Special Report: Special Report on Climate Change and Land
Ch 06

Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and GHG fluxes: synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options

Coordinating Lead Authors

  • Johnson Nkem (Cameroon)
  • Pete Smith (United Kingdom)

Lead Authors

  • Katherine Calvin (United States)
  • CAMPBELL Donovan (Jamaica)
  • Francesco Cherubini (Italy)
  • Giacomo Grassi (Italy)
  • KOROTKOV Vladimir (Russia)
  • LE HOANG Anh (Vietnam)
  • LWASA Shuaib (Uganda)
  • Pamela McElwee (United States)
  • NKONYA Ephraim (Tanzania)
  • SAIGUSA Nobuko (Japan)
  • Jean-Francois Soussana (France)
  • TABOADA Miguel Angel (Argentina)

Review Editors

  • ABDULLA Amjad (Maldives)
  • NOBLE Ian R. (Australia)
  • YAMAGATA Yoshiki (Japan)
  • ZATARI Taha (Saudi Arabia)

FAQ 6.1 | What types of land-based options can help mitigate and adapt to climate change?

Land-based options that help mitigate climate change are various and differ greatly in their potential. The options with moderate-to-large mitigation potential, and no adverse side effects, include options that decrease pressure on land (e.g., by reducing the land needed for food production) and those that help to maintain or increase carbon stores both above-ground (e.g., forest measures, agroforestry, fire management) and below-ground (e.g., increased soil organic matter or reduced losses, cropland and grazing land management, urban land management, reduced deforestation and forest degradation). These options also have co-benefits for adaptation by improving health, increasing yields, flood attenuation and reducing urban heat island effects. Another group of practices aim at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission sources, such as livestock management or nitrogen fertilisation management. Land-based options delivering climate change adaptation may be structural (e.g., irrigation and drainage systems, flood and landslide control), technological (e.g., new adapted crop varieties, changing planting zones and dates, using climate forecasts), or socio-economic and institutional (e.g., regulation of land use, associativity between farmers). Some adaptation options (e.g., new planting zones, irrigation) may have adverse side effects for biodiversity and water. Adaptation options may be planned, such as those implemented at regional, national or municipal level (top-down approaches), or autonomous, such as many technological decisions taken by farmers and local inhabitants. In any case, their effectiveness depends greatly on the achievement of resilience against extreme events (e.g., floods, droughts, heat waves, etc.).

FAQ 6.2 | Which land-based mitigation measures could affect desertification, land degradation or food security?

Some options for mitigating climate change are based on increasing carbon stores, both above-ground and below-ground, so mitigation is usually related to increases in soil organic matter content and increased land cover by perennial vegetation. There is a direct relationship, with very few or no adverse side effects for prevention or reversal of desertification and land degradation and the achievement of food security. This is because desertification and land degradation are closely associated with soil organic matter losses and the presence of bare ground surfaces. Food security depends on the achievement of healthy crops and high and stable yields over time, which is difficult to achieve in poor soils that are low in organic matter.

FAQ 6.3 | What is the role of bioenergy in climate change mitigation, and what are its challenges?

Plants absorb carbon as they grow. If plant-based material (biomass) is used for energy, the carbon it absorbed from the atmosphere is released back. Traditional use of bioenergy for cooking and heating is still widespread throughout the world. Modern conversion to electricity, heat, gas and liquid fuels can reduce the need to burn fossil fuels and this can reduce GHG emissions, helping to mitigate climate change. However, the total amount of emissions avoided depends on the type of biomass, where it is grown, how it is converted to energy, and what type of energy source it displaces. Some types of bioenergy require dedicated land (e.g., canola for biodiesel, perennial grasses, short rotation woody crops), while others can be co-produced or use agricultural or industrial residues (e.g., residues from sugar and starch crops for ethanol, and manure for biogas). Depending on where, how, and the amount of bioenergy crops that are grown, the use of dedicated land for bioenergy could compete with food crops or other mitigation options. It could also result in land degradation, deforestation or biodiversity loss. In some circumstances, however, bioenergy can be beneficial for land, for example, by increasing soil organic carbon. The use of co-products and residues for bioenergy limits the competition for land with food but could result in land degradation if carbon and nutrient-rich material is removed that would otherwise be left on the land. On the other hand, the by-products of some bioenergy conversion processes can be returned to the land as a fertiliser and may have other co-benefits (e.g., reducing pollution associated with manure slurry).

Figure 6.1
View details
Figure 6.2
View details
Figure 6.3
View details
Figure 6.4
View details
Figure 6.5
View details
Cross-Chapter Box 7 Figure 1
View details
Figure 6.6
View details
Figure 6.7
View details
Figure 6.9
View details
Cross-Chapter Box 9 Figure 1
View details
ES

Executive Summary

The land challenges, in the context of this report, are climate change mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation, and food security. The chapter also discusses implications for Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP), including biodiversity and water, and sustainable development, by assessing intersections with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The chapter assesses response options that could be used to address these challenges. These response options were derived from the previous chapters and fall into three broad categories: land management, value chain, and risk management.

The land challenges faced today vary across regions; climate change will increase challenges in the future, while socio- economic development could either increase or decrease challenges (high confidence). Increases in biophysical impacts from climate change can worsen desertification, land degradation, and food insecurity (high confidence). Additional pressures from socio- economic development could further exacerbate these challenges; however, the effects are scenario dependent. Scenarios with increases in income and reduced pressures on land can lead to reductions in food insecurity; however, all assessed scenarios result in increases in water demand and water scarcity (medium confidence). {6.1}

The applicability and efficacy of response options are region and context specific; while many value chain and risk management options are potentially broadly applicable, many land management options are applicable on less than 50% of the ice-free land surface (high confidence). Response options are limited by land type, bioclimatic region, or local food system context (high confidence). Some response options produce adverse side effects only in certain regions or contexts; for example, response options that use freshwater may have no adverse side effects in regions where water is plentiful, but large adverse side effects in regions where water is scarce (high confidence). Response options with biophysical climate effects (e.g., afforestation, reforestation) may have different effects on local climate, depending on where they are implemented (medium confidence). Regions with more challenges have fewer response options available for implementation (medium confidence). {6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4}

Nine options deliver medium-to-large benefits for all five land challenges (high confidence). The options with medium-to-large benefits for all challenges are increased food productivity, improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, forest management, increased soil organic carbon content, fire management and reduced post-harvest losses. A further two options, dietary change and reduced food waste, have no global estimates for adaptation but have medium- to-large benefits for all other challenges (high confidence). {6.3, 6.4}

Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 GtCO2e yr–1) without adverse impacts on the other challenges (high confidence). These are: increased food productivity; reduced deforestation and forest degradation; increased soil organic carbon content; fire management; and reduced post-harvest losses.

Two further options with large mitigation potential, dietary change and reduced food waste, have no global estimates for adaptation but show no negative impacts across the other challenges. Five options: improved cropland management; improved grazing land managements; agroforestry; integrated water management; and forest management, have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other challenges (high confidence). {6.3.6}

Sixteen response options have large adaptation potential (more than 25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges (high confidence). These are increased food productivity, improved cropland management, agroforestry, agricultural diversification, forest management, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced landslides and natural hazards, restoration and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, management of supply chains, improved food processing and retailing, improved energy use in food systems, livelihood diversification, use of local seeds, and disaster risk management (high confidence). Some options (such as enhanced urban food systems or management of urban sprawl) may not provide large global benefits but may have significant positive local effects without adverse effects (high confidence). {6.3, 6.4}

Seventeen of 40 options deliver co-benefits or no adverse side effects for the full range of NCPs and SDGs; only three options (afforestation, bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and some types of risk sharing instruments, such as insurance) have potentially adverse side effects for five or more NCPs or SDGs (medium confidence). The 17 options with co-benefits and no adverse side effects include most agriculture- and soil-based land management options, many ecosystem-based land management options, forest management, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, improved energy use in food systems, and livelihood diversification (medium confidence). Some of the synergies between response options and SDGs include positive poverty eradication impacts from activities like improved water management or improved management of supply chains. Examples of synergies between response options and NCPs include positive impacts on habitat maintenance from activities like invasive species management and agricultural diversification. However, many of these synergies are not automatic, and are dependent on well-implemented activities requiring institutional and enabling conditions for success. {6.4}

Most response options can be applied without competing for available land; however, seven options result in competition for land (medium confidence). A large number of response options 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 scale: afforestation, reforestation, and land used to provide feedstock for BECCS or biochar, with three further options: reduced grassland conversion to croplands, restoration and reduced conversion of peat lands and restoration, and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands having smaller or variable impacts on competition for land. Other options such as reduced deforestation and forest degradation, restrict land conversion for other options and uses. Expansion of the current area of managed land into natural ecosystems could have negative consequences for other land challenges, lead to the loss of biodiversity, and adversely affect a range of NCPs (high confidence). {6.3.6, 6.4}

Some options, such as bioenergy and BECCS, are scale dependent. The climate change mitigation potential for bioenergy and BECCS is large (up to 11 GtCO2 yr–1); however, the effects of bioenergy production on land degradation, food insecurity, water scarcity, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and other environmental goals are scale- and context-specific (high confidence). These effects depend on the scale of deployment, initial land use, land type, bioenergy feedstock, initial carbon stocks, climatic region and management regime (high confidence). Large areas of monoculture bioenergy crops that displace other land uses can result in land competition, with adverse effects for food production, food consumption, and thus food security, as well as adverse effects for land degradation, biodiversity, and water scarcity (medium confidence). However, integration of bioenergy into sustainably managed agricultural landscapes can ameliorate these challenges (medium confidence). {6.2, 6.3, 6.4, Cross-Chapter Box 7 in this chapter}

Response options are interlinked; some options (e.g., land sparing and sustainable land management options) can enhance the co-benefits or increase the potential for other options (medium confidence). Some response options can be more effective when applied together (medium confidence); for example, dietary change and waste reduction expand the potential to apply other options by freeing as much as 5.8 Mkm2 (0.8–2.4 Mkm2 for dietary change; about 2 Mkm2 for reduced post-harvest losses, and 1.4 Mkm2 for reduced food waste) of land (low confidence). Integrated water management and increased soil organic carbon can increase food productivity in some circumstances. {6.4}

Other response options (e.g., options that require land) may conflict; as a result, the potentials for response options are not all additive, and a total potential from the land is currently unknown (high confidence). Combining some sets of options (e.g., those that compete for land) may mean that maximum potentials cannot be realised, for example, reforestation, afforestation, and bioenergy and BECCS, all compete for the same finite land resource so the combined potential is much lower than the sum of potentials of each individual option, calculated in the absence of alternative uses of the land (high confidence). Given the interlinkages among response options and that mitigation potentials for individual options assume that they are applied to all suitable land, the total mitigation potential is much lower than the sum of the mitigation potential of the individual response options (high confidence). {6.4}

The feasibility of response options, including those with multiple co-benefits, is limited due to economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental and geophysical barriers (high confidence). A number of response options (e.g., most agriculture-based land management options, forest management, reforestation and restoration) have already been implemented widely to date (high confidence). There is robust evidence that many other response options can deliver co-benefits across the range of land challenges, yet these are not being implemented. This limited application is evidence that multiple barriers to implementation of response options exist (high confidence). {6.3, 6.4}

Coordinated action is required across a range of actors, including business, producers, consumers, land managers, indigenous peoples and local communities and policymakers to create enabling conditions for adoption of response options (high confidence). The response options assessed face a variety of barriers to implementation (economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental and geophysical) that require action across multiple actors to overcome (high confidence). There are a variety of response options available at different scales that could form portfolios of measures applied by different stakeholders – from farm to international scales. For example, agricultural diversification and use of local seeds by smallholders can be particularly useful poverty eradication and biodiversity conservation measures, but are only successful when higher scales, such as national and international markets and supply chains, also value these goods in trade regimes, and consumers see the benefits of purchasing these goods. However, the land and food sectors face particular challenges of institutional fragmentation, and often suffer from a lack of engagement between stakeholders at different scales (medium confidence). {6.3, 6.4}

Delayed action will result in an increased need for response to land challenges and a decreased potential for land-based response options due to climate change and other pressures (high confidence). For example, failure to mitigate climate change will increase requirements for adaptation and may reduce the efficacy of future land-based mitigation options (high confidence). The potential for some land management options decreases as climate change increases; for example, climate alters the sink capacity for soil and vegetation carbon sequestration, reducing the potential for increased soil organic carbon (high confidence). Other options (e.g., reduced deforestation and forest degradation) prevent further detrimental effects to the land surface; delaying these options could lead to increased deforestation, conversion, or degradation, serving as increased sources of GHGs and having concomitant negative impacts on NCPs (medium confidence). Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options – such as reforestation, afforestation, bioenergy and BECCS – are used to compensate for unavoidable emissions in other sectors; delayed action will result in larger and more rapid deployment later (high confidence). Some response options will not be possible if action is delayed too long; for example, peatland restoration might not be possible after certain thresholds of degradation have been exceeded, meaning that peatlands could not be restored in certain locations (medium confidence). {6.2, 6.3, 6.4}

Early action, however, has challenges including technological readiness, upscaling, and institutional barriers (high confidence). Some of the response options have technological barriers that may limit their wide-scale application in the near term (high confidence). Some response options, for example, BECCS, have only been implemented at small-scale demonstration facilities; challenges exist with upscaling these options to the levels discussed in this Chapter (medium confidence). Economic and institutional barriers, including governance, financial incentives and financial resources, limit the near-term adoption of many response options, and ‘policy lags’, by which implementation is delayed by the slowness of the policy implementation cycle, are significant across many options (medium confidence). Even some actions that initially seemed like ‘easy wins’ have been challenging to implement, with stalled policies for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and fostering conservation (REDD+) providing clear examples of how response options need sufficient funding, institutional support, local buy-in, and clear metrics for success, among other necessary enabling conditions. {6.2, 6.4}

Some response options reduce the consequences of land challenges, but do not address underlying drivers (high confidence). For example, management of urban sprawl can help reduce the environmental impact of urban systems; however, such management does not address the socio-economic and demographic changes driving the expansion of urban areas. By failing to address the underlying drivers, there is a potential for the challenge to re-emerge in the future (high confidence). {6.4}

Many response options have been practised in many regions for many years; however, there is limited knowledge of the efficacy and broader implications of other response options (high confidence). For the response options with a large evidence base and ample experience, further implementation and upscaling would carry little risk of adverse side effects (high confidence). However, for other options, the risks are larger as the knowledge gaps are greater; for example, uncertainty in the economic and social aspects of many land response options hampers the ability to predict their effects (medium confidence). Furthermore, Integrated Assessment Models, like those used to develop the pathways in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15), omit many of these response options and do not assess implications for all land challenges (high confidence). {6.4}

6.1

Introduction

6.1.1

Context of this chapter

This chapter focuses on the interlinkages between response options1 to deliver climate mitigation and adaptation, to address desertification and land degradation, and to enhance food security. It also assesses reported impacts on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) and contributions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By identifying which options provide the most co-benefits with the fewest adverse side effects, this chapter aims to provide integrated response options that could co-deliver across the range of challenges. This chapter does not consider response options that affect only one aspect of climate mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation, or food security in isolation, since these are the subjects of Chapters 2–5; this chapter considers only interlinkages between response options, and two or more of these challenges in the land sector.

Since the aim is to assess and provide guidance on integrated response options, each response option is first described and categorised, drawing on previous chapters 2–5 (Section 6.2), and their impact on climate mitigation/adaptation, desertification, land degradation, and food security is quantified (Section 6.3). The feasibility of each response option, respect to costs, barriers, saturation and reversibility is then assessed (Section 6.4.1), before considering their sensitivity to future climate change (Section 6.4.2).

The co-benefits and adverse side effects2 of each integrated response option across the five land challenges, and their impacts on the NCP and the SDGs, are then assessed in Section 6.4.3. In section 6.4.4, the spatial applicability of these integrated response options is assessed in relation to the location of the challenges, with the aim of identifying which options have the greatest potential to co-deliver across the challenges, and the contexts and circumstances in which they do so. Interlinkages among response options and challenges in future scenarios are also assessed in Section 6.4.4. Finally, Section 6.4.5 discusses the potential consequences of delayed action.

In providing this evidence-based assessment, drawing on the relevant literature, this chapter does not assess the merits of policies to deliver these integrated response options – Chapter 7 assesses the various policy options currently available to deliver these interventions. Rather, this chapter provides an assessment of the integrated response options and their ability to co-deliver across the multiple challenges addressed in this Special Report.

6.1.2

Framing social challenges and acknowledging enabling factors

In this section we outline the approach used in assessing the evidence for interactions between response options to deliver climate mitigation and adaptation, to prevent desertification and land degradation, and to enhance food security. Overall, while defining and presenting the response options to meet these goals is the primary goal of this chapter, we note that these options must not be considered only as technological interventions, or one-off actions. Rather, they need to be understood as responses to socio- ecological challenges whose success will largely depend on external enabling factors. There have been many previous efforts at compiling positive response options that meet numerous SDGs, but which have not resulted in major shifts in implementation; for example, online databases of multiple response options for sustainable land management (SLM), adaptation, and other objectives have been compiled by many donor agencies, including World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), Climate Adapt, and the Adaptation Knowledge Portal (Schwilch et al. 2012b1).3 Yet, clearly barriers to adoption remain, or these actions would have been more widely used by now. Much of the scientific literature on barriers to implementing response options focuses on the individual and household level, and discusses limits to adoption, often primarily identified as economic factors (Nigussie et al. 20172; Dallimer et al. 20183). While a useful approach, such studies are often unable to account for the larger enabling factors that might assist in more wide-scale implementation (Chapter 7 discusses these governance factors and associated barriers in more detail).

Instead, this chapter proposes that each response option identified and assessed needs to be understood as an intervention within complex socio-ecological systems (SES) (introduced in Chapter 1). In this understanding, physical changes affect human decision-making over land and risk management options, as do economics, policies, and cultural factors, which in turn may drive additional ecological change (Rawlins and Morris 20103). This co-evolution of responses within an SES provides a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics between drivers of change and impacts of interventions. Thus, in discussions of the 40 specific response options in this chapter, it must be kept in mind that all need to be contextualised within the specific SES in which they are deployed (Figure 6.1). Framing response options within SESs also recognises the interactions between different response options. However, a major problem within SESs is that the choice and use of different response options requires knowledge of the problems they are aimed at solving, which may be unclear, contested, or not shared equally among stakeholders (Carmenta et al. 20174). Drivers of environmental change often have primarily social or economic, rather than technological roots, which requires acknowledgement that the response options not aimed at reducing the drivers of change may thus be less successful (Schwilch et al. 20145).

Figure 6.1

Model to represent a social-ecological system of one of the integrated response options in this chapter, using restoration and reduced impact of peatlands as an example.The boxes show systems (ecosystem, social system), external and internal drivers of change and the management response – here enacting the response option. Unless included in the ‘internal drivers of […]

Model to represent a social-ecological system of one of the integrated response options in this chapter, using restoration and reduced impact of peatlands as an example.The boxes show systems (ecosystem, social system), external and internal drivers of change and the management response – here enacting the response option. Unless included in the ‘internal drivers of change’ box, all other drivers of change are external (e.g., climate, policy, markets, anthropogenic land pressures). The arrows represent how the systems can influence each other, with key drivers of impact written in the arrow in the direction of effect.

Response options must also account for the uneven distribution of impacts among populations of both environmental change and intervention responses to this change. Understanding the integrated response options available in a given context requires an understanding of the specificities of social vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and institutional support to assist communities, households and regions to reach their capabilities and achievement of the SDG and other social and land management goals. Vulnerability reflects how assets are distributed within and among communities, shaped by factors that are not easily overcome with technical solutions, including inequality and marginalisation, poverty, and access to resources (Adger et al. 20046; Hallegate et al. 20167). Understanding why some people are vulnerable, and what structural factors perpetuate this vulnerability requires attention to both micro and meso scales (Tschakert et al. 20138). These vulnerabilities create barriers to adoption of even low- cost high-return response options, such as soil carbon management, that may seem obviously beneficial to implement (Mutoko et al. 20149; Cavanagh et al. 201710). Thus, assessment of the differentiated vulnerabilities that may prevent the adoption of a response option need to be considered as part of any package of interventions.

Adaptive capacity relates to the ability of institutions or people to modify or change characteristics or behaviour so as to cope better with existing or anticipated external stresses (Moss et al. 200111; Brenkert and Malone 200512; Brooks et al. 200513). Adaptive capacity reflects institutional and policy support networks, and has often been associated at the national level with strong developments in the fields of economics, education, health, and governance and political rights (Smit et al. 200114). Areas with low adaptive capacity, as reflected in low Human Development Index scores, might constrain the ability of communities to implement response options (Section 6.4.4.1 and Figure 6.7).

Further, while environmental changes like land degradation have obvious social and cultural impacts, (as discussed in the preceding chapters), so do response options. Therefore, careful thought is needed about what impacts are expected and what trade-offs are acceptable. One potential way to assess the impact of response interventions relates to the idea of capabilities, a concept first 6 proposed by economist Amartya Sen (Sen 199215). Understanding capability as the ‘freedom to achieve well-being’ frames a problem as being a matter of facilitating what people aspire to do and be, rather than telling them to achieve a standardised or predetermined outcome (Nussbaum and Sen 199316). Thus a capability approach is generally a more flexible and multi-purpose framework, appropriate to an SES understanding because of its open-ended approach (Bockstael and Berkes 201717). Thus, one question for any decision- maker approaching schematics of response options is to determine which response options lead to increased or decreased capabilities for the stakeholders who are the objects of the interventions, given the context of the SES in which the response option will be implemented.

Section 6.4.3 examines some of the capabilities that are reflected in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as gender equality and education, and assesses how each of the 40 response options may affect those goals, either positively or negatively, through a review of the available literature.

6.1.2.1

Enabling conditions

Response options are not implemented in a vacuum and rely on knowledge production and socio-economic and cultural strategies and approaches embedded within them to be successful. For example, it is well known that “Weak grassroots institutions characterised by low capacity, failure to exploit collective capital and poor knowledge sharing and access to information, are common barriers to sustainable land management and improved food security” (Oloo and Omondi 2017). Achieving broad goals such as reduced poverty or sustainable land management requires conducive enabling conditions, such as attention to gender issues and the involvement of stakeholders, such as indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as attention to governance, including adaptive governance, stakeholder engagement, and institutional facilitation (Section 6.4.4.3). These enabling conditions – such as gender- sensitive programming or community-based solutions – are not categorised as individual response options in subsequent sections of this chapter because they are conditions that can potentially help improve all response options when used in tandem to produce more sustainable outcomes. Chapter 7 picks up on these themes and discusses the ways various policies to implement response options have tried to minimise unwanted social and economic impacts on participants in more depth, through deeper analysis of concepts such as citizen science and adaptive governance. Here we simply note the importance of assessing the contexts in which response options will be delivered, as no two situations are the same, and no single response option is likely to be a ‘silver bullet’ to solve all land– climate problems; each option comes with potential challenges and trade-offs (Section 6.2), barriers to implementation (Section 6.4.1), interactions with other sectors of society (Section 6.4.3), and potential environmental limitations (Section 6.4.4).

6.1.3

Challenges and response options in current and historical interventions

Land-based systems are exposed to multiple overlapping challenges, including climate change (adaptation and mitigation), desertification (Chapter 3), land degradation (Chapter 4) and food insecurity (Chapter 5), as well as loss of biodiversity, groundwater stress (from over-abstraction) and water quality. The spatial distribution of these individual land-based challenges is shown in Figure 6.2, based on recent studies and using the following indicators:

  • Desertification attributed to land use is estimated from vegetation remote sensing (Figure 3.7c), mean annual change in NDVImax <–0.001 (between 1982 and 2015) in dryland areas (Aridity Index >0.65), noting, however, that desertification has multiple causes (Chapter 3).
  • Land degradation (Chapter 4) is based on a soil erosion (Borrelli et al. 201718) proxy (annual erosion rate of 3 t ha–1 or above).
  • The climate change challenge for adaptation is based on a dissimilarity index of monthly means of temperature and precipitation between current and end-of-century scenarios (dissimilarity index equal to 0.7 or above; Netzel and Stepinski 201819), noting, however, that rapid warming could occur in all land regions (Chapter 2).
  • The food security challenge is estimated as the prevalence of chronic undernourishment (higher or equal to 5%) by country in 2015 (FAO 2017a20), noting, however, that food security has several dimensions (Chapter 5).
  • The biodiversity challenge uses threatened terrestrial biodiversity hotspots (areas where exceptional concentrations of endemic species are undergoing exceptional loss of habitat, (Mittermeier et al. 201121), noting, however, that biodiversity concerns more than just threatened endemic species.
  • The groundwater stress challenge is estimated as groundwater abstraction over recharge ratios above one (Gassert et al. 201422) in agricultural areas (croplands and villages).
  • The water quality challenge is estimated as critical loads (higher or equal to 1000 kg N km–2 or 50 kg P km–2) of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) (Xie and Ringler 201723).

Overlapping land-based challenges affect all land-use categories: croplands, rangelands, semi-natural forests, villages, dense settlements, wild forests and sparse trees and barren lands. These land-use categories can be defined as anthropogenic biomes, or anthromes, and their global distribution was mapped by Ellis and Ramankutty (2008)24 (Figure 6.2).

The majority of the global population is concentrated in dense settlements and villages, accounting for less than 7% of the global ice-free land area, while croplands and rangelands use 39% of land. The remainder of the ice-free land area (more than half) is used by semi-natural forests, by wild forests, sparse trees and barren lands (Table 6.1).

Land-use types (or anthromes) are exposed to multiple overlapping challenges. Climate change could induce rapid warming in all land areas (Chapter 2). In close to 70% of the ice-free land area, the climate change adaptation challenge could be reinforced by a strong dissimilarity between end-of-century and current temperature and precipitation seasonal cycles (Netzel and Stepinski 201825). Chronic undernourishment (a component of food insecurity) is concentrated in 20% of global ice-free land area. Severe soil erosion (a proxy of land degradation) and desertification from land use affect 13% and 3% of ice-free land area, respectively. Both groundwater stress and severe water-quality decline (12% and 10% of ice-free land area, respectively) contribute to the water challenge. Threatened biodiversity hot-spots (15% of ice-free land area) are significant for the biodiversity challenge (Table 6.1).

Since land-based challenges overlap, part of the ice-free land area is exposed to combinations of two or more challenges. For instance, land degradation (severe soil erosion) or desertification from land use and food insecurity (chronic undernourishment) are combined with a strong climate change adaptation challenge (dissimilarity in seasonal cycles) in 4.5% of the ice-free land area (Figure 6.3).

The global distribution of land area by the number of overlapping land challenges (Figure 6.4) shows: the least exposure to land challenges in barren lands; less frequent exposure to two or more challenges in wild forests than in semi-natural forests; more frequent exposure to two or more challenges in agricultural anthromes (croplands and rangelands) and dense settlements than in forests; most frequent exposure to three or more challenges in villages compared to other land-use types. Therefore, land-use types intensively used by humans are, on average, exposed to a larger number of challenges than land- use types (or anthromes) least exposed to human use.

Case studies located in different world regions are presented for each anthrome, in order to provide historical context on the interlinkages between multiple challenges and responses (Box 6.1). Taken together, these case studies illustrate the large contrast across anthromes in land-based interventions, and show the way these interventions respond to combinations of challenges.

Figure 6.2

Global distributions of land-use types and individual land-based challenges.(a) Land-use types (or anthromes, after Ellis and Ramankutty 2008); (b) Climate change adaptation challenge (estimated from the dissimilarity between current and end-of-century climate scenarios, Netzel and Stepinski 2018); (c) Desertification challenge (after Chapter 3, Figure 3.7c); (d) Land degradation challenge (estimated from a soil erosion proxy, […]

Global distributions of land-use types and individual land-based challenges.(a) Land-use types (or anthromes, after Ellis and Ramankutty 20081229); (b) Climate change adaptation challenge (estimated from the dissimilarity between current and end-of-century climate scenarios, Netzel and Stepinski 20181230); (c) Desertification challenge (after Chapter 3, Figure 3.7c); (d) Land degradation challenge (estimated from a soil erosion proxy, one indicator of land degradation; Borrelli et al. 20171231); (e) Food security challenge (estimated from chronic undernourishment, a component of food security, FAO 2017a1232); (f) biodiversity challenge (estimated from threatened biodiversity hotspots, a component of biodiversity, Mittermeier et al. 20111233]); (g) Groundwater stress challenge (estimated from water over-abstraction, Gassert et al. 20141234); (h) Water quality challenge (estimated from critical nitrogen and phosphorus loads of water systems, Xie and Ringler 20171235).

Table 6.1

Global area of land-use types (or anthromes) and current percentage area exposure to individual (overlapping) land-based challenges.

See Figure 6.2 and text for further details on criteria for individual challenges.

Land-use type (anthromea)

Anthrome area

Climate

change adaptation (dissimilarity index proxy)b

Land degradation (soil erosion proxy)c

Desertifica- tion (ascribed to land use)d

Food security (chronic undernourish- ment)e

Biodiversity (threatened hotspot)f

Groundwater stress (over abstraction)g

Water quality (critical N-P loads)h

% of ice-free land areai

% anthrome area exposed to an individual challenge

Dense settlement

1

76

20

3

30

32

30

Village

5

70

49

3

78

28

77

59

Cropland

13

68

21

7

28

27

65

20

Rangeland

26

46

14

7

43

21

10

Semi-natural forests

14

91

17

0.7

21

7

Wild forests and sparse trees

17

98

4

0.5

2

0.3

Barren

19

53

6

0.9

2

4

0.4

*Organic soils

4

95

10

2

9

13

6

*Coastal wetlands

0.6

74

11

2

24

33

26

All anthromes

100

69

13

3.2

20

15

12

10

Figure 6.3

Example of overlap between land challenges. (a) Overlap between the desertification (from land use) challenge and the climate change adaptation (strong dissimilarity in seasonal cycles) challenge. (b) Overlap between the land degradation (soil erosion proxy) challenge and the climate change adaptation challenge. (c) Overlap between the desertification or land degradation challenges and the food insecurity […]

Example of overlap between land challenges. (a) Overlap between the desertification (from land use) challenge and the climate change adaptation (strong dissimilarity in seasonal cycles) challenge. (b) Overlap between the land degradation (soil erosion proxy) challenge and the climate change adaptation challenge. (c) Overlap between the desertification or land degradation challenges and the food insecurity (chronic undernourishment) challenge. (d) Overlap between challenges shown in C and the climate change adaptation challenge. For challenges definitions, see text; references as in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.4

Percentage distribution of land-use type (or anthrome) area by number of overlapping land challenges for the villages, dense settlements, croplands, rangelands, semi-natural forests, wild forests and sparse trees and barren land-use types. Values in brackets show the mean number of land challenges per land-use type. Land challenges include desertification (from land use), land degradation (soil […]

Percentage distribution of land-use type (or anthrome) area by number of overlapping land challenges for the villages, dense settlements, croplands, rangelands, semi-natural forests, wild forests and sparse trees and barren land-use types. Values in brackets show the mean number of land challenges per land-use type. Land challenges include desertification (from land use), land degradation (soil erosion proxy), climate change adaptation (seasonal dissimilarity proxy), food security (chronic undernourishment), biodiversity (threatened hot spots), groundwater stress (over abstraction) and water quality (critical nitrogen and phosphorus loads).

6.1.4

Challenges represented in future scenarios

In this section, the evolution of several challenges (climate change, mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation, food insecurity, biodiversity and water) in the future are assessed, focusing on global analyses. The effect of response options on these land challenges in the future is discussed in Section 6.4.4. Where possible, studies quantifying these challenges in the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) (O’Neill et al. 201474) (Chapter 1, Cross- Chapter Box 1, and Cross-Chapter Box 9 in this chapter), should be used to assess which future scenarios could experience multiple challenges in the future.

Climate change: Without any additional efforts to mitigate, global mean temperature rise is expected to increase by anywhere from 2°C to 7.8°C in 2100 relative to the 1850–1900 reference period (Clarke et al. 201475; Chapter 2). The level of warming varies, depending on the climate model (Collins et al. 201376), uncertainties in the Earth system (Clarke et al. 201478), and socio-economic/ technological assumptions (Clarke et al. 201477; Riahi et al. 201779). Warming over land is 1.2 to 1.4 times higher than global mean temperature rise; warming in the Arctic region is 2.4 to 2.6 times higher than warming in the tropics (Collins et al. 201380). Increases in global mean temperature are accompanied by increases in global precipitation; however, the effect varies across regions, with some regions projected to see increases in precipitation and others to see decreases (Collins et al. 201381) (Chapter 2). Additionally, climate change also has implications for extreme events (e.g., drought, heat waves, etc.), freshwater availability, and other aspects of the terrestrial system (Chapter 2).

Mitigation: Challenges to mitigation depend on the underlying emissions and ‘mitigative capacity’, including technology availability, policy institutions, and financial resources (O’Neill et al. 201482). Challenges to mitigation are high in SSP3 and SSP5, medium in SSP2, and low in SSP1 and SSP4 (O’Neill et al. 2014, 2017; Riahi et al. 201783).

Adaptation: Challenges to adaptation depend on climate risk and adaptive capacity, including technology availability, effectiveness of institutions, and financial resources (O’Neill et al. 201484). Challenges to adaptation are high in SSP3 and SSP4, medium in SSP2, and low in SSP1 and SSP5 (O’Neill et al. 2014, 2017; Riahi et al. 201785).

Desertification: The combination of climate and land-use changes can lead to decreases in soil cover in drylands (Chapter 3). Population living in drylands is expected to increase by 43% in the SSP2-Baseline, due to both population increases and an expansion of dryland area (UNCCD 201786).

Land degradation: Future changes in land use and climate have implications for land degradation, including impacts on soil erosion, vegetation, fire, and coastal erosion (Chapter 4; IPBES 201887). For example, soil organic carbon is expected to decline by 99 GtCO2e in 2050 in an SSP2-Baseline scenario, due to both land management and expansion in agricultural area (Ten Brink et al. 201888).

Food insecurity: Food insecurity in future scenarios varies significantly, depending on socio-economic development and study. For example, the population at risk of hunger ranges from 0 to 800 million in 2050 (Hasegawa et al. 2015a89; Ringler et al. 201690; Fujimori et al. 201891; Hasegawa et al. 201892; Fujimori et al. 201993; Baldos and Hertel 201594) and 0–600 million in 2100 (Hasegawa et al. 2015a). Food prices in 2100 in non-mitigation scenarios range from 0.9 to about two times their 2005 values (Hasegawa et al. 2015a; Calvin et al. 201495; Popp et al. 201796). Food insecurity depends on both income and food prices (Fujimori et al. 201897). Higher income (e.g., SSP1, SSP5), higher yields (e.g., SSP1, SSP5), and less meat intensive diets (e.g., SSP1) tend to result in reduced food insecurity (Hasegawa et al. 201898; Fujimori et al. 201899).

Biodiversity: Future species extinction rates vary from modest declines to 100-fold increases from 20th century rates, depending on the species (e.g., plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, birds, fish, corals), the degree of land-use change, the level of climate change, and assumptions about migration (Pereira et al. 2010100). Mean species abundance (MSA) is also estimated to decline in the future by 10–20% in 2050 (Van Vuuren et al. 2015; Pereira et al. 2010101). Scenarios with greater cropland expansion lead to larger declines in MSA (UNCCD 2017102) and species richness (Newbold et al. 2015103).

Water stress: Changes in water supply (due to climate change) and water demand (due to socio-economic development) in the future have implications for water stress. Water withdrawals for irrigation increase from about 2500 km3 yr–1 in 2005 to between 2900 and 9000 km3 yr–1 at the end of the century (Chaturvedi et al. 2013104; Wada and Bierkens 2014105; Hejazi et al. 2014a106; Kim et al. 2016107; Graham et al. 2018108; Bonsch et al. 2015109); total water withdrawals at the end of the century range from 5000 to 13,000 km3 yr–1 (Wada and Bierkens 2014110; Hejazi et al. 2014a111; Kim et al. 2016112; Graham et al. 2018113). The magnitude of change in both irrigation and total water withdrawals depend on population, income, and technology (Hejazi et al. 2014a114; Graham et al. 2018115). The combined effect of changes in water supply and water demand will lead to an increase of between 1 billion and 6 billion people living in water- stressed areas (Schlosser et al. 2014116; Hanasaki et al. 2013117; Hejazi et al. 2014b118). Changes in water quality are not assessed here but could be important (Liu et al. 2017119).

Scenarios with multiple challenges: Table 6.2 summarises the challenges across the five SSP Baseline scenarios.

Table 6.2

Assessment of future challenges to climate change, mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation, food insecurity, water stress, and biodiversity in the SSP Baseline scenarios.

SSP

Summary of challenges

SSP1

SSP1 (Van Vuuren et al. 2017b) has low challenges to mitigation and adaptation. The resulting Baseline scenario includes:
– continued, but moderate, climate change: global mean temperature increases by 3 to 3.5°C in 2100 (Huppmann et al. 2018120; Riahi et al. 2017121)
– low levels of food insecurity: malnourishment is eliminated by 2050 (Hasegawa et al. 2015a)
– declines in biodiversity: biodiversity loss increases from 34% in 2010 to 38% in 2100 (UNCCD 2017122)
– high water stress: global water withdrawals decline slightly from the baseline in 2071–2100, but about 2.6 billion people live in water stressed areas (Hanasaki et al. 2013123).

Additionally, this scenario is likely to have lower challenges related to desertification, land degradation, and biodiversity loss than SSP2 as it has lower population, lower land-use change and lower climate change (Riahi et al. 2017124).

SSP2

SSP2 (Fricko et al. 2017125) is a scenario with medium challenges to mitigation and medium challenges to adaptation. The resulting Baseline scenario includes: – continued climate change: global mean temperature increases by 3.8°C to 4.3°C in 2100 (Fricko et al. 2017126; Huppmann et al. 2018127; Riahi et al. 2017128)
– increased challenges related to desertification: the population living in drylands is expected to increase by 43% in 2050 (UNCCD 2017129)
– increased land degradation: soil organic carbon is expected to decline by 99 GtCO2e in 2050 (Ten Brink et al. 2018)

– low levels of food insecurity: malnourishment is eliminated by 2100 (Hasegawa et al. 2015a)
– declines in biodiversity: biodiversity loss increases from 34% in 2010 to 43% in 2100 (UNCCD 2017130)
– high water stress: global water withdrawals nearly doubles from the baseline in 2071–2100, with about 4 billion people living in water stressed areas (Hanasaki et al. 2013131).

SSP3

SSP3 (Fujimori et al. 2017132) is a scenario with high challenges to mitigation and high challenges to adaptation. The resulting Baseline scenario includes: – continued climate change: global mean temperature increases by 4°C to 4.8°C in 2100 (Huppmann et al. 2018133; Riahi et al. 2017134)
– high levels of food insecurity: about 600 million malnourished in 2100 (Hasegawa et al. 2015a)
– declines in biodiversity: biodiversity loss increases from 34% in 2010 to 46% in 2100 (UNCCD 2017135)

– high water stress: global water withdrawals more than double from the baseline in 2071–2100, with about 5.5 billion people living in water stressed areas (Hanasaki et al. 2013136).

Additionally, this scenario is likely to have higher challenges to desertification, land degradation, and biodiversity loss than SSP2 as it has higher population, higher land-use change and higher climate change (Riahi et al. 2017137).

SSP4

SSP4 (Calvin et al. 2017138) has high challenges to adaptation but low challenges to mitigation. The resulting Baseline scenario includes:
– continued climate change: global mean temperature increases by 3.4°C to 3.8°C in 2100 (Calvin et al. 2017139; Huppmann et al. 2018140; Riahi et al. 2017141) – high levels of food insecurity: about 400 million malnourished in 2100 (Hasegawa et al. 2015a)
– high water stress: about 3.5 billion people live in water stressed areas in 2100 (Hanasaki et al. 2013142).

Additionally, this scenario is likely to have similar effects on biodiversity loss as SSP2 as it has similar land-use change and similar climate change (Riahi et al. 2017143).

SSP5

SSP5 (Kriegler et al. 2017144) has high challenges to mitigation but low challenges to adaptation. The resulting Baseline scenario includes:
– continued climate change: global mean temperature increases by 4.6°C to 5.4°C in 2100 (Kriegler et al. 2017145; Huppmann et al. 2018146; Riahi et al. 2017147)
– low levels of food insecurity: malnourishment is eliminated by 2050 (Hasegawa et al. 2015a)
– increased water use and water scarcity: global water withdrawals increase by about 80% in 2071–2100, with nearly 50% of the population living in water stressed areas

(Hanasaki et al. 2013148).
Additionally, this scenario is likely to have higher effects on biodiversity loss as SSP2 as it has similar land-use change and higher climate change (Riahi et al. 2017149).

 

6.2

Response options, co-benefits and adverse side effects across the land challenges

This section describes the integrated response options available to address the land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security. These can be categorised into options that rely on (i) land management, (ii) value chain management, and (iii) risk management (Figure 6.5). The land management integrated response options can be grouped according to those that are applied in agriculture, in forests, on soils, in other/all ecosystems and those that are applied specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The value chain management integrated response options can be categorised as those based demand management and supply management. The risk management options are grouped together (Figure 6.5).

Note that the integrated response options are not mutually exclusive – for example, cropland management might also increase soil organic matter stocks – and a number of the integrated response options are comprised of a number of practices – for example, improved cropland management is a collection of practices consisting of:

  1. management of the crop, including high-input carbon practices, for example, improved crop varieties, crop rotation, use of cover crops, perennial cropping systems, agricultural biotechnology
  2. nutrient management: including optimised fertiliser application rate, fertiliser type [organic and mineral], timing, precision application, inhibitors
  3. reduced tillage intensity and residue retention
  4. improved water management: including drainage of waterlogged mineral soils and irrigation of crops in arid/semi-arid conditions 5. improved rice management, including water management such as mid-season drainage and improved fertilisation and residue management in paddy rice systems.

In this section, we deal only with integrated response options, not the policies that are currently or could be implemented to enable their application; that is the subject of Chapter 7. Also note that enabling conditions such as indigenous and local knowledge, gender issues, governance and so on are not categorised as integrated response options (Section 6.1.2). Some suggested methods to address land challenges are better described as overarching frameworks than as integrated response options. For example, climate smart agriculture is a collection of integrated response options aimed at delivering mitigation and adaptation in agriculture, including improved cropland management, grazing land management and livestock management. Table 6.3 shows how a number of overarching frameworks are comprised of a range of integrated response options.

Similarly, policy goals, such as land degradation neutrality (discussed further in Chapter 7), are not considered as integrated response options. For this reason, land degradation neutrality, and overarching frameworks, such as those described in Table 6.3 do not appear as response options in the following sections, but the component integrated response options that contribute to these policy goals or overarching frameworks are addressed in detail.

SR15 considered a range of response options (from a mitigation/ adaptation perspective only). Table 6.4 shows how the SR15 options map on to the response options considered in this report (SRCCL). Note that this report excludes most of the energy- related options from SR15, as well as green infrastructure and sustainable aquaculture.

Before providing the quantitative assessment of the impacts of each response option in addressing mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security in Section 6.3, the integrated response options are descried in Section 6.2.1 and any context specificities in the effects are noted.

Figure 6.5

Broad categorisation of response options categorised into three main classes and eight sub-classes.

Broad categorisation of response options categorised into three main classes and eight sub-classes.

Table 6.3

Examples of overarching frameworks that consist of a range of response options.

Table 6.4

Mapping of response options considered in this report (SRCCL) and SR15.

SRCCL Response option/options SR15 Response option/options
Afforestation Afforestation
Reforestation and forest restoration Reforestation and reduced land degradation and forest restoration
Agricultural diversification Mixed crop-livestock systems
Agroforestry Agroforestry and silviculture
Biochar addition to soil Biochar
Biodiversity conservation Biodiversity conservation
Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) BECCS (through combustion, gasification, or fermentation)
Dietary change Dietary changes, reducing meat consumption
Disaster risk management Climate services
Community-based adaptation
Enhanced urban food systems Urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry
Enhanced weathering of minerals Mineralisation of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) through enhanced weathering of rocks
Fire management Fire management and (ecological) pest control
Forest management Forest management
Improved cropland management Methane reductions in rice paddies
Improved cropland management Nitrogen pollution reductions, e.g., by fertiliser reduction, increasing nitrogen fertiliser efficiency, sustainable fertilisers
Precision agriculture
Conservation agriculture
Improved food processing and retailing
Improved grazing land management Livestock and grazing management, e.g., methane and ammonia reductions in ruminants through feeding management or feed additives, or manure management for local biogas production to replace traditional biomass use
Improved livestock management Manure management
Increased energy efficiency in food systems
Increased food productivity
Increased soil organic carbon content Changing agricultural practices enhancing soil carbon
Soil carbon enhancement, enhancing carbon sequestration in biota and soils, e.g., with plants with high carbon sequestration potential – also agriculture, forestry and other land-use (AFOLU) measure.
Integrated water management Irrigation efficiency
Livelihood diversification
Management of invasive species/encroachment
Management of supply chains
Management of urban sprawl Urban ecosystem services
Climate resilient land use
Material substitution Material substitution of fossil CO2 with bio-CO2 in industrial application (e.g., the beverage industry)
Carbon capture and usage (CCU); bioplastics (bio-based materials replacing fossil fuel uses as feedstock in the production of chemicals and polymers), carbon fibre
Reduced soil erosion
Reduced soil compaction
Reduced deforestation Reduced deforestation, forest protection, avoided forest conversion
Reduced food waste (consumer or retailer) Reduction of food waste (incl. reuse of food processing waste for fodder)
Reduced grassland conversion to cropland
Reduced landslides and natural hazards
Reduced pollution including acidification Reduced air pollution
Reduced post-harvest losses
Reduced soil salinisation
Restoration and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands Managing coastal stress
Restoration of wetlands (e.g., coastal and peat-land restoration, blue carbon) and wetlands management
Restoration and reduced conversion of peatlands
Risk sharing instruments Risk sharing
Sustainable sourcing
Use of local seeds
6.2.1

Integrated response options based on land management

6.2.1.1

Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture

Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture are described in Table 6.5, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base for the effects of the response options.

6.2.1.2

Integrated response options based on land management in forests

Integrated response options based on land management in forests are described in Table 6.6, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base for the effects of the response options.

6.2.1.3

Integrated response options based on land management of soils

Integrated response options based on land management of soils are described in Table 6.7, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base for the effects of the response options.

6.2.1.4

Integrated response options based on land management of all/other ecosystems

Integrated response options based on land management in all/other ecosystems are described in Table 6.8, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base for the effects of the response options.

6.2.1.5

Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

Integrated response options based on land management specifically for CDR are described in Table 6.9, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base for the effects of the response options.

Table 6.5

Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture.

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Increased food productivity

Increased food productivity arises when the output of food commodities increases per unit of input, e.g., per unit of land or water. It can be realised through many other interventions such as improved cropland, grazing land and livestock management.

Many interventions to increase food production, particularly those predicated on very large inputs of agro-chemicals, have a wide range of negative externalities leading to the proposal of sustainable intensification as a mechanism to deliver future increases in productivity that avoid these adverse outcomes. Intensification through additional input of nitrogen fertiliser, for example, would result in negative impacts on climate, soil, water and air pollution. Similarly,

if implemented in a way that over-exploits the land, signifi- cant negative impacts would occur, but if achieved through sustainable intensification, and used to spare land, it could reduce the pressure on land.

Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 5; Chapter 3

Balmford et al. 20181287; Burney et al. 20101288; Foley et al. 20111289; Garnett
et al. 20131290; Godfray et al. 20101291; IPBES 20181292; Lal 20161293; Lamb et al. 20161294; Lobell et al. 20081295; Shcherbak et al. 20141296; Smith et al. 20131297; Tilman et al. 20111298

Improved cropland management

Improved cropland management is a collection of practices consisting of a) management of the crop: including high input carbon practices, for example, improved crop varieties, crop rotation, use of cover crops, perennial cropping systems, integrated production systems, crop diversification, agricultural biotechnology, b) nutrient management: including optimised fertiliser application rate, fertiliser type (organic manures, compost and mineral), timing, precision application, nitrification inhibitors, c) reduced tillage intensity and residue retention, d) improved water management: including drainage of waterlogged mineral soils and irrigation

of crops in arid/semi-arid conditions, e) improved rice management: including water management such
as mid-season drainage and improved fertilisation and residue management in paddy rice systems,

and f) biochar application.

Improved cropland management can reduce GHG emissions and create soil carbon sinks, though if poorly implemented, it could increase nitrous oxide and methane emissions from nitrogen fertilisers, crop residues and organic amendments. It can improve resilience of food crop production systems to climate change, and can be used to tackle desertification and land degradation by improving sustainable land management. It can also contribute
to food security by closing crop yield gaps to increase food productivity.

