IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 - Revision history

Laura at 08:55, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T08:55:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:55, 22 May 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{ChapterNavigation
			\| cover = Cover-WGIII.jpg
			\| reporturl = IPCC:AR6/WGIII
			\| reporttitle = WGIII
			\| prevurl = IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-6
			\| nexturl = IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-8
			}}

	<div id="___gatsby"></div>		<div id="___gatsby"></div>

Laura: Laura moved page IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-7 to IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 without leaving a redirect

2026-05-18T18:33:09Z

Laura moved page IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-7 to IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-7 without leaving a redirect

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:33, 18 May 2026
(No difference)

Laura: #119

2026-05-18T06:20:02Z

#119

Laura: /* Chapter 7: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU) */

2026-05-13T14:42:09Z

Chapter 7: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Uses (AFOLU)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 13 May 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	<div id="chapter-authors"></div>		<div id="chapter-authors"></div>

	Coordinating Lead Authors:		'''Coordinating Lead Authors:'''

	Gert-Jan Nabuurs (the Netherlands), Rachid Mrabet (Morocco)		Gert-Jan Nabuurs (the Netherlands), Rachid Mrabet (Morocco)

	Lead Authors:		'''Lead Authors:'''

	Assem Abu Hatab (Egypt/Sweden), Mercedes Bustamante (Brazil), Harry Clark (New Zealand), Petr Havlík (the Czech Republic), Joanna I. House (United Kingdom), Cheikh Mbow (Senegal), Karachepone N. Ninan (India), Alexander Popp (Germany), Stephanie Roe (the Philippines/the United States of America), Brent Sohngen (the United States of America), Sirintornthep Towprayoon (Thailand)		Assem Abu Hatab (Egypt/Sweden), Mercedes Bustamante (Brazil), Harry Clark (New Zealand), Petr Havlík (the Czech Republic), Joanna I. House (United Kingdom), Cheikh Mbow (Senegal), Karachepone N. Ninan (India), Alexander Popp (Germany), Stephanie Roe (the Philippines/the United States of America), Brent Sohngen (the United States of America), Sirintornthep Towprayoon (Thailand)

	Contributing Authors:		'''Contributing Authors:'''

	Lillian Aoki (the United States of America), Göran Berndes (Sweden), Katherine Calvin (the United States of America), Annette Cowie (Australia), Vassilis Daioglou (Greece), Andre Deppermann (Germany), Jeremy P. Emmet-Booth (Ireland/New Zealand), Shinichiro Fujimori (Japan), Giacomo Grassi (Italy/European Union), Viola Heinrich (United Kingdom/Germany), Florian Humpenöder (Germany), J. Boone Kauffman (the United States of America), William F. Lamb (Germany/United Kingdom), William Laurance (Australia), Sinead Leahy (New Zealand), Sebastiaan Luyssaert (Belgium), Deissy Martínez-Barón (Colombia), Suvadip Neogi (India), Michael O’Sullivan (United Kingdom), Joeri Rogelj (Belgium/United Kingdom), Todd Rosenstock (the United States of America), Pete Smith (United Kingdom), Jonas Steinfeld (Germany/Brazil), Francesco N. Tubiello (Italy), Pieter Johannes Verkerk (the Netherlands)		Lillian Aoki (the United States of America), Göran Berndes (Sweden), Katherine Calvin (the United States of America), Annette Cowie (Australia), Vassilis Daioglou (Greece), Andre Deppermann (Germany), Jeremy P. Emmet-Booth (Ireland/New Zealand), Shinichiro Fujimori (Japan), Giacomo Grassi (Italy/European Union), Viola Heinrich (United Kingdom/Germany), Florian Humpenöder (Germany), J. Boone Kauffman (the United States of America), William F. Lamb (Germany/United Kingdom), William Laurance (Australia), Sinead Leahy (New Zealand), Sebastiaan Luyssaert (Belgium), Deissy Martínez-Barón (Colombia), Suvadip Neogi (India), Michael O’Sullivan (United Kingdom), Joeri Rogelj (Belgium/United Kingdom), Todd Rosenstock (the United States of America), Pete Smith (United Kingdom), Jonas Steinfeld (Germany/Brazil), Francesco N. Tubiello (Italy), Pieter Johannes Verkerk (the Netherlands)

