young Whatsapp Call Girls in Delhi Cantt🔝 9953056974 🔝 escort service
Potential synergies and trade-offs effects of large scale expansion of land-based CDR strategies
1. Potential synergies and trade-offs
effects of large scale expansion of
land-based carbon dioxide removal
strategies: key findings from the Special
Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL)
1 7 N O V E M B E R 2 0 2 2
I P C C . C H
Joana Portugal Pereira
COP 27, Sharm El-Sheikh
Science for Climate Action Pavilion
2. Future land use landscapes depend
on the desired global warming levels
and portfolio of mitigation responses
The Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) assessed
interlinkages between integrated assessment model (IAM) mitigation
pathways and terrestrial ecosystem services.
All assessed 1.5ºC and well below 2oC pathways require land-based
mitigation and land use change (reforestation, afforestation, reduced
deforestation, and bioenergy).
Modelled pathways that achieve 1.5ºC with reduced land conversion
present reduced impacts for ecosystem services (desertification, land
degradation, and food security).
Modelled pathways that achieved 1.5ºC with delayed mitigation
actions and require large-scale conversion of land for land-based
carbon dioxide removal responses entails potential negative
consequences to terrestrial ecosystem services and land use
sustainability.
3. Early mitigation actions and
sustainable land
management practices may
increase crop productive and
induce sustainable
intensification of pastures.
Required land in 2050 for
forest and bioenergy may
reach 5.5Mkm2.
Different storylines imply different land uses to achieve 1.5°C global warming
level by 2100.
4. Following historical trends
and current deforestation
rates, required land for
bioenergy and
afforestation reaches
~7.9Mkm2.
Different storylines imply different land uses to achieve 1.5°C global warming
level by 2100.
5. Different storylines imply different land uses to achieve 1.5°C global warming
level by 2100.
Delayed mitigation actions
and high consumption
patterns, imply higher needs
for land-based CDR options,
which may cause land use
competition for other land
uses. Bioenergy and forestry
area ~9.8Mkm2.
6. The land area
needed for bioenergy
and afforestation in
modelled pathways
varies significantly
depending on the
socio-economic
pathway, the
warming level, the
feedstock and
production system
used.
Source: IPCC SRCCL SPM.4b
Higher levels of global warming required lower land-based CDR
options, but translate more climate impacts.
Modelled pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C use up to 7
Mkm2 for bioenergy in 2050
Bioenergy land area is smaller in 2°C (0.4 to 5 million km2) and 3°C
pathways (0.1 to 3 million km2)
7. The land area
needed for
bioenergy in
modelled pathways
varies significantly
depending on the
socio-economic
pathway, the
warming level, the
feedstock and
production system
used.
Source: IPCC SRCCL SPM.4b
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
RCP1.9 RCP2.6 RCP4.5 Baseline
Land
use
change
from
2010
to
2050
(Mkm
2
)
Land use implications of different levels of
warming (under SSP2)
Bioenergy
Afforestation
8. Impacts of land-based carbon dioxide removal responses
depend on specific implementation contexts and scales
9. Takeaway messages
• The deployment of mitigation response options have different implications for future land use
landscapes.
• All assessed modelled pathways in the SRCCL to limit warming to 1.5ºC or well below 2°C require
land-based mitigation and land-use change, with different combinations of reforestation,
afforestation, reduced deforestation, and bioenergy.
• Modelled pathways based on early actions to achieve 1.5ºC required reduced land conversion and
thus reduced consequences for desertification, land degradation, and food security.
• Pathways with large levels of land conversion may imply adverse side-effects impacting water
scarcity, biodiversity, land degradation, desertification, and food security, if not adequately and
carefully managed, whereas best practice implementation at appropriate scales can have co-
benefits, such as management of dryland salinity, enhanced biocontrol and biodiversity and
enhancing soil carbon sequestration.
10. @IPCC_CH
#IPCReport
For more information:
IPCC Secretariat: ipcc-sec@wmo.int
IPCC Press Office: ipcc-media@wmo.int
Visit ipcc.ch
@IPCC
@IPCC
linkedin.com/
company/ipcc
Thank you.
Joana Portugal Pereira
Assistant Professor, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
joana.portugal@ppe.ufrj.br
@Joanna_Portugal
Notes de l'éditeur
Presentation – Joana
Professor at UFRJ. Expert on bioenergy, sustainability assessment and land use modelling.
Please to be here with you all to share key findings from SRCCL on CDR.
SRCCL assessed implications of different mitigation strategies and global warming levels on land use landscapes.
All assessed pathways for 1.5C and 2C required a kind of land-based CDR and land use change – R/afforestation, reduced deforestation and bioenergy systems.
Reduced land conversion -> limited negative impacts
Delay actions to limit fossil fuel –based CO2 require large-scale land based CDR -> potential negative consequences to ecosystem services and land use sustaianblity.
Panel B shows response options that rely on additional land-use change and could have implications across three or more land challenges under di erent implementation contexts. For each option, the first row (high level implementation) shows a quantitative assessment (as in Panel A) of implications for global implementation at scales delivering CO removals of more than 3 GtCO yr-1 using the magnitude thresholds shown in Panel A. The red hatched cells indicate an increasing pressure but unquantified impact. For each option, the second row (best practice implementation) shows qualitative estimates of impact if implemented using best practices in appropriately managed landscape systems that allow for e icient and sustainable resource use and supported by appropriate governance mechanisms. In these qualitative assessments, green indicates a positive impact, grey indicates a neutral interaction.
