Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Cross-Chapter-Paper-7 (section)

== CCP7.5 Adaptation Options, Costs and Benefits ==

<div id="h1-6-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

Ecological adaptation and other spontaneous responses to climate change are discussed in Settele et al. (2015) and [AR6 WGII_Chapter 2] Here we consider the role of humans in managing the adaptation of tropical forests to climate change. The focus is on human-assisted adaptation options that help to maintain tropical forest ecosystems and not on the use of forests to supply provisioning services, such as timber, which is covered in [AR6 WGII_Chapter 5]. Forest management and agroforestry are discussed, but only with regard to their role in contributing to the adaptation of tropical ecosystems now and in the future. Maintaining ecosystems has a range of co-benefits for humans, including through ‘ecosystem-based adaptation’. These are explored in [Box 1.3; Cross-Chapter Box NATURAL in Chapter 2, Box CCP7.2 ]. Although there are a number of potentially valuable response options, it is clear that certain hazards, such as heatwaves, may be impossible to manage at the forest community level and require long-term interventions at the landscape scale. Similarly, it will be difficult for forest managers to adapt to indirect climate-related ecosystem disturbances such as loss of pollination agents, invasive species or pest and diseases outbreaks (Allen et al., 2010; Anderegg et al., 2020). Equally important in adapting to increased pressure from climate change are efforts to minimise disturbance from non-climatic stress factors (e.g., overharvesting, pollution and land use change; Malhi et al., 2014; [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; Barlow et al., 2016; Pörtner et al., 2021). Under some emissions scenarios, projected climate change impacts are of such severity that no adaptation measure is ''likely'' to protect natural forest systems; for example, with warming of 4°C, some tropical forests are at risk of die-back from high temperature (Malhi et al., 2014; Settele et al., 2015; Trumbore et al., 2015).

Actions to protect the extent or reduce the disturbance pressure on forest systems contribute to the capacity of these systems to respond to climate change (increasing resistance and resilience) ( ''high confidence'' ) (Millar et al., 2007; Schmitz et al., 2015; Settele et al., 2015; Sakschewski et al., 2016; Hisano et al., 2018). Furthermore, if implemented sufficiently well, efforts to manage and restore forests also improve the capacity of forest systems to respond to future climate stressors (increasing resilience and responsiveness). Table CCP7.3 gives an overview of adaptation strategies for tropical forests within the framework of protect, manage, restore (Sayer et al., 2003; Pörtner et al., 2021). In assessing the available adaptation options, it can be useful to distinguish between actions focused on protecting forest extent, managing biodiversity, managing ecosystem function or restoring ecosystem services ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ), Figure CCP7.5 and Table CCP7.4 give a detailed assessment of the major adaptation options in this context. Beyond these specific interventions, and in several cases underpinning them, there is an increasing awareness that effective management and adaptation of tropical forests requires an appreciation of IK, LK and CBA for implementation to be meaningful; these approaches are assessed in [Box CCP7.1 ]

<div id="_idContainer041" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:183485ea9d74d0019214330f35c67590 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_CCP7_005.png]]

'''Figure CCP7.5 |''' '''Framework to assess adaptation response options in tropical forests by adopting a landscape perspective as determined by types of forests and tree cover across different tenure regimes.''' HCVA, high conservation value areas; HCSA, high carbon stock areas; IPLC, Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The information supporting this figure originates from an extensive literature review that is included in this section, Table CCP7.4. The assessment of confidence levels is based on the judgement of the authors based on the reviewed literature and follows IPBES guidelines.

<div id="box-ccp7.1" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

<span id="box-ccp7.1-indigenous-knowledge-and-local-knowledge-and-community-based-adaptation"></span>
=== Box CCP7.1 | Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge and Community-Based Adaptation ===

<div id="h2-14-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Purely scientific knowledge, albeit indispensable, is insufficient to address climate change. Indigenous knowledge systems, embedded in social and cultural structures, are integral to climate resilience and adaptation ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Ajani--2013|Ajani, 2013]] ; Tengö et al., 2014; Hiwasaki et al., 2015; [[#Roue--2018|Roue and Nakashima, 2018]] ) [AR5 WGII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.3.3|Section 12.3.3]] (Adger et al. 2014), AR5 WGII Section 20.4.2 (Denton et al. 2014), SRCCL [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.8.1|Section 4.8.1]] (Olsson et al. 2019), SRCCL [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.8.2|Section 4.8.2]] (Olsson et al. 2019), SR15 [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.3.5|Section 4.3.5.5]] (de Coninck et al. 2018) ]. knowledge and local knowledge (IK and LK) and community-based adaptation (CBA) have received increasing recognition across all sectors ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Reid--2014|Reid and Huq, 2014]] ; Wright et al., 2014; Moste, 2015) [SRCCL [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.1|Section 4.1.6]] (Olsson et al. 2019), SRCCL [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.3|Section 5.3.5]] (Mbow et al. 2019), SR15 Box 4.3 (de Coninck et al. 2018)] (Figure Box CCP7.1.1). Forest Indigenous knowledge (IK) is closely linked to traditional land-use practices and local governance (Roberts et al., 2009); it is embodied in art, rituals, food, agriculture and customary laws, among others (Hiwasaki et al., 2015; Camico et al., 2021). CBA is a community-led process based on its desires, priorities, knowledge and capacities which empowers people as central players in climate change adaptation (Reid et al., 2009) [SRCCL 5.3.5].

CBA is related with concepts such as community and adaptive collaborative forest management. These approaches acknowledge the importance of cultural and socioeconomic ties between communities and forests, along with community’s authority and responsibility for forest sustainable management ( [[#Ajani--2013|Ajani, 2013]] ; Ellis et al., 2015; Torres et al., 2015).

