GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK WORKING PAPER

THE ROLE OF ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AND REHABILITATION IN PRODUCTION LANDSCAPES: An enhanced approach to sustainable development

Neville D. Crossman

Case Study Authors: Florence Bernard, Benis Egoh, Felix Kalaba, Namue Lee, Simon Moolenaar

September 2017

DISCLAIMER The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by UNCCD in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the authors or contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNCCD. A/Prof Neville D. Crossman University of Adelaide Adelaide, South Australia, Australia [email protected] November 2016.

Suggested citation: Crossman, N.D., Bernard, F., Egoh, B., Kalaba, F., Lee, N., and Moolenaar, S. (2016) The role of ecological restoration and rehabilitation in production landscapes: An enhanced approach to sustainable development. Working paper for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook.

Acknowledgements: Pam Chasek (IISD), Louise Willemen (University of Twente), James Bullock (UK Centre for and Hydrology), Onil Banerjee (Inter-American Development Bank), Harini Nagendra (Azim Premji University) and Dolf de Groot (Wageningen University) are kindly thanked for providing examples and identifying case studies of where ecological restoration has been incorporated into production landscapes. Professor Graciela Metternicht (University of New South Wales) provided valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Supported by the Future Earth Global Land Programme https://glp.earth CONTENTS Executive Summary: Key Recommendations 04 1. Introduction 05 1.2 Why so much degradation? 05 1.2 Times are changing 06 1.3 Purpose of this working paper 07 2. New Approaches for Large-Scale Ecological Restoration 08 2.1 New integrated approaches 08 2.2 Novel ecosystems and adapting to rapid global change 10 2.3 Climate-smart and enhancing socio-ecological resilience 11 2.4 Increasing the multi-functionality and productivity of agricultural landscapes 13 2.5 Green infrastructure and nature-based solutions 19 2.6 Rewilding abandoned agricultural lands 21 2.7 Urban and peri-urban development 22 2.8 Infrastructure development and offsets. 23 3. Conclusion and Recommendations 24 3.1 Ecological restoration as an integral component of production landscapes 24 3.2 Evidence of success and benefits of ecological restoration 25 3.3 Incentives and enablers to mainstream ecological restoration 26 3.4 Key recommendations: overcoming hurdles to mainstream ecological restoration 26 4. References 27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: KEY RECOMMENDATIONS The annual costs of land degradation are Visionary approaches to integrate ecological restoration thought to be in the order of 10-17% of global into sustainable land management gross domestic product (GDP). The very high Visionary approaches that could drive widespread uptake of ecological restoration within production landscapes are costs of land degradation makes large-scale identified: ecological restoration a global imperative. • : New urban developments at the urban fringe, which incorporate protected and This paper documents the areas wherein, restored greenspace, potentially forming networks with and manners whereby, large-scale ecological existing protected areas, and providing many human, restoration has the potential to be an integral social and psychological well-being benefits; component of the sustainable management • Sustainable agricultural product certification: Expansion of the Network/Rainforest of natural capital within production systems. Alliance (SAN/RA) certification to include a requirement The paper reviews the main land management that producers restore to contain a minimum approaches that could drive large-scale cover of native vegetation of 10-15%; uptake of ecological restoration in agricultural • Rewilding for green infrastructure: Planning and building landscapes; in doing so, it also describes green infrastructure networks that diversify landscapes, provide multiple benefits, and respect plural social where and how some of the main barriers values. For example, in Europe, an estimated 2.2% of to widespread uptake can be found, and agricultural land must be restored annually so as to overcome. The approaches were selected maintain the supply of ecosystem services at 2010 for being integrated, and ecosystem-based, levels, while a similar magnitude of agricultural land will participatory in form, collaborative and involving simultaneously be abandoned; • Multi-valued payment for ecosystem services: An multiple stakeholders. All approaches are incentive scheme which rewards ecological restoration, equally applicable in low and high socioeconomic while respecting multiple social values. Payment contexts because they aspire to collaborative, schemes can motivate large-scale restoration, risk sharing implementation. The approaches provided the shared cultural and plural values of local communities are understood and respected; focused on are: • Climate-smart ecological restoration: Ecological • New integrated approaches restoration that insures against future risks of climate change and other rapid global changes. The future • Novel ecosystems and adapting to rapid of agricultural landscapes is increasingly uncertain; global change ecological restoration can mitigate damages from • Climate-smart agriculture and enhancing extreme and variable climates, shifts in commodity socio-ecological resilience markets, and, especially, from future events which are • Increasing the multi-functionality and currently unknown and/or only predicted. productivity of agricultural landscapes Key recommendations to overcome hurdles to • Green infrastructure and nature-based mainstream ecological restoration solutions Various challenges and barriers to the uptake of ecological • Rewilding abandoned agricultural lands restoration within sustainable land management approaches are summarized herein. The factors identified • Urban and peri-urban development in the literature include: i) poor communication of • Infrastructure development and biodiversity technologies and benefits; ii) lack of capacity, networks and offsets knowledge within farmer communities; iii) poor governance, The paper also describes several case studies, in legal, planning and tenure systems; iv) programme short- Africa and Asia, where ecological restoration is a termism and fragmentation; and, v) a lack of shared understanding of the risks mitigated by, and benefits key part of sustainable agricultural production. arising from, restoration. From our review of restoration projects and the scientific literature, there are several ways these barriers can be overcome.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 4 These are our key recommendations for integrating 1. INTRODUCTION restoration and rehabilitation projects and programmes Ecological restoration is defined as the process of assisting within wider sustainable landscape approaches: the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, 1. Make ecological restoration attuned to the multiple damaged, or destroyed (Society for Ecological Restoration functions of landscapes, so that restoration targets International Science and Policy Working Group, 2004). satisfy the requirements of ecosystems and landscapes Ecological restoration is required when the degraded to supply multiple ecosystem services, including a wide ecosystem is unable to self-repair. The main aim of range of cultural and social values. ecological restoration is to reinstate ecological processes 2. Incorporate ecosystem services into greening projects and functions that are resilient, adaptable to change, and and engage early with stakeholders. This empowers deliver important ecosystem services. local citizens and is more likely to lead to successful implementation of large-scale green infrastructure Ecological restoration is especially important in agricultural and urban greening planning because of the realized and other intensive use landscapes where degradation and ecosystem service benefits. extensive modification is widespread. Recent estimates 3. Communicate the benefits of restoration in an adequate of the global extent of land degradation range from 991 manner, so as to ensure farmers’ comprehension. million ha, mainly consisting of degraded and abandoned Farmers are, in general, more likely to plant trees to croplands (Cai et al., 2011), to over 6 billion ha of land restore farmland if they benefit from larger households (66% of the global land surface) affected by some form of (i.e., more available labor) and are more literate land degradation (Bot et al., 2000). Significant economic and aware of the longer-term benefits of reducing costs arise from continued land degradation and land use degradation. change, estimated to be in the order of 10-17% of current 4. Ensure economic instruments to motivate and reward global GDP, annually (ELD Initiative, 2015). Large-scale restoration (e.g., payments for ecosystem services); ecological restoration is needed to improve the condition these must be consistent with the preferences and of these vast tracts of degraded land; doing so can lead values of local communities, so efforts must be made to to increased crop yields (Branca et al., 2013), as well as to understand and respect shared cultural and plural social many other social, economic and ecosystem benefits, such values. as enhanced supply of regulation and cultural ecosystem 5. Target sustainable land management policies toward services (ELD Initiative, 2015). different revegetation methods, socioeconomic incentives, habitat protection mechanisms, sustainable 1.2 Why so much degradation? livelihoods, diversified funding and partnerships, There are several reasons for widespread degradation of technical support, and green infrastructure development. ecosystems. Firstly, agriculture has adopted practices to Doing so is more likely to have beneficial effects on the maximize yield, which has typically required mechanization success of programmes. and heavy use of inputs, with minimal consideration for 6. Accept the legitimacy of multiple values and the environmental impacts thereof. Conversion of land acknowledge the concerns of multiple stakeholders as a from permanent forested cover to annual crop production prerequisite for planning landscapes that contain a mix and/or pasture for is motivated by incentives of intensive agricultural uses with low intervention re- which reward yield increases through greater income. wild habitat on abandoned land. Secondly, markets for food and other products derived 7. Calculate the full economic value of urban greenspaces from the land (e.g., minerals, water) do not adequately (and green infrastructure) via ecosystem services value the contribution of natural capital to the production valuation techniques to give credibility and increase of these goods. There are no market signals to sustainably public acceptance of urban greenspace. manage the land and maintain the stock of natural capital 8. Widen the scope and be open minded to the many because the prices paid for agricultural commodities do different forms of ecological restoration in urban areas, not adequately reflect the full costs incurred by commodity and communicate the benefits of restoration to urban production. These externalities are now well recognized planners and stakeholders. and governments in many countries are working to develop policies and regulations which internalize the externalities. Thirdly, the presence of perverse incentives across the globe encourage food production and infrastructure development for national and economic security reasons at the expense of .

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 5 1.2 Times are changing Land degradation is recognized as having substantial social In recognition of the wide extent of land degradation and and economic costs, while restoring degraded lands is the many demonstrated benefits of ecological restoration, seen to have many benefits. The restoration of degraded there is a need for an orders of magnitude increase in land for productive use, especially abandoned cropland, is ecological restoration activities, globally; by some accounts thought to be a key element in the global effort to halt the this ought to be a hundred-fold increase (Alexander et al., spread of agriculture into forested areas, and to meet the 2016). Major international conventions (e.g., CBD, UNFCCC, growing global demand for agricultural food and energy UNCCD, Ramsar), programmes and platforms (e.g., IUCN, products (Fargione et al., 2008; Gelfand et al. 2013; Gibbs UNEP, UNDP, UNFF, FAO, IPBES), as well as the 2015 and Salmon, 2015). The restoration of degraded land will UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognize also improve the flow of many other ecosystem services by the importance of large-scale restoration for achieving conserving and improving the condition of natural capital sustainable development goals and targets (Akhtar- (Barral et al., 2015). This will generate direct and indirect Schuster et al., 2016). The UN SDGs include a target to benefits to human well-being (Figure 1). Restoration achieve land degradation neutrality globally, by 2030, improves a vast array of issues, which include: soil stability which will require extensive ecological restoration (UNCCD/ and condition; surface and groundwater water quality; Science-Policy Interface, 2016). Figure 2 shows that many habitat and biodiversity; micro and global climate stability; other targets of the SDGs are relevant to the sustainable and amenity, cultural and recreational benefits to people management of land systems, which puts increased (Crossman and Bryan, 2009; Barral et al., 2015; Alexander emphasis on the importance of ecological restoration in et al., 2016). degraded production landscapes. The 2015 UNFCCC Paris Agreement recognizes the importance of enhancing forest Ecological restoration can also provide economic benefits and soil carbon stock to mitigate climate change. There (Blignaut et al., 2013; de Groot et al., 2013; Blignaut are also a number of regional and national policies and et al., 2014; ELD Initiative, 2015). A meta-analysis of programmes promoting large-scale ecological restoration restoration studies by de Groot et al. (2013) estimated that (Aronson and Alexander, 2013). the restoration of grassland ecosystems could provide a benefit cost ratio of up to 35:1; this ratio would occur if However, there are several implementation, financing the monetary value of the flow of additional ecosystem and regulatory challenges to overcome before ecological services, provided following restoration, were to be taken restoration can be mainstreamed. Ecological restoration into account. Additionally, the employment benefits and requires new capacity-building, knowledge-sharing subsequent flow-on effects of restoration are a valuable and awareness-raising initiatives to become a large- part of national economies. For example, BenDor et al. scale and widespread activity (Aronson and Alexander, (2015) demonstrate that the ecological restoration sector 2013). Perverse incentives which encourage intensive in the US directly generates about 126,000 jobs and USD and unsustainable agriculture need to be removed, 9.5 billion in annual expenditure, along with a further and appropriate market signals to protect and restore 95,000 jobs and USD 15 billion of annual expenditure, natural capital need to be established. Regulatory and indirectly. planning instruments need to be expanded so that restoration becomes a requirement within land and water management regimes.

Figure 1: The links from natural capital to human well- being, and back. Ecological and socioeconomic sustainability is achieved through recognizing and accounting for the links in this pyramid. The restoration of natural capital generates many benefits to society. Source: Alexander et al. (2016).

