Skip to content

M-3 - AFOLU

The Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector is a critical component of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing 17% of global CO₂-eq emissions. This sector encompasses a wide range of activities, including crop production, livestock management, deforestation, afforestation, reforestation, and land management practices. It addresses emissions from both direct sources, such as methane and nitrous oxide from agricultural activities, and indirect sources, such as CO₂ from land-use changes.

As global demand for food, fibre, and fuel continues to rise, particularly in developing regions, mitigating emissions in the AFOLU sector presents unique challenges and opportunities. Effective mitigation strategies within this sector include enhancing agricultural productivity while reducing emissions, protecting and restoring forests, improving land management practices, and promoting sustainable land use.

Technological advancements, along with policy interventions and shifts in land-use practices, offer substantial potential to reduce emissions in the AFOLU sector. Practices such as agroforestry, improved livestock management, and soil carbon sequestration can significantly lower emissions while enhancing resilience to climate change. Additionally, protecting existing carbon sinks, such as forests and peatlands, is crucial for maintaining the balance of global carbon stocks. However, the implementation of these strategies must account for regional differences in land use, economic viability, and the need for policies that balance food security, livelihoods, and environmental goals.

Mitigation Potential

Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU), of the Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC AR6 WG3 2022)1 divides the mitigation potential within this sector into four economic mitigation scenarios:

  • \(\le\) USD20 \(tCO_{2}eq^–1\)
    • This scenario includes mitigation options that cost less than 20 USD for every tonne of CO₂-equivalent reduced or sequestered. These are typically considered highly cost-effective strategies, offering the most "bang for the buck" in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation.
  • \(\le\) USD50 \(tCO_{2}eq^–1\)
    • This scenario encompasses strategies that cost less than 50 USD per tonne of CO₂-equivalent. While not as cost-effective as the first category, these options are still regarded as economically viable and efficient ways to reduce emissions or enhance carbon sequestration.
  • \(\le\) USD100 \(tCO_{2}eq^–1\)
    • Here, the mitigation options cost less than 100 USD per tonne of CO₂-equivalent. These strategies might be less attractive from a purely economic perspective compared to the first two, but they can still play a crucial role in comprehensive climate mitigation efforts, especially where cheaper options are not feasible or sufficient to meet climate targets.
  • Technical: 
    • This scenario differs from the first three as it does not specify a cost threshold. Instead, it refers to the technical potential of mitigation strategies regardless of their cost. This can include a wide range of technologies and practices with varying degrees of cost-effectiveness, emphasising the maximum achievable reduction in GHG emissions based on current or anticipated technologies without considering economic constraints.

Working Group III further notes that:

  • \(\le\) USD100 \(tCO_{2}eq^{–1}\) … is deemed the price at which society is willing to pay for mitigation and is used as a proxy to estimate the proportion of technical mitigation potential that could realistically be implemented.
  • The likely range of global land-based mitigation potential is approximately \(8-14\) \(GtCO_{2}eq\) \(yr^{–1}\) between 2020–2050 with carbon prices up to USD100 \(tCO_{2}eq^–1\), about half of the technical potential (medium evidence, medium agreement).
  • … total land-based mitigation potential up to USD100 \(tCO_{2}eq^–1\) is \(13.6\) \((6.7-23.4)\) \(GtCO_{2}eq\) \(yr^{–1}\). This estimate aligns with the most recent regional assessment (Roe et al. 2021), which found the aggregate global mitigation potential of supply and demand-side measures to be \(13.8 ± 3.1\) \(GtCO_{2}eq\) \(yr^{–1}\) up to USD100 \(tCO_{2}eq^{–1}\) for the period 2020–2050.

Mitigation Options

Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU), of the Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC AR6 WG3 2022)1 outlines 20 mitigation options for the agriculture and land-use sectors which are summarised in the tables below.

For indexing this sector we have chosen to use the three major sub-sectors covered in AR6:

M-3A - Forests and Other Ecosystems

M-3B - Agriculture

M-3C - Other

Emissions

We estimate that the AFOLU sector was accountable for 17.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions for 2020 (8,220 MtCO₂-eq, see GHG Emissions).

See E-3 - Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use for a summary of IPCC guidelines for emission reporting.

  1. IPCC AR6 WG3. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Priyadarshi R. Shukla, Jim Skea, Raphael Slade, Alaa Al Khourdajie, Renée van Diemen, David McCollum, Minal Pathak, et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926. ↩↩

30% This page is in the early stages of development, with foundational work underway.