1 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
2 FAO. 2018. Terms and definitions – FRA 2020. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 188. Rome. (also available at https://www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en.pdf).
3 FAO. 2018. Terms and definitions – FRA 2020. Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 188. Rome. (also available at https://www.fao.org/3/I8661EN/i8661en.pdf).
4 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
5 FAO. In preparation. Global Forest Resources Assessment – Remote sensing survey.
6 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
7 BGCI. 2021. State of the World’s Trees. Richmond, UK, Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI).
8 Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C. & Stuart, S.N. 2009. Wildlife in a changing world – An analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 184 pp.
9 Burley, J. 2002. Forest biological diversity: an overview. Unasylva, 209: 3–9.
10 FAO. 2014. The State of the World’s Forest Genetic Resources. Rome, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and FAO. 276 p.
11 De Vos, J.M., Joppa, L.N., Gittleman, J.L., Stephens, P.R. & Pimm, S.L. 2015. Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction: background rate of extinction. Conservation Biology, 29(2): 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12380
12 FAO. 2021. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture – Systems at breaking point. Rome, FAO. 80 p. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7654en
13 FAO. 2021. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture – Systems at breaking point. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7654en
14 Pye, J.M., Holmes, T.P., Prestemon, J.P. & Wear, D.N. 2011. Economic impacts of the southern pine beetle. In: R.N. Coulson & K.D. Klepzig, eds. Southern pine beetle II, pp. 213–222. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-140. Asheville, USA, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. (also available at https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/39071).
15 Hlásny, T., König, L., Krokene, P., Lindner, M., Montagné-Huck, C., Müller, J., Qin, H., et al. 2021. Bark beetle outbreaks in Europe: state of knowledge and ways forward for management. Current Forestry Reports, 7(3): 138–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00142-x.
16 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
17 van Wees, D., van der Werf, G.R., Randerson, J.T., Andela, N., Chen, Y. & Morton, D.C. 2021. The role of fire in global forest loss dynamics. Global Change Biology, 27(11): 2377–2391. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15591
18 Davey, S.M. & Sarre, A. 2020. Editorial: the 2019/20 Black Summer bushfires. Australian Forestry, 83(2): 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2020.1769899
19 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
20 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
21 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
22 Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M.W., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R.M., Bakker, D.C.E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C. et al. 2021. Global carbon budget 2021. Anthroposphere – energy and emissions. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-386
23 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change & Edenhofer, O., eds. 2014. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change – Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press. 1435 pp.
24 Friedlingstein, P., Jones, M.W., O’Sullivan, M., Andrew, R.M., Bakker, D.C.E., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C. et al. 2021. Global carbon budget 2021. Anthroposphere – energy and emissions. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-386
25 Harris, N.L., Gibbs, D.A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R.A., de Bruin, S., Farina, M., Fatoyinbo, L. et al. 2021. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change, 11(3): 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6
26 Leite-Filho, A.T., Soares-Filho, B.S., Davis, J.L., Abrahão, G.M. & Börner, J. 2021. Deforestation reduces rainfall and agricultural revenues in the Brazilian Amazon. Nature Communications, 12(1): 2591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22840-7
27 Duku, C. & Hein, L. 2021. The impact of deforestation on rainfall in Africa: a data-driven assessment. Environmental Research Letters, 16(6): 064044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfcfb
28 Schwaab, J., Meier, R., Mussetti, G., Seneviratne, S., Bürgi, C. & Davin, E.L. 2021. The role of urban trees in reducing land surface temperatures in European cities. Nature Communications, 12(1): 6763. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26768-w
29 Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., Storeygard, A., Balk, D., Gittleman, J.L. & Daszak, P. 2008. Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 451(7181): 990–993. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06536
30 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2020. Workshop report on biodiversity and pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317
31 Riesco, I.L. 2006. Forest loss and human health: focus on EU policies and practices. FERN.
32 Venkatesh, S. 2020. Coming out of the jungle, infectious diseases. In: Down to Earth [online]. [Cited 8 November 2021]. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/coming-out-of-the-jungle-infectious-diseases-70969
33 Wilcox, B.A. & Ellis, B.R. 2006. Forests and emerging infectious diseases of humans. Unasylva, 224: 11–18. (also available at https://www.fao.org/3/a0789e/a0789e03.htm).
34 Olivero, J., Fa, J.E., Real, R., Márquez, A.L., Farfán, M.A., Vargas, J.M., Gaveau, D. et al. 2017. Recent loss of closed forests is associated with Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Scientific Reports, 7(1): 14291. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14727-9
35 Rulli, M.C., Santini, M., Hayman, D.T.S. & D’Odorico, P. 2017. The nexus between forest fragmentation in Africa and Ebola virus disease outbreaks. Scientific Reports, 7(1): 41613. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41613
36 Newton, P., Castle, S.E., Kinzer, A.T., Miller, D.C., Oldekop, J.A., Linhares-Juvenal, T., Pina, L., Madrid, M. & de Lamo, J. 2022. The number of forest- and tree-proximate people – A new methodology and global estimates. Rome, FAO.
37 Castañeda, A., Doan, D., Newhouse, D., Nguyen, M.C., Uematsu, H. & Azevedo, J.P. 2018. A new profile of the global poor. World Development, 101: 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.08.002
38 Miller, D.C., Muñoz-Mora, J.C. & Christiaensen, L. 2017. Prevalence, economic contribution, and determinants of trees on farms across Sub-Saharan Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 84: 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.005
39 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
40 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
41 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
42 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
43 Rights and Resources Initiative. 2018. At a crossroads – Consequential trends in recognition of community-based forest tenure from 2002–2017. Rights and Resources Initiative. https://doi.org/10.53892/UCYL3747
44 Miller, D.C., Rana, P., Nakamura, K., Irwin, S., Cheng, S.H., Ahlroth, S. & Perge, E. 2021. A global review of the impact of forest property rights interventions on poverty. Global Environmental Change, 66: 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102218
45 Meinzen-Dick, R. 2009. Property rights for poverty reduction? 10 p. UN/DESA Working Papers 91. New York, USA, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
46 Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Ihalainen, M., Agrawal, A. & Gabay, M. 2020. Levers for alleviating poverty in forests and tree-based systems. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, pp. 125–176. IUFRO World Series 39. International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
47 World Bank. 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021 – Managing assets for the future. Washington, DC.
48 World Bank. 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021 – Managing assets for the future. Washington, DC.
49 World Bank. 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021 – Managing assets for the future. Washington, DC.
50 World Economic Forum. 2020. Nature risk rising – Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and the economy. New Nature Economy. (also available at https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Nature_Economy_Report_2020.pdf).
51 Foundation for Sustainable Development. Undated. ESVD [online]. [Cited 18 January 2022]. www.esvd.info
52 Sorrenti, S. 2017. Non-wood forest products in international statistical systems. Rome, FAO.
53 Brander, L.M., de Groot, R., Schägner, P., Guisado-Goñi, V., van ’t Hoff, V. & Solomonides, S. 2022. The role of forest ecosystem services to support the green recovery – Evidence from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database. Background paper for State of the World’s Forests 2022. FAO.
54 Brander, L.M., de Groot, R., Schägner, P., Guisado-Goñi, V., van ’t Hoff, V. & Solomonides, S. 2022. The role of forest ecosystem services to support the green recovery – Evidence from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database. Background paper for State of the World’s Forests 2022. FAO.
55 Balmford, A., Green, J.M.H., Anderson, M., Beresford, J., Huang, C., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M. et al. 2015. Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLOS Biology, 13(2): e1002074. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074
56 Li, Y., Mei, B., Linhares-Juvenal, T. & Formenton Cardoso, N. 2022. Forest sector contributions to the national economies in 2015 – The direct, indirect and induced effects on value-added, employment and labour income, Rome, FAO.
57 Li, Y., Mei, B., Linhares-Juvenal, T. & Formenton Cardoso, N. 2022. Forest sector contributions to the national economies in 2015 – The direct, indirect and induced effects on value-added, employment and labour income, Rome, FAO.
58 Li, Y., Mei, B., Linhares-Juvenal, T. & Formenton Cardoso, N. 2022. Forest sector contributions to the national economies in 2015 – The direct, indirect and induced effects on value-added, employment and labour income. Rome, FAO.
59 Li, Y., Mei, B., Linhares-Juvenal, T. & Formenton Cardoso, N. 2022. Forest sector contributions to the national economies in 2015 – The direct, indirect and induced effects on value-added, employment and labour income, Rome, FAO.
60 FAO. Undated. FAOSTAT [online]. [Cited 27 December 2021]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO
61 Lippe, R.S., Cui, S. & Schweinle, J. Forthcoming. Contribution of the forest sector to total employment in national economies. FAO.
62 Lippe, R.S., Cui, S. & Schweinle, J. Forthcoming. Contribution of the forest sector to total employment in national economies. FAO.
63 International Monetary Fund. 2021. World economic outlook update. January. 11 p.
64 Lakner, C., Yonzan, N., Mahler, D.G., Castaneda Aguilar, A. & Wu, H. 2021. Updated estimates of the impact of COVID-19 on global poverty: looking back at 2020 and the outlook for 2021. In: World Bank Blogs [online]. [Cited 30 December 2021]. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty-looking-back-2020-and-outlook-2021
65 Wunder, S., Kaimowitz, D., Jensen, S. & Feder, S. 2021. Coronavirus, macroeconomy, and forests: what likely impacts? Forest Policy and Economics, 131: 102536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102536
66 UN. Undated. UN Comtrade | International Trade Statistics Database [online]. [Cited 13 November 2021]. https://comtrade.un.org/
67 International Trade Centre. Undated. Trade map – Trade statistics for international business development [online]. [Cited 4 January 2022]. https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx
68 Held, C., Meier-Landsberg, E. & Alonso, V. 2022. Global forest sector outlook 2050 – Assessing the future demand and sources of timber for a sustainable economy. Background paper for the State of the World’s Forests 2022. FAO.
69 Held, C., Meier-Landsberg, E. & Alonso, V. 2022. Global forest sector outlook 2050 – Assessing the future demand and sources of timber for a sustainable economy. Background paper for the State of the World’s Forests 2022. FAO.
70 Shupler, M., Mwitari, J., Gohole, A., Anderson de Cuevas, R., Puzzolo, E., Čukić, I., Nix, E.et al. 2021. COVID-19 impacts on household energy & food security in a Kenyan informal settlement: the need for integrated approaches to the SDGs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144: 111018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111018
71 Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I.L., Gumy, S., Economou, T. & Adair-Rohani, H. 2021. Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature Communications, 12(1): 5793. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26036-x
72 Lim, S.S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A.D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani, H., AlMazroa, M.A. et al. 2012. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859): 2224–2260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8
73 Bennitt, F.B., Wozniak, S.S., Causey, K., Burkart, K. & Brauer, M. 2021. Estimating disease burden attributable to household air pollution: new methods within the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet Global Health, 9: S18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00126-1
74 Chidumayo, E.N. & Gumbo, D.J. 2013. The environmental impacts of charcoal production in tropical ecosystems of the world: a synthesis. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(2): 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.004
75 IEA, IRENA, UN, World Bank and WHO. 2021. Tracking SDG7 – The Energy Progress Report 2021. Washington, DC, World Bank.
76 Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I.L., Gumy, S., Economou, T. & Adair-Rohani, H. 2021. Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature Communications, 12(1): 5793. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26036-x
77 FAO. Undated. FAOSTAT [online]. [Cited 11 January 2022]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO
78 FAO. 2014. State of the World’s Forests 2014 – Enhancing the socioeconomic benefits from forests. Rome, FAO. 119 p.
79 Shackleton, C.M. & de Vos, A. 2022. How many people globally actually use non-timber forest products? Forest Policy and Economics, 135: 102659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102659
80 Lovrić, M., Da Re, R., Vidale, E., Prokofieva, I., Wong, J., Pettenella, D., Verkerk, P.J. et al. 2020. Non-wood forest products in Europe – a quantitative overview. Forest Policy and Economics, 116: 102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102175
81 FAO. Undated. FAOSTAT [online]. [Cited 27 December 2021]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO
82 Jenkins, M., Timoshyna, A. & Cornthwaite, M. 2018. Wild at home – Exploring the global harvest, trade and use of wild plant ingredients. Cambridge, United Kingdom, TRAFFIC International.
83 Nasi, R., Taber, A. & Van Vliet, N. 2011. Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the Congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review, 13(3): 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293872
84 Coad, L., Fa, J.E., Abernethy, K., Van Vliet, N., Santamaria, C., Wilkie, D., El Bizri, H.R. et al. 2019. Towards a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007046
85 Señaris and Ferrer (2012), as seen in: Coad, L., Fa, J.E., Abernethy, K., Van Vliet, N., Santamaria, C., Wilkie, D., El Bizri, H.R. et al. 2019. Towards a sustainable, participatory and inclusive wild meat sector. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007046
86 Jagger, P. & Cheek, J.Z. 2020. Key concepts for understanding forest-poverty dynamics. In: D.C. Miller, S. Mansourian & C. Wildburger, eds. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, pp. 33–54. IUFRO World Series. Vienna, International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO).
