Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-6 (section)

=== 6.3.6 Summarising the potential of the integrated response options across mitigation, adaptation, desertification land degradation and food security ===

<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-1"></div>

Using the quantification provided in Tables 6.13 to 6.52, the impacts are categorised as either positive or negative, and are designated as large, moderate and small, according to the criteria given in Table 6.53. <sup>[[#fn:7|7]]</sup>

<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-6.53"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.53'''

<span id="key-for-criteria-used-to-define-the-magnitude-of-the-impact-of-each-integrated-response-option."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Key for criteria used to define the magnitude of the impact of each integrated response option.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:28980188e5403b56c78ab5f5bbd774a4 table-6.53.png]]

Note: All numbers are for global scale; all values are for technical potential. For mitigation, the target is set at around the level of large single mitigation measure (about 1 GtC yr–1 = 3.67 GtCO2-eq yr–1) (Pacala and Socolow 2004 <sup>[[#fn:r713|713]]</sup> ), with a combined target to meet 100 GtCO2 in 2100, to go from baseline to 2 ̊C (Clarke et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r714|714]]</sup> ). For adaptation, numbers are set relative to the about 5 million lives lost per year attributable to climate change and a carbon-based economy, with 0.4 million per year attributable directly to climate change. This amounts to 100 million lives predicted to be lost between 2010 and 2030 due to climate change and a carbon-based economy (DARA 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r715|715]]</sup> ), with the largest category representing 25% of this total. For desertification and land degradation, categories are set relative to the 10–60 million km2 of currently degraded land (Gibbs and Salmon 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r716|716]]</sup> ) with the largest category representing 30% of the lower estimate. For food security, categories are set relative to the roughly 800 million people currently undernourished (HLPE 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r717|717]]</sup> ) with the largest category representing around 12.5% of this total.

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-3"></div>

Tables 6.54 to 6.61 summarise the potentials of the integrated response options across mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security. Cell colours correspond to the large, moderate and small impact categories shown in Table 6.53.

As seen in Tables 6.54 to 6.61, three response options across the 14 for which there are data for every land challenge: increased food productivity, agroforestry and increased soil organic carbon content, deliver large benefits across all five land challenges.

A further six response options: improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, fire management and reduced post-harvest losses, deliver either large or moderate benefits for all land challenges.

Three additional response options: dietary change, reduced food waste and reduced soil salinisation, each missing data to assess global potential for just one of the land challenges, deliver large or moderate benefits to the four challenges for which there are global data.

Eight response options: increased food productivity, reforestation and forest restoration, afforestation, increased soil organic carbon content, enhanced mineral weathering, dietary change, reduced post-harvest losses, and reduced food waste, have large mitigation potential (&gt;3 GtCO2e yr–1) without adverse impacts on other challenges.

Sixteen response options: increased food productivity, improved cropland management, agroforestry, agricultural diversification, forest management, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced landslides and natural hazards, restoration and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, management of supply chains, improved food processing and retailing, improved energy use in food systems, livelihood diversification, use of local seeds, and disaster risk management, have large adaptation potential at global scale (positively affecting more than 25 million people) without adverse side effects for other challenges.

Thirty-three of the 40 response options can be applied without requiring land-use change and limiting available land. A large number of response options do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options, in particular, could greatly increase competition for land if applied at scale: afforestation, reforestation, and land used to provide feedstock for bioenergy (with or without BECCS) and biochar, with three further options: reduced grassland conversion to croplands, restoration and reduced conversion of peatlands, and restoration and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands having smaller or variable impacts on competition for land. Other options such as reduced deforestation and forest degradation, restrict land conversion for other options and uses.

Some response options can be more effective when applied together – for example, dietary change and waste reduction expand the potential to apply other options by freeing as much as 25 Mkm2 (4–25 Mkm2 for dietary change; Alexander et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r718|718]]</sup> ; Bajželj et al. 2014b <sup>[[#fn:r719|719]]</sup> ; Stehfest et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r720|720]]</sup> ; Tilman and Clark 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r721|721]]</sup> and 7 Mkm2 for reduced food waste; Bajželj et al. 2014b <sup>[[#fn:r722|722]]</sup> ).

