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

==== 7.4.9.2 Barriers to land-based climate mitigation ====

<div id="section-7-4-9-2-barriers-to-land-based-climate-mitigation-block-1"></div>

Barriers to land-based mitigation relate to full understanding of the permanence of carbon sequestration in soils or terrestrial biomass, the additionality of this storage, its impact on production and production shifts to other regions, measurement and monitoring systems and costs (Smith et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r943|943]]</sup> ). Agricultural producers are more willing to expand mitigation measures already employed (including efficient and effective management of fertiliser, including manure and slurry) and less favourable to those not employed, such as using dietary additives, adopting genetically improved animals, or covering slurry tanks and lagoons (Feliciano et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r944|944]]</sup> ). Barriers identified in land- based mitigation include physical environmental constraints such as lack of information, education, and suitability for size and location of farm. For instance, precision agriculture is not viewed as efficient in small-scale farming (Feliciano et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r945|945]]</sup> ).

Property rights may be a barrier when there is no clear single- party land ownership to implement and manage changes (Smith et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r946|946]]</sup> ). In forestry, tenure arrangements may not distribute obligations and incentives for carbon sequestration effectively between public management agencies and private agents with forest licences. Including carbon in tenure and expanding the duration of tenure may provide stronger incentive for tenure holders to manage carbon as well as timber values (Williamson and Nelson 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r947|947]]</sup> ). Effective policy will require answers as to the current status of agriculture in regard to GHG emissions, the degree that emissions are to change, the best pathway to achieve the change, and an ability to know when the target level of change is achieved (Smith et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r948|948]]</sup> ). Forest governance may not have the structure to advance mitigation and adaptation. Currently top-down traditional modes do not have the flexibility or responsiveness to deal with the complex, dynamic, spatially diverse, and uncertain features of climate change (Timberlake and Schultz 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r949|949]]</sup> ; Williamson and Nelson 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r950|950]]</sup> ).

In respect of forest mitigation, two main institutional barriers have been found to predominate. First, forest management institutions do not consider climate change to the degree necessary for enabling effective climate response, and do not link adaptation and mitigation. Second, institutional barriers exist if institutions are not forward looking, do not enable collaborative adaptive management, do not promote flexible approaches that are reversible as new information becomes available, do not promote learning and allow for diversity of approaches that can be tailored to different local circumstances (Williamson and Nelson 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r951|951]]</sup> ).

Land-based climate mitigation through expansions and enhancements in agriculture, forestry and bioenergy has great potential but also poses great risks; its success will therefore require improved land- use planning, strong governance frameworks and coherent and consistent policies. ‘Progressive developments in governance of land and modernisation of agriculture and livestock and effective sustainability frameworks can help realise large parts of the technical bioenergy potential with low associated GHG emissions’ (Smith et al. 2014b, p. 97 <sup>[[#fn:r952|952]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-4-9-3-inequality"></div>

<span id="inequality"></span>