Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

=== 7.4.6 Policies responding to land degradation ===

<div id="section-7-4-6-1-land-use-zoning"></div>

<span id="land-use-zoning"></span>
==== 7.4.6.1 Land-use zoning ====

<div id="section-7-4-6-1-land-use-zoning-block-1"></div>

Land-use zoning divides a territory (including local, sub-regional or national) into zones with different rules and regulations for land use (mining, agriculture, urban development, etc.), management practices and land-cover change (Metternicht 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r649|649]]</sup> ). While the policy instrument is zoning ordinances, the process of determining these regulations is covered in integrated land-use planning (Section 7.6.2). Urban zoning can guide new growth in urban communities outside forecasted hazard areas, assist relocating existing dwellings to safer sites and manage post-event redevelopment in ways to reduce future vulnerability (Berke and Stevens 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r650|650]]</sup> ). Holistic integration of climate mitigation and adaptation are interdependent and can be implemented by restoring urban forests, and improving parks (Brown 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r651|651]]</sup> ; Berke and Stevens 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r652|652]]</sup> ). Zoning ordinances can contribute to SLM through protection of natural capital by preventing or limiting vegetation clearing, avoiding degradation of planning for rehabilitation of degraded land or contaminated sites, promoting conservation and enhancement of ecosystems and ecological corridors (Metternicht 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r653|653]]</sup> ; Jepson and Haines 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r654|654]]</sup> ). Zoning ordinances can also encourage higher density development, mixed use, local food production, encourage transportation alternatives (bike paths and transit-oriented development), preserve a sense of place, and increase housing diversity and affordability (Jepson and Haines 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r655|655]]</sup> ). Conservation planning varies by context and may include one or several adaptation approaches, including protecting current patterns of biodiversity, large intact natural landscapes, and geophysical settings. Conservation planning may also maintain and restore ecological connectivity, identify and manage areas that provide future climate space for species expected to be displaced by climate change, and identify and protect climate refugia (Stevanovic et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r656|656]]</sup> ; Schmitz et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r657|657]]</sup> ).

Anguelovski et al. (2016) <sup>[[#fn:r658|658]]</sup> studied land-use interventions in eight cities in the global north and south, and concluded that historic trends of socio-economic vulnerability can be reinforced. They also found that vulnerability could be avoided with a consideration of the distribution of adaptation benefits and prioritising beneficial outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups when making future adaptation plans. Concentration of adaptation resources within wealthy business districts creating ecological enclaves exacerbated climate risks elsewhere and building of climate adaptive infrastructure such as sea walls or temporary flood barriers occurred at the expense of underserved neighbourhoods (Anguelovski et al. 2016a <sup>[[#fn:r659|659]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-4-6-2-conserving-biodiversity-and-ecosystem-services-es"></div>

<span id="conserving-biodiversity-and-ecosystem-services-es"></span>
==== 7.4.6.2 Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) ====

<div id="section-7-4-6-2-conserving-biodiversity-and-ecosystem-services-es-block-1"></div>

There is ''limited evidence'' but ''high agreement'' that ecosystem-based adaptation (biodiversity, ecosystem services (ES), and Nature’s Contribution to People (see Chapter 6)) and incentives for ES – including payment for ecosystem services (PES) – play a critical part of an overall strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change on land (UNEP 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r661|661]]</sup> ; Bonan 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r662|662]]</sup> ; Millar et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r663|663]]</sup> ; Thompson et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r664|664]]</sup> ).

Ecosystem-based adaptation can promote socio-ecological resilience by enabling people to adapt to the impacts of climate change on land and reduce their vulnerability (Ojea 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r665|665]]</sup> ). Ecosystem-based adaptation can promote nature conservation while alleviating poverty and even provide co-benefits by removing GHGs (Scarano 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r666|666]]</sup> ) and protecting livelihoods (Munang et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r667|667]]</sup> ). For example, mangroves provide diverse ES such as carbon storage, fisheries, non-timber forest products, erosion protection, water purification, shore-line stabilisation, and also regulate storm surge and flooding damages, thus enhancing resilience and reducing climate risk from extreme events such as cyclones (Rahman et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r668|668]]</sup> ; Donato et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r669|669]]</sup> ; Das and Vincent 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r670|670]]</sup> ; Ghosh et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r671|671]]</sup> ; Ewel et al. 1998 <sup>[[#fn:r672|672]]</sup> ).

