Restoration as a strategy to contribute to ecoregion visions

Forest Restoration in Landscapes

WWF’s Forests for Life Programme

WWF’s vision for the forests of the world, shared with its long-standing partner, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), is that“the world will have more extensive, more diverse and higher-quality forest landscapes which will meet human needs and aspi-rations fairly, while conserving biological diversity and fulfilling theecosystem functions necessary for all life on Earth.”

WWF’s approach to forest conservation has evolved over timeinto a global programme of integrated field and policy activitiesaimed at the protection, responsible management, and restorationof forests, whilst at the same time working to address the keythreats which could potentially undermine these efforts. Those ofparticular concern to WWF are illegal logging and forest crime,conversion of forests to plantation crops of palm oil and soy, forestfires, and climate change.

The Forests for Life Programme consists of a global network ofmore than 250 staff working on over 300 projects in nearly 90 coun-tries. Regional forest officers coordinate efforts in each of the fiveregions, supported by a core team based at WWF International inSwitzerland. The programme also draws on the complementaryskills and support of partners to help achieve its goals.

WWF and Restoring Forests and TheirFunctions in Landscapes

WWF has adopted a target for forest restoration: “By 2020, restoreforest goods, services, and processes in 20 landscapes of outstand-ing importance within priority ecoregions to regain ecologicalintegrity and enhance human well-being,” which is issued as a challenge to the world.

As its contribution toward the target, WWF is actively develop-ing a portfolio of forest landscape restoration programmes, andalso working with governments, international organisations, indige-nous peoples, and other communities to pursue its work on forestrestoration within a landscape context, by doing the following:

• Initiating and facilitating projects/programmes within landscapesof high restoration priority in WWF Global 200 Ecoregions

• Assisting others, and building local capacity to plan and imple-ment forest restoration interventions

• Developing suitable monitoring tools and techniques to measureprogress

• Documenting, exchanging and disseminating lessons learnt andexperiences

For more information please see the Web site: http://www.panda.org/forests/restoration/.

Stephanie MansourianDaniel VallauriNigel Dudley

Forest Restoration inLandscapes

Beyond Planting Trees

With 28 Illustrations

Stephanie Mansourian Daniel VallauriConsultant WWF FranceWWF International 6 Rue des FabresAvenue Mont Blanc 13001 MarseilleGland 1196 FranceSwitzerland

Nigel DudleyConsultantEquilibrium47 The QuaysCumberland RoadBS1 6UQUnited Kingdom

© 1986 Panda symbol WWF

® WWF is a WWF Registered Trademark

Cover Illustrations: Photo Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani), tree seedling. PhotoCredit: © WWF-Canon/Michael Gunther. Background photo: Mt. Rinjani, Lombok,Indonesia, © Agri Klintuni Boedhihartono.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2005927862

ISBN 0-387-25525-7 Printed on acid-free paper.ISBN-13: 978-0387-255855

© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.Cite as Mansourian, S.,Vallauri, D., Dudley, N., eds. (in cooperation with WWF Inter-national) 2005. Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond Planting Trees, Springer,New York.All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in partwithout the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media,Inc., 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in con-nection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of infor-mation storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similaror dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similarterms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression ofopinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights.

Printed in the United States of America. (BS/SBA)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 SPIN 11377405

springeronline.com

Is it a sign of the times that last year the Nobel committee choseto award the Nobel Peace prize to Wangari Maathai for havingplanted 30 million trees? We believe so. We think that while in the20th century conservation made significant progress on setting upa global protected area network, the 21st century will be a time offorest restoration.The fact that Wangari Maathai is the first Africanwoman to receive such an honourable distinction is in itself a majoraccomplishment.What is even more remarkable is that, for the firsttime, this highly esteemed prize, which has long been associatedwith political feats, was given for an environmental achievement.And not just any environmental achievement, but forest restora-tion. It is a comfort to see that it is not just us at WWF, the globalconservation organisation, who believe forest restoration to be ofglobal significance, but that the Nobel committee is in agreement.The committee members are not the only ones, I should add. In2003 WWF, IUCN, (the World Conservation Union), and the United Kingdom Forestry Commission launched a global partner-ship on forest landscape restoration to raise awareness about theimportance of the restoration of forests and to invite all decisionmakers and influential organisations to join in a movement torestore forests. Today this partnership includes governments asdiverse as Switzerland, Finland, El Salvador, and Italy, and inter-national organisations such as the United Nations Food and Agri-culture Organisation (FAO), the Centre for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR), the International Tropical Timber Organisa-tion (ITTO), and it continues to grow.

Too much damage has already been done for us to afford toignore our dwindling forest resources. If we wait until tomorrow torestore forests, it will be too late. If too little is left, it will takelonger, will be more difficult, and will cost much more to beginrestoring a healthy forest—and it may also be too late.

At WWF we are aware of this urgency, and with this book weinvite practitioners, researchers, and decision makers to join us indoing something practical about our forests. As the Nobel com-mittee has noted, too many wars are fought over dwindlingresources. If we do not do something about it, this may well be thenew security scourge jeopardising our future and that of our children.

Chief Emeka AnyaokuPresident, WWF International

Foreword

v

For WWF, the global conservation organisation, achieving lastingforest conservation requires working on a large scale and integrat-ing global strategies and policies to protect, manage, and restoreforests.

In an ideal world, restoration would not be necessary; however,today many forest habitats are already so damaged that their long-term survival, and the ecological services they provide, are in doubtand we urgently need to consider restoration if we are to achieveconservation and sustain the livelihoods of people dependent onnature.

Forest conservation strategies that rely solely on protected areasand sustainable management have proved insufficient either tosecure biodiversity or to stabilise the environment. The UnitedNations Environment Programme now classifies a large proportionof the world’s land surface as “degraded,” and this degradation iscreating a wide range of ecological, social, and economic problems.Forest loss and degradation is a particularly important element inthis worldwide problem with annual global estimates of forest lossbeing as high as 16 million hectares, and those for degradation evenhigher. Reversing this damage is one of the largest and mostcomplex challenges of the 21st century.

An analysis of the WWF Global 200 ecoregions—those areas ofgreatest importance for biodiversity on a global scale—demon-strates the problems. For example, over 20 percent of forest ecore-gions have already lost at least 85 percent of their forests: sometimesonly 1 to 2 percent remains. Deforestation is a key threat to waterquality in 59 percent of freshwater ecoregions. Many of the charis-matic species that are flagships for conservation (African elephant,Asian elephant, great apes, rhinoceros, giant panda, and tiger) arethreatened by forest loss, fragmentation, and degradation.

Forest loss is not only of concern to conservationists. Accordingto the World Bank about 1 billion people in the developing worlddepend either directly or indirectly on goods and services from theforests, and these provide an essential safety net to many of theworld’s poorest people.

Preface

vii

WWF’s mission is to stop degradation on our planet and toachieve a world where humans and nature live in harmonytogether. Decades of overexploitation have brought us to a worldcharacterised by imbalance: imbalance between rich and poor,imbalance between supply of natural resources and demand fornatural resources, imbalance between biodiversity needs andhuman needs.WWF’s approach to forest restoration, in the contextof ecoregion conservation, seeks to redress these imbalances inorder to restore healthy landscapes that are able to benefit bothbiodiversity and people.

This book harnesses the expertise of over 70 authors drawing ona wealth of practical experience and a wide range of expertise. Itis practical, hands on, and illustrated with numerous examples fromacross the world. The aim is to synthesise in an easily accessibleformat the knowledge and expertise that exists and also to high-light areas that need further work.We are hoping to encourage fieldstaff—ours and those of other organisations interested in conser-vation and development—who are out there dealing with theimpacts of forest loss and degradation, to apply landscape-scaleforest restoration as an approach to help them meet their conser-vation goals and our conservation goals.

Dr. Chris HailsProgramme Director, WWF International

viii Preface

This book has been designed to help readers understand how forestrestoration can be integrated with other aspects of conservationand development in landscapes. Parts A, B, and C introduce the ele-ments for planning and implementing restoration on a broad scale,including a range of social, political, and economic considerationsthat will influence and that will be influenced by any large-scalerestoration effort. Part D focusses on more specific issues, includ-ing restoration in different forest habitats and for different reasons.

While we believe that successful restoration generally needs tobe planned on a large scale, it will probably be implemented in oneor more sites within a landscape, and the book similarly starts withvery broad-scale considerations and then focusses increasingly onactions that can be taken at the site. Parts A, B, and C thus providewhat could be seen as the foundations, and part D provides somemuch more specific tools and considerations that are applicable indifferent situations. We recommend that you read the relevantchapters in part D once you have read all of parts A, B, and C.

The final part (part E) discusses some of the lessons learned todate from practical experiences and recommendations for futurework related to forest restoration on a large scale.

Each chapter starts with an introduction to the issue, illustratingit with a series of brief thumbnail examples, showing, where appro-priate, both good and bad practice. Some useful tools are then listedfollowed by a brief description of future work required and finallyand importantly a set of references. We cover a vast subject hereand each chapter is as a result kept deliberately short, we can onlyintroduce many of the techniques described but have provideddetailed sources for those who wish to follow up specific issues ingreater detail.

The book includes contributions from a large number of authors.Although we have all been writing within the framework of forestlandscape restoration, there are inevitably different nuances in howthis should be interpreted and applied. What follows is a set ofexperienced opinions rather than a rigid blueprint. We will in turnvery much appreciate hearing feedback, criticism, and experiencefrom users.

Note from the Editors

ix

The editors would like to thank Mark Aldrich, James Aronson,Chris Elliott, Chris Hails, and Pedro Regato for their emphatic andvery welcome support throughout the conception and productionof this book. On behalf of WWF International we would also liketo thank the 70 authors who donated their expertise, for nopayment and under what must have often been a frustratingly tighttimetable, to help produce such a comprehensive review of thisrapidly emerging field.

The following people have kindly reviewed different sectionsand chapters and provided us with valuable feedback: Chris Elliott(WWF International), Louise Holloway, Jack Hurd (the NatureConservancy), Val Kapos (U.N. Environment Programme–WorldConservation Monitoring Centre), John Parrotta (U.S. ForestService), Duncan Pollard (WWF International), Fulai Sheng (Con-servation International), P.J. Stephenson (WWF International), andColin Tingle (NR Group).

A special thank you is due to Tom McShane for taking the timeto read and comment on the whole manuscript.

Nelda Geninazzi played an essential role in helping to organisethe various editorial meetings, and Katrin Schikorr deserves specialmention for helping the editors with references.

The authors would like to specifically thank the following peoplefor contributing in some form or another to their respective chapters: José María Rey Benayas, André Rocha Ferretti, KarenHoll, Ramdan Lahouati, N. Lassettre, Stewart Maginnis, HalMooney, Guy Preston, Mohamed Raggabi, Peter Schei, and KristinSvavarsdottir.

The authors would also like to thank the following agenciesand/or institutions for support in projects that have made it possi-ble for them to write their respective chapters: European Life Envi-ronment programme “Water and Forest,” French ResearchMinistry, French National Forest Office (ONF) and Water Agency(Agence RMC), the European Commission (EC) (for the projectBiodiversity Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use inFragmented Forest Landscapes (BIOCORES), the Long-Term

Acknowledgements

xi

Ecological Research programme in Puerto Rico, funded by theNational Science Foundation, the government of Japan (for theCIFOR/ Japan Research project on lessons from past rehabilita-tion experiences), and the Generalitat Valenciana and FundaciónBancaja. The authors from CIFOR would like specifically to thankthe various research and support staff, as well as workshop and casestudy participants from the different countries for their invaluablecontributions to the project “Review of Forest Rehabilitation Ini-tiatives: Lessons from the Past”, which formed the basis for theirchapter in this book.

Finally, WWF would like to thank Lafarge for supporting thedevelopment of its forest landscape restoration programme.

The book represents a collection of individual essays and are theopinions of the authors and should not be seen as representingopinions from their respective employers or organisations. Need-less to say, despite the enormous help we have received in puttingthis book together, any remaining errors of fact or opinion remainthe responsibility of the editors.

xii Acknowledgements

Foreword by Chief Emeka Anyaoku, President, WWF International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Preface by Chris Hails, Programme Director, WWF International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Note from the Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

Contributors’ List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

Part A Toward a Wider Perspective in ForestRestoration

Section I Introducing Forest Landscape Restoration

Chapter 1Forest Landscape Restoration in Context

Nigel Dudley, Stephanie Mansourian, and Daniel Vallauri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2Overview of Forest Restoration Strategies and Terms

Stephanie Mansourian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Section II The Challenging Context Of Forest Restoration Today

Chapter 3Impact of Forest Loss and Degradation on Biodiversity

Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 4The Impacts of Degradation and Forest Loss on Human Well-Being and Its Social and Political Relevance for Restoration

Mary Hobley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table of Contents

xiii

xiv Table of Contents

Chapter 5Restoring Forest Landscapes in the Face of Climate Change

Jennifer Biringer and Lara J. Hansen . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Section III Forest Restoration in Modern Broad-Scale Conservation

Chapter 6Restoration as a Strategy to Contribute to Ecoregion Visions

John Morrison, Jeffrey Sayer, and Colby Loucks . . . . . 41

Chapter 7Why Do We Need to Consider Restoration in a Landscape Context?

Nigel Dudley, John Morrison, James Aronson, and Stephanie Mansourian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Chapter 8Addressing Trade-Offs in Forest Landscape Restoration

Katrina Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Part B Key Preparatory Steps Toward RestoringForests Within a Landscape Context

Section IV Overview of the Planning Process

Chapter 9An Attempt to Develop a Framework for Restoration Planning

Daniel Vallauri, James Aronson, and Nigel Dudley . . . . 65

Section V Identifying and Addressing Challenges/Constraints

Chapter 10Assessing and Addressing Threats in Restoration Programmes

Doreen Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter 11Perverse Policy Incentives

Kirsten Schuyt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Chapter 12Land Ownership and Forest Restoration

Gonzalo Oviedo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Table of Contents xv

Chapter 13Challenges for Forest Landscape Restoration Based on WWF’s Experience to Date

Stephanie Mansourian and Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . 94

Section VI A Suite of Planning Tools

Chapter 14Goals and Targets of Forest Landscape Restoration

Jeffrey Sayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Chapter 15Identifying and Using Reference Landscapes for Restoration

Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Chapter 16Mapping and Modelling as Tools to Set Targets, Identify Opportunities, and Measure Progress

Thomas F. Allnutt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Chapter 17Policy Interventions for Forest Landscape Restoration

Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Chapter 18Negotiations and Conflict Management

Scott Jones and Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Chapter 19Practical Interventions that Will Support Restoration in Broad-Scale Conservation Based on WWF Experiences

Stephanie Mansourian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Section VII Monitoring and Evaluation

Chapter 20Monitoring Forest Restoration Projects in the Context of an Adaptive Management Cycle

Sheila O’Connor, Nick Salafsky, and Dan Salzer . . . . . 145

Chapter 21Monitoring and Evaluating Forest Restoration Success

Daniel Vallauri, James Aronson, Nigel Dudley, and Ramon Vallejo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

xvi Table of Contents

Section VIII Financing and Promoting Forest Landscape Restoration

Chapter 22Opportunities for Long-Term Financing of Forest Restoration in Landscapes

Kirsten Schuyt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Chapter 23Payment for Environmental Services and Restoration

Kirsten Schuyt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Chapter 24Carbon Knowledge Projects and Forest Landscape Restoration

Jessica Orrego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Chapter 25Marketing and Communications Opportunities: How to Promote and Market Forest Landscape Restoration

Soh Koon Chng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Part C Implementing Forest Restoration

Section IX Restoring Ecological Functions

Chapter 26Restoring Quality in Existing Native Forest Landscapes

Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Chapter 27Restoring Soil and Ecosystem Processes

Lawrence R. Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Chapter 28Active Restoration of Boreal Forest Habitats for Target Species

Harri Karjalainen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Chapter 29Restoration of Deadwood as a Critical Microhabitat in Forest Landscapes

Nigel Dudley and Daniel Vallauri . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Chapter 30Restoration of Protected Area Values

Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Table of Contents xvii

Section X Restoring Socioeconomic Values

Chapter 31Using Nontimber Forest Products for Restoring Environmental, Social, and Economic Functions

Pedro Regato and Nora Berrahmouni . . . . . . . . . . . 215

Chapter 32An Historical Account of Fuelwood Restoration Efforts

Don Gilmour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Chapter 33Restoring Water Quality and Quantity

Nigel Dudley and Sue Stolton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Chapter 34Restoring Landscapes for Traditional Cultural Values

Gladwin Joseph and Stephanie Mansourian . . . . . . . 233

Section XI A Selection of Tools that Return Trees to the Landscape

Chapter 35Overview of Technical Approaches to Restoring Tree Cover at the Site Level

Stephanie Mansourian, David Lamb, and Don Gilmour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Chapter 36Stimulating Natural Regeneration

Silvia Holz and Guillermo Placci . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Chapter 37Managing and Directing Natural Succession

Steve Whisenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

Chapter 38Selecting Tree Species for Plantation

Florencia Montagnini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

Chapter 39Developing Firebreaks

Eduard Plana, Rufí Cerdan, and Marc Castellnou . . . . 269

Chapter 40Agroforestry as a Tool for Forest Landscape Restoration

Thomas K. Erdmann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

xviii Table of Contents

Part D Addressing Specific Aspects of ForestRestoration

Section XII Restoration of Different Forest Types

Chapter 41Restoring Dry Tropical Forests

James Aronson, Daniel Vallauri, Tanguy Jaffré, and Porter P. Lowry II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

Chapter 42Restoring Tropical Moist Broad-Leaf Forests

David Lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Chapter 43Restoring Tropical Montane Forests

Manuel R. Guariguata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Chapter 44Restoring Floodplain Forests

Simon Dufour and Hervé Piégay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Chapter 45Restoring Mediterranean Forests

Ramon Vallejo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Chapter 46Restoring Temperate Forests

Adrian Newton and Alan Watson Featherstone . . . . . . 320

Section XIII Restoring After Disturbances

Chapter 47Forest Landscape Restoration After Fires

Peter Moore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Chapter 48Restoring Forests After Violent Storms

Daniel Vallauri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Chapter 49Managing the Risk of Invasive Alien Species in Restoration

Jeffrey A. McNeely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

Chapter 50First Steps in Erosion Control

Steve Whisenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

Chapter 51Restoring Forests After Land Abandonment

José M. Rey Benayas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356

Chapter 52Restoring Overlogged Tropical Forests

Cesar Sabogal and Robert Nasi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

Chapter 53Opencast Mining Reclamation

José Manuel Nicolau Ibarra andMariano Moreno de las Heras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370

Section XIV Plantations in the Landscape

Chapter 54The Role of Commercial Plantations in Forest LandscapeRestoration

Jeffrey Sayer and Chris Elliot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379

Chapter 55Attempting to Restore Biodiversity in Even-Aged Plantations

Florencia Montagnini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384

Chapter 56Best Practices for Industrial Plantations

Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392

Part E Lessons Learned and the Way Forward

Chapter 57What Has WWF Learned About Restoration at an Ecoregional Scale?

Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

Chapter 58Local Participation, Livelihood Needs, and Institutional Arrangements: Three Keys to Sustainable Rehabilitation of Degraded Tropical Forest Lands

Unna Chokkalingam, Cesar Sabogal, Everaldo Almeida,Antonio P. Carandang, Tini Gumartini, Wil de Jong,Silvio Brienza, Jr., Abel Meza Lopez, Murniati,Ani Adiwinata Nawir, Lukas Rumboko, Takeshi Toma,Eva Wollenberg, and Zhou Zaizhi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

Table of Contents xix

xx Table of Contents

Chapter 59A Way Forward: Working Together Toward a Vision for Restored Forest Landscapes

Stephanie Mansourian, Mark Aldrich, and Nigel Dudley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

AppendixA Selection of Identified Ecological Research Needs Relating to Forest Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

ACG—Area Conservación GuanacasteCAP—common agriculture policyCATIE—Centro Agronómico Tropical de

Investigación y Ensen̄anzaCBD—Convention on Biological DiversityCBFM—community-based forest managementCDM—clean development mechanismCEAM—Centro de Estudios Ambientales

Mediterráneos (Mediterranean Centre forEnvironmental Studies)

CIFOR—Centre for International ForestryResearch

DFID—U.K. Department for InternationalDevelopment

DG—Directorate GeneralEC—European CommissionECCM—Edinburgh Centre for Carbon

ManagementERC—ecoregion conservationEU—European UnionFAO—United Nations Food and Agriculture

OrganisationFLO—Fair-Trade Labelling OrganisationFLR—forest landscape restorationFSC—Forest Stewardship CouncilFONAFIFO—Fondo Nacional de Finan-

ciamiento Forestal (National Fund forFinancing Forestry)

GEF—global environment facilityGIS—geographical information systemGTZ—Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit (German Company forInternational Technical Cooperation)

HCVF—high conservation value forestIAS—invasive alien speciesICDP—Integrated Conservation and Devel-

opment ProgrammeIFOAM—The International Federation of

Organic Agriculture MovementsIMF—International Monetary FundIPF—Intergovernmental Panel on ForestsITTO—International Tropical Timber

Organisation

xxi

Acronyms

IUCN—The World Conservation UnionIISD—International Institute for Sustainable

DevelopmentIIED—International Institute for

Environment and DevelopmentLULUCF—Land Use, Land-Use Change, and

ForestryMOSAIC—Management of Strategic Areas

for Integrated ConservationNTFP—nontimber forest productsNGO—Nongovernmental organisationODA—Overseas Development AssistancePES—payment for environmental servicesPRA—participatory rural appraisalPVA—population viability analysisRIL—reduced-impact loggingRRA—rapid rural appraisalREACTION—Restoration Actions to

Combat Desertification in the NorthernMediterranean

SAPARD—Special Action for Pre-AccessionMeasures for Agriculture and Rural Development

SERI—Society for Ecological RestorationInternational

SDC—Swiss Agency for Development andCooperation

SEI—Stockholm Environment InstituteSLU—Swedish University of Agricultural

SciencesTDF—tropical dry forestsTNC—The Nature ConservancyUNCCD—United Nations Convention to

Combat DesertificationUNFCCC—United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate ChangeUSAID—U.S. Agency for International

DevelopmentWWF—Worldwide Fund for Nature (also

known as World Wildlife Fund in NorthAmerica)

Mark AldrichManager, Forest Landscape RestorationForests for Life ProgrammeWWF InternationalAv. Mont Blanc1196 Gland, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Thomas F. AlnuttSenior Conservation SpecialistConservation Science ProgrammeWorld Wildlife Fund–US, Suite 200Washington, DC 20037E-mail: [email protected]

Everaldo AlmeidaCIFOR Regional Office for Latin Americac/o EMBRAPA Amazônia OrientalTrav. Dr. Enéas Pinheiro s/nCEP 66.010-080 Belém—Pará, BrazilE-mail: [email protected]

James AronsonRestoration Ecology GroupCEFE (CNRS-U.M.R. 5175)1919, Route de MendeF-34293 Montpellier, FranceE-mail: [email protected]

Martin AshbySion ChapelLlanwrinPowysSY20 8QHWales, United KingdomE-mail: martin.ashby@Martin-Ashby.

demon.co.uk

Contributors’ List

xxiii

Eduard PlanaHead of Forest Fire Working GroupForest Technology Centre of CataloniaArea de Política ForestalPujada del Seminari s/nSolsona 25280, SpainE-mail: [email protected]

Nora Berrahmouni Corkland ProgrammeCoordinator

WWF Mediterranean Programme OfficeVia Po 25/C00198 Rome, ItalyE-mail: [email protected]

Jennifer BiringerWorld Wildlife Fund–US, Suite 200Washington, DC 20037E-mail: [email protected]

Silvio Brienza, Jr.Embrapa Amazônia Oriental,Trav. Dr. Enéas Pinheiro s/n 66095-100Belém—Pará, BrazilE-mail: [email protected]

Katrina BrownProfessor of Development StudiesSchool of Development StudiesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichNR4 7TJ, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

xxiv Contributors’ List

Antonio P. CarandangForestry ConsultantMain StreetMarymount Village, AnosLos Banos,Laguna 4030, PhilippinesE-mail: [email protected]

Marc CastellnouForestry EngineerGRAF-Fire ServiceGovernment of CataloniaCtra. Universitat Autònoma, s/n08290 Cerdanyola del Vallès (Vallès

Occidental)SpainE-mail: [email protected]

Rufi CerdanDr. in GeographyAutonomous University of BarcelonaCampus de la UAB, Edifici B08193 BellaterraSpainE-mail: [email protected]

Soh Koon ChngCommunications ManagerWWF InternationalAv. Mont Blanc1196 Gland, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Unna ChokkalingamScientistEnvironmental Services and Sustainable Use

of Forests ProgrammeCentre for International Forestry Research

(CIFOR)P.O. Box 6596 JKPWBJakarta 10065, IndonesiaE-mail: [email protected]

Nigel DudleyConsultantEquilibrium47 The QuaysCumberland RoadBristolBS1 6UQ, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

Simon DufourPhD studentCNRS UMR 560018 rue Chevreul69362 Lyon Cedex 07, FranceE-mail: [email protected]

Chris ElliottDirector, Forest ProgrammeWWF InternationalAv. Mont Blanc1196 Gland, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Thomas K. ErdmannRegional CoordinatorERI Madagascar Projectc/o Development Alternatives, Inc.7250 Woodmont Ave.Suite 200Bethesda, MD 20814E-mail: [email protected]

Alan Watson FeatherstoneTrees for LifeThe ParkFindhorn BayForres IV36 3TZScotland, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

Don GilmourEnvironmental Consultant42 Mindarie Cres Wellington Point4160 Queensland, AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

Manuel GuariguataEnvironmental Affairs OfficerUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeSecretariat of the Convention on Biological

Diversity413 St. Jacques, Suite 800Montreal, Quebec, CanadaE-mail: [email protected]

Tini GumartiniEnvironmental Services and Sustainable Use



Contributors’ List xxv

Lara J. HansenChief Scientist for Climate ChangeWWF1250 24th Street NWWashington, DC 20016E-mail: [email protected]

Mary HobleyConsultantGlebe HouseChard StreetThorncombeChard TA20 4NE, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

Marja HokkanenMetsähallitusNatural Heritage ServicesP.O Box 9401301 Vantaa, FinlandE-mail: [email protected]

Silvia HolzPh.D. candidate,National University of Buenos AiresDepartamento de Ecología, Genética y

Evolución(4to Piso, Pabellón II).Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y NaturalesGüiraldes 2620. Ciudad UniversitariaCP: 1428, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, ArgentinaE-mail: [email protected]

José Manuel Nicolau IbarraProfesor Titular de EcologíaDepartamento de EcologíaUniversidad de Alcalá28871 Alcalá de HenaresMadrid, SpainE-mail: [email protected]

Tanguy JaffréDirecteur de Recherche de l’IRDLaboratoire de Botanique et d’Ecologie

VégétaleCentre IRDBP A5F-98848 Noumea CedexNouvelle-Calédonie, FranceE-mail: [email protected]

Wil de JongProfessorJapan Centre for Area Studies, National

Museum of Ethnology10-1 Senri Expo Park, SuitaOsaka 565-8511, JapanE-mail: [email protected]

Scott JonesForests for People GroupCentre for International Development and

TrainingUniversity of WolverhamptonTelford CampusTF2 9NT, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

Gladwin JosephDirector and FellowAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the

EnvironmentHebbalBangalore 560024, IndiaE-mail: [email protected]

Harri KarjalainenHead, Forest ProgrammeWWF FinlandLintulahdenkatu 1000500 Helsinki, FinlandE-mail: [email protected]

David LambSchool of Integrated BiologyUniversity of QueenslandBrisbane, 4072, AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

Abel Meza LopezCentre for International Forestry Research

(CIFOR)Apdo. 558, Carretera Fdco. Basadre km 4,200Pucallpa, PeruE-mail: [email protected];

[email protected]

Colby LoucksConservation Science ProgrammeWorld Wildlife Fund–U.S., Suite 200Washington, DC 20037E-mail: [email protected]

xxvi Contributors’ List

Porter P. Lowry IICurator and Head, Africa and Madagascar

DepartmentMissouri Botanical GardenP.O. Box 299St. Louis, Missouri 63166-0299,andDépartement Systématique et Evolution,

Muséum National d’Histoire NaturelleC.P. 3957 rue Cuvier75231 Paris CEDEX 05, FranceE-mail: [email protected]

Stephanie MansourianConsultant—WWF International10 rte de Burtigny1268 Begnins, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Jeffrey A. McNeelyChief ScientistIUCN—The World Conservation UnionRue Mauverney, 281196 Gland, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Florencia MontagniniProfessor in the Practice of Tropical ForestryYale UniversitySchool of Forestry and Environmental Studies370 Prospect St.New Haven, CT 06511E-mail: [email protected]

Peter MooreFire Management and Policy SpecialistMetis Associates—Strategic AnalystsP.O. Box 1772Bowral NSW 2576, AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

Mariano Moreno de las HerasPhD StudentDepartamento de EcologíaEdificio de CienciasUniversidad de Alcalá28871 Alcalá de HenaresMadrid, SpainE-mail: [email protected].

John MorrisonDeputy DirectorConservation Science ProgrammeWorld Wildlife Fund–U.S., Suite 200Washington, DC 20037E-mail: [email protected]

MurniatiForestry Research and Development Agency

(FORDA)Jalan Gunung Batu No. 5Bogor, IndonesiaE-mail: [email protected]

Robert NasiPrincipal ScientistProgramme on Environmental Services and

Sustainable Use of ForestsCentre for International Forestry Research—

CIRADCampus International de Baillarguet TA 10/D34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, FranceE-mail: [email protected]

Ani Adiwinata NawirScientistForests and Livelihoods ProgrammeCentre for International Forestry Research


Adrian NewtonSenior LecturerSchool of Conservation SciencesBournemouth UniversityTalbot CampusFern BarrowPooleDorset BH12 5BB, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

Nguyen Thi DaoAnnamites Ecoregion Conservation Manager,

VietnamWWF Indochina Programme40 Cat LinhBa Dinh DistrictHanoi, VietnamE-mail: [email protected]

Contributors’ List xxvii

Sheila O’ConnorDirector, Conservation Measures and AuditsWWF International39 Stoke Gabriel Rd.Galmpton nr BrixhamDevon TQ5 0NQ, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

Jessica OrregoForestry Project ManagerEdinburgh Centre for Carbon ManagementTower Mains Studios18F Liberton BraeEdinburgh, EH16 6AE, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

Gonzalo OviedoSenior Advisor, Social PolicyIUCN–The World Conservation Union28 Rue Mauverney1196 Gland, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Jussi PäivinenMetsähallitus, Natural Heritage ServicesP.O. Box 3640101 Jyväskylä, FinlandE-mail: [email protected]

Hervé PiégayResearcherCNRS UMR 560018 rue Chevreul69362 Lyon Cedex 07, FranceE-mail: [email protected]

Guillermo PlacciConsultantConstitución 2375800—Río Cuarto, Cba, ArgentinaE-mail: [email protected]

Gérard RambeloarisoaForest Programme OfficerWWF MadagascarWWF Madagascar and West Indian Ocean

Programme OfficeB.P. 738Antananarivo 101, MadagascarE-mail: [email protected]

Pedro RegatoHead, Forest ProgrammeWWF Mediterranean Programme OfficeVia Po 25/C00198 Rome, ItalyE-mail: [email protected]

José M. Rey BenayasDpto. de EcologíaEdificio de CienciasUniversidad de Alcalá28871 Alcalá de Henares, SpainE-mail: [email protected]

Doreen RobinsonBiodiversity and Natural Resources SpecialistUSAID1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NWRonald Reagan Building 3.08Washington, DC 20523-3800E-mail: [email protected]

Triagung RooswiadjiProgramme ManagerWWF Indonesia’s Nusa Tenggara ProgrammeJl. DODIKLAT No. 2Kelurahan OebubuKupang, NTT 8500, IndonesiaE-mail: [email protected]

Lukas Rumboko WibowoForestry Research and Development Agency

(FORDA)Jalan Gunung Batu No. 5Bogor, IndonesiaE-mail: [email protected]

Cesar SabogalSenior Scientist, Tropical Silviculture and

Forest ManagementCIFOR Regional Office for Latin Americac/o EMBRAPA Amazônia OrientalTrav. Dr. Enéas Pinheiro s/n,CEP 66.010-080 BelémPará, BrazilE-mail: [email protected]

Nick SalafskyCo-DirectorFoundations of Success4109 Maryland Ave.Bethesda, MD 20816E-mail: [email protected]

xxviii Contributors’ List

Daniel W. SalzerConservation Measures ManagerThe Nature ConservancyConservation Measures Group821 SE 14th Ave.Portland, OR 97214E-mail: [email protected]

Jeffrey SayerSenior AdvisorWWF InternationalAv. Mont Blanc1196 Gland, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Kirsten SchuytResource EconomistWWF InternationalAv. Mont Blanc1196 Gland, SwitzerlandE-mail: [email protected]

Sue StoltonConsultantEquilibrium47 The Quays, Cumberland RoadBristolBS1 6UQ, United KingdomE-mail: [email protected]

Takeshi TomaSenior ScientistEnvironmental Services and Sustainable Use


(CIFOR)P.O. Box 6596 JKPWB,Jakarta 10065, IndonesiaE-mail: [email protected] address:Associate Research CoordinatorResearch Planning and Coordination Division,

Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute (FFPRI)

1 Matsunosato, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8687,Japan

E-mail: [email protected]

Daniel VallauriWWF France6 Rue des Fabres13001 Marseille, FranceE-mail: [email protected]

Ramon VallejoCEAM,Parque Tecnológico,Ch. Darwin 14E-46980 Paterna, SpainE-mail: [email protected]

Lawrence R. WalkerProfessor of BiologyDepartment of Biological SciencesUniversity of Nevada, Las VegasBox 4540044505 Maryland ParkwayLas Vegas, NV 89154-4004E-mail: [email protected]

Steve WhisenantProfessor and Department HeadDepartment of Rangeland Ecology and Man-

agement2126-TAMUTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843-2126E-mail: [email protected]

Eva WollenbergSenior ScientistForests and Governance ProgrammeCentre for International Forestry Research


Zhou ZaizhiResearch Institute of Tropical ForestryChinese Academy of ForestryLongdong, Guangzhou 510520, ChinaE-mail: [email protected]

Part AToward a Wider Perspective in

Forest Restoration

Section IIntroducing Forest Landscape

Restoration

1. Background and Explanation of the Issue

People have been actively using forests sincelong before the beginning of history. The oldestknown written story, the Epic of Gilgameshrecorded on 12 cuneiform tablets in Assyria inthe seventh century b.c., includes reference tothe problems of forest loss. The need for good tree husbandry was stressed in Virgil’spastoral poem The Georgics in 30 b.c., writtento promote rural values within the RomanEmpire. The oldest records of forest manage-ment in the world have been kept without abreak for 2000 years in Japan, relating to forestsmanaged to produce timber for Shinto temples.The need for large-scale restoration has alsobeen recognised for centuries; for example, the

English pamphleteer John Evelyn wrote a tractcalling for major tree planting during the timeof Queen Elizabeth I in the 1600s. In morerecent times, forest departments around theworld have developed major efforts at refor-estation in Europe, eastern North America,Australia, New Zealand, and increasingly inparts of the tropics.1 In the last 20 years,hundreds of aid and conservation projects have promoted and carried out tree plantingschemes and the development of tree nurseries,aimed at both supplying goods such as fuel-wood and at restoring ecological functions andprotecting biodiversity. Following the Societyfor Ecological Restoration International (SERI)and its chapters around the world, the scientificknowledge on ecological restoration has beenconceptualised and applied to many differenttypes of ecosystem, including forest landscapes.Good books have already been published.2

Why then do we need another book aboutrestoration?

The arguments for forest restoration arebecoming more compelling. Forest loss anddegradation is a worldwide problem, with netannual estimates of forest loss being 9.4 millionhectares throughout the 1990s3 and those for degradation uncalculated but universallyagreed to be even higher. The most severelosses are currently concentrated mainly,although not exclusively, in the tropics, with

1Forest Landscape Restoration in ContextNigel Dudley, Stephanie Mansourian, and Daniel Vallauri

Key Points to Retain

Forest landscape restoration is grounded inecoregion conservation and is defined as aplanned process that aims to regain ecologi-cal integrity and enhance human well-beingin deforested or degraded landscapes.

Such an approach helps achieve a balancebetween human needs and those of biodi-versity by restoring a range of forest func-tions within a landscape and accepting thetrade-offs that result.

3

1 For an overview see Perlin, 1991.2 Perrow and Davy; 2002, SERI, 2002; Whisenant, 1999.3 FAO, 2001.

4 N. Dudley et al

the temperate countries gradually recoveringforest area if not necessarily quality after severedeforestation in the past. As well as creatingacute threats to forest dependent biodiversity,the decline in global forests also has a series ofdirect social and economic costs because of therole of forests in supplying timber and manyimportant nontimber forest products alongwith a wide range of environmental servicesuch as the stabilisation of soils and climate.Forest loss and degradation has already led tothe extinction of species, has altered hydro-logical regimes and damaged the livelihoods of millions of people—mainly amongst thepoorest on the earth—who rely on forests forsubsistence. In many areas, protecting and man-aging the remaining forests are no longer suffi-cient steps in themselves to ensure that forestfunctions are maintained, and restoration isalready an essential third component of anymanagement strategy.

Unfortunately, many existing restorationprojects have partially or completely failed,often because the trees that they sought toestablish have not survived or have beenrapidly destroyed by the same pressures thathave caused forest loss in the first place.Anyone working regularly in the tropicsbecomes accustomed to finding abandoned treenurseries, often with their donor organisations’signboards still in place, the paint graduallypeeling away. Even when crops of trees havesurvived to maturity, they have not necessarilybeen welcomed, as evidenced by the wide-spread controversy over afforestation withexotic monocultures of conifers in much ofwestern Europe4 and the increasingly bitterdebates about tree plantations in the tropics.5

There has also often been a mismatchbetween social and ecological goals of conser-vation; either restoration has aimed to fulfilsocial or economic needs without reference toits wider ecological impacts, or it has had anarrow conservation aim without taking intoaccount people’s needs.

A number of consequent problems can beidentified. Most restoration to date has been

site-based, aiming to produce one or at most alimited number of goods and services. Projectshave often sought to encourage and sometimesimpose tree planting without understandingwhy trees disappeared in the first place andwithout attempting to address the immediate orunderlying causes of forest loss.6 Projects havealso relied heavily on tree planting, which isoften the most expensive way of reestablishingtree cover over a large area, frightening off gov-ernments, donors, and nongovernmental organ-isations. Because restoration takes time, it isessential to think and plan long term. Unfortu-nately, short-term political interests oftensupersede longer term priorities, creating sim-plistic approaches.

The above reservations are not to under-estimate the major steps that have been made inunderstanding the ecological and social aspectsof restoration, many of which are summarised inthis book. Criticising after the event is alwayseasy, and we also recognise the very real bene-fits that have accrued from successful restora-tion projects. Nonetheless, we are far from alonein believing that some new perspectives areneeded in addressing the current restorationchallenge. Perhaps the most important of theserelates to working on a broader scale, along withall the implications that this has.

1.1. Taking a Broader Approach

An increasing number of governmental andnongovernmental conservation institutionshave recognised that in order to achieve lastingconservation impacts it is necessary to work on a larger scale than has been the case in thepast. Although there are a number of ways ofdefining useful ecological units for planningconservation, the concept of the ecoregion isincreasingly being adopted, including by WWF,the global conservation organisation.An ecore-gion is defined as a large area of land or waterthat contains a geographically distinct assem-blage of natural communities that share a largemajority of their species and ecological dynam-ics, share similar environmental conditions, and

4 Tompkins, 1989.5 Carrere and Lohmann, 1996. 6 Eckholm, 1979.

1. Forest Landscape Restoration in Context 5

interact ecologically in ways that are critical for their long-term persistence. Ecoregions aresuitable for broad-scale planning, which usuallyincludes the identification of a few smaller pri-ority landscapes that are particularly importantfrom a conservation perspective, themselvescomposed of numerous sites with different management regimes or habitats (see chapter“Restoration as a Strategy to Contribute toEcoregion Visions”).

As used here (Fig. 1.1), landscapes are gen-erally smaller than ecoregions, and typically a number of important “conservation land-scapes” have been identified within ecoregionsduring planning processes. But the key pointhere is that landscapes are bigger than singlesites and therefore almost always encompass arange of different management approaches.

Coming from a conservation organisation,this book is biased toward ecological and bio-diversity issues. However, forests have socialand economic functions as well, and restorationefforts often need to address many needs atonce. This may not be possible within a singlesite; it is, for example, difficult to create a largeharvest of industrial timber or firewood in anenvironment that is also suitable for specialisedor sensitive wildlife species. One importantreason for shifting the focus to a landscapescale is that it is hoped this can provide a broad-enough area to plan a suite of restoration activ-

ities that could meet multiple needs and tonegotiate the compromises and trade-offs thatsuch a mosaic entails. The aims of forest land-scape restoration have therefore always tran-scended conservation to embrace developmentas well, and we have invited a number ofexperts to provide a parallel set of social toolsand approaches within the current volume. Webelieve that successful restoration on a broadscale relies on getting the right mix betweensocial and environmental needs; this is a fun-damental part of the process and not anoptional extra.

Accordingly, in 2000, WWF and IUCN, theWorld Conservation Union, brought together arange of experts from different organisations,different regions, and different disciplines toagree on a definition for forest landscaperestoration7: “A planned process that aims toregain ecological integrity and enhance humanwell-being in deforested or degraded land-scapes.” This definition and approach lies at the heart of the current book. “Ecologicalintegrity” is described by Parks Canada as astate of ecosystem development that is charac-teristic of its geographic location, containing afull range of native species and supportiveprocesses that are present in viable numbers.“Well-being” embraces the factors that make

Ecoregion

Landscape Landscape Landscape

Site

Site

Site

Site

Site

Site

Site

Site

Site

Figure 1.1. At the ecoregional scale, ecoregionvisioning can help to identify a series of priority land-scapes. At the landscape level, assessment and nego-tiation can help to identify agreed forest functions to

7 WWF and IUCN, 2000.

be restored, leading to a number of actions at indi-vidual sites within the landscape. All these fit withinthe landscape goals for restoration, which them-selves contribute to the ecoregion vision.

6 N. Dudley et al

human life comfortable, such as money, peace,health, stability, and equable governance.

1.2. What Is Special About Forest Restoration in a Landscape?

Restoring the complexity of a small patch offorests is in itself an achievement. However, agreater challenge lies in restoring a matrix offorests within larger areas—landscapes—tomeet different needs. At this greater spatialscale, different influences, pressures, stake-holders, and habitats coexist, which in someways increases the challenges of restoration.However, the landscape scale also providesenough space to plan and implement restora-tion to meet multiple needs.

Conservation priorities therefore must bebalanced with other aspects of sustainabledevelopment. Specific uses and priorities mayhave to be focussed on part of the forest land-scape, and the resulting trade-offs negotiatedand agreed to by a wide range of stakeholders.The resulting task is generally too complex to be solved solely by site-based approachesfocussing on a narrow range of benefits fromindividual forests.Achieving a balance betweenthe various goods and services required fromrestored forest ecosystems requires conceptu-alisation, planning, and implementation on abroader scale.

It also requires deciding where forest is andis not needed. Aiming at restoring forest func-tions does not necessarily mean restoring forestacross the whole landscape; this is often impos-sible in a crowded world with many competingclaims on land. Rather, it entails identifyingthose areas where forests are most useful, froma variety of social and ecological perspectives,and further identifying what type of forest islikely to be most useful in a particular location.Whilst from a conservation perspective a highdegree of naturalness is often important, thismay not be the case for social or economic uses.Even in the parts of the landscape that are “spe-cialised” in conservation, sometimes culturallandscapes are desired either because they havebeen in place for so long that remaining bio-diversity has adapted to these conditions orbecause there is not sufficient space for a fullyfunctioning natural system (for instance, with

respect to the way that the forest changes andregenerates over time).

Forests managed for social needs may havedifferent priorities. Sometimes these overlapwith conservation requirements—for instancesome forests managed for nontimber forestproducts can be extremely rich in biodiver-sity—in other cases they do not. Seeking abalance at a landscape scale is more importantthan trying to make sure that every scrap offorest fulfils every possible role. Broad-scalerestoration in most cases, therefore, has toaddress multiple, sometimes competing, needsthat will themselves entail different types offorests (perhaps ranging from natural forests toplantations) and sometimes also including quitespecific requirements such as particular non-timber forest products required by local com-munities or maintenance of water quality in acertain watershed. Such multifunctional land-scapes by their nature need to be planned andimplemented on a far broader scale than anindividual forest patch.

2. Conclusion

For foresters, restoration traditionally meantestablishing trees for a number of functions(wood or pulp production, soil protection). Formany conservationists restoration is eitherabout restoring original forest cover indegraded areas or about planting corridors offorest to link protected areas. For many inter-ested in social development, the emphasis willinstead be on establishing trees that are usefulfor fuelwood, or fruits, or as windbreaks andlivestock enclosures. The sad fact is that all toomany restoration projects do not bother to findout what local people really want at all; if theydo, then a collection of different and oftenopposing or mutually exclusive wants anddesires emerge. There is still a lot to be learnedand disseminated about reconciling nature andhuman needs, and about planning restorationareas within larger scales in order to return aswide a range of forest functions as possible.Thisrequires the ability to work across disciplines,including agriculture, forest-compatibleincome-generation activities, forestry, andaddressing water issues as well as specific social

1. Forest Landscape Restoration in Context 7

issues. It also, perhaps even more importantly,requires finding out how to bring the peoplemost affected into the debate, not as a matterof duty or because funding agencies expect itbut because this is vital and necessary for bothnature and human well-being.

Through ecoregion conservation, WWF haslearned that working on a large scale is com-plex, costly, and time-intensive; however, it isalso a more sustainable way of addressing con-servation than through small, often unrelatedprojects. This approach is also a challenge forrestoration.

References

Carrere, R., and Lohmann, L. 1996. Pulping theSouth: Industrial Plantations and the World PaperEconomy. Zed Books and the World RainforestMovement, London and Montevideo.

Eckholm, E. 1979. Planting for the Future: Forestryfor Human Needs. Worldwatch Paper number 26.Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.

FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resource Assessment2000: Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper 140. Foodand Agriculture Organisation of the UnitedNations, Rome.

Perlin, J. 1991. A Forest Journey: The Role of Woodin the Development of Civilisation. Harvard Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, MA, and London.

Perrow, M.R., and Davy, A.J. 2002. Handbook orEcological Restoration, vol. 1 and 2. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Society for Ecological Restoration International.Science and Policy Working Group. 2002.The SERPrimer on Ecological Restoration, www.ser.org.

Tompkins, S. 1989. Forestry in Crisis: The Battle forthe Hills. Christopher Helm, London.

Whisenant, S.G. 1999. Repairing Damaged Wild-lands—a Process-Oriented, Landscape-ScaleApproach. Cambridge University Press.

WWF and IUCN. 2000. Minutes, Restoration work-shop, Segovia, Spain (unpublished).


When forests are lost or degraded, we lose farmore than just the trees that they contain.Forests provide a large number of goods andservices, including habitat for species, home-land for indigenous peoples, recreational areas,food, medicines, and environmental servicessuch as soil stabilisation.And as forest areas arereduced, pressure on remaining forestsincreases.

Efforts at reversing this trend have had onlylimited success. For many, restoration signi-fies large-scale afforestation or reforestation(mainly using fast growing exotic species),which have only limited conservation benefits.This has been the approach taken by many gov-ernments that are seeking to support a timberindustry or create jobs or, equally, those whohave taken a simplistic approach to flood orother disaster mitigation. On the other hand,some have sought to re-create original forests,a near-impossible feat in areas where millenniaof human intervention have modified the land-scape and local conditions.

Many different terms are used to describethese different approaches and can result insome confusion or misconceptions.8 We attempthere to cover most of the terminology used inEnglish taken from the Society for EcologicalRestoration International (SERI), which has

2Overview of Forest RestorationStrategies and TermsStephanie Mansourian


There are numerous terms promoting differ-ent strategies when dealing with forestrestoration, which could be a source of con-fusion.

WWF is implementing forest landscaperestoration (FLR) as an integral componentof the conservation of large, biologicallyimportant areas such as ecoregions, alongwith protection and good management.

Forest landscape restoration is an approachto forest restoration that seeks to balancehuman needs with those of biodiversity, thusaiming to restore a range of forest functionsand accepting and negotiating the trade-offsbetween them.

While the challenge of restoration on a largescale is greater than at individual sites, it isaccepted nowadays that the effectiveness offorest restoration and its chances of sustain-ability are both much greater on a largescale.

Forest landscape restoration aims to achievea landscape containing valuable forests,rather than returning forest cover across anentire landscape.

8

8 Ormerod, 2003.

Confusion reigns as the term restoration is used indis-criminately, with no consensus even among practi-tioners in its meaning.

Stanturf and Madsen, 2002

2. Overview of Forest Restoration Strategies and Terms 9

made the best attempt at cataloguing and defin-ing these different terminologies and concepts.It must be noted that this complexity is alsoapparent and sometimes exacerbated whentranslating these terms into other languages.

2. Examples

We present below a number of terms that havebeen defined recently by SERI in its “The SERPrimer on Ecological Restoration.”9

2.1. Ecological Restoration

Ecological restoration is defined as the processof assisting the recovery of an ecosystem thathas been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It isan intentional activity that initiates or acceler-ates the recovery of an ecosystem with respectto its health, integrity, and sustainability.

Example 1: In 2000, in an attempt to re-createa native wild wood, the Scottish nongovern-mental organisation (NGO), Borders ForestTrust, together with many partners, bought a600-hectare plot of land, Carrifran, in theSouthern Uplands of Scotland in order torestore its original forest. Thanks to fossilpollen buried deep in peat, it was possible toidentify the nature of the variety of species pre-viously found on this now near-denuded siteand therefore to develop a restoration plan thataimed to re-create the species’ mix that hadoccurred in the past. Thousands of native treeseeds from surviving woodland remnants in the vicinity were collected. A total of 103.13hectares (165,008 trees) have been planted atCarrifran since the start of the project. Theupper part of the site is being allowed to regen-erate naturally.10

2.2. Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation emphasises the reparation ofecosystem processes, productivity, and services,whereas the goals of restoration also includethe reestablishment of the preexisting biotic

integrity in terms of species’ composition andcommunity structure.

Example 2: Bamburi Cement’s quarries inMombasa (Kenya) were once woodlandexpanses covering 1,200 hectares.11 Starting in1971, experiments began with the rehabilitationof the disused quarries. In the face of badlydamaged soils, three tree species provedcapable of withstanding the difficult growingconditions: Casuarina equisetifolia, Conocarpuslancifolius, and the coconut palm. The Casuar-ina is nitrogen fixing and is drought and salt tolerant, enabling it to colonise areas left virtually without soil. The Conocarpus is also adrought-, flood-, and salt-tolerant swamp tree.The decomposition of the Casuarina leaf litterwas initially very slow due to a high proteincontent, thus impeding the nutrient cyclingprocess, although this problem was overcomeby introducing a local red-legged millipede thatfeeds on the dry leaves and starts the decom-position process. Today this area contains morethan 200 coastal forest species and a famousnature trail, attracting 100,000 visitors a yearsince opening in 1984.

