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

== CCP7.6 Governance of Tropical Forests for Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change ==

<div id="h1-7-siblings" class="h1-siblings"></div>

Deforestation and forest degradation in tropical forests has grown in prominence as priorities for environmental governance in the face of climate change, given the large share of forest and land use GHG emissions in the national profiles of tropical forest countries ( ''high confidence'' ) (Butt et al., 2015; [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ). This is reflected in Parties’ Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Climate Agreement (UNFCCC, 2021). Significant investments in REDD+ readiness, improved forest monitoring, assessments of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and related policy responses, and stakeholder engagement have occurred over the past decade in countries across Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean (Hein et al., 2018; [[#UN-REDD%20Programme--2018|UN-REDD Programme, 2018]] ; [[#World%20Bank--2018|World Bank, 2018]] ). Fifty-three percent of countries use the highest-quality remote sensing data for forest monitoring and reporting, covering 93% of forest cover (Nesha et al., 2021). However, improved monitoring has not yet translated into forest governance effectiveness. Since the New York Declaration on Forests was endorsed in 2014, average annual humid tropical primary forest loss has accelerated by 44% (NYDF, 2019). Policy responses towards conservation and ecosystem resilience are found to be insufficient to stem the direct and indirect drivers of nature deterioration ( ''high confidence'' ) (IPBES, 2019). For governance measures to be effective, it is necessary to alter the direct and underlying drivers that are leading to forest destruction or impeding the implementation of sustainable forest management practices and actions to restore degraded forests ( ''high confidence'' ) (Section CCP7.2.3; Section CCP7.5; UNFCCC, 2013).

Private sector commitments to reduce deforestation impacts in their commodity supply chains are growing, but evidence of impact is slim and inconclusive (Garrett et al., 2019; NYDF, 2019). Half of the biodiversity loss associated with consumption in developed economies occurs outside their territorial boundaries (Wilting et al., 2017), and trends in international trade in land-based production systems are increasing, with greatest impacts on tropical forests (Nyström et al., 2019; [[#Hoang--2021|Hoang and Kanemoto, 2021]] ). In addition, in some cases the impacts of financialisation (e.g., correlation of commodity prices with stock market dynamics rather than pure demand) are found to be larger than those related to timber and agricultural commodity production dynamics ( [[#Girardi--2015|Girardi, 2015]] ; [[#Ouyang--2020|Ouyang and Zhang, 2020]] ; cross-reference to Chapter 5.13). Such factors present challenges for governance and policy responses.

The complexity of tackling drivers of forest loss and degradation will increase as climate impacts on forests and ecosystems intensify in the context of incomplete information and limited understanding of risks ( [[#Helbing--2013|Helbing, 2013]] ; Hughes et al., 2013; Springmann et al., 2018; Tu et al., 2019), necessitating novel approaches to forest governance for resilience ( [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ; Spathelf et al., 2018). Therefore, governance, defined as efforts that seek to influence the relationship between existing social processes and governance arrangements by using regulatory processes, mechanisms and organisations (Agrawal et al., 2018), is a crucial process to convene stakeholders for decisions ( [[#FAO--2018a|FAO, 2018a]] ).

This section describes seven levers that support transformative environmental governance towards resilience of tropical forests by tackling the underlying indirect drivers, offering policy solutions and governance challenges and opportunities. The first five build on IPBES (2019), whereas the remaining two are drawn from the governance literature as highly relevant variables specific to the tropical forest context owing to their prominence in the international frameworks developed over the past 10 years (Table CCP7.5). Monitoring and finance are embedded in multiple levers. The levers include:

# Developing incentives and increased capacity for environmental responsibility (particularly in relation to global targets such as the SDGs, Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Paris Agreement) and discontinuing harmful subsidies and disincentives;
# Reforming sectoral and segmented decision-making to promote integration across sectors and jurisdictions to mainstream environmental objectives across institutions, within and among all relevant sectors;
# Pursuing pre-emptive and precautionary actions in regulatory and management institutions and businesses to avoid, mitigate and remedy the deterioration of nature and monitor outcomes;
# Managing for resilient social and ecological systems in the face of uncertainty and complexity;
# Strengthening environmental laws and policies and their implementation, and the rule of law more generally (Pörtner et al., 2021);
# Acknowledging land tenure and rights to recognise the need of bringing human rights considerations into the climate change regime; and
# Enhancing inclusive stakeholder participation to ensure effective, efficient and equitable outcomes (Pasgaard et al., 2016).

