Towards Sustainable Land Use

3. Coherence across national strategies and plans for sustainable land use

Abstract

National strategies and plans establish a country’s medium- to long-term priorities across a range of sectors. This chapter analyses the extent to which land use, biodiversity, climate and food considerations are included in the strategies and action plans developed in the case study countries (Brazil, France, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico and New Zealand). The chapter analyses the coherence between land-use relevant targets in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) (developed in response to the Paris Agreement), long-term Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) (developed in response to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity), Agricultural Development Plans, National Development Plans (or similar), National Forestry Plans and National Trade or Export Plans.

National strategies establish a country’s medium- to long-term priorities in various areas. They are intended to guide and steer national actions in particular sectors or policy areas. In some cases (notably for biodiversity), strategies also include associated action plans. National strategies, therefore, should develop, in a consultative manner, common objectives that various Ministries will need to work towards. National strategies should provide clear and actionable objectives that the national government – and all relevant Ministries – should be striving to achieve. To this end, strategies and action plans that set specific, measurable, time-bound targets, and that also identify indicators against which progress can be assessed, can strongly facilitate this process. Given the various potential synergies and trade-offs across sectors and policy areas, the various multiple strategies should be coherent with one another.

In some cases, the development of national strategies are encouraged or required by overarching international multilateral agreements or initiatives. This is true, for example, for National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) required under the Convention on Biological Diversity, or for National Strategy or Action Plans required for implementation of REDD+ under the UNFCCC. Nevertheless, even without international agreements in other areas of the land-use nexus, nearly all governments have established national agricultural strategies or plans, forestry plans, and overarching economic growth or development plans.

Key strategies and plans that are relevant to the land-use nexus include Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), long-term Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS), NBSAPs, Agricultural Development Plans, National Development Plans (or similar), and National Trade or Export Plans. This Chapter begins with a brief overview of the relevant multilateral agreements in the land-use nexus, and the requirements or guidelines to transpose these at the national level, thereunder. It then proceeds to compare relevant national strategies and plans across the six case study countries, to examine their degree of coherence.

The role of multilateral agreements in guiding national strategies

At the international level, the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals have spurred efforts to examine, more holistically, how actions to achieve one goal may interact, both positively and negatively, to achieve others (outlined in chapter 1). The specific targets, as well as the indicators, set a framework for action across the multiple sustainable development areas, including the need for policy coherence (SDG 17). Similarly, though focussing on specific environmental areas, the UNFCCC and the CBD set the international framework for action on climate change and on biodiversity, respectively.1 These differ in various ways in terms of the information that countries are invited or required to submit, including with respect to national strategies and plans (Table 3.1), as well as the timelines covered.

Under the Paris agreement, Parties are required to submit NDCs stating their GHG emission targets. These NDCs are relatively short-term, with the first running until 2025 or 2030 (to be followed by subsequent NDCs). It is for countries to determine the level and sectoral coverage of such targets. Some of the NDCs include explicit references to forests2 and agriculture and may have associated targets, others do not.

The Paris Agreement, agreed in 2015, also invited Parties to submit, by 2020, long-term low GHG emissions development strategies to 2050 (Paris Agreement, Article 4.19).3 Ten countries had done so by February 2019, including France and Mexico.4 Given the longer-term nature of these strategies, it is more difficult for governments to establish specific action plans. Parties to the UNFCCC are also required to submit National Communications, which highlight, inter alia, climate policies and measures planned or undertaken. In addition, Annex I5 countries are required to outline progress towards their climate targets in biennial reports; a requirement extended in the Katowice Climate Package to all countries in the “biennial transparency reports” to be produced at latest by the end of 2024.

Under the CBD, the twenty 2011-2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets include targets related to forests (Targets 5 and 7), agriculture (e.g. Targets 7 and 8), climate change (Targets 10 and 15)6, ecosystem services (Target 15) and many relate to land use more generally. Parties to the CBD are encouraged to use the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as a guiding framework to develop their NBSAPs.

As a result, the overarching CBD framework encourages a more coherent approach with respect to the development of NBSAPs and the land-use nexus at the national level, than does the UNFCCC. This is because as there are limited guidelines on what information to include in an NDC, and no requirements on the form or coverage it should take, there are wide variations in form, content and coverage. On the other hand, the timeframes for documents under this CBD framework are significantly more near-term (i.e. to 2020) than under the UNFCCC framework.

Table 3.1. Comparison of national strategy requirements and timelines under the UNFCCC and the CBD

	UNFCCC (and Paris Agreement)	CBD (and 2011-2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets)
Long-term vision or plan (to 2050)	Long-Term LEDS: Not mandatory in either developed or developing countries. Several countries have established GHG targets to 2050.	"Living in Harmony with Nature" where "By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.”
Short to medium-term strategy/contributions and action plans	NDCs: Mandatory for all Parties (often targets up to 2030)	NBSAP (targets and action plans on how these will be achieved, usually until 2020. Some also include indicators)
Reporting on progress	National Communication (NC) (subject to provision of support for developing countries) includes information on mitigation and adaptation Mandatory for all Parties	National Reports (on progress made towards targets and challenges encountered)
	Biennial Reports (BRs for developed countries) and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) for developing countries – focus on mitigation

Note: While Parties to the UNFCCC are, in theory, all required to submit NCs, and “biennial (update) reports” (BUR), only 41 (of 154) developing countries have ever reported a BUR. In addition, 66 developing countries have not reported anything since January 2015 (Ellis et al., 2018[1]). Of the 196 Parties to the CBD, 160 have submitted NBSAPs since COP-10, and in terms of overall NBSAP submission to date, 190 of 196 (97%) Parties have developed NBSAPs in line with Article 6 of the CBD.

Source: Authors.

Other relevant agreements and fora

Other relevant international multilateral agreements include the UN Strategic Plan for Forests, developed by the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and subsequently adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2017. The Strategy contains six voluntary global forest goals and 26 associated targets to be achieved by 2030. Member States are invited to announce their “voluntary national contributions” towards achieving these goals and targets at upcoming sessions of the UNFF. As of 31 July 2018, five countries had submitted such announcements. At the supranational level, through the European Union, the 28 Member States are also governed by various EC Directives that are relevant to the nexus area. These include EU legislation on the Climate and Energy Package, EC Nature Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Sustainable Use Directive (for pesticides), the Water Framework Directive, and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This supranational framework therefore strongly influences agricultural policy in France and Ireland.

