Evaluating Natural Climate Solutions in Long-Term Climate Strategies: Opportunities for Enhanced Mitigation Across the European Union

Academic Editor: Nir Krakauer Received: 28 February 2025 Revised: 8 April 2025 Accepted: 8 April 2025 Published: 10 April 2025 Citation: Di Lallo, G.; De Notaris, C.; Chiriacò, M.V. Evaluating Natural Climate Solutions in Long-Term Climate Strategies: Opportunities for Enhanced Mitigation Across the European Union. Land 2025,14, 825. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land14040825 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Evaluating Natural Climate Solutions in Long-Term Climate Strategies: Opportunities for Enhanced Mitigation Across the European Union Giulio Di Lallo *, Chiara De Notaris and Maria Vincenza Chiriacò Foundation Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC), Division on Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture, Forests and Ecosystem Services (IAFES), Via Garbini n. 51, 01100 Viterbo, Italy *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Effective national strategies must be carefully planned in advance to position the land sector as a pivotal contributor to achieving the 2050 climate neutrality target set by the European Union (EU) under the Paris Agreement. Governments define their pathways to achieve the climate goals through the long-term low emission development strategies (LTSs), which describe policies and measures for a just and socially fair transition to low greenhouse gas. This paper explores the natural climate solutions foreseen by the available twenty-five LTSs in the EU to assess each country’s use and potential of land mitigation. Subsequently, it evaluates if better planning is possible to increase carbon storage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We found that most of the analyzed twenty-five EU countries envisage a wide set of natural climate solutions, demonstrating an understand of importance of land policies and measures to meet their climate targets. Sustainable forest management, agroforestry, and healthy and sustainable diets emerge as solutions mostly reported and with the largest mitigation potential across the EU, albeit with large variability among countries. However, some countries could further harness the potential for mitigation in the land sector. This study highlights how some countries could improve their LTSs, accounting for their specific land mitigation potential. Keywords: agriculture forestry and other land uses; long-term strategy; natural climate solutions; agroforestry; climate neutrality 1. Introduction In 2021, the European agricultural emissions were about 378 Mt CO2eq and the landuse, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector resulted in a net sink of − 230 Mt CO 2 eq, accounting, respectively, for 10.9% and 6.6% of the total European Union (EU) emissions [ 1 ]. Considering the period from 2010 to 2020, on average, about 17.5% of the total EU emissions are attributable to the land sector (agriculture and LULUCF) [ 1 ]. To achieve the climate neutrality objective by 2050, the EU has established to act jointly, bringing together a common vision, resources, financing and regulatory regimes to implement coherent policy actions across all its member states. In this sense, the European Climate Law set the target to reduce net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55% by 2030. This intermediate target is part of the general trajectory defined by the EU Green Deal, towards climate neutrality goal to be achieved by 2050 [ 2 ]. Urgent actions are needed to make the land sector contribute to the ambitious EU climate targets. Acting quickly is key, as well as the identification of the most effective natural climate solutions, especially in the land Land 2025,14, 825 https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040825 Land 2025,14, 825 2 of 15 sector, that will provide an optimal trade-off between climate change mitigation and other services. Currently, land-based carbon removals are the only operational action promptly available to compensate for hard-to-abate residual emissions, besides technical solutions such as direct air capture and storage technologies, still under development at scale [ 3 ]. Therefore, natural climate solutions, which largely overlap with the terms “land-based solutions” and “land-based response option” [ 4 – 6 ], play a key role in climate change mitigation and adaptation [ 3 , 7 ] and encompass land use and land management actions that conserve, restore, and increase carbon storage and/or reduce GHG emissions across forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. The EU largely relies on the LULUCF sector to counterbalance residual hard-to-abate emissions, and the LULUCF sink would be required