58 N. Dudley et al Ground: A Guide to Implementing Ecoregion Conservation in Priority Areas. WWF-US, Washington, DC. McShane, T.O., and McShane-Caluzi, E. 1997. Swiss forest use and biodiversity conservation. In Freese, C.H., ed. Harvesting Wild Species: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, pp. 132– 166. Parrish, J.D., Reitsma, R., and Greenberg, R., et al. 1999. Cacao as Crop and Conservation Tool in Latin America: Meeting the Needs of Farmers and Biodiversity. Island Press/America Verde Publications, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. UNEP-WCMC. 2002. European forests and protected areas gap analysis 2002. http://www. unep-wcmc.org/forest/eu_gap/index.htm.
8 Addressing Trade-Offs inForest Landscape Restoration Katrina Brown Key Points to Retain In questions of land management and natural resource allocation it will nearly always be impossible to satisfy all stakeholders and there will necessarily be winners and losers. Applying the concept of multifunctionality can help to allow different forest functions to coexist, meeting a wider range of different stakeholder groups’ interests. Capacity needs to be created among conservationists to engage stakeholders in constructive trade-off discussions and to deal with the outcomes of these. 1. Background and Explanation of the Issue In most of the places where forest restoration is being considered, from the perspective of either conservation or development, the landscape is already inhabited. Furthermore, the resident or transient populations are unlikely to be a single homogeneous entity. Therefore, forest restoration involves many different stakeholder groups with their own wants and needs. 87a Agreeing what the restoration priorities should be within a given landscape will consequently necessitate negotiating trade-offs among a range of stakeholders. 1.1. Win–Win Situations 87a Sheng (no year). 88 McShane and Wells, 2004. It is often assumed that with enough discussion and compromise, questions of land management and natural resource allocation can be agreed to in ways that satisfy everyone—in this case that a sufficient number and variety of forest functions can be restored in a landscape to satisfy all stakeholder groups: so-called win–win situations. The question of how to attain such win–win situations has been addressed by many integrated conservation and development projects, and the consensus seems to be that in most real-life situations it will be impossible to satisfy everybody and there will necessarily be winners and losers. 88 From our perspective, some people will stand to gain more from the restored functions of a forest, for example with increased availability of fuelwood or salable products, while others will lose for instance, through access or grazing rights. The realistic aim of a negotiated process is to minimise the losses and to ensure that these do not fall disproportionately on those already amongst the poorest or otherwise disadvantaged. Indeed, raising false assumptions that careful planning and participatory processes can deliver win–win results, and an accompanying failure to deal with necessary trade-offs are often major sources of conflict, because people have their expectations raised and then not met. 59