Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-5 (section)

=== 5.14.3 Climate Resilient Development Pathways ===

<div id="h2-59-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs) introduced in AR5 (Denton, 2014) can briefly be described as ‘development trajectories that integrate adaptation and mitigation to realise the goal of sustainable development’ (see [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC (2019a)]] ) for a more extensive definition). Several characteristics were proposed in SR1.5 by which such CRDPs could be identified: consistency with principles of sustainable development; ability to deliver poverty reduction; ability to enhance social, gender, racial, ethnic and intergenerational equity; ability to deliver resilience to climate change and other shocks and stresses; and ability to protect species, biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services. There is an increasing literature, assessed in SR1.5, on adaptation pathways approaches, generally for specific regions, locations and subsectors.

Two recent examples directly related to agriculture and food are the following: sustaining agrarian livelihoods to mid-century of Nicaraguan small-scale coffee producers using analyses of suitability and coffee quality changes under an IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2 emissions scenario ( [[#Läderach--2017|Läderach et al., 2017]] ); and development of participatory pathways to mid-century under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 support regional adaptation planning in Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand for agricultural producers and rural communities ( [[#Cradock-Henry--2020|Cradock-Henry et al., 2020]] ). CRDPs mentioned in SROCC include shifting from providing coastal defences to adapting to seawater inundation in coastal regions ( [[#Renaud--2015|Renaud et al., 2015]] ) and retreating coastal megacities ( [[#Solecki--2017|Solecki et al., 2017]] ). Pathway frameworks continue to be used to frame the broad-scale challenges of development and climate change, thereby linking different types of food system actor with different responses through time using a variety of approaches, top-down and participatory, qualitative and quantitative ( [[#Butler--2016|Butler et al., 2016]] ; [[#Antle--2017|Antle et al., 2017]] ; [[#Thornton--2017|Thornton and Comberti, 2017]] ; [[#Collste--2019|Collste et al., 2019]] ; [[#Loboguerrero--2020|Loboguerrero et al., 2020]] ; [[#Stringer--2020|Stringer et al., 2020]] ).

While there is consensus that the concept of CRDPs is useful, there are major challenges in identifying, operationalising, monitoring and evaluating them ( [[#Lin--2017|Lin et al., 2017]] ; [[#Bloemen--2018|Bloemen et al., 2018]] ). Management approaches seldom integrate across spatio-temporal scales and may be unable to address unidirectional change and extreme events ( [[#Holsman--2019|Holsman et al., 2019]] ). The socioeconomic complexities and implications of pursuing integrated outcomes make it difficult to evaluate synergies and trade-offs associated with different actions in local contexts through time ( [[#Thornton--2017|Thornton and Comberti, 2017]] ; [[#Ellis--2019|Ellis and Tschakert, 2019]] ; [[#Holsman--2019|Holsman et al., 2019]] ; [[#Orchard--2019|Orchard, 2019]] ). Case studies by Lo (2019) of transformation in a fishing town in south China and by Gajjar (2019) on undesirable path dependencies in development trajectories in urban and rural India show that overall adaptive capacity of populations may be decreased though politicisation and entrenchment of existing inequities, severely limiting the possibilities for future adaptation. A further challenge of implementation is timely detection of tipping points and abrupt exposure events in both climate and environmental systems ( [[#Lenton--2019|Lenton et al., 2019]] ; [[#Trisos--2020|Trisos et al., 2020]] ), which may alter the efficacy of current and planned adaptation actions, necessitating a switch to other, more transformational strategies; in such cases, re-energising food system actors’ commitment to adaptation action may well be needed ( [[#Bloemen--2018|Bloemen et al., 2018]] ).