There has been considerable increase in the last decade of PES, or programmes that exchange value for land management practices intended to ensure ES (Salzman et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r673|673]]</sup> ; Yang and Lu 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r674|674]]</sup> ; Barbier 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r675|675]]</sup> ). However, there is a deficiency in comprehensive and reliable data concerning the impact of PES on ecosystems, human well-being, their efficiency, and effectiveness (Pynegar et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r676|676]]</sup> ; Reed et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r677|677]]</sup> ; Salzman et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r678|678]]</sup> ; Barbier 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r679|679]]</sup> ; Yang and Lu 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r680|680]]</sup> ). While some studies assess ecological effectiveness and social equity, fewer assess economic efficiency (Yang and Lu 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r681|681]]</sup> ). Part of the challenge surrounds the fact that the majority of ES are not marketed, so determining how changes in ecosystems structures, functions and processes influence the quantity and quality of ES flows to people is challenging (Barbier 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r682|682]]</sup> ). PES include agri-environmental targeted outcome-based payments, but challenges exist in relation to scientific uncertainty, pricing, timing of payments, increasing risk to land managers, World Trade Organization compliance, and barriers of land management and scale (Reed et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r683|683]]</sup> ).

PES is contested (Wang and Fu 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r684|684]]</sup> ; Czembrowski and Kronenberg 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r685|685]]</sup> ; Perry 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r686|686]]</sup> ) for four reasons: (i) understanding and resolving trade-offs between conflicting groups of stakeholders (Wam et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r687|687]]</sup> ; Matthies et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r688|688]]</sup> ); (ii) knowledge and technology capacity (Menz et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r689|689]]</sup> ); (iii) challenges integrating PES with economic and other policy instruments (Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r690|690]]</sup> ; Tallis et al. 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r691|691]]</sup> ; Elmqvist et al. 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r692|692]]</sup> ; Albert et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r693|693]]</sup> ); and (iv) top-down climate change mitigation initiatives which are still largely carbon-centric, with limited opportunities for decentralised ecological restoration at local and regional scales (Vijge and Gupta 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r694|694]]</sup> ).

These challenges and contestations can be resolved with the participation of people in establishing PES, thereby addressing trust issues, negative attitudes, and resolving trade-offs between issues (such as retaining forests that consume water versus the provision of run-off, or balancing payments to providers versus cost to society) (Sorice et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r695|695]]</sup> ; Matthies et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r696|696]]</sup> ). Similarly, a ‘co-constructive’ approach is used involving a diversity of stakeholders generating policy-relevant knowledge for sustainable management of biodiversity and ES at all relevant spatial scales, by the current Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) initiative (Díaz et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r697|697]]</sup> ). Invasive species are also best identified and managed with the participation of people through collective decisions, coordinated programmes, and extensive research and outreach to address their complex social-ecological impacts (Wittmann et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r698|698]]</sup> ; Epanchin-Niell et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r699|699]]</sup> ).

Ecosystem restoration with co-benefits for diverse ES can be achieved through passive restoration, passive restoration with protection, and active restoration with planting (Birch et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r700|700]]</sup> ; Cantarello et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r701|701]]</sup> ). Taking into account the costs of restoration and co-benefits from bundles of ES (carbon, tourism, timber), the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of active restoration and passive restoration with protection was always less than 1, suggesting that financial incentives would be required. Passive restoration was the most cost-effective with a BCR generally between 1 and 100 for forest, grassland and shrubland restoration (TEEB 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r702|702]]</sup> ; Cantarello et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r703|703]]</sup> ). Passive restoration is generally more cost-effective, but there is a danger that it could be confused with abandoned land in the absence of secure tenure and a long time period (Zahawi et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r704|704]]</sup> ). Net social benefits of degraded land restoration in dry regions range from about 200–700 USD per hectare (Cantarello et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r705|705]]</sup> ). Investments in active restoration could benefit from analyses of past land use, the natural resilience of the ecosystem, and the specific objectives of each project (Meli et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r706|706]]</sup> ). One successful example is the Working for Water Programme in South Africa that linked restoration through removal of invasive species and enhanced water security (Milton et al. 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r707|707]]</sup> ).

Forest, water and energy cycle interactions and teleconnections such as contribution to rainfall potentially (Aragão 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r708|708]]</sup> ; Ellison et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r709|709]]</sup> ; Paul et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r710|710]]</sup> ; Spracklen et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r711|711]]</sup> ) provide a foundation for achieving forest-based adaptation and mitigation goals. They are, however, poorly integrated in policy and decision-making, including PES (Section 2.5.4).

