Five Frontiers for Science and Practice of Ecosystem Restoration in East African Forest Landscapes

---

When people think about ecosystem restoration, they often picture one thing: planting trees. While this is, of course, part of it, restoration has a lot more to offer. However, to achieve a meaningful and lasting outcome, we need a deeper understanding of what successful restoration actually looks like. With the help of experts, scientists, practitioners and decision-makers from diverse academic backgrounds, Duguma et al. (2025) outlined five critical frontiers for ecosystem restoration practice in western Rwanda. Currently, there are dozens of ecosystem restoration projects taking place in different parts of the country.   These efforts are driven by urgent environmental challenges. Forest loss contributes to biodiversity decline, soil erosion, climate change, and reduced ecosystem services. In regions like western Rwanda, steep slopes, high population density, and intensive agriculture make landscapes particularly vulnerable to degradation.

Frontier 1: Defining Success

How can you measure success in ecological restoration? Often, success has been measured through indicators such as the number of trees planted and hectares restored. While often useful, these metrics reveal little about whether ecosystems are functioning or whether local communities are benefiting. Duguma et al. (2025) argue that restoration goals should include both ecological and social outcomes. Success should be measured through indicators such as biodiversity recovery, ecosystem functioning, community well-being, stakeholder participation, and equitable distribution of benefits. Importantly, local communities should be included in the process of defining these goals from the beginning.

Another challenge being faced is the capacity to balance short-term outcomes favoured by landowners with long-term goals required to achieve sustainable social-ecological outcomes. When it comes to planting trees, fast-growing exotic species provide short-term benefits to farmers such as substantial wood volumes used for fuel, poles, construction material etc. However, these same exotic species provide a limited ecological contribution to soil, biodiversity conservation and resilience to climate change. The researchers suggest harmonising short-, mid-, and long-term goals, which leads us into the next identified frontier.

Frontier 2: Multifunctionality of Landscapes

Ecosystem restoration is complex and often has to deal with competing interests of multiple stakeholders. The concept of landscape multifunctionality refers to the capacity of a landscape to provide an array of different services and social, ecological and economic benefits. As mentioned before, ecosystem restoration in Rwanda in the past years has focused on fast-growing exotic tree species. These mostly pine-dominated plantations have helped stop soil erosion on steep slopes, meet farming needs and have resulted in successful agroforestry and woodland restoration. However, the neglect of using native tree species has led to low biodiversity, and studies have shown that only one of three diurnal (day-active)  native primate species was found in these pine-dominated plantations. In addition to this, local communities are often sidelined when it comes to major ecological projects, and furthermore, there seems to be a deeper disconnect between local people and local biodiversity, which in turn makes the use of native tree species even less convincing.

The authors argue that restoration should better incorporate local knowledge, values, and preferences, particularly regarding the medicinal, food, cultural, and economic uses of native trees and shrubs. They also highlight the need to explore agroforestry and intercropping systems that can simultaneously support food security, livelihoods, and ecological restoration. Ultimately, greater diversity of native species could enhance ecosystem functioning and resilience, but more research is needed to understand the synergies and trade-offs involved in achieving multifunctional restoration outcomes.

Frontier 3: Enhancing food security, nutrition and livelihoods

For many rural households, environmental restoration and food security are deeply interconnected. The study identifies several ways restoration can improve livelihoods: Agroforestry systems can produce fruits, vegetables, and other nutritious foods. Trees improve soil fertility, water retention, and pollination services that support crop production. Forest and tree products can generate income through timber, honey, medicine, fodder, and fuelwood. These benefits are particularly important in western Rwanda, where food insecurity remains a significant challenge. 

However, barriers remain. Small landholdings, unequal decision-making power, and weak market access can prevent communities from fully benefiting from restoration initiatives. Women, despite playing critical roles in agriculture and household nutrition, are often excluded from restoration planning and decision-making. The researchers argue that restoration strategies should explicitly incorporate livelihood and food security objectives rather than treating them as secondary benefits.

Frontier 4: Engaging with values and nature's contributions to people

Here we come to an important “Take Home Message”:

Restoration is not only about ecosystems—it is also about people’s relationships with nature.

It is time to emphasise the importance of understanding the diverse ways communities value landscapes. These values may be economic, cultural, spiritual, medicinal, or relational.  For decades, restoration programs have often prioritised rapid tree planting over understanding local preferences and knowledge systems. As Rwanda increasingly promotes native species restoration, there is an opportunity to reconnect with traditional ecological knowledge about indigenous plants and their uses. The researchers suggest that restoration should become a two-way learning process. Scientists and policymakers can contribute technical expertise, while local communities contribute generations of environmental knowledge and experience. This also requires a paradigm shift away from “doing restoration quickly” towards a paradigm more focused on values-based research and sensitivity to power imbalances in order to reconcile biodiversity conservation, tourism and agricultural production.

Recognising these diverse perspectives can help create restoration programs that are more effective, culturally appropriate, and widely supported.

Frontier 5: Governing ecosystem restoration for equity

Perhaps the most challenging frontier concerns equity.

Restoration projects can create winners and losers. While communities may benefit from improved ecosystems in the long run, some households may face short-term costs, including restrictions on land use or even relocation from environmentally vulnerable areas.

Duguma et al (2025) argue that restoration must be guided by principles of environmental justice. This means ensuring that benefits and burdens are distributed fairly, affected communities participate in decision-making, and diverse perspectives are respected.

Attention should be given to compensation schemes, relocation processes, and mechanisms that ensure local people share in the benefits generated by restoration projects.

Without equity, restoration risks creating new social problems while attempting to solve environmental ones.

References:

Five Frontiers for Science and Practice of Ecosystem Restoration in East African Forest Landscapes - Duguma - 2025 - Integrative Conservation - Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.uaccess.univie.ac.at/doi/full/10.1002/inc3.70048.