Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-17 (section)

==== 17.3.3.1 Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) ====

<div id="h3-4-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Sustainable development and mitigation policies are closely linked in the agriculture, food and land-use sectors. We assess synergies and trade-offs between meeting the SDGs and reducing GHG emissions within the sectors based on modelling studies and case studies illustrating how trade-offs between SDG 2 (zero hunger, biomass for energy) and SDG 15 (life on land) can be addressed by cross-sectoral mitigation options.

[[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-7|Chapter 7]] emphasises the high expectations on land to deliver mitigation, yet the pressures on land have grown with population, dietary changes, the impacts of climate change and the conversion of uncultivated land to agriculture and other land uses. Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU) are expected to play a vital role in the portfolio of mitigation options across all sectors. The AFOLU sector is also the only one in which it is currently feasible to achieve carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere, including afforestarion/reforestation (A/R), improved forest management and soil carbon sequestration (SCR) (Chapters 7 and 12). The AFOLU sector has a significant mitigation potential, with many scenarios showing a shift to net-negative CO 2 emissions during the 21st century. Total cumulative AFOLU CO 2 sequestration varies widely across scenarios, with as much as 415 GtCO 2 being sequestered between 2010 and 2100 in the most stringent mitigation scenarios. The largest share of net-GHG emissions reductions from AFOLU in both the 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios is from forestry-related measures, such as afforestation, reforestation and reduced deforestation. Afforestation, reforestation and forest management result in substantial CDR in many scenarios. CO 2 and CH 4 show larger and more rapid declines than N 2 O, an indication of the difficulties of reducing N 2 O emissions in agriculture (Chapter 3).

The Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Report ( [[#IPBES--2019|IPBES 2019]] , Chapter 5) assessed the relationship between meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement and SDGs 2 (zero hunger), 7 (affordable and clean energy) and 15 (life on land). It concluded that a large expansion of the amount of land used for bioenergy production would not be compatible with these SDGs. However, combining bioenergy options with other mitigation options, like more efficient land management and the restoration of nature, could contribute to welfare improvements and to accessing food and water. Demand-side climate-mitigation measures, like energy-efficiency improvements, reduced meat consumption and reduced food waste, were considered to be the most economically attractive and efficient options in order to support low GHG emissions, food security and biodiversity objectives. Implementing such options, however, can involve challenges in terms of lifestyle changes ( [[#IPBES--2019|IPBES 2019]] ).

The potential joint contribution of food and land-use systems to sustainable development and climate change has also been addressed in policy programmes by the UN, local governments and the private sector. These programmes address options for pursuing sustainable development and climate change jointly, such as agroforestry, agricultural intensification, better agriculture practices and avoided deforestation. ( [[#Griggs--2013|Griggs and Stafford-Smith 2013]] ) assess production- and consumption-based methods of achieving joint sustainability and climate-change mitigation in food systems, concluding that efficiency improvements in agricultural production systems can provide large benefits. Given the expectations of high levels of population growth and the strong increase in the demand for meat and dairy products, there is also a need for the careful management of dietary changes, as well for those areas which could be used most effectively for livestock and plant production.

Loss of biodiversity has been highlighted in several studies as a major trade-off of the low stabilisation scenarios ( [[#Prudhomme--2020|Prudhomme et al. 2020]] ). A wide range of mitigation and adaptation responses – for example, preserving natural ecosystems such as peatland, coastal lands and forests, reducing the competition for land, fire management, soil management and most risk-management options – have the potential to make positive contributions to sustainable development, ecosystems services and other social goals ( [[#McElwee--2020|McElwee et al. 2020]] ). ( [[#Smith--2019a|]] [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al. 2019]] a ) also stressed that agricultural practices (e.g., improving yields, agroforestry), forest conservation (e.g., afforestation, reforestation), soil carbon sequestration (e.g., biochar addition to soils) and the removal of carbon dioxide (e.g., BECCS) could contribute to climate change mitigation ( [[#Smith--2019a|]] [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al. 2019]] a ). However, there are also options that could improve biodiversity if they were implemented jointly with climate change mitigation in AFOLOU. In their study, ( [[#Leclère--2020|Leclère et al. 2020]] ) show that increasing conservation management, restoring degraded land and generalised landscape-level conservation planning could be positive for biodiversity. In general, the ambitious conservation efforts and transformations of food systems are central to an effective post-2020 biodiversity strategy.

The IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land ( [[#IPCC--2019|IPCC 2019]] ) emphasises the need for governance in order to avoid conflict between sustainable development and land-use management. It states: ‘Measuring progress towards goals is important in decision-making and adaptive governance to create common understanding and advance policy effectiveness’. The report concludes that measurable indicators are very useful in linking land-use policies, the NDCs and the SDGs.

One example of an area where special governance efforts have been called for is the protection of forestry, ecosystem services and local livelihoods in a context of the large-scale deployment of high-value crops like palm oil, short-term, high income-generating activities and sustainable development. Serious challenges are already being seen within these areas according to ( [[#IPBES--2019|IPBES 2019]] ).

Palm oil is one example of a product with potentially major trade-offs between meeting the SDGs and climate change mitigation in the agriculture, forest and other land uses (AFOLU) sector. Currently the area under oil palms is showing a tremendous increase, mostly in forest conversions to oil-palm plantations ( [[#Austin--2019|Austin et al. 2019]] ; [[#Gaveau--2016|Gaveau et al. 2016]] ; [[#Schoneveld--2019|Schoneveld et al. 2019]] ). The conversion of peat swamp forest and mineral forest to oil palms will yield different amounts of CO 2 . A study by ( [[#Novita--2020|Novita et al. 2020]] ) shows that the carbon stock of primary peat-swamp forest was 1770 MgC ha –1 compared to a carbon stock of oil palm of 759 MgC ha –1 . The study conducted by Guillaume et al. shows that the carbon stock in mineral soils was 284 MgC ha –1 compared to that in rainforest, which was 110.76 Mg C ha –1 ( [[#Guillaume--2018|Guillaume et al. 2018]] ).

Restoring peatlands is one of the most promising strategies for achieving nature-based CDR ( [[#Girardin--2021|Girardin et al. 2021]] ; [[#Seddon--2021|Seddon et al. 2021]] ). A study by ( [[#Novita--2021|Novita et al. 2021]] ) shows that significantly different CO 2 emissions for different land-use categories are influenced more by the water-table depth and latitude position for those locations relative to other observed parameters, such as bulk density, air temperature and rainfall.

Given that the frequent peatland fires in Indonesia were caused by land clearances in the replanting season, multi-stakeholder collaboration between oil-palm plantations, local communities and local governments over practices such as zero burning when clearing land might be one of the most effective ways to reduce the deforestation impact of oil palm ( [[#Jupesta--2020|Jupesta et al. 2020]] ). Behavioural changes as a mitigation option have been suggested as a major factor in aligning sustainable development, climate change and land management. In the absence of the policy intervention, the expansion of oil-palm plantations has provided limited benefits to indigenous and Afro-descended communities. Even when oil-palm expansion improves rural livelihoods, the benefits are unevenly distributed across the rural population ( [[#Andrianto--2019|Andrianto et al. 2019]] ; [[#Castellanos-Navarrete--2021|Castellanos-Navarrete et al. 2021]] ). In any case, while oil-palm production can improve smallholders’ livelihoods in certain circumstances, this sector offers limited opportunities for agricultural labourers, especially women ( [[#Castellanos-Navarrete--2019|Castellanos-Navarrete et al. 2019]] ).

Economy-wide mitigation costs can be effectively limited by lifestyle, technology and policy choices, as well as benefitting from synergies with the SDGs. Synergies come from the consumption side ''by'' managing demand. For example, reducing food waste leads to resources being saved because water, land use, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are all reduced (Chapter 3).

[[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-12|Chapter 12]] emphasised that diets high in plant protein and low in meat, in particular red meat, are associated with lower GHG emissions. Emerging food-chain technologies such as microbial, plant, or insect-based protein promise substantial reductions in direct GHG emissions from food production. The full mitigation potential of such technologies can only be realised in low-GHG energy systems.

