Enhancing Resilience Through Forest Landscape Restoration: Understanding Synergies and Identifying Opportunities November 2017

IUCN/Ali Raza Rizvi

Discussion Paper Enhancing Resilience through Forest Landscape Restoration: Understanding Synergies and Identifying Opportunities November 2017

This document is the first in a series intended to (1) identify and highlight the contribution of forest landscape restoration towards enhancing landscape resilience, as well as the resilience of communities dependent on forests (and the ecosystems services they provide); (2) promote understanding within the resilience community of how forest landscape restoration can enhance resilience; and (3) help build a better case to communicate restoration benefits in climate policy processes and mechanisms (e.g. adaptation, disaster risk reduction, co-benefits, etc.)

This analysis aims to inform decision makers, practitioners, and other stakeholders involved in the fields of forestry and resilience of the opportunities for integrating forest landscape restoration with resilience principles, and the synergies therein.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

IUCN acknowledges the support of the KNOWFOR program, funded by UK aid from the UK government.

This publication has been made possible in part by funding from the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB).

Suggested citation: Baig, Saima; Rizvi, Ali Raza and Mike Jones. 2017. Enhancing Resilience through Forest Landscape Restoration: Understanding Synergies and Identifying Opportunities (Discussion Paper). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 16 pp.

Additional review and inputs provided by Angela Andrade, Elmedina Krilasevic, Chetan Kumar, Salome Begeladze, Maria Garcia Espinosa, and Katherine Blackwood.

Key messages

 Forest landscape restoration is the ongoing process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing human well-being across deforested or degraded forest landscapes. forest landscape restoration is more than just planting trees – it is restoring a whole landscape “forward” to meet present and future needs and to offer multiple benefits and land uses over time.

 Forest landscape restoration approaches and practices provide opportunities for enhancing socio-ecological resilience in landscapes.

 At the same time, resilience principles can make valuable contributions to forest landscape restoration implementation, thus ensuring that socio-ecological resilience is enhanced.

1. Introduction Forests are invaluable ecosystems, providing countless goods and services to people across the globe. These goods and services take the form of food, fuel, medicine, employment and income (i.e. provisioning services). Local communities as well as national and global markets use wood and non-timber forest products (NTFP) for various purposes. Forests also support extensive biodiversity; providing habitat and food sources for various species, soil formation and nutrient cycling; and deliver indirect benefits, such as watershed protection (i.e. supporting services). They provide regulating services such as climate and flood regulation and water purification. Finally, they have cultural, religious, aesthetic and recreational values. According to one estimate, the economic benefits of forests amount to US$ 130 million per year.i The rural poor (approximately 1.6 billion people),ii in particular, benefit extensively from forest goods and services.

However, forests around the world are being converted to other land uses, jeopardizing these benefits. This conversion comes in many forms, such as clear-cutting for agriculture, ranching and development, unsustainable logging for timber, and degradation due to climate change and forest fires. One estimate suggests that 30% of the Earth’s original forest cover has been converted for other uses, and an additional 20% has been degraded.iii This amounts to two billion hectares of forest lands across the world which have been degraded and deforested to such a degree that the number and quality of ecosystem services they produce have been dramatically diminished.iv Diminished ecosystem services in turn affect the wellbeing of forest dependent communities, rendering them unequipped to deal with future shocks. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that globally 20% of cultivated lands, 30% of forests, and 10% of grasslands are currently degraded.v This degradation has translated into economic losses, and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) calculated that the cost of forest loss was between US$ 2-5 trillion per year.vi

