© ROBIN MOORE/ILCP

GIVING
NATUREA HAND
Innovations in planning to assist
natural regeneration of forests
to mitigate climate change, save
species from extinctions, andenhance well-being

Scientific Progress Report
September 2019

AUTHORS
Renato Crouzeilles
International Institute for Sustainability
Nikola S. Alexandre
Conservation International
Hawthorne Beyer
University of Queensland

Blaise Bodin
Independent Consultant, Forest Ecosystem
Restoration Initiative
Manuel R. Guariguata
Center for International Forestry Research
Robin L. Chazdon
Forestoration International LLC

The data presented in this report are the responsibility of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of the contractors.
Developed by:Conservation International
International Institute for Sustainability
Center for International Forestry Research
September 20192

Supported by:Conservation International, United States
Agency for International Development

TABLE OF
CONTENTSSUMMARY

04

TERMINOLOGY

06

INTRODUCTION

07

FOREST AND
LANDSCAPERESTORATION

09

IDENTIFYING AREAS
WHERE ASSISTED
NATURAL REGENERATIONOF FORESTS IS FEASIBLE

13

BALANCING TRADE-OFFS
TO MAXIMIZEOPPORTUNITIES16POLICYRECOMMENDATIONS

19

CONCLUSION

21

REFERENCES

22
3© BENJAMIN DRUMMOND

SUMMARY
The climate crisis impacts the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Unless the global community can achieve net removal (negative emissions)of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through emission reduction andsequestration, climate change will have catastrophic consequences for billions
of people and lead to the extinction of up to a million species. Fostering tree andvegetation growth is a highly cost-effective way of removing carbon from theatmosphere at scale.
Restoring landscapes can contribute to foodsecurity and livelihoods, provide protection
from extreme weather (flooding, wind anddrought), play an essential role in regulatingwater flows, provide fuel for cooking andheating, and improve and maintain healthy,
fertile soils. Restored forest landscapes
also provide habitat for a vast diversity of
species, many of which provide essential
ecosystem services such as pollination andpest control, sources of medicines, andecotourism. Preventing further deforestationand forest degradation and restoring forests
are critical to meeting regional, national andinternational climate, environmental, andsustainable development goals. Successful
forest restoration efforts require prioritizing
the most cost-effective and locally appropriate
restoration strategies.

It is now possible to leverage
the latest social and ecologicalscience to identify andlegislate for the potential ofassisted natural regenerationof forests – the most-costeffective restoration strategy.

4

Assisted natural regeneration is critical toscaling up forest and landscape restoration(FLR) and can be complemented by morecostly and smaller-scale active restoration
strategies based on tree planting.
This report outlines a new approach basedon systematic, spatially explicit planning forlandscape scale restoration that: (1) guides
practices that maximize a variety of longterm benefits, while minimizing restoration
implementation costs and reducing impacts
on agricultural production, (2) takes into
account stakeholders preferences, budget
limitations, social needs and other key factors,(3) provides powerful tools for facilitating
restoration, and (4) can be used to informrobust policy making. The report provides
scientific support for decision makers acrossgovernment, civil society and the private
sector that demonstrate how predicting andprioritizing assisted natural regeneration offorests and enacting specific policies canhelp reach or even exceed global restoration
targets without compromising food security.

5© TROND LARSEN`TERMINOLOGY

6

Forest and landscaperestoration (FLR)

A strategy that aims to regain ecological functionality and enhance
human well-being in deforested or degraded landscapes. FLR is not an
end in itself, but a means of regaining, improving and maintaining vital
ecological and social functions, in the long-term leading to more resilientand sustainable landscapes (Besseau et al., 2018). This report focuseson assisted natural regeneration of forests as a key strategy for FLR.

