Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.4.1.10 Example: Changing Economic, Social and Spatial Patterns of Development of the Agriculture Sector Provide the Basis for Sustained Reductions in Emissions From Deforestation ====

<div id="h3-47-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

A growing literature assesses co-benefits of sectoral policies that lead to decarbonisation and simultaneously promote economic development, improve living standards, reduce inequality, and create job opportunities ( [[#Maroun--2012|Maroun and Schaeffer 2012]] ; Bataille et al. 2016b; [[#Pye--2016|Pye et al. 2016]] ; Bataille et al. 2018; [[#La%20Rovere--2018|La Rovere et al. 2018]] ; [[#Richter--2018|Richter et al. 2018]] ; [[#Waisman--2019|Waisman et al. 2019]] ). While this may be particularly challenging in developing countries, given large populations still lacking basic needs, previous development paths show that finding synergies in development and climate objectives in the AFOLU sector is possible. One example is Brazil, which has arguably shifted its development pathway to reduce emissions and make progress towards several SDGs, though progress is not linear. Over the past two decades, Brazil had made remarkable progress in implementing a sequence of policies across multiple sectors. This policy package simultaneously increased minimum wages of low income families, achieved universal energy access, and raised the quality of life and well-being for the large majority of the population ( [[#Da%20Silveira%20Bezerra--2017|Da Silveira Bezerra et al. 2017]] ; [[#Grottera--2017|Grottera et al. 2017]] , 2018; [[#La%20Rovere--2018|La Rovere et al. 2018]] ). This led to significant social benefits, reduction of income inequality and poverty eradication ( [[#Da%20Silveira%20Bezerra--2017|Da Silveira Bezerra et al. 2017]] ; [[#Grottera--2017|Grottera et al. 2017]] ), reflected in a decrease of the Gini coefficient and a rise in the human development index ( [[#La%20Rovere--2017|La Rovere 2017]] ).

Regulatory instruments were used to limit deforestation rates, together with implemented economic instruments that provided benefits to those protecting local ecosystems and enhancing land-based carbon sinks ( [[#Nunes--2017|Nunes et al. 2017]] ; [[#Bustamante--2018|Bustamante et al. 2018]] ; [[#Soterroni--2018|Soterroni et al. 2018]] , 2019). In parallel, public policies reinforced environmental regulation and command-and-control instruments to limit deforestation rates and implemented market-based mechanisms to provide benefits to those protecting local ecosystems and enhancing land-based carbon sinks ( [[#Sunderlin--2014|Sunderlin et al. 2014]] ; [[#Nunes--2017|Nunes et al. 2017]] ; [[#Hein--2018|Hein et al. 2018]] ; [[#Simonet--2019|Simonet et al. 2019]] ). The private sector, aligned with public policies and civil society, implemented the Amazon Soy Moratorium, a voluntary agreement that bans trading of soybeans from cropland associated with cleared Amazon rainforest and blacklists farmers using slave labour. This was achieved without undermining production of soybean commodities ( [[#Soterroni--2019|Soterroni et al. 2019]] ). As a result, between 2005 and 2012, the country halved its GHG emissions and reduced the rate of deforestation by 78% ( [[#INPE--2019a|INPE 2019a]] ,b). This example shows that development delivering well-being can be accompanied by significant mitigation. A long-term and strategic vision was important in guiding enabling policies and mechanisms.

In more recent years, some of these shifts in Brazil’s development pathways were undone. Political changes have redefined development priorities, with higher priority being given to agricultural development than climate change mitigation. The current administration has reduced the power of environmental agencies and forestry protection laws (including the forest code), while allowing the expansion of cropland to protected Amazon rainforest areas ( [[#Ferrante--2019|Ferrante and Fearnside 2019]] ; [[#Rochedo--2018|Rochedo et al. 2018]] ). As a result, in 2020, deforestation exceeded 11,000 km 2 , and reached the highest rate in the last 12 years ( [[#INPE--2020|INPE 2020]] ). The literature cautions that, if current policies and trends continue, the Amazon may reach an irreversible tipping point beyond which it will be impossible to remediate lost ecosystems and restore carbon sinks and indigenous people knowledge ( [[#Lovejoy--2018|Lovejoy and Nobre 2018]] ; [[#INPE--2019a|INPE 2019a]] ; [[#Nobre--2019|Nobre 2019]] ). In addition, fossil fuel subsidies and other fiscal support of increased exploitation of oil resources may create carbon lock-ins that further inhibit low-carbon investments ( [[#Lefèvre--2018|Lefèvre et al. 2018]] ).

Brazil’s progress in mitigation depended significantly on reduced deforestation in the past. If deforestation rates keep on rising, mitigation efforts would need to shift to the energy sector. However, according to [[#Rochedo--2018|Rochedo et al. (2018)]] , mitigation costs in the energy sector in Brazil are three times the costs of reducing deforestation and increasing land-based carbon sinks. Further mitigation strategies may depend on CCS in Brazil as elsewhere ( [[#Herreras%20Martínez--2015|Herreras Martínez et al. 2015]] ; [[#Nogueira%20de%20Oliveira--2016|Nogueira de Oliveira et al. 2016]] ), though the economic feasibility of deployment is not yet clear ( [[#4.2.5.4|Section 4.2.5.4]] ).

<div id="4.4.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-development-pathways-and-mitigation"></span>