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

=== 5.9.2 Assessing Vulnerabilities ===

<div id="h2-28-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Aquaculture vulnerability assessments have shown that countries from both high and low latitudes are highly vulnerable to climate change, where vulnerability is driven by particular exposures, economic reliance, type of production sector (freshwater, brackish, marine) and adaptive capacity ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Handisyde--2017|Handisyde et al., 2017]] ; [[#Soto--2018|Soto et al., 2018]] ). Regional aquaculture vulnerabilities and risk mitigation potentials for the major FAO reporting regions are shown in Figure 5.14. Best practice guidelines for assessments exist ( [[#Brugère--2019|Brugère et al., 2019]] ; [[#FAO--2020d|FAO, 2020d]] ), but in practice most only cover some climatic drivers ( ''medium agreement'' , ''limited evidence'' ) ( [[#Soto--2018|Soto et al., 2018]] ). Holistic vulnerability assessments include ecosystem services ( [[#Custódio--2020|Custódio et al., 2020]] ; [[#Gentry--2020|Gentry et al., 2020]] ) and farming practices which can exacerbate production pressures (stocking densities, eutrophication, fish stress) ( [[#Soto--2018|Soto et al., 2018]] ; [[#Sainz--2019|Sainz et al., 2019]] ). Common vulnerabilities to inland and marine aquaculture include increasing incidence and toxicity of HABs related to warming waters, causing fish kills and product consumption risks, negatively impacting the productivity and stability of production sectors and reliant communities ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Soto--2018|Soto et al., 2018]] ; [[#Aoki--2019|Aoki et al., 2019]] ; [[#Bannister--2019|Bannister et al., 2019]] ).

<div id="_idContainer058" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:a0c65172291b805ac6a0e50a7da9ad38 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_014.png]]

'''Figure 5.14 |''' '''Assessment of inland freshwater and brackish aquaculture''' ''(salinities of &lt;10 ppm and/or no connection to the marine environment)'' '''(a)''' ''and marine aquaculture vulnerabilities and mitigation potential per major FAO production zones'' '''(b).''' See SM5.6 (Tables SM5.5, 5.6, 5.9, 5.10) for assessment methodologies.

There is ''high confidence'' that inland aquaculture in Southeast Asia is highly vulnerable to climate change, due to fluctuations in water resources either through climatic variability in precipitation, flooding or salinity inundation or through competition ( [[#Handisyde--2017|Handisyde et al., 2017]] ; [[#Nguyen--2018|Nguyen et al., 2018]] ; [[#Soto--2018|Soto et al., 2018]] ; [[#Islam--2019|Islam et al., 2019]] ; [[#Nguyen--2019b|Nguyen et al., 2019b]] ; Prakoso et al., 2020). Studies in Bangladesh and Indonesia highlighted regional and species-specific vulnerabilities (Prakoso et al., 2020) and roles of governance in vulnerability reduction ( [[#Islam--2019|Islam et al., 2019]] ).

In the marine sector, vulnerability models ( [[#Brugère--2015|Brugère and De Young, 2015]] ; [[#Handisyde--2017|Handisyde et al., 2017]] ) have been adapted and applied to semi-quantitative spatial risk assessments for Chilean Atlantic salmon, where analysis of exposure threat coupled with mortality and temperature farm data could enhance salmon production ( [[#Soto--2019|Soto et al., 2019]] ). Vulnerability assessments in Korea (RCP8.5 temperature increase of 4–5°C by 2100) ( [[#Kim--2019a|Kim et al., 2019a]] ) and the USA (ocean acidification, [[#Barton--2015|Barton et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ekstrom--2015|Ekstrom et al., 2015]] ) found major exposure-related vulnerabilities for seaweeds and shellfish, with reduced vulnerabilities under higher production control and adaptive capacity. Global bivalve vulnerability assessments (RCP8.5 by 2100) show high vulnerabilities for major producing countries related to cyclones (China, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Viet Nam and North Korea), regional risk of high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity (Chile, Peru, Spain, Italy), with few major producers (France, the Netherlands and USA) anticipated to remain moderately vulnerable by 2100 ( [[#Stewart-Sinclair--2020|Stewart-Sinclair et al., 2020]] ).