2.3. Reclamation

Reclamation is a term commonly used in thecontext of mined lands in North America andthe United Kingdom. It has as its main objec-tives the stabilisation of the terrain, assuranceof public safety, aesthetic improvement, andusually a return of the land to what, within theregional context, is considered to be a usefulpurpose.

Example 3: A large open-cut bauxite mine atTrombetas in Pará state in central Amazonia is located in an area of relatively undisturbedevergreen equatorial moist forest. A reclama-tion programme has been developed to restorethe original forest cover as far as possible. Theproject has treated about 100 hectares of minedland per year for the last 15 years. First, themined site was levelled and topsoil replaced toa depth of about 15cm using topsoil from thesite that was removed and stockpiled (for less

9 SERI, 2002.10 www.carrifran.com. 11 Baer, 1996.

10 S. Mansourian

than 6 months) prior to mining. Next, the sitewas deep-ripped to a depth of 90cm (1-mspacing between rows). Trees were plantedalong alternate rip lines at 2-m spacings (2500trees per hectare) using direct seeding, stumpedsaplings, or potted seedlings. Some 160 localtree species were tested for their suitability inthe programme, and more than 70 species fromthe local natural forests are now routinely used.After 13 years most sites have many more treeand shrub species than those initially plantedbecause of seeds stored in the topsoil or coloni-sation from the surrounding forest. Not sur-prisingly, the density of these new colonists isgreater at sites near intact forest, but dispersalwas evident up to 640m away from old-growthforest. The new species, most of which havesmall seed, have been brought to the site bybirds, bats, or terrestrial mammals.12

2.4. Afforestation/Reforestation

Afforestation and reforestation refer to theartificial establishment of trees, in the formercase where no trees existed before. In addition,in the context of the U.N.’s Framework Con-vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) andthe Kyoto protocol, specific definitions havebeen agreed on reforestation and afforesta-tion.13 Afforestation is defined by the UNFCCCas “the direct human-induced conversion ofland that has not been forested for a period ofat least 50 years to forested land through plant-ing, seeding, and/or human induced promotionof natural seed sources.”

Example 4: During the middle years of the20th century, very large areas of long-deforested land were planted in Scotland by the state forestry body, initially as a strategicresource. In contrast to the Borders Forest Trustproject described above, these efforts made noattempt to re-create the original forest, insteadusing exotic monocultures, mainly of Sitkaspruce from Alaska (Picea sitchensis) or Norwayspruce (Picea abies) from mainland Europe.Planting was generally so dense that virtually nounderstorey plant species developed.

Reforestation is defined by the UNFCCC as“the direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting,seeding, and/or the human-induced promotionof natural seed sources, on land that wasforested but that has been converted to non-forested land.”

Example 5: In Madagascar, large plantationprojects were planned in the early 1970s tosupply a paper mill on the “Haut Mangoro.” By1990 about 80,000 hectares had been planted,97 percent of which was Pinus spp. This projectcreated significant social and political tensions,as the local population systematically opposeda project that it felt was not providing muchbenefit.14

2.5. What Is WWF’s Definition?

In 2000 WWF and IUCN, the World Conserva-tion Union, were asking the questions: What is meant by forest restoration? How can weachieve lasting and successful forest restorationin our ecoregional programmes? The twoorganisations felt that a suitable definition andtypology of restoration were needed. In partic-ular, given the large-scale conservation workthat the organisations were engaging in, it wasfelt that there was still a gap in knowledge andin approaches to forest restoration. Notably,how does forest restoration relate to planta-tions, agroforestry, secondary forests, biologicalcorridors, and single trees in the landscape?

In July 2000 WWF and IUCN broughttogether a number of regional conservationstaff, foresters, economists, and other profes-sionals to help them take restoration forward.They defined the term forest landscape restora-tion as “a planned process that aims to regain ecological integrity15 and enhancehuman well-being16 in deforested or degraded landscapes.”

12 Lamb and Gilmour, 2003.13 UNFCC, 2003.

14 Faralala, 2003.15 Ecological Integrity, for WWF and IUCN, is “maintain-ing the diversity and quality of ecosystems, and enhancingtheir capacity to adapt to change and provide for the needsof future generations.”16 Human well-being, for WWF and IUCN, is “ensuring thatall people have a role in shaping decisions that affect theirability to meet their needs, safeguard their livelihoods, andrealise their full potential.”


what may seem like a less than optimal solu-tion if taken from one perspective, but a solu-tion that when taken from the whole group’sperspective can be acceptable to all.

• It places the emphasis not only on forestquantity but also on forest quality. Decisionmakers often think predominantly about thearea of trees to be planted when consideringrestoration, yet often improving the qualityof existing forests can yield bigger benefitsfor a lower cost.

• It aims to restore a range of forest goods,services, and processes, rather than forestcover per se. It is not just the trees themselvesthat are important, but often all of theaccompanying elements that go with healthyforests, such as nutrient cycling, soil stabilisa-tion, medicinal and food plants, forest-dwelling animal species, etc. Including thefull range of potential benefits in the plan-ning process makes the choice of restorationtechnique, locations, and tree species muchmore focussed. It also allows more flexibilityfor discussions on trade-offs with differentstakeholders, by providing a diversity ofvalues rather than just one or two.

Forest landscape restoration goes beyondestablishing forest cover per se. Its aim is toachieve a landscape containing valuable forests,for instance partly to provide timber, partlymixed with subsistence crops to raise yields andprotect the soils, as well as partly improvingbiodiversity habitat and increasing the avail-ability of subsistence goods. By balancing thesewithin a landscape,WWF believes that it is pos-sible to enhance the overall benefits to peopleand biodiversity at that scale.

3. Outline of Tools

Broad definitions and explanations of whatrestoration entails can be found in most con-servation and forestry institutions. Nonetheless,little of this has reached the field. Because of itscomplexity, large-scale restoration requires amixture of responses from practical to politicaland many practitioners are at a loss as to whereto begin.

Some practical guidance is available:

The key elements of FLR are as follows:

• It is implemented at a landscape scale ratherthan a single site—that is to say, planning forforest restoration is done in the context ofother elements: social, economic, and biolog-ical, in the landscape. This does not necessar-ily imply planting trees across an entirelandscape but rather strategically locatingforests and woodlands in areas that are nec-essary to achieve an agreed set of functions(e.g., habitat for a specific species, soil stabil-isation, provision of building materials forlocal communities).

• It has both a socioeconomic and an ecologi-cal dimension. People who have a stake inthe state of the landscape are more likely toengage positively in its restoration.

• It implies addressing the root causes of forestloss and degradation. Restoration can some-times be achieved simply by removing what-ever caused the loss of forest, (such asperverse incentives and grazing animals).This also means that without removing thecause of forest loss and degradation, anyrestoration effort is likely to be in vain.

• It opts for a package of solutions. There is no single restoration technique that can beapplied to all situations. In each case anumber of elements need to be covered, buthow to do that depends on the local condi-tions. The package may include practicaltechniques, such as agro-forestry, enrichmentplanting, and natural regeneration at a land-scape scale, but also embraces policy analy-sis, training, and research.

• It involves a range of stakeholders in plan-ning and decision making to achieve a solution that is acceptable and therefore sus-tainable. The decision of what to aim for inthe long term when restoring a landscapeshould ideally be made through a processthat includes representatives of differentinterest groups in the landscape in order toreach, if not a consensus, at least a compro-mise that is acceptable to all.

• It involves identifying and negotiating trade-offs. In relation to the above point, when aconsensus cannot be reached, different inter-est groups need to negotiate and agree on

12 S. Mansourian

4. Future Needs

In the context of terminology related to restora-tion, given the flurry of interest, concepts, anddefinitions being touted, there is a need for

• a set of widely accepted definitions (such asthose of SERI) to be used more systemati-cally and rigorously;

• efforts and resources to be more focussed onthe “doing” than on the “defining”;

• greater exchanges, debates, and sharing ofexperiences in order to disseminate theaccepted concepts and the positive experi-ences; and

• the accepted definitions in the restorationfield to be shared with other relevant expertgroups, such as development workers,foresters, extension officers, etc.

References

Baer, S. 1996. Rehabilitation of Disused LimestoneQuarries Through Reafforestation (Baobab Farm,Mombasa, Kenya). World Bank/Unep AfricaForestry Policy Forum, Nairobi, August 29–30,1996.

Faralala. 2003. Rapport de Reconnaissance dansCinq Paysages Forestiers. WWF, Madagascar.

ITTO Policy Series No. 13. 2002. Guidelines on the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitationof Degraded and Secondary Tropical Forest.Yokohama, Japan.

Lamb, D., and Gilmour, D. 2003. Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, andWWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Ormerod, S.J. 2003. Restoration in applied ecology:editor’s introduction. Journal of Applied Ecology40:44–50.

Perrow, M., and Davy A., eds. 2002. Handbook ofEcological Restoration. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, England.

Society for Ecological Restoration International.Science and Policy Working Group. 2002.The SERPrimer on Ecological Restoration, www.ser.org/.

Stanturf, J.A., and Madsen, P. 2002. Restoration con-cepts for temperate and boreal forests of NorthAmerica and Western Europe. Plant Biosystems136(2):143–158.

• The Society for Ecological Restoration(SERI) have developed guidelines forrestoration (see Guidelines for Developingand Managing Ecological Restoration Pro-jects, 2000, at www.ser.org).

• The International Tropical Timber Organisa-tion (ITTO) developed some guidelines17onthe restoration, management, and rehabilita-tion of degraded and secondary tropicalforests.

• The International Union of Forest ResearchOrganisations (IUFRO) runs a special pro-gramme on correct usage of technical terms inforestry called SilvaVoc, available on its Website: www.iufro.org/science/special/silvavoc/.

• The Nature Conservancy (TNC)18 has identi-fied some guidance on when and where to re-store (see Geography of Hope Update, Whenand Where to Consider Restoration in Ecore-gional Planning at www.conserveonline.org).

• In 2003, IUCN and WWF published a book,by David Lamb and Don Gilmour,19 Reha-bilitation and Restoration of DegradedForests, which covers site-based techniquesto restoration (summarised in a paper in thismanual) but also highlights some of the gaps.

• Cambridge Press has produced a Handbookof Ecological Restoration,20 which is a two-volume handbook containing a largeamount of material on the diverse aspects ofrestoration.

It should also be noted that a number of state forest services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have produced guidelines forplanting trees. However, while these guidelinesmay have some applicability for very specificcases (issues dealing with one or another specific species), they are of limited value forrestoration within ecoregions or large and bio-logically and structurally complex areas.

Tools available to address specific elementsof restoration are summarised in other chaptersof this manual.

17 ITTO, 2002.18 TNC, 2002.19 Lamb and Gilmour, 2003.20 Perrow and Davy, 2002.


and Technological Advice. 2003. Land Use,Land-Use Change and Forestry: Definitions andModalities for Including Afforestation and Refor-estation Activities Under Article 12 of the KyotoProtocol. Eighteenth session, Bonn, June 4–13,2003.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2002. Geography ofHope Update: When and Where to ConsiderRestoration in Ecoregional Planning. www.con-serveonline.org.

United Nations Framework Conference on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) Subsidiary Body for Scientific

Section IIThe Challenging Context of Forest

Restoration Today


1.1. The Need for Assessment and Likely Impacts of Forest Loss

Assessment of forest condition is an importantprecursor to the planning and implementationof restoration programmes. Restoration is aprocess that in the case of forests generally aimsat rebuilding the ecosystem to some earlier ormore desirable stage. There is widespreadrecognition of the need for restoration; forexample, in its Programme of Work on Pro-tected Areas the Convention on Biological

Diversity advises governments to “rehabilitateand restore habitats and degraded ecosystems,as appropriate, as a contribution to buildingecological networks, ecological corridors and/orbuffer zones.” Given limited time and resources,restoration must be strategic, focussing onforests that have the highest importance to bio-diversity or to society, and considering the fourgoals of conservation biology: representation,maintenance of evolutionary/ecological proces-ses, maintenance of species, and conservation of large habitat blocks. Reasonably fine-scaleanalyses are needed to choose specific siteswhere restoration might bring the highest ben-efits. From a conservation perspective, thismeans evaluating the impacts of forest loss,including analysis of biodiversity, authenticity,and ecological integrity.

Impacts on biodiversity: Complete forest losshas the clearest impact on biodiversity, withmost forest-dwelling species unable to live inhabitats that replace forests. However, it isharder to measure the impacts of changes suchas fragmentation and loss of microhabitats.Management often simplifies forests, reducingbiodiversity and age range; as older and deadtrees disappear, so do many associated species.Conversely, pioneer or weed species mayincrease. Biodiversity monitoring is costly, andour knowledge of many forest ecosystems isstill incomplete. One concept that has gainedincreasing recognition in the last few years isthat of critical thresholds for particular species,that is, the population level below which furtherdecline and eventual extirpation or extinction

3Impact of Forest Loss andDegradation on BiodiversityNigel Dudley


Assessment of current forest condition is anecessary precursor to restoration.

Ecological assessments should considerissues related to biodiversity, level of natu-ralness, and more generally ecologicalintegrity.

A number of assessment tools exist, fornational, landscape, and site-level assess-ments. They include: at national scale, fron-tier forests; at landscape scale, forest qualityassessment; and a number of site-level toolsincluding High Conservation Value Forestassessments.

17

18 N. Dudley

is likely, and where these thresholds are knownthey can play a key role in monitoring impactsand planning restoration strategies.

Impacts on authenticity or naturalness: On anecosystem scale, measuring impacts on overallnaturalness of forests is easier than surveyingbiodiversity and acts as a partial surrogate; gen-erally the greater the naturalness of a forest, themore of its original constituent species are likelyto survive. Worldwide forest authenticity isdeclining fast. In most West European countriesless than 1 percent of forests are classified by theUnited Nations as “undisturbed.”21 A growingproportion of forests in Africa, the Pacific, andthe Amazon have been logged at least once.

Ecological integrity: This concept coversmany of the above issues. It is defined by ParksCanada as “a condition that is determined to becharacteristic of its natural region and likely topersist, including abiotic components and thecomposition and abundance of native speciesand biological communities, rates of change,and supporting processes.”22

Evaluation of options for restoration shouldalso consider the reasons why forest loss ordegradation have occurred. Many restorationprogrammes fail because the pressures thatcaused deforestation are not addressed, andrestored forests suffer the same fate as the orig-inal forests. If population or economic pres-sures mean that there is insufficient fuelwood,then planted trees will be burned long beforethey have a chance to mature and reach a usefulsize. On the other hand, understanding thenature of the pressures and working with localcommunities to plan restoration in ways thatare mutually beneficial increases the chances ofrestoration succeeding. Assessment needs toaddress several different aspects:

• Impacts of forest loss and degradation onbiodiversity, naturalness, and ecologicalintegrity;

• Some of the key factors causing change;• Changes in biodiversity, naturalness, and

ecological integrity following restorationinterventions.

Whilst the first two can be assessed throughsingle surveys, assessment of trends implies theneed for a monitoring system.

2. Examples

2.1. New Caledonia

In New Caledonia the overall loss of forestscreates a critical threat to biodiversity and eco-logical integrity. Today only 2 percent of the dry forest remains in the island, in scatteredfragments of 300 hectares or less, leading toextreme threats to the remaining biodiversity.Over half of the 117 dry forest plant speciesassessed by the IUCN Species Survival Com-mission are threatened, and it is likely thatseveral have already gone extinct. For example,the tree Pittosporum tanianum was discoveredin 1988 on Leprédour Island in an area that hasbeen devastated by introduced rabbits anddeer, declared extinct in 1994, and rediscoveredin 2002.This level of damage suggests an urgentneed for both restoration of forest cover and acarefully designed series of interventions toprotect and allow the spread of species thatmay already be at critically low levels.23

2.2. Western Europe

Changes in management and human distur-bance have reduced near-natural forests to lessthan 1 percent of their original area in mostwestern European countries, despite an expan-ding forest estate. In Europe as a whole, almostnine million hectares are defined as “undis-turbed by man,” but most of this exists in theRussian Federation and Scandinavia; Swedenrecords 16 percent of its forest as natural,Finland 5 percent, and Norway 2 percent. Inmost of Europe the proportion is usually fromzero to less than 1 percent; for instance, Switzer-land records 0.6 percent.24 Even in forest-richcountries like Finland and Sweden, many forestd-welling species are threatened because the forests contain only a proportion of the

21 UNECE and FAO, 2000.22 Parks Canada, undated.

23 Vallauri and Géraux, 2004.24 UNECE and FAO, 2000.

3. Impact of Forest Loss and Degradation on Biodiversity 19

expected habitats and ecosystem functions.Here the challenge is less to recover forest area(although this may sometimes be important)than to restore natural ecosystem processes andmicrohabitats. Specific monitoring criteria areneeded and these have started to be developed,for instance by the Ministerial Conference onthe Protection of Forests in Europe.25

2.3. Brazilian Atlantic Forests

In the Atlantic forest of Brazil, forest loss and fragmentation are combining to threatenendemic species. Although international atten-tion tends to focus on threats to the Amazon,the Atlantic forests of Brazil have undergonefar more dramatic losses. The forests havealready been reduced to just 7 percent of theiroriginal size, and the associated threats to bio-diversity are increased because the remainingareas are fragmented and the populations aregenetically isolated. The area is home to manyendemic species, including some of the 19 resi-dent primates and 92 percent of amphibianspecies found there. Attention has focussed par-ticularly on the golden lion tamarins (Leontop-ithecus rosalia), which now inhabit less than 2percent of their original range.Their populationis currently around 1000, up from little morethan 200 twenty years ago following a majorconservation effort. However, population is stillbelieved to be below long-term viability, andsubpopulations are isolated in remaining forestfragments. Restoration efforts, therefore, focusparticularly in reconnecting the remainingforest fragments of high biological importance.

2.4. Uganda

In Uganda loss of connectivity is separatingpopulations of mountain gorillas even in areaswith relatively high forest cover. The world’sremaining mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringeiberingei) live in isolated rain forests in themountains on the borders of Uganda, Rwanda,and the Democratic Republic of Congo, withhalf of the world’s known population, 350 indi-

viduals, in Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Reservein Uganda. Another major population is in theVirunga volcanoes area, some of which is inMgahinga National Park. Neither of these pop-ulations is considered large enough to be genet-ically secure over time, but both reserves arealso thought to be reaching their natural carry-ing capacity. Linking the two populations isimportant for their long-term survival, but theintervening land has all been converted to agri-culture, and any restoration efforts will need along period of planning and negotiation (infor-mation from park staff in Bwindi).

Understanding of what has been lost, andwhat is at risk of being lost, should be the basisfor any forest restoration that has biodiversityconservation amongst its aims. This needs to beaugmented with an understanding of what typeor quality of forest is needed to maintain biodi-versity. If the key issue is connectivity for largemammals and birds, for example, managed sec-ondary forests or even plantations or shade-grown coffee may be suitable. If the threats aremore generally to forest biodiversity, restora-tion efforts should probably be aimed at creat-ing a forest as near to natural as possible.

3. Outline of Tools

Detailed biodiversity surveys are expensive andrely on a high level of expertise. Methodologiesfor achieving these have become increasinglysophisticated, and a number of short cuts havebeen developed where time and money arelimited.

3.1. National Level Surveys

National level surveys can help identify thescale of the problems and the locations of valu-able remaining forest habitat, which shouldusually serve as the starting point for restora-tion efforts. The U.N. Economic Commissionfor Europe and the Food and AgricultureOrganisation asked countries to report on theproportion of their forest that was “undisturbedby man,” taken here to mean left without man-agement interventions for at least 200 years.This has created a fairly crude but effective

25 Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests inEurope, 2002.

20 N. Dudley

international database for many of the temper-ate countries, but as yet no similar exercise hasbeen attempted in the tropics. It also does notcreate a very useful way of measuring progressin restoration. Some individual countries (e.g.,Austria, France, and the U.K.) have also carriedout detailed surveys of ancient forest.

3.2. High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF)

This is a WWF/ProForest methodology for iden-tifying the forests of the highest conservationand social value in a landscape, drawing on sixdifferent types of HCVF: (1) forest areas con-taining globally, regionally, or nationally signifi-cant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g.,endemism, endangered species, refugia); (2)forest areas containing globally, regionally, ornationally significant large landscape levelforests, where viable populations of most if notall naturally occurring species exist in naturalpatterns of distribution and abundance; (3)forest areas that are in or contain rare, threat-ened,or endangered ecosystems;(4) forest areasthat provide basic services of nature in criticalsituations; (5) forest areas fundamental tomeeting basic needs of local communities; and(6) forest areas critical to local communities’ tra-ditional cultural identity.26 Although designedinitially for site-level assessments, a landscape-scale methodology is being developed.

3.3. Forest Quality Assessment

WWF and IUCN have developed an approachto landscape assessment of forest quality usingindicators to map social and ecological values,including identifying different elements of naturalness or authenticity, drawing on the following: composition, pattern, ecologicalfunctioning, process, resilience, and area (alsosee “Restoring Quality in Existing NativeForest Landscapes”). Assessment is based on a seven-stage process: identification of aims,selection of the landscape, selection of a toolkit(relevant indicators), collection of informationabout each indicator, assessment, presentation

of results, and incorporation into management.Information is collected through primaryresearch, literature review, and interviews. Theextent to which assessment is a participatoryprocess can change depending on the situationand aims.27

3.4. Frontier Forest Analysis

Frontier forest analysis is a World ResourcesInstitute/Global Forest Watch approach28 thatdefines frontier forests as free from substantialanthropogenic fragmentation (settlements,roads, clearcuts, pipelines, power lines, mines,etc.); free from detectable human influence forperiods that are long enough to ensure that itis formed by naturally occurring ecologicalprocesses (including fires, wind, and pestspecies); large enough to be resilient to edgeeffects and to survive most natural disturbanceevents; containing only naturally seeded indige-nous plant species; and supporting viable pop-ulations of most native species associated withthe ecosystem.29 It is mainly used at a nationalscale.

3.5. Site-Scale Survey Methods

A wide range of survey methods exist includingsome that have specifically been developed tofacilitate rapid surveys for conservation practi-tioners, amongst these are the Rapid Ecologi-cal Assessment methodology developed by TheNature Conservancy.30 Increasingly surveys byoutside experts are being augmented by inter-views and collaboration with local communi-ties, which often have great understanding ofpopulation levels of key plants and animals;these sources are usually referred to as tradi-tional ecological knowledge.

4. Future Needs

Despite expertise in survey methods, there isstill much to be learned about accurate ways

26 Jennings et al, 2003.

27 Dudley et al, in press.28 Bryant et al, 1997.29 Smith et al, 2000.30 Sayre et al, 2002.

3. Impact of Forest Loss and Degradation on Biodiversity 21

of monitoring of both biodiversity and, morecritically, ecological integrity that would allowproper assessment of restoration outcomesover time and thus help set realistic goals forrestoration. In general, quick and cost-effectivemethods of monitoring the impacts of restora-tion on biodiversity and ecology are stillrequired in many ecosystems.

References

Bryant, D., Nielsen, D., and Tangley, L. 1997.The LastFrontier Forests: Ecosystems and Economies onthe Edge. World Resources Institute, Washington,DC.

Dudley, N., Schlaepfer, R., Jackson, W., and Jeanrenaud, J. P. In press. A Manual on ForestQuality.

ECE and FAO. 2000. Forest Resources of Europe,CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and NewZealand. U.N. Regional Economic Commissions

for Europe and the Food and Agriculture Organ-isation, Geneva and Rome.

Jennings, S., Nussbaum, R., Judd, N., et al. 2003. TheHigh Conservation Value Toolkit. Proforest,Oxford (three-part document).

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forestsin Europe. 2002. Improved Pan-European Indica-tors for Sustainable Forest Management: asadopted by the MCPFE expert level meeting,October 7–8, 2002, Vienna, Austria.

Parks Canada. Undated. http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/eco_integ/index_e.asp.

Sayre, R., et al. 2002. Nature in Focus: Rapid Eco-logical Assessment. The Nature Conservancy andthe Island Press, Covelo and Washington, DC.

Smith, W., et al. 2000. Canada’s Forests at a Cross-roads: An Assessment in the Year 2000. GlobalForest Watch, World Resources Institute,Washington, DC. See also the Global Forest Watch Web site: http://www.globalforestwatch.org.

Vallauri, D., and Géraux, H. 2004. Recréer des forêtstropicales sèches en Nouvelle Calédonie. WWFFrance, Paris.


For many millions of people forests and forestproducts and services supply both direct andindirect sources of livelihood, providing a major

part of their physical, material, economic, andspiritual lives31). The World Bank has estimatedthat 90 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion poorestpeople depend on forests in some way oranother. Forest areas often coincide with areasof high poverty incidence and livelihooddependence on forests. They often occur inremote rural areas with poor infrastructure andlimited access to markets and other basic serv-ices; the livelihood options in such areas arehighly circumscribed. The challenge facingmany communities is not just the restoration oftrees in their landscape but the growth of apolitical and social landscape that facilitatestheir ability to make choices to secure theirlivelihoods.

In this section we consider the impacts offorest loss and degradation on human well-being. At the most simple level the first ques-tion must be: impact on whom? This is animportant point because degradation and lossof resources affects people in different ways. Toexplore this question we need to unpick theconcept of well-being and then look at the waysin which forests and people are intertwined.The major focus of this section, however, is on those who are most adversely affected bychanges in forest cover and quality—the poor,and in particular those living in forest areas.Thesecond question to ask is why deforestation anddegradation happen, since understanding the

4The Impacts of Degradation andForest Loss on Human Well-Beingand Its Social and Political Relevancefor RestorationMary Hobley


Poor people rely on forests as a safety net toavoid or mitigate poverty and sometimes asa way to lift themselves out of poverty.

It is important to recognise different levels ofpoverty and different types of dependence onforests when trying to understand the likelysocial implications of forest restoration.

A series of tools and questions exist that canhelp to identify potential benefits fromrestoration, although these need to be usedwith care to avoid overlooking some of thepoorest members of society.

22

31 Byron and Arnold, 1997.

Forests: “the poor man’s overcoat” (Westoby, 1989).

Forests have an important role to play in alleviatingpoverty worldwide in two senses. First, they serve avital safety net function, helping rural people avoidpoverty, or helping those who are poor to mitigatetheir plight. Second, forests have untapped potentialto actually lift some rural people out of poverty (Sunderlin et al, 2004).

4. The Impacts of Degradation and Forest Loss on Human Well-Being 23

answers to this question provides answers towhom it impacts on. As part of this process weneed to set out the major concepts and termsthat support this understanding. These aredeforestation and degradation, well-being, liveli-hoods, people, and impact.

The drivers of forest loss and degradation arecomplex and variable, moving from theextreme of deforestation for other land uses tomore subtle forms of degradation through multiple overuse, either happening slowly ormore rapidly depending on the pressuresdriving change. Who drives the changes in theforests and who benefits from them also helpsto determine the impacts. These are not simpleevents and do not have simple causal conse-quences. For example, one person’s loss as aresult of forest degradation may be anotherperson’s gain if for instance opportunities tofarm land are opened up. Timber companiesbenefit from timber extraction but generallythe capture of benefits at the local level is veryweak and the local social and environmentalcosts of logging are high.

Following Wunder32 and the U.N. Food andAgricultural Organisation, deforestation (orforest loss) is defined as a radical removal ofvegetation to less than 10 percent crown cover.For local people deforestation can be cata-strophic, as in the case of large-scale clear-felling by an outside agency that destroysresources without offering any alternatives, orin other cases it can be the planned precursorto an alternative land use system such asfarming, which in terms of livelihood outcomesmay provide more secure alternatives than thatoffered by the forest.

Degradation is taken to mean a loss of foreststructure, productivity, and native species’diversity.A degraded site may still contain treesor forest but it will have lost its former ecolog-ical integrity.33 Degradation is a process of lossof forest quality that is in practice often part of the chain of events that eventually leads todeforestation.

Impact: “Impact concerns the long-term andsustainable changes introduced by a given

intervention in the lives of beneficiaries. Impactcan be related either to the specific objectivesof an intervention or to unanticipated changescaused by an intervention; such unanticipatedchanges may also occur in the lives of peoplenot belonging to the beneficiary group. Impactcan be either positive or negative, the latterbeing equally important to be aware of.”34

Well-being is a concept used to describe allelements of how individuals experience theworld and their capacities to interact, andincludes the degree of access to materialincome or consumption, levels of education andhealth, vulnerability and exposure to risk,opportunity to be heard, and ability to exercisepower, particularly over decisions relating tosecuring livelihoods.35 When used in connectionwith livelihoods it becomes a powerful conceptfor considering the effects of change on allaspects of the lived experience of an individual.

A useful definition of livelihoods is asfollows: “People’s capacity to generate andmaintain their means of living, enhance theirwell-being and that of future generations.Thesecapacities are contingent upon the availabilityand accessibility of options which are ecologi-cal, economic, and political and which are predicated on equity, ownership of resources,and participatory decision making.”36

The individual experience of well-beingvaries along a continuum, with ill-being at oneend and well-being at the other, and is notstatic; it can vary during an individual’s lifecycle. Those classified as extreme poor oftensuffer ill-being, particularly expressed throughhigh degrees of exposure to vulnerability andrisk, whereas those who can be classified asimproving poor generally experience higherlevels of well-being. It is important to be ableto differentiate among people’s vulnerabilitiesin order to understand the differential effectsthat forest loss and degradation may have.

One of the most important issues to considerwhen looking at the effects of a change inaccess to or availability of forest products andservices is a household’s exposure to vulnera-

32 Wunder, 2001.33 Lamb and Gilmour, 2003: 4.

34 Blankenberg, 1995.35 World Bank, 2001:15.36 de Satgé, 2002:4.

24 M. Hobley

bility and risk. It is clear that households andindividuals within households experience dif-ferent levels of vulnerability and exposure torisk. This is particularly important in the assess-ment of the effects of forest quality change, asit has differential impacts within and betweenhouseholds.

There are two main ways in which forestsimpact on livelihoods and reduce vulnerability:

• as a safety net helping rural people avoidpoverty and helping those who are poor tomitigate their poverty;

• through their potential to lift some peopleout of poverty.

For the sake of understanding the likelyimpacts of forest loss or restoration, it is usefulto define people in terms of their vulnerabilityand their relationships with forests and forestproducts (see Table 4.1 for examples of impactsof degradation and deforestation on these different groups):

• Extreme poor with very little or no capabil-ity for social mobilisation

• Coping poor with little capability for socialmobilisation

• Improving poor with some capability forsocial mobilisation

This typology helps to underline the impor-tance of understanding the social situation ofhouseholds and individuals. Attempts toaddress restoration in a social context, withoutrecognising the differences that degrees ofpoverty have on people’s relative vulnerabilityand opportunities, most often at best ignorethose in extreme poverty and at worst exacer-bate their condition.

Also important in this context are the differ-ent relationships that people have with forestswhich can usefully be categorised as37:

• hunters and gatherers,• shifting cultivators,• farming communities with inputs from the

forest, and• livelihoods based on commercial forest pro-

duct activities.

Poverty is not a uniform experience for thesefour types of forest-related people, and neitheris it possible to say, for example, that all shift-ing cultivators are extremely poor or that allfarming communities are “improving poor.”This makes it even more difficult to generaliseabout the impacts that forest change will haveon individual livelihoods.Within the same com-munity, dependence on forests and wildlandswill vary, although generally the extremely poorwill be the most dependent on the resourcesfrom natural habitats and the improving poorwill be less dependent. However, those whoselivelihoods are most interlinked with the forestresource, such as hunter-gatherer groups andshifting cultivators, are those who are the mostvulnerable to any changes in that resource andare also the least able to move into other liveli-hood options.

It should be noted that these are by no meansstatic categories; they change as the local andnational environment changes. For example,increasing market penetration has profoundeffects on the choices or enforced changes thatpeople have to make in their livelihood base.The key point to recognise here is the diversityof the types of relationships that people havewith forests and therefore the diversity ofimpacts that changes in forests and associatedlandscapes might have on the livelihoods ofthose living in and around them.

1.1. Relationships to the Forest

It is also important to move away from a broad-brush consideration of communities torecognition of differences between individualhouseholds and categories of well-being.38

Many people assume that communities havecommon interests or, where they are conflict-ing, that disagreements could be resolved byworking with the different interest groups, butthis is not always the case. This becomes particularly important when considering theimpacts of changes in forest cover and qualityand how this is experienced by different house-holds. For some of the most dependent people,

37 Byron and Arnold, 1997. 38 de Satgé, 2002.

4. The Impacts of Degradation and Forest Loss on Human Well-Being 25T

able

4.1.

Exa

mpl

es o

f im

pact

s of

def

ores

tati

on a

nd d

egra

dati

on.

Impa

cts

on p

eopl

e

Pro

cess

Pro

duct

Ext

rem

e po

orC

opin

g po

orIm

prov

ing

poor

Def

ores

tati

onC

onve

rsio

n of

for

ests

to

Los

e ac

cess

to

fore

st r

esou

rces

Los

e ac

cess

to

safe

ty n

et f

unct

ions

L

ose

acce

ss t

o sa

fety

net

fun

ctio

ns o

f ag

ricu

ltur

eW

ill n

ot o

btai

n la

nd f

or a

gric

ultu

re

of f

ores

t re

sour

ces

fore

st r

esou

rces

;may

acq

uire

land

as

gen

eral

ly d

o no

t ha

ve t

he

May

bec

ome

labo

urer

s fo

r ot

hers

un

der

clea

ranc

e as

hav

e be

tter

po

wer

to

acqu

ire

the

land

on c

onve

rted

for

est

land

acce

ss t

o in

fluen

ce lo

cal d

ecis

ion

May

be

labo

urer

s fo

r ot

hers

but

m

akin

gge

nera

lly t

oo m

argi

nalis

ed

Deg

rada

tion

Food

s:va

riet

y to

die

ts,

Dim

inis

hing

acc

ess

to f

oods

,fue

ls,

The

impo

rtan

ce o

f th

is r

ange

of

Wit

h a

mor

e di

vers

e liv

elih

ood

pala

tabi

lity,

mee

tan

d m

edic

ines

mak

e th

eir

prod

ucts

to

the

copi

ng p

oor

is

port

folio

wit

h m

ore

asse

ts a

nd

seas

onal

die

tary

livel

ihoo

ds e

ven

mor

e in

secu

re

two

fold

:(1)

as

a sa

fety

net

,and

op

port

unit

ies

for

dive

rsif

ying

,thi

s sh

ortf

alls

,sna

ck f

ood,

and

mor

e vu

lner

able

to

haza

rds;

(2)

as a

n in

com

e ea

rner

gr

oup

is n

ot s

o vu

lner

able

to

emer

genc

y fo

ods

in a

reas

of

high

for

est

cove

r th

is

to c

ontr

ibut

ing

hous

ehol

d ch

ange

s in

for

est

cond

itio

n;it

is

duri

ng fl

ood,

fam

ine,

grou

p in

par

ticu

lar

is h

ighl

y fo

rest

econ

omie

s;fo

r w

omen

,the

se

mor

e ab

le t

o ac

cess

alt

erna

tive

sw

ar,e

tc.

reso

urce

dep

ende

nt a

nd m

ost

are

ofte

n th

e on

ly s

ourc

e of

to

the

for

est

prod

ucts

;non

ethe

less

,F

uels

:fire

woo

d,ch

arco

al

part

icul

arly

aff

ecte

d by

cha

nges

in

com

e th

at t

hey

are

allo

wed

it

s ne

ed f

or t

he s

afet

y ne

t fu

ncti

ons

grow

ing

impo

rtan

cein

acc

ess

or r

educ

tion

in q

ualit

y to

acc

ess

and

so a

ltho

ugh

a of

the

for

est

rem

ains

,and

wit

hout

fo

r ur

ban

as w

ell a

sof

for

est;

this

ran

ge o

f pr

oduc

ts

smal

l pro

port

ion

of o

vera

llit

the

se h

ouse

hold

s co

uld

beco

me

rura

l ene

rgy

need

sne

eds

littl

e or

no

capi

tal

hous

ehol

d in

com

e,th

ey a

re

mor

e vu

lner

able

and

less

res

ilien

t M

edic

ines

:ran

ge o

f in

vest

men

t an

d is

the

refo

re

of h

igh

gend

er s

igni

fican

ceto

sho

cks

trad

itio

nal p

lant

m

ore

read

ily a

cces

sibl

e to

the

m

edic

ines

ess

enti

al t

o ex

trem

e po

orth

ose

in r

emot

e ru

ral

area

s di

stan

t fr

om

othe

r m

edic

al s

ervi

ces

Tim

ber

Red

uced

acc

ess

to t

imbe

r us

ually

T

his

grou

p,as

for

the

ext

rem

e po

or,

Wit

h gr

eate

r ab

ility

to

take

ris

k ha

s lit

tle

impa

ct o

n th

is g

roup

is

unl

ikel

y to

ben

efit

in a

ny d

irec

t an

d in

vest

in s

ome

rela

tive

ly

beca

use

they

hav

e lit

tle

pow

er

way

fro

m t

he e

cono

mic

ben

efits

lo

w-c

ost

tech

nolo

gy s

uch

as

to c

ontr

ol a

cces

s to

hig

h va

lue

of t

imbe

r ha

rves

ting

;alt

houg

hch

ain

saw

s,th

is g

roup

can

reso

urce

s;be

nefit

s of

tim

ber

beca

use

of t

heir

bet

ter

soci

al

acce

ss s

ome

limit

ed b

enefi

ts

are

mos

tly

capt

ured

by

the

netw

orks

and

leve

ls o

f w

ell-

bein

g fr

om t

imbe

r ha

rves

ting

;bei

ng

elit

es o

ften

in u

rban

cen

tres

they

may

hav

e m

ore

oppo

rtun

ity

bett

er s

ocia

lly n

etw

orke

d,th

is

to b

e la

bour

ers

for

tim

ber

grou

p is

mor

e lik

ely

to b

eco

ntra

ctor

sen

gage

d as

tim

ber

harv

este

rs

Env

iron

men

tal s

ervi

ces

Acr

oss

all g

roup

s th

e en

viro

nmen

tal f

unct

ions

of

fore

sts

are

impo

rtan

t fo

r m

aint

aini

ng w

ater

sup

plie

s,in

puts

to

agri

cult

ural

pro

duct

ivit

y th

roug

h im

prov

ing

soil

fert

ility

,and

pro

vidi

ng t

he r

ange

of

biod

iver

sity

nec

essa

ry

to m

aint

ain

a ro

bust

loca

l eco

syst

emD

egra

dati

on o

f en

viro

nmen

tal s

ervi

ces

is a

gain

mos

t ac

utel

y fe

lt b

y th

ose

For

this

gro

up t

heir

mor

e di

vers

ew

ho h

ave

no o

ther

opt

ions

port

folio

and

hig

her

leve

ls o

f ri

sk-

taki

ng c

apac

ity

mea

ns t

hat

they

are

mor

e re

silie

nt t

o m

inor

cha

nges

inen

viro

nmen

tal s

ervi

ces.

Ada

pted

fro

m w

ork

by B

rock

lesb

y (2

004)

and

Hob

ley

(200

4) d

iffe

rent

iati

ng b

etw

een

form

s of

pov

erty

dep

ende

nt o

n vu

lner

abili

ty a

nd c

apab

ility

to

have

a v

oice

.

26 M. Hobley

forest change can be devastating, whereas for others with a broader livelihood portfoliothat includes only limited dependence on theforests, changes in forest quality and extent mayonly have relatively minor effects. In such cases,responses to forest restoration will also be different between individual households in acommunity. The importance of a broad-basedand carefully structured participatory process,linked to social mobilisation and includingattempts to build the capacity of different social groups to have a voice, cannot be underestimated.

For some of the poorest rural peoples thereis extreme forest dependence, but for otherswho are not so poor (the “coping” poor), theuse of forests is indirect and more often is ameans of poverty prevention, providing impor-tant seasonal safety nets.This latter role is oftentransitory as poor people build other assets tomove out of poverty. It is rarely the case thatforests themselves are the means to povertyreduction. However, what happens to theforests, their products and services, does have aprofound impact on people’s livelihoods, par-ticularly when this is linked with the effects onother land uses such as grazing and agriculture.

Risk and uncertainty are universal charac-teristics of life in rural areas. Sources of riskinclude natural hazards like drought and flood,commodity price fluctuations, illness and death,changing social relationships, unstable govern-ments, and armed conflicts. Some risky eventslike drought or flood simultaneously affectmany households in a community or region.Other risky events, like illnesses, are household-specific and again have differential effectsdepending on the overall robustness of a par-ticular household and its livelihood strategies.Catastrophic forest loss, for example throughfire or clear-felling, thus affects whole commu-nities, but the intensity of the effects are notnecessarily uniform.

It is not only total forest loss that leads tonegative impacts on well-being. For example,loss of particular nontimber forest products(NTFPs) from a surviving forest can be equallycatastrophic to those households who havebased their livelihoods around the use and saleof these products. Changes in market condi-

tions, including in particular the recognition ofthe value of an NTFP on national and interna-tional markets, can disadvantage the very pooras the elites seize control of valuable naturalresources and dominate market access.

1.2. Implications of Differential Social Impacts for Forest Restoration

1.2.1. Guiding Questions for Restoration

Forests can affect livelihoods in two principalways that must be considered when any land-scape restoration is under consideration39:

• Poverty avoidance or mitigation, that is,where forest resources serve a safety netfunction, or as a gap filler, including as asource of petty cash

• Poverty elimination, that is, where forestresources help lift a household out of povertyby functioning as a source of savings, invest-ment, accumulation, asset building, and permanent increases in wealth and income

When restoration is planned to amelioratethe impacts of forest changes on the well-beingof target groups a set of questions can help toguide responses as to the nature and extent ofrestoration required.40 The usefulness of suchquestions depends to a large extent on the wayin which they are asked. It is important to useparticipatory processes that lead to peoplebeing able to influence decisions about land useand control the outcomes of these decisions, butprocesses must also allow space for the voicesof the extreme poor to be heard as well as thoseof the more articulate and much less vulnera-ble poor and wealthier groups:

What is the frequency or timing of use of forestproducts and the extent to which a house-hold’s labour is allocated to these activities?

What is the role of forest products in householdlivelihood systems? What is their importanceas a share of household inputs, and in

39 Sunderlin et al, 2004:1.40 Byron and Arnold, 1997.


meeting household livelihood strategy objectives?

What is the impact of reduced access to forests?Does the forest serve as a (critical) economicand ecological buffer for its users, or arethere alternatives, such as trees outsideforests or non–forest/tree sources of neededinputs and income?

What is the likely future importance of forestproducts? Do users face a growing or declin-ing demand for forest products, or the poten-tial for expanded or decreased involvementin production and trade in forest products?

2. Examples

Undoubtedly forest degradation and loss hasmajor livelihood and well-being impacts formany people, from those with secure liveli-hoods to the extreme poor. It is therefore particularly important to understand the differential effects of forest change and theimplications for livelihoods and livelihoodoptions.

Byron and Arnold41 provide a useful cate-gorisation that aids this understanding anddirects practical intervention. Clearly there isno general solution that can be applied acrossall situations. Any support to forest landscaperestoration must be based on a careful assess-ment that “covers the range of the relationshipsbetween the people and the forests which theyuse and/or manage, the current limitations totheir livelihoods, and the potentials and desiresfor change.” They outline five generalised (andpotentially overlapping) situations:

1. Forests continue to be central to livelihoodsystems. Local people are or should be the prin-cipal stakeholders in these forest areas. Meetingtheir needs is likely to be the principal objec-tive of forest management and restoration, andthis should be reflected in control and tenurearrangements (also see “Land Ownership andForest Restoration”).

2. Forest products play an important supple-mentary and safety net role. Users need security

of access to the resources from which theysource these products, but are often not theonly users in that forest area. Forest manage-ment and control is likely to be best based onresource-sharing arrangements among severalstakeholder groups. Successful restorationactivities need to recognise and be plannedwith respect to these roles. Examples across theworld include joint forest management in Indiaand collaborative management in Ghana,where the state and local forest users shareboth in management decisions and in the ben-efits of forest products, which provide incen-tives to both partners to manage the forests fora range of benefits. However, in many cases thestate is still reluctant to allow these agreementsto cover high value forests, retaining controland access to the benefits and restricting localaccess to the forests and its products.42 Com-munity forestry in the hills of Nepal is widelycited as a successful example of transfer ofcontrol of management and benefits to localcommunities; again, however, the governmenthas demonstrated its reluctance to extend man-agement authority to the high value forests ofthe lowlands.

3. Forest products play an important role butare more effectively supplied from nonforestsources. Management of a proportion of theforests needs to be geared towards agro-foreststructures, and control and tenure need to beconsistent with the individual rather than thecollective forms of governance that this shift islikely to require. Examples of these situationsabound: PASOLAC (Programa para la Agri-cultura Sostenible en las Laderas de AméricaCentral) in Central America has been workingwith communities living in areas of high envi-ronmental degradation and insecurity to reducetheir vulnerability to extreme natural events.This programme supports farmers to identifytheir own training requirements, providesfinancial and in-kind compensation for themanagement and maintenance of naturalresources and their services and works todevelop the integration of farmers and forestproducts into local markets. This integrated

41 Byron and Arnold, 1997. 42 Arnold, 2001; Molnar et al, 2004.

28 M. Hobley

approach “combining improvements in humanand social capital with advances in locallyadapted resource management techniques andthe creation of financial instruments”43 is animportant combination and an interesting pro-gression away from approaches that have gen-erally limited their support to more technicallybased interventions.

4. Participants need help in exploiting oppor-tunities to increase the benefits they obtain fromforest product activities. Constraints in the wayof smallholders’ access to markets need to beremoved. Improved access to credit, skills, mar-keting services etc., may be required. A goodexample of the increasing experience with thistype of support is provided by the PROCY-MAF project (Proyecto de Conservación yManejo Sostenible de Recursos Forestales) inMexico. It has focussed on strengthening pro-ducer organisations and overcoming valuechain “gaps.”44 This support is packaged withthe supply of business services, which developthe skills of producer organisation leaders andmembers. A range of other programmes acrossthe world are focussing on the better harvest-ing and marketing of a wide variety of NTFPsthrough understanding value chains and devel-oping producer skills at entering markets in amore informed and secure environment.

5. Participants need help in moving out ofdead-end forest product activities. An importantexample of this is firewood collection for salein the market, often conducted by women whosay they would rather be employed in othereasier activities that are not so physically burdensome and poorly paid. It is often anactivity of last resort and does not lead toopportunity to move out of these poverty con-fining conditions.

3. Outline of Tools

Baseline assessment: To build understanding ofpeople’s livelihoods and well-being, exposureto risk, and vulnerability, there are a range oftools that have been gathered under the

umbrella of livelihoods analysis. These includesurvey methodologies and participatoryappraisal approaches and are discussed in other chapters in this book. A useful guide tothe range of tools and their applications can befound on Web sites including www.liveli-hoods.org. With this baseline assessment, it isthen possible to begin to work with local peopleto identify different approaches to supporttheir relationships with forests and forest prod-ucts. It can be used as the basis for implemen-tation and for later evaluation to assess thedegree of change in exposure to risk and reduc-tion in vulnerability as a result of livelihoodinterventions.

Tools for engagement: Voice, as has already been discussed, is an essential element of changing relationships and shiftingpower. Building poor people’s capabilities to be able to influence decisions and policy is a key part of any restoration effort.Participatory tools and social mobilisationapproaches are all used to build people’s capa-bilities, but often voice is most strongly devel-oped as poor people’s livelihoods become moresecure.

Community-based cost-benefit analysis:For communities, changing their use of forests and forest lands depends very much on individual and collective cost-benefit analyses. Communities are likely to be pre-pared to manage forests only if they offergreater benefit than under other uses of the land on which the forests grow. Such analyses are an essential part of any landscaperestoration initiative because unless these costs and benefits are understood and factoredinto the process, initiatives will fail where perceived costs of maintaining the forest outweigh the tentative benefits. This is whereecosystem service payment schemes become animportant part of the analysis and where it willbe important to change local incentives andattitudes toward forests.45 Additionally, focuson market access is critical where poor accessand low values for forest products act as majorbarriers and disincentives.

43 IISD et al, 2003.44 Scherr et al, 2003. 45 Arnold, 2001.


Facilitating access to green markets: Providingmechanisms and funds that allow local peopleto access markets for ecosystem services suchas watershed protection, biodiversity pro-tection, etc., is another important element ofchanging the relationship between people’slivelihoods and the forest resource. Forest cer-tification can also be used to help forest man-agers to access higher value markets. There aresome successful experiences with community-based certification in Latin America,46 althoughthe certification costs are often very high forsmall community groups and much more stillneeds to be done to provide standards thatfacilitate access of community managed naturaltimber into the green markets.

Securing tenure and management rights:Clearly tenure or at least long-term manage-ment rights are important elements in anyforest restoration effort. There are now manymodels of communities that own forests withevidence of the incentives this creates for wisemanagement. Tenure is often highly contestedand requires careful work with governments tobuild an environment in which it is possible toshift tenure patterns. Often this requires signifi-cant evidence that changing tenure arrange-ments does lead to fundamental environmentaland social benefits.

4. Future Needs

In any process of restoration, and perhaps par-ticularly restoration projects driven by conser-vation concerns, some key messages need to beincorporated into the planning and implemen-tation of any programme:

• Recognition of the differential importance offorests, products, and services on differentpeople and therefore the differential impactsof changes in forest quality and extent;

• Recognition of the role of forests in povertyprevention as well as poverty reduction;

• The need to involve people in the decision-making process to build voice and capacity toarticulate voice in an institutional and politi-

cal environment that is able to respond tothese voices;

• Recognition of the need to support the build-ing of livelihoods that reduce people’s expo-sure to risk and remove vulnerabilities;

• Recognition that forests alone do not neces-sarily move people out of poverty but actu-ally can secure them in poverty;

• Support to decentralised service provisionthat can be socially responsive and tailoredto particular ecological and economic conditions47;

• Impacts of restoration also need to be carefully considered. Just as the impacts ofdegradation are not equally felt across liveli-hood groups, it is the case with restoration.Restoration of forest cover for some mayhave negative livelihood implications. Oftenthe beneficiaries of restoration are not thoseliving locally to the forest but are down-stream users of services, therefore, the distri-bution of costs and benefits of restorationneed to be carefully considered.

References

Arnold, M. 2001. 25 Years of Community Forestry.FAO, Rome.

Blankenberg, F. 1995. Methods of Impact Assess-ment Research Programme, Resource Pack and Discussion. Oxfam UK/I and Novib, theHague.

Brocklesby, M.A. 2004. Planning against risk: toolsfor analysing vulnerability in remote rural areas.Chars Organisational Learning Paper 2, DFID,London, www.livelihoods.org.

Byron, N., and Arnold, M. 1997. What futures for thepeople of the tropical forests? CIFOR workingpaper No 19. CIFOR, Bogor, www.cifor.cgiar.org.

de Satgé, R. 2002. Learning about livelihoods:insights from Southern Africa. Periperi Publica-tions, South Africa and Oxfam Publishing, Oxford.

