climate change & food systems: assessing impacts and opportunities · 2018-08-20 · climate...

2 8 A P R I L 2 0 1 7

Climate Change & Food Systems: Assessing Impacts and Opportunities

A Draft Report Prepared by Meridian Institute

Lead Authors: Meredith Niles, Jimena Esquivel, Richie Ahuja, Nelson Mango

Climate Change & Food Systems: Assessing Impacts and Opportunities DRAFT DOCUMENT 2

Report Authors and Contributors

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

Purpose of the Report

2. Key Messages

3. A Brief Review of the Literature on Agricultural Production and Climate Change

Overview

History and Context

Impacts of Food and Agriculture on Climate Change

Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Production, Current and Future

Gaps in Current Knowledge Regarding Agricultural Production and Climate Change

4. A Brief Review of the Literature on Post-Production Activities, Dietary and Consumption Patterns, Food Waste, and Climate Change

Impacts of Dietary and Consumption Trends on Climate Change

5. Applying a Food Systems Approach to Climate Change

Climate Change Food Systems Principles

Applying a Food Systems Perspective to Identify System-Level Effects – Illustrative Examples

Example 1: Diet Interventions

Example 2: Carbon Prices

Example 3: Soil Carbon Sequestration

6. Mitigation and Adaptation Opportunities

Appendix 1: Potential Interventions

Appendix 2: Logical Approach to Support Prioritization of Interventions

Appendix 3: Lead Author Bios

References

About Meridian Institute

3

5

7

11

12

14

14

14

15

17

18

19

22

27

27

28

28

29

30

31

32

70

73

75

83

Table of Contents


Report Authors and Contributors

Lead Authorsn Richie Ahuja, Environmental Defense Fund (India)

n Jimena Esquivel, Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (Costa Rica)

n Nelson Mango, Independent Expert (Kenya)

n Meredith T. Niles, University of Vermont (USA)

Contributing Authorsn Mil Duncan, Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire (USA)

n Martin Heller, Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan (USA)

n Cristina Tirado, Institute of Environment and Sustainability, University of California at Los Angeles (USA)

Strategic Advisorn Sonja Vermeulen, Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, CGIAR (Denmark)

Advisory CommitteeAdvisory Committee members provided input on the scope and contents of the draft report, but were not asked to seek consensus or to endorse any of the views expressed, for which the Authors are solely responsible.

n Kofi Boa, Center for No-Till Agriculture (Ghana)

n Timothy Griffin, Friedman School, Tufts University (USA)

n Tony LaViña, Ateneo de Manila University, University of the Philippines, De La Salle College of Law, Philippine Judicial Academy (Philippines)

n Alexander Müeller, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food (TEEBAgriFood) (Germany)

n Ruth Richardson, Global Alliance for the Future of Food (Canada)

n Maria Sanz-Sánchez, BC3 Basque Centre for Climate Change (Spain)

n Whendee Silver, UC Berkeley (USA)

n Pete Smith, University of Aberdeen (Scotland)

n Charlotte Streck, Climate Focus (USA)

We kindly thank the Global Alliance for the Future of Food for their generous support.

https://futureoffood.org/


About the Global Alliance for the Future of FoodThe Global Alliance for the Future of Food is a unique collaboration of philanthropic foundations that have come together to strategically leverage resources and knowledge, develop frameworks and pathways for change, and push the agenda for more sustainable food and agriculture systems globally.

In 2012, we came together with a shared belief that the current global food system is not sustainable, and that many of the values upon which it is based make it an undesirable choice for the future of food on the planet, particularly when coupled with climate change and shifting global economics, politics, and demographics.

Through leveraging our shared expertise, knowledge and resources, and working together with others, we can achieve positive change by taking a global systems-level approach that gets sustainable food and agriculture on the political, economic, and social agenda.

This report is in the public domain. The authors encourage the circulation of this paper as widely as possible. Users are welcome to download, save, or distribute this report electronically or in any other format, including in foreign language translation without written permission. We do ask that, if you distribute this report, you credit the authors and mention the website [insert website]. This report is available under a Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-SA Attribution-ShareAlike). An electronic copy of this report is available at http://bit.ly/2oFucpe.

Suggested citation: Niles, M.T., Ahuja, R., Esquivel, J., Mango, N., Duncan, M., Heller, M., Tirado, C. 2017. Climate change & food systems: assessing impacts and opportunities. Meridian Institute. Available at Website https http://bit.ly/2oFucpe.

Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this report are those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the authors’ institutions or the financial sponsors of this report.

ISBN: [insert ISBN number]

Date of publication: May 2017

http://bit.ly/2oFucpe

http://bit.ly/2oFucpe


Food and agriculture are significant contributors to and heavily impacted by climate change, but they also offer opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This report reviews key literature about how food and agriculture affect climate change and how climate change is affecting food systems. It illustrates how a food systems approach to climate change adaptation and mitigation can drive positive changes and inform decision making to avoid unintended effects from narrowly targeted interventions. And it documents specific interventions throughout the food system that support adaptation and mitigation in the short term while broader transformation is pursued.

Approaching adaptation and mitigation through a food systems approach broadens the range of opportunities and facilitates consideration of systems-level effects and interactions. Food systems include growing, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, marketing, consumption, and disposal of food and food-related items. These include pre-production activities like developing and delivering inputs like fertilizer, seeds, feed, farm implements, irrigation systems, information and research and development; production of crops, fish, and livestock; post-production activities like storage, packaging, transportation, manufacturing and retail; consumption activities either in homes or dining establishments; and waste and disposal that occurs throughout the system. Food systems operate within and are influenced by social, economic, political and environmental contexts, and people are involved throughout as producers, information providers, policymakers and regulators, workers in health, forestry, trade, finance and in companies, and as consumers.

Several key messages emerged from the literature review and discussions with leading food and agriculture experts who work on climate change adaptation and mitigation. While it is estimated that agriculture contributes 14% of global GHG emissions, estimates of emissions from agriculture and food system activities (including but not limited to agriculture production) are up to nearly 33% of all global emissions. Climate change impacts food and

agriculture in complex ways that vary by geography, and while some temperate regions are seeing short-term positive changes, many areas are suffering from declining yields as rising temperatures and extreme weather, including droughts and floods, impact crops and livestock and fisheries.

While more systems-level research is urgently needed to drive transformation and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, there are immediate near-term actions that should be taken to mitigate climate change and to support adaptation and increase climate resilience; the report includes numerous specific examples. New decision-support tools that include a systems approach would greatly help decision makers at the country and regional level. Likewise, institutions and governance mechanisms that support systems-level decision making are necessary.

The majority of the world’s countries have included mitigation and adaptation interventions related to crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture in their nationally determined contributions, and low-income countries put a strong emphasis on these sectors. These interventions are heavily focused on production, but post-production activities contribute more in developed economies, and as more economies develop we can expect proportionately more from post-production activities overall.

Post-production emissions are largely associated with energy use. Processing is energy intensive, including milling and removing water. Packaging can be a significant component of municipal waste. Transportation contributes less than commonly assumed, with the exception of many vegetables where time-sensitive distribution involves airfreight. The cold chain, or refrigeration, contributes substantially to emissions, and its use is growing.

Diets and consumption patterns affect climate change. As countries develop, diets tend to change in ways that negatively affect both the environment and health. Reducing meat consumption could reduce emissions substantially. And the right diet changes could positively impact not just climate change, but also health.

Executive Summary


Roughly one third of food gets lost or wasted globally, about 1.3 billion ton per year. The waste and loss occur throughout the food supply chain, and it is mostly through waste of edible food in medium and high-income countries while in lower income countries it is lost at earlier stages such as storage and transport.

To support stakeholders making choices about adaptation and mitigation interventions through a food systems lens, the report cites eight key Climate Change Food Systems Principles. These include (1) interconnectedness; (2) equity; (3) resilience; (4) renewability; (5) responsiveness; (6) transparency; (7) scale; and (8) evaluation.

The report gives three examples to illustrate how specific mitigation or adaptation interventions may have implications, benefits, or unintended consequences in other parts of the food system. The first shows how diets impact the environment and health. Generally diets that are healthier for humans are also better for the environment. For example, diets that are higher in plant-based ingredients and lower in animal products, as well as

diets lower in processed foods that have reduced sodium. But in addition to these positive associations there are possible downsides. For example, reducing red meat consumption could reduce dietary GHG emissions, but it could have profound negative impact on livelihoods in low-income countries. The second explores the ways carbon pricing policies affect different stakeholders – farmers, suppliers, traders, and transporters, for example. Finally, soil carbon sequestration illustrates trade-offs. No-till agriculture offers soil organic carbon gains, but it is often used in combination with genetically engineered crops and herbicides for weed control. There are many co-benefits as well.

The report combines an overview of what we know about food, agriculture, and climate change and offers practical steps for immediate action while new research, decision-support tools, governance mechanisms, and other efforts are pursued to support the broader transformation that is urgently needed for sustainable food systems and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.


Why Apply a Food Systems Perspective to Climate Change?

Food and agriculture are significant contributors to and heavily impacted by climate change, while also offering a range of opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) through emission reductions and carbon sequestration (Wollenberg et al. 2016; Dickie, et al., 2014; Rosenthal and Kurukulasuriya, 2013; Vermeulen, et al., 2012; FAO, 2015). While there is growing discussion and dialogue about climate change and agriculture, relatively little analysis and focus has been put on climate change and food systems. A narrower focus on climate change and agriculture, which is often associated with agricultural production, limits the ability to pursue a broad range of mitigation and adaptation strategies, and prevents consideration of systems-level effects from narrowly-targeted interventions. Adopting a food systems perspective is critical to addressing climate change and achieving the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs) (TEEB, 2015) that span multiple sectors, but are linked by food.

Food systems include an array of processes and activities that are involved in feeding and nourishing a population: growing, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, marketing, consumption, and disposal of food and food-related items. Food systems include the inputs needed and outputs generated at each of these steps. Food systems operate within and are influenced by social, political, economic, and environmental contexts. And, food systems require human resources related to labor, research and education (Ericksen, 2007; Cornell University, 2013).

Food systems are complex and diverse. Numerous factors drive activities and actors in food systems. These include, but are not necessarily limited to the key food systems components, processes, and activities shown in Figure 1.

1. Introduction


Food System Drivers:

n Biophysical and environmental factors include land and water for food production and processing, soil for food production, as well as other ecosystem services and dependencies, and climate adaptation and resilience (UNEP, 2016).

n Research and development drives innovation, including technological innovations, such as improved seeds, fertilizers, mechanization, storage, processing and distribution, but also to develop more nutritious and healthier foods (Floros et al., 2010).

n Infrastructure drivers include physical infrastructure such as roads, rail, irrigation and

energy, which support production and value-addition activities (UNEP, 2016).

n Political drivers include governance structures, policies, rules and regulations that affect food systems and other systems such as agricultural policies including subsidies and price supports, nutrition and health, food safety, trade policy, infrastructure, and land tenure laws (UNEP, 2016).

n Economic drivers deal with national and individual incomes, prices and poverty, among others. Income growth is associated with diets shifting from traditional staples and coarse grains to diets richer in sugars, fats and salt, animal-sourced foods, vegetables and fruits, leading to a more diversified diet (UNEP, 2016, Global Panel, 2016).

Figure 1.


n Socio-cultural drivers include traditions, social norms, religion and rituals, social stratification and gender, which affect consumer preferences and behavior (Kearney, 2010).

n Power dynamics and equity issues determine – among others – access to food, access to resources to grow and buy food, and resources

to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate (FAO, IFAD and WFP, 2015; Jones, 2009).

n Demographic drivers include urbanization, population growth, changing age profiles, and education (UNEP, 2016).

Food Systems – Activities and Actors

Food systems include the numerous processes and activities involved in feeding and nourishing a population: growing, harvesting, processing, packaging, transporting, marketing, consumption, and disposal of food and food-related items (Ericksen, 2007; Cornell University, 2013). These include but are not limited to the following.

Pre-Production: These activities include the development and delivery of a range of inputs, including fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, animal feed, farm implements, irrigation systems, information, as well as research and development.

Production: Activities include agricultural production and/or harvest of crops, fish and livestock. In many countries, producers grow crops for home or local consumption. In some situations, primary producers sell directly to consumers, but in most situations, there are multiple other touch points before reaching the end consumer. A portion of initial production is for livestock feed and biofuels.

Post-Production: Processing, Packaging, Transportation, Manufacturing and Retail: Post-production activities include a host of potential activities for storage, packaging, or other types of treatment (e.g. drying, washing, cooling, ripening), as well as transportation and trading. As products move through additional stages of processing, products are manufactured before retailers, marketers, advertisers and other actors sell food products to consumers.

Consumption: Consumers purchase the products for home preparation or from establishments where the food is prepared and served on site. Purchasing decisions can drive production.

Waste and Disposal: Waste can be found at every stage throughout the food system. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) estimates that each year, approximately one third of all edible food parts for human consumption are lost.

All people are involved in food systems in some way, including: research and development institutions; extension agents and other information providers; politicians, policy and regulatory agencies (from local to global levels) in agriculture, public health, environment, forestry, trade, finance, and planning; companies ranging from small enterprises to multinational corporations active in pre-production (e.g., manufacturers, companies, traders), production, post-production (e.g., aggregators, processors, transporters, packagers) through to retail (e.g., retailers, marketers, advertisers) and waste collection; civil society organizations working on all aspects of agriculture, food security, nutrition, public health, trade, environment, power dynamics and equity; farmers, fishers, ranchers and other producers and their organizations producing or harvesting raw food products; and consumers.


In a sustainable system, these food system components, processes, and activities would have a range of outcomes that contribute to climate change resilience, provide healthy food and nutrition security, improve social, economic, and cultural well-being, provide secure livelihoods, and enhance biophysical, environmental, economic and political systems and maintain them for current and future generations.

Food systems are inherently complex. Analyzing components of the food systems would be incomplete without considering the potential that each component has to affect other pieces of the system. Policy, market, social, technological, and biophysical environments all influence actors within food systems. Therefore, each component of the food systems is linked to their social, economic, and environmental contexts (Ingram, 2016; Godfray et al., 2010). The biophysical context as well as the social and institutional context in which food is produced, distributed, and consumed, must be considered to fully understand the interconnected nature of the food systems and the external environment in which the system operates, thereby allowing for exploration of future behaviors, changes, and interactions throughout the system.

The complexity of this system and the historical bias in research institutions towards narrowly focused work has resulted in a body of literature that is largely focused on individual elements of food systems. Using a food systems perspective, we can begin to understand the linkages, feedback loops and interactions between the numerous dimensions of the system, increasing our understanding beyond simply the individual components.

As noted above and as we explore in more depth below, we observe that both discussions and research about climate change, food, and agriculture have focused largely on changes to production practices within existing systems, rather than broader system transformation. While many of these changes in production practices have demonstrable climate benefits, we believe adopting a food systems perspective is imperative if we are to successfully:

Address climate change at the scale and speed required;

Implement climate strategies that do not have unintended consequences on other components of the food system; and

Drive transformation in food systems;

Achieve the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs).


Purpose of the ReportIn this report, we seek to bring together existing information about climate change impacts and opportunities into a food systems approach. We review linkages and interactions between food systems components to identify opportunities that could support transitions to sustainable food systems.

This report’s objectives are to:

n Review and synthesize key literature that examines impacts of agriculture, food and climate change (Sections 3 and 4).

n Illustrate how applying a food systems perspective to climate change mitigation and adaptation actions can be used to drive transformation and help policymakers anticipate effects from specific mitigation and adaptation interventions (Section 5).

n Document a range of specific interventions (opportunities) that –in the near-term – would support climate mitigation and adaption while efforts to drive broader system transformation are pursued (Section 6).

The report is intended as a starting point for stakeholders at local, regional, national and international levels, including local and national governments, companies, farmers, consumers and many others to create dialogue, catalyze partnerships, share knowledge, and initiate understanding among diverse communities, sectors, and stakeholders about the role they each play and the actions that can be taken within the food system. We hope that the report will contribute to deeper understanding of food systems and climate change and catalyze actions that support: the emergence of improved governance systems for decision making; evidence-generation; stakeholder interaction; and thoughtful management of interventions in these complex systems.

The report is a critical component in a Meridian Institute project to:

n Facilitate the development of a globally recognized, trusted, meta-narrative about the complex relationships between climate change and food systems;

n Ensure the meta-narrative addresses the important relationship between food systems and national and global efforts to mitigate climate change in order to avoid catastrophic global temperatures and to create an environment in which food systems can be resilient and adapt; and

n Engage diverse audiences, thought-leaders, and communication channels for input to the report and to help disseminate its findings.


Based on a review of the existing literature on mitigation and adaptation by leading food and agriculture experts who know food systems actors and domains deeply, we distilled the following key messages regarding climate change and food systems.

n Food and agriculture have significant, adverse effects on climate change – While it is estimated that agriculture contributes 14% of global GHG emissions (IPCC 2014), estimates of agriculture and food system activity emissions are up to nearly 33% of all global emissions. Thus, a food systems approach enables a greater opportunity to make meaningful reductions in global GHG emissions. We believe it is critical to consider a food systems approach for climate change mitigation to identify the myriad connections in the system to ensure emission reductions.

n Food and agriculture are impacted by climate change in many complex ways – The impacts of climate change on crop production are geographically unevenly distributed. Although up until 2050, some temperate regions may see favorable changes, many countries are already suffering consequences in the form of declining yields and greater frequency of extreme weather events. With roughly 1.3 billion people employed in the agriculture, food, and allied sectors, we believe that a food systems perspective is needed to identify adaptation opportunities beyond agriculture and across food systems.

n Immediate action is possible and needed – Even though systems-level research is needed, the current evidence base is sufficient to support actions that can contribute to creating more sustainable food systems. We provide near-term actions that are accompanied by expert confidence in the existing state of the science that could be taken to strengthen parts of the food systems. We call for immediate action while research is pursued to fill knowledge gaps and support systems-level analysis and action.

n A food systems perspective will support transformations required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – We observe that research, policies, and strategies about climate change, food, and agriculture have focused largely on changes to production practices within existing systems, rather than broader system transformation. While important, we consider these largely to be efficiency improvements that are unlikely to support more transformative change. Transformative change should include adequate attention to the necessary information and infrastructure systems to help food system actors make better informed decisions. We believe a food systems perspective is imperative if we are to successfully: address climate change at the scale required; drive transformation in food systems; implement climate strategies that do not have unintended consequences on other components of the food system; and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

n More systems-level information and research is urgently required – While researchers are increasingly studying the linkages between climate change and food systems components, knowledge about interactions among food systems components is fragmented and information is scarce about impacts of potential interventions across food systems. The predominance of peer-reviewed literature and research is focused on narrow questions in specific disciplines. Relatively little research has been done on the systems-level impacts for food systems of specific mitigation and adaptation measures. We call for more systems-level research, particularly in the peer-reviewed literature (available analysis of systems-level impacts is mostly provided in non-peer reviewed literature).

2. Key Messages


n Research is needed to fill major knowledge gaps, particularly in low-income and middle-income economies – To achieve systems-level understanding requires an equal understanding of the various system components. Our current scientific understanding includes an extensive body of literature on climate change and agriculture, with a growing focus on consumption, waste and climate change. Less research exists in understanding food systems and climate change from a processing, distribution, and transportation perspective. Across all components of the food systems we find a concerning dearth of research from low-income and emerging economies. We call for an increase in research in these areas, particularly for a greater focus on low-income and emerging economies.

n New approaches and decision-support tools are required – Stakeholders who want to drive change at the country or regional level are considering many specific mitigation and adaptation opportunities. However, in considering various interventions, systems-level issues need to be considered. We provide a set of Climate Change Food Systems Principles to help inform decision making and we call for the creation of decision support tools that help identify systems-level interactions and trade-offs.

n Governance and institutional innovations are required for system transformation – Existing governance structures are typically organized by sector (e.g., health, agriculture, and environment) and tend to favor targeted interventions for mitigation and adaptation and fail to fully consider and account for broader systems-level effects. A systems perspective requires a wider and more inclusive conversation involving a broader array of stakeholders to better understand and address systems-level effects of any mitigation and adaptation actions. These governance systems should ensure that power and equity issues are addressed as part of all interventions. We call for advances in governance structures and institutions to support transformation of food systems in support of climate adaptation and mitigation.


Overview

This section provides a brief overview of current literature on climate change and the food and agricultural production sectors on a global scale. We review the literature on impacts of climate change on food systems and food systems impacts on climate change. Given the large body of literature in this space, we focus on recent reviews and articles that contribute to the recent advancement of science. We draw largely from Vermeulen et al.’s seminal review article Climate Change and Food Systems (2012) and the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) food and agriculture assessments AR5 from Working Group II (Porter et al., 2014) and Working Group III (Smith et al., 2014), as well as recent publications since 2014.

As noted before in this report, the literature overwhelmingly focuses on research questions regarding different types of production systems or on specific agricultural production activities. More research has been conducted on climate change and agricultural production than on climate change and pre- and post-production activities. Very little research is grounded in a food systems perspective that would enable deeper understanding about the consequences – positive, negative, and neutral – of how various parts of the systems are connected and affect each other. To complement the following summary, we provide a review of recent literature regarding climate change and post-production activities, diet and consumption patterns, and food waste in section 4.

History and Context

The global community has long recognized that the global response to climate change is critically important to food production and livelihoods. Roughly 1.3 billion people are employed in the agriculture and food sectors. An estimated 2.5 billion people are involved in full- or part-time smallholder agriculture, while over one billion people living in rural poverty are dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods. In many low-income countries, smallholder farms produce over 80% of the food consumed (FAO, 2009).

Agricultural systems are deeply interconnected with weather and climate, which are dominant factors in agricultural production. Climate shocks (i.e., events that outstrip the capacity of a society to cope with it; Anderson, 2000) such as drought, flooding or heat waves lead not only to loss of life, but also long-term loss of livelihood through loss of productive assets, impaired health and destroyed infrastructure. Climate shocks as well as long-term climate variability enhance existing risks, in particular to vulnerable populations, and contribute to poverty, conflict, migration, and other effects that undermine economic and social development.

Under the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the majority of the world’s countries have included mitigation and adaptation measures related to the agriculture sectors (crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture) in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) reports that 131 countries refer to agriculture as a “priority area” for climate change adaptation and 126 countries refer to agriculture with regard to climate change mitigation (FAO, 2016). Particularly low-income countries put a strong emphasis on the agriculture sectors. Many of these countries

3. A Brief Review of the Literature on Agricultural Production and Climate Change

The global community has long recognized that the global response to climate change is critically important to food production and livelihoods.


highlight the role of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture in economic development, particularly for employment, exports, and rural development. Many countries also point to the vulnerabilities of these sectors to climate change.

Total emissions from food systems are estimated at 19-29% of global GHG emissions. Agricultural production activities contribute about 80-86% of these emissions, thus the focus on agricultural production and climate change thus far has been justified (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Land use contributes about 25% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions, 10-14% from agricultural production and 12-17% from land cover change, including deforestation associated with agriculture (Paustian et al., 2016). Agriculture is responsible for 75% of global deforestation (CCAFS, n.d.). Low-income countries produce the most agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) emissions and are expected to see the fastest increase. However, their share of emissions from agriculture will drop as their economies develop and emissions from other activities will increase. UNFCCC reports show agricultural production alone contributes about 12% of GHG emissions in high-income countries and about 35% in low-income countries (Wollenberg et al., 2016) that rely on agriculture as a key economic sector and have a smaller (albeit growing) manufacturing base.

Impacts of Food and Agriculture on Climate Change

Pre-production activities that generate emissions include the production of synthetic fertilizer, animal feed, and pesticides. Of these three, fertilizer production is the biggest source of emissions, mainly because it is energy intensive but also because some nitrous oxide is emitted when synthetic nitrogen is manufactured and because the production of ammonia, the most important input in fertilizer, still relies on coal in places, especially China (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Smith et al. report that between 1970 and 2010 global fertilizer use increased 233%, from 32 to 106 megatons per year (2014).

Over the past 40 years, global agricultural production and associated GHG emissions have doubled. Since 1970, high-income regions have reduced their agricultural area by 118 million ha (10%), whereas low-income countries together have expanded their agricultural area by 447 million ha (13%). While reducing their agricultural area, high-income countries have almost doubled crop production and increased livestock production, while reducing total emissions by 7%. In the same period, low-income countries have doubled crop production and almost tripled livestock production, but, have increased total emissions by 34% (Bennetzen, et al. 2016).


Recent estimates conclude that agricultural soils and enteric fermentation together are responsible for about 70% of total non-carbon dioxide emissions, followed by paddy rice cultivation (9-11%), biomass burning (6-12%) and manure management (7-8%) (Smith et al., 2014). We summarize information about impacts of key production activities, as follows:

Livestock. The livestock sector includes 20 billion animals using 30% of the planet’s land for grazing (Herrero et al. 2016). Animal feed production accounts for about 45% of the livestock sector’s emissions; about half from fertilization of feed crops and pastures, and the rest through energy use and land use (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Between 1995 and 2005 the livestock sector was responsible for GHG emissions of 5.6-7.5 gigatons CO2 equivalent per year (GtCO2e/yr). Livestock alone may constitute up to half the mitigation potential of the AFOLU sectors through a combination of management options and reduced demand for livestock products (Herrero et al., 2016). Methane from enteric fermentation, primarily from ruminants (e.g., cows, goats, sheep), is the most important source of emissions, followed by nitrous oxide from feed production and land use for animal feed and pastures, including land change, and including fertilizer production. In addition, ruminants (e.g., cows, goats, sheep) require more feed of lower digestibility per kilogram than monogastric animals (e.g., pigs and poultry), so their contribution to emissions through consumption of feed is greater (Eshel, 2014). Cattle production accounts for 64-78% of the sector’s emissions, followed by pigs, poultry, buffalo and small ruminants. The sector, and therefore its impact on GHG emissions, is growing, and most projected growth will be in low-income countries (Herrero et al., 2016).

Manure Use. Manure use is growing, both organic fertilizer applied on cropland and manure on pasture. Applying manure adds nutrients and provides other benefits, but contributes to GHG emissions (80% of manure use is in low-income countries). From 2000-2010 manure emissions were greatest in Asia, then Europe and the Americas (Smith et al., 2014).

Fertilizer Use. Emissions from synthetic fertilizers are also growing, and will outpace emissions from manure on pastures; they will be the second greatest source after enteric fermentation by 2024. From 2000 – 2010, the largest emitter by far was Asia, then the Americas and then Europe. Seventy percent of fertilizer emissions are from low-income countries and emerging economies. Many low-income countries, especially in Africa, have nutrient-poor soils and are actively promoting increases in fertilizer use and practices to improve soil fertility.

Paddy Rice Cultivation. Paddy rice cultivation is a major source of global methane emissions. Methane is produced by microscopic organisms in submerged fields. Paddy rice cultivation contributes about 11% of agricultural emissions. Paddy rice cultivation emissions have been increasing, mostly in low-income countries, and over 90% are from Asia (Smith et al., 2014).

Land Use and Land Cover Changes. Agriculture utilizes 37% of the earth’s land surface, and about 80% of new land for crops and pastures comes from removing forests, especially in the tropics (Vermeulen et al., 2012). An estimated 25% of total global human caused GHG emissions can be attributed to land use, 10-14% directly from agriculture and another 12-17% from land cover change, including deforestation (Paustian et al., 2016). Peat land degradation is a big contributor to emissions, perhaps a fourth of the total for deforestation and degradation. Although soils contribute as much as 37% of agricultural emissions (mainly nitrous oxide and methane), improved soil management, as noted in the next section, can change this substantially. Undisturbed waterlogged peatlands, or organic soils, store up to 20-25% of the world’s soil organic carbon stock and act as net sinks (Smith et al., 2014). Draining peatlands through development or drought increases emissions of carbon and nitrous oxide, and peat fires that follow also contribute emissions. Mangrove ecosystems are also important. Mangroves declined by 20% since 1980, which contributed to emissions (Smith et al., 2014). Up until the 1980s smallholders (who produce 80% of the world’s


food) were those who converted much land to agriculture, but since then agribusinesses such as cattle ranching, soybean farming, and plantation agriculture have become more dominant factors in converting land to agriculture. This is especially true in Brazil and Indonesia, while in Africa and South Asia, smallholder farmers are still converting land to agriculture (Vermeulen et al., 2012).

Soil Degradation. Soil degradation includes erosion, desertification, and other changes in soil that reduce its capacity to absorb nitrogen and provide other ecosystem services. The stress from demographic and poor land management’s impact on soil degradation are made worse by climate change through changing rainfall patterns, extreme events like droughts and floods, as well as rising temperatures. These effects have greater impact in drylands. Nearly one third of arable land is estimated to have been lost to erosion, 25% of the earth’s land has been highly degraded or undergoing degradation rapidly, and the proportion of land mass classified as dry has doubled (UNCCD, 2015). In 2008, Lal estimated that “the carbon sink capacity of degraded soils is 50 to 66% of the historic carbon loss of 42 to 78 gigatons of carbon” (Lal, 2013).

