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

=== 7.6.3 Assessment of Current Policies and Potential Future Approaches ===

<div id="h2-32-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The Paris Agreement encourages a wide range of policy approaches, including REDD+, sustainable management of forests, joint mitigation and adaptation, and emphasises the importance of non-carbon benefits and equity for sustainable development ( [[#Martius--2016|Martius et al. 2016]] ). Around USD0.7 billion yr –1 has been invested in land-based carbon offsets (Table 7.4), but as noted in [[#Streck--2012|Streck (2012)]] , there is a large funding gap between these efforts and the scale of efforts necessary to meet 1.5 or 2.0°C targets outlined in SR1.5. As Box 7.12 discusses, forestry actions could achieve up to 5.8 GtCO 2 yr –1 with costs rising from USD178 billion yr –1 to USD400 billion yr –1 by 2050. Over half of this investment is expected to occur in Latin America, with 13% in SE Asia and 17% in sub-Saharan Africa ( [[#Austin--2020|Austin et al. 2020]] ). Other studies have suggested that similar sized programmes are possible, although they do not quantify total costs (e.g., [[#Griscom--2017|Griscom et al. 2017]] ''';''' [[#Busch--2019|Busch et al. 2019]] ). The currently quantified efforts to reduce net emissions with forests and agricultural actions are helpful, but society will need to quickly ramp up investments to achieve carbon sequestration levels consistent with high levels of mitigation. Only 2.5% of climate mitigation funding goes to land-based mitigation options, an order of magnitude below the potential proportional contribution ( [[#Buchner--2015|Buchner et al. 2015]] ).

To date, there has been significantly less investment in agricultural projects than forestry projects to reduce net carbon emissions (Table 7.4). For example, the economic potential (available up to USD100 tCO 2 –1 ) for soil carbon sequestration in croplands is 1.9 (0.4–6.8) GtCO 2 yr –1 ( [[#7.4.3.1|Section 7.4.3.1]] ), however, less than 2% of the carbon in Table 7.4 is derived from soil carbon sequestration projects. While reductions in CH 4 emissions due to enteric fermentation constitute a large share of potential agricultural mitigation reported in [[#7.4|Section 7.4]] , agricultural CH 4 emission reductions so far have been relatively modest compared to forestry sequestration. The protocols to quantify emission reductions in the agricultural sector are available and have been tested, and the main limitation appears to be the lack of available financing or the unwillingness to re-direct current subsidies ( ''medi'' ''um confidence'' ).

Although quantified emission reductions in agricultural projects are limited to date, a number of OECD and economy in transition parties [https://agresearchnz-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jeremy_emmet-booth_nzagrc_org_nz/Documents/Downloads/Section%207.6%20revised%20(Nov%2016).docx#_msocom_2] have reduced their net emissions through carbon storage in cropland soils since 2000. These reductions in emissions have typically resulted from policy innovations outside of the climate space, or market trends. For example, in the USA, there has been widespread adoption of conservation tillage in the last 30 years as a labour-saving crop management technique. In Europe, agricultural N 2 O and CH 4 emissions have declined due to reductions in nutrient inputs and cattle numbers ( [[#Henderson--2020|Henderson et al. 2020]] ). These reductions may be attributed to mechanism within the Common Agricultural Policy ( [[#7.6.2.1|Section 7.6.2.1]] ), but could also be linked to higher nutrient prices in the 2000–2014 period. Other environmental policies could play a role, for example, efforts to reduce water pollution from phosphorus in The Netherlands, may ultimately reduce cattle numbers, also lowering CH 4 emissions.

Numerous developing countries have established policy efforts to abate agricultural emissions or increase carbon storage. Brazil, for instance, developed a subsidy programme in 2010 to promote sustainable development in agriculture, and practices that would reduce GHG emissions. [[#Henderson--2020|Henderson et al. (2020)]] report that this programme reduced GHG emission in agricultural by up to 170 MtCO 2 between 2010 and 2018. However, the investments in low-carbon agriculture in Brazil amounted only 2% of the total funds for conventional agriculture in 2019. Programmes on deforestation in Brazil had successes and failures, as described in Box 7.9. Indonesia has engaged in a wide range of programmes in the REDD+ space, including a moratorium implemented in 2011 to prevent the conversion of primary forests and peatlands to oil palm and logging concessions ( [[#Wijaya--2017|Wijaya et al. 2017]] ; [[#Tacconi--2019|Tacconi and Muttaqin 2019]] ; [[#Henderson--2020|Henderson et al. 2020]] ). Efforts to restore peatlands and forests have also been undertaken. Indonesia reports that results-based REDD+ programmes have been successful and have led to lower rates of deforestation (Table 7.4).

