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.

Sustainably managed forests and forest products have a well-documented potential to deliver significant climate change mitigation benefits via sequestration, storage, and substitution (the 3Ss) when they are sourced sustainably and substituted for traditional resource-intensive materials. Moving beyond product-specific considerations, a climate-smart forest economy (CSFE) aims to bolster the 3Ss and catalyze broader systemic change to address the climate crisis. In their most successful cases, forest value chain interventions that lead to CSFEs will link secondary and tertiary sectors for greater waste reduction, substitution, innovation, and overall cascading climate benefits. However, interventions that contribute to CSFEs, from small to large scale, will inevitably impact environments and communities, both directly and indirectly. While positive impacts can be thought of as co-benefits and should be encouraged, negative impacts are considered negative externalities, and these should be avoided or minimized wherever possible by safeguarding against harm. The failure to minimize negative externalities will have implications for equity, project longevity, and climate benefits. This paper provides preliminary results of mixed methods research with an aim of identifying and building consensus on the definitions, challenges, and solutions relevant to the assessment, planning, and implementation of CSFE safeguards. While broad and novel CSFE safeguards application faces diverse challenges, this paper explores practical solutions to advance and set a foundation for future dialogue, analysis, and application.

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity and forests are increasingly seen as a key pathway to mitigating and adapting to the climate crisis. Because forests stand to play a significant role in reaching net-zero emission targets, politicians and policymakers must act decisively to engineer a rapid paradigm shift that maintains forests’ resilience and adaptive capacity. While there has been significant investment and advancement in forest carbon science to inform policy and planning, there remains a persistent science-practice gap to further integrate scientific information into forest carbon policy and management. Here, we use a survey, semi-structured interviews, and a review of relevant policy literature to assess the nature and extent of, as well as possibilities to bridge, the science-practice gap with regards to forest carbon science, management, and policy. Our results identified barriers to the science-practice gap and provide potential pathways to bridge the divide. We identified three key areas to improve forest carbon outcomes (1) improved data, tools, and models to assess trends and statuses of forests; (2) enhanced carbon science training among state forest practitioners and decision-makers; and (3) effective science-based communication for decision-makers and general audiences. Engagement with forestry stakeholders and iterative and participatory approaches, including targeted education and communication of complex scientific topics, can inform both policy and on-the-ground management. Overcoming such barriers to communication highlights important linkages between forest managers, policymakers, and scientists to address challenges of reaching a net-zero emission.

Despite substantial investments to curb tropical deforestation, effective conservation incentives for Indigenous peoples and local communities is not well-defined and generally under-researched. This study assessed an incentive mechanism in Peru for Indigenous communities that protect enrolled forests to explore whether the stated program goals are actualized in programmatic elements like the requirements, monitoring, and assessment of prioritized outcomes. The research team worked with Indigenous partners to develop key questions regarding how the mechanism could better support their values of conservation and development. Data were sourced from interviews with implementation experts and participants in eight Indigenous communities, a review of programmatic documents, and an assessment of nationally aggregated community data. The results revealed challenges in program capacity, a lack of cultural awareness, and a reliance on capitalistic economic indicators that exclude other aspects of well-being important for Indigenous peoples. We find that the program’s success indicators do not adequately align with conservation or social realities on the ground and that enhanced indicators are needed to ensure success and avoid negative unintended consequences. We demonstrate that enhancing the assessment of governance, economics, engagement, and social inclusion can improve the design, implementation, and monitoring in this and similar programming. We conclude with generalizable recommendations for establishing requirements and monitoring in existing and future conservation incentive programs that target Indigenous communities.

Peru cannot meet its ambitious goal of protecting over 54 million hectares of primary tropical forests without the collaboration of Indigenous Peoples, who have rights over nearly one third of fore...