Machinery. Fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions from machinery such as tractors and irrigation pumps added another 0.4-0.6 GtCO2eq/yr (Smith et al., 2014).

Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Production, Current and Future

The projected impacts of climate change on crop production are geographically very unevenly distributed. Up until 2050, some temperate regions may see favorable changes, including increased crop yields as temperatures and precipitation change (Porter et al., 2014). Beyond 2050, rising temperatures are expected to have a large impact on food production everywhere. Although low-income countries are not the main originators of climate change, they may suffer the greatest share of the damage in the form of declining yields (resulting from higher temperatures, elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, precipitation changes, increased weeds, pests and disease pressure) and greater frequency of extreme weather events (droughts and floods). As a result, smallholder farmers in these countries are expected to be heavily affected (Morton, 2007).

The negative effects of climate change on crop and land based food production is evident in several parts of the world, and marine and aquaculture production systems are being affected as well (Porter et al., 2014). While attention has been focused on yields, there is growing concern about how climate change will affect food quality (Myers et. al 2014) and food safety as well (Tirado et al. 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2012). Changes in climate and carbon dioxide will “enhance the distribution and increase the competitiveness of agronomically important and invasive weeds” (Porter et al., 2014).

Climate trends, as stated above, appear to have negatively affected wheat and maize production, while the effects to date on rice and soybean yields have been small. Northeast China and the UK have seen some improvement in yields, given their higher latitudes (Smith et al., 2014). While it is more difficult to quantify the effects of extreme weather events on crops, hot nights damage rice yields and quality, and increasingly high day temperatures have clearly damaged other crops (Smith et al., 2014). Further, warmer temperatures are affecting total number of chill hours, which are critical for a host of horticultural tree crops (Luedeling, 2011). Ozone level increases have likely reduced yields in wheat and soybean as well as maize and rice yields, especially in India and China.


Just as there are latitude differences in how climate change is affecting crops, there are differences in the impact on fisheries abundance in northern and southern ranges, some positive, some negative. Damaged coral reef ecosystems are under threat and their loss would threaten the livelihoods of more than 500 million people who depend on fish that need the reefs (Smith et al., 2014).

Experts believe that climate change has affected livestock production, but there are fewer studies examining the impact. Available studies suggest the spread of diseases to livestock has already increased due to climate change, for instance blue-tongue virus that affects ruminants and ticks that carry pathogens that cause zoonotic diseases are spreading disease problems for both livestock and human beings due to climate change (Porter et al., 2014). Further, disease in livestock is estimated to result in 20% of production losses, which has significant implications for GHG emissions in the industry (GRA, 2014).

Prices respond to weather changes, and several other factors, and spikes often follow climate extremes. Several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases have been reported following climate extremes (Porter et al., 2014). Food price increases are especially worrisome for poor urban dwellers, though their negative impact extends further.

More than 70 percent of agriculture overall is rain fed, and thus sensitive to changes in rainfall accompanying climate change (Porter et al., 2014). Perhaps as many as 3 billion people rely on groundwater as a source of drinking water, and climate change likely affects groundwater levels now and will in the future. In arid and semi-arid areas, precipitation may decrease by 20 percent over the next century. Increasingly erratic rainfall patterns will affect rainfed agriculture (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa, where over 90% of agriculture is rainfed).

The many complex impacts of climate change on agricultural production are contributing to poverty, migration, conflict and other destabilizing developments.

Gaps in Current Knowledge Regarding Agricultural Production and Climate Change

While research on the interaction of climate change, food, and agriculture is growing, there are many pressing areas that require additional study in order to enable researchers, policymakers, and others to fully adopt a food systems perspective. In addition, many reports have identified specific research needs that would strengthen knowledge in specific food systems elements. This report summarizes some of the needs, as follows:

n An improved spatial emissions database to help countries identify appropriate adaptation and mitigation strategies for their own context (Tubiello et al., 2013).

n Improved data on crop production systems (including practices); on grazing areas (including quality, intensity, management); and on freshwater fisheries and aquaculture (Smith et al., 2014).

n Globally standardized data on soil and forest degradation and better understanding of the effects of degradation on carbon balances and productivity (Smith et al., 2014).

n Understanding of mitigation potential interplay and costs and consequences of land-use based mitigation (such as improved agricultural management, forest conservation, bioenergy production and afforestation at various scales) (Smith et al., 2014), especially for low-income countries that are expected to have majority of increases in production and post-production emissions.

n Studies and data on yield variability, in the context of climate change influencing price fluctuations. Model development is crucial for making adaptation and mitigation plans, and these models need good yield data that takes into account different scales (Porter et al., 2014).

n Food security studies that examine the range of adaptations available to the various food system actors (Porter et al., 2014).


To complement the brief review of the literature on agriculture and food production, we provide the following more detailed review of climate change and post-production activities and consumption. While the literature on climate change and agricultural production is rather robust, peer-reviewed literature on the activities described below have been more recent and few substantive reviews from a systems perspective exist. Given this, we have reviewed the recent literature on post-production, consumption and food disposal. The length of this section reflects the breadth of activities included (number post-production activities, diet and consumption, and food waste), rather than the depth of available research.

Post-Production Activities

As food systems change, post-production may become a bigger part of emissions in the future (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Post-production activities, including food processing, packaging, distribution (transport) and the cold chain (i.e., unbroken refrigeration throughout the supply chain for many products) make notable contributions. The fraction of total food systems emissions that occur post-production is likely to vary greatly by country, with larger post-production percentages – perhaps greater than half – occurring in industrial economies. While agriculture and food production GHG emissions are emitted from a variety of activities, post-production emissions are largely associated with energy use; one notable exception is direct releases of refrigerants. Therefore, broader efforts to lower the emission intensities of electricity grids or transportation fleets also come to play in mitigating the emission intensity of the post-production activities. In addition, tracking energy

use post-production can help in identifying priority stages for mitigation efforts, as the relative GHG contributions likely follow the distribution of energy consumption. Figure 2shows the distribution of energy consumption across post-production stages in the U.S. food systems, as an example. Food-related energy consumption in the home represents a striking contribution, with 55% of this used by refrigerators and freezers, and the balance distributed between cooking and dishwashing. The sections below detail important aspects of the post-production food systems and highlight opportunities for GHG emission mitigation.

4. A Brief Review of the Literature on Post-Production Activities, Dietary and Consumption Patterns, Food Waste, and Climate Change

Figure 2. Distribution of the roughly 8.5 EJ consumed post-production annually in the U.S. food systems circa 1995. Data adapted from Heller and Keoleian, 2003. (EJ = 1018 J)

Processing21%

Packaging9%

Transport(Raw processedproducts)11%Retail

5%FoodService8%

Household food shoppingtrips6%

Householdstorage andpreparations 40%

350Per capita food losses and waste (kg/year)

ConsumerProduction to retailing300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Europ

eNor

th Amer

ica

and O

cean

iaInd

ustria

lozed

AsiaSub

-Sah

aran

Africa

North

Africa,

Wes

t

and C

entra

l Asia

South

and

Southe

ast A

siaLa

tin A

merica


Food Processing. In its most basic sense, food processing involves converting foods from one form to another in order to improve their stability and storability, their bioavailability and nutrition, and/or their desirability by the end user. Industrial food processes have traditionally been designed with the assumption of abundant and cheap material and energy resources (van der Goot et al., 2016). As a result, many are energy intensive. Within the U.S. food processing sector, grain and oilseed milling, and particularly wet corn milling, are the largest consumers of energy, both in an absolute sense as well as energy cost per unit of output value (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2013; Wang, 2013). Other energy intensive processes include removing water during intermediate or final stages of food processing (often after large quantities of water have been added in a previous stage) and assuring food safety through pasteurization, sterilization, and the like.

Much of the food manufacturing industry relies on highly refined ingredients (e.g., high fructose corn syrup or soy protein isolate) with defined compositions and broad applicability (van der Goot et al., 2016). The manufacture and use of pure (and often dry) ingredients allows for the industrial-scale production of standardized material and promotes the concept of global sourcing. However, making pure ingredients from complex raw materials requires intensive processing, involves large solvent quantities and often harsh processing conditions. Thus, significant resources go into achieving high purity standards.

Packaging. Packaging is an essential part of the post-production food systems. We depend on packaging to enable food to get from where it is produced to where it is consumed with an acceptable level of safety, quality, and appearance. Food and beverage packaging accounts for roughly half of all packaging materials (Selke, 2012) and can be a prominent component in municipal solid waste.

Transportation. A common assumption is that transportation dominates the GHG emissions of a food’s life cycle. However, a literature review of 116 food life cycle assessment (LCA) studies revealed that, for most foods, distribution contributes less than 10% to the overall GHG emissions per kilogram of

food (Heller, in review). Exceptions include many vegetables, where the agricultural production impacts per kilogram are low, and fish and seafood, where time-sensitive international distribution is often involved.

An often cited input-output LCA study of supplying food for U.S. households (up until retail outlets) found that direct distribution of foods (from farm or production facility to retail stores) represented only 4% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, with indirect transportation (e.g., delivery of fertilizer to farms) adding an additional 7%. Food production (on-farm and processing), on the other hand, represents 83% of the total emissions (Weber and Matthews, 2008).

The Cold Chain (Refrigeration). An estimated 40% of all food requires refrigeration and 15% of the electricity consumed worldwide is used for refrigeration, but less than 10% of such perishable foodstuffs are currently refrigerated worldwide (James and James, 2013). The little data that is available suggests that currently the food cold chain (i.e., uninterrupted refrigeration along food product supply chains) accounts for approximately 1% of CO2 production globally (James and James, 2013). In the absence of notable intervention, this will likely increase as low-income economies acquire cold chain capacity and as global temperatures increase, raising refrigeration energy needs. Experts suggest, however, that with use of the most energy efficient refrigeration technologies, it would be possible to substantially extend and improve the cold-chain without any increase in CO2 emissions, and possibly even a decrease (James and James, 2013).

The food and drink manufacturing, food retail and catering sectors are responsible for an estimated 4% of the UK’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, with a little over half of this (about 2.4%) due to food refrigeration (although refrigeration of imported foods could increase this figure to at least 3–3.5%) (Garnett, 2007). Based on calculated estimates, in the UK, milk requires the most cooling, requiring an estimated 2.5 times more energy than all other food commodities added together (4.5 times more than all types of meat combined) (James and James, 2010). Crops in most locations have seasonality and there is a need to store food in some way between


the time of harvest and the time of consumption. Consuming local food year-round requires additional or improved storage, leading to impacts typically in the form of energy consumption for refrigeration or freezing. Identifying a minimally impactful consumption strategy would require balancing this with emissions from transport of non-local foods, and this balance likely will vary by season. Such a trade-off was demonstrated for apples consumed in the UK; eating domestic apples in-season resulted in the lowest energy use, but later in the year (European spring & summer), apples from the Southern Hemisphere likely would be the low energy option (although variability in the data was too large to say this definitively) (Milà i Canals et al., 2007).

Food Transport Refrigeration. Estimates indicate that there are approximately 1,300 specialized refrigerated cargo ships, 80,000 refrigerated railcars, 650,000 refrigerated shipping containers and 1.2 million refrigerated trucks in use worldwide (James and James, 2010). Transport refrigeration systems are typically oversized, and with refrigerated trucks, are invariably driven by an auxiliary diesel engine. These auxiliary engines, combined with the impacts of refrigerant leakage, can result in GHG emissions up to 140% of non-refrigerated truck transport (Tassou et al., 2009). Further, the performance of insulation materials in such vehicles (and foam-based refrigeration insulation in general) degrades with time, with typical loss of insulation value between 3% and 5% per year. After 9 years

of operation, this can result in a 50% increase in energy consumption and CO2 emissions (Tassou et al., 2009). Alternatives to current standard transport refrigeration systems are under development and can offer significant reductions in energy consumption and emissions. In fact, the rejected heat from large truck engines is sufficient to drive alternative refrigeration systems under normal long-haul driving conditions. Design and implementation challenges remain, but such alternatives present promise (Tassou et al., 2009).

Refrigerants. As chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) refrigerants were phased out because they were harming the ozone layer, they were replaced to a large extent with hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants. HFCs are efficient refrigerants that are not ozone-depleting, but they have a global warming potential (GWP) thousands of times greater than that of carbon dioxide. The recently (October 15, 2016) adopted Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol commits countries to phasing down the production and consumption of HFCs by more than 80 percent over the next 30 years, avoiding more than 80 billion metric tons of CO2eq emissions by 2050. Developed countries will begin phase-down in 2019, with most developing nations following suit by freezing use of HFCs in 2024. A handful of the world’s hottest countries were granted a more lenient schedule and will freeze HFCs use by 2028.


Cold Chain Expansion. Many parts of the world currently do not have well developed cold chains, and this lack of refrigeration capacity contributes to food waste. However, the cold chain is a transformative technology and as such, there are numerous and complex interactions and feedbacks between refrigeration, food production and consumption decisions, infrastructure development and the global environment that make the accompanying environmental impact of cold chain introduction difficult to predict (Heard and Miller, 2016). While refrigeration may decrease postharvest food spoilage and losses, household refrigeration and altered buying patterns may lead to increases in consumer-level food waste. Combined with dietary shifts and demand for new product types enabled by refrigeration, the net change in energy and resource use, and subsequently GHG emissions, is ambiguous. Further research and improved data quality are needed to better understand the cumulative influence of cold chain introduction, and to help direct such development toward sustainability.

Impacts of Dietary and Consumption Trends on Climate Change

What people eat has a significant impact on how much food systems contribute to GHG emissions and land use demand by agriculture. In this section, we explore the current knowledge about impacts of dietary and consumption trends on climate change.

There is a growing scientific focus on understanding how food choices have potential environmental, health, and social implications. For example, the use of LCA for food has increased more than ten times in the past 15 years (Nemecek et al., 2016). Also, individual diets have changed during the past several decades, including an increase in animal products, processed and packaged foods, and empty calories (Tilman and Clark, 2014) and many people in low-income countries have shifted towards diets typical of high-income countries (Pradhan et al., 2013). These shifts are highly correlated with increases in income, and higher social status and food interest has been associated with higher household GHG emissions

(Lund et al., 2017). Estimates indicate that these trends, if left unchecked, could result in a range of potential impacts including higher prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases, lower overall life expectancy, land use change up to 50% (Hallström et al., 2015) and up to an 80% increase in global GHG emissions from the food system by 2050 (Popp et al., 2010; Tilman and Clark, 2014). However, these shifts have also had marked impact on decreasing hunger and malnutrition over a similar timeframe as individuals living in low-income countries have shifted towards more balanced diets with 216 million fewer undernourished people in 2015 than in 1990–92 (FAO et al., 2015). These shifts have had incredible public health benefits for billions of individuals; however, growing evidence suggests that certain dietary shifts are related to increased environmental impact, including GHG emissions.

Given that diets have the potential to be a significant portion of an individual’s contribution towards GHG emissions (Macdiarmid, 2013), some studies have suggested that dietary changes may be more effective than technical agricultural mitigation options in reducing global emissions (Popp et al., 2010). However, the rise in research has also provided insight into key factors that may be overlooked in disciplinary specific studies and has created new debates over measuring diet changes and their potential impacts. This section examines the existing scientific basis for diet and GHG emissions, implications for policy and future opportunities for additional research.

In this section, we summarize the state of the knowledge on impacts of diets and consumption patterns on climate change.

Estimates indicate that there are approximately 1,300 specialized refrigerated cargo ships, 80,000 refrigerated railcars, 650,000 refrigerated shipping containers and 1.2 million refrigerated trucks in use worldwide


Processed Food. While not often discussed, some studies suggest that processed foods, including snacks, may offer opportunity for reducing diet related emissions (Green et al., 2015; van Dooren et al., 2014). These emissions are often associated with increasing energy requirements for processing, packaging, or transportation (see previous section). Recent work from Hanssen et al (2017) out of Norway found that ready to eat meals had much higher energy and GHG emissions. The effect of changing a household’s dietary patterns to using only fresh ingredients for dinners as compared to only eating ready to eat dinners resulted in the same GHG reductions as driving 900 km or 8% of the average total driving distance per household annually (Hanssen et al., 2017). Yet, it is important to note that these benefits could be negated if fresh ingredients are grown in heated greenhouses or air-freighted (Hoolohan et al., 2013)(González et al., 2011). However, from a systems perspective, it may be important to consider that some level of processing has resulted in higher intake of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables (e.g., bagged salads), which may result in health benefits.

Balancing Energy Intake and Individual Metabolic Demands. Overall, lower calorie diets are decreasing worldwide as high calorie diets have grown particularly common in high-income countries (Pradhan et al., 2013). Diets that include more energy intake than individual metabolic demands can result in greater environmental impact (Nelson et al., 2016; van Dooren et al., 2014) and, in areas of overconsumption, can constitute a notable portion of an individual’s diet footprint. For example, Portugal on average consumes 41% more calories than recommended; shifting to a 2,500 kcal average diet could reduce GHG emissions (Galli et al., 2017). Similarly, adjusting energy intake to meet energy needs could reduce GHG equivalents on a range of 1% to nearly 11%, depending on physical activity level (Heller and Keoleian, 2015; Vieux et al., 2012). Others have found that discretionary foods that contribute to additional energy intake (largely alcohol, candy, and baked goods) were up to 39% of the average diet in Australia. Researchers have suggested that balancing energy intake and output by reducing discretionary food intake could allow for an increased consumption of vegetables, dairy and grain, which would have significant health benefits

with minimal GHG impact (Hendrie et al., 2016). However, diet shifts away from discretionary calories and foods may be particularly challenging given that such foods are cheap, convenient, and palatable (Hadjikakou, 2017).

Reducing Meat Consumption in Diets. Increased GHG emissions have been associated with diets higher in animal products (Abbade, 2015; Bajzelj et al., 2014; González et al., 2011) and animal-based foods are one of the largest portions of GHG emissions in an individual’s diet (Clune et al., 2017;

Hanssen et al., 2017; Heller and Keoleian, 2015; Hendrie et al., 2016; Monsivais et al., 2015; Vetter et al., 2017). As a result, diets with less animal-based protein intake are associated with fewer environmental impacts (Martin and Danielsson, 2016; Nelson et al., 2016; Nemecek et al., 2016). This has led some researchers to conclude that dietary shifts including reduction in animal products will be “indispensable” for reaching 2 degree C climate goals (Hedenus et al., 2014).

More specifically, many studies have examined how dietary shifts towards certain dietary guidelines (e.g. World Health Organization, country-level dietary recommendations) or alternative animal or plant-based products may result in reduced GHG emissions and other environmental impacts. Below we detail the existing scientific basis for shifting red meat consumption towards other animal protein sources (pork, chicken, eggs, dairy) and shifting red meat consumption towards plant-based alternatives. Given the potential nutritional shifts that may also occur as a result, we explore the literature from both a nutritional and an environmental standpoint.


Researchers have found that the environmental costs per consumed calorie of poultry, pork, dairy and eggs are all relatively similar, with beef production resulting in roughly five times the GHG emissions as compared to these other alternatives (Eshel et al., 2014). Studies have confirmed that shifting from red meat consumption towards pork or chicken can offer a reduction in GHGs (Roy et al., 2012), with estimates from Japan coupled with a “healthy and balanced diet” suggesting that up to 54 million tons of CO2e could be abated annually. Other UK studies have suggested that a complete shift from beef to pork and chicken in the average UK diet would result in an 18% reduction in GHG emissions (Hoolohan et al., 2013). Similarly, a 75% reduction of beef and sheep meat replaced by poultry or pork resulted in a 9% reduction in diet GHG emissions and an average of nearly 2,000 deaths averted annually in the UK (Scarborough et al., 2012). More modest shifts towards 50% meat reductions could result in a 19% reduction in GHG emissions and accompanying mortality benefits (Scarborough et al., 2012). Many other studies confirm that a reduction in meat consumption or substitution would lead to notable GHG reductions up to 40% (Sabaté et al., 2015; Scarborough et al., 2014; Westhoek et al., 2014).

Shifting meat consumption entirely towards plant-based foods (vegan) or entirely away from meat but still including eggs and dairy (vegetarian) and fish (pescetarian) has also been extensively explored in the literature. While the literature is nearly universal in the conclusion that vegetarian and/or vegan diets do result in less GHG emissions, their potential difference from each other, and their health implications have been debated. Studies indicate that vegetarian and vegan diets have the potential to reduce food-related GHG emissions in 2050 by up to 70% over current diets, largely as a result of the elimination of red meat (Springmann et al., 2016). Current UK diets shifted towards vegetarian or vegan could reduce GHG emissions by 22% (vegetarian) or 26% (vegan), the equivalent to a 50% reduction in vehicle emissions from UK passenger cars if adopted by the entire country (Berners-Lee et al., 2012). Related research exploring diets such as the Mediterranean or New Nordic diets have found that these improve environmental outcomes compared with traditional Western European diets

(Pairotti et al., 2015; Saxe et al., 2013), though vegetarian diets have the potential to reduce GHG emissions more (Pairotti et al., 2015; Tilman and Clark, 2015).

Health Implications of Dietary Shifts. Many existing studies have examined how diet shifts could offer both environmental and public health benefits. However, though recent research suggests that healthy diets are often associated with a lower emissions footprint (Fischer and Garnett, 2016), it cannot be assumed that “healthy” diets will always result in lower GHG emissions (Macdiarmid, 2013). This is complex, in part because it depends on whose definition of health is used, as well as the fact that animal products add valuable nutritional benefits to an individual’s diet, and complete elimination of certain food groups without adequate substitution could result in potential nutritional deficits, particularly in low-income countries. As such, nutritional perspectives must be considered along with GHG reduction (Vetter et al., 2017).

The literature broadly suggests that diet shifts away from animal products, especially red meat, do offer modest mortality risk benefits (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016; Westhoek et al., 2014) and that there tend to be general synergies between diets low in GHGs and health benefits (Gephart et al., 2016; Irz et al., 2016). However, this is not universal (sugar for example has a low GHG impact but negative health consequences) (Briggs et al., 2016).

Scholars have argued that the health effects of diet shifts need to be considered for both their potential positive health benefits resulting from potential reduction in morbidity and diet-related chronic diseases, as well as whether such shifts would potentially result in malnutrition, particularly for the world’s poorest (Garnett, 2011). For example, Springmann et al. (Springmann et al., 2016) found that reductions in meat consumption in line with standard dietary recommendations would result in major health benefits through reduced mortality and provide the greatest health and environmental benefits in low-income countries. Likewise, Tilman and Clark find through a review of diets that vegetarian diets could reduce risk for Type II diabetes, cancer, and mortality in some cases up to 50% overall compared with omnivorous diets. However, other papers that have


considered similar shifts have found potential for malnutrition. A recent systematic review found that 64% of papers found that reduced GHG diets were associated with worse indicators of health, finding that while these diets were lower in saturated fat and salt, they were usually higher in sugar and lower in essential micronutrients (82% of studies)(Payne et al., 2016). Temme et al. (Temme et al., 2015) found that while vegetarian and vegan diets would decrease saturated fat intake by 9 and 26%, vegetarian diets would result in less B12 intake, and vegan diets would result in less intake of Calcium, Zinc, Thiamin and B12, having potential impacts on childhood malnutrition. Others have suggested that while a vegan diet can reduce environmental impacts including GHG emissions, it does lead to inability to meet certain nutrient requirements (e.g. Eicosapentaenoic acid + Docosahexaenoic acid) (Tyszler et al., 2016).

Importantly, this evidence suggests that there appear to be thresholds at which diet shifts might cause unexpected negative consequences and be socially unacceptable. Both Milner et al. (Milner et al., 2015) and Green et al. (Green et al., 2015) found that diet shifts (e.g. reduced animal products, processed foods and more fruits, vegetables, and cereals) causing GHG emission reductions more than 40% would be possible but result in potential decreases in health outcomes and acceptability. Perignon et al. observed that moderate GHG reductions from diet shifts were compatible with nutritional outcomes while higher reductions impaired nutritional quality and resulted in significant diet changes outside the scope of public acceptability (Perignon et al., 2016). Others have concluded that a diet with reduced meat consumption could reduce GHG emissions by 36%, and would be much more acceptable to consumers compared to more significant diet shifts and such diets had comparable cost to average food expenditures (Macdiarmid et al., 2012).

Low-Income Country Focus. The current state of available academic literature has a significant focus on high-income countries, despite the fact that there is clear evidence that meat consumption in low-income and emerging economy countries is growing rapidly and has had major impacts on GHG emissions (Gill et al., 2015). Our assessment as well as others have found that most diet-related

studies are focused in high-income countries (Jones et al., 2016) and those that have explored low-income and emerging economies most often focus on China, India and Brazil. For example, Pathak et al. (Pathak et al., 2010) find that most of an Indian’s dietary impact comes from the production of the food since Indians mostly consume fresh, local foods and that non-vegetarian Indian meals with mutton have 1.8 times the GHGs of a vegetarian meal. The authors and others confirm that dietary shifts towards increased animal products could result in a significant rise in Indian dietary GHGs (Pathak et al., 2010; Vetter et al., 2017). Results from China confirm that dietary shifts could provide both human health and climate mitigation benefits in China, though the per capita mitigation potential is lower than other high-income economies such as France, Spain, Sweden, and New Zealand (Song et al., 2017). In Brazil, 80% of the population currently consumes more red meat than is recommended, which if dietary recommendations had been followed would have reduced GHG emissions by 60 million tons (Carvalho et al., 2016). Evidence from these countries largely echoes evidence from high-income countries but the paucity of research from these regions suggests a clear need for additional work. Additional research is critically needed to advance studies in low-income and emerging economies, including on consumer demand for diet alternatives (Jones et al., 2016).

Food Loss and Waste

Roughly one-third of the edible parts of food produced for human consumption gets lost or wasted globally, which is about 1.3 billion ton per year. Total GHG emissions associated with food loss and waste is estimated at 3.6 GtCO2 eq per year not including emissions from deforestation and organic soils (FAO, n.d.). In medium- and high-income countries food is to a great extent wasted, meaning that it is thrown away even if it is still suitable for human consumption. Significant food loss and waste do, however, also occur early in the food supply chain. In low-income countries, food is mainly lost during the early and middle stages of the food supply chain; much less food is wasted at the consumer level (Gustavsson et al., 2011).


Food loss and waste (waste) not only decreases access and availability of food, it represents the waste of all emissions associated with the growth, transportation, processing, distribution, storage, and preparation of the food (Garnett, 2011; Gustavsson et al., 2011). The further along the supply chain a food is, the more “wasted” emissions associated with its loss (Bajzelj et al., 2014).

Waste varies significantly between low-, medium- and high-income countries both in quantity and in its causes (Dorward, 2012). For example, in low-income countries, wastage prior to consumption occurs primarily during storage and transport whereas in high-income countries, wastage prior to consumption can result from disposal of food considered to be substandard for consumer preferences.

Additional research is needed for improved estimates of global waste, country specific waste estimates, and comparisons between different parts of the system that use different metrics for measuring total waste (e.g., production loss and consumption loss) (Bajzlj et al., 2014). And, additional efforts are needed to support crop breeding to integrate properties for resilience and nutrition, for instance through new varieties that are climate (heat) resilient and more nutritious (Global Panel, 2015), and to improve disease prevention and control in response to changing disease prevalence.

Impacts of Climate Change on Undernutrition and Food Quality

Recent research suggests that climate change may also affect the nutritional content of crops (Myers et al, 2014). Certain crops, including maize, peanuts, beans, and rice, that are less resistant to water or heat stresses are more likely to be damaged or contaminated by pests, disease and molds, with repercussions on food quality as well as food safety (Rosenzweig, et al, 2001; Tirado et al. 2010).

Impacts of Climate Change on Food Safety and Zoonotic Diseases

Climate change is contributing to increasing occurrence of natural toxins produced by fungi (mycotoxins) that can be highly carcinogenic to consumers, and are also increasingly linked to immune suppression in infants and impaired linear growth of children, which contributes to the heavy global burden of child stunting (Battilani, 2016). Furthermore, climate change is likely to affect the health of animals, both directly and indirectly. Direct effects include temperature-related illness and death, and the morbidity of animals during extreme weather events. Indirect impacts follow more intricate pathways and include animals’ attempts to adapt to thermal environment or from the influence of climate on microbial populations, distribution of vector-borne diseases, host resistance to infectious agents, feed and water shortages, or food-borne diseases (FAO, 2008; Tirado et al. 2010).

