The Land Gap Report: Assessing the Reality Behind Global Climate Pledges
How global climate pledges hinge on unrealistic land-based carbon removal—and the risks for ecosystems and communities.
The Land Gap Report: Unveiling the Imbalance in Climate Pledges
Global governments have made ambitious climate pledges aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and addressing climate change. The Land Gap Report casts this ambition under a critical lens, revealing a fundamental gap between promised carbon removal and the sheer land requirements those promises entail. This analysis exposes how national climate plans depend on converting vast areas—often already in use—putting food security, ecosystems, and the rights of Indigenous peoples at risk.
How Much Land Do Climate Pledges Demand?
According to the report’s findings, countries’ climate commitments submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) collectively require about 1.2 billion hectares of land for biological carbon removal. This area is:
- Larger than the entire United States (983 million ha)
- Nearly equivalent to current global cropland
- Almost four times the area of India
This demand is overwhelmingly unrealistic. The report concludes that only a handful of high and upper-middle income countries—often among the largest fossil fuel users and exporters—account for more than 85% of the total land requirements to fulfill climate pledges.
Breakdown of Land Use in Climate Plans
| Land Use Type | Area Required (Million ha) | Potential Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Land-Use Change (Plantations, Afforestation, New Forests) | 633 | Threatens food production, Indigenous rights, smallholder farmers |
| Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems | 551 | Supports ecosystem recovery, can benefit biodiversity and resilience |
| Total Required | 1,184 |
Over half of the projected land use would entail a fundamental change—transforming current food-producing areas into plantations or forests intended to offset emissions. The remaining portion is aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems.
The Risks of Overreliance on Land-Based Carbon Removal
- Pressure on Ecosystems: Vast swathes of land conversion can undermine biodiversity and ecosystem integrity.
- Threats to Food Security: Repurposing cropland for carbon removal compromises the ability of local communities and smallholder farmers to feed themselves.
- Indigenous and Community Land Rights: Land-based mitigation strategies risk displacing communities, infringing on land rights, and undermining livelihoods.
- Limited Near-Term Impact: The report warns that carbon removals via plantations, afforestation, and reforestation will take too long to deliver significant climate benefits in the coming critical decade.
The Limits of Tree Planting and Afforestation
The Land Gap Report challenges the notion that large-scale tree planting is a silver bullet for climate mitigation. Scientific and ecological principles indicate that:
- Tree planting often yields negligible mitigation benefits compared to protecting existing primary ecosystems.
- Monoculture plantations can reduce biodiversity and may not capture as much carbon as mature forests.
- Land-use changes for afforestation can disrupt existing land uses, especially food production and community livelihoods.
Such approaches risk delaying urgent emissions reductions by giving the impression that future removals can offset current emissions.
Why Protect Existing Ecosystems?
The Land Gap Report and associated scientific literature underscore that protecting all remaining primary ecosystems—forests, savannas, peatlands, and wetlands—should be the top priority. These intact landscapes:
What others are reading
- Store vast amounts of carbon and regulate climate
- Provide habitat for diverse species
- Support local and global water cycles
- Offer resilience against climate shocks
Restoration of degraded ecosystems also has critical roles to play, but replacement of food systems or displacement of communities should not be part of a climate solution.
The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
Indigenous and community lands are disproportionately targeted by proposals for carbon removal through land use change. According to the report:
- Many pledges ignore existing land tenure arrangements
- Imposing new carbon projects often fails to secure free, prior, and informed consent
- Carbon offset plans risk dispossessing Indigenous peoples and increasing social inequity
Securing land rights and supporting Indigenous-led conservation is repeatedly cited as an effective, equitable solution for both carbon storage and biodiversity.
Transparency and Accountability in Climate Pledges
A major finding of the Land Gap Report is the lack of transparency in national climate plans regarding assumptions about land availability, ownership, and use. Climate pledges should:
- Clarify what land is included and how it will be obtained
- Give a full accounting of affected communities and existing land uses
- Specify the roles of restoration, afforestation, and other approaches
- Include protection and enhancement of human rights and equity
This applies especially to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Many NDCs lack precise details, and existing loopholes enable risky or misleading reliance on land-based offsets.
