(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Climate-Smart Forestry: Promise and risks for forests, society, and climate [1]

['Lauren Cooper', 'Department Of Forestry', 'Forest Carbon', 'Climate Program', 'Michigan State University', 'East Lansing', 'Michigan', 'United States Of America', 'David Macfarlane']

Date: 2023-06

Climate change is presenting a global challenge to society and ecosystems. This is changing long-standing methods to determine the values of forests to include their role in climate mitigation and adaptation, alongside traditional forest products and services. Forests have become increasingly important in climate change dialogues, beyond international climate negotiations, because of their framing as a Natural Climate Solution (NCS) or Nature-Based Solution (NBS). In turn, the term “Climate-Smart Forestry” (CSF) has recently entered the vernacular in myriad disciplines and decision-making circles espousing the linkage between forests and climate. This new emphasis on climate change in forestry has a wide range of interpretations and applications. This review finds that CSF remains loosely defined and inconsistently applied. Adding further confusion, it remains unclear how existing guidance on sustainable forest management (SFM) is relevant or might be enhanced to include CSF principles, including those that strive for demonstrable carbon benefits in terms of sequestration and storage. To contribute to a useful and shared understanding of CSF, this paper (1) assesses current definitions and framing of CSF, (2) explores CSF gaps and potential risks, (3) presents a new definition of CSF to expand and clarify CSF, and (4) explores sources of CSF evidence.

Funding: NASA Carbon Cycle & Ecosystems program Grant No. NNX17AE16G (LC) https://cce.nasa.gov/cce/index.htm Funding to collect survey data on rural landowners in MI and preliminary analysis. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (LC and DM) https://www.nifa.usda.gov Funding for the forest and climate professional short course. Good Energies Foundation (LC) https://www.goodenergies.org Provided support for analysis of the climate-smart forest economy safeguards. Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Cooper, MacFarlane. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction

For many millennia, forests have provided sustenance, materials, ecosystem services, and cultural values to human societies, who in turn have advanced various interventions to support these values. The long-standing roles of forests as providers are well documented [1–3]. Also documented is wide variation of culturally acceptable tradeoffs in protection, management, and material use of forests [4–6].

Climate change is presenting a global challenge to society and the forested ecosystems society relies on. This climate crisis, arising because of land use change and emissions from production and fossil fuels burning of, changing long-standing forest valuation to include climate mitigation and adaptation, alongside traditional forest products and services. In turn, forests have received scholarly recognition as a so-called “Natural Climate Solution” (NCS) or “Nature-Based Solution” (NBS), meaning society can address climate change through forestry by reducing emissions from forest loss or by removing atmospheric greenhouse gases via photosynthesis and sequestration [7]. Previous NCS assessments have considered the potential of various land cover and management approaches in terms of opportunity scale (e.g., sequestration of million metric tons of CO 2 e) and the costs of implementation. Assessments at international [7] and national levels [8, 9] point to currently- or potentially-forested lands as the dominant opportunity for nature-based climate change mitigation strategies.

Policy makers at various scales, from nation states to local governments, are considering and advancing forest and climate policies with broad implications for society and the environment. Forests have become increasingly important in international climate change dialogue, as seen in the Warsaw Agreement [10, 11], Paris Agreement [10, 12] and the recent COP26 Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use, which pledges to end and reverse deforestation by 2030 [13], and continued dialogue in COP27 on the role of market mechanisms to link emitters with forest nations via Article 6 [14]. These efforts are ‘next steps’ to the Kyoto Protocol and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) [15]. These examples include Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) investments and substantial international investments to measure, monitor, and promote change in global forest trends [16, 17].

