Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-5 (section)

== CCB6 Agricultural intensification: Land sparing, land sharing and sustainability ==

<div id="section-5-6-4-4-sustainable-intensification-block-1"></div>

Eamon Haughey (Ireland), Tim Benton (United Kingdom), Annette Cowie (Australia), Lennart Olsson (Sweden), Pete Smith (United Kingdom)

Introduction

The projected demand for more food, fuel and fibre for a growing human population necessitates intensification of current land use to avoid conversion of additional land to agriculture and potentially allow the sparing of land to provide other ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, production of biomass for energy, and the protection of biodiversity (Benton et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1157|1157]]</sup> ; Garnett et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1158|1158]]</sup> ). Land-use intensity may be defined in terms of three components; (i) intensity of system inputs (land/soil, capital, labour, knowledge, nutrients and other chemicals), (ii) intensity of system outputs (yield per unit land area or per specific input) and (iii) the impacts of land use on ecosystem services such as changes in soil carbon or biodiversity (Erb et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1159|1159]]</sup> ). Intensified land use can lead to ecological damage as well as degradation of soil, resulting in a loss of function which underpins many ecosystem services (Wilhelm and Smith 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1160|1160]]</sup> ; Smith et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1161|1161]]</sup> ). Therefore, there is a risk that increased agricultural intensification could deliver short-term production goals at the expense of future productive potential, jeopardising long term food security (Tilman et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1162|1162]]</sup> ).

Agroecosystems which maintain or improve the natural and human capital and services they provide may be defined as sustainable systems, while those which deplete these assets as unsustainable (Pretty and Bharucha 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1163|1163]]</sup> ). Producing more food, fuel and fibre without the conversion of additional non-agricultural land while simultaneously reducing environmental impacts requires what has been termed sustainable intensification (Godfray et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1164|1164]]</sup> ; FAO 2011e <sup>[[#fn:r1165|1165]]</sup> ) (Glossary and Figure 1 in this Cross-Chapter Box). Sustainable intensification (SI) may be achieved through a wide variety of means; from improved nutrient and water use efficiency via plant and animal breeding programmes, to the implementation of integrated soil fertility and pest management practices, as well as by smarter land-use allocation at a larger spatial scale: for example, matching land use to the context and specific capabilities of the land (Benton et al. 2018). However, implementation of SI is broader than simply increasing the technical efficiency of agriculture (‘doing more with less’). It sometimes may require a reduction of yields to raise sustainability, and successful implementation can be dependent on place and scale. Pretty et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1166|1166]]</sup> , following Hill (1985) <sup>[[#fn:r1167|1167]]</sup> , highlights three elements to SI: (i) increasing efficiency, (ii) substitution of less beneficial or efficient practices for better ones, and (iii) system redesign to adopt new practices and farming systems (Table 1 in this Cross-Chapter Box).

Under a land sparing strategy, intensification of land use in some areas, generating higher productivity per unit area of land, can allow other land to provide other ecosystem services, such as increased carbon sequestration and the conservation of natural ecosystems and biodiversity (Balmford et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1168|1168]]</sup> and Strassburg et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1169|1169]]</sup> ). Conversely under a land sharing strategy, less, or no, land is set aside, but lower levels of intensification are applied to agricultural land, providing a combination of provisioning and other functions such as biodiversity conservation from the same land (Green et al. 2005 <sup>[[#fn:r1170|1170]]</sup> ). The two approaches are not mutually exclusive and the suitability of their application is generally system-, scale- and/or location-specific (Fischer et al. 2014). One crucial issue for the success of a land sparing strategy is that spared land is protected from further conversion. As the profits from the intensively managed land increase, there is an incentive for conversion of additional land for production (Byerlee et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1171|1171]]</sup> ). Furthermore, it is implicit that there are limits to the SI of land at a local and also planetary boundary level (Rockström et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1172|1172]]</sup> ). These may relate to the ‘health’ of soil, the presence of supporting services, such as pollination, local limits to water availability, or limits on air quality. This implies that it may not be possible to meet demand ‘sustainably’ if demand exceeds local and global limits. There are no single global solutions to these challenges and specific in situ responses for different farming systems and locations are required. Bajželj et al. (2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1173|1173]]</sup> showed that implementation of SI, primarily through yield gap closure, had better environmental outcomes compared with ‘business as usual’ trajectories. However, SI alone will not be able to deliver the necessary environmental outcomes from the food system – dietary change and reduced food waste are also required (Springmann et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r1174|1174]]</sup> ; Bajželj et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1175|1175]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-5-6-4-4-sustainable-intensification-block-2"></div>

