About: World Agroforestry Centre is a nonprofit organization based out in Nairobi, Kenya. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Agriculture & Food security. The organization has 866 authors who have published 1858 publications receiving 75460 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Wageningen University and Research Centre1, VU University Amsterdam2, Portland State University3, World Agroforestry Centre4, Aberystwyth University5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Saint Petersburg State University7, Scottish Agricultural College8, United Nations Environment Programme9, Conservation International10, Institute for European Environmental Policy11
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors presented an overview of the value of ecosystem services of 10 main biomes expressed in monetary units and showed that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as nontradable public benefits.
Abstract: This paper gives an overview of the value of ecosystem services of 10 main biomes expressed in monetary units. In total, over 320 publications were screened covering over 300 case study locations. Approximately 1350 value estimates were coded and stored in a searchable Ecosystem Service Value Database (ESVD). A selection of 665 value estimates was used for the analysis. Acknowledging the uncertainties and contextual nature of any valuation, the analysis shows that the total value of ecosystem services is considerable and ranges between 490 int$/year for the total bundle of ecosystem services that can potentially be provided by an ‘average’ hectare of open oceans to almost 350,000 int$/year for the potential services of an ‘average’ hectare of coral reefs. More importantly, our results show that most of this value is outside the market and best considered as non-tradable public benefits. The continued over-exploitation of ecosystems thus comes at the expense of the livelihood of the poor and future generations. Given that many of the positive externalities of ecosystems are lost or strongly reduced after land use conversion better accounting for the public goods and services provided by ecosystems is crucial to improve decision making and institutions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management.
Conservation International1, University of California, Santa Barbara2, World Agroforestry Centre3, Sapienza University of Rome4, University of Port Elizabeth5, BirdLife International6, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais7, University of Sheffield8, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile9, Department of Environment and Conservation10, University of Idaho11, University of Cape Town12, Chinese Academy of Sciences13
TL;DR: It is shown that the global network of protected areas is far from complete, and the inadequacy of uniform—that is, ‘one size fits all’—conservation targets is demonstrated, in the first global gap analysis assessing the effectiveness ofprotected areas in representing species diversity.
Abstract: The Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, announced in September 2003 that the global network of protected areas now covers 11.5% of the planet's land surface. This surpasses the 10% target proposed a decade earlier, at the Caracas Congress, for 9 out of 14 major terrestrial biomes. Such uniform targets based on percentage of area have become deeply embedded into national and international conservation planning. Although politically expedient, the scientific basis and conservation value of these targets have been questioned. In practice, however, little is known of how to set appropriate targets, or of the extent to which the current global protected area network fulfils its goal of protecting biodiversity. Here, we combine five global data sets on the distribution of species and protected areas to provide the first global gap analysis assessing the effectiveness of protected areas in representing species diversity. We show that the global network is far from complete, and demonstrate the inadequacy of uniform--that is, 'one size fits all'--conservation targets.
University of Sydney1, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada2, Institut national de la recherche agronomique3, Natural Resources Conservation Service4, Centre national de la recherche scientifique5, National Taiwan University6, Nanjing Agricultural University7, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur8, James Hutton Institute9, Landcare Research10, Rural Development Administration11, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya12, British Geological Survey13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, University College Dublin15, Colorado State University16, World Agroforestry Centre17, Université catholique de Louvain18
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors surveyed the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock estimates and sequestration potentials from 20 regions in the world (New Zealand, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Tanzania, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, India, China Taiwan, South Korea, China Mainland, United States of America, France, Canada, Belgium, England & Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and Russia).
