Special Report

Climate Change and Land

An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems

Summary for Policymakers


Chapter 1: Framing and Context


Chapter 2 : Land–Climate interactions


Chapter 3 : Desertification


Chapter 4 : Land Degradation


Chapter 5

Executive Summary

The current food system (production, transport, processing, packaging, storage, retail, consumption, loss and waste) feeds the great majority of world population and supports the livelihoods of over 1 billion people. Since 1961, food supply per capita has increased more than 30%, accompanied by greater use of nitrogen fertilisers (increase of about 800%) and water resources for irrigation (increase of more than 100%). However, an estimated 821 million people are currently undernourished, 151 million children under five are stunted, 613 million women and girls aged 15 to 49 suffer from iron deficiency, and 2 billion adults are overweight or obese. The food system is under pressure from non-climate stressors (e.g., population and income growth, demand for animal-sourced products), and from climate change. These climate and non-climate stresses are impacting the four pillars of food security (availability, access, utilisation, and stability). {5.1.1, 5.1.2}

Observed climate change is already affecting food security through increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and greater frequency of some extreme events (high confidence). Studies that separate out climate change from other factors affecting crop yields have shown that yields of some crops (e.g., maize and wheat) in many lower-latitude regions have been affected negatively by observed climate changes, while in many higher-latitude regions, yields of some crops (e.g., maize, wheat, and sugar beets) have been affected positively over recent decades. Warming compounded by drying has caused large negative effects on yields in parts of the Mediterranean. Based on indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), climate change is affecting food security in drylands, particularly those in Africa, and high mountain regions of Asia and South America. {5.2.2}

Food security will be increasingly affected by projected future climate change (high confidence). Across Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) 1, 2, and 3, global crop and economic models projected a 1–29% cereal price increase in 2050 due to climate change (RCP 6.0), which would impact consumers globally through higher food prices; regional effects will vary (high confidence). Low-income consumers are particularly at risk, with models projecting increases of 1–183 million additional people at risk of hunger across the SSPs compared to a no climate change scenario (high confidence). While increased CO2 is projected to be beneficial for crop productivity at lower temperature increases, it is projected to lower nutritional quality (high confidence) (e.g., wheat grown at 546–586 ppm CO2 has 5.9–12.7% less protein, 3.7–6.5% less zinc, and 5.2–7.5% less iron). Distributions of pests and diseases will change, affecting production negatively in many regions (high confidence). Given increasing extreme events and interconnectedness, risks of food system disruptions are growing (high confidence). {5.2.3, 5.2.4}

Vulnerability of pastoral systems to climate change is very high (high confidence). Pastoralism is practiced in more than 75% of countries by between 200 and 500 million people, including nomadic communities, transhumant herders, and agropastoralists. Impacts in pastoral systems in Africa include lower pasture and animal productivity, damaged reproductive function, and biodiversity loss. Pastoral system vulnerability is exacerbated by non-climate factors (land tenure, sedentarisation, changes in traditional institutions, invasive species, lack of markets, and conflicts). {5.2.2}

Fruit and vegetable production, a key component of healthy diets, is also vulnerable to climate change (medium evidence, high agreement). Declines in yields and crop suitability are projected under higher temperatures, especially in tropical and semi-tropical regions. Heat stress reduces fruit set and speeds up development of annual vegetables, resulting in yield losses, impaired product quality, and increasing food loss and waste. Longer growing seasons enable a greater number of plantings to be cultivated and can contribute to greater annual yields. However, some fruits and vegetables need a period of cold accumulation to produce a viable harvest, and warmer winters may constitute a risk. {5.2.2}

Food security and climate change have strong gender and equity dimensions (high confidence). Worldwide, women play a key role in food security, although regional differences exist. Climate change impacts vary among diverse social groups depending on age, ethnicity, gender, wealth, and class. Climate extremes have immediate and long-term impacts on livelihoods of poor and vulnerable communities, contributing to greater risks of food insecurity that can be a stress multiplier for internal and external migration (medium confidence). {5.2.6} Empowering women and rights-based approaches to decision-making can create synergies among household food security, adaptation, and mitigation. {5.6.4}

