TY - JOUR
T1 - Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals
AU - Smith, Pete
AU - Adams, Justin
AU - Beerling, David J.
AU - Beringer, Tim
AU - Calvin, Katherine V.
AU - Fuss, Sabine
AU - Griscom, Bronson
AU - Hagemann, Nikolas
AU - Kammann, Claudia
AU - Kraxner, Florian
AU - Minx, Jan C.
AU - Popp, Alexander
AU - Renforth, Phil
AU - Vicente Vicente, Jose Luis
AU - Keesstra, Saskia
N1 - The input of P.S. to this article contributes to the following projects: DEVIL (NE/M021327/1), U-GRASS (NE/M016900/1), MAGLUE (EP/M013200/1), Assess-BECCS (funded by UKERC), and Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1). The input of P.S. and S.K. to this article contributes to the EU H2020 project under Grant Agreement 774378—Coordination of International Research Cooperation on Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture (CIRCASA). The input of P.R. to this article contributes to projects NE/P019943/1 and NE/P019730/1, which (like NE/P019455/1 for P.S.) are part of the United Kingdom's Greenhouse Gas Removal Program funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). F.K. acknowledges funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the United Kingdom for the project “Comparative assessment and region-specific optimisation of GGR” (reference NE/P019900/1) and the RESTORE+ project (http://www.restoreplus.org), which is part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI), supported by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) based on a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. D.J.B. gratefully acknowledges funding from the Leverhulme Trust through a Leverhulme Research Centre Award (RC-2015-029). S.F., J.C.M., and J.L.V.V. have contributed to this article under the Project “Strategic Scenario Analysis” (START) funded by the German Ministry of Research and Education (Grant 03EK3046B). The input of K.V.C. was funded under a grant from the ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company. C.K. gratefully acknowledges funding by the German BMBF (Grants 01LS1620B and 01LS1620A).
PY - 2019/10/17
Y1 - 2019/10/17
N2 - Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.
AB - Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.
KW - afforestation/reforestation
KW - BECCS
KW - biochar
KW - bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
KW - carbon dioxide removal
KW - CDR
KW - ecosystem services
KW - greenhouse gas removal
KW - Nature's Contributions to People
KW - NCPs
KW - negative emission technology
KW - NET
KW - SDG
KW - soil carbon sequestration
KW - terrestrial enhanced weathering
KW - UN Sustainable Development Goals
KW - wetland restoration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073449310&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129
DO - 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85073449310
VL - 44
SP - 255
EP - 286
JO - Annual Review of Environment and Resources
JF - Annual Review of Environment and Resources
SN - 1543-5938
ER -