In terms of the categories of response options, most agricultural land management response options (all except for reduced grassland conversion to cropland which potentially adversely affects food security), deliver benefits across the five land challenges (Table 6.54). Among the forest land management options, afforestation and reforestation have the potential to deliver large co-benefits across all land challenges except for food security, where these options provide a threat due to competition for land (Table6.55). Among the soil-based response options, some global data are missing, but none except biochar shows any potential for negative impacts, with that potential negative impact arising from additional pressure on land if large quantities of biomass feedstock are required for biochar production (Table 6.56). Where global data exists, most response options in other/all ecosystems deliver benefits, except for a potential moderate negative impact on food security by restoring peatlands currently used for agriculture (Table 6.57). Of the two response options specifically targeted at CDR, there are missing data for enhanced weathering of minerals for three of the challenges, but large-scale bioenergy and BECCS show a potential large benefit for mitigation, but small to large adverse impacts on the other four land challenges (Table 6.58), mainly driven by increased pressure on land due to feedstock demand.

While data allow the impact of material substitution to be assessed only for mitigation, the three other demand-side response options: dietary change, reduced post-harvest losses, and reduced food waste provide large or moderate benefits across all challenges for which data exist (Table 6.59). Data is not available for any of the supply- side response options to assess the impact on more than three of the land challenges, but there are large to moderate benefits for all those for which data are available (Table 6.60). Data are not available to assess the impact of risk-management-based response options on all of the challenges, but there are small to large benefits for all of those for which data are available (Table 6.61).

<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-4"></div>

<span id="table-6.54"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.54'''

<span id="summary-of-direction-and-size-of-impact-of-land-management-options-in-agriculture-on-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Summary of direction and size of impact of land management options in agriculture on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:f3c0e6419ac63abc2106409ba2db7df0 table-6.54a.png]] [[File:d0b4834b448ca60acc2e63e64372b77f table-6.54b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-5"></div>

<span id="table-6.55"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.55'''

<span id="summary-of-direction-and-size-of-impact-of-land-management-options-in-forests-on-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Summary of direction and size of impact of land management options in forests on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:8be8f2c15c0cc575d861005a47ee6d63 table-6.55a.png]] [[File:aa880d40d2aad7fd79d05762f3da6984 table-6.55b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-6"></div>

<span id="table-6.56"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.56'''

<span id="summary-of-direction-and-size-of-impact-of-soil-based-land-management-options-on-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Summary of direction and size of impact of soil-based land management options on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:a7ff7c756fae09a0320711ded155032a table-6.56a.png]] [[File:39a3dacbfa1e746d5a09e53082add255 table-6.56b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-7"></div>

<span id="table-6.57"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.57'''

<span id="summary-of-direction-and-size-of-impact-of-land-management-in-allother-ecosystems-on-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Summary of direction and size of impact of land management in all/other ecosystems on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:3e4ce784765ebbc4cbf90be930f3a738 table-6.57a.png]] [[File:a038f5b878d7668733dc7463571f2438 table-6.57b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-8"></div>

<span id="table-6.58"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.58'''

<span id="summary-of-direction-and-size-of-impact-of-land-management-options-specifically-for-cdr-on-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Summary of direction and size of impact of land management options specifically for CDR on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:2ebdd935055158046b114cce892c1670 table-6.58.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-9"></div>

<span id="table-6.59"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.59'''

<span id="summary-of-direction-and-size-of-impact-of-demand-management-options-on-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Summary of direction and size of impact of demand management options on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:fd314fe24dc9ac436401148d41bbdec5 table-6.59.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-10"></div>

<span id="table-6.60"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.60'''

<span id="summary-of-direction-and-size-of-impact-of-supply-management-options-on-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Summary of direction and size of impact of supply management options on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:517030b36369401d5bba508dfd723de5 table-6.60a.png]] [[File:23e72c125a6072c438f70a4c7d148692 table-6.60b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-3-6-summarising-the-potential-of-the-integrated-response-options-across-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security-block-11"></div>

<span id="table-6.61"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.61'''

<span id="summary-of-direction-and-size-of-impact-of-risk-management-options-on-mitigation-adaptation-desertification-land-degradation-and-food-security."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Summary of direction and size of impact of risk management options on mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation and food security.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:c517d06048dad62bfdb3febbcd57ec61 table-6.61a.png]] [[File:85aa21fd5a8b8949f92860e89e1b3b99 table-6.61b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<span id="managing-interactions-and-interlinkages"></span>