Natural regeneration

The spontaneous (meaning unassisted) recovery of forest cover fromseeds or rootstocks already present in the soil or newly dispersing
from neighboring forests. This type of restoration happens regardlessof any kind of human intervention, including site protection, and isoften a by-product of unplanned land abandonment triggered bylarger socioeconomic forces. In this case, natural succession happens
uninhibited and requires no support (Shono et al., 2007; Crouzeilles
et al., 2017).

Assisted naturalregeneration

In areas that have the socioeconomic and ecological potential toregenerate from the seedbank or neighboring seed sources, but are
not doing so or are doing so poorly, human interventions are used
to secure, catalyze or enrich the process. Such interventions can
include fencing, weed and/or fire control and enrichment planting.
Farmer managed natural regeneration, where farmers intentionallymanage trees regrowing in their agricultural areas to secure a variety
of benefits, is also included here. Assisted natural regeneration does
not include intentional and systematic planting of species grownoffsite in order to create an agroforestry system (Shono et al., 2007;
Crouzeilles et al., 2017).

Restoration planting/active restoration

The active growth and maintenance of seedlings in nurseries andthe planting of seedlings in a systematic way. This includes planting
for restoration plantations, woodlots, agroforestry plots, silvopastoral
systems or biodiversity habitat corridors. Initial plantings can serveto stimulate natural regeneration where it would not otherwise be
possible (Crouzeilles et al., 2017).

Agroforestry andsilvopasture

A subset of active land-use management system in which trees or
shrubs are grown around or among crops or pastureland.

INTRODUCTION
Human activities have already caused an average 0.87oC of warming over preindustrial levels, with warming likely to reach 1.5-2oC between 2030 and 2052
(IPCC, 2018). Global warming impacts physical and biological systems in many waysthat affect ecosystem services and human well-being. This includes changes toextreme weather conditions such as heat waves, drought and precipitation that can
profoundly affect agricultural and ecological systems, and directly impact people byendangering life or property.
Limiting global warming and mitigating its
impacts requires substantial reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions and increased
sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere.

Specifically, the IPCC predicts that somewhere
between 100-1000 gigatonnes of CO2 will haveto be removed from the atmosphere by 2100 to
avoid catastrophic impacts (IPCC, 2018).

Restoration and improved land management (hereto referred to together as“restoration”) are some of the most reliable and cost-effective strategies forremoving carbon from the atmosphere and storing it, while delivering a variety ofother benefits
1. R estoration is a proven strategy that has the potential to be applied at scale andcould achieve carbon dioxide sequestration rates of more than 5 gigatonnes per
year, or up to 400 gigatonnes by 2100. This is equivalent to over 15% of the total
climate mitigation needed to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts by 2030
(Griscom et al., 2017).
2. Restoration provides many other social and environmental benefits above andbeyond carbon sequestration, unlike carbon capture and storage technologies,
including biodiversity habitat, water filtration, flood control, air filtration, andenhanced soil fertility (Griscom et al., 2017).
3. Restoration is a low-tech, low-risk, low energy strategy relative to some of the hightech alternatives that can be implemented in a wide variety of places. A recent
report found that if carbon capture and storage technologies were deployed today
to remove carbon from the atmosphere at scale, they would require more than halfof today’s global energy consumption (Realmonte et al., 2019).

7

© TROND LARSEN

In addition to the need to leverage restoration
to mitigate future climate change, restoration
is an imperative for addressing existing socialand environmental challenges. Over threebillion people are currently impacted by landdegradation worldwide, many of whom live inrural areas with increasingly limited resilience
to extreme weather events (IPBES, 2018).
Restoring the ecosystems that support rural
livelihoods can strengthen a community’s
resilience, food security, and, in many instances,lower its gender disparities (IPBES, 2018). What’smore, every year land degradation is costing
10% of the global GDP (IPBES, 2018). Yet, on
average, for every dollar spent on restoration,$10 dollars could be generated in economic
benefits (IPBES, 2018). This means that it costs
the world more to leave land degraded than8

it does to restore it. Unfortunately, althoughgovernments have committed to restoring 170
million hectares by 2030, less than 30 million
ha of land have undergone restoration since2011 (NYDF Assessment Partners, 2019). Yet
more than 0.9 billion hectares of land could
be restored without impacting crop production(Bastin et al., 2019).
What is stopping this global potential from being
fulfilled? There are many reasons, ranging
from inadequate stakeholder coordination to
insufficient funding. However, this progress
report argues that a main reason is that themost cost-effective method for restoring forests,
assisted natural regeneration, is not being
properly prioritized.

