Essays & Perspectives

Natureza & Conservação 11(2):119-126, December 2013

Copyright© 2013 ABECO
Handling Editor: Jean Paul Metzger
Brazilian Journal of Nature Conservation http://dx.doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2013.020

Forest Landscape Restoration: Who Decides?

A Governance Approach to Forest Landscape Restoration

Cora van Oosten*

Centre for Development Innovation and Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group,
Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Abstract
Forest landscape restoration is currently gaining momentum as a means of jointly addressing climate change and future agricultural
demands. Forest landscape restoration does not aim to ‘just’ restore forests, but to restore them from a broader perspective on
the landscape as a whole, allowing simultaneous restoration of the ecological and productive functions of forests. There are many
ways in which forested landscapes can be restored, depending on the biophysical characteristics of the landscapes, but also,
and even more so on the interests of a landscape’s stakeholders, and the way in which they negotiate, and make landscape
decisions. This complex process of decision making between stakeholders operating at various levels and scales is usually
referred to as landscape governance. Landscape governance often does not tally with the political-administrative structures of
states, because landscapes are usually not incorporated as a formal layer in the political and administrative structures of states.
Instead, landscape governance is captured in a messy web of multi-actor networks, institutions and institutional arrangements,
(in)formally constructed across levels and scales, more or less embedded in locally existing livelihood strategies and socially
embedded institutional frames. Global initiatives on forest landscape restoration are therefore not to be institutionalized along
structures of formal (de)centralized structures of states, but ‘bricoled’ though informal networks, multi-stakeholder coalitions, or
public-private partnerships engaged in processes of landscape learning, where stakeholders learn to create and share institutional
space. In this way, forest landscape restoration can become a catalyst for institutional change, transforming governance into a
process of place-bound negotiation and decision making, to collectively make place.
Key words: Forest Landscape Restoration, Governance, Institutions, Institutional Change, Social Learning.

Forest Landscape Restoration

as International Agenda

One of the most urgent global challenges of our era is the has been degraded (WRI 2012)1. As a consequence, the
increased pressure on the world’s natural resources. There remaining forested landscapes of today have to provide
is a growing world population that is enjoying higher living many functions, satisfying a variety of both local and global
standards and demanding greater quantities of food, fiber demands (Termorshuizen & Opdam 2009).
and fuel; while at the same time agricultural productivity
Awareness of the negative impacts of forest loss is growing,
is lacking behind, leading to chronic food insecurity in
especially because of increased awareness that deforestation
the world’s most vulnerable regions. Moreover, accelerated
and forest degradation accounts for approximately 10%
urbanization is requiring industrialized agricultural practices,
of the production of greenhouse gases2. This has put the
and new options for recreation and clean air. The pressure
challenge of forest landscape restoration high on the global
on forested landscapes has been historically mounting,
agenda, as restoring deforested and degraded landscapes
and deforestation has expanded incrementally; studies
would be an excellent mechanism for both mitigating climate
show that about 30 percent of the world’s potential forest
change, as well as contributing to satisfying the global
cover has been completely cleared, and a further 20 percent
demand for food, fiber and fuel. Studies show that more

*Send correspondence to: Cora van Oosten 1. World Resource Institute (WRI 2012), data available at http://
Centre for Development Innovation and Forest and Nature www.wri.org/project/forest-landscape-restoration
Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, 2. The Global Carbon Project (GCP 2013), data available at
Wageningen, The Netherlands http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-
E-mail: [email protected] emissions.html
120 Oosten Natureza & Conservação 11(2):119-126, December 2013