	Review Editors:		'''Review Editors:'''

	Denis Angers (Canada), Nijavalli Hanumantharao Ravindranath (India)		Denis Angers (Canada), Nijavalli Hanumantharao Ravindranath (India)

	Chapter Scientists:		'''Chapter Scientists:'''

	Fernando Ayala-Niño (Mexico), Jeremy P. Emmet-Booth (Ireland/New Zealand)		Fernando Ayala-Niño (Mexico), Jeremy P. Emmet-Booth (Ireland/New Zealand)
Line 30:		Line 30:
	<div id="chapter-citation"></div>		<div id="chapter-citation"></div>

	This chapter should be cited as:		'''This chapter should be cited as:'''

	Nabuurs, G-J., R. Mrabet, A. Abu Hatab, M. Bustamante, H. Clark, P. Havlík, J. House, C. Mbow, K.N. Ninan, A. Popp, S. Roe, B. Sohngen, S. Towprayoon, 2022: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.009		Nabuurs, G-J., R. Mrabet, A. Abu Hatab, M. Bustamante, H. Clark, P. Havlík, J. House, C. Mbow, K.N. Ninan, A. Popp, S. Roe, B. Sohngen, S. Towprayoon, 2022: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.009
Line 1,900:		Line 1,900:
	\|}		\|}

	a Clean Development Mechanism Registry: [https://cdm.unfccc.int/Registry/index.html ] [https://cdm.unfccc.int/Registry/index.html ] (accessed 22 June 2021).		a Clean Development Mechanism Registry: [https://cdm.unfccc.int/Registry/index.html] [https://cdm.unfccc.int/Registry/index.html] (accessed 22 June 2021).

	b [[#Roopsind--2019\|Roopsind et al. 2019]] .		b [[#Roopsind--2019\|Roopsind et al. 2019]] .
Line 2,088:		Line 2,088:
	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'' ).		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.		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).		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).

imported>Design: /* Box 7.13 | Case Study: Climate-smart Cocoa Prod uction in Ghana */

2026-05-11T09:38:39Z

Box 7.13 | Case Study: Climate-smart Cocoa Prod uction in Ghana

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:20, 18 May 2026
Line 397:		Line 397:
	<div id="_idContainer020y"></div>		<div id="_idContainer020y"></div>

	~~'''~~'''Cross-Chapter Box 6, Figure 1 \| Impact on global mitigation pathways of adjusting the modelled anthropogenic land CO~~'''''' '''~~2~~''' ''''''~~fluxes to be comparable with National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (NGHGIs) (from Grassi~~'''''' ''''''~~et al.~~'''''' ''''''~~2021).'''~~'''~~ '''(a)''' The mismatch between global historical LULUCF CO 2 net flux from NGHGIs (black), and the original (un-adjusted) modelled flux historically and under future mitigation pathways for SSP2 scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs, Chapter 3). '''(b)''' Fluxes due to indirect effects of environmental change on areas equivalent to countries’ managed forest (i.e., those fluxes generally considered ‘anthropogenic’ by countries and ‘natural’ by global models). '''(c)''' Original modelled (solid line) LULUCF mitigation pathways adjusted to be NGHGI-comparable (dashed line), for example, by adding the indirect effects in panel b. The indirect effects in panel b decline over time with increasing mitigation ambition, mainly because of the weaker CO 2 fertilisation effect. In panel c, the dependency of the adjusted LULUCF pathways on the target becomes less evident after 2030, because the indirect effects in countries’ managed forest (which are progressively more uncertain with time, as highlighted by the grey areas) compensate the effects of the original pathways. '''(d)''' NGHGI-comparable pathways for global CO 2 emissions from all sectors including LULUCF (obtained by combining global CO 2 pathways without LULUCF – where no adjustment is needed – and the NGHGI-comparable CO 2 pathways for LULUCF ( [[#Gütschow--2019\|Gütschow et al. 2019]] ; [[#Grassi--2017\|Grassi et al. 2017]] ). '''(e)''' Cumulative impact of the adjustments from 2021 until net zero CO 2 emissions or 2100 (whatever comes first) on the remaining carbon budget.		'''Cross-Chapter Box 6, Figure 1 \| Impact on global mitigation pathways of adjusting the modelled anthropogenic land CO 2 fluxes to be comparable with National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (NGHGIs) (from Grassi et al. 2021).'''

