No single type of stakeholder can move the entire forest bioeconomy system towards an evolved version that can better support the scaling-up of nature-based solutions. Instead, each actor can influence the system – and other actors present within it – in unique ways. For example, consumers drive demand to which the private sector responds, which in turn can create end markets that investors may seek to grow.
Good governance practices are needed to design forest projects that can win the endorsement of all stakeholder groups. Free, prior and informed consent processes are a baseline requirement to achieve this, but co-governance projects can also create co-ownership between stakeholders. Dialogue between stakeholders is not always easy to achieve. Time must be taken over negotiations to foster mutual trust between parties, while space must be made to amplify the voices of communities or groups who might otherwise be excluded from the project development.
The principle of a ‘just transition’ should lie at the centre of engagement approaches. A just transition is the process of maximizing social or economic opportunities for local communities when undertaking climate action – while ensuring that these communities do not incur financial or well-being losses through forest restoration. Equally, mechanisms for sharing project benefits with local communities need to be identified ahead of a project’s launch. In order that businesses operating within the forest bioeconomy can build trust with landowners, local groups and indigenous communities, they must clarify how their activities would deliver equal social and economic opportunities for local stakeholders.
The International Labour Organization, in collaboration with the International Union for Conservation of Nature and UNEP, have estimated that up to 20 million more jobs could be created by tripling investment in nature-based solutions by 2030. Measuring progress against this target will require reporting on issues ranging from gainful and secure employment, safe working conditions, wealth, income, and land rights and access, to the provision of high-quality food and water.
Improving forest management to maximize biodiversity outcomes
By definition, nature-based solutions must provide benefits for local biodiversity. However, business models must also deliver financial returns that allow forestry businesses to continue to operate.
It can take time to develop the business models that best align increased biodiversity with financial reward. A wider and deeper understanding of native tree and plant species is required if different species are to be successfully introduced into innovative business models. Beyond the species that currently account for the greatest shares of global timber markets, many hundreds of tree species could be integrated into biodiverse and ecologically rich forest landscapes that can then be harvested and turned into bio-based products. For each of the species that could be incorporated into existing landscapes, knowledge gaps remain in terms of propagation, optimum growing conditions, harvesting techniques and end-market potential.
The combination and arrangement of tree species also affect the environmental outcomes of a forest-based project. Businesses must determine whether their forestry project will be a monoculture (single-species) or a polyculture (multiple-species) plantation, the latter being associated with offering increased biodiversity and resilience to pests and disease. For example, a recent study of plantation types (mixed-species, monoculture and native forests) as part of China’s Grain for Green Programme found higher levels of bird and bee biodiversity – in terms of both abundance and species richness – in native forests and polyculture plantations than in monoculture alternatives. Mosaic forests – which incorporate patches of different types of forest activities (which may be based on different tree species) mixed with natural habitats serving as ecological corridors can also be sites of increased biodiversity.
The further enhancement of environmental benefits on a more extensive scale (for example, by increasing populations of flora or fauna through ecological corridors) requires coordination across different land-use management approaches, as well as between multiple landowners or managers, creating a whole-of-landscape approach to nature restoration.
It is important to note that the delivery of nature-based solutions by forestry businesses is associated with decisions and choices that should reflect practical local environmental or social contexts. These decisions will then affect the investment required to achieve the intended outcome. For example, a highly degraded land that has been compacted by years of livestock grazing will require significant investment to convert it into a productive and biodiverse forestland – more than would be needed for a degraded forest that has not been subject to substantial interventions, but has been allowed to recover and regenerate naturally over time, creating a secondary (second-growth) forest. The most suitable forest management or restoration activity can only be identified after consideration of the potential environmental and societal benefits it will entail. The potential benefits (and risks) should be evaluated over the whole life cycle of the forest restoration, so as not to prioritize projects that deliver benefits quickly but are unsustainable or damaging in the long run.