Many practices can be optimised and scaled up to advance adaptation throughout the food system (high confidence). Supply-side options include increased soil organic matter and erosion control, improved cropland, livestock, grazing land management, and genetic improvements for tolerance to heat and drought. Diversification in the food system (e.g., implementation of integrated production systems, broad-based genetic resources, and heterogeneous diets) is a key strategy to reduce risks (medium confidence). Demand-side adaptation, such as adoption of healthy and sustainable diets, in conjunction with reduction in food loss and waste, can contribute to adaptation through reduction in additional land area needed for food production and associated food system vulnerabilities. ILK can contribute to enhancing food system resilience (high confidence). {5.3, 5.6.3 Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 5}

About 21–37% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to the food system. These are from agriculture and land use, storage, transport, packaging, processing, retail, and consumption (medium confidence). This estimate includes emissions of 9–14% from crop and livestock activities within the farm gate and 5–14% from land use and land-use change including deforestation and peatland degradation (high confidence); 5–10% is from supply chain activities (medium confidence). This estimate includes GHG emissions from food loss and waste. Within the food system, during the period 2007–2016, the major sources of emissions from the supply side were agricultural production, with crop and livestock activities within the farm gate generating respectively 142 ± 42 TgCH4 yr–1 (high confidence) and 8.0 ± 2.5 TgN2O yr–1 (high confidence), and CO2 emissions linked to relevant land-use change dynamics such as deforestation and peatland degradation, generating 4.9 ± 2.5 GtCO2 yr-1. Using 100-year GWP values (no climate feedback) from the IPCC AR5, this implies that total GHG emissions from agriculture were 6.2 ± 1.4 GtCO2-eq yr-1, increasing to 11.1 ± 2.9 GtCO2-eq yr–1 including relevant land use. Without intervention, these are likely to increase by about 30–40% by 2050, due to increasing demand based on population and income growth and dietary change (high confidence). {5.4}

Supply-side practices can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing crop and livestock emissions, sequestering carbon in soils and biomass, and by decreasing emissions intensity within sustainable production systems (high confidence). Total technical mitigation potential from crop and livestock activities and agroforestry is estimated as 2.3–9.6 GtCO2-eq yr–1 by 2050 (medium confidence). Options with large potential for GHG mitigation in cropping systems include soil carbon sequestration (at decreasing rates over time), reductions in N2O emissions from fertilisers, reductions in CH4 emissions from paddy rice, and bridging of yield gaps. Options with large potential for mitigation in livestock systems include better grazing land management, with increased net primary production and soil carbon stocks, improved manure management, and higher-quality feed. Reductions in GHG emissions intensity (emissions per unit product) from livestock can support reductions in absolute emissions, provided appropriate governance to limit total production is implemented at the same time (medium confidence). {5.5.1}

Consumption of healthy and sustainable diets presents major opportunities for reducing GHG emissions from food systems and improving health outcomes (high confidence). Examples of healthy and sustainable diets are high in coarse grains, pulses, fruits and vegetables, and nuts and seeds; low in energy-intensive animal-sourced and discretionary foods (such as sugary beverages); and with a carbohydrate threshold. Total technical mitigation potential of dietary changes is estimated as 0.7–8.0 GtCO2-eq yr–1 by 2050 (medium confidence). This estimate includes reductions in emissions from livestock and soil carbon sequestration on spared land, but co-benefits with health are not taken into account. Mitigation potential of dietary change may be higher, but achievement of this potential at broad scales depends on consumer choices and dietary preferences that are guided by social, cultural, environmental, and traditional factors, as well as income growth. Meat analogues such as imitation meat (from plant products), cultured meat, and insects may help in the transition to more healthy and sustainable diets, although their carbon footprints and acceptability are uncertain. {5.5.2, 5.6.5}

Reduction of food loss and waste could lower GHG emissions and improve food security (medium confidence). Combined food loss and waste amount to 25–30% of total food produced (medium confidence). During 2010–2016, global food loss and waste equalled 8–10% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (medium confidence); and cost about 1 trillion USD2012 per year (low confidence). Technical options for reduction of food loss and waste include improved harvesting techniques, on-farm storage, infrastructure, and packaging. Causes of food loss (e.g., lack of refrigeration) and waste (e.g., behaviour) differ substantially in developed and developing countries, as well as across regions (robust evidence, medium agreement). {5.5.2}