to nearly double to achieve the desired net removal of 425 Mt CO 2 eq needed to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 [8]. EU countries are required to develop national long-term strategies (LTS)—sometimes called long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies or mid-century strategies—as determined by Article 4.19 of the Paris Agreement, in which they must describe how they plan to meet the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement and the EU climate goals [ 9 ]. Commonly, LTSs deal with mitigation; however, countries can add other relevant aspects, such as adaptation and SDGs. The EU Regulation on the governance of the energy union and climate action [ 10 ] highlights the importance for the LTSs to cover, with a perspective of at least 30 years, the total GHG emission reductions and the enhancements of removals by sinks for the relevant sectors (e.g., electricity, industry, transport, agriculture, and LULUCF). In order to have a coherent framework among the EU objectives and targets and the single states pledges, the EU Commission provides technical and scientific support to countries and possibly integrates the strategies with additional information. Finally, the EU Commission evaluates the national LTS, framing them in the broader context of EU objectives and targets, and provides information on any remaining collective gap. Whenever necessary, the countries can modify the submitted version, for example, expressing new policies, clarifying existing ones, and improving the planned solutions. The aim of this study is to examine the natural climate solutions foreseen by EU member states in the land sector in their LTSs and to assess whether the mitigation potential of the solutions, as reported in the literature, is well utilized, thus evaluating if a better planning of solutions is possible to increase carbon storage and reduce GHG emissions. 2. Materials and Methods We analyzed all the available LTS reports submitted by EU member states and collected from each one the proposed natural climate solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation. We only collected natural climate solutions from countries that provided an explanation on either how they could be implemented or their expected potential benefit through specific actions or objectives. Therefore, we collected all the solutions excluding statements of general objectives, for example, “promote sustainable agriculture”. Since the LTSs do not include quantitative or qualitative estimates of the mitigation potential achievable through the proposed activities, we quantified the mitigation potential achievable for each proposed natural climate solution based on the existing literature. Recent studies have assessed natural climate mitigation potential globally, providing aggregated [ 11 ] and disaggregated [ 12 ] estimates up to 2030 and 2050. Other studies also provide the mitigation potential for specific land categories in Europe or in some European countries. For example, Yigini and Panagos [ 13 ] predicted the current soil organic carbon stocks and projected such prediction to 2050 for Europe, indicating an Land 2025,14, 825 3 of 15 overall increase in consequence of changes in land cover and climate. Another study, by Chapman et al. [ 14 ], provided current and potential aboveground woody carbon storage in agricultural systems by countries, finding that there is a significant potential to contribute to nationally determined contributions (NDCs); however, their analysis conservatively accounts for aboveground biomass only. Several other studies analyze the future land mitigation contribution for single countries, taking into consideration different management practices [15–17]. There are numerous studies like those already mentioned; however, the available estimates vary rather widely, depending on the methodology, data sources, definitions, system boundaries, and scenario assumptions used. Therefore, a straightforward comparison of estimates from different studies may not be applicable. Furthermore, studies often have specific objectives, thus only covering some carbon pools, products (e.g., wood and food), and functions (e.g., material and energy substitution effect). In this study we took into consideration the natural climate mitigation potential provided by Roe et al. [ 18 ], which is a comprehensive and updated assessment of natural climate mitigation potential built on previous studies and including several advances beyond these, such as the inclusion of a wider set of solutions at the country level, attempting to avoid potential double-counting of mitigation opportunities. Their estimates concur with previous analysis [4,19–21]. The solutions collected in the LTSs were compared and associated with the natural