Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country
Roe, Stephanie; Streck, Charlotte; Beach, Robert; Busch, Jonah; Chapman, Melissa; Daioglou, Vassilis; Deppermann, Andre; Doelman, Jonathan; Emmet-Booth, Jeremy; Engelmann, Jens; Fricko, Oliver; Frischmann, Chad; Funk, Jason; Grassi, Giacomo; Griscom, Bronson; Havlik, Petr; Hanssen, Steef; Humpenöder, Florian; Landholm, David; Lomax, Guy; Lehmann, Johannes; Mesnildrey, Leah; Nabuurs, Gert-Jan; Popp, Alexander; Rivard, Charlotte; Sanderman, Jonathan; Sohngen, Brent; Smith, Pete; Stehfest, Elke; Woolf, Dominic; Lawrence, Deborah
(2021) Global Change Biology, volume 27, issue 23, pp. 6025 - 6058
(Article)
Abstract
Land-based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land-based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing "bottom-up" sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess
... read more
implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost-effective (available up to $100/tCO2 eq) land-based mitigation is 8-13.8 GtCO2 eq yr-1 between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost-effective sectoral estimate is about 40% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost-effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost-effective potential is approximately 50% from forests and other ecosystems, 35% from agriculture, and 15% from demand-side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75-4.8 GtCO2eq yr-1 ) and the top 15 countries account for about 60% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand-side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co-benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio-cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land-based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near-term, low-cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land-based measures available, their potential co-benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country-specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship.
show less
Download/Full Text
Keywords: AFOLU, co-benefits, demand management, feasibility, land management, land sector, mitigation, natural climate solutions, nature-based solutions, Global and Planetary Change, Environmental Chemistry, Ecology, Environmental Science(all)
ISSN: 1354-1013
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)
Note: Funding Information: The design of this study and the data generated were guided by expert consultations and relied on the help of many. We thank all those who contributed: Peter Ellis, Sierra Gladfelter, Jo House, Mercedes Bustamante, Susan Cook-Patton, Sara Leavitt, Nick Wolff, and Thomas Worthington. We thank M.-J. Valentino at Imaginary Office for helping to design the first three figures. This work was supported by the authors? institutions and funding sources, including the Climate and Land-use Alliance, Cornell Institute for Digital Agriculture (CIDA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Food Quality, and the EU H2020 projects VERIFY and ENGAGE (grant agreement no. 821471). Funding Information: Another example, Ecuador, is a “High relative potential, medium feasibility country” with large potentials for protecting forests and other ecosystems (~60%). Reducing deforestation is identified as one of the main mitigation options in the country's NDC, which proposes to reduce deforestation by 4% (unconditional) or 20% (conditional on support) compared to a 2000–2008 reference level (Government of the Republic of Ecuador, 2015 ). The country's existing payment‐for‐ecosystem services program, established in 2008 (Acuerdo Ministerial 161, Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir), proves the ability to successfully realize AFOLU mitigation potentials while delivering substantial co‐benefits including ecosystem services and income to forest communities. Landowner contracts are for 20 years and commit to the preservation of tree cover. As of December 2018, almost 175,000 people participated in the program, resulting in estimated avoided deforestation of 1.6 Mha, spanning about 15% of Ecuador's territory (Ecuadorian Ministry of Environment, 2018 ). The program also led to a decrease in land conflicts in areas with ambiguous land titles (Jones et al., 2020 ) and generated both socioeconomic and ecological benefits. However, the program depends on continued government funding to incentivize persistent conservation behavior (Etchart et al., 2020 ). Ecuador expanded its funding sources for conservation programs by receiving results‐based finance from the REDD+ Early Movers program (Germany/Norway, signed 2018) and the Green Climate Fund (2019). The country's experience with payment‐for‐ecosystem services shows how conservation payments can strengthen land governance but also that continued funding and support is essential for its success. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
(Peer reviewed)
