sign in sign up
<<
Home , Food system

DispatchDate: 25.01.2020 · ProofNo: 31, p.1

comment 1 2 3 4 Climate change responses benefit from a global 5 6 7 system approach 8 9 A food system framework breaks down entrenched sectoral categories and existing adaptation and mitigation 10 silos, presenting novel ways of assessing and enabling integrated climate change solutions from production 11 to consumption. 12 13 14 Cynthia Rosenzweig, Cheikh Mbow, Luis G. Barioni, Tim G. Benton, Mario Herrero, Murukesan Krishnapillai, 15 Emma Liwenga, Prajal Pradhan, Marta G. Rivera-Ferre, Tek Sapkota, Francesco N. Tubiello, Yinlong Xu, 16 Erik Mencos Contreras and Joana Portugal Pereira 17 18 19 ood systems1 have not been 20 Table 1 | Comparison of 2007–2016 mean values and standard deviations of emissions cast effectively in either the 6 5 21 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate from AFOLU and global food system emissions by component, including food loss and 22 F waste Change (IPCC) or the United Nations 23 Framework Convention on Climate AFOLU Food system 24 Change (UNFCCC) greenhouse gas Components Emissions Percentage of Emissions Percentage of 25 (GHG) emissions inventory guidelines2,3. (GtCO e yr–1)a anthropogenic (GtCO e yr–1)a anthropogenic GHG 26 Food-related emissions from , 2 2 27 GHG emissions emissions (%)b , industry and household (%)b 28 consumption have traditionally been 18,19 18,19 29 reported separately, irrespective of Agriculture 6.2 ± 1.4 9–14 6.2 ± 1.4 9–14 30 c 6 18 fundamental connections between food FOLU 5.8 ± 2.6 6–16 4.9 ± 2.5 5–14 31 demand and farm-level production. Unless 7,8 d 32 Pre- to post- – – 2.6–5.2 5–10 these are conceptualized as a unified whole, production 33 climate change mitigation and adaptation 34 Total 12.0 ± 2.9 17–29 10.8–19.1 21–37 strategies associated with the food system  a Q4 35 Mean and 95% confidence interval, using GWP values of the IPCC AR5 with no climate feedback (GWP-CH4 = 28; GWP-N2O = 265). are likely to be inefficient and possibly   bComputed using a total emissions value for the period 2007–2016 of 52 GtCO e per year6. cFood-related FOLU for food system columns. Q136Q2 Q3 2 counterproductive. dRounded to nearest fifth percentile due to assessed uncertainty in estimates. 37 IPCC measurement protocols form 38 the basis of national reporting under the 39 UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement4, and 40 Table 2 | Food system supply-side and demand-side technical and economic mitigation the planned Global Stock Take due in 2023. potentials5 41 Yet, a food system approach could be much 42 –1 more useful for countries designing the Mitigation potential Supply side (GtCO2e Demand side (GtCO2e yr ) 43 next stage of their nationally determined yr–1) 44 contributions as well as for the international Technical 2.3–9.6 0.7–8.0 45 community by improving how climate Economic 1.5–4.0a 1.8–3.4b 46 change and agriculture are addressed in 47 5 aBy 2030 at prices ranging from 20–100 USD per tCO e. bBy 2050 at prices ranging from 20–100 USD per tCO e. three fundamental ways . 2 2 48 First, it would liberate agriculture from 49 the ‘agriculture, forestry, and other land use’ 50 (AFOLU) category of national greenhouse change) measures. Reducing food loss and that enable simultaneous food production, 51 gas emissions inventories, so that the waste as a response strategy is also best adaptation and mitigation activities. 52 contribution of the global food system addressed across the entire food system. 53 to total anthropogenic GHG emissions Third, it provides the relevant Food system GHG emissions 54 can be comprehensively calculated. This framework to identify, analyse and address The addition of GHG emissions from 55 provides a much clearer picture of emission synergies and trade-offs among different energy use, supply chains and consumption 56 sources, thereby allowing for the design of climate change responses, primarily in activities to those emitted within the farm 57 more effective response options and the relation to the potential competition for gate provides a much more comprehensive 58 engagement of an expanded set of actors. land to satisfy projected demand for food depiction of how food is contributing to 59 Second, a systemic approach facilitates versus land to contribute to mitigation climate change (Table 1). The result is an 60 the design of integrated adaptation and of climate change (through bioenergy overall contribution of a considerable 21–37% 61 mitigation policies, which bring together and carbon sequestration). Relevant of total anthropogenic emissions, compared 62 supply-side (that is, crop and assessments involve the combined potential to ~23% from agriculture combined with 63 production, processing, storage and of dietary change, reduction of food loss land-use change for food production 64 transport) and demand-side (that is, dietary and waste, and ‘land-sparing’ strategies ( and peatland degradation) and 65 A B C Nature Food | www.nature.com/natfood DispatchDate: 25.01.2020 · ProofNo: 31, p.2

