Translator Disclaimer
1 August 2017 Research Priorities for the Conservation and Sustainable Governance of Andean Forest Landscapes
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The long-term survival of Andean forest landscapes (AFL) and of their capacity to contribute to sustainable development in a context of global change requires integrated adaptation and mitigation responses informed by a thorough understanding of the dynamic and complex interactions between their ecological and social components. This article proposes a research agenda that can help guide AFL research efforts for the next 15 years. The agenda was developed between July 2015 and June 2016 through a series of workshops in Ecuador, Peru, and Switzerland and involved 48 researchers and development experts working on AFL from different disciplinary perspectives. Based on our review of current research and identification of pressing challenges for the conservation and sustainable governance of AFL, we propose a conceptual framework that draws on sustainability sciences and social–ecological systems research, and we identify a set of high-priority research goals and objectives organized into 3 broad categories: systems knowledge, target knowledge, and transformation knowledge. This paper is intended to be a reference for a broad array of actors engaged in policy, research, and implementation in the Andean region. We hope it will trigger collaborative research initiatives for the continued conservation and sustainable governance of AFL.

Introduction

The Andean mountain range extends for about 7000 km from Venezuela to Argentina and contains exceptional biodiversity. A triple pattern of decrease in temperature with increasing elevation, decrease in precipitation from the equator to lower southern latitudes, and variation in the geological history of Andean uplift results in extremely high biological diversity and explains the unique rapid succession of ecosystems and life forms found in the region (Parsons 1982; Lauer 1993; Josse et al 2009). High levels of species diversity and endemism in the region result not only from environmental heterogeneity, but also from complex evolutionary processes (Killeen et al 2007). In consequence, the Andes support the highest species richness of vascular plants, birds, and amphibians of Earth's biodiversity hotspots, and the region ranks second in reptile diversity (Myers et al 2000; Meyer et al 2015).

In this paper, Andean forests are defined as montane forests located between 500 m above sea level and the tree line, including tropical and subtropical forests of the central and northern Andes, as well as the temperate and Mediterranean forests found in the southern Andes (Cuesta et al 2009; Table 1 provides a glossary of terms used in this paper). The region's high biological diversity is mirrored by historical and current patterns of human occupation that have generated complex mosaics of social and ecological systems. As a result of the interaction between these systems, Andean forest landscapes (AFL) are heterogeneous areas that present remnants of Andean forest ecosystems interspersed with land-cover categories of anthropogenic origin (Mathez-Stiefel et al 2017).

TABLE 1 

Definitions of key terms. (Table continued on next page.)

i0276-4741-37-3-323-t01.tif

The unique biophysical and socioeconomic features of AFL qualify them as global priorities for conservation and sustainable management efforts and make target 15.4 of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically relevant to them: “By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development” (United Nations General Assembly 2015: 25). About 60 million people depend directly or indirectly on the ecosystem services provided by AFL (eg provision of timber, food, medicine, and fuelwood; local climate and water regulation; global climate regulation through carbon fixation and storage; and protection against natural disasters) (Cincotta et al 2000). Andean metropolises such as Bogota, La Paz, Quito, and Santiago de Chile have grown exponentially during the last decades and depend on the integrity of their surrounding ecosystems, particularly forests (Parsons 1982). As such, AFL are crucial to achieving many of the SDGs for the Andean region, including poverty reduction, increased food security, improved human wellbeing, effective climate action, and conservation of terrestrial ecosystems.

Features characteristic of mountain areas create specific challenges for sustainable management and governance. Steep environmental gradients, complex patterns of rainfall influenced by topography, and high potential for soil erosion and landslides are elements of the risk context to which Andean communities have been responding for centuries (Stadel 2008). Currently, AFL may be more affected by climate change than their surrounding lowlands. Indeed, there is evidence that temperature and precipitation patterns are likely to rapidly shift in the Andean region in the 21st century (Urrutia and Vuille 2009; Vuille et al 2015), with observed effects on Andean forests (Feeley et al 2011; Herzog et al 2011). Climate change is already affecting Andean production systems, requiring careful planning by local populations regarding use of their resource base in order to sustain key ecosystem services (Buytaert et al 2011; Postigo 2014).

AFL are currently changing at accelerated rates (Báez et al 2015; Duque et al 2015). They are exposed to and sensitive to a combination of impacts linked to (1) variations in key bioclimatic conditions for the functioning and persistence of biotic communities and (2) disturbances caused by changing land-use regimes (Bellard et al 2014). These anthropogenic disturbances are mainly linked to agricultural expansion, intensive and extensive cattle ranching, mining activities, and timber extraction (Sarmiento and Frolich 2002; Vargas 2008; Bebbington and Bury 2009; Bueno and Llambí 2015). The 5 tropical Andean countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) have lost at least 50,000 km2 of their initial montane forest cover (Mulligan 2010), largely due to forest clearing and the resulting degradation (Young 2009; Garavito et al 2012). These changes not only affect the ecological integrity of Andean forests, they also reduce the flow of benefits that local and extralocal human populations receive from these ecosystems.

The long-term survival of AFL and of their capacity to contribute to sustainable development in a context of global change requires integrated adaptation and mitigation responses from stakeholders working at different levels (Locatelli et al 2015). These responses should be informed by a thorough understanding of the ecological and social components of AFL, their complex interactions, and their dynamics. To this end, we present here a research agenda that can help, for the next 15 years, to guide research that informs efforts to achieve the SDGs in the Andean region. Based on a review of the current state of research and the identification of pressing challenges for the conservation and sustainable governance of AFL, we propose a conceptual framework and a set of high-priority research goals and objectives. This paper is intended to be a reference for a broad array of actors engaged in policy, research, and implementation in the Andean region. We hope it will trigger collaborative research initiatives for the continued conservation and sustainable governance of AFL.

Methodology

This research agenda was developed between July 2015 and June 2016 through a series of workshops that took place in Ecuador, Peru, and Switzerland and involved 48 researchers and development experts working on AFL. The process is detailed in Table 2, and a list of participants is provided in Table S1 (Supplemental material,  http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00093.S1).