87 Angelsen, A., Martius, C., de Sy, V. & Duchelle, A. 2018. Transforming REDD+ – Lessons and new directions. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research. 276 pp.
88 Hickey, G.M., Pouliot, M., Smith-Hall, C., Wunder, S. & Nielsen, M.R. 2016. Quantifying the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. Food Policy, 62: 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.001
89 Chaudhury, G., Basumatari, M., Darji, C.B., Ahmed, A.F., Borah, D., Sah, R.K., Devi, A. et al. 2021. Economic significance of wild bioresources to rural communities in the Eastern Himalayan state of Assam, Northeast India. Trees, Forests and People, 5: 100102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100102
90 Laird, S.A., Awung, G.L., Lysinge, R.J. & Ndive, L.E. 2011. The interweave of people and place: biocultural diversity in migrant and indigenous livelihoods around Mount Cameroon. International Forestry Review, 13(3): 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554811798293890
91 Asselin, H. 2015. Indigenous forest knowledge. In: K. Peh, R. Corlett & Y. Bergeron, eds. Routledge handbook of forest ecology, pp. 586–596. Routledge.
92 Noack, F., Riekhof, M.-C. & Di Falco, S. 2019. Droughts, biodiversity, and rural incomes in the tropics. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 6(4): 823–852. https://doi.org/10.1086/703487
93 Bawa, A. & Atengdem, P.B. 2016. Impact of CLIP project on the livelihood outcomes of sheabutter processing women in Karaga district of Northern Region, Ghana. International Journal for Research in Agricultural and Food Science, 2(4): 07–29. (also available at https://gnpublication.org/index.php/afs/article/view/359).
94 Laube, W. 2015. Global shea nut commodity chains and poverty eradication in northern Ghana: myth or reality? UDS International Journal of Development, 2(1): 128–147. (also available at http://udsspace.uds.edu.gh:80/handle/123456789/456).
95 Mohammed, F., Boateng, S. & Al-hassan, S. 2013. Effects of adoption of improved sheabutter processing technology on women’s livelihoods and their microenterprise growth. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(4): 244–250. https://doi.org/10.11634/232907811301419
96 FAO, Center for International Forestry Research, International Forestry Resources and Institutions Research Network & World Bank. 2016. National socioeconomic surveys in forestry – Guidance and survey modules for measuring the multiple roles of forests in household welfare and livelihoods. FAO Forestry Paper 179. Rome.
97 Curtis, P.G., Slay, C.M., Harris, N.L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M.C. 2018. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407): 1108–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445
98 De Sy, V., Herold, M., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M. & Ochieng, R. 2018. Information and policy change: data on drivers can drive change if used wisely. Transforming REDD+: Lessons and New Directions, Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research.
99 Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., Sy, V.D., Fries, R.S.D., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., Angelsen, A. et al. 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4): 044009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009
100 Pendrill, F., Persson, U.M., Godar, J. & Kastner, T. 2019. Deforestation displaced: trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition. Environmental Research Letters, 14(5): 055003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0d41
101 FAO. In preparation. Global Forest Resources Assessment – Remote sensing survey.
102 FAO. In preparation. Global Forest Resources Assessment – Remote sensing survey.
103 Dummett, C. & Blundell, A. 2021. Illicit harvest, complicit goods – The state of illegal deforestation for agriculture. 81 p. Forest Trends.
104 Pacheco, P., Mo, K., Dudley, N., Shapiro, A., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Ling, P.-Y., Anderson, C. et al. 2021. Deforestation fronts – Drivers and responses in a changing world. Gland, Switzerland, World Wide Fund for Nature.
105 UN. 2019. World Population Prospects 2019 – Highlights. United Nations. (also available at https://doi.org/10.18356/13bf5476-en).
106 van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M.L. & Saghai, Y. 2021. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nature Food, 2(7): 494–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9
107 Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E.F., Erb, K.-H. & Hertel, T.W. 2013. Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5): 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.003
108 Hoang, N.T. & Kanemoto, K. 2021. Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals growing threat to tropical forests. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(6): 845–853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01417-z
109 FAO. In preparation. Global Forest Resources Assessment – Remote sensing survey.
110 Voora, V., Larrea, C., Bermudez, S. & Baliño, S. 2020. Global market report – Palm oil. International Institute for Sustainable Development and State of Sustainability Initiatives. 16 p.
111 Franklin, S.L. & Pindyck, R.S. 2018. Tropical forests, tipping points, and the social cost of deforestation. Ecological Economics, 153: 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.003
112 Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N. et al., eds. 2021. Climate Change 2021 – The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
113 UN Environment Programme & International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2021. Nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation. Nairobi, Kenya and Gland, Switzerland. 35 p. (also available at https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/37318/NBSCCM.pdf).
114 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019. Climate change and land – An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, et al., eds.
115 Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N. et al., eds. 2021. Climate Change 2021 – The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
116 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019. Climate Change and Land – An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, et al., eds
117 Goldstein, A., Turner, W.R., Spawn, S.A., Anderson-Teixeira, K.J., Cook-Patton, S., Fargione, J., Gibbs, H.K. et al. 2020. Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10(4): 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0738-8
118 Busch, J. & Engelmann, J. 2017. Cost-effectiveness of reducing emissions from tropical deforestation, 2016–2050. Environmental Research Letters, 13(1): 015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa907c
119 Roe, S., Streck, C., Beach, R., Busch, J., Chapman, M., Daioglou, V., Deppermann, A. et al. 2021. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Global Change Biology, 27(23): 6025–6058. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873
120 Austin, K.G., Baker, J.S., Sohngen, B.L., Wade, C.M., Daigneault, A., Ohrel, S.B., Ragnauth, S. et al. 2020. The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nature Communications, 11(1): 5946. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19578-z
121 Roe, S., Streck, C., Beach, R., Busch, J., Chapman, M., Daioglou, V., Deppermann, A. et al. 2021. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Global Change Biology, 27(23): 6025–6058. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873
122 Fuss, S., Golub, A. & Lubowski, R. 2021. The economic value of tropical forests in meeting global climate stabilization goals. Global Sustainability, 4: e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.34
123 FAO. 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, J. Bélanger & D. Pilling (eds.). FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. Rome.
124 Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C. & Tscharntke, T. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1608): 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
125 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3831673
126 Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T., Molnár, Z., Hill, R. et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, 359(6373): 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826
127 Hill, S.L.L., Arnell, A., Maney, C., Butchart, S.H.M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Ciciarelli, C., Davis, C. et al. 2019. Measuring forest biodiversity status and changes globally. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 2: 70. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00070
128 Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Abrantes, J.P., Asner, G., Atkinson, S. et al. 2020. Protecting 30 percent of the planet – Costs, benefits and economic implications. Working paper analysing the economic implications of the proposed 30% target for areal protection in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19950.64327
129 Zomer, R.J., Trabucco A, Coe, R., Place, F., van Noordwijk, M. & Xu, J.C. 2014. Trees on farms – An update and reanalysis of agroforestry’s global extent and socio-ecological characteristics. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). https://doi.org/10.5716/WP14064.PDF
130 World Resources Institute. undated. Global Forest Watch [online]. [Cited 14 November 2021]. https://www.wri.org/initiatives/global-forest-watch
131 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), ed. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being – Synthesis. Washington, DC, Island Press. 137 p.
132 Dasgupta, P. 2021. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review – Full report. Updated: 18 February 2021 edition. London, HM Treasury. 610 p.
133 WWAP (UN World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water. 2018. World Water Development Report 2018. In: UN-Water [online]. [Cited 8 November 2021]. https://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-development-report-2018/
134 UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme. 2021. United Nations World Water Development Report 2021 – Valuing water. UN Educational, Scientific and Educational Organization.
135 Singh, S. & Mishra, A. 2014. Deforestation-induced costs on the drinking water supplies of the Mumbai metropolitan, India. Global Environmental Change, 27: 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.020
136 Turpie, J., Warr, B. & Carter Ingram, J. 2015. Benefits of forest ecosystems in Zambia and the role of REDD+ in a green economy transformation. (also available at https://www.globallandscapesforum.org/publication/benefits-of-forest-ecosystems-in-zambia-and-the-role-of-redd-in-a-green-economy-transformation/).
137 Arias, M.E., Cochrane, T.A., Lawrence, K.S., Killeen, T.J. & Farrell, T.A. 2011. Paying the forest for electricity: a modelling framework to market forest conservation as payment for ecosystem services benefiting hydropower generation. Environmental Conservation, 38(4): 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000464
138 Moran, E.F., Lopez, M.C., Moore, N., Müller, N. & Hyndman, D.W. 2018. Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(47): 11891–11898. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809426115
139 Annandale, G.W., Morris, G.L. & Karki, P. 2016. Extending the life of reservoirs – Sustainable sediment management for dams and run-of-river hydropower. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0838-8
140 Menéndez, P., Losada, I.J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S. & Beck, M.W. 2020. The global flood protection benefits of mangroves. Scientific Reports, 10(1): 4404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6
141 Menéndez, P., Losada, I.J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S. & Beck, M.W. 2020. The global flood protection benefits of mangroves. Scientific Reports, 10(1): 4404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6
142 Allen, T., Murray, K.A., Zambrana-Torrelio, C., Morse, S.S., Rondinini, C., Di Marco, M., Breit, N. et al. 2017. Global hotspots and correlates of emerging zoonotic diseases. Nature Communications, 8(1): 1124. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00923-8
143 Wilcox, B.A. & Ellis, B.R. 2006. Forests and emerging infectious diseases of humans. Unasylva, 57: 11–18. (also available at https://www.fao.org/3/a0789e/a0789e03.htm).
144 Sow, A., Nikolay, B., Faye, O., Cauchemez, S., Cano, J., Diallo, M., Faye, O. et al. 2020. Changes in the transmission dynamic of Chikungunya virus in southeastern Senegal. Viruses, 12(2): 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/v12020196
145 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2020. Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317
146 Dobson, A.P., Pimm, S.L., Hannah, L., Kaufman, L., Ahumada, J.A., Ando, A.W., Bernstein, A. et al. 2020. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science, 369(6502): 379–381. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc3189
147 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2020. Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4147317
148 FAO. 2020. FAO COVID-19 Response and Recovery Programme – Preventing the next zoonotic pandemic. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0301en
149 Jung, M., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., García-Rangel, S., Lewis, M., Mark, J., Merow, C. et al. 2021. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(11): 1499–1509. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7
150 Reed, J., Barlow, J., Carmenta, R., van Vianen, J. & Sunderland, T. 2019. Engaging multiple stakeholders to reconcile climate, conservation and development objectives in tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation, 238: 108229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108229
151 Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., Chatterton, P., Hovani, L. & Stam, N. 2015. The little sustainable landscapes book. Oxford, UK, Global Canopy Foundation. (also available at https://globalcanopy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/GCP_LSLB_EN.pdf).
152 Reed, J., Ickowitz, A., Chervier, C., Djoudi, H., Moombe, K., Ros-Tonen, M., Yanou, M. et al. 2020. Integrated landscape approaches in the tropics: a brief stock-take. Land Use Policy, 99: 104822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104822
153 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2022. Climate Change 2022 – Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. H.O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem & B. Rama, eds. Cambridge University Press. In press.
154 Meybeck, A., Gitz, V., Wolf, J. & Wong, T. 2020. Addressing forestry and agroforestry in National Adaptation Plans – Supplementary guidelines. Rome/Bogor, Indonesia, FAO and FTA. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1203en
155 FAO, ed. 2017. The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges. Rome. 163 p.
156 World Bank. Undated. Agricultural land (sq. km) | Data [online]. [Cited 11 November 2021]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.K2?end=2015&start=1961
157 Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. 2013. Crop yields – Our world in data [online]. [Cited 8 November 2021]. https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields#citation
158 Campanhola, C. & Pandey, S., eds. 2019. Sustainable food and agriculture. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2016-0-01212-3
159 Byerlee, D., Stevenson, J. & Villoria, N. 2014. Does intensification slow crop land expansion or encourage deforestation? Global Food Security, 3(2): 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.04.001
160 Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. 2013. Crop Yields - Our World in Data [online]. [Cited 8 November 2021]. https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields#citation
161 Evenson, R.E. & Rosegrant, M. 2003. The economic consequences of crop genetic improvement programmes. In: R.E. Evenson & D. Gollin, eds. Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity – The impact of international agricultural research, pp. 473–497. Wallingford, CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995496.0473
162 Stevenson, J.R., Villoria, N., Byerlee, D., Kelley, T. & Maredia, M. 2013. Green Revolution research saved an estimated 18 to 27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21): 8363–8368. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208065110
163 Mosnier, A., Mant, R., Pirker, J., Makoudjou, A., Awono, E., Bodin, P., Tonga, P. et al. 2015. Modelling land use changes in Cameroon 2000–2030 – A report by the REDD-PAC project. Cambridge, Laxenburg, Yaoundé, UNEP-WCMC, IIASA, COMIFAC. (also available at http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13771/).