Integrated modelling of CRDPs will increasingly be needed to throw light on key SDG synergies and trade-offs into the future ( [[#Bleischwitz--2018|Bleischwitz et al., 2018]] ). In investigating possible future pressures on land under the SSPs, Doelman (2018) projected that the largest changes take place in sub-Saharan Africa in SSP3 and SSP4, mostly because of continued high population growth coupled with (projected) sluggish increases in agricultural efficiency, among other things, leading to expansion of agricultural land for crop and livestock production and reduced food security. Lassaletta (2019) evaluated global pig production in the SSPs and concluded that the future sustainability of pig systems will depend on production efficiency improvements coupled with other factors such as use of alternative feed sources and use of slurries on cropland. Such studies will be increasingly important for quantifying the potential trade-offs and synergies between different SDGs, to guide adaptation (and mitigation) action along CRDPs in the future. The current lack of widely accepted and simple-to-measure indicators for tracking progress in adaptation is a significant hurdle to overcome. There is a large literature on the desirable characteristics of future global food systems, but much less on robust analysis that explicitly addresses and evaluates the pathways towards these desired futures. Gerten (2020) estimates that 10.2 billion people can be supported within key planetary boundaries via spatially redistributed cropland and dietary changes, among other actions. There are few, if any, analyses for detailing the plausible pathways to move towards such a future in ways that are socially, economically and environmentally acceptable through time; whether such pathways could indeed be made climate-resilient is unknown. Appropriate monitoring and rapid feedback to food system actors on what is working and why will be critical to the successful operationalisation of adaptation actions within CRDPs ( [[#Bosomworth--2019|Bosomworth and Gaillard, 2019]] ).

<div id="cross-working-group-box-bioeconomy" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Cross-Working Group Box BIOECONOMY: Mitigation and Adaptation via the Bioeconomy'''
<div id="h2-73-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Authors: Henry Neufeldt (Denmark/Germany), Göran Berndes (Sweden), Almut Arneth (Germany), Rachel Bezner Kerr (USA/Canada), Luisa F Cabeza (Spain), Donovan Campbell (Jamaica), Jofre Carnicer Cols (Spain), Annette Cowie (Australia), Vassilis Daioglou (Greece), Joanna House (UK), Adrian Leip (Italy/Germany), Francisco Meza (Chile), Michael Morecroft (UK), Gert-Jan Nabuurs (the Netherlands), Camille Parmesan (UK/USA), Julio C Postigo (USA/Peru), Marta G. Rivera-Ferre (Spain), Raphael Slade (UK), Maria Cristina Tirado von der Pahlen (USA/Spain), Pramod K. Singh (India), Peter Smith (UK)

'''Summary Statement'''
'''''The growing demand for biomass offers both opportunities and challenges to mitigate and adapt to climate change and natural resource constraints (high confidence). Increased technology innovation, stakeholder integration and transparent governance structures and procedures at local to global scales are key to successful bioeconomy deployment maximising benefits and managing trade-offs (high confidence).'''''

Limited global land and biomass resources accompanied by growing demands for food, feed, fibre and fuels, together with prospects for a paradigm shift towards phasing out fossil fuels, set the frame for potentially fierce competition for land 5 [[#footnote-000|1]] and biomass to meet burgeoning demands even as climate change increasingly limits natural resource potentials ( ''high confidence'' ).

Sustainable agriculture and forestry, technology innovation in bio-based production within a circular economy and international cooperation and governance of global trade in products to reflect and disincentivise their environmental and social externalities can provide mitigation and adaptation via bioeconomy development that responds to the needs and perspectives of multiple stakeholders to achieve outcomes that maximise synergies while limiting trade-offs ( ''high confidence'' ).

'''Background'''
There is ''high confidence'' that climate change, population growth and changes in per capita consumption will increase pressures on managed as well as natural and semi-natural ecosystems, exacerbating existing risks to livelihoods, biodiversity, human and ecosystem health, infrastructure and food systems ( [[#Conijn--2018|Conijn et al., 2018]] ; [[#IPCC--2018|IPCC, 2018]] ; [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ; [[#Lade--2020|Lade et al., 2020]] ). At the same time, many global mitigation scenarios presented in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports rely on large greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector and concurrent deployment of reforestation/afforestation and biomass use in a multitude of applications ( [[#Rogelj--2018|Rogelj et al., 2018]] ; AR6 WGIII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-3|Chapter 3]] and Chapter 7; [[#Canadell--2021|Canadell et al., 2021]] ; Lee et al., 2021)

