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

==== 5.7.1.4 Multiple policy pathways ====

<div id="section-5-7-1-4-multiple-policy-pathways-block-1"></div>

As discussed in more detail in Chapters 6 and 7, there is a wide potential suite of interventions and policies that can potentially enhance the adaptation of food systems to climate change, as well as enhance the mitigation potential of food systems on climate change. There is an increasing number of studies that argue that the key to sustainable land management is not in land management practices but in the factors that determine the demand for products from land (such as food). Public health policy, therefore, has the potential to affect dietary choice and thus the demand for different amounts of, and types of, food.

Obersteiner et al. (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1256|1256]]</sup> show that increasing the average price of food is an important policy lever that, by reducing demand, reduces food waste, pressure on land and water, impacts on biodiversity and through reducing emissions, mitigates climate change and potentially helps to achieve multiple SDGs. Whilst such policy responses – such as a carbon tax applied to goods including food – has the potential to be regressive, affecting the poor differentially (Frank et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1257|1257]]</sup> ; Hasegawa et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1258|1258]]</sup> and Kehlbacher et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1259|1259]]</sup> ), and increasing food insecurity – further development of social safety nets can help to avoid the regressive nature (Hasegawa et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1260|1260]]</sup> ). Hasegawa et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1261|1261]]</sup> point out that such safety nets for vulnerable populations could be funded from the revenues arising from a carbon tax.

The evidence suggests, as with SR15 (IPCC 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r1262|1262]]</sup> ) and its multiple pathways to climate change solutions, that there is no single solution that will address the problems of food and climate change, but instead there is a need to deploy many solutions, simultaneously adapted to the needs and options available in a given context. For example, Springmann et al. (2018a) indicate that maintaining the food system within planetary boundaries at mid-century, including equitable climate, requires increasing the production (and resilience) of agricultural outputs (i.e., closing yield gaps), reducing waste, and changes in diets towards ones often described as flexitarian (low-meat dietary patterns that are in line with available evidence on healthy eating). Such changes can have significant co-benefits for public health, as well as facing significant challenges to ensure equity (in terms of affordability for those in poverty).

Significant changes in the food system require them to be acceptable to the public (‘public license’), or they will be rejected. Focus groups with members of the public around the world, on the issue of changing diets, have shown that there is a general belief that the government plays a key role in leading efforts for change in consumption patterns (Wellesley et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1263|1263]]</sup> ). If governments are not leading on an issue, or indicating the need for it through leading public dialogue, it signals to their citizens that the issue is unimportant or undeserving of concern.

In summary, there is significant potential ( ''high confidence'' ) that, through aligning multiple policy goals, multiple benefits can be realised that positively impact public health, mitigation and adaptation (e.g., adoption of healthier diets, reduction in waste, reduction in environmental impact). These benefits may not occur without the alignment across multiple policy areas ( ''high confidence'' ).

<span id="enablers-for-changing-markets-and-trade"></span>