Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 (section)

=== Box 7.11 | Sustainable Intensification Within Agriculture: Evidence and Caveats ===

<div id="h2-35-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

'''Introduction'''

Sustainable intensification (SI) has received considerable attention as a suggested means of pursuing increased overall production, reducing associated environmental externalities, and potentially releasing agricultural land for alternative uses, such as forestry or rewilding (Godfray and [[#Garnett--2014|Garnett 2014]] ; [[#Pretty--2018|Pretty 2018]] ). The concept was explored within the SRCCL (SRCCL ( [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al. 2019]] ), [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.6.4|Section 5.6.4]] .4 and Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 5). SI is context specific and dynamic, with no universally prescribed methodology ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE 2019]] ). Equal importance is given to enhancing sustainability as to achieving agricultural intensification. The former aspect is often challenging to realise, measure and maintain.

'''The extent of sustainable''' '''intensification'''

Total global agricultural land area has remained relatively stable while overall production has increased in recent decades ( [[#7.3|Section 7.3]] ), indicating that agricultural intensification, as judged by production per unit of land ( [[#Petersen--2015|Petersen and Snapp 2015]] ; OECD and FAO 2019) has taken place. However, changes in agricultural land use and degradation of natural resources ( [[#UNEP--2019|UNEP 2019]] ; [[#IPBES--2019b|IPBES 2019b]] ) suggests that not all of this intensification is sustainable. Although agricultural intensification has led to less GHG emissions compared to a scenario where that intensification had not taken place ( [[#Burney--2010|Burney et al. 2010]] ), absolute agriculture related emissions have continued to increase ( [[#7.2|Section 7.2]] ). Active pursuit of SI was found to be expanding, with implementation on an increasing area, notably in developing countries ( [[#Pretty--2018|Pretty et al. 2018]] ), yet regional agricultural area expansion at the expense of native habitat also continues in such regions ( [[#7.3|Section 7.3]] ). Although there are specific examples of SI (Box 7.13) global progress in achieving SI is acknowledged as slow ( [[#Cassman--2020|Cassman and Grassini 2020]] ) with potentially multiple, context specific geophysical and socio-economic barriers to implementation ( [[#Firbank--2018|Firbank et al. 2018]] ; [[#da%20Silva--2021|da]] [[#Silva--2021|Silva et al. 2021]] ).

'''Preconditions to ensure sustainable''' '''intensification'''

'''Increasing the total amount of product produced by improving production efficiency (output per unit of input) does not guarantee SI.''' It will only be successful if increased production efficiency translates into reduced environmental and social impacts as well as increased production. For example, AR5 highlighted a growing emphasis on reducing GHG emissions per unit of product via increasing production efficiency (Smith et al. 2014), but reductions in absolute GHG emissions will only occur when production efficiency increases at a greater rate than the rate at which production increases ( [[#Clark--2005|Clark et al. 2005]] ).

'''Defined indicators are required.''' Measurement of SI requires multiple indicators and metrics. It can be assessed at farm, regional or global scales and temporal aspect must be considered. SI may warrant whole system redesign or land reallocation ( [[#Garnett--2013|Garnett et al. 2013]] ; [[#Pretty--2018|Pretty et al. 2018]] ). Accordingly, there is ''high agreement'' concerning the need to consider multiple environmental and social outcomes

at wider spatial scales, such as catchments or regions ( [[#Weltin--2018|Weltin et al. 2018]] ; [[#Bengochea%20Paz--2020|Bengochea Paz et al. 2020]] ; [[#Cassman--2020|Cassman and Grassini 2020]] ). Impacts may be considered in relative terms (per area or product unit), with relationships potentially antagonistic. Both area- and product unit-based metrics are valid, relevant under different contexts and useful in approaching SI, but do not capture overall impacts and trade-offs ( [[#Garnett--2014|Garnett 2014]] ). To reduce the risk of unsustainable intensification, quantitative data and selection of appropriate metrics to identify and guide strategies are paramount ( [[#Garnett--2013|Garnett et al. 2013]] ; [[#Gunton--2016|Gunton et al. 2016]] ; [[#Cassman--2020|Cassman and Grassini 2020]] ).

'''Avoiding unsustainable''' '''intensification'''

It is critical that intensification does not drive expansion of unsustainable practices. Increased productivity with associated economic reward could incentivise and reward agricultural land expansion, or environmentally and socially damaging practices on existing and former agricultural land ( [[#Ceddia--2013|Ceddia et al. 2013]] ; [[#Phalan--2018|Phalan 2018]] ). Accordingly, coordinated policies are crucial to ensuring desired outcomes (Godfray and [[#Garnett--2014|Garnett 2014]] ; [[#Reddy--2020|Reddy et al. 2020]] ; Kassam and [[#Kassam--2020|Kassam 2020]] ). [[#Barretto--2013|Barretto et al. (2013)]] found that in agriculturally consolidated areas, land-use intensification coincided with either a contraction of both cropland and pasture areas, or cropland expansion at the expense of pastures, both resulting in a stable farmed area. In contrast, in agricultural frontier areas, land-use intensification coincided with expansion of agricultural lands.

In conclusion, SI within agriculture is needed given the rising global population and the need to address multiple environmental and social externalities associated with agricultural activities. However, implementation requires strong stakeholder engagement, appropriate regulations, rigorous monitoring and verification and comprehensive outreach and knowledge exchange programmes.

<div id="7.6.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="barriers-and-opportunities-for-afolu-mitigation"></span>