Chapter 4; Chapter 3; Chapter 2; Chapter 5

Bryan et al. 20091299; Chen et al. 20101300; Labrière et al. 20151301; Lal 20111302; Poeplau and Don 20151303; Porter et al. 20141304; Smith 2008b1305; Smith et al. 20141306; Tilman et al. 20111307

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Improved grazing land management

Improved grazing land management is a collection
of practices consisting of a) management of vegetation: including improved grass varieties/sward composition, deep rooting grasses, increased productivity, and nutrient management, b) animal management: including appropriate stocking densities fit to carrying capacity, fodder banks, and fodder diversification, and c) fire management: improved use of fire for sustainable grassland management, including fire prevention
and improved prescribed burning (see also fire management as a separate response option)
(Table 6.8).

Improved grazing land management can increase soil carbon sinks, reduce GHG emissions, improve the resilience of grazing lands to future climate change, help reduce desertification and land degradation by optimising stocking density and reducing overgrazing, and can enhance food security through improved productivity.

Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Chapter 4; Chapter 5; Section 6.4

Archer et al. 20111308; Briske et al. 20151309; Conant et al. 20171310; Herrero et al. 20161311; Porter et al. 20141312; Schwilch et al. 20141313; Smith et al. 20141314; Tighe et al. 20121315

Improved livestock management

Improved livestock management is a collection of practices consisting of a) improved feed and dietary additives (e.g., bioactive compounds, fats), used to increase productivity and reduce emissions from enteric fermentation; b) breeding (e.g., breeds with higher productivity or reduced emissions from enteric fermentation), c) herd management, including decreasing neo-natal mortality, improving sanitary conditions, animal health and herd renewal, and diversifying animal species, d) emerging technologies (of which some are not legally authorised in several countries) such as propionate enhancers, nitrate and sulphate supplements, archaea inhibitors and archaeal vaccines, methanotrophs, acetogens, defaunation of the rumen, bacteriophages and probiotics, ionophores/antibiotics; and e) improved manure management, including manipulation of bedding and storage conditions, anaerobic digesters; biofilters, dietary change and additives, soil-applied and animal-fed nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors, fertiliser type, rate and timing, manipulation of manure application practices, and grazing management.

Improved livestock management can reduce GHG emissions, particularly from enteric methane and manure management. It can improve the resilience of livestock production systems to climate change by breeding better adapted livestock. It can help with desertification and land degradation, e.g., through use of more efficient and adapted breeds to allow reduced stocking densities. Improved livestock sector productivity can also increase food production.

Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Chapter 4; Chapter 5

Archer et al. 20111316; Herrero et al. 20161317; Miao et al. 20151318; Porter et al. 20141319; Rojas-Downing et al. 20171320; Smith et al. 20081321, 20141322; Squires and Karami 20051323; Tighe et al. 20121324

Agroforestry

Agroforestry involves the deliberate planting of trees in croplands and silvo-pastoral systems.

Agroforestry sequesters carbon in vegetation and soils. The use of leguminous trees can enhance biological nitrogen fixation and resilience to climate change. Soil improvement and the provision of perennial vegetation can help to address desertification and land degradation. Agroforestry can increase agricultural productivity, with benefits for food security. Additionally, agroforestry can enable payments to farmers for ecosystem services and reduce vulnerability to climate shocks.

Antwi-Agyei et al. 20141325; Benjamin et al. 20181326; Guo et al. 20181327;
den Herder et al. 20171328; Mbow
et al. 2014a1329; Mosquera-Losada
et al. 20181330; Mutuo et al. 20051331; Nair and Nair 20141332; Ram et al. 20171333; Rosenstock et al. 20141334; Sain et al. 20171335; Santiago-Freijanes et al. 20181336; Sida et al. 20181337; Vignola et al. 20151338; Yirdaw et al. 20171339

Agricultural diversification

Agricultural diversification includes a set of agricultural practices and products obtained in the field that aim to improve the resilience of farmers to climate variability and climate change and to economic risks posed by fluctuating market forces. In general, the agricultural system is shifted from one based on low-value agricultural commodities to one that is more diverse, composed

of a basket of higher value-added products.

Agricultural diversification is targeted at adaptation
but could also deliver a small carbon sink, depending
on how it is implemented. It could reduce pressure on land, benefitting desertification, land degradation, food security and household income. However, the potential to achieve household food security is influenced by the market orientation of a household, livestock ownership, non-agricultural employment opportunities, and available land resources.

Birthal et al. 20151340; Campbell et al. 20141341; Cohn et al. 20171342; Lambin and Meyfroidt 20111343; Lipper et al. 20141344; Massawe et al. 20161345; Pellegrini and Tasciotti 20141346; Waha et al. 20181347

Reduced grassland conversion to cropland

Grasslands can be converted to croplands by ploughing of grassland and seeding with crops. Since croplands have a lower soil carbon content than grasslands and are also more prone to erosion than grasslands, reducing conversion of grassland to croplands will prevent soil carbon losses by oxidation and soil loss through erosion. These processes can be reduced if the rate of grassland conversion to cropland is reduced.

Stabilising soils by retaining grass cover also improves resilience, benefitting adaptation, desertification and land degradation. Since conversion of grassland to cropland usually occurs to remedy food security challenges, food security could be adversely affected, since more land is required to produce human food from livestock products on grassland than from crops on cropland.

Chapter 3; Chapter 4; Chapter 5

Clark and Tilman 20171348; Lal 20011349; de Ruiter et al. 20171350; Poore and Nemecek 20181351

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Integrated water management

Integrated water management is the process of
creating holistic strategies to promote integrated, efficient, equitable and sustainable use of water for agroecosystems. It includes a collection of practices including water-use efficiency and irrigation in arid/semi- arid areas, improvement of soil health through increases in soil organic matter content, and improved cropland management, agroforestry and conservation agriculture. Increasing water availability, and reliability of water for agricultural production, can be achieved by using different techniques of water harvesting, storage, and its judicious utilisation through farm ponds, dams, and community tanks in rainfed agriculture areas can benefit adaptation.

These practices can reduce aquifer and surface
water depletion, and prevent over-extraction, and the management of climate risks. Many technical innovations, e.g., precision water management, can have benefits for both adaptation and mitigation, although trade-offs are possible. Maintaining the same level of yield through use of site-specific water management-based approach could have benefits for both food security and mitigation.

Chapter 3; Chapter 4; Chapter 5

Brindha and Pavelic 20161352; Jat et al. 20161353; Jiang 20151354; Keesstra et al. 20181355; Liu et al. 20171356; Nejad 20131357; Rao et al. 2017b1358; Shaw et al. 20141359; Sapkota et al. 20171360; Scott et al. 20111361; Waldron et al. 20171362

Table 6.6

Integrated response options based on land management in forests.

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Forest management

Forest management refers to management interventions in forests for the purpose of climate change mitigation.
It includes a wide variety of practices affecting the growth of trees and the biomass removed, including improved regeneration (natural or artificial) and a better schedule, intensity and execution of operations (thinning, selective logging, final cut, reduced impact logging, etc.). Sustainable forest management is the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and

in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems.

Sustainable forest management can enhance the carbon stock in biomass, dead organic matter, and soil – while providing wood-based products to reduce emissions in other sectors through material and energy substitution.
A trade-off exists between different management strategies: higher harvest decreases the carbon in the forest biomass in the short term but increases the carbon in wood products and the potential for substitution effects. Sustainable forest management, also through close- to-nature silvicultural techniques, can potentially offer many co-benefits in terms of climate change mitigation, adaptation, biodiversity conservation, microclimatic regulation, soil erosion protection, coastal area protection and water and flood regulation. Forest management strategies aimed at increasing the biomass stock levels may have adverse side effects, such as decreasing the stand-level structural complexity, biodiversity and resilience to natural disasters. Forest management also affects albedo and evapotranspiration.

Chapter 2; Chapter 4

D’Amato et al. 20111363; Dooley
and Kartha 20181364; Ellison et al. 20171365; Erb et al. 20171366; Grassi
et al. 20181367; Griscom et al. 20171368; Jantz et al. 20141369; Kurz et al. 20161370; Locatelli 20111371; Luyssaert et al. 20181372; Nabuurs et al. 20171373; Naudts et al. 20161374; Pingoud et al. 20181375; Putz et al. 20121376; Seidl et al. 20141377; Smith et al. 20141378; Smyth et al. 20141379; Stanturf et al. 20151380

Reduced deforestation and forest degradation

Reduced deforestation and forest degradation includes conservation of existing carbon pools in forest vegetation and soil by controlling the drivers of deforestation
(i.e., commercial and subsistence agriculture, mining, urban expansion) and forest degradation (i.e., overharvesting including fuelwood collection, poor harvesting practices, overgrazing, pest outbreaks, and extreme wildfires),

also through establishing protected areas, improving law enforcement, forest governance and land tenure, supporting community forest management and introducing forest certification.

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation is a major strategy to reduce global GHG emissions. The combination of reduced GHG emissions and biophysical effects results in a large climate mitigation effect, with benefits also at local level. Reduced deforestation preserves biodiversity and ecosystem services more efficiently and at lower costs than afforestation/reforestation. Efforts to reduce deforestation and forest degradation may have potential adverse side effects, for example, reducing availability of land for farming, restricting the rights and access of local people to forest resources (e.g., firewood), or increasing the dependence of local people to insecure external funding.

Chapter 2

Alkama and Cescatti 20161381; Baccini et al. 20171382; Barlow et al. 20161383; Bayrak et al. 20161384; Caplow et al. 20111385; Curtis et al. 20181386; Dooley and Kartha 20181387; Griscom et al. 20171388; Hansen et al. 20131389; Hosonuma et al. 20121390; Houghton et al. 20151391; Lewis et al. 20151392; Pelletier et al. 20161393; Rey Benayas et al. 20091394

Reforestation and forest restoration

Reforestation is the conversion to forest of land that has previously contained forests but that has been converted to some other use. Forest restoration refers to practices aimed at regaining ecological integrity in a deforested or degraded forest landscape. As such, it could fall under reforestation if it were re-establishing trees where they have been lost, or under forest management if it were restoring forests where not all trees have been lost.

For practical reasons, here forest restoration is treated together with reforestation.

Reforestation is similar to afforestation with respect
to the co-benefits and adverse side effects among
climate change mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security (see row on Afforestation below). Forest restoration can increase terrestrial carbon stocks in deforested or degraded forest landscapes and can offer many co-benefits in terms of increased resilience of forests to climate change, enhanced connectivity between forest areas and conservation of biodiversity hotspots.
Forest restoration may threaten livelihoods and local
access to land if subsistence agriculture is targeted.

Chapter 2

Dooley and Kartha 20181395; Ellison
et al. 20171396; Locatelli 20111397; Locatelli et al. 2015b1398; Smith et al. 20141399; Stanturf et al. 20151400

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Afforestation

Afforestation is the conversion to forest of land that historically have not contained forests (see also ‘reforestation’).

Afforestation increases terrestrial carbon stocks but
can also change the physical properties of land surfaces, such as surface albedo and evapotranspiration with implications for local and global climate. In the tropics, enhanced evapotranspiration cools surface temperatures, reinforcing the climate benefits of CO2 sequestration
in trees. At high latitudes and in areas affected by seasonal snow cover, the decrease in surface albedo after afforestation becomes dominant and causes an annual average warming that counteracts carbon benefits. Net biophysical effects on regional climate from afforestation is seasonal and can reduce the frequency of climate extremes, such as heat waves, improving adaptation to climate change and reducing the vulnerability of people and ecosystems. Afforestation helps to address land degradation and desertification, as forests tend to maintain water quality by reducing runoff, trapping sediments and nutrients, and improving groundwater recharge. However, food security could be hampered since an increase
in global forest area can increase food prices through land competition. Other adverse side effects occur when afforestation is based on non-native species, especially with the risks related to the spread of exotic fast-growing tree species. For example, exotic species can upset the balance of evapotranspiration regimes, with negative impacts on water availability, particularly in dry regions.

Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Chapter 4; Chapter 5

Alkama and Cescatti 20161401; Arora and Montenegro 20111402; Bonan 20081403; Boysen et al. 2017a1404; Brundu and Richardson 20161405; Cherubini et al. 20171406; Ciais et al. 20131407; Ellison et al. 20171408; Findell et al. 20171409; Medugu et al. 20101410; Kongsager et al. 20161411; Kreidenweis et al. 20161412; Lejeune et al. 20181413; Li et al. 20151414; Locatelli et al. 2015b1415; Perugini et al. 20171416; Salvati et al. 20141417; Smith et al. 20131418, 20141419; Trabucco et al. 20081420

Table 6.7

Integrated response options based on land management of soils.

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Increased soil organic carbon content

Practices that increase soil organic matter content include a) land-use change to an ecosystem with higher equilibrium soil carbon levels (e.g., from cropland to forest), b) management of the vegetation: including high input carbon practices, for example, improved varieties, rotations and cover crops, perennial cropping systems, biotechnology to increase inputs and recalcitrance of below ground carbon, c) nutrient management and organic material input to increase carbon returns to the soil, including: optimised fertiliser and organic material application rate, type, timing and precision application, d) reduced tillage intensity and residue retention, and
e) improved water management: including irrigation
in arid/semi-arid conditions.

Increasing soil carbon stocks removes CO2 from the atmosphere and increases the water-holding capacity of
the soil, thereby conferring resilience to climate change and enhancing adaptation capacity. It is a key strategy for addressing both desertification and land degradation. There is some evidence that crop yields and yield stability increase by increased organic matter content, though some studies show equivocal impacts. Some practices to increase soil organic matter stocks vary in their efficacy. For example,
the impact of no-till farming and conservation agriculture on soil carbon stocks is often positive, but can be neutral
or even negative, depending on the amount of crop residues returned to the soil. If soil organic carbon stocks were increased by increasing fertiliser inputs to increase productivity, emissions of nitrous oxide from fertiliser use could offset any climate benefits arising from carbon sinks. Similarly, if any yield penalty is incurred from practices aimed at increasing soil organic carbon stocks (e.g., through extensification), emissions could be increased through indirect land-use change, and there could also be adverse side effects on food security.

Bestelmeyer and Briske 20121421; Cheesman et al. 20161422; Frank et al. 20171423; Gao et al. 20181424; Hijbeek et al. 2017b1425; Keesstra et al. 20161426; Lal 20161427; Lambin and Meyfroidt 20111428; de Moraes Sá et al. 20171429; Palm et al. 20141430; Pan et al. 20091431; Paustian et al. 20161432; Powlson et al. 20141433, 20161434; Schjønning et al. 20181435; Smith et al. 20131436, 20141437, 2016c1438; Soussana et al. 20191439; Steinbach and Alvarez 20061440; VandenBygaart 20161441

Reduced soil erosion

Soil erosion is the removal of soil from the land surface by water, wind or tillage, which occurs worldwide but
it is particularly severe in Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Near East and North Africa. Soil erosion management includes conservation practices (e.g., the use of minimum tillage or zero tillage, crop rotations and cover crops, rational grazing systems), engineering-like practices (e.g., construction of terraces and contour cropping for controlling water erosion), or forest barriers and strip cultivation for controlling wind erosion. In eroded soils, the advance of erosion gullies and sand dunes can be limited by increasing plant cover, among other practices.

The fate of eroded soil carbon is uncertain, with some studies indicating a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere and others suggesting a net sink. Reduced soil erosion has benefits for adaptation as it reduces vulnerability of soils to loss under climate extremes, increasing resilience to climate change. Some management practices implemented to control erosion, such as increasing ground cover, can reduce the vulnerability of soils to degradation/landslides, and prevention of soil erosion is a key measure used to tackle desertification. Because it protects the capacity of land to produce food, it also contributes positively to food security.

Chapter 3

Chen 2017; Derpsch et al. 20101442; FAO and ITPS 20151443; FAO 20151444; Garbrecht et al. 20151445; Jacinthe
and Lal 20011446; Lal and Moldenhauer 19871447; Lal 20011448; Lugato et al. 20161449; de Moraes Sá et al. 20171450; Poeplau and Don 20151451; Smith et al. 20011452, 20051453; Stallard 19981454; Van Oost et al. 20071455

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Reduced soil salinisation

Soil salinisation is a major process of land degradation that decreases soil fertility and affects agricultural production, aquaculture and forestry. It is a significant component
of desertification processes in drylands. Practices to reduce soil salinisation include improvement of water management (e.g., water-use efficiency and irrigation/ drainage technology in arid/semi-arid areas, surface

and groundwater management), improvement of soil health (through increase in soil organic matter content) and improved cropland, grazing land and livestock management, agroforestry and conservation agriculture.

Techniques to prevent and reverse soil salinisation may have small benefits for mitigation by enhancing carbon sinks. These techniques may benefit adaptation and food security by maintaining existing crop systems and closing yield gaps for rainfed crops. These techniques are central to reducing desertification and land degradation, since soil salinisation is a primary driver of both.

Section 3.6; Chapter 4; Chapter 5

Baumhardt et al. 20151456; Dagar et al. 20161457; Datta et al. 20001458; DERM 20111459; Evans and Sadler 20081460; He et al. 20151461; D’Odorico et al. 20131462; Kijne et al. 19881463; Qadir et al. 20131464; Rengasamy 20061465; Singh 20091466; UNCTAD 20111467; Wong et al. 20101468

Reduced soil compaction

Reduced soil compaction mainly includes agricultural techniques (e.g., crop rotations, control of livestock density) and control of agricultural traffic.

Techniques to reduce soil compaction have variable impacts on GHG emissions but may benefit adaptation by improving soil climatic resilience. Since soil compaction is a driver of both desertification and land degradation, a reduction of soil compaction could benefit both. It could also help close yield gaps in rainfed crops.

Chamen et al. 20151469; Epron et al. 20161470; FAO and ITPS 20151471; Hamza and Anderson 20051472; Soane and Van Ouwerkerk 19941473; Tullberg et al. 20181474

Biochar addition to soil

The use of biochar, a solid product of the pyrolysis process, as a soil amendment increases the water-holding capacity of soil. It may therefore provide better access
to water and nutrients for crops and other vegetation types (so can form part of cropland, grazing land and forest management).

The use of biochar increases carbon stocks in the soil. It
can enhance yields in the tropics (but less so in temperate regions), thereby benefitting both adaptation and food security. Since it can improve soil water-holding capacity and nutrient-use efficiency, and can ameliorate heavy metal pollution and other impacts, it can benefit desertification and land degradation. The positive impacts could be tempered by additional pressure on land if large quantities of biomass are required as feedstock for biochar production.

Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Chapter 4; Chapter 5

Jeffery et al. 20171475; Smith 20161476; Sohi 20121477; Woolf et al. 20101478

Table 6.8

Integrated response options based on land management of all/other ecosystems.

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Fire management

Fire management is a land management option aimed at safeguarding life, property and resources through the prevention, detection, control, restriction and suppression of fire in forest and other vegetation. It includes the improved use of fire for sustainable forestry management, including wildfire prevention and prescribed burning. Prescribed burning is used to reduce the risk of large, uncontrollable fires in forest areas, and controlled burning is among the most effective and economic methods of reducing fire danger and stimulating natural reforestation under the forest canopy and after clear felling.

The frequency and severity of large wildfires have increased around the globe in recent decades, which has impacted on forest carbon budgets. Fire can cause various GHG emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), and others such as carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic carbon, and smoke aerosols. Fire management can reduce GHG emissions and can reduce haze pollution, which has significant health and economic impacts. Fire management helps to prevent soil erosion and land degradation and is used in rangelands to conserve biodiversity and to enhance forage quality.

Chapter 2; Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 2

Esteves et al. 20121479; FAO 20061480;
Lin et al. 20171481; O’Mara 20121482; Rulli et al. 20061483; Scasta et al. 20161484; Seidl et al. 20141485; Smith et al. 20141486; Tacconi 20161487; Valendik et al. 20111488; Westerling et al. 20061489; Whitehead et al. 20081490; Yong and Peh 20161491

Reduced landslides and natural hazards

Landslides are mainly triggered by human activity
(e.g., legal and illegal mining, fire, deforestation) in combination with climate. Management of landslides and natural hazards (e.g., floods, storm surges, droughts) is based on vegetation management (e.g., afforestation) and engineering works (e.g., dams, terraces, stabilisation and filling of erosion gullies).

Management of landslides and natural hazards is important for adaptation and is a crucial intervention for managing land degradation, since landslides and natural hazards are among the most severe degradation processes. In countries where mountain slopes are planted with food crops, reduced landslides will help deliver benefits for food security. Most deaths caused due to different disasters have occurred in developing countries, where poverty, poor education and health facilities and other aspects of development, increase exposure, vulnerability and risk.

Noble et al. 20141492;
Arnáez J et al. 20151493; Campbell 20151494; FAO and ITPS 20151495; Gariano and Guzzetti 20161496; Mal et al. 20181497

Reduced pollution including acidification

Management of air pollution is connected to climate change by emission sources of air-polluting materials and their impacts on climate, human health and ecosystems, including agriculture. Acid deposition is one of the many consequences of air pollution, harming trees and other vegetation, as well as being a significant driver of land degradation. Practices that reduce acid deposition include prevention of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur dioxide (SO2), which also reduce GHG emissions and other short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). Reductions of SLCPs reduce warming in the near term and the overall rate of warming, which can be crucial for plants that are sensitive to even small increases in temperature.

There are a few potential adverse side effects of reduction in air pollution to carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems, because some forms of air pollutants can enhance crop productivity by increasing diffuse sunlight, compared to direct sunlight. Reactive nitrogen deposition could also enhance CO2 uptake in boreal forests and increase soil carbon pools to some extent. Air pollutants have different impacts on climate depending primarily on the composition, with some aerosols (and clouds seeded by them) increasing the reflection of solar radiation to space leading to net cooling, while others (e.g., black carbon and tropospheric ozone) having a net warming effect. Therefore, control of these different pollutants will have both positive and negative impacts on climate mitigation.

Chapter 2

Anderson et al. 20171498; Chum et al. 20111499; Carter et al. 20151500; Coakley 20051501; Maaroufi et al. 20151502; Markandya et al. 20181503; Melamed and Schmale 20161504; Mostofa et al. 20161505; Nemet et al. 20101506; Ramanathan et al. 20011507; Seinfeld and Pandis1508; Smith et al. 20151509; UNEP 20171510; UNEP and WMO 20111511; Wild et al. 20121512; Xu et al. 20131513; Xu and Ramanathan 20171514

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Reduced pollution including acidification continued

Management of harmful air pollutants such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone (O3) also mitigate
the impacts of incomplete fossil fuel combustion and GHG emissions. In addition, management of pollutants such as tropospheric O3 has beneficial impacts on food production, since O3 decreases crop production. Control of urban and industrial air pollution would also mitigate the harmful effects of pollution and provide adaptation co-benefits via improved human health. Management of pollution contrib- utes to aquatic ecosystem conservation since controlling air pollution, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, acid deposition, and industrial waste will reduce acidification of marine and freshwater ecosystems.

Management of invasive species/ encroachment

Agriculture and forests can be diverse, but often

much of the diversity is non-native. Invasive species

in different biomes have been introduced intentionally

or unintentionally through export of ornamental plants

or animals, and through the promotion of modern

agriculture and forestry. Non-native species tend to

be more numerous in larger than in smaller human-

modified landscapes (e.g., over 50% of species in an

urbanised area or extensive agricultural fields can be

non-native). Invasive alien species in the USA cause major

environmental damage amounting to almost 120 billion

–1
USD yr . There are approximately 50,000 foreign species

and the number is increasing. About 42% of the species on the Threatened or Endangered species lists are at risk primarily because of alien-invasive species. Invasive species can be managed through manual clearance of invasive species, while in some areas, natural enemies of the invasive species are introduced to control them.

Exotic species are used in forestry where local indigenous forests cannot produce the type, quantity and quality of forest products required. Planted forests of exotic tree species make significant contributions to the economy and provide multiple products and Nature’s Contributions to People. In general, exotic species are selected to have higher growth rates than native species and produce more wood per unit of area and time. In 2015, the total area of planted forest with non-native tree species was estimated

2
to be around 0.5 Mkm . Introduced species were dominant

in South America, Oceania and Eastern and Southern Africa, where industrial forestry is dominant. The use of exotic tree species has played an important role in the production of roundwood, fibre, firewood and other forest products. The challenge is to manage existing and future plantation forests of alien trees to maximise current benefits, while minimising present and future risks and negative impacts, and without compromising future benefits. In many countries or regions, non-native trees planted for production or other purposes often lead to sharp conflicts of interest when they become invasive, and to negative impacts on Nature’s Contributions to People and nature conservation.

Brundu and Richardson 20161515; Cossalter and Pye-Smith 20031516; Dresner et al. 20151517; Payn et al. 20151518; Pimentel et al. 20051519; Vilà et al. 20111520

Restoration and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands

Coastal wetland restoration involves restoring degraded/ damaged coastal wetlands, including mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass ecosystems.

Coastal wetland restoration and avoided coastal wetland impacts have the capacity to increase carbon sinks and can provide benefits by regulating water flow and preventing downstream flooding. Coastal wetlands provide a natural defence against coastal flooding and storm surges by dissipating wave energy, reducing erosion and by helping to stabilise shore sediments. Since large areas of global coastal wetlands are degraded, restoration could provide benefits land degradation. Since some areas of coastal wetlands are used for food production, restoration could displace food production and damage local food supply (Section 6.3.4), though some forms (e.g., mangrove restoration)

can improve local fisheries.

Griscom et al. 20171521; Lotze et al. 20061522; Munang et al. 20141523; Naylor et al. 20001524

Restoration and reduced conversion of peatlands

Peatland restoration involves restoring degraded/ damaged peatlands, which both increases carbon sinks, but also avoids ongoing CO2 emissions from degraded peatlands. So, as well as protecting biodiversity, it both prevents future emissions and creates a sink.

Avoided peat impacts and peatland restoration can provide significant mitigation, though restoration can lead to an increase in methane emissions, particularly in nutrient rich fens. There may also be benefits for climate adaptation by regulating water flow and preventing downstream flooding. Considering that large areas of global peatlands are degraded, peatland restoration is a key tool in addressing land degradation. Since large areas of tropical peatlands and some northern peatlands have been drained and cleared for food production, their restoration could displace food production and damage local food supply, potentially leading to adverse impacts on food security locally, though the global impact would be limited due to the relatively small areas affected.

Griscom et al. 20171525; Jauhiainen et al. 20081526; Limpens et al. 20081527; Munang et al. 20141528

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Biodiversity conservation

Biodiversity conservation refers to practices aimed
at maintaining components of biological diversity. It includes conservation of ecosystems and natural habitats, maintenance and recovery of viable populations of species in their natural surroundings (in-situ conservation) and, in the case of domesticated or cultivated species,
in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive properties outside their natural habitats (ex-situ conservation). Examples of biodiversity conservation measures are establishment of protected areas to achieve specific conservation objectives, preservation of biodiversity hotspots, land management to recover natural habitats, interventions to expand or control selective plant or animal species in productive lands or rangelands (e.g., rewilding).

Biodiversity conservation measures interact with the
climate system through many complex processes, which
can have either positive or negative impacts. For example, establishment of protected areas can increase carbon storage in vegetation and soil, and tree planting to promote species richness and natural habitats can enhance carbon uptake capacity of ecosystems. Management of
wild animals can influence climate via emissions of GHGs (from anaerobic fermentation of plant materials in the rumen), impacts on vegetation (via foraging), changes in fire frequency (as grazers lower grass and vegetation densities as potential fuels), and nutrient cycling and transport
(by adding nutrients to soils). Conserving and restoring megafauna in northern regions also prevents thawing of permafrost and reduces woody encroachment, thus avoiding methane emissions and increases in albedo. Defaunation affects carbon storage in tropical forests and savannahs. In the tropics, the loss of mega-faunal frugivores is estimated be responsible for up to 10% reduction in carbon storage
of global tropical forests. Frugivore rewilding programmes in the tropics are seen as carbon sequestration options that can be equally effective as tree planting schemes. Biodiversity conservation measures generally favour adaptation,
but can interact with food security, land degradation or desertification. Protected areas for biodiversity reduce
the land available for food production, and abundancies
of some species (such as large animals) can influence
land degradation processes by grazing, trampling
and compacting soil surfaces, thereby altering surface temperatures and chemical reactions affecting sediment and carbon retention.

Bello et al. 20151529; Campbell et al. 20081530; Cromsigt et al. 20181531; Kapos et al. 20081532; Osuri et al. 20161533; Schmitz et al. 20181534; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 20081535

Table 6.9

Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Enhanced weathering of minerals

The enhanced weathering of minerals that naturally absorb CO2 from the atmosphere has been proposed as a CDR technology with a large mitigation potential. The rocks are ground to increase the surface area and the ground minerals are then applied to the land where they absorb atmospheric CO2.

Enhanced mineral weathering can remove atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Since ground minerals can increase pH, there could be some benefits for efforts to prevent or reverse land degradation where acidification is the driver of degrada- tion. Since increasing soil pH in acidified soils can increase productivity, the same effect could provide some benefit for food security. Minerals used for enhanced weathering need to be mined, and mining has large impacts locally, though the total area mined is likely to be small on the global scale.

Beerling et al. 20181536; Lenton 20101537; Schuiling and Krijgsman 20061538; Smith et al. 2016a1539; Taylor et al. 20161540

Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

Bioenergy production can mitigate climate change
by delivering an energy service, therefore avoiding combustion of fossil energy. It is the most common renewable energy source used in the world today and has a large potential for future deployment (see Cross- Chapter Box 7 in this chapter). BECCS entails the use of bioenergy technologies (e.g., bioelectricity or biofuels) in combination with CO2 capture and storage (see also Glossary). BECCS simultaneously provides energy and can reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Chapter 2; Cross-Chapter Box 7 in this chapter) for a discussion of potentials and atmospheric effects); thus, BECCS
is considered a CDR technology. While several BECCS demonstration projects exist, it has yet to be deployed at scale. Bioenergy and BECCS are widely-used in many future scenarios as a climate change mitigation option in the energy and transport sector, especially those scenarios aimed at a stabilisation of global climate
at 2°C or less above pre-industrial levels.

Bioenergy and BECCS can compete for land and water with other uses. Increased use of bioenergy and BECCS can result in large expansion of cropland area, significant deforestation, and increased irrigation water use and water scarcity. Large- scale use of bioenergy can result in increased food prices and can lead to an increase in the population at risk of hunger. As a result of these effects, large-scale bioenergy and BECCS can have negative impacts for food security. Interlinkages

of bioenergy and BECCS with climate change adaptation, land degradation, desertification, and biodiversity are highly dependent on local factors such as the type of energy crop, management practice, and previous land use. For example, intensive agricultural practices aiming to achieve high crop yields, as is the case for some bioenergy systems, may have significant effects on soil health, including depletion of
soil organic matter, resulting in negative impacts on land degradation and desertification. However, with low inputs of fossil fuels and chemicals, limited irrigation, heat/drought tolerant species, using marginal land, biofuel programmes can be beneficial to future adaptation of ecosystems.

Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6

IPCC SR15 (IPCC 2018); Chapter 2; Chapter 4; Section 6.4; Chapter 7

Baker et al. 20191541; Calvin et al. 20141542; Chaturvedi et al. 20131543; Chum et al. 20111544; Clarke et al. 20141545; Correa
et al. 20171546; Creutzig et al. 20151547; Dasgupta et al. 20141548; Don et al. 20121549; Edelenbosch et al. 20171550; IPCC 20121551; Favero and Mendelsohn 20141552; FAO 2011a1553; Fujimori et al. 20191554; Fuss et al. 20161555, 20181556; Hejazi et al. 20151557; Kemper 20151558; Kline et al. 20171559; Lal 2014; Lotze-Campen et al. 20131560; Mello et al. 20141561; Muratori et al. 20161562; Noble et al. 20141563; Obersteiner et al. 20161564;

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) continued

Planting bioenergy crops, like perennial grasses, on degraded land can increase soil carbon and ecosystem quality (including biodiversity), thereby helping to preserve soil quality, reverse land degradation, prevent desertification processes, and reduce food insecurity. These effects depend on the scale of deployment, the feedstock, the prior land use, and which other response options are included (see Section 6.4.4.2). Large-scale production of bioenergy can require significant amounts of land, increasing potential pressures for land conversion and land degradation. Low levels of bioenergy deployment require less land, leading
to smaller effects on forest cover and food prices; however, these land requirements could still be substantial. In terms of feedstocks, in some regions, they may not need irrigation, and thus would not compete for water with food crops. Additionally, the use of residues or microalgae could limit competition for land and biodiversity loss; however, residues could result in land degradation or decreased soil organic carbon. Whether woody bioenergy results in increased competition for land or not is disputed in the literature,
with some studies suggesting reduced competition and others suggesting enhanced competition. One study noted that this effect changes over time, with complementarity between woody bioenergy and forest carbon sequestration in the near-term, but increased competition for land with afforestation/reforestation in the long term. Additionally, woody bioenergy could also result in land degradation.

Popp et al. 2011b1565, 20141566, 20171567; Riahi et al. 20171568; Robertson
et al. 2017a1569; Sánchez et al. 20171570; Searchinger et al. 20181571; Sims et al. 20141572; Slade et al. 20141573; Smith et al. 2016c1574; Tian et al. 20181575; Torvanger 20181576; Van Vuuren et al. 20111577, 20151578, 20161579; Wise et al. 20151580

6.2.2

Integrated response options based on value chain management

6.2.2.1

Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management

Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management are described in Table 6.10, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base for the effects of the response options.

6.2.2.2

Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management

Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management are described in Table 6.11, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base in for effects of the response options.

6.2.3

Integrated response options based on risk management

6.2.3.1

Risk management options

Integrated response options based on risk management are described in Table 6.12, which also notes any context specificities, and provides the evidence base for the effects of the response options.

Table 6.10

Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management.

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Dietary change

Sustainable healthy diets represent a range of dietary changes to improve human diets, to make them healthy in terms of the nutrition delivered, and also (economically, environmentally and socially) sustainable. A ‘contract and converge’ model of transition to sustainable healthy diets would involve a reduction in over-consumption (particularly of livestock products) in over-consuming populations, with increased consumption of some food groups in populations where minimum nutritional needs are not met. Such a conversion could result in a decline
in undernourishment, as well as reduction in the risk of morbidity and mortality due to over-consumption.

A dietary shift away from meat can reduce GHG emissions, reduce cropland and pasture requirements, enhance biodiversity protection, and reduce mitigation costs. Additionally, dietary change can both increase potential for other land-based response options and reduce the need for them by freeing land. By decreasing pressure on land, demand reduction through dietary change could also allow for decreased production intensity, which could reduce soil erosion and provide benefits to a range of other environmental indicators such as deforestation and decreased use of fertiliser (nitrogen and phosphorus), pesticides, water and energy, leading to potential benefits for adaptation, desertification, and land degradation.

Chapter 5; Section 6.4.4.2

Aleksandrowicz et al. 2016; Bajželj et al. 2014a; Bonsch
et al. 2016; Erb et al. 2016; Godfray et al. 2010; Haberl et al. 2011; Havlík et al. 2014; Muller et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2013; Springmann et al. 2018; Stehfest et al. 2009; Tilman and Clark 2014; Wu et al. 2019

Reduced post- harvest losses

Approximately one-third of the food produced for
human consumption is wasted in post-production operations. Most of these losses are due to poor storage management. Post-harvest food losses underlie the food system’s failure to equitably enable accessible and affordable food in all countries. Reduced post-harvest food losses can improve food security in developing countries (while food loss in developed countries mostly occurs at the retail/consumer stage). The key drivers for post-harvest waste in developing countries are structural and infrastructure deficiencies. Thus, reducing food waste at the post-harvest stage requires responses that process, preserve and, where appropriate, redistribute food to where it can be consumed immediately.

Differences exist between farm food waste reduction technologies between small-scale agricultural systems and large-scale agricultural systems. A suite of options includes farm-level storage facilities, trade or exchange processing technologies including food drying, on-site farm processing for value addition, and improved seed systems. For large- scale agri-food systems, options include cold chains for preservation, processing for value addition and linkages to value chains that absorb the harvests almost instantly into the supply chain. In addition to the specific options to reduce food loss and waste, there are more systemic possibilities related to food systems. Improving and expanding the ‘dry chain’ can significantly reduce food losses at the household level. Dry chains are analogous to the cold chain and refers to the ‘initial dehydration of durable commodities to levels preventing fungal growth’ followed by storage in moisture- proof containers. Regional and local food systems are now being promoted to enable production, distribution, access and affordability of food. Reducing post-harvest losses has the potential to reduce emissions and could simultaneously reduce food costs and increase availability. The perishability and safety of fresh foods are highly susceptible to temperature increase.

Chapter 5

Ansah et al. 2017; Bajželj
et al. 2014b; Billen et al. 2018; Bradford et al. 2018; Chaboud and Daviron 2017; Göbel et al. 2015; Gustavsson et al. 2011; Hengsdijk and de Boer 2017; Hodges et al. 2011; Ingram et al. 2016; Kissinger et al. 2018; Kumar and Kalita 2017; Ritzema et al. 2017; Sheahan and Barrett 2017a; Wilhelm et al. 2016)

Reduced food waste (consumer or retailer)

Since approximately 9–30% of all food is wasted, reducing food waste can reduce pressure on land (see also reducing post-harvest losses).

Reducing food waste could lead to a reduction in cropland area and GHG emissions, resulting in benefits for mitigation. By decreasing pressure on land, food waste reduction could allow for decreased production intensity, which could reduce soil erosion and provide benefits to a range of other environmental indicators such as deforestation and decreases in use of fertiliser (N and P), pesticides, water and energy, leading to potential benefits for adaptation, desertification, and land degradation.

Alexander et al. 2016; Bajželj et al. 2014b; Gustavsson et al. 2011; Kummu et al. 2012; Muller et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2013; Vermeulen et al. 2012b

Material substitution

Material substitution involves the use of wood or agricultural biomass (e.g., straw bales) instead of fossil fuel-based materials (e.g., concrete, iron, steel, aluminium) for building, textiles or other applications.

Material substitution reduces carbon emissions – both because the biomass sequesters carbon in materials while re-growth of forests can lead to continued sequestration, and because it reduces the demand for fossil fuels, delivering a benefit for mitigation. However, a potential trade-off exists between conserving carbon stocks and using forests for wood products. If the use of material for substitution was large enough to result in increased forest area, then the adverse side effects for adaptation and food security would be similar to that of reforestation and afforestation. In addition, some studies indicate that wooden buildings,

if properly constructed, could reduce fire risk compared
to steel, creating a co-benefit for adaptation. The effects
of material substitution on land degradation depend on management practice; some forms of logging can lead to increased land degradation. Long-term forest management with carbon storage in long-lived products also results in atmospheric CO2 removal.

Chapter 4

Dugan et al. 2018; Eriksson et al. 2012; Gustavsson et al. 2006; Iordan et al. 2018; Kauppi et al. 2018; Kurz et al. 2016; Leskinen et al. 2018; McLaren 2012; Miner 2010; Oliver and Morecroft 2014; Ramage et al. 2017; Sathre and O’Connor 2010; Smyth et al. 2014

Table 6.11

Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management.

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Sustainable sourcing

Sustainable sourcing includes approaches to ensure that the production of goods is done in a sustainable way, such as through low-impact agriculture, zero-deforestation supply chains, or sustainably harvested forest products. Currently around 8% of global forest area has been certified in some manner, and 25% of global industrial roundwood comes from certified forests. Sustainable sourcing also aims to enable producers to increase their percentage of the final value of commodities. Adding value to products requires improved innovation, coordination and efficiency in the food supply chain, as well as labelling to meet consumer demands. As such, sustainable sourcing is an approach that combines both supply- and demand- side management. Promoting sustainable and value- added products can reduce the need for compensatory extensification of agricultural areas and is a specific commitment of some sourcing programmes (such as forest certification programmes). Table 7.3 (Chapter 7) provides examples of the many sustainable sourcing programmes now available globally.

Sustainable sourcing is expanding but accounts for only
a small fraction of overall food and material production; many staple food crops do not have strong sustainability standards. Sustainable sourcing provides potential benefits for both climate mitigation and adaptation by reducing drivers of unsustainable land management, and by diversifying and increasing flexibility in the food system to climate stressors and shocks. Sustainable sourcing can lower expenditure for food processors and retailers by reducing losses. Adding value to products can extend a producer’s marketing season and provide unique opportunities to capture niche markets, thereby increasing their adaptive capacity to climate change. Sustainable sourcing can also provide significant benefits for food security, while simultaneously creating economic alternatives for the poor. Sustainable sourcing programmes often also have positive impacts on the overall efficiency of the food supply chain and can create closer and more direct links between producers and consumers. In some cases, processing of value-added products could lead to higher emissions or demand for resources in the food system, potentially leading to small adverse impacts on
land degradation and desertification challenges.

Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Chapter 5; Section 6.4

Accorsi et al. 2017; Bajželj et al. 2014a; Bustamante et al. 2014; Clark and Tilman 2017; Garnett 2011; Godfray et al. 2010; Hertel 2015; Ingram et al. 2016; James and James 2010; Muller et al. 2017; Springer et al. 2015; Tayleur et al. 2017; Tilman and Clark 2014

Management of supply chains

Management of supply chains include a set of polycentric governance processes focused on improving efficiency and sustainability across the supply chain for each product, to reduce climate risk and profitably reduce emissions. Trade-driven food supply chains are becoming increasingly complex and are contributing to emissions. Improved management of supply chains can include

1) better food transport and increasing the economic value or reduce risks of commodities through production processes (e.g., packaging, processing, cooling, drying, extracting) and 2) improved policies for stability of food supply, as globalised food systems and commodity markets are vulnerable to food price volatility. The 2007–2008 food price shocks negatively affected food security for millions, most severely in Sub-Saharan Africa. Increasing the stability of food supply chains is a key goal to increase food security, given that climate change threatens to lead to more production shocks in the future.

Successful implementation of supply chain management practices is dependent on organisational capacity, the agility and flexibility of business strategies, the strengthening
of public-private policies and effectiveness of supply- chain governance. Existing practices include a) greening supply chains (e.g., utilising products and services with

a reduced impact on the environment and human health),
b) adoption of specific sustainability instruments among agri-food companies (e.g., eco-innovation practices ),
c) adopting emission accounting tools (e.g., carbon and water foot-printing), and d) implementing ‘demand forecasting’ strategies (e.g., changes in consumer preference for ‘green’ products). In terms of food supply, measures to improve stability in traded markets can include i) financial and trade policies, such as reductions on food taxes and import tariffs, (ii) shortening food supply chains (SFSCs), (iii) increasing food production, (iv) designing alternative distribution networks, (v) increasing food market transparency and reducing speculation in futures markets, (vi) increasing storage options, and (vii) increasing subsidies and food-based safety nets.

Chapter 5

Barthel and Isendahl 2013; Haggblade et al. 2017; Lewis and Witham 2012; Michelini et al. 2018; Minot 2014; Mundler and Rumpus 2012; Tadasse et al. 2016; Wheeler and von Braun 2013; Wilhelm et al. 2016; Wodon and Zaman 2010; World Bank 2011

Enhanced urban food systems

Urban areas are becoming the principal territories
for intervention in improving food access through innovative strategies that aim to reduce hunger and improve livelihoods. Interventions include urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry and local food policy and planning initiatives such as Food Policy Councils and city-region-wide regional food strategies. Such systems have demonstrated inter-linkages of the city and its citizens with surrounding rural areas to create sustainable, and more nutritious food supplies for the city, while improving the health status of urban dwellers, reducing pollution levels, adapting to and mitigating climate change, and stimulating economic development. Options include support for urban and peri-urban agriculture, green infrastructure (e.g., green roofs), local markets, enhanced social (food) safety

nets and development of alternative food sources and technologies, such as vertical farming.

Urban territorial areas have a potential to reduce GHG emissions through improved food systems to reduce vehicle miles of food transportation, localised carbon capture and food waste reduction. The benefits of urban food forests that are intentionally planted woody perennial food-producing species, are also cited for their carbon sequestration potentials. However, new urban food systems may have diverse and unexpected adverse side effects with climate systems, such as lower efficiencies

in food supply and higher costs than modern large-scale agriculture. Diversifying markets, considering value-added products in the food supply system may help to improve food security by increasing its economic performance and revenues to local farmers.

Akhtar et al. 2016; Benis and Ferrão 2017; Brinkley et al. 2013; Chappell et al. 2016; Dubbeling 2014; Goldstein et al. 2016; Kowalski and Conway 2018; Lee-Smith 2010; Barthel and Isendahl 2013; Lwasa et al. 2014, 2015; Revi et al. 2014; Specht et al. 2014; Tao et al. 2015

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Improved food processing and retailing

Improved food processing and retailing involves
several practices related to a) greening supply chains
(e.g., utilising products and services with a reduced impact on the environment and human health), b) adoption
of specific sustainability instruments among agri-food companies (e.g., eco-innovation practices), c) adopting emission accounting tools (e.g., carbon and water foot-printing), d) implementing ‘demand forecasting’ strategies (e.g., changes in consumer preference for ‘green’ products) and, e) supporting polycentric supply- chain governance processes.

Improved food processing and retailing can provide benefits for climate mitigation since GHG-friendly foods can reduce agri-food GHG emissions from transportation, waste and energy use. In cases where climate extremes and natural disasters disrupt supply chain networks, improved food processing and retailing can benefit climate adaptation by buffering the impacts of changing temperature and rainfall patterns on upstream agricultural production. It can provide benefits for food security by supporting healthier diets and reducing food loss and waste. Successful implementation

is dependent on organisational capacity, the agility and flexibility of business strategies, the strengthening of public- private policies and effectiveness of supply-chain governance.

Chapter 2; Chapter 5

Avetisyan et al. 2014; Garnett et al. 2013; Godfray et al. 2010; Mohammadi et al. 2014; Porter et al. 2016; Ridoutt et al. 2016; Song et al. 2017

Improved energy use in food systems

Agriculture’s energy efficiency can be improved to reduce the dependency on non-renewable energy sources. This can be realised either by decreased energy inputs, or through increased outputs per unit
of input. In some countries, managerial inefficiency (rather than a technology gap) is the main source for energy-efficiency loss. Heterogenous patterns of energy efficiency exist at the national scale and promoting energy-efficient technologies along with managerial capacity development can reduce the gap and provide large benefits for climate adaptation. Improvements in carbon monitoring and calculation techniques such as the foot-printing of agricultural products can enhance energy-efficiency transition management and uptake in agricultural enterprises.

Transformation to low-carbon technologies such as renewable energy and energy efficiency can offer opportunities for significant climate change mitigation,
for example, by providing a substitute to transport fuel
that could benefit marginal agricultural resources, while simultaneously contributing to long-term economic growth. In poorer nations, increased energy efficiency in agricultural value-added production, in particular, can provide large mitigation benefits. Under certain scenarios, the efficiency of agricultural systems can stagnate and could exert pressure on grasslands and rangelands, thereby impacting on land degradation and desertification. Rebound effects can also occur, with adverse impacts on emissions.

Al-Mansour F and Jejcic V 2017; Baptista et al. 2013; Begum et al. 2015; Gunatilake et al. 2014; Jebli and Youssef 2017; Van Vuuren

et al. 2017b

Table 6.12

Integrated response options based on risk management.

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Management of urban sprawl

Unplanned urbanisation leading to sprawl and extensification of cities along the rural-urban fringe has been identified as a driver of forest and agricultural land loss and a threat to food production around cities. It
has been estimated that urban expansion will result in
a 1.8–2.4% loss of global croplands by 2030. This rapid urban expansion is especially strong in new emerging towns and cities in Asia and Africa. Policies to prevent such urbanisation have included integrated land-use planning, agricultural zoning ordinances and agricultural districts, urban redevelopment, arable land reclamation, and transfer/purchase of development rights or easements.

The prevention of uncontrolled urban sprawl may provide adaptation co-benefits, but adverse side effects for adaptation might arise due to restricted ability of people to move in response to climate change.

Barbero-Sierra et al. 2013; Bren d’Amour et al. 2016; Cai et al. 2013; Chen 2007; Francis et al. 2012; Gibson et al. 2015; Lee et al. 2015; Qian et al. 2015; Shen et al. 2017; Tan et al. 2009

Livelihood diversification

When households’ livelihoods depend on a small number of sources of income without much diversification, and when those income sources are in fields that are highly climate dependent, like agriculture and fishing, this dependence can put food security and livelihoods at risk. Livelihood diversification (drawing from a portfolio of dissimilar sources of livelihood as a tool to spread risk) has been identified as one option to increase incomes and reduce poverty, increase food security, and promote climate resilience and risk reduction.

Livelihood diversification offers benefits for desertification and land degradation, particularly through non-traditional crops or trees in agroforestry systems which improve soil. Livelihood diversification may increase on-farm biodiversity due to these investments in more ecosystem-mimicking production systems, like agroforestry and polycultures. Diversification into non-agricultural fields, such as wage labour or trading, is increasingly favoured by farmers as

a low-cost strategy, particularly to respond to increasing climate risks.

