Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-5 (section)

== 5.6 Forestry Systems ==

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

Forests play a vital role in the ecology of the planet, including climate regulation, and provide a range of important ecosystem services within their local landscape. Moreover, they are essential to the well-being of millions of people around the world. Forests are sources of food contributing about 0.6% of global food consumption and provide important products, such as timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) ( [[#FAO--2014|FAO, 2014]] ). Indigenous Peoples and local communities are estimated to manage at least 17% of total carbon (or 293 × 10 9 Mg) stored in forest in 64 assessed countries ( [[#RRI--2018a|RRI, 2018a]] ). While small in number, numerous local communities around the world are highly or entirely dependent on forests for their food supply ( [[#Karttunen--2017|Karttunen et al., 2017]] ). An estimated 9% of the world’s rural population is lifted above the extreme poverty line because of income from forest resources ( [[#World%20Bank--2016|World Bank, 2016]] ). Additionally, forest income plays a particularly important role in diversifying the income sources of poor households, reducing their vulnerability to loss from one source of income. This section covers an assessment of the impacts of climate change on forestry production systems and the adaptation options available. Non-timber forest products will be covered in the next section.

<div id="5.6.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="observed-impacts-2"></span>
=== 5.6.1 Observed Impacts ===

<div id="h2-16-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The IPCC AR5 stated that there is high confidence that numerous plants and animal species have already migrated, changed their abundance, and shifted their seasonal activities as a result of climate change ( [[#Settele--2014|Settele et al., 2014]] ). The report highlighted the widespread deaths of trees in many forested areas of the world. Forest die back could significantly affect wood production among other impacts.

The SRCCL ( [[#Barbosa--2019|Barbosa et al., 2019]] ) concluded that climate change will have positive and negative effects on forests, with varying regional and temporal patterns. For example, the SRCCL noted the increasing productivity in high-latitude forests such as those in Siberia. In contrast, negative impacts are already being observed in other regions such as increasing tree mortality due to wildfires.

In the past years, tree mortality continued to increase in many parts of the world. Large pulses of tree mortality were consistently linked to warmer and drier than average conditions for forests throughout the temperate and boreal biomes ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Sommerfeld--2018|Sommerfeld et al., 2018]] ; [[#Seidl--2020|Seidl et al., 2020]] ). Long-term monitoring of tropical forests indicates that climate change has begun to increase tree mortality and alter regeneration ( [[#Hubau--2020|Hubau et al., 2020]] ; [[#Sullivan--2020|Sullivan et al., 2020]] ). Climate-related die back has also been observed due to novel interactions between the life cycles of trees and pest species ( [[#Kurz--2008|Kurz et al., 2008]] ; [[#Lesk--2017|Lesk et al., 2017]] ; [[#Sambaraju--2019|Sambaraju et al., 2019]] ). A recent example of the impacts of climatic extremes is the European drought of 2018 ( [[#Buras--2020|Buras et al., 2020]] ), which led to a significant browning of the vegetation and resulted in widespread tree mortality ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Brun--2020|Brun et al., 2020]] ; [[#Schuldt--2020|Schuldt et al., 2020]] ). This brought markets for conifer timber close to collapse in parts of Europe, posing considerable challenges for timber-based forestry and leading to cascading impacts on society ( [[#Hlásny--2021|Hlásny et al., 2021]] ). Overall, there is ''robust evidence'' and ''medium agreement'' that provisioning services of boreal and temperate forests are affected negatively by forest disturbances, while for cultural services only ''limited evidence'' with ''medium agreement'' exists ( [[#Thom--2016|Thom and Seidl, 2016]] ).

Increasingly, climate impacts on the recovery of forests after disturbance are observed: using data from the past 20 years and 33 wildfires, it has been shown that post-fire regeneration of ''Pinus ponderosa'' and ''Pseudotsuga menziesii'' in the western USA has declined because of climate change and increased severity of fires ( [[#Davis--2019|Davis et al., 2019]] ). However, the observed patterns of post-disturbance recovery vary with region, with reduced tree regeneration reported for the western USA ( [[#Stevens-Rumann--2019|Stevens-Rumann and Morgan, 2019]] ; [[#Turner--2019|Turner et al., 2019]] ) but robust recovery observed in Canada ( [[#White--2017|White et al., 2017]] ) and Central Europe ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Senf--2019|Senf et al., 2019]] ).