than two billion hectares worldwide offer opportunities for of the Ministry’s restoration program (Barr 2002 cited by
restoration, representing an area larger than Latin America Barr & Sayer 2012).
(GPFLR 2011). To this end, a global coalition of international
Implementation of global initiatives like the Bonn
organizations and governments (i.e. IUCN, IUFRO, WRI, Challenge therefore needs to be done with great care in
ITTO, and various national governments) under the terms of achieving the appropriate social safeguards, as
umbrella of The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape implementation mechanisms will largely depend on local
Restoration – GPFLR (2011)3 launched the so-called ‘Bonn circumstances, i.e. local livelihood systems, tenure regimes
Challenge’, which entails a global commitment to restore 150 and institutional frameworks specific to the landscape. This
million hectares of lost forests and degraded lands worldwide requires strong participation by landscape stakeholders
(‘The Bonn Challenge’, September 2011)4. The 150 million at various levels and scales, which may imply complex
hectare restoration target is directly related to existing decision-making processes involving diverging stakeholder
international commitments including the Convention on interests, hard negotiation, and potential trade-offs. Such
Biological Diversity, which calls for the restoration of 15% stakeholder participation is not evident, as global policy
of degraded ecosystems by 20105, and the UN Framework makers do not necessarily have insight in the complexities
Convention on Climate Change, which calls for countries of local reality. Global agreements are usually implemented
to not just halt but also reverse the loss and degradation through formal state structures, which do not always tally
of their forests6. In this way, forest landscape restoration with locally defined institutions and mechanisms of decision
is gradually being incorporated in global environmental making. How to assure that global commitments such as
the Bonn Challenge respond to both global targets as well
politics, offering an opportunity to satisfy the global
as to local interests? And how to embed implementation
demand for carbon storage with quantifiable results. This
mechanisms into landscape specific institutional frames
undoubtedly is a great achievement for the international
and decision making processes? This article does not aim
forest policy network and GPFLR in particular, which has
to find exclusive answers to these pertinent questions, but
managed to collectively assess global restoration potentials
it does aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of
and is currently developing instruments for measuring landscape dynamics and related decision making processes
restoration outcomes and innovative financial mechanisms on the ground. By combining different concepts derived
for supporting large-scale restoration projects on the ground. from landscape ecology, planning, governance and social
Whilst acknowledging the potential of forest landscape learning, it will help to understand how landscape actors
restoration, it is also recognized that large-scale landscape are able to combine existing landscape institutions with
restoration is no panacea. Critical studies have shown that newly introduced political-administrative institutions, to
large-scale investments in reforestation increase the risk increase their institutional space, and bridge between the
of creating new claims on forested landscapes that may multi-scale nature of governance and the natural conditions
potentially overlap with existing claims, thus creating or of place. If global initiatives such as the Bonn Challenge are
exacerbating existing conflicts over land use rights and able to pick up such initiatives, and scale them up through
resource access (Sikor & Lund 2009; Dressler et al. 2012). the construction of learning networks within and between
It may lead to enhanced state or corporate control over landscapes, they may be able to strengthen locally evolved
‘degraded’ forests, and increase state forestry bureaucracy or institutions and multi-stakeholder governance processes
corruption (Barr & Sayer 2012). Restoration may also lead at landscape level, to truly reconcile global concerns with
to unintended biodiversity loss, as it may create perverse local interests.
incentives for the conversion of ‘degraded’ secondary forest
(Barr & Sayer 2012). In Indonesia, for example, commercial Forest Landscape Restoration: A Myriad
plantation companies have cleared approximately 1,3 million of Local Practice
ha of forest land during the 1990s. After extracting valuable
Forest landscape restoration is nothing new, as people
trees, the ‘degraded’ sites were cleared and replanted as part
have always been shaping and re-shaping their landscapes
according to their current and future needs. There are many
3. The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration
ways in which restoration is being implemented, ranging
(GPFLR 2011) is a proactive network that unites governments,
organizations, communities and individuals with the aim of from large scale initiatives to small scale practice, depending
catalyzing and reinforcing a network of diverse examples of on the actors involved, the decisions they make, and the
restoration that deliver benefits to local communities and spatial and temporal conditions under which decisions
to nature, and fulfill international commitments on forests. are being taken.
Information available at www.forestlandscaperestoration.org
4. ‘The Bonn Challenge’, September 2011, available at www. Since the nineteenth century many large-scale restoration
forestlandscaperestoration.org programs have seen the light, across the globe. Many of these
5. CBD Strategic Plan Target 15.
6. The REDD+ goal and the Cancun COP 16 decision on
were initiated with the intention of rehabilitating watershed
reversing forest and carbon loss and enhancing forest carbon areas as a means for optimizing soil and water conditions in
stocks. degraded upland catchment areas. Later on, focus moved
Forest Landscape Restoration: Who Decides? 121