TABLE 2 

Methods used to develop the research agenda.a)

i0276-4741-37-3-323-t02.tif

The first step was to develop a research approach and conceptual framework that could gather under a single umbrella the diverse disciplinary and interdisciplinary research needed to understand the complexity and dynamics of AFL and to shape strategies for its sustainable management. The resulting framework was elaborated based on scholarly work in sustainability sciences and social–ecological systems.

The second step was to gather insights from experts in academia and the nonprofit sector on current AFL knowledge gaps, challenges, and research priorities. This was done during 3 workshops conducted in Quito, Ecuador (29–31 July 2015), Lima, Peru (14 October 2015), and Bern, Switzerland (10 February 2016). The participants represented a wide array of disciplinary expertise (agronomy, botany, ethnobiology, forestry, geography, hydrology, plant ecology, political ecology, and sociology) and experience in diverse geographic contexts of the Andean region (Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela). The goal of these 3 events was to identify and prioritize research challenges and gaps that are relevant for the sustainable management of AFL. The conceptual framework developed in the first step was used to frame and orient the discussions.

In the Quito workshop, participants discussed research needs in 2 main areas: (1) the most relevant impacts of climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem function, and (2) opportunities and challenges for the effective restoration of Andean forests. In Lima, interdisciplinary working groups were asked to (1) discuss and revise the proposed conceptual framework, (2) list and prioritize the main challenges for the conservation and sustainable management of AFL, in a context of climate change, and (3) identify research objectives that would make it possible to address the main research gaps for each of the prioritized challenges. The results from the Lima workshop were discussed and further elaborated at the Bern workshop using a similar approach.

The third step consisted of synthesizing and integrating the results of the 3 workshops into research goals and objectives, according to the form of transdisciplinary knowledge to which they correspond, as described by Hirsch Hadorn et al (2006) and adapted to the mountain context by Mathez-Stiefel, Wymann von Dach, et al (2016) (Figure 1). Three categories of knowledge were considered:

  • 1.  Systems knowledge: understanding and describing how social–ecological systems work;

  • 2.  Target knowledge: defining with local stakeholders a common vision for sustainable governance;

  • 3.  Transformation knowledge: encapsulating the knowledge needed to shape the transition from current to envisioned practices.

FIGURE 1 

Knowledge for sustainable development in mountains. The arrows indicate that the forms of knowledge are not absolute types, as they feed into each other. (Source: reproduced from Mathez-Stiefel, Wymann von Dach, et al 2016)

i0276-4741-37-3-323-f01.tif

The experts who participated in the workshops were invited to provide additional feedback on this synthesis based on the current state of research. Based on this feedback, the final research agenda was produced. This agenda is presented below.

A research agenda for AFL

Conceptual framework

The production of new scientific knowledge in the search for solutions to the complex sustainability challenges faced by AFL requires innovative approaches that bridge disciplinary boundaries in the attempt to unravel the complexity and dynamics of AFL. It also requires the coproduction of knowledge by researchers, policymakers, and practitioners (Cornell et al 2013), as well as a nuanced understanding of the institutional arrangements and roles of stakeholders engaged in the mobilization of knowledge, from the collection of primary data to the analysis and application of complex information in policymaking (Grainger and Obersteiner 2011). Sustainability sciences can provide a conceptual framework that enables collaboration between the social and natural sciences, thus establishing a dialogue between the resulting integrative science and societal stakeholders involved in AFL governance through inter- and transdisciplinary research (Wiesmann et al 2008).

Sustainability sciences can be used to design a generic research platform based on a matrix with 3 dimensions: (1) core themes or stages (scientific understanding, sustainability goals, sustainability pathways); (2) cross-cutting approaches (problem-solving or critical research); and (3) any combination of sustainability challenges (eg climate change, deforestation, land degradation, and water scarcity) (Jerneck et al 2011). The core themes also correspond to the 3 knowledge categories that structure this research agenda: systems, target, and transformation knowledge (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Figure 1). Sustainability sciences aim to meet society's needs while conserving Earth's life-support systems (Jerneck et al 2011). Such an approach implies that AFL should be conceptualized as social–ecological systems, with properties arising from exchanges between subsystems and between the system as a whole and its environment (Halliday and Glaser 2011).

An adaptation of the social–ecological framework developed by McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) is proposed to structure sustainability-oriented research in AFL. This framework makes it possible to explore the complex links between people and resources at the system and individual levels, as well as the outcomes of decisions about resource use (Figure 2). While ecological research focuses on the processes and status of ecosystems and their interactions, social-science research focuses on the processes and institutional arrangements used to manage natural resources. Features of interest to both types of researchers are the different “action situations” (ways in which multiple actors transform resources; see McGinnis and Ostrom 2014) that arise in different livelihood systems. The interactions between participants in an action situation help to determine an array of social, economic, and environmental outcomes, including the resilience of the whole resource regime. These outcomes are valued differently by different actors, who “seek to achieve goals for themselves and for the communities [with] which they identify, but do so within the context of ubiquitous social dilemmas and biophysical constraints, as well as cognitive limitations and cultural predispositions” (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014: 2).

FIGURE 2 

Conceptualization of AFL as a social–ecological system. (Source: adapted from McGinnis and Ostrom 2014)

i0276-4741-37-3-323-f02.tif

The framework provides a way to study the feedbacks that occur from these interactions and outcomes, as well as the possible effects of exogenous influences (from related ecological systems or socioeconomic and political settings) acting on the system. For example, the effects of economic globalization, or the rules imposed by actors from outside the AFL (such as national governments) may have important impacts on AFL, their subsystems, or the interactions between them (Lambin et al 2003; Boillat et al 2017). The social–ecological systems of AFL should also be analyzed at different scales, depending on where decisions regarding the resources are made or where elements of the system interact (Scholes et al 2013).

Based on this framework, the following sections present the goals and objectives proposed for future research in AFL, citing recent studies where relevant to specific research themes. These research priorities are summarized in Table 3, along with the specific SDG targets to which they can contribute directly or indirectly.