Per capita food losses and waste, at consumption and pre-consumption states, in different regions (Gustavsson et al., 2011)

Processing21%

Packaging9%

Transport(Raw processedproducts)11%Retail

5%FoodService8%

Household food shoppingtrips6%

Householdstorage andpreparations 40%

350Per capita food losses and waste (kg/year)

ConsumerProduction to retailing300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Europ

eNor

th Amer

ica

and O

cean

iaInd

ustria

lozed

AsiaSub

-Sah

aran

Africa

North

Africa,

Wes

t

and C

entra

l Asia

South

and

Southe

ast A

siaLa

tin A

merica


Stakeholders who are involved in efforts to create more sustainable food systems and/or efforts to mitigate climate change should adopt a food systems approach to drive changes at a scale needed for systems-level transformation. Fully adopting a food systems approach will require more research that looks at systems-level impacts of adopting specific interventions. As illustrated in the next section, current literature identifies many examples of a range of specific mitigation and adaptation opportunities in different food and agriculture systems. However, an understanding of the systems-level implications of each intervention is limited.

Broadly, this approach – assessing the implications of mitigation and adaptation measures through a food systems approach – is consistent with a systems approach that is utilized in a wide range of disciplines, and can be defined as “a set of synergistic analytic skills used to improve the capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviors, and devising modifications to them in order to produce desired effects (Arnold and Wade, 2015).”

In order to support stakeholders in using a system approach in making choices about mitigation and adaptations interventions, we propose a set of Climate Change and Food Systems Principles. These Principles, which can be used by stakeholder to explore the systems-level implications of specific opportunities, should be tested and improved through stakeholder engagement. Decisions can also be improved and supported through additional research both on specific food systems activities, but – more importantly – deeper systems-level analysis of how mitigation and adaptation affect the overall food system potentially using analytical frameworks, such as the Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System in the US (IOM and NAS, 2015).

Climate Change Food Systems Principles

n Interconnectedness: Examine overall systems-level impacts from specific mitigation and adaptation interventions.

n Equity: Pursue mitigation and adaptation interventions that support sustainable livelihoods and access to nutritious food.

n Resilience: Support interventions that enhance the adaptive ability of biophysical, economic, social, and others systems to a changing climate.

n Renewability: Advance interventions that support the restorative capacity of natural and social resources that are the foundation of a healthy planet and future generations.

n Responsiveness: Design interventions that are able to respond to unanticipated rapid or significant changes in an uncertain future.

n Transparency: Be transparent about the effects of mitigation and adaptation interventions throughout the system.

n Scale: Evaluate the scale of impact from interventions – positive, negative, and neutral – in food systems.

n Evaluation: Assess systems-level changes within an appropriate systems change evaluation framework using appropriate systemic measures of mitigation and adaptation interventions and their interactions.

The Principles above include, but are not limited to, those adopted and adapted from the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.

5. Applying a Food Systems Approach to Climate Change


Applying a Food Systems Perspective to Identify System-Level Effects – Illustrative Examples

To illustrate how specific mitigation or adaptation interventions may have implications, benefits, or unintended consequences in other parts of food systems, we provide three examples.

Example 1: Diet Interventions

Scientific evidence suggests that diets that are less processed, balance energy intake and individual metabolic demands, and include more plant-based components have lower GHG emissions. As a result, an increasing number of scientists, health organizations and even national dietary guidelines are recommending dietary shifts that can improve diet sustainability. However, such shifts would have several other potential impacts, including implications for human health and livelihoods. Using a systems approach enables a better understanding of these potential impacts and a greater interpretation of the full suite of both anticipated and unanticipated consequences.

While not a universal principle, generally diets that are healthier for humans also have a lower overall environmental footprint and reduced GHG emissions (Fischer and Garnett, 2016). For example, diets that are higher in plant-based ingredients and lower in animal products are associated with reduced saturated fat intake (Temme et al., 2015) while diets that are lower in processed foods also have reduced sodium (Webster et al., 2010). Thus, dietary shifts have the potential to not only offer significant health benefits, but if adopted widely, could also reduce dietary GHG emissions (Springmann et al., 2016). This co-benefit has been widely discussed in a number of papers exploring these relationships and offers significant opportunity to improve human well-being and health while also improving environmental quality, making progress towards two of the SDGs.

However, while this positive benefit may be widely discussed, it is also critical that dietary shifts do not compromise overall well-being. Less commonly discussed in the existing literature on dietary shifts and GHG emissions are potential negative consequences of such shifts, particularly related to malnutrition (Garnett, 2011). Some research suggests that large-scale shifts towards lower GHG diets are associated with lower essential


micronutrients and higher sugar consumption (Payne et al., 2016) while shifts toward completely vegetarian or vegan diets could reduce micronutrient intake including vitamin B12, Calcium, Zinc, and Thiamin (Temme et al., 2015; Tyszler et al., 2016). Thus, while dietary shifts towards lower GHG diets have the potential to significantly increase health through reduction in morbidity and chronic diseases, they should also be considered for potential negative consequences of diet shifts. Utilizing a systems approach can help identify both of these potential outcomes, and provide mechanisms through which policymakers can make recommendations that enable positive health outcomes in combination with reduced dietary GHGs.

As described earlier, reducing red meat consumption has been recommended as one of the key and most effective strategies to reduce dietary GHG emissions (Martin and Danielsson, 2016; Nelson et al., 2016; Nemecek et al., 2016). However, while this may be supported by scientific evidence, it is also critical to explore these potential shifts and their impact on animal agriculture. Recommendations to reduce red meat consumption should consider other impacts, for instance: livelihood impacts in low-income countries where livestock is central to the development of food systems (HLPE, 2016) and contributes to the livelihoods and food security of nearly a billion people; and impacts on integrated farming systems that include animals – including cows – and that may offer economic and environmental benefits including climate mitigation solutions (Garrett et al. 2017; Niles et al. In Review). While there is a deep body of literature exploring the GHG emissions of dietary shifts, most of these papers do not discuss or estimate any potential impacts on

economic development and livelihoods in the animal agriculture sector as a result of dietary changes. This is a critical oversight and a topic of study that is greatly needed to better assess the potential costs, benefits, and alternatives in case of dietary shifts across an entire food system.

Example 2: Carbon Prices

Some stakeholder have advocated that capitalizing on this potential and facilitating the transition to green economies will in part depend on coherent government policies to place a price on carbon and support gradual increase of the cost of CO2 emissions (OECD, 2013). Currently, 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and provinces already use carbon pricing mechanisms or are planning to implement carbon pricing (IETA, 2017).

Economic mitigation potential of supply-side measures in the AFOLU sector is estimated to be 7.18 to 10.60 GtCO2eq/yr at carbon prices up to 100 USD per tCO2eq; about a third of which can be achieved at less than 20 USD per tCO2eq” (IPCC, 2014). These numbers apply to production systems and not food systems.

Pricing carbon can be a powerful incentive for reducing emissions at lowest costs, and catalyzing innovation and private sector participation by rewarding it for further reductions even more cost effectively. But, pricing carbon has to be accompanied by strong transparency, accountability, and governance frameworks supported with strong social safeguards. Many are concerned about the impacts of carbon pricing on farmers and consumers. Farmers are price-takers; fertilizer and input suppliers may increase prices to cover their carbon tax costs, and grain traders and transporters will factor carbon tax into their prices. Low-income families may disproportionately suffer from increased food costs as a result of carbon prices.

Researchers have suggested a range of possible policy options, including: exempting food groups known to be beneficial for health from taxation; selectively compensating for income losses associated with tax-related price increases; and using a portion of tax revenues for health promotion (Springmann et al. 2017).


Example 3: Soil Carbon Sequestration

Decades of research explore the technical potential of agricultural practices to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration. Current best estimates vary widely from 1.3 up to 8.0 Pg CO2eq yr-1 (Sommer and Bossio 2014; Paustian et al. 2016); however, there is significant debate over such estimates. Thus, it is critical to note that such potential is grounded in several scientific realities including that such storage potential is limited, finite and SOC gains are reversible. Despite this, a suite of agricultural practices have been recommended ranging from setting aside certain lands to grazing, croplands, and rice management and restoration of degraded lands, though many recognize that such practices are limited by policy and behavior change (Paustian et al. 2016).

The technical potential of SOC and the applicability of at least some of these practices into nearly all agricultural landscapes provides opportunity to mitigate climate change. However, such significant shifts should also be considered from a systems perspective- not merely with a focus on agriculture. For example, an increase in SOC may be possible in certain soils through the addition of nitrogen inputs (Paustian et al. 2016). Such practices would also drive pre-production emissions through fertilizer production, and the potential net GHG emission benefits may not result in a gain.

Relatedly, the implementation of no-till agriculture has also been widely promoted as a potential opportunity for SOC gains (Paustian et al. 2016, UNEP 2015; UNEP 2013) but the food systems impacts are not often considered. No-till agriculture has particularly expanded in combination with genetically-engineered crops (Bedano et al. 2016). Since herbicides often replace the role of tillage for weed control, herbicide use may increase. For example, in the US adopters of glyphosate-tolerant maize and soybeans have used an increasing amount of herbicides since the introduction of such crops (Perry et al. 2016). As a result, the expansion of no-till agriculture may also likely be accompanied with a rise in herbicide use, which could increase pre-production GHG emissions and threaten other potential SDGs related to land and water

quality. However, no-till agriculture is also usually accompanied with a reduction in tractor use and thus diesel fuel emissions and CO2 reductions. Further, the scientific basis for SOC increases in no-till agriculture has been questioned, particularly since some evidence suggests that most SOC changes are not gains per se, but redistributions within the soil profile, and may actually increase nitrous oxide emissions in certain soil and climate conditions (Powlson et al. 2014). Nevertheless, its potential for CO2 reductions has been widely shown in dry soils in particular (Abdalla et al. 2016). The expansion of no-till agriculture may also have implications for food security. While it has great potential to increase yields in low-income countries with degraded soils (Lal 2006), a global meta-analysis has suggested that on average across 50 crops, no-till agriculture results in 5% yield declines, which would have significant system impacts on livestock feed and food security (Pittlekow et al. 2015). Thus, no-till agriculture should be considered for these many components that could have implications across the food system- its impact on fuel use, herbicide use, and potential for yield implications and food security.

All soil carbon sequestration practices likely have both co-benefits and potential consequences throughout the food system, which can either help or potentially hinder achieving important SDGs. Thus, we suggest that a food systems lens can help identify practices that may have the potential to increase SOC, but minimize other food system emissions sources and consider potential food security implications.


In developing this report, the Authors reviewed existing literature to identify mitigation and adaptation opportunities in the livestock, cereals, and horticulture production systems. The review focused on several regions, including Central and Latin America, Africa, India, North America, and New Zealand. In addition, we reviewed global literature on possible opportunities for mitigation and adaptation through interventions in post-production, consumption, and waste management. In future iterations of the report, we may include adaptation and mitigation opportunities related to fisheries.

Mitigation and adaptation opportunities, priority research questions, and other details are included in Appendix 1. Although we indicate potential priority opportunities for agricultural production, specific interventions will have to be identified and assessed by stakeholders in the context of conditions in specific countries or regions.

In Appendix 2, we provide a draft framework to help prioritize climate mitigation and adaptation

interventions. This framework is intended to complement other decision-support tools and could be applied in combination with other decision making tools.

Stakeholders should identify interventions appropriate for their countries’ contexts, accumulate available evidence, and consider system linkages and feedback loops. The systems perspective is critical to ensuring mitigation and adaptation measures contribute to positive outcomes of sustainable food systems. To achieve these outcomes, good governance and strong institutions are vital. They provide a vital foundation for ensuring development, and food and nutritional security, as well as for adaptation and mitigation of food systems’ effects on climate change. Both require investment in human capital and capacity building along with strengthening organizations and building infrastructure. Stakeholders should explore opportunities to build on existing global, national and local climate adaptation and mitigation mechanisms in support of sustainable food systems.

6. Mitigation and Adaptation Opportunities

Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im

pacts and Opportunities D

RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 32

Appendix 1: Potential Interventions

Actors Network

Agrochemicals

Agrochemicals

Increase appropriate institutional support

Clean energy for agrochemical manufacturing (Fertilizers, Herbicides, Plaguicides, etc)

Use of non-chemical (Organic) agricultural inputs for fertilization, cover management, and desease control

Regional actors and networks that focus on and fund environmental and climate-change related initiatives

Adaptation potential is quite high. Examples: (1) Strengthening the Capacities of Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel Member States to Adapt to Climate Change (Burkina Faso, Chad, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal) (2) Adaptation to Climate and Coastal Change in West Africa – Responding to shoreline change and its human dimensions in West Africa through integrated coastal area management (Senegal, Guinea Bissau, Gambia, and Mauritania) (3), Seasonal Rain and Flow Regimes Forecast Project in West Africa (4) Africa Water Vision for 2025 – Effective management of droughts, fl oods, and desertifi cation in half of African countries by 2015 and in all countries by 2025

Fertilization measures include silicon fertilizer application, rock powder amendment, organic mulching, and traditional fertilization. Silicon fertilizer application, rock powder amendment and organic mulching will increase soil bioavailable silicon input, plant silicon uptake and phytolith content for cereals and sugarcane (Song et al. 2013).

Of the approximtely 130 MtCO2e of annual emission from fertlizers, approximately 50% can be attributed to production. There is scope for reductions in emissions by as much as 20-30% (determine exact source). Ensuring NUE 9reduced future demand) and manufacture processes that use natural gas are the main contributors for mitigation

Song et al. (2013) indicated that the phytolith sink annually sequesters 26.35610.22 Tg of carbon dioxide (CO2). Rice (25%), wheat (19%) and maize (23%) are the dominant contributing crop species to this C sink. The sink has tripled since 1961, mainly due to fertilizer application and irrigation. Cropland phytolith C sinks may be further enhanced by adopting cropland management practices such as optimization of cropping system and fertilization.

Improved food security, cleaner environment, improved crop and livestock production, and better human health

Effort should be made to search for indigenous plants as a source of pesticides compounds and to bioprospect the pesticidal properties of these plant products

Green manures and cover crops are often considered expensive, inefficient production elements, disregarding their various environmental services

1. Cereals

Stages Intervention Mitigation Potential Adaptation Potential Co-benefits ChallengesImplementation Time Action category

Research priority

High priority

Research priority

Near-term

Near-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 33

Agrochemicals

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices


Winter cover crops

Conservation or no tillage

Eliminate summer fallow

Diversify crop rotation

Include perennials in crop rotations

Replacing annuals with perennial crops

Use of cover crops, Improved crop or fallow rotations, Improved crop varieties, use of legumes in crop rotations

Has the highest potential in warmer winter regions. Could reduce N2O emissions and increase productivity. Potential of 1.92 t CO2 eq ha/yr.

Variable results- reduced tractor time will decrease CO2 emissions; however many studies find that no-till in wet conditions increases N2O emissions.

Could be implemented on 20Mha in US- would have small potential GHG reductions (0.44 ha/yr of CO2 eq (Eagle et al. 2012)

Can potentially increase carbon sequestration, but benefits are small and not significant for corn-soy. Small potential reduction of 0.1 t CO2e ha/yr.

Including a perennial crop like alfalfa or grass hay into an annual crop rotation can potentially increase SOC, but hard to separate the effect from tillage differences. With reduced N fertilizer needs, a net GHG mitigation or 0.7 t CO2 e ha/yr is possible.

Can reduce tilling and fertilizer needs. Potential for 1.46 GHG t CO2 e ha/yr possible. (Eagle et al. 2012)

Branca et al. (2011) estimated all GHGs (change in soil C stock + emissions) in dry and humid areas around the world for agronomy, finding that mitigation potential was 0.39 for dry and 0.98 for humid (tCO2e/ha/year). Jensen et al. (2011) estimated that globally between 350 and 500 Tg CO2 could be emitted as a result of the 33 to 46 Tg N that is biologically fixed by agricultural legumes each year.Legume crops and legume-based pastures use 35% to 60% less fossil energy than N-fertilized cereals or grasslands, and the inclusion of legumes in cropping sequences reduced the average annual energy usage over a rotation by 12% to 34%.

Can provide nutrient benefits and increase water holding capacity

If SOC gains this will have positive benefits on soil structure and quality

Diversification

Increase SOC, water/drought benefits

SOC

Use of legumes in crops and for soil improvement

May increase NH3 (Montes 2013)

Not a one size fits all solution- super variable by temperature, soil, etc.

Typically employed because of drought and lack of water

Typically employed because of drought and lack of water

Could reduce yield

Food production implications- food security impacts?

Pulse production in most low-income countries remains a low-input system based on very limited or no use of fertilizer or chemical inputs, and is characterized by small-scale subsistence production system (Akibode and Maredia 2011)

Cover cropping can reduce soil erosion, improve soil quality and fertility, improve water, weed, disease, and pest management, and enhance plant and wildlife diversity on the farm

Reduced CO2 emissions, tractor time for farmers

SOC, soil health

Soil health

Food security potential in cereals, as the average marginal yield increase with respect to conventional in 116 for dry and 122 for humid areas (Branca et al. 2011).

1. Cereals


Medium priority

Research priority

Low priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Medium priority

Research priority

Near-term

Near-term

Medium-term

Near-term

Medium-term

Medium-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 34

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Diet

Agroforestry Systems


Conservation Agriculture (CA)

Generate shift to higher nutrition content local grains (eg millet, amaranth, etc)

Agro-forestry systems (Integrated crops, cultivation along contour lines, planting trees in isolation or in lines, live barries/fences, crops on tree land, natural regeneration, pets management) can increase C storage in the vegetation and in the soil and may also reduce soil C losses stemming from erosion (Branca et al. 2011). Nair et al. (2009) estimates of Carbon Sequestration Potential in agroforestry systems are highly variable.

The global estimated potential of all greenhouse gas (GHG) sequestration in agriculture ranges from 1500 to 4300 Mt CO2e yr 1, with about 70% from developing countries; 90% of this potential lies in soil carbon restoration and avoided net soil carbon emission (Rust and Rust 2013).

CA practices can also contribute to making agricultural systems more resilient to climate change. In many cases, conservation agriculture has been proven to reduce farming systems’ greenhouse gas emissions and enhance their role as carbon sinks (USAID 2012).

low-moderate on level of shift. Cereals in India consttute ~13% of the diet and have a low emission footprint (~3%) Biggest gains to be had are from promoting NUE and on farm energy consumption

Agroforestry systems include native, multipurpose and resistant varieties of trees. Trees can reduce the microclimatic stress exorted by high temperatures

Very high. Nyasimi et al. (2014) and Reij et al. (2009) showed that farmers have grown 200 million new trees on cultivated fields in West Africa. The natural regeneration and the improvements that it brings in soil fertility, fodder, food and fuelwood, have been valued at US$56 ha−1 year−1 or a total annual value of US$280 million.

Very high.Climate variability and change are increasingly posing a threat to Western Africa’s socio-economic development and environment.

moderate to high - opens pathway to reduce water stress; perhaps also improves food security over the long term

increasing productivity, improving rural livelihood, increasing carbon sequestration in biomass and in the soils, reducing soil erosion and increasing soil organic matter, etc (Cerri et al. sf). Integrate pulses in crops can contribute to improving the nutritional balance of food intake to poor people (FAO 2016e).

Agroforestry has potential to improve soil fertility through nitrogen fixing trees. The trees contribute to climate change adaption by reducing wind speed and decreasing damage to crops from windblown sand. Taking into account all factors, including enhanced soil fertility and increased food, wood and fodder supply, FNMR can bring an estimated benefit of USD 56 ha−1 year−1(Cooper et al. 2013; Dinesh et al. 2015)

Tractor use is substantially reduced when cultivation is eliminated, thus reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Under zero tillage, soil moisture conservation and wind and water erosion are reduced. Cost benefits: zero tillage reduces the need for tractors and thereby lowers fuel and labor costs.

health and nutrition

Limited adoption potential, limited number of multifuntional tree species studied so far and in a reduced number of ecosystems.

1. Cereals


Research priority

High priority

High priority

Research priority

Medium-term

Near-term

Near-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 35

Diet

Fertilization

Fertilization

Fertilization

Fertilization

Fertilization

Fertilization

Fertilization

Dietary changes

Nitrification inhibitors

Urease inhibitors

Slow release fertilizers

Integrated Nutrient Management

Switch to organic fertilizers

Reduce N fertilizer rate

Switch from anhydrous ammonia to urea

High potential- Nitrification inhibitors (NIs), double inhibitors (DIs: urease plus nitrification inhibitors) consistently reduced N2O emissions compared with conventional N fertilizers across soil and management conditions (Thapa et al. 2016). However, the magnitude of the effect differed across fertilizer formulations and soil types. Di and Cameron (2016) found an average reduction of 57% of N2O, ranging from 28 to 86%.

Urease inhibitors reduced N2O emissions compared with conventional N fertilizers in coarse-textured soils and irrigated systems. (Thapa et al. 2016)

controlled-release N fertilizers (CRFs) in one review reduced N2O emissions by 19% on average (Thapa et al. 2016).

Involves optimizing fertilizer application rates and timing, utilizing multiple sources of fertilization. Prioritizes organic fertilizers (Wu and Ma 2015). See Chen et al. 2014 for additional details- much of this work is happening in China

Has the potential to increase SOC. Studies in the US are variable, ranging from a potential t CO2 eq. ha/yr of 0.7 to 3.50 depending on crop, manure, soil, etc. (Eagle et al. 2012)

In the US and other intensive input systems, N fertilizer is overapplied. In tandem with INM, reducing fertilizer rate is a potential GHG strategy in the US with reductions of 0.33 t CO2 eq. ha/yr.

N2O emissions decrease of 0.6 t CO2e ha/yr. on average (Eagle et al. 2012)

Potential yield benefits

NA

NA

Can significantly increase yield without increasing fertilizers. May provide soil health benefits. Increases water holding capacity potentially (Wu and Ma 2015).

SOC

NA

Yield benefits but variable

Water quality, increased yields, reduced environmental pollutants

Soil health

Reduced water quality impacts

Variable- may have food safety implications (currently outlawed in New Zealand) Expensive.

Variable based on soil type and geography. Expensive

Variable based on soil type and geography. Expensive

Requires greater farmer involvement, testing, etc.

Limited availability, unless cropping is situated close to sources of organic fertilizers, it is costly to transport long distances

Training, farmer behavior

1. Cereals


Medium priority

High priority

Research priority

Medium priority

High priority

High priority

Medium-term

Medium-term

Near-term

Medium-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 36

Fertilization

Fertilization

Fertilization

Information management


Timing of N and organic imputs

Nitrogen and organic inputs use efficiency (i.e. N fertilizers, compost, manure, etc)


Traceability

Climate Information Services

Medium. Focus on NUE; use of neem coated urea for slower release of N; application of organic N to improve soil carbon

Pires et al. (2015) found that the emissions derived from N fertilization in cereal production represent 27% of the total synthetic fertilization emission contribution from the Brazilian agricultural sector in 2010. Based on current fertilizer use and production rates, a 2.39% hypothetical increase in NUE would lead to 50531 ton savings in N fertilizer.

The right type of fertilizer applied at proper times and amounts can be used efficiently by the crops while minimizing emissions. This may involve promoting integrated soil fertility management that seeks to enhance the soil organic matter content of the soils, which improves nutrient retention (Zougmoré et al. 2014).

Acces to seasonal weather and climate forecasting gives farmers ability to plan their planting and make projections about rainfall distribution patterns and temperature variations.

improve water retention capacity of soils through increased humus content of soil

Using organic fertilizers, green manureUsing legumes such as cover cropsManaging soil health and fertility

High since several organizations are now testing and mapping soil nutrient content in Africa, providing agribusinesses and fertilizer manufacturers with solid data. Improving policy environments and better fertilizer blends.

A collaboration between scientists and the national meteorological agencies of Senegal, Ghana and IT-based service providers allowed more accurate and specific seasonal rainfall forecasts and to raise capacity of partners to do longer-term analysis and provide more targeted information for farmers.

reduced N run off in landscape, economic benefits

Avoid soil erosion, improve organic matter. Protect the quality of source of fresh water. Integrated soil fertility management, combined with rainwater harvesting, and soil and water conservation on slopes, could improve rainfed yields (FAO 2011).

In addition to sequestering carbon, appropriately applied fertilizers may prevent deforestation and conversion of other lands into agricultural land. By allowing for the production of more food from less land, fertilizers have averted the conversion of about 1 billion hectares of virgin land into agricultural land since 1960.

A cost– benefit analysis in Burkina Faso by Ouedraogo et al. Ouédraogo et al (2015) showed that cowpea producers exposed to climate information obtained higher yields while covering lower inputs costs and their gross margins were therefore higher compared to non-exposed farmers.

Nutrient Management approach is sensitive to changes in climatic conditions and could produce negative effects if soil and crop nutrients are not monitored systematically and changes to fertiliser practices made accordingly. Access to mineral fertiliser may be limited in rural or underdeveloped areas. A lack of adequate infrastructure for distribution and conservation can present a barrier for access and use.

Nutrient Management approach is sensitive to changes in climatic conditions and could produce negative effects if soil and crop nutrients are not monitored systematically and changes to fertiliser practices made accordingly. Access to mineral fertiliser may be limited in rural or underdeveloped areas. A lack of adequate infrastructure for distribution and conservation can present a barrier for access and use.

1. Cereals


Research priority

Research priority

High priority

Research priority

Medium-term

Medium-term

Near-term

Near-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 37

Land use change

Land use change

Manure

Manure

Mechanization

Regulation

Shift cultivation to higher value crops

Set-aside, land-use change (LUC)

Application by Injection

Timing of application

Clean technologies

Conducive Policy

Moderate to high depending on shift. If the producer is shifting cultivation due to water constraints, then early indications are to try and promote tree cultivation (agro-forestry), intercropping, multicropping etc as a way to manage risk explosure to the vagaries of rainfall. embedded within these are many options for mitigation but the quantum of mitigation potential is not well understood.

Lal (2004a and 2004b in Song et al. 2013) estimated a high and attainable soil C sequestration potential of 0.55 Gt C yr–1 (or 2.02 Pg CO2 yr–1) for global croplands assuming judicious land use and recommended management practices (RMPs) worldwide. Nair et al. (2009) a recent assessment of LULUCF mitigation options suggests that the global potential for biologically feasible afforestation and reforestation activities between 1995 and 2050 could average 1.1 to 1.6 Pg C y–1 (IPCC, 2000). Latin America. According to Niles et al. (2002) the average carbon mitigation via forest restoration for the years 2003–2012 was 177.9 (MtC). The estimation of carbon mitigation for avoided deforestarion was 1 097.3 (MtC)

Minimal for CH4, N2O, high for NH3 (Montes 2013). Variable and contradictory results- but Eagle et al. 2012 estimate 0.25 t CO2 e ha/yr potential).

High potential for N2O and NH3 (Montes et al. 2013). Potential of 0.18 t CO2e ha/yr in US (Eagle et al. 2012).

In the long run, deployment of these technologies at scale can lead to significant emission reductions through gained effciency and productivity.

Governments in West Africa have enacted policies that promote climate smart agriculture. The aim of these policies is to mitigate GHG emission.

Moderate to high - opens pathway to reduce water stress

Including natives and multiservice trees to promoting C sequestration. Restoring native forests through assisted and natural regeneration; establishing plantations on non-forested lands; and managing forests sustainably to provide biomass energy (Niles et al. 2002).

NA

NA

medium-high by reducing economic risk exposure

There is high adaptation potential given that there is government support

Farmers could be compensated for the C they sequester, based on the quantity of C sequestered and the market price of C. Farmers would benefit from any gains in productivity associated with the adoption of C sequestering practices (Nair et al. 2009).

Could increase plant nutrient uptake, can reduce odors

Maximizes when plants will uptake, can reduce N leaching and water quality issues

economic growth,

More food security, environmental management.

Design of planting schemes to make trade-offs between generating ecological services (e.g., C sequestration) and goods (e.g., timber) is a challenge (Nair et al. 2009).

Expensive, requires new equipment

Requires greater farmer involvement

1. Cereals


Research priority

High - Medium Research priority

Medium priority

High priority

High priority

High priority

Long-term

Long-term

Near-term

Near-term

Medium-term

Near-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 38

Seed resources

Seed resources

Soil management

Soil management

Improved seed variaeties

Improved seed variaeties

Land mechanization to prepare land

Erosion control

While there are a large varieties of seeds in India, it is unknown whether the effort around development of new seeds and other inputs takes into the account the climate mitigation impacts of the new varieties. Water being the most critical input for managing crop productivity and in the changed climate drought being the most important factor affecting crop productivity, majority of the varieties being developed are focused on relationship with water. The field level impacts on mitigation need to be better understood

A recent study on the economic impact of climate change on cereal crop production in Northern Ghana (Bawayelaazaa et. al. 2016) indicated that early season precipitation was beneficial for sorghum, but harmful for maize. However, mid-season precipitation tended to promote maize production.

