Gudiya

CLIMATE CHANGE
AND FOOD SECURITY:

A FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT
INTERDEPARTMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON CLIMATE CHANGE

CLIMATE CHANGE
AND FOOD SECURITY:
A FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

ROME, 2008
Climate change and food security: a framework document
FOREWORD
Climate change will affect all four dimensions of food security: food availability, food
accessibility, food utilization and food systems stability. It will have an impact on human
health, livelihood assets, food production and distribution channels, as well as changing
purchasing power and market flows. Its impacts will be both short term, resulting from more
frequent and more intense extreme weather events, and long term, caused by changing
temperatures and precipitation patterns,
People who are already vulnerable and food insecure are likely to be the first affected.
Agriculture-based livelihood systems that are already vulnerable to food insecurity face
immediate risk of increased crop failure, new patterns of pests and diseases, lack of
appropriate seeds and planting material, and loss of livestock. People living on the coasts and
floodplains and in mountains, drylands and the Arctic are most at risk.
As an indirect effect, low-income people everywhere, but particularly in urban areas, will
be at risk of food insecurity owing to loss of assets and lack of adequate insurance coverage.
This may also lead to shifting vulnerabilities in both developing and developed countries.
Food systems will also be affected through possible internal and international migration,
resource- based conflicts and civil unrest triggered by climate change and its impacts.
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries will not only be affected by climate change, but also
contribute to it through emitting greenhouse gases. They also hold part of the remedy,
however; they can contribute to climate change mitigation through reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by changing agricultural practices.
At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen the resilience of rural people and to help
them cope with this additional threat to food security. Particularly in the agriculture sector,
climate change adaptation can go hand-in-hand with mitigation. Climate change adaptation
and mitigation measures need to be integrated into the overall development approaches and
agenda.
This document provides background information on the interrelationship between climate
change and food security, and ways to deal with the new threat. It also shows the
opportunities for the agriculture sector to adapt, as well as describing how it can contribute to
mitigating the climate challenge.
Wulf Killmann
Chairperson
Interdepartmental Working Group
on Climate Change
iii
CONTENTS
FOREWORD III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IX
SUMMARY XI
ACRONYMS XIII
INTRODUCTION 1
1. DEFINING TERMS AND CONCEPTUALIZING RELATIONSHIPS 3
Food systems and food security 3
Food security 3
Food system 3
Food chain 5
Climate and climate change 6
Climate and its measurement 6
Climate system 7
Climate variability and climate change 8
Effects of global warming on the climate system 8
Acclimatization, adaptation and mitigation 8
Climate change and food security 9
Agriculture, climate and food security 9
Food security and climate change: a conceptual framework 11
Vulnerability to climate change 12
Livelihood vulnerability 27
2. PROTECTING FOOD SECURITY THROUGH ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE 31
FAO’s strategic approach 31
Living with uncertainty and managing new risks 32
Improving the quality of information and its use 34
Promoting insurance schemes for climate change risk 39
Developing national risk management policies 40
Strengthening resilience and managing change 41
Adjusting consumption and responding to new health risks 41
Intensifying food and agricultural production 42
Creating an eco-friendly energy economy 46
Adapting agriculture-based livelihood strategies 54
3. PROTECTING FOOD SECURITY THROUGH MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE 59
Reducing emissions 60
Reducing agricultural and forestry emissions of carbon dioxide 60
Reducing agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide 62
Sequestering carbon 65
Reforestation and afforestation 66
Rehabilitating degraded grasslands 67
Rehabilitating cultivated soils 68
Promoting conservation agriculture 69
4. THE WAY FORWARD 71
The institutional setting for addressing food security and climate change linkages 71
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 71
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, its Conference of the
Parties, the Kyoto Protocol and the Nairobi Worlk Programme 71
v
Agenda 21 and sustainable agriculture and rural development 72

Integrating adaptation and mitigation 72
Access to funds 73
The UNFCCC Climate Change Funds and the Global Environment Facility 73
The Clean Development Mechanism 74
Other funding sources 74
FAO’s role 74
REFERENCES 77
ANNEX I 83
Essential Climate Variables for the Global Climate Observing System, the Global Ocean Observing
System and the Global Terrestrial Observing System 83
ANNEX II 85
Internationally Agreed Climate and Climate Change terminology 85
ANNEX III 87
Global Warming and Climate Change 87
Climate change, global environmental change and global change 87
Global warming 87
The carbon and nitrogen cycles 89
ANNEX IV 93
Rules and Conditions for the Clean Development Mechanism 93
vi
TABLES
Table 1. Potential impacts of climate change on food systems and food security, and possible
adaptive responses 14
Table 2. Impacts of droughts on livestock numbers in selected African countries, 1981 to 1999 22
Table 3. Employment in agriculture as share of total employment, by region 28
Table 4. Land required to replace 25 percent of current fuel demand for transport (45 EJ/year) 47
Table 5. Distribution of global land area, 2004 48
Table 6. Examples of livelihood groups at risk and adaptation responses for each of ten
ecosystems evaluated for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 55
Table 7. Global terrestrial carbon sequestration potential 66
Table 8. Agricultural practices for enhancing productivity and increasing the amount
of carbon in soils 69
FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of possible causes of low food consumption and
poor nutritional status 4
Figure 2. Food system activities and food security outcomes 5
Figure 3. The formation of climate 7
Figure 4. Global warming and changes in the climate system (FAO/NRCB) 10
Figure 5. Climate change and food security 13
Figure 6. Steps for selecting adaptation options 32
Figure 7. Steps for designing a strategy to implement the adaptation options selected 33
Figure 8. Methods and tools for assessing climate change impacts for different time
periods and at various scales 33
Figure 9. Multistakeholder processes for mainstreaming climate change adaptation into
sustainable development approaches 35
Figure 10. Providing timely weather information for all actors in the food system 37
Figure 11. Benefits of improved climate information for reducing risk in Australia 38
Figure 12. Shares of bioenergy in total energy supply 51
Figure 13. Shares of bioenergy in total primary energy supply in different regions in 2004 52
Figure 14. Contributions of agricultural and forestry to greenhouse gas emissions 60
BOXES
Box 1. Benefits of women’s participation in cyclone preparedness in Bangladesh 36
Box 2. Drought insurance in Ethiopia 40
Box 3. Gorilla slaughter, conflict, deforestation and demand for charcoal in Rwanda
and eastern DRC 53
Box 4. Adaptation by small-scale tea farmers in South Africa 57
Box 5: UNFCCC funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation 73
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This publication was prepared by FAO’s Interdepartmental Working Group (IDWG) on Climate
Change, chaired by Wulf Killmann, Director, Forest Products and Industries Division. The work
has benefited from the active support of many members of the IDWG and other colleagues in
FAO, including Pierre Gerber and Henning Steinfeld, Catherine Batello, Theodore Friedrich and
Nguyen Nguu. Kakoli Ghosh, Josef Schmidhuber, Ali Gurkan, Yianna Lambrou, Cassandra de
Young, Susan Braatz, Jim Carle, John Latham, Jacob Burke and Jippe Hoogeveen, Isabel
Alvarez, Barbara Cooney and Karel Callens.
Particular thanks go to Prabhu Pingali, Keith Wiebe and Monica Zurek, Jasmine Hymans and
Stephan Baas and Michele Bernardi. The document was prepared in close collaboration with the
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). The IDWG gratefully acknowledges the contributions of
Tom Downing, Barbara Huddleston and Gina Ziervogel, Oxford Office, SEI, to its
conceptualization and writing; to Barbara Huddleston, Jane Shaw and Maria Guardia for its
editing and layout; and to Anna Maria Alba for her work on the graphics.
The English version of the full document and brochure, and the language versions of the
brochure, are available at: www.fao.org/clim/index_en.htm.
ix
SUMMARY
Until recently, most assessments of the impact of climate change on the food and agriculture
sector have focused on the implications for production and global supply of food, with less
consideration of other components of the food chain. This paper takes a broader view and
explores the multiple effects that global warming and climate change could have on food
systems and food security. It also suggests strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate
change in several key policy domains of importance for food security.
Defining terms and conceptualizing relationships

Food security is the outcome of food system processes all along the food chain. Climate
change will affect food security through its impacts on all components of global, national and
local food systems.
Climate change is real, and its first impacts are already being felt. It will first affect the
people and food systems that are already vulnerable, but over time the geographic distribution
of risk and vulnerability is likely to shift. Certain livelihood groups need immediate support,
but everbody is at risk.
Managing risk
Risk exists when there is uncertainty about the future outcomes of ongoing processes or about
the occurrence of future events. Adaptation is about reducing and responding to the risks
climate change poses to people’s lives and livelihoods.
Reducing uncertainty by improving the information base, and devising innovative schemes
for insuring against climate change hazards will both be important for successful adaptation.
Adaptive management can be a particularly valuable tool for devising strategies that respond
to the unique risks to which different ecosystems and livelihood groups are exposed.
Strengthening resilience
Strengthening resilience involves adopting practices that enable vulnerable people to protect
existing livelihood systems, diversify their sources of income, change their livelihood
strategies or migrate, if this is the best option.
Changing consumption patterns and food preparation practices may be sufficient to protect
food security in many circumstances. Both market forces and voluntary choices influence
individual decisions about what food to eat and how to maintain good health under a changing
climate.
Safeguarding food security in the face of climate change also implies avoiding the
disruptions or declines in global and local food supplies that could result from changes in
temperature and precipitation regimes and new patterns of pests and diseases.
Raised productivity from improved agricultural water management will be crucial to
ensuring global food supply and global food security. Sustainable livestock management
practices for adaptation and associated mitigation should also be given high priority.
Conservation agriculture can make a significant difference to efficiency of water use, soil
quality, capacity to withstand extreme events, and carbon sequestration. Promoting
agrobiodiversity is particularly important for local adaptation and resilience.
Meeting the growing demand for energy is a prerequisite for continued growth and
development. Bioenergy is likely to play an increasingly important role, but its use should not
undermine food security.
Mitigating climate change

Mitigating climate change means reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering or
storing carbon in the short term, and of even greater importance making development
xi
choices that will reduce risk by curbing emissions over the long term. Although the entire
food system is a source of greenhouse gas emissions, primary production is by far the most
important component. Incentives are needed to persuade crop and livestock producers, agro-
industries and ecosystem managers to adopt good practices for mitigating climate change.
The way forward

In the food and agriculture sector, adaptation and mitigation often go hand in hand, so
adopting an integrated strategic approach represents the best way forward.
Several funds within the United Nations system finance specific activities aimed at
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing resilience to the negative impacts of
climate change. Because many mitigation actions that would have high payoffs also represent
good options for adaptation within the food and agriculture sectors of low-income developing
countries, it may be possible to obtain additional resources from bilateral and multilateral aid
agencies, which are becoming increasingly interested in investing development resources in
adaptive responses to climate change.
The ultimate goal of FAO’s climate change work is to inform and promote local dialogue
about what the impacts of climate change are likely to be and what options exist for reducing
vulnerability, and to provide local communities with site-specific solutions.
xii
ACRONYMS
CBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
CCFS climate change and food security
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CER certified emissions reduction
CIESIN Center for International Earth Science Information Network
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
CO2 carbon dioxide
COP Conference of the Parties
DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo
ECV essential climate variable
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (United States)
ESAC Comparative Agricultural Development Service (FAO)
ESSP Earth System Science Partnership
ETFRN European Tropical Forestry Research Network
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FIVIMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System
FSIEWS Food Security Information and Early Warning System
GCOS Global Climate Observing System
GECAFS Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (project)
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHG greenhouse gas
GIPB Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building
ICSU International Council for Science
IDWG Interdepartmental Working Group
IEA International Energy Agency
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IFRC-RCS International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IGBP International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
IHDP International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental
Change
ILO International Labour Organization
INI International Nitrogen Initiative
IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IWMI International Water Management Institute
LDC least-developed country
LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund (UNFCCC)
MDG Millennium Development Goal
NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action (UNFCCC)
NFP National Forest Programme
NGO non-governmental organization
NPFS National Programme for Food Security
NRC Environment, Climate Change and Bioenergy Division (FAO)
NRCB Climate Change and Bioenergy Unit (FAO)
NRCE Environmental Assessment and Management Unit (FAO)
NWP Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to
Climate Change
RICMS Rice Integrated Crop Management Systems
RPFS Regional Programme for Food Security
SARD sustainable agriculture and rural development
xiii
SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (UNFCCC)

SCCF Special Climate Change Fund (UNFCCC)
SEI Stockholm Environment Institute
UN United Nations
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNDPI United Nations Department of Public Information
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests
UK DEFRA United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
WCRP World Climate Research Programme
WFS World Food Summit
WHO World Health Organization
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WRI World Resources Institute
xiv
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Mean global temperatures have been increasing since about 1850, mainly owing to the
accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The main causes are the burning of
fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) to meet increasing energy demand, and the spread of intensive
agriculture to meet increasing food demand, which is often accompanied by deforestation.
The process of global warming shows no signs of abating and is expected to bring about long-
term changes in weather conditions.
These changes will have serious impacts on the four dimensions of food security: food
availability, food accessibility, food utilization and food system stability. Effects are already
being felt in global food markets, and are likely to be particularly significant in specific rural
locations where crops fail and yields decline. Impacts will be felt in both rural and urban
locations where supply chains are disrupted, market prices increase, assets and livelihood
opportunities are lost, purchasing power falls, human health is endangered, and affected
people are unable to cope.
Until about 200 years ago, climate was a critical determinant for food security. Since the
advent of the industrial revolution, however, humanity’s ability to control the forces of nature
and manage its own environment has grown enormously. As long as the economic returns
justify the costs, people can now create artificial microclimates, breed plants and animals with
desired characteristics, enhance soil quality, and control the flow of water.
Advances in storage, preservation and transport technologies have made food processing
and packaging a new area of economic activity. This has allowed food distributors and
retailers to develop long-distance marketing chains that move produce and packaged foods
throughout the world at high speed and relatively low cost. Where supermarkets with a large
variety of standard-quality produce, available year-round, compete with small shops selling
high-quality but only seasonally available local produce, the supermarkets generally win out.1
The consumer demand that has driven the commercialization and integration of the global
food chain derives from the mass conversion of farmers into wage-earning workers and
middle-level managers, which is another consequence of the industrial revolution. Today,
food insecurity persists primarily in those parts of the world where industrial agriculture,
long-distance marketing chains and diversified non-agricultural livelihood opportunities are
not economically significant.
At the global level, therefore, food system performance today depends more on climate
than it did 200 years ago; the possible impacts of climate change on food security have tended
to be viewed with most concern in locations where rainfed agriculture is still the primary
source of food and income.
However, this viewpoint is short-sighted. It does not take account of the other potentially
significant impacts that climate change could have on the global food system, and particularly
on market prices. These impacts include those on the water and energy used in food
processing, cold storage, transport and intensive production, and those on food itself,
reflecting higher market values for land and water and, possibly, payments to farmers for
environmental services.
Rising sea levels and increasing incidence of extreme events pose new risks for the assets
of people living in affected zones, threatening livelihoods and increasing vulnerability to
future food insecurity in all parts of the globe. Such changes could result in a geographic
redistribution of vulnerability and a relocalization of responsibility for food security –
prospects that need to be considered in the formulation of adaptation strategies for people who
are currently vulnerable or could become so within the foreseeable future.
1
For two recent discussions of the modernization processes that have transformed food systems in the past half
century, see FAO, 2004b: 1819; and Ericksen, 2006.
1
The potential impacts of climate change on food security must therefore be viewed within
the larger framework of changing earth system dynamics and observable changes in multiple
socio-economic and environmental variables. This paper seeks to illuminate the potential
impacts, both the fairly certain and the highly uncertain, at least at the local level.
Chapter 1 defines key terms and conceptual relationships and discusses possible impacts
of climate change on food system performance and food security outcomes. Chapters 2 and 3
provide detail about adaptation and mitigation options for the food and agriculture sector, and
Chapter 4 describes the institutional setting for acting to mitigate and adapt to climate change,
and draws conclusions for follow-up action by FAO and the international community.
2
1. DEFINING TERMS AND

CONCEPTUALIZING
RELATIONSHIPS
FOOD SYSTEMS AND FOOD SECURITY
Food security
In May 2007, at the 33rd Session of the Committee on World Food Security, FAO issued a
statement to reaffirm its vision of a food-secure world:
“FAO’s vision of a world without hunger is one in which most people are able, by themselves, to obtain
the food they need for an active and healthy life, and where social safety nets ensure that those who
lack resources still get enough to eat.” (FAO, 2007f)
This vision has its roots in the definition of food security adopted at the World Food
Summit (WFS) in November 1996: “Food security exists when all people at all times have
physical or economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs
and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 1996).
In the year and a half following WFS, the Inter-Agency Working Group that established
the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System (FIVIMS) elaborated
a conceptual framework that gave operational meaning to this definition (Figure 1). FAO
reaffirmed this view in its first published assessment of the implications of climate change for
food security, contained in its 2015 to 2030 projections for world agriculture.
FAO stressed that “food security depends more on socio-economic conditions than on
agroclimatic ones, and on access to food rather than the production or physical availability of
food”. It stated that, to evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on food security, “it is not
enough to assess the impacts on domestic production in food-insecure countries. One also needs to
(i) assess climate change impacts on foreign exchange earnings; (ii) determine the ability of food-
surplus countries to increase their commercial exports or food aid; and (iii) analyse how the
incomes of the poor will be affected by climate change” (FAO, 2003b: 365366).
Food system
Definitions of food security identify the outcomes of food security and are useful for
formulating policies and deciding on actions, but the processes that lead to desired outcomes
also matter. Most current definitions of food security therefore include references to processes
as well as outcomes. Recent work describing the functioning of food systems has helped to
show both desired food security goals and what needs to happen to bring these about.
Between 1999 and 2003, a series of expert consultations, convened by the Global
Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS) project with FAO’s participation,
developed a version of the FIVIMS framework that further clarifies how a variety of
processes along a food chain need to occur in order to bring about food security. Taken
together, these processes constitute the food system, and the performance of the food system
determines whether or not food security is achieved. GECAFS gives the following definition
and graphical representation (Figure 2):
3
“Food systems encompass (i) activities related to the production, processing, distribution, preparation
and consumption of food; and (ii) the outcomes of these activities contributing to food security (food
availability, with elements related to production, distribution and exchange; food access, with elements
related to affordability, allocation and preference; and food use, with elements related to nutritional
value, social value and food safety). The outcomes also contribute to environmental and other
securities (e.g. income). Interactions between and within biogeophysical and human environments
influence both the activities and the outcomes.” (GECAFS Online)
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of possible causes of low food consumption and poor
nutritional status
CARE PRACTICES
SOCIO-ECONOMIC Child care

AND POLITICAL Feeding practices
ENVIRONMENT
Nutrition education
National level
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FOOD AVAILABILITY Food preparation
Population
AND POLITICAL (trends and levels) Eating habits
Education Intra-household food
ENVIRONMENT
Macroeconomy distribution
Production
Policy environment
National level Imports (net)
Natural resource
Population Utilization (food, non-food)
endowment
Education Stocks FOOD
Macroeconomy
Agricultural sector
CONSUMPTION
Policy
Marketenvironment
conditions
Natural resource
Subnational level
STABILITY OF FOOD Energy intake
endowment
Household
SUPPLIES AND ACCESS Nutrient intake
Agriculture
characteristicssector
Market conditions (variability)
Livelihood systems NUTRITIONAL
Social institutions Food production STATUS
Subnational level
Cultural attitudes Incomes FOOD
Household
characteristics Markets UTILIZATION
Livelihood systems Social entitlements BY THE BODY
Social institutions
Cultural attitudes Health status
ACCESS TO FOOD
(trends and levels)
Purchasing power HEALTH AND SANITATION

Market integration
Access to markets Health care practices
Hygiene
Water quality
Sanitation
Food safety and quality
Source: FAO, 2000c.
Another study expresses the complexity of food systems and their link to food security as
follows: “Dynamic interactions between and within the biogeophysical and human
environments lead to the production, processing, preparation and consumption of food,
resulting in food systems that underpin food security” (Gregory, Ingram and Brklacich, 2005).
4
Deﬁning terms and conceptualizing relationships
Figure 2. Food system activities and food security outcomes
Food system ACTIVITIES

Producing food: natural resources, inputs, technology...
Processing and packaging food: raw materials, standards, storage life...
Distributing and retailing food: transport, marketing, advertising...
Consuming food: acquisition, preparation, socializing...
Food system OUTCOMES contributing to:

Social welfare Food security Environmental
Income security/
FOOD FOOD
Employment UTILIZATION
natural capital
ACCESS
Wealth Ecosystems
Nutritional value Affordability
Social and stocks, flows
Social value Allocation
political capital Ecosystem
Food safety Preference
Human capital services
FOOD Access to
AVAILABILITY natural capital
Production
Distribution
Exchange
Source: GECAFS Online.

Food chain
The sum of all the processes in a food system is sometimes referred to as a food chain, and
often given catchy slogans such as “from plough to plate” or “from farm to fork”. The main
conceptual difference between a food system and a food chain is that the system is holistic,
comprising a set of simultaneously interacting processes, whereas the chain is linear,
containing a sequence of activities that need to occur for people to obtain food.
The concept of the food system is useful for scientists investigating cause and effect
relationships and feedback loops, and is important for the technical analyses that underpin
policy recommendations. However, when communicating the findings of such investigations
it is often easier to use the concept of the food chain.
The section on Food security and climate change: a conceptual framework (p. 10) presents
a simplified description of the dynamics of potential climate change impacts and feedback
loops in a holistic food system. The implications are discussed linearly, however, by looking
at projected changes for each of five of the most important climate variables for food systems,
and at the potential impacts of each of these changes on each food system process.
A food system comprises multiple food chains operating at the global, national and local levels.
Some of these chains are very short and not very complex, while others circle the globe in an
intricate web of interconnecting processes and links. One simple chain, which is important for food
security in many households practising rainfed agriculture, begins with a staple cereal crop produced
in a farmer’s field, moves with the harvested grain through a local mill and back to the farmer’s
home as bags of flour, and finishes in the cooking pot and on the household members’ plates.
This same household probably also participates in a more complex food chain to obtain
salt, which is locally available in only a few places, but is used worldwide as a preservative
and seasoning. Part of the meagre cash income of even the poorest farming households is
often set aside to purchase salt from passing traders or local stalls.
A household’s food system comprises all the food chains it participates in to meet its
consumption requirements and dietary preferences, and all the interactions and feedback loops
that connect the different parts of these chains. The example of a simple two-commodity food
system (grain and salt) shows that it is very unlikely that a household can achieve food
security without some cash expenditure. All households need sources of livelihood that give
them sufficient purchasing power to buy the food that they need but cannot or do not produce
for their own consumption.
Climate is a particularly important driver of food system performance at the farm end of
the food chain, affecting the quantities and types of food produced and the adequacy of
5
production-related income. Extreme weather events can damage or destroy transport and
distribution infrastructure and affect other non-agricultural parts of the food system adversely.
However, the impacts of climate change are likely to trigger adaptive responses that influence the
environmental and socio-economic drivers of food system performance in positive as well as
negative ways. This paper is concerned with the projected balance of these various impacts on food
system performance and food security outcomes at the local and global levels.
CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE2

Climate and its measurement
Climate refers to the characteristic conditions of the earth’s lower surface atmosphere at a
specific location; weather refers to the day-to-day fluctuations in these conditions at the same
location. The variables that are commonly used by meteorologists to measure daily weather
phenomena are air temperature, precipitation (e.g., rain, sleet, snow and hail), atmospheric
pressure and humidity, wind, and sunshine and cloud cover.
When these weather phenomena are measured systematically at a specific location over
several years, a record of observations is accumulated from which averages, ranges,
maximums and minimums for each variable can be computed, along with the frequency and
duration of more extreme events.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for
consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest being from 1961 to 1990. Such a period is long
enough to eliminate year-to-year variations. The averages are used in the study of climate change,
and as a base with which current conditions can be compared (UK Met Office Online).
Climate can be described at different scales. Global climate is the average temperature of
the earth’s surface and the atmosphere in contact with it, and is measured by analysing
thousands of temperature records collected from stations all over the world, both on land and
at sea. Most current projections of climate change refer to global climate, but climate can also
be described at other scales, based on records for weather variables collected from stations in
the zones concerned. Zonal climates include the following:
x Latitudinal climates are temperature regimes determined by the location north or

south of the equator. They include polar climate, temperate climate, sub-tropical
climate and tropical climate.
x Regional climates are patterns of weather that affect a significant geographical area
and that can be identified by special features that distinguish them from other climate
patterns. The main factors determining regional climate are: (i) differences in
temperature caused by distance from the equator and seasonal changes in the angle of
the sun’s rays as the earth rotates; (ii) planetary distribution of land and sea masses;
and (iii) the worldwide system of winds, called the general circulation, which arises
as a result of temperature difference between the equator and the poles. Examples of
regional climates are maritime climate, continental climate, monsoon climate,
Mediterranean climate, Sahelian climate and desert climate.
x Local climates have influence over very small geographical areas, of only a few
kilometres or tens of kilometres across. They include land and sea breezes, the
orographic lifting of air masses and formation of clouds on the windward side of
mountains, and the heat island effects of cities. Under certain conditions, local
climatic effects may predominate over the more general pattern of regional or
latitudinal climate. If the area involved is very small, such as in a flower bed or a
shady grove, it may be referred to as a microclimate. Microclimates can also be
2
Unless otherwise noted, definitions and explanations contained in this section are drawn from UK DEFRA, 2005.
Annex I gives standard, internationally agreed terminology from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
6
created artificially, as in hothouses, museum displays or storage environments where

temperature and humidity are controlled.
Climate system
The climate system is highly complex. Under the influence of the sun’s radiation, it
determines the earth’s climate (WMO, 1992) and consists of:
x the atmosphere: gaseous matter above the earth’s surface;

x the hydrosphere: liquid water on or below the earth’s surface;
x the cryosphere: snow and ice on or below the earth’s surface;
x the lithosphere: earth’s land surface (e.g., rock, soil and sediment);
x the biosphere: earth’s plants and animal life, including humans.
Although climate per se relates only to the varying states of the earth’s atmosphere, the
other parts of the climate system also have significant roles in forming climate, through their
interactions with the atmosphere (Figure 3).
The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) has developed a list of variables essential
for monitoring changes in the climate system. The list includes atmospheric, oceanic and
terrestrial phenomena, and covers all the spheres of the climate system (Annex I).
Figure 3. The formation of climate
Sun’s radiation
interacting with
The climate system

Biosphere Lithosphere Atmosphere Hydrosphere Cryosphere
(all living organisms, (soil, rock, sediment) (air, water vapour, other (liquid water) (snow, ice permafrost)
including humans) gaseous matter)
produces
Atmospheric conditions
(surface air temperature, precipitation, humidity/atmospheric pressure, cloud cover/ hours of sunshine, wind velocity and direction)
Weather Climate
(daily atmospheric conditions in a specific location) (average atmospheric conditions – means and variability – over 3 decades
in a specific location)
at different scales
Global climate Latitudinal climates Regional climates Local and microclimates
Source: FAO/NRCB.
GCOS was established by WMO, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

(IOC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Council for
Science (ICSU) in 1992 to ensure that the observations and information needed to address
climate-related issues are obtained and made available to all potential users.
GCOS and its partners provide vital and continuous support to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the World Climate Research
7
Programme (WCRP) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The
reporting system on essential climate variables provides information to (GCOS Online a):
x characterize the state of the global climate system and its variability;
x monitor the forcing of the climate system, by both natural and anthropogenic causes;
x support attributions of climate change causes;
x support predictions of global climate change;
x enable projection of global climate change information to the regional and local
scales;
x enable characterization of extreme events that are important in impact assessment and
adaptation, and to the assessment of risk and vulnerability.
Climate variability and climate change

There is no internationally agreed definition of the term “climate change” (see Annex II for
internationally agreed terminology on climate and climate change). Climate change can refer
to: (i) long-term changes in average weather conditions (WMO usage); (ii) all changes in the
climate system, including the drivers of change, the changes themselves and their effects
(GCOS usage); or (iii) only human-induced changes in the climate system (UNFCCC usage).
There is also no agreement on how to define the term “climate variability”. Climate has
been in a constant state of change throughout the earth’s 4.5 billion-year history, but most of
these changes occur on astronomical or geological time scales, and are too slow to be
observed on a human scale. Natural climate variation on these scales is sometimes referred to
as “climate variability”, as distinct from human-induced climate change. UNFCCC has
adopted this usage (e.g., UNFCCC, 1992). For meteorologists and climatologists, however,
climate variability refers only to the year-to-year variations of atmospheric conditions around
a mean state (WMO, 1992).
To assess climate change and food security, FAO prefers to use a comprehensive
definition of climate change that encompasses changes in long-term averages for all the
essential climate variables. For many of these variables, however, the observational record is
too short to clarify whether recent changes represent true shifts in long-term means (climate
change), or are simply anomalies around a stable mean (climate variability).
Effects of global warming on the climate system

Global warming is the immediate consequence of increased greenhouse gas emissions with no
offsetting increases in carbon storage on earth. This paper is concerned mainly with the
projected effects of the current episode of human-induced global warming on the climate
system, now and for the next several decades, as these are the effects that will both cause
additional stresses and create new opportunities for food systems, with consequent
implications for food security.
The linear depiction shown in Figure 4 is a rough approximation of how the interactive
dynamics of global warming, climate system response and changes in weather patterns may
work in different parts of the globe.
Acclimatization, adaptation and mitigation

Acclimatization is essentially adaptation that occurs spontaneously through self-directed
efforts. Adaptation to climate change involves deliberate adjustments in natural or human
systems and behaviours to reduce the risks to people’s lives and livelihoods. Mitigation of
climate change involves actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester or store
carbon in the short term, and development choices that will lead to low emissions in the long
term.
Acclimatization is a powerful and effective adaptation strategy. In simple terms, it means
getting used to climate change and learning to live comfortably with it. All living organisms,
including humans, adapt and develop in response to changes in climate and habitat. Some
8
adaptations may be biological – for example, human physiology may become more heat-
tolerant as global temperatures rise – but many are likely to involve changes in perceptions
and mental attitudes that reinforce new, more adapted responses to extreme events.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD SECURITY