SDG goal 12.3 directly addresses food loss and waste (FLW); “by 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along the production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses”, but beyond the SDGs international agreements tackling FLW are lacking. At the EU level the Waste Framework Directive defines a timeline for adopting common measurement methodologies and will produce a report by 2023 that considers the introduction of legally binding targets for food waste prevention (Champions 12.3, 2018[2]). There is also the EU Platform on Food Losses and Waste, which brings together key stakeholders from government, industry and NGOs to understand the issues of FLW, and highlight good practices from member countries. Despite several other international initiatives, such as the FAOs global initiative on Food Losses and Waste Reduction (SAVE FOOD), the integration measures to reduce FLW in other nexus relevant agreements, such as NDC or NBSAPs is lacking. Greater consideration of FLW in such agreements would likely raise the profile of this issue leading to emission savings and reduced pressure on managed and unmanaged lands and other impacts from agriculture.

Coherence across key national strategies and action plans relevant to the nexus

As noted, coherence across relevant national strategies in the land-use nexus is a key entry point to help ensure that domestic actions and policies across multiple sectors and areas are aligned. Clear and quantified objectives can provide strong signals for the level of ambition that is necessary across different sectors and policy areas.

In what follows, the key national strategy documents across the six case study countries are compared and discussed. Overall, the analysis suggests that there is still large scope to strengthen coherence and clarity across the national strategies relevant to the land-use nexus. Few of the NDCs and LEDS refer to land-use nexus issues (e.g. forests, agriculture). Those that do specifically refer to the land-use nexus tend to provide quantitative targets, however, at least in selected areas (e.g. as in France, Indonesia and Mexico – see Table 3.2)

The monitoring of GHG emissions and removals from all sectors has already been underway for a number of years, and the indicator for GHG emissions, tCO₂e, is well established, facilitating the creation of quantitative targets. In contrast, nearly all of the NBSAPs make reference and include some kind of target relevant to forestry, agriculture and climate change (as noted above, this is due, at least in part, to the overarching Aichi Biodiversity Targets that also refer specifically to these issues). While being more coherent in this general sense, many of the targets relevant to the land-use nexus in the NBSAPs are not quantified.

For example, New Zealand’s Target 7 to implement a national environmental standard for plantation forestry by 2018, and France’s target 3.2 to integrate biodiversity in forest management plans, do not provide clear direction on the level of ambition that is needed. In contrast, Brazil’s target to restore at least 15% of degraded land, and France’s target on zero net artificialisation provide much clearer signals to relevant Ministries on the objectives they are intended to achieve.

Agricultural development plans tend to be vaguer than NBSAPs with respect to land-use nexus issues. While pressures on climate change, biodiversity/ecosystems and forests are generally acknowledged across the plans of all six countries, the language therein is limited to phrases such as “improve efficiency”, “support efforts”, “minimise risk”. Given the large proportion of GHG emissions stemming from this sector, and the pressures that agricultural land use and management practices exert on biodiversity, the lack of specificity in these plans creates large potential for various Ministries to interpret the language in different ways, and for eventual policy misalignments. Ideally, relevant agriculture-relevant targets in, for example, the NBSAPs should also be reflected in the countries’ agricultural development plan. Such an approach would send consistent signals to the various Ministries in the land-use nexus.

References to land-use nexus issues in the National Development Plans (or similar strategies) are similarly ambiguous. New Zealand and Ireland are, to some degree, exceptions: New Zealand’s Economic Plan specifically calls for the planting of 1 billion trees, and Ireland’s plan refers to afforestation targets to rise incrementally by a quantified amount each year. A closer examination of the strategies is provided below.

Box 3.1. Coherence across national strategies in Ireland, and a look at its NBSAP

Looking across the various national strategies and plans relevant to the nexus in Ireland indicates that there is significant coordination and integration between land-use, climate mitigation, ecosystems/biodiversity and food objectives. In all cases, the main documents in each policy area were created with input from one or more of the other areas. However, references to biodiversity/ecosystems in the agricultural development plans and the national development plan are fairly general. Despite this, its importance is recognised in all the key policy documents such as the National Mitigation Plan, Food Wise 2025, as well as the Rural Development Plan.

Ireland’s NBSAP is particularly clearly defined (i.e., in comparison to its other national strategies) in that it includes clear targets, actions and has also defined indicators in order to monitor progress towards achieving these (though some are SMARTer than others). The targets are cross-cutting, with specific references and measures relating to agriculture and forestry (e.g. NBSAP Target 4.1 and the actions thereunder, which refer to Agri-Environment Schemes, High Nature Value farmland, etc, and associated indicators). The role of Protected Areas in enabling adaptation to climate change is also recognised, with specific targets to increase peatland area. In contrast, Ireland’s National Development Plan (2018-2027) does not include specific (quantitative) targets and indicators. Mention to e.g. biodiversity is made, but it basically refers back to the NBSAP.

GHG mitigation targets in the NDCs and LEDS and the inclusion of land-use nexus issues

References to land-use, ecosystems and food security issues in the NDCs and LEDS across the six case study countries are compared in Table 3.2 providing an indication of the extent to which these issues are mainstreamed in national climate change strategies. Land-use issues, agriculture, and forestry are explicitly referred to in three of the six Parties’ NDCs (Brazil, Indonesia, and Mexico)7 with specific targets included for several of these. Looking across these three NDC’s, it is difficult to compare the relative ambition of these targets given the lack of consistency in the way they are expressed.8 Overall, explicit reference to interlinkages with biodiversity or ecosystems is made rarely in these documents.9

In addition to NDCs, certain countries have developed national strategies or plans that are more detailed. In France, for example, the National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC)10 was published in November, 2015, with a revised version published in 2018. It outlines strategic guidelines for implementing the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy across all sectors of activity including agriculture (see Table 3.2). It also highlights the importance of individual behaviour, including dietary changes, for reaching national GHG mitigation targets.

In addition, the Climate Plan (July 2017)11 specifies both long-term objectives and shorter term milestones and explicitly strengthens the French GHG 2050 target from ‘Factor 4’12 up to carbon neutrality. The Climate Plan, drawn up at the request of the President and Prime Minister, calls on all government departments across the board to step up the pace of the energy and climate transition and of the Paris Agreement's implementation. The Plan aims to foster coherence between climate change mitigation and land use, ecosystems and food. It focusses on these elements in its fifth part (‘Mobilising the potential of ecosystems and agriculture in order to tackle climate change’), from axis 15 to 19: axis 15 and 17 emphasise the importance of the sustainable management of forests to achieve climate ambitions, directly on the French territory (axis 17) but also through improved consumption to reduce deforestation (axis 15) (the latter is discussed below).

