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

==== 7.4.1.2 Co-benefits and Risks ====

<div id="h3-15-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Land interventions have interlinked implications for climate mitigation, adaptation, food security, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and other environmental and societal challenges ( [[#7.6.5|Section 7.6.5]] ). Therefore, it is important to consider the net effect of mitigation measures for achieving both climate and non-climate goals ( [[#7.1|Section 7.1]] ).

While it is helpful to assess the general benefits, risks and opportunities possible for land-based mitigation measures (L.G. [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al. 2019]] ), their efficacy and scale of benefit or risk largely depends on the type of activity undertaken, deployment strategy (e.g., scale, method), and context (e.g., soil, biome, climate, food system, land ownership) that vary geographically and over time ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (L.G. [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al. 2019]] ; P. [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al. 2019]] a; [[#Hurlbert--2019|Hurlbert et al. 2019]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.5|Section 12.5]] ) ''.'' Impacts of land-based mitigation measures are therefore highly context specific and conclusions from specific studies may not be universally applicable. If implemented at appropriate scales and in a sustainable manner, land-based mitigation practices have the capacity to reduce emissions and sequester billions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere over coming decades, while also preserving or enhancing biodiversity, water quality and supply, air quality, soil fertility, food and wood security, livelihoods, resilience to droughts, floods and other natural disasters, and positively contributing to ecosystem health and human well-being ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Toensmeier--2016|Toensmeier 2016]] ; [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al. 2020]] ).

Overall, measures in the AFOLU sector are uniquely positioned to deliver substantial co-benefits. However, the negative consequences of inappropriate or misguided design and implementation of measures may be considerable, potentially impacting for example, mitigation permanence, longevity, and leakage, biodiversity, wider ecosystem functioning, livelihoods, food security and human well-being ( [[#7.6|Section 7.6]] ) (AR6 WGII, Box 2.2). Land-based mitigation may also face limitations and trade-offs in achieving sustained emission reductions and/or removals due to other land challenges including climate change impacts. It is widely recognised that land-use planning that is context-specific, considers other sustainable development goals, and is adaptable over time can help achieve land-based mitigation that maximises co-benefits, avoids or limits trade-offs, and delivers on international policy goals including the SDGs, Land Degradation Neutrality, and Convention on Biological Diversity ( [[#7.6|Section 7.6]] ; Chapter 12).

Potential co-benefits and trade-offs are outlined for each of the 20 land-based mitigation measures in the proceeding sub-sections and summarised in Figure 7.12. [[#7.6.5|Section 7.6.5]] . discusses general links with ecosystem services, human well-being and adaptation, while [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-12|Chapter 12]] ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.5|Section 12.5]] ) provides an in-depth assessment of the land related impacts, risks and opportunities associated with mitigation options across sectors, including positive and negative effects on land resources, water, biodiversity, climate, and food security.

<div id="_idContainer033" class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1"></div>

[[File:2dff89cb98cd260cf67f4be8552cb4ad IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_7_12.png]]

'''Figure 7.12 | Historic land sector GHG flux estimates and illustrative AFOLU mitigation pathways to 2050, based on data presented in Sections 7.''' '''2, 7.4 and 7.5.''' Historic trends consider both '''A''' anthropogenic (AFOLU) GHG fluxes (GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ) according to FAOSTAT ( [[#FAO--2021a|FAO 2021a]] ; 2021b) and '''B''' the estimated natural land CO 2 sink according to ( [[#Friedlingstein--2020|Friedlingstein et al. 2020]] ). Note that for the anthropogenic net land CO 2 flux component, several approaches and methods are described within the literature ( [[#7.2.2|Section 7.2.2]] ) with a wide range in estimates. For clarity, only one dataset (FAOSTAT) is illustrated here. It is not intended to indicate preference for one particular method over others. Historic flux trends are illustrated to 2019, the latest year for which data is available. Projected economic mitigation potential (at costs of up to USD100 tCO 2 -eq –1 ) includes estimates from IAMs and sectoral studies (Table 7.3). The ‘sectoral studies’ are disaggregated into several cumulative parts: first ‘sectoral studies’ involves measures in agriculture, forests and other ecosystems, then an additional BECCS share (‘+ BECCS’), then the additional effect of demand-side measures and BECCS (‘+BECCS and demand-side measures’). The latter only accounting for diverted agricultural production to avoid double counting. Projected mitigation assumes adoption of measures to achieve increasing, linear mitigation, reaching average annual potential in 2050, although this does not reflect deployment rates for most measures. For illustrative purposes, a pathway to projected emissions in 2050 according to a scenario of current policy (C7 – above 3.0°C – Model: GCAM 5.3) is additionally included for reference.

<div id="7.4.1.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="overview-of-global-and-regional-technical-and-economic-potentials-in-afolu"></span>