Adger 1999; Ahmed and Stepp 2016; Antwi-Agyei et al. 2014; Barrett et al. 2001; Berman
et al. 2012; Bryceson 1999; DiGiano and Racelis 2012; Ellis 1998, 2008; Little et al. 2001; Ngigi et al. 2017; Rakodi 1999; Thornton and Herrero 2014

Use of local seeds

Using local seeds (also called seed sovereignty) refers
to use of non-improved, non-commercial seeds varieties. These can be used and stored by local farmers as low-cost inputs and can often help contribute to the conservation of local varieties and landraces, increasing local biodiversity. Many local seeds also require no pesticide or fertiliser use, leading to less land degradation in their use.

Use of local seeds is important in the many parts of
the developing world that do not rely on commercial
seed inputs. Promotion of local seed-saving initiatives
can include seed networks, banks and exchanges, and non-commercial open source plant breeding. These locally developed seeds can help protect local agrobiodiversity and can often be more climate resilient than generic commercial varieties, although the impacts on food security and overall land degradation are inconclusive.

Bowman 2015; Campbell and Veteto 2015; Coomes et al. 2015; Kloppenberg 2010; Luby et al. 2015; Van Niekerk and Wynberg 2017; Patnaik et al. 2017; Reisman 2017; Vasconcelos et al. 2013; Wattnem 2016

Integrated response option

Description

Context and caveats

Supporting evidence

Disaster risk management

Disaster risk management encompasses many
approaches to try to reduce the consequences of climate- and weather-related disasters and events
on socio-economic systems. The Hyogo Framework for Action is a UN framework for nations to build resilience to disasters through effective integration of disaster risk considerations into sustainable development policies. For example, in Vietnam a national strategy on disasters based on Hyogo has introduced the concept of a ‘four- on-the-spot’ approach for disaster risk management of: proactive prevention, timely response, quick and effective recovery, and sustainable development. Other widespread approaches to disaster risk management include using early warning systems that can encompass 1) education systems, 2) hazard and risk maps, 3) hydrological and meteorological monitoring (such as flood forecasting

or extreme weather warnings), and 4) communications systems to pass on information to enable action. These approaches have long been considered to reduce the risk of household asset damage during one-off climate events and are increasingly being combined with climate adaptation policies.

Community-based disaster risk management has been pointed to as one of the most successful ways to ensure that information reaches the people who need to be participants in risk reduction. Effective disaster risk management approaches must be ‘end-to-end,’ reaching communities at risk and supporting and empowering vulnerable communities to take appropriate action. The most effective early warning systems are not simply technical systems of information dissemination, but utilise and develop community capacities, create local ownership of the system, and are based on
a shared understanding of needs and purpose. Tapping into existing traditional or local knowledge has also been recommended for disaster risk management approaches
to reducing vulnerability.

Ajibade and McBean 2014; Alessa et al. 2016; Bouwer et al. 2014; Carreño et al. 2007; Cools et al. 2016; Djalante et al. 2012; Garschagen 2016; Maskrey 2011; Mercer 2010; Schipper and Pelling 2006; Sternberg and Batbuyan 2013; Thomalla et al. 2006; Vogel and O’Brien 2006

Risk-sharing instruments

Risk-sharing instruments can encompass a variety of approaches. Intra-household risk pooling is a common strategy in rural communities, such as through extended family financial transfers; one study found that 65% of poor households in Jamaica report receiving transfers, and such transfers can account for up to 75% of household income or more after crisis events. Community rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs) have long been used for general risk pooling and can be a source of financing to cope with climate variability as well. Credit services have been shown to be important for adaptation actions and risk reduction. Insurance of various kinds is also a form of risk pooling. Commercial crop insurance is one of the most widely used risk-hedging financial vehicles, and can involve both traditional indemnity-based insurance that reimburses clients for estimated financial losses from shortfalls, or index insurance that pays out the value of

an index (such as weather events) rather than actual losses; the former is more common for large farms in the developed world and the latter for smaller non-commercial farms in developing countries.

Locally developed risk-pooling measures show general positive impacts on household livelihoods. However, more commercial approaches have mixed effects. Commercial crop insurance is highly subsidised in much of the developed world. Index insurance programmes have often failed

to attract sufficient buyers or have remained financially unfeasible for commercial insurance sellers. The overall impact of index insurance on food production supply and access has also not been assessed. Traditional crop insurance has generally been seen as positive for food security as it leads to expansion of agricultural production areas and increased food supply. However, insurance may also ‘mask’ truly risky agriculture and prevent farmers from seeking less risky production strategies. Insurance can also provide perverse incentives for farmers to bring additional lands into crop production, leading to greater risk of degradation.

Akter et al. 2016; Annan and Schlenker 2015; Claassen et al. 2011a; Fenton et al. 2017; Giné
et al. 2008; Goodwin and Smith 2003; Hammill et al. 2008; Havemenn and Muccione 2011; Jaworski 2016; Meze-Hausken
et al. 2009; Morduch and Sharma 2002; Bhattamishra and Barrett 2010; Peterson 2012; Sanderson
et al. 2013; Skees and Collier 2012; Smith and Glauber 2012

6.3

Potentials for addressing the land challenges

In this section, we assess how each of the integrated response options described in Section 6.2 address the land challenges of climate change mitigation (Section 6.3.1), climate change adaptation (Section 6.3.2), desertification (Section 6.3.3), land degradation (Section 6.3.4), and food security (Section 6.3.5). The quantified potentials across all of mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security are summarised and categorised for comparison in Section 6.3.6.

6.3.1

Potential of the integrated response options for delivering mitigation

In this section, the impacts of integrated response options on climate change mitigation are assessed.

6.3.1.1

Integrated response options based on land management

In this section, the impacts on climate change mitigation of integrated response options based on land management are assessed. Some of the caveats of these potential mitigation studies are discussed in Chapter 2 and Section 6.2.1.

Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture

Increasing the productivity of land used for food production can deliver significant mitigation by avoiding emissions that would occur if increased food demand were met through expansion of the agricultural land area (Burney et al. 2010238). If pursued through increased agrochemical inputs, numerous adverse impacts on GHG emissions (and other environmental sustainability) can occur (Table 6.5), but, if pursued through sustainable intensification, increased food productivity could provide high levels of mitigation. For example, yield improvement has been estimated to have contributed to emissions savings of >13 GtCO2e yr–1 since 1961 (Burney et al. 2010239) (Table 6.13). This can also reduce the GHG intensity of products (Bennetzen et al. 2016a,b) which means a smaller environmental footprint of production, since demand can be met using less land and/or with fewer animals.

Improved cropland management could provide moderate levels of mitigation (1.4–2.3 GtCO2e yr–1) (Smith et al. 2008, 2014; Pradhan et al. 2013240) (Table 6.13). The lower estimate of potential is from Pradhan et al. (2013) for decreasing emissions intensity, and the upper end of technical potential is estimated by adding technical potentials for cropland management (about 1.4 GtCO2e yr–1), rice management (about 0.2 GtCO2e yr–1) and restoration of degraded land (about 0.7 GtCO2e yr–1) from Smith et al. (2008)241 and Smith et al. (2014). Note that much of this potential arises from soil carbon sequestration so there is an overlap with that response option. (Section 6.3.1.1).

Grazing lands can store large stocks of carbon in soil and root biomass compartments (Conant and Paustian 2002243; O’Mara 2012244; Zhou et al. 2017245). The global mitigation potential is moderate (1.4–1.8 GtCO2e yr–1), with the lower value in the range for technical potential taken from Smith et al. (2008)246 which includes only grassland management measures, and the upper value in the range from Herrero et al. (2016)247, which includes also indirect effects and some components of livestock management, and soil carbon sequestration, so there is overlap with these response options (Section 6.3.1.1). Conant et al. (2005)248 caution that increases in soil carbon stocks could be offset by increases in N2O fluxes.

The mitigation potential of improved livestock management is also moderate (0.2–1.8 GtCO2e yr–1; Smith et al. (2008) including only direct livestock measures; Herrero et al. (2016)249 include also indirect effects, and some components of grazing land management and soil carbon sequestration) to high (6.13 GtCO2e yr–1) (Pradhan et al. 2013250) (Table 6.13). There is an overlap with other response options (Section 6.3.1.1).

Zomer et al. (2016)251 reported that the trees agroforestry landscapes have increased carbon stock by 7.33 GtCO2 between 2000–2010, which is equivalent to 0.7 GtCO2e yr–1. Estimates of global potential range from 0.1 GtCO2e yr–1 to 5.7 GtCO2e yr–1 (from an optimum implantation scenario of Hawken (2017)252, based on an assessment of all values in Griscom et al. (2017), Hawken (2017)253, Zomer et al. (2016) and Dickie et al. (2014)254 (Table 6.13).

Agricultural diversification mainly aims at increasing climate resilience, but it may have a small (but globally unquantified) mitigation potential as a function of type of crop, fertiliser management, tillage system, and soil type (Campbell et al. 2014255; Cohn et al. 2017256).

Reducing conversion of grassland to cropland could provide significant climate mitigation by retaining soil carbon stocks that might otherwise be lost. When grasslands are converted to croplands, they lose about 36% of their soil organic carbon stocks after 20 years (Poeplau et al. 2011257). Assuming an average starting soil organic carbon stock of grasslands of 115 tC ha–1 (Poeplau et al. 2011258), this is equivalent to a loss of 41.5 tC ha–1 on conversion to cropland. Mean annual global cropland conversion rates (1961–2003) have been around 47,000 km2 yr–1 (Krause et al. 2017259), or 940000 km2 over a 20-year period. The equivalent loss of soil organic carbon over 20 years would therefore be 14 GtCO2e = 0.7 GtCO2e yr–1. Griscom et al. (2017)260 estimate a cost-effective mitigation potential of 0.03 GtCO2e yr–1 (Table 6.13).

Integrated water management provides moderate benefits for climate mitigation due to interactions with other land management strategies. For example, promoting soil carbon conservation (e.g., reduced tillage) can improve the water retention capacity of soils. Jat et al. (2015)261 found that improved tillage practices and residue incorporation increased water-use efficiency by 30%, rice–wheat yields by 5–37%, income by 28–40% and reduced GHG emission by 16–25%. While irrigated agriculture accounts for only 20% of the total cultivated land, the energy consumption from groundwater irrigation is significant. However, current estimates of mitigation potential are limited to reductions in GHG emissions mainly in cropland and rice cultivation (Smith et al. 2008262, 2014) (Chapter 2 and Table 6.13). Li et al. (2006)263 estimated a 0.52–0.72 GtCO2e yr–1 reduction using the alternate wetting and drying technique. Current estimates of N2O release from terrestrial soils and wetlands accounts for 10–15% of anthropogenically fixed nitrogen on the Earth System (Wang et al. 2017264).

Table 6.13 summarises the mitigation potentials for agricultural response options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.4.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.13

Mitigation effects of response options based on land management in agriculture.

Integrated response option Potential Confidence Citation
Increased food productivity >13 GtCO2e yr–1 Low confidence Chapter 5
Burney et al. 2010
Improved cropland managementa 1.4–2.3 GtCO2e yr–1 Medium confidence Chapter 2; Chapter 5
Pradhan et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2008, 2014
Improved grazing land managementa 1.4–1.8 GtCO2e yr–1 Medium confidence Chapter 2; Chapter 5
Conant et al. 2017; Herrero et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2008, 2014
Improved livestock managementa 0.2–2.4 GtCO2e yr–1 Medium confidence Chapter 2; Chapter 5
Herrero et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2008, 2014
Agroforestry 0.1–5.7 GtCO2e yr–1 Medium confidence Chapter 2
Albrecht and Kandji 2003; Dickie et al. 2014; Griscom et al. 2017; Hawken 2017; Zomer et al. 2016
Agricultural diversification >0 Low confidence Campbell et al. 2014; Cohn et al. 2017
Reduced grassland conversion to cropland 0.03–0.7 GtCO2e yr–1 Low confidence Note high value not shown in Chapter 2; calculated from values in Griscom et al. 2017; Krause et al. 2017; Poeplau et al. 2011
Integrated water management 0.1–0.72 GtCO2e yr–1 Low confidence IPCC 2014; Howell et al. 2015; Li et al. 2006; Rahman and Bulbul 2015; Smith et al. 2008, 2014

Integrated response options based on land management in forests

Forest management could potentially contribute to moderate mitigation benefits globally, up to about 2 GtCO2e yr–1 (Chapter 2, Table 6.14). For managed forests, the most effective forest carbon mitigation strategy is the one that, through increasing biomass productivity, optimises the carbon stocks (in forests and in long- lived products) as well as the wood substitution effects for a given time frame (Smyth et al. 2014265; Grassi et al. 2018266; Nabuurs et al. 2007267; Lewis et al. 2019268; Kurz et al. 2016269; Erb et al. 2017279). Estimates of the mitigation potential vary also depending on the counterfactual, such as business-as-usual management (e.g., Grassi et al. 2018) or other scenarios. Climate change will affect the mitigation potential of forest management due to an increase in extreme events like fires, insects and pathogens (Seidl et al. 2017271). More detailed estimates are available at regional or biome level. For instance, according to Nabuurs et al. (2017), the implementation of Climate- Smart Forestry (a combination of forest management, expansion of forest areas, energy substitution, establishment of forest reserves, etc.) in the European Union has the potential to contribute to an additional 0.4 GtCO2e yr–1 mitigation by 2050. Sustainable forest management is often associated with a number of co-benefits for adaptation, ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, microclimatic regulation, soil erosion protection, coastal area protection and water and flood regulation (Locatelli 2011272). Forest management mitigation measures are more likely to be long- lasting if integrated into adaptation measures for communities and ecosystems, for example, through landscape management (Locatelli et al. 2011273). Adoption of reduced-impact logging and wood processing technologies along with financial incentives can reduce forest fires, forest degradation, maintain timber production, and retain carbon stocks (Sasaki et al. 2016274). Forest certification may support sustainable forest management, helping to prevent forest degradation and over-logging (Rametsteiner and Simula 2003275). Community forest management has proven a viable model for sustainable forestry, including for carbon sequestration (Chhatre and Agrawal 2009276) (Chapter 7, Section 7.7.4).

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation rates represents one of the most effective and robust options for climate change mitigation, with large mitigation benefits globally (Chapters 2 and 4, and Table 6.14). Because of the combined climate impacts of GHGs and biophysical effects, reducing deforestation in the tropics has a major climate mitigation effect, with benefits at local levels too (Alkama and Cescatti 2016277) (Chapter 2). Reduced deforestation and forest degradation typically lead to large co-benefits for other ecosystem services (Table 6.14).

A large range of estimates exist in the scientific literature for the mitigation potential of reforestation and forest restoration, and they sometimes overlap with estimates for afforestation. At global level, the overall potential for these options is large, reaching about 10 GtCO2e yr–1 (Chapter 2 and Table 6.14). The greatest potential for these options is in tropical and subtropical climate (Houghton and Nassikas 2018278). Furthermore, climate change mitigation benefits of afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration are reduced at high latitudes owing to the surface albedo feedback (Chapter 2).

Table 6.14 summarises the mitigation potentials for forest response options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.14

Mitigation effects of response options based on land management in forests.

Integrated response option Potential Confidence Citation
Forest management 0.4–2.1 GtCO2e yr–1 Medium confidence Chapter 2
Griscom et al. 2017; Sasaki et al. 2016
Reduced deforestation and forest degradation 0.4–5.8 GtCO2e yr–1 High confidence Chapter 2
Baccini et al. 2017; Griscom et al. 2017; Hawken 2017; Houghton et al. 2015; Houghton and Nassikas 2018; Smith et al. 2014
Reforestation and forest restoration 1.5–10.1 GtCO2e yr–1 Medium confidence Chapter 2
Dooley and Kartha 2018; Griscom et al. 2017; Hawken 2017; Houghton and Nassikas 2017
Estimates partially overlapping with Afforestation
Afforestation 0.5–8.9 GtCO2e yr–1 Medium confidence Chapter 2
Fuss et al. 2018; Hawken 2017; Kreidenweis et al. 2016; Lenton 2010. Estimates partially overlapping with Reforestation

Integrated response options based on land management of soils

The global mitigation potential for increasing soil organic matter stocks in mineral soils is estimated to be in the range of 1.3–5.1 GtCO2e yr–1, though the full literature range is wider (Fuss et al. 20181247; Lal 2004280; de Coninck et al. 2018; Sanderman et al. 2017281; Smith et al. 2008282; Smith 2016283) (Table 6.15).

The management and control of erosion may prevent losses of organic carbon in water- or wind- transported sediments, but since the final fate of eroded material is still debated, ranging from a source of 1.36–3.67 GtCO2e yr–1 (Jacinthe and Lal 20011268; Lal 2004284) to a sink of 0.44–3.67 GtCO2e yr–1 (Smith et al. 2001286; Stallard 1998287; Van Oost et al. 2007288) (Table 6.15), the overall impact of erosion control on mitigation is context-specific and uncertain at the global level (Hoffmann et al. 2013289).

Salt-affected soils are highly constrained environments that require permanent prevention of salinisation. Their mitigation potential is likely to be small (Wong et al. 2010290; UNCTAD 2011291; Dagar et al. 2016292).

Soil compaction prevention could reduce N2O emissions by minimising anoxic conditions favourable for denitrification (Mbow et al. 2010), but its carbon sequestration potential depends on crop management, and the global mitigation potential, though globally unquantified, is likely to be small (Chamen et al. 2015293; Epron et al. 2016294; Tullberg et al. 2018295) (Table 6.15).

For biochar, a global analysis of technical potential, in which biomass supply constraints were applied to protect against food insecurity, loss of habitat and land degradation, estimated technical potential abatement of 3.7–6.6 GtCO2e yr–1 (including 2.6–4.6 GtCO2e yr–1 carbon stabilisation). Considering all published estimates by Woolf et al. (2010)296, Smith (2016)297, Fuss et al. (2018)298, Griscom et al. (2017)299, Hawken (2017)300, Paustian et al. (2016)301, Powell and Lenton (2012)302.

Table 6.15

Mitigation effects of response options based on land management of soils.

Dickie et al. (2014)303, Lenton (2010)1248, Lenton (2014)1249, Roberts et al. (2009)1250, Pratt and Moran (2010)1251 and IPCC (2018)1269, the low value for the range of potentials of 0.03 GtCO2e yr–1 is for the ‘plausible’ scenario of Hawken, (2017)304 (Table 6.15). Fuss et al. (2018)1254 propose a range of 0.5–2 GtCO2e yr–1 as the sustainable potential for negative emissions through biochar, similar to the range proposed by Smith (2016)305 and IPCC (2018)1252.

Table 6.15 summarises the mitigation potentials for soil-based response options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Integrated response options based on land management in all/other ecosystems

For fire management, total emissions from fires have been in the order of 8.1 GtCO2e yr–11 for the period 1997–2016 (Chapter 2 and Cross-Chapter Box 3) and there are important synergies between air pollution and climate change control policies. Reduction in fire CO2 emissions due to fire suppression and landscape fragmentation associated with increases in population density is calculated to enhance land carbon uptake by 0.48 GtCO2e yr–1 for the 1960–2009 period (Arora and Melton 2018306) (Table 6.16).

Management of landslides and natural hazards is a key climate adaptation option but, due to limited global areas vulnerable to landslides and natural hazards, its mitigation potential is likely to be modest (Noble et al. 2014307).

In terms of management of pollution, including acidification, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Meterological Organization (WMO) (2011)1253 and Shindell et al. (2012)308 identified measures targeting reduction in short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP) emissions that reduce projected global mean warming about 0.5°C by 2050. Bala et al. (2013)309 reported that a recent coupled modelling study showed nitrogen deposition and elevated CO2 could have a synergistic effect, which could explain 47% of terrestrial carbon uptake in the 1990s. Estimates of global terrestrial carbon uptake due to current nitrogen deposition ranges between 0.55 and 1.28 GtCO2 yr–1 (De Vries et al. 2006, 20091254; Bala et al. 20131255; Zaehle and Dalmonech 2011310) (Table 6.16).

There are no global data on the impacts of management of invasive species/encroachment on mitigation.

Coastal wetland restoration could provide high levels of climate mitigation, with avoided coastal wetland impacts and coastal wetland restoration estimated to deliver 0.3–3.1 GtCO2e yr–1 in total when considering all global estimates from Griscom et al. (2017)311, Hawken (2017)1255, Pendleton et al. (2012)313, Howard et al. (2017)314 and Donato et al. (2011)315 (Table 6.16).

Peatland restoration could provide moderate levels of climate mitigation, with avoided peat impacts and peat restoration estimated to deliver 0.6–2 GtCO2e yr–1 from all global estimates published in Griscom et al. (2017)316, Hawken (2017)1256, Hooijer et al. (2010)319, Couwenberg et al. (2010)1257 and Joosten and Couwenberg (2008)320, though there could be an increase in methane emissions after restoration (Jauhiainen et al. 2008321) (Table 6.16).

Mitigation potential from biodiversity conservation varies depending on the type of intervention and specific context. Protected areas are estimated to store over 300 Gt carbon, roughly corresponding to 15% of terrestrial carbon stocks (Campbell et al. 2008322; Kapos et al. 2008323). At global level, the potential mitigation resulting from protection of these areas for the period 2005–2095 is, on average, about 0.9 GtCO2e yr–1 relative to a reference scenario (Calvin et al. 2014324). The potential effects on the carbon cycle of management of wild animal species are context dependent. For example, moose browsing in boreal forests can decrease the carbon uptake of ecosystems by up to 75% (Schmitz et al. 2018325), and reducing moose density through active population management in Canada is estimated to be a carbon sink equivalent to about 0.37 GtCO2e yr–1 (Schmitz et al. 2014326).

Table 6.16 summarises the mitigation potentials for land management response options in all/other ecosystems, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.16

Mitigation effects of response options based on land management in all/other ecosystems.

Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

Enhanced mineral weathering provides substantial climate mitigation, with a global mitigation potential in the region of about 0.5–4 GtCO2e yr–1 (Beerling et al. 2018327; Lenton 2010328; Smith et al. 2016a329; Taylor et al. 2016330) (Table 6.17).

The mitigation potential for bioenergy and BECCS derived from bottom-up models is large (IPCC 2018331) (Chapter 2 and Cross- Chapter Box 7 in this chapter), with technical potential estimated at 100–300 EJ yr–1 (Chum et al. 2011332; Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6) or up to about 11 GtCO2 yr–1 (Chapter 2). These estimates, however, exclude N2O associated with fertiliser application and land- use change emissions. Those effects are included in the modelled scenarios using bioenergy and BECCS, with the sign and magnitude depending on where the bioenergy is grown (Wise et al. 2015333), at what scale, and whether nitrogen fertiliser is used.

Table 6.17 summarises the mitigation potentials for land management options specifically for CDR, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.17

Mitigation effects of response options based on land management specifically for CDR.

6.3.1.2

Integrated response options based on value chain management

In this section, the impacts on climate change mitigation of integrated response options based on value chain management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management

Dietary change and waste reduction can provide large benefits for mitigation, with potentials of 0.7–8 GtCO2 yr–1 for both (Aleksandrowicz et al. 2016334; Bajželj et al. 2014b335; Dickie et al. 2014336; Hawken 2017337; Hedenus et al. 2014338; Herrero et al. 2016339; Popp et al. 2010340; Smith et al. 2013341; Springmann et al. 2016342; Stehfest et al. 2009343; Tilman and Clark 2014344). Estimates for food waste reduction (Bajželj et al. 2014b345; Dickie et al. 2014346; Hiç et al. 2016347; Hawken 2017348) include both consumer/retailed waste and post-harvest losses (Table 6.18). Some studies indicate that material substitution has the potential for significant mitigation, with one study estimating a 14–31% reduction in global CO2 emissions (Oliver et al. 2014349); other studies suggest more modest potential (Gustavsson et al. 2006350) (Table 6.18).

Table 6.18 summarises the mitigation potentials for demand management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.18

Mitigation effects of response options based on demand management.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management

While sustainable sourcing presumably delivers a mitigation benefit, there are no global estimates of potential. Palm oil production alone is estimated to contribute 0.038 to 0.045 GtC yr-1, and Indonesian palm oil expansion contributed up to 9% of tropical land-use change carbon emissions in the 2000s (Carlson and Curran 2013351), however, the mitigation benefit of sustainable sourcing of palm oil has not been quantified. There are no estimates of the mitigation potential for urban food systems.

Efficient use of energy and resources in food transport and distribution contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions, estimated to be 1% of global CO2 emissions (James and James 2010352; Vermeulen et al. 2012b353). Given that global CO2 emissions in 2017 were 37 GtCO2, this equates to 0.37 GtCO2 yr–1 (covering food transport and distribution, improved efficiency of food processing and retailing, and improved energy efficiency) (Table 6.19).

Table 6.19 summarises the mitigation potentials for supply management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.19

Mitigation effects of response options based on supply management.

6.3.1.3

Integrated response options based on risk management

In this section, the impacts on climate change mitigation of integrated response options based on risk management are assessed. In general, because these options are focused on adaptation and other benefits, the mitigation benefits are modest, and mostly unquantified.

Extensive and less dense urban development tends to have higher energy usage, particularly from transport (Liu et al. 2015354), such that a 10% reduction of very low-density urban fabrics is correlated with 9% fewer emissions per capita in Europe (Baur et al. 2015355). However, the exact contribution to mitigation from the prevention of land conversion in particular has not been well quantified (Thornbush et al. 2013356). Suggestions from select studies in the USA are that biomass decreases by half in cases of conversion from forest to urban land uses (Briber et al. 2015357), and a study in Bangkok found a decline by half in carbon sinks in the urban area in the past 30 years (Ali et al. 2018358).

There is no literature specifically on linkages between livelihood diversification and climate mitigation benefits, although some forms of diversification that include agroforestry would likely result in increased carbon sinks (Altieri et al. 2015359; Descheemaeker et al. 2016360). There is no literature exploring linkages between local seeds and GHG emission reductions, although use of local seeds likely reduces emissions associated with transport for commercial seeds, though the impact has not been quantified.

While disaster risk management can presumably have mitigation co- benefits, as it can help reduce food loss on-farm (e.g., crops destroyed before harvest or avoided animal deaths during droughts and floods meaning reduced production losses and wasted emissions), there is no quantified global estimate for this potential.

Risk-sharing instruments could have some mitigation co-benefits if they buffer household losses and reduce the need to expand agricultural lands after experiencing risks. However, the overall impacts of these are unknown. Further, commercial insurance may induce producers to bring additional land into crop production, particularly marginal or land with other risks that may be more environmentally sensitive (Claassen et al. 2011a). Policies to deny crop insurance to farmers who have converted grasslands in the USA resulted in a 9% drop in conversion, which likely has positive mitigation impacts (Claassen et al. 2011a361). Estimates of emissions from cropland conversion in the USA in 2016 were 23.8 MtCO2e, only some of which could be attributed to insurance as a driver.

Table 6.20 summarises the mitigation potentials for risk management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence is based.

Table 6.20

Mitigation effects of response options based on risk management.

6.3.2

Potential of the integrated response options for delivering adaptation

In this section, the impacts of integrated response options on climate change adaptation are assessed.

6.3.2.1

Integrated response options based on land management

In this section, the impacts on climate change adaptation of integrated response options based on land management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture

Increasing food productivity by practices such as sustainable intensification improves farm incomes and allows households to build assets for use in times of stress, thereby improving resilience (Campbell et al. 2014362). By reducing pressure on land and increasing food production, increased food productivity could be beneficial for adaptation (Campbell et al. 2014) (Chapter 2 and Section 6.3). Pretty et al. (2018) report that 163 million farms occupying 4.53 Mkm2 have passed a redesign threshold for application of sustainable intensification, suggesting the minimum number of people benefitting from increased productivity and adaptation benefits under sustainable intensification is >163 million, with the total likely to be far higher (Table 6.21).

Improved cropland management is a key climate adaptation option, potentially affecting more than 25 million people, including a wide range of technological decisions by farmers. Actions towards adaptation fall into two broad overlapping areas: (i) accelerated adaptation to progressive climate change over decadal time scales, for example integrated packages of technology, agronomy and policy options for farmers and food systems, including changing planting dates and zones, tillage systems, crop types and varieties, and (ii) better management of agricultural risks associated with increasing climate variability and extreme events, for example, improved climate information services and safety nets (Vermeulen et al. 2012b364; Challinor et al. 2014365; Lipper et al. 2014366; Lobell 2014367). In the same way, improved livestock management is another technological adaptation option potentially benefitting between 1 million and 25 million people. Crop and animal diversification are considered the most promising adaptation measures (Porter et al. 2014368; Rojas-Downing et al. 2017369). In grasslands and rangelands, regulation of stocking rates, grazing field dimensions, establishment of exclosures and locations of drinking fountains and feeders are strategic decisions by farmers to improve grazing management (Taboada et al. 2011370; Mekuria and Aynekulu 2013371; Porter et al. 2014372).

Around 30% of the world’s rural population use trees across 46% of all agricultural landscapes (Lasco et al. 2014373), meaning that up to 2.3 billion people benefit from agroforestry globally (Table 6.21).

Agricultural diversification is key to achieving climatic resilience (Campbell et al. 2014374; Cohn et al. 2017375). Crop diversification is one important adaptation option to progressive climate change (Vermeulen et al. 2012a376) and it can improve resilience by engendering a greater ability to suppress pest outbreaks and dampen pathogen transmission, as well as by buffering crop production from the effects of greater climate variability and extreme events (Lin 2011377).

Reduced conversion of grassland to cropland may lead to adaptation benefits by stabilising soils in the face of extreme climatic events (Lal 2001378), thereby increasing resilience, but since it would likely have a negative impact on food production/security (since croplands produce more food per unit area than grasslands), the wider adaptation impacts would likely be negative. However, there is no literature quantifying the global impact of avoidance of conversion of grassland to cropland on adaptation.

Integrated water management provides large co-benefits for adaptation (Dillon and Arshad 2016379) by improving the resilience of food crop production systems to future climate change (Porter et al. 2014380) (Chapter 2 and Table 6.7). Improving irrigation systems and integrated water resource management, such as enhancing urban and rural water supplies and reducing water evaporation losses (Dillon and Arshad 2016381), are significant options for enhancing climate adaptation. Many technical innovations (e.g., precision water management) can lead to beneficial adaptation outcomes by increasing water availability and the reliability of agricultural production, using different techniques of water harvesting, storage, and its judicious utilisation through farm ponds, dams and community tanks in rainfed agriculture areas. Integrated water management response options that use freshwater would be expected to have few adverse side effects in regions where water is plentiful, but large adverse side effects in regions where water is scarce (Grey and Sadoff 2007382; Liu et al. 2017383; Scott et al. 2011384).

Table 6.21 summarises the potentials for adaptation for agricultural response options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.21

Adaptation effects of response options based on land management in agriculture.

Integrated response options based on land management in forestry

Forest management positively impacts on adaptation through limiting the negative effects associated with pollution (of air and fresh water), infections and other diseases, exposure to extreme weather events and natural disasters, and poverty (e.g., Smith et al. 2014). There is high agreement on the fact that reduced deforestation and forest degradation positively impact on adaptation and resilience of coupled human-natural systems. Based on the number of people affected by natural disasters (CRED 2015385), the number of people depending to varying degrees on forests for their livelihoods (World Bank et al. 2009386) and the current deforestation rate (Keenan et al. 2015387), the estimated global potential effect for adaptation is largely positive for forest management, and moderately positive for reduced deforestation when cumulated until the end of the century (Table6.22).The uncertainty of these global estimates is high, for example, the impact of reduced deforestation may be higher when the large biophysical impacts on the water cycle (and thus drought) from deforestation (e.g., Alkama and Cescatti 2016388) are taken into account (Chapter 2).

More robust qualitative, and some quantitative, estimates are available at local and regional level. According to Karjalainen et al. (2009)389, reducing deforestation and habitat alteration contributes to limiting infectious diseases such as malaria in Africa, Asia and Latin America, thus lowering the expenses associated with healthcare treatments. Bhattacharjee and Behera (2017)390 found that human lives lost due to floods increase with reducing forest cover and increasing deforestation rates in India. In addition, maintaining forest cover in urban contexts reduces air pollution and therefore avoids mortality of about one person per year per city in US, and up to 7.6 people per year in New York City (Nowak et al. 2014391). There is also evidence that reducing deforestation and forest degradation in mangrove plantations potentially improves soil stabilisation, and attenuates the impact of tropical cyclones and typhoons along the coastal areas in South and Southeast Asia (Chow 2018392). At local scale, co-benefits between REDD+ and adaptation of local communities can potentially be substantial (Long 2013393; Morita and Matsumoto 2018394), even if often difficult to quantify, and not explicitly acknowledged (McElwee et al. 2017b395).

Forest restoration may facilitate the adaptation and resilience of forests to climate change by enhancing connectivity between forest areas and conserving biodiversity hotspots (Locatelli et al. 2011396, 2015b; Ellison et al. 2017397; Dooley and Kartha 2018398). Furthermore, forest restoration may improve ecosystem functionality and services, provide microclimatic regulation for people and crops, wood and fodder as safety nets, soil erosion protection and soil fertility enhancement for agricultural resilience, coastal area protection, water and flood regulation (Locatelli et al. 2015b399).

Afforestation and reforestation are important climate change adaptation response options (Reyer et al. 2009400; Ellison et al. 2017401; Locatelli et al. 2015b402), and can potentially help a large proportion of the global population to adapt to climate change and to associated natural disasters (Table 6.22). For example, trees generally mitigate summer mean warming and temperature extremes (Findell et al. 2017403; Sonntag et al. 2016404).

Table 6.22 summarises the potentials for adaptation for forest response options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.22

Adaptation effects of response options based on land management in forests.

Integrated response options based on land management of soils

Soil organic carbon increase is promoted as an action for climate change adaptation. Since increasing soil organic matter content is a measure to address land degradation (see Section 6.2.1), and restoring degraded land helps to improve resilience to climate change, soil carbon increase is an important option for climate change adaptation. With around 120,000 km2 lost to degradation every year, and over 3.2 billion people negatively impacted by land degradation globally (IPBES 20181257), practices designed to increase soil organic carbon have a large potential to address adaptation challenges (Table 6.23).

Since soil erosion control prevents land degradation and desertification, it improves the resilience of agriculture to climate change and increases food production (Lal 1998406; IPBES 2018407), though the global number of people benefitting from improved resilience to climate change has not been reported in the literature. Using figures from (FAO and ITPS 2015), IPBES (2018)407 estimates that land losses due to erosion are equivalent to 1.5 Mkm2 of land used for crop production to 2050, or 45,000 km2 yr–1 (Foley et al. 2011). Control of soil erosion (water and wind) could benefit 11 Mkm2 of degraded land (Lal 2014408), and improve the resilience of at least some of the 3.2 billion people affected by land degradation (IPBES 2018409), suggesting positive impacts on adaptation. Management of erosion is an important climate change adaptation measure, since it reduces the vulnerability of soils to loss under climate extremes, thereby increasing resilience to climate change (Garbrecht et al. 2015410).

Prevention and/or reversion of topsoil salinisation may require a combined management of groundwater, irrigation techniques, drainage, mulching and vegetation, with all of these considered relevant for adaptation (Qadir et al. 2013411; UNCTAD 2011412; Dagar et al. 2016413). Taking into account the widespread diffusion of salinity problems, many people can benefit from its implementation by farmers. The relation between compaction prevention and/or reversion and climate adaption is less evident, and can be related to better hydrological soil functioning (Chamen et al. 2015414; Epron et al. 2016415; Tullberg et al. 2018416).

Biochar has the potential to benefit climate adaptation by improving the resilience of food crop production systems to future climate change by increasing yield in some regions and improving water holding capacity (Woolf et al. 2010417; Sohi 2012418) (Chapter 2 and Section 6.4). By increasing yield by 25% in the tropics (Jeffery et al. 2017419), this could increase food production for 3.2 billion people affected by land degradation (IPBES 2018420), thereby potentially improving their resilience to climate change shocks (Table 6.23). A requirement for large areas of land to provide feedstock for biochar could adversely impact on adaptation, though this has not been quantified globally.

Table 6.23 summarises the potentials for adaptation for soil-based response options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.23

Adaptation effects of response options based on land management of soils.

Integrated response options based on land management across all/other ecosystems

For fire management, Doerr et al. (2016) showed that the number of people killed by wildfire was 1940, and the total number of people affected was 5.8 million from 1984 to 2013, globally. Johnston et al. (2012)421 showed that the average mortality attributable to landscape fire smoke exposure was 339,000 deaths annually. The regions most affected were sub-Saharan Africa (157,000) and Southeast Asia (110,000). Estimated annual mortality during La Niña was 262,000, compared with around 100,000 excess deaths across Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore (Table 6.24).

Management of landslides and natural hazards are usually listed among planned adaptation options in mountainous and sloped hilly areas, where uncontrolled runoff and avalanches may cause climatic disasters, affecting millions of people from both urban and rural areas. Landslide control requires increasing plant cover and engineering practices (see Table 6.8).

For management of pollution, including acidification, Anenberg et al. (2012) estimated that, for particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, respectively, fully implementing reduction measures could reduce global population-weighted average surface concentrations by 23–34% and 7–17% and avoid 0.6–4.4 and 0.04–0.52 million annual premature deaths globally in 2030. UNEP and WMO (2011)422 considered emission control measures to reduce ozone and black carbon (BC) and estimated that 2.4 million annual premature deaths (with a range of 0.7 million to 4.6 million) from outdoor air pollution could be avoided. West et al. (2013)423 estimated global 6 GHG mitigation brings co-benefits for air quality and would avoid 0.5 ± 0.2, 1.3 ± 0.5, and 2.2 ± 0.8 million premature deaths in 2030, 2050, and 2100, respectively.

There are no global data on the impacts of management of invasive species/encroachment on adaptation.

Coastal wetlands provide a natural defence against coastal flooding and storm surges by dissipating wave energy, reducing erosion, and by helping to stabilise shore sediments, so restoration may provide significant benefits for adaptation. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands covers 1.5 Mkm2 across 1674 sites (Keddy et al. 2009424). Coastal floods currently affect 93–310 million people (in 2010) globally, and this could rise to 600 million people in 2100 with sea level rise, unless adaptation measures are taken (Hinkel et al. 2014425). The proportion of the flood-prone population that could avoid these impacts through restoration of coastal wetlands has not been quantified, but this sets an upper limit.

Avoided peat impacts and peatland restoration can help to regulate water flow and prevent downstream flooding (Munang et al. 2014426), but the global potential (in terms of number of people who could avoid flooding through peatland restoration) has not been quantified.

There are no global estimates about the potential of biodiversity conservation to improve the adaptation and resilience of local communities to climate change, in terms of reducing the number of people affected by natural disasters. Nevertheless, it is widely recognised that biodiversity, ecosystem health and resilience improves the adaptation potential (Jones et al. 2012427). For example, tree species mixture improves the resistance of stands to natural disturbances, such as drought, fires, and windstorms (Jactel et al. 2017428), as well as stability against landslides (Kobayashi and Mori 2017429). Moreover, protected areas play a key role for improving adaptation (Watson et al. 2014430; Lopoukhine et al. 2012431), through reducing water flow, stabilising rock movements, creating physical barriers to coastal erosion, improving resistance to fires, and buffering storm damages (Dudley et al. 2010432). Of the largest urban areas worldwide, 33 out of 105 rely on protected areas for some, or all, of their drinking water (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2008433), indicating that many millions are likely to benefit from conservation practices.

Table 6.24 summarises the potentials for adaptation for soil-based response options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.24

Adaptation effects of response options based on land management of soils.

Integrated response options based on land management specifically for CDR

Enhanced weathering of minerals has been proposed as a mechanism for improving soil health and food security (Beerling et al. 2018434), but there is no literature estimating the global adaptation benefits.

Large-scale bioenergy and BECCS can require substantial amounts of cropland (Popp et al. 2017435; Calvin et al. 2014436; Smith et al. 2016a437), forestland (Baker et al. 2019438; Favero and Mendelsohn 2017439), and water (Chaturvedi et al. 2013440; Hejazi et al. 2015441; Popp et al. 2011a442; Smith et al. 2016a443; Fuss et al. 2018444); suggesting that bioenergy and BECCS could have adverse side effects for adaptation. In some contexts – for example, low inputs of fossil fuels and chemicals, limited irrigation, heat/drought tolerant species, and using marginal land – bioenergy can have co-benefits for adaptation (Dasgupta et al. 2014445; Noble et al. 2014446). However, no studies were found that quantify the magnitude of the effect.

Table 6.25 summarises the impacts on adaptation of land management response options specifically for CDR, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.25

Adaptation effects of response options based on land management specifically for CDR.

6.3.2.2

Integrated response options based on value chain management

In this section, the impacts on climate change adaptation of integrated response options based on value chain management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management

Decreases in pressure on land and decreases in production intensity associated with sustainable healthy diets or reduced food waste could also benefit adaptation; however, the size of this effect is not well quantified (Muller et al. 2017447).

Reducing food waste losses can relieve pressure on the global freshwater resource, thereby aiding adaptation. Food losses account for 215 km3 yr–1 of freshwater resources, which Kummu et al. (2012)448 report to be about 12–15% of the global consumptive water use.

Given that 35% of the global population is living under high water stress or shortage (Kummu et al. 2010449), reducing food waste could benefit 320–400 million people (12–15% of the 2681 million people affected by water stress/shortage).

While no studies report quantitative estimates of the effect of material substitution on adaptation, the effects are expected to be similar to reforestation and afforestation if the amount of material substitution leads to an increase in forest area. Additionally, some studies indicate that wooden buildings, if properly constructed, could reduce fire risk, compared to steel, which softens when burned (Gustavsson et al. 2006450; Ramage et al. 2017451).

Table 6.26 summarises the impacts on adaptation of demand management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.26

Adaptation effects of response options based on demand management.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management

It is estimated that 500 million smallholder farmers depend on agricultural businesses in developing countries (IFAD 2013452), meaning that better promotion of value-added products and improved efficiency and sustainability of food processing and retailing could potentially help up to 500 million people to adapt to climate change. However, figures on how sustainable sourcing in general could help farmers and forest management is mostly unquantified. More than 1 million farmers have currently been certified through various schemes (Tayleur et al. 2017453), but how much this has helped them prepare for adaptation is unknown.

Management of supply chains has the potential to reduce vulnerability to price volatility. Consumers in lower-income countries are most affected by price volatility, with sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia at highest risk (Regmi and Meade 2013454; Fujimori et al. 2019455). However, understanding of the stability of food supply is one of the weakest links in global food system research (Wheeler and von Braun 2013456) as instability is driven by a confluence of factors (Headey and Fan 2008457). Food price spikes in 2007 increased the number of people below the poverty line by between 100 million people (Ivanic and Martin 2008458) and 450 million people (Brinkman et al. 2009459), and caused welfare losses of 3% or more for poor households in many countries (Zezza et al. 2009460). Food price stabilisation by China, India and Indonesia alone in 2007/2008 led to reduced staple food price for 2 billion people (Timmer 2009461). Presumably, spending less on food frees up money for other activities, including adaptation, but it is unknown how much (Zezza et al. 2009462; Ziervogel and Ericksen 2010463). In one example, reduction in staple food price costs to consumers in Bangladesh from food stability policies saved rural households 887 million USD2003 total (Torlesse et al. 2003464). Food supply stability through improved supply chains also potentially reduces conflicts (by avoiding food price riots, which occurred in countries with over 100 million total in population in 2007/2008), and thus increases adaptation capacity (Raleigh et al. 2015465).

There are no global estimates of the contribution of improved food transport and distribution, or of urban food systems, in contributing to adaptation, but since the urban population in 2018 was 4.2 billion people, this sets the upper limit on those who could benefit.

Given that 65% (760 million) of working adults in poverty make a living through agriculture, increased energy efficiency in agriculture could benefit these 760 million people.

Table 6.27 summarises the impacts on adaptation of supply management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.27

Adaptation effects of response options based on demand management.

6.3.2.3

Integrated response options based on risk management

In this section, the impacts on climate change adaptation of integrated response options based on risk management are assessed.

Reducing urban sprawl is likely to provide adaptation co-benefits via improved human health (Frumkin 2002466; Anderson 2017467), as sprawl contributes to reduced physical activity, worse air pollution, and exacerbation of urban heat island effects and extreme heat waves (Stone et al. 2010468). The most sprawling cities in the US have experienced extreme heat waves, more than double those of denser cities, and ‘urban albedo and vegetation enhancement strategies have significant potential to reduce heat-related health impacts’ (Stone et al. 20101258). Other adaption co-benefits are less well understood. There are likely to be cost savings from managing planning growth (one study found 2% savings in metropolitan budgets, which can then be spent on adaptation planning) (Deal and Schunk 2004469).

Diversification is a major adaptation strategy and form of risk management, as it can help households smooth out income fluctuations and provide a broader range of options for the future (Osbahr et al. 2008470; Adger et al. 2011471; Thornton and Herrero 2014472). Surveys of farmers in climate variable areas find that livelihood diversification is increasingly favoured as an adaptation option (Bryan et al. 2013473), although it is not always successful, since it can increase exposure to climate variability (Adger et al. 2011474). There are more than 570 million small farms in the world (Lowder et al. 2016475), and many millions of smallholder agriculturalists already practice livelihood diversification by engaging in multiple forms of off-farm income (Rigg 2006476). It is not clear, however, how many farmers have not yet practiced diversification and thus how many would be helped by supporting this response option.

Currently, millions of farmers still rely to some degree on local seeds. Use of local seeds can facilitate adaptation for many smallholders, as moving to use of commercial seeds can increase costs for farmers (Howard 2015477). Seed networks and banks protect local agrobiodiversity and landraces, which are important to facilitate adaptation, as local landraces may be resilient to some forms of climate change (Coomes et al. 2015478; Van Niekerk and Wynberg 2017479; Vasconcelos et al. 2013480).

Disaster risk management is an essential part of adaptation strategies. The Famine Early Warning Systems Network funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has operated across three continents since the 1980s, and many millions of people across 34 countries have access to early information on drought. Such information can assist communities and households in adapting to onset conditions (Hillbruner and Moloney 2012481). However, concerns have been raised as to how many people are actually reached by disaster risk management and early warning systems; for example, less than 50% of respondents in Bangladesh had heard a cyclone warning before it hit, even though an early warning system existed (Mahmud and Prowse 2012482). Further, there are concerns that current early warning systems ‘tend to focus on response and recovery rather than on addressing livelihood issues as part of the process of reducing underlying risk factors,’ (Birkmann et al. 2015483), leading to less adaptation potential being realised.

Local risk-sharing instruments like rotating credit or loan groups can help buffer farmers against climate impacts and help facilitate adaptation. Both index and commercial crop insurance offers some potential for adaptation, as it provides a means of buffering and transferring weather risk, saving farmers the cost of crop losses (Meze-Hausken et al. 2009484; Patt et al. 2010485). However, overly subsidised insurance can undermine the market’s role in pricing risks and thus depress more rapid adaptation strategies (Skees and Collier 2012486; Jaworski 2016487) and increase the riskiness of decision-making (McLeman and Smit 2006488). For example, availability of crop insurance was observed to reduce farm-level diversification in the US, a factor cited as increasing adaptive capacity (Sanderson et al. 2013489) and crop insurance-holding soybean farmers in the USA have been less likely to adapt to extreme weather events than those not holding insurance (Annan and Schlenker 2015490). It is unclear how many people worldwide use insurance as an adaptation strategy; Platteau et al. (2017)491 suggest that less than 30% of smallholders take out any form of insurance, but it is likely in the millions.

Table 6.28 summarises the impacts on adaptation of risk management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.28

Adaptation effects of response options based on risk management.

6.3.3

Potential of the integrated response options for addressing desertification

In this section, the impacts of integrated response options on desertification are assessed.

6.3.3.1

Integrated response options based on land management

In this section, the impacts on desertification of integrated response options based on land management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture

Burney et al. (2010) estimated that an additional global cropland area of 11.11–15.14 Mkm2 would have been needed if productivity had not increased between 1961 and 2000. Given that agricultural expansion is a main driver of desertification (FAO and ITPS 2015492), increased food productivity could have prevented up to 11.11–15.14 Mkm2 from exploitation and desertification (Table 6.10).

Improved cropland, livestock and grazing land management are strategic options aimed at prevention of desertification, and may include crop and animal selection, optimised stocking rates, changed tillage and/or cover crops, to land-use shifting from cropland to rangeland, in general targeting increases in ground cover by vegetation, and protection against wind erosion (Schwilch et al. 2014493; Bestelmeyer et al. 2015494). Considering the widespread distribution of deserts and desertified lands globally, more than 10 Mkm2 could benefit from improved management techniques.

Agroforestry can help stabilise soils to prevent desertification (Section 6.3.2.1), so given that there is around 10 Mkm2 of land with more than 10% tree cover (Garrity 2012495), agroforestry could benefit up to 10 Mkm2 of land.

Agricultural diversification to prevent desertification may include the use of crops with manures, legumes, fodder legumes and cover crops combined with conservation tillage systems (Schwilch et al. 2014496). These practices can be considered to be part of improved crop management options (see above) and aim at increasing ground coverage by vegetation and controlling wind erosion losses.

