The multiple languages of FLR

Written: By Laura Graham

Project Leader, BOSF-Mawas Program, Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation,

Adjunct Research Fellow, Tropical Forests and People Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia

Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) is important, timely and rapidly gaining momentum in international policy as a science and conceptual approach, to implement restoration on the ground across multiple stakeholders, land uses and disciplines. If FLR is to be as multi-dimensional, inclusive, successful as hoped, what language should we be using?

Community member ‘II do appreciate the need of the forest. My family has harvested timber locally for generations to build our houses, and we eat fish from the river. Without the forest, all that’s harder. But I also want to plant and grow fruit trees, and maybe some agricultural crops. It’s hard to know which is best with the weather changing all the time.  I want to have security for my kids, for school, maybe even university. Some people came to our village and talked about this new forest restoration project, but I’m not sure I want to be involved. It wasn’t clear who the trees were for and if we’d be allowed to harvest them. Anyway, trees take ten years to grow and I need to make sure we have money for dinner tomorrow night! They did talk about setting up a village group to lead the activities, and that we’d all have out say, so maybe I’ll go to the first meeting.’

National Government Official ‘We had a meeting yesterday talking about how to start a nation-wide campaign to implement the Forest and Landscape Restoration approach. It will be tricky because it will need many sectors to work directly together on budgeting and planning. There are some good techniques available like ROAM and Participatory Rural Appraisal, but we don’t have many staff trained in them. Some of the locations are pretty remote as well, so it’s going to be a challenge logistically. Monitoring and Evaluation will be important, so we can report what’s going on to National level. It’s a good idea, but it’ll need a lot of capacity for us to implement it.’

International donor ‘I’m currently setting up the file on the business case for this new FLR project. I usually do the financial analysis and risk assessment for funding new business models in developing countries, so this one is a bit unusual. I’m trying to treat it like a normal model, getting clarity on the time-frames of products, and the self-sustainability of the system post-funding, but a lot of the outputs are hard to quantify – like the environmental services or community well-being. I’m trying to look at supply chain in-setting and impact marketing, but there aren’t a lot of examples or data to use. I’d like for it to be successful, and I think it has real potential, but I need to find a way to quantify the model better.’

During the second day of the FLoRES workshop held at Tacloban, the Philippines on 22-24 February 2019, 22 participants from a wide range of academic, non-profit, and government institutes, from 11 countries, discussed how we might transform the six FLR principles into practical, usable frameworks. As we split into smaller groups, we tried to see the frameworks through the different ‘users’ eyes, as represented in the narratives above. It quickly became apparent that one language and one framework would not be sufficient. Each group spoke their own language, with their own concerns and priorities. For FLR to become successful and widely used, we need frameworks within frameworks, which allows for multiple languages talking directly to actors operating at multiple levels and scales, all embedded within the six FLR principles.

Based on the outputs from this and other sessions at the workshop, and the many examples and lessons learned from implementing FLR on-the-ground around the world, presented at the FLR conference that followed, a declaration was written. The Manila Declaration does acknowledge the challenges and complexity of FLR, however, it also describes eight definitive and actionable next steps to navigate these challenges. This includes further development of these nested frameworks working directly with the actors and stakeholders who will be using them. As was often discussed at the workshop and conference, FLR is a process not an end product, and we must now continue to develop the tools and resources which stakeholders need, presented in languages that are most relevant to them.  

*Please note, all the above narratives are fictional and based only on the author’s views and understandings.

Developing frameworks for implementing FLR at the village community, national government and international donor levels.

Robin Chazdon presenting the Declaration at the FLR Conference in Manila, Philippines

Put people first in Forest and Landscape Restoration: learnings from meeting in Philippines

By Cathy Watson

It was a small group of researchers, NGO leaders and government officials that gathered in the typhoon-battered city of Tacloban in the Philippines February 22-24. But collectively they had thought for many hundreds of years about forest landscape restoration (FLR).

Attending the third meeting of FLoRES – the Forest and Landscape Restoration Standards Taskforce – they planned to unpeel FLR and make it easier for others to understand.

Organizer Robin Chazdon said that many parties, from practitioners to governments to funders such as the World Bank and Global Environment Fund, want standards for FLR. “We’ve had donors say, ‘We are doling out tonnes of money and do not have a way to allocate it or know what to expect from projects calling themselves FLR’.

Like all in attendance, she holds that FLR needs core principles and that “without principles, the world risks repeating costly mistakes with business-as-usual approaches.”