'''Role of IK and LK and CBA for Climate Change Adaptation in Tropical Forests'''
Local forest and Indigenous forest management systems have developed over long time periods, generating social practices and institutions that have supported livelihoods and cultures for generations ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ; Martin et al., 2010; [[#Parrotta--2012|Parrotta and Agnoletti, 2012]] ; Camico et al., 2021). Archaeological evidence shows that humans have manipulated tropical forests for at least 45,000 years ( ''high confidence'' ). Indigenous Peoples usually consider themselves as parts of socio-ecosystems, protecting the forest by maintaining healthy socio-ecological relationships and successfully adapting to environmental change (Speranza et al., 2010; Swiderska et al., 2011; [[#Parrotta--2012|Parrotta and Agnoletti, 2012]] ; Uprety et al., 2012; Mistry et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2017) [AR5 WGII Setion 12.3.2 (Adger et al. 2014)].

CBA ensures community engagement in bottom-up management and adaptation approaches ( [[#Simane--2014|Simane and Zaitchik, 2014]] ; [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ). IK, LK and CBA can enhance adaptation in many ways, including through knowledge generation, ecosystem monitoring, climate forecasting, increased resilience and response to climate extremes and slow-onset events (Speranza et al., 2010) [AR5 WGII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.3.3|Section 12.3.3]] (Adger et al. 2014); SRCCL [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.8.2|Section 4.8.2]] (Olsson et al. 2019)] ] (Figure Box CCP7.1.1).

'''Integration of IK and LK Systems, CBA and Modern Scientific Systems'''
Several authors have highlighted the need to foster a respectful dialogue between Indigenous knowledge (IK) and local knowledge (LK) and modern science towards a holistic research model ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Berkes--2010|Berkes, 2010]] ; [[#Ajani--2013|Ajani, 2013]] ; Tengö et al., 2014; [[#Roue--2018|Roue and Nakashima, 2018]] ) [AR5 WGII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.3.3|Section 12.3.3]] (Adger et al. 2014) , AR5 WGII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-14#14.2.2|Section 14.2.2]] (Noble et al. 2014)], but few ecological studies have attempted this integration ( [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; [[#Vadigi--2016|Vadigi, 2016]] ). Examples in tropical forest ecosystems include topics such as monitoring climate impacts; local climates; seed, water and land management resilience-increasing practices; and climate threats to traditional agriculture ( [[#Parrotta--2012|Parrotta and Agnoletti, 2012]] ; Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2017; Camico et al., 2021; Mustonen et al., 2021). A growing number of methods are available to help this dialogue [SRCCL Section 7.5.1 (Hurlbert et al. 2019)] (Reid et al., 2009; Tengö et al., 2014; Tengö et al., 2017; [[#Roue--2018|Roue and Nakashima, 2018]] ) (Figure Box CCP7.1.1). While there is expanding interest among decision makers, researchers, Indigenous Peoples and civil society on IK and LK (Hiwasaki et al., 2015; [[#Maillet--2016|Maillet and Ford, 2016]] ), gaps remain regarding links between place-and-culture dimensions and adaptive capacities (Ford et al., 2016).

'''Enhancing Adaptive Capacity through IK and LK and CBA: Lessons Learned'''
Useful lessons can be drawn from experience to effectively incorporate IK, LK and CBA in adaptation strategies. A number of barriers to adaptation have also been recognised (Figure Box CCP7.1.1). Considering that IK and LK is increasingly threatened by colonisation, acculturation, dispossession of land rights, and environmental and social change, among others [AR5 WGII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.3.3|Section 12.3.3]] (Adger et al. 2014); SR15Section 4.3.5 (de Coninck et al. 2018)] [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä (2009)]] highlighted the importance of supporting community efforts to document, vitalise and protect it. It is essential to consider goals, identity and livelihood priorities of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including those beyond natural resource management (Reid et al., 2009; [[#Diamond--2018|Diamond and Ansharyani, 2018]] ; Zavaleta et al., 2018). Adaptation processes are more ''likely'' to be transformational when they are locally driven ( ''medium confidence'' : ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Chung%20Tiam%20Fook--2015|Chung Tiam Fook, 2015]] ; [[#Chanza--2016|Chanza and De Wit, 2016]] ). This requires adaptive institutional frameworks, capable of navigating the complex dynamic of socio-ecosystems ( ''medium confidence'' : ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Locatelli et al., 2008; [[#Simane--2014|Simane and Zaitchik, 2014]] ) [AR5 WGII [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-12#12.3.2|Section 12.3.2]] (Adger et al. 2014), SR15 [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.3.1|Section 5.3.1]] (Roy et al. 2018)]. It is important to consider power relations and priority differences to avoid causing social disruption and inequality. ‘We need to keep asking: Who benefits? Who loses? Who is empowered? Who is disempowered?’ (Reid et al., 2009).

Finally, vulnerability and adaptive capacity have a historical and geopolitical context, conditioned by value systems and development models. Forest management strategies must take into account the wider picture if they seek to be not just temporally effective (at best), but transformative and sustainable over time ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Chung%20Tiam%20Fook--2015|Chung Tiam Fook, 2015]] ; [[#Chanza--2016|Chanza and De Wit, 2016]] ).

<div id="_idContainer036" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Box CCP7.1

(1) Agricultural expansion is the major driver of deforestation in developing countries. Cost of reducing deforestation is based on opportunity cost of not growing the most common crop in developing countries (maize) for 6 years to reach tree maturity, with yield of 8 t ha −1 (high); 5 tons ha −1 (medium), and 1.5 t ha −1 , with a price of USD 329 t −1 . Also, reduced deforestation practices have relatively moderate costs, but they require transaction and administration costs ( [[#Kindermann--2008|Kindermann et al., 2008]] ; [[#Overmars--2014|Overmars et al., 2014]] ).

(2) May not deal with displacement of wild species due to climate change.

(3) Fragments of disconnected HCVAs have less value to preserve ecological services.

(4) Forest management strategies may decrease stand-level structural complexity and may make forest ecosystems more susceptive to natural disasters like wind throws, fires and diseases (Seidl et al., 2017).