<span id="section-3"></span>
<!-- START TABLE -->
'''Cross-Chapter Box 6, Table 1 | Approaches to sustainable intensification of agriculture (Pretty et al. 2018; Hill 1985).'''

<!-- TABLE -->
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Approach
! Sub-category
! Examples/notes
|-
| rowspan="4"| Improving efficiency
| Precision agriculture
| High- and low-technology options to optimise resource use.
|-
| Genetic improvements
| Improved resource use efficiency through crop or livestock breeding.
|-
| Irrigation technology
| Increased production in areas currently limited by precipitation (sustainable water supply required).
|-
| Organisational scale-up
| Increasing farm organisational scale (e.g., cooperative schemes) can increase efficiency via facilitation of mechanisation and precision techniques.
|-
| rowspan="4"| Substitution
| Green fertiliser
| Replacing chemical fertiliser with green manures, compost (including vermicompost), biosolids and digestate (by-product of anaerobic digestion) to maintain and improve soil fertility.
|-
| Biological control
| Pest control through encouraging natural predators.
|-
| Alternative crops
| Replacment of annual with perennial crops reducing the need for soil disturbance and reducing erosion.
|-
| Premium products
| Increase farm-level income for less output by producing a premium product.
|-
| rowspan="4"| System redesign
| System diversification
| Implementation of alternative farming systems: organic, agroforestry and intercropping (including the use of legumes).
|-
| Pest management
| Implementing integrated pest and weed management to reduce the quantities of inputs required.
|-
| Nutrient management
| Implementing integrated nutrient management by using crop and soil specific nutrient management – guided by soil testing.
|-
| Knowledge transfer
| Using knowledge sharing and technology platforms to accelerate the uptake of good agricultural practices.
|}
<!-- END TABLE -->

<div id="section-5-6-4-4-sustainable-intensification-block-3"></div>

Improved efficiency – example of precision agriculture

Precision farming usually refers to optimising production in fields through site-specific choices of crop varieties, agrochemical application, precise water management (e.g., in given areas or threshold moistures) and management of crops at a small scale (or livestock as individuals) (Hedley 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1176|1176]]</sup> ). Precision agriculture has the potential to achieve higher yields in a more efficient and sustainable manner compared with traditional low-precision methods.

Precision agriculture

Precision agriculture is a technologically advanced approach that uses continual monitoring of crop and livestock performance to actively inform management practices. Precise monitoring of crop performance over the course of the growing season will enable farmers to economise on their inputs in terms of water, nutrients and pest management. Therefore, it can contribute to both the food security (by maintaining yields), sustainability (by reducing unnecessary inputs) and land sparing goals associated with SI. The site-specific management of weeds allows a more efficient application of herbicide to specific weed patches within crops (Jensen et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1177|1177]]</sup> ). Such precision weed control has resulted in herbicide savings of 19–22% for winter oilseed rape, 46–57% for sugar beet and 60–77% for winter wheat production (Gutjahr and Gerhards 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1178|1178]]</sup> ). The use of on-farm sensors for real time management of crop and livestock performance can enhance farm efficiency (Aqeel-Ur-Rehman et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1179|1179]]</sup> ). Mapping soil nutrition status can allow for more targeted, and therefore more effective, nutrient management practices (Hedley 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1180|1180]]</sup> ). Using wireless sensors to monitor environmental conditions, such as soil moisture, has the potential to allow more efficient crop irrigation (Srbinovska et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1181|1181]]</sup> ). Controlled traffic farming, where farm machinery is confined to permanent tracks, using automatic steering and satellite guidance, increases yields by minimising soil compaction. However, barriers to the uptake of many of these high-tech precision agriculture technologies remain. In what is described as the ‘implementation problem’, despite the potential to collect vast quantities of data on crop or livestock performance, applying these data to inform management decisions remains a challenge (Lindblom et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1182|1182]]</sup> ).

