kkkk

alternative scenario whereby non‐forest areas were afforested / reforested and estimating water yield again. The difference between these two values (per pixel) was assumed to be the potential water yield of forest cover maps, and then extracting from this south facing areas, as well as areas close to roads, population centres and crops (buffers of 500 m). These areas were deemed by working session participants to This map shows opportunity areas for forest restoration in Tov. For the purposes of this analysis, forest restoration refers to activities to restore natural forest areas that are estimated to have been deforested, (carried out in the working session in Ulaanbaatar). The exercise consisted in: 1) estimating the annual water yield due to forest in the aimag using current forest cover (baseline scenario) and; 2) setting up an with a focus on natural regeneration and enrichment planting. This map was produced by first identifying areas of forest loss between 1981 and 2014, estimated as the difference between the 1981 and 2014 calculated by producing a raster distance raster map of current cover forest, and then classifying values in three classes (high, medium, low). Potential to store carbon was obtained from Smith et al. (2013; a the area if there was a forest there. These values were also reclassified in three classes and combined with the two previous ones. The result is a new raster layer with values ranging from 3 (lowest possible be unsuitable for restoration due to likely higher levels of disturbance. The areas that were selected as suitable for forest restoration were then analysed according to the potential for provision of multiple global estimation of potential to store carbon) and also reclassified in three classes. Potential of non‐forest areas to produce water if they were forested was estimated in a WaterWorld modelling exercise benefits. These were classified according to concentration of three multiple benefits (proximity to natural forests, potential to store carbon, potential for water provision). Proximity to natural forest was Figure 4.2: Potential areas for carrying out forest restoration activities in Tov aimag 44 score) to 9 (highest possible score). This map was reclassified as 3‐5= Low, 5‐7=Medium, 7‐9= High.

5. Conclusions This work described in this report has aimed to support REDD+ planning in Mongolia, in particular capitalizing on the opportunity to achieve multiple benefits and progress towards a more integrated use of forested landscapes. We have presented here some first maps of where different co‐benefits of REDD+ projects could be realised. We have also undertaken activities to build capacity in spatial analysis, including accessing relevant spatial datasets and using decision support tools. These achievements will help the country of Mongolia pursue its National REDD+ Readiness Roadmap and National Programme. They also contribute to advancing the Government’s green development pathway and harmonizing REDD+ activities within Mongolia’s wider environmental and social priorities. With the current rapid economic growth being experienced in Mongolia, detailed land‐use analysis and planning, using spatial information provided by this project, is critical to reduce threats and impacts. Moreover, it can help to indicate areas where sustainable development opportunities may be achieved. In the context of REDD+ activities to conserve and sustainably manage carbon stocks, the maps presented in the current report show areas with strong potential to maintain the provision co‐benefits (Sections 3). In the context of REDD+ activities to enhance carbon stocks, maps showing areas of high potential for the restoration of forest cover and provision of multiple benefits (in terms of biodiversity, degraded land and water supply, as well as carbon) are shown (Section 4). Our analyses have been pursued at a national and aimag level, and this two‐pronged approach is important. Planning of REDD+ activities needs to take into account national‐level priorities and opportunities, considering how environmental, social and economic characteristics vary across Mongolia. At a finer resolution, the environmental conditions of different aimags are important, and especially how these are perceived, valued and prioritized by local stakeholders. The consultation workshops were designed to highlight this for two aimags, Khovsgol and Tov. Based on the aimag consultations, this study has focused on a particular set of values that forests offer to society, and which represent the potential multiple benefits of future REDD+ actions. As well as carbon stocks, we have considered the hydrological services of forests, the timber, fuelwood and non‐ timber forest products (NTFPs) they provide, recreational and tourism uses, and areas important for biodiversity conservation. There are other values that could have been included (e.g. mitigation of soil erosion, landscape value, permafrost protection, clean air) and indeed can be in the future as the approaches advocated in this project are applied across different geographies and interests. In addition, by combining maps of different benefits, we have shown how areas can be prioritized based on the numbers of potential benefits that can be achieved through future interventions. We encourage follow‐up work to build on the analyses presented here and capitalise on the enhanced in‐country capacity for spatial analysis and use of decision support tools. This further work should include:  wider stakeholder analysis of the priority values of forests (and therefore potential multiple benefits of REDD+ that could be targeted)  field validation of the modelled priority areas for forest conservation and restoration  extension of the finer‐scale analyses to other aimags in Mongolia  translation of the spatial analysis and mapping into firm area targets for REDD+ implementation at the national and aimag level. 45