Inclusion of land-use nexus issues in the NBSAPs

Overall, fewer countries have specific targets relating to forest and agriculture in their (climate) NDCs and LT-LEDS, than specific targets relating to climate, forest and agriculture in their national biodiversity strategies. Table 3.3 summarises the information on forestry, agriculture and climate change in the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. While all NBSAPs refer to various areas of the land-use nexus however, a review of the six NBSAPs indicates that often these references are not specific, not ambitious or both (e.g. Indonesia: “improvement of forestry areas”; Ireland: “continue forest research programmes”). Most of the targets are not quantified and hence do not provide sufficiently specific guidance for relevant Ministries to act. Exceptions include France for some of their targets such as on zero net artificialisation of land13; Brazil, with respect to the target to restore at least 15% of degraded land, and Ireland, with a target to achieve 30% broadleaf afforestation.

The lack of quantification of many of the targets also implies that they are not measurable. Several of the NBSAPs do include the use of indicators with the targets, namely those of Brazil, Indonesia, Ireland and France; some are more specific than others however. Brazil brought together nearly 280 institutions to develop its NBSAP, and established a multi-stakeholder Panel for Biodiversity (PainelBio) to develop the indicators. Mexico and New Zealand do not include indicators. Overall, it is very difficult to guide national action in a coherent, transparent way if targets are not specific, measurable, actionable, realistic and time-bound (SMART).

Some of the case study countries’ NBSAPs moreover refer to the protection of certain core forested areas (Brazil) or “stewardship lands with high conservation value” (New Zealand), and to targets to reduce and curb forest (Mexico, Brazil) or habitat (Ireland, France) fragmentation. Action 7 under Target 5 of the Brazilian NBSAP, for instance, is to “reduce fragmentation of remaining forest patches, as well as promote the connection of forest fragments”. Related targets, however, mostly remain qualitative.14

Table 3.2. GHG targets stated in first NDCs and LEDS and references to land-use nexus issues

	GHG emissions reduction targets in NDCs NDCs	Targets relevant to land use, ecosystems and food in NDCs	Targets relevant to land use, ecosystems and food in LEDS
Brazil (Government of Brazil, 2016)	Country-wide target to reduce GHG emissions by 37% below 2005 levels in 2025; and by 43% in 2030 as an indicative value	By 2030, the Government of Brazil (2015) will restore an additional 15 Mha of degraded pasturelands (besides the 15 million targeted by 2020); enhance 5 Mha of integrated cropland-livestock-forestry systems; achieve zero illegal deforestation and restore 12 Mha of forest in Amazonia.	None submitted to date
European Union (France/Ireland) (European Commission, 2016)	Binding target of at least 40% domestic reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 1990	Policy on how to include Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry into the 2030 greenhouse gas mitigation framework will be established as soon as technical conditions allow and in any case before 2020.	NA
France (National Low-Carbon Strategy, 2015)	Country-wide target	See EU above for the NDC	Reduce agricultural emissions by more than 12% by the 3rd carbon budget period (i.e. 2024-28) compared to 2013 and by half by 2050 through the agro-ecology project. Store and conserve carbon in soils and biomass.
Ireland (Climate Action Plan 2019)	Country-wide target	See EU above for the NDC	Reduce emissions from agriculture, forestry and land use to be between 17.5–19.0 MtCO2eq by achieving between 16.5 -18.5 MtCO2eq cumulative abatement over the period 2021 – 2030. 34 Actions and 120 sub-actions assigned to specific institutions.
Indonesia	29% reduction by 2030 from baseline (41% conditional i.e. with international support)	By 2030: Agriculture emissions reduction of 0.32% (0.13% conditional) Forestry (including peat fires) emissions reduction of 17.2% (23% conditional)	None submitted to date
Mexico (Climate change Mid-Century Strategy 2016)	25% below BAU in 2030 and further conditional reduction target up to 40%	Includes LULUCF and agriculture. Target of 0% deforestation by 2030.	Reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 relative to 2000. Objective 2: Conserve, restore and sustainably manage ecosystems to guarantee their environmental services to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation (with 6 strategies and 45 actions; none are quantified) Various actions specified for agriculture and forestry under M series. None are quantified. (e.g. “encourage local communities to plan”…)
New Zealand (New Zealand Government, 2016)	Country-wide target to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.	No specific targets but included as part of economy-wide commitment in New Zealand’s first NDC.	Reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 relative to 1990 (Formal steps have recently been taken for carbon neutrality)

Note: Long-term LEDS have not yet been submitted by Brazil, Indonesia and New Zealand.

Source: Authors based on relevant country NDC submissions, available at http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/Pages/All.aspx; and others referenced above: (Ministère de l'Écologie, du Developpement Durable et de l'Energie, 2015[3]), Stratégie Nationale Bas-Carbone, https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/SNBC_France_low_carbon_strategy_2015.pdf, ; (Government of Ireland, 2018[4]) Climate action plan 2019: To tackle climate breakdown; (SEMARNAT-INECC, 2016[5]), Mexico’s Climate Change Mid-Century Strategy. https://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/mexico_mcs_final_cop22nov16_red.pdf

France has also developed a National Forests and Woodlands Programme (MAA, 2016[6]), proposed by the MAA and adopted in 2016, which defines the main objectives of the French forest policy for the 2016-26 timeframe. It notes the role of forests in reducing GHG emissions, and the interrelations between biodiversity and climate change policies. Similarly, Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine developed in 2014 a forest policy strategy in its document “Forests, products and people, Ireland’s forestry policy – a renewed vision”. This includes a cost-benefit analysis of future afforestation programmes, where the benefits considered include timber, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, water quality, among others.

The Aichi Biodiversity Targets also explicitly recognise the need to eliminate, phase out or reform incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity under its Target 3. Nevertheless, very few of the NBSAPs refer to incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity, despite market-distorting and potentially-harmful subsidies being in place in all the case study countries (see chapter 5). Similar language on reforming harmful incentives is also in the reporting guidelines for national communications on climate change, yet few countries have done this. Identifying and assessing existing incentives that are not coherent with international environmental goals is a key first step. Commitments to undertake these assessments, such as through national assessments (e.g. France and biodiversity) or international peer-review processes (e.g. Indonesia fossil fuel subsidy G20 peer-review) are an important first step.

