This document summarizes research on the evidence for synergies and tradeoffs between agricultural adaptation and mitigation practices. It analyzed 56 publications and found that most claimed synergies but evaluations had limited robustness. Specifically: - 43% of publications claimed only synergies, 38% found mixed results, and 7% only tradeoffs. - Few publications empirically measured and statistically quantified outcomes for both adaptation and mitigation objectives. - There is a need to more robustly evaluate a wider range of adaptation and mitigation outcomes and to identify knowledge gaps in measuring these objectives together. Improved agricultural data synthesis could help reveal larger trends across research.

1. Agricultural
Adaptation & Mitigation
Evidence for Synergies and Tradeoffs
Lindsay Barbieri
LKBar@uvm.edu
@barbieriiv
with Lini Wollenberg

2. importance of
climate adaptation
and mitigation
complexity of
agricultural practices:
context-dependent in
system, scale, local,
socioenvironmental..
etc
Increasing need to
prioritize synergies,
avoid tradeoffs

3. Web of Science: 374 publications, all after 1995
“Agriculture” & “Adaptation” & “Mitigation”
Publications by Year
importance of
climate adaptation
and mitigation
complexity of
agricultural practices:
context-dependent in
system, scale, local,
socioenvironmental..
etc
Increasing need to
prioritize synergies,
avoid tradeoffs

4. Web of Science: 374 publications, all after 1995
“Agriculture” & “Adaptation” & “Mitigation”
Publications by Year
“Win-Win” is great!
but is it actually
happening?
how strong is the
evidence?
importance of
climate adaptation
and mitigation
complexity of
agricultural practices:
context-dependent in
system, scale, local,
socioenvironmental..
etc
Increasing need to
prioritize synergies,
avoid tradeoffs

5. Geography
Asia: 21
Africa: 15
Latin America: 5
Multi-continental
or Global: 12
Characterizing the Literature: 56 publications

6. Characterizing the Literature: 56 publications
Publications could have multiple scales and methodological approaches

7. Characterizing the Literature: 56 publications
Publications could have multiple scales and methodological approaches

8. publication

9. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)

10. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)
example:
Agricultural production
&
Soil carbon sequestration

11. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)
example:
Agricultural production
&
Soil carbon sequestration
photo
cover crop

12. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)
example:
Agricultural production
&
Soil carbon sequestration
photo
cover crop
increase yield
&
increase soil carbon

13. Characterizing the Literature: 56 publications
Publications could have multiple scales and methodological approaches
* One “avoidance”
objective:
avoided emissions
from land conversion,
avoided above ground
biomass loss from
deforestation
mapping
to 2017
FAO
adaptation
framework

14. Characterizing the Literature: 56 publications
Publications could have multiple scales and methodological approaches
* One “avoidance”
objective:
avoided emissions
from land conversion,
avoided above ground
biomass loss from
deforestation
mapping
to 2017
FAO
adaptation
framework how did publications evaluate outcomes
and assess these adaptation and
mitigation objectives?

15. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)
evaluation
Evidence
Assessment
Claim

16. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)
evaluation
Evidence
Assessment
Claim

17. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)
evaluation
Evidence
Assessment
Claim
Synergy!
Win-Win!
Co-benefit!

18. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)
evaluation
Evidence
Assessment
Claim
Conflicting!
Trade-off!
Adverse ‘side effect’!
(or mixed)

19. Adaptation
objective(s)
Mitigation
objective(s)publication
Agricultural practice(s)
Adaptation
outcome(s)
Mitigation
outcome(s)
evaluation
Evidence
Assessment
Claim

20. Claims of Synergies / Conflicts: by claim
80%
40%
n = 56n = 56

21. Claims of Synergies / Conflicts: by publication
80%
40%
Out of 56 Publications:
Synergistic Only: 43% Mixed: 38% Conflicting Only: 7%
n = 56n = 56

22. * Publications could have multiple agricultural systems

23. Substantiation of Claims
(1) Empirical methodological approach
48% of publications
(2) Error or uncertainty considered around outcomes or
assessments
80% of publications
(3) Robustness of uncertainty: Error statistically quantified
52% of publications

24. Substantiation of Claims
(1) Empirical methodological approach
48% of publications
(2) Error or uncertainty considered around outcomes or
assessments
80% of publications
(3) Robustness of uncertainty: Error statistically quantified
52% of publications

25. Substantiation of Claims
(1) Empirical methodological approach
48% of publications
(2) Error or uncertainty considered around outcomes or
assessments
80% of publications
(3) Robustness of uncertainty: Error statistically quantified
52% of publications

26. (1) Empirical methodological approach
More robust claims = more mixed / conflicting claims
10% more mixed
or conflicting
claims

27. (2) Error or uncertainty considered around outcomes or assessments
20% more mixed
or conflicting
claims
More robust claims = more mixed / conflicting claims

28. Far fewer publications measured and quantified error on
both Adaptation and Mitigation objectives together
%
%
%
%
%
%
48% of publications
empirical methodological
approach
52% of publications
statistically quantified error

29. Snapshot: 9 publications empirically measured & quantified error
for both adaptation and mitigation outcomes
Crop (5) & Rice (4)
scale: field
adaptation: yield, soil fertility
mitigation: soil carbon sequestration,
reduced GHG emissions
Synergy only: 2 publications
Mixed or conflicting: 7 publications

30. Three Insights

31. Insight 1:
Need to expand
● Robustness of synergies and tradeoff claims
● Outcomes that are being empirically measured and statistically
quantified
Connect other adaptation objectives, not only yield
● Agricultural production (e.g. increased water-use efficiency)
● Socioeconomic (e.g. economic diversification)
● Health and Wellbeing (e.g. air quality)
...all mentioned, none measured and statistically quantified.

32. Insight 2:
Need to identify knowledge gaps for measuring both adaptation and
mitigation outcomes together.
Adaptation was measured
more frequently without mitigation.
Are the knowledge gaps:
● Technical?
● Financial?
What are the potential leverage points to better consider both
objectives together to fill those gaps?

33. Insight 3:
Need to support agricultural data synthesis to enable better ways to
connect between conceptual framings & study results to reveal larger
trends, insights across different research objectives, and connect
meaningfully to policy.
Specifically to consider:
● Adaptation and mitigation frameworks
● Agriculture data and information management
...with many groups already working at this interface!
- CGIAR Big Data Platform
- Global Research Alliance (GRA)
- Global Open Data for Agricultural and Nutrition (GoDAN)
- Research Data Alliance: Interest Group Agricultural Data (RDA: IGAD)
- Agricultural Information Management Standards (AIMS)

34. 1. Expand robustness of claims of synergies and tradeoff,
and what is being empirically measured and statistically
quantified.
2. Identify gaps for measuring both adaptation and
mitigation outcomes.
3. Support agricultural information, data, metadata for
more powerful and comprehensive insights.
Lindsay Barbieri
LKBar@uvm.edu
@barbieriiv
with Lini Wollenberg