Climate change and land: the science of working with nature towards net zero - Royal Society
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS | BRIEFING 9
Climate change and land:
the science of working with nature towards net zero
In brief
Land plays a fundamental role in the world’s climate and Land-based mitigation could provide up to 20 – 30% of the
efforts to stabilise it. Protecting, restoring and managing net emissions reductions needed by 2050 to keep the global
the world’s land sustainably can contribute to achieving net average temperature rise to 1.5 – 2° Celsius1, but will only be
zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 as well as effective if combined with rapid and deep reductions in fossil
adapting to the impacts of climate change. fuel emissions.
IN S IGHTS
• Land-based mitigation options are not a substitute for • Research shows that healthy, plant-rich diet options
immediate and aggressive emissions reduction across and reduced food waste will take pressure off the
all sectors if the goals of the Paris Agreement are to land for food production. This can provide scope
be met2. for land-based options to tackle climate change
and enhance biodiversity.
• Priorities for land-based mitigation are the protection
of existing carbon-rich native ecosystems, restoration • Clearer monitoring and standards that demonstrate
of degraded ecosystems and improved management that land-based options are delivering genuine GHG
in agriculture and forestry. reductions can encourage funding by government,
businesses, and others.
• Effective land-based climate mitigation and adaptation
options will involve local communities and help to • Further research will identify good practice and
deliver many of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. performance metrics for land-based mitigation
options, and will include consideration of benefits
for indigenous peoples and local communities.
CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND 11. Land and climate change
This briefing focuses on how interventions on Of this, roughly 5 GtCO2e/yr consisted of carbon
land can play a role in mitigating GHG emissions dioxide (CO2), released from land-use changes
Activities that
by reducing emissions from use of land and such as deforestation, peatland drainage,
reduce emissions using its carbon-absorbing capacity. mangrove clearance, or conversion of
include conserving grassland to cropland. Methane accounted for
forests, grasslands, Data from 2015 indicate that the use of global 4.5 GtCO2e/yr of the emissions, particularly from
coastal wetlands ice-free land includes 37% for pasture, 22% as livestock farming and rice paddies. Land-based
managed forests, 12% cropland, 12% barren or emissions of nitrous oxide totalled around
or peatlands –
rock systems and 7% unforested ecosystems 2.3 GtCO2e/yr, with the use of fertiliser as the
thus preventing
with minimal human use3. main driver. Meanwhile, land also acted as a
emissions from
sink for CO2 specifically, absorbing around
their conversion 1.1 Terra infirma
11 GtCO2/yr of anthropogenic emissions from
– and more Over the last few decades, human activity has
all sources, just over twice as much as human
sustainable expanded to affect more than 70% of the world’s
activity on land emitted3.
ice-free land, and around 25% of it has been
agriculture which
degraded as a result3. Since the 1960s, the world’s 1.3 How climate change affects land
releases less population has risen from three billion to nearly Climate change has already had significant
carbon. Actions eight billion, driving up demand for food, feed, impacts on land3:
that remove timber and other resources4, 5. More specifically,
• The global mean surface temperature on land
carbon from the supply of meat has more than doubled and
has risen by more than 1.5°C since pre-industrial
the atmosphere calories consumed per person have risen by
times, compared to the rise of around 1°C
create new sinks one-third, which in itself drives up GHG emissions
averaged across land and ocean.
and damages biodiversity3. (See briefing 10:
and include
Nourishing ten billion sustainably.) • Land has experienced disruptions to rainfall
restoring patterns, leading in some regions to increased
ecosystems, 1.2 How land use affects the climate flooding or droughts, and has seen more
improving forest The cumulative impact of anthropogenic wildfires, heat waves and melting permafrost.
and grazing emissions over around 250 years has disrupted
• While some areas have become greener as
management, Earth’s natural balance in which land emits
land has been affected by changes in rainfall
and absorbs CO2 through respiration and
enhancing soil and humidity, arid lands experiencing drought
photosynthesis. Although land is estimated
carbon and to have absorbed around one-third of
have grown at 1% per year and 500 million
planting trees. people now live in places where deserts
anthropogenic emissions since 1750 and the
have expanded since 1980.
ocean around one-quarter, around 40% have
remained in the atmosphere6, driving the • Changes have affected the biodiversity
concentration of CO2 up by around 50% from of animals and plants, with changes to
pre-industrial levels and leading to a global population size, distribution and seasonal
average temperature rise of around 1.0°C7. behaviour patterns.
