“Achieving the ambitious global climate goal of climate neutrality means reaching net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the next few decades. This involves cutting GHG emissions in all sectors, including energy, transport, industry, and agriculture,” explains Chiriacò. “However, as revealed in science-based scenarios, there are some types of emissions that will be very hard or even impossible to abate.”
If we are to achieve net zero, these residual emissions must be compensated for through a combination of carbon capture technologies (which thus far have seen limited success) and the enhancement of the carbon sink potential of the land sector. Enabling carbon removal has therefore emerged among the key issues at COP29, featuring substantially in negotiations around Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which aims to foster voluntary cooperation among Parties in achieving their climate targets and mobilizing finance.
Article 6 will play a crucial role in boosting land-based carbon removal strategies as these require extensive research, funding and policies that protect and enhance natural processes – including forest and ecosystem preservation, reforestation, sustainable forest and soil management, and regenerative agriculture.
Article 6
On the opening day of COP29 significant progress was made with the adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which sets out how countries can pursue voluntary cooperation to reach their climate targets. Part of the negotiations revolve around the rules behind the trading of carbon credits earned from the reduction of GHG emissions and how these can be leveraged to assist countries in their efforts to meet their climate targets.
In this context, carbon removals are expected to play a relevant role both in the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (Article 6.4), under which countries would be able to transfer carbon credits earned from activities (including the enhancement of land-based removals), as well as in bilateral/multilateral cooperative approaches (Article 6.2) between interested countries, and in non-market approaches (Article 6.8) which would help one or more countries meet their climate goals.
“All these approaches will support mitigation activities that include land-based removals, without which the net-zero target is unattainable,” says Chiriacò, who also points out that building robust systems for concrete results and environmental integrity remains a challenge when it comes to land-based carbon removals as these require long term commitments and rules.
“At COP29 Parties still need to hash out the details and define elements such addressing the risk of reversal, planning reversal remediations, and setting up robust post-crediting monitoring,” she continues.
Science takes center stage
Research is crucial for accurately assessing the current contribution of land to the carbon budget and predicting how land-based carbon removals can be preserved, maintained, and enhanced in the future, whilst taking evolving climate impacts under future emissions scenarios into consideration.
“Science is where we look for solutions that maximize carbon sequestration in ecosystems, develop models and deploy technologies to improve prediction, and monitor the impacts of land-based options,” says Chiriacò. “Research is the platform from which we can provide policy insights that help land managers and decision makers define pathways and actions that make sustainable practices viable and scalable.”
Chiriacò cites CMCC projects such as RethinkACtion and Nevermore, as solutions to addressing some of these issues, such as the possible trade-offs that emerge from land use choices. Research is crucial to enabling informed decision making when making choices about land-based issues such as when to maintain food production to ensure food security, deliver feed for livestock or contribute to the decarbonization of the energy sector for example.
To this end, other CMCC projects such as SWITCH and FOODCLIC (where CMCC is a partner), investigate food choices across Europe and their impacts, fostering the transition towards more sustainable diets that both improve health, have a positive impact on land use, and ensure the protection of carbon removals within agricultural systems and other ecosystems.
Additionally, projects like FORESTPATH support policy development by providing scientific insight and policy recommendations for the forestry sector, and on the local-scale projects like Rigenerazione Salento develop easy-to-use tools that help farmers and policy makers optimize land management decisions – combining adaptation and mitigation goals, and assessing the land carbon budget with the possibility to generate carbon credits through sustainable practices to be introduced in the voluntary carbon market.
“For Article 6 to become an effective tool for decarbonization, it is essential that COP29 sets out clear and rigorous rules to ensure the integrity of carbon credits and mitigate the risk of greenwashing,” says Chiriacò. “Important milestones have been already reached, especially under article 6.4, with the adoption of the standards containing the requirements for the development of methodologies and for activities involving removals. However, further work needs to be done to make Article 6 an effective and reliable tool for decarbonization.”
Further reading:
- UPTAKE – Bridging current knowledge gaps to enable the UPTAKE of carbon dioxide removal methods – CMCC
- African forests: World-leaders in CO2 capture – CMCC
- RESCUE: Response of the Earth System to overshoot, Climate neUtrality and negative Emissions – CMCC
- Irrecoverable carbon in the mountains: embracing the opportunity of agroforestry – CMCC
- Tarasova, E., Valentini, R., Di Lallo, G., Cotrina-Sanchez, A., & Chiriacò, M. V. (2024). Enhancing Carbon Sequestration: A Systematic literature review of spatial decision support tools. Sustainability, 16(12), 5045. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125045
- Petersson, T., Antoniella, G., Chiriacò, M. V., Perugini, L., & Chiti, T. (2023). The misconception of soil organic carbon sequestration notion: when do we achieve climate benefit? Soil Use and Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.13009
