Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments and suggestions are enclosed in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review 1

Overall:

The manuscript intends to contribute both conceptual and tailored practical/operational frameworks to advance implementation of FLR, in different contexts, but aligned with the paradigm’s six core principles provided by Besseau et al (2018). The strength of the proposition lies in advocating for flexibility on lines 321-324. Such flexibility is in itself one of the broader principles ascribed by Newton and Tejedor, (2011). Thus, the potential of the paper in contributing to guide FLR implementation is clear.

Thank you for the positive statement

However,

1. Since the frameworks (conceptual and working) are not yet created and provided in this paper, I will suggest revising the title

The title uses “co-creating” to imply that this is a process. It does not imply that this process has been completed. The objective of the paper is to justify and provide examples of co-developed working frameworks.

2. The authors mentioned that the paper is based on 3 different workshops. It appears that some sort of desktop review has also contributed to the critical analysis presented. This is not clarified as part of the methodology (materials and methods) underlying the writing of the

We have clarified the history and methodology and added a roadmap to the paper in lines 133-152.

3. There as many points (see details below) that I would suggest addressing to strengthen the initial historical overview and critical analysis of challenges to

Thank you for these suggestions. We respond to specific points below.

4. Regarding the writing, there are instances with too many short paragraphs that do not convey a consolidated idea. Some paragraphs can be merged to enhance the writing

Shorter paragraphs were merged to enhance flow.

Below are my detailed comments

Part 1:

This section provides a relevant historical perspective on FLR along with a review of the ongoing works, including actions, to advance implementation of FLR. However, the section misses to clearly articulate what is the gap or problem being addressed. Concerns over BAU and FLR as another fad are introduced on lines 87-88 and 91-93, and later a question is asked on lines 125-126. These do not show the reader the necessity of having additional conceptual and working frameworks as advanced in the objective (lines 94-95). So, after reading this part 1, the “So what? And Why?” questions remain unanswered. What I am suggesting then is to bring up the essential gap being addressed at the end of this section or earlier before stating the objective. This seems to be already there somehow…. within lines 142-151, 176-180 but needs rearticulating / rearrangement.

The statement describing our objectives has been revised (lines 135-137 and rest of paragraph) to follow the problem statement in the prior paragraph.

Further, as a review of unfolding works advancing FLR from policy to practice, the section misses to account for previous works that have already provided such recollections on the concepts and definition underlying the FLR paradigm, as well as on the multi-scalar factors that affect FLR planning, design, implementation (including governance aspects), and outcomes. One such example is the work of Djenontin et al. (2018): “Revisiting the Factors Shaping Outcomes for Forest and Landscape Restoration in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Way Forward for Policy, Practice and Research”.

Thank you for pointing this out. This is a relevant paper. We now cite the Djenontin et al. (2018) paper on line 131 and line 245.

Lines 71-74: Needs some references here. The sentence suggests that “FLR is viewed…”. By whom?

References added

Lines 64-69 now read: FLR is widely viewed by international agencies and organizations as a means toward reaching the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations [9], the National Determined Contribution of countries to the Paris Climate Agreement [10], The New York Declaration on Forests [11], and the Bonn Challenge to bring 350 million ha of deforested and degraded land into restoration by 2030 [12].

Line 72: Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030: rephrase

Rephrased

The same could be said of this section regarding Djenontin et al. (2018) review that addressed challenges 2-4…

Reference added

Lines 142-151: can be moved up

We have moved the paragraph on FLR principles and Table 1 closer to the beginning of this section and reorganized the entire section.

Line 156: “FLR does not follow a predefined blueprint and…” I suggest: “FLR does not follow a predefined blueprint but ….”

CHANGED “and” to “but”

Line 170: by being “monocultures”, this claim is already arguable and controversial with regards to FLR principles

Line 183: Reference 44 appears to be the same as Reference 35. But I think Mansourian (2018) that was referred to should be: “Mansourian S. (2018). In the eye of the beholder: Reconciling interpretations of forest landscape restoration. Land Degrad Dev. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3014”.