Such commitments include Ireland wherein the NBSAP states they will undertake a study in the 2017-2019 timeframe, and Brazil, which takes on Aichi Target 3 at national level nearly verbatim, stating that by 2020, at the latest, incentives harmful to biodiversity, including the so-called perverse subsidies, are eliminated, phased out or reformed.15 More specifically for Ireland under Target 1, Action 1.1.15. is to: Identify and take measures to minimise the impact of incentives and subsidies on biodiversity loss, and develop positive incentive measures, where necessary, to assist the conservation of biodiversity. The performance indicator defined is: 1. Policies and practices that generate perverse incentives identified; 2. Number of appropriate reform policies designed and implemented. This language presents a clear, time-bound commitment to tackle this issue. In contrast, in France, while a report on domestic public subsidies harmful to biodiversity has already been undertaken (CAS, 2011[7]), it is not referred to in the NBS nor the NBP.

In Brazil, some states, including São Paulo, Paraná and Rio Grande do Sul, have also developed biodiversity strategies and action plans or programmes. However, ensuring consistency and synergy with the federal biodiversity policies, programmes and targets has been challenging (OECD, 2015[8]).

Table 3.3. Forestry, agriculture and climate change in the NBSAPs

	Forestry	Agriculture	Climate change
Brazil (NBSAP 2016-2020)	Yes, target 7 incorporate sustainable management practices in forest and fauna management	Yes, target 7; target 8 on excess nutrients. Includes associated indicators	Yes, target 15 to enhance carbon stocks and restore at least 15% degraded land
France (NBS 2011 and NBP 2018)	No in the National Strategy (refers to logging but vaguely so) (NBS, 2011); Yes in the National Plan, target 1.3 zero net artificialisation; target 3.2 integrate biodiversity in forest management plans (NBP, 2018)	No in the National Strategy (NBS, 2011); Yes in the National Plan: target 1.3 zero net artificialisation; target 2.2 transition to agroecology (NBP, 2018)	No (NBS, 2011); Yes, interspersed, no specific targets (NBP, 2018)
Indonesia (IBSAP 2015-2020)	A few e.g. Development of forestry plan and improvement of forestry areas; sustainable management of protected forests	Yes, several e.g. expansion and sustainable management of lands for agriculture, plantations and animal husbandry (p. 236)	Yes, improvement of activities dealing with climate change adaptation and mitigation at national and local levels
Ireland (BAP, 2017-2021)	Yes, target 4.1: optimised opportunities under forestry to benefit biodiversity, with various specific actions and associated indicators	Yes, target 4.1: optimised opportunities under agriculture to benefit biodiversity, with various specific actions and associated indicators	Yes, 1.1.14. Implement actions from Ireland’s Biodiversity Climate Change Sectoral Adaptation Plan; 2.1.10. continue forest research programmes, including on carbon stocks
Mexico (NBSAP, 2016-2030)	Yes, Multiple targets relevant to forestry. None are quantified.	Yes, multiple targets relevant to agriculture. None are quantified.	Yes, multiple references to climate change; no specific targets
New Zealand (2016-2020)	Yes, Target 7, implement National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry by 2018	Yes, target 7, improve efficiency of agriculture production systems (e.g. by increasing flexibility in land management and farming practices)	Yes, Target 16.1 monitoring of carbon stocks in forests and habitats

Note: Brazil’s national target 7, for example, states: By 2020 the incorporation of sustainable management practices is disseminated and promoted in agriculture, livestock production, aquaculture, silviculture, extractive activities, and forest and fauna management, ensuring conservation of biodiversity (Government of Brazil, 2018[9]).

Source: Authors based on relevant country NBSAP submissions, available at: https://www.cbd.int/nbsap

Inclusion of land-use nexus issues in agricultural development plans

In contrast to climate change and biodiversity, there is no overarching multilateral agreement that requires or invites governments to develop national agricultural development plans. Nevertheless, most (if not all) countries have developed such strategies. For France and Ireland, agricultural policies are determined, to a large extent at the European level, by the CAP. Table 3.4 summarises the references to climate mitigation, forestry, and biodiversity/ecosystems in the national agricultural development plans (or other similar national documents).

Table 3.4. Climate mitigation, biodiversity/ecosystems and forests in agriculture development plans or similar

	Climate mitigation	Biodiversity/ecosystems	Forests
Brazil (National Plan for Low Carbon Emissions in Agriculture, (2016[10]); and Agriculture and Livestock Plan 2018/19 (2018[11]) )	Specific actions identified together with quantified targets and estimated mitigation potential	Improve efficiency of natural resource use	Support efforts to reduce the role livestock farming expansion plays in deforestation
France (Agroecological project (2013[12]))	Mentioned but in vague terms. Not quantified	Mentioned but in vague terms. Not quantified	-
Indonesia1 (Strategic Plan of Agriculture 2015-2019)	Refers to climate mitigation, indicating agriculture should be more sustainable	Mentioned	Targets conversion of 4.5 million ha of forest estate to agricultural land
Ireland (Food Wise 2025) (2015[13])	Well integrated but no specific targets	Biodiversity is mentioned in the context of monitoring and developing impacts, but no specific targets	Detailed plan for forestry for production and afforestation, integrated with climate but not biodiversity
Mexico (Agriculture Development Plan 2013-2018 (2013[14]))	Section on diagnosis refers to impact of climate change on sector	Section on diagnosis refers to impact of natural resource degradation on sector	-
New Zealand (Good Farming Practice Action Plan for Water Quality) (2018[15])2	Very vague	Aim is to improve ecological health of waterways. References made to e.g. minimise risk of fertiliser spillage, leaching and loss into waterways	-

Notes: ¹ The Indonesian Plan does not seem to be available in English. Content for this table is taken from here: http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=416

² For New Zealand, see also Table 3.2 on their national development strategy.

Source: Authors based on documents referenced in-table.

Looking across the six countries and the nexus areas, only Brazil has clearly defined actions, together with quantified targets in the context of climate mitigation. While references to the nexus areas are made in nearly all of the six countries’ agriculture development plans, these are all fairly general.