FOREST AND LANDSCAPERESTORATION
Forest and landscape restoration (FLR) can be achieved using a variety
of strategies, such as natural regeneration, assisted natural regeneration,
agroforestry, active restoration using tree planting and commercial forestry
or woodlots (Figure 1).

CONSERVEDFORESTSUSTAINABLE
FOREST
MANAGEMENT

NATURALLY
REGENERATINGFORESTSFORESTS
PLANTED FORCONSERVATIONFORESTS PLANTEDFOR TIMBERAGROFORESTRYSILVOPASTURE

CLIMATE SMART
AGRICULTURE

MANGROVES

KEY

Cost

CarbonBenefits

Biodiversity Social
Benefits
Benefits

Risk of
FailureFigure 1. Different restoration strategies can be used for different purposes, and have different tradeoffs.

Each strategy has different associated costs
and benefits. In general, active restoration
strategies that involve tree planting and site
preparation are the most costly and can resultin a mix of tree species that can favor direct
economic benefits over conservation andcarbon sequestration benefits. Conversely,

encouraging natural or assisted naturalregeneration of forests is far less costly andresults in a mix of tree species with stronger
conservation and carbon sequestration benefits,
but with less options for direct economic
benefits (Chazdon & Guariguata, 2016).

9

Each restoration strategy has its appropriate
environmental and socioeconomic context,
and a rigorous process of assessing spatial
predictive models that identify where each
restoration strategy is best suited, withecological and social on-the-ground validation,is critical for selecting the right restoration
strategy (Figure 2).
Active forms of restoration are often favored
over natural regeneration: over 45% ofrestoration commitments by governments
to the Bonn Challenge are in the form of
monocultural tree plantations, 21% is pledged
to agroforestry, and 34% is pledged to assisted
natural regeneration (Lewis et al., 2019). Active
restoration strategies can be effective atachieving forest restoration over a predictable

time frame and with control over the mix of tree
species (Chazdon & Guariguata, 2016). This can
include economically valuable species used forfood or timber production.
However, active restoration strategies are labor
intensive and expensive, costing between
US$ 1,400 and 34,000 per hectare worldwide(Crouzeilles et al., 2017). These strategies canalso result in restored forests that have lessvalue for biodiversity or carbon sequestrationcompared to naturally regenerating forests(Chazdon & Guariguata, 2016; Crouzeilles et al.,2017). On average, monocultural tree plantations
have been found to sequester 40 times
less carbon than forests undergoing naturalregeneration when tree harvesting is taken into
account (Lewis et al., 2019).

Decision makers often favor historically more predictable, faster and intensive
active restoration strategies over assisted natural regeneration of forests for at least
five reasons. Assisted natural regeneration:
1. Is not part of the culture of resource management agencies.
2. Has limited knowledge available to guide policies and actions regarding where
it occurs and could potentially occur, how much area could be regenerated,and how long it could persists and takes to deliver specific outcomes.
3. Lacks sound economic projections and business models based on assisted
natural regeneration of forests to evaluate socio-economic effectiveness.
4. Has not been considered an activity requiring human agency
and therefore cannot be enforced as a policy.
5. Is affected by some pervasive policies, such as agrarian reform laws that obligate
farmers to cultivate land, and authorities can confiscate uncultivated land.

10In order to meet international
carbon sequestration targets,millions of hectares of forest must
be restored within forest biomes,
and this is only feasible using ahighly cost-effective strategy.

