This study examines the impacts of climate change on potato production in East Africa. To assess these impacts, we utilised the WOFOST crop model to simulate both potential yield (Yp) and water-limited yield (Yw) for the present-day (1981-2010), near-future (2036-2065), and far-future (2066-2100) under two climate scenarios (SSP3.7 and SSP5-8.5), using a five-member General Circulation Model (GCM) ensemble from the ISIMIP project. The simulations consistently reveal a substantial decline in both Yp and Yw across all future periods. Specifically, without CO2 fertilisation, potential yields are projected to decrease by 37-71 %, and water-limited yields by 25-57 % during the Long Rain season (LRS), while during the Short Rain Season(SRS), these declines range from 39-75 % for potential yields and 32-60 % for water-limited yields, with variations depending on elevation and scenario. Even when accounting for elevated CO2 levels, Yp still decline by 23-57 %, and Yw by 20-49 % in LRS, and by 21-60 % and 20-48 % in SRS. Furthermore, the projected decline in land suitability for potato cultivation is stark, with 82 % of land becoming unsuitable by 2050 and 89 % by 2080, particularly during the LRS. Although elevated CO2 and slight increases in rainfall may provide some limited benefits, these are insufficient to counteract the detrimental effects of rising temperatures, which remain the primary constraint on potato productivity. Consequently, these findings suggest that conventional potato cultivation may become unsustainable by the end of the century due to climate change. The study underscores the pressing need for effective adaptation strategies, including the implementation of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices, to sustain potato production in the medium term. It further highlights the potential necessity of transitioning to alternative crops in regions that may become unsuitable for potatoes under future climate conditions. By offering region-specific insights based on relatively high-resolution CMIP6 data and the WOFOST crop model, this research provides actionable guidance for the development of adaptation strategies, reinforcing the importance of integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation into agricultural planning to ensure food security and protect rural livelihoods in East Africa.

Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) have emerged as a cornerstone of sustainable urban andregional climate adaptation strategies […]

Food systems-encompassing food production, transportation, processing and consumption, including food losses and waste-are currently not delivering what is expected or needed to ensure their full contribution to societal well-being and ecological sustainability. In this paper, we hypothesize that nature-based solutions (NBS; solutions that are inspired by, supported by, or copied from nature) can overcome system challenges related to the functioning of the biosphere, society, or economy (including governance arrangements), and support a transition to sustainable climate-resilient food systems. We develop a conceptual framework to assess NBS contributions to such transitions. Three types of NBS are evaluated: intrinsic NBS which make use of existing ecosystems; hybrid NBS which manage and adapt ecosystems; and inspired NBS which consist of newly constructed ecosystems. We show that inspired NBS in particular will increase opportunities to achieve sustainable development in food systems. NBS can facilitate the much-needed transition to a different way of using our natural resources to reach the SDGs by 2030. We identify the knowledge gaps that impede the development of NBS to support a transition towards sustainable, climate-resilient food systems.

nature’s processes to build resilience and adaptation strategies that will enable them to cope with climate change and other future shocks. Regenerative Inclusive Food Systems evolve differently in different places, as they are specific to a particular place and the people living there.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are promising in contributing to societal goals such as food security and combatting and adapting to climate change. However, existing assessment approaches of nature and biodiversity lack a clear connection to food systems and food system outcomes such as food security and food system resilience. We propose a new methodology to assess benefits and costs of NbS in food systems from a social and an economic perspective that can be used by researchers, NGOs and governments. The approach includes 3 steps: -1. Theory of Change, - 2. Food system framework and - 3. Extended stakeholders analysis including distribution of benefits and costs. The approach is tested in two case studies from Ghana using information on workshops, focus group discussions and interviews with stakeholders.-The case study results indicate that rainwater harvesting for irrigation (RWHI) and the Modified Taungya System (MTS) positively affect food security because of increased production, but both examples have negative impacts as well.

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) responds in order to sustain agriculture under a changing environment, and is a major priority in the development sphere. However, to achieve impact at scale, CSA innovations must address agricultural systems’ context-specific and multi-dimensional nature and be purveyed through feasible scaling processes. Unfortunately, knowledge on the scaling of CSA innovations under smallholder farming systems and in the context of developing countries remains scant. Understanding scaling processes is essential to the design of a sustainable scaling strategy. This study aimed to draw lessons on scaling from 25 cases of scaling CSA, and related projects in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania implemented by public institutions, local and international research organisations, Non-Govermental Orginsations(NGOs), and community-based organisations. Generally, scaling follows a linear pathway comprising technology testing and scaling. Most cases promoted technologies and models geared towards climate change adaptation in crop-based value chains, and only a few cases incorporated mitigation measures. Efforts to engage the private sector involved building business models as a potential scaling pathway. The cases were very strong on capacity building and institutionalisation from local, national, and even regional levels. However, four critical areas of concern about the sustainability of scaling emerged from the study: (i) There is little understanding and capture of the dynamics of smallholder farming systems in scaling strategies; (ii) climate data, projections, and impact models are rarely applied to support the decision of scaling; (iii) considerations for the biophysical and spatial-temporal impacts and trade-offs analysis in scaling is minimal and just starting to emerge; and (iv) there are still challenges effecting systemic change to enable sustainable scaling. In response to these concerns, we propose investment in understanding and considering the dynamics of the smallholder farming system and how it affects adoption, and subsequently scaling. Programme design should incorporate climate change scenarios. Scaling programmes can maximise synergies and leverage resources by adopting a robust partnerships model. Furthermore, understanding the spatio-temporal impact of scaling CSA on ecological functioning deserves more attention. Lastly, scaling takes time, which needs to be factored into the design of programmes.