Since shifting from grassland to the annual cultivation of crops increases erosion and soil loss, there are significant benefits for desertification control, by stabilising soils in arid areas (Chapter 3). Cropland expansion during 1985 to 2005 was 359,000 km2, or 17,400 Mkm2 yr–1 (Foley et al. 2011). Not all of this expansion will be from grasslands or in desertified areas, but this value sets the maximum contribution of prevention of conversion of grasslands to croplands, a small global benefit for desertification control (Table 6.10).

Integrated water management strategies such as water-use efficiency and irrigation, improve soil health through increase in soil organic matter content, thereby delivering benefits for prevention or reversal of desertification (Baumhardt et al. 20151259; Datta et al. 2000497; Evans and Sadler 2008498; He et al. 2015499) (Chapter 3). Climate change will amplify existing stress on water availability and on agricultural systems, particularly in semi-arid environments (IPCC AR5 2014500) (Chapter 3). In 2011, semi-arid ecosystems in the southern hemisphere contributed 51% of the global net carbon sink (Poulter et al. 2014501). These results suggest that arid ecosystems could be an important global carbon sink, depending on soil water availability.

Table 6.29 summarises the impacts on desertification of agricultural options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.29

Effects on desertification of response options in agriculture.

Integrated response options based on land management in forestry

Forests are important to help to stabilise land and regulate water and microclimate (Locatelli et al. 2015b1260). Based on the extent of dry forest at risk of desertification (Núñez et al. 20101261; Bastin et al. 20171262), the estimated global potential effect for avoided desertification is large for both forest management and for reduced deforestation and forest degradation when cumulated for at least 20 years (Table 6.30). The uncertainty of these global estimates is high. More robust qualitative and some quantitative estimates are available at regional level. For example, it has been simulated that human activity (i.e., land management) contributed to 26% of the total land reverted from desertification in Northern China between 1981 and 2010 (Xu et al. 20181263). In Thailand, it was found that the desertification risk is reduced when the land use is changed from bare lands to agricultural lands and forests, and from non-forests to forests; conversely, the desertification risk increases when converting forests and denuded forests to bare lands (Wijitkosum 20161264).

Afforestation, reforestation and forest restoration are land management response options that are used to prevent desertification. Forests tend to maintain water and soil quality by reducing runoff and trapping sediments and nutrients (Medugu et al. 2010505; Salvati et al. 2014506), but planting of non-native species in semi-arid regions can deplete soil water resources if they have high evapotranspiration rates (Zeng et al. 2016507; Yang et al. 2014508). Afforestation and reforestation programmes can be deployed over large areas of the Earth, so can create synergies in areas prone to desertification. Global estimates of land potentially available for afforestation are up to 25.8 Mkm2 by the end of the century, depending on a variety of assumptions on socio- economic developments and climate policies (Griscom et al. 2017; Kreidenweis et al. 2016509; Popp et al. 2017510). The higher end of this range is achieved under the assumption of a globally uniform reward for carbon uptake in the terrestrial biosphere, and it is halved by considering tropical and subtropical areas only to minimise albedo feedbacks (Kreidenweis et al. 2016511). When safeguards are introduced (e.g., excluding existing cropland for food security, boreal areas, etc.), the area available declines to about 6.8 Mkm2 (95% confidence interval of 2.3 and 11.25 Mkm2), of which about 4.72 Mkm2 is in the tropics and 2.06 Mkm2 is in temperate regions (Griscom et al. 2017512) (Table 6.30).

Table 6.30 summarises the impacts on desertification of forestry options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.30

Effects on desertification of response options in forests.

Integrated response options based on land management of soils

With more than 2.7 billion people affected globally by desertification (IPBES 2018)513, practices to increase soil organic carbon content are proposed as actions to address desertification, and could be applied to an estimated 11.37 Mkm2 of desertified soils (Lal 2001514) (Table 6.31).

Control of soil erosion could have large benefits for desertification control. Using figures from FAO et al. (2015)515, IPBES (2018)1270 estimated that land losses due to erosion to 2050 are equivalent to 1.5 Mkm2 of land from crop production, or 45,000 km2 yr–1 (Foley et al. 2011) so soil erosion control could benefit up to 1.50 Mkm2 of land in the coming decades. Lal (2001)517 estimated that desertification control (using soil erosion control as one intervention) could benefit 11.37 Mkm2 of desertified land globally (Table 6.10).

Oldeman et al. (1991) estimated that the global extent soil affected by salinisation is 0.77 Mkm2 yr–1 ,which sets the upper limit on the area that could benefit from measures to address soil salinisation (Table 6.31).

In degraded arid grasslands, shrublands and rangelands, desertification can be reversed by alleviation of soil compaction through installation of enclosures and removal of domestic livestock (Allington et al. 2010518), but there are no global estimates of potential (Table 6.31).

Biochar could potentially deliver benefits in efforts to address desertification though improving water-holding capacity (Woolf et al. 2010519; Sohi 2012520), but the global effect is not quantified.

Table 6.31 summarises the impacts on desertification of soil-based options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.31

Effects on desertification of land management of soils.

Integrated response options based on land management across all/other ecosystems

For fire management, Arora and Melton (2018)521 estimated, using models and GFED4.1s0 data, that burned area over the 1997–2014 period was 4.834–4.855 Mkm2 yr–1. Randerson et al. (2012)522 estimated small fires increased total burned area globally by 35% from 3.45 to 4.64 Mkm2 yr–1 during the period 2001–2010. Tansey et al. (2004)523 estimated that over 3.5 Mkm2 yr–1 of burned areas were detected in the year 2000 (Table 6.32).

Although slope and slope aspect are predictive factors of desertification occurrence, the factors with the greatest influence are land cover factors, such as normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) and rangeland classes (Djeddaoui et al. 2017524). Therefore, prevention of landslides and natural hazards exert indirect influence on the occurrence of desertification.

The global extent of chemical soil degradation (salinisation, pollution and acidification) is about 1.03 Mkm2 yr–1 (Oldeman et al. 1991525), giving the maximum extent of land that could benefit from the management of pollution and acidification.

There are no global data on the impacts of management of invasive species/encroachment on desertification, though the impact is presumed to be positive. There are no studies examining the potential role of restoration and avoided conversion of coastal wetlands on desertification.

There are no impacts of peatland restoration for prevention of desertification, as peatlands occur in wet areas and deserts in arid areas, so they are not connected.

For management of pollution, including acidification, Oldeman et al. (1991) estimated the global extent of chemical soil degradation, with 0.77 Mkm2 yr–1 affected by salinisation, 0.21 Mkm2 yr–1 affected by pollution, and 0.06 Mkm2 yr–1 affected by acidification (total: 1.03 Mkm2 yr–1), so this is the area that could potentially benefit from pollution management measures.

Biodiversity conservation measures can interact with desertification, but the literature contains no global estimates of potential.

Table 6.32 summarises the impacts on desertification of options on all/other ecosystems, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.32

Effects on desertification of response options on all/other ecosystems.

Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

While spreading of crushed minerals onto land as part of enhanced weathering may provide soil/plant nutrients in nutrient-depleted soils (Beerling et al. 2018), there is no literature reporting on the potential global impacts of this in addressing desertification.

Large-scale production of bioenergy can require significant amounts of land (Smith et al. 2016a527; Clarke et al. 2014528; Popp et al. 2017529), with as much as 15 Mkm2 in 2100 in 2°C scenarios (Popp et al. 2017530), increasing pressures for desertification (Table 6.33).

Table 6.33 summarises the impacts on desertification of options specifically for CDR, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.33

Effects on desertification of response options specifically for CDR.

6.3.3.2

Integrated response options based on value chain management

In this section, the impacts on desertification of integrated response options based on value chain management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management

Dietary change and waste reduction both result in decreased cropland and pasture extent (Bajželj et al. 2014a531; Stehfest et al. 2009532; Tilman and Clark 2014533), reducing the pressure for desertification (Table 6.34).

Reduced post-harvest losses could spare 1.98 Mkm2 of cropland globally (Kummu et al. 2012534). Not all of this land could be subject to desertification pressure, so this represents the maximum area that could be relieved from desertification pressure by reduction of post- harvest losses. No studies were found linking material substitution to desertification.

Table 6.34 summarises the impacts on desertification of demand management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.34

Effects on desertification of response options based on demand management.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management

There are no global estimates of the impact on desertification of sustainable sourcing, management of supply chains, enhanced urban food systems, improved food processing, or improved energy use in agriculture.

Table 6.35 summarises the impacts on desertification of supply management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.35

Effects on desertification of response options based on supply management.

6.3.3.3

Integrated response options based on risk management

In this section, the impacts on desertification of integrated response options based on risk management are assessed. There are regional case studies of urban sprawl contributing to desertification in Mediterranean climates in particular (Barbero-Sierra et al. 2013535; Stellmes et al. 2013536), but no global figures.

Diversification may deliver some benefits for addressing desertification when it involves greater use of tree crops that may reduce the need for tillage (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2014537). Many anti-desertification programmes call for diversification (Stringer et al. 2009538), but there is little evidence on how many households had done so (Herrmann and Hutchinson 2005539). There are no numbers for global impacts.

The literature is unclear on whether the use of local seeds has any relationship to desertification, although some local seeds are more likely to adapt to arid climates and less likely to degrade land than commercially introduced varieties (Mousseau 2015540). Some anti- desertification programmes have also shown more success using local seed varieties (Bassoum and Ghiggi 2010541; Nunes et al. 2016542).

Some disaster risk management approaches can have impacts on reducing desertification, like the Global Drought Early Warning System (GDEWS) (currently in development), which will monitor precipitation, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, river flows, groundwater, agricultural productivity and natural ecosystem health. It may have some potential co-benefits to reduce desertification (Pozzi et al. 2013543). However, there are no figures yet for how much land area will be covered by such early warning systems.

Risk-sharing instruments, such as pooling labour or credit, could help communities invest in anti-desertification actions, but evidence is missing. Commercial crop insurance is likely to deliver no co-benefits for prevention and reversal of desertification, as evidence suggests that subsidised insurance, in particular, can increase crop production in marginal lands. Crop insurance could have been responsible for shifting up to 0.9% of rangelands to cropland in the Upper Midwest of the USA (Claassen et al. 2011a544).

Table 6.36 summarises the impact on desertification for options based on risk management, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.36

Effects on desertification of response options based on risk management.

6.3.4

Potential of the integrated response options for addressing land degradation

In this section, the impacts of integrated response options on land degradation are assessed.

6.3.4.1

Integrated response options based on land management

In this section, the impacts on land degradation of integrated response options based on land management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture

Burney et al. (2010)545 estimated that an additional global cropland area of 11.11–15.14 Mkm2 would have been needed if productivity had not increased between 1961 and 2000. As for desertification, given that agricultural expansion is a main driver of land degradation (FAO and ITPS 2015546), increased food productivity has prevented up to 11.11–15.14 Mkm2 from exploitation and land degradation (Table 6.37).

Land degradation can be addressed by the implementation of improved cropland, livestock and grazing land management practices, such as those outlined in the recently published Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management (FAO 2017b547). Each one could potentially affect extensive surfaces, not less than 10 Mkm2.

The guidelines include a list of practices aimed at minimising soil erosion, enhancing soil organic matter content, fostering soil nutrient balance and cycles, preventing, minimising and mitigating soil salinisation and alkalinisation, soil contamination, soil acidification, soil sealing, soil compaction, and improving soil water management. Land cover and land cover change are key factors and indicators of land degradation. In many drylands, land cover is threatened by overgrazing, so management of stocking rate and grazing can help to prevent the advance of land degradation (Smith et al. 2016a548).

Agroforestry can help stabilise soils to prevent land degradation; so, given that there is around 10 Mkm2 of land with more than 10% tree cover (Garrity 2012549), agroforestry could benefit up to 10 Mkm2 of land.

Agricultural diversification usually aims at increasing climate and food security resilience, such as under ‘climate smart agriculture’ approaches (Lipper et al. 2014550). Both objectives are closely related to land degradation prevention, potentially affecting 1–5 Mkm2.

Shifting from grassland to tilled crops increases erosion and soil loss, so there are significant benefits for addressing land degradation, by stabilising degraded soils (Chapter 3). Since cropland expansion during 1985 to 2005 was 17,400 km2 yr–1 (Foley et al. 2011551) – and not all of this expansion will be from grasslands or degraded land – the maximum contribution of prevention of conversion of grasslands to croplands is 17,400 km2 yr-1 , a small global benefit for control of land degradation (Table 6.37).

Most land degradation processes that are sensitive to climate change pressures (e.g., erosion, decline in soil organic matter, salinisation, waterlogging, drying of wet ecosystems) can benefit from integrated water management. Integrated water management options include management to reduce aquifer and surface water depletion, and to prevent over-extraction, and provide direct co-benefits for prevention of land degradation. Land management practices implemented for climate change mitigation may also affect water resources. Globally, water erosion is estimated to result in the loss of 23–42 MtN and 14.6–26.4 MtP annually (Pierzynski et al. 2017552). Forests influence the storage and flow of water in watersheds (Eisenbies et al. 2007553) and are therefore important for regulating how climate change will impact on landscapes.

Table 6.37 summarises the impact on land degradation of options in agriculture, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.37

Effects on land degradation of response options in agriculture.

Integrated response options based on land management in forestry

Based on the extent of forest exposed to degradation (Gibbs and Salmon 2015554), the estimated global potential effect for reducing land degradation, for example, through reduced soil erosion (Borrelli et al. 2017555), is large for both forest management and for reduced deforestation and forest degradation when cumulated for at least 20 years (Table 6.38). The uncertainty of these global estimates is high. More robust qualitative, and some quantitative, estimates are available at regional level. For example, in Indonesia, Santika et al. (2017)556 demonstrated that reduced deforestation (Sumatra and Kalimantan islands) contributed to significantly reduced land degradation.

Forest restoration is a key option to achieve the overarching frameworks to reduce land degradation at global scale, such as, for example, Zero Net Land Degradation (ZNLD; UNCCD 2012557) and Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN), not only in drylands (Safriel 2017558). Indeed, it has been estimated that more than 20 Mkm2 are suitable for forest and landscape restoration, of which 15 Mkm2 may be devoted to mixed plant mosaic restoration (UNCCD 2012559). Moreover, the Bonn Challenge6 aims to restore 1.5 Mkm2 of deforested and degraded land by 2020, and 3.5 Mkm2 by 2030. Under a restoration and protection scenario (implementing restoration targets), Wolff et al. (2018)560 simulated that there will be a global increase in net tree cover of about 4 Mkm2 by 2050 (Table 6.38). At local level, Brazil’s Atlantic Restoration Pact aims to restore 0.15 Mkm2 of forest areas in 40 years (Melo et al. 2013561). The Y Ikatu Xingu campaign (launched in 2004) aims to contain deforestation and forest degradation processes by reversing the liability of 3000 km2 in the Xingu Basin, Brazil (Durigan et al. 2013562).

Afforestation and reforestation are land management options frequently used to address land degradation (see Section 6.3.3.1 for details, and Table 6.38).

Table 6.38 summarises the impact on land degradation of options in forestry, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.38

Effects on land degradation of response options in forestry.

Integrated response options based on land management of soils

Increasing soil organic matter content is a measure to address land

degradation. With around 120,000 km2 lost to degradation every year, and over 3.2 billion people negatively impacted on by land degradation globally (IPBES 2018563), practices designed to increase soil organic carbon have a large potential to address land degradation, estimated to affect more than 11 Mkm2 globally (Lal 2004564) (Table 6.39).

Control of soil erosion could have large benefits for addressing land degradation. Soil erosion control could benefit up to 1.50 Mkm2 of land to 2050 (IPBES 2018565). Lal (2004)1271 suggested that interventions to prevent wind and water erosion (two of the four main interventions proposed to address land degradation), could restore 11 Mkm2 of degraded and desertified soils globally (Table 6.39).

Oldeman et al. (1991)566 estimated that the global extent soil affected by salinisation is 0.77 Mkm2 yr-1, which sets the upper limit on the area that could benefit from measures to address soil salinisation (Table 6.39). The global extent of chemical soil degradation (salinisation, pollution and acidification) is about 1.03 Mkm2 (Oldeman et al. 1991) giving the maximum extent of land that could benefit from the management of pollution and acidification.

Biochar could provide moderate benefits for the prevention or reversal of land degradation, by improving water-holding capacity and nutrient- use efficiency, managing heavy metal pollution, and other co-benefits (Sohi 2012567), though the global effects are not quantified.

Table 6.39 summarises the impact on land degradation of soil-based options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.39

Effects on land degradation of soil-based response options.

Integrated response options based on land management across all/other ecosystems

For fire management, details of estimates of the impact of wildfires (and thereby the potential impact of their suppression) are given in Section 6.3.3.1 (Table 6.40).

Management of landslides and natural hazards aims at controlling a severe land degradation process affecting sloped and hilly areas, many of them with poor rural inhabitants (FAO and ITPS 2015568; Gariano and Guzzetti 2016569), but the global potential has not been quantified.

There are no global data on the impacts of management of invasive species/encroachment on land degradation, though the impact is presumed to be positive.

Since large areas of coastal wetlands are degraded, restoration could potentially deliver moderate benefits for addressing land degradation, with 0.29 Mkm2 globally considered feasible for restoration (Griscom et al. 20171272) (Table 6.40).

Table 6.39 summarises the impact on land degradation of soil-based options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Considering that large areas (0.46 Mkm2) of global peatlands are degraded and considered suitable for restoration (Griscom et al. 2017570), peatland restoration could deliver moderate benefits for addressing land degradation (Table 6.40).

There are no global estimates of the effects of biodiversity conservation on reducing degraded lands. However, at local scale, biodiversity conservation programmes have been demonstrated to stimulate gain of forest cover across large areas over the last three decades (e.g., in China; Zhang et al. 2013571). Management of wild animals can influence land degradation processes by grazing, trampling and compacting soil surfaces, thereby altering surface temperatures and chemical reactions affecting sediment and carbon retention (Cromsigt et al. 2018572).

Table 6.40 summarises the impact on land degradation of options in all/other ecosystems, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.40

Effects on land degradation of response options in all/other ecosystems.

Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

While spreading of crushed minerals onto land as part of enhanced weathering can provide soil/plant nutrients in nutrient-depleted soils, increase soil organic carbon stocks and help to replenish eroded soil (Beerling et al. 2018573), there is no literature on the global potential for addressing land degradation.

Large-scale production of bioenergy can require significant amounts of land (Smith et al. 2016a574; Clarke et al. 2014575; Popp et al. 2017576) – as much as 15 Mkm2 in 2°C scenarios (Popp et al. 2017577) – therefore increasing pressures for land conversion and land degradation (Table 6.13). However, bioenergy production can either increase (Robertson et al. 2017b578; Mello et al. 2014579) or decrease (FAO 2011b580; Lal 2014581) soil organic matter, depending on where it is produced and how it is managed. These effects are not included in the quantification in Table 6.41.

Table 6.41 summarises the impact on land degradation of options thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative specifically for CDR, with confidence estimates based on the (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.41

Effects on land degradation of response options specifically for CDR.

6.3.4.2

Integrated response options based on value chain management

In this section, the impacts on land degradation of integrated response options based on value chain management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management

Dietary change and waste reduction both result in decreased cropland and pasture extent (Bajželj et al. 2014a582; Stehfest et al. 2009583; Tilman and Clark 2014)584, reducing the pressure for land degradation (Table 6.15). Reduced post-harvest losses could spare 1.98 Mkm2 of cropland globally (Kummu et al. 2012585) meaning that land degradation pressure could be relieved from this land area through reduction of post-harvest losses. The effects of material substitution on land degradation depend on management practice; some forms of logging can lead to increased land degradation (Chapter 4).

Table 6.42 summarises the impact on land degradation of demand management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.42

Effects on land degradation of response options based on demand management.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management

There are no global estimates of the impact on land degradation of enhanced urban food systems, improved food processing, retailing, or improved energy use in food systems.

There is evidence that sustainable sourcing could reduce land degradation, as the explicit goal of sustainable certification programmes is often to reduce deforestation or other unsustainable land uses. Over 4 Mkm2 of forests are certified for sustainable harvesting (PEFC and FSC 2018586), although it is not clear if all these lands would be at risk of degradation without certification. While the food price instability of 2007/2008 increased financial investment in crop expansion (especially through so-called land grabbing), and thus better management of supply chains might have reduced this amount, no quantification of the total amount of land acquired, nor the possible impact of this crop expansion on degradation, has been recorded (McMichael and Schneider 2011587; McMichael 2012588).

Table 6.43 summarises the impact on land degradation of supply management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.43

Effects on land degradation of response options based on supply management.

6.3.4.3

Integrated response options based on risk management

In this section, the impacts on land degradation of integrated response options based on risk management are assessed.

Urban expansion has been identified as a major culprit in soil degradation in some countries; for example, urban expansion in China has now affected 0.2 Mkm2, or almost one-sixth of the cultivated land

total, causing an annual grain yield loss of up to 10 Mt, or around 5–6% of cropland production. Cropland production losses of 8–10% by 2030 are expected under model scenarios of urban expansion (Bren d’Amour et al. 2016589). Pollution from urban development has included water and soil pollution from industry, and wastes and sewage, as well as acid deposition from increasing energy use in cities (Chen 2007)590, all resulting in major losses to Nature’s Contributions to People from urban conversion (Song and Deng 2015591). Soil sealing from urban expansion is a major loss of soil productivity across many areas. The World Bank has estimated that new city dwellers in developing countries will require 160–500 m2 per capita, converted from non-urban to urban land (Barbero-Sierra et al. 2013592; Angel et al. 2005593).

Degradation can be a driver leading to livelihood diversification (Batterbury 2001594; Lestrelin and Giordano 2007595). Diversification has the potential to deliver some reversal of land degradation, if diversification involves adding non-traditional crops or trees that may reduce the need for tillage (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2014596). China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program has had livelihood diversification benefits and is said to have prevented degradation of 93,000 km2 of land (Liu et al. 2015597). However, Warren (2002)598 provides conflicting evidence that more diverse-income households had increased degradation on their lands in Niger. Palacios et al. (2013) associate landscape fragmentation with increased livelihood diversification in Mexico.

Use of local seeds may play a role in addressing land degradation due to the likelihood of local seeds being less dependent on inputs such as chemical fertilisers or mechanical tillage; for example, in India, local legumes are retained in seed networks while commercial crops like sorghum and rice dominate food markets (Reisman 2017599). However, there are no global figures.

Disaster Risk Management systems can have some positive impacts on prevention and reversal of land degradation, such as the Global Drought Early Warning System (Pozzi et al. 2013600) (Section 6.3.3.3).

Risk-sharing instruments could have benefits for reduced degradation, but there are no global estimates. Commercial crop insurance is likely to deliver no co-benefits for prevention and reversal of degradation. One study found a 1% increase in farm receipts generated from subsidised farm programmes (including crop insurance and others) increased soil erosion by 0.3 t ha–1 (Goodwin and Smith 2003601). Wright and Wimberly (2013)602 found a 5310 km2 decline in grasslands in the Upper Midwest of the USA during 2006–2010, due to crop conversion driven by higher prices and access to insurance.

Table 6.44 summarises the impact on land degradation of risk management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.44

Effects on land degradation of response options based on risk management.

6.3.5

Potential of the integrated response options for addressing food security

In this section, the impacts of integrated response options on food security are assessed.

6.3.5.1

Integrated response options based on land management

In this section, the impacts on food security of integrated response options based on land management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on land management in agriculture

Increased food productivity has fed many millions of people who would otherwise not have been fed. Erisman et al. (2008)603 estimated that more than 3 billion people worldwide could not have been fed without 6 increased food productivity arising from nitrogen fertilisation (Table 6.45).

Improved cropland management to achieve food security aims at closing yield gaps by increasing use efficiency of essential inputs such as water and nutrients. Large production increases (45–70% for most crops) are possible from closing yield gaps to 100% of attainable yield, by increasing fertiliser use and irrigation, but overuse of nutrients could cause adverse environmental impacts (Mueller et al. 2012604). This improvement can impact on 1000 million people.

Improved grazing land management includes grasslands, rangelands and shrublands, and all sites on which pastoralism is practiced. In general terms, continuous grazing may cause severe damage to topsoil quality, for example, through compaction. This damage may be reversed by short grazing-exclusion periods under rotational grazing systems (Greenwood and McKenzie 2001605; Drewry 2006606; Taboada et al. 2011607). Due to the widespread diffusion of pastoralism, improved grassland management may potentially affect more than 1000 million people, many of them under subsistence agricultural systems.

Meat, milk, eggs and other animal products, including fish and other seafoods, will play an important role in achieving food security (Reynolds et al. 2015608). Improved livestock management with different animal types and feeds may also impact on one million people (Herrero et al. 2016609). Ruminants are efficient converters of grass into human-edible energy, and protein and grassland-based food production can produce food with a comparable carbon footprint to mixed systems (O’Mara 2012610). However, in the future, livestock production will increasingly be affected by competition for natural resources, particularly land and water, competition between food and feed, and by the need to operate in a carbon-constrained economy (Thornton et al. 2009611).

Currently, more than 1.3 billion people are on degrading agricultural land, and the combined impacts of climate change and land degradation could reduce global food production by 10% by 2050. Since agroforestry could help to address land degradation, up to 1.3 billion people could benefit in terms of food security through agroforestry.

Agricultural diversification is not always economically viable; technological, biophysical, educational and cultural barriers may emerge that limit the adoption of more diverse farming systems by farmers (Section 6.4.1). Nevertheless, diversification could benefit 1000 million people, many of them under subsistence agricultural systems (Birthal et al. 2015612; Massawe et al. 2016613; Waha et al. 2018614).

Cropland expansion during 1985 to 2005 was 17,000 km2 yr–1 (Foley et al. 2005615). Given that cropland productivity (global average of 250 kg protein ha–1 yr–1 for wheat; Clark and Tilman 2017616) is greater than that of grassland (global average of about 10 kg protein ha–1 yr–1 for beef/mutton; Clark and Tilman 2017617), prevention of this conversion to cropland would have led to a loss of about 0.4 Mt protein yr–1 globally. Given an average protein consumption in developing countries of 25.5 kg protein yr–1 (equivalent to 70 g person–1 day–1; FAO 2018b618; OECD and FAO 2018619), this is equivalent to the protein consumption of 16.4 million people each year (Table 6.45).

Integrated water management provides direct benefits to food security by improving agricultural productivity (Chapter 5; Godfray and Garnett 2014620; Tilman et al. 2011621), thereby potentially impacting on the livelihood and well-being of more than 1000 million people (Campbell et al. 2016622) affected by hunger and highly impacted on by climate change. Increasing water availability and reliable supply of water for agricultural production using different techniques of water harvesting, storage, and its judicious utilisation through farm ponds, dams and community tanks in rainfed agriculture areas have been presented by Rao et al. (2017a) and Rivera-Ferre et al. (2016)623.

Table 6.45 summarises the impact on food security of options in agriculture, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.45

Effects on food security of response options in agriculture.

Integrated response options based on land management in forestry

Forests play a major role in providing food to local communities (non-timber forest products, mushrooms, fodder, fruits, berries, etc.), and diversify daily diets directly or indirectly through improving productivity, hunting, diversifying tree-cropland-livestock systems, and grazing in forests. Based on the extent of forest contributing to food supply, considering the people undernourished (FAO et al. 2013624; Rowland et al. 2017625), and the annual deforestation rate (Keenan et al. 2015626), the global potential to enhance food security is moderate for forest management and small for reduced deforestation (Table 6.46). The uncertainty of these global estimates is high. More robust qualitative, and some quantitative, estimates are available at regional level. For example, managed natural forests, shifting cultivation and agroforestry systems are demonstrated to be crucial to food security and nutrition for hundreds of millions of people in rural landscapes worldwide (Sunderland et al. 2013627; Vira et al. 2015628). According to Erb et al. (2016)629, deforestation would not be needed to feed the global population by 2050, in terms of quantity and quality of food. At local level, Cerri et al. (2018)630 suggested that reduced deforestation, along with integrated cropland-livestock management, would positively impact on more than 120 million people in the Cerrado, Brazil. In Sub-Saharan Africa, where population and food demand are projected to continue to rise substantially, reduced deforestation may have strong positive effects on food security (Doelman et al. 2018631).

Afforestation and reforestation negatively impact on food security (Boysen et al. 2017a; Frank et al. 2017632; Kreidenweis et al. 2016633). It is estimated that large-scale afforestation plans could cause increases in food prices of 80% by 2050 (Kreidenweis et al. 2016634), and more general mitigation measures in the agriculture, forestry and other land-use (AFOLU) sector can translate into a rise in undernourishment of 80–300 million people (Frank et al. 2017635) (Table 6.16). For reforestation, the potential adverse side effects with food security are smaller than afforestation, because forest regrows on recently deforested areas, and its impact would be felt mainly through impeding possible expansion of agricultural areas. On a smaller scale, forested land also offers benefits in terms of food supply, especially when forest is established on degraded land, mangroves and other land that cannot be used for agriculture. For example, food from forests represents a safety net during times of food and income insecurity (Wunder et al. 2014636) and wild harvested meat and freshwater fish provides 30–80% of protein intake for many rural communities (McIntyre et al. 2016637; Nasi et al. 2011638).

Table 6.46 summarises the impact on food security of options in forestry, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.46

Effects on food security of response options in forestry.

Integrated response options based on land management of soils

Increasing soil organic matter stocks can increase yield and improve yield stability (Lal 2006639; Pan et al. 2009640; Soussana et al. 2019641), though this is not universally seen (Hijbeek et al. 2017642), Lal (2006)643 concludes that crop yields can be increased by 20–70 kg ha–1 , 10–50 kg ha–1 and 30–300 kg ha–1 for wheat, rice and maize, respectively, for every 1 tC ha–1 increase in soil organic carbon in the root zone. Increasing soil organic carbon by 1 tC ha–1 could increase food grain production in developing countries by 32 Mt yr–1 (Lal 2006). Frank et al. (2017) estimate that soil carbon sequestration could reduce calorie loss associated with agricultural mitigation measures by 65%, saving 60–225 million people from undernourishment compared to a baseline without soil carbon sequestration (Table 6.47).

Lal (1998) estimated the risks of global annual loss of food production due to accelerated erosion to be as high as 190 Mt yr–1 of cereals, 6 Mt yr–1 of soybean, 3 Mt yr–1 of pulses and 73 Mt yr–1 of roots and tubers. Considering only cereals, if we estimate per-capita annual grain consumption in developing countries to be 300 kg yr–1 (based on data included in FAO 2018b644; FAO et al. 2018; Pradhan et al. 2013645; World Bank 2018a646), the loss of 190 Mt yr–1 of cereals is equivalent to that consumed by 633 million people, annually (Table 6.47).

Though there are biophysical barriers, such as access to appropriate water sources and limited productivity of salt-tolerant crops, prevention/reversal of soil salinisation could benefit 1–100 million people (Qadir et al. 2013647). Soil compaction affects crop yields, so prevention of compaction could also benefit an estimated 1–100 million people globally (Anderson and Peters 2016648).

Biochar on balance, could provide moderate benefits for food security by improving yields by 25% in the tropics, but with more limited impacts in temperate regions (Jeffery et al. 2017649), or through improved water-holding capacity and nutrient-use efficiency (Sohi 2012650) (Chapter 5). These benefits could, however, be tempered by additional pressure on land if large quantities of biomass are required as feedstock for biochar production, thereby causing potential conflicts with food security (Smith 2016651). Smith (2016)652 estimated that 0.4–2.6 Mkm2 of land would be required for biomass feedstock to deliver 2.57 GtCO2e yr–1 of CO2 removal. If biomass production occupied 2.6 Mkm2 of cropland, equivalent to around 20% of the global cropland area, this could potentially have a large effect on food security, although Woolf et al. (2010)653 argue that abandoned cropland could be used to supply biomass for biochar, thus avoiding competition with food production. Similarly, Woods et al. (2015) estimate that 5–9 Mkm2 of land is available for biomass production without compromising food security and biodiversity, considering marginal and degraded land and land released by pasture intensification (Table 6.47).

Table 6.47 summarises the impact on food security of soil-based options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.47

Effects on food security of soil-based response options.

Integrated response options based on land management across all/other ecosystems

FAO (2015)654 calculated that damage from forest fires between 2003 and 2013 impacted on a total of 49,000 km2 of crops, with the vast majority in Latin America. Based on the world cereal yield in 2013 reported by Word Bank (2018b) (3.8 t ha–1), the loss of 49,000 km2 of crops is equivalent to 18.6 Mt yr–1 of cereals lost. Assuming annual grain consumption per capita to be 300 kg yr–1 (estimated, based on data included in FAO 2018b; FAO et al. 2018; Pradhan et al. 2013655; World Bank 2018a656), the loss of 18.6 Mt yr–1 would remove cereal crops equivalent to that consumed by 62 million people (Table 6.48).

Landslides and other natural hazards affect 1–100 million people globally, so preventing them could provide food security benefits to these people.

In terms of measures to tackle pollution, including acidification, Shindell et al. (2012)657 considered about 400 emission control measures to reduce ozone and black carbon (BC). This strategy increases annual crop yields by 30–135 Mt due to ozone reductions in 2030 and beyond. If annual grain consumption per capita is assumed as 300 kg yr–1 (estimated based on data included in FAO 2018b658; FAO et al. 2018; Pradhan et al. 2013659; World Bank 2018a660), increase in annual crop yields by 30–135 Mt would feed 100–450 million people.

There are no global data on the impacts of management of invasive species/encroachment on food security.

Since large areas of converted coastal wetlands are used for food production (e.g., mangroves converted for aquaculture; Naylor et al. 2000661), restoration of coastal wetlands could displace food production and damage local food supply, potentially leading to adverse impacts on food security. However, these effects are likely to be very small, given that only 0.3% of human food comes from the oceans and other aquatic ecosystems (Pimentel 2006662), and that the impacts could be offset by careful management, such as the careful siting of ponds within mangroves (Naylor et al. 2000663) (Table 6.46).

Around 14–20% (0.56–0.80 Mkm2) of the global 4 Mkm2 of peatlands are used for agriculture, mostly for meadows and pasture, meaning that, if all of these peatlands were removed from production, 0.56–0.80 Mkm2 of agricultural land would be lost. Assuming livestock production on this land (since it is mostly meadow and pasture) with a mean productivity of 9.8 kg protein ha–1 yr–1 (calculated from land footprint of beef/mutton (Clark and Tilman 2017), and average protein consumption in developing countries of 25.5 kg protein yr–1 (equivalent to 70 g per person per day; (FAO 2018b; OECD and FAO 2018664)), this would be equivalent to 21–31 million people no longer fed from this land (Table 6.46)).

There are no global estimates on how biodiversity conservation improves nutrition (i.e., the number of nourished people). Biodiversity, and its management, is crucial for improving sustainable and diversified diets (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2016665). Indirectly, the loss of pollinators (due to combined causes, including the loss of habitats and flowering species) would contribute to 1.42 million additional deaths per year from non- communicable and malnutrition-related diseases, and 27.0 million lost disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per year (Smith et al. 2015666). However, at the same time, some options to preserve biodiversity, like protected areas, may potentially conflict with food production by local communities (Molotoks et al. 2017667).

Table 6.48 summarises the impact on food security of response options in all/other ecosystems, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence is based.

Table 6.48

Effects on food security of response options in all/other ecosystems.

Integrated response options based on land management specifically for CDR

The spreading of crushed minerals on land as part of enhanced weathering on nutrient-depleted soils can potentially increase crop yield by replenishing plant available silicon, potassium and other plant nutrients (Beerling et al. 2018668), but there are no estimates in the literature reporting the potential magnitude of this effect on global food production.

Competition for land between bioenergy and food crops can lead to adverse side effects for food security. Many studies indicate that bioenergy could increase food prices (Calvin et al. 2014669; Popp et al. 2017670; Wise et al. 2009671). Only three studies were found linking bioenergy to the population at risk of hunger; they estimate an increase in the population at risk of hunger of between 2 million and 150 million people (Table 6.49).

Table 6.49 summarises the impact on food security of response options specifically for CDR, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.49

Effects on food security of response options specifically for CDR.

6.3.5.2

Integrated response options based on value chain management

In this section, the impacts on food security of integrated response options based on value chain management are assessed.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through demand management

Dietary change can free up agricultural land for additional production (Bajželj et al. 2014a672; Stehfest et al. 2009673; Tilman and Clark 2014674) and reduce the risk of some diseases (Tilman and Clark 2014675; Aleksandrowicz et al. 2016676), with large positive impacts on food security (Table 6.50).

Kummu et al. (2012)1273 estimate that an additional billion people could be fed if food waste was halved globally. This includes both post- harvest losses and retail and consumer waste. Measures such as improved food transport and distribution could also contribute to this waste reduction (Table 6.50).

While no studies quantified the effect of material substitution on food security, the effects are expected to be similar to reforestation and afforestation if the amount of material substitution leads to an increase in forest area.

Table 6.50 summarises the impact on food security of demand management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.50

Effects on food security of demand management options.

Integrated response options based on value chain management through supply management

Since 810 million people are undernourished (FAO 2018b677), this sets the maximum number of those who could potentially benefit from sustainable sourcing or better management of supply chains. Currently, however, only 1 million people are estimated to benefit from sustainable sourcing (Tayleur et al. 2017678). For the others, food price spikes affect food security and health; there are clearly documented effects of stunting among young children as a result of the 2007/2008 food supply crisis (de Brauw 2011679; Arndt et al. 2016680; Brinkman et al. 2009681; Darnton-Hill and Cogill 2010682) with a 10% increase in wasting attributed to the crisis in South Asia (Vellakkal et al. 2015683). There is conflicting evidence on the impacts of different food price stability options for supply chains, and little quantification (Byerlee et al. 2006684; del Ninno et al. 2007685; Alderman 2010686; Braun et al. 2014687). Reduction in staple food prices due to price stabilisation resulted in more expenditure on other foods and increased nutrition (e.g., oils, animal products), leading to a 10% reduction in malnutrition among children in one study (Torlesse et al. 2003688). Comparison of two African countries shows that protectionist policies (food price controls) and safety nets to reduce price instability resulted in a 20% decrease in risk of malnutrition (Nandy et al. 2016689). Models using policies for food aid and domestic food reserves to achieve food supply and price stability showed the most effectiveness of all options in achieving climate mitigation and food security goals (e.g., more effective than carbon taxes) as they did not exacerbate food insecurity and did not reduce ambitions for achieving temperature goals (Fujimori et al. 2019690).

For urban food systems, increased food production in cities, combined with governance systems for distribution and access can improve food security, with a potential to produce 30% of food consumed in cities. The urban population in 2018 was 4.2 billion people, so 30% represents 1230 million people who could benefit in terms of food security from improved urban food systems (Table 6.51).

It is estimated that 500 million smallholder farmers depend on agricultural businesses in developing countries (World Bank 2017691), which sets the maximum number of people who could benefit from improved efficiency and sustainability of food processing, retail and agri-food industries.

Up to 2500 million people could benefit from increased energy efficiency in agriculture, based on the estimated number of people worldwide lacking access to clean energy and instead relying on biomass fuels for their household energy needs (IEA 2014692).

Table 6.51 summarises the impact on food security of supply management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.51

Effects on food security of supply management options.

6.3.5.3

Integrated response options based on risk management

In this section, the impacts on food security of integrated response options based on risk management are assessed.

Evidence in the USA indicates ambiguous trends between sprawl and food security: on the one hand, most urban expansion in the USA has primarily been on lands of low and moderate soil productivity with only 6% of total urban land on highly productive soil; on the other hand, highly productive soils have experienced the highest rate of conversion of any soil type (Nizeyimana et al. 2001693). Specific types of agriculture are often practiced in urban-influenced fringes, such as fruits, vegetables, and poultry and eggs in the USA, the loss of which can have an impact on the types of nutritious foods available in urban areas (Francis et al. 2012694). China is also concerned with food security implications of urban sprawl, and a loss of 30 Mt of grain production from 1998 to 2003 in eastern China was attributed to urbanisation (Chen 2007695). However, overall global quantification has not been attempted.

Diversification is associated with increased welfare and incomes and decreased levels of poverty in several country studies (Arslan et al. 2018696; Asfaw et al. 2018697). These are likely to have large food security benefits (Barrett et al. 2001698; Niehof 2004699), but there is little global quantification.

Local seed use can provide considerable benefits for food security because of the increased ability of farmers to revive and strengthen local food systems (McMichael and Schneider 2011700); studies have reported more diverse and healthy food in areas with strong food sovereignty networks (Coomes et al. 2015701; Bisht et al. 2018702). Women, in particular, may benefit from seed banks for low-value but nutritious crops (Patnaik et al. 2017703). Many hundreds of millions of smallholders still rely on local seeds and they provide for many hundreds of millions of consumers (Altieri et al. 2012704; McGuire and Sperling 2016705). Therefore, keeping their ability to do so through seed sovereignty is important. However, there may be lower food yields from local and unimproved seeds, so the overall impact of local seed use on food security is ambiguous (McGuire and Sperling 2016706).

Disaster risk management approaches can have important impacts on reducing food insecurity, and current warning systems for drought and storms currently reach over 100 million people. When these early warning systems can help farmers harvest crops in advance of impending weather events, or otherwise make agricultural decisions to prepare for adverse events, there are likely to be positive impacts on food security (Fakhruddin et al. 2015707). Surveys with farmers reporting food insecurity from climate impacts have indicated their strong interest in having such early warning systems (Shisanya and Mafongoya 2016708). Additionally, famine early warning systems have been successful in Sahelian Africa to alert authorities of impending food shortages so that food acquisition and transportation from outside the region can begin, potentially helping millions of people (Genesio et al. 2011709; Hillbruner and Moloney 2012710).

Risk-sharing instruments are often aimed at sharing food supplies and reducing risk, and thus are likely to have important, but unquantified, benefits for food security. Crop insurance, in particular, has generally led to (modest) expansions in cultivated land area and increased food production (Claassen et al. 2011a711; Goodwin et al. 2004712).

Table 6.52 summarises the impact on food security of risk management options, with confidence estimates based on the thresholds outlined in Table 6.53 in Section 6.3.6, and indicative (not exhaustive) references upon which the evidence in based.

Table 6.52

Effects on food security of risk management options.

6.3.6

Summarising the potential of the integrated response options across mitigation, adaptation, desertification land degradation and food security

Using the quantification provided in Tables 6.13 to 6.52, the impacts are categorised as either positive or negative, and are designated as large, moderate and small, according to the criteria given in Table 6.53.7

Table 6.53

Key for criteria used to define the magnitude of the impact of each integrated response option.

Tables 6.54 to 6.61 summarise the potentials of the integrated response options across mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security. Cell colours correspond to the large, moderate and small impact categories shown in Table 6.53.

As seen in Tables 6.54 to 6.61, three response options across the 14 for which there are data for every land challenge: increased food productivity, agroforestry and increased soil organic carbon content, deliver large benefits across all five land challenges.

A further six response options: improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, fire management and reduced post-harvest losses, deliver either large or moderate benefits for all land challenges.

Three additional response options: dietary change, reduced food waste and reduced soil salinisation, each missing data to assess global potential for just one of the land challenges, deliver large or moderate benefits to the four challenges for which there are global data.

Eight response options: increased food productivity, reforestation and forest restoration, afforestation, increased soil organic carbon content, enhanced mineral weathering, dietary change, reduced post-harvest losses, and reduced food waste, have large mitigation potential (>3 GtCO2e yr–1) without adverse impacts on other challenges.

Sixteen response options: increased food productivity, improved cropland management, agroforestry, agricultural diversification, forest management, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced landslides and natural hazards, restoration and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, management of supply chains, improved food processing and retailing, improved energy use in food systems, livelihood diversification, use of local seeds, and disaster risk management, have large adaptation potential at global scale (positively affecting more than 25 million people) without adverse side effects for other challenges.

Thirty-three of the 40 response options can be applied without requiring land-use change and limiting available land. A large number of response options do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options, in particular, could greatly increase competition for land if applied at scale: afforestation, reforestation, and land used to provide feedstock for bioenergy (with or without BECCS) and biochar, with three further options: reduced grassland conversion to croplands, restoration and reduced conversion of peatlands, and restoration and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands having smaller or variable impacts on competition for land. Other options such as reduced deforestation and forest degradation, restrict land conversion for other options and uses.

Some response options can be more effective when applied together – for example, dietary change and waste reduction expand the potential to apply other options by freeing as much as 25 Mkm2 (4–25 Mkm2 for dietary change; Alexander et al. 2016718; Bajželj et al. 2014b719; Stehfest et al. 2009720; Tilman and Clark 2014721 and 7 Mkm2 for reduced food waste; Bajželj et al. 2014b722).

In terms of the categories of response options, most agricultural land management response options (all except for reduced grassland conversion to cropland which potentially adversely affects food security), deliver benefits across the five land challenges (Table 6.54). Among the forest land management options, afforestation and reforestation have the potential to deliver large co-benefits across all land challenges except for food security, where these options provide a threat due to competition for land (Table6.55). Among the soil-based response options, some global data are missing, but none except biochar shows any potential for negative impacts, with that potential negative impact arising from additional pressure on land if large quantities of biomass feedstock are required for biochar production (Table 6.56). Where global data exists, most response options in other/all ecosystems deliver benefits, except for a potential moderate negative impact on food security by restoring peatlands currently used for agriculture (Table 6.57). Of the two response options specifically targeted at CDR, there are missing data for enhanced weathering of minerals for three of the challenges, but large-scale bioenergy and BECCS show a potential large benefit for mitigation, but small to large adverse impacts on the other four land challenges (Table 6.58), mainly driven by increased pressure on land due to feedstock demand.

While data allow the impact of material substitution to be assessed only for mitigation, the three other demand-side response options: dietary change, reduced post-harvest losses, and reduced food waste provide large or moderate benefits across all challenges for which data exist (Table 6.59). Data is not available for any of the supply- side response options to assess the impact on more than three of the land challenges, but there are large to moderate benefits for all those for which data are available (Table 6.60). Data are not available to assess the impact of risk-management-based response options on all of the challenges, but there are small to large benefits for all of those for which data are available (Table 6.61).

Table 6.54

Summary of direction and size of impact of land management options in agriculture on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.

Table 6.55

Summary of direction and size of impact of land management options in forests on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.

Table 6.56

Summary of direction and size of impact of soil-based land management options on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.

Table 6.57

Summary of direction and size of impact of land management in all/other ecosystems on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.

Table 6.58

Summary of direction and size of impact of land management options specifically for CDR on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.

Table 6.59

Summary of direction and size of impact of demand management options on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.

Table 6.60

Summary of direction and size of impact of supply management options on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.

Table 6.61

Summary of direction and size of impact of risk management options on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.

6.4

Managing interactions and interlinkages

Having assessed the potential of each response option for contributing to addressing mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security in Section 6.3, this section assesses the feasibility of each response option with respect to cost, barriers, and issues of saturation and reversibility (Section 6.4.1), before assessing the sensitivity of the response options to future climate change (Section 6.4.2) and examining the contribution of each response option to ecosystem services (classified according to Nature’s Contribution to People (IPBES 2018), and to sustainable development (assessed against the UN SDGs) (6.4.3). Section 6.4.4 examines opportunities for implementation of integrated response options, paving the way to potential policies examined in Chapter 7, before the consequences of delayed action are assessed in Section 6.4.5.

6.4.1

Feasibility of the integrated response options with respect to costs, barriers, saturation and reversibility

For each of the response options, Tables 6.62–6.69 summarise the feasibility with respect to saturation and reversibility and cost, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers (the same barrier categories used in SR15).

Many land management options face issues of saturation and reversibility; however, these are not of concern for the value chain and risk management options. Reversibility is an issue for all options that increase terrestrial carbon stock, either through increased soil carbon or changes in land cover (e.g., reforestation, afforestation), since future changes in climate or land cover could result in reduced carbon storage (Smith 2013889). In addition, the benefits of options that improve land management (e.g., improved cropland management, improved grazing management) will cease if the practice is halted, reversing any potential benefits.

The cost of the response options varies substantially, with some options having relatively low costs (e.g., the cost of agroforestry is less than 10 USD tCO2e–1) while others have much higher costs (e.g., the cost of BECCS could be as much as 250 USD tCO2e–1). In addition to cost, other economic barriers may prevent implementation; for example, agroforestry is a low-cost option (Smith et al. 2014), but lack of reliable financial support could be a barrier (Hernandez- Morcillo et al. 2018890). Additionally, there are a number of reasons why even no-cost options are not adopted, including risk aversion, lack of information, market structure, externalities, and policies (Jaffe 2019891).

Some of the response options have technological barriers that may limit their wide-scale application in the near term. For example, BECCS has only been implemented at small-scale demonstration facilities (Kemper 2015892); challenges exist with upscaling these options to the levels discussed in this chapter.

Many response options have institutional and socio-cultural barriers. Institutional barriers include governance, financial incentives and financial resources. For example, the management of supply chains includes challenges related to political will within trade regimes, economic laissez-faire policies that discourage interventions in markets, and the difficulties of coordination across economic sectors (Poulton et al. 2006893; Cohen et al. 2009894; Gilbert 2012895). Implementation of other options, for example, BECCS, is limited by the absence of financial incentives.