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 6 Figure 2: Sustainable Development Goal target 15.3 on achieving a land degradation-neutral world as a catalyst for achieving other SDG targets. Source: Akhtar-Schuster et al. (2016)

1.3 Purpose of this working paper The aim of this paper is to document the areas wherein, The approaches focused on are: and manners whereby, ecological restoration has been, • New integrated approaches or has the potential to be, an integral component of • Novel ecosystems and adapting to rapid global change the sustainable management of natural capital within • Climate-smart agriculture and enhancing socio- production systems. This paper reviews the main ecological resilience land management approaches that could drive large- • Increasing the multi-functionality and productivity of scale uptake of ecological restoration in agricultural agricultural landscapes landscapes; in doing so, it also describes where and how • Green infrastructure and nature-based solutions some of the main barriers to the widespread uptake of • Rewilding abandoned agricultural lands restoration can be found, and overcome. The approaches • Urban and peri-urban development were selected for being integrated, ecosystem-based, • Infrastructure development and biodiversity offsets participatory in form, collaborative and involving multiple stakeholders. All approaches are equally applicable in low The paper also describes several case studies, in Africa and high socioeconomic contexts because they aspire to and Asia, where ecological restoration is a key part of collaborative, risk sharing implementation. sustainable agricultural production.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 7 2. NEW APPROACHES FOR LARGE-SCALE ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 2.1 New integrated approaches New and emerging integrated landscape approaches to Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) is the use conservation and restoration of land and water resources and conservation of forests ensuring that their multiple provide opportunities for wider uptake of ecological economic, social and environmental values are maintained restoration. These approaches aim to deliver multiple and enhanced for the benefit of present and future benefits by way of enhanced land and water management, generations (MacDicken et al., 2015). SFM recognizes minimizing trade-offs and taking advantage of synergies that forests can simultaneously perform many functions between: food and timber production; water supply; and deliver many different types of goods and services, biodiversity conservation; supply of other ecosystem depending on national and local conditions (Miura et al., services; and poverty alleviation (Estrada-Carmona et 2015). Sustainable forestry, in the traditional sense, aims al., 2014). These integrated approaches lead to more to ensure timber production can continue indefinitely for sustainable resource use; their implementation involves: a continued income stream. SFM additionally requires planning and designing landscapes at multiple scales; that broader social, cultural and environmental values are identifying and respecting the needs and perspectives of maintained in perpetuity. Because SFM can apply to all multiple stakeholders; improving coordination between types of natural, modified and plantation forests, ecological multiple sectors; enhancing human and institutional restoration is able to play an important role in returning knowledge and capacity for decision making; and their multiple original benefits and values to degraded implementing policies and incentives that encourage forests. Restoration of forests by reducing the impact of sustainable outcomes (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2014; Faizi logging has shown to provide benefits, such as climate and Ravichandran, 2016). change mitigation (West et al. 2014). Ecological restoration using forestry species is an important component of Three landscape-scale integrated planning approaches, integrated landscape planning, and – if managed using tailored toward agricultural land, forestry and water SFM principles – can reinstate the multiple functions and management sectors, respectively, are Sustainable Land services provided by forests (Tesfaye et al., 2015). Box Management (SLM), Sustainable Forestry Management 1 provides a case study in which SFM principles were (SFM), and Integrated Water Resources Management introduced so as to restore degraded habitat in Tanzania, (IWRM). Each of these approaches holds much promise for with multiple economic and environmental benefits. widespread adoption of ecological restoration. Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), also Sustainable land management (SLM) is also known as known as integrated catchment or watershed management multi-functional agriculture (Jordan and Warner, 2010), (Cobourn, 1999), is the coordinated development and eco-agriculture (Scherr and McNeely, 2008), whole management of water, land, and related resources, in landscape management (DeFries and Rosenzweig, 2010), order to maximize economic and social welfare in an multifunctional landscapes (Sayer et al., 2013; García- equitable manner, without compromising the sustainability Martín et al., 2016), integrated landscape management of vital ecosystems (Global Water Partnership, 2016). (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2014), (Altieri, 2002), IWRM recognizes the important contribution of land and and about eighty other lesser-known or lesser-used terms watershed management to water yields, water quality, (Scherr et al., 2013). The diverse terminology has arisen flow regimes and flood risks (de Vries, 2003). Poor land due to nuanced differences between approaches, but management, which increases the risk of water and wind common across all SLM is the holistic and interconnected erosion of soils, impacts on the quality of water entering management of land for the multiple objectives of food streams and reservoirs. Similarly, the excessive use of production, biodiversity conservation, sustainable rural crop inputs (e.g., and pesticides), along with poor livelihoods, and other ecosystem service benefits derived livestock waste management, also degrade water quality from sustainable stewardship. SLM approaches applied (Bryan et al., 2009; Sutton et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2016). in developing countries also have poverty alleviation and Water yields can be impacted by land cover, with a heavily rural empowerment as prominent goals (Mganga et al., forested landscape potentially reducing the amount of 2015; Adimassu et al., 2016). Most recently, SLM has been run-off entering streams and underground aquifers (Zhang broadened to incorporate climate change adaptation and et al., 2001). Implementing IWRM in degraded landscapes resilience (Cowie et al., 2011; Schwilch et al., 2014), in by excluding stock, and planting perennials – preferably particular, through the design of multi-use land systems native species – can reduce and soil loss to providing diverse income sources, including biomass for waterways (Haregeweyn et al., 2012), as well as improving alternative energy production (Cushman et al., 2015). biodiversity (Gibson-Roy et al., 2010).

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 8 Water management and water supply authorities are Integrated approaches take the impacts of land and water important beneficiaries of ecological restoration of resource management decisions into consideration, degraded landscapes because functioning ecosystems can weighing them against multiple objectives and stakeholder improve water quality for little cost. needs, at both the landscape and regional scales. There is considerable scope to mainstream ecological restoration Design of landscapes, using integrated approaches, within integrated approaches because its benefits, costs typically respects the following principles: i) using crop, and trade-offs are not confined to a few individual private grass and tree combinations to mimic the ecological actors. Ecological restoration within integrated planning structure and functions of natural habitats; ii) minimizing approaches enhances the supply of many ecosystem goods or reversing conversion of natural areas; iii) protecting and services; this substantially widens the beneficiary pool, and expanding larger patches of high-quality natural and, in so doing, provides non-monetary and monetary habitat; and, iv) developing effective ecological networks economic values that are not otherwise recognized by and corridors (Scherr and McNeely, 2008). Applying these traditional site-based perspectives of land management principles provides significant opportunity for widespread (de Groot et al., 2013; Schwilch et al., 2014). ecological restoration, especially in areas where there is extensive degradation. New environmental markets, removal of perverse policies and incentives, and significant technological training and capacity-building are needed so as to encourage the widespread adoption of ecological restoration within integrated planning approaches.

Box 1: Engaging smallholder farmers in forest restoration through market supply chains and technology, Miombo woodlands, Zambia. Felix Kalaba, Copperbelt University, Kitwe, Zambia This participatory project is implemented in the Luanshya district, a mining town in the Copperbelt province of Zambia. The project supports farmers in protecting Miombo woodlots on their farms and trains farmers in sustainable forest management and sustainable livelihood improvement. Farmers invited to the project have smallholder farmers with farms of between 4- 200 hectares. Their farms contain degraded forests and farmers voluntarily participate in the project. Farmers have varied age, gender and occupation and different social groups. The Luanshya district was selected due to the high deforestation rate of the region, a high dependence on forest products in the mining town, and current economic challenges experienced by the mining sector leading to job losses. The main incentive for farmers to participate is the knowledge gained through training in silviculture, conservation farming practices and techniques. Importantly the smallholder farmers retain the rights to the benefits from the tree and tree products from the restored woodlands. The restored forest trees provide farmers with additional ecosystem services and removes pressure from native forests. The Miombo woodlands, like many woodlands in tropical zones, are an important source of foods, medicines, fodder and construction material to local people (Chirwa et al. 2008, Kalaba et al. 2013). Additionally, these woodlands are an important carbon store, and are biologically diverse, providing climate change adaptation and mitigation benefits through increasing carbon sequestration and strengthening capacity of farmers to build resilient livelihoods and ensure more long- term food security.

In this project the local people participate in selecting trees to retain on their farmlands. This is mainly driven by local needs. Farmers are given an opportunity to choose the trees to protect as well as tree species to plant. Many farmers prefer planting fruit trees and trees with medicinal values. Tree planting provides farmers with additional expertise in sustainable forest management. It also contributes to UN Sustainable Development Goal #12 which seeks to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. The project also contributes to UN Sustainable Development Goal #15 through promoting restoration, reversing land degradation and halting biodiversity loss in the biologically diverse Miombo woodlands.

Restoration is achieved through assisted natural regeneration involving protection of saplings from fire and nurturing tree saplings, which is done by farmers. The incentives provided to farmers include establishing market linkages for farmers through protecting markets for timber and non-timber forest products. Local farmers are introduced to supply chains through local private sector companies. Sustainably extracted biomass is purchased from the cooperative and processed into wood chips to fuel low polluting cooking stoves.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 9 2.2 Novel ecosystems and adapting to rapid global change Ecosystems are dynamic and undergo continual change in There may be no current or historic analogue (i.e., reference structure, composition and function because of complex ecosystem) to guide ecological restoration. Restoration will interactions between species, climate change and climate need to be forward-looking, focusing on future trajectories variability. Over evolutionary time scales, species respond of climate, land use, demographic and socio-economic to climatic changes and niche shifts by dispersing in line change, as well as species range shifts. Restoration will with shifting climatic suitability, declining in abundance need to be guided by future ecosystem trajectories in toward potential extinction, or evolving new mechanisms to combination with current or historic analogues (Hobbs adapt to new climates. et al., 2009). For example, seeds sourced for restoration should be drawn from species suitable to modeled future Extensive ecosystem modification, in combination with climates in the restoration site, combined with seeds rapid global change – principally from anthropogenic of local provenance (Breed et al., 2013). Furthermore, climate change, but also from human demographic, social ecological restoration will need to be more attuned to and economic shifts, as well as due to invasive species the multiple functions of landscapes (Shackelford et al., introductions – will lead to novel and hybrid ecosystems 2013), so that ecological restoration targets satisfy the (Hobbs et al., 2009; Hobbs et al., 2014). Novel ecosystems requirements of ecosystems and landscapes to supply arise because of extensive biotic and abiotic modification multiple ecosystem services (Bullock et al., 2011; Seabrook that creates barriers prohibiting species from adapting et al., 2011; Sayer et al., 2013; Hobbs et al., 2014); this and shifting in response to the competition from invasive includes a wide range of cultural and social values (Bryan et species and ecosystem changes (Western, 2001; Ito al., 2010; Petursdottir et al., 2013; Shackelford et al., 2013). et al., 2013). The appearance of novel ecosystems will be especially prevalent in ecosystems and landscapes Figure 3 summarizes the decisions that need to be made that suffer from higher degrees of degradation, and are when considering restoration interventions in novel therefore less resilient to rapid change (Hobbs et al., 2009). ecosystems, guiding policy-makers, planners and land managers toward whether restoration should be based A consequence of widespread land degradation and on historic, novel or hybrid ecosystems. It is evident ecosystem modification and fragmentation, compounded from Figure 3 that, in a rapidly changing world, technical, by the pressure of climate change, is that it may be financial and scientific capacity constraints and barriers unrealistic to restore landscape to a desired pre- exist with regard to the feasibility of ecological restoration. disturbance state (Seabrook et al., 2011).

Figure 3: Flowchart to guide major decisions regarding management and restoration interventions in historical, hybrid and novel ecosystems. Source: Hobbs et al. (2014)

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 10 2.3 Climate-smart agriculture and enhancing socio- ecological resilience There are many opportunities within production landscapes An important goal for enhancing socioeconomic resilience for ecological restoration, given the importance for it to climate change in degraded landscapes is to diversify to be forward-looking and to consider landscapes as a crop production and adopt new technologies which increase whole (Hobbs et al., 2014). The forecast impacts of climate crop yields and crop production efficiency. This strategy change in many agricultural landscapes includes increased is part of an emerging agricultural policy shift toward frequency of droughts, floods and heatwaves, which will designing incentives that make production landscapes have significant negative impacts on agricultural yields, more resilient to pending climate change. Termed ‘climate- threatening global food security (Kang et al., 2009; Wheeler smart agriculture’ (FAO, 2010; Lipper et al., 2014), the and Kay, 2010; Niang et al., 2014; Porter et al., 2014). emphasis is on encouraging farming techniques which For example, Knox et al. (2012) predict climate change to increase yields, reduce vulnerability to climate change, and result in an 8% decline in overall crop productivity in Africa reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Two forms of ecological and South Asia by the 2050s. Drylands, semi-arid regions, restoration have a significant role to play: i) conservation and areas of high rural poverty are especially vulnerable agriculture; and, ii) . to climate change impacts because agriculture is already involves minimizing soil disturbance, maintaining occurring at the margins in such places, and adaption permanent soil cover using stubble retention and/or is constrained by financial and technological barriers permanent perennials, and introducing crop rotations (Lal, (Reynolds et al., 2007; Müller et al., 2011; Menz et al., 2009). These activities restore degraded land by increasing 2013; Niang et al., 2014). soil biodiversity and carbon stocks, regulating oxygen and nutrient cycles, and therefore making soil and crops Identifying, monitoring and mitigating threats and more resilient to heat and drying extremes, as well as vulnerabilities to agricultural production will increase reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Lal, 2004; Lipper et system resilience. Resilience can be enhanced by increasing al., 2014). Agroforestry involves introducing tree species the capacity of the landscape to avoid, deflect, absorb or into the farming enterprise, as inter-row plantings and/or recover from threats (Sayer et al., 2013). In the case of larger scale patches. The benefits of agroforestry include: climate change resilience, landscape capacity is enhanced diversification of farm income streams; favorable micro- by implementing strategies which mitigate the impacts climatic conditions for crop growth; habitat for pollinators of increased climatic extremes and increase the system’s and other important species, such as crop pest predators; ability to recover from disturbances (Shackelford et al., and enhancement of soil nutrients. 2013). While each landscape and ecosystem is different, and the factors that enhance capacity are unique to each There are many studies of the direct economic benefits one, resilience can be improved by strengthening the of increased yields and lower input costs following the capacity of local stakeholders to mitigate and/or adapt to adoption of conservation agriculture and agroforestry climate change, and by learning from the experiences of (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Lalani et al., 2016). For others (Sayer et al. 2013, Shames et al. 2016). example, in Malawi, agroforestry increased maize yields by around 50% when nitrogen-fixing trees were planted Some strategies requiring large-scale ecological among croplands (Denier, 2015). Similarly, the planting restoration can be commonly adopted to increase of nitrogen-fixing shrubs among croplands in Senegal ecological and socioeconomic resilience. An important goal improved concentrations of soil organic matter, nitrogen as regards enhancing ecological resilience is to improve and phosphorous. These tree and shrub plantings also connectivity, and remove dispersal barriers, in production provide habitat for wildlife, improve water filtration into landscapes, so as to make it easier for species to migrate the soil, and sequester carbon. Adoption of conservation following rapidly shifting climatic niches. In heavily modified agriculture in Zambia, meanwhile, lifted maize yields and degraded landscapes, where remnant habitat is highly by 50% compared to conventionally tilled maize, as well fragmented, extensive recreation of habitat is required as reducing chemical and energy inputs and soil erosion so as to link remnant patches and create new habitat. (Denier, 2015). In the vein, the economic returns from Another goal is to incorporate functional redundancy into maize grown in central Mexico were 75% greater following landscapes so that the supply of multiple ecosystem the adoption of conservation agriculture (Hobbs et al., functions and services can be maintained despite the 2008). Equally, the adoption of no-till rice-wheat systems collapse of one, or a few, functions following major in south Asia led to higher yields at lower costs, which disturbances (Yachi and Loreau, 1999; Elmqvist et al., increased smallholder farm incomes and freed up time 2003). Restoration of forest habitat to connect remnant for farmers to dedicate to other productive uses, thereby patches has been shown to improve functional diversity generating off-farm income (Hobbs et al., 2008). and redundancy (Craven et al., 2016).

