• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• AT close
• EU close
• PL close
• IIASA DARE close

Abstract. Regional land carbon budgets provide insights on the spatial distribution of the land uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and can be used to evaluate carbon cycle models and to define baselines for land-based additional mitigation efforts. The scientific community has been involved in providing observation-based estimates of regional carbon budgets either by downscaling atmospheric CO2 observations into surface fluxes with atmospheric inversions, by using inventories of carbon stock changes in terrestrial ecosystems, by upscaling local field observations such as flux towers with gridded climate and remote sensing fields or by integrating data-driven or process-oriented terrestrial carbon cycle models. The first coordinated attempt to collect regional carbon budgets for nine regions covering the entire globe in the RECCAP-1 project has delivered estimates for the decade 2000–2009, but these budgets were not comparable between regions, due to different definitions and component fluxes reported or omitted. The recent recognition of lateral fluxes of carbon by human activities and rivers, that connect CO2 uptake in one area with its release in another also requires better definition and protocols to reach harmonized regional budgets that can be summed up to the globe and compared with the atmospheric CO2 growth rate and inversion results. In this study, for the international initiative RECCAP-2 coordinated by the Global Carbon Project, which aims as an update of regional carbon budgets over the last two decades based on observations, for 10 regions covering the globe, with a better harmonization that the precursor project, we provide recommendations for using atmospheric inversions results to match bottom-up carbon accounting and models, and we define the different component fluxes of the net land atmosphere carbon exchange that should be reported by each research group in charge of each region. Special attention is given to lateral fluxes, inland water fluxes and land use fluxes.

Global mitigation pathways play a critical role in informing climate policies and targets that are in line with international climate goals. However, it is not possible to directly compare modelled results with national inventories used to assess progress under the UNFCCC due to differences in how land-based fluxes are accounted for.National inventories consider carbon flux on managed land using an area-based approach with managed land-areas determined by nations. Emissions scenarios consider a different managed land area and are calibrated against data from detailed global carbon cycle models that account for natural (indirect) and anthropogenic (direct) fluxes separately by design. To disentangle the direct and indirect components of land-based carbon fluxes, we use a reduced complexity climate model with explicit treatment of the land-use sector, OSCAR, one of the models used by the Global Carbon Project. We find the discrepancy between model and NGHGI-based accounting methods globally to be 4.4 ± 1.0 Gt CO2 yr-1 averaged over the 2000-2020 time period, which is in line with existing estimates. We then apply OSCAR to the set of pathways assessed by the IPCC to quantify how this gap evolves over time and estimate how key mitigation benchmarks change.Across both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios, LULUCF emissions pathways aligned with NGHGI accounting practices show a strong increase in the total land sink until around mid-century. However, the ‘NGHGI alignment gap’  decreases over this period, converging in the 2050-2060s for 1.5°C scenarios and 2070s-2080s for 2°C scenarios. The convergence is primarily a result of the simulated stabilization and then decrease of the CO2-fertilization effect as well as background climate warming reducing the overall effectiveness of the land sink, which in turn reduces the indirect removals considered by NGHGIs. These dynamics lead to land-based emissions reversing their downward trend in most NGHGI-aligned scenarios by mid-century, and result in the LULUCF sector becoming a net-source of emissions by 2100 in about 25% of both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios.Assessing emission pathways using LULUCF definitions from national inventory accounting results in downward revisions to emissions benchmarks derived from scenarios. NGHGI-aligned pathways result in earlier net-zero CO2 emissions by around 2-5 years for both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios, and 2030 emission reductions relative to 2020 are enhanced by about 5 percentage points for both pathway categories. When incorporating the additional land removals considered by NGHGIs, the assessed cumulative net CO2 emissions to global net-zero CO2 also decreases systematically by 15-18% for both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios.We find that increasing removals from direct fluxes in 1.5C scenarios overtake estimated removals using NGHGI conventions in the near term. However, by midcentury, the strengthening of direct removals is balanced by weakening of indirect removals, meaning that, on average, carbon removal on land accounted for using NGHGI conventions in 1.5C scenarios results in about half of the LULUCF removals in current policy scenarios. We discuss the implications of our results for future Global Stocktakes and market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement.