Options like dietary change face socio-cultural barriers; while diets have changed in the past, they are deeply culturally embedded and behaviour change is extremely difficult to effect, even when health benefits are well known (Macdiarmid et al. 2018896). For some options, the specific barrier is dependent on the region. For example, barriers to reducing food waste in industrialised countries include inconvenience, lack of financial incentives, lack of public awareness, and low prioritisation (Kummu et al. 2012897; Graham-Rowe et al. 2014898). Barriers in developing countries include reliability of transportation networks, market reliability, education, technology, capacity, and infrastructure (Kummu et al. 2012899).

Table 6.62

Feasibility of land management response options in agriculture, considering cost, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers and saturation and reversibility. See also Appendix.

Table 6.63

Feasibility of land management response options in forests, considering cost, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers and saturation and reversibility. See also Appendix.

Table 6.64

Feasibility of land management response options for soils, considering cost, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers and saturation and reversibility. See also Appendix.

Table 6.65

Feasibility of land management response options in any/other ecosystems, considering cost, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers and saturation and reversibility. See also Appendix.

Table 6.66

Feasibility of land management response options specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), considering cost, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers and saturation and reversibility. See also Appendix.

Table 6.67

Feasibility of demand management response options, considering economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers and saturation and reversibility. See also Appendix.

Table 6.68

Feasibility of supply management response options, considering cost, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers and saturation and reversibility. See also Appendix.

Table 6.69

Feasibility of risk management response options, considering cost, technological, institutional, socio-cultural and environmental and geophysical barriers and saturation and reversibility. See also Appendix.

6.4.2

Sensitivity of the integrated response options to climate change impacts

With continued increases in warming, there are risks to the efficacy of some of the response options due to future climate change impacts, such as increased climate variability and extreme events. While many of the response options can help increase capacity to deliver adaptation benefits (Section 6.3.2), beyond certain thresholds of climate impacts they may be less effective or increasingly risky options. This requires that some response options need to anticipate these climate impacts in their implementation. We outline some of these impacts below.

Agriculture response options: Increased food productivity as a response option is highly sensitive to climate change impacts. Chapter 5 (Section 5.2.3.1) notes that global mean yields of some crops (maize and soybean) decrease with warming, while others (rice and wheat) increase with warming, up to a threshold of 3°C. Similarly, improved cropland management response options that rely on crop diversification or improved varieties may face challenges in efficacy from production declines. Improved grazing land management may continue to be feasible as a response option in the future under climate change in northern regions, but will likely become more difficult in tropical regions and Australia as temperature rises will reduce the carrying capacity of lands (Nardone et al. 2010979) (Section 5.2.3.2). Improved livestock management also faces numerous challenges, particularly related to stresses on animals from temperatures, water, and diseases; overall, livestock numbers are projected to decline 7.5–9.6% by 2050 (Rivera- Ferre et al. 2016980; Boone et al. 2018881) (Section 5.2.3.2). Pastoralists may also be less likely to implement improved measures due to other risks and vulnerabilities under climate change (Thornton et al. 2009982).

The impact of climate change on agroforestry is more difficult to model than single crops in process-based crop models, as agroforestry systems are far more complex (Luedeling et al. 2014983); thus, it is unknown how the efficacy of this response option might be impacted. Agricultural diversification has been promoted as an adaptive strategy to climate impacts, given that diversity is known to increase resiliency of agricultural and natural systems, such as in resistance to increased pests or diseases; it can also provide diversified income portfolios when some crops may become sensitive to climate events (Bradshaw et al. 2004984; Lin 2011985). Diversified farms are expected to increase in Africa by 2060 as specialised farms with single crops face challenges under climate change (Seo 2010986). However, it is not known if these options and advantages of diversification have a temperature threshold beyond which they are less effective.

Reduced grassland conversion is not likely to be affected as a response option per se since it is directed at conserving natural grassland areas, but these areas may face increased pressures for conversion if farmers experience crop failures under climate change and need to expand the cultivated area holdings to make up for losses. Lobell et al. (2013)997 have estimated the impacts of investment decisions to adapt to the effects of climate change on crop yields to 2050 and find that cropland will expand over 23% more land area (over 3 Mkm2), mostly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Integrated water management to improve water availability and reliability of water for agricultural production is likely to become more challenging in future scenarios of water declines, which are likely to be regionally uneven (Sections 2.6 and 6.4.4).

Forest response options: The availability of forest management as a response option can be impacted on by climate-induced changes, including increased diseases, pests and fires (Dale et al. 2001988; Logan et al. 2003) (Section 4.5.1.2). These impacts will affect reforestation and afforestation response options as well. Locatelli et al. (2015a) note that climate change will influence seedling establishment, tree growth and mortality, and the presence of invasive species and/or pests; these can be buffered with modified silvicultural practices, including species selection (Pawson et al. 2013990). Climate change can also alter the sink capacity for vegetation carbon sequestration, reducing the potential for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), reforestation and afforestation (Bonan 2008; Malhi et al. 2002991).

Soil management: Climate change can alter the sink capacity for soil carbon sequestration, reducing the potential for increased soil organic carbon as an option. Projected climate change can reduce soil resilience to extreme weather, pests and biological invasion, environmental pollutants and other pressures, making reduced soil erosion and reduced soil compaction as response options harder to achieve (Smith et al. 2015992). Climate change will likely increase demand for irrigation in dryland areas, which can increase risks of salinisation, diminishing the effectiveness of this response (Smith et al. 2015993). Biochar additions to soil may be affected by future climatic changes, such as rising soil temperatures, but little is known, given that most research on the subject is from laboratory and not in situ field experiments. There are also wide estimates of the stability and residence times of biochar from this literature (Gurwick et al. 2013994).

Other ecosystem management: Fire management is likely to become more challenging in a changing climate; some studies suggest an 50% increase in fire occurrence by the end of the century in circumboreal forests (Flannigan et al. 2009995). Landslide risks are related to climate through total rainfall, rainfall intensity, air temperature and the general weather system (Gariano and Guzzetti 2016996); thus reduced landslides and natural hazards as a response option will be made more difficult by increasing storms and seasonality of rainfall events projected for many areas of the world. Reduced pollution is likely less affected by climate change and can continue to be an option, despite increasing temperatures.

Conversely, some invasive species may thrive under climate change, such as moving to new areas or being less susceptible to control protocols (Hellmann et al. 20081265). Conversion of coastal wetlands will be more difficult to halt if loss of productive land elsewhere encourages development on these lands, but coastal wetlands will likely adapt to increased CO2 and higher sea levels through sediment accretion, which will also enhance their capacity to act as carbon sinks (Duarte et al. 2013998). While subarctic peatlands are at risk due to warming, these are not the main peatlands that are at risk from agricultural conversion (Tarnocai 2006999). Peatlands, such as those in the tropics, may be more vulnerable in hotter scenarios to water table alterations and fire risk (Gorham 19911000). Biodiversity conservation, such as through protected areas or corridors, may be threatened by increased land expansion under agriculture in climate change scenarios, including the newly available land in northern climates that may become agriculturally suited (Gimona et al. 20121001), lessening the effectiveness of this response option.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR): The efficacy of enhanced weathering is not likely to be affected by future climate changes. On the other hand, climate change will affect the productivity of bioenergy crops (Cronin et al. 20181002), influencing the mitigation potential of bioenergy and BECCS (Calvin et al. 20131003; Kyle et al. 20141004). There is uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the effect of climate change on bioenergy crop yields. As a result, there is uncertainty in whether climate change will increase or decrease the potential of bioenergy and BECCS.

Demand management of value chains: For most response options in demand-side management, the tools are generally not made more difficult by future climate changes. For example, dietary change is not likely to be affected by climate change; in fact, the opposite is more likely, that diets will shift in response to climate change impacts as reflected in high prices for some staple grains and meats, the productivity of which may be reduced (Tigchelaar et al. 20181005). However, there is some indication that fruit and vegetable production will also be reduced in future scenarios, making healthier diets potentially harder to achieve in some regions (Springmann et al. 20161006). Reduced post-harvest losses and reduced food waste may become an even more important option if water or heat stresses under climate change reduce overall harvests. Material substitution does have risks related to the availability of products if there are declines in the growth of forest and other biomass in certain future scenarios over time, although some evidence indicates that biomass may increase in the short term with limited warming (Boisvenue and Running 20061007).

Supply management of value chains: Sustainable sourcing relies on being able to produce consumer goods sustainably (palm oil, timber, cocoa, etc.), and these may be at risk; for example, areas suitable for oil palm production are estimated to decrease by 75% by 2100 (Paterson et al. 20171008). Improved management of supply chains is likely to increase in importance as a tool to manage food security, given that climate change threatens to lead to more production shocks in the future (Baldos and Hertel 20151009). For enhanced urban food systems, climate stresses like heat island effects or increased water scarcity in urban areas may reduce the viability of food production in certain urban systems (da Silva et al. 2012). Improved food processing and retailing and improved energy use in agriculture are not likely to be impacted on by climate change.

Risk management options: Most risk management response options are not affected by climate impacts per se, although the increased risks that people may face will increase the need for funding and support to deploy these options. For example, disaster risk management will likely increase in importance in helping people adapt to longer-term climate changes (Begum et al. 20141010); it is also likely to cost more as increased impacts of climate change, such as intensification or frequency of storm events, may increase. Management of urban sprawl may also be challenged by increased migration driven by climate change, as people displaced by climate change may move to unregulated urban areas (Adamo 20101011). Livelihood diversification can assist in adapting to climate changes and is not likely to be constrained as a response option, as climate-sensitive livelihoods may be replaced by others that are less so. Use of local seeds as an effective response option may depend on the specific types of seeds and crops used, as some may not be good choices under increased heat and water stress (Gross et al. 20171012). Risk-sharing instruments are unlikely to be affected by climate change, with the exception of index and crop insurance, which may become unaffordable if too many climate shocks result in insurance claims, decreasing the ability of the industry to provide this tool (Mills 20051013).

6.4.3

Impacts of integrated response options on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

In addition to evaluating the importance of our response options for climate mitigation, adaptation, land degradation, desertification and food security, it is also necessary to pay attention to other co-benefits and trade-offs that may be associated with these responses. How the different options impact progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be a useful shorthand for looking at the social impacts of these response options. Similarly, looking at how these response options increase or decrease the supply of ecosystem services/Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) (see Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 6) can be a useful shorthand for a more comprehensive environmental impact beyond climate and land. Such evaluations are important as response options may lead to unexpected trade-offs with social goals (or potential co-benefits) and impacts on important environmental indicators such as water or biodiversity. Similarly, there may be important synergies and co-benefits associated with some response options that may increase their cost-effectiveness or attractiveness. As we note in Section 6.4.4, many of these synergies are not automatic, and are dependent on well-implemented and coordinated activities in appropriate environmental contexts (Section 6.4.4.1), often requiring institutional and enabling conditions for success and participation of multiple stakeholders (Section 6.4.4.3).

In the following sections and tables, we evaluate each response option against 17 SDGs and 18 NCPs. Some of the SDG categories appear similar to each other, such as SDG 13 on ‘climate action’ and an NCP titled ‘climate regulation’. However, SDG 13 includes targets for both mitigation and adaptation, so options were weighed by whether they were useful for one or both. On the other hand, the NCP ‘regulation of climate’ does not include an adaptation component, and refers specifically to ‘positive or negative effects on emissions of GHGs and positive or negative effects on biophysical feedbacks from vegetation cover to atmosphere, such as those involving albedo, surface roughness, long-wave radiation, evapotranspiration (including moisture-recycling) and cloud formation or direct and indirect processes involving biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC), and regulation of aerosols and aerosol precursors by terrestrial plants and phytoplankton’ (Díaz et al. 20181266).

In all tables, colours represent the direction of impact: positive (blue) or negative (brown), and the scale of the impact (dark colours for large impact and/or strong evidence to light colours for small impact and/ or less certain evidence). Supplementary tables show the values and references used to define the colour coding used in all tables. In cases where there is no evidence of an interaction, or at least no literature on such interactions, the cell is left blank. In cases where there are both positive and negative interactions and the literature is uncertain about the overall impact, a note appears in the box. In all cases, many of these interactions are contextual, or the literature only refers to certain co-benefits in specific regions or ecosystems, so readers are urged to consult the supplementary tables for the specific caveats that may apply.

6.4.3.2

Impacts of integrated response options on the UNSDGs

Tables 6.73–6.75 summarise the impact of the integrated response options on the UN SDGs. Some of the synergies between response options and SDGs in the literature include positive poverty eradication impacts (SDG 1) from activities like improved water management or improved management of supply chains, or positive gender impacts (SDG 5) from livelihood diversification or use of local seeds. Because many land management options only produce indirect or unclear effects on SDGs, we did not include these where there was no literature. Therefore, the value chain and governance options appear to offer more direct benefits for SDG.

However, it is noted that some SDG are internally difficult to assess because they contain many targets, not all of which could be evaluated (e.g., SDG 17 is about partnerships, but has targets ranging from foreign aid to debt restructuring, technology transfer to trade openness). Additionally, it is noted that some SDG contradict one another – for example, SDG 9 to increase industrialisation and infrastructure and SDG 15 to improve life on land. More industrialisation is likely to lead to increased resource demands with negative effects on habitats. Therefore, a positive association on one SDG measure might be directly correlated with a negative measure on another, and the table needs to be read with caution for that reason. The specific caveats on each of these interactions can be found in the supplementary material tables in the Chapter 6 Appendix.

Overall, several response options have co-benefits across 10 or more SDGs with no adverse side effects on any SDG: increased food production, improved grazing land management, agroforestry, integrated water management, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, livelihood diversification and disaster risk management. Other response options may have strengths in some SDGs but require trade-offs with others. For example, use of local seeds brings many positive benefits for poverty and hunger reduction, but may reduce international trade (SDG 17). Other response options like enhanced urban food systems, management of urban sprawl, or management of supply chains are generally positive for many SDGs but may trade-off with one, like clean water (SDG 6) or decent work (SDG 8), as they may increase water use or slow economic growth. Several response options, including avoidance of grassland conversion, reduced deforestation and forest degradation, reforestation and afforestation, biochar, restoration and avoided conversion of peatlands and coastlands, have trade-offs across multiple SDGs, primarily as they prioritise land health over food production and poverty eradication. Several response options such as bioenergy and BECCS and some risk-sharing instruments, such as crop insurance, trade-off over multiple SDG with potentially significant adverse consequences.

Overall, across categories of SDG and NCPs; 17 of 40 options deliver co-benefits or no adverse side effects for the full range of NCPs and SDGs.This includes most agriculture- and soil-based land management options, many ecosystem-based land management options, forest management, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, improved energy use in food systems, and livelihood diversification. Only three options (afforestation, bioenergy and BECCS and some types of risk-sharing instruments, such as crop insurance) have potentially adverse side effects for five or more NCPs or SDGs.

Table 6.73

Impacts of integrated response options based on land management on the UN SDGs.

Table 6.74

Impacts of integrated response options based on value chain interventions on the UN SDGs.

Table 6.75

Impacts of integrated response options based on risk management on the UN SDGs.

6.4.3.1

Impacts of integrated response options on NCP

Tables 6.70–6.72 summarise the impacts of the response options on NCP supply. Examples of synergies between response options and NCP include positive impacts on habitat maintenance (NCP 1) from activities like invasive species management and agricultural diversification. For the evaluation process, we considered that NCP are about ecosystems, therefore options which may have overall positive effects, but which are not ecosystem-based are not included; for example, improved food transport and distribution could reduce ground-level ozone and thus improve air quality, but this is not an ecosystem-based NCP. Similarly, energy-efficiency measures would increase energy availability, but the ‘energy’ NCP refers specifically to biomass-based fuel provisioning. This necessarily means that the land management options have more direct NCP effects than the value chain or governance options, which are less ecosystem focused.

In evaluating NCP, we have also tried to avoid ‘indirect’ effects – that is, a response option might increase household income which could then be invested in habitat-saving actions, or dietary change would lead to conservation of natural areas, which would then lead to increased water quality. Similarly, material substitution would increase wood demand, which in turn might lead to deforestation, which might have water regulation effects. These can all be considered indirect impacts on NCP, which were not evaluated.8 Instead, the assessment focuses as much as possible on direct effects only: for example, local seeds policies preserve local landraces, which directly contribute to ‘maintenance of genetic options’ for the future. Therefore, this NCP table is a conservative estimation of NCP effects; there are likely many more secondary effects, but they are too difficult to assess, or the literature is not yet complete or conclusive.

Further, many NCPs trade-off with one another (Rodríguez et al. 20061043), so supply of one might lead to less availability of another – for example, use of ecosystems to produce bioenergy will likely lead to decreases in water availability if mono-cropped high-intensity plantations are used (Gasparatos et al. 20111044).

Overall, several response options stand out as having co-benefits across 10 or more NCP with no adverse impacts, including: improved cropland management, agroforestry, forest management and forest restoration, increased soil organic content, fire management, restoration and avoided conversion of coastal wetlands, and use of local seeds. Other response options may have strengths in some NCP but require trade-offs with others. For example, reforestation and afforestation bring many positive benefits for climate and water quality but may trade-off with food production (Table 6.70). Several response options, including increased food productivity, bioenergy and BECCS, and some risk-sharing instruments, like crop insurance, have significant negative consequences across multiple NCPs.

Table 6.70

Impacts on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) of integrated response options based on land management.

Table 6.71

Impacts on NCP of integrated response options based on value chain management.

Table 6.72

Impacts on NCP of integrated response options based on risk management.

6.4.4

Opportunities for implementing integrated response options

6.4.4.1

Where can the response options be applied?

As shown in Section 6.1.3, a large part of the land area is exposed to overlapping land challenges, especially in villages, croplands and rangelands. The deployment of land management responses may vary with local exposure to land challenges. For instance, with croplands exposed to a combination of land degradation, food insecurity and climate change adaptation challenges, maximising the co-benefits of land management responses would require selecting responses having only co-benefits for these three overlapping challenges, as well as for climate change mitigation, which is a global challenge. Based on these criteria, Figure 6.6 shows the potential deployment area of land management responses across land-use types (or anthromes).

Figure 6.6

Potential deployment area of land management responses (see Table 6.1) across land-use types (or anthromes, see Section 6.3), when selecting responses having only co-benefits for local challenges and for climate change mitigation and no large adverse side effects on global food security. See Figure 6.2 for the criteria used to map challenges considered (desertification, land […]

Potential deployment area of land management responses (see Table 6.1) across land-use types (or anthromes, see Section 6.3), when selecting responses having only co-benefits for local challenges and for climate change mitigation and no large adverse side effects on global food security. See Figure 6.2 for the criteria used to map challenges considered (desertification, land degradation, climate change adaptation, chronic undernourishment, biodiversity, groundwater stress and water quality). No response option was identified for barren lands.

Land management responses having co-benefits across the range of challenges, including climate change mitigation, could be deployed between one land-use type (coastal wetlands, peatlands, forest management and restoration, reforestation) and five (increased soil organic carbon) or six (fire management) land-use types (Figure 6.6). Fire management and increased soil organic carbon have a large potential since they could be deployed with mostly co-benefits and few adverse effects over 76% and 58% of the ice-free land area. In contrast, other responses have a limited area-based potential due to biophysical constraints (e.g., limited extent of organic soils and of coastal wetlands for conservation and restoration responses), or due to the occurrence of adverse effects. Despite strong co-benefits for climate change mitigation, the deployment of bioenergy and BECCS would have co-benefits on only 9% of the ice-free land area (Figure 6.6), given adverse effects of this response option for food security, land degradation, climate change adaptation and desertification (Tables 6.62–6.69).

Without including the global climate change mitigation challenge, there are up to five overlapping challenges on lands that are not barren (Figure 6.7A, calculated from the overlay of individual challenges shown in Figure 6.2) and up to nine land management response options having only co-benefits for these challenges and for climate change mitigation (Figure 6.7B). Across countries, the mean number of land management response options with mostly co-benefits declines (p<0.001, Spearman rank order correlation) with the mean number of land challenges. Hence, the higher the number of land challenges per country, the fewer the land management response options having only co-benefits for the challenges encountered.

Enabling conditions (see Section 6.1.2.2) for the implementation of land management responses partly depend on human development (economics, health and education) as estimated by a country scale composite index, the Human Development Index (HDI) (UNDP 20181045) (Figure 6.7C). Across countries, HDI is negatively correlated (p<0.001, Spearman rank order correlation) with the mean number of land challenges. Therefore, on a global average, the higher the number of local challenges faced, the fewer the land management responses having only co-benefits, and the lower the human development (Figure 6.7) that could favour the implementation of these responses.

Figure 6.7

Global distributions of: (a) number of overlapping land challenges (desertification, land degradation, climate change adaptation, chronic undernourishment, biodiversity, groundwater stress and water quality (Figure 6.2); (b) number of land management responses providing medium-to-large co-benefits and no adverse side effects (see Figure 6.6) across challenges; (c) Human Development Index (HDI) by country. The HDI (UNDP 2018) […]

Global distributions of: (a) number of overlapping land challenges (desertification, land degradation, climate change adaptation, chronic undernourishment, biodiversity, groundwater stress and water quality (Figure 6.2); (b) number of land management responses providing medium-to-large co-benefits and no adverse side effects (see Figure 6.6) across challenges; (c) Human Development Index (HDI) by country. The HDI (UNDP 20181267) is a country-based composite statistical index measuring average achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life (estimated from life expectancy at birth), knowledge (estimated from years of schooling), and a decent standard of living (estimated from gross national income per capita).

6.4.4.2

Interlinkages and response options in future scenarios

This section assesses more than 80 articles quantifying the effect of various response options in the future, covering a variety of response options and land-based challenges. These studies cover spatial scales ranging from global (Popp et al. 20171046; Fujimori et al. 20191047) to regional (Calvin et al. 2016a1048; Frank et al. 20151049) to country level (Gao and Bryan 2017; Pedercini et al. 20181050). This section focuses on models that can quantify interlinkages between response options, including agricultural economic models, land system models, and Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). The IAM and non-IAM literature, however, is also categorised separately to elucidate what is and is not included in global mitigation scenarios, like those included in the SR15. Results from bottom-up studies and models (e.g., Griscom et al. 20171274) are assessed in Sections 6.2–6.3.

Response options in future scenarios

More than half of the 40 land-based response options discussed in this chapter are represented in global IAMs models used to develop and analyse future scenarios, either implicitly or explicitly (Table 6.76). For example, all IAMs include improved cropland management, either explicitly through technologies that improve nitrogen use efficiency (Humpenöder et al. 20181051) or implicitly through marginal abatement cost curves that link reductions in nitrous oxide emissions from crop production to carbon prices (most other models).

However, the literature discussing the effect of these response options on land-based challenges is more limited (Table 6.76). There are 57 studies (43 IAM studies) that articulate the effect of response options on mitigation, with most including bioenergy and BECCS or a combination of reduced deforestation, reforestation, and afforestation; 37 studies (21 IAM studies) discuss the implications of response options on food security, usually using food price as a metric. While a small number of non-IAM studies examine the effects of response options on desertification (three studies) and land degradation (five studies), no IAM studies were identified. However, some studies quantify these challenges indirectly using IAMs, either via climate outputs from the representative concentration pathways (RCPs) (Huang et al. 20161052) or by linking IAMs to other land and ecosystem models (Ten Brink et al. 20181275; UNCCD 20171053).

For many of the scenarios in the literature, land-based response options are included as part of a suite of mitigation options (Popp et al. 20171054; Van Vuuren et al. 2015). As a result, it is difficult to isolate the effect of an individual option on land-related challenges. A few studies focus on specific response options (Calvin et al. 20141055; Popp et al. 20141056; Kreidenweis et al. 20161057; Humpenöder et al. 20181058), quantifying the effect of including an individual option on a variety of sustainability targets.

Table 6.76

Number of IAM and non-IAM studies including specific response options (rows) and quantifying particular land challenges (columns).

Thethird column shows how many IAM models include the individual response option. The remaining columns show challenges related to climate change (C), mitigation (M), adaptation (A), desertification (D), land degradation (L), food security (F), and biodiversity/ecosystem services/sustainable development (B). Additionally, counts of total (left value) and IAM-only (right value) studies are included. Some IAMs include agricultural economic models, which can also be run separately; these models are not counted as IAM literature when used on their own. Studies using a combination of IAMs and non-IAMs are included in the total only. A complete list of studies is included in the Appendix.

Interactions and interlinkages between response options

The effect of response options on desertification, land degradation, food security, biodiversity, and other SDGs depends strongly on which options are included, and the extent to which they are deployed. For example, Sections 2.6 and 6.3.6, and Cross-Chapter Box 7 note that bioenergy and BECCS has a large mitigation potential, but could potentially have adverse side effects for land degradation, food security, and other SDGs. Global modelling studies demonstrate that these effects are dependent on scale. Increased use of bioenergy can result in increased mitigation (Figure 6.8, panel A) and reduced climate change, but can also lead to increased energy cropland expansion (Figure 6.8, panel B), and increased competition for land, resulting in increased food prices (Figure 6.8, panel C). However, the exact relationship between bioenergy deployment and each sustainability target depends on a number of other factors, including the feedstock used, the underlying socio-economic scenario, assumptions about technology and resource base, the inclusion of other response options, and the specific model used (Calvin et al. 20141059; Clarke et al. 20141060; Popp et al. 2014, 20171061; Kriegler et al. 20141062).

The previous sections have examined the effects of individual land-response options on multiple challenges. A number of studies using global modelling and analyses have examined interlinkages and interaction effects among land response options by incrementally adding or isolating the effects of individual options. Most of these studies focus on interactions with bioenergy and BECCS (Table 6.77). Adding response options that require land (e.g., reforestation, afforestation, reduced deforestation, avoided grassland conversion, or biodiversity conservation) results in increased food prices (Calvin et al. 20141063; Humpenöder et al. 20141064; Obersteiner et al. 20161065; Reilly et al. 20121066) and potentially increased temperature through biophysical climate effects (Jones et al. 20131067). However, this combination can result in reduced water consumption (Hejazi et al. 2014b1068), reduced cropland expansion (Calvin et al. 20141069; Humpenöder et al. 20181070), increased forest cover (Calvin et al. 20141071; Humpenöder et al. 20181072; Wise et al. 20091073) and reduced biodiversity loss (Pereira et al. 20101074), compared to scenarios with bioenergy and BECCS alone. While these options increase total mitigation, they reduce mitigation from bioenergy and BECCS as they compete for the same land (Wu et al. 20191075; Baker et al. 20191076; Calvin et al. 20141077; Humpenöder et al. 20141078).

The inclusion of land-sparing options (e.g., dietary change, increased food productivity, reduced food waste, management of supply chains) in addition to bioenergy and BECCS results in reduced food prices, reduced agricultural land expansion, reduced deforestation, reduced mitigation costs, reduced water use, and reduced biodiversity loss (Bertram et al. 20181276; Wu et al. 20191079; Obersteiner et al. 20161080; Stehfest et al. 20091081; Van Vuuren et al. 2018). These options can increase bioenergy potential, resulting in increased mitigation than from bioenergy and BECCS alone (Wu et al. 20191082; Stehfest et al. 20091083; Favero and Massetti 20141084).

Other combinations of land response options create synergies, alleviating land pressures. The inclusion of increased food productivity and dietary change can increase mitigation, reduce cropland use, reduce water consumption, reduce fertiliser application, and reduce biodiversity loss (Springmann et al. 20181085; Obersteiner et al. 20161086). Similarly, improved livestock management, combined with increased food productivity, can reduce agricultural land expansion (Weindl et al. 20171087). Reducing disturbances (e.g., fire management) in combination with afforestation can increase the terrestrial carbon sink, resulting in increased mitigation potential and reduced mitigation cost (Le Page et al. 20131088).

Studies including multiple land response options often find that the combined mitigation potential is not equal to the sum of individual mitigation potential as these options often share the same land. For example, including both afforestation and bioenergy and BECCS results in a cumulative reduction in GHG emissions of 1200 GtCO2 between 2005 and 2100, which is much lower than the sum of the contributions of bioenergy (800 GtCO2) and afforestation (900 GtCO2) individually (Humpenöder et al. 20141089). More specifically, Baker et al. (2019)1090 find that woody bioenergy and afforestation are complementary in the near term, but become substitutes in the long term, as they begin to compete for the same land. Similarly, the combined effect of increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced waste on GHG emissions is less than the sum of the individual effects (Springmann et al. 20181091).

Table 6.77

Interlinkages between bioenergy and BECCS and other response options.

Table indicates the combined effects of multiple land-response options on climate change (C), mitigation (M), adaptation (A), desertification (D), land degradation (L), food security (F), and biodiversity/ecosystem services/sustainable development (O). Each cell indicates the implications of adding the option specified in the row in addition to bioenergy and BECCS. Blue colours indicate positive interactions (e.g., including the option in the second column increases mitigation, reduces cropland area, or reduces food prices relative to bioenergy and BECCS alone). Yellow indicates negative interactions; grey indicates mixed interactions (some positive, some negative). Note that only response option combinations found in the assessed literature are included in the interest of space.

Land-related response options can also interact with response options in other sectors. For example, limiting deployment of a mitigation response option will either result in increased climate change or additional mitigation in other sectors. A number of studies have examined limiting bioenergy and BECCS. Some such studies show increased emissions (Reilly et al. 20121097). Other studies meet the same climate goal, but reduce emissions elsewhere via reduced energy demand (Grubler et al. 20181098; Van Vuuren et al. 20181277), increased fossil carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear energy, energy efficiency and/or renewable energy (Van Vuuren et al. 20181278; Rose et al. 20141099; Calvin et al. 20141100; Van Vuuren et al. 2017b1279), dietary change (Van Vuuren et al. 20181280), reduced non-CO2 emissions (Van Vuuren et al. 20181281), or lower population (Van Vuuren et al. 20181282). The co-benefits and adverse side effects of non-land mitigation options are discussed in SR15, Chapter 5. Limitations on bioenergy and BECCS can result in increases in the cost of mitigation (Kriegler et al. 20141101; Edmonds et al. 20131102). Studies have also examined limiting CDR, including reforestation, afforestation, and bioenergy and BECCS (Kriegler et al. 2018a1282,b1283). These studies find that limiting CDR can increase mitigation costs, increase food prices, and even preclude limiting warming to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (Kriegler et al. 2018a,b; Muratori et al. 20161103).

In some cases, the land challenges themselves may interact with land-response options. For example, climate change could affect the production of bioenergy and BECCS. A few studies examine these effects, quantifying differences in bioenergy production (Calvin et al. 20131104; Kyle et al. 20141105) or carbon price (Calvin et al. 20131106) as a result of climate change. Kyle et al. (2014)1107 find increase in bioenergy production due to increases in bioenergy yields, while Calvin et al. (2013)1108 find declines in bioenergy production and increases in carbon price due to the negative effects of climate on crop yield.

Gaps in the literature

Not all of the response options discussed in this chapter are included in the assessed literature, and many response options are excluded from the IAM models. The included options (e.g., bioenergy and BECCS; reforestation) are some of the largest in terms of mitigation potential (see Section 6.3). However, some of the options excluded also have large mitigation potential. For example, biochar, agroforestry, restoration/avoided conversion of coastal wetlands, and restoration/ avoided conversion of peatland all have mitigation potential of about 1 GtCO2 yr–1 (Griscom et al. 20171109). Additionally, quantifications of and response options targeting land degradation and desertification are largely excluded from the modelled studies, with a few notable exceptions (Wolff et al. 20181110; Gao and Bryan 20171111; Ten Brink et al. 20181112; UNCCD 20171113). Finally, while a large number of papers have examined interactions between bioenergy and BECCS and other response options, the literature examining other combinations of response options is more limited.

6.4.4.3

Resolving challenges in response option implementation

The 40 response options assessed in this chapter face a variety of barriers to implementation that require action across multiple actors to overcome (Section 6.4.1). Studies have noted that, while adoption of response options by individuals may depend on individual assets and motivation, larger structural and institutional factors are almost always equally important if not more so (Adimassu et al. 20161114; Djenontin et al. 20181115), though harder to capture in research variables (Schwilch et al. 20141116). These institutional and governance factors can create an enabling environment for sustainable land management (SLM) practices, or challenges to their adoption (Adimassu et al. 20131117). Governance factors include the institutions that manage rules and policies, the social norms and collective actions of participants (including civil society actors and the private sector), and the interactions between them (Ostrom 19901118; Huntjens et al. 20121119; Davies 20161120). Many of Ostrom’s design principles for successful governance can be applied to response options for SLM; these principles are: (i) clearly defined boundaries, (ii) understanding of both benefits and costs, (iii) collective choice arrangements, (iv) monitoring, (v) graduated sanctions, (vi) conflict-resolution mechanisms, (vii) recognition of rights, and (viii) nested (multi-scale) approaches. Unfortunately, studies of many natural resources and land management policy systems – in particular, in developing countries – often show the opposite: a lack of flexibility, strong hierarchical tendencies, and a lack of local participation in institutional frameworks (Ampaire et al. 20171121). Analysis of government effectiveness (GE) – defined as quality of public services, policy formulation and implementation, civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, as well as credibility of the government’s commitment to its policies (Kaufmann et al. 20101122) – has been shown to play a key role in land management. GE mediates land-user actions on land management and investment, and government policies and laws can help land users adopt sustainable land management practices (Nkonya et al. 20161123) (Figure 6.9).

It is simply not a matter of putting the ‘right’ institutions or policies in place, however, as governance can be undermined by inattention to power dynamics (Fabinyi et al. 20141124). Power shapes how actors gain access and control over resources, and negotiate, transform and adopt certain response options or not. These variable dynamics of power between different levels and stakeholders have an impact on the ability to implement different response options. The inability of many national governments to address social exclusion in general will have an effect on the implementation of many response options. Further, response options themselves can become avenues for actors to exert power claims over others (Nightingale 20171125). For example, there have been many concerns that reduced deforestation and forest degradation projects run the risk of reversing trends towards decentralisation in forest management and creating new power disparities between the state and local actors (Phelps et al. 20101126). Below we assess how two important factors – the involvement of stakeholders, and the coordination of action across scales – will help in moving from response options to policy implementation, a theme Chapter 7 takes up in further detail.

Involvement of stakeholders

A wide range of stakeholders are necessary for successful land, agricultural and environmental policy, and implementing response options requires that a range of actors, including businesses, consumers, land managers, indigenous peoples and local communities, scientists, and policymakers work together for success. Diverse stakeholders have a particularly important role to play in defining problems, assessing knowledge and proposing solutions (Stokes et al. 20061127; Phillipson et al. 20121128). Lack of connection between science knowledge and on-the-ground practice has hampered adoption of many response options in the past; simply presenting ‘scientifically’ derived response options is not enough (Marques et al. 20161129). For example, the importance of recognising and incorporating local knowledge and indigenous knowledge is increasingly emphasised in successful policy implementation (see Cross-Chapter Box 13 in Chapter 7), as local practices of water management, soil fertility management, improved grazing, restoration and sustainable management of forests are often well-aligned with response options assessed by scientists (Marques et al. 20161130).

Figure 6.9

Relationship between changes in government effectiveness (GE) and changes in land management. Notes: ∆NDVI = Change in Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (baseline year 2001, Endline year 2010). Source of NDVI data: MODIS ∆GovEff = Change in GE (baseline year 2001, endline year 2010). (World Bank; Nkonya et al. 2016).

Relationship between changes in government effectiveness (GE) and changes in land management. Notes: ∆NDVI = Change in Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (baseline year 2001, Endline year 2010). Source of NDVI data: MODIS ∆GovEff = Change in GE (baseline year 2001, endline year 2010). (World Bank; Nkonya et al. 20161284).

Stakeholder engagement is an important approach for successful environmental and climate policy and planning. Tools such as stakeholder mapping, in which affected and interested parties are identified and described in terms of their interrelationships and current or future objectives and aspirations, and scenario-based stakeholder engagement, which combines stakeholder analysis with climate scenarios, are increasingly being applied to facilitate better planning outcomes (Tompkins et al. 20081131; Pomeroy and Douvere 20081132; Star et al. 20161133). Facilitated dialogues early in design processes have shown good success in bringing multiple and sometimes conflicting stakeholders to the table to discuss synergies and trade-offs around policy implementation (Gopnik et al. 20121134). Knowledge exchange, social learning, and other concepts are also increasingly being incorporated into understanding how to facilitate sustainable land management (Djenontin et al. 20181135), as evidence suggests that negotiating the complexity of socio-ecological systems (SES) requires flexible learning arrangements, in particular for multiple stakeholders (Gerlak and Heikkila 20111136; Armitage et al. 20181137; Heikkila and Gerlak 20181138). Social learning has been defined as ‘a change in understanding and skills that becomes situated in groups of actors/ communities of practice through social interactions,’ (Albert et al. 20121139), and social learning is often linked with attempts to increase levels of participation in decision-making, from consultation to more serious community control (Collins and Ison 20091140; McCrum et al. 20091141). Learning also facilitates responses to emerging problems and helps actors in SESs grapple with complexity. One outcome of learning can be adaptive risk management (ARM), in which ‘one takes action based on available information, monitors what happens, learns from the experience and adjusts future actions based on what has been learnt’ (Bidwell et al. 20131142). Suggestions to facilitate social learning, ARM, and decision-making include extending science-policy networks and using local bridging organisations, such as extension services, for knowledge co-production (Bidwell et al. 20131143; Böcher and Krott 20141144; Howarth and Monasterolo 20171145) (see further discussion in Chapter 7, Section 7.5).

Ensuring that women are included as key stakeholders in response option implementation is also important, as gender norms and roles affect vulnerability and access to resources, and gender inequality limits the possible range of responses for adoption by women (Lambrou and Piana 20061146). For example, environmental change may increase women’s workload as their access to natural resources may decline, or they may have to take up low-wage labour if agriculture becomes unsuitable in their local areas under climate change (Nelson et al. 20021147). Every response option considered in this chapter potentially has a gender dimension to it that needs to be taken into consideration (Tables 6.73–6.75 note how response options intersect with SDG 5 Gender Equality); for example, to address food security through sustainable intensification will clearly have to address female farmers in Africa (Kondylis et al. 20161148; Garcia and Wanner 20171149) (for further information, see Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 7).

Challenges of coordination

Coordinated action to implement the response options will be required across a range of actors, including business, consumers, land managers, indigenous peoples and local communities and policymakers to create enabling conditions. Conjoining response options to maximise social, climatic and environmental benefits will require framing of such actions as strong pathways to sustainable development (Ayers and Dodman 20101150). As the chapter has pointed out, there are many potential options for synergies, especially among several response options that might be applied together and in coordination with one another (such as dietary change and improved land management measures). This coordination will help ensure that synergies are met and trade-offs minimised, but this will require deliberate coordination across multiple scales, actors and sectors. For example, there are a variety of response options available at different scales that could form portfolios of measures applied by different stakeholders from farm to international scales. Agricultural diversification and use of local seeds by smallholders can be particularly useful poverty eradication and biodiversity conservation measures, but are only successful when higher scales, such as national and international markets and supply chains, also value these goods in trade regimes, and consumers see the benefits of purchasing these goods. However, the land and food sectors face particular challenges of institutional fragmentation, and often suffer from a lack of engagement between stakeholders at different scales (Biermann et al. 20091151; Deininger et al. 20141152) (see Chapter 7, Section 7.6.2).

Many of the response options listed in this chapter could be potentially implemented as ‘community-based’ actions, including community-based reforestation, community-based insurance, or community-based disaster risk management. Grounding response options in community approaches aims to identify, assist and implement activities ‘that strengthen the capacity of local people to adapt to living in a riskier and less predictable climate’ (Ayers and Forsyth 20091153). Research shows that people willingly come together to provide mutual aid and protection against risk, to manage natural resources, and to work cooperatively to find solutions to environmental provisioning problems. Some activities that fall under this type of collective action include the creation of institutions or rules, working cooperatively to manage a resource by restricting some activities and encouraging others, sharing information to improve public goods, or mobilising resources (such as capital) to fix a collective problem (Ostrom 20001154; Poteete and Ostrom 20041155), or engagement in participatory land-use planning (Bourgoin 20121156; Evers and Hofmeister 20111157). These participatory processes ‘are likely to lead to more beneficial environmental outcomes through better informed, sustainable decisions, and win-win solutions regarding economic and conservation objectives’ (Vente et al. 20161158), and evaluations of community-based response options have been generally positive (Karim and Thiel 20171159; Tompkins and Adger 20041160).

Agrawal (2001)1161 has identified more than 30 different indicators that have been important in understanding who undertakes collective action for the environment, including: the size of the group undertaking action; the type and distribution of the benefits from the action; the heterogeneity of the group; the dependence of the group on these benefits; the presence of leadership; presence of social capital and trust; and autonomy and independence to make and enforce rules. Alternatively, when households expect the government to undertake response actions, they have less incentive to join in collective action, as the state role has ‘crowded out’ local cooperation (Adger 20091162). High levels of social trust and capital can increase willingness of farmers to engage in response options, such as improved soil management or carbon forestry (Stringer et al. 20121163; Lee 20171164), and social capital helps with connectivity across levels of SESs (Brondizio et al. 20091165). Dietz et al. (2013)1166 lay out important policy directions for more successful facilitation of collective action across scales and stakeholders. These include: providing information; dealing with conflict; inducing rule compliance; providing physical, technical or institutional infrastructure; and being prepared for change. The adoption of participatory protocols and structured processes to select response options together with stakeholders will likely lead to greater success in coordination and participation (Bautista et al. 20171167; Franks 20101168; Schwilch et al. 2012a1169).

However, wider adoption of community-based approaches is potentially hampered by several factors, including the fact that most are small-scale (Forsyth 20131170; Ensor et al. 20141171) and it is often unclear how to assess criteria of success (Forsyth 20131172). Others also caution that community-based approaches often are not able to adequately address the key drivers of vulnerability such as inequality and uneven power relations (Nagoda and Nightingale 20171173).

Moving from response options to policies

Chapter 7 discusses in further depth the risks and challenges involved in formulating policy responses that meet the demands for sustainable land management and development outcomes, such as food security, community adaptation and poverty alleviation. Table 7.1 in Chapter 7 maps how specific response options might be turned into policies; for example, to implement a response option aimed at agricultural diversification, a range of policies from elimination of agricultural subsidies (which might favour single crops) to environmental farm programmes and agro-environmental payments (to encourage alternative crops). Oftentimes, any particular response option might have a variety of potential policy pathways that might address different scales or stakeholders or take on different aspects of coordination and integration (Section 7.6.1). Given the unique challenges of decision-making under uncertainty in future climate scenarios, Chapter 7 particularly discusses the need for flexible, iterative, and adaptive processes to turn response options into policy frameworks.

6.4.5

Potential consequences of delayed action

Delayed action, in terms of overall GHG mitigation across both land and energy sectors, as well as delayed action in implementing the specific response options outlined in this chapter, will exacerbate the existing land challenges due to the continued impacts of climate change and socio-economic and other pressures. It can decrease the potential of response options and increase the costs of deployment, and will deprive communities of immediate co-benefits, among other pressures. The major consequences of delayed action are outlined below.

Delayed action exposes vulnerable people to continued and increasing climate impacts: Slower or delayed action in implementing response options exacerbates existing inequalities and impacts. This will increase the number of people vulnerable to climate change, due to population increases and increasing climate impacts (IPCC 20181199; AR 5). Future climate change will lead to exacerbation of the existing land challenges, increased pressure on agricultural livelihoods, potential for rapid land degradation, and millions more people exposed to food insecurity (Schmidhuber and Tubiello 20071200) (Chapters 3, 4 and 5). Delay can also bring political risks and significant social impacts, including risks to human settlements (particularly in coastal areas), large-scale migration, and conflict (Barnett and Adger 20071201; Hsiang et al. 20131202). Early action reducing vulnerability and exposure can create an opportunity for a virtual circle of benefits: increased resilient livelihoods, reduced degradation of land, and improved food security (Bohle et al. 19941203).

Delayed action increases requirements for adaptation: Failure to mitigate climate change will increase requirements for adaptation. For example, it is likely that by 2100 with no mitigation or adaptation, 3169 million people world-wide could be exposed to flooding (Rasmussen et al. 20171204; IPCC SR15) (Chapter 3); such outcomes could be prevented with investments in both mitigation and adaptation now. Some specific response options (e.g., reduced deforestation and forest degradation, reduced peatland and wetland conversion) prevent further detrimental effects to the land surface; delaying these options could lead to increased deforestation, conversion, or degradation, serving as increased sources of GHGs and having concomitant negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Section 6.2). Response options aimed at land restoration and rehabilitation can serve as adaptation mechanisms for communities facing climatic stresses like precipitation variability and changes in land quality, as well as provide benefits in terms of mitigation.

Delayed action increases response costs and reduces economic growth: Early action on reducing emissions through mitigation is estimated to result in smaller temperature increases as well as lower mitigation costs than delayed action (Sanderson et al. 20161205; Luderer et al. 2013, 2018; Rose et al. 20171206; Van Soest et al. 2017; Fujimori et al. 20171207). The cost of inaction to address mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable land use exceeds the cost of immediate action in most countries, depending on how damage functions and the social cost of carbon are calculated (Dell et al. 20121208; Moore and Diaz 20151209). Costs of acting now would be one to two orders of magnitude lower than economic damages from delayed action, including damage to assets from climate impacts, as well as potentially reduced economic growth, particularly in developing countries (Luderer et al. 20161210; Moore and Diaz 20151211; Luderer et al. 20131212). Increased health costs and costs of energy (e.g., to run air-conditioners to combat increased heat waves) in the US by the end of the century alone are estimated to range from 10–58% of US GDP in 2010 (Deschênes and Greenstone 2011).

Delay also increases the costs of both mitigation and adaptation actions at later dates. In models of climate-economic interactions, deferral of emissions reduction now requires trade-offs leading to higher costs of several orders of magnitude and risks of higher temperatures in the longer term (Luderer et al. 20131213). Further, the cost of action is likely to increase over time due to the increased severity of challenges in future scenarios.

Conversely, timely implementation of response options brings economic benefits. Carbon pricing is one economic component to encourage adoption of response options (Jakob et al. 20161214), but carbon pricing alone can induce higher risk in comparison to other scenarios and pathways that include additional targeted sustainability measures, such as promotion of less material- and energy-intensive lifestyles and healthier diets, as noted in our response options (Bertram et al. 20181215). While the short-term costs of deployment of actions may increase, better attainment of a broad set of sustainability targets can be achieved through these combined measures (Bertram et al. 20181216).

There are also investments now that can lead to immediate savings in terms of avoided damages; for example, for each dollar spent on disaster risk management, countries accrue avoided disaster-related economic losses of 4 USD or more (Mechler 20161217). While they can require upfront investment, the economic benefits of actions to ensure sustainable land management, such as increased soil organic carbon, can more than double the economic value of rangelands and improve crop yields (Chapter 4 and Section 6.2).

Delayed action reduces future policy space and decreases efficacy of some response options: The potential for some response options decreases as climate change increases; for example, climate alters the sink capacity for soil and vegetation carbon sequestration, reducing the potential for increased soil organic carbon, afforestation and reforestation (Section 6.4.2). Additionally, climate change affects the productivity of bioenergy crops, influencing the potential mitigation of bioenergy and BECCS (Section 6.4.4).

For response options in the supply chain, demand-side management, and risk management, while the consequences of delayed action are apparent in terms of continued GHG emissions from drivers, the tools for response options are not made more difficult by delay and could be deployed at any time. Additionally, given increasing pressures on land as a consequence of delay, some policy response options may become more cost-effective while others become costlier. For example, over time, land-based mitigation measures like forest and ecosystem protection are likely to increase land scarcity, leading to higher food prices; while demand-side measures, like reduced-impact diets and reducing waste, are less likely to raise food prices in economic models (Stevanović et al. 20171218).

For risk management, some response options provide timely and rapidly deployable solutions for preventing further problems, such as disaster risk management and risk-sharing instruments. For example, early warning systems serve multiple roles in protecting lives and property and helping people adapt to longer-term climate changes, and can be used immediately.

Delaying action can also result in problems of irreversibility of biophysical impacts and tipping points: Early action provides a potential way to avoid irreversibility – such as degradation of ecosystems that cannot be restored to their original baseline – and tipping points, whereby ecological or climate systems abruptly shift to a new state. Ecosystems, such as peatlands, are particularly vulnerable to irreversibility because of the difficulties of rewetting to original states (Section 6.2), and dryland grazing systems are vulnerable to tipping points when ground cover falls below 50%, after which productivity falls, infiltration declines, and erosion increases (Chapters 3 and 4). Further, tipping points can be especially challenging for human populations to adapt to, given the lack of prior experience with such system shifts (Kates et al. 20121219; Nuttall 20121220).