164 Mosnier, P., Mant, R., Pirker, J., Bodin, P., Bokelo, D., Tonga, P., Havlik, P. et al. 2015. Modelling land use changes in the Democratic Republic of Congo 2000-2030. A report by the REDD-PAC project. (also available at http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13775/).
165 Havlík, P., Valin, H., Mosnier, A., Obersteiner, M., Baker, J.S., Herrero, M., Rufino, M.C. et al. 2013. Crop productivity and the global livestock sector: implications for land use change and greenhouse gas emissions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(2): 442–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aas085
166 Lobell, D.B., Baldos, U.L.C. & Hertel, T.W. 2013. Climate adaptation as mitigation: the case of agricultural investments. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1): 015012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015012
167 Stabile, M.C.C., Guimarães, A.L., Silva, D.S., Ribeiro, V., Macedo, M.N., Coe, M.T., Pinto, E. et al. 2020. Solving Brazil’s land use puzzle: increasing production and slowing Amazon deforestation. Land Use Policy, 91: 104362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104362
168 Mullan, K., Caviglia-Harris, J.L. & Sills, E.O. 2021. Sustainability of agricultural production following deforestation in the tropics: evidence on the value of newly-deforested, long-deforested and forested land in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy, 108: 105660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105660
169 Garcia, E., Ramos Filho, F., Mallmann, G. & Fonseca, F. 2017. Costs, benefits and challenges of sustainable livestock intensification in a major deforestation frontier in the Brazilian Amazon. Sustainability, 9(1): 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010158
170 Krause, M., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Dietrich, J.P. & Bonsch, M. 2013. Conservation of undisturbed natural forests and economic impacts on agriculture. Land Use Policy, 30(1): 344–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.020
171 Villoria, N.B., Byerlee, D. & Stevenson, J. 2014. The effects of agricultural technological progress on deforestation: what do we really know? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(2): 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppu005
172 Byerlee, D., Stevenson, J. & Villoria, N. 2014. Does intensification slow crop land expansion or encourage deforestation? Global Food Security, 3(2): 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.04.001
173 Lobell, D.B., Baldos, U.L.C. & Hertel, T.W. 2013. Climate adaptation as mitigation: the case of agricultural investments. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1): 015012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015012
174 Stabile, M.C.C., Guimarães, A.L., Silva, D.S., Ribeiro, V., Macedo, M.N., Coe, M.T., Pinto, E. et al. 2020. Solving Brazil’s land use puzzle: increasing production and slowing Amazon deforestation. Land Use Policy, 91: 104362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104362
175 Garrett, R.D., Levy, S., Carlson, K.M., Gardner, T.A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P. et al. 2019. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54: 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003
176 Lambin, E.F., Gibbs, H.K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K.M., Fleck, L.C., Garrett, R.D., le Polain de Waroux, Y. et al. 2018. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, 8(2): 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1
177 Rueda, X., Garrett, R.D. & Lambin, E.F. 2017. Corporate investments in supply chain sustainability: selecting instruments in the agri-food industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142: 2480–2492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.026
178 Rothrock, P. & Wheaterer, L. 2020. Commitments in action – Corporate tells for financing forest conservation & restoration, 2020 [online]. Forest Trends. [Cited 5 November 2021]. https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/commitments-in-action-corporate-tells-for-financing-forest-conservation-restoration-2020/
179 Garrett, R.D., Levy, S., Carlson, K.M., Gardner, T.A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P. et al. 2019. Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54: 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003
180 CDP. 2021. The collective effort to end deforestation – A pathway for companies to raise their ambition. (also available at https://www.cdp.net/en/research/global-reports/global-forests-report-2020).
181 CDP. 2021. Home – CDP [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.cdp.net/en
182 Burley, H. & Thomson, E. 2022. A climate wake-up – But business failing to hear the alarm on deforestation. Oxford, UK, Global Canopy. (also available at https://forest500.org/sites/default/files/forest500_2022report_final.pdf).
183 United Nations. Undated. Action Tracks | United Nations. In: Food Systems Summit 2021 [online]. [Cited 9 February 2022]. https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/action-tracks
184 Roberts, C.M., O’Leary, B.C. & Hawkins, J.P. 2020. Climate change mitigation and nature conservation both require higher protected area targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794): 20190121. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0121
185 Robinson, B.E., Holland, M.B. & Naughton-Treves, L. 2014. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Global Environmental Change, 29: 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.012
186 FAO. 2021. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. FAO, Alliance of Bioversity International, and CIAT. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5131en
187 Lipscomb, M. & Prabakaran, N. 2020. Property rights and deforestation: evidence from the Terra Legal land reform in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 129: 104854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104854
188 Segura Warnholtz, G., Fernández, M. & Springer, F. 2017. Securing forest tenure rights for rural development – Lessons from six countries in Latin America. (also available at http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26301).
189 Moffette, F., Alix-Garcia, J., Shea, K. & Pickens, A.H. 2021. The impact of near-real-time deforestation alerts across the tropics. Nature Climate Change, 11(2): 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00956-w
190 Gibbs, H.K., Munger, J., L’Roe, J., Barreto, P., Pereira, R., Christie, M., Amaral, T. et al. 2016. Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero-deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conservation Letters, 9(1): 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12175
191 Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L.L., Munger, J. & Gibbs, H.K. 2020. Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nature Food, 1(12): 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00194-5
192 Carodenuto, S. 2019. Governance of zero deforestation cocoa in West Africa: new forms of public–private interaction. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29(1): 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1841
193 Silva, de F., Perrin, R.K. & Fulginiti, L.E. 2019. The opportunity cost of preserving the Brazilian Amazon forest. Agricultural Economics, 50(2): 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12478
194 Jones, K.W., Powlen, K., Roberts, R. & Shinbrot, X. 2020. Participation in payments for ecosystem services programs in the Global South: a systematic review. Ecosystem Services, 45: 101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101159
195 Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A. & Jenkins, M. 2018. The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3): 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0
196 Searchinger, T.D., Malins, C., Dumas, P., Baldock, D., Glauber, J., Jayne, T., Huang, J. et al. 2020. Revising public agricultural support to mitigate climate change. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/33677
197 Searchinger, T.D., Malins, C., Dumas, P., Baldock, D., Glauber, J., Jayne, T., Huang, J. et al. 2020. Revising public agricultural support to mitigate climate change. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/33677
198 Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392): 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
199 Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S. & Pfaff, A. 2020. The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12(1): 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
200 Rakatama, A., Pandit, R., Ma, C. & Iftekhar, S. 2017. The costs and benefits of REDD+: A review of the literature. Forest Policy and Economics, 75: 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.006
201 Leblois, A., Damette, O. & Wolfersberger, J. 2017. What has driven deforestation in developing countries since the 2000s? Evidence from new remote-sensing data. World Development, 92: 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.012
202 Anonymous. 2020. Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests Goal 1 assessment. Climate Focus. (also available at https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020NYDFGoal1.pdf).
203 Anonymous. 2020. Progress on the New York Declaration on Forests Goal 1 assessment. Climate Focus. (also available at https://forestdeclaration.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2020NYDFGoal1.pdf).
204 Gichuki, L., Brouwer, R., Davies, J., Vidal, A., Kuzee, M., Magero, C., Walter, S. et al. 2019. Reviving land and restoring landscapes – Policy convergence between forest landscape restoration and land degradation neutrality. International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.11.en
205 UN Environment Programme, ed. 2009. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers – Summary. Responding to the value of nature. The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity. Geneva, Switzerland. 39 p.
206 Oberle, B., Bringezu, S., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hellweg, S., Schandl, H. & Clement, J. 2019. Global resources outlook 2019 – Natural resources for the future we want. Nairobi, UN Environment Programme.
207 Mirzabaev, A., Sacande, M., Motlagh, F., Shyrokaya, A. & Martucci, A. 2021. Economic efficiency and targeting of the African Great Green Wall. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00801-8
208 Mansuy, N. 2020. Stimulating post-COVID-19 green recovery by investing in ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 28(6): 1343–1347. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13296
209 Benayas, J.M.R., Newton, A.C., Diaz, A. & Bullock, J.M. 2009. Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis. Science, 325(5944): 1121–1124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172460
210 Burek, P., Satoh, Y., Fischer, G., Kahil, M.T., Schertzer, A., Tramberend, S., Fabiola Nava, L. et al. 2016. Water futures and solution – Fast Track Initiative final report. 113 p. 16–006. Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. (also available at http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13008/1/WP-16-006.pdf).
211 WWAP (UN World Water Assessment Programme)/UN-Water. 2018. World Water Development Report 2018. In: UN-Water [online]. [Cited 8 November 2021]. https://www.unwater.org/publications/world-water-development-report-2018/
212 van der Esch, S., Sewell, A., Bakkenes, M., Doelman, J., Stehfest, E., Langhans, C., Fleskens, L. et al. 2021. The global potential for land restoration – Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook 2. Main messages and executive summary. The Hague, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
213 Stanturf, J., Mansourian, S. & Kleine, M., eds. 2017. Implementing forest landscape restoration – A practitioner’s guide. Vienna, International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
214 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change & Edenhofer, O., eds. 2014. Climate change 2014 – Mitigation of climate change: Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press. 1435 pp.
215 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In press. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, et al., eds. Cambridge University Press.
216 Witze, A. 2020. The Arctic is burning like never before – and that’s bad news for climate change. Nature, 585(7825): 336–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02568-y
217 FAO. 2020. Peatlands mapping and monitoring – Recommendations and technical overview. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8200en
218 Similä, M., Aapala, K., Penttinen, J. & Finnland, eds. 2014. Ecological restoration in drained peatlands – Best practices from Finland. Vantaa, Metsähallitus, Natural Heritage Services [u.a.]. 84 pp.
219 e.g. Kiely, L., Spracklen, D.V., Arnold, S.R., Papargyropoulou, E., Conibear, L., Wiedinmyer, C., Knote, C. et al. 2021. Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland. Nature Communications, 12(1): 7044. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27353-x
220 Prosperi, P., Bloise, M., Tubiello, F.N., Conchedda, G., Rossi, S., Boschetti, L., Salvatore, M. et al. 2020. New estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass burning and peat fires using MODIS Collection 6 burned areas. Climatic Change, 161(3): 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02654-0
221 National Interagency Fire Center. Undated. Suppression costs | National Interagency Fire Center [online]. [Cited 14 January 2022]. https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/suppression-costs
222 Government of Canada. 2021. Cost of wildland fire protection [online]. [Cited 19 January 2022]. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change/impacts-adaptations/climate-change-impacts-forests/forest-change-indicators/cost-fire-protection/17783
223 Thomas, D., Butry, D., Gilbert, S., Webb, D. & Fung, J. 2017. The costs and losses of wildfires – A literature survey. NIST SP 1215. Gaithersburg, USA, National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1215
224 Association for Fire Ecology, International Association of Wildland Fire & The Nature Conservancy. 2015. Reduce wildfire risks or we’ll continue to pay more for fire disasters – Position statement. [Cited 18 January 2022]. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ea4a2778a22135afc733499/t/5eae000aed72103d3af6301b/1588461581402/True-Costs-of-Wildfire-2.pdf
225 FAO & Global Mechanism of the UNCCD. 2015. Sustainable financing for forest and landscape restoration – Opportunities, challenges and the way forward. Rome. 114 pp.
226 UN Environment Programme. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
227 O’Callaghan, B.J. & Murdock, E. 2021. Are we building back better? Evidence from 2020 and pathways to inclusive green recovery spending. Global Recovery Observatory and UN Environment Programme. 57 pp.
228 Hepburn, C., O’Callaghan, B., Stern, N., Stiglitz, J. & Zenghelis, D. 2020. Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(Supplement_1): S359–S381. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa015
229 Besseau, P., Graham, S. & Christophersen, T., eds. 2018. Restoring forests and landscapes – The key to a sustainable future. Vienna, Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration. (also available at https://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/images/gpflr_final%2027aug.pdf).
230 Verdone, M. & Seidl, A. 2017. Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target. Restoration Ecology, 25(6): 903–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12512
231 Roe, S., Streck, C., Beach, R., Busch, J., Chapman, M., Daioglou, V., Deppermann, A. et al. 2021. Land-based measures to mitigate climate change: potential and feasibility by country. Global Change Biology, 27(23): 6025–6058. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873
232 Dave, R., Saint-Laurent, C., Murray, L., Antunes Daldegan, G., Brouwer, R., de Mattos Scaramuzza, C.A., Raes, L. et al. 2019. Second Bonn Challenge progress report – Application of the Barometer in 2018. International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.06.en
233 Rudee, A. 2020. Want to help the US economy? Rethink the Trillion Trees Act. (also available at https://www.wri.org/insights/want-help-us-economy-rethink-trillion-trees-act).
234 ELD Initiative. 2015. Report for policy and decision makers - Reaping economic and environmental benefits from sustainable land management. (also available at https://www.eld-initiative.org/fileadmin/pdf/ELD-pm-report_05_web_300dpi.pdf).