TABLE 3 

Research priorities and the corresponding SDG targets. (Table continued on next page.)

i0276-4741-37-3-323-t03.tif

Priorities in systems knowledge

1 Understand the impacts of global socio-environmental change on the composition, structure, and functions of AFL: Our knowledge of the dynamics of the resource systems related to AFL—in particular, the biological diversity, ecophysiology, species interactions, and drivers of change in Andean forest ecosystems—needs to be improved. Entire groups of organisms (eg birds and mammals) and ecological interactions under pressure due to global environmental change remain virtually unexplored in the Andes (Báez et al 2016). Despite recent progress, knowledge remains fragmented and needs to be better synthesized. A systematic review of the impacts of socio-environmental change on Andean forest ecosystem processes is needed, including an analysis of patterns, both at well-studied sites and in poorly investigated forest ecosystems. For example, elevational migration of Andean plant species associated with rising temperatures has been documented in some areas (Feeley et al 2011; Duque et al 2015); however, its consequences for forest dynamics and ecosystem functioning (Báez et al 2015) and plant interactions are poorly understood (Alexander et al 2015).

Critical research areas include ecotones (eg the upper forest limit or tree line), interspecific interactions (eg competition, facilitation, pollination, and plant–microbial interactions), ecosystem recovery after human alterations or changes in disturbance types and cycles (eg drought, replacement of forests by African pastures, and fires), and responses to changes in biogeochemical processes (eg nitrogen and phosphorus cycling). Particular emphasis should be given to the study of resource systems that require additional attention due to their uniqueness, restricted distribution, or conservation status, including dry forests (Linares-Palomino et al 2011; Banda et al 2016). A key methodological consideration relates to elevational and latitudinal gradients of precipitation, fog presence, and horizontal precipitation (Killeen et al 2007; Urrutia and Vuille 2009; Huasco et al 2014). At smaller spatial scales, environmental moisture also varies greatly, from humid to xeric conditions (Killeen et al 2007; Kessler et al 2011). For example, recent research at the upper forest line has shown that shrubs can facilitate the establishment of forest trees both in natural areas above the tree line and in disturbed areas such as agricultural fields, highlighting the potential of nurse-plant interactions for promoting ecological restoration in degraded areas (Bueno and Llambí 2015).

In this category, the following research objectives should be prioritized:

2 Characterize linkages and interactions between complex social and environmental dynamics in AFL: AFL composition and dynamism are being altered as a result of a combination of global, regional, and local changes in climatic and socioeconomic drivers (Young 2009). As a result, a key dimension of this research goal relates to the importance of historic, current, and likely future drivers of change as they promote social and ecological changes.

Robust information is needed related to spatial and temporal patterns of land-use and land-cover change. This requires monitoring of forests and forest use, historical analyses, and development of predictive capabilities (Ponce-Reyes et al 2013; Ortega-Andrade et al 2015). Special attention should be paid to the socioeconomic and political context, as economic, demographic, political, technological, and market-related dynamics are not yet systematically understood. For example, disentangling the relative effects of social, institutional, and economic drivers of deforestation and forest degradation is important to develop sound policies at local to national scales. The effects of land tenure and other factors that influence patterns of access to and use of land resources have been studied for lowland tropical forests (eg Holland et al 2017), but less is known about AFL. While research on AFL actors has progressed somewhat, research on specific governance features—such as formal property rights; tenure structures; informal use rights and related social network structures; public, private, and common-pool resource management organizations and their interactions; and structures of and rationales for incentives and sanctions—remains fragmented.

In this category, the following research objectives should be prioritized:

  • 2.1. Understand the implications of processes of socioeconomic change—including urbanization, migration of human populations to urban areas, and integration in the market economy—on patterns of access to and use of resources (Clark et al 2012; Aide et al 2013; Chazdon et al 2016). Special attention should be paid to the impacts of large-scale exploitation of subsoil resources (Kuecker 2007; Bebbington and Bury 2009).

  • 2.2. Characterize the main proximate causes, underlying drivers, and differentiated trajectories of tree cover change, including forest conversion, natural regeneration, and restoration, from farm to landscape scales (Munroe et al 2013; Peralvo and Cuesta 2014; Lerner et al 2015). In particular, tree-line dynamics under different land-use regimes should be studied as a way to monitor and evaluate changes in habitat fragmentation and connectivity and system response to global environmental change (Young and León 2007; Rehm and Feeley 2013; Tapia-Armijos et al 2015).

  • 2.3. Improve the understanding of past and present landscape dynamics (Lutz et al 2013), considering land-use and land-cover change, natural resource use regimes (eg timber extraction), population growth, and the implications of the potential for novel ecosystems to expand (Hobbs et al 2006).

  • 2.4. Study the influence of climate variables on the vulnerability of livelihoods, production chains, and ecosystem services (Young and Lipton 2006; Balthazar et al 2015).

  • 2.5. Analyze the governance processes (eg land tenure types and formal and informal norms) and household dynamics that frame the use and management of forests and other natural resources (Andersson 2003; Rival 2003; Hofstede et al 2010).

  • 2.6. Characterize the differences in availability of non-timber forest products in different social–ecological contexts along environmental and biophysical gradients (Báez et al 2010; Sundqvist et al 2013; Asner et al 2014).

3 Analyze the impact of AFL governance and management practices on livelihoods and ecosystem services: It is important to focus on action situations and assess the sustainability of their outcomes—for example, their effect on the provision of critical ecosystem services such as water regulation. The relationships among ecosystem services, livelihoods, and the effectiveness of forestry and agroforestry practices are poorly understood (Chaudhary et al 2016). More knowledge is needed about how specific governance dynamics and management practices are related to justice (social, intragenerational, and intergenerational) or actor-specific livelihood outcomes. It is also necessary to understand how forest management practices (eg rotation systems and selective logging) and forest cover change (eg forest conversion to cropland and pastures, and reforestation with exotic or local species) affect biodiversity, carbon sequestration, hydrologic functions, and other key ecosystem services. For example, in the Ecuadorian AFL, areas where assisted restoration has been implemented contain more animal-dispersed species and species useful to humans in both the canopy and understory than naturally regenerating areas (Wilson and Rhemtulla 2016). Human intervention in and management of succession may thus prove vital to the conservation and restoration of ecosystem services.