France has however developed a Plan for Agroforestry Development for 2015-2020, released in 2015 by the MAA (Government of France, 2015[16]). This presents actions to encourage farmers to adopt practices coupling trees, crops and farming. It underlines the role hedges and trees play for timber and fodder production, limiting erosion, waterborne and microclimate regulation, carbon storage or climate change adaptation. The Plan argues for research and development and a better understanding of agroforestry systems, a better regulatory framework and stronger financial incentives, and the development of a national sector enhancing the economic value of agroforestry by-products. It also includes the promotion of agroforestry at an international level as an objective. None of the actions outlined, however, have clear specific targets associated with them.

Inclusion of land-use nexus issues in national development plans (or similar strategies)

Perhaps the politically weightiest and overarching national strategies are the national development plans (or similar documents). References to the land-use nexus issues across these documents are compared in Table 3.5. France does not have a national development plan per se, but rather has established a National Strategy for Sustainable Development which covers all aspects of the land-use nexus and makes the case for action. It does not, however, lay out specific targets to be achieved.

Indonesia’s Master Plan for Economic Development 2011-2021 (the long-term plan) does not refer to the environmental impacts of the development (other than as a side-effect of the growth in palm oil production). However, the medium-term development plan (RPJMN 2015-2019) does refer to forest conservation and the NBSAP. The importance of environmental issues, including ecosystems and climate change, are recognised in Indonesia’s development planning process. The long-term development strategy set for 2005-2025 recognises environmental sustainability as one of the nine development missions for Indonesia to pursue. It also has the aim of exploiting Indonesia's comparative advantage in agriculture and mining to achieve food self-sufficiency and middle-income status by 2025. The RPJMN is based on the concept of the green economy, specifying concrete targets for achieving the overall missions set out in the long-term strategy.

The next phase of the medium-term national development plan (RPJMN 2020-24) provides an opportunity to ensure greater effort to reconcile the specific goals of developmental policy with the climate change, land use and ecosystems targets. As part of the preparations for the future RPJMN 2020-2024, BAPPENAS undertook modelling to strengthen coherence between relevant sectoral targets and to facilitate discussion between stakeholders. The elaboration of sectoral targets, however, does not appear to have fully considered interactions between objectives. Given that there is only a finite stock of land, the implicit demands for land from each objective need to be consistent. Increases in production will require a combination of increased productivity and increased land area. The consequences for ecosystems and climate depends on where expansion occurs. However, the production objectives for food and energy crops make claims on degraded land and convertible production forest.

Ireland’s NDP refers to multiple aspects of the land-use nexus and defines investment priorities that include references to these areas. It also provides indicative (monetary) resource allocations for delivery of the various National Strategic Objectives thereunder. While resource allocation is quantitative by definition, since this is an input indicator, rather than an outcome or impact indicator, it will be difficult to determine whether progress is being made towards the ultimate objectives of the NDP in relation to the land-use nexus.

Brazil’s Multi-Year Plan (Plano Plurianual (PPA) 2016-2019), on the other hand, defines both monetary inputs dedicated to specific government programmes and overarching objectives along with detailed, quantitative programme targets and indicators. Among the 54 strategic government programmes set out in the PPA, topics of relevance to the land-use nexus figure prominently. Various programmes pertain to agriculture and food security (i.e. programmes 2012, 2066, 2069) and set quantitative targets relating to, inter alia, the provision of rural credit, technical assistance and extension services, the registration and regularization of forest and agricultural land, the expansion of support to agroecological practices in family agriculture, and food assistance and school feeding programmes. Specific programmes are devoted to climate change mitigation and adaptation action (Programme 2050: Climate Change) and the protection of biodiversity (Programme 2078: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity). Notable targets specified for these programmes include: (i) absolute emissions reductions from reduced deforestation in the Amazon region of 737,465,122 tCO₂e (target 047B) and of 70,000,000 tCO₂e from the agricultural sector against baseline projections (target 047E); and (ii) the reduction of the risk of extinction of 20% of the species listed in the Official National List of Species threatened by extinction (target 4084). The PPA moreover designates the government ministry responsible for the delivery of the specified objectives and targets.

Table 3.5. Land-use nexus issues in national development plans or similar strategies

	Climate mitigation	Ecosystems/biodiversity	Agriculture/Food	Other
Brazil (Multi-Year Plan 2016-2019) (2016[17])	Reference to the policy goal of economy-wide emission reductions of 36.1-38.9% by 2020 compared to BAU. Includes emission reduction targets for the AFOLU sector. Indicative resource allocations are provided.	Reference to Brazil’s domestic and international engagement in this area. Details the scope of and monetary resources for achieving detailed related quantitative targets.	Includes quantitative targets on the strengthening of family agriculture, agrarian reform, land governance, and food and nutrition security. Provides indicative resource allocations.	Refers to a government programme (Programme 2083: Environmental Quality) aiming at broader environmental quality, waste management and atmospheric air pollutants management is presented. Indicative resource allocations are provided.
France (National Strategy of Ecological Transition Towards Sustainable Development 2015-2020) (2014[18])	Yes, though no targets are specified	Yes, though no targets are specified	Yes, though no targets are specified	-
Indonesia (Master Plan for Economic Development 2011-2025) (2011[19]) (Medium term development plan 2015-2019) (2014[20])	No	No Refers to the NBSAP	No	Refers to forest conservation
Ireland (National Development Plan 2018-2027) (2018[21])	National Strategic Outcome (NSO) 8: Transition to a Low-Carbon and Climate-Resilient Society. Provides indicative resource allocations for delivery of NSOs and specific actions thereunder.	NSO 9. Sustainable Management of Water and other Environmental Resources. Provides indicative resource allocations for delivery of NSOs. Refers to NBSAP.	States: Public capital investments in the agri-food sector will seek to enable the sustainable development of the sector in accordance with the ambition in Food Wise 2025 and any successor strategy (Huge growth target for agriculture in Food Wise)	Forestry: States: The current Programme for a Partnership Government has targets for afforestation which rise incrementally to 8,100 hectares per annum in 2020. More than EUR100 million will be invested in 2018 alone.
Mexico (National Development Plan 2013-2018) (2013[22])	-	Goal 4 is to enhance sustainable use of natural resources. Strategy 4.2 is to promote sustainable agriculture and livestock practices	Quantitative targets to expand agriculture production. Objectives included to address food security	-
New Zealand (Growing and Protecting New Zealand) (2018[23])	Yes, but vague	Accelerating Predator Free 2050 programme and other initiatives relevant to the biodiversity strategy Government goal to plant one billion trees between 2018 and 2027	-

Note: For example, relevant references in the Irish NDP include: Achieving a transition to a competitive, low-carbon, climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by 2050; and Safeguarding Ireland’s abundant natural and environmental resources through the sustainable management of water, waste and other environmental resources.

