On the global limits of bioenergy and land use for climate change mitigation

Across energy, agricultural and forestry landscapes, the production of biomass for energy has emerged as a controversial driver of land‐use change. We present a novel, simple methodology, to probe the potential global sustainability limits of bioenergy over time for energy provision and climate change mitigation using a complex‐systems approach for assessing land‐use dynamics. Primary biomass that could provide between 70 EJ year^?1 and 360 EJ year^?1, globally, by 2050 was simulated in the context of different land‐use futures, food diet patterns and climate change mitigation efforts. Our simulations also show ranges of potential greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture, forestry and other land uses by 2050, including not only above‐ground biomass‐related emissions, but also from changes in soil carbon, from as high as 24 GtCO₂eq year^?1 to as low as minus 21 GtCO₂eq year^?1, which would represent a significant source of negative emissions. Based on the modelling simulations, the discussions offer novel insights about bioenergy as part of a broader integrated system. Whilst there are sustainability limits to the scale of bioenergy provision, they are dynamic over time, being responsive to land management options deployed worldwide.     

Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land‐based climate‐change mitigation efforts

Most climate mitigation scenarios involve negative emissions, especially those that aim to limit global temperature increase to 2°C or less. However, the carbon uptake potential in land‐based climate change mitigation efforts is highly uncertain. Here, we address this uncertainty by using two land‐based mitigation scenarios from two land‐use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) as input to four dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs; LPJ‐GUESS, ORCHIDEE, JULES, LPJmL). Each of the four combinations of land‐use models and mitigation scenarios aimed for a cumulative carbon uptake of ~130 GtC by the end of the century, achieved either via the cultivation of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or avoided deforestation and afforestation (ADAFF). Results suggest large uncertainty in simulated future land demand and carbon uptake rates, depending on the assumptions related to land use and land management in the models. Total cumulative carbon uptake in the DGVMs is highly variable across mitigation scenarios, ranging between 19 and 130 GtC by year 2099. Only one out of the 16 combinations of mitigation scenarios and DGVMs achieves an equivalent or higher carbon uptake than achieved in the land‐use models. The large differences in carbon uptake between the DGVMs and their discrepancy against the carbon uptake in IMAGE and MAgPIE are mainly due to different model assumptions regarding bioenergy crop yields and due to the simulation of soil carbon response to land‐use change. Differences between land‐use models and DGVMs regarding forest biomass and the rate of forest regrowth also have an impact, albeit smaller, on the results. Given the low confidence in simulated carbon uptake for a given land‐based mitigation scenario, and that negative emissions simulated by the DGVMs are typically lower than assumed in scenarios consistent with the 2°C target, relying on negative emissions to mitigate climate change is a highly uncertain strategy.     

How much land‐based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?

Feeding 9–10 billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well‐being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly outline the challenges, review the supply‐ and demand‐side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFOLU sector and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade‐offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand‐side measures codeliver to aid food security. We conclude that while supply‐side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand‐side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation. Demand‐side measures offer a greater potential (1.5–15.6 Gt CO₂‐eq. yr^?1) in meeting both challenges than do supply‐side measures (1.5–4.3 Gt CO₂‐eq. yr^?1 at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ tCO₂‐eq. yr^?1), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply‐side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand‐side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to codeliver to other policy agenda, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.     

Which practices co‐deliver food security,climate change mitigation and adaptation,and combat land degradation and desertification?

There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as “land challenges”). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO₂eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices 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 a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing‐up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.     

The impact of interventions in the global land and agri‐food sectors on Nature’s Contributions to People and the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Interlocked challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation require transformative interventions in the land management and food production sectors to reduce carbon emissions, strengthen adaptive capacity, and increase food security. However, deciding which interventions to pursue and understanding their relative co‐benefits with and trade‐offs against different social and environmental goals have been difficult without comparisons across a range of possible actions. This study examined 40 different options, implemented through land management, value chains, or risk management, for their relative impacts across 18 Nature's Contributions to People (NCPs) and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that a relatively small number of interventions show positive synergies with both SDGs and NCPs with no significant adverse trade‐offs; these include improved cropland management, improved grazing land management, improved livestock management, agroforestry, integrated water management, increased soil organic carbon content, reduced soil erosion, salinization, and compaction, fire management, reduced landslides and hazards, reduced pollution, reduced post‐harvest losses, improved energy use in food systems, and disaster risk management. Several interventions show potentially significant negative impacts on both SDGs and NCPs; these include bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, afforestation, and some risk sharing measures, like commercial crop insurance. Our results demonstrate that a better understanding of co‐benefits and trade‐offs of different policy approaches can help decision‐makers choose the more effective, or at the very minimum, more benign interventions for implementation.     