In addition, the impacts of climate change can be felt across Box 1. Forests have four major roles in climate many forest ecosystems, affecting human societies in a change: multitude of ways. It affects humans directly, and both 1. They currently contribute about one- humans and biodiversity indirectly, through its influence on sixth of global carbon emissions when forest (and other) landscapes. Furthermore, forests across the cleared, overused or degraded; 2. They react sensitively to a changing globe are being impacted not only by climate change and its climate; associated disturbances such as flooding, droughts, wildfires 3. When managed sustainably, they and insects but also by other drivers of change such as land produce wood-fuels as a benign vii alternative to fossil fuels; use, pollution, and overexploitation. Since communities are 4. They have the potential to absorb also dependent on biodiversity, they are impacted when about one-tenth of global carbon species are affected. In turn, however, forest landscapes are emissions projected for the first half of this century into their biomass, soils key to addressing climate change and its impacts (see Box 1). and products and store them - in Global vegetation patterns are heavily dependent on climate principle in perpetuity and human influences that affect the distribution, structure, Source: FAO 2012; and ecology of forests. viii Particular climate regimes are http://www.fao.org/forestry/climatechange/5 3459/en/ associated with specific plant communities or functional types ix and climate change can therefore have extensive impacts on the configuration of forests. x The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC thus predicts that forest ecosystems are likely to be seriously hampered by future climate change. xi This is likely to occur even if global warming in this century is less than projected, resulting in changes in species composition, productivity, and biodiversity. xii

xiii According to the FAO , the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 due to change in climate will directly affect forest growth and production. On the other hand, changes in temperature and precipitation will result in indirect impacts through complex interactions in the forest ecosystems. Although warming in temperate and boreal zones may have a positive effect on ecosystems, a decline in precipitation and an increase in decomposition rates is likely to nullify this. xiv Furthermore, the increase in productivity in some tropical zones will be temporary; and in drylands, the increase in temperature might lead to increased plant stress, decreasing their productivity. xv It is important to note that these are complex processes, with a wide range of possible outcomes - some of which may be positive and some negative.

Changes in forest productivity due to climate change (and other factors) are likely to have a multitude of impacts on natural and human systems. It will influence the production of wood and wood products, thus leading to losses in income for forest communities and the timber industry. This is likely to reduce the overall capacity for economic production and increase the risks for economic activities. Local communities are also likely to be more at risk from exposure to climate extremes (such as droughts, floods and fires). Biodiversity will be impacted as forests shift towards the poles and vulnerable species could be lost. xvi The higher predicted incidences of extreme events will have a devastating effect on the forest flora and fauna, as will the increase in forest fires due to droughts, and floods. xvii Changes in precipitation and runoff patterns will result in decreases in the availability of water in many parts of the world's forested watersheds, thus decreasing the goods and services they provide. xviii Incidences of pest outbreaks are also

4 expected to rise as the defenses of host species change with a changing climate, as well as with the change in the abundance of parasites and predators. FAO cites examples where insect and pathogen lifecycles or habits have been altered by local or larger-scale climate change (e.g. mountain pine beetles in North America and pine and oak caterpillars in Europe).xix

Taken together, forest degradation and deforestation are the source of 1.6 Giga-tons (Gt) of annual carbon emissions,xx which contribute to escalating climate instability that affects many of the world’s poorest or most vulnerable communities. It is well established that the degradation and deforestation of landscapes can cause downward spirals into poverty.xxi High population growth and lack of agricultural diversification can encourage farmers to cultivate continuously, thus reducing soil fertility and future crop yields. Degradation and deforestation have been routinely linked to the increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters, particularly floods and landslides.

It is therefore necessary to implement strategies and approaches aimed at enhancing the resilience of forest landscapes, as well as the resilience of human societies dependent on them. As such, adaptive and sustainable forest management is crucial to reduce vulnerabilities of forests and human populations. Importantly, approaches such as afforestation, reforestation, restoration, and avoided deforestation are essential to ensuring the continuation of carbon sequestration to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For example, FAO recommends that a nation’s terrestrial area should be at least 10% forested.xxii 2. Forest Landscape Restoration In the past two decades, forest landscape restoration has emerged as a promising approach to restore degraded and deforested forest ecosystems within landscapes. A forest landscape is defined as one that is capable of supporting forests or woodlands, regardless of its current vegetation or use; and forest landscape restoration as the long-term process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing human wellbeing across deforested or degraded forest landscapes.xxiii