“For this meeting I am particularly interested in how we can make FLR happen at scale and provide better guidance for people on the ground,” said the Emeritus professor from University of Connecticut.

Every other participant brought an interest from their work too. WeForest’s Victoria Gutierrez, the other organizer of the event, said, “I’m interested in the social and economic aspects of FLR. These determine long term success but are often seen as by-products of ecological restoration. I am frequently in meetings and they are not spoken about.”

“I’m interested in indicators,” said PhD student Liz Ota from Brazil. “Having short-term targets makes FLR easier but does not mean you get a forest in the end.”

“I am interested in how indigenous knowledge can help select species for FLR,” said Anatolio Polinar from the Philippines’ Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

“I’m interested in capacity development for FLR,” said David Neidel, who runs Yale’s ELTI programme in Asia.

“I’m interested in community reforestation capacity” said Australian professor John Herbohn.  “Top down models are insufficiently nuanced about the people part.”

On Day 1 the 16 participants visited a project funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) that has helped to make FLR part of the way of life of an upland community on the island of Biliran.

In earlier years the community of Kawayanon rebuffed outsiders who told them how to use their land. Now it was welcoming. “We had a lot of problems with the way FLR was introduced,” said Romeo Debalos, president of the Peoples Organization. “But now we are happy.”

Environmentalist Nestor Gregorio, who leads the ACIAR FLR Project in the Philippines, explained what had happened. Desperate to reverse deforestation, the DENR had attempted three programs to plant and grow trees, but “the community was not brought on board” and the DENR retreated in frustration.

“DENR invited us in but said this community was difficult and that I was out of my mind to try,” said Gregorio. “The land was burnt twice a year. All the common problems of restoration were present.”

He and his team took a new approach. “We came and spent a year talking with the community and helping them to build their People’s Organization — before expecting that they plant a single tree.” This changed everything, and there was progress all round.

The community stopped setting fires, and the trees survived for the first time. Today it has a thriving agroforestry zone, a production zone of Acacia mangium, and a protection zone of indigenous species in the high forest land.

And the DENR, which had persisted with the community through thick and thin, changed its approach too. “We realize that we have to satisfy economic needs for communities,” said Bonifacio Polinar. “We are delighted to have you here to improve our survival rates.”

“In a really poor community like this one, it’s important to get the agroforestry component up and running,” observed Herbohn. “You have to work with the community, so they capture the value and not someone else.”

The Biliran case was food for thought on Day 2. “FLR has to interest people,” said Peruvian forester Cesar Sabogal. “We want people to discuss what we want them to discuss,” said ecologist Rhett Harrison of World Agroforestry. “But they have their livelihood at the front,”

The conversation then shifted to recommending that donors invest boldly in FLR. “FLR is a means to an end. It can reduce vulnerability to natural disasters and bring back vital ecological and social functions” said Pat Durst, FAO’s Asia forestry advisor for over two decades.

“A donor with a broad vision might see that FLR can bring about less irregular migration and less radicalization,” said another participant.

But there were also cautions that “FLR is not a tree planting competition” and that indeed, in some cases, restoration of formerly forested landscapes may not always need to put tree planting at the absolute fore.

“It is very easy for an agency to say that we are going to plant trees,” said Australian forester Jerry Vanclay. “But that won’t necessarily protect the catchment or provide a continual supply of clean water. Instead, you might need to focus on assisted natural regeneration, grazing animals differently or controlling burning. FLR done well means you go in and understand the community rather than come in with a predetermined solution.”

The last day of the meeting was spent looking at six FLR principles. Reviewed by the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration in 2018, they are:

  1. Focus on landscapes not individual sites.
  2. Engage stakeholders, including vulnerable groups, in decisions on land use, goals, implementation and benefit sharing.
  3. Restore ecological, social and economic functions to generate a range of ecosystem goods and services
  4. Maintain and do not convert or destroy natural forests or other natural systems. Aim for conservation, recovery, and sustainable management.
  5. Tailor approaches to local social, cultural, economic and ecological values and history. Draw on latest science, best practice, and traditional and indigenous knowledge.
  6. Manage adaptively for long-term resilience. Enhance species and genetic diversity. Adjust as climate, stakeholder needs, and societal values change.

If operationalised and applied to specific contexts, said delegates, these principles can help ensure success. “What’s the point of funding the same project five times in 20 years when you can do it once?” said John Herbohn.