Agriculture, climate and food security
Agriculture is important for food security in two ways: it produces the food people eat; and
(perhaps even more important) it provides the primary source of livelihood for 36 percent of
the world’s total workforce. In the heavily populated countries of Asia and the Pacific, this
share ranges from 40 to 50 percent, and in sub-Saharan Africa, two-thirds of the working
population still make their living from agriculture (ILO, 2007). If agricultural production in
the low-income developing countries of Asia and Africa is adversely affected by climate
change, the livelihoods of large numbers of the rural poor will be put at risk and their
vulnerability to food insecurity increased.
9
Figure 4. Global warming and changes in the climate system
Changes in cryosphere
x Glacier melt
x Permafrost melt
Changes in average weather conditions Changes in biosphere
x Loss of sea ice x More luxuriant plant
x Higher rates of evaporation and
evapotranspiration growth
x Changes in degree of humidity and x Species shifts uphill and
towards polar regions,
atmospheric pressure
resulting in changed
x Changes in cloud cover species composition of
x Higher global mean precipitation natural habitats
(more rainfall and snowfall x Changes in suitability of
worldwide) land for arable crops, tree
Atmosphere x Changes in frequency, duration crops, pasture crops,
x Higher global mean and intensity and geographic distribution grazing and human
Global warming maximum surface air of rainfall and snowfall habitation
x Increasing accumulation of temperatures x Changes in start/end of
x Increased frequency, duration and
greenhouse gases traps growing season
intensity of droughts x Displacement of agro-
more heat in the Hydrosphere x Changes in wind patterns
atmosphere ecological zones
x Higher global mean and x Greater seasonal weather variability
maximum sea surface x Changes in frequency, duration and
temperatures intensity of extreme weather events Changes in Lithosphere
o heat waves x More soil erosion
. o tropical storms and tornadoes x Changes in pattern of
o storm surges and floods sedimentation after
Changes in hydrosphere x Displacement of climatic zones flooding
x Changes in ocean circulation x Changes in shorelines of
x Changes in patterns of water flow in glacier- coasts and lakes
fed streams
x Changes in recharge rates for underground
aquifers
x Changes in sea salinity
x Saltwater intrusions
Source: FAO/NRCB
x Sea-level rise
x Shallower lakes
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries are all sensitive to climate. Their production processes
are therefore likely to be affected by climate change. In general, impacts are expected to be
positive in temperate regions and negative in tropical ones, but there is still uncertainly about
how projected changes will play out at the local level, and potential impacts may be altered by
the adoption of risk management measures and adaptation strategies that strengthen
preparedness and resilience.
The food security implications of changes in agricultural production patterns and
performance are of two kinds:
x Impacts on the production of food will affect food supply at the global and local
levels. Globally, higher yields in temperate regions could offset lower yields in
tropical regions. However, in many low-income countries with limited financial
capacity to trade and high dependence on their own production to cover food
requirements, it may not be possible to offset declines in local supply without
increasing reliance on food aid.
x Impacts on all forms of agricultural production will affect livelihoods and access to
food. Producer groups that are less able to deal with climate change, such as the rural
poor in developing countries, risk having their safety and welfare compromised.
Other food system processes, such as food processing, distribution, acquisition,

preparation and consumption, are as important for food security as food and agricultural
production are. Technological advances and the development of long-distance marketing
chains that move produce and packaged foods throughout the world at high speed and
relatively low cost have made overall food system performance far less dependent on climate
than it was 200 years ago.
However, as the frequency and intensity of severe weather increase, there is a growing risk
of storm damage to transport and distribution infrastructure, with consequent disruption of
food supply chains. The rising cost of energy and the need to reduce fossil fuel usage along
the food chain have led to a new calculus – “food miles”, which should be kept as low as
possible to reduce emissions. These factors could result in more local responsibility for food
security, which needs to be considered in the formulation of adaptation strategies for people
who are currently vulnerable or who could become so within the foreseeable future.
Food security and climate change: a conceptual framework

Food systems exist in the biosphere, along with all other manifestations of human activity. As
shown in Figure 4, some of the significant changes in the biosphere that are expected to result
from global warming will occur in the more distant future, as a consequence of changes in
average weather conditions. In Figure 4, the most likely scenarios of climate change indicate
that increases in weather variability and the incidence of extreme weather events will be
particularly significant now and in the immediate future.
The projected increases in mean temperatures and precipitation will not manifest through
constant gradual changes, but will instead be experienced as increased frequency, duration
and intensity of hot spells and precipitation events. Whereas the annual occurrence of hot
days, and maximum temperatures are expected to increase in all parts of the globe, the mean
global increase in precipitation is not expected to be uniformly distributed around the world.
In general, it is projected that wet regions will become wetter and dry regions dryer.
For this analysis, a conceptual framework on climate change and food security interactions
was developed to highlight the variables defining the food and climate systems. The climate
change and food security (CCFS) framework (Figure 5 and Table 1) shows how climate
change affects food security outcomes for the four components of food security – food
availability, food accessibility, food utilization and food system stability – in various direct
and indirect ways.
Climate change variables influence biophysical factors, such as plant and animal growth,
water cycles, biodiversity and nutrient cycling, and the ways in which these are managed
11
through agricultural practices and land use for food production. However, climate variables
also have an impact on physical/human capital – such as roads, storage and marketing
infrastructure, houses, productive assets, electricity grids, and human health – which
indirectly changes the economic and socio-political factors that govern food access and
utilization and can threaten the stability of food systems.
All of these impacts manifest themselves in the ways in which food system activities are
carried out. The framework illustrates how adaptive adjustments to food system activities will
be needed all along the food chain to cope with the impacts of climate change.
The climate change variables considered in the CCFS framework are:
x the CO2 fertilization effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the

atmosphere;
x increasing mean, maximum and minimum temperatures;
x gradual changes in precipitation:
increase in the frequency, duration and intensity of dry spells and droughts;
changes in the timing, duration, intensity and geographic location of rain and
snowfall;
x increase in the frequency and intensity of storms and floods;
x greater seasonal weather variability and changes in start/end of growing seasons.
This paper does not discuss in detail the wider set of factors/driving forces that govern
food system activities and food security, such as demographic developments, changes in
economic systems and trade flows, science and technology developments or shifts in cultural
practices; a wide range of literature is available on each of these. Instead, the paper focuses on
disentangling the pathways of climate change impacts on food system activities and food
security outcomes.
Evidence indicates that more frequent and more intense extreme weather events (droughts,
heat and cold waves, heavy storms, floods), rising sea levels and increasing irregularities in
seasonal rainfall patterns (including flooding) are already having immediate impacts on not
only food production, but also food distribution infrastructure, incidence of food emergencies,
livelihood assets and human health in both rural and urban areas.
In addition, less immediate impacts are expected to result from gradual changes in mean
temperatures and rainfall. These will affect the suitability of land for different types of crops
and pasture; the health and productivity of forests; the distribution, productivity and
community composition of marine resources; the incidence and vectors of different types of
pests and diseases; the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning of natural habitats; and the
availability of good-quality water for crop, livestock and inland fish production. Arable land
is likely to be lost owing to increased aridity (and associated salinity), groundwater depletion
and sea-level rise. Food systems will be affected by internal and international migration,
resource-based conflicts and civil unrest triggered by climate change.
Vulnerability to climate change

Uncertainty and risk: Risk exists when there is uncertainty about the future outcomes of
ongoing processes or about the occurrence of future events. The more certain an outcome is,
the less risk there is, because certainty allows informed choices and preparation to deal with
the impacts of hazardous processes or events.
Global climate change projections have a solid scientific basis, and there is growing
certainty that extreme weather events are going to increase in frequency and intensity. This
makes it highly likely that asset losses attributable to weather-related disasters will increase.
Whether these losses involve productive assets, personal possessions or even loss of life, the
livelihoods and food security status of millions of people in disaster-prone areas will be
adversely affected.
12
Figure 5. Climate change and food security
Adaptive Responses of Food
Systems
Climate Change
CO2 FERTILIZATION
EFFECTS
Increase in availability
of atmospheric carbon
dioxide for plant
growth
INCREASE IN GLOBAL MEAN
TEMPERATURES
Drivers of Global Change in Food Change in Food Change in
x Increase in maximum
Warming temperature on hot
System Assets System Components of
days Activities Food Security
x Demographic x Food production
x increase in minimum
x Economic assets x Food availability
temperature on cold
x Socio-political x Storage, x Food accessibility
days x Producing food
x Technological transport and x Food utilization
x Increase in annual x Storing and
x Cultural and marketing x Food system
occurrence of hot days processing of
religious infrastructure stability
x Increase in frequency, food
duration and intensity x Agriculturally- x Distributing food
of heat waves based livelihood x Consuming food
GRADUAL CHANGES IN assets
PRECIPITATION x Non-farm
x Increase in frequency, livelihood
Possible Changes in Possible Changes in
duration and intensity assets
x Food Food Consumption Human Health
of dry spells and
preparation Patterns
droughts
assets x Change in caloric
x Changes in timing,
x Shift away from sufficiency of diets
location and amounts
grainfed livestock x Change in nutritional
of rain and snowfall
products value of diets
INCREASE IN FREQUENCY
x Shift in proportion of x Increased incidence of
AND INTENSITY OF
locally produced foods water-borne diseases
EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS
in the diet in flood-prone areas
x Increase in annual
Possibility of Migration and x Increase in x Change in disease
occurrence of high
consumption of new vectors and habitats
winds, heavy rains, Conflict
food items for existing diseases
storm surges and flash
x Reduction in x Emergence of new
floods associated with
consumption of wild diseases
tropical storms and
tornados foods
GREATER WEATHER x Reduction in quantities
VARIABILITY and/or variety of food
x Greater instability in consumed
seasonal weather
patterns
x Change in start and
end of growing seasons
Change in Nutritional Status
SOURCE: FAO/NRCB.
Figure produced for this report.
Table 1
Potential impacts of climate change on food systems and food security, and possible adaptive responses
A. CO2 fertilization effects
Impact on food system Impact on food system Impact on food security Impact on other human Possible adaptive responses
assets activities outcomes well-being outcomes
Production assets: Producing food: Food availability (production, Livelihoods: Policies and regulations:
More luxuriant biomass distribution, exchange):
Increase in availability of Increased income from Avoidance of subsidies or
atmospheric carbon dioxide Higher yields of food and Increased food production in improved food and cash other monetary or non-
for plant growth cash crops, mainly in major exporting countries crop performance would monetary incentives for
temperate regions would contribute to global food benefit commercial farmers diversion of food production
supply but diversion of land in developed countries but assets to other uses
from food to more not in developing countries
economically attractive cash
crops could negate this benefit
Food accessibility (allocation,

affordability, preference):
Increases in food production
would limit price increases on
world markets, but diversion of
productive assets to other
cash crops could cause food
prices to rise
B. Increase in global mean temperatures
Production assets: Producing food: Food availability (production, Livelihoods: Policies and regulations
Trend changes in suitability of Immediate crop and livestock distribution, exchange): Trend changes in vectors Greater reliance on weather-
land for crop and livestock losses due to heat and water Reduced production of food and natural habitats of pests related insurance
production stress crops and livestock products in and diseases that affect Development of risk
Gradual loss of biodiversity Lower yields from dairy affected areas human health and management frameworks
animals Local losses could have productivity
Trend changes in vectors and Farming, forestry and fishery
natural habitats of plant and Reduced labour productivity temporary effect on local Social values and behaviours: practices
animal pests and diseases due to heat stress markets, Acceptance of a greater Trend changes in cropping
Storage, transport and Trend impacts uncertain, Reduction in global supplies degree of risk and patterns
marketing infrastructure: conditional on location, likely to cause market prices to uncertainty as a natural
rise Development and
availability of water and condition of life
Strain on electricity grids, air dissemination of more heat-
conditioning and cold storage adoption of new cropping Food accessibility (allocation, National and global tolerant varieties and species
capacity patterns by farmers affordability, preference): economies:
Food processing, distribution
Storing and processing of food: Impacts on incomes, prices Reorientation of public and and marketing practices
and affordability uncertain private sector investments
Upgrade in cooling and Greater use of alternative
storage facilities required to Changes in preference towards mitigating and
fuels for generating electricity
maintain food quality at uncertain adapting to climate change
Food preparation practices
higher temperatures Food utilization (nutritional
value, social value, food safety): Greater use of alternative
Increasing energy fuels for home cooking
requirements for cooling Risk of dehydration
Consuming food: Risk of ill health from eating
Higher intake of liquids food that is spoiled
Lower intake of cooked food Ability of body to process food
reduced due to heat stress or
Perishable products have
diseases
shorter shelf life
Food system stability:
More need for refrigeration
Higher cost for storing grain
Heat stress may negatively
and perishable products
affect people’s ability to
access food (no energy to
shop or do productive work)
C.1. Gradual changes in precipitation
(increase in the frequency, duration and intensity of dry spells and droughts)
Production assets Producing food: Food availability (production, Livelihoods: Policies and regulations:
distribution, exchange):
Loss of perennial crops and Immediate crop and livestock Decline in expenditure for Greater reliance on weather-
vegetative cover for grazing losses due to water stress Declines in production other basic needs, e.g., related insurance
and fuel wood due to water clothing, shelter, health,
Trend declines in yields Wild foods less available Development of risk
stress and increasing fire education
management frameworks
hazard Change in irrigation Pressure on grain reserves
Trend changes in vectors
requirements Infrastructure investments
Loss of livestock due to water Decrease in food exports / and natural habitats of pests
stress and lack of feed Storing/processing of food: increase in food imports and diseases that affect New investment in irrigation
human health and for intensive agriculture
Loss of productive assets due Less need for chemicals to Increased need for food aid
productivity where water resources permit
to hardship sales preserve stored grain
Food accessibility (allocation, Farming, forestry and fishery
Social values and behaviours:
Loss of buildings, equipment Scarcity of water for food affordability, preference): practices
and vehicles and other processing Food scarcity strains ability
Local increase in food prices in
productive assets due to fire to meet reciprocal food- Trend changes in cropping
Distributing food: drought-affected areas
sharing obligations patterns
Changes in rates of soil
Easier movement of vehicles Loss of farm income and non-
moisture retention and aquifer National and global Development and
on dry land farm employment
recharge economies: dissemination of more
Consuming food: Preferred foods not available drought-tolerant varieties and
Trend changes in suitability of Strain on national budgets
or too costly species
land for crop and livestock May not be possible to and aid resources due to
production continue growing preferred Food utilization: increased need for food Use of moisture-retaining
foods safety nets land management practices
Gradual loss of biodiversity Risk of dehydration
May be necessary to Use of recycled wastewater
Trend changes in vectors and Ability of body to process food
purchase a larger proportion for irrigation
natural habitats of plant and reduced due to diseases
of foods consumed
animal pests and diseases Food processing practices:
Dietary adjustments with
Diet may become less varied different nutritional content
Food preparation assets Use of recycled wastewater
and / or less nutritious
Lack of water for cooking Food system stability: Use of dry processing and
Greater instability of food packaging methods
Lack of vegetation for fuel
supply, food prices and Food preparation practices
agriculturally-based incomes
Use of dry cooking methods
C.2. Gradual changes in precipitation
(changes in timing, location and amounts of rain and snowfall)
Production assets Producing food: Food availability (production, Livelihoods: Policies and regulations:
Changes in rates of soil Trend impacts on yields distribution, exchange): Changes in geographic More aggressive support for
moisture retention and aquifer uncertain, conditional on Some local losses virtually distribution of vulnerability efficient water management
recharge location, availability of water certain, but their likely Social values and behaviours: policies and water use
Increase in proportion of and adoption of new cropping geographic distribution is not regulations
Acceptance of a greater
global population exposed to patterns by farmers known Full-cost pricing for water
degree of risk and
water scarcities Consuming food: Likely impact on global uncertainty as a natural Infrastructure investments:
Changes in locations where Changes in consumption supplies, trade and world condition of life
market prices is not known
New investment in irrigation
investment in irrigation is patterns may occur, in National and global for expanding intensive
economically feasible response to changes in Food accessibility (allocation, economies: agriculture where available
Trend changes in suitability of relative prices affordability, preference): water resources permit
Reorientation of public and
land for crop and livestock Full-cost pricing for water may private sector investments Farming, forestry and fishery
production cause food prices to rise towards mitigating and practices
Trend changes in vectors and Food system stability: adapting to climate change Use of moisture-retaining
natural habitats of plant and Greater instability of food land management practices
animal pests and diseases supply, food prices and Use of recycled wastewater
agriculturally-based incomes is for irrigation
likely
Food processing practices:
Use of recycled wastewater
for plant hygiene
Food safety and preventive
healthcare practices:
Use of recycled wastewater
for home hygiene
D. Impacts of increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events
(increase in annual occurrence of high winds, heavy rains, storm surges, flash floods and rising water levels associated with tornados, tropical storms,
and prolonged heavy rains)
Impact on food system Impact on food system Impact on food security Impact on other human Possible adaptive options
Production assets: Producing food: Food availability (production, Livelihoods: Policies and regulations:
distribution, exchange):
Damage to standing crops Possibility of lower yields in Decline in expenditure for Development of weather-
flooded agricultural areas Possible decrease in surplus other basic needs, e.g., related insurance schemes
Animals stranded production in flooded clothing, shelter, health, for storms and floods
Increased soil erosion
Increase in water-borne agricultural areas education
reducing future yields Development of risk
livestock diseases Increased need for emergency Trend changes in vectors management frameworks
Processing food:
Damage to buildings and distribution of food rations and natural habitats of pests
Support for resettlement
equipment Pollution of water supply used Food accessibility (allocation, and diseases that affect
schemes in low-risk areas
in processing food affordability, preference): human health and
Loss of stored crops Infrastructure investments:
productivity
Distributing food: Possible increase in food prices
Storage, transport and New investment in flood
Changes in geographic
marketing infrastructure: Disruptions in food supply Possible loss of farm income distribution of vulnerability embankments
chains and increase in and non-farm employment,
Damage to roads, bridges, marketing and distribution Use of wind resistant
depending on extent of asset Social values and behaviours:
storage structures, costs technologies on new and
processing plants and loss Acceptance of a greater existing structures
electricity grids Consuming food: Food utilization (nutritional degree of risk and
value, social value, food safety): uncertainty as a natural Establishment of emergency
Non-farm livelihood assets: Reliance on emergency shelters on high ground
condition of life
rations Food safety is compromised
Damage to trade goods Farming, forestry and fishery
by water pollution and damage National and global
Possibility that preferred practices
Food preparation assets: to stored food economies:
foods will be less available in
Loss of household food emergency situations and Ability of body to process food Reorientation of public and Use of practices that create
supplies food variety will decrease reduced due to diseases private sector investments more dense root mass to hold
towards mitigating and soil in place
Increased health risks from
adapting to climate change Development and
water-borne diseases may
negatively affect people’s dissemination of more flood-
ability to access food (no tolerant varieties and species
energy to shop or do Food safety and preventive
productive work) healthcare practices
Provision for emergency
water supplies
E. Impacts of greater weather variability
Impact on food system Impact on food system Impact on food security Impact on other human Possible adaptive options
assets activities Outcomes well-being outcomes
Production assets: Producing food: Food availability: Livelihoods: Policies and regulations
Change in frequency and Increasing uncertainty Some local losses virtually Decline in expenditure for Greater reliance on weather-
extent of pests and diseases Changing yields certain, but their likely other basic needs, e.g., related insurance
geographic distribution is not clothing, shelter, health, Development of risk
Changing land use patterns
known education management frameworks
Viability of production
Likely impact on global Trend changes in vectors Farming, forestry and fishery
systems may be undermined
supplies, trade and world and natural habitats of pests practices
market prices is not known and diseases that affect
Trend changes in cropping
Food accessibility: human health and
patterns
productivity
Reduced yields may lead to Changes in water
loss of farm income, but this Changes in geographic management regimes
depends on market conditions distribution of vulnerability
Food system stability: Social values and behaviours:
Greater instability of food Acceptance of a greater
supply, food prices and degree of risk and
agriculturally-based incomes is uncertainty as a natural
likely condition of life
National and global
economies:
Reorientation of public and
private sector investments
towards mitigating and
adapting to climate change
Source: FAO/IDWG on Climate Change. Table produced for this report.

An average of 500 weather-related disasters are now taking place each year, compared
with 120 in the 1980s; the number of floods has increased sixfold over the same period
(Oxfam, 2007). Population increases, especially in coastal areas, where most of the world’s
population now lives, mean that more and more people will be affected by catastrophic
weather events.
The international aid community has developed an immediate response capacity that can
limit loss of life, but there is a growing risk that its ability to assist affected people in
replacing lost assets and recovering livelihoods following climate-related natural disasters
will be overwhelmed. Increasing weather-related losses are causing private sector insurers to
restrict the types of natural disasters or catastrophic events that can be insured, and it is not
clear whether public sector safety net programmes will be able to fill the subsequent gaps.
Although the areas that are vulnerable to extreme weather events are generally known,
there is still a lack of reliable information about how future changes in temperature and
precipitation regimes will affect specific locations. Further scientific work can reduce the
current knowledge gap, but these aspects of climate change are likely to remain uncertain for
the foreseeable future, making investments in agriculture and other weather-dependent
livelihoods inherently more risky.
The limited risk absorption capacity of poor people means that they are unlikely to be able
to cope with the added risk imposed by climate change. These people will be exposed to
greater variability in and uncertainties about food system performance, and their livelihood
sources will become more vulnerable.
Food system vulnerability: Overview: A food system is vulnerable when one or more of the
four components of food security – food availability, food accessibility, food utilization and
food system stability is uncertain and insecure.
Food availability is determined by the physical quantities of food that are produced,
stored, processed, distributed and exchanged. FAO calculates national food balance sheets
that include all these elements. Food availability is the net amount remaining after production,
stocks and imports have been summed and exports deducted for each item included in the
food balance sheet. Adequacy is assessed through comparison of availability with the
estimated consumption requirement for each food item.
This approach takes into account the importance of international trade and domestic
production in assuring that a country’s food supply is sufficient. The same approach can also
be used to determine the adequacy of a household’s food supply, with domestic markets
playing the balancing role.
High market prices for food are usually a reflection of inadequate availability; persistently
high prices force poor people to reduce consumption below the minimum required for a
healthy and active life, and may lead to food riots and social unrest. Growing scarcities of
water, land and fuel are likely to put increasing pressure on food prices, even without climate
change. Where these scarcities are compounded by the results of climate change, the
introduction of mitigation practices that create land-use competition and the attribution of
market value to environmental services to mitigate climate change, they have the potential to
cause significant changes in relative prices for different food items, and an overall increase in
the cost of an average food basket for the consumer, with accompanying increases in price
volatility.
Food accessibility is a measure of the ability to secure entitlements, which are defined as
the set of resources (including legal, political, economic and social) that an individual requires
to obtain access to food (A. Sen, 1989, cited in FAO, 2003a). Until the 1970s, food security
was linked mainly to national food production and global trade (Devereux and Maxwell,
2001), but since then the concept has expanded to include households’ and individuals’ access
to food.
The mere presence of an adequate supply does not ensure that a person can obtain and
consume food – that person must first have access to the food through his/her entitlements.
The enjoyment of entitlements that determine people’s access to food depends on allocation
mechanisms, affordability, and cultural and personal preferences for particular food products.
20
Increased risk exposure resulting from climate change will reduce people’s access to
entitlements and undermine their food security.
Food utilization refers to the use of food and how a person is able to secure essential
nutrients from the food consumed. It encompasses the nutritional value of the diet, including
its composition and methods of preparation; the social values of foods, which dictate what
kinds of food should be served and eaten at different times of the year and on different
occasions; and the quality and safety of the food supply, which can cause loss of nutrients in
the food and the spread of food-borne diseases if not of a sufficient standard. Climatic
conditions are likely to bring both negative and positive changes in dietary patterns and new
challenges for food safety, which may affect nutritional status in various ways.
Food system stability is determined by the temporal availability of, and access to, food. In
long-distance food chains, storage, processing, distribution and marketing processes contain
in-built mechanisms that have protected the global food system from instability in recent
times. However, if projected increases in weather variability materialize, they are likely to
lead to increases in the frequency and magnitude of food emergencies for which neither the
global food system nor affected local food systems are adequately prepared.
Potential impacts of climate change on food availability: Production of food and other
agricultural commodities may keep pace with aggregate demand, but there are likely to be
significant changes in local cropping patterns and farming practices. There has been a lot of
research on the impacts that climate change might have on agricultural production, particularly
cultivated crops. Some 50 percent of total crop production comes from forest and mountain
ecosystems, including all tree crops, while crops cultivated on open, arable flat land account for
only 13 percent of annual global crop production. Production from both rainfed and irrigated
agriculture in dryland ecosystems accounts for approximately 25 percent, and rice produced in
coastal ecosystems for about 12 percent (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
The evaluation of climate change impacts on agricultural production, food supply and
agriculture-based livelihoods must take into account the characteristics of the agro-ecosystem
where particular climate-induced changes in biochemical processes are occurring, in order to
determine the extent to which such changes will be positive, negative or neutral in their effects.
The so-called “greenhouse fertilization effect” will produce local beneficial effects where
higher levels of atmospheric CO2 stimulate plant growth. This is expected to occur primarily in
temperate zones, with yields expected to increase by 10 to 25 percent for crops with a lower rate
of photosynthetic efficiency (C3 crops), and by 0 to 10 percent for those with a higher rate of
photosynthetic efficiency (C4 crops), assuming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach 550 parts
per million (IPCC, 2007c); these effects are not likely to influence projections of world food
supply, however (Tubiello et al., 2007). Mature forests are also not expected to be affected,
although the growth of young tree stands will be enhanced (Norby et al., 2005).
The impacts of mean temperature increase will be experienced differently, depending on
location (Leff, Ramankutty and Foley, 2004). For example, moderate warming (increases of 1
to 3 ºC in mean temperature) is expected to benefit crop and pasture yields in temperate
regions, while in tropical and seasonally dry regions, it is likely to have negative impacts,
particularly for cereal crops. Warming of more than 3 ºC is expected to have negative affects
on production in all regions (IPCC, 2007c). The supply of meat and other livestock products
will be influenced by crop production trends, as feed crops account for roughly 25 percent of
the world’s cropland.
For climate variables such as rainfall, soil moisture, temperature and radiation, crops have
thresholds beyond which growth and yield are compromised (Porter and Semenov, 2005). For
example, cereals and fruit tree yields can be damaged by a few days of temperatures above or
below a certain threshold (Wheeler et al., 2000). In the European heat wave of 2003, when
temperatures were 6 ºC above long-term means, crop yields dropped significantly, such as by
36 percent for maize in Italy, and by 25 percent for fruit and 30 percent for forage in France
(IPCC, 2007c). Increased intensity and frequency of storms, altered hydrological cycles, and
precipitation variance also have long-term implications on the viability of current world agro-
ecosystems and future food availability.
21
Wild foods are particularly important to households that struggle to produce food or secure
an income. A change in the geographic distribution of wild foods resulting from changing
rainfall and temperatures could therefore have an impact on the availability of food. Changes
in climatic conditions have led to significant declines in the provision of wild foods by a
variety of ecosystems, and further impacts can be expected as the world climate continues to
change. For the 5 000 plant species examined in a sub-Saharan African study (Levin and
Pershing, 2005), it is predicted that 81 to 97 percent of the suitable habitats will decrease in
size or shift owing to climate change. By 2085, between 25 and 42 percent of the species’
habitats are expected to be lost altogether. The implications of these changes are expected to
be particularly great among communities that use the plants as food or medicine.
Constraints on water availability are a growing concern, which climate change will
exacerbate. Conflicts over water resources will have implications for both food production
and people’s access to food in conflict zones (Gleick, 1993). Prolonged and repeated droughts
can cause loss of productive assets, which undermines the sustainability of livelihood systems
based on rainfed agriculture. For example, drought and deforestation can increase fire danger,
with consequent loss of the vegetative cover needed for grazing and fuelwood (Laurence and
Williamson, 2001). In Africa, droughts can have severe impacts on livestock. Table 2
illustrates how droughts increased livestock mortality in selected African countries between
1980 and 1999.
Storage, processing and distribution: Food production varies spatially, so food needs to be
distributed between regions. The major agricultural production regions are characterized by
relatively stable climatic conditions, but many food-insecure regions have highly variable
climates. The main grain production regions have a largely continental climate, with dry or at
least cold weather conditions during harvest time, which allows the bulk handling of
harvested grain without special infrastructure for protection or immediate treatment.
TABLE 2
Impacts of droughts on livestock numbers in selected African countries, 1981 to
1999
Date Location Livestock losses Source
19811984 Botswana 20 percent of national FAO, 1984 cited in Toulmin,
herd 1986
19821984 Niger 62 percent of national Toulmin, 1986
cattle herd
19831984 Ethiopia (Borana 4590 percent of calves, Coppock, 1994