Such activities will further increase the overall positive impact of Mongolia’s future REDD+ programme and inform decision‐making on sustainable land use more widely. 46

REFERENCES BirdLife International (2016) Country profile: Mongolia. Available from: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country/mongolia. Accessed June 2016. Crisp, N., Dick, J. and Mullins, M. (2004) Mongolia forestry sector review. The World Bank, Victoria, B.C. Dulamsuren, C., Klinge, M., Degener, J., Khishigjargal, M., Chenlemuge, T., Bat‐Enerel, B., Yeruult, Y., Saindovdon, D., Ganbaatar, K., Tsogtbaatar, J., Leuschner, C. and Hauck, M. (2016) Carbon pool densities and a first estimate of the total carbon pool in the Mongolian forest‐steppe. Global Change Biology, 22: 830–844. Emerton, L. and Enkhtsetseg, B.‐O. (2013) Forest sector financing flows and economic values in Mongolia. Available at: http://www.reddplus.mn/en/download/forest‐sector‐financing‐flows‐and‐ economic‐values‐in‐mongolia/ Epple, C., Williamson, A. and Thorley, J. (2012) Strengthening benefits from REDD+ for biodiversity, ecosystem services and livelihoods. A guide to tools and resources that can help to plan for multiple benefits from REDD+ in Indonesia. UNEP‐WCMC, Cambridge. Available at: http://bit.ly/mbs‐redd FAO (2014) Global Forest Resources Assessment. Country report – Mongolia. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. FAO (2015) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 – Desk reference. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Gombobaatar, S. and Monks, E.M. (compilers), Seidler, R., Sumiya, D., Tseveenmyadag, N., Bayarkhuu, S., Baillie, J. E. M., Boldbaatar, Sh., Uuganbayar, Ch. (editors) (2011) Regional Red List Series Vol.7. Birds. Zoological Society of London, National University of Mongolia and Mongolian Ornithological Society. Government of Mongolia (2007) Law of Mongolia on Forestry. English version available at: http://ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=91035&p_country=MNG&p_count=135. Accessed June 2016. Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turabanova, S.A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O. and Townshend, J.R.G. (2013). High‐resolution global maps of 21st century forest cover change. Science, 342: 850‐53. Hicks, C., Woroniecki, S., Fancourt, M., Bieri, M., Garcia Robles, H., Trumper, K. and Mant, R. (2014) The relationship between biodiversity, carbon storage and the provision of other ecosystem services: Critical Review for the Forestry Component of the International Climate Fund. UNEP‐ WCMC, Cambridge. 47

Hurlbert, A.H. and Jetz, W. (2007) Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 13384–9. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2016) A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0. First edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/Rep‐2016‐005.pdf. Accessed July 2016. Klinge, M., Böhner, J. and Erasmi, S. (2015) Modelling forest lines and forest distribution patterns with remote‐sensing data in a mountainous region of semiarid central Asia. Biogeosciences 12: 2893–2905. Langhammer, P. F., Bakarr, M. I., Bennun, L. A., Brooks, T. M., Clay, R. P., Darwall, W., De Silva, N., Edgar, G. J., Eken, G., Fishpool, L. D. C., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Foster, M. N., Knox, D. H., Matiku, P., Radford, E. A., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Salaman, P., Sechrest, W. and Tordoff, A. W. (2007) Identification and gap analysis of key biodiversity areas: targets for comprehensive protected area systems. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN (Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series 15). Ministry of Environment and Green Development (MEGD) (2014) Mongolia’s National REDD+ Readiness Roadmap. Version April 2014. Division of Forest Conservation and Reforestation Management, MEGD, Ulaanbaatar. Ministry of Environment, Green development and Tourism (MEGDT) and UN‐REDD Programme (2015) National Programme Document. UN‐REDD Mongolia National Programme. MEGDT, Ulaanbaatar, and UN‐REDD Programme. Available at: http://www.mn.undp.org/content/dam/mongolia/docs/ProjectReports/Environment/UNReddNatio nalProgramme_withSignatures.pdf MEGDT (2015) National Biodiversity Program: 2015‐2025. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/mn/mn‐nbsap‐v2‐en.pdf Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well‐being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Mongolia National Statistics Office (2016) Number of inbound tourists, by country. Mongolian Statistical Information Service (MONSIS). http://www.1212.mn/statHtml/statHtml.do. Accessed July 2016. Narangerel, Z., Hicks, C., de Lamo, X. and Guth, M. (2016a) Report of Consultations on multiple benefits from forests in Mongolia in Khovsgol and Tov Aimags, 3‐6 November 2015. Prepared on behalf of the UN‐REDD Programme. Information and Research Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IRIMHE), Ulaanbaatar, and UNEP‐WCMC, Cambridge. Available at: http://bit.ly/mbs‐redd Narangerel, Z., de Lamo, X., Hicks, C. and Guth, M. (2016b) Report: Joint working sessions on spatial analysis to support REDD+ planning in Mongolia. Working sessions convened as part of Mongolia’s 48

