1
|
McElwee P, Calvin K, Campbell D, Cherubini F, Grassi G, Korotkov V, Le Hoang A, Lwasa S, Nkem J, Nkonya E, Saigusa N, Soussana JF, Taboada MA, Manning F, Nampanzira D, Smith P. The impact of interventions in the global land and agri-food sectors on Nature's Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Glob Chang Biol 2020; 26:4691-4721. [PMID: 32531815 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2019] [Revised: 02/14/2020] [Accepted: 03/14/2020] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
Interlocked challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation require transformative interventions in the land management and food production sectors to reduce carbon emissions, strengthen adaptive capacity, and increase food security. However, deciding which interventions to pursue and understanding their relative co-benefits with and trade-offs against different social and environmental goals have been difficult without comparisons across a range of possible actions. This study examined 40 different options, implemented through land management, value chains, or risk management, for their relative impacts across 18 Nature's Contributions to People (NCPs) and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that a relatively small number of interventions show positive synergies with both SDGs and NCPs with no significant adverse trade-offs; these include improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, integrated water management, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced soil erosion, salinization, and compaction, fire management, reduced landslides and hazards, reduced pollution, reduced post-harvest losses, improved energy use in food systems, and disaster risk management. Several interventions show potentially significant negative impacts on both SDGs and NCPs; these include bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, afforestation, and some risk sharing measures, like commercial crop insurance. Our results demonstrate that a better understanding of co-benefits and trade-offs of different policy approaches can help decision-makers choose the more effective, or at the very minimum, more benign interventions for implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pamela McElwee
- Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Katherine Calvin
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute, College Park, MD, USA
| | - Donovan Campbell
- The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica
| | - Francesco Cherubini
- Industrial Ecology Program, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
| | - Giacomo Grassi
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy
| | - Vladimir Korotkov
- Yu. A. Izrael Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, Moscow, Russia
| | - Anh Le Hoang
- Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), Hanoi, Vietnam
| | - Shuaib Lwasa
- Department of Geography, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
| | - Johnson Nkem
- United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
| | - Ephraim Nkonya
- International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Nobuko Saigusa
- Centre for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan
| | - Jean-Francois Soussana
- French National Institute for Agricultural, Environment and Food Research (INRA), Paris Cedex 07, France
| | - Miguel Angel Taboada
- Natural Resources Research Centre (CIRN), Institute of Soils, National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Frances Manning
- Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Dorothy Nampanzira
- Department of Livestock and Industrial Resources, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
| | - Pete Smith
- Institute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Smith P, Calvin K, Nkem J, Campbell D, Cherubini F, Grassi G, Korotkov V, Le Hoang A, Lwasa S, McElwee P, Nkonya E, Saigusa N, Soussana J, Taboada MA, Manning FC, Nampanzira D, Arias‐Navarro C, Vizzarri M, House J, Roe S, Cowie A, Rounsevell M, Arneth A. Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? Glob Chang Biol 2020; 26:1532-1575. [PMID: 31637793 PMCID: PMC7079138 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14878] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2019] [Accepted: 10/13/2019] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
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 CO2 eq/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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pete Smith
- Institute of Biological & Environmental SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
| | - Katherine Calvin
- Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryJoint Global Change Research InstituteCollege ParkMDUSA
| | - Johnson Nkem
- United Nations Economic Commission for AfricaAddis AbabaEthiopia
| | | | - Francesco Cherubini
- Industrial Ecology ProgrammeDepartment of Energy and Process EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
| | | | | | - Anh Le Hoang
- Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD)HanoiVietnam
| | - Shuaib Lwasa
- Department of GeographyMakerere UniversityKampalaUganda
| | - Pamela McElwee
- Department of Human EcologyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickNJUSA
| | | | - Nobuko Saigusa
- Center for Global Environmental ResearchNational Institute for Environmental StudiesTsukubaIbarakiJapan
| | - Jean‐Francois Soussana
- French National Institute for Agricultural, Environment and Food Research (INRA)ParisFrance
| | - Miguel Angel Taboada
- National Agricultural Technology Institute (INTA)Natural Resources Research Center (CIRN)Institute of SoilsCiudad Autónoma de Buenos AiresArgentina
| | - Frances C. Manning
- Institute of Biological & Environmental SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
| | - Dorothy Nampanzira
- Department of Livestock and Industrial ResourcesMakerere UniversityKampalaUganda
| | - Cristina Arias‐Navarro
- French National Institute for Agricultural, Environment and Food Research (INRA)ParisFrance
| | | | - Jo House
- School of Geographical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
| | - Stephanie Roe
- Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleVAUSA
- Climate FocusBerlinGermany
| | - Annette Cowie
- NSW Department of Primary IndustriesDPI AgricultureLivestock Industries CentreUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleNSWAustralia
| | - Mark Rounsevell
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Atmospheric Environmental Research (KIT, IMK‐IFU)Garmisch‐PartenkirchenGermany
- Institute of GeographyUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | - Almut Arneth
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Atmospheric Environmental Research (KIT, IMK‐IFU)Garmisch‐PartenkirchenGermany
| |
Collapse
|