Global restoration opportunities in tropical rainforest landscapes

Abstract

Over 140 Mha of restoration commitments have been pledged across the global tropics, yet guidance is needed to identify those landscapes where implementation is likely to provide the greatest potential benefits and cost-effective outcomes. By overlaying seven recent, peer-reviewed spatial datasets as proxies for socioenvironmental benefits and feasibility of restoration, we identified restoration opportunities (areas with higher potential return of benefits and feasibility) in lowland tropical rainforest landscapes. We found restoration opportunities throughout the tropics. Areas scoring in the top 10% (i.e., restoration hotspots) are located largely within conservation hotspots (88%) and in countries committed to the Bonn Challenge (73%), a global effort to restore 350 Mha by 2030. However, restoration hotspots represented only a small portion (19.1%) of the Key Biodiversity Area network. Concentrating restoration investments in landscapes with high benefits and feasibility would maximize the potential to mitigate anthropogenic impacts and improve human well-being.

Fostering natural forest regeneration on former agricultural land through economic and policy interventions

“…Holistic land-use planning and spatial prioritization approaches can help ensure that native forests continue to regrow and persist without compromising food, fuel, or fiber production . However, policies and mechanisms to empower holistic solutions-including expansion of agroforestry and silvopastoral systems-are underdeveloped (Kremen andMerenlender 2018, Chazdon andBrancalion 2019). Economic and policy incentives will be needed as economies and markets transition from those driving further degradation of native forests to restoration and enhancement of native forests (Boillat et al 2017).…”

Focus on the role of forests and soils in meeting climate change mitigation goals: summary

“…They call this management practice Proforestation, and it has the advantage of being very low cost, much less labor intensive than afforestation or reforestation and does not require additional land. Brancalion et al (2019) find similar carbon storage benefits with forest restoration efforts. Lutz et al (2018) find that for 48 forests of all types globally, on average, half of the living biomass carbon is sequestered in the largest one percent diameter trees, and Stephenson et al (2014) determined that for hundreds of tree species, the sequestration rate increased with size.…”

Understanding the co‐occurrence of tree loss and modern slavery to improve efficacy of conservation actions and policies

“…As a result, conservation activities that do not consider the effects of modern slavery may be less effective as slavery frequently provides the labor force needed to illegally clear land and deforest (Bales, ), as explored in Figure . This must be considered when advocating for global tree restoration potential to provide benefits around, for example, climate change mitigation (Bastin et al, ), particularly within tropical forests (Brancalion et al, ). There will only be limited success without the mainstream incorporation of slavery impact understanding within conservation management schemes.…”