Enhancing Resilience Through Forest Landscape Restoration: Conceptual Framework November 2017

IUCN/Ali Raza Rizvi

Discussion Paper Enhancing Resilience through Forest Landscape Restoration: Conceptual Framework November 2017

This document is the second 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 guidance aims to help both forest landscape restoration and resilience practitioners and other stakeholders to mainstream considerations of resilience into forest landscape restoration planning, implementation and assessments, such that forest landscape restoration approaches and practices contribute to enhancing socio-ecological resilience of whole landscapes and the communities that depend on them.

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: Conceptual Framework (Discussion Paper). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 13 pp.

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

2

Key messages

 The Conceptual Framework will be pilot tested in select sites in order to streamline forest landscape restoration contribution to enhancing resilience, to gather evidence from the field, and to highlight any gaps in data and knowledge.  Resilience benefits from forest landscape restoration will be maximized when: (1) Ecosystem services and their state in the landscape are understood by actors in the landscape, (2) Pressures and drivers of change in the landscape are identified, (3) Restoration goals in a landscape take into account the needs of vulnerable communities, and (4) Future changes from climate change and other drivers are considered.  FLR inherently increases resilience, but we must go a step further and inform forest landscape restoration practice and policy makers how to maximize resilience benefits.

1. Introduction

Climate change has contributed towards a sharp increase in natural catastrophes. Other anthropogenic pressures such as resource degradation and depletion, rapid urbanization, unsustainable development, and conflicts have exacerbated the situation, with the result that human populations are increasingly vulnerable to these destabilizing factors. There is thus a need to enhance the resilience of people and ecosystems, which does not simply mean enabling the system to bounce back from a disruption but also to build the capacity for a system to survive, adapt, and flourish in the face of turbulent change and uncertainty (transformative resilience).i

Forests are unique ecosystems with varying rates of primary productivity, containing extensive biodiversity. Many complex processes take place at multiple vertical levels starting from the soil up to the canopy. Furthermore, they are comprised of multiple ecosystems across landscapes. For human communities dependent on them to be resilient, it is essential that forests themselves are resilient. This means that they should be able to not only recover from extensive damage but also adapt and evolve as a response to disruptions and new conditions. Therefore, careful conservation and sustainable management is required to ensure that the goods and services they provide are available to users. This can be achieved through the application of forest landscape restoration, an approach that can contribute to enhancing the resilience of forests, forest landscapes, as well as the communities dependent on them. ii

3

2. A framework for integration

Forest landscape restoration can implicitly and explicitly enhance the resilience of forest ecosystems and the human communities dependent on them, by providing a framework to address the social, environmental and political drivers that underpin change and transcend management boundaries. It is a problem solving multi-sectoral approach, bringing together a diversity of stakeholders from various areas, to resolve issues that encompass social, political, cultural, ecological, and economic aspects. iii

______Forest landscape restoration is the long-term process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing human well-being across deforested or degraded forest landscapes. It is about “forests” because it involves increasing the number and/or health of trees in an area. It is about “landscapes” because it involves entire watersheds, jurisdictions, or even countries in which many land uses interact. It is about “restoration” because it involves bringing back the 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 well-being that restoration will produce although tangible deliverables such as jobs, income and carbon sequestration begin to flow right away. iv ______

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 water available, 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 (non-timber forest products; 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.v

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

4

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 the 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 on 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.

Problem Statement

In order to understand whether a forest landscape restoration intervention actually provides resilience benefits, there is a need to answer a few questions.

a) What are the drivers and elements of degradation in a system? b) What ecological and socio-economic issues need to be addressed? c) What are the forest landscape restoration options needed to address current issues? and d) What are the future needs in terms of adaptation and ‘renewal’?

Figure 2 depicts a conceptual framework to highlight resilience-integrated forest landscape restoration implementation. The four questions from the problem statement are aligned with conceptual statements

5 to ensure that resilience is integral to forest landscape restoration implementation and that it is explicitly highlighted as a project outcome.

Figure 1: How forest landscape restoration can enhance resilience

Forest landscape restoration is future-oriented and dynamic. It helps to create options to adapt, renew and optimize ecosystem goods and services, in the face of changing socio-economic needs and challenges.vii Based on this understanding, Figure 1, depicted above, broadly highlights the characteristics that are necessary to enhance the resilience of forest landscapes.

Furthermore, recent work has led to the development of seven principlesviii that are considered essential for building resilience in socio-ecological systems. Table 2 underlines how these principles can be practically applied through forest landscape restoration. Both Figure 2 and Table 2 together constitute the conceptual framework to underscore forest landscape restoration contribution to socio-ecological resilience.