Hobley, M. 2004. The Voice-responsiveness frame-work: creating political space for the extremepoor. Chars Organisational Learning Paper 3,DFID, London, www.livelihoods.org.

IISD, SEI, IUCN, and Intercooperation. 2003.Livelihoods and climate change: increasing the

46 Molnar et al, 2004. 47 Ribot, 2002.

30 M. Hobley

resilience of tropical hillside communities throughforest landscape restoration. Information Paper 2IUCN and SDC, www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/index.html.

Lamb, D., and Gilmour, D. 2003. Rehabilitation andRestoration of Degraded Forests. IUCN andWWF, Gland Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Molnar, A., Scherr, S.J., and Khare, A. 2004. Who conserves the world’s forests? Community-drivenstrategies to protect forests and respect rights.Forest Trends, and Ecoagriculture Partners,Washington, DC, www.forest-trends.org.

Ribot, J.C. 2002. Democratic Decentralisation ofNatural Resources: Institutionalising Popular Par-ticipation. World Resources Institute, Washington,DC.

Scherr, S.J., White, A., and Kaimowitz, D. 2003.Making markets work for forest communities.International Forestry Review 5(1):67–73.

Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., and Wunder, S. 2004.Forests and poverty alleviation. CIFOR, Bogor,www.cifor.cgiar.org.

Westoby, J. 1989. Introduction to World Forestry.Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

World Bank. 2001. World Development Report2000–2001. World Bank, Washington.

Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty alleviation and tropicalforests—what scope for synergies? World Devel-opment 29(11):1817–1833.

Additional Reading

Forestry Research Programme (FRP). 2004. Com-munity forestry gets the credit. Forestry ResearchProgramme Research Summary 006, FRP,Kent.


Climate change is arguably the greatest con-temporary threat to biodiversity. It is alreadyaffecting ecosystems of all kinds and theseimpacts are expected to become more drama-tic as the climate continues to change due toanthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions intothe atmosphere, mostly from fossil fuel com-bustion. While restoration is made more diffi-

cult by climate change, it can conversely be seenas a possible adaptive management approachfor enhancing the resilience of ecosystems tothese changes.

Climate change will result in added physicaland biological stresses to forest ecosystems,including drought, heat, increased evapotran-spiration, altered seasonality of hydrology,pests, disease, and competition; the strength andtype of effect will depend on the location. Suchstresses will compound existing nonclimaticthreats to forest biodiversity, including overhar-vesting, invasive species,pollution,and land con-version. This will result in forest ecosystemschanging in composition and location. There-fore, in order to increase the potential forsuccess, it will be necessary to consider thesechanges when designing restoration projects.

On the other hand, restoration projects canalso be viewed as a key aspect of enhancingecosystem resilience to climate change. Humandevelopment has resulted in habitat loss, frag-mentation, and degradation. A first step inincreasing resilience to the effects of climatechange is enhancing or protecting the ecosys-tem’s natural ability to respond to stress andchange. Research suggests that this is bestachieved with “healthy” and intact systems as astarting point, which can draw on their owninternal diversity to have natural adaptation oracclimation potential,48 and therefore greaterresilience. Any restoration activities thatenhance the ecological health of a system can

5Restoring Forest Landscapes in theFace of Climate ChangeJennifer Biringer and Lara J. Hansen


Climate change increases the need forrestoration, both to help forest systems tomanage existing changes and to buffer themagainst likely changes in the future byincreasing areas of natural, healthy forestsystems.

Care needs to be taken to avoid oversim-plistic reliance on forests for carbon seques-tration, and attempts at restoration toincrease carbon storage must be assessedcarefully to judge their true worth.

Tools such as vulnerability analyses can helpto design effective restoration strategies,which are likely to include reduction of fragmentation, increasing connectivity,development of effective buffer zones, andmaintenance of genetic diversity.

31

48 Kumaraguru and Beamish, 1981; McLusky et al, 1986.

32 J. Biringer and L.J. Hansen

thus be seen as creating or increasing the poten-tial buffering capacity against negative impactsof climate change. It should be mentioned thatthere are obvious limits to the rate and extentof change that even a robust system can toler-ate. As a result it is only prudent to conductrestoration for enhancing resilience in tandemwith efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emis-sions, the root cause of climate change.

For many with a forestry background, carbondioxide sequestration might seem a concomi-tant advantage to restoration projects, whichcan aid in reduction of atmospheric concentra-tions of greenhouse gases.While forests do holdcarbon, and their loss does release carbon, theirlong-term capacity to act as a reliable sink inthe face of climate change, especially for effec-tive mitigation, is not a foolproof strategy (formore on carbon sequestration projects, see“Carbon Knowledge Projects and Forest Land-scape Restoration”). Where restoration is pro-moted with a focus on capturing carbon, ananalysis of climate change impacts should beintegrated into project planning to determinewhether there really are net sequestration benefits. Increased incidence of forest fires as a result of warming and drying trends, forexample, could outweigh any efforts to reducecarbon emissions. Case studies of successfulresilience-building efforts are not yet plentiful,due to relatively recent revelations about the scale and impact that climate change willhave on ecosystems. However, the global tem-perature has risen 0.7°C as atmospheric con-centrations have risen49 and extinctions andlarge-scale ecosystem changes are expected. Anumber of forest types are already being nega-tively impacted, including tropical montanecloud forests, dry forests, and forests in theboreal zone, and climate-related extinctions arealready thought to have occurred, for exampleamongst amphibians. Along the coasts, therising sea level is increasing the vulnerability ofmangroves. Restoration as a means to ensurehealthy ecosystem structure and function willhave a large part to play in adapting ecosystemsto these broad-scale changes. See Box 5.1 formore in-depth exploration of these topics.

2. Example: Mangrove Restoration as an Adaptive Management Strategy

Mangroves provide a concrete example of howrestoration can be used as a tool to helpenhance resistance and resilience to climatechange. Mangroves are clearly vulnerable torising sea levels, which will change sedimentdynamics, cause erosion, and change salinitylevels. The rate of sediment buildup, which isthe backbone of mangrove survival, is expectedto take place at only half the pace of sea-levelrise in many places, and mangrove survival willtherefore require active restoration. Anotheraspect of mangroves that makes them an idealtesting ground for restoration is their relativeecological simplicity. Furthermore, the relation-ship between human and ecological vulner-ability to climate change is relatively clear.Low-lying coastal areas, particularly those intropical Africa, South Asia, and the SouthPacific, are predicted to experience among themost severe consequences of global climatechange.50 As these are among the most popu-lous areas across the globe, the livelihoods of many coastal communities that depend onmangrove resources for wood and shrimpfarming, will be increasingly tied to their vul-nerability to climate change.

Mangrove restoration can do much to limitor delay the negative effects of climate changeon associated human and natural communities.Mangroves play an integral role in coastalecosystems as the interface among terrestrial,freshwater, and marine systems.They are exten-sively developed on sedimentary shorelinessuch as deltas, where sediment supply deter-mines their ability to keep up with sea-levelrise. They afford protection from dynamicmarine processes to both terrestrial and estu-arine systems, preventing erosion and chaoticmixing. They also act locally to filter water.Mangrove forests protect sea grass beds andcoral reefs from deposition of suspendedmatter that is transported seaward by rivers and

49 Hansen et al, 2003. 50 IPCC, 2001.

5. Restoring Forest Landscapes in the Face of Climate Change 33

Box 5.1. Framework for Understanding Intersection of Resilience-Building and ForestRestoration and Protection

1. Protection: For some forests protectionalone will not increase resilience to climatechange. Many tropical montane cloud forestsprovide a case in point. Australia’s WetTropics World Heritage Area is expected toexperience a 50% reduction in habitat withwarming of 1 degree Celsius, which will leaveamphibians and other cool-adapted speciesno upland migration options as conditionsbecome warmer and drier.

2. Sequestration via restoration: Manyexamples exist where the planting of treesstores carbon but is not coordinated withconservation or resilience-raising advan-tages. Nonnative trees, such as Eucalyptus,are often planted solely for the carbonbenefit, though the planting may causedegradation of the landscape, and thus notprovide a buffer against climate change.

3. Resilience/adaptation: Restoration isbut one of the many types of managementoptions that increase resilience. For example,actions that respond to changing dynamicssuch as insect infestations and changing firepatterns are aspects of good forestry that willreceive special attention with the advent ofclimate change. Activities that increase theefficiency of resource use will also increaseresilience. In Cameroon, mangroves are

being aided by increasing the efficiency ofwood-burning stoves so that 75 percent lessmangrove wood is needed for cooking,thereby increasing the resilience of thesystem by reducing harvest levels. Suchactions decrease degradation of the man-grove and raise the probability that it will beequipped to respond to the effects of climatechange.

4. Sequestration and resilience/adapta-tion: Restoration and resilience go hand inhand when the impacts of climate change are taken into account in project planning.Whether passive or active restoration, activ-ities target those areas that will be more suit-able to climate change, and encourage use ofspecies that will be hardier under new cli-matic conditions (successful seed dispersers,for example).

5. Intersection of protection, sequestra-tion, and resilience/adaptation: Creatingbuffer zones through restoration canincrease the resilience of protected areas tothe impacts of climate change while at thesame time sequestering carbon. This sce-nario is similar to the one above, except thatrestoration is focussed on increasing theresilience of protected areas by expandingboundaries to increase suitable habitatunder changing climatic conditions.

6. Protection and adaptation: Protectioncan lead to increased resilience to theimpacts of climate change, where suitablehabitat is intact, and the expansion of bound-aries is possible to accommodate species’needs with a changing climate. A successfulprotected area system includes identificationand conservation of mature forest stands,functional groups and keystone species, andclimate refugia.


provide nursery habitat for many fish species.Deteriorating water quality and coastal degra-dation are anticipated to be magnified byclimate change. Globally, however, many man-grove systems have already been degraded anddestroyed. Loss of these buffering systems pre-cludes any protection they might afford. Thishas been recognised for some time, and manyindividual projects have attempted to rebuildmangrove systems. However, in the past, theemphasis of mangrove restoration projects hasbeen on planting trees, and this has led to poorsurvival rates, such as in West Bengal, India,where survival rates in some projects werereported as low as less than 2 percent.51

New approaches are therefore required. Inaddition, simply restoring a mangrove where ithas been degraded will not necessarily beenough in the face of climate change. Restora-tion in an environment where the climate israpidly changing will require taking intoaccount a few additional elements as opposedto restoration in a stable context. Before start-ing a restoration programme, two additionalsteps are required: (1) assess the cause of man-grove loss and evaluate how to remove thosecauses if possible; and (2) take into account theadded complexity relating to how climatechange will affect the system: in this case pri-marily through sea-level rise.

A large-scale mangrove restoration effort inVietnam has demonstrated that this approachto mangrove management can benefit localresource users and enhance protection fromstorm surge and sea-level rise.52 The restorationproject in this region has planted more than18,000 hectares of mangrove along 100 kilome-tres of coastline. In addition to creating a morestable coastline capable of surviving chang-ing marine conditions, harvestable marine re-sources are also increasing in number.

Understanding the hydrology (both fre-quency and duration of tidal flooding) is thesingle most important factor in designing suc-cessful mangrove restoration projects.53 Incor-porating projections of sea-level rise into

project design will be necessary so that man-groves are planted or are allowed to colonisenaturally or regenerate (this takes 15 to 30years where stresses leading to degradation areno longer present) in areas that will be morehospitable in the future. If the shoreline ismoving, for instance, mangroves may need tobe restored some distance from their originallocation.

3. Outline of Tools

This section offers a framework for integratingknowledge about climate change to forest man-agers who are considering restoration. It isbased on an understanding of how adaptation(in this case to climate change) needs to be inte-grated with both restoration and protection, asoutlined in Box 5.1 above.

3.1 Vulnerability Analysis

To understand how climate change will affectan existing forest system, an analysis of the vul-nerability of the defined area can be under-taken.As a first stop, climate change impacts onthe major forest types are presented in WWF’sBuying Time: A User’s Manual for BuildingResistance and Resilience to Climate Change inNatural Systems,54 with examples from manydifferent regions collected from the literature.For more specific information on a particularsite, a literature search may identify whether avulnerability analysis has been made of theproject area in question.

If limited information on climate changeimpacts exists for the selected site, a vulnera-bility analysis can be commissioned to feed intoproject design activities. An expert conversantin climate change science as well as biologicalscience for the region can piece together apicture of regional vulnerability that will helpto guide project activities so that they can takeaccount of likely alterations in environmentalconditions as the climate changes. At a large

51 Sanyal, 1998.52 Tri et al, 1998.53 Lewis and Streever, 2000. 54 Hansen et al, 2003 (available on www.panda.org).


scale, major shifts in biome types can be pro-jected by combining biogeography models suchas the Holdridge Life Zone ClassificationModel with general circulation models (GCMs)that project changes under a doubled CO2 sce-nario. Biogeochemistry models simulate thegain, loss, and internal cycling of carbon, nutri-ents, and water-impact of changes in tempera-ture, precipitation, soil moisture, and otherclimatic factors that give clues to ecosys-tem productivity. Dynamic global vegetationmodels integrate biogeochemical processeswith dynamic changes in vegetation composi-tion and distribution. Studies on particularspecies comparing present trends with paleo-ecological data also provide indications for howspecies will adapt to climate change.55

A vulnerability analysis can help to assesswhat systems or aspects of the systems havegreater resilience and resistance to climatechange impacts. This type of information canhelp to identify sites that have greater long-term potential as ecosystem “refugia” fromclimate change impacts. Some refugia exist dueto their unique situational characteristics, buttheir resilience could be enhanced by manage-ment and restoration.

3.2 Restoration as a Resilience/Adaptation Strategy

After completing a vulnerability analysis todetermine how a forest system may be im-pacted by changing climatic conditions, the nextstep is to look at the range of adaptationoptions available in order to promote resi-lience. An effective vulnerability analysis willdetermine which components of the system—species or functions, for example—will be mostvulnerable to change, together with considera-tion of which parts of the system are crucial forecosystem health.An array of options pertinentto adapting forests to climate change are avail-able, both to apply to forest communities athigh risk from climate change impacts as wellas for those whose protection should be priori-tised given existing resilience. Long-term

resilience of species will be enabled wherenatural adaptation processes such as migration,selection, and change in structure are allowedto take place due to sufficient connectivity andhabitat size within the landscape.

Restoration can provide a series of criticalinterventions to reduce climate change im-pacts.56 Basic tenets of restoration for adapta-tion include working on a larger scale toincrease the amount of available options forecosystems, inclusion of corridors for connec-tivity between sites, inclusion of buffers, andprovision of heterogeneity within the restora-tion approach. Key approaches are as follows:

Reduce fragmentation and provide connectivity:Noss57 provides an overview of the negativeeffects of ecosystem fragmentation, whichare abundantly documented worldwide.“Edge effects” threaten the microclimate andstability of a forest as the ratio of edge tointerior habitat increases. Eventually, theability of a forest to withstand debilitatingimpacts is broken. Fragmentation of forestecosystems also contributes to a loss of bio-diversity as exotic, weedy species with highdispersal capacities are favoured and manynative species are inhibited by isolation.Restoration strategies should therefore oftenfocus first on those areas where interventioncan connect existing forest fragments into amore coherent whole.

Provide buffer zones and flexibility of land uses:The fixed boundaries of protected areas arenot well suited to a dynamic environmentunless individual areas are extremely large.With changing climate, buffer zones mightprovide suitable conditions for species if con-ditions inside reserves become unsuitable.58

Buffer zones increase the patch size of theinterior of the protected area and overlap-ping buffers provide migratory possibili-ties for some species.59 Buffer zones shouldideally be large, and managers of protectedareas and surrounding lands must demon-strate considerable flexibility by adjusting

55 Hansen et al, 2001.

56 Biringer, 2003; Noss, 2001.57 Noss, 2000.58 Noss, 2000.59 Sekula, 2000.


land management activities across the land-scape in response to changing habitat suit-ability. A specific case for a buffer zonesurrounding tropical montane cloud forestscan be made based on research that showsthat the upwind effects to deforestation oflowland forests causes the cloud base torise.60 Restoring forest around protectedareas, for example to supply timber throughcontinuous cover forestry, or for nontimberforest products, watershed protection, or asrecreational areas, could help maintain thequality of the protected area in the face ofclimate change.

Maintain genetic diversity and promote ecosys-tem health via restoration: Adaptation toclimate change via selection of resilient spe-cies depends on genetic variation. Efforts tomaintain genetic diversity should be applied,particularly in degraded landscapes or withinpopulations of commercially important trees(where genetic diversity is often low due toselective harvesting). In such places wheregenetic diversity has been reduced, restora-tion, especially using seed sources from lowerelevations or latitudes, can play a vital role inmaintaining ecosystem resilience.61 Hogg andSchwarz62 suggest that assisted regenerationcould be used in southern boreal forests inCanada where drier conditions may decreasenatural regeneration of conifer species. Sim-ilarly, genotypes of beach pine forests inBritish Columbia may need assistance inredistributing across the landscape in orderto maintain long-term productivity.63 In addi-tion, species that are known to be moreresilient to impacts in a given landscape canbe specifically selected for replanting. Forexample, trees with thick bark can be plantedin areas prone to fire to increase tree survivalduring increased frequency and severity offires.64

4. Future Needs

Documentation of the role restoration plays inbuilding resilience to climate change is in itsinfancy. Although field projects are beginningto test restoration as a resilience-building tool,we are far from definitive guidance. Unfortu-nately, this is the nature of the practice of con-servation; decisions based on best knowledgeneed to be made now while we continue togather more information. Otherwise, opportu-nities will be lost.

To meet these needs we propose additionalfield projects to test, confirm, and developrestoration’s role in building resilience toclimate change. This needs to be conductedacross different forest types with as much repli-cation as possible. A strong monitoring com-ponent is necessary for any such project,especially given the complex relationshipsbetween species’ structure, composition, andfunctioning on which climate change is unfold-ing. The results of monitoring will also enablelessons to be drawn from resilience-buildingefforts, and to compare these with similar“control” landscapes or other resilience-building projects in different regions withsimilar habitat type.

Ideally, resilience-building managementstrategies will serve as another layer in a com-prehensive forest management plan that has asits objective the overall health of the forestecosystem. For example, many WWF eco-regional visions are adding vulnerability toclimate change as another component that will drive conservation decisions. Such antici-patory resilience-building plans take climatechange into account during the planningprocess, and will better ensure synergies withother management priorities. A number of sci-entific, governmental institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGO) areacquiring expertise in the area of climatechange impacts and adaptation/resilience. Itwill be fruitful to seek partnerships with theseinstitutions at the beginning of any restorationproject to analyse climate impacts and pro-posed restoration activities.

60 Lawton et al, 2001.61 Noss, 2000.62 Hogg and Schwarz, 1997.63 Rehfeldt et al, 1999.64 Dale et al, 2001.


References

Biringer, J. 2003. Forest ecosystems threatened by climate change: promoting long-term forestresilience. In: Hansen, L.J., Biringer, J.L., andHoffman, J.R. eds. Buying Time: A User’s Manualfor Building Resistance and Resilience to ClimateChange in Natural Systems.WWF,Washington, pp.41–69. (Also online at www.panda.org/climate/pa_manual)

Dale, V., Joynce, L., McNurlty, S., et al. 2001. Climatechange and forest disturbances. Bioscience 51(9):723–734.

Hansen, A., Neilson, R., Dale, V., et al. 2001. Globalchange in forests: responses of species, communi-ties, and Biomes. Bioscience 51(9):765–779.

Hansen, L.J., Biringer, J.L., and Hoffman, J.R. eds.2003. Buying Time: A User’s Manual for BuildingResistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF, Washington, 242 pages. (Also online at www.panda.org/climate/pa_manual.)

Hogg, E., and Schwarz, A. 1997. Regeneration ofplanted conifers across climatic moisture gradientson the Canadian prairies: implications for distri-bution and climate change. Journal of Biogeogra-phy 24:527–534.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). 2001. Impacts, Adaptations and Vulnera-bility.Working Group II,Third Assessment Report.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1032pages.

Kumaraguru A.K., and Beamish, F.W.H. 1981. Lethaltoxicity of permethrin (NRDC 143) to rainbowtrout, Salmo gairdneri, in relation to body weightand water temperature. Water Research 15:503–505.

Lawton, R., Nair, U., Pielke, R., and Welch, R. 2001.Climate impact of tropical lowland deforestationon nearby montane cloud forests. Science 294(5542):584–587.

Lewis, R., and Streever, B. 2000. Restoration of man-grove habitat. WRP Technical Notes Collection

(ERDC TN-WRP-VN-RS-3.2), U.S. Army Engi-neer Research and Development Center, Vicks-burg, MS. www.wes.army.mil/el/wrp.

McLusky, D.S., Bryant, V., and Campbell, R. 1986.The effects of temperature and salinity on the tox-icity of heavy metals to the marine and estuarineinvertebrates. Oceanography and Marine BiologyAnnual Review 24:481–520.

Noss, 2000. Managing forests for resistance andresilience to climate change: a report to WorldWildlife Fund U.S., 53 pages.

Noss, R. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management ina time of rapid climate change. ConservationBiology 15(3):578–590.

Rehfeldt G., Ying, C., Spittlehouse D., and Hamilton,D., Jr. 1999. Genetic response to climate in Pinuscontorta: niche breadth, climate change and refor-estation. Ecological Monographs 69(3):375–407.

Sanyal, P. 1998. Rehabilitation of degraded man-grove forests of the Sunderbans of India. Pro-gramme of the International Workshop on theRehabilitation of Degraded Coastal Systems.Phuket Marine Biological Center, Phuket, Thai-land, January 19–24, p. 25.

Sekula, J. 2000. Circumpolar boreal forests andclimate change: impacts and managerial responses.An unpublished discussion paper prepared jointlyby the IUCN Temperate and Boreal Forest Pro-gramme and the IUCN Global Initiative onClimate Change.

Tri, N.H., Adger, W.N., and Kelly, P.M. 1998. Naturalresource management in mitigating climateimpacts: the example of mangrove restoration inVietnam. Global Environmental Change 8(1):49–61.

Additional Reading

Krankina, O., Dixon, R., Kirilenko,A., and Kobak, K.1997. Global climate change adaptation: examplesfrom Russian boreal forests. Climatic Change36(1–2):197–215.

Section IIIForest Restoration in Modern

Broad-Scale Conservation

1. Background andExplanation of the Issue

Most people are aware of the global reductionin forest cover as a result of ever-increasinghuman domination of the planet. The impactsare felt on biodiversity and on people as shownin the previous chapters of this book. A naturalreaction to this forest loss is to engage in forestrestoration activities.

Across the planet, conservationists areworking to increase overall forest coverageusing a variety of strategies. In some cases this

includes attempting to intensify agriculture so that it requires less land, focussing on valueover volume in wood products, and concentrat-ing production in (native) plantation forests.Another strategy is to de-intensify agriculturaluses and promote a mosaic of natural andanthropogenic elements, allowing nativespecies and communities to fill in around ouruse of the landscape, and provide necessaryecosystem services to operate more freely.

In any case, the competition for land amonga range of interests and stakeholders necessi-tates that all forest conservation activities,including forest restoration, be strategic and fora specific purpose(s), be it conservation or oth-erwise. This strategic focus should ideally beidentified through a participatory process thatleads to a long-term “vision” for the desiredfuture state of the area. Increasing the qualityand quantity of forest cover is an importantgeneral goal for conservation, both for ecosys-tem services (watershed protection, climateregulation, etc.) and for the needs of thosespecies that depend on forests. However, due to the intense competition for land between the forces of development and conservation,efficiency in how and where forest restora-tion occurs is critical. In other words, whileincreased tree cover will nearly always be ben-eficial from a conservation perspective, if pos-sible, restoration efforts should be focussed insuch a way that multiple conservation andsocial goals are reached (also see sections“Restoring Ecological Functions” and “Restor-ing Socioeconomic Values”). Meeting both

6Restoration as a Strategy toContribute to Ecoregion VisionsJohn Morrison, Jeff Sayer, and Colby Loucks


Ecoregion conservation is a large-scale, long-term, and flexible concept whose purpose is to meet the four goals of biodiversity conservation: representation, maintenanceof evolutionary processes, maintenance ofviable populations, and resilience.

In degraded landscapes and ecoregions res-toration goals and strategies will be criticalto the success of an ecoregion vision.

But as restoration can be energy intensive,its role must be defined in the context ofquantifiable goals related to the four largergoals of biodiversity conservation.

41

42 J. Morrison et al

conservation and social goals simultaneouslymaximises the chances that the activities will be sustainable and that they will have localsupport. An example of this integration is pro-vided by the activities in the Upper ParanáAtlantic Forest. Within this ecoregion forestpatch connectivity is being improved throughthe incorporation of native plants that can alsobe sustainably used by local people (see casestudy “Finding Economically SustainableMeans of Preserving and Restoring the AtlanticForest in Argentina”).

What are the primary conservation goals thatwe should be trying to achieve?

1.1. The Four Goals of BiodiversityConservation and Ecoregion Conservation65

The goals of biodiversity conservation and eco-region conservation are as follows:

1. Representation of all distinct natural com-munities within conservation landscapes andprotected areas’ networks

2. Maintenance of ecological and evolution-ary processes that create and sustain biodiversity

3. Maintenance of viable populations ofspecies

4. Conservation of blocks of natural habitatlarge enough to be resilient to large-scaledisturbances and long-term changes

Because these conservation goals oftenoperate over large spatial and temporal scales,the design of conservation programmes“requires a perspective that spans nations andcenturies.”66 Large-scale conservation initia-tives have become standard in a number of con-servation organisations over the last decade.This evolution is seen as a reaction to the oftendisjointed, isolated, and nonstrategic activitiesthat once characterised site-level conservation.While site-level conservation will always be an important and, many would argue, the mostimportant scale of conservation intervention,site-level activities can be planned in the

context of larger scale (landscape and ecore-gion) visions. The thinking behind using largebiogeographic units as the framework in whichto achieve conservation goals is that naturalcommunities, species, and even human threatsto biodiversity move and operate at largescales, often irrespective of political boundaries.Actions conceived at the same scale as the eco-logical entities and processes that the actionsare trying to protect should be more robust andefficient than uncoordinated efforts at a sitescale. At WWF, the global conservation organ-isation, this evolution has taken the form ofEcoregional Conservation (ERC). Ecoregionconservation is really a philosophy thatespouses using large, biogeographically definedunits as an arena within which to achieve thefour goals of conservation outlined above. Theactual process of ecoregion conservation plan-ning has followed a number of paths, generallyrelying on experts, computer algorithms, oreven a mixture of the two to identify conserva-tion priorities.

A range of spatial scales has been addressedto date, under the heading of “ecoregion con-servation.” A system of ecoregional boundariesof the world has been stitched together byWWF.67 This system is also used by the NatureConservancy. Conservation effort is not appliedequally across this system. WWF has defined825 terrestrial ecoregions (Fig. 6.1), of which alarge proportion is forest ecoregions of varioussubtypes (tropical dry, tropical moist, temper-ate moist, etc.). A further analysis by WWFidentified 237 groupings of these terrestrialecoregions as being of particular importance to conservation and named these the Global200 Ecoregions—it is usually these Global 200ecoregions that are the focus of WWF Ecore-gion Action Programmes.68 In the process ofanalysing ecoregions, “priority areas” or “prior-ity landscapes” are often identified that becomethe subject of further conservation planningand initiatives. Thus the general hierarchicalspatial scale, from largest to smallest, is Global200 ecoregion, terrestrial ecoregion, and prior-ity landscape—but this is not a steadfast rule,

65 Noss, 1992.66 Scott et al, 1999.

67 Olson et al, 2001.68 Olson and Dinerstein, 1998.

6. Restoration as a Strategy to Contribute to Ecoregion Visions 43

Fig

ure

6.1.

Terr

estr

ial e

core

gion

s of

the

wor

ld.(

Sour

ce:W

WF.

)


and there are very small ecoregions (tens ofkm2) and very large priority landscapes (thou-sands of km2). Most of the principles discussedbelow hold for a range of scales, from the land-scape to the ecoregion.

1.2. Protect, Manage, and Restore

More than likely, any comprehensive conserva-tion strategy in an ecoregion will involve a combination of protection, management, andrestoration, plus the abatement/amelioration ofthreats.The relative proportion of each strategythat is appropriate is a function of both theoverall conservation status of the ecoregion,and the location in the ecoregion—and this willchange over time. For example, restoration isnot necessarily an appropriate strategy in allecoregions or landscapes. One can imagine thatrestoration may not currently be the highest pri-ority in those ecoregions that are composedmostly of wilderness or large forest blocks, suchas in the Amazon. A primary output of manyecoregional visions is a map of priority areas,where conservation activities are more focussedthan in the surrounding matrix of the ecoregion.Yet even in the matrix, some proportion of pro-tection, management, and restoration activitieswill be appropriate, and in the case of thewilderness ecoregions mentioned above, overthe long-term, restoration may rise in priority inthose ecoregions as more comprehensive pro-tection and better management are instituted.

From a conservation standpoint, the deci-sions about how much protection, manage-ment, and restoration will be a naturalconsequence of attempting to achieve theabove four conservation goals in a strategicfashion in an ecoregion or a landscape withinthat ecoregion. Is there enough of a given targethabitat present in the ecoregion or landscape to meet representation objectives that we cansimply protect a (greater) proportion of it? Orwill some areas containing that habitat needactive or passive restoration in order to meetthe prescribed target for that habitat? Canexisting multiuse buffer zones of forest simplybe managed in their current state to providelandscape connectivity, or will some areas needto be rehabilitated to restore connectivity?

Forest “restoration” activities range fromactive planting, to management (e.g., invasivespecies’ removal), to more passive restoration(creating the conditions that will allow naturalprocesses to regenerate high-quality forest).Because active restoration is so resource inten-sive, it should generally be the last optionselected to meet a conservation objective. Thekey point is that from a conservation perspec-tive restoration activities should not be under-taken for the sake of restoration; rather, theactivity should be a strategic response to a spe-cific need identified during the formation ofconservation goals. The Forests of the LowerMekong ecoregion has endeavoured to find theright balance of protection, management, andrestoration—all stemming from the conserva-tion goals highlighted during the ecoregionalvision process.

2. Examples: Restoration andthe Four Conservation Goals

Conceptually, it is a relatively simple matter todecide whether restoration is necessary or not.By selecting conservation targets that are appli-cable to the aforementioned four goals of conservation, it should quickly become clearwhether or not the relevant ecoregion or prior-ity landscape still contains the necessary com-ponents to satisfy all four goals. If there areelements missing or the ecoregion/landscape istoo fragmented, some restoration is probablynecessary. At the basic level of the four conser-vation goals, the following discussion illustrateshow the need for restoration can be identified.

2.1. Representation

Conservationists need to represent all naturalcommunities in some sort of a conservationnetwork, which is generally a mix of differentlevels of protection. It is important that the mixof natural communities is one that has existedbefore a major disturbance rather than theexisting mix. But all of these original commu-nities may no longer be present in the quantity


and quality necessary, and that is where thepotential application of restoration comes in.This is especially true during periods of climatechange when species will need to move inresponse to changing conditions.

One of the first steps in any conservation plan-ning initiative is to obtain or develop a map ofhistoric (sometimes called “potential”) naturalcommunity types across the entire ecoregion/priority landscape. A number of coverages maysuffice for this purpose, including historic vege-tation maps, potential vegetation maps, or mapsof plant communities or ecosystems. In the casewhere land conversion has made this taskimpossible, maps of environmental domains,which are unique combinations of substrate(soils or geology), elevation, and climate classi-fications, may be developed. If these environ-mental domains are carefully developed, theyshould represent unique environmental classesthat correlate with the species living in them.

It is common practice for a target level ofrepresentation to be chosen for each naturalcommunity type (or environmental domain).This is not always easy, but endeavouring todetermine what these levels should be (prefer-ably on an individual habitat-by-habitat basisrather than a blanket prescription) is one of thehighest callings of a conservation biologist. It is altogether appropriate to begin with coarseestimates that can be improved over time.Custom representation targets are preferableto blanket prescriptions. Once an appropriatelevel of representation of each historic naturalcommunity is decided (20 percent, 30 percent,50 percent, etc.), it may be discovered that lessintact habitat of a particular type(s) remainsthan the target representation amount. This is asign that some restoration is in order. Mada-gascar and the dry forests of New Caledonia are prime examples—forest conversion hasproceeded so far in these ecoregions that forestrestoration is required to meet the most basichabitat representation goals.

It should also be noted that each naturalcommunity is itself made up of seral stages, andthe appropriate mix of seral stages, or morelikely the allowable ranges of seral stages, cor-responding to a natural range of variation, mustbe specified.The ability of a natural community

type to support a natural range of seral stagesmust be protected, or if necessary enhanced,and this may also require some forest restora-tion activities. An example is the relative lackof primary, or old-growth forest, in many tem-perate forest ecoregions compared to historiclevels. Efforts to increase the proportion of lateseral stages are an appropriate application offorest restoration in this case.

Many ecoregional programmes, especiallythose in developed or densely populated coun-tries, have found that the amount of lowlandand riparian communities are in short supply—they have already been converted for humanuses. Clearly in such situations, restoration willnecessarily be an important component of theoverall conservation strategy if representationtargets are to be met.

2.2. Viable Populations

The idea behind this goal is that all speciesshould have conserved viable populations, butin practice it is never possible to plan for allspecies (if for no other reason than that allspecies are never really identified). During anylarge-scale conservation initiative, therefore,focal species are selected for special attention.Focal species are chosen because they are “key-stone,” highly threatened endemics, habitat specialists, or because they are very “area-sensitive” and act as umbrellas for a number ofspecies with smaller area requirements. Thenumber of focal species chosen will vary fromecoregion to ecoregion, and certainly from pri-ority landscape to priority landscape, but is gen-erally a manageable number of five to 20species from the above categories.

After determining what the list of focalspecies is, the next step is to determine thenumber of breeding individuals that represent aviable population, or potentially a viable sub-population in the case of a priority landscape.This is not a trivial determination, and there isan extensive literature discussing rules of thumbfor the number of breeding individuals that constitutes a viable population—with little consensus. In some cases a species-specific andresource-intensive population viability analysis(PVA) will be necessary. If a viable population


estimate is difficult to come by or there aresevere limits to the number of individuals thatare possible, the bottom line is that a target levelshould be chosen that represents the largestconceivable achievable population level.

For restoration purposes, the specific needsof each focal species must be analysed individ-ually. A number of related metrics, includingminimum patch size, connecting patches toenlarge the effective habitat area or feature(breeding, feeding, or nesting areas/cavities),corridor width, specific habitat requirements(plant species), access to water, etc. must beconsidered. During the course of the analysis to determine the habitat and total area re-quirements for each species, it should quicklybecome clear if there is not enough habitat necessary for a viable population of a particularspecies—and restoration will be necessary. Thisis frequently the case in those ecoregions thathave been highly degraded.

The reconnection of now disjunct habitatpatches is a common application of forestrestoration activities. This is the focus of thecurrent work in the Terai Arc in the EasternHimalayas: reconnecting 10 protected areas by encouraging the growth of community-managed forests (Fig. 6.2). Tigers are loath tocross more than 5km2 of nonhabitat, but theexisting protected areas are not large enough to maintain viable populations of tigers. Somemixing of the respective populations is desir-able. Therefore, community forests are beingencouraged where gaps in forest cover arenoted between the existing protected areas.This will allow tigers, greater-one horned rhi-noceroses, and Asian elephants to dispersebetween patches of prime habitat. Restorationis an important activity in other fragmentedecoregions that still contain large carnivores,including for jaguars in South America’sAtlantic Forest and for wolves and grizzly bears

Figure 6.2. Reconnecting protected areas (dark) with forest restoration (light). (Source: WWF.)


in the ecoregions of the Northern Rockies ofNorth America.

2.3. Ecological and EvolutionaryProcesses

The many evolutionary and ecologicalprocesses that create and sustain biodiversityare complex, and often poorly understood.Gene flow, migration, pollination, seed disper-sal, predator–prey dynamics, and nutrientcycling are some of the many that should beconsidered when a conservation plan is devel-oped. All of these processes can potentiallybenefit from restoration activities, becausemany species (and the processes that they areinvolved in) will respond positively to restoredforest quality, but some of them will benefitmore obviously than others. Gene flow andmigration can directly benefit from restoredforest corridors, as in the above examples. Like-wise, if key processes such as pollination or seeddispersal are threatened by insufficient forestarea to support the species that are performingthese functions, restoration activities would beappropriate.

In some regions, reduced forest cover threat-ens to throw the area into a not-easily-reversible regional climatic shift. Restoration offorest cover (that simultaneously meets finerscale representation targets and is configured to maximise forest block size for area-sensitivespecies) would be a high priority activity.

The Terai Arc is also a good example for thisset of conservation goals. By reconnecting disjunct forest patches and thus tiger subpo-pulations, the ecological processes of subadultdispersal, gene flow, and restoration of pre-dator–prey dynamics can be restored. Becausesystems with large predators are often domi-nated top-down forces (in this case elephantsand tigers), the reintroduction of tigers and elephants across the entire landscape will helpput a number of natural ecological processesback into a more natural dynamic balance.However, the needs of finer-scale habitat specialists (particularly for breeding or feeding) within the larger area should not be overlooked.

2.4. Environmental ChangePlanning for inevitable environmental change(even without the additional spectre of anthro-pogenic climate change) is a key precept in con-servation. Ecological systems are by their verynature dynamic, and it is important to incorpo-rate large habitat areas and sufficient connec-tivity between habitat areas in order to buildresiliency into the protected area network.Increased connectivity is the main option avail-able to conservation planners trying to antici-pate the effects of anthropogenic climatechange. Species’ ranges are already beginningto shift in latitude and altitude; this is true notonly for animals but for plant species as well.Again, reconnecting now disjunct habitatpatches through restored forest corridors is anappropriate application for forest restorationactivities to help migration to keep pace withchanging conditions. In addition, managing thelandscape in such a way that it provides moreflexibility for species and gene flow in times ofstress is an important element of restoration.

This connectivity strategy will be importantfor every ecoregion across the planet to con-sider. Ecoregions likely to be faced with thisthreat in the near term are tropical montaneecoregions that contain significant topographicrelief. Climatological changes are concentratedin narrow bands, and maintaining altitudinalconnectivity will be critical for allowing habi-tats to shift in response to changing tempera-ture and moisture regimes.

Restoration activities are important for allecoregions where human activities have frag-mented the ecoregion, and this includes mostecoregions. Rising temperatures and changingprecipitation patterns will cause natural com-munities to shift latitudinally and altitudinally.Without restoration to reconnect fragmentedhabitat patches with corridors, natural commu-nities will have great difficulty shifting acrosshuman-dominated landscapes. A more specificexample of the need for restoration will be intropical coastal ecoregions with mangroves. Assea level continues to rise, mangrove belts willtend to shift inland (Fig. 6.3). However, if thelandward edge of the mangrove belt has beendegraded, which it commonly is, space and


• The current condition of the forest area inquestion—how much effort/time is requiredto restore?

• Proximity to other viable habitats, to allowspecies to disperse or facilitate later reconnection

• Proximity to the existing or anticipatedurban frontier

This last bullet point highlights an entire classof information that can help to assure thatrestoration activities (and in fact any con-servation activities) have the greatest chance ofsuccess. The mapping of human populationdensity, distance from access corridors, govern-ment capacity, ethnic stability and homogene-ity, and similar factors can help a project seewhere the threats and opportunities lie acrossthe ecoregion or landscape. Additionally, theincorporation of socioeconomic informationand consultation will help to assure thatrestoration activities undertaken for ecologicalreasons will also benefit local people eitherthrough ecological services or even throughemployment in restoration activities.

3. Outline of Tools

As already noted, ecoregion conservation inthe WWF network is more of a philosophy thana particular methodology, and a number ofmethodologies have been used to achieve thefour goals of conservation. This is altogetherappropriate, since there is a great variety of

Figure 6.3. Mangrove belts alongcoastal areas are expected to shiftinland with rising sea levels. (Photo ©John Morrison.)

69 Noss, 2001.

restoration activities will be necessary to allowthe continued persistence of the mangroves,and with them the important ecological (andsocial) functions they perform.69

2.5. Deciding Where to DoRestoration When There Are Choices

In the preceding discussion, the need forrestoration fell into two broad categories:increasing the area of a particular forest typefor representation or for particular species/processes, and restoring particular landscapefeatures, especially corridors, which allow spe-cific ecological processes to operate. Sometimesthere are choices of where restoration is mostappropriate. All other things being equal, it isgenerally easier to restore the less degradedexample of a forest type, since less effort ortime will be required.All other things are rarelyequal, however. How does one decide whichsemi-irreplaceable example of a forest type torestore if there are several choices? Obviously,many factors must often be weighed.

The first step is to be clear about the endobjective(s). For example, is primary forest theonly possible objective, or would secondaryforest do just as well (or even better) for thefocal species being considered? Factors to con-sider when determining which area to restoreare the following:


data availability, social structures, infrastruc-ture, and professional capacity in the ecore-gions across the planet. There is no toolespecially tailored to help set restoration prior-ities. These priorities should emerge from ageneric comprehensive planning process.

A full discussion of the tools available forecoregional conservation planning is beyondthe scope of this paper. Some of the primarytools include:

• WWF’s approaches to ecoregion conserva-tion,70 including specific advice about actionsin priority conservation landscapes71 and casestudies72 and a detailed guide to implemen-tation within ecoregions73

• The Nature Conservancy’s approach toecoregion conservation74

• Systematic conservation planning appro-aches as developed in New South Wales,Australia75

The use of a geographic information system(GIS) is practically mandatory when consider-ing spatial planning for conservation. The GISallows spatial maps to display conservationoptions, and more powerfully, allows the user tocombine biological and socioeconomic infor-mation to analyse ways of meeting conserva-tion goals at the least socioeconomic “cost.”Additional tools that work alongside and witha GIS are decision support software tools,which allow numerous competing variables tobe combined. Depending on the particular toolused, a single best conservation configurationmay be generated or a range of choices can beportrayed. In some of these tools, once a deci-sion is made regarding a particular portion ofthe landscape, the entire study area can berecalculated to portray the next best options.

4. Future Needs

Further development is needed for tools to prioritise restoration needs. Current decisionsupport tools are able to identify remaining

habitat for inclusion in protected area net-works, and these tools can be used to work withmaps of previously existing potential vegeta-tion. However, further refinement of these toolsand associated techniques to identify areas thatcould be restored to meet representation goalsis needed.

References

Dinerstein, E., Powell, G., Olson, D., et al. 2000. Aworkbook for conducting biological assessmentsand developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion-based conservation. World Wildlife Fund,Washington, DC. http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/pubs2.cfml.

Groves, C.R., Valutis, L.L., Vosick, D., et al. 2000.Designing a geography of hope: a practitioner’shandbook to ecoregional conservation planning.The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. www.conserveonline.org.

Loucks, C., Springer, J., Palminteri, S., Morrison, J.,and Strand, H. 2004. From the Vision to theGround: A Guide to Implementing EcoregionConservation in Priority Areas. World WildlifeFund, Washington, DC.

Margules, C.R., and Pressey, R.L. 2000. Systematicconservation planning. Nature 405:243–253.

Noss, R.F. 1992. The wildlands project: land conser-vation strategy. Wild Earth (Special issue) 10–25.

Noss, R.F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest managementin a time of rapid climate change. ConservationBiology 15(3):578–590.

Olson, D.M., and Dinerstein, E. 1998. The global 200: a representation approach to conserving theearth’s most biological valuable ecoregions. Con-servation Biology 12:502–515.

Olson, D.M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E.D.,et al. 2001. A new map of life on earth. BioScience15:933–938.

Palminteri, S. 2003. Ecoregion conservation: securingliving landscapes through science-based planningand action. A users guide for ecoregion conserva-tion through examples from the field (draft).CD-Rom. World Wildlife Fund US, Washington,DC.

Scott, J.M., Norse, E.A., Arita, H., et al. 1999. Theissue of scale in selecting and designing biologicalreserves. In: Soule, M.E., Terborgh, J. ContinentalConservation; Scientific Foundations of RegionalReserve Networks. Island Press, Washington, DC.

WWF. 2003. Ecoregion Action Programmes A Guidefor Practitioners. WWF International, Gland,Switzerland.

70 Dinerstein et al, 2000.71 Loucks et al, 2004.72 Palminteri, 2003.73 WWF, 2003.74 Groves et al, 2000.75 Margules and Pressey, 2000.


Additional Reading

International Tropical Timber Organisation. 2002.ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Manage-ment, and Rehabilitation of Degraded and Secondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Develop-ment Series No. 13, Yokohama, Japan.

Moguel, P., and Toledo, V.M. 1999. Biodiversity con-servation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico.Conservation Biology 13:11–21.

Pimentel, D., Stachow, U., Takacs, D.A., et al. 1992.Conserving biological diversity in agriculturalforestry systems: most biological diversity exists in human-managed ecosystems. Bioscience 42:354–362.

Victor, D.G., and Ausubel, J.H. 2000. Restoring theforest: skinhead earth? Foreign Affairs 79(6):127–144.


The landscape is the spatial and ecological scaleat which the range of different ecological,social, and economic needs and desires ofstakeholders can best be discussed, compared,and integrated.

1.1. Why Restore?

Conservation strategies that rely solely on protected areas and sustainable managementhave proved insufficient either to secure biodi-versity or to stabilise the environment. TheUnited Nations Environment Programme nowclassifies a large proportion of the world’s landsurface as “degraded,” and reversing thisdamage is one of the largest and most complexchallenges of the 21st century. Habitat loss is already so severe that conservation pro-grammes need to include restoration if they areto deliver long-term success. Analysis of theWWF Global 200 ecoregions—identified asthose of the highest conservation importance—demonstrates the problems. Over 80 percent ofthe G200 forest ecoregions need restoration inat least parts of their area; deforestation is a keythreat to water quality in 59 percent of G200freshwater ecoregions, and three quarters ofG200 mangrove ecoregions are under threat.76

Even where forest is stable or increasing, par-allel losses of forest quality create the need forrestoration. In Western Europe, for instance,research by the United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe found that most coun-tries had less than 1 percent of their forests sur-viving in an unmanaged state.77

Forest loss is not only of concern to conser-vationists.The United Nations estimates that 60million people are directly dependent on forest

7Why Do We Need to ConsiderRestoration in a Landscape Context?Nigel Dudley, John Morrison, James Aronson, and Stephanie Mansourian


Restoration is already needed in manyimportant forest ecosystems because lossand degradation have proceeded to a pointwhere the ecosystem is no longer sustainablein the long term.

Approaching restoration on a landscapescale means addressing conservation issueswhile considering social concerns, at a scalewhere optimisation and trade-offs are easierto agree on than at the site level.

Most current restoration activities tend toooften to focus on one or two benefits andmiss the wider picture.

Tools are starting to be developed that helpto negotiate realistic mixes of managementactions, including a suite of restoration activ-ities, and biodiversity protection, at the fulllandscape scale.

51

76 Dudley and Mansourian, 2000.77 Dudley and Stolton, 2004.

52 N. Dudley et al

resources including many of the poorestpeople. A far larger number are indirectlydependent, for example, on environmentalservices from forests such as soil and watershedprotection. Forests also provide a wealth ofrecreational, spiritual, and aesthetic services.

1.2. Why Landscapes?

Many restoration efforts have ended in fail-ure (see “Forest Landscape Restoration inContext”). Some of the reasons for this relateto their limited scope, their lack of engagementwith local people and other stakeholders’ inter-ests and needs, their short-term nature, andtheir failure to address underlying causes offorest loss and degradation. In the last decadeor so it has become increasingly clear to con-servationists that developmental and socio-economic concerns cannot be overlooked ifconservation is to be successful. Conservationactivities, therefore, inevitably take place along-side other aspects of sustainable development,and a landscape approach can help to embraceboth aspects of conservation and development.Because the restoration of forests in landscapesaims to repair and recover forest products andservices that are valuable to people, it has a keyrole to play in development programmes. Bal-ancing competing ecological and social needs isalways difficult, but is most likely to succeed ifwe work on a large enough area to encompasstwo or more interactive ecosystems, as well asdifferent landscape units with different landuses by local people. This facilitates negotiationand trade-offs among different demands.

Thus, rather than relying on a series of indi-vidual projects attempting to restore individualforest values, at the landscape scale it becomespossible to attempt the integration of these projects.Where successful, the net result shouldbe much more than the sum of individual site-based restoration actions. Achieving abalance between the various goods and servicesrequired from restored forest ecosystemsrequires conceptualisation,planning,and imple-mentation on a broader scale. It also assumessome negotiations and trade-offs among thevarious stakeholders involved to identify thoserestoration actions that have enough of a

groundswell of support to be likely to succeed.A landscape or ecoregion approach also allowsforest restoration to be fully integrated with pro-tection and sustainable management of forest.

From the perspectives of biodiversity, long-term viability and ultimately social and eco-nomic values, approaches to restoration need to focus on forest functions and ecologicalprocesses. A key concern in many restorationprojects is increasing the size of core areas offorest habitat. However, where space is limitedby competing land uses, many functions of alarge forest can be simulated by increasing con-nectivity between patches of forest by biologi-cal corridors and ecological stepping stones(patches of habitat that can provide “way sta-tions” for migrating or mobile species). Increas-ing the values of existing forests, for example bychanging management or decreasing interfer-ence, can also play a vital role in restoration.The landscape scale also allows us to considerthe links between different habitat types. Theinterface between habitats may be abrupt (par-ticularly in managed landscapes) or gradual,and they will have a varying ability to allow dis-persal and interchange of species (see “Restor-ing Tropical Montane Forests”). Increasing thepermeability of habitat boundaries to geneticinterchange may be as important as specifichabitat creation such as biological corridors.

1.3. Protect, Manage, Restore in a Landscape

The result of integrating efforts to restore mul-tiple functions at a landscape scale often resem-bles a mosaic, where protected areas, otherprotective forests, and various forms of use and management are combined, depending onexisting and evolving needs, legislative con-straints, and land ownership patterns. Restora-tion becomes a management option that can beused within any part of the landscape to con-tribute to the overall long-term aims for thelandscape. Agreeing on the mosaic and balanc-ing different social, economic, and environ-mental needs on a landscape scale requirescareful planning and negotiation.

A landscape approach recognises that overalllandscape values and services are more impor-

7. Why Do We Need to Consider Restoration in a Landscape Context? 53

tant than individual sites, and that in a world ofcompeting interests, conservation aims need to be integrated with those of, for example,poverty alleviation, human health, and otherlegitimate forms of social and economic devel-opment and welfare. Conservation cannot, orshould not, take place divorced from issuesrelating to human well-being, and peopleworking for conservation are usually also con-cerned about social justice and sustainabledevelopment. The appropriate approach,therefore, is to identify where and how thesedifferent but overlapping interests can best beintegrated into a multifunctional landscape.Such integration will necessarily include nego-tiation and trade-offs.