( [[#Springmann--2018|Springmann et al. 2018]] ) conclude that reductions in food waste could be a very important option for reducing agricultural GHG emissions, the demand for agricultural land and water, and nitrogen and phosphorous applications. In addition to the possibility to reduce food waste, their study analysed several other options for reducing the environmental effects of the food system, including dietary changes in the direction of healthier, more plant-based diets and improvements in technologies and management. It was concluded that, relative to a baseline scenario for 2050, dietary changes in the direction of healthier diets could reduce GHG emissions by 29% and 5–9% respectively in a dietary-guideline scenario, and by 56% and 6–22% respectively in a more plant-based diet scenario. Demand-side, service-oriented solutions vary between and within countries and regions, according to living conditions and context. Avoiding food waste reduces GHG emissions substantially. Dietary shifts to plant-based nutrition lead to healthier lives and reduce GHG emissions ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.3|Section 5.3]] ).

A similar study also found a positive impact form zero food waste. The ‘no food waste’ scenario could decrease global average food calorie availability by 120 kcal person −1 d –1 and protein availability by 4.6 g protein person −1 d −1 relative to their baseline levels, thus reducing required crop and livestock production by 490 and 190 Mt respectively. This lower level of production reduces agricultural land use by 57 Mha and thus mitigates the associated side effects on the environment. The lower levels of production also reduce the requirements for fertilisers and water by 10 Mt and 110 km 3 respectively, and GHG emissions are reduced by 410 MtCO 2 -eq yr –1 relative to the 2030 baseline. Reducing food waste can contribute to lessening the demand for food, feed and other resources such as water and nitrogen, reducing the pressure on land and the environment while ending hunger ( [[#Hasegawa--2019|Hasegawa et al. 2019]] ).

In 2007, Britain launched a nationwide initiative to reduce household food waste, which achieved a 21% reduction within five years ( [[#FAO--2019|FAO 2019]] ). The basis of this initiative was the ‘Love Food, Hate Waste’ radio, TV, print and online media campaign run by a non-profit organisation, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). The campaign raised awareness among consumers about how much food they waste, how it affects their household budgets and what they can do about it. This initiative collaborated with food manufacturers and retailers to stimulate innovation, such as resealable packaging, shared meal-planning and food-storage tips. The total implementation costs during the five-year period were estimated at GBP26 million, from which it was households that derived the most benefit, estimated to be worth GBP6.5 billion. Local authorities also realised a substantial GBP86 million worth of savings in food-waste disposal costs. As for the private sector, the benefits took the form of increased product shelf lives and reduced product loss. While households started to consume more efficiently and companies may have experienced a decline in food sales, the latter also stated that the non-financial benefits, such as strengthened consumer relationships, had offset the costs.

The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group of countries has also created several types of public-private partnership to tackle food waste and reduce losses. Most of these partnerships are focused on food-waste recycling in both developed and developing countries ( [[#Rogelj--2018|Rogelj et al. 2018]] ). APEC members stated that knowledge-sharing and improved policy and project management were the most important advantages of public-private partnerships.

The inextricably intertwined factors in decision-making are influenced by the characteristics of the person, in interaction with the characteristics of more sustainable practices and products, which interact with a particular context that includes the immediate environment (e.g., household, farm), the indirect environment (e.g., community) and macro-environmental factors (e.g., the political, financial and economic contexts) ( [[#Hoek--2021|Hoek et al. 2021]] ). Hence, to influence people to make decisions in favour of sustainable food production or consumption, a wider perspective is needed on decision-making processes and behavioural change, in which individuals are not targeted in isolation, but in interaction with this wider systemic environment.

In conclusion, the AFOLU sector offers many low-cost mitigation options, which, however, can also create trade-offs between land use for food, energy, forest and biodiversity. Some options can help to mitigate such trade-offs, like agricultural practices (e.g., improved yields, agroforestry), forest conservation (e.g., afforestation, reforestation), soil carbon sequestration (e.g., biochar addition to soils) and the removal of carbon dioxide (e.g., BECCS), which could contribute to climate change mitigation. Lifestyle changes, including dietary changes and reduced food waste, are tightly embedded in modes of behaviour that are influenced by the immediate environment (e.g., household, farm), the indirect environment (e.g., community) and macro-environmental factors (e.g., political, financial and economic contexts). Achieving zero food waste could reduce the demands for land (SDG 15), water use (SDG 6) and chemical fertilisers (SDG 9), leading to GHG emissions reductions (SDG 13) by encouraging sustainable consumption and production practices (SDG 12).

<div id="17.3.3.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="water-energy-food-nexus"></span>