235 UN Convention to Combat Desertification. 2020. The Great Green Wall – Implementation status and way ahead to 2030. (also available at https://www.unccd.int/publications/great-green-wall-implementation-status-and-way-ahead-2030).
236 Stanturf, J., Mansourian, S. & Kleine, M., eds. 2017. Implementing forest landscape restoration – A practitioner’s guide. Vienna, International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
237 Dietzel, A., Maes, J., European Commission, Joint Research Centre & Institute for Environment and Sustainability. 2015. Costs of restoration measures in the EU based on an assessment of LIFE projects. Luxembourg, Publications Office. (also available at http://dx.publications.europa.eu/10.2788/235713).
238 De Groot, R.S., Blignaut, J., Van Der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Elmqvist, T. & Farley, J. 2013. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biology, 27(6): 1286–1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12158
239 Birch, J.C., Newton, A.C., Aquino, C.A., Cantarello, E., Echeverría, C., Kitzberger, T., Schiappacasse, I. et al. 2010. Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(50): 21925–21930. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003369107
240 Bodin, B., Garavaglia, V., Pingault, N., Ding, H., Wilson, S., Meybeck, A., Gitz, V. et al. 2021. A standard framework for assessing the costs and benefits of restoration: introducing The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13515
241 Bodin, B., Garavaglia, V., Pingault, N., Ding, H., Wilson, S., Meybeck, A., Gitz, V. et al. 2021. A standard framework for assessing the costs and benefits of restoration: introducing The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13515
242 Holl, K.D. & Howarth, R.B. 2000. Paying for restoration. Restoration Ecology, 8(3): 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80037.x
243 Shoo, L.P., Catterall, C.P., Nicol, S., Christian, R., Rhodes, J., Atkinson, P., Butler, D. et al. 2017. Navigating complex decisions in restoration investment. Conservation Letters, 10(6): 748–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12327
244 Brancalion, P.H.S., Amazonas, N.T., Chazdon, R.L., Melis, J., Rodrigues, R.R., Silva, C.C., Sorrini, T.B. et al. 2020. Exotic eucalypts: from demonized trees to allies of tropical forest restoration? Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(1): 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13513
245 De Groot, R.S., Blignaut, J., Van Der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Elmqvist, T. & Farley, J. 2013. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biology, 27(6): 1286–1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12158
246 Kimball, S., Lulow, M., Sorenson, Q., Balazs, K., Fang, Y.-C., Davis, S.J., O’Connell, M. et al. 2015. Cost-effective ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 23(6): 800–810. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12261
247 International Union for Conservation of Nature. undated. Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM) | IUCN [online]. [Cited 31 December 2021]. https://www.iucn.org/theme/forests/our-work/forest-landscape-restoration/restoration-opportunities-assessment-methodology-roam
248 International Institute for Sustainability. undated. WePlan Forests [online]. [Cited 31 December 2021]. http://weplan-forests.org/
249 Beyer, H.L., Williams, B., Schmoeller, M. & Crouzeilles, R. 2021. The implications of natural regeneration for tropical and subtropical forest restoration in Colombia, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Peru and the Philippines.
250 Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A., van Noordwijk, M. et al. 2016. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports, 6(1): 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
251 Pumariño, L., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Kaartinen, R., Barrios, E., Muchane, M.N., Midega, C. et al. 2015. Effects of agroforestry on pest, disease and weed control: a meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(7): 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.006
252 Minnemeyer, S., Laestadius, L. & Sizer, N. 2011. A world of opportunity. Washington, DC, World Resource Institute (WRI). (also available at http://pdf.wri.org/world_of_opportunity_brochure_2011-09.pdf).
253 Pumariño, L., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Kaartinen, R., Barrios, E., Muchane, M.N., Midega, C. et al. 2015. Effects of agroforestry on pest, disease and weed control: a meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(7): 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.08.006
254 Muchane, M.N., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Jonsson, M., Pumariño, L. & Barrios, E. 2020. Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-humid tropics: a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 295: 106899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106899
255 Udawatta, R.P., Rankoth, L. & Jose, S. 2019. Agroforestry and biodiversity. Sustainability, 11(10): 2879. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102879
256 Barral, M.P., Rey Benayas, J.M., Meli, P. & Maceira, N.O. 2015. Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: a global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 202: 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009
257 Muchane, M.N., Sileshi, G.W., Gripenberg, S., Jonsson, M., Pumariño, L. & Barrios, E. 2020. Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-humid tropics: a meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 295: 106899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106899
258 Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A., van Noordwijk, M. et al. 2016. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports, 6(1): 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
259 Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., Ahrends, A., Bossio, D., Trabucco, A., van Noordwijk, M. et al. 2016. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports, 6(1): 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
260 Rosenstock, T.S., Wilkes, A., Jallo, C., Namoi, N., Bulusu, M., Suber, M., Mboi, D. et al. 2019. Making trees count: measurement and reporting of agroforestry in UNFCCC national communications of non-Annex I countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 284: 106569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106569
261 Lehmann, L.M., Smith, J., Westaway, S., Pisanelli, A., Russo, G., Borek, R., Sandor, M. et al. 2020. Productivity and economic evaluation of agroforestry systems for sustainable production of food and non-food products. Sustainability, 12(13): 5429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135429
262 Kuyah, S., Whitney, C.W., Jonsson, M., Sileshi, G.W., Öborn, I., Muthuri, C.W. & Luedeling, E. 2019. Agroforestry delivers a win-win solution for ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. A meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39(5): 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0589-8
263 Aryal, K., Thapa, P.S. & Lamichhane, D. 2019. Revisiting agroforestry for building climate resilient communities: a case of package-based integrated agroforestry practices in Nepal. Emerging Science Journal, 3(5): 303–311. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2019-01193
264 Lawin, K.G. & Tamini, L.D. 2019. Land tenure differences and adoption of agri-environmental practices: evidence from Benin. The Journal of Development Studies, 55(2): 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2018.1443210
265 Ollinaho, O.I. & Kröger, M. 2021. Agroforestry transitions: the good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Rural Studies, 82: 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016
266 Do, H., Luedeling, E. & Whitney, C. 2020. Decision analysis of agroforestry options reveals adoption risks for resource-poor farmers. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(3): 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00624-5
267 Charles, R., Munishi, P. & Nzunda, E. 2013. Agroforestry as adaptation strategy under climate change in Mwanga District, Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. International Journal of Environmental Protection, 3: 29–38.
268 Fisher, M., Chaudhury, M. & McCusker, B. 2010. Do forests help rural households adapt to climate variability? Evidence from southern Malawi. World Development, 38(9): 1241–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.03.005
269 Wunder, S., Börner, J., Shively, G. & Wyman, M. 2014. Safety nets, gap filling and forests: a global-comparative perspective. World Development, 64: S29–S42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.005
270 Magcale-Macandog, D.B., Rañola, F.M., Rañola, R.F., Ani, P.A.B. & Vidal, N.B. 2010. Enhancing the food security of upland farming households through agroforestry in Claveria, Misamis Oriental, Philippines. Agroforestry Systems, 79(3): 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9267-1
271 Glover, E., Hassan, B.A. & Glover, M. 2013. Analysis of socio-economic conditions influencing adoption of agroforestry practices. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 3: 178–184.
272 Bettles, J., Battisti, D.S., Cook-Patton, S.C., Kroeger, T., Spector, J.T., Wolff, N.H. & Masuda, Y.J. 2021. Agroforestry and non-state actors: a review. Forest Policy and Economics, 130: 102538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102538
273 Sollen-Norrlin, M., Ghaley, B.B. & Rintoul, N.L.J. 2020. Agroforestry benefits and challenges for adoption in Europe and beyond. Sustainability, 12(17): 7001. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177001
274 Brondizio, E.S. 2012. Institutional crafting and the vitality of rural areas in an urban world: perspectives from a Japanese community in the Amazon. Global Environmental Research, 16(2): 145–151.
275 Futemma, C., De Castro, F. & Brondizio, E.S. 2020. Farmers and social innovations in rural development: collaborative arrangements in eastern Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy, 99: 104999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104999
276 Piekielek, J. 2010. Cooperativism and agroforestry in the eastern Amazon: the case of Tomé-Açu. Latin American Perspectives, 37(6): 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X10382097
277 Ollinaho, O.I. & Kröger, M. 2021. Agroforestry transitions: the good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Rural Studies, 82: 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016
278 Franzel, S., Denning, G.L., Lillesø, J.P.B. & Mercado, A.R. 2004. Scaling up the impact of agroforestry: lessons from three sites in Africa and Asia. In: P.K.R. Nair, M.R. Rao & L.E. Buck, eds. New vistas in agroforestry, pp. 329–344. Advances in Agroforestry. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_23
279 Wilson, M. & Lovell, S. 2016. Agroforestry—the next step in sustainable and resilient agriculture. Sustainability, 8(6): 574. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060574
280 Robiglio, V. & Reyes, M. 2016. Restoration through formalization? Assessing the potential of Peru’s Agroforestry Concessions scheme to contribute to restoration in agricultural frontiers in the Amazon region. World Development Perspectives, 3: 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2016.11.013
281 Waldén, P., Ollikainen, M. & Kahiluoto, H. 2020. Carbon revenue in the profitability of agroforestry relative to monocultures. Agroforestry Systems, 94(1): 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00355-x
282 UN Environment Programme. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi. (also available at https://www.unep.org/resources/state-finance-nature).
283 UN Environment Programme & FAO. 2021. Becoming #GenerationRestoration – Ecosystem restoration for people, nature and climate. Nairobi (also available at https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36251/ERPNC.pdf).
284 Herrick, J.E., Abrahamse, T. & UN Environment Programme. 2019. Land restoration for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals – An International Resource Panel think piece.
285 Oberle, B., Bringezu, S., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hellweg, S., Schandl, H. & Clement, J. 2019. Global resources outlook 2019 – Natural resources for the future we want. Nairobi, UN Environment Programme.
286 Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M. & Fári, M. 2014. The effect of bioenergy expansion: food, energy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32: 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056
287 FAO. undated. Forest products statistics – Forest product consumption and production [online]. [Cited 11 November 2021]. https://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938@180723/en/
288 World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2020. Circular bioeconomy – The business opportunity contributing to a sustainable world. Geneva, Switzerland. (also available at https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/10806/159810/1).
289 World Bank. 2016. Housing for all by 2030. Infographics [online]. World Bank. [Cited 8 November 2021]. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2016/05/13/housing-for-all-by-2030
290 World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2020. Circular bioeconomy – The business opportunity contributing to a sustainable world.
291 Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency & UN Environment Programme. 2019. 2019 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction Sector – Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. (also available at http://www.unep.org/resources/publication/2019-global-status-report-buildings-and-construction-sector).
292 Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C.P.O., Ruff, A., Vinke, K., Liu, Z., Reck, B.K. et al. 2020. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability, 3(4): 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4
293 Verkerk, P.J., Hassegawa, M., Van Brusselen, J., Cramm, M., Chen, X., Imparato Maximo, Y., Koç, M. et al. 2021. Forest products in the global bioeconomy. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7274en
294 Ottelin, J., Amiri, A., Steubing, B. & Junnila, S. 2021. Comparative carbon footprint analysis of residents of wooden and non-wooden houses in Finland. Environmental Research Letters, 16(7): 074006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac06f9
295 Stora Enso. Undated. 10 reasons why wooden buildings are good for you – And the scientific research to back it up. White paper.
296 Knox, A. & Parry-Husbands, H. 2018. Workplaces – Wellness + wood = productivity. Forest and Wood Products Australia.
297 Stay, M. 2021. Gabon’s Special Economic Zone, the world’s first certified carbon neutral industrial zone – VivAfrik. In: New in 24 [online]. [Cited 27 December 2021]. https://new.in-24.com/world/amp/229127
298 Vussonji, D.C., Makeka, M. & Zwane, C. Forthcoming. Building a sustainable circular bioeconomy in Africa through forest products – Trends, opportunities and challenges. Dalberg Catalyst and FAO.
299 Makake, M. 2021. Toward a regenerative forest economy for Gabon. Presentation made at the Yale Forest Forum.
300 Vussonji, D.C., Makeka, M. & Zwane, C. Forthcoming. Building a sustainable circular bioeconomy in Africa through forest products – Trends, opportunities and challenges. Dalberg Catalyst and FAO.
301 Secretariat of the Advisory Committee on Sustainable Forest-based Industries. 2020. Status of public policies encouraging wood use in construction – An overview. FAO.
302 Breneman, S., Timmers, M. & Richardson, D. 2019. Tall wood buildings in the 2021 IBC. Up to 18 stories of mass timber. Wood Products Council. https://www.woodworks.org/wp-content/uploads/wood_solution_paper-TALL-WOOD.pdf
303 Forest and Wood Products Australia. 2019. FWPA drives new National Construction Code changes to increase demand for timber products. Press release. (also available at https://www.fwpa.com.au/images/mediareleases/2019/FWPA_MR_NCC_2019_Changes_FINAL.pdf).
