No restoration project is undertaken in a social vacuum (Knight et al., 2010); even stand-level restoration occurs within a system
of governance that regulates relationships among landowners, funding organization(s), implementer, and stakeholders. A global movement of broadening participation in natural resources decision-making has evolved selleck products towards sharing power and responsibility (Berkes, 2009). Forest Landscape Restoration is a co-management approach that developed in response to large-scale restoration and reforestation programs undertaken by public agencies that provided few local benefits, but generated much local ill will (Barr and Sayer, 2012 and Boedhihartono and Sayer, 2012) because those whose livelihoods depended on the forest or other natural resources felt excluded from the management process (Ellis and Porter-Bolland, 2008 and Colfer, 2011). Such exclusion leads only to conflict and resource degradation (e.g., García-Frapolli et al., 2009 and Sayer et al., 2013) and its legacy of distrust and even animosity may persist (Oestreicher et al., 2009 and Nysten-Haarala, 2013). Despite the movement toward more democratic, participatory forms of resource management,
including restoration, the arrangements are diverse and reflect the governance structure, property rights and relations, and traditions of individual societies. Subsequently, no single arrangement has universal application and there are several potential obstacles to success as described below. Other aspects of social GSK1210151A in vitro context that affect restoration include tenure and use rights (ownership versus use rights, de jure as opposed to de facto), participation by those affected (including Prior Informed Consent; Barr and Sayer, 2012), and the social capital available (including administrative capacity, technical knowledge, and available resources). In some societies, land ownership and use rights are well defined and enforced by the rule Progesterone of law. In other instances, particularly in tropical
countries, tenure relations are complex and corruption is endemic ( Kolstad and Søreide, 2009). Today’s complex ownership, tenure, and use rights may stem from historical development, for example a colonial past that has left a thin veneer of individual ownership over a traditional tenure system based on communal ownership ( Lamb et al., 2005). Further complications arise when ownership of the forest, trees, or fruit from certain trees is separate from tenurial rights to the land for agriculture. Land tenure is generally understood as the mutually accepted terms and conditions under which land is held, used, and traded. It is important to note that land tenure is not a static system; it is a system and process that is continually evolving, influenced by the state of the economy, changing demographics, cultural interactions, political discourse, or a changing natural and physical environment ( Murdiyarso et al.