This post is also available in: Français
Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) shows significant promise, but some barriers remain
Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) in Ethiopia. Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR
This article is a part of the Global Landscapes Forum coverage of the AFR100 Second Annual Partnership Meeting in Niamey, Niger, 26-28 September.
According to Wanjira Mathai, Co-chair of the World Resource Institute’s (WRI) Global Restoration Council and Chairperson of the Green Belt Movement, implementing the best FLR approach to a project can be tricky.
“We have really good monitoring systems and really strong implementation strategies that WRI and NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development) and others have come up with, but I think the biggest challenge at the moment is strong community engagement where we identify opportunities and strategies, and implement them on the ground,” she said. Mathai was referring to the African Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100), which aims to restore 100 million ha of land on the continent by 2030.
“At the end of the day, [restoring] these hectares will have to be an on-the-ground effort.”
Mathai is the daughter of Wangari Maathai, the world-renowned Nobel laureate who founded the Green Belt Movement in Kenya.
FLR differs from site-level restoration in that it seeks to restore ecological processes that operate at a larger scale but, because of this lofty goal and a myriad of other factors, restoring an entire landscape is often unrealistic. The need for steady funding can further complicate this matter, Mathai said.
Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) in Ethiopia. Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR
As such, decisions need to be made on how to best implement FLR in each case.
An article titled, “A Policy-Driven Knowledge Agenda for Global Forest and Landscape Restoration,” outlines some of FLR’s goals and associated hindrances and areas that need improvement in the future.
A common theme exists among the article’s list of key impediments: a lack of cohesion when quantifying both the need and the desired outcomes of FLR implementation.
“Methods to spatially prioritize restoration approaches and outcomes for landholders are poorly developed and collective action among landholders can be difficult to achieve,” reads one of the items on the list.
The article also states that there can be a lack of agreement on key points in FLR implementation, such as determining which areas are most in-need of restoration. Then, after the restoration process, there can be issues with how the environmental and economic outcomes of each intervention are quantified and monitored.
To remedy this, knowledge about FLR practices and the tools to implement it, need to be available to the many diverse stakeholders involved in the process including farmers, business leaders and government officials.
The publication titled, “What Is Forest and Landscape Restoration,” by David Lamb, John Stanturf and Palle Madsen, states that the definitions of restoration and how it is best implemented varies from region to region and from organization to organization.
For example, the article cites that some groups believe there is a need for “reference sites” – areas that can be used to tell how an ecosystem operated before degradation- but this can be tricky for certain operations with long histories of human intervention.
Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) in Ethiopia. Photo by Mokhamad Edliadi/CIFOR
Tony Rinaudo, Principal Advisor of Natural Resources, Food Security and Climate Change at World Vision Australia, said FLR also needs to be looked at from a farmer level, rather than just a policy level.