In another context, various regulatory and voluntary markets using forest-based carbon credits have been initiated (e.g., European Union Emissions Trading System [18]), sputtered (e.g., Chicago Climate Exchange [19]), or gained traction (e.g., voluntary markets [20]) in the last two decades. Critiques of market-based activities are that they permit continued pollution [21], outsource mitigation activities, and are capitalistic measurement-intensive interventions. Some scholars [22] have further asserted that such attributes benefit only certain program participants, and that they are often the same actors responsible for global emissions. Regardless, forest carbon projects and innovative incentive programming continue to operate and grow, pointing to an increasing acceptance of mechanisms to finance GHG benefits of trees and forests.

The new emphasis on forest-based NCS has a wide range of interpretations and applications. Such divergent interpretations of forest connections with climate change adaptation and/or mitigation can conflict with one another and have already done so. For example, scholarly work has captured tensions between conservation versus utilization [23], issues with carbon commodification [24], and assertions that carbon credits are a form of ‘greenwashing’ [21]. Further, it brings an increasingly large assembly of policymakers, program designers, natural resource professionals, land managers, and private sector actors interested in developing, selling, buying, and assessing forest carbon credits. Attention to NCS in political, scholarly, public, and private sectors has dramatically altered forest management and sustainability framing in recent years, reshaping a long-standing dialogue about our relationship with trees and forests.

With a diversity of considerations, myriad actors are embracing a phrase that intends to capture a connection between forests, society, and climate: Climate-Smart Forestry (CSF). However, specific definitions for CSF vary widely, with some emphasizing sustainability [25] or economics [26], and others highlighting landscape carbon reserves [27] (see S1 Table for specific examples). As such, CSF is seemingly being applied to a wide swath of activities and interpreted uniquely by each audience, landowner type, and practice.

Considering the complexity of climate change and human relationships with forests, this paper questions whether the term CSF is adequately defined and if some CSF interpretations present new risks to the environment, society, and climate. This paper also seeks to enhance the emerging scholarly discussion on whether forest management can be sustainable without being ‘climate smart’ and if other forestry activities, including avoided conversion and restoration, are adequately recognized under the umbrella of CSF. To assess, we explore how different actors are included or excluded in current CSF definitions and consider how other values for forests (e.g., biodiversity) relate to so-called ‘climate-smart’ outcomes.

To contribute to a useful and shared understanding of CSF, the authors have undertaken a literature review, qualitative assessment of documents, and statistical analysis of datasets from related studies. The results are presented in this paper, which (1) assesses current definitions and framing of CSF, (2) explores CSF gaps and potential risks, (3) presents a new definition of CSF to broaden intervention types and engage multiple scales of decision-makers, and (4) explores sources of evidence of CSF.