6

Figure 2: Resilience integrated forest landscape restoration Anticipating the future Landscapes/Ecosystems and Biodiversity Livelihoods and Human Wellbeing Lower vulnerabilities, higher adaptation

What are the drivers and elements of What socioeconomic issues need to be What are the FLR options needed to What are the future needs in terms of degradation in the system? addressed? address current issues? adaptation and ‘renewal’?

Assess and Assess and Understand the Understand the Understand Understand Understand, Understand, understand understand the role of ecosystem socioeconomic opportunities and opportunities and assess and assess, anticipate ecosystems and observed and goods and services issues in the barriers to barriers to anticipate future future their state in the documented that provide the landscape. implementing FLR implementing FLR changes that may socioeconomic whole landscape. causes of basis for options in options for occur due to needs. Assess the impacts degradation. livelihoods, landscapes. communities. climate and other on human Design activities Analyze the goods income, food/ drivers. wellbeing from Develop goals and Develop goals and that will lead to and services they Analyze the water security and Design activities enhancing the provide. current and future risk reduction. climate change objectives; design objectives; design impacts of climate and other drivers. and prioritize and prioritize that will help wellbeing of Assess changes to and other drivers interventions that interventions that ecosystem/ human the climate in the Analyze the of degradation, on contribute contribute landscape towards populations and landscape. vulnerabilities of ecosystem goods towards towards increasing adaptation and provide communities due and services. sustainable resilience of future renewal. opportunities for degrading management and human growth, progress ecosystems and increasing communities. and renewal. climate impacts. resilience of

forests.

Participation Legal, Policy, Institutional and Governance Identify stakeholders and collaborators. Clarify land tenure, rights, equity and access issues. Identify technical experts to provide scientific and other data. Understand and assess relevant policies and governance structures. Include local communities in all phases, including for indigenous knowledge and data. Identify and include relevant institutions. Map roles and responsibilities for implementation. Monitoring and Evaluation Identify baseline and targets; develop SMART indicators for monitoring resilience. Monitor and evaluate FLR action against Aichi Targets and SDGs. Learn and adapt where necessary.

7

Table 2: Principles of Socio-ecological Resilience and forest landscape restoration

Principles of Socio-ecological How forest landscape restoration can enhance resilience Resilience

Maintaining Diversity and Redundancy

Socio-ecological systems have different For example, assess the loss of species, habitats and livelihoods; decline in components such as species, landscape ecosystem goods and services; changes in land use, cultural importance and types, knowledge systems, actors, effectiveness of institutions (as well as other components). cultural groups or institutions. Consider and prioritize different options to deal with changes and uncertainty for the various components of the landscape.

Manage Connectivity

Connectivity can be both good and For example, assess the management for fire and disease outbreak; understand bad. Well-connected systems can connectivity between habitats; evaluate diversity of land use and livelihoods. overcome and recover from disturbances faster but in some cases, Ensure that connectivity is managed based on the requirement of the system. overly connected systems may Forest landscape restoration options must be prioritized according to the increase the spread of disturbances. connectivity between (and among) ecosystems and human populations.

Manage Slow Variables and Feedbacks

Social-ecological systems are often For example, evaluate the changes in ecosystem goods and services; assess the configured in several different ways. impacts of climate change and other drivers; understand rights, access and decision Slowly changing variables (such as making capacities of local communities; assess the impact of governance, policies causes of pollution) and feedbacks can and institutional set-up. negatively or positively impact ecosystem services. Consider the different ways in which the landscape and its variables are connected and interact with each other; and what strategies can be applied to maintain ecosystem integrity and human well-being.

Foster Complex Adaptive Systems Thinking For example, evaluate collaborative and conflict resolution strategies, decision- Complex interactions and dynamics making structures, benefit sharing, and resource & land use strategies. exist between ecosystems and stakeholders/ actors. Understand interactions and relationships between humans and ecosystems. Expect and account for unpredictability and uncertainty.

Learning Encourage continuous learning and experimentation (through monitoring and evaluation) to ensure that resilience-enhancing efforts are successful and can contribute towards ‘renewal’.

Broaden Participation Ensure the involvement of all relevant stakeholders to build trust and create shared understanding, as well as to incorporate traditional knowledge.

Promote Polycentric Governance Assess existing governance structures, policies, laws & institutions and their impacts on the landscape.

Ensure that multiple institutions and governing bodies are involved and interact to make and enforce rules and policies. They should also have a shared understanding of forest landscape restoration options and how these options can help to enhance resilience.

8

Box 1. Case Study: Mount Elgon, Uganda The framework was pilot tested in the Mt. Elgon ecosystem in Uganda, where the project Implementing a Resilience Framework to support Climate Change Adaptation in the Mt. Elgon Region of the Lake Victoria Basin is being implemented. The Mt. Elgon ecosystem is a trans-boundary ecosystem that straddles Eastern Uganda and Western Kenya covering an area of about 772,300 ha. The Mt. Elgon landscape is a mosaic of five major vegetation types.

