Forest Landscape Restoration: Progress in the Last Decade and Remaining Challenges

Progress in 13 Priority Areas of Work for FLR Since 2005

Many restoration projects fail because they do not pay sufficient attention to the pre-existing context in terms of either the need for restoration or the reason that degradation happened in the first place (Galatowitsch 2012). Two related issues were identified as important in 2005: (i) understanding the impacts of both forest loss and restoration; and (ii) addressing underlying causes of forest loss and degradation. Since then, there has been a major change in perceptions about the importance of restoration, including restoration at large scale. To a significant extent this is due to recognition of the relevance of forests in the climate change debate. Forests have become an accepted contributor to climate change mitigation and adaptation by increasing carbon sequestration, regaining ecosystem services and recovering natural capital (Parrotta et al. 2012, Stanturf et al. 2015). Forests themselves are and will continue to be affected by climate change, and their vulnerability requires attention, which may in part be met by integrating restoration and adaptive approaches into landscape-scale management strategies (Clewell and Aronson 2013). However, although the underlying causes of deforestation are now well understood, and linked most closely with favorable economic returns from agriculture and pasture (Ferretti-Gallon and Busch 2014), less progress has been made on addressing these drivers. Forest degradation or the linked concept of forest quality, is still misunderstood and underutilized to develop FLR policies, strategies or tactics. As a result, FLR concentrates very often only on the most barren landscapes to restore.

Governance factors (which deal with decision-making) are often critical to success or failure of forest restoration. In 2005, five issues were identified as requiring further work: (i) the need for a supportive political environment; (ii) negotiation and prioritization; (iii) empowerment and engagement; (iv) implementation through multidisciplinary teams; and (v) modeling and decision-support tools. The importance of governance is increasingly accepted in the environmental field. Where there has been monitoring, lack of success in past restoration projects can be attributed in part to governance failures (e.g., Newton and Tejedor 2011, Reed et al. 2016), particularly when projects are large scale. Analyzing restoration projects in Colombia, Murcia et al. (2015) estimated that only about 2% truly involved all stakeholders, which jeopardized the success of the projects.

The results of efforts to build a supportive political environment are uneven. Significant progress has been witnessed in the discourse of governments related to forest restoration and FLR over the last decade. Policy changes can be seen in the U.S for example, with the enactment of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 on FLR and the subsequent funding released for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (Schultz et al. 2012). In Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact has mobilized over 250 stakeholders at all levels (Melo et al. 2013, Brancalion et al. 2016). On the other hand, in most countries, supportive policies are still few and far between. A rapid overview of intended national contributions (INDCs) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) frequently brings up the words “reforestation” or “afforestation” associated with tree planting on forested or non-forested lands which frequently provide limited ecological or human livelihood benefits to those living in the landscape. Incentives to engage private landowners and companies in restoration are still lacking in many cases or are simply not being effectively enforced. For example, in Paraguay, while conservation and restoration is required by law in riverine forests in the country’s Atlantic Forest, in practice, poor enforcement means that landowners frequently fail to comply with this legal requirement (Mansourian et al. 2014).

The need to negotiate trade-offs between different stake-holders, and to agree priorities at site and landscape scales are both central to the success of FLR (see chapters 8, 14, 21 or 40 in Mansourian et al. 2005). Both rely on effective governance. Yet in much of the world, poor governance favors strong stakeholders at the expense of weaker communities even though the latter are most dependent on forests, forested landscapes and the goods and services that they provide (e.g., Sunderlin et al. 2005). Amongst the most important governance issues are land tenure and use rights. These have been brought to the fore notably because of the rise of payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes and modalities under REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2014) which require clarity of tenure and rights for their effective implementation.

One important gap identified in 2005 was the lack of effective tools and approaches to facilitate effective stakeholder engagement (see chapter 18 in Mansourian et al. 2005). To date there are few good case studies in which effective engagement and empowerment can be seen in restoration, and in FLR in particular (Guariguata and Brancalion 2014). In Ghana, the Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs) provide an interesting case in which landscape stakeholders are being consulted through CREMA-led institutions in order to promote restoration on community lands (Baruah et al. 2016).

Larger areas are essential to FLR success. The idea of “landscape governance”—the social interactions and decision-making processes at a landscape level that help to solve social and ecological problems—has recently been highlighted (see e.g., Görg 2007, Colfer and Feintrenie 2011, van Oosten 2013). Inevitably, larger areas usually have numerous stakeholder groups and, therefore, an increased need for collaborative institutional arrangements and decision-making platforms to negotiate trade-offs. Where this is not happening, the risk for poor decisions and/or opposition to restoration is greater. This is particularly true for example, when restoring tree cover has implications for land ownership or rights (e.g., Bruce et al. 1993, Phelps et al. 2010).