Forest landscape restoration is an integrated approach that looks at all aspects of forest landscapes and manages them accordingly. The landscape approach entails restoration of a mosaic of land uses, including agriculture, farming and pastoral systems. For example, agroforestry and silvi-pastoral “Forest landscape restoration is the long-term process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing human well-being across approaches are effective means through deforested or degraded forest landscapes. It is about ‘forests’ which forest landscape restoration can because it involves increasing the number and/or health of trees in an area. It is about ‘landscapes’ because it involves entire enhance adaptive capacity and resilience by watersheds, jurisdictions, or even countries in which many land uses increasing species diversity and variation interact. It is about ‘restoration’ because it involves bringing back the within a landscape. biological productivity of an area in order to achieve any number of benefits for people and the planet. It is ‘long-term’ because it requires a multi-year vision of the ecological functions and benefits to human The focus of forest landscape restoration is well-being that restoration will produce although tangible deliverables such as jobs, income and carbon sequestration begin to to conserve forest ecosystems and to flow right away.” 1 maintain, increase or enhance ecosystem functions by ensuring that landscapes accommodate a mosaic of land uses, as part of integrated and negotiated landscape management, rather than in isolation, or by providing piecemeal solutions. xxiv

Because it works towards restoring functionality, incorporates uncertainty, and aims towards improving social and ecological conditions, forest landscape restoration is an effective approach for enhancing socio- ecological resilience. Figure 1 depicts how forest landscape restoration options can enhance resilience by improving forest ecosystem goods and services. xxv

3. Socio-ecological resilience

Resilience is an important concept in climate change solutions. In general, enhancing resilience involves reducing vulnerability, and increasing the potential of people and ecosystems to adapt or transform as the climate changes. It is important to note that there are many interpretations and definitions for resilience, which are useful in varying contexts. In the case of forest landscape restoration implementation, however, the concept of socio-ecological resilience, is particularly useful.

Figure 1: How forest landscape restoration can enhance resilience

The IPCC defines resilience as “The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances, while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change”,xxvi and as “the ability of a system and its component parts to anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient manner, including through ensuring the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic structures and functions”.xxvii Thus, a resilient system or community has the ability to “spring back” from

6 a hazard or shock. This ability depends on the availability of essential resources and the capacity to organize both before and after the shock.xxviii The Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) broadens the definition to include socio-ecological systems (SES)1 and defines resilience as “the capacity of a system, be it an individual, a forest, a city or an economy, to deal with change and continue to develop. It is about the capacity to use shocks and disturbances like a financial crisis or climate change to spur renewal and innovative thinking. Resilience thinking embraces learning, diversity and above all the belief that humans and nature are strongly coupled to the point that they should be conceived as one social–ecological system.”xxix Folke et al. (2010) define resilience as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity.”xxx

An important aspect of resilience is the ability of a system to withstand shocks while also being able to “rebuild the system” whenever necessary.xxxi As such, resilient socio-ecological systems can (a) absorb stresses and continue to maintain their function when faced with climate change and other uncertainties. More crucially, it also means that resilient systems can (b) remain sustainable by adapting and evolving, so that they are prepared for future (uncertain, unknown and unforeseen) situations.xxxii Both aspects are important, especially in the context of developing countries and poor, vulnerable and marginalized communities, who not only need to face current climate impacts but also need to rebuild and transform themselves and their systems to deal with new climate regimes and other future shocks. For example, trees on a farm help to retain water in the soil, provide opportunities to diversify food supply and generate additional income for a family depending on the farm for food and income. In case of prolonged droughts (or “shocks”, in resilience terminology) the trees would ameliorate the effects of drought on a farm, village, or an entire region in terms of water availability and food productivity (i.e. “absorb stresses”), allowing the people to continue relying on their farms (i.e. to “maintain function”). People living on the farm may jointly decide to plant more trees species that are best suited to provide them with products (food), and services (soil water retention) to prepare for increasingly frequent droughts (i.e. to “adapt and evolve”) to prepare for future challenges.

In addition to withstanding shocks, “springing back” and “rebuilding”, resilient systems are able to reorganize and access new opportunities after experiencing changes in states. The time required for a system to return to an equilibrium point following a disturbance event is commonly referred to as “engineering resilience”.xxxiii This means resisting change and conserving existing structures.xxxiv In socio- ecological systems however, resilience means “the amount of disturbance that a system can absorb before changing to another stable state”, referred to as “ecological resilience”.xxxv To explain further, it is "the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity”xxx (i.e. being persistent to change).xxxvi However, socio-ecological resilience has seen even broader, more elaborate conceptualization. In this iteration, it is understood to include the adaptive capacity of the system (i.e. the ability to learn, adjust responses to

1 An SES is defined as a system that includes societal (human) and ecological (biophysical) subsystems in mutual interaction (Gallopın, G.C., 1991. Human dimensions of global change: linking the global and the local processes. International Social Science Journal 130, 707–718.)

