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

=== 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>