Restoring Forest Landscapes
An introduction to the art and science of forest
landscape restoration
TECHNICAL SERIES 23

2005

Restoring Forest Landscapes
An introduction to the art and science offorest landscape restoration

ITTO Technical Series No 23
International Tropical Timber Organization

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Restoring forest landscapes
An introduction to the art and science of forest landscape restoration

ITTO Technical Series No 23
The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) has been promoting forest restoration in
the tropics for many years. In collaboration with IUCN, FAO, WWF International and CIFOR it
published Guidelines for the Restoration, Rehabilitation and Management of Degraded and Secondary
Tropical Forests in 2002. While these guidelines focus on conventional approaches to restoration,
they incorporate most of the principles behind FLR, and their management and policy-levelguidance is equally relevant to the implementation of an FLR approach. In 2003 and 2004 ITTO
hosted a series of six regional workshops to make the guidelines more widely known in the tropics
and is also financing ten national-level workshops to further promote the guidelines and the FLR
concept. ITTO was a major sponsor of the FLR Implementation Workshop in Pétropolis, Brazil, on
4–8 April 2005. In addition to its policy work, ITTO funds a wide range of forest-restoration fieldprojects in various countries in the tropics. ITTO joined the Global Partnership for Forest
Landscape Restoration in March 2003.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) was one of the first conservation organizations to actively
promote the idea of employing restoration as a conservation tool to complement the moreestablished approaches of forest protection. If we are to address some of the major challenges
facing natural resource management and conservation in the 21st century, including bycontributing to poverty reduction and adapting to the impacts of climate change, then we cannot
afford to focus exclusively on large tracts of undisturbed forests. For this reason IUCN and WWF
convened a meeting of restoration practitioners and experts in Spain during 2001, the principle
outcome of which was a framework for considering restoration in terms of the broader landscape.
IUCN then began to collaborate closely with ITTO, supporting the development and disseminationof its Guidelines for the Restoration, Rehabilitation and Management of Degraded and Secondary Tropical
Forests and initiating some field activities to test and refine the overall FLR concept. IUCN was also
one of the founding members of the Global Partnership for Forest Landscape Restoration andcurrently acts as coordinator for the partnership.

Cover photos
Top: A. Compost/ITTO
Bottom left, bottom right: A. Sarre/ITTO
Bottom second from left, bottom second from right: R. Guevara/ITTO
Bottom middle: A. Gaviria/INRENA© ITTO/IUCN 2005
This work is copyright. Except for the ITTO and IUCN logos, graphical and textual information inthis publication may be reproduced in whole or in part provided that it is not sold or put tocommercial use and its source and authorship are properly acknowledged.
ISBN 4 902045 23 02

Preface
A whole range of services can be affected when ecosystems become degraded. Water
quality can decline, carbon can be emitted into the atmosphere, biological diversity canbe lost and the productivity of soils can decline. The deterioration of such services is felt
most acutely at the local level but it might also have implications regionally and globally.
Forest landscape restoration (FLR) provides a complementary framework to sustainable
forest management and the ecosystem approach in landscapes where forest loss hascaused a decline in the quality of ecosystem services. It doesn’t aim to re-establish
pristine forest, even if this were possible; rather, it aims to strengthen the resilience oflandscapes and thereby keep future management options open. It also aims to support
communities as they strive to increase and sustain the benefits they derive from the
management of their land.
The term FLR is new, but most of its components are not. It combines adaptive
management, participatory techniques and new and not-so-new technologies to create a
flexible and creative approach to the use of trees in degraded landscapes. FLR also
involves the use of a ‘double filter’, which implies that any FLR initiative should improve
both the ecological functioning of a landscape and the well-being of the humancommunities that reside in that landscape. FLR takes a landscape-level view, whichmeans that site-level restoration decisions should accommodate landscape-levelobjectives and take into account likely landscape-level impacts. Importantly, it should bea collaborative process, involving a wide range of stakeholders to decide collectively on
the best options for restoration.
This book has been written by a team of experts from a wide variety of institutions
coordinated by ITTO and IUCN. It explains the FLR concept and describes its mainelements in chapters on adaptive management, landscape mosaics, landscape dynamics,
stakeholder approaches, the identification of site-level options, hands-on site-level forest
restoration and rehabilitation strategies, scenario modelling, and monitoring andevaluation. The result is by far the most comprehensive and easy-to-understandtreatment of FLR yet written. It complements other work being carried out within the
Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration.
ITTO, IUCN and other partners will help deliver the messages contained in this book toforest restoration practitioners in tropical countries through a series of ten national-level
workshops. It is our hope and expectation that this process will provide a major impetus
to the implementation of FLR in the tropics and elsewhere.

Manoel Sobral Filho
Executive Director, ITTO

Achim Steiner
Director General, IUCN

3

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Acronyms
ANR

Assisted natural regeneration

CIFOR

Center for International Forestry Research

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FLR

Forest landscape restoration

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GIS

Geographic information systems

GPFLR

Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration

ICDP

Integrated conservation and development project

ICRAF

World Agroforestry Centre

ITTO

International Tropical Timber Organization

IUCN

World Conservation Union

M&E

Monitoring and evaluation

MIS

Management information system

NGO

Non-governmental organization

WWF

World Wide Fund for Nature

Acknowledgements
The following people contributed to the development of Restoring Forest Landscapes: Edith
Abruquah, Victor Kwame Agyeman, Stephen Aidoo, Isabelita Austria, Jürgen Blaser,
Dominic Blay, Jill Bowling, Froylan Castañeda, James Gasana, Don Gilmour, Frits
Hesselink, William Jackson, Wil de Jong, P.C. Kotwal, Trikurnianti Kusumanto, David
Lamb, Stewart Maginnis, Eva Müller, Jean-Claude Nguinguiri, Duncan Ray, Jennifer
Rietbergen-McCracken, Ignacio Larco Roca, Hana Rubin, Cesar Sabogal, Sandeep
Sengupta, Luis Tulio Salerno, Mario Javier Sanchez, Alastair Sarre, Herman Savenije,
Rudolphe Schlaepfer, Upik Rosalina Wasrin.

4

Contents
Preface .......................................................................................................... 3
Acronyms...................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements .................................................................................. 4
About the authors...................................................................................... 9
1

Introduction ....................................................................................... 11
Stewart Maginnis, Jennifer Rietbergen-McCracken and William Jackson

2

What is FLR and how does it differ from current
approaches?
Stewart Maginnis and William Jackson

3

Building support for FLR................................................................ 27
William Jackson and Stewart Maginnis

4

Applying an adaptive management approach in FLR.......... 35
Don Gilmour

5

Understanding the landscape mosaic ...................................... 43
Don Gilmour

6

Understanding forest landscape dynamics ............................ 53
Wil de Jong

7

Applying a stakeholder approach in FLR................................. 61
Trikurnianti Kusumanto

8

Identifying site-level options ....................................................... 71
David Lamb9

Site-level restoration strategies for degradedprimary forest.................................................................................... 81
Cesar Sabogal

15

10 Site-level strategies for managing secondary forests........ 91
Cesar Sabogal
11 Site-level rehabilitation strategies for degraded
forest lands ......................................................................................101
Cesar Sabogal
12 Site-level strategies for restoring forest functions on
agricultural land .............................................................................109
Sandeep Sengupta, Stewart Maginnis and William Jackson
13 Scenario modelling to optimize outcomes............................117
David Lamb
14 Monitoring and evaluating site-level impacts......................125
James Gasana
Glossary ....................................................................................................135

5

Restoring Forest Landscapes

List of figures
2.1a The ‘classic’ forest landscape – Lao PDR ........................................... 16
2.1b The ‘secondary forest’ landscape – Vietnam ....................................... 16
2.1c The ‘modified’ forest landscape – Costa Rica ..................................... 16
2.1d The ‘degraded’ forest landscape – Papua New Guinea ...................... 16
2.2a Current global distribution of forest cover ............................................ 17
2.2b Remaining frontier forest (relatively undisturbed natural forest) .......... 17
2.3a Bamburi quarry, Kenya ........................................................................ 21
2.3b The result after 20 years ...................................................................... 21
2.4

A shade-grown coffee farm in El Salvador........................................... 22

2.5a The Shinyanga region ngitili – mid-1980s............................................ 24
2.5b The 17-year-old Mwendakulima ngitili.................................................. 24
4.1

The action-learning spiral..................................................................... 39

5.1

Layers of a forest landscape mosaic map (hypothetical example) ...... 44

6.1

Graphic representation of the analysis of forest landscapedynamics .............................................................................................. 58

7.1

Matrix showing disagreements between stakeholders over alandscape resource (hypothetical example) ........................................ 66

List of boxes
2.1

Using a landscape perspective to enhance site-level management:
two case studies................................................................................... 18

2.2

Combining ecological restoration with other FLR components:
a case study from Australia.................................................................. 22

3.1

The double filter as the basis for adaptive management indynamic landscapes............................................................................. 29

3.2

Contributions of FLR to local economic growth: two case studies....... 31

4.1

Origins of adaptive management ......................................................... 35

4.2

The action-learning cycle ..................................................................... 38

4.3

What is meant by uncertainty and risk? ............................................... 38

4.4

Monitoring for action learning: case study from Nepal......................... 39

5.1

Natural regeneration under monoculture plantations in Nepal ............ 50

5.2

Restoration of agricultural land in Australia ......................................... 51

6.1

Tropical forest landscape dynamics in Bolivia and Vietnam................ 55

7.1

Using caution in applying a stakeholder approach in FLR................... 61

7.2

Different landscapes for different stakeholders: a case from Bolivia ... 62

7.3

Useful questions to guide stakeholder identification ............................ 63

7.4

Common approaches to identifying stakeholders ................................ 63

7.5

Questions for investigating stakeholder interests and interactions...... 64

7.6

Conflicts and trade-offs ........................................................................ 65

7.7

Effective facilitation of joint decision-making........................................ 69

7.8

Brainstorming as a facilitation tool for joint decision-making ............... 70

8.1

The importance of scale....................................................................... 74

8.2

Single options can be risky: the case of Vietnam ................................ 76

6

8.3

Soil fertility constrains rehabilitation choices ....................................... 77

9.1

The INIKEA collaborative project in Sabah, Malaysia ......................... 87

9.2

Rehabilitation of log landings and skid trails in Southeast Asia .......... 88

10.1 Valuing the biodiversity of secondary forests in theBrazilian Amazon ................................................................................. 92
10.2 Woodlot management in the Philippines ............................................. 92
10.3 Improved fallows in the Peruvian Amazon .......................................... 96
10.4 Species for improved fallows ............................................................... 97
11.1 Requirements for plants to be used for erosion control......................103
11.2 Mixed plantations vs monoculture plantations....................................107
12.1 How agroforestry enhances ecological integrity and humanwell-being at a landscape scale..........................................................110
13.1 Resolving the agriculture-forest cover trade-off?................................117
13.2 Building landscape corridors...............................................................120
13.3 Using scenarios to decide land-use options in Papua New Guinea...123
List of tables
4.1

Examples of the context of an FLR initiative ....................................... 37

4.2

Monitoring indicators developed for an FLR program in
New Caledonia..................................................................................... 40

4.3

Guide to using an adaptive management approach for an
FLR initiative ........................................................................................ 41

5.1

Information on key components of the landscape mosaic needed
for planning FLR strategies and activities............................................ 45

5.2

Contribution of key areas of the landscape to an FLR initiative .......... 47

6.1

A simplified model of forest landscape dynamics................................ 54

7.1

The 4Rs framework: stakeholders’ rights, responsibilities, returns
and relationships linked to forest land and resources: an example
from Jambi, Sumatra (Indonesia) ........................................................ 67

8.1

Biophysical factors that can influence restoration choices .................. 72

8.2

Socioeconomic and cultural factors that can influence theattractiveness of restoration to communities living in degraded
forest landscapes................................................................................. 74

8.3

Ecological factors that can influence restoration choices .................... 77

8.4

Residual tree cover as a determinant of restoration options ............... 78

9.1

Main restoration objectives and management interventions fordifferent types of degraded forest and other land................................ 82

9.2

Examples of categories of degraded forests in Asia, withrestoration options ............................................................................... 83

10.1 Management systems and examples of technological options forsecondary forests................................................................................. 94
13.1 Simplified summary of goods and services supplied by different
restored forest types ...........................................................................118
13.2 Possible coverage (expressed as percentage of land area) of
six land-uses under four scenarios .....................................................121
14.1 Example of a logical framework based on a hypothetical case..........126

7

Restoring Forest Landscapes8About the authors
James K. Gasana is a natural resource management specialist working with the Swiss
Foundation for Development and International Cooperation, Intercooperation. He has
extensive field experience in natural resource management and integrated ruraldevelopment projects, in national planning of the rural sector, and in managing
negotiation processes to settle socio-political conflicts.
Don Gilmour is a forester who worked for eight years in Nepal developing community
forestry modalities, followed by five years as Head of IUCN’s Forest Conservation
Programme in Switzerland. He is currently based in Australia and working as a private
consultant on a range of forestry and environmental management issues.
William Jackson is the Director of IUCN’s Global Programme. He has extensive field
experience in ecosystem conservation and management at the global level and in Asia,
Australia and Africa. He has worked with many governments and IUCN partnerorganizations in devising forest conservation programs and policies and in evaluatingconservation and rural development projects.
Wil de Jong is Professor at the Japan Center for Area Studies, National Museum of
Ethnology in Osaka, Japan. His work focuses on forest governance and small holder
natural resource management. He has conducted his research in Bolivia, Peru,
Zimbabwe, Indonesia and Vietnam.
Trikurnianti Kusumanto is a social science researcher at CIFOR in Bogor, Indonesia,
with research interests that include stakeholder collaboration and social learning related
to forests. At present, she is also conducting research for her doctorate concerning public
engagement with forest science and policy.
David Lamb is a tropical forest ecologist based at the University of Queensland,
Australia. He is also a member of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management. He
is a co-author with Don Gilmour of Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests
published by IUCN in 2003.
Stewart Maginnis is Head of IUCN’s Forest Conservation Programme. He has 14 years
of practical forest restoration and management experience in Tanzania, Sudan, Ghana,
Costa Rica, Mexico and the United Kingdom. His areas of interest include forest
landscape restoration, community forest management, the role of forest management inbiodiversity conservation, and forest policy.
Jennifer Rietbergen-McCracken is a freelance researcher/writer specializing inconservation and sustainable development issues. She is based in Geneva, Switzerland.
Cesar Sabogal is a forest scientist working for CIFOR at its regional office in Belém,
Brazil. His research interests include natural forest management and silviculture, forest
inventory and monitoring. He was a contributor to the ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration,
Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded and Secondary Tropical Forests, which were
published in 2002.
Sandeep Sengupta currently works as a project officer in the IUCN Forest Conservation
Programme in Gland, Switzerland. He has worked on a variety of forest restoration, rural
livelihood and natural resource management issues in both government and nongovernment agencies in India and other parts of South Asia, and holds masters’ degrees
from the London School of Economics and the Indian Institute of Forest Management.

9Restoring Forest Landscapes

101Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Stewart Maginnis, Jennifer Rietbergen-McCracken and William JacksonThis publication presents the latest thinking on the emerging concept of forest landscaperestoration (FLR). A joint production of ITTO and IUCN, it is the result of close
collaboration between a number of institutions, including ITTO, IUCN, FAO, the Forestry
Commission of Great Britain, WWF International, Intercooperation, CIFOR, the Japan
Center for Area Studies and the University of Queensland, under the auspices of the
Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR). It has also drawn on theideas and needs of tropical forest restoration practitioners. It builds on the ITTO
Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded and Secondary
Tropical Forests, which were published by ITTO in collaboration with FAO,
Intercooperation, IUCN and WWF International in 2002.

What is FLR?
The term ‘forest landscape restoration’ was first coined in 2001 by a group of forest
restoration experts who met in Segovia, Spain, which defined it as:a process that aims to regain ecological integrity and enhance human wellbeing in deforested or degraded forest landscapes.
The FLR concept is still being refined and redefined to accommodate new perspectives
and ideas on what it entails and what sets it apart from other more conventional
approaches to putting trees back into the landscape. Indeed, the process of compiling
Restoring Forest Landscapes, which involved discussions with a range of individuals andinstitutions, has itself brought increased clarity to the concept.
While the overall conceptual framework of FLR is new, virtually all the principles andtechniques behind the approach have been around for some time and will already befamiliar to many forestry practitioners. In essence, FLR is an approach to managing the
dynamic and often complex interactions between the people, natural resources and landuses that comprise a landscape. It makes use of collaborative approaches to harmonize
the many land-use decisions of stakeholders with the aims of restoring ecologicalintegrity and enhancing the development of local communities and national economies.
In many ways, it is an alternative to top-down, expert-driven land-use planning,providing a means to reflect societal choice through applying the principles of an
ecosystem-management approach.
Thus, FLR differs from conventional restoration approaches in several ways:•

it takes a landscape-level view: this does not mean that every FLR initiative must belarge-scale or expensive but rather that site-level restoration decisions need toaccommodate landscape-level objectives and take into account likely landscape-level
impacts;•

it operates on the ‘double filter’ condition: that is, restoration efforts need to result inboth improved ecological integrity and enhanced human well-being at the landscapelevel (see later for more on the double filter);11

Restoring Forest Landscapes•

it is a collaborative process involving a wide range of stakeholder groups collectively
deciding on the most technically appropriate and socioeconomically acceptableoptions for restoration;•

it does not necessarily aim to return forest landscapes to their original state, butrather is a forward-looking approach that aims to strengthen the resilience of forest
landscapes and keep future options open for optimizing the delivery of forest-related
goods and services at the landscape level; and•it can be applied not only to primary forests but also to secondary forests, forest lands
and even agricultural land.

The specific activities of any FLR initiative could include one or more of the following:•

rehabilitation and management of degraded primary forest;•

management of secondary forest;•

restoration of primary forest-related functions in degraded forest lands;•

promotion of natural regeneration on degraded lands and marginal agricultural sites;•

ecological restoration;•

plantations and planted forest; and•agroforestry and other configurations of on-farm trees.

From policy to practice
The main aim of Restoring Forest Landscapes is to help forest-restoration practitioners tounderstand FLR, appreciate its benefits and start to implement it. Thus, while the ITTO
Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded and Secondary
Tropical Forests are aimed primarily at policy-makers, this book targets field-level forest
managers working in degraded forests and forest lands. These forest managers may
include forest department staff, local communities or NGO staff involved in joint forest
management, private-sector timber company staff, or local government planning officers.
FLR is still unknown to many of these groups, although they might already have adopted
some of its principles in innovative forest restoration activities.1 One of the key messages
in the book is that the technical knowledge is available to start FLR now, based on a wide
range of proven restoration techniques. The limiting factors are most likely a lack ofunderstanding of the landscape-level approach, the other land-use policies outside theforest sector that can have a major influence on landscape-level dynamics, and, inparticular, the landscape-level impacts of site-level land-uses. In addressing this lastissue, the book highlights the double-filter criterion of FLR, which states that theenhancement of human well-being and the restoration of ecological integrity cannot be
traded off at the landscape level. This means that while specialization is inevitable andtrade-offs unavoidable at the site level, the landscape-level sum of all site-level actions
should attempt to balance the two objectives of enhanced human well-being and restoredecological integrity.2
This book has been compiled as a series of ‘essential reading’ chapters on the key
principles and techniques of FLR and will serve as a bridge between the policy-levelguidance provided by the ITTO guidelines and the context-specific field guides that it ishoped will be developed following the national-level FLR workshops to be held during12See, for example, the case study from the Shinyanga region of Tanzania in Chapter 2
See Chapter 3 for more on the double filter of FLR

12

Introduction

2005 and 2006. Though not a field guide, the book will still provide practical guidance on
implementing FLR, including how to:•use an adaptive management approach in planning and implementing an FLR
initiative and support this approach through comprehensive monitoring andevaluation;•

understand and analyse the dynamics operating within a forest landscape;•work with multiple stakeholder groups and address different, sometimes conflicting,interests;•

construct FLR scenario models to help make explicit the choices and trade-offs
inherent in FLR planning and facilitate collaborative learning with stakeholder groups
on which technical options to pursue; and•evaluate the technical options available at the site level and take into account thebiophysical and socioeconomic factors that will influence the likely success of an FLR
initiative.

The book draws on numerous case studies in which FLR has been applied in practice(sometimes before the term FLR actually existed), and uses these to illustrate the mainlearning points on FLR. The book also provides references for further reading and moredetailed guidance.

13

Restoring Forest Landscapes

14Chapter 2
WHAT IS FLR AND HOW DOES IT
DIFFER FROM CURRENTAPPROACHES?

2

Stewart Maginnis and William JacksonThis chapter provides a brief overview of what FLR means in practice and what makes it
fundamentally different from more conventional approaches to putting trees back into
the landscape. The chapter highlights the following points:•

by itself, restoration through site-based interventions (such as afforestation schemes)
is not capable of delivering the full range of forest goods and services that society andlocal communities require;•the aim of FLR is not to recreate the past but rather to keep future options open, bothin terms of human well-being and ecosystem functionality (including biodiversity
conservation);•land-use and ecosystems change over time, so adaptability and by extension adaptive
management lie at the heart of FLR; and•delivering meaningful results at the landscape scale will require more than justtechnically competent interventions. It will also require a good understanding of how
land-use policies and people’s livelihood needs influence the overall quality andavailability of forest goods and services in the landscape.

To many foresters, the idea of a ‘forest landscape’ invokes an ideal image of continuous
forest cover stretching uninterrupted towards the horizon, as illustrated in Figure 2.1a.
Under this scenario, the forest tends to be both well-managed and protected, delivering
not only nationally and locally important products such as timber, rattan, fuelwood andrubber, but also maintaining important ecological services such as slope stabilization,hydrological regulation and carbon sequestration. In practice, however, the situation canbe quite different.
Deforestation and forest degradation have altered many of the world’s tropical forest
landscapes to such a degree that at the very most only 42% of remaining forest cover (or18% of original forest cover) in the tropics is still found in large, contiguous tracts. The
forest estate of eight ITTO producer countries (and most ITTO consumer countries) now
exists only as fragmented, mostly modified and sometimes degraded blocks. This meansthat at least 830 million hectares of tropical forest are confined to fragmented blocks, ofwhich perhaps 500 million hectares are either degraded primary or secondary tropicalforest and can be considered part of modified forest landscapes (figures 2.1b and 2.1c).

15

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Fig2.1a The ‘classic’ forest landscape – Lao PDR© Stuart Chape

Fig2.1b The ‘secondary forest’ landscape – Vietnam© Stewart Maginnis

Fig 2.1c The ‘modified’ forest landscape – Costa
Rica © Alberto Salas

Fig 2.1d The ‘degraded’ forest landscape – Papua
New Guinea © David Lamb

In addition to the large area of fragmented tropical forest, another 350 million hectares offormer forest land can no longer be classified as forest because of the extent to which they
have been degraded by fire, land clearance and destructive harvesting practices. Such
areas, illustrated in Figure 2.1d, often remain in a state of arrested succession because theconditions do not exist to support secondary forest regeneration or conversion to anotherproductive land-use. These areas lack nearly all forest-related attributes (structure,function, productivity, composition) and constitute the greater part of degraded forest
landscapes.
Finally, within modified forest landscapes in particular there exists an additional 400
million hectares of productive agricultural land which still retain a significant treecomponent.
Despite the fact that forest fragmentation, modification and degradation have shaped somuch of the world’s remaining tropical forests (as illustrated in figures 2.2a and 2.2b),
many national forest strategies still tend to focus exclusively on how best to manage andprotect intact areas of forest. And, even when national forest programs and strategies do
recognize restoration as a priority, they tend to focus their restoration activities on theestablishment of industrial roundwood plantations. Indeed, the fact that a natural forest
no longer possesses all its original attributes has often been cited as a good enoughreason to clear the area of its remaining vegetation and replace it with a planted forest.
FLR builds on the growing realization that such strategies alone are insufficient toguarantee a healthy, productive and biologically rich forest estate in the longer term.

16

What is FLR?

Fig 2.2a Current global distribution of forest cover. Source: WRI website

Fig 2.2b Remaining frontier forest (relatively undisturbed natural forest).
Source: WRI website

Current responses to forest fragmentation and degradation
Plantation forestry very definitely has a place in FLR. However, afforestation alone
cannot be expected to replace all the forest functions that have been lost or compromised
through landscape-level deforestation, fragmentation and degradation. We therefore
need to be realistic about what plantations are capable of delivering and recognize thatspace within the landscape needs to be created so that other complementary restoration
strategies can be deployed. We also need to consider the ‘multiple function’ and‘dominant use’ management paradigms not as mutually exclusive options, but rather ascomplementary options for use at different scales of forest management. ‘Dominant use’is a perfectly legitimate approach to site-level activities, while the achievement of‘multiple functionality’ should be the goal of landscape-level management. Thus, alandscape configured so that it accommodates plantations, protected reserves, ecologicalcorridors and stepping stones, regenerating secondary forests and agroforestry systems(or other agricultural systems that make use of on-farm trees) lays the foundation for
multiple functionality.

What has been missing so far?
There is no lack of knowledge for implementing FLR; a wide range of experience has
already been built up on how to restore some very difficult sites. What is more often
lacking is an understanding of the overall landscape and the factors that determine
whether different land-uses (and land-use policies) are mutually reinforcing or inconflict. This landscape-level perspective is crucial if site-level decisions are going tocontribute to an integrated restoration strategy. On the whole, it is forest management
practitioners who take site-level decisions and while an enabling policy environment isnecessary for successful FLR, practitioners need not wait for the perfect policy before

17Restoring Forest Landscapes

starting work. Indeed, progressive land-use policy is often based on experiences derived
from innovative practice.

Box 2.1 Using a landscape perspective to enhance site-level
management: two case studies
Early attempts at large-scale reforestation of the Khao Kho district in central
Thailand met with violent opposition from landless families, who often resorted toarson in order to prevent plantation establishment. The stand-off was resolved bylooking at the broader issues within the landscape, incorporating local people into
the project, reallocating about 500 hectares from reforestation to agriculture, andredefining the species’ mix and planting configuration to suit both local needs andtechnical challenges (Marghescu 2001).
Oil-palm plantation managers along the Kinabatangan River in Sabah, Malaysia,
observed that in some areas of their estate regular flooding prevented them fromestablishing an oil-palm crop. In collaboration with WWF and local communities,some of these managers encouraged secondary and planted forests to regenerate inaffected areas, offering added protection to the rest of the estate while also reducing
fertilizer and pesticide run-off to the river, expanding species’ habitat and enhancing
landscape connectivity for threatened species such as orangutan and forest elephantand optimizing the productivity of the flooded sites (WWF 2002).
Taking a landscape-level perspective into account in site-level management results not
only in potentially healthier landscapes, but also in improved stand-level management,
as illustrated in the two case studies in Box 2.1. Both case studies highlight two key
principles that are critical to building a landscape perspective into decision-making.
These will be explored in greater detail in other chapters, although it is important that we
now familiarize ourselves with what they are.
Meaningful public participation: reliable estimates indicate that there may be 500 million
people living within modified and degraded forest landscapes in the humid tropics anddependent on a mixture of agricultural and forest resources to maintain their livelihoods.
Practitioners need to realize that landscapes, especially modified or degraded ones, have
many different stakeholder groups – each with their own particular needs and priorities.
FLR seeks not only to take local people’s needs into account but also to involve them
actively in the decision-making process and subsequent implementation.
Balancing land-use trade-offs: it is common to hear about the need to pursue win-win
solutions – that is, where two independent outcomes (such as biodiversity conservationand economic development) are maximized through a single intervention. In reality,
however, win-win outcomes are extremely rare, particularly at the site level. There areoften trade-offs involved between two sets of priorities and there is usually a need todevelop compromise solutions. Without a landscape perspective, the same types ofcompromises tend to be repeated over and over again until key forest-related functions
are lost from the landscape. The concern in the Khao Kho case study in Box 2.1 was thatlandless people’s livelihood options would be compromised each time in favour of
establishing new planted forest. In this case, restoration responded by ensuring that not
all the forest area was planted and by modifying the species’ mix to ensure that local
needs could be met.
In conclusion, conventional responses to fragmentation and degradation of forest
resources can seldom be relied on to restore the full range of forest-related goods andservices that society requires, since they rarely consider the broader landscape context or18

What is FLR?

the livelihood needs of the people who live there. The rest of this chapter outlines how
FLR can help practitioners respond to this challenge.

Defining FLR
There is nothing radically new about any of the individual elements of FLR. The
approach draws heavily on a number of existing rural development, conservation andnatural resource management principles and approaches that will be familiar to mostreaders. As a concept, it has emerged over the last five years and is now being addressedby an established community of practice operating as the GPFLR.3 The working
definition used here is:a process that aims to regain ecological integrity and enhance human well-being
in deforested or degraded forest landscapes.
Four key features of FLR are embodied in this definition:•

FLR is a process: implicit in the word ‘process’ are three key principles: (i) it isparticipatory; (ii) it is based on adaptive management and thus responsive to social,economic and environmental change; and (iii) it requires a clear and consistentevaluation and learning framework;•

FLR seeks to restore ecological integrity: simply replacing one or two attributes offorest functionality across an entire landscape tends to be inequitable (as it caters to
only a limited number of stakeholders’ requirements) and unsustainable (as it is moredifficult to respond proactively to environmental, social and economic change);•

FLR seeks to enhance human well-being: the principle that the joint objectives ofenhanced ecological integrity and human well-being cannot be traded off against eachother at a landscape level is referred to as the ‘double filter’ of FLR; and•implementation of FLR is at a landscape level: this does not mean that FLR can only
be applied at a large scale, but rather that site-level decisions need to be made within alandscape context. Some of the best examples of landscape-level restoration have been
carried out with only relatively modest amounts of funding.

Technical components of FLR
This section provides an overview of the range of options that practitioners can consider
when applying FLR. It is worth stressing again that the purpose of FLR is not to return
forest landscapes to their original ‘pristine’ state, even if that were possible. Rather, it
should be thought of as a forward-looking approach that can help strengthen theresilience of forest landscapes and keep future options open. It is important tounderstand that any individual application of this approach will be a flexible package ofsite-based techniques – from pure ecological restoration through blocks of plantations toplanted on-farm trees – whose combined contribution will deliver significant landscapelevel benefits. The site-level techniques can include:•

the rehabilitation and active management of degraded primary forest;•

the active management of secondary forest growth;•

the restoration of primary forest-related functions in degraded forest lands;

3

The GPFLR is a network of governments, organizations, communities and individuals who
recognize the importance of FLR and want to be part of a coordinated global effort. The
facilitating partners are WWF, IUCN and the Forestry Commission of Great Britain. For more
information, visit http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/restoration/globalpartnership19Restoring Forest Landscapes•

the promotion of natural regeneration on degraded lands and marginal agriculturalsites;•

ecological restoration;•

plantations and planted forests; and•agroforestry and other configurations of on-farm trees.

Each of these techniques is outlined below.
The rehabilitation and active management of degraded primary forest: in degradedprimary forests, the stand structure, composition, function and processes have been so
adversely affected that satisfactory recovery of productivity and ecosystem integrity overthe short to medium term will require active management interventions. Restoration inthese cases would include removal of the causes of further disturbance and degradation,such as repeated annual fires, and promotion of stand recovery through targeted
silvicultural treatments such as liberation thinning. Some of the most successful examples
of degraded forest rehabilitation have been carried out by communities undercollaborative forest management arrangements. Experience has shown that it is essentialthat communities are granted long-term rights to use both timber and non-timber
products. Reneging on such arrangements once the forest has started to recover is not
only unethical but also can be highly counterproductive.
The active management of secondary forest: secondary forest is woody vegetation thathas re-established naturally on land that was previously cleared of most its original forest
cover by shifting cultivation, settled agriculture, pasture lands or failed tree plantations(see Chapter 10 for a more comprehensive definition). These forest areas tend to be
characterized by a relatively uniform composition of early successional species (iepioneer and non-pioneer light-demanders), relatively even-aged stands, and rapid initialtree growth. Many of these forests lend themselves to relatively productive monocyclic
shelterwood systems over economically viable timeframes. This means that while they
can rarely deliver all the attributes of an intact primary forest they can, under certain
conditions, provide a more ecologically attractive alternative to plantations. Because
these forests are at an early successional stage they can respond well to silvicultural
treatments such as liberation thinning. As in degraded primary forests, some of the mostinteresting management experiences have been those of local communities and small
landholders.
Restoration of primary forest-related functions in degraded forest lands: unlike
degraded primary forest, degraded forest land has been so severely damaged by worstpractice harvesting, poor management, repeated fire, grazing and other forms of
disturbances and degradation that its vegetation cover can no longer be defined as forest.
One example of this type of degraded land is the derived savannahs in the high-forest
zone of West Africa that are dominated by Imperata cylindricum. Degraded forest lands
are often highly dysfunctional in ecological terms, characterized as they are by low soil
fertility and poor soil structure, soil erosion, the absence of fungal or root symbionts, anda lack of suitable micro-habitats for tree seed germination (due to the predominance of
non-forest grasses and ferns, and alien invasive species). In such situations, restoration
activities are better focused on the recovery and maintenance of primary processes(hydrology, nutrient cycling, energy flows), rather than on attempting to replace theoriginal forest structure or ‘near-natural’ species’ mixes immediately. As illustrated infigures 2.3a and 2.3b, hardy exotic species are sometimes the only option for site capture
and can then subsequently act as a nurse crop.

20

What is FLR?