The higher slopes of Mt. Elgon landscape are protected as National Parks both in Kenya (169 km2) and Uganda (1,110 km2). The protected areas are home to over 300 species of birds and 37 globally threatened species (22 mammals, 2 insect and 13 bird species). Over 400 species of plants have been recorded on the slopes of the mountain, including the endemic Elgon Teak (Olea capensis). Mt. Elgon was declared a UNESCO Man and Biosphere (MAB) Reserve in Kenya and Uganda in 2003 and 2005 respectively and is expected to be made a trans-boundary MAB conservation area covering 1,279 km2. It also has the status of an Important Bird Area. Despite its ecological and socio-economic significance, many areas of the Mt. Elgon landscape are affected by land degradation, deforestation and forest degradation. Results from modeling and GIS analysis show that there has been a marked reduction in forest cover due to clearing of land for agricultural production since 1973. Some wetlands and forests have been converted into farms and some riverbanks cultivated. The forest ecosystem is particularly threatened by overharvesting of forest products, encroachment for settlements and agriculture. Livestock grazing and poaching have equally and substantially reduced biodiversity, where a high number of animals are hunted for meat and other products for traditional use. The main causes of all this are high population pressure and poverty levels in the area. Due to overpopulation, a debilitated ecological base, over-dependence on climate-sensitive sectors (agriculture, forestry, fisheries) and limited livelihood options compounded by poor social services, the communities in Mt. Elgon are particularly vulnerable to impacts of climate change and, have lesser adaptive capacities to cope with its shocks and impacts. Furthermore, the scramble for limited space within the Mt. Elgon landscape has given rise to other challenges such as encroachment, grazing, and settlement in the Mt. Elgon National park area. The boundary of the park is a hotly contested issue on the Ugandan side, resulting in conflicts between the communities and the Uganda Wildlife Authority.

In order to address the problems and challenges faced by the community in Mt. Elgon, a strategic two pronged forest landscape restoration approach was used:

 Restoration of landscapes susceptible to, or critical in safeguarding against natural disasters and dramatic climate change impacts, as well as safeguarding lives, property and ecosystem services.  Improving agricultural land management in order to improve food production, water retention and soil health to improve community livelihood and increase their resilience to climate change impacts. To address ecosystem challenges and to increase societal and ecosystem resilience to climate change impacts, the interventions focused on three areas: (1) Facilitation of processes that ensured community regulated access to in-park resources in order to reduce park–community conflicts and to enhance park conservation values and biodiversity integrity; (2) Restoration and protection of riverine vegetation to enhance the retention capacity of streams, rivers and wetlands so as to reduce flooding; and (3) Restoration of the degraded landscape through afforestation and soil and water conservation practices (such as cut off drains and contour grass strips among others), to reduce soil erosion and to support the increasing demand for wood products for domestic use and sale.

To address the problems and challenges faced by the community, the interventions focused on four strategic areas: (1) Supporting and enhancing the capacity of people to manage their land and rivers so as to mitigate against, and withstand, the impacts of climate change and variability; particularly by reducing the likelihood and incidences of soil erosion, landslides and flash floods through managing the land itself; (2) Enhancing skills and capacity of communities to diversify their options by provision of extension services in silviculture and developing capacity in business skills; (3) Supporting self-organization through strengthening local self-governance arrangements to enhance community’s capacity to plan for and respond to climate impacts; and (4) Undertaking good farming practices to enhance agricultural productivity to improve household income and food security. Specifically, the introduction of trees within the coffee farming systems increased their resilience to prolonged dry spells, whereas the soil and water conservation practices increased water drainage, hence enhancing the ability to support crops when rains suddenly stop.

The above practices and approaches have played a considerable role in enhancing socio-economic resilience in the Mt. Elgon landscape. Pilot testing the Conceptual Framework to develop this case study, helped to highlight the importance of forest landscape restoration approaches and practices for resilience. It also underlined gaps in knowledge and understanding that must be considered when implementing the forest landscape restoration approach to ensure that socio-ecological resilience is enhanced. Further testing in other sites will help refine the Conceptual Framework and to decrease gaps in knowledge and understanding.

9

3. Way forward: Applying the framework in practice

The framework is expected to be used during project design, implementation and monitoring, to integrate resilience into forest landscape restoration projects. It can also be used to assess the extent to which activities are contributing towards resilience in ongoing projects. This was done in Mount Elgon, Uganda (see Box 1). A case study format was developed using the conceptual framework, which can be applied to other cases, using simple questions which can generate information at the field level.

