Discussion Paper

Enhancing Resilience through Forest Landscape Restoration: Understanding Synergies and Identifying Opportunities

November 2017

This document is the first in a series intended to (1) identify and highlight the contribution of forest

landscape restoration towards enhancing landscape resilience, as well as the resilience of communities

dependent on forests (and the ecosystems services they provide); (2) promote understanding within the

resilience community of how forest landscape restoration can enhance resilience; and (3) help build a

better case to communicate restoration benefits in climate policy processes and mechanisms (e.g.

adaptation, disaster risk reduction, co-benefits, etc.)

This analysis aims to inform decision makers, practitioners, and other stakeholders involved in the fields

of forestry and resilience of the opportunities for integrating forest landscape restoration with resilience

principles, and the synergies therein.

IUCN/Ali Raza Rizvi

2

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

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

This publication has been made possible in part by funding from the International Climate Initiative (IKI)

of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB).

Suggested citation: Baig, Saima; Rizvi, Ali Raza and Mike Jones. 2017. Enhancing Resilience through

Forest Landscape Restoration: Understanding Synergies and Identifying

Opportunities (Discussion Paper). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. 16 pp.

Additional review and inputs provided by Angela Andrade, Elmedina Krilasevic, Chetan Kumar, Salome

Begeladze, Maria Garcia Espinosa, and Katherine Blackwood.

3

1. Introduction

Forests are invaluable ecosystems, providing countless goods and services to people across the globe.

These goods and services take the form of food, fuel, medicine, employment and income (i.e. provisioning

services). Local communities as well as national and global markets use wood and non-timber forest

products (NTFP) for various purposes. Forests also support extensive biodiversity; providing habitat and

food sources for various species, soil formation and nutrient cycling; and deliver indirect benefits, such as

watershed protection (i.e. supporting services). They provide regulating services such as climate and flood

regulation and water purification. Finally, they have cultural, religious, aesthetic and recreational values.

According to one estimate, the economic benefits of forests amount to US$ 130 million per year.i The

rural poor (approximately 1.6 billion people),ii in particular, benefit extensively from forest goods and

services.

However, forests around the world are being converted to other land uses, jeopardizing these benefits.

This conversion comes in many forms, such as clear-cutting for agriculture, ranching and development,

unsustainable logging for timber, and degradation due to climate change and forest fires. One estimate

suggests that 30% of the Earth’s original forest cover has been converted for other uses, and an additional

20% has been degraded.iii This amounts to two billion hectares of forest lands across the world which have

been degraded and deforested to such a degree that the number and quality of ecosystem services they

produce have been dramatically diminished.iv Diminished ecosystem services in turn affect the wellbeing

of forest dependent communities, rendering them unequipped to deal with future shocks. The UN Food

and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that globally 20% of cultivated lands, 30% of forests, and

10% of grasslands are currently degraded.v This degradation has translated into economic losses, and The

Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) calculated that the cost of forest loss was between US$

2-5 trillion per year.vi

Key messages

Forest landscape restoration is the ongoing process of regaining ecological functionality and

enhancing human well-being across deforested or degraded forest landscapes. forest

landscape restoration is more than just planting trees – it is restoring a whole landscape

“forward” to meet present and future needs and to offer multiple benefits and land uses

over time.

Forest landscape restoration approaches and practices provide opportunities for enhancing

socio-ecological resilience in landscapes.

At the same time, resilience principles can make valuable contributions to forest landscape

restoration implementation, thus ensuring that socio-ecological resilience is enhanced.

4

In addition, the impacts of climate change can be felt across

many forest ecosystems, affecting human societies in a

multitude of ways. It affects humans directly, and both

humans and biodiversity indirectly, through its influence on

forest (and other) landscapes. Furthermore, forests across the

globe are being impacted not only by climate change and its

associated disturbances such as flooding, droughts, wildfires

and insects but also by other drivers of change such as land

use, pollution, and overexploitation. vii Since communities are

also dependent on biodiversity, they are impacted when

species are affected. In turn, however, forest landscapes are

key to addressing climate change and its impacts (see Box 1).

