Agriculture is one of the most vulnerable and adaptation-prone sources of livelihood facing climate change. Joint adaptation planning by farmers and researchers can help develop practically feasible and environmentally and economically sound adaptation actions as well as encourage the proactive building of farm adaptive capacity. Here, the perceptions of Finnish farmers and rural stakeholders regarding intercropping, the cultivation of two or more crop genotypes together in time and space, as a means to prepare for climate change, were collected in an open workshop. Our aim was to identify the potentials and challenges associated with intercropping, its role as an adaptation strategy, and in farm adaptive capacity. Qualitative analysis revealed better yield security, increased nutrient and protein self-sufficiency, soil conservation and maintenance, reduced pathogen pressure and regulation of water dynamics as the main perceived potentials of intercropping. Potentials relating to the farm economy and environment were also recognized. The main challenges associated with intercropping were related to the lack of information on crop variety performance and optimal yielding in mixtures, industry and policy requirements for seed purity, more complicated crop management and harvesting, and the economic risks associated with experimenting with novel mixtures. Nitrogen-fixing legumes; deep-rooted species, such as lucerne (Medicago sativa L.); special crops, such as herbs in forage mixtures; and autumn-sown winter oilseeds and cereals were highlighted as the most promising intercrops. Because the recognized potentials relate to the safeguarding of field cropping from anticipated climate change and the associated weather variability, we conclude that intercropping can serve as one adaptation strategy to strengthen the adaptive capacity of Finnish farms. However, assuring markets and policies that allow the development of intercropping, performing experiments to assess the benefits and implement options in practice, and providing farmers and farm advisors with more knowledge on the method represent the critical prerequisites for the broader adoption of intercropping.

Food systems are increasingly exposed to disruptions and shocks, and they are projected to increase in the future. Most recently, the war in Ukraine and Covid-19 pandemic has increased concerns about the ability to secure the availability of food at stable prices. This article presents a food system resilience framework to promote a national foresight system to better prepare for shocks and disruptions. Our study identified four key elements of resilience: system thinking through science and communication; redundancy of activities and networks; diversity of production and partners; and buffering strategies. Three national means to enhance resilience in the Finnish food system included domestic protein crop production, renewable energy production, and job creation measures. Primary production was perceived as the cornerstone for food system resilience, and the shocks and disruptions that it confronts therefore call for a sufficient and diverse domestic production volume, supported by the available domestic renewable energy. A dialogue between different actors in the food system was highlighted to format a situational picture and enable a rapid response. Our study suggests that to a certain point, concentration and interdependence in the food system increase dialogue and cooperation. For critical resources, sufficient reserve stocks buffer disruptions over a short period in the event of unexpected production or market disruptions. Introducing and strengthening the identified resilience elements and means to the food system call for the preparation of a more holistic and coherent food system policy that acknowledges and emphasises resilience alongside efficiency.

More than half of the cultivation‐induced carbon loss from agricultural soils could be restored through improved management. To incentivise carbon sequestration, the potential of improved practices needs to be verified. To date, there is sparse empirical evidence of carbon sequestration through improved practices in East‐Africa. Here, we show that agroforestry and restrained grazing had a greater stock of soil carbon than their bordering pair‐matched controls, but the difference was less obvious with terracing. The controls were treeless cultivated fields for agroforestry, on slopes not terraced for terracing, and permanent pasture for restrained grazing, representing traditionally managed agricultural practices dominant in the case regions. The gain by the improved management depended on the carbon stocks in the control plots. Agroforestry for 6–20 years led to 11.4 Mg ha⁻¹ and restrained grazing for 6–17 years to 9.6 Mg ha⁻¹ greater median soil carbon stock compared with the traditional management. The empirical estimates are higher than previous process‐model‐based estimates and indicate that Ethiopian agriculture has greater potential to sequester carbon in soil than previously estimated.

Carbon trading between the industrial and developing world offers an opportunity to maintain global warming below critical limits and to promote global climate equity. The potential has not been realised in sub-Saharan Africa, which is most vulnerable in terms of food security in a changing climate. The objective of this study was to create an analytical framework to identify determining factors to enhance food security through mitigation of climate change. The potential for carbon trading between Finland and Ethiopia was the studied case. A hypothetical analytical framework was created based on literature. It was validated and developed through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions of global and national actors in Finland and Ethiopia and local actors from two contrasting Ethiopian regions. The qualitative analysis highlighted increasing agricultural productivity and facilitating internal national markets as the main means to enhance food security through mitigation of climate change, triggered by generating carbon income. The socio-economic determinants of major importance appeared to be multi-level coherence of policy and action, early access to financial incentives, quality of governance, infrastructure for internal markets, population density, land tenure systems and knowledge about carbon markets, mitigation options and their verification. The main agro-ecological determinants were local hydrology, management history and present land management. The immediate attention of decision-makers is drawn to policy coherence and development of funding, verification and knowledge on carbon sequestration through agricultural management. The analytical framework is concluded to be valid for interaction between industrial countries and specific national and local SSA contexts.