Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.6.4.1 Socio-economic Barriers and Opportunities ====

<div id="h3-30-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

'''Design and coverage of financing mechanisms.''' The lack of resources thus far committed to implementing AFOLU mitigation, income and access to alternative sources of income in rural households that rely on agriculture or forests for their livelihoods remains a considerable barrier to adoption of AFOLU ( ''high confidence'' ). [[#7.6.1|Section 7.6.1]] illustrates that to date only USD0.7 billion yr –1 has been spent on AFOLU mitigation, well short of the more than USD400 billion yr –1 that would be needed to achieve the economic potential described in [[#7.4|Section 7.4]] . Despite long-term recognition that AFOLU can play an important role in mitigation, the ''economic incentives'' necessary to achieve AFOLU aspirations as part of the Paris Agreement or to maintain temperatures below 2.0°C have not emerged. Without quickly ramping up spending, the lack of funding to implement projects remains a substantial barrier ( ''high confidence'' ). Investments are critically important in the livestock sector, which has the highest emissions reduction potential among options because actions in the sector influence agriculture specific activities, such as enteric fermentation, as well as deforestation ( [[#Mayberry--2019|Mayberry et al. 2019]] ). In many countries with export-oriented livestock industries, livestock farmers control large swaths of forests or re-forestable areas. Incentive mechanisms and funding can encourage adoption of mitigation strategies, but funding is currently too low to make consistent progress.

'''Scale and accessibility of financing.''' The largest share of funding to date has been for REDD+, and many of the commitments to date suggest that there will be significant funding in this area for the foreseeable future. Funding for conservation programmes in OECD countries and China affects carbon, but has been driven by other objectives such as water quality and species protection. Considerably less funding has been available for agricultural projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions, and outside of voluntary markets, there do not appear to be large sources of funding emerging either through international organisations, or national programs. In the agricultural sector, funding for carbon must be obtained by redirecting existing resources from non-GHG conservation to GHG measures, or by developing new funding streams ( [[#Henderson--2020|Henderson et al. 2020]] ).

'''Risk and uncertainty.''' Most approaches to reduce emissions, especially in agriculture, require new or different technologies that involve significant time or financial investments by the implementing landholders. Adoption rates are often slow due to risk aversion among agricultural operators. Many AFOLU measures require carbon to be compensated to generate positive returns, reducing the likelihood of implementation without clear financial incentives. Research to show costs and benefits is lacking in most parts of the world.

'''Poverty.''' Mitigation and adaptation can have important implications for vulnerable people and communities, for example, mitigation activities consistent with scenarios examined in the SR1.5 could raise food and fiber prices globally (Section. 7.5). In the NDCs, 82 Parties included references to social issues (e.g., poverty, inequality, human well-being, marginalisation), with poverty the most cited factor (70 Parties). The number of hungry and food insecure people in the world is growing, reaching 821 million in 2017, or one in every nine people ( [[#FAO--2018b|FAO 2018b]] ), and two-thirds live in rural areas (Laborde Debucquet et al. 2020). Consideration of rural poverty and food insecurity is central in AFOLU mitigation because there are a large number of farms in the world (about 570 million), and most are smaller than 2 hectares. It is important to better understand how different mitigation policies affect the poor.

'''Cultural values and social acceptance.''' Barriers to adoption of AFOLU mitigation will be strongest where historical practices represent long-standing traditions ( ''high confidence'' ). Adoption of new mitigation practices, however, may proceed quickly if the technologies can be shown to improve crop yields, reduce costs, or otherwise improve livelihoods ( [[#Ranjan--2019|Ranjan 2019]] ). AR6 presents new estimates of the mitigation potential for shifts in diets and reductions in food waste, but given long-standing dietary traditions within most cultures, some of the strongest barriers exist for efforts to change diets ( ''medium confidence'' ). Furthermore, the large number of undernourished who may benefit from increased calories and meat will complicate efforts to change diets. Regulatory or tax approaches will face strong resistance, while efforts to use educational approaches and voluntary measures have limited potential to slow changes in consumption patterns due to free-riders, rebound effects, and other limitations. Food loss and waste occurs across the supply chain, creating significant challenges to reduce it ( [[#FAO--2019c|FAO 2019c]] ). Where food loss occurs in the production stage, in other words, in fields at harvest, there may be opportunities to align reductions in food waste with improved production efficiency, however, adoption of new production methods often requires new investments or changes in labour practices, both of which are barriers.

<div id="7.6.4.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="institutional-barriers-and-opportunities"></span>