304 World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2020. Circular bioeconomy – The business opportunity contributing to a sustainable world. Geneva, Switzerland. (also available at https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/10806/159810/1).
305 Rotherham, T. & Burrows, J. 2014. Improvement in efficiency of fibre utilization by the Canadian forest products industry 1970 to 2010. The Forestry Chronicle, 90(6): 801–806.
306 FAO, International Tropical Timber Organization & UN. 2020. Forest product conversion factors. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca7952en
307 FAO. Undated. FAOSTAT [online]. [Cited 27 December 2021]. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO
308 Bais-Moleman, A.L., Sikkema, R., Vis, M., Reumerman, P., Theurl, M.C. & Erb, K.-H. 2018. Assessing wood use efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of wood product cascading in the European Union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: 3942–3954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.153
309 Allott, J., O’Kelly, G. & Pendergraph, S. 2020. Data: The next wave in forestry productivity | McKinsey. In: McKinsey & Company [online]. [Cited 27 December 2021]. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/our-insights/data-the-next-wave-in-forestry-productivity
310 Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2021. The nature imperative – How the circular economy tackles biodiversity loss. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (also available at https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/biodiversity-report).
311 European Commission. Undated. Bio-based products. [online]. Internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs. [Cited 5 November 2021]. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/biotechnology/bio-based-products_en
312 Metreveli, G., Wågberg, L., Emmoth, E., Belák, S., Strømme, M. & Mihranyan, A. 2014. A size-exclusion nanocellulose filter paper for virus removal. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 3(10): 1546–1550. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201300641
313 University of British Columbia. 2020. UBC researchers develop biodegradable medical mask for COVID-19 [online]. [Cited 13 November 2021]. https://news.ubc.ca/2020/05/21/ubc-researchers-develop-biodegradable-medical-mask-for-covid-19/
314 Claro, F.C., Jordão, C., de Viveiros, B.M., Isaka, L.J.E., Villanova Junior, J.A. & Magalhães, W.L.E. 2020. Low cost membrane of wood nanocellulose obtained by mechanical defibrillation for potential applications as wound dressing. Cellulose, 27(18): 10765–10779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-020-03129-2
315 UPM. Undated. Wood-based FibDex® wound dressing can speed up healing and bring new convenience to patient care | UPM.COM [online]. [Cited 13 November 2021]. https://www.upm.com/articles/innovations/20/wood-based-fibdex-wound-dressing-can-speed-up-healing-and-bring-new-convenience-to-patient-care/
316 Smith, T., Majid, F., Eckl, V. & Reynolds, C.M. 2021. Herbal supplement sales in US increase by record-breaking 17.3% in 2020. HerbalGram, (131): 52–65.
317 European Biomass Industry Association. Undated. Biochemicals [online]. [Cited 27 December 2021]. https://www.eubia.org/cms/wiki-biomass/biochemicals-and-biopolymers/
318 UN & FAO. 2021. Forest Sector Outlook Study 2020–2040. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 51. Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations. (also available at https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/SP-51-2021-11_0.pdf).
319 Verkerk, P.J., Hassegawa, M., Van Brusselen, J., Cramm, M., Chen, X., Imparato Maximo, Y., Koç, M. et al. 2021. Forest products in the global bioeconomy. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7274en
320 ReportLinker. 2020. Global cellulosic man-made fibers industry.
321 Verkerk, P.J., Hassegawa, M., Van Brusselen, J., Cramm, M., Chen, X., Imparato Maximo, Y., Koç, M. et al. 2021. Forest products in the global bioeconomy. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7274en
322 UN & FAO. 2021. Forest Sector Outlook Study 2020–2040. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 51. Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations. (also available at https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/SP-51-2021-11_0.pdf).
323 IEA. 2021. Net Zero by 2050. A roadmap for the global energy sector. IEA. (also available at https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050).
324 Bailis, R., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A. & Masera, O. 2015. The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nature Climate Change, 5(3): 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2491
325 ESMAP. 2012. Commercial woodfuel production – Experience from three locally controlled wood production models. Knowledge Series 012/12. World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (also available at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/17478/751950ESMAP0WP0el0KS120120Optimized.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y).
326 FAO. 2020. Sustainable charcoal production for food security and forest landscape restoration. (also available at https://www.fao.org/3/ca7967en/ca7967en.pdf).
327 Guidal, A., Herail, A. & Rosenstock, T. 2019. Feasibility of industrial charcoal production in the Republic of Congo. Kinshasa, World Agroforestry – ICRAF.
328 MNREM. 2017. National Charcoal Strategy of Malawi (2017–2027). Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mining (MNREM), Malawi.
329 REN21. 2021. Renewables 2021 Global Status Report. REN21 Secretariat. (also available at https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GSR2021_Full_Report.pdf).
330 Lazaridou, D.C., Michailidis, A. & Trigkas, M. 2021. Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a forest-based circular economy: a literature review. Forests, 12(4): 436. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040436
331 Raven, P. 2021. Letter regarding use of forests for bioenergy to President Biden, President von der Leyen, President Michel, Prime Minister Suga, and President Moon.
332 IEA. 2021. Net zero by 2050 – A roadmap for the global energy sector. International Energy Agency (IEA). (also available at https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050).
333 CCA. 2021. Venture Catalyst [online]. https://cleancooking.org/venture-catalyst/
334 Wiebe, K.S., Simas, M. & Harsdorff, M. Undated. Measuring the socioeconomic impacts of climate policies to guide NDC enhancement and a just transition. Nigeria Green Jobs Assessment Report. UN Development Programme and International Labour Organization.
335 Renner, M. 2017. Rural renewable energy investments and their impact on employment. Strengthen Publication Series Working Paper 1. 95 p. Geneva, Switzerland, International Labour Organization.
336 OECD. Undated. Climate Change: OECD DAC External Development Finance Statistics – OECD [online]. [Cited 19 January 2022]. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/climate-change.htm
337 Whiteman, A., Wickramasinghe, A. & Piña, L. 2015. Global trends in forest ownership, public income and expenditure on forestry and forestry employment. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.011
338 OECD. 2020. Towards sustainable land use – Aligning biodiversity, climate and food policies. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). https://doi.org/10.1787/3809b6a1-en
339 UN Environment Programme. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
340 FAO, UN Development Programme & UN Environment Programme. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en
341 Vivid Economics & Finance for Biodiversity Initiative. 2021. Greenness of Stimulus Index – An assessment of COVID-19 stimulus by G20 countries and other major economies in relation to climate action and biodiversity goals. (also available at https://a1be08a4-d8fb-4c22-9e4a-2b2f4cb7e41d.filesusr.com/ugd/643e85_f712aba98f0b4786b54c455fc9207575.pdf).
342 Bottaro, G., Liagre, L. & Pettenella, D. 2021. How is the forest sector integrated in the National Recovery and Resilience Plans of EU countries?
343 Global Recovery Observatory. Undated. Global Recovery Observatory – Oxford University Economic Recovery Project [online]. [Cited 11 November 2021]. https://recovery.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/tracking/1
344 Group of Multilateral Development Banks. 2021. Joint report on multilateral development banks’ climate finance 2020. London, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. (also available at https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/9234bfc633439d0172f6a6eb8df1b881-0020012021/original/2020-Joint-MDB-report-on-climate-finance-Report-final-web.pdf).
345 Group of Multilateral Development Banks. 2021. Joint report on multilateral development banks’ climate finance 2020. London, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. (also available at https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/9234bfc633439d0172f6a6eb8df1b881-0020012021/original/2020-Joint-MDB-report-on-climate-finance-Report-final-web.pdf).
346 Swann, S., Blandford, L., Cheng, S., Cook, J., Miller, A. & Barr, R. 2021. Public international funding of nature-based solutions for adaptation – A landscape assessment. World Resources Institute. https://doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.20.00065
347 Atteridge, A. & Tenggren, S. 2019. Finance for the adaptation of ecosystems to climate change – A review of the Adaptation Fund portfolio. 28 p. Stockholm, Stockholm Environment Institute.
348 UN Environment Programme. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
349 UN Environment Programme. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
350 World Economic Forum. 2021. Investing in forests – The business case. Geneva, Switzerland. (also available at https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Investing_in_Forests_2021.pdf).
351 Castrén, T., Katila, M., Lindroos, K. & Salmi, J. 2014. private financing for sustainable forest management and forest products in developing countries—Trends and drivers. Washington, DC, Program on Forests (PROFOR).
352 UN Environment Programme. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
353 Indufor Oy & Criterion Africa Partners. 2017. Allocating capital for maximum impact in Africa’s plantation forestry sector. Helsinki.
354 Held, C. 2020. The impact of FLEGT VPAs on forest sector investment risk in Indonesia and Viet Nam. 24 p. International Tropical Timber Organization.
355 Forest Europe. 2020. State of Europe’s Forests 2020. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. (also available at https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SoEF_2020.pdf).
356 Forest Europe. 2020. State of Europe’s Forests 2020. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. (also available at https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SoEF_2020.pdf).
357 UN Environment Programme. 2021. State of finance for nature – Tripling investments in nature-based solutions by 2030. Nairobi.
358 World Bank. 2020. Mobilizing private finance for nature. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/35984
359 Elbein, S. 2020. A new way to profit from ancient Alaskan forests – leave them standing [online]. National Geographic. [Cited 12 November 2021]. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/new-way-to-profit-from-ancient-alaskan-forests-leave-them-standing
360 World Wide Fund for Nature. 2020. Community leaders in Central Vietnam pioneer a sustainable forestry model [online]. WWF Forest Solutions. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://forestsolutions.panda.org/insights/community-leaders-in-central-vietnam-pioneer-a-sustainable-forestry-model
361 World Wide Fund for Nature. 2017. Vietnam – Supplying the world with garden furniture, small forest owners in Vietnam could help end deforestation [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://wwf.exposure.co/vietnam
362 Nguyen Vinh Quang, To Xuan Phuc, Basik Treanor, N., Nguyen Ton Quyen & Cao Thi. 2018. Linking smallholder plantations to global markets. Washington, DC, Forest Trends. (also available at https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/linking-smallholder-plantations-to-global-markets/).
363 Pham, T.T., Nguyen, D.T., Ðào Thi, L.C. & Hoàng, T.L. 2020. Preparing Vietnam for new rules on international market: Zero deforestation production and business. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007573
364 Sadanandan Nambiar, E.K. 2021. Strengthening Vietnam’s forestry sectors and rural development: higher productivity, value, and access to fairer markets are needed to support small forest growers. Trees, Forests and People, 3: 100052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100052
365 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Undated. Blended Finance – OECD [online]. [Cited 28 December 2021]. https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/blended-finance-principles/
366 Blended Finance Taskforce. Undated. Tropical Asia Forest Fund 2 [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.blendedfinance.earth/blended-finance-funds/2020/11/16/tropical-asia-forest-fund-2
367 Green Climate Fund. Undated. FP173: The Amazon Bioeconomy Fund: Unlocking private capital by valuing bioeconomy products and services with climate mitigation and adaptation results in the Amazon | Green Climate Fund [online]. [Cited 28 December 2021]. https://www.greenclimate.fund/project/fp173
368 Louman, B., Meybeck, A., Mulder, G., Brady, M., Fremy, F., Savenije, H., Gitz, V. et al. 2020. Innovative finance for sustainable landscapes. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007852
369 Almeida, M. 2020. Green Bonds Global State of the Market 2019. Climate Bonds Initiative.
370 European Commission. 2021. €250 billion of NextGenerationEU green bonds [online]. [Cited 14 November 2021]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_4565
371 e.g. FAO. 2019. Catalyzing private finance for inclusive and sustainable forest value chains. Report of the expert meeting. Rome. (also available at https://www.fao.org/forestry/48858-064440fb9719c37f1b7b2a3e957b017c1.pdf); UN Environment Programme. Undated. Private investment for restoration: Addressing the pipeline bottleneck [online]. [Cited 28 December 2021]. https://www.unep.org/events/webinar/private-investment-restoration-addressing-pipeline-bottleneck
372 Cunningham, S.A., Attwood, S.J., Bawa, K.S., Benton, T.G., Broadhurst, L.M., Didham, R.K., McIntyre, S. et al. 2013. To close the yield-gap while saving biodiversity will require multiple locally relevant strategies. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 173: 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.007
373 Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., Cassidy, E.S., Gerber, J.S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N.D. et al. 2011. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369): 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
374 Angelsen, A., Kaimowitz, D. & Center for International Forestry Research, eds. 2001. Agricultural technologies and tropical deforestation. New York, USA, CABI Pub. in association with Center for International Forestry Research. 422 p.
375 World Bank. 2017. Harnessing the potential of productive forests and timber supply chains for climate change mitigation and green growth. Washington, DC. (also available at https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/knowledge-documents/productive_forests_pub_4-3-17web.pdf).