Policy responses require lead time for implementation; delay makes this worse: For all the response options, particularly those that need to be deployed through policy implementation, there are unavoidable lags in this cycle. ‘Policy lags’, by which implementation is delayed by the slowness of the policy implementation cycle, are significant across many land-based, response options (Brown et al. 20191221). Further, the behavioural change necessary to achieve some demand-side and risk management response options often takes a long time, and delay only lengthens this process (Stern 19921222; Steg and Vlek 20091223). For example, actively promoting the need for healthier and more sustainable diets through individual dietary decisions is an important underpinning and enabling step for future changes, but is likely to be a slow-moving process, and delay in beginning will only exacerbate this.

Delay can lead to lock-in: Delay in implementation can cause ‘lock-in’ as decisions made today can constrain future development and pathways. For example, decisions made now on where to build infrastructure, make investments and deploy technologies, will have longer-term (decades-long) ramifications due to the inertia of capital stocks (Van Soest et al. 2017). In tandem, the vulnerability of the poor is likely to be exacerbated by climate change, creating a vicious circle of lock in whereby an increasing share of the dwindling carbon budget may be needed to assist with improved energy use for the poorest (Lamb and Rao 20151224).

Delay can increase the need for widespread deployment of land-based mitigation (afforestation, BECCS) (IPCC 20181225; Strefler et al. 20181226): Further delays in mitigation could result in an increased need for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options later; for example, delayed mitigation requires a 10% increase in cumulative CDR over the century (IPCC 20181227). Similarly, strengthening near-term mitigation effort can reduce the CDR requirements in 2100 by a factor of 2 to 8 (Strefler et al. 20181228). Conversely, scenarios with limited CDR require earlier emissions reductions (Van Vuuren et al. 2017b) and may make more stringent mitigation scenarios, like the 1.5°C, infeasible (Kriegler et al. 2018a,b).

SM

Supplementary Material

Click image below to load chapter 6 Supplementary Material

Footnotes

  1. Many of the response options considered are sustainable land management options, but several response options are not based on land management – for example, those based on value chain management and governance and risk management options.
  2. We use the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group III definitions of co-benefits and adverse side effect – see Glossary. Co-benefits and adverse side effects can be biophysical and/or socio-economic in nature, and all are assessed as far as the literature allows.
  3. For example, see https://qcat.wocat.net/en/wocat/; https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu; https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NWPStaging/Pages/Home.aspx.
  4. Of this, more than half was traditional biomass, predominately used for cooking and heating in developing regions, bioelectricity accounted for about 1.7 EJ, and transport biofuels for 3.19 EJ. (Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 7).
  5. The future availability of biomass is usually discussed in terms of a hierarchy of potentials: theoretical>technical>economic. Caution is required, however, as these terms are not always defined consistently and estimates depend on the specific definitions and calculation methodologies.
  6. http://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge.
  7. Note: 1) The response options often overlap, so are not additive. For example, increasing food productivity will involve changes to cropland, grazing land and livestock management, which in turn may include increasing soil carbon stocks. Therefore, the response options cannot be summed or regarded as entirely mutually exclusive interventions. 2) The efficacy of a response option for addressing the primary challenge for which it is implemented needs to be weighed against any co-benefits and adverse side effects for the other challenges. For example, if a response option has a major impact in addressing one challenge but results in relatively minor and manageable adverse side effects for another challenge, it may remain a powerful response option despite the adverse side effects, particularly if they can be minimised or managed. 3) Though the impacts of integrated response options have been quantified as far as possible in Section 6.3, there is no equivalence implied in terms of benefits or adverse side effects, either in number or in magnitude of the impact – that is, one benefit does not equal one adverse side effect. As a consequence (i) large benefits for one challenge might outweigh relatively minor adverse side effects in addressing another challenge, and (ii) some response options may deliver mostly benefits with few adverse side effects, but the benefits might be small in magnitude, that is, the response options do no harm, but present only minor co-benefits. A number of benefits and adverse side effects are context specific; the context specificity has been discussed in Section 6.2 and is further examined Section 6.4.5.1.
  8. The exception is NCP 6, regulation of ocean acidification, which is by itself an indirect impact. Any option that sequesters CO2 would lower the atmospheric CO2 concentration, which then indirectly increases the seawater pH. Therefore, any action that directly increases the amount of sequestered carbon is noted in this column, but not any action that avoids land-use change and, therefore, indirectly avoids CO2 emissions.
  9. Note that this refers to large areas of bioenergy crops capable of producing large mitigation benefits (>3 GtCO2 yr–1). The effect of bioenergy and BECCS on NCPs is scale and context dependent (see Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6 and Section 6.3).
  10. Note that this refers to large areas of bioenergy crops capable of producing large mitigation benefits (>3 GtCO2 yr–1). The effect of bioenergy and BECCS on SDGs is scale and context dependent (see Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6 and Section 6.3).
  11. Pathways that limit radiative forcing in 2100 to 1.9 W m–2 result in median warming in 2100 to 1.5°C in 2100 (Rogelj et al. 2018b). Pathways limiting radiative forcing in 2100 to 4.5 W m–2 result in median warming in 2100 above 2.5°C (IPCC 2014).

