OPENAIRE OpenAire Datacite Sygma Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) Crossref Microsoft Academic Graph CONICET Digital Europe PubMed Central KITopen HAL INRAE LAReferencia - Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas Latinoamericanas UnpayWall Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca dell'Università degli Studi di Milano PubMed Central European Union Open Data Portal https://air.unimi.it/bitstream/2434/962658/2/Global%20Change%20Biology%20-%202019%20-%20Smith%20-%20Which%20practices%20co%e2%80%90deliver%20food%20security%20%20climate%20change%20mitigation%20and%20adaptation%20.pdf https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/gcb.14878 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878 Global Change Biology Open Access 2019-10-22 2023-04-20 2021-07-01 Abstract<p>There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as ￢ﾀﾜland challenges￢ﾀﾝ). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (&gt;3ￂﾠGt CO2eq/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 (&gt;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￢ﾀﾐ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.</p 773901 Invited Primary Research Article 550 QH301 Biology Acclimatization demand management TROPICAL FORESTS adaptation; adverse side effects; co-benefits; demand management; desertification; food security; land degradation; land management; mitigation; practice; risk management ECOSYSTEM SERVICES adaptation 01 natural sciences Food Supply NE/M021327/1 PRACTICE https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5 11. Sustainability SDG 13 - Climate Action 776810 LAND MANAGEMENT ADVERSE SIDE EFFECTS ADAPTATION SDG 15 - Life on Land General Environmental Science 2. Zero hunger Global and Planetary Change Ecology DESERTIFICATION land degradation FOOD SECURITY NEGATIVE EMISSIONS 1. No poverty URBAN SPRAWL Agriculture desertification practice LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT [SDV.EE] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Ecology, environment LAND DEGRADATION LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS adverse side effects FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE environment GE Environmental Sciences European Research Council RISK MANAGEMENT Conservation of Natural Resources SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION 330 Climate Change GREENHOUSE-GAS MITIGATION MITIGATION risk management DEMAND MANAGEMENT 12. Responsible consumption EP/M013200/1 mitigation ORGANIC-CARBON [SDV.EE]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Ecology co-benefits Environmental Chemistry 774378 SDG 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy SDG 2 - Zero Hunger European Commission https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1 0105 earth and related environmental sciences info:eu-repo/classification/ddc/550 ddc:550 Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) land management food security 15. Life on land Earth sciences CO-BENEFITS Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) 13. Climate action adverse side-effects Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) 774124 BB/N013484/1 SDG 12 - Responsible Consumption and Production Stephanie Roe, Jo House, Vladimir Korotkov, Mark Rounsevell, Mark Rounsevell, Shuaib Lwasa, Giacomo Grassi, Frances Manning, Annette Cowie, Francesco Cherubini, Cristina Arias-Navarro, Matteo Vizzarri, Nobuko Saigusa, Pamela McElwee, Ephraim Nkonya, Donovan Campbell, Miguel Angel Taboada, Johnson Nkem, Jean-François Soussana, Dorothy Kalule Nampanzira, Pete Smith, Almut Arneth, Anh Le Hoang, Katherine Calvin, 2019-12-14 journalpaper Abstract<p>There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as ￢ﾀﾜland challenges￢ﾀﾝ). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (&gt;3ￂﾠGt CO2eq/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 (&gt;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￢ﾀﾐ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.</p Which practices co‐deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? 10.1111/gcb.14878 774378