comment 66 67 68 Food system responses Mitigation Adaptation Co-benefits 69 Increased soil organic matter content Livelihoods, biodiversity 70 71 Change in crop variety Livelihoods, biodiversity 72 Improved water management Livelihoods, water 73 Adjustment of planting dates Livelihoods 74 Precision mangement Livelihoods, pollution 75 Integrated pest management Livelihoods, biodiversity 76 77 Counter season crop production Livelihoods, biodiversity 78 Biochar application Livelihoods

79 ed crop management Agroforestry Livelihoods, biodiversity v 80 Changing monoculture to crop diversification Livelihoods, biodiversity

81 Impro 82 Changes in cropping area, land rehabilitation (enclosures, afforestation) perennial farming Livelihoods, biodiversity 83 Tillage and crop establishment Livelihoods, biodiversity 84 Residue management Biodiversity 85 Crop–livestock systems Livelihoods, biodiversity 86 Silvopastural system Livelihoods, biodiversity 87 88 New livestock breed Livelihoods 89 k Livestock fattening Livelihoods

90 estoc Shifting to small ruminants or drought-resistant livestock or farming Livelihoods 91 Feed and fodder banks Livelihoods, biodiversity ed liv 92 Methane inhibitors 93 managment Impr ov Thermal stress control Livelihoods, energy 94 Seasonal feed supplementation Livelihoods, biodiversity 95 96 Improved animal and parasite control Livelihoods 97 Early warning systems Livelihoods

98 vices Planning and prediction at seasonal-to-intraseasonal climate risk Livelihoods Climate 99 ser Crop and livestock insurance Livelihoods 100 Food storage Livelihoods 101 102 Shortening supply chains Livelihoods, energy 103 Improved food transport and distribution Livelihoods 104 Improved e ciency and sustainability of food processing, retail and agrifood industries Livelihoods 105 Improved energy e ciencies of agriculture Energy 106 ed supply chai n 107 Reduce food loss Livelihoods 108 Impr ov Urban and peri- Livelihoods, biodiversity 109 Bioeconomy (for example, energy from waste) Livelihoods, energy 110 Dietary changes Health 111 Reduce food waste Water, energy 112 Packaging reductions Pollution 113 Demand New ways of selling (for example, direct sales) Livelihoods, energy

114 management 115 Transparency of food chains and external costs Health, energy, water 116 117 Mitigation and None Limited High Very high 118 adaptation potential 119 5,20 120 Fig. 1 | Synergies between mitigation, adaptation and other co-benefits resulting from food system climate change response options 121 122 123 ~10% from agriculture alone when defined Food-related response options and mitigation at scale, across landscapes 124 as within-farm-gate crop and livestock The production, supply, and consumption and economic activities. This is achieved

125 production (this includes CH4 from ruminant of food extends far beyond farmers’ fields by complementing the more traditional 5,6 126 animals and N2O from ) . These (and producing countries). Hence, the supply-side responses focused on farm 127 current assessments, building on earlier food system approach provides a more activities with demand-side responses 128 syntheses of food systems emissions7–9, have appropriate landscape within which policy that focus more broadly on consumer 129 significantly expanded the global analysis of and response actions can be analysed and and industry behaviour — such as dietary 130 key sub-components and their contributions implemented. Such a framework favours change, reduction of food loss (reduction 131 to climate change adaptation and mitigation. the link between resilience, adaptation of edible food during production, A B C Nature Food | www.nature.com/natfood DispatchDate: 25.01.2020 · ProofNo: 31, p.3