376 Nambiar, E.K.S. 2019. Tamm Review: re-imagining forestry and wood business: pathways to rural development, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation in the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management, 448: 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.06.014
377 FAO, UN Development Programme & UN Environment Programme. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en
378 FAO, UN Development Programme & UN Environment Programme. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en
379 Whiteman, A., Wickramasinghe, A. & Piña, L. 2015. Global trends in forest ownership, public income and expenditure on forestry and forestry employment. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.04.011
380 World Bank. 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021 – Managing assets for the future. Washington, DC.
381 FAO, UN Development Programme & UN Environment Programme. 2021. A multi-billion-dollar opportunity – Repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb6562en
382 Buttoud, G. 2012. From PES to REDD: making policy tools and economic mechanisms interact for a better forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 18: 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.03.001
383 Karsenty, A. 2021. Fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for sustainable forest management –Synthesis of the lessons derived from case studies in Brazil, Cambodia, the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Myanmar, Peru, Thailand and Viet Nam. ITTO Technical Series 48. Yokohama, Japan, International Tropical Timber Organization.
384 Busch, J., Ring, I., Akullo, M., Amarjargal, O., Borie, M., Cassola, R.S., Cruz-Trinidad, A. et al. 2021. A global review of ecological fiscal transfers. Nature Sustainability, 4(9): 756–765. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00728-0.
385 Rao, M., Bast, A. & de Boer, A. 2021. European private food safety standards in global agri-food supply chains: a systematic review. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 24(5): 739–754. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2020.0146
386 Fernandez de Cordoba, S., ed. 2018. Voluntary sustainability standards, trade and sustainable development. UN Forum on Sustainability Standards. (also available at https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/unfss_3rd_2018_en.pdf).
387 See, for example: Cerutti, P.O., Goetghebuer, T., Leszczynska, N., Newbery, J., Breyne, J., Dermawan, A., Mauquoy, C. et al. 2020. Collecting evidence of FLEGT-VPA impacts for improved FLEGT communication. 79 p. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
388 Dieterle, G. & Karsenty, A. 2020. ‘Wood security’: the importance of incentives and economic valorisation in conserving and expanding forests. International Forestry Review, 22(1): 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554820829523916
389 Pendrill, F., Persson, U.M., Godar, J., Kastner, T., Moran, D., Schmidt, S. & Wood, R. 2019. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Global Environmental Change, 56: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.002
390 Hoang, N.T. & Kanemoto, K. 2021. Mapping the deforestation footprint of nations reveals growing threat to tropical forests. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(6): 845–853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01417-z
391 Text of the agreement: Anonymous. Undated. Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the EFTA states [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.efta.int/sites/default/files/documents/legal-texts/free-trade-relations/indonesia/efta-indonesia-main-agreement.pdf
392 Swiss Confederation. 2021. Huile de palme durable d’Indonésie: le Conseil fédéral approuve l’ordonnance [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-84740.html
393 Marchi, V.D., Maria, E.D. & Micelli, S. 2013. Environmental strategies, upgrading and competitive advantage in global value chains: environmental strategies, upgrading and competitive advantage in GVC. Business Strategy and the Environment, 22(1): 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1738
394 Network for Greening the Finance Sector. 2021. NGFS and INSPIRE launch a joint research project on ‘Biodiversity and Financial Stability’ | Banque de France [online]. [Cited 14 November 2021]. https://www.ngfs.net/en/communique-de-presse/ngfs-and-inspire-launch-joint-research-project-biodiversity-and-financial-stability
395 Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures. Undated. About – TNFD [online]. [Cited 1 January 2022]. https://tnfd.global/about/
396 International Civil Aviation Organization. Undated. Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CORSIA/Pages/default.aspx
397 Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance (LEAF) Coalition. Undated. The LEAF Coalition [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://leafcoalition.org/
398 Ecosystem Marketplace. Undated. Global carbon hub for data and insights on carbon markets and voluntary offsets – Ecosystem Marketplace [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/carbon-markets/
399 Ecosystem Marketplace. Undated. Global Carbon Hub for Data and Insights on Carbon Markets and Voluntary Offsets - Ecosystem Marketplace [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/carbon-markets/
400 World Bank. 2017. Harnessing the potential of productive forests and timber supply chains for climate change mitigation and green growth. Washington, DC. (also available at https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/knowledge-documents/productive_forests_pub_4-3-17web.pdf).
401 Green Climate Fund. Undated. Portfolio dashboard | Green Climate Fund [online]. [Cited 28 December 2021]. https://www.greenclimate.fund/projects/dashboard
402 Nesha, M.K., Herold, M., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A.E., Martius, C., Branthomme, A., Garzuglia, M. et al. 2021. An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5): 054029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b
403 Nesha, M.K., Herold, M., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A.E., Martius, C., Branthomme, A., Garzuglia, M. et al. 2021. An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5): 054029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b
404 Nesha, M.K., Herold, M., De Sy, V., Duchelle, A.E., Martius, C., Branthomme, A., Garzuglia, M. et al. 2021. An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5): 054029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b
405 Chagas, T., Galt, H., Lee, D., Neeff, T. & Streck, C. 2020. A close look at the quality of REDD+ carbon credits. (also available at https://www.climatefocus.com/publications/close-look-quality-redd-carbon-credits).
406 Macqueen, D., Benni, N., Boscolo, M. & Zapata, J. 2018. Access to finance for forest and farm producer organisations (FFPOs). Rome, FAO and London, International Institute for Environment and Development.
407 FAO. 2019. Catalyzing private finance for inclusive and sustainable forest value chains – Report of the expert meeting [online]. [Cited 26 November 2021]. https://www.fao.org/forestry/48858-064440fb9719c37f1b7b2a3e957b017c1.pdf
408 Lowder, S.K., Sánchez, M.V. & Bertini, R. 2021. Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Development, 142: 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455
409 Chiriac, D. & Naran, B. 2020. Examining the climate finance gap for small-scale agriculture. Climate Policy Initiative. (also available at https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/climate-finance-small-scale-agriculture/).
410 Rainforest Foundation Norway. 2021. Falling short – Donor funding for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to secure tenure rights and manage forests in tropical countries (2011-2020). Oslo, Rainforest Foundation Norway. (also available at https://www.cwis.org/document/falling-short-donor-funding-for-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities-to-secure-tenure-rights-and-manage-forests-in-tropical-countries-2011-2020/).
411 Anonymous. 2021. Governments and private funders announce historic US$1.7 billion pledge at COP26 in support of Indigenous Peoples and local communities / Ford Foundation. In: Ford Foundation [online]. [Cited 2 February 2022]. https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/news-and-press/news/governments-and-private-funders-announce-historic-us-17-billion-pledge-at-cop26-in-support-of-indigenous-peoples-and-local-communities/
412 Starfinger, M. 2021. Financing smallholder tree planting: tree collateral & Thai ‘Tree Banks’ – Collateral 2.0? Land Use Policy, 111: 105765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105765
413 Nugroho, B., Soedomo, S. & Dermawan, A. 2017. Policy effectiveness of loan for delaying timber harvesting for smallholder private forest in Indonesia. Jurnal Manajemen Hutan Tropika (Journal of Tropical Forest Management), 23(2): 61–70. https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.23.2.61
414 RECOFTC. 2015. Access to information for securing resource and tenure rights Houaythong Village, Lao PDR. First edition. Equity Case Study Brief. RECOFTC.
415 Parthiban, K.T., Seenivasan, R., Vennila, S., Anbu, P.V., Kumar, P., Saravanan, V., Umesh Kanna, S. et al. 2011. Designing and augmenting pulpwood supply chain through contract tree farming. Indian Journal of Ecology, 38(Special issue): 41–47.
416 Byakagaba, P., Okullo, J.B.L., Eilu, G. & Mwavu, E.N. 2021. The role of fallowing in the restoration of woody species in the woodlands of northern Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, aje.12895. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12895
417 Lawrence, D. & Louman, B. 2021. Finance for integrated landscape management – A landscape approach to climate-smart cocoa in the Juabeso-Bia Landscape, Ghana. Tropenbos Ghana and Tropenbos International. (also available at https://www.tropenbos.org/file.php/2462/finance-integrated-landscape-mangement-touton-ghana.pdf).
418 Durbin, J., King, D., Calderwood, N., Wells, Z. & Godoy, F. 2019. Benefit sharing at scale – Good practices for results-based land use programs. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/32765
419 Bertzky, M., Canosa, O., Koch, A. & Llopis, P. 2021. Assessment report – Comparative analysis of benefit-sharing mechanisms in REDD+ programs. World Wide Fund for Nature. (also available at https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_assessment_report_redd__programs_v4.pdf).
420 Lowder, S.K., Sánchez, M.V. & Bertini, R. 2021. Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Development, 142: 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455
421 World Wide Fund for Nature, UN Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, GEF Small Grants Programme, ICCA-Global Support Initiative, LandMark Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society et al. 2021. The state of the Indigenous Peoples and local communities lands and territories. Gland, Switzerland. (also available at https://wwflac.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_the_state_of_the_indigenous_peoples_and_local_communities_lands_and_territories_1.pdf).
422 Verdone, M. 2018. The world’s largest private sector? Recognising the cumulative economic value of small-scale forest and farm producers. International Union for Conservation of Nature.
423 PROFOR. 2019. Unlocking the potential of small and medium forest enterprises [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.profor.info/knowledge/unlocking-potential-small-and-medium-forest-enterprises
424 Mayers, J. 2006. Small and medium-sized forestry enterprises. Tropical Forest Update, 16(2): 10–11.
425 Garnett, S.T., Burgess, N.D., Fa, J.E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C.J., Watson, J.E.M. et al. 2018. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7): 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6
426 Kruid, S., Macedo, M.N., Gorelik, S.R., Walker, W., Moutinho, P., Brando, P.M., Castanho, A. et al. 2021. Beyond deforestation: carbon emissions from land grabbing and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4: 645282. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.645282
427 Alejo, C., Meyer, C., Walker, W.S., Gorelik, S.R., Josse, C., Aragon-Osejo, J.L., Rios, S. et al. 2021. Are indigenous territories effective natural climate solutions? A neotropical analysis using matching methods and geographic discontinuity designs. PLOS ONE, 16(7): e0245110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245110
428 Walker, W.S., Gorelik, S.R., Baccini, A., Aragon-Osejo, J.L., Josse, C., Meyer, C., Macedo, M.N. et al. 2020. The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(6): 3015–3025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913321117
429 Blackman, A. & Veit, P. 2018. Titled Amazon indigenous communities cut forest carbon emissions. Ecological Economics, 153: 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016
430 FAO & FILAC. 2021. Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples – An opportunity for climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
431 Baragwanath, K. & Bayi, E. 2020. Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34): 20495–20502. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917874117
432 Blackman, A. & Veit, P. 2018. Titled Amazon indigenous communities cut forest carbon emissions. Ecological Economics, 153: 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016
433 Ding, H., Veit, P., Gray, E., Reytar, K., Altamirano-Cabrera, J.-C., Blackman, A. & Hodgdon, B. 2016. Climate benefits, tenure costs – The economic case for securing indigenous land rights in the Amazon.
434 FAO and FILAC. 2021. Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples – An opportunity for climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
435 Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C. & Barrow, E. 2020. Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Development, 130: 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923
436 Ding, H., Veit, P., Gray, E., Reytar, K., Altamirano-Cabrera, J.-C., Blackman, A. & Hodgdon, B. 2016. Climate benefits, tenure costs – The economic case for securing indigenous land rights in the Amazon.
437 World Wide Fund for Nature, UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, GEF Small Grants Programme, ICCA-Global Support Initiative, LandMark Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society et al. 2021. The state of the indigenous peoples and local communities’ lands and territories – A technical review of the state of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ lands, their contributions to global biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services, the pressures they face, and recommendations for actions. Gland, Switzerland. (also available at https://wwflac.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_the_state_of_the_indigenous_peoples_and_local_communities_lands_and_territories_1.pdf).
438 Rights and Resources Initiative, Woodwell Climate Research Center & Rainforest Foundation US. 2021. Significance of community-held territories in 24 countries to global climate. Policy brief. Rights and Resources Initiative. https://doi.org/10.53892/YBGF2711
439 Dawson, N.M., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E.J., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, N.D., Wongbusarakum, S., Sangha, K.K. et al. 2021. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology and Society, 26(3): art19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12625-260319
440 Aggarwal, S., Larson, A., McDermott, C., Katila, P. & Giessen, L. 2021. Tenure reform for better forestry: an unfinished policy agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 123: 102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102376
441 Gilmour, D.A. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry – A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176. Rome, FAO. (also available at https://bit.ly/3B1F5lH).