Given the finite availability of natural resources, there are invariably trade-offs that complicate land-based mitigation unless land productivity can be enhanced without undermining ecosystem services (e.g., [[#Obersteiner--2016|Obersteiner et al., 2016]] ; [[#Campbell--2017|Campbell et al., 2017]] ; [[#Caron--2018|Caron et al., 2018]] ; [[#Conijn--2018|Conijn et al., 2018]] ; [[#Heck--2018|Heck et al., 2018]] ; [[#WRI--2018|WRI, 2018]] ; [[#Smith--2019c|Smith et al., 2019c]] ). Management intensities can often be adapted to local conditions with consideration of other functions and ecosystem services, but at a global scale the challenge remains to avoid further deforestation and degradation of intact ecosystems, in particular of biodiversity-rich systems (Cross-Chapter Box on NBS-NATURAL in Chapter 2), while meeting the growing demands. Further, increased land use competition can affect food prices and impact food security and livelihoods ( [[#To--2015|To and Grafton, 2015]] ; [[#Chakravorty--2017|Chakravorty et al., 2017]] ), with possible knock-on effects related to civil unrest ( [[#Abbott--2017|Abbott et al., 2017]] ; [[#D’Odorico--2018|D’Odorico et al., 2018]] ).

'''Developing New Bio-Based Solutions while Mitigating Overall Biomass Demand Growth'''
Many existing bio-based products have significant mitigation potential. Increased use of wood in buildings can reduce GHG emissions from cement and steel production while providing carbon storage ( [[#Churkina--2020|Churkina et al., 2020]] ). Substitution of fossil fuels with biomass in manufacture of cement and steel can reduce GHG emissions where these materials are difficult to replace. Dispatchable power based on biomass can provide power stability and quality as the contribution from solar and wind power increases (WGIII Chapter 6), and biofuels can contribute to reducing fossil fuel emissions in the transport and industry sectors (WGIII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-10|Chapter 10]] and Chapter 11). The use of bio-based plastics, chemicals and packaging could be increased, and biorefineries can achieve high resource-use efficiency in converting biomass into food, feed, fuels and other bio-based products ( [[#Aristizábal-Marulanda--2019|Aristizábal-Marulanda and Cardona Alzate, 2019]] ; [[#Schmidt--2019|Schmidt et al., 2019]] ). There is also scope for substituting existing bio-based products with more benign products. For example, cellulose-based textiles can replace cotton, which requires large amounts of water, chemical fertilizers and pesticides to ensure high yields.

While increasing and diversified use of biomass can reduce the need for fossil fuels and other GHG-intensive products, unfavourable GHG balances may limit the mitigation value. Growth in biomass use may in the longer term also be constrained by the need to protect biodiversity and ecosystems’ capacity to support essential ecosystem services. Biomass use may also be constrained by water scarcity and other resource scarcities and/or challenges related to public perception and acceptance due to impacts caused by biomass production and use. Energy conservation and efficiency measures and deployment of technologies and systems that do not rely on carbon, such as carbon-free electricity supporting, inter alia, electrification of transport as well as industry processes and residential heating ( [[#IPCC--2018|IPCC, 2018]] ; [[#UNEP--2019|UNEP, 2019]] ), can constrain the growth in biomass demand when countries seek to phase out fossil fuels and other GHG-intensive products while providing an acceptable standard of living. Nevertheless, demand for bio-based products may become high where full decoupling from carbon is difficult to achieve (e.g., aviation, bio-based plastics, and chemicals) or where carbon storage is an associated benefit (e.g., wood buildings, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), biochar for soil amendments), leading to challenging trade-offs (e.g., food security, biodiversity) that need to be managed in environmentally sustainable and socially just ways.

