Summary
This systematic assessment of 40 agricultural and land management practices identifies which options can simultaneously address climate mitigation, adaptation, food security, and land degradation without generating adverse trade-offs. Nine practices deliver medium to large benefits across all four challenges, whilst a further five show large mitigation potential and sixteen show large adaptation potential. The authors emphasise that practices reducing land demand—such as improved productivity, dietary change, and food waste reduction—are critical portfolio components for scaling solutions whilst protecting natural systems.
UK applicability
The findings on co-benefits from intensification, dietary shifts, and waste reduction are relevant to UK policy, though the analysis is global in scope and context-specificity is emphasised; UK policymakers should consider land competition safeguards when scaling mitigation practices domestically.
Key measures
Number of practices delivering medium to large benefits across all four land challenges; mitigation potential (Gt CO₂ eq/year); adaptation potential (number of people benefiting); land use competition risk; adverse side effects on other land challenges
Outcomes reported
The study assessed 40 land management and food production practices for their potential to simultaneously address climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, food security, and land degradation/desertification. It evaluated which practices deliver co-benefits across these four land challenges without adverse trade-offs, and examined land competition risks.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.