Biodiversity guidelines forforest landscape restoration
opportunities assessments
Craig R. Beatty, Neil A. Cox and Mirjam E. Kuzee
First edition

Internationial Union for Conservation of Nature

Biodiversity guidelines forforest landscape restoration
opportunities assessments
Craig R. Beatty, Neil A. Cox and Mirjam E. Kuzee
First edition

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or
area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.
This publication was made possible by the KNOWFOR program, funded by UK aid from the UK government, andthe Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment.
Published by:

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Copyright:© 2018 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is
authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully
acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without
prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation:

Beatty, C.R., Cox, N. A., and M. E. Kuzee (2018). Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscaperestoration opportunities assessments. First edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. v + 43pp.

ISBN:				

978-2-8317-1908-5 (PDF)
978-2-8317-1909-2 (print version)

DOI:		

https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.10.en

Cover photo: The Soliga are an indigenous tribal people in the Biligiri Rangana Hills of Southern India 				and may be among the first human settlers of India. A forest dependent people, the Soligo		
primarily utilise wild plants in their diet, especially a dish made from Kaddisoppu (Jasminum		trichotomum) a plant endemic to dry deciduous forests (not pictured). Photo courtesy of Oxlaey
Layout:		

www.chadiabi.com

Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature)
Global Forest and Climate Change Programme
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland
Switzerland
Tel +41 22 999 0000
Fax +41 22 999 0002
Craig.Beatty@iucn.org
www.iucn.org/resources/publications

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive summary .....................................................................................................................................

v

Part one
Biodiversity and forest landscape restoration (FLR) ................................................................................. 1
Conservation and restoration ..................................................................................................................

5

Genetic biodiversity for forest landscape restoration .............................................................................. 5
Species biodiversity and forest landscape restoration ............................................................................ 5
Forest landscape restoration and ecosystems ........................................................................................ 7
Part two
Biodiversity in forest landscape restoration assessment planning ......................................................... 11
Engaging biodiversity professionals ........................................................................................................ 14
Monitoring the impact of FLR on biodiversity and communities ............................................................. 15
Biodiversity information for the assessment process ............................................................................... 17
Biodiversity information sources ............................................................................................................. 17- Existing national biodiversity data and contacts ............................................................................. 17- Some key national biodiversity data sets ........................................................................................ 17
National biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) ................................................................... 18- Extracting relevant biodiversity information from NBSAPs .............................................................. 18
Biodiversity data sources ...................................................................................................................... 19- Historical data sets .......................................................................................................................... 19- Culturally important species and sites ............................................................................................. 20- International data ............................................................................................................................. 20
Policy and institutional biodiversity information ..................................................................................... 22
Biodiversity data in mapping and spatial analysis ................................................................................... 24
Identifying biodiversity gaps ................................................................................................................... 27
Considering biodiversity in FLR assessments and planning ................................................................... 27
Key questions ................................................................................................................................................ 29
Effectively communicating biodiversity ...................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
References .................................................................................................................................................... 39

Annex 1. Elements of an NBSAP ................................................................................................................. 42iii

Acknowledgements
This publication represents a foundation forencouraging the wider recognition of the value of
including biodiversity information in forest landscaperestoration opportunities assessments and in theimplementation of restoration actions. This work
could not have been completed without the generous
support of the U.K Department for International
Development under the Knowledge on Forests
Programme.

Kumar, Salome Begeladze, James McBreen, Adriana
Vidal and Carole Saint-Laurent for their constructive
recommendations as the publication developed.

Swati Hingorani provided exceptional guidanceand support during the inception and drafting ofthese guidelines. With many thanks, also to Chetan

We also thank the efforts of two peer reviewers which
greatly improved these guidelines.

The authors appreciate the encouragement provided
by Jean-Christophe Vié (formerly IUCN Global
Species and Key Biodiversity Areas Programme)
and Frank Hawkins (IUCN Washington DC Office),
especially during project conception.

iv

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Executive summary
the connections between biodiversity conservationand landscape restoration. It then elaborates on
the genetic, species and ecosystem componentsof biodiversity as they relate to forest landscaperestoration and includes discussions on starting
points for measuring biodiversity and the landscapeview that is required for restoration at increasingly
large scales. Importantly, it provides a necessary
starting point for those who may view forest
landscape restoration as an exercise in planting trees
and demonstrates that a comprehensive approachthat balances the needs of people and nature is well
worth the effort.

Biodiversity is inherent in forest landscape restoration.
As global initiatives like the Bonn Challenge and New
York Declaration on Forests inspire nations to pursue
sustainable landscapes and economic growth, on the
ground, biodiversity binds people and nature to theirshared future. Restoring ‘forward’ to meet current
and future landscape challenges requires novel
approaches and nature-based solutions. Restoration
has the potential to generate billions in economic
returns and to mitigate many of the effects of humaninduced climate change. But, at its core, restoration
should support biodiversity and the species, genes
and ecosystems of which it is composed and thatprovide services directly or indirectly to people.

Section two provides several methods ofoperationalising biodiversity in the forest landscaperestoration assessment process. This includes
sources of biodiversity information and data, how tofind biodiversity information where it appears there isnone, initial ideas on how to map biodiversity, and theimportance of considering biodiversity, not just froma biological perspective, but in terms of policies, laws
and institutional missions. In this section, readers willfind a wealth of resources and contacts to ensurethat a lack of available information is not the reason
biodiversity is missing from their assessments.

These Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscaperestoration opportunities assessments are intended
to provide more context, more resources and fresh
perspectives to the ongoing global interaction
between biodiversity conservation and forest
landscape restoration. They do so in the context ofthe methodology used by dozens of countries andjurisdictions to help practitioners working on identifying
and realising their landscape restoration goals—andthey should be interpreted as a companion to the
Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology(ROAM).

Finally, these guidelines are intended to help
practitioners translate and communicate theimportance of their work into a biodiversity context,
and to help mainstream biodiversity in other sectors.
The result should be an assessment process that
explicitly identifies options for the choice of andinteraction among species in a landscape to produce
the biological, social and ecological benefits that form
the purpose for restoration. The landscape strategies
that result from this explicit inclusion of scientificand traditional biodiversity knowledge will go far inensuring that the significant investments made inforest landscape restoration can see returns that
support the incredible diversity of life and culture.

Among the Bonn Challenge, The Convention on
Biological Diversity, The Sustainable Development
Goals and scores of other international, regional andnational initiatives, the conservation and restorationof biodiversity remains a constant and clear precursor
to long-term social and economic prosperity.
Biodiversity and restoration initiatives have, until
recently, largely worked in parallel to achieve many of
the same objectives and the following guidelines will
help those with a mandate or interest in biodiversity
or restoration to align their vocabularies and work.
Section one outlines the context and principles offorest landscape restoration and briefly explainsv

© Al_hikesAZ Flickr Creative Commons

Part one

Biodiversity
andforest landscape restoration

1

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Forest landscape restoration (FLR) is the long-term
process of regaining ecological functionality andenhancing human well-being across deforested anddegraded landscapes, and it continues to be a key
initiative for maintaining or restoring biodiversity.
FLR is implemented using a landscape approach,combining natural resource management, restoration
opportunities and livelihood considerations acrossjurisdictional boundaries with an aim to restore amosaic of land uses, including forests and woodlands,
pastures, croplands, and more. At a landscape scale
restoration meets societal needs and allows theconsideration of multiple benefits from ecosystemservices for food, nutrition and water security;
promotes local business and social justice; supports
rural development and national economies; and builds
resilience to disasters and climate change.

Restoring degraded and deforested landscapes
provides key provisioning ecosystem services (suchas food, fuelwood and genetic resources); regulating
services (climate regulation, nutrient cycling andsoil building, water regulation and purification, andpollination); cultural services (spiritual, religious,
recreational, educational, and contributing to asense of place); and can provide needed habitat for
threatened species as a large percentage of specieson The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species are
threatened with habitat loss or degradation (Mace,et al., 2005; IUCN, 2018). These important services
are typically underpinned by the biological richnessof landscapes, with growing evidence that greater
biodiversity is directly proportional to both the quantity(functions) and general ‘stability’1 (environmental
resilience) of ecosystem services provided to people

Forest landscape restoration (FLR) is the long-term process of regaining ecological functions andenhancing human well-being in deforested and degraded lands. Ultimately, FLR is the process of restoring“the goods, services and ecological processes that forests can provide at the broader landscape level as
opposed to solely promoting increased tree cover at a particular location” (Maginnis & Jackson, 2002).
Forest landscape restoration is founded upon several guiding principles: Restore functionality – Restore the functionality of a landscape, making it better able to provide arich habitat, prevent erosion and flooding, and withstand the impacts of climate change and otherdisturbances.
 Focus on landscapes – Consider and restore entire landscapes as opposed to individual sites. Thistypically entails balancing a mosaic of inter-dependent land uses, which include but are not limited to:
agriculture, protected areas, agroforestry systems, well managed planted forests, ecological corridors,
riparian plantings and areas set aside for natural regeneration.
 Allow for multiple benefits – Aim to generate a suite of ecosystem goods and services by intelligently
and appropriately introducing trees and other woody plants within the landscape. This may involve
planting trees on agricultural land to enhance food production, reduce erosion, provide shade andproduce firewood, or trees may be planted to create a closed-canopy forest that sequesters large
amounts of carbon, protects downstream water supplies and provides rich wildlife habitat.
 Leverage suite of strategies – Consider the wide range of eligible technical strategies – from naturalregeneration to tree planting – for restoring forest landscapes.
 Involve stakeholders – Actively engage local stakeholders in deciding restoration goals, implementation
methods and trade-offs. Restoration processes must respect their rights to land and resources, alignwith their land management practices and provide them with benefits.
 Tailor strategies to local conditions – Adapt restoration strategies to local social, economic andecological contexts; there is no “one size fits all”.
 Avoid further reduction of natural forest cover or other natural ecosystems – Address ongoing loss
and aim to prevent further conversion of primary and secondary natural forest and other ecosystems.
 Adaptively manage – Be prepared to adjust a restoration strategy over time as environmental
conditions, knowledge and societal values change. Leverage continuous monitoring and learning, andmake adjustments as restoration progresses.

1. Ecosystems are well recognised to be dynamic and not static, systems. So, while it is typically incorrect to use the term ‘stability’ inreference to ecosystems we retain usage here as a general term to guide less technical readers.

23Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments(Hooper, et al., 2005; Hooper, et al., 2012; Cardinale,
et al., 2012; Larsen, et al., 2012; Oliver, et al., 2015a;
Oliver, et al., 2015b; Walker, and Salt, 2006).

the conservation and restoration of biodiversity
is an explicit component of the design, planningand assessment of forest landscape restoration
potential—its “opportunity assessment”.

FLR for biodiversity conservation and restoration
can occur in most landscapes. Globally, forests arehome to more than 75% of terrestrial biodiversity(FAO, 2016)—and remain a significant source for the
discovery of many yet unknown and undescribed
species. Numerous animals and plants are specialised
forest species and do not occur outside of such
habitats. To date The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species categorises approximately 29% of assessed
forest species as threatened with extinction (IUCN,
2018). Restoration of deforested and degradedlandscape can arrest and reverse species extinction
in various ways. Furthermore, increasing the numberof trees and species on cropland or in silvopastoral
systems may build soil and improve water availability
for crops in rainfed areas; allowing for diversified
livelihoods strategies that aim to bring back andconserve trees on land, while increasing production ofcrops and livestock at the same time.

The objective of this publication is to offer the FLR
practitioner, the landscape restoration planner andthe decision-maker guidelines for how to better
integrate biodiversity knowledge and data into
FLR opportunities and assessments and why thisapproach makes sense. The intent is to provide
guidance on how practitioners can operationalise amandate or interest in explictly including biodiversity
knowledge and information in the FLR assessment
and planning process. The following document
outlines why biodiversity should be included in FLR,
some common available sources of biodiversity
information and data, the process of communicating
biodiversity information within FLR assesments andhow project partnerships can be formed to better
serve biodiversity conservation and restoration.
These guidelines are best used in tandem with the
Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology(ROAM), published by IUCN in collaboration withWRI (2014), which provides a more comprehensive
framework of the FLR assessment process and typicalanalytical products.

While the benefits of restoration to biodiversity may
be implicit and are important, landscape restorationthat addresses human well-being will also resultin explicit and measureable social benefits when

An important note about baselines
There are few places remaining in the world where species have not been impacted by human activity.
With this in mind, the diversity and abundance of species are typically assessed from a current(Anthropocene) understanding of ecological baselines regarding what is an acceptable level of species
abundance and changing community composition, or conservation status of habitats and species.
However, of the roughly 2 million described species, only 87,000 have been assessed for theirconservation status by IUCN and significant taxonomic gaps still exist in the global assessment ofspecies’ conservation status. Little to nothing is known about the diversity and abundance of mostnon-vertebrate species and yet many of these form the foundation of all ecosystems. Despite this lackof knowledge, drastic reductions in biodiversity force practitioners to utilise what few details exist to
halt biodiversity decline.
The past 250 years has seen species in many wild places disappear, with significant losses to species
and habitats in the past 50 years. What today seems abundant, may conceivably be far below
historical population levels. What remains are increasingly large numbers of people that rely on an
increasingly smaller assemblage of species to provide the services on which human cultures, societies
and economies were built, and still very much depend. Establishing baselines is critical and where
possible this should be based on trend analysis of species populations or on extent of suitable habitats
and ecosystems, especially as these may be impacted due to climate change.

