Trillion Trees Guide to Investing in Forest Restoration

Consideration 1: Protecting standing forests and avoiding deforestation

Standing, intact forests deliver immense benefits for the climate and biodiversity (amongst other environmental values)¹. It can take over 100 years for lost forests to recover to near their previous state, so protecting what we already have is crucial. To do so, we need to avoid continued forest conversion (removing or further degrading natural forests to meet other land needs).

Does the opportunity support or consider the protection of standing forest?

1

The project is not designed to protect forests or address the drivers of deforestation

2

Some activities have the potential to address deforestation (e.g., support for other land uses or livelihood improvements that can reduce pressure on standing forests)

3

Activities explicitly address deforestation through support for improved and alternative livelihoods, policy, and/or sustainable land use management plans

Consideration 2: Forest restoration location

To have maximum benefits, restoration efforts should be targeted in areas with the highest potential for restoration to support biodiversity conservation or enhance forest-dependent livelihoods – in high biodiversity areas, where restoration reconnects forest fragments, or in areas where many people depend on forest resources². Afforestation initiatives (i.e., creating forests where there were none before) should not take place in areas where they will damage or replace important and healthy natural ecosystems, such as grasslands or peatlands.

Is the opportunity located in an area where there will be potentially significant positive benefits for local people, nature and the climate?

1

No consideration given to the location of restoration efforts with respect to natural ecosystems (e.g., either to enhance standing forests or to avoid damage to other natural ecosystems) or the needs of the local communities.

2

Some consideration has been given to locations that benefit biodiversity or people, but are not in priority areas or where there could be maximum benefit. Location of where restoration is available but not detailed.

3

Restoration locations are chosen through a prioritisation approach near standing forests or are reconnecting forest patches, or near key biodiversity areas. Supported by detailed information on the location of where restoration will take place.

Consideration 3: Restoration method(s)

Natural regeneration is one of the most cost-effective approaches to restoring natural forests, with costs up to 76% cheaper than other restoration approaches³. It encourages native plant diversity to re-establish and thrive, which is better for wildlife and the climate.

This approach can include letting a forest ‘rewild’ and re-grow on its own, or by creating the right environment for new growth by removing barriers to restoration, such as invasive plants that restrict new forest growth⁴.

Active restoration, through tree planting, may be needed in areas where land is too degraded for natural processes to occur, or may be used in conjunction with natural regeneration approaches to accelerate impact.

Does the opportunity promote or protect existing natural regeneration when possible?

1

Only planting trees to create new forest without due consideration of potential adverse impacts on other habitat types, the sustainability of the forest in the long-term.

2

Tree planting is being used to restore ‘lost forests’ to create a new forest area within a habitat that is suitable for that forest type.

3

Natural or assisted natural regeneration is the primary mechanism being used to restore degraded or lost forest.

Consideration 4: Selection of tree species

The choice of species to be restored is critical for the success of restoration initiatives that involve tree planting.

Poorly considered species selection can have negative consequences for the recovery of the forest, including low tree survival rates or negative impacts on biodiversity^{1, 2}.

When planting is necessary, global consensus is that native species should be prioritised, when possible, to help replace what has been lost, promote biodiversity, provide social and environmental benefits, and increase the likelihood of survival to support impact in the long term. Adaptation to local conditions, genetic diversity and traditional knowledge should be considered.

Does the opportunity prioritise or include native species?

1

Non-native species are used with no clear rationale for their use or there is no evidence of what species are being planted

2

A mix of native and non-native species is used, but the rationale is not clearly explained. Species used are considered or genetic diversity or climate adaptation.

3

Native species are being used or the initiative uses a combination of native and non-native species with clear objectives and rationale for their use

Consideration 5: Involvement of local communities and stakeholders

Forest restoration interventions are more likely to be successful and lead to positive outcomes for local communities when people living in or around the area are actively involved in the design, development and implementation of the initiative. Projects should be transparent about their levels of community and broader stakeholder engagement and if indigenous peoples are involved Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) principles have been applied.

This engagement should be both equitable and inclusive to ensure active involvement throughout the duration of the initiative. When appropriate, the initiative could include knowledge sharing on the value of forests, forest use and management, as well as empowering key stakeholders to take joint ownership.

