators, collection of climate data, land modelling and land-use planning, mediates and facilitates integrated landscape planning and choice of policy ( ''medium confidence'' ). {3.7.5, 5.7.4, 7.4.1, 7.4.4, 7.5.3, 7.5.4, 7.5.5, 7.6.4, 7.6.6}

C.4.3<br />
Agricultural practices that include indigenous and local knowledge can contribute to overcoming the combined challenges of climate change, food security, biodiversity conservation, and combating desertification and land degradation ( ''high confidence'' ). Coordinated action across a range of actors including businesses, producers, consumers, land managers and policymakers in partnership with indigenous peoples and local communities enable conditions for the adoption of response options ( ''high confidence'' ) {3.1.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 4.8.2, 5.5.1, 5.6.4, 5.7.1, 5.7.4, 6.2, 7.3, 7.4.6, 7.6.4}

C.4.4<br />
Empowering women can bring synergies and co-benefits to household food security and sustainable land management ( ''high confidence'' ). Due to women’s disproportionate vulnerability to climate change impacts, their inclusion in land management and tenure is constrained. Policies that can address land rights and barriers to women’s participation in sustainable land management include financial transfers to women under the auspices of anti-poverty programmes, spending on health, education, training and capacity building for women, subsidised credit and program dissemination through existing women’s community-based organisations ( ''medium confidence'' ). {1.4.1, 4.8.2, 5.1.3, Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 7}

<div id="article-enabling-response-options-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-spm.4a"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure SPM.4A'''

<span id="section-3"></span>
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:51fa111b47f0590a378b676169d54e27 SPM4A-approval-v3a-USletter-791x1024.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="article-enabling-response-options-block-3"></div>

<span id="figure-spm.4b"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure SPM.4B'''

<span id="future-scenarios-provide-a-framework-for-understanding-the-implications-of-mitigation-and-socioeconomics-on-land.-the-shared-socioeconomic-pathways-ssps-span-a-range-of-different-socioeconomic-assumptions-box-spm.1.-they-are-combined-with-representative-concentration-pathways-rcps-which-imply-different-levels-of-mitigation.-the-changes-in-cropland-pasture-bioenergy-cropland-forest-and-natural-land-from"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Future scenarios provide a framework for understanding the implications of mitigation and socioeconomics on land. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) span a range of different socioeconomic assumptions (Box SPM.1). They are combined with Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) which imply different levels of mitigation. The changes in cropland, pasture, bioenergy cropland, forest, and natural land from […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:9db64fdb8276bc0a2fbcf5a06099f7e5 SPM4B-approval-v4-USletter-791x1024.jpg]]

Future scenarios provide a framework for understanding the implications of mitigation and socioeconomics on land. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) span a range of different socioeconomic assumptions (Box SPM.1). They are combined with Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) <sup>[[#fn:36|36]]</sup> which imply different levels of mitigation. The changes in cropland, pasture, bioenergy cropland, forest, and natural land from 2010 are shown. For this Figure, Cropland includes all land in food, feed, and fodder crops, as well as other arable land (cultivated area). This category includes first generation non-forest bioenergy crops (e.g., corn for ethanol, sugar cane for ethanol, soybeans for biodiesel), but excludes second generation bioenergy crops. Pasture includes categories of pasture land, not only high-quality rangeland, and is based on FAO definition of ‘permanent meadows and pastures’. Bioenergy cropland includes land dedicated to second generation energy crops (e.g., switchgrass, miscanthus, fast-growing wood species). Forest includes managed and unmanaged forest. Natural land includes other grassland, savannah, and shrubland. '''Panel A''' : This panel shows integrated assessment model (IAM) <sup>[[#fn:37|37]]</sup> results for SSP1, SSP2 and SSP5 at RCP1.9. <sup>[[#fn:38|38]]</sup> For each pathway, the shaded areas show the range across all IAMs; the line indicates the median across models. For RCP1.9, SSP1, SSP2 and SSP5 results are from five, four and two IAMs respectively. '''Panel B''' : Land use and land cover change are indicated for various SSP-RCP combinations, showing multi-model median and range (min, max). (Box SPM.1) {1.3.2, 2.7.2, 6.1, 6.4.4, 7.4.2, 7.4.4, 7.4.5, 7.4.6, 7.4.7, 7.4.8, 7.5.3, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 6}

<!-- END IMG -->
<span id="d-action-in-the-near-term"></span>