Restoration

Entering a new epoch, “the Anthropocene”, our planet is at a crossroads. This epoch defines this planet’s current geologic time period as being anthropogenic, based on overwhelming global evidence that atmospheric, geologic, hydrologic, biospheric, and other earth system processes are now altered by humans (Ellis 2013). This human influence through overbuilt environments has disrupted and overwhelmed nature’s processes and resulted in decreased biodiversity and overall natural health. With climate change and species becoming extinct at an alarming rate, there has been a shift of focus from preserving what is left, to restoring what was lost. Ecological restoration as a process assists the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed by natural or human activity. In our attempt to restore these ecosystems to a state closer to what they might have been in the past, a “historical baseline” has been estimated through photographic, oral, and written evidence of the past conditions. However, this idea of a baseline, emphasizes the conservation value of what remains of these historical ecosystems but confronts the reality that the majority of ecosystems have radically changed to an extent where it is no longer possible to restore them to a natural state. Through ecological restorations, we aim to return a degraded ecosystem to its historic trajectory, rather than its historic condition (R. J. Hobbs 2001). Land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23 percent of the global land surface (UN Convention to Combat Desertification 2020). Although the importance of ecological restoration for improving the conditions of degraded land has become more evident in recent years, and it has been more clearly stated through global awareness and initiatives, the time has always been an important dimension while considering restoration. Irrespective of how massive the restoration effort may be, it often takes several years and even decades to achieve its goals. For example, a forest restoration project is initiated by planting trees, but for a full recovery to be achieved, that site should be a fully functioning forest with mature trees in the age classes representative of a mature native forest (SER 2020). 

 

Need for Prioritization

Restoration activities can be more expensive than traditional protection and preservation efforts (Dagmar Hagen 2016). The increasing need for restoration and allocation of resources towards identifying and restoring wastelands has highlighted a need for prioritization. With limitations in resources for nature management and protection and uneven development around the world, it is essential for global organizations involved in such projects to set priorities in order to solve more urgent issues like extinction or anticipated natural disasters, while contributing to the protection and restoration of biodiversity. Although currently there are no confined global policies to prioritize the implementation of restoration projects, factors involved in various projects around the world show hints of hierarchy in executing these restoration projects. With the involvement of renowned international agencies like UNESCO, WHO, SER, and IUCN, there have been various examples of restoration projects around the world that have stood out and set examples for other projects to follow.

 

Global and local agencies and communities worldwide spend an enormous amount of money and effort on restoration projects, aiming to reverse this degradation of the planet that we have wrought over the past few centuries. United under the common goal of restoring the damaged ecosystem around the world, under the banner of the United Nations, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is operating and signed by 196 countries. This Convention is an international treaty with three main goals: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biodiversity, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from these practices. In order to achieve these goals, the CBD formulated 20 strategic targets for the year 2010-2020, known as the Aichi biodiversity targets, named after the Japanese prefecture where the convention was held. One of the first steps outlined under Aichi is for each country to update and revise its national biodiversity strategies and action plans. In these plans, countries are to develop their own national targets using the Aichi biodiversity targets as a framework, but with some flexibility dependent upon national priorities and capacities. Ultimately, these plans are meant to contribute to the collective effort to reach the Aichi biodiversity targets (Dickie 2018). The submission of these plans is actually an Aichi Target itself (number 17), but as per the latest statistics by CBD over 69 percent of the total countries have yet to report their final national strategies (CBD Aichi Target 17 2020). The concept of restoration functions at very different levels in such international policies; it can be a target, an objective, or even a tool. Within the Aichi targets, restoration has eventually become a median to achieve most of the other strategic targets directly or indirectly. For example target 15 aims at restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems, to help mitigate climate change and combat desertification.

 

Aichi Target 15: Ecosystems restored and resilience enhanced

By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 percent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification. (CBD Aichi Target 15 2020)

 

Aichi Target 17: NBSAPs adopted as a policy instrument

By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan. (CBD Aichi Target 17 2020)

​

Approaches towards Restoration

Exploring the approaches taken by various nations towards these global targets we come across projects at different scales, ranging from scientific laboratories to community gardens to urban parks to even larger biospheres. But what priorities determine the sites, scales, and forms of restoration? Other than the major factor of restoring nature to either preserve or reintroduce specific species, which are at a threat of extinction, there are several other factors visible as well. With Urbanization, the need to increase land value for such wastelands has somehow gained importance in financial terms. Using nature awareness as a political agenda, there has been spurge on preservation and restoration projects in politically dominant areas. We also see communities coming together to restore and preserve areas that are culturally significant to them. 

 

Restoration projects also provide a repertoire of success stories that are trending and drive a new tone of conservation. Regional techniques used to achieve those successful restorations have developed into more global solutions. Ecotourism has also seen a boom in the past decade with people looking at wilderness as an escape from the urban lifestyle, we can see a lot of restoration projects around the world which have promoted regional tourism by reintroducing various flora and fauna that had been regionally present. In terms of identification of these sites, British ecologist Norman Myers in 1988 through his articles in “The Environmentalist” introduced the term “biodiversity hotspots” around the world. These biodiversity hotspots are the earth's most biologically rich, yet threatened terrestrial regions.  At present, there are a total of 36 such hotspots identified around the world. Identification of these biodiversity hotspots gives a sense of priority in identifying restoration projects of different scales, but they are based on regions, which cover more than a single country or state. The change of policies and agencies in these different areas results in approaching the same biodiversity hotspots through a set of different priorities.