National UN‐REDD Programme, October 2015 and March 2016, Information and Research Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment (IRIMHE), Ulaanbaatar. Prepared on behalf of the UN‐ REDD Programme. UNEP‐WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://bit.ly/mbs‐redd National Statistical Office of Mongolia: http://en.ubseg.gov.mn/. Accessed: June, 2016. Nielsen, A. B., Olsen, S. B. and Lundhede, T. (2007) An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature‐based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80: 63‐71. Nyamjav, B., Goldammer J.G. and Uibrig, H. (2007) The forest fire situation in Mongolia. International Forest Fire News (IFFN), 36: 46‐66. Rocchini, D., Hortal, J., Lengyel, S., Lobo, J.M., Jimenez‐Valverde, A., Ricotta, C., Bacaro, G. and Chiarucci, A. (2011). Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: The need for maps of ignorance. Progress in Physical Geography 35: 211–226. Thurner, M., Beer, C., Santoro, M., Carvalhais, M., Wutzler, T., Schepaschenko, D., Shvidenko, A., Kompter, E., Ahrens, B., Levick, S.R. and Schmullius, C. (2013) Carbon stock and density of northern boreal and temperate forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23: 297‐310. Tsogtbaatar, J. (2004) Deforestation and reforestation needs in Mongolia. Forest Ecology and Management, 201: 57–63. Tsogtbaatar, J. (2013) Deforestation and Reforestation of Degraded Forestland in Mongolia. In: The Mongolian Ecosystem Network: Environmental issues under climate and social changes, eds. Yamamura, N., Fujita, N. and Maekawa, A. Springer Japan, 83–98. UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme (2016). Preliminary Assessment of the Drivers of Forest Change in Mongolia: A Discussion Paper for Supporting Development of Mongolia’s National REDD+ Strategy. UN‐REDD Mongolia Programme, Ulaanbaatar. UN‐REDD Programme (2011) UN‐REDD Country‐level Support to REDD+ Readiness in Mongolia. Available at: http://www.unredd.net/index.php?view=document&alias=10016‐un‐redd‐country‐ level‐support‐redd‐mongolia‐ver‐4‐21‐april‐10016&category_slug=workshop‐reports‐ 2385&layout=default&option=com_docman&Itemid=134 van der Werf, G. R., Morton, D.C., DeFries, R.S., Olivier, J.G.J., Kasibhatla, P.S., Jackson, R.B., Collatz, G.J. and Randerson, J.T. (2009) CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience, 2: 737–738. Van Soesbergen, A., Ravilious, C., Mant, R., and de Lamo, X. (2016) Using modelling to help integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into REDD+ decision making. Step‐by‐step tutorial: Evaluating the importance of forests for water provision and limiting soil erosion, a modelling approach using Water World. Prepared on behalf of the UN‐REDD Programme. UNEP‐WCMC, Cambridge. Available at: http://bit.ly/GIStools‐redd 49

Walcott, J., Thorley, J., Kapos, V., Miles, L., Woroniecki, S. and Blaney, R. (2015) Mapping multiple benefits of REDD+ in Paraguay: Using spatial information to support land‐use planning. UNEP‐ WCMC, Cambridge. Available at: http://bit.ly/mbs‐redd The World Bank (2016) International tourism, number of arrivals: Mongolia, 1995‐2014. DataBank. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?locations=MN. Accessed July 2016. Ykhanbai, H. (2010) Mongolia Forestry Outlook Study. Asia‐Pacific forestry sector outlook study II. Working Paper series. Working Paper No. APFSOS II/ WP/ 2009/ 21. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. 50