7 internal and external drivers, make incremental changes and continue operating) and the transformative capacity (i.e. the ability to create and operate in a completely new system in case existing ecological, economic or social structures make the existing one unsustainable). xxxvii All of these depend on the types of shocks that a system experiences and deals with. Whatever the definition, resilience is a crucial element for safeguarding and restoring human wellbeing. When risks are reduced, assets are built and adaptive systems are strengthened and organized, the community becomes resilient towards unforeseen and adverse changes.

Resilience science is based on Holling’s adaptive cycle and panarchy, two “rule of thumb” models for assessing the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to recover and change as a consequence of disturbance.xxxviii Simply put, the adaptive cycle is a model of growth, senescence (or natural deterioration), collapse and reorganization, leading to a new phase of growth, and is common to all living beings, communities and ecosystems. The adaptive cycle is based on three interconnected parts: 1. The potential of the system to change in response to changes within the environment in which it occurs, and changes in its internal components. The potential for change includes the social and ecological aspects of an ecosystem. 2. The feedback interactions between the component parts of the system, which regulate system function; and 3. The system’s ability to recover after disturbance i.e., its resilience. Panarchy is a conceptual framework comprised of three adaptive cycles and the feedback interactions between them, which represent the interconnectedness between systems at different scales. For example, leaf, twig, branch, tree, forest stand, forest and landscape are a nested set of systems of increasing scale. Human systems are similarly nested: cell, tissue, organ, individual, household and community. To summarize, socio-ecological resilience recognizes that ecosystems (and landscapes) can occur in more than one state and focuses on the ability of a system to persist in the face of prevailing patterns of use, stresses and major disturbance.

4. How restoration can contribute to resilience

Forest landscapes can be viewed as social-ecological systems of people and nature that are mutually interdependent, each affecting change in the other. The resilience of such systems varies because of the outcome of the interactions between people and nature. When conceptualized as socio-ecological systems they are prime locations to implement resilience enhancing strategies and actions, such as forest landscape restoration.

It is important to understand that various elements such as food insecurity, climate change, disasters, economic systems, poverty, conflicts, rights and access can affect resilience. Forest landscape restoration contributes to resilience by addressing those that may be part of and influencing a particular system. Therefore, it addresses not only climate change issues but also those that tend to increase the vulnerabilities of people. For example, forest landscape restoration contributes to food security by

8 enabling and improving the provision of forest goods such as NTFPs (wild fruits, leaves, seeds, nuts, honey and vegetables), as well as animals, and insects, at times when other sources are meager. Worldwide, one in six people directly rely on forests for food and income. xxxix Locally controlled forests provide households livelihoods worth US$130 billion, in developing countries. xl Because forest landscape restoration enhances forest ecosystem goods and services, it also contributes to economic and livelihood benefits - both of which are elements of resilience - such as through sustainably managed commercial plantations, agro-forestry and tourism, in addition to providing grazing land and fuelwood.

Forest landscape restoration has the potential to also provide immense benefits for climate change mitigation and, if carried out in a climate smart manner, provides equally large adaptation benefits. This synergy can go a long way towards increasing socio-ecological resilience. Previously forests were mainly considered for mitigation purposes and largely ignored for adaptation. Now, studies suggest the importance of forest restoration towards resilience by synergizing both mitigation and adaptation.xli This potential for integrated mitigation and adaptation action through forest landscape restoration certainly warrants further exploration, especially in the context of increasing socio-ecological resilience.

Climate change is likely to impact poor communities and less developed nations the most because they have economies largely dependent on ecosystems. Therefore, socio-ecological resilience is crucial to their national strategies. For example, there is a need to build resilience of food and water systems in order to ensure that society is able to adapt to climate change. xlii

There is a dynamic process at work here. Not only do poor communities and less developed countries need to withstand adverse climate change impacts, they also need to be able to move out of their poverty and low development cycles, which can only occur if they are prepared to face uncertainties and also achieve improvements in their social, economic and ecological systems. Enhancing resilience in forest systems through forest landscape restoration options will not only prepare communities to deal with climate impacts but will also provide them with the flexibility to exploit opportunities. It will ensure that biodiversity is conserved and that the forest landscape continues to provide goods and services in the face of change.

