Disciplines, Sectors, Motivations and Power Relations in Forest Landscape Restoration

Abstract

Understanding the diversity of stakeholders involved in large scale forest restoration is essential to its success as restoration is fundamentally about people. Stakeholders may be categorized in different ways, recognizing that categories hide unique differences. When dealing with landscapes or large scales, stakeholders can be found at different spatial scales, and those involved in the restoration action may not necessarily be the ones benefitting or losing the most from restoration. In forest landscape restoration (FLR), each stakeholder may understand the approach differently, engage with it in diverse ways, be motivated by different benefits and may use it for different outcomes. The purpose of this contribution is to better understand how different stakeholders in FLR can be categorized and what motivates them to engage in restoration. Power dynamics among stakeholders shape decision-making related to large scale forest restoration but are often overlooked. Exploring some of the contextual specificities of FLR initiatives helps to define the range of issues associated with such dynamics among stakeholders. I propose to disaggregate 'stakeholder engagement' focusing on five dimensions to better understand the different stakeholders engaged in FLR, and then apply it to one case study in Madagascar. Such an approach can support policymakers, project developers and managers, as well as other decisionmakers in designing more effective FLR interventions.

Vulnerabilities and Threats to Natural Forest Regrowth: Land Tenure Reform, Land Markets, Pasturelands, Plantations, and Urbanization in Indigenous Communities in Mexico

“…Placing stakeholders of all geographical levels at the center of natural regeneration would allow for the incorporation of their perspectives, interests, and needs, as well as the evaluation of the possibilities of long-term engagement of local, state, and federal authorities [111,112]. The new local stakeholders follow an individualist ideology that hinders collective agreements regarding natural regeneration of forests and fosters division within community assemblies and weakens territorial institutionality.…”

“…Secure land tenure and land control by local communities are fundamental to the success, sustainability, and equitability of restoration [16,112]. As conflicts over land tenure and power relations have a decisive impact on restoration initiatives [112], negotiations to reach multi-stakeholder agreements for landscape restoration will be very costly in terms of time and resources and very tenuous unless clear pro-environment government policies back them.…”

“…Secure land tenure and land control by local communities are fundamental to the success, sustainability, and equitability of restoration [16,112]. As conflicts over land tenure and power relations have a decisive impact on restoration initiatives [112], negotiations to reach multi-stakeholder agreements for landscape restoration will be very costly in terms of time and resources and very tenuous unless clear pro-environment government policies back them. As public policy itself is the result of power struggles among various interests [115], this scenario seems unlikely, especially given that in Mexico, agricultural and tourism lobbies are much more powerful than environmental groups.…”

Ten people‐centered rules for socially sustainable ecosystem restoration

“…Yet, in practice, stakeholder identification is complex, and their engagement can be fraught with power inequalities (Robinson et al 2021). Stakeholders in restoration operate at multiple levels: from multinational corporations financing carbon offsets to local communities relying on natural resources for food and livelihoods (Mansourian 2021). Recognizing their diverse rights, motivations, aspirations, constraints, opportunities, and embedded networks and power relations is critical for effective engagement, in relevant ways, at the right times.…”

“…between farmers and pastoralists) can avoid triggering or exacerbating conflict and jeopardizing project legitimacy (Kandel et al 2021). Collaboratively unpacking socio‐historical trajectories with rights‐holders and stakeholders may reveal important nuances in perceptions and inform engagement strategies (Reed et al 2020; Mansourian 2021; Sen et al 2021). Risk assessments and risk mitigation planning should consider the potential impact of historical grievances, and the need to adopt conflict‐sensitive restoration approaches (Lange 2004).…”