			'''(a)''' The mismatch between global historical LULUCF CO 2 net flux from NGHGIs (black), and the original (un-adjusted) modelled flux historically and under future mitigation pathways for SSP2 scenarios from Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs, Chapter 3). '''(b)''' Fluxes due to indirect effects of environmental change on areas equivalent to countries’ managed forest (i.e., those fluxes generally considered ‘anthropogenic’ by countries and ‘natural’ by global models). '''(c)''' Original modelled (solid line) LULUCF mitigation pathways adjusted to be NGHGI-comparable (dashed line), for example, by adding the indirect effects in panel b. The indirect effects in panel b decline over time with increasing mitigation ambition, mainly because of the weaker CO 2 fertilisation effect. In panel c, the dependency of the adjusted LULUCF pathways on the target becomes less evident after 2030, because the indirect effects in countries’ managed forest (which are progressively more uncertain with time, as highlighted by the grey areas) compensate the effects of the original pathways. '''(d)''' NGHGI-comparable pathways for global CO 2 emissions from all sectors including LULUCF (obtained by combining global CO 2 pathways without LULUCF – where no adjustment is needed – and the NGHGI-comparable CO 2 pathways for LULUCF ( [[#Gütschow--2019\|Gütschow et al. 2019]] ; [[#Grassi--2017\|Grassi et al. 2017]] ). '''(e)''' Cumulative impact of the adjustments from 2021 until net zero CO 2 emissions or 2100 (whatever comes first) on the remaining carbon budget.

	<div id="7.2.3" class="h2-container"></div>		<div id="7.2.3" class="h2-container"></div>
Line 1,433:		Line 1,435:
	[[File:14e9c7f60d5b50ca0980c4b9c61fd49f IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Box_7_5_Figure_1.png]]		[[File:14e9c7f60d5b50ca0980c4b9c61fd49f IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Box_7_5_Figure_1.png]]

	~~'''~~'''Box 7.5, Figure 1 \| Potential mitigation mechanisms and associated management practices.~~'''~~''' N = nitrogen, SOM = soil organic matter, LUC = land-use change. a The farming system approaches outlined are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ''b'' Only agricultural emissions are considered. Mitigation may also result from reduced production of fertilisers and agrochemicals. ''c'' Reduced emissions intensity per unit of milk/meat will only result in a reduction in absolute emissions where increased productivity facilitates a reduction in animal numbers. 1 = [[#Altieri--2015\|Altieri et al. 2015]] ; 2 = [[#Altieri--2017\|Altieri and Nicholls 2017]] ; 3 = [[#Powlson--2016\|Powlson et al. 2016]] ; 4 = [[#Corbeels--2019\|Corbeels et al. 2019]] ; 5 = [[#Lal--2015\|Lal 2015]] ; 6 = [[#Gonzalez-Sanchez--2019\|Gonzalez-Sanchez et al. 2019]] ; 7 = [[#Thierfelder--2017\|Thierfelder et al. 2017]] ; 8 = [[#Hendrickson--2008\|Hendrickson et al. 2008]] ; 9 = [[#Weindl--2015\|Weindl et al. 2015]] ; 10 = [[#Thornton--2015\|Thornton and Herrero 2015]] ; 11 = Lal al. 2020; 12 = Scialabba and Müller–Lindenlauf 2010; 13 = [[#Goh--2011\|Goh 2011]] ; 14 = [[#IFOAM--2016\|IFOAM 2016]] .		'''Box 7.5, Figure 1 \| Potential mitigation mechanisms and associated management practices.''' N = nitrogen, SOM = soil organic matter, LUC = land-use change. a The farming system approaches outlined are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ''b'' Only agricultural emissions are considered. Mitigation may also result from reduced production of fertilisers and agrochemicals. ''c'' Reduced emissions intensity per unit of milk/meat will only result in a reduction in absolute emissions where increased productivity facilitates a reduction in animal numbers. 1 = [[#Altieri--2015\|Altieri et al. 2015]] ; 2 = [[#Altieri--2017\|Altieri and Nicholls 2017]] ; 3 = [[#Powlson--2016\|Powlson et al. 2016]] ; 4 = [[#Corbeels--2019\|Corbeels et al. 2019]] ; 5 = [[#Lal--2015\|Lal 2015]] ; 6 = [[#Gonzalez-Sanchez--2019\|Gonzalez-Sanchez et al. 2019]] ; 7 = [[#Thierfelder--2017\|Thierfelder et al. 2017]] ; 8 = [[#Hendrickson--2008\|Hendrickson et al. 2008]] ; 9 = [[#Weindl--2015\|Weindl et al. 2015]] ; 10 = [[#Thornton--2015\|Thornton and Herrero 2015]] ; 11 = Lal al. 2020; 12 = Scialabba and Müller–Lindenlauf 2010; 13 = [[#Goh--2011\|Goh 2011]] ; 14 = [[#IFOAM--2016\|IFOAM 2016]] .

