Search

Afforestation is a promising nature-based climate solution for mitigating climate change, but it is subject to a complex web of biophysical, cost-benefit, market, and policy processes. Although its biophysical feasibility has been established, the cost, market, and policy constraints that affect climate change mitigation through afforestation are still unclear. Here, we estimate such cost, market, and policy constraints on the basis of biophysical feasibility. Our findings reveal that implementation costs are a more relevant constraint than opportunity costs on mitigating climate change through afforestation. The China Certified Emission Reduction market currently provides only a 0.308 % incentive for climate change mitigation through afforestation, due to market access constraints. The current market prices of China Certified Emission Reduction, China Carbon Emissions Trading Exchange, and Nature Based Carbon Offset in Voluntary Carbon Market constrain 88.15 %, 87.95 %, and 85.75 % of CO2 removal actions through afforestation, compared to the carbon price scenario (US$62.97 tCO2-1) of the EU Emissions Trading System. Moreover, land policy under the scenarios of prohibiting conversion of cultivated land to forest and forest restoration in degraded areas exhibit 8.87–29.59 % and 65.16–74.10 % constraints, respectively, on mitigating climate change through afforestation compared to land-use freedom conversion scenarios from 2020 to 2060. Thus, enhancing the incentive price of CO2 removal, addressing the market access barrier, strengthening cooperation between global carbon markets, and exploring carbon–neutral and food multi-oriented land policies can be valuable sources of mitigation efforts over the next 40 years.

The recently released Farm to Fork Strategy of the European Union sets, for the first time, pesticide reduction goals at the EU level: 50% reduction in overall use and risk of chemical pesticides and a 50% use reduction of more hazardous pesticides. However, there is little guidance provided as to how to achieve these targets. In this study, we compiled the characteristics of all 230 EU-approved, synthetic, open-field use active substances (AS) used as herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, and explored the potential of seven Farm to Fork-inspired pesticide use reduction scenarios to achieve the 50% reduction goals. The pesticide reduction scenarios were based on recommended AS application rates, pesticide type, soil persistence, presence on the candidate for substitution list, and hazard to humans and ecosystems. All 230 AS have been found to cause negative effects on humans or ecosystems depending on exposure levels. This is found despite the incomplete hazard profiles of several AS. ‘No data available’ situations are often observed for the same endpoints and specific organisms. The results of the scenarios indicate that only severe pesticide use restrictions, such as allowing only low-hazard substances, will result in the targeted 50% use and risk reductions. Over half of the 230 AS considered are top use or top hazard substances, however, the reduction actions depend on the still to be defined EC priority areas and action plans, also for other recent and related strategies. Broader scenario implications (on productivity, biodiversity or economy) and the response of farmers to the pesticide use restrictions should be explored in those plans to define effective actions. Our results emphasize the need for a re-evaluation of the approved AS and of their representative uses, and the call for open access to AS, crop and region-specific use data to refine scenarios and assess effective reductions.