While the first five levers are relevant to environmental governance more broadly, the exploration of these levers in Table CCP7.5 is more specific to governance for forest resilience, drawing upon insights related to each transformation lever. Next to the governance solutions being implemented currently, indications of future challenges/opportunities related to resilience in tropical forests are explored based on examples from the recent literature.

'''Table CCP7.5 |''' Levers of transformative change to tackle the underlying indirect drivers of forest deterioration for resilience.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Levers of transformative change

! Barriers

! Current governance and policy solutions and potential future challenges and opportunities with an orientation towards resilience in tropical forests

|-
| rowspan="2"| 1. Incentives and capacity-building

| rowspan="2"| * Population growth and corruption counteract governance effects ( [[#Enrici--2016|Enrici and Hubacek, 2016]] ; [[#Busch--2020|Busch and Ferretti-Gallon, 2020]] ; Fischer et al., 2020)
* Macroeconomic development favoured over ecosystem service provision—environment ministries under resourced and politically weak compared with those for economic and natural resource development ( [[#UNEP--2019|UNEP, 2019]] )
* Though food systems are the major driver, many interconnected food system activities and effects do not have established governance regimes to address them ( [[#Clapp--2018|Clapp and Scott, 2018]] )
* Reliance on non-state market-based approaches (e.g., zero-net deforestation) has not achieved necessary impact against stated targets, reporting is lacking (Lambin et al., 2018; [[#Global%20Canopy--2019|Global Canopy, 2019]] )
* Finance for forest mitigation is less than 1.5% of total since 2010 ( [[#NYDF%20Assessment%20Partners--2019|NYDF Assessment Partners, 2019]] ), and amount for forest adaptation is even less (Micale et al., 2018).

| '''Current policy solutions'''

* REDD+ and payments for ecosystem services (PES)
* Corporate supply chain commitments ( [[#WWF%20and%20BCG--2021|WWF and BCG, 2021]] )
* Product certification and forest certification have mixed results in addressing deforestation (Blackman et al., 2018; van der Ven et al., 2018)
* Agricultural credit restrictions (Assunção et al., 2020)
* Protected areas and area-based conservation measures (OECMs) (Maxwell et al., 2020)
* Clear performance indicators and monitoring systems to assess performance (Agrawal et al., 2018).

|-
| '''Future policy challenges/opportunities'''

* Policies that insulate the forest frontier from the influence of high commodity prices ( [[#Busch--2020|Busch and Ferretti-Gallon, 2020]] )
* Project-level biodiversity responses linked to broader jurisdictional biodiversity targets (Simmonds et al., 2020)
* Ecological fiscal transfers to base portions of intergovernmental fiscal transfers on ecological indicators (Busch et al., 2021)
* Financial disclosure on risks, divestiture, environment-related investment mandates ( [[#Halvorssen--2021|Halvorssen, 2021]] )
* Identification of means for the forest-based bioeconomy (wood fuel, timber) to be sustained ( [[#Dieterle--2020|Dieterle and Karsenty, 2020]] )
* Incentives towards less emissions-intensive inputs in manufactured products, such as bamboo (van der Lugt et al., 2018)
* Reducing imports of embedded deforestation (role of land-use telecoupling) (Gardner et al., 2019)
* Supply chain traceability and public reporting (Gardner et al., 2019; [[#Global%20Canopy--2019|Global Canopy, 2019]] ).

|-
| rowspan="2"| 2. Cross-sectoral cooperation

| rowspan="2"| * Inherent vertical and horizontal fragmentation of policy arena
* Challenge of silos between ministries (Nilsson et al., 2016)
* Policy integration has a stronger chance of reforming existing policies and competing sectors than coordination, but is challenged to overcome sectoral fragmentation and reach international actors and markets (Kissinger et al., 2021).