Current definitions and ideas in CSF, and their linkage to SFM Use of the term CSF is rapidly increasing in usage in recent years and other examples can be seen across wide-ranging disciplines, from academia [28] to applied practice by policymakers [29–31], planners and builders [26], conservation NGOs [27], and certification body standards ([32]; see S1 Table for these examples and others). This section assesses current definitions of CSF (e.g., interpretations, applications, and principles) as found in current scientific reporting and literature, policymaking, and mainstream media. Within academic literature, CSF has a range of definitions (see S2 Table). Consider that Web of Science searches for “carbon + forests” returned 132,532 results, “carbon + climate + forests” had 50,697 results, and “carbon + climate + forests + mitigation” returned 17,595 results. In contrast, as of January 2022, “Climate-Smart Forestry” returned just 18 results via Web of Science and Science Direct. Thus, despite a great body of scholarly work on topics intersecting carbon, forests, and climate, the term CSF is relatively new and has been minimally adopted and explored in scientific literature. Further demonstrating the limited scope, no CSF results are earlier than 2017, nearly all are European-focused (15 focused on Europe, 1 in sub-Saharan Africa, and 1 in the Pacific Northwest of the United States), and most pertain to industrial forest management (see, for example, [33]) One recent definition, [25, p 2] defines CSF with the following principles: Increasing carbon storage in forests and wood products, in conjunction with the provisioning of other ecosystem services, Enhancing human health and community resilience through adaptive forest management, and Using wood resources sustainably to substitute for non-renewable, carbon-intensive materials. With the word ‘sustainable’ explicit or implicit in most CSF applications, it is relevant to consider previous ideas about sustainable forestry, particularly Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). SFM is an approach, closely linked with the notion of ‘sustainable development’, that has been a central focus of forestry research since the 1980s and is well documented in scientific literature [34]. SFM has an emphasis on productive forest landscapes, or ‘working’ forests, thus denoting ‘sustainable’ in terms of sustained production and the ability to meet the needs of society now and into the future (see S3 Table for definitions relevant to this paper). In recent years, while additional forest values (e.g., habitat provisioning) have received new emphasis in SFM [35], SFM still largely reflects industrialized, development-oriented framing. Scholars have critiqued SFM for not adequately encompassing socio-cultural values [35] and political ecologists have noted that industrial forestry generally includes utilitarian tactics that favor economic production above other values [36, 37]. Moreover, forestry, as a science, is dominated by ideas developed for and practiced in temperate forest ecosystems, with a focus on timber over non-timber products [37]. Still, compared with conventional forest management, SFM is considered more interdisciplinary, inclusive, “less hierarchical”, and more “socially accountable” [34, p 205]. Linking CSF and SFM, [28] suggest that CSF is a subset of SFM (Fig 1A), asserting that SFM can be advanced with climate considerations and that the resulting CSF is appropriate on myriad forested landscapes and use types. In their definition, CSF explicitly includes ecosystem services and acknowledges that climate change threatens production which would have previously been assumed under SFM practices alone, acknowledging that previous assurances may no longer be sufficient to ensure long-term outputs (e.g., due to drought or major disturbance). However, this definition implies that SFM can still be accomplished without climate benefits (Fig 1A) and overlooks forests or potentially forested lands that are not managed for productivity. Under an SFM framing (Fig 1A), CSF might be considered as an optional component of SFM. In contrast to Current CSF framing described here, this article introduces the Enhanced CSF framework (Fig 1B), where SFM is considered just one element of the forest-climate decision portfolio and is explored in more detail later in this paper. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 1. CSF theory examples in literature (a) and in applied practice (b). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000212.g001

Gaps and potential risks in current CSF This section explores potential gaps and risks under a current framing of CSF that focuses only on forests managed for production by exploring ‘science-practice gaps’ and various risks to Current CSF framing. It addresses considerations for actors or actions represented in CSF manifestations and considers how bringing in underrepresented values for forests, like biodiversity preservation, or engaging rural communities could improve so-called ‘climate-smart’ outcomes.