Agriculture and the food system are key to global climate change responses. Combining supply-side actions such as efficient production, transport, and processing with demand-side interventions such as modification of food choices, and reduction of food loss and waste, reduces GHG emissions and enhances food system resilience (high confidence). Such combined measures can enable the implementation of large-scale land-based adaptation and mitigation strategies without threatening food security from increased competition for land for food production and higher food prices. Without combined food system measures in farm management, supply chains, and demand, adverse effects would include increased numbers of malnourished people and impacts on smallholder farmers (medium evidence, high agreement). Just transitions are needed to address these effects. {5.5, 5.6, 5.7}

For adaptation and mitigation throughout the food system, enabling conditions need to be created through policies, markets, institutions, and governance (high confidence). For adaptation, resilience to increasing extreme events can be accomplished through risk sharing and transfer mechanisms such as insurance markets and index-based weather insurance (high confidence).Publichealthpoliciestoimprovenutrition–suchasschool procurement, health insurance incentives, and awareness-raising campaigns – can potentially change demand, reduce healthcare costs, and contribute to lower GHG emissions (limited evidence, high agreement). Without inclusion of comprehensive food system responses in broader climate change policies, the mitigation and adaptation potentials assessed in this chapter will not be realised and food security will be jeopardised (high confidence). {5.7, 5.8}

Chapter 6 : Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and GHG fluxes: synergies, trade-offs and integrated response options

Executive Summary

Chapter 6

Executive Summary

The land challenges, in the context of this report, are climate change mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation, and food security. The chapter also discusses implications for Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP), including biodiversity and water, and sustainable development, by assessing intersections with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The chapter assesses response options that could be used to address these challenges. These response options were derived from the previous chapters and fall into three broad categories: land management, value chain, and risk management.

The land challenges faced today vary across regions; climate change will increase challenges in the future, while socio- economic development could either increase or decrease challenges (high confidence). Increases in biophysical impacts from climate change can worsen desertification, land degradation, and food insecurity (high confidence). Additional pressures from socio- economic development could further exacerbate these challenges; however, the effects are scenario dependent. Scenarios with increases in income and reduced pressures on land can lead to reductions in food insecurity; however, all assessed scenarios result in increases in water demand and water scarcity (medium confidence). {6.1}

The applicability and efficacy of response options are region and context specific; while many value chain and risk management options are potentially broadly applicable, many land management options are applicable on less than 50% of the ice-free land surface (high confidence). Response options are limited by land type, bioclimatic region, or local food system context (high confidence). Some response options produce adverse side effects only in certain regions or contexts; for example, response options that use freshwater may have no adverse side effects in regions where water is plentiful, but large adverse side effects in regions where water is scarce (high confidence). Response options with biophysical climate effects (e.g., afforestation, reforestation) may have different effects on local climate, depending on where they are implemented (medium confidence). Regions with more challenges have fewer response options available for implementation (medium confidence). {6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4}

Nine options deliver medium-to-large benefits for all five land challenges (high confidence). The options with medium-to-large benefits for all challenges are increased food productivity, improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, forest management, increased soil organic carbon content, fire management and reduced post-harvest losses. A further two options, dietary change and reduced food waste, have no global estimates for adaptation but have medium- to-large benefits for all other challenges (high confidence). {6.3, 6.4}

Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 GtCO2e yr–1) without adverse impacts on the other challenges (high confidence). These are: increased food productivity; reduced deforestation and forest degradation; increased soil organic carbon content; fire management; and reduced post-harvest losses.

Two further options with large mitigation potential, dietary change and reduced food waste, have no global estimates for adaptation but show no negative impacts across the other challenges. Five options: improved cropland management; improved grazing land managements; agroforestry; integrated water management; and forest management, have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other challenges (high confidence). {6.3.6}

Sixteen response options have large adaptation potential (more than 25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges (high confidence). These are increased food productivity, improved cropland management, agroforestry, agricultural diversification, forest management, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced landslides and natural hazards, restoration and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, management of supply chains, improved food processing and retailing, improved energy use in food systems, livelihood diversification, use of local seeds, and disaster risk management (high confidence). Some options (such as enhanced urban food systems or management of urban sprawl) may not provide large global benefits but may have significant positive local effects without adverse effects (high confidence). {6.3, 6.4}