Also, the distribution and traits of trees are increasingly influenced by climate change, with impacts for local ecosystem service supply. In the USA, a study of 86 tree species/groups over the past three decades showed that more tree species have shifted westward (73%) than poleward (62%) in their abundance ( [[#Fei--2017|Fei et al., 2017]] ). This was due more to changes in moisture availability than to changes in temperature. As climate has warmed, trees are growing faster with longer growing seasons. However, a study of forests in Central Europe revealed that wood density has decreased since the 1870s ( [[#Pretzsch--2018|Pretzsch et al., 2018]] ). This means that increasing tree growth might not directly translate to increased total biomass and carbon sequestration.

<div id="5.6.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="projected-impacts-3"></span>
=== 5.6.2 Projected Impacts ===

<div id="h2-17-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

AR5 stated that other stressors such as human-driven land use change and pollution will continue to be the main causes of forest cover change in the next three decades ( [[#Settele--2014|Settele et al., 2014]] ). In the second half of this century, it was projected that climate change will be a strong stressor of change in forest ecosystems. Many forest species may not be able to move fast enough to adjust to new climate conditions. In some cases, a warmer climate could lead to extinction of species.

The SR15 concluded that limiting warming to 1.5°C will be more favourable to terrestrial ecosystems, including forests, relative to a 2°C warming ( [[#Hoegh-Guldberg--2018|Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018]] ). In general, a 2°C warming could lead to two times more area of biome shifts compared with a 1.5°C warming. As a result, keeping a cooler average global temperature will lead to lower extinction risks. The special report supports the AR5 conclusion that a warmer planet will impact wide swaths of forests adversely. For example, higher temperatures will promote fire, drought and insect disturbances. Consistent with AR5, SRCCL projected that tree mortality will increase with climate change ( [[#Barbosa--2019|Barbosa et al., 2019]] ). In addition, forests will be more exposed to extreme events such as extreme heat, droughts and storms. The incidence of forest fires will likewise increase.

Additional evidence since the above reports were published supports their overall conclusions. For example, at the global scale, modelling the vulnerability of 387 forest ecoregions under future climate change (to 2080 using the average of five Global Circulation Models (GCMs) and RCP4.5 and 8.5) across different biomes, biogeographical realms and conservation statuses showed that 8.8% of global forest ecoregions are highly vulnerable in a low-greenhouse-gas-concentration scenario, and 32.6% of the global forest ecoregions are highly vulnerable in a high-greenhouse-gas-concentration scenario ( [[#Wang--2019a|Wang et al., 2019a]] ). Furthermore, a recent synthesis of the literature suggests that climate change will result in younger and shorter forests globally ( [[#McDowell--2020|McDowell et al., 2020]] ). In Asia, a systematic review of climate change impacts on tropical forests revealed that future climate may lead to changes in species distribution and forest structure and composition as well as phenology ( [[#Deb--2018|Deb et al., 2018]] ).

Overall, studies indicate both negative and positive climate change impacts on forest production systems. Some forests in the USA could benefit slightly from CO 2 fertilisation (using IGSM-CAM and MIROC3.2 till 2100) resulting in increased productivity especially for hardwoods ( [[#Beach--2015|Beach et al., 2015]] ). A study across Europe showed that both productivity gains (mostly in Northern and Central Europe, up to +33%) and losses (predominately in Southern Europe, up to −37%) are possible until the end of the 21st century ( [[#Reyer--2017|Reyer et al., 2017]] ). The study further indicated that disturbances would reduce gains and exacerbate losses of productivity throughout Europe under climate change ( [[#Reyer--2017|Reyer et al., 2017]] ). For Central and Eastern Canada, decreasing biomass production is projected as a result of increasing disturbance from wildfire and drought ( [[#Brecka--2020|Brecka et al., 2020]] ). Climate-induced disturbances could also reduce the temporal stability of ecosystem service supply ( [[#Albrich--2018|Albrich et al., 2018]] ), increasing the volatility of timber markets ( ''medium confidence'' ). More broadly, climate change could lead to abrupt changes and the crossing of tipping points, resulting in profoundly altered future forest development trajectories ( [[#Turner--2020|Turner et al., 2020]] ). Some studies suggest that such threshold could already be crossed at relatively low warming levels of +2°C ( [[#Elkin--2013|Elkin et al., 2013]] ; [[#Albrich--2020|Albrich et al., 2020]] ), with substantial implications for ecosystem service supply ( ''limited evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ).

