United States Agency for International Development

▶ Addresses a wide range of timely environment, economic and energy topics ▶ A forum to review, analyze and stimulate the development, testing and implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies at regional, national and global scales ▶ Contributes to real-time policy analysis and development as national and international policies and agreements are discussed and promulgated ▶ 94% of authors who answered a survey reported that they would definitely publish or probably publish in the journal again

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change

Framework Convention on Climate Change

Better stewardship of land is needed to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement goal of holding warming to below 2 °C; however, confusion persists about the specific set of land stewardship options available and their mitigation potential. To address this, we identify and quantify "natural climate solutions" (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We find that the maximum potential of NCS-when constrained by food security, fiber security, and biodiversity conservation-is 23.8 petagrams of CO2 equivalent (PgCO2e) y-1 (95% CI 20.3-37.4). This is ≥30% higher than prior estimates, which did not include the full range of options and safeguards considered here. About half of this maximum (11.3 PgCO2e y-1) represents cost-effective climate mitigation, assuming the social cost of CO2 pollution is ≥100 USD MgCO2e-1 by 2030. Natural climate solutions can provide 37% of cost-effective CO2 mitigation needed through 2030 for a >66% chance of holding warming to below 2 °C. One-third of this cost-effective NCS mitigation can be delivered at or below 10 USD MgCO2-1 Most NCS actions-if effectively implemented-also offer water filtration, flood buffering, soil health, biodiversity habitat, and enhanced climate resilience. Work remains to better constrain uncertainty of NCS mitigation estimates. Nevertheless, existing knowledge reported here provides a robust basis for immediate global action to improve ecosystem stewardship as a major solution to climate change.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/44/11645.full.pdf

Natural climate solutions

Social learning is increasingly becoming a normative goal in natural resource management and policy. However, there remains little consensus over its meaning or theoretical basis. There are still considerable differences in understanding of the concept in the literature, including a number of articles published in Ecology & Society. Social learning is often conflated with other concepts such as participation and proenvironmental behavior, and there is often little distinction made between individual and wider social learning. Many unsubstantiated claims for social learning exist, and there is frequently confusion between the concept itself and its potential outcomes. This lack of conceptual clarity has limited our capacity to assess whether social learning has occurred, and if so, what kind of learning has taken place, to what extent, between whom, when, and how. This response attempts to provide greater clarity on the conceptual basis for social learning. We argue that to be considered social learning, a process must: (1) demonstrate that a change in understanding has taken place in the individuals involved; (2) demonstrate that this change goes beyond the individual and becomes situated within wider social units or communities of practice; and (3) occur through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network. A clearer picture of what we mean by social learning could enhance our ability to critically evaluate outcomes and better understand the processes through which social learning occurs. In this way, it may be possible to better facilitate the desired outcomes of social learning processes.

/pdf/what-is-social-learning-52x38zo69h.pdf

What is social learning

Liana cutting is a commonly suggested silvicultural practice aimed at reducing the negative impacts of lianas on timber production, but few experimental studies have been conducted to evaluate the cost and efficiency of this practice. In this study, we estimated the cost of cutting lianas in 12 plots of 0.25 ha each in a densely liana-infested forest of lowland Bolivia, and evaluated the efficiency of this silvicultural treatment in terms of the proportion of lianas missed, the density of resprouting liana stumps, and the number of liana-infested trees after two years of an experimental liana treatment.The cost of cutting lianas in this forest by locally hired laborers was 23.6 (SE = 2.48) person-hours/ha. Considering local cost of labor and the U.S.–Bolivian currency exchange rate at the time of the study, this figure translates to ca $15/ha. Liana density decreased from 2471 (SE = 104.3) to 130 (SE = 24.2) liana stems ≥2 cm/ha immediately after cutting, because 5.5 percent of lianas were left uncut (missed). Slender lianas were missed more often than lianas with large-diameter stems. Liana species that grow 2–3 m before they start to twine were also frequently missed. Twenty-two percent of liana stumps ≥2 cm sprouted after cutting. Liana stumps with larger diameters sprouted more than stumps with smaller diameters. Most liana stumps produced only two sprouts. Two years after cutting, 78 percent of trees had no living lianas in their crowns, in contrast to only 13 percent liana-free trees in the control plots. Sixty-four percent of trees still had hanging dead lianas two years after cutting, but only 23 percent of trees were reinvaded by lianas using dead liana stems as trellises.Liana cutting can efficiently reduce the number of lianas in liana-infested forests, and the effects of cutting lianas last for at least two years; however, the treatment is expensive. Thus, we recommend that it is better to view liana cutting as a preventive activity to avoid liana infestation, rather than as a corrective measure after poor management. Liana cutting can be easily conducted along with other reduced-impact logging practices.

Cost and Efficiency of Cutting Lianas in a Lowland Liana Forest of Bolivia1

Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will require theestablishment of procedures for monitoring,verification and certification of carbon offsetprojects. In this paper, the steps required forindependent certification of forestry-based carbonoffset projects are reviewed, based on the proceduresused by the international certification companySociete Generale de Surveillance.Firstly, a project must be evaluated for itssuitability in relation to eligibility criteria of theKyoto Protocol. These eligibility criteria areclassified under four headings: (a) acceptability tohost country parties and international agreements; (b)additionality, in terms of demonstrated positivegreenhouse gas effects additional to the`business-as-usual' case; (c) externalities orunwanted side effects; and, (d) capacity to implementproject's activities. Secondly, the scientificmethodology for calculating the carbon offsets and themethodology for data collection and statisticalanalysis must be evaluated. Additionally, the amountof carbon offsets quantified must be adjusted toreflect the uncertainty associated with themethodology and data used. Only when these steps havebeen completed can carbon offsets be certified.Finally, the paper discusses the importance ofstandardization of methods and procedures used forproject monitoring and verification, and the need foraccreditation to ensure that the activities ofcertifiers are regulated.

Elements of a certification system for forestry-based carbon offset projects

Population matrix models and palm resource management

Can harvesting for timber in tropical forest enhance timber tree regeneration

We evaluate the case for using feedback iteratively, to improve student engagement and learning. In this model, students were invited to respond to tutor feedback with students’ own responses. Among the three courses/modules (three tutors) studied, differences in feedback styles were evident from: (a) thematic analysis of tutor comments and, for one course, and (b) comments in a student focus group. Students were inconsistent in their evaluation of tutor feedback but, in a more detailed study of one of the courses, there was clear evidence for the benefits of iterative feedback. Lessons from the main study were then applied to a course that had not previously incorporated iterative feedback. Using this experience, we provide suggestions for applying iterative feedback in assessments.

Michelle A. Pinard

Papers

Cost and Efficiency of Cutting Lianas in a Lowland Liana Forest of Bolivia1

Elements of a certification system for forestry-based carbon offset projects

Population matrix models and palm resource management

Can harvesting for timber in tropical forest enhance timber tree regeneration

Closing the feedback loop? Iterative feedback between tutor and student in coursework assessments