In this category, the following research objectives should be prioritized:

  • 3.1. Analyze how landscape management strengthens local livelihoods (eg through the provision of diversified goods such as fodder, fuelwood, food, or medicinal plants) (Postigo et al 2008).

  • 3.2. Determine what factors (eg tenure regimes, community bylaws, use of traditional knowledge, value chains and their governance, and ecotourism development) ensure that local livelihoods benefit from sustainable management (Parraguez Vergara and Barton 2013).

  • 3.3. Assess synergies and trade-offs among competing management goals and the impacts of associated practices on biodiversity and key ecosystem services, including timber and non-timber forest products (Raboin and Posner 2012), water regulation (Celleri and Feyen 2009), soil fertility (Harden et al 2013), and carbon sequestration (Gibbon et al 2010).

  • 3.4. Analyze the effects of alternative management regimes—for example, the management of agrobiodiversity (Zimmerer 2010) and the use of vegetation for water regulation or prevention of landslides (Robledo et al 2004)—on local communities' resilience to climate change and natural disasters.

Priorities in target knowledge

4 Define sustainability goals for the management of AFL: To identify pathways to greater sustainability, there is first a need to develop, in conjunction with place- and non-place-based stakeholders, a joint vision that can guide policy, practices, and planning strategies in a rapidly changing context. Two types of research are needed to support this process. First, actor-specific perceptions, knowledge, values, and identities need to be made explicit. (These vary among, for example, farmers, forest managers, and providers and receivers of ecosystem services; both individuals and collective entities can be considered actors.) These are crucial attributes that guide the definition of concepts and concrete sustainability indicators as well as the framing of specific action situations (Pohl et al 2017). Second, common normative grounds need to be found and enhanced through dialogue and social learning on sustainability (Gómez 2015), which should result from the transdisciplinary and multiscale integration of knowledge from researchers, local land users, and policymakers. This could be done through face-to-face or virtual knowledge platforms and/or workshops and other consultations. Given the profound implications of greenhouse gas emissions from the global North for AFL and the people living in them, there is an element of environmental justice involved (Adger 2001).

In this category, the following research objectives should be prioritized:

Priorities in transformation knowledge

5 Promote robust place-based governance models to support sustainability goals in AFL: Sustainable management requires governance models that include a broad set of practices and the involvement of stakeholders at multiple scales with different, sometimes conflicting, territorial interests, often rooted in asymmetrical power relations. A place-based governance that builds on local identities to promote the inclusion of marginalized social groups is necessary to attain outcomes that are both equitable and effective in achieving sustainability goals (Thomas and Twyman 2005). Knowledge of key attributes of the resource and governance systems is needed to assess inclusion and to promote effective governance, especially in relation to sustainability outcomes (Cash et al 2006). In the Andean countries, inclusive and robust place-based governance faces the challenge of integrating different scales of land-use planning, past environmental and social injustices, prioritization of national strategic projects, and informal local institutions that mediate land and resource use.

In this category, the following research objectives should be prioritized:

  • 5.1. Identify the elements required to promote inclusive place-based governance models, adapted to the local context, that consider the power asymmetries among actors, the natural context, and the maintenance of local livelihoods (Young and Lipton 2006; Hill 2013).

  • 5.2. Compare institutional arrangements that engage the public sector, local communities, and market actors in the design of compensation schemes for goods and services (Ebeling and Yasué 2009).

  • 5.3. Propose adequate combinations of input-related incentives (eg training, land tenure security, access to credit, and land-use planning) and output-related incentives (eg payments for environmental services and access to value chains) that support maintenance of ecosystem services and economic development (Quintero et al 2009; Thiele et al 2011).

  • 5.4. Identify local knowledge and legal instruments that can support institutional change and collective action for sustainable governance (Valdivia et al 2010; Shanee et al 2015; Buytaert et al 2016).

  • 5.5. Assess the barriers to the participation of different actors, in particular women and other marginalized groups, in bodies of environmental governance (eg protected area management committees and municipal and regional environmental commissions) (Salas Laines 2011; Mathez-Stiefel, Ayquipa-Valenzuela, et al 2016).

6 Promote the sustainable governance of AFL at different scales: Scaling-up local experiences (eg management practices and governance arrangements) to landscape, national, or regional levels is often a stated goal for interventions that promote the sustainable governance of natural resources (Cash et al 2006). Yet, what works well in one place may not necessarily function in another, due to social or ecological differences, which are especially pronounced in mountain areas. It is also necessary to take into account the specificities of local contexts when assessing socioeconomic and political factors that shape national policies, and this may not lead to simple universal mandates or procedures, either. One approach would be to evaluate the effects of local bottlenecks that hinder the implementation of national policies (eg competing economic priorities and socio-environmental conflicts).

Overall, there is a need to explicitly consider the institutional arrangements, power relations, and other processes that promote or hinder the intended effects of these interventions at both local and national/regional levels of policymaking and implementation (Rist et al 2007). Special attention should be paid to successful socioeconomic innovations that have been tested in local contexts and have the potential to be scaled up or replicated elsewhere. In the Ecuadorian Andes, for instance, agro-industrial floriculture has proven resilient to changes in global trade patterns and climate, and it has provided opportunities for employment, reducing outmigration (Knapp 2017). Another recent initiative in Ecuador has focused on alternative market channels with direct exchanges between local producers and buyers in weekly markets, to increase food sovereignty and strengthen social networks (Padilla and García 2016).

In this category, the following research objectives should be prioritized:

  • 6.1. Develop and test ways to up- and out-scale local solutions (eg management innovations and traditional practices) to the national or regional level.

  • 6.2. Develop and apply approaches that integrate knowledge produced by different actors at multiple scales (eg integration of traditional and new technologies in a way that is appropriate for local contexts) through social learning processes (Rist et al 2007). This can be done through the use of multistakeholder learning tools (Rist et al 2009) and the promotion of science–policy interfaces (López-Rodríguez 2016).

  • 6.3. Improve the mechanisms through which national and regional policies are implemented in diverse local contexts (Moss and Newing 2010), focusing on different institutional management schemes (eg community based, private, and public) (Swift et al 2004; Shanee et al 2015). Particular attention should be paid to the integration of forest users' and local communities' interests into regional and national processes of land-use planning (Norris 2014; Zimmerer and Bell 2015).