1.4. The Process of RestoringForest Functions in a Landscape

Deciding what forms of restoration to applyrequires a suite of different activities, includingcareful analysis of what is needed, assessment ofwhat is possible, and agreement amongst rele-vant stakeholders about the aims of restorationand the appropriate actions to undertake. It isaxiomatic of forest landscape restoration that inmost cases we are not looking at a single projector a single forest use, but rather at a range ofdifferent restoration efforts that will, as far as isfeasible, be coordinated and complementary.The extent to which this is attainable in practicedepends on the willingness of different groupsof stakeholders to cooperate, the negotiationskills of those involved, and hard-to-defineissues such as ownership patterns and otherdemands on the landscape. In areas where muchof the land is in private ownership, many“common goods” including conservation canonly be addressed through voluntary agree-ments, land purchase, or overarching policydecisions, and all of these options are slow andlaborious to achieve in most situations.

2. Examples

Some examples show how different countriesor regions have approached issues of restora-tion and how different priorities have shaped

and in some cases distorted options for restor-ing a balanced forest mosaic.

2.1. Switzerland: Restoration forEnvironmental Services but with Additional Economic and Biodiversity Values

Following severe erosion and flooding prob-lems in the past resulting from historical defor-estation, during the 19th and 20th centuriesSwitzerland devised a system of continuouscover forestry to protect slopes and provideresources and fuel. The government has one ofthe few forest policies that explicitly rank socialand protective functions above commercialfunctions.The country has 1,204,047 hectares offorest and woodland, covering 29 percent of the country.78 Trees within managed forests are generally native and around 60 percent areconifers, with almost half the growing stockbeing Norway spruce. Although forest manage-ment is less intensive than in many Europeancountries on a stand level, it affects virtually theentire forest area, and there are very few old-growth forests. Around 0.5 percent of forestsare in natural forest reserves. Landscape-scaleplanning has played a critical role in identifyingwhere best to restore forests, with an emphasisbeing placed on avalanche control, stabilisationof slopes, provision of local firewood, and bio-diversity conservation.79

2.2. Guinea: TraditionalManagement IncludingForest Restoration

Careful research with villages on the forest-savannah interface in Guinea, in West Africa,found that rather than contributing to defor-estation as was once thought, local communi-ties were actually planting and tending forestpatches. Once villages were abandoned (a peri-odic response to declining soil fertility so thatcommunities moved every few decades), suchforests tended to decline and disappear as a

78 Holenstein, 1995.79 McShane and McShane-Caluzi, 1997.

54 N. Dudley et al

result of increased grazing pressure from savan-nah herbivores. New areas were chosen on thebasis of past use and where fertility was likelyto have recovered, thus focussing on differentparts of the landscape at different times to ensurelong-term continuity. Villagers establishedforest patches on the edge of the grassland toprovide needed nontimber forest products andprotected these from fire and grazing.80

2.3. United Kingdom: PlantationsReplacing Natural Forests and Dominating the Landscape

Following the First World War, concern aboutlack of timber led to the establishment of theForestry Commission, which was provided withconsiderable funds and political power toundertake compulsory purchase, to establishfast-growing plantations of trees. The emphasiswas on conifers, particularly Sitka spruce (Piceasitchensis) from Alaska. Many of these planta-tions were established on upland grazing areas(which were originally forested but had losttheir tree cover, in some cases centuries before).Some plantations were also established on thesite of native woodland, which was occasionallycleared with herbicides, and in northeast Scot-land on moor that had never contained trees.Whilst the planting was successful in creating astrategic reserve, it led to resentment about lossof access, native woodlands, and other naturalhabitats, and a limited range of forest functions.Dense forest created access problems and theabrupt boundaries between this and otherhabitat limited usefulness for biodiversity. Plan-ning was usually at site rather than landscapescale. From the 1980s onward, the commissionstarted revising its aims, increasing native plant-ing and playing a more general stewardshiprole in land management; experiments are alsotaking place in returning woodland areas tolocal community control.81

2.4. Costa Rica: Shade-GrownCoffee as a Linking Habitat in Fragmented Landscape with a High Population Density

Although Costa Rica still contains large areasof native forests, some forest ecosystems havedeclined to a fraction of their former size andare no longer ecologically viable, particularly in Talamanca and Guanacaste. In the formerarea, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has beenworking with local communities to link remain-ing forest fragments to allow access for birds.Because pressure on land was too intense toallow space for native woodland as such, shadegrown cacao and coffee production was encour-aged and supported, planned at a landscapescale to link remaining forest fragments. Whilefar from a natural woodland, the trees shadingcoffee provide habitats to allow passage forrare birds, thus allowing them to form viablepopulations.82

The above cases illustrate only a fraction of the possible examples. They show that in mostplaces where restoration is encouraged, itspurpose is generally fairly narrow (also see“Goals and Targets of Forest LandscapeRestoration”): erosion control, strategic re-serves, etc. If other benefits accrue, it has some-times been fortuitous. One of the key aspects offorest landscape restoration is to reduce theelements of chance and increase the sophisti-cation of restoration planning.

3. Outline of Tools

3.1. Ecoregional Planning Tools

A wide range of possible tools exist to planregional scale forest cover and management(see also previous chapter). Among the mostpopular are the following:

• Ecoregional workshops: used to help estab-lish a vision for an ecoregion, prioritiseactions and conservation landscapes, anddevelop strategies

80 Fairhead and Leach, 1996.81 Garforth and Dudley, 2003. 82 Parrish et al, 1999.


• Computer-aided design packages: includingthose involved in the development of sys-tematic conservation planning

• Conservation by design: developed by TNC,using a five-step process (identifying targets,gathering information, setting goals, assess-ing viability, assembling portfolios) and the 5-S framework (systems, stresses, sources,strategies, success)

There are many other examples; a selection areavailable on the Web-based Earth Conserva-tion Toolbox.83

3.2. Protect, Manage, Restore

WWF84 and IUCN have developed a number oflandscape approaches to help address this kindof broadscale decision making, and these orsimilar exercises could provide help in deter-mining where restoration could be used mosteffectively.An outline of one approach is shown

diagrammatically in Figure 7.1 (also see Box 7.1for the detailed steps):

3.3. Implementing Conservation inPriority Areas

WWF also has a science-based methodologyfor continuing ecoregion planning inside prior-ity conservation landscapes, containing a set ofguidelines to develop and implement a conser-vation landscape, which could be used toinclude restoration issues.85

3.4. Reference Forests

Restoration for conservation usually involvestrying to regain something as similar to a nativeforest as possible (for more, see “Identifyingand Using Reference Landscapes for Restoration”).

Defining our own conservation targets

Learning about the needs and expectations of others

Defining the landscape(s)

Assessing current/potential benefits from the landscape

Developing possible land-use scenarios

Reconciling land-use options

Implementation (strategic interventions)

Monitoring and learning

Ada

ptat

ion

asa

resu

lt of

less

ons

lear

ned

The order given is one possibility but in practice many stages may take place simultaneously, or at different times in different parts of the landscape—e.g., stakeholder negotiation is likely to occur throughout this process insome form or other, and early development of a monitoring and evaluation system has proved very valuable.

Identification ofconservation and

other values

Integration ofprotection,

managementand restoration

Negotiation withstakeholders

Implementation

Adaptation

DecisionsConflict resolution

Understandingdevelopment

trajectories

Figure 7.1. Protect–manage–restore approach.

83 www.earthtoolbox.net.84 Aldrich et al, 2004. 85 Loucks et al, 2004.

56 N. Dudley et al

Box 7.1. The stages in a protect–manage–restore process

✓ Defining our own conservation targets:As stakeholders, conservation organisa-tions need to start with some ideas of thelandscape mix that they are aiming for,including ideas about geographical areasand ecological processes of primary inter-est. Reaching these targets will require a mix of protection, management, andrestoration.

✓ Learning about the needs and expecta-tions of others: At an early stage it isimportant to get an initial idea about theother key stakeholders and their relation-ships, what they need and want, and whatthey are planning. While the focus will be on economic or development issues,culture, history, expectations withinsociety, level of development, and spiri-tual needs are all important.

✓ Defining the landscape(s): The concept of“landscape” has many different mean-ings; a conservation programme willusually work within a predetermined“conservation landscape,” but it is impor-tant to identify any “cultural landscapes”nested within or overlapping the conser-vation landscape: e.g., a village, land usedby nomadic pastoralists, or a timber concession.

✓ Assessing current/potential benefits fromthe landscape: The next stage involvesassessment to identify lost, current, andpotential future values from the land-scape. While conservationists tend tofocus on biodiversity, assessment alsotakes full account of social, cultural, andeconomic values. The extent to which thisis a participatory process can be decidedon a case-by-case basis. Including stake-holders also means that assessment is partof the negotiation process.

✓ Developing land-use scenarios: Integra-tion of potential conservation and development actions to develop scenarios

including a combination of elements such as protected areas; other protectedforests (set asides, watershed protectionetc); well-managed forests; areas need-ing restoration; and other compatible and competing land uses.All these factorsinteract. What mosaic will work best? Are we looking at one “master plan” or a pattern that emerges gradually over time?

✓ Reconciling land use options: Theapproach is predicated on the idea thattrades-offs among social, economic, andenvironmental values are often essentialand are acceptable if overall values aremaintained or enhanced within the landscape.

✓ Decisions: In some situations govern-ment(s), nongovernmental organisations,corporate interests, and communities mayagree on a package of actions within oneaction plan. In many other cases, negotia-tions are likely to be continuing and spo-radic. Here it is unlikely that a singlemaster plan could be agreed; rather, deci-sions will be over smaller parcels of landwithin a framework that will continue toevolve.

✓ Implementation (strategic interventions):Some of the resulting actions will takeplace at the site level and may involve creating the right conditions for naturalregeneration, selective tree planting toreconnect forest fragments, or communityinitiatives to improve fire management.Other interventions may be necessary at a landscape or even larger scale, e.g.,working with governments to realignreforestation programmes.

✓ Monitoring and learning: Much of whatwe will be attempting with the landscapeapproach is quite new, and therefore it is especially important to ensure thatprogress is monitored effectively and that


3.5. Gap Analysis

Several methodologies exist for identifyinggaps in existing forest systems. For example,a WWF Canada methodology used enduringlandform features to identify likely past vege-tation,86 while another developed by the UnitedNations Environment Programme-World Con-servation Monitoring Centre(UNEP-WCMC)used analysis of current forest cover.87

4. Future Needs

Although restoration needs are increasinglybeing addressed within broader-scale conserva-tion, they generally remain less well supportedin terms of approaches and methodologiesthan, for example, planning of protected areas.These needs include the following:

Prioritisation: There is a need for better toolsfor prioritisation of areas for restoration, forexample to balance the importance of con-nectivity with core areas, identification ofmicrohabitat gaps in current forest cover, cal-culation of minimum viable areas, etc.

Decision support: Methodologies are neededfor balancing social and ecological values,including participatory methods.

Incorporating a range of management schemesinto existing decision support tools: Cur-rently, decision support tools consider anarea either protected, or not, based on theinput of the user. More sophisticated toolsare needed that can handle a wider range of “protection” schemes (e.g., sustainablymanaged forests).

There is also the need for some degree ofadvocacy and explanation, to encourage thoseinvolved in broad-scale planning to considerrestoration, particularly in the case of restoringforest quality. Some of these tools are beingdeveloped during current forest landscaperestoration projects, but it is still too early tojudge their success.

References

Aldrich, M., et al. 2004. Integrating Forest Protec-tion, Management and Restoration at a LandscapeScale. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Dudley, N., and Mansourian, S. 2000. Forest Land-scape Restoration and WWF’s Conservation Pri-orities. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.

Dudley, N., and Stolton, S. 2004. Biological diversity,tree species composition and environmental pro-tection in regional FRA-2000. Geneva Timber andForest Discussion Paper 33. United Nations Eco-nomic Commission for Europe and Food andAgricultural Organisation of the United Nations,Geneva.

Fairhead, J., and Leach, M. 1996. Misreading theAfrican Landscape: Society and Ecology in aForest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Garforth, M., and Dudley, N. 2003. Forest Renais-sance. Published in association with the ForestryCommission and WWF UK, Edinburgh andGodalming.

Holenstein, B. 1995. Forests and Wood in Switzer-land. Federal Office of Environment, Forests andLandscape. Swiss Forest Agency, Bern.

Iacobelli, T., Kavanagh, K., and Rowe, S. 1994. A Protected Areas Gap Analysis Methodology: Plan-ning for the Conservation of Biodiversity. WorldWildlife Fund Canada, Toronto.

Loucks, C., Springer, J., Palminteri, S., Morrison, J.,and Strand, H. 2004. From the Vision to the

lessons are both used to improve pro-grammes as they develop and are alsotransmitted around and beyond theimmediate conservation programme. At a larger scale, combining monitoring of

many individual projects, along with some additional indicators that transcendindividual project work, will be needed to measure progress over the whole landscape.

86 Iacobelli et al, 1994.87 UNEP-WCMC, 2002.

58 N. Dudley et al

Ground: A Guide to Implementing EcoregionConservation in Priority Areas. WWF-US,Washington, DC.

McShane, T.O., and McShane-Caluzi, E. 1997. Swissforest use and biodiversity conservation. In Freese,C.H., ed. Harvesting Wild Species: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, pp. 132–166.

Parrish, J.D., Reitsma, R., and Greenberg, R., et al.1999. Cacao as Crop and Conservation Tool inLatin America: Meeting the Needs of Farmers andBiodiversity. Island Press/America Verde Publi-cations, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,Virginia.

UNEP-WCMC. 2002. European forests and pro-tected areas gap analysis 2002. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/eu_gap/index.htm.


In most of the places where forest restorationis being considered, from the perspective ofeither conservation or development, the land-scape is already inhabited. Furthermore, theresident or transient populations are unlikely to be a single homogeneous entity. Therefore,forest restoration involves many differentstakeholder groups with their own wants andneeds.87a Agreeing what the restoration priori-ties should be within a given landscape will con-sequently necessitate negotiating trade-offsamong a range of stakeholders.

1.1. Win–Win Situations

It is often assumed that with enough discussionand compromise, questions of land manage-ment and natural resource allocation can beagreed to in ways that satisfy everyone—in thiscase that a sufficient number and variety offorest functions can be restored in a landscapeto satisfy all stakeholder groups: so-calledwin–win situations. The question of how toattain such win–win situations has beenaddressed by many integrated conservation anddevelopment projects, and the consensus seemsto be that in most real-life situations it will beimpossible to satisfy everybody and there willnecessarily be winners and losers.88 From ourperspective, some people will stand to gainmore from the restored functions of a forest,for example with increased availability of fuel-wood or salable products, while others will losefor instance, through access or grazing rights.The realistic aim of a negotiated process is tominimise the losses and to ensure that these donot fall disproportionately on those alreadyamongst the poorest or otherwise disadvan-taged. Indeed, raising false assumptions thatcareful planning and participatory processescan deliver win–win results, and an accompa-nying failure to deal with necessary trade-offsare often major sources of conflict, becausepeople have their expectations raised and thennot met.

8Addressing Trade-Offs in ForestLandscape RestorationKatrina Brown


In questions of land management and naturalresource allocation it will nearly always beimpossible to satisfy all stakeholders andthere will necessarily be winners and losers.

Applying the concept of multifunctionalitycan help to allow different forest functionsto coexist, meeting a wider range of differ-ent stakeholder groups’ interests.

Capacity needs to be created among conser-vationists to engage stakeholders in con-structive trade-off discussions and to dealwith the outcomes of these.

59

87a Sheng (no year). 88 McShane and Wells, 2004.

60 K. Brown

1.2. Identifying Stakeholders

The need for trade-offs arises because differentstakeholder groups have different expectationsor needs from a landscape. To understandtrade-offs when dealing with a restoration pro-gramme in a landscape, the first step is to iden-tify all the stakeholders. Often stakeholders arecharacterised by their degree of influence andimportance.89 The results of such an analysis canbe categorised into primary stakeholders, sec-ondary stakeholders, and external stakeholders.Primary stakeholders have little influence on the outcomes but they have the most to lose from management decisions. A primarystakeholder could be a farmer, a fisher, or a forest-dweller. Secondary stakeholders areoften managers or decision makers, and theyare the ones charged with implementing thedecision, although the outcomes do not impactdirectly on them. External stakeholders arethose who can significantly influence theoutcome even if they are located far away,typically international nongovernmental organ-isations (NGOs). Many more complex stake-holder categories have been suggested, butthese three capture the main groupings.Depending on the objectives of the trade-offprocess, stakeholder analysis can be critical inidentifying who to include and perhaps how toengage them.

1.3. Brokering a SatisfactoryOutcome

The next requirement in an equitable trade-offprocess is to allow genuine discussion on trade-offs between different stakeholders. There isusually a need for someone to help facilitatethis process, ideally a person without a stake(perhaps a trusted outsider) who can act as an“honest broker.”90 The role of the broker is toencourage an open discussion and to help facil-itate a process whereby different stakeholdersfeel that they are gaining something from theprocess, even if that may mean also agreeing tosome sacrifices. For instance, shifting cultivatorsmay need to modify their approach to farming,

but in return they may gain legitimate access tonontimber forest products located in the land-scape. Frequently, conservation or developmentorganisations like to consider themselves as“neutral brokers,” yet the reality is that theyalso have a position and an interest. Conserva-tion organisations are stakeholders just like anyother, with a particular vision that will some-times be in competition with other legitimateeconomic and social “visions,” and conserva-tionists are therefore unlikely to get everythingthat they want.91 “Valid processes require muchmore time, patience and sensitivity to local cul-tures than most outside experts are prepared toallocate. Neutral facilitation and explicit recog-nition of the trade-offs between the interests ofdifferent stakeholders are important ingredi-ents of success.”92

1.4. The Concept ofMultifunctionality

When negotiating trade-offs in attempting torestore forest functions in a landscape, theconcept of “multifunctionality” is important. Ifone stakeholder group, for instance biologists, isthe only one deciding on the restoration out-comes of a given landscape, it may be that anideal landscape for that group is one containingpristine habitat for all identified species in thegiven area.On the other hand,if the single stake-holder is a plantation company, it may be that itsvision for the main function to restore in thelandscape is that of productive monocultureplantations bringing in money from pulp andpaper. For a poor local family, the main functionit may be interested in restoring might be fuel-wood.Applying the concept of multifunctional-ity can help to allow these different functions tocoexist, meeting a wider range of differentstakeholder groups’ interests.

1.5. Types of Trade-Offs93

Restoring a landscape intentionally to meet arange of functions requires negotiating trade-offs. There are different types of trade-offs:

89 Brown, 2004.90 Franks, 2004.

91 Aldrich et al, 2003.92 Sayer et al, 2003.93 Brown, 2004.

8. Addressing Trade-Offs in Forest Landscape Restoration 61

• Trade-offs between different interest priori-ties, as per the example above

• Trade-offs between short and long-term horizons

• Trade-offs between different spatial scales,notably sites and landscapes

• Trade-offs between different sections ofsociety and biodiversity conservation, typi-cally farmers or plantation owners and con-servation NGOs

• Trade-offs between different aspects of bio-diversity, as it may not always be possible torestore a landscape to secure all species in alandscape; decisions on which species willtake priority will require trade-offs

• Trade-offs between different social groups—traditionally more influential groups mayhave taken decisions, but primary stakehold-ers are those whose livelihoods are directlyaffected; in a truly representative process,trade-offs will need to happen across socialgroups and scales.

• Trade-offs among economic priorities, socialwelfare, and conservation.

The skills needed to assess and evaluate suchtrade-offs and support negotiations about themare often lacking amongst conservation organ-isations, although they are more likely to existwithin aid or development bodies. Developingnegotiating skills is one of the key priorities indeveloping the capacity to work at landscape level(see “Negotiations and Conflict Management”).

2. Example: An HypotheticalExample for Negotiating the Restoration of a Landscape

There are as yet few examples where a trulynegotiated discussion and trade-offs led to arestored landscape.

A theoretical process to achieve this was pre-sented at a workshop in Madagascar.94 Possiblesteps to reach a negotiated outcome for a re-stored landscape are as follows:

Each stakeholder group describes the land-scape as it was 50 years ago, the steps that

turned it into the current landscape and themain drivers of the changes.

A facilitated discussion takes place to negotiatethe general state of the landscape and its pos-sible future state(s) (characteristics, products,and services it could offer, etc.).

Each group develops a precise and detailedvision for the landscape 10 years from thepresent, identifying the most important char-acteristics (i.e., the nonnegotiables), categoris-ing the possibly negotiable characteristics andthe definitely negotiable characteristics.

The visions of different groups are then placedside by side, and a negotiation process beginsthat will culminate in a common vision forthe future, restored landscape, that is accept-able to all.

Such a process most certainly takes a signifi-cant amount of time. It requires clear identifi-cation and representation of stakeholders, agenuine neutral broker (or group of brokers),and different tools and processes to allow eachstakeholder group to understand the implica-tions of different decisions.

3. Outline of Tools

Some of the tools available to allow the nego-tiation of trade-offs are as follows:

3.1. Focus Groups

Working in small groups builds confidence,especially amongst stakeholders who may bereluctant to air their views in large meetings orare not used to public speaking. It enables spe-cific stakeholders to rehearse and deliberate ina safe structured environment, prior to largermeetings or workshops.

3.2. Surveys

Surveys can be valuable in generating baselinedata and information to build believable scenarios or visions of the future and to illus-trate management options. They are a means tolearn about and approach different stakehold-ers. A particularly useful contribution is to feedback information generated from surveys tostakeholders as part of a social learning and tri-angulation process.

94 Taken from a presentation by Tom Erdmann given at aworkshop on Forest Landscape Restoration in Madagascarin March 2003.

62 K. Brown

3.3. Consensus Building Workshops

Different stakeholders may be brought to-gether in workshops to negotiate trade-offs andagree on management strategies. A range ofconflict resolution and consensus building techniques can be used, including visioning andscenarios, as well as ranking and voting on cri-teria and scenarios.

3.4. Multicriteria Analysis

Multicriteria analysis is a decision-support toolthat can be used in a sophisticated and dataintensive way or, in deliberative workshops, asa means to help stakeholders take a step backfrom concentrating on outcome to assess whatcriteria should guide decisions. Rather than discussing the outcomes of management, thisforces people to look at why and how decisionsshould be made rather than on the impacts of the decisions. This aids a more consensus-based approach to negotiations.

3.5. Extended Cost-BenefitAnalyses

A range of evaluation techniques can be usedto draw attention to the nonmonetary andnoneconomic impacts of different managementoptions and to learn about how different stake-holders value the multiple functions of re-sources. Again it can help to validate and buildconfidence in stakeholders by recognising theirpriorities and values.

3.6. Scenario-Building

A useful way to discuss different optionswithout them being directly linked to interestsof specific stakeholders is to define scenarios orcoherent, internally consistent, and plausibledescriptions of the future.These must be believ-able and understandable to all stakeholdersand must be linked to specific changes. Dis-cussing and evaluating scenarios are a way oftalking about management options withouthaving to argue against one person’s project or

strategy, and therefore can be useful for build-ing consensus.95

4. Future Needs

Evaluating and negotiating trade-offs is rarelypart of conservation projects, let alone restora-tion ones. Much more practical experience is needed in negotiating trade-offs when look-ing at restoring forest functions in a landscape.This is particularly the case when consideringlimited resources and the urgency of somerestoration needs. In other words, how does onebalance a truly participatory trade-off analysiswith urgent needs to restore habitat for athreatened species?

Capacity needs to be created among conser-vationists to engage stakeholders in construc-tive trade-off discussions and to deal with theoutcomes of these.

References

Aldrich, M., Belokurov, A., Bowling, J., et al. 2003.Integrating Forest Protection, Management andRestoration at a Landscape Scale, WWF, Gland,Switzerland.

Brown, K., Tompkins, E., and Adger, W.N. 2002.Making Waves: Integrating Coastal Conservationand Development. Earthscan, London.

Brown, K. 2004. Trade-off Analysis for IntegratedConservation and Development. In: Mc Shane, T.,and Wells, M.P., eds. Getting Biodiversity Projectsto Work. Columbia University Press, New York.

Franks, P., and Blomley, T. 2004. Fitting ICD into a Project Framework: A CARE Perspective. In:Mc Shane, T., and Wells, M.P., eds. Getting Biodi-versity Projects to Work. Columbia UniversityPress, New York.

Mc Shane, T., and Wells, M.P. 2004. Getting Biodi-versity Projects to Work. Colombia UniversityPress, New York.

Sayer, J., Elliott, C., and Maginnis, S. 2003. Protect,manage and restore: conserving forests in multi-functional landscapes. Paper prepared for the WorldForestry Congress, Quebec, Canada, September.

Sheng, F. (No date.) Wants, Needs and Rights:Economic Instruments and Biodiversity Conser-vation, a dialogue. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

95 Brown et al, 2002.

Part BKey Preparatory Steps Toward

Restoring Forests Within a Landscape Context

Section IVOverview of the Planning Process


1.1. Why Planning?

Restoration of natural systems is a difficult,energy-consuming, and expensive undertaking.It is almost always a long-term, complex, andtransdisciplinary process.96 This is particularly

true when dealing with highly degraded ecosys-tems and landscapes. Inevitably, conflicts ofinterest and other problems arise.

Ecologically speaking, the restoration ofhighly degraded forest usually requires initiat-ing an embryonic ecosystem within a few years(usually less than 10 to 15 years after degrada-tion), which will be only fully restored—veryoften after additional corrective or fine-tuninginterventions—after a period of at least 50years in the tropics, and of 100 years or more inthe extratropical zones. However, forest poli-cies and restoration programmes are generallyfinanced only on a short- to medium-term basis.A 10- to 15-year project span, in most cases, isthe longest possible perspective, both for polit-ical and financial reasons. Bearing this in mind,restorationists should (1) adapt short-termrestoration goals and techniques to minimisethe number of costly corrective actions; and (2)plan ahead to secure funds for carrying outmonitoring and evaluation, corrective actions,or “aftercare” in the long term.

Also, forest restoration requires inputs andexpertise from various academic and practi-tioner fields97 like ecology, silviculture, eco-nomics, public policy, and the social sciences,which need to be combined in an efficient way.

Meanwhile, the relative lack of experiencewith broad-scale conservation means that fillingthe knowledge gaps through research pro-grammes also takes time. Five to 10 years is theminimum period needed to investigate critical

9An Attempt to Develop a Frameworkfor Restoration PlanningDaniel Vallauri, James Aronson, and Nigel Dudley


While no two restoration experiences willfollow the same pattern, indicative steps toplanning a restoration initiative are impor-tant, particularly when dealing with largescales or landscapes.

Success depends on wise planning, balancingshort-term with long-term goals, and allocat-ing the funding available for the restorationprogramme as efficiently as possible.

Learning from past restoration programmesand their successes and failures is an impor-tant starting point to help plan better res-toration actions in the future.

There are few tools dealing with planningrestoration in large scales. A five-step logicalplanning process is being proposed.

65

96 Pickett and Parker, 1994. 97 Clewell and Rieger, 1997.

66 D. Vallauri et al

questions like natural dynamics, nursery andplantation techniques for native species, etc.However, very little money is available tofinance pure research programmes unless theycan be linked to real implementation andvisible successes in the field. Bearing this inmind, restorationists should define short-termgoals and activities that get restoration under-way, along with long-term goals for how it canbe sustained over the time period required. Acritical, pragmatic aim is to achieve at leastsome rapid field results, for example on care-fully selected pilot sites, to build support forlonger term efforts.

Finally, forest landscape restoration, asdeveloped in this book, requires a concertedapproach among stakeholders and communi-ties, to develop a shared and accepted visionand goals for the future of the landscape inquestion. This also takes time and should beplanned for, but at the same time should leadrapidly to tangible changes or outcomes thatreally engage stakeholders and people living inthe region in a lasting and meaningful manner.

Success in forest restoration depends on wiseplanning,98,99 both in time and in space, balanc-ing short-term goals with long-term goals, andallocating the funding available for the restora-tion programme as efficiently as possible.Accordingly, a clear step-by-step plan of actionis needed for success. This was very oftenlacking in past restoration programmes, espe-cially site-oriented ones, and has led to manyfailures or difficulties that often emerge onlydecades after the first restoration efforts werebegun.

1.2. Restoring Step by Step

Where restoration is to be carried out as partof a wider conservation effort, at the landscapeor ecoregional levels, we would propose that itbe planned as an embedded element within anintegrated programme that also involves pro-tection of whatever is left of untouched nature,and the promotion of good ecosystem man-agement, as guided by the principles of ste-

wardship, sustainability, and sustained use. Wehave already outlined some possible elementsin a protect–manage–restore programme in the introduction to this book. This approachincludes identifying a series of conservationtargets—in this context, what forest functionswe wish to restore—and “reconciling” thesewith the needs, tastes, and expectations of other stakeholders, especially the indigenouspopulations.

Conceptualisation of the process of imple-menting restoration programmes is very new.We propose below an outline of a planningframework, following a five-step logical plan-ning process. In the context of a broad-scaleconservation strategy, then, the following stepshelp lead to the development and realisation ofrestoration achievements.

1.2.1. Step 1: Initiating a RestorationProgramme and Partnerships

An essential first step of any forest landscaperestoration programme is the identification ofthe problem being addressed and agreement onthe solutions and the targets for restoration.Such targets should ideally contribute to widerecological and socioeconomical objectives at alandscape scale.Very often, restorationists muststart from zero to raise awareness on the stateof degradation in the landscape, analyse theroot causes, and then convince other stake-holders of both the need for and the feasibilityof forest restoration. Depending on the context(the existing level of awareness, politics, fundsavailable, etc.), this step could last for severalyears and require extensive effort.

Experience suggests that restoration usuallyonly works in the long term if it has supportfrom a significant proportion of local stake-holders. Finding out the needs and opinions of stakeholders is therefore important: Whatforest functions do they want to restore and arethere potential clashes of interest? It should berecognised that the restorationists (conserva-tion NGO or other) are themselves stakehold-ers with a particular interest (i.e., restoringbiodiversity), which may need to be reconciledwith other stakeholders’ priorities.

98 Aronson et al, 1993.99 Wyant et al, 1995a,b.

9. An Attempt to Develop a Framework for Restoration Planning 67

Outputs of this step are:

• recognition and common understanding ofthe degradation, root causes, and solutions;

• stakeholders’ involvement and participation;• partnership development for an efficient

restoration programme (written key ideas ofthe programme and memorandum of under-standing); and

• secured budget for the restoration pro-gramme for at least a first pluri-annual period(e.g., five years).

1.2.2. Step 2: Defining RestorationNeeds, Linking Restoration to Large-Scale Conservation Vision

Here is a step that is not necessarily easy to“sell” to local stakeholders. The geographicalscope can be much wider than many people are used to working with or even concep-tualising (or want to work with, as it has some implications for development, too).Ideally, as mentioned above, a vision and strategy for restoration should be developedwithin an integrated “protect–manage–restore”approach, especially because the investmentneeded to restore has to be reinforced throughsynergy with management and protection activities.

Assessment is needed to determine howrestoration targets might be achieved, includingdetermining current or potential benefits fromforests in the landscape (biodiversity, environ-mental services, and resources for subsistenceor sale) and the potential for restorationthrough use of reference forests and other tech-niques. An important part of the process isdeciding the realistic boundary of the area orareas that we wish to restore. Definition of keyareas for protection, analysis of degradation,and the predictive anticipation of threats can allhelp to define priority landscapes where invest-ment in restoration is most justified.


• definition of conservation targets at variouspertinent scales (ecoregion, landscape);

• analysis of the broad consequences on thelandscape of past degradation, active pres-sure, and potential threats;

• definition of the role of restoration alongwith identification of protection and man-agement needs; and

• identification of the priority areas thatrequire restoration and explanation of thereasons why: Which landscapes, landscapeunits, or landscape functions do we need torestore? Which species do we need to eradi-cate, control or reintroduce?

1.2.3. Step 3: Defining RestorationStrategy and Tactics, Including Land-Use Scenarios

Considering ecological characteristics, but alsosocioeconomical context or goals assigned tothe restoration project, several trajectories andrestoration options could be developed for thesame project. Choosing among these optionsrequires careful study and data gathering.

This will necessarily mean reconciling differ-ent points of view and opinions.Agreement canbe a phased and continuing process; that is, itmay be possible to agree to some specific anduseful restoration interventions without reach-ing agreement about the whole future of thelandscape. The way in which such agreementsare reached will naturally depend on the polit-ical and social realities of particular countriesor regions; the general principle that decisionsshould be as participatory as possible appliesthroughout.


• assessment of current/potential benefits from the landscape for people, and for biodiversity;

• assessment of the current, past, and referencelandscape states;

• definition of what we can expect to restore;• development of possible land-use scenarios

in space (including maps);• development of possible restoration trajec-

tories to achieve short-term and long-termgoals (including models, time frames, andmaps);

• reconciliation of land-use options: how canwe achieve specific goals while meeting orreconciling conflicting demands, tastes, andneeds?;


• set of goals, strategies, and tactics for eachzone and problem in the landscape;

• set of priorities in space and time;• identification of restoration trajectories, tech-

nical options, steps, and phases, (especiallyremembering the monitoring and “fine-tuning” phases necessary to fully achievelong term restoration goals); and

• A written restoration plan, strategy, and setof tactics, with identified time frames, maps,allocated funds, and quantified targets.

1.2.4. Step 4: Implementing Restoration

This step is the most visible part of the work,and usually the most costly. Some projects start here, for example, by directly investing allthe available funds to plant trees on anemblematic or strategic site. However, thisignores the previous planning steps recom-mended above and can easily end up wastingtime and resources in restoration activities thateither do not work or are in suboptimal loca-tions. It is of course judicious to start small-scale actions, such as one or more pilot sites, forthe sake of “learning by doing,” to demonstratethe feasibility of key restoration goals and totest silvicultural techniques (for example plant-ing, but also natural regeneration). But wewould strongly recommend that larger scaleactivities also be undertaken in the context ofcareful planning and assessment as outlined insteps above.


• development of pilot sites;• implementation of large-scale actions;• lessons learned from first results, both suc-

cesses and failures; and• design and implementation of changes/

adaptation in the restoration programme.

1.2.5. Step 5: Piloting Systems TowardFully Restored Ecosystems

In practice, a few years or decades after start-ing implementation, even if restoration hashitherto been successful, unexpected results of previous work or changing circumstances

(evolution of the socioeconomic context, forexample) could alter the most preferablerestoration trajectory. This could even lead insome cases to redefining overall project goals.Such modifications should not be considered asa failure of the overall programme, but ratheras a normal step in the restoration of a complexset of ecosystems within a larger landscapematrix.

Thus, the restoration work is not “finishedafter planting.” To sustain restoration success in the long run, and to anticipate potentialproblems, a simple monitoring and evaluationframework (see section “Monitoring and Eval-uation”) needs to be set up from the outset ofthe programme in order to facilitate adaptivemanagement and corrective actions.


• regular evaluation (social, economical,ecological);

• restoration trajectory reappraisal; and• design and implementation of corrective

actions.

2. Examples

As yet, there are few full-scale forest landscaperestoration programmes, although their num-bers are rapidly increasing. The following ex-amples show both the need for planning andbroad-scale restoration planning in practice.These examples show not only how a planningframework can be implemented, but also howproblems can arise by forgetting one step.

2.1. New Caledonia: FromAwareness to Restoration of Tropical Dry Forests (Step 1)

It took 15 years from the first alarm signals byscientists to the first significant pilot plantings orprotection of sites within a forest landscaperestoration initiative in New Caledonia. Atten-tion to the tropical dry forests of New Caledo-nia began to grow in the early 1990s. In 1998,WWF, the global conservation organisation,launched an effort to organise a consortium of

9. An Attempt to Develop a Framework for Restoration Planning 69

research institutions, local government agencies,and NGOs (10 partners) to create a tropical dryforests programme. Underway since 2001, thisprogramme has already carried out much of thepreliminary reconnaissance and mapping in dif-ferent tropical dry forest fragments, as well as ecological, silvicultural, and horticulturalstudies of great importance to restorationefforts slated to begin in the field in 2005.Two ofthe authors (Aronson and Vallauri), who havebeen involved in this restoration programme,consider that partners should work to preparenow as soon as possible a protect–manage–restore approach and restoration at broad scalein a large priority landscape,like the ecologicallyoutstanding landscape of Gouaro Deva (see“Restoring Dry Tropical Forests”).

2.2. Vietnam: IntegratingRestoration into a Landscape Approach Across SevenProvinces (Step 2)

The Central Truong Son initiative, coveringseven provinces in central Vietnam inland fromDalat, is developing an integrated approach toforest protection, management, and restora-tion. Comparatively large areas of naturalforest remain standing, although often in pooror highly degraded condition. There are majorplantation developments of varying success,and the government is committed to maintain-ing protected areas. The new Ho Chi MinhHighway is bringing rapid social and envi-ronmental changes, some of which directlythreaten remaining natural forests. The CentralTruong Son initiative has identified prioritylandscapes and used a gap analysis, coupledwith a detailed study of forest quality, to pin-point the most effective areas for restoringnatural forest in terms of increasing forest con-nectivity and protecting biodiversity; these arecurrently around the buffer zone of Song Thanhnature reserve and in a so-called green corridorarea linking several patches of natural forest.Elsewhere, more generally the project isseeking to increase the proportion of forestrestoration funds used for natural regeneration(see case study “Monitoring Forest LandscapeRestoration—Vietnam”).

2.3. France: The Consequences of aLack of Ecological Monitoring (Step 5)

In the early 1860s, an ambitious “Restoration ofMountain Lands” initiative was set up by theFrench forest administration in the southernAlps, primarily for the purpose of erosioncontrol. A wide range of plant material wasused, including native shrubs and grasses, butno particular preference was given to nativetrees for replanting. Over 60,000 hectares were thus planted between 1860 and 1914, usingmainly Pinus nigra Arn. subsp. nigra Host.These efforts have proved effective at stoppingthe average erosion rate (of 0.7mm per year)on black marls. Nevertheless, although rehabil-itated in the sense that erosion has been haltedand badlands forested, these ecosystems werenot fully restored. No fine-tuning assistance and ecological evaluation was carried out untilrecently.100 The forest soils were now better pro-tected, as shown by the study of soil biologicalactivity, especially earthworm communities.However, the rehabilitated ecosystems werefacing two new ecological problems: lack ofnatural regeneration, and development of aninfestation of the pine trees by mistletoe(Viscum album). Once management prioritieshave been revised, the goal for the future is torestore the diversity, structure, and functioningof a native forest ecosystem. The absence oflong-term monitoring and evaluation for about100 years did not allow a rapid adaptation ofthe restoration trajectory. After a necessaryshort pioneer stage with Austrian pine, therestoration strategy should have been pursued30 years later by a phase of autogenic restora-tion of native biota [oak (Quercus), maple(Acer), mountain ash (Sorbus), and others].

3. Outline of Tools

There are still few specific planning toolsdesigned specifically for restoration. However,many existing conservation planning toolscould be adapted for or could include a restora-

100 Vallauri et al, 2002.


tion component. For example, ConservationInternational has developed guidelines for cor-ridors that include reference to restoration tofill gaps in existing forest cover, although withlittle detail.

The reader will find more details on thepotential tools step by step in the following sec-tions. They include among others:

Step 1. Initiating a restoration programme andpartnerships• Lobbying• Participatory approaches• Capacity building

Step 2. Defining restoration needs, linkingrestoration to large-scale conservation vision• Ecoregional planning process (WWF)• 5-S process and systematic conservation

planning (The Nature Conservancy)• Landscape planning

Step 3. Defining restoration strategy andtactics, including land-use scenarios• Conceptual modelling• Geographic information systems• Ecological modelling• “Restoration vision and strategy” meetings

Step 4. Implementing restoration• Tools on plantation, natural regeneration,

species’ selection, etc., are covered in othersections of this book.

Step 5. Piloting systems toward fully restoredecosystems• Restoration projects’ databases:A lot could

be learned from past restoration successesand failures. The analysis of databases of long-term restoration projects is veryuseful, like the world restoration data-base launched by UNEP-WCMC (http://www.unepwcmc.org/forest/restoration/database.htm) or the database of evaluatedrestoration programmes in the Mediter-ranean (http://www.ceam.es/reaction/)

• Criteria and indicators for monitoring (seesection “Monitoring and Evaluation”)

4. Future Needs

Restoration planning in landscapes or largescales is still in its infancy. Much further workis needed to refine and improve the planningprocess and define appropriate tools. Thus, spe-cific work on restoration planning is highlyneeded in the coming years, both in theory andin practice. Learning from past restoration pro-grammes and their successes and failures couldprove an efficient starting point. In time, lessonsmight usefully be captured in a step-by-stepguidebook or manual specifically on thissubject and perhaps with associated softwareprogrammes if appropriate.

References

Aronson, J., Floret, C., Le Floc’h, E., Ovalle, C., andPontanier, R. 1993. Restoration and rehabilitationof degraded ecosystems in arid and semi-aridlands. I. A view from the south. RestorationEcology 1:8–17.

Clewell, A., and Rieger, J.P. 1997. What practitionersneed from restoration ecologists. RestorationEcology 5(4):350–354.

Pickett, S.T.A., and Parker, V.T. 1994. Avoiding oldpitfalls: opportunities in a new discipline. Restora-tion Ecology 2(2):75–79.

Vallauri, D., Aronson, J., and Barbéro, M. 2002. Ananalysis of forest restoration 120 years after refor-estation of badlands in the south-western Alps.Restoration Ecology 10(1):16–26.

Wyant, J.G., Meganck, R.A., and Ham, S.H. 1995a. Aplanning and decision-making framework for eco-logical restoration. Environmental Management6:789–796.

Wyant, J.G., Meganck, R.A., and Ham, S.H. 1995b.The need for an environmental restoration deci-sion framework. Ecological Engineering 5:417–420.

Section VIdentifying and Addressing

Challenges/Constraints


The key to any successful restoration pro-gramme lies in good project design that is basedon sound science, a thorough understanding ofthreats and opportunities, and a strategic andpragmatic suite of interventions chosen to mit-igate identified threats while capitalising on keyopportunities. A comprehensive threat assess-ment goes beyond merely identifying thefactors, behaviours, and practices that pose achallenge to forest restoration, but includes an

analysis of the underlying social, economic, andpolitical incentives that drive such behaviours.

1.1. Information Needed for Threat Assessment

For restoration programmes, a good threatassessment provides actionable informationthat can be used to define the scope of inter-ventions. Information should be timely, verifi-able, and collected in a cost- and time-effectivemanner. Restoration programmes are notimmune to the all too common pitfall of invest-ing considerable time and resources in collect-ing a tremendous amount of data that, whileperhaps new and interesting, is not particularlyrelevant to making decisions about the bestway to undertake restoration activities. Toavoid this pitfall it is often useful to frame athreat assessment by exploring different typesof threats—direct, indirect, and potential.

1.2. Types of Threats

Direct threats are those with immediate andclear causal links to the negative impact offorest degradation or loss. Indirect threats,often referred to as root causes,101 are theunderlying drivers behind direct threats. Poten-tial threats are those threats that, while cur-rently not posing a significant challenge toforest restoration, have the potential to under-

10Assessing and Addressing Threats inRestoration ProgrammesDoreen Robinson


Threats may be direct, indirect, or potential.Before undertaking a large-scale restorationeffort, it is important to understand threatsin all three categories.

A variety of tools for undertaking threatassessment and integrating the results intoforest restoration programmes have beentested around the world. In most cases, toolswill need to be used in conjunction withothers or may need to be modified to fit localcircumstances.

A key challenge for restoration programmesis to expand the breadth of expertise inte-grated into assessment and analysis throughmultidisciplinary teams.

73

101 Wood et al. 2000.

74 D. Robinson

mine such investments in the future. Given thatforest restoration is a necessarily long-termconservation intervention, it is important toinclude such a temporal component in threatanalysis.

For restoration programmes around theworld a number of common direct threats havebeen identified, including habitat fragmen-tation, unsustainable use, and overharvesting of forest resources, pollution, and invasivespecies—all contributing to the breakdown ofecological processes that are critical to thehealthy functioning of natural forest systems.

Underlying drivers of such threats are oftenrelated to policies that favour rapid and unsus-tainable conversion of forests for short-termeconomic gains. Markets for forest products,including global markets for products liketimber and palm oil or local markets for fuel-wood, can drive forest degradation and loss,particularly when market dynamics externalisetrue costs.

Persistent conflict and civil unrest may forcelocal dependence on forest resources to expandrapidly, given both a lack of alternatives to meetlivelihood needs or an influx of migrants anddisplaced persons fleeing from conflict zonesinto forest areas. Moreover, in many cases,forest resources are the only resources readilyavailable to generate the cash necessary to con-tinue such conflicts. In such situations, theprospects for successful restoration are limitedif underlying governance and conflict issues arenot addressed.

Other common indirect threats to forestrestoration include a lack of knowledge andskills regarding the science and research behindappropriate habitat restoration and a lack oftechnical capacity to implement activities onthe ground. A lack of political will and broadstakeholder support for restoration activitiesplagues many restoration programmes world-wide. Such a lack of support is often tied to aperception of high transaction costs or limitedbenefits associated with undertaking restora-tion. Given the time frame required for restora-tion projects, both a lack of sustained financialresources and unsure resource and land tenurerights combined can create a strong disincen-tive for undertaking restoration activities.

2. Examples

2.1. MadagascarIn southern Madagascar the U.S. Agency forInternational Development is partnering withthe Communes of Ampasy-Nahampoana andMandromodromotra, the Department of Waterand Forests (La Circonscription des Eaux etForêts–CIREF) and QIT Madagascar Minerals(QMM) to undertake forest restoration activi-ties in the Mandena Conservation Zone. Theregion’s forests are highly fragmented as aresult of extraction of forest resources to meetthe rising fuelwood needs of a growing popula-tion and increasing slash-and-burn agriculture,among other threats. This is one of the poorestregions of Madagascar, and the reliance of localpopulations on the forests to meet livelihoodneeds is driving forest loss and degradation.

A thorough understanding of the threats andopportunities of this region identified by QMMin collaboration with the communes, commu-nity leaders, and regional government repre-sentatives produced a diverse set of innovativeactivities intended to mitigate direct threats offorest fragmentation and indirect threats asso-ciated with poverty. For example, in exchangefor rights to mine ilmenite across the region—intended to stimulate economic growth andgenerate income within the region—QMM hasagreed to invest in forest restoration in blocksadjacent to existing protected areas of primaryforest harbouring significant biodiversity. Therestoration will not only expand the area ofcontiguous forest, but also improve the healthof the forest, protect critical water cyclingprocesses, and is also tied to investment anddevelopment of ecotourism in the region. Tomitigate deforestation of remaining intact areasdriven by increasing local demand for fuelwoodand charcoal, plantations of fast-growingspecies on already degraded or deforested landare also being supported.

Even with a solid understanding of threats,the ability to address forest restoration, bio-diversity, and local development needs insouthern Madagascar is certainly not withoutchallenges.A lack of knowledge and capacity inlocal forest ecology made the identification of

10. Assessing and Addressing Threats in Restoration Programmes 75

relevant native pioneer species a significantchallenge, requiring over 8 years of researchand a multimillion dollar investment to developappropriate protocols for forest restoration.Perhaps the greatest challenges faced by part-ners now are how to scale up interventionsbeyond initial target restoration sites and toengage new collaborators in order to effectivelyaddress the true magnitude of threats drivingforest degradation and loss across the entireregion.

2.2. Atlantic Forest in Argentina

In the Andresito region of Misiones,Argentina,Fundación Vida Silvestre Argentina (FVSA)and WWF are helping to restore key areas offorest adjacent to the Green Corridor, thelargest remaining area of contiguous Atlanticforest in the world. The area has been signifi-cantly deforested by rapidly growing humanpopulations to support small-scale agricultureand meet human fuelwood needs.

To develop a detailed restoration strategy forthe region, FVSA undertook a thorough analy-sis of threats and opportunities, combining on-the-ground surveys, economic analyses, andGIS tools. FVSA began by developing detailedland use maps for each parcel of land in theregion based on the current tenure. Detailedland use maps were then overlaid with biolog-ical and socioeconomic data to identify keyopportunities for creating forest restorationcorridors that could meet overarching forestrestoration goals. Research on biodiversity-friendly production practices for local forestand shade products was also undertaken withseveral universities in Argentina to assesspotential economic gains from alternative con-servation friendly enterprises. Pilot restorationplots using different species and productiontechniques were established to assess both eco-logical and economic costs and benefits (alsosee case study “Finding Economically Sustain-able Means of Preserving and Restoring theAtlantic Forest in Argentina”).With poverty onthe rise in the region, alternative income gen-eration opportunities are a critical incentive for landowners to begin undertaking forestrestoration.

Armed with these analyses and researchresults, FVSA continues to engage in a par-ticipatory process with individual privatelandowners, local cooperatives, governmentrepresentatives, and others to develop appro-priate long-term land use management optionsthat include a mix of reforestation, timber har-vesting, nontimber forest product production,and other uses. By including a spatially explicitcomponent of such land use management plans,stakeholders are continuously able to see notonly how restoration practices benefit them, butalso how they are contributing to a broader sustainable vision for the entire region. Cur-rently, the major challenge for this project also involves scaling up. FVSA is focussed on helping stakeholders expand the adoption of new production alternatives, sustainableresource use management practices, and devel-oping carbon credit schemes to mitigate highrestoration costs in order to achieve restorationgoals over the long term.

2.3. Using a Three-DimensionalModel to Identify Threats in Vietnam

In the area surrounding the Song Thanh NatureReserve in the Quang Nam Province ofVietnam, WWF and partners undertook a par-ticipatory landscape planning process withcommunity members from nine villages.102 A“papier-mâché” 1 :10,000 model of the 30,000-hectare landscape surrounding the reserve was used to facilitate planning and decisionmaking amongst villagers and forestry sectoremployees.

Using paints, pins, and yarn to depict landuse, natural resource elements, threats, andrelationships, animated discussions and debateshelped inform an integrated management planfocussed on a suite of protection, management,and restoration activities. In particular, throughthe modelling process, threats from illegal goldmining activities were identified and hotlydebated, and have been raised with relevantauthorities. Elderly people, women, and chil-dren were all able to contribute to the model-

102 Hardcastle et al, 2004.

76 D. Robinson

ling exercise, facilitating broader communityinvolvement in decision making and buy-in for the planning process. While the three-dimensional (3D) mapping of threats provideda good way to engage communities in restora-tion planning, solid facilitation and conflict res-olution skills were critical in ensuring success.This relatively cost-effective activity is nowbeing replicated in other areas in the region inorder to develop an integrated land andresource management plan at a larger land-scape scale.

3. Outline of Tools

A variety of tools for undertaking threat assess-ment and integrating such analysis into forestrestoration programmes have been testedaround the world. While no one tool is ideal forall situations, certain aspects are useful for pro-gramme implementers to consider when select-ing and modifying existing tools to meet specificforest restoration goals, including stakeholderparticipation, flexibility/adaptability of analysis,costs (e.g., time, human resources, financialresources, etc.), iterative nature of informationgathering and analyses, processes to includenew and updated information, communicabilityof outputs to appropriate audiences, and abilityto incorporate different types of data (i.e., qual-itative vs. quantitative).

Research studies, literature reviews, ecologi-cal and socioeconomic surveys, focus groups,and key informant interviews are all techniquesthat are used to gather relevant informationneeded to undertake threat analyses.A numberof tools can be used, singularly or in combina-tion, to carry out the actual analysis.