Science–Practice gaps Use of CSF and related terms, such as Climate-Smart Forest Economy [38] or Climate-Smart Forest Products [39], are emerging and seemingly rely on an assumption that CSF has been adequately defined and is well understood. This leads to the term being adopted and used colloquially, without critical examination and robust scientific rationale, constituting a ‘science-practice gap’. Science, Technology, and Society (STS) scholars have undertaken work in myriad disciplines on such applied and data-driven science research-implementation gaps [40] or knowledge-action gaps [41]. With CSF, these manifest as challenges in interpreting and applying forestry (e.g., growth, carbon, biodiversity, health) and climate (e.g., forest-climate interactions) sciences to the practice and on-the-ground decision-making of CSF. To explore perceptions of CSF, consider results from a recent survey distributed to a network of diverse professionals (based largely in North America and Europe) that are affiliated with or in the network of the Climate-Smart Forest Economy Program [42]. These professionals represent organizations that cross forestry, conservation, economic development, sustainability, building and construction. The survey assessed their understanding of CSF definitions and potential assurances for positive outcomes (Fig 2). When asked level of agreement with the statement “I have a clear understanding of what CSF refers to”, 84% of respondents (n = 44) responded Agree or Strongly Agree. They demonstrated a similar level of agreement (81% responded Agree or Strongly Agree) with “I understand linkages between CSF and climate-smart forest products”. However, only 26% of those participants agreed that “Assurances for a climate-smart forest economy are available and understood by actors”. These results show that the sampled professionals perceived an individual understanding but acknowledged a limited ability to provide adequate assurances to achieve CSF outcomes. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 2. Survey responses from forest, forest product, conservation, and economic development organization professionals. Level of agreement: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral or I don’t know, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000212.g002 A different dataset derived from pre-course survey responses (n = 178) from domestic and international professionals participating in a United States university-level forest carbon training short course from 2019 to 2021 [43] presents further evidence (Fig 3). In this survey, 94% Agree or Strongly Agree that “Forest carbon is becoming increasingly important in my profession” (70% responding Strongly Agree). Interestingly, only 28% Agree or Strongly Agree with “There is adequate knowledge of forest carbon amongst my colleagues”. Note that 80% responded Strongly Agree that “A better understanding of forest carbon will improve policy development and implementation”. Despite this level of Agreement, decision-maker needs may not be clearly reflected in research and resulting material due to inadequate translation. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 3. Data 2018–2021 pre-course participant questionnaire for understanding forest carbon management, MSU forest carbon and climate program. Level of agreement: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral or I don’t know, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000212.g003 These data (Figs 2 and 3) can be interpreted as evidence of a ‘science-practice gap’ in CSF, by demonstrating gaps in forest carbon knowledge and CSF definitions, linkages, and assurances. This is not unique to CSF; STS scholars have found that “two-way knowledge flow between science and practice through joint knowledge-production/integration processes” is rare [40, p 93]. Considering the ongoing climate crisis coupled with the scale of investments in forest-based NCS, there is a pressing need for two-way knowledge flow to enhance science-based CSF framing, metrics, and assessment. To overcome this and to ensure research is not overlooked by practitioners, [41, p 671] recommend making CSF research language: Salient (relevant to decision-makers and readily accessible) Credible (trustworthy, reliable, and sufficiently authoritative) and Legitimate to both scientists and decision makers (developed via inclusive processes)