Cereals in India are grown in both irrigated and upland systems. The country seeks to decrease the yield gap between the two - while also improving productivity in both systems. Improved productivity through sustainable intensification offers significant mitigation potential. Mechanization can help increase productivity and, if managed well, can also help reduce yiedl scaled emissions.

This total soil C pool of 2,300 Pg is three times the atmospheric pool of 770 Pg and 3.8 times the vegetation pool of 610 Pg; a reduction in soil C pool by 1 Pg is equivalent to an atmospheric enrichment of CO2 by 0.47 ppmv (Lal, 2001 in Nair et al. 2009).

med-high

High temperatures levels for all seasons impacted negatively on net revenue for both crops, except during the mid-season, when temperature exerted a positive effect on net revenue for sorghum.

reduced risk for farmers, improved soil health

Develop agronomy practices such as crop varieties and use of legumes in crop rotationss to improve quality of soils

In sub-Saharan Africa, the Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa initiative has released 160 drought-tolerant maize varieties between 2007 and 2013 (CCAFS 2016). These generate yields 25-30% superior to those of currently available commercial maize varieties under both stress and optimal growing conditions (CCAFS 2016)

Improve organic matter, productivity and quality of fresh water, less use of agrochemicals,

Takes many years to develop and test new cultivars.

Formal and informal land tenure systems in Latin America. Modern laws have rarely defined or protected communal rights. In some situations, this has led to progressive dispossession and inequity in land distribution. (FAO 2011).

1. Cereals


Medium priority

Research priority

High priority

Research priority

Long-term

Near-term

Medium-term

Medium-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 39

Soil management

Waste management

Waste management

Waste management

Waste management

Agroforestry, No-till agriculture, off season cover crops, use of animal manure and biochar (Soil carbon sequestration)

Reducing crop residues losses during harvesting

Management of crop residues (re-incorporatino to soil; biomass burning)

Tillage/residue management

Production of Clean Energy (Bioenergy, Biofuels or Biogas) using energy crops or crop/animal - solid/liquid residues

Soil organic matter has been known for years to be beneficial to cultivation, due to its abilities to improve soil structure and enhance water and nutrient retention (Partey et. al. 2016). Although soil carbon sequestration has direct benefits to the farmer and mitigates climate change, increasing SOM may increase the emission of some greenhouse gases. It is reported that nitrous oxide can be emitted during nitrification and denitrification from organic matter (Corsi et. al. (2012; Duxbury, 2016).

With producer level post harvest losses during harvesting, collection, threshing, etc @ ~4% (good mitigation potential)

Wheat contributes to 25-30% of total (~100 Mt) residue burnedin India. Of the other key cereals, millet and maize are low residue crops.

Brazil. The conversion from FT to NT systems represents in Brazil a net CO2 uptake rate of 1.91 Mg CO2–eq ha–1 yr–1 (Cerri et al. 2010). Globally. A comparison between all CT and NT paired treatments (n93) indicated that, on average, a move from CT to NT can sequester 48±13 g C m -2 yr -1. Corn–soybean rotations (West and Post 2002). Globally. West and Post (2002) found that an enhancement in rotation complexity, can sequester an average 20± 12 g C m-2 yr-1, (Cerri et al. 2010).

Globally. Lal (2005) estimated the amount of crop residue produced in the world. The fuel value of the total annual residue produced is estimated at 1.5×1015 kcal, about 1 billion barrels (bbl) of diesel equivalent, or about 7.5 billion bbl of diesel or 60 quads for the world. Brazil. Macedo et al. (2007) analized the energy balance and GHG emissions in the production and use of fuel ethanol from cane. Avoided emissions depend on the final use.

Adaptation potential is very high due to emergence of markets for climate change mitigation using soil carbon sequestration (Lipper et al. 2010).

med-high (reduces soil nutrient loss)

Increase soil fertility, reduce erosion and microclimatic strees due to high temperatures. Carbon sequestration?

Use bioenergy in the food supply chain

Improved soil fertility due to increased organic matter. Improved crop yields hence food security. Provision of fodder to livestock if fodder trees are used. Extra income to farmars through carbon credits.

improved incomes

health/lower pollution / reduced black carbon

Reduced/zero tillage (often in combination with mulching) will increase water availability to plants improving the capacity of the soil surface to intercept rainfall (Branca et al. 2011)

The use of legume biomass for bioenergy, materials, and chemicals represents a significant trade-off since the contribution of legume residues to soil organic fertility and C sequestration would be significantly reduced (Jensen et al. 2011).

Increasing SOM may increase the emission of some greenhouse gases, unless not all the science on this latter point is settled.

The inequitable land distribution or lack of access of land for small scale farmers prevents them for adopting new and sustainable agriculture systems.

The externalities of producing biofuels from cereals are mainly to compensate the use of fossil fuel

1. Cereals


Research priority

Research priority

High priority

Low priority


Near-term

Medium-term

Long-term

Near-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 40

Waste management

Waste management

Waste management

Waste management

Reduce post-harvest losses

Clean energy for watter management and supply

Rice water managemen

Irrigation and water harvesting

FAO estimated about 3.3 Gtonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions due to food that was produced but not eaten, without even considering the land use change [17]. The blue water footprints (water use during life cycle of food) for the wasted food globally was estimated to be about 250 km3 [14,17] (Kumar and Kalita 2016)

low-medium mitigation potential, - eg through use of solar pumps

Sass et al. (1992) and Yagi et al. (1996) reported that regular drainage may represent the most efficient method to minimize emissions in Brazil. The authors found that a single drainage during the rice growth phase reduced methane emissions by 50% (Cerri et al. 2010).

Research for development work to build climate-smart farming systems through integrated water storage and croplivestock interventions has been conducted in Burkina Faso, Mali and Ghana (Amole and Ayatunde, 2016).

To prevent biodeterioration of cereals Good Agricultural Practices should be used to facilitate stored commodities to be effectively conserved with minimum loss in quality (Sharma and Bhandari 2014). Improve the storage and transportation of cereals from farms to market. Use Natural Insecticides and hermetic storages

for farmers some option for navigating low rainfall years; although long term efficacy of such an approach is not well understood. With water tables dropping rapidly in many parts of the country, over long term this approach could exacerbate the problem.

Reduce the ecological footprint of production, distribution and consumption practices, thereby minimizing GHG emissions and soil and water pollution (Altieri et al. 2012). Small-scale water storage projects. Recycling and re-use of water (FAO 2011). Irrigation programs for small scale farmers

Synergies between water retention interventions (such as zaï, contour ridges, dugouts, small reservoirs) and crop-livestock interventions (such as trees and legumes, fodder production, crop residue management) improve water availability for crops, livestock and humans throughout every year (Amole and Ayatunde (2016).

Saving the cereal crop lost during postharvest operations can help in meeting the food demand and reduce the load on the economy (Kumar and Kalita 2017).

Improve food security. Access to agricultural water reduces the incidence and severity of poverty. Agricultural water enables households to improve and stabilize crop productivity, grow high-value crops, generate high incomes and employment, and earn a higher implicit wage rate (FAO 2011). The irrigation systems and infrastructure can provide further services.

Water management benefits both crops and lives of crops and livestock. Fish farming in large ponds alongside crop production.

Lack of mechanization, bad weather conditions, lack of capital, information and resources, inadequate storage facilities, poor handling facilities and inadequate market structure and policies (Kumar and Kalita 2017). Synthetic insecticides play an important role in controlling the pests and reducing losses during storage of grains (Kumar and Kalita 2017)

The high cost of irrigation systems. Inequitable land distribution: irrigation’s impact on poverty is highest where landholdings (and thus water) are equitably distributed (World Bank, 2008 in FAO 2011).

The high cost of irrigation systems. Inequitable land distribution: irrigation’s impact on poverty is highest where landholdings (and thus water) are equitably distributed (World Bank, 2008 in FAO 2011).

1. Cereals


Research priority

Research priority


Research priority

Long-term

Long-term

Long-term

Near-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 41

Waste management Rice water management

With optimal management of water in a rice system, such as alternate wet and dry (AWD), methane emissions can be reduced without adversely impacting yield and potentially increasing yields. It may also prove to be a more efficient use of water in many locales.

The danger of such a system is that if done incorrectly, the nitrous oxide emissions will increase so much that they will negate any gains in methane emission reduction [72].

Preserve wetlands that provide important resources such as fisheries, shellfish, fuelwood, medicine, and agricultural products, and protect human settlements, infrastructure, and various other coastal activities.

1. Cereals


Research priorityNear-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 42

Actors Network

Actors Network

Actors Network

Agrochemicals

Agrochemicals

Agrochemicals

Better risk management and streamlining of the supply chain

Increase the integration of the food value chain actors (i.e ollaboration of the various participants in the food value chain with farmers)

Long-term contracts with retailers for medium and small producers

Use of non-chemical (Organic) agricultural inputs for fertilization (Fertilizers) cover management (Herbicides) and desease control (Plaguicides)


organic amendments with cover crops

Zhang et al. (2013) analized the synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilizer production and consumption in China, they found that for every ton of N fertilizer manufactured and used, 13.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (eq) (t CO2-eq) was emitted, compared with 9.7 t CO2-eq in Europe. Emissions in China tripled from 1980 [131 terrogram (Tg) of CO2-eq (Tg CO2-eq)] to 2010 (452 Tg CO2-eq).

Particular efficient in reducing GHG emissions, but these were mostly non-permanent because they were attributed to SOC increases

Transform organic waste into inputs for agricultural production (FAO 2015b).

water holding capacity increases

Reducing the risk of erosion. Helping to regulate soil temperature (edaphic temperature). Reducing water evaporation and regulating moisture. Improving soil conditions and providing carbon to keep biodiversity of micro and macro fauna (earthworms) (FAO 2015b). Reduce water contamination. Reduce or avoid the use of chemical fertilizers. Composting methods can be applied in urban farming

soil health

According to FAO (2015b) during composting, CO2 is released through the microorganisms respiration and therefore, the concentration varies with the microbial activity and the raw material used as substrate.CO2 produced during the composting process is generally deemed to have low environmental impact, because it is captured by plants for photosynthesis.

longevity, also these emission reductions were modelled

2. Horticulture


Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Medium-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 43

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Diet

Fertilization

Fertilization


Agronomy practices


Dietary changes


Nitrogen and organic Nitrogen and organic inputs use efficiency (i.e. N fertilizers, compost, manure, etc)

Traceability

Use of cover crops, Improved crop or fallow rotations, Improved crop varieties, use of legumes in crop rotations

Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Colombia. Rikxoort et al. (2014) found that coffee farm polycultures have a lower mean carbon footprint than monocultures. Colombia. Ortíz-Rodriguez et al. (2016) showed that all calculated environmental burdens were lower for the conventional management of cocoa bean. Many more examples from Latin America.

Perennial tree crops have lower emissions than other annual cropping systems

Costa Rica. Killian et al. (2013) showed that the fertilizers represent the highest inputs on the farm. 94% of the emissions at this stage come from fertilizers. In contrast, the emissions from pesticides represent just 1%.

Crop rotation Improve food security for the crops diversification

Including fruit and wood trees, shade handle, improve local fertilization conditions, land management

Organic production practices may substantially reduce impacts of soil erosion. Avoiding losses/waste of product in all life cycle stage.

Recovery of traditional production practices. Also (1) higher overall productivity, (2) better control of pests and diseases, (3) enhanced ecological services and (4) greater economic profitability. Another benefit can be Nutrient recycling (Vandermeer et al., 1998; Scopel et al., 2005) and increasing the soil carbon content (Malézieux et al. 2007).

Carbon sequestration, protection of water and biodiversity, payment of environmental services, tourism. Ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, climate regulation, and nutrient sequestration (Jha et al. 2014)

Reduced costs for farmers, water quality benefits

Promoting combined use of mineral, organic and biological resources in a reasoned way to balance efficient use of limited/finite resources and ensure ecosystem sustainability against nutrient mining and degradation of soil and water resources.

Biotic investigations are needed. Weed, pest and disease effects are ignored in most comprehensive models, as a result of the complexity of dealing with a potentially large number of species for each plant of interest (Malézieux et al. 2007). Mainstream agronomic research has largely focused on monocrop systems, with very little interest in ecological interactions between species in mixed systems (Malézieux et al. 2007).

Changes in global coffee cultivation including, deforestation, low prices,region-specific economic development patterns, political conflict, cultural practices, land values, wages, and labor (Jha et al. 2014). Farm size, cultural history, and a farmer’s relationship with cooperatives can influence farmer management decisions and use of shade vegetation (Moguel and Toledo 1999).

policy, risk aversion

Management of residues. Level of knowledge in farmers of the benefits.

2. Horticulture


Research priority

Medium priority

High priority

Research priority

Long-term

Medium-term

Near-term

Medium-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 44


Land use change

Soil management

Transportation

Organic production/certification

Vertical and urban agriculture

Amending soil with organic C

Streamlining logistics (food origin, processing, distribution) to minimize Food Millage

Brazil. Knudsen (2010) found that the emissions per litre of organic orange juice from São Paul Brazil to Denmark was 424 g CO2 eq. The crop diversity was higher on small organic compared to small conventional orange farms in Brazil. Mexico. Astier et al. (2014) found that no significant differences in energy consumption and GHG emissions between organic and conventional systems of avocado production.

Carbon sequestration due to the efficient capture of solar radiation in the multi-layered homegardens, although its global or regional importance is minimal due to the relatively small area under the homegarden system Montagnini (2006)

Organic C applied at rates of 5–10 Mg C ha-1 reduced the potential for N losses by 37 %,relative to a control of incorporated crop residue or fertilizer

Food transport accounts for 1.6% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions, then the importing of fruit and vegetables by road or sea accounts for a seventh of this. This works out at 0.23% of the UK’s total CO2 emissions or 0.2% of its total greenhouse gas emissions (Garnett 2006).

Including small scale farmers into certification programs. Garibay and Ugas (2010) suggest that with participatory certification systems, farmers’ organizations can reduce certification costs, and in addition build relationships with the local consumers. Organic products sell in the supermarkets

Improve the family agriculture systems and food security by includes diversity of vegetables and fruits. Includes domestic animals. Utilization of food waste of households as a composting

Choose local produce when it’s in season. Support local farmers’ market. Investing in improving the local market, include small scale farmers. Cultural shifts in the ways consumers value food, stimulated via education (Parfitt et al. 2010).

Can allow a long-term sustainability for communities and ethnic groups. Organic waste can be potentially turned into a resource (e.g., compost, biogas). Organic farmers on average grow 50% more crop types than conventional farmers (Altieri et al. 2012). Improve the health conditions by consuming more vegetables and fruits. Maintain and protect the local resources and avoid damage to the environment or mitigate climate change, and integrate social aspects (Garibay and Ugas 2010).

Domestic supply of fruits, condiments, medicines, craft materials, and shade (Kumar and Nair 2007). “Staging area” for testing new species and storing, safeguarding, and multiplying germplasm (Coomes and Ban, 2004 in Miller et al. 2006 in Kumar and Nair 2007). Water retention to improve water availability for plants (Montagnini 2006). Improves cultural and social capital.

Water quality

Less contamination for waste. Reduce the expenses for buying food. Use of biofuels to distribution and transportation

High cost of certification. Pest and diseases are affecting the crops, and for many, solutions have not yet been found. Ffungal disease (Garibay and Ugas 2010). Prices for organic product do not always cover the entire production cost (Garibay and Ugas 2010).

The dynamics of homegardens and its repercussions on social sustainability have received relatively little research attention (WinklerPrins and Oliveira 2010).

what to do with crop residues?

2. Horticulture


Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Medium-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 45

Actors Network

Actors Network

Actors Network

Actors Network

Agrochemicals

Agrochemicals

Actors Network

Better risk management and streamlining of the supply chain (i.e insurances)

Long-term contracts with retailers for medium and small producers

Increase the integration of the food value chain actors (i.e ollaboration of the various participants in the food value chain with farmers)

Appropriate institutional support:

Use of non-chemical agricultural inputs for fertilization, cover management, and desease control (Fertilizers, Herbicides, Plaguicides, etc)


Insurances

Reduce consumption of energy and transportation. Improve farm-to-market linkages. The life cycle assesment Organic and non-organic food systems. Though the research in supply and value chain of milk, beef and dairy products there is no investigation of mitigation of GHG by these connections (FAO 2006).

Many institutions and stakeholders play important roles in supporting the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (AGRA, 2014). They have been promoting inclusivity in decision making; improving the dissemination of information regarding GHG mitigation technologies, providing financial support and access to markets; providing insurance to cope with risks associated with climate shocks and the adoption of new practices, and supporting farmers’ collaborative actions.

Sustainable intensification of livestock systems.Vertical integration. Develop a sustainable food chain

Very high given that climate change is a real threat in the region.

Reduction of transaction cost and losses/waste of milk and beef. Insertion of small and medium producers in the market. Developing a local market. Access to the carbon credits. Fair trade

Improved food security, cleaner environment, improved livestock and human health

Weak social and political capital of rural communities. Lack of knowledge of the functioning of local, regional and global market in rural communities

3. Livestock


Research priority

High priority

Long-term

Near-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 46

Waste management

Waste management

Waste management

Waste management

Waste management

Crop residue removal

Reduce food harvest losses


Improved drainage and compaction reduction

Water use eficiency

According to FAO (2013) the global carbon footprint of food wastage - excluding land use change - has been estimated at 3.3 Gtonnes of CO2 equivalent. The global blue water footprint of food wastage is about 250 km3. The global land occupation footprint of food wastage, which is the total hectares used to grow food ends up being wasted, was about 1.4 billion hectares in 2007.

Perennial tree crops have lower emissions than other annual cropping systems

Costa Rica. Killian et al. (2013) found mitigation possibility in Costa Rican coffee was at milling stage, treating the wastewater after the milling process. Producing 1 kg of green coffee under these conditions reduces the potential emissions equal from 4.82 kg CO2e to 4.48 kg CO2e.

Prevention, re-use, recycling, recovery to the leastfavourable: disposal. better planned mealsWaste management in all food supply chain.

Composting the food wastage from householdsLess odor and water contamination

In low-income regions, food wastage is mostly caused by financial constraints; that is, when producers are unable to purchase inputs, or have structural limitations that affect harvest techniques, storage facilities, infrastructure, cooling chains, packaging and marketing systems. These limitations, along with climatic conditions favourable to food spoilage, lead to large amounts of food losses FAO 2013).Rigorous data on the scale of food wastage across the supply chain is currently lacking (FAO 2013).

2. Horticulture


Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Medium-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 47

Agronomy practices

Agronomy practices

Demand

Energy sources

Agrosilvopastoral practices

Conservation Agriculture (CA)

Reducing the demand for livestock products

Use of clean energy

Through the Sahel agroforestry network, leguminous fodder shrubs and herbaceous legumes have been grown together with food crops with the aim of improving crop productivity and providing fodder for livestock in West Africa(Amole and Ayantunde, 2016).

Conservation agriculture has the potential to sequester soil carbon, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation (Corbeels et al., 2006).

Herrero et al. 2016 indicate that adoption of healthy diets - with limited red meat consumption - could drive an adequate food production in 2050 could be achieved on less agricultural land than is used at present, allowing the regrowth of natural vegetation and resulting in a reduction of GHG emissions of 4.3 GtCO2e yr–1 relative to the baseline. A global transition to a healthy, low-meat diet would reduce the mitigation costs, particularly in the energy sector, of achieving a 450 ppm CO2e stabilization target in 2050 (Stehfest et al. 2009 and Herrero et al. 2016)

For 2030 the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports mitigation potentials for bioethanol between 500–1200 MtCO2, with possibly up to 100– 300 MtCO2 of that for ligno-cellulosic ethanol (or some other bio-liquid). The long-term potential for ligno-cellulosic fuels beyond 2030 is even greater. For biodiesel, it reports mitigation potential between 100–300 MtCO2 (IPCC 2007).

Trees provide other functions important for climate adaptation, including shade for animals and ethno-veterinary treatments to counter increased disease threats (Dharani et al., 2014).

The beneficial effects of mulching with crop residues on the soil water balance may enhance adaptation to climate change (Scopel et al., 2004; Thierfelder and Wall 2010).

Implementing emissions pricing on food consumed instead of food produced. Waste reduction in the demand analysis in the food systems

Agricultural waste, forest residues and other residues from raising animals (e.g. manure or methane from decomposing waste) is abundant to produce energy.

Combination of leguminous fodder shrubs and herbaceous legumes can be grown together with food crops to improve crop productivity and provide fodder for livestock. Trees and shrubs are planted on farms as live fences, boundary markers, windbreaks, soil conservation hedges, fodder banks, and woodlots.

Corbeels et al. (2014) meta-analysis of CA studies in SSA showed that crop grain yields are significantly higher in no-tillage treatments when mulch was applied and/or rotations compared to only no-tillage/reduced tillage without mulch and/rotation.

Improve health. Allow reforestation of land that used to be for livestock. Carbon sequester for the land change use, increase the biodiversity and environmental services. Reduce mitigation cost

Diversification of livelihoolds for small scale farmers which can help to increase their incomes. Potencial to reduce waste or reuse raw materials

Consumption patterns of beef and dairy products. Protein and calcium sources for diet. Levels of food insecurity in rural areas.

The development of renewable energies clashes with the interests of powerful players. The Latin American renewable energy sector is almost entirely dominated by only two forms of renewable: hydro and biofuels, which make up respectively 36% and 62% share of the total of renewables (UN HABITAT 2010).

3. Livestock


Medium priority

Research priority

Medium priority

Research priority

Near-term

Near-term

Long-term

Long-term

96


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 48

Enteric Fermentation





Agrosilvopastoral practices

Plant compounds

Lipids

Feeding Strategies

Feed Additives/ Biological Control

Through the Sahel agroforestry network, leguminous fodder shrubs and herbaceous legumes have been grown together with food crops with the aim of improving crop productivity and providing fodder for livestock in West Africa(Amole and Ayantunde, 2016).

Tannins, saponins, essential oils have low potential mitigation effects, little long-term research (Hristov 2013a)

Medium potential. Medium chain fatty acids are most significant potential. Likely highest current strategy for EF mitigation. Meta-analyses by Moate et al. (2011) and Grainger and Beauchemin (2011) documented a consistent decrease in CH4 production with fat supplementation.

Feeding good-quality feeds can increase animal productivity and feed efficiency. Strategies include reducing forage particle size, grain professing, increasing concentrate feeding, increasing forage quality, forage genetics, and feeding of lipids. Aggregate reduction potential up to 15% reduction in CH4 for energy corrected milk yield (dairy). (Knapp et al. 2014).

A wide variety of supplements can be administered to reduce CH4, such as chemical inhibitors, organic acids, and electron receptors. To date most have been demonstrated in vitro, and long-term reductions in emissions from in-vivo studies are limited. Estimated maximum potential of 5% CH4 reduction for energy corrected milk yield. Many inhibitor strategies are not safe for the animals (Hristov 2013a). Electron receptors and ionophores have limited long-term research and many have unknown environmental impacts (Hristov 2013a)

Trees provide other functions important for climate adaptation, including shade for animals and ethno-veterinary treatments to counter increased disease threats (Dharani et al., 2014).

NA

Combination of leguminous fodder shrubs and herbaceous legumes can be grown together with food crops to improve crop productivity and provide fodder for livestock. Trees and shrubs are planted on farms as live fences, boundary markers, windbreaks, soil conservation hedges, fodder banks, and woodlots.

Potential environmental impacts associated with palm kernel oil. Not recommended to feed edible oils more than 7% DMI of diet because not recommended to exceed 7% of total dry matter intake (Grainger et al., 2008). Concentrates may increase growing associated crop emissions.

Unknown

Little long-term research

In some studies, lipids had a significant, negative impact on cattle dry matter intake, which could affect their productivity. These lipids could themselves have environmental implications (i.e. palm kernel oil)

3. Livestock


Medium priority

Research priority

High priority


Research priority

Near-term

Medium-term

Near-term

Near-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 49

Feeding estrategies

Feeding estrategies

Feeding estrategies

Feeding estrategies

Feeding estrategies

Reducing crude protein

Legumes

Pasture and cropping diversification

Diet intensification (a) Stover digestibility improvement

Silvopastoral systems (SPS)

Potential N2O mitigation

Based on 22 in vivo studies, ruminants fed C4 grasses produced 17% more CH4 (per kg of OM intake) compared with animals fed C3 grasses and 20% more than animals fed warm climate legumes. (Archimede et al. 2011). Based on a recent review, the lower fiber content and higher passage rates of legumes appeared to decrease CH4 production compared with grasses, which was reported in earlier studies (McCaughey et al., 1999). (Hristov et al. 2013).

Diverse pastures resulted in 46% less N20 while fodder beet resulted in 39% less N2O compared to kale (based on 1 study). N2O emissions can potentially be reduced by incorporating diverse pastures and fodder beet into the grazed pasture farm system. (Di et al. 2016).

Better-quality diets reduce the CH4 output per unit of product and therefore can reach a target quantity of animal product at lower CH4 emissions and usually with fewer animals. Improving the digestibility of crop residues produces less milk (3.6 compared with 4.9 kg milk per day) and more CH4 (33.0 compared with 31.7 kg CH4 per year; SI Text) than supplementing the same basal diet with grain concentrates (Thornton and Herrero 2010).

The total C in above + below ground phytomass (TSOC) was 12.5 Mg C/ha in the SPS while in treeless control pastures it was about one third of this value with 3.5 Mg C/ha (ANDRADE et al., 2008). By increasing direct C sequestration through the addition of the tree and shrub components, as well as in the soil; by reducing the need to clear more forests as lands that are used for SPS can be productive for longer time than if used in conventional ranching (YAMAMOTO et al., 2007).

May help reduce N fertilization applications

Diversification for increasing resilience

Total mitigation potential of crop residue digestibility improvements is higher than grain supplementation. Option is widely applicable across most rain-fed and irrigated mixed systems. Significant reductions in the numbers of animals to meet demand can occur, whereas feeding grain concentrates is an option that is most appropriate to the humid and temperate mixed systems

These trees are commonly planted in the region as they are preferred by farmers for their high quality timber (MONTAGNINI, 2011). Increasing shade with native species reduces heat in livestock that improve productivity for the reduction of caloric stress (Villanueva et al. 2012).

May help reduce N fertilization applications

Fodder beet has a much higher yield than other forage crops in NZ like brassicas

Reduce diet costIncrease animal productivity

Biodiversity conservation, soil fertility, environmental confort, nutrient cycling

May increase CH4 (increases fermentatable carbs)

Cropping compared to pasture

Access to production factors for small scale farmersLevel of adoption of small scale farmers

3. Livestock


Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

High priority

Medium-term

Medium-term

Medium-term

Long-term

Medium-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 50

Fertilization

Fodder sources

Fodder sources

Fodder sources

Fodder sources

Nitrification inhibitors

Replacing concentrates by local dietary suplements

Strategic supplementary feeding

Substitution of high fiber forages

Silvopastoral systems (SPS)

Extensive studies in New Zealand suggests that, taking into account the estimated indirect N2O emission from deposited NH3, the overall impact of nitrification inhibitors ranged from −4.5 (reduction) to +0.5 (increase) kg N2O-N ha−1. indicating that the beneficial effect of nitrification inhibitors in decreasing direct N2O emission can be undermined or even outweighed by an increase in NH3 volatilization (Lam et al. 2016). Another recent New Zealand study found that there was no effect of nitrification inhibitors on N2O emission factors (van der Weerden et al. 2016).

TO be incuded. General global examples


The total C in above + below ground phytomass (TSOC) was 12.5 Mg C/ha in the SPS while in treeless control pastures it was about one third of this value (ANDRADE et al., 2008). By increasing direct C sequestration through the addition of the tree and shrub components, as well as in the soil; by reducing the need to clear more forests as lands that are used for SPS can be productive for longer time than if used in conventional ranching (YAMAMOTO et al., 2007).

May increase productivity- but still variable

Improved nutrition, cow condition, reproductive performance (higher conception rates), higher weaning weights, faster growth of replacement animals

Improved nutrition, conception rates, weaning weights

These trees are commonly planted in the region as they are preferred by farmers for their high quality timber (MONTAGNINI, 2011).

May increase productivity- but still variable

Potential to contribute to food security targets.Impact on profitability Returns to farmers

Potential increase in profitability for farmers. Increased grazing capacity and animal gain. Increase soil nitrogen due to nitrogen fixation. Increase soil carbon sequestration, reducing erosion and improving water quality.

Biodiversity conservation, soil fertility, environmental confort, nutrient cycling

Long-term ecological studies lacking, costly. Highly challenging for extensive livestock systems- application is usually concentrated around watering areas where urine and feces would concentrate

Addresses the lack of sufficient and quality feed resources (especially in winter) and Sub-optimal pasture management.

Low reproductive performance of breeding herd

Reduce number of local species employed, limited research about establishment and management strategies, high cost of establishment for some alternatives, reduced local adoption and knowlwdge about co-benefits.

