The possible solutions would be to:

1. ensuring that people have the awareness, knowledge and motivation to minimize environmental damage and protect biodiversity.

2. Adapting to climate change – working with communities and industries to understand ways to better manage climate variability and put in place means of addressing and adapting to longer term climate change.

In my view, the society is not taking climate change seriously except for the climate change experts. This should begin from the schools to educate students who will carry on this issue to a higher level..

Thanks.

Oh, its interesting, "Climate Change" ? A hype that can revert your status..... do you people really believe in it?

drought, erratic rainfalls, change in rainfall pattern, depletion of grasses and increase in bushes are clear cut symptoms of climate change. In my view the best tool for the developing countries and economies in transition is to adapt with the climate change.

Native livestock breeds and other flora and fauna can be a good tool to secure food supply as they are good in adaptation process and needs very low or even zero in puts.

Maintain diversity. Indian cotton could be non-existat overnight when the bollworm evolves to resist BT. Putting all ones eggs in the same basket has been unwise since the Irish potatoe famine, still, we don't learn. Drout resistant varieties and conservation of water will be essential. The center of the US is in the worst drought since the famous "dust bowl" of the 1920s/30s. The monoculture approach there has not helped. Corn with Nitrogen fixing potential is being studied in the UK. This would help with fertilizer. (as legumes now do).

I really agree to maintain diversity. There is genuine threat to diversity both flora and fauna.

"Rome was not built in a day". There is a long way in front of us to adapting and reduing climate change. Education is the most important in the future.

Of what use is education when people of the caliber of

Dr. Tanugula Shravan ·still believe global warming is hype?

I do not want to start a debate on this topic, but would like to say one word, There is a large amount of human activity going on globally that may be disturbing the nature. However, its very small compared to the vast nature around us, probably whats going on "global warming" could only be the natural cycle of the atmospheric change which the scientists are trying to prove something like sub Saharan Africa is formed by global worming, which could also be true but the data that is generated is of reasonable doubt........

yeah, you are right. Some people even do not believe in climate change. I have seen/observe it practically with general observation not with with the complex scientific methodologies.

Local/native/indigenous livestock breeds and plants varieties can be one of the best solution to adapt with the calamities of climate change and to ensure food security in climate change scenario.

http://camel4all.blogspot.com/2011/06/food-security-and-climate-change.html

Http://camel4all.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/lessons-learnt-from-droughts-in-north-eastern-balochistan/

Arguing on the reasons of climate change is something different. Your argument is valuable and should include in scientific suppositions but denying impacts of climate change on agricultural systems and food security situation is not wise.

@Mr.Kakar: Its true that any minute changes in climatic conditions could primarily effect the agricultural system and water resources. However, it is also true that it did happened many times in our history and people used to migrate to another place(best example is Aryan migration and recently Irish migration), today its being recognized due to the availability of technology. Eventually, according to survival of the fittest theory only those things will survive which are fit and the people have to accept or leave it thats nature, but does the whole world will get effected by it its just a ? now coming to your topic (Local/native/indigenous livestock breeds and plants varieties) I know which kind of rice people used to eat 50 years ago in India and what they eat now, the same is true with Europeans, this is due to the commercialization of agriculture that must be ended first. Ones the economic aspects of agriculture comes to a halt, the things will settle down them selves. People must realize that agriculture was, is and can never be relaid upon to improve the economic conditions of a society.

I agree again with you. I had been writing/critical on corporate farming/agriculture. I'm in agreement with you that corporate farming is the main problem. Other activities like mining etc also affected our climate. Many more things are responsible. I have very clear theme that adaptation with such a climate change is the best option. To mitigate climate change, will worsen the situation further because such projects needs a lot of energy.

In a globalized world when things are moving in a rapid pace and every human action is for commercial benefit, where production is much more than consumption due to mechanization, there is a rapid degradation of natural resources and there lies a danger of there nonexistence to our future generations which is of major concern. However, it is very difficult to stop them till there are economic benefits, it will be almost the same as to stop global opium trade or to stop tobacco or alcohol. If "Global Warming" is a name given to slow down the commercial benefits of big global industries, i appreciate it . However, the natural climate change has very little to do with human activity, it is as much true as the growth of Himalayam mountain range in height and movement of earths tectonic plates.

I agree that the natural climate change is slow and irreplaceable. The climate change (natural) had been started since last 40 million years ago. We talk about the induced climate change which is happening in the results of faulty and irresponsible activities of human being especial corporations/industries.

It is an interesting topic to cover, genetics alone are not the answer. Genetically modified varieties take many years to produce, in order for this to be a viable single solution, we would need to be able to produce many cultivars within a variety, and many varieties at the one time in order to avoid mass devastation with crop diseases and such. Rusts and the like are adapting all the time, if we are restricted on the gm varieties available then theres a good chance crops will be subject to heavy infections.

Further, i do believe that some form of crop modification will occur at some stage, but our best bet is combat the issue with multiple agri improvements. I believe that this includes the mass adoption of subsoil manuring/amelioration. Although this is still being studied and yet to be 100% viable, results via the use of chicken litter achieved crops of 13t/ha in victoria, australia. Admittedly this was in good conditions, even in good conditions this is a fantastic yield. Farmers in this area usually produce around 6t/ha. The idea of subsoil manuring is to increase the quality of the second layer of soil (often a clay) so that roots can penetrate, and to allow the soil a greater water/nutrient holding capacity. Along with agri management techniques such as the use of raised beds, controlled traffic on the fields (only driving over particular parts to limit compaction), the use of gps systems and the use of perhaps gm crops - could potentially be the way. When i mention GM crops, I'm leaning closer to drought tolerant varieties, as well as EC/Saline tolerant varieties, not necessarily large yielding crops. This is because it is likely that water will be the issue in the future, and salinity is currently a serious issue.