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 11 There are other values and benefits that arise from implementing climate-smart agriculture. One emerging concept is that of insurance value. Baumgärtner and Strunz (2014) viewed resilience’s insurance value as its ability to reduce an ecosystem user’s income risk in the event of changes in available ecosystem services due to unpredictable future disturbances. Implementing climate-smart agricultural practices, such as conservation agriculture and agroforestry – via the restoration of habitat connectivity and permeability, improvement of soil composition, structure and filtration capacity, reduced soils exposure, and crop diversification – potentially have high insurance value by reducing the risks to future extreme climatic events and disturbances. A recent example articulated by Pascual et al. (2015) is of the insurance value to a farmer of maintaining and restoring soil biodiversity. The authors describe how a high and diverse soil microbial biomass can reduce the likelihood and severity of crop losses caused by soil borne diseases and pathogens triggered by disturbances. Land management that restores soil microbial biomass mitigates the risk of crop failure under climate change, the economic value of which can be ascertained through measures of insurance value (Pascual et al., 2015). Figure 4: Flows of knowledge of agricultural technologies. Some caution, however, is needed. For example, from Knowledge flows are represented by arrows and arrow width a review of 87 integrated landscape management represents the perceived level of knowledge transmission, programmes, across 33 African countries, Milder et al. with a thicker arrow representing a higher amount of (2014) argued that long-term climate change adaptation knowledge transfer. The X represents barriers to flows of benefits are unlikely to be realized via projects which are knowledge. only funded on a short-term basis. Short-term sustainable Source: Eidt et al. (2012) development programmes, funded externally by donors and other groups, such as non-governmental organizations Further barriers exist to the uptake of integrated land (NGOs), development banks and aid agencies, will need management and climate-smart technologies and to be complemented or superseded by new policies, practices that enhance resilience in production landscapes. regulations and governance arrangements. The new Dissemination and communication of the advantages of arrangements must embed sustainable management new land management practices, tools and techniques for and restoration within policy frameworks in order for ecosystem restoration can be hampered by the excessive benefits from climate change adaptation to be fully use of scientific jargon, and by a lack of understanding achieved over the long term. The integrated landscape of farmers’ specific circumstances (Long et al., 2016). management programmes will also need to be aligned with Knowledge and information flows can also be hampered existing national and regional level development planning by: insufficient efforts to build capacity and train farmers; processes, preferably within a spatial land use planning poor or absent communication of economic benefits of framework (Metternicht, 2016). new techniques; and absent or limited presence of farmers’ initiatives, participation and interaction (Eidt et al., 2012). An elegant and comprehensive summary of barriers to the adoption of new agriculture technologies that increase resilience in agro-ecosystems is shown in Figure 4. A survey of Kenyan farmers by Eidt et al. (2012) concluded that farmers’ levels of community organization and trust will influence the level of adoption of new technologies. Better documentation and packaging of material explaining the benefits of the new techniques and tools will likely increase adoption, as will the building of farmer networks and capacity.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 12 Figure 5: Net economic returns from and land restoration in the Maloti-Drakensberg mountain ranges, South Africa. Source: Bullock et al. (2011).

2.4 Increasing the multi-functionality and productivity of agricultural landscapes Aside from enhanced resilience to the future shocks and Nevertheless, direct financial benefits are not the only changes, expected under rapid global change, ecological motivators of ecological restoration. Gessesse et al. restoration can also foster many other benefits, when (2016) surveyed smallholder farmers in a degraded included as part of broader sustainable land management temperate/tropical highland catchment of central Ethiopia initiatives in production landscapes. to determine what motivated them to plant trees for land restoration. The authors concluded that farmers were The direct financial and economic benefits to landholders, more likely to plant trees to restore farmland if they had which arise from the implementation of sustainable larger households (i.e., more available labor), were more land management practices, are well established. For literate and aware of the longer-term benefits of reducing example, increased soil organic carbon in cropping systems degradation, and had security over land tenure (Gessesse et consistently leads to increased yields, although the al., 2016). In Europe, García-Martín et al. (2016) concluded magnitude of the increase varies with specific practice and that integrated landscape management approaches agro-climatic conditions. Yields tend to be higher in areas of (including restoration) are driven by civil society, and are low and variable rainfall, as demonstrated by Branca et al. most salient and relevant when the programmes have (2013) in a global review of 160 studies reporting field data multiple objectives, involve and coordinate different sectors on the yield effects of sustainable land management. In and stakeholders at many levels, and have a significant livestock systems, high grazing pressure will have negative awareness-raising element. Similarly, in a French Pyrenees impacts on soil function – defined as the stability, nutrient- case study, Couix and Gonzalo-Turpin (2015) reported that cycling and infiltration-capacity of soils, and its ability to wider stakeholder participation, and a collective effort to support pasture (Read et al., 2016). Soil function can be understand the benefits of restoration at the landscape successfully restored using native trees of mixed species scale, were more conducive to ecological restoration. Box and shrubs (Read et al., 2016); this illustrates that the 2 provides a case study of three examples of non-financial introduction of agroforestry can be a restoration strategy incentives to motivate forest restoration in less developed for grazing systems as well as for cropping systems. and transitioning economies. In livestock-grazed grassland systems, restoration of diverse grassland of conservation value was shown, by Bullock et al. (2007), to benefit farm income over the long term, by increasing hay yields. Further study by Bullock et al. (2011) showed that the potential economic returns from other ecosystem services can far exceed, by a ratio of 7:1, the returns from intensive grazing (Figure 5).

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 13 Aligned policy goals and incentives will also motivate for multiple direct and indirect benefits. Payment for restoration in agricultural landscapes. Scherr et al. (2015), ecosystem services (PES) is cited as an efficient, adaptive for instance, highlighted, when examining south Asia, that and equitable market-based economic instrument to misaligned and competing agricultural promotion and reward landholders for restoring degraded lands by environmental protection policies impede forest protection enhancing natural capital and improving the flow of and restoration. They noted that efforts to halt both ecosystem services (Wunder et al., 2008; Bullock et al., forest clearing and steep slope agricultural conversion are 2011; Wunder, 2013). PES typically involves performance- undermined by government promotion of investments in based payments from the public sector to a private nearby ethanol plants with large feedstock demands. landowner, and encourages alternative livelihoods which There are novel and emerging instruments to motivate are more environmentally sustainable (Lambin et al., ecological restoration by providing financial rewards 2014). Box 3 provides a case study of the use of PES to reward farmers in South Korea for undertaking restoration activities on their lands.

Box 2: Non-financial incentives achieve forest restoration and multiple benefits in Indonesia, Vietnam and Peru. Florence Bernard, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Indonesia. Developing and promoting the adoption of functional incentives schemes, specifically non-financial incentives, targeting drivers of deforestation and increased sustainable benefits to promote sustainable multifunctional landscapes is a key objective within the NORAD-funded SECURED Landscape (Securing Ecosystems and Carbon benefits by Unlocking Reversal of Emissions Drivers in Landscapes) project. The SECURED Landscape project, operating from 2013-2015, was led by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in 5 countries namely Cameroon, Indonesia, DRC, Peru and Vietnam.

A key project lesson is that non-financial incentives emerge as better “nudges” of change in landscapes with sustainable benefits. In TanJaBar province in Indonesia, remaining peat swamp forests is threatened by illegal logging, land clearing for agricultural development and land conflicts. Efforts to rehabilitate the area initiated in 2009-2010 through a replanting program and seedling provision of endemic latex-producing tree species led by the district forestry office were challenged by resistance and reluctance of the newly settled people. ICRAF tested a community forestry (CF) management scheme that would work as an incentive by providing conditional land rights to communities while supporting protection of peatland areas. For approximately 3 years, ICRAF and the forestry office facilitated and built capacity to increase awareness on the importance of peat swamp forest protection and robust governance systems. These processes were positively received by farmers who enthusiastically participated and left with a better understanding of the importance of not occupying state forest land. The “Makmur Jaya” Farmer Group Association was formed in 2014 which was the first ever milestone indicating community’s willingness and readiness for further processes in proposing the CF license for part of the remaining peat forest in TanJaBar province. The CF license has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and if granted, it will be the first CF license for Peatland Protection Forest area in Indonesia.

In Bac Kan province in Vietnam, the development and implementation of a “bundle of incentives” including long term land use right certificates (LURC) for “encroaching” communities and community forest management on previously “unmanaged” forest, financial support through the Payment for Forest Environmental Services and technical support for agroforestry development on sloping land to replace maize mono-cropping have proven to be effective in restoring encroached forests. The LURC was obtained for 85 ha of community forest allowing and directing the forest user groups to sustainably manage the forest areas, establish fair benefit distribution mechanisms and be recognized as carbon and other resource right owners to benefit from future carbon markets and PES Key drivers for up-scaling restoration within production landscapes is to have landscape approaches that become part of the national policy dialogues in dealing with land use planning and particularly emission reduction and development. For instance, despite the recognition of the role of in driving deforestation in the Amazon (the 36% of national GHG emissions are LULUCF), before the COP 20, the REDD+ debate in Peru was focusing on policies and interventions internal to the forest and conservation sector and on land governance, leaving out the agricultural sector and the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) from any explicit engagement in mitigation. ICRAF delivered capacity building and technical advisory to key ministries (e.g. Ministry of Environment (MINAM), MINAGRI) at the national level to prove the evidence for integrated landscape approaches through real case pilots. Because of these processes, agricultural NAMAs for commodity crops (coffee, livestock, cocoa, oil palm) driving deforestation and degradation in the Amazon have become an integral part of the national mitigation strategy and are recognized as complementary mitigation strategies to REDD+ in productive forest landscapes of the Amazon. The landscape approach has also become the main approach for Peru’s national strategy to address climate change.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 14 The effectiveness of PES is context-dependent. As such, Another type of market-based instrument that could drive the instrument’s successful usage may be constrained by substantial uptake of ecological restoration is the adoption the fact that, to properly function, it requires a number of of product certification of agricultural commodities to meet surrounding factors, such as: robust legal and governance sustainable land management standards. Agricultural institutions; a culture of payments; well organized service production that meets a set of sustainability and social users; a trustful negotiation climate; and well-defined responsibility criteria can be certified as having goods and land tenure regimes for providers of ecosystem services services which are environmentally and ethically produced, (Wunder, 2013; Lambin et al., 2014). Additionally, the which can, in turn, attract a market price premium. The perceived value of the ecological restoration motivated by process is voluntary and offers an alternative to regulatory- the PES will need to be greater than the perceived value based instruments of sustainable production, which is of the opportunity and transaction costs associated with particularly important in lower income countries where the PES (Lambin et al., 2014). Concerns also exist about governments lack capacity and resources to effectively fairness, equity and land access issues, as well as regarding regulate agricultural production (Barrett et al., 2001). the commodification and monetization of ecosystems by The uptake of sustainability certification by agricultural economic instruments (Bullock et al., 2011; van Noordwijk producers is growing fast; Tayleur et al. (2016) estimated et al., 2012). Some consider that this practice may favor that global certified crop area has increased by 11% ecosystem services which have markets (e.g., carbon annually, from 2000 to 2012, although covering only 1.1% sequestration and water supply) at the expense of other of total crop area in 2012. The crops with the highest services where ready markets do not exist (e.g., cultural, level of certification are coffee, cocoa, tea, and palm oil, wildlife habitat). This being said, it has nonetheless been with more than 10% each of their total global production demonstrated that PES is able to motivate landscape-scale area being certified (Tayleur et al., 2016). Boxes 4 and 5 change consistent with the preferences and values of local provide case studies of large-scale restoration in South communities, provided their shared cultural and plural Africa illustrating its multiple benefits to the private sector, values are understood and respected; this was illustrated including employment and branding. by Reed et al. (2015) in a study of rangeland restoration in the Kalahari rangelands of Botswana. Reed et al. (2015) further argue that PES (and other types of market-based instruments) must be carefully regulated and should form one of several policy approaches to restoring degraded lands.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 15 Box 3: Designing an agri-environment scheme for restoration in Chungnam Province, South Korea. Namue Lee, Ecosystem Services Partnership Asian Regional Office, South Korea The Chungnam Provincial government in the Republic of Korea started a two-year agri-environment pilot project in 2016. Almost for 14 years since 2002 existing farming practices in the Chungnam province have resulted in salt accumulation in soil, increasing crop diseases, and decreasing rice price due to perverse governmental subsidies encouraging overuse of chemical fertilizers. The Chungnam initiative is a new trial to transform the former agricultural payment into an innovative financial scheme to encourage agricultural ecosystem services through conservation and ecological restoration. The provincial government program aims change local perceptions of the values of agriculture from food production to ecological services and subsequently support the formulation of "new" local governance based on participation and benefit-sharing. Local villagers are encouraged to join the local decision-making process and are given support to better manage natural capital.