Plateau) 45 percent of cows, 22
percent of mature males
1991 Northern Kenya 28 percent of cattle; 18 Surtech, 1993 cited in
percent of sheep and Barton and Morton, 2001
goats
19911993 Ethiopia (Borana) 42 percent of cattle Desta and Coppock, 2002
1993 Namibia 22 percent of cattle; 41 Devereux and Tapscott,
percent of goats and 1995
sheep
19951997 Greater Horn of Africa 20 percent of cattle; 20 Ndikumana et al., 2000
(average of 9 pastoral percent of sheep and
areas) goats
19951997 Southern Ethiopia 46 percent of cattle; 41 Ndikumana et al., 2000
percent of sheep and
goats
19981999 Ethiopia (Borana) 62 percent of cattle Shibru, 2001 cited in Desta
and Coppock, 2002
Source: IPCC, 2007a.
22
Depending on the prevailing temperature regime, however, a change in climatic conditions

through increased temperatures or unstable, moist weather conditions could result in grain
being harvested with more than the 12 to 14 percent moisture required for stable storage.
Because of the amounts of grain and general lack of drying facilities in these regions, this
could create hazards for food safety, or even cause complete crop losses, resulting from
contamination with microorganisms and their metabolic products. It could lead to a rise in
food prices if stockists have to invest in new storage technologies to avoid the problem.
Distribution depends on the reliability of import capacity, the presence of food stocks and
– when necessary – access to food aid (Maxwell and Slater, 2003). These factors in turn often
depend on the ability to store food. Storage is affected by strategies at the national level and
by physical infrastructure at the local level. Transport infrastructure limits food distribution in
many developing countries. Where infrastructure is affected by climate, through either heat
stress on roads or increased frequency of flood events that destroy infrastructure, there are
impacts on food distribution, influencing people’s access to markets to sell or purchase food
(Abdulai and CroleRees, 2001).
Exchange of food takes place at all levels – individual, household, community, regional,
national and global. At the lowest levels, exchanges usually take the form of reciprocal
hospitality, gift-giving or barter, and serve as an important mechanism for coping with supply
fluctuations. If changing climatic conditions bring about trend declines in local production,
the capacity of affected households to engage in these traditional forms of exchange is likely
to decline.
Trade remains the main mechanism for exchange in today’s global economy. Although
most food trade takes place within national borders, global trade is the balancing mechanism
that keeps exchange flowing smoothly (Stevens, Devereux and Kennan, 2003). The relatively
low cost of ocean compared with overland transport makes it economically advantageous for
most countries to rely on international food trade to smooth out fluctuations in domestic food
supply. Where trade is heavily regulated, as in southern Africa, farmers’ behaviour illustrates
this principle. After a food crisis such as that in southern Africa in 2002, even if recovery
programmes lead to a bumper harvest of maize, in some countries the maize may not find its
way into national grain markets, as announced or anticipated producer prices and market
regulations could encourage farmers to channel their surplus outside formal markets (Mano,
Isaacson and Dardel, 2003: iv).
FAO projects that the impact of climate change on global crop production will be slight up
to 2030. After that year, however, widespread declines in the extent and potential productivity
of cropland could occur, with some of the severest impacts likely to be felt in the currently
food-insecure areas of sub-Saharan Africa, which have with the least ability to adapt to
climate change or to compensate through greater food imports (Fischer et al., 2001, cited in
FAO, 2003b: 358).
Although the projections suggest that normal carryover stocks, food aid and international
trade should be able to cope with the localized food shortages that are likely to result from
crop losses due to severe droughts or floods, this is now being questioned in view of the price
boom that the world has experienced since 2006. According to FAO, the global food price
index rose by 9 percent in 2006 and by 37 percent in 2007. The price boom has been
accompanied by much higher price volatility than in the past, especially in the cereals and
oilseeds sectors, reflecting reduced inventories, strong relationships between agricultural
commodity and other markets, and the prevalence of greater market uncertainty in general.
This has triggered a widespread concern about food price inflation, which is fuelling
debates about the future direction of agricultural commodity prices in importing and exporting
countries, be they rich or poor, and giving rise to fears that a world food crisis similar in
magnitude to those of the early 1970s and 1980s may be imminent, with little prospect for a
quick rebound as the effects of climate change take their toll.
Potential impacts of climate change on food access: Allocation: Food is allocated through
markets and non-market distribution mechanisms. Factors that determine whether people will
have access to sufficient food through markets are considered in the following section on
23
affordability. These factors include income-generating capacity, amount of remuneration

received for products and goods sold or labour and services rendered, and the ratio of the cost
of a minimum daily food basket to the average daily income.
Non-market mechanisms include production for own consumption, food preparation and
allocation practices within the household, and public or charitable food distribution schemes.
For rural people who produce a substantial part of their own food, climate change impacts on
food production may reduce availability to the point that allocation choices have to be made
within the household. A family might reduce the daily amount of food consumed equally
among all household members, or allocate food preferentially to certain members, often the
able-bodied male adults, who are assumed to need it the most to stay fit and continue working
to maintain the family.
Non-farming low-income rural and urban households whose incomes fall below the
poverty line because of climate change impacts will face similar choices. Urbanization is
increasing rapidly worldwide, and a growing proportion of the expanding urban population is
poor (Ruel et al., 1998). Allocation issues resulting from climate change are therefore likely
to become more and more significant in urban areas over time.
Where urban gardens are available, they provide horticultural produce for home use and
local sale, but urban land-use restrictions and the rising cost of water and land restrain their
potential for expansion. Urban agriculture has a limited ability to contribute to the welfare of
poor people in developing countries because the bulk of their staple food requirements still
need to be transported from rural areas (Ellis and Sumberg, 1998).
Political and social power relationships are key factors influencing allocation decisions in
times of scarcity. If agricultural production declines and households find alternative
livelihood activities, social processes and reciprocal relations in which locally produced food
is given to other family members in exchange for their support may change or disappear
altogether.
Public and charitable food distribution schemes reallocate food to the most needy, but are
subject to public perceptions about who needs help, and social values about what kind of help
it is incumbent on more wealthy segments of society to provide. If climate change creates
other more urgent claims on public resources, support for food distribution schemes may
decline, with consequent increases in the incidence of food insecurity, hunger and famine-
related deaths.
Affordability. In many countries, the ratio of the cost of a minimum daily food basket to
the average daily income is used as a measure of poverty (World Bank PovertyNet, 2008).
When this ratio falls below a certain threshold, it signifies that food is affordable and people
are not impoverished; when it exceeds the established threshold, food is not affordable and
people are having difficulty obtaining enough to eat. This criterion is an indicator of chronic
poverty, and can also be used to determine when people have fallen into temporary food
insecurity, owing to reduced food supply and increased prices, to a sudden fall in household
income or to both.
Income-generating capacity and the remuneration received for products and goods sold or
labour and services rendered are the primary determinants of average daily income. The
incomes of all farming households depend on what they obtain from selling some or all of
their crops and animals each year. Commercial farmers are usually protected by insurance,
but small-scale farmers in developing countries are not, and their incomes can decline sharply
if there is a market glut, or if their own crops fail and they have nothing to sell when prices
are high.
Most food is not produced by individual households but acquired through buying, trading
and borrowing (Du Toit and Ziervogel, 2004). Climate impacts on income-earning
opportunities can affect the ability to buy food, and a change in climate or climate extremes
may affect the availability of certain food products, which may influence their price. High
prices may make certain foods unaffordable and can have an impact on individuals’ nutrition
and health.
Changes in the demand for seasonal agricultural labour, caused by changes in production
practices in response to climate change, can affect income-generating capacity positively or
24
negatively. Mechanization may decrease the need for seasonal labour in many places, and
labour demands are often reduced when crops fail, mostly owing to such factors as drought,
flood, frost or pest outbreaks, which can be influenced by climate. On the other hand, some
adaptation options increase the demand for seasonal agricultural labour.
Local food prices in most parts of the world are strongly influenced by global market
conditions, but there may be short-term fluctuations linked to variation in national yields,
which are influenced by climate, among other factors. An increase in food prices has a real
income effect, with low-income households often suffering most, as they tend to devote larger
shares of their incomes to food than higher-income households do (Thomsen and Metz,
1998).
When they cannot afford food, households adjust by eating less of their preferred foods or
reducing total quantities consumed as food prices increase. Given the growing number of
people who depend on the market for their food supply, food prices are critical to consumers’
food security and must be watched.
Food often travels very long distances (Pretty et al., 2005), and this has implications for
costs. Increasing fuel costs could lead to more expensive food and increased food insecurity.
The growing market for biofuels is expected to have implications for food security, because
crops grown as feedstock for liquid biofuels can replace food crops, which then have to be
sourced elsewhere, at higher cost.
Preference: Food preferences determine the kinds of food households will attempt to
obtain. Changing climatic conditions may affect both the physical and the economic
availability of certain preferred food items, which might make it impossible to meet some
preferences. Changes in availability and relative prices for major food items may result in
people either changing their food basket, or spending a greater percentage of their income on
food when prices of preferred food items increase.
In southern Africa, for example, many households eat maize as the staple crop, but when
there is less rainfall, sorghum fares better, and people could consume more of it. Many people
prefer maize to sorghum, however, so continue to plant maize despite poor yields, and would
rather buy maize than eat sorghum, when necessary.
The extent to which food preferences change in response to changes in the relative prices
of grain-fed beef compared with other sources of animal protein will be an important
determinant of food security in the medium term. Increased prices for grain-fed beef are
foreseeable, because of the increasing competition for land for intensive feedgrain production,
the increasing scarcity of water and rising fuel costs (FAO, 2007c). If preferences shift to
other sources of animal protein, the livestock sector’s demands on resources that are likely to
be under stress as a consequence of climate change may be contained. If not, continued
growth in demand for grain-fed beef, from wealthier segments of the world’s population,
could trigger across-the-board increases in food prices, which would have serious adverse
impacts on food security for urban and rural poor.
Potential impacts of climate change on food utilization: Nutritional value: Food insecurity is
usually associated with malnutrition, because the diets of people who are unable to satisfy all
of their food needs usually contain a high proportion of staple foods and lack the variety
needed to satisfy nutritional requirements. Declines in the availability of wild foods, and
limits on small-scale horticultural production due to scarcity of water or labour resulting from
climate change could affect nutritional status adversely. In general, however, the main impact
of climate change on nutrition is likely to be felt indirectly, through its effects on income and
capacity to purchase a diversity of foods.
The physiological utilization of foods consumed also affects nutritional status, and this –
in turn – is affected by illness. Climate change will cause new patterns of pests and diseases to
emerge, affecting plants, animals and humans, and posing new risks for food security, food
safety and human health. Increased incidence of water-borne diseases in flood-prone areas,
changes in vectors for climate-responsive pests and diseases, and emergence of new diseases
could affect both the food chain and people’s physiological capacity to obtain necessary
nutrients from the foods consumed. Vector changes are a virtual certainty for pests and
25
diseases that flourish only at specific temperatures and under specific humidity and irrigation
management regimes. These will expose crops, livestock, fish and humans to new risks to
which they have not yet adapted. They will also place new pressures on care givers within the
home, who are often women, and will challenge health care institutions to respond to new
parameters.
Malaria in particular is expected to change its distribution as a result of climate change
(IPCC, 2007a). In coastal areas, more people may be exposed to vector- and water-borne
diseases through flooding linked to sea-level rise. Health risks can also be linked to changes
in diseases from either increased or decreased precipitation, lowering people’s capacity to
utilize food effectively and often resulting in the need for improved nutritional intake (IPCC,
2007a).
Where vector changes for pests and diseases can be predicted, varieties and breeds that are
resistant to the likely new arrivals can be introduced as an adaptive measure. A recent upsurge
in the appearance of new viruses may also be climate-related, although this link is not certain.
Viruses such as avian flu, ebola, HIV/AIDS and SARS have various implications for food
security, including risk to the livelihoods of small-scale poultry operations in the case of avian
flu, and the extra nutritional requirements of affected people in the case of HIV-AIDS.
The social and cultural values of foods consumed will also be affected by the availability
and affordability of food. The social values of foods are important determinants of food
preferences, with foods that are accorded high value being preferred, and those accorded low
value being avoided. In many traditional cultures, feasts involving the preparation of specific
foods mark important seasonal occasions, rites of passage and celebratory events.
The increased cost or absolute unavailability of these foods could force cultures to
abandon their traditional practices, with unforeseeable secondary impacts on the cohesiveness
and sustainability of the cultures themselves. In many cultures, the reciprocal giving of gifts
or sharing of food is common. It is often regarded as a social obligation to feed guests, even
when they have dropped in unexpectedly. In conditions of chronic food scarcity, households’
ability to honour these obligations is breaking down, and this trend is likely to be reinforced
in locations where the impacts of climate change contribute to increasing incidence of food
shortages.
Food safety may be compromised in various ways. Increasing temperature may cause food
quality to deteriorate, unless there is increased investment in cooling and refrigeration
equipment or more reliance on rapid processing of perishable foods to extend their shelf-life.
Decreased water availability has implications for food processing and preparation practices,
particularly in the subtropics, where a switch to dry processing and cooking methods may be
required. Changes in land use, driven by changes in precipitation or increased temperatures,
will alter how people spend their time. In some areas, children might have to prepare food,
while parents work in the field, increasing the risk that good hygiene practices may not be
followed.
Potential impacts of climate change on food system stability: Stability of supply: Many crops
have annual cycles, and yields fluctuate with climate variability, particularly rainfall and
temperature. Maintaining the continuity of food supply when production is seasonal is
therefore challenging. Droughts and floods are a particular threat to food stability and could
bring about both chronic and transitory food insecurity. Both are expected to become more
frequent, more intense and less predictable as a consequence of climate change. In rural areas
that depend on rainfed agriculture for an important part of their local food supply, changes in
the amount and timing of rainfall within the season and an increase in weather variability are
likely to aggravate the precariousness of local food systems.
Stability of access: As already noted, the affordability of food is determined by the
relationship between household income and the cost of a typical food basket. Global food
markets may exhibit greater price volatility, jeopardizing the stability of returns to farmers
and the access to purchased food of both farming and non-farming poor people.
Food emergencies: Increasing instability of supply, attributable to the consequences of
climate change, will most likely lead to increases in the frequency and magnitude of food
26
emergencies with which the global food system is ill-equipped to cope. An increase in human
conflict, caused in part by migration and resource competition attributable to changing
climatic conditions, would also be destabilizing for food systems at all levels. Climate change
might exacerbate conflict in numerous ways, although links between climate change and
conflict should be presented with care. Increasing incidence of drought may force people to
migrate from one area to another, giving rise to conflict over access to resources in the
receiving area. Resource scarcity can also trigger conflict and could be driven by global
environmental change.
Grain reserves are used in emergency-prone areas to compensate for crop losses and
support food relief programmes for displaced people and refugees. Higher temperatures and
humidity associated with climate change may require increased expenditure to preserve stored
grain, which will limit countries’ ability to maintain reserves of sufficient size to respond
adequately to large-scale natural or human-incurred disasters.
Livelihood vulnerability
The livelihoods perspective is often used as a means of investigating a range of sectors and
how they affect individual livelihoods. Viewing food security from a livelihoods perspective
makes it possible to assess the different components of food security holistically at the
household level.
Livelihoods can be defined as the bundle of different types of assets, abilities and activities
that enable a person or household to survive (FAO, 2003a). These assets include physical
assets such as infrastructure and household items; financial assets such as stocks of money,
savings and pensions; natural assets such as natural resources; social assets, which are based
on the cohesiveness of people and societies; and human assets, which depend on the status of
individuals and can involve education and skill. These assets change over time and are
different for different households and communities. The amounts of these assets that a
household or community possesses or can easily gain access to are key determinants of
sustainability and resilience.
Marginal groups include those with few resources and little access to power, which can
constrain people’s capacity to adapt to climate changes that could have a negative impact on
them. It is usually people’s few productive assets that are at greatest risk from the impacts of
climate change. Physical assets can be damaged or destroyed, financial losses can be incurred,
natural assets can be degraded and social assets can be undermined.
The change in seasonality attributed to climate change can lead to certain food products
becoming more scarce at certain times of year. Such seasonal variations in food supply, along
with vulnerabilities to flooding and fire, can make livelihoods more vulnerable at certain
times of the year. Although these impacts might appear indirect, they are important because
many marginal livelihood groups are close to the poverty margin, and food is a key
component of their existence.
Agriculture is often at the heart of the livelihood strategies of these marginal groups;
agricultural employment, whether farming their own land or working on that of others, is key
to their survival. In many areas, the challenges of rural livelihoods drive urban migration. As
the number of poor and vulnerable people living in urban slums grows, the availability of
non-farm employment opportunities and the access of urban dwellers to adequate food from
the market will become increasingly important drivers of food security.
A recent International Labour Organization study (ILO, 2005) suggests that there will be
significant differences between middle- and low-income countries in the ways in which
climate change affects agriculture-based livelihoods. Table 3 shows regional differences in
the share of agriculture in total employment and changes in these shares over the past decade.
In middle-income countries, a commercialization process appears to be bringing about
declines in unpaid on-farm family labour and increases in wage employment.
27
TABLE 3
Employment in agriculture as share of total employment, by region
Region 1996 2006
Developed economies and EU 6.2 4.2
Central and southeastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS 27.2 20.3
East Asia 48.5 40.9
Southeast Asia and the Pacific 51.0 45.4
South Asia 59.7 49.4
Latin America and the Caribbean 23.1 19.6
North Africa 36.5 34.0
Sub-Saharan Africa 74.4 65.9
Middle East 21.2 18.1
World 41.9 36.1
EU = European Union.
CIS = Commonwealth of Independent States.
Source: ILO, 2007.
In low-income countries, however, wage work is declining, while self-cultivation and

mixed contractual forms increase. This means that while the adverse impacts of climate
change on agricultural production in middle-income countries are more likely to be felt as loss
of employment opportunities, reduction in wage earnings and loss of purchasing power for
agricultural wage workers, in low-income countries they are likely to be felt as declines in
own production for household consumption by smallholder farming households.
Livelihood groups that warrant special attention in the context of climate change include:3
x low-income groups in drought- and flood-prone areas with poor food distribution
infrastructure and limited access to emergency response;
x low- to middle-income groups in flood-prone areas that may lose homes, stored food,
personal possessions and means of obtaining their livelihood, particularly when water
rises very quickly and with great force, as in sea surges or flash floods;
x farmers whose land becomes submerged or damaged by sea-level rise or saltwater
intrusions;
x producers of crops that may not be sustainable under changing temperature and
rainfall regimes;
x producers of crops at risk from high winds;
x poor livestock keepers in drylands where changes in rainfall patterns will affect
forage availability and quality;
x managers of forest ecosystems that provide forest products and environmental
services;
x fishers whose infrastructure for fishing activities, such as port and landing facilities,
storage facilities, fish ponds and processing areas, becomes submerged or damaged
by sea-level rise, flooding or extreme weather events;
x fishing communities that depend heavily on coral reefs for food and protection from
natural disasters;
x fishers/aquafarmers who suffer diminishing catches from shifts in fish distribution
and the productivity of aquatic ecosystems, caused by changes in ocean currents or
increased discharge of freshwater into oceans.
Within these livelihood groups, producers at different points of the food chain, such as
fishers versus fish cleaners, would have different vulnerabilities and access to coping
3
This expanded list has been developed from a shorter list contained in FAO, 2003b: 368.
28
mechanisms. Producers of different types of crops, such as crops for sale versus those for
home consumption, may face different risks and management options (e.g., access to
irrigation water or seeds). Gender and age differences will also affect the degree of risk faced
by individuals within a vulnerable group.
Agriculture-based livelihood systems that are already vulnerable to climate change face
immediate risk of increased crop failure, loss of livestock and fish stocks, increasing water scarcities
and destruction of productive assets. These systems include small-scale rainfed farming, pastoralism,
inland and coastal fishing/aquaculture communities, and forest-based systems. Rural people
inhabiting coasts, floodplains, mountains, drylands and the Arctic are most at risk. The urban poor,
particularly in coastal cities and floodplain settlements, also face increasing risks. Among those at
risk, pre-existing socio-economic discriminations are likely to be aggravated, causing nutritional
status to deteriorate among women, young children and elderly, ill and disabled people.
Over time, the geographic distribution of risk and vulnerability is likely to shift. Future
vulnerability is likely to affect not only farmers, fishers, herders and forest-dependent people, but
also low-income city dwellers, in both developed and developing countries, whose sources of
livelihood and access to food may be at risk from the impact of extreme weather events and
variable food prices, and who lack adequate insurance coverage. Some agriculture-based
livelihoods may benefit from the effects of climate change, while others will be undermined.
The livelihood status of agricultural workers will also change if centres of agricultural
production shift or methods of production become less labour-intensive in response to climate
change. All wage earners face new health risks that could cause declines in their productivity
and earning power. Climate change will also affect people differently depending on such
factors as landownership, asset holdings, marketable skills, gender, age and health status.
Fishing is frequently integral to mixed livelihood strategies, in which people take
advantage of seasonal stock availability or resort to fishing when other forms of food
production and income generation fall short. Fishing is often related to extreme poverty and
may serve as a vital safety net for people with limited livelihood alternatives and extreme
vulnerability to changes in their environment. However, the viability of fishing as a
sustainable livelihood is threatened by climate change.
Fishing communities that depend on inland fishery resources are likely to be particularly
vulnerable to climate change; access to water resources and arrangements with other sectors
for sharing and reuse will become a key to future sustainability. Climate change is also likely
to have substantial and far-reaching impacts on coastal fisheries and fishing communities.
Major physical impacts of climate change on the marine system will be changes in ocean
currents, a rise in average temperature, sharpening of gradient structures, and large and rapid
increases of freshwater discharge; these often trigger an increase in chemical nutrients,
typically compounds containing nitrogen or phosphorus, resulting in lack of oxygen and
severe reductions in water quality and in fish and other animal populations (eutrophication).
Biological responses to these changes are expected to be rachet-like, i.e., once a threshold
is reached, the situation shifts from one phase to another. Fishing is essentially a hunting
activity, so its success or failure depends heavily on the vagaries of nature. Climate change is
creating more anomalies, both failures and bonanzas, among multiple species, as well as
drastic shifts in the areas where small, migrating fish are found. Coastal peoples and
communities that depend on fishing in locations where a rise in sea level makes relocation
inevitable will require extra support, as they must not only migrate, but in many instances also
find new, unfamiliar ways of earning a living (FAO, 2007b).
All IPCC emission scenarios assume that economies for the world as a whole will continue
to grow, albeit at different rates and sometimes with significant regional differences,
depending on the scenario (IPCC, 2000). However, it is also possible that the impact of
climate change will actually curtail economic growth.
If global financial markets are not able to keep pace with continued high losses from extreme
weather events, and large numbers of individual households in developed and emerging
developing countries experience uncompensated declines in the value of their personal assets and
income-generating capacity, global economic recession and a deterioration in the food security
situation at all levels is also a possibility, putting everybody at risk.
29
Protecting food security through adaptation to climate change
2. PROTECTING FOOD SECURITY

THROUGH ADAPTATION TO
CLIMATE CHANGE
FAO’S STRATEGIC APPROACH
IPCC defines adaptation as “Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or
expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial
opportunities” (IPCC Online, 2001). It involves learning to manage new risks and
strengthening resilience in the face of change. Risk management focuses on preparing to deal
with shocks. Change management focuses on modifying behaviours over the medium-to-long
term to avoid disruptions or declines in global and local food supplies due to changes in
temperature and precipitation regimes, and to protect ecosystems through providing
environmental services. The following practices for adapting to climate change in the food
and agriculture sector are described in this chapter:
x Protecting local food supplies, assets and livelihoods against the effects of increasing
weather variability and increased frequency and intensity of extreme events, through:
general risk management;
management of risks specific to different ecosystems – marine, coastal, inland water
and floodplain, forest, dryland, island, mountain, polar, cultivated;
research and dissemination of crop varieties and breeds adapted to changing climatic
conditions;
introducing tree crops to provide food, fodder and energy and enhance cash incomes.
x Avoiding disruptions or declines in global and local food supplies due to changes in
temperature and precipitation regimes, through:
more efficient agricultural water management in general;
more efficient management of irrigation water on rice paddies;
improved management of cultivated land;
improved livestock management;
use of new, more energy-efficient technologies by agro-industries.
x Protecting ecosystems, through provision of such environmental services as:
use of degraded or marginal lands for productive planted forests or other cellulose
biomass for alternative fuels;
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) carbon sink tree plantings;
watershed protection;
prevention of land degradation;
protection of coastal areas from cyclones and other coastal hazards;
preservation of mangroves and their contribution to coastal fisheries;
biodiversity conservation.
31
Figures 6 and 7 set out the steps recommended by FAO for selecting adaptation options
and designing strategies to operationalize them. FAO has defined the following elements in a
framework for climate change adaptation (FAO, 2007a):
t legal and institutional elements;

t policy and planning elements;
t livelihood elements;
t cropping, livestock, forestry, fisheries and integrated farming system elements;
t ecosystem elements;
t linking climate change adaptation processes with technologies that promote carbon
sequestration and substitutes for fossil fuels.
Figure 6. Steps for selecting adaptation options
Livelihood adaptation options for climate variability and change

Designing adaptation options
Collate local, introduced and
improved adaptation options
Develop viable adaptation options
Synthesize into potentially suitable adaptation

options for location specific conditions
Scientific validation of adaptation options
Local prioritization/selection of
adaptation options for field testing
Source: FAO, 2006a.
FAO stresses the importance of addressing impacts and responses across sectors and scales
and of establishing institutional mechanisms for upscaling adaptation measures. Figure 8
illustrates the range of tools available for obtaining information about current and future
climate impacts at different scales – from climate forecasts for farm-level decision-making to
impact assessments based on climate change scenarios. Figure 9 shows how these tools can be
used to inform multistakeholder coordination processes that seek to mainstream climate
change adaptation into sustainable development approaches.
LIVING WITH UNCERTAINTY AND MANAGING NEW

RISKS
Adapting to climate change involves managing risk by improving the quality of information
and its use, providing insurance against climate change risk, adopting known good practices
to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable livelihood systems, and finding new institutional and
technological solutions.
People in the insurance business make a clear distinction between certain and uncertain
risks: a risk is certain if the probabilities of specific states occurring in the future are precisely
known, and uncertain if these probabilities are not precisely known (Kunreuther and Michel-
Kerjan, 2006).
32
Figure 7. Steps for designing a strategy to implement the adaptation options selected
Livelihood adaptation options for climate variability and change

Developing an
operationalization strategy
Stakeholder engagement and feedback

Testing adaptation options
Designing adaptation strategy
Assessing future climate risks
Assessing current vulnerability
Source: FAO,2006a
Figure 8. Methods and tools for assessing climate change impacts for different time
periods and at various scales
Climate change
scenarios
TIME On-farm
T A SS E S S M
AC E
Seasonal
projections ANALYSI
P TR
ISK SF Subnational
F GROW OR
NT
IM
EN ING O
N IELD FORE IN
V
PL
TO
Y
CLIMATE
EE
C
CR N
P
G T
AN
TRE
GI
S SS
SE
EXTREM
AS
R
BE
NING
OLS
E
ASON
WAT
MA I NG
Medium-range
forecast
PP
National
Short-term
forecast
L E
Regional
Source: FAO/NRCB, 2008.

Current
climate
SC A
Global
33
In the field of climate change, there is still much uncertainty about the probabilities of
various possible changes occurring in specific locations. This can be dealt with by investing
in improved information to reduce the degree of local uncertainty, or by spreading the
uncertain risk through some form of global insurance scheme.
Knowledge about the future will always be uncertain, but the current high degree of
uncertainty about potential local impacts of climate change could be reduced through
improving the science. Other priorities include recognizing the need for decision-making in
the face of uncertainty, bridging the gap between scientific and traditional perceptions of
climate change, and promoting the adoption of practices that are consistent with the
precautionary approach and adaptive management principles and that will strengthen the
resilience and sustainability of vulnerable livelihood systems.
Climate-related risks affect everybody in one way or another, so innovative insurance
schemes such as a global reinsurance fund for climate change damage, or expanded local
coverage of weather-based insurance are likely to be needed. No risk management policy or
programme will work unless those at risk feel that it addresses their needs, so adequate
provisions must be made to allow the most vulnerable to participate in deciding which actions
to take to strengthen their resilience.
The state of the art for these approaches and the implications of each for protecting food
security in the face of climate change are explored in the following sections.
Improving the quality of information and its use

Information is a crucial tool in decision-making, particularly in the context of climate change
where there is high uncertainty. The type of information, its source(s), to whom it is targeted,
and how it is to be used are important elements in determining the impact and response that
information may generate. Good information about uncertainties and risks can make the
difference between resilience and collapse for an affected livelihood system or ecosystem, as
in the case of climate change.
The rest of this section explores vulnerable people’s needs for information about climate
change, how best to satisfy these, the current state of the art regarding weather and climate
monitoring, and priorities for improving scientific understanding of climate change.
Reaching vulnerable rural people with useful information: Information generation and
dissemination are political in that they involve the power of one person’s perception to
influence that of another. This is illustrated by Turton’s (2001) example of how hidden value
judgements underlie the dominant perception of climate change. He points out that the
concept of climate changes is commonly understood to mean not only that a change is
occurring but also that there is need for some sort of response.
34
Figure 9. Multistakeholder processes for mainstreaming climate change adaptation

into sustainable development approaches
Policy advice
and sustainable
development
Methods,
data and
GOVERNMENT tools
AGENCIES
UN AGENCIES
RESEARCH & EXTENSION
Implementing
adaptation
INSTITUTIONS
options and NGOs
capacity building CIVIL SOCIETY
CBOS
FARMERS/FISHERS
Facilitating research
and technology
development Planning for
adaptation
Source: FAO/NRCB, 2008.
35
This perception is not universally shared, however. Although it has been scientifically
demonstrated that climate is changing worldwide, not everyone has the same understanding
of, or places the same value on, the significance of scientific results. For example, the climate
data made available to rural farmers often do not refer to local knowledge on climate and
agriculture, which leads to resentment towards scientific data, or the abandonment of
information that may have been useful. Despite the increasing variability in climatic
conditions, many rural farmers still predict climate using traditional methods, which may not
be capable of detecting longer-term trends.
One implication of increasing variability and uncertainly about future weather patterns is
that traditional knowledge will not necessarily be adapted to the new climatic conditions.
There will therefore need to be more reliance on scientific knowledge and assessment of
viable options, and bridging the gap between scientific and traditional perceptions of climate
change will be fundamental for successful adaptation.
Ethnographic research suggests that the current mismatch between the understanding and
interpretations of climate by farmers who rely on traditional knowledge and the understanding
and interpretations of the scientific research community constitutes an important challenge for
climate adaptation work that aims to provide climate information for a range of decision-
makers, with differing education and resource levels (Roncoli, 2006). Participatory
approaches to climate predictions have become a popular way of eliciting farmers’
understanding of climate and climate information and determining how to improve the
relation between these perspectives and scientific forecasts. Roncoli argues that participatory
technology development and collaborative learning would be promoted by a better
understanding of how scientists’ cultural models may (or may not) be affected by interaction
with farmers and other stakeholders, including other scientists, funding agencies, policy-
makers and the media (Roncoli, 2006).
The benefits of applying gender-sensitive participatory approaches for using information
to avert loss of property and life during cyclones are illustrated in Box 1 with the case of
Bangladesh.
Another important issue is the availability of climate data for rural farmers who are often
inaccessible to field site educators. When information is available and farmers show interest
in it, institutional structures need to be in place to disseminate the information to farmers in
remote rural areas, otherwise the only farmers to benefit will be those who already have the
advantages of being in cooperatives and having the necessary disposable resources to act
according to the information. Successful adaptation to climate change depends on reaching
the most vulnerable, who may not have easy access to and appropriate understanding of
existing climate information.
Box 1. Benefits of women’s participation in cyclone preparedness in Bangladesh
An International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC-RCS) case study
illustrates the importance of gender-sensitive participation in decision-making about cyclone
preparedness. This study of a community-based cyclone preparedness programme in Bangladesh found
that the highest proportions of cyclone victims came from sites where women were not involved in the
village-level disaster preparedness committees responsible for maintaining cyclone shelters and
transmitting warnings. In Cox’s Bazaar in east Bangladesh, women are fully involved in disaster
preparedness and support activities (education, reproductive health, self-help groups, and small and
medium-sized enterprises), and there have been enormous reductions in the numbers of women killed
or affected by cyclones.
Source: IFRC-RCS, 2002, cited in Lambrou and Laub, 2004.
36
Monitoring weather and improving scientiﬁc understanding of climate change: Scientific

work in response to the challenge of climate change includes development of tools and
technologies for improved monitoring of weather and climate, incorporation of climate
change variables and assessments into food security information and early warning systems,
and observation and modelling of climate impacts on rural livelihoods. As already noted, it is
critical that information generated by early warning systems and climate change models be
packaged in ways that are accessible to vulnerable people, so it can assist them in making
sound choices about how to adapt to climate change and other stressors. All actors in the food
system need access to reliable information about climate change and its potential impacts, to
avoid breakdowns in the system and adverse food security outcomes.
Figure 10 depicts FAO’s view of the short-, medium- and long-term functions of a Food
Security Information and Early Warning System (FSIEWS) that covers the information needs
of all components of the food system and addresses all aspects of food security. Typically,
these systems have focused on monitoring current weather and using this information,
together with other socio-economic data, to forecast the adequacy of food supplies and assess
food aid needs in developing countries with high risk of drought.
Time series data generated by FSIEWS are increasingly used to support longer-term policy
and planning work. Once improved methods and tools for monitoring climate change
variables and assessing their significance at the local level become more widely available, it is
expected that these will be adopted by FSIEWS.
At present, the main users of FSIEWS are the national authorities and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that implement safety net programmes covering the basic needs of
people who are experiencing either temporary or chronic food insecurity. One of the
challenges for these information systems is to develop channels for disseminating relevant
and usable information directly to communities that are experiencing climate change and need
to understand what is happening in order to adapt in constructive ways.
Figure 10. Providing timely weather information for all actors in the food system
Early warning systems