4Conservation and restorationand their webs of interaction within ecosystems. How
practitioners can translate among these concepts isthe focus of the following sections.

A great deal of literature and science is devoted to theconservation of established species and ecosystems.
Far less is devoted to the restoration of biodiversity
in places where it has declined or substantiallydisappeared. The restoration of biodiversity is not
simply introducing species and ecosystems, it is also
the restoration or conservation of processes thatlead to biodiversity. It is ecological processes thatcreate and maintain biodiversity and in order to be
successful restoration must consider and support
both biodiversity pattern and processes (Pressey
et al., 2007). The literature on ecological restoration
is growing and generally the focus of this young
discipline is to restore degraded ecological systems
towards a reference ecosystem or successional
trajectory (Young, 2000). This involves support for the
reintroduction of species and ecological processes
that, over time will interact to create restored
ecosystems or will guide species interactions
and assemblages to foster desired successional
stages. Restoration towards a reference ecosystem
may be better suited for some landscapes andrestoration objectives, (e.g. species reintroductions
or conservation), especially where the motivation isto restore degraded and deforested areas towards
their previous condition. For these objectives
ecological restoration is a valuable and necessary
approach. Within FLR, ecological restoration forms
a valuable component of the suite of restoration
strategies available to restoration practitioners. FLR
utilises many additional restorative actions acrosslandscapes to ensure that FLR focuses on integrating
many objectives and sustainable land use types
to address the drivers and pressures that led todegradation in the first place.

Genetic biodiversity forlandscape restoration

forestGenetic diversity of species is one of the mostimportant considerations in landscape restoration.
This is true both for agricultural species (as examples:agroforestry species, crop cultivars and livestock
breeds) as well as native species utilised in restoration
activities. Genetic diversity confers greater protection
from disease and helps ensure that the ecosystemservices present on the landscape are resilient toenvironmental change. Genetic diversity is the firstline of defense in building resilient landscapes andagricultural economies and is the currency used by
species in their ability to adapt and survive against
environmental change.
Ensuring that intra-specific genetic diversity of
restoration biomass within the degraded landscape tobe restored is as varied as possible (within the confinesof the resources available) should be an importantconsideration in the design of restoration strategies.
If monocultures of genetically near identical, or
cloned, individuals are used for restoration efforts,
they are generally more susceptible to damage orloss through stochastic events, such as disease or
inbreeding. A more genetically diverse landscapeor habitat typically has a much greater likelihood ofcontaining individuals with partial, or total, resistanceto a threatening event (e.g. Reusch, et al., 2005).
When sourcing individuals of species for restoration
work (especially seeds or seedlings), it is helpful to try
to obtain stock with the same, or similar, provenanceto the populations that exist (or previously existed)
within the landscape to be restored. These
individuals are usually genetically better adapted tothe environmental conditions (such as local weather
patterns) found within the landscape than individuals
sourced from external, or more distant, populations.
If the restoration practice is an agroforestry
intervention, it will be helpful to also consider use
or promotion of local crop varieties (including trees)
because, as with native plants of local provenance,these local varieties are often better adapted to local
environmental conditions and may have greater
adaptability to a changing climate.

Forest landscape restoration involves the long-term
recovery of ecological productivity that is based ona biodiverse and sustainable ecological trajectory.
This trajectory is built on the interactions among
the three main components of biodiversity: genes,
species and ecosystems across landscapes but
in practice is often conceptualised outside of an
ecological perspective. As such, genetic diversity,
species diversity and ecosystem diversity in forest
landscape restoration assessments and planningare often embedded in discussion about agricultural
productivity, landscape resilience, or adaptability
to climate change. While each of these are noble
interpretations, at their most fundamental level each
rely on the goods and services provided by species

5Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Species biodiversity and forest
landscape restoration

weighed and addressed by the FLR assessment teamin consultation with stakeholder groups. Where genetic
diversity is lacking or an agroforestry species has thepotential to become an invasive alien species, carefulassessment, consultation and planning are required
to determine an acceptable balance of ecological risk,
where such cases present themselves.

As the fundamental ecological unit, species are
the medium through which genetic and ecosystem
diversity radiate. The assessment and implementation
procedures for landscape restoration are populatedwith different opportunities to express a choiceof species to use in restoration activities. The
opportunity to select species for restoration are madewhen practitioners identify a desired restoration
action, refine the assessment of how this action may
halt or slow landscape degradation, estimate how
restoration might build ecological productivity anddetermine when restoration plans will be realised asplants in the ground.

Through the process of forest landscape restoration,no matter the political or social objective of such
restoration, significant potential exists to makerestoration choices that have positive impacts on
native biodiversity, in some cases even throughthe use of exotic species. The diversity of forest
landscape restoration approaches within a landscapeensures that no single restoration type dominatesdegraded landscapes, but that the solutions relyon the use of a diversity of species and methods
for restoration. Some of these species may be nonnative but are important for human livelihoods andwell-being or the restoration of ecosystem services.
Despite this reality, each landscape and restoration
process should preferentially include the restoration
and/or reintroduction of native species at some pointin the planned project timeline and landscape.

In agriculturally dominated landscapes, the choice ofdifferent species for use in landscape restoration will
depend on many factors including crop types, crop
rotations and the specific agricultural issues that canbe addressed through FLR. The selection of species
can also be used to increase pollinator services, toaugment soil biodiversity and fertility, or to increase
shade and fodder, each of which are decisions rooted
in the practitioner’s working knowledge. Additionally,agroforestry species are generally selected based on
their availability, stakeholder affinity and economic
practicality, but, these species can also have
ecological consequences that should be identified,

Apart from the broad reasons for an assessment of
which species to utilise in restoration there are somewell-defined and practical benefits to ensuring thatspecies conservation or restoration in degradedlands are considered during the overall landscapeAmong the largest single-species recovery initiatives in the world, the Canadian government is tasked with implementing the recovery strategy for
the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). This may involve many assessments of landscape restoration opportunities to support national,
provincial, and territorial implementation. Photo courtesy of Bill Bumgarner6

on species that could be restored, but a focus onfunctional traits and climate scenarios may provide
more accurate forecasting over the coming decades.
Whenconsideringorplanning
speciesreestablishment, it is always important to consider
the impacts, both positive and negative, that these
may have on local people within the project site andadjacent areas. It may not, for example, be practicalto introduce large predators (such as wolves) into anarea where livestock could be regularly killed. IUCN
has developed clear guidelines to assist planningspecies reintroductions and translocations (IUCN/
SSC, 2013).

restoration planning process. Many of these benefits
are associated with ensuring that species relationships
within restored areas improve the ecological functionof the landscape. This includes the re-establishmentof a variety of key pollinator species (e.g. native bees
and bats) and seed dispersal agents (e.g. squirrels,cassowaries, toucans) that interact with the tree
species chosen to grow within the restoration site.
Especially in tropical forests, animal pollinationand seed dispersal are critical for maintaining andincreasing floristic diversity at the landscape scale.
However, habitats are complex and include
numerous, less obvious relationships between
species within restoration sites and species thatneed to be considered in the planning process for
improving functionality. A review of the ecologicalcommunity that existed (or presumably existed) at
the site prior to degradation should provide some
guidance on appropriate species at each trophic
level that can be considered for reintroduction/or population restoration within the project area. It
is, however, critical that reference ecosystems notform the entire basis of restoration planning. Not
only is FLR intended to support human well-being
in addition to increased ecological productivity but
these restoration trajectories can be complicated byclimate change which is currently shifting species’
ranges and altering habitat suitability models (andspecies ranges themselves). As such, plant andanimal communities and populations are currently
responding to changing climate conditions and willcontinue to do so for the conceivable future. Whatonce existed in a landscape can provide guidance

Finally, the appropriateness of the species to be used
or expected in restoration interventions should be theoutcome of a participatory process among sectors
and stakeholders. Not only can this increase thelikelihood that species are delivering the landscapescale functional benefits desired by stakeholders andsectors, but it will also help increase the likelihoodthat the species used in restoration also meet the
livelihood and subsistence needs of the people
that ultimately depend on the productivity of thelandscape.

Forest landscape restoration andecosystems
FLR must work across entire landscapes and theirassociated land uses. These whole landscapes andthe interactions among their ecosystems, not just thesite specific or ecosystem unit alone, are what drive

Ethiopia has committed to place 15 million hectares of degraded or deforested land under restoration in support of the Bonn Challenge. Much of thiscommitment will be undertaken in landscapes such as this, in Ahmara Region. Photo courtesy of Adriana Vidal/IUCN

7

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

support the water cycle (such as through increased
evapotranspiration)—to name a few.

the large-scale ambitions of FLR. Species choices
and expected interactions among them should begeared towards maximising the multiple benefits fromrestored landscapes, for both people and landscapes.
Ultimately, the choice of species in forest landscaperestoration will take a broader view, using species
capacities to restore landscapes through contributions
to one or multiple services. Additionally, a focus onassessing landscape features (e.g. geomorphologicaldiversity and habitat ecotones) and the other spatial
catalysts of biodiversity and the processes that create
diversity should be addressed (Pressey et al., 2007;
Anderson and Ferree, 2010). These may include
improving water retention capacity, preventing theloss or leaching of soil, active soil building, increased
seed dispersal and recruitment and so on, while at thesame time providing economic and livelihood gains topeople through products like fruit and grains, fodder,increased food production, electricity generation andsecurity, and more. The ecological productivity that
FLR works to restore can thus be measured in socialand economic terms. As landscapes are restored, theincreasing taxonomic and functional diversity of thelandscape will lead to more resilient landscapes andecosystems.

Rarely does one species independently generate
ecosystem services and so a focus on one species in
FLR or ecosystem restoration would be short-sighted.
It is the biophysical or trophic relationships among
species that generate the ecosystem services uponwhich people rely, therefore, landscape restoration
strategies should employ a diverse set of restoration
actions and use an ecosystem approach to species
choice that will help create the improved ecologicalconditions for the entire landscape.
Even though it is often no longer appropriate orpractical to restore degraded and deforested
landscapes towards previous reference levels,
restoration practitioners can include componentsof those former ecosystems and reference levels to
guide decision making on suitable forest landscaperestoration interventions. In many parts of the world,
degradation is severe enough that species are
regionally extirpated or extinct and the underlying
ecosystem has collapsed or shifted. In these
extreme cases, and in less-severe cases as well, therestoration to a new adapted state is a necessary
conclusion. Ecosystem restoration at the landscapelevel through restoring functional species diversity is
one of the best opportunities for landscape restorationin these severely degraded areas and can generate
the multifunctional benefits desired by people fromecosystems of restored landscapes.

From the ground up, increasing soil biodiversity
and substrate heterogeneity is an important, yetoften under-appreciated consideration in forest
landscape restoration. Ideally, the choice of species
for FLR interventions should include those that are
critical in cycling nutrients, modifying the landscapein ways that support ecological productivity and

Figure 1. The landscape approach to forest landscape restoration from the Global Soil Biodiversity Atlas (Orgiazzi et al., 2016)8

Because no global standard definition andclassification of ecosystems exists, quantitative
assessment of diversity at the ecosystem, habitator community level remains problematic (World
Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1992). However,
IUCN and partners are developing a standard
ecosystem classification through the ongoing Red
List of Ecosystems (https://iucnrle.org/).

ecosystem respond to environmental changes will
determine the ecosystem’s resilience.
Individuals within an ecosystem live and reproduce,and species persistence is the first condition forretaining ecological resilience. As degradation
reduces the number of species in a landscapeby physical extirpation through land clearing,
deforestation, over-harvest, or any other activity that
reduces or eliminates species from the landscape—ecosystem resilience and by extension landscaperesilience, will suffer. Generally, the fewer species
that compose an ecosystem, the less resilient it is.
Forest landscape restoration, by definition, occurs
in areas where native species and their functions
have been lost and regaining the ecological functionof a degraded area is predicated on the expansion,

The ability of landscapes to withstand shocks
and recover from disturbance is how resilience inlandscapes is measured. All ecosystems are dynamic
as are the species that compose them—albeit
along different timescales and throughout different
geographic ranges. A landscape is often defined
based on interactions among ecosystems and how
communities and species assemblages within an

Figure 2 was included as an official information
document to the 13th Conference of Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2016.
This publication provides information on how
implementing forest landscape restoration(FLR) at the jurisdictional and national level
can offer countries a way to recover degraded
forests and bring back key ecosystem function
in a way that will increase biodiversity levels
in a landscape tohelp achieve several Aichi
Biodiversity Targets.