  • 6.4. Facilitate the diffusion of synthesis information about the importance of AFL, their sustainability challenges, and their links with livelihoods and ecosystem services to inform decision-making in national and regional agendas, particularly those dealing with climate change adaptation and mitigation, and large national projects that draw on AFL resources (Andersson 2003; Rival 2003; Llambí et al 2005).

7 Promote restoration in AFL: Landscape restoration is a fundamental strategy to recover and maintain the ecological functions of forests and landscapes (eg species composition and diversity, water regulation and provision, and carbon storage) under future environmental conditions. Restoration has recently been given higher priority in the land-use and forestry agendas of Latin American countries, which committed at the 20th Conference of Parties in Lima in 2014 to Initiative 20×20, an effort to restore more than 20 million hectares of degraded land by 2020. Promoting effective restoration as part of a broader set of strategies for sustainable land management requires detailed systems knowledge about Andean forest ecosystem dynamics, the functioning of anthropogenic systems, and the socio-institutional aspects of restoration. It also requires transformation knowledge, which should be produced with local and external stakeholders to validate the systems knowledge and to define restoration goals, as described in research objective 4.4. above.

In this category, the following research objectives should be prioritized:

  • 7.1. Identify the main potentials, bottlenecks, and enabling institutional conditions for restoration by critically reviewing, through a multistakeholder participatory process, existing initiatives in the region. This should include consideration of how restored forests can contribute to mitigation and adaptation, as well as their resilience under future climate scenarios.

  • 7.2. Compare active restoration approaches with the self-regeneration capacity of degraded forest (secondary succession pathways) after different forms and durations of use (Chazdon et al 2016; Wilson and Rhemtulla 2016).

  • 7.3. Compare the impacts of different restoration practices (eg natural regeneration, reforestation with exotic or local species, restoration of remnant forest, and planting of trees on farms) on key ecosystem services and livelihoods (Hofstede et al 2002; Farley 2007; Wilson and Rhemtulla 2016), and draw conclusions for action from local to landscape scales.

  • 7.4. Through stakeholder participation, define a common set of criteria to assess the success of efforts to restore forest biodiversity and functions (eg species composition and ecosystem services) by comparing restored areas with natural forest, and identify suitable indicator taxa (Fehse et al 2002; Báez et al 2010; Orsi et al 2011; Spracklen and Righelato 2016; Wilson and Rhemtulla 2016).

  • 7.5. Identify and validate with stakeholders locally developed and adapted technical approaches (eg related to tree seedling production, planting techniques, and introduction of nurse plants) for the restoration of altered ecosystems, considering the wide range of social and environmental conditions in the AFL (Aide et al 2010; Gómez-Ruiz et al 2013; Anthelme et al 2014; Bueno and Llambí 2015).

  • 7.6. Develop concepts and tools to identify areas where ecosystem restoration has the potential to maintain and enhance connections between Andean forest remnant patches (Anthelme et al 2014; Wilson and Rhemtulla 2016) and with the Amazon Basin, or to provide the maximum benefits to human populations (Orsi et al 2011), or where it can be compensated through payment-for-environmental-services schemes.

The way forward

A combination of contributions from different research fields to systems, target, and transformation knowledge is urgently needed to support decision-making and guide future interventions in AFL, in order to contribute to sustainable development in the Andes. Improving our understanding of AFL social–ecological systems requires both specialized disciplinary studies to address specific knowledge gaps (eg focusing on AFL subsystems) and interdisciplinary approaches to further disentangle the dynamic interactions among social, economic, ecologic, and political factors, as well as the links between actor interactions and related outcomes. The production of target knowledge for increased sustainability in AFL requires a transdisciplinary dialogue among actors from academia, civil society, and governments at different levels about sustainability goals and the trade-offs between multiple outcomes. Learning from the knowledge, technological skills, and experiences of local people and practitioners will be crucial for the generation of transformation knowledge (Zinngrebe 2016). Finally, it will be essential to focus on both knowledge production and concrete interventions, in a practice of reflexive governance that challenges the normative base of both (Voss and Bauknecht 2006).

The scientific knowledge produced by the proposed research agenda may contribute to a large number of SDGs and targets, as shown in Table 3, with special relevance for Goal 15 (protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss), but also for Goals 1 (end poverty), 2 (achieve food security and promote sustainable agriculture), 5 (achieve gender equality), 6 (achieve availability and sustainable management of water), 8 (promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth), 10 (reduce inequality), 12 (ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns), and 13 (take action to combat climate change and its impacts) (United Nations General Assembly 2015). To contribute to achieving the SDGs in the Andean region, we recommend that research in AFL focus on the action situations, where the links between resource systems and governance systems are concretized, as well as on their outcomes in terms of synergies and trade-offs among ecosystem services and livelihood benefits for Andean populations.

Our review and discussions showed that there is relatively little experience with such integrated research in the Andes, and that the necessary institutions may not yet exist. Meeting the proposed goals will require commitment to their achievement as well as enhancements to educational, research, and management capabilities. Also necessary is the strengthening of platforms for collaboration and knowledge exchange among researchers and practitioners in the region (eg the Andean Forest Network), which would facilitate the synthesis of long-term monitoring information on the regional variability of Andean forest ecosystems (Peralvo and Bustamante 2015) and help coordinate comparative integrated studies.

Strategies must also be developed to improve communication and dissemination of knowledge about the value of AFL and their critical role in biodiversity conservation, livelihood benefits, and other ecosystem services, and their projected responses to global processes of change. This knowledge should inform landholders, policymakers, and other stakeholders on mechanisms for achieving multiple objectives in AFL and reconciling the imperatives of environmental conservation and socioeconomic development. More specifically, the knowledge produced by this research may facilitate the inclusion of managed or restored AFL in climate change mitigation and other national programs (eg the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation program and National Adaptation Plans).