Seventeen of 40 options deliver co-benefits or no adverse side effects for the full range of NCPs and SDGs; only three options (afforestation, bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and some types of risk sharing instruments, such as insurance) have potentially adverse side effects for five or more NCPs or SDGs (medium confidence). The 17 options with co-benefits and no adverse side effects include most agriculture- and soil-based land management options, many ecosystem-based land management options, forest management, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, improved energy use in food systems, and livelihood diversification (medium confidence). Some of the synergies between response options and SDGs include positive poverty eradication impacts from activities like improved water management or improved management of supply chains. Examples of synergies between response options and NCPs include positive impacts on habitat maintenance from activities like invasive species management and agricultural diversification. However, many of these synergies are not automatic, and are dependent on well-implemented activities requiring institutional and enabling conditions for success. {6.4}

Most response options can be applied without competing for available land; however, seven options result in competition for land (medium confidence). A large number of response options do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at scale: afforestation, reforestation, and land used to provide feedstock for BECCS or biochar, with three further options: reduced grassland conversion to croplands, restoration and reduced conversion of peat lands and restoration, and reduced conversion of coastal wetlands having smaller or variable impacts on competition for land. Other options such as reduced deforestation and forest degradation, restrict land conversion for other options and uses. Expansion of the current area of managed land into natural ecosystems could have negative consequences for other land challenges, lead to the loss of biodiversity, and adversely affect a range of NCPs (high confidence). {6.3.6, 6.4}

Some options, such as bioenergy and BECCS, are scale dependent. The climate change mitigation potential for bioenergy and BECCS is large (up to 11 GtCO2 yr–1); however, the effects of bioenergy production on land degradation, food insecurity, water scarcity, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and other environmental goals are scale- and context-specific (high confidence). These effects depend on the scale of deployment, initial land use, land type, bioenergy feedstock, initial carbon stocks, climatic region and management regime (high confidence). Large areas of monoculture bioenergy crops that displace other land uses can result in land competition, with adverse effects for food production, food consumption, and thus food security, as well as adverse effects for land degradation, biodiversity, and water scarcity (medium confidence). However, integration of bioenergy into sustainably managed agricultural landscapes can ameliorate these challenges (medium confidence). {6.2, 6.3, 6.4, Cross-Chapter Box 7 in this chapter}

Response options are interlinked; some options (e.g., land sparing and sustainable land management options) can enhance the co-benefits or increase the potential for other options (medium confidence). Some response options can be more effective when applied together (medium confidence); for example, dietary change and waste reduction expand the potential to apply other options by freeing as much as 5.8 Mkm2 (0.8–2.4 Mkm2 for dietary change; about 2 Mkm2 for reduced post-harvest losses, and 1.4 Mkm2 for reduced food waste) of land (low confidence). Integrated water management and increased soil organic carbon can increase food productivity in some circumstances. {6.4}

Other response options (e.g., options that require land) may conflict; as a result, the potentials for response options are not all additive, and a total potential from the land is currently unknown (high confidence). Combining some sets of options (e.g., those that compete for land) may mean that maximum potentials cannot be realised, for example, reforestation, afforestation, and bioenergy and BECCS, all compete for the same finite land resource so the combined potential is much lower than the sum of potentials of each individual option, calculated in the absence of alternative uses of the land (high confidence). Given the interlinkages among response options and that mitigation potentials for individual options assume that they are applied to all suitable land, the total mitigation potential is much lower than the sum of the mitigation potential of the individual response options (high confidence). {6.4}

The feasibility of response options, including those with multiple co-benefits, is limited due to economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental and geophysical barriers (high confidence). A number of response options (e.g., most agriculture-based land management options, forest management, reforestation and restoration) have already been implemented widely to date (high confidence). There is robust evidence that many other response options can deliver co-benefits across the range of land challenges, yet these are not being implemented. This limited application is evidence that multiple barriers to implementation of response options exist (high confidence). {6.3, 6.4}

