Stewart MaginnisGlobal DirectorNature-Based Solutions GroupIUCN

National Assessment of the Potential for Forest &

Landscape Restoration (FLR) – a new tool to support landscape restoration

Permanent pasture

Protected Primary Forest

Degraded Lands

Permanent pasture

Plantations

Secondary forest

Secondary forest

Permanent pasture

Intecnsive agriculture land

Degraded Primary Forest

Different Landscapes – Different Dynamics

Where and what to restore?

Objectives of National Assessment of FLR potential

Assessments designed to help:• bring different agency staff together with civil society

actors and researchers to look at the landscape, its challenges and opportunities, through a multi-sectoral lens.

• collectively assemble “best estimates” in data deficient situations (and help define evidence gaps)

• establish a common restoration framework

• align with national priorities eg REDD+ strategy.

• identify restoration priorities and develop ‘value for money’ restoration investments.

A flexible method: different approaches depending on data availability and end needs

Used multiple criteria to select sites for restoration: Areas where restoration is necessary, e.g.

1. Priorities for restoration according to Forest Zoning

Mexico – a country rich in geographical data

Some criteria for where restoration has more or less probability of success:

2. Socio-economical Pressure Index/ Deforestation Risk

Many national institutions participated in selecting criteria for prioritizing FLR

sites and provided relevant data layers.

3. Susceptibility to erosion by type of soil – including levels of priority

Different criteria were weighted according to relative importance

4. Geographical distribution of the dominant patterns of land tenure in the priority zones for FLR in Mexico

Physical & environmental criteria were balanced with

socio-economic criteria

5. Priority for restoration based on probability/resilience to fires by type of vegetation

Multiple data layers were analyzed with geometric model

Areas with potential for forest landscape restoration – darker colour indicates higher priority based on agreed criteria.

Final product: A map showing priority areas for restoration

based on multiple criteria

Assessment outcomes • Rapid response that used available GIS data

• Good geographic prioritization and helped 3 different government agencies develop a common restoration framework

• To be followed with sub-national analysis including:

• Local stakeholder consultation

• Specification of interventions

• Economic analysis

Ghana – less available data. So local expertise and stakeholder knowledge integrated more intimately with spatial analysis

Starting from where the woody biomass currently is concentrated: To an

approximation where key ecosystem goods and services are missing

And concluding with classifying landscapes where newopportunities can be found.

To a new assessment of on-reserve forest condition

Landscape Restoration Interventions

1. Eliminate Irrelevant AreasIn sub-national workshops base maps were modified with local knowledge from different sectors

On-reserve opportunities for wide-scale restoration:with an appropriate mix of interventions ascribed to each polygon

Followed by portfolios of options in the non-forest landscape

(mosaic restoration)

0.5 ton of carbon

Accompanied with best estimates of costs and benefits

The National Assessement in Ghana helped quantify the potential of different landscape restoration

interventions

Source: Greeley, 1925 (in Williams 2006)

Avoided Deforestation 127

Agro-forestry

565

Fallow168Regenera-

tion267

Planted Forests

202

Silviculture303

CO2e sequestration potential (Mt)

Net

ben

efits

per

ton

of C

O2e

seq

uest

ratio

n (C

edis

)Ghana Landscape Restoration Carbon Abatement Curve

..and the understanding the potential

net return

ABATEMENT CURVES – ( map – bullets – map)

Today: Forests are coming back

Source: Greeley, 1925 (in Williams 2006)

AD

AD

Central Region

Volta Region

Which in turn was used for regional prioritisation

Concluding remarks

• Mexico:-• Facilitated common

prioritisation among govt agencies

• Maps are an important representation of broad geographic potential

• Assessment methodology is an analytical tool: it is not designed for spatial planning

• The methodology – even at the pilot stage - has proven its ability to generate relevant knowledge that informs national planning

• Different emphasis can be given to different components depending on local requirements;

• Ghana• Informed prioritisation in

the Ghana FIP• Maps less important and

key role was to provide spatial estimates for economic analysis.

Thankyou!

forestlandscaperestoration.org