“I really think these principles are critical or FLR can get diluted,” said another participant. “We need these to get a balance,” said Durst. “Too many people associated with FLR are stuck on the ‘F’ for forest and not enough on livelihoods.”

As participants headed back to Manila for a 3-day international conference on FLR, there was optimism. “It is about the way the program is designed, introduced, implemented,” said Nestor Gregorio. “Up to now social aspects have received scant attention, particularly livelihood. But once the social landscape is successful, the biophysical will just succeed.”

IUCN’s Li Jia, who manages its Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology across Asia, said: “Many restoration projects are very segmented because people think in single disciplines and institutions are in silos. But now more and more people see the connection between different parts of landscapes. I’m hopeful.”

“I’m happy with our conclusions,” said Victoria Gutierrez. “Trees grow on social landscapes.”


Cathy Watson is Chief of Programme Development at World Agroforestry (ICRAF), which invests heavily in restoration. She tweets @CWatsonICRAF and writes at and

Taming the FLR beast

The mission of the Forest and Landscape Restoration Standard (FLORES) Task Force

Written by Robin Chazdon, Director of PARTNERS. Originally published here

Doing small tasks well is relatively easy, but doing big and long-lived things well is a far more complex mission that requires vision, leadership, adaptive management, consultation, and collaboration among others. To bring FLR to the scale that is needed globally we need to find ways to make big things happen.

FLR is a process that aims to regain ecological integrity and enhance human well-being in landscapes that have lost forest cover, forest qualities, and forest-based contributions to people. The Bonn Challenge to bring 150 M ha into restoration by 2020 and the NY Declaration to restore 350 M ha by 2030 are based on FLR concepts, principles, and practices.

What has been happening?

To date, countries have committed over 150 M ha for restoration of forests and landscapes. We are entering a new era of implementation with support for regional initiatives – such as Initiative 20 x 20 in Latin America and AFR100 in Africa – and unprecedented mobilization of political will. Attention is shifting from committed hectares to actions and outcomes. HOW will sustainable, effective, and large-scale restoration happen for the benefit of people and nature? We have turned the corner and must shift gears for a sustained, uphill climb. Now is the time to act.

This urgent topic brought an international group of scientists, policy experts, students, and organizations together at the University of São Paulo/“Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, Piracicaba-SP, Brazil on 5-7 September, 2017. The core group organized by WeForest included the Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas (IPÊ), Secretariat of the Environment for the State of São Paulo, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Imaflora, University of the Sunshine Coast, People and Reforestation in the Tropics Network (PARTNERS), The Nature Conservancy-Brazil, University of São Paulo, Federal University of São Carlos, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and World Resources Institute-Brazil. We came from different camps, experiences, and backgrounds, but converged on a unified goal: to explore the significance of an FLR Standard, a set of benchmarks for motivating better outcomes and practices of forest landscape restoration.

Discussion points

We discussed: How do you know FLR when you see it? What are the elements, principles, criteria, and indicators of FLR that collectively constitute a holistic approach to restoring forests and landscapes? How would an FLR Standard be used? What process is needed to develop an FLR Standard based on a broad consultative process and rigorous methods of engagement and participation of all sectors and organizations involved in FLR practice and policy?

Today, there is no clear definition of what FLR looks like on the ground. International standards for ecosystem restoration are now being developed, but these do not address the complex nature of landscapes composed of both productive and natural ecosystems where social factors are at least as important as ecological factors. A Standard will help to ensure that restoration in agricultural landscape mosaics brings benefits to multiple stakeholders and leaves the landscape better than it was. It will guide how we can enhance tree and forest cover in landscapes to improve socioeconomic and environmental outcomes and to increase socioecological resilience to economic and climate shocks. 

A standard for FLR

This will operationalize the principles of holistic restoration at scales that balance outcomes of productive and protective land uses. FLR programs that follow the Standard reduce risk and uncertainty to investors in landscape management, expanding opportunities for investment and financing. A Standard would stimulate corporate investments in forest landscape restoration programs that improve the reliable flow of high quality water, sustainably provide agricultural, timber, or non-timber products, while also supporting a stable, food-secure, and productive labor force and engaged community stakeholders. Supporting FLR will become good business practice, bringing many returns.

Government agencies would use the Standard to develop cost-effective FLR programs that minimize land-use conflicts, enhance productivity and livelihoods, increase connectivity for wildlife within landscapes, and empower local governance arrangements. Following the Standard would likely transform business-as-usual sectoral approaches to large-scale reforestation.