Coordinated action is required across a range of actors, including business, producers, consumers, land managers, indigenous peoples and local communities and policymakers to create enabling conditions for adoption of response options (high confidence). The response options assessed face a variety of barriers to implementation (economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental and geophysical) that require action across multiple actors to overcome (high confidence). There are a variety of response options available at different scales that could form portfolios of measures applied by different stakeholders – from farm to international scales. For example, agricultural diversification and use of local seeds by smallholders can be particularly useful poverty eradication and biodiversity conservation measures, but are only successful when higher scales, such as national and international markets and supply chains, also value these goods in trade regimes, and consumers see the benefits of purchasing these goods. However, the land and food sectors face particular challenges of institutional fragmentation, and often suffer from a lack of engagement between stakeholders at different scales (medium confidence). {6.3, 6.4}

Delayed action will result in an increased need for response to land challenges and a decreased potential for land-based response options due to climate change and other pressures (high confidence). For example, failure to mitigate climate change will increase requirements for adaptation and may reduce the efficacy of future land-based mitigation options (high confidence). The potential for some land management options decreases as climate change increases; for example, climate alters the sink capacity for soil and vegetation carbon sequestration, reducing the potential for increased soil organic carbon (high confidence). Other options (e.g., reduced deforestation and forest degradation) prevent further detrimental effects to the land surface; delaying these options could lead to increased deforestation, conversion, or degradation, serving as increased sources of GHGs and having concomitant negative impacts on NCPs (medium confidence). Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options – such as reforestation, afforestation, bioenergy and BECCS – are used to compensate for unavoidable emissions in other sectors; delayed action will result in larger and more rapid deployment later (high confidence). Some response options will not be possible if action is delayed too long; for example, peatland restoration might not be possible after certain thresholds of degradation have been exceeded, meaning that peatlands could not be restored in certain locations (medium confidence). {6.2, 6.3, 6.4}

Early action, however, has challenges including technological readiness, upscaling, and institutional barriers (high confidence). Some of the response options have technological barriers that may limit their wide-scale application in the near term (high confidence). Some response options, for example, BECCS, have only been implemented at small-scale demonstration facilities; challenges exist with upscaling these options to the levels discussed in this Chapter (medium confidence). Economic and institutional barriers, including governance, financial incentives and financial resources, limit the near-term adoption of many response options, and ‘policy lags’, by which implementation is delayed by the slowness of the policy implementation cycle, are significant across many options (medium confidence). Even some actions that initially seemed like ‘easy wins’ have been challenging to implement, with stalled policies for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and fostering conservation (REDD+) providing clear examples of how response options need sufficient funding, institutional support, local buy-in, and clear metrics for success, among other necessary enabling conditions. {6.2, 6.4}

Some response options reduce the consequences of land challenges, but do not address underlying drivers (high confidence). For example, management of urban sprawl can help reduce the environmental impact of urban systems; however, such management does not address the socio-economic and demographic changes driving the expansion of urban areas. By failing to address the underlying drivers, there is a potential for the challenge to re-emerge in the future (high confidence). {6.4}

Many response options have been practised in many regions for many years; however, there is limited knowledge of the efficacy and broader implications of other response options (high confidence). For the response options with a large evidence base and ample experience, further implementation and upscaling would carry little risk of adverse side effects (high confidence). However, for other options, the risks are larger as the knowledge gaps are greater; for example, uncertainty in the economic and social aspects of many land response options hampers the ability to predict their effects (medium confidence). Furthermore, Integrated Assessment Models, like those used to develop the pathways in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15), omit many of these response options and do not assess implications for all land challenges (high confidence). {6.4}

Chapter 7 : Risk management and decision making in relation to sustainable development

Executive Summary

Chapter 7

Executive Summary

Increases in global mean surface temperature are projected to result in continued permafrost degradation and coastal degradation (high confidence), increased wildfire, decreased crop yields in low latitudes, decreased food stability, decreased water availability, vegetation loss (medium confidence), decreased access to food and increased soil erosion (low confidence). There is high agreement and high evidence that increases in global mean temperature will result in continued increase in global vegetation loss, coastal degradation, as well as decreased crop yields in low latitudes, decreased food stability, decreased access to food and nutrition, and medium confidence in continued permafrost degradation and water scarcity in drylands. Impacts are already observed across all components (high confidence). Some processes may experience irreversible impacts at lower levels of warming than others. There are high risks from permafrost degradation, and wildfire, coastal degradation, stability of food systems at 1.5°C while high risks from soil erosion, vegetation loss and changes in nutrition only occur at higher temperature thresholds due to increased possibility for adaptation (medium confidence). {,,;;;;; Figure 7.1}

