Recommendations on permanency to Natural Climate Solutions Fund from the Nature-based Climate Solutions Advisory Committee

Recommendation Summary

We recommend that permanency be a key criterion to obtain funding under the Natural Climate Solutions Fund (NCSF). We came to this recommendation after considering how the objectives of the NCSF could best be achieved. Without permanency as a fundamental principle of NCSF, we have little confidence that the program can deliver the carbon, biodiversity or benefits to people that it was conceived to deliver.

By permanency we mean that restoration activities in the NCSF, be they planting trees, restoring wetlands and grasslands, or restoring natural areas on private lands will: create long- term protection of the carbon stores created through the program; create resilient ecosystems that can better withstand expected and unexpected perturbations; include a full spectrum of tools that support permanency of restored carbon; and reduce the probability of losing permanency.

The purpose of NCSF is to “embrace the power of nature to reduce the effects of and adapt to climate change, all while supporting biodiversity” (Govt of Canada 2021a), or as explained by NRCAN, “... to absorb and store carbon, increase biodiversity and enhance human well-being.” (Natural Resources Canada 2021). “Embracing the power of nature to support healthier families and more resilient communities is one of the five pillars of Canada’s Strengthened Climate Plan” (Govt of Canada 2021b). None of this can be achieved without ensuring that the protection, management and restoration activities funded by NCSF increase the resilience of Canada’s ecosystems, well beyond 2050, to withstand the impacts of climate change, to provide the ecosystem services on which the well-being of Canadians depend, and to continue to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after zero emissions is achieved.

We understand that permanency of tree planting and other restoration activities was not originally conceived to be important when the NCSF was developed. Because the evidence is overwhelming that permanency is essential for the NCSF objectives to be met we have provided advice on how to facilitate implementation of this recommendation.

Specifically, we have provided:

1. A definition of permanency;
2. An explanation of why permanency it is so important to achieve the objectives of the NCSF;
3. The opportunities that pursuing permanency provides;
4. Advice on how to reduce the risks to permanency; and
5. Lessons from similar initiatives in Canada and internationally.

Finally, we present evidence that ‘permanency’ is not a burden to the NCSF but rather an opportunity. It’s an opportunity to ensure long term climate change results; an opportunity to address several government priorities with the same investment; an opportunity particularly for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, as one of the most important acts of reconciliation is to enable Indigenous peoples to design and implement what occurs on their landscapes, including IPCAs and approaches that effectively balance human prosperity and ecosystem resiliency, aligned with Indigenous rights-holders’ and title- holders’ decisions; an opportunity to develop relationships with communities who can steward restoration; and an opportunity to correct past damages in a way that will strengthen the resilience of the ecosystems on which Canada’s future depends.

The time horizon for forest management planning, from an Indigenous perspective, is long- term. For example, in District 19 in Newfoundland and Labrador, the planning horizon is at least 400 years. This is the type of time horizon that we are thinking of when considering the permanency of the NCSF for climate change mitigation.

Context

What is our task?

The Priority Question from NRCAN was: “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 Natural 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?”

The Permanency Sub-Group has come to the conclusion that permanency is both necessary and possible. Therefore, we are instead proposing a definition of permanency, providing advice on why permanency is fundamental to obtaining the goals of NCSF and how it can be achieved.

We also stress that to achieve permanency, protected, managed and restored ecosystems need to be as resistant and resilient as possible to current and future disturbances, and this needs to be an overriding principle for the NCSF.

The Permanency Sub-Group highlights that goals of the NCSF are clearly “To address climate change and biodiversity loss” and that two of the three sub-funds under the program have a specific goal to reduce GHG emissions by 2050:

• 2B trees – 11-12 Mt CO₂ e per year by 2050 (Natural Resources Canada 2021)
• Nature Smart Climate Solutions Fund - 2-4 Mt CO₂ /year from 2030 to 2050 (Govt of Canada 2021b)
• AAFC does not provide quantitative targets

An additional 13 to 16Mt CO₂ /year cannot be achieved without ensuring that the restoration activities persist. Planting large areas of trees and then harvesting them will simply negate any climate change gains made previously.