Fig 2.3a Bamburi quarry, Kenya, was excavateddown to 1 m above the brackish water table.
Casuarina equisetifolia was planted directly into
small planting pits in the limestone with no othertreatment (see foreground). © Stewart Maginnis

Fig 2.3b The result after 20 years. Soil structure
is well developed as is a native understorey.
Casuarinais being replaced by a native Ficus as
the dominant canopy species and 19 IUCN redlist species have been recorded at the site.
© Stewart Maginnis

Promotion of natural regeneration on degraded lands and marginal agricultural sites: insome cases, degraded forest land may still be capable of supporting natural regeneration.
These lands tend to be of low productivity and can still be characterized as ecologically
dysfunctional, though less so than the degraded forest lands described above. An
example of this type of forest land is the low-productivity grazing pasture on laterite soils
common in Central America. Here, natural regeneration can be a viable proposition aslong as the immediate drivers of degradation (such as recurrent fires or grazing pressure)are removed or carefully managed. The case study in Box 2.2 is a good example of what
can be done under such circumstances. Two notes of caution, though. First, misdiagnosisof the drivers, processes and degree of degradation can result in major setbacks. For
example, even if grazing pressure is removed from marginal pasture land, site recovery
will be slow in the absence of desirable and viable seed sources. Second, one person’s‘degraded’ or ‘marginal’ land may be another’s livelihood. Great care must be taken to
avoid adversely affecting the poor and marginalized, whose principle source of income
and sustenance may be these so-called ‘degraded forest lands’.
Ecological restoration: given the scale of loss of some highly endangered forest types,
many conservationists would like to see restoration efforts that aim to closely replicate
the structure and floristic composition of the original forest cover, with intricate mixes of
local tree species capable not only of site capture but also of attracting and sustaining
local wildlife. Unfortunately, such intense ecological restoration at a large scale is a rare
luxury as it is often prohibitively expensive, ecologically impractical and sociallyconstrained. In some cases, even if these limitations could be addressed, this strictly
defined ecological restoration will never be achieved because there is no reference
ecosystem left from which to work. Nevertheless, ecological restoration can still be usedjudiciously to help create critical new habitat or connect existing fragmented habitats forendangered species, and can be employed as one component of FLR. Indeed, major
conservation benefits can be derived from combining ecological restoration with otherrestoration components, as illustrated in Box 2.2.

21

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Box 2.2 Combining ecological restoration with other FLR
components: a case study from Australia
In the tropical forests of north Queensland, planted forests have been used to add
conservation value to ecological restoration across the landscape (Tucker 2000;
Goosem and Tucker 1995). Faced with the challenge of creating new habitat on
private farmland and restoring some semblance of landscape connectivity, theQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service has worked with landowners to restore
critical biological corridors and ‘stepping stones’. However, the fact that these
corridors are no more than 100 m wide and stretch over several kilometres of open
countryside results in a large ‘edge effect’ that is highly unsuitable for species that
require a ‘deep’ forest environment. This problem has been dealt with innovatively
by planting commercial tree crops such as Araucaria cunninghamii adjacent to therestored corridor. The lessons generated in Queensland have broader application,
not only for FLR on farmland but also as a conservation intervention in industrial
plantations.
Plantations and planted forests: plantations and planted forests, whether they are smallscale units or large industrial entities, are not dealt with explicitly in this book –since
ITTO guidelines already exist for best-practice plantation establishment andmanagement. However, it is important to reiterate that plantation forestry is a key
component of FLR. Equally, it is anticipated that forward-looking plantation managers
will continue to familiarize themselves with the concepts and ideas in this book and will
feel encouraged to build a landscape perspective into their management decision-making
processes. They can, for example, ensure that natural forest is maintained in riparianzones and utilize strips of natural forest to delineate compartments and working circles,
thereby maximizing the contribution of new plantation schemes to landscape-level
functionality.4
Agroforestry and other configurations of on-farm trees: on-farm trees are not only assets
for farming systems but are also an important source of industrial roundwood and ameans of enhancing ecosystem connectivity and maintaining landscape-levelpropagation capabilities. Indeed, some agroforestry systems are virtuallyindistinguishable from late successional secondary forest (see Figure 2.4). Given recent
FAO figures showing that agriculture continues to expand its land base in about 70% ofcountries, it is highly likely that agroforestry systems will become an even more
important component of FLR in the future.

Fig 2.4 A shade-grown coffee farm in El Salvador –biologically rich but also productive. © Miguel Araujo

4

More information on the role of planted forest in FLR is provided in Maginnis and Jackson (2002)

22

What is FLR?

Many of the challenges to making FLR work are not strictly technical but more oftensocial, legal and political in nature. For example, ambiguity over ownership rights fortimber trees growing on private or communal agricultural land in Ghana during the
1980s and 1990s resulted in many farmers ‘ring-barking’ ecologically and economicallyvaluable trees, making it almost impossible to persuade farmers to invest in treeplanting, even though this would have been beneficial from an agronomic point of view.
Nevertheless, despite these kinds of problems, there is nearly always an opportunity forpractitioners to take some decisions with a landscape perspective. Indeed, a fundamental
characteristic of FLR is the use of a combination of technical approaches to solve
problems, rather than relying on one particular type of intervention.

An FLR case study
This section looks at a case study that happened over a 20-year period and resulted in therestoration of over 3,500 km2 of natural forest over a very large landscape. Although thisexperience happened before the concept of FLR was formally developed, it illustrates
what FLR initiatives should be trying to attain; it also embodies the four key features of
FLR outlined earlier in this chapter.
The Shinyanga region in Tanzania used to be covered with dense acacia and miombo
woodland, but by 1985 much of the landscape had been transformed into semi-desert.
Significant areas of forests had been cleared under colonial tsetse fly eradication schemes
and some of the remaining areas were converted to cash crops such as cotton and rice inthe 1970s. In 1975 many people were relocated under the government’s ‘villagization’program, which meant that they had to leave their homes, their farms and, mostsignificantly, their ngitili – their enclosures of acacia-miombo woodland.
The Sukuma have long relied on ngitili to provide them with dry-season fodder for theircattle, firewood and other essential products. But by 1985, a mere 1,000 hectares of ngitili
remained across the entire region. Previous government land rehabilitation initiatives
relied mostly on exotic species and had largely failed, so in 1985 government foresters
started to consult with the local people as to what sort of strategy might be more likely to
succeed. The response they received was almost unanimous – the restoration of the oldsystem of ngitili should be a priority.
The first task of the new program (HASHI) was to raise awareness about the importanceof restoring forest resources within a degraded landscape context. Farmers andcommunities were helped to select the most promising sites for their ngitili and advisedon how to manage them. Besides advising individual farmers, HASHI also worked
closely with the dagashida, the traditional community assemblies that lay down andenforce customary by-laws. It wasn’t long before the ngitili were transforming the lives oftens of thousands of people. In Mwendakulima village, for example, where animal
fodder and forest product shortages were common, the villagers removed the grazingpressure from 105 hectares of severely degraded land in 1987 and the site was sooncolonized through natural regeneration (see figures 2.5a and 2.5b). Income from ngitili is
now regularly used throughout the Shinyanga region to support basic social services
such as the construction of primary schools and the employment of local village healthworkers. In some villages there is anecdotal evidence that water supply has also
improved because of ngitili.
The HASHI project recently surveyed 172 out of the 800 villages in Shinyanga region.
They enumerated over 15,000 individual and communal ngitili covering around 70,000
hectares. This pattern of woodland restoration has also occurred in the 628 villages thatwere not surveyed, suggesting that it is highly likely that over 350,000 hectares of once-

23

Restoring Forest Landscapes

degraded forest land have been restored in a period of less than 20 years (Barrow et al.
2002).

Fig 2.5a In the mid-1980s it was estimated that the
Shinyanga region had only 1,000 hectares ofngitili. At that time the landscape was typicallybarren and degraded with few if any forest
resources. © Stewart Maginnis

Fig 2.5b The 17-year-old Mwendakulima ngitili:
these villagers used an FLR approach to restore
105 hectares of productive woodland, mainly by
excluding cattle from the area and silvicultural
treatments. © Stewart Maginnis

Conclusion: what makes FLR different?
The concept of FLR is different from many other restoration-orientated technicalresponses for the following reasons:•

it focuses restoration decisions on how best to restore forest functionality (that is, thegoods, services and processes that forests deliver), rather than on simply maximizing
new forest cover. In other words, FLR is more than just tree-planting;•it encourages the practitioner to take site-based decisions within a landscape context,
ensuring, at the very least, that such decisions do not reduce the quality or quantity offorest-related functions at a landscape level and, ideally, that the decisions contributetowards improving landscape-level functionality;•

it requires that local needs are addressed and balanced alongside national-level
priorities and requirements for reforestation, thus making local stakeholder
involvement in planning and management decisions an essential component;•

while promoting the need for site-level specialization, it strongly discourages actions
that would result in human well-being being traded off against ecological integrity at
the landscape level, or vice versa. Such trade-offs are unsustainable and tend to be
counterproductive in the medium to long term;•

it recognizes that neither the solutions to complex land-use problems nor theoutcomes of a particular course of action can be predicted accurately, especially as
ecosystems and land-use patterns change over time. FLR is therefore built on adaptive
management and requires that necessary provision is made for monitoring andlearning;•

given the complex challenge of restoration, FLR will normally require a package oftools, such as those discussed earlier in this chapter. Single-solution approaches will
seldom provide the practitioner with sufficient flexibility; and•finally, over the long term, FLR cannot be driven solely by good technicalinterventions alone but will require supportive local and national policy frameworks.
In many situations it is likely that policy change will follow on from good innovative24

What is FLR?

practice. Therefore, practitioners need to familiarize themselves with how other landuse policies impact the restoration and management of forests.

References and further reading
Barrow, E., Timmer, D., White, S. & Maginnis, S. 2002. Forest Landscape Restoration: Building
Assets for People and Nature – Experience from East Africa. IUCN, Cambridge, UK.
Goosem, S. & Tucker, N. 1995. Repairing the Rainforest: Theory and Practice of Rainforest Reestablishment in North Queensland’s Wet Tropics. Cassowary Publications, Wet Tropics
Management Authority, Cairns, Australia.
Maginnis, S. & Jackson, W. 2002. ‘Restoring forest landscapes’. ITTO Tropical Forest Update12(4):9–11.
Marghescu, T. 2001. ‘Restoration of degraded forest land in Thailand: the case of Khao Ko’.
Unasylva 207 Vol 52. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Tucker, N. 2000. ‘Wildlife colonisation on restored tropical lands: what can it do, how can we hasten
it and what can we expect?’ In: Elliott, S., Kerby, J., Blakesley, D., Hardwick, K., Woods, K. &Anusarnsunthorn, V. (eds) Forest Restoration for Wildlife Conservation. ITTO, Yokohama,Japan, and Forest Restoration Unit, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
WRI website (for forest-cover maps): http://forests.wri.org.
Ecott, T. 2002. Forest Landscape Restoration: working examples from 5 ecoregions. WWF
International/Doveton Press, Bristol, UK.

25

Restoring Forest Landscapes

26

3

Chapter 3
BUILDING SUPPORT FOR FLR
William Jackson and Stewart Maginnis

Successful FLR requires supportive local and national policy frameworks and a strong
constituency of local-level support for the restoration activities. FLR therefore needs toinclude the identification of stakeholders and their forest-related interests, and aconsensus-building process on the range of possible restoration options. To achieve this,practitioners need to openly communicate and engage with a range of stakeholder
groups. This chapter focuses on how FLR can help forest managers respond to local
livelihood needs, build trust with local communities, and demonstrate the importance offorests to decision-makers within a broader land-use and economic development context.
The chapter also looks at how practitioners can make a strong case for the benefits of FLR
based on its contribution to poverty reduction, economic growth, environmental security
and biodiversity conservation.
It may seem odd that this topic is dealt with so early in the book. It is treated here as an
up-front issue because without strong support from policy-makers, local communities,
the private sector and other stakeholder groups, landscape-level restoration will not
succeed.

Why foresters need to make forests more relevant
Degraded and secondary forests are a common feature in many tropical landscapes andare the main providers of forest-related goods and services. Their location near humansettlements and the fact that they are often considered dysfunctional and unproductivemeans that these forests tend to be under greater threat than more isolated blocks ofintact primary forest. Yet the complete loss of these forests would represent a further
impoverishment of already degraded and modified landscapes and would extinguishany possibility of improving landscape-level functionality in the immediate future. Froman economic perspective, the loss of these forests would result in the decline of an area’s
timber commodity base with ensuing loss of jobs and livelihoods, while from a
conservation perspective it would mean a local, possibly permanent, loss of forest
biodiversity. If degraded and secondary forest resources are to be safeguarded andrestored, decision-makers, local communities and the private sector all need tounderstand why they should support an activity that will take at least ten years, oftenmuch longer, to yield demonstrable dividends.
Given that FLR is underpinned by multi-stakeholder consultations and dialogues, it must
begin by mobilizing support, particularly from local stakeholders. It is no accident thatthe first objective of the ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitationof Degraded and Secondary Tropical Forests is to “attain commitment to the management
and restoration of degraded and secondary forests”. Furthermore, convincing policymakers of the value of FLR is important not only for the success of restoration initiatives
but also for continued support for forestry activities in general. This is all the more
important given the current context of declining funds for forestry. Indeed, unlessforesters can start to convince their own governments of the real value of forests and theneed to restore degraded forest landscapes, then it is likely that forest department

27

Restoring Forest Landscapes

budgets will decline significantly. So, although communication and advocacy skills are
not usually taught in forestry courses, they are essential tools for any forestry
practitioner.

The double filter of FLR
One of the key points highlighted in Chapter 2 was that FLR recognizes the need toenhance human well-being and restore long-term ecological integrity at the landscapelevel. This principle has been referred to as the ‘double filter’ of FLR. In looking to build
support for FLR, this basic principle provides an excellent starting point as it incorporates
the idea of pragmatic flexibility and provides clear guidance for the strategic direction of
any restoration activity.
A common problem with any form of natural resource management is how to find theright balance between exploiting the resource for economic benefit and conserving thesame resource for environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, cultural identityand other, less tangible benefits. Economic arguments have usually won out and someconservationists and local communities have therefore been reluctant to consider
compromise solutions – because the burden of compromise has seldom been evenly
spread. This problem is all the more acute when dealing with degraded landscapes
because remnant forest resources are often assigned little value and economic interests
have even less reason to compromise.
The double filter of FLR is therefore worth communicating to stakeholders as it
introduces the concept of scale into the search for compromise. The double-filter principle
reflects an acknowledgement of the inevitability of some site-level specialization andtrade-offs between economic, social and conservation values of the land. However, theprinciple also reflects the notion that these individual site-level trade-offs must bebalanced at the landscape level. This means, for example, that a private-sector company
signing up to FLR will be obliged not only to avoid filling the landscape withmonoculture plantations but also to ensure that the plantations are configured in a waythat has no detrimental impact on the supply of other forest goods and services at alandscape level. In return, the plantation company gains greater acceptance of theiractivities in the landscape by stakeholder groups that might otherwise have opposed
their presence. The Thailand case study in Box 2.1 is a good example of how the doublefilter principle can lead to equitable compromise solutions and resolve difficult conflicts.
Another benefit of the double filter is that it accommodates and encourages adaptive
management. One problem in trying to achieve balanced outcomes through therestoration of degraded forest landscapes is that land-use policies, markets, stakeholder
groups and even ecosystems change over time. As the ITTO restoration guidelines note:
The social and economic conditions that exist when a forest crop is harvested are
seldom the same as those prevailing when a tree seedling first takes root, nor do
the priorities of individuals remain the same. Strategies for the restoration,
management and rehabilitation of degraded and secondary forests must adopt a
long-term perspective, anticipating, as far as possible, future trends. But theymust also be flexible and capable of adaptation to changing circumstances.
The double filter helps the practitioner and other stakeholders meet this challenge by not
obstructing changes to site-level management practices or land-uses as long as humanwell-being and ecological integrity are not compromised at the landscape level. It canalso help persuade some stakeholders to undertake site-level activities that contributetowards improved landscape level functionality, as illustrated in Box 3.1.

28

Building support for FLR

In addition to using the double filter as the basis of arguments for the value andfeasibility of FLR, practitioners will need to put in place robust and measurable indicators
so they can demonstrate tangible progress over time.

Box 3.1 The double filter as the basis for adaptive management indynamic landscapes
In the 1990s there was a great deal of interest in the observed regeneration of large
tracts of tropical secondary forest on farmland in some Central American countries.
There was much speculation as to how long it would take for this new forest to
attain the attributes of relatively undisturbed forest cover and whether new laws
were necessary to ensure this would happen. However, for at least some owners ofthese new forests the reality on the ground was a different matter. While the area of
secondary forest showed an increase at a national level, this did not mean that
farmers were permanently dedicating parts of their land to forests. Instead, farmers
rested land for ten or maybe even 15 years to maintain a land-bank that would
supply fencing poles and other useful products, and they rotated the location ofthese areas over time. Efforts to regulate this activity by prohibiting secondary forest
clearance could have been counterproductive and might have resulted in lesssecondary forest being maintained on farms, with negative consequences for theoverall integrity of the landscape.

The contribution of FLR to poverty reduction
In the past few years, many donors and governments have placed increasing emphasison the development and implementation of poverty reduction strategies. Bilateral andmultilateral donors are moving away from project-based disbursement to channel aid
assistance directly to national treasuries. More importantly, ministries of finance now
privilege those ministries and government agencies that they believe can most effectively
contribute to rapid poverty reduction through improvements in health, education or
economic opportunities. These public bodies receive a larger allocation of the national
budget, while other bodies that are considered of marginal importance to national
poverty reduction strategies are the first in line for budget cuts. Forest departments havetended to fall into the latter category.
How then to persuade senior government officials that the restoration of forest
landscapes is worthy of support under such difficult funding circumstances? Ironically,poor people rely more on natural resources, particularly degraded natural resources,
than other sectors of the population even though they are often denied formal permission
to utilize such resources. Experience has shown that when poor people are given longterm secure rights over degraded forest resources and supported with good technicaladvice they can turn such resources into healthy, productive and biologically rich assets
within a few years. An economist might question whether this is enough by itself to liftpoor people out of poverty. It seldom is, but it does constitute an effective and efficient
first step, particularly in rural areas where up to 75% of very poor people live. Degradedand secondary forest resources are assets that can be deployed today – they already exist
in situ – and can therefore help people start their transition out of poverty until otherassets such as clinics, schools and new enterprises are commissioned and functioning.
And healthier landscapes can contribute more generally to a country’s poverty reduction
strategy by enhancing the environmental security of poor people living or working invulnerable locations.

29

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Any plans to empower poor people to take decisions on and benefit from natural
resource management need to be followed up with immediate action. Two key lessons
that have been learned on devolving management and decision-making to local peopleare:•

do not promise what cannot be delivered. Ensure that you have sufficient authority tofollow through with agreements and that communities do not find themselves in asituation where they lose control over the resource just as it becomes productive; and•focus on lifting constraints to local management rather than putting in place
additional ones. Management rules should be limited and clear about what theyprohibit. Detailed rules about how people should carry out silvicultural operations are
rarely appropriate.

Contribution of FLR to local economic growth
Strong economic growth is a high priority for political decision-makers and is regarded
as one of the principle tools for lifting large numbers of poor people out of poverty in a
relatively short period of time. Economic planners and treasury officials spend a gooddeal of time considering how to make macroeconomic conditions more conducive tostimulating economic growth. At first appearance such concerns may seem completely
unrelated to forest conservation and FLR and it is true that the forest sector (especiallywhere forests are degraded) can never be expected to make the same contribution tonational economies as many other sectors. However, the forest sector still has a role toplay, particularly in stimulating local economic growth in places that have not, or will
not, benefit from the trickle-down effects of globalization and national-level growth.
The benefits of national economic growth are seldom distributed evenly across all
sections of society. In general, countries experiencing high economic growth rates (suchas China) are also seeing a widening in the gap between the rich and poor. What can bedone to stimulate economic growth in poor rural areas? Part of the answer has been
provided in the previous section – permit people to invest, use and enhance theproductivity of degraded and secondary forest resources. Box 3.2 contains two casestudies of how FLR has helped create new assets that contribute directly to local
economic growth.
Two other points from the case studies in Box 3.2 are worth highlighting. The first is thatthe double filter of enhanced human well-being and restored ecological integrity meansthat the generation of landscape-level benefits (including tradable commodities,
roundwood, non-timber forest products and environmental services such as carbon andimproved water quality) does not prevent site-level specialization (such as plantations ofsmall woodlots). The second point is that local communities and small-holders requirelong-term security if they are to benefit from degraded and secondary forest resources.
The same argument of course also applies to large-scale owners and concessionaires but
their rights tend to be much more secure.

30

Building support for FLR

Box 3.2 Contributions of FLR to local economic growth: two casestudiesIn the Sukhomajri watershed, India, joint forest management arrangements withlocal communities resulted in a 100-fold increase in the tree density of native species
on denuded slopes over a period of 16 years. Subsequent increases in the productionof forest grasses led to a six-fold increase in milk production, while better-regulated
water flow permitted local investment in more diverse and higher-yielding cropping
systems. As a direct result of this increased economic activity, household incomes
across all social classes increased by 50%. Further downstream, the siltation rate of
an important lake near the major city of Chandigarh was reduced by 95%, saving thecity US$200,000 annually in dredging costs (Kerr 2002).
In Chiapas, southern Mexico, poor farmers have established a global enterprise
selling high-quality carbon offsets to polluting businesses in the developed world.
Since 1996, over 700 farmers have joined the Scolel Té initiative, planting nativepines, cedars and fruit trees on their own farmland in configurations of their own
choosing. Two-thirds of the income generated goes straight to the farmers,
providing them with investment capital worth US$800 per hectare to help restore
productive forest and agroforestry systems on currently degraded sites. In addition
to supplying an emerging international market for carbon offsets, these homesteadand farm plantations have also increased the supply of locally tradable commodities
such as timber, fruit, medical plants and fuelwood.

Contribution of FLR to environmental security
Adequate environmental security for people living in vulnerable locations such as uplandvalleys requires not only that they are relatively well-protected from the impacts ofcatastrophic events such as periodic flooding but that they also have access tocontingency livelihood alternatives when disasters do strike. Environmental security is
an issue of increasing importance as more and more people are living in high-risk areas
and/or relying on degraded resources to sustain their livelihoods. This means that more
people are likely to be affected when a flood, drought or landslide occurs. Whileenvironmental security is often talked about in terms of catastrophic natural events, its
principles are equally relevant in times of major economic shock or violent conflict.
Decision-makers also need to be reminded that environmental security can sometimes be
an issue of national security, as the hardship brought about by natural disasters can leadto increased civil unrest.
The links between FLR and environmental security are relatively straightforward. Loss offorest functionality in degraded landscapes has both in situ and downstream impacts. For
example, as forest land is degraded and fragmented, the velocity and rate of site-levelrun-off increases, soil erosion accelerates, slope stability is reduced, siltation loads
increase and water quality declines. The disasters that grab headlines are therefore notjust a consequence of, for example, one particularly heavy rainfall but are symptomatic ofa long-term erosion of ecological integrity. FLR can help reverse this trend by increasing
not only landscape-level resilience to shocks but also by enhancing landscape-level
adaptability so that both government and local communities are better placed to respondto such shocks.

31Restoring Forest Landscapes

Contribution of FLR to biodiversity conservation
Over 12% of the earth’s forest cover is now under some form of protected area statusconsistent with the IUCN categories. Although this is an admirable achievement, muchremains to be done to improve the management of these areas – and even then it is
becoming clear that these areas may be insufficient to safeguard forest biodiversity. One
option is to continue to put more land under protection; this is certainly needed for forest
types that are particularly threatened and poorly represented within protected areasystems and for areas that still have large tracts of intact biologically rich forest. Yet thereality in many tropical countries is that these conditions no longer prevail and local
communities are becoming increasingly vocal about losing their land rights, whether it isfor protection or production purposes. There is now growing awareness that protectedareas, no matter how well managed, will continue to face major challenges if they aresimply ‘islands of conservation’ in an otherwise hostile sea of unsympathetic land-uses.
This leaves governments with a dilemma, given that many of them are committed to theConvention on Biological Diversity’s target of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by2010.
While FLR can never substitute for a representative network of protected areas it cancertainly contribute to the ability of these areas to conserve biodiversity. The case study
in Box 2.2 shows the critical role that a technical package of ecological restoration andplanted production played in enhancing the viability of protected areas in one
particularly ‘hostile’ landscape. Figures 2.3a and 2.3b also demonstrate the remarkableability of threatened species to recolonize even badly degraded sites, provided the rightconditions prevail. FLR offers one of the most promising options to ensure thatenvironmental values are represented outside protected areas in a way that
accommodates other land-use requirements and enhances the conservation value andecological integrity of the protected areas themselves.
It could be argued that the rationale given here for FLR is simply a reworking of thejustification used to promote integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs).
Given that these projects have produced very mixed results, one could question whether
FLR will fare any better. However, while FLR has certainly been influenced by ICDPs,
there are also a number of critical differences. Many forest-based ICDPs were establishedin relatively intact forest areas, a proportion of which had been, or would soon be,gazetted as a protected area (often entailing a loss of forest-use rights for the local
communities). Part of the rationale of ICDPs was that they would compensate local
communities for lost livelihood opportunities through the provision of alternative
development projects. The context for FLR is different in two ways. First, the condition of
the forest resource outside the protected area will, by definition, already be heavily
modified or degraded. Second, the process of restoring the productivity and ecologicalintegrity of degraded resources is likely to entail a transfer of additional rights (andresponsibilities) to communities or individuals.

Conclusions
Forests now contribute less to many countries’ GDP than they used to, and are often nolonger seen as a resource of national strategic importance. Financial support for forests
has been reduced both from national budgets and as a percentage of donor aid flows. Put
simply, decision-makers in many countries do not consider forests to be as important asthey once did. While many of us may see this as short-sighted given the wide range ofgoods and services that flow from forests and the direct and indirect contribution that
forests can make to national development, we, as foresters, must also accept part of the32

Building support for FLR

blame for this situation. For too long, one single forest good – industrial roundwood –was promoted to the near exclusion of all other goods and services.
If we are to turn this situation around then we must begin to make a more convincing
case. FLR provides one possible vehicle for doing so, because it promotes all the values
that forests can provide to society: hydrological regulation and watershed protection,
carbon sinks, an on-farm asset, soil stabilization, an insurance policy in times of natural
disasters, and a repository of biological diversity of both local and global value.
However, such arguments will not stand by themselves; they must be presented in terms
that decision-makers clearly understand. If finance ministries are concerned with poverty
reduction strategies, then forest managers must learn how to make a case in these terms –not simply with respect to maintaining subsistence livelihoods but also to contributing tolocal economic growth.

References and further reading
ITTO 2002. ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded andSecondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No 13. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Kerr, J. 2002. ‘Sharing the benefits of watershed management in Sukhomajri, India’. In: Pagiola, S.,
Bishop, J. & Landell-Mills, M. (eds) Selling forest environmental services – market-based
mechanisms for conservation and development. Earthscan, London, UK.

33

Restoring Forest Landscapes

34

Chapter 4
APPLYING AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENTAPPROACH IN FLR

4

Don Gilmour
This chapter sets out what is involved in managing an FLR initiative and proposes the
adoption of an adaptive management approach to enable FLR practitioners to respond to
the dynamics found in natural and socioeconomic systems.

Management characteristics of FLR initiatives
FLR initiatives typically have several characteristics that make them quite different fromconventional forestry operations. These include:•

multiple stakeholders with multiple interests (local, regional and national);•

complex ecological systems across a large landscape, with a variety of land-uses;•

the interface between large-scale natural systems and social systems; and•a high level of uncertainty and many unknown factors.

A consequence of this combination of factors is that FLR managers need to adopt a sociallearning approach based on a process of experiential decision-making and monitoring.
Adaptive management has been developed to accommodate these characteristics. It is anapproach to the management of complex systems based on incremental, experiential
learning and decision-making, supported by active ongoing monitoring of and feedback
from the effects of outcomes of decisions (see Box 4.1). The approach has elements of trial
and error but it is much more than this, as it incorporates explicit learning as part of aprocess of building social capital among multiple stakeholders. It therefore involves:•collaboration and learning;•combining the learning and action that take place within a group of people (capturing
both knowledge generation and the application of this knowledge in action); and•knowledge-sharing among group members.

Box 4.1 Origins of adaptive management
The term ‘adaptive management’ was coined in 1978 by an interdisciplinary team of
biologists and systems analysts to describe a guiding principle for managing theinterface between society and the biosphere. It was based on detailed studies ofcomplex ecosystems such as the Florida Everglades, the Columbia River, the Baltic
Sea and others in which humans play a dominant role. Adaptive management has
since become a major approach informing real attempts to manage large ecosystems
in a sustainable manner.

35

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Adaptive management offers three important benefits:•

it can avert crises in conditions of uncertainty and surprise by increasing the societal
capacity to ‘roll with the punches’;•

it offers a social steering instrument that can complement market, fiscal, regulatory
and other measures to strengthen broad-based, multi-stakeholder engagement in theevolution of more sustainable relations between people and their environment; and•it offers a way in which scientific-based technologies, alongside an understanding ofpeople’s perspectives, values and meanings, can contribute to collective learning andmotivation for action.

Key components of adaptive management
It is convenient to think of adaptive management as a series of interrelated processes:•

understanding the social and biophysical context at multiple levels; this involves
identifying stakeholders and dealing with multiple (and sometimes conflicting)interests;•

negotiating objectives and outcomes for different levels;•

applying action learning (plan, act, observe and reflect) to facilitate theimplementation process; and•monitoring and impact assessment.

These processes should not be thought of as a series of sequential steps in which you
complete one management task before moving on to the next. Rather, the processes
should be thought of as interrelated and overlapping. For example, collecting andupdating information to understand the context will be a process that continues
throughout the life of the initiative. Likewise, monitoring and impact assessment is notjust a one-off activity at the end of the initiative, but an ongoing practice that feeds
constantly into the action-learning cycle from the very beginning of the intervention.
Each of the four key components of adaptive management is now considered in turn.

Understanding the context
The context of an FLR initiative comprises the social and biophysical conditions in which
it takes place and which could have an impact on it (see Table 4.1). While it is neverpossible to understand everything about the context (particularly as the context willchange over time), it is important to know enough about it to make a start. An improved
understanding of the context can be gained while the initiative continues; an actionlearning approach recognizes that updating knowledge of the context is an importantpart of the management process.

36

Applying an adaptive management approach in FLR

Table 4.1 Examples of the context of an FLR initiative
BiophysicalType, condition and location of forest patchesType and location of non-forest land
Presence or absence of degrading influences
Trends in forest condition – for example increase or decrease in forest
areas
Drainage pattern and slope characteristics
Land-tenure patterns (legal and de facto)
Geological and soil patterns

SocialLocation of settlements
Dependence of local people on forest resources for livelihood support
Existence of local social institutions (including NGOs)
Conflicts over land or resource use
Stakeholder groups (inside and outside the landscape) that have aninterest in the FLR initiative

Negotiating objectives and outcomes
The objective of an FLR initiative will vary depending on the agenda of the grouppromoting the landscape restoration. A forest department, for example, might want torestore an area of degraded forest land primarily to improve timber production, while aconservation agency or NGO might want to improve habitat for wildlife or restore an
endangered biotype. Hence, the primary objective of the group initiating therehabilitation or restoration activity may create different responses from different
stakeholders. It is only by identifying the interests of the various stakeholder groups thatnegotiations can occur, and the initial objectives may need to be modified to take accountof the interests of other stakeholders. This process inevitably involves trade-offs andrequires compromises in order to achieve outcomes that will be socially acceptable andsustainable over the long term.

Applying action learning
The key idea behind action learning is that a group of people with a shared issue orconcern collaboratively, systematically and deliberately plan, implement and evaluate
actions (see Box 4.2). It is a process of learning through experience in order to act more
effectively in a particular situation and is well-suited to situations with a great deal of
uncertainty and risk (see Box 4.3).

37

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Box 4.2 The action-learning cycle
Step 1: Plan
The action-learning cycle starts with planning to take action on some pre-definedissue or problem situation. The planning is built on the experience and ideas of allpartners involved, because learning is enhanced when it is derived from day-to-day
work and experience.
Step 2: Act
The results of the planning are put into practice, using timeframes agreed to in theplanning sessions.
Step 3: Observe and reflect
Those involved observe the results of the action and reflect on the impact.
Reflections need to be carried out explicitly and are best done as a group, ideallyfacilitated by an outsider in the early stages. A series of questions can help to focus
the reflection. Suitable questions could include:•

What changes have taken place?

•

What were the strengths and weaknesses of what was done?

•

What could have been done better?

•

What problems have resulted from the changes?

•

Were there unintended consequences of the actions?

This reflection is very important as it enables the next steps in the cycle to benefit
from the explicit learning that has resulted from the previous action.
Step 4: Draw lessons
Lessons are drawn from the previous steps of action and reflection. The experiences
to date are linked back to the concepts and ideas that were used in the initialplanning. This leads to replanning for the next cycle, building on the learning of thevarious steps of action and reflection and drawing lessons from previous cycles. In
this way, planning and action can proceed incrementally with everyone
participating in and contributing to all facets of the process. Thus, there will be astrong sense of ownership over the outcomes (both successes and failures).

Box 4.3 What is meant by uncertainty and risk?
It is never possible to control all the variables when managing initiatives such as FLR
that involve multiple stakeholders, multiple interests and complex landscape-levelissues. There is always incomplete or imperfect knowledge and therefore much
uncertainty. Factors may arise that were not known or not considered important at
the outset and these may influence the outcome in ways that were not planned or
expected (see example in Box 4.4).
Forest activities contain much greater inherent levels of risk than most agriculturalactivities, largely because of the long-term nature of forest crops. The most common
risks include market shocks, disease and fire.

38

Applying an adaptive management approach in FLR

The process should be thought of as ongoing rather than as a one-off event (as illustrated
in Figure 4.1). The participants continually go through the cycle, with each iteration
improved by the knowledge and learning obtained in previous cycles. Within the broad
framework of reflective planning and action, various methods and tools can be used tocollect information. This process is sometimes called action research to emphasize theimportance of researching or exploring new or innovative approaches to a problem.
Thus, it is not just about learning, although learning is one of the important outcomes ofthe process.

Fig 4.1 The action-learning spiral
Source: Kemmis and McTaggart (1988)

Monitoring and impact assessment
An ongoing approach to monitoring and impact assessment is an essential aspect ofadaptive management. This enables the stakeholders to build their social capital bysharing the learning that comes from such assessments. The next action-learning cycle ofplanning/acting/observing/reflecting is updated by realistic information, thus helping
to maintain maximum adaptability and flexibility (see the example in Box 4.4).