In addition, forest landscape restoration can contribute to disaster risk reduction, such as by improving coastal protection provided by mangrove forests; implementing forest and grassland conservation to protect communities from soil erosion and sandstorms; tree buffers along rivers to protect against ﬂooding and erosion; and increasing vegetation in urban spaces to reduce the urban heat island effect and improve air quality. xliii

Healthy ecosystems have the potential to reduce and preclude conflict. By reducing out-migration; thus decreasing socio-economic conflicts arising through urbanization, unemployment in cities and emigration to neighboring countries, etc., forest landscape restoration combined with equitable sharing of benefits can also contribute towards local resilience.

Restoration is also one of the on-ground measures commonly employed as an option under Ecosystem- based Adaptation (EbA). Since EbA (and by extension ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction) aims to

9 reduce human vulnerabilities through the provision of ecosystem services, it is clear that well managed, restored and conserved forest ecosystems can help people to adapt to climate change, deal more effectively with disasters, and enhance their benefit flows. Forest landscape restoration options such as afforestation, reforestation, agroforestry, conservation, preservation and sustainable management of forests (all of which are possible EbA actions), provide biodiversity and ecosystem services that help communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change by reducing vulnerabilities and increasing socio- ecological resilience.

Restoration of forest landscapes can enhance water resources, maintain biodiversity and increase carbon sequestration. Restoration activities can be targeted towards increasing forest cover, improving the hydrological cycle, increasing the amount of available water, and regulating surface and groundwater flows, while maintaining and improving water quality. Biodiversity conservation in forest landscapes can ensure that their productivity is maintained, thus contributing to food security through NTFPs (such as fuel, fodder, honey and fruit), animal protein and other products. Well-designed and effectively implemented forest landscape restoration approaches can further contribute to resilience by reducing poverty - if they have built in incentives for communities to manage forests sustainably. A variety of forest products such as timber, fiber and bioenergy can increase rural incomes. Agro-forestry and wooded areas can also contribute to income in times of stress. Forest landscape restoration options can also contribute to livelihoods from recreation and tourism, and importantly, payment for ecosystem services can increase regional economic stability and provide funds for conservation. While these increase adaptive capacities of people, carbon sequestration contributes towards mitigation goals. Mangrove and riverine forests decrease disaster risks by providing coastal protection and protection from floods, soil erosions and sandstorms. Ensuring an enabling institutional and governance environment, with appropriate stakeholder participation (including gender integration) are important aspects of forest landscape restoration. xliv

The following table (1) highlights forest landscape restoration principles as defined by the Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restorationxlv, and how they result in enhancing socio-ecological resilience. These principles can be used as guidelines to ensure resilience integrated forest landscape restoration.

Table 1: Forest landscape restoration contribution towards enhancing resilience Forest landscape Contribution towards resilience restoration Principles

Landscape focus Entire landscapes are restored, including a mosaic of interdependent land uses across the landscape, such as protected forest areas, ecological corridors, regenerating forests, agroforestry systems, agriculture, well-managed plantations and riparian strips to protect waterways. This means using an integrated approach that lowers risks and vulnerabilities of ecosystems and human populations.

Restore functionality of landscape Through ecosystem restoration/ rehabilitation, afforestation and reforestation, providing a habitat for biodiversity, contributing to soil and water conservation, preventing flooding and soil erosion in order to deal with the impacts of current and future climate change and other disruptions, landscapes can be made functional. Thus contributing to enhanced human wellbeing, including through the improved provision of ecosystem services.

Provide multiple benefits Enhance a multitude of ecosystem goods and services, adding to people’s livelihoods, food and water security, and risk reduction etc. depending on the objective of the interventions. These are important objectives for a resilient community.

Forest landscape restoration can be an implementing vehicle for multiple global objectives in the sense of promoting multi-purpose cost-effective interventions for addressing climate change, biodiversity loss, food and water security, poverty, and thus has a more strategic nature in the sense of cost-effective allocation of resources for interventions that have the potential for delivering multiple benefits.