In 2014 the Chungnam provincial government initiated six major policies for local development including PES and the introduction of agri-environment payments for public benefits. The province has also supported research for implementation of these policies. Chungnam's agri-environment programs are led by local communities to improve ecological conditions and to achieve sustainable development. According to the implementation plan, contracted farmers will receive payments for ecological landscape management. In 2015, Jang-hyun and Hwa-am villages surrounded by mountains and rivers, were selected as pilot project sites through an open contest. The Jang-hyun village is relatively well- known for its practices with a younger demographic composition and its villagers are more interested new trials for local development. Local governments organized public hearings, provided program-consulting services, and set up work plans based on agreements with local stakeholders. In April, 2016, governments and farmers made a commitment on the new "agri-environment implementation agreement". The program consists of three components:

1) increase of food self-sufficiency by crop diversification and environmentally friendly farming; 2) ecological restoration of farmland by diversified farming practices reflecting local conditions, and; 3) improvement of agricultural landscape by managing village forests and cultural heritage.

The total program budget of 1.2 billion KRW was jointly provided by the provincial government and the municipal government. There is a ceiling for each farm household of up to 3million KRW per year. Through interviews and media reports, farmers expressed their changed perceptions on the values of ecosystems and improved self-esteem. After analyzing the participants' satisfaction and program effectiveness, in 2017 the Chungnam provincial government will further develop the agri-environment schemes and apply in other locations. Local legislations will soon be introduced to underpin these new agri-environment schemes, and the provincial government will consult with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) with the goal of changing legislation at the National Assembly.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 16 Although the many different sets of standards for 15%, if growing shade-tolerant crops, or 10%, if growing commodity certification all share the same broad goals for shade intolerant crops (Sustainable Agriculture Network, biodiversity (12 reviewed by Tayleur et al., 2016), only a 2017b). The SAN/RA standards operate in more than 40 very few encourage restoration of degraded landscapes; countries and across more than 100 crops, making this set when it is encouraged, restoration mostly entails increasing of restoration criteria a significant driver for the widespread the density and diversity of shade trees which also provide adoption of ecological restoration. The new 2017 SAN/ habitat for species. In 2017, however, the criteria for RA standards also promote climate-smart agricultural the globally popular Sustainable Agriculture Network/ practices (Sustainable Agriculture Network, 2017a), which Rainforest Alliance (SAN/RA) certification will be expanded function as additional drivers for restoring degraded to include a requirement that producers plan to restore landscapes in order to increase resilience to climate change farms to contain a minimum cover of native vegetation of (as reviewed above).

Box 4: Baviaanskloof Development Company: how to include farmers in integrated landscape management and restoration, South Africa. Simon Moolenaar, Commonland, The Netherlands The Baviaanskloof Development Company (BDC) is a newly established commercial entity set up for the purposes of producing, processing, marketing and distributing aromatic oils in the Baviaanskloof Hartland. The “Hartland” consists of 46.000 ha privately owned farmland, which is surrounded by a nature reserve and part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Over the past decades, intensive grazing of goats on the hillsides has led to the severe degradation of the natural vegetation. The BDC is a joint initiative of Baviaanskloof farmers and Four Returns (the South African subsidiary of Dutch NGO Commonland), which provides a new sustainable income source for farmers and appropriate financial returns for external investors. This will enable farmers to exit from the ecologically degrading practice of farming goats on the hillsides of their farms and thereby make those hillsides available for large-scale landscape restoration.

Project’s environmental and social benefits • Conversion of 100 ha of traditional fields into organic fields (ambition to scale to 500 ha) • Farmers signing up to holistic management contracts, which put 28,000 ha under improved management. Active restoration (planting Spekboom trees) on severely degraded sites (Coca Cola Africa Foundation has funded 2,000 ha to start with and the goal is to restore approx. 5,000 ha) • Creation of at least 50 jobs in the farming and restoration activities • Increased income for farmers (potential to double profitability per ha) • Bringing inspiration back to rural areas

Bottom-up, participatory approach • Strong collaboration with South African NGO Living Lands, using intensive stakeholder engagement: strong focus on co- creating solutions, and listening to farmers, rather than telling them what to do. • Farmers involved in all decision-making (including shaping the company as it is now) • The company is co-owned and co-managed by the farmers, and they make the restoration plans for their farms together with ecologists.

Clear path/options for upscaling the project • Strong interest from other farmers in the area to join; potential to bring 500 ha under cultivated aromatic oils, which will bring the entire area (46,000 ha) under improved management

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 17 Box 5: South Africa, taking the lead in large-scale ecological restoration. Benis Egoh, CSIR, Stellenbosch, South Africa. South Africa as a country is one of the leading examples in Africa in promoting restoration of degraded land within its boundaries. A very popular working for water program (WfW), which aims at removing invasive alien species to restore water flows, provide jobs and improves biodiversity, was one of the first and remains one of the largest restoration programs in the country. Following the success of this program, there has been several restoration programs around the country, including Banvianskloof reforestation program (www.livinglands.co.za) and Bufflesdraai community reforestation project (http://www.durban.gov.za/).

Recently, the city of Durban in South Africa implemented ecological restoration programmes for two mega-events: the Durban 2010 FIFA™ World Cup and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change COP17/CMP7 in 2011 (Witt and Loots 2010, Diederichs and Roberts 2016). The combination of hosting these two events led to the city initiating a reforestation project that involves the planting of trees to store carbon, improve biodiversity and enhance the livelihood of local communities living around the project site. The site (Buffelsdraai) is a landfill site with an 800-hectare buffer zone under sugar cane cultivation. The eThekwini municipality, the legal owners of the land, contracted Wildlands Conservation Trust (WCT) to restore at least half of the sugarcane fields into scarp forest. Currently, about 500 ha of former sugarcane land is restored.

The WCT sources seedling from the surrounding local community members (coined tree-preneurs) in exchange for vouchers which they can use in a variety of ways including buying groceries or paying for school fees (eThekwini municipality and Wildlands Conservation Trust 2015). In addition to supplying seedlings to WCT, many locals are employed as field workers who do a variety of tasks including field preparation for planting, digging of holes, planting seedlings, invasive alien plant management, and fire control. Since initiation, the project has created more than 400 jobs, improved schooling for children, increased disposable income for additional needs of households and increased access to adequate food supply to project participants (Douwes et al. 2015). In addition to the social benefits, tree species have increased from 0 to 51 while birds species have increased from 91 to 145 since project initiation in 2008 (Douwes et al. 2015).

Despite several emerging novel drivers for restoration, Technologies such as high spatial and temporal resolution there are impediments to success and widespread uptake. remote-sensing offer a cost-effective method for collecting For example, the difficulty of monitoring and evaluating indicators for planning and monitoring the outcomes of outcomes makes investors and governments reluctant to restoration (Cordell et al., 2016). Others have identified adopt long-term policies and plans in which restoration is factors of success in reforestation policies of degraded embedded. Monitoring and evaluation are not impossible, tropical landscapes. For example, Le et al. (2014), in however. For instance, Chaves et al. (2015) described a case study of the Philippines, conclude that policies how, in the State of São Paulo in Brazil, the government targeting revegetation methods, socioeconomic incentives, introduced a legal instrument to support planning and to forest protection mechanisms, sustainable livelihoods, assess whether the outcomes of mandatory ecological diversification of funding and partnerships, technical restoration are being achieved. Investment in ecological support, and infrastructure development are likely to have restoration in São Paulo requires the collection of three a broad systemic and beneficial effect on the success of indicators describing native vegetation ground cover, and reforestation programmes in tropical developing countries number and density of spontaneously regenerating native (Le et al., 2014). plant species (Chaves et al., 2015).

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 18 2.5 Green infrastructure and nature-based solutions Green infrastructure, synonymous with nature-based There are cases in which green infrastructure policies solutions, is the interconnected network of natural and have been drawn out with a long-term view. In Europe, semi-natural areas, features and green spaces in rural the biodiversity strategy to 2020 aims to maintain and and urban, terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine enhance ecosystems and their services by establishing ecosystems, which conserve natural ecosystem values, green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded contribute to biodiversity conservation, and benefit ecosystems (European Commission, 2011). The adoption humans through provision of ecosystem services (Weber and implementation of this policy has motivated many et al., 2006; Naumann et al., 2011). The concept of green programmes and initiatives to quantify ecosystem infrastructure is more often applied to the spatial planning services, and identify locations in European landscapes for and design of open and green spaces in urban areas, large-scale restoration. For example, Liquete et al. (2015) especially in Europe (Tzoulas et al., 2007; Lafortezza et al., identified about 16% of the European Union to target for 2013; Kopperoinen et al., 2014; Emmanuel and Loconsole, ecological restoration with a view to building a spatially 2015; Maes et al., 2015), but also in the US (Weber et al., connected network of green infrastructure for increasing 2006; Wickham et al., 2010). The green infrastructure ecological and social resilience (Figure 6). A further analysis concept has recently been extended to include mitigation by Maes et al. (2015) concluded that under current trends and adaptation to climate change impacts (Matthews of land use and climate change, about 20,000 km2 of et al., 2015; Van Teeffelen et al., 2015). In urban areas, Europe’s agricultural land would need to be restored and green infrastructure can contribute to ameliorating the added to the existing green infrastructure network by enhanced heat-island effect, and to lowering the flood risk 2050 merely in order to maintain the supply of ecosystem anticipated under climate change by regulating ambient services at 2010 levels. temperatures and reducing storm-water runoff (Matthews et al., 2015). The same functions can be performed by Maes et al. (2015) identify a requirement in Europe’s green infrastructure in regional areas. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that will be potentially transformational for restoration of landscapes and green Central to green infrastructure planning is the goal to infrastructure. The 2014-2020 CAP requires that at least protect and enhance ecosystem services provided in 5 % of the arable area of farms with an arable area larger intensively used and modified landscapes (Lovell and Taylor, than 15 ha must be allocated to new Ecological Focal 2013; Maes et al., 2015). By planning and constructing a Areas (Maes et al., 2015). These Ecological Focal Areas connected and permeable network of natural and semi- are defined as those parts of agricultural land covered natural habitats, the green infrastructure approach aims by field margins, hedges, trees, fallow land, landscape to design and engineer landscapes, via habitat protection features, biotopes, buffer strips, and afforested areas. This and restoration, which meet multiple ecological and human requirement in the CAP will motivate extensive restoration well-being benefits. The focus on ecosystem services across Europe. makes the benefits of green infrastructure more salient and tangible to people in modified landscapes. Lovell and Taylor (2013) argue that an approach which combines ecosystem service benefits, which arise from incorporating ecosystem services into greening projects, and early stakeholder engagement, which empowers local citizens, is more likely to lead to the successful implementation of large-scale green infrastructure planning.