Box 4.4 Monitoring for action learning: case study from Nepal
An attempt to rehabilitate the degraded hillsides of common land in a region ofeastern Nepal was eagerly accepted by local people, as evidenced by discussions atvillage meetings. However, after the first year of planting it was noted that most of
the planted trees had not survived. Discussions with a wide range of local people,
outside a formal meeting setting, revealed that a group of poorer people (who were
not sufficiently empowered to speak at village meetings) disagreed with therehabilitation proposal. Their livelihoods were largely dependent on managing
herds of grazing animals and they did not wish to lose their grazing land. The low
survival rate of the planted trees was due to the graziers having allowed theiranimals to graze the recently planted hillsides. Their more wealthy and powerfulneighbours were primarily sedentary agriculturalists and did not need much open
grazing land. This finding enabled the original approach to be modified so that theeconomic needs of the graziers were taken into account, resulting in greater successin the rehabilitation initiative.
The lessons from this example are that:•ongoing monitoring enabled problems to be identified before they became too
serious, so that the next action-learning cycle could be adjusted based on thelearning obtained in the previous cycle;
continued next page39

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Box 4.4 (cont’d)•even with what seems like thorough planning, there are almost always
unexpected outcomes and unintended consequences that need to be explicitly
looked for and learnt from before continuing with the next action-learning cycle;•

great care needs to be taken to identify all the stakeholder groups that will havean interest in the outcomes of the rehabilitation or restoration activities; and•consensus at village meetings does not necessarily mean agreement by allinterest groups, particularly where there are large differences in power relations
between different groups.

In addition to ongoing monitoring and assessment throughout the implementation
process, there needs to be monitoring of the ‘big picture’ aspects of the program, basedon the overall objectives. This is best done by establishing indicators by which results canbe judged. An example from a WWF FLR program in New Caledonia is given in Table
4.2. It should be noted that this example focuses on the biophysical aspects of FLR anddoes not include any socioeconomic aspects.

Table 4.2 Monitoring indicators developed for an FLR program in
New Caledonia
Operation phase

Indicators

Acquiring betterknowledge•••

Animal and plant species studied (seed sources, nursery
techniques, etc)
Scientific reports published
Surface area covered by census

Ensuring protection

•
•
•
•
•

Sites and areas protected
Lengths of fencing and fire barriers installed
New texts, regulations and procedures adopted
Surface area of burnt and damaged forest (reduced)
Listed boundaries

Rehabilitation

•
•
•
•
•

Forestry and hunting management plans
Surface area and species planted and maintainedSpecies planted and cultivated in nurseries
Rare species saved from extinction
Level of invasion by unwanted animals and plants(reduced)

Valorization

•
•
•
•
•
•

Substances and plants newly marketed
Brochures, fliers, posters and signs created and distributed
Events (exhibitions, seminars, etc) carried out
People contacted (schools, local residents)
Press and magazine articles published
Sites and discovery trails laid out

Sustainable
management••

General and thematic maps drawn up
Percentage of dry forests managed, planned andprotected
Cooperation agreements signed with land owners•

Source: Adapted from WWF (n.d.)40Applying an adaptive management approach in FLR

Implementing adaptive management of an FLR initiative
Table 4.3 outlines the key components of the adaptive management approach and setsout some examples of what is involved in each component when applying the approachin an FLR initiative. It must be stressed again that breaking down the implementation
process of adaptive management into a series of discrete steps is somewhat problematic
because it might give the impression that adaptive management is a simple linear
process, akin to applying a prescription or blueprint. Recall the cautionary comments in
Box 4.3 on the social and biophysical uncertainties of forest management. It is therefore
better to think of the adaptive management process as a series of action-learning loops
rather than a straight line from planning to the achievement of planned outcomes.
Managers should feel free to adapt and modify the approach based on the learning thatcomes from the application of action learning throughout the process.

Table 4.3 Guide to using an adaptive management approach for an
FLR initiative
Component

Description

Understanding
the context (seeBox 4.1)

Identify the key stakeholders
Understand the policy context
Understand the socioeconomic conditions of people living in thelandscapeUnderstand the biophysical and forest management context
Understand institutional settings (formal and informal, government
and non-government)

Negotiating
objectives andoutcomes

Develop a shared vision for the future (including objectives andoutcomes – both biophysical and socioeconomic)
Develop indicators of successful FLR (biophysical andsocioeconomic)
Assess current conditions against the ideal conditions agreed in thevisionIdentify and prioritize critical areas and actions needed to achieve
objectives

Applying action
learning tofacilitate theprocess (see also
Box 4.2)

Establish action-learning groups and introduce the action-learning
processes
Plan for action
ActionObserve, monitor and reflect on the results of the action
Draw lessons from the outcomes to improve further actions
Continuously improve the management strategies through applicationof the action-learning cycle

Assessing theimpactAssess the impacts of FLR activities on the biophysical conditions
across the landscape and the socioeconomic conditions of the key
stakeholder groups, paying particular attention to those parts of theprocess around which there is greatest uncertainty

41

Restoring Forest Landscapes

References and further reading
Adaptive management
CIFOR Adaptive Collaborative Management website: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/acm.
Hartanto, H., Lorenzo, M.C.B., Valmores, C., Arda-Minas, L., Burton, L. & Prabhu, R. 2003.
Learning Together: Responding to Change and Complexity to Improve Community Forests in
the Philippines. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. (An Indonesia-focused version of this publication is
also available: Kusumanto, T., Yuliani, L., Macoun, P., Indriatmoko, Y. & Adnan, H. 2005.
Learning to Adapt: Managing Forests Together in Indonesia. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.)
Ogilthorpe, J. (ed) n.d. Adaptive Management: From Theory to Practice. SUI Technical Series Vol
3. IUCN, US Office, Washington, DC, USA.

Action learning
Fisher, R. & Jackson, W. 1998. ‘Action research for collaborative management of protected areas’.
Workshop on Collaborative Management of Protected Areas in the Asian Region, Sauraha,
Nepal.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (eds) 1988. The Action Research Planner. 3rd edition. Deakin
University Press, Geelong, Australia.
Weinstein, K. 1999. Action Learning: A Practical Guide. Gower, Hampshire, England.
WWF n.d. The Dry Forests of New Caledonia. WWF, Noumea, New Caledonia.

42

Chapter 5
UNDERSTANDING THE LANDSCAPE
MOSAIC

5

Don Gilmour

Introduction
This chapter shows how a landscape can be thought of as a mosaic (or patchwork) madeup of different components (for example, various land-uses, land tenure, drainage
patterns and human settlements) and suggests some tools that can be used to understandand represent this. The chapter also highlights the importance of considering thecontributions of different parts of the landscape (including both forest and non-forest
areas) to the overall objectives of an FLR initiative.

What is a landscape mosaic?
A landscape mosaic is made up of different components, pieced together to form an
overall landscape-level ‘patchwork’. The actual composition of the mosaic and thepattern in which the components are distributed will be unique to each landscape.
A landscape mosaic can be represented in a variety of ways using, for example, maps,
tables of different attributes and written descriptions. Maps are particularly useful as
they can present complex situations in a visual manner and can help achieve a common
understanding among different stakeholder groups; Figure 5.1 shows a hypotheticallandscape mosaic map. It is much easier to visualize what is being discussed when using
maps than when the information is presented as lengthy written descriptions or tables.
Maps can also be used to cross-check information from different sources. For example,
official records of land tenure can be mapped and shown to local stakeholders to discuss
any differences with their own understanding of land tenure, including access and use
rights. Maps are also very useful when discussing issues such as landscape-levelobjectives, restoration and rehabilitation options and trade-offs between different
objectives and stakeholder groups. Because of the complex nature of most forest
landscapes, it is usually necessary to use several maps, preferably of the same scale, thatcan be overlaid on each other to build up a composite picture (as in Figure 5.1).

43

Fig 5.1 Layers of a forest landscape mosaic map (hypothetical example)

Primary forest

Land-use layer

Degraded primary forest
Secondary forest
On-farm trees
Plantation forest
Pasture land
Good agricultural land

Drainage layer

Bad agricultural land
Degraded wasteland

State forest land
Community/tribal land
Private smallholders

Land tenure layer

Corporate private
Contested land

Human settlements

Biotic impact layer

IUCN protected area
Category I-II
World Heritage Site
Critical erosion site

Understanding the landscape mosaic

Key components of a landscape mosaic
While a certain minimum amount of information is required before effective planningand implementation can commence, there is often a tendency to spend an inordinate
amount of time and effort collecting information simply because it is available. It is
generally better to commence with a minimum information base and build on it as theneed arises – using the ‘action-learning cycle’ to reflect on the situation during theimplementation process (see Chapter 4).
It is worth posing the question: what is the minimum information needed before an FLR
initiative can commence? The answer will of course depend on the situation, but the mostcommon types of information required are outlined in Table 5.1, along with suggested
sources of such information.

Table 5.1 Information on key components of the landscape mosaic
needed for planning FLR strategies and activities
Key components of thelandscape mosaic

Uses of information

Sources of information

Land-use patterns (different
categories of forest,
agricultural and pastoralland). See land-use overlayin Figure 5.1

Strategic planningpurposes

Maps, aerial photographs

Trends in land-use (egforest areas increasing or
decreasing; forests
becoming more or lessdegraded; agricultural areas
increasing or decreasing).
Different stakeholders may
have different views onthese trends

Determining overall
restoration andrehabilitation strategies

Discussions with key
informants, government
officials, local farmers,scientists, etc. Rememberthat local views can differ
from official views, andcross-checking may benecessary

Population patterns andlabour availability

For example, identifying
spare time in the
agricultural calendar that
could support restoration
and rehabilitation
activities

Official records; discussions
with key informants,
particularly local people

Local (indigenous)
knowledge of history,
harvesting practices,ecological aspects,
ethnobotany

Cross-checking
information derived fromofficial sources andinforming restoration andrehabilitation strategies.

Discussions with local
communities andresearchers who haveworked in the area

Land-use

continued next page45

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Table 5.1 (cont’d)
Key components of thelandscape mosaic

Uses of information

Sources of information

Planning restoration andrehabilitation strategies

Maps, aerial photographs

Land ownership. See landtenure overlay in Figure 5.1

For example, identifying
key stakeholders

Cadastral boundaries will
give official legal situation.
Discussions with land
occupiers or managers will
give local views of use
rights, which could differ
from the official view

Historical legacy of different
or contested tenure (oraccess and use rights)

Determining restoration
and rehabilitation
strategies that will besustainable

Official records; discussions
with government officials,
NGOs and local people(again, remember that
official perceptions may
differ from local ones)

Determining restoration
and rehabilitation
strategies

Maps, aerial photographs,
publications, local
knowledge, specialist
knowledge (government andNGO scientists, etc)

Infrastructure (including
roads, railways, towns andvillages)

General planningpurposes

Maps, aerial photographs

Geology and soil types

Deciding, for example,
appropriate species forplanting in different sites

Maps and local knowledge

Drainage
Physical landscape features(eg contours, streams,
drainage lines). See
drainage overlay in Figure
5.1
Land tenure

Biotic impact
Where are the problems:
threatened species,
biodiversity hotspots,
eroding areas, fragmented
habitats, weeds or pests?
See biotic impact overlay in
Figure 5.1
OthersTools and techniques to map and describe the landscapemosaicAs indicated above, maps are one of the most useful tools for presenting information on
the landscape mosaic in a format that is meaningful to the majority of stakeholders.
However, maps will usually need to be supported by quantified information to assist
with planning field activities and monitoring. Government sources of information arenormally readily available, but information from these sources often needs to be crosschecked with locally available data and perceptions. Maps can be out-of-date or simply46

Understanding the landscape mosaic

wrong. Just because quantified data is collated in official documents it does notnecessarily mean that it is correct – there is an old adage that cautions against confusing
numbers with facts!
Most countries have geographic information systems (GIS) available in central land
management agencies, and these can be a rich source of information for building up thecomponents of a landscape mosaic. It is generally possible to access these databases toprepare base maps for landscape-level initiatives such as FLR. Tools such as thecomputer Mapmaker program are readily available and are well-suited for use at the local
operational level.

Contribution of key areas of the landscape to FLR initiatives
Different parts of the landscape need to be assessed to determine how they can contributeto the overall FLR objectives, as outlined in Table 5.2.5

Table 5.2 Contribution of key areas of the landscape to an FLR
initiative
Key areas of the landscapeContribution to an FLR initiative

Forest areas
Intact natural forest (large areas)

These contain much of the conservationand development values of the initial forest
landscape and are often the key building
blocks for FLR initiatives. They generally
need to be connected with restored andrehabilitated areas of the landscape tostrengthen their contribution to FLR
objectives

Intact natural forest (small areas)

These provide important conservation anddevelopment values on-site that can beenhanced by expansion and connection toother key forest patches and areas to berestored and rehabilitatedPlantations

These contain some conservation anddevelopment attributes that can beenhanced by management. They can also
serve as useful buffers around degraded
forests and protected areas

Degraded forest or shrublands (large
areas)

These can be key targets for restoration
and rehabilitation and for connecting toother parts of the forest landscapeDegraded forest or shrublands (small
areas)

These can provide some conservation anddevelopment values that can be enhanced
by restoration and rehabilitation and byconnecting these areas to other key partsof the forest landscapecontinued next page5

See Chapter 8 for more discussion on how different areas of the landscape can contribute to FLR
initiatives

47

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Table 5.2 (cont’d)
Key areas of the landscapeContribution to an FLR initiativeNon-forest areas
FarmlandManagement of this land can be modified
to contribute to FLR objectives (seeexample in Box 5.2)

Trees on farms

These can contribute to conservation anddevelopment outcomes, particularly if
connected with intact forest patches

Riverine (riparian) strips

These are important habitat types andbuilding blocks for connectivity in thelandscape. They may require restoration
or rehabilitation to protect both on-site anddownstream soil and water values

Degraded areas

These provide an opportunity forrehabilitation for on-site conservation anddevelopment benefits and for improved
connectivity between natural forest
patches

Eroded areas, landslips

These require special treatment to protect
both on-site and downstream values

Caution is required in determining the real availability of forest and non-forest areas forrestoration or rehabilitation. In some cases, availability is perceived differently bydifferent stakeholder groups. In many situations, for example, much non-agriculturalland may be under some form of common property management regime that is wellunderstood by local communities but contested by government officials. Much of the‘degraded’ forest land under fallow as part of shifting cultivation cycles would fall into
this category. It is important to identify and resolve these different perceptions ofavailability before starting the restoration or rehabilitation activities.6

Contribution of restored landscapes to conservation anddevelopment objectives
One of the factors that works against FLR is the belief of some land-use planners andmanagers that commercial benefits are maximized by replacing natural forests with highvalue cash crops or fast-growing tree plantations. Such approaches lead to asimplification of the landscape, a reduction in its ecological functions and, possibly, adecline in agricultural or forest productivity. Ensuring conservation and maintaining
productivity requires more than just the setting aside of small protected areas on land
unwanted for production. Instead, conservation and production objectives require thatsufficient biodiversity is retained across the landscape to maintain key ecologicalprocesses such as nutrient and hydrological cycles. Intensive land-use activities are often
appropriate but need to be undertaken within a landscape that retains its ecological
functionality – ie one that is biologically diverse and spatially complex. Any
simplification of the landscape mosaic, by, for example, replacing natural forest patches
6

See Box 4.4 for an example of different perspectives of availability

48

Understanding the landscape mosaic

with industrial timber plantations, could reduce the capacity of the remaining landscapecomponents to maintain biophysical and socioeconomic outcomes. FLR is a means ofhalting the degradation and building on what remains in order to restore landscapefunctions (such as hydrological processes).
One of the underlying arguments behind the promotion of FLR is that the effectiveness ofefforts to conserve biodiversity and restore key functions at particular sites depends onthese restored areas complementing the existing mosaic such that the whole is more than
the sum of the parts. For example, the conservation value of a small patch of isolated
remnant forest will be largely limited to the on-site value. Similarly, the accumulated
value of many such small fragmented patches will also be limited. However, once a patchof forest is connected to other patches by creating a corridor or restoring adjacentdegraded land, its value, both on and off-site, will be greatly increased in terms of
biodiversity conservation and the maintenance of ecological functionality. This in turncan lead to overall improvements in agricultural productivity.

Contribution of landscape components to FLR objectives
The way in which various components of the landscape will be treated depends on theobjectives of the FLR activity that are agreed on by the key stakeholders.7 As discussed in
Chapter 4, a key determinant of the FLR objectives is likely to be the agenda of the groupthat is initiating the landscape restoration program. For example, a forest department
might want to rehabilitate an area of degraded forest land primarily to improve timber
production, whereas a conservation agency or NGO might want to rehabilitate land to
improve habitat for wildlife or to restore an endangered biotype. In most cases the tradeoffs between conservation and development outcomes will require considerable
negotiation between stakeholders.
The following discussion gives several examples of the way in which different
components of the landscape can be managed to contribute to FLR objectives.
Plantations, which are normally established primarily for timber production, can also be
managed to provide significant conservation and development values, over and above
any conservation and development objectives originally considered. In many parts of theworld indigenous species develop as an understorey in monoculture plantations.
Protection of the understorey can enhance plant and animal biodiversity (a conservation
benefit) and can often provide products of value to local communities (a development
benefit), as illustrated by the case described in Box 5.1.

7

See also the discussion on site-level options in Chapter 849

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Box 5.1 Natural regeneration under monoculture plantations in
Nepal
Degraded hillsides in the Middle Hills of Nepal are difficult to rehabilitate with thebroadleaf forest species which originally grew on the sites and which are preferred
by local communities. The best results have come from using chir pine (Pinus
roxburghii) as the major plantation species because of its pioneer attributes. Therewas serious debate about the selection of species for rehabilitation and substantial
criticism of the use of chir pine. However, the choice had to be made between using
locally desirable broadleaf species (that were ecologically unsuitable under theprevailing degraded conditions) and the less-preferred chir pine, which could
survive on the degraded sites.* It was subsequently found that if the plantations areprotected from grazing, an understorey of broadleaf species often appears 5–10 years
after initial establishment, as environmental conditions change. The understorey
species (which can be at densities of more than 2,000 stems per hectare) include
many that are valued as fodder and firewood and for medicinal purposes. Future
management options can involve a mix of strategies depending on the objectives of
the key stakeholders.
* See Chapter 13 for more on trade-offs

It is worth noting that the development of high-value understorey species in the casedescribed in Box 5.1 was an unexpected result and came to light through the applicationof action-learning approaches and adaptive management.8 Reflection on these results led
to significant changes in approaches to plantation management in parts of Nepal so that awider range of benefits (both conservation and development) were made available toboth the local and wider communities.
The case study in Box 5.1 also illustrates how rehabilitation can start with a relatively
low-cost and low-technology approach (single-species’ monoculture) but lead to a multispecies’ forest with multiple conservation and development benefits.
Plantations can also serve as buffers around restored and protected areas. In somesettings they also effectively mark the boundaries of ‘managed land’ so that local people
know to keep grazing animals out and to refrain from burning.
Conservation and development objectives can also be enhanced by linking restored andrehabilitated parts of the landscape with areas that are already in good condition andunder a high level of protection. Areas can be selected for rehabilitation and restoration
so that they act as corridors to connect protected areas to other parts of the landscape.
Similarly, areas can be selected for rehabilitation and restoration so that they act asbuffers for protected areas to cushion them from degrading influences such as grazing
and fire. Strategic actions such as these will greatly increase the overall impact of therehabilitation and restoration activities, because the on-site impacts are multiplied greatly
by the added benefits that are provided to adjacent areas.
Trees on farms can also contribute to both development and conservation objectives – forexample, the former by increasing the availability of timber and fruit for local use andsale and the latter by increasing plant biodiversity and improving wildlife habitat. In
addition, the conservation value of trees on farms can be greatly increased if they areconnected to other patches of forest in the landscape. Slight modifications to existing
farm practices can often yield both conservation and development benefits at minimal
cost (see the example in Box 5.2).
8

See Chapter 4 for more details on both action learning and adaptive management50Understanding the landscape mosaic

Box 5.2 Restoration of agricultural land in Australia
Grass verges of sugarcane fields in tropical northern Australia provided habitat for
rats that caused major losses to the cane. Tree-planting along these verges has
greatly reduced the tall grasses and consequently eliminated the rat problem, thus
providing the dual benefits of improved habitat for natural species and improved
agricultural productivity. Ensuring that the trees planted are local indigenous
species will maximize the conservation benefits.
Even if they are degraded, remnant patches of forest can contribute towards the FLR
objectives, particularly if they are connected by corridors. It might be more cost-effective
to spend a relatively small amount of money carrying out a few strategically important
activities than to spend large sums of money on large-scale rehabilitation or restoration
activities. Strategic activities could include, for example, the creation of a rehabilitatedcorridor to connect degraded forest patches and then the protection of these patches fromdegrading influences such as grazing and fire. Such low-cost and low-technology options
could yield major benefits in the long term.

References and further reading
Bennett, A. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife
Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Lamb, D. & Gilmour, D. 2003. Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, and WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Mapmaker program: http://www.mapmaker.com.

51

Restoring Forest Landscapes

52Chapter 6
UNDERSTANDING FOREST LANDSCAPE
DYNAMICS

6

Wil de JongThis chapter is based on the premise that the forest landscape we want to manage andrestore is the product of dynamic forces operating as direct or indirect causes of change.
The chapter highlights the importance of understanding and addressing the forces
responsible for landscape change to ensure that restoration efforts are successful. This
chapter is closely linked to Chapter 5 on understanding the forest landscape mosaic.
Essentially, landscape dynamics include changes in the composition of the landscape(that is, the make-up of the various landscape components such as forest land,
agricultural land, or housing) and changes in the condition of individual components(such as conversion of agricultural land from grazing to crop production).
Direct causes of landscape dynamics might include, for example:•

logging operations;•conversion of forests for estate crops;•

forest encroachment by poor people searching for agricultural land;•road construction;•

development and expansion of housing settlements; and•industrial pollution of rivers.

Behind each of these direct causes is a series of underlying causes or drivers. For logging
operations, for example, these drivers might include:•changing international demand for timber;•the exhaustion of timber reserves in other locations;•changing prices or international demand for estate crops;•

national tax incentives;•

national development plans driven by loans from international banks;•

drought; or•changes in land ownership elsewhere that encourage in-migration to forested regions
and forest clearance for agriculture.

How and why do forest landscapes change?
Landscapes can change dramatically over time. A simplified example of a forest
landscape dynamic model starts with a region almost fully covered with forest. The firstchanges are caused by migrating farmers who come to reside in isolated settlements.
They practice swidden agriculture and maintain a diverse landscape of agricultural

53

Restoring Forest Landscapes

fields, fields under fallow, tree crops, mixed orchards or forest gardens, and forest
reserves. When other actors move into the landscape, the forest landscape begins tochange drastically. Outsiders may be landless migrants in search of a better livelihood,timber companies looking for timber, or entrepreneurs or companies looking for
agricultural land. The direction of the landscape change will vary depending on who isthe main actor. Logging companies will modify extensive areas of forests and loggedover forest is prone to fires, which often become an important direct cause of change insuch landscapes. Small farmers may follow in the wake of logging companies andbecome the major actors affecting the forest landscape. When large numbers of migrants
move in to a new forested region, they are more likely to settle at the forest frontier andprogressively convert forest land into a mixed agroforestry landscape similar to that of
the original settlers. When entrepreneurs or estate-crop companies are the main actors,
the landscape dynamic will be dominated by a large-scale conversion of forest into
grazing lands or estate-crop plantations.
Table 6.1 summarizes a conceptual distinction of three stages of change in tropical forest
landscapes, reflecting a trajectory from a relatively highly forested, unpopulated
landscape to one with a high population density and much-reduced forest cover. The
table also illustrates how the early stages of landscape change often coincide withmodifications of other features of the forest landscape including, for example,
settlements, roads, property rights, social relations and the existence and enforcement oflegislation. The actual dynamics seen in forest landscapes will show considerable
diversity; Box 6.1 provides two examples of how a forested region can change over timeand how the underlying drivers of these changes can differ in different contexts.

Table 6.1 A simplified model of forest landscape dynamics
Changing
characteristics

Extensive-use
stageIntensiveexploitation stage

Land-use

Swidden agriculture
by indigenous andother local groups,
largely for
subsistence

Logging, estate crops, Small-scale forestry,and high-pressure
stable agriculture,swidden agriculture by agroforestry andcompanies,
plantations byentrepreneurs andcommunities
migrants for markets
and subsistence

Population
density andresource levels

Low population
density, low capital,plenty of natural
resources

Medium population
density, high capital,
decreasing natural
resources

High populationpressure, high capital,
low natural resources

Infrastructure

Water and animaltransportation;
distant markets

Some road networks
and motorizedtransportation; market
access improved

Full accessibility byroads andtransportation
opportunities; markets
available

Conflicting property
claims; little
enforcement of statesanctioned property
rights or rule of law

Clear property rights,
although much land
still held bygovernment; greater
presence ofgovernment andenforcement of rule oflaw

Land tenure and Customary property
other legislation rights; customary
laws

54

Forest-depleted
stageUnderstanding forest landscape dynamics

Table 6.1 (cont’d)Changing
characteristics

Extensive-use
stageIntensiveexploitation stage

Forest-depleted
stage

Policies

Largely unaffectedby government
policies; often
forgotten by
governments

Forest viewed as
Highernational wealth andenvironmental andexpected to contributesocial awareness,
to national development; partly because of
marginalization of local local civil action;
resource needs
reforestation andconservation
beginning to beemphasizedBox 6.1 Tropical forest landscape dynamics in Bolivia andVietnamForest landscape dynamics in Santa Cruz, Bolivia
The department of Santa Cruz accounts for 51% of Bolivia’s forest cover and in 2001
experienced 60% of the country’s forest clearance. Until 1950, the department had
only 60,000 hectares of land under cultivation. In the 1950s, small- and large-scale
farmers began agricultural expansion to supply national markets with corn and rice.
Since the 1970s import-substitution policies had promoted the expansion of cottonand sugarcane production through road construction, subsidized agricultural credits
and supported agricultural prices. As a result, by 1985 smallholders held 150,000
hectares of cultivated land while larger farms cultivated about 170,000 hectares. In
the mid-1980s the government started to promote export-oriented agricultural
production for regional markets, mainly soybeans, but it also slashed all subsidies
and stopped other agricultural development support, except the granting of legal
tenure of forest land to medium- and large-scale farmers. Large-scale producers
became the main actors in the department’s forest landscape dynamics; by 2000,
small farmers cultivated 200,000 hectares and large farmers 700,000 hectares.
Within the last decade, however, indigenous groups in Bolivia have been given 12
million hectares of communal land under new legislation that recognizes the rights
of indigenous communities to their original territories. The area under forest
concessions declined from 15 million to 3 million hectares as a result of a newforestry law enacted in 1994; much of this land has gone to the indigenous territories(Pacheco & Mertens 2004).
Forest landscape dynamics in the Central Highlands, Vietnam
Radical changes in Vietnam’s economic policy since 1986 included efforts to promote
cash-crop cultivation in remote regions such as the Central Highlands. The
government promoted the transfer of people from overcrowded lowland areas tothese new economic zones and spontaneous migration to these regions vastly
exceeded the rates that were envisioned in state planning. In 1921, the Central
Highlands had a population of 98,000 inhabitants from 15 different indigenous
ethnic groups, with almost no lowland Kinh inhabiting the region. This population
structure remained more or less constant until 1975 and then increased to 1 million
in 1976 and 4.2 million in 2002. Currently, local ethnic groups account for only 20%of the region’s population. The region’s forests, which had been very extensive up
until 1960, were lost at a rate of 30,400 hectares per year between 1976 and 1990.
continued next page55

Restoring Forest LandscapesBox 6.1 (cont’d)
Although this rate declined in the subsequent five years, it still remained at 25,200
hectares per year between 1991 and 1995 (Tran Van Con, forthcoming). The
highlands now have 57% of their original forest cover.
At the same time, the state-imposed administration of natural resources has
profoundly affected the self-control mechanism that was based on customary laws.
In the customary societies of highland ethnic groups, community forests were clearly
defined by village boundaries. These forests were managed by a self-rule mechanism
based on highly effective village laws and regulations. New migrants arriving in thecentral highlands have affected existing land-tenure patterns. Land tenure is entirely
customary based, as there are no officially recognized cadastral maps. As a result
there are no mechanisms to allocate land to newcomers. At the same time, local
communities have little interest in pursuing official recognition of land held undercustomary property. The demand by immigrants for both arable and residential land
has led to illegal land trade, from both the state and customary perspective. Poor
farmers often rent or sell part of their land to outsiders, and they themselves thenmove deeper into the forest to occupy new land.

Guidelines for the analysis of forest landscape dynamics
For management purposes, we need to know the current status of the forest landscape(the mosaic) and the dominant forces that influence its dynamics. In general, a landscapeis likely to evolve towards more intensive land-use, and the model presented in Table 6.1
allows us to roughly gauge the position of a particular landscape within this process ofland-use intensification and forest depletion. Many of the underlying forces of landscapedynamics are beyond the control of agencies in charge of forest or forest-landscapemanagement. The following steps, however, allow forest-landscape managers tounderstand and take account of those dynamics on which they can exert some influence.
Step 1: Define adequate units and boundaries in the landscape of interest•

Identify the landscape area, the dynamics of which you wish to understand•Identify the components of the landscape mosaic (including, for example, different
categories of vegetation cover, land-use or land tenure)

Step 2: Identify the relevant stakeholders•

Identify the stakeholders in each of the components of the landscape

Step 3: Identify the actions of relevant stakeholders and their impact on the forest
landscape•Identify those actions that increase or decrease forest cover and those that improve orworsen forest condition•

Identify those stakeholders that are having the largest (positive and negative) impacts
on the landscape

Step 4: Identify links•

56

Explain the actions identified under the previous step to answer the question: why arethese actions taking place? This is the most comprehensive step in analysing theUnderstanding forest landscape dynamics

underlying forces of a particular forest landscape dynamic, and involves the following
actions:–

Define the economic environment that leads to the stakeholder actions you aretrying to explain. Are the stakeholders responding to certain economic incentives?
Which resources are of economic value? Provide a characterization. Why do they
have a value – for example, is it because of good markets for their products or
because of low procurement costs?

–

Identify the policy environment. Are the stakeholders responding to policy
incentives or opportunities? There may be legislation that enables these actions orthere may be more specific circumstances such as tax breaks that the government isusing to stimulate certain sectors (including forestry, agriculture or mining)–

Identify the political position of the different stakeholders. In many instances
stakeholders have certain political positions or connections with influential groups
that provide them with opportunities or advantages over others

Step 5: Analyse the results•

Design a conceptual model of the stakeholders, their actions, and how they link to
explanatory factors, and represent it graphically•Develop a written version of this conceptual model. This written version can reflect
the conceptual model, though with more detail and clarification, and can be used forreporting on the analysis and proposing recommendations for action

A variety of methods can be used to complete these five steps. Techniques for steps 1 and
2 are described in chapters 5 and 7 respectively. Step 3 can be completed through direct
observations and consultation of existing reports prepared by government bodies,
environmental NGOs or other agencies. Step 4, in many cases, can be completed throughinterviews with key informants – people who have specialist knowledge of, or long-term
experience in, a particular issue or area. Existing reports are another source of
information for this step and can include, for example, internal reports, publishedreports, academic papers, newspaper articles, editorial comments or disseminationmaterial.
Step 5 involves constructing a conceptual model and graphic representation of theanalysis. One means of doing this (as shown in Figure 6.1) is to draw a central shape(square or circle) and divide it into different forest landscape components. Then link toeach component, via arrows, a series of boxes with the names of key stakeholder groups
that influence the component. Above the arrow insert a few words on the sort of
influence that the stakeholder group has on the landscape component and the main
motives of the group. Additional shapes can then be added to provide information onother stakeholders or conditions that influence these key stakeholders. In this way the
direct causes of landscape change are placed in close proximity to the landscapecomponents and the indirect, underlying causes of change are represented as more
peripheral influences.

57

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Popularparticipation &municipalitylaw

Presidential Decree
27537
Decree defines legal status;
not yet approved

Constitution

Brazil nut
estate owners

Stipulates conditions
but often not met

Laws give authority & resources
but no capacity building

Municipal
government

Forestconcession
holders

Municipal
forest landBrazil nut
estates

Communal
forest land

Forestconcession

Agricultural
lands

Indigenous
territory

Fallow
land

Pastures

Campesino
communities

Indigenous
communities

Land tilting process difficult
because of conflicting demands

Constitution basis forindigenous community lands

Land
reform law

Constitution

Fig 6.1 Graphic representation of the analysis of forest landscape dynamics

References and further reading
Chokkalingam, U., Smith, J., de Jong, W. & Sabogal, C. 2001. ‘A conceptual framework for theassessment of tropical secondary forest dynamics and sustainable development potential in
Asia’. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 13(4): 577- 600.
Pacheco, P. & Mertens, B. 2004. ‘Land use change and agriculture development in Santa Cruz,
Bolivia’. Bois et Forêt des Tropiques 280(2): 29-40.

58

Understanding forest landscape dynamics

Sheil, D., Puri, R., Basuki, I,. van Heist, M., Syaefuddin, Rukmiyati, Sardjono, M,. Samsoedin, I.,
Sidiyasa, K., Chrisandini, Permana, E., Angi, E., Gatzweiler, F. & Wijaya, A. 2002. Exploring
Biological Diversity, Environment and Local People’s Perspectives in Forest Landscapes. 2ndedition. Center for International Forestry Research, Ministry of Forestry and ITTO, Bogor,
Indonesia.
Tran Van Con. ‘Migration and the social ecology of tropical forests in the Central Highlands ofVietnam’. In: W. de Jong & Abe, K. (eds) Migration and the Social Ecology of Tropical Forests(in preparation).

59

Restoring Forest Landscapes

60

7Chapter 7
APPLYING A STAKEHOLDERAPPROACH IN FLR
Trikurnianti Kusumanto

This chapter looks at how FLR initiatives use a stakeholder approach to identify,
understand and address the interests and concerns of key stakeholder groups. This kindof approach is important in FLR for two reasons. First, the success of FLR initiatives will
depend on the willingness of stakeholder groups to cooperate with each other and with
the FLR efforts. Second, since some stakeholders will be affected by the FLR activities,
they need to be involved in decisions regarding the goods, services and processes of thelandscape that are to be restored. Thus, a stakeholder approach will help achieve the goalof equitable benefit-sharing among the key stakeholder groups. Despite the importanceof stakeholder approaches to FLR, caution is required when using them (Box 7.1).

Box 7.1 Using caution in applying a stakeholder approach in FLR
Bear in mind that:•

it is not always possible to assign distinct identities to stakeholders, as they areoften engaged in many overlapping roles and activities and these can changeover time; and•information about the interests of less-powerful stakeholders that is revealed andopenly discussed as part of FLR activities can be misused by power-holders tofurther their own interests.

