MURDOCH RESEARCH REPOSITORY
This is the author’s final version of the work, as accepted for publication
following peer review but without the publisher’s layout or pagination.
The definitive version is available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12160
Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K-H, Lauk, C., Harper, R.,
Tubiello, F.N., de Siqueira Pinto, A., Jafari, M., Sohi, S., Masera,
O., Böttcher, H., Berndes, G., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H.,
Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Mbow, C., Ravindranath, N.H.,
Rice, C.W., Robledo Abad, C., Romanovskaya, A., Sperling, F.,
Herrero, M., House, J.I. and Rose, S. (2013) How much land-
based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without
compromising food security and environmental goals? Global
Change Biology Bioenergy, 19 (8). pp. 2285-2302.
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/16577/
Copyright: © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
It is posted here for your personal use. No further distribution is permitted.
1
How much land based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without
compromising food security and environmental goals?
Pete Smith
1*
, Helmut Haberl
2
, Alexander Popp
3
, Karlheinz Erb
2
, Christian Lauk
2
, Richard
Harper
4
, Francesco Tubiello
5
, Alexandre de Siqueira Pinto
6
, Mostafa Jafari
7
, Saran Sohi
8
,
Omar Masera
9
, Hannes Böttcher
10
, Göran Berndes
11
, Mercedes Bustamante
6
, Helal
Ahammad
12
, Harry Clark
13
, Hongmin Dong
14
, Elnour A. Elsiddig
15
, Cheikh Mbow
16
,
Nijavalli H. Ravindranath
17
, Charles W. Rice
18
, Carmenza Robledo-Abad
19
, Anna
Romanovskaya
20
, Frank Sperling
21
, Mario Herrero
22
, Joanna I House
23
& Steven Rose
24
1
Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences & ClimateXChange, University of
Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, Scotland, UK
2
Institute of Social Ecology Vienna (SEC), Alpen-Adria Universitaet (AAU), 1070 Vienna,
Schottenfeldgasse 29, Austria
3
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain III: Sustainable
Solutions, Telegraphenberg A 62, D-14473 Potsdam, Germany
4
School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, South Street, Murdoch WA. 6150
Australia
5
Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture Programme, Natural Resources Management
and Environment Department, FAO, Via Terme di Caracalla, Rome 00153, Italy
6
Departamento de Ecologia, Universidade de Brasília, I.B. C.P. 04457. Campus
Universitário Darcy Ribeiro - UnB. D.F.. CEP: 70919-970 Brasília, Brazil
7
Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, National Botanical Garden of Iran, P.O. Box
13185-116, Tehran, Iran
8
UK Biochar Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Crew Building, The King's
Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, UK
9
Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, UNAM, AP 27-3 Xangari, 58089, Morelia,
Michoacán, México
10
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services and Management
Program, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
11
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Energy and Environment, Physical
Resource Theory, SE-412 96, Göteborg, Sweden
12
ABARE, GPO Box 1563, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
13
New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, Grasslands Research Centre,
Tennent Drive, Private Bag 11008, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
14
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy
of Agricultural Sciences, 12 Southern Street of Zhongguancun, Beijing 100081, P.R. China
15
Faculty of Forestry, University of Khartoum, Postal code 13314, Khartoum, Sudan
16
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Research Unit: GRP5; Office: Room G197, PO Box
30677-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
17
Centre for Sustainable Technologies (CST) Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, 560 012,
Bangalore, India
18
Dept. of Agronomy, 2004 Throckmorton, Plant Sciences Center, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
19
Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Natural and Social Science Interface (NSSI)
Universitaetstrasse 22, CHN J74.1, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland and HELVETAS Swiss
Intercooperation. Maulbeerstr. 10 / CH 3001 Bern / Switzerland
20
Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, Glebovskaya str, 20-B, Moscow, 107258, Russia
Page 1 of 48 Global Change Biology
2
21
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Change, African Development Bank,
B.P. 323 - 1002 Tunis Belvedere, Tunisia
22
Climate Change and Sustainable Livestock Futures, International Livestock Research
Institute, P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
23
Cabot Institute, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, University Road,
Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK
24
Energy and Environmental Analysis Research Group, EPRI (Electric Power Research
Institute), 2000 L Street NW, Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036, USA
*Corresponding author: Prof Pete Smith, Tel: +44 (0)1224 272702, Fax: +44 (0)1224
272703, E-mail: pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk
Running head: AFOLU GHG mitigation and food security
Keywords: agriculture, forestry, AFOLU, GHG, mitigation, climate, food security,
ecosystem service
Paper type: Invited Review
Page 2 of 48Global Change Biology
3
Abstract
Feeding nine to ten billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two
of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met whilst reducing the
impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and
support human health and well-being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions
between these challenges. In this study we briefly, outline the challenges, review the supply-
and demand-side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other
Land Use (AFLOU) sector, and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some
of the synergies and trade-offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an
assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future
scenarios in which demand-side measures co-delivery to aid food security.
We conclude that whilst supply-side mitigation measures, such as changes in land
management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand-side
mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit
both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand-side measures offer a
greater potential (1.5-15.6 Gt CO
2
-eq. yr
-1
) in meeting both challenges than do supply-side
measures (1.5-4.3 Gt CO
2
-eq. yr
-1
at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ tCO
2
-eq.
-1
), but
given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply-side measures
should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more
agricultural product per unit of input. For demand-side measures, given the difficulties in
their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and
should aim to co-deliver to other policy agendas, such as improving environmental quality, or
Page 3 of 48 Global Change Biology
4
improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21
st
Century are extremely
challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.
1. Introduction
The earth’s lands provide humanity with a multitude of goods and services (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), and as we move toward a global population of nine to ten
billion people by 2050 (Godfray et al., 2010), land availability becomes an ever more critical
issue (Smith et al., 2010). There are competing demands for land for providing food, water,
timber, energy, settlements, infrastructure, recreation, biodiversity etc. (Coelho et al., 2012;
Erb et al., 2012a; Erb et al., 2012b; Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2011; Lotze-Campen et al., 2010).
Many previous assessments of the greenhouse gas mitigation potential in the Agriculture,
Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector have failed to account explicitly for the impact
on the other services provided by land, and the inter-related nature of the global issues related
to land use (Wirsenius et al., 2010).
Perhaps two of the greatest challenges facing humanity are a) the need to feed a growing
population and b) trying to avoid dangerous climate change and adapting to the impacts that
we cannot avoid. The solution to both challenges must be met partly by changing the way we
manage our land. If this dual challenge weren’t daunting enough, we also need to improve the
resilience of food production to future environmental change (Easterling et al., 2007), protect
biodiversity (FAO, 2010), protect our freshwater resource (Frenken & Kiersch, 2011), move
to healthier diets (WHO, 2004), and reduce the adverse impacts of food production on the
whole range of ecosystem services (Firbank et al., 2011). The challenge related to providing
enough food for this growing population is likely to be greater than implied by the population
Page 4 of 48Global Change Biology