However, assisted natural regenerationof forests remains the most cost-effective
restoration strategy for regaining ecologicalintegrity and removing carbon from theatmosphere (Crouzeilles et al., 2017).

A recent estimate based on
the amount of forest coversurrounding a landscape suggestthat 238 million hectares ofrestorable lands within tropicaland temperate forest countries
are promising candidates forassisted natural regenerationof forests, yet only a small
percentage of this potential
is being fully harnessed(Crouzeilles et al., in press).

It is prohibitively expensive to achieve suchtargets through active restoration alone.
For example, the ambitious Bonn Challengecommitment to restore up to 350 million
hectares of global degraded and deforested
lands by 2030 could potentially cost between
US$ 4.9 and 12 trillion if active restoration is
the only restoration strategy implemented(Crouzeilles et al., under review). In contrast,
as one example of an assisted naturalregeneration strategy, excluding cattle frompasture land with an inexpensive barbed wire
fence may be all that is required to facilitate
natural regeneration of forests.
Meeting global objectives for FLR will requiredrawing on the full portfolio of restoration
strategies and sustainable land uses for
agriculture and forestry. There are many areasof the world where, for social and ecologicalreasons, assisted natural regeneration offorests is not a viable option. In these areas,
appropriate forms of active restoration need to
be selected and prioritized.

The key to unlocking the full potential ofnatural and assisted natural regeneration offorests lies in identifying those areas where
this strategy is likely to proceed well from bothsocial and ecological perspectives (Crouzeilles
et al., under review). This report presents anapproach for identifying where to restore
and what strategy to use based on spatial
predictive models, quantitative planning andoptimization methods that identify priority areas
for cost-effective restoration.

The approach presented in this report is part of a five step planning process:

1

2

3

4

5

Engage andunderstandstakeholders’ needs
and preferences
when targeting,planning andimplementing forest
restoration initiatives.

Identify
areas where assisted
natural regeneration offorests is feasible andwhere there is a needfor active restoration.

Balancetrade-offs anddevelop a concrete,spatially explicit andpolicy supported
restoration strategy.

Validate, disseminate
and work withkey stakeholders
to operationalize
the strategy.

Monitor
impacts andreturn to step 1 toadaptively manage.

11

Figure 2: Decision tree to help determine when to use natural regeneration or assisted natural regeneration versus active restoration,and the associated benefits and costs of the different approaches.
12© ADRIÁN PORTUGALIDENTIFYING AREAS
WHERE ASSISTED NATURAL
REGENERATION OF
FORESTS IS FEASIBLE
Secondary forests (forests that have regrown after they’ve been cut or degraded) areoften derived from spontaneous natural regeneration. Secondary forests that are lessthan 140 years old are estimated to cover 2.63 billion hectares worldwide (Pugh etal., 2019). Within the lowland Neotropics, 290 million hectares of forests (33%) were
estimated to be less than 100 years old in 2008 (Chazdon et al., 2016). Secondary forests
are a major component of overall forest cover and will make increasingly important
contributions to meeting both international carbon sequestration and restoration targets.

13

“The challenge is to identify
strategies that reduce theuncertainties associated with whereassisted natural regeneration offorests can occur and persist, while
maximizing the multiple benefits
arising from forest restoration”(Crouzeilles et al., 2017).
The history of natural regeneration of forests inrecent decades provides a basis for developing“spatial predictive models” of where assisted
natural regeneration is likely to be feasible inthe coming decades. Such models can accountfor a wide range of biophysical, ecologicaland socioeconomic factors and can have highpredictive accuracy. Spatial predictive models
that have strong accuracy are particularly usefulfor informing management plans because
higher certainty in management outcomes can
reduce the need to invest in risk assessmentand mitigation measures.
Recent work (Crouzeilles et al., under review)has addressed these issues in Brazil’s
Atlantic Forest, a 130 million hectare biomethat is one of the world’s most threatened
biodiversity hotspots and one of the largest
forest restoration opportunities in tropicalregions (Brancalion et al., 2019). Widespread
deforestation over the last centuries hasspared only 34.1 million hectares (26.4%) of theoriginal forest cover, including many highlyfragmented remnants. However, between
1996 and 2015, at least 2.7 million hectares are
estimated to have regenerated naturally, mainly
due to land abandonment and restrictions on
deforestation (Crouzeilles et al., under review).
This area is equivalent to 8% of the existing
remnant forest area. Based on these patterns,
spatial predictive models were built using

