Abstract: Highlights • Governance impacts on land use dynamics are modeled at the global scale with an agro-economic dynamic optimization model. • Improved governance performance lowers deforestation, reduces cropland expansion and increases agricultural yield. • Good governance makes a decisive difference in investment for increasing yields in developing regions. • Weak governance increases food prices, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. • Improving governance performance has significant impacts on poverty reduction. Abstract Deforestation, mainly caused by unsustainable agricultural expansion, results in a loss of biodiversity and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as impinges on local livelihoods. Countries’ governance performance, particularly with respect to property rights security, exerts significant impacts on land-use patterns by affecting agricultural yield-related technological investment and cropland expansion. This study aims to incorporate governance factors into a recursive agro-economic dynamic model to simulate governance impacts on land-use patterns at the global scale. Due to the difficulties of including governance indicators directly into numerical models, we use lending interest rates as discount rates to reflect risk-accounting factors associated with different governance scenarios. In addition to a reference scenario, three scenarios with high, low and mixed divergent discount rates are formed to represent weak, strong and fragmented governance. We find that weak governance leads to slower yield growth, increased cropland expansion and associated deforestation, mainly in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. This is associated with increasing food prices, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. By contrast, strong governance performance provides a stable political and economic situation which may bring down deforestation rates, stimulate investment in agricultural technologies, and induce fairly strong decreases in food prices.

Abstract: The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.

Abstract: The land use sector of agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) plays a central role in ambitious climate change mitigation efforts. Yet, mitigation policies in agriculture may be in conflict with food security related targets. Using a global agro-economic model, we analyze the impacts on food prices under mitigation policies targeting either incentives for producers (e.g., through taxes) or consumer preferences (e.g., through education programs). Despite having a similar reduction potential of 43-44% in 2100, the two types of policy instruments result in opposite outcomes for food prices. Incentive-based mitigation, such as protecting carbon-rich forests or adopting low-emission production techniques, increase land scarcity and production costs and thereby food prices. Preference-based mitigation, such as reduced household waste or lower consumption of animal-based products, decreases land scarcity, prevents emissions leakage, and concentrates production on the most productive sites and consequently lowers food prices. Whereas agricultural emissions are further abated in the combination of these mitigation measures, the synergy of strategies fails to substantially lower food prices. Additionally, we demonstrate that the efficiency of agricultural emission abatement is stable across a range of greenhouse-gas (GHG) tax levels, while resulting food prices exhibit a disproportionally larger spread.