Integrating Ecosystem-Based Approaches
The report recommends shifting climate mitigation strategies toward ecosystem-based approaches that embrace:
- Protection of primary forests and intact ecosystems
- Restoration that enhances biodiversity
- Agroecology and sustainable food production
- Support for multi-functional landscapes, strengthening both resilience and carbon sequestration
Agroecology, for example, provides a path to both climate resilience and food sovereignty, integrating ecological principles with farming practices that benefit people and nature alike.
Recommendations: Four Interlinked Priorities
The Land Gap Report outlines four interconnected recommendations:
- Clarity in Land Assumptions: Countries must be explicit about the size, location, and ownership of land targeted for carbon removal in their pledges.
- Protect Primary Ecosystems First: Conservation and protection should take precedence over tree-planting schemes.
- Human Rights at the Center: Climate mitigation should reinforce, not undermine, the rights of Indigenous peoples, smallholders, and affected communities.
- Promote Multifunctional, Resilient Strategies: Approaches such as agroecology should be scaled, supporting the realization of diverse human rights while enhancing climate resilience.
Looking Forward: Future Updates and Policy Implications
The Land Gap Report is evolving, with new data and country pledges analyzed each year. The most recent updates strengthen the case for reducing reliance on land-based carbon removal and prioritize real emission reductions across sectors. Policymakers, climate negotiators, and civil society are urged to:
- Scrutinize proposals for land-based offsets in climate plans
- Advocate for transparent and just climate action
- Champion science-based solutions that do not sacrifice food security or social justice
Table: Comparison of Key Approaches to Climate Mitigation
| Mitigation Approach | Carbon Sequestration Potential | Impact on People & Food | Speed of Benefits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Afforestation/Plantations | Medium (long-term) | Risks displacement, food insecurity | Slow (decades) |
| Primary Ecosystem Protection | High (immediate) | Preserves rights, food, and biodiversity | Fast (instant preservation) |
| Agroecology & Sustainable Agriculture | Variable, supports co-benefits | Supports food security, livelihoods | Medium (ongoing) |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: Why is the “land gap” considered a critical issue for climate policy?
A: The land gap highlights the discrepancy between promised carbon-removing actions and real-world land capability. Many pledges depend on unavailable or already-utilized land, risking greater harm to food security, Indigenous rights, and ecosystems.
Q: Can tree planting solve the climate crisis?
A: While tree planting can sequester carbon, large-scale schemes often fall short compared to protecting existing ecosystems. Afforestation projects can disrupt food production and displace communities, with limited short-term climate gains.
Q: What solutions does the Land Gap Report advocate?
A: The report prioritizes protecting primary ecosystems, securing Indigenous and community land rights, promoting agroecology, and increasing transparency in climate pledges. It recommends reducing overreliance on land-based offsets in favor of direct emission cuts.
Q: How is agroecology part of climate solutions?
A: Agroecology uses ecological and social principles in farming to boost resilience, protect biodiversity, and improve food sovereignty. It supports both climate mitigation and the rights of local people.
Q: What should policymakers and negotiators do in light of these findings?
A: Policymakers must ensure all climate pledges are transparent about land use assumptions, refuse false solutions that sacrifice rights or food, and support best practices for ecosystem protection and emission reduction.
Conclusion: Bridging the Land Gap for Climate Success
The Land Gap Report underscores a pivotal challenge facing global climate action. Ambitious pledges—if built on unrealistic land-based offsets—risk undermining societal and environmental well-being. Only by centering nature protection, rights, and transparent policy can countries credibly advance toward climate targets.
References
- https://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1617603/
- https://burness.com/assets/pdf_files/land-gap-report_v3-1.pdf
- https://landgap.org
- https://news.mongabay.com/2022/11/there-is-not-enough-land-to-meet-many-of-the-worlds-climate-pledges-says-new-study/
- https://earth.org/world-will-need-1bn-hectares-to-implement-land-based-climate-mitigation-pledges-study-finds/
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53466-0
- https://netzerolandrights.com/chapters/ambition-gap-climate-pledges-exceed-the-limits-of-land
- https://forestsnews.cifor.org/79814/do-climate-pledges-rely-too-much-on-tree-planting?fnl=en
Similar Articles
Read full bio of Sneha Tete
