Four approaches to guide ecological restoration in Latin America

Abstract

There is strong upswing in conservation and restoration efforts in Latin America (LA), particularly in the recent decades after several countries have committed to international agreements such as the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Initiative 20×20, and the Bonn Challenge. To fulfill these agreements, the practice of ecological restoration has to be defined based on ecological knowledge, but also on the specific social, economic, and legal aspects of each country in the region. Here, we give some examples about the national understanding of ecological restoration in 10 countries of LA. We identify difficulties and opportunities to define restoration priorities and needs, and discuss some approaches to cope with economic constraints and agreements, including the potential role of restoration networks in this process. On the basis of the socioecological complexity of these countries and the expectations they have in relation to restoration, we proposed four approaches to guide restoration practice and policy in the region: (1) including biodiversity and ecosystem services approach into ecosystem restoration initiatives; (2) promoting restoration in their frequently human‐modified landscapes; (3) accounting for cost–benefit trade‐offs; and (4) assembling “horizontal” communication frameworks. These approaches should be based at national levels, but adapted to local‐regional levels, in a bottom‐up perspective. We consider that national and international restoration networks in the region can help to overcome difficulties, fostering a solid scientific community, helping to develop national approaches that better match the specific conditions of each country and enhancing communication among different groups of stakeholders.

Difference in the net value of ecological services between natural and artificial forests in China

“…However, ecological restoration efforts still largely rely on a traditional approach that focuses on ecological factors and ignores socioeconomic factors (Meli et al. ; Newmark et al. ).…”

Oportunidades y desafíos para la gobernanza de la restauración del paisaje forestal en América Latina

“…La RPF se entiende como un proceso dinámico en el que se emplean estrategias para restaurar la cobertura arbórea que sean tanto productivas como de conservación y que se ajusten a las realidades políticas, sociales y económicas del paisaje (Mansourian y Vallauri 2014;Stanturf et al 2014;Lazos-Chavero et al 2016). La interacción entre las dimensiones ecológicas, sociales y económicas de la restauración resulta clave para el éxito de las actividades de RPF (Meli et al 2017). De allí que las actividades forestales restaurativas a escala de paisaje involucren tanto actividades de rehabilitación y remediación como de restauración ecológica y el establecimiento de sistemas agroforestales o silvopastoriles (Aronson et al 2017).…”

Participatory monitoring to connect local and global priorities for forest restoration

“…Although some generic frameworks for prioritizing FLR are being developed internationally (e.g., IUCN & WRI ), existing national initiatives (responding to global restoration targets) have developed somewhat independently without a transnational view on how to plan, implement, and monitor FLR (e.g., Meli et al. ).…”