to controlling desertification and rehabilitate degraded livelihood needs and global environmental interests at the
productive lands. Examples are the green belts, greenways same time (Van Noordwijk et al. 2003). On the whole, there
and green walls, generally applied as a way of rehabilitating is no single best option for forest landscape restoration,
‘wasted land’. More recently, the ecological dimension has but all restoration strategies have to be customized to the
been put more in the foreground with the aim of restoring specific conditions of place: its biophysical conditions
natural ecological processes and biodiversity. Initially and its stakeholders, with their interests and the decisions
promoted by (inter)national conservation organizations, they make.
pleading for an approach of delineating separated areas of
agrarian and natural land-use, and intensifying agrarian Forest Landscape Restoration: Getting
land-use as a means to take pressure away from nature areas. the Institutions Right
This, in the belief that the maintenance of natural ecological
processes and biodiversity as essential life support systems Based on the above, it becomes clear that the actual shape
can only be done through restoring natural ecosystems with of restoration practices is not just defined by the biophysical
limited human interference and professional organizations characteristics of the landscape, but rather on the complex
as gatekeepers to nature (Wiersum 2013, unpublished). social and institutional networks a landscape’s inhabitants
This approach has been heavily criticized, as these ‘grand are enmeshed in: the way in which people develop their
design’ conservation plans as implemented for example livelihood strategies, produce goods and services, and
in Borneo, the Congo Basin and the Amazon have often are involved in market chains. These networks can easily
been less sensitive to the development objectives of its host transcend the physical boundaries of their local environment,
countries, or the power of market forces (Sayer et al. 2008). which links local landscapes into the wider world of
As a response, an alternative approach has been developed, global economic and political trends (Wiersum 2003).
which is more focused on the assumption that agrarian Illustrations can be found in a landscape’s embeddedness
land-use and forests can co-exist in mosaic landscapes. in global production chains led by international business
Here, focus is on the multi-functionality and biocultural networks; or in regional or global action networks led by
diversity that is so characteristic of many forested landscapes. (inter)national NGOs.
It tallies with the multiple focused livelihood strategies of a
Consequently, the actual choice for a specific restoration
landscape’s inhabitants – strategies that most likely already
include restoration practices such as planting productive strategy is the outcome of complex decision making
trees on farmlands, enriching forests with commercial trees, processes between stakeholders operating at different
and restoring watersheds to maintain local water resources. levels and scales. These stakeholders interact through a
Studies have shown that multi-functional and productive range of institutional arrangements which can be general,
land use systems do not necessarily reduce the biodiversity or very specific to a landscape, as they have developed
of natural ecosystems; restoration of bioculturally diverse from a landscape’s biophysical characteristics, its type
landscapes instead offers scope for both production and of governance, its production structure and its identity.
biodiversity functions through more ecologically sound Landscape institutions may reflect in (customary) land
and economically productive land use patterns (Van use patterns, land tenure systems and production systems;
Noordwijk et al. 1997; Hobbs & Morton 1999). Recent but also in respected rituals and spiritual places, localized
developments in the field of carbon sequestration, climate practices and spatial collaboration related to the meaningful
smart agriculture, and a worldwide increase of demand use of space. Landscape institutions may have temporal aims,
for tree-based products provide promising incentives for and can be as flexible and changeable as forested landscapes
restoration through agroforestry, motivating large-scale and themselves. Landscape institutions enable landscape actors
small-scale producers to invest in tree-based enterprises to ‘navigate’ through complex processes of competing claims
(Dewees & Scherr 2011 cited by Kusters & Lammers 2013). and conflict about land use, and flexibly ‘muddle through’,
linking the multiple levels of formal state governance to the
Based on the previous overview it can be stated that forest actual conditions of place (Watts & Colfer 2011). A good
landscape restoration practice considerably varies by scale, example is provided by Rantala & Lyimo (2011), who show
size, and purpose. It can serve one single landscape function how rural communities in Tanzania’s East Usambaras have
(i.e. reversing climate change), or multiple functions, i.e. an managed to formalise their customary management practice
entire set of landscape functions providing inhabitants with
on land, forest and tree rights arrangements into formal
their livelihood. It can be initiated at higher levels of national
land and tree tenure systems at landscape level. They still
and international policymaking, focused on satisfying global
respond to local villagers and their believes but are fully
or national goals, or initiated by local landscape inhabitants,
embedded in modern legislation yet carefully adapted to
representing individual or collective livelihood interests.
the specific conditions of their landscape.
It can aim at restoring ecological networks alone, or at
social and economic networks simultaneously, enhancing Strong institutions rooted in local practice form the basis
a landscape’s multi-functionality, its biocultural diversity, of creative governance mechanisms such as committees,
and its social resilience. Agroforestry is a good example of networks, and partnerships, which are able to link local
landscape restoration through farmer-led efforts to meet value-practice systems to larger networks such as value
122 Oosten Natureza & Conservação 11(2):119-126, December 2013

