Claudia Ringler November 12, 2022 Health Pavilion COP27, Sharm El-Sheikh

1. Claudia Ringler
International Food Policy Research Institute
November 12, 2022 | Health Pavilion
COP27, Sharm El-Sheikh
Why mitigation action needs to track
nutrition impacts

2. Key Messages
1. Generally, climate mitigation, by lowering emissions, improves agricultural
production and other food systems components and thus food security &
nutrition
2. Not all mitigation is created equal; key mitigation actions increase food prices
growing hunger; other actions affect nutrition of vulnerable populations
 Bioenergy crops (corn/sugar)
 Livestock (particularly beef/cattle)
3. Mitigation actions affect women/s/men’s livelihoods/time use differently
4. Changing diets are now accepted as a key mitigation strategy by IPCC and
encouraged as such
5. Intentional nutrition policy can reduce emissions / retain nutrition under CC
6. If we don’t link mitigation commitments with nutrition outcomes nutrition
could well be worsened; but NDCs should not be the only venue

3. 1. Climate mitigation improves nutrition
• Emissions ↓; yields ↑ ; food prices lower ↓ ; diets ↑
Figure: Number of people at risk of hunger under alternative mitigation strategies
Source: Ringler et al. (2016).
Africa South of Sahara
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Latin America and the Caribbean
HEP-6CC BasenoCC BaseCC HEPCC HEPadapCC

4. 2. Not all mitigation is created equal (food security)
• Ringler et al. (2016): A carbon tax can grow food insecurity if mitigation actions are
poor (i.e. biofuels/higher fertilizer cost and higher GW pumping cost) but can reduce
food insecurity if a substantially lower emissions pathway is achieved (f.ex. From
RCP8.5 to 6.0) [global tax]
• Hasegawa et al. (2018): Stringent global mitigation grows food insecurity; number of
people at risk of hunger higher under RCP2.6 [78 million additional people food
insecure] than in RCP6.0 scenarios [24 million additional people food insecure] [using
a global carbon tax and biofuels as a key mitigation strategy that grows food prices];
most food insecure countries hit hardest
• Fujimori et al. (2022) finds that afforestation grows food insecurity even more than
bioenergy mitigation
• Guiliani et al. (2022), using regional LUC pricing in HICs shows that HICs outsource
their emissions to LMICs that produce with lower emissions efficiency in water scarcer
environments, dramatically reducing water and energy security
Source: Ringler et al. (2016).

5. 2+3. Not all mitigation is created equal (nutrition),
consider gendered impacts
 Livestock mitigation (beef/cattle) —largest emitter in agriculture can affect
access to ASFs in LMICs and women’s livelihoods/incomes
 Fertilizer/pesticide reduction can reduce food production
 Agroecological approaches OFTEN require proportionally more labor from
women farmers than men farmers
 Solar irrigation systems deplete groundwater, affecting drinking water access
(affecting women disproportionately)
 Bioenergy (corn/sugar) competes with crops for land, water, capital, labor
(corn/sugar) (and inputs pollute drinking water and fish in rivers/coastal areas)
 Solar systems/wind parks compete with land used for food production
 Hydroelectricity production competes with irrigation in some locations
 Carbon capture and storage competes with land for agricultural production

6. Source: IPCC (2022).
4. Changing
diets now a
key mitigation
strategy

7. 5. Intentional nutrition policy can reduce emissions or
retain nutrition [Examples]
1. Taxes on red meat in HICs [will grow meat access in LMICs also]
2. Taxes on sugary drinks everywhere [sugarcane water/emissions
footprint high]
3. Breeding of DT-HT etc. crops that reduce emissions/ retain food
security/nutrition by weathering climate extreme events
4. Biofortified crops that counteract nutrient leaching
5. Cultured proteins for milk, eggs / cultured meat / clean fish are all
promising for nutrition while reducing emissions
6. Time/labor saving agricultural practices (to reduce human/animal
heat stress)  retaining energy/nutrients

8. 6. If we don’t link mitigation commitments with nutrition
outcomes nutrition could well be worsened; but NDCs
should not be the only venue
1. Quality of many NDCs low (lack
specificity, non-binding, few
quantitative commitments)
2. Also consider NAP/NAPAs
3. NDCs are at national level and
do not consider sub-national
differences; and also not
impacts of mitigation action in
other countries