Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse




Journal Article

Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the Sustainable Development Goals


Smith,  P.
External Organizations;

Adams,  J.
External Organizations;

Beerling,  D. J.
External Organizations;

Beringer,  T.
External Organizations;

Calvin,  K. V.
External Organizations;

Fuss,  S.
External Organizations;

Griscom,  B.
External Organizations;

Hagemann,  N.
External Organizations;

Kammann,  C.
External Organizations;

Kraxner,  F.
External Organizations;

Minx,  J. C.
External Organizations;


Popp,  Alexander
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Renforth,  P.
External Organizations;

Vicente,  J. L. V.
External Organizations;

Keesstra,  S.
External Organizations;

External Ressource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PIKpublic
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available

Smith, P., Adams, J., Beerling, D. J., Beringer, T., Calvin, K. V., Fuss, S., Griscom, B., Hagemann, N., Kammann, C., Kraxner, F., Minx, J. C., Popp, A., Renforth, P., Vicente, J. L. V., 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, 44, 255-286.

Cite as: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_23222
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.