<div id="CCP7.5.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp7.5.1-adaptation-options-at-different-scales"></span>
=== CCP7.5.1 Adaptation Options at Different Scales ===

<div id="h2-10-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

To retain functioning tropical forests, adaptation will need to take place across many scales, from individual stands to interconnected landscapes, and upwards to regional and global policy changes. From a global perspective, the most effective adaptation and mitigation option is to reduce and reverse the loss of area in tropical forest ecosystems ( [[#Alkama--2016|Alkama and Cescatti, 2016]] ; Griscom et al., 2017). Maximising tropical forest extent has well-described benefits in mitigating CO 2 emissions and in the role of forests regulating global climate ( ''high confidence'' ) (Smith et al., 2014). For nations with tropical forests, adaptation is largely achieved through sustainable management of forested areas, enforcing the land rights/land tenure of Indigenous Peoples, and through establishment of protected areas (Table CCP7.4; [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ; Pörtner et al., 2021). Some of this is achieved through schemes incentivising landowners to retain tree cover for the express purpose of mitigating climate change impacts (e.g., PES- Payments for Ecosystem Services, REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). For nations outside of the tropics, there is a need to regulate the global drivers of forest loss, such as the consumption of agricultural commodities and of non-sustainable forest products (including timber) (CCP7.3; Henders et al., 2015 Nolte et al., 2017, Pendrill et al., 2019).

At a landscape scale, increasing forest cover and maintaining biodiversity friendly land-use outside forests increases ecosystem resilience to climate change (and other disturbances) and allows for climate-driven species migration, for example, ‘protect’ in Table CCP7.3 (Schmitz et al., 2015; [[#Aguirre--2016|Aguirre and Sukumar, 2016]] ). Ensuring forested areas are large and/or interconnected including the use of specific climate refugia and climate corridors is recommended for climate adaptation ( ''high confidence'' ) (Schmitz et al., 2015; Settele et al., 2015; Simmons et al., 2018; Pörtner et al., 2021). For habitats or species pushed to the edge of their range, area-based conservation needs to take account of the future climate space and facilitate movement of species through connectivity or assisted migration ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ; Schmitz et al., 2015; Pörtner et al., 2021). Maintaining functioning forest ecosystems is vital due to biophysical, biological (biodiversity-driven) and socioeconomic interactions that contribute to ecosystem resilience (Pielke Sr et al., 2011; Malhi et al., 2014; [[#Lawrence--2015|Lawrence and Vandecar, 2015]] ; [[#Alkama--2016|Alkama and Cescatti, 2016]] ; Sakschewski et al., 2016). Protecting forested areas can be achieved through vertical integration of policies at national, subnational and local levels and effective stakeholder empowerment ( [[#Meijer--2015|Meijer, 2015]] ). Community-based and ecosystem-based adaptation approaches provide an overall strategy to help achieve these goals [Cross-Chapter Box NATURAL in Chapter 2] (Locatelli et al., 2010; [[#Cerullo--2019|Cerullo and Edwards, 2019]] ). In addition to conservation of tropical forests, restoration and afforestation can be effective climate adaptation measures (e.g., ‘restore’ in Table CCP7.3) ( [[#Arora--2011|Arora and Montenegro, 2011]] ; Perugini et al., 2017). The technical requirements for such adaptation measures are similar to those required for forest landscape restoration ( [[#Mansourian--2005|Mansourian and Vallauri, 2005]] ; Mansourian et al., 2017; Shimamoto et al., 2018; Philipson et al., 2020). Agricultural intensification has been proposed as one method to reduce pressure on remaining forested land, although the overall carbon impact of such approaches must be considered (Cross-Chapter Box 6 in SRCCL, Shukla et al., 2019; Cerri et al., 2018; Kubitza et al., 2018).

At the forest community level, adaptation options aim to protect the forest microenvironment and retain biodiversity through forest management (e.g., ‘manage’ in Table CCP7.3) ( [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; Jactel et al., 2017). In protected areas, this would typically involve reinforcing existing conservation objectives through adaptive management (Salafsky et al., 2001; Ellis et al., 2015; Tanner-McAllister et al., 2017; [[#Hagerman--2018|Hagerman and Pelai, 2018]] ), including support for natural regeneration (Chazdon et al., 2016). It is also possible to improve forest cover and interconnectivity through restoration or afforestation. There are many technical guides to improve the implementation and success rate of such approaches (Table CCP7.4) ( [[#Lamb--2003|Lamb and Gilmour, 2003]] ; Shimamoto et al., 2018; Strassburg et al., 2019) and funding support specifically aimed at climate change adaptation and mitigation (e.g., REDD+). In some instances, climate change can alter climate suitability to the extent that managers need to allow for a transition to a new habitat type (e.g., from tropical forest to savanna), adaptive management can help recognise and facilitate these transitions ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ; Schmitz et al., 2015; Lapola et al., 2018). Depending on local conditions, it will be necessary to adapt to specific stress factors that are ''likely'' to increase in prevalence or severity because of climate change, such as heatwaves, drought events and forest fires (Allen et al., 2010; Malhi et al., 2014; Seidl et al., 2017). Although it is typically not possible to link individual events or adaptation measures to climate change, the effectiveness of technical interventions has been illustrated in a broader forest management context. Table CCP7.4 assesses the costs and benefits of different adaptation options based on the available literature. However, it should be noted that there is lack of information on many potential adaptation interventions, especially in the context of tropical forests (Locatelli et al., 2010; Bele et al., 2015; [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; [[#Hagerman--2018|Hagerman and Pelai, 2018]] ). The sections below and Figure CCP7.5 offer a framework for optimising management of complex tropical forest ecosystems within a landscape context, through a range of interconnected adaptation options.