It proposes a broad standard to help practitioners and decision makers design and plan forest landscape restoration measures that identify enhancing resilience as an outcome. It will also assist in developing resilience oriented monitoring and evaluation criteria. During the implementation phase, the framework can help to improve the quality of forest landscape restoration measures and approaches to ensure resilience enhancing outcomes. It is also expected to help projects managers to strongly articulate the landscape element in forest landscape restoration projects.

The flexibility of the framework will ensure that it can be further refined and adapted to national contexts and project needs. It can be kept as simple, or be made as complex, as needed.

Furthermore, the Ecosystem Approach principles, grouped into five steps by IUCN, can also be considered as additional guidance. ix

The Conceptual Framework will be pilot tested in select sites in order to streamline forest landscape restoration contributions to enhancing resilience, to gather evidence from the field and to highlight any gaps in data and knowledge.

10

References

i Fiskel, J., Goodman, I. and Hecht, A. (2014). Resilience: Navigating toward a Sustainable Future. The Solution Journal. https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/resilience-navigating-toward-a- sustainable-future/ ii Thompson, I. ITTO Tropical Forest Update. Canadian Forest Service. http://www.futuroforestal.com/wp-content/uploads/Resilience.pdf iii 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. iv Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration v 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. vi The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration - http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/forest-landscape-restoration vii The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration - http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/forest-landscape-restoration viii Biggs, R., Schluter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E.L., Silver, S.B., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T.M., Evans, L.S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A.M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Dobarts, M.D., Schoon, M.L., Schultz, L. and P.C. West. 2012. Towards Principles for Enhancing the Resilience of Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836 And http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.10119fc11455d3c557d6928/1459560241272/SRC+A pplying+Resilience+final.pdf ix Shepherd, G. (ed.) (2008). The Ecosystem Approach: Learning from Experience. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. X+190pp.

11

ANNEX Enhancing Resilience through Forest Landscape Restoration Approaches and Practice: CASE STUDY FORMAT

This document describes the format to develop case studies based on the FLR-Resilience Conceptual Framework, to move towards developing an operational framework. The format defines how to set up information about FLR projects, while ensuring that information is provided on how they contribute to adaptation and resilience. The complex definitions and approaches have been unpacked and simple questions have been compiled to generate the required information. Please note that this is just an indicative list and other information and indicators that are more relevant to a specific project could be added.

It is important to note that the case studies should not be more than 3500 words. Case studies should follow the broad format described below.

Section 1 Landscapes/ Ecosystems and Biodiversity

What are the drivers and elements of degradation in the system?

 Briefly describe: - the mosaic ecosystems and their state in the landscape. - the goods and services the ecosystems provide. - the observed and documented causes of degradation. - changes in climate in the whole area. - current and expected future impacts of climate change as well as other drivers of degradation on goods and services.

Section 2 Livelihoods and Human Wellbeing

What socio-economic issues needed to be addressed?

 Briefly describe: - the existing socio-economic issues present in the landscape. - the role of the ecosystems and what goods and services they provide that contribute to livelihoods and human wellbeing (this includes income, health, water and food security etc.). - the impacts of climate change and other drivers on human wellbeing. - how vulnerabilities increased due to climate change and other drivers.

Section 3. Reducing Vulnerabilities Higher Adaptation

What FLR options were implemented?

 Briefly describe: - the FLR options that were implemented for ecosystems and human wellbeing. 12

- the barriers and opportunities to implementing the options. - how FLR options decreased vulnerabilities, increased adaptation and made ecosystems (forests) and communities resilient.

It is important to show how ecosystems and communities benefited from the interventions.

Section 4. Anticipating the future

What are the future needs in terms of adaptation and renewal?

 Briefly describe: - the future changes that may occur in ecosystems and human communities due to climate change and other drivers. - how the anticipated changes in ecosystems/ landscapes were addressed with FLR options to increase resilience and adaptive capacity. (It is important to highlight how FLR options will benefit ecosystems/ landscapes in the face of future changes as well as how ecosystems/ landscapes “renew”). - how the future changes in human communities were addressed with FLR options to increase resilience and adaptive capacity. (It is important to showcase how FLR options will benefit ecosystems/ landscapes in the face of future changes as well as how ecosystems/ landscapes “renew”).

Participation

Describe the participatory approach utilized when implementing the FLR options, including stakeholders and gender integration.

Legal, Policy, Institutional and Governance

Describe the legal, policy, institutional and governance changes that resulted from the FLR interventions.

Conclusion

Describe overall findings and if the interventions resulted in enhancing the adaptive resilience of humans and local ecosystems. What worked best and what areas could have been done differently to maximise on the input? Are there any other emergent impacts which were not intended?

13