Low-tech precision agriculture

The principle of precision agriculture can be applied equally to low capital-input farming, in the form of low-tech precision agriculture (Conway 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1183|1183]]</sup> ). The principle is the same, but instead of adopting capital-heavy equipment (such as sensor technology connected to the ‘internet of things’, or large machinery and expensive inputs), farmers use knowledge and experience and re-purposed innovative approaches, such as a bottle cap as a fertiliser measure for each plant, applied by hand (Mondal and Basu 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1184|1184]]</sup> ). This type of precision agriculture is particularly relevant to small-scale farming in the Global South, where capital investment is major limiting factor. For example, the application of a simple seed priming technique resulted in a 20 to 30% increase in yields of pearl millet and sorghum in semi-arid West Africa (Aune et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1185|1185]]</sup> ). Low-tech precision agriculture has the potential to increase the economic return per unit land area while also creating new employment opportunities.

<div id="section-5-6-4-4-sustainable-intensification-block-4"></div>

<span id="cross-chapter-box-6-figure-1"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Cross Chapter Box 6 Figure 1'''

<span id="there-is-a-need-to-balance-increasing-demands-for-food-fuel-and-fibre-with-long-term-sustainability-of-land-use.sustainable-intensification-can-in-theory-offer-a-window-of-opportunity-for-the-intensification-of-land-use-without-causing-degradation.-this-potentially-allows-the-sparing-of-land-to-provide-other-ecosystem-services-including-carbon-sequestration-and-the-protection"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''There is a need to balance increasing demands for food, fuel and fibre with long-term sustainability of land use.Sustainable intensification can, in theory, offer a window of opportunity for the intensification of land use without causing degradation. This potentially allows the sparing of land to provide other ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration and the protection […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:e1cd599e62921817755672e38fea14b7 Cross-Chapter-Box-6-Figure-1-1024x490.jpg]]

There is a need to balance increasing demands for food, fuel and fibre with long-term sustainability of land use.Sustainable intensification can, in theory, offer a window of opportunity for the intensification of land use without causing degradation. This potentially allows the sparing of land to provide other ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration and the protection of biodiversity. However, the potential for SI is system specific and may change through time (indicated by grey arrows). Current practice may already be outside of this window and be unsustainable in terms of negative impacts on the long-term sustainability of the system.

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-5-6-4-4-sustainable-intensification-block-5"></div>

Sustainable intensification through farming system redesign

Sustainable intensification requires equal weight to be placed on the sustainability and intensification components (Benton 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1186|1186]]</sup> ; Garnett et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1187|1187]]</sup> ). Figure 1 in this Cross-Chapter Box outlines the trade-offs which SI necessitates between the intensity of land use against long-term sustainability. One approach to this challenge is through farming system redesign, including increased diversification.

Diversification of intensively managed systems

Incorporating higher levels of plant diversity in agroecosystems can improve the sustainability of farming systems (Isbell et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1188|1188]]</sup> ). Where intensive land use has led to land degradation, more diverse land-use systems, such as intercropping, can provide a more sustainable land-use option with co-benefits for food security, adaptation and mitigation objectives. For example, in temperate regions, highly productive agricultural grasslands used to produce meat and dairy products are characterised by monoculture pastures with high agrochemical inputs. Multi-species grasslands may provide a route to SI, as even a modest increase in species richness in intensively managed grasslands can result in higher forage yields without increased inputs, such as chemical fertiliser (Finn et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1189|1189]]</sup> ; Sanderson et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1190|1190]]</sup> ; Tilman et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1191|1191]]</sup> ). Recent evidence also indicates multispecies grasslands have greater resilience to drought, indicating co-benefits for adaptation (Hofer et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1192|1192]]</sup> ; Haughey et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1193|1193]]</sup> ).

