Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-12 (section)

== 12.7 Knowledge Gaps ==

<div id="h1-8-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

Finally, the literature review and analysis in Chapter 12 has taken account of the post-AR5 literature available and accessible to the chapter authors. Nonetheless, the assessment of the chapter is incomplete without mentioning knowledge gaps encountered during the assessment. These knowledge gaps include:

1. Interactions (synergies and trade-offs) between different CDR methods when deployed together are under-researched:

– co-benefits and trade-offs with biodiversity and ecosystem services associated with the implementation of CDR methods.

– constraining technical costs and potentials for CDR methods to define realistically achievable costs and potentials. Such research is useful for improving the representation of CDR methods in IAMs and country-level mitigation pathway modelling.

2. More work is required on how framing and communication of mitigation actions in terms of mitigation versus co-benefits potential affects public support in different contexts.

3. Additional research work is required to determine the cross-sectoral mitigation potential of emerging general-purpose technologies.

4. There is a lack of literature on mitigation finance frameworks promoting cross-sectoral mitigation linkages.

5. Additional research is needed to better quantify the net GHG emissions and co-benefits and adverse effects of emerging food technologies.

– Research in social and behavioural sciences should invest in assessing effectiveness of instruments aiming at shifting food choices in different national contexts.

– A better evidence basis is required to understand synergistic effects of policies in food system policy packages.

6. There is a lack of literature on regional and global mitigation potential of biomass production systems that are strategically deployed in agriculture and forestry landscapes, to achieve specific co-benefits.

7. There is a lack of knowledge on land occupation and associated co-benefits and adverse side effects from large-scale deployment of non-AFOLU mitigation options, and how such options can be integrated with agriculture and forestry to maximise synergies and minimise trade-offs.

<div id="frequently-asked-questions" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="frequently-asked-questions-faqs"></span>