Short-term preventive action
Food security programming
OUTPUTS Emergency and relief
Development planning
(use of FSIEWS operations
Agriculture sector planning
information) Agriculture sector planning
(medium-/long-term)
(short-term)
Short term Medium term Long term
Early Market and Structural vulnerability

FSIEWS
warning and trade assessment
FUNCTIONS
current VA analysis Chronic food insecurity
assessment
Agricultural season Socio-economic and Health and nutrition

monitoring and market conditions monitoring (health
INDICATORS forecasting (crops, (monitoring food and nutrition
/ FSIEWS livestock and supply/demand assessments,
ACTIVITIES agroclimatic balance, price household food
monitoring) information, security monitoring)
purchasing power)
FOOD
Food Food stability Food
SECURITY
availability and food access utilization
ELEMENTS
Source: FAO, 2000b.
37
An important gap is the lack of weather stations in many rural parts of the developing
world, particularly in Africa, where climate change is expected to have important local
impacts. These impacts cannot be assessed without reliable weather data, and without such
assessments, there is no solid basis for recommending adaptation options. Increased
investment in regular and timely collection of weather data in Africa should therefore be
accorded very high priority for protecting food security in the face of climate change in that
region.
Adequate preparedness for foreseeable natural disasters is an important adaptation strategy
that is relevant in many parts of the globe, and not only in Africa, where FSIEWS are most
commonly found. Other types of monitoring systems give advance warning of sudden-onset
events such as high winds and storm surges associated with hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons
and tornadoes; risk of flooding and landslides after heavy rains; and heat waves and increased
wildfire risk. These warnings enable people to protect property and stock appropriate supplies
or move to safe shelters before the forecasted event.
Among FAO’s efforts to improve the quality of weather and climate information and its
use are:
t maintaining up-to-date agrometeorological data;

t developing methods and tools for assessing extreme weather impacts and guiding
adaptation;
t agro-ecological zoning for impact modelling and vulnerability assessment;
t land-cover mapping;
t global assessments, such as of crops and forest resources;
t tailoring information to the perceptions and needs of rural households and providing
gender-sensitive guidance for adaptive livelihood development.
For rural people who depend on the natural resource base for their livelihoods, protecting
food security in the face of climate change will require improved management of the
environment, especially during climate extremes, which bring the greatest risk of degradation
of the environment and threat to the sustainability of the livelihood systems that depend on it.
Figure 11 uses data from Australia to illust rate how improved climate understanding and
forecast skill may increase the range of low-risk conditions, and enhance the capacity to
manage high-risk periods.
Figure 11. Benefits of improved climate information for reducing risk in Australia
Climate variability
Past Future
Gradual growth of understanding about Increased management capacity through improved

Australian climate variability climate knowledge and farming practices
Times of highest environmental Low environmental risk management opportunities
degradation risk (wider range available using knowledge about
climate and sustainable agriculture)
Source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology, 2006.
38
Promoting insurance schemes for climate change risk

In 2007, the World Economic Forum outlined the five core areas of global risk as economic,
environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological. Within these, climate change is seen
as one of the defining challenges for the twenty-first century, as it is a global risk with
impacts far beyond the environment (World Economic Forum, 2007). The insurance industry
is among the economic sectors that are already experiencing adverse impacts of climate
change.
Wealthy countries depend heavily on the private insurance industry to protect their citizens
against natural disasters. According to a recent report, these countries account for 93 percent
of the global insurance market (Hamilton, 2004). This market is increasingly strained as it
tries to respond to astronomical increases in claims related to the impacts of extreme weather
events in North America and Europe.
In the United States, a 2005 study on the availability and affordability of climate risk
insurance found that weather-related losses were growing ten times faster than both premiums
and the overall economy, and more than ten times faster than the population; it also noted that
this trend would be compounded by continued settlement in high-risk areas (Mills, Roth and
Lecomte, 2005).
Higher losses are already leading the insurance industry to charge higher premiums, raise
deductibles, lower maximum coverage limits, and restrict the types of natural disasters or
catastrophic events that can be insured. The authors conclude that, “Given the critical role that
insurance plays in the US and global economy, reduced access to affordable insurance would
have profound impacts on both consumers and businesses” (Mills, Roth and Lacomte, 2005).
Although this statement refers to the United States economy, it is equally applicable
everywhere in the world, and the implications for future food security are potentially very
serious.
Typical forms of insurance coverage for weather- and climate-related events (e.g., floods,
windstorms, thunderstorms, hailstorms, ice storms, wildfires, droughts, heat waves, lightning
strikes, subsidence damage and coastal erosion) include coverage for property damage,
business interruptions, and loss of life or limb. If climate stresses cause the insurance industry
in the developed world to stop providing such coverage when natural disasters are involved,
many previously food-secure people will be exposed to significant uncompensated losses of
property and means of livelihood, which could plunge them into a state of vulnerability that
has previously been associated mainly with developing countries.
Increasing climate stresses and the retreat of the private sector insurance industry from
covering losses caused by catastrophic natural events will lead to increasing calls for national
and local governments to step in. Most governments already operate public sector insurance
programmes for major risks if there is no private sector coverage, such as for crop loss, flood
and earthquake damage; they also typically pay for disaster preparedness and recovery
operations. These programmes are also experiencing increasing losses, however, so the
financial burden of maintaining the current social safety net protection in the face of
additional demands generated by the impacts of climate change may be beyond what many
governments in developed countries can afford.
Because there is little private sector insurance in developing countries, other approaches to
insurance have evolved to accommodate low-income groups. Informal, locally based micro-
insurance initiatives offer a popular alternative because the premiums are low and the rules
are often less stringent than for commercial insurance (Hashemi and Foose, 2007). Public-
private partnerships are also increasingly popular, and often involve the government
coordinating and/or adding to premium payments made by those to be insured. An example
from Ethiopia is given in Box 2.
As climate-related risks affect everybody, insurance against the consequences of
catastrophic weather events needs to be globalized, and costs minimized through action to
mitigate climate change. The World Economic Forum suggests the following two global
approaches for addressing climate risk (World Economic Forum, 2007):
39
Box 2. Drought insurance in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, contingency funding was secured through a private sector reinsurance company, AXA Re,
to experiment with a new approach to weather insurance whereby vulnerable households sign financial
contracts obligating them to pay an insurance premium prior to each growing season. The contracts
entitle them to receive insurance payouts whenever abnormally low rainfall cause the value of crops in
the ground to fall below a specified trigger. The scheme’s success depends on the ability of local
weather stations to track the development of the growing season accurately, so capacity building for the
meteorological service was part of the initial experiment. Payout funds from this insurance scheme help
vulnerable households when crops fail because of drought, and reduce their dependence on emergency
relief.
Source: Hess, 2006.
x Designating country risk officers – analogous to chief risk officers in the corporate
world – to serve as focal points for managing a portfolio of risks across disparate
interests, setting national prioritization of risk and allowing governments to engage in
the necessary actions to begin managing global risks rather than coping with them.
x Creating cooperation among relevant governments and companies around different
global risks – “coalitions of the willing” – to make risk mitigation a process of
gradually expanding alliances rather than a proposition requiring permanent
consensus.
Innovative insurance schemes, such as a global reinsurance fund for climate change
damage or expanded local coverage of weather-based insurance, are likely to be needed
(Osgood, 2008).
Developing national risk management policies

It is possible to reduce risks by mainstreaming national risk management policy frameworks
within policies and programmes for sustainable development. From a food security
perspective, the objective of such frameworks is to protect local food supplies, assets and
livelihoods against the effects of increasing weather variability and the increased frequency
and intensity of extreme events. Frameworks should include pre-event preparedness, risk
mitigating strategies, reliable and timely early warning and response systems, and innovative
risk financing instruments to spread residual risks. Elements of such frameworks that are
applicable for both rural and urban populations in all ecosystems include effective early
warning systems; emergency shelters, provisions and evacuation procedures; and weather-
related insurance schemes.
The objectives of managing climate change risk are to: (i) reduce risk exposure; and (ii)
reduce negative outcomes. The process entails first risk mapping, which includes identifying
areas, populations and livelihoods at risk, followed by analysis of the kinds of risks involved,
and estimation of the levels of risk exposure of different areas, groups and livelihoods in
terms of their risk absorption capacity and the size and degree of risk, with explicit attention
to the gender dimension.
Participatory approaches to assess vulnerability and needs should involve representatives
of all community members in a dynamic process of reflection, planning and action that is
livelihoods-based and gender-sensitive, and that draws on local knowledge and priorities.
Typical components of national risk management policies and programmes include:
x infrastructure investments to protect against asset loss;

x climate information and advisory services for agricultural communities;
x reliable and timely early warning systems;
x rapid emergency response capacity;
x innovative risk financing instruments and insurance schemes to spread residual risks.
40
To protect local food supplies, assets and livelihoods from the effects of increasing
weather variability and increased frequency and intensity of extreme events, adaptation
measures will need to respond to a variety of risks, many of which are specific to particular
ecosystems.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report (2005) evaluated potential climate change
impacts for ten ecosystems: urban, marine, coastal, inland water and floodplain, forest,
dryland, island, mountain, polar, and cultivated. The nature of the risks and the affected
livelihood groups vary considerably from one ecosystem to another, so adaptation responses
have to be tailored to local conditions and needs.
STRENGTHENING RESILIENCE AND MANAGING

CHANGE
In addition to risk management, climate change also requires adaptive management that
focuses on modifying behaviours over the medium-to-long term to cope with gradual changes
in precipitation and temperature regimes. These modifications are likely to concern
consumption patterns, health care, food and agricultural production practices, sources and use
of energy, and livelihood strategies.
Strengthening resilience for all vulnerable people involves adopting practices that enable
them to:
x protect existing livelihood systems;

x diversify their sources of food and income;
x change their livelihood strategies;
x migrate if there is no other option.
Additional action areas that can strengthen resilience of agriculture-based livelihood

systems include:
x research and dissemination of crop varieties and breeds adapted to changing climatic
conditions;
x effective use of genetic resources;
x promotion of agroforestry, integrated farming systems and adapted forest
management practices;
x improved infrastructure for small-scale water capture, storage and use;
x improved soil management practices.
Adjusting consumption and responding to new health risks

Current projections for continued economic growth to 2030 and beyond imply a continued
increase in demand for animal protein as average incomes in developing countries rise. This
will lead to increased demand for water and, to a lesser extent, land for livestock production.
Increased demand, coupled with growing scarcities of water, land and fuel, could bring about
increases in food prices, even without climate change.
Additional pressures on water availability, due to climate change, the introduction of
mitigation practices that create competition for land, and the attribution of market value to
environmental services to mitigate climate change, could also cause significant changes in
relative prices for different food items, and an overall increase in the cost of an average food
basket for the consumer. Although not foreseen in the projections, current market
developments suggest that some of these factors may already be at work in global food
markets, driving up prices and increasing the number of people who lack access to an
adequate supply of food daily.
Faced with rising prices and increased awareness of the environmental consequences of
their food choices, consumers may modify their spending and eating habits. Environmentally
41
conscious consumers may choose to change their food consumption patterns – relying more
on local produce with a lower carbon footprint, and reducing their consumption of grain-fed
livestock with large requirements for increasingly scarce land and water resources. Examples
of possible changes in food consumption patterns include:
x shift in staple food preferences;

x shift away from grain-fed livestock products;
x increased consumption of new food items;
x reduced consumption of wild foods;
x reduced quantities and/or variety of food consumed.
As well as adjusting consumption patterns to obtain a sufficient quantity of food, it will

also be necessary to make adjustments to maintain dietary quality. This could involve:
x protecting biodiversity and exploiting wild foods;

x promoting urban and school gardens;
x increasing use of dry cooking methods to conserve water;
x promoting energy-efficient and hygienic food preparation practices;
x teaching good eating habits to reduce malnutrition and diet-related diseases.
Increased incidence of water-borne diseases in flood-prone areas, change in disease

vectors and habitats for existing diseases, and emergence of new diseases will pose new risks
for food security, food safety and human health. Vector changes are a virtual certainty for
pests and diseases that flourish only at specific temperatures and under specific humidity and
water irrigation management regimes. This will expose crops, livestock, fish and humans to
new risks to which they have not yet adapted. It will also place new pressures on care givers
within the home, who are often women, and challenge health care institutions to respond to
new parameters. Where such vector changes can be predicted, varieties and breeds that are
resistant to the likely new arrivals can be introduced as an adaptive measure (WHO, 2007).
Intensifying food and agricultural production

To meet the food demand of a global population that is projected to increase by 2.5 billion by
2050, it will be essential to intensify production, obtaining higher yields per unit of input –
whether this be land, water, nutrient, plant or animal. Improved land management practices
can contribute to soil moisture retention, maintain appropriate amounts of nutrients in the soil,
strengthen resilience and enhance productivity. Maintaining and enhancing plant and animal
genetic resources, and managing livestock operations and fisheries more efficiently will also
be crucial. Above all, however, a more variable climate and less reliable weather patterns will
make increased capacity for storing water for agricultural use and greater efficiencies in its
application essential.
Managing agricultural water more efficiently: Even without climate change, the global
water economy is already in trouble. A major study, Water for food, water for life, released in
2007 by Earthscan and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), reveals that
one in three people today face water shortages (CA, 2007). Although there is theoretically
sufficient freshwater to meet all the world’s projected needs for the foreseeable future, water
is not necessarily accessible in the locations where it is needed. Unsustainable use (with use
rates exceeding recharge rates) is putting additional pressure on available supplies in many
parts of the world. One important reason for this is the increased per capita demand for water
that accompanies modern life styles.
The water needs of a single human being grow exponentially as that person’s wealth and
position in life increase. Each person requires a mere 2 to 5 litres of water a day for survival,
and from 20 to 50 litres for cooking, bathing and cleaning. In urban areas worldwide,
42
however, average household water consumption is about 200 litres per person per day. This
includes all uses of running water in and around the home, plus other withdrawals from city
water supplies for use by public or commercial properties (CA, 2007). Without water, people
cannot produce the food they eat. FAO estimates that it takes an average of about 1 000 to 2
000 litres of water to produce 1 kg of irrigated wheat and 13 000 to 15 000 litres to produce
the same quantity of grain-fed beef. Thus, each human being “eats” an average of 2 000 litres
of water a day (CA, 2007).
Water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase in the last
century, and although there is no global water scarcity as such, an increasing number of
regions are chronically short of water. As the world population continues to increase, and
rising incomes and urbanization cause food habits to change towards richer and more varied
diets, even greater quantities of water will be required to guarantee food security (UN Water
and FAO, 2007).
Water scarcity is being exacerbated by climate change, especially in the driest areas of the
world, which are home to more than 2 billion people, including half of the world’s poor.
Climate change is expected to account for about 20 percent of the global increase in water
scarcity, and countries that already suffer from water shortages will be hit hardest. Even the
increasing interest in bioenergy created by the need to reduce the carbon emissions that cause
global warming could increase the burden on scarce water resources.
Although precipitation is projected to increase at the global level, this will not necessarily
lead to increased availability of water where it is needed. In fact, FAO’s 2015/2030
projections, citing a 1999 Hadley Centre report, state that “substantial decreases are projected
for Australia, India, southern Africa, the Near East/North Africa, much of Latin America and
parts of Europe” (FAO, 2003b: 364).
Increasing water scarcity and changes in the geographic distribution of available water
resulting from climate change pose serious risks for both rainfed and irrigated agricultural
production globally. With a more variable climate and less reliable weather patterns it will be
essential to increase the water storage capacity for agriculture, to maintain global food
supplies while satisfying other competing uses for agricultural water (Parry et al., 2007).
Looking ahead to 2030, irrigated areas will come under increasing pressure to raise the
productivity of water, both to buffer the more volatile rainfed production (and maintain
national production) and to respond to declining levels of this vital renewable resource. This
risk will need to be managed by progressively adjusting the operation of large-scale irrigation
and drainage systems to ensure higher cropping intensities and reduce the gaps between actual
and potential yields.
The inter-annual storage of excess rainfall and the use of resource-efficient irrigation
remain the only guaranteed means of maintaining cropping intensities. Water resource
management responses for river basins and aquifers, which are often transboundary, will be
forced to become more agile and adaptive (including near-real-time management), as
variability in river flows and aquifer recharge becomes apparent.
Competing sectoral demands for water will increase pressure on the agriculture sector to
justify the allocations it receives. Water allocation strategies should protect the ecological
reserve – the water required by the environment for the effective maintenance of hydrological
ecosystems and services – as a crucial component of adaptive capacity and a buffer against
the ecological risks that ensue when water becomes scarce.
Key adjustments for maintaining cropped areas include:
x optimizing operational storage, i.e., manageable water resources such as water stored
behind a dam;
x controlling releases to improve hydraulic performance and salinity control;
x optimizing crop water productivity.
Water allocations and releases to agriculture across river basins are essential for improving
operational performance. Well-targeted investments in small-scale water control facilities and
43
the upgrading of larger-scale facilities, together with associated institutional reforms, will pay
off in the medium term. Other strategies that can increase water productivity directly or have
indirect water saving benefits include (Pretty et al., 2006):
x reducing soil evaporation through conservation agriculture practices;

x planting more water-efficient crop varieties;
x enhancing soil fertility to increase yields per unit of water utilized;
x decreasing runoff from cultivated land;
x reducing crop water requirements through microclimatic changes;
x reusing wastewater for agricultural purposes.
Currently, about 2 million hectares are irrigated by reused wastewater, but this area could
grow (CA, 2007).
In the longer term, a transition towards more precision-irrigated agriculture should be
anticipated. Conservation agriculture, precision-irrigated agriculture and the resulting improved
water productivity require specialized tools and equipment; incentives are needed to ensure that
these inputs are adopted in areas where the expansion of commercial agricultural is desirable.
Managing land sustainably: Production risks can be spread and buffered by a broad range of
land management practices and technologies. Enhancing residual soil moisture through land
conservation techniques assists significantly at the margin of dry periods, while buffer strips,
mulching and zero-tillage mitigate soil erosion risk in areas with increasing rainfall intensity.
Conservation agriculture is an option for adaptation as well as for mitigation because the
increase in soil organic matter reduces vulnerability to both excessive rainfall and drought. The
impact is not immediate; soil under zero-tillage tends to increase the soil organic matter content
by approximately 0.1 to 0.2 percent per year, corresponding to the formation of 1 cm of new
soil over a ten-year period (Crovetto, 1999). However, not only does organic matter facilitate
soil structuring, and hence the infiltration and storage of water in the soil, but it also directly
absorbs up to 150 m3 water per hectare for each percent of soil organic matter. In addition,
under conservation agriculture, no soil moisture is lost through tillage and seedbed preparation.
This means that seeding often does not need rainfall, because the seed can use the existing soil
moisture. The total water requirements for a given crop are also lower in conservation than in
conventional agriculture, which is of particular interest where water is scarce; reported water
savings amount to at least 30 percent. This is because less water is lost through surface runoff and
unproductive evaporation, and more is stored in the soil. Crops under conservation agriculture
suffer much less from drought conditions, and are often the only crops to yield in such situations.
Yield fluctuations under conservation agriculture are generally much less severe than under
comparable conventional agriculture (Tebrügge and Bohmsen, 1998; Derpsch, 2005).
Among the disadvantages of conservation agriculture are its tendency to produce weed
problems that require chemical herbicides to control; it is a technology requiring relatively
high management skills, as many of the field operations must be implemented with a
considerable degree of precision; and although permanent soil cover is ideal in the long term,
there are short-term costs that must be covered before the system is well-established. Start-up
incentives and training may therefore be needed to encourage farmers to adopt the
conservation agriculture approach.
Maintaining biodiversity: Promoting agrobiodiversity is crucial for local adaptation and

resilience. Biodiversity in all its manifestations – genes, species, ecosystems, etc. – increases
resilience to changing environmental conditions and stresses. Genetically diverse populations
and species-rich ecosystems have greater potential to adapt to climate change. FAO promotes
the use of indigenous and locally adapted plant and animal diversity, and the selection and
multiplication of crop varieties and autochthonous races that are adapted or resistant to
adverse conditions.
44
Effective use of genetic resources can reduce negative effects of climate change on
agricultural production and farmers’ livelihoods. As women are traditionally the carriers of
local knowledge about the properties and uses of wild plants, and the keepers of seeds for
cultivated varieties, they have an important role in protecting biodiversity. Providing
appropriate compensation for this service could guarantee a sustainable livelihood to these
women, many of whom belong to vulnerable and food-insecure groups.
Breeding plants and animals for tolerance to drought, heat stress, salinity and flooding will
also become increasingly important. FAO promotes the rebuilding of developing country
national capacities to breed such crops, especially those in which the private sector is not
involved. The Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building (GIPB),
facilitated by FAO, was launched on the margins of the first Governing Body Meeting of the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources in June 2007. It will contribute to Article 6 of
the treaty, regarding sustainable use of plant genetic resources.
Adapting crops cannot be separated from other management options within agro-
ecosystems; for example, rice is both affected by and has an effect on climate. Climate change
is expected to have a significant impact on the productivity of rice systems, and thus on the
nutrition and livelihood of millions of people. Rice systems, especially in south and east Asia,
are under increasing pressure because of their high water needs and their role as a source of
methane emissions. New crop management systems are therefore required that increase rice
yields and reduce production costs by enhancing the efficiency of input application,
increasing water use efficiency, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Rice is currently the staple food of more than half the world’s population. In Asia alone,
more than 2 billion people obtain 60 to 70 percent of their calories from rice and its products.
It is the most rapidly growing source of food in Africa, and is of significant importance to
food security in an increasing number of low-income, food-deficit countries. Rice-based
production systems and their associated post-harvest operations employ nearly 1 billion
people in rural areas of developing countries.
About 80 percent of the world’s rice is grown by small-scale farmers in low-income and
developing countries. Efficient and productive rice-based production systems are therefore
essential for economic development and improved quality of life for much of the world’s
population (FAO, 2004c).
Rice is a highly adaptable staple with many properties that have not yet been exploited in large-
scale production systems. It is tolerant to desert, hot, humid, flooded, dry and cool conditions, and
grows in saline, alkaline and acidic soils. At present, however, only two of the 23 rice species are
cultivated. Science can help improve the productivity and efficiency of rice-based systems.
Improved technologies enable farmers to grow more rice on limited land with less water, labour and
pesticides, thus reducing damage to the environment. In addition, improved plant breeding, weed
and pest control, water management and nutrient-use efficiency can increase productivity, reduce
costs and improve the quality of the products of rice-based production systems.
New rice varieties being developed exhibit enhanced nutritional value, require less water,
produce high yields in dryland conditions, minimize post-harvest losses, and have increased
resistance to drought and pests and increased tolerance to floods and salinity. For example,
rice varieties with salinity tolerance have been used to expedite the recovery of production in
areas damaged by the 2005 Asian tsunami.
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and FAO are promoting
Rice Integrated Crop Management Systems (RICMS). By introducing integrated soil, water
and nutrient management practices for sustainable rice-wheat cropping systems in Asia,
RICMS would complement the introduction of new varieties and address the environmental
problems that have emerged in these systems since earlier yield-enhancing technologies were
introduced (International Rice Commission, 2002).
Improving livestock management: In its recent publication, Livestock’s long shadow:

Environment issues and options, FAO points out that approximately 70 percent of the world’s
agricultural land is used by the livestock sector, including grazing land and cropland for feed
production (FAO, 2006c). Current prices of land, water and feed do not reflect true scarcities,
45
leading to the overuse of resources and major inefficiencies in the livestock sector. Full-cost
pricing of inputs and widespread adoption of improved land management practices by both
intensive and extensive livestock producers would help to resolve more sustainably the
competing demands for animal food products and environmental services.
Increased intensification and industrialization are improving efficiency and reducing the
land area required for livestock production, but they are also marginalizing smallholders and
pastoralists, increasing inputs and wastes and concentrating the resultant pollution. Extensive
grazing still occupies and degrades vast areas of grassland.
Overgrazing is the greatest cause of grassland degradation, an important contributor to
deforestation and the overriding human-influenced factor in determining soil carbon levels of
grasslands. In many systems, improved grazing management, such as optimized stock numbers
and rotational grazing, will therefore result in substantial increases in carbon pools. Improved
pasture management and integrated agroforestry systems that combine crops, grazing lands and
trees in ecologically sustainable ways are also effective in conserving the environment and
mitigating climate change, while providing more diversified and secure livelihoods for inhabitants.
Improving fisheries management: Worldwide, some 200 million people and their
dependants, most of them in developing countries, live from fishing and aquaculture. Fish
provide an important source of cash income for many poor households and are a widely
traded food commodity. As well as stimulating local market economies, fish can also be an
important source of foreign exchange.
Variability across different time scales has always been a feature of fisheries, especially
capture fisheries. Recruitment and productivity in most fisheries vary from year to year, and
are also subject to longer-term variability that typically occurs on a decadal scale. For
example, populations of small pelagic fish in upwelling systems vary both from year to year
and on a decadal scale, often showing shifts in productivity patterns and dominant species.
Where management is effective, fishery systems have developed adaptive strategies and,
through monitoring and feedback, fishing effort and catches are regularly modified according
to the state of the stock. Fishers must have adequate robustness and/or flexibility to absorb the
changes in resource abundance, while avoiding negative ecological, social or economic
impacts (FAO, 2007b).
Creating an eco-friendly energy economy

A fundamental principle for adaptation in the energy sector is that meeting the demand for bioenergy
should not undermine food security. This demand has been growing because of the rising cost of
petroleum, concern about dependence on fossil fuel imports, the climate change mitigation benefits
of reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and the increase in demand for fuelwood and charcoal for
expanding populations in many parts of the developing world. This section explores the intersections
among climate change, energy security and food security, and the prospects for second-generation
biofuels and increased energy efficiency as alternatives to biofuel crops. Another important issue,
which is sometimes overlooked in discussions of the global energy economy, is the role of
sustainably managed forests and trees as a source of energy at the national and household levels.
Understanding linkages among climate change, energy security and food security: It is
hypothesized that ethanol produced from biomass4 can help mitigate climate change and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by substituting fossil fuel. IPCC estimates that by 2030,
4
As yet, there is no consistent international usage of bioenergy terminology. This paper uses the following terms and
meanings: biomass = material of biological origin (excluding material embedded in geological formations and
transformed to fossil); biofuel feedstock = organic materials used in the production of liquid and gaseous biofuels; biofuel
= fuel produced directly or indirectly from solid, liquid or gaseous biomass; bioenergy = energy production from biofuels,
including wood energy (derived from fuelwood, charcoal, forestry residues, black liquor and any other tree product) and
agro-energy (derived from purpose-grown crops and from agricultural and livestock by-products, residues and wastes);
first-generation biofuels = fuels produced from purpose-grown crops; second-generation biofuels = fuels produced from
cellulosic materials (woody material and tall grasses), crop residues, and agricultural and municipal wastes.
46
liquid biofuels could supply 3 percent of the transport sector’s energy needs, rising to 5 to 10
percent if second-generation biofuels take off (IPCC, 2007b). As a spin-off benefit, the rural
sectors in developing countries can attract investment by generating tradable emission
reduction credits – certified emission reductions (CERs) – through the Kyoto Protocol and the
international market for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
There are uncertainties surrounding the potential climate change-related benefits, however.
For example, with respect to the implications for climate change, the energy balance needs to
be calculated over the whole production chain from bioenergy crop to biofuel end-product.
Biofuels can be considered to contribute to climate change mitigation only if their use has
produced fewer net emissions of greenhouse gases at the end of the production process than
the average emissions from fossil fuel use. Even if there is a net contribution, producing
biofuel from purpose-grown crops is not necessarily the most efficient use of available land.
A UN-Energy publication sponsored by FAO (UN Energy, 2007) identifies nine factors
that must be considered in determining the sustainability of bioenergy development:
x ability of modern bioenergy to provide energy services for the poor;