9

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

approach can help to build ecosystems with native
species based on functional traits that are desirable
such as nitrogen fixation, predator or herbivory
deterrence, or critical habitat for other species ofconcern or care.

establishment, or reintroduction of species that fill
functional gaps for degraded landscapes. How thesefunctional gaps are filled depends on many factors,
but it is clear that an approach that uses a diversityof species will build more resilient ecosystems andlandscapes than an approach that does not. The
consideration of ecologically appropriate species is
one of the most important steps that can be taken inforest landscape restoration.

The ecological and associated socio-economic
benefits resulting from the integration of biodiversity
restoration and conservation in FLR planning,along with the concepts of genetic, species andecosystem diversity can be utilised to measure theprogress countries can make to meet international
commitments such as the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) and the UN Sustainable Development
Goals (particularly Goals 15 [Life on Land] and 13[Climate Action]). Article 6 of the CBD deserves
special mention as it requests that countries prepare
National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans(NBSAPs) that are especially important for national
implementation of the CBD. Through large-scale
FLR planning and action, jurisdictions can support
specific targets for national and international
biodiversity conservation, while restoring theecological productivity of the landscapes upon whichpeople rely. Part Two of these guidelines outlines how
practitioners can operationalise an interest or mandatein the explicit inclusion of biodiversity in FLR planning.
It also suggests some key information sources andmethodologies for ensuring that landscape planningfor FLR will also include the biodiversity knowledge
that can help shepherd restoration planning to longterm restoration success.

An obvious place to begin considering species usedin restoration are soil and plant species. Much of
the degradation that plagues landscapes begins
with declining soil quality or in the erosion of top
soil and leaching of soil nutrients. The restorationof soil conditions that support vegetative growthis fundamental, especially the re-establishment ofplant species as successional partners, usually in
combination with landscape restoration interventions
like agroforestry, woodlots and sustainableagricultural systems.
At a minimum, forest landscape restoration should
include some component of an integrated ecosystemapproach to restoration. This will require that
restoration practitioners have a working knowledgeof the ecosystem types in their geography as wellas the notable or keystone species. A diversified
species approach to enhance native biodiversity
and increasing connectivity between fragmented
landscapes, ecosystems and habitats should be an
output of any restoration assessment. Alternatively,
where degradation has extirpated many species, thisWhile Uganda completed its national assessment of forest landscape restoration opportunities in 2016, implementation and additional assessments
at the subnational level are underway. This includes focusing on sustainable land management in agricultural districts, with farming associations andengaging youth groups in working landscapes such as here in Mukono District. Photo courtesy of Craig Beatty/IUCN.

10© Craig Beatty/IUCNPart two

Biodiversity in forest landscaperestoration assessment planning

11

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Within some existing methodologies (e.g. IUCN
and WRI, 2014) there are several clear reasons
outlined about the value of well-planned FLR
activities in maintaining or restoring biodiversity
and its benefits. Here, additional guidance for the
restoration practitioner is provided on how to morecomprehensively and practically approach biodiversity
in forest landscape restoration assessments.

Whatbiodiversity
objectives canbe addressed
through
restoration?

In the assessment of restoration opportunities,
stakeholders will first identify their goals for forest
landscape restoration and this process will lead todifferent types of restoration actions that, when
implemented, should alleviate the underlying driversof landscape degradation. Each of these solutions
will involve actions (i.e. ‘restoration interventions’)
that precipitate physical transitions from degraded torestored and more productive landscapes.
Underpinning each of these transitions are biologicalprocesses that support increases in populations ordiversity of one or many species. Indeed, without
gains in plant, animal, fungal and microbial diversity,
there is little hope of long-term restoration successfor increased and sustainable productivity. At its mostfundamental level, forest landscape restoration isintended to build or support resilient ecologies which
are centered on the interconnected relationships
among species and functional trophic groups and

Are there
specific
biodiversity
objectives
identified?

How docurrent
objectives
relate tobiodiversity?

how these are inherently beneficial for livelihoods
and human well-being (e.g. increasing biodiversity
in soils leads to increased soil fertility) (ReitbergenMcCracken, et al., 2007, Lamb, 2014).
When considering FLR objectives and associatedbenefits to biodiversity it is important to recognisethat the problem or challenges to be addressed interms of biodiversity and species should align with

Table 1. Alignments between typical FLR objectives and biodiversity

Example FLR objectives

Biodiversity alignments

Food security

Biodiversity underpins agriculture (including agroforestry), especially through both
the resilience to environmental change by locally adapted varieties and species,
and through a more diverse provision of goods. It is now widely recognised that
healthy ecosystems and especially forests represent an important repository offood and resources that play a key role in contributing towards food security(Sunderland, 2011).

Water security

Forests are well-recognised as good natural upstream protection for watersupplies and there are multiple examples of degradation of downstream water
courses (including of water quality) where upland deforestation has occurred.
Biodiverse landscapes are often regarded as being more effective at providing
ecosystems services and are more efficient at protecting water sources(Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2013, Herrera et al.,2018). These ecosystems and forest landscapes are also critical in promoting
groundwater recharge and supporting hydrologic connectivity (Pringle, 2001,
Hatton and Nulsen, 1999).

Sustainable production

Conservation and restoration of biodiversity across landscapes is globally
recognised to be a direct contributor to developing sustainable production
systems, especially within forestry, agriculture, fisheries, pharmaceuticals, pulp
and paper, cosmetics, horticulture, tourism, construction and biotechnology(SDG Target 12).

12

Example FLR objectives

Biodiversity alignments

Carbon sequestration

Future restoration of degraded landscapes (especially in the tropics) and theassociated carbon sequestration potential is now a well-established naturebased solution to the mitigation of ongoing climate change (Griscom, et al.,2017). While fairly little is known about the impacts of biodiversity loss on
mitigation by forests and associated habitats, it is often assumed that biodiverse
areas are more efficient at storing carbon (Nauman, et al., 2014, Griscom, et al.,2017) and research by Vayreda, et al. (2012) demonstrates the positive impactthat forest landscape management as an FLR intervention can have on carbon
sequestration in Spanish forests.

Resilience

Genetically biodiverse systems have a greater resilience to environmental
change (for instance, resilience to climate change) than degraded landscapes.
While this may not be apparent in the short term, variation from within species
to across landscapes may be crucially important for long-term resilience of
ecosystem function and the services these underpin (Oliver, et al., 2015a; Oliver,
et al., 2015b).

Poverty reduction

Biodiversity resources and ecosystems are regularly under-valued as public
goods. This is especially important when considering the disproportionate
dependence poor people have on biodiversity for their subsistence needs, interms of both income and insurance against risk and sometimes as a route outof poverty (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). The link
between biodiversity and the prospects of poor people indicates that biodiversity
conservation (including restoration efforts) should be a priority in international
efforts to address poverty reduction (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, 2010).

Livelihoods

The importance of forests and other healthy ecosystems as opportunities forsustainable extraction (strongly linked with the biodiversity components of such
ecosystems) is clear. It must be noted however, that supplies from ecosystems
can be inflexible and low returns commonly limit their role as safety nets andpathways out of poverty (Wunder, 2014). Access by people to these resourcesalong with the diversified sources of non-timber forest products is an importantconsideration when assessing the value of ecosystems to communities andpotentially the sustained conservation of these habitats.

or support the objectives of existing or developing
national and international policies associatedwith forest landscape restoration. Challenges tomaintaining or restoring biodiversity at a national
scale are often recorded in existing documents suchas National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans(NBSAPs), the principal instrument for countries toimplement their commitments under the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD). The objectives
contained within NBSAPs and other biodiversitycentric documents will commonly focus on restoring
individual species populations or on maintaining
areas of recognised and prioritised species diversity.
While NBSAP’s and similar documents are especiallyhelpful for national level objectives, if FLR activities
are planned at a sub-national level an additional
consideration of more localised challenges may beneeded (see following section on National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans).
In a few cases, perhaps more regularly at a subnational level, objectives for restoring or maintaining
biodiversity for inclusion in the FLR process may nothave been explicitly considered. In these instances,
FLR practitioners will need to identify and contact
the appropriate local, national and international
experts for advice (see following section on Engaging
biodiversity professionals).
During the process of considering biodiversity within
the restoration assessment timeline, it is always
important that positive links between a restored,
healthy and biodiverse environment and othersectors of interest (especially those relating to human13Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

development) are well articulated to assure decisionmakers of the positive social return on investment
provided by restoring biodiversity as part of theoverall FLR process (see Table 1 for examples ofrelationships between biodiversity and many of thetypical the objectives of FLR).

Equally important is engaging the participationof a naturalist or someone who is familiar withthe traditional knowledge and cultural values of
biodiversity in the area(s) of interest. The cooperationof a classical ecologist and a stakeholder familiar withthe traditional and cultural aspects of biodiversity will
help ensure that each of these perspectives is included
and validated during the assessment process.

Key stakeholders to consider and engage withduring both the project planning phase, and the datacollection activities that are especially important for
acquiring relevant biodiversity information will include
government decision-makers (including ministerial or
departmental environment officials); representatives
from appropriate NGOs (e.g. natural history societies
or national/local conservation organisations); botanic
gardens; academic institutions; local communities andindigenous groups; appropriate technical staff fromgovernment, civil society or the private sector (often
from forestry and wildlife departments); commercial
users of wildlife products or natural resources within
the area of interest; and technical support staff,
perhaps especially those with environmental andsocio-economic modeling skills.

These key advisory roles will help guarantee thatthe investment in restoration work is effectively
addressing landscape challenges and objectives.
The ecologist and naturalist will also be able to advise
on how best to track restoration progress (including
reporting on established biodiversity indicators; See
Monitoring the impact of FLR on biodiversity andcommunities). In some cases, it may be difficult to
identify an ecologist with the necessary skills toprovide advice on the native fauna and flora of alandscape. In these instances a botanist or wildlife
biologist can be enlisted in the ecologist’s place,
however this biologist will need to have a goodworking knowledge of ecological principles, andaccess to a network of supporting expert zoologists
and botanists (such as the IUCN Species Survival
Commission, https://www.iucn.org/ssc-groups).

Engaging biodiversity professionals
In addition to a dedicated institution responsible forcoordinating the overall restoration assessment andplanning process (as described in IUCN and WRI,
2014), certain technical staff are key for ensuring thatpractitioners take a balanced approach to FLR. A
principal need will be access to an ecologist with asubstantial working knowledge of native ecosystems
and associated fauna and flora that would typically bepresent in the area under consideration for restoration
activities. Having this guidance will contribute tounderstanding both the various ecological costs andbenefits of the planned restoration, and the timelineor schedule for accomplishing the project objectives.

Another key consideration in engaging withpartners on biodiversity and FLR is the alignmentof perspectives and expectations. While there are
significant potential gains from the explicit inclusion of
biodiversity information in forest landscape restorationassessments, the inclusion of stakeholders focusedsolely on biodiversity or forestry can sometimes
create tension, yet, their inclusion is necessary.
Managing expectations in the results of FLR canbe a delicate process, ultimately the objective offorest landscape restoration is to restore ecosystem
functionality for the benefit of both people and planet.

Some examples of possible biodiversity meditations within FLR assessments:
1. Include and communicate with people who care about and support biodiversity, including
national focal points for the Convention on Biological Diversity, academic institutions andnaturalist societies.
2. Utilise relevant knowledge and information on species and ecology in data collection andanalysis of FLR opportunities
3. Provide adequate outputs and recommendations that can be communicated across sectors(from conservation NGOs to Ministries of Agriculture/Finance/etc.)14

If biodiversity conservation and restoration is not themain entry point for a forest landscape restoration
opportunities assessment, we can safely assume
that some biodiversity gains will be made, and it isimportant to quantify them. If the entry point for an
FLR opportunities assessment is to achieve more
substantial biodiversity conservation and/or the
restoration of areas of high biodiversity value, thenthe biodiversity gains are the explicit objective offorest landscape restoration. In both cases there will
be biodiversity gains that are worth pursuing in theassessment process, outcomes and the monitoring of
FLR. Stakeholders primarily interested in biodiversity
conservation should recognise the potential for suchbiodiversity gains even though the landscape may notnecessarily be restored to its reference state, original
ecosystem or vegetation. Stakeholders interested
in the multiple objectives that FLR can bring should
always consider the benefits of conservation andrestoration for biodiversity.

While some biodiversity indicators will be common(e.g. habitat cover, species diversity, area underprotection), the precise methods used will vary
among habitats and ecosystems. For example,
monitoring species populations or communities
may require different approaches in savanna
woodlands compared to lowland tropical rainforests
or high desert and will also depend on stakeholder
engagement and continuity. However, a range ofstandardised tools and monitoring protocols exist
which can be used or adapted as necessary for mostmajor plant and animal taxa. Technological advances
have made a range of tools more easily accessible
and affordable, such as drone- or satellite-based
remote sensing, in situ sensors such as camera traps
or acoustic recording devices, and environmental
DNA monitoring, all of which will have a role to play insome landscapes undergoing restoration. Wherever
possible, data collected should feed not only
into landscape-scale and national-level reporting
schemes, but also into research, monitoring andevaluation processes that support global databases
such as The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species,
Protected Planet and the Living Planet Index. Thisis particularly important since data from these
databases is used to measure progress towards
delivery of global environmental goals (such as the
Aichi Targets as well as the Sustainable Development
Goals). IUCN welcomes more input to the Red List of
Threatened Species on species’ distributions, natural
history, threats and conservation status. To submit
new information to IUCN, please use the following
email contact address: redlist@iucn.org. Additionally,
the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Monitoring
Specialist Group is a key resource when designing or
implementing FLR strategies or implementation.