Global vegetation patterns are heavily dependent on climate

and human influences that affect the distribution, structure,

and ecology of forests. viii Particular climate regimes are

associated with specific plant communities or functional types ix and climate change can therefore have extensive impacts on

the configuration of forests. x The Third Assessment Report of the IPCC thus predicts that forest

ecosystems are likely to be seriously hampered by future climate change. xi This is likely to occur even if

global warming in this century is less than projected, resulting in changes in species composition,

productivity, and biodiversity. xii

According to the FAO xiii, the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 due to change in climate

will directly affect forest growth and production. On the other hand, changes in temperature and

precipitation will result in indirect impacts through complex interactions in the forest ecosystems.

Although warming in temperate and boreal zones may have a positive effect on ecosystems, a decline in

precipitation and an increase in decomposition rates is likely to nullify this. xiv Furthermore, the increase

in productivity in some tropical zones will be temporary; and in drylands, the increase in temperature

might lead to increased plant stress, decreasing their productivity. xv It is important to note that these are

complex processes, with a wide range of possible outcomes - some of which may be positive and some

negative.

Changes in forest productivity due to climate change (and other factors) are likely to have a multitude of

impacts on natural and human systems. It will influence the production of wood and wood products, thus

leading to losses in income for forest communities and the timber industry. This is likely to reduce the

overall capacity for economic production and increase the risks for economic activities. Local communities

are also likely to be more at risk from exposure to climate extremes (such as droughts, floods and fires).

Biodiversity will be impacted as forests shift towards the poles and vulnerable species could be lost. xvi

The higher predicted incidences of extreme events will have a devastating effect on the forest flora and

fauna, as will the increase in forest fires due to droughts, and floods. xvii Changes in precipitation and runoff

patterns will result in decreases in the availability of water in many parts of the world's forested

watersheds, thus decreasing the goods and services they provide. xviii Incidences of pest outbreaks are also

Box 1. Forests have four major roles in climate

change:

1. They currently contribute about one-

sixth of global carbon emissions when

cleared, overused or degraded;

2. They react sensitively to a changing

climate;

3. When managed sustainably, they

produce wood-fuels as a benign

alternative to fossil fuels;

4. They have the potential to absorb

about one-tenth of global carbon

emissions projected for the first half of

this century into their biomass, soils

and products and store them - in

principle in perpetuity

Source: FAO 2012;

http://www.fao.org/forestry/climatechange/5

3459/en/

5

expected to rise as the defenses of host species change with a changing climate, as well as with the change

in the abundance of parasites and predators. FAO cites examples where insect and pathogen lifecycles or

habits have been altered by local or larger-scale climate change (e.g. mountain pine beetles in North

America and pine and oak caterpillars in Europe).xix

Taken together, forest degradation and deforestation are the source of 1.6 Giga-tons (Gt) of annual

carbon emissions,xx which contribute to escalating climate instability that affects many of the world’s

poorest or most vulnerable communities. It is well established that the degradation and deforestation of

landscapes can cause downward spirals into poverty.xxi High population growth and lack of agricultural

diversification can encourage farmers to cultivate continuously, thus reducing soil fertility and future crop

yields. Degradation and deforestation have been routinely linked to the increased frequency and intensity

of natural disasters, particularly floods and landslides.

It is therefore necessary to implement strategies and approaches aimed at enhancing the resilience of

forest landscapes, as well as the resilience of human societies dependent on them. As such, adaptive and

sustainable forest management is crucial to reduce vulnerabilities of forests and human populations.

Importantly, approaches such as afforestation, reforestation, restoration, and avoided deforestation are

essential to ensuring the continuation of carbon sequestration to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions. For example, FAO recommends that a nation’s terrestrial area should be at least 10%

forested.xxii

2. Forest Landscape Restoration

In the past two decades, forest landscape restoration has emerged as a promising approach to restore

degraded and deforested forest ecosystems within landscapes. A forest landscape is defined as one that

is capable of supporting forests or woodlands, regardless of its current vegetation or use; and forest

landscape restoration as the long-term process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing human

wellbeing across deforested or degraded forest landscapes.xxiii

Forest landscape restoration is an integrated approach that looks at all aspects of forest landscapes and

manages them accordingly. The landscape approach entails restoration of a mosaic of land uses, including

agriculture, farming and pastoral systems.