Modeling tools can help to support decisions related to alternative objectives within landscapes (Lamb 2014), and several new tools have been developed in the last decade (e.g., IUCN and WRI 2014). Advances in geographical information systems (GIS) have enabled detailed mapping of forest cover and the overlay of different scenarios (e.g., Schulz and Schröder 2017). But given that societal choices are also involved, final decisions also usually need to involve discussions between different groups and ground-truthing. Limiting efforts to technological “fixes” may not be sufficient for effective stakeholder participation. Less complex tools, such as for example three-dimensional papier maché models can help to bring stakeholders around the table to discuss options for their landscape (e.g., Hardcastle et al. 2004).

One of the factors that most clearly distinguishes FLR from other restoration efforts is the scale at which it operates, which requires a whole array of new tools and methods. Two specific areas that were highlighted in 2005 as requiring further work in this context were: (i) setting multiple objectives for restoration in the landscape; and (ii) working at multiple scales of implementation. The landscape approach, as both an implementation and a conceptual framework to tackling integrated forest, agriculture and other land use priorities, has risen in importance during the last decade (e.g., Sayer et al. 2013). Within UNFCCC, a “Global Landscape Forum” was launched as of 2013 in recognition of the importance of integrated landscape work. Achieving acceptable outcomes for several stakeholder groups requires agreement on multiple objectives and usually a degree of trade-offs. For example, in China, where the government is promoting large-scale reforestation and afforestation, researchers found that areas where the objectives were not only to expand tree cover but also to provide incomes and food (e.g., by planting fruit trees) and to provide property rights to farmers, generally had more successful restoration outcomes (Zheng and Wang 2014). Such multiple objectives are critical within landscapes, where different stakeholder groups will have different needs, both short term and long term (Sayer et al. 2015, Sunderland et al. 2015).

Given the scale, likely complexity of ownership patterns, multiple stakeholders and many needs and wants, planning and implementing FLR projects will rely on excellent facilitation; where the term refers to all the elements that aid implementation, particularly related to finding resources and understanding what to do on a technical level. Specific issues in this respect were identified in Mansourian et al (2005) were: (i) sustainable financing; (ii) capacity building and information exchange; and (iii) research. Some progress has been made towards financing, although the size and security of available funds remains uncertain. The UN, the GEF, the World Bank and several donor governments are active in promoting the role of forests, including restoration, in addressing the climate change challenge. Funders are also putting significant money into REDD+ projects, many of which are also potentially aligned to FLR objectives (Stanturf et al. 2015). This renewed international attention on climate and forests was stressed in the Paris Declaration at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties in December 2015, which specifically mentions the role of forests. Challenges remain however, to address the risk of the displacement of degradation or deforestation to other countries, as seen in the past under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) with “leakage” to other countries (e.g., Li et al. 2017). At the same time, other sources of finance have started to emerge or reach greater prominence, including various payment for ecosystem services schemes, such as the water funds operating in several Latin American countries and now spreading further afield (Abell et al. 2017).

Ecological restoration has benefitted from significant research in the fields of forestry and ecology (e.g., Aronson et al. 2007, Chazdon 2008, Lamb 2014). However, the human dimension is far less well studied (Egan et al. 2011). Furthermore, the reduction of forest carbon stocks through land use change or forest degradation is far less well known than the direct impact of deforestation, even in Europe (Naudts et al. 2016). Also, the risk remains that countries will set aside the complexity of implementation of FLR for meeting international commitments through simple afforestation for carbon, often with exotic monoculture tree plantations.

A final priority area identified was the need to measure changes in landscapes where FLR was undertaken. Despite some attempts at developing monitoring systems for FLR, effective and practical monitoring of ecosystem structure, function and composition, as well as well-being aspects, remains lacking. Recent work by FAO has attempted to address this in drylands (Berrahmouni et al. 2015) and CIFOR also recently produced a review of participatory monitoring for forest restoration (Evans and Guariguata 2016). In practice, however, projects frequently fail to integrate adequate monitoring, generally due to lack of funds or capacity. Furthermore, monitoring the landscape should extend beyond the lifetime of short term projects, which suggests integrating such practices in either government or local institutions (or both), something which is rarely done.

An Agenda for the Future

We suggest that over the next ten years, in addition to a general emphasis on research and capacity building, a particularly strong emphasis on five key areas is needed.

First, implementation of real and effective landscape work is needed that brings together multi-disciplinary teams to achieve multiple objectives for restoration (e.g., Schultz et al. 2012). While this challenge was already identified in 2005, we see limited progress on true multidisciplinary interventions, instead finding teams of foresters, ecologists, development workers and social scientists all working largely in isolation from each other (Wortley et al. 2013, Suding et al. 2015). Funding streams from both national governments and donors tend to exacerbate these divisions, with agriculture, development or environment aid, focusing on relatively narrow objectives. Stronger guidance, with real-life examples, is needed to help project coordinators choose the optimal teams, identify the mixture of skills necessary, and have an understanding of which local and regional institutions need to be involved.