It is also important to point out that Canada is one of only a few countries with large tracts of relatively intact ecosystems that store vast amounts of carbon and support vertebrates that migrate over long distances (Soto-Navarro et al. 2020). The NCSF is an opportunity for Canada to show leadership if it is done right. Understanding the role of permanency in restoration is part of demonstrating that leadership.

Definition of Permanency in the Context of NCSF

By permanency, we mean that restoration activities in the NCSF, be they planting trees, restoring wetlands and grasslands, or restoring natural areas on agricultural lands will:

• Create resilient ecosystems that can withstand expected and unexpected perturbations such as, but not limited to, increasing intensity and frequency of fire, changing weather patterns including atmospheric rivers and extended droughts, and changing seasonal patterns. This doesn’t mean that every tree or shrub has to or even can be expected to remain forever. Resilient ecosystems are dynamic. It does mean that the resilience of ecosystems where restoration takes place must be enhanced over the long-term (to 2050 and far beyond);
• The creation of resilient ecosystems can never be just about planting a tree and walking away. It’s about maximizing the probability that additional carbon sequestered and stored will be secure, that biodiversity will be enhanced, that protected, managed or restored ecosystems will continue to provide for people and nature for many generations and create the conditions for future generations to be able to choose how they want to interact with the natural world;
• Sometimes include full protection of restored areas. However, to have permanency there are many tools that can be used, some of which we suggest below under ‘Reducing the Risks to Permanency’. Just as biologically diverse ecosystems are more resilient ecosystems, there is also strength in including a diversity of approaches, drawing on scientific discovery, Indigenous knowledge and community experience; and
• May include management activities that enhance resilience and reduce risks, such as cultural burning but it never includes clear-cutting vast areas of restored lands.

Why does Permanency Matter?

The NCSF is part of Canada’s response to meeting the Paris Agreement target to maintain global temperatures below 1.5 °C from pre-industrial levels. Attaining this global target will not only require drastic and rapid cuts in emissions, and also require removing CO₂ from the atmosphere post 2050. According to IPCC about 730 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO₂ must be taken out of the atmosphere by the end of the century (IPCC 2018). It takes decades or more for activities such as restoration, tree planting, and improved land management to have a significant impact on GHG emissions. The real value of NCS to climate change is in their longevity: i.e. their ability to cool the planet after net-zero has been attained, by continuing to sequester and store carbon. (Girardin et al. 2021) as well as their long-term value to biodiversity and human well-being.

Restoration is a long-game activity. We need to maximize the opportunity that restoration, including planting 2 billion trees, but also restoration of other ecosystems, will be there over the long-term. We understand that all ecosystems are dynamic, and that the value of a restoration program is to enhance the resilience of our damaged ecosystems to various stressors so that they can persist after major perturbations and provide valued ecosystem services to nature and people.

Permanency matters also because it is at the heart of ensuring the well-being of future generations. Indigenous ways of knowing provide us with an important framework here. It is our responsibility to recreate the options for generations to come, including options for people to evolve in their relationships with nature and to assert a multitude of values across a landscape. Permanency is the only way that there is hope of re-establishing options for generations to come.

In a recent UK Parliamentary Report, the authors highlight their concerns about nature-based climate solutions. To help meet climate targets “carbon and nature credits must be for benefits that are additional, measurable, and permanent [bolding is ours]” (UK Science and Technology Committee 2022).

Permanency and Values

Embedded in the NCSF purpose “to embrace the power of nature to reduce the effects of and adapt to climate change, all while supporting biodiversity” (Govt of Canada 2021a) is the idea that managing ecosystems for resilience also requires consideration of multiple values at multiple scales. To be true to the idea of incorporating multiple values we recommend that the NCSF develop a process that respects Indigenous and community values, as it is the people on the ground who will be stewarding restoration and ensuring its success. They have to know that their decision-making is respected.

NCSF is one of a series of initiatives that can help shift Canada to a more equitable and conservation-based economy, that recognizes the value of our natural areas for climate mitigation and adaptation, human health and well-being and economic stability. For example, protecting, managing, restoring and ensuring an extensive permanent forest cover in the boreal would recognize ecological limits, the importance of this area to nature and particularly migratory species, and support the long-term resilience of Canada’s boreal region.

Ensuring the permanency of activities under the NCSF requires building relationships. The value cannot just be counted in number of trees planted. To be successful the program has to develop relationships with people on the ground who will care about looking after the investment in protection, management, and restoration.

