Enhanced agricultural carbon sinks provide benefits for farmers and the climate.

Carbon sequestration on agricultural land, albeit long-time neglected, offers substantial mitigation potential. Here we project, using an economic land-use model, that these options offer cumulative mitigation potentials comparable to afforestation by 2050 at 160 USD2022 tCO2 equivalent (tCO2e-1), with most of it located in the Global South. Carbon sequestration on agricultural land could provide producers around the world with additional revenues of up to 375 billion USD2022 at 160 USD2022 tCO2e-1 and allow achievement of net-zero emissions in the agriculture, forestry and other land-use sectors by 2050 already at economic costs of around 80-120 USD2022 tCO2e-1. This would, in turn, decrease economy-wide mitigation costs and increase gross domestic product (+0.6%) by the mid-century in 1.5 °C no-overshoot climate stabilization scenarios compared with mitigation scenarios that do not consider these options. Unlocking these potentials requires the deployment of highly efficient institutions and monitoring systems over the next 5 years across the whole world, including sub-Saharan Africa, where the largest mitigation potential exists.

Managing Forests for Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change Mitigation.

We include biodiversity impacts in forest management decision making by incorporating the countryside species area relationship model into the partial equilibrium model GLOBIOM-Forest. We tested three forest management intensities (low, medium, and high) and limited biodiversity loss via an additional constraint on regional species loss. We analyzed two scenarios for climate change mitigation. RCP1.9, the higher mitigation scenario, has more biodiversity loss than the reference RCP7.0, suggesting a trade-off between climate change mitigation, with increased bioenergy use, and biodiversity conservation in forests. This trade-off can be alleviated with biodiversity-conscious forest management by (1) shifting biomass production destined to bioenergy from forests to energy crops, (2) increasing areas under unmanaged secondary forest, (3) reducing forest management intensity, and (4) reallocating biomass production between and within regions. With these mechanisms, it is possible to reduce potential global biodiversity loss by 10% with minor changes in economic outcomes. The global aggregated reduction in biodiversity impacts does not imply that biodiversity impacts are reduced in each ecoregion. We exemplify how to connect an ecologic and an economic model to identify trade-offs, challenges, and possibilities for improved decisions. We acknowledge the limitations of this approach, especially of measuring and projecting biodiversity loss.