Integrated and non-climate policies affecting emissions of greenhouse gases
The adoption of mitigation practices will often be driven largely by goals not directly related to climate change. This leads to varying mitigation responses among regions, and contributes to uncertainty in estimates of future global mitigation potential. Policies most effective at reducing emissions may be those that also achieve other societal goals. Some rural development policies undertaken to fight poverty, such as water management and agro-forestry, are synergistic with mitigation (medium agreement, limited evidence). For example, agro-forestry undertaken to produce fuel wood or to buffer farm incomes against climate variation may also increase carbon sequestration. In many regions, agricultural mitigation options are influenced most by non-climate policies, including macro-economic, agricultural and environmental policies. Such policies may be based on UN conventions (e.g., Biodiversity and Desertification), but are often driven by national or regional issues. Among the most beneficial non-climate policies are those that promote sustainable use of soils, water and other resources in agriculture since these help to increase soil carbon stocks and minimize resource (energy, fertilizer) waste (high agreement, medium evidence) [8.7].
Co-benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation policies
Some agricultural practices yield purely ‘win-win’ outcomes, but most involve trade-offs. Agro-ecosystems are inherently complex. The co-benefits and trade-offs of an agricultural practice may vary from place to place because of differences in climate, soil or the way the practice is adopted (high agreement, medium evidence).
In producing bioenergy, for example, if the feedstock is crop residues, soil organic matter may be depleted as less carbon is returned, thus reducing soil quality; conversely, if the feedstock is a densely-rooted perennial crop, soil organic matter may be replenished, thereby improving soil quality.
Many agricultural mitigation activities show synergy with the goals of sustainability. Mitigation policies that encourage efficient use of fertilizers, maintain soil carbon and sustain agricultural production are likely to have the greatest synergy with sustainable development (high agreement, medium evidence).
For example, increasing soil carbon can also improve food security and economic returns. Other mitigation options have less certain impacts on sustainable development. For example, the use of some organic amendments may improve carbon sequestration, but impacts on water quality may vary depending on the amendment. Co-benefits often arise from improved efficiency, reduced cost and environmental co-benefits. Trade-offs relate to competition for land, reduced agricultural productivity and environmental stresses (medium agreement, limited evidence) [8.4.5].