References

  1. Schwilch, G., F. Bachmann, and J. de Graaff, 2012b: Decision support for selecting SLM technologies with stakeholders. Appl. Geogr., 34, 86–98, doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.11.002.
  2. Nigussie, Z. et al., 2017: Factors influencing small-scale farmers’ adoption of sustainable land management technologies in north-western Ethiopia. Land use policy, 67, 57–64.
  3. Dallimer, M., L.C. et al., 2018: Who uses sustainable land management practices and what are the costs and benefits? Insights from Kenya. L. Degrad. Dev., 29, 2822–2835, doi:10.1002/ldr.3001.
  4. Carmenta, R., A. Zabala, W. Daeli, and J. Phelps, 2017: Perceptions across scales of governance and the Indonesian peatland fires. Glob. Environ. Chang., 46, 50–59, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.001.
  5. Schwilch, G., H.P. Liniger, and H. Hurni, 2014: Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices in drylands: How do they address desertification threats? Environ. Manage., 54, 983–1004, doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0071-3.
  6. Adger, W.N., N. Brooks, G. Bentham, and M. Agnew, 2004: New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich, UK, 128 pp.
  7. Tschakert, P., B. van Oort, A.L. St. Clair, and A. LaMadrid, 2013: Inequality and transformation analyses: A complementary lens for addressing vulnerability to climate change. Clim. Dev., 5, 340–350, doi:10.1080/17565529.2013.828583.
  8. Mutoko, M., C. Shisanya, and L. Hein, 2014: Fostering technological transition to sustainable land management through stakeholder collaboration in the western highlands of Kenya. Land use policy, 41, 110–120.
  9. Cavanagh, C., A. Chemarum, P. Vedeld, and J. Petursson, 2017: Old wine, new bottles? Investigating the differential adoption of “climate-smart”agricultural practices in western Kenya. J. Rural Stud., 56, 114–123, doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.09.010.
  10. Moss, R.H., A.L. Brenkert, and E.L. Malone, 2001: Vulnerability to climate change. A quantitative approach. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL-SA-33642). Prepared for the US Department of Energy, US Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA, USA, 88 pp.
  11. Brenkert, A.L., and E.L. Malone, 2005: Modeling vulnerability and resilience to climate change: A case study of India and Indian states. Clim. Change, 72, 57–102, doi:10.1007/s10584-005-5930-3.
  12. Brooks, N., W.N. Adger, and P.M. Kelly, 2005: The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob. Environ. Chang., 15, 151–163, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006.
  13. Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R.J.T., and Yohe, G., 2001: Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [McCarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D., and White, K. (eds.)] pp 877–912
  14. Sen, A., 1992: Inequality Reexamined. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 206 pp.
  15. Nussbaum, M., and A. Sen, 1993: The Quality of Life. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 468 pp.
  16. Bockstael, E., and F. Berkes, 2017: Using the capability approach to analyze contemporary environmental governance challenges in coastal Brazil. Int. J. Commons, 11, 799–822, doi:10.18352/ijc.756.
  17. Borrelli, P. et al., 2017: An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun., 8, 2013, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7.
  18. Netzel, P., and T. Stepinski, 2018: Climate similarity search: GeoWeb tool for exploring climate variability. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 475–477, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0334.1.
  19. FAO, 2017a: The Future of Food and Agriculture – Trends and Challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy 180 pp.
  20. Mittermeier, R.A., W.R. Turner, F.W. Larsen, T.M. Brooks, and C. Gascon, 2011: Global biodiversity conservation: The critical role of hotspots. In:Biodiversity Hotspots [F. Zachos and J. Habel (eds.)]. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3–22 pp.
  21. Gassert, F., M. Luck, M. Landis, P. Reig, T. Shiao, 2014: Aqueduct Global Maps 2.1 Indicators: Constructing Decision-Relevant Global Water Risk Indicators. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA.
  22. Xie, H., and C. Ringler, 2017: Agricultural nutrient loadings to the freshwater environment: The role of climate change and socioeconomic change. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 104008, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8148.
  23. Ellis, E.C., and N. Ramankutty, 2008: Putting people in the map: Anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front. Ecol. Environ., 6, 439–447, doi:10.1890/070062.
  24. Netzel, P., and T. Stepinski, 2018: Climate similarity search: GeoWeb tool for exploring climate variability. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 475–477, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0334.1.
  25. Frankl, A., J. Poesen, M. Haile, J. Deckers, and J. Nyssen, 2013: Quantifying long- term changes in gully networks and volumes in dryland environments: The case of Northern Ethiopia. Geomorphology, 201, 254–263, doi:10.1016/J. GEOMORPH.2013.06.025.
  26. Gebremeskel, G., T.G. Gebremicael, and A. Girmay, 2018: Economic and environmental rehabilitation through soil and water conservation, the case of Tigray in northern Ethiopia. J. Arid Environ., 151, 113–124, doi:10.1016/J.JARIDENV.2017.12.002.
  27. Busse, H., W. Jogo, G. Leverson, F. Asfaw, and H. Tesfay, 2017: Prevalence and predictors of stunting and underweight among children under 5 years in Tigray, Ethiopia: Implications for nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr., 1–20, doi:10.1080/19320248.2017.1393364.
  28. Frankl, A., J. Poesen, M. Haile, J. Deckers, and J. Nyssen, 2013: Quantifying long-term changes in gully networks and volumes in dryland environments: The case of Northern Ethiopia. Geomorphology, 201, 254–263, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2013.06.025.
  29. Frankl, A., J. Poesen, M. Haile, J. Deckers, and J. Nyssen, 2013: Quantifying long-term changes in gully networks and volumes in dryland environments: The case of Northern Ethiopia. Geomorphology, 201, 254–263, doi:10.1016/J.GEOMORPH.2013.06.025.
  30. Gebremeskel, G., T.G. Gebremicael, and A. Girmay, 2018: Economic and environmental rehabilitation through soil and water conservation, the case of Tigray in northern Ethiopia. J. Arid Environ., 151, 113–124, doi:10.1016/J.JARIDENV.2017.12.002.
  31. Cava, M.G.B., N.A.L. Pilon, M.C. Ribeiro, and G. Durigan, 2018: Abandoned pastures cannot spontaneously recover the attributes of old-growth savannas. J. Appl. Ecol., 55, 1164–1172, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13046.
  32. Martha, G.B., E. Alves, and E. Contini, 2012: Land-saving approaches and beef production growth in Brazil. Agric. Syst., 110, 173–177, doi:10.1016/J.AGSY.2012.03.001.
  33. Martha, G.B., E. Alves, and E. Contini, 2012: Land-saving approaches and beef production growth in Brazil. Agric. Syst., 110, 173–177, doi:10.1016/J.AGSY.2012.03.001.
  34. Cardoso, A.S. et al., 2016: Impact of the intensification of beef production in Brazil on greenhouse gas emissions and land use. Agric. Syst., 143, 86–96, doi:10.1016/J.AGSY.2015.12.007.
  35. Cardoso, A.S. et al., 2016: Impact of the intensification of beef production in Brazil on greenhouse gas emissions and land use. Agric. Syst., 143, 86–96, doi:10.1016/J.AGSY.2015.12.007.
  36. Strassburg, B.B.N. et al., 2014: When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Glob. Environ. Chang., 28, 84–97, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2014.06.001.
  37. Cava, M.G.B., N.A.L. Pilon, M.C. Ribeiro, and G. Durigan, 2018: Abandoned pastures cannot spontaneously recover the attributes of old-growth savannas. J. Appl. Ecol., 55, 1164–1172, doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13046.
  38. Cohn, A.S., J. Gil, T. Berger, H. Pellegrina, and C. Toledo, 2016: Patterns and processes of pasture to crop conversion in Brazil: Evidence from Mato Grosso State. Land use policy, 55, 108–120, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2016.03.005.
  39. Cohn, A.S., J. Gil, T. Berger, H. Pellegrina, and C. Toledo, 2016: Patterns and processes of pasture to crop conversion in Brazil: Evidence from Mato Grosso State. Land use policy, 55, 108–120, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2016.03.005.
  40. UNEP, 2017: The Emissions Gap Report 2017. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 116 pp.
  41. UNEP, 2017: The Emissions Gap Report 2017. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 116 pp.
  42. Stibig, H.-J., F. Achard, S. Carboni, R. Raši, and J. Miettinen, 2014: Change in tropical forest cover of Southeast Asia from 1990 to 2010. Biogeosciences, 11, 247–258, doi:10.5194/bg-11-247-2014.
  43. Stibig, H.-J., F. Achard, S. Carboni, R. Raši, and J. Miettinen, 2014: Change in tropical forest cover of Southeast Asia from 1990 to 2010. Biogeosciences, 11, 247–258, doi:10.5194/bg-11-247-2014.
  44. Hansen, M.C. et al., 2013: High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science., 342, 850–853, doi:10.1126/science.1244693.
  45. Grassi, G., J. et al., 2017: The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 220, doi:10.1038/nclimate3227.
  46. Graham, V., S.G. Laurance, A. Grech, and O. Venter, 2017: Spatially explicit estimates of forest carbon emissions, mitigation costs and REDD+ opportunities in Indonesia. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 44017, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6656.
  47. Carlson, K.M. et al., 2018: Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 115, 121–126, doi:10.1073/pnas.1704728114.
  48. Gaveau, D.L.A. et al., 2016: Rapid conversions and avoided deforestation: Examining four decades of industrial plantation expansion in Borneo. Sci. Rep., 6, 32017, doi:10.1038/srep32017.
  49. Silalahi, M. et al., 2017: Indonesia’s ecosystem restoration concessions. Unasylva, 68, 63–70.
  50. Srinivasa Rao, C., K.A. Gopinath, J.V.N.S. Prasad, Prasannakumar, and A.K. Singh, 2016: Climate resilient villages for sustainable food security in tropical India: Concept, process, technologies, institutions, and impacts. Adv. Agron., 140, 101–214, doi:10.1016/BS.AGRON.2016.06.003.
  51. Mujumdar, M. et al., 2017: Anomalous convective activity over sub-tropical east Pacific during 2015 and associated boreal summer monsoon teleconnections. Clim. Dyn., 48, 4081–4091, doi:doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3321-2.
  52. Zhang, X., R. Obringer, C. Wei, N. Chen, and D. Niyogi, 2017: Droughts in India from 1981 to 2013 and implications to wheat production. Sci. Rep., 7, 44552, doi:10.1038/srep44552.
  53. Shah, T., M. Giordano, and A. Mukherji, 2012: Political economy of the energy-groundwater nexus in India: exploring issues and assessing policy options. Hydrogeol. J., 20, 995–1006, doi:10.1007/s10040-011-0816-0.
  54. Srinivasan, V. et al., 2015: Why is the Arkavathy River drying? A multiple-hypothesis approach in a data-scarce region. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci, 19, 1950–2015, doi:10.5194/hess-19-1905-2015.
  55. Robert, M. et al., 2017: Farm typology in the Berambadi Watershed (India): Farming systems are determined by farm size and access to groundwater. Water, 9, 51, doi:10.3390/w9010051.
  56. Aggarwal, P.K. et al., 2018: The climate-smart village approach: Framework of an integrative strategy for scaling up adaptation options in agriculture. Ecol. Soc., 23, art14, doi:10.5751/ES-09844-230114.
  57. Vatsala, L., J. Prakash, and S. Prabhavathi, 2017: Food security and nutritional status of women selected from a rural area in South India. J. Food, Nutr. Popul. Heal., 1, 10.
  58. Merriott, D., 2016: Factors associated with the farmer suicide crisis in India. J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health, 6, 217–227, doi:10.1016/J.JEGH.2016.03.003.
  59. Aggarwal, P.K. et al., 2018: The climate-smart village approach: Framework of an integrative strategy for scaling up adaptation options in agriculture. Ecol. Soc., 23, art14, doi:10.5751/ES-09844-230114.
  60. Aggarwal, P.K. et al., 2018: The climate-smart village approach: Framework of an integrative strategy for scaling up adaptation options in agriculture. Ecol. Soc., 23, art14, doi:10.5751/ES-09844-230114.
  61. Aggarwal, P.K. et al., 2018: The climate-smart village approach: Framework of an integrative strategy for scaling up adaptation options in agriculture. Ecol. Soc., 23, art14, doi:10.5751/ES-09844-230114.
  62. Jat, H.S. et al., 2015: Management influence on maize-wheat system performance, water productivity and soil biology. Soil Use Manag., 31, 534–543, doi:10.1111/sum.12208.
  63. Jat, H.S. et al., 2015: Management influence on maize-wheat system performance, water productivity and soil biology. Soil Use Manag., 31, 534–543, doi:10.1111/sum.12208.
  64. Gabriel, K.M.A., and W.R. Endlicher, 2011: Urban and rural mortality rates during heat waves in Berlin and Brandenburg, Germany. Environ. Pollut., 159, 2044–2050, doi:10.1016/J.ENVPOL.2011.01.016.
  65. Schatz, J., and C.J. Kucharik, 2015: Urban climate effects on extreme temperatures in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 94024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094024.
  66. Schatz, J., and C.J. Kucharik, 2015: Urban climate effects on extreme temperatures in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 94024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094024.
  67. Coutts, A., and R. Harris, 2013: A Multi-Scale Assessment of Urban Heating in Melbourne During an Extreme Heat Event and Policy Approaches for Adaptation. Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaption Research, Victoria, Australia, 64 pp.
  68. Whittinghill, L.J., and D.B. Rowe, 2012: The role of green roof technology in urban agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 27, 314–322, doi:10.1017/S174217051100038X.
  69. Thomaier, S. et al., 2015: Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-Acreage Farming (ZFarming). Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 30, 43–54, doi:10.1017/S1742170514000143.
  70. Ercilla-Montserrat, M. et al., 2019: Analysis of the consumer’s perception of urban food products from a soilless system in rooftop greenhouses: A case study from the Mediterranean area of Barcelona (Spain). Agric. Human Values, 1–19, doi:10.1007/s10460-019-09920-7.
  71. Thomaier, S. et al., 2015: Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-Acreage Farming (ZFarming). Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 30, 43–54, doi:10.1017/S1742170514000143.
  72. Harada, Y. et al., 2019: The heavy metal budget of an urban rooftop farm. Sci. Total Environ., 660, 115–125, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2018.12.463.
  73. O’Neill, B.C. et al., 2014: A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change, 122, 387–400, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.
  74. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  75. Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, P. Friedlingstein, X. Gao, W.J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner, M. Shongwe, C. Tebaldi, A.J. Weaver and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  76. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  77. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  78. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  79. Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, P. Friedlingstein, X. Gao, W.J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner, M. Shongwe, C. Tebaldi, A.J. Weaver and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  80. Collins, M., R. Knutti, J. Arblaster, J.-L. Dufresne, T. Fichefet, P. Friedlingstein, X. Gao, W.J. Gutowski, T. Johns, G. Krinner, M. Shongwe, C. Tebaldi, A.J. Weaver and M. Wehner, 2013: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  81. O’Neill, B.C. et al., 2014: A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change, 122, 387–400, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.
  82. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  83. O’Neill, B.C. et al., 2014: A new scenario framework for climate change research: The concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change, 122, 387–400, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.
  84. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  85. UNCCD, 2017: Global Land Outlook. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp.
  86. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  87. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  88. Ringler, C. et al., 2016: Global linkages among energy, food and water: an economic assessment. J. Environ. Stud. Sci., 6, 161–171, doi:10.1007/s13412-016-0386-5.
  89. Ringler, C. et al., 2016: Global linkages among energy, food and water: an economic assessment. J. Environ. Stud. Sci., 6, 161–171, doi:10.1007/s13412-016-0386-5.
  90. Fujimori, S. et al., 2018: Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5°C climate goal. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 74033, doi:10.1021/es5051748.
  91. Hasegawa, T. et al., 2018: Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 699–703, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x.
  92. Fujimori, S. et al., 2019: A multi-model assessment of food security implications of well below 2°C scenario vans. Nat. Commun., 2, 386–396.
  93. Baldos, U.L.C., and T.W. Hertel, 2015: The role of international trade in managing food security risks from climate change. Food Secur., 7, 275–290, doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0435-z.
  94. Calvin, K. et al., 2014: Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim. Change, 123, 691–704, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0897-y.
  95. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  96. Fujimori, S. et al., 2018: Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5°C climate goal. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 74033, doi:10.1021/es5051748.
  97. Hasegawa, T. et al., 2018: Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 699–703, doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0230-x.
  98. Fujimori, S. et al., 2018: Inclusive climate change mitigation and food security policy under 1.5°C climate goal. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 74033, doi:10.1021/es5051748.
  99. Pereira, H.M. et al., 2010: Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science., 330, 1496–1501, doi:10.1126/science.1196624.
  100. Pereira, H.M. et al., 2010: Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science., 330, 1496–1501, doi:10.1126/science.1196624.
  101. UNCCD, 2017: Global Land Outlook. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp.
  102. Newbold, T. et al., 2015: Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature, 520, 45–50, doi:10.1038/nature14324.
  103. Chaturvedi, V. et al., 2013: Climate mitigation policy implications for global irrigation water demand. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 20, 389–407, doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9497-4.
  104. Wada, Y., and M.F.P. Bierkens, 2014: Sustainability of global water use: past reconstruction and future projections. Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 104003, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104003.
  105. Hejazi, M. et al., 2014a: Long-term global water projections using six socioeconomic scenarios in an integrated assessment modeling framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 81, 205–226, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.006.
  106. Kim, S.H. et al., 2016: Balancing global water availability and use at basin scale in an integrated assessment model. Clim. Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1604-6.
  107. Graham, N.T. et al., 2018: Water sector assumptions for the shared socioeconomic pathways in an integrated modeling framework. Water Resour. Res., 0, doi:10.1029/2018WR023452.
  108. Bonsch, M. et al., 2015: Environmental flow provision: Implications for agricultural water and land-use at the global scale. Glob. Environ. Chang., 30, 113–132, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.015.
  109. Wada, Y., and M.F.P. Bierkens, 2014: Sustainability of global water use: past reconstruction and future projections. Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 104003, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104003.
  110. Hejazi, M. et al., 2014a: Long-term global water projections using six socioeconomic scenarios in an integrated assessment modeling framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 81, 205–226, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.006.
  111. Kim, S.H. et al., 2016: Balancing global water availability and use at basin scale in an integrated assessment model. Clim. Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1604-6.
  112. Graham, N.T. et al., 2018: Water sector assumptions for the shared socioeconomic pathways in an integrated modeling framework. Water Resour. Res., 0, doi:10.1029/2018WR023452.
  113. Hejazi, M. et al., 2014a: Long-term global water projections using six socioeconomic scenarios in an integrated assessment modeling framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 81, 205–226, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.006.
  114. Graham, N.T. et al., 2018: Water sector assumptions for the shared socioeconomic pathways in an integrated modeling framework. Water Resour. Res., 0, doi:10.1029/2018WR023452.
  115. Schlosser, C., K. Strzepek, and X. Gao, 2014: The future of global water stress: An integrated assessment. Earth’s Futur., 2, 341–361, doi:10.1002/2014EF000238.Received.
  116. Hanasaki, N. et al., 2013: A global water scarcity assessment under shared socio-economic pathways – part 2: Water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2393–2413, doi:10.5194/hess-17-2393-2013.
  117. Hejazi, M.I. et al., 2014b: Integrated assessment of global water scarcity over the 21st century under multiple climate change mitigation policies. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2859–2883, doi:10.5194/hess-18-2859-2014.
  118. Liu, J. et al., 2017: Water scarcity assessments in the past, present, and future. Earth’s Futur., 5, 545–559, doi:10.1002/2016EF000518.
  119. Huppmann, D. et al., 2018: IAMC 1.5°C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. In: Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3363345.
  120. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  121. UNCCD, 2017: Global Land Outlook. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp.
  122. Hanasaki, N. et al., 2013: A global water scarcity assessment under shared socio-economic pathways – part 2: Water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2393–2413, doi:10.5194/hess-17-2393-2013.
  123. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  124. Fricko, O. et al., 2017: The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 251–267, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.004.
  125. Fricko, O. et al., 2017: The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 251–267, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.004.
  126. Huppmann, D. et al., 2018: IAMC 1.5°C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. In: Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3363345.
  127. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  128. UNCCD, 2017: Global Land Outlook. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp.
  129. UNCCD, 2017: Global Land Outlook. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp.
  130. Hanasaki, N. et al., 2013: A global water scarcity assessment under shared socio-economic pathways – part 2: Water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2393–2413, doi:10.5194/hess-17-2393-2013.
  131. Fujimori, S. et al., 2017: SSP3: AIM implementation of shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 268–283, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.009.
  132. Huppmann, D. et al., 2018: IAMC 1.5°C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. In: Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3363345.
  133. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  134. UNCCD, 2017: Global Land Outlook. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp.
  135. Hanasaki, N. et al., 2013: A global water scarcity assessment under shared socio-economic pathways – part 2: Water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2393–2413, doi:10.5194/hess-17-2393-2013.
  136. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  137. Calvin, K. et al., 2017: The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 284–296, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.010.
  138. Calvin, K. et al., 2017: The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 284–296, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.010.
  139. Huppmann, D. et al., 2018: IAMC 1.5°C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. In: Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3363345.
  140. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  141. Hanasaki, N. et al., 2013: A global water scarcity assessment under shared socio-economic pathways – part 2: Water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2393–2413, doi:10.5194/hess-17-2393-2013.
  142. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  143. Kriegler, E. et al., 2017: Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.015.
  144. Kriegler, E. et al., 2017: Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.015.
  145. Huppmann, D. et al., 2018: IAMC 1.5°C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. In: Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3363345.
  146. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  147. Hanasaki, N. et al., 2013: A global water scarcity assessment under shared socio-economic pathways – part 2: Water availability and scarcity. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2393–2413, doi:10.5194/hess-17-2393-2013.
  148. Riahi, K. et al., 2017: The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 153–168, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009.
  149. IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1552 pp.
  150. WBA, 2016: WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics 2016. World Bioenergy Association, Stockholm, Sweden, 1–80 pp.
  151. IPCC, 2012: Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1088 pp.
  152. Dornburg, V. et al., 2010: Bioenergy revisited: Key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environ. Sci., 3, 258–267, doi:10.1039/B922422J.
  153. Batidzirai, B., E.M.W. Smeets, and A.P.C. Faaij, 2012: Harmonising bioenergy resource potentials: Methodological lessons from review of state of the art bioenergy potential assessments. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 16, 6598–6630, doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.002.
  154. Erb, K.H., H. Haberl, and C. Plutzar, 2012: Dependency of global primary bioenergy crop potentials in 2050 on food systems, yields, biodiversity conservation and political stability. Energy Policy, 47, 260–269, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.066.
  155. Fuss, S. et al., 2018: Negative emissions — part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 63002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
  156. Schueler, V., S. Fuss, J.C. Steckel, U. Weddige, and T. Beringer, 2016: Productivity ranges of sustainable biomass potentials from non-agricultural land. Environ. Res. Lett., doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074026.
  157. Searle, S., and C. Malins, 2014: A reassessment of global bioenergy potential in 2050. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 328–336, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12141.
  158. IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1552 pp.
  159. Wu, W. et al., 2019: Global advanced bioenergy potential under environmental protection policies and societal transformation measures. GCB Bioenergy, gcbb.12614, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12614.
  160. Heck, V., D. Gerten, W. Lucht, and A. Popp, 2018: Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 151–155, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y.
  161. Heck, V., D. Gerten, W. Lucht, and A. Popp, 2018: Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Chang., 8, 151–155, doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y.
  162. McCollum, D., N. Bauer, K. Calvin, A. Kitous, and K. Riahi, 2014: Fossil resource and energy security dynamics in conventional and carbon-constrained worlds. Clim. Change, 123, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0939-5.
  163. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  164. Fuss, S. et al., 2014: Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 850, doi:10.1038/nclimate2392.
  165. IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1552 pp.
  166. Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, 2018a: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I.Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.Maycock, M.Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 93–174.
  167. Muratori, M., K. Calvin, M. Wise, P. Kyle, and J. Edmonds, 2016: Global economic consequences of deploying bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 95004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095004.
  168. Rose, S.K. et al., 2014: Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Clim. Change, 123, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0965-3.
  169. Popp, A. et al., 2014: Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: Model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change, 123, 495–509, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0926-x.
  170. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  171. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  172. Calvin, K. et al., 2014: Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim. Change, 123, 691–704, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0897-y.
  173. Reilly, J. et al., 2012: Using land to mitigate climate change: Hitting the target, recognizing the trade-offs. Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 5672–5679, doi:10.1021/es2034729.
  174. Qin, Z., J.B. Dunn, H. Kwon, S. Mueller, and M.M. Wander, 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and land use change associated with biofuel production: Empirical evidence. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 66–80, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12237.
  175. Qin, Z., J.B. Dunn, H. Kwon, S. Mueller, and M.M. Wander, 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and land use change associated with biofuel production: Empirical evidence. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 66–80, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12237.
  176. Alexander, P. et al., 2015: Drivers for global agricultural land use change: The nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy. Glob. Environ. Chang., 35, 138–147, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.011.
  177. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  178. Davis, S.C. et al., 2013: Management swing potential for bioenergy crops. GCB Bioenergy, 5, 623–638, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12042.
  179. Mello, F.F.C. et al., 2014: Payback time for soil carbon and sugar-cane ethanol. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 605–609, doi:10.1038/nclimate2239.
  180. Hudiburg, T.W., S.C. Davis, W. Parton, and E.H. Delucia, 2015: Bioenergy crop greenhouse gas mitigation potential under a range of management practices. GCB Bioenergy, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12152.
  181. Silva-Olaya, A.M. et al., 2017: Modelling SOC response to land use change and management practices in sugarcane cultivation in South-Central Brazil. Plant Soil, 410, 483-498, doi:10.1007/s11104-016-3030-y.
  182. Silva-Olaya, A.M. et al., 2017: Modelling SOC response to land use change and management practices in sugarcane cultivation in South-Central Brazil. Plant Soil, 410, 483-498, doi:10.1007/s11104-016-3030-y.
  183. Whitaker, J. et al., 2018: Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use. GCB Bioenergy, 10, 150–164, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12488.
  184. Robledo-Abad, C. et al., 2017: Bioenergy production and sustainable development: Science base for policymaking remains limited. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 541–556, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12338.
  185. Jans, Y., G. Berndes, J. Heinke, W. Lucht, and D. Gerten, 2018: Biomass production in plantations: land constraints increase dependency on irrigation water. GCB Bioenergy, 10, 628–644, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12530.
  186. Huppmann, D. et al., 2018: IAMC 1.5°C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. In: Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3363345.
  187. Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, 2018a: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I.Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.Maycock, M.Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 93–174.
  188. Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, 2018a: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I.Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.Maycock, M.Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 93–174.
  189. Davis, S.C. et al., 2013: Management swing potential for bioenergy crops. GCB Bioenergy, 5, 623–638, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12042.
  190. Larsen, S. et al., 2017: Possibilities for near-term bioenergy production and GHG-mitigation through sustainable intensification of agriculture and forestry in Denmark. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 114032, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa9001.
  191. Cacho, J.F., M.C. Negri, C.R. Zumpf, and P. Campbell, 2018: Introducing perennial biomass crops into agricultural landscapes to address water quality challenges and provide other environmental services. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ., 7, e275, doi:10.1002/wene.275.
  192. Odgaard, M. V, M.T. Knudsen, J.E. Hermansen, and T. Dalgaard, 2019: Targeted grassland production – A Danish case study on multiple benefits from converting cereal to grasslands for green biorefinery. J. Clean. Prod., 223, 917–927, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.072.
  193. Bárcena, T.G. et al., 2014: Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2393–2405, doi:10.1111/gcb.12576.
  194. Schröder, P. et al., 2018: Intensify production, transform biomass to energy and novel goods and protect soils in Europe – A vision how to mobilize marginal lands. Sci. Total Environ., 616–617, 1101–1123, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.209.
  195. Walter, K., A. Don, and H. Flessa, 2015: No general soil carbon sequestration under Central European short rotation coppices. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 727–740, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12177.
  196. Robertson, A.D. et al., 2017a: Climate change impacts on yields and soil carbon in row crop dryland agriculture. J. Environ. Qual., 47, 684–694, doi:10.2134/jeq2017.08.0309.
  197. Rowe, H. et al., 2016: Integrating legacy soil phosphorus into sustainable nutrient management strategies for future food, bioenergy and water security. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems, doi:10.1007/s10705-015-9726-1.
  198. Chadwick, D.R. et al., 2014: Optimizing chamber methods for measuring nitrous oxide emissions from plot-based agricultural experiments. Eur. J. Soil Sci., 65, 295–307, doi:10.1111/ejss.12117.
  199. Immerzeel, D.J., P.A. Verweij, F. Van der Hilst, and A.P.C. Faaij, 2014: Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: A state-of-the-art review. GCB Bioenergy, 6, 183–209, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12067.
  200. Mello, F.F.C. et al., 2014: Payback time for soil carbon and sugar-cane ethanol. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 605–609, doi:10.1038/nclimate2239.
  201. Whitaker, J. et al., 2018: Consensus, uncertainties and challenges for perennial bioenergy crops and land use. GCB Bioenergy, 10, 150–164, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12488.
  202. DeCicco, J.M., 2013: Biofuel’s carbon balance: Doubts, certainties and implications. Clim. Change, 121, 801–814, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0927-9.
  203. Humpenöder, F. et al., 2018: Large-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve sustainability trade-offs? Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 24011, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa9e3b.
  204. Bonsch, M. et al., 2016: Trade-offs between land and water requirements for large-scale bioenergy production. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 11–24, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12226.
  205. Harris, Z.M., R. Spake, and G. Taylor, 2015: Land use change to bioenergy: A meta-analysis of soil carbon and GHG emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 82, 27–39, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.05.008.
  206. Richards, M. et al., 2017: High resolution spatial modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from landuse change to energy crops in the United Kingdom. GCB Bioenergy, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12360.
  207. Ahlgren, E.O., M. Börjesson Hagberg, and M. Grahn, 2017: Transport biofuels in global energy–economy modelling – A review of comprehensive energy systems assessment approaches. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 1168–1180, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12431.
  208. Bárcena, T.G. et al., 2014: Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2393–2405, doi:10.1111/gcb.12576.
  209. Harris, E., T. Ladreiter-Knauss, K. Butterbach-Bahl, B. Wolf, and M. Bahn, 2018: Land-use and abandonment alters methane and nitrous oxide fluxes in mountain grasslands. Sci. Total Environ., 628, 997–1008, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.119.
  210. Harper, A.B. et al., 2018: Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets. Nat. Commun., 9, 2938, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z.
  211. Popp, A. et al., 2011b: On sustainability of bioenergy production: Integrating co-emissions from agricultural intensification. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 4770–4780, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.06.014.
  212. Wiloso, E.I., R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, and K. Fang, 2016: Effect of biogenic carbon inventory on the life cycle assessment of bioenergy: Challenges to the neutrality assumption. J. Clean. Prod., doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.096.
  213. Behrman, K.D., T.E. Juenger, J.R. Kiniry, and T.H. Keitt, 2015: Spatial land use trade-offs for maintenance of biodiversity, biofuel, and agriculture. Landsc. Ecol., 30, 1987–1999, doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0225-1.
  214. Valdez, Z.P., W.C. Hockaday, C.A. Masiello, M.E. Gallagher, and G. Philip Robertson, 2017: Soil carbon and nitrogen responses to nitrogen fertilizer and harvesting rates in switchgrass cropping systems. Bioenergy Res., 10, 456–464, doi:10.1007/s12155-016-9810-7.
  215. Harper, A.B. et al., 2018: Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets. Nat. Commun., 9, 2938, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z.
  216. Popp, A. et al., 2014: Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: Model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change, 123, 495–509, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0926-x.
  217. Bailey, R., 2013: The “food versus fuel” nexus. Handb. Glob. Energy Policy, 8, 265–281, doi:10.1002/9781118326275.ch16.
  218. Pahl-Wostl, C., A. Bhaduri, and A. Bruns, 2018: Editorial special issue: The nexus of water, energy and food – An environmental governance perspective. Environ. Sci. Policy, 90, 161–163, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.021.
  219. Rulli, M.C., D. Bellomi, A. Cazzoli, G. De Carolis, and P. D’Odorico, 2016: The water-land-food nexus of first-generation biofuels. Sci. Rep., 6, 22521, doi:10.1038/srep22521.
  220. Yamagata, Y., N. Hanasaki, A. Ito, T. Kinoshita, D. Murakami, and Q. Zhou, 2018: Estimating water–food–ecosystem trade-offs for the global negative emission scenario (IPCC-RCP2.6). Sustain. Sci., 13, 301–313, doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0522-5.
  221. Frank, S. et al., 2017: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 105004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83.
  222. Kline, K.L. et al., 2017: Reconciling food security and bioenergy: Priorities for action. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 557-576, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12366.
  223. Schröder, P. et al., 2018: Intensify production, transform biomass to energy and novel goods and protect soils in Europe – A vision how to mobilize marginal lands. Sci. Total Environ., 616–617, 1101–1123, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.209.
  224. Rulli, M.C., D. Bellomi, A. Cazzoli, G. De Carolis, and P. D’Odorico, 2016: The water-land-food nexus of first-generation biofuels. Sci. Rep., 6, 22521, doi:10.1038/srep22521.
  225. Bonsch, M. et al., 2015: Environmental flow provision: Implications for agricultural water and land-use at the global scale. Glob. Environ. Chang., 30, 113–132, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.015.
  226. Pahl-Wostl, C., A. Bhaduri, and A. Bruns, 2018: Editorial special issue: The nexus of water, energy and food – An environmental governance perspective. Environ. Sci. Policy, 90, 161–163, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.021.
  227. Bailey, R., 2013: The “food versus fuel” nexus. Handb. Glob. Energy Policy, 8, 265–281, doi:10.1002/9781118326275.ch16.
  228. Chang, Y., G. Li, Y. Yao, L. Zhang, and C. Yu, 2016: Quantifying the water-energy-food nexus: Current status and trends. Energies, MDPI AG., 17, doi: 10.3390/en9020065.
  229. Bárcena, T.G. et al., 2014: Soil carbon stock change following afforestation in Northern Europe: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 2393–2405, doi:10.1111/gcb.12576.
  230. Johnson, F.X., and S. Silveira, 2014: Pioneer countries in the transition to alternative transport fuels: Comparison of ethanol programmes and policies in Brazil, Malawi and Sweden. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions, 11, 1–24, doi:10.1016/j.eist.2013.08.001.
  231. Lundmark, T. et al., 2014: Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. For. 2014, Vol. 5, 5, 557–578, doi:10.3390/F5040557.
  232. Mudombi, S. et al., 2018: Multi-dimensional poverty effects around operational biofuel projects in Malawi, Mozambique and Swaziland. Biomass and bioenergy, 114, 41–54, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.09.003.
  233. Manning, P., G. Taylor, and M.E. Hanley, 2015: Bioenergy, food production and biodiversity – An unlikely alliance? GCB Bioenergy, 7, 570–576, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12173.
  234. Kline, K.L. et al., 2017: Reconciling food security and bioenergy: Priorities for action. GCB Bioenergy, 9, 557-576, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12366.
  235. Maltsoglou, I. et al., 2014: Combining bioenergy and food security: An approach and rapid appraisal to guide bioenergy policy formulation. Biomass and Bioenergy, 79, 80–95, doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.02.007.
  236. Lamers, P., E. Searcy, J.R. Hess, and H. Stichnothe, 2016: Developing the Global Bioeconomy: Technical, Market, and Environmental Lessons from Bioenergy. Academic Press, Elsevier, London, UK and San Diego, CA, USA and Camridge, MA, USA and Oxford, UK, 220 pp.
  237. Burney, J., S.J. Davis, and D.B. Lobell, 2010: Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107, 12052–12057, doi:10.1073/pnas.0914216107.
  238. Burney, J., S.J. Davis, and D.B. Lobell, 2010: Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107, 12052–12057, doi:10.1073/pnas.0914216107.
  239. Pradhan, P., D.E. Reusser, and J.P. Kropp, 2013: Embodied greenhouse gas emissions in diets. PLoS One, 8, e62228.
  240. Smith, P., 2008: Land use change and soil organic carbon dynamics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems, 81, 169–178, doi:10.1007/s10705-007-9138-y.
  241. Smith, P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E.A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N.H. Ravindranath, C.W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello, 2014: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 811–922.
  242. Conant, R.T., and K. Paustian, 2002: Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16, 90-1-90–99, doi:10.1029/2001GB001661.
  243. O’Mara, F., 2012: The role of grasslands in food security and climate change. Ann. Bot., 110, 1263–1270, doi:10.1093/aob/mcs209.
  244. Zhou, G. et al., 2017: Grazing intensity significantly affects belowground carbon and nitrogen cycling in grassland ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol., 23, 1167–1179, doi:10.1111/gcb.13431.
  245. Smith, P., 2008: Land use change and soil organic carbon dynamics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems, 81, 169–178, doi:10.1007/s10705-007-9138-y.
  246. Herrero, M. et al., 2016: Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 452–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate2925.
  247. Conant, R.T., and K. Paustian, S.J. Del Grosso, and W.J. Parton, 2005: Nitrogen pools and fluxes in grassland soils sequestering carbon. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems, 71, 239–248, doi:10.1007/s10705-004-5085-z.
  248. Herrero, M. et al., 2016: Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 452–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate2925.
  249. Pradhan, P., D.E. Reusser, and J.P. Kropp, 2013: Embodied greenhouse gas emissions in diets. PLoS One, 8, e62228.
  250. Zomer, R. et al., 2016: Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: The contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep., 6, 29987.
  251. Hawken, P., 2017: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin, London, UK, 265 pp.
  252. Hawken, P., 2017: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin, London, UK, 265 pp.
  253. Dickie, I.A. et al., 2014: Conflicting values: Ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biol. Invasions, 16, 705–719, doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0609-6.
  254. Campbell, B.M., P. Thornton, R. Zougmoré, P. Van Asten, and L. Lipper, 2014: Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 8, 39–43, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2014.07.002.
  255. Cohn, A.S. et al., 2017: Smallholder agriculture and climate change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 42, 347–375, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060946.
  256. Poeplau, C. et al., 2011: Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after land-use change in the temperate zone – Carbon response functions as a model approach. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 2415–2427, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02408.x.
  257. Poeplau, C. et al., 2011: Temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon after land-use change in the temperate zone – Carbon response functions as a model approach. Glob. Chang. Biol., 17, 2415–2427, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02408.x.
  258. Krause, A. et al., 2017: Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators. Biogeosciences, 14, 4829–4850 doi:10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017.
  259. Krause, A. et al., 2017: Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators. Biogeosciences, 14, 4829–4850 doi:10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017.
  260. Jat, H.S. et al., 2015: Management influence on maize-wheat system performance, water productivity and soil biology. Soil Use Manag., 31, 534–543, doi:10.1111/sum.12208.
  261. Jat, H.S. et al., 2015: Management influence on maize-wheat system performance, water productivity and soil biology. Soil Use Manag., 31, 534–543, doi:10.1111/sum.12208.
  262. Wang, M. et al., 2017: On the long-term hydroclimatic sustainability of perennial bioenergy crop expansion over the United States. J. Clim., 30, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0610.1.
  263. Wang, M. et al., 2017: On the long-term hydroclimatic sustainability of perennial bioenergy crop expansion over the United States. J. Clim., 30, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0610.1.
  264. Smyth, C.E. et al., 2014: Quantifying the biophysical climate change mitigation potential of Canada’s forest sector. Biogeosciences, 11, 3515–3529, doi:10.5194/bg-11-3515-2014.
  265. Grassi, G., R. Pilli, J. House, S. Federici, and W.A. Kurz, 2018: Science-based approach for credible accounting of mitigation in managed forests. Carbon Balance Manag., 13, 8, doi:10.1186/s13021-018-0096-2.
  266. Nabuurs, G.J., A. Pussinen, J. Van Brusselen, and M.J. Schelhaas, 2007: Future harvesting pressure on European forests. Eur. J. For. Res., 126, 391–400, doi:10.1007/s10342-006-0158-y.
  267. Lewis, S.L., C.E. Wheeler, E.T.A. Mitchard, and A. Koch, 2019: Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature, 568, 25–28, doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01026-8.
  268. Kurz, W., C. Smyth, and T. Lemprière, 2016: Climate change mitigation through forest sector activities: principles, potential and priorities. Unasylva, 67, 61–67.
  269. Erb, K.H. et al., 2017: Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature, 553, 73–76, doi:10.1038/nature25138.
  270. Seidl, R. et al., 2017: Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 7, 395.
  271. Locatelli, B., 2011: Synergies Between Adaptation and Mitigation in a Nutshell. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 4 pp.
  272. Locatelli, B., 2011: Synergies Between Adaptation and Mitigation in a Nutshell. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 4 pp.
  273. Sasaki, N. et al., 2016: Sustainable management of tropical forests can reduce carbon emissions and stabilize timber production. Front. Environ. Sci., 4, 50.
  274. Rametsteiner, E., and M. Simula, 2003: Forest certification – An instrument to promote sustainable forest management? J. Environ. Manage., 67, 87–98, doi:10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00191-3.
  275. Chhatre, A., and A. Agrawal, 2009: Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, 17667–17670, doi:10.1073/pnas.0905308106.
  276. Alkama, R., and A. Cescatti, 2016: Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science., 351, 600–604, doi:10.1126/science.aac8083.
  277. Houghton, R.A., and A.A. Nassikas, 2018: Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 350–359, doi:10.1111/gcb.13876.
  278. Fuss, S. et al., 2018: Negative emissions — part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 63002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
  279. Lal, R., 2004: Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science., 304, 1623–1627.
  280. Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, and G.J. Fiske, 2017: Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 114, 9575–9580, doi:10.1073/pnas.1706103114.
  281. Smith, P., 2008: Land use change and soil organic carbon dynamics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems, 81, 169–178, doi:10.1007/s10705-007-9138-y.
  282. Smith, P., 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1315–1324, doi:10.1111/gcb.13178.
  283. Jacinthe, P.A., and R. Lal, 2001: A mass balance approach to assess carbon dioxide evolution during erosional events. L. Degrad. Dev., 12, 329–339, doi:10.1002/ldr.454.
  284. Lal, R., 2004: Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science., 304, 1623–1627.
  285. Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R.J.T., and Yohe, G., 2001: Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [McCarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D., and White, K. (eds.)] pp 877–912
  286. Stallard, R.F., 1998: Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: Coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 12, 231–257, doi:10.1029/98GB00741.
  287. Stallard, R.F., 1998: Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: Coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 12, 231–257, doi:10.1029/98GB00741.
  288. Hoffmann, T. et al., 2013: Humans and the missing C-sink: Erosion and burial of soil carbon through time. Earth Surf. Dyn., 1, 45–52.
  289. Wong, V.N.L., R.S.B. Greene, R.C. Dalal, and B.W. Murphy, 2010: Soil carbon dynamics in saline and sodic soils: a review. Soil Use Manag., 26, 2–11, doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00251.x.
  290. UNCTAD, 2011: Water for food – Innovative Water Management Technologies for Food Security and Poverty Alleviation. New York, USA, and Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
  291. UNCTAD, 2011: Water for food – Innovative Water Management Technologies for Food Security and Poverty Alleviation. New York, USA, and Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
  292. Chamen, W., A.P. Moxey, W. Towers, B. Balana, and P.D. Hallett, 2015: Mitigating arable soil compaction: A review and analysis of available cost and benefit data. Soil Tillage Res., 146, 10–25, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2014.09.011.
  293. Epron, D. et al., 2016: Effects of compaction by heavy machine traffic on soil fluxes of methane and carbon dioxide in a temperate broadleaved forest. For. Ecol. Manage., 382, 1–9, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2016.09.037.
  294. Tullberg, J., D.L. Antille, C. Bluett, J. Eberhard, and C. Scheer, 2018: Controlled traffic farming effects on soil emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. Soil Tillage Res., 176, 18–25, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2017.09.014.
  295. Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph, 2010: Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun., 1, 1–9, doi:10.1038/ncomms1053.
  296. Smith, P., 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1315–1324, doi:10.1111/gcb.13178
  297. Fuss, S. et al., 2018: Negative emissions — part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 63002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
  298. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  299. Hawken, P., 2017: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin, London, UK, 265 pp.
  300. Paustian, K. et al., 2016: Climate-smart soils. Nature, 532, 49–57, doi:10.1038/nature17174.
  301. Powell, T.W.R., and T.M. Lenton, 2012: Future carbon dioxide removal via biomass energy constrained by agricultural efficiency and dietary trends. Energy Environ. Sci., 5, 8116–8133.
  302. Dickie, I.A. et al., 2014: Conflicting values: Ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biol. Invasions, 16, 705–719, doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0609-6.
  303. Hawken, P., 2017: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin, London, UK, 265 pp.
  304. Smith, P., 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1315–1324, doi:10.1111/gcb.13178.
  305. Arora, V.K., and J.R. Melton, 2018: Reduction in global area burned and wildfire emissions since 1930s enhances carbon uptake by land. Nat. Commun., 9, 1326, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03838-0.
  306. Noble, I.R. et al., 2014: Adaptation Needs and Options. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 833–868.
  307. Shindell, D. et al., 2012: Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science., 335, 183–189, doi:10.1126/science.1210026.
  308. Bala, G., N. Devaraju, R.K. Chaturvedi, K. Caldeira, and R. Nemani, 2013: Nitrogen deposition: How important is it for global terrestrial carbon uptake? Biogeosciences, 10, 7147–7160, doi:10.5194/bg-10-7147-2013.
  309. Zaehle, S., and D. Dalmonech, 2011: Carbon–nitrogen interactions on land at global scales: Current understanding in modelling climate biosphere feedbacks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 3, 311–320.
  310. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  311. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  312. Pendleton, L. et al., 2012: Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One, 7, e43542, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043542.
  313. Howard, J. et al., 2017: Clarifying the role of coastal and marine systems in climate mitigation. Front. Ecol. Environ., 15, 42–50, doi:10.1002/fee.1451.
  314. Donato, D. et al., 2011: Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat. Geosci., 4, 293.
  315. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  316. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  317. Hooijer, A. et al., 2010: Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences, 7, 1505–1514, doi:10.5194/bg-7-1505-2010.
  318. Hooijer, A. et al., 2010: Current and future CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences, 7, 1505–1514, doi:10.5194/bg-7-1505-2010.
  319. Joosten, H., and J. Couwenberg, 2008: Peatlands and carbon. In. Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change. Main Report. Global Envionment Centre, Kulala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Wetlands International, Wageningen, Netherlands, 99–117 pp.
  320. Jauhiainen, J., S. Limin, H. Silvennoinen, and H. Vasander, 2008: Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in drained tropical peat before and after hydrological restoration. Ecology, 89, 3503–3514, doi:10.1890/07-2038.1.
  321. Campbell, J.E., D.B. Lobell, R.C. Genova, and C.B. Field, 2008: The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 5791–5794, doi:10.1021/es800052w.
  322. Kapos, V. et al., 2008: Carbon and Biodiversity: A Demonstration Atlas. Cambridge, UK, 32 pp.
  323. Calvin, K. et al., 2014: Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim. Change, 123, 691–704, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0897-y.
  324. Schmitz, O.J. et al., 2018: Animals and the zoogeochemistry of the carbon cycle. Science, 362, eaar3213, doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.AAR3213.
  325. Schmitz, O.J. et al., 2014: Animating the carbon cycle. Ecosystems, 17, 344–359, doi:10.1007/s10021-013-9715-7.
  326. Beerling, D.J. et al., 2018: Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants, 4, 138.
  327. Lenton, T.M., 2010: The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Manag., 1, 145–160, doi:10.4155/cmt.10.12.
  328. Smith, P. et al., 2016a: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.
  329. Taylor, L.L. et al., 2016: Enhanced weathering strategies for stabilizing climate and averting ocean acidification. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 402–406, doi:10.1038/nclimate2882.
  330. IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1552 pp.
  331. Chum, H., A. Faaij, J. Moreira, G. Berndes, P. Dhamija, H. Dong, B. Gabrielle, A. Goss Eng, W. Lucht, M. Mapako, O. Masera Cerutti, T. McIntyre, T. Minowa, and K. Pingoud, 2011: Bioenergy. In: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 209–332.
  332. Wise, M. et al., 2015: An approach to computing marginal land use change carbon intensities for bioenergy in policy applications. Energy Econ., 50, 337–347, doi:10.1016/J.ENECO.2015.05.009.
  333. Aleksandrowicz, L., R. Green, E.J.M. Joy, P. Smith, and A. Haines, 2016: The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: A systematic review. PLoS One, 11, e0165797, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165797.
  334. Bajželj, B. et al., 2014b: Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 924–929, doi:10.1038/nclimate2353.
  335. Dickie, I.A. et al., 2014: Conflicting values: Ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biol. Invasions, 16, 705–719, doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0609-6.
  336. Hawken, P., 2017: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin, London, UK, 265 pp.
  337. Hedenus, F., S. Wirsenius, and D.J.A. Johansson, 2014: The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim. Change, 124, 79–91.
  338. Herrero, M. et al., 2016: Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 452–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate2925.
  339. Popp, A., H. Lotze-Campen, and B. Bodirsky, 2010: Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob. Environ. Chang., 20, 451–462.
  340. Smith, P., 2013: Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob. Food Sec., 2, 18–23, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2012.11.008.
  341. Springmann, M. et al., 2016: Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: A modelling study. Lancet, 387, 1937–1946, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01156-3.
  342. Stehfest, E. et al., 2009: Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Change, 95, 83–102, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6.
  343. Tilman, D., and M. Clark, 2014: Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518–522, doi:10.1038/nature13959.
  344. Bajželj, B. et al., 2014b: Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 924–929, doi:10.1038/nclimate2353.
  345. Dickie, I.A. et al., 2014: Conflicting values: Ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biol. Invasions, 16, 705–719, doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0609-6.
  346. Hiç, C., P. Pradhan, D. Rybski, and J.P. Kropp, 2016: Food surplus and its climate burdens. Environ. Sci. Technol., 50, 4269–4277.
  347. Hawken, P., 2017: Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin, London, UK, 265 pp.
  348. Oliver, C.D., N.T. Nassar, B.R. Lippke, and J.B. McCarter, 2014: Carbon, fossil fuel, and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests. J. Sustain. For., 33, 248–275, doi:10.1080/10549811.2013.839386.
  349. Gustavsson, L. et al., 2006: The role of wood material for greenhouse gas mitigation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 11, 1097–1127, doi:10.1007/s11027-006-9035-8.
  350. Carlson, K.M., and L.M. Curran, 2013: Refined carbon accounting for oil palm agriculture: Disentangling potential contributions of indirect emissions and smallholder farmers. Carbon Manag., 4, 347–349, doi:10.4155/cmt.13.39.
  351. James, S.J., and C. James, 2010: The food cold-chain and climate change. Food Res. Int., 43, 1944–1956, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2010.02.001.
  352. Vermeulen, S.J., B.M. Campbell, and J.S.I. Ingram, 2012b: Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 37, 195–222, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608.
  353. Liu, Y., Y. Zhou, and W. Wu, 2015: Assessing the impact of population, income and technology on energy consumption and industrial pollutant emissions in China. Appl. Energy, 155, 904–917, doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.06.051.
  354. Baur, A.H., M. Förster, and B. Kleinschmit, 2015: The spatial dimension of urban greenhouse gas emissions: Analyzing the influence of spatial structures and LULC patterns in European cities. Landsc. Ecol., 30, 1195–1205, doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0169-5.
  355. Thornbush, M., O. Golubchikov, and S. Bouzarovski, 2013: Sustainable cities targeted by combined mitigation–adaptation efforts for future-proofing. Sustain. Cities Soc., 9, 1–9, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2013.01.003.
  356. Briber, B.M. et al., 2015: Tree productivity enhanced with conversion from forest to urban land covers. PLoS One, 10, e0136237, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136237.
  357. Ali, G., N. Pumijumnong, and S. Cui, 2018: Valuation and validation of carbon sources and sinks through land cover/use change analysis: The case of Bangkok metropolitan area. Land use policy, 70, 471–478, doi:10.1016/J. LANDUSEPOL.2017.11.003.
  358. Altieri, M.A., C.I. Nicholls, A. Henao, and M.A. Lana, 2015: Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 35, 869–890, doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2.
  359. Descheemaeker, K. et al., 2016: Climate change adaptation and mitigation in smallholder crop–livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa: A call for integrated impact assessments. Reg. Environ. Chang., 16, 2331–2343, doi:10.1007/s10113-016-0957-8.
  360. Claassen, R., F. Carriazo, J. Cooper, D. Hellerstein, and K. Ueda, 2011a: Grassland to Cropland Conversion in the Northern Plains. The Role of Crop Insurance, Commodity, and Disaster Programs. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 85 pp.
  361. Campbell, B.M., P. Thornton, R. Zougmoré, P. Van Asten, and L. Lipper, 2014: Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 8, 39–43, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2014.07.002.
  362. Campbell, B.M., P. Thornton, R. Zougmoré, P. Van Asten, and L. Lipper, 2014: Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 8, 39–43, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2014.07.002.
  363. Vermeulen, S.J., B.M. Campbell, and J.S.I. Ingram, 2012b: Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 37, 195–222, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608.
  364. Challinor, A.J. et al., 2014: A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 287–291, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2153.
  365. Lipper, L. et al., 2014: Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 1068–1072, doi:10.1038/nclimate2437.
  366. Lobell, D.B., 2014: Climate change adaptation in crop production: Beware of illusions. Glob. Food Sec., 3, 72–76, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2014.05.002.
  367. Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food Security and Food Production Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
  368. Rojas-Downing, M.M., A.P. Nejadhashemi, T. Harrigan, and S.A. Woznicki, 2017: Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag., 16, 145–163, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001.
  369. Taboada, M., G. Rubio, and E. Chaneton, 2011: Grazing impacts on soil physical, chemical, and ecological properties in forage production systems. In: Soil Management: Building a Stable Base for Agriculture [J. Hatfield and T. Sauer (eds.)]. Soil Science Society of America, Wisconsin, USA, pp 301–320.
  370. Mekuria, W., and E. Aynekulu, 2013: Exclosure land management for restoration of the soils in degraded communal grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. L. Degrad. Dev., 24, 528–538, doi:10.1002/ldr.1146.
  371. Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food Security and Food Production Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
  372. Lasco, R.D., R.J.P. Delfino, D.C. Catacutan, E.S. Simelton, and D.M. Wilson, 2014: Climate risk adaptation by smallholder farmers: the roles of trees and agroforestry. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.013.
  373. Campbell, B.M., P. Thornton, R. Zougmoré, P. Van Asten, and L. Lipper, 2014: Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 8, 39–43, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2014.07.002.
  374. Cohn, A.S. et al., 2017: Smallholder agriculture and climate change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 42, 347–375, doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060946.
  375. Vermeulen, S.J. et al., 2012a: Options for support to agriculture and food security under climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy, 15, 136–144, doi:10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2011.09.003.
  376. Lin, B.B., 2011: Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: Adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience, 61, 183–193, doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4.
  377. Lal, R., 2001: Soil degradation by erosion. L. Degrad. Dev., 12, 519–539, doi:10.1002/ldr.472.
  378. Dillon, P., and M. Arshad, 2016: Managed aquifer recharge in integrated water resource management. In: Integrated Groundwater Management [A.J. Jakeman, O. Barreteau, R.J. Hunt, J.-D. Rinaudo, and A. Ross (eds.).]. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 435–452 pp.
  379. Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food Security and Food Production Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
  380. Dillon, P., and M. Arshad, 2016: Managed aquifer recharge in integrated water resource management. In: Integrated Groundwater Management [A.J. Jakeman, O. Barreteau, R.J. Hunt, J.-D. Rinaudo, and A. Ross (eds.).]. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 435–452 pp.
  381. Grey, D., and C.W. Sadoff, 2007: Sink or swim? Water security for growth and development. Water Policy, 9, 545–571, doi:10.2166/wp.2007.021.
  382. Liu, J. et al., 2017: Water scarcity assessments in the past, present, and future. Earth’s Futur., 5, 545–559, doi:10.1002/2016EF000518.
  383. Scott, C.A. et al., 2011: Policy and institutional dimensions of the water–energy nexus. Energy Policy, 39, 6622–6630, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.08.013.
  384. CRED, 2015: The human cost of natural disasters 2015: A Global Perspective. CRED, Brussels, Belgium, 55 pp.
  385. World Bank, FAO, and IFAD, 2009: Module 15: Gender and forestry. In: Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 643–674 pp.
  386. Keenan, R.J. et al., 2015: Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.014.
  387. Keenan, R.J. et al., 2015: Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.014.
  388. Karjalainen, E., T. Sarjala, and H. Raitio, 2009: Promoting human health through forests: Overview and major challenges. Environ. Health Prev. Med., 15, 1, doi:10.1007/s12199-008-0069-2.
  389. Bhattacharjee, K., and B. Behera, 2017: Forest cover change and flood hazards in India. Land use policy, 67, 436–448, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.013.
  390. Nowak, D.J., S. Hirabayashi, A. Bodine, and E. Greenfield, 2014: Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States. Environ. Pollut., 193, 119–129, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2014.05.028.
  391. Chow, J., 2018: Mangrove management for climate change adaptation and sustainable development in coastal zones. J. Sustain. For., 37, 139–156, doi:10.1080/10549811.2017.1339615.
  392. Long, A., 2013: REDD+, adaptation, and sustainable forest management: Toward effective polycentric global forest governance. Trop. Conserv. Sci., 6, 384–408.
  393. Morita, K., and K. Matsumoto, 2018: Synergies among climate change and biodiversity conservation measures and policies in the forest sector: A case study of Southeast Asian countries. For. Policy Econ., 87, 59–69.
  394. McElwee, P. et al., 2017b: Using REDD+ policy to facilitate climate adaptation at the local level: Synergies and challenges in Vietnam. Forests, 8, 1–25, doi:10.3390/f8010011.
  395. Locatelli, B., 2011: Synergies Between Adaptation and Mitigation in a Nutshell. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 4 pp.
  396. Ellison, D. et al., 2017: Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Chang., 43, 51–61, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002.
  397. Dooley, K., and S. Kartha, 2018: Land-based negative emissions: Risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ., 18, 79–98, doi:10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9.
  398. Locatelli, B., C. Pavageau, E. Pramova, and M. Di Gregorio, 2015b: Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 6, 585–598, doi:10.1002/wcc.357.
  399. Reyer, C., M. Guericke, and P.L. Ibisch, 2009: Climate change mitigation via afforestation, reforestation and deforestation avoidance: And what about adaptation to environmental change? New For., 38, 15–34, doi:10.1007/s11056-008-9129-0.
  400. Ellison, D. et al., 2017: Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Chang., 43, 51–61, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002.
  401. Locatelli, B., C. Pavageau, E. Pramova, and M. Di Gregorio, 2015b: Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 6, 585–598, doi:10.1002/wcc.357.
  402. Findell, K.L. et al., 2017: The impact of anthropogenic land use and land cover change on regional climate extremes. Nat. Commun., 8, 989, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01038-w.
  403. Sonntag, S., J. Pongratz, C.H. Reick, and H. Schmidt, 2016: Reforestation in a high-CO2 world – Higher mitigation potential than expected, lower adaptation potential than hoped for. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6546–6553, doi:10.1002/2016GL068824.
  404. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  405. Lal, R., 1998: Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 17, 319–464, doi:10.1080/
07352689891304249.
  406. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  407. Lal, R., 2014: Soil carbon management and climate change. In: Soil Carbon [A.E. Hartemink and K. McSweeney (eds.)]. Springer, Switzerland, 439–462.
  408. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  409. Garbrecht, J., M. Nearing, J. Steiner, X. Zhang, and M. Nichols, 2015: Can conservation trump impacts of climate change on soil erosion? An assessment from winter wheat cropland in the Southern Great Plains of the United States. Weather Clim. Extrem., 10, 32–39, doi:10.1016/j.wace.2015.06.002.
  410. Qadir, M., A.D. Noble, and C. Chartres, 2013: Adapting to climate change by improving water productivity of soils in dry areas. L. Degrad. Dev., 24, 12–21, doi:10.1002/ldr.1091.
  411. UNCTAD, 2011: Water for food – Innovative Water Management Technologies for Food Security and Poverty Alleviation. New York, USA, and Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
  412. Dagar, J., P. Sharma, D. Sharma, and A. Singh, 2016: Innovative Saline Agriculture. Springer India, New Delhi, 1–519 pp.
  413. Chamen, W., A.P. Moxey, W. Towers, B. Balana, and P.D. Hallett, 2015: Mitigating arable soil compaction: A review and analysis of available cost and benefit data. Soil Tillage Res., 146, 10–25, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2014.09.011.
  414. Epron, D. et al., 2016: Effects of compaction by heavy machine traffic on soil fluxes of methane and carbon dioxide in a temperate broadleaved forest. For. Ecol. Manage., 382, 1–9, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2016.09.037.
  415. Tullberg, J., D.L. Antille, C. Bluett, J. Eberhard, and C. Scheer, 2018: Controlled traffic farming effects on soil emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. Soil Tillage Res., 176, 18–25, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2017.09.014.
  416. Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph, 2010: Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun., 1, 1–9, doi:10.1038/ncomms1053.
  417. Sohi, S., 2012: Carbon storage with benefits. Science, 338, 1034–1035, doi:10.1126/science.1227620.
  418. Jeffery, S. et al., 2017: Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 53001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa67bd.
  419. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  420. Johnston, F.H. et al., 2012: Estimated global mortality attributable to smoke from landscape fires. Environ. Health Perspect., doi:10.1289/ehp.1104422.
  421. UNEP and WMO, 2011: Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 36 pp.
  422. West, J.J. et al., 2013: Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health. Nat. Clim. Chang., 3, 885–889, doi:10.1038/nclimate2009.
  423. Keddy, P., L. Fraser, A. Solomeshch, and W. Junk, 2009: Wet and wonderful: The world’s largest wetlands are conservation priorities. Bioscience, 59, 39–51.
  424. Hinkel, J. et al., 2014: Coastal flood damage and adaptation costs under 21st century sea-level rise. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 111, 3292–3297.
  425. Munang, R., J. Andrews, K. Alverson, and D. Mebratu, 2014: Harnessing ecosystem-based adaptation to address the social dimensions of climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev., 56, 18–24, doi:10.1080/00139157.2014.861676.
  426. Jones, H.P., D.G. Hole, and E.S. Zavaleta, 2012: Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 504–509, doi:10.1038/nclimate1463.
  427. Jactel, H. et al., 2017: Tree diversity drives forest stand resistance to natural disturbances. Curr. For. Reports, 3, 223–243, doi:10.1007/s40725-017-0064-1.
  428. Kobayashi, Y., and A.S. Mori, 2017: The potential role of tree diversity in reducing shallow landslide risk. Environ. Manage., 59, 807–815, doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0820-9.
  429. Watson, J.E.M., N. Dudley, D.B. Segan, and M. Hockings, 2014: The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515, 67–73, doi:10.1038/nature13947.
  430. Lopoukhine, N. et al., 2012: Protected areas: Providing natural solutions to 21st Century challenges. SAPIENS, 5, 117–131.
  431. Dudley, N. et al., 2010: Natural Solutions: Protected Areas Helping People Cope with Climate Change. Gland, Switzerland, Washington DC and New York, USA, 130 pp.
  432. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2008: Protected Areas in Today’s World: Their Values and Benefits for the Welfare of the Planet. 96 pp.
  433. Beerling, D.J. et al., 2018: Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants, 4, 138.
  434. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  435. Calvin, K. et al., 2014: Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim. Change, 123, 691–704, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0897-y.
  436. Smith, P. et al., 2016a: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.
  437. Baker, J.S., C.M. Wade, B.L. Sohngen, S. Ohrel, and A.A. Fawcett, 2019: Potential complementarity between forest carbon sequestration incentives and biomass energy expansion. Energy Policy, 126, 391–401, doi:10.1016/J.ENPOL.2018.10.009.
  438. Favero, A., and R. Mendelsohn, 2017: The land-use consequences of woody biomass with more stringent climate mitigation scenarios. J. Environ. Prot. (Irvine,. Calif)., 8, 61–73, doi:10.4236/jep.2017.81006.
  439. Chaturvedi, V. et al., 2013: Climate mitigation policy implications for global irrigation water demand. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 20, 389–407, doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9497-4.
  440. Hejazi, M.I. et al., 2015: 21st century United States emissions mitigation could increase water stress more than the climate change it is mitigating. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112, 10635–10640, doi:10.1073/pnas.1421675112.
  441. Popp, A. et al., 2011a: The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ. Res. Lett., 6, 34017, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034017.
  442. Smith, P. et al., 2016a: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.
  443. Fuss, S. et al., 2018: Negative emissions — part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 63002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
  444. Dasgupta, P., J.F. Morton, D. Dodman, B. Karapinar, F. Meza, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, A. Toure Sarr, and K.E. Vincent, 2014: Rural areas. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 613–657.
  445. Noble, I.R. et al., 2014: Adaptation Needs and Options. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 833–868.
  446. Muller, A. et al., 2017: Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun., 8, 1290, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w.
  447. Kummu, M. et al., 2012: Lost-food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ., 438, 477–489, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2012.08.092.
  448. Kummu, M., P.J. Ward, H. de Moel, and O. Varis, 2010: Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of water shortage over the last two millennia. Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 34006, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034006.
  449. Gustavsson, L. et al., 2006: The role of wood material for greenhouse gas mitigation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., 11, 1097–1127, doi:10.1007/s11027-006-9035-8.
  450. Ramage, M.H. et al., 2017: The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 68, 333–359, doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2016.09.107.
  451. IFAD, 2013: Smallholders, Food Security, and the Environment. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  452. Tayleur, C. et al., 2017: Global coverage of agricultural sustainability standards, and their role in conserving biodiversity. Conserv. Lett., 10, 610–618, doi:10.1111/conl.12314.
  453. Regmi, A., and B. Meade, 2013: Demand side drivers of global food security. Glob. Food Sec., 2, 166–171, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2013.08.001.
  454. Fujimori, S. et al., 2019: A multi-model assessment of food security implications of well below 2°C scenario vans. Nat. Commun., 2, 386–396.
  455. Wheeler, T., and J. von Braun, 2013: Climate change impacts on global food security. Science., 341, 508–513, doi:10.1126/science.1239402.
  456. Headey, D., and S. Fan, 2008: Anatomy of a crisis: The causes and consequences of surging food prices. Agric. Econ., 39, 375–391, doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00345.x.
  457. Ivanic, M., and W. Martin, 2008: Implications of higher global food prices for poverty in low-income countries. Agric. Econ., 39, 405–416, doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2008.00347.x.
  458. Brinkman, H., S. De Pee, I. Sanogo, L. Subran, and M. Bloem, 2009: High food prices and the global financial crisis have reduced access to nutritious food and worsened nutritional status and health. J. Nutr., 140, 153S–161S, doi:10.3945/jn.109.110767.
  459. Zezza, A., G. Carletto, B. Davis, K. Stamoulis, and P. Winters, 2009: Rural income generating activities: Whatever happened to the institutional vacuum? Evidence from Ghana, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Vietnam. World Dev., 37, 1297–1306, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.11.004.
  460. Timmer, C., 2009: Preventing food crises using a food policy approach. J. Nutr., 140, 224S–228S.
  461. Zezza, A., G. Carletto, B. Davis, K. Stamoulis, and P. Winters, 2009: Rural income generating activities: Whatever happened to the institutional vacuum? Evidence from Ghana, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Vietnam. World Dev., 37, 1297–1306, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.11.004.
  462. Ziervogel, G., and P.J. Ericksen, 2010: Adapting to climate change to sustain food security. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 1, 525–540, doi:10.1002/wcc.56.
  463. Torlesse, H., L. Kiess, and M.W. Bloem, 2003: Association of household rice expenditure with child nutritional status indicates a role for macroeconomic food policy in combating malnutrition. J. Nutr., 133, 1320–1325, doi:10.1093/jn/133.5.1320.
  464. Raleigh, C., H.J. Choi, and D. Kniveton, 2015: The devil is in the details: An investigation of the relationships between conflict, food price and climate across Africa. Glob. Environ. Chang., 32, 187–199, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.005.
  465. Frumkin, H., 2002: Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Rep., 117, 201–217, doi:10.1093/phr/117.3.201.
  466. Anderson, C.M., C.B. Field, and K.J. Mach, 2017: Forest offsets partner climate-change mitigation with conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ., 15, 359–365, doi:10.1002/fee.1515.
  467. Stone, B., J.J. Hess, and H. Frumkin, 2010: Urban form and extreme heat events: Are sprawling cities more vulnerable to climate change than compact cities? Environ. Health Perspect., 118, 1425–1428, doi:10.1289/ehp.0901879.
  468. Deal, B., and D. Schunk, 2004: Spatial dynamic modeling and urban land use transformation: A simulation approach to assessing the costs of urban sprawl. Ecol. Econ., 51, 79–95, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.04.008.
  469. Osbahr, H., C. Twyman, W. Neil Adger, and D.S.G. Thomas, 2008: Effective livelihood adaptation to climate change disturbance: Scale dimensions of practice in Mozambique. Geoforum, 39, 1951–1964, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.07.010.
  470. Adger, W.N. et al., 2011: Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 2, 757–766, doi:10.1002/wcc.133.
  471. Thornton, P.K., and M. Herrero, 2014: Climate change adaptation in mixed crop–livestock systems in developing countries. Glob. Food Sec., 3, 99–107, doi:10.1016/J.GFS.2014.02.002.
  472. Bryan, E. et al., 2013: Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and determinants. J. Environ. Manage., 114, 26–35, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.036.
  473. Adger, W.N. et al., 2011: Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 2, 757–766, doi:10.1002/wcc.133.
  474. Lowder, S.K., J. Skoet, and T. Raney, 2016: The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev., 87, 16–29, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.041.
  475. Rigg, J., 2006: Land, farming, livelihoods, and poverty: Rethinking the links in the Rural South. World Dev., 34, 180–202, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.015.
  476. Howard, P.H., 2015: Intellectual property and consolidation in the seed industry. Crop Sci., 55, 2489, doi:10.2135/cropsci2014.09.0669.
  477. Coomes, O.T. et al., 2015: Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy, 56, 41–50, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2015.07.008.