chains, market agreements, and payment schemes for the A recurrent problem, however, is that landscape institutions
regulation of environmental services at landscape level. are not necessarily conform the more formal institutions
Strong landscape institutions produce resilient landscapes, which are part of the political and administrative structure
both in ecological and social terms, as the two are closely of states. As landscapes are often divided over several
related (Adger 2000): ecological resilience provides the administrative constituencies (municipalities, provinces,
stability for people to construct diverse and resilient countries) they do not necessarily tally with the formal
livelihood systems, yet at the same time inhabitants of socially spatial planning and decision making structures of states.
resilient landscapes take greater care of their environment While landscape institutions have emerged out of landscape
than elsewhere. Socially resilient landscapes are those in dynamics, formal spatial planning mechanisms are directly
which inhabitants not only depend on the resources, but are linked to the relatively new and often rather artificially
also able to respond to environmental change, and adapt their created institutions which are bound by administrative
management practices accordingly (Adger 2000). In other boundaries. These institutions tend to serve political
words, they show a stronger sense of responsibility about objectives rather than landscape objectives, hence no longer
the long-term sustainability of the landscape they consider sustain landscape-based practice based on meaning and
to be theirs. This sense of responsibility lies within their association that were originally there (Woodhill 2008).
‘sense of place’, which refers to the collection of meanings Instead of enforcing they may rather divide and undermine
and feelings that people associate with a particular locality, the identity and collective agency of a landscape’s inhabitants.
and what drives them to turn their destructive practice They are no proper basis for forest landscape restoration, as
into restoring the place they consider theirs (Williams the outcomes would most likely not be borne and sustained
& Stewart 1998). Social resilience is closely related to the by landscape actors themselves. Instead of unifying global
institutional context in which people operate (Adger & and local goals, they would rather represent a growing
Kelly 1999), because institutions are generally regarded as disparity between the socio-ecological nature of landscapes
‘structurers’ or ‘shapers’ of the relationship between people and the political-administrative structure of states. Jansens
and place. Institutions such as rights, responsibilities and describes this dilemma from a case in rural Kenya, where
socialized behavior are what define people’s access to and the integration of local plans with district and national
control over resources, and it is those same institutions development policies and plans is difficult, as the explorative
that create the incentives for people to use their resources and open-ended nature of bottom-up local planning
sustainably, or restore what was lost (Adger 2000). A typical outcomes does not match with top-down state institutions of
example of landscape institutions based on the identity of regulation and control (Jansens 1990). This case clearly shows
place can be found in Indonesia’s island of Bali. Here, the the friction between state administration and landscapes. It
century old water distribution system called subak, made is this disparity between governance and place that makes
up of numerous channels and tunnels, associates farmers to Görg conclude that governance structures as how they have
collectively manage their rice fields. Here, water distribution developed in many countries are not sufficiently capable of
is not only a technical management practice, but it also governing landscapes. To overcome this problem, he pleads
reflects the relation between humans, nature, and the for a return to governance as an expression of place-bound
Gods. A landscape wide network of Water Temples plays human-natural relationships: a re-connection between
a crucial rule, as the temples do not only host religious governance and the socio-ecological nature of landscapes.
practice, but also manage water distribution, and govern This process is what he calls ‘spatialization’ of governance,
social life. Since the recognition of the subak as a UNESCO as a means of reconnecting governance to landscapes and
Cultural Landscape in 2012, much has been invested in reconnecting citizenship to place (Görg 2007). Görg does
the restoration of the subak as a form of payment for not plead for a destruction of modern state structures, but
environmental services (Lansing 2007). for a revival of landscape institutions which are rooted
in landscapes’ identities, expressed in the dynamics of
Landscape Governance – Governing production, protection and restoration, reflecting the
Place natural bond between people and their place. Spatialization
of governance brings back a landscapes’ inhabitants’ sense
Institutions and governance are closely related, as governance of ownership, and responsibility (Görg 2007; Massey 2005),
is generally considered as a set of formal and informal and revives people’s creativity to generate productive
institutions, constructed by public and private actors, driven livelihood strategies, to create appropriate institutions,
by a common purpose, able to shape commonly agreed rules and to sustainably restore their place. As an example he
of the game, and generate the necessary resources to make describes the case of forest landscape restoration in former
them work (Arnouts et al. 2012). Landscape governance Eastern Germany’s Südraum, where heavily degraded and
can thus be regarded as an interactive constellation of deserted mining areas were transformed into lush landscapes,
landscape institutions, allowing a landscape’s inhabitants reflecting inhabitants’ search for reinventing their identity
and other stakeholders to collectively shape their productive after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and put themselves on the
life to sustain their current and future needs and demands. new German map. As this process was supported by (inter)
Forest Landscape Restoration: Who Decides? 123