This research agenda is not exhaustive and does not identify all the gaps in research on the complexity of AFL. It is a living document that should be iteratively adapted as the context and needs of AFL stakeholders evolve. We believe that the conceptual framework and many of the research priorities presented here may also apply to other mountain areas of the developing world, in light of their many commonalities with the Andean region, including the most important drivers of changes in forest landscapes. However, the process of developing a regionally adapted research agenda should not be bypassed, because sustainability goals will inevitably vary over time, across space, and among actors, and a sustainability research agenda will thus only be legitimate if it is the product of a local, evidence-informed dialogue.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research agenda presented in this paper was developed in the framework of the Andean Forest Program, financed by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, in a collaborative arrangement between the Centre for Development and Environment of the University of Bern, the Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion, and HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, with contributions from 48 experts working on Andean forest landscapes. An adaptation of this research agenda was published in Spanish and is available at:  www.bosquesandinos.org/nueva-publicacion-hacia-la-conservacion-y-la-gobernanza-sostenible-de-los-paisajes-de-bosques-andinos-una-agenda-de-investigacion/. The authors express their sincere gratitude to all participants for their time and valuable contributions, as well as to the reviewers and editors of this Focus Issue on “Mountain Forests and the SDGs” for their insightful comments.

REFERENCES

  1. Adger WN. 2001. Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Journal of International Development 13:921–931. Google Scholar

  2. Aide TM, Clark ML, Grau HR, López-Carr D, Levy MA, Redo D, Bonilla-Moheno M, Riner G, Andrade-Núñez MJ, Muñiz M. 2013. Deforestation and reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001–2010). Biotropica 45:262–271. Google Scholar

  3. Aide TM, Ruiz-Jaen MC, Grau HR. 2010. What is the state of tropical montane cloud forest restoration. In: Bruijnzeel LA, Scatena FN, Hamilton LS, editors. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp 101–109. Google Scholar

  4. Alexander JM, Diez JM, Levine JM. 2015. Novel competitors shape species' responses to climate change. Nature 525:515–518.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14952Google Scholar

  5. Andersson K. 2003. What motivates municipal governments? Uncovering the institutional incentives for municipal governance of forest resources in Bolivia. The Journal of Environment & Development 12(1):5–27. Google Scholar

  6. Anthelme F, Gómez-Aparicio L, Montúfar R. 2014. Nurse-based restoration of degraded tropical forests with tussock grasses: Experimental support from the Andean cloud forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(6):1534–1543. Google Scholar

  7. Asner GP, Anderson CB, Martin RE, Knapp DE, Tupayachi R, Sinca F, Malhi Y. 2014. Landscape-scale changes in forest structure and functional traits along an Andes-to-Amazon elevation gradient. Biogeosciences 11:843–856. Google Scholar

  8. Ataroff M, Rada F. 2000. Deforestation impact on water dynamics in a Venezuelan Andean cloud forest. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29:440–444. Google Scholar

  9. Bader MY, van Geloof I, Rietkerk M. 2007. High solar radiation hinders tree regeneration above the alpine treeline in northern Ecuador. Plant Ecology 191:33–45. Google Scholar

  10. Báez S, Ambrose K, Hofstede R. 2010. Ecological and social bases for the restoration of a high Andean cloud forest: Preliminary results and lessons from a case study in northern Ecuador. In: Bruijnzeel LA, Scatena FN, Hamilton LS, editors. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp 628–637. Google Scholar

  11. Báez S, Jaramillo L, Cuesta F, Donoso D. 2016. Effects of climate change on Andean biodiversity: A synthesis of studies published until 2015. Neotropical Biodiversity 2:181–194. Google Scholar

  12. Báez S, Malizia A, Carilla J, Blundo C, Aguilar M, Aguirre N, Aquirre Z, Álvarez E, Cuesta F, Duque Á, Farfán-Ríos W. 2015. Large-scale patterns of turnover and basal area change in Andean forests. PloS One 10(5):e0126594. Google Scholar

  13. Balthazar V, Vanacker V, Molina A, Lambin EF. 2015. Impacts of forest cover change on ecosystem services in high Andean mountains. Ecological Indicators 48:63–75. Google Scholar

  14. Banda RK, Delgado-Salinas A, Dexter KG, Linares-Palomino R, Oliveira-Filho A, Prado D, Pullan M, Quintana C, Riina R, Rodríguez GM, Weintritt J, Acevedo-Rodríguez P, Adarve J, Álvarez E, Aranguren B, et al. 2016. Plant diversity patterns in Neotropical dry forests and their conservation implications. Science 353:1383–1387. Google Scholar

  15. Bebbington AJ, Bury JT. 2009. Institutional challenges for mining and sustainability in Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(41):17296–17301. Google Scholar

  16. Becker A, Körner C, Brun J-J, Guisan A, Tappeiner U. 2007. Ecological and land use studies along elevational gradients. Mountain Research and Development 27:58–65. Google Scholar

  17. Bellard C, Leclerc C, Leroy B, Bakkenes M, Veloz S, Thuiller W, Courchamp F. 2014. Vulnerability of biodiversity hotspots to global change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23(12):1376–1386. Google Scholar

  18. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications 10:1251–1262. Google Scholar

  19. Berkes F, Folke C. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  20. Boillat S, Berkes F. 2013. Perception and interpretation of climate change among Quechua farmers of Bolivia: Indigenous knowledge as a resource for adaptive capacity. Ecology and Society 18(4):21. Google Scholar

  21. Boillat S, Mathez-Stiefel S-L, Rist S. 2013. Linking local knowledge, conservation practices and ecosystem diversity: Comparing two communities in the Tunari National Park (Bolivia). Ethnobiology and Conservation 2(8):1–28. Google Scholar

  22. Boillat S, Scarpa FM, Robson JP, Gasparri I, Aide TM, Aguiar APD, Anderson LO, Batistella M, Fonseca MG, Futemma C, Grau HR, Mathez-Stiefel S-L, Metzger JP, Ometto JPHB, Pedlowski MA, et al. 2017. Land systems science in Latin America: Challenges and perspectives. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27:37–46. Google Scholar

  23. Brandt R, Mathez-Stiefel S-L, Lachmuth S, Hensen I, Rist S. 2013. Knowledge and valuation of Andean agroforestry species: The role of sex, age, and migration among members of a rural community in Bolivia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9:83. Google Scholar

