Forest Landscape Restoration

Integrated Approaches to Support Effective Implementation

Stephanie Mansourian, John Parrotta, Stephanie Mansourian, John Parrotta

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351620338
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Scienze biologiche
• Sous-sujet: Ecosistemi e Habitat

Forest landscape restoration (FLR) is a planned process that aims to regain ecological integrity and enhance human wellbeing in deforested or degraded landscapes. The aim of this book is to explore options to better integrate the diverse dimensions - spatial, disciplinary, sectoral, and scientific - of implementing FLR.

It demonstrates the value of an integrated and interdisciplinary approach to help implement FLR focusing specifically on four issues: understanding the drivers of forest loss and degradation in the context of interdisciplinary responses for FLR; learning from related integrated approaches; governance issues related to FLR as an integrated process; and the management, creation and use of different sources of knowledge in FLR implementation. The emphasis is on recognising the need to take human and institutional factors into consideration, as well as the more obvious biophysical factors. A key aim is to advance and accelerate the practice of FLR, given its importance, particularly in a world facing increasing environmental challenges, notably from climate change.

The first section of the book presents the issue from an analytical and problem-orientated viewpoint, while later sections focus on solutions. It will interest researchers and professionals in forestry, ecology, geography, environmental governance and landscape studies.

Part I

Why integration matters

1 The need for integrated approaches to forest landscape restoration

Stephanie Mansourian and John Parrotta

Introduction

Humankind is modifying the planet at unprecedented rates: mass extinctions are happening before our eyes, and climate change is threatening our very existence (e.g. Steffen et al., 2007). Forest and forested landscapes play a major role in the global carbon cycle (Le Quéré et al., 2009; Pan et al., 2011) by absorbing atmospheric CO₂ and other pollutants, regulate hydrological cycles, contribute to soil formation and erosion control, provide us with many goods such as medicinal plants, building materials and food, and harbour the majority of the world’s biodiversity.

Yet we continue to lose forests every year, with estimates suggesting that around 230 million ha of forest have been lost over the 2000–2012 period (Hansen et al., 2013). Other calculations indicate that we are losing approximately 15.3 billion trees per year (Crowther et al., 2015). In addition to forest loss, the more subtle process of forest degradation (i.e. reduction in forests’ capacity to produce ecosystem services as a result of anthropogenic and environmental changes) is a pervasive problem in many parts of the world (Hosonuma et al., 2012; Kissinger et al., 2012). Though more difficult to perceive and quantify than deforestation (Sasaki and Putz, 2009; Thompson et al., 2013), forest degradation is estimated to have affected up to 850 million ha in tropical regions alone (ITTO, 2002).

At the same time, according to Hansen et al. (2013), we replanted 80 million ha between 2000 and 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) figures suggest that between 2010 and 2015, annual forest cover increased 4.3 million ha in some regions (FAO, 2016a), much of it occurring in China through large-scale afforestation and reforestation programmes. Despite these recent gains, our current global forest cover stands at just below 4 billion ha, whereas it is estimated that 5,000 years ago it was around 5.8 billion hectares (FAO, 2016b).

In response to the high rates of forest loss and degradation, numerous tree planting activities and campaigns have been launched around the world in recent decades. Famously, the United Nations launched a ‘Billion Trees Campaign’ in 2006, and more recently, in 2017, three international conservation organizations (World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) UK, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Birdlife International) launched the ‘Trillion Trees’ campaign. A quick look at some headlines and websites highlights the scale of the effort: WeForest’s website states that they planted 4 million trees in 2016 alone; the International Tree Foundation aims to plant 20 million trees in Kenya by 2024; the European Outdoor Conservation Association seeks to plant 2 million trees; the Enterprise Rent-A-Car Foundation is funding the planting of 50 million trees; the courier company DHL launched a campaign in 2017 to plant a million trees; and so on. Yet, one may legitimately ask: what is the purpose of all those trees? Which trees? Where are they planted? Why plant so many trees? And more importantly, how many trees survive beyond one year? Questioning the underlying purpose of planting trees leads to many ecological justifications: trees are planted to retain soil moisture (31% according to FAO, 2016a), to restore habitat for endangered species or to provide shelter for wildlife (13% for biodiversity conservation according to FAO, 2016a); trees are planted to store carbon, to recycle nutrients and water; and so on. However, decisions both to lose trees and to return them to landscapes are ultimately made by humans. Even in the case of forest recovery through natural regeneration, a decision is being made to set that land aside (e.g. from agricultural production or grazing) to regenerate and not to convert or manage it for other purposes, as regeneration occurs over a period of many years (Chazdon, 2008).