Conceptual modelling103 is commonly used to show linkages and complex relationshipsbetween threats and their impacts while pro-viding a strategic framework for thinking aboutappropriate project interventions. Conceptualmodels explicitly identify the restorationfactors that programmes are intended to influ-ence while characterising both direct and indi-rect forces affecting these factors. Conceptual

models are particularly good for teasing outroot causes, integrating interdisciplinary per-spectives and are generally supported by a mixof quantitative and qualitative backgrounddata. They can be quite participatory if multi-ple stakeholders are brought in as part of facil-itated discussions. However, conceptual modelscan get very complex and make it challengingto identify and prioritise interventions.

Threat matrices are a useful way to link threat assessment to project goals and specificactivities. Matrices can vary from relativelysimple to complex logframes where forestrestoration targets are explicitly stated, withrelevant threats, activities, and potential indica-tors for monitoring change over time explicitlytied to these targets. Matrices are good for tyingthreat analysis to specific activities and strate-gic interventions and are easily updated asadaptive management is practised. The under-lying assumptions linking threats to targets andactivities can be obscure and should be explic-itly stated and supported by both qualitativeand quantitative analysis.

Threat mapping104 can be used to assessthreats for a forest restoration area—in theform of either a pictorial map or 3D modelsmade out of clay, wood, or other materials (seeabove example in Vietnam).These maps are thebasis for discussion of changes in forest habitatquantity or quality, often with communitygroups. The process involves facilitated discus-sion to ensure that different members of thecommunity with differential knowledge ofthreats offer their insights. For example, eldersmay have knowledge of the historical extent ofthe forest, women and men may have very dif-ferent perceptions of threats related to the dif-ferent forest resources they use and manage,and so on. When used appropriately this is a highly participatory tool that effectively incorporates qualitative data and generates aproduct that multiple stakeholders can use.Threat mapping is often most effective whenused in combination with some of the othermore quantitatively oriented tools.

GIS-based tools offer more advanced threatmapping by reflecting quantitative data in

103 Robinson, 2000; WCS, 2004. 104 Biodiversity Support Programme, 1995.

10. Assessing and Addressing Threats in Restoration Programmes 77

sophisticated spatial maps. Direct threats, suchas habitat fragmentation, can be represented inmaps by showing changes in data over time.GIS-based threat assessment tools can rangefrom simple maps that reflect data collected on the ground to complex decision-supportsystems incorporating threat data into pro-grammes that model alternative scenarios andoutcomes using criteria established by users.Visual products reflect alternative scenarios,and an appropriate and transparent criteria andvalue-setting process can help generate signifi-cant buy-in from stakeholders engaged in theprocess.These tools are heavily reliant on quan-tifiable data, and depending on the specifictechnology, their utility may suffer from limitedor unreliable data. GIS-based threat assess-ment requires technical skills and equipment.These tools are particularly useful for gener-ating baseline data sets and for monitor-ing change over time from restoration interventions.

4. Future Needs

A key challenge to forest restoration pro-grammes is more effective integration of rele-vant threat analysis that is critical for makingpragmatic and real decisions. Threat analysishas been seen as a discrete backgroundresearch activity that, once completed, oftengets put on a shelf, never to be revisited as partof strategic programme development and adap-tive management. The gap between threatassessment, often seen as primarily scientificand academic investigations, and actual projectimplementation needs to be more effectivelybreached.

To improve the rigour and utility of threatassessments for forest restoration, approachesfor undertaking integrated and multidisci-plinary analyses also need to be refined.Biologists, social scientists, conservation prac-titioners, policy makers, economists, communityleaders, and investors all bring a different lensto threat analysis. Through a combined view of

the factors affecting restoration, more informedand pragmatic decisions can be made regardingtrade-offs that inevitably must be made in thereal world.

References

Biodiversity Support Programme. 1995. Indigenouspeoples, mapping and biodiversity conservation:An analysis of current activities and opportunitiesfor applying geomatics technologies. Washington,DC, 83 pp.

Hardcastle, J., Rambaldi, G., Long, B., Le Van Lanh,and Do Quoc Son. 2004. The use of participatorythree-dimensional modelling in community-basedplanning in Quang Nam province, Vietnam. PLANotes 49:70–76.

Robinson, D. 2000. Assessing Root Causes—AUser’s Guide. WWF Macroeconomics ProgrammeOffice, Washington, DC, 40 pp.

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). 2004. Creat-ing conceptual models—a tool for thinking strate-gically. Living Landscapes Technical Manual 2,8 pp.

Wood, A., Stedman-Edwards, P., and Mang, J. 2000.The Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss. WWF/Earthscan, 398 pp.

Additional Reading

Salafsky, N., and Margoluis, R. 1999.Threat reductionassessment to: a practical and cost-effectiveapproach to evaluating Conservation and Devel-opment Projects. Conservation Biology 13(14):830–841.

Verolme, H.J.H., and Moussa, J. 1999.Addressing theUnderlying Causes of Deforestation and ForestDegradation—Case Studies, Analysis and PolicyRecommendations. Biodiversity Action Network,Washington, DC, 141 pp.

Wildlife Conservation Society. 2004. Participatoryspatial assessment of human activities—a tool forconservation planning. Living Landscapes Techni-cal Manual 1, 12 pp.

WWF. 2000. A guide to socio-economic assessmentsfor ecoregion conservation. Ecoregional Conser-vation Strategies Unit, 18 pp.


In some countries, government incentives forparticular kinds of restoration have distortedapproaches to the conservation, restoration,and management of forests. Government incen-tives to the forest industry for restoring forestcover have traditionally been aimed mainly atsupporting plantation development. In light ofthe financial costs of these incentive schemes,and criticism from some environment and

social welfare groups, questions have beenraised about the economic, environmental,and social benefits of these schemes. Althoughmany public incentives in forestry have pro-vided some employment and income opportu-nities, questions remain about the overall costsof such schemes and about who will bear thesecosts in the longer term. For example, somestudies have pointed out social and equity con-cerns when subsidies are captured by a fewactors, such as large companies and landowners.In Chile, 80 percent of public incentive pay-ments for the establishment of plantations havegone to three companies.105 Other poorlydesigned incentive schemes have resulted inincreased conversion of natural forests andland degradation. The key question is: Arepublic funds for afforestation and reforestationdirected toward projects that provide net ben-efits to society?

A case study review by Perrin106 showed thatgovernment incentive programmes in refor-estation and afforestation activities tend tosuffer from poor design, a lack of enforcementmechanisms, and little or no monitoring. Publicincentives are often applied for short-term treeplanting activities that inadequately addresssustainability, biodiversity, and livelihood con-cerns. Little emphasis is paid to ensuring thatpublic incentives contribute to restoring forestfunctions and resources, and they seldombenefit from adequate stakeholder participa-

11Perverse Policy IncentivesKirsten Schuyt


Many government incentive programmes inreforestation and afforestation suffer frompoor design, lack of enforcement, and lack ofmonitoring, and are aimed at short-termtree-planting activities.

As a result, government support for suchschemes acts as a perverse incentive that cansometimes undermine efforts at introduc-ing more balanced or equitable forms ofrestoration.

Instead, incentives need to be redirectedtoward a wider more integrated approach.This allows broader benefits to society, theinvolvement of local partners and stake-holders, and effective monitoring and evaluation.

78

105 Bazett and Associates, 2000.106 Perrin, 2003.

11. Perverse Policy Incentives 79

tion. There is also a general lack of adequatemonitoring and enforcement mechanisms,meaning that incentives are easily misused.

The Convention on Biological Diversity107

identifies three common types of perversepolicy incentives:

• Environmentally perverse government subsi-dies: Many different definitions exist in theliterature as to what a subsidy is. In general,they include direct subsidies (such as grantsand payments to consumers or producers);tax policies (tax credits, exemptions, allo-wances, and so on); capital cost subsidies(preferential loans or debt forgiveness);public provision of public goods and servicesbelow cost; and policies that create transfersthrough the market mechanism (such asprice regulations and quantity controls).Such subsidies may have a negative impacton biological resources by directly encourag-ing behaviour that leads to biodiversity loss.Another example of perverse effects of sub-sidies is that they may drain scarce publicfinances that could have been used to con-serve biodiversity.

• Persistence of environmental externalities:Some governmental policies may contributeto the persistence of negative externalities.For example,government policies may weakentraditional property rights systems, where suchrights reside within customary law or culturaltraditions. This absence of well-defined prop-erty rights at private or communal level may lead to pollution and overexploitation of natural resources, resulting in negativeexternalities or costs to third parties.

• Laws and customary practices governingresource use: An example of formal law gen-erating perverse incentives is beneficial uselaws requiring land users to make productiveuse of water and forest resources to secureland entitlement. On the other hand, theclearing of land may be rooted in customarylaw to indicate a claim to an area, leading toperverse incentives.

Perverse incentive schemes, however, can beredirected to promote restoration practices that

will offer benefits to conservation and to a widerange of stakeholders. In this respect, forestlandscape restoration offers important tools forgood practices in restoration, and the key liesin promoting these tools to redirect existingperverse incentive schemes toward restorationthat benefits conservation and society. Someexamples are provided below.

2. Examples108

2.1. Public Incentives for PlantationDevelopment, Indonesia

Deforestation is a major problem in Indonesia.The Indonesian government began promotingthe development of industrial tree plantationsin the 1980s to boost industrial development in wood-based industries and the oil palmsector. Several government incentives were put in place to stimulate timber plantationdevelopment, including interest-free loans, allo-cation of state-owned land, absence of landtaxes, and so on. Large sums of money couldalso be obtained through the ReforestationFund. Another incentive came from the International Monetary Fund–backed restruc-turing of the corporate and banking sector inthe late 1990s, which was poorly implementedand led to subsidies and financing being pro-vided to badly managed and corrupt forestcompanies.

In an attempt to redirect some of these public incentives,WWF, the global conservationorganisation, has collaborated with the Centrefor International Forestry Research (CIFOR)to restructure debt agreements related to theforest and oil palm assets of the IndonesianBank Restructuring Agency. This reform is toinclude a series of checks and balances amongthe state, private sector, and civil society to mit-igate structural pressures on the economy andforests, which should help prevent the use offunding for unsustainable and sometimes illegalplantation development as has happened in thepast.

107 CBD, 2002. 108 Perrin, 2003.

80 K. Schuyt

2.2. CAP and SAPARD Forestry-Related Incentives,European Union

Two key programmes of the European Com-mission (EC) that provide incentives forafforestation and reforestation are the Com-munity Regulation Directive 2080/92 (laterintroduced as part of the Common AgriculturalPolicy, CAP), which promotes afforestation ofagricultural land, and the Special Action forPre-Accession Measures for Agriculture andRural Development (SAPARD), which focusseson rural development in European Union (EU) accession countries and includes fund-ing for afforestation. Both of these schemeshave been widely criticised as perverse incen-tives (also see the case study that follows thischapter).

Under the CAP, detailed analysis in 1997 suggested that the decrease in utilised agricul-tural land was marginal and that the role of afforestation under CAP had been over-estimated. Also, the application of the direc-tive varied between member states, with sixcountries accounting for more than 90 per-cent of total area planted. Lastly, the analysisfound examples where funds had been mis-spent—for instance, in Spain, where farmersfrequently planted, cleared, and replanted thesame plots, all with subsidised funds from theEU.

Under SAPARD, it has been noted that theprocedures have proven to be a big burden formany countries. In addition, concerns havebeen raised about some of the damagingimpacts of SAPARD, such as the use of chem-ical protection, fence building, and constructionof new roads. Also, no requirements are givenunder SAPARD for a minimum percentage of native tree species to be planted or incen-tives to enhance environmentally sound man-agement practices. Environmental measuresrelated to forests are only marginally includedin national plans.

WWF is working both in the context of CAP and the EU enlargement process toensure that EC policies promote sustainablerural development. For example, in 2001 WWF

undertook a comprehensive review study ofSAPARD-related forestry measures, and it also took part in the midterm review of theCAP. Some of the main issues that emergedrelate to improving monitoring and follow-upwith different beneficiaries of afforestation subsidies.

2.3. Grain-for-Green Programme, China

The goal of China’s Grain-for-Green pro-gramme, launched in 2000, was to convert steepcultivated land to forest and pasture. It was ini-tiated as a result of severe flooding in Chinathat was blamed on excessive logging and cul-tivation along the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers.The programme is expected to turn more than340,000 hectares of farmland and 430,000hectares of bare mountain back to forests.These activities are to be carried out by thecommunities and subsidised by the govern-ment. In return for afforestation and reforesta-tion activities, communities receive grain, cash,and seedlings.

The positive effects of the incentive pro-gramme so far are that the incentives have contributed to afforestation and reforesta-tion activities as well as natural forest protec-tion. However, the long-term sustainability of the programme remains uncertain along with its ability to prevent soil erosion. Muchrestoration has involved planting orchards on steep slopes, which do little or nothing to stop soil erosion. An important weakness of the programme has been a lack of monitoringand virtually no evaluation of the policy implementation.

The Chinese government has been open toreviewing its scheme following preliminary rec-ommendations by WWF. The Centre for Inter-national Forestry Research has also undertakena thorough assessment of the lessons learnedfrom this scheme (see “Local Participation,Livelihood Needs, and Institutional Arrange-ments”) as well as other reforestation/rehabili-tation efforts in China and provided a numberof concrete recommendations.

11. Perverse Policy Incentives 81

3. Outline of Tools

Options to remove or mitigate public perverseincentives in the forestry sector are describedhere. Perrin109 recommends redirecting publicincentives within the context of the forest landscape restoration approach. This meansgovernments and donor agencies need to (1)allocate resources to the development of alter-native forms of afforestation and reforestationactivities that provide broader benefits to theenvironment and society, (2) involve local part-ners and stakeholders in incentive schemes(mechanisms for consultation and participationneed to be put in place), and (3) spend resourceson regulating the application of incentive pro-grammes for afforestation and reforestationactivities and monitoring the impacts of suchactivities (including developing sets of indica-tors and criteria to assist monitoring). Thisneeds to be accompanied by the necessarypolicy measures, institutional arrangements,and monitoring and compliance mechanisms.In this respect, the CBD110 recommends threeideal phases:

• Identify policies or practices that generateperverse incentives. This includes: analysingunderlying causes of biodiversity loss, identi-fying the nature and scope of perverse incen-tives, identifying costs and benefits to societyfrom removing the perverse incentives, doinga strategic environmental assessment, and so on.

• Design and implement appropriate reformpolicies. Reforms can include the totalremoval of policies or practices, or theirreplacement with other policies with thesame objectives but without perverse incen-tives, or with the introduction of additionalpolicies, and so on.

• Monitor, enforce, and evaluate these reformpolicies.This includes institutional and admin-istrative capacity building, development ofsound indicators, stakeholder involvement,and transparency.

4. Future Needs

Despite the fact that numerous suggestions onhow to address perverse policy incentives canbe found (as described in the previous section),the reality is that many perverse policies stillexist in the forestry sector. The key need is tostart putting these new policies into practice,including the need for redirecting public incen-tives toward a forest landscape restorationapproach at all levels in cases where policieshave promoted habitat alteration or destruc-tion and unsustainable use of natural resources.We also need to improve our understanding ofthe impacts caused by policies and practices onbiodiversity. In this respect, the CBD111 recom-mends undertaking further work on the use ofvaluation tools to assess the extent and scopeof negative impacts of policies and practices onbiodiversity.

References

Bazett, M., and Associates. 2000. Public Incentives forIndustrial Tree Plantations. WWF, Gland, Switzer-land, and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2002.Proposals for the Application of Ways and Meansto Remove or Mitigate Perverse Incentives. Note bythe Executive Secretary, Quebec, Canada.

Perrin, M. 2003. Incentives for Forest LandscapeRestoration: Maximizing Benefits for Forests andPeople. WWF Discussion Paper, WWF, Gland,Switzerland.

Additional References

Myers, N., and Kent, J. 1998. Perverse Subsidies—Tax$ Undercutting our Economies and EnvironmentsAlike. International Institute for SustainableDevelopment, Winnipeg, Canada.

Sizer, N. 2000. Perverse Habits, the G8 and Subsidiesthe Harm Forests and Economies. WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC.

109 Perrin, 2003.110 CBD, 2002. 111 CBD, 2002.

The European Commission has been promot-ing afforestation since 1992 under theCommon Agriculture Policy (CAP) (Direc-tive 2080/92) as a solution to reducing agri-cultural land and therefore, agriculturalsurpluses (which are currently supportedfinancially through subsidies). More recentlya sister scheme has been developed, theSpecial Action for Pre-accession Measures for Agriculture and Rural Development(SAPARD), which is applicable to EuropeanUnion (EU) accession countries and coversthe period 2000 to 2006, with a budget of over333 million Euros.

Today, Directive 2080/92 is part of the RuralDevelopment Regulation (RDR), whichestablishes a new framework for EuropeanCommunity support for sustainable ruraldevelopment.

While the afforestation measures under theEU had spent four billion euros by 1999 andplanted 900,000 hectares of trees, the resultsin terms of the original aims of the scheme,and also in terms of restoring forest cover andforest functionality remained disappointing.

Some of the key problems with the CAPafforestation directive include the following:

• Limited role in taking land out of agricul-ture: In most member states, only 1.3 to 1.4percent of land has actually been set asidefrom agriculture following its application.

• Conflicting objectives: While the subsidyscheme was largely centred around taking

land out of agriculture, many governmentsand companies used the scheme to establishtimber plantations. In Ireland, for example,the subsidies were used to establish planta-tions with a high economic return (Sitkaspruce, pines) in order to achieve thecountry’s aim to double its forest area overthe next 30 years.

• Unequal distribution of subsidies and“double dipping”: Six countries accountedfor more than 90 percent of the total areaplanted (Spain, the U.K., Portugal, Ireland,Italy, and France). In addition, individualexamples show that funds were easily mis-spent. In Spain, the largest recipient of theEU afforestation funds, “double dipping”was discovered to be common, with farmersplanting, clearing, and replanting the sameplots all with subsidised funds from the EU.

• Unnecessary manipulation of naturalprocesses: In many cases, subsidies wereapplied to reforest areas that were regener-ating naturally. It is estimated that up to62.5 percent of the area benefiting from thesubsidy did not actually qualify as produc-ing an oversupply of crops.

• Inappropriate methods and species: Over65 percent of afforestation was carried outin areas believed at risk of fire underCouncil Regulation (EEC) No. 2158/92 onprotection of the community’s forestsagainst fire. Planting was often done in anad hoc fashion, without selecting optimal

Case Study: The European Union’sAfforestation Policies and Their RealImpact on Forest RestorationStephanie Mansourian and Pedro Regato

82

Case Study: The European Union’s Afforestation Policies 83

areas to restore forest cover, nor were theseproperly integrated into land use plans.

References

Perrin, M. 2003. Incentives for forest landscaperestoration: maximizing benefits for forests and

people. WWF Discussion Paper, WWF, Gland,Switzerland.

Report to Parliament and the Council on the appli-cation of Regulation No. 2080/92 instituting acommunity aid scheme for forestry measures inagriculture, 1996.


1.1. Forest Ownership:An Overview

The reports “Who Owns the World’s Forests”112

and “Who Conserves the World’s Forests?”113

indicate that globally, 77 percent of forestlandsare owned by governments, 7 percent by indige-nous and local communities, and 12 percent byindividual and corporate landowners, and thatin the last 15 years the forest area owned and

administered by indigenous and local commu-nities has doubled, reaching nearly 400 millionhectares. This reflects important changes inforest ownership worldwide.

This chapter discusses the relationshipsbetween forest ownership and restoration,more specifically, the implications of thevarious types and conditions of forest owner-ship for successful restoration of forestlands.The basic assumption in this chapter is thatforest ownership regimes matter for restorationbecause the end result of forest restoration,trees, are the centrepieces of the ecosystem, andtheir consequent, associated goods and ecolog-ical services are of direct value to people. Inother words, the basic nature of the linkbetween forest ownership and forest restora-tion is the fact that forest owners (whatevertheir specific regime and bundles of rights) aredriven to restore (or not) by the expectation ofgoods and services that restored forests offer.

1.2. Definitions

The literature often does not distinguish “tenure”from “property” or “ownership” of forests,although in a more general sense “tenure” couldbe linked to custom-defined bundles of rightsthat are socially acknowledged, and “property”would be identified as a status in which custom-ary tenure becomes more “institutional” throughlegal and political procedures and means.

Ownership or property itself is in essence abundle of rights which are defined according tothe nature of the subject and the legal frame-

12Land Ownership and Forest RestorationGonzalo Oviedo


Forest ownership regimes matter for forestrestoration because the end result of restora-tion, the trees, are the centrepieces of theecosystem, and their consequent, associatedgoods and ecological services are of directvalue to people. The ownership regimedetermines how such goods and services areaccessed and distributed, and therefore, isthe basis for restoration incentives.

It is necessary to undertake further researchon experiences (successful and unsuccessful)of forest restoration under different types ofownership, to better understand how owner-ship rights’ systems impact on the results.

84

112 White and Martin, 2002.113 Molnar et al, 2004.

12. Land Ownership and Forest Restoration 85

work in a given situation. Such rights can belisted114 as the rights to (1) possess and exclu-sively physically control, (2) use, (3) manage, (4)draw income, (5) transmit or destroy capital, (6)have protection from expropriation, (7) disposeof interest on death, (8) potentially hold prop-erty forever, (9) reversionary/residual interestsarising on expiration, (10) liability to seizure fordebts, and (11) prohibitions on harmful use.There are many differences in the way in whichthese various rights are defined and apply toforests in different countries and social and his-torical contexts; some of these specific rightsappear to be particularly important whendealing with sustainable forest managementand forest restoration, as will be discussed later.

The literature distinguishes four main typesof property applicable to lands and forests:private (individual or corporative), state, com-mon or communal, and open access. Thesesystems have been studied extensively, andtheir advantages and disadvantages with regardto natural resource use are well documented(for a useful typology and comparative analy-sis, see GTZ, 1998).

In country regimes of the 20th and 21st cen-turies, the rule for forest ownership is typicallya combination of these four types of property,with significant changes in the composition ofproperty according to historical moments andwith great differences among countries. Gener-ally, however, the predominant pattern is forthe majority of forest areas to be in the handsof government, and only a small proportionbeing communal forests. In modern times,legally speaking there is little if any open accessin forestlands, as any forestlands withoutprivate owners are automatically converted bylaw to state lands. In practice, however, state-owned forest has in many cases meant openaccess, as governments, particularly in develop-ing countries, have had little capacity to controlaccess to their forests. In developing countries,however, the establishment of large state-owned forest areas was in most cases the resultof the expropriation of forestlands from theirtraditional users, who until colonial times wereowners of those lands (or parts of them) under

customary tenure. In this sense, and in caseswhere traditional forest-owning communitiesstill exist and inhabit their traditional lands,there is an overlap of state property and com-munal, customary tenure.

Partly due to the recognition of customarytenure as legal communal (or individual) prop-erty, forest ownership is undergoing a majorchange in the world, with the main trend beingthe transfer or “devolution” of ownership rightsto the local level, and the consequent expansionof community-owned forests.

1.3. Degree of Dependence on Forests

From the perspective of goods and services thatforests (standing or future) offer, there areroughly two types of owners: forest-dependentpeople and non–forest-dependent people (andinstitutions). This distinction is importantbecause of the expectations of the end result of forest restoration and their implications.Forest-dependent communities basically expectfrom restored forests an array of goods andservices of direct economic value. They mayvalue other associated benefits, such as ecolog-ical services at a landscape scale—climatechange mitigation, regulation of the hydrologi-cal cycle, watershed protection, etc.—but theywill normally not place higher values on asso-ciated ecological services than on those relatedto direct forest produce.115 In the cases ofnon–forest-dependent owners, such as theabsentee forest owner and the state and publicagencies, the scale and hierarchy of values mayvary for some areas, and their expectations,therefore, may not directly be linked to the economic importance of forest produce, but toecosystem protection and services, biodiversityconservation, aesthetic aspects (which in turncan become economic values for example fromtourism), etc.

114 Ziff, 1993, cited by Clogg, 1997.

115 Some exceptions exist to the hierarchy of values offorest restoration from the perspective of forest-dependentowners, but they are exceptions that do not contradict theprimary expectations on forest produce or alternativelivelihoods. For example, this is the case of restoration ofdegraded forest areas with sacred or particular spiritualvalue to local communities.

86 G. Oviedo

1.4. Ownership of Land but Also ofForest Goods and Services

Forest ownership differs significantly fromother types of land and resource tenure—agri-cultural land, for example. The differences relybasically on the wide array of goods and serv-ices of the forest, and more specifically on thefact that forest ownership consists of a complexmixture of three types of ownership rights:rights to the land, rights to the forest resources,and rights to the trees. Further, ownershiprights in forestlands overlap frequently with,and are different from, user rights. As Neef andSchwarzmeier116 illustrate for Southeast Asia, insome cases groups or individuals holding theproperty of the land recognise rights of otherindividuals or groups to use the trees existingon that land, as long as there are no competinguses over the trees. There could even be multi-ple layers of rights on a single plot of land; forexample, when a group or individual has prop-erty on the land, another group has rights onnontimber forest products, and another groupholds rights on timber exploitation.

1.5. Opportunity Cost andIntergenerational Equity

Tree growth takes place over long or relativelylong periods, when the forest ecosystem underrestoration can offer only limited services;therefore, we are dealing with situations wherethere is a high, or relatively high, opportunitycost in the use of the land for forest-dependentpeople. In these conditions, only significantincentives and economic alternatives can coverthe opportunity cost of forest restoration. Thenature of benefits and incentives from forestrestoration in terms of the time horizon (espe-cially in cases of slow-maturing tree species)adds a time perspective to tenure security. Forforest owners and users, it is not sufficient toknow that their rights to forests and trees aresecure now; it is more important to know thatthey will be secure and enforceable after onegeneration or more. In this sense, changingownership and rights policies are even worse

than the absence of them, since they cause agreat lack of confidence in restoration as some-thing socially beneficial.

1.6. Stability of Forest Ownership

In the case of China, Liu Dachang116a finds noconclusive evidence that user rights on trees arethe best option (e.g., compared to state regula-tions), but does find evidence that changingrights policies were the basis of ups and downsin forest cover, and especially that lack of sta-bility of forest ownership policies was the mainreason for decline in forest cover and treeplanting in certain periods; in fact, over approx-imately 25 years of China’s modern history(from 1956 to the early 1980s), there was a suc-cession of at least five major forest ownershippolicy paradigms, thus an average of a majorpolicy change every 5 years. In practice, a fewyears after villagers planted trees, a majorpolicy change would affect dramatically theirrights to those trees and forests. The resultswere simply lack of confidence in the systemand lack of incentives for tree planting.

Generally, the evidence is that where tenuresecurity was greatest, tree planting was mostsuccessful. Tenure security means basicallythree levels: land tenure security, forest owner-ship security, and also user rights security.

1.7. Communal Systems

Several researchers have pointed to the factthat communal forest tenure, especially in conditions of market economies, requires a“critical group size” to be effective, whereenforcement of rights and regulations can beoptimally implemented, and where economiesof scale and diversification make opportunitycosts affordable, particularly when the commu-nity has to invest in forest restoration or refor-estation. In other words, in any particularsituation of communal forest ownership, itseems that there is a certain size of the groupwhere forest management works best; if it is toosmall or too big, management is inefficient.

In many places, forest communities havetended to solve this issue by establishing a dualcommunity/user group system, where forest

116 Neef and Schwarzmeier, 2001. 116a Dachang, 2001.


ownership remains at the community level, butuser rights (especially for trees) are allocated to smaller groups that act as forest manage-ment units. For example, in Honduras group-based management has proven better thancommunity-based management, but the experi-ence also shows that links between both arecritical at decision-making levels on broaderissues such as natural resources linked toforests: “What is required, therefore, is an insti-tutional arrangement that retains forest man-agement under group control, but which alsoprovides a protocol for liaison between groupand community and possibly some form ofprofit-sharing”117 i.e., an arrangement whereland and forest ownership remains in the com-munity, where decision making for the entirearea or landscape lies, while user rights for treesand other products are allocated to forestrygroups who act on behalf of the community.

The same logic applies to the duality community-households in many communalownership regimes.

An effective articulation of forest ownershipand use rights between small units (even indi-viduals) and larger units (community) seemstherefore a critical element for successful forestmanagement and restoration (although not theonly element, as already indicated). It is also afundamental tool to deal with the very impor-tant elements of equity and social stratificationor differentiation. It has been documented thatas much in agricultural lands as in forestlands,the egalitarianism that dominated ideologicalparadigms of agrarian reform and forest estatereform in the 20th century produced large frag-mentation of lands and forests as a result of thedistribution of family plots. The intention of the reformers, who were probably aware of the need to address problems of stratificationwithin rural communities, was to overcomecommunity differentiation by allocating equalplots to all families.118

In areas where this type of reform took place,fragmentation often made forest managementextremely inefficient, and restoration virtuallyimpossible, as a “critical size” is required inplots of forestland to make restoration or refor-estation viable; tree planting in these conditionsis often reduced to small numbers of treesaround houses and within agricultural plots—normally fruit trees.

1.8. Equity Issues

Stratification of local communities in relationto forest ownership is one of the equity issuesthat need to be addressed in community-ownedforests. Experience shows that often the mostforest-dependent groups have the least userrights, especially women,119 a situation thatcreates obstacles to developing solid, long-term, rights-based incentives for forest restora-tion. As in the case of the relationshipgroup/community, finding the appropriatearticulation of forest ownership and use rightsbetween specific groups of users, including indi-vidual users, and larger units (forests groupsand communities), in a stable, long-term policyframework, is critical to forest rehabilitationsuccess.

2. Examples

2.1. China: Restoration Benefitsand Incentives

Liu Dachang120 has extensively researched theexperience of China on forest policies, and con-cludes that generally user rights on trees are ofgreater importance than forest ownership perse for sustainable management and particularlyfor tree planting, reforestation, and restoration.For example, Liu Dachang shows that despiteclear tenure policies on forestlands in China, inperiods of stringent protective regulations ontrees there was no incentive for reforestation;strict market regulations, aimed at protectingforests by discouraging commercialisation of

117 Markopoulos, 1999, p. 46.118 As an example, in China, under the Land Reform Cam-paign initiated in 1950, “all rural households in a given geo-graphical area were given equal forest resources” (LiuDachang, 2001, p. 241). Exceptions to this policy were Tibetand the ethnic minority areas in the South of Yunnan,where community forests were established.

119 Neef and Schwarzmeier, 2001.120 Dachang, 2001, 2003.

88 G. Oviedo

timber, ended up discouraging tree plantingand therefore slowing down or totally stoppingreforestation of degraded lands owned by villagers. The conclusion here is that, at least inthe case of China, regulations to protect forestsby restricting tree owners’ rights to trees andtimber in fact removed incentives for treeplanting and therefore for reforestation andrestoration. Successful forest restorationdepends on incentives for tree owners to usethe trees when they are mature, and for forestowners to use also other forest products andservices; it thus depends on the clarity, extent,and enforceability of user and owner rightsover trees and forest products, where timberuse seems to play a major role.

But, if forest ownership rights are insufficientor even ineffective for successful restorationwhen not combined with user rights on treesand products, total lack of regulations on theuse of timber and forest products can createperverse market incentives, especially when theconditions of clarity and enforceability of rightsare not present in other adjacent forest areas.In such conditions, perverse market incentivesdiscourage owners and users from tree plant-ing, as the pressures from unregulated marketswhere competition exists from unsustainablymanaged forest areas (for example, areassubject to illegal timber extraction) wouldmake it impossible for forest owners to meetthe opportunity costs of tree planting and forestrestoration.

2.2. Forest Rights in Ethnic Groupsof Thailand and Vietnam

“The concept of individual rights to plantedtrees on agricultural fields applies to virtuallyall ethnic minority groups in the uplands ofnorthern Thailand and Vietnam,”121 but thereare considerable differences in gender-specificrights to plant trees due to distinct inheritancelaws.

“In strictly patrilineal societies like the Hmong,women are not allowed to inherit land. Thus, treeplanting by women is usually limited to the area

around the houses. . . . In contrast to the Hmong, theBlack Thai and Tay societies have strong matrilinealelements.Although land inheritance of women is notcommon, there are a few exceptions giving womenfully individual use rights, including the rights toplant trees. . . . Marketing of forest products such asbamboo shoots, medicinal plants and fuelwood ismainly done by women. Despite the strong involve-ment of women in collection and marketing of prod-ucts from the forests, they do not play a role insetting management rules.”121a

2.3. Strengthening User Rights forForest Restoration in Northeast Highlands of Ethiopia122

The Meket district in the North Wollo adminis-trative zone of Ethiopia ranges in altitude from2000 to 3400m above sea level and has a mix ofagroclimatic zones. Its inhabitants are almostwholly dependent on agriculture. As risingnumbers of people have put more pressure onthe land, fallow periods have shortened, andcontinuous ploughing has become common-place. Local people say that within a genera-tion, there has been dramatic deforestation, andthe grazing has declined in both quantity andquality. Expanding cultivation and increasingdemand for wood have left even the steepestslopes unprotected. Only about 8 percent of thetotal area remains under forest. Much of therainfall is lost through runoff, causing severesoil erosion and floods. Indigenous trees are notcommonly allowed to regenerate (except onsome church lands), and efforts to plant treeshave had little impact.

The Ethiopian people have had negativeexperiences of land reallocation over the last 20years, and are hence unwilling to invest effortin reforestation or regeneration activities. Dif-ferent types of forest ownership (individual,church, service cooperative, and community)can be found in the district, but none hasreversed the natural resource depletion.

Weak land-tenure and user rights wereclearly hindering effective community-led environmental conservation in Meket.

121 Neef and Schwarzmeier, 2001, p. 22.

121a Neef and Schwarzmeier, 2001.122 International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, 2000.


In mid-1996, SOS Sahel, an internationalnongovernmental organisation (NGO), beganworking with local authorities and agricultureministry staff to seek a way to work with com-munities and solve these problems. Central tothese was the establishment of official userrights for villagers.

In the community reforestation project,communities were allowed to define their ownobjectives for their sites, but long-term plans (5to 10 years, or more if indigenous trees wereestablished) were required. Within communi-ties, reforestation groups were established, andeach group decided how to share the benefitsamong its members, and this had to be includedin the management plan. Similarly, each villagedeveloped its own strategy for guarding the site.

The proposed plan was then presented forapproval at the kebele (subdistrict) level byrelevant bodies: community representatives,subdistrict officials, and church leaders. It wasthen submitted to district officials and the agri-culture office. If the plan was approved, officialuser rights were given to the group for theirsite.

As a result of this approach, farmers’ partic-ipation in reforestation efforts increased. Atfirst, 14 villages received official user rights;20 more communities have since becomeinvolved, directly benefiting more than 2000households.

Natural regeneration of indigenous grass,shrub, and tree species has been dramatic.There are very clear differences when com-pared with unprotected sites.

Sufficient short-term benefits have beenrealised—such as improved forage andincreased production of thatching grass—tomotivate communities to strengthen andexpand their enclosure sites.

More secure user rights have created confi-dence among the communities. They haveexpressed strong interest to plant indigenousspecies (e.g., Hagenia abyssinica, Juniperusprocera, Olea africana) instead of eucalyptus.

Communities have started to expand theirsites, and new communities want to establishtheir own enclosures. Some are seeking com-pensation from the subdistrict administrationfor individual farmers who are cultivating land

within the future enclosures. Some villages haveeven begun a similar process without outsideintervention or support.

Farmers seem to have accepted the introduc-tion of cut-and-carry fodder systems. This mayprove to be one of the most significant impactsfor the Ethiopian highlands.

2.4. Limited Success in theProtection Forest Walomerah,Indonesia123

The province of East Nusa Tenggara consists ofthe main island of Flores, Sumba, the Westernpart of Timor and a number of smaller islands.In 1992 the population of the province totalled3.3 million. With an average rainfall rangingfrom 2196mm in Manggarai district to 805mmin Alor district and not so fertile soils, the con-ditions for agriculture are not very favourable.

About 36 percent of the land area of theisland of Flores has by ministerial decree beenclassified as forest land and one third of thisforest land as Protection Forests. The largestpart of this has in reality little or no tree coverand has for generations been tilled by the pop-ulation living there.

The protection forest of the mountainWalomerah in Ngada district is one such area.As part of the Presidential Instruction Pro-gramme (INPRES) for the development ofIndonesia, this particular protection forest wasto be reforested. The project, which began in1995, was to start with the reforestation of 500hectares, including part of the village Wangka,which covers 9000 hectares. Almost all of the2400 inhabitants secure their livelihoods fromsubsistence farming, as their ancestors havedone for generations. They are totally depend-ent on the land. Their traditional rights to landhad been recognised by the government, but all 9000 hectares of this village lie within theprotection forest. According to the legislationapplying to such areas, the villagers were notallowed to occupy this area on a permanentbasis.

123 Vochten and Mulyana, 1995.

90 G. Oviedo

The Forest Service decided it was necessaryto consult with these villagers with the purposeof better understanding their living situationand see to what extent the reforestation projectcould be modified to accommodate their needsand aspirations. Several problems directly orindirectly connected with the proposed refor-estation were identified by the villagers whotook part in such consultations. The problemconcerning the status of their land tenure rightssurfaced as a key conflict. Even though theyhad been paying their land ownership taxesregularly, rights to use forest products could notbe granted to them.

This key issue, land tenure rights, was notsolved in this reforestation project. Some usefulcompromises were reached, and an attempt wasmade to balance the undisputed need for refor-estation with the primary need of farmers—land. But clearly it was not possible to moveahead with enough confidence in the project’ssuccess without addressing further the issue ofland and forest produce rights.

3. Outline of Tools

Tools useful to addressing ownership issues in forest restoration are basically the same that have proven useful in the case of examin-ing land and resource tenure in different conditions.

1. Land and resource mapping: This can bedone at any level, to learn about the environ-mental, economic, and social resources in thecommunity. A variation of mapping is the tech-nique of transects, which focusses on specificareas of a community’s land, for learning aboutthe community’s natural resource base, landforms, and land use, location and size of farmsor homesteads, and location and availability of infrastructure and services, and economicactivities.

2. The International Tropical Timber Organ-isation (ITTO) restoration guidelines are auseful tool addressing ownership issues. Toensure secure land tenure, these guidelines rec-ommend (recommended actions 13 to 16): “13)Clarify and legitimise equitable tenure, access,use and other customary rights in degraded and

secondary forests among national and localstakeholders. 14) Strengthen the rights of forestdwellers and indigenous people. 15) Establish atransparent mechanism for conflict resolutionwhere property and access rights are not clear.16) Provide incentives for stabilizing colonists/farmers in agricultural frontier zones.”

3. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) orparticipatory rapid rural appraisal have beendescribed many times in the literature.124 Amethodological illustration of a PRA exercisefor forest restoration in Indonesia125 is asfollows:

The PRA facilitator team included 14 people:from the government . . . , from local NGOs . . . ,and the authors. . . . The main actors were the res-idents of two of the four hamlets of the villageWangka, which adjoined the proposed reforesta-tion site.They collected the information, analysedthe problems, considered the options, and drewup the final reforestation plan. The facilitatorssupported this by introducing certain techniquesto structure the information. They also listenedand learned. The entire PRA lasted only threedays in the field, from October 12–14, 1993. It waspreceded by a one day gathering of the facilita-tors to exchange information about the PRAtechniques to be used and to inform themselvesabout the village of Wangka. At the start of thePRA, the facilitators introduced themselves andthe purpose of their visit and then split into twogroups each to cover one of the hamlets. On thefirst day a map of the village including the pro-posed reforestation site was made. Then a sea-sonal calendar, presenting the main events andactivities of the community (agricultural, reli-gious, festivals, etc.) was made. On the second daya transect of the respective hamlets and the pro-posed reforestation site was made. Later in theday a matrix ranking was done to learn about thepreferred tree species. On the final day the resultsof the PRA exercise in both hamlets were com-bined and presented by the villagers who hadbeen involved in the PRA at a village meeting.This was also attended by representatives fromthe other two hamlets, the village head (kepaladesa), and the head of the Forestry Service ofNgada District. During this meeting, spiced withanimated discussions, problems were reviewed

124 Notably, Chambers, 1994; Chambers and Guijt, 1995.125 Vochten and Mulyana, 1995.


and compromises made. Finally a work pro-gramme for implementing the reforestationproject was produced. To ensure its future imple-mentation the facilitators met with representa-tives of the concerned government agencies andpresented the proposal to them the next day.

4. FAO’s Socio-economic and GenderAnalysis (SEAGA): This is an approach todevelopment based on an analysis of socioeco-nomic patterns and participatory identificationof women’s and men’s priorities. The objectiveof the SEAGA approach is to close the gapsbetween what people need and what develop-ment delivers. It uses three toolkits: the Devel-opment Context Toolkit, for learning about theeconomic, environmental, social, and institu-tional patterns that pose supports or constraintsfor development; the Livelihood AnalysisToolkit, for learning about the flow of activitiesand resources through which different peoplemake their living; and the Stakeholders’ Prior-ities for Development Toolkit, for planningdevelopment activities based on women’s andmen’s priorities.

5. Dachang approaches the analysis ofdrivers for forest restoration in South Chinathrough a logical procedure consisting of threestages: diagnosis, design, and delivery (Tri-D).This procedure is the result of an adaptation offarming system approaches and rapid ruralappraisal (RRA) or PRA to the identificationof problems and to the design and testing offorestry and agroforestry options. This proce-dure has been used commonly in community-based agroforestry research.

6. User rights/stakeholder analysis: Ageneral long-term objective is to gain knowl-edge about the community, and to appreciate“how to approach and structure a collaborationprocess.”126 For WWF, stakeholder analysis “isthe process by which the various stakeholderswho might have an interest in a conservationinitiative are identified. A stakeholder analysisgenerates information about stakeholders andtheir interests, the relationships between them,their motivations, and their ability to influenceoutcomes. There are numerous approaches tostakeholder analysis, ranging from the formal

to informal, comprehensive to superficial.” Afrequent problem of these approaches, however,is a narrow understanding of stakes and differ-entiation within communities, associated withthe absence of consideration of tenure rights. Asecond conceptual and methodological problemis that often conservation organisations defineprimary stakeholders as “those who, because ofpower, authority, responsibilities, or claims overthe resources, are central to any conservationinitiative,” while in reality primary stakeholdersare those with closer dependence and rights onthe resources involved.

7. The German agency GTZ proposes fourprinciples to assist decision makers in theprocess of drafting and enforcing propertyrelated legislation. The principles also serve asyardsticks for evaluating existing land tenuresystems and reforms, and thus they can be usedto assess the forest ownership situation in anygiven country, and monitoring progress inestablishing clear tenure systems. The proposedprinciples are (1) certainty in law, (2) the ruleof law and human rights, (3) political participa-tion of the population in land issues, and (4)definition of property in market economies.Ideally, the development of forest restorationinterventions should be preceded and accom-panied by a process by which these principlesguide an appraisal of the situation of forestownership, and help identify the critical inter-ventions to follow to ensure success of the ini-tiatives in the long term.

8. The International Institute of RuralReconstruction127 offers advice as shown in Box12.1 on addressing land tenure issues. This islargely applicable to situations where forestrestoration is planned, and where forest own-ership is an issue requiring specific actions.

4. Future Needs

The following areas require further development:

• Understanding better the complex issues ofrights and how they interact with variousfactors, such as incentives and policy environ-

126 WWF-US, 2000a,b. 127 International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, 2000.

92 G. Oviedo

ments, is a task that needs to be undertakenon the basis of specific cases of forest restora-tion. It is therefore recommended that suchinitiatives include in their plans the ongoingaccompaniment of the process by researchersequipped to understand the links betweenrights and incentives.

• Use experience to synthesise guidance in the form of option menus for dealing withtenure issues in different situations. For themoment, most of the experiences of forestrestoration offer lessons of mostly local ornational value on ownership matters, difficultto generalise and to apply to other situations.An analytical effort of learning more fromthose lessons and then systematising themfor guidance would be valuable, always withthe understanding that lesson-based guid-ance is indicative only, and any mechanisticapplication of experiences from one place toanother needs to be avoided.

• Research further on experiences (successfuland unsuccessful) of forest restoration underdifferent types of ownership, to better under-

stand how rights’ systems (including from creation or granting of rights to law enforce-ment and judicial processes) impact on theresults—in the short, medium, and longterms. In undertaking such research, it is fundamental to use a conceptual and meth-odological framework that is based on theunderstanding of the complexities of thebundle of forest ownership rights, avoidingfor example an exclusive focus on landtenure.

References

Chambers, R. 1994a. The origins and practice of par-ticipatory rural appraisal. World Development22(7):953–969.

Chambers, R. 1994b. Participatory rural appraisal(PRA): analysis of experience. World Develop-ment 22(9):1253–1268.

Chambers, R. 1994c. Participatory rural appraisal(PRA): challenges, potentials and paradigm.World Development 22(10):1437–1454.

Box 12.1. Do’s and Don’ts from International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (2000)

Do’sBegin with a clear understanding of the local

situation and policy context.Use a two-pronged approach for advocacy

and lobbying work—at the top with policymakers, and on the ground to demonstrateimpact.

Start with a clear shared vision with partnersat all levels.

Have a clear understanding of policies andstrategies.

Prepare clear guidelines in the local lan-guage and share with all stakeholders.

Actively share experiences and ideas.Be patient: be prepared to invest a lot of

effort and time.Strive to build the technical and managerial

capacity of communities.Full coordination with local government

officials and line agencies is essential; they

can play a key role in monitoring theentire process.

Work toward establishing official legislationfor user rights to greatly strengthen theprocess.

Help communities understand that a short-term reduction in fuelwood availabilitywill result from enclosure, and assist themto find ways to deal with this problem.

Don’tsDon’t start with sensitive issues (e.g., dis-

cussing the problems of the land-tenuresituation).

Don’t allow conflicts to become too large.Try to resolve them as soon as possible.

Don’t impose plans.Don’t monopolize the intervention. Partners

should be key players in the process.


Chambers, R., and Guijt, I. 1995. PRA—Five yearslater. Where are we now? Forests, Trees andPeople Newsletter 26/27:4–13.

Clogg, J. 1997. Tenure reform for ecologically andsocially responsible forest use in British Columbia.A paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmen-tal Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirementsfor the degree of Master in EnvironmentalStudies, York University, North York, Ontario,Canada.

Dachang, L. 2001. Tenure and management of non-state forests in China since 1950: a historicalreview. Environmental History 6(2):239–263.

Dachang, L., ed. 2003. Rehabilitation of DegradedForests to Improve Livelihoods of Poor Farmers inSouth China. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

International Institute of Rural Reconstruction.2000. Sustainable Agriculture Extension Manual.IIRR, Silang, Cavite, Philippines.

Markopoulos, M.D. 1999. The Impacts of Certifica-tion on Campesino Forestry Groups in NorthernHonduras. Oxford Forestry Institute (OFI),Oxford, UK.

Molnar, A., Scherr, S., and Khare, A. 2004. Who conserves the world’s forests? Comunity-drivenstrategies to protect forests and respect rights.Forest Trends, Ecoagriculture Partners,Washington,DC.

Neef, A., and Schwarzmeier, R. 2001. Land TenureSystems and Rights in Trees and Forests: Interde-pendencies, Dynamics and the Role of Develop-ment Cooperation, Case Studies from MainlandSoutheast Asia. GTZ, Division 4500 Rural Devel-opment, Eschborn, Germany.

Vochten, P., and Mulyana, A. 1995. Reforestation,protection forest and people—finding compro-mises through PRA, Forests, Trees and PeopleNewsletter, FAO, issues 26/27.

White, A., and Martin, A. 2002. Who Owns theWorld’s Forests? Forest Tenure and Public Forestsin Transition. Forest Trends, Washington, DC.

World Wildlife Fund USA. 2000a. A Guide toSocioeconomic Assessments for Ecoregion Con-servation. WWF–US Ecoregional ConservationStrategies Unit, Washington, DC.

World Wildlife USA. 2000b. Stakeholder Collabora-tion: Building Bridges for Conservation. WWF–

US Ecoregional Conservation Strategies Unit,Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Ziff, B. 1993. Principles of Property Law. Carswell.Scarborough, Canada.

Additional Reading

Agrawal, A., and Ostrom, E. 1999. Collective action,property rights, and devolution of forest and pro-tected area management. Research paper. S/l.

Barton Bray, D., Merino-Perez, L., Negreros Castillo,P., Segura-Warnholtz, G., Torres, J.M., and Vester,H.F.M. 2003. Mexico’s community-managedforests as a global model for sustainable land-scapes. Conservation Biology 17(3):672–677.

Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting theLast First, Longman, London.

Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions.Frontiers for Rural Development. IntermediateTechnology Publications, London.

Chambers, R. 1996. Whose Reality Counts? Inter-mediate Technology Publications, London.

Chambers, R. 2002. Participatory Workshops: ASourcebook, Institute of Development Studies,Brighton, UK.

Chambers, R., and Leach, M. 1990. Trees as Savingsand Security for the Rural Poor. Unasylva161(41):39–52.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UnitedNations, FAO. 2001. SEAGA—Socio-Economicand Gender Analysis Package. FAO Socio-Economic and Gender Analysis Programme.Gender and Population Division, SustainableDevelopment Department, Rome.

GTZ. 1998. Guiding Principles: Land Tenure inDevelopment Cooperation. Deutsche Gesel-lschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Abt. 45,Div. 45.

Jaramillo, C.F., and Kelly, T. 2000. La deforestación ylos derechos de propiedad en América Latina.http://www.imacmexico.org/ev_es.php?ID=5587_203&ID2=DO_TOPIC.

Lamb, D., and Gilmour, D. 2003. Rehabilitation andRestoration of Degraded Forests. IUCN/WWF,Gland, Switzerland.

1. Introduction

Since the start of its Forest Landscape Restora-tion programme in 2000, WWF, the global conservation organisation, has faced a numberof challenges related to (1) the planning ofrestoration in large scales, (2) the integration ofsocial and ecological dimensions, and (3) theimplementation of restoration programmes ona large scale. A more detailed analysis of specific lessons learned from forest landscaperestoration projects can be found in this bookin the part entitled” Lessons Learned and theWay Forward.”This chapter focusses instead onspecific challenges anticipated for future pro-grammes to restore forest functions in land-scapes, based on experience in the first 4 yearsof WWF’s restoration programme. While this

draws on experience within one organisation,we hope that the brief summary of some of the tasks we have identified will also be usefulto governments, nongovernment organisations,(NGOs) and others interested in developingrestoration projects, large or small.