	'''Is there evidence that these approaches ~~deli''' '''ver~~ mitigation?'''		'''Is there evidence that these approaches deliver mitigation?'''

	Agroecology (AE) including Regenerative Agriculture (RA)		Agroecology (AE) including Regenerative Agriculture (RA)
Line 1,473:		Line 1,475:
	<div id="_idContainer045m"></div>		<div id="_idContainer045m"></div>

	~~'''~~'''Box 7.6, Figure 1~~'''~~''' '''\|~~'''~~ ''''''Contribution of various crops and livestock species to total agricultural emission in 2012 (baseline) and by 2030 under business as usual (BAU) and mitigation scenarios for Indian agricultural sector.~~'''~~''' Source: [[#Sapkota--2019\|Sapkota et al. (2019)]] . Reprinted from Science of The Total Environment, 655, Sapkota T.B. et al., Cost-effective opportunities for climate change mitigation in Indian agriculture., 2019, with permission from Elsevier.		'''Box 7.6, Figure 1''' '''\|''' '''Contribution of various crops and livestock species to total agricultural emission in 2012 (baseline) and by 2030 under business as usual (BAU) and mitigation scenarios for Indian agricultural sector.''' Source: [[#Sapkota--2019\|Sapkota et al. (2019)]] . Reprinted from Science of The Total Environment, 655, Sapkota T.B. et al., Cost-effective opportunities for climate change mitigation in Indian agriculture., 2019, with permission from Elsevier.

	<div id="7.4.4" class="h2-container"></div>		<div id="7.4.4" class="h2-container"></div>
Line 1,521:		Line 1,523:
	[[File:3e30f559ddbc39ff17217954b9448502 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Box_7_7_Figure_1.png]]		[[File:3e30f559ddbc39ff17217954b9448502 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Box_7_7_Figure_1.png]]

	~~'''~~'''Box 7.7, Figure 1 \|~~''''''~~ ''''''Emissions associated with primary biomass supply in 2050 (residues and crops grown on cropland not needed for food), as determined from sectoral models (Daioglou~~'''''' ''''''~~et al~~'''''' '''~~.~~''' '''~~2017; Kalt~~''' '''~~et al.~~''' '''~~2020), and stylised scenarios from the EMF-33 project using Integrated Assessment Models (Rose~~''' '''~~et al.~~''' '''~~2020).''' All methods include LUC (direct and indirect) emissions. Emissions associated with Natural Regrowth include counterfactual carbon fluxes (see text). The sectoral models include a more detailed representation of the emissions, including lifecycle emissions from fertiliser production. IAM models may include economic feedbacks such as intensification as a result of increasing prices. As an indication: for natural gas the emission factor is around 56, for coal around 95 kgCO 2 GJ –1 .		'''Box 7.7, Figure 1 \|''' '''Emissions associated with primary biomass supply in 2050 (residues and crops grown on cropland not needed for food), as determined from sectoral models (Daioglou et al. 2017; Kalt et al. 2020), and stylised scenarios from the EMF-33 project using Integrated Assessment Models (Rose et al. 2020).''' All methods include LUC (direct and indirect) emissions. Emissions associated with Natural Regrowth include counterfactual carbon fluxes (see text). The sectoral models include a more detailed representation of the emissions, including lifecycle emissions from fertiliser production. IAM models may include economic feedbacks such as intensification as a result of increasing prices. As an indication: for natural gas the emission factor is around 56, for coal around 95 kgCO 2 GJ –1 .