​

Restoration of Lonavla in sahyadri

Taking an example of “Sahyadri” also known as the Western Ghats, these mountain ranges cover an area of over fifty thousand square miles stretched around the western coast of the Indian peninsula. These Ghats traverse through 6 different states in India and are considered as one of the eight “hottest hotspots“ of the world. Sahyadri also comes under the UNESCO World Heritage Site and has a strong influence on the Indian monsoon weather patterns. Across these 6 different states, there are numerous sites identified as wastelands in need of ecological restoration. Local communities have initiated various attempts to restore parts of these sites, but in one case, in particular, an association of locals with a private company has stood out and proven more productive.

 

Once a densely populated forest and home to various exotic flora and fauna like Indian Gour and Great Hornbill, Lonavla became a popular tourist destination due to its close proximity to the metropolitan city of Mumbai. Its growing popularity had a negative impact on the surroundings and it led to environmental degradation in the region. The construction of the Valvan Dam, built by Tata Power to supply electricity to Mumbai, along with the impounding of river Indrayani that flows through Lonavla also contributed to making the forest resources even scarcer. The Tata Power Company initiated several restoration efforts in the area along with the collaboration of other organizations like IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). At present, the restoration of the forests in Lonavla is counted as one of the best practices of restoration in the country. The company targeted a minimum of 33% forest cover around its project sites through a plantation of native trees by employing local villagers. The native vegetation cover increased significantly in the last decade. Wildlife habitats were restored gradually along with corridors to assist their movements. The project also brought along a socio-economic change with an increase in fodder, fuelwood, and other forest products for the local villagers who were equally affected by the degradation of the forest.  Hence a private companies restoration activity owing to increased community involvement has proven to be ecologically and socially effective. 

 

Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) has identified several other forest ranges within the Western Ghats that are in need of similar ecological restorations like the Anamalai Hills. Following on the practices of restoration in Lonavla by Tata power, various plantation companies like Parry Agro Industries Ltd, Tata Coffee Ltd, Tea Estates India Ltd, and even State Forest Department of Tamil Nadu has partnered with NCF in initiating restoration attempts in these regions (NCF 2019) India ranks 10th worldwide in the amount of forest loss, with 13.7 million hectares a year. With an initiative from a private company and a strong financial backing, Lonavla is one case that has provided a successful trend in attempts to restore nature. Looking at several other cases around India as well as the globe, it is clearly noticeable that the restoration of projects follows certain priorities. Identification through a global agency and its involvement has been the most prominent one seen across all case studies. But the involvement of private companies, which run their business around such natural reserves, has also proven to be an important factor in restoration of various wastelands.

 

The Gum Arabic Sector in Sahel

The Sahel area, in Africa, has various ongoing restoration programs in place. The Great Green Wall initiative launched in 2007 is currently being implemented in over 20 countries across the continent with over eight billion dollars mobilized and pledged for its support. This project aims to restore Africa’s degraded landscape and create the largest living structure on the planet through an 8000 km natural forest stretching across the entire width of the continent. (The Great Green Wall Initiative 2020)

 

A smaller part of this project is the stretch of the Gum Arabic Sector, which focuses to restore the production of Gum Arabic, obtained from Acacia Senegal, a tree species popular economically. The restoration of these Gum Arabic zones has helped reduce land degradation and enhance sustainable land management and trade in countries like Mali. Stretching around seven different countries, which lie in this belt, the approach to these restorations are noticeably different. Having its trade origin in Sudan, it became less popular within the country after the Sahel drought (1970-1980) and the forest area decreased by around 10% between 1980 and 1995. This led to a shift of focus on agriculture land for short-term profits. Comparing the strategies adopted by different countries post the draught there are various factors that have influenced prioritization of these restorations at different paces. At the macro level, there is a major role in the international market and demand of the product (Gum Arabic), which is produced by these regional trees. At the meso level, various domestic policies are at play, which controls the marketing of these products and the land-use status of these wastelands. And finally at the micro-level, the involvement of farmers and their priority to adapt to farming more seasonal agricultural products for shorter-term profits and returns. Tackling these 3 factors, it was interesting to see how Sudan and Mali adapted to these projects differently, with Sudan relying more on World Organizations and a slower pace agenda to prioritize its restoration on the basis of restoring the regional species on a bigger scale and Mali drawing in big investments from the government and private sectors to mobilize 6.8 million USD for a five-year project to boost productivity and prioritize financial stability through this restoration.

​

To further compare approaches taken by different countries and agencies in restoration projects, we use an interactive map as a platform to explore similarities and differences in various case studies of wasteland restoration around the world based on the CBD Aichi biodiversity targets framework and the global biodiversity hotspots. To understand the priorities associated with these projects, we look at 30 case studies from different parts of the world, with different scales, types, and factors involved.