Meeting Europe's climate change commitments: quantitative estimates of the potential for carbon mitigation by agriculture

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union is committed to a reduction in CO₂ emissions to 92% of baseline (1990) levels during the first commitment period (2008–2012). The Kyoto Protocol allows carbon emissions to be offset by demonstrable removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, land‐use/land‐management change and forestry activities that are shown to reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels can be included in the Kyoto targets. These activities include afforestation, reforestation and deforestation (article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol) and the improved management of agricultural soils (article 3.4). In this paper, we estimate the carbon mitigation potential of various agricultural land‐management strategies and examine the consequences of European policy options on carbon mitigation potential, by examining combinations of changes in agricultural land‐use/land‐management. We show that no single land‐management change in isolation can mitigate all of the carbon needed to meet Europe's climate change commitments, but integrated combinations of land‐management strategies show considerable potential for carbon mitigation. Three of the combined scenarios, one of which is an optimal realistic scenario, are by themselves able to meet Europe's emission limitation or reduction commitments. Through combined land‐management scenarios, we show that the most important resource for carbon mitigation in agriculture is the surplus arable land. We conclude that in order to fully exploit the potential of arable land for carbon mitigation, policies will need to be implemented to allow surplus arable land to be put into alternative long‐term land‐use. Of all options examined, bioenergy crops show the greatest potential for carbon mitigation. Bioenergy crop production also shows an indefinite mitigation potential compared to other options where the mitigation potential is finite. We suggest that in order to exploit fully the bioenergy option, the infrastructure for bioenergy production needs to be significantly enhanced before the beginning of the first Kyoto commitment period in 2008. It is not expected that Europe will attempt to meet its climate change commitments solely through changes in agricultural land‐use. A reduction in CO₂‐carbon emissions will be key to meeting Europe's Kyoto targets, and forestry activities (Kyoto Article 3.3) will play a major role. In this study, however, we demonstrate the considerable potential of changes in agricultural land‐use and ‐management (Kyoto Article 3.4) for carbon mitigation and highlight the policies needed to promote these agricultural activities. As all sources of carbon mitigation will be important in meeting Europe's climate change commitments, agricultural carbon mitigation options should be taken very seriously.     

The overlooked spatial dimension of climate‐smart agriculture

Climate‐smart agriculture (CSA) and sustainable intensification (SI) are widely claimed to be high‐potential solutions to address the interlinked challenges of food security and climate change. Operationalization of these promising concepts is still lacking and potential trade‐offs are often not considered in the current continental‐ to global‐scale assessments. Here we discuss the effect of spatial variability in the context of the implementation of climate‐smart practices on two central indicators, namely yield development and carbon sequestration, considering biophysical limitations of suggested benefits, socioeconomic and institutional barriers to adoption, and feedback mechanisms across scales. We substantiate our arguments by an illustrative analysis using the example of a hypothetical large‐scale adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) in sub‐Saharan Africa. We argue that, up to now, large‐scale assessments widely neglect the spatially variable effects of climate‐smart practices, leading to inflated statements about co‐benefits of agricultural production and climate change mitigation potentials. There is an urgent need to account for spatial variability in assessments of climate‐smart practices and target those locations where synergies in land functions can be maximized in order to meet the global targets. Therefore, we call for more attention toward spatial planning and landscape optimization approaches in the operationalization of CSA and SI to navigate potential trade‐offs.     

Land management and climate change determine second‐generation bioenergy potential of the US Northern Great Plains