Diversification of production systems

Agroforestry systems (see Glossary) can promote regional food security and provide many additional ecosystem services when compared with monoculture crop systems. Co-benefits for mitigation and adaptation include increased carbon sequestration in soils and biomass, improved water and nutrient use efficiency and the creation of favourable micro-climates (Waldron et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1194|1194]]</sup> ). Silvopasture systems, which combine grazing of livestock and forestry, are particularly useful in reducing land degradation where the risk of soil erosion is high (Murgueitio et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1195|1195]]</sup> ). Crop and livestock systems can also be combined to provide multiple services. Perennial wheat derivatives produced both high quality forage and substantial volumes of cereal grains (Newell and Hayes 2017), and show promise for integrating cereal and livestock production while sequestering soil carbon (Ryan et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1196|1196]]</sup> ). A key feature of diverse production systems is the provision of multiple income streams for farming households, providing much needed economic resilience in the face of fluctuation of crop yields and prices.

Landscape approaches

The land sparing and land sharing approaches which may be used to implement SI are inherently ‘landscape approaches’ (e.g., Hodgson et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1197|1197]]</sup> ). While the term landscape is by no means precise (Englund et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1198|1198]]</sup> ), landscape approaches, focused, for example, at catchment scale, are generally agreed to be the best way to tackle competing demands for land (e.g., Sayer et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1199|1199]]</sup> ), and are the appropriate scale at which to focus the implementation of sustainable intensification. The landscape approach allots land to various uses – cropping, intensive and extensive grazing, forestry, mining, conservation, recreation, urban, industry, infrastructure – through a planning process that seeks to balance conservation and production objectives. With respect to SI, a landscape approach is pertinent to achieving potential benefits for biodiversity conservation, ensuring that land ‘spared’ through SI remains protected, and that adverse impacts of agriculture on conservation land are minimised. Depending on the land governance mechanisms applied in the jurisdiction, different approaches will be appropriate/required. However, benefits are only assured if land-use restrictions are devised and enforced.

Summary

Intensification needs to be achieved sustainably, necessitating a balance between productivity today and future potential ( ''high agreement, medium evidence'' ). Improving the efficiency of agriculture systems can increase production per unit of land through more effective resource use. To achieve SI, some intensively managed agricultural systems may have to be diversified as they cannot be further intensified without land degradation. A combination of land sparing and sharing options can be utilised to achieve SI – their application is most likely to succeed if applied using a landscape approach.

<span id="role-of-urban-agriculture"></span>
=== 5.6.5 Role of urban agriculture ===

<div id="section-5-6-5-role-of-urban-agriculture-block-1"></div>

Cities are an important actor in the food system through demand for food by urban dwellers and production of food in urban and peri-urban areas (Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 2). Both the demand side and supply side roles are important relative to climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Urban areas are home to more than half of the world’s population, and a minimal proportion of the production. Thus, they are important drivers for the development of the complex food systems in place today, especially with regard to supply chains and dietary preferences.

The increasing separation of urban and rural populations with regard to territory and culture is one of the factors favouring the nutrition transition towards urban diets (Weber and Matthews 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r1200|1200]]</sup> ; Neira et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1201|1201]]</sup> ). These are primarily based on a high diversity of food products, independent of season and local production, and on the extension of the distances that food travels between production and consumption. The transition of traditional diets to more homogeneous diets has also become tied to consumption of animal protein, which has increased GHG emissions globally (Section 5.4.6).

Cities are becoming key actors in developing strategies of mitigation to climate change, in their food procurement and in sustainable urban food policies alike (McPhearson et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1202|1202]]</sup> ). These are being developed by big and medium-sized cities in the world, often integrated within climate change policies (Moragues et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1203|1203]]</sup> and Calori and Magarini 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1204|1204]]</sup> ). A review of 100 cities shows that urban food consumption is one of the largest sources of urban material flows, urban carbon footprint, and land footprint (Goldstein et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1205|1205]]</sup> ). Additionally, the urban poor have limited capacity to adapt to climate-related impacts, which place their food security at risk under climate change (Dubbeling and de Zeeuw 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1206|1206]]</sup> ).