Abstract: The ‘4 per mille Soils for Food Security and Climate’ was launched at the COP21 with an aspiration to increase global soil organic matter stocks by 4 per 1000 (or 0.4 %) per year as a compensation for the global emissions of greenhouse gases by anthropogenic sources. This paper surveyed the soil organic carbon (SOC) stock estimates and sequestration potentials from 20 regions in the world (New Zealand, Chile, South Africa, Australia, Tanzania, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, India, China Taiwan, South Korea, China Mainland, United States of America, France, Canada, Belgium, England & Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and Russia). We asked whether the 4 per mille initiative is feasible for the region. The outcomes highlight region specific efforts and scopes for soil carbon sequestration. Reported soil C sequestration rates globally show that under best management practices, 4 per mille or even higher sequestration rates can be accomplished. High C sequestration rates (up to 10 per mille) can be achieved for soils with low initial SOC stock (topsoil less than 30 t C ha− 1), and at the first twenty years after implementation of best management practices. In addition, areas which have reached equilibrium will not be able to further increase their sequestration. We found that most studies on SOC sequestration only consider topsoil (up to 0.3 m depth), as it is considered to be most affected by management techniques. The 4 per mille number was based on a blanket calculation of the whole global soil profile C stock, however the potential to increase SOC is mostly on managed agricultural lands. If we consider 4 per mille in the top 1m of global agricultural soils, SOC sequestration is between 2-3 Gt C year− 1, which effectively offset 20–35% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. As a strategy for climate change mitigation, soil carbon sequestration buys time over the next ten to twenty years while other effective sequestration and low carbon technologies become viable. The challenge for cropping farmers is to find disruptive technologies that will further improve soil condition and deliver increased soil carbon. Progress in 4 per mille requires collaboration and communication between scientists, farmers, policy makers, and marketeers.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present an overview of the currently available information on the different process steps of the production process of bio-diesel from JCL, being cultivation and production of seeds, extraction of the oil, conversion to and the use of the biodiesel and the by-products.
Abstract: The interest in using Jatropha curcas L. (JCL) as a feedstock for the production of bio-diesel is rapidly growing. The properties of the crop and its oil have persuaded investors, policy makers and clean development mechanism (CDM) project developers to consider JCL as a substitute for fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, JCL is still a wild plant of which basic agronomic properties are not thoroughly understood and the environmental effects have not been investigated yet. Gray literature reports are very optimistic on simultaneous wasteland reclamation capability and oil yields, further fueling the Jatropha bio-diesel hype. In this paper, we give an overview of the currently available information on the different process steps of the production process of bio-diesel from JCL, being cultivation and production of seeds, extraction of the oil, conversion to and the use of the bio-diesel and the by-products. Based on this collection of data and information the best available practice, the shortcomings and the potential environmental risks and benefits are discussed for each production step. The review concludes with a call for general precaution and for science to be applied. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Food and Agriculture Organization1, International Livestock Research Institute2, University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science3, International Center for Tropical Agriculture4, World Bank5, World Agroforestry Centre6, Colorado State University7, Ohio State University8, University of California, Davis9, Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests10, International Potato Center11
TL;DR: In this article, the authors outline a set of CSA actions needed from public, private and civil society stakeholders: building evidence; increasing local institutional effectiveness; fostering coherence between climate and agricultural policies; and linking climate and agriculture financing.
Abstract: Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an approach to the development of agricultural systems intended to help support food security under climate change. This Perspective outlines a set of CSA actions needed from public, private and civil society stakeholders: building evidence; increasing local institutional effectiveness; fostering coherence between climate and agricultural policies; and linking climate and agricultural financing.
Showing all 870 results
|Yves Van de Peer||115||494||61479|
|Kevin D. Hyde||99||1382||46113|
|P. Van Damme||57||289||10615|
|Meine van Noordwijk||57||241||11468|
|Louis V. Verchot||55||183||14400|
|Roger R. B. Leakey||53||183||8510|
|Jan W. de Leeuw||52||157||7298|
|M. van Noordwijk||44||130||6389|
|Gudeta W. Sileshi||44||168||5988|
Related Institutions (5)
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
35.2K papers, 1.4M citations
Wageningen University and Research Centre
54.8K papers, 2.6M citations
United States Forest Service
21.8K papers, 959.1K citations
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna
13.2K papers, 390.5K citations
Norwegian University of Life Sciences
13.5K papers, 442.2K citations