Expanding and clarifying CSF Enhanced CSF framework. This analysis finds there is ample opportunity to broaden the concept of CSF to a spectrum of activities currently underrepresented that will increase climate benefits as well as social and environmental co-benefits. Adding to [25] three pillars (see Current definitions and ideas in CSF above), a broader definition could explicitly include additional landscapes, forest types, and interventions with climate benefits. Here, we propose the following additions as two new pillars to create an ‘Enhanced’ CSF definition: 4) Protecting natural places by avoiding loss of forests, intact forests, forest complexity, biodiversity, or connectivity, or conversion to higher management intensity; 5) Promote restoration of degraded landscapes, improved ecosystem function, and connectivity (e.g., through corridors) To better understand the distinction between Current and Enhanced CSF framing, Fig 5 distinguishes activities that dominate Current CSF (dark green) from those on either end of the forest condition and type spectrum that are not adequately represented (light green). These Enhanced columns capture the new pillars presented above. Further, the left column, Phases, reflects assessment and implementation phases that have not yet been clearly defined for CSF. Phases 1–4 reflect those could be considered generally present in Current CSF framing. The addition of a new Phase 5 captures broader assessment and impacts of Enhanced CSF currently absent from many strategies. Note that Phase 5 is increasingly discussed in CSF-related dialogues (e.g., climate-smart forest economies or mass timber) and we propose should have a role in a broader CSF definition. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Fig 5. Planning and implementation phases of both Current CSF and proposed Enhanced CSF frameworks. This figure shows conceptual planning and implementation Phases (numbered 1–5) of both Current CSF and the Enhanced CSF proposed in this paper. The dark green center column indicates common features of Current CSF, particularly reflecting the emphasis on productive and managed forests in Improved Forest Management carbon projects. In Phase 1, Enhanced CSF, the light green columns on the right and left, encompass a broader spectrum of potential CSF landscapes from deforested or degraded (right, light green column) to minimal intervention, remote areas (left, light green column) than is seen in Current CSF alone (center, dark green column). After the landscape is assessed, GHG benefit (e.g., carbon storage and sequestration) is analyzed in Phase 2. Phase 3 includes a strategy assessment to achieve climate benefit, with tactics including reforestation and restoration (left, light green column), improved forest management (center, dark green column), and protection (right, light green column). Phase 4 captures feasibility challenges (e.g., finance, social license, additionality) that may be associated with each tactic; reflecting the high feasibility of Current CSF and the feasibility challenges facing Enhanced CSF. Phase 5, with the entire row in light green indicating it is a part of Enhanced CSF, reflects the increasingly dominant themes of landscape and biodiversity planning, inclusion, safeguards, and forest products that explicitly to link multiple scales and disciplines of actors that can be absent from Current CSF. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000212.g005 Enhanced CSF components. The following sections explore key components of the Enhanced CSF framework presented above by highlighting details of the proposed Phases (see Fig 5, first column, for phase names). 1. Assess current forest condition and use (on a spectrum). CSF science would benefit from additional linkages across the spectrum of forest conditions and climate benefits to include these land and forest classifications as additional starting points to assess potential for CSF solutions. The Current CSF framework focuses on carbon in productive forests, including in most domestic US forest carbon projects and major international investments from development banks [116, 117]. However, as this review shows, there is a range of landscapes that could be included and promoted in CSF, including degraded areas, savannas, trees outside of forests, and intact areas with limited or no human interventions currently (e.g., remote tropical or boreal forests). These cover types are underrepresented in Current CSF literature but are relevant under Enhanced CSF framing. This aligns with several examples of colloquial usage (see Table 2, [117]) and makes for direct connections to REDD+ and restoration activities that are proven to provide highly impactful climate and carbon storage benefits. 2. Calculate carbon storage and GHG fluxes (Actual and Potential). CSF interventions must consider actual and potential greenhouse gas fluxes when considering benefits of wood use and stored carbon. There is an emerging emphasis on sequestration rates over carbon storage, which, as this paper explores, presents a narrow understanding of climate benefits compared to, for example, considering long-term resilience of forests and other treed landscapes. These oversights could undermine any carbon storage or sequestration by way of large-scale disturbance or die-off. On the other hand, Enhanced CSF principles can augment traditional forestry metrics by identifying and promoting additional indicators (e.g., tree longevity and biomass residency time) as part of CSF analysis to appraise multiple forest types more appropriately. These additional data will make it more likely that actors can adequately assess higher storage, lower productivity forests [56, 118, 119], as well as bring attention to maintaining large and secure carbon pools in place now [58]. Moreover, some forest carbon projects leave out carbon pools and GHGs considered ‘not significant’ or too difficult to assess, though some of them are potentially immensely important (e.g., such as forested peat soils, see [120]). While it may not be possible to adequately measure them now, their inclusion, event with default values, can provide important insights to support decision-making. Further, if CSF intends to make claims about carbon in the HWP pool, these calculations must be data-driven to avoid overestimating substitution benefit [121, 122] or underestimating emissions in forestry practices. 