Of clear importance throughout the planning andpreparation phase is ensuring that stakeholders
in the FLR process are aware of any potential
impacts (positive or negative) resulting fromexpanding consideration of biodiversity both within
the delineated restoration area and in adjacent or
associated areas. Feedback during the planning andpreparation phase from civil society stakeholders
including representatives of governments, nongovernmental
agenciesandlocal/indigenous
communities will greatly inform the project, especiallyon any controversial subjects or initiatives.

Monitoring the impact of forest
landscape restoration

IUCN has also developed biodiversity indicators
under The Red List of Ecosystems which will continue
to develop over the coming years. Engagement with
The Red List of Ecosystems and IUCN Commission
on Ecosystem Management professionals will ensurethat biodiversity and ecosystem monitoring in FLR
assessments also supports these international
criteria on ecosystem conservation status.

Monitoring progress towards meeting the FLR
objectives will typically be tailored to the availabilityof local resources or opportunities and will
characteristically take place once restoration actions
are underway. Monitoring takes place during andafter the physical process of restoration and is also
an important consideration in the data collection andassessment timeframe. However, it is imperative thatmonitoring frameworks and indicators are discussed
and agreed upon by stakeholders during theassessment process. This will set up the conditions
that will make monitoring possible, whether or not
it is actually completed. Much of the input data forthe assessment will also serve as potential indicatorsof FLR progress and importantly, baselines will bemeasured and set during the assessment stage.

Engaging with local communities and otherstakeholders within the FLR landscape for monitoring
restoration progress is a practical way of bothfacilitating local ownership of the FLR process
and establishing an efficient and regular means of
tracking changes in biodiversity. Efforts should bemade to identify a key restoration ecologist (national
or international) who can work with local expertson the ecosystems to be restored. This expert can

15

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

provide guidance to local stakeholders (for instance,
local university students or wildlife enthusiast groups)
in the monitoring process for how to determine if
restoration efforts are working or if additional attention
is required to reach landscape objectives. Examplesof tracking opportunities might be recording sightingsof a threatened target species in areas underrestoration; counts for the number of individuals ofa native tree species regenerating from the existing
seedbank; or improvements to an ecosystem service
in surrounding farmlands (e.g. fruit-setting increases

linked to native pollinator population abundance).
Such citizen science opportunities may enhance datacollection, increase the sustainability of monitoring
programmes and improve the engagement among
FLR proponents and local communities for restoration
actions. Without local input and engagement, it will
be difficult to monitor the variety of ways that FLR
has affected the provision of ecosystem services andthe social benefits or costs that have resulted fromrestoration activities.

Lichen Sticta angstroemii (Lobariaceae, Ascomycota) photographed in a fragmented cloud forest in Campos do Jordão, São Paulo, Brazil. Lobariaceae
lichens may be used as bioindicators for conservation purposes as they are used to detect remaining forest fragments, in this case the Atlantic Forest.
Photo Courtesy of Manuela Dal Forno.

16

Biodiversity information for theassessment process
Following the engagement of key stakeholders in the biodiversity sector and the establishment of a forest
landscape restoration assessment process like the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM),
attention will pivot towards the collection and analysis of data and information regarding FLR. This task will often
be split among working groups on topics like stakeholder mapping, spatial data analysis, ecosystem service
modeling, gender analysis, cost-benefit analysis, enterprise identification, policy analysis and assessments
of institutional readiness. While most biodiversity data tends to be geographic and taxonomic, biodiversity
information should be a welcome component of any working group and is typically already included in someform or another.

Biodiversity information sources

information in the FLR assessment process should be
for the FLR assessment management structure (e.g.
FLR technical committee, FLR executive committee,
institutional lead organisation, etc.) to work with thebiodiversity professional to identify local or national
wildlife and forestry experts who are willing to assist in
restoration assessment and planning. This will include
developing an initial contact list of the governmental
departments, civil society organisations, academic
institutions and local communities that are likely tohave the appropriate expertise. When contacting
these key actors, it is helpful to ask about additional
expert contacts to ensure none have been overlookedin the initial search. Establishing a network from thestart will be very important to developing local tonational ownership of the overall restoration process.

Once the broad FLR outputs and scope have been
considered and agreed on, attention will be turned tothe available existing resources and data that can help
to inform the assessment. Typically, the outputs andscope of FLR are agreed upon during the inception
phase of national or subnational interest in FLR asa nature-based solution to any number of socialand ecological challenges. Often these are codified
in a restoration planning and/or scoping document
produced collaboratively by the people with therights to manage land in the identified assessment
area. This process should ensure that the best
available biodiversity knowledge can be integrated
into the entire assessment using a combination of
the best biodiversity science and information and themost relevant regional, national and local biodiversity
knowledge.

Existing national
contacts

biodiversity

data

Some key national biodiversity data sets
National Red Data List or Book Information—many
countries have published national Red Data lists orbooks that identify and document species that arenational priorities for conservation. The content
of these publications varies substantially between
countries, some are general publications while others
are extremely detailed in the information presented.
Many focus on vertebrates alone (often large
mammals), but information on multiple taxonomic
groups, including invertebrates and plants (suchas threatened tree species) is becoming morecommon. The project team should look to review
these documents to see if the species listed canbe integrated into the restoration assessment andplanning process and what value their inclusion
would bring. If not publically available, these data canoften be acquired by contacting the national focal
point for the Convention on Biological Diversity or inreviewing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action
Plans (NBSAPs).

and

Most countries have a valuable history of gatheringand maintaining information about their naturalenvironment. In addition to more general information
about the fauna and flora of the country, there will
also be data sets associated with historical land usechange (including conversion of forested land) andland use practices undertaken within the country.
Additionally, there may be data available on thecommercial use of species which can be used to
guide the restoration process on plants and animals(including agricultural varieties and crop wild relatives)
now extirpated or rare within the assessment area.
The first step in the collection of data resources tosupport the substantial inclusion of biodiversity

17

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

National biodiversity strategies andaction plans

forest landscape restoration assessments, NBSAPs
can be both a wealth of species-specific information
as well as a starting point for generating interest in
FLR for stakeholders involved in the NBSAP process(see Biodiversity data sources).

NBSAPs have been created for 189 countries party
to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Thismeans that nearly every country has completed arecent assessment of its national biodiversity andformulated a strategy and action plan for biodiversity
conservation. Not surprisingly, the depth and breadthof these NBSAPs vary according to the capacity ofcountries to undertake and implement these activities.
However, despite variations in NBSAPs, all of themprovide information on national biodiversity status,
threats, trends, priorities and strategic actions.
Several NBSAPs acknowledge the role of restorationin supporting national and international biodiversity
targets and for countries or regions undertaking

Extracting relevant biodiversity informationfrom NBSAPs
As an internationally mandated process, thedevelopment of NBSAPs and their content isrelatively standardised and typically includes general
Biodiversity Information Sources. Similar to forest
landscape restoration assessments, NBSAPs identify
stakeholders, geographies and actions many of which
are the same as in FLR assessments. The results fromthe NBSAP policy and institutional analysis will oftenalign with the same process in an FLR assessment,
and may actually include a number of the same key

Figure 3. shows the data that was extracted from Rwanda’s NBSAP, which contained no maps. Rwanda’s administrative divisions are districts, sectors
and cells. Within the NBSAP, several districts are mentioned as priority areas for biodiversity and within each district critical habitats are identified that
explicitly refer to sub-districts (sectors) and/or the cells within them (three administrative levels). There were also situations where specific forests werementioned without naming the administrative division where these features were located. A simple internet search provided the necessary information
to confirm these administrative areas. From this textual information and administrative area spatial data, a GIS analyst can create national maps ofpriority areas for biodiversity based on administrative hierarchies and these data can be used during the spatial analysis of FLR opportunities andpriorities. Additionally, this analytical process could also be completed using watersheds, which may more accurately depict ecosystem boundaries.

18

available for follow-up by FLR practitioners and areusually available as annexes to NBSAP documents.
Government staff currently working on FLR
assessments often have colleagues within theirown departments or ministries that worked on thedevelopment of their national NBSAP. Identifying
and communicating with these individuals on theongoing FLR assessment will provide the opportunity
to mainstream both biodiversity and forest landscaperestoration.

stakeholders within a jurisdiction. Therefore, it would
be wise to begin the FLR assessment with an auditof the policies and laws mentioned in the NBSAP and
how they may relate to FLR. Sectoral policies thathave bearing on biodiversity conservation are usuallywell-linked with, or the same, policies that address
forests and landscapes, though they are often
addressed in different sections of these policies.
NBSAPs are also replete with geographic informationon the status and trends of biodiversity. Often thisinformation is contextual and refers to geographic
areas or features where biodiversity conservation
is especially important. While most NBSAPs do notcontain accompanying geospatial data, extracting
this information from the text of an NBSAP is relatively
simple and provides additional guidance in identifying
and integrating areas important for biodiversity into
FLR assessments. The national CBD focal point for
the area under assessment may also be able to assist
in obtaining this information.

Biodiversity data sources
Historical data sets
For some countries and regions, land cover/land use(including forest and associated habitat extent) andspecies distribution have been recorded or tracked
for decades. In many cases, records have focused
primarily on living natural resources with clear
commercial value. These records may be helpful for
determining the previous extent of native ecosystems,
including the former distribution of important species(e.g. timber trees) that may form a portion of future
restoration interventions. Historical records of the
distribution of animal species may be of value to theplanning process, especially if one of the targets of
the FLR process is to re-establish landscapes that
support these species. Natural return of extirpatedspecies to a restored landscape might be used as a
general indication of successful restoration.

Finally, as an internationally recognised process
undertaken by almost every nation, NBSAPs received
a significant amount of support for their creation. In
each country, workshops helped gather experts
and the information necessary to formulate thestrategies and actions indicated in the plans. In manycases, this was recent enough that the institutional
platforms and staff are still relatively intact. Working
group rosters and lists of stakeholders are readily

19Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Culturally important species and sites

provided within the Red List on the global distributionof a species (including spatial data on a species’
range), population trends, habitat and ecologicalrequirements, threats to the species, use and trade,and conservation needs. Red List information is thenused to determine the global conservation status foreach species—this status can range from ‘CriticallyEndangered’ (global conservation priorities) to ‘Least
Concern’ (of less immediate conservation concern).
Data are publicly available for non-commercial use,and can be accessed at the following: http://www.
iucnredlist.org

As part of an overall strategy for landscape restorationand its biodiversity component, it is helpful for boththe technical restoration process and interactions withlocal communities to consider culturally important
species and sites within the planning process.
These may be species or sites that are important
for religious or spiritual purposes, that have somelocal economic use (such as for subsistence food or
medicine), or may be areas or species of enjoyment
because of their beauty, intrinsic value or other type ofsignificance to local communities. Information about
species and sites of importance (such as sacredgroves) is often available at a local scale only, and ismost appropriately gathered through early interaction
with naturalists and communities within proposed
project areas.

