Global assessment of technological innovation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world

Adenle, Ademola A.; Azadi, Hossein; Arbiol, Joseph

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.040

Cited by 110 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…GIS technologies provide flexible spatially-explicit tools that support decision making for environmental and natural resource management [36]. Combined with remote sensing technologies, mapping, modelling and monitoring environmental change aids climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives across the agriculture sector [37,38]. These technologies have contributed to advances in precision agriculture and improved crop management in commercial broad acre agriculture [39][40][41], yet AGI utilisation by smallholders remains limited.…”

Section: Geographic Information In Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic Information and Communication Technologies for Supporting Smallholder Agriculture and Climate Resilience

Haworth

Biggs

Duncan

et al. 2018

Climate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple factors constrain smallholder agriculture and farmers’ adaptive capacities under changing climates, including access to information to support context appropriate farm decision-making. Current approaches to geographic information dissemination to smallholders, such as the rural extension model, are limited, yet advancements in internet and communication technologies (ICTs) could help augment these processes through the provision of agricultural geographic information (AGI) directly to farmers. We analysed recent ICT initiatives for communicating climate and agriculture-related information to smallholders for improved livelihoods and climate change adaptation. Through the critical analysis of initiatives, we identified opportunities for the success of future AGI developments. We systematically examined 27 AGI initiatives reported in academic and grey literature (e.g., organisational databases). Important factors identified for the success of initiatives include affordability, language(s), community partnerships, user collaboration, high quality and locally-relevant information through low-tech platforms, organisational trust, clear business models, and adaptability. We propose initiatives should be better-targeted to deliver AGI to regions in most need of climate adaptation assistance, including SE Asia, the Pacific, and the Caribbean. Further assessment of the most effective technological approaches is needed. Initiatives should be independently assessed for evaluation of their uptake and success, and local communities should be better-incorporated into the development of AGI initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Geographic Information In Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic Information and Communication Technologies for Supporting Smallholder Agriculture and Climate Resilience

Haworth

Biggs

Duncan

et al. 2018

Climate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the purely biophysical limitations, also the local socioeconomic context is critical for the success and extent of the adoption of climate-smart practices. While agricultural regions that are well connected to the market and integrated in the global trade system generally provide higher opportunities to adopt technical advances and new approaches in agriculture, others are constrained by societal structures, institutional barriers, or unrewarding agricultural policies(Adenle, Azadi, & Arbiol, 2015). Under these circumstances F I G U R E 1 Determinants of potential carbon sequestration, yield or other ecosystem services upon adoption of climate-smart agriculture.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The overlooked spatial dimension of climate‐smart agriculture

Prestele

Verburg

2020

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate‐smart agriculture (CSA) and sustainable intensification (SI) are widely claimed to be high‐potential solutions to address the interlinked challenges of food security and climate change. Operationalization of these promising concepts is still lacking and potential trade‐offs are often not considered in the current continental‐ to global‐scale assessments. Here we discuss the effect of spatial variability in the context of the implementation of climate‐smart practices on two central indicators, namely yield development and carbon sequestration, considering biophysical limitations of suggested benefits, socioeconomic and institutional barriers to adoption, and feedback mechanisms across scales. We substantiate our arguments by an illustrative analysis using the example of a hypothetical large‐scale adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) in sub‐Saharan Africa. We argue that, up to now, large‐scale assessments widely neglect the spatially variable effects of climate‐smart practices, leading to inflated statements about co‐benefits of agricultural production and climate change mitigation potentials. There is an urgent need to account for spatial variability in assessments of climate‐smart practices and target those locations where synergies in land functions can be maximized in order to meet the global targets. Therefore, we call for more attention toward spatial planning and landscape optimization approaches in the operationalization of CSA and SI to navigate potential trade‐offs.

show abstract

“…The debatable issues include the effectiveness of NT to mitigate emissions (Neufeldt et al, 2013;Powlson et al, 2014;Sommer and Bossio, 2014), and the feasibility of adopting agricultural best management practices and upscaling to regional scale (Sá et al, 2013;Corbeels et al, 2016;Powlson et al, 2016). The contribution of NT management to mitigate climate change by C sequestration is perceived to be low presumably because: i) the capacity for soil C sink is finite (Sommer and Bossio, 2014;Adenle et al, 2015;Corbeels et al, 2016;Powlson et al, 2016;), ii) diverse crop sequences or combinations with worldwide adoption of NT promote variable effects of NT on crop yields at global scale (Pittelkow et al, 2014); iii) difficulty of obtaining credible estimates of SOC on landscape scale and requiring a complex framework encompassing a wide range of climate, soils (texture, mineralogy), crops and cropping systems which exacerbate uncertainties in assessing C sequestration (Sá, et al, 2013;Sommer and Bossio, 2014;Adenle et al, 2015;Lam et al, 2013); iv) high risks of re-emission of SOC sequestered because even a single tillage event in a long-term NT soil may negate previous gains in SOC stock (Sá et al, 2014); v) a high variation and uncertainties of the C sequestration rates in fields under NT involving three conservation agriculture principles (FAO, 2014;Kassam et al, 2015) already practiced on b15% of the global cropland; and vi) low amount of the input of biomass-C return because of extreme weather events (e.g., long dry period or excessive rainfall).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-carbon agriculture in South America to mitigate global climate change and advance food security

Sá

Lal

Cerri

et al. 2017

Environment International

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The worldwide historical carbon (C) losses due to Land Use and Land-Use Change between 1870 and 2014 are estimated at 148 Pg C (1 Pg=1billionton). South America is chosen for this study because its soils contain 10.3% (160 Pg C to 1-m depth) of the soil organic carbon stock of the world soils, it is home to 5.7% (0.419 billion people) of the world population, and accounts for 8.6% of the world food (491milliontons) and 21.0% of meat production (355milliontons of cattle and buffalo). The annual C emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in South America represent only 2.5% (0.25 Pg C) of the total global emissions (9.8 Pg C). However, South America contributes 31.3% (0.34 Pg C) of global annual greenhouse gas emissions (1.1 Pg C) through Land Use and Land Use Change. The potential of South America as a terrestrial C sink for mitigating climate change with adoption of Low-Carbon Agriculture (LCA) strategies based on scenario analysis method is 8.24 Pg C between 2016 and 2050. The annual C offset for 2016 to 2020, 2021 to 2035, and 2036 to 2050 is estimated at 0.08, 0.25, and 0.28 Pg C, respectively, equivalent to offsetting 7.5, 22.2 and 25.2% of the global annual greenhouse gas emissions by Land Use and Land Use Change for each period. Emission offset for LCA activities is estimated at 31.0% by restoration of degraded pasturelands, 25.6% by integrated crop-livestock-forestry-systems, 24.3% by no-till cropping systems, 12.8% by planted commercial forest and forestation, 4.2% by biological N fixation and 2.0% by recycling the industrial organic wastes. The ecosystem carbon payback time for historical C losses from South America through LCA strategies may be 56 to 188years, and the adoption of LCA can also increase food and meat production by 615Mton or 17.6Mtonyear and 56Mton or 1.6Mtonyear, respectively, between 2016 and 2050.

show abstract

Global assessment of technological innovation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world

Cited by 110 publications

References 74 publications

Geographic Information and Communication Technologies for Supporting Smallholder Agriculture and Climate Resilience

Geographic Information and Communication Technologies for Supporting Smallholder Agriculture and Climate Resilience

The overlooked spatial dimension of climate‐smart agriculture

Low-carbon agriculture in South America to mitigate global climate change and advance food security

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About