Nature Based Climate Solutions Advisory Committee priority question #1 – maximizing co-benefits

Issue

How can the Natural Climate Solutions Fund (NCSF) maximize co-benefits such as biodiversity, and human well-being, while achieving the Fund’s primary objective of carbon mitigation/sequestration?

Background

• The NCSF was established to harness the power of nature to increase carbon storage and/or avoid or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. Overall, the NCSF is expected to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions by an estimated 4-7 megatonnes (Mt) annually in 2030 and 14-17 Mt annually by 2050.
• While the primary objective of the NCSF is GHG reduction, there are a range of anticipated environmental and human well-being co-benefits, such as: support for biodiversity and habitat for wildlife; climate change adaptation in urban and rural communities; resilience, sustainability, and prosperity in nature-based economic sectors; progress on reconciliation; and green jobs.
• To operationalize these objectives, the 2 Billion Trees (2BT) and Nature-Smart Climate Solutions Fund (NSCSF) programs will have multiple open calls for proposals, and the Agricultural Climate Solutions (ACS) Living Labs initiative, which aims to establish at least one living lab in each province, will have two intake periods.
• As future calls for proposals are scoped and launched, applications evaluated, and projects implemented, the Committee’s advice on the following would be helpful:
  • NSCSF: When could it be advisable to prioritize projects that offer lower carbon mitigation potential but larger co-benefits (e.g., for biodiversity and human well-being), in cases where all other conditions (such as cost) are equal, and what is the best way to evaluate this?
  • All programs: Considering GHG estimates have a higher degree of uncertainty at the project proposal stage, is there a way to help evaluate GHG benefits and other co benefits such as increased biodiversity and human well-being benefits IN ADVANCE (quantitatively and qualitatively) and how should these be weighed.
  • How can the NCSF maximize co-benefits during project implementation, including measurement and reporting?

Considerations

• In selecting NSCSF projects, the program will evaluate the GHG benefits of a range of proposed project types (e.g., securing and conserving carbon-rich ecosystems, carbon sequestration from restoration and enhancement projects other than tree planting), while balancing cost and biodiversity co-benefits.
  • The cost per tonne of carbon will be an important consideration, as some projects may have lower mitigation potential per hectare but also a lower implementation cost (e.g., grassland in the prairies) and others may have a much higher mitigation potential that also comes at a higher cost (e.g., old growth forests).
  • The general intended approach for factoring co-benefits into NSCSF project selection will be to filter for landscapes and ecosystems already identified as biodiversity priorities, and then further refine using yet-to-be-developed scoring criteria. One option being considered is to score projects for tonnes of carbon, hectares, and cost, and then use biodiversity co-benefits as a multiplier. In this case projects with high co-benefits would receive full marks (multiplied by 1.0), those with fewer co-benefits are scored lower (multiplied by <1.0), and those with none or the potential to cause harm would score 0 and be removed from consideration. The Committee’s advice on this initial thinking would be helpful.
• Applicants to the 2BT program will be providing GHG estimates for their projects, with the final determination of GHG benefits calculated by NRCan scientists after funding recipients provide project reports. The potential GHG benefit will be a key assessment factor in project selection but NRCan is seeking to better understand how to assess and maximize project co-benefits.
• ACS aims to reduce GHG emissions through carbon sequestration and GHG mitigation, while supporting environmental co-benefits, both of which are evaluated through the assessment process. Advice from the Committee would be helpful on how to maximize co-benefits while maintaining the focus on carbon sequestration and GHG reduction efforts.

Related link

• Nature Based Climate Solutions Advisory Committee