national public and private investments in tourism, a new spatial plans, laws and regulations on resource usage can
economic impulse was given to the region. be molded to fit locally embedded user right systems, and
make them applicable in a landscape’s context. It is also
Institutional Change: A Process of through bricolage that local restoration practices can be
Bricolage and Learning upscaled through their uptake in planning mechanisms at
the landscape scale. It is thus institutional bricolage that
Spatialization of governance, as suggested by Görg (2007) can help to bridge between the generally ‘sticky’ political-
does not propose the creation of an additional layer in administrative institutions of states and the more flexibly
state political and administrative structures, but using the operating and socially constructed landscape institutions. It
multi-layered nature of landscapes as a political arena for enables landscape actors to flexibly ‘muddle through’ sets of
spatial decision making. This, in an attempt to (re)connect centrally constructed laws, directives and agreements and
landscape actors from various levels and scales into an the actual conditions of place (Watts & Colfer 2011). An
institutional domain to negotiate options and work on example of bricolage can be found in Thailand’s Kanchanaburi
collective decisions to restore their place. In this way, forest Province, where Thaworn describes how 20 years of conflict
landscape restoration becomes an instrument for landscape’s over statutory versus customary claims over forest was
stakeholders to transform their landscapes into productive ended. Through intervention of the Sueb Nakhasathien
and sustainable areas, based upon the landscape’s identity, Foundation, mutual understanding between villagers and
yet cleverly networked into higher levels of economic and national park officials was established, and an agreement was
political decision making. In this way, restoration becomes reached about farming and collection of non-timber forest
the linking pin between global interests and local needs; products within the park boundaries. Park officials made
between production and conservation goals. If global important concessions when they allowed communities to
initiatives on forest landscape restoration could connect to make their own management rules and regulations. This local
locally emerged landscape governance structures, it would success led to the establishment of a community network at
have a large chance to succeed. But how to do that, when
landscape level, which not only strengthened the voice of
global initiatives are born out of international diplomatic
local inhabitants vis-a-vis the park management, but also
networks directly linked to formal state structures? How to
strengthened their position within provincial and regional
deal with the ‘stickiness’ of formal political-administrative
administration, which enabled them to positively influence
institutions, and blend them with the more informal,
national conservation legislation (Thaworn et al. 2010). The
adapted, and spatialized institutions of landscapes? Which
Thai example shows that institutional bricolage is not only
type of institutional change and transformation would be
a process of institutional change, but it is also the ability of
required to make this happen?
stakeholders to actively change the institutions themselves. To
Within the vast literature on institutional change there better understand this process it is necessary to distinguish
is the relatively new concept of ‘institutional bricolage’. two types of abilities: the ability of landscape actors to
Institutional bricolage refers to the ability of people to bend institutions and make them fit into their own spatial
creatively combine old and new institutions, and produce context; and the ability of governments and policy makers
hybrid institutions which appropriately serve their purpose to create the institutional space for landscape stakeholders
(Cleaver 2002; Koning & Cleaver 2012)7. Although the to do so. This is what Diaw means when he describes the
concept of institutional bricolage has not yet been applied to ability of people to make place, which requires the ability
the field of landscapes and landscape governance, it could be of governments and policy makers to grant place, allowing
a valuable concept, as it is actually through bricolage that a people to effectively claim their rights and take place (Diaw
landscape’s stakeholders consciously or unconsciously adapt 2010). Such interplay between actors to make place, to take
or respond to today’s global challenges and opportunities in place, and to grant place requires a very flexible approach
the wider political ecology of landscapes (Ros-Tonen 2012; to spatial planning, and a large institutional freedom for
Batterbury 2001; Cleaver 2002). It is through bricolage that landscape actors to shape their own systems of regulation
stakeholders piece-patch existing place-bound institutions and control. International policy makers could support such
and newly introduced ones to produce hybrid institutions flexibilization, if they could actively search for innovative
serving a particular purpose at a particular place. It is networks, partnerships and local arrangements, and bring
through bricolage that new and formal institutions such as them together into processes of policy learning.
Policy learning is most effectively realized through learning
7. The term ‘bricolage’ is French, and can be translated by ‘creative
do-it-yourself patchwork’. The term bricolage can be used in two networks engaging stakeholders in a collaborative process
connotations: productive bricolage (Batterbury 2001; Cleaver of mobilizing knowledge, identifying and sharing good
2002; Ros-Tonen 2012) which is the process in which people practices, and developing capacities to operate across
creatively combine productive activities to make themselves a levels and scales (IUFRO 2010). One effective instrument
living, and institutional bricolage which is the process in which
people creatively combine old and new institutions, to produce
for this is the creation of learning networks, either at the
a hybrid institution which appropriately serves their purpose landscape level bringing together a landscape’s stakeholders
(Cleaver 2002; Koning 2011). through events, workshops or platforms; or at the global
124 Oosten Natureza & Conservação 11(2):119-126, December 2013