Opportunities that Permanency Provides

In the Canadian context, we have an opportunity to gain multi-benefits from the NCSF investment, including supporting multiple government priorities. A whole-of-government approach is essential, and gaining these multiple benefits requires an understanding that permanency of the restoration activities in paramount.

Taking a whole-of-government approach is important because it ensures that:

• Actions taken in the NCSF do not negatively impact desired outcomes of other programs;
• Actions in other programs do not negatively impact the desired outcomes of NCSF.

Many of the opportunities for leveraging Government of Canada priorities can be found in the mandate letters to Ministers (Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau 2021).

• All Ministers have been instructed to:
• “Move faster on the path of reconciliation with First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples” and “to work in partnership with Indigenous Peoples to advance their rights”. NCSF provides an opportunity to partner with Indigenous Peoples across the country, ensuring that they are fully engaged in all aspects of the program on their traditional territories, what to plant, where to plant it, and stewarding restoration activities to ensure success.
• The mandate letter to Minister Guilbeault (ECCC) specifically refers to “advancing indigenous-led conservation efforts” and instructs Minister Guilbeault to “Work with First Nations, Inuit and Métis partners to support new Indigenous Guardians programs … “. The Indigenous Guardians provide a real opportunity to ensure on-the-ground success and permanency of NCSF investments.
• Minister Wilkinson (NRCan) has been instructed to “fully implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act across government” and “to implement the NCSF and deliver on the plan to plant 2 billion trees across the country in 10 years as a nature-based solution to help reverse nature loss and fight climate change”.
• The Prime Minister has clearly identified the opportunity for NCSF to enhance Reconciliation: “As part of these nature-based solutions, the Government of Canada has also committed to promoting the rights, knowledge, and leadership of Indigenous peoples in conservation, including supporting Indigenous-led stewardship initiatives” (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau 2021)
• Rebuild a “more resilient, inclusive and stronger country for everyone”
• Move faster on taking “real climate action”

o “Seek opportunities within your portfolio to support our whole-of-government effort to reduce emissions, create clean jobs and address the climate-related challenges communities are facing”. The program could provide the resilient ecosystems needed not just for climate change mitigation but also for climate change adaptation. But this depends on permanency.

Reducing Risks to Permanency

Of course, risks to permanency of restoration activities exist. The most obvious risk is that ‘natural disturbances’, including wildfire and insect outbreaks, which are increasing because of climate change, will result in a loss of protected, managed, or restored areas. There are no guarantees that there will be no losses in the future, but there are ways to reduce the risk.