x implications for agro-industrial development and job creation;
x health and gender implications;
x implications for the structure of agriculture;
x implications for food security;
x implications for government budget;
x implications for trade, foreign exchange balances and energy security;
x impacts on biodiversity and natural resources management;
x implications for climate change, including avoidance of deforestation and creation of
a positive energy balance.
Biofuel crops have potential for large-scale production wherever food crops are currently
grown or could be grown. Table 4 indicates the areas of land that would have to be devoted to
the production of first-generation biofuel feedstocks if they were to substitute 25 percent of
the current demand for transportation fuels (or 10 percent of total energy demand). It uses
data on the potential yields of a number of crops and their fuel conversion efficiencies.
TABLE 4
Land required to replace 25 percent of current fuel demand for transport
(45 EJ/year)
Yield (gross) Agricultural land required
(GJ/ha/year) (% of currently available 2.5 billion ha)
Sugar cane 104 17
Sugar beet 90 20
Palm-oil 81 22
Maize 54 33
Wheat 45 40
Barley 20 91
Rape 20 91
Sunflowers 16 111
Soybean 9 200
Source: Dutch EnergyTransition.
47
TABLE 5
Distribution of global land area, 2004
Land use, 2004 Area (billion ha)
Arable land 1.4
Permanent crops 0.1
Pastures 3.4
Forest 3.9
Other 4.5
Total 13.4
Source: FAO Online, FAOStat.
As Table 4 clearly shows, grain crops in particular have too low a production potential for
this ambitious target to be realized, underlining the need to increase efficiency of the whole
production and conversion process. Moreover, as Table 5 shows, the assumption that 2.5
billion ha of agricultural land is available is optimistic, given the far smaller area that current
statistics give as land for arable crops.
If production of feedstocks for liquid biofuels takes good arable land out of food
production, it could reduce the availability of food on global markets and raise market prices,
with consequent negative effects on food security at all levels (household, national and
global). Furthermore, most sources of liquid biofuels are currently not commercially viable
without subsidies, mandates and/or tariffs. If subsidized production of liquid biofuel from
field crops becomes an important factor in global agricultural markets, competition for land
and water will increase, putting upwards pressure on food prices and increasing the
prevalence of food insecurity.
There are other possible negative effects of biomass production for bioenergy, including
the risk that dedicating large tracts of land to monocropping of energy crops will contribute to
deforestation, land degradation, carbon emissions, contaminated surface and groundwater,
and loss of biodiversity, and it is not clear that the net energy gain from biofuel production
will be positive. In response to these and other concerns about whether large-scale production
of bioenergy crops is really sustainable (Dutch EnergyTransition), the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Mr Jean Ziegler, called for a five-year moratorium on the
conversion of arable land to biofuel production. Speaking at a press conference for the
opening of the Fifth Special Session of the Human Rights Council in New York, he stated
that:
“The creation of ‘pure fuels’, or biofuels, to protect the environment and reduce oil dependence is not
a bad idea, but its negative impact on hunger would be catastrophic. When tonnes of maize, wheat,
beans and other food staples are converted to fuel, food prices rise and arable land is lost to food
production. Last year, the price of wheat doubled and of maize quadrupled.
“As prices rise, the poorest countries cannot pay, and the poorest people, generally living without
access to subsistence farming, cannot purchase more expensive foodstuffs. The amount of corn needed
to make enough ethanol to fill a single car’s fuel tank could fill a child for an entire year.
“Non-food agricultural products that could grow in soil unfit for food production could be used as an
alternative source of biofuels. For example, in a project in Rajasthan, India, the Mercedes company is
growing jatropha for biodiesel in arid land. Following a moratorium, such projects could be evaluated
and new fuels produced.” (UNDPI, 2007)
An expert meeting convened by FAO in February 2008 confirmed that there were
significant concerns about the potential impacts of biofuels on food security. Early evidence
suggests that the introduction of biofuels initially reduces food availability and increases food
prices, with immediate adverse impacts on the food security situation for poor consumers in
both urban and rural areas. These impacts affect people’s access not only to starchy staples,
but also – and often more important – to foods needed for a balanced diet, such as vegetable
oil and animal products. Because food and energy supply are both subject to random shocks,
48
profitability will lead to cycles of expansion and contraction, which will increase food
security concerns (FAO, 2008).
It is already anticipated that traditional safety nets may not be adequate in the face of new
and increasing vulnerabilities caused by climate change. Market-induced vulnerability
attributable to higher and more variable prices for food as a consequence of biofuel demand
will only compound this problem. Expansion of liquid biofuel production would intensify the
impact on food prices and land availability if the expansion were based on the continued use
of present technologies in current policy environments (FAO, 2008).
However, experts at the meeting also expressed the view that liquid biofuel development does
not have to be adverse for food security, particularly if production is allowed to find its natural
competitive equilibrium, which today would favour production of sugar cane and discourage
production of starchy crops as liquid biofuel feedstocks. Emergent poor farmers with sufficient
skills and assets to become successful commercial farmers can take advantage of the emerging
liquid biofuel market, provided they live in locations where growing conditions are suitable and
appropriate infrastructure is present. If domestic markets are functioning efficiently, higher prices
can benefit the farmers producing such cash crops as sunflower, soybean, rapeseed or sugar cane,
irrespective of the final use of the harvested crop. However, higher prices for staple cereals such as
maize will increase food insecurity for poor farming households that are net buyers of the staple
concerned, as is often the case (FAO, 2008).
On the other hand, if second-generation biofuels come on stream during the next decade or
two, as many experts predict they will, they could create new livelihood opportunities and
improve food security for many currently vulnerable people living on degraded lands where
cellulosic feedstocks could be produced. Such a development would also constitute a good
option for mitigating and adapting to climate change on these lands, because the introduction
of woody vegetation would sequester carbon, improve the water retention capacity of the soil
and reduce erosion (FAO, 2008).
Even without second-generation biofuels, the mix of feedstocks and biofuels in use is
likely to change over the medium term. For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA)
foresees changes in the relative importance of different biofuel feedstocks over time (IEA,
2006), and FAO projects that traditional sources of biofuel will decline in importance as
opportunity costs for labour increase and rural people can no longer afford the time to collect
fuelwood or burn charcoal. At some point, rising prices for oil will make methane (biogas)
competitive, and eventually butanol is likely to replace ethanol for mixture with gasoline as a
transport fuel.
Planted forests represent only 7 percent of global forest cover, but they account for more
than half of global industrial roundwood production (FAO, 2006b). There is significant
potential for expanding planted forests on marginal lands or lands released from crop or
livestock production. Increasing proportions of sustainably produced industrial roundwood
and wood for energy generation will come from planted rather than native forests.
Increasing energy efficiency: Although the debate about biofuel/food security tradeoffs has
so far focused on how to manage competing demands for scarce productive resources, it is
equally important to consider energy saving and efficient use for reducing the demand for
energy, including bioenergy.
Inefficient use of water for irrigation also results in energy inefficiency, so gains in
irrigation efficiency can be expected to lead to energy savings and reduced pumping costs.
Over the entire cropping cycle, conservation agriculture generates diesel fuel saving of about
60 percent compared with conventional tillage. Reduced fuel requirements for primary and
secondary tillage operations and planting are particularly significant. Use of other inputs that
require energy for their manufacture, such as machinery, fertilizer and pesticides, is also
lower. One study (FAO/SDR Energy Programme, 2000) estimates that overall, conservation
agriculture consumes 40 to 50 percent less energy than conventional tillage, including the
energy requirements for producing inputs. This lower fossil fuel requirement for field
operations is the main driving force for adopting zero-tillage cropping systems in mechanized
farming, under scenarios of increasing fuel costs.
49
The fisheries sector can play only a small part in reducing CO2 emissions through greater
energy efficiency, but there may be synergies among emissions reductions, energy savings
and responsible fisheries. For example, reducing the fuel subsidies granted to fishing fleets
would encourage energy efficiency and assist the reduction of overcapitalization in fisheries;
static gear – pots, traps, longlines and gillnets – uses less fuel than active gear such as trawls
and seines.
Micro- and small-scale agroprocessing industries have an important role in increasing and
diversifying livelihood opportunities for the rural poor. However, these people are often
handicapped by poverty and lack of assets, low education levels, poor understanding of the
sector, and low levels of inputs, reducing their competitiveness. In addition, the practices that
they employ often degrade and contaminate the environment. Regarding energy use, most
small-scale agroprocessing operations are intensive consumers of fuelwood, so contribute to
the problems referred to in the previous section. More energy-efficient technologies could be
employed by small-scale agroprocessing industries, but operators need to obtain the necessary
skills and start-up capital to adopt them. Many operators are women, who could be reached
through programmes that target women as a vulnerable group (FAO, 2002).
Exploiting forests sustainably: Sustainable forest management is a dynamic and evolving

concept. The aim is to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values
of all types of forests for the benefit of present and future generations (UNFF, 2007). In its
broadest sense, forest management encompasses the administrative, legal, technical,
economic, social and environmental aspects of the conservation and use of forests. It implies
various degrees of deliberate human intervention, ranging from actions to safeguard and
maintain the forest ecosystem and its functions, to favouring specific socially or economically
valuable species or groups of species for the improved production of goods and services.
Especially in the tropics and subtropics, however, many of the world’s forests and
woodlands are still not managed in accordance with the Forest Principles adopted at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992. Many
developing countries have inadequate funding and human resources for the preparation,
implementation and monitoring of forest management plans, and lack mechanisms to ensure
the participation and involvement of all stakeholders in forest planning and development.
Where forest management plans exist, they are frequently limited to ensuring sustained
production of wood, without due concern for non-wood forest products and services or social
and environmental values. In addition, many countries lack appropriate forest legislation,
regulation and incentives to promote sustainable forest management practices.
Climate change will influence forests in all regions. In Africa, for example, lower rainfall
is expected to decrease forest productivity and increase the area of dryland forests. In Latin
America, the forest of the eastern Amazon is expected to be replaced by savannah. In North
America and northern Europe, higher temperatures may make forests more productive and
alter the ranges of some species.
Trees under stress are also more susceptible to harmful insect pests and diseases. Recent
outbreaks of insect pests, especially in temperate regions, have been linked to alterations in
their fertility and mortality related to climate change. An example of this is the recent
outbreak of the mountain pine beetle, which has already destroyed 12 million ha of forests in
Canada.
Sustainable forest management includes adapting and planning ahead for these changes, as
well as managing forests and woodlands to cope with new climatic conditions so that they
contribute to flood prevention and provide habitats and wildlife corridors for a diversity of
flora and fauna. When planting new forests, careful consideration needs to be given to species
choice, particularly where timber production is important.
50
The United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) has provisionally identified seven thematic
areas that need to be addressed to achieve more sustainable forest management (FAO Online
Forestry):
t extent of forest resources;

t biodiversity;
t forest health and vitality;
t productive functions of forest resources;
t protective functions of forest resources;
t socio-economic functions of forest resources;
t the legal, policy and institutional framework for sustainable forest management.
Achieving the transition from deforestation to forest conservation and management is a

huge challenge. It involves protecting and managing what already exists, reducing
deforestation and forest degradation, restoring more of the world’s forest cover, using more
wood for energy, making greater industrial use of wood to replace other materials, ensuring
the livelihoods of forest-dependent people and safeguarding the ecosystem services of forests.
Improving household energy security and food security simultaneously: Less publicized,
but equally important, is the energy demand of both rural and urban poor people. Bioenergy is
already the dominant source of energy for about half of the world’s population, most of whom
live on less than US$2 per day (FAO Online, Bioenergy). Figures 12 and 13 show how
important this form of energy already is in developing countries – a point that is sometimes
overlooked in the current enthusiasm about bioenergy as a substitute for fossil fuel in the
transport sector.
Figure 12. Shares of bioenergy in total energy supply
35
33
Woodfuel from plantations,
natural and semi-natural forests
30
All biofuels
25
20
(%)
15
15 13
10
7
5 3
2
0
Developing Industrialized World
countries countries
Sources: FAO, 2000a.
51
Figure 13. Shares of bioenergy in total primary energy supply in different regions in
2004
50 47.6
45
40
35
29.4
30
%
25
20 18.0
15 13.5
10
5.8
5 3.0
0.8 0.2
0
Africa Asia Latin China Non- OECD Former Near
America OECD USSR East
Source: IEA, 2006. Europe
For food system performance and food security, improving the management of biomass
sources for household use can make important contributions in parts of the developing world
where large numbers of poor or very poor people live. The incidence of poverty and food
insecurity correlates almost exactly with what is called the “energy ladder.” At the household
level, the poorest people use manure, twigs and low-grade biomass for cooking and heating,
and only human force in their productive activities. As they become less poor and move up
the economic ladder, they switch to fuelwood, progressing through charcoal, kerosene and gas
to electricity, and integrating animals and simple tools into production processes. At a certain
level of development, they will integrate some level of mechanization, irrigation and
fertilization, moving on – if successful – to mechanized equipment such as tractors and
harvesters, which imply a switch to fossil fuels (FAO, 2005).
In both household and economic activities, the energy ladder follows and influences the
economic ladder. If attempts to alleviate hunger and promote rural development and food
security are to have lasting success, they must recognize and address the key role of energy.
Current practices are adding to carbon emissions through deforestation and desertification
caused by increasing population pressure on natural fuelwood sources. They also have
adverse health impacts caused by smoke inhalation from unvented cooking stoves and
outdoor fires. Scarcity of fuel restricts the amount of cooked food that can be prepared, often
with adverse consequences for food security and the nutritional quality of the diet. Box 3
illustrates the multiple cascading effects of inaction for the case of Rwanda and eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
Incorporating trees and woodlands in traditional farming systems enhances energy and food
security and protects the environment. Various fast-growing tree species are well-adapted to
grassland ecosystems, where many currently vulnerable people live. Introducing such species in
managed woodlots could provide a vital source of fuel and fodder, as well as holding soil,
retaining water, eliminating the need for continued cutting of natural stands of trees and shrubs,
and contributing tree crops to the diet. In the past, however, such introductions have often failed
when local people have not perceived the need to manage the trees.
Thus the cycle of energy impoverishment, environmental degradation, rising rates of
carbon emissions and increasing food insecurity is perpetuated (ETFRN, 2003). Essential
investments to break this cycle include: (i) sustainable development of agroforestry parklands;
(ii) introduction of integrated food and bioenergy systems at the household level; and (iii)
promotion of smallholder production of such crops as palm-oil, rapeseed and jatropha, which
can produce oils for making biodiesel for decentralized power generation and water pumps
(FAO, 2007e).
52
Box 3. Gorilla slaughter, conflict, deforestation and demand for charcoal in Rwanda and
eastern DRC
“It will take a focused global initiative to end the conflict, introduce alternative sources of household
fuel, and create alternative livelihoods.”
Millions of people were horrified by the slaughter of mountain gorillas that occurred in DRC’s Virunga
National Park in the summer of 2007. In one month, nine gorillas more than 1 percent of the known
population of these charismatic relatives of humankind were wiped out. Wildlife conservation
organizations leapt into action and began raising funds to deal with the slaughter, and a crisis team
entered the area. In the following four weeks, people’s desire to help save the species produced
donations amounting to tens of thousands of dollars.
However, if the underlying demand for charcoal is ignored and interventions focus too much on
the gorillas alone, the result will be the extermination of not only the mountain gorillas, but also the
forests, woodlands and all the unique species that inhabit this biologically diverse landscape. The
climate mitigation services provided by the intact forests will also be lost, which could lead to a human
crisis that dwarfs the tragedy of nine gorillas.
Living at the epicentre of the bloodiest conflict since the Second World War, the mountain gorillas
share their habitat with heavily armed militia. In other lawless regions, where wild meat comes into
contact with hungry soldiers, species are slaughtered for food, or for trophies to be traded for cash and
weapons. However, these gorilla deaths were repulsive because the animals’ corpses were of no use to
the killers. Instead, it is the mountain gorillas’ presence in the Virunga National Park that puts them at
risk, because they draw attention to an area that unscrupulous people would rather was forgotten.
At the heart of the crisis is charcoal the main form of household energy in Africa and charcoal
making means felling forests, destroying wildlife habitats and damaging ecosystem services such as
water catchments and soil fertility. Charcoal production has been going on for millennia, but recent
events in eastern DRC have led to a sharp escalation in demand. In neighbouring Rwanda, an enormous
human population has stripped almost all of its indigenous forests bare; while in the DRC border town
of Goma, refugees fleeing the region’s crises have swelled the population to more than half a million.
Together, these factors have created a demand for charcoal worth an estimated US$30 million a year.
To save Rwanda’s few remaining forests and the gorillas, which have become a major source of tourist
revenue, President Paul Kagame has installed an efficient and effective ban on charcoal production in
Rwanda, but this has driven the illegal industry across the border into DRC, threatening the habitats of
the gorillas in the park, which straddles both countries. Given the lack of effective government in
eastern DRC, and the extremely small government salaries wildlife protection rangers earn just US$5
a month for risking their lives it is not surprising that the park’s forests have become a commons, and
virtually everybody is involved in the scramble for resources, from smallholders to high-ranking
government officials and rebel militia.
If gorillas focus unwelcome global attention on the park, the people who are enriching themselves
from charcoal will seek to remove that attention by getting rid of the animals. Shocking though the
gorilla killings were, this is fundamentally a human tragedy, with very human solutions. Alternative
sources of energy are needed to meet the demand in both Rwanda and eastern DRC, and the rule of law
must return to DRC, to save the forests for the long-term good of all, rather than looting them for the
short-term profit of a few.
Although this seems to be a very local problem, the whole world has an interest in protecting the
forests. Not only is one of the most charismatic and important species on earth at risk of extinction, but
there is also a danger of damaging further the world’s warming climate. This makes the forests’
destruction a “double whammy”. Charcoal burning is one of the greatest sources of atmospheric CO2,
and it also strips away the trees that otherwise soak up so much of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the alarm has been raised by conservation organizations concerned about gorillas, and
the global public has responded, it is clear that the problem is much greater than that of conservation
alone. This is a human development crisis and it will take a focused global initiative to end the conflict,
introduce alternative sources of household fuel, and create alternative livelihoods for the population
living in eastern Kivu.
Source: Leakey, 2007.
53
In farming systems that include livestock, the conversion of animal wastes into biogas is
another potential source of energy that could improve household energy security while
reducing methane emissions. Appropriate biogas technologies have not yet attracted
widespread interest owing to their lack of market competitiveness, but this is beginning to
change. Other options in the bioenergy sector that could offer livelihood opportunities for the
rural poor include organizing bioenergy cooperatives or contracting with local growers;
encouraging investment in bioenergy plantations that employ local labour; and promoting
reclamation of degraded lands that are accessible to existing roads, powerlines and water
sources, and zoning these lands for a combination of energy crop production, biofuel
manufacture and industrial parks that create a market for the fuel (FAO, 2007e).
Adapting agriculture-based livelihood strategies

Taking ecosystems into account: A number of risks are specific to different ecosystems.
Although the convention in sustainability literature is to classify only drylands, mountains and
coastal zones as fragile, growing understanding of the likely multiple impacts of climate
change may reduce the relevance of distinguishing between fragile and robust ecosystems. All
ecosystems will need to adapt to climate change, albeit in different ways and with differing
demands for new technologies and investments. Table 6 lists specific examples of adaptations
that are already known to be needed in each of the ecosystems evaluated for the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment.
In Mali, for example, the hard reality of existing in rural areas is driving many people to
urban areas, thereby exacerbating urban poverty. A study analysing the consequences of
various options for adapting to climate change in Mali found that the country’s natural
resource base has been seriously degraded owing to the high population growth rate, the
pressure to grow more and more food, and the low rate of adoption of improved technologies
(Butt et al., 2005). Because of rural-urban migration, the country’s urban population is
expected to grow four times faster than its rural population. However, if potential adaptations
to climate change were widely adopted, including a shift in crop mixes and introduction of
greenhouse technologies, overall economic surplus in rural areas could improve, despite
increased weather variability and more frequent droughts and floods.
The study also considered the implications of climate change in terms of policies that
expanded cropland (into rangeland), where food security conditions subsequently showed vast
improvement. The study highlights that climate change affects the livelihoods and well-being
of people in numerous ways (economic, biophysical, political) and advocates for an approach
that can adapt to all these factors to improve food security conditions and realize higher
economic benefits, thereby meeting the challenges posed by climate change.
Taking scale into account: The wide range of ways in which livelihoods, particularly of
poorer groups, are affected by climate variability and climate change highlights the need to
focus on adaptation at the livelihood scale. Some adaptations will be household-level
interventions, reducing the negative impact of changing climatic conditions on activities;
others will involve support from a higher scale, such as a change in policy or provision of a
subsidy for acquisition or maintenance of a certain asset.
At the household level, there are many ways that people might adapt to climate change. If
the household is involved in agricultural activities, it is likely to start by changing agricultural
strategies to cope better with the local change in climate. This might include using drought-
resistant and early-maturing seed varieties, reducing evaporation through mulching, and
decreasing soil erosion through wind barriers. To undertake these actions, households might
need advice on suitable seed varieties and how to mulch, and resources to create wind
barriers.
54
TABLE 6
Examples of livelihood groups at risk and adaptation responses for each of ten
ecosystems evaluated for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Nature of risk Livelihood groups at risk Adaptation responses
Urban ecosystem
Extreme Elderly people and others susceptible to Emergency shelters
temperature extremes
x Heat and cold waves Adaptive infrastructure investments
Low-to-medium-income groups who may
x High winds Innovative insurance instruments
lose homes, stored food, personal
x Storm surges possessions and means of obtaining
livelihoods
x Floods
Gradual
x Sea level rise
Marine ecosystem
Extreme Fishers/aquafarmers who suffer Shift from dynamic to static fishing
diminishing catches from shifts in fish technologies that are less wasteful of
x More anomalies, in both failures and
distribution and aquatic ecosystem remaining fish stocks
bonanzas, among multiple species
productivity Occupational training to facilitate search
x Drastic shift in the areas where small,
for new livelihood opportunities
migrating fish are found
Gradual
x Changes in ocean currents
x Rise in average sea temperature
x Sharpening of various gradient structures
x Increased discharge of freshwater into
oceans
Ratchet-like
x Eutrophication (increase in chemical
nutrients and loss of oxygen in ocean waters)
x Severe reductions in water quality and in
fish and other animal populations
Coastal ecosystem
Extreme Fishing communities that depend heavily Coastal defences:
on coral reefs for food and protection from
x Heavy rains x hard – groynes, revetements,
natural disasters
embankments
x High winds
Fishers whose infrastructure essential for
x soft – mangroves, coral reefs, wetland
x Storm surges fishing activities, e.g., port, landing and
conservation
storage facilities, fish ponds and
x Floods
processing areas, becomes submerged or Emergency shelters on high ground, with
Gradual damaged stocks of food, water and medicine
x Saltwater intrusions Farmers whose land becomes submerged Relocation of settlements, roads and other
or damaged by the sea level rise or infrastructure
x Sea level rise
saltwater intrusions Integrated coastal zone management
Desalination plants
Weather-related insurance
Relocation where a rise of sea level is
inevitable
Inland water and floodplain ecosystem
Extreme Low-income groups in drought- and flood- Changes to dam and infrastructure
prone areas with poor food distribution specifications
x High winds
infrastructure and limited access to Storm- and flood-resilient building codes
x Heavy rains emergency response
Improved river defences
x Floods
Watershed management, including zero-
Gradual tillage farming systems
x Changing water levels Restricting development in high-risk
(floods, mudslides) zones
55
Nature of risk Livelihood groups at risk Adaptation responses

Forest ecosystem
Extreme Low-income, forest-dependent people Integrated forest pest management
systems
x Heavy rains People indirectly dependent on forest
ecosystem services Integrated forest fire management
x High winds
systems
x Floods Integrated watershed management
x Droughts approaches
x Wildfires Adjusted silvicultural practices
Gradual Forest conservation
x Sea level rise Promotion of small-scale forest-based
enterprises for local income
x Forest dieback diversification
x Pests and disease
Dryland ecosystem
Extreme Low-income groups in drought- and flood- Improved crop, grassland and livestock
prone areas with poor food distribution management
x Droughts
infrastructure and limited access to Promotion of cropping systems that
x Floods emergency response
increase soil organic matter and water
Gradual Producers of crops that may not be infiltration capacity (zero-tillage systems)
sustainable under changing temperature
x Changes in rainfall patterns Research and dissemination of crop
and rainfall regimes
varieties and breeds adapted to
Poor livestock keepers where changes in changing climatic conditions
rainfall patterns will affect forage
Introduction of integrated agroforestry
availability and quality systems
Community grain storage for food
distribution
Island ecosystem
Same as coastal ecosystem Same as coastal ecosystem Same as coastal ecosystem
Mountain ecosystem
Extreme People indirectly dependent on mountain Integrated watershed management
ecosystem services approaches
x Floods
Producers of crops that may not be Adjusted silvicultural practices
x Landslidex
sustainable under changing temperature
Research and dissemination of crop
and rainfall regimes varieties and breeds adapted to
changing climatic conditions
Polar ecosystem
Not specified Not specified Not specified
Cultivated ecosystem
Extreme Producers of tree crops that are Introduction of cropping systems that do
susceptible to wind damage not move and expose soil
x High winds
Producers of crops that may not be Introduction of integrated agroforestry
x Floods
sustainable under changing temperature systems
x Droughts and rainfall regimes Research and dissemination of crop
Gradual varieties and breeds adapted to
changing climatic conditions
x Changing temperature and
rainfall regimes
Source: FAO/NRCB and ESAC.
There are great opportunities to improve poor people’s ability to lift themselves out of
poverty under conditions of greater water security and sustainability. With the right incentives
and investments to mitigate risks for individual farmers, improving water control in small-
scale agriculture is feasible and holds considerable potential as an adaptation strategy in parts
of the world that are vulnerable to increasing water scarcity as a result of climate change.
56
The introduction of improved techniques for water harvesting and exploitation of shallow
aquifers can contribute to local food security for poor people in drought- and flood-prone
areas, ensuring that local food production is as productive as possible and stable, and that
households have access to sufficient, safe supplies of water for domestic use, despite
irregularities in the timing and intensity of rainfall and consequent unevenness in the recharge
rates for underground and surface-level water sources.
Taking gender differences into account: Changes in the variability of prevailing weather
conditions may shorten time windows for field work – be it land preparation, weeding, pest
management or harvest – inevitably resulting in higher demand for human labour, animal
traction or mechanized farm power to carry out the activities in shorter periods. Changes in
weather variability also require greater flexibility to start operations as soon as weather
conditions permit.
In mechanized farming systems, shorter time windows result in increasing machinery
investments. Where these are not possible, untimely operations can result in yield reductions
and eventually complete crop failure or harvest loss. Where there is a shift from labour to
mechanization, men and women whose livelihoods depend on employment can lose those
livelihoods and consequently have less access to income, thereby reducing their capacity to
buy food. In this process, women are likely to suffer disproportionately (FAO, 2007d).
In non-mechanized farming systems, where women provide the bulk of farm labour, the
increased burden of agricultural work during the shortened growing seasons could have
adverse consequences for women’s health and ability to provide adequate care to their
families, owing to a variety of factors such as lack of nutritious food and inadequate and
inappropriate health care. In addition, women may not be able to produce enough to feed
everyone in the family, so they will eat last, after the men and the boys. Agricultural
mechanization and gender-appropriate machinery can provide some relief.
Studies for Europe indicate that owing to the long-term effects of climate change, cropping
patterns and crop yields can be expected to change, but not necessarily decrease (Audsley et
al., 2005). In a given location, when climate variations differ over the years, farmers are likely
to try to adapt to experienced worst-case scenarios. One of the farmers’ first responses to
short-term climate variability will be adaptation of working capacity, meaning an increase in
human workload or, in mechanized systems, in equipment capacity. However, in food-
insecure areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, the prevailing farm power source is manual
labour, which is already limited by the HIV/AIDS pandemic and subsequent deaths of able-
bodied men and women. The manual labour resources for additional requirements are
therefore not available. Instead, existing labour bottlenecks would be tightened further, with
different consequences for men and women, whose specific needs must be taken into
consideration (IFAD and FAO, 2003).
As a consequence of increased bottlenecks for timely field operations, higher investment
in farm power and equipment capacity is needed, if yield reductions and possible crop failure
or harvest loss are to be avoided. The irregular nature of climate variation makes it difficult to
quantify its actual impacts, however.
Box 4. Adaptation by small-scale tea farmers in South Africa
In South Africa, small-scale rooibos tea farmers in the Suid Bokkeveld, near Nieuwvoudville in the Northern
Cape, are involved in a project that aims to increase their resilience to climate change, specifically drier, hotter
conditions and more frequent droughts. Workshops have been held with the farmers to supply them with
information about the expected climate for the season and provide an opportunity to discuss how to respond.
Participants also visited other rooibos farms in the area to see what works for them. Technologies that help to
respond better to existing and expected climate variability include wind erosion barriers, and methods for
enhancing soil moisture and maintaining biodiversity, such as establishing mulch strips on which belts of
natural vegetation can be grown to act as wind breaks. Farmers have also started intercropping wild rooibos
with other cultivars and trying to ensure that harvests are sustainable.
Source: Archer et al., in press.
57
Providing incentives through payments for environmental services: All the measures
discussed in this document are technically feasible, but important socio-economic obstacles
need to be overcome for them to be adopted on the required scale. Incentives to make the
adoption of good mitigation and adaptation practices attractive are often lacking. Options
include improved information, technology transfer, favourable regulations and both positive
and negative monetary incentives, such as polluter- and user-pays principles and the removal
of perverse incentives, such as production subsidies. Devising innovative financial
instruments for environmental service payments will also be important.
Although farmers’ adoption of good mitigation and adaptation practices can create on-
farm benefits such as increased crop yields, the adoption of such practices on a wider scale
depends on the extent to which farmers are affected by the environmental consequences of
their current practices and on the incentives that exist to make the switch to alternative
practices attractive. Farmers may also need additional knowledge and resources for investing
in such practices.
In the 2007 issue of The State of Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2007g), FAO presents the
argument for paying farmers for environmental services to encourage them to make adaptive
changes in their agricultural practices. The idea is that the value of mitigating and adapting to
climate change needs to be established through the operation of market forces. If a global
market for environmental services emerges, it will have macrolevel implications for food,
land and labour markets, which have yet to be analysed (Zilberman, Lipper and McCarthy,
forthcoming).
Creating off-farm employment opportunities and planning for human migration: Other
adaptations could support access to food through improving off-farm household incomes. In
areas where farming is no longer feasible owing to low or uncertain rainfall and increasing
temperatures, or where agricultural employment opportunities are declining, the most suitable
adaptation might be to develop off-farm sources of income. Support for small business
development would be an appropriate strategy, which would enable people to shift from
producing to purchasing food. Farmers might also benefit from better access to credit and
markets, and there have been recent developments in supporting weather-indexed insurance
for small-scale farmers. Other adaptations might be to stop farming and find alternative
income-generating projects or migrate to find work. Migration often occurs in response to
drought and flood events, with migrants remitting money back to villages to sustain their
extended families.
58
Protecting food security through mitigation of climate change
3. PROTECTING FOOD
SECURITY THROUGH
MITIGATION OF CLIMATE
CHANGE
In the long term, mitigating climate change will be critical to avoiding future breakdowns in
food and livelihood systems and sharp increases in the number of food-insecure people
worldwide. Historically, land conversion from forest to pasture- or cropland, and intensive
crop and livestock production practices have been important sources of greenhouse gas
emissions. Food systems also have enormous potential to mitigate climate change, however,
particularly at the production end of the food chain. Moreover, many of the most effective
mitigation measures also represent highly effective adaptation strategies, especially for
commercial agriculture.
Investing in wider adoption of best practices for mitigation in the food and agriculture
sector could therefore have multiple payoffs for food security, including contributing to the
stability of global food markets and providing new employment opportunities in the
commercial agriculture sector, as well enhancing the sustainability of vulnerable livelihood
systems. Such practices include:
x reducing emissions of CO2, such as through reduction in the rate of land conversion
and deforestation, better control of wildfires, adoption of alternatives to the burning
of crop residues after harvest, reduction of emissions from commercial fishing
operations, and more efficient energy use by forest dwellers, commercial agriculture
and agro-industries;
x reducing emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, such as through improved nutrition
for ruminant livestock, more efficient management of livestock waste and of
irrigation water on rice paddies, more efficient applications of nitrogen fertilizer on
cultivated fields, and reclamation of treated municipal wastewater for aquifer
recharge and irrigation;
x sequestering carbon, such as through improved management of soil organic matter,
with conservation agriculture involving permanent organic soil cover, minimum
mechanical soil disturbance and crop rotation (which also saves on fossil fuel usage);
improved management of pastures and grazing practices on natural grasslands,
including by optimizing stock numbers and rotational grazing; introduction of
integrated agroforestry systems that combine crops, grazing lands and trees in
ecologically sustainable ways: use of degraded, marginal lands for productive planted
forests or other cellulose biomass for alternative fuels; and carbon sink tree plantings.
According to the most recent data released by IPCC, clearing of forested area for
agriculture accounted for 17.4 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, with
emissions from intensive crop and livestock production contributing another 13.5 percent
(Figure 14). By contrast, studies carried out by the World Resources Institute (WRI) indicate
that energy sector emissions attributable to agricultural and food processing use of fossil fuels
account for only 2.4 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (WRI, 2006). The share of total
transportation emissions attributable to food system activities is not identified, but as total
59
emissions for all forms of transport for all purposes came to just 13.1 percent, the part
attributable to transport of food commodities and products is likely to be low.
In the United Kingdom, the Carbon Trust, established in 2001 with government funding,
has promoted the concept of the “carbon footprint”. By undertaking a carbon investigation of
their supply chains, all businesses can minimize the carbon emitted at every stage of a
product’s life cycle, from source to shelf, consumption and disposal. The total amount of
carbon emitted to arrive at a final product is that product’s carbon footprint (Carbon Trust).
Figure 14. Contributions of agriculture and forestry to greenhouse gas emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in 2004
Energy 25.9
Industry 19.4
Forestry 17.4
Agriculture 13.5
Transport 13.1
Buildings 7.9
Waste and wastewater 2.8
Source: Adapted from IPCC, 2007b.
Application of this concept to the food system has led some to argue that food products
imported from developing to developed countries, particularly horticultural products
transported by air, should not be traded because of their high carbon footprints. However, the
principal suppliers of these foods are small-scale farmers who are just emerging into
commercial markets, whose livelihood systems are still precarious and whose household food
security would be seriously jeopardized if new overseas market opportunities were suddenly
denied them.
Moreover, as already described, the carbon footprint of food processing and transport is
negligible compared with the emissions generated by production processes in the food
system. Therefore, although there are opportunities for reducing the carbon footprint of food
at all stages of the food chain, the focus of mitigation efforts in the food system should be on
introducing agricultural production practices that reduce emissions or increase carbon
sequestration.
REDUCING EMISSIONS
Good options exist for reducing the current level of agriculture-related emissions and, in the
process, introducing more sustainable farming practices that strengthen ecosystem resilience
and provide more security for agriculture-based livelihoods in the face of increased climatic
variability. These are discussed in the following sections.
Reducing agricultural and forestry emissions of carbon dioxide