The correct reference is now cited

Line 191: “…distinguish FLR from its antecedents in policy and practice…” . What are those antecedents?

Now written: “…that distinguish FLR from more narrowly focused efforts such as ecological restoration, protected area conservation, or forest management.”

Lines 195-196: “In addition, well-documented case studies of FLR are lacking. Few studies clearly document the evidence base for the effectiveness, outcomes, and impacts of FLR interventions”.

This is a bit unsubstantiated. First, no examples of the “few studies” are given. Second, there are now more documented FLR-related case studies and alike, which are published… although many remain in the grey literature that is worth digging. Below are few references. Starting from the ones that formed the foundations and push for FLR by IUCN to other documented cases.

• Kumar, C.; Begeladze, S.; Calmon, M.; Saint-Laurent, C. Enhancing Food Security through Forest Landscape Restoration: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Brazil, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Ghana, Ethiopia and Philippines; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 5–217.
• Foli, S.; Ros-Tonen, M.A.F.; Reed, J.; Sunderland, T. Natural Resource Management Schemes as Entry Points for Integrated Landscape Approaches: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso. Environ. Manag. 2017
• Walters G, Baruah M, Karambiri M, Adjei PO, Samb C, Barrow E. The power of choice: How institutional selection influences restoration success in Africa. Land Use Policy. 2019 Sep 17:104090.

We added the Kumar reference here. Still organization-based case studies are often superficial and are glorified story telling or cherry picked to market as success stories.

Lines 200-201: This is true…. Although I will suggest corroborating the claim using, for instance, examples compiled in reference 71, plus also those in the SER database on FLR-related programs/projects and other ecological restoration interventions provide some case studies (with scant mentions of failures, or challenges, or missed opportunities)

Part 2.2.

This section needs to be enhanced. Reference 37 (under review) is the mostly-used reference to elaborate the arguments in this section. There are many already-published works out there on governance challenges in relation to FLR, including the landscape approach, that can be used to enhance the points here. In addition, other institutional and governance challenges have been stressed in Djenontin et al. (2018).

Six references added to this section

Part 2.3

Line 251: I will remove the first “of”

This sentence is left unchanged. Monitoring does not always involve collecting baseline data, so this step is often overlooked.

Lines 268-269: Repetition and even in contradiction with lines 170-171

We do not see a contradiction here. There are multiple issues regarding governance problems and failures to provide benefits for all stakeholder groups.

Lines 281-286: These first four-five sentences read as concluding sentences for Part 2. They can be moved up. The section is really introduced with lines 300-313. I suggest a restructuring of the arguments, bringing those lines 300-313 up, then follow with lines 287-299, which provide an illustration of the point raise in lines 310-312. The rest could flow as it is.

We moved the first three sentences to the end of Part 2. It is important to begin Part 3 by stating that multiple paths toward FLR are needed, and this is the purpose of the working frameworks.

Part 3.1:

It is not clear what the conceptual framework is at the end… I assume it is just/will be based on the Besseau et al. principles as presented in Table 1, but this is not clearly articulated. It is only in the conclusion section that the reader can understand that the conceptual framework is still being developed.

This issue has been clarified. Yes, it would be based on Table 1 principles, with a comprehensive scope of criteria and indicators. This very complete framework would not be suitable to apply to any particular context, but it can provide a template (tool) for selection of appropriate criteria and indicators for tailored working frameworks. Of course, other principles, criteria, and indicators can be included in tailored working frameworks. Our idea is not to dictate exactly what each framework would be, but to facilitate the co-development of working frameworks for use under specific contexts. Another group of researchers is working on such a generalized conceptual framework, but it is not yet finalized.

New text in Line 362-364: “Although a generalized and comprehensive conceptual PCI framework would not be suitable to apply to any particular context, it can provide a template (tool) for selection of appropriate criteria and indicators for tailored working frameworks.”