Source: Authors

In New Zealand, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has set out a strategy for achieving its purpose of “Growing and Protecting New Zealand” (MPI, 2017[24]). This strategy comprises four key outcomes, the first of which is growth in production and the second is sustainability. Ecosystems and climate change are not explicitly mentioned in this strategy (though they could be seen as implied by the sustainability objective). The MPI also reports on its performance. The MPI “Strategic Intentions 2015-2020” includes indicators for measuring progress, including on sustainability. These indicators refer most predominantly to water, nutrient management and fisheries. There is no specific reference to biodiversity in the document.

Looking beyond national jurisdictional boundaries: Consideration of land-use nexus issues in trade policy

Given the close interlinkages between land-use outcomes and international trade it is important that trade policy is coherent with sustainable land use. Commonly conceived of as a driver of economic growth, international trade receives significant policy attention across the case study countries. While the promotion of international trade is part of most of the overarching national development plans or strategies, few of these explicitly acknowledge interactions of trade and land-use nexus issues (table 3.6).

Similarly, most of the case study countries’ trade or export strategies and plans do not explicitly account for the land-use nexus implications of trade policy. For most countries, these documents provide further detail of the plans for trade in nexus-relevant products (Table 3.7). However, while the plans and strategies that do so primarily lay out sub-targets and strategies to grow agri-food exports, only some make limited reference to the attainment of environmental objectives, or domestic (Indonesia) or international (Brazil) food security objectives. The relative lack of consideration of land-use nexus issues in general trade policy represents a potential challenge to policy coherence.

Table 3.6. Trade targets in national development plans or similar strategies

	Quantitative trade targets	Qualitative goals and specific references to trade in nexus-relevant goods	Examples of possible land-use nexus implications
Brazil (Multi-Year Plan 2016-2019) (2016[17])	Several quantitative input indicators and targets for trade support programmes are specified.	Improvement of Brazil's trade performance through increased value-added and technological content in exports and through the diversification of export composition and destination, but no reference to nexus relevant implications of trade.	The diversification of the export base could reduce pressures on land, if land products are replaced by other goods and services.
France (National Strategy of Ecological Transition Towards Sustainable Development 2015-2020) (2014[18])	-	Commitment to reorient production, trade and consumption patterns as part of the transition towards a circular and low carbon economy. Pledge to strive for tighter environmental trade rules under the WTO.	More environmentally-friendly production, trade and consumption patterns could reduce land-use pressures domestically and abroad. Reduced trade volumes could equally increase pressures on domestic land.
Indonesia (Master Plan for Economic Development 2011-2025) (2011[19]) (Medium term development plan 2015-2019) (2014[20])	Detailed annual export growth targets, including growth of non-oil and –gas exports of 8 – 14.3% (2015-2019), an increase in the services exports-to-GDP ratio from 2.7% (2015) to 3.5% (2019), and an increase in the share of manufactured products in total exports from 44% (2015) to 65% (2019).	Aim to become one of the world’s main food suppliers, and a processing centre for agricultural, fishery, and natural resources by 2025. Announcement of export restrictions for energy commodities. Reference to safeguards ensuring the environmental integrity and social inclusiveness of the trade sector.	Increases in export-oriented agricultural production may or may not increase deforestation by increasing demand for land. Depending on domestic bioenergy policy, energy commodity export restrictions could benefit standing forests or not, and they can potentially counteract trade efficiency and mitigation efforts abroad. Strictly enforced adherence to environmental safeguards could reduce adverse land-use impacts of trade.
Ireland (National Development Plan 2018-2027) (2018[21])		Aim to broaden Ireland’s global exporting footprint, and to build resilience to external shocks in the Irish trade sector	Depending on the export composition and effects on global trade and production patterns, ambiguous effects on domestic and international land-use outcomes are possible.
Mexico (National Development Plan 2013-2018) (2013[22])		Intention to intensify trade relations under various regional agreements, to increase the logistical capacity for trade, to diversify the Mexican export base and to increase the share of domestic value-added content of Mexican exports	Depending on export and import composition and effects on global trade and production patterns, ambiguous effects on domestic and international land-use outcomes are possible.
New Zealand (Growing and Protecting New Zealand) (2018[23])	The “food and primary sector” in particular shall grow the value of its exports. Aim to achieve FTA coverage for 90% of goods exports by 2030.	Commitment to advance WTO work on agricultural domestic production subsidies	On current trends, primary sector export growth could would likely increase adverse nexus outcomes given the emphasis on cattle and dairy.

Note: Quantitative targets of the Brazilian Multi-Year Plan (PPA) are not specified in the main PPA document referenced here, but in the accompanying monitoring plan available at http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2016/Lei/L13249.htm

Source: Authors

This is true also in countries where dedicated initiatives to tackle adverse land-use nexus impacts of international trade exist already. France and Ireland have noteworthy initiatives aimed at addressing these impacts.16 France, for instance, has a National Strategy to Combat Imported Deforestation (SNDI)17 (Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire, 2018[25]) in place. As announced under Axis 15 in its Climate Plan, the SNDI was developed in 2018 in a consultative manner by the French Ministry of Agriculture, in collaboration with the French Ministries of the Environment, Foreign Affairs, Economy, and Research and Innovation, and the involvement of all stakeholders gathered in the National Group on Tropical Forests (GNFT). The GNFT, has itself been recently expanded to include representatives of the agri-food sector. The SNDI is intended to contribute to several international goals on climate and forest (i.e., the SDGs, New York Declaration on Forests, Paris Agreement, Amsterdam declarations). Its main orientations are to increase cooperation with producer countries, systematically integrate deforestation in public policies, mobilise and empower the private sector and develop research. The SNDI also aims to establish a national platform to provide reliable information on imported deforestation, value commitments, and help the private sector monitor its commodities supply chains through an early alert mechanism. As France is among the top 10 timber importers globally, this initiative is potentially important globally (for more detail on the SNDI, see also Chapter 5).

In a similar vein, Target 7.4 in Ireland’s NBSAP is: Reduction in the impact of Irish trade on global biodiversity and ecosystem services. More specifically the action identified is 7.4.1. “Adopt measures to significantly reduce negative impacts of trade on biodiversity and to enhance positive impacts”. The lead agencies tasked with this action are clearly defined (i.e., DCHG, DFAT, DAFM), and two indicators have been identified to assess progress towards this: 1. Knowledge of the pressures placed on biodiversity by trading activity and trade routing; and 2. Measures implemented to reduce or offset those pressures and their impacts. The progress on this initiative is unclear but, if successful, it could serve as a model for other countries considering the same approach.

