CCE Low Emission Development Layout: Title Slide Variation: none IPCC update CCE Low Emission Development Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses the science related to climate change. It does not conduct its own scientific research, nor does it monitor climate-related variables. It assesses published scientific findings. It provides policymakers with: regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change: for governments to develop climate related policies. its impacts and future risks, options for adaptation and mitigation. Set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), it acts as scientific steering for the UNFCCC and other Conventions. After it success, other UN Conventions have replicated the panel (i.e. IPBES for CBD, 2008 ) Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Author teams use defined language to characterize their: degree of certainty in assessment conclusions, to point to areas of well-established knowledge vs evolving understanding, to point to areas where multiple perspectives exist in the literature. Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

IPCC influences on CIFOR research Contribution of AFOLU to total emission balance: 24% of 49 GtCO2eq.yr-1 (2010) Contribution to global targets for 2100 and NDCs: 49 GtCO2eq.yr-1 Synergetic role of Agriculture and Forestry in the land use sector Mitigation pathways and adaptation frameworks Value chains: supply versus demand mitigation Key categories of emissions effects on donors: peatland emissions Estimating mitigation potentials of FRL Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

IPCC influences on CIFOR research Natural climate solutions 30% of mitigation reduction needed for 2030 to fulfill 2°C target Layout: Title and Content Variation: none Griscom et al. (2017) PNAS

AR5-AFOLU Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change UNFCCC Layout: Title and Content Variation: none The Panel is made up of representatives of the member states and meets in Plenary Sessions to take major decisions. It currently has 195 members.

IPCC: Sixth Assessment Report cycle Currently in its Sixth Assessment cycle. During this cycle, the Panel will produce: Three Special Reports: Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR15) Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) A Methodology Report on national greenhouse gas inventories 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) finalized in 2022 in time for the first UNFCCC global stocktake when countries will review progress towards their goal of keeping global warming to well below 2 °C while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. The three Working Group contributions to AR6 will be finalized in 2021 The AR6 Synthesis Report Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) Summary for Policy Makers Technical Summary Chapter 1: Framing and Context Chapter 2: Land-Climate Interactions Chapter 3: Desertification Chapter 4: Land Degradation Chapter 5: Food Security Chapter 6: Interlinkages between desertification, land degradation, food security and GHG fluxes: Synergies, trade-offs and Integrated Response Options Chapter 7: Risk management and decision making in relation to sustainable development Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) GLF Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Provide supplementary methodologies for sources and sinks where there are gaps Update values for Standard (Tier 1) Emission Factors Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories LUCF 1996 LULUCF 2003 (REDD+) AFOLU 2006 Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

Structure of the AFOLU Sector AFOLU AFOLU (Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use) Structure of the AFOLU Sector AFOLU

https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/kp/application/pdf/sb28_ipcc_simon.pdf Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

1.5°C scenarios and land use + uncertainties Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

Improvements in AFOLU Guidance Wetlands 2006 GL has complete coverage of peat lands 2006 GL improved coverage of flooded lands but some guidance is incomplete and awaits further scientific investigation Fires Guidelines have increased consistency and coverage of fires All emissions from fires reported in a separate category for increased transparency Managed land is used in these guidelines as a proxy for identifying anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks. Managed land refers to land where human interventions and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological or social functions

IPCC vs UNFCCC (A)FOLU reporting Grassi et al. (2017) (Nature Climate Change) Layout: Title and Content Variation: none NDCs are based on IPCC-AR5, but IPCC AR5 is not based on IPCC AFOLU guidelines Large differences in LULUCF fluxes depending on methods and assumptions

IPCC vs UNFCCC (A)FOLU reporting Implications Contribution of AFOLU to total balance in IPCC AR5 Estimating mitigation potentials of FRL Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

CCE Low Emission Development Layout: Title Slide Variation: none IPCC 1.5 Report, GAP Report CCE Low Emission Development Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta

1.5°C scenarios and land use Limiting warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels requires unprecedented reductions of global CO2 emissions and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, both in absolute numbers and in time rates (i.e. pre-2020, pre-2050). AFOLU plays a key role in stringent mitigation futures, but this sector has to meet the demands for food to feed a growing population, as well as to supply biomass for energy. Land use transitions and changes are a feature in all scenarios. Changes of the AFOLU sector contribution are driven by three main factors: demand changes, efficiency of production, and policy assumptions. Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

1.5°C scenarios and land use Current pledges NDCs currently foresee emissions of 49-58 GtCO2e.yr-1 in 2030 which will not meet the requirements for 2°C nor 1.5°C. For 1.5°C scenarios, 25-41 GtCO2e.yr-1 are needed. When starting from 2030 GHG national pledges, most IA models cannot produce scenarios in line with limiting warming to 1.5°C for the end of 2100. Reductions and transformations are too steep and too abrupt to be achieved by the mitigation options in the models. Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