climate measures defined in the study by Roe et al. [ 18 ], which provides a quantitative estimate of the annual mitigation potential (in CO 2 eq) achievable for each EU country for a set of twenty solutions from 2020 to 2050 (Supplementary Materials). With respect to those twenty solutions, we excluded the following five, which are not relevant for the European context and for which they have no data available for the EU: reduce deforestation, reduce mangrove loss, manage grassland fire, restore mangroves, increase clean cookstoves. Improved rice cultivation was not considered since the mitigation potential is negligible [ 1 ]. We also excluded “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BE-CCS) because although it is presented as a single aggregated value, bioenergy largely overlaps with afforestation, reforestation, and biomass plantations, while other existing CCS solutions have minor impacts on land [ 4 , 22 ]. A brief definition for each solution is provided in Appendix A. Roe et al. [18] derived the estimates of the mitigation potential from individual and/or sectoral studies and datasets that use a range of methods, including sectoral economic modeling, optimization modeling, and spatial analysis. However, the successful implementation of the solutions depends on country-specific enabling conditions and barriers (e.g., available funding, socio-cultural context, environmental conditions) that were not taken into account. Moreover, Roe et al. [ 18 ] did not consider the substitution effects of bioenergy, biochar, and wood products on fossil fuel emissions due to a lack of country-level data. They estimated two types of mitigation potential: the “technical” potential—possible with available technology, regardless of the cost—and the “cost-effective” economic potential— possible up to EUR 100/t CO2eq. Calculation of the Mitigation Potential Score We took into consideration the “technical” potential as a metric for the definition of a qualitative score (i.e., categorical and ordinal score) of the mitigation potential deriving from the implementation of the natural climate solutions. Therefore, we converted the quantitative estimates provided by Roe et al. into a 5-score classification system, where one [+] indicates very low or negligible, [++] low, [+++] moderate, [++++] high, and [+++++] very high mitigation potential for each EU country. The conversion was performed by assigning the highest score to the natural climate solution with the highest value of Land 2025,14, 825 4 of 15 mitigation potential, and accordingly, we calculated all the other scores proportionally. The following formula was used to calculate the mitigation potential score of each solution: MPscore ic = MP ic/MaxMPc, where MPscore ic is the mitigation potential score for a specific country C of a solution i, MP ic is the mitigation potential (in CO 2 eq yr −1 ) and MaxMPc is the value (in CO 2 eq yr −1 ) of the solution with the highest mitigation potential for a country C. The formula returns five possible values from 0, corresponding to [+], to 4, corresponding to [+++++]. In this way, a score reflecting the relative mitigation potential was assigned to each solution for a specific country. We calculated the scores of both the solutions envisaged in the LTS and those that were not mentioned to highlight if the LTS included all natural climate solutions with large mitigation potential or not. 3. Results We collected and analyzed the 25 available LTSs from the EU Commission [ 23 ] and the UNFCCC [ 24 ] (updated January 2024). The majority of member states submitted it in English, while 25% used the national language and provided an English summary. LTS reports often vary considerably from one country to another, both in content and format; for example, not all provide details on the contribution of each sector in the achievement of their national long-term target. To organize the data in a systematic and comparable way, the next three sections present the natural climate solutions divided into three mitigation categories: forests and other ecosystems, agriculture, and demand side. 3.1. Natural Climate Mitigation Potential in EU While some countries have identified many natural climate solutions, especially affecting land, that have a relatively large mitigation potential at the national level, other countries have planned less effective solutions considering their national potential (Figure 1) . The mitigation potential score is a categorical indicator that reflects the extent to which a country has planned to employ its own mitigation potential, rather than an absolute measure of emissions reductions. This score does not directly translate into absolute emission reductions, as it reflects only the level of alignment between planned measures