International data
In addition to the many valuable national biodiversity
data and information resources, there is a substantial
range of standardised biodiversity data produced byinternational conservation organisations; much ofthis is useful during FLR assessments. The following
is a partial list of some of the leading data available
that FLR practitioners may wish to consider using:
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species – The IUCN‘Red List’ is the world’s primary source for data on boththreatened and non-threatened species (over 87,000
species are documented). Detailed information is often

20

Kruger National Park, South Africa. Photo courtesy of Craig Beatty/IUCN

Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) – KBAs are nationallyidentified sites that are recognised to contribute to
the persistence of biodiversity. Globally standardised
criteria and thresholds (divided into five categories:
threatened biodiversity; geographically restrictedbiodiversity;
ecologicalintegrity;
biologicalprocesses; and, irreplaceability) have been developed
to guide the identification of priority conservationsites with defined boundaries. KBA’s are increasingly
being used to support conservation planning andsustainable development at national and regional
levels. Now included within KBAs are the Important
Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) and Alliancefor Zero Extinction sites (AZE) more fully detailed
below. The World Database of Key Biodiversity
Areas can be accessed at the following: http://www.
keybiodiversityareas.org/home

Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) –Developed by BirdLife International, these are sites thathave been identified as significant for the persistenceof bird species. They have been catalogued throughinternationally standardised criteria, with over 12,000
IBAs in over 200 countries and territories. These sites
are also recognised as KBAs for birds. More details
about IBAs and their value can be accessed at: http://
www.birdlife.org/worldwide/programme-additionalinfo/important-bird-and-biodiversity-areas-ibas

the ecosystems of the world by 2025, based on
the application of a series of recently developed
standardised categories and criteria. This central
goal has been established to support conservationin resource use and management decisions byidentifying ecosystems most at risk of collapse.
Further information about the IUCN RLE and its
current geographic coverage can be obtained at:https://iucnrle.org
Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) – This
database is maintained by the IUCN/Species Survival
Commission Invasive Species Specialist Group. It
contains searchable details about alien and invasive
species that have a negative impact on native
biodiversity and natural areas, including a list of the‘100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species’.
While understandably not yet comprehensive incovering the vast array of potential invasive species,
the GISD represents an extremely helpful tool
when planning a FLR project, especially for initial
screening of non-native species associated with the
project landscape. It is also important to note that
not all introduced exotic species are invasive. The
Convention on Biological Diversity defines “invasive
alien species” as “plants, animals, pathogens andother organisms that are non-native to an ecosystem,
and which may cause economic or environmental

Alliance for Zero Extinction sites (AZEs) – The AZE
is a partnership of non-governmental biodiversity
conservation organisations working to prevent
species extinctions by identifying and safeguarding
the places where Endangered or Critically Endangered
species are restricted to a single remaining site.
Terrestrial species groups evaluated against the AZE
criteria include mammals, birds, amphibians, conifers
and some reptiles, with progress being made onother species. Additional information on AZE sites
can be located at the following (including a globalmap): http://www.zeroextinction.org
The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) – The
IUCN RLE is of interest to restoration practitioners,
most especially in that it hopes to provide a
global assessment of the conservation status of

Avoiding lasting damage from invasive species during FLR planning
While the use of native species is strongly recommended wherever possible, there will be many
instances where a specific FLR intervention requires the utilisation of non-native species—for instance,in situations where quick-growing trees are needed and no native alternatives exist, or where agroforestry
has emerged as a nature-based solution to landscape degradation. In cases where non-native species
use is planned, great care must be taken to identify species that will not damage local ecology bybecoming or harbouring alien invasive species.
Invasive species have emerged as one of the most common threats to native biodiversity. In addition to
the problems caused to native species (for instance through predation, competition or changes to soil orsubstrate structure) invasive species can impact local communities, by invading and damaging farmland
and other economically viable sites. The cost of removing invasive species can be extremely high, andin many cases, it may be impossible to totally eradicate alien invasive species, leaving ongoing costly
population control as the only feasible management option.
While there is a need to be careful about vegetation choices (such as exotic trees that have the potential
to become invasive species), it is also important to make wise choices when intentionally introducing
animal species. All the detailed information gathered by the project’s ecologist should be considered
before any options for introduction are considered. As with vegetation, the introduction of invasive
animal species can be difficult to reverse and can result in ongoing damage to not just the project area,
but to the landscape including surrounding areas and ecosystems.

21

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

harm or adversely affect human health.” The GISD
database can be searched at: http://www.iucngisd.
org/gisdplanning purposes and for guiding sustainable
development (especially when managing businessrisk and opportunity). These data are available at twosites—IBAT for Research and Conservation Planning(https://www.ibat-alliance.org/ibat-conservation) thatprovides access to freely available information, and
IBAT for Business (https://www.ibatforbusiness.org)
where a fee is required for the commercial use of theextensive biodiversity data.

World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) – Accessto this publicly available database, a joint project
between United Nations Environment (UNEP), The
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and
IUCN, is provided through the ‘Protected Planet’
online platform. Spatial data, which includes important
RAMSAR wetland sites, can be downloaded, including
the most globally comprehensive information onterrestrial and marine protected areas coverage.
Related statistics and further details about both the
WDPA and Protected Planet can be accessed at thefollowing: https://protectedplanet.net

Policy and institutional biodiversity
information
During an FLR assessment, one of the key activities
is an analysis of the extent to which existing policies,
laws, codes and institutions enable or discourage
forest landscape restoration. The national policies
and laws that are specifically related to biodiversity
have often been well-summarised in the national
biodiversity strategy and action plan (NBSAP). As aresult, the types of laws and policies that are outlined
in NBSAPs may more commonly reflect policies as
they specifically relate to threatened species, tradeand protected areas for conservation without taking
a broader view of the social implications or relianceon biodiversity. Other policies, plans and strategies

Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool – While thisis not a primary biodiversity data resource, it is avaluable tool that brings together a range of global
and national data layers useful for FLR planning,such as protected area boundaries (from the WDPA),
biological information about habitat and species
diversity indices (provided through the IUCN Red
List), and Key Biodiversity Areas for biodiversity(including previously discussed IBAs and AZE sites),
which is useful for both research and conservation

Beehives produce honey that can be a valuable non-timber and non-agrigultural commodity, while also supporting increases in pollination. Communities
and bees both depend on the biodiversity of the landscape here on the slopes of Mount Elgon in Bukwo District, Uganda. Photo courtesy of Craig Beatty/
IUCN

22

policies (e.g. agricultural or trade policy) for theirimpact on biodiversity will drastically improve therecognition and mainstreaming of biodiversity in FLR.
An analysis of the enabling environment for FLR cangive a clear picture of the (dis)incentives to restore
and conserve that exist for stakeholders within thelandscape, and this analysis can assist in providing
recommendations for a holistic and cohesive
approach to biodiversity and FLR.

identified during the assessment process that are
relevant for FLR relate to natural resource use, land
tenure regimes and conflict, and jurisdictional andtenure issues. Since many of these policies may
inherently or specifically deal with access to natural
resources, there is an inherent biodiversity component
to each and most provide additional information on
the social reliance on natural resources and capital.
Forest landscape restoration takes a view of
biodiversity conservation that includes species andecosystems that may not currently be threatened, butthat provide the critical conditions for restoration ofmultifunctional landscapes. As biodiversity declines
species and ecosystems are increasingly at risk,
resulting in wide-scale landscape degradation. To
better understand the enabling environment for FLR
that may also maximise biodiversity outcomes, itis necessary to better understand the policies andplans impacting the wider landscape.

One of the difficulties for the practitioner may bedifferences in legal boundaries and jurisdictions
among the various laws and policies relating to
FLR and in the NBSAPs, for example. NBSAPs are
overwhelmingly based on protected areas, whereas
many of the other legal instruments surrounding FLR
consider jurisdictions such as provinces, districts
or communities. Extracting and interpreting thisnecessary information at the correct administrativeor political level for the FLR assessment remains achallenge. This difficulty can be further compoundedby the lack of mainstream biodiversity considerationin existing land use, economic, development, or FLR
policies and plans. As a result, biodiversity that may
not be a priority for conservation (NBSAP), and isalso not catalogued in the other policies and plansincluding in terms of specific natural resource export
value, may be overlooked. Since biodiversity andecosystem services are regularly under-valued as
public goods, policies and laws supporting the role ofbiodiversity in restoring functional landscapes, haveAnalysis of FLR strategies, laws, policies and plansaffecting the assessment area in question will provide
critical guidance to overcoming the bottlenecks for the
successful implementation of FLR. This may include
identifying conflicting policies or policies that may
disproportionately impact one sector at the expenseof another. This is a process that is typically carriedout by a ‘policy and institutions’ working group within
the FLR assessment structure, but a biodiversity
professional who is comfortable translating such

The presence of bird species can be an important indication of restoration success. Many species have strict habitat requirements, but the continued
presence of generalist species is also an indication that landscapes may not be degrading further. Additionally, birds calls and sightings are a relatively
simple was to monitor at least one component of biodiversity. Green-backed tit (Parus monticolus) Sikkim, India. Photo courtesy of Akshay Vishwanath.

23

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

withstand political cycles and benefit from the longterm vision for sustainable and effective landscaperestoration.

generally lagged behind policy objectives designed
to catalyse economic growth (Arrow et al. 1995,
Kumar et al. 2013). The undervaluing of biodiversity
and ecosystem services has in turn lead to low
investments in landscape restoration, despite its
numerous and diverse benefits.

Biodiversity data in mapping andspatial analysis

Moreover, each of the typical goals for FLR have abroad base of laws and institutions that support them,especially as these goals support objectives thatare more directly tied to social welfare. The political
will and movement for topics like public health andpoverty alleviation are relatively well establishedand funded, and it is clear that both of these goals
are intimately linked to healthy landscapes (Herrera
et al., 2018). The restoration, maintenance andconservation of landscape biodiversity—irrespectiveof, but also acknowledging conservation value—is
key to achieving significant and sustainable progresson these goals.

Key in the alignment between biodiversity information
and FLR assessments to support conservation andlandscape restoration initiatives like REDD+ and theBonn Challenge is the analytical assessment of where
and how information on restoration and biodiversity
interact. Assessments for biodiversity conservation,
typically through NBSAPs but also through otherconservation programmes and initiatives, contain awealth of geographic data on biodiversity, habitatand landscapes. Similarly, FLR assessments alsocollect and analyse spatial data to identify driversof landscape degradation and opportunity areas forlandscape scale restoration across many different
land uses. One of the primary objectives of thisguidance document is to facilitate cooperation anddata/knowledge sharing among these complimentary
processes.

One especially helpful aspect of NBSAP development
is the identification, development and refinement ofpublic policies to support biodiversity conservation.
By extension, many policies developed for theconservation of biodiversity also have bearing on
the restoration of degraded landscapes. In somecases, restoration actions may be mandated toinclude a threshold of native plant species used in
the restoration process. In other cases, the types ofrestoration that can be implemented may be definedby the laws that have been passed to support theconservation of biodiversity or to limit the spread ofinvasive species. The analysis of public policies andlaws that were developed under the NBSAP process
and how they might connect with similar policies andlaws for FLR can lead to efficient alignments of both
existing policies and policy gaps.

Between national, regional and global sourcesof biodiversity information there are many welldocumented and respected spatial information
sources on species, habitats and ecosystems.
Globally, The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species requires that all published threatened
species accounts contain distribution ranges andmost species accounts contain this information.
Additionally, there have been several global
assessments of ecosystems and ecoregions
including by the US Geological Survey2 and WWF/
TNC.3 The global focus on monitoring forest loss
and changes in land use and land cover have also
led to the use of remotely-sensed satellite data
which can provide useful and real-time information
on forest loss and land cover change, which should
not be conflated with monitoring biodiversity per se,
but still provides useful and actionable landscapeinformation. Measuring and assessing biodiversity
within an FLR context should take advantage of these
global data sets as well as national or finer-scalebiodiversity data discovered during the inception of
the assessment.

FLR practitioners should seek to modify public
policies that undermine forest landscape restoration
initiatives to ensure that any restorative actions
taken on degraded lands are supported politicallyand institutionally. While often a substantial task, themodification of national or subnational legislation to
support landscape restoration and/or biodiversity
conservation has occurred in many countries andhas led to positive outcomes for people and nature.
Addressing and modifying public policy helps ensurethat the solutions brokered through the stakeholderdriven FLR assessment process and resulting
strategies find a foothold for implementation that may

A result of the FLR assessment process should bemaps of where land is degraded (often including

2. https://rmgsc.cr.usgs.gov/ecosystems
3. https://www.worldwildlife.org/biome-categories/terrestrial-ecoregions

24

analyses of the intensity of this degradation), where
restoration is possible, and what opportunities forrestoration might exist. In each of these products
biodiversity information can be used to help define,prioritise or refine areas that show high potential
for implementing forest landscape restoration
activities. Places where biodiversity is under threat
can be included in the spatial analysis as a type ofprioritisation filter giving higher weight to places
receiving greater degradation pressures. The FLR
practitioner should locate degraded areas where FLR
implementation would benefit the landscape and its
people and where these areas overlap with areas thatare a high priority for biodiversity as well.

(e.g. NatureServe Vista, Maxent, Marxan, Zonation,
VORTEX, RAMAS, BIOMOD, etc.). When provided
with appropriate species context, these types ofmodels can be helpful in illustrating how species may
respond to restoration.
To effectively map biodiversity priority using the data
resources mentioned above, the spatial analyst should
contact the data providers using the contacts listed
in Biodiversity Data Sources. Once data are acquired,
they can be analysed separately as a biodiversity
analyses or they can be integrated into the broader data
analysis portion of the FLR assessment. The choice
will depend on the objectives and expectation of the
FLR assessment working group and stakeholders.
If biodiversity is a key consideration included asa goal for FLR, it might make sense to complete afree-standing biodiversity analysis and then use theresults of this analysis to help inform or prioritise otheranalyses (e.g. degradation, food security, resilience,etc.). However, if biodiversity restoration is not an
explicit goal of the FLR assessment, it might makesense to include these data as components of theunderlying FLR assessment. This means including
biodiversity data as one of many criteria in a multicriteria analysis, or using biodiversity data as a proxyfor other biophysical or social processes that are ofinterest to the FLR assessment.