  24. Brandt R, Zimmermann H, Hensen I, Mariscal Castro JC, Rist S. 2012. Agroforestry species of the Bolivian Andes: An integrated assessment of ecological, economic and socio-cultural plant values. Agroforestry Systems 86(1):1–16. Google Scholar

  25. Bruijnzeel L, Kappelle M, Mulligan M, Scatena F. 2010. Tropical montane cloud forests: State of knowledge and sustainability perspectives in a changing world. In: Bruijnzeel LA, Scatena FN, Hamilton LS, editors. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp 691–740. Google Scholar

  26. Bueno A, Llambí LD. 2015. Facilitation and edge effects influence vegetation regeneration in old-fields at the tropical Andean forest-line. Applied Vegetation Science 18(4):613–623. Google Scholar

  27. Bush MB, Hanselman JA, Hooghiemstra H. 2007. Andean montane forests and climate change. In: Bush M, Flenley J, Gosling W, editors. Tropical Rainforest Responses to Climatic Change. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp 35–60. Google Scholar

  28. Buytaert W, Cuesta-Camacho F, Tobón C. 2011. Potential impacts of climate change on the environmental services of humid tropical alpine regions. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20(1):19–33. Google Scholar

  29. Buytaert W, Dewulf A, De Bièvre B, Clark J, Hannah DM. 2016. Citizen science for water resources management: Toward polycentric monitoring and governance?Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 142(4):1–4. Google Scholar

  30. Cárate-Tandalla D, Leuschner C, Homeier J. 2015. Performance of seedlings of a shade-tolerant tropical tree species after moderate addition of N and P. Frontiers in Earth Science 3:75. Google Scholar

  31. Cash D, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young OR. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11(2):8. Google Scholar

  32. Celleri R, Feyen J. 2009. The hydrology of tropical Andean ecosystems: Importance, knowledge status, and perspectives. Mountain Research and Development 29:350–355. Google Scholar

  33. Chaudhary A, Burivalova Z, Koh LP, Hellweg S. 2016. Impact of forest management on species richness: Global meta-analysis and economic trade-offs. Scientific Reports 6:23954. Google Scholar

  34. Chazdon RL, Broadbent EN, Rozendaal DMA, Bongers F, Zambrano AMA, Aide TM, Balvanera P, Becknell JM, Boukili V, Brancalion PHS, Craven D, Almeida-Cortez JS, Cabral GAL, de Jong B, Denslow JS, et al. 2016. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Science Advances 2(5):e1501639. Google Scholar

  35. Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R. 2000. Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404(6781):990–992. Google Scholar

  36. Clark ML, Aide TM, Riner G. 2012. Land change for all municipalities in Latin America and the Caribbean assessed from 250-m MODIS imagery (2001–2010). Remote Sensing of Environment 126:84–103. Google Scholar

  37. Connell JH, Slatyer R. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Society of Naturalists 111(982):1119–1144. Google Scholar

  38. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto IM. 2013. Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environmental Science & Policy 28:60–70. Google Scholar

  39. Cuesta F, Peralvo M, Valarezo N. 2009. Los Bosques Montanos de los Andes Tropicales. Quito, Ecuador; Lima, Peru; La Paz, Bolivia: Programa Regional Ecobona-Intercooperation, Agencia Suiza para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo. Google Scholar

  40. dos Reis MS, Ladio A, Peroni N. 2014. Landscapes with Araucaria in South America: Evidence for a cultural dimension. Ecology and Society 19(2):43. Google Scholar

  41. Duque A, Stevenson PR, Feeley KJ. 2015. Thermophilization of adult and juvenile tree communities in the northern tropical Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(34):10744–10749. Google Scholar

  42. Ebeling J, Yasué M. 2009. The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: Forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia. Journal of Environmental Management 90(2):1145–1153. Google Scholar

  43. Ellis F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

  44. Escobedo FJ, Clerici N, Staudhammer CL, Corzo GT. 2015. Socio-ecological dynamics and inequality in Bogotá, Colombia's public urban forests and their ecosystem services. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 14(4):1040–1053. Google Scholar

  45. Farley KA. 2007. Grasslands to tree plantations: Forest transition in the Andes of Ecuador. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97:755–771. Google Scholar

  46. Feeley KJ, Silman MR, Bush M, Farfan W, Garcia Cabrera K, Malhi Y, Meir P, Revilla NS, Raurau Quisiyupanqui MN, Saatchi S. 2011. Upslope migration of Andean trees. Journal of Biogeography 38:783–791. Google Scholar

  47. Fehse J, Hofstede R, Aguirre N, Paladines C, Kooijman A, Sevink J. 2002. High altitude tropical secondary forests: A competitive carbon sink?Forest Ecology and Management 163(1):9–25. Google Scholar

  48. Garavito NT, Álvarez E, Caro SA, Murakami AA, Blundo C, Espinoza TB, Cuadros MLT, Gaviria J, Gutíerrez N, Jørgensen PM, León B. 2012. Evaluación del estado de conservación de los bosques montanos en los Andes tropicales. Revista Ecosistemas 21(1–2):148–166. Google Scholar

  49. Gibbon A, Silman MR, Malhi Y, Fisher JB, Meir P, Zimmermann M, Dargie GC, Farfan WR, Garcia KC. 2010. Ecosystem carbon storage across the grassland–forest transition in the high Andes of Manu National Park, Peru. Ecosystems 13:1097–1111. Google Scholar

  50. Gómez FFG. 2015. Learning and adaptation as conservation practices in resilient traditional socio-ecological systems: The Elder Brothers of Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. Revista de Tecnología 12(1):99–109. Google Scholar

  51. Gómez-Ruiz PA, Lindig-Cisneros R, Vargas-Ríos O. 2013. Facilitation among plants: A strategy for the ecological restoration of the high-Andean forest (Bogotá, DC—Colombia). Ecological Engineering 57:267–275. Google Scholar

  52. Gosling WD, Hanselman JA, Christopher K, Valencia BG, Mark BG. 2009. Long-term drivers of change in Polylepis woodland distribution in the central Andes. Journal of Vegetation Science 20:1041–1052. Google Scholar