<div id="CCP7.5.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp7.5.2-adaptation-response-options"></span>
=== CCP7.5.2 Adaptation Response Options ===

<div id="h2-11-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Forests will be affected by several climate change impacts that will require forest management towards fulfilling four objectives: maintain forest area; facilitate biodiversity adaptation; maintain healthy functioning forest ecosystems; and restore ecosystem services (including productive capacity) ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ), which complement the more conventional approaches to protect, manage and restore forests (Sayer et al., 2003). This is dependent on location-specific conditions that are defined by the type of forest and land tenure regimes or dominant actors across forest landscapes. The analysis here proposes 10 adaptation responses that focus on the adaptation potential of tropical forests to climate change and are linked to the management objectives identified (Figure CCP7.5). Each response option (1–10) implies variable economic costs and benefits, influenced by location-specific conditions, including several important non-monetised benefits. The figure suggests the most relevant situations in which the different response options hold greater potential to meet the forest management objectives for addressing expected climate change impacts.

This assessment considers the economic costs and benefits of 10 response options in their contribution to adaptation of tropical forests to climate change impacts but also includes non-market costs that are more difficult to quantify (e.g., cultural values), which are borne by different stakeholders (Chan et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017). Similarly, benefits also include the social and environmental benefits that result from adaptation options over extended time horizons. Economic costs and benefit–cost ratios suggest the short-term economic potential of different options, but responsibly designed adaptation measures involving a combination of different response options and embracing a long-time horizon have the potential to provide significant social and climate benefits over the coming 50 years or more.

<div id="CCP7.5.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp7.5.3-costs"></span>
=== CCP7.5.3 Costs ===

<div id="h2-12-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The cost of implementing adaptation options varies widely and will change based on the location, time horizon and who bears the cost. As a result, most existing estimates are offered in broad ranges that include only partial cost estimates. Here we group the adaptation costs into three categories: low- (&lt;USD 1000 ha −1 ), medium- (between USD 1000 ha −1 and USD 5000 ha −1 ) and high-cost options (&gt;USD 5000 ha −1 ).

* Low-cost options are those estimated to cost less than USD 1000 ha −1 and include recognition of tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities ( [[#Hatcher--2009|Hatcher, 2009]] ), restoring ecological connectivity ( [[#Crossman--2009|]] [[#Crossman--2009|Crossman and Bryan, 2009]] ; Torrubia et al., 2014), fire prevention and management (Griscom et al., 2017; Arneth et al., 2019), assisted natural regeneration ( [[#Cury--2011|Cury and Carvalho, 2011]] ; Lira et al., 2012; MMA, 2017; [[#Silva--2017|Silva and Nunes, 2017]] ) and sustainable forest management (Boltz et al., 2001; Holmes et al., 2002; [[#Pokorny--2005|Pokorny and Steinbrenner, 2005]] ; [[#Medjibe--2012|Medjibe and Putz, 2012]] ; [[#Singer--2016|Singer, 2016]] ).
* Medium-cost options are those estimated to cost between USD 1000 and USD 5000 ha −1 and include estimates for tree planting ( [[#Rodrigues--2009|Rodrigues, 2009]] ; Campos-Filho et al., 2013; [[#Silva--2017|Silva and Nunes, 2017]] ; Nello et al., 2019) and avoided deforestation (Kindermann et al., 2008; Overmars et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2019).
* High-cost options are those estimated to cost more than USD 5000 ha −1 and include actions associated with agroforestry systems, particularly the most biodiverse systems (Raes et al., 2017; Nello et al., 2019).
* Costs per hectare are either not available or vary too widely for several options, including protected areas ( [[#Balmford--2003|Balmford and Whitten, 2003]] ; Bruner et al., 2004) and high-value conservation areas in working lands ( [[#Naidoo--2006|Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2006]] ). Griscom et al., (2017) provided recent estimated costs for many of the above adaptation options; in most cases, these costs are much lower than other estimates referenced here, which are particularly focused on tropical forest landscapes.

While economic costs constitute an important factor in determining the feasibility of options, there are other factors that have an important influence on the viability of the options including opportunity costs, transaction costs and social feasibility, which are not included in this analysis. For example, options such as recognition of rights for Indigenous Peoples and local communities can be a low-cost option but often face political opposition ( [[#RRI--2021|RRI, 2021]] ), including from some conservation organisations; fire prevention and management require political coordination across multiple governance levels (Fonseca-Morello et al., 2017); and sustainable forest management can be seen as a less attractive option when compared with other more profitable land uses ( [[#Köthke--2014|Köthke, 2014]] ). Table CCP7.4 offers a more detailed assessment of the costs included, along with a reference to the costs for society.

<div id="CCP7.5.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="ccp7.5.4-benefits"></span>
=== CCP7.5.4 Benefits ===

<div id="h2-13-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Estimates of economic benefits across options tend to vary greatly, largely based on the scale of operations, and the market and institutional contexts in which they are implemented. The longer-term non-monetary benefits tend to be larger than has been acknowledged in the past (Chan et al., 2016; Pascual et al., 2017; [[#UNEP--2021|UNEP, 2021]] ). The shorter-term horizon of the economic benefits of adaptation options suggest that benefit-cost ratios of investments are higher in more biodiverse agroforestry systems in comparison with simpler ones (Miccolis et al., 2016), and agroforestry system benefits are comparatively higher compared with commercial tree planting depending on the species (Table CCP7.4; Nello et al., 2019).