Line 334: grammar… “operationalizing”

Revised to “to operationalize”

Part 3.2:

Lines 348-350: I would recommend rephrasing such claim, although I agree with line 351. First, there are country-level monitoring frameworks elaborated (e.g. Rwanda, Malawi) and there are also guides put up to help with the development of such country-level frameworks (e.g. Buckingham, Ray, S., Granizo, G.C., Toh, L., Stolle, F., Zoveda, F., ….& , Brandt J. (2019). The Road to Restoration: A Guide to Identifying Priorities and Indicators for Monitoring Forest and Landscape Restoration. FAO and WRI. 78 Pages.). It would be possible to analyze how these ones have incorporated the six core principles of FLR…. Second, the authors have also cited Bustos Linares (2018) as a framework for planning and monitoring landscape- scale restoration activities. This contradicts their claim above.

This statement has been modified to “There is no system of norms or standards for assessing FLR progress based on adherence to core principles,…” The FAO/WRI guide is based on FLR objectives, not FLR principles. The Bustos Linares (2018) framework was designed to apply to 4 model forests, so is a good example of a working framework.

Part 3.3:

Lines 419-425: The co-creation strategy here (falsely) assumes a self-governing capacity of local “communities”. This is one of the local governance challenges that were already missing in the previous part of the manuscript. There is need to pinpoint that co-creation in this case is greatly dependent on the community’s capacity to organize as such and cooperate and to be able to use any supposed “toolkit”.

There can be help at first to guide development of working frameworks. The capacity does not have to be sufficiently advanced to do this independently. If there is a demand for this service, there are qualified people who can provide it.

This statement (now lines 417-418) is modified: “Active involvement or co-creation of FLR frameworks achieves many goals., but also places responsibility on the stakeholders and actors engaged in restoration planning and implementation.”

Lines 426-431: Here again, there is need to address cross-scale linkages…. How will the local, regional, and national governments link and align their different frameworks on one hand, and how will these ones be linked to and aligned with the communities’ ones on another hand?

The linkage will be enabled by the derivation of the working frameworks from the same conceptual framework. There is no way to guarantee alignment, but this structure ensures that there is some fundamental alignment based on core principles.

Lines 432-437: how non-state actors frameworks and works connect to community’s frameworks and goals, as well as state’s frameworks and goals? These are also power issues and relations.

Yes, these are all things to be worked out. That is not something we can orchestrate with this document.

Figure 4: Yes, this is typical to most countries engaged with FLR and using the ROAM as such.

Lines 491-492: Yes, … this is about compatibility across scales, in perspectives, and in views (many, but different, criteria and indicators can be derived from principles). Also, alignment to achieve the same goals across actors and scales. However, assuming that it will “likely to be possible given that they are all based on a common set of shared principles” (line 492) would be misleading.

In a nutshell, it is worth stressing the challenges of realizing such co-creations for each set of actors and the challenges of unifying all co-created frameworks at different scales (temporal, spatial, vertical, horizontal); which question why having many working frameworks even if they are supposed to all derived from a shared conceptual framework. Will these exacerbate or facilitate the already complex

Yes, there are challenges. We added this text (lines 423-426): “In some cases, the capacity to develop tailored working frameworks may not be sufficient when FLR activities are initiated, but as the understanding of the potential and need for FLR guidance grows over time, frameworks can later be developed to guide future actions and to align them within a region or country.”

governance challenges for FLR? All these are part of prominent governance questions for FLR. This is definitely a next research agenda on governance of FLR.

Lines 516-517: This seems a repetition. Benefits of co-creation were already elaborated on in lines 394-

400. It is better to consolidate these under Part 3.3.

We think it is more useful to describe and emphasize these benefits after presenting the examples of working frameworks that came out of the Tacloban workshop.

Lines 521-522: “These frameworks will consider criteria and indicators for the fair distribution of economic benefits, for 521 resolution of conflicts and power imbalances”.