Regional studies on the potential future effects of climate change on forest production systems indicate diverse impacts. In Germany, drier conditions in 2070 (RCP8.5; GCMs INM-CM4, ECHAM6 and ACCESS1.0) are expected to benefit the mean annual increment at biological rotation age of Scots pine and oak, while beech might suffer losses of up to 3 m 3 ha –1 yr –1 depending on climate scenario and region ( [[#Albert--2018|Albert et al., 2018]] ). In India, 46% of the forest grid points were found to have high, very high or extremely high vulnerability under future climate in the short term (2030s) under both RCP4.5 and 8.5, increasing to 49% and 54%, respectively, in the long term (2080s) ( [[#Sharma--2017|Sharma et al., 2017]] ). In addition, forests in the higher rainfall zones show lower vulnerability as compared with drier forests under future climate, which is in contrast to dry forests in Central and South America cited above. Warming and drying trends are projected to reduce timber production in the neotropics in some cases ( [[#Hiltner--2021|Hiltner et al., 2021]] ). Also in India, a study using CMIP5 (RCP4.5 and 8.5 with two time slices 2021–2050 and 2070–2099) shows how forests in five districts in Himachal Pradesh in Western Himalayan region are vulnerable to global warming ( [[#Upgupta--2015|Upgupta et al., 2015]] ). In the Guiana Shield, climate projections under RCP2.5 and 8.5 led to decreasing the basal area, above-ground fresh biomass, quadratic diameter, tree growth and mortality rates of tropical forests ( [[#Aubry-Kientz--2019|Aubry-Kientz et al., 2019]] ). In Central Africa, projections under RCP4.5 and 8.5 showed a general increase in growth, mortality and recruitment leading to a strong natural thinning effect, with different magnitudes across species ( [[#Claeys--2019|Claeys et al., 2019]] ).

On a global and regional scale, there is ''limited evidence'' and ''high agreement'' ( ''medium confidence'' ) that climate change will increase global and regional supply of timber and other forest products. To date, there are eight studies assessing the total economic impacts of climate change on the forestry sector at the global level. Some of them have assumed only flow effects of climate change by using the projected changes in yields of forest types from integrated economic models ( [[#Perez-Garcia--1997|Perez-Garcia et al., 1997]] ; [[#Perez-Garcia--2002|Perez-Garcia et al., 2002]] ; [[#Buongiorno--2015|Buongiorno, 2015]] ), while other studies have assumed both flow and stock effects by accounting for changes in forest yields, die back effects and biome migration ( [[#Sohngen--2001|Sohngen et al., 2001]] ; [[#Lee--2004|Lee and Lyon, 2004]] ; [[#Tian--2016|Tian et al., 2016]] ; [[#Favero--2018|Favero et al., 2018]] ; [[#Favero--2021|Favero et al., 2021]] ).

According to these studies, global timber supply will increase as the result of an increase in global forest growth under climate change scenarios ( ''medium confidence'' ). Some studies indicate that timber supply is projected to increase more in tropical and subtropical areas because of the assumed availability of short-rotation species which might could adaptation easier for forest owners in these regions relative to others ( [[#Sohngen--2001|Sohngen et al., 2001]] ; [[#Perez-Garcia--2002|Perez-Garcia et al., 2002]] ; [[#Tian--2016|Tian et al., 2016]] ), while others indicate that temperate areas will experience the largest increase in supply ( [[#Favero--2018|Favero et al., 2018]] ; [[#Favero--2021|Favero et al., 2021]] ). The results are very sensitive to the climate change scenarios tested, the climate and vegetation models used and the climate drivers that are considered. For example, [[#Tian--2016|Tian et al. (2016)]] and Favero et al. (2018; 2021) used the same economic model (the global timber model) but different climate scenarios and vegetation models, obtaining different results.

The increasing supply induces lower global timber prices ( ''medium confidence'' ). Studies estimate that the prices will decline between 1% and 38% in 2100 with respect to a no climate change scenario depending on the model and the climate change scenario assumed (climate change is represented as a change in GHG concentration, global average temperature or radiative forcing) ( [[#Favero--2018|Favero et al., 2018]] ; [[#Favero--2021|Favero et al., 2021]] ). Clearly, further studies are needed considering a wider set of vegetation and climate models and incorporating the impacts of extreme events (such as droughts and wildfires).

