Co‐benefits, trade‐offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sector

Abstract

Accepted ArticleThis article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/gcb.12591 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Running head: AFOLU GHG mitigation barriers and policiesKeywords: agriculture, forestry, AFOLU, GHG, mitigation, climate, food security, ecosystem service Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.forestry toward global sharing of innovative technologies for the efficient use of land resources. Different policy instruments, especially economic incentives and regulatory approaches, are currently being applied however for its successful implementation it is critical to understand how land use decisions are made and how new social, political and economic forces in the future will influence this process.

Greater soil carbon stocks and faster turnover rates with increasing agricultural productivity

“…Simultaneously, there is a recognition that gains in agricultural production cannot continue to come simply by mining the soil resource. Given the additional desire to offset agriculture's GHG footprint, management that promotes the regeneration of SOM is now a high priority on many nations' research, development and extension agendas (Bustamante et al, 2014). However, there is debate as to whether soils can simultaneously mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration and provide the nutrition needed for increased crop production 14 C values of soil organic carbon in upper 10 cm along with yearly output from the best-fit bomb-spike model solutions for scenario 1 (curve fits for scenario 2 shown in Fig.…”

Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions

“…This range of land demands are 2-4 times larger than land identified as abandoned or marginal 72 . Thus, the use of BECCS and AR on large areas of productive land is expected to impact the amount of land available for food or other bioenergy production 12,37,[73][74][75] , as well as the delivery of other ecosystem services 12,32,76 , which may prove to be a limit to the implementation of BECCS 77 and AR. One uncertainty is the future rate of increase of food crop yields 37,78 and whether this will meet future food demand 79 , thereby potentially freeing more cropland for BECCS or AR, even if at a higher price 37 .…”

ABOVEGROUND BIOMASS GROWTH AND YIELD OF FIRST ROTATION CUTTING CYCLE OF Acacia AND Eucalyptus SHORT ROTATION DENDROENERGY CROPS

“…Forestry and reforestation activities help mitigate the effect of greenhouse gas emissions (Bustamante et al, 2014). Forestry crops intended for biomass production, defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol as Clean Development Mechanisms (Van Vliet et al, 2003), constitute an important source of bioenergy with reduced greenhouse emissions and may help to partially offset the large demand for fossil fuels (Lloyd and Subbarao, 2009).…”