14

physical variables (e.g., elevation, soils, climate),
ecological variables (e.g., distance to intact
forests) and socioeconomic variables (e.g.,
population density) that have an 80% accuracy
rate in predicting where assisted naturalregeneration of forests is likely to occur during
the next 20 years (Figure 2).
The model indicates that an additional 21.6
million hectares, out of almost 70 million
hectares available for restoration, could besuitable for assisted natural regeneration,
assuming that factors preventing forest
recolonization are excluded.
At the global scale, tree coverage (i.e. newforests) could take place in 0.9 billion hectares– almost the size of the United States (Bastin
et al., 2019) – yet the potential for assisted
natural regeneration of forests remains to be
fully studied.

The authors on this report are
currently developing, for the firsttime, a global spatial predictivemodel and map of the potential forassisted natural regeneration offorests within tropical regions,which is based on the same method developedby Crouzeilles et al. (under review). Predictivemodels can help to resolve the key uncertainty
around where assisted natural regeneration offorests is likely to be feasible if key processes
preventing natural regeneration are eliminated.

Figure 3: Case study of how to predict and map the potential for assisted natural regeneration in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (fromCrouzeilles et al., under Review). In this study, the predicted potential for assisted natural regeneration in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest is at
30 x 30 m resolution.

15

© FLAVIO FORNER / CI

BALANCING TRADE-OFFS TO
MAXIMIZE OPPORTUNITIESThere is substantial variation in the expected economic, carbon sequestration andconservation values that can be derived from forest restoration, depending on where
investments occur (Strassburg et al., 2019). Variation in biophysical conditions that affectgrowth rates and carbon sequestration rates, and surrounding landscape conditions,influence the conservation and biodiversity value of restored patches of forest. Some
restored forest patches are likely to benefit many more species than others, dependingon the location of the patch in the landscape and how close and well-connected thosepatches are to other forested areas.

16

Similarly, a restoration strategy must be suitable
to the socioeconomic and community context
within which it is implemented, both to respect
local needs and to reduce the risk of project
failure. Thus, determining where to prioritize
forest restoration can profoundly impact thebenefits derived from it.
As this variation in expected benefits can be
described spatially, we can adopt “systematicplanning” methods that minimize conflicts andmaximize the benefits derived from forest
restoration. More specifically, we can identify
priority areas for restoration that perform wellagainst a suite of potential benefits while
minimizing costs. These methods are also
used to describe trade-offs among competing
objectives (e.g., carbon sequestration andfood security) in order to help planners identify
optimal, cost-effective solutions.

An analysis in the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest found that systematicplanning based on optimization
methods (linear programming) canachieve an eightfold increase incost-effectiveness for biodiversity
conservation in a scenario thatseeks to maximize benefits tospecies’ conservation, comparedwith a baseline of non-systematic
restoration planning (Strassburg etal., 2019).
A compromise solution seeking to balance
benefits for both climate change mitigation
and biodiversity conservation while limiting

Figure 4: Case study of multi-objective planning and restoration prioritization in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (Strassburg et al., 2019). In
this study, scenarios analyses are used to compare compromise planning (seeking to maximize biodiversity conservation and climatechange mitigation while minimize restoration costs) to non-systematic restoration planning approaches, among others.