(See briefing 7: The carbon cycle.)
Agriculture, forestry and other land use (known
as AFOLU) accounts for roughly one-quarter of all
anthropogenic GHG emissions, consisting primarily
of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
During the 2007-16 decade, to which the following
GHG estimates from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) apply, these
amounted to around 12 billion tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO2e/yr)3.
2 CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND1.4 The role of land-based mitigation As well as changes in land use and
and nature-based solutions management, there is scope for reducing
Nature-based
There is a role for the land in addressing climate emissions through changes in food demand,
change, through a variety of interventions. including shifting diets to more plant-based
solutions may be
Activities that reduce emissions include alternatives and reducing food waste9. (See seen as preferable
conserving forests, grasslands, coastal wetlands briefing 10: Nourishing ten billion sustainabily.) to other land-
or peatlands – thus preventing emissions based
from their conversion – and more sustainable It should also be noted that land-based
interventions
agriculture which releases less carbon. Actions mitigation options are not a substitute for
because they
that remove carbon from the atmosphere create immediate and aggressive emission reduction
across all sectors. There is no guarantee that deliver progress
new sinks and include restoring ecosystems,
improving forest and grazing management, land will continue to absorb CO2 as it has done towards a number
enhancing soil carbon and planting trees*. historically if atmospheric levels continue to rise. of societal goals
Emissions also arise through self-reinforcing as well as climate
Among the options, ‘Nature-based solutions’ effects as a result of the impacts of climate change mitigation8.
are broadly defined as ‘actions that involve change: for example, as land is degraded
working with nature to address societal goals’8. through forest fires which emit carbon or as
These goals range wider than mitigation and permafrost melts and carbon dioxide and
adaptation to climate change. In particular, methane are emitted2, 10. The IPCC concluded
at a time when plant and animal species that the net impact of climate change on carbon
are declining in abundance and variety, cycle processes will be ‘to exacerbate the
nature-based solutions protect and enhance increase of CO2 in the atmosphere’11.
biodiversity. They also support many aspects
of sustainable development. 1.5 Challenges facing land-based mitigation
Despite their considerable potential, land-based
Not all land-based climate change mitigation mitigation options face a number of specific
options are nature-based solutions. For challenges.
example, tree-planting can involve creating
large monoculture plantations that sequester Climate finance for agriculture, forestry, land-use,
carbon rapidly but that may not be beneficial and natural resource management amounted
for biodiversity, water security or local people's to only 3%, or $16 billion, of the total investment
resource rights. On the other hand, tree in the sector in 2018, compared to $322 billion
planting with a natural mix of native tree species for renewable energy and $122 billion for low-
planted in appropriate locations in ways that carbon transport12, 13, 14.
support biodiversity with the involvement of
Measurement, reporting and verification of
local communities, would be considered as a
land-based mitigation is another challenge15, 16.
nature-based solution. Nature-based solutions
The choice of a baseline date can make
may be seen as preferable to other land-based
measuring effectiveness and subsequent
interventions because they deliver progress
compensation controversial and ‘leakage’ is a
towards a number of societal goals as well as
risk whereby conserving or restoring land in one
climate change mitigation8.
location may lead to land clearing in a different
location or country17, 18.
* These ecological approaches can be further supplemented by a suite of geological methods of removing carbon from the atmosphere such as
enhanced rock weathering, which involves spreading fine-grained rock dust, such as basalt, over cropland. (See briefing 5: Carbon dioxide capture and
storage.)
CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND 32. The potential of land-based
mitigation options
If barriers to funding and implementation can to illustrate a path of action to help achieve the
be overcome, land-based mitigation has major Paris Agreement target of limiting warming to
potential in the drive to limit climate change, 1.5°C. This study found that land-related measures,
although this is subject to great uncertainty. both supply and demand side, could in total
IPCC-reviewed studies of what land-based deliver around 14 GtCO2e of emissions reduction
interventions can achieve by 2050 to help keep per year by 2050, or around 15 GtCO2e/yr with
the global temperature rise to 1.5°C have estimated bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
contributions covering wide ranges such as (BECCS), which represents approximately 25% of
0.4-5.8 GtCO2e/yr for reduced deforestation, the mitigation required for a net-zero world. This
0.5-10.1 GtCO2e/yr for afforestation and implies roughly 5 GtCO2e/yr of reductions by
reforestation or 0.3 – 3.4 for agricultural measures19. 20301. The measures consist in roughly equal
proportions of those that reduce GHG emissions
Researchers have been seeking to generate from land, such as protecting forests, peatlands,
more specific estimates for land-based measures coastal wetlands and grasslands, and those that
that balance their modelled technical potential remove CO2 from the atmosphere, such as
with economic potential and co-benefits. In one restoring such ecosystems. Removal of CO2 is
study1, which provides a concise indication of the required to achieve net zero in any economy
potential, scientists examined economy-wide where some GHG emissions continue and need
modelled projections as well as sector-based to be offset (see Figure 1).
assessments to develop a ‘land-sector roadmap’
FIGURE 1
The need for carbon dioxide removal
75 To achieve net zero emissions by 2050 in
line with a pathway to stabilise the global
Annual CO2 emissions (GtCO2e/year)
Business as usual
60 mean temperature at 1.5°C above pre-industrial
Traditional mitigation
times, GHG emissions need to be reduced
technologies
45 compared to a ‘business-as-usual’ trajectory20.
Any remaining GHG emissions in 2050 need
to be offset or counteracted by removing an
30
equivalent amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Land-based mitigation options play a part both
15
in reducing emissions, for example by halting
removal
Carbon
Path to 2°C
destruction of forests and peatlands, and in
0 removing CO2, for example by restoring forests
Path to 1.5°C and peatlands1.
2000 2025 2050
Year
4 CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND2.1 Short-term priority actions – • Restoring degraded, carbon-rich ecosystems:
beginning immediately Forests, drained peatlands, coastal wetlands,
One study found
The ‘roadmap’ study1 included the following land including sea grass and kelp; particularly in
based mitigation options to be implemented tropical countries; Total estimated cumulative
that land-related
from 2021 to 2050 (see Figure 2): GHG reduction by 2030 9 GtCO2e. measures, both
(equivalent to around one year of China’s supply and
• Reducing emissions from deforestation,
peatland drainage and burning,
emissions). Costs estimated at $10-100/ tCO221. demand side,
coastal wetland conversion and Total estimated potential annual GHG could in total
grassland conversion: reduction by 2050: 3.6 GtCO2e/yr. deliver around
Particularly in tropical countries including
• Improving forest management 14 GtCO2e
Brazil, Indonesia and countries in Africa’s of emission
and agroforestry:
Congo Basin; 70% reduction by 2030,
Increasing carbon stored in, and expanding reduction per
95% by 2050. Costs estimated at up to
the footprint of, timber production forest and year by 2050,
$100/ tCO2 for reducing deforestation;
agroforestry lands – particularly in the US, or around 15
up to $20/tCO2 for reducing peatland
Russia, Canada, Europe, Australia, Brazil,
and grassland conversion21. GtCO2e/yr with
Indonesia and other tropical countries.
bioenergy with
Total estimated potential annual GHG Total estimated cumulative GHG reduction
reduction by 2050: 4.6 GtCO2e/yr. by 2030: 4 GtCO2 (equivalent to around carbon capture
one year of the EU’s total emissions). Costs and storage
• Reducing consumer food waste:
estimated at $10-100/ tCO221. (BECCS), which
In developed and emerging countries,
particularly from consumption in the US, Total estimated potential annual GHG represents
Europe and China and from production in reduction by 2050: 1.6 GtCO2e/yr. approximately
Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa;
• Enhancing soil carbon sequestration:
25% of the
30% reduction by 2030; 50% by 2050. This
On agricultural lands, including application mitigation
has potential cost savings as food waste is required for a
of biochar – a charcoal-like product that
estimated to cost up to $1 trillion per year9, 22.
stores carbon – and reducing fertiliser net-zero world.