Figure 1.1 Forest landscape restoration can meet the needs of people and biodiversity. In Tanzania, elephants roam across the plains of Tarangire National Park, while people pay to view them and local economic opportunities are provided by ecotourism.

Source: photo © S. Mansourian.

Understanding the causes of forest loss and degradation is the first step to restoring a forested landscape. Unless drivers of forest loss are well understood, and fundamental ones addressed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse this trend. Many restoration efforts have failed to be sustained because of underlying degradation drivers remaining in place. For example, perverse subsidies emanating from the agriculture sector put pressure on forests by encouraging their conversion in many parts of the world.

The major direct drivers of deforestation include agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, mining and urbanization (Geist and Lambin, 2002; Hosonuma et al., 2012; FAO, 2016b). Of these, agricultural expansion has been the most important direct driver of forest loss, accounting for 80% of deforestation worldwide, the majority of which has occurred through conversion of tropical forests in recent decades (Gibbs et al., 2010). Approximately two-thirds of deforestation in Latin America is linked to commercial agriculture, while in Africa and tropical and subtropical Asia subsistence farming is the major driver of land use change (Kissinger et al., 2012).

Like deforestation, forest degradation is driven by a variety of forces, including unsustainable and illegal logging, over-harvesting of fuelwood and non-timber forest products (NTFPs), over-grazing, human-induced fires (or fire suppression in dry forests), poor management of shifting cultivation, and climate change (Chazdon, 2008; Hosonuma et al., 2012; Malhi, 2012; Kissinger et al., 2012). These drivers can be traced back to human pressures, notably population growth, land scarcity, urbanization and market forces, including rising global demand for specific products such as edible oils (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011; Kissinger et al., 2012).

Addressing both the direct and the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation is typically problematic due to weak governance, inadequate policies, poor or inadequate cross-sectoral coordination, perverse incentives and illegal activities (Kissinger et al., 2012). Further negative impacts on forests may result from a variety of policy failures including conflicting laws, unclear and/or overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities, or where responsibility for forests rests with the generally poorer and less powerful environment ministry. At the same time, conflicts between traditional (de facto) understandings, rights, ownerships and approaches related to forested landscapes and de jure, ‘official’ legal approaches to managing the same landscapes may lead to these landscapes being poorly managed.

Of course, these are generalizations, with many differences existing across the globe. For example, the forest transition curve (Mather, 1992; Kauppi et al., 2006; Rudel et al., 2005) serves to demonstrate that many Western countries – but also a number of others in Asia, Africa and Latin America (e.g. China, India, the Philippines, Thailand, Cote d’Ivoire, Rwanda, Swaziland, Lesotho, Costa Rica, Cuba and Uruguay) are recovering forest after having hit a low in their forest cover (Hosonuma et al., 2012).

While only a couple of decades ago, forest restoration was considered a specialized activity, undertaken by restoration ecologists, foresters and land managers with very specific objectives (increasing ecological integrity or improving timber supply), it is now an approach that is promoted to remedy numerous problems, from climate change to food insecurity or disasters. As it has escaped the exclusive domain of foresters and ecologists, so it has become more fuzzy and difficult to frame. Recently, there has been a widespread adoption of the term ‘forest landscape restoration’ as an attractive approach to tackle deforestation and forest degradation.

An integrated approach is particularly relevant to forest landscape restoration (FLR) given its dual dimensions of improving ecological integrity and human wellbeing. Reconciling different values and objectives in FLR is a major challenge and one that remains nearly two decades since the initiation of FLR work. The objective of this volume is to explore the opportunities that interdisciplinary and integrated approaches may offer to FLR implementation.