'''Urban and peri-urban areas''' . In 2010, around 14% of the global population was nourished by food grown in urban and peri-urban areas (Kriewald et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r1207|1207]]</sup> ). A review study on Sub-Saharan Africa shows that urban and peri-urban agriculture contributes to climate change adaptation and mitigation (Lwasa et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1208|1208]]</sup> , 2015). Urban and peri-urban agriculture reduces the food carbon footprint by avoiding long distance food transport. These types of agriculture also limit GHG emissions by recycling organic waste and wastewater that would otherwise release methane from landfills and dumping sites (Lwasa et al. 2014). Urban and peri-urban agriculture also contribute in adapting to climate change, including extreme events, by reducing the urban heat island effect, increasing water infiltration and slowing down run-offs to prevent flooding, etc. (Lwasa et al. 2014, 2015; Kumar et al. 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r1209|1209]]</sup> ). For example, a scenario analysis shows that urban gardens reduce the surface temperature up to 10°C in comparison to the temperature without vegetation (Tsilini et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1210|1210]]</sup> ). Urban agriculture can also improve biodiversity and strengthen associated ecosystem services (Lin et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1211|1211]]</sup> ).

Urban and peri-urban agriculture is exposed to climate risks and urban growth that may undermine its long-term potential to address urban food security (Padgham et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1212|1212]]</sup> ). Therefore, there is a need to better understand the impact of urban sprawl on peri-urban agriculture; the contribution of urban and peri-urban agriculture to food self-sufficiency of cities; the risks posed by pollutants from urban areas to agriculture and vice-versa; the global and regional extent of urban agriculture; and the role that urban agriculture could play in climate resilience and abating malnutrition (Mok et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1213|1213]]</sup> ; Hamilton et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1214|1214]]</sup> ). Globally, urban sprawl is projected to consume 1.8–2.4% and 5% of the current cultivated land by 2030 and 2050 respectively, leading to crop calorie loss of 3–4% and 6–7%, respectively (Pradhan et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1215|1215]]</sup> and Bren d’Amour et al. 2017). Kriewald et al. 2019 shows that the urban growth has the largest impact in many sub-continental regions (e.g., Western, Central, and Eastern Africa), while climate change will mostly reduce potential of urban and peri-urban agriculture in Southern Europe and North Africa.

In summary, urban and peri-urban agriculture can contribute to improving urban food security, reducing GHG emissions, and adapting to climate change impacts ( ''robust evidence, medium agreement'' ).

<span id="links-to-the-sustainable-development-goals"></span>
=== 5.6.6 Links to the Sustainable Development Goals ===

<div id="section-5-6-6-links-to-the-sustainable-development-goals-block-1"></div>

In 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement were two global major international policies adopted by all countries to guide the world to overall sustainability, within the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and UNFCCC processes respectively. The 2030 Sustainable Development agenda includes 17 goals and 169 targets, including zero hunger, sustainable agriculture and climate action (United Nations 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1216|1216]]</sup> ).

This section focuses on intra – and inter-linkages of SDG 2 and SDG 13 based on the official SDG indicators (Figure 5.16), showing the current conditions (Roy et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1217|1217]]</sup> and Chapter 7 for further discussion). The second goal (Zero Hunger – SDG 2) aims to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030 and commits to universal access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food at all times of the year. SDG 13 (Climate Action) calls for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Integrating the SDGs into the global food system can provide opportunities for mitigation and adaptation and enhancement of food security.

Ensuring food security (SDG 2) shows positive relations (synergies) with most goals, according to Pradhan et al. (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1218|1218]]</sup> and the International Council for Science (ICSU) (2017), but has trade-offs with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) under current development paradigms (Pradhan et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1219|1219]]</sup> ). Sustainable transformation of traditional consumption and production approaches can overcome these trade-offs based on several innovative methods (Shove et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1220|1220]]</sup> ). For example, sustainable intensification and reduction of food waste can minimise the observed negative relations between SDG 2 and other goals (Obersteiner et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1221|1221]]</sup> ) (Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 5 and Section 5.5.2). Achieving target 12.3 of SDG 12 ‘by 2030, to halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses’ will contribute to climate change mitigation.