There are a number of national and regional scale studies exploring the impact of climate change on yields and markets of wood products, with mixed results. In Finland, it is projected that timber yield in the north will increase in Scots pine and birch stands by 33–145% and 42–123%, compared with the current climate, depending on the GCM and thinning regime using a 90-year rotation (10 individual GCM projections under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 forcing scenarios) ( [[#ALRahahleh--2018|ALRahahleh et al., 2018]] ). However, in Norway spruce stands, yield could decline by up to 35%, under GFDL-CM3 RCP8.5 and increase by up to 39%, under CNRM-CM5 RCP8.5, compared with the current climate.

In Germany, timber harvest was projected to increase slightly (&lt;10%) in 2045 using the process-based forestry model (4C) driven by three management strategies (nature protection, biomass production and a baseline management) and an ensemble of regional climate scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP8.5) ( [[#Gutsch--2018|Gutsch et al., 2018]] ). Similarly, average production of pulpwood in slash pine stands in the southeastern USA are projected to increase by 7.5 m 3 ha −1 for all climatic scenarios using the Physiological Processes Predicting Growth (3-PG) forest growth model by 2100 (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5; CanESM2) ( [[#Susaeta--2018|Susaeta and Lal, 2018]] ).

<div id="cross-chapter-box-x" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

'''Box 5.6: Contributions of Indigenous and Local Knowledge: An Example'''
<div id="h2-65-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Indigenous and local people have long histories of adaptation to climate hazards in forests (see [[#Eriksen--2014|Eriksen and Hankins, 2014]] ; [[#Neale--2019|Neale et al., 2019]] ; [[#Bourke--2020|Bourke et al., 2020]] ; [[#Long--2020|Long et al., 2020]] ; [[#Williamson--2021|Williamson, 2021]] for notable examples in Australia and North America). In this section, we present a North American example of an indigenous adaptation practice developed by the Karuk Tribe in northern California. The Karuk Climate Adaptation Plan focuses on the use of cultural fire as climate adaptation, places a central importance on restoring human ecological caretaking responsibilities, and emphasises the need for collaboration, public education and policy advocacy to achieve these outcomes.

The Karuk Climate Adaptation Plan utilises a combination of Western science and Karuk traditional ecological knowledge. The plan centres on 22 focal species as '''cultural indicators''' as cues for human responsibilities and the particular techniques of fire application across seven habitat management zones (e.g., multiple forest types as well as riverine, riparian and montane systems). These adaptations range from specific prescriptions for the use of fire to lower river temperatures in acute scenarios ( [[#David--2018|David et al., 2018]] ), to protocols for treatment of grasslands and the use of high elevation meadows as fuel breaks. The plan also includes chapters on adaptations for tribal sovereignty, the mental and physical health effects of the changing climate and the protection of critical tribal infrastructure.

One aspect of Indigenous fire knowledge featured in the Karuk Climate Adaptation Plan is the culture-centric perspective on vegetation zones which are organised in relation to the elevation band in which smoke inversions occur (Figure Box 5.6.1). Within this system, burn timing follows a gradient that tracks the reproductive life cycles of season and elevational migrant species, the calving of elk and the nesting of birds. Within this system, elevational migrants are indicators of when to stop burning at one location and move upslope, following receding snows.

The plan also calls for the restoration of Indigenous fire science in emergency scenarios such as when rivers become too hot for salmon. With such fires localised, smoke inversions cool water temperatures through a variety of mechanisms, including shading river systems and reducing evapo-transpiration, thereby increasing stream flow ( [[#David--2018|David et al., 2018]] ).

[[File:d98a9aa003ae7e006c16e66c0d3a2a5b IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_5_Box_5_6_1.png]]

'''Figure Box 5.6.1 |''' '''Seasonality and elevation dynamics of cultural indicators in Karuk Cultural Management Zones based in Karuk traditional ecological knowledge.'''