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) has been proposed as a potential climate mitigation strategy raising concerns over trade‐offs with existing ecosystem services. We evaluate the feasibility of BECCS in the Upper Missouri River Basin (UMRB), a landscape with diverse land use, ownership, and bioenergy potential. We develop land‐use change scenarios and a switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) crop functional type to use in a land‐surface model to simulate second‐generation bioenergy production. By the end of this century, average annual switchgrass production over the UMRB ranges from 60 to 210 Tg dry mass/year and is dependent on the Representative Concentration Pathway for greenhouse gas emissions and on land‐use change assumptions. Under our simple phase‐in assumptions this results in a cumulative total production of 2,000–6,000 Tg C over the study period with the upper estimates only possible in the absence of climate change. Switchgrass yields decreased as average CO₂ concentrations and temperatures increased, suggesting the effect of elevated atmospheric CO₂ was small because of its C4 photosynthetic pathway. By the end of the 21st century, the potential energy stored annually in harvested switchgrass averaged between 1 and 4 EJ/year assuming perfect conversion efficiency, or an annual electrical generation capacity of 7,000–28,000 MW assuming current bioenergy efficiency rates. Trade‐offs between bioenergy and ecosystem services were identified, including cumulative direct losses of 1,000–2,600 Tg C stored in natural ecosystems from land‐use change by 2090. Total cumulative losses of ecosystem carbon stocks were higher than the potential ~300 Tg C in fossil fuel emissions from the single largest power plant in the region over the same time period, and equivalent to potential carbon removal from the atmosphere from using biofuels grown in the same region. Numerous trade‐offs from BECCS expansion in the UMRB must be balanced against the potential benefits of a carbon‐negative energy system.     

Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment

The potential for climate change mitigation by bioenergy crops and terrestrial carbon sinks has been the object of intensive research in the past decade. There has been much debate about whether energy crops used to offset fossil fuel use, or carbon sequestration in forests, would provide the best climate mitigation benefit. Most current food cropland is unlikely to be used for bioenergy, but in many regions of the world, a proportion of cropland is being abandoned, particularly marginal croplands, and some of this land is now being used for bioenergy. In this study, we assess the consequences of land‐use change on cropland. We first identify areas where cropland is so productive that it may never be converted and assess the potential of the remaining cropland to mitigate climate change by identifying which alternative land use provides the best climate benefit: C₄ grass bioenergy crops, coppiced woody energy crops or allowing forest regrowth to create a carbon sink. We do not present this as a scenario of land‐use change – we simply assess the best option in any given global location should a land‐use change occur. To do this, we use global biomass potential studies based on food crop productivity, forest inventory data and dynamic global vegetation models to provide, for the first time, a global comparison of the climate change implications of either deploying bioenergy crops or allowing forest regeneration on current crop land, over a period of 20 years starting in the nominal year of 2000 ad . Globally, the extent of cropland on which conversion to energy crops or forest would result in a net carbon loss, and therefore likely always to remain as cropland, was estimated to be about 420.1 Mha, or 35.6% of the total cropland in Africa, 40.3% in Asia and Russia Federation, 30.8% in Europe‐25, 48.4% in North America, 13.7% in South America and 58.5% in Oceania. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars are the bioenergy feedstock with the highest climate mitigation potential. Fast growing C₄ grasses such as Miscanthus and switch‐grass cultivars provide the best climate mitigation option on ≈485 Mha of cropland worldwide with ~42% of this land characterized by a terrain slope equal or above 20%. If that land‐use change did occur, it would displace ≈58.1 Pg fossil fuel C equivalent (C_eq oil). Woody energy crops such as poplar, willow and Eucalyptus species would be the best option on only 2.4% (≈26.3 Mha) of current cropland, and if this land‐use change occurred, it would displace ≈0.9 Pg C_eq oil. Allowing cropland to revert to forest would be the best climate mitigation option on ≈17% of current cropland (≈184.5 Mha), and if this land‐use change occurred, it would sequester ≈5.8 Pg C in biomass in the 20‐year‐old forest and ≈2.7 Pg C in soil. This study is spatially explicit, so also serves to identify the regional differences in the efficacy of different climate mitigation options, informing policymakers developing regionally or nationally appropriate mitigation actions.     

Biofuels agriculture: landscape‐scale trade‐offs between fuel,economics, carbon,energy, food,and fiber