The primary source of carbon emissions in the food and agriculture sector is land conversion
from forested area to cultivated or grazing land. Carbon emissions can be reduced through
more efficient energy use by mechanized agriculture and agro-industries, and through
adoption of alternatives to the common practice of burning crop residues after harvest.
However, the amounts involved are minor compared with the potential contribution that
reducing the rate of deforestation could make.
As already noted, intentional land conversion and deforestation, also referred to as
anthropogenic land-use change, currently accounts for an important share of greenhouse gas
60
emissions. Moreover, the reduction in global forested area caused by land clearing and
unsustainable logging (in which cut trees are not replaced with new plantings) has reduced the
capacity of the world’s forests to store carbon. Evidence shows that Amazon deforestation,
related to agricultural expansion for livestock grazing and the production of livestock feed
and biofuel crops, already contributes substantially to global anthropogenic CO2 emissions
(Carvalho et al., 2004). Continued intensification of the global livestock industry and growing
demand for liquid biofuel crops will create additional pressure to clear tropical forests
worldwide unless policies are put in place to manage the process sustainably.
UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol recognize the potential role of forests in providing a
variety of adaptive ecosystem services in addition to mitigating climate change through
carbon sequestration. These services include biodiversity preservation, watershed protection
on mountain slopes, control of desertification, and maintenance of the environmental integrity
of fragile coastal zones. However, current rates of forest degradation and deforestation are
threatening the capacity of the world’s forests to perform these multiple roles.
Cyclical loss and regrowth of trees and forests is a natural process. Forests are regularly
ravaged by the spread of plant pests and fire. Natural fires maintain forest health by clearing
away dense brush and dead wood and allowing new growth to emerge; they are also part of
the life cycles of some species. The natural burning of trees and other organic matter releases
CO2 into the atmosphere, while the decay of dead plants produces methane. These emissions
of greenhouse gases are normally compensated for by the process of photosynthesis in living
plants, especially the new vegetation that springs up on cleared land and needs CO2 in order
to grow. In recent times, however, a still largely uncontrolled process of deforestation
resulting from human activity has been altering this natural balance.
Changes in temperature ranges and precipitation, attributable to climate change, can harm
forests further. Droughts and forest fires are expected to increase, with devastating effects on
forests that are already stressed by human activity. There are indications that the Amazon is
drying out, which could lead to dangerous fires and desertification. Invasive insect species
may also damage forest health. Insects’ role in boreal ecology is to decompose litter, supply
food for birds and small animals and eliminate diseased trees, but insect attacks are likely to
increase in frequency and intensity as established forests succumb to the physiological stress
associated with warmer weather (Greenpeace Online). In Canada, for example, more than 12
million ha of forests have been lost in recent years, owing to mountain pine beetle attacks,
which are more common when winters are mild.
Forests’ capacity to play their natural role in maintaining climatic stability is closely linked
to food systems’ response to the challenge of climate change. To slow down and eventually
reverse the still largely uncontrolled deforestation process, forest clearing, grazing in forested
areas, cutting of trees for fuelwood and commercial logging must all become planned
activities, based on trade-offs between benefits and costs at different spatial and temporal
scales.
Action is needed on several fronts, especially through an integrated approach that
simultaneously addresses the global demand for additional land to produce food and fuel, the
dependence on forests as a source of livelihood for many rural people in developing countries,
and the economic value of ecosystem services provided by forests. The actions required
include creating economic alternatives to reduce the incentive for clearing forests or using
forest resources unsustainably, promoting second-generation biofuels to avoid land clearing
for biofuel crops, and enforcing more strictly the regulations that discourage potential
investors from setting wildfires to clear land for commercial development.
Controlling frontier expansion in tropical rain forests can make an important contribution
to climate change mitigation, but often the sole option for preserving forested area is through
intensifying agricultural production on the better land. It has been demonstrated that when
intensification involves increased fertilizer inputs, the related emission increases are far less
than the avoided emissions of organic carbon from the forests that have been preserved (Vlek,
Rodriguez-Kuhl and Sommer, 2004).
Use of carbon offset schemes to pay rural households for sustainable management of the
forested areas that they rely on for fuel and other forest products can provide the incentive to
61
stop them cutting wood to sell as timber, fuelwood or charcoal. To be effective, however, this
approach needs to be accompanied by public or private sector investment in alternative
sources of timber and cooking fuel to meet the growing demand.
Reducing agricultural emissions of methane and nitrous oxide

Digestive processes and wastes from ruminant livestock that eat a great deal of fibrous
material are an important source of methane, especially in intensive production units, where
large numbers of animals are concentrated in relatively small spaces. Worldwide, ruminant
livestock are the largest source of methane from human-related activities (EPA Online).
Through the process of enteric fermentation, which is unique to ruminant animals such as
cattle, sheep and goats, unused carbon is released in the form of methane during the digestion
of fibrous materials in the diet. Methane emissions from animal manure are also considerable,
and increasing rapidly. These two sources account for 60 percent of agricultural emissions of
methane and about 30 percent of total anthropogenic methane emissions. The other main
source of agricultural methane is rice, accounting for almost 40 percent of agricultural
methane emissions and about 20 percent of all human-caused methane emissions (GHG
Online a).
Although nitrous oxide is a relatively less important greenhouse gas in terms of share, it is
highly potent, and derives almost entirely from manure, cultivated soils that have been
fertilized with organic matter or inorganic compounds containing nitrogen, and nitrogen-
fixing legumes. The following sections discuss methods for minimizing emissions of methane
and nitrous oxide from agricultural activities.
Reducing methane emissions from ruminant livestock: Methane emissions per animal and
per unit of livestock product are high when the animals’ diet is poor (EPA Online). Range-fed
beef cows are the most important source of methane from enteric fermentation because they
are very large animals, even compared with dairy cows; their diets, consisting mainly of
forages of varying quality, are generally poorer than those in the dairy or feedlot sectors; the
level of management is usually not as good; and the beef cow population is very large. Better
grazing management and dietary supplementation have been identified as the most effective
ways of reducing emissions from this sector because they improve animal nutrition and
reproductive efficiency.
There are several technologies for reducing methane release from enteric fermentation.
The basic principle is to increase the digestibility of feedstuffs, by either modifying feed or
manipulating the digestive process. Most ruminants in developing countries, particularly in
Africa and south Asia, have a very fibrous diet. Technically, these diets are relatively easy to
improve through the use of feed additives or supplements. However, such techniques are
often beyond the reach of smallholder livestock producers, who lack the capital, and
sometimes the knowledge, to implement changes. Often, technical improvements may not be
economical, such as where there is lack of demand or insufficient infrastructure. Even in
Australia, for example, many opportunities to reduce emissions, such as through dietary fat
supplementation or increased grain feeding, are not part of the low-cost range-fed dairy
system, which focuses on per hectare rather than per cow production (Eckard, Dalley and
Crawford, 2000)
Another approach is to increase the level of starch or rapidly fermentable carbohydrates in
the diet, thereby reducing excess hydrogen and the subsequent formation of methane. These
too are measures that extensive range-fed production systems may not be able to adopt
without external support, but national or regional planning strategies in areas where such
systems are important could promote change. More advanced technologies that are being
studied but are not currently operational would be applicable to free-ranging ruminants.
Livestock fed on improved diets produce more milk and meat per animal. This increased
production efficiency reduces the amount of methane emitted per unit of production and the
size of the herd required to produce a given level of product. Because many developing
countries are striving to increase production from ruminant animals (primarily milk and
62
meat), improvements in production efficiency are urgently needed to meet goals while
avoiding increase methane emissions.
In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that more
efficient livestock production has already led to increased milk production, and methane
emissions have decreased over the last several decades (EPA Online). Technically speaking,
the potential for efficiency gains – and therefore for methane reductions – is even larger for
beef and other ruminant meat production, which is typically based on poorer management,
including inferior diets. Better grazing management and dietary supplementation have been
identified as effective ways of improving efficiency and reducing emissions from this sector.
In evaluating the emission reductions obtained from dietary modifications, it is important
to consider that the feed and feed supplements used to enhance productivity and reduce
methane emissions may have considerable embodied greenhouse gas emissions that have a
negative affect on the balance. Increased reliance on mechanized production of feedgrains for
both ruminants and non-ruminants has made the livestock food chain more fossil fuel-
intensive.
Relying more on non-ruminant sources of animal protein (pigs, poultry, fish) in the diet
can mitigate emissions from enteric fermentation and contribute to food security by
improving the livelihoods of livestock-dependent households and adding diversity to the diet.
Most of the increase in demand for animal protein to 2030 and beyond is projected to occur in
emerging developing countries in Asia, where pig and poultry meat is preferred, so the
relative share of beef in total animal protein consumption is likely to decline over time. If
rising costs for water, feed and fuel trigger significant increases in the market price for
ruminant livestock products, the result could be a shift in consumer behaviour among those
who currently prefer beef..
Reducing methane emissions from rice: At between 50 and 100 million tonnes of methane a
year, rice agriculture is a large source of atmospheric methane, possibly the greatest of the
human-incurred methane sources. The warm, waterlogged soil of rice paddies provides ideal
conditions for methanogenesis, and although some of the methane produced is usually
oxidized by methanotrophs in the shallow overlying water, the vast majority is released into
the atmosphere (GHG Online b).
As the world population increases, reducing rice agriculture remains largely untenable as a
strategy for reducing methane emissions from paddy rice fields. However, substantial reductions
are possible through a more integrated approach to rice paddy irrigation and varietal selection.
Many rice varieties can be grown under much drier conditions than those traditionally employed,
with large reductions in methane emission without any loss in yield. Intermittent and/or alternating
dry-wet irrigation of rice fields can be employed with these varieties.
Applying the principles of conservation agriculture to crops such as irrigated rice would
provide chances for reducing the water consumption of this cropping system and, by changing
the soil environment from mostly anaerobic to aerobic, could also make it easier to fine-tune
the irrigation pattern to reduce the emission of methane. There is also great potential for
improved varieties of rice that can produce much larger crops per area of rice paddy, thereby
allowing for reduced areas of rice paddies without reducing production. The addition of
compounds that favour the activity of other microbial groups over that of the methanogens,
such as ammonium sulphate, has proved successful under some conditions.
Reducing methane emissions from manure: Although manure is the residue from animals’
digestive processes – so is a waste product – it contains important amounts of nitrogen,
phosphates and potassium that provide valuable soil nutrients when applied to farmers’ fields.
Poor manure management can increase the loss of pollutants to the environment, however.
Nitrogen in manures can be lost as nitrate, nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas) or ammonia (a
constituent of acid rain and a cause of terrestrial eutrophication). Phosphorus-rich manure
particles can be washed into watercourses, and can raise soil phosphorus contents to levels
where phosphorus leaching begins.
63
If manure is managed as a liquid substance, it decays and forms methane (University of

Hertfordshire Online). In the wild, animal manure is spread over a wide area and decomposes
aerobically in the oxygen in the natural environment. Intensive livestock rearing methods
cause high concentrations of manure to build up in relatively small areas, however, leading to
a predominance of anaerobic (oxygen-free) decomposition of the manure, which produces
methane (GHG Online c).
There are options for managing manure in ways that do not contribute to greenhouse gas
accumulation. Methane is not released when manure is managed as a solid substance through
composting and drying, or is applied and worked into the fields without being left to stand.
Moving away from intensive rearing methods to increased grazing time for animals, so
greater dispersal of their manure, also increases aerobic rather than anaerobic decomposition
and reduces the rate of methane production.
The temperature at which manure is stored can have a significant effect on methane
production. In farming systems where manure is stored in stables, such as in pig farms where
effluents are stored in a pit in the cellar of the stable, emissions can be higher than when
manure is stored outside at lower ambient temperatures. Greenhouse gas production can also
be reduced through deep cooling of manure. Cooling of pig slurry can reduce indoor methane
and nitrous oxide emissions by 21 percent (Sommer, Peterson and Møller, 2004).
Trapping the methane released by livestock manure, for example in slurry tanks, has
already proved very successful in reducing methane emissions to the atmosphere. The
recovered methane, often called “biogas”, can be flared off as CO2 or used as a fuel.
The capture and burning of methane released from animal wastes is an increasingly
applied form of energy generation and forms the basis for several carbon reduction and
trading projects. Biogas is typically made up of 65 percent methane and 35 percent CO2, so
the combustion of methane releases CO2, but this is 23 times less noxious in terms of global
warming impact than methane is. A further mitigation dividend is obtained when combustion
provides an energy source to replace the use of fossil fuels.
There are various storage systems for exploiting this huge potential, including covered lagoons
and other structures for liquid storage, such as pits and tanks. These are suitable for large- or
small-scale systems and cover a wide range of technological options and degrees of sophistication.
Covered lagoons and biogas systems produce a slurry that reduces methane emission when
applied to rice fields, instead of untreated dung (Mendis and Openshaw. 2004).
The wider use of biogas systems (either for generating energy for on-farm use or for
delivering electricity to the public net) depends on the relative prices of other energy sources.
Until recently, biogas systems have not usually been competitive without subsidies, apart
from in remote locations where electricity and other forms of energy are unavailable or
unreliable. However, interest in this source of energy is growing.
It is assumed that manure emissions in cool climates could be reduced by 50 percent
through adoption of an alternative management option to replace the storage of manure as
liquid slurry in open pits. In warmer climates, where methane emissions from liquid slurry are
estimated to be more than three times as high (IPCC, 2007b), a reduction potential of 75
percent is considered reasonable.
Reducing nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils: A major direct source of nitrous
oxide from agricultural soils is the widespread increase in the use of synthetic nitrate-based
fertilizers, driven by the need for greater crop yields and by more intensive farming practices.
Where large applications of these fertilizers are combined with irrigation practices that
saturate soils, the resulting lack of oxygen in the soil produces conditions that are favourable
to anaerobic conversion of solid nitrates and nitrites into nitrogen-containing gases
(denitrification) and release of large amounts of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.
The widespread and often poorly controlled use of animal waste as fertilizer can also lead
to substantial emissions of nitrous oxide from agricultural soils. The ammonia in urea-based
fertilizers and manures vaporizes when exposed to the air. Ammonia, a compound containing
nitrogen and hydrogen, can also be a source of nitrous oxide through volatilization following
fertilizer application or during storage of manure.
64
Some additional nitrous oxide is thought to arise from agricultural soils through the
planting of leguminous crops that fix nitrogen, but the importance of this source is not yet
clear. Nitrogen leaching and runoff from agricultural soils is another source of nitrous oxide
emissions. After fertilizer application or heavy rain, large amounts of nitrogen may leach
from the soil into drainage ditches, streams, rivers and eventually estuaries. Part of the nitrous
oxide produced in agricultural soils is emitted to the atmosphere as soon as drainage water is
exposed to the air, and another part is deposited in aquatic and estuarine sediments and
emitted from there after undergoing denitrification (GHG Online d).
Net nitrogen use in farming affects climate change, because it is linked to nitrous oxide
emissions, and water pollution, because nitrates pollute soil, fresh and marine waters. Net nitrogen
use can be measured relatively easily by recording the amounts of nitrogenous fertilizers and
manures that are used on the farm, adding the nitrogen estimated to be fixed by legumes, and
subtracting the nitrogen harvested in the crop and by-products. The net climate change impact is
calculated by deducting the sequestration of greenhouse gases absorbed by the additional plant
growth caused by fertilizer use from the temperature-forcing impacts of nitrogen fertilizers.
The best way to manage human interference in the nitrogen cycle is to maximize the
efficiency of nitrogen uses (Smil, 1999). Better targeting of fertilizer applications, in both
space and time, can significantly reduce releases of nitrous oxides from agricultural soils.
Land management strategies that consider the optimum amounts of fertilizer necessary for
maximum crop yield and minimum waste are crucial, both environmentally and
economically. The exact form of nitrogen-based fertilizer and the best time of year to use it
are other key factors on which to base fertilization campaigns.
Rapid incorporation and shallow injection of livestock wastes reduce nitrogen loss to the
atmosphere by at least 50 percent, and deep injection into the soil essentially eliminates the loss
(Rotz, 2004). Crop rotations that efficiently recycles these nutrients, and fertilizer applications
near to when they are needed by crops reduce the potential for further loss. RICMS uses a variety
of these methods to increase the efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer in rice production.
Options for reducing emissions from grazing systems are also important. Adding
nitrification inhibitors to urea or ammonium fertilizer compounds before application can
substantially reduce emissions of nitrous oxide (Monteny, Bannink and Chadwick, 2006). On
pastures, this technology inhibits the production of nitrous oxide from animal urine (Di and
Cameron, 2003). Balanced feeding is also important; for example, feed that is high in nitrogen
will produce manure with high nitrogen content, which emits greater levels of nitrous oxide
than manure with low nitrogen content does.
Land drainage is another option for reducing nitrous oxide emissions before nitrogen
enters the next phase of the nitrogen cascade. The compacting of soil by traffic, tillage and
grazing livestock can reduce its oxygen content and enhance conditions for denitrification.
Reducing soil wetness through better drainage can increase oxygen content and may reduce
nitrous oxide emission significantly, especially in more humid environments.
SEQUESTERING CARBON
Although it can take much longer for carbon to be released from the atmosphere than it takes
for it to get there (Doney and Schimel, 2007), carbon capture and sequestration can slow
global warming significantly, even if emissions continue to increase. What matters is the
amount of carbon that is added to the atmosphere per year, compared with the carbon
sequestered in addition to the historical average per year.
As Table 7 shows, the global terrestrial carbon sequestration potential is about 4.5 to 5 billion
tonnes per year, compared with net releases into the atmosphere of about 3.5 billion tonnes per
year for the period 1980 to 1989 (UNEP-GRID-Arendal). In response to this imbalance, land is
being set aside for the creation of carbon sinks in new-growth forests, grasslands are being
rehabilitated and conservation agriculture on cultivated soils is being promoted as important
climate mitigation measures. Because the creation of sinks involves changes in land and forest
management practices and difficult land-use policy decisions, the food and agriculture sector will
be critical for the success or failure of many carbon sink initiatives.
65
TABLE 7
Global terrestrial carbon sequestration potential
Carbon sink Potential (billion tonnes per year)
Arable lands 0.850.90
Biomass crops for biofuel 0.500.80
Grasslands and rangelands 1.701.70
Forests 1.002.00
Total 4.055.40
Source: adapted from Rice, 1999.
Carbon sequestration involves increasing the carbon storage in terrestrial systems, above
or below ground. The main thrust of efforts to use agriculture to manage greenhouse gases has
so far been to increase above-ground sequestration, primarily through planting trees, which
allows large per-hectare amounts of carbon to be sequestered. New-growth forests are an
especially important form of carbon sink, because of the amount of carbon dioxide that they
absorb.
Recent studies have shown that well-managed grasslands and conservation agriculture can
work as well or better as techniques for sequestering carbon (Mannetje, L.’t. 2006). If the
carbon stock in soils has been depleted as a consequence of past land-use changes and
agricultural activities, changes in soil management practices can trigger a process of carbon
accumulation below ground, over time. Eventually, the system reaches a new carbon stock
equilibrium or saturation point, and no new carbon is absorbed, but until then carbon
sequestration is low-cost and can be readily implemented.
Practices that increase carbon sequestration have additional benefits, including increased
root biomass, soil organic matter, water and nutrient retention capacity and, hence, land
productivity. Investments in improved land management leading to increased soil fertility and
carbon sequestration can often be justified by their contributions to agronomic productivity,
national economic growth, food security and biodiversity conservation (FAO, 2004a).
This section explores four feasible options for carbon sequestration: reforestation and
afforestation, rehabilitating degraded grasslands, rehabilitating cultivated soils, and promoting
conservation agriculture. Enhancing carbon sequestration in degraded drylands and mountain
slopes by any of these methods could have direct environmental, economic and social benefits
for local people, with consequent improvement in their food security status.
Reforestation and afforestation

Reforestation involves planting new trees in existing forested areas where old treess have
been cut or burned; afforestation involves planting stands of trees on land that is not currently
classified as forest. Sustainable forest management requires that a new tree be planted for
every tree cut down by logging, fuelwood gathering or land clearing activities. At the global
level, however, meaningful carbon sequestration through reforestation and afforestation
would require that more new trees be planted each year than were lost to deforestation in the
previous year.
Farmers, commercial logging companies, industrial roundwood producers and fuelwood
plantation managers all have the possibility to plant large numbers of new trees as part of their
normal operations. Public sector programmes to replant forested areas that have been
destroyed by wildfires or arson can also be managed so that they add to the global carbon sink
reserve.
Areas that have been intentionally converted from forest to other land uses need to be
transformed into stable agricultural areas as quickly as possible, so they are not left in the
vulnerable transition period for too long. Cleared land is at high risk of erosion and loss of
soil moisture, so fast-growing cover crops should be planted as soon as possible after clearing,
even if they are subsequently replaced by something else. In addition to reducing the risk of
66
erosion, these crops will absorb some CO2 and can later be ploughed under to enhance the
fertility and water-retention capacity of the soil.
Increasing the extent of protected areas and natural parks is another way of augmenting
carbon stores. Preserving forests is therefore a vital part of any strategy to mitigate climate
change. For example, Greenpeace estimates that the Canadian and Russian boreal forests
alone hold 40 percent of the world’s terrestrial carbon stocks. In addition, protected areas and
natural parks such as mangrove swamps in southeast Asia or wildlife reserves in southern
Africa can be managed by local people in ways that simultaneously improve their livelihoods,
sequester carbon, preserve biodiversity and provide residues for second-generation biofuels.
Forest-dependent people and vulnerable people living on degraded land can provide forest-
related environmental services with carbon sequestration potential, as long as appropriate
compensation is paid. Such services include the incorporation of reforestation and
afforestation in sustainable upper watershed management schemes, and the introduction of
integrated agroforestry farming systems that include planting fast-maturing tree crops and
woodlots to prevent soil erosion, restore the soil’s water retention capacity and contribute to
farm income, as well as sequestering carbon.
Rehabilitating degraded grasslands

Rain forests and grasslands (or rangelands as they are also called) are the world’s last
remaining land resources still to exist in more or less their natural state. Both are in danger of
degradation and disappearance through inappropriate use, overexploitation and destruction,
posing a major threat to the capacity of the earth’s climate system to mitigate global warming
(FAO, 2007e). Grasslands in semi-arid, increasingly overpopulated regions, such as in Africa,
Central Asia, northern China and Mongolia, are in even greater danger than rain forests,
because they are subject to regular droughts, intense cropping, overgrazing and fuelwood
depletion, leading to degradation and desertification (Mannetje, 2002, cited in FAO, 2007e).
Grasslands cover about 25 percent of the world’s surface and contribute to the livelihoods
of more than 800 million people, including many poor smallholders and pastoralists. In this
ecosystem, vegetation and large herbivorous mammals have co-evolved to keep the system in
equilibrium. Scattered stands of trees form a natural part of the ecosystem, but there are no
closed forests. Grasslands are particularly adapted for grazing livestock, and pastoral farming
systems are important, especially in more arid parts. Mixed farming systems are also
important. However, overgrazing, reduction of fallow, water scarcity and cutting of trees for
fuel and timber are degrading the land, creating energy scarcities and increasing the
prevalence of poverty and food insecurity for many rural people. With better management,
these grasslands can produce feedstocks for manufacturing biofuel for local markets, give
their inhabitants more secure and sustainable livelihoods that will be resilient in variable and
uncertain weather conditions, and provide carbon sequestration services to the world.
Several aspects of dryland soils work in favour of carbon sequestration in arid regions. Dry
soils are less likely to lose carbon than wet soils, as lack of water limits soil mineralization
and therefore the flux of carbon into the atmosphere. As a result, carbon’s residence time in
dryland soils is long, sometimes even longer than it is in forest soils. Although carbon
sequestration in these regions occurs at low rates, it may be cost-effective, particularly taking
into account all the side-benefits resulting from soil improvement and restoration (FAO,
2004a).
Improved grassland management through the incorporation of trees, improved species,
fertilization and other measures can reverse carbon losses, lead to net sequestration and yield
additional benefits, particularly by preserving/restoring biodiversity. In 1991, up to 71 percent
of the world’s grasslands were reported to be degraded to some extent (Dregne, Kassa and
Rzanov, 1991). Given the large extent of drylands, and the fact that degradation processes
have caused carbon levels in dryland soils to drop well below the saturation point, drylands
have a great potential for carbon sequestration.
Overgrazing is the greatest cause of degradation in grasslands, and the overriding human-
influenced factor in determining their soil carbon levels. In many systems, improved grazing
67
management practices, such as optimizing stock numbers and rotational grazing, will
therefore result in substantial increases in carbon pools. Among the many other technical
options are fire management, protection of land and set-asides, and enhancement of grassland
production, such as through fertilization and the introduction of deep-rooted/legume species.
Models can indicate the respective effects of these practices in a particular situation.
More severely degraded land requires landscape rehabilitation and erosion control. This is
more difficult, particularly from an economic perspective, but Australian research has
reported considerable success in rehabilitating landscape function by promoting the rebuilding
of patches (Baker, Barnett and Howden, 2000). In many situations, improved pasture
management and integrated agroforestry systems that combine crops, grazing lands and trees
in ecologically sustainable ways are effective in conserving the environment and mitigating
climate change, while providing more diversified and secure livelihoods for inhabitants.
The real potential for terrestrial soil carbon sequestration is uncertain, because data are lacking
and there is insufficient understanding of the dynamics of soil organic carbon at all levels,
including the molecular, the landscape, the regional and the global (Metting, Smith and Amthor,
1999). Lal estimates the ecotechnological scope for soil carbon sequestration in dryland
ecosystems to be about 1 billion tonnes of carbon per year, but realization of this potential would
require a “vigorous and a coordinated effort at a global scale towards desertification control,
restoration of degraded ecosystems, conversion to appropriate land uses, and adoption of
recommended management practices on cropland and grazing land” (Lal, 2004b).
Dryland conditions offer very few economic incentives to invest in land rehabilitation for
agricultural production. Compensation for carbon sequestration may tip the balance in some
situations, but significant local obstacles would need to be overcome before carbon credit
schemes can be used to realize grasslands’ potential for mitigating climate change and
securing more adequate and sustainable livelihoods for pastoral peoples. These obstacles
include the following:
x Pastoral areas usually have less infrastructure and much lower population density
than other rural areas.
x Carbon credit schemes require communication among groups that are often distant
from one another; cultural values will be both a constraint and an opportunity in
pastoral lands.
x The payment required to motivate pastoralists to change their grazing practices may be
higher than the market can bear. (Reid et al., 2004 estimate that payments of US$10 per
tonne of stored carbon would increase the income of extremely poor herders by only 15
percent; payments of US$65 would be required to lift them out of poverty.)
x The government institutions required to implement such schemes often have
insufficient strength and ability (Reid et al., 2004).
Rehabilitating cultivated soils

The relatively low CO2 emissions from arable land leave little scope for mitigation, but there
is great potential for net sequestration of carbon in cultivated soils. According to Lal, the
carbon sink capacity of the world’s agricultural and degraded soils is 50 to 66 percent of the
total carbon loss since 1850 (Lal, 2004b).
Under conventional cultivation practices, the conversion of natural systems to cultivated
agriculture results in soil organic carbon losses of about 20 to 50 percent compared with pre-
cultivation stocks in the surface metre (Paustian et al., 1997). Non-conventional cultivation
practices allow soil quality to improve and soil organic carbon levels to increase. Such
practices can be grouped into three classes: agricultural intensification, conservation
agriculture and erosion reduction. Sustainable intensification practices include improved
cultivars, well-managed irrigation, organic and inorganic fertilization, management of soil
acidity, green manure and cover crops in rotations, integrated pest management, double
cropping and crop rotation. Increased crop yields result in more carbon accumulation in crop
biomass, or alteration of the harvest index. The higher residue inputs associated with higher
68
yields favour enhanced soil carbon storage (Paustian et al., 1997). IPCC provides an
indication of the “carbon gain rate” that can be obtained from some of these practices (IPCC,
2007b). Table 8 suggests which common conventional soil management practice can be
replaced by which improved practice to restore soil quality and sequester carbon.
These improved agricultural practices were developed to achieve the larger objectives of Agenda
21 Chapter 14 – Sustainable agriculture and rural development – adopted by UNCED in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992. Efforts to promote them have demonstrated that farmers will decide whether or not
to adopt an improved practice depending on the expected net returns, in the context of existing
agricultural and environmental policies. Although farmers’ adoption of the practices brings such on-
farm benefits as increased crop yields, these benefits must result in an overall net improvement to
farmers’ livelihoods, otherwise the improved practices will not be widely accepted.
Promoting conservation agriculture