3. Livestock


Research priority



High priority

Medium-term

Medium-term

Medium-term

Medium-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 51

Fodder sources

Fodder sources

Fodder sources

Fodder sources

Grazing management

Grazing management

Grass-legume mixture and fodder banks

Silage production technology for fodder conservation

Increase fodder quality using crops residues, better quality green fodder, urea treatment of crop residues

Agroforestry Systems (AFS) - Intergration of Forage Legumes into arable crops

Improving pasture quality

Standoff or feeding pads

Grass-legume mixture have been found to reduce the use of inorganic fertilizers, increase carbon sequestration and feed quality (Amole and Ayantunde 2016). ILCA and its partners developed a fodder bank that involved about 27,000 smallholder farmers covering an area of about 19,000 ha for the whole of West Africa (Elbasha et al., 1999).

Some projects in Burkina Faso introduced a silage production technology to farmers and organized training for women farmer groups in silage production using locally available herbage, such as grasses, cereals and salt (Bayala et al., 2011, Zougmoré et al. 2016).

Combining feeds produced by the household or acquired from neighbours, from common property resources or from formal market channels will better match the animal’s nutrient requirements thereby increasing the efficiency of conversion of the feeds to live-weight gain or milk. Other method involves urea treatment of crop residues to improve its quality and digestibility and hence reduced enteric methane emission.

In West Africa, legumes have a potentially significant role to play in enhancing soil carbon sequestration (Amole and Ayantunde 2016). Legumes are likely to have a role to play in reducing GHG emissions from ruminant systems. Use tannin containing forages and breeding of forage species with enhanced tannin content (Nichols et al. (2007).

Can reduce GHGs through enteric fermentation and manure. Pasture quality can improve digestibility (Hristov 2013).

Keeping animals off the paddocks, in “stand-off” or “feed pads” for most of the day during the wet months of the year in LCA, has been shown to be an effective N2O mitigation practice in intensive grazing systems (de Klein, 2001; de Klein et al., 2002; Luo et al., 2008a).

Most of the adoption of fodder species are concentrated in the sub-humid zone, perhaps due to their adaptability.

Requires careful selection of species, harvesting at vegetative stages, heights and at proper weather condition. Technical training on conservation technique.

The adaptation potential of this intervention is moderate. Improving the feed value chain to facilitate delivery of agricultural by-products from producer to farmers requires institutional support.

Despite farmers’ recognition of the potential contribution of forage legumes to crop-livestock farming systems in the West Africa, their integration is relatively slow. The use of forage legumes in many parts of the tropics is limited because they do not contribute directly to the human food supply.

May improve soil C sequestration

May assist farmers with paddock quality with increased extreme rainfall

Cowpea is expanding in the Sahelian zone as a multi-purpose crop, used for human consumption while fodder is used for animal feeding. Fodder legumes also improve soil fertility through nitrogen fixation.

Feeding Azawak cows resulted in tenfold increase in milk production, while ewes fed on silage supplement maintained milk yields throughout the year (Bayala et al., 2011).

Better feed digestibility leads to better animal and herd performance.

Intercropping forage legumes with cereals offers a potential for increasing forage and, consequently, livestock production in sub-Saharan Africa. This intercropping has been shown to improve both the quantity and quality of fodder and crop residues leading to better system efficiency (Ayarza et al., 2007).

Improved productivity potentially

Reduces compaction

May require increased N application rates

This practice results in much greater NH3 emissions (Luo et al., 2010) due to urine and feces being excreted and allowed to mix in the stand-off or feed pad area.

3. Livestock


Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

High priority

Medium priority

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 52

Grazing management

Grazing management

Grazing management

Grazing management

Grazing management

Reduced in wet weather

Better management of existing forage resources: a) Improvements in grazing management

Adoption of improved pastures (*replacements of natural grass species by exotic species like Brachiaria)

Rotational grazing

To revamp warehouse management, order management and transportation management.

Not allowing grazing during wet weather also increases pasture productivity due to reduced sward damage and soil compaction (de Klein, 2001; de Klein et al., 2006).

Significant increases in soil C content under the lower grazing pressures has been observed in natural grasslands. Soil C stocks (0-40 cm) varied from 103 Mg. ha–1 under high grazing pressure (4%) to 140 Mg.ha–1 under lower grazing pressures (8, 12 and 16%) which presented similar C stocks. Data on enteric methane emissions in the southern Brazilian grassland ecosystems are needed in order to have reliable estimations of the balance of GHG emissions (Conant, 2010; Conant et al. 2001).

Thornton and Herrero (2010) indicate that differences in CH4 production per ton of milk between the natural cerrado vegetation and improved pastures can be large, but depend on the level of adoption of improved pasture varieties. A significant reduction in CH4 production per unit of milk and meat produced and in total CH4 produced (Thornton and Herrero 2010).

One of the main strategies for increasing the efficiency of grazing management in West Africa is through rotational grazing, which can be adjusted to the frequency and timing of the livestock’s grazing needs and better matches these needs with the availability of pasture resources.

May assist farmers with paddock quality with increased extreme rainfall

Improved animal and herd health. Igher conception rates. Improved weaning weights. Capture organic carbon in the soil to offset emissions

The number of animals required to satisfy demand is reduced under the improved pastures option, thus reducing pressure on natural resources.

Rotational grazing is more suited to manage pasture systems, where investment costs for fencing and watering points, additional labour and more intensive management are more likely to be recouped.

Reduces compaction

Higher availability of forraje, reduction of soil and pasture degradation

Adoption of improved deep-rooted pastures has the additional advantage of sequestering 29.5 t per ha more carbon than natural rangeland vegetation (Fisher et al. 1994 in Thornton and Herrero 2010).This option could result in use of less land, fewer animals to satisfy demand, and more CO2 savings from deforestation avoided.

Grassland management practices have potential to contribute towards food security and agricultural productivity via increased livestock yield and reducing land degradation.

Infrastructure investments- costly

Beef production is dependent on native pastures with inadequate feed availability at critical times due to suboptimal management

Level of adoption for small scale farmers Land tenure security to improve new varieties

Level of adoption for small scale farmers Land tenure security to improve new varieties

3. Livestock


Medium priority

Research priority

Research priority

High priority

Near-term

Long-term

Long-term

Near-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 53

Handling and Storage

Herd management

Herd management

Herd management

Levels of mechanization, technology and infraetructure used to produce a unit of milk or beaf.

Genetic improvement of Ruminants breeds.

Other Management Approaches (healthy herd performance)

Vaccination

Few studies have been done on Carbon Footprint of dairy products in developing countries. Daneshi et al. 2014 found that production of one litre of packaged milk emitted 1.73 kg CO2-eq from cradle to gate, and about 90% of the total emissions were from milk production at the farm gate. Emissions from electricity production had a considerable impact by about 14% (Daneshi et al. 2014). Average global emissions from milk production, processing and transport is estimated to be 2.4 CO2-eq. per kg of Fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM)) at farm gate [±26 %] (FAO 2010).

Increasing the productivity of an animal will decrease the proportion of CH4 produced per unit of product (Johnson et al., 1996; Moss et al., 2000; Boadi et al., 2004; Beauchemin et al., 2008; Pinares-Patiño et al., 2009; Clark, 2013) Four opportunities for genetic selection: 1) increase milk yield per cow with less feed intake; 2) reduce body size without reducing output yields; 3) select for feed efficiency; 4) selection for improved health over the lifetime. Potential for genetic selection is up to 19% CH4 reduction for energy corrected milk yield. (Knapp et al. 2014)

Including: 1) heat stress abatement: A 25% improvement in heat stress tolerance is estimated to have a net reduction in CH4/ECM of 10% in intensive dairy systems (St-Pierre et al., 2004); 2) disease reduction: A 5% reduction in culling for disease can reduce whole-herd emissions by 8 to 12% CH4/ECM; 3) production enhancing agents; 4) fertility: A 5% reduction in culling due to poor reproduction is estimated to reduce whole-herd enteric CH4 emissions by 3.1%; 5) Reducing dry cows and replacement heifers. (Knapp et al. 2014).

Medium, but currently unrealized.

Using manure for biogas production or another sustainable alternative of Bioenergy. Using manure as biogas production or another sustainable alternative. Optimization of logistics routes and production process. Reorganization of activities a long food supply chain. Articulation of all actors of food supply chain.

Maintain yield. Improved genetics could be selected for cattle that can withstand heat stresses

Improved animal welfare through heat and disease reduction.

Reducion of transaction cost and losses/waste of milk and beef. Saving in energy

Potential for reduced feed inputs, improved animal welfare and health

Potential for reduced feed inputs, improved animal welfare and health

Access to production factors for small scale farmers.

Low research

3. Livestock


Research priority

Research priority

High priority

Research priority

Long-term

Medium-term

Near-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 54

Herd management

Herd management

Herd management

Herd management

Better herd and health managements interventions


Change to small ruminants



At current adoption rates of improved breeds with higher milk production potential and higher body weights, only modest reductions in the amount of CH4 produced per ton of milk can be obtained. The maximum mitigation potential is estimated to be a relatively modest 19 Mt CO2-eq (Thornton and Herrero 2010).

Blench (1999) describe how Fulbe herders in Nigeria, faced with a shortage of grass in the semi-arid zone, switched to keeping the Sokoto Gudali cattle breed, which copes well with a diet of browse, instead of the Bunaji breed. In a related study in Burkina Faso, Sanfo et al (2015) reported that the main adaptation strategies among the people remained diversification of their livestock species and transhumance practice. Small ruminants are becoming more and more important because they are less vulnerable to warming (requiring less water and food). For them, this is a risk-free strategy: the use of the scarce natural resources by reducing the risk of livestock losses during extreme climate events (Malonine, 2006; Chah and Igbokwe, 2012).

Improving local genetics through cross-breeding with heat and disease-tolerant breeds is a climate smart option for livestock production in West Africa (Blench (1999); (Albuquerque et al., 2006).

Improved nutrition, cow condition, reproductive performance (higher conception rates), higher weaning weights, faster growth of replacement animals

This option potentially could be applied to many animals and across large areas. Improved conception rates, calf survival, Increased weaning weights, Increased final weights

Among the Fulani, the principal pastoral ethnic group in West Africa, a shift from cattle to small ruminants will require overcoming a significant cultural barrier. Agro-pastoralism could be an alternative to shifting from cattle to small ruminants, a shift that represents a significant loss in material and financial wealth. (Fratkin, 2012).

A number of breeds possess superior resistance or tolerance to specific diseases or parasites. Such adaptations enable these breeds to graze in areas that are unsuitable for other animals (Blench, 1999).

Various species have different production attributes and uses, with camels providing transport in addition to milk and meat, goats providing rapid rates of post-drought herd recovery, sheep providing seasonal income opportunities related to Islamic festivals, and camels and cattle providing prestige and social status in some communities (Sanfo et al., 2015).

Keeping browsing animals has certain advantages when feed is in short supply as they make use of forage that cannot easily be used by other species – i.e. there is a degree of complementarity if grazing and browsing animals are kept together – and because shrubs tend to provide a source of green forage during the dry season.(Barroso et al., 1995)

Low reproductive performance of breeding herd

Poor genetics and low productivity

3. Livestock


Research priority

Medium priority

Medium priority

Medium-term

Near-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 55



Land use change

Organic certification

Accountability and traceability

Land Use Options

Mainly for the characteristics of organic livestock production systems such as well-defined standards and practices which can be verified. Greater attention to animal welfare No routine use of growth promoters, animal offal, prophylactic antibiotics or any other additives. At least 80% of the animal feed grown according to organic standards, without the use of artificial fertilisers or pesticides on crops or grass (Chander et al. 2011). Organic production may also produce better meat and milk, potential to sequester carbon in biomass and soil, increase the number of cattle per hectare and reduce methane emissions as well as the use of fertilizers, which helps to reduce the effects of global warming (IFOAM 2014). However, no measurements of GEI in the organic farms were found directly in Central and South America.

Brazil. An efficient traceability system, deforestation monitoring, sustainable policies and investment in technology coupled with sustainable development ideas make it possible to obtain consistent results. These results include a significant reduction of deforestation in the Amazon and the capability of the Brazilian beef industry to answer to the demands of import markets (Ruvairo et al. 2014).

Agroforestry practices have dual mitigation benefits: species usually have a high nutritive value and can help to intensify diets of ruminants while they can also sequester carbon. Despite lower potential rates of carbon sequestration in SSA rangelands than in CSA (190 compared with 691 kg C per ha per year) (Conant RT, Paustian K., 2002 in Thornton and Herrero 2010), a higher proportion of degraded lands and a greater rangeland extent lead to a higher (almost double) mitigation potential for SSA rangelands than in CSA (Thornton and Herrero 2010).

Develop of organic supply chain for milk and beef into small scale producers.The grass-based, extensive production systems and forest-based, animal production systems that are prevalent in many areas of South America have considerable potential for conversion into organic animal husbandry.

Potential to include young people and women in the management of information. Integration of sustainable transport, fuels and reduction of the time in logistic. Integrating traceability into the overall quality agricultural management system. Technology transfer and rural development projects designed to improve the market orientation and quality of products from small-scale farmers (Opara 2003).

Reforestation of degrated regions including natives tree species, shade management

Opportunities to small scale producers because of the growing of domestic market for organic products. That imply Less intermediaries and bottlenecks to supply the local market. Human health and animal welfare. Allows the traceability of organic milk and beef, and financial management for producers. Improving livelihoolds

Value added to beef and milk. Competitiveness in the local and international markets. Improving food security. Improve incomes from better prices of the market niches in the EU.

Improve amount of the ecosystems services, reduce soil erosion and loss of nutrients, reduction of caloric stress at high temperatures

Cultural resistance to keep the records, documents and process in the production of beef and milk.Low levels of schooling, high requirements of information.Access to technological systems and economic resources.

Access to production factors for small scale farmersLevel of adoption of small scale farmers

3. Livestock


Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Long-term

Long-term

Long-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 56

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Manure

Anaerobic digestion

Solids separation

Aeration

Manure acidification

Decrease storage time

Storage cover with straw

Crusts

Aeration

Composting

Stacking

Storage temperature

Sealed storage with flare

Storage strategies (conversion to solid systems)

High. Alternative energy options

High

High

High

High

High

High

Medium to high

High

Medium

High

High

Comprehensive studies have found that compost overall has the lowest potential emissions for beef and dairy manure systems, followed by stockpiling or dry stacking and finally uncovered slurry. Slurry emitted the greatest amount of emissions with nearly 4 times those from dairy manure compost and 17 times more than beef manure compost. Emissions from anaerobic lagoons have more than 10 times the global warming impact than solid manure piles (Owen et al. 2014).

Potential for incorporation in soils

Potential for soil carbon benefits if used on farm

Energy production

Bedding in confinement systems or composted

Soil health

Expensive

Requires equipment

May increase N2O

Some farms may not have the land to apply manure frequently

May increase N2O

May increase N2O

May increase N2O

Can reduce soil N2O emissions

Warm temperatures/climates

Nox

3. Livestock


High priority

High priority

Medium priority

Medium priority

Medium priority

Medium priority

Research priority

Research priority

High priority

Medium priority

Medium priority

Medium priority


Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term

Near-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 57

Manure

Manure

Liquid manure storage strategies (manure aeration and temperature)

Liquid manure storage strategies (manure covers)

Manure aeration can reduce CH4 (T-agg). Emptying a slurry store before late spring can help to minimize CH4 and NH3 in dairy systems (Novak and Fiorelli, 2010). Longer manure storage during warm summer months has been found to result in significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions (Sommer et al., 2009). Costa Junior et al. (2014) found that the utilization of the biogas and manure for replacing electricity and synthetic N fertilizer potentially mitigated 0.13 ±0.01 kg CO2eq kg lwg−1, or 95% (±45%) of total direct GHG emission from manure management (Costa Junior et al. 2014). González & Ruiz (2001) found that in the intensive, semi-intensive and extensive systems of dairy, beef and dual purpose in the central region of Mexico the dominant factor of methane emissions is the feed ration, followed by fermentation temperature and the excreta moisture content.

Natural crusts have been shown to reduce NH3 emissions significantly and also may reduce CH4 emissions (Misselbrook et al., 2005; Sommer et al., 1993; Sommer et al., 2000). Wooden storage tank covers can reduce CH4 and NH3 emissions more than a natural crust (Novak and Fiorelli, 2010). Vegetable oil covers have been found to reduce NH3 by up to 91%, CH4 by 43%, CO2 by 36% and odor by 55%. Smith et al. (2007) showed that ammonia emissions from manure with naturally formed crust can be reduced by over 60% compared to the emissions from manure without the crust (Petersen and Ambus, 2006). A direct way to avoid cumulative GHG emissions is to reduce the time manure is stored (Philippe et al., 2007; Costa et al., 2012).

Management of manure in different regions, temperature and systems. Improving feed rations and compositions

Management of liquid manure in different regions, temperature and systems. Improving feed rations and compositions. Potencial to apply in cattle liquid manure covers

Use of biogas and manure to produce energy and fertilizers

Odor reduction potentialThe use of slurry as a nitrogen source is an interesting alternative, considering the high costs of industrial inputand the need to use renewable material which minimize environmental impacts (Zanine and Ferreira 2015).

Manure properties, temperature, and other factors affect efficienty. Limited understanding. Different covering materials should be selected for solid and liquid manure. Many experimental results indicate that covering liquid manure with organic matter, including straw, will greatly increase the amount of methane emissions, generating more methane in anaerobic fermentation of straws instead of reducing emissions.

Research priority

Research priority

Near-term

Near-term

3. Livestock



Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 58

Manure

Manure

Manure

Mechanization

Regulation

Biodigestors

Mangement

Anaerobic digesters for biogas and fertilizer

Alternative use/sources/technologies for energy supply on agricultural machinary/equipment

Conducive Policy

Using biogas instead of LPG the total annual reduction of CO2 could reach 248 GgCO2Eq. The CO2 emited from biogas will be recirculated into a short carbon cycle: atmospheric CO2 plants-animals-manure. (Cornejo& Wilkie 2010).

Efficient treatment of manure can reduce the emission of GHGs and raise agricultural productivity (Amole and Ayantunde 2016, Zougmoré et al. 2016). In Niger and Mali, to exploit the benefits of urine and to minimize nutrient losses, corralling livestock on fields is preferable to the application of farmyard manure (Schlecht and Buerkert, 2004; Chah and Igbokwe 2012).

Reduce methane emission and pressure on crop residue as energy source

No information yet

Renewable sources of energy to poor people in rural areas. Integration of levels of decisions (social, economic and politic). Potential finance support from foreign investment to bring the techonology of biogas. Energy generated by anaerobic digestors can attract low-carbon energy subsidies if life-cycle emissions are taken into account.

However the adaptation of this intervation is low. The main constraints to corralling are the low number of animals with an average of 2.5 to 3.4 TLU (1TLU represents 250 kg live weight, equivalent to 1 camel, 1.43 cattle or 10 small ruminants) per farm and the lack of means of transport (Balaya et al., 2011).

Very high given that there is sufficient manure and crop residues.

Odor reduction, pathogen control, minimizing sludge production, conservation of nutrient. Reduce the consumption of firewood and other means of cooking. Clean energy for everyday life, produce forage and fertiliser for agriculture, soak seeds, control insect and pest populations, increase output of plants and fruits, and improve the soil

Yields obtained on manured crop field are always much higher than fields that are not manured.

Biogas provides additional energy for fuel. Fertilizer improve soil fertility hence increased crop yield

Lack of equipment supplies and spare parts; insufficient and poor quality feedstock for the digester and low temperature leading to low biogas yield; poor animal husbandry due to poor feed-quality and animal health and high emission of enteric methane (UN HABITAT 2010). Lack of public awareness and gender-bias against women and marginalized groups of participants; cultural taboos preventing the use of animals and humans as feedstock for clean biogas and fertiliser; incorrectly placing the primary focus on dissemination rather than a commercialization modality for the mainstream (UN HABITAT 2010).

Research priority

Research priority

Research priority

Long-term

Near-term

Medium-term

3. Livestock



Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 59

Regulation

Restorants

Soil management

Soil management

Supply chain models

Conducive Policy

Food industry’s green field (chain restaurants, regular retail industry, airline food)

Soil Conservation Techiques

Soil carbon sequestration in grasslands

Restructure their existing supply chain models

Governments in West Africa have enacted policies that promote climate smart agriculture. The aim of these policies is to mitigate GHG emission (Zougmoré et al. 2016).

Less oxidative environment in no-till soil results in carbon accumulation in comparison with conventional tillage techniques, and annual rates of 0.48 Mg C.ha–1 are estimated for subtropical soils from Southern Brazil (Bayer et al., 2006). A marked loss of soil C when grasslands were converted to intensively-cultivated cropland, followed by a partial recovery of C stocks (C sequestration) when conservation management was adopted (Tornquist et al. 2009).

Increasing or reducing the forage consumption rate to maximize forage production could lead to annual sequestration of up to 150 MtCO2e yr–1 in the world’s grazing lands (Hendersond et al. 2015, Herrero et al. 2016). The use of legumes in pastures has been estimated to sequester 200 MtCO2e yr–1 globally, though this could increase soil N2O emissions by 60 MtCO2e yr–1, offsetting 28% of the soil carbon sequestration benefits. Optimization of grazing pressure could sequester 148 Tg CO2 yr−1 . The soil C sequestration potential of 203 Tg CO2 yr−1 for legume sowing was higher than for improved grazing management (Hendersond B. et al. 2015).

There is high adaptation potential given that there is government support

Improved grazing management, legume sowing and N fertilization are estrategies that can be adopted easely by livestock farmers in some livestock systems. Payment for environmental services

More food security, environmental management.

No-tillage appears as the main practice in conservation agriculture and its favourable effect on soil C balance is very well documented (Amado et al., 2006; Bayer et al., 2006; Bono et al., 2008).

Improving productivity and ecosystems services llike soil fertility. Producing, harvesting, processing and transporting feed.

Land tenure security for small scale farmers

High priority

Research priority

Research priority

Near-term

Long-term

Long-term

3. Livestock



Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 60

Transport

Transport

Transport

Waste management

Waste management

Sustainable transport systems

Streamlining logistics (food origin, processing, distribution) to minimize Food Mileage

Minimizing lead time from farm to shelf


In-situ micro catchments

The evidence is mostly related to policy programs, and it has to be with projection for the future. Biofuels have the potential to replace a petroleum use by transport (IPCC 2007)

The GHG emissions for different transport modes varies between close to 2 kg CO2equiv./ton*km-1 for regional air freight to 0.01 kg CO2equiv./ton*km for container ship (Sonesson et al. 2009).

According to FAO 2011 the estimated/assumed waste percentages for animal commodity in each step of the Food Supply Chain for Latin America is: Agricultural production (Milk 3.5 and meat 5.3); Postharvest handling and storage (Milk 6 and meat 1.1); Processing and packaging (Milk 5 and meat 2) and Distribution (Milk 8 and meat 5) (FAO 2011). The proper handling of post-harvest residues and animal waste (manure) can help generate value added products and help to transport it to the markets (biogas and bio-fertilizer) (FAO 2015).

Livestock feed resources in West African Sahel is largely dependent on exploitation of natural pastures in the wet season and crop residues in the dry season. Improved agricultural water management practices will invariably contribute not only to crop production but also livestock production through increased feed resources (Rockström et al. (2002), Amole and Ayantunde 2016).

Implementation of mobility management strategies from the farm to the market (Litman 2003).Using more biofuel as a source of energy (electricity or fuel) to the farms to keep health products

Efficiency in distribution routes from farms to points of sale. Improved coordination and transport planning of agricultural goods transport (Gebresenbet and Ljungberg, 2001).

Biogas from post harvest residues. Improve the trainning and technology into groups of familiy farmers.

Building climate smart water-crop-livestock farming systems requires integrated approach, as the interaction between livestock production and the other components sometimes create win-win situations but also it creates trade-offs and potential conflict.

Less air and noise pollution, less traffic. Reduction of the consumption of fuel, save time and avoiding the waste and loss food in the supply food chain.

Reduction in food loss, cost production, animal stress, and save time. Integration and coordination of all actors in food supply chain. Optimization of logistic, access to the small scale farmers in the local market.

Reduction of production and transportation costs, reduction of waste pollution, improvement of human and social capital capacities.

Livestock feed resources in West African Sahel is largely dependent on exploitation of natural pastures in the wet season and crop residues in the dry season. Improved agricultural water management practices will contribute to livestock production through increased feed resources.

Access to financial capital for rural communitiesLack of adequate infraestructure in rural communities

Developing rural infrastructure (storage and packaging facilities, collection points and centres); developing efficient and effective management of product and information flow; developing strategies to promote best transport services.

Reduced technical support to establish biodigestors along a higher groups of farmers and enterprises. Access to financial capital for rural communities. Lack of adequate infraestructure in rural communities.

Reduced technical support to establish biodigestors along a higher groups of farmers and enterprises. Access to financial capital for rural communities. Lack of adequate infraestructure in rural communities.




Research priority

Long-term

Long-term

Long-term

Near-term

3. Livestock



Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 61

reduce waste during food processing by valorizing (developing markets for) byproducts

promote transition in food processing from pure, standard quality ingredients to functional fractions (see van der Goot et al, 2016)

promote or support development of non-termal processing techniques

promote recycling of packaging materials and packaging with high recycled rate

promote light weighting and minimal packaging, but not at the expense of packaging performance

consider the indirect role that packaging plays in reducing food waste when implementing packaging related mitegation strategy or policy

promote energy efficiency in equipment and grid electricity generation

promote/ assure correct specification of new equipment through proper technician training; make energy efficiency goals a priority of these training curricula

use alternative (non GHG) refrigerants)

increases efficiency of food system by utilizing more of primary production

offers potential to reduce energy use in food processing

non-thermal techniques for enhancing shelf-life and altering material properties - such as high pressure processing, pulsed electric field, cool plasma, UV irradiation, ultrasound - typically have reduced energy requirements and could lead to improved energy efficiency in food industry (Pereira & Vicente, 2010; Augustin et al 2016)

for most materials, recycling and utilizing recyled material in new products reduces overall system energy use and environmental impacts. This can not be universally assumed, however.

indirect influence of packaging on system GHG emissions can be greater than the direct impacts of packaging material production or disposal; this must be considered on a case-by-case basis

electricity is the primary energy carrier for stationary refrigeration. Using the best available technology can greatly reduce energy demand of refrigeration.

emissions related to energy use can be reduced 20%–50% through correct specification and use of equipment (Garnett, 2007)

emissions related to CFCs can be reduced by 80%–90% using existing and emerging technologies (Garnett, 2007)

reduces demand for raw materials/food production

likely will require more diversified and dispersed processing (rather than highly centralized and standardized)

recycling reduces demand on dwindling natural resources

potential to generate new markets, innovative products

potential nutritional advantages

diverts materials from landfill

Processing & Packaging

Refrigeration - Low Income Countries

4. Post-Production

Intervention Mitigation Potential Adaptation Potential Co-benefits Implementation Time Action category

uncertain

research priority

research priority?

low priority

medium priority

research priority

medium priority

medium priority

medium priority

near-term?

medium to long-term

near to medium

near-term

near-term

unknown

near-term?

near-term

near to medium term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 62

promote small capacity refrigeration in homes where routine access to markets via walking biking or public transit is feasible

consider indirect rebound effects - such as shifts in diet, purchasing patterns, food waste rates - of introduction of cold chain; address these effects along with cold chain development

establish guidelines and regulation for insulation value of stationary and mobile refrigeration

promote energy efficiency in equipment and grid electricity generation

promote/ assure correct specification of new equipment through proper technician training; make energy efficiency goals a priority of these training curricula

polygeneration (trigeneration

eliminate (minimize) refrigerant leakage

use alternative (non GHG) refrigerants)

improve efficiency of mobile refrigeration units through adoption of new technologies

owning household refrigerators has been linked to the overbuying of food; Ligon, V. K. Shop More, Buy Less: A Qualitative Investigation into Consumer Decisions that Lead to Food Waste in U.S. Households; The University of Arizona, 2014.

it is currently unclear how the many direct and indirect forces involved in the introduction of a developed cold chain into the food system will balance when it comes to net system environmental impact. (Heard & Miller, 2016)

common foam-based insulation degrades at a rate of 3-5% per year. Alterantive insulation technologies (vaccum based) have great potential to offer prolonged insulative benefit. (Tassou et al., 2009)

electricity is the primary energy carrier for stationary refrigeration. Using the best available technology can greatly reduce energy demand of refrigeration.

emissions related to energy use can be reduced 20%–50% through correct specification and use of equipment (Garnett, 2007)

Significant technical polygeneration potential exists in the European Food industry. If exploited can give about 34 TWhel/ year and can result in 13 million tones of CO2 savings (0.3% of EU-28+Iceland 2014 GHG emissions) (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/optipolygen)

not only do HFC refrigerants act as GHG, if a refrigeration system loses 15% of its refrigerant then its energy requirement can double for a given amount of cooling (Garnett, 2007)n)

emissions related to CFCs can be reduced by 80%–90% using existing and emerging technologies (Garnett, 2007)

(Tassou et al., 2009)

certainly developing a cold chain with attention to such factors can/will improve resilience

resilient insulation in refrigeration infrastructure will only become more important as average temperatures rise

promotes/encourages mixed use urban development, community building, healthy behaviors

likely economic and social benefits

economic benefits (reduced energy use)

Refrigeration - Low Income Countries

Refrigeration - High-Income Countries

4. Post-Production


low priority

research priority

medium priority

medium priority

medium priority

medium priority

research priority

near-term

unknown

medium-term

near-term?

near-term

near to medium term

medium-term


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 63

retail “choice editing” of domestic appliances to improve/increase energy efficiency

maintain food refrigeration systems; repair door seals and door curtains, clean condensers

promote home refrigeration upgrade “trade-in” programs

inform and encourage retailers to replace energy inefficient frozen and chilled food display cabinets by the best currently available technology

focus on transport mode over transport distance; increase access/availability of low emission modes (rail, water)

increase backhauling opportunities

investment in more efficient vehicles

use of information and communications technologies for optimal route planning

avoid air freighted foods

retailers can influence energy efficiency of appliances by preferencially stocking higher efficiency units

improves energy efficiency

avoid situations where old refrigerator is maintained in home as second unit, thus negating the benefits of efficiency upgrades

5-6 fold differences in energy consumption between efficient and inefficient operating refrigeration units

“food miles” have received a great deal of attenion, but research has demonstrated repeatedly that distance alone is not a good indicator of GHGE associated with food transport.

improves efficiency of transportation network

improving fleet energy efficiency directly reduceds GHGE per unit of food transported

avoiding unnecessary or inefficient logistics improves energy efficiency of food system. Studies suggest that in most cases, short-term storage in intermediary refrigerated wharehouses for the purpose of increasing load efficiency results in net reductions in energy use and emissions.Lean supply chains do not always equate with “green” supply chains. (Venkat & Wakeland, 2006; Wakeland et al 2012)

“Scholz et al. ( 2009 ) report that fresh salmon air freighted from overseas has about twice the environmental impact as frozen salmon transported by container ships over the same distance. The difference owing to transport modes is far more signifi cant in this case than production choices suc as wild versus farmed or organic versus conventional.” (Wakeland et al 2012)

should improve cost efficiency. Introduces logistical challenges

Refrigeration - High-Income Countries

Transportation - High-Income Countries

4. Post-Production


medium

medium

high

medium

medium

low

high

near-term

near-term

near to medium term

near

near

near

near


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 64

Consumption Balance energy intake with energy output

Switch red meat consumption to other pork, poultry, eggs

Switch red meat consumption to vegetarian replacements

Switch red meat consumption to vegan replacements

Reduce processed foods

Would result in greater available food supply

Potential reduction in saturated fat intake; potential health benefits



Potential reduction in sodium

Ensuring there isn’t a loss of nutrients; human behavior shifts,

Potential for loss of essential micronutrients



Such foods tend to be cheap and accessible while also highly palatable

Near-Medium term

Near-Medium term

Near-Medium term

Near-Medium term

Near-Medium term

Research priority

Medium priority

Medium priority

Low priority (less feasible, potential health impacts)

Research priority

Diets that include more energy intake than output can result in greater environmental impact (Nelson et al., 2016; van Dooren et al., 2014) and, in areas of overconsumption, can constitute a notable portion of an individual’s diet footprint.