It is not clear what frameworks are being referred to? Community co-created framework? Government

agencies ’ones? Non-state actors’ ones? Or Donors’ ones?

Tailored working frameworks. It is not up to us to decide what groups get together to develop these. Could be communities together with government agencies or even with non-state actors.

Part 4:

Lines 556-557: the detail on the ROAM is a repetition. The ROAM was already introduced in Part 1.

Yes, but the earlier mentions of ROAM do not discuss its limitations with regard to the developing tailored working frameworks proposed here.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This white paper on forest and landscape restoration provides a good background description, that would benefit from a broader perspective, relating the FLR framework to other established frameworks on climate adaptation and mitigation, commonly dealing with similar questions and stakeholder engagements, and to the SDGs that provides an overarching framework.

In abstract and main text it is mentioned that “Transparency, feedback, communication, assessment, and adaptive management are important components of all working frameworks.” The text would benefit from a more in-depth discussion on how assure this.

The first section “The global emergence of Forest and Landscape Restoration” lack a background description on why restoration is needed, and a comment on the past and current trends, e.g. what has happened during the past 20 years concerning the rate of land degradation and rate of landscape restauration, including potential tradeoffs (in terms of funding, resources and time spent) between projects focusing on preventing land degradation and enhancing land restauration).

L.102-104 ”Underlying our work is the conviction that FLR is a process that emerges from local landscape contexts and engagement of local stakeholders who work together to develop effective frameworks to guide action and outcomes.” Land use and land trade are strongly influenced by global actors, please comment on their roles in land degradation and land restauration processes.

The text (incl. section 3 on Working FLR frameworks) would benefit from a comparison between the six principles of FLR (Table 1), which seems to indicate a linear way of working, with climate adaptation tools (c.f. https://www.ukcip.org.uk/ and https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/adaptation-support-tool) and frameworks on how to integrate ecosystem services (Daily et al 2009,Front Ecol Environ 7:21-28), that emphasizes a learning cycle with monitoring and evaluation as important parts of a continuously ongoing adaptation process. Please also comment on the potential to align landscape restauration projects with climate mitigation and adaptation.

L.148-149 Examples on leading and lagging indicators would be useful to the readers.

L.175-180 “This makes it difficult to recognize where and when the FLR process is happening on the ground. A framework, perhaps consisting of criteria and indicators, anchored in the FLR principles can help to identify how specific FLR practices on the ground can be integrated to achieve more far-reaching and long-lasting outcomes and impacts that feed back to promote and sustain a socio-ecological restoration system [43]. “No such framework yet exists, however.” – It is unclear to what extent the current paper contributes to identify components of a framework that would provide a working solution to the issues described, and it would be good to discuss this in relation to the SDGs, all goals in general and goal 15 in particular.

L.288-289: “Their strategy involves six major types of activities (“steps”) to be taken by development practitioners or other groups that are committed to promoting tree establishment in drylands.” Are these activities linked to the principles listed in table 1, i.e. can a reference to Table 1 be inserted for clarity, or is this referring to completely different activities?

L.300-301 “The key to making FLR happen lies in unfolding a process within landscapes that fulfills the core principles (Table 1) and by so doing reverses the course of land degradation and deforestation.” It there a risk of creating trade-offs between preventing land degradation and enhancing land restauration (see also the second comment), e.g. by different actors being involved? This links to the reference to a FLR community on L. 326-327, and to the text on L331 on how to account for the driving forces.

Figure 1: The flow chart or mind map is not easy to follow. Shared indicators indicated with different colours? The difference between solid lines and dashed lines is not explained. The difference between indicators being enabling factors, outcomes, or processes is not indicated, and the difference in usefulness (e.g. in relation to different principles) is not explained, neither in the figure nor in the text (L403). When is it appropriate to work with indicators of enabling factors or outcomes, and when is it more suitable to work with process indicators?

