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

作者：Pete Smith, Katherine Calvin, Johnson Nkem, Donovan Campbell, Francesco Cherubini, Giacomo Grassi, В. Н. Коротков, Anh Le Hoang, Shuaib Lwasa, Pamela McElwee · 发表于：Global Change Biology · 年份：2019 · DOI：10.1111/gcb.14878 · 研究领域：Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact、Climate change impacts on agriculture、Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development

eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing-up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.