3. Determine strategy and tactics. While SFM focuses on forests managed for productivity, Enhanced CSF encompasses additional decisions for forested and potentially forested landscapes. An emphasis solely on ‘productive’, ‘managed’, or ‘working’ forests overlooks other opportunities for optimal climate benefits, particularly when planning at a landscape scale. Based on GHG information from Phase 2, an optimal mix of tactics can be determined that may include afforestation or reforestation, improved forest management (a type of SFM common in temperate carbon projects that pursues adjustments to practices to increase carbon storage on the landscape and in products) or Reduced Impact Logging (RIL), Avoided conversion of forested lands (including changes that result in loss of biodiversity or key species), or a combination of these. Considering momentum on forest carbon projects and jurisdictional approaches, these methods and strategies could be explicitly linked in Enhanced CSF framing. Such interventions are well-documented in methodologies (e.g., Verra [123]), and access to a wider range of solutions can avoid potential pitfalls such as overlooking unique value of old or late succession forests, inappropriately prioritizing trees over prairies, or promoting more intense or even commercial forest management in communal forests with no history or interest in that activity. Further, if HWPs are part of the CSF strategy mix, it is essential to pursue efficiency for optimal climate benefits. CSF strategies could include identifying cascading value for wood materials to increase emphasis on long-lived products, reuse, and recycling. 4. Consideration of feasibility and implementation. Forest carbon projects typically have a feasibility stage that includes assessment of carbon stocks and fluxes, carbon market access, technical capacity, governance and management, and financial considerations (e.g., opportunity, inventory, and monitoring costs). Current CSF, particularly efforts that alter production management regimes (Improved Forest Management, or IFM), are highly feasible and have become the dominant source of carbon credits. For example, in the United States around 50% of projects on the Verra registry [123] and 87% on California ARB [117] are IFM projects. On the other hand, activities can be considered lower feasibility for a range of reasons, including high value of alternative land uses (known as opportunity costs), an inability to prove additionality, lower estimated sequestration rates, and scale of intervention (e.g., smaller parcels) (see Table 3). PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Table 3. Examples sources of low feasibility scenarios in Current CSF framing. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000212.t003 CSF should include considerations beyond implementation costs and additionality to create more inclusive incentive structures. Carbon schemes that require evidence of deforestation risk to claim additionality or offer low payments to rural actors to protect forests, can undervalue stored carbon. For example, a major Peruvian conservation program, National Program for the Conservation of Forests (PNCB in Spanish), pays Indigenous communities 10 soles—approximately 3USD—per hectare, even in areas of demonstrably high risk [124] and of well-documented high-biodiversity ecological value [125]. Inclusive CSF interventions could benefit more actors by being easy to understand and with low barriers to entry (e.g., cost and knowledge). Increasingly, programs that provide Enhanced CSF benefits are reaching additional actors with programs that are comprehensible and with reasonable requirements (e.g., short time commitments). The Peruvian PNCB, discussed previously, performs well in this aspect, requiring commitments of only 5 years and presents the program in a simpler framing (avoiding forest conversion) and avoids technical carbon knowledge. Similarly, the US-based Family Forest Carbon Program offers shorter timeframes when compared to traditional carbon projects and compensates landowners for undertaking and committing to specific practices, like removing invasive species or allowing their forests to increase in maturity [126]. Key aspects of feasibility are social dimensions, like governance, participation, and inclusion of grievance mechanisms. [127] pointed out that policies should focus on how to ensure meaningful participation of local users in developing forest management and protection plans [128]. Considering the example programs above, these tactics are helping overcome social barriers and increase feasibility that will be essential to scale and incentivize robust and diverse CSF interventions. 5. Assess broader impacts of CSF strategy Enhanced CSF does not occur only at the parcel level. Instead, parcel-level initiatives are considered as component tactics of strategies to produce optimum outcomes at a landscape scale. This requires considerations like balancing production with protection and connecting natural areas as a restoration strategy. Considering how and where to distribute benefits efficiently and equitably will be the central challenge going forward if CSF-oriented climate finance continues to arrive in forests globally [129]. Tactics should include horizontal (lateral) and vertical (top down or bottom up) benefit distribution across actors from forest decision-makers to wood users in built environments [130]. Multiple levels of governance and incentives require integrated approaches to sustainable land use, which will underpin CSF implementation. Further, multiple scales of government reporting (e.g., national level commitments in UNFCCC Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), jurisdictional approaches by sub-national actors) indicate different levels of uncertainty and possibilities for interventions. There remain opportunities to improve linkages between carbon stocks with landscape scale planning and management, to ensure carbon pool levels are maintained. Because of the wide range of possible actors in Enhanced CSF, it is becoming increasingly imperative and yet difficult to merge and layer this information in ways that neither inflate nor overlook benefits; or push increased sequestration at the detriment of stored carbon, communities, or other ecosystem services or forest inhabitants. Finally, efforts should strengthen incorporation of social and environmental safeguards (limiting negative consequences) in CSF, including unique approaches to eliminating harm (e.g., biodiversity loss) and increasing co-benefits across scales like local or regional economies and watersheds.