Alternatively, since most biodiversity data will relate
to the presence or absence of species or otherbiodiversity criteria, integrating these data into thespatial assessments of degraded land, priority areas
and FLR opportunities is relatively straight forward
exercise. Biodiversity data are typically geographic
presence data and it is rare to find spatial datathat covers an entire FLR assessment area that
also includes biodiversity attributes like species
richness or diversity indices (e.g. Shannon’s index or
Simpson’s Index). Despite this, conservation planningand habitat suitability modelling is possible using
tools familiar to conservation biologists or ecologists

Multi-criteria analysis for biodiversity in FLR assessments
The spatial analysis of biodiversity data within a multi-criteria analysis framework is relatively simple.
The spatial data analyst should acquire each of the relevant data layer types, ensure they are in raster
format and work with stakeholders to parameterise them to include data that would be interestingin the analysis. The parameterisation of the spatial biodiversity data could include removing species
ranges for species that are considered ‘least concern’ or selecting a particular taxon that is of interest
to stakeholders or restoration practitioners. Additionally, it could include extracting areas that have aminimum specific canopy cover percent or ecoregions that have demonstrated conservation priority
or value.
The analyst then reclassifies these data into binary rasters where “1” equals the parameter of biodiversitythat the analyst finds interesting and “0” includes all other areas within the raster extent. It is possible
to assign different weights to input layers during reclassification, but the discussion of appropriate
weights can become protracted among project partners and stakeholders. It is simpler instead to
discuss the appropriate parameters for each layer with stakeholders.
The analyst then directs the GIS to perform additive map algebra using the input binary raster layers thathave just been parameterised and reclassified. The resulting raster will show where biodiversity criteria
overlap and to what degree. Care should be taken here to reduce the potential for data overlaps that are
artifacts of the analysis. A frequent example of this in biodiversity analysis is the overlap between KBAs
and protected areas. Utilisation both of these layers in a biodiversity multi-criteria analysis without
recognising their autocorrelation will lead to double-counting these areas.

25

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

In the figure below, four broad biodiversity criteria were used to assess biodiversity for inclusion in
Malawi’s National Forest Landscape Restoration Assessment and Strategy. “High” tree cover wasdetermined using 40% minimum canopy cover as the threshold. Stakeholders also wanted to identify
gazetted protected areas outside of currently identified Key Biodiversity Areas and Key Biodiversity
Areas outside of current protected areas. Due to the nature of the assessment, protected areas were
not included in this analysis as explained in the National Assessment document. Finally, ecoregions
designated as “endangered” or “critically endangered” were included as inputs. When overlaid witheach other they produce the colour map which shows where input criteria are coincident.
Within Malawi’s national FLR assessment it was determined that if less than 10% of Malawi’s national
commitment to FLR under the Bonn Challenge was implemented
using approaches that prioritised restoration using native species
and supporting natural ecosystems, Malawi could restore all of
its degraded land within its Key Biodiversity Areas. This would
potentially lead to tremendous national gains in Malawi for its
commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
High tree coverProtected areas
outside KBAs

KBAs outside
protected areas

Endangered
ecoregions

Coincident
biologicaldiversity
criteria
1
2
3
1:4,400,000

Accounting for ecological dynamics and flow in
the assessment of biodiversity data for FLR is the
final consideration in spatial analysis. While spatial
data are static, ecosystems, species and genes
are dynamic and the proximity of areas importantfor biodiversity to each other confers an additional
level of consideration when mapping biodiversity
priorities for FLR; the configuration of remaining
habitat fragments, water courses, or populations may
increase the priority of these areas for biodiversity
restoration. If data are available, it is recommended
that biodiversity professionals analyse species trends
and population dynamics over several species’
generations for their inclusion in the spatial data

analysis of FLR assessments. This will also provide
more robust information for baseline data andreference values for monitoring the impact of FLR on
biodiversity.
It may also be relevant to consider how species
ranges may shift due to changes in climate or thederivative effects of climate change. There is atleast one confirmed modern case of a mammal
extinction due to climate change (Waller et al., 2017)
and the influence of changing climates including theimpacts of rising sea levels on species are real andare evolving (Thomas et al. 2004, Wetzel et al. 2013).
These can include range contractions or reductions

26

in population, in addition to broader ecosystemchanges due to shifts in species relationships, theimpacts of alien invasive species, or undetermined
trophic cascades. It is clear that when considering
FLR in the context of climate change, the inclusionof biodiversity should not only account for the current
ecological conditions, but also predicted future
ecological conditions when possible. This allows forthe selection of restoration species that may be more
resilient to shifts in weather and climate patterns. The
utilization of a diversity of species in restoration also
helps to insulate large investments in design, planningand implementation from attrition due to unpredictedenvironmental changes. Several tools, including the
Climate Change Vulnerability Index4, developed by
NatureServe can be instrumental in modeling how
climate change may impact species. Additionally,
IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Climate Change
Specialist Group (https://iucn-ccsg.org/) may beable to provide additional resources and information
regarding the susceptibility of species to climatechange and recommendations for enhancing species
conservation under changing climate conditions.

native species be planted and used in restoration
activities and this generally receives broad support.
However, in most places native species are notwidely cultivated and there is a dramatic gap in theambitions of native biodiversity restoration and thephysical and genetic stock to achieve these ambitions(Haase and Davis, 2017). During an FLR assessment
it will be necessary to enlist an audit of potential seed
and seedling sources within the assessment area,
often with the help of nurseries and botanic gardens
should they exist. In some cases, the lack of native
seed and seedlings may present a barrier to effective
FLR interventions using native species. Though, inother cases this could present a valuable business
opportunity for rural areas to collect and supply
native seed and seedlings for pending restorationinterventions, as has happened in several countries(Urzedo, et al., 2017, De Vitis, et al., 2017).

Considering biodiversity in FLR
assessments and planningAs hundreds of millions of hectares of degraded land
are committed to landscape restoration it becomesincreasingly important that FLR practitioners are
informed and understand the many perspectivesof the landscapes in which they are working. Plans
for restoration interventions should be modified andimplemented within the landscape context such that
restoration supports increased human well-being andthe overall biodiversity value does not decline due torestoration activity.

Identifying biodiversity gaps
Despite the increasing wealth of trustworthy
biodiversity information from national and international
data sources, it is probable that for many locations
there will be substantial gaps in the knowledge
about which species and ecological communities
existed at the site prior to its degradation. In manycases there will be few records about the species
composition of the former landscapes (especiallyfor invertebrates, fungi and some plant groups),
however a lack of available information cannot deter
restoration efforts. If additional information emerges
about the former presence of a species at the site
during landscape restoration, an evaluation can beundertaken to determine whether populations of thisspecies should be included within the ongoing workor including in the future—this is perhaps especiallytrue for tree species or ‘keystone’ animal species that
perform substantial ecological benefits that support
the persistence of many additional species within thelandscape (such as tree seed dispersal).

In FLR implementation the practitioner employs asuite of restorative strategies, including traditional
ecological restoration. Importantly, FLR does not
advocate for large-scale shifts in prevailing landuse, but rather in restoring degraded and deforested
landscapes and aligning current land use with FLR
principles. At the same time, trade-offs need to beconsidered that may lead to changes in land use. For
instance, while agroforestry can be an important FLR
intervention, it may not be an appropriate intervention
strategy in areas with an existing high biodiversity
value. Additionally, ecological restoration in areas withextremely low biodiversity value is typically prohibitivein cost and effort.

One of the most glaring gaps that follows from theassessment of biodiversity in FLR assessments is therelative scarcity of native seed and seedling stock forrestoration activities (Jalonen et al, 2017). Throughout
the world, FLR initiatives often recommend that4.

An estimate of how restoration may affect native
biodiversity should be a key outcome of any landscaperestoration opportunities assessment. Throughhttp://www.natureserve.org/conservation-tools/climate-change-vulnerability-index

27Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

the analysis of spatial and non-spatial biodiversity
information within an assessment area, the FLR
practitioner should acquire a good understanding of
the biodiversity priorities of a landscape along withthe assessments of degradation and its drivers. The
objective in safeguarding biodiversity is to “do no harm”
when implementing restoration actions, but the vision
is to use restoration to improve biodiversity outcomes.
In terms of biodiversity this can be accomplishedthrough restoration in one of two ways:

for biodiversity have the potential to help species
recover and increase biodiversity outcomes at thelandscape scale. This is especially the case for areasin the analysis that are classified as degraded but
exist within protected areas or Key Biodiversity Areas(KBAs). Restoration of these areas, especially withecological restoration in mind or as a component,
helps improve and maintain the integrity andconnectivity of these landscapes. This also extends
to the effect of landscape restoration on the qualityof water and waterways, which often represent areas
where FLR interventions are not physically possible,
but that may see drastic improvements as a result of
restorative actions.

First, restoration of landscapes to increase productivity
and support human livelihoods has the potential
to decrease pressure on biodiversity. Restorationthat improves landscape conditions, agricultural
productivity and provides other social benefits canlead to fewer pressures on areas of high biodiversity
and reduce or prevent over-exploitation of natural
resources. In many places, healthy ecosystems
provide the necessary ecosystem services and social
safety net for survival for the rural poor. Furthermore,
FLR can make landscapes more biodiverse overall, as
species of trees, plants and crops in the assessment
area are increased when implementing restoration
strategies.

Some additional resources for ensuring that
restoration activities support biodiversity include The
World Bank’s Environmental and Social Safeguards(Chapter 6), IFC Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living.
Natural Resources (PSS 6), The Society for Ecological
Restoration’s International Standards for the Practiceof Ecological Restoration. Bioversity’s Resource
Box for Resilient Seed Systems, and Guidelines
on Business and KBAs developed by The Key
Biodiversity Areas Partners.

Second, appropriate restoration interventions indegraded areas that are specifically important

A file-eared tree frog (Polypedates otophilus) from the island of Borneo. Photo courtesy of Philip Bowles

28Key questions

29

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Where, or how, is biodiversity distributed within the assessment
area? Are biodiversity data available or accessible?
Initial screening of biodiversity distributions can be undertaken using the biodiversity data sets outlined
earlier (for both threatened and non-threatened species). These data include publicly available spatial
information for an increasingly wide range of species. Overlaying the range maps for these species (orareas of conservation priority) can provide a general guide to how species are potentially distributed
within the assessment area. It is important that local data sets are included within the review process if
available. Not only will these contain information about additional species included in regional or global
data sets to date, but in many cases, they will have more specific data on the sites where priority species
have been recorded. Also, it is important to note that wherever possible any historical data on land-use
change (especially where biodiversity distribution is discussed) will be important for planning restoration
work.

An Abyssinian Slaty-flycatcher (Melaenornis chocolatinus) perches with some lichen in the Suba Forest in Oromia, Ethiopia. Photo courtesyof Craig Beatty/IUCN.

30

Are there geographic areas that should be prioritised for restoration
because this activity will be of clear local benefit to both people andnature?
While reviewing the potential areas in a landscape for restoration activities, there will be a range ofoptions for initiating FLR work. Areas of former native vegetation that are now heavily degraded andunder little current use, are clearly sites that would generally benefit from FLR interventions for bothpeople and nature. Identifying degraded land close to existing areas of native vegetation is a goodfirst step towards more specific planning of FLR activities that benefit biodiversity or allow for naturalregeneration strategies of adjacent degraded land. The restoration of these lands in principle should
allow for range expansion of desirable species that are currently confined to the remnant areas of habitat(though recolonisation of restoration sites for some taxa can be a slow process), while also providing thewider ecosystem services for people dependent on the landscape under restoration.

The transition zone between agricultural land, buffer forest plantations and native juniper forest in Oromia, Ethiopia. Photo courtesy of Craig
Beatty/IUCN

31

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

How can species native to the landscape, especially plants, be
included within the restoration process and what is the current
availability of native plants? Are plant nurseries available or is there
an opportunity to develop native plant nurseries as part of therestoration process?
In many, but not all FLR interventions, it may be best to focus restoration efforts on native plant species
that are adapted to the local environment for greatest return on both biodiversity conservation andexpansion of ecosystem service benefits to people. Local forestry officials, extension workers and thelead project ecologist may provide support on plant species selection which may focus on mixed areasof native species, rather than native monoculture plantations and intercropping with native tree species inagroforestry systems or windbreaks, for example. Sourcing native species for restoration may present its
own challenges, as access to native saplings and seedlings may not be immediately possible from local
nurseries. This issue needs to be considered early in the overall project planning process, especially as
there may be opportunities for local community employment through the development of plant nurseries
to grow the native species required for FLR (a long-term commitment in many cases). If more immediate
planting of an area is needed, exotic species may be used to stabilise degraded land while native plants
are being grown, It may then be possible to either replace the exotic vegetation with native species assoon as possible in a relay approach or to integrate them into a successional plan (Tanveer, et al., 2017).

A Siamese Rosewood (Dalbergia cochinchinensis) nursery in Siem Reap, Cambodia. This state-run nursery provides seedlings to landowners
and schools at no cost, and commercial purchase is available for those wishing to start a rosewood plantation. A high-value species,
Siamese rosewood can provide a lucrative long-term forest landscape restoration investment.