Ambitious international targets are being developed to protect and restore biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and the European Union's Green Deal. Yet, the land system consequences of meeting such targets are unclear, as multiple pathways may be able to deliver on the set targets. This paper introduces a novel scenario approach assessing the plural implementations of these targets. The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) developed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aims to illustrate the different, positive ways in which society can value nature. It therefore offers a lens through which the spatial implementation of sustainability targets may be envisioned. We used CLUMondo, a spatially explicit model, to simulate plural land system scenarios for Europe for 2050. The model builds on current land system representations of Europe and explores how and where sustainability targets can be implemented under projected population trends and commodity demands. We created three different scenarios in which the sustainability targets are met, each representing an alternative, normative view on nature as represented by the NFF, favoring land systems providing strong climate regulation (Nature for Society), species conservation (Nature for Nature), or agricultural heritage features (Nature as Culture). Our results show that, irrespective of the NFF view, meeting sustainability targets will require European land systems to drastically change, as natural grasslands and forests are forecast to expand while productive areas are projected to undergo a dual intensification and diversification trajectory. Despite each NFF perspective showcasing a similar direction of change, 20% of Europe's land area will differ based on the adopted NFF perspective, with hotspots of disagreement identified in eastern and western Europe. These simulations go beyond existing scenario approaches by not only depicting broad societal developments for Europe, but also by quantifying the land system synergies and trade-offs associated with alternative, archetypal, interpretations and values of how nature may be managed for sustainability. This quantification exemplifies a means towards constructive dialogue, on the one hand by acknowledging areas of contention, and bringing such issues to the fore, and on the other by highlighting points of convergence in a vision for a sustainable Europe.

Le changement d'utilisation des terres/de couverture est la principale cause de dégradation des écosystèmes terrestres. Cependant, ses impacts seront exacerbés en raison du changement climatique et de la croissance démographique, entraînant une expansion agricole en raison de la demande accrue de denrées alimentaires et de la baisse des rendements agricoles dans certaines zones tropicales. Les stratégies internationales visant à atténuer les impacts du changement climatique et du changement du couvert terrestre sont difficiles dans les régions en développement. Cette étude vise à évaluer des alternatives pour minimiser les impacts de ces menaces dans le cadre de trajectoires socio-économiques, dans l'une des régions les plus biologiquement riches du Guatemala et du Mexique. Cette étude est située dans le bassin versant d'Usumacinta, une région transfrontalière qui partage une histoire commune, avec des propriétés biophysiques et des contraintes économiques similaires qui ont conduit à d'importants changements dans l'utilisation/la couverture des terres. Pour comprendre les impacts sur la déforestation et les émissions de carbone des différentes pratiques de gestion des terres, nous avons développé trois scénarios (1) : le statu quo (BAU), (2) un scénario de réduction des émissions visant à réduire la déforestation et la dégradation (REDD+) et (3) zéro déforestation à partir de 2030 sur la base des engagements internationaux. Nos résultats suggèrent que d'ici 2050, la couverture terrestre naturelle pourrait réduire de 22,3 et 12,2% son étendue dans les scénarios BAU et REDD +, respectivement par