Land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs) are critical for achieving the Paris Agreement’s aim of avoiding dangerous climate change by limiting the rise in average global surface temperatures. We developed a detailed two-level classification and analysis of the barriers to the adoption and scaling up of LMTs. The review suggests that afforestation/reforestation and forest management are LMTs with wide application and high potential across all continents. BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) and biochar have a higher potential in higher-income countries in the short term, due to the availability of technology, funding, and low-cost biomass value chains. Although most LMTs can be cost-effective across multiple world regions, limited knowledge concerning their implementation and insufficient financing appear to be the main barriers to their large-scale deployment. Without considering gender and the rights of marginalised and Indigenous Peoples, the large-scale deployment of LMTs can further aggravate existing inequalities. Therefore, the social and institutional implications of LMTs need to be better understood to improve their public acceptance and reduce negative impacts. An integrated system approach is necessary to strike a balance between ambitious land-based mitigation targets and socioeconomic and environmental goals.

@en

Land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs) reduce GHG emissions associated with land use and/or enhance terrestrial GHG sinks. This article investigates capacity gaps to successfully facilitate LMT adoption and/or scaling in the regions of Latin America, Europe, North America, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. We look at LMTs such as agricultural land management, agroforestry, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), biochar, forest management, and peat/wetland management. We used a triangulation method based on literature review, an online survey, and semi-structured interviews with experts from Academia, Industry, NGOs, Local Communities and Government, to capture and analyze the most prominent capacity gaps by LMT and according to regional contexts. This approach identified ‘understanding’, ‘awareness’ and ‘economic/finance’ as the most important capacity gaps when it comes to LMT adoption and scaling across the aforementioned regions. A recommended first step for increased LMT adoption would be to address the knowledge and understanding capacity gaps, which, in turn, could help make LMTs more attractive to stakeholders. Policymakers in cooperation with other stakeholders might reflect on dedicated support policies and regulatory frameworks that level the playing field for LMTs (as compared to mitigation technologies and practices in energy and other sectors). Other good practice examples include market building for LMTs, using emerging carbon markets, designing bottom-up implementation plans in cooperation with local and Indigenous Peoples, increased ecosystems services payments and taking into consideration local and traditional knowledge for successful LMT adoption and scaling.@en

Canada is one of the top ten greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters in the world, and of the nation’s total, the province of Alberta was the biggest emitter primarily due to the fossil fuel industry and power generation. Alberta is currently facing a challenge to reduce GHG emissions in line with Canada’s obligations to meet Paris Agreement goals. Additionally, the oil sand deposits in Alberta are located on the traditional land of Indigenous communities; therefore, the development, regulation and consultation of this sector have a direct impact not only on emissions but also on the socioeconomic welfare of Indigenous communities. Thus, the transition towards a low-carbon pathway in the oil sand industry is closely connected to upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples. Meaningfully consulting with Indigenous peoples is essential when developing low-carbon pathways that impact the environment and wellbeing of the community. Failure to consult proposed changes with Indigenous communities can lead to risks for the government, the industry and the communities themselves. These risks have been prevalent in the current consultation process in Alberta which has led to litigation, creating mistrust between the government, industry and Indigenous community. Given this background, we present a Consensus Building in Engagement Processes framework that includes Indigenous consensus, knowledge, interests and rights as a focal point of a consultation process required for decision-making. The consultation process is presented within the context of land use decisions impacting a low-carbon future for oil sand development. The framework is based on seeking consensus from all parties involved and aims to help to reduce risks resulting from decisions that do not consider the interests and rights of communities most impacted by resource development or climate mitigation pathways.@en