These changes result in compound risks to food systems, human and ecosystem health, livelihoods, the viability of infrastructure, and the value of land (high confidence). The experience and dynamics of risk change over time as a result of both human and natural processes (high confidence). There is high confidence that climate and land changes pose increased risks at certain periods of life (i.e., to the very young and ageing populations) as well as sustained risk to those living in poverty. Response options may also increase risks. For example, domestic efforts to insulate populations from food price spikes associated with climatic stressors in the mid-2000s inadequately prevented food insecurity and poverty, and worsened poverty globally. {7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.3, Table 7.1}

There is significant regional heterogeneity in risks: tropical regions, including Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia and Central and South America are particularly vulnerable to decreases in crop yield (high confidence). Yield of crops in higher latitudes may initially benefit from warming as well as from higher carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. But temperate zones, including the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Gobi desert, Korea and western United States are susceptible to disruptions from increased drought frequency and intensity, dust storms and fires (high confidence). {7.2.2}

Risks related to land degradation, desertification and food security increase with temperature and can reverse development gains in some socio-economic development pathways (high confidence). SSP1 reduces the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems and thus limits risks resulting from desertification, land degradation and food insecurity compared to SSP3 (high confidence). SSP1 is characterised by low population growth, reduced inequalities, land-use regulation, low meat consumption, increased trade and few barriers to adaptation or mitigation. SSP3 has the opposite characteristics. Under SSP1, only a small fraction of the dryland population (around 3% at 3°C for the year 2050) will be exposed and vulnerable to water stress. However under SSP3, around 20% of dryland populations (for the year 2050) will be exposed and vulnerable to water stress by 1.5°C and 24% by 3°C. Similarly under SSP1, at 1.5°C, 2 million people are expected to be exposed and vulnerable to crop yield change. Over 20 million are exposed and vulnerable to crop yield change in SSP3, increasing to 854 million people at 3°C (low confidence). Livelihoods deteriorate as a result of these impacts, livelihood migration is accelerated, and strife and conflict is worsened (medium confidence). {Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapters 6 and 7, 7.2.2, 7.3.2, Table 7.1, Figure 7.2}

Land-based adaptation and mitigation responses pose risks associated with the effectiveness and potential adverse side-effects of measures chosen (medium confidence). Adverse side-effects on food security, ecosystem services and water security increase with the scale of bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) deployment. In a SSP1 future, bioenergy and BECCS deployment up to 4 million km2 is compatible with sustainability constraints, whereas risks are already high in a SSP3 future for this scale of deployment. {7.2.3}

There is high confidence that policies addressing vicious cycles of poverty, land degradation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions implemented in a holistic manner can achieve climate-resilient sustainable development. Choice and implementation of policy instruments determine future climate and land pathways (medium confidence). Sustainable development pathways (described in SSP1) supported by effective regulation of land use to reduce environmental trade-offs, reduced reliance on traditional biomass, low growth in consumption and limited meat diets, moderate international trade with connected regional markets, and effective GHG mitigation instruments) can result in lower food prices, fewer people affected by floods and other climatic disruptions, and increases in forested land (high agreement, limited evidence) (SSP1). A policy pathway with limited regulation of land use, low technology development, resource intensive consumption, constrained trade, and ineffective GHG mitigation instruments can result in food price increases, and significant loss of forest (high agreement, limited evidence) (SSP3). {3.7.5, 7.2.2, 7.3.4, 7.5.5, 7.5.6, Table 7.1, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapters 6 and 7, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 7}

Delaying deep mitigation in other sectors and shifting the burden to the land sector, increases the risk associated with adverse effects on food security and ecosystem services (high confidence). The consequences are an increased pressure on land with higher risk of mitigation failure and of temperature overshoot and a transfer of the burden of mitigation and unabated climate change to future generations. Prioritising early decarbonisation with minimal reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) decreases the risk of mitigation failure (high confidence). {2.5, 6.2, 6.4, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.5.6, 7.5.7, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapters 6 and 7}

