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

==== 7.5.6.3 Forests and agriculture ====

<div id="section-7-5-6-3-forests-and-agriculture-block-1"></div>

Retaining existing forests, restoring degraded forest and afforestation are response options for climate change mitigation with adaptation benefits (Section 6.4.1). Policies at various levels of governance that foster ownership, autonomy, and provide incentives for forest cover can reduce trade-offs between carbon sinks in forests and local livelihoods (especially when the size of forest commons is sufficiently large) (Chhatre and Agrawal 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1216|1216]]</sup> ; Locatelli et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1217|1217]]</sup> ) (see Table 7.6 this section; Case study: Forest conservation instruments: REDD+ in the Amazon and India, Section 7.4.6).

<div id="section-7-5-6-3-forests-and-agriculture-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-7.6"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 7.6'''

<span id="risks-at-various-scales-levels-of-uncertainty-and-agreement-in-relation-to-trade-offs-among-sdgs-and-other-goals.-1"></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Risks at various scales, levels of uncertainty and agreement in relation to trade-offs among SDGs and other goals.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:d582a1c839e5a149234e9d02492e5bec table-7.6.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-7-5-6-3-forests-and-agriculture-block-3"></div>

Forest restoration for mitigation through carbon sequestration and other ES or co-benefits (e.g., hydrologic, non-timber forest products, timber and tourism) can be passive or active (although both types largely exclude livestock). Passive restoration is more economically viable in relation to restoration costs as well as co-benefits in other ES, calculated on a net present value basis, especially under flexible carbon credits (Cantarello et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1218|1218]]</sup> ). Restoration can be more cost effective with positive socio-economic and biodiversity conservation outcomes, if costly and simplistic planting schemes are avoided (Menz et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1219|1219]]</sup> ). Passive restoration takes longer to demonstrate co-benefits and net economic gains. It can be confused with land abandonment in some regions and countries, and therefore secure land-tenure at individual or community scales is important for its success (Zahawi et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1220|1220]]</sup> ). Potential approaches include improved markets and payment schemes for ES (Tengberg et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1221|1221]]</sup> ) (Section 7.4.6).

Proper targeting of incentive schemes and reducing poverty through access to ES requires knowledge regarding the distribution of beneficiaries, information about those whose livelihoods are likely to be impacted, and in what manner (Nayak et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1222|1222]]</sup> ; Loaiza et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1223|1223]]</sup> ; Vira et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1224|1224]]</sup> ). Institutional arrangements to govern ecosystems are believed to synergistically influence maintenance of carbon storage and forest-based livelihoods, especially when they incorporate local knowledge and decentralised decision- making (Chhatre and Agrawal 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1225|1225]]</sup> ). Earning carbon credits from reforestation with native trees involves the higher cost of certification and validation processes, increasing the temptation to choose fast- growing (perhaps non-native) species with consequences for native biodiversity. Strategies and policies that aggregate landowners or forest dwellers are needed to reduce the cost to individuals and payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes can generate synergies (Bommarco et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1226|1226]]</sup> ; Chhatre and Agrawal 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1227|1227]]</sup> ). Bundling several PES schemes that address more than one ES can increase income generated by forest restoration (Brancalion et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1228|1228]]</sup> ).

In the forestry sector, there is evidence that adaptation and mitigation can be fostered in concert. A recent assessment of the California Forestry Offset Project shows that, by compensating individuals and industries for forest conservation, such programmes can deliver mitigation and sustainability co-benefits (Anderson et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1229|1229]]</sup> ). Adaptive forest management focusing on reintroducing native tree species can provide both mitigation and adaptation benefit by reducing fire risk and increasing carbon storage (Astrup et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1230|1230]]</sup> ).

In the agricultural sector, there has been little published empirical work on interactions between adaptation and mitigation policies. Smith and Oleson (2010) <sup>[[#fn:r1231|1231]]</sup> describe potential relationships, focusing particularly on the arable sector, predominantly on mitigation efforts, and more on measures than policies. The considerable potential of the agro-forestry sector for synergies and contributing to increasing resilience of tropical farming systems is discussed in Verchot et al. (2007) <sup>[[#fn:r1232|1232]]</sup> with examples from Africa.

Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has emerged in recent years as an approach to integrate food security and climate challenges. The three pillars of CSA are to: (1) adapt and build resilience to climate change; (2) reduce GHG emissions, and; (3) sustainably increase agricultural productivity, ultimately delivering ‘triple-wins’ (Lipper et al. 2014c). While the idea is conceptually appealing, a range of criticisms, contradictions and challenges exist in using CSA as the route to resilience in global agriculture, notably around the political economy (Newell and Taylor 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1233|1233]]</sup> ), the vagueness of the definition, and consequent assimilation by the mainstream agricultural sector, as well as issues around monitoring, reporting and evaluation (Arakelyan et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1234|1234]]</sup> ).

Land-based mitigation is facing important trade-offs with food production, biodiversity and local biogeophysical effects (Humpenöder et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1235|1235]]</sup> ; Krause et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1235|1235]]</sup> ; Robledo-Abad et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1236|1236]]</sup> ; Boysen et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1237|1237]]</sup> , 2017a,b). Synergies between bioenergy and food security could be achieved by investing in a combination of instruments, including technology and innovations, infrastructure, pricing, flex crops, and improved communication and stakeholder engagement (Kline et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1238|1238]]</sup> ). Managing these trade-offs might also require demand-side interventions, including dietary change incentives (Section 5.7.1).

Synergies and trade-offs also result from interaction between policies (Urwin and Jordan 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r1239|1239]]</sup> ) at different levels of policy (vertical) and across different policies (horizontal) – see also Section 7.4.8. If policy mixes are designed appropriately, acknowledging and incorporating trade-offs and synergies, they are more apt to deliver an outcome such as transitioning to sustainability (Howlett and Rayner 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1240|1240]]</sup> ; Huttunen et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1241|1241]]</sup> ) ( ''medium evidence'' and ''medium agreement'' ). However, there is ''medium evidence'' and ''medium agreement'' that evaluating policies for coherence in responding to climate change and its impacts is not occurring, and policies are instead reviewed in a fragmented manner (Hurlbert and Gupta 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1242|1242]]</sup> ).

<div id="section-7-5-6-4-water-food-and-aquatic-ecosystem-services-es"></div>

<span id="water-food-and-aquatic-ecosystem-services-es"></span>