<div id="5.6.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-1"></span>
=== 5.6.3 Adaptation ===

<div id="h2-18-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

AR5 notes that natural ecosystems have built-in adaptation ability ( [[#Settele--2014|Settele et al., 2014]] ). However, this capacity will not be enough to prevent loss of forest ecosystem services because of projected climate change in this century under RCP6.0 and 8.5. Management actions could reduce the risks of impacts to forest ecosystems but only up to a certain point.

A systematic review of literature revealed that successful adaptation in forest management can be achieved if there are partnerships between key stakeholders such as researchers, forest managers and local actors ( [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ). Such partnerships will lead to a shared understanding of climate-related challenges and more effective decisions. Forest managers in some countries of the world seem to have high awareness of climate change ( [[#van%20Gameren--2015|van Gameren and Zaccai, 2015]] ; [[#Seidl--2016|Seidl et al., 2016]] ; [[#Sousa-Silva--2016|Sousa-Silva et al., 2016]] ). However, they need more information on how they can adjust their practices in response to climate change. Institutional and policy context needs to be considered to facilitate adaptation by forest managers ( [[#Sousa-Silva--2016|Sousa-Silva et al., 2016]] ; [[#Andersson--2017|Andersson et al., 2017]] ).

<div id="5.6.3.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-measures-in-sustainable-forest-management"></span>
==== 5.6.3.1 Adaptation measures in sustainable forest management ====

<div id="h3-32-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

A wide range of measures exist to adapt sustainably managed forests of the boreal and temperate zone to climate change ( [[#Kolström--2011|Kolström et al., 2011]] ; [[#Gauthier--2014|Gauthier et al., 2014]] ; [[#Keenan--2015|Keenan, 2015]] ). Evidence emerging since the last assessment report further bolstered the notion that adapting the tree species composition to more warm-tolerant and less disturbance-prone species can significantly mitigate climate change impacts ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Duveneck--2015|Duveneck and Scheller, 2015]] ; [[#Seidl--2018|Seidl et al., 2018]] ). Assisting the establishment of species in suitable habitats is one option to achieve climate-adapted tree species compositions ( [[#Benito-Garzón--2015|Benito-Garzón and Fernández-Manjarrés, 2015]] ; [[#Iverson--2019|Iverson et al., 2019]] ). Furthermore, increasing the diversity of tree species within stands can have positive effects on tree growth and reduce disturbance impacts ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Neuner--2015|Neuner et al., 2015]] ; [[#Jactel--2018|Jactel et al., 2018]] ; [[#Ammer--2019|Ammer, 2019]] ). Some studies also suggest a positive effect of increased structural diversity, such as on forest resilience ( ''moderate confidence'' ) ( [[#Lafond--2013|Lafond et al., 2013]] ; [[#Koontz--2020|Koontz et al., 2020]] ). Managing for continuous forest cover can also help to maintain the forest microclimate and buffer tree regeneration and the forest floor community against climate change ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#De%20Frenne--2013|De Frenne et al., 2013]] ; [[#Zellweger--2020|Zellweger et al., 2020]] ). Reducing stocking levels, such as through thinning, has been found to effectively mitigate drought stress ( [[#Gebhardt--2014|Gebhardt et al., 2014]] ; [[#Elkin--2015|Elkin et al., 2015]] ; [[#Bottero--2017|Bottero et al., 2017]] ), yet effects vary with species and ecological context ( ''robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ) ( [[#Sohn--2016|Sohn et al., 2016]] ; [[#Castagneri--2021|Castagneri et al., 2021]] ). Also shortened rotation periods have been suggested in response to climate-induced increases in growth and disturbance ( [[#Jönsson--2015|Jönsson et al., 2015]] ; [[#Schelhaas--2015|Schelhaas et al., 2015]] ). However, recent evidence suggests that these measures diminish in efficiency under climate change and can have corollary effects on other important forest functions such as carbon storage and habitat quality ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Zimová--2020|Zimová et al., 2020]] ). Also, measures targeting landscape structure and composition have proven effective for increasing the climate resilience of forest systems ( ''medium confidence'' ) ( [[#Aquilue--2020|Aquilue et al., 2020]] ; [[#Honkaniemi--2020|Honkaniemi et al., 2020]] ). While an increasing number of adaptation measures exist for sustainably managed forests, many studies highlight that the lead times for adaptation in forestry are long and that some vulnerabilities might remain also after adaptation measures have been implemented. Furthermore, the costs and benefits of adaptation measures relative to other goals of sustainable forest management, such as the conservation of biological diversity, have to be considered ( [[#Felton--2016|Felton et al., 2016]] ; [[#Zimová--2020|Zimová et al., 2020]] ; see Cross-Chapter Paper 7.5 Adaptation Response Options).

