Suchergebnisse

Agriculture is considered to be "climate-smart" when it contributes to increasing food security, adaptation and mitigation in a sustainable way. This new concept now dominates current discussions in agricultural development because of its capacity to unite the agendas of the agriculture, development and climate change communities under one brand. In this opinion piece authored by scientists from a variety of international agricultural and climate research communities, we argue that the concept needs to be evaluated critically because the relationship between the three dimensions is poorly understood, such that practically any improved agricultural practice can be considered climate-smart. This lack of clarity may have contributed to the broad appeal of the concept. From the understanding that we must hold ourselves accountable to demonstrably better meet human needs in the short and long term within foreseeable local and planetary limits, we develop a conceptualization of climate-smart agriculture as agriculture that can be shown to bring us closer to safe operating spaces for agricultural and food systems across spatial and temporal scales. Improvements in the management of agricultural systems that bring us significantly closer to safe operating spaces will require transformations in governance and use of our natural resources, underpinned by enabling political, social and economic conditions beyond incremental changes. Establishing scientifically credible indicators and metrics of long-term safe operating spaces in the context of a changing climate and growing social-ecological challenges is critical to creating the societal demand and political will required to motivate deep transformations. Answering questions on how the needed transformational change can be achieved will require actively setting and testing hypotheses to refine and characterize our concepts of safer spaces for social-ecological systems across scales. This effort will demand prioritizing key areas of innovation, such as (1) improved adaptive management and governance of social-ecological systems; (2) development of meaningful and relevant integrated indicators of social-ecological systems; (3) gathering of quality integrated data, information, knowledge and analytical tools for improved models and scenarios in time frames and at scales relevant for decision-making; and (4) establishment of legitimate and empowered science policy dialogues on local to international scales to facilitate decision making informed by metrics and indicators of safe operating spaces.

Agriculture is considered to be "climate-smart" when it contributes to increasing food security, adaptation and mitigation in a sustainable way. This new concept now dominates current discussions in agricultural development because of its capacity to unite the agendas of the agriculture, development and climate change communities under one brand. In this opinion piece authored by scientists from a variety of international agricultural and climate research communities, we argue that the concept needs to be evaluated critically because the relationship between the three dimensions is poorly understood, such that practically any improved agricultural practice can be considered climate-smart. This lack of clarity may have contributed to the broad appeal of the concept. From the understanding that we must hold ourselves accountable to demonstrably better meet human needs in the short and long term within foreseeable local and planetary limits, we develop a conceptualization of climate-smart agriculture as agriculture that can be shown to bring us closer to safe operating spaces for agricultural and food systems across spatial and temporal scales. Improvements in the management of agricultural systems that bring us significantly closer to safe operating spaces will require transformations in governance and use of our natural resources, underpinned by enabling political, social and economic conditions beyond incremental changes. Establishing scientifically credible indicators and metrics of long-term safe operating spaces in the context of a changing climate and growing social-ecological challenges is critical to creating the societal demand and political will required to motivate deep transformations. Answering questions on how the needed transformational change can be achieved will require actively setting and testing hypotheses to refine and characterize our concepts of safer spaces for social-ecological systems across scales. This effort will demand prioritizing key areas of innovation, such as (1) improved adaptive management and governance of social-ecological systems; (2) development of meaningful and relevant integrated indicators of social-ecological systems; (3) gathering of quality integrated data, information, knowledge and analytical tools for improved models and scenarios in time frames and at scales relevant for decision-making; and (4) establishment of legitimate and empowered science policy dialogues on local to international scales to facilitate decision making informed by metrics and indicators of safe operating spaces.

Investments in animal health and Veterinary Services can have a measurable impact on the health of people and the environment. These investment cases require a baseline metric that describes the burden of animal health and welfare in order to justify and prioritise resource allocation and from which to measure the impact of interventions. This paper is part of a process of scientific enquiry in which problems are identified and solutions sought in an inclusive way. As such, it poses the broad question of what a system to measure animal disease burden on society should look like and what value will it add; and does this in a way so as to be accessible by a wide audience which is encouraged to engage in this debate. Given that farmed animals, including those raised by poor smallholders, are an economic entity, this system must be based on economic principles. These poor farmers are negatively impacted by the disparity in animal health technology which can be addressed through a mixture of supply-led and demand-driven interventions, reinforcing the relevance of targeted government and non-governmental organisation financial support. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme will glean existing data to measure animal health loss for carefully characterised production systems. Consistent and transparent attribution of animal health loss will enable meaningful comparisons of burden to be made between diseases, production systems and countries, as well as how it is apportioned by people's socio-economic status and gender. GBADs will produce a cloud-based knowledge engine and data portal through which users will access burden metrics and associated visualisations, decision support in the form of future animal health scenarios and the outputs of wider economic modelling. The vision of GBADs – strengthening the food system for the benefit of society and the environment – is an example of One Health thinking in action.

