Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 (section)

== Executive Summary ==

<div id="h1-1-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

'''TheAgriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use''' [[#footnote-002|1]] '''(AFOLU) sector encompasses managed ecosystems and offers significant mitigation opportunities while delivering food, wood and other renewable resources as well as biodiversity conservation, provided the sector adapts to climate change.''' Land-based mitigation measures represent some of the most important options currently available. They can both deliver carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and substitute for fossil fuels, thereby enabling emissions reductions in other sectors. The rapid deployment of AFOLU measures is essential in all pathways staying within the limits of the remaining budget for a 1.5°C target ( ''high confidence'' ). Where carefully and appropriately implemented, AFOLU mitigation measures are uniquely positioned to deliver substantial co-benefits and help address many of the wider challenges associated with land management. If AFOLU measures are deployed badly then, when taken together with the increasing need to produce sufficient food, feed, fuel and wood, they may exacerbate trade-offs with the conservation of habitats, adaptation, biodiversity and other services. At the same time the capacity of the land to support these functions may be threatened by climate change itself ( ''high confidence'' ). {IPCC AR6 WGI, Figure SPM.7; IPCC AR6 WGII, 7.1, 7.6}

'''The AFOLU (managed land) sector, on average, accounted for''' '''13–21''' '''% of global total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the period''' '''2010–2019''' '''(''' '''''medium confidence''''' '''). At the same time managed and natural terrestrial ecosystems were a carbon sink, absorbing around one third of anthropogenic CO''' 2 '''emissions (''' '''''medium confidence''''' ''').''' Estimated anthropogenic net CO 2 emissions from AFOLU (based on book-keeping models) result in a net source of +5.9 ± 4.1 GtCO 2 yr –1 between 2010 and 2019 with an unclear trend. Based on FAOSTAT or national GHG inventories, the net CO 2 emissions from AFOLU were 0.0 to +0.8 GtCO 2 yr –1 over the same period. There is a discrepancy in the reported CO 2 AFOLU emissions magnitude because alternative methodological approaches that incorporate different assumptions are used. If the managed and natural responses of all land to both anthropogenic environmental change and natural climate variability, estimated to be a ''gross'' sink of –12.5 ± 3.2 GtCO 2 yr –1 for the period 2010–2019, are included with land use emissions, then land overall, constituted a ''net'' sink of –6.6 ± 5.2 GtCO 2 yr –1 in terms of CO 2 emissions ( ''medium confidence'' ). {7.2, 7.2.2.5, Table 7.1; IPCC AR6 WGI}

'''AFOLU CO''' 2 '''emissions fluxes are mainly driven by land use change (CO''' 2 '''LULUCF), and account for about half of total net AFOLU emissions. The rate of deforestation has generally declined, while global tree cover and global forest growing stock levels are likely increasing (''' '''''medium confidence''''' ) '''.''' There are substantial regional differences, with losses of carbon generally observed in tropical regions and gains in temperate and boreal regions. Agricultural methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions are estimated to average 157 ± 47.1 MtCH 4 yr –1 and 6.6 ± 4.0 MtN 2 O yr –1 or 4.2 ± 1.3 and 1.8 ± 1.1 GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 (using IPCC AR6 GWP100 values for CH 4 and N 2 O) respectively between 2010 and 2019. AFOLU CH 4 emissions continue to increase ( ''high confidence'' ), the main source of which is enteric fermentation from ruminant animals ( ''high confidence'' ). Similarly, AFOLU N 2 O emissions are increasing, dominated by agriculture, notably from manure application, nitrogen deposition, and nitrogen fertiliser use ( ''high confidence'' ). In addition to being a source and sink for GHG emissions, land plays an important role in climate through albedo effects, evapotranspiration and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and their mix, although the combined role in total climate forcing is unclear and varies strongly with bioclimatic region and management type. {2.4.2.5, 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.3, 7.3}

'''The AFOLU sector offers significant near-term mitigation potential at relatively low cost but cannot compensate for delayed emission reductions in other sectors''' '''(''' '''''high evidence''''' ''',''' '''''medium agreement''''' ''').''' The AFOLU sector can provide 20–30% (interquartile range) of the global mitigation needed for a 1.5°C or 2°C pathway towards 2050 ( ''robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ), though there are highly variable mitigation strategies for how AFOLU potential can be deployed for achieving climate targets. The estimated ''likely'' economic (&lt;USD100 tCO 2 -eq –1 ) AFOLU sector mitigation potential is 8 to 14 GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the mean from integrated assessment models (IAMs) and the upper end representing the mean estimate from global sectoral studies. The economic potential is about half of the technical potential from AFOLU, and about 30–50% could be achieved under USD20 tCO 2 -eq –1 . The implementation of robust measurement, reporting and verification processes is paramount to improving the transparency of net-carbon-stock changes per land unit to prevent misleading assumptions or claims on mitigation. {7.1, 7.4, 7.5}