<div id="5.6.3.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="linking-adaptation-and-mitigation-through-reducing-deforestation-and-forest-degradation-plus"></span>
==== 5.6.3.2 Linking adaptation and mitigation through Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus ====

<div id="h3-33-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus (REDD+) is a climate mitigation strategy which could also provide important climate change adaptation co-benefits; for example, sustainable forest management could provide long term livelihoods to local communities and enhance resilience to climate risks ( [[#Turnhout--2017|Turnhout et al., 2017]] ). However, major challenges related to REDD+ implementation and forest use remain such that it has not been implemented successfully at scale (Table 5.8).

'''Table 5.8 |''' Challenges and solutions for REDD+

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Challenges with REDD+ implementation'''

! '''Solutions for successful forest management'''

|-
| ''Legal'' : lack of carbon rights in national legislations ( [[#Sunderlin--2018|Sunderlin et al., 2018]] ; [[#RRI--2018b|RRI, 2018b]] ); unclear forestland tenure systems ( [[#Resosudarmo--2014|Resosudarmo et al., 2014]] ).

| There is ''high confidence'' that implementing social safeguards such as a Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is vital to adequately involving Indigenous Peoples and local communities in REDD+ ( [[#White--2014|White, 2014]] ; [[#Raftopoulos--2019|Raftopoulos and Short, 2019]] ). Indigenous Peoples, consisting of at least 370 million people, manage or have tenure rights over a quarter of the world’s land surface (around 38 million km 2 ) encompassing about 40% of the world’s protected areas ( [[#Garnett--2018|Garnett et al., 2018]] ; [[#RRI--2018a|RRI, 2018a]] ).

|-
| ''Food security and livelihoods'' : negative impacts of REDD+ on food security, agroforestry and swidden agriculture ( [[#Fox--2014|Fox et al., 2014]] ; [[#Holmes--2017|Holmes et al., 2017]] ).

| There is ''high agreement'' that REDD+ and other green adaptation and mitigation efforts need to cooperate with Indigenous Peoples and other local communities who depend on forest resources for their livelihoods and food security ( [[#Wallbott--2014|Wallbott, 2014]] ; [[#Mccall--2016|Mccall, 2016]] ; [[#Brugnach--2017|Brugnach et al., 2017]] ; [[#Vanclay--2017|Vanclay, 2017]] ; [[#Garnett--2018|Garnett et al., 2018]] ; [[#Paneque-Galvez--2018|Paneque-Galvez et al., 2018]] ; [[#Sunderlin--2018|Sunderlin et al., 2018]] ; [[#Schroeder--2019|Schroeder and Gonzalez, 2019]] ).

|-
| ''Political and socio-cultural'' : land acquisition or ‘green grabbing’ ( [[#Asiyanbi--2016|Asiyanbi, 2016]] ; [[#Corbera--2017|Corbera et al., 2017]] ); (mis)communicating the concept of carbon ( [[#Kent--2020|Kent and Hannay, 2020]] ); and lack of influence of Indigenous and local communities’ representation in global and national REDD+ negotiations ( [[#Wallbott--2014|Wallbott, 2014]] ; [[#Dehm--2016|Dehm, 2016]] ). In the absence of social and environmental safeguards, REDD+ could drive large-scale land acquisitions by states and corporations, resulting in global land grabs (or green grabbing), negatively affecting the food security, livelihoods and tenure rights of Indigenous and local communities ( ''limited evidence, high agreement'' ) ( [[#Carter--2017|Carter et al., 2017]] ; [[#Lund--2017|Lund et al., 2017]] ; [[#Borras--2020|Borras et al., 2020]] ).

| There is ''low confidence'' as to whether community forestry is compatible with REDD+ ( [[#Hajjar--2021|Hajjar et al., 2021]] ). This is mainly due to lack of carbon payments and the variety of approaches to REDD+. There is ''high confidence'' that restoring land access and rights via transfer of formal land titles to Indigenous and local communities improves biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration.

|}

<div id="5.7" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="other-natural-products"></span>