1. Planting the right species
• Planting a diversity of species (trees of course, but also other species such as shrubs) on a particular land base strengthens resilience. Diverse forest ecosystems store more carbon, supply more ecosystem services, and are more resilient than single or limited species plantations (Girardin et al. 2021; Lewis et al. 2019; Messier et al. 2021).
• Forest restoration should favour tree species well adapted to the current soil and current and future climate conditions and favour a diversity of species with different functional traits to increase resilience (Paquette et al. 2021). It is worth noting that other tree planting programs, such as New Zealand’s one-billion tree program, are striving to replace some of their single-species plantations with a more natural, diverse forest (Forestry New Zealand/Te Uru Rākau 2018).
• Ensure any plantings in areas at high risk of disturbance, such as fire, are the most fire- resistant or resilient species and genetic stock. For example, some species such as poplar and oak are able to sprout from deep roots or stems.
• Include the breadth of values in considering what to plant. For example, choosing the right species should include, in addition to climate change mitigation and biodiversity values, food security.
2. Planting in the right places
• When possible, choose places where the risk of disturbance from fire and insect damage is the lowest.
• Do not replace natural ecosystems. Always ensure that existing natural systems stay natural. Instead, plant in places that have been damaged.
• Plant species native to the area to avoid unintended negative consequences. One of many examples is the past practise of planting jack pine in Labrador, which had an unintended negative consequence on the taste of porcupine, an important food for Inuit people.
• Consider the area around the target restored area. Is it appropriately managed to allow expansion outward from the restored area?
• Consider restoration in areas that could provide enhanced benefits in terms of increasing functional connectivity (Messier et al. 2019)
• Do not plant coniferous trees in the North, where they may be expanding as a result of climate change, but where the negative impacts of forest cover on albedo effects will cancel out carbon benefits from tree planting.
• Prioritize planting where threats to forest biodiversity (i.e., habitat loss and fragmentation) are greatest and where human communities are most vulnerable to extreme weather events (i.e., floods and heat) due to the loss of “natural infrastructure”.
• Establish partnerships that have identified priority restoration sites for biodiversity and human co-benefits, demonstrated tree planting/restoration capabilities, and demonstrated Indigenous and community support and engagement.
3. Actively manage what you protect and restore
• Programs that provide funds for restoration or protection, and then walk away, are doomed to failure (see Ontario example under “Lessons on Permanency from Similar Programs”).
• Diverse resilient ecosystems are likely to store carbon for thousands of years.
• Multiple interventions over decades and longer will be required to ensure the long-term carbon and biodiversity benefits from restoration.
• Monitoring and adaptive management is essential to ensure that the restoration is working and that emerging problems are recognized early and can be ameliorated.
• People are needed on the ground: from choosing where to plant, what to plant, monitoring results and identifying and implementing management interventions. Where restoration is successful, people are involved in all aspects, including monitoring and management. Local people who see the benefits from protection, management and restoration will have a vested interest in supporting the success of the program. For example, restoration can have a significant and positive impact on the availability of natural foods, enhancing food security, particularly for Indigenous communities.
• Management interventions can enhance permanent positive outcomes, depending on the site. These include inter alia thinning, pruning and cultural burning.
• Large scale clear-cut logging is not a management option for permanency.
• Manage for multiple values. Managing for the sole value of economic return does not lend itself to permanent and resilient ecosystems with carbon, biodiversity, food security and human-well-being benefits.
• On private lands permanency is more difficult to obtain and requires approaches that incentivize land owners to protect their restoration activities for long term carbon and biodiversity benefits as well as making their private land holdings more resilient to the impacts of global change.
• Incentives can include inter alia tax relief, payment for ecosystem services, access to carbon markets, support for land owner organizations, and Indigenous partnerships.
• With specific reference to private woodlots, development of forest management tools that encourage self-sustaining forests, and recognize and mitigate the increasing biotic and abiotic threats from global change are needed. These could include, for example, education on increasing the long-term viability of holdings by increasing diversity of tree species.
• To date little evaluation has been done in Canada on incentives that are most effective in increasing permanency. An evaluation of existing Canadian incentives, and an exploration of suitable incentives from other jurisdictions, is required.

Measuring Success

• The NCSF has identified several indicators of success, the most prominent being an increase in carbon sequestration of 11-16 Mt CO₂ per year by 2050 Permanency is an absolute necessity to attain this long-term goal.
• The number of trees planted is a key measure identified. However, a much better measure would be the area planted. This is because not all plantings will be successful, several interventions may be necessary, including re-planting, long-term monitoring and adaptive management.

Lessons on Permanency from Similar Programs

Ontario 50 million tree program

The Ontario 50 million tree program – which is currently funded by the federal government – started in 2007. Most of the plantings are on private lands, although some are on lands owned by local governments and conservation authorities. Many lessons can be learnt from Ontario’s ongoing program:

• Monitoring for survivorship of plantings is critical. In the Ontario program this is done up to year 5 when planted trees reach the “free to grow stage” and can successfully transition into a young forest. You can expect to return multiple times to infill plant or replant to compensate for mortality losses. Recent infill rates have been in the order of 10-12% of total plantings, but could be more, or less, depending upon precipitation, temperature or other stochastic events. In the Ontario program added protection comes from the site plans that require site preparation and planting the right trees in the right areas.
• In southern Ontario the agreements are usually for 15 years, after which municipal tree- cutting by-laws kick in. The 15-year agreements provide a good bridge to other by-laws that protect newly established forests. In places without municipal tree-cutting by-laws there is no protection of the planted trees beyond 15 years.
• Working with land trusts and other forms of local governments such as conservation authorities should be a priority, as they have the ability to put conservation covenants on newly planted forests in exchange for property tax exemptions.
• Using the metric of area planted is better than number of trees planted because a percentage of the trees planted are infill plantings on the same land base. In terms of area planted, (Magnus et al. 2021) reported that 83% of the areas planted in Ontario had been successfully afforested, an important metric in determining permanency of planting efforts (personal communication Steve Hounsell).