32

How will the restoration of an area, biome or ecosystem impact
the biodiversity value of areas, biomes and ecosystems (including
freshwater and marine?) adjacent to, or linked/associated with, thelandscape to be restored?
The restoration of habitat within a large project site will almost certainly have some ecological orenvironmental impacts on the biodiversity richness (or value) of surrounding areas, biomes or ecosystems.
Within terrestrial systems, an immediate impact will be the reestablishment or expansion of a habitat typethat was either formerly lost to the area, or much reduced, often resulting from earlier pressure by people
for land or resources. While this may be desirable from the view of restoring biodiversity (as summarised
throughout these guidelines) it is important that care is taken to survey habitats at the project location
before any restoration work begins. Without good, well-planned surveys of the landscape, there is thepossibility that important local habitats, such as natural grasslands or wetlands could be damaged
through inappropriate measures. Before a project begins, it is good practice to map out these areas
and think carefully about the impacts that extensive planting or restoration work might have on these(such as changes to hydrological systems). In addition to the largely terrestrial impacts of restoration,
there will be additional changes to local freshwater and marine systems, usually within the watershed of
the restoration project. As noted, sometimes complicated changes to hydrological systems can result
from changes to the surrounding vegetation—reduction of the run-off of water from land into freshwaterlakes, streams and ultimately into marine systems are likely, as is a reduction in the sediment eroded
from terrestrial habitats. In many cases this may provide a positive overall environmental impact for the
associated hydrological system (e.g. reduced turbidity), but consideration of these prospective changes
must be made during the planning stage.

Marabou stork (Leptoptilos crumenifer) and pied crows (Corvus albus) in Jinja, Uganda. Photo courtesy of Craig Beatty/IUCN.

33

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Are there individual species (perhaps threatened or endemic species),
species assemblages, or other conservation units that need special
consideration and potential accommodation within the planning
process?
The benefits of directly including biodiversity conservation information and stakeholders in the planning
process far outweigh the costs if it is clear from the start that FLR is not primarily intended to bea mechanism for full ecological restoration. While FLR might not achieve all the goals of complete
ecological restoration, those involved with biodiversity conservation and FLR have a significant
opportunity for cooperation in increasing ecological productivity and supporting livelihoods. For
biodiversity professionals, FLR provides an opportunity to broadly improve the conditions of species andecosystems and to reduce the threats and pressures to biodiversity at a scale of hundreds of millions ofhectares worldwide. FLR practitioners can gain valuable knowledge about species and ecosystems in
the target landscapes such that restoration actions can be assessed and planned within an ecosystemcontext—increasing the chances of landscape restoration success.
Both conservation and restoration have the potential to monitor and communicate the benefits of abiodiversity-integrated approach to FLR assessments. These can include reporting against internationaland national development targets and goals, but more importantly can realise the benefits that abiodiversity-informed approach to FLR can have for human well-being and livelihoods in the short andlong term.

The Vietnamese Giant Snail (Bertia cambojiensis) is restricted to only a small area in southern Vietnam. Due to its large shell and rarity, it isunder pressure from collection and declines in habitat extent and quality. Photo courtesy of Paul Pearce-Kelly.

34

Effectively communicating biodiversity
inclusion of specific biodiversity knowledge isimportant in the assessment process, the recognitionof all actors of the primal dependence of FLR on
biodiversity is a concept that must be communicated.
The restoration of landscapes takes many paths formany different and often competing reasons —someof which would be impaired by an over-reliance on
the integration of biodiversity specifics. For instance,
the selection of agroforestry species may be severely
restricted by what markets and growing conditions
will tolerate and as such, the practicality of abiodiversity perspective to agroforestry species may
be restricted.

The identification and assessment of forest landscaperestoration opportunities, interaction with relevant
stakeholders, analysis of policies, and the analysis ofspatial data and economic benefits of biodiversity inthe previous section and in the ROAM handbook have
hopefully led to a network of national and international
biodiversity contacts and pertinent information on
FLR and biodiversity. Additionally, spatial data andeconomic analysis should have created empirical
data on the location and priority of biodiversity sites
within the assessment area. When under restoration,these areas may help to alleviate the pressures andthreats to biodiversity, increase overall biodiversity of
the landscape to be restored, and help restore highvalue biodiversity areas that are currently degraded.

When integrating biodiversity knowledge into theassessment process, the FLR practitioner should
recognise when a discussion of biodiversity helps
facilitate the process and when it detracts fromthe goals of FLR. In the case of agroforestry, whilebiodiversity may not always form a significant portionof agroforestry species choice, the implementation
pathway for agroforestry restoration presents
an appropriate entry point for a discussion of
biodiversity. As a diverse strategy implemented at
the landscape scale, the restoration of landscapebiodiversity can help to support the success ofagroforestry interventions and rather than focusing
on species choice within the intervention, therestoration practitioner can additionally focus onwhere agroforestry interventions could interact with
and/or support landscape biodiversity. Conversely, it
may also be possible to assess how the restorationof ecological function in one area may support thedelivery of ecosystem services in other areas.

Although this work is complete for the time being,
the results need to be clearly articulated andcommunicated both within the assessment team andto external audiences. Communication within the teamensures that the benefits to FLR through biodiversity
considerations are explicitly included in the forest
landscape restoration opportunities assessment
and strategy. Communication outside the immediate
assessment team ensures that the informationcollected or synthesised from the assessment
process will be taken up in relevant policies and plans
and mainstreamed in FLR implementation.
The assessment of biodiversity for forest landscaperestoration assessments is one component of a muchlarger process. While biodiversity is considered ateach stage, there are important milestones within theassessment process where biodiversity information
can be most effectively communicated and/or
integrated.

During the process itself, biodiversity information andknowledge can be collected and communicated during
the project’s inception by including stakeholders thatare interested in and concerned with biodiversity
conservation and restoration. During the analysis
portion of the landscape assessment, biodiversity
information and data can be a starting point for policy
and institutional analysis through a review of NBSAPs,
international and national biodiversity data sources,
and through the assessment of ecosystem services
and connections between species and economic
markets. The analysis phase of the assessment
process is an opportune time to ensure the rolebiodiversity plays in achieving FLR objectives is clear
and supported by existing data, science and policy.
Once biodiversity is explicitly included in the analysis,

The identification of biodiversity benefits as a key
component of any FLR assessment should becommunicated at the beginning of each process. It
may be that biodiversity conservation is not a primaryobjective of forest landscape restoration, and thismay be for understandable and practical reasons.
However, whether or not biodiversity and the supportof productive ecosystems is a stated goal of forest
landscape restoration, the underlying processes thatmake FLR successful are all rooted in the restorationof the biological and ecological processes that are
carried out by the interaction among species ina landscape. Biodiversity is a component of any
landscape restoration action and as much as the35

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

it becomes much easier to communicate the resultsof an FLR assessment in terms of biodiversity gains
and benefits.

This is not to say that maps and analysis of where
biodiversity is especially important to consider are
not valuable components of the FLR assessment
process in and of themselves. Data products,
knowledge generated and institutional connections
between biodiversity and FLR processes help tomainstream both biodiversity and forest landscaperestoration. The result from the communication of thisbiodiversity information within the assessment teamand to broader audiences will be an acknowledgementof the primal role biodiversity plays in the longterm success of forest landscape restoration andthe deeper integration of biodiversity knowledge,
tools and capacities into an already impactful andmeaningful process.

The digestible communication of biodiversity
knowledge generated from the landscape assessment
process is paramount. This means that the informationon the importance of biodiversity is not presented
as a factor that can be considered or not—it is theultimate condition upon which restoration will either
succeed or fail. Restoration interventions, especiallythose in species poor productive landscapes thatfail to support biodiversity and genetic diversity
in the restoration of ecosystem productivity, risk
failure because interventions may not be well-suited
to prevailing ecologies and landscape processes(Lindenmayer et al. 2002, Reynolds et al. 2012).

A thick-billed raven (Corvus crassirostris) in the Simien Mountains, Ethiopia. Photo courtesy of Rod Waddington

36Conclusion
This guidance document has outlined the importanceof considering genes, species and ecosystems in
FLR assessments and in the resulting implementation
strategies. It has also provided a wealth of resources
for connecting to biodiversity information andbiodiversity professionals and outlined some of theforesight that is critical for surveying and monitoring
the effect of FLR on biodiversity and ecosystemservices. Also key is the detailed description of
biodiversity information sources that are both explicitin their connection to biodiversity (e.g. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species and the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Ecosystems) and the implicit connectionsin economic development policies. Suggested
procedures for mapping biodiversity priorities within
an assessment process are articulated here alongwith sources of spatial and non-spatial biodiversity
data to support this mapping process. Finally, theseguidelines provide suggestions and resources for FLR
practitioners on how the FLR assessment process
can include biodiversity safeguard procedures tohelp ensure that FLR does not inadvertently drive
reductions in biodiversity through interventions that
may be beneficial for biodiversity and ecosystemservices in some situations, but detrimental tobiodiversity in others.

In practice, FLR is largely concerned with interventions
that occur in human-dominated landscapes undercultivation. This means that FLR leans heavily on
restoration activities like agroforestry, conservation
agriculture and other agriculturally-based restoration
methods to increase soil fertility and food production.
However, the integration of native and novel
biodiversity into these interventions is a uniqueand important entry point for a more substantialconsideration of ecological processes in in FLR.
Forest Landscape Restoration continues to emerge asa key tool for improving local to global environmental
conditions for both people and nature. It is expectedthat in many instances, an expanded considerationand careful use of biodiversity data in the FLR
process will lead to the desired socio-economicand environmental ‘win-win’ objectives of modern
landscape restoration and conservation activities.
Successful forest landscape restoration that
integrates biodiversity considerations and benefits
will be critical for restoring the ecological productivityof a landscape. These increases in ecologicalproductivity are the product of healthy and sustainable
landscape practices that support resilience and foodproductivity and sustain biodiversity. That forest
landscape restoration is not outwardly focused on
the conservation and restoration of biodiversity
is, perhaps, one of its strengths; issues of species
and biodiversity can often fail to find traction in thedecision-making processes surrounding landscapeplanning, design and financing especially whenconservation may be at odds with economic orindustrial pursuits.

These guidelines are intended to facilitate abroader integration of biodiversity knowledge andconsideration in the FLR assessment process.
Increases in landscape biodiversity remain acritical outcome of successful forest landscaperestoration, but large gains in biodiversity andspecies conservation are not the raison d’être offorest landscape restoration. Gains to biodiversity
should be incremental and supportive of people
within landscapes. This is not to negate the incredible
opportunities for large biodiversity and ecosystem
restoration gains that may result from FLR activities,
but these objectives should be tempered by an intersectoral approach that iteratively restores functioning
ecosystems for functional landscapes.

Biodiversity is inherent in the FLR approach—increases in ecological productivity cannot besustainably achieved without gains in species diversity
and the landscape benefits that are provided by thisdiversity. However, the majority of FLR interventions,since they occur in degraded and deforested land,
are focused on arresting and reversing degradationin the landscape that are currently under cultivationor use by people. The land area throughout the world
available for restoration on deforested or degradedagricultural land is enormous and is without any doubt
an area larger than the practical land area available
for traditional ecological restoration.

As one of the largest and most widely-respectedauthorities on biodiversity and ecosystems, IUCN
recognises the potential impacts of large-scalelandscape changes on biodiversity and ecosystems.
Forest landscape restoration has enormous potential
to support human livelihoods in tandem with37

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

increasing biodiversity, ecosystem services andecological productivity in degraded landscapes.
Forest landscape restoration should not occur inareas that are not degraded and this should preclude
areas of conservation priority or concern. Where there
is ambiguity in the definitions or extent of degradation
the onus lies on restoration practitioners to utilise
these guidelines to ensure that native ecosystems

are not improperly classified as ‘degraded’ and to
not only support FLR approaches that cause noharm to native biodiversity, but to use diversified
restoration approaches to augment biodiversity,
especially in areas important for threatened species
and ecosystems.