Forage-based livestock production plays a key role in national and regional economies, for food security and poverty alleviation. Livestock production is also considered as a major contributor to agricultural GHG emissions, however. While demand for livestock products is predicted to continue to increase, there is political and societal pressure both to reduce environmental impacts and to convert some of the pasture area to alternative uses such as crop production and environmental conservation. Thus it is essential to develop approaches for sustainable intensification of livestock systems to mitigate GHG emissions, addressing biophysical, socioeconomic and policy challenges. This paper highlights the potential of improved tropical forages in crop-livestock systems, and linked with policy incentives, to enhance livestock production while reducing its environmental footprint. We give examples for sustainable intensification to mitigate GHG emissions based on improved forages in Brazil and Colombia and suggest future perspectives.

Forage-based livestock production plays a key role in national and regional economies, for food security and poverty alleviation, but is considered a major contributor to agricultural GHG emissions. While demand for livestock products is predicted to increase, there is political and societal pressure both to reduce environmental impacts and to convert some of the pasture area to alternative uses, such as crop production and environmental conservation. Thus, it is essential to develop approaches for sustainable intensification of livestock systems to mitigate GHG emissions, addressing biophysical, socio-economic and policy challenges. This paper highlights the potential of improved tropical forages, linked with policy incentives, to enhance livestock production, while reducing its environmental footprint. Emphasis is on crop-livestock systems. We give examples for sustainable intensification to mitigate GHG emissions, based on improved forages in Brazil and Colombia, and suggest future perspectives.

Agriculture is considered to be "climate-smart" when it contributes to increasing food security, adaptation and mitigation in a sustainable way. This new concept now dominates current discussions in agricultural development because of its capacity to unite the agendas of the agriculture, development and climate change communities under one brand. In this opinion piece authored by scientists from a variety of international agricultural and climate research communities, we argue that the concept needs to be evaluated critically because the relationship between the three dimensions is poorly understood, such that practically any improved agricultural practice can be considered climate-smart. This lack of clarity may have contributed to the broad appeal of the concept. From the understanding that we must hold ourselves accountable to demonstrably better meet human needs in the short and long term within foreseeable local and planetary limits, we develop a conceptualization of climate-smart agriculture as agriculture that can be shown to bring us closer to safe operating spaces for agricultural and food systems across spatial and temporal scales. Improvements in the management of agricultural systems that bring us significantly closer to safe operating spaces will require transformations in governance and use of our natural resources, underpinned by enabling political, social and economic conditions beyond incremental changes. Establishing scientifically credible indicators and metrics of long-term safe operating spaces in the context of a changing climate and growing social-ecological challenges is critical to creating the societal demand and political will required to motivate deep transformations. Answering questions on how the needed transformational change can be achieved will require actively setting and testing hypotheses to refine and characterize our concepts of safer spaces for social-ecological systems across scales. This effort will demand prioritizing key areas of innovation, such as (1) improved adaptive management and governance of social-ecological systems; (2) development of meaningful and relevant integrated indicators of social-ecological systems; (3) gathering of quality integrated data, information, knowledge and analytical tools for improved models and scenarios in time frames and at scales relevant for decision-making; and (4) establishment of legitimate and empowered science policy dialogues on local to international scales to facilitate decision making informed by metrics and indicators of safe operating spaces.

Human behaviour is complex and multifaceted, and is studied by a broad range of disciplines across the social and natural sciences. To mark our 5th anniversary, we asked leading scientists in some of the key disciplines that we cover to share their vision of the future of research in their disciplines. Our contributors underscore how important it is to broaden the scope of their disciplines to increase ecological validity and diversity of representation, in order to address pressing societal challenges that range from new technologies, modes of interaction and sociopolitical upheaval to disease, poverty, hunger, inequality and climate change. Taken together, these contributions highlight how achieving progress in each discipline will require incorporating insights and methods from others, breaking down disciplinary silos.

This open access book is the result of an expert panel convened by the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability and Nature Sustainability. The panel tackled the seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 head-on, with respect to the global systems that produce and distribute food. The panel's rigorous synthesis and analysis of existing research leads compellingly to multiple actionable recommendations that, if adopted, would simultaneously lead to healthy and nutritious diets, equitable and inclusive value chains, resilience to shocks and stressors, and climate and environmental sustainability.