Does the opportunity demonstrate partnership and engagement with communities in and around the landscape?

1

No evidence of consistent or planned involvement of indigenous people or local communities, and/or an understanding of the communities and the groups that will be directly (positively or negatively) impacted by the restoration project

2

Communities are clearly involved in design and implementation (e.g., employment opportunities). Supporting data could include maps showing community land use planning, FPIC process, land ownership information, or socio-economic benefits.

3

Community is involved in all aspects, including choice of actions, and project governance. Key data is provided to demonstrate this engagement.

Consideration 6: Carbon benefits

In the race to Net Zero by 2030, claims are often made or suggested on the additional or net carbon benefits associated with forest restoration.

Importantly, there is a difference between (1) initiatives where high-level carbon benefits are reported and estimated using global data, and (2) those where carbon benefits have been comprehensively assessed and verified against third party standards.

In tree planting initiatives, carbon benefits can be particularly hard to calculate, since survival data of the tree saplings is often hard to come by, and makes long-term carbon calculations incomplete.

The majority of restoration projects are (1), and in these cases, businesses would not be able to claim these carbon benefits against their emissions (e.g., for an offset).

In either case, it is helpful to consider, when possible, an initiative’s carbon benefit.

Does the opportunity detail and provide evidence for carbon benefits?

1

The initiative suggests net carbon offset benefits, but unclear how they are calculated, or verification is not explained

2

The initiative is in the process of assessing its potential net carbon benefits, is clear that these are in the future, but is unclear on quantity or timelines

3

The initiative reports on net carbon impacts but is clear that offset claims cannot be made – OR - it has been verified by a credible third party and can be used for offsets and carbon markets.

Consideration 7: Social benefits

The benefits of forest conservation and restoration to people are numerous, and investment in forests should strive to deliver benefits to forest communities, using local or indigenous rights-based approaches.

Additional benefits could include improved food security through planting tree species which provide subsistence or commercial usage, job opportunities that are long-term and sustainable – not just linked to the project, or clarified or improved land rights.

Does the opportunity detail and provide evidence for the benefits to local people?

1

No documentation or evidence of social benefits delivered or promised

2

The initiative outlines and has monitoring in place on how it will generate benefits to local people by providing sustainable economic opportunities or supports efforts to improve their rights.

3

The initiative directly supports and actively engages communities in monitoring the activities that improve well-being, such as farmer trainings to adopt forest-friendly crops, or improved/clarified land rights.

Consideration 8: Biodiversity benefits

Forests have inherent value for mitigating the climate crisis, but investments in forest protection and restoration offer the chance to protect and even increase biodiversity. The climate and biodiversity crises are interlinked and cannot be treated separately⁹. Biodiversity benefits can result from conserving genetic variation of native species, protecting or increasing habitats (including for endangered species) or from supporting livelihoods based on forest-friendly crops (e.g. shade-grown coffee and cocoa).

Does the opportunity detail and provide evidence for biodiversity benefits?

1

No documentation or evidence of biodiversity benefits.

2

The initiative addresses benefits to nature by restoring native habitat, with a monitoring system that tracks key biodiversity indicators

3

The initiative includes specific interventions to maintain or enhance populations of threatened species and their habitat, with a robust monitoring system.

Consideration 9: Overall Monitoring and assessing initiative effectiveness

In our previous considerations this tool has suggested some of the monitoring efforts you should be looking for under each one.

For long-term effectiveness of initiatives that benefit people, nature and the climate, it is essential that outcomes of interventions are monitored and measured in the short, medium and long-term, and that baseline information is collected. Where possible a good quality project should also have regular independent verification of these results.

For example, this could include recording tree survival rates over time, assessing ecological impacts, using technology to track growth or deforestation, conducting biological surveys to determine if wildlife populations have improved or tracking the well-being of people benefitting from the project.

Does the opportunity you are considering have infrastructure, capacity and transparency on success rates, reporting and accountability mechanisms?

1

No clear documentation of project monitoring

2

The initiative monitors some outputs (e.g., number of trees planted, but not survival rate)

3

Transparent, easily understandable outputs, with a verification framework in place