For organizations working on forest restoration within a specific landscape context, the FLR Standard would provide a point of reference for developing a holistic set of activities, stakeholder engagement, and restoration approaches that will ensure multiple social and environmental outcomes for current and future generations. FLR is an incremental process that takes multiple generations. Improvements and new functions can be implemented along the way, using the Standard as a roadmap. 

The workshop stimulated our intellect and our imaginations, initiating a pioneering effort to make FLR happen on a large scale and for the best long-term outcomes. We welcome your engagement, ideas, skepticism, and support as we move forward to develop the FLR Standard as a collaborative global effort. Please join us and read more about the FLoRES task force on the PARTNERS’ website

For the Love of Restoration

The challenge of balancing quantity and quality in FLR efforts

Written By Aida Bargués Tobella, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Originally posted here

FLR is on everyone’s lips. Governments all over the world have committed to restore hundreds of millions of hectares of degraded land, and the movement is just growing bigger. In 2011, the Bonn Challenge —a global effort to bring 150 M ha of degraded and deforested lands into restoration by 2020—was launched. Three years later, the original challenge target was endorsed and extended by the New York Declaration on Forests to bring an additional 200 M ha into restoration by 2030, making a total of 350 M ha, an area slightly greater than that of India or Argentina.

Regional initiatives that support and contribute to the Bonn Challenge have emerged around the world. These include AFR100 (the African Forest Landscape Restoration initiative), and the Initiative 20×20 for Latin America and the Caribbean. As of September 2018, 47 countries have made Bonn Challenge commitments, pledging to restore a total of 160.2 million hectares.

Underlying all these restoration initiatives is the Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) approach. But, what is FLR, really? In a recent report launched by the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR), FLR is defined as “the process that aims to regain ecological functionality and enhance human well-being in deforested or degraded landscapes. FLR in not an end in itself, but a means of regaining, improving and maintaining vital ecological and social functions, in the long- term leading to more resilient and sustainable landscapes.” The essence of the FLR concept is formulated by the following six principles:

The six principles of Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR). Adapted from Restoring forests and landscapes: the key to a sustainable future.

  1. Focus on landscapes: FLR takes place within and across entire landscapes, not individual sites, representing mosaics of interacting land uses and management practices under various tenure and governance systems. It is at this scale that ecological, social and economic priorities can be balanced.
  2. Engage stakeholders and support participatory governance: FLR actively engages stakeholders at different scales, including vulnerable groups, in planning and decision making regarding land-use, restoration goals and strategies, implementation methods, benefit sharing, monitoring and review processes.
  3. Restore multiple functions for multiple benefits: FLR interventions aim to restore multiple ecological, social and economic functions across a landscape and generate a range of ecosystem goods and services that benefit multiple stakeholder groups.
  4. Maintain and enhance natural ecosystems within landscapes: FLR does not lead to the conversion or destruction of natural forests or other ecosystems. It enhances the conservation, recovery, and sustainable management of forests and other ecosystems.
  5. Tailor to the local context using a variety of approaches: FLR uses a variety of approaches that are adapted to the local social, cultural, economic and ecological values, needs, and landscape history. It draws on latest science and best practice, and traditional and indigenous knowledge, and applies that information in the context of local capacities and existing or new governance structures.
  6. Manage adaptively for long-term resilience: FLR seeks to enhance the resilience of the landscape and its stakeholders over the medium and long-term. Restoration approaches should enhance species and genetic diversity and be adjusted over time to reflect changes in climate and other environmental conditions, knowledge, capacities, stakeholder needs, and societal values. As restoration progresses, information from monitoring activities, research, and stakeholder guidance should be integrated into management plans.

Momentum for restoration is clearly building. The quest to meet the ambitious global targets that have been set can keep this momentum up, which is great. But now that the time has come to move from commitments to action, we cannot continue focusing only on the number of hectares of land to bring into restoration. It is essential that we pay attention to the quality of restoration interventions and outcomes. This is, perhaps, one of the greatest challenges the FLR movement is now facing: how do we balance quantity and quality in FLR implementation efforts? How do we keep the momentum up while ensuring good quality restoration with outcomes that benefit both the environment and local people’s livelihoods, and that are sustainable in the long term?

