5 years ago

Forest Restoration in Landscapes

Forest Restoration in Landscapes

20 N. Dudley

20 N. Dudley international database for many of the temperate countries, but as yet no similar exercise has been attempted in the tropics. It also does not create a very useful way of measuring progress in restoration. Some individual countries (e.g., Austria, France, and the U.K.) have also carried out detailed surveys of ancient forest. 3.2. High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF) This is a WWF/ProForest methodology for identifying the forests of the highest conservation and social value in a landscape, drawing on six different types of HCVF: (1) forest areas containing globally, regionally, or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g., endemism, endangered species, refugia); (2) forest areas containing globally, regionally, or nationally significant large landscape level forests, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance; (3) forest areas that are in or contain rare, threatened,or endangered ecosystems;(4) forest areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations; (5) forest areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities; and (6) forest areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity. 26 Although designed initially for site-level assessments, a landscapescale methodology is being developed. 3.3. Forest Quality Assessment WWF and IUCN have developed an approach to landscape assessment of forest quality using indicators to map social and ecological values, including identifying different elements of naturalness or authenticity, drawing on the following: composition, pattern, ecological functioning, process, resilience, and area (also see “Restoring Quality in Existing Native Forest Landscapes”). Assessment is based on a seven-stage process: identification of aims, selection of the landscape, selection of a toolkit (relevant indicators), collection of information about each indicator, assessment, presentation 26 Jennings et al, 2003. of results, and incorporation into management. Information is collected through primary research, literature review, and interviews. The extent to which assessment is a participatory process can change depending on the situation and aims. 27 3.4. Frontier Forest Analysis Frontier forest analysis is a World Resources Institute/Global Forest Watch approach 28 that defines frontier forests as free from substantial anthropogenic fragmentation (settlements, roads, clearcuts, pipelines, power lines, mines, etc.); free from detectable human influence for periods that are long enough to ensure that it is formed by naturally occurring ecological processes (including fires, wind, and pest species); large enough to be resilient to edge effects and to survive most natural disturbance events; containing only naturally seeded indigenous plant species; and supporting viable populations of most native species associated with the ecosystem. 29 It is mainly used at a national scale. 3.5. Site-Scale Survey Methods A wide range of survey methods exist including some that have specifically been developed to facilitate rapid surveys for conservation practitioners, amongst these are the Rapid Ecological Assessment methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy. 30 Increasingly surveys by outside experts are being augmented by interviews and collaboration with local communities, which often have great understanding of population levels of key plants and animals; these sources are usually referred to as traditional ecological knowledge. 4. Future Needs Despite expertise in survey methods, there is still much to be learned about accurate ways 27 Dudley et al, in press. 28 Bryant et al, 1997. 29 Smith et al, 2000. 30 Sayre et al, 2002.

of monitoring of both biodiversity and, more critically, ecological integrity that would allow proper assessment of restoration outcomes over time and thus help set realistic goals for restoration. In general, quick and cost-effective methods of monitoring the impacts of restoration on biodiversity and ecology are still required in many ecosystems. References Bryant, D., Nielsen, D., and Tangley, L. 1997.The Last Frontier Forests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Dudley, N., Schlaepfer, R., Jackson, W., and Jeanrenaud, J. P. In press. A Manual on Forest Quality. ECE and FAO. 2000. Forest Resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. U.N. Regional Economic Commissions 3. Impact of Forest Loss and Degradation on Biodiversity 21 for Europe and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, Geneva and Rome. Jennings, S., Nussbaum, R., Judd, N., et al. 2003. The High Conservation Value Toolkit. Proforest, Oxford (three-part document). Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe. 2002. Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management: as adopted by the MCPFE expert level meeting, October 7–8, 2002, Vienna, Austria. Parks Canada. Undated. np-pn/eco_integ/index_e.asp. Sayre, R., et al. 2002. Nature in Focus: Rapid Ecological Assessment. The Nature Conservancy and the Island Press, Covelo and Washington, DC. Smith, W., et al. 2000. Canada’s Forests at a Crossroads: An Assessment in the Year 2000. Global Forest Watch, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. See also the Global Forest Watch Web site: Vallauri, D., and Géraux, H. 2004. Recréer des forêts tropicales sèches en Nouvelle Calédonie. WWF France, Paris.

Forest Landscape Restoration - IUCN
Landscape restoration