<div id="section-7-4-6-3-standards-and-certification-for-sustainability-of-biomass-and-land-use-sectors"></div>

<span id="standards-and-certification-for-sustainability-of-biomass-and-land-use-sectors"></span>
==== 7.4.6.3 Standards and certification for sustainability of biomass and land-use sectors ====

<div id="section-7-4-6-3-standards-and-certification-for-sustainability-of-biomass-and-land-use-sectors-block-1"></div>

During the past two decades, standards and certification have emerged as important sustainability and conservation instruments for agriculture, forestry, bioenergy, land-use management and bio-based products (Lambin et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r712|712]]</sup> ; Englund and Berndes 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r713|713]]</sup> ; Milder et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r714|714]]</sup> ; Giessen et al. 2016a <sup>[[#fn:r715|715]]</sup> ; Endres et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r716|716]]</sup> ; Byerlee et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r717|717]]</sup> ; van Dam et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r718|718]]</sup> ). Standards are normally voluntary, but can also become obligatory through legislation. A standard provides specifications or guidelines to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for purpose, whereas certification is the procedure through which an accredited party confirms that a product, process or service is in conformity with certain standards. Standards and certification are normally carried out by separate organisations for legitimacy and accountability (Section7.6.6).The International Organization for Standardization is a key source for global environmental standards. Those with special relevance for land and climate include a recent standard on combating land degradation and desertification (ISO 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r719|719]]</sup> ) and an earlier standard on sustainable bioenergy and biomass use (ISO 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r720|720]]</sup> ; Walter et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r721|721]]</sup> ). Both aim to support the long-term transition to a climate-resilient bioeconomy; there is ''medium evidence'' on the sustainability implications of different bioeconomy pathways, but ''low agreement'' as to which pathways are socially and environmentally desirable (Priefer et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r722|722]]</sup> ; Johnson 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r723|723]]</sup> ; Bennich et al. 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r724|724]]</sup> ).

Table 7.3 provides a summary of selected standards and certification schemes with a focus on land use and climate: the tickmark shows inclusion of different sustainability elements, with all recognising the inherent linkages between the biophysical and social aspects of land use. Some certification schemes and best practice guidelines are specific to a particular agriculture crop (e.g., soya, sugarcane) or a tree (e.g., oil palm) while others are general. International organisations promote sustainable land and biomass use through good practice guidelines, voluntary standards and jurisdictional approaches (Scarlat and Dallemand 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r725|725]]</sup> ; Stattman et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r726|726]]</sup> ). Other frameworks, such as the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP) focus on monitoring land and biomass use through a set of indicators that are applied across partner countries, thereby also promoting technology/knowledge transfer (GBEP 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r727|727]]</sup> ). The Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative provides common guidelines for economic assessments of land degradation (Nkonya et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r728|728]]</sup> ).

Whereas current standards and certification focus primarily on land, climate and biomass impacts where they occur, more recent analysis considers trade-related land-use change by tracing supply chain impacts from producer to consumer, leading to the notion of ‘imported deforestation’ that occurs from increasing demand and trade in unsustainable forest and agriculture products, which is estimated to account for 26% of all tropical deforestation (Pendrill et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r729|729]]</sup> ). Research and implementation efforts aim to improve supply chain transparency and promote commitments to ‘zero deforestation’ (Gardner et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r730|730]]</sup> ; Garrett et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r731|731]]</sup> ; Newton et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r732|732]]</sup> ; Godar and Gardner 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r733|733]]</sup> ; Godar et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r734|734]]</sup> , 2016). France has developed specific policies on imported deforestation that are expected to eventually include a ‘zero deforestation’ label (Government of France 2019).

The sustainability of biofuels and bioenergy has been in particular focus during the past decade or so due to biofuel mandates and renewable energy policies in the USA, EU and elsewhere (van Dam et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r735|735]]</sup> ; Scarlat and Dallemand 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r736|736]]</sup> ). The European Union Renewable Energy Directive (EU-RED) established sustainability criteria in relation to EU renewable energy targets in the transport sector (European Commission 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r737|737]]</sup> ), which subsequently had impacts on land use and trade with third-party countries (Johnson et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r738|738]]</sup> ). In particular, the EU-RED marked a departure in the context of Kyoto/UNFCCC guidelines by extending responsibility for emissions beyond the borders of final use, and requiring developing countries wishing to sell into the EU market to meet the sustainability criteria (Johnson 2011b <sup>[[#fn:r739|739]]</sup> ). The recently revised EU-RED provides sustainability criteria that include management of land and forestry as well as socio-economic aspects (European Union 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r740|740]]</sup> ; Faaij 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r741|741]]</sup> ; Stattman et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r742|742]]</sup> ). Standards and certification aim to address potential conflicts between different uses of biomass, and most schemes also consider co-benefits and synergies (see Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6). Bioenergy may offer additional income and livelihoods to farmers as well as improvements in technical productivity and multi-functional landscapes (Rosillo Callé and Johnson 2010a <sup>[[#fn:r743|743]]</sup> ; Kline et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r744|744]]</sup> ; Araujo Enciso et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r745|745]]</sup> ). Results depend on the commodities involved, and also differ between rural and urban areas.