Studies have confirmed that shifting from red meat consumption towards pork or chicken can offer a reduction in GHGs (Roy et al., 2012). A UK study suggested that a complete shift from beef to pork and chicken in the average UK diet would result in an 18% reduction in GHG emissions (Hoolohan et al., 2013). Similarly, a 75% reduction of beef and sheep meat replaced by poultry or pork resulted in a 9% reduction in diet GHG emissions and an average of nearly 2,000 deaths averted annually in the UK (Scarborough et al., 2012).

Overall, there has been a range of estimates about the effect of GHG reductions in a vegetarian diet compared to a vegan diet (both being compared to an omnivorous diet). Vegetarian diet GHG reductions compared with omnivorous diets have ranged from 47% (Scarborough et al., 2014) to the 20% range (Berners-Lee et al., 2012; Meier and Christen, 2013; Sabate et al., 2015; Soret et al., 2014; van Dooren et al., 2014)

Overall, there has been a range of estimates about the effect of GHG reductions in a vegetarian diet compared to a vegan diet (both being compared to an omnivorous diet). These have ranged in vegan diets from reductions of 60% (Scarborough et al., 2014) to 53% (Heller and Keoleian, 2015) to 50% (Meier and Christen, 2013) to 42% (Sabate et al., 2015) to less than 37% (Berners-Lee et al., 2012; van Dooren et al., 2014).

While not often discussed, processed foods including snacks may offer opportunity for reducing diet related emissions (Green et al., 2015; van Dooren et al., 2014).

Pre-Production | Production | Post-Production | Consumption

Qualitative description plus quantitative if available

unknown, near-term, medium-term, long-term

uncertain, research priority, low priority, medium priority, high priority

Qualitative description plus quantitative if available (range of possible emission reductions?)

5. Dietary Opportunities

System Component Intervention Mitigation Potential Adaptation Potential Co-benefits Implementation TimeChallenges Action category


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 65

Policy Mechanisms Public awareness campaigns

Food taxes/subsidies

National dietary guidelines

Apps and technological education

Institutional meal shifts

May also provide public health benefits

Can increase public awareness and education

Can increase public awareness and education

May reduce institutional costs

Challenging to measure impact; consumer preferences may not match scientific evidence

Such taxes are regressive- low income households and countries would pay significantly more for food (Kehlbacher et al. 2016; Springmann et al. 2017).

Many countries still need to develop any dietary guidelines at all. Dietary guidelines are also sometimes influenced by outside interests

Technological costs are unknown, uptake and adoption may be challgning

Shift in education of food service workers necessary

Near-term

Near-Medium term

Near-Medium term

Medium-term

Near-term

Research priority

Low priority (significant cost impacts on households)

High priority (can also contribute to education and public awareness)

Research priority

Medium-High priority

Many existing studies suggest that many consumers are unaware of the contribution of diet to GHG emissions, particularly the role of meat consumption (de Boer et al. 2016; Macdiarmid et al. 2016). This knowledge gap may stem from a lack of media coverage on diet and climate change (Almiron and Zoppeddu 2015; Neff et al. 2009), as well as a lack of non-profit engagement on the topic (Laestadius et al. 2014; 2013).

Taxes on foods with higher GHG emissions could cause shifts in dietary consumption as a result of increased prices (up to 40%) (Springmann et al. 2017). Thus, diet GHGs could be reduced possibly up to 20%, but would lead to higher costs for households (Edjabou and Smed 2013).

Only four countries currently include sustainability as a component of their dietary guidelines and further, fewer than half of all nations have food-based national dietary guidelines at all (Fischer and Garnett 2016). Dietary guidelines offer an opportunity to display strategies and recommendations to achieve health and well-bring while also considering sustainability and GHG emissions.

While there are 40 apps that help people explore their carbon footprints, there are no single apps available for assisting people in making diet choices related to GHG emissions (Sullivan et al.) Apps can be developed to assist people in guiding decisions, and some are in development (Pieniak et al. 2016).

Changing menu options at institutions (i.e. schools, hospitals, prisons) offers the potential for a large-scale shift. Evidence indicates that it is possible to design meals at the institutional level that maintain nutritional outcomes but can reduce both GHG emissions (up to 24%) and even reduce budgets (up to 15%) (Ribal et al. 2016).






5. Dietary Opportunities



Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 66

Consumption

Consumption

Consumption

Consumption

Retail

Disposal

Government

Government

Government

Government

Government

Government

School Breakfast Program waste mitigation:

Improve system and understanding of sell-by dates

Foods that do not rely on refrigeration and less perishable

Education on food waste

Reducing portion sizes served at restaurants and other food service providers

Use waste as sources of energy

Landfill taxes (Dorward 2012)

Develop a food loss and waste measurment protocol

Set food loss and waste reduction targets

Emissions reduction policies

Increase investment in reducing postharvest losses

Create entities devoted to reducing food waste

School Breakfast Program waste mitigation: “saving food for later, actively encouraging children’s consumption, smaller portion sizes, composting and donating uneaten food” (Blondin 2015)

Improve system and understanding of sell-by dates that discourage use of food that is likely edible, promote recipes that use leftover food (Dorward 2012)

Encourage consumption of foods that do not rely on refrigeration and less perishable (Dorward 2012)

Education on food waste and how consumers contribute via schools and political initiatives are starting points to change people’s attitudes and understanding (FAO)

Reducing portion sizes served at restaurants and other food service providers can help to reduce food waste from leftover food and cost to providers (WRI reducing…)

Use of methane capture, biogas, and biomass from waste as sources of energy(Schott et al 2016)

Landfill taxes (Dorward 2012)

Develop a food loss and waste measurment protocol (WRI reducing…)

Set food loss and waste reduction targets (WRI reducing…)

Emissions reduction policies requiring consumers to waste less in high income countries (Dorward 2012)

Increase investment in reducing postharvest losses in developing countries (WRI reducing…)

Create entities devoted to reducing food waste in developed countries (WRI reducing…)






6. Food Waste Opportunities



Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 67

Government

Marketing

Marketing

Packaging

Packaging

Production

Retail

Retail

Production and processing

Iinfrastructure for roads, energy, and markets

Improved market institutions and infrastructure

Marketing cooperatives

Packaging to extend product lifespans

Improved packaging design to decrease waste

Communication and cooperation between farmers to reduce overproduction

Replace all you can eat campus cafeteria options with a la carte

Decrease storage temperature for meat

Food processing facilities

“Governments should improve the infrastructure for roads, energy, and markets in developing countries. Private sector investments can improve storage and cold chain facilities as well as transportation” (Choudhury, 2006) via FAO

Improved market institutions and infrastructure such as technology to communicate with farmers on prices for their goods (Dorward 2012)

Marketing cooperatives are organizations providing a central point for assembling produce from small farmers and preparing commodities for transportation to markets. The marketing cooperatives should be able to reduce food losses by increasing the efficiency of these activities.” (Kader, 2005) via FAO

FLW: packaging to extend product lifespans (Garnett 2011)

Improved packaging design to decrease waste from package disposal (Hanssen 2017)

“Communication and cooperation between farmers to reduce risk of overproduction by allowing surplus crops from one farm to solve a shortage of crops on another” (Stuart 2009 via FAO Global…)

Replace all you can eat campus cafeteria options with a la carte to deter excess food production and take (Costello et al 2016)

Decrease storage temperature for meat product to prolong shelf life (Eriksson et al 2016)

“Lack of processing facilities causes high food loss in developing countries when seasonality of production and the cost of investing in processing facilities that will not be used year-round result in insufficient capacity to process and preserve produce. Governmetns should create a better enabling environment and investment climmate to stimulate the private sector to invest in the food industry and to work more closely with farmers to address supply issues.” FAO









Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 68

Retail

Retail?

Storage

Storage

Storage

Storage

Packaging

Throughout

Throughout

Encourage supermarkets to sell heterogeneous produce

Time and Temperature Labels

Renewed investment in systems of grain reserves

Smart meter installation in homes

Plastic storage bags that cut off oxygen for pests

Small metal silos allow for airtight storage

Using plastic crates durinig storage and handling to prevent produce from being damaged.

Refrigeration technology to prevent waste

Composting wasted organic material for input in agriculture

“Supermarkets seem convinced that consumers will nto buy food which as the ‘wrong’ weight, size, or appearance. Surveys do however show that consumers are willing to buy heterogeneous produce as long as the taste is not affected (Stuart 2009). Consumers have the power to influence quality standards. This could be done by questioning them and offering them a broader quality range of products in retail stores.” (FAO) (Dorward, 2012)

Time and Temperature Labels (Dorward 2012)

Renewed investment in systems of grain reserves (AR 131)

Smart meter installation in homes (not clear evidence on this) (Garnett 2011)

Plastic storage bags that cut off oxygen for pests and allow harvested product to be preserved longer without damage from pests. Only used on cowpeas thusfar. (WRI reducing…)

Small metal silos allow for airtight storage of crops to prevent pest contamination, mold growth, and toxins (WRI reducing…)

Using plastic crartes durinig storage and handling to prevent produce from being damaged. Use in developing countries to substitute for sacks and bags that can damage produce (WRI reducing…)

Refrigeration technology to prevent FLW (AR 47)

Composting wasted organic material for input in agriculture (Bajzelj et al 2014)









Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 69

Throughout

Throughout

Throughout

Throughout

Research need to better determine the amount of food waste throughout food systems in various economies.

Create markets for food waste

Training food chain operator

Evaporative coolers

Research need to better determine the amount of food waste throughout food systems in various economies. Need better ability to compare loss in production phase and in consumption or retail for instance (Bajzelj et al 2014)

Create markets for food waste including animal and biofuel feedstock and donation to the needy (Dorward 2012)

“Food chain operators should be skilled and knowledgeable in how to produce safe food. Foods need to be produced, handled, and stored in accordance with food safety standards. This requires the application of good agricultural and good hygienic practices by all food chain operators to ensure that the final food protects the consumer and is not wasted.” FAO

Evaporative coolers help to refrigerate foods and extend their shelf life without the need for electricity (WRI reducing…)









Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 70

Appendix 2: Logical Approach to Support Prioritization of InterventionsR&

DIn

put P

rodu

ctio

nFa

rmer

Valu

e Cha

in

R&D Seeds

SeedsAccess, Variety, Quality

NutrientsAccess, Variety, Quality

Machinery/Technologyaccess to appropriate

TechnologyFinance/Credit/ Banking

accessutilization rate

R&D Machinery

R&D Other inputs (Fertilizers/Pesticides)

Fertilizer production

Pre-Production

Production

Important that we mainstream Climate Assessment (mitigation and adaptation benefits) into farm related R&D

If this is broken or ineffcient, then it needs to be the focus point for investments. A broken value chain creates ineffciencies in production (often leading to higher yield scale emissions) and diminish the profit potential for the farmer. This is more often the case in developingm countries and needs to be addressed urgently.

Corn supply chains in the USA is well organized and a vibrant R&D ecosystem exists

A poor rice growing nation may not have high R&D and may rely on imports

Rice sector in emerging economy may have high R&D wrt seeds and fertilizers, and low R&D on Machinery, although that too is changing

Choose a country that produces coal based fertlizers

Choose country which imports fertilizer and uses manure as a primary source of fertlizer

for contract choose country that uses O&G based fertlizers

Developed economies have strong farmer value chains helping farmers grow food effciently. The farmers have choice and the private sector, the key investor, competes for farmers participation. Support institutions (Gov and local) are well developed. Usually the production system is quite effcient with low wastage, although room for improvement exists (eg implementing Nutrient Use Effciency (NUE) programs). A robust value chain makes it easier to implement an scale up technical interventions such as deploying incentives to improve NUE.

A poor economy often exhibits broken value chains where farmers have little access to inputs, finance, farm machinery, etc. often these are the same economies under tremendous pressure to increase yields. If the value chains can be fixed and supported with strong information, knowledge and extension services for farmers, there is a very high potential for effciency gains and reductions in yield scale emissions; potential to manage farmers risk exposure; improved prfitability and livelihoods, etc. Well designed policies, supported with public and international funds are needed to help accelerate investments in this sector. Institutional capacity needs to be built across government, local and priavate actors

An emerging economy often exhibits certain elements of the farmer value chain functioning better than others but a lot remains to be done in helping improve it. Investment needs are significant, and often these compete with other economic imperatives of the government. Government institutions to serve farmers exist although quality of service and capacity varies across instiutions. Typically the fertlizer is more available to help improve food production, but at the same time can drive rapid growth in emissions through indiscriminate use (eg China 0ver last 20 years). Other services are not as readily available. Well designed Government investments are needed to catalyze larger private investment in helping improve the farmer value chain. Fixing the value chain will also lead to a deeper ability within the country and the farmer to respond to the challenges of climate change.

Food System Intervention Worksheet

Mitig

atio

n Po

tent

ial

Mitig

atio

n Po

tent

ial

Mitig

atio

n Po

tent

ial

Ease

of I

mpl

emen

tatio

n

Ease

of I

mpl

emen

tatio

n

Ease

of I

mpl

emen

tatio

n

Inve

stm

ent N

eede

d

Inve

stm

ent N

eede

d

Inve

stm

ent N

eede

d

Inve

stor

Inve

stor

Inve

stor

Tim

eline

for

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Tim

eline

for

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Tim

eline

for

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Live

lihoo

d Im

pact

s (#

Far

mer

s, Ad

apta

tion)

Live

lihoo

d Im

pact

s (#

Far

mer

s, Ad

apta

tion)

Live

lihoo

d Im

pact

s (#

Far

mer

s, Ad

apta

tion)

NOTE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE

High Infr / High Information (or High Income Country/Crop)

Low Infr / Low Information (or Low Income Country/Crop)

Med Infr / Med Information (or Medium Income Country/Crop)

Low/EasyMed/ModerateHigh/DifficultUnknown

PrivateGovenmentInternationalFarmerShort TermMedium TermLong Term

PvtGovIntlFarSTMTLT

PvtGovPvtGovPvtGovPvt

PvtST MTLT LT

LT LT

LT LT

ST MT

ST MT

Pvt Pvt

Pvt Pvt


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 71

Farm

er In

fo &

Kno

wled

geMi

tigat

ion

Prac

tices

Risk

Man

agem

ent

Extension ServicesFarmer Training

Soil DataMet Data

Access to InformationInformation Utilization

Nutrient Use EfficiencyAWD+ for Rice CultivationIntercroppingCovercroppingManure Management

Inteventions for mitigation enteric fermentation, etc etc.

Crop Insurance

Pricing resources - Water and energy?

Technical Intervention

ProductionAn informed and knowledgable farmer is more adaptable and able to quickly respond to (and share) new farm related information and inputs. We need to start thinking of agriculture as a knowledge based economy and works to put systems in place that inform farmers and promote a more knowledge based participation. Technology penetration in the rural hinterlands can help accelerate this process.

Can a well designed crop insurance support mitigation and adaptation?

Crop Insurance is often used/offered to help farmers manage risk and also as a way to secure livelihoods ( esp in developing countries where small holder marginal farmers). Insurance is also used to incetivize production of a specific crop in order to serve the specific sector or the broader economic good (eg food security). A question worth exploring is whether crop insurance can be used to incentivize crops and farming practices that are aligned with climate smart agriculture? More research and discussion is needed here.

Should we mention this as a way to drive effciency? Note I did not say charging farmers for water/energy as often these are political imperatives. But pricing water and energy can help governments understand true costs of cultivation and accordingly think through how best to incentivize behaviour that promotes resource use effciency - for an example, if the farm is using water and electricy for free and the actual costs of these are..... (use example from Punjab)

Information and knowledge is readily available and pushed to farmers making it easier to implement interventions (including climate mitigation and adaptation interventions). Public investments are significant and private sector is a growing participant in helping deliver extension services to their customers. Low Cost sensors and IT are deployed broadly to help improve decision making and increase effciency.

Farm Sector actors (farmers and prviate sector) are well placed to absorb and implement the interventions & Government is capable of providing incentives to support uptake of interventions. The key is to make sure the farmers see both short term and loing term benefits from participation. Strong monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms support continuing assessment of scale and success of intervention.

Extension services to farmers are of poor quality. Farmers have access to limited information and knowledge and make the best decisions they can, to manage farm profitability and risk, within these constraints.

While technical interventions should be introduced, care needs to be taken to ensure the interventions are appropriate and lend themselves to easy uptake by farmers. The primary focus for driving mitigation and adaptation in these economies should be on improving farmer (or resource use) effciency and productivity (consequently farmer profits) and this would be best served by improving the farmer value chain, farmer information access, and promoting a knowledge based farm economy. Local government capacity needs to be built for land use planning and modelling to ensure future investments (international, government and private) flow in the right direction. (should wemention life cycle analysis/ circular economy and integrated farming as concepts to be considered here?)

Farmers nested within a growing economy and infrastructure, often have more information, but it still remains asymmetric. For example farmers may have better access to fertlizers, but not the information wrt their soil data, or how best to apply fertlizer to ensure better plant growth and less waste/runoff. Rapid inroads of information and technology opens up opportunities for innovation for government and private sector participation in delivering information services to farmers. The focus should be on identifying innovative and cost effective ways to turn farming into a modern knowledge based economy while it continues to draw from its cultural and historical roots.

While technical interventions should be introduced, care needs to be taken to ensure the interventions are appropriate and lend themselves to easy uptake by farmers. The primary focus for driving mitigation and adaptation in these economies should be on improving farmer effciency and productivity (consequently farmer profits) and this would be best served by improving the farmer value chain, farmer information access, and promoting a knowledge based farm economy. Local government capacity needs to be built for land use planning and modelling to ensure future investments (international, government and private) flow in the right direction. A special focus needs to be placed on private investment flows as they begin to play a larger role in the farm sector.


NOTE EXAMPLEEXAMPLE EXAMPLE

High Income Country/Crop) Low Income Country/Crop) Medium Income Country/Crop)


Clim

ate Change &

Food System

s: Assessing Im


RA

FT DO

CU

ME

NT 72

Farm

to M

arke

tPe

ople

and

diet

s

Minimum Support Price (MSP)

Grading/QM/QCStorage/ WH Receipts

WastageTransport

Market AccessMkt Info

Physical Access

Local/SeasonalImport dependence

Veg:Non VegWastage

@ Point of sale@ Point of consumption

Post Production

Consumption

Can MSP be used to incentivize mitigation/adaptation?

Farmers have access to markets, storage, and value added service providers and resellers. Transporation infrastructure is robust and there is little wastage at this stage. Major emissions occur in storage (refrigeration) and transporation (esp if shipped long distances)

Relatively high levels of wastage at the point of sale and consumption if addressed offer a high mitigation potential. Investments are required to help educate consumers on waste. Main investor is the public sector. As the program requires a behaviorial shift, the results ar elikely seen over the longer time frame.

Many countries offer minimum support price to farmers to ensure offtake of production and help farmers manage market risk. Base don how MSP program is structured, it can help effect farmer choice and spur production of a particular crop over another (eg in India MSP is offered for rice production [water and ghg intensive crop] covers the cost of cultivation, while the MSP for Millet is below the cost of cultivation. Both of which are grown in the same dryland region leading to farmers choosing rice over millet). We may want to consider if there is a way to design an MSP program that supports farmer interest (profits and climate adaptation) and long term climate mitigation?

Farmers have little access to markets, storage, and value added service providers and resellers. Most of the production is for subsistance and sale in local markets. Transporation infrastructure is poor and there is high wastage at this stage. Major investments are required across this sector and government has a significant role to play as both a direct investor and for incentivizing private sector and international investments.

Relatively low wastage of food at point of sale and consumption.

Farmers may have access to markets, storage, and value added service providers and resellers there is still a lot of room for investments and growth in this sector. Transporation infrastructure is improving and wastage, while high, is declining at this stage. Private sector with support from government has a major role to play to rapidly ramp up of investments to improve storage, value addition, and reduce wastage (mitigation)

Relatively low wastage of food at point of sale and consumption.


NOTE EXAMPLEEXAMPLE EXAMPLE

High Income Country/Crop) Low Income Country/Crop) Medium Income Country/Crop)



Appendix 3: Lead Author Bios

Richie Ahuja, Regional Director, Asia, Environmental Defense Fund

Richie Ahuja is an expert in business development strategies and spearheads Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) engagement in India. He was a founding member of the Fair Climate Network (FCN), a network of NGOs that have worked together to create innovative ways to scale up low carbon rural development options such as clean energy, clean cooking systems, and Climate Smart Agriculture practices. These have now been deployed and tested across tens of thousands of farms and farmer households across the country. Richie helped to facilitate the domestic offset program of IndiGo Airlines, India’s largest carrier, which allows passengers to offset their climate pollution from travel, and linked this effort with the FCN to generate carbon finance for capital expenditures required for deploying low-carbon technologies. He has co-authored publications on climate smart agriculture and is a leading voice on “climate smart” agricultural practices, both within India and at the global level, through initiatives such as the Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture, which EDF was integral in launching. In India, he has also helped to facilitate the formation of independent institutions such as Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN), India’s largest youth network on climate change, and Climate Parliament, an independent multi party body of elected leaders focused on addressing climate change in the country.

Richie received an MBA in International Business from Thunderbird School of Global Management.

Jimena Esquivel Sheik, Associated Researcher, Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE)

Jimena Esquivel Sheik has experience in research, experimental design, training, and design of educational materials on the importance of production systems in biodiversity conservation and restoration of degraded soils. She has worked with local, regional, and international studies on conversion of conventional systems to sustainable agricultural production systems organizations. Currently, she leads scientific publication proposals and research in tropical forests and agro-livestock landscapes. Jimena’s research interests include taxonomic and functional diversity of trees and shrubs and natural regeneration within and outside the forest; the effect of different land uses and management on the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes; carbon sequestration in trees and soil; decomposition of organic matter, nutrient cycling, and maintenance of soil fertility; the design and monitoring of silvopastoral systems for mitigation and adaptation to climate change; and the effect of the interaction between communities of fauna and flora on the provision of ecosystem services.

Jimena holds a M.S. in Biology and Terrestrial Ecology, specializing in Agroforestry and Tropical Silvopasture from CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, and Ph.D. from the University of Bangor, Unite Kingdom in analysis of functional diversity and the provision of ecosystem services in landscapes agro-livestock.


Nelson Rading’ Mango, Rural Development Sociologist, Independent Consultant

Nelson Mango is a Rural Development Sociologist specializing in agrarian transformation processes with an emphasis on small scale-farming, technology development and social change, endogenous development and rural livelihoods. His research work has focused on socio-technical dimensions of maize, zero-grazing dairy farming and soil fertility (re)production in Western Kenya; livestock, livelihoods and poverty in Sub-Sahara African countries; impact of livestock diseases and their control in people’s livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia; integrated agricultural research for development through multi-stakeholder innovation platforms with integrated soil fertility management and conservation agriculture as entry points in the Southern Africa region as well as running a USAID bean innovations platforms project in Mozambique. Nelson was the coordinator for Malawi and Zimbabwe for the IFAD sponsored project “Increasing smallholder farm productivity, income, and health through widespread adoption of Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) in the Great Lake Regions and Southern Africa. Most recently he has been involved in two research areas both covering East and Central Africa on Agriculture, Nutrition and Health, and Policy Institutions and Markets under the Humidtropics CRP programme.

Nelson received his M.S. and Ph.D. from Wageningen University and Research Centre.

Meredith T. Niles, Assistant Professor, Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Vermont

Meredith T. Niles is an assistant professor at the University of Vermont where she examines food systems sustainability and policy with a focus on food security and climate change and farmer behavior and policy perceptions. Meredith thrives on conducting applied research that can help bring together diverse stakeholders- whether on a farm or working with policymakers- to help solve pressing problems facing our world’s food system. Meredith is a passionate advocate for open access research to make research more publicly available to maximize the potential of science and its benefits for society, currently serving on the Board of Directors for the Public Library of Science (PLOS). She previously worked in Washington D.C. as the Cool Foods Campaign coordinator at The Center for Food Safety and as the Public Affairs Coordinator on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief at the U.S. State Department. She served as a member of the Climate Action Reserve’s nutrient management workgroup and as a UC Davis Agricultural Sustainability Institute board member. Meredith was the Director of Legislative Affairs for the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students and the External Chair for the UC Davis Graduate Student Association.

Meredith holds a B.A. in Political Science from The Catholic University of America where she graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and a Ph.D. in Ecology from University of California, Davis. She completed a post-doctoral fellowship at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in the Sustainability Science program.


References

Abadie, L.M., Galarraga, I., Milford, A.B., and Gustaysen, G.W. 2016. Using food taxes and subsidies to achieve emission reduction targets in Norway. Journal of Cleaner Production. 134(S1):280-297.

Abbade, E.B. 2015. Environmental impacts of food supply and obesogenic severity worldwide. British Food Journal. 117(12):2863-2879.

Abdalla, K., Chivenge, P., Ciais, P., and Chaplot, V. 2016. No-tillage lessens soil CO2 emissions the most under arid and sandy soil conditions : results from a meta-analysis. Biogeosciences. 13:3619-3633.

Adeli, A., Varco, J.J., Sistani, K.R., and Rowe, D.E. 2005. Effects of swine lagoon effluent relative to commercial fertilizer applications on warm season forage nutritive value. Journal of Agronomy. 97:408-417.