Technological and institutional innovations in agri-food systems (AFSs) over the past century have brought dramatic advances in human well-being worldwide. Yet these gains increasingly appear unsustainable due to massive, adverse spillover effects on climate, natural environment, public health and nutrition, and social justice. How can humanity innovate further to bring about AFS transformations that can sustain and expand past progress, while making them healthier for all people and for the planet that must sustain current and future generations? This report was commissioned by the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability in response to an invitation from the journal Nature Sustainability, which—in collaboration with its new sister journal, Nature Food—wanted to devote its 2020 expert panel to this topic. The panel brought together experts who come from many different continents and who span a wide range of disciplines and organizations—from industry and universities to social movements, governments, philanthropies, institutional and venture capital investors, and multilateral agencies. The panel synthesized the best current science to describe the present state of the world's AFSs and key external drivers of AFS changes over the next 25–50 years, as well as tease out key lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic experience this year. As is increasingly widely recognized, the costs that farmers and downstream value chain actors incur and the prices consumers pay understate foods' true costs to society once one accounts for adverse environmental, health, and social spillover effects. Inevitable demographic, economic, and climate change in the coming decades will catastrophically aggravate these problems under business-as-usual scenarios. Innovations will be needed to facilitate concerted, coordinated efforts to transition to more healthy, equitable, resilient, and sustainable AFSs.

Open Access Journal; Published online: 19 Nov 2019 ; Our understanding of food security in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has been hampered by limitations in the temporal and spatial representativeness of data. Food balance sheets provide scalable estimates of per capita food availability, but fail to represent food access, stability and their causal linkages. In contrast, rural household surveys represent detailed conditions for one or multiple points in time, but are influenced by survey timing and are often limited in geographical coverage. This study draws on a large sample of rural land-holding households in SSA (n = 6,353) to identify household level food access deficiencies and to understand the associations with rural livelihoods and food sourcing behavior throughout the year. Food access deficiencies were identified using food security of access and diet diversity indicators. Dietary diversity and channel of access (farm or purchased) were enumerated for the "flush" and "lean" periods and food security of access was enumerated for the lean period only - making the results of this study independent of survey timing. As many as 39% of households were classified as severely food insecure (in terms of food access) and as many as 49% of households were likely to be deficient in micronutrients in the lean period. Vulnerability to food insecurity and micronutrient deficiencies differed by household composition, agricultural livelihood characteristics and agro-ecological zone. Dairy, fruit and vitamin A-rich produce were predominantly accessed through the farm channel. Households with a livestock component to their farm had a lower prevalence of severe food insecurity and higher diet diversity scores. These findings have implications for the development of nutrition-sensitive and nutrition-specific interventions. Interventions need to be tailored to agro-ecological zone, household composition, scale of operation and production mix. Increasing income will not necessarily result in improved diet diversity or healthy dietary choices. Interventions focused on income generation should monitor and promote crop and livestock production diversity and provide nutrition education. ; United States Agency for International Development ; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency ; European Union ; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ; International Fund for Agricultural Development ; Department for International Development, United Kingdom ; Peer Review

As global demand for livestock products (such as meat, milk, and eggs) is expected to double by 2050, necessary increases to future production must be reconciled with negative environmental impacts that livestock cause. This paper describes the LivestockPlus concept and demonstrates how the sowing of improved forages can lead to the sustainable intensification of mixed crop–forage–livestock–tree systems in the tropics by producing multiple social, economic, and environmental benefits. Sustainable intensification not only improves the productivity of tropical forage-based systems but also reduces the ecological footprint of livestock production and generates a diversity of ecosystem services (ES), such as improved soil quality and reduced erosion, sedimentation, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Integrating improved grass and legume forages into mixed production systems (crop–livestock, tree–livestock, crop–tree–livestock) can restore degraded lands and enhance system resilience to drought and waterlogging associated with climate change. When properly managed tropical forages accumulate large amounts of carbon in soil, fix atmospheric nitrogen (legumes), inhibit nitrification in soil and reduce nitrous oxide emissions (grasses), and reduce GHG emissions per unit livestock product. The LivestockPlus concept is defined as the sustainable intensification of forage-based systems, which is based on three interrelated intensification processes: genetic intensification – the development and use of superior grass and legume cultivars for increased livestock productivity; ecological intensification – the development and application of improved farm and natural resource management practices; and socio-economic intensification – the improvement of local and national institutions and policies, which enable refinements of technologies and support their enduring use. Increases in livestock productivity will require coordinated efforts to develop supportive government, non-government organization, and private sector policies ...