Doubling productivity of smallholder farmers and halving food loss and waste by 2030 are targets of SDG 2 and SDG 12, respectively (United Nations Statistics Division 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1222|1222]]</sup> ). Agroforestry that promotes biodiversity and sustainable land management also contributes to food security (Montagnini and Metzel 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1223|1223]]</sup> ). Land restoration and protection (SDG 15) can increase crop productivity (SDG 2) (Wolff et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1224|1224]]</sup> ). Similarly, efficient irrigation practices can reduce water demand for agriculture that could improve the health of the freshwater ecosystem (SDG 6 and SDG 15) without reducing food production (Jägermeyr et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1225|1225]]</sup> ).

Climate action (SDG 13) shows negative relations (trade-offs) with most goals and is antagonistic to the 2030 development agenda under the current development paradigm (Figure 5.16) (Lusseau and Mancini 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r1226|1226]]</sup> and Pradhan 2019). The targets for SDG 13 have a strong focus on climate change adaptation, and the data for the SDG 13 indicators are limited. SDG 13 shares two indicators with SDG 1 and SDG 11 (United Nations 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1227|1227]]</sup> ) and therefore, has mainly positive linkages with these two goals. Trade-offs were observed between SDG 2 and SDG 13 for around 50% of the linkages analysed (Pradhan et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1228|1228]]</sup> ).

Transformation from current development paradigms and the breaking of these lock-in effects can protect climate and achieve food security in future. Sustainable agriculture practices can provide climate change adaptation and mitigation synergies, linking SDG 2 and SDG 13 more positively, according to the International Council for Science (ICSU) (2017). IPCC found that most of the current observed trade-offs between SDG 13 and other SDGs can be converted into synergies based on various mitigation options that can be deployed to limit the global warming well below 1.5°C (IPCC 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r1229|1229]]</sup> ).

In summary, there are fundamental synergies that can facilitate the joint implementation of strategies to achieve SDGs and climate action, with particular reference to those climate response strategies related to both supply side (production and supply chains) and demand side (consumption and dietary choices) described in this chapter ( ''high agreement and medium evidence'' ).

<div id="section-5-6-6-links-to-the-sustainable-development-goals-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-5.16"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 5.16'''

<span id="intra-and-inter-linkages-for-sdg-2-zero-hunger-and-sdg-13-climate-action-at-the-global-level-using-the-official-indicators-of-sustainable-development-goals-that-consist-of-data-for-122-indicators-for-a-total-of-227-countries-between-the-years-1983-and-2016-united-nations-statistics-division-2016.-synergies-and-trade-offs-defined-as-significant"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Intra and inter-linkages for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) at the global level using the official indicators of Sustainable Development Goals that consist of data for 122 indicators for a total of 227 countries between the years 1983 and 2016 (United Nations Statistics Division 2016). Synergies and trade-offs defined as significant […]'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:4ac5826ee5b9025eaf745ec1308bf1b7 Figure-5.16.jpg]]

Intra and inter-linkages for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) at the global level using the official indicators of Sustainable Development Goals that consist of data for 122 indicators for a total of 227 countries between the years 1983 and 2016 (United Nations Statistics Division 2016). Synergies and trade-offs defined as significant positive (ρ &gt; 0.6, red bar) and negative (ρ &lt; –0.6, green bar) Spearman’s correlation between SDG indicators, respectively; ρ between 0.6 and –0.6 is considered as nonclassifieds (yellow bar) (Pradhan et al. 2017). Grey bars show insufficient data for analysis; white box shows number of data pairs used in analysis. The correlation between unique pairs of indicator time-series is carried based on country data. For example, between ‘prevalence of undernourishment’ (an indicator for SDG 2.1) and ‘maternal mortality ratio’ (an indicator for SDG 3.1). The data pairs can belong to the same goal or to two distinct goals. At the global level, intra-linkages of SDGs are quantified by the percentage of synergies, trade-offs, and nonclassifieds of indicator pairs belonging to the same SDG for all the countries. Similarly, SDG interlinkages are estimated by the percentage of synergies, trade-offs, and nonclassifieds between indicator pairs that fall into two distinct goals for all the countries.

<!-- END IMG -->
<span id="enabling-conditions-and-knowledge-gaps"></span>