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

=== 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>