level, through ‘glocalized’ networks8, using the worldwide Conclusion

web to connect landscapes. This, with the aim of sharing
experiences, mobilizing restoration knowledge and financial Decision-making in landscapes is complex. Landscapes are
resources, and virtually linking global policy to landscape usually not embedded in the formal political-administrative
practices. An example of an effective landscape network structures of states, and stakeholder networks often extend
can be found in Southwest Amazonia, where inhabitants beyond the physical boundaries of the landscape. This is the
of the adjacent border areas of Brazil, Peru and Bolivia main reason why landscape decisions as reflected in formal
have joint to collectively analyse the impact of the newly spatial planning are often fragmented and disconnected
constructed Inter-Oceanic Highway, and act upon. Through from the very nature of the landscape itself. Spatialization of
series of exchange meetings they created a transboundary governance is increasingly seen as a way of re-establishing
network, bringing together public and private partners the link between spatial decision-making and a landscape’s
into a polycentric inter-institutional learning process. stakeholders. Such spatialization of governance is not about
One of the results was the successful recuperation of the creating a new layer in the political and administrative
degraded transboundary watershed of the transboundary structures of states, but about identifying new institutional
river Acre, entailing community action throughout the domains for landscape stakeholders to meet, negotiate and
watershed, harmonization of the three national legal co-create the necessary conditions for them to restore their
frameworks for watershed management, and the drafting place. Such an institutional space may stretch from the
of a transboundary water management plan tailored to local to the global, following the same landscape dynamics
the region (Brown et al. 2002; Oosten 2004; Perz et al. they are embedded in. Through a process of institutional
2010). An example of a glocalized network is the learning bricolage local inhabitants can get connected to global policy
network of The Global Partnership on Forest Landscape makers, which in turn allows global policy initiatives to be
Restoration (GPFLR 2011), which aims to create a global embedded in landscape-based processes of social learning,
learning community of sites9 with the objective of linking able to reconcile ecological, social and economic interests
international forest landscape restoration agendas to at various levels and scales.
local restoration practices; and to allow local practices to
be upscaled, to fuel the international policy debate with References
real-life landscape learning on the ground.
Adger WN, 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they
Both forms of socio-spatial learning fits in state-of-the-art
related? Progress in Human Geography, 24:347-364. http://
theory on social learning, which assumes that collective dx.doi.org/10.1191/030913200701540465
reflection and action amongst different groups and
individuals occurs when they start working together to Adger WN & Kelly PM. 1990. Social vulnerability to climate
improve the management of their own environmental change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 5:4253-66.
relations (Keen et al. 2005). This type of learning is not
politically neutral, as stakeholders will have to find their way Arnouts RCM et al., 2012. Innovatieve governance voor
through asymmetric knowledge and power relations, and het groene domein - governance arrangementen voor
create a common concern (Leeuwis & Aarts 2010; Wals et al. vermaatschappelijking van het natuurbeleid en verduurzaming
2009). This is definitely not easy, but trough the formation van de koffieketen. Wageningen: Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken
of localized and glocalized networks interaction amongst Natuur & Milieu, Werkdocument 306.
stakeholders is promoted, and metaphorical bridges are Arts B & Visseren-Hamakers I, 2012. Forest governance: a
built across and between landscapes, helping stakeholders to state of the art review. In: Arts B et al. (eds.). Forest-people
learn to deal with power differences, to negotiate and make interfaces - understanding community forestry and biocultural
informed decisions. This contributes to the creation of those diversity. Wageningen: Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.
shared identities and concerns that are needed to re-establish org/10.3920/978-90-8686-749-3
the connection between citizens and the landscapes in which Barr CM & Sayer JA, 2012. The political economy of reforestation
they live. They enhance the social resilience of landscapes, and forest restoration in Asia-Pacific: critical issues for
as they allow landscape actors to cope with environmental REDD+. Special Issue Article: REDD+ and conservation.
degradation and effectively restore (Adger 2000). Such Biological Conservation, 154:9-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
landscape learning facilitates the emergence of innovative biocon.2012.03.020
multi-level and multi-stakeholder arrangements such as
Batterbury S, 2001. Landscapes of diversity: a local political
multi-stakeholder coalitions, public-private partnerships,
ecology of livelihood diversification in South-Western
PES10 schemes and spatially responsible value chains across
Niger. Cultural Geographies, 8:437-464. http://dx.doi.
levels and scales. org/10.1177/096746080100800404