We started WWF’s restoration initiative withsome concepts (e.g., the need to integrate socio-economics, the concept of trading off land useswithin landscapes, the idea of working at a landscape scale), and also some principles (e.g.,balancing ecological and social needs, adoptingwhere possible a participatory approach). Forthe last 4 years, we have been testing out thesetheories in practice in field programmes aroundthe world. One early result was recognition thatthere was a lack of succinct information forpractitioners, which was the driving forcebehind this book. In light of WWF’s experienceto date, a number of future challenges andopportunities have been identified128:

1.1. Setting Realistic Goals for Restoration Within a Landscape

A failure of past restoration efforts can betraced back to having started with unrealisticgoals or alternatively with very narrow goalsthat fail to take into account local and sur-rounding socioeconomic realities. For thisreason it is important to set goals that are atonce realistic but also consider the many dif-

13Challenges for Forest LandscapeRestoration Based on WWF’sExperience to DateStephanie Mansourian and Nigel Dudley


Some of the most important challenges iden-tified by WWF’s forest landscape restorationprogramme in its first four years, include thefollowing:

The need to better value forest goods andservices

The need to increase capacity to deal withlandscape restoration issues

The need to better monitor the return offorest functions at a landscape scale

94

128 Mansourian, 2004.

13. Challenges for Forest Landscape Restoration 95

ferent outputs required from most landscapes.In a landscape context, restoration goals forconservation organisations will often be closelylinked to other activities relating to protectedareas and sustainable forest management.Thus,restoration may seek to complement a pro-tected area or relieve pressure on it. Equally,restoration can happen within and around theestate of a managed forest. Forest restorationgoals within a landscape generally have toaddress both social and ecological needs; theymay, for instance, relate to restoration ofspecies’ habitat in one location but also to theestablishment of fuelwood plantations else-where. In all cases, the key will be to attempt tobalance those goals to provide optimal benefits(also see “Goals and Targets of Forest Land-scape Restoration,” “Negotiations and ConflictManagement,” and “Addressing Trade-Offs inForest Landscape Restoration”).

1.2. Ensuring that Restoration IsNot Used as an Excuse for Uncontrolled Exploitation

One reason many conservationists still balk atrestoration is that it can be seen to provide ajustification for failing to address the problemsof degradation. Given the cost, duration, anddifficulty of restoration, we do not believe thatthis is a viable argument. However, the fact thatconservation organisations encourage restora-tion should not be interpreted as licence fordegradation, because in many circumstancesrestoration activities will not be able to recoverall of the values that have been lost. There is afine line between actively offering restorationas a solution to dwindling natural resourceswithout undermining efforts at protection orgood management of these resources.

1.3. Active or Passive Restoration?

In some cases it is clear that restoration isalready urgently necessary. At this point thefirst question for a community, conservationorganisation, or government becomes one ofchoice between passive and active restoration.Passive restoration, which means creating suitable conditions for restoration to happen

through natural processes (e.g., by fencing anarea against grazing or preventing artificial fire)is usually considered to be the most desirablesolution, being simpler, cheaper, and more akinwith natural processes. However, there comes a point (a status of degradation or particular set of ecological and social conditions) whenactive restoration is necessary, either becauserecovery needs to be speeded up to protectthreatened biodiversity or because ecologicalconditions have changed so profoundly thatnatural processes need some assistance. Thechallenge for conservation planners is some-times whether to wait for passive restoration,and risk further degradation and in the futurea more expensive restoration process, or tojump straight into active restoration. Develop-ment of a more sophisticated set of criteria or tools for helping make these kinds of deci-sions will be one of the major needs in thefuture.

1.4. Promoting the Concept ofMultifunctional Landscapes

If conservation organisations are to address the big emerging issues related to forestry andbiodiversity, we will need to engage much more closely with social actors, an example isthe emerging WWF-CARE partnership. Anemphasis on “multifunctional landscapes,” thatis, landscapes that provide a mixture of envi-ronmental, social, and economic goods andservices through a mosaic of sites managed withdiffering but harmonised objectives, can help toprovide balanced approaches in landscapes thatcontain both environmental and social prob-lems. One implication of this is that forestrestoration in most cases will not be a viableactivity unless it goes hand in hand with forestmanagement and usually also with forest protection.

1.5. Sustainability of Restoration—Valuing Forest Goods, Services,and Processes to be Restored

Active restoration is an expensive process,and in most cases conservationists (both stategovernment and NGOs) still opt to direct avail-

96 S. Mansourian and N. Dudley

able conservation budgets toward protectioninstead. However, in many cases these decisionsare not being taken in full knowledge of thelong-term costs and benefits. For instance, it isoften easier to build political support for settingaside a mountainous area of forest to protec-tion because it appears to entail limited cost, orat least delayed costs, whereas the apparentcost of restoring a more accessible or econom-ically valuable habitat such as a lowland forestappears immediately. But if the long-term valueof a restored forest were properly estimated,then on balance the net costs might not appearto be as high. In some cases, it may make moresense to focus efforts on protection, in othersmore on restoration or a mixture of both. Onefuture challenge is to increase skills and toolsfor valuation of the costs and benefits of variousapproaches so that more balanced judgementscan be made.

1.6. Long Term Monitoring andEvaluating Impact of Restoration within Large Scales

Monitoring and evaluation are essential in anyconservation programme, to help facilitateadaptive management, and have been identi-fied as one of the most critical elements insuccess. They become particularly crucial in alarge-scale restoration effort, which will spanseveral decades and will involve many differentactors. Mistakes need to be redressed andimprovements need to be made. Proper moni-toring tools that are adapted to a large scaleneed to be developed and then applied rigorously.

1.7. When Can We Claim Success?When Is a Landscape Restored?

There is no clear end point for restoration. Anatural forest is itself not a fixed or staticecosystem but is generally in constant evolutionand flux. In any case, many restoration projectswill not be aiming to re-create an “original”forest.Agreeing and then finding ways of meas-uring an end point is therefore a challenge

particularly for organisations such as WWF,which work in time-limited programmes and totargets that are often agreed to between NGOsand donors. In practice, targets need to be setat the level of a specific landscape. For instance,is the ultimate aim of a forest landscaperestoration programme to return a certainendangered animal species to a viable popula-tion? Or is it to improve water quality? Or is itto reverse the decline in forest quality? Manyrestoration projects have multiple aims, such asrestoring habitat for species but also increasingnontimber forest products for local communi-ties. By setting goals, conservation organisa-tions should be able to establish meaningfulprogrammes, whilst recognising that forestlandscape restoration is never a short-termproject with a clear beginning and end. Effortsshould be longer term, and specific measures ofsuccess will necessarily be steps along a trajec-tory toward a healthier and more sustainableforest landscape.

1.8. Resources

Forest restoration at the scale of large land-scapes can be enormously costly. In addition,the longer we wait before undertaking restora-tion, the more degraded the landscape is likelyto have become (for instance, seeds of originalspecies may no longer be present, soil condi-tions will have changed) and therefore thehigher the costs of restoration are likely to be.Many restoration efforts have failed throughlack of resources. Ideally, systems that integratethe cost of restoration within landscape-levelactivities via taxes (for instance on ecotourists)or via payment for environmental services (forinstance, for the provision of clean water, alsosee “Payment for Environmental Services andRestoration”) should provide long-term andsustainable financing for restoration activities.However, this assumes both that costs and ben-efits can be measured accurately, which is stilloften a challenge, and that there is sufficientpolitical support for restoration that such payments can be levied. Establishing means for long-term funding that go beyond donorproject cycles remains a key challenge for thefuture.

13. Challenges for Forest Landscape Restoration 97

1.9. Capacity

A restoration programme carried out overlarge areas is likely to require many differentskills, for instance negotiating skills, lobbyingskills, monitoring skills, small enterprise devel-opment skills, plantation skills, nursery devel-opment skills, etc. It is important to ensure thatlocal capacity to support the long-term restora-tion effort exists. In many cases this requirestraining as well as the partnering of differentinstitutions to share their respective knowledgeand expertise.

2. Examples

These examples demonstrate some of the practi-cal challenges that have been encountered. Theymay not all be as fundamental as those listedabove, but are interesting to highlight as theydemonstrate the full range of challenges that mayemerge from real experiences.

2.1. Vietnam: The Challenge ofDealing with Pressures on Remaining Forests

The government of Vietnam is well aware ofthe importance of its forests, for instance toensure water quality, and has taken significantforest areas out of production. But pressuresremain because local people face serious landshortages, and restoration efforts have untilnow mainly been aimed at intensive plantationsthat supply only a small proportion of thepotential goods and services. Restorationefforts in Vietnam therefore need to embracedemonstration projects both to show what ispossible and to work with government author-ities to modify current restoration policies (see case study “Monitoring Forest LandscapeRestoration in Vietnam”).

2.2. Madagascar: The Challenge ofChoosing a Priority Landscape for Restoration

In a country like Madagascar that has lost over90 percent of its forest, it would seem straight-

forward to decide where to restore. Nonethe-less, given scarce resources and given a difficultsocioeconomic context (Madagascar is one ofthe poorest countries on the planet, and poorpeople survive largely from slash and burn agri-culture), it is necessary to select priority area(s)to begin a large-scale restoration programme.In 2003 WWF brought together a number ofstakeholders from government, civil society,and the private sector to define together whatmight be criteria for choosing a priority land-scape in which to restore forest functions.

The group identified the following categoriesof criteria:

1. Sociocultural2. Economic3. Ecological/biophysical4. Political

Within these categories, some of the 24 criteria were, for example:

• Type of land tenure• Values attributed to forests by local people• Proximity of fragments to a large forest plot• Level of diversification of revenue sources• Presence of management entity for the

landscape• Numbers of species used by local communi-

ties that have been lost• Level of involvement of communities in local

environmental actions

Members of the national working group onforest landscape restoration then visited ashort-listed selection of landscapes and ratedeach against the 24 criteria. The outcome was aprioritised list of landscapes that need to berestored based on criteria that were developedlocally and that were very specific to local conditions.129

2.3. New Caledonia:The Challenge of Dealing with Multiple Partners

It took 2 years to develop an agreed to part-nership, strategy, and plan, and to engage eightother partners in the dry forest restoration

129 Allnutt et al, 2004.

98 S. Mansourian and N. Dudley

programme for New Caledonia. While this mayseem a long time to invest in building a part-nership, the fruits of such an effort are nowbeing felt as the programme is taking off.The programme carries much more weight inthe eyes of all stakeholders because of the partnership.

2.4. Malaysia: The Challenge ofIdentifying Priority Species for Restoration

While restoration along the Kinabatangan riverwas identified as a priority in order to recon-nect patches of forest for biodiversity, the selec-tion of appropriate species was not clearlydone. For this reason a demonstration site hasbeen set up where different species and tech-

niques (from simply fencing to weeding oractive planting) are being tested and monitoredin order to identify the approach that is bestsuited to local conditions and which can thenbe propagated along the corridor.

References

Allnutt, T., Mansourian, S., and Erdmann, T. 2004.Setting preliminary biological and ecologicalrestoration targets for the landscape of Fandriana-Marolambo in Madagascar’s moist forest eco-region. WWF internal paper. WWF, Gland,Switzerland.

Mansourian, S. 2004. Challenges and opportunitiesfor WWF’s Forest Landscape Restoration pro-gramme. WWF internal paper. WWF, Gland,Switzerland.

Section VIA Suite of Planning Tools


A broadly shared understanding and accept-ance by all stakeholders is fundamental to thesuccess of any restoration project. There are

countless examples of attempts at restorationfailing because one person’s “restoration” isoften another person’s degradation. Here aresome examples:

• Attempts by the Indonesian Ministry ofForestry to “restore” Imperata grasslands by planting trees failed because local peoplehad no use for the trees (they belonged to the foresters) but they made extensive usesof the grasslands. The grasslands providedfodder for their cattle and grass for roofing.

• Attempts to plant spruce forests to restorethe degraded moorlands of northernEngland and Scotland were opposed byamenity and conservation groups becausethe moorland scenery had come to beaccepted as “natural” and “beautiful” and itwas the habitat of rare birds.

• Government attempts to restore tree coveron the uplands of Vietnam were opposed by local people because the types of treesplanted by the government were not the onesthat local people needed or could use.

• Government-sponsored tree plantingschemes in China have denied local peopleaccess to medicinal plants and have damagedthe habitats of rare plants and animals in thedry mountainous areas of South Western andWestern China.

• Attempts to restore pristine nature indegraded areas in the United States areopposed by some conservationists who con-sider that such artificially restored areas cannever have the value of a pristine landscape.

14Goals and Targets of ForestLandscape RestorationJeffrey Sayer


Outside experts cannot alone set goals andtargets because they are never self-evident.

Careful multi-stakeholder processes areneeded to set goals and targets that will bebroadly accepted.

Goals and targets will change with time andneed to be adapted.

Pristine “pre-intervention” nature is onlyone of many possible goals.

101

The most fundamental (question) relates to the defi-nition of the goals and targets for restoration projects.It would seem that definition would be simple, but it is often complex and involves difficult decisions and compromises. Ideally, restoration reproduces theentire system in question, complete in all its aspects—genetics, populations, ecosystems, and landscapes.This means not merely replicating the system’s com-position, structure and functions, but also its dynam-ics—even allowing for evolutionary as well asecological change (Meffe and Carroll, 1994).

102 J. Sayer

Pretending that restoration is possible is seenas a ploy by commercial interests to justifyactivities that degrade nature.

The basic problem is that what is perceived as“degraded” by one interest group may be per-ceived as desirable by another group. Forestersconsider land degraded if it does not support acrop of commercially valuable trees. Ecologistsconsider a forest degraded if it does not havemultiple layers of vegetation and a reasonablenumber of dead or decaying trees as habitat forbirds and invertebrate. Amenity groups do notlike dense forests; they want mosaics of wood-land and open land with extensive views.The listis endless. The basic lesson is that there cannever be a single vision of an “end point” forrestoration that will automatically meet withthe approval of all interested parties.

2. Steps to Success

The first task in any broad-scale restoration ini-tiative, therefore, is to find out what everyonewould ideally like to see as an outcome andthen to negotiate compromises between whatwill inevitably be a collection of different view-points and attempt to come up with a scenariothat is acceptable to all.

It is unwise to assume that once an end pointhas been negotiated that the “visioning thing”is done. As landscapes change so the percep-tions and needs of interest groups will evolve.Restoration is often a moving target. Markets,recreational needs, conservation priorities, etc.all change with time, and what people wanttoday will not necessarily be what they willwant tomorrow.

Dunwiddie130 has argued that objectives forrestoration projects should be defined as“motion pictures” rather than “snapshots.” Theproblem is that objects such as species are mucheasier to specify and monitor in projects thanare processes such as ecosystem function andcommunity dynamics.

The following concepts and approaches canbe used as tools to ensure that forest landscape

restoration projects are moving in the rightdirection:

2.1. Answer the Questions:Restoring What, for Whom and Why

These are the most important questions yetthey are frequently not properly addressed inrestoration projects.

These questions should be answered by real stakeholders—local people, conservationorganisations, etc.—those who will do the workor incur the costs and benefits.

Avoid programmes that are “expert driven”and ensure that development assistance agen-cies stay honest, that they are explicit abouttheir real objectives and recognise that theyalso are interested parties.

2.2. Work with Scenarios, Visions,and Stakeholder Processes

There is an abundant literature on methods forinvolving stakeholders in the development ofscenarios and visions. Care has to be taken toensure that the interests of less powerful groupsare addressed. Achieving genuine public par-ticipation is not just common sense—it requiresprofessional skills. Neutral professional facili-tation is almost always necessary. The Centrefor International Forestry Research (CIFOR)and the International Institute for Environmentand Development (IIED) Web sites provideaccess to the literature on these approaches.

Simple modelling tools exist for exploringoptions and making assumptions explicit.STELLA, VENSIM, and SIMILE are widelyused. These models are the best tools for devel-oping scenarios, understanding the drivers of change in a system, making stakeholderassumptions and understanding explicit, andthen tracking progress toward goals that areidentified as desirable.

The concept of getting into the system131 isfundamental.This means engaging for the long-term, becoming a stakeholder, and makingone’s interest explicit. In the case of WWF, as

130 Dunwiddie, 1992. 131 Sayer and Campbell, 2004.

14. Goals and Targets of Forest Landscape Restoration 103

with other conservation organisations, thisinterest is principally biodiversity, and we haveto make commitments for what we are pre-pared to contribute in cash or other contribu-tions to support the achievement of ourbiodiversity goals.

2.3. Understand DevelopmentTrajectories

What would happen if we did not intervene?What is the underlying development trajec-tory? What are the principal drivers of change?It is vital to get the correct answers to thesequestions. Modelling can help. Normally only a small number of drivers of change are sig-nificant at any one time. We have to know which ones they are and how they can be influenced.132

We must also understand the underlyingprocesses of ecological succession.133 Thefactors that influence restoration at a singlelocation are not necessarily confined to thatplace. A variety of extrasectoral influences such as economic and trade policies and levelsof public understanding of issues will have acontinuing and variable influence on restora-tion processes.

2.4. Use Monitoring and Evaluationas a Management Tool

Monitoring and evaluation have to be linked tothe desired outcomes of interventions. Negoti-ating these outcomes is the first and mostimportant activity in any programme. Indica-tors of the desired outcomes have to be agreedto or negotiated at the beginning, and they thenbecome the tools for adaptive management.134

The book by Sayer and Campbell has a chapteron this issue that gives further references to themonitoring and evaluation literature.134a

2.5. Find and Protect ReferenceLandscapes

Whether or not the objective of forest land-scape restoration is to restore the “original”vegetation cover, it will always be useful to havereference areas that are as near as possible tothe natural conditions of the area (see “Identi-fying and Using Reference Landscapes forRestoration”). These are useful as benchmarks,for understanding ecological processes, for edu-cation, and as sources of plants and animals tobe used in assisted restoration.

Much has been written about attempts torestore a pristine, climax, “natural” land cover.There are lots of problems with this approach,not least of which is the difficulty of knowingwhat the preintervention situation was. It is alsoimportant to avoid falling into the trap ofassuming that natural systems reach a climaxcondition and are then constant—this is rarelythe case. Even in the remotest and least dis-turbed parts of the Congo Basin or the Amazonthe species’ composition of the forests today isnot the same as it was 100, 500, or 5000 yearsago. Natural landscapes are highly dynamic,and decisions to restore to “natural” conditionswill always be arbitrary and open to multipleinterpretations. Reference landscapes, or plots,with minimal intervention remain valuable inhelping us to understand landscape processesand can be useful components of any large-scale restoration programme. They can be valu-able as examples to look at during negotiationprocesses.

Normally restoring “natural conditions” isjust one of a range of possible objectives, andin most situations what one restores will bedefined by more precise production and envi-ronmental objectives.

2.6. Be Realistic About DesignerLandscapes

Once a comprehensive stakeholder participa-tion process is engaged, it will graduallybecome possible to begin to talk about desir-able outcomes. Eventually a vision of a“designer landscape” may begin to emerge.Different approaches and tools are useful to

132 See the Web site of the Resilience Alliance and publi-cation by Berkes et al, 2003.133 Walker and del Moral, 2003.134 CIFOR’s work on Adaptive Collaborative Managementprovides guidance.134a Sayer and Campbell, 2004.

104 J. Sayer

explore what the landscape should look like inorder to respond to the needs and wishes of dif-ferent interest groups.

3. Outline of Tools

Stakeholders may decide that a certain land-scape configuration and condition is ideal fortheir objectives. But usually different stake-holders have different ideals. To fine-tune alandscape vision, some specific approaches canbe used depending on the restoration goal:

Biodiversity: Modelling tools developed by theUnited Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre(UNEP-WCMC) are useful.135 Some assump-tions about corridors and connectivity haveto be treated with caution.136 One should notalways assume that protected areas should beas big as possible. There are often significantopportunity costs that protected areas createfor local people. Protected areas should be of an optimal size, not necessarily as big aspossible.136 The importance of seral stages in vegetation development is often underes-timated. Many wildlife species require earlysuccessional vegetation for their survival.

Poverty mapping and assessment: The WorldAgroforestry Centre has a lot to offer on thistopic (see “Agroforestry as a Tool for ForestLandscape Restoration”).

Land care: The Landcare programme in Aus-tralia and now expanding elsewhere is aninteresting model for participatory multi-stakeholder restoration programmes.

Water: Lots of common assumptions about thevalue of land cover for water quality andquantity are not borne out by empirical evi-dence. Forest cover may consume morewater than it conserves; it all depends on thetype of trees, the frequency and intensity ofrainfall, and the nature of the underlying sub-strate. Expert advice should be sought on thehydrological implications of restoration pro-

grammes (also see “Restoring Water Qualityand Quantity”).

Amenity: The Netherlands, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States haverestoration programmes with a heavyemphasis on amenity. This is the realm oflandscape architecture.138

Avalanche control: This is an important issue intemperate and boreal countries and there isan abundant literature.

Timber:Timber is the real objective of much so-called restoration. Caution is needed becausenarrow timber production objectives arerarely consistent with the broader objectivesof local people and the environment.

Tree crops: Tree crops include oil palm, coffee,cacao, rubber etc. More can be found on thistopic in the chapter on agroforestry, citedabove, but also in publications on extractivereserves and jungle rubber.

4. Future Needs

4.1. Improved Economic Analysis

Restoring landscapes is expensive, but can andshould yield economic benefits. The valuationof environmental goods and services is still animprecise science. The valuation of the sub-sistence products used by poor subsistencefarmers is also a challenge. But all large-scalerestoration initiatives have to be rooted in economic realism. The cost-benefit ratios areessential in determining what is possible anddesirable. There are countless examples offorest restoration programmes that have cost alot of money and yielded few real benefits.

It is especially important to remember thatinvestments in restoration carry opportunitycosts—the same money could be invested inemployment creation, establishing protectedareas, etc. Even though complete economic val-uation will only rarely be possible or necessary,it is always important to thoroughly examineoptions from an economic perspective.

135 UNEP-WCMC, 2003.136 Simberloff et al, 1992.137 Zuidema et al, 1997. 138 Liu and Taylor, 2002.

14. Goals and Targets of Forest Landscape Restoration 105

4.2. A Capacity for Learning by Doing

The above consideration may suggest a needfor heavy planning processes, but this should beavoided at all costs. It is much better to startimmediately with a few experimental restora-tion activities on the basis of outcomes of theinitial discussions amongst stakeholders. Thesetrials will establish the credibility of outsidestakeholders and will permit learning. They willgreatly enrich ongoing stakeholder negotia-tions that should continue throughout the pro-gramme.The initial objective should be to builda community of interest groups that can exper-iment and learn together.

A sense of community or “social capital” canreally enhance efforts to restore landscapes.Voluntary groups have accomplished someremarkable restoration achievements. Peoplecan work together and develop a shared passionfor restoring the habitat of a rare animal or thebeauty of a disfigured landscape. Such commu-nities will fine-tune their objectives and adapttheir programmes as they advance. They willprovide an excellent mechanism for setting andupdating goals and end points.

To get real “buy-in” from diverse interestgroups, it is important to start small, provideoutside inputs as drip-feeding, not as big cashinjections, avoid setting up bureaucracies, andlearn and adapt as you progress.

4.3. Tracking Tools for“Landscapes”

As restoration programmes unfold it is essen-tial to have feedback mechanisms so thatsuccess can be assessed, stakeholders consulted,and activities adapted to reflect changed per-spectives. Such tracking tools (or monitoringand evaluation) need to be negotiated at thebeginning of the process to ensure that theygenuinely track the attributes of the site thatpeople value. Since landscapes are complex andstakeholders’ views often divergent, such track-ing tools will inevitably be complicated.139

References

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. 2003. NavigatingSocial-Ecological Systems. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Dunwiddie, P.W. 1992. On setting goals: from snap-shots to movies and beyond. Restoration Manage-ment Notes 10(2):116–119.

Liu, J., and Taylor, W.W. 2002. Integrating LandscapeEcology into Natural Resource Management.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Meffe, G.K., and Carroll, C.R. 1994. EcologicalRestoration. In: Principles of ConservationBiology, pp. 409–438. Sinamer Associates, Inc.,Sunderland, MA.

Sayer, J.A., and Campbell, B. 2004. The Science ofSustainable Development. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Simberloff, D., Farr, J.A., Cox, J., and Mehlman, D.W.1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargainsor poor investments? Conservation Biology 6:493–504.

UNEP-WCMC. 2003. Spatial analysis as a decisionsupport tool for forest landscape restoration.Report to WWF.

Walker, L.R., and del Moral, R. 2003. Primary Suc-cession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Zuidema, P.A., Sayer, J.A., and Dijkman, W. 1997.Forest fragmentation and biodiversity: the case forintermediate-sized conservation areas. Environ-mental Conservation 23:290–297.

Additional Reading

Aide, T.M., Zimmerman, J.K., et al. 2000. Forestregeneration in a chronosequence of tropicalabandoned pastures: implications for restorationecology. Restoration Ecology 8(4): 328–338.

Ashton, M.S., Gunatilleke, C.V.S. et al. 2001. Restora-tion pathways for rainforest in Southwest SriLanka: a review of concepts and models. ForestEcology and Management 154:409–430.

Bradshaw, A.D., and Chadwick M.J. 1980. TheRestoration of Land:The ecology and reclamationof derelict and degraded land. Blackwell ScientificPublications, Oxford, UK.

Buckley, G.P., ed. 1989. Biological Habitat Recon-struction. Belhaven Press, London.

Cairns, J., Jr., ed. 1988. Rehabilitating DamagedEcosystems, vols. 1 and 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton,Florida.139 See penultimate chapter in Sayer and Cambell, 2004.

106 J. Sayer

Gobster, P.H., and Hull, R.B., eds. 1999. RestoringNature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences andHumanities. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Holl, K.D., Loik, M.E., et al. 2000. Tropical montaneforest restoration in Costa Rica: overcoming bar-riers to dispersal and establishment. RestorationEcology 8(4):339–349.

IUFRO. 2003. Occasional paper no. 15. Part 1:Science and technology—building the future ofthe world’s forests. Part II: Planted forests and bio-diversity. ISSN 1024-1414X. IUFRO, Vienna, pp1–50.

Jordan, W.R. III, Gilpin, M.E., and Abers, J.D., eds.1987. Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approachto Ecological Research. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Lamb, D. 1998. Large scale ecological restoration of degraded tropical forest lands: the potential role of timber plantations. Restoration Ecology6(3):271–279.

Luken, J.O. 1990. Directing Ecological Succession.Chapman and Hall, London.

Nilsen, R., ed. 1991. Helping Nature Heal: An Intro-duction to Environmental Restoration. A WholeEarth Catalogue, Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, Cali-fornia (Deals with restoration in a U.S. context.)

Perrow, M.R., and Davy, A.J. 2002. Handbook orEcological Restoration, vols. 1 and 2. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Reiners, W.A., and Driese, K.L. 2003. Propagation of Ecological Influence Through EnvironmentalSpace. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK.

Smout, T.C. 2000. Nature Contested; EnvironmentalHistory in Scotland and Northern England Since1600. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK.

Whisenant, S.G. 1999. Repairing Damaged Wild-lands—A Process-Oriented, Landscape-ScaleApproach. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, UK.

Starting in March 2003, WWF, the global con-servation organisation, and its partners begandeveloping a Forest Landscape Restorationprogramme in the moist forest ecoregion ofMadagascar.This case study highlights the dif-ferent steps in the process.

Only about 10 percent of Madagascar’sforests are left, and much of this is in poorcondition. For this reason forest landscaperestoration was identified as a useful approachto tackle conservation and development concerns in the country. In March 2003,when WWF began its restoration programme,a moist forest ecoregion process was alreadyunderway to develop a comprehensive conservation programme for the whole area (i.e., data were being gathered, mapsdeveloped highlighting key habitats, the range of different species were being sur-veyed, etc.) which helped to feed crucial datainto the development of the restoration initiative.

The key steps in the development of therestoration programme are as follows:

1. Short-listing priority landscapes (March2003): In a national workshop with partici-pants representing civil society, researchers,government, and the private sector, a numberof potential landscapes were selected forrestoration based on coarse criteria developedtogether in the workshop.

2. Reconnaissance to focus on one land-scape (June–August 2003): The criteria werethen further refined by a national workinggroup set up at the workshop. Using theselected criteria (which included both ecolog-ical and social issues, for instance, distancefrom large forest patch, literacy rate, presenceor absence of land tenure conflict), themembers of the national working groupvisited the five short-listed landscapes andrated each according to the criteria in order toselect one priority one.

3. Proposal development and funds raised(August 2003–June 2004): A proposal wasdeveloped, submitted, and approved for thepriority landscape.

4. Beginning the process for selecting bio-logical and ecological targets (June 2004): Tobegin identifying the biological and ecologicalpriorities for the landscape, data from theecoregion process was used to define whatmight be priority areas for restoration withinthe landscape and with which biological/ecological objective (e.g., restoring the habitatfor a specific lemur, buffering a protectedarea, etc.).

5. Socioeconomic analysis (September–December 2004): Before taking the biologicaldata further, it was felt that a better under-standing of the social and economic situationinside the landscape was needed, leading to thecommissioning of a socioeconomic analysis.

Case Study: Madagascar: Developing a Forest Landscape RestorationInitiative in a Landscape in the Moist ForestStephanie Mansourian and Gérard Rambeloarisoa

107

108 S. Mansourian and G. Rambeloarisoa

Next Steps

Some of the key next steps that have beenalready identified include the following:

• Setting common targets in landscape: Usinga merge of the ecological and the socioeco-nomic data, it will be possible to identify“compromise targets” for the landscape inconsultation with stakeholders.

• Partnerships: Key partnerships with stake-holders will be important to the process,from a point of view of both political sup-port and technical complementarity.

• Setting up a monitoring system at the land-scape level: To measure progress against

those targets, a monitoring system will needto be set up.

• Beginning small-scale activities: Small-scaleactivities need to start rapidly to identifythe most suitable techniques, species,species’ mix, training needs, and alternativeeconomic activities that the population canengage in.

• Extracting lessons learned from the processand revisiting the work plan: On an annualbasis, it is necessary to revise work plansand review data to determine whether theprocess is progressing according to plan orif adjustments are necessary.


Because forest restoration is a process, a goodrestoration programme starts with a fairly clearidea of what type of forest is being created, thatis, the target for restoration and the associ-ated activities. This can only be approximate,because ecosystems change and evolve, but canhelp set the approach and time scale.140 Therecan be many different aims and end points, forinstance:

• Restoration of deforested land with a stagedprocess leading to a more natural forest overtime, e.g., as in Guanacaste, Costa Rica,where exotic species are used as nurse cropsfor natural forest141

• Restoration of forest with specific socialvalues, e.g., tembawang fruit gardens ofwestern Borneo, which are planted for theirnontimber forest products but are also highrepositories of biodiversity

• Restoration of specific values within man-aged forests by specific interventions, such asre-creation of dead wood components insouthern Swedish and Finnish forests

• Restoration as a centuries-long process,where initial intervention is then augmentedby natural changes and aging, as in the pre-viously deforested Agathis forests of north-ern New Zealand

Although it is often assumed that restorationaims to re-create a “natural” forest, this is notalways the case. Many efforts aim instead at culturally important forests, as in parts of theMediterranean, or even seek to limit the spreadof trees to maintain game animals, as in manyof the eastern African savannahs. Whatever theaims, good restoration needs to be planned andmonitored against some framework, usually asimilar forest type that identifies a template forthe type of forest being restored.

Reference forests provide a model to follow.The best reference forests are those that have

15Identifying and Using ReferenceLandscapes for RestorationNigel Dudley


Reference forests are carefully preservednatural or near-natural forests that canprovide information about natural species’mix and ecology, that can be used in planningand measuring the success of restoration.

Formal and informal networks of referenceforests are building up around the world.

Use of reference forests often needs to besupplemented with other data such as his-torical records, old maps, identification ofpast vegetation through pollen mappingfrom peat cores, etc.

109

140 Peterken, 1996. 141 Janzen, 2002.

110 N. Dudley

been identified, protected, and monitored overtime, so that they have an associated body ofunderstanding about their ecology. They willoften, although not invariably, be old forests,although younger forests can provide valuablereference for successional stages. Even quitenewly identified reference forests can providevaluable information if their history is knownand it will often be necessary to find a referenceforest or reference landscape as part of theplanning for forest restoration at a landscapescale. Sometimes reference forests need to bere-created theoretically from historical recordsand pollen diagrams.Although most valuable inrelating to forest types in the same ecosystem,reference forests also provide information ofvalue to forests far away. It is important tounderstand the relationship between the his-torical reference forest and the future forestbeing re-created or modified; the referenceforest is not necessarily the same as the targetforest being restored. Sometimes it will be pos-sible, over time, for the latter to become verysimilar to its reference, while in other cases thiswill be impossible either because of other pres-sures on and needs from the forest or becauseconditions have changed and certain elementsof the original forest are irrecoverable. A clearunderstanding of this relationship is importantwhen setting targets for restoration.

Reference landscapes provide informationon different aspects of ecology, particularlycomposition, ecological processes and function-ing, and, crucially but often the most difficult topinpoint, cyclical changes over time. Locatingforests undisturbed enough to exhibit naturalchanges either through a gradual process ofaging and renewal or from evidence of naturalcatastrophic events is now increasingly difficultin many areas, yet an understanding of howforests renew themselves is important in re-creating near-to-natural forests and in under-standing likely pressures on managed forests.

Other elements to consider in definingtargets for restoration include long-termhuman interaction with forests and the evolu-tion of cultural landscapes (many forests havenever existed without the presence of humansso that the idea of a pristine, human-freeecosystem is often little more than a myth).The

probability of future climate change and otherforms of environmental disturbance means thattargets should be tailored with this in mind, alsosuggesting the limitation of following referencelandscapes too closely, when they may beundergoing change themselves. More generally,targets for restoration should be developedwith an understanding of likely changes. Theidea that vegetation evolves to some climaxtype and then stays the same is now largely dis-proved, at least at the level of a particular stand,where flux is expected and is likely to be con-stant. In the end, choices usually need to bemade about levels of biodiversity, naturalness,and livelihood values contained in particularrestored forests, and reference forests can onlyprovide information to help with these morepolitical choices.

2. Examples

The presence of reference forests has played a fundamental role in understanding forestecology and in developing responses to forestloss and degradation. Some reference forestsare outlined below.

2.1. Oregon, United States

The H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest wasprotected by the U.S. Forest Service in 1948 aspart of a network of forests intended to serveas living laboratories for studies by the service’sscientific research branch. The forest is admin-istered cooperatively by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Forest Service PacificNorthwest Research Station, Oregon StateUniversity, and the Willamette National Forest,with funding from the National Science Foun-dation, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon State Uni-versity, and others. Long-term field experimentshave focussed on climate dynamics, stream flow, water quality, and vegetation succession.Currently, researchers are working to developconcepts and tools needed to predict effects of natural disturbance, land use, and climatechange on ecosystem structure, function, andspecies’ composition. Over 3000 scientific pub-lications have used data from the forest. The

15. Identifying and Using Reference Landscapes for Restoration 111

research has been used in developing ways ofrestoring old-growth characteristics withinmanaged forests in the Pacific Northwestthrough “new forestry,” including retention ofstanding dead wood and coarse woody debrisin streams.142

2.2. Centre for Tropical ForestScience (CTFS), Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC

The CTFS has developed an internationalnetwork of standardised forest dynamics plots.Within each plot, every tree over 1cm in diam-eter is marked, measured, plotted on a map, andidentified according to species. The typicalforest dynamics plot is 50 hectares, containingup to 360,000 individual trees. An initial treecensus and periodic follow-up censuses yieldlong-term information on species’ growth, mor-tality, regeneration, distribution, and productiv-ity, which currently provides an almost uniqueinformation source for developing restorationstrategies within managed tropical forests. Util-ising the data from the standardised, intensiveforest dynamics plots throughout the tropics,CTFS researchers are exploring tropical forestspecies’ diversity and dynamics at a globalscale. Plots currently exist in Panama, PuertoRico, Ecuador, Colombia, Cameroon, Democ-ratic Republic of Congo, Malaysia, Thailand,Sri Lanka, India (see below), the Philippines,Singapore, and Taiwan.

2.3. India

The Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary andBandipur National Park are part of the wildlife-rich protected areas within the Nilgiri Biosphere in the Western Ghat Mountains ofsouthern India.These reserves are sites of long-term ecological research by the Centre for Eco-logical Sciences. A 50-hectare permanent plotin Mudumalai, where the dynamics of a tropi-cal dry forest is investigated in relation to fireand herbivory by large mammals, is part of theinternational network of large-scale plots coor-dinated by the CTFS (see above).

2.4. Europe

Under the auspices of the European Coopera-tion in the Field of Scientific and TechnicalResearch (COST) programme of the EuropeanCommission, a network has been established tohelp coordinate research taking place in strictforest reserves in 19 European countries. Theprocess established protocols for data collec-tion both in a core area and over the wholereserve, primarily to develop repeatablemethods of describing the stand structure and ground vegetation. A Web-based forestreserves databank is helping to coordinateinformation. Natural forests are perhaps morecritically threatened in Europe than in anyother region, and the information will be usedto help identify and manage protected areasand increase component of naturalness inmanaged forests.143

2.5. Mediterranean Europe

In some cases, changes have progressed so farthat fully natural or near to natural referenceforests have been lost.The origin of many of thefruit trees commonly found in Mediterraneanforests is often only very generally known forexample. Here the most useful references areoften old cultural forests that contain many elements of biodiversity, and restoration pro-grammes often aim to re-create these.144

Changes in access to reference forests candramatically increase our level of understand-ing of forest dynamics and therefore manage-ment options. For example, when Finnish forestecologists gained access to more natural forestsin the Russian Federation at the end of the1980s, they revised their understanding aboutdisturbance patterns, recognising that snowdamage was a proportionately larger agent ofchange than had been suspected. However,reference forests seldom provide all necessaryinformation, particularly when changes havebeen so profound that no natural forestremains. Living reference forests are thereforea useful tool but by no means the only method

142 Luoma, 1999.

143 Broekmeyer et al, 1993.144 Moussouris and Regato, 1999.

112 N. Dudley

for determining targets. Some of the other toolsthat may be used as surrogates for living refer-ence forests are outlined below.

3. Outline of Tools

In most cases, reference landscapes are devel-oped using a suite of different tools, the mainones of which follow:

• Reference forests: As described above, theseare probably the most valuable single sourceof information.

• Comparison with other ecologically similarforests: Even if no nearby forests exist to actas a reference, use of cumulative data aroundthe world can help to build our understand-ing about a forest’s ecology. For example,knowledge about breeding patterns and pop-ulation in many birds of prey allows ornithol-ogists to make reasonably good predictionsabout stable reproduction rates for speciesbased on body weight. Understanding aboutforest fire ecology can, with caution, be trans-ferred from one ecosystem to another, atleast to develop working hypotheses. Other

elements, such as old growth characteristics,have been found to translate rather poorlyfrom one forest ecosystem to another.

• Comparison with “original” forest types:Although it is often impossible to find awholly unaltered forest ecosystem, numerouswell-thought-out attempts have been madeto describe ancient or natural forests: someexamples are given in Table 15.1.

• Historical records: Written records can tell us a great deal and sometimes stretch backfor hundreds or even thousands of years.The oldest known written records of forestmanagement are 2000 years old and refer to forests maintained to supply timber forShinto temples in Japan. Records fromwritten histories, religious scriptures, sagas,and trade accounts can all provide valuable,albeit usually fragmentary, informationabout forests. Many supposedly “natural”forests in the U.K. can be traced back torecorded planting (often with the names ofthe people who planted them). More recenttravellers’ accounts are frequently used toprovide information on past vegetation patterns, such as the records kept by Italiantravellers in Eritrea a century ago that

Table 15.1. Definitions of original forests.

Definition Explanation

Ancient woodland Woodland that has been in existence for many centuries: precise time varies but in the U.K., 400 years is commonly used1

Frontier forest “Relatively undisturbed and big enough to maintain all their biodiversity, including viable populations of the wide-ranging species associated with each forest type”;criteria include primarily forested; natural structure, composition, and heterogeneity; dominated by indigenous tree species2

Native forests Meaning is variable: often forests consisting of species originally found in the area—may be young or old, established or naturally occurring, although in Australia often used as if it were primary woodland3

Old-growth in the Pacific “A forest stand usually at least 180–220 years old with moderate to high canopy Northwest, United States cover; a multi-layered multi-species canopy dominated by large over-storey trees”4

Primary woodland “Land that has been wooded continuously since the original-natural woodlands werefragmented. The character of the woodland varies according to how it has been treated.”5

Wildwood “Wholly natural woodland unaffected by Neolithic or later civilisation”6

1 Bunce, 1989.2 Bryant et al, 1997.3 Clark, 1992.4 Johnson et al, 1991.5 Peterken, 2002.6 Rackham, 1976.

15. Identifying and Using Reference Landscapes for Restoration 113

now provide information for restorationactivities.

• Forest fragments: Even quite unnaturalforest fragments or remnant microhabitatscan with care and caution, be used as partialsurrogates in areas where full referenceforests no longer exist. For instance, parkland and hedgerows both contain importantelements of natural forests in WesternEurope and can help set targets for restora-tion. Similarly sacred sites, preserved for religious reasons, can contain species thathave disappeared from the surrounding area,as in forest gardens and sacred groves in,for instance, Indonesia, Laos, China, Kenya,and Malawi.

• Pollen analysis and soil microcarbon analysis:Analysis of pollen in peat cores, lake beds, orsoil profiles can identify plants from thou-sands of years ago, as pollen is highly resist-ant to decay, particularly in the anaerobicconditions found in peat, and can often beidentified to the level of individual species.Analysis along a core can show how vegeta-tion changed over time, the presence and fre-quency of fires, and sometimes informationabout pollution. Such analysis is often theonly sure way of building a picture of pastvegetation where changes have been dra-matic and living reference landscapes havedisappeared.

• Gap analysis using enduring features: Thisapproach consists of a coarse-filter conserva-tion assessment of protected areas based ona landscape approach using “enduring fea-tures” (essentially land forms or physicalhabitats) as geographic units that reflect bio-logical diversity. The gap analysis involvesthree main stages. First, natural regionalframeworks are reviewed to ensure thatnatural region boundaries reflect broad phys-iographic and climatic gradients. Next, withineach natural region maps are used to identifyenduring features. An enduring feature is aland form or landscape element or unitwithin a natural region characterised by rel-atively uniform origin of parent material,texture of parent material, and topography-relief. Finally, the relationship of biodiver-sity to enduring features of the landscape

is derived from more detailed tertiarysources.145

4. Future Needs

Although a lot of the tools are in place, there isstill little experience in combining them todevelop realistic targets for restoration exer-cises. Gaps go right back to the philosophicalroots of restoration and at what is being aimedfor—for example, original vegetation or just aworkable ecosystem at the present time. Muchbetter understanding of the likely process offorest restoration itself is needed, along withmore accurate methods of measuring progress.

References

Broekmeyer, M.E.A., Vos, W., and Koop, H., eds.1993. European Forest Reserves. Pudic ScientificPublishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Bryant, D., Nielsen, D., and Tangley, L. 1997.The LastFrontier Forests: Ecosystems and economies onthe edge. World Resources Institute, Washington,DC.

Bunce, R.G.H. 1989. A Field Key for ClassifyingBritish Woodland Vegetation. Institute of Terres-trial Ecology and HMSO, London.

Clark, J. 1992. The future for native logging in Australia. Centre for Resource and Environmen-tal Studies Working Paper 1992/1. The AustraliaNational University, Canberra.

Iacobelli, T., Kavanagh, K., and Rowe, S. 1994. A Protected Areas Gap Analysis Methodology: Plan-ning for the Conservation of Biodiversity. WorldWildlife Fund Canada, Toronto.

Janzen, D.H. 2002. Tropical dry forest: Area de Con-servación Guanacaste, northwestern Costa Rica.In: Perrow, M.R., Davy, A.J., eds. Handbook ofEcological Restoration, vol. 2, Restoration in Prac-tice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,pp. 559–583.

Johnson, K.N., Franklin, J.F., Thomas, J.W., andGordon, J. 1991. Alternatives to Late-SuccessionalForests of the Pacific Northwest. A Report to theUS House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Luoma, J.R. 1999.The Hidden Forest:The Biographyof an Ecosystem. Owl Books, New York.

145 Iacobelli et al, 1994.

114 N. Dudley

Moussouris, Y., and Regato, P. 1999. Forest harvest:Mediterranean woodlands and the importance ofnon-timber forest products to forest conservation.Arborvitae supplement, WWF and IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

Peterken, G.F. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology andConservation in Northern Temperate Regions.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Peterken G. 2002. Reversing the Habitat Fragmen-tation of British Woodlands. WWF UK, Goldalm-ing, UK.

Rackham, O. 1976.Trees and Woodland in the BritishLandscape. Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.


Successfully planning, implementing, and mon-itoring projects that aim to restore forest land-scapes involves the management and analysisof spatial information, that is, quantitative andqualitative two-dimensional data covering thearea of interest. For example, understandinghow a potential restoration site may or may notmeet a biodiversity goal such as “increaseoverall habitat connectivity from x to y to main-tain the viability of species z” requires mapsand basic statistics (size, isolation, etc.) for allforest patches that occur across the landscape.Many other spatial variables influence the suit-ability and likely success of a given area forrestoration.Therefore, map-based technologies,such as satellite remote sensing, aerial photo-

graphy, and geographic information systems(GIS) have and will continue to provide manybenefits to forest landscape restoration.

There are many ways GIS and other spatialtechnologies can assist forest landscape resto-ration projects. At one end of the spectrum,simple maps of forest cover, elevation, rivers,communities, and roads are inherently usefulfor understanding the ecological and humancontext of the landscape. At the other extreme,sophisticated and custom spatial models maybe constructed to simulate, for example, thehydrological effects of forest restoration ondownstream watersheds. Here we focus on theuse of spatial data to develop spatial scenariosthat meet biological and socioeconomic targets.Known as “suitability modelling” or “multicri-teria evaluation,” this approach is one type ofGIS-based modelling utilising readily availablecommercial GIS packages.

Specifically, in this chapter we provide (1)examples of the types of spatial data and somecommon map-based measures useful for plan-ning and monitoring restoration of forest land-scapes, (2) examples of spatial tools andtechnologies for deriving this information, and(3) reviews of several recent applications ofspatial technologies to restoration.

1.1. Mapping Areas to Meet or Set Targets

The targets and goals of the project determinethe types of spatial data to collect and spatialanalyses to conduct. There are two main types

16Mapping and Modelling as Tools toSet Targets, Identify Opportunities,and Measure ProgressThomas F. Allnutt


Forest landscape restoration can benefitfrom mapping and use of geographical infor-mation systems (GIS) in several key ways,but in particular by measuring and monitor-ing progress toward meeting biological andsocioeconomic targets via restoration.

Many potential methods exist to utilise mapsand GIS for landscape-scale restoration,from the simple to the highly customised andexperimental.

115

116 T.F. Allnutt

of targets, biological and socioeconomic. Al-though not all targets are spatial in nature (e.g., “prevent the extinction of species x”),many are. Some examples of spatial targetsinclude “Protect x hectares of habitat y” or“Establish x hectares of community forestreserves.” Planning for and evaluating progresstoward a target such as the latter type requiresappropriate spatial data.

1.1.1. Biological Targets

Often, biological targets are derived directlyfrom existing large-scale conservation plan-ning processes such as ecoregion conservation(ERC).146 An initial product of an ERC visionis a set of priority landscapes designed to meetspecific biological objectives, such as the con-servation of an endangered primate.Where thisis the case, these targets can be used directly toprioritise and implement restoration areas, forexample, preferentially conduct restorationadjacent to known populations of the targetprimate.

In other cases, no such information may exist.Here, participants may rely on basic principlesof biological conservation to guide what targetsto select, and thus what spatial data sets areneeded. In general, space-based biological tar-gets involve individual species (e.g., cheetah),147

habitat, or vegetation types (e.g., wetlands), orecological and evolutionary processes (e.g.,migration, hydrology).148 Targets for these fea-tures are typically expressed as quantitativeareas or percentages of the total distribution ofthe biological element in question (e.g., 1000hectares of oak-savannah).

Once biological targets are established,several classes of spatial data are necessary tomap where they may be achieved on theground. In many cases, existing map sourcesmay be used; in others, maps will have to becreated using modelling or technologies such asremote sensing.

To evaluate species-based targets, one firstneeds to know the current distribution of alltarget species within the landscape at the finestlevel of detail possible. Range maps are onepotential surrogate for this information andthey are increasingly available for a number oftaxa worldwide.149 In other cases, modellingmay be used to predict species’ distributionsfrom field collections coupled with environ-mental data.150 Often, and particularly at finescales, field-based inventories will be requiredto assess the presence or absence of certain keyspecies.

Another common type of biological targetinvolves particular habitat and/or vegetationtypes. Several sources of data are available toevaluate this type of target. Existing maps andclassifications are often used, from national orregional inventories, for example. In othercases, new maps may be created from raw pho-tographs or the processing of photographs ordigital images. The most widespread source is remote sensing—typically photographs ordigital imagery from airplanes or satellite-borne sensors. New, high-resolution imagery(submetre) provides a good source for mappingnatural habitats as well as human land uses,though cost can be a significant constraint.

In areas of high species and habitat hetero-geneity, optical remote-sensing may not be ableto distinguish biological differences to a neces-sary degree. Forest that is indistinguishablespectrally—from the perspective of a camera or satellite—is often very diverse biologically.Here, habitat modelling can be used to mapareas where one expects species to differ sig-nificantly. A range of approaches are available,from the quick and approximate, to moreformal statistical methods.151 Elevation, forexample, is often used as a proxy for species’distributions, and can be used to quickly dividea continuously mapped forest type into severalor more forest habitats (lowland, sub-montane,montane, etc.).

146 Dinerstein et al, 2000.147 Lambeck, 1997.148 Pressey et al, 2003.

149 Ridgely et al, 2003.150 Boitani et al, 1999.151 Ferrier et al, 2002.

16. Mapping and Modelling 117

The spatial configuration of the restorationlandscape is of critical importance for biodi-versity conservation for several reasons. One,the long-term survival of many species oftendepends directly on the size and connectivity ofavailable habitat. The reasons for this are gen-erally (a) individuals and populations requiresufficient outbreeding opportunities that areonly available in habitat blocks of a particularsize, and (b) the species in question has ecolog-ical requirements (e.g., seasonal migration) thatrequire large connected blocks of habitat. Inboth cases, research may be necessary to assessthe habitat configuration necessary for thetarget species. Two, many environmental andecological processes will not be maintainedonce habitat fragments drop below a particularthreshold of isolation or fragmentation. Themaintenance of natural hydrological flows inwatersheds, for example, can depend on the sizeand connectivity of intact forest blocks.

1.1.2. Socioeconomic Targets

The second major class of targets are socioeco-nomic. In some cases, socioeconomic targetswill have been specified when the landscapewas identified within a priority setting exercise(e.g., the visioning process in ecoregion conser-vation), though this is less often the case thanwith biological targets. Socioeconomic targetsthat require spatial data generally specify targetamounts of land uses within the landscape. Thismay involve zoning one portion of the land-scape for a particular land use. For example,participants may wish to have one third of thelandscape devoted to community forestry. Inother cases, the entire landscape (apart fromthose areas reserved for biodiversity conser-vation) may be zoned for particular land uses,akin to a traditional land-use plan or zoningmap.

Mapping areas to meet socioeconomictargets requires a detailed and up-to-date land-cover map. This map shows the current distri-bution of natural and human-oriented areas inas much detail and at as fine a scale as possibleand it can be derived from existing land-use/land-cover maps for the area, or may be created

from aerial and remote sensing sources coupledwith ground truth.The map of current land usesserves as the starting point; a map of future landuses shows those areas where changes in landuses will be necessary to meet socioeconomictargets.