442 Baynes, J., Herbohn, J., Smith, C., Fisher, R. & Bray, D. 2015. Key factors which influence the success of community forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental Change, 35: 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.011
443 FAO & ICRAF. 2019. Agroforestry and tenure. Forestry Working Paper 8. Rome, FAO. 40 p.
444 Kraus, S., Liu, J., Koch, N. & Fuss, S. 2021. No aggregate deforestation reductions from rollout of community land titles in Indonesia yet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(43): e2100741118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100741118
445 Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Ihalainen, M., Agrawal, A. & Gabay, M. 2020. Levers for alleviating poverty in forests and tree-based systems. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, pp. 125–176. IUFRO World Series 39. International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
446 Miller, D.C., Rana, P., Nakamura, K., Irwin, S., Cheng, S.H., Ahlroth, S. & Perge, E. 2021. A global review of the impact of forest property rights interventions on poverty. Global Environmental Change, 66: 102218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102218
447 Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Ihalainen, M., Agrawal, A. & Gabay, M. 2020. Levers for alleviating poverty in forests and tree-based systems. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, pp. 125–176. IUFRO World Series 39. International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
448 Barrow, E., Kamugisha-Ruhombe, J., Nhantumbo, I., Oyono, R. & Savadogo, M. 2016. Who owns Africa’s forests? Exploring the impacts of forest tenure reform on forest ecosystems and livelihoods. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 25(2): 132–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2016.1159999
449 De Royer, S., Van Noordwijk, M. & Roshetko, J.M. 2018. Does community-based forest management in Indonesia devolve social justice or social costs? International Forestry Review, 20(2): 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818823767609
450 Namubiru-Mwaura, E. 2014. Land tenure and gender – Approaches and challenges for strengthening rural women’s land rights. 36 p. Women’s Voice, Agency, & Participation Research Series 6. Washington, DC, World Bank.
451 Elias, M., Hummel, S.S., Basnett, B.S. & Colfer, C.J.P. 2017. Gender bias affects forests worldwide. Ethnobiology Letters, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.8.1.2017.834
452 Hajjar, R., Newton, P., Ihalainen, M., Agrawal, A. & Gabay, M. 2020. Levers for alleviating poverty in forests and tree-based systems. Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty – Potential and limitations, pp. 125–176. IUFRO World Series 39. International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
453 Blomley, T. 2013. Lessons learned from community forestry in Africa and their relevance for REDD+. Washington, DC, USAID-supported Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities Program. (also available at https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/asset/document/CF_Africa.pdf).
454 FAO & Fund for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America, and the Caribbean. 2021. Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples – An opportunity for climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
455 Gilmour, D.A. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry – A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176. Rome, FAO. (also available at https://bit.ly/3B1F5lH).
456 FAO, ed. 2012. Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. Rome. 40 pp.
457 Alden Wily, L. 2018. collective land ownership in the 21st century: overview of global trends. Land, 7(2): 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020068
458 Alden Wily, L. 2018. Collective land ownership in the 21st century: overview of global trends. Land, 7(2): 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020068
459 Government of India Ministry of Tribal Affairs. 2021. Monthly update on status of implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Delhi. (also available at https://tribal.nic.in/FRA/data/MPRJan2020.pdf).
460 Freudenberger, M.S. 2013. The future of customary tenure – Options for policymakers. USAID Issue Brief. USAID. (also available at https://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/USAID_Land_Tenure_Customary_Tenure_Brief_0-1.pdf).
461 Fitzpatrick, D. 2005. ‘Best practice’ options for the legal recognition of customary tenure. Development and Change, 36(3): 449–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00419.x
462 Government of India. 2007. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. [Cited 29 November 2021]. https://www.fra.org.in/document/FRA%20ACT-Eng.pdf
463 Blackman, A., Corral, L., Lima, E.S. & Asner, G.P. 2017. Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(16): 4123–4128. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603290114
464 FAO. Undated. Governance of tenure – SOLA Suite [online]. [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.fao.org/tenure/sola-suite/en
465 Bouvier, I., Brooks, S., Green, J., Lowery, S. & Stevens, C. 2019. Using participatory approaches and innovative technology to empower communities in securing their land. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, 25 March 2019, Washington, DC. (also available at https://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/using-participatory-approaches-and-innovative-technology-to-empower-communities-in-securing-their-land.pdf).
466 Gilmour, D.A. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry – A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper 176. Rome, FAO. (also available at https://bit.ly/3B1F5lH).
467 Aggarwal, S., Larson, A., McDermott, C., Katila, P. & Giessen, L. 2021. Tenure reform for better forestry: an unfinished policy agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 123: 102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102376
468 Aggarwal, S., Larson, A., McDermott, C., Katila, P. & Giessen, L. 2021. Tenure reform for better forestry: an unfinished policy agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 123: 102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102376
469 Nhantumbo, I., Macqueen, D., Cruz, R. & Serra, A. 2013. Investing in locally controlled forestry in Mozambique – Potential for promoting sustainable rural development in the province of Niassa. London, International Institute for Environment and Development. 92 p. (also available at https://pubs.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/13569IIED.pdf).
470 Sonko, K.N. & Camara, K. 2000. Community forestry implementation in the Gambia: its principles and prospects. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Community Forestry in Africa. Participatory Forest Management: A Strategy for Sustainable Forest Management in Africa. (also available at https://www.fao.org/3/X7760B/X7760B00.htm).
471 Lawry, S., McLain, R., Swallow, B. & Biedenweg, K. 2012. Devolution of forest rights and sustainable forest management. Volume 1 – A review of policies and programs in 16 developing countries. USAID. (also available at https://www.land-links.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/USAID_Land_Tenure_Devolution_of_Forest_Rights_and_Sustainable_Forest_Management_Volume_1.pdf).
472 McFarland, W., Whitley, S. & Kissinger, G. 2015. Subsidies to key commodities driving forest loss. 51 p. ODI Working Paper. Overseas Development Institute.
473 Tetra Tech. 2017. Promoting trees outside forests – Action-learning pilot program in Hoshangabad landscape. USAID. 29 pp.
474 McLain, R., Lawry, S., Guariguata, M.R. & Reed, J. 2021. Toward a tenure-responsive approach to forest landscape restoration: a proposed tenure diagnostic for assessing restoration opportunities. Land Use Policy, 104: 103748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.053
475 FAO & ICRAF. 2019. Agroforestry and tenure. Forestry Working Paper 8. Rome. 40 pp.
476 UN Economic Commission for Europe & FAO. 2019. Who owns our forests? Forest ownership in the ECE region. Geneva, Switzerland. (also available at http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/SP-43.pdf).
477 Koffi, G. & Worms, P. 2021. Niger formally adopts farmer-managed natural regeneration [online]. ICRAF. [Cited 20 October 2021]. https://bit.ly/3nfHRix
478 UN. Undated. Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR): a technique to effectively combat poverty and hunger through land and vegetation restoration. In: United Nations Partnerships for SDGs platform [online]. [Cited 16 December 2021]. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=30735
479 Stickler, M. 2012. Rights to trees and livelihoods in Niger – Focus on land in Africa. World Resource Institute and Landesa.
480 Crouzeilles, R., Ferreira, M.S., Chazdon, R.L., Lindenmayer, D.B., Sansevero, J.B.B., Monteiro, L., Iribarrem, A. et al. 2017. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests. Science Advances, 3(11): e1701345. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701345
481 FAO. 2021. Society, economy and forests – The unfolding forest transition in China and the lessons for the future. Bangkok. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3232en
482 Wang, L. 2012. Success cases and good practices in forest farmer cooperative organizations in China. Rome, Italy, FAO. 32 pp. (also available at https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/ff2dfab2-03dc-56b9-b5e4-fabdb28cb467/).
483 FAO. 2020. Forest product consumption and production [online]. [Cited 13 November 2021]. https://www.fao.org/forestry/statistics/80938@180723/en/
484 He, J., Kebede, B., Martin, A. & Gross-Camp, N. 2020. Privatization or communalization: a multi-level analysis of changes in forest property regimes in China. Ecological Economics, 174: 106629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106629
485 Midgley, S.J., Stevens, P.R. & Arnold, R.J. 2017. Hidden assets: Asia’s smallholder wood resources and their contribution to supply chains of commercial wood. Australian Forestry, 80(1): 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2017.1280750
486 Hoang, H.T.N., Hoshino, S., Onitsuka, K. & Maraseni, T. 2019. Cost analysis of FSC forest certification and opportunities to cover the costs a case study of Quang Tri FSC group in Central Vietnam. Journal of Forest Research, 24(3): 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/13416979.2019.1610993
487 Nambiar, E.K.S. 2021. Strengthening Vietnam’s forestry sectors and rural development: higher productivity, value, and access to fairer markets are needed to support small forest growers. Trees, Forests and People, 3: 100052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100052
488 Pretty, J., Attwood, S., Bawden, R., van den Berg, H., Bharucha, Z.P., Dixon, J., Flora, C.B. et al. 2020. Assessment of the growth in social groups for sustainable agriculture and land management. Global Sustainability, 3: e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
489 Pretty, J., Attwood, S., Bawden, R., van den Berg, H., Bharucha, Z.P., Dixon, J., Flora, C.B. et al. 2020. Assessment of the growth in social groups for sustainable agriculture and land management. Global Sustainability, 3: e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
490 Fisher, M.R., Moeliono, M., Mulyana, A., Yuliani, E.L., Adriadi, A., Kamaluddin, Judda, J. et al. 2018. Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: recognition, livelihood and conservation? International Forestry Review, 20(3): 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554818824063014
491 Segura Warnholtz, G., Fernández, M., Smyle, J. & Springer, J. 2017. Securing forest tenure rights for rural development – Lessons from six countries in Latin America. Washington, DC, Program on Forests. (also available at http://hdl.handle.net/10986/26301).
492 Paudel, N.S., Monterroso, I. & Cronkleton, P. 2012. Secondary level organisations and the democratisation of forest governance: case studies from Nepal and Guatemala. Conservation & Society, 10(2): 124–135. (also available at https://www.conservationandsociety.org.in/articlecited.asp?issn=0972-4923;year=2012;volume=10;issue=2;spage=124;epage=135;aulast=Paudel;type=3;aid=ConservatSoc_2012_10_2_124_97485).
493 FAO. 2016. Reducing rural poverty through farmer-to-farmer exchange. Rome. 4 pp. (also available at https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/66915227-169e-42cb-8b1a-32045c6f1f8c/).
494 Nightingale, A.J. 2018. The socioenvironmental state: political authority, subjects, and transformative socionatural change in an uncertain world. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(4): 688–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618816467
495 Covey, J., Macqueen, D., Bolin, A. & Hou Jones, X. 2021. Co-producing knowledge: a demand-led, prosperity-focused, research agenda with forest and farm producer organisations. Environmental Science & Policy, 124: 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.006
496 Stickler, C., Duchelle, A., Ardila, J.P., David, O., Chan, C., Rojas, J.G., Bezerra, T. et al. 2018. The state of jurisdictional sustainability – Synthesis for practitioners and policymakers. San Francisco, USA, Earth Innovation Institute, Center for International Forestry Research and Governor’s Climate and Forests Task Force Secretariat. 20 p. (also available at https://earthinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Stickler_et_al_2018_StateJS_Synthesis_small.pdf).
497 Stickler, C., Duchelle, A., Ardila, J.P., David, O., Chan, C., Rojas, J.G., Bezerra, T. et al. 2018. The state of jurisdictional sustainability – Synthesis for practitioners and policymakers. San Francisco, USA, Earth Innovation Institute, Center for International Forestry Research and Governor’s Climate and Forests Task Force Secretariat. 20 p. (also available at https://earthinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Stickler_et_al_2018_StateJS_Synthesis_small.pdf).
498 IDH. 2015. Mato Grosso set to achieve inclusive green growth [online]. [Cited 1 January 2022]. https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/news/mato-grosso-set-achieve-inclusive-green-growth/
499 Tropical Forest Alliance. 2021. Jurisdictional approach to sustainability – Lessons learnt from private sector action in Aceh Tamiang, Indonesia. (also available at https://www.tropicalforestalliance.org/assets/Uploads/AcehTamiang_Case_study-July2021-Final.pdf).
500 National Forestry and Grassland Administration. 2020. Twenty years’ restoration of forests and grasslands from farmland in China.
501 Xie, C. 2017. Links between social protection and forestry policies – Lessons from China. Social Protection and Forestry Working Paper 4. FAO. 44 p.
502 d’Andrea, M., Ma, Q., Ocampo, A. & Omar, B. Undated. Expanding social protection in rural areas, focusing on fisheries and forestry. Policy in Focus, 17(2): 34–37. (also available at https://ipcig.org/pub/eng/PIF45_Universal_social_protection_a_target_for_all.pdf).
503 National Forestry and Grassland Administration. 2019. A report for monitoring and assessment of the socio-economic impacts of China’s key forestry programs. Beijing, China Forestry Publishing House.
504 National Forestry and Grassland Administration. 2020. China forestry and grassland development report. Beijing, China Forestry Publishing House.