Figure 2: Does “P1-P5” stand for principles? Why only five and not six principles? In what order are they arranged? Each criteria have the same colour as one principle, which does not support the text on line 409-410 “Note that many of the criteria pertain to more than one principle.”

L401: “From one generalized FLR framework, a family of specialized FLR frameworks can be developed”. Including references to figures would help the reader to understand whether the presented material is to be considered preliminary parts of a generalized FLR or examples of specialized FLRs.

Section 3.4 and text on L. 400-406: “Such approach can facilitate knowledge sharing since it can help stakeholders apply their working frameworks to related and overlapping frameworks created by other actors engaged in the FLR process at different levels.” and L. 467-469 “The monitoring of outcomes of restoration measures is also important to donors in relation to specific objectives such as carbon storage, numbers of trees planted, improvement of ecosystem service supply, and human well-being.” - What about the need of integration with other frameworks, e.g. linked to climate mitigation and adaptation processes, and the SDGs?

L.540-541 “and provide a mechanism for scaling up of successful landscape models.” What kind of scaling up and what is a successful landscape model? A FLR process should be firmly linked to the specific local conditions? To what extent can an approach be transferred to another place?

L.547 “Guidelines are useful for generating interest, consensus, and political and economic support for FLR, 47 but they are missing essential criteria and indicators to operationalize the FLR principles (Figures 1 and 2).” Which guidelines are refereed to?

L 559 “New tools are needed that focus on inspiring, initiating, financing, and sustaining FLR within landscapes.” L 566 “Stronger guidance, tools and other support will help them to do that” [33]. We couldn’t agree more.” What are the key steps needed to create this, to what extent is the working framework presented in fig. 4 a step towards this, which aspects are still missing? The conclusion should focus more on describing this.

L.593 and L596 both contains “now, more than ever,”, consider revising.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 comments

This white paper on forest and landscape restoration provides a good background description, that would benefit from a broader perspective, relating the FLR framework to other established frameworks on climate adaptation and mitigation, commonly dealing with similar questions and stakeholder engagements, and to the SDGs that provides an overarching framework.

In abstract and main text it is mentioned that “Transparency, feedback, communication, assessment, and adaptive management are important components of all working frameworks.” The text would benefit from a more in-depth discussion on how assure this.

We added this text (lines 514-515): These components are essential foundations of good FLR practice, regardless of the level of implementation.

The first section “The global emergence of Forest and Landscape Restoration” lack a background description on why restoration is needed, and a comment on the past and current trends, e.g. what has happened during the past 20 years concerning the rate of land degradation and rate of landscape restauration, including potential tradeoffs (in terms of funding, resources and time spent) between projects focusing on preventing land degradation and enhancing land restauration).

These are important issues, but this paper is not intended to be a general review of why restoration is needed or to provide a history of the past 20 years of restoration practice. Other papers have done this already. This is a forward-looking paper on how to operationalize FLR., that links principles with practice.

L.102-104 ”Underlying our work is the conviction that FLR is a process that emerges from local landscape contexts and engagement of local stakeholders who work together to develop effective frameworks to guide action and outcomes.” Land use and land trade are strongly influenced by global actors, please comment on their roles in land degradation and land restauration processes.

Your point is well taken. We emphasize (lines 124-125) that “Reversing deforestation and forest degradation requires aligned action at all levels of government and society.” Also, lines 139-141 now state “We enumerate the many benefits that a transformative criteria and indicators framework can bring to global and local actors and different sectors involved in restoration at different scales when such frameworks are anchored in the FLR principles.”

The text (incl. section 3 on Working FLR frameworks) would benefit from a comparison between the six principles of FLR (Table 1), which seems to indicate a linear way of working, with climate adaptation tools (c.f. https://www.ukcip.org.uk/ and https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/adaptation-support-tool) and frameworks on how to integrate ecosystem services (Daily et al 2009,Front Ecol Environ 7:21-28), that emphasizes a learning cycle with monitoring and evaluation as important parts of a continuously ongoing adaptation process.

