TY  - JOUR
A1  - Roe, Stephanie
A1  - Streck, Charlotte
A1  - Beach, Robert
A1  - Busch, Jonah
A1  - Chapman, Melissa
A1  - Daioglou, Vassilis
A1  - Deppermann, Andre
A1  - Doelman, Jonathan
A1  - Emmet-Booth, Jeremy
A1  - Engelmann, Jens
A1  - Fricko, Oliver
A1  - Frischmann, Chad
A1  - Funk, Jason
A1  - Grassi, Giacomo
A1  - Griscom, Bronson
A1  - Havlik, Petr
A1  - Hanssen, Steef
A1  - Humpenöder, Florian
A1  - Landholm, David
A1  - Lomax, Guy
A1  - Lehmann, Johannes
A1  - Mesnildrey, Leah
A1  - Nabuurs, Gert-Jan
A1  - Popp, Alexander
A1  - Rivard, Charlotte
A1  - Sanderman, Jonathan
A1  - Sohngen, Brent
A1  - Smith, Pete
A1  - Stehfest, Elke
A1  - Woolf, Dominic
A1  - Lawrence, Deborah
T1  - Land-based measures to mitigate climate change
BT  - potential and feasibility by country
JF  - Global change biology
N2  - Land-based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land-based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing “bottom-up” sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost-effective (available up to $100/tCO2eq) land-based mitigation is 8–13.8 GtCO2eq yr−1 between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost-effective sectoral estimate is about 40% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost-effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost-effective potential is approximately 50% from forests and other ecosystems, 35% from agriculture, and 15% from demand-side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75–4.8 GtCO2eq yr−1) and the top 15 countries account for about 60% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand-side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co-benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio-cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land-based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near-term, low-cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land-based measures available, their potential co-benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country-specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship.
KW  - AFOLU
KW  - co-benefits
KW  - demand management
KW  - feasibility
KW  - land management
KW  - land sector
KW  - mitigation
KW  - natural climate solutions
KW  - nature-based solutions
Y1  - 2021
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873
SN  - 1365-2486
VL  - 27
IS  - 23
SP  - 6025
EP  - 6058
PB  - Wiley-Blackwell
CY  - Oxford
ER  -