PelicanZell Blog

There is a lot of attention on the topic of restoration now, from the new UN Decade on Restoration (officially starting in 2021) to the Bonn Challenge to the 2014 New York Declaration on Forests, the “Trillion” & “Billion” tree planting initiatives, AFR100 in Africa, 20X20 in Central/South America and more.  On the positive side, these are commitments to restoring millions of acres or hectares^[2] of forests and natural ecosystems around the globe, from the Atlantic forest of Brazil, mangroves in Indonesia, Madagascar and Philippines to the long leaf pine forest ecosystem in the southern USA.  Millions and millions of trees are to be (or are being) planted and forests or ecosystems being restored.  It is laudable that governments, non-profits and companies want to do this.  

However, as always, achieving success depends on many factors and “the devil is in the details”.  In some cases, organizations are committing to restoration for good reasons.  They want to make a contribution that has positive climate or other environmental, social and economic impacts (often they will pay local people or non-profits to restore).  In other cases, some companies are forced to do it because of past sins (i.e. deforestation they have caused) or because they want to be seen positively as a brand – “greening” is a value that some consumers respond positively to, witness the various “forest positive” initiatives or proclamations.  But we need to be careful – commitments need to translate into action, or you have “greenwashing”.  And tree planting efforts may result in re-establishing tree cover, but will they actually restore “forests” in the short- or long-term? 

I started examining current restoration dynamics in a more focused way about 3-4 years ago.  Personal experience goes back many years.  In the mid-1970s, as a Peace Corps volunteer in Paraguay I worked with rural communities to protect forested watersheds as a source for clean, potable water.  In the 1980s, I was team leader (3-5 technical specialists per team) doing project evaluations of multiple large multi-lateral or bilateral-funded projects that had watershed protection, tree planting and restoration in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa.  Those projects (funded by foundations, government and NGOs) were typically trying to plant trees or manage forests to address local needs for income generation, wood energy, building materials or protecting watersheds, in places like Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Panama.  The practice of project evaluation had a fundamental influence on me.  I learned how to gauge progress, using examination of documents, interviews, and field work.  We based our conclusions on written plans that folks were committed to, and, as objectively as possible, going on the ground in the forest and talking to local people plus visiting field sites – particularly the hard-to-get to-sites – before coming together as a team with consensus findings.  Typically, projects weren’t either categoric successes or failures.  The progress was usually in between, and reasons complicated.  As evaluators we learned to throw out preconceived notions about the kind of people were interacting with – rich and poor, indigenous or not, religious or not, right or left, for profit or not, government or not – and to assess progress based on evidence.  Fortunately, in most cases project staff would often open up once they saw we were genuinely interested, trying to understand their challenges and committed to fairness.  In the late 1980’s I was field project leader again, involved in tree planting and managing natural forest succession to conserve and restore forests in the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica, in cooperation with local communities and the national forestry agency.  With communities we planted both native and exotic tree species.  In all these experiences, success depended on figuring out how to match skills and resources to the needs and abilities of the local community.  If the local community was engaged and committed, and truly invested in the effort, we could have success – not just short-term, but long-term.  Then, in 1990, I came back to the USA and engaged in meetings and discussions that would lead to the creation of the Forest Stewardship Council  (FSC) in 1993 – a global system for certifying forest managers an environmental, social and technical performance perspective, in essence bring better accountability to the forestry sector.  I found a thematic home.  I had been frustrated at the millions of dollars spent by donors around the world supporting the development of glossy forest management plans that would never get implemented.  Projects and forest managers weren’t being consistently evaluated for getting things done well in the field.  FSC was going to attempt to change that – certifying based not just on plans, but on actions and results on the ground in the forest – in essence better accountability. 

Now, fast forward to 2014 and beyond, and restoration.  Many initiatives have managed to get governments, companies and NGOs to make enormous commitments to restoration.  Good stuff.  But how do we know they are achieving what they say they will?  At the request of various organizations, I participated in conversations amongst governments, finance organizations and NGOs where they were discussing restoration – how to achieve it, how to finance it, etc.  Almost immediately, as I sat in the meeting rooms, I had a sense of déjà vu from my days back in the 1990’s and the years prior to FSC.  Once again, some flowery language, sometimes honest intentions, sometimes commitments but without substance on what it would take to get it all done.   There was also no consistent, serious or rigorous approach to accountability.  Sometimes, the language or approach was simple, “if we just plant trees, restoration will happen”, even if it meant planting exotic trees species with little to no ecological value initially or long-term.  I was also not seeing enough people at the table who represented the practitioners of restoration, or the communities (indigenous or otherwise) directly affected.  