38

References
Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A.,
Inchausti, P., Lavorel S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge,
D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B.,
Setala, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J. and
Wardle, D.A. (2005). ‘Effects of Biodiversity on
Ecosystem Functioning: A Consensus of Current
Knowledge’. Ecological Monographs 75(1): 3-35.
https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0922
Hooper, D.U., Adair, E.C., Cardinale, B.J., Byrnes,
J.E.K., Hungate, B.A., Matulich, K.L., Gonzalez,A., Duffy, J.E., Gamfeldt, L. and O’Connor, M.I.
(2012). ‘A Global Synthesis Reveals Biodiversity
Loss as a Major Driver of Ecosystem Change’.
Nature 486: 105.
IUCN and WRI. (2014). A Guide to the Restoration
Opportunities
Assessment
Methodology:
AssessingForestLandscapeRestoration
Opportunities at the National or Sub-National
Level. Working Paper. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
IUCN 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2017-1. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>.
Accessed on 12 May 2017.
IUCN/SSC 2013. Guidelines for Reintroductions andOther Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Jalonen, R., Valette, M., Boshier, D., Duminil, J.,
Thomas, E. (2017). ‘Forest and Landscape
Restoration Severely Constrained by a Lack ofAttention to the Quantity and Quality of Tree Seed:
Insights from a Global Survey’. Conservation
Letters
e12424.
https://doi.org/10.1111/
conl.12424
The KBA Partnership (2018) Guidelines on Businessand KBAs: Managing Risk to Biodiversity. Gland:
IUCN. 24pp, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.
CH.2018.05.en
Kumar, P., Brondizio, E., Gatzweiler, F., Gowdy, J., de
Groot, D., Pascual, U., Reyers, B. and Sukhdev, P.
(2013). ‘The Economics of Ecosystem Services:
From Local Analysis to National Policies’. Current
Opinions on Environment Sustainability 5: 78-86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.02.001
Lamb, D. (2014). Large Scale Forest Restoration.
London: Routledge.
Larsen, F.W., Turner, W.R. and Brooks, T.M. (2012).
‘Conserving Critical Sites for Biodiversity
Provides Disproportionate Benefits to People’.
PLoS ONE 7(5): e36971. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0036971
Lindenmayer, D.B., Manning, A.D., Smith, P.L.,
Possingham, H.P., Fischer, J., Oliver, I. and
McCarthy, M.A. (2002). ‘The Focal-Species

Anderson, M.G. and Ferree, C.E. (2010). ‘Conserving
the Stage: Climate Change and the GeophysicalUnderpinnings of Species Diversity’. PLOS ONE.
5: e11554. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011554.
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P.,
Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Levin, S., Maler, K.-G.,
Perrings, C. and Pimentel, D. (1995). ‘Economic
Growth, Carrying Capacity and the Environment’.
Science 268:520–521. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.268.5210.520
Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper,
D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace,
G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily,
G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., Larigauderie, A.,
Srivastava, D. and Naeem, S. (2012). ‘Biodiversity
Loss and its Impact on Humanity’. Nature 486:
59-67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
De Vitis, M., Abbandonato, H., Dixon, K.W.,
Laverack, G., Bonomi, C. and Pedrini, S.
(2017). ‘The European Native Seed Industry:
Characterization and Perspectives in Grassland
Restoration’. Sustainability 9(10): 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101682
FAO (2016). State of the World’s Forests (2016).
Rome, Italy: FAO
Griscom, B.W., Adams, J., Ellis, P.W., Houghton,
R.A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D.A., Schlesinger, W.H.,
Schoch, D., Siikamaki, J.V., Smith, P., Woodbury,P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant,R.T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna T.,
Hamsik, M.R., Herrero, M., Kiesecker, J., Landis,
E., Laestadius, L, Leavitt, S.M., Minnemeyer, S.,
Polasky, S., Potapov, P, Putz, F.E., Sandermann,
J. Silvius, M., Wollenberg, E. and Fargione, J.
(2017). ‘Natural Climate Solutions’. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America 114(44): 11645-11650.
Haase, D.L. and Davis, A.S. (2017). ‘Developing andSupporting Quality Nursery Facilities and Staff are
Necessary to Meet Global Forest and Landscape
Restoration Needs’. Reforesta 4: 69-93.
Hatton, T.J. and Nulsen, R.A. (1999). ‘Towards
Achieving Functional Ecosystem Mimicry withrespect to Water Cycling in Southern Australian
Agriculture’. Agroforestry Systems 45(1-3): 203214. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006215620243
Herrera, D., Ellis, E., Fisher, B., Golden, C.D., Johnson,
K., Mulligan, M., Pfaff, A., Treuer, T. and Ricketts,
T.H. (2018). ‘Upstream Watershed Condition
Predicts Rural Children’s Health Across 35
Developing Countries’. Nature Communications
8:811.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-01700775-2

39

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

A Global Perspective’. Ecological Applications
11(4): 981-998. https://doi.org/10.1890/10510761(2001)011[0981:HCATMO]2.0.CO;2
Reusch, T.B.H., Ehlers, A., Hammerli, A. and Worm,
B. (2005). ‘Ecosystem Recovery after Climatic
Extremes Enhanced by Genotypic Diversity’.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America 102: 2826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0500008102
Reynolds, L.K., McGlathery, K.J. and Waycott, M.
(2012). ‘Genetic Diversity Enhances Restoration
Success by Augmenting Ecosystem Services’.
PLoS ONE 7(6): e38897. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0038397
Rietbergen-McCracken, J., Maginnis, S. and Sarre, A.
(eds.). (2007). The Forest Landscape Restoration
Handbook. London: Earthscan.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity(2010). Linking Biodiversity Conservation andPoverty Alleviation: A State of Knowledge Review.
CBD Technical Series No. 55.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity(2013). Water and Biodiversity: Natural Solutions
for Water Security. Montreal, Canada.
Sunderland, T.C.H. (2011). ‘Food Security: Whyis
Biodiversity
Important’?
International
Forestry Review 13(3): 265-274. https://doi.
org/10.1505/146554811798293908
Sustainable Development Goals. (2015). UN General
Assembly Seventieth Session Agenda Item 15 and116: Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
Tanveer, M., Anjum, S.A., Hussain, S., Cerda, A. andAshraf, U. (2017). ‘Relay Cropping as a Sustainable
Approach: Problems and Opportunities for
Sustainable Crop Production’. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research 24(8): 69736988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-83714
Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes,
M., Beaumont, L.J., Collingham, Y.C., Erasmus,
B.F., De Sigueira, M.F., Grainger, A., Hannah,
L., Hughes, L., Huntley, B., Van Jaarsveld, A.S.,
Midgley, G.F., Miles, L, Ortega-Huerta, M.A.,
Peterson, A.T., Phillips, O.L. and Williams,
S.E. (2004). ‘Extinction Risk from Climate
Change’. Nature 427(6970): 145-148. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nature02121
Urzedo, D., Vidal, E., Sills, E., Pina-Rodrigues, F.,
and Junqueira, R. (2016). ‘Tropical Forest Seeds
in the Household Economy: Effects of Market
Participation among Three Sociocultural Groups
in the Upper Xingu Region of the Brazilian
Amazon’. Environmental Conservation 43(1): 1323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000247
Vayreda, J., Martinez-Vilalta, J., Gracia, M. andRotana, J. (2012). ‘Recent Climate Changes

Approach and Landscape Restoration: A Critique’.
Conservation Biology 16(2): 338-345. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00450.x
Mace, G.M., Baillie, J., Masundire, H., Ricketts,
T.H., Brooks, T.M., Hoffmann, M., Stuart, S.N.,
Balmford, A., Purvis, A., Reyers, B., Wang,J., Revenga, C., Kennedy, E.T., Naeem, S.,
Alkemade, R., Allnutt, T., Bakarr, M., Bond,
W., Chanson, J., Cox, N., Fonseca, G., HiltonTaylor, C., Loucks, C., Rodrigues, A., Sechrest,
W., Stattersfield, A.J., van Rensburg, B. andWhiteman, C. 2005. ‘Biodiversity’. In: Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment: Current State andTrends: Findings of the Condition and Trends
Working Group. Ecosystems and Human WellBeing. Washington DC: Island Press.
Maginnis, S. and Jackson, W. (2002). Restoring Forest
Landscapes: Forest Landscape Restoration
Aims to Re-Establish Ecological Integrity andEnhanced Human Well-Being in Degraded Forest
Landscapes. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Naumann, S., Kaphengst, T., McFarland, K. andStadler, J. (2014). Nature-Based Approaches for
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Bonn,
Germany: German Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation.
Oliver, T.H., Heard, M.S, Isaac, N.J.B., Roy, D.B.,
Procter, D., Eigenbrod, F., Freckleton, R., Hector,
A., Orme, D.L., Petchey, O.L., Proença, V.,
Raffaelli, D., Suttle, K.B., Mace, G.M., MartínLópez, B., Woodcock, B.A. and Bullock, J.M.
(2015a.) Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem
Functions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution
30(11):
673-684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2015.08.009
Oliver,T.H.,
Isaac,
N.J.B.,
August,T.A.,
Woodcock, B.A., Roy, D.B. and Bullock, J.M.
(2015b). ‘Declining Resilience of Ecosystem
Functions under Biodiversity Loss’. Nature
Communications
6:10122.
https://doi.
org/10.1038/ncomms10122
Orgiazzi, A., Bardgett, R.D., Barrios, E., BehanPelletier, V., Briones, M.J.I., Chotte, J.-L., De
Deyn, G.B., Eggleton, P., Fierer, N., Fraser, T.,
Hedlund, K., Jeffery, S., Johnson, N.C., Kandler,E., Kaneko, N., Lavelle, P., Lomanceau, P., Miko,
L., Montanarella, L., Moreira, F.M.S., Ramirez,
K.S., Scheu, S., Singh, B.K., Six, J., Van der
Putton, W.H. and Wall, D.H. (2016). Global
Soil Biodiversity Atlas. Luxembourg: European
Commission publications, Office of the European
Union.
Pressey, R.L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M.E., Cowling, R.M.
and Wilson, K.A. (2007). ‘Conservation planning ina changing world’. Trends in Ecology & Evolution.
22: 583–592. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.001
Pringle, C.M. (2001). ‘Hydrological Connectivity
and the Management of Biological Reserves:40

Wetzel, F.T., Boissmann, H., Penn, D.J. and Jotz,
W. (2013). ‘Vulnerability of Terrestrial Island
Vertebrates to Projected Sea Level Rise’. Global
Change Biology 19: 2058-2070. https://doi.
org/10.1111/gcb.12185
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. (1992).
Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living
Resources. London: Chapman & Hall.
Wunder, S., Angelsen, A. and Belcher, B. (2014).
‘Forests,
Livelihoods,
andConservation:
Broadening the Empirical Base’. World
Development 64 (Supplement 1): S1-S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.007
Young, T.P. (2000) ‘Restoration Ecology andConservation Biology’. Biological Conservation
92:
73-83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S00063207(99)00057-9

Interact with Stand Structure and Management
to Determine Changes in Tree Carbon Stocks
in Spanish Forests’. Global Change Biology
18: 1028-1041. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652486.2011.02606.x
Vernooy, R., Bessette, G., Rudebjer,P. and Otieno
G. (eds) (2016). ‘Resource box for resilient seedsystems: handbook.’ Bioversity International,
Rome, Italy.
Walker, B., Salt, D. and Reid, W. (2006). Resilience
Thinking: Sustaining People and Ecosystems in a
Changing World. Washington DC: Island Press.
Waller, N.L., Gynther, I.C., Freeman, A.B., Lavery,
T.H. and Leung, L.K.-P. (2013). ‘The Bramble Cay
Melomys Melomys rubicola (Rodentia: Muridae):
A First Mammalian Extinction Caused by HumanInduced Climate Change’? Wildlife Research
44(1): 9-21. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR16157

41

Biodiversity guidelines for forest landscape restoration opportunities assessments

Annex 1 Elements of an NBSAP
National Biodiversity strategies and action plans are
replete with useful information for forest landscaperestoration opportunities assessments and containmuch of the information required to ensure that FLR
is aligned well with national commitments under
the Convention on Biological Diversity. Importantly,
NBSAPs have a consistent structure that allows
this information to be found relatively easily andmost countries have used this structure to define
representative national targets that help achieve thebiodiversity objectives set out by the CBD.

strategies are measured and inform much of thereporting countries submit to the CBD.
Additionally, NBSAPs contain a significant amountof reporting on national legislation for biodiversity.
In many cases this legislation pertains to theestablishment and maintenance of protected areas
and wildlife conservation activities, but increasingly
includes broader legislative applications of
biodiversity into sectors where biodiversity may
not be a primary objective, but that depend uponbiodiversity (e.g. agriculture).

Within these NBSAPs there are typically audits of thestatus and trend of national biodiversity. These are
generally geared towards the conservation statusof species of concern (as defined by the IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species or National Red Lists)
and trends in the geographic coverage of protectedareas. Descriptions of these biodiversity metrics form
the baselines against which biodiversity conservation

Biodiversity Indicators Partnershiphttps://www.bipindicators.net/

Combined with information on strategies to fundthe implementation of these action plans, NBSAPs
provide the information that is intended to translate
assessments of biodiversity at a national scale
into measurable and actionable strategies for theconservation of biodiversity in support of the missionof the CBD.

CBD NBSAPs
https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/

Status and trends of national
biodiversity

NBSAP issues, gaps andrevisions

Establishing and monitoringmeasurable national goals andtargets

Legislative measures

NBSAP management

Action plans

Funding strategies

Communication, education andpublic awareness

Public policy development

Adapted from: The Biodiversity Planning Process: How to Prepare and Update a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (CBD 2007)42

Indicative outline of an NBSAP
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Values of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the country and their contribution to humanwell-being
2. Causes and consequences of biodiversity loss
3. Constitutional, legal and institutional framework
4. Lessons learnt from the earlier NBSAP(s) and the process of developing the updated NBSAP
II. NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY: PRINCIPLES, PRIORITIES AND TARGETS
5. Long-term vision
6. Principles governing the strategy
7. Main goals or priority areas
8. National targets
III. NATIONAL ACTION PLAN
9. National actions to achieve the strategy, with milestones
10. Application of the NBSAP to sub-national entities
11. Sectoral action
IV. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
12. Plan for capacity development for NBSAP implementation, including a technology needs
assessment
13. Communication and outreach strategy for the NBSAP
14. Plan for resource mobilisation for NBSAP implementation
15. Institutional, monitoring and reporting
16. National coordination structures
17. Clearing house mechanism
V. MONITORING and EVALUATION*adapted from CBD NBSAP Training package Version 2.1

43INTERNATIONAL UNIONFOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE
WORLD HEADQUARTERS
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 999 0000
Fax: +41 22 999 0002
www.iucn.org