| '''Current policy solutions'''

* Policy coordination and integration ( [[#Candel--2016|Candel and Biesbroek, 2016]] )
* Jurisdictional and landscape approaches in targeted regions and commodity sectors/supply chains (Reed et al., 2017; [[#von%20Essen--2021|von Essen and Lambin, 2021]] ).

|-
| '''Future policy challenges/opportunities'''

* Theories of change applied and testing of policy effectiveness (Meehan et al., 2019; Bager et al., 2021)
* Whole-of-government approaches to change mandates across ministries
* Mainstreaming climate change into sectoral policies (Di Gregorio et al., 2017)
* Policy mixes implemented as a bundle, policy instrument selection attuned to complexity of the problem ( [[#Henstra--2015|Henstra, 2015]] ; [[#Head--2018|Head, 2018]] ).

|-
| rowspan="2"| 3. Pre-emptive action

| rowspan="2"| * Complexity of the issues for any specific level of jurisdiction to grapple with scale mismatches (temporal, spatial and institutional) and institutional inertia (Bai et al., 2016)
* Reliance on path dependency rather than innovation (Beland Lindahl et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2018; [[#Wieczorek--2018|Wieczorek, 2018]] )
* Agenda setting and framing influences political and policy responses (Soto Golcher et al., 2018)
* Problem denial and blame avoidance on the part of decision makers ( [[#Howlett--2017|Howlett and Kemmerling, 2017]] ).

| '''Current policy solutions'''

* GHG emission cap-and-trade systems and carbon pricing ( [[#Green--2021|Green, 2021]] )
* Moratoria.

|-
| * Identifying thresholds of concern, when critical thresholds of fast-changing variables are triggered, and nonlinear responses erode the resilience of ecosystems (such as in the case of changing forest fire regimes) (Gillson et al., 2019)
* Reduce loss and waste of biomass
* Change in consumption patterns, sharing and reuse
* Shareholder divestiture due to climate/forest and biodiversity risk ( [[#Halvorssen--2021|Halvorssen, 2021]] ).

|-
| rowspan="2"| 4. Decision-making in the context of resilience and uncertainty

| rowspan="2"| * Scope of problem identification limited (Beland Lindahl et al., 2017)
* Increasingly complex and networked world increases risks, but reduces our ability to understand and manage these risks ( [[#Helbing--2013|Helbing, 2013]] ; Tu et al., 2019).

| '''Current policy solutions'''

* Forecasting, scenarios of future climate and forest condition, socioeconomic dimensions, science-policy dialogue (Bele et al., 2015) and thresholds for ecosystem shifts due to mortality (tipping points) (Verbesselt et al., 2016).

|-
| '''Future policy challenges/opportunities'''

* Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to data gathering and policy design ( [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] )
* ‘Robust’ decision-making approaches for adaptive forest management (Hörl et al., 2020)
* Maintain diversity and redundancy, manage connectivity, and slow variables and feedbacks (Biggs et al., 2012)
* Measurement and disclosure of climate and ecosystem risk ( [[#NBIM--2021|NBIM, 2021]] ).

|-
| rowspan="2"| 5. Environmental law and implementation

| rowspan="2"| * 69% of agricultural conversion of tropical forests ''likely'' illegal between 2013 and 2019 (Dummett et al., 2021)
* 90% of countries (of 31 assessed), identify weak forest sector governance and institutions, conflicting policies beyond the forest sector, and illegal activity as main underlying drivers (Kissinger et al., 2012); corruption and illegality are identified as key factors in increasing forest loss (Piabuo et al., 2021)
* Implementation and enforcement of environmental laws falls far short; primary obstacle is political will ( [[#UNEP--2019|UNEP, 2019]] )
* Conflicting legal instruments, lack of clarity in implementation, monitoring and evaluation, responsibilities are poorly defined and fragmented across multiple agencies (Ranabhat et al., 2018)
* Lack of sanctions, transparency and accountability (Bai et al., 2016; [[#Enrici--2016|Enrici and Hubacek, 2016]] )
* Open-ended decision-making exacerbates political asymmetries ( [[#Holley--2017|Holley and Sofronova, 2017]] ).

