Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals

Pete Smith, Justin Adams, David J. Beerling, Tim Beringer, Katherine V. Calvin, Sabine Fuss, Bronson Griscom, Nikolas Hagemann, Claudia Kammann, Florian Kraxner, Jan C. Minx, Alexander Popp, Phil Renforth, Jose Luis Vicente Vicente, Saskia Keesstra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)255-286
JournalAnnual Review of Environment and Resources
Volume44
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Oct 2019

Fingerprint

ecosystem service
land management
sustainable development
greenhouse gas
bioenergy
afforestation
soil carbon
carbon sequestration
wetland
carbon
reforestation
United Nations
weathering
removal
restoration
land
project

Keywords

  • afforestation/reforestation
  • BECCS
  • biochar
  • bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
  • carbon dioxide removal
  • CDR
  • ecosystem services
  • greenhouse gas removal
  • Nature's Contributions to People
  • NCPs
  • negative emission technology
  • NET
  • SDG
  • soil carbon sequestration
  • terrestrial enhanced weathering
  • UN Sustainable Development Goals
  • wetland restoration

Cite this

Smith, Pete ; Adams, Justin ; Beerling, David J. ; Beringer, Tim ; Calvin, Katherine V. ; Fuss, Sabine ; Griscom, Bronson ; Hagemann, Nikolas ; Kammann, Claudia ; Kraxner, Florian ; Minx, Jan C. ; Popp, Alexander ; Renforth, Phil ; Vicente Vicente, Jose Luis ; Keesstra, Saskia. / Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals. In: Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2019 ; Vol. 44. pp. 255-286.
@article{89ffa837588f4b01b986ab251b96a0cf,
title = "Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "afforestation/reforestation, BECCS, biochar, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, carbon dioxide removal, CDR, ecosystem services, greenhouse gas removal, Nature's Contributions to People, NCPs, negative emission technology, NET, SDG, soil carbon sequestration, terrestrial enhanced weathering, UN Sustainable Development Goals, wetland restoration",
author = "Pete Smith and Justin Adams and Beerling, {David J.} and Tim Beringer and Calvin, {Katherine V.} and Sabine Fuss and Bronson Griscom and Nikolas Hagemann and Claudia Kammann and Florian Kraxner and Minx, {Jan C.} and Alexander Popp and Phil Renforth and {Vicente Vicente}, {Jose Luis} and Saskia Keesstra",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "255--286",
journal = "Annual Review of Environment and Resources",
issn = "1543-5938",
publisher = "Annual Reviews",

}

Smith, P, Adams, J, Beerling, DJ, Beringer, T, Calvin, KV, Fuss, S, Griscom, B, Hagemann, N, Kammann, C, Kraxner, F, Minx, JC, Popp, A, Renforth, P, Vicente Vicente, JL & Keesstra, S 2019, 'Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals', Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 44, pp. 255-286. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129

Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals. / Smith, Pete; Adams, Justin; Beerling, David J.; Beringer, Tim; Calvin, Katherine V.; Fuss, Sabine; Griscom, Bronson; Hagemann, Nikolas; Kammann, Claudia; Kraxner, Florian; Minx, Jan C.; Popp, Alexander; Renforth, Phil; Vicente Vicente, Jose Luis; Keesstra, Saskia.

In: Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 44, 17.10.2019, p. 255-286.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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

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

U2 - 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129

DO - 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 255

EP - 286

JO - Annual Review of Environment and Resources

JF - Annual Review of Environment and Resources

SN - 1543-5938

ER -