For example, agroforestry and silvi-pastoral

approaches are effective means through

which forest landscape restoration can

enhance adaptive capacity and resilience by

increasing species diversity and variation

within a landscape.

The focus of forest landscape restoration is

to conserve forest ecosystems and to

maintain, increase or enhance ecosystem

functions by ensuring that landscapes accommodate a mosaic of land uses, as part of integrated and

negotiated landscape management, rather than in isolation, or by providing piecemeal solutions. xxiv

“Forest landscape restoration is the long-term process of regaining ecological functionality and enhancing human well-being across deforested or degraded forest landscapes. It is about ‘forests’ because it involves increasing the number and/or health of trees in an area. It is about ‘landscapes’ because it involves entire watersheds, jurisdictions, or even countries in which many land uses interact. It is about ‘restoration’ because it involves bringing back the biological productivity of an area in order to achieve any number of benefits for people and the planet. It is ‘long-term’ because it requires a multi-year vision of the ecological functions and benefits to human well-being that restoration will produce although tangible deliverables such as jobs, income and carbon sequestration begin to flow right away.” 1

6

Because it works towards restoring functionality, incorporates uncertainty, and aims towards improving

social and ecological conditions, forest landscape restoration is an effective approach for enhancing socio-

ecological resilience. Figure 1 depicts how forest landscape restoration options can enhance resilience by

improving forest ecosystem goods and services. xxv

3. Socio-ecological resilience

Resilience is an important concept in climate change solutions. In general, enhancing resilience involves

reducing vulnerability, and increasing the potential of people and ecosystems to adapt or transform as

the climate changes. It is important to note that there are many interpretations and definitions for

resilience, which are useful in varying contexts. In the case of forest landscape restoration

implementation, however, the concept of socio-ecological resilience, is particularly useful.

Figure 1: How forest landscape restoration can enhance resilience

The IPCC defines resilience as “The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances, while

retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the

capacity to adapt to stress and change”,xxvi and as “the ability of a system and its component parts to

anticipate, absorb, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a hazardous event in a timely and efficient

manner, including through ensuring the preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential basic

structures and functions”.xxvii Thus, a resilient system or community has the ability to “spring back” from

7

a hazard or shock. This ability depends on the availability of essential resources and the capacity to

organize both before and after the shock.xxviii The Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) broadens the

definition to include socio-ecological systems (SES)1 and defines resilience as “the capacity of a system, be

it an individual, a forest, a city or an economy, to deal with change and continue to develop. It is about the

capacity to use shocks and disturbances like a financial crisis or climate change to spur renewal and

innovative thinking. Resilience thinking embraces learning, diversity and above all the belief that humans

and nature are strongly coupled to the point that they should be conceived as one social–ecological

system.”xxix Folke et al. (2010) define resilience as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and

reorganize while undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure and

feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity.”xxx

An important aspect of resilience is the ability of a system to withstand shocks while also being able to

“rebuild the system” whenever necessary.xxxi As such, resilient socio-ecological systems can (a) absorb

stresses and continue to maintain their function when faced with climate change and other uncertainties.

More crucially, it also means that resilient systems can (b) remain sustainable by adapting and evolving,

so that they are prepared for future (uncertain, unknown and unforeseen) situations.xxxii Both aspects are

important, especially in the context of developing countries and poor, vulnerable and marginalized

communities, who not only need to face current climate impacts but also need to rebuild and transform

themselves and their systems to deal with new climate regimes and other future shocks. For example,

trees on a farm help to retain water in the soil, provide opportunities to diversify food supply and generate

additional income for a family depending on the farm for food and income. In case of prolonged droughts

(or “shocks”, in resilience terminology) the trees would ameliorate the effects of drought on a farm,

village, or an entire region in terms of water availability and food productivity (i.e. “absorb stresses”),

allowing the people to continue relying on their farms (i.e. to “maintain function”). People living on the

farm may jointly decide to plant more trees species that are best suited to provide them with products

(food), and services (soil water retention) to prepare for increasingly frequent droughts (i.e. to “adapt and

evolve”) to prepare for future challenges.