Trade-offs can occur between using land for climate mitigation or Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 (affordable clean energy) with biodiversity, food, groundwater and riverine ecosystem services (medium confidence). There is medium confidence that trade-offs currently do not figure into climate policies and decision making. Small hydro power installations (especially in clusters) can impact downstream river ecological connectivity for fish (high agreement, medium evidence). Large scale solar farms and wind turbine installations can impact endangered species and disrupt habitat connectivity (medium agreement, medium evidence). Conversion of rivers for transportation can disrupt fisheries and endangered species (through dredging and traffic) (medium agreement, low evidence). {7.5.6}

The full mitigation potential assessed in this report will only be realised if agricultural emissions are included in mainstream climate policy (high agreement, high evidence). Carbon markets are theoretically more cost-effective than taxation but challenging to implement in the land-sector (high confidence) Carbon pricing (through carbon markets or carbon taxes) has the potential to be an effective mechanism to reduce GHG emissions, although it remains relatively untested in agriculture and food systems. Equity considerations can be balanced by a mix of both market and non-market mechanisms (medium evidence, medium agreement). Emissions leakage could be reduced by multi-lateral action (high agreement, medium evidence). {7.4.6, 7.5.5, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapters 6 and 7}

A suite of coherent climate and land policies advances the goal of the Paris Agreement and the land-related SDG targets on poverty, hunger, health, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, and life on land. There is high confidence that acting early will avert or minimise risks, reduce losses and generate returns on investment. The economic costs of action on sustainable land management (SLM), mitigation, and adaptation are less than the consequences of inaction for humans and ecosystems (medium confidence). Policy portfolios that make ecological restoration more attractive, people more resilient – expanding financial inclusion, flexible carbon credits, disaster risk and health insurance, social protection and adaptive safety nets, contingent finance and reserve funds, and universal access to early warning systems – could save 100 billion USD a year, if implemented globally. {7.3.1, 7.4.7, 7.4.8, 7.5.6, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 7}

Coordination of policy instruments across scales, levels, and sectors advances co-benefits, manages land and climate risks, advances food security, and addresses equity concerns (medium confidence). Flood resilience policies are mutually reinforcing and include flood zone mapping, financial incentives to move, and building restrictions, and insurance. Sustainability certification, technology transfer, land-use standards and secure land tenure schemes, integrated with early action and preparedness, advance response options. SLM improves with investment in agricultural research, environmental farm practices, agri-environmental payments, financial support for sustainable agricultural water infrastructure (including dugouts), agriculture emission trading, and elimination of agricultural subsidies (medium confidence). Drought resilience policies (including drought preparedness planning, early warning and monitoring, improving water use efficiency), synergistically improve agricultural producer livelihoods and foster SLM. {3.7.5, Cross-Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 3, 7.4.3, 7.4.6, 7.5.6, 7.4.8, , 7.5.6, 7.6.3}

Technology transfer in land-use sectors offers new opportunities for adaptation, mitigation, international cooperation, R&D collaboration, and local engagement (medium confidence). International cooperation to modernise the traditional biomass sector will free up both land and labour for more productive uses. Technology transfer can assist the measurement and accounting of emission reductions by developing countries. {7.4.4, 7.4.6, Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 7}

Measuring progress towards goals is important in decision-making and adaptive governance to create common understanding and advance policy effectiveness (high agreement, medium evidence). Measurable indicators, selected with the participation of people and supporting data collection, are useful for climate policy development and decision-making. Indicators include the SDGs, nationally determined contributions (NDCs), land degradation neutrality (LDN) core indicators, carbon stock measurement, measurement and monitoring for REDD+, metrics for measuring biodiversity and ecosystem services, and governance capacity. {7.5.5, 7.5.7, 7.6.4, 7.6.6}

The complex spatial, cultural and temporal dynamics of risk and uncertainty in relation to land and climate interactions and food security, require a flexible, adaptive, iterative approach to assessing risks, revising decisions and policy instruments (high confidence). Adaptive, iterative decision making moves beyond standard economic appraisal techniques to new methods such as dynamic adaptation pathways with risks identified by trigger points through indicators. Scenarios can provide valuable information at all planning stages in relation to land, climate and food; adaptive management addresses uncertainty in scenario planning with pathway choices made and reassessed to respond to new information and data as it becomes available. {3.7.5, 7.4.4, 7.5.2, 7.5.3, 7.5.4, 7.5.7, 7.6.1, 7.6.3}

Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can play a key role in understanding climate processes and impacts, adaptation to climate change, sustainable land management (SLM) across different ecosystems, and enhancement of food security (high confidence). ILK is context-specific, collective, informally transmitted, and multi-functional, and can encompass factual information about the environment and guidance on management of resources and related rights and social behaviour. ILK can be used in decision-making at various scales and levels, and exchange of experiences with adaptation and mitigation that include ILK is both a requirement and an entry strategy for participatory climate communication and action. Opportunities exist for integration of ILK with scientific knowledge. {7.4.1, 7.4.5, 7.4.6, 7.6.4, Cross-Chapter Box 13 in Chapter 7}

Participation of people in land and climate decision making and policy formation allows for transparent effective solutions and the implementation of response options that advance synergies, reduce trade-offs in SLM (medium confidence), and overcomes barriers to adaptation and mitigation (high confidence). Improvements to SLM are achieved by: (i) engaging people in citizen science by mediating and facilitating landscape conservation planning, policy choice, and early warning systems (medium confidence); (ii) involving people in identifying problems (including species decline, habitat loss, land-use change in agriculture, food production and forestry), selection of indicators, collection of climate data, land modelling, agricultural innovation opportunities. When social learning is combined with collective action, transformative change can occur addressing tenure issues and changing land-use practices (medium confidence). Meaningful participation overcomes barriers by opening up policy and science surrounding climate and land decisions to inclusive discussion that promotes alternatives. {3.7.5, 7.4.1, 7.4.9; 7.5.1, 7.5.4, 7.5.5, 7.5.7, 7.6.4, 7.6.6}

Empowering women can bolster synergies among household food security and SLM (high confidence). This can be achieved with policy instruments that account for gender differences. The overwhelming presence of women in many land based activities including agriculture provides opportunities to mainstream gender policies, overcome gender barriers, enhance gender equality, and increase SLM and food security (high confidence). Policies that address barriers include gender qualifying criteria and gender appropriate delivery, including access to financing, information, technology, government transfers, training, and extension may be built into existing women’s programmes, structures (civil society groups) including collective micro enterprise (medium confidence). {Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 7}

The significant social and political changes required for sustainable land use, reductions in demand and land-based mitigation efforts associated with climate stabilisation require a wide range of governance mechanisms. The expansion and diversification of land use and biomass systems and markets requires hybrid governance: public-private partnerships, transnational, polycentric, and state governance to insure opportunities are maximised, trade-offs are managed equitably and negative impacts are minimised (medium confidence). {7.4.6, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6}

Land tenure systems have implications for both adaptation and mitigation, which need to be understood within specific socio-economic and legal contexts, and may themselves be impacted by climate change and climate action (limited evidence, high agreement). Land policy (in a diversity of forms beyond focus on freehold title) can provide routes to land security and facilitate or constrain climate action, across cropping, rangeland, forest, freshwater ecosystems and other systems. Large-scale land acquisitions are an important context for the relations between tenure security and climate change, but their scale, nature and implications are imperfectly understood. There is medium confidence that land titling and recognition programmes, particularly those that authorize and respect indigenous and communal tenure, can lead to improved management of forests, including for carbon storage. Strong public coordination (government and public administration) can integrate land policy with national policies on adaptation and reduce sensitivities to climate change. {7.6.2; 7.6.3; 7.6.4, 7.6.5}

Significant gaps in knowledge exist when it comes to understanding the effectiveness of policy instruments and institutions related to land-use management, forestry, agriculture and bioenergy. Interdisciplinary research is needed on the impacts of policies and measures in land sectors. Knowledge gaps are due in part to the highly contextual and local nature of land and climate measures and the long time periods needed to evaluate land-use change in its socio-economic frame, as compared to technological investments in energy or industry that are somewhat more comparable. Significant investment is needed in monitoring, evaluation and assessment of policy impacts across different sectors and levels. {7.7}