How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

Pete Smith, Helmut Haberl, Alexander Popp, Karl-heinz Erb, Christian Lauk, Richard Harper, Francesco N. Tubiello, Alexandre de Siqueira Pinto, Mostafa Jafari, Saran Sohi, Omar Masera, Hannes Boettcher, Goeran Berndes, Mercedes Bustamante, Helal Ahammad, Harry Clark, Hongmin Dong, Elnour A. Elsiddig, Cheikh Mbow, Nijavalli H. Ravindranath & 7 others Charles W. Rice, Carmenza Robledo Abad, Anna Romanovskaya, Frank Sperling, Mario Herrero, Joanna I. House, Steven Rose

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

233 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Feeding 9-10billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly outline the challenges, review the supply- and demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFOLU sector and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand-side measures codeliver to aid food security. We conclude that while supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5-15.6Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1)) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1) at carbon prices between 20 and 100US$ tCO(2)-eq. yr(-1)), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to codeliver to other policy agenda, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2285-2302
Number of pages18
JournalGlobal Change Biology
Volume19
Issue number8
Early online date29 May 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2013

Keywords

  • AFOLU
  • agriculture
  • climate
  • ecosystem services
  • food security
  • forestry
  • GHG
  • mitigation
  • climate-change mitigation
  • free-market approach
  • global agriculture
  • water management
  • carbon
  • energy
  • soil
  • biodiversity
  • bioenergy

Cite this

How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? / Smith, Pete; Haberl, Helmut; Popp, Alexander; Erb, Karl-heinz; Lauk, Christian; Harper, Richard; Tubiello, Francesco N.; de Siqueira Pinto, Alexandre; Jafari, Mostafa; Sohi, Saran; Masera, Omar; Boettcher, Hannes; Berndes, Goeran; Bustamante, Mercedes; Ahammad, Helal; Clark, Harry; Dong, Hongmin; Elsiddig, Elnour A.; Mbow, Cheikh; Ravindranath, Nijavalli H.; Rice, Charles W.; Abad, Carmenza Robledo; Romanovskaya, Anna; Sperling, Frank; Herrero, Mario; House, Joanna I.; Rose, Steven.

In: Global Change Biology, Vol. 19, No. 8, 08.2013, p. 2285-2302.

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

Smith, P, Haberl, H, Popp, A, Erb, K, Lauk, C, Harper, R, Tubiello, FN, de Siqueira Pinto, A, Jafari, M, Sohi, S, Masera, O, Boettcher, H, Berndes, G, Bustamante, M, Ahammad, H, Clark, H, Dong, H, Elsiddig, EA, Mbow, C, Ravindranath, NH, Rice, CW, Abad, CR, Romanovskaya, A, Sperling, F, Herrero, M, House, JI & Rose, S 2013, 'How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?' Global Change Biology, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 2285-2302. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12160
Smith, Pete ; Haberl, Helmut ; Popp, Alexander ; Erb, Karl-heinz ; Lauk, Christian ; Harper, Richard ; Tubiello, Francesco N. ; de Siqueira Pinto, Alexandre ; Jafari, Mostafa ; Sohi, Saran ; Masera, Omar ; Boettcher, Hannes ; Berndes, Goeran ; Bustamante, Mercedes ; Ahammad, Helal ; Clark, Harry ; Dong, Hongmin ; Elsiddig, Elnour A. ; Mbow, Cheikh ; Ravindranath, Nijavalli H. ; Rice, Charles W. ; Abad, Carmenza Robledo ; Romanovskaya, Anna ; Sperling, Frank ; Herrero, Mario ; House, Joanna I. ; Rose, Steven. / How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?. In: Global Change Biology. 2013 ; Vol. 19, No. 8. pp. 2285-2302.
@article{9ea43cd77fa249b793b6bd87646552a1,
title = "How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?",
abstract = "Feeding 9-10billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly outline the challenges, review the supply- and demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFOLU sector and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand-side measures codeliver to aid food security. We conclude that while supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5-15.6Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1)) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1) at carbon prices between 20 and 100US$ tCO(2)-eq. yr(-1)), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to codeliver to other policy agenda, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.",
keywords = "AFOLU, agriculture, climate, ecosystem services, food security, forestry, GHG, mitigation, climate-change mitigation, free-market approach, global agriculture, water management, carbon, energy, soil, biodiversity, bioenergy",
author = "Pete Smith and Helmut Haberl and Alexander Popp and Karl-heinz Erb and Christian Lauk and Richard Harper and Tubiello, {Francesco N.} and {de Siqueira Pinto}, Alexandre and Mostafa Jafari and Saran Sohi and Omar Masera and Hannes Boettcher and Goeran Berndes and Mercedes Bustamante and Helal Ahammad and Harry Clark and Hongmin Dong and Elsiddig, {Elnour A.} and Cheikh Mbow and Ravindranath, {Nijavalli H.} and Rice, {Charles W.} and Abad, {Carmenza Robledo} and Anna Romanovskaya and Frank Sperling and Mario Herrero and House, {Joanna I.} and Steven Rose",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/gcb.12160",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "2285--2302",
journal = "Global Change Biology",
issn = "1354-1013",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

AU - Smith, Pete

AU - Haberl, Helmut

AU - Popp, Alexander

AU - Erb, Karl-heinz

AU - Lauk, Christian

AU - Harper, Richard

AU - Tubiello, Francesco N.

AU - de Siqueira Pinto, Alexandre

AU - Jafari, Mostafa

AU - Sohi, Saran

AU - Masera, Omar

AU - Boettcher, Hannes

AU - Berndes, Goeran

AU - Bustamante, Mercedes

AU - Ahammad, Helal

AU - Clark, Harry

AU - Dong, Hongmin

AU - Elsiddig, Elnour A.

AU - Mbow, Cheikh

AU - Ravindranath, Nijavalli H.

AU - Rice, Charles W.

AU - Abad, Carmenza Robledo

AU - Romanovskaya, Anna

AU - Sperling, Frank

AU - Herrero, Mario

AU - House, Joanna I.

AU - Rose, Steven

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - Feeding 9-10billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly outline the challenges, review the supply- and demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFOLU sector and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand-side measures codeliver to aid food security. We conclude that while supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5-15.6Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1)) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1) at carbon prices between 20 and 100US$ tCO(2)-eq. yr(-1)), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to codeliver to other policy agenda, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.

AB - Feeding 9-10billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly outline the challenges, review the supply- and demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFOLU sector and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand-side measures codeliver to aid food security. We conclude that while supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5-15.6Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1)) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3Gt CO2-eq. yr(-1) at carbon prices between 20 and 100US$ tCO(2)-eq. yr(-1)), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to codeliver to other policy agenda, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.

KW - AFOLU

KW - agriculture

KW - climate

KW - ecosystem services

KW - food security

KW - forestry

KW - GHG

KW - mitigation

KW - climate-change mitigation

KW - free-market approach

KW - global agriculture

KW - water management

KW - carbon

KW - energy

KW - soil

KW - biodiversity

KW - bioenergy

U2 - 10.1111/gcb.12160

DO - 10.1111/gcb.12160

M3 - Literature review

VL - 19

SP - 2285

EP - 2302

JO - Global Change Biology

JF - Global Change Biology

SN - 1354-1013

IS - 8

ER -