1.5°C scenarios and land use Requirements based on modelling 1.5°C pathways see deep reductions of CO2, reaching global net zero CO2 by 2050, and stringent reductions in non-CO2 climate forcers (short-lived CH4, N2O, black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons): non-CO2 are now considered, and are important in wetlands, peatlands, and agriculture. NEW. CO2 is actively removed from the atmosphere in 2050-2100 through Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation are the two CDR options considered in all scenarios. Both BECCS and afforestation require land to produce sustainable biomass and to store CO2 through the growth of trees, respectively. Layout: Title and Content Variation: none

1.5°C scenarios and land use Land activities suggested as CDR/GHG removals Afforestation / Reforestation Changing agricultural practices enhancing soil carbon Biochar and soil carbon enhancement Restoration of peat and wetlands Biomass use for energy production with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) Reduced deforestation Reduced Livestock emissions Scenarios consistent with 1.5°C show large reductions of per capita energy demand, rapid electrification of energy end use, and rapid decreases in the carbon intensity of electricity and of the residual fuel mix.

1.5°C scenarios and land use Land use transitions for 2050 include: Decrease in croplands for food and feed production, and grasslands due to mitigation that demands land (biomass for BECCS and afforestation) Expansion of energy crops Expansion of forest: reverse from current negative trends to reach 6 Mha.yr-1 for 2010-2050. This means 6*40 =240Mha by 2050. The Bonn Challenge (150 Mha in 2020) and NYDF (350 Mha in 2030) claim to restore land but not necessarily through a/reforestation. When BECCS and afforestation are considered together, land demand in 2100 is of the order of 800-1800 Mha, mainly converted from pasture land. Scenarios consistent with 1.5°C show large reductions of per capita energy demand, rapid electrification of energy end use, and rapid decreases in the carbon intensity of electricity and of the residual fuel mix.

1.5°C scenarios and land use Changes of the AFOLU sector and 1.5°C scenarios are driven by: demand changes, efficiency of production, and policy assumptions Scenario 1: low energy consumption, low animal diets, low food waste, agricultural intensification and forest conservation---Low land demand for BECCS and afforestation Scenario 2: higher land based CDR, bioenergy crops and forest biomass (in 2050 15% of the biomass comes from managed forests------higher expansion of managed forests than other pathways. Food production is reduced 10%, livestock 18% reduction Scenario 3: resource and energy intensive, heavy on animal diet and high food waste, high dependence on fossil fuels------ heavily dependent on BECCs Scenario 4: relies on policies and options-------strongly relies on BECCs and afforestation--------expansion of forests. Mitigation pathways assessed in this chapter contain fundamental structural differences that complicate their direct comparison. Those differences can be categorised by three key features. The first one relates to the nature of the goal to achieve. Emission pathways assessed here were initially developed to reach a long-term temperature goal, such as 1.5°C or 2°C, a specific cumulative carbon budget by 2100, or a long-term radiative forcing target. Some pathways also focus on near- or mid-term goals which relate to policy formulations such as the Nationally Determined Contributions (UNFCCC 2015) or deep decarbonisation transitions (Bataille et al. 2016a). A second difference between pathways is that although most of the mitigation pathways used in this assessment allow the long-term climate goal to be temporarily exceeded, the timing, the amplitude, and duration of the overshoot (as defined in Chapter 1) differs between them. A last difference relates to the complexity of the emissions mix that composes the framing of mitigation pathways. Several emissions pathways include all relevant forcing agents such as the non-CO2 GHG, ozone precursors and aerosols, while others only account for a subset of GHG or focus only on CO2. These differences between mitigation pathways complicate the mapping of pathways.

1.5°C scenarios and land use Uncertainties Large uncertainties remain in some Earth system feedback processes that can impact remaining carbon budgets compatible with 1.5°C or 2°C: Permafrost thawing is expected to release carbon and methane to the atmosphere. Climatic and management pressures over peatlands. Forest degradation and disturbance feedbacks (i.e. degradation-fire). Mitigation pathways assessed in this chapter contain fundamental structural differences that complicate their direct comparison. Those differences can be categorised by three key features. The first one relates to the nature of the goal to achieve. Emission pathways assessed here were initially developed to reach a long-term temperature goal, such as 1.5°C or 2°C, a specific cumulative carbon budget by 2100, or a long-term radiative forcing target. Some pathways also focus on near- or mid-term goals which relate to policy formulations such as the Nationally Determined Contributions (UNFCCC 2015) or deep decarbonisation transitions (Bataille et al. 2016a). A second difference between pathways is that although most of the mitigation pathways used in this assessment allow the long-term climate goal to be temporarily exceeded, the timing, the amplitude, and duration of the overshoot (as defined in Chapter 1) differs between them. A last difference relates to the complexity of the emissions mix that composes the framing of mitigation pathways. Several emissions pathways include all relevant forcing agents such as the non-CO2 GHG, ozone precursors and aerosols, while others only account for a subset of GHG or focus only on CO2. These differences between mitigation pathways complicate the mapping of pathways.

Layout: Closing Slide Variation: none