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 supplyand 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 CO 2 -eq. yr -1 ) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side measures (1.5-4.3 Gt CO 2 -eq. yr -1 at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ tCO 2 -eq.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

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land-use and energy experts, landuse and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life-cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state-of-theart knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end-use efficiency, improved land carbon-stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small-scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100-300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr À1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large-scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2°degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land-intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options. IntroductionThe recent IPCC report on energy sources and climate change mitigation (SRREN) and the Global Energy Assessment provided comprehensive overviews on bioenergy. An update to these reports is nonetheless important because: (i) many of the more stringent mitigation scenarios (resulting in 450 ppm, but also 550 ppm CO2eq concentration by 2100) heavily rely on a large-scale deployment of bioenergy with CO2 capture and storage (CCS) called BECCS technologies; (ii) there has been a large body of literature published since SRREN, which complement and update the analysis presented in this last report; (iii) bioenergy is important for many sectors and mitigation perspectives as well as from the perspective of developmental goals such as energy security and rural dev...

Despite a significant growth in food production over the past half-century, one of the most important challenges facing society today is how to feed an expected population of some nine billion by the middle of the 20th century. To meet the expected demand for food without significant increases in prices, it has been estimated that we need to produce 70-100 per cent more food, in light of the growing impacts of climate change, concerns over energy security, regional dietary shifts and the Millennium Development target of halving world poverty and hunger by 2015. The goal for the agricultural sector is no longer simply to maximize productivity, but to optimize across a far more complex landscape of production, rural development, environmental, social justice and food consumption outcomes. However, there remain significant challenges to developing national and international policies that support the wide emergence of more sustainable forms of land use and efficient agricultural production. The lack of information flow between scientists, practitioners and policy makers is known to exacerbate the difficulties, despite increased emphasis upon evidence-based policy. In this paper, we seek to improve dialogue and understanding between agricultural research and policy by identifying the 100 most important questions for global agriculture. These have been compiled using a horizon-scanning approach with leading experts and representatives of major agricultural organizations worldwide. The aim is to use sound scientific evidence to inform decision making and guide policy makers in the future direction of agricultural research priorities and policy support. If addressed, we anticipate that these questions will have a significant impact on global agricultural practices worldwide, while improving the synergy between agricultural policy, practice and research. This research forms part of the UK Government's Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures project

No abstract

Whereas the NPP and NEP depend largely on an adequate supply of essential plant nutrients (both macro and micro) and available water capacity of the root zone (green water), formation of stable organo-mineral complexes as SOC depends on soil profile characteristics (i.e., depth, horizonation, texture, mineralogical composition, available water capacity, and nutrient reserves) and landscape attributes (i.e., terrain, position, aspect, and drainage). Furthermore, land use (e.g., natural, cropland, grazing land, forest land, urban land, mine land, and wetland) and management (i.e., conservation agriculture [CA], agroforestry, cover cropping, nutrient management, irrigation, crop rotation, farming/cropping system, and

Together with 106 farmers who started growing Jatropha (Jatropha curcas L.) in 2004–2006, this research sought to increase the knowledge around the real‐life experience of Jatropha farming in the southern India states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Launched as an alternative for diesel in India, Jatropha has been promoted as a non‐edible plant that could grow on poor soils, yield oil‐rich seeds for production of bio‐diesel, and not compete directly with food production. Through interviews with the farmers, information was gathered regarding their socio‐economic situation, the implementation and performance of their Jatropha plantations, and their reasons for continuing or discontinuing Jatropha cultivation. Results reveal that 82% of the farmers had substituted former cropland for their Jatropha cultivation. By 2010, 85% (n = 90) of the farmers who cultivated Jatropha in 2004 had stopped. Cultivating the crop did not give the economic returns the farmers anticipated, mainly due to a lack of information about the crop and its maintenance during cultivation and due to water scarcity. A majority of the farmers irrigated and applied fertilizer, and even pesticides. Many problems experienced by the farmers were due to limited knowledge about cultivating Jatropha caused by poor planning and implementation of the national Jatropha program. Extension services, subsidies, and other support were not provided as promised. The farmers who continued cultivation had means of income other than Jatropha and held hopes of a future Jatropha market. The lack of market structures, such as purchase agreements and buyers, as well as a low retail price for the seeds, were frequently stated as barriers to Jatropha cultivation. For Jatropha biodiesel to perform well, efforts are needed to improve yield levels and stability through genetic improvements and drought tolerance, as well as agriculture extension services to support adoption of the crop. Government programs will ‐probably be more effective if implementing biodiesel production is conjoined with stimulating the demand for Jatropha biodiesel. To avoid food‐biofuel competition, additional measures may be needed such as land‐use restrictions for Jatropha producers and taxes on biofuels or biofuel feedstocks to improve the competitiveness of the food sector compared to the bioenergy sector. © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

No abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group II Report (2014) presents vulnerability as a pre-existing characteristic property of a system. Accordingly, indicators for 'sensitivity' and 'adaptive capacity', which are internal properties of a system, are employed to assess it. Comparatively, the IPCC 2007 report includes 'exposure', an external factor, as the third component of vulnerability. We have compared the construct of vulnerability presented in IPCC 2007 and 2014 reports. It is argued that the results of vulnerability assessment obtained by adopting IPCC 2014 framework are practically more useful for reducing current vulnerability in preparedness to deal with an uncertain future. In the process, we have articulated the novel concepts of 'selecting hazardrelevant vulnerability indicators' and 'assessing hazard-specific vulnerability'. Use of these concepts improves the contextualization of an assessment and thereby the acceptability of assessment results by the stakeholders.