Total estimated potential annual GHG emissions across all agricultural countries
reduction by 2050: 0.9 GtCO2e/yr. particularly China, the US, Europe, Australia,
India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Indonesia
• Dietary change:
and the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.
One in five people shifting to healthy diets
Total estimated cumulative GHG reduction
(less than 60 grams of meat protein per day,
by 2030: 3 GtCO2e (equivalent to around
less than 2,500 total daily calories) by 2030
one year of India’s total emissions). Costs
in developed and emerging countries with
estimated at $10-100 tCO221.
high meat consumption, particularly in the
US, Europe, China, Brazil, Argentina, Russia Total estimated potential annual GHG
and countries in the Middle East; one in two reduction by 2050: 1.3 GtCO2e/yr.
by 2050. Costs of different shifts vary and
there is evidence that some types of healthy
diets are unaffordable for many23. Research
has identified needs to demonstrate food
patterns that are nutrient rich, affordable,
and appealing24.
Total estimated potential annual GHG
reduction by 2050: 0.9 GtCO2e/yr.
CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND 52.2 Additional actions – beginning in 2030 • Bioenergy with carbon capture
In the longer term after 2030, these priority and storage (BECCS):
actions are ratcheted up, and two additional Moderately deployed over 34-180 Mha of
actions are added (see Figure 2): land. Costs estimated at $100/ tCO221.
When applied at Gt removal scales,
• Reducing direct emissions in agriculture:
very large land areas are needed and land
From enteric fermentation, manure
competition can be an issue for large scale
management, rice cultivation; reducing
BECCS and afforestation.
methane and nitrous oxide as well as CO2;
in developed and emerging countries, Total estimated potential annual GHG
Asia and Latin America. Costs estimated reduction by 2050: 1.1 GtCO2e/yr.
at $3. S
cience-based priorities for action
in research and deployment
Science indicates six principles to consider agriculture, and from the demand side, through
in examining the potential of land-based shifts that reduce pressure for increased food
mitigation options. production, particularly with high emissions.
3.1 Action on land and fossil fuels: Scientists warn that with food demand rising,
‘both-and’, not ‘either-or’ any land policy for the climate that fails first to
Researchers stress that land-based options provide food security, regionally and nationally,
need to be used as a complement to, and not is likely to fail because forests, grasslands and
a substitute for, rapid reductions in fossil fuel other ecosystems will continue to be converted
consumption and emissions. The land’s capacity to croplands34.
to absorb carbon is already being weakened
by the impacts of climate change25. Carbon The food production system can grow rapidly:
offsetting programmes cannot therefore be it tripled in production between 1961 and
seen as a ‘get-out-of-jail’ card for emitters, 201135. Over the next 30 years, it needs to grow
tradable for any volume of fossil fuel emissions. significantly to meet demand, 50% being one
UN projection35, at the same time as reducing
3.2 Serving multiple goals its carbon footprint.
Land-based mitigation options have a particular
relevance in today’s context of global economic One key route to reconciling these pressures is
recovery. Nature-based solutions can not only known as ‘sustainable intensification’, defined as
reduce emissions but also help build climate ‘a process or system where yields are increased
resilience. support healthy lives and stimulate without adverse environmental impact and
economic development26. For example, without the cultivation of more land’36.
afforestation and reforestation alone can
Sustainable intensification can include closing
potentially contribute to 13 of the 17 UN SDGs if
‘yield gaps’ – the gaps that mean for example
undertaken sustainably27.
that American farmers who can grow five
Research on the ground has also showed that times as much corn per acre as their African
deforestation rates often tend to fall when legal counterparts – as long as this is done without
forest rights are held by indigenous peoples increasing emissions37, 38. A study of farming
and local communities, who manage about communities in Africa, for example, showed how
half of the global landmass under various action to improve the matching of agronomic
forms of collective, traditional or ‘customary inputs to crop requirements and adopt more
law’28, 29, 30. For example, one study in Benin productive technologies enabled farmers to
showed that when 70,000 landholdings were close yield gaps of up to 200%, with emissions
formally registered, forest loss declined with no intensity falling by up to 60%39.