Specifically, this book seeks to fill a gap in knowledge related to FLR planning, implementation and monitoring by bringing together scientists from a range of disciplines and backgrounds to tackle the interdisciplinary dimension of FLR. Our intention is to expand the breadth and reach of restorationists so that they may tackle more effectively the challenge of restoring the millions of hectares of deforested and degraded forest landscapes around the globe. It stems from the recognition that drivers of forest loss and degradation are predominantly human-made. Further, many of these causes straddle scales (e.g. contradictions between local-level needs and international targets) and sectors (e.g. agricultural subsidies contributing to forest loss), and can be understood differently depending on individuals’ backgrounds (e.g. a social scientist perceives the landscape differently from an ecologist). We contend that these compounding complexities may best be addressed through integrated and interdisciplinary approaches.

Through the diverse chapters in this book, we seek to answer three questions:

1 What are some of the integration challenges for FLR?

2 What can we learn from other large-scale land use initiatives, frameworks or approaches?

3 How can integrated approaches improve FLR decision-making processes?

We return to these three questions in our concluding chapter (13), using the body of knowledge generated by the contributions in this volume.

Why is an integrated approach to forest landscape restoration needed?

Given the underlying human dimensions of forest loss and degradation, as well as the multiple and cumulative factors involved, we maintain that more integrated approaches may help to improve our ability to successfully undertake large-scale forest restoration and thus achieve lofty global goals for restoration. In the face of continued forest loss and degradation, and a lack of significant progress on scaling up restoration that meets the needs of people and biodiversity, we see both a need and an opportunity to explore a different side of forest landscape restoration planning and implementation, one that considers the integrated nature of these challenges.

Foresters have long engaged in planting trees and managing forests for multiple goods and services. For decades, forest scientists and ecologists have sought to understand the dynamics of forest ecosystems, to restore ecosystem functions on degraded forest lands and improve habitat quality for key species (Hobbs and Norton, 1996; Higgs, 1997; Clewell et al., 2004; Lamb et al., 2005; Falk et al., 2006). Many development organizations have seen the value of bringing back trees to enhance rural livelihoods, supply communities with fuelwood, improve water and soil quality, and protect agricultural fields and coastlines. Decision-makers and businesses are also increasingly aware of the financial benefits of using tree planting to protect water sources, prevent soil erosion, and capture carbon to offset greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, there is surprisingly little collaboration and joint work to ensure that multiple environmental, economic and social objectives of forest restoration can be fulfilled and somehow reconciled.

Scaling up local or site-specific efforts to restore degraded forest lands over larger areas is one means of considering multiple objectives. In the last couple of decades, ‘forest landscape restoration’ (FLR) has become a buzzword acquiring much visibility, notably in meetings of the three main multilateral environmental agreements, that is, the three Rio Conventions: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Originally, it was defined by experts convened by WWF and IUCN in 2000 as ‘a planned process that aims to regain ecological integrity and enhance human wellbeing in deforested or degraded landscapes’ (WWF and IUCN, 2000). The definition emerged from a desire to ensure that the scale of restoration was sufficiently ambitious and able to meet both ecological and human objectives. Global commitments to restore millions of hectares under such banners as the Bonn Challenge on FLR, the New York Declaration on Forests, the AFR 100 (African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative) and the Latin America Initiative 20×20 have led to a rapid popularization of the term, if not necessarily effective approaches to accomplish these ambitious goals. In reality, the initial definition has been adapted by different actors to suit their purposes (Mansourian, 2018). Interpretations of the term and methods to implement FLR diverge depending on the viewpoint of policymakers, decision-makers, social scientists, natural scientists, foresters, farmers, land management organizations and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Scholarly work on FLR has tended to emanate from the forest science community (e.g. Stanturf et al., 2012a; 2012b; Lamb, 2014). Practical field-based projects have tended to be led by ecologists, restoration practitioners and environmental organizations (e.g. IUCN and WRI, 2014). Limited work on human dimensions of FLR or large-scale restoration has been published (e.g. Aronson et al., 2010; Egan et al., 2011...