While these initiatives are laudable from an nexus perspective, their impacts will be constrained if the policies recommended are not mainstreamed into general trade policy. Despite the existence of a dedicated strategy in form of the SNDI, the French Government Foreign Trade Strategy (Premier Ministre de la République Francaise, 2018[26]) does not acknowledge land-use nexus impacts of French trade policy.

Mainstreaming of land-use nexus issues in trade policy formulation and implementation therefore represents a necessary and promising avenue for improved land-use outcomes and greater policy coherence. In order for trade policy to effectively reduce land-use impacts abroad (including by pursuing quantitative targets that would complement export growth targets), a quantitative understanding of the nature and magnitude of these impacts should be gained (Chapter 5) and considered in trade policy formulation.

Table 3.7. Land-use nexus issues in national trade or export strategies and plans

	Agricultural and forest products	Food security	Climate change, biodiversity and other
Brazil (Plano Nacional de Exportações, PNE 2015-2018) (2015[27])	Identification of key market segments for export growth in 32 target countries, many of which comprise parts of the agri-food sector. Commitment to “satisfactory results” in agriculture under the WTO.	Expansion of a programme under which agricultural machinery is exported, partly to meet food security objectives abroad.	-
France (Stratégie du gouvernement en matière de commerce extérieur, (2018[26]))	-	-	-
Indonesia (Strategic Plan 2015-2019, Ministry of Trade (2015[28]))	The export growth targets in table 1.1 also explicitly apply to products of the agro-forestry sector, although no export growth targets from this specific sub-sector are quantified. Export growth in this sector should first and foremost be achieved in processed food and forestry products. Aim to translate Indonesia’s share of international production into a price-setting role on international commodity markets, including for coconut, oil palm (CPO), cocoa, coffee and rubber.	The need to provide staple foods at affordable, stable prices that are similar between regions is acknowledged and a unifying policy coordinating food production, food imports and food distribution is called for.	Among seven guiding principles mentioned, two are of particular relevance to nexus issues: 2. Improve Sustainable Management of and Value-Addition from Natural Resources 4. Improve the quality of the environment, disaster risk reduction, nature and climate change
Ireland (Ireland Connected: Trading and Investing in a Dynamic World, (2017[29]))	Target to increase indigenous exports, including food, to reach EUR26 billion by 2020 (up by 26% from 2015). Reference to the Foodwise 2025 target to increase exports in agri-food and drink by 85% over the period to 2025 to reach EUR19 billion. 60-70% of growth in food, drink and horticulture exports are to be achieved in Asia, North America and Africa. Target to increase value-added in exported food, fisheries and wood products by 70% over the period to 2025 to reach in excess of EUR13 billion.	-	Reference to the protection of a rules-based trade order under different international trade organisations and fora with special reference to “environmental issues”.
Mexico (National Innovative Development Programme 2013-2018, (2013[30]))	-	-	Reference to the objective to promote environmental performance of SMEs and sustainability certification schemes, although not directly in the context of trade.
New Zealand (2030 Trade Agenda, (2017[31]))	Reference to the removal of agricultural export subsidies under the WTO.	-	Discussion of environmental regulation, including the Paris Agreement, in the context of FTAs that “reinforce common understanding and commitments” (p.5)

Note: Mexico does not have a trade strategy as such. Instead, trade goals and strategies are specified in the sectoral programme of the Ministry of the Economy (SE), which in turn is based on the National Development Plan.

Source: Authors

References

[15] Allen, C. et al. (2018), Good Farming Practice Action Plan for Water Quality 2018, Good Farming Practice Governance Group, Wellington, http://www.hortnz.co.nz/assets/Our-Work-files/Good-farming-practice-for-water-action-plan-2018.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2019).

[7] CAS (2011), Public Subsidies Harmful to Biodiversity, Centre d’analyse statégique, https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/aides-publiques-contre-biodiversit-fr-en-101020141.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2019).

[2] Champions 12.3 (2018), 2018 Progress Report: An annual update on behalf of Champions 12.3, http://www.champions123.org.

[19] Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs (2011), Master Plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia’s Economic Development 2011-2025, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.

[13] DAFM (2015), Food Wise 2025, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

[29] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2017), Ireland Connected: Trading and Investing in a Dynamic World, Government of Ireland, Dublin, https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/tradeandpromotion/Ireland-Connected_Main-Report.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2019).

[21] Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2018), National Development Plan 2018-2027, Government of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.

[35] EC (2011), “Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe”, COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, No. COM/2011/0571, European Commission, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0571 (accessed on 12 June 2019).

[1] Ellis, J. et al. (2018), “Operationalising selected reporting and flexibility provisions in the Paris Agreement”, Climate Change Expert Group Paper, No. 3, OECD/IEA, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/ccxg.htmwww.iea.org (accessed on 3 June 2019).

[9] Government of Brazil (2018), National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Ministry of the Environment Secretariat of Biodiversity, https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/br/br-nbsap-v3-en.pdf.

[33] Government of France (2017), France’s Climate Plan, https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/climate-plan (accessed on 28 September 2018).

[34] Government of France (2017), Plan Climat, Ministry for an Ecological and Solidary Transition, https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2017.07.06%20-%20Plan%20Climat_0.pdf.

[16] Government of France (2015), Plan de developpement de l’agroforesterie, Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt, http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/151215-ae-agrofesterie-v2_plan.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2018).

[4] Government of Ireland (2018), Climate Action Plan 2019: To tackle climate breakdown, https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/climate-action/publications/Documents/16/Climate_Action_Plan_2019.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2019).

[22] Government of Mexico (2013), Plan Nacional De Desarollo 2013-2018 [National Development Plan 2013-2018], Government of Mexico, Mexico City, https://observatorioplanificacion.cepal.org/sites/default/files/plan/files/MexicoPlanNacionaldeDesarrollo20132018.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2019).

[6] MAA (2016), Programme National de la Forêt et du Bois 2016-2026, Ministére de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation , Paris.

[25] Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire (2018), Strategie nationale de lutte contre la deforestation importee 2018-2030, Government of France, Paris, https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2018.11.14_SNDI_0.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2019).