All the objectives here support not only a large number of local people in fulfilling their livelihoods, but often provide services to distant urban populations as well. The benefits differ according to which of the four forest landscape management objectives is prioritised (Table CCP7.4):

<ul>
<li>Objectives that seek to maintain the extent of forests contribute to improved landscape continuity, persistence of species and metapopulations (including floral recruitment) ( [[#Nordén--2014|Nordén et al., 2014]] ), maintaining hydrological cycles ( [[#Creed--2011|Creed et al., 2011]] ) and avoiding surface temperature increases ( [[#Perugini--2017|Perugini et al., 2017]] ). In many cases high conservation value areas (HCVAs) are based on the presence of threatened or endemic species or dense, carbon-rich forest ecosystems (e.g., primary forest) ( [[#Jennings--2003|Jennings et al., 2003]] ).</li>
<li>Objectives that prioritise natural regeneration and adaptation of biological diversity allow greater opportunity for climate refugia ( [[#Morelli--2017|Morelli et al., 2017]] ; [[#Simmons--2018|Simmons et al., 2018]] ), provide increased dispersal opportunities for different species ( [[#Christie--2015|Christie and Knowles, 2015]] ), increase flora and fauna diversity, and may provide small benefits in reducing warming ( [[#Arora--2011|Arora and Montenegro, 2011]] ).</li>
<li>Objectives to maintain and enhance the quality and persistence of vital forest ecosystems contribute to securing the provision of habitat, maintain soil structure and fertility, and regulate water quantity and quality ( [[#Imai--2009|Imai et al., 2009]] ; [[#Putz--2012|Putz et al., 2012]] ).</li>
<li><p>Objectives that prioritise the restoration of ecological productivity of degraded forest ecosystems and landscapes contribute to increased biodiversity conservation, soil structure and fertility, nutrient cycling, water infiltration/water recharge, erosion control and climate regulation ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ; [[#Shimamoto--2018|Shimamoto et al., 2018]] ; [[#Pörtner--2021|Pörtner et al., 2021]] ).</p>
<span id="ccp7.5.5-strategic-approaches-to-combine-response-options"></span>
=== CCP7.5.5 Strategic Approaches to Combine Response Options ===
</li></ul>

While adaptation costs and benefits of response options differ, their benefit-to-cost ratios are almost always positive, particularly in the longer term ( [[#Müller--2018|Müller and Sukhdev, 2018]] ; Chausson et al., 2020; Seddon et al., 2020; Baste et al., 2021). However, implementation of adaptation actions can be economically unviable if the benefits accrue over longer periods of time because development banks apply much higher discount rates to low income countries than the standard rates ( [[#Watkiss--2015|Watkiss, 2015]] ). Achieving conditions that do not disincentivise against, and rather encourage investments in nature-based solutions to protect, sustainably manage or restore tropical forest landscapes is therefore critical to enhancing their implementation ( [[#UNEP--2021|UNEP, 2021]] ).

In addition, implementation of response options should consider equity aspects to ensure that the costs and benefits of actions within a landscape are equitably distributed among public institutions, private enterprise and civil society ( [[#Verdone--2015|Verdone, 2015]] ). Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can increase conservation gains and reduce costs (Shimamoto et al., 2018; Strassburg et al., 2019). Cost-effective solutions that consider multiple costs and benefits need a ‘compromise solution’ between short- and long-term social and economic gains. Pursuing spatial allocations for adaptation options has the potential to deliver greater benefits at lower costs, therefore aligning aims for tropical forest adaptation, species conservation and climate mitigation targets with the interests of farmers under short and long time horizons (Beatty et al., 2018).

'''Table CCP7.3 |''' Overview of adaptation strategies for tropical forests. This table includes key policy frameworks and common management approaches with potential for adapting native forests to increased disturbance from climate hazards. Details on each management approach and the associated literature are given in Table CCP7.4: Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Options in Tropical Forests.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! '''Strategy'''

! '''Expected contribution to climate adaptation'''

|-
| rowspan="5"| Protect

| Protected Areas

| Maintaining forest extent builds resistance and resilience to climate change (Seppälä et al. 2009; Schmitz et al. 2015).

|-
| Area-based conservation / Climate refugia

| Where forests are under threat from progressive warming, protection of less disturbance prone areas (e.g., higher altitude stands) allows for migration and recolonisation improving the ability of the whole ecosystem to respond to climate change (Schmitz et al. 2015; Pörtner et al. 2021).

|-
| Buffer zones

| Maintaining buffer zones around protected forests builds resistance and resilience to climate change and allows for adjustment of boundaries, under future conditions (Seppälä et al. 2009; Schmitz et al. 2015).

|-
| Avoid deforestation

| Reducing loss of trees due to non-climate stressors, protects forest extent and builds resistance and resilience to climate change (Locatelli et al. 2010; Smith et al. 2019).

|-
| Public education / awareness

| Publicising the role of forests in supporting human society can reduce anthropogenic pressures on forested areas (Seppälä et al. 2009; Hagerman &amp; Pelai, 2018).

|-
|
|-
| rowspan="6"| Manage

| Vulnerability assessment and monitoring programs

| Recognising changes in climate and in disturbance regimes allows for other management interventions, such as area-based conservation and assisted migration, to be implemented (Schmitz et al. 2015; Hagerman &amp; Pelai, 2018).

|-
| Adaptive management / climate services

| Adaptive management along with information on the changing climate can improve the capacity of forest managers to respond to climate change (Seppälä et al. 2009; Tanner-McAllister et al. 2017).

|-
| Strengthen land tenure

| Strong land tenure, e.g., for Indigenous Peoples, often leads to more sustainable management of forested areas, so building resistance and resilience to climate change (Porter-Bolland et al. 2012; Garnett et al. 2018).

|-
| Conserve biodiversity, promote mixed stands

| Within managed forests, using diverse planting stock and managing for biodiversity improves resilience to disturbances from future climate changes ( [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; Pörtner et al. 2021).

|-
| Fire prevention and management

| The use of fire suppression, fire breaks, controlled burning and water table maintenance can build resistance to climate change driven wildfires, in both managed and natural systems (Stephens et al. 2013; Musri et al. 2020; Bowman et al. 2020).

|-
| Sustainable forest management

| Within managed forests, vegetation control to manage tree density and stand conditions can build resistance to climate driven disturbance such as fire (Seppälä et al. 2009; Pörtner et al. 2021).

|-
|
|-
| rowspan="3"| Restore

| Increase connectivity

| Providing connection corridors between forested areas builds resilience and helps the system response to climate change. This can include thermal corridors that allow for species migration under progressive climate change (Schmitz et al. 2015; Hagerman &amp; Pelai, 2018).