8. Term borrowed from Arts & Visseren-Hamakers (2012). Brown IF et al., 2002. Estrada de Rio Branco, Acre, Brasil
9. See www.forestlandscaperestoration.org aos Portos do Pacífico: como maximizar os benefícios e
10. Payment for Environmental Services. minimizar os prejuízos para o desenvolvimento sustentable da
Forest Landscape Restoration: Who Decides? 125

Amazõna Sul-Ocidental. In: CEPEI, la integración regional Oosten C van, 2004. Fading frontiers: Local development
entre Bolivia, Brasil y Peru. Lima: CEPEI. and cross-border partnerships in Southwest Amazonia.
Geographical Studies of Development and Resource Use,
Cleaver F, 2002. Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the
Royal Dutch Geographical Society (KNAG).
social embeddedness of natural resource management.
European Journal of Development Research, 14:11-30. http:// Perz SG et al., 2010. Crossing boundaries for environmental
dx.doi.org/10.1080/714000425 science and management: combining interdisciplinary,
interorganisational and international collaboration.
Diaw MC, 2010. Elusive meanings: decentralization,
conservation and local democracy. In: Forest Governance Environmental Conservation, 37:419-431. http://dx.doi.
and decentralisation in Africa: linking local, regional and org/10.1017/S0376892910000810
global dialogues. In: German L et al. (eds.). Governing Rantala S & Lyimo E, 2011. Changing landscapes, transforming
Africa’s forests in a globalised world. Earthscan. institutions: local management of natural resources in the
Dressler W et al., 2012. REDD policy impacts on indigenous East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. In: Pierce Colfer CJ
property rights regimes on Palawan Island. Human Ecology, & Pfund JL (eds.). Collaborative governance of tropical
40(5):679-691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9527-y landscapes. London: Earthscan.