| '''Current policy solutions'''

* Environmental laws and regulations ( [[#Head--2018|Head, 2018]] )
* Trained prosecutors
* Citizen rights to information ( [[#Bizzo--2017|Bizzo and Michener, 2017]] ).

|-
| '''Future policy challenges/opportunities'''

* Capacity and willingness to engage iterative processes for continuous effort in transparency and accountability (in implementing the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative) ( [[#Lujala--2018|Lujala, 2018]] )
* Regulatory frameworks as enablers to motivate and hold private sector initiatives to account (test effectiveness) (Begemann et al., 2021)
* Nested and multi-level governance arrangements (Ravikumar et al., 2015)
* Diagnosing the political drivers of decision making through political economy assessment (Fritz et al., 2014).

|-
| rowspan="2"| 6. Land tenure/rights

| rowspan="2"| * Though recognition of Indigenous self-determination is growing, many cases of legal recognition still lack full authority to govern ( [[#UN-DESA--2021|UN-DESA, 2021]] )
* Free, Prior Informed Consent (FPIC).

| '''Current policy solutions'''

* Legal and constitutional recognition of rights, collective/communal rights (Safitri, 2015; Blackman et al., 2017; [[#Gebara--2018|Gebara, 2018]] )
* Indigenous land demarcation ( [[#Baragwanath--2020|Baragwanath and Bayi, 2020]] )
* Community-based forest management (Pelletier et al., 2016).

|-
| '''Future policy challenges/opportunities'''

* Forest protection/climate and biodiversity is strongest when indigenous people hold collective legal titles to their lands ( [[#IPCC--2019b|IPCC, 2019b]] ) (in Latin America, deforestation rates are about 50% lower in Indigenous territories than in other forested areas) ( [[#FAO%20and%20FILAC--2021|FAO and FILAC, 2021]] ).

|-
| rowspan="2"| 7. Participation and stakeholder inclusion

| rowspan="2"| * Governments increasingly rely on highly autonomous semi-public or private organisations for policy results which weakens control of the process (Howlett et al., 2015), yet mediating between diverse values and interests of citizens, consumers, business and community is a determinant of policy effectiveness (Peters et al., 2018)
* Growing legal restrictions on civil society involvement in governance and access to funding ( [[#UNEP--2019|UNEP, 2019]] )
* Institutional practices of stakeholder consultation in REDD+ not well operationalised (criteria and transparency often lacking) (Fujisaki et al., 2016).

| '''Current policy solutions'''

* Multi-stakeholder dialogue combined with moratoria (e.g., Brazilian soy moratorium) (Gibbs et al., 2015)
* Community-based monitoring (Slough et al., 2021).

|-
| '''Future policy challenges/opportunities'''

* Collaborative networks (Thomas et al., 2018)
* Re-evaluating agency, social structures and the distribution of power to uphold rights (Delabre et al.)
* Community engagement correlated to secure rights to resources (Pham et al., 2015).

|}

<div id="box-ccp7.2" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

<span id="box-ccp7.2-contribution-of-sustainable-tropical-forest-management-to-the-sdgs"></span>
=== Box CCP7.2 | Contribution of Sustainable Tropical Forest Management to the SDGs ===

<div id="h2-15-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

There is increasing evidence of positive impacts of resilient tropical forests, biodiversity and sustainable forest management in achieving SDGs, as presented in Table Box CCP7.2.1. However, there is also risk of unintended consequences based on conflicts between the use of forest-based goods and services, and effects on tropical forest resilience, ecosystem services and biodiversity ( [[#Baumgartner--2019|Baumgartner, 2019]] ). For instance, substitution of fossil fuels and non-renewable resources with bio-based products can lead to deforestation and the loss of biodiversity (Carrasco, 2017) (Cross-Working-Group Box BIOECONOMY in Chapter 5). Deforestation as a result of increased agricultural production and productivity could hamper efforts in addressing long-term food security, particularly for forest-dependent people (Newton et al., 2016; Section CCP7.2.3). Synergies and trade-offs depend very much on local contexts and are therefore presented in exemplary form.

