Nature Based Climate Solutions Advisory Committee priority question #2 – co-creating a narrative addressing permanency of actions

Issue

How do we communicate the narrative regarding the challenges and diversity of opinions related to the multiple long-term co-benefits of projects funded by the Nature Climate Solutions Fund (NCSF), including but not limited to: restored land; trees planted; and other effective area-based conservation measures where there are no legal mechanisms to impose “permanency” of any actions undertaken by the three program streams?

Background

• In order to achieve NCSF’s goals (i.e., carbon sequestration, reduced net GHG emissions and enhanced human and environmental co-benefits), we need to establish mutually beneficial cost-sharing partnerships with a variety of stakeholders. As a result, projects will take place on land owned and managed in different ways, including by the Crown, municipalities, for-profit businesses, conservation authorities, Indigenous governments and treaty rights holders, and private landowners.
• The NCSF has received many questions around the “permanency” of NCSF actions – to what extent will  trees planted, habitat restored, wetlands, grasslands, peatlands preserved and beneficial management practices (BMP) adopted by agricultural producers persist over time? The long-term endurance of NCSF actions is important for retaining carbon sequestration over time, as a reversal of land use will result in GHG emissions and loss of co-benefits. The NCSF programs are working in good faith with project proponents to ensure that the funded actions are enduring; however, there are a number of considerations that limit its ability to enforce permanency.
• The implementation of natural climate solutions is inherently complex, involving multiple stakeholders, complex scientific modeling and exogenous factors, to provide a variety of environmental and human benefits. Seeking to enforce permanency on lands outside of federal jurisdiction raises legal challenges, may discourage private landowners and other governments from partnering, given that it may not be seen as mutually beneficial, and removes other potential future uses of that land, potentially being incompatible with the land’s existing covenants. A reduced participation towards NCSF activities would mean fewer actions taken and a lower likelihood of achieving the NCSF’s goals. Communicating this complex narrative to the public without being perceived negatively, which could significantly undermine the program, is challenging. Therefore, advice on how the NCSF might communicate this complex narrative and the anticipated enduring impacts of its actions is important to the success of the initiative.

Considerations

Legal Limitations

• Almost all NCSF projects will take place on lands outside of federal jurisdiction.
• Each NCSF program has distinct Terms and Conditions that limit their ability to enforce permanency on land outside of federal jurisdiction. For example, the Nature Smart Climate Solutions Fund allows purchase of land or land protection covenants^{Footnote 1}, whereas the 2BT and Agricultural Climate Solutions - Living Labs Program do not and must rely on partnerships with landowners or producers.
• Programs establish partnerships with funding recipients through legally-binding contribution agreements, which specify the terms of the project’s implementation. However, these conditions cannot be applied beyond the duration of the project.
• The NCSF supports the Government of Canada's commitment to advance reconciliation, strengthen partnerships, and pursue mutually-beneficial social and economic opportunities with Indigenous Peoples. It does not presume what their priorities may be, and therefore is limited in its ability to restrict future land management decisions and economic opportunities on Indigenous-managed lands.

Land Manager and Landowner Concerns

• Stakeholders have already communicated a resistance to permanency. For example, some land managers are reticent to sign agreements that guarantee actions and changes remain intact for the long term (e.g. out to 2050), and tree planting organizations have signalled that imposing permanency significantly dissuades participation by private landowners. 
• It is difficult for agricultural producers to make long-term land use commitments, given that factors influencing land management decisions (i.e. economic considerations including broader market conditions, climatic changes, personal circumstances, etc.), can vary year-to-year.
• NCSF program activities will interact with natural systems that cannot be controlled or predicted, and the program cannot prevent loss due to natural disturbances.

NCSF Long-Term Impacts

• Programs will strive to target and work in good faith with landowners that are dedicated to long-term maintenance of forests, restored habitat and climate-smart agriculture to deliver projects that will endure and provide tremendous value in achieving NCSF goals and other important co-benefits.
• The goal of the program is to contribute to the net-zero by 2050 goal, and emissions reductions resulting from the program will be tracked within the GHG National Inventory Report. This will ensure that emissions reductions that are lost (e.g., due to land-use conversion at a later date or natural disturbance) will no longer be counted towards the 2050 goal.
• Moreover, some NCSF activities are already subject to established land management regimes that promote sustainability and long-term benefits. For example, 2BT planting is incremental to current legally-required tree planting activities and large-scale projects would automatically be subject to Canada’s stringent sustainable forest management regime. Trees may be lost to natural disturbances, or harvested at some point as part of stand management, but they will already have provided important benefits. How the wood fibre is used afterwards could also continue to contribute to carbon sequestration.
• There are other high-profile natural climate solutions initiatives that may provide insight on models that take similar mixed approaches. For example, New Zealand’s One Billion Trees Program, which includes commercial forest joint ventures and leases toward a variety of socio-economic benefits and the Trillion Trees Initiative (led by BirdLife International, Wildlife Conservations Society, and World Wildlife Fund for Nature), which supports sustainable local agroforestry initiatives in addition to conservation efforts. There is no clear indication that these initiatives require permanency, especially considering the types of partnerships they are seeking.

Related link

• Nature Based Climate Solutions Advisory Committee