With all of the above in mind and remembering that no one is so exalted as to have all the answers, the following are perspectives on where restoration might go if we want it to have positive impact.  Because of the changing climate, and the pressing needs of rural and urban people, their dependence on forests for subsistence needs and economic livelihoods, the world needs restoration to be successful.

1. Make sure tree planting and restoration is not converting or displacing natural forests or natural ecosystems – Let’s be clear…agriculture and human settlements have their place.  We have to reconcile human use and livelihoods and ecosystem values.  However, converting natural forests and other ecosystems (including grasslands or wetlands) to agriculture or human settlements has reached its limits in most countries.  Conversion of natural ecosystems to other land uses generally should not be acceptable.  I am aware of the development equity issues in “countries with a very high percentage of forest” such as Gabon, Guyana, etc. where creating farms for food or other local economic development may still be needed, but in general I would suggest we need to keep the footprint of human settlements to a minimum and we absolutely should reduce the loss of natural ecosystems – forests, wetlands and grasslands. 
2. Support diverse restoration strategies but also make sure they have strong support from and engagement with local communities – Sometimes we forget that the destiny of forestry and forest products of all kinds are intertwined with rural livelihoods, food needs, social values, customary rights and uses, and even spiritual and cultural heritage values of local communities (e.g. sacred trees, sacred sites, graveyards, etc.).  Restoration strategies need to create value for local people, and embrace techniques that foster support such as choosing species of value to them, ensuring their support through free, prior and informed consent, etc.  Creating value for local communities argues for diverse, “non-purist” restoration options, including agroforestry, forest systems that create value by producing food, wood for local energy or construction needs or non-timber forest products like fruits, mushrooms, protection of water sources, or other community and livelihood values.  We should not be dogmatic.  For example, even exotic tree species have been used to re-establish tree cover to create habitat for understory seed dispersers who contribute to re-establishing natural forest – a long-term desired future condition.  
3. In many regions, focus first on conservation or protection of “at risk” forests and values, protecting or conserving old growth & native forest ecosystems first, and restoration second.  In many cases, just keeping land in “tree cover” may be a positive step – e.g. high deforestation risk regions where maintaining tree-oriented land use is the short term objective and the best triage, with the potential for such areas to return to more natural forest ecosystems (leading to better “forest cover”) in the future.  But conserving existent natural ecosystems is critical, from the Brazilian cerrado and African grasslands to the rainforests of the Congo Basin, southeast Asia and the Amazon and in both boreal and temperate forests.  Restoring late successional or old growth or “late succession” forest ecosystems can happen, but probably won’t happen unless we first achieve near-term protection of unique “at risk” ecosystems.  If protection can be achieved, it will conserve unique values and also be a source for restoring natural forest through natural regeneration and succession.  Yes, restoring old growth ecosystems can difficult, and it usually takes a long time, but it is not impossible.  Restoration can be achieved using a mix of tree planting, natural succession, through what are sometimes now referred to as “rewilding” or “proforestation” techniques and approaches.  Some researchers are now working on techniques for “fast forwarding” late successional or old growth restoration.  One does not just recreate “old” forest in the short-term, but some characteristics of old growth can be restored, such as diverse habitat for old growth-associated wildlife (e.g. diverse structure and composition, coarse woody debris, restoration of riparian zones, ephemeral streams or vernal pools). 
4. Use market forces to support restoration – Markets can be a positive force in restoration.  Supply chain commitments on restoration are a key part of initiatives like the New York Declaration on Forests, Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 (TFA 2020) and various corporate “forest positive” initiatives.  “Forest positive” efforts by retail or consumer brands can provide both financial and communications support.  Restoration work in New Mexico, California, the Pacific Northwest and the southeastern USA is using the biomass energy^[3] market to help pay for practices to re-establish native or natural forest or tree cover.  Combined tree planting and wood energy is happening in India, Kenya and elsewhere as a tool for environmental and economic restoration.  But such efforts need to more than a public relation move.  Restoration efforts must not be used to “greenwash” forestry operations that are implementing poor practices elsewhere as part of their corporate footprint or sourcing areas.  The organizations involved must be good forest practitioners across the board throughout their company, areas of influence and supply chains.  Restoration should be a consistent, integral part of forest management portfolios, and include an emphasis on conserving or restoring forests that are at risk. Market forces often have short-term mindsets – that won’t work in successful long-term restoration.  If we use market forces to our advantage, we can access short- and long-term financial support to make restoration successful and communicate well about successful efforts.   
5. Use credible sustainable certification systems to bring accountability to the restoration sector – Having been in the middle of global forest certification for 30 years, my observation is that the “certification wars” between competing systems, ideas or approaches has had largely positive impacts.  But a focus on restoration is only now just happening for most of those programs, if at all.  The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification system is now exploring how to engage on restoration and use its experience to bring better accountability to the forestry sector.  The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is doing the same, requiring and incentivizing restoration where palm companies have previously cleared forest.  The value of certification systems is that they focus on field level accountability.  None are perfect; they will always be a work in progress.  But if they incorporate restoration requirements and use their accountability tools and systems to do third-party auditing of progress, we may be able to achieve more accountable and impactful restoration.    
6. Build more rigorous and transparent reporting mechanisms on restoration results, challenges and impacts – Those who make commitments to restoration should have systems in place to demonstrate how they are fulfilling their commitments in the forest and at the community level, using monitoring mechanisms that are rigorous and transparent.  We need to enhance accountability at all scales in the restoration sector.  These systems should be able to show that financial or other support is actually being used effectively for restoration.  Second, they can be used to examine field results to determine which of the many techniques are the most cost-effective and impactful in a given location (e.g. tree planting, enrichment planting, natural regeneration, agroforestry, rewilding, “proforestation” or other alternatives).  The systems need to provide consistent, rigorous and transparent accountability over different time scales – near-term, medium-term or long-term.  What people say matters – actually doing it and achieving lasting success matters more.   