Sources of evidence of CSF As shown in this analysis, Enhanced CSF reflects a complex interdisciplinary realm, crossing guidance and metrics for carbon storage and sequestration, biodiversity, sustainability, governance, and development. Dialogue on CSF can include wide ranging expertise, from architects to foresters to development organizations. Currently, there are substantial limitations in assuring sustainability in global forest management and product use, and it is unclear if or how available assurances can adequately assess and communicate CSF principles in an efficient and robust manner [93]. Further, the range of actors and decision-makers engaging in CSF makes it challenging to work across existing frameworks to safeguard against negative consequences. The determination of whether forestry is ’climate smart’ is a multistage process; the phases described here (Fig 5) represent a conceptualization of that process. Stacking and layering CSF methods and assurances will be necessary to assess these impacts; requiring the ability to translate data and methodologies for parcel level certifications, forest carbon projects, jurisdictional areas, and along the chain of custody for wood products. As many of these actors have good practice guidance or requirements in place, this section explores potential CSF additional metrics and assurances as well as additional sources of guidance useful for clarifying CSF and points of initiation for additional growth going forward.

Established implementation science Scientific information can shape behavior through various processes of ‘implementation science’. In forestry, these can include regulations, voluntary guidelines, extension and knowledge transfer, evaluation frameworks, and professional organizations. Such examples of implementation science act as a translator between research and practitioner communities, i.e., overcoming the science-practice gap. As climate change becomes an increasing and persistent threat to society and forests, there are efforts to rapidly expand previous evaluation sustainable forestry frameworks (e.g., sustainable management Certification, Criteria and Indicators, Laws and Policies, Nationally Determined Contributions), Trade agreements, Best Management Practices) with new initiatives (e.g., Climate Smart Forest Economy Program, jurisdictional approaches). There have been relevant scholarly efforts assessing SFM criteria and indicators to identify which indicators are applicable for CSF, in a largely managed forest context [28, 131]. Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) is the science of metrics and indicators for forest carbon and other GHG measurements. As a well-established approach in line with national commitments, direct linkages to the emerging theories around CSF have not yet been made clear, though they presumably match with a variety of measurement approaches related to carbon and forests. Considering the immense MRV efforts by nation-states and increasingly sub-state actors to establish MRV systems, there is increasingly ample data on landscape carbon stocks in above and below ground pools, and increasingly in soils. However, as this paper explores, carbon stocks alone are limited in their ability to frame climate benefits more broadly (e.g., climate “smartness”) and MRV protocols might need to be Enhanced to include broader CSF principles. Sustainable forest management certification, particularly for landowners, is a central interface to close the science-knowledge gap (see S3 Table for the language in the standard as well as other examples). However, in areas with weak governance and high levels of illegal activity, chain of custody can be nearly impossible to determine, limiting the power of existing assurances like certification. This means that promoting wood used from unknown origins can have major social and environmental impacts. Generally, certification and their implementing organizations provide not only guidance, but a two-way communication platform to engage and train rural decision-makers and utilize inclusive stakeholder engagement process to develop guidance. Straka and Khanal [132] describe how forest certification is a tool for knowledge transfer, and, as an example, the latest Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) standard includes a new Objective titled “Climate Smart Forestry” [32].

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000212

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.