To address these issues:•

pay heed to possible consequences when using the approach;•be prepared to adapt the approach to local circumstances, adjusting it whenevernecessary through adaptive management; and•consult the less-powerful stakeholders before any wider stakeholder meetings inorder to learn about their particular concerns.

This chapter sets out the four steps involved in a stakeholder approach:
1. understanding the context of stakeholder processes;
2. identifying the key stakeholders;
3. understanding stakeholder interests and interactions; and4. managing multi-stakeholder processes.

61Restoring Forest Landscapes

Understanding the context of stakeholder processes
FLR practitioners need to understand the context in which they will work withstakeholders and be aware of why stakeholder involvement is critical to their work. The
importance of stakeholder involvement stems from various aspects of the natural
resource management context, including the following points:•

natural resource management issues cut across social, economic and political spheresand involve many different stakeholder groups;•

natural resource management issues are often on a large scale (covering, forexample, a watershed, province or nation). This means that some stakeholders may
have to bear the costs (or enjoy the benefits) generated by the management actions ofother stakeholders. For example, the excessive use of fertilizers by upstream farmers
may pollute the soil cultivated by downstream villagers;9 and•use rights over resources can be unclear, conflictive or open to common-property
resource problems. In such situations stakeholders may compete with each other forthe available resources.

Box 7.2 shows how different stakeholder groups may have quite different views on whatmakes up a forest landscape.

Box 7.2 Different landscapes for different stakeholders: a casefrom Bolivia
Since the enactment of Bolivia’s new forestry law in 1994, indigenous and other ruralcommunities have become a principal stakeholder group in the country’s forest
management (see also Box 6.1). Large areas of forest land have been designated forsolely community use. These communities define the landscape in terms of thedemands they place on it – for providing medicinal plants for local use, sustaining
the local economy, and securing the livelihoods of future generations. Other
stakeholder groups define the landscape in different terms. For those withconcession rights over forest lands, the landscape is defined by the financial benefits
that the forest provides, while for an ecotourism operator it is defined by its
biodiversity and cultural values.

Identifying the key stakeholders
A stakeholder, as defined here, is an individual, group of people or organization that candirectly or indirectly affect the FLR initiative or be directly or indirectly affected by it.
Key stakeholders need to be identified early on in an FLR initiative, as the information
revealed may influence the activities and results of the restoration work. This
identification will then need to be revised, reviewed and revisited at later points
throughout the FLR initiative; stakeholders initially identified as key may later becomeless relevant and new groups may become apparent only during later stages of therestoration. For this reason, stakeholder identification and verification should be viewed
as a continual and ongoing process that is undertaken alongside the actual fieldwork.
In working with the different stakeholders, FLR practitioners need to accommodate theirdifferent definitions of the relevant landscape. Appreciation of these definitions (which
may be quite different from their own) is important in creating space for negotiating theobjectives and outcomes of the FLR work. At the same time, though, practitioners need to9This situation is sometimes explained by saying that ’externalities’ occur

62

Applying a stakeholder approach in FLR

keep in mind the overall aims of the FLR – that is, to restore ecological integrity andenhance human well-being.
Box 7.3 lists some of the questions that can be asked when identifying stakeholder
groups.

Box 7.3 Useful questions to guide stakeholder identification•

Who is likely to be affected by the FLR initiative, either positively or negatively?

•

Who will, if participating, make the FLR initiative more effective (or who will, if
not participating, make it less effective)?

•

Who may oppose the FLR initiative? What can be done to encourage this (these)
stakeholder(s) to cooperate?

•

Who will be able to contribute to the FLR initiative with knowledge, skills andother resources?

A wide variety of handbooks and manuals is available to practitioners to help answer
these questions.10 Some of the most commonly used approaches are presented in Box 7.4
along with the risks or shortcomings of each approach. In order to minimize the risks andensure identification of all the relevant stakeholder groups, it is best to use a combinationof the different approaches.

Box 7.4 Common approaches to identifying stakeholders
Identification by the stakeholders themselves: staff of FLR initiatives disseminate
information through the local media or during field visits and invite stakeholders tocome to meetings.
•

Risks: those with less access to media may miss the information. The lesseducated and less well-off may be reluctant to come forward and those skeptical
about the initiative may not be willing to participate in the meetings.

Identification by other stakeholders: stakeholders identified at an early stage canthen become sources of information on other stakeholders. This approach can be
helpful in finding out those people whom stakeholders consider to be
representatives of their or other groups or those considered important for otherreasons.
•

Risks: stakeholders may, when consulted about other stakeholders, be selective inwhom they propose, based on their personal preferences.

Identification by knowledgeable individuals or groups: knowledgeable individuals(key informants) or groups can help identify stakeholders. These individuals orgroups may include, for example, village elders, women, forestry agency staff, or
neighbouring communities.
•

Risks: less ‘visible’ stakeholders may be under-represented.

Identification by field-based staff of the FLR initiative: staff who have worked andlived in the area for some time may have valuable knowledge for the identificationof stakeholders.

10

See, for example, Grimble et al. (1995), Higman et al.(1999), Colfer et al.(1999) and Richards etal. (2003)

63

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Box 7.4 (cont’d)•

Risks: staff may select the same individuals or groups with whom they haveworked before. Women may be under-represented.

Identification based on demography: social groups are identified based on theirdemographic characteristics such as age, occupation and gender.
•

Risks: when using many characteristics, the number of stakeholders identified
may become too high, making the management of the FLR implementation stagea difficult task.

Identification based on written records: forest agencies, local NGOs and training
institutions often keep records that can be useful in identifying stakeholders. For
example, these records might provide baseline data, population data, data on
conflicting groups, or lists of licence-holders.
•

Risks: the written information that is available may not always be accurate,complete or up-to-date. In addition, biases may have crept into the written
reports.

Understanding stakeholder interests and interactions
Having identified the relevant stakeholders for the FLR initiative, practitioners then needto learn about the interests of, and interactions between, the different stakeholder groups.
Some information on this will probably have been gathered during the stakeholder
identification process, which can serve as the basis for this investigation. The key
objective of this stage is to ascertain how stakeholders see their current and potential role
in resource management within the forest landscape. Box 7.5 lists some questions thatpractitioners can use at this stage. This set of questions is illustrative rather than
exhaustive and each FLR initiative will require its own specific list to be drawn up.

Box 7.5 Questions for investigating stakeholder interests andinteractions•

How do stakeholders use and manage resources in the forest landscape? What
goods and services do they get from these resources? What goods and services
do the stakeholders provide? Are there restrictions over the use of the resources?
What are their official and informal rights over these resources?

•

What are the views of different stakeholders on the role of other individuals orgroups in the use and management of resources? Do they use and manage thesame resources as these other stakeholders? If so, how do they interact with theseother stakeholders?

•

How do stakeholders make decisions on the use and management of resources?
What criteria do they consider when choosing a particular option?

•

How far do stakeholders think their decisions will reach? What factors lie within
their control and what beyond it?

Again, there are various tools available for collecting this kind of information. Some of
the most commonly used tools include various participatory rural appraisal techniques,64

Applying a stakeholder approach in FLR

focus-group discussions and semi-structured interviews.11 These methods should becomplemented by different methods, including direct observation of stakeholder actions
and behaviours, to cross-check the information obtained.
When exploring stakeholder interactions, practitioners should look out for any situationsof conflict or trade-off (see Box 7.6). Understanding the conflicts between stakeholder
groups is a necessary first step of any conflict management strategy. Similarly,
understanding the trade-offs involved in choosing between mutually exclusive objectives
will help practitioners to encourage stakeholders to see the value of FLR and to better
manage the process.12

Box 7.6 Conflicts and trade-offs
A conflict is a situation of disagreement between two or more different stakeholders
or stakeholder groups. In some cases, there may also be internal conflicts withinstakeholder groups. Conflicts are normal wherever human-beings interact and do
not always involve violence. Conflicts can be managed constructively (see Chapter
13).
A trade-off is a situation where a balance needs to be reached when choosing between
two desirable but incompatible objectives or outcomes. Trade-off situations are therule rather than the exception in natural resource management. The successful
implementation of FLR requires that trade-offs are made explicit and joint solutions
sought.
One way to learn more about conflict situations is to discuss a past conflict in order tofind out:•

who were involved;•

what gave rise to the conflict;•

how was it resolved or managed; and•if a conflict remained unresolved, why this was the case.

In the case of serious disagreements, it is usually best to approach stakeholders
separately to address these questions. If, however, group meetings cannot be avoided,intermediaries who are respected and considered impartial by all parties can be asked tomoderate the meetings.
Once the information on stakeholder interactions has been collected, it needs to beorganized in a way that facilitates further analysis and discussion. One useful tool fordoing this is a matrix, such as the one shown in Figure 7.1, which summarizes theexistence and level of conflict between different stakeholders over a particular landscaperesource. The matrix also highlights any internal conflicts within stakeholder groups (ascan be seen, in this hypothetical case, within government and within communities living
in or close to the forest).

11

See Pretty et al. (1995) for a useful and practical manual that shares participatory methods ofdata collection and analysis
12
See Chapter 3 for more on how the double-filter concept can help address trade-off issues inbuilding support for FLR

65

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Fig 7.1 Matrix showing disagreements between stakeholders over alandscape resource (hypothetical example)
Local people
living in or
close to forest

Absenteelandowners

Loggingcompanies
Conservation
nongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs)

Government
agencies
Local people
living in or
close toforestKey:

Absenteelandowners

no disagreement

Loggingcompanies

ConservationNGOs

minor disagreement

Government
agencies

major disagreement

Source: adapted from Grimble et al. (1995)

Another tool for assessing stakeholder interests is the ‘4Rs Framework’, which sets out
stakeholder rights, responsibilities, returns and relationships.13 Table 7.1 presents an
example of such a framework from Indonesia, where this tool was used in preparation
for an action-learning process involving different stakeholder groups within the context
of a collaborative forest management project.14 The matrix made explicit several
imbalances in stakeholder roles and responsibilities. For example, those with the moststake in the forest (that is, the original inhabitants) have limited legal responsibilities
related to forest management. On the other hand, while the government has the
responsibility to manage and protect the forest, they lack the means to do this effectively.
In principle, responsibilities (and therefore rights) should be transferred to those whohave more stake in the forest and arrangements created for effective relationships
between stakeholders. The role of an FLR practitioner is to assist stakeholders innegotiating a more balanced set of ‘4Rs’.

13
14

See Dubois (1998) for further guidance in developing such a framework
See Kusumanto (2001)

66

Table 7.1 The 4Rs framework: stakeholders’ rights, responsibilities, returns and relationships linked to forest land and resources:
an example from Jambi, Sumatra (Indonesia)
Stakeholders

RightsResponsibilities

Returns

Relationships

Nomadic group(Orang Rimba)• Customary rights (for which
official recognition should besought)• Limited formal rights, particularly
because the group has no
administrative ‘home’• Traditional management and protectionof natural resources• No formal, legal responsibilities related tonatural resources• Non-timber forest products (NTFPs),
crops and other forest goods• environmental services, homesteads• social security from patron-client
relationship with some villagers• Customary rights over land and forest resources notrecognized by the state• Weak relationship with villagers• Weak relationship with public bodies• Patron-client relationship with some villagers

Original
inhabitants• Customary rights (for which
official recognition should besought)• Limited formal rights• Traditional management and protectionof natural resources• No formal, legal responsibilities related tonatural resources• Pay taxes• Timber and NTFPs, crops, income
and other forest goods• environmental services• benefits from land (including grazing)• Customary rights over land and forest resources notrecognized by the state• Poor relationship with government because traditional
shifting cultivation is officially not recognized andbecause customary land has been allocated to settlers• Poor relationship with settlers because the latter were
officially allowed to ‘occupy’ customary lands

Settlers

Formal rights over registered land• Develop agricultural landholdings underholdings under resettlement programs
resettlement program(rights of inheritance and land
• No formal, legal responsibilities related totransaction)
forest resources• Respect customary authority of original
inhabitants over land and tree resources• Pay taxes• Annual crops from dry swiddens• crops and perennial products fromregistered landholdings underresettlement program• Poor relationship with original inhabitants because of‘occupation’ of customary lands• Little commitment to resource management andprotection other than on their own agricultural holdings

Sawmill owners,
small-scale timber
investors,
middlemen, loggers• Illegal sawmill owners hold noofficial rights• Official licence-holders holdofficial permits• No formal, legal responsibilities if illegal• Pay levies in the case of licence-holders• Income from the sale of products, theservices provided, or wage labour• Working and commercial relationships with original
inhabitants and some settlers• Poor relationship with government in the case of illegal
sawmill owners• Official relationship with government in the case oflicence-holders• Community development• Job creation• Sustainable natural resource
management practices

•
•
•
•

Financial benefits
Financial objectives met
IncomeHomes for staff• Poor relationship with original inhabitants• Official relationship with local government• Implement government forestry policies,
programs, and management plans• Arrest illegal users• Control implementation of management
plans

•
•
•
•

Policy and program objectives met
Prestige (respect/fear)
Recognition of authority
Financial benefits• Limited relationship with original inhabitants, mostly
during incidental monitoring visits• Develop and implement park and bufferzone management plans• Coordinate with National Park agency for
project implementation• Project objectives met• JobsGovernment logging • Logging rights
company

District forestry
agency• Rights to give permits regarding
forest products (including timber)• Rights to arrest illegal users• Rights to propose resource
management procedures

NGO implementing• Rights to develop and manage
the integrated
park and buffer-zone
conservation andimplementation plansdevelopment project • No legal rights to forest• Relationship with original inhabitants and settlers
limited to project activities• Official relationship with local government

Restoring Forest LandscapesThis stage of an FLR initiative requires a considerable level of communication between
FLR field staff and a variety of stakeholder groups, to gather the necessary information.
These interactions with stakeholders should be used as an opportunity to build trust withlocal groups and this is also an appropriate point at which field staff can begin tosystematically encourage communication and collaboration between the different
stakeholders.

Managing multi-stakeholder processes
As discussed in Chapter 4, FLR is implemented using an adaptive management approachthat involves an action-learning process whereby stakeholders collaboratively,
systematically and deliberately plan, implement and evaluate the restoration activities.
Through this process of learning the stakeholders build experience in order tocollaboratively act as a group. The role of FLR field staff here is to manage this process byfacilitating collaboration between stakeholders.
To enable practitioners to take on this facilitation role, FLR initiatives need to develop
appropriate arrangements for the action-learning activities. These arrangements need not
be set up especially for the FLR initiative; existing arrangements may already exist, suchas community-wide meetings, encounters among neighbouring communities, orgovernment consultation meetings involving local groups and other stakeholders.
Whether newly established or existing, these arrangements should meet the following
requirements if they are to support multi-stakeholder processes effectively:•

they need to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the action learning, not justtheir representatives. Any stakeholder representatives who are engaged in the FLR
activities must be elected by group members rather than appointed and they must
report back to their groups and consult with them before any binding decisions are
made;

•

they need to support the stakeholders in building joint experience. This means thatfunds and other resources should be available for stakeholders to develop realexperience;•

they must accommodate the different needs of the stakeholders so that ownership ofprocesses is ensured; and•they need to support fair communication among stakeholders by organizing activities
that create a fair chance for all stakeholders to express their views, understand theviews of others, and be understood by others.

Once these arrangements have been established, FLR practitioners can begin the actual
facilitation work; several publications provide guidance on this topic.15 Here we will lookat two important aspects of the facilitation process: joint decision-making and conflict
management.
To facilitate joint decision-making effectively, practitioners need to:•focus on the core values of joint decision-making;•have the appropriate attitude;15

See references listed in footnote 10 and also Braakman and Edwards (2002), Hartanto et al.
(2003) and Kusumanto et al. (2005)

68

Applying a stakeholder approach in FLR•

provide the right conditions for stakeholders to learn new ways of making decisions; and•be equipped with the tools for the facilitation work.16

These points are expanded in Box 7.7 and one of the tools, brainstorming, is explained inBox 7.8.

Box 7.7 Effective facilitation of joint decision-making
Process management or facilitation involves the enhancement of learning and can
only be effective if process managers deliberately put learning at the heart ofactivities. For an effective enhancement of learning, process managers or facilitators
should:16•

focus on the core values of joint decision-making. These values are: a shared
responsibility for the consequences of decisions; the inclusiveness of decisions; amutual appreciation of one-another’s views; and active participation by all
stakeholders. Joint decision-making means that the facilitator does not make thedecision himself/herself but guides the process by which the different
stakeholders collectively arrive at a decision;•

have the appropriate attitude. This implies that process facilitators should have asense of fairness so that the stakeholders consider the facilitated processes fair.
The facilitators should also be empathetic and good listeners. Having theappropriate attitude is more important than any facilitation or learning tool. The
facilitator’s ability to adopt the right attitude can improve as they gain moreexperience with multi-stakeholder processes; and•provide the right conditions for stakeholders to learn new ways of joint decisionmaking. There are three important conditions here. First, stakeholders need tofeel encouraged to propose new, creative ideas, however absurd these may seem.
The more creative the group and the more alternative the decisions proposed, themore likely it is that an innovative decision will be taken. Second, stakeholders
should be encouraged to take time to think and to reflect critically on theirassumptions and old ways of thinking. Third, the facilitation should aim to build
constructive relations between the stakeholders; and•be equipped with effective tools to facilitate group processes. Effective facilitation
tools are those that encourage joint learning and may include, for example,
participatory mapping, focus group discussion, brainstorming, community
meetings, scenarios, role-plays and computer-based simulation modelling.

See, for example, Wollenberg et al. (2000) and Nemarundwe et al. (2003) for guidance on
scenarios and see http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/ACM for the computer software package, Co-Learn,that supports the joint management of natural resources by helping people to enjoy learning
processes in groups

69

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Box 7.8 Brainstorming as a facilitation tool for joint decisionmaking*A helpful tool for facilitating the process of joint decision-making is brainstorming,
which can be used within an FLR context to examine the causes of prevalent
resource problems in the landscape, look for potential solutions of declining
resource availability, explore marketing options for non-timber forest products, ormake sense of the reasons why certain groups oppose collaborative solutions.
One principle of the brainstorming tool is that ‘anything goes’; that is that the listingof perspectives and ideas is made without any censoring or debating. Brainstorming
should also be accompanied by techniques to conclude the brainstorming session,
such as the clustering or prioritizing of decision alternatives.
The role of process facilitators is in guiding group processes to explore andsynthesize decision alternatives to arrive at a decision that works for everyone.
* Adapted from Braakman and Edwards (2002)

Conflict management is a topic covered widely in training events and materials.17 Hereare some basic tips for practitioners working in situations of stakeholder conflict:• make assumptions explicit so that they will not hinder communication;•

make one of the facilitation goals the development of constructive relationships;•

be clear to all parties about the outcome of group processes within the negotiations.
Will the group processes stop at knowledge generation or will they result in decisions
being taken?

•

ensure that negotiation between parties reaches out to all members of stakeholder
groups and does not only involve their representatives. Be constantly aware thatconflicts often involve ordinary members of stakeholder groups, not just theirrepresentatives or leaders; and•be alert when conflicts intensify in order to bring in conflict mediators at the righttime.

References and further reading
Braakman, L. & Edwards, K. 2002. The Art of Building Facilitation Capacities. Regional Community
Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Colfer, C., Prabhu, R., Günter, M., McDougall, C., Porro, N. & Porro, R. 1999. Who Counts Most?
Assessing Human Well-being in Sustainable Forest Management. The Criteria & Indicators
Toolbox Series No 8. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Dubois, O. 1998. Capacity to Manage Role Changes in Forestry: Introducing the ‘4Rs’ Framework.
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK.
Grimble, R., Chan, M., Aglionby, J & Quan, J. 1995. Trees and Trade-offs: A Stakeholder Approachto Natural Resource Management. IIED, London, UK.

17See, for example, Means et al. (2002) for a conflict management training guidance andhttp://www.recoftc.org or http://www.iac.wur.nl for training concerning stakeholder conflict
management70

8Chapter 8
IDENTIFYING SITE-LEVEL OPTIONSDavid Lamb

This chapter explores how biophysical, socioeconomic and silvicultural factors candetermine the feasibility and suitability of different restoration options for particular sites
in the landscape.18 The variety of ecological conditions and diversity of stakeholder viewsmean it may not be possible to restore forest to all sites in a landscape. Furthermore,different stakeholders will have different objectives when they carry out reforestation.
However, by strategically targeting areas for various kinds of reforestation, theseinterventions will collectively improve key ecological processes (eg hydrological
functions, nutrient cycling etc), restore biodiversity and thereby improve livelihoods
across the landscape. Thus, a landscape mosaic after restoration might include land-uses
such as:•areas managed to maximize production (of, for example, agricultural crops or
pulpwood plantations);•

areas of existing forest managed to maintain existing levels of biodiversity (forexample, natural forest devoted to nature protection or well-managed natural forest
used for timber production or the harvesting of non-timber forest products); and•reforested areas managed to generate both commercial outcomes and restore some,
but not necessarily all, the original biodiversity (for example, long-rotation sawlog
plantations containing high-value native tree species).

The range of site-level options is described in chapters 9, 10 and 11.

Biophysical factors affecting restoration choices
Deforestation and degradation can cause large changes in a variety of biophysical factors
and these will constrain the types of restoration that might be carried out. The key
biophysical variables include the degree of deforestation and forest fragmentation thathas occurred, the levels of soil fertility at the deforested sites, and the topography andmicroclimates across the landscape. These factors might vary over time because ofnatural or human-induced disturbances.19 The influence of these biophysical factors on
restoration options is outlined in Table 8.1.

18

Chapter 13 takes this further by examining how compromises are managed to optimize outcomes
across the landscape19
See Chapter 6 for more discussion on disturbance and dynamics in forest landscapes

71Restoring Forest Landscapes

Table 8.1 Biophysical factors that can influence restoration choices
Biophysical factor/feature Influence on restoration choices
Area of residual, largely
undisturbed natural forestthat remains

Extent and distribution determines how many of the original
goods (including timber and non-timber forest products) andservices (such as watershed protection or biodiversity) arestill being supplied. This in turn determines how attractive
any kind of restoration at the other more disturbed anddegraded areas may be to stakeholders (restoration is likely
to be more attractive when the remaining area of naturalforest is small)

Area of secondary or
regrowth forest

Many of these forests are still able to supply goods(especially to local communities) and services. Areas on
hills may be especially important for watershed protection

Quality of secondary forest

The rate of recovery and the nature of the goods suppliedby these forests depend on species composition, standstructure and regenerative capacity. Some will recover
without further intervention if they are simply protected but
the rate of recovery and the types of goods supplied canoften be accelerated by silvicultural interventions

Quality of agricultural land

Restoration is likely to be most attractive if there are large
areas of low-productivity land because the opportunity costsof reforestation will be lower (because the reduction inagricultural production that occurs when these lands arereforested will be less)

Amount of unused anddegraded land

The larger the area of degraded land, the greater the
ecological and social benefits that are likely to result fromrestoration. If the land is unused, there is unlikely to be any
loss of agricultural production when reforestation takes
place20

Environmental priority areas These are areas with significant environmental problems,such as uplands with eroding slopes or polluted areas
affecting other land-users in the landscape. They may also
be areas with particular weeds or pests. These are likely tobe priority areas for restoration
Areas difficult to reforest

These difficult areas might be sites with shallow orespecially infertile soils, polluted soils, swampy sites orlandslip-prone areas. Restoration of these sites might
require unusual and expensive approaches. These areas
may be too costly to treat and, in some special cases, it
may even be preferable to leave these untouched and totreat larger areas at less difficult sites

Areas of biologicalsignificance

These areas may be sites with unusually high levels of
biodiversity or sites containing habitats of important plant or
wildlife species. If the areas are small or threatened by new
disturbances, they might be protected by creating forested
buffer zones around each site

20

See, however, the discussion on supposedly ‘unused’ land in Chapter 572

Identifying site-level options

Table 8.1 (cont’d)Biophysical factor/feature Influence on restoration choices
Accessibility of sites

Degraded sites or regrowth forests that are difficult to reach
will be expensive to restore. In many situations it may be
too difficult to do anything about such sites

Climatic seasonality

Other things being equal, it is usually much easier to carryout restoration in a non-seasonal, wet tropical landscapethan in a monsoonal forest landscape that is subject to a
prolonged dry period. Little can be done about any climaticconstraints other than to work with tree species adapted tosuch climates

The main conclusions to be drawn from this are:•prevention of further degradation is usually much cheaper than restoration, so every
care should be taken to protect remaining natural forests;•

secondary forests are also crucial for FLR since the cost-effectiveness of restoring theseis likely to be much higher than most other forms of restoration;•

restoration should be carried out in areas where the opportunity costs are low (where,
for example, the fertility is low and the land is less attractive for food production) andwhere the functional benefits will be high – for instance, in erosion-prone or highly
degraded areas;•

there may be priority areas deserving early attention (such as point sources of erosion
on river banks, unstable hill slopes, or areas of conservation value that are at risk);•

it is often useful to target areas around remnants of existing forest for restoration,
since these reforested areas can then act as buffer zones and help prevent further
degradation of the remnants; and•the way in which an intervention is actually carried out – and the choice between
spending more resources on restoring secondary forest or replanting completely
deforested sites – will depend on locally determined priorities.

Restoration is often a new land-use activity for many landowners and care needs to betaken to demonstrate its value. It can be useful to tackle less difficult sites first. These
early sites will then act as demonstration areas;21 that is, success breeds success. It is
probably also useful to have these demonstration sites located in different parts of thelandscape to reach a wide range of stakeholders. In selecting areas of the forest landscapeto restore, it is important to consider the scale requirements for the objectives of therestoration work, as outlined in Box 8.1.

21

See Chapter 3 for a discussion on building support for FLR initiatives

73Restoring Forest Landscapes

Box 8.1 The importance of scale
Different processes operate at different scales. A small area of forest or plantation
may be sufficient to prevent erosion from a localized source. A narrow strip of trees
might be effective as a windbreak or to help stabilize a hillslope. But an isolated
patch of forest of the same size is unlikely to be useful in conserving biologicaldiversity. Size does matter and larger areas are usually better than small ones,
especially in highly fragmented landscapes.

Socioeconomic factors affecting restoration choices
Most forest degradation has a socioeconomic cause and there is little point in trying torestore any degraded forest land unless the past and present socioeconomic causes of thedegradation have been investigated and understood. For example, it may be quitepossible to undertake restoration if the cause of damage was simply poorly supervised
logging and if few people now live at these sites. But it may be much more difficult if
degradation was caused by increasing populations of recent migrants clearing forest in
search of new agricultural land. This is because many small land-users may be benefitingfrom the present ‘degraded’ landscape and may be reluctant to change their land-use
practices, even if the wider community is being disadvantaged by their activities.
A summary of some of the key socioeconomic factors that may determine theattractiveness of restoration options to local communities is shown in Table 8.2. All ofthese factors can affect whether individual land-users believe restoration is likely tobenefit themselves and their families. Farmers will judge how to maximize the financial
benefits arising from different alternatives (and how to minimize the risks involved). The
most attractive options are likely to be those where benefits are quick to appear.

Table 8.2 Socioeconomic and cultural factors that can influence theattractiveness of restoration to communities living in degraded
forest landscapes
Socioeconomic/cultural factor SignificanceAvailability of agricultural land

Reforestation of any kind will be difficult if there is a
shortage of land for food production. In thesecircumstances it may be difficult to even protect any
large residual forest areas

Land tenure and patterns ofland-use

Land-users are only likely to participate in restoration if
they or their families will benefit. This is unlikely if they
have no tenure. Restoration that results in reduced
access to land that is currently available will beunattractive unless some form of compensation isavailable

Degree of dependency on
traditional forest products

Restoration is more likely if the supply of valued forest
goods (such as medicinal plants) from natural forests is
declining and there are no alternative supplies

Knowledge of markets for timber Restoration is easier if it there is a known market (andand other forest products andespecially an improving market) for forest goods and/or
services
services, particularly if further supplies from naturalforests are unavailable

74

Identifying site-level options

Table 8.2 (cont’d)Socioeconomic/cultural factor SignificanceExisting plantations

These provide a benchmark (ie species used, growth
rates achieved, markets supplied) for use in planningrehabilitation. Such demonstration areas can beespecially valuable where farm forestry has not been a
traditional land-use

Timing of financial benefit

Interventions that produce early cash flows (from, forexample, agricultural cash crops) are more attractive
than those where financial benefits are delayed (such as
in the case of sawlog plantations). There may be scopefor blending the two (for example, by growing nontimber forest products in plantation understories)

Risk involved

Low-cost restoration (such as fostering secondary forest
recovery) is likely to be less risky and more attractive
than higher-cost methods (such as plantation
establishment). Similarly, fast-growing species areusually more attractive than slow-growing species,
particularly when the harvesting period is distant.
Financial incentives or subsidies can sometimes reduce
this problem

Access to finance

Restoration is very expensive. Particularly in the initialstages, low-cost finance, subsidies or incentive
payments may be needed to achieve significant change.
Payments for the supply of ecological services may beespecially attractive. These can be used to foster
landscape-level objectives and priorities

Attitudes of neighbours

Uncooperative neighbours who illegally remove forest
products or allow fires, grazing stock or weeds to crossinto regenerating forest can easily disrupt rehabilitation
and restoration. Ways should be found to ensure theircollaboration

Cultural attitudes are also important. Communities differ in the extent to which they seetree-growing as a traditional or useful practice. Many traditional communities routinely
cultivate certain trees for a variety of economic, medical, social or cultural purposes. In
contrast, farmers who are more concerned with livestock production, or migrants who
have only recently moved into an area, may be unfamiliar with local forests or tree
species and less inclined to engage in reforestation.
The scale of tree-planting or farm forestry carried out in FLR is likely to be greater thanmany landholders may have been involved in before. In some cases, farmers can bequickly convinced of the benefits of reforestation, particularly if financial assistance isavailable or there are clear market opportunities. Knowledge is also important and some
farmers will quickly learn from demonstrations or be willing to try new tree seedlings
offered to them by extension officers. On the other hand, other farmers may be more
skeptical of government officials and will prefer to learn about the techniques andbenefits of tree-planting from their neighbours.
Tree-growing can be a commercially risky business since it is difficult to be certain about
future markets. Under these circumstances risks can be reduced by using fast-growing
species. But this approach can have its own risks. Box 8.2 illustrates one case where tree-

75Restoring Forest Landscapes

planting with a small number of fast-growing species has provided farmers withrelatively little financial benefit. An alternative strategy might be to concentrate on
slower-growing but higher-value species and to use a variety of these to spread risk.

Box 8.2 Single options can be risky: the case of Vietnam
Vietnam has embarked on a large-scale reforestation program. Since many sites aredegraded and infertile, fast-growing exotic species such as eucalypts have been usedwidely. Although these species have restored forest cover successfully, theirfinancial benefits to farmers have sometimes been disappointing. As plantations
have matured, large volumes of eucalypt timber have come on the market and prices
paid to small growers have declined. By reducing the heterogeneity of thelandscape, the restoration program has increased the risks not only of future market
problems but also of possible outbreaks of pests and diseases. As a general principle,
FLR should increase, not reduce, the heterogeneity of the landscape.
The main lessons emerging are:•most landscapes will have many stakeholders with different priorities and different
socioeconomic characteristics;•

under these circumstances legal constraints may also be needed to limit further
degradation;•

the attitudes of stakeholders are determined largely by self-interest. Not surprisingly,
poor farmers give priority to food production above all else. Other stakeholders may
be attracted by the perceived benefits of a future supply of other forest-based goods orservices;•many traditional communities are dependent on goods and services derived fromforests and will be interested in forest restoration because it will enhance the supply ofthese;•

tree-growing is a long-term enterprise and ways must be found to make the long-term
benefits as attractive as the short-term benefits;•

FLR practitioners will need to determine what incentives or compensation (financial
or otherwise) might be needed to make FLR more attractive to stakeholders andespecially to local land-users; and•the difficulty of predicting future markets may be at least partly overcome byincluding a variety of species and giving preference to species likely to have higher
market values.

Ecological factors affecting restoration choices
In addition to these biophysical and socioeconomic constraints there is a third group offactors that affect restoration choices. A range of ecological factors operate at a site leveland dictate what types of silvicultural approaches might be possible in order to achieve
restoration at that site. Some of these limiting factors are summarized in Table 8.3.

76

Identifying site-level options

Table 8.3 Ecological factors that can influence restoration choices
Limiting factors

Significance for replanting or successional development

Existing tree cover

The amount of canopy tree cover will determine whether it might
be preferable to clear the site and replant or whether it is feasible
to rely on natural regeneration

Soil fertility

Soil fertility is initially a consequence of the underlying geology.
But if topsoil erosion has occurred, many of the original species
may now be unable to grow at these sites unless nutrient
deficiencies are addressed. Tolerant pioneer species or evenexotic trees will need to be identified for these sites. Such species
can facilitate the later introduction of more preferred species.
Fertilizers can help overcome deficiencies but are expensive to
use over large areas

Fire regime

Fires are more frequent in seasonal climates with long dry
seasons; they are also often more common in degradedlandscapes, perhaps because the original forests have been
replaced by grasslands. Ways must be found to reduce fire
frequency, at least until new forests become well-established. It
may be useful to create buffer zones around the main restoration
area using more fire-tolerant species

Seed-dispersing
agentsSeeds of many recolonizing species are dispersed by birds orbats. Not all these animals will move over deforested areas andthe rate of dispersal diminishes when these sites are more distantfrom natural-forest remnants. This means isolated areas areunlikely to benefit from successional development

Weeds

Many restoration projects fail because weeds are not controlled,
although weeds usually become less of a problem after canopy
closure. Grasslands are particularly difficult sites for woody plants
to colonize

Pests

Some animal species, especially herbivores, can destroy young
seedlings; ultimately, fencing may be needed

Since different parts of the landscape will be affected by some or all of these ecologicaland silvicultural factors, FLR practitioners will usually need to conduct a survey or siteclassification to determine which factors are present in each area. Box 8.3 provides anexample of how poor soil fertility can determine silvicultural choices.

Box 8.3 Soil fertility constrains rehabilitation choices
Tin mining has been carried out in several areas of Malaysia and Thailand. Most ofthese sites have very sandy soils. Following removal of the original rainforest,
dredge mining was used to extract the tin. This destroyed the topsoil anddramatically changed the soil conditions and fertility; the loss of topsoil meant thatmost of the nutrients, seed stores and mycorrhizae at the site were lost. This has
meant that none of the original tree species formerly growing at these sites can now
reoccupy them. The absence of organic matter also means that any fertilizers applied
to overcome the fertility problems are more easily lost through leaching. Trials are
now under way to reforest these areas using a variety of species including exotic,
nitrogen-fixing trees and shrubs. Only a few tree species may be able to tolerate andgrow on these impoverished sites until organic matter has been built up in the
topsoil once more.

