Suchergebnisse

This book presents contemporary case studies of land use, management practices, and innovation in Africa with a view to exploring how multifunctional land uses can alleviate food insecurity and poverty. Food security and livelihoods in Africa face multiple challenges in the form of feeding a growing population on declining land areas under the impacts of climate change. The overall question is what kind of farming systems can provide resilient livelihoods? This volume presents a selection of existing farming systems that demonstrate how more efficient use of land and natural resources, labour and other inputs can have positive effects on household food security and livelihoods. It examines how aquaculture, integrated water management, peri-urban farming systems, climate-smart agriculture practices and parkland agroforestry contribute multiple benefits. Drawing on case studies from Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Burkina Faso, contributed by young African scientists, this book provides a unique perspective on multifunctional land use in Africa and illustrates how non-conventional uses can be profitable while promoting social and environmental sustainability. Tapping into the global discussion on land scarcity and linking food security to existing land use change processes, this volume will stimulate readers looking for diversified land uses that are compatible with both household and national food security ambitions. This book will be of great interest to students and scholars of African development, agriculture, food security, land use and environmental management, as well as sustainable development more generally, in addition to policymakers and practitioners working in these areas.

Several land-based policy options are discussed within the current quest for feasible climate change mitigation options, among them the creation and conservation of forest carbon sinks through mechanisms such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation also called REDD+ and the substitution of fossil fuels through biofuels, as legislated in the EU Renewable Energy Directive. While those two policy processes face several methodological challenges, there is one issue that both processes encounter: the displacement of land use and the related emissions, which is referred to as carbon leakage in the context of emissions accounting, and indirect land-use change also called ILUC within the bioenergy realm. The debates surrounding carbon leakage and indirect land-use change issues run in parallel but are rather isolated from each other, without much interaction. This paper analyzes the similarities and differences as well as common challenges within these parallel debates by the use of peer-reviewed articles and reports, with a focus on approaches to address and methods to quantify emissions at national and international scale. The aim is to assess the potential to use synergies and learn from the two debates to optimize climate benefits. The results show that the similarities are many, while the differences between carbon leakage and ILUC are found in the actual commodity at stake and to some degree in the policy forum in which the debate is taken. The geographical scale, actors and parties involved also play a role. Both processes operate under the same theoretical assumption and face the same problem of lacking methods to quantify the emissions caused by international displacement. The approach to international displacement is one of the main differences; while US and EU biofuel policymakers acknowledge uncertainties in ILUC accounting but strive to reduce them, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change excludes accounting for international carbon leakage. Potential explanations behind these differences lie in the liability issue and the underlying accounting principles of producer responsibility for carbon leakage and consumer responsibility for ILUC. This is also reflected on the level of lobby activities, where ILUC has reached greater public and policy interest than carbon leakage. Finally, a possible way forward for international leakage accounting in future climate treaties could be the adoption of accounting methods taking a consumer perspective, to be used alongside the existing set-up, which could improve climate integrity of land-based policies.

The second audit of Guyana's progress under the Norway-Guyana REDD+ agreement was completed in December 2012. It found that seven out of ten verification indicators were not or only partially met. Nevertheless, the Norwegian government allocated additional funds of 45 million USD to Guyana due to "continued improvements". Focali has written about the debated bilateral agreement between Norway and Guyana earlier (Focali Brief 2010:01 & 2011:01) and is now revisiting the process.

Carbon inventory requiring estimation of carbon dioxide emissions and removals in land-use categories for national greenhouse gas inventory and changes in stocks of carbon in projects aimed at climate change mitigation has become increasingly important in global efforts to address climate change. Hence, there is a need for a handbook that provides guidelines and methods required for carbon inventory. Carbon Inventory Methods Handbook provides detailed step-by-step information on sampling procedures, field and laboratory measurements, application of remote sensing and GIS techniques, modeling, and calculation procedures along with sources of data for carbon inventory. The unique feature of this handbook is that it provides practical guidance on carbon inventory methods for four kinds of projects, namely, 1) development, implementation and monitoring of carbon mitigation in forest, agriculture and grassland sectors, 2) national greenhouse gas inventory in agriculture, forest, and other land-use categories, 3) forest, grassland and agroforestry development and 4) commercial and community forestry roundwood production. Carbon Inventory Methods Handbook is an essential source of reference to universities and research institutions dealing with climate change, consultancy and non-governmental organizations involved in developing and monitoring land-based mitigation projects, donor agencies funding carbon mitigation projects, national greenhouse gas inventory agencies, United Nations agencies and mechanisms such as Clean Development Mechanism and Global Environment Facility, roundwood production and land reclamation project developers and managers, and forest departments.