Analyses on the implementation of standards and certification for land and biomass use have focused on their stringency, effectiveness and geographical scope as well as socio-economic impacts such as land tenure, gender and land rights (Diaz-Chavez 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r746|746]]</sup> ; German and Schoneveld 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r747|747]]</sup> ; Meyer and Priess 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r748|748]]</sup> ). The level of stringency and enforcement varies with local environmental conditions, governance approaches and the nature of the feedstock produced (Endres et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r749|749]]</sup> ; Lambin et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r750|750]]</sup> ; Giessen et al. 2016b <sup>[[#fn:r751|751]]</sup> ; Stattman et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r752|752]]</sup> ). There is ''low evidence'' and ''low agreement'' on how the application and use of standards and certification has actually improved sustainability beyond the local farm, factory or plantation level; the lack of harmonisation and consistency across countries that has been observed, even within a common market or economic region such as the EU, presents a barrier to wider market impacts (Endres et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r753|753]]</sup> ; Stattman et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r754|754]]</sup> ; ISEAL Alliance 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r755|755]]</sup> ). In the forest sector, there is evidence that certification programmes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) have reduced deforestation in the aggregate, as well as reducing air pollution (Miteva et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r756|756]]</sup> ; Mcdermott et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r757|757]]</sup> ). Certification and standards cannot address global systemic concerns such as impacts on food prices or other market-wide effects, but rather are aimed primarily at insuring best practices in the local context. More general approaches to certification such as the Gold Standard are designed to accelerate progress toward the SDGs as well as the Paris Climate Agreement by certifying investment projects while also emphasising support to governments (Gold Standard).

<div id="section-7-4-6-3-standards-and-certification-for-sustainability-of-biomass-and-land-use-sectors-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-7.3"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 7.3'''

<span id="selected-standards-and-certification-schemes-and-their-components-or-coverage."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Selected standards and certification schemes and their components or coverage.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:9eb3ea4cfc1cff52877c32deb96eb113 table-7.3.png]]

Source: Modified from (European Commission 2012; Diaz-Chavez 2015).

<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:3747e69a13526344e0f424f79fc33c6d v.png]] indicates that the issue is addressed in the standard or scheme

* a includes restoration of degraded land in some cases (especially ISO 14055–1)
* b where specifically indicated
* c reference to the RSB certification/standard
* d where specifically noted

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-7-4-6-4-energy-access-and-biomass-use"></div>

<span id="energy-access-and-biomass-use"></span>
==== 7.4.6.4 Energy access and biomass use ====

<div id="section-7-4-6-4-energy-access-and-biomass-use-block-1"></div>

Access to modern energy services is a key component of SDG 7, with an estimated 1.1 billion people lacking access to electricity, while nearly 3 billion people rely on traditional biomass (fuelwood, agriculture residues, animal dung, charcoal) for household energy needs (IEA 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r758|758]]</sup> ). Lack of access to modern energy services is significant in the context of land-climate systems because heavy reliance on traditional biomass can contribute to land degradation, household air pollution and GHG emissions (see Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 7). A variety of policy instruments and programmes have been aimed at improving energy access and thereby reducing the heavy reliance on traditional biomass (Table 7.2); there is ''high evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that programmes and policies that reduce dependence on traditional biomass will have benefits for health and household productivity, as well as reducing land degradation (Section 4.5.4) and GHG emissions (Bailis et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r759|759]]</sup> ; Cutz et al. 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r760|760]]</sup> ; Masera et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r761|761]]</sup> ; Goldemberg et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r762|762]]</sup> ; Sola et al. 2016a <sup>[[#fn:r763|763]]</sup> ; Rao and Pachauri 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r764|764]]</sup> ; Denton et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r765|765]]</sup> ). There can be trade-offs across different options, especially between health and climate benefits, since more efficient wood stoves might have only limited effect, whereas gaseous and liquid fuels (e.g., biogas, LPG, bioethanol) will have highly positive health benefits and climate benefits that vary depending on specific circumstances of the substitution (Cameron et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r766|766]]</sup> ; Goldemberg et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r767|767]]</sup> ). Unlike traditional biomass, modern bioenergy offers high-quality energy services, although, for household cookstoves, even the cleanest options using wood may not perform as well in terms of health and/or climate benefits (Fuso Nerini et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r768|768]]</sup> ; Goldemberg et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r769|769]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-4-6-4-energy-access-and-biomass-use-block-2"></div>