77

Restoring Forest LandscapesSome form of intervention is usually needed to overcome the constraints imposed bythese ecological factors. Table 8.4 outlines how one such factor – tree cover – determines
the choice of intervention in a given site. Often the most important initial decision iswhether to retain existing vegetation and rely on natural recovery processes or clear thesite and replant. This will always depend on the amount and condition of any residual
forest and other local circumstances. If there is sufficient residual forest remaining thennatural successional processes will allow recovery to occur. If planting must be carriedout, the key question is whether the desired species can tolerate the site conditions (eg thecurrent levels of soil fertility). If the desired species can be planted there are various typesof plantations that might be used depending on market needs and the balance to be
struck between the need to improve production and the need to restore biodiversity.
When the current site conditions are presently unsuitable for the desired species anintermediate step might be needed involving nurse trees or species able to facilitate thesubsequent establishment of the preferred species. Further details of rehabilitation andrestoration methodologies are given in chapters 9, 10 and 11.

Table 8.4 Residual tree cover as a determinant of restoration options
Level of forest cover remaining

Possible
restoration
options

Some residual forest
present

No residual forest present at the site

Option 1:

Option 2:

Option 3:

Rely primarily on
natural successional
processes

Establish plantations using
the preferred species•

Protect forest andallow natural
recovery to occur•

Use nurse crops orspecies able tofacilitate theestablishment of more
preferred species•

Protect forest andmanage trees tofavour particularspecies (eg bytending or thinning)•

Protect forest andenrich withcommerciallydesirable species

•

•

•

Use monocultures of
species able to tolerate
site conditions (preferably • Use tree species
native species)that can tolerate
existing site
conditions andUse monocultures but
exclude weeds,
plant different species inprovide shelter ordifferent parts of the
improve soil fertility
landscape according toand allow thesite conditions
subsequentestablishment of theUse monocultures andpreferred species
underplant with
agricultural crops or nontimber-forest products
Establish multi-species
tree plantations

Scenarios of different site-level options
The following scenarios illustrate how ecological and silvicultural factors might influence
FLR choices.

78

Identifying site-level options

Scenario 1 A landscape with extensive forest cover remaining although much of it has beenheavily logged
Condition: the landscape has a large area of forest remaining. The lowland areas aremainly secondary or regrowth forest while the uplands are still occupied by undisturbed
natural forest. Agriculture is practiced on only a small area of relatively flat land in thelowlands.
Suggested approach: where possible, protect the remaining forest areas from further major
disturbances and rely on natural regeneration to overcome past degradation. Enrich thesecondary forest where commercial considerations suggest this will be useful. If forest
clearing is necessary for agriculture, prioritize those areas that are of least importance forconservation and strive to achieve or maintain good connectivity between forested areas.
Comment: in this case there is probably no need to invest too heavily in restoration
because most of the original biodiversity is still present across this landscape. Natural
successional processes will lead to recovery over time since the main ecosystem processes
are essentially intact.
Scenario 2 A more heavily degraded landscape
Condition: only a few small fragments of natural forest remain and even steep hillslopes
are now without tree cover. Most vegetation now present is grassland or shrubs anderosion is widespread. Productive agriculture is possible on flatter land in the valleys but
only temporary cropping is carried out on steeper land because of erosion problems.
Suggested approach: exclude further agriculture on hilly land and carry out reforestation
on steeper slopes to control erosion (since there is insufficient woody regrowth to rely on
rapid natural regeneration). Use whatever species can tolerate these soils, including
exotic species if necessary, but give priority to higher-value species if the plantations areto be harvested eventually and long rotations are being used. Harvesting for timber onsuch slopes should be controlled carefully to maximize watershed protection and may beinappropriate in some situations.
Comment: the key objective in these circumstances is to restore ecological services (such as
watershed protection and biodiversity conservation) rather than to maximize timber
production. The opportunity costs of halting agricultural production are low, since thislow-yield, short-term agriculture was probably contributing little to the local farming
community. Increased forest cover on the steeper slopes will help lead to moresustainable agricultural practices in the lowlands.
Scenario 3 A productive agricultural landscape with many small forest remnantsCondition: the landscape has been cleared extensively for agriculture. While farming iscurrently productive, the level of biodiversity present has been greatly reduced and thesustainability of agriculture may therefore be at risk.
Suggested approach: encourage farm forestry using a variety of high-value timber trees onunder-utilized land, giving priority to areas where erosion is present (eg steep slopes,
riverine areas) and where plantations could form linkages between existing forest
remnants.
Comment: functional benefits and biodiversity values will be improved if reforestation canbe carried out at certain key locations across the landscape. This may be difficult toachieve where there are many landowners and may be especially difficult when theyeach have only small land areas. However, carefully located plantations involving avariety of higher-value species are likely to enhance both ecological and economic
resilience, reduce risk and lead to more sustainable systems of agriculture.

79

Restoring Forest Landscapes

References and further reading
ITTO 2002. ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded andSecondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No 13. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Lamb, D. & Gilmour, D. 2003. Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests. IUCN,
Cambridge, UK.
Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific website:
http://www.recoftc.org.

80Chapter 9
SITE-LEVEL RESTORATION STRATEGIESFOR DEGRADED PRIMARY FOREST

9

Cesar Sabogal
This chapter, together with chapters 10 and 11, set out the site-level strategies and theirassociated silvicultural techniques for restoring degraded primary forest, managing
secondary forest and rehabilitating degraded forest land within the context of an FLR
program. These chapters are intended to provide an overview of the different strategies
and methods, along with basic practical information on their use and guidance as towhich methods are most appropriate in different situations. References are provided topoint readers to more detailed technical guidelines.
Table 9.1 summarizes the restoration objectives and methods most suited for different
types of degraded forest and other lands.
This chapter outlines the main strategies and silvicultural options available for the
restoration of degraded primary forests, with particular emphasis on tropical rainforests.
The chapter provides some basic advice on how to choose the most appropriate methods
and suggests further reading for more detailed practical guidance on undertaking thedifferent techniques.
ITTO (2002) defines a degraded primary forest as: a primary forest in which the initial coverhas been adversely affected by the unsustainable harvesting of wood and/or non-wood forest
products so that its structure, processes, functions and dynamics are altered beyond the short-term
resilience of the ecosystem; that is, the capacity of these forests to fully recover from exploitation in
the near to medium term has been compromised.
The most common causes of primary forest degradation are the over-harvesting of woodand non-wood forest products, overgrazing and fire. Of these, uncontrolled logging
using heavy machinery and poor extraction methods is probably the most important in
the humid tropics, adversely affecting the soil, remaining trees, water and wildlife.
Degraded forests can be classified according to the degree of degradation, as illustrated
in Table 9.2.

Overview of forest restoration strategies for degraded primary
forestA basic management principle of forest restoration is to use, as much as possible, thenatural dynamics already operating in a degraded primary forest stand. Restoration willusually be achieved by the tending of advance growth; it is difficult to induce
regeneration from seed since seed sources are often absent and the ground vegetation isusually dense and highly competitive.

81

Table 9.1 Main restoration objectives and management interventions for different types of degraded forest and other land*
Type of
Restoration objectives
degraded
forest/lands
FarmlandManagement interventions**
PROT

CONS
S&W

MGMT
REG

Desired outcome
ENR
PL

PLANT AGROFOR

Restore soil fertility• Agricultural production

Restore/increase productivity

•
•
•
•
•
•

Satisfy subsistence needs
Generate income
Protect against fire, grazing, wind, etc

systems
Agroforests
Tree plantations
Protected forest
Restored forest coverManaged secondary forest
Multiple-use forest

Restore/conserve biodiversity
Riparian areas Protect streamsides
Improve downstream water quality• Protected forest• Restored forest cover• Stable water courses

Restore/conserve biodiversity
Watersheds

Prevent and control erosion
Stabilize catchments

Production
forests

Restore/increase productivity
Restore/conserve biodiversity• Protected forest• Restored forest cover• Stable downhill areas• Restored/managed forest• Tree plantations• Protected forest

Protect against fire, illegal logging, poaching, human settlement, etc
Prevent and control erosion
Generate income
Protected
areas

Restore ecological integrity
Restore/conserve biodiversity• Protected forest• Restored forest cover

Increase population or endangered or threatened species
Protect against fire, logging, grazing, etc
Mining areas

Restore ecological integrity• Rehabilitated area
• Restored forest cover* Filled cells indicate management interventions best suited to attain the desired objectives;** PROT = protective measures; CONS S&W = conservation of soil and water; MGMT REG = management of natural regeneration (includes practices for retention, induction
and tending of natural regeneration); ENR PLA = enrichment plantings; PLANT = Direct plantations (of mixed or pure species); AGROFOR = agroforests

Site-level restoration strategies for degraded primary forest

Table 9.2 Examples of categories of degraded forests in Asia, withrestoration options*Category

Main causes

Main characteristics

Restoration options

Lightlydegraded
forestLight logging orlight fire

• Still retains the main•

Natural regeneration:
tending of pre-existing
wildlings (seedlings,
saplings) to improvelight conditions (byrelease cutting or
canopy opening)• Large gaps, generally occupied by •Enrichment planting:patch (gap) planting or
under-planting in large
gaps using mixed
speciesNatural regeneration if
plenty of pre-existing
wildlings

Moderately Logging, fire or adegradedcombination offorestthe two

Heavilydegraded
forestcharacteristics of the original forest• Natural regeneration can restore
the original forest within areasonable time

pioneer tree species (such as
Macaranga, Homalanthus,
Glochidion)• Pioneer trees usually begin to thinout naturally after about ten years •of age. Late secondary species orsometimes early primary species
develop under them

Intensive logging, • Most of the primary forest
forest fire or astructure has been lost, leaving
combination of
only a few primary forest species
the two, repeated • Large openings occupy at least
half the area and are invaded byover time andpioneer weeds, vines, and otheroften with oversecondary forest species
extraction of non• Serious damage to the remaining
timber forest
forest’s physical condition (with,products
for example soil erosion,compaction or impeded water
courses) and biological condition(including, for example, lack ofseed sources and regeneration ofcommercial tree species)• High susceptibility to fire

Low-profile Repeated hacking •hackedor overlopping (forforests
fuelwood, fodder,•poles and small
timber),overgrazing and•burningLive tree stumps; tree species inshrub form; poles; a few old trees,
thickets of shrubs and climbers
Low-height, often dense stands
with bad stem form, and affectedby pathogens
Hard soil, often sheet- or gullyeroded, usually of low fertility withlimited organic matter• Live roots and stumps retain theircoppicing ability• Can grow back into high-value
secondary forests if overexploitation is halted

•
•
•
•

Enrichment planting
Coppice management
Direct tree plantation
Agroforestry systems• Site conservation

methods• Coppice management• Direct tree plantation• Agroforestry systems*The first three categories are applied to dipterocarp forests and are adapted from Mori (2001). The last
category is a special case of heavily degraded forest that is common in large areas of India, Bangladesh,
Nepal and Sri Lanka, as described by Banerjee (1995)

83

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Restoration strategies for degraded primary forests will depend on the condition of theforest stand, the objectives of the restoration program, and the resources available. In
general, four main (not necessarily mutually exclusive) restoration strategies can be
pursued:•protection and natural recovery;•

management of natural regeneration;•enrichment planting; and•direct plantation.

Each of these strategies entails a series of silvicultural interventions aimed at facilitating
the survival and growth of existing regeneration (seedlings, saplings, poles) and also, inthe case of the latter three, various approaches to planting. This chapter examines thesefour strategies, and their associated silvicultural interventions, in turn.

Protection and natural recovery
The main restoration objectives of the ‘protection and natural recovery’ strategy are theconservation of biodiversity and the restoration of ecosystem functioning and, often,commercial productivity. The strategy relies largely on protecting the site from the main
disturbance or stress factors and allowing natural colonization and successional processes
to occur. This approach is generally most appropriate where the main disturbance orstress factors have been, or can be, controlled effectively, where degradation has not been
extensive, and where residual forest patches remain or some advanced forest regrowth isalready present. This strategy is sometimes called ‘passive restoration’ and is particularly
suited to situations where the financial resources for FLR activities are limited. However,this strategy does imply a certain level of intervention and investment – in, for example,
fire protection measures and the elimination of pests and weeds. The main shortcomingsof this approach include the long time required for recovery and the risk that, during thistime, other disturbances will emerge to cause further degradation. Nonetheless, thisapproach is probably the most common and in many situations it is the only one feasible.
More detailed guidance on the use of passive restoration can be found in Grieser Johns(1997), Lamb and Gilmour (2003) and Clewell et al. (2000).

Management of natural regeneration
After passive restoration, working with pre-existing natural regeneration is the cheapest
and safest means of restoration, provided that sufficient numbers of trees of desirable
species are still present; this is usually the case with primary forests that have been only
lightly degraded. In more degraded conditions, however, insufficient and unevenly
distributed regeneration makes it necessary to resort to more costly silviculturalinterventions such as enrichment planting and direct planting. In this section we willrefer to silvicultural treatments based on natural regeneration.
In general, silvicultural interventions are necessary in degraded forests designated fortimber production to overcome the relative depletion of commercial tree species, tocompensate for slow growth rates and to ensure a future commercial timber value of theforest. Options that can be applied, depending on the condition of the forest stand andthe forest management objectives, include:•

treatments to improve the growing conditions and yield of advance growth ofdesirable tree species; and•treatments to induce and assist the regeneration of desirable tree species.

84Site-level restoration strategies for degraded primary forest

Desirable tree species may be commercial or potentially commercial timber and/or nontimber species, locally valued species (such as those with household uses or of social,
cultural or religious value), and ecologically important species (such as keystone species
for wildlife and pollinators).
Treatments to improve the growing conditions and yield of desirable regeneration aim to provide
more space for trees of desirable species. Such treatments usually represent the first step
towards improving the productivity of the resource and its capacity to meet commercial,social and/or cultural objectives, and are undertaken in two phases. The first phaseentails an operation called overstorey removal, in which overmature, defective noncommercial stems (called relics) are removed, usually by poison-girdling, from the upper
levels of the forest canopy. A second phase consists of liberation thinning, a treatmentthat releases young growth from competition by commercially less-desirable species.
The practical success of silvicultural tending operations depends on:•

the existence of a sufficient number of specimens of the desirable tree species (at least
100 specimens per hectare is generally considered sufficient);•a more-or-less even distribution of these trees over the entire area; and•adequate and long-lasting responsiveness of the desirable trees to liberation thinning.

Treatments to induce and assist desirable regeneration are necessary in more heavily
disturbed forest, where insufficient or poorly distributed advance regeneration is a major
constraint. The first step is to locate and protect any remaining seed trees of the desirable
species. These trees are valuable both as seed sources and for the shade they provide. In
most cases, the retention of 2–6 well-formed, reproductively mature trees of the desired
species per hectare (or a total of 6–10 seed trees per hectare) will probably be sufficient toenhance regeneration. The main criteria to consider in the selection of seed trees include:
a healthy, well-developed crown and a straight bole free of excessive taper and with noforking below the base of the crown. After selection, the trees should be marked clearlyand monitored until seed-fall is completed. All ground vegetation should be cleared
within about 20 m of the seed tree to facilitate collection.
The most critical need for assisting desirable regeneration is the improvement of light
conditions for the seedlings and saplings. Canopy-opening operations, as describedabove, and treatments in the undergrowth and even at the soil level, as described below,
can all be considered.
Cleaning operations (sometimes termed selective/release weeding or underbrushing)
aim to reduce competition for resources in order to benefit existing seedlings or seedlings
that might become established from seed-fall. These operations include control measuresagainst aggressive vines and species such as bamboo or undergrowth palms or ferns.
Cleaning the undergrowth is a time-demanding and costly intervention and subject toerror and carelessness in species identification. A more effective application is toselectively weed below the crowns of a limited number of desirable adult trees prior toseed-fall to specifically enhance the seed germination and seedling establishment of thosespecies.
Thinning is usually applied to juvenile trees of desirable species. It involves the selective
removal of saplings or pole-sized stems to favour the growth of the residual stand. This
operation is frequently conducted in situations where there is an overabundance ofindividuals of intermediate size, not all of which can possibly survive until maturity. This
sometimes occurs with species regenerating in patches.
Soil-level treatments include controlled burning and mechanical scarification and areparticularly useful for species that require mineral-soil seed beds or minimal competition
for germination, establishment and subsequent growth.

85

Restoring Forest LandscapesMore detailed guidance on the management of natural regeneration can be found in
Lamprecht (1989), Wadsworth (1997) and Dupuy (1998).

Enrichment planting
Enrichment planting is defined as the introduction of valuable species in degraded
forests without the elimination of the valuable individuals already present. Enrichment
may be appropriate in areas where natural regeneration of desired species is insufficientor irregularly distributed, or when the interest is to introduce high-value species that do
not regenerate easily.
This silvicultural technique has been used widely in the tropics to supplement a stand’snatural regeneration by planting or seeding commercially valuable species, especiallywhere soil characteristics are not conducive to other land-uses. It has evolved from
simple gap planting to more intensively managed line planting, and even conversion orclose planting. The spatial arrangement of the planted seedlings is reflected in the
different terms used for enrichment planting:•underplanting – when the artificial regeneration is conducted under a residual stand of
non-commercial trees;•group planting – when the seedlings are planted in groups in their final-crop spacing;•line planting – when the trees are planted along cleared lines; and•gap planting – when the seedlings are planted in natural or artificial gaps.

The aim of enrichment planting will depend on the current condition of the forest.
Restoring the commercial productivity would be more suitable for slightly-to-moderately
degraded forest. In forests heavily degraded by fire (or in frequently disturbed secondary
forests), where only a small number of relatively common species remain, it may be
useful to supplement biological diversity in order to hasten the restoration process. For
example, it might be necessary to quickly increase the population of several particularplant species that would be unlikely to re-establish well using the passive restoration
approach. These might be endangered plant species, plants with large seeds that arepoorly dispersed, or plants needed by a particular wildlife species for food or habitat.
Enrichment planting generally consists of transplanting nursery-grown seedlings or
wildlings into natural openings in the forest, felling gaps or lines or strips opened
specifically for this purpose. The initial plant condition at planting time is a major
determinant of success, thus emphasizing the importance of obtaining high-quality
planting stock from the nursery.
The species planted should be of economic, ecological or social interest. Some importantsilvicultural characteristics for species suitable for enrichment planting include:•

rapid height growth;•narrow crown;•

regular flowering and fruiting;•wide ecological amplitudes;•

tolerance to moisture stress;•

good natural stem form; and•free of pests and diseases.

The two most common enrichment planting options are line plantings and gap plantings.
The choice of method depends primarily on the condition of the forest stand, the86Site-level restoration strategies for degraded primary forest

restoration objective and the species used. The gap planting method is generally
recommended in degraded, over-logged forests, as planting lines are more difficult toopen and maintain in these conditions. In dipterocarp forests, line planting is moresuitable if the surrounding trees in the stand are small (less than 10 cm dbh).
Line planting consists of opening parallel and equidistant lines in the forest and planting
nursery-grown seedlings of commercial species at regular intervals. Planting lines 1.5–2
m wide are opened prior to planting by slashing shrubs, ferns and herbs and girdlinglarge unwanted trees. Lines should be opened vertically in a way that allows theseedlings to receive overhead light. The distance between lines is usually 10–20 m.
Planting is done in lines at a spacing of 2–5 m, according to species and size of planting
stock. The lines are maintained by cutting trees or branches closing the planting line. All
climbers are removed and grasses, herbs and ferns slashed in the planting line.
Gap planting consists of replanting and tending gaps and is the preferred technique incases where the desired species is relatively light-demanding. A survey should be carriedout to determine the location of the gaps and the distribution of already-establishedseedlings. It is recommended that the planting area diameter be equal to the averageheight of surrounding overstorey trees. For example, in the case of degraded dipterocarp
forests, gaps of about 500 m2 are opened up by cutting all trees. In the gap a newgeneration of dipterocarps is either planted, or the existing ephemeral seedling stock ismaintained.
Box 9.1 provides an example of how line planting and gap planting can be combined in aforest restoration program.

Box 9.1 The INIKEA collaborative project in Sabah, Malaysia
The objective of this project is to improve biodiversity in dipterocarp forests heavily
degraded by fire. Under the canopy of a Macaranga-dominated forest stand, morethan 25 tree species (mainly belonging to the Dipterocarpaceae family, plus somefruit trees) are planted using two different plantation methods: line planting and gap
planting. The latter is cheaper, mainly because the required number of compass lines
in line planting is double that for gap planting (where 100 small groups of threeseedlings per hectare are irregularly distributed in the forest).
Source: Garcia and Falck (2003)

Many applications of enrichment planting have been unsuccessful mainly because
inappropriate species were selected and/or planting and tending practices were
inadequate (commonly entailing a failure to open the canopy and to keep it open, and tokeep the crowns of the planted trees free of distorting climbers).22 Clear criteria forsuccessful enrichment planting are provided by Dawkins (described in Weaver 1996).
Technical guidance on the use of enrichment planting can be found in Weaver (1987),
Palmer and Palmer (1989), Appanah and Weinland (1993) and Dupuy (1998).

Direct plantation
The use of direct tree-planting for restoring degraded primary forests is restricted to
localized, more heavily impacted areas (such as areas with harvesting infrastructure likeroads and log landings, or open areas invaded by weeds, vines or bamboos). To control
erosion and accelerate vegetation recovery in these areas, patches of trees or shrubs canbe planted.
22

Palmer and Palmer (1989), Weaver (1996)

87

Restoring Forest Landscapes

In all these cases some previous site preparation is usually necessary, such as weeding
and soil ripping to reduce soil compaction. In addition, a good species selection, the useof high-quality planting stock and appropriate planting methods (for instance, mixing
with organic debris or fertilizers) are basic requirements to ensure survival and rapid
early growth. Mixed and close-spaced or scattered plantings can give fast restoration
results. Direct seeding is also an option.
Box 9.2 illustrates how direct planting can be used to restore log landings and skid trails
in logged forests.

Box 9.2 Rehabilitation of log landings and skid trails in Southeast
Asia
Skid trails and log landings cover a significant proportion of the total area of logged
forests. This results in a substantial loss of potentially productive forest. In Southeast
Asia, for example, it has been estimated that mechanically disturbed sites can cover
up to 40% of the logged area. Two techniques can be used for planting dipterocarps
in these conditions: direct open planting of seedlings, and planting a nurse crop withthe subsequent underplanting of dipterocarps.
Open planting is most suitable for skid trails where flanking vegetation provides
some remnant canopy and where natural regeneration of pioneer tree species along
the skid edges provides organic matter and helps ameliorate the soil. In general,
species with drought and heat tolerance and resistance to pests and diseases should
be used here. Examples of these species are: Dryobalanops lanceolata, Shorea leprosulaand Hopea odorata.
Underplanting is an alternative technique, especially for large open areas. Fastgrowing pioneer trees are first planted on the site and then underplanted withdipterocarp seedlings. Pioneer trees are better adapted to the open conditions ofdegraded sites, and they grow much faster than dipterocarps. Once the dipterocarp
seedlings are established, the nurse trees should be thinned to allow increasing
amounts of light to reach the seedlings. Examples of fast-growing tree species withpotential to act as a nurse crop for dipterocarp seedlings on log landings and skid
trails are: Macaranga spp, Endospermum malaccense, Octomeles sumatrana andAnthocephalus chinensis among the indigenous species; and the exotic species Acacia
mangium, Albizia falcataria and Gmelina arborea.
Source: Nussbaum and Hoe (1996)

More technical guidance on direct plantation can be found in Lamprecht (1989), Evans(1992), and Appanah and Weinland (1993).

References and further reading
Appanah, S. & Weinland, G. 1993. Planting Quality Timber Trees in Peninsular Malaysia. A
Review. Malayan Forest Records No 38. Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) – GTZ.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Banerjee, A. 1995. Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests in Asia. World Bank Technical Paper No
270. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA..
Clewell A., Rieger, J. & Munro, J. 2000. Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological
Restoration Projects. Society for Ecological Restoration. Available from: http://www.ser.org.
Dupuy, B. 1998. Bases pour une Sylviculture en Forêt Dense Tropicale Humide Africaine. CIRAD
Document Forafri 4. CIRAD, Montpellier, France.

88Site-level restoration strategies for degraded primary forest

Dykstra, D. & Heinrich, R. 1996. FAO – Model Code of Forest Harvesting Practice. FAO, Rome,
Italy.
Evans, J. 1992. Plantation Forestry in the Tropics: Tree Planting for Industrial, Social,
Environmental, and Agroforestry Purposes. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
FAO 1998. Guidelines for the Management of Tropical Forests – 1. The Production of Wood. FAO
Forestry Paper 135. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Garcia, C. & Falck, J. 2003. ‘How can silviculturists support the natural process of recovery intropical rain forests degraded by logging and wild fire?’ In: FAO/Regional Office for Asia and thePacific, Bringing Back the Forests: Policies and Practices for Degraded Lands and Forests.
Proceedings of an International Conference, 7–10 October 2003, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Grieser Johns, A. 1997. Timber Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Rain Forests.
Cambridge Studies in Applied Ecology and Resource Management. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
ITTO 2002. ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded andSecondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No 13. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Lamb, D. & Gilmour, D. 2003. Rehabilitation and Restoration of Degraded Forests. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Lamprecht, H. 1989. Silviculture in the Tropics. Tropical Forest Ecosystems and Their Tree Species– Possibilities and Methods for Their Long-Term Utilization. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
Mori, T. 2001. ‘Rehabilitation of degraded forests in lowland Kutai, East Kalimantan, Indonesia’. In:
S. Kobayashi, J. Turnbull, T. Toma, T. Mori & N. Majid (eds) Rehabilitation of Degraded Tropical
Forest Ecosystems. Workshop proceedings, 2–4 November 1999, Bogor, Indonesia.
Nussbaum, R. & Hoe, A. 1996. ‘Rehabilitation of degraded sites in logged-over forest using
dipterocarps’. In: A. Schulte & D. Schöne (eds) Dipterocarp Forest Ecosystems. Towards
Sustainable Management. World Scientific, Singapore.
Palmer, J. & Palmer, H. 1989. ‘Pre-Project Study Report Enrichment Planting’. Report prepared by
Japan Overseas Forestry Consultants Association (JOFCA) and Centre Technique Forestier
Tropical (CTFT) for ITTO.
Peters, C. 1996. The Ecology and Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources. World Bank
Technical Paper No 322. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Thomson, L. 2001. ‘Management of natural forests for conservation of forest genetic resources’. In:
FAO/DFSC/IPGRI, Forest Genetic Resources Conservation and Management Vol 2: In
Managed Natural Forests and Protected Areas (in situ). International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute, Rome, Italy.
Wadsworth, F. 1997. Forest Production for Tropical America. USDA Agricultural Handbook No 710.
USDA, Washington, DC, USA.
Weaver, P. 1996. ‘Secondary forest management’, In: J. Parrotta & M. Kanashiro (eds)
Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands and Secondary Forests in Amazonia.
Proceedings of an International Symposium. Santarem, Para, Brazil, 18–22 April 1993.
International Institute of Tropical Forestry, USDA Forest Service, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, and
UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program, Paris, France.
Weaver, P. 1987. ‘Enrichment plantings in tropical America’. In: J. Figueroa, F. Wadsworth & S.
Branham (eds) Management of the Forests of Tropical America: Prospects and Technologies.
Proceedings of a Conference. San Juan, Puerto Rico, 22–27 September 1986.

89

Restoring Forest Landscapes

90Chapter 10
SITE-LEVEL STRATEGIES FORMANAGING SECONDARY FORESTS

10

Cesar Sabogal
This chapter sets out the possible management objectives and technical options for
managing secondary forests as part of an FLR program. The two main alternative
strategies – managing improved fallows without compromising agricultural production,and managing forests for production or conservation purposes – are discussed, together
with the types of conditions that favour one above the other.
There is considerable ambiguity and confusion in the current use of the term ‘secondary
forest’ both in the literature and in people’s perceptions. The term has been applied tonumerous types of forests with different characteristics and arising from many different
processes. ITTO (2002) defines it as: woody vegetation regrowing on land that was largely
cleared of its original forest cover (ie carried less than 10% of the original forest cover).
On the basis of this definition it can be seen that secondary forests:•

result from significant disturbance to the original primary forest, with major changes in
its structure and composition. Hence, for example, a primary forest that has been
selectively logged does not qualify as secondary forest;•

are distinct from shrubland, grassland or other non-forest vegetation. Trees arenormally defined as woody vegetation more than 3 m tall and a forest is defined by
FAO as land with more than 10% canopy cover; and•occupy a successional position between non-forest vegetation and primary forest. Overa long period of time, secondary forests can develop similar structures and functions
to those of the original forest.

Secondary forests often develop on land abandoned after shifting cultivation, settled
agriculture, pasture or failed tree plantations. However, there are some regional
differences. In Asia, the human-induced disturbances that give rise to secondary forests
include severe overlogging (intensive, uncontrolled timber extraction that reduces
canopy cover to less than 10% of original cover), shifting agriculture, fire, therehabilitation of degraded land, and the abandonment of non-forest land-uses. In Africa,
grazing, fire, and fuelwood extraction are the most important disturbance factors thatlead to secondary forests.
Secondary forests are often of special economic importance to the rural poor and those
who live outside the cash economy because they are usually accessible to local people.
They can provide a range of goods to meet immediate livelihood needs, such as timber
for housing, fencing and posts, spices and herbal medicines. Secondary forests are also
being increasingly recognized for their value in fallow agriculture, in the industrial
timber sector as sources of locally or commercially valuable non-timber forest products,
and for the provision of environmental services such as biodiversity conservation, carbon
storage, water regulation and erosion control. Boxes 10.1 and 10.2 illustrate some of thediverse values of secondary forests.

91

Restoring Forest LandscapesBox 10.1 Valuing the biodiversity of secondary forests in theBrazilian Amazon
Secondary forests in Brazil’s Bragantina region in the eastern Amazon can be
extremely rich in terms of useful species that are an important part of the livelihoodsof local people. An ethnobotanical survey carried out in one community helped
identify 135 useful plant species providing a wide array of products such as food,tubers, latex, oils, fibres, resins, gums, balsams, condiments, candles and cellulose.
The main uses reported were for medicines, food, handicrafts, hunting, construction
and other domestic needs. Older second-growth patches could be used andmanaged for the production of multiple-purpose trees and palms, as well as for
medicines, edible fruits, sawnwood and honey. Among the species with the highest
potential is Platonia insignis (bacuri), whose fruits have a good local and regional
demand. This species sprouts easily and abundantly in the area of natural
occurrence. There is evidence that farmers are applying simple silvicultural
practices, such as liberation thinning to benefit vigorous trees or naturalregeneration when the vegetation is still young to promote fruit production.
Estimations of fruit production in managed secondary forests show highly
competitive financial returns for farmers. Roundwood production from these forests
is encouraged by the existence of local markets for uses such as construction and the
manufacture of making tool handles.
Sources: Smith et al. (2001); Rios et al. (2001)

Box 10.2 Woodlot management in the Philippines
Private woodlots in the form of managed secondary forests constitute the majority of
the forest in the Ifugao province in northern Luzon, Philippines. The woodlots are
sited on abandoned shifting cultivation plots and abandoned grasslands. The
farmers select the location of the woodlot on the basis of the presence of hardwood
seedlings. The boundaries of the woodlot are demarcated by planting fruit trees.
Natural regrowth takes place, and as the succession progresses the fast-growing tree
species are cut for firewood, releasing the seedlings of desired hardwood species,
including some dipterocarps. In addition, some enrichment planting is carried out,
mainly of fast-growing reforestation species, fruit trees and rattan. Woodlots are
greatly influenced by selective cutting and underplantings. In the two villages
studied, approximately 300 plant species are used, cultivated and protected inwoodlots by the Ifugao people. The Ifugao use and protect many species for specificpurposes. Of the 180 tree species, 77 are considered to produce timber, while 121 areused for firewood. The other species include 36 wild and cultivated fruit tree species
and six dipterocarp species. Rattan species occur in the woodlots, and one (Calamus
maniliensis) is actively cultivated because the Ifugao relish its fruit and attributemedicinal properties to it. A remarkable aspect is the protection of six tree species fortheir ‘water production’ properties and the protection of another four tree species
because they are believed to be inhabited by spirits.
Source: Klock (1995), adapted by van der Linden and Sips (1998)

The species composition and rate of secondary succession in secondary forests will
depend on the amount of site degradation that occurred following clearance. If, forexample, the cleared land was subjected to repeated fires or overgrazing, degradation
will result in bushy, sparse, low-value vegetation, perhaps with canopy cover as low as
40%. If such extensive degradation has occurred, the degraded secondary forest will
require targeted rehabilitation work before any productive management can start.

92

Site-level strategies for managing secondary forests

Typology of secondary forests
Secondary forests can be classified according to their successional stages, vegetation
types, ownership patterns, land-uses, economic value or other criteria. The following
typology, adapted from Chokkalingam and de Jong (2001), is based on the original landuse and the nature of the human-induced disturbances that gave rise to the secondary
forest. It consists of six categories of secondary forest:•

post-extraction secondary forests: forests regenerating largely through naturalprocesses after a significant reduction in the original forest canopy (ie to less than 10%of the original cover) through tree extraction at a single point in time or over an
extended period, and displaying a major change in forest structure and/or canopy
species’ composition, compared to that of undisturbed natural forests under similarsite conditions in the area.
forest → harvest → natural regeneration•

swidden fallow secondary forests: forests regenerating largely through naturalprocesses in woody fallows of swidden agriculture for the purposes of regenerating
the land and providing products and services for the farmers and/or communities.
forest → clear & burn→ crop → natural regeneration•

secondary forest gardens: considerably enriched swidden fallows, or less-intensively
managed smallholder plantations or home gardens where substantial spontaneous
regeneration is tolerated, maintained or even encouraged.
forest → clear & burn→ crop → managed regeneration•

post-fire secondary forests: forests regenerating largely through natural processes
after a significant reduction in the original forest canopy (ie to less than 10% of theoriginal cover) caused by fires at a single point in time or over an extended period,
and displaying a major change in forest structure and/or canopy species’ composition
compared to that of undisturbed natural forests under similar site conditions.
forest → fire → natural regeneration•

post-abandonment secondary forests: forests which regenerate largely through anatural process after the abandonment of alternative land-uses such as agriculture or
pasture cultivation for cattle.
forest → alternative land-use → abandonment → natural regeneration•

rehabilitated secondary forests: forests regenerating largely through natural processes
on degraded lands. Regeneration might be enhanced by protection from chronic
disturbance, site stabilization, water management, and planting to facilitate naturalregeneration.
forest → degraded land → rehabilitation + natural regeneration

Overview of management strategies
As secondary forests are usually found on smallholdings or community lands, their
management will require an understanding of the role of these forests in farm production
systems and within rural communities, and the factors that influence land and resource
utilization in these areas. These factors, which will also influence any management
decisions, include:•

land tenure (status, access restrictions);•

farm size and area of agricultural production;

93

Restoring Forest Landscapes•site conditions (soil quality and variability, topography, etc);•

biological potential (species composition, structure and productivity);•

the market for forest products and services, and its accessibility;•

labour availability (family and hired);•available capital;•

managerial capacity;•

previous knowledge and experience (especially agroforestry practices); and•policy and legal framework (particularly in relation to forest production).