Changes on the demand side as well as improvements in resource-use efficiencies within the global food and other bio-based systems can also reduce pressures on the remaining land resources. For example, dietary changes towards more plant-based food (where appropriate) and reduced food waste can provide climate change mitigation along with health benefits ( WGIII Chapter 7.4 and 12.4, [[#Willett--2019|Willett et al., 2019]] ) and other co-benefits with regard to food security, adaptation and land use ( [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al., 2019]] ; [[#Smith--2019c|Smith et al., 2019c]] ; WGII Chapter 5). Advancements in the provision of novel food and feed sources (e.g., cultured meat, insects, grass-based protein feed and cellular agriculture) can also limit the pressures on finite natural resources (WGIII Chapter 12.4, [[#Parodi--2018|Parodi et al., 2018]] ; [[#Zabaniotou--2018|Zabaniotou, 2018]] ).

<div id="_idContainer103" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Cross-Working Group Box BIOECONOMY

Box Cross-Working Group Box BIOECONOMY.1: Circular Bioeconomy

Circular economy approaches (WGIII-12.6) are commonly depicted by two cycles, where the biological cycle focuses on regeneration in the biosphere and the technical cycle focuses on reuse, refurbishment and recycling to maintain value and maximise material recovery ( [[#Mayer--2019a|Mayer et al., 2019a]] ). Biogenic carbon flows and resources are part of the biological carbon cycle, but carbon-based products can be included in, and affect, both the biological and the technical carbon cycles ( [[#Kirchherr--2017|Kirchherr et al., 2017]] ; [[#Winans--2017|Winans et al., 2017]] ; [[#Velenturf--2019|Velenturf et al., 2019]] ). The integration of circular economy and bioeconomy principles has been discussed in relation to organic waste management ( [[#Teigiserova--2020|Teigiserova et al., 2020]] ), societal transition and policy development (Directorate-General for Research Innovation, 2018; [[#Bugge--2019|Bugge et al., 2019]] ) as well as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) recovery strategies ( [[#Palahi--2020|Palahi et al., 2020]] ). To maintain the natural resource base, circular bioeconomy emphasises sustainable land use and the return of biomass and nutrients to the biosphere when it leaves the technical cycle.

Biomass scarcity is an argument for adopting circular economy principles for the management of biomass as for non-renewable resources. This includes waste avoidance, product reuse and material recycling, which keep down resource use while maintaining product and material value. However, reuse and recycling is not always feasible, such as when biofuels are used for transport and bio-based biodegradable chemicals are used to reduce ecological impacts where losses to the environment are unavoidable. A balanced approach to management of biomass resources could take departure in the carbon cycle from a value-preservation perspective and the possible routes that can be taken for biomass and carbon, considering a carbon budget defined by the Paris Agreement, principles for sustainable land use and natural ecosystem protection.

'''Land Use Opportunities and Challenges in the Bioeconomy'''
Analyses of synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation in the agriculture and forestry sectors show that outcomes depend on context, design and implementation, so actions have to be tailored to the specific conditions to minimise adverse effects ( [[#Kongsager--2018|Kongsager, 2018]] ). This is supported in literature analysing the nexus between land, water, energy and food in the context of climate change, which consistently concludes that addressing these different domains together rather than in isolation would enhance synergies and reduce trade-offs ( [[#Obersteiner--2016|Obersteiner et al., 2016]] ; [[#D’Odorico--2018|D’Odorico et al., 2018]] ; [[#Soto%20Golcher--2018|Soto Golcher and Visseren-Hamakers, 2018]] ; Froehse and Schilling, 2019; [[#Momblanch--2019|Momblanch et al., 2019]] ).