In addition to withstanding shocks, “springing back” and “rebuilding”, resilient systems are able to

reorganize and access new opportunities after experiencing changes in states. The time required for a

system to return to an equilibrium point following a disturbance event is commonly referred to as

“engineering resilience”.xxxiii This means resisting change and conserving existing structures.xxxiv In socio-

ecological systems however, resilience means “the amount of disturbance that a system can absorb before

changing to another stable state”, referred to as “ecological resilience”.xxxv To explain further, it is "the

capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as to still retain

essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the

capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity”xxx (i.e. being persistent to change).xxxvi However,

socio-ecological resilience has seen even broader, more elaborate conceptualization. In this iteration, it is

understood to include the adaptive capacity of the system (i.e. the ability to learn, adjust responses to

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

8

internal and external drivers, make incremental changes and continue operating) and the transformative

capacity (i.e. the ability to create and operate in a completely new system in case existing ecological,

economic or social structures make the existing one unsustainable). xxxvii All of these depend on the types

of shocks that a system experiences and deals with. Whatever the definition, resilience is a crucial element

for safeguarding and restoring human wellbeing. When risks are reduced, assets are built and adaptive

systems are strengthened and organized, the community becomes resilient towards unforeseen and

adverse changes.

Resilience science is based on Holling’s adaptive cycle and panarchy, two “rule of thumb” models for

assessing the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to recover and change as a consequence of

disturbance.xxxviii Simply put, the adaptive cycle is a model of growth, senescence (or natural

deterioration), collapse and reorganization, leading to a new phase of growth, and is common to all living

beings, communities and ecosystems. The adaptive cycle is based on three interconnected parts:

1. The potential of the system to change in response to changes within the environment in which it

occurs, and changes in its internal components. The potential for change includes the social and

ecological aspects of an ecosystem.

2. The feedback interactions between the component parts of the system, which regulate system

function; and

3. The system’s ability to recover after disturbance i.e., its resilience.

Panarchy is a conceptual framework comprised of three adaptive cycles and the feedback interactions

between them, which represent the interconnectedness between systems at different scales. For

example, leaf, twig, branch, tree, forest stand, forest and landscape are a nested set of systems of

increasing scale. Human systems are similarly nested: cell, tissue, organ, individual, household and

community.

To summarize, socio-ecological resilience recognizes that ecosystems (and landscapes) can occur in more

than one state and focuses on the ability of a system to persist in the face of prevailing patterns of use,

stresses and major disturbance.

4. How restoration can contribute to resilience

Forest landscapes can be viewed as social-ecological systems of people and nature that are mutually

interdependent, each affecting change in the other. The resilience of such systems varies because of the

outcome of the interactions between people and nature. When conceptualized as socio-ecological

systems they are prime locations to implement resilience enhancing strategies and actions, such as forest

landscape restoration.

It is important to understand that various elements such as food insecurity, climate change, disasters,

economic systems, poverty, conflicts, rights and access can affect resilience. Forest landscape restoration

contributes to resilience by addressing those that may be part of and influencing a particular system.

Therefore, it addresses not only climate change issues but also those that tend to increase the

vulnerabilities of people. For example, forest landscape restoration contributes to food security by

9

enabling and improving the provision of forest goods such as NTFPs (wild fruits, leaves, seeds, nuts, honey

and vegetables), as well as animals, and insects, at times when other sources are meager. Worldwide, one

in six people directly rely on forests for food and income. xxxix Locally controlled forests provide households

livelihoods worth US$130 billion, in developing countries. xl Because forest landscape restoration

enhances forest ecosystem goods and services, it also contributes to economic and livelihood benefits -

both of which are elements of resilience - such as through sustainably managed commercial plantations,

agro-forestry and tourism, in addition to providing grazing land and fuelwood.