Implement a number of strategies Reforestation, afforestation, agroforestry, natural regeneration, assisted regeneration and tree plantation, ecosystem management -separately or in combination - can all contribute to socio-ecological resilience by improving livelihoods, increasing food and water security and decreasing disaster risks. This can also include preventing further loss/ conversion of forestland and reduce pressures to natural and protected ecosystems.

Tailor to local conditions Considering current and future local ecological, social and economic conditions helps to ensure that interventions address, and are tailored to, local needs and opportunities.

Participatory and adaptive Ensuring the involvement of all relevant stakeholders (including women and marginalized management communities), and adapting strategies to deal with changing conditions and new challenges ensures the capacity for renewal and facing future shocks.

To summarize, well-designed forest landscape restoration activities – when undertaken in an integrated and holistic manner, and when considering forest landscape restoration principles – enhance socio- ecological resilience by providing income opportunities, reducing poverty, supporting food and water security and enhancing environmental sustainability. xlvi

5. Conclusion

To achieve the full benefits that forest landscape restoration can provide it is necessary to identify the aims and objectives of restoration being undertaken in a particular context. There is a need to develop

11 guidance on how adaptive capacity can be increased and resilience can be enhanced in practice, by defining a framework to plan, implement and assess projects for resilience. The framework can be useful in understanding the contribution of forest landscape restoration towards enhancing resilience by asking relevant questions such as a) what are the elements of degradation in a system? b) what are the interventions needed to address them? and c) what are the future needs in terms of adaptation and “renewal”?

The ultimate goal of this exercise is therefore, to develop a conceptual framework that would allow practitioners to assess for resilience when undertaking forest landscape restoration planning. It will help guide the planning, implementation and measuring of forest landscape restoration interventions, and ensure that they are aimed towards strengthening adaptation and enhancing resilience. This will assist in providing information about whether forest landscape restoration related projects are responding to the needs of resilience, in particular the multiple states of equilibrium to be addressed. Moreover, even though restoration goals do not always mention adaptation and resilience, they often address the needs for both (e.g., water and food security, stabilizing microclimate, reducing the influence of weather extremes). These and other impacts can be assessed and integrated more systematically in forest landscape restoration interventions (to fully utilize the potentials of forest landscape restoration to contribute to adaptation and resilience), through the framework. As a supplementary use, the framework can also enable practitioners to build a body of evidence from the field to serve as lessons learned; keeping in mind the definition of resilience that has been discussed in this paper.

References

i IUCN Policy Brief on the Economics of FLR and https://www.iucn.org/content/facts-and-figures-forests ii IUCN Policy Brief on the Economics of FLR and https://www.iucn.org/content/facts-and-figures-forests iii IUCN Policy Brief on the Economics of FLR and IUCN Issues Brief November 2015. https://www.iucn.org/downloads/forests_and_climate_change_issues_brief_cop21_011215.pdf ivLaestadius, L. S.-L. (2011). A world of opportunity: the world’s forests from a restoration perspective. Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR). vFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). State of the World's Forests 2011. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. vi IUCN Policy Brief on the Economics of FLR. vii Locatelli, Bruno et al. Chapter 2. Forests and Adaptation to Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities in Forests and Society - Responding to Global Drivers of Change. viiiKirschbaum, M. U. F., Cannell, M. G. R., Cruz, R. V. O., Galinski, W. and Cramer, W. P. Climate change impacts on forests. In: Climate change 1995, Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation of climate change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. 1996, Cambridge University Press. ix Ravindranath, N. H., Joshi, N.V., Sukumar, R. and Saxena, A. Impact of Climate Change on Forests in India. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and Forest Survey of India, Dehra Dun. xIPCC. Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change, Scientific-Technical Analyses. 1996, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. xiIPCC. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, 2001a. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. xiiIPCC. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, 2001b. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland; Leemans, R. And Eickhout, B. Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 2004, 14: 219-228. And N. H. Ravindranath, N.V. Joshi, R. Sukumar and A. Saxena. Impact of Climate Change on Forests in India. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and Forest Survey of India, Dehra Dun. xiii FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xiv FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry

Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xv FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xvi FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xvii FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xviii FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xix FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xxIPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. xxiDasgupta, S., Diechmann, U., Meisner, C., & Wheeler, D. (2005). Where is the Poverty–Environment Nexus? Evidence from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. World Development. xxii Technology Needs Assessment and Technology Action Plans for Climate Change Mitigation. 2013. National Environment Management Authority, Kenya. xxiiiIUCN. Forest Landscape Restoration. Gland: 2014; https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/forest/fp_our_work/fp_our_work_thematic/fp_our_w ork_fl/ xxivMinnemeyer, S., Laestadius, L., Sizer, N., Saint-Laurent, C. and Potapov, P. (2011). A World of Opportunity. The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration, World Resources Institute, South Dakota State University and IUCN. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/av45_english_web.pdf xxv Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. xxvi IPCC. 2008. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-4-1-2-ecosystems.html#footnote15 xxvii IPCC, 2012: Glossary of terms. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 555-564. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special- reports/srex/SREX-Annex_Glossary.pdf

xxviii https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology xxix Stockholm Resilience Centre. (2014). What is Resilience? An introduction to social-ecological research. www.stockholmresilience.su.se. xxx Folke, C., S. R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society. 15(4): 20. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/ xxxi Smith, D.M. (Undated). Development and Application of a Resilience Framework to Climate Change Adaptation. SEARCH Project – Briefing Paper. Global Water Programme, IUCN. https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/search_resilience_briefing_june_2011_v2.pdf xxxii Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change. 16: 253–267. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378006000379 and Nelson, Donald R., Adger, W. Neil, Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to Environmental Change: Contributions of a Resilience Framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 32: 395–419. http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/4245/1/AnnualReviewofEnvResources_32_395-419_2007.pdf xxxiii Newton, A.C. and Cantarello, E. (2015). Restoration of forest resilience: An achievable goal? Article in New Forests: International Journal on the Biology, Biotechnology, and Management of Afforestation and Reforestation. June 2015. xxxiv Bene, C., Headey, D., Haddad, L. and Grebmer, K von. (2015). Is resilience a useful concept in the context of food security and nutrition programmes? Some conceptual and practical considerations. Food Sec. (2016) 8:123–138. xxxv Newton, A.C. and Cantarello, E. (2015). Restoration of forest resilience: An achievable goal? Article in New Forests: International Journal on the Biology, Biotechnology, and Management of Afforestation and Reforestation. June 2015. xxxvi Bene, C., Headey, D., Haddad, L. and Grebmer, K von. (2015). Is resilience a useful concept in the context of food security and nutrition programmes? Some conceptual and practical considerations. Food Sec. (2016) 8:123–138. xxxvii Bene, C., Headey, D., Haddad, L. and Grebmer, K von. (2015). Is resilience a useful concept in the context of food security and nutrition programmes? Some conceptual and practical considerations. Food Sec. (2016) 8:123–138. xxxviii Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems. 4(5), pp. 390–405. xxxix Bhaskar Vira, Christoph Wildburger & Stephanie Mansourian (eds.), 2015. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series Volume 33. Vienna. 172 p. 15

xl IUCN (2012) Livelihoods and Landscapes Strategy: Results and Reflections. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN xli Locatelli, B., Catterall, C., Imbach, P., Kumar, C., Lasco, R., Marin-Spiotta, E., Mercer, B., Powers, J., Schwartz, N., and Uriarte, M. (2015) Tropical reforestation and climate change: Beyond carbon, Restoration Ecology, 23 (4): 337- 343 xlii Jones, M. (2014). Reflections on Resilience. Sustainable Food Trust. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-03-31/reflections-on-resilience/

xliii Lo, V. (2016). Synthesis report on experiences with ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Technical Series No.85. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 106 pages. Full report: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-85- en.pdf. Key messages: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-85-key-messages-en.pdf xliv Samuelson, L., Bengtsson, K., Celander, T., Johansson, O., Jägrud, L., Malmer, A., Mattsson, E., Schaaf, N., Svending, O., Tengberg, A. 2015. Water, forests, people – building resilient landscapes. Report Nr. 36. SIWI, Stockholm. xlv The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration - http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/forest-landscape-restoration xlvi Samuelson, L., Bengtsson, K., Celander, T., Johansson, O., Jägrud, L., Malmer, A., Mattsson, E., Schaaf, N., Svending, O., Tengberg, A. 2015. Water, forests, people – building resilient landscapes. Report Nr. 36. SIWI, Stockholm.