Robust policy, tenure, governance and legal arrangements are required for implementing green infrastructure plans and strategies. For example, McWilliam et al. (2015) show that many urban planning policies in Ontario, Canada, designed to protect green infrastructure ecosystem services from urban expansion are ineffective because they lack relevant long-term goals, objectives or tools, particularly regarding adaptive management. It is worth recalling that maintaining a long-term focus when it comes to green infrastructure spatial planning is especially pertinent in the face of climate change.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 19 Figure 6: Proposed green infrastructure (GI) for Europe. The core GI network comprises the best functioning ecosystems crucial to maintain biodiversity and natural capital. Source: Liquete et al. (2015)

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 20 2.6 Rewilding abandoned agricultural lands A growing feature of landscapes is the abandonment of agriculture, and the migration of rural populations to of less productive and marginal agricultural land. cities, is occurring with speed (Aide et al., 2013). A new Estimated to cover 60% of globally (Queiroz idea, reviewed by Navarro and Pereira (2012), is to allow et al., 2014), the low productivity marginal agricultural these abandoned lands to ‘rewild’ by passively assisting the lands are characterized by low input of pesticides and natural regeneration of forests and other natural habitats. artificial fertilizers, low levels of mechanization, and high dependence on manual labor. The drivers for abandonment The aim with rewilding is to remove human control are aging and declining rural populations, mechanization and influence on the land, and thereby to allow natural of agriculture, and the increased productivity of agriculture ecological processes to reestablish themselves, with in more fertile areas (MacDonald et al., 2000; Navarro forest succession naturally occurring on land previously and Pereira, 2012; Aide et al., 2013; Queiroz et al., 2014). deforested for agricultural purposes (Corlett, 2016). While Across Europe, rural populations have declined by 17% a number of more nuanced definitions of rewilding exist (for since 1961, with some mountainous rural areas in the an overview, see Corlett, 2016), in its most passive form, Mediterranean region declining by more than 50% (Navarro rewilding involves no or very minimal human intervention and Pereira, 2012). The declining rural population has to restore former agricultural lands to wild landscapes. encouraged landscape multi-functionality to the partial The original expectation was that rewild habitat would benefit of biodiversity. Modeled reconstruction of European return to ecosystems resembling those present before land use changes between 1950-2010 suggest that extensive modification. But now the reference state, or cropland has declined by almost 19%, and that pastures baseline, for rewilding is more appropriately aligned to and semi-natural grasslands have decreased by 6% (Fuchs novel ecosystems, relative to future modeled scenarios, (as et al., 2013). In some transition economies, such as Latin discussed above) since the environmental changes of the America, the abandonment of less productive and more Anthropocene have made historical baselines unachievable inaccessible agricultural lands due to the mechanization (Corlett 2015, Wiens and Hobbs 2015).

Figure 7: Qualitative assessment of the ecosystem services provided by rewilding, extensive agriculture, intensive agriculture and in Europe. Source: Navarro and Pereira (2012)

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 21 Rewilding is not without controversy. European agricultural Latin America and the Caribbean were naturally reforested landscapes hold important cultural and historical values between 2001 and 2010; the largest proportion of this (Linnell et al., 2015) and the Common Agricultural Policy reforestation having occurred in Mexico. Similarly, in south provides financial incentives to farmers to maintain western Australia, a large-scale conservation programme, traditional agricultural practices (European Environment named the Gondwana Link, aims to restore and rehabilitate Agency, 2004). A substantial change in the design of these extensive tracts of low productivity and abandoned incentives is the requirement to encourage more rewilding farmlands1. The area is identified as one of thirty-five and restoration of abandoned land. There is also a degree global biodiversity hotspots, but has a 60-year history of concern about the return of wild places, as people are of extensive modification and degradation to support often fearful of wild, unmanaged habitat. agriculture. The goal of Gondwana Link is to reconnect fragmented woodlands and forests along a 1000km Since the mid-20th Century there have been large increases tract of land, focusing on the least productive abandoned in population of European carnivores, which prosper agricultural lands. in modified landscapes, but pose threats to livestock (Chapron et al., 2014). Another issue is that the biodiversity 2.7 Urban and peri-urban development benefits of rewilding abandoned lands are not always Urban and peri-urban landscapes suffer intensive and positive. For example, cases exist in which low-intensity continuous pressure from rapid urbanization and infill; heterogeneous agricultural landscapes that support high about 4 billion people were living in cities in 2014, with an biological diversity were rewilded, yet this resulted in the additional 2.5 billion expected by 2050 (United Nations homogenization of biodiversity (Katoh et al., 2009; Queiroz Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Population et al., 2014). Acceptance of the legitimacy of multiple Division, 2014). The pressure placed on land by rapidly social values, and acknowledgement of rewilding concerns, expanding cities will typically target land in the peri-urban are a prerequisite for planning landscapes that contain a zone, currently used for agricultural or natural habitats. mixture of intensive agricultural uses with low intervention Existing open greenspaces in developed urban areas are rewild habitat on abandoned land (Linnell et al., 2015). A also under threat from densification and infill (Haaland and balanced approach to landscape planning, which includes van den Bosch, 2015). rewilded land as a part of multi-functional agricultural landscapes, will ensure the supply of multiple ecosystem Smart planning and policy can drive forms of urban services (Figure 7), in a manner more likely to be accepted development which are ecologically sustainable and by society. beneficial for human well-being. Many studies demonstrate the benefits and values provided to people by the presence There is substantial scope for rewilding abandoned of urban greenspaces. The quality and biological diversity of agricultural lands to drive large-scale ecological restoration. the urban greenspace is also important. Hope et al. (2003) Modeled forecasts of future land use changes across identified positive relationships between plant diversity and Europe suggest that over 15% of agricultural land will human wealth in urban areas in Phoenix, US. A recent area be abandoned between 2000-2040 under a scenario of of investigation is the link between biodiversity, and human rising nation state power and a roll-back of international health and well-being. In a review of studies exploring links trade (Ceaușu et al., 2015). Verburg and Overmars (2009) between biodiversity and health, Sandifer et al. (2015) concluded that under the opposite scenario of a strong reported that many examples exist of positive relationships global economy, more than 20% of agricultural land might between nature exposure and health, although the be abandoned between 2000-2030 in several regions in mechanisms through which this relationship function are Europe, notably in northern Spain, southern France, and not well-understood. One of the better-known effects of southern Germany. Rewilding abandoned lands could exposure to biodiversity, reviewed by Sandifer et al. (2015), be part of Europe’s green infrastructure network. Under is that microbial biodiversity can improve health, specifically current trends in land use change toward non-natural by reducing certain allergic and respiratory diseases. Urban habitat (e.g., urbanization), an estimated 2.2% of agricultural parks also offer opportunity for physical activities, such land in Europe must be restored annually to maintain the as running and hiking, which have direct health benefits supply of ecosystem services at 2010 levels (Maes et al., (Wolf and Wohlfart, 2014). There is also rigorous evidence, 2015). The need to build and restore green infrastructure through brain scans, that nature experience has positive merely in order to maintain a supply of ecosystem services effects on psychological well-being (Bratman et al., 2015). can be a key driver for ecological restoration via, inter alia, a In addition to the health benefits of urban greening, are the strategy of re-wilding abandoned land. improvements as regards climate change resilience. One of the primary threats urban residents face from In Latin America and the Caribbean, governments generally climate change is that of the increased dangers from more view reforestation of abandoned land as a positive, and it frequent and intense heat waves. is often promoted in conservation plans. Aide et al. (2013) estimated that over 360,000 km2 of abandoned lands in 1 See http://www.gondwanalink.org/index.aspx

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 22 Urban greenspace offers climate change resilience and in urban gardens (Standish et al., 2013). At the peri-urban adaptation benefits by reducing the heat island effect of fringe, it may be possible to protect and restore green built-up urban areas, which gives urban greenspace high areas in a form closer to natural habitats as they were insurance value against future extreme events (Green et al., in their pre-development state (Standish et al., 2013). 2016). A new form of urban development at the urban fringe, which incorporates protected greenspace – labeled There are, moreover, many economic arguments for Conservation Development – has emerged as a tool that maintaining and expanding/restoring urban greenspaces. can accommodate development and, simultaneously, Such spaces provide many other ecosystem services, achieve land protection, potentially forming networks such as noise reduction, air filtering, flood mitigation, with existing protected areas (Mockrin et al., 2017). and recreational and cultural values, all of which have Widening the scope and being open minded to the many potentially high economic value (Capotorti et al., 2015; different forms of ecological restoration in urban areas, Elmqvist et al., 2015). Vandermeulen et al. (2011) and communicating the benefits of restoration to urban argued that calculating the full economic value of urban planners and stakeholders, are important elements for greenspaces (and green infrastructure) via ecosystem success of restoration (Klaus, 2013; Standish et al., 2013). service valuation techniques would give credibility and increase public acceptance of urban greenspace. In an 2.8 Infrastructure development and biodiversity offsets. analysis of urban greenspace ecosystem service values in A relatively recent development in sustainability and twenty-five urban areas across China, the US, and Canada, biodiversity policy, at both public and private sector levels, Elmqvist et al. (2015) concluded that ecological restoration is that of biodiversity offsets to mitigate damage caused and rehabilitation of rivers, lakes and woodlands in urban by infrastructure development. The offset can comprise areas provides many economic benefits, in addition to the either protection of an existing area of equivalent habitat, ecological and social benefits. or ecological restoration of a habitat matching that which is damaged. Several principles apply to the design of The many economic, climate change resilience related, biodiversity offsets: i) the offset must be like-for-like; ii) and human health and well-being benefits of urban offsets should be near the degraded area; iii) the protection greenspaces provide significant drivers for maintaining or restoration must be additional to what would have and restoring green areas (McDonnell and MacGregor- occurred at the site in the absence of the offset; and, iv) Fors, 2016). Evidence suggests that green spaces with the biodiversity outcomes of the offset must be equivalent higher ecological and biodiversity values are of greater to, or better than, what is lost. The requirement for benefit than others; this adds further weight to the driver biodiversity damage to be offset creates a market demand for ecological restoration in urban and peri-urban areas. for protection and restoration, but needs to be supported This said, there are nonetheless equity and social justice by robust rules and institutions, especially enforcement, concerns regarding urban greenspace. The more affluent and monitoring and evaluation of outcomes. Corporate parts of cities tend to have more greenspace (Wolch et sustainability goals of Net Positive Impact (NPI) and No al., 2014), and restoration of urban greenspace can have Net Loss (NNL) drive biodiversity offsets and ecological marked negative effects on land affordability, thus unfairly restoration. The mining industry is a leader in implementing penalizing marginalized people (Foster, 2010). Moreover, NPI and NNL goals because of their greater participation in urban greenspaces of higher ecological value will be best practice bodies, high-profile impacts, and higher profit experienced by people with a nature ethos who are willing margins per area of impact (Rainey et al., 2015). (and able) to travel further distances in order to enjoy them (Shanahan et al., 2015). However, these equity and justice So far, however, there are only a few examples where concerns can be countered by prioritizing greenspace ecological restoration for biodiversity offsetting has restoration in less affluent areas. Urban brownfields, achieved good ecological outcomes – overwhelmingly, common in industrial and less affluent parts of cities, restoration offset expectations have not been achieved. have high restoration potential, being then able to provide For example, examining a case study of a new railway multiple ecosystem services (Mathey et al., 2015). corridor in Austria, Pöll et al. (2016) concluded that ecological restoration, implemented to meet biodiversity The form that ecological restoration takes in urban and offset requirements, although reducing some threats from peri-urban areas will be highly varied, according to local intensive agriculture – by increasing connectivity and circumstances, and the history of development and human providing habitat for Red Listed species – was nonetheless environment modification. It is, as such, unrealistic to not fully positive, since species and habitat diversity was expect restoration in heavily developed urban areas to lower relative to reference conditions. resemble a pre-development reference state. More likely, is the management and restoration of novel ecosystems, such as urban grasslands (Klaus, 2013), and iconic species

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 23 Rainey et al. (2015), in a review of NPI/NNL goals in the 3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS corporate sector, concluded that the quality of biodiversity 3.1 Ecological restoration as an integral component of outcomes is highly varied, and thus that greater focus production landscapes ought to be put on outcomes in of corporate biodiversity The annual costs of land degradation are thought to be in initiatives. Similarly, Maron et al. (2012) reviewed the order of 10-17% of global GDP (ELD Initiative, 2015). biodiversity offset driven restoration and concluded that The very high costs of land degradation in production the outcomes of restoration rarely meet the expectations landscapes makes ecological restoration a global of offset policies. The problems identified by Maron et al. imperative. Restoration is one of the three components of (2012) are that offsets do not achieve NNL because of the response hierarchy (the others being avoid and reduce) time lags in achieving restoration outcomes, uncertainty, for achieving land degradation neutrality in the context of and difficulties regarding measurability of the biodiversity the UN Sustainable Development Goals, i.e., the aspiration values being offset. These problems are surmountable, to achieve land degradation neutrality by 2030 (UNCCD/ although the opportunity for restoration to achieve NNL Science-Policy Interface, 2016). While it is most cost offsets is small. Restoration science and offset policy need effective to avoid degradation in the first place and reduce to work closer together in order to reduce the gap between ongoing pressure on land to prevent further degradation, offset policy expectations and biodiversity outcomes the significant costs and wide extent of degradation can (Maron et al., 2012). make ecological restoration cost effective. Ecological restoration is an essential intervention if land degradation neutrality is to be achieved (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Framework for achieving Land Degradation Neutrality. Ecological restoration is part of the response hierarchy to reverse degradation. Source: UNCCD/Science-Policy Interface (2016)