New Zealand’s One Billion Tree Program

The historical management of New Zealand’s forests is very different than Canada’s because the forest industry in New Zealand is largely based on the fast-growing non-native species, Pinus radiata. The NZ tree planting program anticipates using about 21% of the funds for non- native species which will not be permanent. In contrast, the bulk of their funds is to re- establish native forests with a diversity of species and a permanent native forest land cover.

Although it is recognized that all the funds could be used to continue business-as-usual plantings, the goals of the one-billion tree program are broader and designed to achieve “land use change that integrates forests and tees into the landscape to achieve improved environmental, economic, social and cultural outcomes”. This multi-valued approach requires going beyond business-as-usual and includes a permanent tree cover in the vision for forestry (Forestry New Zealand/Te Uru Rākau 2018).

One Trillion Trees – WCS, WWF, BirdLife International

The bulk of this program is about restoring forests for permanent forest cover. From 2016- 2020 the program permanently protected 18.3 billion trees and planted an additional 1.8 billion trees through restoration. This program is focussed on protection, improved management and restoration. It is difficult to determine how much of the long term work will be for forest harvesting but it is clear that the main objective of the program is to ensure permanent forest cover, for carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods (WCS et al. 2020).

References

• Forestry New Zealand/Te Uru Rākau (2018). One Billion Trees Fund: Report on Policy and Design Recommendations, Aukland, New Zealand, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/32908-3-Appendix1-Report-on-Policy-and-Design-Recommendations-OIA
• Girardin CAJ, Jenkins S, Seddon N et al. (2021). Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet—if we act now.
• Nature 593, 191-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2
• Govt of Canada (2021a). Natural Climate Solutions Fund. Govt of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/campaign/natural-climate-solutions.html
• Govt of Canada (2021b). Nature Smart Climate Solutions Fund. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding/programs/nature-smart-climate-solutions-fund.html#toc0
• IPCC (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte, V, Zhai, P, Pörtner, H-O, Roberts, D, Skea, J, Shukla, PR, Pirani, A, Moufouma-Okia, W, Péan, C, Pidcock, R, Connors, S, Matthews, JBR, Chen, Y, Zhou, X, Gomis, MI, Lonnoy, E, Maycock, T, TIgnor, M,Waterfield, T, eds. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1-26. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
• Lewis SL, Wheeler CE, Mitchard ETA, Koch A (2019). Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568, 25-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2
• Magnus GK, Celanowicz E, Voicu M et al. (2021). Growing our future: Assessing the outcome of afforestation programs in Ontario, Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 97, 179-90. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2021-013
• Messier C, Bauhus J, Doyon F et al. (2019). The functional complex network approach to foster forest resilience to global changes. Forest Ecosystems 6, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0166-2
• Messier C, Bauhus J, Sousa‐Silva R et al. (2021). For the sake of resilience and multifunctionality, let's diversify planted forests! Conservation Letters, e12829. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12829
• Natural Resources Canada (2021). 2 Bilion Trees Fact Sheet, Ottawa, Canada,
• Paquette A, Sousa-Silva R, Maure F, Cameron E, Belluau M, Messier C (2021). Praise for diversity: A functional approach to reduce risks in urban forests. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62, 127157.
• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (2021). Prim Minister Trudeau concludes productive United Nations Climate Summit. https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2021/11/02/prime-minister-trudeau-con
• Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau. Mandate Letters. [Cited Feb. 25 2022.] Available from https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters
• Soto-Navarro C, Ravilious C, Arnell A et al. (2020). Mapping co-benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity to inform conservation policy and action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 375, 20190128. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0128
• UK Science and Technology Committee (2022). Nature-based solutions: rhetoric or reality? The potential contribution of nature-based solutions to net zerio in the UK. Parliament, U, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldsctech/147/14702.htm
• WCS, WWF, BirdLife International (2020). Trillion Trees Impact Report 2016-2020, https://trilliontrees.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Trillion_Trees_Impact_Report_2016-2020b.pdf

Related link

• Nature Based Climate Solutions Advisory Committee