'''Case study | Forest conservation instruments: REDD+ in the Amazon and India'''

More than 50 countries have developed national REDD+ strategies, which have key conditions for addressing deforestation and forest degradation (improved monitoring capacities, understanding of drivers, increased stakeholder involvement, and providing a platform to secure indigenous and community land rights). However, to achieve its original objectives and to be effective under current conditions, forest-based mitigation actions need to be incorporated in national development plans and official climate strategies, and mainstreamed across sectors and levels of government (Angelsen et al. 2018a <sup>[[#fn:r770|770]]</sup> ).

The Amazon region can illustrate the complexity of the implementation of REDD+, in the most biodiverse place on the planet, with millions of inhabitants and hundreds of ethnic groups, under the jurisdiction of eight countries. While different experiences can be drawn at different spatial scales, at the regional-level, for example, Amazon Fund (van der Hoff et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r771|771]]</sup> ), at the subnational level (Furtado 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r772|772]]</sup> ), and at the local level (Alvarez et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r773|773]]</sup> ; Simonet et al. 2019 <sup>[[#fn:r774|774]]</sup> ), there is ''medium evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that REDD+ has stimulated sustainable land-use investments but is also competing with other land uses (e.g., agroindustry) and scarce international funding (both public and private) (Bastos Lima et al. 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r775|775]]</sup> ; Angelsen et al. 2018b <sup>[[#fn:r776|776]]</sup> ).

In the Amazon, at the local level, a critical issue has been the incorporation of indigenous people in the planning and distribution of benefits of REDD+ projects. While REDD+, in some cases, has enhanced participation of community members in the policy-planning process, fund management, and carbon baseline establishment, increasing project reliability and equity (West 2016), it is clear that, in this region, insecure and overlapping land rights, as well as unclear and contradictory institutional responsibilities, are probably the major problems for REDD+ implementation (Loaiza et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r777|777]]</sup> ). Despite legal and rhetoric recognition of indigenous land rights, effective recognition is still lacking (Aguilar-Støen 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r778|778]]</sup> ). The key to the success of REDD+ in the Amazon, has been the application of both incentives and disincentives on key safeguard indicators, including land security, participation, and well-being (Duchelle et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r779|779]]</sup> ).

On the other hand, at the subnational level, REDD+ has been unable to shape land-use dynamics or landscape governance, in areas suffering strong exogenous factors, such as extractive industries, and in the absence of effective regional regulation for sustainable land use (Rodriguez-Ward et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r780|780]]</sup> ; Bastos Lima et al. 2017b <sup>[[#fn:r781|781]]</sup> ). Moreover, projects with weak financial incentives, engage households with high off-farm income, which are already better off than the poorest families (Loaiza et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r782|782]]</sup> ). Beyond operational issues, clashing interpretations of results might create conflict between implementing countries or organisations and donor countries, which have revealed concerns over the performance of projects (van der Hoff et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r783|783]]</sup> ) REDD+ Amazonian projects often face methodological issues, including how to assess the opportunity cost among landholders, and informing REDD+ implementation (Kweka et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r784|784]]</sup> ). REDD+ based projects depend on consistent environmental monitoring methodologies for measuring, reporting and verification and, in the Amazon, land-cover estimates are crucial for environmental monitoring efforts (Chávez Michaelsen et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r785|785]]</sup> ).

In India, forests and wildlife concerns are on the concurrent list of the Constitution since an amendment in 1976, thus giving the central or federal government a strong role in matters related to governance of forests. High rates of deforestation due to development projects led to the Forest (Conservation) Act (1980) which requires central government approval for diversion of forest land in any state or union territory.

Before 2006, forest diversion for development projects leading to deforestation needed clearance from the Central Government under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation Act) 1980. In order to regulate forest diversion, and as payment for ES, a net present value (NPV) frame-work was introduced by the Supreme Court of India, informed by the Kanchan Chopra committee (Chopra 2017). The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 requires compensatory afforestation in lieu of forest diversion, and the Supreme Court established the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) which collects funds for compensatory afforestation and on account of NPV from project developers.