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24 The economic value of restoration is further enhanced of agricultural landscapes; this occurs in a number of when the full economic benefits are considered. The manners: building green infrastructure as an alternative or investment in ecological restoration – if the monetary value complement to grey infrastructure; rewilding abandoned of the enhanced supply of ecosystem services is calculated agricultural lands; making greenspace a part of urban – has been shown to return a benefit cost ratio of 35:1 and peri-urban development; and offsetting impacts on in grassland ecosystems (de Groot et al., 2013). There biodiversity from infrastructure development. are, additionally, other less easily monetized cultural and regulating ecosystem services, plus intrinsic social values, 3.2 Evidence of success and benefits of ecological which are enhanced by restoration, further strengthening restoration the case for investment in ecological restoration in This paper has provided much evidence of the success and production landscapes. This paper documents where benefits of ecological restoration. For example, restoration ecological restoration is, or has potential to be, an integral of soil microbial biomass mitigates the risk of crop failure component of the sustainable management of natural under climate change (Pascual et al., 2015), providing high capital. Several sustainable land management activities insurance value. Many examples of the direct yield benefits that are, or could, drive large-scale uptake of ecological of restoration in production landscapes are also provided restoration in agricultural landscapes were reviewed. The (Hobbs et al., 2008; Denier, 2015). Several socioeconomic role of restoration within the integrated land and water and human well-being benefits of restoration, particularly management approaches of Sustainable Land Management in urban areas, were also discussed (Standish et al., 2013; (SLM), Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM), and Elmqvist et al., 2015), as were those relative to the reduced Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) were risks and increased adaptation to climate change (Cowie et first examined. Although these approaches are tailored al., 2011; Matthews et al., 2015). The many environmental to specific resource management sectors, they share the and ecological benefits of ecological restoration were common goal of ensuring holistic, equitable, inclusive, analyzed; these include the increased connectivity and and transparent planning of land for the sustainable permeability in production landscapes, making it easier for management of natural capital. Along with these social species to migrate, so as to follow rapidly shifting climatic goals is the central landscape design principal of protecting niches, and the improvements to water, soil and air quality, and restoring ecosystems. There is considerable scope and many other ecosystem services. to mainstream ecological restoration within integrated approaches because the benefits, costs and trade-offs Ecological restoration enhances the supply of many of restoration are not confined to a few individual private ecosystem goods and services, substantially widening actors; the beneficiary pool is much wider. the beneficiary pool beyond traditional site-based perspectives of land management. Notwithstanding This paper further highlights that adapting to rapid global ecological restoration’s many benefits, the practice will not changes within production systems will require new up-scale and become mainstream simply by demonstrating approaches to agriculture, including diversifying land uses them; there are several hurdles to overcome (Menz et al., away from intensive cropping and livestock systems, 2013). Policies and initiatives are required so as to create toward multi-functional landscapes, which contain a incentives and enable widespread uptake of ecological variety of land uses and land covers. Ecological restoration restoration in production landscapes. techniques within intensive agricultural systems will be required to mitigate pressures from rapid global change. The short-term economic rewards of ecological restoration for adapting to global change can be large, but so too can the long-term rewards via the insurance values of restoring land to reduce risks from rapid change.

The traditional approach of ecological restoration will also need to be revised because of the growing absence of historical analogues to inform restoration. In many locations, especially heavily modified and fragmented landscapes, hybrid and novel ecosystems will be expected, and it is therefore these which should inform ecological restoration planning. Several inter-related landscape- scale sustainable land management approaches which have potential to motivate large amounts of ecological restoration are also analyzed herein. This paper purports to show that ecological restoration is a central intervention for increasing the multi-functionality and productivity