Agroforestry and other types of multifunctional land-use systems have increasingly been highlighted as win-win-win solutions to meet the challenges of climate change, agricultural intensification, secure ecosystem services as well as support to food security. In this brief the authors seek in the literature for evidence and information on the food security link to homegardens; a traditional agroforestry system common in Sri Lanka, and promoted by the Sri Lankan government . ; AgriFoSe2030

The scope of climate change research has grown immensely over the last decade. Beyond the extensive efforts to map and understand how the various components of the climate system interact and respond to human forcing, academics from a range of fields are today deeply involved in the social and political struggle to develop effective and legitimate climate change policies. While initially focused on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol, we have in recent years seen a growing academic interestin local, national, regional and trans-national climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.In a time when decision makers have linked such efforts to other policy areas such as energy security, finance, land use, and social development, new academic fields have also become involved in the study of climate change. Hence, climate change research is increasingly conducted at the interface between the natural and social sciences, engineering and the humanities. This development spurs self-reflection in the research community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with the mandate to assess the latest research for decision-makers, is currently working and deliberating on how to design the nextround of assessment in the light of a widen agenda of climate change policy. It is at this dynamic interface that we find the expanding field of climate science and policy research. Climate science and policy research is by no means a stable academic field. Rather, it is byvirtue a broad, diverse and hybrid enquiry that includes a range of epistemological, theoretical and methodological orientations. While much of the research under this umbrella has developed in parallel to (and often in direct response to) climate change policy, the field also includes a wide set of scholarly efforts to challenge and problematise the ideas and discourses underpinning such policies. This scholarly diversity may question climate science and policyresearch as a meaningful academic label. And indeed, as indicated by the various contributions to this report, the interpretations of what this field is all about vary considerably. However, despite this variety, we argue that the different academic contributions to this field converge around the quest to interpret, understand, problematise and, at times, solve the challenges facing society under a changing climate. Some of this scholarly work has, directly or indirectly, sought to inform climate change policy. In other cases climate change has emerged as a vantage point for advancing the academic understanding of how links between nature and society, science and policy, development and environment, North and South are constituted and sustained. In this report we draw attention to a set of conceptual and methodological challenges that wethink arise from this broad scholarly enquiry. In the first chapter, Simonsson examines the importance of scale in climate change research. In order to effectively inform policy, she suggests that the academic study of climate change needs to adjust to the geographies ofclimate change policy-making. However, since science may not be able to deliver climate information at the spatial resolution asked by decision-makers, Simonsson also calls for greater scholarly awareness of the scalar challenges in climate science for policy. In the second chapter, Ostwald and Kuchler trace the conceptual genealogy of climate science and policy research. Starting in the historic development of the climate sciences, they end up in amuch more complex and inter-disciplinary research landscape. Ostwald and Kuchler ask how researchers in the field of climate science and policy research can relate to this complexity. In the third chapter, Glaas, Friman, Wilks and Hjerpe situate climate science and policy research in the scholarly debate on Mode 1 and Mode 2 science. Following a long-standing debate on the role of science in climate policy making, they ask whether this field of enquirygains its legitimacy from autonomous basic research produced in sites distinctly demarcatedfrom the world of policy (Mode 1), or from knowledge produced in the context of application (Mode 2). While it may be challenging for scholars of climate science and policy to engage inboth modes of knowledge production at the same time, the authors point at examples where the distinction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 breaks down into a new research domain whichthey label as Mode 1.5. A similar discussion is raised by Hansson and Wibeck in chapter four.While climate science and policy research can be interpreted as an academic field in its own right, its close links to action can also result in a difficult balancing act for researchers. Drawing upon examples from public acceptance studies, Hansson and Wibeck highlight problems that arise when climate researchers advance a normative agenda and hereby influence the people they study. Finally, in chapter five, Jonsson, Lövbrand and Andersson offer examples of research produced in direct collaboration with affected stakeholders. While such participatory research. often is said to increase the legitimacy and problem-solving capacity of climate science and policy research, the authors discuss how and when thatpromise holds true. The conceptual and methodological challenges discussed in this report are the result of a seminar series held at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research (CSPR) at Linköping University from autumn 2007 to spring 2008. As such the chapters reflect an ongoing debate and internal self-reflection at a centre that still is young and under development. Since its establishment in 2004, the CSPR has grown steadily and today functions as an interdisciplinary platform for more than 20 senior and junior researchers active in the field of climate science and policy research. In this report we do not set out to give a comprehensive picture of the challenges facing researchers at the CSPR, nor scholars inthe broader field of climate science and policy research. Neither is it a statement of whatCSPR is, but rather a bouquet of thoughts around our own research. By sharing our reflections with a broader scholarship, we do, however, hope that this report will contribute to theongoing debate on the scope, direction and function of this expanding and dynamic academic field.

Based on a meta-study, the paper describes the existing options, areal extents, and Swedish farmers' conditions for energy crop production promoted by the governments to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The drivers of and barriers to cultivating various energy crops are described in terms of a variety of motivational factors. The approach used peer-reviewed and gray literature using three Internet sources. Questions addressed include the energy crops available to Swedish farmers and how well established they are in terms of areal extent. What drivers of and barriers to growing energy crops do farmers perceive? How do various motivational factors for these drivers and barriers correspond to the adoption of certain energy crops? The results indicate that 13 energy-related crops are available, of which straw (a residue), oil crops, and wheat are the most extensively produced in terms of cultivated area. Results confirm earlier research findings that converting from annual to perennial crops and from traditional crops or production systems to new ones are important barriers. Economic motivations for changing production systems are strong, but factors such as values (e.g., esthetic), knowledge (e.g., habits and knowledge of production methods), and legal conditions (e.g., cultivation licenses) are crucial for the change to energy crops. Finally, there are knowledge gaps in the literature as to why farmers decide to keep or change a production system. Since the Swedish government and the EU intend to encourage farmers to expand their energy crop production, this knowledge of such motivational factors should be enhanced. ; Ett konkurrenskraftigt jordbruk – kommunikation kring klimatförändring och nya möjligheter (K3), Stiftelsen Lantbruksforskning