Forest landscape restoration has the potential to also provide immense benefits for climate change

mitigation and, if carried out in a climate smart manner, provides equally large adaptation benefits. This

synergy can go a long way towards increasing socio-ecological resilience. Previously forests were mainly

considered for mitigation purposes and largely ignored for adaptation. Now, studies suggest the

importance of forest restoration towards resilience by synergizing both mitigation and adaptation.xli This

potential for integrated mitigation and adaptation action through forest landscape restoration certainly

warrants further exploration, especially in the context of increasing socio-ecological resilience.

Climate change is likely to impact poor communities and less developed nations the most because they

have economies largely dependent on ecosystems. Therefore, socio-ecological resilience is crucial to their

national strategies. For example, there is a need to build resilience of food and water systems in order to

ensure that society is able to adapt to climate change. xlii

There is a dynamic process at work here. Not only do poor communities and less developed countries

need to withstand adverse climate change impacts, they also need to be able to move out of their poverty

and low development cycles, which can only occur if they are prepared to face uncertainties and also

achieve improvements in their social, economic and ecological systems. Enhancing resilience in forest

systems through forest landscape restoration options will not only prepare communities to deal with

climate impacts but will also provide them with the flexibility to exploit opportunities. It will ensure that

biodiversity is conserved and that the forest landscape continues to provide goods and services in the face

of change.

In addition, forest landscape restoration can contribute to disaster risk reduction, such as by improving

coastal protection provided by mangrove forests; implementing forest and grassland conservation to

protect communities from soil erosion and sandstorms; tree buffers along rivers to protect against

flooding and erosion; and increasing vegetation in urban spaces to reduce the urban heat island effect

and improve air quality. xliii

Healthy ecosystems have the potential to reduce and preclude conflict. By reducing out-migration; thus

decreasing socio-economic conflicts arising through urbanization, unemployment in cities and emigration

to neighboring countries, etc., forest landscape restoration combined with equitable sharing of benefits

can also contribute towards local resilience.

Restoration is also one of the on-ground measures commonly employed as an option under Ecosystem-

based Adaptation (EbA). Since EbA (and by extension ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction) aims to

10

reduce human vulnerabilities through the provision of ecosystem services, it is clear that well managed,

restored and conserved forest ecosystems can help people to adapt to climate change, deal more

effectively with disasters, and enhance their benefit flows. Forest landscape restoration options such as

afforestation, reforestation, agroforestry, conservation, preservation and sustainable management of

forests (all of which are possible EbA actions), provide biodiversity and ecosystem services that help

communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change by reducing vulnerabilities and increasing socio-

ecological resilience.

Restoration of forest landscapes can enhance water resources, maintain biodiversity and increase carbon

sequestration. Restoration activities can be targeted towards increasing forest cover, improving the

hydrological cycle, increasing the amount of available water, and regulating surface and groundwater

flows, while maintaining and improving water quality. Biodiversity conservation in forest landscapes can

ensure that their productivity is maintained, thus contributing to food security through NTFPs (such as

fuel, fodder, honey and fruit), animal protein and other products. Well-designed and effectively

implemented forest landscape restoration approaches can further contribute to resilience by reducing

poverty - if they have built in incentives for communities to manage forests sustainably. A variety of forest

products such as timber, fiber and bioenergy can increase rural incomes. Agro-forestry and wooded areas

can also contribute to income in times of stress. Forest landscape restoration options can also contribute

to livelihoods from recreation and tourism, and importantly, payment for ecosystem services can increase

regional economic stability and provide funds for conservation. While these increase adaptive capacities

of people, carbon sequestration contributes towards mitigation goals. Mangrove and riverine forests

decrease disaster risks by providing coastal protection and protection from floods, soil erosions and

sandstorms. Ensuring an enabling institutional and governance environment, with appropriate

stakeholder participation (including gender integration) are important aspects of forest landscape

restoration. xliv

The following table (1) highlights forest landscape restoration principles as defined by the Global

Partnership on Forest Landscape Restorationxlv, and how they result in enhancing socio-ecological

resilience. These principles can be used as guidelines to ensure resilience integrated forest landscape

restoration.