'''Between 2020 and 2050, mitigation measures in forests and other natural ecosystems provide the largest share of the economic (up to USD100''' '''tCO''' 2 '''-eq''' –1 ''') AFOLU mitigation potential, followed by agriculture and demand-side measures (''' '''''high confidence''''' ''').''' In the global sectoral studies, the protection, improved management, and restoration of forests, peatlands, coastal wetlands, savannas and grasslands have the potential to reduce emissions and/or sequester 7.3 mean (3.9–13.1 range) GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 . Agriculture provides the second largest share of the mitigation potential, with 4.1 (1.7–6.7) GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 (up to USD100 tCO 2 -eq –1 ) from cropland and grassland soil carbon management, agroforestry, use of biochar, improved rice cultivation, and livestock and nutrient management. Demand-side measures including shifting to sustainable healthy diets, reducing food waste, and building with wood and biochemicals and bio-textiles have a mitigation potential of 2.2 (1.1–3.6) GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 . Most mitigation options are available and ready to deploy. Emissions reductions can be unlocked relatively quickly, whereas CDR needs upfront investment. Sustainable intensification in agriculture, shifting diets, and reducing food waste could enhance efficiencies and reduce agricultural land needs, and are therefore critical for enabling supply-side measures such as reforestation, restoration, as well as decreasing CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from agricultural production. In addition, emerging technologies (e.g., vaccines or inhibitors) have the potential to substantially increase CH 4 mitigation potential beyond current estimates. AFOLU mitigation is not only relevant in countries with large land areas. Many smaller countries and regions, particularly with wetlands, have disproportionately high levels of AFOLU mitigation potential density. {7.4, 7.5}

'''The economic and political feasibility of implementing AFOLU mitigation measures is hampered by persistent barriers. Assisting countries to overcome barriers will help to achieve significant short-term mitigation (''' '''''medium confidence''''' ''').''' Finance forms a critical barrier to achieving these gains as currently mitigation efforts rely principally on government sources and funding mechanisms which do not provide sufficient resources to enable the economic potential to be realised. Differences in cultural values, governance, accountability and institutional capacity are also important barriers. Climate change could also emerge as a barrier to AFOLU mitigation, although the IPCC AR6 WGI contribution to AR6 indicated that an increase in the capacity of natural sinks may occur, despite changes in climate ( ''medium'' ''confidence'' ). The continued loss of biodiversity makes ecosystems less resilient to climate change extremes and this may further jeopardise the achievement of the AFOLU mitigation potentials indicated in this chapter (IPCC AR6 WGII and IPBES) ( ''high confidence'' ). {7.4, 7.6; IPCC AR6 WGI, Figure SPM.7}

'''Bioenergy and other bio-based options represent an important share of the total mitigation potential. The range of recent estimates for the technical bioenergy potential when constrained by food security and environmental considerations is''' '''5–50''' '''and''' '''50–250''' '''EJ y''' '''r''' –1 '''by 2050 for residues and dedicated biomass production system respectively. These estimates fall within previously estimated ranges (''' '''''medium agreement''''' ''')''' . Poorly planned deployment of biomass production and afforestation options for in-forest carbon sequestration may conflict with environmental and social dimensions of sustainability ( ''high confidence'' ) ''.'' The global technical CDR potential of BECCS by 2050 (considering only the technical capture of CO 2 and storage underground) is estimated at 5.9 mean (0.5–11.3) GtCO 2 yr –1 , of which 1.6 (0.8–3.5) GtCO 2 yr –1 is available at below USD100 tCO 2 –1 ( ''medium confidence'' ). Bioenergy and other bio-based products provide additional mitigation through the substitution of fossil fuels fossil-based products ( ''high confidence'' ). These substitution effects are reported in other sectors. Wood used in construction may reduce emissions associated with steel and concrete use. The agriculture and forestry sectors can devise management approaches that enable biomass production and use for energy in conjunction with the production of food and timber, thereby reducing the conversion pressure on natural ecosystems ( ''medium con'' ''fidence'' ). {7.4}

'''The deployment of all land-based mitigation measures can provide multiple co-benefits, but there are also risks and trade-offs from misguided or inappropriate land management (''' '''''high confidence''''' '''). Such risks can best be managed if AFOLU mitigation is pursued in response to the needs and perspectives of multiple stakeholders to achieve outcomes that maximise synergies while limiting trade-offs (''' '''''medium confidence''''' ''').''' The results of implementing AFOLU measures are often variable and highly context specific. Depending on local conditions (e.g., ecosystem, climate, food system, land ownership) and management strategies (e.g., scale, method), mitigation measures have the potential to positively or negatively impact biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, air quality, water availability and quality, soil productivity, rights infringements, food security, and human well-being. Mitigation measures addressing GHGs may also affect other climate forcers such as albedo and evapotranspiration. Integrated responses that contribute to mitigation, adaptation, and other land challenges will have greater likelihood of being successful ( ''high confidence'' ); measures which provide additional benefits to biodiversity and human well-being are sometimes described as ‘Nature-Based Solutions’. {7.1, 7.4, 7.6}