As of February 2018, 6825 million USD had accumulated in CAMPA funds in lieu of NPV paid by developers diverting forest land throughout India for non-forest use. Funds are released by the central government to state governments for afforestation and conservation-related activities to ‘compensate’ for diversion of forests. This is now governed by legislation called the CAMPA Act, passed by the Parliament of India in July 2016. The CAMPA mechanism has, however, invited criticism on various counts in terms of undervaluation of forest, inequality, lack of participation and environmental justice (Temper and Martinez-Alier 2013).

The other significant development related to forest land was the landmark legislation called the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 or Forest Rights Act (FRA) passed by the Parliament of India in 2007. This is the largest forest tenure legal instrument in the world and attempted to undo historical injustice to forest dwellers and forest-dependent communities whose traditional rights and access were legally denied under forest and wildlife conservation laws. The FRA recognises the right to individual land titles on land already cleared, as well as community forest rights such as collection of forest produce. A total of 64,328 community forest rights and a total of 17,040,343 individual land titles had been approved and granted up to the end of 2017. Current concerns on policy and implementation gaps are about strengths and pitfalls of decentralisation, identifying genuine right holders, verification of land rights using technology and best practices, and curbing illegal claims (Sarap et al. 2013; Reddy et al. 2011; Aggarwal 2011; Ramnath 2008; Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ministry and Tribal Affairs, Government of India 2010).

As per the FRA, the forest rights shall be conferred free of all encumbrances and procedural requirements. Furthermore, without the FRA’s provision for getting the informed consent of local communities for both diversion of community forest land and for reforestation, there would be legal and administrative hurdles in using existing forest land for implementation of India’s ambitious Green India Mission that aims to respond to climate change by a combination of adaptation and mitigation measures in the forestry sector. It aims to increase forest/tree cover to the extent of 5 million hectares (Mha) and improve quality of forest/tree cover on another 5 Mha of forest/non-forest lands and support forest-based livelihoods of 3 million families and generate co-benefits through ES (Government of India 2010).

Thus, the community forest land recognised under FRA can be used for the purpose of compensatory afforestation or restoration under REDD+ only with informed consent of the communities and a decentralised mechanism for using CAMPA funds. India’s forest and forest restoration can potentially move away from a top-down carbon centric model with the effective participation of local communities (Vijge and Gupta 2014; Murthy et al. 2018a).

India has also experimented with the world’s first national inter-governmental ecological fiscal transfer (EFT) from central to local and state government to reward them for retaining forest cover. In 2014, India’s 14th Finance Commission added forest cover to the formula that determines the amount of tax revenue the central government distributes annually to each of India’s 29 states. It is estimated that, in four years, it would have distributed 6.9–12 billion USD per year to states in proportion to their 2013 forest cover, amounting to around 174–303 USD per hectare of forest per year (Busch and Mukherjee 2017). State governments in India now have a sizeable fiscal incentive based on extent of forest cover at the time of policy implementation, contributing to the achievement of India’s climate mitigation and forest conservation goals. India’s tax revenue distribution reform has created the world’s first EFTs for forest conservation, and a potential model for other countries. However, it is to be noted that EFT is calculated based on a one-time estimate of forest cover prior to policy implementation, hence does not incentivise ongoing protection and this is a policy gap. It’s still too early but its impact on trends in forest cover in the future and its ability to conserve forests without other investments and policy instruments is promising but untested (Busch and Mukherjee 2017; Busch 2018).

In order to build on the new promising policy developments on forest rights and fiscal incentives for forest conservation in India, incentivising ongoing protection, further investments in monitoring (Busch 2018), decentralisation (Somanathan et al. 2009) and promoting diverse non-agricultural forest and range of land-based livelihoods (e.g., sustainable non-timber forest product extraction, regulated pastures, carbon credits for forest regeneration on marginal agriculture land and ecotourism revenues) as part of individual and community forest tenure and rights are ongoing concerns. Decentralised sharing of CAMPA funds between government and local communities for forest restoration as originally suggested and filling in implementation gaps could help reconcile climate change mitigation through forest conservation, REDD+ and environmental justice (Vijge and Gupta 2014; Temper and Martinez-Alier 2013; Badola et al. 2013; Sun and Chaturvedi 2016; Murthy et al. 2018b; Chopra 2017; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India 2010).

<span id="economic-and-financial-instruments-for-adaptation-mitigation-and-land"></span>