11

Table 1: Forest landscape restoration contribution towards enhancing resilience

Forest landscape

restoration Principles

Contribution towards resilience

Landscape focus Entire landscapes are restored, including a mosaic of interdependent land uses across the

landscape, such as protected forest areas, ecological corridors, regenerating forests,

agroforestry systems, agriculture, well-managed plantations and riparian strips to protect

waterways. This means using an integrated approach that lowers risks and vulnerabilities of

ecosystems and human populations.

Restore functionality of landscape Through ecosystem restoration/ rehabilitation, afforestation and reforestation, providing a

habitat for biodiversity, contributing to soil and water conservation, preventing flooding and

soil erosion in order to deal with the impacts of current and future climate change and other

disruptions, landscapes can be made functional. Thus contributing to enhanced human

wellbeing, including through the improved provision of ecosystem services.

Provide multiple benefits Enhance a multitude of ecosystem goods and services, adding to people’s livelihoods, food

and water security, and risk reduction etc. depending on the objective of the interventions.

These are important objectives for a resilient community.

Forest landscape restoration can be an implementing vehicle for multiple global objectives in

the sense of promoting multi-purpose cost-effective interventions for addressing climate

change, biodiversity loss, food and water security, poverty, and thus has a more strategic

nature in the sense of cost-effective allocation of resources for interventions that have the

potential for delivering multiple benefits.

Implement a number of strategies Reforestation, afforestation, agroforestry, natural regeneration, assisted regeneration and

tree plantation, ecosystem management -separately or in combination - can all contribute to

socio-ecological resilience by improving livelihoods, increasing food and water security and

decreasing disaster risks. This can also include preventing further loss/ conversion of

forestland and reduce pressures to natural and protected ecosystems.

Tailor to local conditions Considering current and future local ecological, social and economic conditions helps to

ensure that interventions address, and are tailored to, local needs and opportunities.

Participatory and adaptive

management

Ensuring the involvement of all relevant stakeholders (including women and marginalized

communities), and adapting strategies to deal with changing conditions and new challenges

ensures the capacity for renewal and facing future shocks.

To summarize, well-designed forest landscape restoration activities – when undertaken in an integrated

and holistic manner, and when considering forest landscape restoration principles – enhance socio-

ecological resilience by providing income opportunities, reducing poverty, supporting food and water

security and enhancing environmental sustainability. xlvi

5. Conclusion

To achieve the full benefits that forest landscape restoration can provide it is necessary to identify the

aims and objectives of restoration being undertaken in a particular context. There is a need to develop

12

guidance on how adaptive capacity can be increased and resilience can be enhanced in practice, by

defining a framework to plan, implement and assess projects for resilience. The framework can be useful

in understanding the contribution of forest landscape restoration towards enhancing resilience by asking

relevant questions such as a) what are the elements of degradation in a system? b) what are the

interventions needed to address them? and c) what are the future needs in terms of adaptation and

“renewal”?

The ultimate goal of this exercise is therefore, to develop a conceptual framework that would allow

practitioners to assess for resilience when undertaking forest landscape restoration planning. It will help

guide the planning, implementation and measuring of forest landscape restoration interventions, and

ensure that they are aimed towards strengthening adaptation and enhancing resilience. This will assist in

providing information about whether forest landscape restoration related projects are responding to the

needs of resilience, in particular the multiple states of equilibrium to be addressed. Moreover, even

though restoration goals do not always mention adaptation and resilience, they often address the needs

for both (e.g., water and food security, stabilizing microclimate, reducing the influence of weather

extremes). These and other impacts can be assessed and integrated more systematically in forest

landscape restoration interventions (to fully utilize the potentials of forest landscape restoration to

contribute to adaptation and resilience), through the framework. As a supplementary use, the framework

can also enable practitioners to build a body of evidence from the field to serve as lessons learned; keeping

in mind the definition of resilience that has been discussed in this paper.

13

References

i IUCN Policy Brief on the Economics of FLR and https://www.iucn.org/content/facts-and-figures-forests ii IUCN Policy Brief on the Economics of FLR and https://www.iucn.org/content/facts-and-figures-forests iii IUCN Policy Brief on the Economics of FLR and IUCN Issues Brief November 2015. https://www.iucn.org/downloads/forests_and_climate_change_issues_brief_cop21_011215.pdf ivLaestadius, L. S.-L. (2011). A world of opportunity: the world’s forests from a restoration perspective.

Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR).

vFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). State of the World's Forests 2011.

Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

vi IUCN Policy Brief on the Economics of FLR. vii Locatelli, Bruno et al. Chapter 2. Forests and Adaptation to Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities in Forests and Society - Responding to Global Drivers of Change. viiiKirschbaum, M. U. F., Cannell, M. G. R., Cruz, R. V. O., Galinski, W. and Cramer, W. P. Climate change impacts on forests. In: Climate change 1995, Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation of climate change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. 1996, Cambridge University Press. ix Ravindranath, N. H., Joshi, N.V., Sukumar, R. and Saxena, A. Impact of Climate Change on Forests in India. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and Forest Survey of India, Dehra Dun. xIPCC. Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change, Scientific-Technical Analyses. 1996, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. xiIPCC. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, 2001a. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. xiiIPCC. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, 2001b. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland; Leemans, R. And Eickhout, B. Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 2004, 14: 219-228. And N. H. Ravindranath, N.V. Joshi, R. Sukumar and A. Saxena. Impact of Climate Change on Forests in India. Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and Forest Survey of India, Dehra Dun. xiii FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xiv FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry

14

Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xv FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xvi FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xvii FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xviii FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xix FAO. 2013. Climate change guidelines for forest managers. FAO Forestry Paper No. 172. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. xxIPCC. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

xxiDasgupta, S., Diechmann, U., Meisner, C., & Wheeler, D. (2005). Where is the Poverty–Environment

Nexus? Evidence from Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. World Development.

xxii Technology Needs Assessment and Technology Action Plans for Climate Change Mitigation. 2013. National Environment Management Authority, Kenya. xxiiiIUCN. Forest Landscape Restoration. Gland: 2014; https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/forest/fp_our_work/fp_our_work_thematic/fp_our_work_fl/ xxivMinnemeyer, S., Laestadius, L., Sizer, N., Saint-Laurent, C. and Potapov, P. (2011). A World of Opportunity. The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration, World Resources Institute, South Dakota State University and IUCN. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/av45_english_web.pdf xxv Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. xxvi IPCC. 2008. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-4-1-2-ecosystems.html#footnote15 xxvii IPCC, 2012: Glossary of terms. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 555-564. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX-Annex_Glossary.pdf

15

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

Ecosystems. 4(5), pp. 390–405.

xxxix Bhaskar Vira, Christoph Wildburger & Stephanie Mansourian (eds.), 2015. Forests, Trees and Landscapes for Food Security and Nutrition. A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series Volume 33. Vienna. 172 p.

16

xl IUCN (2012) Livelihoods and Landscapes Strategy: Results and Reflections. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN xli Locatelli, B., Catterall, C., Imbach, P., Kumar, C., Lasco, R., Marin-Spiotta, E., Mercer, B., Powers, J., Schwartz, N., and Uriarte, M. (2015) Tropical reforestation and climate change: Beyond carbon, Restoration Ecology, 23 (4): 337-343 xlii Jones, M. (2014). Reflections on Resilience. Sustainable Food Trust. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-03-31/reflections-on-resilience/ xliii Lo, V. (2016). Synthesis report on experiences with ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Technical Series No.85. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 106 pages. Full report: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-85-en.pdf. Key messages: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-85-key-messages-en.pdf xliv Samuelson, L., Bengtsson, K., Celander, T., Johansson, O., Jägrud, L., Malmer, A., Mattsson, E., Schaaf, N., Svending, O., Tengberg, A. 2015. Water, forests, people – building resilient landscapes. Report Nr. 36. SIWI, Stockholm. xlv The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration - http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org/forest-landscape-restoration xlvi Samuelson, L., Bengtsson, K., Celander, T., Johansson, O., Jägrud, L., Malmer, A., Mattsson, E., Schaaf,

N., Svending, O., Tengberg, A. 2015. Water, forests, people – building resilient landscapes. Report Nr. 36.

SIWI, Stockholm.