rapport à 2012. Cependant, le scénario zéro déforestation montre que d'ici 2050, il serait possible d'éviter de perdre 22,4 % du bassin versant boisé (1,7 million d'hectares) et d'en récupérer 5,9 % (0,4 million d'hectares). En termes de séquestration du carbone, les projets REDD + peuvent réduire les pertes de carbone dans la végétation naturelle, mais une politique de zéro déforestation peut doubler la séquestration du carbone produite par les projets REDD + uniquement. Cette étude montre que pour réduire les pressions sur les écosystèmes, en particulier dans les régions fortement marginalisées avec des migrations importantes, il est nécessaire de mettre en œuvre des politiques transfrontalières de gestion des terres qui intègrent également des stratégies de réduction de la pauvreté. El cambio en el uso/cobertura de la tierra es la principal causa de la degradación de los ecosistemas terrestres. Sin embargo, sus impactos se exacerbarán debido al cambio climático y al crecimiento de la población, impulsando la expansión agrícola debido a una mayor demanda de alimentos y menores rendimientos agrícolas en algunas áreas tropicales. Las estrategias internacionales destinadas a mitigar los impactos del cambio climático y el cambio en la cobertura del uso de la tierra son un desafío en las regiones en desarrollo. Este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar alternativas para minimizar los impactos de estas amenazas bajo trayectorias socioeconómicas, en una de las regiones biológicamente más ricas de Guatemala y México. Este estudio se encuentra en la cuenca de Usumacinta, una región transfronteriza que comparte una historia común, con propiedades biofísicas y limitaciones económicas similares que han llevado a grandes cambios en el uso/cobertura de la tierra. Para comprender los impactos en la deforestación y las emisiones de carbono de las diferentes prácticas de gestión de la tierra, desarrollamos tres escenarios (1): negocios como siempre (BAU), (2) un escenario de reducción de emisiones destinado a reducir la deforestación y la degradación (REDD+) y (3) cero deforestación a partir de 2030 en función de los compromisos internacionales. Nuestros resultados sugieren que para 2050, la cobertura natural de la tierra podría reducir el 22.3 y el 12.2% de su extensión bajo los escenarios BAU y REDD +, respectivamente, en comparación con 2012. Sin embargo, el escenario de deforestación cero muestra que para 2050, sería posible evitar la pérdida del 22,4% de la cuenca forestal (1,7 millones de ha) y recuperar el 5,9% (0,4 millones de hectáreas) de la misma. En términos de secuestro de carbono, los proyectos REDD + pueden reducir las pérdidas de carbono en la vegetación natural, pero una política de deforestación cero puede duplicar el secuestro de carbono producido solo por los proyectos REDD +. Este estudio muestra que para reducir las presiones sobre los ecosistemas, particularmente en regiones altamente marginadas con una migración significativa, es necesario implementar políticas transfronterizas de gestión de la tierra que también integren estrategias de alivio de la pobreza. Land-use/cover change is the major cause of terrestrial ecosystem degradation. However, its impacts will be exacerbated due to climate change and population growth, driving agricultural expansion because of higher demand of food and lower agricultural yields in some tropical areas. International strategies aimed to mitigate impacts of climate change and land use-cover change are challenging in developing regions. This study aims to evaluate alternatives to minimize the impacts of these threats under socioeconomic trajectories, in one of the biologically richest regions in Guatemala and Mexico. This study is located at the Usumacinta watershed, a transboundary region that shares a common history, with similar biophysical properties and economic constraints which have led to large land use/cover changes. To understand the impacts on deforestation and carbon emissions of different land-management practices, we developed