and the country’s estimated potential rather than actual mitigation outcomes. Based on our assessment, the countries that least harness their land mitigation potential are Greece and Denmark. In fact, Denmark does not define the role of LULUCF in relation to the 2030 and 2050 targets, and Greece does not include any information on LULUCF. Finland is one of the poorest countries at harnessing the mitigation potential through natural climate solutions. Nonetheless, this does not imply a lower contribution to GHG mitigation in absolute terms (i.e., tons of CO 2 eq) compared to other countries. As the mitigation potential score is relative to each country, it is not possible to compare them in terms of contribution to reaching the climate target. Land 2025,14, 825 5 of 15 Land 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15 Figure 1. Overview of the mitigation potential of natural climate solutions is utilized by European Union countries according to the long-term strategies. The mitigation potential score is a categorical indicator of the climate change mitigation potential relative to a specific country. This figure allows to evaluate how much of the mitigation potential from land has been planned to be utilized by each country. Comparisons among countries is not possible, because the mitigation potential score is specifically relative to single countries. 3.2. Forests and Other Ecosystems The mitigation category “Forests and other ecosystems” includes three classes: restoration, management, and protection (Table 1). Results show that the mitigation potential of forest management is very large, and over 70% of the countries intend to utilize forests through a management aimed at increasing carbon sequestration. Austria, Slovakia, and Sweden, which are likely aware of the very high relative contribution that forests can provide in their specific context, consider forest management in their LTSs. Denmark does not mention forest management and does not clearly define the role of LULUCF in relation to the 2030 and 2050 targets in its LTS, although it has a very high mitigation potential. Cyprus, Ireland, Italy, Malta, and the Netherlands, where forest management would provide a very low or negligible contribution, do not include it in their LTSs. Afforestation and reforestation (defined as the shifting from non-forest cover to forest cover at a 30% tree cover threshold) are carbon dioxide removal methods that 18 out of 25 countries report in their LTSs; the mitigation potential of these solutions resulted in low in over half of the countries, and for the remaining ones the potential is very low or negligible, excluding the Czech Republic, where it is moderate. “Peatland restoration” and “Reduce peatland degradation” (important for their contribution to reducing CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O emissions) are included in 32% and 40% of the analyzed LTS reports, respectively; these solutions concern very specific geographical areas and ecosystems mainly located in Northern Europe. While “Reduce peatland degradation” has very low or negligible potential across all countries, the “Peatland restoration” potential varies considerably. Only three North European countries, i.e., Estonia, Ireland, and Lithuania, plan to put into practice solutions to restore the original form and function of peatland habitats. The other five countries do not consider it, in their LTSs, as a possibility to reduce CO 2 emissions, even though the contribution would be high or very high: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, and the Netherlands. Figure 1. Overview of the mitigation potential of natural climate solutions is utilized by European Union countries according to the long-term strategies. The mitigation potential score is a categorical indicator of the climate change mitigation potential relative to a specific country. This figure allows to evaluate how much of the mitigation potential from land has been planned to be utilized by each country. Comparisons among countries is not possible, because the mitigation potential score is specifically relative to single countries. 