More Related Content

Slideshows for you(20)

Similar to Key governance issues and the fate of secondary forests as a tool for large-scale forest restoration(20)


More from Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (20)


Key governance issues and the fate of secondary forests as a tool for large-scale forest restoration

  1. Key governance issues and the fate of secondary forests as a tool for large- scale forest restoration Manuel R. Guariguata ATBC 12 July 2017
  2. The “three pillars” of forest governance 1. Policy, legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks within and outside the forest sector 2. Planning and decision-making processes 3. Implementation, enforcement and compliance
  3. The key variables of “good” forest governance • Clear user rights and responsibilities • Participation by those who depend on forests • Accountability of both users and decision- makers • Monitoring of management outcomes • Enforcement of property rights • Institutional capacities From central - to - local
  4. Governance and secondary forest “permanence” – some examples
  5. Peru – agricultural and environmental benefits of secondary forests politically divorced  Land use planning falls under Ministry of Environment yet Ministry of Agriculture governs land use change by issuing titles and permits  Hence the Ministry of Environment has little leverage to support secondary forest conservation in spite of implementing REDD+ payments Indonesia – forestry agencies largely control ‘degraded’ forest landscapes, funneling capital subsidies to companies for masssive land use change (displacing local communities) Ucayali, Perú
  6. Ethiopia – lack of inclusiveness in decision making • “area exclosures” estimated at 3 M ha of naturally regenerated forest • Little local involvement through top- down and paternalistic approaches • Unclear co-management schemes between governments and communities • Poorly defined user rights thus generating conflict • Lack of proper planning influenced success Tigray region; H Kassa
  7. Mexico, Costa Rica – technocratic prescriptions disregarded local needs….but progress was made! • Up until 2016, a secondary forest needed a management plan above 4 m2/ha and 15 trees/ha (dbh > 25 cm)  Limited traditional harvesting of small-diameter trees and incentivized clearing  In the process of being modified to allow young forest use without overregulation • From 1999-2016, timber harvesting “shall avoid the establishment of monoespecific forest stands” in secondary forests  Since this year, monocyclic systems are allowed
  8. Some thoughts for moving forward • Disaggregate “passive restoration”  When (land) opportunity costs are low, human use is minimal or else strict protection is to be applied  When human use is an integral part of the system? • Recognize that secondary forests are part of highly dynamic socio-ecological systems unlikely to be managed either by a single government sector or scientific discipline • Understand, from a political-institutional dimension, what drives or hampers the permanence of secondary forests (and for how long) • Work towards curricular innovation and stimulate cross-disciplinarity
  9. Bibliography Barr & Sayer. 2012. Biol. Cons. 154: 9-19 Guariguata & Brancalion. 2014. Forests 5(12) Henao. 2014. M.Sc. Thesis, CATIE. Lemenih & Kassa. 2014. Forests 5(8) Ravikumar et al. 2015. Int. J. Comms. 9(2) Roman-Dañobeytia et al. 2014. Forests 5(5) Vieira et al. 2014. Forests 5(7)
  10. Gracias !

Editor's Notes

  1. Say something about the photo, when we took foresters they said it was not a plantation since it was not 3x3; Herborn et al on what drives success