Existing policies focused on GHG management in agriculture and forestry is less advanced in Africa than in Latin American and Asia, however, [[#Henderson--2020|Henderson et al. (2020)]] report on 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa that have included explicit policy proposals for reducing AFOLU GHG emissions through their NDCs. These include efforts to reduce N 2 O emission, increase implementation of conservation agriculture, improve livestock management, and implement forestry and grassland practices, including agroforestry (Box 7.10). Within several of the NDCs, countries have explicitly suggested intensification as an approach to reduce emission in the livestock sector. However, it is important to note caveats associated with pursuing mitigation via intensification (Box 7.11).

The agricultural sector throughout the world is influenced by many policies that affect production practices, crop choices and land use. It is difficult to quantify the effect of these policies on reference level GHG emissions from the sector, as well as the cost estimates presented in Sections 7.4 and 7.5. The presence of significant subsidy programmes intended to improve farmer welfare and rural livelihoods makes it more difficult to implement regulatory programmes aimed at reducing net emissions in agriculture, however, it may increase the potential to implement new subsidy programmes that encourage practices aimed at reducing net emissions ( ''medium confidence'' ). For instance, in the USA, crop insurance can influence both crop choices and land use ( [[#Miao--2016|Miao et al. 2016]] ; [[#Claassen--2017|Claassen et al. 2017]] ), both of which will affect emission trends. Regulations to limit nutrient applications have not been widely considered, however, federal subsidy programmes have been implemented to encourage farmers to conduct nutrient management planning.

A factor that will influence future carbon storage in so-called land-based reservoirs involves considering short- and long-term climate benefits, as well as interactions among various natural climate solution options. The benefits of various natural climate solutions depend on a variety of spatially dependent issues as well as institutional factors, including their management status (managed or unmanaged systems), their productivity, opportunity costs, technical difficulty of implementation, local willingness to consider, property rights and institutions, among other factors. Biomass energy, as described elsewhere in this chapter and in (Cross-Working Group Box 3 in Chapter 12), is a potential example of an option with trade-offs that emerge when policies favour one type of mitigation strategy over another. Bioenergy production needs safeguards to limit negative impacts on carbon stocks on the land base as is already in place in the EU Renewable Energy Directive and several national schemes in Netherlands, UK and Denmark ( [[#Buchholz--2016|Buchholz et al. 2016]] ; [[#Khanna--2017|Khanna et al. 2017]] ; [[#DeCicco--2018|DeCicco and Schlesinger 2018]] ; [[#Favero--2020|Favero et al. 2020]] ). It is argued that a carbon tax on only fossil fuel derived emissions, may lead to massive deployment of bioenergy, although the effects of such a policy can be mitigated when combined with policies that encourage sustainable forest management and protection of forest carbon stocks as well as forest management certification ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Nabuurs--2017|Nabuurs et al. 2017]] , [[#Baker--2019|Baker et al. 2019]] and [[#Favero--2020|Favero et al. 2020]] ).

If biomass energy production expands and shifts to carbon capture and storage (e.g., BECCS) during the century, there could be a significant increase in the area of crop and forestland used for biomass energy production (Sections 7.4 and 7.5). BECCS is not projected to be widely implemented for several decades, but in the meantime, policy efforts to advance land-based measures including reforestation and restoration activities ( [[#Strassburg--2020|Strassburg et al. 2020]] ) combined with sustainable management and provision of agricultural and wood products are widely expected to increase the terrestrial pool of carbon (Cross-Working Group Box 3 in Chapter 12). Carbon sequestration policies, sustainable land management (forest and agriculture), and biomass energy policies can be complementary ( [[#Favero--2017|Favero et al. 2017]] ; [[#Baker--2019|Baker et al. 2019]] ). However, if private markets emerge for biomass and BECCS on the scale suggested in the SR1.5, policy efforts must ramp up to substantially value, encourage, and protect terrestrial carbon stocks and ecosystems to avoid outcomes inconsistent with many SDGs ( ''high confidence'' ).

<div id="box-7.12" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

<span id="box-7.12-financing-afolu-mitigation-what-are-the-cost-s-and-who-pays"></span>