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

==== 6.4.3.1 Impacts of integrated response options on NCP ====

<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp-block-1"></div>

Tables 6.70–6.72 summarise the impacts of the response options on NCP supply. Examples of synergies between response options and NCP include positive impacts on habitat maintenance (NCP 1) from activities like invasive species management and agricultural diversification. For the evaluation process, we considered that NCP are about ecosystems, therefore options which may have overall positive effects, but which are ''not'' ecosystem-based are not included; for example, improved food transport and distribution could reduce ground-level ozone and thus improve air quality, but this is not an ecosystem-based NCP. Similarly, energy-efficiency measures would increase energy availability, but the ‘energy’ NCP refers specifically to biomass-based fuel provisioning. This necessarily means that the land management options have more direct NCP effects than the value chain or governance options, which are less ecosystem focused.

In evaluating NCP, we have also tried to avoid ‘indirect’ effects – that is, a response option might increase household income which could then be invested in habitat-saving actions, or dietary change would lead to conservation of natural areas, which would then lead to increased water quality. Similarly, material substitution would increase wood demand, which in turn might lead to deforestation, which might have water regulation effects. These can all be considered ''indirect'' impacts on NCP, which were not evaluated. <sup>[[#fn:8|8]]</sup>   Instead, the assessment focuses as much as possible on ''direct'' effects only: for example, local seeds policies preserve local landraces, which ''directly'' contribute to ‘maintenance of genetic options’ for the future. Therefore, this NCP table is a conservative estimation of NCP effects; there are likely many more secondary effects, but they are too difficult to assess, or the literature is not yet complete or conclusive.

Further, many NCPs trade-off with one another (Rodríguez et al. 2006 <sup>[[#fn:r1043|1043]]</sup> ), so supply of one might lead to less availability of another – for example, use of ecosystems to produce bioenergy will likely lead to decreases in water availability if mono-cropped high-intensity plantations are used (Gasparatos et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1044|1044]]</sup> ).

Overall, several response options stand out as having co-benefits across 10 or more NCP with no adverse impacts, including: improved cropland management, agroforestry, forest management and forest restoration, increased soil organic content, fire management, restoration and avoided conversion of coastal wetlands, and use of local seeds. Other response options may have strengths in some NCP but require trade-offs with others. For example, reforestation and afforestation bring many positive benefits for climate and water quality but may trade-off with food production (Table 6.70). Several response options, including increased food productivity, bioenergy and BECCS, and some risk-sharing instruments, like crop insurance, have significant negative consequences across multiple NCPs.

<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-6.70"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.70'''

<span id="impacts-on-natures-contributions-to-people-ncp-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-land-management."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) of integrated response options based on land management.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:506c9b7eebd00db668aa566af1675b64 table-6.70.png]] [[File:96b79c98a4ea676f3bd76a2b99f9f689 table-6.70b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp-block-3"></div>

<span id="table-6.71"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.71'''

<span id="impacts-on-ncp-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-value-chain-management."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts on NCP of integrated response options based on value chain management.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:d67a561cbb6517dcfa8727a06c027c97 table-6.71.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp-block-4"></div>

<span id="table-6.72"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.72'''

<span id="impacts-on-ncp-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-risk-management."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts on NCP of integrated response options based on risk management.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:3efea47b74440256aae0d8c971df2401 table-6.72.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<span id="opportunities-for-implementing-integrated-response-options"></span>