Suchergebnisse

This is a conference paper. ; A sustained and sufficient school water, sanitation, and hygiene (sWASH) environment consisting of strong WASH facilities, services, and practice is very important for student health and to reduce absenteeism. A strong sWASH environment may be associated with various contextual, institutional, and psychosocial factors internal to school governance, management, and decision-making. To address a knowledge gap and to inform future design and implementation of sWASH programs in Cambodia, an innovative and comprehensive cross-sectional study of 24 rural primary schools was completed to understand the roles of key players in sWASH in Cambodia, while also examining the decision-making processes and priorities at leadership levels. Our findings suggest the sWASH context in Cambodia is diverse and complex. Satisfaction with current sWASH services is low, even in cases of recent government or non-government organization intervention. School directors have ideas to improve WASH facilities and services and have identified these as priorities. Funding is scarce, and roles and responsibilities are shared among key stakeholders.

The objective was to compare two neurophysiological variables in active amateur boxers with non-boxing sportsmen. 41 boxers and 27 controls were given psychometric tests: 34 boxers and 34 controls underwent technetium-99m hexamethylpropyleneamineoxime single photon emission computerised tomography (Tc-99m HMPAO SPECT) cerebral perfusion scans. The controls performed better at most aspects of the psychometric tests. Boxers who had fought fewer bouts had a tendency to perform better at psychometric tests than those boxers who had fought more bouts. Tc-99m HMPAO SPECT cerebral perfusion scanning showed that controls had less aberrations in cerebral perfusion than the boxers. In conclusion, significant differences were shown in two neurophysiological variables between young amateur sportsmen who box and those who do not. The long term effects of these findings remain unknown.

Scotland is committed to meeting a net-zero target for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045(Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 20191). Agriculture and the land use sector can help in two ways: by changing practices to reduce GHG emissions and by storing carbon in the soil and plants. In 2018 agriculture and related land use was responsible for 23% of total Scottish emissions. Emissions from agriculture have fallen by 30% since 1990, compared with a reduction of 45% across total emissions (Scottish Government 2020a).The Climate Change Plan2(CCP) is a key policy tool which has been recently revised to help Scotland meet the new net-zero target. Policy development is informed by the Scottish 'TIMESmodel'3. This model pulls together emission, mitigation and mitigation cost data from all sectors to help understand the strategic choices required to decarbonise an economy. It identifies the effectiveness of carbon reduction measures to enable a consistent comparison of the costs of action across all sectors. To ensure the model uses the most recent data for agriculture, our research updated estimates of the mitigation potential and the cost-effectiveness of a selection of agricultural mitigation options. It took into account the significant recent improvements in UK agricultural GHG inventory reporting (Smart Inventory). We assessed 14 farm technologies and practices which can reduce GHG emissions in Scotland by 2050. Some of these measures can be applied to multiple types of livestock, raising the number of mitigation options to 21. The aim was to estimate the different measures' average mitigation potential, capital and recurring costs per unit (e.g. hectare or animal), and total maximum applicability on-farm. This research considers average estimates. On an individual farm basis, both the mitigation and the net costs can be very different.

Senegal, located in West Africa, is an example of a low- to middle-income country where the government has prioritized improving livestock production self-sufficiency, with a strong focus on dairy. Among other initiatives, the use of exotic dairy cattle has been promoted, despite no evidence for the potential livelihood benefits (or otherwise) to smallholder farmers on adopting the new genetics. The current work fills this evidence gap by performing a farm-level economic study comparing the keeping of different breed and cross-breed types of dairy cattle under different management levels. Data for the study were obtained by monitoring 220 smallholder dairy cattle farms, with a combined cattle population of about 3,000 animals, over an almost 2-yr period. Findings of the study suggest that the most net-beneficial and cost-beneficial dairy cattle enterprise that could be used by the smallholder farmers was to keep crossbred indigenous zebu by exotic Bos taurus animals under management standards that are considered good compared with local standards. This dairy enterprise type was 7.4-fold more net beneficial and had a 1.4-fold more favorable cost-benefit ratio than the traditional system of keeping indigenous zebu animals under poor (low-input) management. Interestingly, the keeping of (near) pure B. taurus dairy cattle resulted in the highest milk yields and thus benefit from milk, but was not the most net beneficial due to the high costs of keeping these animals, particularly in terms of feed. We also found that increasing the management level of any of the breed or cross-breed types under consideration, including the indigenous zebu animals, resulted in an increased net benefit of 2.2- to 2.9-fold. Results of this economic analysis are discussed as part of a broader trade-off analysis, resulting in recommendations to strengthen the Senegal dairy sector. The combined intervention of improved dairy cattle genetics and management is considered a promising intervention to improve livelihoods of the rural poor as well as livestock production self-sufficiency for Senegal; some other system constraints are addressed.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture, land use and land use change (ALULUCF) are a significant percentage of UK emissions (9.0% in 2013, see Salisbury et al. (2015)). The UK Climate Change Act (2008) sets a target of achieving at least a 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 relative to the 1990 baseline, and the Government has set carbon budgets for four five-year periods from 2008 to 2027, at levels recommended by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC). The CCC recommendations draw on the best available evidence, including the marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) that have been developed for the ALULUCF sector. The CCC needs to recommend the level of the 5th carbon budget covering the period 2028-32 by the end of 2015. In doing so, it is reviewing latest evidence on abatement potential and costs across sectors. The overall aim of this study was to develop an updated MACC for the UK ALULUCF sector. Specific objectives were to: • Review the CCC's fourth carbon budget (2023-2027) ALULUCF abatement potential and costs in light of the latest evidence. • Extend the analysis to cover the fifth carbon budget period. • Provide a qualitative assessment of additional mitigation measures that could be available by 2050.

Developing efficient policy instruments and incentive schemes to promote the uptake of greenhouse gas mitigation measures requires some kind of prioritisation of the mitigation measures. An important consideration in this process is the estimated cost and costefficiency the measures. The high number of reports done in developed countries show a high variability in the country-level cost-effectiveness estimates, and suggest that approaches providing higher granularity at the spatial and farm type could suit better to the purpose of regional policy development. At the same time, there is still a gap in our understanding of economic mitigation potential of agriculture in developing and newly industrialised countries.To address these questions this report presents three studies. The first is a literature review of the cost-effectiveness estimates of mitigation measures published in the past 15 years, discussing the variability in these estimates. The second study reports on marginal abatement cost curves for beef cattle production in Brazil. Finally, the last report presents the conceptual basis of a tool to assess the financial implications of the mitigation measures to be used in parallel with the FarmAC model, ultimately providing mitigation measure costeffectiveness estimates specific to individual farms. Additionally, it describes the selection of mitigation measures which have been assessed at the farm level in Component 3 of the AnimalChange project.