In many situations, secondary forests are fragmented patches in a landscape dominatedby non-forest land-uses, and management will require a good understanding of theinteractions between these uses as well as the associated risks (such as fire or grazing)and opportunities (in terms of forest products and services). Management decisions will
therefore need to be taken from a landscape-level perspective and will need to be
responsive to changes over time in the biophysical, socioeconomic or policy/institutional
conditions.
The high variability in the characteristics of secondary forests and the wide geographic
distribution of these forests make it difficult to establish general criteria for their
management. Table 10.1 presents four possible objectives for managing secondary forests
and the resulting management systems. The first three systems are production-oriented
and range from the improvement of short fallows without compromising agricultural
productivity to the use of extended fallow periods and steering management away fromthe crop-fallow-cycle towards longer rotations and forest products. The fourth systemaims to maintain secondary forests in the farm/landscape primarily to enhance theirprotective, environmental or recreational functions and values. This strategy may also beseen as a way to keep a land reserve for future use. The table provides some examples oftechnological options or management practices for each of these four systems.

Table 10.1 Management systems and examples of technologicaloptions for secondary forests
Management objective

Management
systemExamples of technologicaloptions/management practices

Increase the efficiency of
fallow vegetation toaccelerate the recovery ofsoil productivity for future
agricultural use

Short-cycle
improved fallow••

Increase the availability ofuseful products for use in
the farming system and todiversify production

Medium-cycle
improved/enriched fallow

•

•

•

•

94

leguminous cover cropsorganic manure produced outside
the field (eg animal manure,earthworms)
contour hedgerows and rotational
alley-cropping (using short-cycle,
semi-perennial species)
selection and tending of naturally
established, useful (timber and nontimber) tree, palm or shrub species
enrichment with desirable tree
species (eg those preferred fortimber, firewood, fruits, medicine orforage)multistrata crops with useful semiperennial and perennial species

Site-level strategies for managing secondary forests

Table 10.1 (cont’d)Management objective

Management
systemExamples of technologicaloptions/management practices

Increase the productivity
and value of thesecondary forest to
generate income throughthe marketing of timberand non-timber forest
products and services

Medium- andlong-cycle
production forest

•

•
•

•
•

Secure the permanence ofthe secondary forest toenhance its protective/
environmental/recreational
functions and values

Conservation
forest•••retention and management of seed
trees of commercially valuablespecies
liberation thinning to favour trees ofcommercial value
canopy opening and undergrowthcleaning to favour establishment ofcommercial regenerationsoil exposure to favour desirable
regenerationenrichment with commercial tree
species (in lines, groups or gaps)
protection of useful species forwildlife and as seed trees
collection of wildlings (seedlings,
saplings) of desirable species foroutplanting in the farm for enriching
fallows, high forests, etc andwildlife management

Source: adapted from Smith et al. (1997)

Fallow management
The strategy of managing the fallow is particularly attractive in areas with relatively highpopulation density where swidden agricultural systems include short fallow periods,
usually no longer than 3–4 years. Fallow management strategies range from those that
aim to sustain annual food cropping to those that focus largely on the production of
economically valuable woody vegetation. These strategies correspond to the first two
objectives in Table 10.1.
Improved fallow systems aim to accelerate the process of rehabilitation (thereby
shortening the length of the fallow period) and satisfy the cash needs and otheraspirations of the farming households. Agroforestry and silvicultural practices are used
to progressively improve or enrich the fallow with desirable trees, shrubs or vines. Box
10.3 describes an improved fallow system in the Peruvian Amazon.

95

Restoring Forest LandscapesBox 10.3 Improved fallows in the Peruvian Amazon
The felling of Amazonian floodplain forest during slash and burn agriculture
practiced by ribereño farmers in the Peruvian Amazon is often followed by theabundant natural regeneration of Guazuma crinita (bolaina blanca), a mediumdensity timber tree in high local demand. This natural taungya can be managed as an
improved fallow, which represents a productive option of growing local importance.
As naturally regenerated secondary forest, the natural taungya system helps tostabilize erosion-prone riverbanks and trap fertile sediments, as well as provide
higher yields for farmers. As the system is based on natural regeneration,
establishment costs are lower than for other improved fallows, making it more
attractive to farmers. Regeneration should be ‘re-spaced’ after the harvest of
agricultural crops (typically crops of maize and rice in successive seasons) withsilvicultural thinning in the third year. Maximum mean annual increments can reach
20 m3/ha/yr. G. crinita timber from alluvial forests provides the raw-material basefor an important micro-industry, supplying large cities with a versatile sawnwood.
Successful management of the improved system by local farmers appears to depend
on four main factors: (1) the farmers need to own or possess enough land of
adequate quality to allow for fallow rotations of 6–7 years; (2) there needs to beadequate seed-rain at the end of the dry season; (3) farmers need to be able tooptimize tree-crop density; and (4) farmers need to have the necessary capital,
labour and technological knowledge to execute the tending and harvesting
operations.
Source: Ugarte (2004)

Farmers use various approaches to create an improved or enriched fallow system. Most
commonly they scatter seeds or plant seedlings after harvesting the crops from the site.
Box 10.4 lists the characteristics of species most suitable for use in improved fallow
systems and provides some examples.
Farmers can also maintain or favour desirable trees and shrubs that have establishednaturally in the field by taking care not to damage them while cultivating, planting,weeding and harvesting the crop (see Box 10.2). Another option is to seed the species
during the agricultural cycle. Here the cultivated crop provides sufficient shade for theseeds to germinate and the emerging seedlings benefit from the relatively high lightlevels in the agricultural fields, resulting in high growth rates. Once the area isabandoned and secondary succession begins, these seedlings have a size advantage over
the recently established and fast-growing pioneers. The larger the size advantage, themore likely it is that these individuals will be the dominant ones in the regrowing
vegetation (Peña-Claros 2001).
Remnant trees in fields may facilitate regeneration in fallows by attracting seeddispersers and creating favourable sites for plant establishment. This will speed up theforest restoration process.

96Site-level strategies for managing secondary forests

Box 10.4 Species for improved fallows
Characteristics of species used for improved fallows include:•

nitrogen-fixing and/or produce large amounts of organic matter;•

hardy: tolerant of drought and neglect;•easy to establish;•

removable or short-lived;•

will not resprout continually if cut down – not weedy;•

will not spread to neighbouring crop areas;•

deep-rooted; and•able to produce useful or marketable by-products such as firewood, poles or
edible seeds.

Examples of species used include:•

Inga edulis (Inga, or icecream bean);•Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea);•

Crotalaria spp (sunn hemp);•

Sesbania sesban (sesban);•

Samanea saman (monkeypod);•

Gliricidia sepium (madre de cacao, rata maton);•

Erythrina spp (E. poeppigiana, E. fusca); and•Senna siamea (pheasantwood).

Source: Wilkinson and Elevitch (n.d.)Management for forest products and services
The potential of secondary forests to produce income-earning goods and services will
depend on factors such as:•

the biological potential of the resource;•

the existence of markets for the forest products or services; and•the socioeconomic situation and capacity of the landowner/user.

These factors will help determine the potential scope and scale of management strategies– for timber production, multiple-use and conservation.
Managing secondary forests for timber production is likely to be appropriate in only alimited set of situations. Site conditions (including substrate fertility and seedavailability) need to favour a high density of fast-growing, light-demanding tree species.
Markets need to exist for the kinds of timber products typical of secondary forests.
Alternatively, conditions need to exist that enable the regeneration of valuable timber
species (from the primary forest) in the secondary stands; these conditions may bepresent during the early stages of the frontier development process when contiguousareas of residual forest remain.

97

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Secondary forests may be managed as either monocyclic or polycyclic systems. Monocyclic(or uniform) systems involve harvesting all the marketable volume of timber in a single
felling operation, and the length of the cycle is more or less equal to the rotation age ofthe species under exploitation. Polycyclic (or selective) systems, on the other hand,
involve the repeated harvesting of commercial trees in a continual series of felling cycles.
The length of these felling cycles is usually about half the time required for a particularspecies to reach marketable size. An additional difference between these two systems isthat polycyclic systems rely on the existing stock of seedlings, saplings and poles in theforest to produce the harvestable crop for the next felling cycle, whereas monocyclic
systems ignore the accumulated growth of these smaller size classes and rely almost
entirely on newly recruited seedlings to produce the next crop of trees (Peters 1996).
When secondary forest stands are dominated by commercially valuable pioneer species,
the maintenance of the approximately even-aged condition of the forest throughmonocyclic silviculture is desirable. This strategy is recommended for pioneer or lightdemanding species that require almost complete canopy removal for seed germination orsustainable seedling growth and survival; it is not recommended on degraded or very
infertile soils due to its high demands in terms of nutrient exportation. In contrast topolycyclic systems, monocyclic systems create large canopy openings, which may
support the invasion of weed species that could impede the growth of commercial tree
species and increase management costs. In addition, large canopy removal leaves
fragmented secondary forests even more susceptible to fire, so good fire protection
techniques need to be applied. Examples of secondary forests managed under monocyclic
systems are teak (Tectona grandis) forests in Myanmar and okoume (Aucoumea klaineana)stands grown mainly in Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and the coastal areas of Cameroon andCongo.
Secondary forests are often suited to multiple-use management, for which a polycyclic
system is usually more appropriate. The application of a polycyclic system depends on
the presence of desirable, relatively shade-tolerant trees in the lower levels.
Common management interventions based on natural regeneration in polycyclic systems
aim to:•stimulate the advance growth of desirable species;•

induce the establishment of natural regeneration of desirable species; and/or•

stimulate the development of resprouts in species with high resprouting capacity.

The decision to work only with natural advance growth depends on the quantity anddistribution of individuals of the desirable species; a high initial stocking rate is required.
Inducing regeneration from desired species is another option; this depends on theavailability of seed sources, which in turn depends on the existence of seed vectors or
dispersers (such as animals, wind or gravity), the distances involved, the land
management practices in surrounding areas, and the phenological characteristics of thespecies of interest.
The management of resprouts is a common practice in deciduous or dry zones, wheremore species with high resprouting capacity are found. The method can be applied as
simple coppice management or as tree production from seed. In the first case, the forest
products (poles and/or firewood) come from thinning and/or the main harvest in
relatively short cycles, whereas in the second case timber production occurs in longer
cycles.
When the regeneration of desirable species is concentrated in certain sites and is poor or
nonexistent in others, one option is to undertake enrichment planting systematically inlines or groups or more selectively in gaps or patches with favourable site conditions.

98

Site-level strategies for managing secondary forests

Planting material can come from the same forest in the form of wildlings, or from anursery. More information on the application of this technique is included in chapters 9
and 11.
Other silvicultural practices include the removal of litter by soil scarification andcontrolled burning, which may enhance germination and seedling survival of sometimber species in the understorey of secondary forests.
For non-timber forest resources, the focus of treatment is primarily on the seedling andsapling stages. Basic silvicultural operations include selective weeding, liberation
thinning and enrichment planting.

References and further reading
Chokkalingam, U. & de Jong, W. 2001. ‘Secondary forest: a working definition and typology’.
International Forestry Review 3 (1): 19-26.
Chokkalingam, U., Smith, J., de Jong, W. & Sabogal, C. (eds) 2001. ‘Secondary forests in Asia:
their diversity, importance, and role in future environmental management’. Journal of Tropical
Forest Science 13 (4): 563-839.
Dubois, J. 1990. ‘Secondary forests as a land-use resource in frontier zones of Amazonia’. In:
Anderson, A. (ed) Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps towards Sustainable Use of the Amazon
Rain Forest. Columbia University Press, New York, USA.
Emrich, A., Pokorny, B. & Sepp, C. 2000. The Significance of Secondary Forest Management forDevelopment Policy. TOB Series No. FTWF-18e. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
Finegan B. 1992. ‘The management potential of neotropical secondary lowland rain forest’. Forest
Ecology and Management 47: 295-321.
Fuhr, M. & Delegue, M-A. 1998. ‘Silviculture of productive secondary forests in Gabon (Central
Africa)’. In: Sist, P., Sabogal, C. & Byron, Y. (eds) Management of Secondary and Logged-Over
Forests in Indonesia. Selected Proceedings of an International Workshop. 17-19 November
1997. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Guariguata M. & Finegan, B. (eds) 1998. Ecology and Management of Tropical Secondary Forest:
Science, People, and Policy. Proceedings of a conference held at CATIE, Costa Rica, 10–12
November 1997. Serie Técnica Reuniones Técnicas No 4. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica.
ITTO 2002. ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded andSecondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No 13. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Kammesheidt, L. 2002. ‘Perspectives on secondary forest management in tropical humid lowland
America’. Ambio 31(3):243-50.
Klock, J. 1995. ‘Indigenous woodlot management and ethnobotany in Ifugao, Philippines’.
International Tree Crops Journal 8 (2-3): 95-106.
Peña-Claros, M. 2001. Secondary Forest Succession: Processes affecting the Regeneration of
Bolivian Tree Species. PROMAB Scientific Series 3. PROMAB, Riberalta, Bolivia.
Peters, C. 1996. The Ecology and Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources. World Bank
Technical Paper Number 322. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Ríos, M., Martins-da-Silva, R., Sabogal, C. Martins, J., da Silva, R., de Brito, R., de Brito, I. Costade Brito, M., da Silva, J. & Ribeiro, R. 2001. Benefícios das Plantas da Capoeira para a
Comunidade de Benjamín Constant, Pará, Amazônia Brasileira. CIFOR, Belém, Brazil.

99

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Sips P. 1993. ‘Polycyclic multi-purpose management of tropical secondary rainforests’. In: Parrotta,
J. & Kanashiro, M. (eds) Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded Lands and Secondary
Forests in Amazonia. Proceedings of an International Symposium/Workshop. Santarem, Para,
Brazil. 18–22 April 1993.
Smith, J., Sabogal, C., de Jong, W. & Kaimowitz, D. 1997. Bosques Secundarios como Recursopara el Desarrollo Rural y la Conservación Ambiental en los Trópicos de América Latina.
CIFOR Occasional Paper No 13. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Smith, J., Finegan, B., Sabogal, C., Ferreira, M., Siles, G., van de Kop, P & Díaz, A. 2001.
‘Management of secondary forests in colonist swidden agriculture in Peru, Brazil andNicaragua’. In: M. Palo, Uusivuori, J. & Mery, G. (eds) World Forests, Markets and Policies.
World Forests Volume III. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Ugarte, J. 2004. ‘Improved natural regeneration based-fallows in lower floodplains of the river
Aguaytia, Peruvian Amazon’. In: Book of Abstracts. World Congress of Agroforestry – Working
Together for Sustainable Land Use Systems, 27 June–2 July 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA.
van der Linden, B. & Sips, P. 1998. Tropical Secondary Forests in Africa and Asia. An Exploratory
Compilation of the Literature. Werkdocument IKC Natuurbeheer nr W-160. IKC Natuurbeheer,
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Whitmore, T. 1998. ‘A pantropical perspective on the ecology that underpins management of
tropical secondary rain forests’. In: Guariguata, M. & Finegan, B. (eds) Ecology andManagement of Tropical Secondary Forest: Science, People, and Policy. Proceedings of aconference held at CATIE, Costa Rica, 10–12 November 1997. Serie Técnica Reuniones
Técnicas No 4. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Wilkinson K. & Elevitch, C. n.d. ‘Improved fallows’. The Overstory No 42. Available from:http://agroforestry.net/ overstory/overstory42.html.

100Chapter 11
SITE-LEVEL REHABILITATIONSTRATEGIES FOR DEGRADEDFOREST LANDS

11

Cesar Sabogal
Degraded forest land is defined by ITTO (2002) as: former forest land severely damaged by theexcessive harvesting of wood and/or non-wood forest products, poor management, repeated fire,grazing or other disturbances or land-uses that damage soil and vegetation to a degree that
inhibits or severely delays the re-establishment of forest after abandonment.
Degraded forest lands are characterized by:•a lack of forest vegetation (though single or small groups of pioneer trees and/or
shrubs may be present);•

low soil fertility;•

poor soil structure (including soil compaction, waterlogging, salinization or otherphysical and chemical limitations);•

soil erosion;•recurrent fire and increased susceptibility to fire;•severe competition, especially from grasses and ferns; and•a lack of suitable micro-habitants for seed germination or establishment.

The persistent physical, chemical and biological limitations found in degraded forest
lands create barriers to natural forest regeneration; an accurate assessment of thesefactors is key in determining which rehabilitation interventions will be necessary, basedon the objectives of the intervention, the landscape context and the available resources.
This chapter focuses primarily on open or denuded forest lands which have been
invaded by weeds, and also covers degraded areas affected by soil and water erosion.
The prioritization of degraded forest lands for rehabilitation should take into account thelocation and condition of these lands, the interests of the stakeholders concerned, and theavailability of resources for the restoration work. Priority areas comprise degraded areasthat are affecting local people’s livelihoods, are important for biodiversity, and/or are
causing environmental problems such as a decline in ecological functions. Thus,
degraded areas on farmlands, areas of special ecological value, or areas that have been
subjected to intensive extractive uses (such as mining) would all constitute priority areas
for restoration.
This chapter describes four strategies for the rehabilitation of degraded forest lands:•

protective measures;•

measures to accelerate natural recovery;101Restoring Forest Landscapes•

measures to assist natural regeneration; and•tree-planting.

In addition, the application of agroforestry may be considered a fifth strategy for theseareas. This strategy is dealt with in Chapter 12.

Protective measures
A strategy of protective measures usually consists of fire protection and/or erosion
control as a means of reverting past degradation and re-establishing the ecological
functioning of a forest landscape. In some cases it may be necessary to undertake
preliminary repair work prior to the application of silvicultural methods in order toimprove soil conditions and/or improve the hydrological functions of the rehabilitation
site.

Fire protection
Fire protection is the most important technical challenge in many rehabilitation efforts.23
A good fire-protection program begins with an assessment of the climate, areas of highvalue, areas of high fire risk, and priorities for fire protection. It usually includes threecomponents:•

fire prevention to reduce fire risk;•

pre-suppression work to reduce the fuel hazard; and•suppression of fires once they start.

Fire prevention will require the motivation and involvement of local people. It is importantto understand the reasons why people set fires; this can best be done through dialogue
with communities on these reasons and how to address them. For example, communities
can be encouraged to establish fuelbreaks around settlements and to develop rules andenforcement systems to prevent farmers’ fires from leading to wildfires. In addition,
forest restoration practitioners can discuss with community leaders traditional rules andcustoms about fire and ways in which they can be revived and enforced. The risk of fire
accidents and arson can be reduced by awareness-raising efforts and by holding people
accountable to the community for fire damage.
Fire pre-suppression aims to reduce fuel hazard by making a site difficult to burn (throughfuel-reduction techniques) or by limiting the spread of any fires that do start (through theuse of fuelbreaks). Fuel-reduction techniques include:•intercropping: clearing grass between the newly planted trees and replacing it withother crops that do not burn easily; this area must be intercropped and weeded
throughout the year to prevent grass from growing;•

slashing: cutting and removing grasses or bush vegetation. Even if the cut grass is notremoved it will still be less flammable than standing grass; and•pressing: pressing the grass low to the ground by trampling or rolling a heavy weightover it. This will make any fires slower-burning with lower flames.

Fuelbreaks are strips of land in which flammable material, particularly grass, has been
removed or reduced. Existing man-made firebreaks (such as roads and trails) and natural
firebreaks (such as streams, rocky outcrops and gullies) should be used wherever23

The description of fire protection measures here is adapted from Friday et al. (1999). General
guidelines on fire prevention and control can be found in ITTO (1997)102

Site-level rehabilitation strategies for degraded forest lands

possible (and widened, if necessary), and food and/or wood production should beincorporated into the fuelbreaks. The most obvious place for a fuelbreak is around theborders of high-value areas to protect them from adjacent grasslands. Fuelbreaks should
also be placed near the edges of areas (such as grazing grounds) in which fire is used as amanagement tool or which might otherwise be a source of wildfire. Fuelbreaks may also
be located along ridge-tops.
The establishment of live fuelbreaks entails the removal of dead plant material andflammable plants (such as Chromolaena, grasses and ferns) along the edge of existing
forests and shrublands, the control of grazing animals to prevent them causing damage
to nearby trees and crops, and the planting of trees at a close spacing (such as 1 x 1 m) toachieve rapid crown closure and the early suppression of grass. Species for thesegreenbreaks need to be easy to establish, able to quickly shade or outcompete invaders(such as Imperata grass), and able to survive or resprout if burned. In addition, theyshould not drop flammable leaves but should retain succulent green foliage throughout
the year. Species that have been used as live fuelbreaks in timber plantations include:
Acacia auriculiformis, A. mangium, Calliandra calothyrsus, Gmelina arborea, Leucaena
leucocephala, Syzigyum cumini and Vitex pubescens.
Fire suppression or firefighting is dangerous and difficult, even with good training andequipment. A trained community fire brigade should only attempt fire suppression on
small, controllable fires, based on standard fire-fighting procedures. In restoration
initiatives the emphasis of fire protection measures should be on fire prevention and presuppression.

Erosion control
Erosion control can be achieved economically and effectively through vegetative
measures on all but the very steepest slopes (where only solid structures will be able toprovide the desired protection and stability). Box 11.1 lists the required characteristics ofplants to be used for erosion control. Since a single species rarely possesses all thesecharacteristics it is usually necessary to plant a mixture of trees, shrubs and grasses withcomplementary characteristics.

Box 11.1 Requirements for plants to be used for erosion control•

Ability to grow on degraded and eroded sites•

Rapid development for quick protection•

Deep and widespread root system for good anchorage in the subsoil•

Dense and wide-spreading crown to quickly form a close canopy•

Ease of establishment, preferably by cuttings, stumps or bare-root seedlings•

High production of litter or nitrogen-fixing, to improve soil conditions•

Ability to withstand physical stresses, such as drought, falling stones andlandslides•

Ability to survive when temporarily submerged or in a strong current (importantfor species to be used in streambank rehabilitation)•

Able to provide some economic returns from timber, fuelwood, edible fruits orother useful products
Source: Weidelt (1995)

103

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Planting and sowing is the most commonly used method for slope stabilization. Planting
is done in groups and clusters and spacing must be closer than in conventional
plantations (on more stable soils and on land with lower gradients). Often a lessdemanding but site-improving nurse tree is planted first, and then more valuable, butalso more demanding species are introduced by under- or interplanting, when the site
conditions have improved. In some arid areas, seedlings are planted along contour lines
to intercept surface run-off, promote the infiltration of scarce rainwater, and control soil
erosion. Farmers must be encouraged to lay down contour lines fairly accurately. A good
description of practical methods is found in Friday et al. (1999).
Another option for controlling soil erosion is to leave unploughed strips of land along thecontour that are 0.5–1.0 m wide. These natural vegetative strips re-vegetate rapidly withnative grasses and weeds, forming stable hedgerows with natural, front-facing terraces.
Check-dams, soil traps or diversion canals may be needed to control water coming fromthe upslope plot.
Trees can also be planted on terrace edges in order to stabilize the structure and makemaximum use of the land. Fruit trees, which need good moisture conditions, can beplanted just below the edge of the terrace, where they can benefit from the increased
moisture.
Strips of trees along riparian corridors and planted as windbreaks are also important for
erosion control. They can serve as corridors for animal movement and seed dispersal, as
well as increasing seedling establishment.

Accelerating natural recovery
Passive rehabilitation through the natural recovery of degraded areas is a viable strategy,
but the nature and extent of recovery will be dependent on the ecology and disturbancehistory of the area and the current condition of the landscape. The character of thebiophysical barriers to recolonization will determine the type of rehabilitation measuresthat can be used. Islands of natural vegetation, however small, are extremely importantas sources of seeds, propagules and colonizers. Where such remnants are absent or wherea quicker recovery is needed, auxiliary vegetation will have to be introduced by planting
or seeding. The four main approaches used in this strategy are outlined below.

Use of remnant trees
Many agricultural areas retain considerable tree cover, whether as individual isolated
trees, live fences, windbreaks or clusters of trees. Some of these trees are relicts of theoriginal forest that were left standing when the area was cleared; others have regenerated
naturally or been planted by farmers. Isolated or remnant trees are typically retained in
pastures and agricultural areas because of their value as sources of timber, fenceposts,
firewood and fruits, as shade and forage for cattle, as sources of organic matter for
improving soil fertility, or because their cutting is prohibited by law.

Direct seeding
This approach bypasses the problem of low seed-dispersal rates by introducing the seed
directly to the soil by sowing by hand or from tractors or even aircraft. Species mostsuitable for direct seeding on degraded forest lands have the following characteristics:
they produce plenty of seeds, they grow fast in the early stages, they have large seeds
with plenty of reserves, they produce a long tap root at an early age, and their seeds havea high germinative capacity. Examples of these kinds of species include Tectona grandis,

104

Site-level rehabilitation strategies for degraded forest lands

Cassia siamea, Leucaena leucocephala, Anacardium occidentale, Albizzia procera and Dipteryx
spp.
In general, direct seeding gives acceptable results only when the soil is worked (ie tilled
or scarified) to facilitate root penetration. It is also important that the seeds are covered
with a soil layer 1–2 times the thickness of the seed and, if possible, with a light mulch. To
ensure establishment during the rainy season, direct seeding must be carried out at thevery beginning of the rains so that the seedlings are already strong enough to survive theheavy rain later in the season. Since success depends on so many unforeseen factors,
small-scale experiments should be conducted first before embarking on a larger
operation. Weeding is even more essential under this approach than with any other treeplanting method, since the seeds will face competition immediately on germination.

Scattered tree-planting
This approach aims to accelerate succession by increasing the structural complexity that
attracts seed- or fruit-dispersing fauna into the degraded landscape from nearby intact
forest. One method involves planting small numbers of scattered, single trees or clumps
or rows of trees, which form perches for birds. Seedlings are produced from seed-shed
below remnant perch trees and eventually the clusters of seedlings grow up to form bird
perches themselves. The clumps of trees enlarge and the process continues.
A variant of the scattered tree-planting approach is to use more closely spaced plantingsof a small number of species, known as ‘framework species’, which provide resources
such as nectar, fruit or perching sites to attract seed-dispersing birds and bats.
Framework species need to be fast-growing, with a dense canopy to shade out weeds,
and seeds that are easily collected and able to germinate in nurseries. Important groupsof framework species include fig trees (Ficus spp, Moraceae), legumes (Leguminosae) andoaks and chestnuts (Fagaceae). This method is especially suited to areas close to intact
forest that can act as a source of seeds and wildlife. Some maintenance is needed in theearly years to ensure that weeds do not dominate the succession.

Patches of dense plantings of many species
The intensive planting of a large number of tree and understorey species is probably thebest approach where degraded areas need to be ecologically restored. This would apply
to degraded areas surrounding national parks or other protected areas, or those that canbe developed as corridors between forest fragments or reserves. The species selected
might include fast-growing species able to exclude weeds, poorly dispersed species,
species forming mutually dependent relationships with wildlife and, possibly, rare or
endangered species that might be present only in small numbers or in small areas. The
species used should come mostly from late successional stages rather than early pioneer
species. On the other hand, some short-lived species able to create canopy gaps andregeneration opportunities can be useful. A range of life forms should be included (egtrees, shrubs, herbs, etc).
This approach has the advantage of quickly establishing a large number of species.
However, its application can be very expensive due to the need to collect the seeds of andnursery-raise a large number of species, and it does require some knowledge of how to
introduce species according to a successional sequence.

Assisting natural regeneration
Assisted natural regeneration (ANR) aims to liberate tree species from competitors,
encourage their growth and therefore facilitate their domination over the site. ANR uses

105

Restoring Forest Landscapes

the natural regeneration of forest trees (from wildlings and sprouts), assisting it byprotecting it from fire, controlling weeds and attracting seed-dispersing wildlife. ANR
may also include the planting of additional trees (enrichment planting). On appropriate
sites, forest cover can be re-established more quickly and cheaply with ANR than withconventional reforestation.
ANR has four major component activities:24
1. locating and releasing natural regeneration: all broadleaf natural regeneration,
including those hidden amidst the grasses, are clearly located and released by eitherpressing down (lodging) the grasses, spot brushing or complete brushing;
2. maintenance operations: silvicultural treatments such as ring weeding, soil loosening
and fertilization should be done as often as necessary until the trees emerge above thegrasses;
3. enrichment planting: in cases where there are wide gaps between the naturally
growing seedlings, the enrichment planting of nursery-grown seedlings (or direct
seeding) can be undertaken; and4. protection: the area should be protected from grass fire by establishing firelines orfirebreaks and from other destructive agents (eg livestock-grazing).

Tree plantations
Tree plantation or reforestation is usually the preferred silvicultural strategy forrehabilitating degraded forest lands. Forest plantations need to be carefully planned,
starting with a survey to help identify suitable sites for planting, appropriate soil
conservation practices and site preparation methods, sources of seeds and other plant
propagules, suitable areas for nurseries, and other important aspects of plantation design,
establishment and management.
In many plantation forests, especially those near intact forests and in areas where seeddispersing wildlife are present, an understorey of native tree and shrub species willdevelop over time. A large number of species may colonize, leading to a substantialchange in the appearance and structure of the plantation. Fostering and managing theseunderstoreys can increase the ecological and social value of the plantations.
The basic principles and technical aspects of plantation establishment and management
are well documented in silvicultural textbooks and manuals (see for example Evans 1992
and Lamprecht 1990).

Single-species plantations (monocultures)
Establishing monocultures is usually the main option when the primary objective of
rehabilitation is to regain structure, biomass or site productivity for timber production.
Here, trees of a commercially valuable timber species are planted at a high density, andexotic species are usually preferred over native or indigenous species, mainly fortechnical or practical reasons (such as seed availability). However, the particular species
selected is usually dictated by ecological considerations (such as site-matching) or social
concerns (including the generation of locally valued produce). Monocultures of fastgrowing exotic species (such as many pines, acacias and eucalypts) may be useful atseverely degraded sites, particularly when these are the only species able to tolerate
existing site conditions. On the other hand, timber plantations with native species may

24

See Dalmacio (1991)

106

Site-level rehabilitation strategies for degraded forest lands

serve best for recovering biodiversity and as a long-term investment (for high-quality
timber).
Monocultures are limited in their contribution to restoring biodiversity, but they canenable indigenous species to be retained in the region and may benefit wildlife that is
adapted to or dependent on them. There are various ways by which the ecologicalbenefits of monocultures can be enhanced, including by leaving buffer strips of naturalvegetation along streams or rivers or between compartments of the plantation to act as
wildlife corridors or protect key watershed areas, and by establishing a mosaic ofmonocultures (including some native species) to improve landscape diversity.

Multi-species plantations (polycultures)
In some situations there may be advantages in establishing mixtures of species rather
than monocultures, as outlined in Box 11.2. The main problem with mixed plantations isthat they are much more complicated to establish and manage.

Box 11.2 Mixed plantations vs monoculture plantations
Polyculture plantations offer the following advantages over monocultures:•

they offer enhanced production because they make better use of a site’s above- andbelow-ground resources;•

they are less susceptible to pests or diseases because of microclimate changes or
because the target trees are hidden in space;•

they can combine fast-growing species (for quick financial returns) and slowergrowing species;•

they can act as an insurance policy when it is difficult to predict the future market
value of a particular species;•

they can better respond to local needs (eg for food, fuelwood and fodder); and•they can contribute to landscape biodiversity.

Source: adapted from Lamb (2003)

Mixed-species plantations may take the form of temporary mixtures, where one species isused for a short period as some form of nurse or cover crop, or they may be permanently
mixed for the life of the plantation. Care needs to be taken to identify and matchcomplementary species to ensure that the theoretical advantages of mixtures are achievedin practice. The harvesting of fast-growing species has to be considered before theestablishment of a plantation and the design of the planting pattern should provide
enough space for felling and skidding these trees without damaging remaining trees.