Nature-based solutions addressing climate change can provide opportunities for sustainable livelihoods as well as multiple ecosystem services, such as flood risk management through floodplain restoration, saltmarshes, mangroves or peat renaturation (Cross-Chapter Box NATURAL in Chapter 2; [[#UNEP--2021|UNEP, 2021]] ). Climate-smart agriculture can increase productivity while enhancing resilience and reducing GHG emissions inherent to production ( [[#Lipper--2014|Lipper et al., 2014]] ; [[#Singh--2021|Singh and Chudasama, 2021]] ). Similarly, climate-smart forestry considers the whole value chain and integrates climate objectives into forest sector management through multiple measures (from strict reserves to more intensively managed forests) providing mitigation and adaptation benefits ( [[#Nabuurs--2018|Nabuurs et al., 2018]] ; [[#Verkerk--2020|Verkerk et al., 2020]] ; WGIII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.3|Section 7.3]] )

Agroecological approaches can be integrated into a wide range of land management practices to support a sustainable bioeconomy and address equity considerations ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ). Relevant land use practices, such as agroforestry, intercropping, organic amendments, cover crops and rotational grazing, can provide mitigation and support adaption to climate change via food security, livelihoods, biodiversity and health co-benefits ( [[#Ponisio--2015|Ponisio et al., 2015]] ; [[#Garibaldi--2016|Garibaldi et al., 2016]] ; [[#D’Annolfo--2017|D’Annolfo et al., 2017]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2019|Bezner Kerr et al., 2019]] ; [[#Clark--2019|Clark et al., 2019]] ; [[#Córdova--2019|Córdova et al., 2019]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al., 2019]] ; [[#Renard--2019|Renard and Tilman, 2019]] ; [[#Sinclair--2019|Sinclair et al., 2019]] ; [[#Bharucha--2020|Bharucha et al., 2020]] ; [[#Bezner%20Kerr--2021|Bezner Kerr et al., 2021]] ;WGII Cross-Chapter Box NATURAL in Chapter 2). Strategic integration of appropriate biomass production systems into agricultural landscapes can provide biomass for bioenergy and other bio-based products while providing co-benefits such as enhanced landscape diversity, habitat quality, retention of nutrients and sediment, erosion control, climate regulation, flood regulation, pollination and biological pest and disease control (WGIII Chapter12 Box on UNCCD-LDN, [[#Christen--2013|Christen and Dalgaard, 2013]] ; [[#Asbjornsen--2014|Asbjornsen et al., 2014]] ; [[#Holland--2015|Holland et al., 2015]] ; [[#Ssegane--2015|Ssegane et al., 2015]] ; [[#Dauber--2016|Dauber and Miyake, 2016]] ; [[#Milner--2016|Milner et al., 2016]] ; [[#Ssegane--2016|Ssegane and Negri, 2016]] ; [[#Styles--2016|Styles et al., 2016]] ; [[#Zumpf--2017|Zumpf et al., 2017]] ; [[#Cacho--2018|Cacho et al., 2018]] ; [[#Alam--2019|Alam and Dwivedi, 2019]] ; [[#Cubins--2019|Cubins et al., 2019]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Olsson--2019|Olsson et al., 2019]] ; [[#Zalesny--2019|Zalesny et al., 2019]] ; [[#Englund--2020|Englund et al., 2020]] ). Such approaches can help limit environmental impacts from intensive agriculture while maintaining or increasing land productivity and biomass output.

[[File:6514fb6f53a54d39d32f2d4ba66c3035 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_Cross-Working_Group_Box_BIOECONOMY_1.png]]

'''Figure Cross-Working Group Box BIOECONOMY.1 |''' '''Left: High-input intensive agriculture, aiming for high yields of a few crop species, with large fields and no semi-natural habitats.''' Right: Agroecological agriculture, supplying a range of ecosystem services, relying on biodiversity and crop and animal diversity instead of external inputs, and integrating plant and animal production, with smaller fields and presence of semi-natural habitats. Credit: Jacques Baudry (left); Valérie Viaud (right), published in van der Werf et al. (2020).