17costs would avoid 26% of the current
extinction debt in the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest (2,864 plant and animal species) andsequester 1 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent.
Compared to a baseline of non-systematic
restoration planning, these results predict anincrease of 257% in avoidance of species
extinction, a 105% increase in carbon
sequestration and a 57% decrease inrestoration costs (Figure 4).

Using optimization methods based on linear programming to inform planning
has at least four main advantages (Strassburg et al., 2019). They:
1. A
 re able to identify solutions that are optimized across a numberof key stakeholder interests, including costs and environmental
benefits. These solutions often outperform not only plans that are
simply identified opportunistically or in non-systematic ways, but also
conventional systematic planning methods by more than 33% (Beyer etal., 2016). In particular, they can result in highly cost-effective solutions
that achieved greater overall benefits with limited resources.
2. Provide an explicit framework for describing trade-offs among
objectives and identifying suitable compromises between them.
3. Provide a transparent, objective and defensible framework for planning.
4. Can also be used to reduce risk by identifying solutions that are robust
to uncertainty. Such decision support approaches cannot solve all
problems and shouldn’t be thought of as a replacement to extensive
stakeholder engagements. However, they can be used to inform morestrategic and cost-effective decision making among stakeholders.
Once robust plans are developed, restoration practitioners can draw
from existing guides to implement assisted natural regeneration (seeFAO, 2019) and combine it with active restoration methods.

18

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSAssisted natural regeneration of forests can be used to help countries meet their nationallydetermined contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement, post-2020 targets under the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD), Land Degradation Neutrality targets, as well as increase ecosystemservice provisioning to rural communities (e.g., pollination, soil control, and water quality/quantity)and urban areas (water quality, food).
Our recommendations for maximizing the potential of assisted natural regeneration offorests to meet those targets include:
1.

Legislation that requires landowners to maintainspecified levels of native forests on their land(e.g., Brazil’s Native Vegetation Protection Law )2.

Legislation governing land clearing andpenalties for illegal land clearing (e.g., Australia’s
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation (EPBC) Act )

3.

4.

5.

Science-driven legislation governing offsetting(replacing lost forest) when land is legally
cleared for development, including minimum
offset ratios (such as five hectares restored
for every one hectare cleared), and adaptedto specific ecosystem types (e.g., US wetland
mitigation banking under the Clean Water Act )Legislation requiring ranchers to provide
shade trees for animal welfare and production
purposes, which could be supported byregulated labeling of ethically produced foodproducts (e.g., Argentina’s cost-sharing programfor improved forest cultivation ; case study )Policies that encourages integrated landscapemanagement to ensure that forest restorationachieves many benefits including carbon
sequestration, biodiversity conservation,
erosion and runoff reduction (watershedmanagement), freshwater supply management
and economic value (e.g., Rwanda’s ongoingenvironmental policy integration work )6.

Incentive programs that provide payments
for ecosystem services and provide technicalassistance to encourage landowners to restore
forests on their land (e.g., Costa Rica’s Forest
Law 7575 )7.

Incentive programs for sustainable productionof timber and non-timber products fromnaturally regenerating forests (e.g., the US
state of Vermont’s Value Appraisal Forestland
Tax Program )8.

Incentive programs for sustainable forestry
based on native species and agroforestry,
to be applied as a complement to assisted
natural regeneration of forests and to provide
alternatives that produce economic benefits
for landowners (e.g., Panama’s Law No. 69 of
October 30th 2017 )9.

Financing for monitoring and enforcement ofenvironmental laws governing forest loss andregrowth (some examples can be found here )10. Establishing market trading schemes forenvironmental offsets, thereby allowing somelandowners to maintain high levels of agricultural
production (e.g., Germany’s productionintegrated compensation (PIC) program )19

“A central challenge for the coming years is to further develop andencourage environmental policies and initiatives that maximize returnon-investment in forest restoration, especially through the use ofplanned assisted natural regeneration, consequently helping countries
worldwide to achieve the ambitious targets of global forest restoration”(Crouzeilles et al., under review).

