SSP4 scenario. This result is consistent with the EMF27 results themselves, where the models estimate that under this stabilization scenario, AFOLU emissions would need to be reduced by ‐4% to 99% (Smith _et al._ , 2014). According to our results, Latin America, Sub‐Saharan Africa and Eastern Asia & Pacific would contribute 45%, 26% and 13% of the global AFOLU abatement, respectively, providing together the large majority of the global mitigation effort in this sector. Under this stabilization scenario, direct emissions from agriculture remain roughly at their 2000 level, and net emissions from land use change approach zero, mostly because of reduced emissions from deforestation accompanied by afforestation. As one would expect, under the Low Energy Intensity scenario (LowEI), less mitigation effort is required from the AFOLU sector; total AFOLU emissions would then be about 20% higher than under FullTech. With limited role of bioenergy in the mitigation portfolio (LimBio scenario), agricultural emissions would be required to go even lower than under FullTech, and land use change would need to become a net sink of emissions already in 2030. This shows the need for substitution of negative emissions from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage by negative emissions from afforestation in order to achieve the climate stabilization.

# **4.2.2. Biomass supply for energy**

Total amount of bioenergy is in the reference scenario without mitigation policy projected to slowly decrease until 2050 because of the decreasing importance of traditional fuelwood use, and to start to increase afterwards because modern bioenergy becomes competitive even without mitigation policies. Figure 13 provides an overview of how biomass supply for bioenergy would develop under stabilization scenarios. In the FullTech stabilization scenario, demand for bioenergy by 2030 would be multiplied by two compared to the reference scenario. Sub‐Saharan Africa, Latin America and Eastern Asia & Pacific would again be important players supplying each about 20% of the total biomass demand. This result is in line with the findings by Rose _et al._ (2012) that up to 80% of the biomass for energy production would come from non‐OECD countries. With respect to the source of the biomass, our projections suggest that while in Latin America the quasi‐totality of the biomass would come from dedicated plantations, in Sub‐Saharan Africa and Eastern Asia & Pacific, 30%, respectively 20%, of the total biomass would come from traditional forests. This differentiation is due to high plantation yields and large areas of suitable land in the case of Latin America, and vast areas of tropical forests where currently only a small fraction of the biomass, high quality woods, is extracted from the managed zones. The required biomass supply would be 43% lower in the LowEI scenario, and, it would be 15% lower also under the LimBio scenario. The demand for biomass is projected to continue to grow substantially beyond 2030. Under the FullTech scenario, biomass demand would more than triple between 2030 and 2080. This new demand represents future income opportunities in the forestry and agricultural sectors.

27