The content of this Mansholt lecture came about through a wide science-policy consultation process. Existing ‘seeds of innovation’ in the biodiversity climate-food nexus were collected in a WUR-wide dialogue on 10th May 2022, which involved some 150 interdisciplinary experts. These seeds were collated into interventions for nature-positive futures, in an interdisciplinary workshop of WUR colleagues on 13th May 2022. They were further clustered into five entry points for nature-positive changes to the food system. The resulting entry points and interventions were discussed with several EU policy makers in another workshop in Brussels on 30th June 2022. We thank everyone involved in this process for their input

Despite the proliferation of power approaches to study climate change, there is little focus on how to deal with the negative effects of power in climate change adaptation (CCA) policy-making. CCA literature provides little insight into understandings of manifestations of power that can create negative effects, especially in the context of South Asia. This review answers the question: How can CCA policy actors deal with the negative effects of power during the policy-making process? We used a two-layered systematic literature review to identify various manifestations of power that are responsible for negative effects in CCA policy-making in South Asia and to determine power-sensitive design principles (PDPs) to address these manifestations of power. We conclude that although the four PDPs are no panacea for dealing with the negative manifestations of power, they are useful considerations when engaged in long-term CCA policy processes.

Many Climate Smart Agricultural (CSA) technologies fail to achieve their full potential impact due to low levels of adoption by smallholder farmers and difficulties in scaling CSA. This paper presents how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can act as change agents for the uptake of CSA technologies where their business models may be seen as adoption and scaling mechanisms. Drawing upon our fieldwork in Punjab (India) during which over 100 respondents have been interviewed, critical issues and enabling factors for the business model of two types of SMEs, i.e. farmer cooperatives and individual service providers of climate smart technologies have been identified. Enabling factors supporting adoption are driven by scientific and practical evidence of CSA technologies, good partnership between SMEs and research institutes, good customer relationships and effective channels through farmers' field trials. Critical issues consist of distortive government subsidies on energy and the lack of market intelligence affecting the profitability of the business model. Scaling is enhanced through market intelligence and a favouring regulatory landscape. However, difficult socio-economic circumstances and distortive government subsidies limit the role of SMEs business model as mechanism for scaling.

Climate change, ecological degradation and socio-economic developments are increasingly putting pressure on people’s living environments. Societies, regions and cities need to increase their resilience through adaptive governance, which is their capacity to adapt to changing relationships between society and ecosystems. In this article, we explore how three core conditions for adaptive governance, referred to as; 1) discourse arenas, 2) epistemic networks and 3) leadership, have proved to be useful in the shaping of the Markermeer-IJmeer region, part of the Amsterdam Metropole Region in the Netherlands. We find that discourse arenas and epistemic networks have set the scene for societal actors to invest in a sustainable transformation of the area. Moreover, they were a push factor for the transformation of opinions how to govern and plan the area. Actors identified links to overcome the division between socio-economic development and environmental conservation in the Amsterdam Metropole region. Actors from the industry took steps to include nature conservation. We recommend that adaptive governance should be enhanced with notions such as discourse, learning, trust, responsibility and leadership in future research and policy making for resilient urban areas.

Since the early work on defining and analyzing resilience in domains such as engineering, ecology and psychology, the concept has gained significant traction in many fields of research and practice. It has also become a very powerful justification for various policy goals in the water sector, evident in terms like flood resilience, river resilience, and water resilience. At the same time, a substantial body of literature has developed that questions the resilience concept's systems ontology, natural science roots and alleged conservatism, and criticizes resilience thinking for not addressing power issues. In this study, we review these critiques with the aim to develop a framework for power-sensitive resilience analysis. We build on the three faces of power to conceptualize the power to define resilience. We structure our discussion of the relevant literature into five questions that need to be reflected upon when applying the resilience concept to social-hydrological systems. These questions address: (a) resilience of what, (b) resilience at what scale, (c) resilience to what, (d) resilience for what purpose, and (e) resilience for whom; and the implications of the political choices involved in defining these parameters for resilience building or analysis. Explicitly considering these questions enables making political choices explicit in order to support negotiation or contestation on how resilience is defined and used. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance. Engineering Water > Planning Water.