comment 132 133 134 postharvest and processing)10 and The identification of potential trade- Finally, it is essential to find actionable 135 reduction of food waste (food discarded by offs and synergies among climate change ways to increase adoption of key adaptation 136 consumers and retailers)10. responses is crucial to their success. A key and mitigation practices, for example, 137 trade-off involves competition between rigorous testing of the role of incentives and 138 Dietary change. The EAT/Lancet Report land use for bioenergy and carbon rapid development of innovative techniques 139 raised awareness of the role that dietary sequestration, to contribute to climate such as circular economies. Modelling 140 choices can play jointly, and thus more change mitigation versus agricultural land and ex ante simulations of adaptation and 141 effectively, in addressing pressing health use for food production. As analysed by the mitigation synergies can shed light on what 142 and climate change challenges11,12. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and are the potential barriers to implement 143 consumption of healthy and sustainable Improvement Project (AgMIP)15, bioenergy specific practices, how to avoid competition 144 diets presents major opportunities for and carbon sequestration projects, between climate change mitigation and food 145 enhancing resilience (for example, through especially at large scale, might encourage security, and which governance structures 146 diversification), reducing GHG emissions ‘land grabbing’ with negative trade-off favour equitable participation in climate 147 from the food system (for example, from effects on smallholder livelihoods and change solutions. ❐ 148 decreasing production of emissions- their food security16. These negative effects 149 intensive animal-sourced products) and require parallel actions at the demand Cynthia Rosenzweig 1,2*, 150 expanding climate change adaptation level, which can generate the needed Cheikh Mbow3, Luis G. Barioni4, 151 options (for example, by promoting counterbalancing ‘land-sparing’ effects. Tim G. Benton 5,6, Mario Herrero 7, 152 sustainable agricultural management that These may include, for instance, large-scale Murukesan Krishnapillai8, Emma Liwenga9, 153 conserves soil and water). Table 2 shows education campaigns and implementation Prajal Pradhan 10, Marta G. Rivera-Ferre11, 154 total technical mitigation potentials — of the needed regulatory environments Tek Sapkota12, Francesco N. Tubiello 13, 155 the maximum amount of GHG mitigation aimed at promoting dietary changes linked Yinlong Xu14, Erik Mencos Contreras 1,2 156 achievable through technology diffusion to more efficient and sustainable land use and Joana Portugal Pereira15,16 157 — as well as total economic mitigation for agriculture. 1NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New 158 potentials at specified carbon prices of Further, attention needs to be paid to York, NY, USA. 2Columbia University, Center 159 both crop, livestock and agroforestry ‘rebound effects,’ by which gains in GHG for Climate Systems Research, New York, NY, 160 activities (supply side) and dietary emissions efficiencies can be offset by USA. 3Future Africa at the University of Pretoria, 161 changes (demand side). increases in total emissions due to expansion Pretoria, South Africa. 4Embrapa Agricultural 162 of production linked to the increased Informatics,Laboratory of Agri-Environmental 163 Reduction of . About efficiencies. Appropriate regulations and Modelling, Campinas, Brazil. 5University of Leeds, 164 8–10% of total anthropogenic GHG incentives, as well as monitoring systems, School of Biology, Leeds, UK. 6Royal Institute of 165 emissions correspond to food loss and waste5, will need to be put in place to ensure that International Affairs, London, UK. 7Commonwealth 166 which comprises twenty-five to thirty per actual emission reductions in farming Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, St 167 cent of global food production13. Loss of systems are taking place17. Lucia, Queensland, Australia. 8College of Micronesia- 168 edible food and food discarded by retailers FSM, Yap Campus, Colonia, Yap, Federated States of 169 and consumers create additional demand for Scaling up climate change responses Micronesia. 9University of Dar es Salaam, Institute 170 agricultural production, thereby increasing The food system approach offers significant of Resource Assessment, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 171 GHG emissions and overall pressure on advances for the implementation of climate 10Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 172 natural resources14. Options to reduce food change adaptation and mitigation measures. Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, 173 loss and waste can be more easily identified, By explicitly recognizing fundamental Germany. 11University of Vic-Central University of 174 designed and assessed through a system connections between consumer demand, Catalonia, Chair and Food Systems, 175 approach — including technical measures dietary choices and production, it favours Barcelona, Spain. 12International Maize and Wheat 176 (for example, improved harvesting, on-farm the integration of a much broader set of Improvement Center, El Batan, Texcoco, Mexico. 177 storage, , packaging to keep actors and institutions. Yet, the scaling up of 13FAO, Statistics Division, Viale delle Terme di 178 food fresher longer and ) and climate responses requires further research. Caracalla, Rome, Italy. 14Chinese Academy of 179 behavioural changes (for example, acceptance First, a complete accounting of food Agricultural Sciences, Climate Change Lab, Haidian 180 of less-than-perfect and system emissions is needed. The recent District, Beijing, China. 15Universidade Federal do 181 appearance, redistribution of food surplus IPCC Special Report on Climate Change Rio de Janeiro, Graduate School of Engineering, 182 and lowered prices on nearly expired food). and Land revealed that many GHG sources Centro de Tecnologia, Cidade Universitária, 183 — such as drying, packaging and Ilha do Fundão, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 16Imperial 184 Synergies and trade-offs supply-chain emissions — are less well College London, Centre for Environmental Policy, 185 Adaptation and mitigation can be jointly characterized than those accounted for South Kensington Campus, London, UK. 186 achieved across a portfolio of practices, often in AFOLU5. *e-mail: [email protected] 187 with added socio-economic co-benefits The dynamics of dietary change and their 188 (Fig. 1). For example, crop management linkage to climate and health also need to Published: xx xx xxxx 189 practices such as increasing soil organic be better understood. Key topics include https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0031-z 190 matter; erosion control; intercropping; and the contribution of different measures in 191 improved fertilizer, water, and other input promoting a shift towards healthy and References 192 management, all increase crop production sustainable diets, the economic impact 1. Ingram, J. Food Secur. 3, 417–431 (2011). 2. Calvo Buendia, E. et al. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC 193 and its resilience while reducing GHG of such measures in regard to reduced Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019). 194 emissions. Similarly, livestock options such healthcare costs, how and at what rate 3. National Inventory Submissions 2019 (UNFCCC, 2019). 195 as better grazing land management and dietary change can feedback to changes in 4. The (UNFCCC, 2015). 196 improved manure management contribute agricultural production, and what are their 5. Mbow, C. et al. in Climate Change and Land (eds. Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E. & Masson Delmot, V.) Ch. 5 197 Q5 to both adaptation and mitigation targets. social and environmental impacts. (IPCC, 2019). A B C Nature Food | www.nature.com/natfood DispatchDate: 25.01.2020 · ProofNo: 31, p.4

