Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-2 (section)

==== 2.8.4.2 Climate Impacts of Agricultural, Forestry, Land Use, and AFOLU-related Policies ====

<div id="h3-18-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Policies on agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU), and AFOLU sector-related policies have had a long history in many developing and developed countries. Co-impacts of these policies on the climate have been only marginally studied, although their impacts might be quite important because the AFOLU sector is responsible for 22% of total GHG emissions ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). The results of afforestation policies around the world and the contribution to CCS are also important.

Private and governmental policies can have a major impact on the climate. Experience indicates that ‘climate proofing’ a policy is likely to require some stimulus, resources, and expertise from agencies or organisations from outside the country. Stimulus and support for adaptation and mitigation can come from the UN system and from international development institutions ( [[#FAO--2009|FAO 2009]] ). These findings are also valid for small/organic farmers vis-à-vis large-scale agro-industry. For example, small/medium and environmentally concerned farmers in Europe are often asking for more policies and regulations, and see it as necessary from a climate perspective, and also to maintain competitiveness relative to large agro-industrial complexes. Therefore, the need for governmental support for small producers in regulations encompasses all AFOLU sectors.

<div id="Forestry case: zero deforestation" class="h4-container"></div>

<span id="forestry-case-zero-deforestation"></span>
===== Forestry case: zero deforestation =====

<div id="h4-1-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Forest is generally defined as land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 10%, or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ ( [[#FAO--1998|FAO 1998]] ). Zero-deforestation (i.e., both gross and net zero deforestation) initiatives generate results at multiple levels ( [[#Meijer--2014|Meijer 2014]] ). Efforts to achieve zero-deforestation (and consequently emissions) are announced by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), companies, governments, and other stakeholder groups. NGOs engage through their campaigning, but also propose tools and approaches for companies ( [[#Leijten--2020|Leijten et al. 2020]] ). The extent to which companies can actually monitor actions conducive to zero-deforestation pledges depends on their position in the supply chain. Beyond the business practices of participating companies, achieving long-term positive societal impacts requires upscaling from supply chains towards landscapes, with engagement of all stakeholders, and in particular small producers. The various success indicators for zero deforestation mirror the multiple levels at which such initiatives develop: progress towards certification, improved traceability, and legality are apparent output measures, whereas direct-area monitoring and site selection approaches target the business practices themselves.

Such efforts have led to the development of the High Carbon Stock (HCS) approach that combines carbon stock values with the protection of HCS areas (including peatlands and riparian zones) and areas important for the livelihoods of local communities ( [[#Rosoman--2017|Rosoman et al. 2017]] ). Long-term positive impacts, however, will need to be assessed with hindsight and focus on national and global statistics. Successful initiatives targeting zero deforestation at jurisdictional level would also need to improve the enforcement of forest laws and regulations ( [[#EII--2015|EII 2015]] ; [[#Meyer--2015|Meyer and Miller 2015]] ).

Large-scale agribusiness, banks, and consumer goods companies dominate supply chain-focused zero-deforestation initiatives, but only the producers, including local communities and smallholders, can change the production circumstances ( [[#TFD--2014|TFD 2014]] ). Producers shoulder much of the burden for meeting environmental requirements of pledges. And local communities and small producers are vulnerable to being cut out when supply chains reorient. The zero-deforestation pledges do not always devise programmes for introducing new sourcing strategies, and governments may have an important contribution to make, particularly in safeguarding the interests of small producers.

Other than in Brazil and Indonesia, beyond individual supply chains, there is still little evidence on positive results of zero-deforestation commitments, as information available for companies to judge their progress is scarce. Moreover, many zero-deforestation pledges set targets to be achieved by 2020 or 2030, and, consequently, many companies have not yet reported publicly on their progress. Similarly, only a few governments have yet shown progress in reducing deforestation, but the New York Declaration on Forests, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement were adopted relatively recently. The effectiveness of private-sector zero-deforestation pledges depends on the extent to which they can be supported by governmental action and foster a cooperative environment with the engagement of all stakeholders. Where the pledges are coordinated with regulation, multi-stakeholder dialogues, and technical and financial support, a true paradigm shift becomes possible. Many governments are still building the capacity to improve overall forest governance, but implementing ambitious international targets is likely to depend on technical and major financial support that has not yet been mobilised.

<div id="2.9" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="knowledge-gaps"></span>