The non-linear (and cyclic) nature of the FLR principles are well illustrated through all of the figures.

Please also comment on the potential to align landscape restauration projects with climate mitigation and adaptation.

FLR as an important component of nature-based solutions is now mentioned in the second paragraph of the first section

L.148-149 Examples on leading and lagging indicators would be useful to the readers.

Examples are now added (lines 172-176): “Leading indicators are used to predict the likelihood of particular outcomes, whereas lagging indicators assess realized outcomes. For example, benefit sharing arrangements and secure land tenure are leading indicators of socio-economic outcomes of FLR, whereas availability of forest products and water quality are lagging indicators [80].

L.175-180 “This makes it difficult to recognize where and when the FLR process is happening on the ground. A framework, perhaps consisting of criteria and indicators, anchored in the FLR principles can help to identify how specific FLR practices on the ground can be integrated to achieve more far-reaching and long-lasting outcomes and impacts that feed back to promote and sustain a socio-ecological restoration system [43]. “No such framework yet exists, however.” – It is unclear to what extent the current paper contributes to identify components of a framework that would provide a working solution to the issues described, and it would be good to discuss this in relation to the SDGs, all goals in general and goal 15 in particular.

The working frameworks include subsets of criteria and indicators that define their concept of a socio-ecological restoration system.

L.288-289: “Their strategy involves six major types of activities (“steps”) to be taken by development practitioners or other groups that are committed to promoting tree establishment in drylands.” Are these activities linked to the principles listed in table 1, i.e. can a reference to Table 1 be inserted for clarity, or is this referring to completely different activities?

These steps are not related directly to FLR principles. But it is easy to see how the steps could emerge from a working framework or strategy. This would be useful to do. I have included the steps in Supplementary Information.

L.300-301 “The key to making FLR happen lies in unfolding a process within landscapes that fulfills the core principles (Table 1) and by so doing reverses the course of land degradation and deforestation.” It there a risk of creating trade-offs between preventing land degradation and enhancing land restauration (see also the second comment), e.g. by different actors being involved? This links to the reference to a FLR community on L. 326-327, and to the text on L331 on how to account for the driving forces.

The frameworks provide a way to identify potential trade-offs and resolve these conflicts as part of the FLR strategy. This is why it is important to involve different stakeholders in the process. FLR involves a process of conflict resolution.

Figure 1: The flow chart or mind map is not easy to follow. Shared indicators indicated with different colours? The difference between solid lines and dashed lines is not explained. The difference between indicators being enabling factors, outcomes, or processes is not indicated, and the difference in usefulness (e.g. in relation to different principles) is not explained, neither in the figure nor in the text (L403). When is it appropriate to work with indicators of enabling factors or outcomes, and when is it more suitable to work with process indicators?

The labels are less important than the content and how the principles form the basis for criteria and indicators here.

Figure 2: Does “P1-P5” stand for principles? Why only five and not six principles? In what order are they arranged? Each criteria have the same colour as one principle, which does not support the text on line 409-410 “Note that many of the criteria pertain to more than one principle.”

The legend clarifies that P1-P5 are the five adopted principles used by Bustos-Linares. The commend about the criteria applying to more than one principle is removed from the legend.

L401: “From one generalized FLR framework, a family of specialized FLR frameworks can be developed”. Including references to figures would help the reader to understand whether the presented material is to be considered preliminary parts of a generalized FLR or examples of specialized FLRs.

We do not present a comprehensive conceptual framework here. This is in progress and will require broad vetting.

Section 3.4 and text on L. 400-406: “Such approach can facilitate knowledge sharing since it can help stakeholders apply their working frameworks to related and overlapping frameworks created by other actors engaged in the FLR process at different levels.” and L. 467-469 “The monitoring of outcomes of restoration measures is also important to donors in relation to specific objectives such as carbon storage, numbers of trees planted, improvement of ecosystem service supply, and human well-being.” - What about the need of integration with other frameworks, e.g. linked to climate mitigation and adaptation processes, and the SDGs?

