• Please log in or register to access this feature.

Review

How much land based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

  1. Pete Smith1,*,
  2. Helmut Haberl2,
  3. Alexander Popp3,
  4. Karlheinz Erb2,
  5. Christian Lauk2,
  6. Richard Harper4,
  7. Francesco Tubiello5,
  8. Alexandre de Siqueira Pinto6,
  9. Mostafa Jafari7,
  10. Saran Sohi8,
  11. Omar Masera9,
  12. Hannes Böttcher10,
  13. Göran Berndes11,
  14. Mercedes Bustamante6,
  15. Helal Ahammad12,
  16. Harry Clark13,
  17. Hongmin Dong14,
  18. Elnour A. Elsiddig15,
  19. Cheikh Mbow16,
  20. Nijavalli H. Ravindranath17,
  21. Charles W. Rice18,
  22. Carmenza Robledo-Abad19,
  23. Anna Romanovskaya20,
  24. Frank Sperling21,
  25. Mario Herrero22,
  26. Joanna I House23,
  27. Steven Rose24

DOI: 10.1111/gcb.12160

Additional Information

Author Information

  1. 1

    Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences & ClimateXChange, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

  2. 2

    Institute of Social Ecology Vienna (SEC), Alpen-Adria Universitaet (AAU), Vienna, Schottenfeldgasse 29, Austria

  3. 3

    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain III: Sustainable Solutions, Telegraphenberg A 62, Potsdam, Germany

  4. 4

    School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA, Australia

  5. 5

    Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Programme, Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, FAO, Rome, Italy

  6. 6

    Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

  7. 7

    Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, National Botanical Garden of Iran, Tehran, Iran

  8. 8

    UK Biochar Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

  9. 9

    Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, UNAM, Morelia, Michoacán, México

  10. 10

    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria

  11. 11

    Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Energy and Environment, Göteborg, Sweden

  12. 12

    ABARE, Canberra, Australia

  13. 13

    New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, Grasslands Research Centre, New Zealand

  14. 14

    Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, P.R. China

  15. 15

    Faculty of Forestry, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan

  16. 16

    World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Research Unit: GRP5, Nairobi, Kenya

  17. 17

    Centre for Sustainable Technologies (CST) Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, Bangalore, India

  18. 18

    Dept. of Agronomy, 2004 Throckmorton, Plant Sciences Center, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA

  19. 19

    Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI) Universitaetstrasse 22, CHN J74.1, Switzerland

  20. 20

    Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, Moscow, Russia

  21. 21

    Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change, African Development Bank, Tunis Belvedere, Tunisia

  22. 22

    Climate Change and Sustainable Livestock Futures, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

  23. 23

    Cabot Institute, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

  24. 24

    Energy and Environmental Analysis Research Group, EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), Washington, DC, USA

*Corresponding author: Prof Pete Smith, Tel: +44 (0)1224 272702, Fax: +44 (0)1224 272703, E-mail: pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk

  1. This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/gcb.12160

Publication History

  1. Accepted manuscript online: 6 FEB 2013 11:25AM EST
  2. Manuscript Accepted: 29 JAN 2013
  3. Manuscript Received: 26 JAN 2013
  4. Manuscript Revised: 26 JAN 2013

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

Get PDF (1036K)

Keywords:

  • Agriculture;
  • Forestry;
  • AFOLU ;
  • GHG ;
  • Mitigation;
  • Climate;
  • food security;
  • ecosystem service

Abstract

Feeding nine to ten billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met whilst reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly, outline the challenges, review the supply- and demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFLOU) sector, and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand-side measures co-delivery to aid food security.

We conclude that whilst supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a greater potential (1.5-15.6 Gt CO2-eq. yr−1) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3 Gt CO2-eq. yr−1 at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ tCO2-eq.−1), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to co-deliver to other policy agendas, such as improving environmental quality, or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Get PDF (1036K)