First‐generation biofuels are an existing, scalable form of renewable energy of the type urgently required to mitigate climate change. In this study, we assessed the potential benefits, costs, and trade‐offs associated with biofuels agriculture to inform bioenergy policy. We assessed different climate change and carbon subsidy scenarios in an 11.9 million ha (5.48 million ha arable) region in southern Australia. We modeled the spatial distribution of agricultural production, full life‐cycle net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and net energy, and economic profitability for both food agriculture (wheat, legumes, sheep rotation) and biofuels agriculture (wheat, canola rotation for ethanol/biodiesel production). The costs, benefits, and trade‐offs associated with biofuels agriculture varied geographically, with climate change, and with the level of carbon subsidy. Below we describe the results in general and provide (in parentheses) illustrative results under historical mean climate and a carbon subsidy of A$20 t^?1 CO₂^?e. Biofuels agriculture was more profitable over an extensive area (2.85 million ha) of the most productive arable land and produced large quantities of biofuels (1.7 GL yr^?1). Biofuels agriculture substantially increased economic profit (145.8 million $A yr^?1 or 30%), but had only a modest net GHG abatement (?2.57 million t CO₂^?e yr^?1), and a negligible effect on net energy production (?0.11 PJ yr^?1). However, food production was considerably reduced in terms of grain (?3.04 million t yr^?1) and sheep meat (?1.89 million head yr^?1). Wool fiber production was also substantially reduced (?23.19 kt yr^?1). While biofuels agriculture can produce short‐term benefits, it also has costs, and the vulnerability of biofuels to climatic warming and drying renders it a myopic strategy. Nonetheless, in some areas the profitability of biofuels agriculture is robust to variation in climate and level of carbon subsidy and these areas may form part of a long‐term diversified mix of land‐use solutions to climate change if trade‐offs can be managed.     

Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land‐use and energy experts, land‐use and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life‐cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end‐use efficiency, improved land carbon‐stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small‐scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100–300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr^?1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large‐scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2° degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land‐intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options.     

The carbon implications of large‐scale afforestation of agriculturally marginal land with short‐rotation willow in Saskatchewan

Afforestation with short‐rotation coppice (SRC) willow plantations for the purpose of producing bioenergy feedstock was contemplated as one potential climate change mitigation option. The objectives of this study were to assess the magnitude of this mitigation potential by addressing: (i) the land area potentially available for SRC systems in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada; (ii) the potential biomass yields of SRC plantations; and (iii) the carbon implications from such a large‐scale afforestation program. Digital soils and land‐use data were used to identify, map, and group into clusters of similar polygons 2.12 million hectares (Mha) of agriculturally marginal land that was potentially suitable for willow in the Boreal Plains and Prairies ecozones in Saskatchewan. The Physiological Principles in Predicting Growth (3PG) model was calibrated with data from SRC experiments in Saskatchewan, to quantify potential willow biomass yields, and the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM‐CFS3), was used to simulate stand and landscape‐level C fluxes and stocks. Short‐rotation willow plantations managed in 3 year rotations for seven consecutive harvests (21 years) after coppicing at Year 1 produced about 12 Mg ha^?1 yr^?1 biomass. The more significant contribution to the C cycle was the cumulative harvest. After 44 years, the potential average cumulative harvested biomass C in the Prairies was 244 Mg C ha^?1 (5.5 Mg C ha^?1 yr^?1) about 20% higher than the average for the Boreal Plains, 203 Mg C ha^?1 (4.6 Mg C ha^?1 yr^?1). This analysis did not consider afforestation costs, rate of establishment of willow plantations, and other constraints, such as drought and disease effects on biomass yield. The results must therefore be interpreted as a biophysical mitigation potential with the technical and economic potential being both lower than our estimates. Nevertheless, short‐rotation bioenergy plantations offer one potential mitigation option to reduce the rate of CO₂ accumulation in the earth's atmosphere and further research is needed to operationalise such a mitigation effort.     

Land suitability for energy crops under scenarios of climate change and land‐use

Bioenergy is expected to play a critical role in climate change mitigation. Most integrated assessment models assume an expansion of agricultural land for cultivation of energy crops. This study examines the suitability of land for growing a range of energy crops on areas that are not required for food production, accounting for climate change impacts and conservation requirements. A global fuzzy logic model is employed to ascertain the suitable cropping areas for a number of sugar, starch and oil crops, energy grasses and short rotation tree species that could be grown specifically for energy. Two climate change scenarios are modelled (RCP2.6 and RCP8.5), along with two scenarios representing the land which cannot be used for energy crops due to forest and biodiversity conservation, food agriculture and urban areas. Results indicate that 40% of the global area currently suitable for energy crops overlaps with food land and 31% overlaps with forested or protected areas, highlighting hotspots of potential land competition risks. Approximately 18.8 million km² is suitable for energy crops, to some degree, and does not overlap with protected, forested, urban or food agricultural land. Under the climate change scenario RCP8.5, this increases to 19.6 million km² by the end of the century. Broadly, climate change is projected to decrease suitable areas in southern regions and increase them in northern regions, most notably for grass crops in Russia and China, indicating that potential production areas will shift northwards which could potentially affect domestic use and trade of biomass significantly. The majority of the land which becomes suitable is in current grasslands and is just marginally or moderately suitable. This study therefore highlights the vital importance of further studies examining the carbon and ecosystem balance of this potential land‐use change, energy crop yields in sub‐optimal soil and climatic conditions and potential impacts on livelihoods.     

Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 °C target

More than 100 countries pledged to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the 2015 Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Yet technical information about how much mitigation is needed in the sector vs. how much is feasible remains poor. We identify a preliminary global target for reducing emissions from agriculture of ~1 GtCO₂e yr^?1 by 2030 to limit warming in 2100 to 2 °C above pre‐industrial levels. Yet plausible agricultural development pathways with mitigation cobenefits deliver only 21–40% of needed mitigation. The target indicates that more transformative technical and policy options will be needed, such as methane inhibitors and finance for new practices. A more comprehensive target for the 2 °C limit should be developed to include soil carbon and agriculture‐related mitigation options. Excluding agricultural emissions from mitigation targets and plans will increase the cost of mitigation in other sectors or reduce the feasibility of meeting the 2 °C limit.     

Tropical reforestation and climate change: beyond carbon

Tropical reforestation (TR) has been highlighted as an important intervention for climate change mitigation because of its carbon storage potential. TR can also play other frequently overlooked, but significant, roles in helping society and ecosystems adapt to climate variability and change. For example, reforestation can ameliorate climate‐associated impacts of altered hydrological cycles in watersheds, protect coastal areas from increased storms, and provide habitat to reduce the probability of species' extinctions under a changing climate. Consequently, reforestation should be managed with both adaptation and mitigation objectives in mind, so as to maximize synergies among these diverse roles, and to avoid trade‐offs in which the achievement of one goal is detrimental to another. Management of increased forest cover must also incorporate measures for reducing the direct and indirect impacts of changing climate on reforestation itself. Here we advocate a focus on “climate‐smart reforestation,” defined as reforesting for climate change mitigation and adaptation, while ensuring that the direct and indirect impacts of climate change on reforestation are anticipated and minimized.     

Considering land–sea interactions and trade‐offs for food and biodiversity

With the human population expected to near 10 billion by 2050, and diets shifting towards greater per‐capita consumption of animal protein, meeting future food demands will place ever‐growing burdens on natural resources and those dependent on them. Solutions proposed to increase the sustainability of agriculture, aquaculture, and capture fisheries have typically approached development from single sector perspectives. Recent work highlights the importance of recognising links among food sectors, and the challenge cross‐sector dependencies create for sustainable food production. Yet without understanding the full suite of interactions between food systems on land and sea, development in one sector may result in unanticipated trade‐offs in another. We review the interactions between terrestrial and aquatic food systems. We show that most of the studied land–sea interactions fall into at least one of four categories: ecosystem connectivity, feed interdependencies, livelihood interactions, and climate feedback. Critically, these interactions modify nutrient flows, and the partitioning of natural resource use between land and sea, amid a backdrop of climate variability and change that reaches across all sectors. Addressing counter‐productive trade‐offs resulting from land‐sea links will require simultaneous improvements in food production and consumption efficiency, while creating more sustainable feed products for fish and livestock. Food security research and policy also needs to better integrate aquatic and terrestrial production to anticipate how cross‐sector interactions could transmit change across ecosystem and governance boundaries into the future.     

The role of bioenergy for global deep decarbonization: CO2 removal or low‐carbon energy?

Bioenergy is expected to have a prominent role in limiting global greenhouse emissions to meet the climate change target of the Paris Agreement. Many studies identify negative emissions from bioenergy generation with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) as its key contribution, but assume that no other CO₂ removal technologies are available. We use a global integrated assessment model, TIAM‐UCL, to investigate the role of bioenergy within the global energy system when direct air capture and afforestation are available as cost‐competitive alternatives to BECCS. We find that the presence of other CO₂ removal technologies does not reduce the pressure on biomass resources but changes the use of bioenergy for climate mitigation. While we confirm that when available BECCS offers cheaper decarbonization pathways, we also find that its use delays the phase‐out of unabated fossil fuels in industry and transport. Furthermore, it displaces renewable electricity generation, potentially increasing the likelihood of missing the Paris Agreement target. We found that the most cost‐effective solution is to invest in a basket of CO₂ removal technologies. However, if these technologies rely on CCS, then urgent action is required to ramp up the necessary infrastructure. We conclude that a sustainable biomass supply is critical for decarbonizing the global energy system. Since only a few world regions carry the burden of producing the biomass resource and store CO₂ in geological storage, adequate international collaboration, policies and standards will be needed to realize this resource while avoiding undesired land‐use change.     