evidence of leakage31. Moreover, designating
Meanwhile, from the demand side, with up to
certain forest areas to be managed by the local
around one-third of global greenhouse gas
community led to them being described as
(GHG) emissions arising from the food system,
‘domaine sacré’ (sacred ground) and were
2021 provides a fresh opportunity for a respectful,
left intact32, 33.
science-based conversation about diet and
3.3 A more sustainable food system food, and their impact on the planet. (See
An opportunity exists to seek a more sustainable briefing 10: Nourishing ten billion sustainably.)
future for the food system, with lower GHG
3.4 Conserve, restore, and sustainably manage
emissions but sufficient output to support
Land-based options exist along a spectrum of
a growing population. This issue can be
priorities where the most beneficial are sometimes
approached from the supply side, by action on
the most challenging to implement. On a global
CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND 7scale, dietary shifts and reduced food waste are Although such options have struggled to attract
often prioritised as they release pressure on funding compared to low-carbon energy over
On the ground,
land and enable other actions to be taken. the past two decades, there are some signs that
emerging investment may be on the rise.
evidence On the ground, emerging evidence suggests
suggests that solutions that protect ecosystems from Momentum is building in the business
that solutions destruction or degradation should be a priority community, with around 25% of Fortune 500
as they have very high mitigation potential40. businesses committed to carbon neutrality by
that protect
This is because the loss of a forest, peatland, 203050. While such sustainable investments are
ecosystems
grassland or mangrove not only releases stored needed, investors and others are also urging
from destruction carbon as it is cut down, but also prevents years companies to commit to feasible reductions in
or degradation or decades of future carbon sequestration41, 42. their life cycle fossil fuel footprints51.
should be Such protection-based measures are
a priority as accompanied by restoration and management, Science-informed monitoring, reporting and
where different types of solutions can have verification tools are developing rapidly. For
they have very
different potentials. In the roadmap covered example, in June 2020, the International Union
high mitigation for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) launched
above (see figure 2), for example, reducing
potential. This a Global Standard to help ensure that activities
emissions from deforestation and degradation of
is because coastal wetlands and peatlands accounts for the described as nature-based solutions deliver
the loss of a highest potential mitigation (4.6 GtCO2e/yr), benefits such as economic development, health,
forest, peatland, followed by reforestation (3.6 GtCO2e/yr) and biodiversity, food and water security52, 53. Such
grassland or then improved forest management (1.6 GtCO2e/yr)1. tools help create the enabling environment for
large-scale investments to go ahead sustainably.
mangrove not
In practice, many of the pledges made by
only releases governments relate to forests and in particular to 3.6 Still much to learn
stored carbon afforestation. For example, more than 40 countries Research into land-based mitigation has grown
as it is cut down, have committed to bringing together 350 million very rapidly in recent years. A search of science
but also prevents hectares of deforested and degraded land databases found that articles and reviews using
years or decades into restoration by 2030 as part of the Bonn the term ‘nature-based solutions’ grew from
Challenge43, 44. Researchers have raised concerns around 100 up to 2018, to around 650 by
of future carbon
that tree-planting is distracting from the need to 202045. However, with nature-based solutions
sequestration. being characterised by multiple benefits, wider
rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels45. As well as
the issues regarding monoculture plantations research is important to determine and measure
discussed above, there are also concerns that the positive – or negative – outcomes that
forestry expansion presented as a climate land-based activities demonstrate. For example,
solution is taking precedence over options for ongoing research is needed to determine how
other native ecosystems. Specialists have urged the potential of land-based options may be
policymakers to consider the wide range of affected by the impacts of climate change itself.
ecosystems beyond forests, such as grasslands, At a more detailed level, studies can
coastal wetlands and peatlands45. demonstrate how some options have both
mitigation and adaptation benefits – such as
3.5 Unlocking investment restoration of mangroves or woodlands that
Land-based solutions have been supported by enhances carbon sequestration as well as
governments, banks, international financial providing flood and erosion protection.
institutions, private companies and funds such
as the Green Climate Fund (GCF)46; Adaptation Research can also maximise the biodiversity
Fund (AF)47; Climate Investment Funds (CIF)48; benefits of activities, for example by integrating
and Global Environment Facility (GEF)49. biodiverse habitats into connected networks
that allow species to shift their ranges in
response to climate change54.