3.2. Forests and Other Ecosystems The mitigation category “Forests and other ecosystems” includes three classes: restoration, management, and protection (Table 1). Results show that the mitigation potential of forest management is very large, and over 70% of the countries intend to utilize forests through a management aimed at increasing carbon sequestration. Austria, Slovakia, and Sweden, which are likely aware of the very high relative contribution that forests can provide in their specific context, consider forest management in their LTSs. Denmark does not mention forest management and does not clearly define the role of LULUCF in relation to the 2030 and 2050 targets in its LTS, although it has a very high mitigation potential. Cyprus, Ireland, Italy, Malta, and the Netherlands, where forest management would provide a very low or negligible contribution, do not include it in their LTSs. Afforestation and reforestation (defined as the shifting from non-forest cover to forest cover at a 30% tree cover threshold) are carbon dioxide removal methods that 18 out of 25 countries report in their LTSs; the mitigation potential of these solutions resulted in low in over half of the countries, and for the remaining ones the potential is very low or negligible, excluding the Czech Republic, where it is moderate. “Peatland restoration” and “Reduce peatland degradation” (important for their contribution to reducing CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O emissions) are included in 32% and 40% of the analyzed LTS reports, respectively; these solutions concern very specific geographical areas and ecosystems mainly located in Northern Europe. While “Reduce peatland degradation” has very low or negligible potential across all countries, the “Peatland restoration” potential varies considerably. Only three North European countries, i.e., Estonia, Ireland, and Lithuania, plan to put into practice solutions to restore the original form and function of peatland habitats. The other five countries do not consider it, in their LTSs, as a possibility to reduce CO 2 emissions, even though the contribution would be high or very high: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, and the Netherlands. Land 2025,14, 825 6 of 15 Table 1. Forests and other ecosystems natural climate solutions envisaged in the LTS. Mitigation Classification Restoration Management Protection Natural Climate Solution Afforestation and Reforestation Peatland Restoration Sustainable Forest Management Reduce Peatland Degradation Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1 Austria ++ 1.7 + 0.0 [+++++] 4.7 + 0.0 Belgium + 0.4 + 0.0 [++] 1.6 [+] 0.0 Bulgaria [+] 0.4 [++] 0.0 [+] 1.6 [+] 0.0 Croatia [++] 1.1 + 0.0 [++] 1.5 + 0.0 Cyprus [+] 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 Czech Republic [+++] 2.4 [+] 0.0 [+++] 2.7 + 0.0 Denmark [+] 0.6 ++++ 5.5 +++++ 8.1 [+] 0.0 Estonia + 0.8 [+++++] 12.6 [++] 2.5 [+] 1.1 Finland [+] 3.5 +++++ 44.7 +++ 25.6 [+] 0.0 France [++] 13.4 [+] 4.0 [++] 11.1 [+] 0.4 Germany [++] 5.4 +++++ 36.7 [+++] 17.0 [+] 2.2 Greece ++ 2.5 + 0.0 ++ 2.3 + 0.0 Hungary [+] 1.1 + 1.3 [++] 1.5 + 0.1 Ireland [+] 0.6 [+++++] 11.6 + 1.1 + 0.0 Italy [++] 6.4 + 0.0 + 2.9 + 0.0 Latvia [++] 1.5 +++++ 11.2 [+++] 4.2 + 1.1 Lithuania [++] 1.1 [+++++] 7.7 [++] 1.9 [+] 0.8 Luxembourg + 0.0 + 0.0 [++] 0.1 + 0.0 Malta [+] 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 Netherlands [+] 0.2 +++++ 9.1 + 0.5 + 0.1 Portugal [++] 1.6 + 0.0 [+++] 5.0 + 0.0 Slovakia [++] 1.0 [+] 0.0 [+++++] 3.1 [+] 0.0 Slovenia +++ 0.6 + 0.0 [+++] 1.1 + 0.0 Spain [++] 10.4 + 0.2 [++] 11.2 + 0.0 Sweden ++ 5.2 [++] 8.8 [+++++] 28.3 [+] 0.0 Legend: The bold signs in brackets indicate that the natural climate solution is reported in the country’s LTS, while signs without brackets indicate that the natural climate solution is missing in the country’s LTS. The mitigation potential is expressed as follows: [+] very low or negligible, [++] low, [+++] moderate, [++++] high, and [+++++] very high. Absolute values source: Roe et al. [18]. 3.3. Agriculture The mitigation category “agriculture” contains two classes: emission reduction and carbon sequestration (Table 2). The analyzed LTS reports indicate three natural climate solutions for emission reduction in agriculture: enteric fermentation reduction, manure management, and nutrient management. Overall, emissions reduction in agriculture has relatively modest potential compared to other categories, with the majority of the solutions having very low or low mitigation potential for most countries. Nonetheless, almost all countries aim to reduce emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management up to 2050, which can be achieved by improving feed quality, animal genetics and breeding, reducing intensive grazing, and promoting animal health. Manure management involves the incorporation of small-scale or large-scale anaerobic digesters. Solutions to reduce emissions via nutrient management involve optimized fertilizer application rate, fertilizer type (organic manures, compost, and mineral), fertilization timing, precision application, and use of nitrification inhibitors; their mitigation potential is very low, and only Bulgaria, Land 2025,14, 825 7 of 15 Croatia, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, and Luxembourg report these natural climate solutions in the LTSs. Table 2. Agriculture natural climate solutions envisaged