|-
| Forest restoration / assisted natural regeneration

| Forest restoration helps restore forest extent and connectivity, and can reduce edge pressure, improving resilience and the capacity to respond to future climate stressors. In some cases, assisted migration and the use of planting stock selected for tolerance to climate change may be appropriate (Locatelli et al. 2015a; Pörtner et al. 2021).

|-
| Agroforestry / trees on farm

| In degraded areas, such as buffer zones and mosaic landscapes, planted trees can reduce resource pressure on intact forest, improve soil conservation, regulate temperature and water cycles, and increase resilience through ecological processes ( [[#Jose--2009|Jose, 2009]] ; Lasco et al. 2014).

|-
|
|-
|
| Indigenous and Local knowledge of ecosystems

| Incorporating Indigenous and Local knowledge can improve the ability to protect and sustainably manage forest systems so building resilience (Seppälä et al. 2009; Porter-Bolland et al. 2012).

|}

'''Table CCP7.4 |''' Costs and benefits of adaptation options in tropical forests.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Climate change impact'''

! '''Adaptation measures'''

! '''Expected contribution to adaptation'''

! '''Context/location of implementation'''

! '''Economic costs'''

! '''Costs to society'''

! '''Benefits for forest ecosystems'''

! '''Benefits/impacts t''' '''o people'''

|-
| colspan="8"| '''1. Forest management strategies to maintain the extent of forests'''

|-
| rowspan="3"| Changes in the frequency and severity of forest disturbance

| Avoid deforestation

| Forests counteract wind-driven degradation of soils, and contribute to soil erosion protection and soil fertility enhancement for agricultural resilience ( [[#Locatelli--2015a|Locatelli et al., 2015a]] ). The impact of reduced deforestation may be higher when the large biophysical impacts on the water cycle (and thus drought) are taken into account (e.g., [[#Alkama--2016|Alkama and Cescatti, 2016]] ). Reducing deforestation and habitat alteration contribute to limiting infectious diseases (e.g., malaria) (Karjalainen et al., 2010). Avoiding deforestation contributes to climate change mitigation due to reduced carbon emissions (Smith et al., 2019).

| In private lands (individual and collective) and in state lands, in areas with larger presence of intact forests or mosaic agriculture and forest lands under management.

| 500–2600 USD ha −1 (Kindermann et al., 2008; Overmars et al., 2014; [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al., 2019]] ). (1)

20–200 USD ha −1 ( [[#Griscom--2017|]] [[#Griscom--2017|Griscom et al., 2017]] ; [[#Arneth--2019|Arneth et al., 2019]] ) (global estimate).

| * Opportunity costs associated with different alternatively productive land uses (Kindermann et al., 2008).

| * Landscape continuity, persistence of species and metapopulations (including floral recruitment) ( [[#Nordén--2014|Nordén et al., 2014]] ).
* Maintained hydrology ( [[#Creed--2011|Creed et al., 2011]] ) and flood mitigation.
* Avoided surface temperature increases ( [[#Perugini--2017|Perugini et al., 2017]] ).
* Protects other regulatory functions of forests, with positive impacts on human health.

| Potential to affect the lives of 1–25 million people globally ( ''low confidence'' ) ( [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; CRED, 2015; [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al., 2019]] ).

|-
| Protect and/or increase the size and number of protected areas, especially in ‘high-value’ areas

| Protected areas play a key role for improving adaptation (Lopoukhine et al., 2012; [[#Watson--2014|Watson et al., 2014]] ), through reducing water flow, stabilising rock movements, creating physical barriers to coastal erosion, improving resistance to fires and buffering storm damages. Primary forests sustain tropical biodiversity (Gibson et al., 2011); thus, protecting intact forests preserves current patterns of biodiversity (Schmitz et al., 2015). (2)

| Mainly established in state lands where there is dominance of intact forests, in some cases overlapping with Indigenous territories.

| Costs include recurrent management costs, system wide costs, and establishment costs. The cost per ha decreases with increased area ( [[#Balmford--2003|Balmford and Whitten, 2003]] ; Bruner et al., 2004).

| * Potential land use and tenure conflicts over protected area expansion.
* ‘High value’ areas are often priority areas for human activity (e.g., lowlands) (Venter et al., 2014).
* Management costs (Bruner et al., 2004).

| * May create additional dispersal corridors and support metapopulations for forest species increasing ecosystem resilience (Nordén et al., 2014).
* Improved hydrology (Creed et al., 2011).
* Protected areas contribute to income generation through tourism ( [[#Snyman--2019|Snyman and Bricker, 2019]] ).

| Empirical studies of protected areas that use impact evaluation methods, provide evidence that parks help increase household incomes ( [[#Mullan--2009|Mullan et al., 2009]] ), poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability ( [[#Andam--2010|Andam et al., 2010]] ).

|-
| Set aside high value conservation areas (HVCA) and high carbon stock areas (HCSA) in working lands

| Setting aside HCVA and HCSA within agriculture or tree-crop plantations has benefits for preserving endemic species, and some ecological services (e.g., pollination services from insects) (Scriven et al., 2019). (3)

| Established in private intact and managed forest lands often allocated to mid- and large-scale plantations.

| Opportunity costs to landowners who would lose working land/productive area to HCVA or HCSA. Management costs ( [[#Naidoo--2006|Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2006]] ).

| * Opportunity costs to landowners who would lose working land/productive area to HCVA or HCSA.
* Management costs ( [[#Naidoo--2006|Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2006]] ).

| * In many cases HCVA are based on the presence of threatened or endemic species or dense, carbon-rich forest ecosystems (e.g., primary forest) (Jennings et al., 2003).

| HCVA also provide ecosystem services, and therefore can contain valuable economic benefits; forests provide for some basic needs of local communities (health and subsistence) as well as traditional/cultural identity ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ; Karjalainen et al., 2010).