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 25 3.3 Incentives and enablers to mainstream ecological 3.4 Key recommendations: overcoming hurdles to restoration mainstream ecological restoration While many international programmes, platforms and In this paper, various challenges and barriers to the conventions already exist (e.g., UN SDGs, UNCCD, UNFCCC, uptake of ecological restoration within approaches for IPBES), as well as a number of national, regional and sustainable land management were identified. A series local programmes, both promoting large-scale ecological of other researchers, such as Chaves et al. (2015), Eidt et restoration, there are still a fair few visionary approaches al. (2012), Long et al. (2016), Menz et al. (2013), Milder et which, if implemented, could drive widespread uptake of al. (2014), have identified many common impediments to ecological restoration. These are: implementing sustainable land management approaches, • Conservation development: New urban developments including ecological restoration. The factors identified at the urban fringe which incorporate protected and by these authors include: i) poor communication of restored greenspace, potentially forming networks technologies and benefits; ii) lack of capacity, networks with existing protected areas (Mockrin et al., 2017), and and knowledge within farmer communities; iii) poor providing many social and psychological well-being governance, legal, planning and tenure systems; iv) benefits; programme short-termism and fragmentation; and, v) a • Sustainable agricultural product certification: Expansion lack of shared understanding of the risks mitigated by, of the Sustainable Agriculture Network/Rainforest and benefits arising from, restoration. From our review Alliance (SAN/RA) certification to include a requirement of restoration projects and the scientific literature, there that producers restore farms to contain a minimum are several ways these barriers can be overcome. These cover of native vegetation of 10-15%; are our key recommendations for integrating restoration • Rewilding for green infrastructure: Planning and building and rehabilitation projects and programmes within wider green infrastructure networks that diversify landscapes, sustainable landscape approaches: provide multiple benefits and respect plural social 1. Make ecological restoration attuned to the multiple values. For example, in Europe, an estimated 2.2% of functions of landscapes, so that restoration targets agricultural land must be restored annually so as to satisfy the requirements of ecosystems and landscapes maintain the supply of ecosystem services at 2010 to supply multiple ecosystem services, including a wide levels (Maes et al. 2015), while a similar magnitude of range of cultural and social values. agricultural land will simultaneously be abandoned; 2. Incorporate ecosystem services into greening projects • Multi-valued payment for ecosystem services: An and engage early with stakeholders. This empowers incentive scheme which rewards ecological restoration, local citizens and is more likely to lead to successful while respecting multiple social values. Reed et al. implementation of large-scale green infrastructure (2015) show that payment schemes can motivate and urban greening planning because of the realized large-scale restoration, provided the shared cultural and ecosystem service benefits. plural values of local communities are understood and 3. Communicate the benefits of restoration in an adequate respected; manner, so as to ensure farmers’ comprehension. • Climate-smart ecological restoration: Ecological Farmers are, in general, more likely to plant trees to restoration that insures against future risks of climate restore farmland if they benefit from larger households change and other rapid global changes. The future (i.e., more available labor) and are more literate and aware of agricultural landscapes is increasingly uncertain; of the longer-term benefits of reducing degradation. ecological restoration can mitigate damages from 4. Ensure economic instruments to motivate and reward extreme and variable climates, shifts in commodity restoration (e.g., payments for ecosystem services); markets, and, especially from future events which are these must be consistent with the preferences and currently unknown and/or only predicted. values of local communities, so efforts must be made to understand and respect shared cultural and plural social values. 5. Target sustainable land management policies toward different revegetation methods, socioeconomic incentives, habitat protection mechanisms, sustainable livelihoods, diversified funding and partnerships, technical support, and green infrastructure development. Doing so is more likely to have beneficial effects on the success of reforestation programmes. 6. Accept the legitimacy of multiple values and acknowledge the concerns of multiple stakeholders as a prerequisite for planning landscapes that contain a mix of intensive agricultural uses with low intervention re-wild habitat on abandoned land.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 26 7. Calculate the full economic value of urban greenspaces 4. REFERENCES (and green infrastructure) via ecosystem services Adimassu, Z., S. Langan, and R. Johnston. 2016. valuation techniques to give credibility and increase Understanding determinants of farmers’ investments public acceptance of urban greenspace. in sustainable land management practices in Ethiopia: 8. Widen the scope and be open minded to the many review and synthesis. Environment, Development and different forms of ecological restoration in urban areas, Sustainability 18:1005-1023. and communicate the benefits of restoration to urban Aide, T. M., M. L. Clark, H. R. Grau, D. López-Carr, M. planners and stakeholders. A. Levy, D. Redo, M. Bonilla-Moheno, G. Riner, M. J. Andrade-Núñez, and M. Muñiz. 2013. Deforestation and Reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001–2010). Biotropica 45:262-271. Akhtar-Schuster, M., L. C. Stringer, A. Erlewein, G. Metternicht, S. Minelli, U. Safriel, and S. Sommer. 2016. Unpacking the concept of land degradation neutrality and addressing its operation through the Rio Conventions. Journal of Environmental Management. Alexander, S., J. Aronson, O. Whaley, and D. Lamb. 2016. The relationship between ecological restoration and the ecosystem services concept. Ecology and Society 21. Altieri, M. A. 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 93:1-24. Aronson, J., and S. Alexander. 2013. Ecosystem Restoration is Now a Global Priority: Time to Roll up our Sleeves. 21:293-296. Barral, M. P., J. M. Rey Benayas, P. Meli, and N. O. Maceira. 2015. Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 202:223-231. Barrett, C. B., K. Brandon, C. Gibson, and H. Gjertsen. 2001. Conserving Tropical Biodiversity amid Weak Institutions. Bioscience 51:497-502. Baumgärtner, S., and S. Strunz. 2014. The economic insurance value of ecosystem resilience. Ecological Economics 101:21-32. BenDor, T., T. W. Lester, A. Livengood, A. Davis, and L. Yonavjak. 2015. Estimating the Size and Impact of the Ecological Restoration Economy. PLoS ONE 10:e0128339. Blignaut, J., J. Aronson, and M. de Wit. 2014. The economics of restoration: looking back and leaping forward. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1322:35-47. Blignaut, J., K. J. Esler, M. P. de Wit, D. Le Maitre, S. J. Milton, and J. Aronson. 2013. Establishing the links between economic development and the restoration of natural capital. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5:94-101. Bot, A. J., F. O. Nachtergaele, and A. Young. 2000. Land resource potential and constraints at regional and country levels. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 27 Branca, G., L. Lipper, N. McCarthy, and M. C. Jolejole. Wölfl, F. Zimmermann, D. Zlatanova, and L. Boitani. 2014. 2013. Food security, climate change, and sustainable Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human- land management. A review. for Sustainable dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517-1519. Development 33:635-650. Chaves, R. B., G. Durigan, P. H. S. Brancalion, and J. Aronson. Bratman, G. N., J. P. Hamilton, K. S. Hahn, G. C. Daily, and J. J. 2015. On the need of legal frameworks for assessing Gross. 2015. Nature experience reduces rumination and restoration projects success: new perspectives from São subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the Paulo state (Brazil). Restoration Ecology 23:754-759. National Academy of Sciences 112:8567-8572. Chirwa, P. W., F. K. Akinnifesi, G. Sileshi, S. Syampungani, Breed, M. F., M. G. Stead, K. M. Ottewell, M. G. Gardner, F. K. Kalaba, and O. C. Ajayi. 2008. Opportunity for and A. J. Lowe. 2013. Which provenance and where? conserving and utilizing agrobiodiversity through Seed sourcing strategies for revegetation in a changing agroforestry in Southern Africa. Biodiversity 9:45-48. environment. 14:1-10. Cobourn, J. 1999. Integrated watershed management Bryan, B. A., J. Kandulu, D. A. Deere, M. White, J. Frizenschaf, on the Truckee River in Nevada. JAWRA Journal of the and N. D. Crossman. 2009. Adaptive management for American Water Resources Association 35:623-632. mitigating Cryptosporidium risk in source water: A case Cordell, S., E. J. Questad, G. P. Asner, K. M. Kinney, J. M. study in an agricultural catchment in South Australia. Thaxton, A. Uowolo, S. Brooks, and M. W. Chynoweth. Journal of Environmental Management 90:3122-3134. 2016. Remote sensing for restoration planning: how Bryan, B. A., C. M. Raymond, N. D. Crossman, and D. the big picture can inform stakeholders. Restoration H. Macdonald. 2010. Targeting the management of Ecology:n/a-n/a. ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, Corlett, R. T. 2015. The Anthropocene concept in ecology and how? Landscape and Urban Planning 97:111-122. and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30:36- Bullock, J. M., J. Aronson, A. C. Newton, R. F. Pywell, and J. M. 41. Rey-Benayas. 2011. Restoration of ecosystem services Corlett, R. T. 2016. Restoration, Reintroduction, and and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends in Rewilding in a Changing World. Trends in Ecology & Ecology & Evolution 26:541-549. Evolution 31:453-462. Bullock, J. M., R. F. Pywell, and K. J. Walker. 2007. Long-term Couix, N., and H. Gonzalo-Turpin. 2015. Towards a land enhancement of agricultural production by restoration of management approach to ecological restoration to biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:6-12. encourage stakeholder participation. Land Use Policy Cai, X., X. Zhang, and D. Wang. 2011. Land Availability for 46:155-162. Biofuel Production. Environmental Science & Technology Cowie, A. L., T. D. Penman, L. Gorissen, M. D. Winslow, J. 45:334-339. Lehmann, T. D. Tyrrell, S. Twomlow, A. Wilkes, R. Lal, J. Capotorti, G., B. Mollo, L. Zavattero, I. Anzellotti, and L. W. Jones, A. Paulsch, K. Kellner, and M. Akhtar-Schuster. Celesti-Grapow. 2015. Setting Priorities for Urban Forest 2011. Towards sustainable land management in the Planning. A Comprehensive Response to Ecological and drylands: Scientific connections in monitoring and Social Needs for the Metropolitan Area of Rome (Italy). assessing dryland degradation, climate change and Sustainability 7:3958. biodiversity. Land Degradation & Development 22:248- Ceaușu, S., M. Hofmann, L. M. Navarro, S. Carver, P. H. 260. Verburg, and H. M. Pereira. 2015. Mapping opportunities Craven, D., E. Filotas, V. A. Angers, and C. Messier. 2016. and challenges for rewilding in Europe. Conservation Evaluating resilience of tree communities in fragmented Biology 29:1017-1027. landscapes: linking functional response diversity with Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J. D. C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D. landscape connectivity. Diversity and Distributions Huber, H. Andrén, J. V. López-Bao, M. Adamec, F. Álvares, 22:505-518. O. Anders, L. Balčiauskas, V. Balys, P. Bedő, F. Bego, J. C. Crossman, N. D., and B. A. Bryan. 2009. Identifying cost- Blanco, U. Breitenmoser, H. Brøseth, L. Bufka, R. Bunikyte, effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and P. Ciucci, A. Dutsov, T. Engleder, C. Fuxjäger, C. Groff, K. enhancing landscape multifunctionality. Ecological Holmala, B. Hoxha, Y. Iliopoulos, O. Ionescu, J. Jeremić, Economics 68:654-668. K. Jerina, G. Kluth, F. Knauer, I. Kojola, I. Kos, M. Krofel, J. Cushman, J. C., S. C. Davis, X. Yang, and A. M. Borland. Kubala, S. Kunovac, J. Kusak, M. Kutal, O. Liberg, A. Majić, 2015. Development and use of bioenergy feedstocks for P. Männil, R. Manz, E. Marboutin, F. Marucco, D. Melovski, semi-arid and arid lands. Journal of Experimental Botany K. Mersini, Y. Mertzanis, R. W. Mysłajek, S. Nowak, J. 66:4177-4193. Odden, J. Ozolins, G. Palomero, M. Paunović, J. Persson, de Groot, R. S., J. Blignaut, S. Van Der Ploeg, J. Aronson, H. Potočnik, P.-Y. Quenette, G. Rauer, I. Reinhardt, R. T. Elmqvist, and J. Farley. 2013. Benefits of Investing in Rigg, A. Ryser, V. Salvatori, T. Skrbinšek, A. Stojanov, Ecosystem Restoration. 27:1286- J. E. Swenson, L. Szemethy, A. Trajçe, E. Tsingarska- 1293. Sedefcheva, M. Váňa, R. Veeroja, P. Wabakken, M. Wölfl, S.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 28 de Vries, F. P. 2003. Integrated land and water management European Environment Agency. 2004. High nature value for food and environmental security. IWMI. farmland. Characteristics, trends and policy challenges. DeFries, R., and C. Rosenzweig. 2010. Toward a whole- Office for Official Publications of the European landscape approach for sustainable land use in the Communities, Luxemburg. tropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Faizi, S., and M. Ravichandran. 2016. A framework for 107:19627-19632. reforming India’s forest biodiversity management regime. Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., Chatterton, P., Hovani, L., Natural Resources Forum 40:103-111. Stam, N. 2015. The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book: FAO. 2010. ‘Climate-Smart, Agriculture: Policies, Practices Achieving sustainable development through integrated and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and landscape management. Global Canopy Programme, Mitigation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the Oxford, UK. United Nations, Rome. Diederichs, N., and D. Roberts. 2016. Climate protection Fargione, J., J. Hill, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and P. Hawthorne. in mega-event greening: the 2010 FIFA™ World Cup 2008. Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science and COP17/CMP7 experiences in Durban, South Africa. 319:1235-1238. Climate and Development 8:376-384. Foster, J. 2010. Off Track, In Nature: Constructing Ecology Douwes, E., K. E. Roy, N. Diederichs-Mander, K. Mavundla, on Old Rail Lines in Paris and New York. Nature + Culture and D. Roberts. 2015. The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site 5:316-337. Community Reforestation Project: Leading the way in Fuchs, R., M. Herold, P. H. Verburg, and J. G. P. W. Clevers. community ecosystem-based adaptation to climate 2013. A high-resolution and harmonized model approach change. eThekwini Municipality, Durban, South Africa. for reconstructing and analysing historic land changes in Eidt, C. M., G. M. Hickey, and M. A. Curtis. 2012. Knowledge Europe. Biogeosciences 10:1543-1559. integration and the adoption of new agricultural García-Martín, M., C. Bieling, A. Hart, and T. Plieninger. technologies: Kenyan perspectives. Food Security 4:355- 2016. Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe: Multi- 367. sector collaboration in multi-functional landscapes. Land ELD Initiative. 2015. The value of land: Prosperous Use Policy 58:43-53. lands and positive rewards through sustainable land Gelfand, I., R. Sahajpal, X. Zhang, R. C. Izaurralde, K. L. management. GIZ, Bonn, Germany. Gross, and G. P. Robertson. 2013. Sustainable bioenergy Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response Nature 493:514-517. diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Gessesse, B., W. Bewket, and A. Bräuning. 2016. Ecology and the Environment 1:488-494. Determinants of farmers’ tree-planting investment Elmqvist, T., H. Setälä, S. N. Handel, S. van der Ploeg, decisions as a degraded landscape management strategy J. Aronson, J. N. Blignaut, E. Gómez-Baggethun, D. J. in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Solid Earth 7:639- Nowak, J. Kronenberg, and R. de Groot. 2015. Benefits 650. of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Current Gibbs, H. K., and J. M. Salmon. 2015. Mapping the world’s Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:101-108. degraded lands. Applied Geography 57:12-21. Emmanuel, R., and A. Loconsole. 2015. Green infrastructure Gibson-Roy, P., G. Moore, J. Delpratt, and J. Gardner. as an adaptation approach to tackling urban overheating 2010. Expanding horizons for herbaceous ecosystem in the Glasgow Clyde Valley Region, UK. Landscape and restoration: the Grassy Groundcover Restoration Project. Urban Planning 138:71-86. Ecological Management & Restoration 11:176-186. Estrada-Carmona, N., A. K. Hart, F. A. J. DeClerck, C. A. Global Water Partnership. 2016. What is IWRM? Harvey, and J. C. Milder. 2014. Integrated landscape Green, T. L., J. Kronenberg, E. Andersson, T. Elmqvist, and management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and E. Gómez-Baggethun. 2016. Insurance Value of Green ecosystem conservation: An assessment of experience Infrastructure in and Around Cities. Ecosystems 19:1051- from Latin America and the Caribbean. Landscape and 1063. Urban Planning 129:1-11. Haaland, C., and C. K. van den Bosch. 2015. Challenges eThekwini municipality and Wildlands Conservation Trust. and strategies for urban green-space planning in cities 2015. Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Project Community, Climate and Biodiversity Standard Urban Greening 14:760-771. Project Design Document. Report prepared by Cirrus Group. Haregeweyn, N., A. Berhe, A. Tsunekawa, M. Tsubo, and D. T. Meshesha. 2012. Integrated Watershed Management as European Commission. 2011. Our life insurance, our natural an Effective Approach to Curb Land Degradation: A Case capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. COM(2011) Study of the Enabered Watershed in Northern Ethiopia. 244, Brussels. Environmental Management 50:1219-1233.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 29 Hobbs, P. R., K. Sayre, and R. Gupta. 2008. The role of Kopperoinen, L., P. Itkonen, and J. Niemelä. 2014. Using conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into Biological Sciences 363:543-555. a new place-based methodology. Landscape Ecology Hobbs, R. J., E. Higgs, C. M. Hall, P. Bridgewater, F. S. Chapin, 29:1361-1375. E. C. Ellis, J. J. Ewel, L. M. Hallett, J. Harris, K. B. Hulvey, S. Lafortezza, R., C. Davies, G. Sanesi, and C. Konijnendijk. T. Jackson, P. L. Kennedy, C. Kueffer, L. Lach, T. C. Lantz, 2013. Green Infrastructure as a tool to support A. E. Lugo, J. Mascaro, S. D. Murphy, C. R. Nelson, M. P. spatial planning in European urban regions. iForest - Perring, D. M. Richardson, T. R. Seastedt, R. J. Standish, B. Biogeosciences and Forestry 6:102-108. M. Starzomski, K. N. Suding, P. M. Tognetti, L. Yakob, and Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate L. Yung. 2014. Managing the whole landscape: historical, change. Geoderma 123:1-22. hybrid, and novel ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Lal, R. 2009. Soils and food sufficiency. A review. Agronomy the Environment 12:557-564. for Sustainable Development 29:113-133. Hobbs, R. J., E. Higgs, and J. A. Harris. 2009. Novel Lalani, B., P. Dorward, G. Holloway, and E. Wauters. 2016. ecosystems: implications for conservation and Smallholder farmers’ motivations for using Conservation restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24:599-605. Agriculture and the roles of yield, labour and Hope, D., C. Gries, W. Zhu, W. F. Fagan, C. L. Redman, N. in decision making. Agricultural Systems 146:80-90. B. Grimm, A. L. Nelson, C. Martin, and A. Kinzig. 2003. Lambin, E. F., P. Meyfroidt, X. Rueda, A. Blackman, J. Börner, Socioeconomics drive urban plant diversity. Proceedings P. O. Cerutti, T. Dietsch, L. Jungmann, P. Lamarque, J. of the National Academy of Sciences 100:8788-8792. Lister, N. F. Walker, and S. Wunder. 2014. Effectiveness Ito, T. Y., B. Lhagvasuren, A. Tsunekawa, M. Shinoda, S. and synergies of policy instruments for land use Takatsuki, B. Buuveibaatar, and B. Chimeddorj. 2013. governance in tropical regions. Global Environmental Fragmentation of the Habitat of Wild Ungulates by Change 28:129-140. Anthropogenic Barriers in Mongolia. PLoS ONE 8:e56995. Le, H. D., C. Smith, and J. Herbohn. 2014. What drives Jones, J. I., J. F. Murphy, S. G. Anthony, A. Arnold, J. H. the success of reforestation projects in tropical Blackburn, C. P. Duerdoth, A. Hawczak, G. O. Hughes, J. developing countries? The case of the Philippines. Global L. Pretty, P. D. Scarlett, R. D. Gooday, Y. S. Zhang, L. E. Environmental Change 24:334-348. Fawcett, D. Simpson, A. W. B. Turner, P. S. Naden, and J. Linnell, J. D. C., P. Kaczensky, U. Wotschikowsky, N. Skates. 2016. Do agri-environment schemes result in Lescureux, and L. Boitani. 2015. Framing the relationship improved water quality? Journal of Applied Ecology:n/a- between people and nature in the context of European n/a. conservation. Conservation Biology 29:978-985. Jordan, N., and K. D. Warner. 2010. Enhancing the Lipper, L., P. Thornton, B. M. Campbell, T. Baedeker, A. Multifunctionality of US Agriculture. Bioscience 60:60-66. Braimoh, M. Bwalya, P. Caron, A. Cattaneo, D. Garrity, K. Kalaba, F. K., C. H. Quinn, and A. J. Dougill. 2013. Henry, R. Hottle, L. Jackson, A. Jarvis, F. Kossam, W. Mann, Contribution of forest provisioning ecosystem services N. McCarthy, A. Meybeck, H. Neufeldt, T. Remington, P. to rural livelihoods in the Miombo woodlands of Zambia. T. Sen, R. Sessa, R. Shula, A. Tibu, and E. F. Torquebiau. Population and Environment 35:159-182. 2014. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Kang, Y., S. Khan, and X. Ma. 2009. Climate change impacts Clim. Change 4:1068-1072. on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security – Liquete, C., S. Kleeschulte, G. Dige, J. Maes, B. Grizzetti, B. A review. Progress in Natural Science 19:1665-1674. Olah, and G. Zulian. 2015. Mapping green infrastructure Katoh, K., S. Sakai, and T. Takahashi. 2009. Factors based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: maintaining species diversity in satoyama, a traditional A Pan-European case study. Environmental Science & agricultural landscape of Japan. Biological Conservation Policy 54:268-280. 142:1930-1936. Long, T. B., V. Blok, and I. Coninx. 2016. Barriers to the Klaus, V. H. 2013. Urban Grassland Restoration: A adoption and diffusion of technological innovations for Neglected Opportunity for Biodiversity Conservation. climate-smart agriculture in Europe: evidence from the Restoration Ecology 21:665-669. Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. Journal of Knowler, D., and B. Bradshaw. 2007. Farmers’ adoption of Cleaner Production 112, Part 1:9-21. conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent Lovell, S. T., and J. R. Taylor. 2013. Supplying urban research. Food Policy 32:25-48. ecosystem services through multifunctional green Knox, J., T. Hess, A. Daccache, and T. Wheeler. 2012. Climate infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology change impacts on crop productivity in Africa and South 28:1447-1463. Asia. Environmental Research Letters 7:034032.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 30 MacDicken, K. G., P. Sola, J. E. Hall, C. Sabogal, M. Tadoum, and ecosystem services of global forests in the past and C. de Wasseige. 2015. Global progress toward quarter-century. Forest Ecology and Management sustainable forest management. Forest Ecology and 352:35-46. Management 352:47-56. Mockrin, M. H., S. E. Reed, L. Pejchar, and S. Jessica. 2017. MacDonald, D., J. R. Crabtree, G. Wiesinger, T. Dax, N. Balancing housing growth and land conservation: Stamou, P. Fleury, J. Gutierrez Lazpita, and A. Gibon. 2000. Conservation development preserves private lands near Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: protected areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 157:598- Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal 607. of Environmental Management 59:47-69. Müller, C., W. Cramer, W. L. Hare, and H. Lotze-Campen. Maes, J., A. Barbosa, C. Baranzelli, G. Zulian, F. Batista 2011. Climate change risks for African agriculture. e Silva, I. Vandecasteele, R. Hiederer, C. Liquete, M. L. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Paracchini, S. Mubareka, C. Jacobs-Crisioni, C. P. Castillo, 108:4313-4315. and C. Lavalle. 2015. More green infrastructure is required Natural Capital Committee. 2014. Towards a Framework to maintain ecosystem services under current trends in for Defining and Measuring Changes in Natural Capital. land-use change in Europe. Landscape Ecology 30:517- Working Paper 1. March 2014. Natural Capital Committee. 534. Naumann, S., D. McKenna, and T. Kaphengst. 2011. Maron, M., R. J. Hobbs, A. Moilanen, J. W. Matthews, K. Design, implementation and cost elements of Green Christie, T. A. Gardner, D. A. Keith, D. B. Lindenmayer, and Infrastructure projects. Final report to the European C. A. McAlpine. 2012. Faustian bargains? Restoration Commission, DG Environment. Ecologic institute and GHK realities in the context of biodiversity offset policies. Consulting. Biological Conservation 155:141-148. Navarro, L. M., and H. M. Pereira. 2012. Rewilding Mathey, J., S. Rößler, J. Banse, I. Lehmann, and A. Bräuer. Abandoned Landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems 15:900- 2015. Brownfields As an Element of Green Infrastructure 912. for Implementing Ecosystem Services into Urban Niang, I., O. C. Ruppel, M. A. Abdrabo, A. Essel, C. Lennard, Areas. Journal of Urban Planning and Development J. Padgham, and P. Urquhart. 2014. Africa. Pages 1199- 141:A4015001. 1265 in V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Matthews, T., A. Y. Lo, and J. A. Byrne. 2015. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White, by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and 138:155-163. Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of McDonnell, M. J., and I. MacGregor-Fors. 2016. The Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the ecological future of cities. Science 352:936-938. Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Cambridge McWilliam, W., R. Brown, P. Eagles, and M. Seasons. University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 2015. Evaluation of planning policy for protecting York, NY, USA. green infrastructure from loss and degradation due to Pascual, U., M. Termansen, K. Hedlund, L. Brussaard, J. H. residential encroachment. Land Use Policy 47:459-467. Faber, S. Foudi, P. Lemanceau, and S. L. Jørgensen. 2015. Menz, M. H. M., K. W. Dixon, and R. J. Hobbs. 2013. Hurdles On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services. and Opportunities for Landscape-Scale Restoration. Ecosystem Services 15:11-18. Science 339:526-527. Petursdottir, T., A. L. Aradottir, and K. Benediktsson. 2013. Metternicht, G. 2016. Land use and spatial planning to An Evaluation of the Short-Term Progress of Restoration support sustainable land management. Background Combining Ecological Assessment and Public Perception. Paper for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook. Restoration Ecology 21:75-85. Mganga, K. Z., N. K. R. Musimba, and D. M. Nyariki. 2015. Pöll, C. E., W. Willner, and T. Wrbka. 2016. Challenging the Combining Sustainable Land Management Technologies practice of biodiversity offsets: ecological restoration to Combat Land Degradation and Improve Rural success evaluation of a large-scale railway project. Livelihoods in Semi-arid Lands in Kenya. Environmental Landscape and Ecological Engineering 12:85-97. Management 56:1538-1548. Milder, J. C., A. K. Hart, P. Dobie, J. Minai, and C. Zaleski. 2014. Integrated Landscape Initiatives for African Agriculture, Development, and Conservation: A Region- Wide Assessment. World Development 54:68-80. Miura, S., M. Amacher, T. Hofer, J. San-Miguel-Ayanz, Ernawati, and R. Thackway. 2015. Protective functions