Second, governance as it relates to FLR continues to be a challenge in many countries (Mansourian 2016). The type and quality of governance at all levels affects decision making and empowerment influencing both the implementation of FLR and, importantly, its sustainability. While some progress has been made with a marked recent increase in the number of studies on this issue (e.g., van Oosten 2013, Guariguata and Brancalion 2014, Wilson and Cagalanan 2016, Mansourian 2016), better understanding of the governance environment for restoration, and of how to address specific challenges such as tenure or stakeholder participation, remains a priority. Unclear or conflicting land tenure and rights continue to hamper implementation of forest landscape restoration in much of the tropical world. Governance frameworks recently developed in the forest sector (WRI 2009, FAO and Profor 2011) provide some ideas of potential responses but these are not all specific to restoration, or to landscape-scale interventions, and further work is needed here.

Third, restoration is not just about increasing forest area, but also, importantly, about forest and landscape quality. Restoration may need to move forward in a series of stages; for example, first bringing back tree cover and essential services for communities, and later focusing more on regaining long term natural dynamics. The role of FLR in restoring degraded forest and deforested landscapes is underestimated. Degradation often occurs at the scale of the landscape and therefore responses need to be planned and implemented at more than site scale (Chazdon 2008). Reversing forest loss and degradation requires a common understanding of what key forest qualities are, at landscape level, from an ecological and social point of view (Dudley et al. 2006, Dudley 2012).

Competing land use is a reality in much of the tropics (Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011). FLR can provide a means of improving overall landscape planning for both human and ecological benefits, thereby minimizing competition with other land uses (Latawiec et al. 2015). The recent debate over land sparing (whereby some areas are intensely managed and others kept for biodiversity conservation), and land sharing (where less intensive land use is promoted and combined across the landscape—also framed as sustainable intensification), as a means of reducing the impact of agriculture on forests and biodiversity (e.g., Phalan et al. 2016, Phalan et al. 2011, Chandler et al. 2013, Latawiec et al. 2015) could provide new opportunities for the role of FLR. In a context of land sparing, FLR can provide opportunities for buffer zones, linkages and improvements in degraded areas. Equally, land sharing is an option that could contribute to reducing fragmentation in the landscape for forest species and support the overall landscape mosaic (e.g., by encouraging forms of agroforestry that also enhance ecological benefits, such as restoring hedgerow networks to reconnect remaining forest patches in the landscape).

Fourth, FLR is also an effective response to climate change because it increases carbon sequestration and provides other ecosystem services (Parrotta et al. 2012, Stanturf et al. 2015), as long as restoration maximizes resilience of the restored forest itself (Seppälä et al. 2009). Recognition of the importance of this role has grown rapidly since 2005; our book had only one chapter on climate change, whereas it has become absolutely central to the debate on restoration in the years since. For example, large-scale restoration projects of thicket in the South African Cape Floristic Region have been restoring 2000 hectares a year, with a sequestration rate of 80 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare (Mills et al. 2015). Forest landscape restoration has an important role to play in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, as long as clear and multiple objectives are set, and all key stakeholders are engaged in a fair way. To date many of the promised climate funds for restoration have failed to materialize; ensuring that restoration remains in the mainstream of climate change responses needs to be an important priority.

Fifth, measuring progress is necessary to learn from practice and to feed back into implementation (Reed et al. 2016, Mansourian et al. 2017). This is all the more relevant when multiple objectives are sought within a landscape. Further research is needed to identify practical ways of measuring progress, wherever possible, using methods simple enough to be understood and implemented by a wide range of stakeholders. Long-term monitoring is required for FLR, which is itself a long-term process. Restoration plans should ensure that they include a monitoring system that can be realistically implemented and the results of which can be used in adaptive management (McDonald et al. 2016).

Conclusion

The long-term nature of FLR, and restoration in general, is a particular challenge given its reliance on political decisions, funding streams, and implementing organizations, all of which tend to have short planning and funding cycles. Embedding FLR in local practices and truly engaging local stakeholders is a means to secure some continuity.

Forest landscape restoration is a bold idea, consciously integrating many disciplines and different perspectives and thus acknowledging the need for trade-offs between competing needs and wants. While the term has been widely accepted and has gained some political momentum, development of the concept by building on solid field experience probably requires several decades. Our assessment shows that some challenges already identified as priorities in 2005 remain. Today, given the significant advances in both development and uptake of FLR, we hope this reappraisal of 2005 challenges will help restorationists to prioritize future interventions.