References and further reading
Banerjee, A. 1995. Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests in Asia. World Bank Technical Paper No
270. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Briscoe, C. 1990. Field Trials Manual for Multipurpose Tree Species. Multipurpose Tree Species
Network Research Series, Manual No 3. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural
Development, Arlington, USA. [also available in Spanish]107Restoring Forest Landscapes

Dalmacio, R. 1991. ‘Assisted natural regeneration and accelerated pioneer-climax series strategies:
emerging ecological approaches to forestation’. In: Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry
and Natural Resources Research and Development – National Program Coordinating Office
Improved Reforestation Technologies in the Philippines. Book Series No 121/1991.
Dubois, J., Viana, V. & Anderson, A. 1996. Manual Agroflorestal para a Amazônia. Volume 1.
REBRAF – Fundação Ford. Río de Janeiro, Brasil.
Evans, J. 1992. Plantation Forestry in the Tropics. Tree Planting for Industrial, Social,
Environmental, and Agroforestry Purposes. 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Friday, K., Drilling, M. & Garrity, D. 1999. Imperata Grassland Rehabilitation Using Agroforestry andAssisted Natural Regeneration. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Southeast
Asian Regional Research Program, Bogor, Indonesia.
ITTO 1993. ITTO Guidelines for the Establishment and Sustainable Management of Planted
Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development No 4. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO 1997. ITTO Guidelines for Fire Management in Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development
Series No 6. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
ITTO 2002. ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded andSecondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No 13. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Kobayashi, S., Turnbull, J., Toma, T., Mori, T. & Majid, N. (eds) 2001. Rehabilitation of Degraded
Forest Ecosystems. Workshop Proceedings, 2–4 November 1999. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Lamb, D. 2000. ‘Some ecological principles for re-assembling forest ecosystems at degradedtropical sites’. In: Elliott S., Kerby, J., Blakesley, D., Hardwick, K., Woods, K. &Anusarnsunthorn, V. (eds) Forest Restoration for Wildlife Conservation. ITTO – The Forest
Restoration Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand.
Lamb, D. 2003. ‘Is it possible to reforest degraded tropical lands to achieve economic and also
biodiversity benefits?’ In: FAO, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok, Thailand),
Bringing Back the Forests. Policies and Practices for Degraded Lands and Forests.
Proceedings of an International Conference, 7–10 October 2002, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Lamprecht, H. 1989. Silviculture in the Tropics. Tropical Forest Ecosystems and Their Tree Species– Possibilities and Methods for Their Long-Term Utilization. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.
Miyawaki, A. 1993. ‘Restoration of native forests from Japan to Malaysia’. In: Lieth, H. & Lohmann,M. (eds) Restoration of Tropical Forest Ecosystems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, theNetherlands.
Montagnini, F., González, E. & Porras, C. 1995. ‘Mixed and pure forest plantations in the humid
neotropics: a comparison of early growth, pest damage and establishment costs’.
Commonwealth Forestry Review 74 (4): 306–321.
Wadsworth, F. 1997. ‘Forest production for Tropical America’. In: USDA Forest Service (1997)
Agriculture Handbook 710. USDA, Washington, DC, USA.
Weidelt, H. (compiler) 1976. Manual of Reforestation and Erosion Control for the Philippines. GTZ,
Eschborn, Germany.

108

Chapter 12
SITE-LEVEL STRATEGIES FORRESTORING FOREST FUNCTIONSON AGRICULTURAL LAND

12

Sandeep Sengupta, Stewart Maginnis and William JacksonThis chapter looks at how agroforestry and other on-farm tree configurations can provide
farmers and foresters with a practical means of operationalizing FLR within agriculturallandscapes in ways that benefit both human well-being and ecological integrity (ie fulfil
the ‘double-filter’ criterion of FLR). The chapter starts by exploring the importance ofpractising FLR in agricultural landscapes and then goes on to provide practical guidanceon the main types of agroforestry interventions and key factors for the successful uptakeof agroforestry at the landscape level.

Background
The practice of combining on-farm trees with crops and livestock is not a new one; it has
been around for several hundreds, even thousands, of years. The more formal science of‘agroforestry’, however, emerged only in the 1970s in response to some of the problemsof soil fertility, land degradation and deforestation brought about by the advent ofmodern, intensive and large-scale monoculture farming in the tropics, and by thegrowing interest among researchers and farmers on how tree fallows could be used to
improve crop yields.
Agroforestry, as currently defined by the World Agroforestry Centre, is:a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resources management system that,through the integration of trees on farms and in the agricultural landscape,diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic andenvironmental benefits for land users at all levels (ICRAF 2000).
More directly stated, it is a set of land-use practices involving the deliberate combinationof trees, agricultural crops and/or animals on the same land-management unit in someform of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence (Lundgren & Raintree 1982).
Agroforestry has gone through several stages in its development, with its scope widening
from providing direct demonstrable on-site productivity benefits to farmers to providing
important off-site public goods or ‘forest functions’ at the landscape level. These off-site
benefits can include improved watersheds, biodiversity conservation and carbon
sequestration, as illustrated through the examples of Sukhomajri and Scolel Té in Box 3.2.

Why FLR is important in predominantly agricultural landscapes
It is becoming increasingly clear that forest functions cannot be restored successfully at
the landscape level unless sufficient forest restoration efforts are made in the continually
expanding agricultural areas that lie outside the current network of forest protected areas
and forest production reserves. Agroforestry systems are therefore just as important to109

Restoring Forest Landscapes

FLR as the rehabilitation of degraded forest lands, management of secondary forests,
establishment of forest plantations, and the restoration of primary degraded forests.
It is worthwhile reiterating here that the purpose of FLR is not to return converted forest
landscapes (in this case agricultural land) to their original ‘pristine’ state. Agroforestry
and other on-farm configurations, including secondary forests in farm production
systems, may not be able (and should not be expected) to act as a substitute for naturalforests, but they can offer pragmatic compromises between intensive monoculture
farming and natural forest conservation that can yield rich dividends for farmers andforesters alike. While agroforestry may not prevent deforestation in tropical landscapes
per se, it can nevertheless play a significant role in providing ecological corridors,
stepping stones, forest-edge buffers and other habitats for various forest-dependent
species, thereby aiding biodiversity conservation within agricultural lands (Schroth et al.
2004). Agroforestry can also be a compromise option for rehabilitating those degraded ordeforested forest lands which de jure belong to government forest agencies but are under
the de facto control of poor farmers – and which are often the bone of contention between
the two groups (Puri & Nair 2004).
Agroforestry also offers important livelihood benefits. This is demonstrated by theincreasing use of diverse agroforestry practices by rural communities, smallholder
investors and individual farmers to gain reliable supplies of wood, non-wood forest
products, fuelwood, fodder and shelter and thereby support their agricultural production
systems and livelihoods. Such actors also use agroforestry as a coping mechanism to help
reduce their production-related risks, particularly in times of drought or crop failure(World Bank 2005).
Some examples of how agroforestry systems can enhance both human well-being andecosystem integrity – ie satisfy the double-filter requirements of FLR – are shown in Box
12.1.

Box 12.1 How agroforestry enhances ecological integrity andhuman well-being at a landscape scale•

Agroforestry systems in Indonesia currently harbour 50% of the plants, 60% of
the birds and 100% of the large animals that would normally be found in anatural forest.

•

Cocoa agroforestry in Cameroon conserves 62% of the carbon found in a naturalforest and contains a plant biomass of 304 tons/hectare (compared to 85
tons/hectare in crop fields).

•

In southern Africa, improved fallow agroforestry systems (including species suchas Sesbania sesban) add soil nutrients equivalent to approximately US$240 worthof chemical fertilizers per hectare. This is particularly important because
commercial fertilizers cost 2–6 times as much in Africa as in Europe and Asia andare rarely affordable to poor farmers.

•

In Burkina Faso, the planting of live fences (including Acacia nilotica, A. senegal
and Ziziphus mauritiana) has increased farm incomes by US$40 per year.

•

In Bangladesh it is estimated that 90% of wood used is produced on agricultural
land; in India, half of the country’s timber is estimated to come from private farmlands.

Sources: World Bank (2002); Adesina et al. (2001); Sanchez et al. (1999, as adapted from theAgriculture Investment Sourcebook – Module 5, World Bank 2005); Garrity (2004)110

Site-level strategies for restoring forest functions on agricultural land

Main types of agroforestry systems
Agroforestry systems and practices generally fall into two groups – those that aresequential (ie involving the successive rotation of agriculture and/or livestock
production and forestry practices in the form of fallows), and those that are simultaneous(ie involving combinations of these land-uses in some form of spatial arrangement on thesame unit of land at the same time; Leakey 1996).
Agroforestry systems can also be classified by three broad structural types, namely:•

agrisilviculture (tree-crop systems): this is a land-use system where both agricultural
crops and forest products are produced, simultaneously or sequentially;•silvopasture (tree-grass-livestock systems): here the land-use is a combination of forestry
and livestock management through fodder production and controlled grazing.
Silvopasture is a dominant land-use system in the arid zones which are generally
livestock-raising areas. The restoration of ngitilis in the Shinyanga region of Tanzania
described in Chapter 2 is a good example of community-led silvopasture; and•agrisilvopasture (tree-crop-livestock systems): here the land-use is a combination of all theabove – ie agriculture, forestry and livestock together on the same land unit, though
not always at the same time. Trees provide fodder for animals and nutrients for thecrops; crops provide food for the farmers, forage for the animals and organic matterfor the soil; and animals provide organic manure that improves soil fertility andenhances crop and tree growth.

In the tropics, agroforestry practices commonly take the form of improved fallows,
shifting cultivation, taungya, home gardens, parkland systems, alley cropping, growing
multipurpose trees and shrubs on farmland, boundary planting, farm woodlots,
agroforests, plantation/crop combinations, riparian buffers, shelterbelts, windbreaks,
conservation hedges, fodder banks, live fences and trees on pasture land (Nair 1993;
Sinclair 1999 cited in FAO 2005); some of these are described below.

Agroforestry practices for use in FLRThis section briefly describes some of the practical on-site agroforestry practices andoptions for implementing FLR in predominantly agricultural landscapes. More detailed
guidelines on how to apply these techniques in the field are available in various books
and field manuals, including An Introduction to Agroforestry by P.K.R. Nair (1993), whichis the definitive text on this subject, Understanding Agroforestry Techniques by Weber andStoney (1989), Manual of Agroforestry and Social Forestry by Sen et al. (2004), and online
resources such as the Winrock FACTNet and ICRAF’s Agroforestree databases.
Taungya: originally introduced around the mid-1800s, this classical agroforestry system
involves the planting of cash or food crops between newly planted forest seedlings on
degraded or barren forest lands. This has been preferred particularly when foresters have
tried to generate employment and income benefits for poor farmers who do not have anyother land for cultivation, in an effort to provide them with direct incentives for engaging
in secondary forest restoration activities. Under this system, the landless farmers raisecrops while the forest trees are still young. After two to three years, depending on thetree species and spacing, the canopy closes and light-demanding annual crops can nolonger be planted. The culminating vegetation is a tree plantation. The farmers then moveto other open forest areas to repeat the process across other sections of the degraded
forest landscape. This practice illustrates how agriculture can be practised to benefit thelandless poor while contributing to the landscape-level objectives of FLR.

111

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Agroforestry parklands/dispersed trees: the farm/park landscape that covers large partsof the Sahel is a good example of a traditional agroforestry arrangement where trees
dispersed in farm fields form an integral part of the cropping system. In semi-arid West
Africa, farmers have deliberately managed tree production on their farmland to fulfil
their specific needs. Parkland trees provide traditional medicines and basic foodcommodities – which are of nutritional value for a large number of rural poor – as well as
being a major source of wood and non-wood products (Boffa 2000). Different species arefound in these dispersed, park-like stands, depending on local site conditions. Some of
the best known are Acacia albida, Butyrospermum parkii, Parkia biglobosa, Vitellaria paradoxa
and Borassus aethiopum. In traditional systems these trees regenerate naturally, so they are
more or less homogeneously distributed across fields in random patterns. Where they
have been regenerated through human efforts they are usually planted in lines, normallyat 10 m x 10 m spacing (Weber & Stoney 1989). The important lesson here is that farmers
can and do shape their agricultural landscapes to retain and plant trees when there are
direct benefits for them, and in doing so the overall ecosystem functionality of thelandscape is improved.
Shifting cultivation/improved fallows: shifting cultivation is a traditional agroforestry
practice still common in some parts of the world. It involves cyclical agricultural
cultivation, whereby farmers cut some or all of the tree crop, burn it and raise
agricultural crops for one or more years before moving on to another site and repeating
the process. It is ecologically sound provided that the fallow period is long enough toallow the trees to restore soil fertility. To shorten the fallow, trees or shrubs (for example,
nitrogen-fixing leguminous species) can be proactively planted by local farmers as an
FLR intervention instead of allowing the forest to establish itself by natural regeneration.
For, example, improved fallows such as the cultivation of Acacia senegal in Sudan andother semi-arid areas of Africa have been shown to accelerate and enhance theregeneration of soil fertility and produce additional outputs that are of subsistence orcommercial value to local farmers (Arnold 1990).
Boundary planting/borderline trees: borderlines consist of trees, shrubs and grasses thatare established to delineate individual farm fields. While providing ecosystem benefits
for the wider landscape (eg as components of corridors and stepping stones), borderline
trees provide farmers with practical property markers and other useful wood and nontimber forest products. At the same time, since they do not occupy too much space or
shade large areas, they do not interfere with regular farming operations (Weber & Stoney1989).
Live fences: these typically consist of dense tree or shrub species planted around farm
fields to protect them from free-ranging livestock. They are also planted around family
compounds and other buildings. This technique differs from borderline plantations inthat shrubbier species are used, the shrubs or trees are tightly spaced (0.5–1 m) and they
are intensively pruned to maintain a compact, dense barrier. A number of species adapt
well for use as live fences. Members of the Euphorbia family are particularly good because
animals do not browse them. A number of Acacia and Prosopis species as well as Leucaena
leucocephala, Gliricidia sepium and Cajanus cajun are also useful for this purpose (ibid.).
Establishing live fences can be a constructive FLR intervention in livestock-rearing
farming communities, particularly when combined with stall-feeding; free-ranging goatsor cattle are then prevented not only from damaging agricultural crops but also fromentering surrounding natural forest lands, thus providing additional landscape-level
benefits.
Farm woodlots/farm forestry: this usually consists of commercial tree-growing on farmlands, including plantations and secondary forests. They are found in many forms,
including timber belts, alleys, block plantations and widespread tree-plantings, and areusually grown by farmers as cash crops to provide an alternative or supplementary112

Site-level strategies for restoring forest functions on agricultural landsource of income. Farm woodlots also provide substantial landscape-level environmental
benefits such as wind and salinity control.
Riparian forest buffers: trees, grasses and/or shrubs are planted alongside streams or
rivers, often with the aim of providing watershed protection and preventing soil run-off
and the pollution of waterways from excess nutrients and chemical pesticides (Beetz
2002). In this respect the buffers can help maintain key landscape-level forest functions
while providing important on-site benefits to farmers. For example, establishing forest
buffers in oil-palm plantations along the Kinabatangan river in Sabah, Malaysia (asshown in Box 2.1) helped prevent flooding of the plantations – thereby reducing financial
losses for the owners – and also provided habitats/corridors for local endangered
wildlife populations. Land around wetlands and alongside drainage canals in irrigation
schemes can also provide excellent growing conditions for trees.
Windbreaks or shelterbelts: these are typically linear plantings of trees and/or shrubs(usually several rows wide) established primarily to reduce wind speed, salt or sandintrusion or snow accumulation and to buffer against extreme temperatures. Integrated
with crop or livestock production systems, windbreaks serve to enhance agricultural
productivity, improve crop water use and protect livestock and homesteads – andprovide wider landscape-level ecosystem benefits such as carbon sequestration andhabitats for birds and wildlife. In the mountainous Monteverde region of Costa Rica, forexample, community planting of 150 hectares of windbreaks has resulted in higher coffee
and milk yields by reducing wind damage to pasturelands and livestock and providing
wild parakeets with an alternative food source to coffee. These windbreaks, consisting ofboth indigenous and exotic tree species, are also serving as important biological corridors
connecting the remnant forest patches in the area (McNeely & Scherr 2003).
Home gardens: also known as homestead or mixed gardens, these are usually locatedclose to households and are characterized by a mixture of annual or perennial species
including vegetables, fodder, grains, herbs and medicinal plants. They commonly exhibit
a multi-strata structure of trees, shrubs and ground flora that recreate some of thecharacteristics of natural forests (Arnold 1990), and can be a highly effective FLR measure
within agricultural and other managed landscapes in the tropics. Home gardens arewidely used across the tropics to supplement outputs from other parts of the farm andcan play a key role in diversifying household food sources and in reducing the overall
dependence and pressure on forests. They also play a valuable role in conserving
biodiversity: a recent study conducted by IUCN in Sri Lanka found that about 40% of thetotal inland native vertebrate species were present in traditional home gardens andricefield managed landscapes (Bambaradeniya 2003). Tree species commonly planted inhome gardens include: Artocarpus hetrophyllus (jackfruit), Anacardium occidentale (cashew),
Cocos nucifera (coconut), Azadirachta indica (neem), Hevea brasiliensis (rubber), Mangifera
indica (mango), Musa spp (banana) and Psidium guajava (guava).
Complex agroforests: these agroforests usually arise when farmers intercrop a food cropwith one or two tall, upper-canopy timber or fruit tree species. Once harvested, theagricultural crops are replaced with other timber and fruit trees with intermediate
canopies, and the next time around with low-canopy trees. The end result is one thatclosely resembles natural forests and often records high levels of biodiversity. Examplesof these include the damar (Shorea robusta) and durian (Durio zibethinus) agroforests of
Sumatra and some types of shade-grown coffee and cocoa in West Africa and Latin
America (Schroth et al. 2004). Complex agroforests illustrate how simplified agriculturallandscapes can be gradually, and incrementally, converted to more biodiversity-friendly
forms of agriculture while continuing to provide direct benefits for local farmers.
Alley cropping/hedgerows: this involves planting rows of trees and/or shrubs (either
single or multiple species) at a wide spacing to create alleyways where agricultural crops

113Restoring Forest Landscapes

can be planted. The purpose can be to enhance income diversity, reduce wind and watererosion, improve crop production and improve wildlife habitat or aesthetics. In mostalley-cropping systems, trees are planted in straight rows; however they can also be
planted along contours (contour hedgerows) to gain additional soil conservation benefits(Lal 1995). Leguminous trees, such as Calliandria calothrysus, Leucaena leucocephala, Mimosa
spp, Prosopis cineraria and Acacia spp, are often used in alley-cropping schemes because of
their nitrogen-fixing ability, while diverse crops such as corn, millet, cowpeas, yams, etc,
are grown in the alleys (Weber & Stoney 1989). Like all integrated systems, alley cropping
requires skilful management and careful planning – particularly in selecting the speciescombination, since trade-offs can arise between the crops and trees in terms ofcompetition, allelopathic effects, risk of invasives, etc (Beetz 2002). Prunings from thetrees/shrubs can also be used either as a mulch to increase soil productivity or as
fuelwood or fodder.

Key factors for the successful uptake of agroforestry
Despite the many proven benefits of agroforestry systems, their uptake outside thoseareas where they have been traditionally practised has been generally limited. This, inpart, can be explained by the fact that most modern agroforestry techniques haveemerged from within research institutions and, being knowledge-intensive, have beensuccessfully adopted mainly in those areas where considerable research support has
existed. Further, agroforestry has not yet been fully accommodated within mainstream
agricultural incentive or extension schemes, thereby limiting its large-scale uptake by
farmers. However, over recent years, there has been growing recognition of the need topromote agroforestry over a larger geographical area. Successfully implementing FLR inagricultural landscapes will thus depend significantly on making agroforestry anessential component of modern farming.
While there is no single recipe for scaling up, a recent study conducted by Franzel et al.
(2004) based on case studies of relatively large-scale agroforestry adoption in Asia andAfrica identified a number of factors that are needed to successfully scale up
agroforestry. Many of these have also been identified in the ITTO guidelines for the
restoration, management and rehabilitation of degraded and secondary forests (ITTO2002), illustrating the applicability of these guidelines to the restoration and managementof forest components within farm production systems as well. They include:•

providing a favourable policy environment and tenure security•

promoting farmer-centred research and extension•

offering farmers a range of technical options rather than a specific recommendation•

ensuring adequate supply and distribution of planting material•building local institutional capacity, including through farmer-to-farmer networks•

improved knowledge sharing and lesson learning•

linking farmers to markets and providing value-addition avenues

The widespread adoption of agroforestry is possible only if farmers benefit from it andsupport it, and when agroforestry practices are developed with farmers and not for them.
As has been correctly observed, unless farmers share substantially in the long-term
benefits of forest plantation efforts, the interaction between the ‘agro’ and ‘forestry’components will remain competitive rather than complementary and the aims of FLR inagricultural landscapes will remain unfulfilled (Puri & Nair 2004). All agroforestry
practices are legitimate and each should be followed where most appropriate. In fact, thevarious agroforestry practices described in this chapter are all closely related and can114Site-level strategies for restoring forest functions on agricultural landdevelop over time from one configuration to another as the trees and other plants mature,
and as the needs and intents of the individual farmers change. What is crucial for the
successful uptake of agroforestry, and consequently for the success of FLR in agriculturallandscapes, is that the process of decision-making, including what trade-offs to make,what planting configuration to adopt, or what species to plant, is not planned or imposedfrom outside in a top-down manner, but is instead allowed to be made by the individual
farmers or communities in a participatory manner, based on the best information
available and through a process of continuous learning and adaptive management.

References and further reading
Adesina, A., J. Gockowski, B. , Nkongmeneck, O. Ndoye, J. Sonwa, M. Tchatat, S. & Weise, F.
2001. The Role of Coca Agroforests in Community and Farm Forestry in Southern Cameroon.
Rural Development Forestry Network, ODI, London, UK.
Arnold, J. 1990. ‘Tree components in farming systems’. Unasylva No 160. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Bambaradeniya, C. 2003. ‘Traditional home garden and rice agro-ecosystems in Sri Lanka: an
integrated managed landscape that sustains a rich biodiversity’. In: Proceedings of theInternational Symposium on Perspectives of the Biodiversity Research in the Western Pacificand Asia in the 21st Century, 18–19 December 2003, Kyodaikaikan, Kyoto, Japan.
Beetz, A. 2002. Agroforestry Overview: Horticulture Systems Guide, ATTRA - National Sustainable
Agriculture Information Service, June 2002, Fayetteville, AR 72702. Available from:http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/agrofor.pdf.
Boffa, J. 2000. ‘West African agroforestry parklands: keys to conservation and sustainable
management’. Unasylva No 200.
FAO 2005. State of the World's Forests 2005. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Franzel, S., Denning, G., Lilleso, J. & Mercado Jr, A. 2004. ‘Scaling up the impact of agroforestry:
Lessons from three sites in Africa and Asia’. In: Nair, P., Rao, M & Buck, L. (eds) New Vistas inAgroforestry: A Compendium for the 1st World Congress of Agroforestry, 2004. Series:
Advances in Agroforestry, Vol 1. Springer, New York, USA.
Garrity, D. 2004. ‘Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals’.
Agroforestry Systems 61: 5-17.
ICRAF 2000. Paths to Prosperity through Agroforestry. ICRAF’s Corporate Strategy 2001–2010.
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi.
ITTO 2002. ITTO Guidelines for the Restoration, Management and Rehabilitation of Degraded andSecondary Tropical Forests. ITTO Policy Development Series No 13. ITTO, Yokohama, Japan.
Lal, R. 1995. Sustainable Management of Soil Resources in the Humid Tropics. United Nations
University Press, Tokyo-New York-Paris.
Leakey, R. 1996. ‘Definition of agroforestry revisited’. Agroforestry Today 8(1):5-7.
Lundgren, B. & Raintree, J. 1982. ‘Sustained agroforestry’. In: B. Nestel(ed) Agricultural Research
for Development: Potentials and Challenges in Asia, pp. 37–49. International Service for
National Agricultural Research, The Hague.
McNeely, J. & Scherr, S. 2003. Ecoagriculture: Strategies to Feed the World andSave Wild Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Nair, P. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, theNetherlands.

115

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Nair, P., Rao, M. & Buck, L. (eds) 2004. New Vistas in Agroforestry: A Compendium for the 1stWorld Congress of Agroforestry, 2004. Series: Advances in Agroforestry, Vol 1. Springer, New
York, USA.
Puri, S. & Nair, P. 2004. ‘Agroforestry research for development in India: 25 years of experiences ofa national program’. In: Nair, P., Rao, M. & Buck, L. (eds) New Vistas in Agroforestry: A
Compendium for the 1st World Congress of Agroforestry, 2004. Series: Advances inAgroforestry, Vol 1. Springer, New York, USA.
Sanchez, P., Izac, A-M. & Scott, B. 1999. ‘Delivering on the promise of agroforestry’. CGIAR
Newsletter, September 1999. CGIAR, Washington, DC, USA.
Schroth, G., da Fonseca, G., Harvey, C., Gaston, C., Vasconcelos, H. & Izac, A-M. 2004.
Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes. Island Press, Washington,
DC, USA.
Sen, N., Dadheech, R., Dashora L. & Rawat, T. 2004. Manual of Aagroforestry and Social Forestry.
Agrotech Publishing Academy, Udaipur, India.
Sinclair, F. 1999. ‘A general classification of agroforestry practice’. Agroforestry Systems 46: 161–
180.
Weber, F. & Stoney, C. 1989. Understanding Agroforestry Techniques. Technical Paper No 57.
Volunteers in Technical Assistance, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
World Bank 2002. ‘Integrating forests in economic development’. In: A Revised Forest Strategy for
the World Bank Group. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
World Bank 2005. ‘Agriculture investment note on agroforestry systems’. In: Sustainable Natural
Resource Management for Agriculture. Agriculture Investment Sourcebook: Module 5. World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: http://www-esd.worldbank.org/ais/index.cfm?
Page=mdisp&m=05&p=3.

116

Chapter 13
SCENARIO MODELLING TO
OPTIMIZE OUTCOMES

13

David Lamb
This chapter looks at some of the key choices to be made when designing an FLR
program and the trade-offs that may be involved in making these choices. It also
describes the use of scenario modelling as a tool for making explicit these choices andexploring the different restoration options with stakeholders. Understanding the major
trade-offs involved and the kinds of compromises that will need to be sought is crucial to
the success of the planned restoration work, considering the different and sometimes
conflicting objectives of the many stakeholders involved.

Trade-offs and choices in FLR
Some of the most common issues that will need to be resolved through striking
compromises include:
Agricultural area vs forest cover: farmers usually prefer to use the best soils available forfood production and to maximize their cash incomes. This can result in forests being
cleared even where they are providing critical environmental services to otherstakeholders. It may also prevent the restoration of land that is more suited to forestry
than agriculture. The trade-off here is between local agricultural production and theregional benefits such as watershed protection and biodiversity conservation that forest
cover can best provide. Box 13.1 describes how this trade-off was resolved in a case in
Nepal.

Box 13.1 Resolving the agriculture-forest cover trade-off?
One example of how the agriculture-forest cover dilemma was resolved comes fromthe Nepal community forestry experience, where farmers had been using degradedcommon land for open grazing even though this was the only land available forrestoration to provide forests for fuelwood. The compromise that eventually
emerged involved farmers altering their livestock management practices from openrange grazing to hand feeding. This drastically reduced the numbers of large
animals kept but made common lands available for restoration. One consequence
was that fodder needed to be cultivated for the animals. The farmers insisted thatsome areas of common land be kept free of trees so they could exercise their oxen to
keep them fit for ploughing.
Development or production vs. conservation: it is a common view that conservation canbe addressed by designating some land as a wildlife reserve, thereby leaving theremainder of the landscape to be managed intensively to maximize production. Thisview fails to recognize that sustained production in both agricultural and forestry
systems depends on the maintenance of key landscape-level ecological processes (such as
nutrient cycling or the hydrological cycle) and that these processes, in turn, depend on

117Restoring Forest Landscapes

the maintenance of some degree of biological diversity across the landscape.25 The very
fact that a degraded landscape needs restoration demonstrates how crucial this balancecan be. The choices to be made here relate to where and how to reforest to re-establish (ormaintain) biological diversity and ecological functioning across the landscape.
Species preferences: some stakeholders may prefer to use certain tree species in
restoration (for example, for financial or conservation purposes), while site conditions
suggest it would be better to initially reforest with a different species (for example, amore tolerant, perhaps exotic, one). In this case the trade-off is between stakeholder
preference and the risk of failure (see the example in Box 5.1 in Chapter 5).
Restored forest types: numerous options are available to restore forests in a degradedlandscape (as outlined in chapters 9, 10 and 11) and each will generate a different mix ofgoods and services. A summary of the main options is provided in Table 13.1. Some
options, such as short-rotation pulpwood plantations, provide timber but, possibly, few
ecological services. Others, such as enriched secondary forest or multi-species
plantations, can provide timber and some ecological services but may be less attractive toinvestors because of the longer timeframe before commercial benefits are generated. The
trade-offs here are between the types of benefits provided, the stakeholders who stand tobenefit and the time-scale over which the benefits are realized.

Table 13.1 Simplified summary of goods and services supplied bydifferent restored forest types
Forest type

Natural forest

Goods

Moderate1

Ecological services
Watershedprotection

Biodiversity4

High

High

Secondary forest

Low

2

Moderate–
highModerate

Enriched secondary forest

Moderate2

Moderate–
highModerate

Plantation – short rotation

High – but low
Value

Low

Low

Plantation – long rotation

High – higher value

Low–
moderate3

Low

Plantation – underplanted with
non-timber forest productsHigh – higher value

Moderate3

Low–moderate

Plantation – multi-species

High – higher value

Moderate3

Low–moderate

1

The initial logging yield is often high though subsequent timber yields may be much lower,
especially if the initial logging operation is managed poorly. Yields of other goods can varyconsiderably over time2
The yield of goods varies with the extent to which the forest has been degraded
3
This depends very much on the structure and composition of the understorey layer. Plantations
with longer rotations are more likely to acquire such understories than those with short rotations
4
Biodiversity depends on the type of forest, the size of the forest area, and linkages across thelandscape to other forests

25

See Chapter 5118

Scenario modelling to optimize outcomesLand tenure: traditional land ownership is often disregarded by central governments.
This means that de facto access and use rights may be quite different from the formal
legal rights. It may be necessary to find some way of resolving, or at least addressing,these differences before anything can happen on the ground. In this case the trade-off is
between insisting on strictly legal operations (which may then mean that nothing
happens or that restoration projects are sabotaged) and finding some way ofaccommodating local traditions of access and use rights.
Public interest vs private interest: while farmers manage their land for the benefit of
their families, they may pass on some environmental costs (such as increased erosion or
the loss of biodiversity) to the broader community. However, constraining farmers’
activities on their own lands or insisting that they reforest certain areas would mean thatthey alone bear the costs of this activity, while the wider community benefiting from theactivity pays nothing. This mismatch of costs and benefits can be resolved by developing
regulations to prevent inappropriate land management, providing some form ofcompensation to farmers for additional expenses incurred, or even making payments forthe supply of ecological services, such as watershed protection.
Spatial locations: most landscapes contain a mosaic of uses but there are many ways inwhich different land-uses can be distributed across a landscape. For example, forest
might be located in a single large block – with the remainder of the area devoted toagriculture – or it may occur in dozens of small patches. The former situation might bemost effective for conserving biodiversity but the latter might be better for regional
watershed protection, because strategically located forest patches can protect key erosionprone sites. Spatial patterns of land-use can also affect the extent to which plants andanimals can colonize newly restored forest areas. Species-rich understories may develop
in plantation monocultures if these plantations are near natural forest patches but will
not if they are distant. The nature of the landscape mosaic will also determine whether
farmers have easy access to non-timber forest products.

Principles for identifying priority sites for restoration
Irrespective of the spatial pattern or degree of degradation, a number of principles can beapplied when prioritizing restoration activities to protect resources and enhance
productivity across a landscape. The principles listed below assume a goodunderstanding of the current landscape mosaic, including knowledge of the spatial
patterns of current land-uses and forest types.
•

Remaining areas of undisturbed or well-managed natural forest should be protected;
such forest should only be cleared after assessment shows this can be justified on
economic and/or social grounds and will have minimal environmental impact;
plantations established around residual forests are a good way of protecting thesefrom further disturbances.

•

Biodiversity within landscapes can be fostered by creating forest linkages or corridors
between remaining natural forest areas (see Box 13.2). It is best if these are structurally
complex and species-rich, but even monoculture plantations can be useful, especially
if natural regeneration produces an understorey beneath the tree canopy.

•

Secondary (or regrowth) forest should only be cleared (for agriculture or plantation
establishment) after some form of assessment shows that this is justified; in manycases these forests provide important goods and ecological services, especially to local
communities.

•

Eroding areas (such as hill slopes or river banks) should be stabilized.

119

Restoring Forest Landscapes•

Landscapes should be assumed to be variable – it is rarely the case that a single tree
species is the most suitable for plantations at all sites in a landscape (and it is costly tomodify sites in order to try to make it so).

•Plantations established to produce sawlogs should use high-value timber species, asthese are more likely to retain their value over the length of a rotation. These species
usually require longer rotations than firewood or pulpwood species, so the frequencyof harvesting and hence the risks of erosion due to site disturbance will be lower.

•

Plantations established to produce pulpwood should be located on flatter areas, since
the shorter rotations and more frequent harvesting increases erosion risk.

Box 13.2 Building landscape corridors
A common objective of many landscape restoration projects is the establishment ofcorridors to link separate fragments of intact forest. These corridors enable wildlife
and plant species to spread across the landscape and establish themselves more
widely, thereby increasing the overall landscape-level diversity and the viability ofrare species. Some corridors are small (less than one kilometre long), while others
might cover much larger distances. The latter tend to be more significant forbiodiversity but are also more difficult to establish. In most cases, the value of
corridors depends on the presence of significant remnants of natural forest, so thetask is largely one of bridging the gaps between these.
There are two common issues in the establishment of these corridors. The first iswhether the links must be made of fully restored forest. In principle, the morestructurally complex and species-rich the link is, the more likely it is to be effective.
That is, secondary regrowth will usually be better than plantation monocultures. But
even monocultures, particularly if grown over long rotations with an understorey,
should be able to perform useful roles as biological corridors.
The second issue is whether the corridor must be complete or whether gaps can bepermitted. Again, the guiding principle is that a complete link is best but that
incomplete corridors may be suitable for many species, provided the gap remaining
between forest patches is small. This might be achieved by protecting or planting
small forest patches that act as stepping stones between larger areas of forest in thecorridor.

Striking compromises
The most crucial trade-offs at the landscape level relate to the proportion of the landscapewhich is devoted to different land-uses (such as agriculture, enriched secondary forests,
short-rotation plantations, etc) and the spatial location of each of these different land-uses.
Table 13.2 shows four examples of how a landscape might be divided between various
land-uses. These landscape-level land-use scenarios have been simplified to include justtwo forms of each major land-use. Thus, agriculture is regarded as either ‘good’ (meaning
high-quality and productive) or ‘poorer’ (meaning the land has been abandoned or isused only occasionally for cropping or grazing). Likewise, plantations are simply
classified as ‘pulpwood plantations’ (implying low-quality timbers such as firewood or
pulpwood grown on short rotations) or ‘sawlog plantations’ (implying longer rotations
but higher-quality timbers). The existing forests are classified as ‘secondary’ (ierecovering after some kind of disturbance) or ‘natural’ (well-managed and largely intact).