Balance between climate change mitigation benefits and land use impacts of bioenergy: conservation implications for European birds

Both climate change and habitat modification exert serious pressure on biodiversity. Although climate change mitigation has been identified as an important strategy for biodiversity conservation, bioenergy remains a controversial mitigation action due to its potential negative ecological and socio-economic impacts which arise through habitat modification by land use change. While the debate continues, the separate or simultaneous impacts of both climate change and bioenergy on biodiversity have not yet been compared. We assess projected range shifts of 156 European bird species by 2050 under two alternative climate change trajectories: a baseline scenario, where the global mean temperature increases by 4 °C by the end of the century, and a 2 degrees scenario, where global concerted effort limits the temperature increase to below 2 °C. For the latter scenario, we also quantify the pressure exerted by increased cultivation of energy biomass as modelled by IMAGE2.4, an integrated land use model. The global bioenergy use in this scenario is in the lower end of the range of previously estimated sustainable potential. Under the assumptions of these scenarios, we find that the magnitude of range shifts due to climate change is far greater than the impact of land conversion to woody bioenergy plantations within the European Union, and that mitigation of climate change reduces the exposure experienced by species. However, we identified potential for local conservation conflict between priority areas for conservation and bioenergy production. These conflicts must be addressed by strict bioenergy sustainability criteria that acknowledge biodiversity conservation needs beyond existing protected areas and apply also to biomass imported from outside the European Union.     

Carbon for soils,not soils for carbon

The role of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration as a ‘win-win’ solution to both climate change and food insecurity receives an increasing promotion. The opportunity may be too good to be missed! Yet the tremendous complexity of the two issues at stake calls for a detailed and nuanced examination of any potential solution, no matter how appealing. Here, we critically re-examine the benefits of global SOC sequestration strategies on both climate change mitigation and food production. While estimated contributions of SOC sequestration to climate change vary, almost none take SOC saturation into account. Here, we show that including saturation in estimations decreases any potential contribution of SOC sequestration to climate change mitigation by 53%–81% towards 2100. In addition, reviewing more than 21 meta-analyses, we found that observed yield effects of increasing SOC are inconsistent, ranging from negative to neutral to positive. We find that the promise of a win-win outcome is confirmed only when specific land management practices are applied under specific conditions. Therefore, we argue that the existing knowledge base does not justify the current trend to set global agendas focusing first and foremost on SOC sequestration. Away from climate-smart soils, we need a shift towards soil-smart agriculture, adaptative and adapted to each local context, and where multiple soil functions are quantified concurrently. Only such comprehensive assessments will allow synergies for land sustainability to be maximised and agronomic requirements for food security to be fulfilled. This implies moving away from global targets for SOC in agricultural soils. SOC sequestration may occur along this pathway and contribute to climate change mitigation and should be regarded as a co-benefit.     

The role of natural regeneration to ecosystem services provision and habitat availability: a case study in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

Natural regeneration provides multiple benefits to nature and human societies, and can play a major role in global and national restoration targets. However, these benefits are context specific and impacted by both biophysical and socioeconomic heterogeneity across landscapes. Here, we investigate the benefits of natural regeneration for climate change mitigation, sediment retention and biodiversity conservation in a spatially explicit way at very high resolution for a region within the global biodiversity hotspot of the Atlantic Forest. We classified current land‐use cover in the region and simulated a natural regeneration scenario in abandoned pasturelands, areas where potential conflicts with agricultural production would be minimized and where some early stage regeneration is already occurring. We then modeled changes in biophysical functions for climate change mitigation and sediment retention, and performed an economic valuation of both ecosystem services. We also modeled how land‐use changes affect habitat availability for species. We found that natural regeneration can provide significant ecological and social benefits. Economic values of climate change mitigation and sediment retention alone could completely compensate for the opportunity costs of agricultural production over 20 yr. Habitat availability is improved for three species with different dispersal abilities, although by different magnitudes. Improving the understanding of how costs and benefits of natural regeneration are distributed can be useful to design incentive structures that bring farmers’ decision making more in line with societal benefits. This alignment is crucial for natural regeneration to fulfill its potential as a large‐scale solution for pressing local and global environmental challenges.