The Global Landscapes Forum regional conference “Forest and Landscape Restoration in Africa: Prospects and Opportunities,” took place in Nairobi on the 29th and 30th of August and gathered actors from different sectors and backgrounds to discuss success stories and challenges in relation to FLR implementation across the continent. Building on the momentum of #GLFNairobi2018, WeForestICRAF and PARTNERS (People and Reforestation in the Tropics Network) teamed up to arrange a two-day event to discuss the need for a FLR quality framework in the African context. The event, which built on the experience gained from a previous dialogue held in Brazil in 2017 (see the brief from this meeting here), brought together scientists, decision-makers, practitioners and investors. Here are some of the key concepts that were discussed.

Some of the participants in the workshop “Forest and Landscape Restoration: Implementation for Quality. A dialogue on FLR Standards and applications to the African context.” Photo: World Agroforestry Centre/Martin Kavili

The need for a FLR operational framework 

FLR is, by definition, a process. A long-term socioecological process that aims to regain ecological integrity and enhance human well-being in degraded landscapes. The six principles of FLR define the essence of this process, but as Robin Chazdon (PARTNERS) pointed out “We don’t have a clear vision on how to implement FLR or how to recognize it on the ground. There are no guidelines on how to translate the core principles of FLR into operational terms. Without this clarity, it’s not possible to ensure or measure quality.

Along the same lines, Liz Ota (University of the Sunshine Coast) expressed her concerns about the fact that the vagueness of FLR could allow for outcomes that are below expectations – after all, large-scale restoration efforts have a spotted history. Nonetheless, according to Lars Laestadius (SLU), who led the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) work on FLR for many years, “The term FLR is vague on purpose. Nobody wanted to define it rigorously because this allows for flexibility.” But Laestadius also recognized that “the risk about being too flexible is that we end up deviating too much from the essence of FLR.”

What are the implications of deviating too much from the essence of FLR? Embodied in the principles of FLR is the adaptive management approach, an iterative process that involves the integration of design, management and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn. Adaptive management emphasizes the need to adapt to changing environmental and social contexts and to learn from doing. Thus, one may argue that, as long as an adaptive management approach is employed, it does not matter if the FLR process initially departs from the core FLR principles, as it has the potential to progressively improve over time, with guidance and support.

Yet, a FLR operational framework would ensure that the quality of the process at the outset meets certain basic standards or benchmarks, leaving room for further improvement but reducing risks of failure and fostering long-lasting transformation. In this sense, a key problem of not adhering to the essence of FLR could be that we end up having a series of short-lived projects, instead of driving transformational processes that are sustained over time. “A FLR framework that operationalized the kind of restoration that the FLR principles embody, would not only ensure quality outcomes, but also the long-term sustainability of these outcomes and the resilience of landscapes,” said Victoria Gutierrez, Chief Science Officer at We Forest. Michael Orangi, from the Rainforest Alliance, added that, “For us it is very key to attain sustainability. You might not get the chance to correct all your mistakes. You must have a basis.”

Current decision support tools are insufficient

Several tools have been developed to support different stakeholder groups in decision-making related to FLR activities. Some of these include:

  • ROAM (Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology), a framework for countries to rapidly identify areas that present opportunities for FLR and to identify specific priority areas at national and sub-national level
  • ROOT (Restoration Opportunities Optimization Tool), a tool that optimizes trade-offs among different ecosystem services to help decision-makers visualize where investments in restoration could be made that would optimize benefits for multiple landscape goals
  • The landscape governance capacity framework to help stakeholders initiate and facilitate the process of landscape governance and bring it to a satisfying outcome;
  • The Bonn Challenge Barometer of Progress, a tool designed to help pledgers track their progress on restoration as part of their Bonn Challenge commitments.

“These tools are useful for assessing FLR opportunities, financing, and priorities at national or subnational scales, but do not provide support for guiding implementation of FLR at the landscape scale, where local stakeholders must be empowered to lead and participate in interventions that will be sustained for generations,” highlighted Chazdon. For example, tools are needed to help guide the process to delimit the boundaries of a landscape where FLR will be initiated, and to develop a consensus vision and management plan of the landscape that effectively engages all stakeholder groups and mediates conflicts among them.

The Bonn Challenge Barometer of Progress tracks how FLR commitments are being achieved, but it focuses almost exclusively on the number of hectares brought into restoration, while less attention is given to the quality of FLR outcomes. How can we make sure that FLR activities have been effective? We need evidence that restoration has worked, that it improves people’s livelihoods. However, the only socio-economic indicator included in the barometer is the number of jobs created resulting from FLR activities. Moreover, clear monitoring methodology is lacking too.

