Record Details

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

CGSpace

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land‐degradation and desertification?
 
Creator Smith, Pete
Calvin, Katherine
Nkem, Johnson
Campbell, Donovan
Cherubini, Francesco
Grassi, Giacomo
Korotkov, Vladimir
Hoang, Anh Le
Lwasa, Shuaib
McElwee, Pamela
Nkonya, Ephraim
Saigusa, Nobuko
Soussana, Jean‐Francois
Taboada, Miguel Ángel
Manning, Frances
Nampanzira, Dorothy
Arias-Navarro, Cristina
Vizzarri, Matteo
House, Jo
Roe, Stephanie
Cowie, Annette
Rounsevell, Mark D.
Arneth, Almut
 
Description 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 GtCO2e yr‐1) 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.
 
Date 2020-03
2019-10-24T06:51:33Z
2019-10-24T06:51:33Z
 
Type Journal Article
 
Identifier Smith, Pete; Calvin, Katherine; Nkem, Johnson; Campbell, Donovan; Cherubini, Francesco; Grassi, Giacomo; Korotkov, Vladimir; Hoang, Anh Le; Lwasa, Shuaib; McElwee, Pamela; Nkonya, Ephraim; Saigusa, Nobuko; Soussana, Jean‐Francois; Taboada, Miguel Angel; Manning, Frances; Nampanzira, Dorothy; Arias‐Navarro, Cristina; Vizzarri, Matteo; House, Jo; Roe, Stephanie; Cowie, Annette; Rounsevell, Mark; Arneth, Almut. 2019. Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land‐degradation and desertification? Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878
1354-1013
1365-2486
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/105504
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878
Restoring Degraded Landscapes
 
Language en
 
Rights CC-BY-4.0
Open Access
 
Publisher Wiley
 
Source Global Change Biology