---

^[1] The author is an independent forest advisor, lives in Jericho, Vermont, has 40+ years of field experience in 50+  countries in boreal, temperate and tropical forests, has lived in Mexico, Paraguay and Costa Rica, has a bachelor’s degree in history and romance languages and a Master of Science in natural resources management.  I am also currently working on a global framework/field standard for auditing or reporting on forest ecosystem restoration.  Field experience and many references have informed the perspectives herein.  

^[2] To put these numbers in perspective, at a quite typical planting rate of 1,000 seedlings per hectare, a trillion trees would reforest a billion hectares, a billion trees about a million hectares, and a million trees about 1,000 hectares.  There are 2.47 acres in a hectare.  Often planting densities are lower, particularly for agroforestry or enrichment planting in natural forest, potentially covering many more hectares.  These numbers are, of course, illustrative.  Using natural regeneration instead may actually involve little to no tree planting at all, just protecting the seedlings that are being produced by nature – natural regeneration can happen often and aggressively in many places, depending on climate, the availability of nearby forest as a seed source and the degree of prior negative impact such as chemical usage, soil compaction, etc.  Tropical, temperate and boreal forests can all be quite resilient, if they, and the wildlife in them, are given a chance.  

^[3] The author has also produced a separate personal perspective on biomass energy, focused primarily on issues around forestry and biomass energy primarily from wood, a sometimes-controversial topic, particularly at industrial scale.  

Words Matter – Addressing Misguided Nomenclature in Forests and Forestry

A Personal Perspective – Richard Zell Donovan^[1], September 2022

The world is changing, but all too often we remain stuck using either terms that are outdated or perhaps misused. “Clearcutting” and “management” are two contrasting examples of forestry terms which the author believes are either outdated or being misused, and perhaps constructive to clarify (perhaps even debate?), I think. 

CLEARCUTTING – Building on a perspective I wrote on the topic of biomass energy, clearcutting is now an outdated, even inaccurate, term, particularly when used to describe what purports to be a valid or good technique for the sustainable management of forests. Unfortunately, in the worst of circumstances the term still applies, such as when timber cuts/harvests are implemented in a manner that means indiscriminate harvesting of a patch of land, sometimes hundreds of hectares or acres or more, leaving no part of the land untouched (i.e., zero “retention), levelling all the trees. Typically there Is no nature-oriented design in this kind of harvest – it usually happens in square or rectangular blocks, does not consider conforming to natural boundaries or the needs of nature, including wildlife habitat. From this author’s perspective, foresters, industry and even government have lost the argument that clearcutting is a valid technical approach for forest management. In this context, nothing about clearcutting seems sustainable from where I sit.

In other cases the term is used when it is not even accurate. In many cases “designed clearcuts” actually have trees left in clumps in the middle of the forest (i.e., retention for wildlife habitat or as seed sources for future tree regeneration) or around the forest in the form of protection zones for wetlands of all kinds or wildlife habitat. Even actions such as variable retention, or varying the form or design or size of patch cuts, may not be sustainable or close to sustainable unless there are strong ecological, social and economic considerations used in their design and implementation. 

The author’s suggested practice is when “calling a clearcut a clearcut” it is a pejorative or negative term. As such, in the negative case a clearcut is when there is literally no tree left uncut in a harvest. At best there may be consideration such an approach may work for the regeneration of some commercial trees, but typically no consideration to other values such as wildlife habitat, water resources, etc. Unfortunately this also means little to no consideration of patch design or configuration based on “line of sight” considerations for some birds or mammals who may want or need to traverse or cross such a space, no nesting or perch trees for birds (raptors and other species), and no spatial configuration of the cut to natural contours and boundaries such as waterways or wetlands or geologic factors. 