1.1.3. Land Tenure and Land Value

The legal status and ownership of land (landtenure) within the landscape, and the economicvalue of that land are also important for plan-ning forest landscape restoration. Sometimesthis information can be derived from existingmaps available from local or national govern-ment organisations, particularly in the case ofland tenure. In other cases, ground surveys willneed to be conducted to establish tenure andland value of unknown areas. Spatial economicmodelling has also been used to estimate landvalue. Rules are constructed that allow one toestimate the value of every parcel of landwithin the area of interest, based on variablessuch as market access, for example.

1.3. Mapping Opportunities:Integrating Biological and Socioeconomic Data to MeetTargets and Map Opportunities

Some areas are more suitable than others forparticular uses. Analysis of spatial data has thepotential to efficiently allocate areas to one useor another. This idea is formalised in land-useplans or more formally via suitability modellingotherwise known as multicriteria evaluation(MCE).152

Suitability modelling or MCE using GIS can be used to systematically combine spatial,biological, physical and socioeconomic datadetailed above in order to meet biological andsocioeconomic objectives via restoration. Hereare two generic examples:

1. Map suitability for a single biological orsocioeconomic target. As an example, imagine

152 Eastman et al, 1993.

118 T.F. Allnutt

one biological target for the landscape is tomaintain a viable population of a primate. It is estimated that the target primate requires25,000 hectares of habitat between 1000 and3000m in elevation, in a single, connected blockof forest. There are currently only 15,000hectares of suitable forest within the landscape,in two disconnected blocks. Therefore, the chal-lenge is to map at least 10,000 hectares torestore based on the habitat criteria requiredfor the species: elevation, size, and connectivity.Three maps are created. One shows all areas inthe target range of 1000 to 3000m, one ranksareas according to their potential to rejoin thedisconnected blocks, and one ranks areas bytheir proximity to existing good habitat for theprimate. These three maps are standardised toa common numeric range, and then combinedby means of a weighted average, to produce acontinuous map of suitability.The most suitableareas are those that are close to existing intacthabitat, connect the two blocks, and are theright elevation.The highest scoring areas (thosethat come close to meeting all three criteria)are selected until the target of 10,000 hectaresis met.These form the priority restoration areasfor this biological target. The same process maybe used to map suitable areas for socioeco-nomic targets.

2. Incorporating socioeconomic data as aconstraint on suitable areas for biologicaltargets. Just as physical and biological criteriamay be combined to identify suitable restora-tion areas to meet biological targets, socioeco-nomic criteria, such as land use or land value,can also be incorporated in the process. Forexample, imagine two parcels of land that, whenrestored, would be equal in every way formeeting the above biological target. They areequivalent in elevation, in proximity to existingforest, and in terms of connecting the two forestblocks. One parcel is currently actively used foragricultural production, whereas the other hasbeen abandoned for several years. For severalreasons, it would likely be easier to restore theabandoned parcel. Thus, including socioeco-nomic data in the MCE process can help to efficiently identify restoration priorities whenthere are choices of areas to meet biologicaltargets.

1.4. Monitoring

A key benefit of using quantitative spatial dataand targets for both biological and socioeco-nomic variables throughout the planning andimplementation process is that it facilitateslong-term monitoring as the project proceeds.Remote sensing in particular provides a rela-tively quick and inexpensive, synoptic, repeat-able view of large-scale changes to land usesand land cover over time within the landscape.Clearly this will have to be paired with reviewsof progress toward those biological and socio-economic targets that cannot be measuredremotely. A current disadvantage is the lack oflong-term large-scale attempts at systema-tic monitoring of conservation programmes,though efforts are currently underway at anumber of places and institutions.

2. Examples

Examples abound of the use of maps and GISin the fields of planning and conservation.153

Generally speaking, however, there are fewexamples of its application to forest restorationplanning. One exception is the recent work ofJ. Halperin, in which GIS was used for partici-patory, community-based, large-scale restora-tion planning in Uganda.154

The WWF network has only recently begunto apply GIS to its restoration initiatives. TheUnited Nations’ Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre(UNEP-WCMC) used GIS to prioritise areasfor WWF-based restoration projects in NorthAfrica.155 Biological attributes such as species’richness, forest integrity, and patch size werebalanced against human pressures includingroad density, grazing pressure, and resource use.As of early 2004, there are two additional proj-ects underway. In one, in the Andresito land-scape (Argentina) of the Atlantic Forest, thereare plans to use suitability modelling withIDRISI to identify key restoration corridors in

153 see e.g., Eghenter, 2000; Herrman and Osinski, 1999.154 Halperin et al, 2004.155 UNEP-WCMC, 2003.

16. Mapping and Modelling 119

conjunction with a set of stakeholders from the region. Similarly, GIS is being used inMadagascar to map and prioritise suitableareas for restoration within a large landscapethat needs to be restored. Here, biologicaltargets are being established for six IUCN red-listed vertebrates. Criteria are being establishedto map suitable habitat for each species in orderto evaluate current status within the landscape.Where current habitat is insufficient for long-term viability of each population, areas will beprioritised for restoration based on connectiv-ity, proximity to known populations, and habitatcharacteristics. Socioeconomic data will be usedas a constraint where options exist to meet bio-logical targets. This work is in its initial stagesand is expected to continue through 2005.

3. Outline of Tools

Standard vector-based GIS software—ESRI(ArcMap, ArcView, Arcinfo)—is the standardGIS virtually worldwide. It is available at lowcost to conservation organisations, and it per-forms all types of GIS functions, from basicmapping to advanced analyses, especially whencustomised or linked to other programmes(e.g., statistical software, etc.).

Standard raster-based GIS—IDRISI, ESRI(Spatial Analyst, GRID for Arcview, ArcMap,and Arcinfo), ERDAS. The IDRISI and ESRIproducts are low cost (for educational or non-profit companies) GISs capable of doing raster-based analyses (e.g., most analyses involvingremotely sensed imagery). IDRISI includesfunctions for easily stepping through suitabilitymodels and MCE as part of its decision supportpackage. ERDAS is a much more expensivesoftware designed primarily to analyse satelliteimagery and other remotely sensed data.

4. Future Needs

A key need is for participatory GIS-based deci-sion-support tools designed specifically forrestoration in a biodiversity conservation con-text. Similarly, research is needed into tools tostrengthen linkages between site-based restora-

tion research and spatial decision making withGIS. Recently, several new GIS models are inuse that have been used extensively for spatialplanning in conservation, notably C-Plan156 andSITES/Marxan.157 These particular applicationsare currently, generally speaking, spatial opti-misation tools designed to meet representationtargets in conservation plans. There is tremen-dous potential, however, especially with thesimulated-annealing algorithm used by Marxan(and now SPOT among other tools) to optimiseany given set of objectives (such as restoration)in a spatial model. Research is urgently neededto expand these tools to meet other objectivesbeyond simple reservation and representation.

References

Boitani, L. (coordinator), Corsi, F., De Biase, A., etal. 1999.A databank for the conservation and man-agement of African Mammals. Institute of AppliedEcology, Rome, Italy.

Dinerstein, E., Powell, G., Olson, D. et al. 2000.A Workbook for Conducting Biological Assess-ments and Developing Biodiversity Visions for Ecoregion-Based Conservation. ConservationScience Programme, World Wildlife Fund,Washington, DC.

Eastman, J.R., Kyem, P.A.K., Toledano, J., and Jin, W.1993. GIS and Decision Making, UNITAR. Explo-rations in GIS Technology, Vol. 4. UNITAR,Geneva.

Eghenter, C. 2000. Mapping People’s Forests: TheRole of Mapping in Planning Community-BasedManagement of Conservation Areas in Indonesia.Biodiversity Support Programme, Washington,DC.

Ferrier, S. 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiver-sity for regional conservation planning: where tofrom here? Systematic Biology 51:331–363.

Halperin, J.J., Shear, T.H., Munishi, P.K.T., and Wentworth, T.R. 2004. Multiple-objective forestryplanning in biodiversity hotspots of east Africa.In preparation.

Herrman, S., and Osinski, E. 1999. Planning sustain-able land use in rural areas at different spatiallevels using GIS and modelling tools. Landscapeand Urban Planning 46:93–101.

156 Pressey et al, 1995157 Leslie et al, 2003; McDonnell et al, 2002.

120 T.F. Allnutt

Lambeck, R.J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-speciesumbrella for nature conservation. ConservationBiology 11:849–856.

Leslie, H., Ruckelshaus, R., Ball, I.R., Andelman, S.,and Possingham, H.P. 2003. Using siting algorithmsin the design of marine reserve networks. Ecolog-ical Applications 13:S185–S198.

McDonnell, M.D., Possingham, H.P., Ball, I.R., andCousins, E.A. 2002. Mathematical methods forspatially cohesive reserve design. EnvironmentalModelling and Assessment 7:107–114.

Pressey, R.L., Cowling, R.M., and Rouget, M. 2003.Formulating conservation targets for biodiversitypattern and process in the Cape Floristic Region,South Africa. Biological Conservation 112:99–127.

Pressey, R.L., Ferrier, S., Hutchinson, C.D., Sivertsen,D.P., and Manion, G. 1995. Planning for negotia-tion: using an interactive geographic informationsystem to explore alternative protected area net-works. In: Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L., Mattiske,E.M., eds. Nature Conservation: The Role of Net-works. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney, pp. 23–33.

Ridgely, R.S., Allnutt, T.F. Brooks, T., et al. 2003.Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of theWestern Hemisphere. Version 1.0. CD-ROM.NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

UNEP-WCMC. 2003. Spatial analysis as a decisionsupport tool for forest landscape restoration.Report to WWF.

Additional Reading

George, T.L., and Zack, S. 2001. Spatial and tempo-ral considerations in restoring habitat for wildlife.Restoration Ecology 9:272.

Huxel, G.R., and Hastings,A. 2001. Habitat loss, frag-mentation, and restoration. Restoration Ecology7:309.

Jankowski, P., and Nyerges, T. 2001. GeographicInformation Systems for Group Decision Making.Taylor and Francis, New York.

Loiselle, B.A., Howell, C.A. Graham, C.H., et al.2003.Avoiding pitfalls of using species distributionmodels in conservation planning. ConservationBiology 6:1591–1600.

Wickam, J.D., Jones, B.K., Riiters, K.H., Wade, T.G.,and O’Neill, R.V. 1999. Transitions in forest frag-mentation: implications for restoration opportuni-ties at regional scales. Landscape Ecology 14:137–145.


Localised and site-based interventions to re-store habitat can be very useful, and much ofwhat we have learned about ecological res-toration comes from small-scale initiatives,primarily carried out by nongovernmentalorganisations (NGOs) and local communitiesbut also to an increasing extent by forward-looking companies and government depart-ments. We also describe further in this book(see “Practical Interventions that Will Sup-port Restoration in Broad-Scale ConservationBased on WWF Experiences”) how strategicuse of such initiatives can have wider benefits,

for example by linking patches of existinghabitat, by providing fuelwood to places thatare otherwise without energy sources, or bypreventing erosion. However, small-scale ini-tiatives are inevitably limited in what they canachieve on their own and are usually expensive,stretching the resources of the organisations orcommunities that carry them out. Accordingly,it is often more effective to spend effort inchanging policies at local, provincial, national,regional or even global level to encouragerestoration at a broader scale. Many NGOsundertake restoration initiatives to use them as a lever to change policies, by, for example,showing that different approaches can be moreeffective or cost less money. But althoughworking examples can be powerful tools instimulating change, they usually need to beaccompanied by effective advocacy and a thor-ough understanding of the policy climate.

Policy change can operate at many differentlevels. At the most local level, it can includechanging policies within a single community158

or landscape to stimulate forest restoration.Examples include:

• Agreed changes in grazing regimes to allownatural regeneration, perhaps agreeing toprotect different zones at different times

• Voluntary controls on collection of nontim-ber forest products to ensure that these arenot degraded

17Policy Interventions for ForestLandscape RestorationNigel Dudley


Changing policy toward restoration or landuse is often the most effective way of stimu-lating large-scale restoration.

Such policy changes can be addressed, in dif-ferent ways, at a local scale (e.g., changinggrazing patterns), a national scale (e.g.,modifying forestry laws), or a global scale(e.g., ensuring that international conventionsfavour high-quality restoration).

Key tools in policy interventions includegood analysis, especially economic analysis,case studies, and advocacy.

121

158 Sithole, 2000.

122 N. Dudley

• Collective investment in tree planting, forinstance to establish fuelwood plantations

Whilst such interventions are already aregular feature of many large conservation orconservation and development projects, theyare again quite limited in scope. A far more sig-nificant change can be affected if national poli-cies are changed in favour of more sympatheticrestoration, for example:

• Modification of national forestry laws toallow old-growth forest to remain, facilitateretention of deadwood, or remove perverseincentives that discourage restoration

• Changing national forest restoration or af-forestation programmes to increase therange of goods and services that they provide(for example, reducing the proportion ofintensive plantations and increasing assistednatural regeneration)

There are also increasingly opportunities to change policies that transcend nationalborders,159 thus potentially having an impact ona global or a regional scale. Along with inter-governmental bodies, such transnational policycan also involve companies that operate inmany countries or bilateral and multilateraldonors, including the following:

• Introduction of pro-restoration clauses with-in international treaties or incentives, such as using carbon offsets for forest restora-tion under the U.N. Framework Conventionon Climate Change, or specific policy recom-mendations of global forest initiatives such asthe U.N. Forum on Forests

• Integration of restoration into funding op-portunities or legislative requirements fromregional agreements such as those of theEuropean Community

• Development of company policies for res-toration after mineral extraction, infrastruc-ture developments, etc.

• Modification of projects funded by bilateralor multilateral donor agencies

2. Examples

2.1. Altai Sayan, Russia

Russia’s first woodland area to be certifiedunder the Forest Stewardship Council is stillmanaged collectively and includes large areasof woodland on sandy soils dominated bybirch—used for specialist products sold by theBody Shop chain. The certification processincluded agreement by farming cooperatives onchanges in sheep grazing to leave some areasuntouched for long enough to foster regenera-tion of birch woods.159a

2.2. Latvia

Latvian forestry inherited legislation crafted bythe Soviet Union, which included the use oflarge clearcuts and a requirement to manageforests including removal of deadwood. As aresult, dead standing and lying timber is in shortsupply in many woodlands, leading to a de-cline in many saproxylic (deadwood living)species.160 This is particularly serious at a Euro-pean scale because Latvia’s forests containsome of the richest biodiversity in the conti-nent. WWF in Latvia has worked with the gov-ernment to change the forestry regulations to allow retention of deadwood in managedforests, thus opening the opportunity of increas-ing this threatened microhabitat.

2.3. Vietnam

The government’s five million hectare refor-estation programme aims to restore forestcover but in practice hampers local flexibility.Although large plantations have been estab-lished, it seems likely that in several provincesmuch money has been wasted in places whereforest cover remains high. In theory fundingcan be used to support natural regeneration, forexample in the buffer zones of protected areas,as is already happening around Song ThanhNature Reserve. The WWF Indochina Pro-gramme is working with the government to

159 Tarasofsky, 1999.

159a Information drawn from site visit as part of certifica-tion team, 1998.160 Rotbergs, 1994.

17. Policy Interventions for Forest Landscape Restoration 123

modify the way in which funds are used, bothto increase natural forest restoration and toensure that established forests are retained andgain higher value (see detailed case study“Monitoring Forest Landscape Restoration inVietnam”).

2.4. European Community

Throughout the European Union (EU) region,restoration of natural woodlands is hamperedin areas of sheep or goat grazing becausefarmers receive hectare-based payments de-pending on the area capable of being grazed.161 To obtain maximum funds, wood-lands are opened to grazing, which means thatyoung seedlings fail to establish, resulting ingradually aging forest. In some cases, wood-lands that have been fenced with EU funds toencourage regeneration are now being openedup again. It is recognised that the key to facili-tating regeneration in many areas is not furthergrants for tree planting but a removal of per-verse incentives (see “Perverse Policy Incen-tives” and case study “The European Union’sAfforestation Policies and their Real Impact onForest Restoration”) by changing incentives’schemes within the Common AgriculturalPolicy to reduce the reasons for allowing sheepgrazing in woodlands.

2.5. Central America

The Kyoto protocol of the U.N. FrameworkConvention on Climate Change allows for gov-ernments to offset some of their carbon emis-sions, or trade other countries’ emissions,through tree planting. Initial proposalsfocussed largely on the establishment of inten-sive plantations of exotic species, but researchsuggests that the long-term carbon sequestra-tion benefits of such plantations are verylimited, as they are used mainly for short-termproducts such as paper and cardboard that arequickly abandoned and break down. CentralAmerican governments have been amongstthose most active in lobbying for modificationof the Kyoto protocol to allow different kinds

of forest management including natural regen-eration and increase of retention of deadwoodand humus components. Research suggests thatinnovative use of carbon markets has aidedforest regeneration, with the side benefit of alsoincreasing tourism in these areas.162

2.6. Lafarge—Quarry Restorationin Kenya

Lafarge, based in France, is now the largestquarrying company in the world. The devel-opment of its policy toward forest landscaperestoration is an example of how small-scaleinterventions can lead to larger restorationpolicy initiatives.

Lafarge’s forest restoration work startedwith a series of site-based interventions. Theformer quarry of the Bamburi cement plantnear Mombasa in Kenya was mined for 20years. In the early 1970s, a rehabilitation pro-gramme was started to restore the site as anature reserve. After a phase of soil formationusing the leaf litter of introduced pioneer trees,a large number of tree and other plant speciestypical of the indigenous coastal forests werealso planted. The success of these was observedover time in order to select those species thatproved suitable for planting on a larger scale toreplace the pioneer trees. In addition to trees ofpotential economic value (such as Iroko andother indigenous hardwood, which is valuablefor local crafts such as carving), endangeredspecies and those that provide habitat or foodfor indigenous wildlife have also been planted:to date, 422 indigenous plant species have beenintroduced into the newly created ecosys-tems of forests, wetlands, and grasslands inBamburi’s former quarries. Of these 364 havesurvived, including 30 that are on the IUCNRed List of Threatened Species for Kenya.

Lafarge also started working with WWF onpolicy issues, including supporting the organi-sation’s forest landscape restoration initiative.In April 2002, Bamburi signed a partnershipagreement with WWF East Africa, and identi-fied forest landscape restoration as one of thepriority partnership activities, including the

161 Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2002. 162 Miranda et al, 2004.

124 N. Dudley

need to establish a biodiversity monitoringsystem in partnership with WWF, in order to define guidelines for ecological quarry rehabilitation.

In 2001 Lafarge adopted a formal quarryrehabilitation policy with the participation ofWWF to spread best practice in terms of quar-rying work and relations with local stakehold-ers. The most important elements of this policyare to plan restoration from the outset andcoordinate restoration with quarrying activities.In addition to biodiversity issues, land planningconsiderations are also taken into accountwhen defining a rehabilitation project in orderboth to preserve the environment and to gen-erate income for the local communities. In thisframework quarry rehabilitation often leads tothe creation of wetlands and natural reserves orleisure areas.

3. Outline of Tools

Stimulating policy changes requires hard andconvincing analysis, including economic analy-sis, a clear message, and sometimes some tar-geted and effective advocacy. In cases wherefinancial support is being changed around infavour of more balanced forms of restoration,it may also include economic incentives. Somekey tools are as follows:

Economic analysis is useful to make the casefor restoration or for different kinds of restora-tion. Examples might include demonstratingthat retention of deadwood within managedforests does not entail excessive cost, orshowing that natural regeneration is cheaperthan replanting. For example, a WWF/WorldBank economic analysis convinced the govern-ment of Bulgaria to change plans for establish-ing intensive poplar plantations on islands in theDanube with natural regeneration,163 and ananalysis for Forestry Commission economists inWales, U.K., persuaded the government agencyto use natural regeneration in an area of forestbecause it proved cheaper than replanting.

Economic incentives encourage individualsand groups to make space for restoration,

including both official incentive schemes andincentives through the market, such as certifi-cation.Targeted incentives have been used verysuccessfully to encourage restoration, forinstance through conservation easements totake land out of production, as has occurredwidely in the U.S., through direct support fortree planting as successfully implemented on a large scale in parts of Pakistan, or through tax incentives as in several Latin Americancountries.164

Case studies show that restoration can workand pay for itself. The case of the restoredquarry near Mombasa showed that restorationwas not an impossibly expensive task andhelped to encourage Lafarge, the company con-cerned, to introduce a wider policy. Case studiesonly work, however, if they are carefully pre-pared and include all the relevant informationneeded to make policy decisions, and if theyreach the attention of the right policy makers.

Advocacy entails campaigns or lobbying to encourage change.165 Targeted lobbying hasbeen successful, for example, in changing someconditions in the Kyoto Protocol to allowgreater latitude for natural regeneration.

Codes of practice are developed by workingwith other stakeholders (e.g., industry) to agreeand implement them voluntarily and to encour-age restoration.The International Tropical Tim-ber Organisation recently completed detailedguidelines for natural regeneration, in associa-tion with IUCN and WWF, which provide anexample of this approach.166 As with casestudies, however, such codes are only worth theinvestment in developing them if they areimplemented in practice.

4. Future Needs

Many of these ideas remain in their infancy. Westill require far better understanding of theeconomic and other benefits of environmentalgoods and services from restoration in order tomake the case, for example, for natural regen-

163 Ecott, 2002.

164 Piskulich, 2001.165 Byers, 2000.166 ITTO, 2002.

17. Policy Interventions for Forest Landscape Restoration 125

eration rather than other land uses or forchanges in major funding initiatives such asthose under the European Common Agricul-tural Policy. More generally, major changes arestill needed in global trade policy to remove theperverse incentives that currently act againstrestoration in many areas.

References

Byers, B. 2000. Understanding and InfluencingBehaviour. Biodiversity Support Programme,Washington DC

Ecott, T. 2002. Forest Landscape Restoration:Working Examples from Five Ecoregions. WWF,Gland, Switzerland.

International Tropical Timber Organisation. 2002.ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Man-agement and Rehabilitation of Degraded and Secondary Tropical Forests. ITTO, Yokohama,Japan

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2002. Envi-ronmental effects of the Common AgriculturalPolicy and possible mitigation measures. Report tothe Department of Environment, Food and RuralAffairs, Peterborough, UK.

Miranda, M., Moreno, M.L., and Porras, I.T. 2004.Thesocial impacts of carbon markets in Costa Rica:the case of the Huetar Norte region. Internatio-nal Institute of Environment and Development,London.

Piskulich, Z. 2001. Incentives for the Conservation ofPrivate Lands in Latin America. BiodiversitySupport Programme.The Nature Conservancy andUSAID, Arlington, Virginia.

Rotbergs, U. 1994. Forests and forestry in Latvia. In:Paulenka, J., and Paule, L., eds. Conservation ofForests in Central Europe. Arbora Publishers,Zvolen, Slovakia.

Sithole, B. 2000. Where the Power Lies: MultipleStakeholder Politics Over Natural Resources—AParticipatory Methods Guide. Center for Interna-tional Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

Tarasofsky, R. 1999. Assessing the InternationalForest Regime. IUCN Environmental Law Centre,Bonn, Germany.


Forest landscape restoration approaches usethe restoration of forest functions as an entrypoint to identify and build a diversity of social,ecological, and economic benefits at a land-scape scale. As such they rely on achievingbroad consensus on a range of restorationinterventions from a variety of stakeholders,who may have very different perceptions ofwhat forest landscapes should provide. Thisrequires effective negotiation among stake-holders whose negotiation skills, interests,needs, and power are often markedly different.However, the success of forest landscaperestoration approaches often hinges on howsuccessfully such negotiations are conducted.The principles of forest landscape restoration,therefore, aim at restoring forests to provide

multiple social and environmental benefitsthrough processes that involve stakeholder par-ticipation. The achievement of these ambitiousgoals relies on finding a successful passagethrough an array of practical challenges. Theseinclude the implications of current and futureland tenure, competing land uses, and reach-ing a balance between different managementregimes. Success depends on the ability of thoseinitiating or guiding a forest landscape restora-tion project to manage the tensions and conflicts that will arise on the way. This, in turn,implies a certain amount of knowledge abouthow to identify, analyse, and manage conflict,retaining the varied, useful perspectives thatare helpfully expressed through conflict, whileresolving or mitigating those aspects of conflictthat are dangerous or prevent project success.

1.1. Types of Conflict

There are two aspects that characterise con-flicts: their openness and the type of conflict.

Conflict can be concealed or open167; eithercan cause problems in developing successfullandscape-scale approaches to restoration:

• Open conflicts: everyone can see them andknows about them.

• Hidden conflicts: some people can see themand know about them, but hide them from others (particularly outsiders), perhapsbecause of cultural or social reasons (e.g.,

18Negotiations and ConflictManagementScott Jones and Nigel Dudley


Forest landscape restoration relies onachieving broad consensus among a varietyof stakeholders.

However, stakeholders may have very dif-ferent perceptions of what forest landscapesshould provide.

This will require a certain amount of negoti-ation and possible conflict resolution.

126

167 DFID, 2002a; Fisher et al, 2000.

18. Negotiations and Conflict Management 127

many gender-related conflicts) or becausedisputes may be embarrassing to the com-munity (e.g., disagreements between youngpeople and elders).

• Latent conflicts: these come to the surfacewhen something changes the status quo. Forexample, if a restoration project brings ben-efits (money, power, influence, equipment),their distribution can create conflicts thatwere not there before the project arrived.

There are also different types of conflict. It isimportant to understand which type of conflictone is facing since each needs addressing in adifferent way.

• Interpersonal conflicts: between two or morepeople relating to personality differences

• Conflicts of interest: someone wants some-thing that another has (e.g., money, power,land, influence, inheritance)

• Conflicts about process: how differentpeople, groups, and organisations solve prob-lems (e.g., legal, customary, institutional)

• Structural conflicts: the most deep-seatedtype relating to major differences that arehard to address (e.g., unequal social struc-tures, unfair legal systems, economic powerbiased toward certain stakeholders, or differ-ences in deep-seated values, such as culturalor religious)

Sometimes one type of conflict, perhapsunthinkingly, is disguised as another, forinstance a personality clash may be presentedas an issue of process.

1.2. Elements in a ConflictSituation

Managing conflict is not a straightforwardprocess. Rather, there are a number of keybuilding blocks in a conflict managementprocess that interrelate and must often beundertaken in parallel (Figure 18.1168):

• Conflict analysis is about understanding whothe different stakeholders are, what are theirstrengths, fears, needs, and interests, and howthey perceive or understand the conflict(s).

• Capacity-building is about helping people tomanage conflict. It may be required at anytime. For example, it may take place prior to negotiations because some stakeholdersneed to develop negotiation skills. It maytake place before agreements are signedbecause different groups like to have agree-ments in different forms; it is important thatall groups have the capacity to understandeach other’s approaches to problem solvingand reaching agreements. Capacity-buildingoften takes the form of training (e.g., in nego-tiations or “people” skills), but sometimesother resources are needed.

• Designing a process is about planning who to bring together, where, when, and how.The most effective conflict managementprocesses are usually flexible, iterative, andcapable of keeping stakeholders on board asevents, issues, and even the attitudes of theconflicting parties change.

Conflict analysis Designing a process (plan)

Capacity building Process management

PrinciplesTools Experience

Rapport Communication

Perceptions

Conflictmanagement

Figure 18.1. Building blocks in the conflict management process: elements in a conflict situation.

168 Modified from Warner and Jones, 1998.

128 S. Jones and N. Dudley

• Process management is about how to buildand maintain effective ways of working withthe parties, to retain flexibility and patience,while still keeping focussed on outcomes andworking toward success on the criteria thatstakeholders have agreed to, for example,how to convene an effective meeting withclear goals, or how to monitor an agreement.

Achieving these things requires adhering tocertain principles (e.g., mutual respect, beingaccountable, recognising the potential and

limits of your influence, see Figure 18.2), usingcertain tools (e.g., stakeholder and genderanalysis), and applying key experience (e.g.,with similar projects or with these people inother projects). They also require key peopleskills, among the most important of which aremaintaining good rapport and effective com-munications, and effectively engaging with themultiple perspectives.169

Consensus-BuildingPrinciples

Acknowledge and embrace differentperceptions

Focus onunderlying needs, not initial demands

Testagreement(s) for achievability— [reality testing]

Try to achieve mutual gains—aimto achieve early agreement onsomething

Explore possibilities for reframing power, needs, options

Accommodate culturaldifferences

Seek andengage withdiversity

Build and maintaineffectivecommunications

Develop andmanagegood rapport

Understandand try toequalizepower

Allow sufficienttime for analysis given your resources

Widen options beforenarrowing tosolutions

Figure 18.2. Principles for successful negotiation.168a

168a Modified from Warner, 2001.169 Jones, 1998.


1.3. BATNA (Best Alternative to aNegotiated Agreement)169a

Negotiations are a voluntary process. But whatif the other person is completely inflexible,breaks the ground rules you agreed to, and onlywants his or her own way. In short, what if theother person does not want to negotiate? Sim-ilarly, what if the other person is negotiating ingood faith, you have excellent communications,and trust each other, but it is simply not possi-ble (in his or her view) to meet even your“bottom line” needs? Under these circum-stances, you need an alternative to negotiation.There may be several alternatives. What youreally need is the best one.

So what would be your best alternative to a negotiated agreement? In the (unfortunate) language of conflict management, this has become known as a BATNA (best alternative toa negotiated agreement). Box 18.1 illustratessome examples of where a BATNA may beappropriate.

1.4. Project and ProcessManagement

Any approach to forest landscape restorationrequires time and resources to identify, to agreeto, and to manage the process. Different agen-cies have different approaches to project andprocess management, developed perhaps fromcommercial approaches or international devel-opment models. Clearly, in the world of logicalframeworks, multi-stakeholder partnerships,and collaborative management schemes, themanagement process itself is a subject for nego-tiation that requires the full range of skills andprinciples discussed above.

Conflicts over one form of management indicate an opportunity to search for otherapproaches that can helpfully deal with thelegal, financial, political, and operational issuesthat any complex project or programmeinvolves. It follows that successful forest land-scape design will be able to identify and engagewith different management approaches and use the negotiation process to build ownershipwhile deciding roles and responsibilities. Some-times one agency or another will desperatelyseek management control, and the task is tonegotiate shared understandings and responsi-

Box 18.1. Examples of Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) in theContext of Forest Landscape Restoration

The loggers simply don’t want to negotiate atall. They are going to go ahead and cutthose trees.

BATNA—What about going to the news-papers? Let the media know that this biodiversity hotspot is threatened andlocal people are suffering.

The donor is not able to give you another grantto add an extra component to this work.

BATNA—Perhaps write a report that helpsto bring the donor’s expectations in linewith your capacity to deliver.

The people in the community feel powerlessto enter face-to-face negotiations with the

government and the large Geneva-based andWashington, DC–based agencies.

BATNA—Possibly see if a mediator can befound who would be acceptable to bothsides.

The negotiations went well and trust is high,but the government was unable to agreeinvolvement of their officials due to gov-ernment rules.

BATNA—Perhaps work with another NGO with relevant expertise that cancomplement you but has no governmentrestrictions over committing official staff.

169a Fisher and Ertel, 1995.


bilities. At other times, it is a hard task to iden-tify any agency that feels able to take manage-ment responsibility.Again, this is an opportunityto explore why, and to undertake a collectivesearch for a solution that supports stakeholderswho are willing to put their names forward.

1.5. Negotiation Health Warning

Finally, it is important to note that like otheraspects of conflict management, negotiation isa culturally bound process. Different societies,groups, agencies, and organisations all have different cultures and approaches to managingconflict. While much of the literature on nego-tiations is Western and business-oriented, thereneeds to be a high degree of cultural sensitivityand contextually located understanding toproceed with negotiations, especially wheremany different cultures are involved in multi-stakeholder negotiations.

2. Examples

There is very limited experience in applyingconflict resolution and negotiation skills tolandscape initiatives in forest restoration. Wehighlight here just a few examples from otherchapters in this book that have shown somesuccessful or interesting outcomes throughnegotiations.

• In Vietnam, a three-dimensional paper andcardboard model was used to bring stake-holders together around “their” landscape to identify specific elements within it. Theprocess was aimed at reconciling differentviews of the landscape and what it could looklike in the future. It provided those aroundthe model with the opportunity to expresstheir views on the importance of differentelements in the landscape (more informationon this example can be found in “Assessingand Addressing Threats in Restoration Pro-grammes”).

• In Malaysia, an ongoing negotiation processwith oil palm plantation companies is gradu-ally ensuring a change in the companies’ poli-cies related to restoration. Whereas initiallythe companies converted their entire estates

to oil palm, they are now gradually allocatingpart of their land for natural regenerationand plantation of local species (for more onthis example see “Restoring Quality in Exist-ing Native Forest Landscapes”).

• In Jordan, negotiation between goat herdersand park authorities ensured a reduction in grazing, thus allowing for more naturalregeneration (for more on this example see“Restoration of Protected Area Values”).

3. Outline of Tools

Learning and applying the tools and skills forsuccessful conflict management cannot comefrom reading books or attending courses alone,but also involves long periods of trial and error,and observation—“learning by doing.” Manyparticipatory techniques described elsewhere inthis book are relevant. Tools and skill sets forconflict management that are particularly rele-vant include those relating to analysis, capacitybuilding,communications,creative thinking,nego-tiation, and project and process management.

3.1. Negotiation Process

Negotiating involves meeting to discuss ways ofreaching a mutual agreement or arrangement.A negotiation is a voluntary process in whicheach person or group (often called a party) hasa position that is not fixed, but that does haveits limits. A successful negotiation can create asense of ownership and commitment to sharedsolutions and shared follow-up actions. Thissense of ownership and commitment makesnegotiated solutions often more desirable, forexample, than legal solutions, where one partymay feel it lost out. In a conflict, some thingscannot be negotiated, and some things can.Usually it turns out that many more things canbe negotiated than people first thought. This isanother reason why negotiated agreements area valuable way, though not the only way, oftrying to manage conflicts in forest landscaperestoration. It follows that a first step in nego-tiation is reaching agreement on what is nego-tiable. Successful negotiations follow certainimportant principles (see Box 18.2) and require


Box 18.2. Some Principles and Skills Involved in Negotiating Forest LandscapeRestoration (See also Figure 18.2)

Be clear on what everyone means by theissue and the problems, opportunities, andpeople/agencies involved

Adopt a positive attitude, for example, beingclear that conflicts are not just problemsbut also opportunities

Have in mind some kind of a route map,some idea about ways in which key stake-holders wish to proceed

Address role, responsibility, and legitimacyissues, including the limitations (bound-aries) to your negotiating authority

Build and maintain effective rapport andrelationships

Active listeningIdentify high-quality, relevant questionsEmbrace multiple perspectives and

perceptionsBuild on what is already there (including cul-

tural aspects of conflict management andproblem solving)

Consider process (law, custom, institutional)as well as structural conflicts and conflictsof interest

Keep in mind options for withdrawing or notgetting involved further

Keep an eye on capacity building for self-development and organisationaldevelopment

Separate and focus on the problem and notthe personalities

Separate and focus on underlying needs andmotivations, not initial positions

Know what you would do if the negotiationsdid not work, perhaps because the otherparty broke the ground rules or tried touse unacceptable force (this is also calledknowing your BATNA: best alternative toa negotiated agreement; see Box 18.1)

Seek, explore, and emphasise commonground

Put your case in terms of their needs, not justwhy you want something

The more you know about the other’s position, the better able you are to findconsensus-based solutions; do somehomework to find out their situation

Maintain a creative, positive approachUse paraphrasing and other communication

skills to understand and describe theother’s points

Create a positive environment for the negotiation (think about the physical set-ting, the comfort and acceptability of theplace, the time, and the way you manageyourself)

Look for an early, small successes (reachagreement on something early, even if that is just the venue, then emphasise thatagreement; common ground—start small)

Make sure your preparations are as com-plete and accurate as possible.Write downwhat you have done to prepare. Checkwith a colleague. Check with another col-league. Seek constructive feedback.

Keep in mind:

1. The process and conflict managementstyle

2. Your goals and boundaries (your limit orbottom line)

3. Opportunities to address power inequalities4. Your colleagues’ needs, expectations, and

ability to act as resources5. Your personal values and principles6. Time and space for reframing issues7. Capacity building needs that may emerge8. The needs for more analysis that may

emerge

Multiple perspectives and perceptions canbe useful. A diversity of opinion helps usshed light on the issue from different direc-tions.Treat difference and diversity not as anemotional trigger to fight against, but as amoment of opportunity to engage with.


knowledge, skills, and a positive attitude. It ishelpful to look at each of these things in rela-tion to three phases in negotiations:

• Preparation—what we need to do before thenegotiation

• Negotiation itself—could take place in onemeeting or over several meetings

• Follow-up—what we need to do after the nego-tiation is over and agreement has been reached

A negotiation can happen at any time.Entering a community or a government offi-cial’s office may require a negotiation.The gate-keeper may want to know some details beforepeople just walk in, including when a group oragency will arrive, how long it will stay, underwhose authority, with what level of formality,and to do what.

Having agreed to who are the stakeholderswho need to be involved, a process of negotia-tions in forest landscape restoration will prob-ably look something like this:

1. Each group works to understand the other group’s initial positions relating to thelandscape.

2. Each group then asks high-quality ques-tions and uses listening skills to try to under-stand underlying needs, fears, and motivationsin identifying restoration interventions.

3. The parties try to deploy creative thinkingand other skills to generate a wide range ofoptions that could address these needs, fears,and motivations.

4. This range of options is prioritised andbrought together in ways that allow everyoneto gain as much as possible.

5. An agreement is sought, to which every-one can commit.

6. That agreement is tested against the realworld to make sure it is achievable.

7. The parties agree on the next steps, onhow to manage the restoration interventionsand the resources that are needed, and on ways of monitoring the agreements and com-mitments they have made.

3.2. Analytical Tools

A large number of analytical tools and skillsthat are used in participatory forest manage-

ment, project management, and developmentcan be brought to bear in conflict management.Examples include participatory appraisal,170

a variety of approaches for measuring andanalysing sustainability,171 and more generaltools that help to frame and guide furtheranalysis, such as STEEP, SWOT, problem trees,and forcefield analyses.172 The key is to usethose that are relevant for different stakehold-ers and that help to bring understanding andwider perspectives on the issues. Key analyticaltools, though, include the following:

• Stakeholder analysis173

• Conflict mapping and situation analysis174

• Tools that address power relations, culture,and gender175

A variety of analytical tools can feed into asummary conflict analysis. Conflict analysis canbe done in the office (alone or in a group) or inthe field (for example, in participatory exer-cises) or in combination. Successful analysesare clear about who undertook the analysis,when, and why, and make it clear how differentgroups were involved in verifying and agreeingto analysis summaries from different stake-holder perspectives. Of course, as events changeand time moves on, analyses need to be revis-ited. This is especially important when newstakeholders enter the picture or establishedstakeholders leave, and when critical eventschange key stakeholders’ circumstances.

Analysis helps to identify the domain of con-flict (e.g., domestic, social, cultural, economic, orpolitical) and whether conflict is nested withinseveral domains. Conflict mapping with keyindividuals or stakeholder groups, can help tosummarise information and show up major differences and possible ways forward. Oneexample is given as a matrix (Fig. 18.3).However, flow charts,Venn diagrams, and othervisually powerful mapping tools can help

170 Jackson and Ingles, 1998; www.fao.org/participation.171 Bell and Morse, 2003; Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002.172 Pretty et al, 1995.173 DFID, 2002b, section 2; Ramirez, 1999; Richards et al,2003.174 DFID, 2002b, section 3; Fisher et al, 2000; Wehr, 1998.175 Fisher et al, 2000.


communicate the outcomes from an analysis. Itis important to remember, though, that theprocess of analysis itself is a part of managingconflict. Done well, the process itself can helpfoster trust and mutual understanding.An earlyagreement on the individual and collective concerns and opportunities can help establishthe stage for positive negotiation of emergingissues.

3.3. Capacity Building

Undertaking a process of analysis often re-quires capacity building. Some stakeholderswill be familiar with negotiating from a businessperspective. Others will see negotiations asembedded within their own culture andsociety—the way they negotiate and problemsolve will be different. Others may use legalframeworks or a scientific approach to analysis.Again, addressing the process of analysis isitself a part of the overall approach to manag-ing conflict. Capacity building skills and toolsmay need to be deployed at an early stage.

Identifying and responding to gaps in conflictmanagement skills or to gaps in resourcesrequires a sophisticated approach to capacitybuilding backed up by appropriate levels ofresourcing (e.g., for training and stakeholdersupport). Building capacity is best seen as anongoing activity rather than a linear one. High-quality capacity building forms part of address-ing inequalities in power relations. Strengthsand needs analysis and some form of trainingneeds analysis are important first steps in

capacity building.176 Capacity building actionsalso need to be linked with reflection, so thatinterventions can be monitored and evaluatedon an ongoing basis. This process, too, helps tobuild confidence and trust, when people appre-ciate the fact that someone somewhere is takingresponsibility for empowering key stakeholdersto participate effectively.

3.4. Effective Communications

Building and maintaining effective communi-cations are key aspects of conflict managementand multi-stakeholder partnerships in forestlandscape restoration. Providing, managing,using, and facilitating access to information ispart of any communication strategy.177 What isadditionally important in conflict managementis ensuring that these things translate intomeaningful understanding. Indeed, effectivecommunications are vital to generating and dis-seminating the high levels of understanding ofdifferent stakeholders’ perspectives and needsthat good conflict management requires. Someaspects of effective communications relate togeneral communications strategies: the frame-works and mechanisms for enabling stakehold-ers to engage with one another on relevantmatters. This includes documents, meetings, theuse of different media, and an overall informa-tion, communication, and monitoring manage-ment system, such as a logical framework or

Name of person or party A B CPosition or stance in relation to the conflictNeedsConcerns, anxieties, or fears Attitudes toward the others Assumptions about the othersValues and beliefsHistorical issues (e.g., past misunderstandings) Types of power (e.g., moral, financial, political)

Figure 18.3. Matrix to help analyse conflict.

176 Bartram and Gibson, 1997.177 Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002, Ch. 8.


action plan. Other aspects relate more to inter-personal communications, such as getting thebalance right between telling and asking, orbecome a good listener (Box 18.3).

In dealing with conflict, one important dis-tinction is between telling and asking. Givingfree information is an important part of building communications. However, if one isusually “telling” people, this can be perceivedas aggressive and dominating (e.g., “I’m goingto tell you what the law says—and that is theend of the story”). Asking relevant questions inan involving, open way can communicate asense of concern and interest, that someone hasbothered to identify questions that may helpmutual understanding. Of course, a balancebetween the two is needed.

3.5. Creative Thinking

People and agencies tend to think and react inthe ways that they always have done. The waywe think is constrained by many things, includ-ing our experience, worldview, education, anddegree of comfort with new ideas. Creative

thinking is about breaking these patterns tolook at situations in new ways—thinking“outside the box.” Creative thinking is animportant asset to conflict management at allstages, not just analysis. Often, a breakthroughcan come when creative thinking allows the sit-uation to be reframed—changing the way weconstruct and represent the conflict.178 Reach-ing agreement requires strong skills in synthe-sis—thinking creatively about how to developan agreement and monitoring process thateveryone can live with can be challenging. Anumber of tools exist that can help enhancepeople’s creative thinking skills. One-on-oneand in small groups, good facilitators and train-ers can help to build creative thinking skills.Where things get trickier is moving throughorganisations’ management and decision-making structures to translate the creative,useful thoughts into actions that are helpful.Creative thinking is culturally embedded.Indeed, culture plays a major part in resisting

Box 18.3. Barriers to Good Listening

“On-off listening”—drifting off into per-sonal affairs while someone is talking

“Switch off” listening—words that irritate usso that we stop listening

“Open ears–closed mind” listening—wedecide the speaker is boring and think thatwe can predict what he or she will say, sowe stop listening

“Glassy eyed” listening“Too deep for me” listening—when ideas are

complex or complicated there is a dangerwe will switch off

“Matter over mind” listening—when aspeaker says something that clashes withwhat we think and believe strongly, wemay stop listening

Being “subject-centred” instead of “speaker-centred”—details and facts about an inci-

dent become more important than whatpeople are saying themselves

“Fact” listening—we try to remember factsbut the speaker has gone on to new factsand we become lost

“Pencil” listening—trying to put down onpaper everything the speaker says usuallymeans we are bound to lose some of it andeye contact is also lost

“Hubbub” listening—there are many dis-tractions that we listen to instead

“I’ve got something to contribute” listen-ing—something the speaker says triggerssomething in our own mind and we are soeager to contribute that we stop listening

An awareness of the above barriers to lis-tening can be a first step in avoiding them.

178 Lewicki et al, 2003.

Adapted from training materials, Centre for International Development and Training, University of Wolverhampton, UK.


and improving creative thinking skills, in organ-isations as well as other groups.179

4. Future Needs

Most conservation organisations, forestrydepartments, and companies have only verylimited knowledge about conflict resolution.Capacity building for conflict management andnegotiation within conservation and forestryorganisations is a critical need in terms of build-ing the ability to work across broad scales andmainstream conservation. Most of the tools andexpertise are known but have been applied in only a very limited way within the field ofnatural resource management.

References

Bartram, S., and Gibson, B. 1997. Training NeedsAnalysis. Gower Publishing, London.

Bell, S., and Morse, S. 2003. Measuring Sustainability.Earthscan, London.

Dalal-Clayton, B., and Bass, S. 2002. SustainableDevelopment Strategies. OECD, Earthscan andUNDP. Earthscan Publications, London.

Department for International Development(DFID). 2002a. Conducting conflict assessments:guidance notes, DFID. Government of the UnitedKingdom, http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/conflictassessmentguidance.pdf.

Department for International Development(DFID). 2002b. Tools for development. DFID,Government of the United Kingdom. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/toolsfordevelopment.pdf.

FAO, 2002.Fisher, S., et al. 2000. Working with Conflict. Zed

Books, London.Fisher, R., and Ertel, D. 1995. Getting Reading to

Negotiate, Penguin Books, London.Hofstede, G. 1994. Cultures and Organisations:

Software of the Mind—The Successful StrategistSeries. Harper Collins, London.

Jackson, W.J., and Ingles, A.W. 1998. ParticipatoryTechniques for Community Forestry. World WideFund for Nature, IUCN-World ConservationUnion and Australian Agency for InternationalDevelopment, Gland, Switzerland.

Jones, P.S. 1998. Conflicts about Natural Resources.Footsteps No. 36 (September). Tearfund, Tedding-ton, London.

Lewicki, R.J., Gray, B., and Elliott, M. 2003. MakingSense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts:Concepts and Cases. Island Press, Covelo andWashington, DC.

Pretty, J.N., Gujit, I., Thompson, J., and Scoones,I. 1995. Participatory Learning and Action: ATrainer’s Guide. International Institute for Envi-ronment and Development, London.

Ramirez, R. 1999. Stakeholder analysis and conflictmanagement. In: Buckles, D. ed. CultivatingPeace—Conflict and Collaboration in NaturalResources Management. World Bank, Washing-ton, DC.

Richards, M., Davies, J., and Yaron, G. 2003. Stake-holder Incentives in Participatory Forest Manage-ment. ITDG Publishing, London.

Warner, M., and Jones, P.S. 1998. Conflict resolutionin community based natural resources manage-ment. Overseas Development Institute PolicyPaper (No. 35), August.

Warner, M. 2001. Complex Problems, NegotiatedSolutions. ITDG Publishing, London.

Wehr, P. 1998. International on-line training programmeon intractable conflict. http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/cemerge.htm.179 Hofstede, 1994.


In the face of increased threat of massivespecies’ extinction, with estimates that morethan half of the world’s threatened species liveon less than 1.4 percent of the earth,180 it maybe important to consider a range of practicaland tactical interventions to begin to reversethis rapid degradation, particularly in highlythreatened areas that are extremely rich in bio-diversity.

There are still surprisingly few examples ofsuccessful forest restoration from a conserva-tion perspective, particularly at a large scale.181

Elsewhere, we have discussed the importanceof carrying out restoration as a component of

larger conservation and development pro-grammes, but in some cases there may also beopportunities to carry out useful restorationmore opportunistically.This chapter is intendedto highlight some tactical interventions thatcould be undertaken if framed within a forestlandscape restoration process or approach.

Planning at a landscape or ecoregional scaleis difficult enough, but actually intervening atthat scale is generally harder still. In a forestlandscape restoration context, activities such asplanning, engagement, priority setting, negotia-tion, trade-offs, modelling, etc. are usually allbest carried out at a landscape scale. However,with the exception of some policy interventions,most of the practical restoration actions willtake place at sites within the landscape orecoregion. Although planning processes areoften lengthy, some actions can often start inanticipation of the overall long-term strategy to restore forest landscapes; generally someresponses will be clear and uncontroversial andthese can often be initiated even whilst moredifficult issues remain unresolved.

This chapter discusses the types of specificand punctual interventions related to restora-tion that a field programme may considerundertaking. Some of these would be expectedto arise within a longer term strategy to restoreecological and social forest functions but mayalso come in advance of such a strategy due tolack of funds for the overall process, lack ofbuy-in from stakeholders, and other issuesrelating to expediency or urgency. When aspecies is facing immediate threats of extinc-

19Practical Interventions that WillSupport Restoration in Broad-ScaleConservation Based on WWFExperiencesStephanie Mansourian


Urgent conservation or livelihood problemsmay necessitate short-term, strategic inter-ventions even in the absence of a longer-term programme.

A series of 10 different tactical interventionsare suggested, ranging from threat removalto positive economic incentives.

136

180 Brooks et al, 2002.181 TNC, 2002.

19. Practical Interventions that Will Support Restoration 137

tion, for instance, short-term measures may beneeded even while long-term planning is still inprocess. None of the proposed interventionsbelow replace larger scale efforts, nor are theymeant to be implemented in isolation from abroad-scale planning process. Rather, they areto be seen as elements of the larger process andas possible entry points; success at a small scaleis one of the most effective ways of gainingsupport for larger-scale programmes.

When selecting one of the proposed entrypoints listed below (see Outline of Tools), it isimportant to think of the desired impact of thistactical intervention:

• Is it to influence a specific group of stake-holders? Which one and what is the desiredeffect?

• Is it to understand better the dynamics (bio-logical or social) in the landscape?

• Is it to change sociopolitical conditions in the landscape before engaging in restorationwithin the landscape? Which conditions?And what is the most cost-effective way tochange them?

• What are the resources (human and finan-cial) and time involved? Can we affordthem?

• What are the priority issues that needaddressing soonest?

2. Examples

2.1. Research into DifferentRestoration Methods in Malaysia

Some palm oil companies along the Kin-abatangan River in Sabah, Borneo, have agreedto set aside land for restoration. Initial trialsshowed limited success. Starting in 2004, in aneffort to identify the most successful techniquesfor restoration, tests began using differentmethods on a small plot of land. These are themethods proposed (during a field visit by theauthor):

• Natural regeneration with no intervention(including a smaller study area fencedagainst browsing animals)

• Assisted natural regeneration (mainly someland preparation and weeding around regen-erating species)

• Planting with native species (using speciesadapted to local conditions and including ifpossible both commercially valuable diptero-carp trees and fruit trees)

• Planting an exotic species as a nurse crop tofoster natural regeneration

Each approach is to be monitored on aregular basis in order to determine which oneyields the highest survival rates. The long-termaim of this research is to disseminate the mostsuitable restoration methods in all the areas setaside for restoration along this important bio-diversity corridor.