Climate uncertainty and data limitations hinder vulnerability assessments ( ''high confidence'' ), so broader vulnerabilities and qualitative assessments can be used ( [[#Brugère--2015|Brugère and De Young, 2015]] ; [[#Soto--2018|Soto et al., 2018]] ; [[#Brugère--2019|Brugère et al., 2019]] ; [[#Cochrane--2019|Cochrane et al., 2019]] ). Filling data gaps with monitoring ( ''high confidence'' ), increasing governmental support to assist particularly vulnerable small- and medium-scale farmers with increased costs associated with risk management and uncertainty ( ''medium confidence'' ) and the early inclusion of community stakeholders ( ''high agreement'' , ''medium evidence'' ) can reduce vulnerabilities ( [[#Handisyde--2017|Handisyde et al., 2017]] ; [[#Dabbadie--2018|Dabbadie et al., 2018]] ; [[#Soto--2018|Soto et al., 2018]] ; [[#Bindoff--2019|Bindoff et al., 2019]] ; [[#Cochrane--2019|Cochrane et al., 2019]] ).

<div id="5.9.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="gender-and-other-social-vulnerability-and-roles-in-aquaculture"></span>
==== 5.9.2.1 Gender and other social vulnerability and roles in aquaculture ====

<div id="h3-39-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

There are regional differences in women’s roles, responsibilities and involvement in adaptation strategies in the aquaculture sector. Women comprise 14% of the 2018 global aquaculture workforce of 20.5 million ( [[#FAO--2020c|FAO, 2020c]] ), representing up to 42% of the salmon workforce in Chile ( [[#Chávez--2019|Chávez et al., 2019]] ), predominantly in processing roles ( [[#Gopal--2020|Gopal et al., 2020]] ). In the majority of lower-middle-income countries, seaweed culture is dominated by women in family-owned businesses as in Zanzibar and the Philippines ( [[#Brugere--2020|Brugere et al., 2020]] ; [[#Ramirez--2020|Ramirez et al., 2020]] ), where women are not always paid directly but contribute to family incomes ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Msuya--2017|Msuya and Hurtado, 2017]] ; [[#Brugere--2020|Brugere et al., 2020]] ; [[#Ramirez--2020|Ramirez et al., 2020]] ). In India, women collect stocking juveniles and assist in pond construction; in Bangladesh, women do the same tasks as men; and in Ghana, women undertake post-harvest fishing activities ( [[#Lauria--2018|Lauria et al., 2018]] ). Women employed in aquaculture cooperatives gained adaptive capacity, which reduced gender inequities ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Farquhar--2018|Farquhar et al., 2018]] ; [[#Gonzal--2019|Gonzal et al., 2019]] ), but lack of financial access for women can create gender inequity at larger commercial scales ( [[#Gurung--2016|Gurung et al., 2016]] ; [[#Call--2019|Call and Sellers, 2019]] ). Women in aquaculture experience competing roles between employment, childcare and home duties ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Morgan--2015|Morgan et al., 2015]] ; [[#Lauria--2018|Lauria et al., 2018]] ; [[#Chávez--2019|Chávez et al., 2019]] ; see Cross-Chapter Box GENDER in Chapter 18) and differ from men in terms of perceptions of environmental risk, climate change and adaptation behaviour, with limited contributions to decision making ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Barange--2018|Barange and Cochrane, 2018]] ). Therefore, effective climate aquaculture adaptation options need to address gender inequity, such as suitable technology designs that fit with social norms and access to credit to facilitate independent uptake ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Morgan--2015|Morgan et al., 2015]] ; [[#Oppenheimer--2019|Oppenheimer et al., 2019]] ). Generalised best practices for gender-sensitive approaches to adaptation are relevant for aquaculture ( [[#UNFCCC--2013|UNFCCC, 2013]] ).

<div id="5.9.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="projected-impacts-5"></span>