8 CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND4. T
aking care of nature
In the 2020 documentary David Attenborough: But climate change may itself reduce the land’s
A Life on our Planet, the naturalist and sink capacity if energy emissions are not reduced
broadcaster Sir David Attenborough has said that rapidly. However, if fossil fuel emissions are cut,
“nature is our greatest ally”55 in overcoming land-based climate mitigation options can still
climate change, but its allegiance is not play an important part56. As Attenborough goes
unconditional. The land, with the ocean, has on to say, “If we take care of nature, nature will
effectively soaked up more than half of the take care of us”57.
greenhouse gases humans have put into the
atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
This briefing is one of a series looking at how science and technology can support the global effort to achieve net zero
emissions and adapt to climate change. The series aims to inform policymakers around the world on 12 issues where
science can inform understanding and action as each country creates its own road map to net zero by 2050.
To view the whole series, visit royalsociety.org/climate-science-solutions
To view contributors to the briefings, visit royalsociety.org/climate-solutions-contributors
The text of this work is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, provided the original
author and source are credited. The license is available at: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0. Images are not covered by this license.
Issued: June 2021 DES7639_9 © The Royal Society
CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND 9References
1. Roe S et al. 2019 Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. 14. Climate Bonds Initiative. 2020 Unlocking Brazil’s green investment
Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 817–828. (doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0591-9) potential for agriculture: potential for agriculture. The Brazil Agriculture
Subcommittee. Brazil Green Finance Initiative. See https://www.
2. The Royal Society 2019 Climate change and land: opportunities and
climatebonds.net/files/reports/brazil_agri_roadmap_english.pdf
challenges for the UK. See https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/
(accessed 3 March 2021)
projects/climate-change/IPCC-special-report-briefing-climate-change-
and-land.pdf (accessed 26 February 2021) 15. Gifford L. 2020 “You can’t value what you can’t measure”: a critical look
at forest carbon accounting. Climatic Change 161, 291–306. (doi:10.1007/
3. IPCC. 2019. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change and
s10584-020-02653-1)
land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification,
land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and 16. Grimault J, Bellassen V, Shishov I. 2018 Key elements and challenges
greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Shukla PR et al (eds). in monitoring, certifying and financing forestry carbon projects. Climate
In press. See https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/02/ Brief No. 58. I4CE - Institute for Climate Economics. See https://www.i4ce.
SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf (accessed 29 March 2021) org/wp-core/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1106-i4ce2934-PC58-VA.pdf
(accessed 1 April 2021)
4. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2019 World
population prospects 2019: data booklet. See https://population.un.org/ 17. Pan W, Kim M-K, Ning Z, Yang H. 2020 Carbon leakage in energy/forest
wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_DataBooklet.pdf (accessed 26 sectors and climate policy implications using meta-analysis. Forest Policy
February 2021) and Economics 115, 102161. (doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102161)
5. United Nations Population Division. 2019 World population prospects 18. Ostwald M, Henders S. 2014 Making two parallel land-use sector
2019: demographic profiles. See https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/ debates meet: Carbon leakage and indirect land-use change. Land Use
DemographicProfiles/Line/900 (accessed 26 February 2021) Policy 36, 533–542. (doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.012)
6. Friedlingstein P et al. 2020 Global carbon budget 2020. Earth Syst. Sci. 19. IPCC. 2019 Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on
Data 12, 3269–3340. (doi:10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020) climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land
management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial
7. World Meteorological Organisation. 2021 2020 was one of the
ecosystems. Shukla PR et al. (eds). In press. See https://www.ipcc.ch/
warmest years on record. See https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-
site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf
release/2020-was-one-of-three-warmest-years-record (accessed 26
(accessed 26 March 2021)
February 2021)
20. Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change.
8. Seddon N. 2021. Why efforts to address climate change through nature-
2016 Betting on negative emissions: potentials and uncertainties of new
based solutions must support both biodiversity and people. The Royal
technologies to reduce the world's carbon debt. MCC Policy Brief no.2
Society. See https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/biodiversity/
November 2016. See https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/policy-
nature-based-solutions/ (accessed 26 March 2021)
briefs/negativeemissions.html (accessed 27 April 2021).