[[#IFAD--2016|IFAD (2016)]] estimated that there are 640 million people living below the poverty line in rural areas of 43 tropical countries. Poor communities rely on ecosystem services for their subsistence livelihoods, and often they have limited capacity to adapt to change, making them more vulnerable to climate change and other forms of changes (Bhatta, 2015). Managing forests sustainably benefits both urban and rural communities, including provision of food and fibre, and on watershed hydrology and agroforestry production, among others (Powell et al., 2013; Dawson et al., 2014; [[#Clark--2013|Clark and Nicholas, 2013]] , Mbow et al., 2014) (Table Box CCP7.2.1).

'''Table Box CCP7.2.1 |''' Examples from sustainable tropical forest management (STFM) in achieving SDGs.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! SDGs

! Contribution of STFM to the goals

! Adaptation interventions

! Supporting references

|-
| 1 No poverty

| Area of forest land with legal property status held by communities

| In Mexico, community forest management (CFM) has played a pivotal role in forest cover and biodiversity conservation in the region where timber production and processing generate income and thereby offers a way out of poverty for families in communities with rights to forests.

| (Ellis et al., 2015)

|-
|
| Improve incomes through selling forest products or by generating employment for the poorest

| Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are a significant source for socioeconomic, employment and income generation, particularly for tribal people.

| ( [[#Kumar--2015|Kumar, 2015]] )

|-
|
| Improve income through valuation of ecosystem services

| In Cambodia, contribution of forest resources should be integrated into payment for ecosystem services schemes, to provide more diversified income streams, insulating Indigenous People from shocks and stressors.

| (Nhem, 2018)

|-
| 2 Zero hunger

| Forests also provide food, which improves food security and nutrition

| In Cameroon, forest fruits provide important macro- and micronutrients lacking from the family diets of rural people. Association between tree cover and the dietary diversity of children in the communities of 21 countries across Africa.

| (Fungo et al., 2015; Ickowitz et al., 2014)

|-
| 3 Good health and well-being

| Medicinal plants contribute to emotional and spiritual well-being

| Medicinal plants and the associated Bhutanese traditional medicine are protected by the country’s constitution and receive both government support and acceptance by the wider public. These medicinal plants have been one of the drivers of the ‘gross national happiness’ and biodiscovery projects in Bhutan.

| ( [[#Wangchuk--2015|Wangchuk and Tobgay, 2015]] )

|-
|
| Health co-benefits of preserving biodiversity

| In the Brazilian Amazon, interventions targeted specifically at preserving biodiversity in protected areas generate health co-benefits. From the perspectives of malaria, acute respiratory infection and diarrhoea, results suggest that the public health benefits of strict partnership agreements may offset some of their local costs. Nature is doing its part by providing a form of (human) capital for the rural poor and the politically voiceless.

| (Bauch et al., 2015)

|-
| 4 Quality education

| Inclusive education that builds and reinforces positive attitudes to forest

| Encouraging and enabling pro-forest behaviour as well as strengthening education systems that respect, nurture and enable Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge.

| (Kanowski, 2019; Tengö, 2017; Vaidyanathan, 2014)

|-
|
| The value of social capital for maintaining sustainability of community forest management includes, among others, individual characteristics, procedural knowledge and access to information. Initiatives to manage natural resources are ''likely'' to be more successful if the forest management program initiators consider several factors that influence the capacity development of resource users.

| (Lee, 2017)

|-
| 5 Gender equality

| Within genders, other characteristics such as class, race, caste, culture, wealth, age and ethnicity influence responses and affect the impact of climate variability and change on livelihoods

| Despite challenges, Nepal’s community forestry policy is considered one of the most progressive, as it allows women to exercise equal rights with men in the management and utilisation of community forests. Furthermore, women-only forestry groups have registered many success stories.

| (Lama et al., 2017; [[#Agarwal--2015|Agarwal, 2015]] )

|-
| 6 Clean water and sanitation

| Regulate water supply, water quality and water purification

| Evidence from the Hindu Kush Himalayas require improved upstream–downstream integration, transboundary cooperation and greater coordination of implementation of different SDGs. Greater efforts are required to make the communities struggling on the frontline of sustainable forest management more climate resilient.

