Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-5 (section)

== 5.5 Mitigation options, challenges and opportunities ==

<div id="article-5-5-mitigation-options-challenges-and-opportunities-block-1"></div>

The IPCC AR5 WG III concluded that mitigation in agriculture, forestry, and land use (AFOLU) is key to limit climate change in the 21st century, in terms of mitigation of non-CO <sub>2</sub> GHGs, which are predominately emitted in AFOLU, as well as in terms of land-based carbon sequestration. Wollenberg et al. (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r738|738]]</sup> highlighted the need to include agricultural emissions explicitly in national mitigation targets and plans, as a necessary strategy to meet the 2°C goal of the Paris Agreement. This chapter expands on these key findings to document how mitigation in the entire food system, from farm gate to consumer, can contribute to reaching the stated global mitigation goals, but in a context of improved food security and nutrition. To put the range of mitigation potential of food systems in context, it is worth noting that emissions from crop and livestock are expected to increase by 30–40% from present to 2050, under business-as-usual scenarios that include efficiency improvements as well as dietary changes linked to increased income per capita (FAO 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r739|739]]</sup> ; Tubiello et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r740|740]]</sup> ). Using current emissions estimates in this chapter and Chapter 2, these increases translate into projected GHG emissions from agriculture of 8–9 Gt CO <sub>2</sub> -eq yr <sup>–1</sup> by 2050 ( ''medium confidence'' ).

The AR5 ranked mitigation measures from simple mechanisms such as improved crop and livestock management (Smith et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r741|741]]</sup> ) to more complex carbon dioxide reduction interventions, such as afforestation, soil carbon storage and biomass energy projects with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The AR5 WGIII AFOLU chapter (Smith et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r742|742]]</sup> ) identified two primary categories of mitigation pathways from the food system:

'''Supply side:''' Emissions from agricultural soils, land-use change, land management, and crop and livestock practices can be reduced and terrestrial carbon stocks can be increased by increased production efficiencies and carbon sequestration in soils and biomass, while emissions from energy use at all stages of the food system can be reduced through improvements in energy efficiency and fossil fuel substitution with carbon-free sources, including biomass.

'''Demand side:''' GHG emissions could be mitigated by changes in diet, reduction in food loss and waste, and changes in wood consumption for cooking.

In this chapter, supply-side mitigation practices include land-use change and carbon sequestration in soils and biomass in both crop and livestock systems. Cropping systems practices include improved land and fertiliser management, land restoration, biochar applications, breeding for larger root systems, and bridging yield gaps (Dooley and Stabinsky 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r743|743]]</sup> ). Options for mitigation in livestock systems include better manure management, improved grazing land management, and better feeding practices for animals. Agroforestry also is a supply-side mitigation practice. Improving efficiency in supply chains is a supply-side mitigation measure.

Demand-side mitigation practices include dietary changes that lead to reduction of GHG emissions from production and changes in land use that sequester carbon. Reduction of food loss and waste can contribute to mitigation of GHGs on both the supply and demand sides. See Section 5.7 and Chapter 7 for the enabling conditions needed to ensure that these food system measures would deliver their potential mitigation outcomes.

<span id="supply-side-mitigation-options"></span>
=== 5.5.1 Supply-side mitigation options ===

<div id="section-5-5-1-supply-side-mitigation-options-block-1"></div>

The IPCC AR5 identified options for GHG mitigation in agriculture, including cropland management, restoration of organic soils, grazing land management and livestock, with a total mitigation potential of 1.6–4.6 GtCO <sub>2</sub> -eq yr <sup>–1</sup> by 2030 (compared to baseline emissions in the same year), at carbon prices from 20 to 100 USD per tCO <sub>2</sub> -eq (Smith et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r744|744]]</sup> ). Reductions in GHG emissions intensity (emissions per unit product) from livestock and animal products can also be a means to achieve reductions in absolute emissions in specific contexts and with appropriate governance ( ''medium confidence'' ). Agroforestry mitigation practices include rotational woodlots, long-term fallow, and integrated land use.

Emissions from food systems can be reduced significantly by the implementation of practices that reduce carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural activities related to the production of crops, livestock, and aquaculture. These include implementation of more sustainable and efficient crop and livestock production practices aimed at reducing the amount of land needed per output (reductions in GHG emissions intensity from livestock and animal production can support reductions in absolute emissions if total production is constrained), bridging yield gaps, implementing better feeding practices for animals and fish in aquaculture, and better manure management (FAO 2019a <sup>[[#fn:r745|745]]</sup> ). Practices that promote soil improvements and carbon sequestration can also play an important role. In the South America region, reduction of deforestation, restoration of degraded pasture areas, and adoption of agroforestry and no-till agricultural techniques play a major role in the nation’s voluntary commitments to reduce GHG emissions in the country’s mitigation activities (Box 5.4).

The importance of supply-side mitigation options is that these can be directly applied by food system actors (farmers, processors, retailers) and can contribute to improved livelihoods and income generation. Recognising and empowering farming system actors with the right incentives and governance systems will be crucial to increasing the adoption rates of effective mitigation practices and to build convincing cases for enabling GHG mitigation (Section 5.7 and Chapter 7).

<div id="section-5-5-1-supply-side-mitigation-options-block-2" class="box"></div>

<span id="box-5.4-towards-sustainable-intensification-in-south-america"></span>