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

==== 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>