9. Lopez Barrera E, Hertel T. 2021 Global food waste across the income
21. IPCC. 2018 Technical summary. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC
spectrum: implications for food prices, production and resource use.
special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-
Food Policy 98, 101874. (doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101874)
industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways,
10. National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society. 2019 Climate in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of
change and ecosystems. See https://royalsociety.org/-/media/about-us/ climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate
international/climate-change-and-ecosystems-2019.pdf (accessed 26 poverty. Masson-Delmotte V et al. (eds). In press. See https://www.ipcc.
February 2021) ch/sr15/technical-summary/ (accessed 3 March 2021)
11. IPCC. 2013 Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: the 22. United Nations Environment Programme. 2013 Worldwide food waste.
physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth See https://www.unep.org/thinkeatsave/get-informed/worldwide-food-
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. waste (accessed 3 March 2021)
Stocker TF et al. (eds). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
23. Hirvonen K, Bai Y, Headey D, Masters WA. 2020 Affordability of the EAT–
University Press. See https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/
Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. The Lancet Global Health 8,
WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf (accessed 26 March 2021)
e59–e66. (doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(19)30447-4)
12. Buchner B et al. 2019 Global landscape of climate finance 2019. Climate
24. Darmon N, Drewnowski A. 2015 Contribution of food prices and diet
Policy Initiative. See https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/
cost to socioeconomic disparities in diet quality and health: a systematic
global-landscape-of-climate-finance-2019/ (accessed 3 March 2021)
review and analysis. Nutr Rev 73, 643–660. (doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuv027)
13. Averchenkova A, Bhattacharya A, Calland R, González L, Martinez-
25. IPCC. 2014 Future climate changes, risks and impacts. In: Climate
Diaz L, van Rooij J. 2020 Independent expert group on climate
Change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III
finance: delivering on the $100 billion climate finance commitment and
to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
transforming climate finance. See https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/
Change. Pachauri, Meyer LA et al. (eds). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. See
files/100_billion_climate_finance_report.pdf (accessed 3 March 2021)
https://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/topic_futurechanges.php (accessed 15 March 2021)
26. United Nations Climate Change Conference UK 2021 in partnership
with Italy. 2020 Campaigns. See https://ukcop26.org/uk-presidency/
campaigns/ (accessed 15 March 2021)
10 CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND27. Smith P et al. 2019 Land-Management options for greenhouse gas 41. Seddon N, Turner B, Berry P, Chausson A, Girardin CAJ. 2019 Grounding
removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nature
development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 255–286. Clim Change 9, 84–87. (doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0405-0)
(doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129)
42. Kormos C. Mackey B, Mittermeier R, Young V. 2020 Primary forest:
28. Sangha KK. 2020 Global importance of indigenous and local priority nature-based solution. International Union for the Conservation
communities’ managed lands: building a case for stewardship schemes. of Nature. Crossroads Blog. See https://www.iucn.org/crossroads-
Sustainability 12, 7839. (doi:10.3390/su12197839) blog/202003/primary-forests-a-priority-nature-based-solution
(accessed 15 March 2021)
29. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services. 2018 The IPBES assessment report on land 43. International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2020 The Bonn Challenge.
degradation and restoration. See https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/ See https://www.bonnchallenge.org/ (accessed 30 March 2021)
files/2018_ldr_full_report_book_v4_pages.pdf (accessed 15 March 2021)
44. International Union for Conservation of Nature. The Bonn Challenge.
30. Rights and Resources Initiative. 2015. Who owns the World’s land? Restore our future: impact and potential of forest landscape restoration.
A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and community See https://www.bonnchallenge.org/sites/default/files/resources/
land rights. See https://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/ files/%5Bnode%3Anid%5D/Bonn%20Challenge%20Report.pdf
GlobalBaseline_web.pdf (accessed 15 March 2021) (accessed 30 March 2021)
31. Wren-Lewis L, Becerra-Valbuena L, Houngbedji K. 2020 Formalizing 45. Seddon N et al. 2021 Getting the message right on nature-based solutions
land rights can reduce forest loss: experimental evidence from Benin. to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518-1546. (doi:10.1111/gcb.15513)
Sci. Adv. 6, eabb6914. (doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb6914)
46. Green Climate Fund. 2021. See https://www.greenclimate.fund/
32. Chemnick J. 2020 Amazon deforestation falls where land is under (accessed 30 March 2021)
indigenous control. Scientific American. E&E News. See https://www.