comment

Vol. 1 (eds. Ferranti, P., Berry, E. M. & Anderson, J. R.) 196–205 198 6. Jia, G. et al. in Climate Change and Land (eds. Bernier, P., 11. Willett, W. et al. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019). Q6 Espinoza, J. C. & Semenov, S.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, 2019). 12. Dalin, C. & Outhwaite, C. L. One Earth 1, 298–302 (2019). (Elsevier, 2019). 199 7. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Science 360, 987–992 (2018). 13. Kummu, M. et al. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489 (2012). 19. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 : 200 8. Fischedick, M. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of 14. Hiç, C., Pradhan, P., Rybski, D. & Kropp, J. P. Environ. Sci. 1990–2030 EPA 430-R-12–006 (USEPA, 2012). 201 Climate Change (eds. Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 10 (Cambridge Technol. 50, 4269–4277 (2016). 20. Smith, P. et al. Climate Change and Land (eds. Abdulla, A et al.) 202 Univ. Press, 2014). 15. Rosenzweig, C. et al. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 166–182 (2013). Ch. 6 (IPCC, 2019). 9. Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M. & Ingram, J. S. I. Annu. Rev. 16. Hasegawa, T. et al. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 699–703 (2018). 203 Environ. Resour. 37, 195–222 (2012). 17. Paul, C., Techen, A. K., Robinson, J. S. & Helming, K. J. Cleaner 204 10. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention Produc. 227, 1054–1067 (2019). Competing interests 205 (FAO, Rome, 2011). 18. Tubiello, F. N. in Encyclopedia of and Sustainability The authors declare no competing interests. 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252

A B C Nature Food | www.nature.com/natfood QUERY FORM

Nature Food Manuscript ID [Art. Id: 31] Author Cynthia Rosenzweig

AUTHOR:

The following queries have arisen during the editing of your manuscript. Please answer by making the requisite corrections directly in the e.proofing tool rather than marking them up on the PDF. This will ensure that your corrections are incorporated accurately and that your paper is published as quickly as possible.

Query No. Nature of Query

Q1: Please check your article carefully, coordinate with any co-authors and enter all final edits clearly in the eproof, remembering to save frequently. Once corrections are submitted, we cannot routinely make further changes to the article.

Q2: Note that the eproof should be amended in only one browser window at any one time; otherwise changes will be overwritten.

Q3: Author surnames have been highlighted. Please check these carefully and adjust if the first name or surname is marked up incorrectly. Note that changes here will affect indexing of your article in public repositories such as PubMed. Also, carefully check the spelling and numbering of all author names and affiliations, and the corre- sponding email address(es).

Q4: Please define GWP in the footnotes of Table 1.

Q5: Please check the chapter numbers and editors added to refs. 5, 6 and 17.

Q6: As per house style, references have been renumbered in the order: Main text, tables, figures. Please ensure that this has been done correctly.

Springer Nature