in the LTS. Mitigation Classification Emissions Reduction Carbon Sequestration Natural Climate Solution Reduce Enteric Fermentation Manure Management Nutrient Management Soil Carbon Croplands Soil Carbon Grasslands Agroforestry Biochar Application Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1 Austria [+] 0.5 [+] 0.3 + 0.2 [++] 1.2 [+++] 2.0 +++ 2.7 [+++] 1.9 Belgium [+] 0.6 [++] 0.8 + 0.4 [++] 1.5 [++] 1.1 [++] 1.4 [++] 0.7 Bulgaria [+] 0.6 ++ 0.8 [+] 0.4 ++ 1.5 ++ 1.1 ++ 1.4 ++ 0.7 Croatia [+] 0.2 [+] 0.2 [+] 0.4 [+++] 1.8 [++] 0.9 [+++++] 4.2 [++] 1.7 Cyprus + 0.0 [+] 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.1 + 0.0 [+++++] 0.9 + 0.0 Czech Republic [+] 0.5 [+] 0.2 + 0.3 [++] 1.8 [++] 1.7 +++++ 6.2 [+++] 2.4 Denmark + 0.5 ++ 1.4 + 0.2 +++ 3.2 + 0.2 +++ 4.4 ++ 1.8 Estonia + 0.0 [+] 0.0 + 0.0 + 1.5 + 0.2 ++ 2.0 [+] 0.4 Finland + 0.3 [+] 0.2 [+] 0.4 + 4.0 + 0.2 + 1.3 [+] 0.6 France [+] 4.4 [+] 1.9 + 3.2 ++ 10.7 ++ 7.6 [+] 0.7 [+++] 20.8 Germany [+] 3.2 [+] 3.7 + 3.4 ++ 9.8 ++ 6.7 +++ 22.0 [++] 10.2 Greece + 0.5 + 0.4 + 0.3 ++ 1.3 ++ 1.4 +++++ 7.4 [++] 2.2 Hungary [+] 0.1 [+] 0.2 + 0.2 [++] 1.4 [+] 0.6 +++++ 10.3 [++++] 8.0 Ireland [+] 1.4 + 0.5 [++] 1.6 [+] 0.6 [++] 1.5 [++] 3.6 + 0.3 Italy [+] 1.8 [+] 1.8 + 2.1 [++] 5.9 [+] 3.1 +++++ 28.0 [++] 8.2 Latvia [+] 0.0 [+] 0.0 + 0.0 ++ 2.5 ++ 1.8 ++ 3.0 [+] 0.9 Lithuania [+] 0.0 [+] 0.0 [+] 0.0 [+++] 4.2 [+] 0.9 ++++ 5.0 [++] 1.6 Luxembourg [+] 0.1 [+] 0.0 [+] 0.0 [++] 0.1 ++ 0.1 [++] 0.1 + 0.0 Malta [+] 0.0 [+] 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 Netherlands [++] 1.2 [++] 2.9 ++ 1.2 [++] 1.2 [+] 1.1 ++ 2.1 + 0.5 Portugal [+] 0.5 [+] 0.4 + 0.6 + 0.5 + 0.1 +++++ 10.6 [+] 0.6 Slovak Republic [+] 0.0 [+] 0.0 + 0.1 [++] 1.0 [++] 0.6 [+++++] 3.4 [+++] 1.9 Slovenia [+] 0.1 [+] 0.1 + 0.1 [+++] 0.5 [++] 0.2 +++++ 1.3 [++] 0.2 Spain [+] 2.0 [+] 4.5 + 3.3 [+] 5.9 [+] 4.4 [+++++] 78.2 [+] 7.6 Sweden [+] 0.4 [+] 0.1 + 0.4 ++ 4.4 + 1.8 ++ 4.1 [+] 1.1 Legend: The bold signs in brackets indicate that the natural climate solution is reported in the country’s LTS, while signs without brackets indicate that the natural climate solution is missing in the country’s LTS. The mitigation potential is expressed as follows: [+] very low or negligible, [++] low, [+++] moderate, [++++] high, and [+++++] very high. Absolute values source: Roe et al. [18]. Increasing carbon sequestration by the application of biochar derived from crop residues is not reported by any country, even though it can have a moderate or high potential in five of them. Agroforestry has the largest potential to reduce emissions and increase removals among the agricultural solutions in all countries, but only eight included it in their LTSs. Seven countries that could rely on high and very high mitigation potential do not consider it in their strategies. At the same time, agroforestry is the approach with the most diverse potential, based on the country of implementation: the mitigation potential in many North European countries results being very low and low, while it is very high in some central-west and southern countries. Finally, increasing soil carbon in cropland and grassland may provide a low or moderate contribution to carbon sequestration. These solutions may include a shift to no-till management or to a management of grasslands that reduces grazing pressure or, for rangelands, avoiding land degradation practices and promoting nominally managed areas; thirteen out of twenty-five countries considered these natural climate solutions in the LTSs. 3.4. Demand Side The mitigation category “demand side” includes two natural climate solutions: food waste reduction and healthy diets (Table 3). In particular, promoting healthy diets involves reducing food over-consumption, limiting meat-based protein consumption, and purchas- Land 2025,14, 825 8 of 15 ing locally produced food. This category covers solutions for influencing the demand for goods and/or services. In the land sector, demand-side management aims at reducing the demand for products with large carbon footprints and environmental impacts. The collected demand-side solutions present relatively high mitigation potential compared to most of the other natural climate solutions. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of countries, which present and describe these methods in their LTSs. Promoting healthy diets is the most impactful solution in this class, and all countries, excluding Bulgaria and Cyprus, consider it necessary to reach carbon emission targets in 2030 and 2050, even though its contribution differs substantially among countries. It represents a range of dietary changes to improve human diets, to make them healthy in terms of the nutrition delivered, and also sustainable from the economic, social, and environmental perspectives. Two-thirds of reporting countries propose a reduction of food waste in their LTS; carbon benefits that can derive from a reduction in food waste vary substantially among countries. Table 3. Demand side natural climate solutions envisaged in the LTS. Mitigation Classification Demand Side Natural Climate Solution Food Waste Reduction Healthy Diets Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1 Austria [++] 1.6 [+++++] 4.2 Belgium [+++] 2.1 [+++++] 5.6 Bulgaria +++ 2.1 +++++ 5.6 Croatia [++] 0.6 [++] 1.5 Cyprus ++ 0.1 +++ 0.4 Czech Republic [+] 0.6 [++] 1.6 Denmark [++] 1.3 [+++] 3.5 Estonia + 0.2 [+] 0.5 Finland + 1.2 [+] 3.3 France [+++] 14.9 [+++++] 39.1 Germany [++] 11.9 [++++] 31.4 Greece ++ 1.7 [+++] 4.5 Hungary [+] 0.9 [++] 2.5 Ireland [+] 1.3 [++] 3.5 Italy +++ 11.3 [+++++] 29.7 Latvia + 0.2 [+] 0.6 Lithuania [+] 0.4 [++] 1.0 Luxembourg [+++] 0.2 [+++++] 0.6 Malta [+] 0.1 [+++++] 0.2 Netherlands [+++] 3.4 [+++++] 9.1 Portugal [++] 2.0 [+++] 5.3 Slovak Republic [+] 0.4 [++] 1.1 Land 2025,14, 825 9 of 15 Table 3. Cont. Mitigation Classification Demand Side Natural Climate Solution Food Waste Reduction Healthy Diets Score MtCO2eq yr−1Score MtCO2eq yr−1 Slovenia ++ 0.3 [+++] 0.8 Spain [+] 6.5 [++] 17.2 Sweden + 1.9 [++] 5.0 Legend: The bold signs in brackets indicate that the natural climate solution is reported in the country’s LTS, while signs without brackets indicate that the natural climate solution is missing in the country’s LTS. The mitigation potential is expressed as follows: [+] very low or negligible, [++] low, [+++] moderate, [++++] high, and [+++++] very high. Absolute values source: Roe et al. [18]. 4. Discussion In this study, we assessed whether, in planning their long-term low greenhouse gas emission strategies (LTSs), EU countries have identified natural climate solutions that could contribute to the largest extent to the reduction of GHG emissions and enhancement of carbon removals, considering the country’s potential based on the literature review and analysis by Roe et al. [ 18 ]. Over 90% of the countries are well aware of the importance of natural climate solutions; in fact, they indicate in their LTSs various measures and policies for climate change mitigation across all three mitigation categories (forests and other ecosystems, agriculture, and demand side). To reach the EU climate goals, it is important for countries to focus on early and rapid actions that maximize benefits while minimizing adverse effects [ 25 ]. This study only reports on the mitigation potential, showing which solutions can better contribute to climate change mitigation through land activities, considering the specific potential for each EU country. Based on this, it is possible to assess how some countries could improve their LTSs, accounting for their specific land mitigation potential. In fact, some of them may not fully use the potential for mitigation given by their land sector. Some countries may need to review some of the solutions included in their LTSs. It holds especially true for carbon sequestration in agriculture and, in particular, for agroforestry. The European Commission defines agroforestry as “land use systems in which trees are grown in combination with agriculture on the same land” [ 26 ]. This natural resource management system aims to benefit the environment as well as the social and economic sustainability of the community where it is adopted. Thus, it goes well beyond mere climate change mitigation. The Rural Development Program of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020 already promoted different types of agroforestry practices [ 27 ]; considering that the current Common Agricultural Policy 2021–2027 offers a major stream of funding for various sustainable practices, such as agroforestry, more EU countries should include it in their strategies, especially if it has high or very high mitigation potential [28]. Reducing emissions in agriculture is challenging: among all the IPCC emission sectors, agriculture has recorded the lowest relative emission reduction since 1990 in the EU. Most of the emissions from the agricultural sector in the EU come from livestock (CH 4 from enteric fermentation and manure management) and nutrient management (N 2 O from nitrogen in cropland soil) [ 29 ]. In this study, the mitigation potential was based on estimations from Roe et al. [ 18 ], who used data from Beach et al. [ 30 ] for enteric fermentation and manure management and data from Beach et al. [ 30 ] and Griscom et al. for nutrient management. As pointed out by Beach et al. [ 30 ], the baseline used in their study did not account for the total non-rice cropland area. In fact, when comparing data on nutrient management, estimates from Beach et al. [ 30 ] are one order of magnitude lower than