47. Adaptation Fund. 2019. See https://www.adaptation-fund.org/
scientificamerican.com/article/amazon-deforestation-falls-where-land-is-
(accessed 30 March 2021)
under-indigenous-control/ (accessed 15 March 2021)
48. Climate Investment Funds. 2018. See https://www.
33. Freudenberger M. 2013 The future of customary tenure: options for
climateinvestmentfunds.org/ (accessed 30 March 2021)
policymakers. LandLinks. See https://www.land-links.org/issue-brief/the-
future-of-customary-tenure/ (accessed 15 March 2021) 49. Global Environment Facility. 2021 See https://www.thegef.org/ (accessed
30 March 2021)
34. IPCC. 2019. Food security. In: Climate change and land: an IPCC special
report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable 50. Feast S. 2020 What will it take for the 75% of companies that don’t
land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in have climate commitments to step up? Fast Company. See https://www.
terrestrial ecosystems. Shukla PR et al (eds). In press. See https://www. fastcompany.com/90459443/what-will-it-take-for-the-75-of-companies-
ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/ (accessed 30 March 2021) that-dont-have-climate-commitments-to-step-up (accessed 15 March 2021)
35. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 51. The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. 2021.
2017 The future of food and agriculture: trends and challenges. See https://www.iigcc.org/ (accessed 26 March 2021)
See http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf (accessed 10 March 2021) 52. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 2020 Global standard
36. The Royal Society. 2009 Reaping the benefits: science and for nature-based solutions. A user-friendly framework for the verification,
the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. See https:// design and scaling up of NbS. See https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/
royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/ library/files/documents/2020-020-En.pdf (accessed 15 March 2021)
publications/2009/4294967719.pdf (accessed 11 March 2021) 53. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. IUCN standard to
37. Market Business News. 2020 Yield gap: definition and meaning. boost impact of nature-based solutions to global challenges. See https://
See https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/yield-gap- www.iucn.org/news/nature-based-solutions/202007/iucn-standard-
definition-meaning/#:~:text=Yield%20gap%20%E2%80%93%20 boost-impact-nature-based-solutions-global-challenges (accessed 15
agriculture&text=Yield%20gap%20is%20used%20to,their%20 March 2021)
counterparts%20do%20in%20Africa (accessed 15 March 2021) 54. Brancalion PHS, Chazdon RL. 2017 Beyond hectares: four principles
38. Cui Z et al. 2013 Closing the yield gap could reduce projected to guide reforestation in the context of tropical forest and landscape
greenhouse gas emissions: a case study of maize production in China. restoration. Restor Ecol 25, 491–496. (doi:10.1111/rec.12519)
Glob Change Biol 19, 2467–2477. (doi:10.1111/gcb.12213) 55. Fothergill A, Hughes J, Scholey K. 2020 David Attenborough:
39. Henderson B et al. 2016 Closing system-wide yield gaps to increase A Life on our Planet. Silverback Films. Altitude Film Entertainment.
food production and mitigate GHGs among mixed crop–livestock Netflix. See https://attenboroughfilm.com/ (accessed 29 March 2021)
smallholders in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems 143, 106–113. 56. Anderson CM et al. 2019 Natural climate solutions are not enough.
(doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.006) Science 363, 933–934. (doi:10.1126/science.aaw2741)
40. Griscom BW et al. 2020 National mitigation potential from natural climate 57. Child D. 2020 Sir David Attenborough reveals four ways we can save
solutions in the tropics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190126. (doi:10.1098/ the planet in new Life On Our Planet documentary. Evening Standard.
rstb.2019.0126) See https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/david-attenborough-suggestions-
save-planet-a4563451.html (accessed 30 March 2021).
CLIMATE CHANGE : SCIENCE AND SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE AND LAND 11You can also read