This table provides an overview of a range of relevant tools and approaches that can be used to support the development of DST for REDD+ planning. These tools were examined and ranked with regards to their suitability for use in the Mongolian REDD+ planning context, with the full information available in a Platform Stand‐alone. Web‐ based. Stand alone. Desktop‐ based Stand alone. Desktop‐ based ArcGIS MS Excel‐based ArcGIS or IDRISI (TerrSet) Tool category Valuation Modelling planning Land use X X X X X X X X X ANNEX 1: A selection of software tools useful for analysis of potential benefits from REDD+ REDD+ relevance ARIES is a system for modelling and mapping ecosystem services and so could be a useful tool for planning for multiple benefits of REDD+. The REDD Abacus SP software can be used to estimate the opportunity costs of REDD+ in a landscape and to develop abatement cost curves. Marxan enables analysis of quantitative spatial data to identify sets of planning units (or areas) that meet user‐defined targets. This is separate document (insert link). Web link http://ariesonline.org/ Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services http://worldagroforestry.or REDD Abacus Software g/regions/southeast_asia/re sources/redd‐abacus‐sp http://www.uq.edu.au/mar xan/ http://bit.ly/GIStools‐redd Exploring Multiple Benefits Mapping http://bitly/bert‐redd Benefits and Risks Tool https://clarklabs.org/produc Land Change Modeller ts/ Title (ARIES) Marxan (BeRT)

Stand alone. Desktop‐ Stand alone. Desktop‐ Stand alone or ArcGIS Stand alone. Desktop‐ Stand alone. Desktop‐ based based X ArcGIS X ArcGIS based based X X X X X X Tool developed by IUCN. It helps to bring together thinking about climate change adaptation at community level. Tool for allocating future land‐use change – requires projections of land area required for different uses as an input. Relevant to identifying areas under greatest threat from deforestation. A family of tools to map and value the goods and services from nature. A spatial decision‐support framework that helps users bring together conservation objectives with land use and resource planning. An application framework for http://www.iisd.org/cristalt ool/download.aspx http://www.ivm.vu.nl/en/O rganisation/departments/sp atial‐analysis‐decision‐ support/Clue/index.aspx (freeware) http://www.delta‐ alliance.org/toolboxovervie w/CLUEmodel http://www.naturalcapitalpr oject.org/InVEST.html http://www.natureserve.org /conservation‐ tools/natureserve‐vista http://www.spatial.redlands .edu/emds/ http://engagingplans.com/ http://cbig.it.helsinki.fi/ http:/ CRiSTAL tool – Community‐based Risk Screening Tool for Adaptation and Livelihoods CLUE (Conversion of Land Use and its Effects) model InVEST: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs NatureServe Vista Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EDMS) system Engaging Plans Zonation

QGIS and ArcGIS Stand alone. Desktop‐ based ArcGIS Stand‐alone. Web‐ based. Stand alone. Desktop‐ based Stand alone. Web‐ based X X X X X X X A river basin scale model developed to quantify the sediment, and agricultural chemical yields in large, impact of land management practices on water, complex watersheds. Web‐based tool for natural capital accounting. Typical applications include ecosystem service assessment, prioritization of areas for conservation, analysis of co‐benefits (e.g. for REDD+), and impacts of pressures and threats. SolVES 3.0 is a public‐domain tool to help evaluate the social values of ecosystem services and to facilitate discussions among diverse stakeholders regarding the tradeoffs among ecosystem servi http://swatmodel.tamu.edu http://www.policysupport.o rg/costingnature http://solves.cr.usgs.gov/ http://tessa.tools/ http://www.cifor.org/library /1747/co2fix‐v‐3‐1‐a‐model‐ for‐quantifying‐carbon‐ sequestration‐in‐forest‐ ecosystems/ http://www.policysupport.o rg/waterworld http://www.climateplanning .org/tools/waterworld SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) Model ArcSWAT and QSWAT Co$ting Nature WaterWorld SOLVES TESSA CO2FIX