Transitions from conventional to new biomass production and conversion systems include challenges related to cross-sector integration and limited experience with new crops and land use practices, including needs for specialised equipment (WGII Chapter 5.10, [[#Thornton--2015|Thornton and Herrero, 2015]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ). Introduction of agroecological approaches and integrated biomass/food crop production can result in lower food crop yields per hectare, particularly during transition phases, potentially causing indirect land use change, but can also support higher and more stable yields, reduce costs, and increase profitability under climate change ( [[#Muller--2017|Muller et al., 2017]] ; [[#Seufert--2017|Seufert and Ramakutty, 2017]] ; [[#Barbieri--2019|Barbieri et al., 2019]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Sinclair--2019|Sinclair et al., 2019]] ; [[#Smith--2019c|Smith et al., 2019c]] ; [[#Smith--2020a|Smith et al., 2020a]] ). Crop diversification, organic amendments and biological pest control ( [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ) can reduce input costs and risks of occupational pesticide exposure and food and water contamination ( [[#Gonzalez-Alzaga--2014|Gonzalez-Alzaga et al., 2014]] ; European Food Safety Authority Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues et al., 2017; [[#Mie--2017|Mie et al., 2017]] ), reduce farmers’ vulnerability to climate change (e.g., droughts and spread of pests and diseases affecting plant and animal health; [[#Delcour--2015|Delcour et al., 2015]] ; [[#FAO--2020a|FAO, 2020a]] ) and enhance provisioning and sustaining ecosystem services, such as pollination ( [[#D’Annolfo--2017|D’Annolfo et al., 2017]] ; [[#Sinclair--2019|Sinclair et al., 2019]] ).

Barriers towards wider implementation include absence of policies that compensate landowners for providing enhanced ecosystem services and other environmental benefits, which can help overcome short-term losses during the transition from conventional practices before longer-term benefits can accrue. Other barriers include limited access to markets, knowledge gaps, financial, technological or labour constraints, lack of extension support and insecure land tenure ( [[#Jacobi--2017|Jacobi et al., 2017]] ; [[#Kongsager--2017|Kongsager, 2017]] ; [[#Hernández-Morcillo--2018|Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2018]] ; [[#Iiyama--2018|Iiyama et al., 2018]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ). Regional-level agroecology transitions may be facilitated by co-learning platforms, farmer networks, private sector, civil society groups, regional and local administration, and other incentive structures (e.g., price premiums, access to credit, regulation) ( [[#Coe--2014|Coe et al., 2014]] ; [[#Pérez-Marin--2017|Pérez-Marin et al., 2017]] ; Mier y Terán Giménez [[#Cacho--2018|Cacho et al., 2018]] ; [[#HLPE--2019|HLPE, 2019]] ; [[#Valencia--2019|Valencia et al., 2019]] ; [[#SAPEA--2020|SAPEA, 2020]] ). With the right incentives, improvements can be made with regard to profitability, making alternatives more attractive to landowners.

'''Governing the Solution Space'''
Literature analysing the synergies and trade-offs between competing demands for land suggest that solutions are highly contextualised in terms of their environmental, socioeconomic and governance-related characteristics, making it difficult to devise generic solutions ( [[#Haasnoot--2020|Haasnoot et al., 2020]] ). Aspects of spatial and temporal scale can further enhance the complexity, for instance where transboundary effects across jurisdictions or upstream–downstream characteristics need to be considered, or where climate change trajectories might alter relevant biogeophysical dynamics ( [[#Postigo--2021|Postigo and Young, 2021]] ). Nonetheless, there is broad agreement that taking the needs and perspectives of multiple stakeholders into account in a transparent process during negotiations improves the chances of achieving outcomes that maximise synergies while limiting trade-offs ( [[#Ariti--2018|Ariti et al., 2018]] ; [[#Metternicht--2018|Metternicht, 2018]] ; [[#Favretto--2020|Favretto et al., 2020]] ; [[#Kopáček--2021|Kopáček, 2021]] ; [[#Muscat--2021|Muscat et al., 2021]] ). Yet differences in agency and power between stakeholders or anticipated changes in access to or control of resources can undermine negotiation results even if there is a common understanding of the overarching benefits of more integrated environmental agreements and the need for greater coordination and cooperation to avoid longer-term losses to all ( [[#Aarts--2010|Aarts and Leeuwis, 2010]] ; [[#Weitz--2017|Weitz et al., 2017]] ). There is also the risk that strong local participatory processes can become disconnected from broader national plans, and thus fail to support the achievement of national targets. Thus, connection between levels is needed to ensure that ambition for transformative change is not derailed at the local level ( [[#Aarts--2010|Aarts and Leeuwis, 2010]] ; [[#Postigo--2021|Postigo and Young, 2021]] ).