three scenarios (1): business as usual (BAU), (2) a reducing emissions scenario aimed to reduce deforestation and degradation (REDD+), and (3) zero-deforestation from 2030 onwards based on the international commitments. Our results suggest that by 2050, natural land cover might reduce 22.3 and 12.2% of its extent under the BAU and REDD + scenarios, respectively in comparison with 2012. However, the zero-deforestation scenario shows that by 2050, it would be possible to avoid losing 22.4% of the forested watershed (1.7 million ha) and recover 5.9% (0.4 million hectares) of it. In terms of carbon sequestration, REDD + projects can reduce the carbon losses in natural vegetation, but a zero-deforestation policy can double the carbon sequestration produced by REDD + projects only. This study shows that to reduce the pressures on ecosystems, particularly in regions highly marginalized with significant migration, it is necessary to implement transboundary land-management policies that also integrate poverty alleviation strategies. استخدام الأراضي/تغيير الغطاء هو السبب الرئيسي لتدهور النظام الإيكولوجي الأرضي. ومع ذلك، ستتفاقم آثاره بسبب تغير المناخ والنمو السكاني، مما يؤدي إلى التوسع الزراعي بسبب ارتفاع الطلب على الغذاء وانخفاض الغلة الزراعية في بعض المناطق الاستوائية. تشكل الاستراتيجيات الدولية الرامية إلى التخفيف من آثار تغير المناخ وتغير استخدام الأراضي تحدياً في المناطق النامية. تهدف هذه الدراسة إلى تقييم البدائل لتقليل آثار هذه التهديدات في إطار المسارات الاجتماعية والاقتصادية، في واحدة من أغنى المناطق بيولوجيًا في غواتيمالا والمكسيك. تقع هذه الدراسة في مستجمع مياه أوسوماسينتا، وهي منطقة عابرة للحدود تشترك في تاريخ مشترك، مع خصائص فيزيائية حيوية مماثلة وقيود اقتصادية أدت إلى تغييرات كبيرة في استخدام الأراضي/تغطيتها. لفهم تأثيرات ممارسات إدارة الأراضي المختلفة على إزالة الغابات وانبعاثات الكربون، وضعنا ثلاثة سيناريوهات (1): العمل كالمعتاد (BAU)، (2) سيناريو خفض الانبعاثات الذي يهدف إلى الحد من إزالة الغابات وتدهورها (REDD+)، و (3) إزالة الغابات الصفرية اعتبارًا من عام 2030 فصاعدًا بناءً على الالتزامات الدولية. تشير نتائجنا إلى أنه بحلول عام 2050، قد يقلل الغطاء الأرضي الطبيعي بنسبة 22.3 و 12.2 ٪ من مداه في إطار سيناريو العمل الاعتيادي وسيناريو خفض الانبعاثات الناجمة عن إزالة الغابات وتدهورها في البلدان النامية، على التوالي مقارنة بعام 2012. ومع ذلك، يُظهر سيناريو إزالة الغابات الصفرية أنه بحلول عام 2050، سيكون من الممكن تجنب فقدان 22.4 ٪ من مستجمعات المياه الحرجية (1.7 مليون هكتار) واستعادة 5.9 ٪ (0.4 مليون هكتار) منها. من حيث عزل الكربون، يمكن لمشاريع خفض الانبعاثات الناجمة عن إزالة الغابات وتدهورها في البلدان النامية أن تقلل من خسائر الكربون في الغطاء النباتي الطبيعي، ولكن سياسة إزالة الغابات الصفرية يمكن أن تضاعف عزل الكربون الناتج عن مشاريع خفض الانبعاثات الناجمة عن إزالة الغابات وتدهورها في البلدان النامية فقط. تُظهر هذه الدراسة أنه للحد من الضغوط على النظم الإيكولوجية، لا سيما في المناطق المهمشة للغاية مع الهجرة الكبيرة، من الضروري تنفيذ سياسات إدارة الأراضي العابرة للحدود التي تدمج أيضًا استراتيجيات التخفيف من حدة الفقر.

Climate disasters affect human security and development, moreso in fragile and conflict-affected contexts where population’ capacities to cope with climate change are compromised. Responses to such crises lie at the nexus of humanitarian assistance, development, and peacebuilding. Yet, there are still too few integrated programmatic responses coordinating peacebuilding and climate actions to ensure a progressive human development. This research develops a multi-scalar model to help actors identify thematic areas to inform synergistic efforts and programs at different scales to better coordinate their actions. Findings suggest that climate action and peacebuilding sectors can coordinate actions around climate and conflict risk assessments, the management of land and water resources, ecosystem restoration, nature-based climate adaptation, climate and conflict smart agriculture, natural resources governance, and sustainable market development. These collaborative efforts have the potential to generate co-benefits, such as increased social cohesion and livelihood creation.