ICRAF has developed a systematic biophysical monitoring framework for tracking indicators of ecosystem health over time. The Land Degradation Surveillance Framework (LDSF), has been implemented in over 40 countries over the past 15 years, hence enabling the largest field-based database on land and soil health indicators, hosted at ICRAF’s GeoScience Lab (GSL). Currently, the LDSF has been used to prioritize restoration in rangelands in Kenyaand agricultural mosaic landscapes in East Africa, among other applications in South Africa and Tanzania.

Who could a FLR operational framework benefit?

An FLR operational framework could benefit a wide range of actors including implementers, investors, governments and private enterprise. One recent study argues that a framework could also help to market products from FLR landscapes, benefitting private enterprise and helping promote the upscaling of FLR.

For NGOs and other organizations involved in implementing FLR on the ground, operationalizing the FLR principles could be used to guide action to achieve the holistic FLR goals. “From our perspective, FLR principles are very useful but not when it comes to implementation. As an implementer I don’t really know if I am doing FLR or not. It would be very convenient to link the existing FLR principles to operational criteria which are, in turn, linked to a set of indicators that can be used to monitor and evaluate FLR outcomes,” said Gutierrez.

Governments could also benefit from such framework. According to Rafael Chaves, Secretariat for the Environment of the State of São Paulo, “Governments need an FLR framework to know whether we are achieving FLR or not. We don’t want FLR to be fake news.” Chaves also added that “Some people think it’s better to be vague about FLR, so that you are more flexible. However, if each of the governments that have committed to restore land is flexible in its own way, this will be a mess.”

An FLR operational framework could also be of interest to international restoration investors such as the World Bank, or the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) who provide financial support to implement FLR.  Iretomiwa Olatunji, environmental specialist at the World Bank, noted that People want to see a proof of the story, to see what you have achieved. We are looking at value for money, not money for spending, so we should be able to quantify the FLR outcomes. If an FLR framework is not there, and is not adopted by all countries, it is difficult to engage with the different countries and quantify FLR outcomes properly. We have a huge responsibility and something like this is critical.”

Do we need a “perfect plan” for FLR?

Many believe that too much analysis about the FLR process can lead to paralysis, as expressed by Tim Christophersen, Chair of the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration, in a recent tweet in response to a blog post by Jaboury Gazoul which calls for a complex adaptive systems thinking approach in order to be able to scale-up existing scattered restoration initiatives.

When discussing about the need of a FLR operational framework, the same concerns are raised. Some people are reluctant to set any kind of FLR quality standards, as they believe that this would hinder the implementation of FLR by making the process overly inflexible and bureaucratic. “The more we insist in making FLR difficult to enter, the more rigorous conditions we put, the less people will want to do FLR” said Laestadius. But as Rhett Harrison, scientist at ICRAF and workshop co-organizer noted, “there is this tension between people not adopting FLR and having certain quality safeguards in place, we need a framework that is easy to adopt but that promotes better FLR practices and outcomes.”

A common, flexible FLR operational framework that embraces the inherent complexity of FLR

The FLR process is inherently complex, it is not only about planting trees or restoring forest ecosystems. “FLR can address different needs. How the various interventions of FLR are balanced will vary widely according to the context” stressed Chazdon, who illustrated this by means of a triangle:  

“The visions of how landscapes could look like before and after FLR will vary a lot across these scenarios. In order to make the framework useful, this is a kind of complexity we need to build in,” added Chazdon.

A unifying FLR operational framework that embraces this complexity and that is flexible at the same time could be a very valuable tool. The framework could consist on a set of minimal benchmarks that should be fulfilled in order to meet the FLR principles, a common quality baseline. To describe this, Chazdon used an analogy we can all relate to: bathroom standards.  “Bathroom standards are different around the world. Some bathrooms can be very sophisticated and have music and toilets with heated seats and a drier. Others might have a squat toilet. Some might have soap and towel paper and others might not. But there are some minimum requirements everyone agrees upon. Without such minimum bathroom standards we would have a lot of problems, such as contamination and disease. The core issue is that safeguards and quality are relevant and should be taken into consideration” she explained.

Governments have voluntarily committed to restoring land following the FLR approach. Thus, a FLR operational framework and related quality standards could and should not be enforced. They should not be seen exclusively as a reporting tool either. Instead, they could be used as a tool to know how to implement and conduct FLR, a tool for self-assessment and improvement. A tool For the Love of Restoration.