Ambition Gap: Climate Pledges Exceed the Limits of Land

The unrealistic dependence on land to compensate for emissions has led to a staggering rise in land demands and widened the gap between land-use projections for carbon sequestration and the amount of available land. As the Land Gap Report shows, the amount of land needed to implement land-based climate protecof sustainability. However, any measures applied must both respect human rights and restore ecosystem function. Improved governance and stewardship of land and territories focused on these goals are sorely needed to achieve the multiple and interrelated needs of both local populations and the environment. Many countries with significant emissions rely heavily on land-based solutions for carbon removal. By far the largest pledges for land- based carbon dioxide removal have been made by high-income, high-emitting countries that are also major players in the international coal, gas and oil markets. Australia, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and the United States have all pledged significant land-based sequestration targets to reach net zero. However, many of these nations plan to meet their targets through international offsets, shifting their climate mitigation burden to land in other countries. This approach risks shifting the focus away from the immediate actions needed to reduce emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes in the countries of origin, which is essential to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. Protecting and restoring primary forests and other intact ecosystems is the most impactful way of combating climate change on land. Not only tion plans is immense – approximately 1 billion hectares – roughly equivalent to the size of the United States. Making this much space available for carbon sequestration while meeting agricultural needs and maintaining biodiversity conservation will be an enormous challenge that requires significant international cooperation. Moreover, since these pledges require the conversion of land to new forests (land use change) or the restoration of degraded land and forests (no land use change), we must also consider the attendant risks and benefits. On the one hand, climate protection plans such as reforestation offer significant potential for carbon sequestration, improved biodiversity, and enhanced climate resilience. However, these plans also run the risk of reducing biodiversity, competing with agricultural needs and causing negative repercussions for local populations.

Consider extensive tree planting as a method for carbon absorption. While new trees can increase the amount of carbon absorbed, they may encroach on space needed for agriculture or replace natural forests, causing additional environmental and social harm. For example, if reforestation efforts focus on monoculture plantations – such as eucalyptus – in countries like Brazil and India, they may reduce biodiversity. Interventions like reforestation and afforestation can also exacerbate food insecurity and land conflicts due to multiple competing uses of land and threats to the livelihoods and rights of Indigenous Peoples and other vulnerable land-dependent communities.

But not all land-based carbon removal practices are equally damaging. Some strategies include activities to restore degraded lands and forests and to promote sustainable agroforestry and low-intensity farming. These approaches, which seek to maintain and augment carbon stocks in existing ecosystems and agricultural lands, hold greater promise in terms of climate and biodiversity protection and pose fewer threats to other dimensions of sustainability. However, any measures applied must both respect human rights and restore ecosystem function. Improved governance and stewardship of land and territories focused on these goals are sorely needed to achieve the multiple and interrelated needs of both local populations and the environment. Many countries with significant emissions rely heavily on land-based solutions for carbon removal. By far the largest pledges for land-based carbon dioxide removal have been made by high-income, high-emitting countries that are also major players in the international coal, gas and oil markets. Australia, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and the United States have all pledged significant land-based sequestration targets to reach net zero. However, many of these nations plan to meet their targets through international offsets, shifting their climate mitigation burden to land in other countries. This approach risks shifting the focus away from the immediate actions needed to reduce emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes in the countries of origin, which is essential to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.

Protecting and restoring primary forests and other intact ecosystems is the most impactful way of combating climate change on land. Not only does it aid in climate change adaptation, but when done correctly, it also helps conserve biodiversity and essential ecosystem services. Preserving carbon-rich ecosystems, especially the remaining primary forests in boreal, temperate and tropical regions, is a crucial element of effective climate action. This is particularly important given that primary forests store significantly more carbon than logged forests or plantations.

However, if land restoration efforts are to contribute genuinely to climate change mitigation, they must increase carbon storage beyond what would naturally occur. Climate mitigation pledges based on land aim to address this increased need but have so far failed to consider competing demands on land for food security, ecosystem and biodiversity protection, livelihoods and local culture. New strategies in land-based carbon sequestration must be realistic about land availability and examine land use holistically to avoid irresponsible and harmful practices and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.