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

Pete Smith*, Katherine Calvin, Johnson Nkem, Donovan Campbell, Francesco Cherubini, Giacomo Grassi, Vladimir Korotkov, Anh Le Hoang, Shuaib Lwasa, Pamela McElwee, Ephraim Nkonya, Nobuko Saigusa, Jean-Francois Soussana, Miguel Angel Taboada, Frances Manning, Dorothy Nampanzira, Cristina Arias-Navarro, Matteo Vizzarri, Jo House, Stephanie RoeAnnette Cowie, Mark Rounsevell, Almut Arneth

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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 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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalGlobal Change Biology
Early online date14 Dec 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 14 Dec 2019

Fingerprint

land degradation
desertification
food security
Climate change
Degradation
Risk management
Productivity
mitigation
land
climate change mitigation
climate change adaptation
land management
food
food production

Keywords

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

Cite this

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

In: Global Change Biology, 14.12.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smith, P, Calvin, K, Nkem, J, Campbell, D, Cherubini, F, Grassi, G, Korotkov, V, Hoang, AL, Lwasa, S, McElwee, P, Nkonya, E, Saigusa, N, Soussana, J-F, Taboada, MA, Manning, F, Nampanzira, D, Arias-Navarro, C, Vizzarri, M, House, J, Roe, S, Cowie, A, Rounsevell, M & Arneth, A 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
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. / Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land-degradation and desertification?. In: Global Change Biology. 2019.
@article{075f4687d2464ac58b37392a3aed0acf,
title = "Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land-degradation and desertification?",
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 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.",
keywords = "mitigation, adaptation, land degradation, desertification, food security, practice, co-benefits, adverse side-effects, land management, demand management, risk management",
author = "Pete Smith and Katherine Calvin and Johnson Nkem and Donovan Campbell and Francesco Cherubini and Giacomo Grassi and Vladimir Korotkov and Hoang, {Anh Le} and Shuaib Lwasa and Pamela McElwee and Ephraim Nkonya and Nobuko Saigusa and Jean-Francois Soussana and Taboada, {Miguel Angel} and Frances Manning and Dorothy Nampanzira and Cristina Arias-Navarro and Matteo Vizzarri and Jo House and Stephanie Roe and Annette Cowie and Mark Rounsevell and Almut Arneth",
note = "The input of P.S. contributes to the following UKRI-funded projects: DEVIL (NE/M021327/1), MAGLUE (EP/M013200/1), U-GRASS (NE/M016900/1), Assess-BECCS (funded by UKERC), Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1), N-Circle (BB/N013484/1), the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme through projects: CIRCASA (grant agreement n° 774378), UNISECO (grant agreement n° 773901), SUPERG (grant agreement n° 774124) and VERIFY (grant agreement n° 776810) and the Wellcome Trust-funded project Sustianable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS). P.S. received support for his role as a Conveneing Lead Author of the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land, from the UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). F.C. acknowledges the support of the Norwegian Research Council through the projects MITISTRESS (project n. 286773), Bio4Fuels (project n. 257622), Carbo-Fertil (project n. 281113), and BIOPATH (project n. 294534). All other authors acknowledge support from their respective governments, or from the IPCC Trust Fund, to support their attendance at author meetings of the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land, for which this anaylsis was undertaken. The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission or any other Government Agency.",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1111/gcb.14878",
language = "English",
journal = "Global Change Biology",
issn = "1354-1013",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land-degradation and desertification?

AU - Smith, Pete

AU - Calvin, Katherine

AU - Nkem, Johnson

AU - Campbell, Donovan

AU - Cherubini, Francesco

AU - Grassi, Giacomo

AU - Korotkov, Vladimir

AU - Hoang, Anh Le

AU - Lwasa, Shuaib

AU - McElwee, Pamela

AU - Nkonya, Ephraim

AU - Saigusa, Nobuko

AU - Soussana, Jean-Francois

AU - Taboada, Miguel Angel

AU - Manning, Frances

AU - Nampanzira, Dorothy

AU - Arias-Navarro, Cristina

AU - Vizzarri, Matteo

AU - House, Jo

AU - Roe, Stephanie

AU - Cowie, Annette

AU - Rounsevell, Mark

AU - Arneth, Almut

N1 - The input of P.S. contributes to the following UKRI-funded projects: DEVIL (NE/M021327/1), MAGLUE (EP/M013200/1), U-GRASS (NE/M016900/1), Assess-BECCS (funded by UKERC), Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1), N-Circle (BB/N013484/1), the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme through projects: CIRCASA (grant agreement n° 774378), UNISECO (grant agreement n° 773901), SUPERG (grant agreement n° 774124) and VERIFY (grant agreement n° 776810) and the Wellcome Trust-funded project Sustianable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS). P.S. received support for his role as a Conveneing Lead Author of the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land, from the UK Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). F.C. acknowledges the support of the Norwegian Research Council through the projects MITISTRESS (project n. 286773), Bio4Fuels (project n. 257622), Carbo-Fertil (project n. 281113), and BIOPATH (project n. 294534). All other authors acknowledge support from their respective governments, or from the IPCC Trust Fund, to support their attendance at author meetings of the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land, for which this anaylsis was undertaken. The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission or any other Government Agency.

PY - 2019/12/14

Y1 - 2019/12/14

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - mitigation

KW - adaptation

KW - land degradation

KW - desertification

KW - food security

KW - practice

KW - co-benefits

KW - adverse side-effects

KW - land management

KW - demand management

KW - risk management

U2 - 10.1111/gcb.14878

DO - 10.1111/gcb.14878

M3 - Article

JO - Global Change Biology

JF - Global Change Biology

SN - 1354-1013

ER -