Decisions on land uses between biomass production for food, feed, fibre or fuel, as well as nature conservation or restoration and other uses (e.g., mining, urban infrastructure), depend on differences in perspectives and values. Because the availability of land for diverse biomass uses is invariably limited, setting priorities for land use allocations therefore first depends on making the perspectives underlying what is considered as ‘high-value’ explicit ( [[#Fischer--2007|Fischer et al., 2007]] ; [[#Garnett--2015|Garnett et al., 2015]] ; [[#de%20Boer--2018|de Boer and van Ittersum, 2018]] ; [[#Muscat--2020|Muscat et al., 2020]] ). Decisions can then be made transparently based on societal norms, needs and the available resource base. Prioritisation of land use for the common good therefore requires societal consensus-building embedded in the socioeconomic and cultural fabric of regions, societies and communities. Integration of local decision making with national planning ensures local actions complement national development objectives.

International trade in the global economy today provides important opportunities to connect producers and consumers, effectively buffering price volatilities and potentially offering producers in low-income countries access to global markets, which can be seen as an effective adaptation measure ( [[#Baldos--2015|Baldos and Hertel, 2015]] ; [[#Costinot--2016|Costinot et al., 2016]] ; [[#Hertel--2016|Hertel and Baldos, 2016]] ; [[#Gouel--2021|Gouel and Laborde, 2021]] ; WGII Chapter 5.11).. But there is also clear evidence that international trade and the global economy can enhance price volatility, lead to food price spikes and affect food security due to climate and other shocks, as seen recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic (WGII Chapter 5.12, [[#Cottrell--2019|Cottrell et al., 2019]] ; [[#WFP-FSIN--2020|WFP-FSIN, 2020]] ; [[#Verschuur--2021|Verschuur et al., 2021]] ). The continued strong demand for food and other bio-based products, mainly from high- and middle-income countries, therefore, requires better cooperation between nations and global governance of trade to more accurately reflect and disincentivise their environmental and social externalities. Trade in agricultural and extractive products driving land use change in tropical forest and savanna biomes is of major concern because of the biodiversity impacts and GHG emissions incurred in their provision (WGII Cross-Chapter Paper 7, [[#Hosonuma--2012|Hosonuma et al., 2012]] ; [[#Forest%20Trends--2014|Forest Trends, 2014]] ; [[#Henders--2015|Henders et al., 2015]] ; [[#Curtis--2018|Curtis et al., 2018]] ; [[#Pendrill--2019|Pendrill et al., 2019]] ; [[#Seymour--2019|Seymour and Harris, 2019]] ; [[#Kissinger--2021|Kissinger et al., 2021]] ).

In summary, there is significant scope for optimising use of land resources to produce more biomass while reducing adverse effects ( ''high confidence'' ). Context-specific prioritisation, technology innovation in bio-based production, integrative policies, coordinated institutions and improved governance mechanisms to enhance synergies and minimise trade-offs can mitigate the pressure on managed as well as natural and semi-natural ecosystems ( ''medium confidence'' ). Yet, energy conservation and efficiency measures, and deployment of technologies and systems that do not rely on carbon-based energy and materials, are essential for mitigating biomass demand growth as countries pursue ambitious climate goals ( ''high confidence'' ).

<div id="_idContainer106" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Cross-Working Group Box BIOECONOMY

-----

<div id="footnote-000" class="_idFootnote"></div>

[[#footnote-000-backlink|1]] 5 For lack of space, the focus is on land only, although the bioeconomy also includes sea-related bioresources.

<div id="frequently-asked-questions" class="h1-container"></div>