[12] Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (2013), Projet Agro-écologique pour la France, Government of France, Paris, https://agriculture.gouv.fr/ministere/projet-agro-ecologique-pour-la-france.

[3] Ministère de l’Écologie, du Developpement Durable et de l’Energie (2015), Stratégie Nationale Bas-Carbone, Government of France, Paris, https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/SNBC_France_low_carbon_strategy_2015.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2019).

[18] Ministère de l’Ecologie; du Développement durable et de l’Energie (2014), Stratégie nationale de transition écologique vers un développement durable 2015-2020, Government of France, Paris, https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/SNTEDD%20-%20La%20strat%C3%A9gie.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2019).

[11] Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (2018), Plano Agrícola e Pecuário 2018/19 [Agriculture and Livestock Plan 2018/19], Government of Brazil, Brasilia, http://www.agricultura.gov.br/assuntos/politica-agricola/plano-agricola-e-pecuario/arquivos-pap/copy_of_PlanoAgricolaePecurio20182019.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2019).

[10] Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (2016), Plano Setorial de Mitigação e de Adaptação às Mudanças [National Plan for Low Carbon Emissions in Agriculture], Government of Brazil, Brasilia, http://www.agricultura.gov.br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/plano-abc/arquivo-publicacoes-plano-abc/download.pdf/view (accessed on 6 June 2019).

[17] Ministério de Planeamiento, P. (2016), Plano Plurianual 2016-2019 [Multi-Year Plan 2016-2019], Government of Bazil, Brasilia, http://www.siteal.iipe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/sit_accion_files/siteal_brasil_0577.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2019).

[23] Ministry for Primary Industries (2018), Our strategy, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/about-us/our-strategy/ (accessed on 21 March 2019).

[27] Ministry of Development; Industry and Foreign Trade (2015), Plano Nacional de Exportações 2015-2018 [National Export Plan 2015-2018], Government of Brazil, Brasilia.

[31] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2017), Trade Agenda 2030, Government of New Zealand, Wellington, https://www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/Trade2030/Trade-Agenda-2030-Strategy-document.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2019).

[20] Ministry of National Development Planning and National Development Planning Agency (2014), National Medium Term Development Plan 2015-2019, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/laws/1328.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2019).

[30] Ministry of the Economy (2013), Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Innovador 2013-2018.

[28] Ministry of Trade (2015), RENCANA STRATEGIS KEMENTERIAN PERDAGANGAN TAHUN 2015 - 2019, Government of Indonesia, Jakarta.

[24] MPI (2017), Afforestation Grant Scheme.

[8] OECD (2015), OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Brazil 2015, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264240094-en.

[26] Premier Ministre de la République Francaise (2018), Stratégie du Gouvernement en matière de commerce extérieur, Government of France, Roubaix, https://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/document/document/2018/02/dossier_de_presse_-_presentation_de_la_strategie_du_gouvernement_en_matiere_de_commerce_exterieur-_23.02.2018.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2019).

[32] Richards, M. et al. (2015), Agriculture’s prominence in the INDCs. CCAFS Info Note., CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), http://space.cgiar.org/handle/10568/68990.

[14] SAGARPA (2013), Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Agropecuario, Pesquero y Alimentario 2013-2018 [Livestock, Fisheries and Agriculture Development Plan 2013-2018], Government of Mexico, Mexico City, https://www.gob.mx/fnd/documentos/programa-sectorial-de-desarrollo-agropecuario-pesquero-y-alimentario-2013-2018_dof (accessed on 6 June 2019).

[5] SEMARNAT-INECC (2016), Mexico’s Climate Change Mid-Century Strategy, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) and National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change (INECC),, https://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/mexico_mcs_final_cop22nov16_red.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2019).

Notes

← 1.  Under the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement, there is an overarching goal of limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees of warming, with the agreed objective to pursue efforts to keep warming well below 1.5 degrees. Under the CBD, a guiding framework has been agreed upon, with 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Parties are encouraged, but not required, to use the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as a framework for developing their own national strategies and associated targets.

← 2.  Article 5 of the Paris Agreement states Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of GHGs, including forests. It also encourages Parties to take action relating to REDD.

← 3.  Parties were also encouraged to do this at COP17 in 2011.

← 4.  https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/long-term-strategies

← 5.  Parties include the industrialized countries that were members of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) in 1992, plus countries with economies in transition, including the Russian Federation, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States.

← 6.  Target 15 states: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.

← 7.  NB: France and Ireland have country-wide targets, hence agriculture and forestry are included by definition.

← 8.  Guidance on NDCs is currently being negotiated. The aim of such guidance is to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding of NDCs.

← 9.  According to Richards et al. (2015[32]) who examined 162 Party submissions, AFOLU is well represented in most Parties NDC’s and appears to be a key strategy for climate change mitigation in a majority of countries. Forest-related mitigation measures are even more frequently mentioned in Parties’ NDCs than agriculture, with 80% of the submitted NDCs including targets related to the LULUCF sector, compared to 64% that specifically included agriculture.

← 10.  See https://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/snbc_4pager_fr_en.pdf

← 11.  See (Government of France, 2017[33]) https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/climate-plan and https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2017.07.06%20-%20Plan%20Climat_0.pdf (Government of France, 2017[34])

← 12.  Factor 4 specifies a 75% reduction in total GHG emissions in 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

← 13.  This refers to activities that result in extensive sealing of the soil in unmanaged, agricultural or forest lands due to inter alia urban sprawl and transport infrastructure. The French objective is in line with the EU’s “zero net land take” objective (EC, 2011[35]).

← 14.  In Brazil, a Landscape fragmentation and connectivity index that could potentially inform quantitative targets is currently under assessment for use in future iterations of the NBSAP.

← 15.  Examples of potentially harmful subsidies that could be included in these assessments include concessional loans, preferential credit, market price support for soy and subsidised insurance for farmers that could encourage agricultural land conversion in Brazil, and distortive subsidies to unsustainable farming practices under the EU CAP in Ireland. More detail on potentially harmful subsidies along with examples from other case study countries is provided in chapter 5.

← 16.  In a sense, France has adopted a sector-like approach, focusing on forests, whereas Ireland covers trade-related issues more generally, but for an environmental policy area, namely biodiversity.

← 17.  Imported deforestation refers to imported products that are directly or indirectly the result of deforestation or forest degradation (e.g., wood coming from environmentally sensitive forests that have been chopped down; and products such as beef or palm oil that were produced in areas of slash-and-burn cultivation) (source: https://frenchfoodintheus.org/3977).