|-
| colspan="8"| '''2. Forest management strategies to facilitate adaptation of biological diversity'''

|-
| Alteration of plant and animal distribution

| Restore ecological connectivity through the establishment of corridors

| Conserve biodiversity by enabling natural migration of species to areas with more suitable climates (Malcolm et al., 2002), maintaining connectedness, especially between various protected areas, and ensuring that different stages of forest development are present ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ). Building corridors creates landscape permeability for plant and animal movement (Schmitz et al., 2015).

| Corridors are implemented in managed lands across state, collective and private tenure regimes circumscribed to specific project targeted areas.

| 60–1294 USD ha −1 (in USD 2019) ( [[#Crossman--2009|]] [[#Crossman--2009|Crossman and Bryan, 2009]] ; Torrubia et al., 2014)

| * Land use opportunity costs, financial costs of land acquisition and restoration ( [[#Naidoo--2006|Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2006]] ).
* Research and pilot costs of different corridor connection methods ( [[#Naidoo--2006|Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2006]] ).

| * Landscape connectivity allows greater opportunity for climate refugia (Morelli et al., 2017; Simmons et al., 2018) and the restoration of ecosystem patches of native forests can provide dispersal opportunities for different species using alternate successional stages ( [[#Christie--2015|Christie and Knowles, 2015]] ).
* Improved hydrology.

| Ecosystem services could be enhanced (e.g., hydrological benefits, soil conservation, health, recreational and cultural benefits through establishment and restoration of green spaces).

|-
|
| Mixed planting with native species tree planting, with consideration of intraspecific genetic diversity of seedlings

| Reforestation is an important climate change adaptation response option (Reyer et al., 2009; Locatelli et al., 2015b; Ellison et al., 2017), and can potentially help a large proportion of the global population to adapt to climate change and related natural disasters. Native tree planting aimed at increasing resilience should include planting genotypes tolerant of drought, insects and/or disease, as well as increasing the genetic diversity within species used for planting and recognising provenance. Tree planting should avoid conversion of natural ecosystems including grasslands and savannahs ( [[#Bond--2016|Bond and Zaloumis, 2016]] ).

| Tree planting is implemented in degraded lands across different state, collective and private lands

| Planting of seedlings 978–3450 USD ha −1 (in USD 2019) ( [[#Chabaribery--2008|Chabaribery et al., 2008]] ; [[#Rodrigues--2009|Rodrigues, 2009]] ; [[#Campos-Filho--2013|Campos-Filho et al., 2013]] ; MMA, 2017; [[#Silva--2017|Silva and Nunes, 2017]] ; Nello et al., 2019)

20–200 USD ha −1

(Arneth et al., 2019), for reforestation and forest restoration (Griscom et al., 2017) (global estimate).

| * Loss of water yield (at least on an annual average basis) due to increased evapotranspiration

Reforestation helps maintaining base flow during the dry season may reduce the amount of water available for people downstream (Ellison et al., 2017).

* Research costs on genetic varieties and implementation.

| * Better water retention capacity; reduced risk of erosion and landslides.
* Carbon gain.
* Increases both flora and fauna biodiversity.
* In cases of reforestation/afforestation, small benefits in reducing warming are expected ( [[#Arora--2011|Arora and Montenegro, 2011]] ).
* Increased potential for adaptive evolutionary responses within populations to the varied effects of climate change (drought, disease, etc.) ( [[#Puettmann--2014|Puettmann, 2014]] ).

| Reforestation/afforestation has the potential to impact the lives of &gt;25 million people globally ( ''medium confidence'' ) (Reyer et al., 2009; CRED, 2015; Sonntag et al., 2016; [[#Griscom--2017|]] [[#Griscom--2017|Griscom et al., 2017]] ; Smith et al., 2019) (global estimate). No availability of information on differentiated impacts from reforestation and afforestation.

|-
| colspan="8"| '''3. Forest management strategies to maintain the vitality of forest ecosystems'''

|-
| Changes in the frequency and severity of forest disturbance

| Recognising the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities

| Granting tenure rights to Indigenous People has the potential to maintain the forest, and ensure provision of ecosystem services, thus supporting local strategies for adaptation to climate change threats (Porter-Bolland et al., 2012).

| Recognising local tenure rights takes place in land belonging to Indigenous Peoples and local communities across all different forest and trees conditions.

| 0.05–9.96 USD ha −1 ( [[#Hatcher--2009|Hatcher, 2009]] ). Include the costs of mapping, delimitation, and titling. RRI, (2021) estimates the following costs: 5 USD ha −1 for large projects, 22.5 USD

ha −1 for medium, sub-national projects, and 50 USD ha −1 for small

investments.

| * Costs to local populations for protecting forest lands, and opportunity costs for avoiding land conversion (Hajjar et al ''.,'' 2016).

| * Landscape continuity, persistence of species and metapopulations (including floral recruitment) ( [[#Nordén--2014|Nordén et al., 2014]] ).

| Some estimates indicate that Indigenous People manage or have tenure rights over at least ~38 million km 2 (Garnett et al., 2018) (global estimate). Recognition of rights often translates into positive social and environmental benefits ( [[#RRI--2021|RRI, 2021]] ), yet they may differ depending on local conditions.

|-
| Increased mortality due to climate stresses (including fire)

| Within production forests, practice sustainable logging by embracing reduced-impact logging (RIL) and other practices.

| Some production forests can retain most ecosystem functions and services, and a similar species richness of animals, insects and plants to that found in nearby old-growth forest but can be more susceptible to defaunation and fire (Edwards et al., 2014). Sustainable forest management plays a role in adaptation by ensuring that through long-term forest management the diversity of forests is maintained as well as benefits from forest resource use (Putz et al., 2012). Improved forest management positively impacts adaptation by limiting the negative effects associated with pollution (of air and fresh water), diseases, and exposure to extreme weather events and natural disasters, e.g., (Smith et al., 2014). (4)

| SFM is undertaken at a large scale in public forests allocated as concessions, and at smaller scales in private and community forests lands.

| 70–160 USD ha −1 ( [[#Singer--2016|Singer, 2016]] )

169–345 USD ha −1 (in USD 2019)

