Putting the pieces together: Integration for forest landscape restoration implementation

Abstract

The concept of forest landscape restoration (FLR) is being widely adopted around the globe by governmental, non‐governmental agencies, and the private sector, all of whom see FLR as an approach that contributes to multiple global sustainability goals. Originally, FLR was designed with a clearly integrative dimension across sectors, stakeholders, space and time, and in particular across the natural and social sciences. Yet, in practice, this integration remains a challenge in many FLR efforts. Reflecting this lack of integration are the continued narrow sectoral and disciplinary approaches taken by forest restoration projects, often leading to marginalisation of the most vulnerable populations, including through land dispossessions. This article aims to assess what lessons can be learned from other associated fields of practice for FLR implementation. To do this, 35 scientists came together to review the key literature on these concepts to suggest relevant lessons and guidance for FLR. We explored the following large‐scale land use frameworks or approaches: land sparing/land sharing, the landscape approach, agroecology, and socio‐ecological systems. Also, to explore enabling conditions to promote integrated decision making, we reviewed the literature on understanding stakeholders and their motivations, tenure and property rights, polycentric governance, and integration of traditional and Western knowledge. We propose lessons and guidance for practitioners and policymakers on ways to improve integration in FLR planning and implementation. Our findings highlight the need for a change in decision‐making processes for FLR, better understanding of stakeholder motivations and objectives for FLR, and balancing planning with flexibility to enhance social–ecological resilience.

Local Perception in Forest Landscape Restoration Planning: A Case Study From the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

“…Furthermore, they can not only engage in FLR actions on their own property, but influence and recruit others, enhancing effectiveness and disseminating best practices on other private lands in the region (Niemiec et al, 2019). This not only validates our hypothesis 4 but highlights the synergies between FLR and agroecological approaches (Latawiec et al, 2018;Mansourian et al, 2019;Tubenchlak et al, 2021). The ecological management of these agroecosystems play an important role in promoting local food security (SDG 2) and reducing health problems derived from pesticides intoxication (SDG 3) (Silva et al, 2020;Tubenchlak et al, 2021); while also contributing to pollination and soil fertility, which are important ES for agriculture, perceived and mapped by the participants of this study.…”

Forest landscape restoration: state of play

“…Of the 63 nations, regions and companies that have committed more than 173 million ha to the BC since early 2020 [ 11 ], most of the countries with commitments are in Africa [ 13 ], Latin America [ 13 ] and Asia [ 6 ]. Most countries made BC commitments larger than 2 million ha and many countries committed areas greater than their forest or agricultural areas [ 245 ].…”

Maintaining natural and traditional cultural green infrastructures across Europe: learning from historic and current landscape transformations

“…Depending on the conservation vision, maintenance of natural processes or of low-intensity agricultural management is necessary (Halada et al 2011). Additionally, spatial planning of representative ecological networks encompassing integration of protection, management and landscape restoration (Mansourian et al 2020) is needed, and which is implemented through collaborative landscape stewardship (Muñoz-Rojas et al 2015). This argumentation is well reflected in the Convention on Biodiversity' Aichi target 11 (CBD 2010) and the current Zero draft about functional protected area networks (CBD 2020), and also in European policy about green infrastructure (here after GI) (European Commission 2013.…”