20© JESSICA SCRANTONCONCLUSION
Assisted natural regeneration of forests to maximize carbon sequestration andsupport biodiversity is a better alternative than active restoration in many contexts(Crouzeilles et al., 2017; Nunes et al., 2017). Identifying the specific contexts whereassisted natural regeneration has a high likelihood of success is a fundamental
step in restoration planning at regional and national scales. Traditional drawbacks
associated with assisted natural regeneration, such as uncertainty over whereassisted natural regeneration is feasible, can be effectively reduced using anapproach based on scientific research and modeling methods (Figure 2).

The UN has announced that 2021-2030 willbe the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration from2021-2030. We now have less than 10 years
to remove massive amounts of carbon fromthe atmosphere to avoid climate catastrophe.
The time has never been more appropriate
to ensure the best science is used to deliveron the many promises of restoration. The
organizations on this report are actively working
to deliver easy-to-use decision support tools
for policy makers, funders, and entrepreneurs
to identify where natural regeneration is likely

to occur and how to unlock its potential.
The upcoming first ever global map on thepotential for assisted natural regeneration
could revolutionize restoration planning,radically reduce restoration costs, and help
land managers understand their ecosystems toharness nature’s inherent resilience.

It is crucial governments, civil society,and the private sector come together
to embrace, and act on, assisted
natural regeneration as a priority forfulfilling the planetary needs.

© QINGHILL

The substantially lower costs associated withassisted natural regeneration mean that it is a
key strategy for achieving FLR at scale relevant
to meeting international climate mitigation andrestoration targets. Spatially explicit, systematicplanning based on optimization methods that
account for costs and a range of objectives
can be used to identify opportunities to greatly
improve the benefits derived from landscapescale forest restoration programs (Figure 3).
These scenarios for the spatial planning ofassisted natural regeneration of forests canthen be validated and used during communityled landscape planning workshops to facilitate
discussions about priorities and trade-offs.
Ultimately, such spatial planning tools should be
used to inform the design of local and national
restoration policies.

21

REFERENCES
Bastin, J.-F., Finegold T., Garcia C., Mollicone D., Rezende M., Routh D., Zohner C.M., Crowther T.W. 2019. The
global tree restoration potential. Science 365: 76-79.
Besseau P., Graham S., Christophersen T. 2018. Restoring forests and landscapes: the key to a sustainable
future. Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration, Vienna, Austria.
Beyer H.L., Dujardin Y., Watts M.E., Possingham H.P. 2016. Solving conservation planning problems with integer
linear programming. Ecological Modeling 328 : 14-22.
Brancalion P.H.S., Niamir A., Broadbent E., Crouzeilles R., Barros F.S.M., Zambrano A.M.A., Baccini A., Aronson
J.,Goetz S., Reid L., Strassburg B.B.N., Wilson S., Chazdon R.L. 2019. Global restoration opportunities in tropicalrainforest landscapes. Science Advances 5: eaav3223.
Busch, J.; Engelmann, J.; Cook-Patton, S.; Griscom, B.; Kroeger, T.; Possingham, H.; Shyamsundar, P. (2019):
Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. In: Nature Climate change 9 (6), S.
463–466.
Chazdon R.L., et al. 2016. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin
American tropics. Science Advances 5: e1501639.
Chazdon R.L., Guariguata M.R. 2016. Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in thetropics: prospects and challenges. Biotropica 48: 716-730.
Chazdon R.L., Guariguata M.R. 2018. Decision support tools for forest and landscape restoration: current status
and future outlook. Ocassional Paper 183, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Crouzeilles R., Barros F.S., Molin P.G., Ferreira M.S., Junqueira A.B., Chazdon R.L., Lindenmayer D.B., Tymus
J.R.C., Strassburg B.B.N., Brancalion P.H.S. In press. A new approach to map landscape variation in forest
restoration success in tropical and temperate forest biomes. Journal of Applied Ecology.
Crouzeilles R., Ferreira M.S., Chazdon R.L., Lindenmayer D.B., Sansevero J.B.B., Monteiro L., Iribarrem A.,
Latawiec A.E., Strassburg B.B.N. 2017. Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for
active restoration in tropical forests. Science Advances 3: e1701345.
Dave R., Maginnis S., Crouzeilles R. 2019. Forests: in defence of the Bonn Challenge. Nature 570 : 164.
FAO. 2019. Restoring forest landscapes through assisted natural regeneration (ANR) - A practical manual.
Griscom B.W., Adams J., Ellis P.W., Houghton R.A., Lomax G., Miteva D.A., Schlesinger W.H., Shoch D., Siikamäki