| (Scott C.A., 2019; Amezaga, 2019)

|-
|
| Forest concessions can make a positive contribution to this by minimising the negative impacts of harvesting operations on water access and by employing appropriate restoration techniques as required by the concession contract and national legislation.

| (Bruggeman et al., 2015)

|-
| 7 Affordable and clean energy

| Energy transitions

| Decreased reliance on traditional wood fuels and increased use of forest-derived modern fuels (e.g., biofuel) are generally synergistic with achieving other SDGs, such as livelihoods strategies. However, modern wood fuels need improved stoves to ensure the energy is clean.

| (Jagger, 2019; Simangunsong et al., 2017)

|-
| 8 Decent work and economic growth

| Stimulating economic growth and minimising forest loss

| Synergy potentials exist where growth strategies and associated policies target the forest section with NTFPs from natural forests, ecotourism and payments for environmental services.

| (Stoian, 2019)

|-
|
| Community forestry enterprises have the potential to make significant contributions by providing a solid institutional framework to efficiently translate SDGs into actions. It also improves forest management, social cohesion and rural incomes among local communities in developing countries.

| (Aryal, 2020; [[#Vázquez-Maguirre--2020|Vázquez-Maguirre, 2020]] ; Baynes, 2015)

|-
| 9 Industry innovation and infrastructure

| Integration of small-scale business into value chains and markets

| Strategies in relation to sustainable supply chains and tropical forest protection, i.e., Unilever and Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV), demonstrate both alignment and variability between and within organisations. Associated incentives could help balance the burden of responsibility for implementation between global and local actors of promoting zero deforestation.

| (Delabre et al., 2020)

|-
| 10 Reduced inequalities

| Reduction in the number of poor households

Protect the workers and communities long-term and economic well-being

| Results from Waseda–Bridgestone Initiative for Development of Global Environment (W-BRIDGE Initiative) in South Kalimantan province through capacity building delivered by academic partners. This initiative also increased land area ownership from 0.28 to 1.23 ha per household.

Rural agrarian communities in low-latitude tropical forests (e.g., communities in Southeast Asia, South America, Central Africa) adapting to chronically hotter temperatures in common ways, such as adjusting when and how they work. Decision makers should develop an understanding of these behavioural adaptations that are already being adopted before establishing broader adaptation strategies.

| (Hiratsuka, 2019)

(Masuda, 2019)

|-
| 11 Sustainable cities and communities

| Upstream forests influence water supplies to cities

| Watershed condition is associated with measurable health outcomes downstream. Maintaining natural capitals within watersheds is an important public health investment especially for populations with low levels of built capital.

| (Herrera et al., 2017)

|-
|
| Evidence from the Marikina Watershed Integrated Resources Development Alliance in the Philippines working together with all stakeholders to restore Marikina Watershed to reduce disaster risk and urban resilience.

| (Devisscher, 2019)

|-
|
| Synergies delivered through sound urban forestry approaches could benefit not only urban dwellers but also forest communities. Community groups have also taken responsibility for urban forestry in the absence of strong government commitment.

| ( [[#Konijnendijk--2018|Konijnendijk, 2018]] )

|-
| 12 Responsible consumption and production)

| Generates materials for sustainable consumption

| Forest concessionaires can also increase the repurposing of waste to improve sustainable consumption. For instance, the logging company Congolaise Industrielle des Bois produces electricity from sawmill wood waste.

| (Tegegne et al., 2019)

|-
| 13 Climate action

| Enhance resilience and adaptive capacities to climate change through forest management

| Mixed agroforestry systems offer opportunities to simultaneously meet the water, food, energy and income needs of densely populated rural and peri-urban areas in Indonesia.

| (van Noordwijk et al., 2016)

|-
|
| Carbon-based conservation

| Payment for carbon-based conservation (eg., REDD+, Green Climate Fund) protecting peatlands from avoidable human impacts for favourable return from carbon conservation investments.

| (Roucoux et al., 2017)

|-
|
| REDD+ has mixed impacts on communities’ socio-ecological resilience. On one hand, increases in network ties and participation in decision making would enhance potential for local adaptability. However, restrictions on local forest practices could limit communities’ ability to manage uncertainty.

| (Hajjar, 2021)

|-
| 14 Life below water)

| Support numerous ecosystem services

Protection for aquatic macroinvertebrates habitats

| Complex root systems serve as shelter as they protect juvenile fish from predators and provide food and nutrients for fish.