  478. Van Niekerk, J., and R. Wynberg, 2017: Traditional seed and exchange systems cement social relations and provide a safety net: a case arotudym KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst., 41, 1–25, doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1359738.
  479. Vasconcelos, A.C.F. et al., 2013: Landraces as an adaptation strategy to climate change for smallholders in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil. Land use policy, 34, 250–254, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2013.03.017.
  480. Hillbruner, C., and G. Moloney, 2012: When early warning is not enough – Lessons learned from the 2011 Somalia famine. Glob. Food Sec., 1, 20–28, doi:10.1016/J.GFS.2012.08.001.
  481. Mahmud, T., and M. Prowse, 2012: Corruption in cyclone preparedness and relief efforts in coastal Bangladesh: Lessons for climate adaptation? Glob. Environ. Chang., 22, 933–943, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2012.07.003.
  482. Birkmann, J. et al., 2015: Scenarios for vulnerability: Opportunities and constraints in the context of climate change and disaster risk. Clim. Change, 133, 53–68, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0913-2.
  483. Meze-Hausken, E., A. Patt, and S. Fritz, 2009: Reducing climate risk for micro-insurance providers in Africa: A case study of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang., 19, 66–73, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.09.001.
  484. Patt, A., P. Suarez, and U. Hess, 2010: How do small-holder farmers understand insurance, and how much do they want it? Evidence from Africa. Glob. Environ. Chang., 20, 153–161, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.007.
  485. Skees, J.R., and B. Collier, 2012: The roles of weather insurance and the carbon market. In: Greening the Financial Sector. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 111–164 pp.
  486. Jaworski, A., 2016: Encouraging climate adaptation through reform of federal crop insurance subsidies. New York Univ. Law Rev., 91, 1684.
  487. McLeman, R., and B. Smit, 2006: Migration as an adaptation to climate change. Clim. Change, 76, 31–53.
  488. Sanderson, M. et al., 2013: Diversification and ecosystem services for conservation agriculture: Outcomes from pastures and integrated crop-livestock systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 28, 194, doi:10.1017/s1742170513000124.
  489. Annan, F., and W. Schlenker, 2015: Federal crop insurance and the disincentive to adapt to extreme heat. Am. Econ. Rev., 105, 262–266, doi:10.1257/aer.p20151031.
  490. Platteau, J.-P., O. De Bock, and W. Gelade, 2017: The demand for microinsurance: A literature review. World Dev., 94, 139–156, doi:10.1016/
j.worlddev.2017.01.010.
  491. FAO, 2015: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  492. Schwilch, G., H.P. Liniger, and H. Hurni, 2014: Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices in drylands: How do they address desertification threats? Environ. Manage., 54, 983–1004, doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0071-3.
  493. Bestelmeyer, B.T. et al., 2015: Desertification, land use, and the transformation of global drylands. Front. Ecol. Environ., 13, 28–36, doi:10.1890/140162.
  494. Garrity, D., and Nair, P.K. (eds.) 2012: Agroforestry – The Future of Global Land Use. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Netherlands, 21–27.
  495. Schwilch, G., H.P. Liniger, and H. Hurni, 2014: Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices in drylands: How do they address desertification threats? Environ. Manage., 54, 983–1004, doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0071-3.
  496. Datta, K.K., C. De Jong, and O.P. Singh, 2000: Reclaiming salt-affected land through drainage in Haryana, India: A financial analysis. Agric. Water Manag., 46, 55–71, doi:10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00077-9.
  497. Evans, R.G., and E.J. Sadler, 2008: Methods and technologies to improve efficiency of water use. Water Resour. Res., 44, 1–15, doi:10.1029/2007WR006200.
  498. He, B., Y. Cai, W. Ran, X. Zhao, and H. Jiang, 2015: Spatiotemporal heterogeneity of soil salinity after the establishment of vegetation on a coastal saline field. Catena, 127, 129–134, doi:10.1016/j.catena.2014.12.028.
  499. IPCC, 2014: Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  500. Poulter, B. et al., 2014: Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global carbon cycle. Nature, 509, 600–603, doi:10.1038/nature13376.
  501. Locatelli, B., C. Pavageau, E. Pramova, and M. Di Gregorio, 2015b: Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 6, 585–598, doi:10.1002/wcc.357.
  502. Núñez, M., B. et al., 2010: Assessing potential desertification environmental impact in life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 15, 67–78, doi:10.1007/s11367-009-0126-0.
  503. Bastin, J.-F. et al., 2017: The extent of forest in dryland biomes. Science, 356, 635–638, doi:10.1126/science.aam6527.
  504. Medugu, N.I., M.R. Majid, F. Johar, and I.D. Choji, 2010: The role of afforestation programme in combating desertification in Nigeria. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag., 2, 35–47, doi:10.1108/17568691011020247.
  505. Salvati, L., A. Sabbi, D. Smiraglia, and M. Zitti, 2014: Does forest expansion mitigate the risk of desertification? Exploring soil degradation and land-use changes in a Mediterranean country. Int. For. Rev., 16, 485–496, doi:10.1505/146554814813484149.
  506. Zeng, Y. et al., 2016: Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable water resource limits. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 1019–1022, doi:10.1038/nclimate3092.
  507. Yang, L., L. Chen, W. Wei, Y. Yu, and H. Zhang, 2014: Comparison of deep soil moisture in two re-vegetation watersheds in semi-arid regions. J. Hydrol., 513, 314–321, doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.049.
  508. Kreidenweis, U. et al., 2016: Afforestation to mitigate climate change: Impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 85001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/085001.
  509. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  510. Kreidenweis, U. et al., 2016: Afforestation to mitigate climate change: Impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 85001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/085001.
  511. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  512. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  513. Lal, R., 2001: Soil degradation by erosion. L. Degrad. Dev., 12, 519–539, doi:10.1002/ldr.472.
  514. FAO, 2015: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  515. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science- Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  516. Lal, R., 2001: Soil degradation by erosion. L. Degrad. Dev., 12, 519–539, doi:10.1002/ldr.472.
  517. Allington, G., and T. Valone, 2010: Reversal of desertification: the role of physical and chemical soil properties. J. Arid Environ., 74, 973–977.
  518. Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph, 2010: Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun., 1, 1–9, doi:10.1038/ncomms1053.
  519. Sohi, S., 2012: Carbon storage with benefits. Science, 338, 1034–1035, doi:10.1126/science.1227620.
  520. Arora, V.K., and J.R. Melton, 2018: Reduction in global area burned and wildfire emissions since 1930s enhances carbon uptake by land. Nat. Commun., 9, 1326, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03838-0.
  521. Randerson, J.T., Y. Chen, G.R. Van der Werf, B.M. Rogers, and D.C. Morton, 2012: Global burned area and biomass burning emissions from small fires. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences, 117, doi:10.1029/2012JG002128.
  522. Tansey, K. et al., 2004: Vegetation burning in the year 2000: Global burned area estimates from SPOT VEGETATION data. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 109, D14, doi:10.1029/2003JD003598.
  523. Djeddaoui, F., M. Chadli, and R. Gloaguen, 2017: Desertification susceptibility mapping using logistic regression analysis in the Djelfa area, Algeria. Remote Sens., 9, 1031, doi:10.3390/rs9101031.
  524. Oldeman, L., R. Hakkeling, and W. Sombroek, 1991: World Map of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation: An Explanatory Note. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD). CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hauge, Netherlands, 41 pp.
  525. Beerling, D.J. et al., 2018: Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants, 4, 138.
  526. Smith, P. et al., 2016a: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.
  527. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  528. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  529. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  530. Bajželj, B., K. Richards, B. Bajželj, and K.S. Richards, 2014a: The positive feedback loop between the impacts of climate change and agricultural expansion and relocation. Land, 3, 898–916, doi:10.3390/land3030898.
  531. Stehfest, E. et al., 2009: Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Change, 95, 83–102, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6.
  532. Tilman, D., and M. Clark, 2014: Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518–522, doi:10.1038/nature13959.
  533. Kummu, M. et al., 2012: Lost-food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ., 438, 477–489, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2012.08.092.
  534. Barbero-Sierra, C., M.J. Marques, and M. Ruíz-Pérez, 2013: The case of urban sprawl in Spain as an active and irreversible driving force for desertification. J. Arid Environ., 90, 95–102, doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.10.014.
  535. Stellmes, M., A. Röder, T. Udelhoven, and J. Hill, 2013: Mapping syndromes of land change in Spain with remote sensing time series, demographic and climatic data. Land use policy, 30, 685–702, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.007.
  536. Antwi-Agyei, P., L.C. Stringer, and A.J. Dougill, 2014: Livelihood adaptations to climate variability: Insights from farming households in Ghana. Reg. Environ. Chang., 14, 1615–1626, doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0597-9.
  537. Stringer, L.C. et al., 2009: Adaptations to climate change, drought and desertification: Local insights to enhance policy in southern Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy, 12, 748–765.
  538. Herrmann, S., and C. Hutchinson, 2005: The changing contexts of the desertification debate. J. Arid Environ., 63, 538–555.
  539. Mousseau, F., 2015: The untold success story of agroecology in Africa. Development, 58, 341–345, doi:10.1057/s41301-016-0026-0.
  540. Bassoum, S., and D. Ghiggi, 2010: Sahel vert: A project of Centre Mampuya, Senegal. In: International Symposium on Urban and Peri-Urban Horticulture in the Century of Cities: Lessons, Challenges, Opportunities 1021, 367–372.
  541. Nunes, A. et al., 2016: Ecological restoration across the Mediterranean Basin as viewed by practitioners. Sci. Total Environ., 566, 722–732.
  542. Pozzi, W. et al., 2013: Toward global drought early warning capability: Expanding international cooperation for the development of a framework for monitoring and forecasting. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94, 776–785, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00176.1.
  543. Claassen, R., F. Carriazo, J. Cooper, D. Hellerstein, and K. Ueda, 2011a: Grassland to Cropland Conversion in the Northern Plains. The Role of Crop Insurance, Commodity, and Disaster Programs. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 85 pp.
  544. Burney, J., S.J. Davis, and D.B. Lobell, 2010: Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 107, 12052–12057, doi:10.1073/pnas.0914216107.
  545. FAO, 2015: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  546. FAO, 2017b: Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 26 pp.
  547. Smith, P. et al., 2016a: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.
  548. Garrity, D., and Nair, P.K. (eds.) 2012: Agroforestry – The Future of Global Land Use. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Netherlands, 21–27.
  549. Lipper, L. et al., 2014: Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 1068–1072, doi:10.1038/nclimate2437.
  550. Lipper, L. et al., 2014: Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 1068–1072, doi:10.1038/nclimate2437.
  551. Pierzynski, G., C.L. Brajendra, and R. Vargas, 2017: Threats to Soils: Global Trends and Perspectives. Global Land Outlook Working Paper 28. Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn, Germany, 340 pp.
  552. Eisenbies, M.H., W.M. Aust, J.A. Burger, and M.B. Adams, 2007: Forest operations, extreme flooding events, and considerations for hydrologic modeling in the Appalachians — A review. For. Ecol. Manage., 242, 77–98.
  553. Gibbs, H.K., and J.M. Salmon, 2015: Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr., 57, 12–21, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.11.024.
  554. Borrelli, P. et al., 2017: An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun., 8, 2013, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7.
  555. Santika, T. et al., 2017: Community forest management in Indonesia: Avoided deforestation in the context of anthropogenic and climate complexities. Glob. Environ. Chang., 46, 60–71, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.08.002.
  556. UNCCD, 2012: Zero Net Land Degradation. A Sustainable Development Goal for Rio+20. To Secure the Contribution of our Planet’s Land and Soil to Sustainable Development, including Food Security and Poverty Eradication. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 32 pp.
  557. Safriel, U., 2017: Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) in drylands and beyond – Where has it come from and where does it go. Silva Fenn., 51, 1650, doi:10.14214/sf.1650.
  558. UNCCD, 2012: Zero Net Land Degradation. A Sustainable Development Goal for Rio+20. To Secure the Contribution of our Planet’s Land and Soil to Sustainable Development, including Food Security and Poverty Eradication. UNCCD, Bonn, Germany, 32 pp.
  559. Wolff, S., E.A. Schrammeijer, C.J.E. Schulp, and P.H. Verburg, 2018: Meeting global land restoration and protection targets: What would the world look like in 2050? Glob. Environ. Chang., 52, 259–272, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.002.
  560. Melo, F.P.L. et al., 2013: Priority setting for scaling-up tropical forest restoration projects: Early lessons from the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact. Environ. Sci. Policy, 33, 395–404, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.013.
  561. Durigan, G., N. Guerin, and J.N.M.N. da Costa, 2013: Ecological restoration of Xingu Basin headwaters: Motivations, engagement, challenges and perspectives. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 368, 20120165–20120165, doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0165.
  562. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  563. Lal, R., 2004: Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science., 304, 1623–1627.
  564. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  565. Oldeman, L., R. Hakkeling, and W. Sombroek, 1991: World Map of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation: An Explanatory Note. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD). CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hauge, Netherlands, 41 pp.
  566. Sohi, S., 2012: Carbon storage with benefits. Science, 338, 1034–1035, doi:10.1126/science.1227620.
  567. FAO, 2015: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  568. Gariano, S., and F. Guzzetti, 2016: Landslides in a changing climate. Earth-Science Rev., 162, 227–252.
  569. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  570. Zhang, K. et al. 2013: Sustainability of social–ecological systems under conservation projects: Lessons from a biodiversity hotspot in western China. Biol. Conserv., 158, 205–213, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.021.
  571. Cromsigt, J.P.G.M. et al., 2018: Trophic rewilding as a climate change mitigation strategy? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 373, 20170440, doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0440.
  572. Beerling, D.J. et al., 2018: Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants, 4, 138.
  573. Smith, P. et al., 2016a: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.
  574. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  575. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  576. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  577. Robertson, G.P. et al., 2017b: Cellulosic biofuel contributions to a sustainable energy future: Choices and outcomes. Science., 356, eaal2324, doi:10.1126/science.aal2324.
  578. Mello, F.F.C. et al., 2014: Payback time for soil carbon and sugar-cane ethanol. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 605–609, doi:10.1038/nclimate2239.
  579. FAO, 2011b: The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture. Managing Systems at Risk. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, and Earthscan, London, UK, 308 pp.
  580. Lal, R., 2014: Soil carbon management and climate change. In: Soil Carbon [A.E. Hartemink and K. McSweeney (eds.)]. Springer, Switzerland, 439–462.
  581. Bajželj, B., K. Richards, B. Bajželj, and K.S. Richards, 2014a: The positive feedback loop between the impacts of climate change and agricultural expansion and relocation. Land, 3, 898–916, doi:10.3390/land3030898.
  582. Stehfest, E. et al., 2009: Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Change, 95, 83–102, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6.
  583. Tilman, D., and M. Clark, 2014: Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518–522, doi:10.1038/nature13959.
  584. Kummu, M. et al., 2012: Lost-food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ., 438, 477–489, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2012.08.092.
  585. PEFC, and FSC, 2018: Double Certification FSC and PEFC – Estimations for Mid 2018. Geneva, Switzerland,.
  586. McMichael, P., and M. Schneider, 2011: Food security politics and the millennium development goals. Third World Q., 32, 119–139, doi:10.1080/01436597.2011.543818.
  587. McMichael, P., 2012: The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring. 39, 681–701, doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.661369.
  588. Bren d’Amour, C. et al., 2016: Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 8939–8944, doi:10.1073/pnas.1606036114.
  589. Chen, J., 2007: Rapid urbanization in China: A real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena, 69, 1–15, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2006.04.019.
  590. Song, W., and X. Deng, 2015: Effects of urbanization-induced cultivated land loss on ecosystem services in the North China Plain. Energies, 8, 5678–5693, doi:10.3390/en8065678.
  591. Barbero-Sierra, C., M.J. Marques, and M. Ruíz-Pérez, 2013: The case of urban sprawl in Spain as an active and irreversible driving force for desertification. J. Arid Environ., 90, 95–102, doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.10.014.
  592. Angel, S. et al., 2005: The Dynamics of Global Urban Expansion. World Bank, Transport and Urban Development Department, Washington, DC, USA, 205 pp.
  593. Batterbury, S., 2001: Landscapes of diversity: A local political ecology of livelihood diversification in South-Western Niger. Ecumene, 8, 437–464, doi:10.1177/096746080100800404.
  594. Lestrelin, G., and M. Giordano, 2007: Upland development policy, livelihood change and land degradation: Interactions from a Laotian village. L. Degrad. Dev., 18, 55–76, doi:10.1002/ldr.756.
  595. Antwi-Agyei, P., L.C. Stringer, and A.J. Dougill, 2014: Livelihood adaptations to climate variability: Insights from farming households in Ghana. Reg. Environ. Chang., 14, 1615–1626, doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0597-9.
  596. Liu, Y., Y. Zhou, and W. Wu, 2015: Assessing the impact of population, income and technology on energy consumption and industrial pollutant emissions in China. Appl. Energy, 155, 904–917, doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.06.051.
  597. Liu, Y., Y. Zhou, and W. Wu, 2015: Assessing the impact of population, income and technology on energy consumption and industrial pollutant emissions in China. Appl. Energy, 155, 904–917, doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.06.051.
  598. Reisman, E., 2017: Troubling tradition, community, and self-reliance: Reframing expectations for village seed banks. World Dev., 98, 160–168, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2017.04.024.
  599. Pozzi, W. et al., 2013: Toward global drought early warning capability: Expanding international cooperation for the development of a framework for monitoring and forecasting. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94, 776–785, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00176.1.
  600. Goodwin, B.K., and V.H. Smith, 2003: An ex post evaluation of the conservation reserve, federal crop insurance, and other government programs: Program participation and soil erosion. J. Agric. Resour. Econ., 28, 201–216, doi:10.2307/40987182.
  601. Wright, C.K., and M.C. Wimberly, 2013: Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110, 4134–4139, doi:10.1073/pnas.1215404110.
  602. Erisman, J.W., M.A. Sutton, J. Galloway, Z. Klimont, and W. Winiwarter, 2008: How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nat. Geosci., 1, 636–639, doi:10.1038/ngeo325.
  603. Mueller, N.D. et al., 2012: Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature, 490, 254–257, doi:10.1038/nature11420.
  604. Greenwood, K., and B. McKenzie, 2001: Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the consequences for pastures: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 41, 1231–1250.
  605. Drewry, J., 2006: Natural recovery of soil physical properties from treading damage of pastoral soils in New Zealand and Australia: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 114, 159–169.
  606. Taboada, M., G. Rubio, and E. Chaneton, 2011: Grazing impacts on soil physical, chemical, and ecological properties in forage production systems. In: Soil Management: Building a Stable Base for Agriculture [J. Hatfield and T. Sauer (eds.)]. Soil Science Society of America, Wisconsin, USA, pp 301–320.
  607. Reynolds, L.P., M.C. Wulster-Radcliffe, D.K. Aaron, and T.A. Davis, 2015: Importance of animals in agricultural sustainability and food security. J. Nutr., 145, 1377–1379.
  608. Herrero, M. et al., 2016: Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 452–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate2925.
  609. O’Mara, F., 2012: The role of grasslands in food security and climate change. Ann. Bot., 110, 1263–1270, doi:10.1093/aob/mcs209.
  610. Thornton, P.K., J. Van de Steeg, A. Notenbaert, and M. Herrero, 2009: The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need to know. Agric. Syst., 101, 113–127, doi:10.1016/J.AGSY.2009.05.002.
  611. Birthal, P.S., D. Roy, and D.S. Negi, 2015: Assessing the impact of crop diversification on farm poverty in India. World Dev., 72, 70–92, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2015.02.015.
  612. Massawe, F., S. Mayes, and A. Cheng, 2016: Crop diversity: An unexploited treasure trove for food security. Trends Plant Sci., 21, 365–368, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2016.02.006.
  613. Waha, K. et al. 2018: Agricultural diversification as an important strategy for achieving food security in Africa. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 3390–3400, doi:10.1111/gcb.14158.
  614. Foley, J.A. et al., 2005: Global consequences of land use. Science., 309, 570–574, doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.1111772.
  615. Clark, M., and D. Tilman, 2017: Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 64016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5.
  616. Clark, M., and D. Tilman, 2017: Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 64016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5.
  617. FAO, 2018b: The Future of Food and Agriculture. Alternative pathways to 2050. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 64 pp.
  618. OECD and FAO, 2018: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018 – 2027. Meat. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 29 pp.
  619. Godfray, H.C.J., and T. Garnett, 2014: Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 369, 20120273–20120273, doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0273.
  620. Tilman, D., C. Balzer, J. Hill, and B.L. Befort, 2011: Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 20260–20264, doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108.
  621. Campbell, B.M. et al., 2016: Reducing risks to food security from climate change. Glob. Food Sec., 11, 34–43, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2016.06.002.
  622. Rivera-Ferre, M.G. et al., 2016: Re-framing the climate change debate in the livestock sector: Mitigation and adaptation options. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 7, 869–892, doi:10.1002/wcc.421.
  623. FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2013: The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 56 pp.
  624. Rowland, D., A. Ickowitz, B. Powell, R. Nasi, and T. Sunderland, 2017: Forest foods and healthy diets: Quantifying the contributions. Environ. Conserv., 44, 102–114, doi:10.1017/S0376892916000151.
  625. Keenan, R.J. et al., 2015: Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.014.
  626. Sunderland, T.C.H. et al., 2013: Food security and nutrition: The role of forests. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor Barat, Indonesia.
  627. Vira, B., C. Wildburger, and S. Mansourian, (eds.) 2015: Forests and Food: Addressing Hunger and Nutrition Across Sustainable Landscapes. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK, 280 pp.
  628. Erb, K.H. et al., 2016: Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun., 7, 11382.
  629. Cerri, C.E.P. et al., 2018: Reducing Amazon deforestation through agricultural intensification in the cerrado for advancing food security and mitigating climate change. Sustainability, 10, 989, doi:10.3390/su10040989.
  630. Doelman, J.C. et al., 2018: Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: Regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Chang., 48, 119–135, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.11.014.
  631. Frank, S. et al., 2017: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 105004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83.
  632. Kreidenweis, U. et al., 2016: Afforestation to mitigate climate change: Impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 85001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/085001.
  633. Kreidenweis, U. et al., 2016: Afforestation to mitigate climate change: Impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 85001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/085001.
  634. Frank, S. et al., 2017: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 105004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83.
  635. Wunder, S., A. Angelsen, and B. Belcher, 2014: Forests, livelihoods, and conservation: Broadening the empirical base. World Dev., 64, S1–S11, doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.007.
  636. McIntyre, P.B., C.A.R. Liermann, and C. Revenga, 2016: Linking freshwater fishery management to global food security and biodiversity conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 12880–12885.
  637. Nasi, R., A. Taber, and N. Van Vliet, 2011: Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. Int. For. Rev., 13, 355–368.
  638. Lal, R., 2006: Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. L. Degrad. Dev., 17, 197–209, doi:10.1002/ldr.696.
  639. Pan, G., P. Smith, and W. Pan, 2009: The role of soil organic matter in maintaining the productivity and yield stability of cereals in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 129, 344–348, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2008.10.008.
  640. Soussana, J. et al., 2019: Matching policy and science: Rationale for the “4 per 1000-soils for food security and climate” initiative. Soil Tillage Res., 188, 3–15.
  641. Hijbeek, R., M.K. Van Ittersum, H.F.M. Ten Berge, G. Gort, H. Spiegel, and A.P. Whitmore, 2017: Do a organic inputs matter – A meta-analysis of additional yield effects for arable crops in Europe. Plant Soil, 411, 293–303.
  642. Lal, R., 2006: Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. L. Degrad. Dev., 17, 197–209, doi:10.1002/ldr.696.
  643. FAO, 2018a: Handbook for Saline Soil Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 144 pp.
  644. Pradhan, P., D.E. Reusser, and J.P. Kropp, 2013: Embodied greenhouse gas emissions in diets. PLoS One, 8, e62228.
  645. World Bank, 2018a: Commodity Markets Outlook. Oil Exporters: Policies and Challenges. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 82 pp.
  646. Qadir, M., A.D. Noble, and C. Chartres, 2013: Adapting to climate change by improving water productivity of soils in dry areas. L. Degrad. Dev., 24, 12–21, doi:10.1002/ldr.1091.
  647. Anderson, K., and G. Peters, 2016: The trouble with negative emissions. Science., 354, 182–183, doi:10.1126/science.aah4567.
  648. Jeffery, S. et al., 2017: Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 53001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa67bd.
  649. Sohi, S., 2012: Carbon storage with benefits. Science, 338, 1034–1035, doi:10.1126/science.1227620.
  650. Smith, P., 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1315–1324, doi:10.1111/gcb.13178.
  651. Smith, P., 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1315–1324, doi:10.1111/gcb.13178.
  652. Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph, 2010: Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun., 1, 1–9, doi:10.1038/ncomms1053.
  653. FAO, 2018a: Handbook for Saline Soil Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 144 pp.
  654. Pradhan, P., D.E. Reusser, and J.P. Kropp, 2013: Embodied greenhouse gas emissions in diets. PLoS One, 8, e62228.
  655. World Bank, 2018a: Commodity Markets Outlook. Oil Exporters: Policies and Challenges. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 82 pp.
  656. Shindell, D. et al., 2012: Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science., 335, 183–189, doi:10.1126/science.1210026.
  657. FAO, 2018a: Handbook for Saline Soil Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 144 pp.
  658. Pradhan, P., D.E. Reusser, and J.P. Kropp, 2013: Embodied greenhouse gas emissions in diets. PLoS One, 8, e62228.
  659. World Bank, 2018a: Commodity Markets Outlook. Oil Exporters: Policies and Challenges. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 82 pp.
  660. Naylor, R.L. et al., 2000: Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405, 1017–1024, doi:10.1038/35016500.
  661. Pimentel, D., 2006: Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain., 8, 119–137, doi:10.1007/s10668-005-1262-8.
  662. Naylor, R.L. et al., 2000: Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405, 1017–1024, doi:10.1038/35016500.
  663. OECD and FAO, 2018: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018 – 2027. Meat. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 29 pp.
  664. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, 2016: Food Systems and Diets:Facing the Challenges of the 21st Century. University of London Institutional Repository, London, UK, 132 pp.
  665. Smith, P. et al., 2015: Biogeochemical cycles and biodiversity as key drivers of ecosystem services provided by soils. 1, 665–685, doi:10.5194/soil-1-665-2015.
  666. Molotoks, A., M. Kuhnert, T. Dawson, and P. Smith, 2017: Global hotspots of conflict risk between food security and biodiversity conservation. Land, 6, 67, doi:10.3390/land6040067.
  667. Beerling, D.J. et al., 2018: Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants, 4, 138.
  668. Calvin, K. et al., 2014: Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim. Change, 123, 691–704, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0897-y.
  669. Popp, A. et al., 2017: Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang., 42, 331–345, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002.
  670. Wise, M. et al., 2009: Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science, 324, 1183–1186, doi:10.1126/science.1168475.
  671. Bajželj, B., K. Richards, B. Bajželj, and K.S. Richards, 2014a: The positive feedback loop between the impacts of climate change and agricultural expansion and relocation. Land, 3, 898–916, doi:10.3390/land3030898.
  672. Stehfest, E. et al., 2009: Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Change, 95, 83–102, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6.
  673. Tilman, D., and M. Clark, 2014: Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518–522, doi:10.1038/nature13959.
  674. Tilman, D., and M. Clark, 2014: Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518–522, doi:10.1038/nature13959.
  675. Aleksandrowicz, L., R. Green, E.J.M. Joy, P. Smith, and A. Haines, 2016: The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: A systematic review. PLoS One, 11, e0165797, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165797.
  676. FAO, 2018b: The Future of Food and Agriculture. Alternative pathways to 2050. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 64 pp.
  677. Tayleur, C. et al., 2017: Global coverage of agricultural sustainability standards, and their role in conserving biodiversity. Conserv. Lett., 10, 610–618, doi:10.1111/conl.12314.
  678. Arndt, C., M. Hussain, V. Salvucci, and L. Østerdal, 2016: Effects of food price shocks on child malnutrition: The Mozambican experience 2008/2009. Econ. Hum. Biol., 22, 1–13.
  679. Brinkman, H., S. De Pee, I. Sanogo, L. Subran, and M. Bloem, 2009: High food prices and the global financial crisis have reduced access to nutritious food and worsened nutritional status and health. J. Nutr., 140, 153S–161S, doi:10.3945/jn.109.110767.
  680. Darnton-Hill, I., and B. Cogill, 2010: Maternal and young child nutrition adversely affected by external shocks such as increasing global food prices. J. Nutr., 140, 162S–169S, doi:10.3945/jn.109.111682.
  681. Vellakkal, S. et al, 2015: Food price spikes are associated with increased malnutrition among children in Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Nutr., 145, 1942–1949, doi:10.3945/jn.115.211250.
  682. Byerlee, D., T. Jayne, and R. Myers, 2006: Managing food price risks and instability in a liberalizing market environment: Overview and policy options. Food Policy, 31, 275–287, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.02.002.
  683. Byerlee, D., T. Jayne, and R. Myers, 2006: Managing food price risks and instability in a liberalizing market environment: Overview and policy options. Food Policy, 31, 275–287, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.02.002.
  684. Alderman, H., 2010: Safety nets can help address the risks to nutrition from increasing climate variability. J. Nutr., 140, 148S–152S, doi:10.3945/jn.109.110825.
  685. Braun, J. von, B. Algieri, M. Kalkuhl, 2014: World food system disruptions in the early 2000s: causes, impacts and cures. World Food Policy, 1, 34–55, doi:10.18278/wfp.1.1.3.
  686. Torlesse, H., L. Kiess, and M.W. Bloem, 2003: Association of household rice expenditure with child nutritional status indicates a role for macroeconomic food policy in combating malnutrition. J. Nutr., 133, 1320–1325, doi:10.1093/jn/133.5.1320.
  687. Nandy, S., A. Daoud, and D. Gordon, 2016: Examining the changing profile of undernutrition in the context of food price rises and greater inequality. Soc. Sci. Med., 149, 153–163, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.036.
  688. Fujimori, S. et al., 2019: A multi-model assessment of food security implications of well below 2°C scenario vans. Nat. Commun., 2, 386–396.
  689. World Bank, 2017: Future of Food: Shaping the Food System to Deliver Jobs. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 36 pp.
  690. IEA, 2014: Key World Energy Statistics. International Engery Agency (IEA), Paris, France, 82 pp.
  691. Nizeyimana, E.L. et al., 2001: Assessing the impact of land conversion to urban use on soils with different productivity levels in the USA. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 65, 391, doi:10.2136/sssaj2001.652391x.
  692. Francis, C.A. et al. 2012: Farmland conversion to non-agricultural uses in the US and Canada: Current impacts and concerns for the future. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 10, 8–24, doi:10.1080/14735903.2012.649588.
  693. Chen, J., 2007: Rapid urbanization in China: A real challenge to soil protection and food security. Catena, 69, 1–15, doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2006.04.019.
  694. Arslan, A. et al., 2018: Diversification under climate variability as part of a CSA strategy in rural Zambia. J. Dev. Stud., 54, 457–480, doi:10.1080/00220388.2017.1293813.
  695. Asfaw, S., G. Pallante, and A. Palma, 2018: Diversification strategies and adaptation deficit: Evidence from rural communities in Niger. World Dev., 101, 219–234, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2017.09.004.
  696. Barrett, C., T. Reardon, and P. Webb, 2001: Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy, 26, 315–331, doi:10.1016/S0306-9192(01)00014-8.
  697. Niehof, A., 2004: The significance of diversification for rural livelihood systems. Food Policy, 29, 321–338, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.009.
  698. McMichael, P., and M. Schneider, 2011: Food security politics and the millennium development goals. Third World Q., 32, 119–139, doi:10.1080/01436597.2011.543818.
  699. Coomes, O.T. et al., 2015: Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy, 56, 41–50, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2015.07.008.
  700. Bisht, I.S. et al., 2018: Farmers’ rights, local food systems, and sustainable household dietary diversification: A case of Uttarakhand Himalaya in north-western India. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst., 42, 77–113, doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1363118.
  701. Patnaik, A., J. Jongerden, and G. Ruivenkamp, 2017: Repossession through sharing of and access to seeds: Different cases and practices. Int. Rev. Sociol., 27, 179–201, doi:10.1080/03906701.2016.1235213.
  702. Altieri, M.A., F.R. Funes-Monzote, and P. Petersen, 2012: Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: Contributions to food sovereignty. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 32, 1–13, doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0065-6.
  703. McGuire, S., and L. Sperling, 2016: Seed systems smallholder farmers use. Food Secur., 8, 179–195, doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0528-8.
  704. McGuire, S., and L. Sperling, 2016: Seed systems smallholder farmers use. Food Secur., 8, 179–195, doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0528-8.
  705. Fakhruddin, S.H.M., A. Kawasaki, and M.S. Babel, 2015: Community responses to flood early warning system: Case study in Kaijuri Union, Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 14, 323–331, doi:10.1016/J.IJDRR.2015.08.004.
  706. Shisanya, S., and P. Mafongoya, 2016: Adaptation to climate change and the impacts on household food security among rural farmers in uMzinyathi District of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Food Secur., 8, 597–608, doi:10.1007/s12571-016-0569-7.
  707. Genesio, L. et al., 2011: Early warning systems for food security in West Africa: Evolution, achievements and challenges. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 142–148, doi:10.1002/asl.332.
  708. Hillbruner, C., and G. Moloney, 2012: When early warning is not enough – Lessons learned from the 2011 Somalia famine. Glob. Food Sec., 1, 20–28, doi:10.1016/J.GFS.2012.08.001.
  709. Claassen, R., F. Carriazo, J. Cooper, D. Hellerstein, and K. Ueda, 2011a: Grassland to Cropland Conversion in the Northern Plains. The Role of Crop Insurance, Commodity, and Disaster Programs. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA, 85 pp.
  710. Goodwin, M.L. Vandeveer, and J.L. Deal, 2004: An empirical analysis of acreage effects of participation in the federal crop insurance program. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 86, 1058–1077, doi:10.1111/j.0002-9092.2004.00653.x.
  711. Pacala, S., and R. Socolow, 2004: Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science., 305, 968 LP-972.
  712. Clarke L., K. Jiang, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, G. Blanford, K. Fisher-Vanden, J.-C. Hourcade, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, A. Löschel, D. McCollum, S. Paltsev, S. Rose, P.R. Shukla, M. Tavoni, B.C.C. van der Zwaan, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2014: Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  713. DARA, 2012: Climate Vulnerability Monitor. DARA, Madrid, Spain, 331 pp.
  714. Gibbs, H.K., and J.M. Salmon, 2015: Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Appl. Geogr., 57, 12–21, doi:10.1016/J.APGEOG.2014.11.024.
  715. HLPE, 2017: Nutrition and Food Systems. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization for the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
  716. Alexander, P., C. Brown, A. Arneth, J. Finnigan, and M.D.A. Rounsevell, 2016: Human appropriation of land for food: The role of diet. Glob. Environ. Chang., 41, 88–98, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2016.09.005.
  717. Bajželj, B. et al., 2014b: Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 924–929, doi:10.1038/nclimate2353.
  718. Stehfest, E. et al., 2009: Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim. Change, 95, 83–102, doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6.
  719. Tilman, D., and M. Clark, 2014: Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518–522, doi:10.1038/nature13959.
  720. Bajželj, B. et al., 2014b: Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang., 4, 924–929, doi:10.1038/nclimate2353.
  721. Pretty, J. et al., 2018: Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat. Sustain., 1, 441, doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0.
  722. Campbell, B.M., P. Thornton, R. Zougmoré, P. Van Asten, and L. Lipper, 2014: Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 8, 39–43, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2014.07.002.
  723. Clay, D.C. et al., 1995: Promoting Food Security in Rwanda through Sustainable Agricultural Productivity: Meeting the Challenges of Population Pressure, Land Degradation, and Poverty. Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan, USA., 136 pp.
  724. Godfray, H.C.J. et al., 2010: Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science., 327, 812–818, doi:10.1126/science.1185383.
  725. Godfray, H.C.J., and T. Garnett, 2014: Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 369, 20120273–20120273, doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0273.
  726. Tilman, D., C. Balzer, J. Hill, and B.L. Befort, 2011: Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 20260–20264, doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108.
  727. Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food Security and Food Production Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
  728. Bryan, E., T.T. Deressa, G.A. Gbetibouo, and C. Ringler, 2009: Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy, 12, 413–426, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.11.002.
  729. Chen, L., J. Wang, W. Wei, B. Fu, and D. Wu, 2010: Effects of landscape restoration on soil water storage and water use in the Loess Plateau Region, China. For. Ecol. Manage., 259, 1291–1298, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.10.025.
  730. Labrière, N., B. Locatelli, Y. Laumonier, V. Freycon, and M. Bernoux, 2015: Soil erosion in the humid tropics: A systematic quantitative review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 203, 127–139, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.027.
  731. Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food Security and Food Production Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
  732. Herrero, M. et al., 2016: Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 452–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate2925.
  733. Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food Security and Food Production Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
  734. Archer, S. et al., 2011: Brush management as a rangeland conservation strategy: A critical evaluation. In: Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. [Briske, D.D. (ed.)]. USDA-NRCS, Washington DC, USA, pp 105–170.
  735. Tighe, M., R.E. Haling, R.J. Flavel, and I.M. Young, 2012: Ecological succession, hydrology and carbon acquisition of biological soil crusts measured at the micro-scale. PLoS One, 7, e48565, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048565.
  736. Herrero, M. et al., 2016: Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 452–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate2925.
  737. Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food Security and Food Production Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
  738. Archer, S. et al., 2011: Brush management as a rangeland conservation strategy: A critical evaluation. In: Conservation benefits of rangeland practices: assessment, recommendations, and knowledge gaps. [Briske, D.D. (ed.)]. USDA-NRCS, Washington DC, USA, pp 105–170.
  739. Tighe, M., R.E. Haling, R.J. Flavel, and I.M. Young, 2012: Ecological succession, hydrology and carbon acquisition of biological soil crusts measured at the micro-scale. PLoS One, 7, e48565, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048565.
  740. Herrero, M. et al., 2016: Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 452–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate2925.
  741. Delgado, C.L., 2010: Sources of growth in smallholder agriculture integration of smallholders with processors in sub-saharan Africa: The role of vertical and marketers of high value-added items. Agrekon, 38, 165-198, doi:10.1080/03031853.1999.9524913.
  742. Mbow, C., M. Van Noordwijk, and P.A. Minang, 2014a: Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 6, 61–67, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2013.10.014.
  743. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  744. Mbow, C., M. Van Noordwijk, and P.A. Minang, 2014a: Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 6, 61–67, doi:10.1016/J.COSUST.2013.10.014.
  745. Nair, P., V.D. Nair, B.M. Kumar, and J.M. Showalter, 2010: Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Advances in Agronomy, 108, 237.
  746. Lal, R., 2001: Soil degradation by erosion. L. Degrad. Dev., 12, 519–539, doi:10.1002/ldr.472.
  747. Narain, P., R.K. Singh, N.S. Sindhwal, and P. Joshie, 1997: Agroforestry for soil and water conservation in the western Himalayan Valley Region of India 2. Crop and tree production. Agrofor. Syst., 39, 191–203, doi:10.1023/A:1005900229886.
  748. Lal, R., 2001: Soil degradation by erosion. L. Degrad. Dev., 12, 519–539, doi:10.1002/ldr.472.
  749. Bustamante, M. et al., 2014: Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 3270–3290, doi:10.1111/gcb.12591.
  750. Sascha, A., G. Cheppudira, U. Shaanker, and J. Chris, 2017: Evaluating realized seed dispersal across fragmented tropical landscapes: A two fold approach using parentage analysis and the neighbourhood model. New Phytol., 214, 1307-1316, doi: 10.1111/nph.14427.
  751. Pellegrini, L., and L. Tasciotti, 2014: Crop diversification, dietary diversity and agricultural income: Empirical evidence from eight developing countries. Can. J. Dev. Stud. / Rev. Can. d’études du développement/ Rev. Can. d’études du développement, 35, 211–227, doi:10.1080/02255189.2014.898580.
  752. Lambin, E.F., and P. Meyfroidt, 2011: Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 3465–3472, doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108.
  753. Birthal, P.S., D. Roy, and D.S. Negi, 2015: Assessing the impact of crop diversification on farm poverty in India. World Dev., 72, 70–92, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2015.02.015.
  754. Massawe, F., S. Mayes, and A. Cheng, 2016: Crop diversity: An unexploited treasure trove for food security. Trends Plant Sci., 21, 365–368, doi:10.1016/J.TPLANTS.2016.02.006.
  755. Waha, K. et al. 2018: Agricultural diversification as an important strategy for achieving food security in Africa. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 3390–3400, doi:10.1111/gcb.14158.
  756. Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, and G.J. Fiske, 2017: Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 114, 9575–9580, doi:10.1073/pnas.1706103114.
  757. Krause, A. et al., 2017: Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators. Biogeosciences, 14, 4829–4850 doi:10.5194/bg-14-4829-2017.
  758. Clark, M., and D. Tilman, 2017: Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 64016, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5.
  759. Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M. Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food Security and Food Production Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485–533.
  760. Godfray, H.C.J., and T. Garnett, 2014: Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 369, 20120273–20120273, doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0273.
  761. Tilman, D., C. Balzer, J. Hill, and B.L. Befort, 2011: Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 108, 20260–20264, doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108.
  762. Smith, P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E.A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N.H. Ravindranath, C.W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello, 2014: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 811–922.
  763. Locatelli, B., C. Pavageau, E. Pramova, and M. Di Gregorio, 2015b: Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 6, 585–598, doi:10.1002/wcc.357.
  764. Locatelli, B., C. Pavageau, E. Pramova, and M. Di Gregorio, 2015b: Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 6, 585–598, doi:10.1002/wcc.357.
  765. Long, A., 2013: REDD+, adaptation, and sustainable forest management: Toward effective polycentric global forest governance. Trop. Conserv. Sci., 6, 384–408.
  766. Morita, K., and K. Matsumoto, 2018: Synergies among climate change and biodiversity conservation measures and policies in the forest sector: A case study of Southeast Asian countries. For. Policy Econ., 87, 59–69.
  767. McElwee, P., T. Nghiem, H. Le, and H. Vu, 2017a: Flood vulnerability among rural households in the Red River Delta of Vietnam: Implications for future climate change risk and adaptation. Nat. Hazards, 86, 465–492, doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2701-6.
  768. Borrelli, P. et al., 2017: An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun., 8, 2013, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7.
  769. Sonntag, S., J. Pongratz, C.H. Reick, and H. Schmidt, 2016: Reforestation in a high-CO2 world – Higher mitigation potential than expected, lower adaptation potential than hoped for. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6546–6553, doi:10.1002/2016GL068824.
  770. Mahmood, R. et al., 2014: Land cover changes and their biogeophysical effects on climate. Int. J. Climatol., 34, 929–953, doi:10.1002/joc.3736.
  771. Locatelli, B., C. Pavageau, E. Pramova, and M. Di Gregorio, 2015b: Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang., 6, 585–598, doi:10.1002/wcc.357.
  772. Medugu, N.I., M.R. Majid, F. Johar, and I.D. Choji, 2010: The role of afforestation programme in combating desertification in Nigeria. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag., 2, 35–47, doi:10.1108/17568691011020247.
  773. Salvati, L., A. Sabbi, D. Smiraglia, and M. Zitti, 2014: Does forest expansion mitigate the risk of desertification? Exploring soil degradation and land-use changes in a Mediterranean country. Int. For. Rev., 16, 485–496, doi:10.1505/146554814813484149.
  774. Ellison, D. et al., 2017: Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Chang., 43, 51–61, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.002.
  775. Frank, S. et al., 2017: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 105004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa8c83.
  776. Kongsager, R., B. Locatelli, and F. Chazarin, 2016: Addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation together: A global assessment of agriculture and forestry projects. Environ. Manage., 57, 271–282, doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0605-y.
  777. Reyer, C., M. Guericke, and P.L. Ibisch, 2009: Climate change mitigation via afforestation, reforestation and deforestation avoidance: And what about adaptation to environmental change? New For., 38, 15–34, doi:10.1007/s11056-008-9129-0.
  778. Medugu, N.I., M.R. Majid, F. Johar, and I.D. Choji, 2010: The role of afforestation programme in combating desertification in Nigeria. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag., 2, 35–47, doi:10.1108/17568691011020247.
  779. Salvati, L., A. Sabbi, D. Smiraglia, and M. Zitti, 2014: Does forest expansion mitigate the risk of desertification? Exploring soil degradation and land-use changes in a Mediterranean country. Int. For. Rev., 16, 485–496, doi:10.1505/146554814813484149.
  780. Lal, R., 2001: Soil degradation by erosion. L. Degrad. Dev., 12, 519–539, doi:10.1002/ldr.472.
  781. Kreidenweis, U. et al., 2016: Afforestation to mitigate climate change: Impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 85001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/085001.
  782. Smith, P., 2013: Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob. Food Sec., 2, 18–23, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2012.11.008.
  783. IPBES, 2018: Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services [R. Scholes et al. (eds.)]. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 1–31 pp.
  784. D’Odorico, P. et al., 2013: Vegetation-microclimate feedbacks in woodland-grassland ecotones. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 22, 364–379, doi:10.1111/geb.12000.
  785. Altieri, M.A., and C.I. Nicholls, 2017: The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture in a changing climate. Clim. Change, 140, 33–45, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y.
  786. Pan, G., P. Smith, and W. Pan, 2009: The role of soil organic matter in maintaining the productivity and yield stability of cereals in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 129, 344–348, doi:10.1016/J.AGEE.2008.10.008.
  787. Soussana, J. et al., 2019: Matching policy and science: Rationale for the “4 per 1000-soils for food security and climate” initiative. Soil Tillage Res., 188, 3–15.
  788. Schjønning, P. et al., 2018: The role of soil organic matter for maintaining crop yields: Evidence for a renewed conceptual basis. Advances in Agronomy, 150, 35–79.
  789. Hoffmann, T. et al., 2013: Humans and the missing C-sink: Erosion and burial of soil carbon through time. Earth Surf. Dyn., 1, 45–52.
  790. Lal, R., 1998: Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 17, 319–464, doi:10.1080/
07352689891304249.
  791. FAO, 2015: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  792. Lal, R., 1998: Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 17, 319–464, doi:10.1080/
07352689891304249.
  793. Dagar, J., P. Sharma, D. Sharma, and A. Singh, 2016: Innovative Saline Agriculture. Springer India, New Delhi, 1–519 pp.
  794. UNCTAD, 2011: Water for food – Innovative Water Management Technologies for Food Security and Poverty Alleviation. New York, USA, and Geneva, Switzerland, 32 pp.
  795. Rengasamy, P., 2006: World salinization with emphasis on Australia. J. Exp. Bot., 57, 1017–1023, doi:10.1093/jxb/erj108.
  796. Dagar, J., P. Sharma, D. Sharma, and A. Singh, 2016: Innovative Saline Agriculture. Springer India, New Delhi, 1–519 pp.
  797. Hamza, M.A., and W.K. Anderson, 2005: Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res., 82, 121–145, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2004.08.009.
  798. Chamen, W., A.P. Moxey, W. Towers, B. Balana, and P.D. Hallett, 2015: Mitigating arable soil compaction: A review and analysis of available cost and benefit data. Soil Tillage Res., 146, 10–25, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2014.09.011.
  799. Epron, D. et al., 2016: Effects of compaction by heavy machine traffic on soil fluxes of methane and carbon dioxide in a temperate broadleaved forest. For. Ecol. Manage., 382, 1–9, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2016.09.037.
  800. Tullberg, J., D.L. Antille, C. Bluett, J. Eberhard, and C. Scheer, 2018: Controlled traffic farming effects on soil emissions of nitrous oxide and methane. Soil Tillage Res., 176, 18–25, doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2017.09.014.
  801. FAO, 2015: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  802. Anderson, K., and G. Peters, 2016: The trouble with negative emissions. Science., 354, 182–183, doi:10.1126/science.aah4567.
  803. Smith, P., 2016: Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 1315–1324, doi:10.1111/gcb.13178.
  804. Fuss, S. et al., 2018: Negative emissions — part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 63002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
  805. IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1552 pp.
  806. Sohi, S., 2012: Carbon storage with benefits. Science, 338, 1034–1035, doi:10.1126/science.1227620.
  807. Jeffery, S. et al., 2017: Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 53001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa67bd.
  808. Arora, V.K., and J.R. Melton, 2018: Reduction in global area burned and wildfire emissions since 1930s enhances carbon uptake by land. Nat. Commun., 9, 1326, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03838-0.
  809. Doerr, S., and C. Santín, 2016: Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: Perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 371, 20150345, doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0345.
  810. Johnston, F.H. et al., 2012: Estimated global mortality attributable to smoke from landscape fires. Environ. Health Perspect., doi:10.1289/ehp.1104422.
  811. Koplitz, S.N. et al., 2016: Public health impacts of the severe haze in Equatorial Asia in September–October 2015: Demonstration of a new framework for informing fire management strategies to reduce downwind smoke exposure. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 94023.
  812. Neary, D.G., G.G. Ice, and C.R. Jackson, 2009: Linkages between forest soils and water quality and quantity. For. Ecol. Manage., 258, 2269-2281, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.027.
  813. Arora, V.K., and J.R. Melton, 2018: Reduction in global area burned and wildfire emissions since 1930s enhances carbon uptake by land. Nat. Commun., 9, 1326, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03838-0.
  814. Neary, D.G., G.G. Ice, and C.R. Jackson, 2009: Linkages between forest soils and water quality and quantity. For. Ecol. Manage., 258, 2269-2281, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.027.
  815. Arora, V.K., and J.R. Melton, 2018: Reduction in global area burned and wildfire emissions since 1930s enhances carbon uptake by land. Nat. Commun., 9, 1326, doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03838-0.
  816. FAO, 2015: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  817. Keenan, R.J. et al., 2015: Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage., 352, 9–20, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2015.06.014.
  818. Pradhan, P., D.E. Reusser, and J.P. Kropp, 2013: Embodied greenhouse gas emissions in diets. PLoS One, 8, e62228.
  819. FAO, 2015: The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 54 pp.
  820. Campbell, B.C., and J.R. Veteto, 2015: Free seeds and food sovereignty: Anthropology and grassroots agrobiodiversity conservation strategies in the US South. J. Polit. Ecol., 22, 445–465, doi:10.2458/v22i1.21118.
  821. UNEP and WMO, 2011: Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 36 pp.
  822. UNEP and WMO, 2011: Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision Makers. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya, 36 pp.
  823. Anenberg, S. et al., 2012: Global air quality and health co-benefits of mitigating near-term climate change through methane and black carbon emission controls. Environ. Health Perspect., 120, 831–839. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104301.
  824. Oldeman, L., R. Hakkeling, and W. Sombroek, 1991: World Map of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation: An Explanatory Note. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD). CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hauge, Netherlands, 41 pp.
  825. Oldeman, L., R. Hakkeling, and W. Sombroek, 1991: World Map of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation: An Explanatory Note. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD). CIP-Gegevens Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hauge, Netherlands, 41 pp.
  826. Smith, P. et al., 2015: Biogeochemical cycles and biodiversity as key drivers of ecosystem services provided by soils. 1, 665–685, doi:10.5194/soil-1-665-2015.
  827. FAO, 2018b: The Future of Food and Agriculture. Alternative pathways to 2050. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 64 pp.
  828. FAO, 2018a: Handbook for Saline Soil Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 144 pp.
  829. Shindell, D. et al., 2012: Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science., 335, 183–189, doi:10.1126/science.1210026.
  830. World Bank, 2018a: Commodity Markets Outlook. Oil Exporters: Policies and Challenges. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 82 pp.
  831. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  832. Lotze, H. et al., 2006: Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science, 312, 1806–1809, doi:10.1126/science.1128035.
  833. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  834. Naylor, R.L. et al., 2000: Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature, 405, 1017–1024, doi:10.1038/35016500.
  835. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  836. Jauhiainen, J., S. Limin, H. Silvennoinen, and H. Vasander, 2008: Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in drained tropical peat before and after hydrological restoration. Ecology, 89, 3503–3514, doi:10.1890/07-2038.1.
  837. Munang, R., J. Andrews, K. Alverson, and D. Mebratu, 2014: Harnessing ecosystem-based adaptation to address the social dimensions of climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev., 56, 18–24, doi:10.1080/00139157.2014.861676.
  838. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  839. Calvin, K. et al., 2014: Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim. Change, 123, 691–704, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0897-y.
  840. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2008: Protected Areas in Today’s World: Their Values and Benefits for the Welfare of the Planet. 96 pp.
  841. Lenton, T.M., 2010: The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Manag., 1, 145–160, doi:10.4155/cmt.10.12.
  842. Smith, P. et al., 2016a: Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 42–50, doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2870.
  843. Taylor, L.L. et al., 2016: Enhanced weathering strategies for stabilizing climate and averting ocean acidification. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 402–406, doi:10.1038/nclimate2882.
  844. Taylor, L.L. et al., 2016: Enhanced weathering strategies for stabilizing climate and averting ocean acidification. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 402–406, doi:10.1038/nclimate2882.
  845. Beerling, D.J. et al., 2018: Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security. Nat. Plants, 4, 138.
  846. Ritzema, R.S. et al., 2017: Is production intensification likely to make farm households food-adequate? A simple food availability analysis across smallholder farming systems from East and West Africa. Food Secur., 9, 115–131, doi:10.1007/s12571-016-0638-y.
  847. Kummu, M. et al., 2012: Lost-food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ., 438, 477–489, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2012.08.092.
  848. Muller, A. et al., 2017: Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun., 8, 1290, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w.
  849. Reidsma, P., F. Ewert, A.O. Lansink, and R. Leemans, 2010: Adaptation to climate change and climate variability in European agriculture: The importance of farm level responses. Eur. J. Agron., 32, 91–102, doi:10.1016/j.eja.2009.06.003.
  850. Murthy, P.S., and M. Madhava Naidu, 2012: Sustainable management of coffee industry by-products and value addition – A review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 66, 45–58, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.06.005.
  851. Fafchamps, M., C. Udry, and K. Czukas, 1998: Drought and saving in West Africa: Are livestock a buffer stock? J. Dev. Econ., 55, 273–305, doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(98)00037-6.
  852. Haggblade, S., N.M. Me-Nsope, and J.M. Staatz, 2017: Food security implications of staple food substitution in Sahelian West Africa. Food Policy, 71, 27–38, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2017.06.003.
  853. Vellakkal, S. et al, 2015: Food price spikes are associated with increased malnutrition among children in Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Nutr., 145, 1942–1949, doi:10.3945/jn.115.211250.
  854. Arndt, C., M. Hussain, V. Salvucci, and L. Østerdal, 2016: Effects of food price shocks on child malnutrition: The Mozambican experience 2008/2009. Econ. Hum. Biol., 22, 1–13.
  855. Chappell, M.J., J.R. Moore, and A.A. Heckelman, 2016: Participation in a city food security program may be linked to higher ant alpha- and beta-diversity: An exploratory case from Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst., 40, 804–829, doi:10.1080/21683565.2016.1160020.
  856. Avetisyan, M., T. Hertel, and G. Sampson, 2014: Is local food more environmentally friendly? The GHG emissions impacts of consuming imported versus domestically produced food. Environ. Resour. Econ., 58, 415–462, doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9706-3.
  857. Porter, S.D., D.S. Reay, P. Higgins, and E. Bomberg, 2016: A half-century of production-phase greenhouse gas emissions from food loss & waste in the global food supply chain. Sci. Total Environ., 571, 721–729, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.041.
  858. Mohammadi, A. et al., 2014: Energy use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of farming systems in north Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 30, 724–733, doi:10.1016/J.RSER.2013.11.012.
  859. Song, G., M. Li, P. Fullana-i-Palmer, D. Williamson, and Y. Wang, 2017: Dietary changes to mitigate climate change and benefit public health in China. Sci. Total Environ., 577, 289–298, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.184.
  860. Smith, P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E.A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N.H. Ravindranath, C.W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello, 2014: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 811–922.
  861. Bren d’Amour, C. et al., 2016: Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 8939–8944, doi:10.1073/pnas.1606036114.
  862. Ahmed, S., and J.R. Stepp, 2016: Beyond yields: Climate change effects on specialty crop quality and agroecological management. Elem. Sci. Anthr., 4, 92, doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000092.
  863. Thornton, P.K., and M. Herrero, 2014: Climate change adaptation in mixed crop–livestock systems in developing countries. Glob. Food Sec., 3, 99–107, doi:10.1016/J.GFS.2014.02.002.
  864. Batterbury, S., 2001: Landscapes of diversity: A local political ecology of livelihood diversification in South-Western Niger. Ecumene, 8, 437–464, doi:10.1177/096746080100800404.
  865. Herrmann, S., and C. Hutchinson, 2005: The changing contexts of the desertification debate. J. Arid Environ., 63, 538–555.
  866. Stringer, L.C. et al., 2009: Adaptations to climate change, drought and desertification: Local insights to enhance policy in southern Africa. Environ. Sci. Policy, 12, 748–765.
  867. Palacios, M., E. et al., 2013: Landscape diversity in a rural territory: Emerging land use mosaics coupled to livelihood diversification. Land use policy, 30, 814–824, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.007.
  868. Liu, Y., Y. Zhou, and W. Wu, 2015: Assessing the impact of population, income and technology on energy consumption and industrial pollutant emissions in China. Appl. Energy, 155, 904–917, doi:10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.06.051.
  869. Morton, J.F., 2007: The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 19680–19685, doi:10.1073/pnas.0701855104.
  870. Louwaars, N.P., 2002: Seed policy, legislation and law. J. New Seeds, 4, 1–14, doi:10.1300/J153v04n01_01.
  871. Howard, P.H., 2015: Intellectual property and consolidation in the seed industry. Crop Sci., 55, 2489, doi:10.2135/cropsci2014.09.0669.
  872. Coomes, O.T. et al., 2015: Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy, 56, 41–50, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2015.07.008.
  873. Vasconcelos, A.C.F. et al., 2013: Landraces as an adaptation strategy to climate change for smallholders in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil. Land use policy, 34, 250–254, doi:10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2013.03.017.
  874. Reisman, E., 2017: Troubling tradition, community, and self-reliance: Reframing expectations for village seed banks. World Dev., 98, 160–168, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2017.04.024.
  875. Coomes, O.T. et al., 2015: Farmer seed networks make a limited contribution to agriculture? Four common misconceptions. Food Policy, 56, 41–50, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2015.07.008.
  876. Bisht, I.S. et al., 2018: Farmers’ rights, local food systems, and sustainable household dietary diversification: A case of Uttarakhand Himalaya in north-western India. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst., 42, 77–113, doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1363118.
  877. Hillbruner, C., and G. Moloney, 2012: When early warning is not enough – Lessons learned from the 2011 Somalia famine. Glob. Food Sec., 1, 20–28, doi:10.1016/J.GFS.2012.08.001.
  878. Mahmud, T., and M. Prowse, 2012: Corruption in cyclone preparedness and relief efforts in coastal Bangladesh: Lessons for climate adaptation? Glob. Environ. Chang., 22, 933–943, doi:10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2012.07.003.
  879. Boone, R.B., R.T. Conant, J. Sircely, P.K. Thornton, and M. Herrero, 2018: Climate change impacts on selected global rangeland ecosystem services. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24, 1382–1393, doi:10.1111/gcb.13995.
  880. Fakhruddin, S.H.M., A. Kawasaki, and M.S. Babel, 2015: Community responses to flood early warning system: Case study in Kaijuri Union, Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 14, 323–331, doi:10.1016/J.IJDRR.2015.08.004.
  881. Genesio, L. et al., 2011: Early warning systems for food security in West Africa: Evolution, achievements and challenges. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 142–148, doi:10.1002/asl.332.
  882. Hillbruner, C., and G. Moloney, 2012: When early warning is not enough – Lessons learned from the 2011 Somalia famine. Glob. Food Sec., 1, 20–28, doi:10.1016/J.GFS.2012.08.001.
  883. Meze-Hausken, E., A. Patt, and S. Fritz, 2009: Reducing climate risk for micro-insurance providers in Africa: A case study of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Chang., 19, 66–73, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.09.001.
  884. Skees, J.R., and B. Collier, 2012: The roles of weather insurance and the carbon market. In: Greening the Financial Sector. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 111–164 pp.
  885. Jaworski, A., 2016: Encouraging climate adaptation through reform of federal crop insurance subsidies. New York Univ. Law Rev., 91, 1684.
  886. Smith, P., 2013: Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob. Food Sec., 2, 18–23, doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2012.11.008.
  887. Smith, P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E.A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N.H. Ravindranath, C.W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello, 2014: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 811–922.
  888. Hernandez-Morcillo, M., P. Burgess, J. Mirck, A. Pantera, and T. Plieninger, 2018: Scanning agroforestry-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy, 80, 44–52.
  889. Jaffe, A., 2019: Barriers to Adoption of No-Cost Options for Mitigation of Agricultural Emissions: A Typology. Motu, New Zealand, 9 pp.
  890. Kemper, J., 2015: Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: A review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, 40, 401–430, doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.06.012.
  891. Poulton, C., J. Kydd, S. Wiggins, and A. Dorward, 2006: State intervention for food price stabilisation in Africa: Can it work? Food Policy, 31, 342–356, doi:10.1016/J.FOODPOL.2006.02.004.
  892. Cohen, M.J., J. Clapp, and Centre for International Governance Innovation., 2009: The Global Food Crisis: Governance Challenges and Opportunities. Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Ontario, Canada, 267 pp.
  893. Gilbert, C.L., 2012: International agreements to manage food price volatility. Glob. Food Sec., 1, 134–142, doi:10.1016/J.GFS.2012.10.001.
  894. Macdiarmid, J.I., H. Clark, S. Whybrow, H. de Ruiter, and G. McNeill, 2018: Assessing national nutrition security: The UK reliance on imports to meet population energy and nutrient recommendations. PLoS One, 13, e0192649, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192649.
  895. Kummu, M. et al., 2012: Lost-food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ., 438, 477–489, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2012.08.092.
  896. Graham-Rowe, E., D.C. Jessop, and P. Sparks, 2014: Identifying motivations and barriers to minimising household food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 84, 15–23, doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.005.
  897. Kummu, M. et al., 2012: Lost-food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ., 438, 477–489, doi:10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2012.08.092.
  898. Barnes, A.P., and S.G. Thomson, 2014: Measuring progress towards sustainable intensification: How far can secondary data go? Ecol. Indic., 36, 213–220, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.001.
  899. Olesen, J., and M. Bindi, 2002: Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy. Eur. J. Agron., 16, 239–262.
  900. Pretty, J., and Z.P.Z. Bharucha, 2014: Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot., 114, 1571–1596, doi:10.1093/aob/mcu205.
  901. Schut, M. et al., 2016: Sustainable intensification of agricultural systems in the Central African Highlands: The need for institutional innovation. Agric. Syst., 1, 165–176, doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.005.
  902. Bryan, E., T.T. Deressa, G.A. Gbetibouo, and C. Ringler, 2009: Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy, 12, 413–426, doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.11.002.
  903. Bustamante, M. et al., 2014: Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 3270–3290, doi:10.1111/gcb.12591.
  904. Madlener, R., C. Robledo, B. Muys, and J.T.B. Freja, 2006: A sustainability framework for enhancing the long-term success of LULUCF projects. Clim. Change, 75, 241–271, doi:10.1007/s10584-005-9023-0.
  905. Reichardt, M., C. Jürgens, U. Klöble, J. Hüter, and K. Moser, 2009: Dissemination of precision farming in Germany: Acceptance, adoption, obstacles, knowledge transfer and training activities. Precis. Agric., 10, 525–545, doi:10.1007/s11119-009-9112-6.
  906. Roesch-McNally, G.E. et al., 2017: The trouble with cover crops: Farmers’ experiences with overcoming barriers to adoption. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 33, 322–333, doi:10.1017/S1742170517000096.
  907. Singh, S.N., and A. Verma, 2007: Environmental review: The potential of nitrification inhibitors to manage the pollution effect of nitrogen fertilizers in agricultural and other soils: A review. Environ. Pract., 9, 266–279, doi:10.1017/S1466046607070482.
  908. McKinsey and Company, 2009: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. McKinsey and Company, Stockholme, 192 pp.
  909. Ndoro, J.T., M. Mudhara, and M. Chimonyo, 2014: Cattle commercialization in rural South Africa: Livelihood drivers and implications for livestock marketing extension. J. Hum. Ecol., 45, 207–221.
  910. Singh, S.N., and A. Verma, 2007: Environmental review: The potential of nitrification inhibitors to manage the pollution effect of nitrogen fertilizers in agricultural and other soils: A review. Environ. Pract., 9, 266–279, doi:10.1017/S1466046607070482.
  911. Beauchemin, K.A., M. Kreuzer, F. O’Mara, and T.A. McAllister, 2008: Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 48, 21–27.
  912. Herrero, M. et al., 2016: Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 452–461, doi:10.1038/nclimate2925.
  913. McKinsey and Company, 2009: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. McKinsey and Company, Stockholme, 192 pp.
  914. Rojas-Downing, M.M., A.P. Nejadhashemi, T. Harrigan, and S.A. Woznicki, 2017: Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag., 16, 145–163, doi:10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001.
  915. Smith, P., 2008: Land use change and soil organic carbon dynamics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems, 81, 169–178, doi:10.1007/s10705-007-9138-y.
  916. Thornton, P.K., J. Van de Steeg, A. Notenbaert, and M. Herrero, 2009: The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need to know. Agric. Syst., 101, 113–127, doi:10.1016/J.AGSY.2009.05.002.
  917. Lillesø, J.B.L. et al., 2011: Innovation in input supply systems in smallholder agroforestry: Seed sources, supply chains and support systems. Agrofor. Syst., 83, 347–359, doi:10.1007/s10457-011-9412-5.
  918. Meijer, S.S., D. Catacutan, O.C. Ajayi, G.W. Sileshi, and M. Nieuwenhuis, 2015: The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., 13, 40–54, doi:10.1080/14735903.2014.912493.
  919. Sileshi, G., E. Kuntashula, P. Matakala, and P.N., 2008: Farmers’ perceptions of tree mortality, pests and pest management practices in agroforestry in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia, Agroforestry Systems, 72 (2), pp. 87–101.
  920. Ahmed, S., and J.R. Stepp, 2016: Beyond yields: Climate change effects on specialty crop quality and agroecological management. Elem. Sci. Anthr., 4, 92, doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000092.
  921. Barnes, A.P., H. Hansson, G. Manevska-Tasevska, S.S. Shrestha, and S.G. Thomson, 2015: The influence of diversification on long-term viability of the agricultural sector. Land use policy, 49, 404–412, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.023.
  922. Barnes, A.P., H. Hansson, G. Manevska-Tasevska, S.S. Shrestha, and S.G. Thomson, 2015: The influence of diversification on long-term viability of the agricultural sector. Land use policy, 49, 404–412, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.023.
  923. Martin, S.M., and K. Lorenzen, 2016: Livelihood diversification in rural Laos. World Dev., 83, 231–243, doi:10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2016.01.018.
  924. Roesch-McNally, G.E., S. Rabotyagov, J.C. Tyndall, G. Ettl, and S.F. Tóth, 2016: Auctioning the forest: A qualitative approach to exploring stakeholder responses to bidding on forest ecosystem services. Small-scale For., 15, 321–333, doi:10.1007/s11842-016-9327-0.
  925. Dresner, M., C. Handelman, S. Braun, and G. Rollwagen-Bollens, 2015: Environmental identity, pro-environmental behaviors, and civic engagement of volunteer stewards in Portland area parks. Environ. Educ. Res., 21, 991–1010, doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.964188.
  926. Lotze, H. et al., 2006: Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science, 312, 1806–1809, doi:10.1126/science.1128035.
  927. Thornton, P.K., J. Van de Steeg, A. Notenbaert, and M. Herrero, 2009: The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need to know. Agric. Syst., 101, 113–127, doi:10.1016/J.AGSY.2009.05.002.
  928. Griscom, B.W. et al., 2017: Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 114, 11645–11650, doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
  929. Smith, P., 2008: Land use change and soil organic carbon dynamics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems, 81, 169–178, doi:10.1007/s10705-007-9138-y.
  930. McKinsey and Company, 2009: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. McKinsey and Company, Stockholme, 192 pp.
  931. Baveye, P.C., J. Berthelin, D. Tessier, and G. Lemaire, 2018: The “4 per 1000” initiative: A credibility issue for the soil science community? Geoderma, 309, 118–123, doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.05.005.
  932. Bustamante, M. et al., 2014: Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20, 3270–3290, doi:10.1111/gcb.12591.
  933. Reichardt, M., C. Jürgens, U. Klöble, J. Hüter, and K. Moser, 2009: Dissemination of precision farming in Germany: Acceptance, adoption, obstacles, knowledge transfer and training activities. Precis. Agric., 10, 525–545, doi:10.1007/s11119-009-9112-6.
  934. Smith, P., 2004: Monitoring and verification of soil carbon changes under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol. Soil Use Manag., 20, 264–270, doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2004.tb00367.x.
  935. Smith, P., D. Martino, Z. Cai, D. Gwary, H. Janzen, P. Kumar, B. McCarl, S. Ogle, F. O’Mara, C. Rice, B. Scholes, O. Sirotenko, 2007: Agriculture. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave, and L. Meyer, (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp 497–540.
  936. Wollenberg, E. et al., 2016: Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2°C target. Glob. Chang. Biol., 22, 3859–3864, doi:10.1111/gcb.13340.
  937. Bhattacharyya, R. et al., 2015: Soil degradation in India: Challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability, 7, 3528–3570, doi:10.3390/su7043528.
  938. CGIAR, 2016: The drought crisis in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS),Vietnam.
  939. Dagar, J., P. Sharma, D. Sharma, and A. Singh, 2016: Innovative Saline Agriculture. Springer India, New Delhi, 1–519 pp.
  940. Evans, R.G., and E.J. Sadler, 2008: Methods and technologies to improve efficiency of water use. Water Resour. Res., 44, 1–15, doi:10.1029/2007WR006200.
  941. Greene, R., W. Timms, P. Rengasamy, M. Arshad, and R. Cresswell, 2016: Soil and aquifer salinization: Toward an integrated approach for salinity management of groundwater. In: Integrated Groundwater Management, [A.J. Jakeman, O. Barreteau, R.J. Hunt, J.-D. Rinaudo, and A. Ross (eds.)]. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 377–412.
  942. Dickie, I.A. et al., 2014: Conflicting values: Ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biol. Invasions, 16, 705–719, doi:10.1007/s10530-013-0609-6.
  943. Guo, X. et al., 2016: Application of goethite modified biochar for tylosin removal from aqueous solution. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp., 502, 81–88, doi:10.1016/J.COLSURFA.2016.05.015.
  944. Meyer, S., B. Glaser, and P. Quicker, 2011: Technical, economical, and climate-related aspects of biochar production technologies: A literature review. Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 9473–9483, doi:10.1021/es201792c.
  945. Shackley, S., J. Hammond, J. Gaunt, and R. Ibarrola, 2011: The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Manag., 2, 335–356, doi:10.4155/cmt.11.22.
  946. Woolf, D., J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann, and S. Joseph, 2010: Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun., 1, 1–9, doi:10.1038/ncomms1053.
  947. Freeman, J., L. Kobziar, E.W. Rose, and W. Cropper, 2017: A critique of the historical-fire-regime concept in conservation. Conserv. Biol., 31, 976–985, doi:10.1111/cobi.12942.
  948. Hurteau, M.D., J.B. Bradford, P.Z. Fulé, A.H. Taylor, and K.L. Martin, 2014: Climate change, fire management, and ecological services in the southwestern US. For. Ecol. Manage., 327, 280–289, doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2013.08.007.
  949. Erwin, K.L., 2009: Wetlands and global climate change: The role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetl. Ecol. Manag., 17, 71–84, doi:10.1007/s11273-008-9119-1.
  950. Bonn, A., M. Reed, C. Evans, H. Joosten, and C.B. Services, 2014: Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration. Ecosystem, 9, 54–65, doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.011.
  951. Emerton, L., J. Bishop, and L. Thomas, 2006: Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A Global Review of Challenges and Options. IUCN – The World Conservat