2.2. Changing the Forest Policy inBulgaria Thanks to a Cost-Benefit Analysis182

Bulgaria’s 75 islands on the Danube river arerich in biodiversity, and are an importantstopover site for migratory birds. Yet, over thelast 40 years, the government has systematicallyconverted natural floodplain forest to hybridpoplar plantations to supply the local timberindustry. Until the year 2000, the governmenthad plans to continue conversion of thisecosystem, leaving only 7 percent of the origi-nal forest. Thanks to a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis, sponsored by the World Bankand WWF, it was shown that financial lossesfrom suspending timber production on certainislands could be offset by intensifying produc-tion in areas already converted to poplar plantations. Additional benefits that were high-lighted by the analysis included the potentialuse of original forest for recreational purposes,improved fishing (by creating more spawninggrounds), the harvest of nontimber forest prod-ucts, and possible ecotourism development. In2001 the government, therefore, changed itspolicy, adopting one that called for the imme-diate halt of all logging and conversion offloodplain forests to poplar plantations on theDanube islands, restoration of native species

182 Ecott, 2002.

138 S. Mansourian

in selected sites, as well as strengthening of the protected areas network on the islands.Although a longer term forest landscaperestoration programme for the Danube isunderway, this tactical intervention helped tomaintain a unique habitat that might well havedisappeared before the more detailed pro-gramme was implemented.

3. Outline of Tools

3.1. Focussing on Removing orReducing the Identified Threats

Sometimes it will be sufficient to remove,reduce, or mitigate a particular threat or pres-sure on forests in a landscape to set them on a positive path toward regeneration. Becausethreats often originate from political or eco-nomic decisions, changing them may requiresignificant lobbying, backed up by negotiations,research, and building of strategic partnerships.If these threats can be reduced or removed,natural regeneration can often be significant (ifthere are no other biophysical constrainingfactors).

Examples of threats that are common as an impediment to natural forest regenerationinclude the following:

• Alien invasive species (e.g., electric ants,Wasmannia auropunctata, in New Caledonia)

• Government incentives that foster forestconversion (e.g., Chile’s subsidies for plantations)

• Infrastructure projects (e.g., the constructionof the Ho Chi Minh highway in Vietnam)

• Demand for cash crops (e.g., valuable soyaexpansion in Paraguay causing forest conversion)

• Unsustainable agricultural practices (e.g.,Slash and burn agriculture in Madagascar)

• Illegal logging (e.g., in Indonesia)• Uncontrolled and “unnatural” fires (e.g., in

India)

Concentrating first on removal of threats isappropriate when it is clear that addressing theidentified threat can lead to natural regenera-tion or restoration with only limited interven-

tions. This is also a necessary choice in caseswhen a field project cannot start until the threathas been addressed.

Depending on the social and economiccontext, some threats may be much easier toaddress than others. For instance, illegal loggingis in itself a very complex issue, which may wellbe beyond the remit of a restoration project.However, knowledge of key areas affected canhelp determine where (or even whether) andhow to establish a restoration programme. It isimportant to recognise threats that cannot beaddressed, or resources may be pumped into ahopeless situation.

3.2. Changing Government Policies

Often, a change in government policy mayprovide the right conditions to promoterestoration (also see “Policy Interventions forForest Landscape Restoration”). In some casesit may be necessary to lobby for more sup-portive policies, while in others, it may be necessary to remove destructive ones. TheEuropean Union’s (EU’s) Common Agricul-ture Policy (CAP) has for instance investedsignificantly in afforestation with limited socialand ecological results (see case study “TheEuropean Union’s afforestation Policies andtheir Real Impact on Forest Restoration”).WWF and other local partners are trying toaddress this in many EU countries (particularlyin southern Europe) by demonstrating alterna-tive, more socially and environmentally appro-priate forms of restoration that could befinanced by the same CAP subsidies. It will beimportant and relevant to focus efforts on gov-ernment policies when these have been identi-fied as a key factor in causing the loss anddegradation of forests (e.g., perverse incen-tives) or when there is a clear opportunity toengage the government in supportive policies(e.g., a new forest plan being developed). Insome countries, like Vietnam or China, thereare huge government programmes promotinginvestments in reforestation/afforestation.Because of the scale of these programmes, it isoften wiser (and economically more efficient)to engage in these processes than to investefforts in a separate project.


3.3. Using Advocacy Levers

Some advocacy, lobbying, and economic toolscan be used to encourage change that supportsforest restoration or that removes or reducesthe pressure on forests.

• Market pressure: The market may be used to promote the use of products from well-managed forests or forests that are beingrestored. For example, WWF has worked onthe palm oil markets in Switzerland topromote better practices in Malaysia wherethe oil palm plantations have significantlydamaged natural forest cover and whererestoration of natural forest is now having totake place. This signifies engaging in researchon market routes and raising awareness atthe consumer end, as well as promoting solu-tions for better practices at the productionend.

• Pressure using multilateral donors: Multilat-eral donors may be used as a lever for changeeither through their own projects or throughimposing conditionality on loans. Forexample, agencies such as the Asian Devel-opment Bank (ADB) have active projectsrelated to forest policy, but they also financeplantation projects. In Vietnam, for instance,the ADB is one of the main donors to thegovernment’s Five Million Hectares Refor-estation Programme. Working together withsuch institutions may be a way of improvingpractices within their projects and alsoencouraging change in those projects thatthey finance.

• Communications/media tools such as Gifts tothe Earth: WWF developed the Gifts to theEarth tool, a public relations mechanism, topay tribute to major acts that favour the envi-ronment. This is one of many creative toolsthat may be used as an incentive for a gov-ernment or other decision maker to changecurrent policies or adopt new ones thatwould be more beneficial to or supportive ofrestoration.

• Campaigning: mobilising many stakeholdersto put pressure on the relevant decisionmakers (governments, multilateral agencies,the private sector) is an effective means of

ensuring change. It does need to be usedcarefully, however, and must be founded ongood data.

3.4. Changing Companies’ Practices

Traditionally, conservation organisations havenot worked much with the private sector. Yetgiven that the largest companies are largerfinancial players than most governments andthat they often determine future land-useoptions (e.g., mining companies, plantationcompanies, infrastructure companies), it isimportant to work with them in any large-scale restoration effort in order to ensure thatrestoration is well integrated in their plans.

This is, for instance, an effective way ofencouraging companies to adopt best (or atleast “better”) practices. Many companies arehappy to work with civil society organisationsespecially if improvement in their standardsmeans some form of certification, media oppor-tunities, and even in some cases the additionalbonus of more efficient (cheaper) production.The sorts of sectors that may be influentialinclude the infrastructure sector, the miningsector, and the forestry sector.WWF is currentlyengaging with large plantation companies suchas Stora Enso to not only promote better man-agement of their estates but also assist them torestore areas of the land that they manage.

3.5. Valuing Forests

Governments sometimes neglect or mismanageforests because the goods and services that theyproduce have not been properly valued. Byobtaining recognition of the value of forestsfrom either the government (if it is the majorcause of concern) or local communities, restora-tion of those values can be promoted.

This can be done a number of ways:

• Through a traditional cost-benefit analysis thatwould provide a good argument for restora-tion for governments (see the Bulgariaexample, above)

• Through research and surveys with localcommunities, particularly elders, to identifywhat values have been lost and what values

140 S. Mansourian

they would like to see restored. For example,in Vietnam WWF has engaged with commu-nities and the provincial government in thecentral Annamites to identify the forestvalues that have been lost as a starting pointfor setting future restoration objectives.

While recognising the value of forests is oneimportant step, it is but the first step. Govern-ments and other decision makers then need to take necessary measures to ensure that those values are protected and where relevantrestored.183

3.6. Specific Research

Often a large-scale programme to restore arange of forest functions cannot start until a number of specifications of the landscape are better understood. Initial research can becarried out with limited funds as a way to starta larger-scale programme.

This research may be related to any of thefollowing, for example:

• Restoration techniques: While a number ofrestoration techniques have been tried andtested, it is not always easy to know whichone will work best under local conditions. Asmall-scale trial plot can help identify those(see example on Borneo, above).

• Species’ mix: Often exotic species have beenused because they are better understoodthan local ones. Research money may be wellspent on identifying the growth rate of andnecessary conditions for specific local speciesas well as on the optimal mix of species.

• Removal of invasive species: Invasive speciescan often be the single most importantimpediment to natural regeneration or maintenance of forest quality within existingforests. Applied research can help test differ-ent techniques to remove the invasive specieswhile promoting indigenous ones.

• Communities and stakeholders: Socioeco-nomic research may be necessary to under-stand better the profiles of stakeholders inthe landscape and their motivations, pres-sures, livelihood conditions, and aspirations.

• Market research: Market research may behelpful when seeking to promote alternativeincome generating activities.

• Upstream versus downstream: In a landscapecontext, it may be important to identify the types of activities upstream and theirimpact downstream. For example, deforesta-tion upstream may be causing sedimentationproblems downstream.To encourage restora-tion within the landscape context, such causeand effect will need to be clearly demon-strated to stakeholders and substantiated bysuitable research.

The above represent but a few of the numer-ous research topics. There are many others thatare specific to different conditions.

3.7. Awareness Raising

If there is no identified need from the local population for restoration, then attempts atrestoration are likely to fail. It is important toensure that relevant stakeholders understandthe linkages between restoration and the thingsthat matter to them (availability of usefulplants, soil protection, provision of forest prod-ucts, etc.), and this may necessitate an awareness-raising campaign. For example, inNew Caledonia, WWF is one of nine partnersengaging in the protection and restoration ofthe dry forest.The project has a number of com-ponents, including active engagement of stake-holders (particularly land owners), and it hasspent considerable time and resources workingwith local landowners to mobilise their supportfor restoration and to help them understand theimplications of restoring the dry forest (bene-fits and costs).

There are a number of different forms ofpublicity (different media, workshops) and partof the skill in successful advocacy is in identify-ing the one that will reach the target audience(e.g., radio is often a good way of reaching ruralpopulations in poorer countries).

3.8. Training and Capacity Building

One tactical intervention may consist of offer-ing training in relevant restoration techniques.For instance in Morocco, WWF has been183 Sheng, 1993.


invited to help redesign the university’s forestrycurriculum to include specific restoration elements.

The sorts of training that can be providedinclude the following:

• Nursery design and development: Trainingcan be provided to farmers and other com-munity members on managing tree nurseries.This may also include elements of seedrecognition and collection.

• Agroforestry techniques: When agriculturalpractices are an issue, training farmers intechniques such as agroforestry that aremore compatible with some form of naturalforest cover can be a useful approach withina forest landscape restoration initiative.

• Training can be provided in alternativeincome-generating activities (see below) toreduce the impact people are having onforests while offering them a realistic liveli-hood alternative.

• Improved grazing practices may sometimesbe a simple way of returning areas of land tonatural forest.

• In relevant cases, training may involve betterfire management practices (to remove firerisks, to control them, or to undertake pre-scribed burns).

3.9. Forest-Friendly EconomicActivities (Microenterprise Development)

In many countries the pressure on forests,the conversion of forests, or the hindering ofnatural regeneration is driven by the poorestpeople, who rely on forests for their immediateneeds but are under too much short-term pres-sure to invest in long-term restoration strate-gies. One way of addressing this may be byproviding training in improved practices thatwill help both sustain their own resource baseand reduce forest degradation, or, on the otherhand, by offering new economic activities thatreduce their detrimental impact on forests. Fora conservation organisation, this will generallyrequire partnering with development organisa-tions with expertise in, for example, microen-terprise development.

For example, in Madagascar, the main threatto forests is slash-and-burn agriculture withshort fallow periods. In a country with such highpoverty levels, the only way to reduce this pres-sure on forests is to provide alternative liveli-hood options for those local communities. Anumber of successful microenterprise develop-ment programmes have been attempted byentities such as USAID (US Agency for International Development),184 the U.N., andCARE. These programmes may not have beenexplicitly intended to reduce pressure onforests, but in partnering with conservationorganisations two objectives could be reached:improving livelihoods while ensuring thatforests are protected and, where appropriate,restored. When promoting such alternativelivelihood options, it is important to undertakesuitable feasibility and market studies, and notengage people, for instance, in honey produc-tion if there is no market for it.

3.10. Paying Communities forBetter Practices

It may sometimes be necessary or appropriateto use project money to compensate communi-ties for the loss they suffer by accepting restora-tion on land they own or use. This could be afirst activity before developing alternativelivelihood options. It can also be a way ofengaging communities that may not otherwisebe very receptive to the project. One risk withthis approach is that of getting communitiesaccustomed to compensation and expecting itover the long term. This clearly needs to be ashort-term activity with a clear plan to moveinto other activities.

4. Future Needs

In an ideal world, a comprehensive restorationprogramme would be well thought out, wouldaddress a range of stakeholders’ priorities,would be implemented at various scales(national, local, regional), and would be giventhe necessary resources and time to succeed.

184 ARD-RAISE Consortium, 2002.

142 S. Mansourian

Unfortunately, this is often not the case, andtherefore punctual interventions like thoselisted above may become necessary firstactions. All of the actions listed above wouldbenefit from being integrated into large pro-grammes that aim to restore forest functionswithin landscapes for the benefit of people andbiodiversity. One future need, therefore, is fordecision makers and donors to allocate suffi-cient resources to allow for the implementationof the large-scale programmes that are requiredto achieve the restoration of forest functions inmany regions of the world. Another need is for more creative partnerships between public,private, and civil society organisations, as well as between development and conservationorganisations to achieve the ambitious aims ofrestoring forest functions in landscapes.

References

ARD-RAISE Consortium. 2002. Agribusiness andforest industry assessment. Report submitted toUSAID–Madagascar, November 18.

Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G.,et al. 2002. Habitat loss and extinction in thehotspots of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16(4):909–923.

Ecott, T. 2002. Forest Landscape Restoration:Working Examples from Five Ecoregions. WWF,Gland, Switzerland.

Sheng, F. 1993. Integrating Economic Developmentwith Conservation. WWF International, Gland,Switzerland.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2002. Geography ofHope Update: When and Where to ConsiderRestoration. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,Virginia.

Additional Reading

Lamb, D., and Gilmour, D. 2003. Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests. IUCN andWWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Mansourian, S., Davison, G., and Sayer, J. 2002.Bringing back the forests: by whom and forwhom? In: Sim, H.C., Appanah, S., and Durst, P.B.,eds. Bringing Back the Forests: Policies and Prac-tices for Degraded Lands and Forests. Proceedingsof an International Conference, 7–10 October2002. FAO, Thailand, 2003.

Ormerod, S.J. 2003. Restoration in applied ecology:editor’s introduction. Journal of Applied Ecology40:44–50.

Sayer, J., Elliott, C., and Maginnis, S. 2003. Protect,manage and restore: conserving forests in multi-functional landscapes. Paper prepared for theWorld Forestry Congress, Quebec, Canada.

Section VIIMonitoring and Evaluation

1. Long-Term Impacts ofRestoration on Forest Ecosystems

• Understanding of the long-term dynamics ofdifferent ecosystems to help develop realisticrestoration targets

• Understanding the ability of different forestecosystems to recover quality over time andparticularly about the likely speed of recov-ery and the length of time after degradationwhen a forest can still recover (linked, forinstance, to survival time of buried seed populations), all of which are critical fordetermining whether natural regenerationwill suffice or more active efforts are required

• Measuring the sustainability of differentrestoration efforts, from ecological, social,and economic viewpoints

• Identifying the opportunities for manipulat-ing natural succession to favour desired outcomes

• Understanding what could enhance naturalsuccession after land abandonment

2. Climate Change andAdaptation

• Implementation of field projects to test andif appropriate develop restoration’s role inmitigating as well as in building resilience toclimate change

• Creative partnerships to analyse climateimpacts and proposed restoration activities

3. Knowledge of Species

• Understanding the role that individualspecies and microhabitats have in therestoration of ecosystem processes

• Clarifying the potential of indigenous speciesin restoration where planting is necessary,including information on genetics, propaga-tion techniques, the dynamics of ecologicalsuccession, the relationships between differ-ent species, the performance of indigenousspecies in plantation conditions, and the pro-duction of specific species in nurseries

• Disseminating information on where toobtain seed of indigenous species, how tostore the seeds, how to raise seedlings, andhow to establish these seedlings in the field

4. Plantations

• Developing user-friendly and location-specific silvicultural guidelines for plantationswith indigenous species to increase theiradoption by local farmers

• Gathering more information on the long-term dynamics of tree regeneration in plan-tations (to date, most studies have focussedon young plantations)

• Enhancing understanding of the role andlimitations of plantations in landscapes

Appendix 1Selection of Identified EcologicalResearch Needs Relating to Forest Restoration

424

Appendix 1 425

5. Linkages and Connectivity

• Understanding the role of corridors and eco-logical stepping stones and in particular howto make these most effective, conditions inwhich they will and will not work, challenges,problems to avoid, information about dis-tances species will disperse over unsuitablehabitat, use of corridors by invasive or pestspecies

• Developing greater experience on issuesrelated to connectivity of forests across land-scapes; for example, connectivity can be atleast obtained through the use of lines oreven isolated trees in the landscape, servingto buffer plantation areas, changing the“shape” of the plantation, etc.

6. Fires

• Increasing understanding of natural fireregimes including the forest structure neededto avoid high-intensity destructive fires andthe associated management implications

• Developing cost-effective fire control meas-ures with minimal biodiversity impacts

7. Invasive Species

• Improving methods for the control of inva-sive species

• Developing a comprehensive solution fordealing with invasive alien species as part offorest restoration

8. Artificial and NaturalDisturbance

• Drawing up codes of practice and perhapsprinciples for artificial disturbance

• Developing and disseminating methods ofenriching degraded or regrowth forests

• Developing enrichment planting guidelinesthat are species- and site-specific

9. Water and Forests

• Developing tools and methodologies for cal-culating net gains of different restoration andmanagement actions from the perspective ofwater supply

• Improving understanding of watershed-scaleprocesses

10. Links Between SiteConditions and Species

• Clarifying species-site relationships—there is often surprisingly little knowledge of thedistribution patterns and site requirements of most tropical tree species

• Quantifying better the influence of site con-ditions (precisely for each parameter) onspecies’ development and growth and oncommunities’ composition, and diversity,along with a better comprehension of thepotential trajectories of the communities(i.e., rupture thresholds, lag of time response).

modelling tools, 104reestablishment, 195, 247–248reservoirs, 360survey methods, 19–20

Biodiversity ConservationNetwork, 163

biological targets, 116–117biological values, in plantations,

394–395biomass, incorporation in soil, 351bird species, habitat restoration

for, 200Bitterroot National Park, USA,

336Borneo

forest regeneration, 137, 187,310

log landings rehabilitation, 364rubber, 276

BrazilAtlantic forest

forest loss, 19tree cover restoration, 252

commercial plantations,380–381

forest rehabilitation, 405, 406,409–410

Plantar project, 172–173restoration after mining, 292, 373

bridging substitutes, 206British Columbia, carbon

sequestration payments,168–169

buffer strips, 246buffer zones, 35–36, 309–310Bulgaria, forest policy change,

137–138burning, prescribed, 186–187, 272

Aabandoned land see land

abandonmentaccess controls, 211access rights, clarification, 235adaptive management approach,

417ADPM, 335advocacy, 124, 139afforestation, definition, 10agriculture, shifting, 274AGROCANP, 409agroforestry, 247, 274–279, 406,

407–409“agriculture in stages”, 410definition, 275future needs, 279overcoming impediments, 296techniques, 141tools, 278–279

Al Shouf Cedar Reserve,Lebanon, 187

Albatera, Spain, forestrestoration, 316–317

Algeria, reforestation, 317–318alley cropping, 275, 277–278Altai Sayan, Russia, 122Alternative Association of

Producers (APA), 409Amazon, coca in, 234amenity, emphasis on, 104Amur honeysuckle, 388ancient woodland, definition, 112Andresito, Argentina, 237, 253animal dispersal, 357anthropogenic disturbance

control, 251–252Appalachian region, 264

Index

427

Area de ConservaciónGuanacaste (ACG), CostaRica, 251–252

Argentina, Atlantic forest restoration, 75, 237–238, 253

“artificial negative selection”, 286Asian Development Bank

(ADB), 139Australia

exclusion zones, 211fire control, 272linkage corridors, 292mining reclamation, 372–373monoculture plantations,

292–293Tasmania, southern forests, 205

avalanche control, 104

BBai Bang Pulp and Paper Mill,

Vietnam, 409Bandipur National Park, India, 111barrier elimination, 254BATNA, 129bauxite mines, forest restoration,

292, 372–373beetles, saproxylic, 186, 203beneficial use laws, 79Bialowieza forest, Poland, 204bilateral donors, 139, 163biodiversity

conservationgoals, 42payments for, 167, 169–170plantation management in,382

in even-aged plantations seeeven-aged plantations

forest loss impact, 17–21

428 Index

CC-Plan, 119California, giant forest

restoration, 335campaigning, 139Canada

carbon sequestrationpayments, 168–169

eastern, deciduous hardwoodrestoration, 242–243

Pacific Northwest forests,205

capacity building, 127, 133, 421carbon knowledge projects,

171–175carbon market, 172, 174, 175carbon sequestration, 32, 382

estimation, 174payments for, 167, 168–169

carbon sinks, 171Carrifran, 9case studies, as policy change

stimulus, 124CATIE, 263, 264, 266Catskill State Park, USA, 230cattle grazing, 254CEAM Foundation, 154Cebu, Philippines, 407–408CEDISA, 408CELOS system, 362Central America

and Kyoto protocolmodification, 123

shade-grown coffee, 276–277Central Truong Son initiative,

Vietnam, 69, 153–154,157–158

Centre for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR), 405

Co-learn tools, 411institutional agreement

indicators, 412Review of Forest

Rehabilitation Initiatives,405

see also rehabilitation,sustainable

socioeconomic impactindicators, 412

Centre for Tropical ForestScience (CTFS), 111

change drivers, 103Chesapeake Bay watershed,

USA, 309–310Chiapas, Mexico, 358

Chile, temperate forestrestoration, 324–325

Chinaforest ownership policy, 86forest rehabilitation, 405, 406,

407, 410–411Grain-for-Green programme,

80mobile dune stabilisation,

352–353restoration benefits and

incentives, 87–88restoration drivers, 91slope stabilisation, 352

CIFOR see Centre forInternational ForestryResearch

Clean Development Mechanism(CDM), 172, 174

climate changeand invasive alien species, 349link to CO2 emissions, 171research needs, 424restoration in face of, 31–36threat to biodiversity, 31

Climate, Community, andBiodiversity (CCB)standards, 174

closures, 254cloud forest, 229, 303–305CO2Fix, 174coal mines, forest restoration,

373–374cocoa, 276codes of practice, 124coffee, shade-grown, 276–277Colombia, biodiversity

conservation payments, 169commercial plantations, in forest

landscape restoration,379–382

Common Agricultural Policy(CAP), forestry-relatedincentives, 80, 82–83

communicationsabout forest landscape

restoration, 176–180messages for specific

audiences, 177after storms, 343effective, 133–134proactive, 179rapid-response, 179–180tools, 139via Web sites, 180

communities, compensating, 141community-based cost-benefit

analysis, 28community-based fire

management (CBFiM), 337community-based forest

management (CBFM),407–408

company practices, changing, 139conceptual modelling, 76conflict management, 126–135

analytical tools, 132–133building blocks, 127capacity building, 127, 133, 421creative thinking, 134effective communications,

133–134examples, 130types of conflict, 126–127see also negotiation

connectivityin plantation biodiversity

restoration, 389research needs, 425strategy, 47see also fragmentation

consensus building workshops, 62conservation

by design, 55landscapes see landscape(s)

Conservation MeasuresPartnership (CMP), 147

conservationists, training, 422cork oak forests, 217–218Coronado National Forest,

Arizona, USA, 210Corrimony, Scotland, UK, 242cost-benefit analyses, 418

alluvial forests, 311–312community-based, 28extended, 62

Costa Ricaanthropogenic disturbance

control, 251–252, 259biodiversity conservation

payments, 169degraded pasture restoration,

264–265forest regeneration, 210, 287habitat linking, 54mixed plantations, 386–387thinning in teak plantations, 387watershed protection

payments, 168, 231Côte d’Ivoire, cocoa, 276

Index 429

critical thresholds, for species, 17cultural keystone species (CKS),

234cultural values, restoring

landscape for, 233–236

Ddams, 308Dana Nature Reserve, Jordan, 209deadwood

assessment, 205future needs, 206–207habitats provided by, 186, 204importance, 203restoration, 186, 199, 203–207

artificial, 201–202, 206zoning, 206

decision support tools, futureneeds, 57, 420

deforestationdefinition, 23see also forest loss and

degradationdegradation

causes, 257definition, 23removing cause of, 243vs. restoration, 101–102see also forest loss and

degradationDenmark, arable land

afforestation, 265designer landscapes, 103–104development trajectories, 103diagnostic sampling, 366direct planting, 367direct seeding, 244–245dispersers, management of, 254disturbance(s)

natural, 299patterns, influencing, 188research needs, 425using, 244

diversity nuclei/islands, 252, 254donor engagement, 177drivers of change, 103dry tropical forests see tropical

dry forestsDyfi estuary, Wales, UK, 186,

189–190

EEarth Conservation Toolbox, 55East Kalimantan, Indonesia,

334–335

ecolabelling, 167ecological attributes, vital, 153ecological integrity, 5

definition, 18ecological processes, 47ecological reconstruction,

245–246ecological restoration, definition, 9ecological succession see

successioneconomic analysis, 104, 124economic incentives, 124ecoregion(s)

definition, 4Global 200, 42, 51, 422terrestrial, 42, 43

ecoregion conservation (ERC),41–49

determining area to restore, 48goals, 42

restoration and, 44–48tools available, 49

ecoregional planning tools, 54–55ecosystem(s)

definition, 192long-term impacts of

restoration on, 425ecosystem consumption,

management, 258ecosystem fragmentation, 35, 292

see also connectivityecosystem processes, 192

restoration, 192–196ecosystem service payment

schemes, 28ecosystem values, evaluation, 359Ecuador

payment for watershedservices scheme, 162–163

water management, 229–230edge effects, 35egalitarianism, 87empowerment, 419endangered local species

saving, 263see also native species

engagement, 419Enhanced 5-S Project

Management Process, 147enrichment planting, 245, 260,

295–296, 364, 367environmental change, planning

for, 47–48environmental education

programmes, 255

environmental externalities,persistence, 79

environmental values, inplantations, 395

equityintergenerational, 86issues in community-owned

forests, 87ERDAS, 119erosion

control, 69, 299, 350–355, 375future needs, 355tools, 353–355

hill slope, 350in Iceland, 193, 194mass movement, 351–352models, 374–375wind, 351

ESRI, 119Ethiopia, user rights for forest

restoration, 88–89ethnobotanical surveys, 236European Union

afforestation policies, 80, 82–83forest reserves, 111grazing in woodlands, 123subsidies after storms, 342, 343

evaluation see monitoringeven-aged plantations, 384

biodiversity restoration in,384–390

factors influencing naturalregeneration, 388–389

future needs, 389–390planting to improve

microclimatic conditions, 388seed dispersal agent

attraction, 388factors altering biodiversity,

385–386evolutionary processes, 47exclusion zones, 211

FFagerön, Sweden, managed

forests, 186Fair-Trade Labelling

Organisation (FLO),certification, 220

fallow, improved, 277farmers

market information for, 296species preferences, 264, 390training, 421

FARSITE model, 271, 272

430 Index

fencing, 260financing, 161–165, 255, 404

domestic public sources, 163international systems of

payments, 164payment for goods and

services, 164private for-profit sources, 164private not-for-profit sources,

163–164sustainable, 420

Finlandboreal forest restoration,

327–328deadwood requirements, 199prescribed burning, 186–187,

327–328protected area interventions,

210southern region restoration

policy, 204–205species’ transfers, 200–201

fireas degradation factor, 334historical account, 331impacts, 332–333in the landscape, 331–332as natural disturbance, 333–334research needs, 425restoration after, 333–338

potential adverse impacts, 336tools, 336–337

as tool, 334fire-dependent specialist species,

199, 201fire management, 141, 201, 337,

396fire risk, 82

management strategies,269–270

firebreaks, 269–273widths, 270, 271

floodplain forestscharacteristics, 306–307restoration, 306–312

assessment, 310bedload transport, 307–308examples of measures,

308–309forest structure, 308future needs, 311–312hydrological connections,

307integrated river basin

management, 310–311

monitoring, 310scales, 307

focal species, 45focus groups, 61fodder harvest, 223FONAFIFO, 168Fontainebleau Forest, 204, 210,

340–341forcefield analyses, 132forest authenticity, 18

assessment of levels, 187, 188Forest Biodiversity Indicators

Project, 148forest certification, 389

NTFPs and, 220forest dependence

degree of, 85poverty and, 22, 26

forest dynamics plots, 111forest fires, mimicking see fire

managementforest fragments, 113, 205, 301forest landscape restoration

(FLR), 8active vs. passive, 95after fire see fire, restoration

afterbackground, 3–4balancing needs, 6, 404broader approach, 4–6capacity, 97challenges based on

experience to date, 94–98commercial plantations in,

379–382communications about see

communicationsdefinition, 5, 10–11end point, 96framework, 417–422funding see financinggoals, 94–95, 101–105, 109, 419growing recognition of need,

401–402guidelines, 12integration with protection

and management, 402key elements, 11lessons learnt, 415–417planning see restoration

planningpractical interventions see

tactical interventionsas a process, 402process of, 53

reasons for landscape scale, 6, 52as resilience/adaptation

strategy, 35–36resources, 96social impact, guiding

questions, 26–27suite of responses required,

402–403support needed, 404trade-offs in see trade-offsvaluation of goods and services,

95–96, 139–140, 170forest loss and degradation

addressing underlying causes,418

impact assessment, 418impact on biodiversity, 17–21impact on human well-being,

22–29examples, 25, 27–28

forest ownershipcommunal, 86–87definitions, 84–85and forest restoration, 84–92

future needs, 91–92tools to address issues, 90–91

and goods and services rights,86

stability, 86forest plantations, definition, 379,

384forest quality

assessment, 20, 187, 188restoration, 185–189

Forest Stewardship Council(FSC), 164

certification, 220–221forestry officers, training, 421Forests for Life Programme, 422Forests of the Lower Mekong

ecoregion, Indochina, 44“founder effect”, 244fragmentation, 35, 292

see also connectivity“framework species” approach,

245, 252–253, 289France

badlands restoration, 152–153,265

deadwood, 204floodplain forest restoration,

309forest management, 177–178Japanese knotweed invasion,

210

Index 431

lack of ecological monitoring,69

restoration after storm,341–342

storm disturbance data,340–341

frontier forestanalysis, 20definition, 112

fuel management, 271vs. fire suppression, 272

fuelwood, 223forest restoration for, 223–226plantation eras, 224–226

Fundación Vida SilvestreArgentina (FVSA), 75,237

Ggap analysis, 57, 113gap planting, 364gene flow, 47genetic diversity, maintenance, 36genetic selection, 263, 265–266geographic information system

(GIS) tools, 119in conservation/restoration

planning, 49, 325, 374in fire risk analysis, 271in suitability modelling,

117–118in threat assessment, 76–77

Ghana, collaborative forestmanagement, 27

Gifts to the Earth tool, 139Glen Affric, Scotland, UK,

323–324Global 200 ecoregions, 42, 51,

422global change issues, and

invasive alien species,349

Global Environmental Facility(GEF), 164

Global Invasive SpeciesProgramme (GISP), 347

Global Partnership on ForestLandscape Restoration,422

global warming, 32, 287see also climate change

goods and servicespayment for, 164valuation, 95–96, 139–140, 170

government incentives, 78–81

government policieschanging, 138and erosion control, 355

grazing management, 353–354green markets, facilitating access

to, 29Greenhouse Emissions

Reduction Trading(GERT), 169

GTZproperty legislation principles,

91Sustainable Forest

Management Project,334

Guanacaste National Park,Costa Rica, 210, 259,287

Guangdong, China, 410–411Guatemala, montane forest

restoration, 299–300Guinea, forest restoration, 53–54Gunung Kidal, Indonesia, 410

Hhabitat

loss, 386modelling, 116provided by deadwood, 186,

204reconnection, 46, 54

Hawaiialien grass control, 346–347native forests, 195, 205

hedgerow intercropping, 275,277–278

“hidden forest harvest”, 219high conservation value forests

(HCVF), 20, 235high conservation values

(HCVs), 235Hmong people, and land rights,

88home gardens, 235

multistorey, 276homogeneous monocultures,

restoration, 201human well-being

definition, 11, 23forest loss impact, 22–29

examples, 25, 27–28Hungary, mine site regeneration,

259hurricanes, 299hydrological models, 374–375

IIceland, substrate stability, 193,

194IDRISI, 118, 119IFOAM, certification, 220–221impact, definition, 23India

joint forest management, 27Nilgiri Biosphere, 111sacred forests, 234

indigenous species see nativeforests; native species

Indonesiacloud forest conservation,

303–305enrichment planting, 364forest rehabilitation, 405, 406,

407, 410plantation development

incentives, 79protection forests, 89–90pulp plantations, 380, 381rainforest rehabilitation,

334–335Indonesian deer, 347industrial plantations

best practice guide, 394–397era of, 225

inoculation, 264, 289, 294institutional arrangements, for

rehabilitation projects,407, 410–411

integrated approach, 417Integrated Conservation and

Development Projects(ICDPs), 403

intergenerational equity, 86International Erosion Control

Association, 355International Institute of

Rural Reconstruction,advice on land tenureissues, 91, 92

International Plant ProtectionConvention (1951), 347

International Tropical TimberOrganisation (ITTO)

planted forest guidelines,381–382

restoration guidelines, 90, 382,412

invasive (alien) species (IASs),345–346

control/removal, 346–349,387–388

432 Index

invasive (alien) species (IASs)(cont.)

by planting native species,253

future needs, 347–349methods, 187, 189, 260research, 140, 348tools, 347

impact, 195introduced intentionally, 346,

347introduced unintentionally, 346research needs, 425

JJari plantations, Brazil, 380–381Jarrah forest, Australia, 372–373Jordan, forest regeneration, 209

KKenya

improved fallow, 277montane forest restoration,

299quarry restoration, 9, 123water supply protection, 230

keystone species, 195, 198cultural (CKS), 234

Kinabatangan River, Malaysia,137, 187, 310

Kings Canyon National Park,USA, 335

KMYLB, 407–408knowledge, dissemination and

exchange, 421Kyoto protocol, 123, 168–169, 172

LLa Selva Biological Station,

Costa Rica, 264–265Lafarge, quarry rehabilitation,

123–124land abandonment, 356

forest restoration after,356–360

active, 358–359passive, 358socioeconomic tools, 359

land care, 104land mapping, 90, 117land ownership see forest

ownershipland tenure see tenureland-use scenarios, 67land value, mapping, 117

landscape(s)multifunctional, 6, 60, 216

promotion, 95see also forest landscape

restorationlandscape architecture, 104landscape beauty, payment for,

167landslides, 298–299Latvia, forestry regulations, 122learning by doing, 105Lebanon, forest management,

187liberation thinning, 366line planting, 364livelihood(s)

analysis, 28–29, 278definition, 23needs, in rehabilitation

projects, 406–407, 409–410,412

lobbying, following storms, 340,343

local participation, inrehabilitation projects,406, 407–409, 411–412

log landings rehabilitation, 364logging

biodiversity impacts, 362monocyclic, 362polycyclic, 362reduced-impact (RIL), 363see also overlogged forests

Lombok, Indonesia, 303–305LULUCF, 174

MMadagascar

choosing priority landscape, 97forest restoration, 74–75,

107–108, 288microenterprise development

programmes, 141plantation projects, 10seed dispersal problems, 357

Malaysiaforest reconnection, 187, 310log landings rehabilitation, 364native species silviculture, 293priority species identification,

98restoration methods research,

137Mandena Conservation Zone,

Madagascar, 74

mangrove restoration, 32–34,47–48

mappingexamples, 118–119future needs, 119in long-term modelling, 118of opportunities, 117–118to meet or set targets, 116–117

market pressure, 139market research, 140, 413marketing, of forest landscape

restoration, 176–177Mediterranean region

forest degradation, 313–314forest restoration

activities, 314–315after fires, 335–336examples, 315–318future needs, 319programme evaluation, 154tools, 318–319

land tenure, 314NTFPs in, 217–218plantation management,

357–358reference forests, 111wildfires, 314

Meket district, Ethiopia, 88METSO, 205Mexico

active restoration research, 358natural forest regeneration,

358pilot forest plan based on

NTFPs, 220Scolel Té project, 173–174shade-grown coffee, 277

microenterprise development,141

migration, 47mine site regeneration, 259

see also open-cast miningreclamation

mixed species plantations, 247,266–267, 389

Model Code of ForestHarvesting Practices, 363

modelling tools, 420Mombasa, Kenya, disused quarry

rehabilitation, 9, 123monitoring, 150–155, 420–421

in adaptive managementcontext, 145–148

common mistakes, 147framework for, 152

Index 433

future needs, 155, 420–421indicator selection, 151–152as key to success, 403long-term, 96, 118as management tool, 103of plantations, 397pressures, 288tools, 154–155vital attributes, 153

monoculture plantations, 246,292–293

monocultures, mosaics of, 246Morocco, forest restoration, 318Mount Kenya national park, 299mountain gorillas, 19Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary,

India, 111multicriteria evaluation (MCE),

62, 115, 117–118multidisciplinary teams, 420multifunctionality, 6, 60, 216

promotion, 95multilateral donors, 139, 163multipurpose tree, 275mycorrhizae inoculation, 264,

289, 294

NNairobi, Kenya, water supply, 230national level surveys, 19–20native forests

definition, 112restoration, 186, 190–191, 195

native speciesendangered, saving, 263issues related to use, 263–264planting, 253silviculture, 293

natural communitiesrepresentation, 44–45seral stages, 45

natural regeneration stimulation,250–255, 367

anthropogenic disturbancecontrol, 251–252

diversity nuclei use, 252“framework species” method,

252–253future needs, 254–255invasive species elimination,

253limiting factors, 251tools, 254vegetation as regeneration

facilitators, 253

natural succession see succession,natural

naturalnessassessment, 210–211components, 185–186

Neem tree, 235negotiation

alternative to, 129cultural considerations, 130need for, 418phases, 132principles, 128, 131process, 130–132skills, 131of trade-offs, 61–62, 279

Nepal, community forestry, 27New Caledonia

forest loss, 18invasive species control, 347tropical dry forests

programme, 68–69, 97–98,140, 287–288

New York City, water supply, 230New York State, salvage logging

ban, 341Nicaragua, biodiversity

conservation payments,169

Niger, watershed restoration, 353nontimber forest products

(NTFPs)community-based income-

generating systems basedon, 220

definition, 215environmental values, 216and forest certification, 220impact of loss of, 26legal frameworks for, 221in national forestry curricula,

221as response to poverty,

216–217restoration guidelines, 219socioeconomic benefits, 215, 216valuing in rural development,

219Novo Paraíso, Brazil, 409–410nurseries

design, 141seed availability in, 264

OOaxaca, Mexico, 358obstructions, above-ground, 354

old-growth, definition, 112open-cast mining reclamation,

9–10, 264, 292, 370–375conceptual framework, 371future needs, 375laws, 375planning, 371problems of mine soils, 372tools, 374–375

opportunity costs, 86, 104Oregon, USA, H.J. Andrews

Experimental Forest,110–111

organic matter addition, 195original forests, definitions, 112outgrower schemes, 162overland flow, 350overlogged forests

definition, 361restoration, 363–367

area protection, 365future needs, 367logging practice

improvements, 363planning, 365–366reasons, 363silvicultural interventions,

366–367overseas development assistance

(ODA), 162, 163overstorey removal, 366ownership, forest see forest

ownership

PPALNET system, 421Paluarco river, Ecuador,

162–163Panama, reforestation in

catchments, 230participatory appraisal, 132participatory rural appraisal

(PRA), 90–91, 278PASOLAC, 27payment for environmental

services (PES), 162,166–170, 231

valuation tools, 170people first era, 225–226Peru

Croton restoration, 218–219forest rehabilitation, 405, 406,

408–409pests, 346

control, 396

434 Index

Philippines, forest rehabilitation,405, 406, 407–408

Plan Vivo system, 174plant ecology, 266Plantar project, 172–173plantation companies, training,

396–397, 421plantation trees, as nurse plants,

259plantations

best practice guide, 394–397commercial, in forest

landscape restoration,379–382

even-aged see even-agedplantations

locating, 393managing, 393–397mixed species, 247, 266–267, 389monoculture, 246, 292–293monospecific, 384research needs, 424rubber, 379sustainability elements,

392–393tree species selection, 262–267

future needs, 267goals, 263issues related to native

species use, 263–264tools, 265–267

Poland, Bialowieza forest, 204policy changes, 402, 403policy incentives

perverse, 78–81redirection of, 81

policy interventions, 121–125tools, 124

political environment,supportive, 418–419

pollen analysis, 113polyacrylamides (PAMs), 355population viability analysis

(PVA), 45–46Portugal, restoration after fires,

335–336poverty

avoidance/mitigation, 26degrees of, 24elimination, 26and forest dependence, 22, 26mapping and assessment, 104NTFPs as response to, 216–217

predator–prey dynamics, 47pressures, monitoring, 288

Prestige oil spill, 178primary woodland, definition, 112prioritisation, 418

tools, future needs, 57priority landscapes, 42

identification, 67implementing conservation in,

55problem trees, 132process management, 128, 129PROCYMAF project, 28property

definition, 84–85rights, problems, 79types, 85

protect–manage–restoreapproach, 44, 52–53, 55

stages, 56–57protected areas

categories, 211restoration in, 208–212threats, 208zoning, 211

Puerto Ricorestoration via natural

succession, 292substrate stability, 193–194tree plantations, 259, 386

Qquality, forest see forest qualityQuintana Roo, Mexico, pilot

forest plan, 220Quito, Ecuador, water supply,

229

Rracks, installation of, 254Rainforest Alliance, Smartwood

Programme, 221range maps, 117Rapid Ecological Assessment

methodology, 20rapid rural appraisal (RRA),

90–91, 278rattan, 218REACTION programme, 154, 319reclamation see open-cast mining

reclamationreduced-impact logging (RIL),

363reference forests/landscapes, 55,

103, 109–113, 258tools, 112–113

reforestation, definition, 10

“regeneration nuclei”, 251rehabilitation

definition, 9sustainable, 405–413

future needs, 413institutional arrangements,

407, 410–411lessons from past projects,

406–407local participation, 406,

407–409, 411–412socioeconomic needs,

406–407, 409–410, 412tools, 411–412

relics, 366representation, natural

community, 44–45resilience-building, and forest

restoration andprotection, 33

restoration databases, 155restoration planning

framework, 66–68future needs, 70goals and targets, 94–95,

101–105, 109, 419multiple scales, 419need for, 65–66tools, 69–70

restoration trajectoriesidentification, 68reappraisal, 68

Rhone River, 309rills, 350Rinjani National Park,

Indonesia, 303–305Rio Cumbaza Basin, Peru,

408–409RISEMP, 169risk, sources of, 26river basin management,

integrated, 310–311rubber, 276

plantations, 379runoff control, 375Rural Development Regulation

(RDR), 82RUSLE model, 375Russia, woodland certification,

122

SSabah, Malaysia

forest regeneration, 137, 187,310

Index 435

log landings rehabilitation, 364sacred groves/forests/gardens,

234safety net, forests as, 24Saignon, 152salvage logging, 342

banning, 341SAPARD, 80, 82Saracá-Taquera National Forest,

Brazil, 373scattered tree plantings, 245scenarios, 62, 102–103

modelling tools, 102Scolel Té project, Mexico,

173–174Scotland

commercial plantations, 380,381

natural regeneration withgrazing, 242

pine forest restoration,323–324

SEAGA, 91secondary forests, 246, 276

restoration potential,321–322

seedavailability, 264collection, 141, 294dispersal, 357, 388

seeding, direct, 244–245Sequoia National Park, USA, 335Shaanxi Province, China, 352–353shifting agriculture, 274Sichuan Province, China, 352Sierra de las Minas, Guatemala,

299–300Sierra Espuña, Spain,

reforestation, 315–316SilvaVoc, 12silvopastoral systems, 169SIMILE, 102site-level restoration, 241–248

approach determination,241–242

degrading influence reduction,243

future needs, 248management considerations,

247–248reforestation for productivity

and biodiversity, 246–247tree cover initiation/

improvement, 244–246site-scale survey methods, 20

SITES/Marxan, 119skid trails rehabilitation, 364Slovakia, Tatra National Park,

341Smartwood Programme, 221social values, 394

see also cultural values;socioeconomic needs

Society for EcologicalRestoration International(SERI), 421

Socio-economic and GenderAnalysis (SEAGA), 91

socioeconomic needs, inrehabilitation projects,406–407, 409–410, 412

socioeconomic research, 140socioeconomic targets, 117Soil Association, Woodmark

Programme, 221soil conditioners, 355soil microcarbon analysis, 113soil nutrient reduction, 195soil protection, 351, 354soil remediation, 372, 375soil stabilisation, 266, 351soil surface manipulations, 351,

354Song Thanh Nature Reserve,

Vietnam, 75, 122, 293SOS Sahel, 89South Africa

outgrower schemes, 162toxic conditions amelioration,

194South Wales coalfield, 374Southeast Asia, rattan

production, 218Spain

firebreaks, 271–272mining reclamation, 373–374natural regeneration

stimulation, 253Prestige oil spill, 178reforestation, 314–316

spatial modelling, 325species

knowledge of, research needs,424

transfers of, 200–201species-based targets, 117species-site relationships, 295,

425Sri Lanka, silvicultural treatment

guidelines, 390

staff training, in plantations,396–397, 421

stakeholder(s)external, 60primary, 60in scenario development, 102secondary, 60

stakeholder analysis, 91, 132STEEP, 132STELLA, 102, 303Stockholm, Sweden, water

supply, 230storm disturbance

forest restoration after,339–343

key ideas, 340–341Stradbroke Island, Queensland,

Australia, 211subsidies, government, 79substrate fertility, 194substrate stability, 193, 194–195succession, 192

direction/manipulation, 194,195, 244, 257–260

tools, 259–260dynamics of, 254–255minimal intervention design,

258–259natural

causes halting, 257stimulation, 244understanding, 257–258

suitability modelling, 115,117–118

Sumatra, Indonesia, pulpplantations, 381

surveys, stakeholder, 61–62sustainability analysis, 132Sustainable Forest Market

Transformation Initiative(SFMTI), 163

sustainable rehabilitation seerehabilitation, sustainable

Swedendeadwood microhabitat re-

creation, 186water quality protection, 230

Switzerland, continuous coverforestry, 53

SWOT, 132systems approach, 417

Ttactical interventions, 136–142Tanzania, agroforestry, 243

436 Index

target speciescategories, 197–198as indicators of successful

restoration, 198–199restoration for, 197–202

future needs, 202planning, 200–201stand-level restoration

methods, 201–202targets

biological, 116–117socioeconomic, 117

Tasmania, southern forests, 205Tatra National Park, Slovakia, 341Tebang Pilih system, 362temperate forests

characteristics, 320–321ecological attributes, 321, 322restoration, 320–325

future needs, 325issues, 321–323tools, 325

tenureclarification, 235customary, 84, 85mapping, 117rights of, 29security of, 86

Terai Arc, Nepal, 46, 47Thailand

“framework species”approach, 252–253

land rights, 88thinning, 260, 292, 387, 389

liberation, 366threat(s)

direct, 73–74examples, 138indirect, 73, 74potential, 73–74removal of, 138

threat assessmentfuture needs, 77information needed, 73tools, 76–77

threat mapping, 76threat matrices, 76threshold barriers, 257–258tigers, 46timber, production objectives,

104timber stand improvement (TSI),

366Tonda de Tamajón woodland,

Spain, 253

toxic conditions amelioration,194, 195

tracking tools, for landscapes, 105trade-offs, 59–62, 248

negotiation, 61–62, 279types, 60–61win–win situations, 59

trainingin restoration techniques,

140–141tailored, 421–422

transects, 90, 278tree crops, 104

and forest restoration, 276–277Trombetas, Brazil, 9, 373tropical dry forests (TDF)

attractiveness to people, 286characteristics, 285–286restoration

active, 289Guanacaste National Park,

Costa Rica, 210, 259, 287monitoring pressures, 288New Caledonia, 68–69,

97–98, 140, 287–288passive, 288–289reasons for, 286–287

soil fertility, 289tropical moist forests

restoration, 291–296choice of method, 293–294choice of species, 294fostering animal diversity,

295future needs, 295–296obtaining seed, 294production-biodiversity

trade-off, 295raising seedlings, 294

tropical montane forestscharacteristics, 298overcoming natural succession

barriers, 300restoration, 298–301

choice of species, 300–301in face of natural

disturbance, 299remnant forest role, 301socioeconomic rationale,

298–299Tunisia, access to NTFPs, 220

UUganda, forest loss, 19umbrella species, 198

underplanting see enrichmentplanting

understorey developmentencouragement, 247

United Kingdomplantations, 54, 381see also Scotland; Wales

United Statesalien grass control, 346–347buffer zone restoration,

309–310fire control, 272giant forest restoration, 335Hawaiian forests, 195, 205H.J. Andrews Experimental

Forest, 110–111honeysuckle control, 388longleaf pine ecosystems,

146–147mine spoil restoration, 264salvage logging ban, 341water supply protection, 230wilderness values restoration,

210wildfires, 336

urban/forest interface, fire risk,270–271

urban frontier, proximity to, 48Utrillas coalfield, Spain, 373–374

VValdivian ecoregion, Chile, 324vegetation, as regeneration

facilitators, 253VENSIM, 102viable populations, of species,

45–47Vietnam

forest rehabilitation, 405, 406,407, 409, 411

integrated restorationapproach, 69

land rights, 88mangrove restoration, 34participatory monitoring

system, 153–154, 157–158pressures on remaining forests,

97reforestation programme,

122–123, 293three-dimensional model of

threats, 75–76vision(s)

development, 102–103fine-tuning tools, 104

Index 437

working together toward,422–423

voice, development of, 28vulnerability

household, 23–24to climate change, 34–35

WWales

commercial plantations, 381mining reclamation, 374native forest restoration, 186,

190–191Walomerah protection forest,

Indonesia, 89water

quality and quantity, 228–231research needs, 425scarcity, 228

Water Framework Directive, 311

watershed protection, paymentsfor, 167, 168, 231

watershed values, 231weed control, 396well-being see human well-beingWestern Europe, forest loss,

18–19wetland, restoration, 189–190wilderness

assessment, 210–211re-creation, 209

wildfiresin Mediterranean region, 314in United States, 336

wildwood, definition, 112wind

erosion by, 351resistance to, 340–341

windbreaks, 301wood harvesting methods, 354

woodlot era, 225Woodmark Programme, 221WWF

challenges based onexperience to date,94–98

and forest management inFrance, 178

Forests for Life Programme,422

lessons from experience todate, 401–404

Yyerba mate, 253Ynyshir bird reserve, Wales, UK,

186

ZZambia, improved fallow, 277

Documents

Restoration as a strategy to contribute to ecoregion visions