Summary
This comprehensive review examines six land-based greenhouse gas removal strategies through the dual lens of ecosystem services and sustainable development goals. The authors find that all options deliver positive impacts on at least some ecosystem services, but afforestation, BECCS, and biochar carry risks of negative externalities at scale, particularly via land competition, whilst wetland restoration and soil carbon sequestration present predominantly low-risk, co-beneficial pathways. The analysis supports a differentiated implementation approach: low-risk options warrant rapid deployment whilst higher-risk strategies require caution and further research.
UK applicability
The findings are applicable to UK policy contexts, particularly regarding land-use planning and carbon abatement strategies. Wetland restoration and soil carbon sequestration emerge as particularly suitable low-risk options for UK implementation, whilst large-scale afforestation and BECCS deployment would require careful assessment of land-use trade-offs and biodiversity impacts in the UK context.
Key measures
Ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People); UN Sustainable Development Goals alignment; greenhouse gas removal potential; land-use competition effects
Outcomes reported
The study assessed six land-based greenhouse gas removal options (afforestation/reforestation, wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration, biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering, and BECCS) for their impacts on ecosystem services and UN Sustainable Development Goals. Comparative risks and cobenefits were evaluated across implementation scenarios.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.