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

=== 5.6.2 Mitigation, food prices, and food security ===

<div id="section-5-6-2-mitigation-food-prices-and-food-security-block-1"></div>

Food prices are the result of supply, demand and trade relations. Earlier studies (e.g., Nelson et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1008|1008]]</sup> ) showed that recent climate impacts that reduced crop productivity led to higher prices and increased trade of commodities between regions, with asymmetric impacts on producers and consumers. In terms of published scenario analyses, the most affected regions tend to be Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, but there is significant heterogeneity in results between countries. Relocation of production to less affected areas buffers these impacts to a certain extent, and offers potential for improvements in food production technologies (Hasegawa et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1009|1009]]</sup> ; van Meijl et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1010|1010]]</sup> ; Wiebe et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1011|1011]]</sup> ; Lotze-Campen et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1012|1012]]</sup> ; Valin et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1013|1013]]</sup> ; Robinson et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1014|1014]]</sup> ).

A newer, less studied impact of climate change on prices and their impacts on food security is the level of land-based mitigation necessary to stabilise global temperature. Hasegawa et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1015|1015]]</sup> , using an ensemble of seven global economic models across a range of GHG emissions pathways and socioeconomic trajectories, suggested that the level of mitigation effort needed to reduce emissions can have a more significant impact on prices than the climate impacts themselves on reduced crop yields (Figure 5.14). This occurs because in the models, taxing GHG emissions leads to higher crop and livestock prices, while land-based mitigation leads to less land availability for food production, potentially lower food supply, and therefore food price increases.

<div id="section-5-6-2-mitigation-food-prices-and-food-security-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-5.14-top"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 5.14 (top)'''

<span id="regional-impacts-of-climate-change-and-mitigation-on-food-price-top-population-at-risk-of-hunger-or-undernourishment-middle-ghg-emissions-bottom-in-2050-under-different-socio-economic-scenarios-ssp1-ssp2-and-ssp3-based-on-agmip-global-economic-model-analysis.-values-indicate-changes-from-no-climate-change-and-no-climate-change-mitigation-scenario.-magpie-a-global"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Regional impacts of climate change and mitigation on food price (top), population at risk of hunger or undernourishment (middle), GHG emissions (bottom) in 2050 under different socio-economic scenarios (SSP1, SSP2 and SSP3) based on AgMIP Global Economic Model analysis. Values indicate changes from no climate change and no climate change mitigation scenario. MAgPIE, a global […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:560d8fbc47e716cdce8c20bbaeb88450 Figure-5.14-top-724x1024.jpg]]

Regional impacts of climate change and mitigation on food price (top), population at risk of hunger or undernourishment (middle), GHG emissions (bottom) in 2050 under different socio-economic scenarios (SSP1, SSP2 and SSP3) based on AgMIP Global Economic Model analysis. Values indicate changes from no climate change and no climate change mitigation scenario. MAgPIE, a global land-use allocation model, is excluded due to inelastic food demand. The value of India includes that of Other Asia in MAGNET, a global general equilibrium model (Hasegawa et al. 2018).

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-5-6-2-mitigation-food-prices-and-food-security-block-3"></div>

<span id="figure-5.14-bottom"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 5.14 (bottom)'''

<span id="section-2"></span>
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:2ea9c904346ffd5ae133efb28839e83a Figure-5.14-bottom-724x1024.jpg]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-5-6-2-mitigation-food-prices-and-food-security-block-4"></div>

Price increases in turn lead to reduced consumption, especially by vulnerable groups, or to shifts towards cheaper food, which are often less nutritious. This leads to significant increases in the number of malnourished people. Frank et al. (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1016|1016]]</sup> and Fujimori et al. (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1017|1017]]</sup> arrived at the same conclusions for the 1.5°C mitigation scenario using the IAM Globiom and ensembles of AgMIP global economic models. While the magnitude of the response differs between models, the results are consistent between them. In contrast, a study based on five global agroeconomic models highlights that the global food prices may not increase much when the required land for bioenergy is accessible on the margin of current cropland, or the feedstock does not have a direct completion with agricultural land (Lotze-Campen et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1018|1018]]</sup> ).

These studies highlight the need for careful design of emissions mitigation policies in upcoming decades – for example, targeted schemes encouraging more productive and resilient agricultural production systems and the importance of incorporating complementary policies (such as safety-net programmes for poverty alleviation) that compensate or counteract the impacts of climate change mitigation policies on vulnerable regions (Hasegawa et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1019|1019]]</sup> ). Fujimori et al. (2018) showed how an inclusive policy design can avoid adverse side effects on food security through international aid, bioenergy taxes, or domestic reallocation of income. These strategies can shield impoverished and vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focussing on climate objectives only.

In summary, food security will be threatened through increasing numbers of malnourished people if land-based mitigation raises prices, unless other policy mechanisms reduce its impact ( ''high confidence'' ). Inclusive policy design can avoid adverse side effects on food security by shielding vulnerable people from the additional risk of hunger that would be caused by the economic effects of policies narrowly focusing on climate objectives ( ''medium confidence'' ).

<span id="environmental-and-health-effects-of-adopting-healthy-and-sustainable-diets"></span>