An argument for place-based policies: The importance of local agro-economic, political and environmental conditions for agricultural policies exemplified by the Zambezi region, Namibia

Kiesel, Carolina; Dannenberg, Peter; Hulke, Carolin; Kairu, Jim; Diez, Javier Revilla; Sandhage‐Hofmann, Alexandra

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.12.012

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Grain purchase and storage policy is the center of China's grain security policies, which has made great contributions to increasing grain output, stabilizing grain price, increasing farmers' income and ensuring food security. The policy has been continuously adjusted and reformed in different historical backgrounds, according to the overall goal of agricultural policy, to meet the needs of economic and social development [33]. From 1997 to 2019, the maize purchase and storage policies experienced three stages: protective price policy (1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007), temporary purchase and storage policy (2008-2015) and producer subsidy policy (2016-2019).…”

Section: Evolutionary Logic Of Maize Purchase and Storage Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the Adjustment of China’s Grain Purchase and Storage Policy Improve Its Green Productivity?

Lin

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the sustainability of grain production has been extensively studied, there have been few studies focusing on the impact of grain policy adjustment on its sustainable production, and the quantitative relationship between these two aspects and the internal mechanism is not completely clear. The main objective of this paper was to explore the impact of grain purchase and storage policy (GPSP) adjustment on its green productivity by expounding the evolution logic and influence mechanism of GPSP. Therefore, taking maize production as an example, this paper constructs the analysis framework of the evolution logic and influence mechanism, and the super-epsilon-based measure model (Super-EBM) is adopted to measure maize green productivity (MGP) in main producing areas from 1997 to 2019, then two groups of difference-in-differences (DID) models are constructed to study the influence of the temporary purchase and storage policy (TPSP) and the producer subsidy policy (PSP) on MGP. The main conclusions include: the implementation of TPSP reduces MGP in Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning and Inner Mongolia (experimental group), whereas the implementation of PSP improves MGP in these provinces is due to the difference in policy effects under the different regulatory objectives and measures; under the demonstration effect of two policies, the increase in effective irrigation and agricultural financial expenditure are important factors to improve MGP, but the backwardness of agricultural mechanization has been hindering the improvement of MGP; after the reform from TPSP to PSP, the continuous increase in production capacity hinders the improvement of MGP under the support effect, the impacts of farmers’ income and agricultural production price on MGP both shift from negative to positive under the wealth effect, and the influence of production agglomeration on MGP shifts from negative to positive under the siphon effect. The excessive implementation of GPSP has seriously affected the sustainability of grain production, thus, this study has certain practical significance and guiding value. The paper emphasizes that the effective way to achieve sustainable food production is to combine the adjustment of GPSP with improving the subsidy mechanism, enhancing the agricultural mechanization and maintaining the appropriate scale of operation.

show abstract

Section: Evolutionary Logic Of Maize Purchase and Storage Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Can the Adjustment of China’s Grain Purchase and Storage Policy Improve Its Green Productivity?

Lin

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Countries with high emission offset rates usually belong to low‐ and lower‐middle‐income groups that feature high grid emission factors (Figure S4 in Supporting Information S1). The exceptions are Uruguay and Namibia, whose primary economic sources are agriculture, livestock, and fishery, rather than industry (Kiesel et al., 2022; Piaggio et al., 2017), leading to their low emissions and high incomes. Emission offset rates are generally low in high‐income countries, where the relatively high proportion of renewable electricity results in low grid emission factors (Tian et al., 2022) and, therefore, low CO 2 e emission reductions from the highway PV.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roofing Highways With Solar Panels Substantially Reduces Carbon Emissions and Traffic Losses

Jiang,

Lu,

Qin

et al. 2024

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Photovoltaic (PV) installations are a leading technology for generating green electricity and reducing carbon emissions. Roofing highways with solar panels offers a new opportunity for PV development, but its potential of global deployment and associated socio‐economic impacts have not been investigated. Here, we combine solar PV output modeling with the global highway distribution and levelized cost of electricity to estimate the potential and economic feasibility of deploying highway PV systems worldwide. We also quantify its co‐benefits of reducing CO2 equivalent emissions and traffic losses (road traffic deaths and socio‐economic burdens). Our analysis reveals a potential for generating 17.58 PWh yr−1 of electricity, of which nearly 56% can be realized at a cost below US$100 MWh−1. Achieving the full highway PV potential could offset 28.78% (28.21%–29.1%) of the global total carbon emissions in 2018, prevent approximately 0.15 million road traffic deaths, and reduce US$0.43 ± 0.16 trillion socio‐economic burdens per year. Highway PV projects could bring a net return of about US$14.42 ± 4.04 trillion over a 25‐year lifetime. To exploit the full potential of highway PV, countries with various income levels must strengthen cooperation and balance the multiple socio‐economic co‐benefits.

show abstract

“…While such global blueprints and one‐fits‐all solutions (e.g., based only on the big three crop species: rice, wheat and maize) have contributed enormously to feeding the world's population, they can also have serious limitations. Such limitations include challenges for steady and resilient production (e.g., in the context of local climate events and outbreaks of diseases) (e.g., soil and climate conditions; Kiesel et al, 2022). Local varieties and orphan crops might be better adapted to the local environmental and related socio‐economic conditions in regions that suffer from variations in rainfall patterns or an increasing number of extreme events (e.g., floods and droughts) due to climate change.…”

Section: Own Perspective—interdisciplinary Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eight arguments why biodiversity is important to safeguard food security

Dannenberg,

Braun,

Greiner

et al. 2024

Plants People Planet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Societal Impact StatementIn the context of multiple crises, policymakers and practitioners prioritize the solving of certain challenges above others. In this context, supposedly purely environmental challenges like biodiversity loss have often been deprioritized and solutions to tackle them are publicly or quietly postponed (again and again). An example is the postponement of the EU “nature conservation package” in view of the threat of food shortages caused by the war in Ukraine. The following arguments outline why biodiversity loss is not only an environmental challenge but also a global societal challenge to safeguard global food security and why postponing biodiversity measures is not only bad for biodiversity but can also endanger food security itself.SummaryFood security and biodiversity are often counterbalanced. However, we argue that preserving global biodiversity is crucial to safeguarding food security. We first generally outline that biodiversity can (1) support agricultural production, (2) mitigate negative effects of pollution, and (3) provide livelihood outcomes. We then, in particular, argue that biodiversity (4) provides diverse diets to fight hidden hunger, (5) is crucial for resilience against future food security risks, (6) is a precondition for future genetic modifications, (7) addresses the diversity of cultures, income and diets, and (8) is important for place‐sensitive food production. We conclude that “stop hunger first, then worry about diversity afterward” is not a sustainable option.

show abstract

An argument for place-based policies: The importance of local agro-economic, political and environmental conditions for agricultural policies exemplified by the Zambezi region, Namibia

Cited by 9 publications

References 51 publications

Can the Adjustment of China’s Grain Purchase and Storage Policy Improve Its Green Productivity?

Can the Adjustment of China’s Grain Purchase and Storage Policy Improve Its Green Productivity?

Roofing Highways With Solar Panels Substantially Reduces Carbon Emissions and Traffic Losses

Eight arguments why biodiversity is important to safeguard food security

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About