Mangroves contribute to fisheries production and have become one of the higher carbon stocks compared with other forests. The mangroves system of the Zambezi River Delta, Mozambique confirms the consistency of substantial C stocks typical of mangroves across a relatively large and hydrologically diverse area.

The riparian canopy of the tropical forest is significantly able to maintain in-stream temperature that is important to aquatic macroinvertebrates. The study of Gunung Tebu, Malaysia showed high diversity and abundance of steams invertebrates as the natural habitats are minimally impacted.

| (Friess, 2019)

(Stringer, 2015)

(Md rai, 2014)

|-
| 15 Life on land)

| Community monitoring of their own forests or forest within communal jurisdiction, sustainable certification

| Mainstreaming SFM in vast tracts of forest, thereby increasing the share of forest area under a forest management plan, including the proportion of forest area certified under independent forest certification schemes.

| ( [[#van%20Hensbergen--2016|van Hensbergen, 2016]] )

|-
|
| Even with tension between the management of resources for local goals and the need for public good values, still there are some communities that maintain strong control over their lands and resources in achieving desirable conservation outcomes and willing to see large tracts of land set aside, i.e., areas held to be sacred.

| (Sayer et al., 2015; Sheil, 2015)

|-
| 16 Peace, justice and strong institutions

| Addressing complexity of implementing conservation policy

| Target 16.7 calls for responsive, inclusive participatory and representative decision making at all levels. Decentralisation in forest governance observed through community-based/collaborative forest management depends on the strength of underlying land tenure and use rights, as well as capacity to benefit from those rights.

| (Baynes, 2015; McDermott, 2019; Myers, 2017; Nunan, 2018)

|-
|
| By 2021, Thailand plans to increase use of renewable and alternative energy by 25% including energy crops. Adequate forest protection is critical, as increasing demand for energy crops may drive demand for expanding agricultural production into public forests, benefitting some SDGs and threatening others.

| (Phumee, 2018)

|-
|
| Modern technologies in forest management control

Governance laws and policies provide access to justice for all

| Technologies including remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) are interrelated as they support management actions in global forest resources management thus reducing exploitation through monitoring and evaluation activities.

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) significantly contribute to ensuring the legality of the timber supply chain. The ( [[#FAO--2018b|FAO, 2018b]] ) considers the proportion of forest with secure tenure rights for forest dependent people and the local community in ensuring equal rights to economic resources for all.

| (Beckline, 2017)

(Gabay, 2019)

|-
| 17 Partnership for the goals

| Co-benefits derived from tropical forest conservation

| Raising awareness of the interconnectedness of tropical forests and the SDGs through multi-disciplinary collaboration will support more informed decisions of social, cultural, economic and policy interest.

| (Swamy, 2018; Bukoski et al., 2018)

|-
|
| Voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs) stabilise and reproduce the forest governance regime

Central bureaucracies promote forest benefits: countering conservation

| In Ghana, the adoption of the VPA resulted in an improved the timber legality assurance system (TLAS), strengthened social responsibility agreements (SRA) enforcement, updated forest management plans, artisanal milling strategies and technical transparent timber dights allocations.

Forest management units (FMUs) could be utilised to support conservation-oriented regimes with worldwide interests as well as domestic production-oriented regimes. For example, FMUs might potentially link up with global and domestic timber certification regimes under the Multistakeholder Forestry Programme (MFP3) initiative.

<div id="_idContainer044" class="Box_Header-continued"></div>

Box CCP7.2

| (Hansen, 2018)

(Sahide, 2016)

|}

<div id="frequently-asked-questions" class="h1-container"></div>