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 31 Porter, J. R., L. Xie, A. J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S. M. Howden, Scherr, S. J., K. Mankad, S. Jaffee, C. Negra, T. Havemann, M. M. Iqbal, D. B. Lobell, and M. I. Travasso. 2014. Food J. Kijtikhun, U. E. Kusumjaya, S. Nair, and N. Rosenthal. security and food production systems. Pages 485- 2015. Steps Toward Green: Policy Responses to the 533 in C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, Environmental Footprint of Commodity Agriculture in M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, East and Southeast Asia. EcoAgriculture Partners and the Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. World Bank, Washington DC. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, and L. L. White, Scherr, S. J., and J. A. McNeely. 2008. Biodiversity editors. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Biological Sciences 363:477-494. Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Schwilch, G., H. P. Liniger, and H. Hurni. 2014. Sustainable Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Land Management (SLM) Practices in Drylands: How Do Queiroz, C., R. Beilin, C. Folke, and R. Lindborg. 2014. They Address Desertification Threats? Environmental Farmland abandonment: threat or opportunity for Management 54:983-1004. biodiversity conservation? A global review. Frontiers in Seabrook, L., C. A. McAlpine, and M. E. Bowen. 2011. Ecology and the Environment 12:288-296. Restore, repair or reinvent: Options for sustainable Rainey, H. J., E. H. B. Pollard, G. Dutson, J. M. M. Ekstrom, landscapes in a changing climate. Landscape and Urban S. R. Livingstone, H. J. Temple, and J. D. Pilgrim. 2015. A Planning 100:407-410. review of corporate goals of No Net Loss and Net Positive Shackelford, N., R. J. Hobbs, J. M. Burgar, T. E. Erickson, J. Impact on biodiversity. Oryx 49:232-238. B. Fontaine, E. Laliberté, C. E. Ramalho, M. P. Perring, Read, Z. J., H. P. King, D. J. Tongway, S. Ogilvy, R. S. B. and R. J. Standish. 2013. Primed for Change: Developing Greene, and G. Hand. 2016. Landscape function analysis Ecological Restoration for the 21st Century. Restoration to assess soil processes on farms following ecological Ecology 21:297-304. restoration and changes in grazing management. Shames, S., K. Heiner, M. Kapukha, L. Kiguli, M. Masiga, European Journal of Soil Science 67:409-420. P. N. Kalunda, A. Ssempala, J. Recha, and A. Wekesa. Reed, M. S., L. C. Stringer, A. J. Dougill, J. S. Perkins, J. R. 2016. Building local institutional capacity to implement Atlhopheng, K. Mulale, and N. Favretto. 2015. Reorienting agricultural carbon projects: participatory action research land degradation towards sustainable land management: with Vi Agroforestry in Kenya and ECOTRUST in Uganda. Linking sustainable livelihoods with ecosystem services Agriculture & Food Security 5:1-15. in rangeland systems. Journal of Environmental Shanahan, D. F., B. B. Lin, K. J. Gaston, R. Bush, and R. Management 151:472-485. A. Fuller. 2015. What is the role of trees and remnant Reynolds, J. F., D. M. S. Smith, E. F. Lambin, B. L. Turner, vegetation in attracting people to urban parks? M. Mortimore, S. P. J. Batterbury, T. E. Downing, H. Landscape Ecology 30:153-165. Dowlatabadi, R. J. Fernández, J. E. Herrick, E. Huber- Society for Ecological Restoration International Science Sannwald, H. Jiang, R. Leemans, T. Lynam, F. T. Maestre, and Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER International M. Ayarza, and B. Walker. 2007. Global Desertification: Primer on Ecological Restoration. Society for Ecological Building a Science for Dryland Development. Science Restoration International, Tucson. 316:847-851. Standish, R. J., R. J. Hobbs, and J. R. Miller. 2013. Improving Sandifer, P. A., A. E. Sutton-Grier, and B. P. Ward. 2015. city life: options for ecological restoration in urban Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, landscapes and how these might influence interactions ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: between people and nature. Landscape Ecology 28:1213- Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity 1221. conservation. Ecosystem Services 12:1-15. Sustainable Agriculture Network. 2017a. Climate smart Sayer, J., T. Sunderland, J. Ghazoul, J.-L. Pfund, D. Sheil, agriculture in the 2017 SAN Sustainable Agriculture E. Meijaard, M. Venter, A. K. Boedhihartono, M. Day, Standard. C. Garcia, C. van Oosten, and L. E. Buck. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling Sustainable Agriculture Network. 2017b. Sustainable agriculture, conservation, and other competing land Agriculture Standard for farms’ and producer groups’ crop uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and production. 110:8349-8356. Sutton, M. A., O. Oenema, J. W. Erisman, A. Leip, H. van Scherr, S., S. Shames, and R. Friedman. 2013. Defining Grinsven, and W. Winiwarter. 2011. Too much of a good Integrated Landscape Management for Policy Makers. thing. Nature 472:159-161. Ecoagriculture Policy Focus No. 10. EcoAgriculture Partners, Washington DC.

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 32 Tayleur, C., A. Balmford, G. M. Buchanan, S. H. M. Butchart, comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape H. Ducharme, R. E. Green, J. C. Milder, F. J. Sanderson, and Urban Planning 77:94-110. D. H. L. Thomas, J. Vickery, and B. Phalan. 2016. Global West, T. A. P., E. Vidal, and F. E. Putz. 2014. Forest biomass Coverage of Agricultural Sustainability Standards, and recovery after conventional and reduced-impact logging Their Role in Conserving Biodiversity. Conservation in Amazonian Brazil. Forest Ecology and Management Letters:n/a-n/a. 314:59-63. TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Western, D. 2001. Human-modified ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited future evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington. Sciences 98:5458-5465. Tesfaye, M. A., A. Bravo-Oviedo, F. Bravo, B. Kidane, K. Wheeler, T., and M. Kay. 2010. Food Crop Production, Water Bekele, and D. Sertse. 2015. Selection of Tree Species and and Climate Change in the Developing World. Outlook on for Simultaneous Fuelwood Production Agriculture 39:239-243. and Soil Rehabilitation in the Ethiopian Central Highlands. Wickham, J. D., K. H. Riitters, T. G. Wade, and P. Vogt. Land Degradation & Development 26:665-679. 2010. A national assessment of green infrastructure Tzoulas, K., K. Korpela, S. Venn, V. Yli-Pelkonen, A. and change for the conterminous United States using Kaźmierczak, J. Niemela, and P. James. 2007. Promoting morphological image processing. Landscape and Urban ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Planning 94:186-195. Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Wiens, J. A., and R. J. Hobbs. 2015. Integrating Conservation Planning 81:167-178. and Restoration in a Changing World. Bioscience 65:302- UNCCD/Science-Policy Interface. 2016. Scientific 312. Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation Neutrality. Witt, H., and L. Loots. 2010. Flying the mythical flag of a A Report of the Science-Policy Interface. Barron J. Orr, green and inclusive 2010 FIFA World Cup in KwaZulu- Annette L. Cowie, Victor M. Castillo Sanchez, Pamela Natal. Agenda 24:125-145. Chasek, Neville D. Crossman, Alexander Erlewein, Geertrui Louwagie, Martine Maron, Graciela I. Metternicht, Wolch, J. R., J. Byrne, and J. P. Newell. 2014. Urban green Sara Minelli, Anna E. Tengberg, Sven Walter, and space, public health, and environmental justice: The Shelly Welton., United Nations Convention to Combat challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape Desertification (UNCCD), Bonn, Germany. and Urban Planning 125:234-244. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Wolf, I. D., and T. Wohlfart. 2014. Walking, hiking and Population Division. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: running in parks: A multidisciplinary assessment of health The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). and well-being benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning 130:89-103. van Noordwijk, M., B. Leimona, R. Jindal, G. B. Villamor, M. Vardhan, S. Namirembe, D. Catacutan, J. Kerr, P. A. Minang, Wunder, S. 2013. When payments for environmental and T. P. Tomich. 2012. Payments for Environmental services will work for conservation. Conservation Letters Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives 6:230-237. for Multifunctional Landscapes. Annual Review of Wunder, S., S. Engel, and S. Pagiola. 2008. Taking stock: Environment and Resources 37:389-420. A comparative analysis of payments for environmental Van Teeffelen, A. J. A., C. C. Vos, R. Jochem, J. M. Baveco, H. services programs in developed and developing countries. Meeuwsen, and J. P. Hilbers. 2015. Is green infrastructure Ecological Economics 65:834-852. an effective climate adaptation strategy for conserving Yachi, S., and M. Loreau. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem biodiversity? A case study with the great crested newt. productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance Landscape Ecology 30:937-954. hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Vandermeulen, V., A. Verspecht, B. Vermeire, G. Van Sciences 96:1463-1468. Huylenbroeck, and X. Gellynck. 2011. The use of economic Zhang, L., W. R. Dawes, and G. R. Walker. 2001. Response of valuation to create public support for green infrastructure Mean Annual Evapotranspiration to Vegetation changes investments in urban areas. Landscape and Urban at Catchment Scale. Water Resources Research 37:701- Planning 103:198-206. 708. Verburg, P. H., and K. P. Overmars. 2009. Combining top- down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landscape Ecology 24:1167- 1181. Weber, T., A. Sloan, and J. Wolf. 2006. Maryland’s Green Infrastructure Assessment: Development of a

UNCCD | Global Land Outlook Working Paper | ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 33 GLOBAL LAND OUTLOOK WORKING PAPER