Key governance issues and the fate of
secondary forests as a tool for large-
scale forest restoration
Manuel R. Guariguata
ATBC
12 July 2017

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

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

Governance and secondary
forest “permanence” – some
examples

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

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

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

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

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)

cifor.org
blog.cifor.org
ForestsTreesAgroforestry.org
Gracias !