Görg C, 2007. Landscape governance - the politics of scale and Ros-Tonen M, 2012. Non-timber forest product extraction
the natural conditions of places. Geoforum, 38:954-966. as a productive bricolage process. In: Arts B et al. (eds.).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.004 Forest-people interfaces - understanding community forestry
and biocultural diversity. Wageningen: Academic Publishers.
Hobbs RJ & Morton SR, 1999. Moving from descriptive to http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-749-3_2
prescriptive ecology. Agroforestry systems, 45:43-55. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006263503404 Sayer J, Bull G & Elliot C, 2008. Mediating forest transitions:
‘Grand design’ or ‘muddling through’? Conservation and
International Union of Forest Research Organizations - IUFRO,
Society, 6:320-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.49195
2010. Embracing complexity: meeting the challenges of
international forest governance. A global assessment report. Sikor T & Lund C, 2009. Access and property: a question of
IUFRO report presented at the 9th session of the United power and authority. Development and Change, 40:1-22.
Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01503.x

Jansens JW, 1990. Landscape development scenarios for Termorshuizen J & Opdam P, 2009. Landscape services
planning and implementing agroforestry: a case study in as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable
the semi-arid lands of Eastern Kenya. In: Budd WW et al. development. Landscape Ecology, 24:1037-1052. http://
(eds.). Planning for Agroforestry, Developments in Landscape dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8
Management and Urban Planning 6C. ISOMUL, Elsevier.
Thaworn R, Kelley L & Yasmi Y, 2010. Can biodiversity
Keen M, Brown VA & Dyball R (eds.), 2005. Social learning in conservation go hand-in-hand with local livelihoods? A
environmental management – Towards a sustainable future. case of conflict resolution in Thailand. Unasylva 236, 61.
London: EarthScan, Taylor and Francis Group.
The Global Carbon Project – GCP, 2013. Available from:
Koning J, 2011. Reshaping Institutions Bricolage Processes in <http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-
Smallholder Forestry in the Amazon. [Thesis]. Wageningen: carbon-emissions.html>.
Wageningen University.
The Global Partneship on Forest Landscape Restoration
Koning J & Cleaver F, 2012. Institutional bricolage in community – GPFLR, 2011. Available from: <http://www.
forestry: an agenda for future research. In: Arts B et al. (eds.). forestlandscaperestoration.org>.
Forest-people interfaces - understanding community forestry
and biocultural diversity. Wageninge: Academic Publishers. Van Noordwijk M et al., 1997. To segregate or to integrate? The
question of balance between production and biodiversity
Kusters K & Lammers E, 2013. Rich forests - the future of forested conservation in complex agroforestry systems. Agroforestry
landscapes and their communities. WIW Global Research Today, 9:6-9.
& Reporting. Both Ends/CORDAID.
Van Noordwijk M et al., 2003. Forest management: lessons
Lansing JS, 2007. Priests and Programmers: Technology of from South East Asia. In: Proceedings of the UNFF
Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali. Princeton: Intersessional Experts meeting on the role of planted
University Press. forests in sustainable forest management conference; 2003;
Leeuwis C & Aarts N, 2010. Rethinking communication in Wellington. Available from: <http://maxa.maf.govt.nz/
innovation processes: Creating space for change in complex mafnet/unff-planted-forestry-meeting/conference-papers/
systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th European IFSA Symposium; lessons-from-south-eas-asia.htm>.
2010; Vienna, Austria.
Wals AEJ, Van der Hoeven N & Blanken H, 2009. The
Massey DB, 2005. Landscape as provocation: reflections on acoustics of social learning: Designing learning processes
moving mountains. Journal of Material Culture, 11:33-48. that contribute to a more sustainable world. Wageningen/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359183506062991 Utrecht: Wageningen Academic Publishers and SenterNovem.
126 Oosten Natureza & Conservação 11(2):119-126, December 2013

Watts JD & Pierce CJC, 2011. The governance of tropical Williams DR & Stewart SI, 1998. Sense of place: an elusive
landcsapes. In: Pierce Colfer CJ & Pfund JL (eds.). concept that is finding a home in ecosystem management.
Journal of Forestry, 96:18-23.
Collaborative governance of tropical landscapes. Earthscan.
Woodhill, J., 2008: Shaping behaviour, how institutions evolve.
Wiersum KF, 2003. Use and conservation of biodiversity in In: The Broker, online magazine. Available from: <http://
East African forested landscapes. In: Tropical forests in www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/Shaping-behaviour>.
multi-functional landscapes Seminar proceedings; 2003; World Resource Institute – WRI, 2012. Available form: <http://
Utrecht. Utrecht: Prince Bernard Centre, Utrecht University. www.wri.org/project/forest-landscape-restoration>.

Received: May 2013

First Decision: July 2013
Accepted: September 2013