Effects of Biochar on Soil Fertility and Crop Yields: Experience from the Southern Highlands of Tanzania

The world’s agricultural production is declining due to severe loss of soil fertility through natural processes or because of human activities. Biochar has been identified as a potential soil amendment to regain its fertility and increase crop productivity. This study aimed to assess the effects of biochar on soil nutrients and crop yields in the southern highlands of Tanzania. Data were collected through key informant and household interviews, and from sampling of soils in coffee farms where biochar of maize cobs origin was incorporated at the rate of 3 t ha-1. Purposive sampling approach was deployed to identify the villages in which farmers have been incorporating biochar in farms. A total of 172 households, 30 key informants, and 12 top and subsoil samples were involved in this study. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 20, and excel spreadsheet was used for descriptive results and relationships. The findings revealed that biochar significantly increased soil pH, iron (Fe), organic carbon (OC), cation exchange capacity (CEC) and exchangeable bases (potassium-K, magnesium-Mg). T - tests showed significant increase of soil nutrients in biochar treated soils. In addition, biochar increased coffee and maize yields from 1 t ha-1 to 3 t ha-1. Keywords: Biochar; Soil Nutrients; Food Security; Resilience; Adaptatio

How does policy coherence shape effectiveness and inequality? Implications for sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people

Социально-деятельные установки студентов как фактор их осознанной профессиональной подготовки

Climate engineering (geoengineering) has been widely discussed as a potential instrument for curbing global warming if politics fails to deliver green house gas emission reductions. This debate has lost momentum over the last couple of years, but is now being renewed in the wake of the December 2015 Paris climate change agreement. Resurgent interest primarily stems from two elements of the Paris agreement. First, by defining the long term goal as “achiev[ing] a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” instead of decarbonization, the agreement can be interpreted as providing leeway for climate engineering proposals. Second, the agreement formulated a temperature goal of “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”. In response, several scientists argued that these goals may require climate engineering. As these discussions will affect the forthcoming review of pathways toward 1.5°C warming, this policy brief takes stock of climate engineering. It draws on the expertise of Linköping University’s Climate Engineering (LUCE) interdisciplinary research programme. The brief provides an overview of the status of academic debate on climate engineering regarding bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS);  stratospheric aerosol injection; and mass media reporting and public engagement

Ресурсосберегающая деятельность предприятия: содержание и направления повышения эффективности (на примере филиала Мозырского управления ОАО «Белтеплоизоляция»)

Countries representing more than 90 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and population have submitted intendednationally determined contributions (INDCs) in anticipation of the 21st COP in Paris. In parallel, developing countries are designing at least 152 nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and 13 have secured implementation funding. Connecting these two concepts, more than a third of developing countries communicate a role for NAMAs in their INDCs.  It is therefore vital to understand the potential role of NAMAs (here understood as specific actions) with respect to INDCs (which are often broader targets) and vice versa. This paper explores the links between NAMAs and INDCs with regard to various elements central to their implementation, including: access to finance; stakeholder engagement; sustainable development impacts; measurement, reporting and verification (MRV); and institutional frameworks. To avoid delaying mitigation action any further, it is important to keep momentum behind NAMAs. They represent one of the few tools at our disposal for countries to undertake mitigation actions, be recognised for these efforts, and mobilise climate finance and investment. The skills and learning on NAMA development can be seen more fundamentally as capacity for the design of bottom-up actions. Attention should be paid now to ensure that this capacity is maintained in the future. To do this, continued attention must be paid to NAMAs in Paris, as a key implementation tool for INDCs and, therefore, a key element of the success of a new global climate agreement

Specialty grand challenge: renaming our section to “Carbon Dioxide Removal”

Peer Reviewe

Pathways from research to sustainable development: insights from ten research projects in sustainability and resilience

Drawing on collective experience from ten collaborative research projects focused on the Global South, we identify three major challenges that impede the translation of research on sustainability and resilience into better-informed choices by individuals and policy-makers that in turn can support transformation to a sustainable future. The three challenges comprise: (i) converting knowledge produced during research projects into successful knowledge application; (ii) scaling up knowledge in time when research projects are short-term and potential impacts are long-term; and (iii) scaling up knowledge across space, from local research sites to larger-scale or even global impact. Some potential pathways for funding agencies to overcome these challenges include providing targeted prolonged funding for dissemination and outreach, and facilitating collaboration and coordination across different sites, research teams, and partner organizations. By systematically documenting these challenges, we hope to pave the way for further innovations in the research cycle

Mapping design and support priorities to flag structural biases

The great potential of NAMAs to move to implementing transformational change is promising. Developed countries’ support to developing countries is central to this task. The vague international consensus on NAMAs, resulting from different prioritisation of objectives for NAMAs among developed and developing countries is both a blessing and a curse. As discussed in Section 2.1 the flexibility of the NAMA concept encompasses a broad spectrum of potential actions but it also raises questions as to whether the priorities of donor institutions providing financial support to explicitly target NAMAs and NAMA design correspond to the challenges posed by spurring transformational change. In a recently published article (Fridahl, Hagemann, Röser, & Amars, 2015) , we compare (mis)alignments in support providers’ priorities for NAMAs and actual NAMA designs. Although the findings should not be overemphasised, lack of information impedes more authoritative statements, two warning flags were raised: 1) misalignment between the priorities of bilateral support providers and countries with a low capacity to act, and 2) the emphasis given by support providers to short timeframes and to measuring direct emission reductions, which can become an obstacle for spurring longer-term transformational change through NAMAs