120

Scenario modelling to optimize outcomes

Table 13.2 Possible coverage (expressed as percentage of land area)of six land-uses under four scenarios
Land-use

Current
condition(% cover)Land-use cover under each scenario
ScenarioA

Scenario
B

ScenarioC

ScenarioD

Agriculture – good

40

30

40

50

40

Agriculture – poorer

45

0

0

0

0

Total agriculture

85

30

40

50

40

Plantation – pulpwood

0

65

0

0

20

Plantation – sawlog

0

0

0

20

25

All plantation

0

65

0

20

45

Secondary forest

10

0

55

25

10

Natural forest

5

5

5

5

5

Total forest cover

15

70

60

50

60

TOTAL

100

100

100

100

100

Each of these alternative scenarios has advantages and disadvantages, as outlined below.
Scenario A
Change from current condition: much of the agricultural land (including all the poor-quality
farmland) and all the secondary forest are converted to short-rotation plantations.
Advantages: increases forest cover from 15% to 70% and enhances timber production;
makes better use of the under-used poor-quality agricultural land and surrounds thesmall areas of natural forest remnants with plantation forests.
Disadvantages: the pulpwood plantations of exotic species contribute little biodiversity
and provide few ecological services, and have been established at the expense of somevery good agricultural land and all the secondary forests. Farmers believed they had
traditional ownership rights for the farmland, and all the secondary forests were usedheavily by local communities for a variety of foods, medicines and ecological services. In
the immediate future there will probably be a net decrease in income to local
stakeholders because of the decrease in the area of productive agriculture and the loss ofgoods from the secondary forests.
Scenario B
Change from current condition: forest cover is allowed to regenerate on the low-quality
agricultural land, substantially increasing the overall area of secondary forest.
Advantages: increases overall forest cover from 15% to 60% and generates more watershed
protection and conservation benefits. The rate at which forest cover increases will dependon the extent of current degradation, the intensity of pressures (such as grazing or fire),
and whether there are nearby forest fragments that can act as seed sources. The supply of
goods from these secondary forests to local communities might be enhanced byenrichment plantings. Fertilizers and other inputs will boost productivity on the highquality agricultural lands and so increase the income generated from these areas.
Disadvantages: the recovery rate can be slow if the sites were badly degraded or if intact
forest remnants are distant; this can mean there is a risk that the recovery process might

121

Restoring Forest Landscapes

be disturbed again by, for example, fires. Only a limited level of biodiversity is likely todevelop if the former agricultural sites were heavily degraded or if they covered large,
contiguous areas. The initial economic benefits to local communities may be small,especially in the early years, once communities lose access to some previously available(though poor-quality) land.
Scenario C
Change from current condition: some poorer agricultural land (10%) is converted intohigher-quality agricultural land using inputs such as ploughing and fertilizing. Some ofthe other poorer-quality agricultural land is used for high-quality sawlog plantations(20%) and the remainder (15%) is allowed to regenerate naturally, adding to the existing
secondary forest.
Advantages: increases overall forest cover from 15% to 50%, with some of this being used
to provide a buffer around the residual natural forest. There is also an increase in the areaof high-quality agricultural land, which will improve community finances. This was
flatter land located close to villages.
Disadvantages: this increased forest cover does not address localized erosion problems,
which continue to occur on some of the agricultural lands. The plantations all involve
long rotations and will take time to provide financial benefits to landholders unless shortterm crops such as medicinal plants are grown in the understorey.
Scenario D
Change from current condition: the poorer-quality agricultural land is converted topulpwood and high-value sawlog plantations. The area of secondary forests remains
constant but these are enriched with commercially useful species such as timber trees andmedicinal plants.
Advantages: the plantations increase the overall forest cover from 15% to 60% and thevalue of the secondary forests is enhanced at a faster rate than would have otherwise
occurred. The pulpwood plantations have a ready market from a nearby factory and so
landowners are guaranteed a regular income. The high-value plantations provide abuffer area around the natural forest remnants.
Disadvantages: poorer farmers dependent on the low-quality agricultural land have lost
access to this.
These four examples are highly simplified and do not cover all the trade-off situations
described earlier, nor do they show the importance of spatial patterns in determining theoutcomes and benefits of the restoration work. However, developing a range of detailed
scenarios such as these that are also based on maps showing specific locations for eachactivity can be a useful tool for exploring options with stakeholders. These scenarios will
illustrate which stakeholders are affected by particular options together with the relevant
opportunity costs and longer-term benefits. This makes it easier to negotiate trade-offs.
One example of such a scenario, setting process is illustrated in Box 13.3.

122Scenario modelling to optimize outcomesBox 13.3 Using scenarios to decide land-use options in Papua
New Guinea
A pulpwood logging operation planned in Papua New Guinea was going to create alarge area of deforested land. A decision needed to be taken on how much of thisland should be reforested and how much should be used for different agricultural
purposes. This decision was particularly difficult as the region contained eightlanguage groups and 500 land-owning clans, most of which practised some form ofshifting cultivation. Although the government recognized traditional landownership patterns, none of the clan land boundaries were formally mapped
because access was too difficult. Eight scenarios were developed by a working groupmade up of clan representatives and landowners as well as government officials.
This group undertook extensive field visits. The scenarios that the group developed
included spatially specific allocations of land for food production by local
communities, riverine protection and nature reserves. Where the scenarios differed
was in the amounts and locations of land to be reforested in different ways or used
for more sedentary forms of agriculture such as large-scale rice farming and cattlegrazing. Discussions eventually led to the creation of a ninth scenario which bridged
the difference between two of those already proposed. This option was the one
finally adopted by the group. The whole process took several years.

Developing scenarios and setting priorities
Every situation is different and there is no single ‘correct’ way to develop FLR scenarios.
However, the process will usually involve the following steps:•

understand the current landscape mosaic and land-use patterns (see Chapter 5);•

arrange meetings with stakeholders and/or their representatives (note thatstakeholders will include local land-users from within the landscape as well as
representatives of the wider community; see Chapter 7);•

define the existing problems and where they are located (note that different
stakeholders may have different perspectives on the identity, nature and location ofthese problems);•

plan alternative ways of solving these problems, specifying the locations of different
restoration options (see Chapter 8);•

develop alternative scenarios to show how compromises might be made to satisfy
stakeholders; it is rare to find solutions that satisfy all stakeholders equally;•for each scenario, identify whether compensation or other incentives are needed toencourage the new land-uses. Identify situations where better regulatory controls areneeded to prevent practices from causing further degradation;•

consult stakeholders to assess their preferences for particular scenarios (see Chapter
7);•

establish what resources (including financial) are available to implement the FLR
activities;•

establish priorities for action: which things must be done first with the resources
available, and what can be left for the longer term? and•plan, implement and monitor (see Chapter 14).

123

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Optimizing outcomes – evidence of success
It is difficult to optimize the outcome of an FLR program, since many ecological processes
develop over long periods, during which the economic circumstances (such ascommodity prices) and stakeholder objectives can also change. Optimizing FLR outcomesthus becomes another part of the adaptive management approach described in Chapter 4.
Some indicators of success might include the following:•remaining natural forest is protected;•

overall forest cover within the landscape is increased, particularly on steep slopes andriparian strips;•

erosion from steep or other sensitive areas such as river banks is reduced;•

river water quality is improved (especially during periods of heavy rain when the riskof erosion is greatest);•

small forest remnants are enlarged; many become inter-connected by some form of
new forest cover (such as secondary forest or plantations);•

native plants and wildlife begin colonizing older plantations;•land-use boundaries are maintained over time;•

economic productivity (agricultural and forestry) at each site is maintained or
improved;•

local communities and other stakeholders recognize the benefits of the initiative andtake increasing ownership of it;•

formal codes of practice or informal rules describing good management practice are
adopted by stakeholders to prevent future degradation; and•the need for external financial subsidies or incentives declines.

References and further reading
Bennett, A. 1999. Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife
Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Hajkowicz, S., Hatton, T., McColl, J., Meyer, W. & Young, M. 2003. Exploring Future Landscapes: A
Conceptual Framework for Planned Change. Land and Water Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Available from: http://www.lwa.gov.au.

124Chapter 14
MONITORING AND EVALUATING
SITE-LEVEL IMPACTS

14

James Gasana
This chapter outlines the role of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) within an FLR
initiative and provides some initial guidance on the process and tools involved inplanning and managing the M&E work.
Monitoring and evaluating an FLR activity serves to:•facilitate the efficient and effective use of resources;•

assess progress in the achievement of objectives;•

identify changes in the condition of the forest and the context of the restoration
program;•support the use of an adaptive management approach; and•provide information for regular reporting requirements.

In addition to assisting the implementation of the FLR activity, M&E also facilitateslearning within the implementation team and the beneficiaries, and informs the planningof any follow-up work. While monitoring is the responsibility of the FLR management
team, it should be conducted in a participatory manner, involving a wide range ofstakeholders.
M&E needs to be built into the FLR initiative from the start. As such, an M&E plan needs
to be prepared during the initial planning phase of the restoration work, based on a goodunderstanding of the context of the FLR intervention (see Chapter 4). FLR initiatives
establish processes which strengthen local skills and capacities to enable the beneficiaries
to continue the activities even after the project ends. These activities face major technical,
economic, social, cultural and institutional challenges, requiring an adaptive
management approach in order to overcome them. M&E tools allow practitioners togather and analyse the lessons learned through ‘learning-by-doing’. M&E must therefore
be an ongoing process rather than merely an occasional exercise. In the framework ofadaptive management, it provides information to make changes if certain aspects of the
project are found to be unrealistic, and justify a corrective action. The M&E plan should
include:•a detailed description of the monitoring tasks;•

assignment of the specific responsibilities for these tasks to members of theimplementation team;•a schedule for the M&E activities;•

the set of indicators to be used; and•identification of the financial and other resources required for the M&E work.

125Restoring Forest Landscapes

Understanding the context
Logical framework
For the purposes of this chapter, we will assume that the logical framework approach has
been used as the basis for planning the FLR activity, in order to show the points at which
M&E can be applied. A logical framework sets out the objectives, outputs, outcomes,
results, development processes and impacts of an intervention.26 Each of these terms is
described here in turn, and an example of a logical framework based on a hypotheticalcase is provided in Table 14.1.

Table 14.1 Example of a logical framework based on a hypotheticalcase
Project strategy

Measurable
indicators

Means ofverification

Importantassumptions

Development
objective:•

New alternative
livelihoods for
local people•

Socioeconomic
survey reports••

Ex/postevaluation report

Extent to which
illegal activities
in BWFR arecontrolled•

Project progress
reports•

Field reports•

Project progress
reports•

Evaluation
reports

To contribute tosustainable natural
resource use by
the local
communities
Specific
objective:
To initiate
community-based
restoration of thedegraded forest of
the Black Water
Forest Reserve(BWFR), Southern
Province
Outcome:
The management
plan of BWFR is
under
implementation
with close
collaboration of
local communities

26

•

•

Management
activities
undertaken by
thecommunities•

Type ofplannedactivities under
implementation•

Continued
political
commitment of
the government
to the project’s
objective

There will be apositive responseby the community
leaders andcontinued
commitment by
provincial
authorities

There will be apositive responseby the community
leaders

Degree ofintegration of
local
communities inmanagement
decisions andimplementation

More information on the use of a logical framework approach can be found in PARTICIP (2000)

126

Monitoring and evaluating site-level impacts

Table 14.1 (cont’d)
Project strategy

Measurable
indicators

Means of verification Important
assumptions

Output 1:•

By February
2007 theMinistry ofForestry
provides project
personnel andestablishes a
project steeringcommittee(PSC)•

Official decisions•

Project progress
report•Minutes of thefirst PSC meeting•

By the end of
2009, illegal
logging andhunting
activities areunder control•

Project fieldreports•

Commitment ofpublic law
enforcement
agencies

Output 3:
Ecological surveys
conducted andparticipatory landuse zoning of
BWFR carried out•

Survey reports
are publishedby the end of
2007•

Survey reports
and publications••

Project progress
reportThe
management
office of the
Ministry
providesadequatebackstoppingto the survey
teams

Output 4:•

Management
plans approved
before the endof 2008•

Management plan••

Act of official
approvalContinued
political
commitment ofGovernment•

Project progress
reports••

Field verification

There will be apositive
response by
the community
leaders

A management
structure for BWFR
is establishedOutput 2:
Illegal logging andhunting in BWFR
are reduced

Management planelaborated andapproved

Output 5:
Activities forcommunity-based
resource
management are
initiated•

Act of official
approval•

By the end of
2009, theproject is
supporting atleast one
communitybased initiative
per district

Qualifiedpersonnel will beavailable

The objectives of an intervention are defined at two levels: developmental and specific.
The development objective(s) gives a general vision of what the intervention is aiming toachieve in the long run, while the specific objective(s) specifies the purposes of theintervention, given the available resources and the time-frame set for the restoration
work. These two kinds of objectives are defined during the preliminary planning phase,127

Restoring Forest Landscapes

based on an initial assessment of the current conditions and the key issues identified
through consultations with the different stakeholder groups.27
Outputs are targets to which planned activities contribute directly; they might include, forexample, specific physical infrastructure, services, studies, identification of boundaries of
the target site, community consultations, management plans, maps, training programs,
workshops, publications, and so on. The utilization of the outputs delivered by theintervention leads to a set of outcomes such as reduced soil erosion, improved access toresources, new or improved markets for resource products, changes in resource-use
technology, or the development of new sources of income for communities. The outputs
and outcomes constitute the results of the intervention. They are the direct changes thatare planned in the design of the intervention, and are linked to the specific objective(s).
Some of the outcomes may be development processes produced by the intervention to bringabout changes in the landscape and sustain the impacts of the restoration work. These
processes, which need to be monitored just as much as the other more concrete outcomes,
could include, for example, the involvement of key stakeholder groups in the planningand implementation of the FLR work, particular efforts made to involve and benefit
women, the poor or other vulnerable groups, or institution-building processes tostrengthen local capacity to capture more sustainable benefits from forest products.
The impacts are long-term changes in the conditions of the landscape and the biophysicaland socioeconomic contexts. Impact monitoring consists of the periodic observation ofand reflection on these changes caused by an FLR intervention.

Monitoring
Monitoring uses a set of indicators, which are variables that help measure the changes inthe socioeconomic and environmental conditions of the landscape as a result of theintervention. Indicators are therefore intended to assess the outcomes and impacts of theintervention – not just the implementation effort. An illustrative list of indicators that
could be used in a monitoring activity is provided towards the end of the chapter.
The monitoring process requires an initial baseline assessment of the conditions of thelandscape and the biophysical and socioeconomic contexts, against which any futureassessments can be compared. The baseline should focus on information that canestablish a link between the achievement of the FLR objectives and changes in landscapeconditions. The baseline should also attempt to collect information on each of theindicators identified in the M&E plan. If, for some reason, baseline data cannot becollected prior to the implementation of the FLR activity, it should be collected during theearliest possible stage of implementation.

Evaluation
Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of ongoing or completed activities,
taking into account the design, implementation and impacts of the activities to determine
if the objectives have been achieved. The emphasis here is on understanding the reasonsfor successes and failures and deriving lessons for future phases of the work or to sharewith others involved in similar interventions elsewhere. Unlike monitoring, evaluation is
not a continuous process but is carried out at particular points in time. In general,
evaluations are conducted mid-way through an intervention and at the end of theintervention (ex-post).

27

See Chapter 7 for details of the stakeholder approach

128

Monitoring and evaluating site-level impacts

A good evaluation of an FLR intervention should aim to assess:••the design and strategy:–

does the intervention address the relevant problems/needs of the key stakeholder
groups?

–were the causes of the problems identified and ranked?

–

has a clear development objective been defined?

–

were lessons from similar interventions taken into account?

–

were the goods and services to be generated by the FLR work adequately
described?

–

was a description made of the expected uses of these goods and services?

–were the benefits deriving from these uses identified?

–were the major assumptions made regarding implementation success explicitly
identified?

relevance:
–

•

•

•

•

•

is the intervention relevant to national goals and strategies (such as environmental
protection, biodiversity conservation, sustainable management of natural
resources, poverty alleviation, gender equity, clean development)?

the achievement of objectives:–

have the planned outputs been achieved? What progress was made towards theintended outcomes and impacts?

–

has the specific objective(s) been achieved?

–

did the intervention contribute to the development objective?

implementation of efficiency:–

how well has the intervention been managed?

–

were the most cost-effective options used for the implementation?

–

are the investment and recurring costs justified?

the process:–what consultation, collaboration, joint decision-making or other processes havebeen undertaken, with which stakeholder groups?

–

what services, of what quality, have been delivered, to which groups?

–

what changes have resulted from the delivery of these services?

sustainability:–

are the outcomes and impacts of the intervention likely to be maintained?

–

are institutional and local ownership assured?

lessons learned:–

are there specific or general lessons to be learned from the experience which are
relevant to future stages of the intervention or for similar interventions elsewhere?

Evaluations are usually carried out by independent persons who have not been involvedin the design or implementation of the intervention. However, an internal evaluation
may also be carried out by the management team and key stakeholders in order to

129

Restoring Forest Landscapes

prepare a mid-term or completion report. It is advisable that such an internal effort
should be assisted externally to ensure a satisfactory level of objectivity and criticalanalysis.

Sample indicators for M&E
The following list of indicators is provided as an example of the kinds of variables thatcan be measured in an FLR activity. However it needs to be stressed that this is not an
exhaustive list, nor will all those given here be relevant to all FLR initiatives. FLR
managers will need to draw up a specific list for each FLR program, based on theprevailing context and conditions.

Process indicators
Stakeholder participation
Key question: Did beneficiaries actively participate in the design, implementation andevaluation of the FLR initiative?
Indicators:•

identification of the right stakeholders and target groups•

identification of stakeholders’ roles in the FLR process•inclusion of disadvantaged groups, such as the poor, with attention to gender equity•

early stakeholder participation in FLR planning•participation in implementation and monitoring•

competence and level of authority of participating stakeholders•

commitment of participating stakeholders•

existence of leadership groups/individuals for community development

Stakeholder consultations
Key question: What changes in attitude have resulted from consultations on the FLR
intervention?
Indicators:•

quality of information shared and how widely it is shared•success in implementing the agreed decisions•

partnerships among stakeholders•

coordination of stakeholders•

institutionalization of consultations to discuss issues and solve problems

Service delivery
Key questions: Is the initiative reaching the intended beneficiaries, and are they satisfied?
What services are provided, to whom, when and for how long?

130

Monitoring and evaluating site-level impacts

Indicators:•

stakeholder satisfaction•level of access of stakeholders to the advisory and support services•

level of training of the advisors•compliance with the workplans and schedules•

extent to which objectives were achieved

Community needs´ assessment and dissemination of results
Key questions: How are the needs and perceptions of target groups assessed? Are clear
development objectives defined? What are the appropriate interventions?
Indicators:•

information and communication tools produced•

sensitivity to needs of weak/disadvantaged groups•

community satisfaction•level of community ownership of the FLR intervention

Stakeholder capacity-building
Key question: Is stakeholder capacity being enhanced and, if so, how?
Indicators:•

demonstration actions undertaken•

implementation of activities associated with project objectives•

mechanisms for conflict analysis and resolution•

strength of local self-governing organizations•organizational capacity of women

Implementation
Key questions: Is the initiative being implemented as planned? Have the target groups andsites been defined? Are beneficiaries involved in evaluation of the activities?
Indicators:•

coordination of key stakeholders•

incentives for restoration actions•

flexibility to adapt as lessons are learned

Outcome indicators
Strengthened capacity of responsible agency(ies) to support FLR activity
Key question: Was the planning and implementation capacity of the implementing
agency(ies) enhanced?

131

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Indicators:•

adequacy of financial resources•

full-time multidisciplinary staff in charge of pursuing landscape management•

volume of certified production•level of institutional capacity to sustain the results

Integrated resource management being undertaken as intended
Key question: Is resource management oriented towards a diversity of goods and services,
according to demand and needs?
Indicators:•

approved management plans (forest production, watershed management, protectedareas, etc)•

production diversification (timber and non-timber forest products, environmental
services)•

existence of land-use plans integrating conservation and production

Diversified landscape components and production
Key question: Is the target area comprising more than one land-use and producing adiversity of productions?
Indicators:•

areas of different components of the landscape•level of forest productivity•

levels of resource use•

diversity of resource users•

degraded forests are part of land-use plans•

non-timber forest production species promoted for sustainable management

Recovery of ecosystem integrity and restoration of ecological functions
Key question: Were the ecosystem functions restored as intended?
Indicators:•

forest cover•

species diversity•

structure of forests•

areas under natural regeneration•

planted areas•

conditions of flora and fauna•

functions played by the restored forests•

existence of corridors to link forest ecosystems

132

Monitoring and evaluating site-level impacts•

use of local knowledge for landscape management•

water yield in the watersheds•

improvement of wildlife habitat•

level of soil erosion•

frequency of forest fires•

carbon sequestration•pressure of human activities (domestic animal, crop production, etc)

Diversified sources of community income
Key question: Do the local people have new, sustainable and diversified sources ofincome?
Indicators:•

availability of resources•

access to resources•

provision of wood/fuelwood to communities•

provision of fodder from plantations•

value of production•

number of jobs created•jobs which went to targeted groups (women, tribal/ethnic groups, youth, etc)•

changes in income

Economic efficiency and financial viability of FLR area achieved
Key question: Do the economic and financial returns justify the costs?
Indicators:•

costs versus benefits•

financial resource mobilization from local actors for the sustainability of results•

volume and value of locally processed productions

Participatory M&E of FLR area management taking place as planned
Key question: Is the FLR intervention M&E taking place as planned?
Indicators:•

monitoring tools produced•

availability of information on ecological and socioeconomic dimensions•

contribution to effective information and reporting•

lessons learned

133

Restoring Forest LandscapesManaging the monitoring and evaluation process
The monitoring process starts with a description of the information requirements, which
will vary according to the specific needs of partners, stakeholders and implementing
institutions. The content and format of the reports, as well as the frequency of reporting,will depend on the users of the information and the type of follow-up and decisions to betaken. Managers of the FLR intervention should set up a management information
system (MIS) in order to respond to all the information needs in a timely manner. The
MIS should streamline M&E as well as special reporting requirements.
The MIS should be set up based on the following questions:•what are the information needs of the stakeholders and partners?

•

what are the priority areas of information?

•

what are the sources of the information?

•

what are the methods of data collection?

•

how are collection responsibilities organized?

•

what resources are required and what resources are available?

An expert in a relevant field or an interdisciplinary team of experts should conduct theevaluation; its objective will vary depending on the stage at which it is carried out. The
expert or team of experts will need to have clear terms of reference stating the objective of
the evaluation, the information base of the assessment, the issues/aspects to beevaluated, the methods, the key stakeholders to meet and involve in the process, and thetime required. If all the existing reports do not contain all the necessary information for
the evaluation, the evaluation may have to start by collecting additional data. This may
particularly be the case for some environmental indicators.
Based on the analysis, the evaluation will draw attention to those aspects of theintervention which have not achieved the stated objectives. It will makerecommendations on areas that need more attention for the full success of theintervention or for a subsequent phase. The evaluation results should be widely
disseminated to contribute information and knowledge and to aid future decisionmaking.

References and further reading
Guijt, I. & Woodhill, J. 2002. Managing for Impact in Rural Development: A Guide for Project
Monitoring and Evaluation. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rome, Italy.
Available from: http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/guide/toc.htm.
PARTICIP GmbH 2000. Introduction to the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) for GEF-financed
Projects. German Foundation for International Development, Bonn, Germany. Available from:http://www.undp.org/gef/undp-gef_monitoring_evaluation/sub_undpgef_monitoring_evaluation_documents (as ‘Logframe reader DSE’).

134

Glossary
Action learninga process of learning whereby a group of people with ashared issue or concern collaboratively, systematicallyand deliberately plan, implement and evaluate actions

Adaptive management

an approach to the management of complex systems
based on incremental, experiential learning and decisionmaking, supported by active ongoing monitoring of andfeedback from the effects of outcomes of decisions

Advance growthtree seedlings and saplings that have become establishednaturally in a forest and that will form the basis ofnatural regeneration

Agroforestry

a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resourcesmanagement system that, through the integration of trees
on farms and in the agricultural landscape, diversifies
and sustains production for increased social, economicand environmental benefits for land-users at all levels

Biodiversity

the variability among living organisms from all sources
including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they
are part; this includes diversity within species, between
species and of ecosystems

Biophysical factors

biological, ecological and physical characteristics of aforest landscape that will affect restoration programs

Conflict

a situation of disagreement between two or moredifferent stakeholders or stakeholder groups

Coppice management

a forest management system whereby trees are cut backto near ground level every few years to provide straightstems for fuelwood, tools and other purposes

Degraded forest land

former forest land severely damaged by the excessive
harvesting of wood and/or non-wood forest products,
poor management, repeated fire, grazing or otherdisturbances or land-uses that damage soil andvegetation to a degree that inhibits or severely delays there-establishment of forest after abandonment

Degraded primary forest

a primary forest in which the initial cover has been
adversely affected by the unsustainable harvesting ofwood and/or non-wood forest products so that its
structure, processes, functions and dynamics are alteredbeyond the short-term resilience of the ecosystem; that is,the capacity of these forests to fully recover from
exploitation in the near to medium term has been
compromised

Direct seeding

the establishment or re-establishment of forest by the
direct application of seeds of forest plant species to soil

DisturbanceAny event that alters the structure, composition orfunctions of a forest landscape135

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Double filter

the principle that the joint objectives of enhanced
ecological integrity and human well-being cannot be
traded off against each other at a landscape level

Ecological corridors

strips of habitat that link isolated protected areas.
Ecological corridors are not under intensive land-use, aredistinctly different from surrounding areas, and allow
the movement of plant and animal species between theprotected sites

Ecological restoration

restoration that aims to closely replicate the structure andfloristic composition of the original forest cover andrestore the ecological processes and biodiversity to aprevious historical state

Ecological services(or environmental services)

the range of ecological services provided by forests
includes hydrological regulation, slope stabilization, soil
fertility maintenance, carbon sequestration and theprovision of habitat and gene pools for biodiversity
conservation

Ecological stepping stones

similar to ecological corridors but without their structuralcontinuity, ecological stepping stones are patches ofrelatively intact habitat between isolated protected areas,that allow for movement particularly of mobile species

Enriched (improved) fallow

a fallow (cultivated land left unseeded for one or more
growing seasons) that is managed to accelerate theprocess of rehabilitation, with a view to improving future
crop productivity and/or increasing the direct economic
benefits of the natural fallow vegetation

Enrichment planting

the planting of desired tree species in a modified naturalforest or secondary forest or woodland with the objectiveof creating a high forest dominated by desirable (ie local
and/or high-value) species

Environmental services

see ecological services

Environmental security

the level of protection of people living in vulnerable
locations from the impacts of catastrophic events(including natural disasters, economic shocks or violent
conflicts) and the level of access they have to mitigation
measures after such events occur

Estate cropa crop grown in a plantation system, such as rubber,coffee, tea or oil palm.

Forest degradation

the reduction of the capacity of a forest to produce goods
and services. ‘Capacity’ includes the maintenance of
ecosystem structure and functions

Forest fragmentation

the splitting of continuous forest tracts into a series ofsmaller patches, due to roads, clearing for agriculture, orother human-induced impacts. This process reduces thebiodiversity value of the forest

Forest functionality

the ability of a forest to provide goods and services andmaintain ecological processes

136Forest landscape restorationa process that aims to restore ecological integrity andenhance human well-being in deforested or degraded
forest landscapes; rather than aiming to return forests totheir previous ‘pristine’ condition, forest landscaperestoration aims to strengthen the resilience andfunctionality of the forest landscape and keep future
forest management options open

Fuelbreak

strips of land in which flammable material, particularly
grasses, has been removed or reduced with the aim of
reducing the likelihood of fire spreading from one area
into another

Gap planting

a silvicultural technique used as part of enrichment
planting, whereby seedlings are planted in natural or
artificial gaps in the forest cover (see also enrichment
planting and line planting)Girdling

a method of killing unwanted trees by making
continuous incisions through the bark and underlying
tissues completely around the tree stem

Hydrological processes

Ecological processes related to the water cycle, including
for example evaporation, precipitation, water storage,
run-off and groundwater flow (see also ecological services)

Key informants

individuals selected on the basis of their knowledge,
experience or other characteristics to provide information
on a particular topic

Keystone species

a strongly interacting species with a greater influence on
ecosystem functioning (including species diversity) thanwould be predicted based on its abundance. Named after
the keystone at the top of an arch structure; if the
keystone removed, the arch collapses

Land tenure

see tenure

Landscapea land-area mosaic of interacting ecosystems, land-usesand social and economic groupings. Importantly, alandscape is not necessarily defined by its size; in thecontext of FLR, the size of the landscape is determined
more by the scale of the FLR initiative and the likely or
desired geographic extent of its impacts

Landscape dynamics

changes in the composition of the landscape and changes
in the condition of individual components (such as
conversion of agricultural land from grazing to crop
production)

Landscape mosaic(components)a patchwork of different components, pieced together toform an overall landscape. The actual composition of themosaic and the pattern in which the components are
distributed will be unique to each landscape

Liberation thinninga cutting that releases young seedlings, saplings andtrees in the canopy C-layer from overhead competition

137

Restoring Forest Landscapes

Line planting

as with gap planting, a silvicultural technique used as partof enrichment planting, whereby seedlings are planted
along cleared lines (see also enrichment planting)Live fuelbreak

strips of land in which dead plant material andflammable plants are removed along the edge of existing
forests and shrublands and the planting of trees at a close
spacing to achieve rapid crown closure and earlysuppression of grasses

Logical framework

a tool for planning programs and projects. By leadingplanners step-by-step through the cause-effectrelationships between activities, outputs, and goals, it
helps link program inputs and objectives in a clear,logical way and can serve to guide subsequent
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation activities

Monitoring and evaluation(M&E)

ongoing and periodic assessments of forest management
activities to determine the extent to which objectives arebeing met, identify any changes in the forest condition
and gauge the need for any adjustments in management
practices (see also adaptive management)

Monoculture

the cultivation of a single tree species in a given area

Monocyclic system

under a monocyclic system all the marketable volume oftimber is harvested in a single felling operation and the
production of the subsequent crop relies almost entirely
on newly recruited seedlings (see also polycyclic system)

Natural regeneration

renewal of trees by self-sown seeds or natural vegetative
means

Ngitiliacacia-miombo woodlands used as a traditional land
management system in Tanzania to provide dry season
fodder, firewood and other goods and services

Non-timber forest products

all forest products except timber and wood, including
products from trees, plants and animals in the forest area

Passive restoration

a forest restoration strategy that relies largely on
protecting the site from the main disturbance or stressfactors and allowing natural colonization andsuccessional processes to occur

Phenological characteristics

the characteristics of tree species that relate to periodic
biological phenomena such as leafing and flowering

Pioneer tree species

heavily light-demanding and short-lived species that can
rapidly invade large canopy gaps in disturbed naturalforests and colonize open land

Plantationa deliberately cultivated area of trees, either with only
one species (monoculture) or with a mixture of species(polyculture)

Polycyclic system

under a polycyclic system, commercial trees arerepeatedly harvested in a continual series of felling
cycles, and the production of the subsequent crop relies138on the existing stock of seedlings, saplings and poles in
the forest
Primary forest

forest which has never been subject to humandisturbance, or has been so little affected by hunting,gathering and tree-cutting that its natural structure,functions and dynamics have not undergone any changes
that exceed the elastic capacity of the ecosystem

Regrowth forest

see secondary forest(Forest) Rehabilitationa management strategy applied on degraded forest landthat aims at restoring the capacity of a forest to produce
products and services

Residual standforest that remains after harvesting and extraction

Resprouts

new growth produced by certain tree species after
damage from cutting or fire; these trees may resprout
from the trunk, stump, or crown

Riparian (riverine) strips

strips of natural forest retained along streams and rivers,
even when the overall land-use changes to a non-forest
use

Roundwoodthe bole of a tree after felling, usually cut into lengths but
otherwise not yet processed into other products such as
sawnwood, plywood and veneer

Scarificationa site preparation technique that mixes the top vegetation
with the underlying mineral soil, either by hand or using
heavy machinery, to assist regeneration or facilitate
planting; scarification reduces competing vegetation,
redistributes slash and exposes the mineral soil

Secondary forest

woody vegetation regrowing on land that was largely
cleared of its original forest cover (ie carried less than
10% of the original forest cover). Secondary forests
commonly develop naturally on land abandoned after
shifting cultivation, settled agriculture, pasture, or failed
tree plantations

Secondary vegetationa more general term than secondary forest, secondary
vegetation can include non-woody regrowth, including
shrubland and grassland

Silviculture

the art and science of producing and tending forests bymanipulating their establishment, species composition,
structure and dynamics to fulfil given management
objectives

Sliding strip planting

a variation of line planting, based on successive expansionof alternative sides of the planted strip

Social capitala concept based on the idea that people’s social networks
are a valuable asset

Stakeholder

any individual or groups directly or indirectly affectedby, or interested in, a given resource. In the context of
FLR we define a stakeholder as an individual, group ofpeople or organization that can directly or indirectly

139Restoring Forest Landscapes

affect an FLR initiative or be directly or indirectly
affected by it
Stakeholder approachan approach (in this case, to forest management) thatseeks to identify and understand the needs and concernsof the different stakeholder groups associated with theforest resource in question, and to work with thesegroups to plan, implement and monitor a more
appropriate restoration program

Succession

progressive change in species composition and forest
structure caused by natural processes over time

Swidden agriculture(shifting agriculture)a traditional farming system that involves
clearing small areas of forest to grow crops and/or raise
livestock, leaving a fallow period of varying length toenable forest regeneration; swidden agriculture becomesunsustainable when viable fallow periods are notmaintained

Tenureagreement(s) held by individuals or groups, recognizedby legal statutes and/or customary practice, regarding
the rights and duties of ownership, holding, accessand/or usage of a particular land unit or the associatedresources (such as individual trees, plant species, wateror minerals) therein

Trade-offa situation where a balance needs to be reached whenchoosing between two desirable but incompatible
objectives or outcomes

Understorey

the plants growing beneath the forest canopy often
including grasses, shrubs, vines, ferns etc; theunderstorey is usually the most diverse layer of the forest
and is important for biodiversity, tree survival and soil
fertility

Wildlings

naturally sown seedlings collected for planting elsewhere140

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONInternational Organizations Center, 5th Floor, Pacifico-Yokohama,1-1-1,
Minato-Mirai, Nishi-ku, Yokohama 220-0012, Japan
Tel 81-45-223-1110 Fax 81-45-223-1111 Email itto@itto.or.jp Web www.itto.or.jp© ITTO & IUCN 2005