AGRA (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa). 2014. Africa agriculture status report: climate change and smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi, Kenya.

Aguilera, E., Lassaletta, L., Gattinger, A., and Gimeno, B. 2013. Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 168:25-36.

Aguirre-Villegas, H. A. and Larson, R. A. 2017. Evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy manure management practices using survey data and lifecycle tools. Journal of Cleaner Production. 143:169–179.

Ahmed, J. and Alam, T. 2013. Concept of sustainable packaging system and its development. In: B.K. Tiwari, T. Norton, and N.M. Holden (eds.). Sustainable Food Processing. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK.

Ahuja, V., Brinkley, C., Gerosa, S., Henderson, B., Honhold, N., Jutzi, S., Kramer, F., Makkar, H., McLeod, A., Miers, H., Muehlhoff, E., Okali, C., Opio, C., Rosenthal, I., Slingenbergh, J., Starkey, P., Steinfeld, H., and Tasciotti, L. 2011. In: A McLeod (ed.). World livestock 2011- livestock in food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.

Albuquerque, L.G., Mercadante, M.E.Z., and Eler, J.P. 2006. Recent studies on the genetic basis for selection of Bos indicus for beef production. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 13-18 August, 2006.

Aleksandrowicz, L., Green, R., Joy, E.J.M., Smith, P., and Haines, A. 2016. The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLOS ONE. 11(11):e0165797.

Aleksandrowicz, L., Haines, A., and Green, R. 2015. Sustainable diet studies show co-benefits for greenhouse gas emissions and public health. Advances in Nutrition. 6:282-283.

Amole, T.A. and Ayantunde, A.A. 2016. Climate-smart livestock interventions in West Africa: a review. CCAFS Working Paper no. 178. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at Website www.ccafs.cgiar.org

Amon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Amon, T., and Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. 2006. Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 112: 153-162.

Anderson, M.B. 2000. The impacts of natural disasters on the poor: a background note. Background paper prepared for the 2000/2001 World Development Report.

Archimède, H., M. Eugène, C. M. Magdeleine, M. Boval, C. Martin, D. P. Morgavi, P. Lecomte, and M. Doreau. 2011. Comparison of methane production between C3 and C4 grasses and legumes. Animal Feed Science Technology. 166:59–64.

Arnold, R.D. and Wade J.P. 2015. A definition of systems thinking: a systems approach. Procedia Computer Science. 44:669-678.

Artrip, K.G., Shrestha, D.S., Coats, E., and Keiser, D. 2013. GHG emissions reduction from an anaerobic digester in a dairy farm: theory and practice. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 29:729-737.

Aston, L.M., Smith, J.N., and Powles, J.W. 2012. Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ Open. 2(5):e001072.

Auestad, N. and Fulgoni, V.L. 2015. Sustainable diet studies show co-benefits for greenhouse gas emissions and public health reply. Advances in Nutrition. 6:283-284.

Auestad, N. and Fulgoni, V.L. 2015. What current literature tells us about sustainable diets: emerging research linking dietary patterns, environmental sustainability, and economics. Advances in Nutrition. 6:19-36.

Augustin, M. A., Riley, M., Stockmann, R., Bennett, L., Kahl, A., Lockett, T., Osmond, M., Sanguansri, P., Stonehouse, W., Zajac, I., and Cobiac, L. 2016. Role of food processing in food and nutrition security. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 56, 115-125.

Ayarza, M., Barrios, E., Rao, I.M., Amézquita, E., and Rondón, M. 2007. Advances in improving agricultural profitability and overcoming land degradation in savanna and hillside agroecosystems of tropical America. In: A. Bationo, B. Waswa, J. Kihara, and J. Kimetu (eds.). 41 Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Research in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities.

Bajzelj, B., Richards, K.S., Allwood, J.M., Smith, P., Dennis J.S., Curmi, E., and Gilligan, C.A. 2014. Importance of food-demand management for climate change. Nature Climate Change. 4(10):924-929.

Baral, K. R., Labouriau, R., Olesen, J. E., and Petersen, S. O. 2017. Nitrous oxide emissions and nitrogen use efficiency of manure and digestates applied to spring barley. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 239:188–198. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.01.012

Barroso, F.G., Alados, C.L., Boza, J. 1995. Food selection by domestic goats in Mediterranean arid shrub-lands. Journal of Arid Environments. 31:205–217.

Bayala, J., Kalinganire, A., Tchoundjeu, Z., Sinclair, F., and Garrity, D. 2011. Conservation agriculture with trees in the West African Sahel – a review. ICRAF, World Agroforestry Centre. Bamako, Mali.

Bellarby, J., Foereid, B., Hastings, A., and Smith, P. 2008. Cool farming: climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Beauchemin, K.A., Kreuzer, M., O’Mara, F., and McAllister, T.A. 2008. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 48:21-27.

Bennetzen, E.H., Smith, P., and Porter, J.R. 2016. Agricultural production and greenhouse gas emissions from world regions—the major trends over 40 years. Global Environmental Change. 37:43–55.

Benvenuti, L., De Santis, A., Santesarti, F., and Tocca, L. 2016. An optimal plan for food consumption with minimal environmental impact: the case of school lunch menus. Journal of Cleaner Production. 129:704-713.

Berners-Lee, M., Hoolohan, C., Cammack, H., and Hewitt, C.N. 2012. The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices. Energy Policy. 43:184-190.

Bhat, Z.F., Kumar, S., and Bhat, H.F. 2017. In vitro meat: a future animal-free harvest. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 57:782–789.

Blench R. 1999. Traditional livestock breeds: geographical distribution and dynamics in relation to the ecology of West Africa. Overseas Development Institute. London, UK. Available at Website https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2766.pdf

Boadi, D.,Benchaar, C.,Chiquette, J., and Masse, D. 2004 Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 84:319–335

Bernstad, A.K., Canovas, A., and Valle, R. 2016. Consideration of food wastage along the supply chain in lifecycle assessments: a mini-review based on the case of tomatoes. Waste Management and Research. 35(1):29-39.

Blanke, M. 2015. Challenges of reducing fresh produce waste in Europe – from farm to fork. Agriculture. 5:389-399.

Boadi, D.,Benchaar, C.,Chiquette, J., and Masse, D. 2004 Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: update review. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 84:319–335.

Boulamanti, A.K., Maglio, S.D., Giuntoli, J., and Agostini, A. 2013. Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass and Bioenergy. 53:149-161.

Bowen, A., Duffy, C., and Fankhauser, S. 2016. ‘Green growth’ and the new industrial revolution. The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science & Global Green Growth Institute. London, United Kingdom. Available at Wetsite http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Bowen-et-al-2016.pdf

Briggs, A.D.M., Kehlbacher, A., Tiffin, R., and Scarborough, P. 2016. Simulating the impact on health of internalizing the cost of carbon in food process combined with a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. BMC Public Health. 16:107.


Caspi, C.E., Sorensen, G., Subramanian, S.V. & Kawachi, I. 2012. The local food environment and diet: a systematic review. Health & Place, 18(5): 1172–1187

CCAFS (Climate Change Agriculture and Food Systems). n.d. Explore Food Emissions. Available at Website https://ccafs.cgiar.org/bigfacts/#theme=food-emissions

CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security, CCAFS (Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security, and University of Copenhagen. 2016. Agriculture is integrated into the Paris Agreement.

Chah, J.M. and Igbokwe, E.M. 2012. Contribution of livestock production to climate change and

mitigation options: a review. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 16(2).

Chantigny, M.H., Angers, D.A., Rochette, P., Belanger, G., Masse, D.I., and Cote, D. 2007. Gaseous nitrogen emissions and forage nitrogen uptake on soils fertilized with raw and treated swine manure. Journal of Environmental Quality. 36:1864-1872.

Charles, H., Godfray, J., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Nisbett, N., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Toulmin, C., and Whiteley, R. 2010. The future of the global food system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 365(1154):2769–2777.

Chen, X., Cui, Z., Fan, M., Vitousek, P., Zhao, M., Ma, W., Wang, Z., Zhang, W., Yan, X., Yang, J., Deng, X., Gao, Q., Zhang, Q., Guo, S., Ren, J., Li, S., Ye, Y., Wang, Z., Huang, J., Tang, Q., Sun, Y., Peng, X., Zhang, J., He, Z., Zhu, Y., Xue, J., Wang, G., Wu, L., An, N., Wu, L., Ma, L., Zhang, W., and Zhang, F. 2014. Producing more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature. 514(7523):486–489.

Choudhury, M.I. 2006. Recent developments in reducing postharvest losses in the Asia-Pacific region. In: R.S. Rolle (ed.). Reports of the Asian Productivity Organization seminar on Reduction of Postharvest Losses of Fruit and Vegetables. Rome, Italy. Available at Website http://www.apo-tokyo.org/00e-books/AG-18_PostHarvest/AG-18_PostHarvest.pdf

Choudhary, M., Bailey, L.D., and Grant, C.A. 1996. Review of the use of swine manure in crop production: effects on yield and composition and on soil and water quality. Waste Management and Research. 14:581-595.

Clark, H. 2013. Nutritional and host effects on methanogenesis in the grazing ruminant. Animal. 7(S1):41–48.

Clemens, J., Trimborn, M., Weiland, P., and Amon, B. 2006. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 112:171-177.

Clonan, A., Roberts, K.E., and Holdsworth, M. 2016. Socioeconomic and demographic drivers of red and processed meat consumption: implications for health and environmental sustainability. Proceedings of the Nutritional Society. 75(3):367-373.

Clune, S., Crossin, E., and Verghese, K. 2017. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140(SI):766-783.

Coley, D., Howard, M., and Winter, M. 2009. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: a comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy. 34(2):150-155.

Congreves, K.A. and Van Eerd, L.L. 2015. Nitrogen cycling and management in intensive horticultural systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems Journal. 102:229-318.

Corbeels, M., Scopel, E., Cardoso, A., Bernoux, M., Douzet, J.M., and Siqueira-Neto, M. 2006. Soil carbon storage potential of direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems in the Cerrados of Brazil. Global Change Biology. 12:1773-1787.

Corbeels, M., Sakyi, R.K., Kühne, R.F., and Whitbread, A. 2014. Meta-analysis of crop responses to conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Available at Website www.ccafs.cgiar.org

Cornell University. 2013. A primer on community food systems: linking food, nutrition and agriculture. Ithaca, USA. Available at Website http://www.farmlandinfo.org/primer-community-food-systems-linking-food-nutrition-and-agriculture

Costello, C., Birisci, E., and McGarvey, R.G. 2015. Food waste in campus dining operations: inventory of pre- and post-consumer mass by food category, and estimation of embodied greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 31(3):191-201.

Daily Table. 2015. About us: our story. Available at Website http://dailytable.org/about-us/our-story/

Davis, J., Sonesson, U., Baumgartner, D.U., and Nemecek, T. 2010. Environmental impact of four meals with different protein sources: case studies in Spain and Sweden. Food Research International. 43(7,S1): 1874-1884.

Davis, K.F. and D’Odorico, P. 2015. Livestock intensification and the influence of dietary change: a calorie-based assessment of competition for crop production. Science of the Total Environment. 538:817-823.

Davis, K.F., Gephart, J.A., Emery, K.A., Leach, A.M., Galloway, J.N., and D’Odorico, P. 2016. Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions. 39:125-132.

De Carvalho, A.M., Selem, S.S.D.C., Miranda, A.M., and Marchioni, D.M. 2016. Excessive red and processed meat intake:relations with health and environment in Brazil. British Journal of Nutrition. 115(11):2011-2016.

De Gryze, S., Lee, J., Ogle, S., Paustian, K., and Six, J. 2011. Assessing the potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in intensively managed annual cropping systems at the regional scale. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 144:150-158.

De Schutter, O., Yambi, O., Agarwal, B., Fischler, C., Gliessman, S., Herren, H., Anderson, M., Frison, E., Hawkes, C., Khor, M., Leach, M., McNeill, D., Rahmanian, M., Rockstrom, J., Ching, L.L., Mooney, P., Rocha, C., and Roy, P. 2015. The new science of sustainable food systems: overcoming barriers to food system reform. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. Available at Website http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/453669/

Dewhurst, R. J. 2012. Milk production from silage: comparison of grass, legume and maize silages and their mixtures. Agriculture and Food Science. 22:57-69.

Dharani, N., Yenesew, A., Ermais, B., Tuei, B., Jamnadass, R. 2014. Traditional ethnoveterinary medicine in East Africa: a manual on the use of medicinal plants. The World Agroforestry Centre. Nairobi, Kenya.

Di, H. J. and Cameron, K. C. 2016. Inhibition of nitrification to mitigate nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions in grazed grassland: a review. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 16(5):1401–1420.

Dickie, A., Streck, C., Roe, S., Zurek, M., Haupt, F., and Dolginow, A. 2014. Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture: recommendations for philanthropy. Climate Focus and California Environmental Associates with support from Climate and Land Use Alliance. Available at Website www.agriculturalmitigation.org

Donati, M., Menozzi, D., Zighetti, C., Rosi, A., Zinetti, A., and Scazzina, F. 2016. Towards a sustainable diet combining economic, environmental, and nutritional objectives. Appetite. 106:48-57.

Doran-Browne, N.A., Eckard, R.J., Behrendt, R., and Kingwell, R.S. 2015. Nutrient density as a metric for comparing greenhouse gas emissions from food production. Climate Change. 129(1):73-87.

Dorward, L.J. 2012. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? A comment. Food Policy. 37:463-466.

Drewnowski, A., Rehm, C.D., Martin, A., Verger, E.O., Voinnesson, M., and Imbert, P. 2014. Energy and nutrient density of foods in relation to their carbon footprint. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 101(10):184-191.

Eagle, A.J., Olander, L.P., Henry, L.R., Haugen-Kozyra, K., Millar, N., and Robertson, G.P. 2012. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of agricultural land management in the United States: a synthesis of literature. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Duke University. Durham, USA.

Edjabou, L.D. and Smed, S. 2013. The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly diets – the case of Denmark. Food Policy. 39:84-96.

EIA (Environmental Investigation Agency). 2016. Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol: a crucial step in the fight against catastrophic climate change.EIA Briefing to the 22nd Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at Website https://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-Kigali-Amendment-to-the-Montreal-Protocol-FINAL.pdf

Elbasha, E., Thornton, P.K., and Tarawali, G. 1999. An ex post economic impact assessment of planted forages in West Africa. ILRI. Nairobi, Kenya.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). n.d. Ozone layer protection: adapting to a changed ozone layer. Available at Website https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/adapting-changed-ozone-layer


Ericksen. P.J. 2007. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environment Change. 18(1):234-245.

Eriksson, M., Strid, I., and Hansson, P.A. 2016. Food waste reduction in supermarkets – net cost and benefits of reducing storage temperature. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling. 107:73-81.

Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Makov, T., and Milo, R. 2014. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111(33):11996-12001.

Eshel, G., Shepon, A., Noor, E., and Milo, R. 2016. Environmentally optimal, nutritionally aware beef replacement plant-based diets. Environmental Science & Technology. 50(15):8164-8168.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2009. How to feed the world in 2050. Issue Brief for High Level Expert Forum. Rome, Italy. Available at Website http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-background-documents/hlef-issues-briefs/en/

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2015. Climate change and food systems: global assessments and implications for food security and trade. In: A. Elbehri (ed.). Rome, Italy.

FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2015. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Rome, FAO.

Fischer, C.G. and Garnett, T. 2016. Plates, pyramids, planet: developments in national healthy and sustainable dietary guidelines: a state of play assessment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Food Climate Research Network. University of Oxford.

Floros, J.D., Newsome, R., Fisher, W., Barbosa‐Cánovas, G.V., Chen, H., Dunne, C.P., German, J.B., Hall, R.L., Heldman, D.R., Karwe, M.V., Knabel, S.J., Labuza, T.P., Lund, D.B., Newell-McGloughlin, M., Robinson, J.L., Sebranek, J.G., Shewfelt, R.L., Tracy, W.F., Weaver, C.M. & Ziegler, G.R. 2010. Feeding the world today and tomorrow: the importance of food science and technology. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 9(5): 572–599.

Fratkin, E. 2012. Seeking alternative livelihoods in pastoral areas. In: A. Catley, J. Lind, and I. Scoones (eds.). Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins. London, UK.

Galli, A., Iha, K., Halle, M., El Bilali, H., Grunewald, N., Eaton, D., Capone, R., Debs, P., and Bottalico, F. 2017. Mediterranean countries’ food consumption and sourcing patterns: an ecological footprint viewpoint. Science of the Total Environment. 578:383-391.

Garibaldi, L.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., D’Annolfo, A., Graeub, B., Cunningham, S.A., and Breeze, T.D. 2017. Farming approaches for greater biodiversity, livelihoods and food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32(1):68-80.

Garnett, T. 2007. Food refrigeration: what is the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and how might emissions be reduced. Food Climate Research Network, University of Surrey.

Garnett, T. 2011. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy. 36:S23-S32.

Garnett, T. 2016. Plating up solutions; Can eating patterns be both healthier and more sustainable? Science. 353(6305):1202-1204.

Garrett, R., Niles, M.T., Gil, J., Dy, P., Ferreira, J., Reis, J., and Valentim, J. 2017. Re-integrating crop and livestock systems: a comparative policy analysis. Sustainability. 9:473.

Gephart, J.A., Davis, K.F., Emery, K.A., Leach, A.M., Galloway, J.N., and Pace, M.L. 2016. The environmental cost of subsistence: optimizing diets to minimize footprints. Science of the Total Environment. 553:120-127.

Ghafoori, E., Flynn, P.C., and Checkel, M.D. 2006. Global warming impact of electricity generation from beef cattle manure: a life cycle assessment study. International Journal of Green Energy.3:257-270.

Gill, M., Feliciano, D., Macdiarmid, J., and Smith, P. 2015. The environmental impact of nutrition transition in three case study countries. Food Security. 7(3):493-504.

Gilsanz, C., Baez, D., Misselbrook, T.H., Dhanoa, M.S., and Cardenas, L.M. 2016. Development of emission factors and efficiency of two nitrification inhibitors, DCD and DMPP. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment. 216:1-8.

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. 2015. Climate-Smart Food Systems for Enhanced Nutrition. London, UK.

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. 2016. Food systems and diets: Facing the challenges of the 21st century. London, UK.

Goldstein, B., Hansen, S.F., Gjerris, M., Laurent, A., and Birkved, M. 2016. Ethical aspects of life cycle assessments of diet. Food Policy. 59:139-151.

Gonzalez, A.D., Frostell, B., and Carlsson-Kanyama, A. 2011. Protein efficiency per unit greenhouse gas emissions: potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation. Food Policy. 36(5):562-570.

Grabs, J. 2015. The rebound effects of switching to vegetarianism: a microeconomic analysis of Swedish consumption behavior. Ecological Economics. 116:270-279.

Grainger, C., Clarke, T., Beauchemin, K.A., McGinn, S.M., and Eckard, R.J. 2008. Supplementation with whole cottonseed reduces methane emissions and increases milk production of dairy cows offered a forage and cereal grain diet. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 48:73-76.

Green, R., Milner, J., Dangour, A.D., Haines, A., Chalabi, Z., Markandya, A., Spadaro, J., and Wilkinson, P. 2015. The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK through healthy and realistic dietary change. Climate Change. 129(1):253-265.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., and Meybeck, A. 2011. Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes, and prevention. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. Available at Website http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/Publications/2015_Climate_LD_Outcomes_CST_Conf_ENG.pdf

Hadjikakou, M. 2017. Trimming the excess:environmental impacts of discretionary food consumption in Australia. Ecological Economics. 131:119-128.

Hallstrom, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., and Borjesson, P. 2015. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 91:1-11.

Hanson, C. and Mitchell, P. 2017. The business case for reducing food loss and waste. Champions 12.3. Washington D.C., United States. Available at Website https://champs123blog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/report_-business-case-for-reducing-food-loss-and-waste.pdf

Hanssen, O.J., Vold, M., Schakenda, V., Tufte, P.A., Møller, H., Olsen, N.V., and Skaret, J. 2017. Environmental profile, packaging intensity and food waste generation for three types of dinner meals. Journal of Cleaner Production. 142:395–402.

Haramoto, E. R., and Gallandt, E.R. 2004. Brassica cover cropping for weed management: a review. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 19:187–198.

Heard, B. R. and Miller, S.A. 2016. Critical research needed to examine the environmental impacts of expanded refrigeration on the food system. Environmental Science & Technology. 50(22):12060-12071.

Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S., and Johansson, D.J.A. 2014. The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climate Change. 124(1-2):79-91.

Heller, M. and Keolian, G.A. 2013. Assessing the sustainability of the US food system: a life cycle perspective. Agricultural Systems. 76(3):1007–1041.

Heller, M.C. and Keoleian, G.A. 2014. Greenhouse gas emission estimates of U.S. dietary choices and food loss. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 19(3):391-401.

Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., and Willett, W.C. 2013. Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment: a critical review. Environmental Science & Technology. 47(22):12632-12647.

Hendrie, G.A., Baird, D., Ridoutt, B., Hadjikakou, M., and Noakes, M. 2016. Overconsumption of energy and excessive discretionary food intake inflates dietary greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Nutrients. 8(11):690.

Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlik, P., Thornton P.K., Conant, R.T., Smith, P., Wirsenius S., Hristov, A.N., Gerber, P., Gill, M., Butterback-Bahl, K., Valin, H., Garnett, T., and Stehfest, E. 2016. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change. 6(5):452-461.

HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition). 2012. Food security and climate change. Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy. Available at Website http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-3-Food_security_and_climate_change-June_2012.pdf

HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition). 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy. Available at Website http://www.un.org/en/zerohunger/pdfs/HLPE_FLW_Report-8_EN.pdf


HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts on Food Secruity and Nutrition). 2016. Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock?. Rome, Italy.

Hocquette, J.F. 2016. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future?. Meat Science. 120(S1):167-176.

Hoolohan, C., Berners-Lee, M., McKinstry-West, J., and Hewitt, C.N. 2013. Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions embodied in food through realistic consumer choices. Energy Policy. 63:1065-1074.

Horgan, G.W., Perrin, A., WHybrow, S., and Macdiarmid, J.I. 2016. Achieving dietary recommendations and reducing greenhouse gas emissions: modelling diets to minimize the change from current intakes. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 13(46).

Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., Firkins, J.L., Dijkstra, J., Kebreab,E., Waghorn, G., Makkar, H.P.S., Adesogan, A.T., Yang, W., Lee, C., Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B., and Tricarico, J.M. 2013. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: a review of enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science. 91:5045-5069.

Hristov, A. N., Ott, T., Tricarico, J., Rotz, A., Waghorn, G., Adesogan, A., Dijkstra, J., Montes, F., Oh, E., Kebreab, E., Oosting, S.J., Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B., Makkar, H.P.S., and Firkins, J. L. 2013. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: a review of animal management mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science. 91:5095–5113.

Ingram, J. 2011. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Security.3(4):417–431.

Ingram, J. 2016. Sustainable food systems for a healthy world. Sight and Life. 30(1)28-33.

IETA (International Emissions Trading Association). 2016. Bridging the ambition gap: the rise, reach and power of carbon markets. International Emissions Trading Association. Geneva, Switzerland.

IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). 2015. A framework for assessing effects of the food system. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC.

International Institute of Refrigeration. 2009. The role of refrigeration in worldwide nutrition – 5th informatory note on refrigeration and food. Paris, France. Available at Website http://www.iifiir.org/userfiles/file/publications/notes/NoteFood_05_EN.pdf.

James, S. and James, C. 2010. The food cold-chain and climate change. Food Research International. 43(7):1944-1956.

James, S.J. and C. James. 2013. Sustainable Cold Chain. B. K. Tiwari, T. Norton and N. M. Holden (Eds.). Sustainable Food Processing. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK.

Johnson, D.E., Ward, G.M., and Ramsey, J.J. 1996. Use of endophyte-infected fescue pasture and avoidance of herbicide pollution. In: Kornegay, E.T. (ed.). Nutrient Management of Food Animals to Enhance and Protect the Environment. Lewis Publishers CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL. p.219–233.

Johnson, J.L., Fanzo, J.C., and Cogill, B. 2014. Understanding sustainable diets: a descriptive analysis of the determinants and processes that influence diets and their impact on health, food security, and environmental sustainability. Advances in Nutrition. 5(4):418-429.

Jones, H. 2009. Equity in development; Why it is important and how to achieve it. Working Paper 311. Overseas Development Institute.

Jones, A.D., Hoey, L., Blesh, J., Miller, L., Green A., and Shapiro, L.F. 2016. A systematic review of the measurement of sustainable diets. Advances in Nutrition. 7(4):641-664.

Kader, A.A. 2005. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce. Acta Horticulturae. 3(682):2169-2176.

Kearney, J. 2010. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554): 2793–2807.

Kehlbacher, A., Tiffin, R., Briggs, A., Berners-Lee, M., and Scarborough, P. 2016. The distributional and nutritional impacts and mitigation potential of emission-based food taxed in the UK. Climate Change. 137(1-2):121-141.

Kreidenweis, U., Lautenbach, S., and Koellner, T. 2016. Regional or global? The question of low-emission food sourcing addressed with spatial optimization modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software. 82:128-141.

Laestadius, L.I. and Caldwell, M.A. 2015. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutrition. 18:2457–2467.

Lal, R. 2006. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degradation and Development. 17:197-209.

Lal, R. 2013. Food security in a changing climate. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology. 13(1):8-21.

Li, H.M., Wu, T., Wang, X., and Qi, Y. 2016. The greenhouse gas footprint of China’s food system: an analysis of recent trends and future scenarios. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 20(4):803-817.

Li, Y., Sun, Y., Liao, S., Zou, G., Zhao, T., Chen, Y., Yang, J., and Zhang, L. 2017. Effects of two slow-release nitrogen fertilizers and irrigation on yield, quality, and water-fertilizer productivity of greenhouse tomato. Agricultural Water Management. 186:139–146.

Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Lomax, J., Kitinoja, L., Waite, R., and Searchinger, T. 2013. Reducing food loss and waste (working paper). World Resources Institute and United Nations Environment Programme. Washington D.C. Available at Website http://www.wri.org/publication/reducing-food-loss-and-waste

Liu, Z., Yang, J., Yang, Z., and Zou, J. 2012. Effects of rainfall and fertilizer types on nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in surface runoff from subtropical tea fields in Zhejiang, China. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 93:297–307.

Lopez, L.A., Cadarso, M.A., Gomez, N., and Tobarra, M.A. 2015. Food miles, carbon footprint, and global value chains for Spanish agriculture: assessing the impact of a carbon border tax. Journal of Cleaner Production. 103:423-436.

LRG (Livestock Research Group) of (GRA) the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and SAI (Sustainable Agriculture Initiative). 2014. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock: best practice and emerging options. Available at Website http://globalresearchalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/LRG-SAI-Livestock-Mitigation_web2.pdf

Lu, Y. C., Watkins, K.B., Teasdale, J.R., and Abdul-Baki A.A. 2000. Cover crops in sustainable food production. Food Reviews International. 16:121–157.

Luedeling, E., Girvetz, E.H., Semenov, M.A., and Brown, P.H. 2011. Climate change affects winter chill for temperate fruit and nut trees. PLOS One. 6:e20155.

Lund, T.B., Watson, D., Smed, S., Holm, L., Eisler, T., and Nielsen, A. 2017. The diet-related GHG index: construction and validation of a brief questionnaire-based index. Climate Change. 140(3-4):503-517.

Ma, L., Wang, F.H., Zhang, W.F., Ma, W.Q., Velthof, G., Qin, W., Oenema, O., and Zhang, F.S. 2013. Environmental assessment of management options for nutrient flows in the food chain in China. Environmental Science & Technology. 47(13):7260-7268.

Macdiarmid, J.I. 2013. Is a healthy diet an environmentally sustainable diet? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 72(1):13-20.

Macdiarmid, J.I., Kyle, J., Horgan, G.W., Loe, J., Fyfe, C., Johnstone, A., and McNeill, G. 2012. Sustainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet?. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 96(3):632-639.

Machmuller, A., Ossowski, D.A., and Kreuzer, M. 2000. Comparative evaluation of the effects of coconut oil, oilseeds and crystalline fat on methane release, digestion and energy balance in lambs. Animal Feed Science & Technology. 85:41-60.

Malonine, C. 2006. Les liens famille-troupeau du ferlo (Sénégal): témoins de la dynamique des systèmes d’elevage pastoraux. Médecine-Pharmacie, Université Claude Bernard de Lyon.

Mandal, S. 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions of food groups and diet: healthy choices at odds with the environment: a systematic review. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 111:S1276-S1277.

Mangalassery, S., Sjögersten, S., Sparkes, D., and Mooney, S. 2015. Examining the potential for climate change mitigation from zero tillage. The Journal of Agricultural Science,153(7):1151-1173.