'''AFOLU mitigation measures have been well understood for decades but deployment remains slow and emissions trends indicate unsatisfactory progress despite beneficial contributions to global emissions reduction from forest-related options (''' '''''high confidence''''' ''').''' Globally, the AFOLU sector has so far contributed modestly to net mitigation, as past policies have delivered about 0.65 GtCO 2 yr –1 of mitigation during 2010–2019 or 1.4% of global gross emissions ( ''high confidence'' ). The majority (&gt;80%) of emission reduction resulted from forestry measures ( ''high confidence'' ). Although the mitigation potential of AFOLU measures is large from a biophysical and ecological perspective, its feasibility is hampered by lack of institutional support, uncertainty over long-term additionality and trade-offs, weak governance, fragmented land ownership, and uncertain permanence effects. Despite these impediments to change, AFOLU mitigation options are demonstrably effective and with appropriate support can enable rapid emission reductions in most countries. {7.4, 7.6}

'''Concerted, rapid and sustained effort by all stakeholders, from policy makers and investors to land owners and managers is a pre-requisite to achieving high levels of mitigation in the AFOLU sector (''' '''''high''''' '''''confidence''''' ''').''' To date USD0.7 billion yr –1 is estimated to have been spent on AFOLU mitigation. This is well short of the more than USD400 billion yr –1 that is estimated to be necessary to deliver the up to 30% of global mitigation effort envisaged in deep mitigation scenarios ( ''medium confidence'' ). This estimate of the global funding requirement is smaller than current subsidies provided to agriculture and forestry. Making this funding available would require a change in flows of money and determination of who pays. A gradual redirection of existing agriculture and forestry subsidies would greatly advance mitigation. Effective policy interventions and national (investment) plans as part of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), specific to local circumstances and needs, are urgently needed to accelerate the deployment of AFOLU mitigation options. These interventions are effective when they include funding schemes and long-term consistent support for implementation with governments taking the initiative together with private funders and non-state actors. {7.6}

'''Realising the mitigation potential of the AFOLU sector depends strongly on policies that directly address emissions and drive the deployment of land-based mitigation options, consistent with carbon prices in deep mitigation scenarios (''' '''''high confidence''''' ''').''' Examples of successful policies and measures include establishing and respecting tenure rights and community forestry, improved agricultural management and sustainable intensification, biodiversity conservation, payments for ecosystem services, improved forest management and wood chain usage, bioenergy, voluntary supply chain management efforts, consumer behaviour campaigns, private funding and joint regulatory efforts to avoid, for example, leakage. The efficacy of different policies, however, will depend on numerous region-specific factors. In addition to funding, these factors include governance, institutions, long-term consistent execution of measures, and the specific policy setting ( ''high con'' ''fidence'' ). {7.6}

'''There is a discrepancy, equating to 5.5''' '''GtCO''' 2 '''y''' '''r''' –1 '''between alternative methods of accounting for anthropogenic land CO''' 2 '''fluxes. Reconciling these methods greatly enhances the credibility of AFOLU-based emissions offsetting. It would also assist in assessing collective progress in a global stocktake (''' '''''high confidence''''' ''').''' The principal accounting approaches are national GHG inventories (NGHGI) and global modelling approaches. NGHGI, based on IPCC guidelines, consider a much larger area of forest to be under human management than global models. NGHGI consider the fluxes due to human-induced environmental change on this area to be anthropogenic and are thus reported. Global models, [[#footnote-001|2]] in contrast, consider these fluxes to be natural and are excluded from the total reported anthropogenic land CO 2 flux. To enable a like-with-like comparison, the remaining cumulative global CO 2 emissions budget can be adjusted ( ''medium confidence'' ). In the absence of these adjustments, collective progress would appear better than it is. {Cross-Chapter Box 6 in this chapter, 7.2}

'''Addressing the many knowledge gaps in the development and testing of AFOLU mitigation options can rapidly advance the likelihood of achieving sustained mitigation (''' '''''high''''' '''''confidence''''' ''').''' Research priorities include improved quantification of anthropogenic and natural GHG fluxes and emissions modelling, better understanding of the impacts of climate change on the mitigation potential, permanence and additionality of estimated mitigation actions, and improved (real time and cheap) measurement, reporting and verification. There is a need to include a greater suite of mitigation measures in IAMs, informed by more realistic assessments that take into account local circumstances and socio-economic factors and cross-sector synergies and trade-offs. Finally, there is a critical need for more targeted research to develop appropriate country-level, locally specific, policy and land management response options. These options could support more specific NDCs with AFOLU measures that enable mitigation while also contributing to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning, livelihoods for millions of farmers and foresters, and many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ( ''high conf'' ''idence'' ). {7.7}

<div id="7.1" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="introduction"></span>