Despite the continuing or heretofore attempts to legitimize “clearcutting” by many forestry organizations or specialists, or even in silviculture text books, the professional forestry community has lost this “word and practice battle”. Let’s get rid of it as a purported tool for working towards sustainable forest management. Clearcutting is an indiscriminate practice and a negative term that shouldn’t be associated with sustainability-focused forest management. 

When there are situations where smaller clearings indeed may have value for tree regeneration, wildlife habitat or other reasons, the author suggests using the term “patch cuts”, with the intention that patch cuts are always to be designed and implemented in a way that recognizes multiple values and clearly reinforces the sound technical, ecological, social and economical ways of managing a forest. 

MANAGEMENT – It is common for some NGOs and others to use the term “management” interchangeably with “logging”, in so doing foisting blame on the forestry community that their concept of forest management is only driven by a desire to log, or logging. In other words, management, even worse “active management”, is a synonym for logging. This author objects to this simplification or use of the words management or active management in such a way. 

Starting more broadly, the following are examples on how management is defined in general. First, according to Whatishumanresource.com”, management is defined as:

“a distinct process consisting of planning, organising, actuating and controlling; utilising in each both science and art, and followed in order to accomplish pre-determined objectives.”

Second, Wikipedia defines “forest management” as follows:

“a branch of forestry concerned with overall administrative, legal, economic, and social aspects, as well as scientific and technical aspects, such as silviculture, protection, and forest regulation. This includes management for timber, aesthetics, recreation, urban values, water, wildlife, inland and nearshore fisheries, wood products, plant genetic resources, and other forest resource values.^[1] Management objectives can be for conservation, utilisation, or a mixture of the two. Techniques include timber extraction, planting and replanting of different species, building and maintenance of roads and pathways through forests, and preventing fire.”

Perhaps at some point in the past, when “getting the wood out” (i.e., timber harvesting) was the main value many landowners focused on or forests were managed for, management virtually always meant logging. For some organizations and foresters, this may still be true. But from where I sit, such an approach to management is outdated. For example, here in the eastern U.S., when private non-industrial landowners (i.e., “smallholders”) are asked how important logging is to them, the majority put logging way down their list of priorities after amenity values such as beauty, wildlife, investment, nature, or others such as recreation, hunting firewood or other values^[2]. In my experience, starting in the 1980’s, and for many forest managers today – at all scales – management is often not primarily driven by logging but by management options or values, such as amenities, ecosystem services, recreation, NTFP harvests, etc. Thus, management can mean strict protection, harvesting, recreation, etc.

From where I sit, management means intentional management decisions by humans to take actions on forests. Typically such management will mean managing forests as a matrix of natural areas and oftentimes overlapping (or sometimes separate) and diverse objectives and uses. This may include protection, recreation, collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), religious ceremony sites, or the felling of trees for commercial sale or to be used for firewood. Some uses can be complementary, others can’t. In my experience most landowners, foresters, and even many ecologists or social scientists, wish to maintain logging as an option in the above matrix of forest uses, but one they may use more, less or not at all depending on the circumstances and the range of values and objectives they are managing for. 

To be clear, from this author’s perspective, strict protection is management, even “active” management! The at times necessary focus on protection is a human perception and decision, and increasingly landowners of all kinds are embarking on management actions that might include strict protection, but also other actions to make their forest more resilient or adapted to the forces of climate change. This may include management options such creating “set asides” (i.e., protection zones with little to no impactful human use, including wetlands, riparian zones, wildlife corridors), extending the tree rotations or life of certain trees or groups of trees to maintain or re-establish late successional or old growth forest, considering species shifts in management to respond to changing climate, or doing the harvesting of timber or non-timber forest explicitly using reduced impact logging techniques that will leave more trees of all ages standing and growing and seek to reduce the negative impacts of harvesting on non-harvested resources. 

---

^[1] The author is an independent forest advisor, lives in Jericho, Vermont, has 40+ years of field experience in 50+  countries in boreal, temperate and tropical forests, has lived in Mexico, Paraguay and Costa Rica, has a Bachelor’s degree in history and romance languages and a Master of Science in natural resources management.  Field experience, discussions with other ecologists, foresters, social scientists and others, and many references have informed the perspectives herein. The independent views expressed herein do not represent those of any organization that the author has worked with before or provides advice to now. 

^[2] Butler, Brett, et. al. “Family Forest Ownerships of the United States,” U.S. Forest Service, 2016. 

This blog contains the perspectives of Richard Zell Donovan, independent forest advisor, husband of Karen, father of Andrew and Emily, grandfather of Kaedyn, Zell, Malakai & Oliver, brother of Daniel, Lonny, Leesa, Cynthia, Mary & Lance, and son of Larry and Bunny. Thank you for reading.