Maranon, E., Salter, A.M., Castrillon, L., Heaven, S., and Fernandez-Nava, Y. 2011. Reducing the environmental impact of methane emissions from dairy farms by anaerobic digestion of cattle waste. Waste Management. 31:1745-1751.

Marlow, H.J., Harwatt, H., Soret, S., and Sabate, J. 2015. Comparing the water, energy, pesticide, and fertilizer usage for the production of foods consumed by different dietary types in California. Public Health Nutrition. 18(13):2425-2432.

Markandya, A., Galarranga, I., Abadie, L.M., Lucas, J., and Spadaro, J. V. 2016. What role can taxes and subsidies play in changing diets?. Finanzarchiv. 72(2):175-210.

Martin, M. and Danielsson, L. 2016. Environmental implications of dynamic policies on food consumption and waste handling in the European union. Sustainability. 8(3):282.


Masset, G., Vieux, F., Verger, E.O., Soler, L.G., Touazi, D., and Darmon, N. 2014. Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet : a study based on self-selected diets in French adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 99(6):1460-1469.

McCaughey, W. P., Wittenberg, K., and Corrigan, D. 1999. Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 79:221–226.

McRae, R., Cuddeford, V., Young, S.B., and Matsubuchi-Shaw, M. 2013. The food system and climate change: an exploration of emerging strategies to reduce GHG emissions in Canada. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 37(8):933-963.

Meadu, V., Coche, I., Vermeulen, S., and Engelund Friis, A. 2015. Info notes: the Paris Climate Agreement: what it means for food and farming. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Research Program for Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security, and Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security.

Mhurchu, C.N., Eyles, H., Genc, M., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M., Mizdrak, A., Nnoaham, K., and Blakely, T. 2015. Effects of health-related food taxes and subsidies on mortality from diet-related disease in New Zealand: an econometric-epidemiologic modelling study. PLOS ONE. 10(7):e0128477.

Milà i Canals, L., Cowell, S.J., Sim, S., and Basson, L. 2007. Comparing domestic versus imported apples: a focus on energy use. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International. 14(5):338-344.

Milner, J., Green, R., Dangour, A.D., Haines, A., Chalabi, Z., Spadaro, J., Markandya, A., and Wilkinson, P. 2015. Health effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in the UK. BMJ Open. 5(4):e007364.

Misselbrook, T.H., Brookman, S.K.E., Smith, K.A., Cumby, T., Williams, A.G., and McCrory, D.F. 2005. Crusting of stored dairy slurry to abate ammonia emissions: pilot-scale studies. Journal of Environmental Quality. 34:411-419.

Monsivais, P., Scarborough, P., Lloyd, T., Mizdrak, A., Luben, R., Mulligan, A.A., Wareham, N.J., and Woodcock, J. 2015. Greater accordance with the dietary approaches to stop hypertension dietary pattern is associated with lower diet-related greenhouse gas production but higher dietary costs in the United Kingdom. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 105(4).

Montes, F., Meinen, R., Dell, C., Rotz, A., Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., Waghorn, G., Gerber, P.J., Henderson, B., Makkar, H.P., and Dijkstra, J. 2013. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: a review of manure management mitigation options. Journal of Animal Science. 91:5070–5094.

Morton, J.F. 2007. The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(50):19680–19685.

Moss, A.R., Jouany, J.P., and Newbold, J. 2000. Methane production by ruminants: its contribution to global warming. Animal Research. 49(3):231-253.

Myers, S.S., Zanobetti, A., Kloog, I., Huybers, P., Leakey, A.D., Bloom, A.J., Carlisle, E., Dietterich, L.H., Fitzgerald, G., Hasegawa, T., Holbrook, N.M., Nelson, R.L., Ottman, M.J., Raboy, V., Sakai, H., Sartor, K.A., Schartz, J., Seneweera, S., Tausz, M., and Usui, Y. 2014. Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition. Nature. 510(7503):139-142.

Nelson, M.E., Hamm, M.W., Hu, F.B., Abrams, S.A., and Griffin, T.S. 2016. Alignment of healthy dietary patterns and environmental sustainability: a systematic review. Advances in Nutrition. 7(6):1005-1025.

Nemecek, T., Jungbluth, N., Canals, L.M.I., and Schenck, R. 2016. Environmental impacts of food consumption and nutrition: where we are and what is next?. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 21(5):607-620.

Neufeldt, H., Adhya, T. K., Coulibaly, J. Y., Kissinger, G., and Pan, G. 2013. The emissions gap report 2013. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at Website http://web.unep.org/sites/default/files/EGR2013/EmissionsGapReport_2013_high-res.pdf

Nichols, P.G.H., Loi, A., Nutt, B.J., Evans, P.M., Craig, A.D., Pengelly, B.C., Dear, B.S., Lloyd, D.L., Revel, C.K., Nair, R.M., Ewing, M.A., Howieson, J.G., Auricht, G.A., Howie, J.H., Sandral, G.A., Carr, S.J., de Koning, C.T., Hackney, B.F., Crocke, G.J., Snowball, R., Hughes, S.J., Hall, E.J., Foster, K.J., Sminner, P.W., Barbetti, M.J., and You, M.P. 2007. New annual and short-lived perennial pasture legumes for Australian agriculture – 15 years of revolution. Field Crops Research. 104:10–23.

Niles, M.T., Garrett, R., and Walsh, D. n.d. Ecological and economic benefits and challenges for integrating sheep into viticulture production. In Review at Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

Novak, S.M. and Fiorelli, J.L. 2010. Greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions from organic mixed crop-dairy systems: a critical review of mitigation options. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 30:215-236.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2013. Climate and carbon: aligning prices and policies. OECD Environment Policy Paper no. 1. Paris, France.

Pairotti, M.B., Cerutti, A.K., Martini, F., Vesce, E., Padovan, D., and Beltramo, R. 2015. Energy consumption and GHG emission of the Mediterranean diet: a systemic assessment using a hybrid LCA-IO method. Journal of Cleaner Production. 103:507-516.

Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., and Macnoughton, S. 2010. Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 365:3065-3081.

Pathak, H., Jain, N., Bhatia, A., Patel, J., and Aggarwal, P.K. 2010. Carbon footprints of Indian food items. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 139(1-2):66-73.

Paustian, K., Lehmann J., Ogle, S., Reay, D., Robertson, G. P., and Smith, P. 2016. Climate-smart soils. Nature. 532(7957):49-57.

Payne, C.L.R., Scarborough, P., and Cobiac, L. 2016. Do low-carbon-emissions diets lead to higher nutritional quality and positive health outcomes? A systematic review of the literature. Public Health Nutrition. 19(14):2654-2661.

Pereira, R. N. and Vicente, A. A. 2010. Environmental impact of novel thermal and non-thermal technologies in food processing. Food Research International. 43(7):1936-1943.

Perignon, M., Masset, G., Ferrari, G., Barre, T., Vieux, F., Maillot, M., Amiot, M.J., and Darmon, N. 2016. How low can dietary greenhouse gas emissions be reduced without impairing nutritional adequacy, affordability, and acceptability of the diet? A modelling study to guide sustainable food choices. Public Health Nutrition. 19(14):2662-2674.

Pernollet, F., Coelho, C.R.V., and van der Werf, H.M.G. 2017. Methods to simplify diet and food life cycle inventories: accuracy versus data-collection resources. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140(SI):410-420.

Perry, E.D., Ciliberto, F., Hennessy, D.A., and Moschini, G. 2016. Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans. Science Advances. 2(8):e1600850.

Petersen, S.O. 1999. Nitrous oxide emissions from manure and inorganic fertilizer applied to spring barley. Journal of Environmental Quality. 28:1610-1618.

Pieniak, Z., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Kostyra, E., and Raats, M. 2016. Sustainable healthy eating behaviour of young adults: towards a novel methodological approach. BMC Public Health. 16:577.

Pinares-Patiño, C.S., Hickey, S.M., Young, E.A., Dodds, K.G., MacLean, S., Molano, G., Sandoval, E., Kjestrup, H., Harland, R., Hunt, C., Pickering, N.K., and McEwan, J.C. 2013 Heritability estimates of methane emissions from sheep. Animal. 7(S2):316–321.

Pittelkow, C.M., Linquist, B.A., Lundy, M.E., Liang, X., Jan van Groenigen, K., Lee, J., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R.T., and van Kessel, C. 2015. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Research. 183:156-168.

Pohjolainen, P., Tapio, P., Vinnari, M., Jokinen, P., and Rasanen, P. 2016. Consumer consciousness on meat and the environment – exploring differences. Appetite. 101:37-45.

Popp, D. 2010. Innovation and Climate Policy. In G.C. Rausser, V.K. Smith and D. Zilberman (eds.). Annual Review of Resource Economics. 2:275-298.

Popp, A., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., and Rounsevell, M.D.A. 2016. Human appropriation of land for food: the role of diet. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions. 41:88-98.

Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H., and Bodirsky, B. 2010. Food consumption, diet shifts, and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions. 20(3,S1):451-462.

Porter, J.R., Xie, L., Challinor, A.J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S.M., Iqbal, M.M., Lobell, D.B., and Travasso, M.I. 2014. Food security and food production systems. In: C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E., Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 485-533. Available at Website http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

Powlson, D.S., Stirling, C.M., Jat, M.L., Gerard, B.G., Palm, C.A., Sanchez, P.A., and Cassman, K.G. 2014. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change. 4:678–683.


Pulkkinen, H., Roininen, T., Katajajuuri, J.M., and Jarvinen, M. 2016. Development of a climate choice meal concept for restaurants based on carbon footprinting. International Journal of Life Cycle. 21(5):621-630.

Ratnasiri, S. and Bandara, J. 2017. Changing patterns of meat consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of Australia: will kangaroo meat make a difference?. PLOS ONE. 12(2):e0170130

Reynolds, C.J., Macdiarmid, J.I., Whybrow, S., Horgan, G., and Kyle, J. 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with sustainable diets in relation to climate change and health. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 74(OCE5):e351.

Ribal, J., Fenollosa, M.L., Garcia-Segovia, P., Clemente, G., Escobar, N., and Sanjuan, N. 2016. Designing healthy, climate friendly, and affordable school lunches. International Journal of Life Cycle. 21(5):631-645.

Rockström, J., Barron, J., and Fox, P. 2002. Rainwater management for increased productivity among smallholder farmers in drought prone environments. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. 27:949- 959.

Roos, E., Karlsson, H., Witthoft, C., and Sundberg, C. 2015. Evaluating the sustainability of diets – combining environmental and nutritional aspects. Environmental Science and Policy. 47:157-166.

Rosenthal, S. and Kurukulasuriya, P. 2003. Climate change and agriculture: a review of impacts and adaptations. Agriculture and Rural Development Department, Environment Department, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, World Bank. Washington D.C., USA. Available at Website http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/06/17911216/climate-change-agriculture-review-impacts-adaptations

Rosenzweig, C., Iglesius, A., Yang, X.B., Epstein, P.R., and Chivian, E. 2001. Climate change and extreme weather events; implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Global Change and Human Health. 2(2):90-104.

Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Nakamura, N., and Shiina, T. 2013. Environmental sustainability in food processing. In: B. K. Tiwari, T. Norton, and N. M. Holden (eds.). Sustainable Food Processing. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK.

Roy, P., Orikasa, T., Thammawong, M., Nakamura, N., Xu, Q.Y., and Shiina, T. 2012. Life cycle of meats: an opportunity to abate the greenhouse gas emission from meat industry in Japan. Journal of Environmental Management. 93(1):218-224.

Royce, E. 2015. Power and Poverty, the Problem of Structural Inequality. Rowman & Littlefield, London, UK

Rubaek, G.H., Henriksen, K., Petersen, J., Rasmussen, B., and Sommer, S.G. 1996. Effects of application technique and anaerobic digestion on gaseous nitrogen loss from animal slurry applied to ryegrass. Journal of Agricultural Science. 126:481-492.

Sabate, J., Sranacharoenpong, K., Harwatt, H., Wien, M., and Soret, S. 2015. The environmental cost of protein food choices. Public Health Nutrition. 18(11):2067-2073.

Sanfo, A., Sawadogo, I., Kulo, E.A., and Zampaligre, N. 2015. Perceptions and adaptation measures of crop farmers and agropastoralists in the Eastern and Plateau Central Regions of Burkina Faso, West Africa. FIRE Journal of Science and Technology. 3:286-298.

Satiate, J., Harwatt, H., and Soret, S. 2015. Health outcomes and greenhouse gas emissions from varied dietary patterns – is there a relationship?. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 67(S1):547-548.

Saxe, H., Larsen, T.M., and Mogensen, L. 2013. The global warming potential of two healthy Nordic diets compared with the average Danish diet. Climate Change. 116(2):249-262.

Scarborough, P., Allender, S., Clarke, D., Wickramasighe, K., Rayner, M. 2012. Modelling the health impact of environmentally sustainable dietary scenarios in the UK. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 66(6):710-715.

Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., and Key, T.J. 2014. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians, vegan in the UK. Climate Change. 125(2):179-192.

Schader, C., Muller, A., Scialabba, N.E., Hecht, J., Isensee, A., Erb, K.H., and Smith, P. 2015. Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 12(113):20150891.

Schlecht, E. and Buerkert, A. 2004. Organic inputs and farmers’ management strategies in millet fields of western Niger. Geoderma. 121:271–289.

Schott, A.B.S., Wenzel, H., and la Cour Jansen, J. 2016. Identification of decisive factors for greenhouse gas emissions in comparative life cycle assessments of food waste management – an analytical review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 119:13-24.

Scopel, E., da Silva, F.A.M., Corbeels, M., Affholder, F., and Maraux, F. 2004. Modelling crop residue mulching effects on water use and production of maize under semi-arid and humid tropical conditions. Agronomie. 24:1-13.

Selke, S.E.M. 2012. Green packaging. In: J. I. Boye and Y. Arcand (eds.). Green Technologies in Food Production and Processing. Springer Science+Business Media.

Seufert, V. and Ramankutty, N. 2017. Many shades of gray – the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Science Advances. 3(3):e1602638.

Sheffield, H. 2016. Denmark plans two more food waste supermarkets selling surplus produce. Independent. Available at Website http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-plans-two-more-food-waste-supermarkets-selling-surplus-produce-a7317041.html

Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E., and Milo, R. 2016. Energy and protein feed-to-food conversion efficiencies in the US and potential food security gains from dietary changes. Environmental Research Letters. 11(10):105002.

Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A., and Heinz, V. 2015. Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 20:1254–1267.

Smith P., Bustamante, M., Ahmmad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H., Harper, R., House, J., Jafari, M., Masera, O., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H., Rice, C.W., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F., and Tubiello, F. 2014. Agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU). In: O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, and J.C. Minx (eds.). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY USA. 811-922. Available at Website http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

Sommer, R. and Bossio, D. 2014. Dynamics and climate change mitigation potential of soil organic carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Management. 144:83–87.

Sommer, S.G., Olesen, J.E., Petersen, S.O., Weisbjergz, M.R., Valli, L., Rodhe, L., and Beline, F. 2009. Region-specific assessment of greenhouse gas mitigation with different manure management strategies in four agroecological zones. Global Change Biology. 15:2825-2837.

Sommer, S.G., Petersen, S.O., and Sogaard, H.T. 2000. Greenhouse gas emission from stored livestock slurry. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29:744-751.

Sommer, S.G., Christensen, B.T., Nielsen, N.E., and Schjorring, J.K. 1993. Ammonia volatilization during storage of cattle and pig slurry: effect of surface cover. Journal of Agricultural Science. 121:63-71.

Song, G.B., Li, M.J., Fullana-i-Palmer, P., Williamson, D., and Wang, Y.X. 2016. Dietary changes to mitigate climate change and benefit public health in China. Science of the Total Environment. 577:289-298.

Soret, S., Mejia, A., Batech, M., Jaceldo-Siegl, K., Harwatt, H., and Sabate, J. 2014. Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary patterns in real-life settings throughout North America. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 100(1):490S-495S.

Springmann, M., Godfray, H.C.J., Rayner, M., and Scarborough, P. 2016. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change co-benefits of dietary change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113(15):4146-4151.

Springmann, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Robinson, S., Wiebe, K., Godfray, H.C.J., Rayner, M., and Scarborough, P. 2017. Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nature Climate Change. 7(1):69-74.

Strohmaier, R., Rioux, J., Seggel, A., Meybeck, A., Bernoux, M., Salvatore, M., Miranda, J., and Agostini, A. 2016. The agriculture sectors in the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions: analysis. Environment and Natural Resources Management Working Paper No. 62. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy. Available at Website http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/7b020094-a986-4c93-8fa7-7e222b2cd649/

Stuart, T. 2009. Waste – Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. Penguin Books, London, UK.

Stylianou, K.S., Heller, M.C., Fulgoni, V.L., Ernstoff, A.S., Keoleian, G.A., and Jolliet, O. 2016. A life cycle assessment framework combining nutritional and environmental health impacts of diet: a case study on milk. International Journal of Life Cycle. 21(5):734-746.

St-Pierre, N.R., Cobanov, B., and Schnitkey, G. 2004 Economic losses from heat stress by US livestock industries. Journal of Dairy Science. 86:E52–E77.


Swarts, N., Montagu, K., Oliver, G., Southam-Rogers, L., Hardie, M., Corkry, R., Rogers, G., and Close, D. 2016. Benchmarking nitrous oxide emissions in deciduous tree cropping systems. Soil Research. 54:500-511.

Swinburn, B., Dominick, C. & Vandevijvere, S. 2014. Benchmarking food environments: experts’ assessments of policy gaps and priorities for the New Zealand Government. Auckland, University of Auckland.

Tassou, S., De-Lille, G., and Ge, Y. 2009. Food transport refrigeration–approaches to reduce energy consumption and environmental impacts of road transport. Applied Thermal Engineering. 29(8):1467-1477.

TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). 2015. In: D. Miller, T. Declercq, S. Hussain, K. Sharma, P. Sukhdev, and H. Wittmer (eds.). TEEB for Agriculture & Food interim report. United Nations Environment Programme. Geneva, Switzerland. Available at Website http://www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/interim-report/

Temme, E.H.M., Bakker, H.M.E., Seves, S.M., Verkaik-Kloosterman, J., Dekkers, A.L., van Raajj, J.M.A., and Ocke, M.C. 2015. How may a shift towards a more sustainable food consumption pattern affect nutrient intakes of Dutch children?. Public Health Nutrition. 18(13):2468-2478.

Temme, E.H.M., Toxopeus, I.B., Kramer, G.F.H., Brosens, M.C.C., Drijvers, J.M.M., Tyszler, M., and Ocke, M.C. 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions of diets in the Netherlands and associations with food, energy, and macronutrient intakes. Public Health Nutrition. 18(13):2433-2445.

Thierfelder, C. and Wall, P.C. 2010. Investigating conservation agriculture (CA) systems in Zambia and Zimbabwe to mitigate future effects of climate change. Journal of Crop Improvement. 24:113-121.

Thomsen, I.K., Pederson, A.R., Nyord, T., and Petersen, S.O. 2009. Effects of slurry pre-treatment and application technique on short-term N2O emissions as determined by a new non-linear approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 136:227-235.

Thornton, P. and Herrero, M. 2010. Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and pasture management in the tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107:19667–19672.

Tilman, D. and Clark, M. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 515:518-522.

Tilman, D. and Clark, M. 2015. Food, agriculture, and the environment: can we feed the world and save the earth?. Daedalus. 144(4):8-23.

Tirado, M.C., Clarke, R., Jaykus, L.A., McQuatters-Gollop, A., and Frank, J.M. 2010. Climate change and food safety: a review. Food Research Interantional. 43(7):1745-1765.

Tirado, M.C., Crahay, P., Mahy, L., Zanev, C., Neira, M., Msangi, S., Brown, R., Scaramella, C., Costa Coitinho, D., and Muller, A. 2013. Climate change and nutrition: creating a climate for nutrition security. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 34(4):533-547.

Tubiello, F.N., Salvatore, M., Rossi, S., Ferrara, A., Fitton, N., and Smith, P. 2013. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environmental Research Letters. 8(1):1-10.

Tyszler, M., Kramer, G., and Blonk, H. 2016. Just eating healthier is not enough:studying the environmental impact of different diet scenarios for Dutch women (31-50 years old) by linear programming. International Journal of Life Cycle. 21(5):701-709.

Ulaszewska, M.M., Luzzani, G., Pignatelli, S., and Capri, E. 2017. Assessment of diet-related GHG emissions using the environmental hourglass approach for the Mediterranean and new Nordic diets. Science of the Total Environment. 574:829-836.

UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification). 2015. Climate change and land degradation: bridging knowledge and stakeholders. United Nations. Bonn, Germany. Available at Website http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/Publications/2015_Climate_LD_Outcomes_CST_Conf_ENG.pdf

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2015. The emissions gap report 2015. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at Website http://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/theme/13/EGR%202015_Technical%20Report.pdf

United States Energy Information Administration. 2013. 2010 manufacturing energy consumption survey. Available at Website https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/data/2010/index.php?view=data

van der Goot, A. J., Pelgrom, P. J., Berghout, J. A., Geerts, M. E., Jankowiak, L., Hardt, N. A., Keijer, J., Schutyser, M.A.I., Nikiforidis, C.V., and Boom, R. M. 2016. Concepts for further sustainable production of foods. Journal of Food Engineering. 168:42-51.

Van der Werf, H.M.G. and Salou, T. 2015. Economic value as a functional unit for environmental labelling of food and other consumer products. Journal of Cleaner Production. 94:394-397.

Van Doorne, C. and Aiking, H. 2016. Defining a nutritionally healthy, environmentally friendly, and culturally acceptable low lands diet. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 21(5):688-700.

Van Dooren, C., Douma, A., Aiking, H., and Vellinga, P. 2017. Proposing a novel index reflecting both climate impact and nutritional impact of food products. Ecological Economics. 131:389-398.

Van Dooren, C., Keuchenius, C., de Vries, J., Aiking, H., and Vellinga, P. 2015. Identifying the sustainability and health impacts of diet in Dutch population subgroups. Poster session presented at 12th FENS European Nutrition Conference. Available at Website https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/identifying-the-sustainability-and-health-impact-of-diets-in-dutc

Van Dooren, C., Marinussen, M., Blonk, H., Aiking, H., and Vellinga, P. 2014. Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: a comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy. 44:36-46.

Van Dooren, C., Tyszler, M., Kramer, G.F.H., and Aiking, H. 2015. Combining low price, low climate impact, and high nutritional value in one shopping basket through diet optimization by linear programming. Sustainability. 7(9):12837-12855.

Van Hooijdonk, T. and Hettinga, K. 2015. Dairy in a sustainable diet: a question of balance. Nutrition Reviews. 73:48-54.

Vanotti, M., Szogi, A., and Martinez, J. 2009. Livestock waste treatment systems of the future: a challenge to environmental quality, food safety, and sustainability. Bioresource Technology. 100:5371-5373.

Velthof, G.L., Kuikman, P.J., and Oenema, O. 2003. Nitrous oxide emissions from animal manures applied to soil under controlled conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 37:221-230.

Venkat, K. and Wakeland, W. 2006. Is lean necessarily green? 50th Anniversary Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. Sonoma, CA.

Vermeulen, S.J., Campbell, B.M., and Ingram, J.S.I. 2012. Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 37:195-222.

Vermeulen, S., Richards, M., De Pinto, A., Ferrarese, D., Läderach, P., Lan, L., Luckert, M., Mazzoli, E., Plant, L., Rinaldi, R., Stephenson, J., and Watkiss, P. 2016. The Economic advantage: assessing the value of climate-change actions in agriculture. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Rome, Italy. Available at Website https://www.ifad.org/documents/10180/7e3dff00-db38-40c6-a2a1-672ff84a0526

Vetter, S.H., Sapkota, T.B., Hillier, J., Stirling, C.M., Macdiarmid, J.I., Aleksandrowicz, L., Green, R., Joy, E.J.M., Dangour, A.D., and Smith, P. 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural food production to supply Indian diets: implications for climate change mitigation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 237:234-241.

Vieux, F., Darmon, N., Touazi, D., and Soler, L.G. 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France : changing the diet structure or consuming less?. Ecological Economics. 75:91-101.

Vieux, F., Soler, L.G., Touazi, D., and Darman, N. 2013. High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 97(3):569-683.

Wakeland, W., Cholette, S., and Venkat, K. 2012. Chapter 4: Food transportation issues and reducing carbon footprint. In: J. I. Boye and Y. Arcand (eds.). Green Technologies in Food Production and Processing: Comprehensive review of the current status of the agriculture and agri-food sectors. Springer Science+Business Media.

Wang, L. 2013. Energy consumption and reduction strategies in food processing. In: B.K. Tiwari, T. Norton and N.M. Holden (eds.). Sustainable Food Processing. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Chichester, UK.

Webb, J., Williams, A.G., Hope, E., Evans, D., and Moorhouse, E. 2013. Do foods imported into the UK have a greater environmental impact than the same foods produced within the UK? International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 18(7):1325-1343.

Weber, C.L. and Matthews, H.S. 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the united states. Environmental Science & Technology. 42(10):3508-3513.

Webster, J.L., Dunford, E.K., and Neal, B.C. 2010. A systematic survey of the sodium contents of processed foods. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 91:413–420.


Westhoek, H., Ingram, J., van Berkum, S., Ozay, L., and Hajer, M. 2016. Food systems and natural resources. A Report of the Working Group on Food Systems of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya.

Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J.P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H., Sutton, M.A., and Oenema, O. 2014. Food choices, health, and environment: effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change. 26:196-205.

Wickramasinghe, K.K., Rayner, M., Goldacre, M., Townsend, N., and Scarborough, P. 2016. Contribution of healthy and unhealthy primary school meals to greenhouse gas emissions in England: linking nutritional data and greenhouse gas emission data of diets. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 70(10):1162-1167.

Wikstrom, F., Williams, H., Verghese, K., and Clune, S. 2014. The influence of packaging attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies - a neglected topic. Journal of Cleaner Production. 73:100-108.

Williams, H. and Wikström, F. 2011. Environmental impact of packaging and food losses in a life cycle perspective: a comparative analysis of five food items. Journal of Cleaner Production. 19:43-48.

Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M. and Gustafsson, A. 2012. Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production. 24:141-148.

Wilson, N., Nghiem, N., Mhurchu, C.N., Eyles, H., Baker, M.G., and Blakely, T. 2013. Foods and dietary patterns that are healthy, low-cost, and environmentally sustainable: a case study of optimization modeling for New Zealand. PLOS One. 8(3):e59648.

Wilson, N.L.W., Rickard, B.J., Saputo, R., and Ho, S.T. 2017. Food waste: the role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference. 55:35-44.

Wollenberg, E., Richards, M., Smith, P. Havlik, P., Obersteiner, M., Tubiello, F.N., Herold, M., Gerber, P., Carter, S., Reisinger, A., van Vuuren, D.P., Dickie, A., Neufeldt, H., Sander, B.O., Wassmann, R., Sommer, R., Amonette, J.E., Falcucci, A., Herrero, M., Opio, C., Roman-Cuesta, R.M., Stehfest, E., Westhoek, H., Ortiz-Monasterio, I., Sapkota, T., Rufino, M.C., Thornton, P.K., Verchot, L., West, P.C., Soussana, J.F., Baedeker, T., Sadler, M., Vermeulen, S., and Campbell, B.M. 2016. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2° C target. Global Change Biology. 22:3859-3864.

Wulf, S., Maeting, M., and Clemens, J. 2002. Application technique and slurry co-fermentation effects on ammonia, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions after spreading: Ammonia volatilization. Journal of Environmental Quality. 31:1789-1794.

Zougmoré, R., Partey, S., Ouédraogo, M., Omitoyin, B., Thomas, T., Ayantunde, A., Ericksen, P., Said, M., and Jalloh, A. 2016. Toward climate-smart agriculture in West Africa: a review of climate change impacts, adaptation strategies and policy developments for the livestock, fishery and crop production sectors. Agriculture & Food Security. 5(26).

1800 M Street, NW, Suite 400N Washington, DC 20036 Phone: +1 202-354-6440 Fax: +1 202-354-6441

merid.org

About Meridian Institute

Meridian Institute is a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help people solve complex and controversial problems, make informed decisions, and implement solutions that improve lives, the economy, and the environment. Meridian accomplishes its mission by applying collaborative problem-solving approaches including facilitation, mediation, and other strategic consultation services. Meridian works at the local, national, and international levels and focuses on a wide range of issues related to natural resources and environment, science and technology, agriculture and food security, sustainability, global stability, and health. For more information, please visit merid.org.

http://www.merid.org

http://www.merid.org

climate change & food systems: assessing impacts and opportunities · 2018-08-20 · climate...

Documents