22

J.V., Smith P. 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114: 11645-11650.
Hua F., Wang X., Zheng X., Fisher B., Wang L., Zhu J., Tang Y., Yu D.W., Wilcove D.S. 2016. Opportunities forbiodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation programme. Nature Communications 7: 12717.
IPBES. 2018. The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Montanarella, L., Scholes,
R., and Brainich, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services, Bonn, Germany.
IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above
pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the
global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
(Eds. Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Pörtner H.O., Roberts D., Skea J., Shukla P.R., Pirani A., Moufouma-Okia W.,
Péan C., Pidcock R., Connors S., Matthews J.B.R., Chen Y., Zhou X., Gomis M.I., Lonnoy E., Maycock T., Tignor
M., Waterfield T.).
IPCC report 2019. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land
Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems.
Lewis S.L., Wheeler C.E., Mitchard E.T.A., Koch A. 2019. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove
atmospheric carbon. Nature 568: 25-28.
Nunes F.S.M., Soares-Filho B.S., Rajão R., Merry F. 2017. Enabling large-scale forest restoration in Minas Gerais
state, Brazil. Environmental Research Letters 12: 044022.
NYDF Assessment Partners. (2019). Protecting and Restoring Forests: A Story of Large Commitments yet
Limited Progress. New York Declaration on Forests Five-Year Assessment Report. Climate Focus (coordinatorand editor). Accessible at forestdeclaration.org.
Pugh T.A.M., Lindeskog M., Smith B., Benjamin P., Arnet A., Haverd V., Calle L. 2019. Role of forest regrowth inglobal carbon sink dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 : 4382-4387.
Realmonte G., Drouet L., Gambhir A., Glynn J., Hawkes A., Köberle A.C., Tavoni M. 2019. An inter-model
assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nature Communication 10: 3277.
Shono K., Cadaweng E.A., Durst P.B. 2007. Application of assisted natural regeneration to restore degradedtropical forestlands. Restoration Ecology 15: 620-626.
Strassburg B.N.N., Beyer H., Crouzeilles R., Iribarrem A., Barros F., Siqueira M.F., Tapia A.S., Balmford A.,
Boelsums J., Brancalion P.H.S., Broadbent E.N., Chazdon R., Filho A.O., Gardner T., Gordon A., Latawiec A.,
Loyola R., Metzger J.P., Mills M., Possingham H., Rodrigues R.R., Scaramuzza C.A.M., Scarano F., Tambosi L.,
Uriarte M. 2019. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs.
Nature Ecology and Evolution 3: 62-70.

23© TROND LARSEN

For more information on how to
fulfill the promises of restoration,please contact the following:
Conservation International (CI)2011 Crystal Dr #600,
Arlington, VA 22202 USA
https://www.conservation.org/
International Institute for Sustainability (IIS)
Estrada Dona Castorina, 124 – Jardim Botânico
Rio de Janeiro/Brazil – Tel: (55) 21 3875 6218
www.iis-rio.org
Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Situ Gede, Sindang Barang
Bogor (Barat) 16115
Indonesia

Scientific Progress Report
September 201924