Conventional tillage involves the use of mechanical implements to break up the soil. The simplest
such implement is the hand hoe. Mechanized soil tillage allows higher working depths and speeds
and involves the use of such implements as tractor-drawn ploughs, disk harrows and rotary
cultivators. This initially increases fertility because it mineralizes soil nutrients and makes it easier
for plants to absorb them through their roots. In the long term, however, repeated ploughing and
mechanical cultivation breaks down the soil structure and leads to reduced soil organic matter and
loss of soil nutrients. This structural degradation of soils results in compaction and the formation
of crusts, leading to soil erosion. This process is dramatic under tropical climatic situations, but
can also be noticed all over the world. The heavy machinery used for tillage in intensive crop
agriculture has particularly detrimental effects on soil structure.
The logical approach to this is to reduce tillage. Movements promoting conservation
tillage, especially zero-tillage, first emerged in southern Brazil, North America, New Zealand
and Australia. Over the last two decades, the technologies have been improved and adapted
for nearly all farm sizes, soils, crop types and climatic zones. Experience is still being gained
with this new approach to agriculture, which FAO has supported for many years.
Conservation agriculture is based on enhancing natural biological processes above and
below ground. Interventions such as mechanical soil tillage are reduced to an absolute
minimum, and external inputs such as agrochemicals and nutrients of mineral or organic
origin are applied at optimum levels and in ways and quantities that do not interfere with or
disrupt biological processes.
TABLE 8
Agricultural practices for enhancing productivity and increasing the amount of
carbon in soils
Conventional practice Recommended practice
Plough tilling Conservation tilling or zero-tillage
Residue removal or burning Residue return as mulch
Summer fallow Growing cover crops
Low off-farm inputs Judicious use of fertilizers and integrated nutrient
management
Regular fertilizer use Site-specific soil management
No water control Water management/conservation, irrigation, water
table management
Fence-to-fence utilization Conversion of marginal lands to nature conservation
Monoculture Improved farming systems with several crop rotations
Land use along poverty lines and Integrated watershed management
political boundaries
Draining wetlands Restoring wetlands
Source: FAO. 2004a.
69
Intensive cultivation with tractors and ploughs is a major cause of soil erosion and land
degradation in many developing countries, especially where the topsoil is thin. As well as
reducing tillage, the farmers who adopt conservation agriculture also keep a protective soil
cover of leaves, stems and stalks from the previous crop, which shields the soil surface from
heat, wind and rain, keeps soils cooler and reduces moisture losses by evaporation. Less
tillage also means lower fuel and labour costs, and farmers need to spend less on heavy
machinery. In zero-tillage agriculture, the soil is never turned over, and soil quality is
maintained entirely by the continuous presence of a cover crop. Crop rotation over several
seasons is essential to minimize the outbreak of pests and diseases (EuropaWorld, 2001).
Conservation agriculture increases soil organic matter, and this in turn increases the
amount of carbon stored in the soil. Under conventional tillage, this carbon is metabolized by
soil microorganisms into CO2. Experiences with conservation agriculture so far show that the
increase in soil organic matter continues for about 30 years, before levelling out to a new
equilibrium, which generally corresponds to the organic matter content of the virgin soil,
before it was taken under cultivation. In some cases however, the organic matter content can
exceed this original level, where other land amelioration techniques have improved the
production potential of the land compared with the virgin soil.
The global application of conservation agriculture could result in a total sequestration of
up to 3 billion tonnes of carbon per year, for about 30 years; this is nearly the equivalent of
the atmospheric net increase in CO2 of anthropogenic origin. Soil carbon sequestration can be
increased further when cover crops are used in combination with conservation tillage, but
because many of these cover crops are nitrogen fixers, the additional nitrous oxide that they
release is obviously detrimental.
Overall, FAO projections suggest that the global area of rainfed land under zero-
tillage/conservation agriculture could increase considerably. If these projections materialize –
although it is by no means certain that they will – the results would be such benefits as
reduced soil erosion, smaller losses of plant nutrients, higher rainfall infiltration and better
soil moisture-building capacity, making a significant contribution to mitigating the impacts of
climate change (FAO, 2003b: 344). Similar conclusions have been reached by other scientific
research teams engaged in projecting the impact of climate change on agriculture, notably
those of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) (Rosegrant, Agcaoli-
Sombilla and Perez, 1995; Scherer and Yadav, 1996).
70
The way forward
4. THE WAY FORWARD

THE INSTITUTIONAL SETTING FOR ADDRESSING FOOD
SECURITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE LINKAGES
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Recognizing climate change as a potential global problem, WMO and UNEP established
IPCC in 1988; the first IPCC Assessment Report was completed in 1990. Since then, IPCC
has issued three more reports, each deepening the scientific understanding of climate change
processes and their implications for the earth system. The fourth IPCC Assessment Report,
released in September 2007, generated much public interest and raised climate change issues
to the top of the international political agenda.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, its Conference
of the Parties, the Kyoto Protocol and the Nairobi Worlk Programme
Largely based on the findings contained in the first IPCC report, UNFCCC was negotiated
and adopted in New York in time for signature at UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.
UNFCCC entered into force in 1994, and provides the overall policy framework for
addressing climate change issues. All the governments that have ratified it belong to the
Conference of the Parties (COP), which meets annually to review global climate policy and
oversee implementation of agreed mitigation and adaptation measures.
In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol to UNFCCC was adopted. This is an international and legally
binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases emissions worldwide, which entered into force
in 2005 on ratification by the required number of parties to UNFCCC. The most important
aspect of the Kyoto Protocol is its legally binding commitments for 39 developed countries to
reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by an average of 5.2 percent relative to 1990
levels. These emission reductions must be achieved by 2008–2012, the so-called “first
commitment period”.
In 2001, the seventh COP acknowledged that least-developed countries (LDCs) do not
have the means to deal with adaptation to climate change. It therefore established a work
programme for supporting LDCs in the preparation and implementation of National
Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).
The steps that a country typically takes to prepare a NAPA include (UNFCCC Online b):
x synthesis of available information;

x participatory assessment of vulnerability to current climate variability and extreme
events and of areas where risks would increase as a result of climate change;
x identification of key adaptation measures and criteria for prioritizing activities;
x short profiles of projects and/or activities to address urgent and immediate adaptation
needs in the country.
The NAPA takes into account existing coping strategies at the grassroots level, and builds
on these to identify priority activities that would benefit from further support, rather than
focusing on scenario-based modelling to assess future vulnerability, and long-term policy at
the national level. The NAPA process gives prominence to community-level inputs as an
important source of information, recognizing that communities are the main stakeholders.
In 2006, COP adopted the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and
Adaptation to Climate Change (NWP) as a basis for consolidating and intensifying adaptation
efforts. NWP was developed to help countries improve their understanding of climate change
impacts and their risk exposure, and to increase their ability to make informed decisions on
how to adapt successfully. It is an international framework implemented by parties to
71
UNFCCC, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, the private sector, communities and other
stakeholders (UNFCCC Online a).
At UNFCCC/COP’s annual meeting in Bali in December 2007, an opening round of
discussions was held on provisions to be included when the convention and Kyoto Protocol
come up for renewal in 2012. This served as an occasion to begin defining a global strategic
response to both the immediate and the more distant impacts of climate change on human
well-being – a process that will continue for the next five years.
Agenda 21 and sustainable agriculture and rural development

The concept of sustainable development was introduced in the 1987 report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Report) as a means of
shifting attention away from narrow sectoral interests towards an approach that embraces
environmental, social and economic goals.
This report provided the scientific underpinnings for UNCED. Popularly known as the
Earth Summit, UNCED represented a turning point in the way in which environment and
development are viewed. At the Earth Summit, world leaders adopted two formal treaties with
binding provisions – UNFCCC and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) – and three non-binding statements on the relationship between sustainable
environmental practices and the pursuit of social and socio-economic development: the Rio
Declaration, the Statement on Forest Principles, and Agenda 21 (CIESIN, 1996).
Agenda 21 was intended as a blueprint for attaining sustainable development in the
twenty-first century. It provides a comprehensive action programme for attaining sustainable
development and addressing both environmental and developmental issues in an integrated
manner at the global, national and local levels. Actions to address climate change are dealt
with in Chapter 9, Protecting the atmosphere, while Chapter 14 defines priority action areas
for achieving sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD).
Agenda 21, Chapter 9 recognizes that certain practices related to terrestrial and marine
resources and land use can decrease greenhouse gas sinks and increase atmospheric
emissions, and establishes, among others, the following objective:
“(a) To promote terrestrial and marine resource utilization and appropriate land-use practices that
contribute to:
i. the reduction of atmospheric pollution and/or the limitation of anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases;
ii .the conservation, sustainable management and enhancement, where appropriate, of all sinks for
greenhouse gases;
iii. the conservation and sustainable use of natural and environmental resources.” (Agenda 21,
Chapter 9)
Agenda 21, Chapter 14 articulates the concept of SARD. It contains 12 action areas for
achieving SARD (Agenda 21, Chapter 14), many of which are also priority action areas for
adapting to climate change in the food and agriculture sector. Since 1992, a body of
knowledge about best practices and technologies has been developed for the purposes of
implementing Agenda 21; these SARD best practices provide a menu of adaptation and
mitigation options that could be adopted immediately, providing the requisite investment
resources are forthcoming. Practices that have been advocated in the past as good practices
for SARD should not be excluded from the list of recommended options for responding to
climate change. The best options often involve innovative modifications of known good
practices, rather than completely new solutions.
Integrating adaptation and mitigation

IPCC recognizes the merit of an integrated strategic response to climate change (IPCC,
2007d), but because resources for mitigation and those for adaptation are managed through
different funding mechanisms, they are still treated separately on the international climate
policy agenda of UNFCC/COP and its subsidiary bodies. Nevertheless, although adaptation
72
The way forward
and mitigation are conceptually distinct, they are interdependent in practice, and both are
equally urgent from a food security perspective. Managing the increasing risk as storms,
floods and droughts become more frequent and intense is an immediate necessity. It is equally
imperative to begin adapting immediately to foreseeable shifts in agroclimatic zones, water
availability and related changes in species composition and disease vectors, as it will take
time for appropriate adaptive practices to take effect.
As there is still considerable uncertainty about how these more gradual changes are going to
play out, there is also a pressing need to improve the information base for selecting appropriate
adaptation options. Rather than lack of appropriate technologies, it is institutional weakness that
has often been the main obstacle to adopting sustainable agricultural and rural development
practices. Adaptation of institutions, including customs and behaviours as well as laws, regulations
and formally constituted structures, may therefore be the priority in many situations.
Mitigation is also a major concern because, if global warming is not brought under control,
there could be large-scale disruptions of food systems in the future that the world is unable to
manage. In addition, the agriculture sector’s important contribution to emissions, and its
equally important potential contribution to emission reductions and carbon sequestration,
mean that mitigation merits greater attention than it has hitherto received. In general,
mitigation in the food and agriculture sector will be most feasible when it is linked to better-
adapted agricultural practices, and this should be reflected in national strategies and
programmes with the flexibility to implement an integrated approach.
ACCESS TO FUNDS
The UNFCCC Climate Change Funds and the Global Environment Facility
Several funds within the United Nations system finance activities aimed at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and increasing resilience to the negative impacts of climate change.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established in 1991 as an independent financial
organization providing grants to developing countries for projects that benefit the global
environment and promote sustainable livelihoods in local communities.
In its role as a financing mechanism of UNFCCC, GEF supports mitigation and adaptation
measures that generate global benefits through the GEF Trust Fund. GEF projects in climate
change help developing countries and economies in transition to contribute to the overall
objective of UNFCCC by reducing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of
renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport, and by supporting
interventions that increase resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change in vulnerable
countries, sectors and communities (GEF Online). The GEF Secretariat administers two funds
under UNFCCC that focus on development – the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and
the Least Development Countries’ Fund (LDCF) –and will administer the start-up of the
Adaptation Fund which has only just become operational (Box 5).
Box 5: UNFCCC funding for climate change adaptation and mitigation
SCCF finances adaptation activities, especially projects on water resources management, land
management, agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems such as mountain
ecosystems, and coastal area integrated management. The current total for the fund is US$62 million.
LDCF is dedicated to LDCs. It finances the same activities as SFCC. LDCs have access to expedition
procedures for the approval of funding to support implementation of projects in the context of NAPAs.
The current total for the fund is US$116 million.
The Adaptation Fund is financed through a 2 percent share of the profits from CDM and finances
adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are signatories of the Kyoto Protocol.
The fund has only just started operations, but could become much larger than SCCF or LDCF.
Source: GEF, 2007.
73
The Clean Development Mechanism

CDM allows developed nations to achieve part of their emissions reduction obligations under
the Kyoto Protocol through projects in developing countries that offset greenhouse gas
emissions. Greenhouse gas offsets may involve anything from low-carbon energy production
to energy efficiency measures, the destruction of such greenhouse gases as methane and
nitrous oxide, tree planting or soil carbon enhancement activities. Rules and conditions for
CDM projects are shown in Annex IV.
The greenhouse gas benefits of each CDM project will be measured according to
internationally agreed methods and will be quantified in standard units – CERs. These are
expressed in tons of CO2 emission avoided. Such carbon credits can be bought and sold in a
new global carbon market and are already becoming a commodity (CDM Capacity Online).
Under CDM, although it is recognized that forms of land use other than forestry are
integral to the carbon cycle, only afforestation and reforestation activities are eligible for
credits. These activities may be large- or small-scale, involve single or multiple species, and
be implemented through either pure forestry or on-farm agroforestry systems.
As the global carbon market evolves, it is likely to follow the path of much of foreign
direct investment over the past decades, with the bulk going to a dozen or so larger
developing countries with the infrastructure and institutions to handle large projects easily. In
fact, projects approved thus far under the CDM have been mainly for low-carbon energy
production in a few rapidly industrrializing developing countries.
Other funding sources

For the vast majority of the poorer developing countries, the private sector is unlikely to pay
much attention unless steps are taken to attract CDM projects. This could be done by using:
x portfolio investors, such as the Prototype Carbon Fund of the World Bank and other
large financial institutions, which may wish to spread their projects around the
developing world, especially in poorer developing countries where the private sector
would not invest (CDM Capacity Online);
x international development assistance funds to help poorer developing countries to
build national capacity to develop and promote CDM projects (CDM Capacity
Online);
x the growing voluntary carbon market, in which businesses and consumers purchase
greenhouse gas reductions instead of reducing their own emissions (Gillenwater et
al., 2007).
In addition, the development community has recently begun to consider climate change,
and an increasing share of aid resources is likely to be allocated to adaptation measures that
are consistent with broader development objectives.
FAO’s ROLE
FAO possesses technical expertise relevant to climate change adaptation in a variety of
ecosystems, including agro-ecosystems (crops, livestock, grasslands), forests and woodlands,
inland waters, and coastal and marine ecosystems. It works to build national, local and
community-level capacities to raise awareness of and prepare for climate change impacts,
assists member countries in identifying potential adaptation options and helps local people
understand which are the most applicable to their particular circumstances.
Since 2002, FAO has been promoting National and Regional Programmes for Food
Security (NPFS and RPFS) as instruments that help countries enhance productivity and
diversify the livelihoods of rural people on a scale sufficient to achieve the 2015 targets set by
WFS and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In 2007, recognizing that climate
change is of critical importance for food security, FAO introduced guidelines for
incorporating actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change in NPFS. In countries with both
74
The way forward
an NPFS and a NAPA, FAO will facilitate the inclusion of appropriate actions from the
NAPA in the NPFS. Where there is no NAPA, FAO will provide necessary support for
incorporating priority adaptation measures in the NPFS. FAO will also assist countries in
integrating forest-related climate change mitigation and adaptation measures into their
NAPAs, National Forest Programmes (NFPs) and other forest policy and planning processes.
An important focus of FAO’s work is on achieving the last of the five expected outcomes
of NWP: “enhanced integration of actions to adapt to climate change with those to achieve
sustainable development”. Rather than enforcing a pre-selected mitigation practice or
adaptation option on any affected community or population group, the ultimate goal is to
inform and promote local dialogue about the likely impacts of climate change and the options
for reducing vulnerability, and to provide local communities with site-specific solutions.
The final word on the relationship between climate change and food security will therefore be
written, not by FAO experts, but rather by the people whose lives are most immediately affected
and whose choices will determine whether their future will be more or less food-secure.
75
References
REFERENCES
Abdulai, A. & CroleRees, A. 2001. Constraints to income diversification strategies: Evidence from
Southern Mali. Food Policy, 26(4): 437452
Agenda 21, Chapter 9. Available at:
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter9.htm.
Agenda 21, Chapter 14. Available at:
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter14.htm.
Archer, E.R.M., Oettlé, N.M., Louw, R. & Tadross, M.A. In press. Farming on the edge in arid
western South Africa: adapting to climate change in marginal environments. Geography. June
2008.
Audsley, E., Pearn, K.R., Simoa, C., Cojacaru, G., Koutsdou, E., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Trika, M.
& Alexandrov, V. 2005. What can scenario modelling tell us about future European scale land
use, and what not? Report of the ACCELERATES Project. European Commission Research
Directorate General (EVK2-CT-2000-00061). Brussels, European Commission.
Australian Bureau of Meteorology. 2006. Available at: www. www.bom.gov.au/.
Baker, B., Barnett, B. & Howden, M. 2000. Carbon sequestration in Australia’s rangelands.
Proceedings workshop: Management options for carbon sequestration in forest, agricultural and
rangeland ecosystems. Canberra. CRC for Greenhouse Accounting.
Butt, T.A., McCarl, B.A., Angerer, J.A., Dyke, P.A. & Stuth, J.W. 2005. The economic and food
security implications of climate change in Mali. Climate Change, 68: 355378.
CA. 2007. Water for food, water for life: A comprehensive assessment of water management in
agriculture. London, Earthscan and Colombo, IWMI.
Carbon Trust. About the carbon trust. Available at: www.carbontrust.co.uk/about/.
Carvalho, C.J.R., Vasconcelos, S.S., Zarin, D.J., Capanna, M., Littell, R., Davidson, E.A., Ishida,
F.Y., Santos, E.B., Araujo, M.M., Angelo, D.V., Rangel-Vasconcelos, L.G.T., Oliveira, F.A. &
McDowell, W.H. 2004. Moisture and substrate availability constrain soil trace gas fluxes in an
Eastern Amazonian regrowth forest. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18.
CDM Capacity Online. What is the Clean Development Mechanism? Available at:
www.cdmcapacity.org/what_is_CDM/index.html.
CIESIN. 1996. Thematic guides: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). Available at:
www.ciesin.org/tg/pi/treaty/unced.html
Crovetto, C. 1999. Agricultura de conservación, el grano para el hombre la paja para el suelo.
Madrid, Eumedia.
Derpsch, R. 2005. The extent of CA adoption worldwide: Implications and impacts. Paper presented at
III World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Nairobi.
Devereux, S. & Maxwell, S., eds. 2001. Food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Brighton, UK, Institute
of Development Studies (IDS).
Di, H.J. & Cameron, K.C. 2003. Mitigation of nitrous oxide emissions in spray-irrigated grazed
grassland by treating the soil with dicyandiamide, a nitrification inhibitor. Soil use and
management, 19(4): 284–290.
Doney, S.C. & Schimel, D.S. 2007. Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the
Precambrian to the Anthropocene. In Annual review of environment and resources. Available at:
www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/doney_annurev_energy_2007.pdf.
Dregne, H., Kassa, M. & Rzanov, B. 1991. A new assessment of the world status of desertification.
Desertification Control Bulletin, 20: 6–18.
Dutch EnergyTransition. Data from Testing framework for sustainable biomass, Project Group on
Sustainable Production of Biomass of the Dutch Interdepartmental Working Group
EnergyTransition. Available at: www.fao.org/nr/ben/ben_en.htm.
Du Toit, A. & Ziervogel, G. 2004. Vulnerability and food insecurity: Background concepts for
informing the development of a national FIVIMS for South Africa. Available at:
www.agis.agric.za/agisweb/FIVIMS_ZA.
Eckard, R., Dalley, D. & Crawford, M. 2000. Impacts of potential management changes on
greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration from dairy production systems in Australia.
Proceedings workshop: Management Options for Carbon Sequestration in Forest, Agricultural
and Rangeland Ecosystems. CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, Canberra.
77
Ellis, F. & Sunberg, J. 1998. Food production, urban areas and policy responses. World Development,
26(2): 213225.
EPA Online. Ruminant livestock: Frequent questions. Available at: www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html.
Ericksen, P.J. 2006. Conceptualising food systems for global environmental change (GEC) research.
GECAFS Working Paper No. 2. Available at: www.gecafs.org/publications/index.html.
ESSP Online: www.essp.org/.
ETFRN. 2003. Rehabilitation of degraded lands in sub-Saharan Africa. European Tropical Forestry
Research Network (ETFRN). Available at:
www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/degradedlands/index.html.
EuropaWorld. 2001. Conservation agriculture can benefit the planet, says FAO. Available at:
www.europaworld.org/issue51/conservation51001.htm.
FAO. 1996. Rome Declaration and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome. Available at:
www.fao.org/docrep/003/X8346E/x8346e02.htm#P1_10.
FAO. 2000a. The energy and agriculture nexus. Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper
No. 4. Rome.
FAO. 2000b. FAO/ESAF Handbook for Defining and Setting up a Food Security Information and
Early Warning System (FSIEWS). Rome.
FAO. 2000c. Guidelines for national FIVIMS: Background and principles. Available at:
www.fivims.net/static.jspx?lang=en&page=overview.
FAO. 2002. Calidad y competitividad de la agroindusstria rural de América Latina y el Caribe: Uso
eficiente y sostenible de la energía. Boletín de servicios agricolas de la FAO No. 153. Rome.
FAO. 2003a. Conceptual framework for national, agricultural, rural development, and food security
strategies and policies, by K. Stamoulis and A. Zezza. Rome.
FAO. 2003b. World agriculture: Toward 2015/2030, Chapter 13. Rome, Earthscan.
FAO. 2004a. Carbon sequestration in dryland soils. World Soil Resources Reports No. 102. Rome.
Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/wsrr102.pdf.
FAO. 2004b. Globalization, urbanization and changing food systems in developing countries. In The
state of food insecurity in the world 2004, pp.18–19. Rome.
FAO. 2004c. International Year of Rice 2004 – Rice and us. Available at:
www.fao.org/rice2004/en/rice-us.htm.
FAO. 2005. Bioenergy. Document No. COAG/2005/7. Rome.
FAO. 2006a. Developing institutions and options for livelihood adaptation to climate variability and
change in drought-prone areas of Bangladesh. Project DP9/1-BGD/01/004/01/99: Improved
Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change for Sustainable Livelihoods in the Agriculture Sector.
FAO. 2006b. Global planted forests thematic study: Results and analyses. Planted Forest and Trees
Working Paper No. FP/39. Rome.
FAO. 2006c. Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Livestock, Environment and
Development (LEAD) Initiative. Rome.
FAO. 2007a. Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Perspective,
framework and priorities. Report of the FAO Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate
Change. Rome.
FAO. 2007b. Building adaptive capacity to climate change: Policies to sustain livelihoods and
fisheries. New Directions in Fisheries: A Series of Policy Briefs on Development Issues No. 08.
Rome.
FAO. 2007c. Food Outlook November 2007: High prices and volatility in agricultural commodities.
FAO. 2007d. Gender: The missing component of the response to climate change, by Y. Lambrou and
G. Piana. Rome.
FAO. 2007e. Managing the environment to achieve sustainable access to food and energy in Africa.
Paper presented to the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) at the
TICAD Conference on Energy and Environment for Sustainable Development, 2223 March
2007, Nairobi.
FAO. 2007f. National Programmes for Food Security: FAO’s vision of a world without hunger. Rome.
FAO. 2007g. The state of food and agriculture 2007: Paying farmers for environmental services.
Rome.
FAO. 2008. Expert Meeting on Global Perspectives on Fuel and Food Security: Technical Report.
1820 February 2008. Rome.
FAO/NRCB. 2008. Poster presented at the International Conference on Food Security and
Environmental Change, 24 April 2008. Oxford, UK.
FAO Online. Bioenergy: www.fao.org/nr/ben/ben_en.htm.
FAO Online. FAOStat: faostat.fao.org/.
78
References
FAO Online. Forestry. Towards sustainable forest management. Available at:

www.fao.org/forestry/site/sfm/en.
FAO/SDR Energy Programme. 2000. Energy and conservation agriculture. Occasional paper, by
C.E.M. Doets, G. Best and T. Friedrich. Rome.
GCOS Online a. About GCOS. Last modified 1 August 2007. Available at:
www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/gcos/index.php?name=about
GCOS Online b. Essential climate variables. Available at:
www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/gcos/index.php?name=essentialvariables
GECAFS Online. About GECAFS. Available at: www.gecafs.org/glossary/index.html#foodsystems.
GEF. 2007. Status report on the climate change funds as of April 30, 2007. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.2/Inf. 2.
Washington, DC.
GEF Online. About the GEF. Available at: www.gefweb.org/interior.aspx?id=50
GHG Online a. About methane. Available at: www.ghgonline.org/aboutmethane.htm
GHG Online b. Methane sources – rice paddiers. Available at: www.ghgonline.org/methanerice.htm.
GHG Online c. Methane sources – waste. Available at: www.ghgonline.org/methanewaste.htm
GHG Online d. Nitrous oxide sources – agricultural soils. Available at:
www.ghgonline.org/nitrousagri.htm.
Gillenwater, M., Broekhoff, D., Trexler, M., Hyman, J. & Fowler, R. 2007. Policing the voluntary
carbon market: commentary. Nature Reports Climate Change, 11 October 2007,
doi:10.1038/climate.2007.58. Available at:
www.nature.com/climate/2007/0711/full/climate.2007.58.html.
Gleick, P.H. 1993. Water in crisis: A guide to the world’s fresh water resources. New York, Oxford
University Press.
Greenpeace Online. Climate change and forests. Available at:
www.climatescience.co.nz/deforestation.php.
Gregory, P.J., Ingram, J.S.I. & Brklacich, M. 2005. Climate change and food security. Transactions
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360: 21392148.
Hamilton, K. 2004. Insurance and financial sector support for adaptation. In Climate Change and
Development. IDS Bulletin Vol. 35(3). Brighton, UK, Institute of Development Studies.
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Lo, K., Lea, D.W. and Medina-Elizade, M. 2006. Global
Temperature Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), 103(39).
Available at: www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/39/14288.pdf.
Hashemi, S. & Foose, L. 2007. Beyond good intentions: measuring the social performance of
microfinance institutions. Focus Note No. 41. Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP).
Available at: www.microfinancegateway.org/files/42300_file_FocusNote_41.pdf.
Hess, U. 2006. Weather risk markets change people’s lives – A weather index based approach to
protecting livelihoods and saving lives. Presentation at a Conference on Living with Climate
Variability and Change, 1721 July 2006, Helsinki. Available at:
www.livingwithclimate.fi/linked/en/hess.pdf.
IEA. 2006. World Energy Outlook 2006. Paris. Cited in FAO Online. Bioenergy.
IFAD & FAO. 2003. Labour-saving technologies and practices for farming and household activities
in Eastern and Southern Africa, by C. Bishop-Sambrook. Rome, International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) and FAO.
ILO. 2005. On the evolution of employment structure in developing countries, by N. Majid.
Employment Strategy Papers No. 18. Available at:
www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/strat/download/esp2005-18.pdf.
ILO. 2007. Chapter 4. Employment by sector. In Key indicators of the labour market (KILM), 5th
edition. Available at: www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/strat/kilm/download/kilm04.pdf.
INI Online. 2007. Available at: www.initrogen.org/.
International Rice Commission. 2002. The development and use of integrated crop management for
rice production, by W.S. Clampett, V.N. Nguyen and D.V. Tran. Rome.
IPCC. 1995. Climate change: a glossary by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Available at: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ipcc-glossary.pdf.
IPCC. 2000. Special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. 2007a. Climate Change 2007 Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC. Cambridge. UK. Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. 2007b. Climate Change 2007 - mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group
III to the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC. Cambridge. UK. Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. 2007c. Climate Change 2007 the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC. Cambridge. UK. Cambridge University Press.
79
IPCC. 2007d. Climate Change 2007. Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers. Geneva.
IPCC Online. 2001. Glossary of Terms used in the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Available at:
www.ipcc.ch/glossary/index.htm.
Kunreuther, H.C. & Michel-Kerjan, E.O. 2006. Climate change ,insurability of large-scale disasters
and the emerging liability challenge. Paper prepared for the University of Pennsylvania Law
Conference on Climate Change, 1617 November 2006, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Available at:
www.climateandinsurance.org/news/ClimateChangePaperforPennLawReview.pdf.
Lal, R. 2004a. Agricultural activities and the global carbon cycle. In Nutrient cycling in
acroecosystems, 70: 103–116.
Lal, R. 2004b. Soil carbon impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304(5677):
16231627.
Lambrou, Y. & Laub, R. 2004. Gender perspectives on the conventions on biodiversity, climate
change and desertification. Available on the Gender and Climate Change website:
www.gencc.interconnection.org/resources.htm.
Laurence, W.F. & Williamson, G.B. 2001. Positive feedbacks among forest fragmentation, drought
and climate change in the Amazon. Conservation Biology, 28(6): 15291535.
Leakey, R. 2007. Conservation alone is not enough. BBC News Green Room Viewpoint, 10
September 2007.
Leff, B., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. 2004. Geographic distribution of major crops across the world.
Article No. GB1009 in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18(1).
Levin, K. & Pershing, J. 2005. Climate science 2005: Major new discoveries. WRI Issue Brief.
Washington, DC, WRI.
Mannetje, L.’t. 2006. The role of grasslands and forests as carbon stores. Wageningen, the
Netherlands, University of Wageningen.
Mano, R., Isaacson, B. & Dardel, P. 2003. Policy determinants of food security response and
recovery in the SADC region: the case of the 2002 food emergency. Paper presented to the
Regional Dialogue on Agricultural Recovery, Food Security and Trade Policies in Southern
Africa, 2627 March 2003, Gaberone, Botswana.
Maxwell. S. & Slater, R. 2003. Food policy old and new. Development Policy Review, 21(5-6):
531553.
Mendis, M. & Openshaw, K. 2004. The clean development mechanism: making it operational.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6(1-2): 183–211.
Metting, F., Smith, J. & Amthor, J. 1999. Science needs and new technology for soil carbon
sequestration. In N. Rosenberg, R. Izaurralde and E. Malone, eds. Carbon sequestration in soils.
Science monitoring and beyond, pp. 1–34. Proc. St. Michaels Workshop. Columbus, USA, Battelle
Press.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington
DC, Island Press for WRI.
Mills, E., Roth, R.J. & Lecomte, E. 2005. Availability and affordability of insurance under climate
risk: A growing challenge for the US. A White Paper commissioned by Ceres,. pp. 23. Available
at: www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_insure_climatechange_120105.pdf.
Monteny, G.J., Bannink, A. & Chadwick, D. 2006. Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal
husbandry. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 112: 163–170.
Norby, R.J., DeLucia, E.H., Gielen, B., Calfapietra, C., Giardina, C.P., King, J.S, Ledford, J.,
McCarthy, H.R., Moore, D.J.P., Ceulemans, R., De Angelis, P., Finzi, A.C., Karnosky, D.F.,
Kubiske, M.E., Lukac, M., Pregitzer, K.S., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G.E., Schlesinger, W.H. &
Oren, R. 2005. Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(50): 1805218056.
Open Science Conference. 2001. The Amsterdam Declaration of the Global Change Open Science
Conference challenges of a changing earth, 10–13 July 2001, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Available at: www.sciconf.igbp.kva.se/fr.html.
Osgood, D. 2008. Climate information, index insurance and climate risk management. Paper presented
at the International Conference on Food Security and Environmental Change, 24 April 2008,
Oxford, UK.
Oxfam. 2007. Report cited in BBC Online Weather disasters getting worse. 25 November 2007:
Available at: www.bbc.com.uk.
Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Fischer, G. & Livermore, M. 1999. Climate change and
world food security: A new assessment. Global Environmental Change, 9: 5167.
80
References
Paustian, K., Andren, O., Janzen, H.H., Lal, R., Smith, P., Tian, G., Tiessen, H., Van Noordwijk,
M. & Woomer, P.L. 1997. Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Soil
use and management, 13(4): 230244.
Porter, J.R. & Semenov, M.A. 2005. Crop responses to climatic variation. Philosophical
Transacations of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360: 20212035.
Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T. & Morrison, J.I.L. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: An assessment
of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy, 30(1): 119.
Pretty, J.N., Nobel, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., Penning de Vries, F.W.T. & Morison,
J.I.L. 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries.
Environmental Science and Technology, 40(4): 11141119.
Reid, R., Thornton, P.K., Mccrabb, G., Kruska, R., Atieno, F. & Jones, P. 2004. Is it possible to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in pastoral ecosystems of the tropics? Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 6: 91–109.
Rice, C.W. 1999. Subcommittee on production and price competitiveness hearing on carbon cycle
research and agriculture’s role in reducing climate change.
Roncoli, C. 2006. Ethnographic and participatory approaches to research on farmers’ responses to
climate prediction. Climate Research, 33: 8199.
Rosegrant, M.W., Agcaoili-Sombilla, M. & Perez, N. D. 1995. Global food projections to 2020:
Implications for investment. 2020 Discussion Paper No. 5. Washington, D.C. IFPRI..
Rotz, C.A. 2004. Management to reduce nitrogen losses in animal production. Journal of Animal
Science, 82(e. SUPPL.): E119–E137.
Ruel, M.T., Garrett, J., Morris, S., Maxwell, D., Oshaug, A., Engele, P., Menon, P., Slack, A. &
Haddad, L. 1998. Urban challenges to food and nutrition security: a review of food security,
health and caregiving in the cities. IFPRI FCND Discussion Papers No. 51. Washington, DC,
IFPRI.
Scherr, S.J. & Yadav, S. 1996. Land degradation in the developing world, issues and policy options
for 2020. Washington, DC, IFPRI.
Shaviv, N. & Veizer, J. 2003. Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate? GSA Today, July 2003, 13(7):
410.
Smil, V. 1999. Nitrogen in crop production: an account of global flows. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 13(2): 647–662.
Sommer, S.G., Petersen, S.O. & Møller, H.B. 2004. Algorithms for calculating methane and nitrous
oxide emissions from manure management. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 69: 143–154.
Stevens, C., Devereux, S. & Kennan, J. 2003. International trade, livelihoods and food security in
developing countries. IDS Working Paper No. 215. Brighton, UK, Institute of Development
Studies.
Tebrügge, F. & Bohmsen, A. 1998. Farmers’ and experts’ opinion on no-tillage: Results of a Europe-
wide survey. In Proceedings of the Conference of Agricultural Engineering 1998. Düsseldorf,
Germany, Association of German Engineers-Society of Agricultural Engineering (VDI-MEG).
Thomsen, A. & Metz, M. 1998. Implications of economic policy for food security: A training manual.
Rome. FAO and the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ).
Tubiello, F.N., Amthor, J.A., Boote, K., Donatelli, M., Easterling, W.E., Fisher, G., Gifford, R.,
Howden, M., Reilly, J. & Rosenzweig, C. 2007. Crop response to elevated CO2 and world food
supply. European Journal of Agronomy, 26: 215228.
Turton, A.R. 2001. The construction of knowledge and the climate change debate: A perspective from
the developing South. Paper prepared for a summer school course on Global Climate Change and
Impact on Natural Resources. Candriari, Italy, International School on Disarmament and Research
on Conflicts.
UK DEFRA. 2005. Encyclopedia of the Atmospheric Environment. Atmosphere, Climate &
Environment Information Programme. Available at: www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/english.html.
UK Met Office Online. Climate averages. Available at:
www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/index.html.
UK Met Office Online. Questions about Climate Change, Q. 2.16. Available at:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/2.html#q2.4
UNDPI. 2007. Press conference by United Nations Special Rapporteur on Right to Food, 26 October.
United Nations Department of Public Information (UNDPI). Available at:
www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2007/071026 Ziegler.doc.htm
UN Energy. 2007. Sustainable bioenergy: A framework for decision makers. Available at:
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1094e/a1094e00.pdf
81
UNEP-GRID Arendal Online. Introduction to climate change. Available at:

