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 \uffe2\uff80\uff9cland challenges\uffe2\uff80\uff9d). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3\uffc2\uffa0Gt 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 (>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\uffe2\uff80\uff90up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.Chondrostereum purpureum against sprouting of deciduous species after mechanized pre-commercial thinning", "description": "
The article presents a collective risk model for the insurance claims. The objective is to estimate a premium, which is defined as a functional specified up to unknown parameters. For this purpose, the Bayesian methodology, which combines the prior knowledge about certain unknown parameters with the knowledge in the form of a random sample, has been adopted. The generalised Bregman loss function is considered. In effect, the results can be applied to numerous loss functions, including the square-error, LINEX, weighted square-error, Brown, entropy loss. Some uncertainty about a prior is assumed by a distorted band class of priors. The range of collective and Bayes premiums is calculated and posterior regret \uffce\uff93-minimax premium as a robust procedure has been implemented. Two examples are provided to illustrate the issues considered - the first one with an unknown parameter of the Poisson distribution, and the second one with unknown parameters of distributions of the number and severity of claims.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 \uffe2\uff80\uff9cland challenges\uffe2\uff80\uff9d). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3\uffc2\uffa0Gt 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 (>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\uffe2\uff80\uff90up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.