It appears most of your replys were not in terms of food supply, and more along economics, so i hope this is what you were looking for :)

GMOs are not the solution at all. It is problem it-selves. Subsoil manuring is great idea.

In my view, native varieties/breeds are the best solution as they need low/zero inputs and produce in very natural system.

Yes natives can be good, although sometimes low yielding.

just out of curiosity, which country are we talking about 'native varieties'?

Im from Australia so natives for us is more or less out of the question haha.

I have read a about this sort of stuff, the issue with old varieties, is that they are not particularly common any more.

seed banks such as the Svalbard are likely to have them, but the old native varieties are not common. The reason the plants that we have today express the higher yielding fruity bodies or grain is due to breeders selecting the plants for these traits in the past, and over time after a few hundred years or so of selecting and breeding for the bigger tomato, thats what we have today as opposed to the smaller native variety we started with a long time ago. I suppose you probably know this.

Its the same story for most plants, wheat also. the old native variety is almost nothing like what we use today. Sorry if i have ranted a bunch of stuff you may already be aware of.

you are right. Word native means different for different people, depending on regions and cultures. Native means, the genetic resources from the same local. Such genetic resources are highly adapted and do not need extra inputs like fossil oil energy, pesticides and fertilizers. If analyse in a comprehensive model, such genetic resources produce rather more than the exotic one.

A single solution is not possible with relation to climate change adaptation and food security. It depends on the location, its climate, its environmental conditions, genetic diversity background and then a correlation of these factors can provide a platform to work on. The native reources can be best adapted to climate change. But the only problem is the uniformity and stability of climate. Suppose at the time of harvesting there are generally rains which spoils the crop, now you can opt for late/early maturing varieties but only when you are certain of the climate. Try to follow, may be you get some good practices in due course of time

Dear Anita,

I'm totally agree with you. Yes, the affects of climate change are diversified and different in different regions. As I said, local genetic resources can be one of the best tool to adapt with climate change and ensure food security. I did not say that the native genetic resources are the only and ultimate solution.

I think that a way to make societies more resilient to climate change is to combat poverty. This is also the way forward what food security is concerned. Often people see food science as a way out, but ther eare a number of reasons, why this alone won't help and why it even can be part of the challenge.

Food science has a role to play to achieve food security, but its importance is often seen too high. The assumption that too little food is produced to feed everybody on the planet is incorrect. Actually enough food statistically is around, but not everybody has access to what is available. Food science can cause increase in the cost of food making it unaffordable for poor people.

The Green Revolution is an example for this. High Yielding Varieties cost money, fertilizers, pesticides and other high costs for external inputs make agriculture costly. Still plant science can help to better adapt agriculture for example to a changing climate. One aspect that brings issues around food security together is the sustainable livelihood approach. Of course livelihood security is a concept much broader than food security, but there are a lot of overlaps, especially in times of climate change.....

Crucial is to keep the basis of food production is good shape. Environmental degradation is very dangerous from such perspective. Second is the distribution / access to food, which is to remove poverty. To better understand what is needed one needs to be aware of the different facets of food security.

Food security is a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life

This is how the FAO defines food security. It combines food production, distribution and consumption, looks into cultural and individual food preferences and also at quality aspects of food both from a nutrition perspective as well as from the perspective of food safety. Climate / environmental changes can have impacts on all these aspects, on food production, food distribution / access and food consumption.

Food production and climate change

all food crops have their optimum what climatetic conditons such as temperature, rainfall, etc are concerned. Especially extremes (too cold, too hot, too wet, too dry) can have devasting impacts. Some plants can tolerate a wide range of conditions, while other plants are rather little flexible to adapt to changing climatic conditons. In addition natural hazards (floods, cyclones, droughts) can have devasting impacts destroying crops in the fields. This all does not mean that only negative impacts are from climate change to agriculture. E.G. the temperate zones towards the poles will have warmer climates allowing longer vegetation periods, longer for crops like wheat. The impacts thus have to be established in regional or even sub-regional dimensions.

Access to food and climate change

this addresses in particular the changes of food prices as a result of climate change. Here in particular countries are effected that already now import big parts of their food requirements, like Kiribati, Tuvalu and other atoll states. Already today food imports make much of their imports and have very negative impacts on their BoP situation. On the micro-level afford rising food prices. They have to change to cheaper foods, often of lesser quality.

McCarthy, J. F., & Obidzinski, K. (2017). Framing the food poverty question: Policy choices and livelihood consequences in Indonesia. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 344-354.

Cramer, L., Huyer, S., Lavado, A., Loboguerrero, A. M., Martínez Barón, D., Nyasimi, M., ... & van Wijk, M. (2017). Methods Proposed to Evaluate the Potential Impact of Climate Change on Food and Nutrition Security in Central America and the Dominican Republic.

Moragues-Faus, A., Sonnino, R., & Marsden, T. (2017). Exploring European food system vulnerabilities: Towards integrated food security governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, 184-215.

Chandra, A., McNamara, K. E., Dargusch, P., Caspe, A. M., & Dalabajan, D. (2017). Gendered vulnerabilities of smallholder farmers to climate change in conflict-prone areas: A case study from Mindanao, Philippines. Journal of Rural Studies, 50, 45-59.