www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm.
UNFCCC. 1992. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 1. Definitions. Available at:
unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
UNFCCC. 2006. Climate change research achievements and challenges: priority goals for WCRP.
WMO side-event at the 24th Session of UNFCCC/SBSTA. Available at: unfccc.meta-
fusion.com/kongresse/SB24/templ/ply_sideevent.php?id_kongresssession=168
&player_mode=isdn_real&language=floor
UNFCCC Online a. Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate
Change. Available at:
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/napa/items/2719.php.
UNFCCC Online b. National Adaptation Programmes of Action. Available at:
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/napa/items/2719.php
UNFF. 2007. Non-legally binding instrument on all types of forests. New York.
University of Hertfordshire Online. Manure management. Agriculture & Environment Research
Unit, University of Hertfordshire. Available at:
www.herts.ac.uk/aeru/indicators/explorer/inputs_c20.htm.
UN Water & FAO. 2007. Coping with water scarcity: challenge of the 21st Century. New York and
Rome.
Vlek, P.L.G., Rodriguez-Kuhl, G. & Sommer, R. 2004. Energy use and CO2 production in tropical
agriculture and means and strategies for reduction or mitigation. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 6(12): 213233.
Wheeler, T.R., Crauford, P.Q., Ellis, R.H., Porter, J.R. & Vara Prasad, P.V. 2000. Temperature
variability and the yield of annual crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 82: 159167.
WHO. 2007. How much disease would climate change cause? World Health Organization (WHO).
Available at: www.who.int/globalchange/climate/summary/en/index6.html
WMO. 1992. International meteorological vocabulary, 2nd edition. Publication No. 182. Available at:
http://meteoterm.wmo.int/meteoterm/ns?a=T_P1.start&u=&direct=yes&relog=yes#expanded.
World Bank PovertyNet. 2008. Measuring poverty. Available at:
http://go.worldbank.org/VCBLGGE250.
World Economic Forum. 2007. Global risks 2007: A Global Risk Network Report. Geneva.
WRI. 2006. Greenhouse gases and where they come from, by T. Herzog. Available at:
www.wri.org/climate/topic_content.cfm?cid=4177.
Zilberman, D., Lipper, L. & McCarthy, N. Forthcoming. When could payments for environmental
services benefit the poor? Environment and Development Economics (forthcoming).
82
Annexes
ANNEX I
ESSENTIAL CLIMATE VARIABLES FOR THE GLOBAL
CLIMATE OBSERVING SYSTEM, THE GLOBAL OCEAN
OBSERVING SYSTEM AND THE GLOBAL TERRESTRIAL
OBSERVING SYSTEM
Essential climate variables (ECVs) are required to support the work of UNFCCC and IPCC.
All ECVs are technically and economically feasible for systematic observation. They require
international exchange for both current and historical observations. Additional variables for
research purposes are not included in the following table. The ordering in the table is for
convenience and is not an indicator of relative priority.
Atmospheric Oceanic Terrestrial

(over land, sea and ice)
Surface: Surface: Surface:
Air temperature Sea-surface temperature River discharge
Precipitation Sea-surface salinity Water use
Air pressure Sea level Groundwater
Surface radiation budget Sea state Lake levels
Wind speed and direction Sea ice Snow cover
Water vapour Current Glaciers and ice caps
Upper-air: Ocean colour (for biological Permafrost and seasonally frozen
Earth radiation budget, including activity) ground
solar irradiance Carbon dioxide partial Albedo, i.e., diffuse reflectivity
Upper-air temperature including pressure Soil moisture (recognized as an
MSU radiances Sub-surface: emerging ECV)
Wind speed and direction Temperature Land cover, including vegetation type
Water vapour Salinity Fraction of absorbed
Cloud properties Current photosynthetically active radiation
Composition: Nutrients Leaf area index
Carbon dioxide Carbon Biomass
Methane Ocean tracers Fire disturbance
Ozone Phytoplankton
Other long-lived greenhouse
gases, including:
nitrous oxide
chlorofluorocarbons
hydrochlorofluorocarbons
hydrofluorocarbons
sulphur hexafluoride
perfluorocarbons
Aerosol properties
Notes: Measurement units for terrestrial variables are:

3 -1
runoff, m /s

3 -1
groundwater extraction rates, m /yr , and location

2
snow cover extent, km , and duration, snow depth, cm

-2 -1
glacier/ice cap inventory and mass balance, kg m /yr
glacier length, m

-2 -1 2
ice sheet mass balance, kg m /yr , and extent, km

2
permafrost extent, km , temperature profiles and active layer thickness
above-ground biomass, t/ha
burned area, ha
date and location of active fire
burn efficiency, %vegetation burned/unit area.
Source: GCOS Online b.
83
Annexes
ANNEX II
INTERNATIONALLY AGREED CLIMATE AND CLIMATE
CHANGE TERMINOLOGY
Carbon cycle: The exchange of carbon, in various forms, among the atmosphere, ocean,
terrestrial biosphere and geological deposits (IPCC, 1995).
Climate: The synthesis of weather conditions in a given area, characterized by long-term

statistics (mean values, variances, probabilities of extreme values, etc.) for the meteorological
elements in that area (WMO, 1992, updated on 12 June 2006).
Climate is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously as the statistical
description of the weather in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over
periods of several decades (typically three decades, as defined by WMO). These quantities are
most often surface variables, such as temperature, precipitation and wind, but in a wider sense
the “climate” is the description of the state of the climate system (IPCC, 1995).
Climate variability: (1) In the most general sense, this term denotes the inherent
characteristic of climate that manifests itself as changes of climate over time. The degree of
climate variability can be described by the differences between long-term statistics of
meteorological elements calculated for different periods. (In this sense, the measure of climate
variability is the same as the measure of climate change.)
(2) The term is often used to denote deviations of climate statistics over a given period
(such as during a specific month, season or year) from the long-term climate statistics relating
to the corresponding calendar period. (In this sense, climate variability is measured by those
deviations, which are usually termed anomalies.) (WMO, 1992, updated on 12 June 2005)
Climate system: A system consisting of the atmosphere, the hydrosphere (comprising the
liquid water distributed on and beneath the earth’s surface, and the cryosphere, i.e., the snow
and ice on and beneath the surface), the surface lithosphere (comprising the rock, soil and
sediment of the earth’s surface), and the biosphere (comprising earth’s plant and animal life,
and humanity), which, under the effects of the solar radiation received by the earth,
determines the climate of the earth. Although climate essentially relates to the varying states
of the atmosphere only, the other parts of the climate system also have significant roles in
forming climate, through their interactions with the atmosphere (WMO, 1992, last updated on
10 June 2005).
Climate classification: The division of the earth’s climates into a worldwide system of
contiguous regions, each defined by the relative homogeneity of its climatic elements.
Examples are Köppen’s and Thornthwaite’s climate classifications (WMO, 1992, updated on
10 June 2006).
Climate change (WMO usage): (1) In the most general sense, this term encompasses all
forms of climatic inconstancy (i.e., any differences from long-term statistics of the
meteorological elements calculated for different periods but relating to the same area),
regardless of their statistical nature or physical causes. Climate changes may result from such
factors as changes in solar emission, long-term changes in the earth’s orbital elements
(eccentricity, obliquity of the ecliptic, precession of the equinoxes), natural internal processes
of the climate system, or anthropogenic forcing (e.g., increasing atmospheric concentrations
of CO2 and other greenhouse gases).
(2) The term is often used in a more restricted sense to denote a significant change (i.e., a
change with important economic, environmental and social effects) in the mean values of a
85
meteorological element (particularly temperature or amount of precipitation) in the course of

a certain period, where the means are taken over periods of a decade or longer (WMO, 1992,
updated on 10 June 2005).
Climate change (UNFCCC usage): A change of climate that is attributed, directly or

indirectly, to human activity, alters the composition of the global atmosphere and is in
addition to the natural climate variability observed over comparable periods (IPCC, 1995).
Climate change (IPCC usage): Climate change as referred to in the observational record of
climate occurs because of internal changes within the climate system or in the interaction
among its components, or because of changes in external forcing, either for natural reasons or
because of human activities. It is generally not possible to make clear attributions between
these causes. Projections of future climate change reported by IPCC generally consider the
influence on climate of only anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases and other human-
related factors (IPCC, 1995).
86
Annexes
ANNEX III
GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change, global environmental change and global change
The terms “climate change”, “global environmental change” and “global change” are often
used interchangeably to refer to essentially the same phenomenon: the rapid changes in earth
system dynamics that have been occurring at an increasing rate over the past two or more
centuries. Whether referring to the climate system, the natural environment or the earth
system, the five components remain the same: atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere,
hydrosphere and lithosphere. However, the perspectives and concerns are different.
The Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) defines the earth system as follows:
“The Earth System is the unified set of physical, chemical, biological and social components, processes
and interactions that together determine the state and dynamics of Planet Earth, including its biodata
and its human occupants.” (ESSP Online)
As well as average weather, many other features of the earth’s environment have been
changing rapidly during the past few centuries, owing in large part to technological advance
and rapid population growth. Examples include deforestation and loss of soil quality; erosion;
desertification; urbanization and industrialization; pollution/contamination of air, water and
soil; unsustainable drawing of underground water reserves; gradual depletion of fossil fuel
reserves; and overfishing and loss of marine fish stocks.
On a global scale, the ability to measure and monitor pertinent variables and predict their
future trajectories has improved dramatically in recent years. Nevertheless, considerable
uncertainty remains about how the complex interactions involved will unfold at the local
scale. Although it is not yet possible to foresee precisely what the specific impacts of these
changes on food security will be, it can be stated with confidence that the world is heading
into a more uncertain and potentially precarious future one in which the old rules about how
nature behaves may or may not hold for coming generations, and where sudden shocks may
profoundly alter the natural environment that humans inhabit.
The excerpt from the 2001 Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change cited in the box sets
out very clearly the seriousness with which environmental scientists regard current trends for
the earth system as a whole. Although this paper is concerned primarily with the climate
aspects of global change, with a particular focus on interactions between the climate system
and food systems and their potential consequences for food security, the implications of other
uncertainties about the future of the earth system as a whole cannot be ignored.
Global warming
Until the industrial revolution, all climate change occurred because of natural forces acting on the
climate system, and these forces are still at work today. On an astronomical time scale, the earth’s
climate system alternates between cold conditions that support large-scale continental glaciations
and warm conditions that make the planet extensively tropical and lacking in permanent ice caps,
even at the poles. The time required for each cycle is roughly 140 million years. Evidence suggests
that this behaviour is due to cyclical changes in the position of the earth’s orbit around the sun and
the angle of its rotational axis, usually referred to together as “astronomical forcing of climate”
(Shaviv and Veizer, 2003). Other natural forces that are thought to contribute to changes in the
climate system on a geological time scale include sunspot activity, meteorite bombardment, erosion,
earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain building, movement of sea beds, and ocean trench
formation. Variations in the concentration of greenhouse gases due to natural geological processes
have created alternating periods of glacier advance (ice ages) and glacier retreat (interglacials) within
the longer astronomical cycles. On the scale of decades, many climate fluctuations, the best known
being the El Niño southern oscillation, owe their existence at least in part to periodic changes in the
patterns by which the oceans store and circulate hot and cold water.
87
Excerpt from the Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change
Research carried out over the past decade under the auspices of the International Geosphere-Biosphere
Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental
Change (IHDP), WCRP and Divertitas has shown that:
x “The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system comprised of physical, chemical,
biological and human components. The interactions and feedbacks between the component parts are complex
and exhibit multiscale temporal and spatial variability. The understanding of the natural dynamics of the
Earth System has advanced greatly in recent years and provides a sound basis for evaluating the effects and
consequences of human-driven change.
x “Human activities are significantly influencing Earth’s environment in many ways in addition to
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Anthropogenic changes to Earth’s land surface, oceans, coasts
and atmosphere and to biological diversity, the water cycle and biogeochemical cycles are clearly identifiable
beyond natural variability. They are equal to some of the great forces of nature in their extent and impact.
Many are accelerating. Global change is real and is happening now.
x “Global change cannot be understood in terms of a simple cause-effect paradigm. Human-driven changes
cause multiple effects that cascade through the Earth System in complex ways. These effects interact with
each other and with local- and regional-scale changes in multidimensional patterns that are difficult to
understand and even more difficult to predict. Surprises abound.
x “Earth System dynamics are characterized by critical thresholds and abrupt changes. Human activities
could inadvertently trigger such changes with severe consequences for Earth’s environment and inhabitants.
The Earth System has operated in different states over the last half million years, with abrupt transitions (a
decade or less) sometimes occurring between them. Human activities have the potential to switch the Earth
System to alternative modes of operation that may prove irreversible and less hospitable to humans and other
life. The probability of a human-driven abrupt change in Earth’s environment has yet to be quantified but is
not negligible.
x “In terms of some key environmental parameters, the Earth System has moved well outside the range of
the natural variability exhibited over the last half million years at least. The nature of changes now occurring
simultaneously in the Earth System, their magnitudes and rates of change are unprecedented. The Earth is
currently operating in a no-analogue state.”
Source: Open Science Conference, 2001.
Recently, concern has grown that human activity may be causing global-scale changes in
climate, with accompanying shifts in regional climate regimes all over the world. This is
known as “anthropogenic forcing of climate”. By increasing the amount of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) and deforestation, humans
have enhanced the earth’s natural greenhouse effect. This means that more of the sun’s
radiation is now trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, where the additional heat causes mean air
and sea surface temperatures to rise all over the globe. This phenomenon is called global
warming.
As shown in the following figure, during the last ice age, which ended only 14 000 years
ago, global average surface temperature was 5 oC lower than it is today. At that time, less
energy was being received from the sun as a consequence of the position of the earth’s orbit,
CO2 levels in the atmosphere were lower, and heat redistribution by ocean circulation was
weaker. Over a period of about 5 000 years, the global surface temperature gradually rose to
an average of about 15 oC, where it remained until about 100 years ago. Then, as a result of
human activity, what UNFCCC calls a “thickening” of the blanket of greenhouse gases
occurred and the earth’s average surface temperature started to increase rapidly. Today it has
risen to over 15.5 oC, with most of the increase occurring since the 1980s; it is projected to
rise by a further 2 to 3 oC before the end of the century. This means that, over a period of only
100 years, the earth will have experienced an increase in global mean temperature comparable
to the one that took 2 500 years to occur ten millennia ago. Moreover, the increase that is now
occurring is pushing global mean temperatures towards what may be an upper limit for human
survival.
88
Annexes
Changes in mean global temperature since the end of the last ice age, by millennium
20
18
16
14
12
10
Mean global
8 temperature
0 – 999
10000 – 9001
9000 – 8001
8000 – 7001
7000 – 6001
6000 – 5001
5000 – 4001
4000 – 3001
3000 – 2001
2000 – 1001
1000 – 0001
12000 –11001
11000 – 10001
1000 – 1999
2000 – 2100
Pre-history Recorded human history
Millennia since last ice age
Source: FAO/NRCB.
Life forms have flourished on earth at even higher temperatures than those currently
projected to be reached as a result of human activity in the current epoch. Nevertheless,
according to one report, “the earth is now within +/- 1 oC of its maximum temperature in the
past million years” (Hansen et al., 2006), and it is clear that the recent rapid increase in global
temperatures has already begun to alter the complex web of systems that allow life to thrive
on earth. These global changes threaten the balance of climatic conditions under which life
evolved and is sustained. The current speed of change also threatens social and economic
systems, including agriculture, food and water supply, coastal infrastructure, climate-
dependent livelihood systems, and vulnerability to pests and diseases (UNFCCC, 2006).
The carbon and nitrogen cycles

Seven biogeochemical cycles are important for earth system dynamics: the carbon cycle, the
hydrogen cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the oxygen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, the sulphur
cycle and the water cycle. All are relevant, but it is primarily changes in the carbon cycle and,
to a lesser extent, the nitrogen cycle that are driving the climate change processes observed
today. The global warming potential of greenhouse gases containing these two elements is
estimated to be: 72 percent CO2; 18 percent carbon-containing methane; 9 percent nitrous
oxide; and 1 percent other carbon-containing gases.
Latest IPCC estimates show that, while the agriculture sector contributes less than 10
percent of total CO2 emissions and offsets approximately the same amount, it accounts for
more than half of total methane emissions and nearly 60 percent of nitrous oxide emissions.
The following brief explanations of how the carbon and nitrogen cycles work, and the impacts
of human action on them, provide background for understanding agriculture’s potential
contribution to carbon sequestration and emissions reduction (IPCC, 2007b).
89
Carbon stocks in the earth system, excluding carbonate rock and kerogen in the
ocean depths
Location of carbon stocks Gt of carbon (highest estimate)
UNEP-GRID Lal
Atmosphere 750 760
Geologic deposits (coal, oil and gas) 3 300 5 000
Soil organic carbon to 1 m depth 1 600 1 550
Soil inorganic carbon to 1 m depth 750
Terrestrial vegetation/biota 600 560
Total 6 250 8 610
Sources: UNEP-GRID Arendal Online; Lal, 2004a.
The carbon cycle: Carbon in its pure form is a solid, but numerous chemical compounds that
contain carbon are also found in liquid and gaseous states, including the greenhouse gases
CO2 and methane (CH4). Carbon in one form or another is present in all organic compounds.
For example, organic plant material, which is essential to the human food chain, is created
from the combination of CO2 and water through the process of photosynthesis.
The stock of carbon in the earth system is constant. This carbon is distributed and
exchanged in various forms among four major reservoirs: the atmosphere, the ocean, the
terrestrial biosphere and geological deposits. Scientists do not know the exact amount of
carbon in the earth system. Estimates range from more than 100 to nearly 150 million
gigatonnes (Gt), where 1 gigatonne equals 1 billion (thousand million) tonnes. What is known
is that virtually all of the total carbon stock is stored in marine sediments and deep ocean
water. Terrestrial, geologic and atmospheric carbon amounts to only about 8 000 Gt, or less
than 0.0001 percent of the total, broken down as shown in the table. The continuous
circulation of this tiny proportion of the total carbon stock from one part of the earth system
to another through the carbon cycle is vital for the survival of life.
At present, slightly more carbon is being released into the atmosphere from the burning of
fossil fuels, the clearing of forested area, land degradation and agricultural emissions than is
being reabsorbed by terrestrial vegetation and oceans, causing atmospheric concentrations of
CO2 and methane to increase. As explained, the increasing atmospheric concentration of
carbon-containing greenhouse gases is the primary cause of global warming and climate
change.
Carbon can be released into the atmosphere in many different ways: exhalation by
animals; decay of animal and plant matter; release of CO2 (when oxygen is present) or
methane (when oxygen is not present) from combustion of organic matter, including live and
recently dead vegetation and fossil fuels; production of cement; release of dissolved CO2 at
the surface of the oceans where the water becomes warmer; volcanic eruptions; and
permafrost melt.
Food system practices that emit carbon include deforestation to clear new land for
agricultural use, and burning of fuelwood and agricultural wastes and residues for heating and
cooking. Accumulation of poorly managed animal wastes in intensive livestock operations,
and standing water in irrigated rice fields are important sources of methane. Fortunately, as
explained in more detail in Chapters 2 and 3, there are technologies that could substantially
reduce the current rate of carbon emission from the food and agriculture sector, as long as
market forces support their adoption.
The nitrogen cycle: Nitrogen in its pure form is an inert gas that comprises 78 percent of the
earth’s atmosphere. It is essential to all life processes, as it forms the amino acids, proteins,
nucleic acids and DNA that are vital for all living cells. The nitrogen cycle begins with the
fixation of nitrogen, through the transformation of pure, non-reactive nitrogen into reactive
nitrogen-containing compounds. Before the industrial revolution, biological nitrogen fixation
by leguminous plants, and atmospheric deposition caused by lightning were the primary
90
Annexes
means by which the nitrogen cycle was triggered. Nitrogen-containing compounds are
initially deposited in the soil, then taken up by plants, utilized by the animals and humans that
eat the plants, deposited as wastes, mineralized, oxidized, reduced to their original gaseous
state and returned to the atmosphere. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the discovery
of a process for artificially fixing nitrogen made possible the industrial production of
fertilizer.
Large-scale application of artificial fertilizer on farmers’ fields made the green revolution
possible and guaranteed food security for an increasing proportion of the world’s rapidly
growing population. One of the sources of food insecurity for many small-scale farming
households is the low yields they obtain from the crops they sow, owing to lack of adequate
nitrogen to nourish the plants. However, the sharp increase in fertilizer use that has
accompanied the development of commercial agriculture has also led to a sharp increase in
emissions of nitrous oxide and other nitrogen-containing compounds that pollute the air and
water.
These emissions can be visualized as leakages from a pipe. Human-induced nitrogen
inputs from agricultural activities are fed into the pipe via fertilizer and animal manure.
Nitrogen outputs exit from the pipe in the form of harvested crops and livestock products. If
the build-up of nitrogen in the pipe exceeds the amount needed by plants and animals for
good nutrition, the surplus is released into the air in the form of anhydrous ammonia (NH3),
nitrous oxide (N2O), nitric oxide (NO2) and molecular nitrogen (N2). Soil runoff also carries
excess nitric oxide, ammonium (NH4) and dissolved organic nitrogen (N2) into freshwater
bodies, where they pollute the water and may eventually become another source of nitrous
oxide emissions (INI Online, 2007). Disturbances in the nitrogen cycle created by excess
nitrogen accumulation in the soil and in the diets of ruminant livestock as a consequence of
industrial agricultural production methods have created other environmental problems as well
as the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The urgent need to act to reduce emissions
provides a strong incentive to bring the nitrogen cycle back into balance – a challenge that the
food and agriculture sector is best placed to meet.
91
Annexes
ANNEX IV
RULES AND CONDITIONS FOR THE CLEAN
DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM
CDM projects need to seek approval from the CDM Executive Board. A number of rules and
conditions apply, some to all project types and others specifically to afforestation and
reforestation projects. Although several of the detailed procedures to be applied to CDM
forestry projects are still to be agreed, the overall framework is already established for
approving projects and accounting for the carbon credits generated:
1. Only areas that were not forest on 31 December 1989 are likely to satisfy the CDM
criteria for afforestation or reforestation.
2. Projects must result in real, measurable and long-term emission reductions, as certified by
a third party agency (an “operational entity” in the language of the convention). The
carbon stocks generated by the project need to be secure over the long term (a point
referred to as “permanence”), and any future emissions that might arise from these stocks
must be accounted for.
3. Emission reductions and sequestration must be additional to any that would occur without
the project. They must result in a net storage of carbon, and therefore a net removal of
CO2 from the atmosphere. This is called “additionality” and is assessed by comparing the
carbon stocks and flows of project activities with those that would have occurred without
the project (its “baseline”). For example, the project may be proposing to afforest
farmland with native tree species, increasing its stocks of carbon. The net carbon benefit
can be calculated by comparing the carbon stored in the project plantations (high carbon)
with the carbon that would have been stored in the baseline abandoned farmland (low
carbon). Technical discussions are still ongoing regarding the interpretation of the
additionality requirement for specific contexts.
4. Projects must be in line with sustainable development objectives, as defined by the
government hosting them.
5. Projects must contribute to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources.
6. Only projects starting from 2000 onwards will be eligible.
7. Two percent of the carbon credits awarded to a CDM project will be allocated to a fund to
help cover the costs of adaptation in countries severely affected by climate change (the
“adaptation levy”). This fund may provide support for land-use activities that are not at
present eligible under CDM, such as conservation of existing forest resources.
8. Some of the proceeds from carbon credit sales from all CDM projects will be used to
cover CDM administrative expenses (the proportion is still to be decided).
9. Projects need to select a crediting period for activities. This can be for a maximum of
seven years and renewable at most twice, or a maximum of ten years with no renewal
option.
10. The funding for CDM projects must not come from a diversion of official development
assistance funds.
11. Each CDM project management plan must address and account for potential leakage.
Leakage is the unplanned, indirect emission of CO2 resulting from project activities. For
example, if the project involves establishing plantations on agricultural land, leakage
could occur if people who were farming on this land migrate to clear forest elsewhere.
Source: CDM Capacity Online.
93
FAO INTER-DEPARTMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Viale dellle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Wesbite: www.fao.org/Clim/
K2595/E

Gudiya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gudiya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gudiya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLIMATE CHANGE

AND FOOD SECURITY:

INTERDEPARTMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON CLIMATE CHANGE

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Agenda 21 and sustainable agriculture and rural development 72

Defining terms and conceptualizing relationships

Mitigating climate change

The way forward

SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (UNFCCC)

1. DEFINING TERMS AND

SOCIO-ECONOMIC Child care

Purchasing power HEALTH AND SANITATION

Source: FAO, 2000c.

Figure 2. Food system activities and food security outcomes

Food system ACTIVITIES

Food system OUTCOMES contributing to:

Source: GECAFS Online.

CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE2

x Latitudinal climates are temperature regimes determined by the location north or

created artificially, as in hothouses, museum displays or storage environments where

x the atmosphere: gaseous matter above the earth’s surface;

Figure 3. The formation of climate

The climate system

Global climate Latitudinal climates Regional climates Local and microclimates

GCOS was established by WMO, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

Climate variability and climate change

Effects of global warming on the climate system

Acclimatization, adaptation and mitigation

CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD SECURITY

Other food system processes, such as food processing, distribution, acquisition,

Food security and climate change: a conceptual framework

x the CO2 fertilization effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the

Vulnerability to climate change

Food accessibility (allocation,

Source: FAO/IDWG on Climate Change. Table produced for this report.

19831984 Ethiopia (Borana 4590 percent of calves, Coppock, 1994

Depending on the prevailing temperature regime, however, a change in climatic conditions

affordability. These factors include income-generating capacity, amount of remuneration

In low-income countries, however, wage work is declining, while self-cultivation and

2. PROTECTING FOOD SECURITY

t legal and institutional elements;

Figure 6. Steps for selecting adaptation options

Livelihood adaptation options for climate variability and change

Synthesize into potentially suitable adaptation

Scientific validation of adaptation options

Source: FAO, 2006a.

LIVING WITH UNCERTAINTY AND MANAGING NEW

Livelihood adaptation options for climate variability and change

Stakeholder engagement and feedback

Designing adaptation strategy

Assessing future climate risks

Assessing current vulnerability

Source: FAO/NRCB, 2008.

Improving the quality of information and its use

Figure 9. Multistakeholder processes for mainstreaming climate change adaptation

Source: FAO/NRCB, 2008.

Box 1. Benefits of women’s participation in cyclone preparedness in Bangladesh

Source: IFRC-RCS, 2002, cited in Lambrou and Laub, 2004.

Monitoring weather and improving scientiﬁc understanding of climate change: Scientific

19831984 Ethiopia (Borana 4590 percent of calves, Coppock, 1994