16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?*

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as “land challenges”). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO 2eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing‐up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.

          Abstract

          There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as “land challenges”). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that most practices deliver across all land challenges. Some practices could result in competition for land, but those that reduce demand for land conversion potentially free‐up land, creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important for addressing combined land challenge.

          Related collections

          Most cited references301

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity.

            A central challenge for sustainability is how to preserve forest ecosystems and the services that they provide us while enhancing food production. This challenge for developing countries confronts the force of economic globalization, which seeks cropland that is shrinking in availability and triggers deforestation. Four mechanisms-the displacement, rebound, cascade, and remittance effects-that are amplified by economic globalization accelerate land conversion. A few developing countries have managed a land use transition over the recent decades that simultaneously increased their forest cover and agricultural production. These countries have relied on various mixes of agricultural intensification, land use zoning, forest protection, increased reliance on imported food and wood products, the creation of off-farm jobs, foreign capital investments, and remittances. Sound policies and innovations can therefore reconcile forest preservation with food production. Globalization can be harnessed to increase land use efficiency rather than leading to uncontrolled land use expansion. To do so, land systems should be understood and modeled as open systems with large flows of goods, people, and capital that connect local land use with global-scale factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Climate Change and Food Systems

              Food systems contribute 19%–29% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, releasing 9,800–16,900 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2008. Agricultural production, including indirect emissions associated with land-cover change, contributes 80%–86% of total food system emissions, with significant regional variation. The impacts of global climate change on food systems are expected to be widespread, complex, geographically and temporally variable, and profoundly influenced by socioeconomic conditions. Historical statistical studies and integrated assessment models provide evidence that climate change will affect agricultural yields and earnings, food prices, reliability of delivery, food quality, and, notably, food safety. Low-income producers and consumers of food will be more vulnerable to climate change owing to their comparatively limited ability to invest in adaptive institutions and technologies under increasing climatic risks. Some synergies among food security, adaptation, and mitigation are feasible. But promising interventions, such as agricultural intensification or reductions in waste, will require careful management to distribute costs and benefits effectively.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk
                Journal
                Glob Chang Biol
                Glob Chang Biol
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2486
                GCB
                Global Change Biology
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1354-1013
                1365-2486
                14 December 2019
                March 2020
                : 26
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/gcb.v26.3 )
                : 1532-1575
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences University of Aberdeen Aberdeen UK
                [ 2 ] Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Joint Global Change Research Institute College Park MD USA
                [ 3 ] United Nations Economic Commission for Africa Addis Ababa Ethiopia
                [ 4 ] The University of the West Indies Mona Jamaica
                [ 5 ] Industrial Ecology Programme Department of Energy and Process Engineering Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim Norway
                [ 6 ] European Commission Joint Research Centre Ispra Italy
                [ 7 ] Yu. A. Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology Moscow Russia
                [ 8 ] Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) Hanoi Vietnam
                [ 9 ] Department of Geography Makerere University Kampala Uganda
                [ 10 ] Department of Human Ecology Rutgers University New Brunswick NJ USA
                [ 11 ] IFPRI Washington DC USA
                [ 12 ] Center for Global Environmental Research National Institute for Environmental Studies Tsukuba Ibaraki Japan
                [ 13 ] French National Institute for Agricultural, Environment and Food Research (INRA) Paris France
                [ 14 ] National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA) Natural Resources Research Center (CIRN) Institute of Soils Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires Argentina
                [ 15 ] Department of Livestock and Industrial Resources Makerere University Kampala Uganda
                [ 16 ] School of Geographical Sciences University of Bristol Bristol UK
                [ 17 ] Department of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia Charlottesville VA USA
                [ 18 ] Climate Focus Berlin Germany
                [ 19 ] NSW Department of Primary Industries DPI Agriculture Livestock Industries Centre University of New England Armidale NSW Australia
                [ 20 ] Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Atmospheric Environmental Research (KIT, IMK‐IFU) Garmisch‐Partenkirchen Germany
                [ 21 ] Institute of Geography University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Pete Smith, Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK.

                Email: pete.smith@ 123456abdn.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3525-9285
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5125-4962
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3821-6435
                Article
                GCB14878
                10.1111/gcb.14878
                7079138
                31637793
                cb8ce477-ee08-40fb-957a-23a540016a70
                © 2019 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 23 August 2019
                : 13 October 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 17, Pages: 44, Words: 40283
                Funding
                Funded by: UKRI
                Award ID: NE/M021327/1
                Award ID: EP/M013200/1
                Award ID: NE/M016900/1
                Award ID: NE/P019455/1
                Award ID: BB/N013484/1
                Funded by: UKERC
                Funded by: European Union , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100004963;
                Award ID: 774378
                Award ID: 773901
                Award ID: 774124
                Award ID: 776810
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust , open-funder-registry 10.13039/100004440;
                Funded by: UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
                Funded by: Norwegian Research Council , open-funder-registry 10.13039/501100005416;
                Award ID: 286773
                Award ID: 257622
                Award ID: 281113
                Award ID: 294534
                Funded by: IPCC Trust Fund
                Categories
                Invited Primary Research Article
                Invited Primary Research Article
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                March 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.7.8 mode:remove_FC converted:18.03.2020

                adaptation,adverse side effects,co‐benefits,demand management,desertification,food security,land degradation,land management,mitigation,practice,risk management

                Comments

                Comment on this article