Our approach does not consider SDGs in general or climate mitigation frameworks in general. This would be beyond our scope. We are focusing here on FLR, which can be a means to achieve these broader goals.

L.540-541 “and provide a mechanism for scaling up of successful landscape models.” What kind of scaling up and what is a successful landscape model? A FLR process should be firmly linked to the specific local conditions? To what extent can an approach be transferred to another place?

Lines 566-568 now state “For example, within a region or country, different communities or organizations can share their working frameworks so they can be modified to apply in other areas, helping to scale up the process where relevant and possible.

L.547 “Guidelines are useful for generating interest, consensus, and political and economic support for FLR, 47 but they are missing essential criteria and indicators to operationalize the FLR principles (Figures 1 and 2).” Which guidelines are refereed to?

Many of the guidelines listed in Table 2.

L 559 “New tools are needed that focus on inspiring, initiating, financing, and sustaining FLR within landscapes.” L 566 “Stronger guidance, tools and other support will help them to do that” [33]. We couldn’t agree more.” What are the key steps needed to create this, to what extent is the working framework presented in fig. 4 a step towards this, which aspects are still missing? The conclusion should focus more on describing this.

See response below

L.593 and L596 both contains “now, more than ever,”, consider revising.

Thank you for pointing this out. We modified the end of the final paragraph: “This paper provides a justification for developing comprehensive conceptual frameworks and stimulating co-development of tailored working frameworks. We hope that these efforts will be integrated with the development of international and national restoration agendas that are coalescing around the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration [UN, 2020 #14144] and the platform for the Trillion Tree Community [WEF, 2020 #14143]. Ambitious aspirations need to guide practical steps and holistic activities to reverse the drivers of deforestation and environmental degradation and to improve the lives and livelihoods of all people. Given the current confluence of global health, climate, economic and environmental crises, now, more than ever, we need to ensure that our aspirations are guided by clarity and effective holistic responses that stand a chance to succeed.”

Reviewer 3 Report

A useful review on FLR and its principles. My comments are just to improve the readability of the manuscript. 

Section 1 could use more information to give the reader a sense for what FLR projects have accomplished to date. It would also be useful to have a roadmap of the paper laid out  at the top of page 2 after introducing the purpose.

Line 191 - talks about antecedents in policy and practice. It would be useful to know how FLR differs from other approaches to restoration/reforestation before getting to this point.

Section 3 onwards, the writing gets more messy/sloppy with lots of repetition. Suggest a solid edit

Figure 1 - it's worth distinguishing between factors, outcomes, processes among the indicators, as this would have different practical implications. The text preceding Figure 1 talks about some elements of the Figure and not others, and it's not clear why that is. Should clarify something about how these elements show interconnectedness across criteria.

Figure 2 - P1: should this include both goods and services?

3.3 bulleted list: not clear what the list is. Can include some intro text like "important questions to ask include:" 

3.4  Should this be PCI-based? rather than principles-based? The paragraph goes on to talk about outcomes of restoration. How will the outcomes be judged as conforming with the principles without an understanding of the CI part.

Throughout, the article is referred to as a white paper. Should likely switch it to this review or this policy perspective.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 comments

A useful review on FLR and its principles. My comments are just to improve the readability of the manuscript. 

Section 1 could use more information to give the reader a sense for what FLR projects have accomplished to date. It would also be useful to have a roadmap of the paper laid out  at the top of page 2 after introducing the purpose.

We have added a roadmap (description of the paper) now and reorganized the entire introductory section.

Line 191 - talks about antecedents in policy and practice. It would be useful to know how FLR differs from other approaches to restoration/reforestation before getting to this point.

We have clarified how FLR differs in its holistic approach that encompasses both social and ecological objectives.