	'''Critical assessment and conclusion''' ''.'' Recent estimates of technical biomass potentials constrained by food security and environmental considerations fall within previous ranges corresponding to ''medium agreement'' , (e.g., [[#Turner--2018b\|Turner et al. 2018b]] ; [[#Daioglou--2019\|Daioglou et al. 2019]] ; [[#Wu--2019\|Wu et al. 2019]] , Hansen et al.2020; [[#Kalt--2020\|Kalt et al. 2020]] ) arriving at 4–57 and 46–245 EJ yr –1 by 2050 for residues and dedicated biomass crops, respectively. Based on studies to date, the technical net CDR potential of BECCS (including LUC and other supply chain emissions, but excluding energy carrier substitution) by 2050 is 5.9 (0.5–11.3) GtCO 2 yr –1 globally, of which 1.6 (0.5–3.5) GtCO 2 yr –1 is available at below USD100 tCO 2 –1 ( ''medium confidence)'' ( [[#Lenton--2010\|Lenton 2010]] ; [[#Koornneef--2012\|Koornneef et al. 2012]] ; [[#McLaren--2012\|McLaren 2012]] ; [[#Powell--2012\|Powell and Lenton 2012]] ; [[#Fuss--2018\|Fuss et al. 2018]] ; [[#Turner--2018a\|Turner et al. 2018a]] ; [[#Hanssen--2020\|Hanssen et al. 2020]] ; [[#Roe--2021\|Roe et al. 2021]] ) (Figure 7.11). The equivalent economic potential as derived from IAMs is 1.8 (0.2–9.9) GtCO 2 yr –1 (Table 7.3).		'''Critical assessment and conclusion''' ''.'' Recent estimates of technical biomass potentials constrained by food security and environmental considerations fall within previous ranges corresponding to ''medium agreement'' , (e.g., [[#Turner--2018b\|Turner et al. 2018b]] ; [[#Daioglou--2019\|Daioglou et al. 2019]] ; [[#Wu--2019\|Wu et al. 2019]] , Hansen et al.2020; [[#Kalt--2020\|Kalt et al. 2020]] ) arriving at 4–57 and 46–245 EJ yr –1 by 2050 for residues and dedicated biomass crops, respectively. Based on studies to date, the technical net CDR potential of BECCS (including LUC and other supply chain emissions, but excluding energy carrier substitution) by 2050 is 5.9 (0.5–11.3) GtCO 2 yr –1 globally, of which 1.6 (0.5–3.5) GtCO 2 yr –1 is available at below USD100 tCO 2 –1 ( ''medium confidence)'' ( [[#Lenton--2010\|Lenton 2010]] ; [[#Koornneef--2012\|Koornneef et al. 2012]] ; [[#McLaren--2012\|McLaren 2012]] ; [[#Powell--2012\|Powell and Lenton 2012]] ; [[#Fuss--2018\|Fuss et al. 2018]] ; [[#Turner--2018a\|Turner et al. 2018a]] ; [[#Hanssen--2020\|Hanssen et al. 2020]] ; [[#Roe--2021\|Roe et al. 2021]] ) (Figure 7.11). The equivalent economic potential as derived from IAMs is 1.8 (0.2–9.9) GtCO 2 yr –1 (Table 7.3).