505 Dodds, R., Ali, A. & Galaski, K. 2018. Mobilizing knowledge: determining key elements for success and pitfalls in developing community-based tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(13): 1547–1568. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1150257
506 Asare-Nuamah, P., Botchway, E. & Onumah, J.A. 2019. Helping the helpless: contribution of rural extension services to smallholder farmers’ climate change adaptive capacity and adaptation in rural Ghana. International Journal of Rural Management, 15(2): 244–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973005219876211
507 Hunt, W., Birch, C., Coutts, J. & Vanclay, F. 2012. The many turnings of agricultural extension in Australia. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 18(1): 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.638780
508 Yusuf, A.S, Adeyemi, T.O, Adeleye, A.S, Bakpolor, V.R, Adegboyega, D.A & Adetola, O.O. 2020. Impacts of agriculture and forestry in the control of climate change: the role of extension services. International Journal on Integrated Education, 3(10): 71–75. https://doi.org/10.31149/ijie.v3i10.681
509 Czapiewski, K. & Janc, K. 2019. Education, human capital and knowledge – the paradigm shift and future scenarios on Polish rural areas. In: J. Bański, ed. Three decades of transformation in the East-Central European countryside, pp. 351–367. Cham, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21237-7_16
510 Kanwar, A., Balasubramanian, K. & Carr, A. 2019. Changing the TVET paradigm: new models for lifelong learning. International Journal of Training Research, 17(sup1): 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14480220.2019.1629722
511 Covey, J., Macqueen, D., Bolin, A. & Hou Jones, X. 2021. Co-producing knowledge: a demand-led, prosperity-focused, research agenda with forest and farm producer organisations. Environmental Science & Policy, 124: 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.006
512 FAO. 2019. Farmers taking the lead – Thirty years of farmer field schools. Rome. 72 pp. (also available at https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA5131EN/).
513 Sherwood, S., Schut, M. & Leeuwis, C. 2012. Learning in the social wild: encounters between farmer field schools and agricultural science and development in Ecuador. In: Adaptive collaborative approaches in natural resources governance – Rethinking participation, learning and innovation, pp. 102–137. London, Routledge.
514 Humphries, S., Holmes, T.P., Kainer, K., Koury, C.G.G., Cruz, E. & de Miranda Rocha, R. 2012. Are community-based forest enterprises in the tropics financially viable? Case studies from the Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Economics, 77: 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.018
515 Wulandari, C. & Inoue, M. 2018. The importance of social learning for the development of community based forest management in Indonesia: the case of community forestry in Lampung Province. Small-scale Forestry, 17(3): 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-018-9392-7
516 FAO. 2019. Farmer taking the lead | FAO Stories | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [online]. [Cited 12 January 2022]. https://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1199133/
517 FAO. Undated. Business | Global Farmer Field School Platform | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [online]. [Cited 8 December 2021]. https://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/ffs-overview/business/en/
518 Rezaeinejad, I. 2021. Impact online marketing strategies on improving the status of businesses in the COVID-19 Situation in Iran. Asian Basic and Applied Research Journal, 4(2): 24–33. (also available at https://globalpresshub.com/index.php/ABAARJ/article/view/1281).
519 Piabuo, S.M., Tsafac, S., Minang, P.A., Foundjem-Tita, D., Guimke, G. & Duguma, L. Undated. Effect of COVID-19 on rural community enterprises – Case of community forest enterprises in Cameroon. Nairobi, World Agroforestry – ICRAF.
520 Tengö, M., Hill, R., Malmer, P., Raymond, C.M., Spierenburg, M., Danielsen, F., Elmqvist, T. et al. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond: lessons learned for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27: 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005
521 FAO. 2021. Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. FAO, Alliance of Bioversity International, and CIAT. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5131en
522 Edwards, A., Archer, R., De Bruyn, P., Evans, J., Lewis, B., Vigilante, T., Whyte, S. et al. 2021. Transforming fire management in northern Australia through successful implementation of savanna burning emissions reductions projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 290: 112568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112568
523 Russell-Smith, J., Yates, C.P., Edwards, A.C., Whitehead, P.J., Murphy, B.P. & Lawes, M.J. 2015. Deriving multiple benefits from carbon market-based savanna fire management: an Australian example. PLOS ONE, 10(12): e0143426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143426
524 Edwards, A., Archer, R., De Bruyn, P., Evans, J., Lewis, B., Vigilante, T., Whyte, S. et al. 2021. Transforming fire management in northern Australia through successful implementation of savanna burning emissions reductions projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 290: 112568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112568
525 Russell-Smith, J., Yates, C., Vernooij, R., Eames, T., van der Werf, G., Ribeiro, N., Edwards, A. et al. 2021. Opportunities and challenges for savanna burning emissions abatement in southern Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 288: 112414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112414
526 Rekola, M., ed. 2019. Global outlook on forest education (GOFE). UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (also available at https://foresteducation.wordpress.com/).
527 Rekola, M. & Sharik, T. 2021. Global synthesis report on forest education. Rome, FAO.
528 FAO & Fund for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America, and the Caribbean. 2021. Forest governance by indigenous and tribal peoples – An opportunity for climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2953en
529 FAO, International Union of Forest Research Organizations & International Tropical Timber Organization. Forthcoming. Proceedings of the International Conference on Forest Education. (also available at www.fao.org/forestry/forest-education/conference/en).
530 FAO. 2018. Agricultural services and digital inclusion. www.fao.org/3/i7361en/I7361EN.pdf
531 Philip, L. & Williams, F. 2019. Remote rural home based businesses and digital inequalities: understanding needs and expectations in a digitally underserved community. Journal of Rural Studies, 68: 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.09.011
532 Schroeder, K., Lampietti, J. & Elabed, G. 2021. What’s cooking – Digital transformation of the agrifood system. Washington, DC, World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1657-4
533 International Telecommunication Union. 2020. Measuring digital development – Facts and figures 2020. www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx
534 Working Group on 21st Century Financing Models for Sustainable Broadband Development. 2021. 21st century financing models for bridging broadband connectivity gaps. Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. 198 p.
535 Misaki, E., Apiola, M., Gaiani, S. & Tedre, M. 2018. Challenges facing sub-Saharan small-scale farmers in accessing farming information through mobile phones: a systematic literature review. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(4): e12034. https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12034
536 United Nations Secretary-General. 2020. Road map for digital cooperation – Implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation. United Nations. www.un.org/en/content/digital-cooperation-roadmap
537 Harris, L. & Nordhaug, L.M. 2021. The Digital Public Goods Alliance’s commitment to co-develop digital public infrastructure for an equitable recovery | Digital Public Goods Alliance [online]. [Cited 25 March 2022]. https://digitalpublicgoods.net/blog/the-digital-public-goods-alliances-commitment-to-co-develop-digital-public-infrastructure-for-an-equitable-recovery
538 Ivus, O. & Boland, M. 2015. The employment and wage impact of broadband deployment in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’économique, 48(5): 1803–1830. https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12180
539 Park, S. 2017. Digital inequalities in rural Australia: a double jeopardy of remoteness and social exclusion. Journal of Rural Studies, 54: 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.018
540 Correa, T., Pavez, I. & Contreras, J. 2017. Beyond access: a relational and resource-based model of household Internet adoption in isolated communities. Telecommunications Policy, 41(9): 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.03.008
541 FAO. 2021. FAO-EU FLEGT Programme success story – Innovative digital approaches to sustaining livelihoods through the production and sale of legal timber. FAO. 2 p. (also available at https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CB4537EN).
542 Poschen, P. 2015. Decent work, green jobs and the sustainable economy – Solutions for climate change and sustainable development. Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing [u.a.]. 182 pp. (also available at http://bit.ly/2O8YUUo).
543 Bolin, A. 2020. Women’s empowerment through collective action – How forest and farm producer organisations can make a difference. FAO and International Institute for Environment and Development. (also available at https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8713en).
544 Mwangi, E., Meinzen-Dick, R. & Sun, Y. 2011. Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecology and Society, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03873-160117
545 Rights and Resources Initiative. 2018. At a crossroads – Consequential trends in recognition of community-based forest tenure from 2002–2017. Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.53892/UCYL3747
546 Cruz-Burga, Z., Monterroso, I., Larson, A., Valencia, F. & Saldaña, J.S. 2019. The impact of formalizing rights to land and forest – Indigenous community perspectives in Madre de Dios and Loreto. InfoBrief 242. Center for International Forestry Research. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007156
547 Durán, R., Monterroso, I. & Larson, A.M. 2018. Género e interculturalidad en la formalización de las comunidades nativas en Perú: Desafíos y recomendaciones. Center for International Forestry Research. (also available at https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/6916/).
548 Bolaños, O. 2017. Los derechos de las mujeres indígenas y los desafíos para los proyectos de titulación de la propiedad comunal en el Perú: Resumen Político [online]. Center for International Forestry Research [Cited 10 November 2021]. https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/6543/
549 Jhaveri, N.J. 2020. Forest tenure pathways to gender equality – A practitioner’s guide. Center for International Forestry Research. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007909
550 Macqueen, D. & Campbell, J. 2020. Prosperity in place – Meaningful work for mobile youth that enhances forest landscapes. Rome and London, FAO and International Institute for Environment and Development. (also available at https://pubs.iied.org/13615iied).
551 Macqueen, D. & Campbell, J. 2020. Prosperity in place – Meaningful work for mobile youth that enhances forest landscapes. Rome and London, FAO and International Institute for Environment and Development. (also available at https://pubs.iied.org/13615iied).
552 Nanavaty, R., Desai, M. & Bhatt, M. 2018. SEWA: developing a business incubation ecosystem for smallholders and forest producers in India. In: Forest business incubation – Towards sustainable forest and farm producer organisation (FFPO) businesses that ensure climate resilient landscapes, pp. 245–276. Rome, FAO and London, International Institute for Environment and Development. (also available at https://pubs.iied.org/13595iied).
553 Macqueen, D. & Campbell, J. 2020. Prosperity in place – Meaningful work for mobile youth that enhances forest landscapes. Rome and London, FAO and International Institute for Environment and Development. (also available at https://pubs.iied.org/13615iied).
554 Holden, S.T. & Tilahun, M. 2018. The importance of Ostrom’s design principles: youth group performance in northern Ethiopia. World Development, 104: 10–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.11.010
555 Herren, H.R., Bassi, A.M., Zhuohua, T. & Binns, P.W. 2012. Green jobs for a revitalised food and agriculture sector. Rome, FAO. (also available at https://bit.ly/3pp7kbG).
556 Macqueen, D. & Campbell, J. 2020. Prosperity in place – Meaningful work for mobile youth that enhances forest landscapes. Rome and London, FAO and International Institute for Environment and Development. (also available at https://pubs.iied.org/13615iied).
557 Moran, H. 2018. FEDECOVERA: a cooperative business development exercise in Guatemala. Forest business incubation – Towards sustainable forest and farm producer organisation (FFPO) businesses that ensure climate resilient landscapes, pp. 91–110. Rome, FAO and London, International Institute for Environment and Development. (also available at https://pubs.iied.org/13595iied).
558 Majurin, E. 2012. How women fare in East African cooperatives – The case of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Dar es Salaam, International Labour Organization. (also available at https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gdc/gdcovop.2019352559).
559 Bolin, A. 2020. Women’s empowerment through collective action – How forest and farm producer organisations can make a difference. FAO and International Institute for Environment and Development. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8713en
560 Allan, A., Ahern, B. & Wilson, M. 2016. The state of linkage report – The first global mapping of savings group linkage. London, CARE, Plan and Barclays. (also available at https://care.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/The-State-of-Linkage-Report-2016.pdf?x15040).
561 FAO. 2021. Strategic Framework 2022–31. (also available at www.fao.org/3/cb7099en/cb7099en.pdf).
562 FAO. 2018. Transforming food and agriculture to achieve the SDGs – 20 interconnected actions to guide decision-makers. https://www.fao.org/3/I9900EN/i9900en.pdf
563 Vis, M., Mantau, U. & Allen, B., eds. 2016. Study on the optimised cascading use of wood. No 394/PP/ENT/RCH/14/7689. European Commission. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/827106
564 Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127: 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005
565 Bocken, N.M.P., de Pauw, I., Bakker, C. & van der Grinten, B. 2016. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 33(5): 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124
566 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
567 FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
568 Stanturf, J., Mansourian, S. & Kleine, M., eds. 2017. Implementing forest landscape restoration – A practitioner’s guide. Vienna, International Union of Forest Research Organizations.
569 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), ed. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC, Island Press. 137 pp.
570 Martínez Pastur, G., Perera, A.H., Peterson, U. & Iverson, L.R. 2018. Ecosystem services from forest landscapes: an overview. Ecosystem services from forest landscapes – broad scale considerations, pp. 1–10. New York, USA, Springer Science+Business Media.
571 International Labour Organization. 2016. What is a green job? [online]. [Cited 16 November 2021]. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/news/WCMS_220248/lang--en/index.htm
572 De Beer, J.H. & McDermott, M.J. 1989. The economic value of non-timber forest products in Southeast Asia - With emphasis on Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Netherlands Committee for IUCN.
573 Shackleton, C., Delang, C.O., Shackleton, S. & Shanley, P. 2011. Non-timber forest products: concept and definitions. In: S. Shackleton, C. Shackleton & P. Shanley, eds. Non-timber forest products in the global context, pp. 3–21. Tropical Forestry. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17983-9_1
574 FAO. 1999. Towards a harmonized definition of non-wood forest products. Unasylva, 50(198): 63–64.