(Boltz et al., 2001; [[#Holmes--2002|Holmes et al., 2002]] ; [[#Pokorny--2005|Pokorny and Steinbrenner, 2005]] ; [[#Medjibe--2012|Medjibe and Putz, 2012]] )

20–200 USD ha −1 (Griscom et al., 2017; [[#Arneth--2019|Arneth et al., 2019]] ) (global estimate).

| * The tendency of interventions is a (direct or indirect) reduction of diversity because the natural interest of the forest owner is to favour commercial species.

| * Secures the provision of species habitat.
* Soil structure and fertility.
* Regulates water quantity and quality.
* Carbon storage ( [[#Imai--2009|Imai et al., 2009]] ).

| The benefits of sustainable forest management have the potential to affect the lives of &gt;25 million people globally ( ''low confidence'' ) (CRED, 2015; Smith et al., 2019) (global estimate).

|-
|
| Reduce the incidence of fire hazard and improve fire management

| As fire hazard increases in some forests with climate change, adaptation measures to reduce fire hazard will be needed ( [[#Seppälä--2009|Seppälä, 2009]] ).

| Fire prevention and management is practiced in private lands (individual and collective) and state lands across managed and intact forest lands.

| &lt;20 USD ha −1

Griscom et al., 2017; [[#Arneth--2019|Arneth et al., 2019]] ) (global estimate).

| * Costs of fuel management and prescribed burns. -Costs of implementing fire management plans with many groups of stakeholders (Stephens et al., 2013).

| * Avoids forest degradation and deforestation.
* Prevents biodiversity loss and species loss.
* Protects local livelihoods and cultural values.

| &gt;5.8 million people affected by wildfire globally; max. 0.5 million deaths yr -1 by smoke globally ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Johnston--2012|Johnston et al., 2012]] ; [[#Doerr--2016|Doerr and Santín, 2016]] ; Smith et al., 2019) (global estimate).

|-
| colspan="8"| '''4. Forest management strategies to restore the productive capacity of forest ecosystems'''

|-
| Increased mortality due to climate stresses

| Assisted natural regeneration in degraded forest landscapes

| Forest landscape restoration positively affects the structure and function of degraded ecosystems (Shimamoto et al., 2018). Forest restoration may enhance connectivity between forest areas and help conserve biodiversity hotspots (Locatelli et al., 2015a; [[#Ellison--2017|Ellison et al., 2017]] ; [[#Dooley--2018|Dooley and Kartha, 2018]] ). Forest restoration may improve ecosystem functionality and services, provide microclimatic regulation for people and crops, wood and fodder as safety nets, soil erosion protection and soil fertility enhancement ( [[#Locatelli--2015a|Locatelli et al., 2015a]] ). Land restoration can reduce future risks (e.g., by protecting against hazards) and current vulnerability (e.g., by diversifying livelihoods) (Pramova et al., 2019). Natural forest regeneration contributes to climate mitigation through carbon removals (Lewis et al., 2019), and this would imply less need for climate adaptation.

| Tree regeneration takes place in more degraded lands across different types of tenure regimes in public, community and private lands.

| Assisted natural regeneration 180–980 USD ha −1 (in USD 2019) ( [[#Cury--2011|Cury and Carvalho, 2011]] ; Lira et al., 2012; MMA, 2017; [[#Silva--2017|Silva and Nunes, 2017]] ).

| * Opportunity costs of alternative land uses.
* Costs of maintaining regenerating landscapes (e.g., exclusion plots).
* Costs of facilitated dispersal or seeding ( [[#Naidoo--2006|Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2006]] ).

| * Uses microclimatic changes from regeneration to create emergent landscape restoration from available and present species in soil seed banks or dispersive capacity of local habitat patches.
* Increases potential area and influence of forest ecosystems even into marginal matrix habitat ( [[#Chazdon--2016|Chazdon and Guariguata, 2016]] ).

| The benefits of regeneration of degraded landscapes have the potential to impact the lives of &gt;25 million people globally ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Reyer--2009|Reyer et al., 2009]] ; CRED, 2015; [[#Sonntag--2016|Sonntag et al., 2016]] ; [[#Griscom--2017|]] [[#Griscom--2017|Griscom et al., 2017]] ; [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al., 2019]] ) (global estimate).

|-
| Changes in the frequency and severity of forest disturbance

| Expand agroforestry systems (AFs) in buffer zones and mosaic landscapes

| Agroforestry reduces pressure on intact forests and can enhance ecosystem services at the landscape level ( [[#Jose--2009|Jose, 2009]] ). It can also help to increase resilience to pests and diseases through ecological processes (Miccolis et al., 2016). Agroforestry can reduce vulnerability to hazards like wind and drought, particularly for subsistence farmers ( [[#Thorlakson--2012|Thorlakson and Neufeldt, 2012]] ).

| Agroforestry has a large potential in collective forest lands, both managed and degraded.

| 7150–22,575 USD ha −1 (in USD 2019) (Raes et al., 2017; [[#Nello--2019|Nello et al., 2019]] ).

| * Opportunity costs of other land uses.
* Costs of engaging in markets and/or developing markets for agroforestry products.
* Risks of market saturation and supply/demand inconsistencies (Torres et al., 2010; Mercer et al., 2014).

| * Biodiversity (habitat, migratory corridors, gene flow).
* Soil structure and fertility, nutrient cycling.
* Water infiltration/water recharge, erosion control.
* Buffer strips can reduce the resource pressures on native ecosystems by providing income and resources for people (Vieira et al., 2009).

| Potential to improve farmers’ livelihoods and quality of life of 2300 million people globally ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Lasco--2014|Lasco et al., 2014]] ; [[#Smith--2019|Smith et al., 2019]] ) (global estimate).

|}

This table draws on Appendix 6.1–6.4 from Seppala et al. (2009), pp. 71–77

<div id="CCP7.6" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="ccp7.6-governance-of-tropical-forests-for-resilience-and-adaptation-to-climate-change"></span>