Section 3 onwards, the writing gets more messy/sloppy with lots of repetition. Suggest a solid edit

Figure 1 - it's worth distinguishing between factors, outcomes, processes among the indicators, as this would have different practical implications. The text preceding Figure 1 talks about some elements of the Figure and not others, and it's not clear why that is. Should clarify something about how these elements show interconnectedness across criteria.

These figures are intended to provide examples rather than to illustrating a fully fleshed out framework with all of these details presented.

Figure 2 - P1: should this include both goods and services?

We did not write these principles, so do not want to modify the authors’ intent.

3.3 bulleted list: not clear what the list is. Can include some intro text like "important questions to ask include:" 

These bullets have been rephrased to illustrate how different actors and stakeholders would use working FLR frameworks.

3.4  Should this be PCI-based? rather than principles-based? The paragraph goes on to talk about outcomes of restoration. How will the outcomes be judged as conforming with the principles without an understanding of the CI part.

Yes, they should be PCI based. That is our message. Indicators are necessary to assess outomes and to link them with the core principles and criteria. The frameworks from the workshop did not go so far as to include indicators.

Throughout, the article is referred to as a white paper. Should likely switch it to this review or this policy perspective.

Corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all my previous comments and I am satisfied with the answers. I do recommend checking consistency in the references list.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has improved, but several comments were just answered without clarifying the text.

Examples are the QoA on the first section, where a short note on and reference to other papers focusing on the need of restoration and current trends would help the reader to put this paper into perspective, the QoA on Figure 1 which has not been further explained, and the QoA on section 3.4 where the manuscript would benefit from taking a broader perspective, by clearly stating that FLR can link to and provide a way of achieving broader goals (SDGs).

Author Response

The manuscript has improved, but several comments were just answered without clarifying the text.

Thank you for your comment. We now address these comments below and apologize if our initial attempt to address them was considered inadequate. We hope we have now sufficiently addressed your comments on our manuscript.

Examples are the QoA on the first section, where a short note on and reference to other papers focusing on the need of restoration and current trends would help the reader to put this paper into perspective, the QoA on Figure 1 which has not been further explained, and the QoA on section 3.4 where the manuscript would benefit from taking a broader perspective, by clearly stating that FLR can link to and provide a way of achieving broader goals (SDGs).

We have added more context in lines 45-51 to explain the scale of the restoration opportunity globally.  The purpose of this paper is not to present a justification for the need for forest and landscape restoration, but to work towards implementation that will provide multiple social and environmental benefits. 

"Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) was proposed nearly 20 years ago in an attempt to broaden the thinking about reforestation beyond industrial plantations and community-level woodlots. The global extent of deforestation and forest degradation became more defined a decade later, when a spatial analysis estimated the global opportunity area for forest restoration as being greater than 1 billion hectares and was used to underpin the Bonn Challenge to initiate restoration across 150 million hectares by 2020. Subsequent refinements have increased the estimate to more than 2 billion hectares [1]."

Regarding the QoA on Figure 1: 

We acknowledge that this is a complex figure. Our objective is to use this figure to illustrate how a network layout can be used to show the links between principles, criteria (or goals in this case), and indicators in a working framework for FLR. The authors of this study presented their principles, criteria, and indicators in a linear table format. We transformed these elements into an interactive network diagram. We added more detail in the legend to clarify what the dashed and solid lines represent. We removed the text regarding the nature of the indicators, as this is not the point of the diagram.  

Regarding the QoA on section 3.4:

This comment is focused on the objectives of FLR in relation to the SDGs and other broad global goals (an external matter to the FLR process), whereas the focus of the discussion here is whether FLR can effectively be operationalized through a principles-based frameworks (an internal matter to the FLR process). Our paper is based on the premise that FLR is a means toward reaching many goals, including the SDGs. We focus here on the internal issue of HOW to move forward with implementing FLR based on operational frameworks that are grounded in the core principles of FLR. 

Also note that line 70-71 in the first section addresses the link between FLR and the Sustainable Development Goals:

"FLR is widely viewed by international agencies and organizations as a means toward reaching the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations [9]...."