ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we reflect back on three key questions posed upfront: 1: What are some of the integration challenges for forest landscape restoration (FLR)? 2: What can we learn from other large-scale land use initiatives, frameworks or approaches? 3: How can integrated approaches improve FLR decision-making processes?
Five significant integration challenges for FLR were identified: (1) Narrow silo-based approaches cannot address the diversity of issues present in landscapes being restored. (2) Progress is hampered by a lack of common understanding among stakeholders concerning causes of forest loss and degradation, objectives for FLR and implementation actions. (3) Tenure and property rights impact on FLR in complex ways. (4) Tensions between planning the landscape-level process and implementing local actions need to be acknowledged and addressed. (5) There is a risk of recentralization of forest governance. There are lessons to be learned from other large-scale land use initiatives, frameworks or approaches. From the social-ecological system framework, we learned that understanding of the roles of multiple stakeholders is essential, a balance must be sought between the resilience of human and ecological systems, and embracing complexity shines a light on trade-offs. From the landscape approach, we learned that we must look beyond the landscape, that there is a need to balance tangible landscape objectives for FLR with flexibility, and that landscape-level solutions should recognize diversity. From the land sparing/land sharing debate and agroecological approaches, we learned that broad priorities for the landscape can integrate multiple objectives, that the human wellbeing dimension of FLR is multifaceted, that lack of evidence is a constraint on implementation, and that agroecological approaches can reconcile divergent value and knowledge systems as well as development and FLR visions. Integrated approaches can improve FLR decision-making processes by (1) building on existing spatial planning approaches for FLR planning, (2) broadening the knowledge base, (3) increasing investment in the process of defining FLR objectives and targets, (4) adopting polycentric governance approaches in FLR planning and implementation to improve accountability, legitimacy and outcomes, and (5) employing adaptive management that includes monitoring the effects of FLR implementation actions.