  53. Grainger A, Obersteiner M. 2011. A framework for structuring the global forest monitoring landscape in the REDD+ era. Environmental Science & Policy 14(2):127–139. Google Scholar

  54. Halliday A, Glaser M. 2011. A management perspective on social ecological systems: A generic system model and its application to a case study from Peru. Human Ecology Review 18(1):1–18. Google Scholar

  55. Harden CP, Hartsig J, Farley KA, Lee J, Bremer LL. 2013. Effects of land-use change on water in Andean paramo grassland soils. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103:375–384. Google Scholar

  56. Herzog SK, Martínez R, Jørgensen PM, Tiessen H. 2011. Climate Change and Biodiversity in the Tropical Andes. Sao José dos Campos, Brazil: Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research and Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment. Google Scholar

  57. Hill M. 2013. Adaptive capacity of water governance: Cases from the Alps and the Andes. Mountain Research and Development 33(3):248–259. Google Scholar

  58. Hirsch Hadorn G, Bradley D, Pohl C, Rist S, Wiesmann U. 2006. Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics 60(1):119–128. Google Scholar

  59. Hobbs RJ, Arico S, Aronson J, Baron JS, Bridgewater P, Cramer VA, Epstein PR, Ewel JJ, Klink CA, Lugo AE, Norton D, Ojima D, Richardson DM, Sanderson EW, Valladares F, et al. 2006. Novel ecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15:1–7. Google Scholar

  60. Hofstede R, Báez S, Ambrose K, Cueva K. 2010. Biodiversity-based livelihoods in the ceja andina forest zone of northern Ecuador: Multi-stakeholder learning processes for the sustainable use of cloud forest areas. In: Bruijnzeel LA, Scatena FN, Hamilton LS, editors. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp 644–651. Google Scholar

  61. Hofstede RG, Groenendijk JP, Coppus R, Fehse JC, Sevink J. 2002. Impact of pine plantations on soils and vegetation in the Ecuadorian high Andes. Mountain Research and Development 22:159–167. Google Scholar

  62. Holland MB, Jones KW, Naughton-Treves L, Freire J-L, Morales M, Suárez L. 2017. Titling land to conserve forests: The case of Cuyabeno Reserve in Ecuador. Global Environmental Change 44:27–38. Google Scholar

  63. Homeier J, Báez S, Hertel D, Leuschner C. 2017. Editorial: Tropical forest ecosystem responses to increasing nutrient availability. Frontiers in Earth Science 5:27. Google Scholar

  64. Homeier J, Breckle S-W, Günter S, Rollenbeck RT, Leuschner C. 2010. Tree diversity, forest structure and productivity along altitudinal and topographical gradients in a species-rich Ecuadorian montane rain forest. Biotropica 42:140–148. Google Scholar

  65. Homeier J, Hertel D, Camenzind T, Cumbicus NL, Maraun M, Martinson GO, Poma LN, Rillig MC, Sandmann D, Scheu S, Veldkamp E, Wilcke W, Wullaert H, Leuschner C. 2012. Tropical Andean forests are highly susceptible to nutrient inputs? Rapid effects of experimental N and P addition to an Ecuadorian montane forest. PLoS ONE 7:e47128. Google Scholar

  66. Homeier J, Werner FA, Gawlik J, Peters T, Diertl K-HJ, Richter M. 2013. Plant diversity and its relevance for the provision of ecosystem services. In: Bendix J, Beck E, Bräuning A, Makeschin F, Mosandl R, Scheu S, Wilcke W, editors. Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Environmental Change in a Tropical Mountain Ecosystem of South Ecuador. Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp 93–106. Google Scholar

  67. Huasco WH, Girardin CAJ, Doughty CE, Metcalfe DB, Baca LD, Silva-Espejo JE, Cabrera DG, Aragão LEOC, Davila AR, Marthews TR, Huaraca-Quispe LP, Alzamora-Taype I, Mora LE, Farfán-Rios W, Cabrera KG. 2014. Seasonal production, allocation and cycling of carbon in two mid-elevation tropical montane forest plots in the Peruvian Andes. Plant Ecology & Diversity 7:125–142. Google Scholar

  68. Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lövbrand E, Persson J. 2011. Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science 6(1):69–82. Google Scholar

  69. Josse C, Cuesta F, Navarro G, Barrena V, Cabrera E, Chacon-Moreno E, Ferreira W, Peralvo M, Saito J, Tovar A. 2009. Ecosistemas de los Andes del Norte y Centro: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru y Venezuela. Lima, Peru: Consortium for Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion (CONDESAN). Google Scholar

  70. Kessler K, Grytnes J-A, Halloy SRP, Kluge J, Krömer T, León B, Macía MJ, Young KR. 2011. Gradients of plant diversity: Local patterns and processes. In: Herzog SK, Martínez R, Jørgensen PM, Tiessen H, editors. Climate Change and Biodiversity in the Tropical Andes. Montevideo, Uruguay: Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research and Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, pp 204–219. Google Scholar

  71. Killeen TJ, Douglas M, Consiglio T, Jørgensen PM, Mejia J. 2007. Dry spots and wet spots in the Andean hotspot. Journal of Biogeography 34(8):1357–1373. Google Scholar

  72. Knapp G. 2017. Mountain agriculture for global markets: The case of greenhouse floriculture in Ecuador. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107(2):511–519. Google Scholar

  73. Körner C. 1998. A re-assessment of high elevation treeline positions and their explanation. Oecologia 115(4):445–459.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004420050540Google Scholar

  74. Kuecker GD. 2007. Fighting for the forests: Grassroots resistance to mining in northern Ecuador. Latin American Perspectives 34(2):94–107. Google Scholar

  75. Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Lepers E. 2003. Dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28(1):205–241. Google Scholar

  76. Lauer W. 1993. Human development and environment in the Andes: A geoecological overview. Mountain Research and Development 13(2):157–166. Google Scholar

  77. Lemos M, Agrawal A. 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31:297–325. Google Scholar

  78. Lerner AM, Rudel TK, Schneider LC, McGroddy M, Burbano DV, Mena CF. 2015. The spontaneous emergence of silvo-pastoral landscapes in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Patterns and processes. Regional Environmental Change 15:1421–1431. Google Scholar

  79. Linares-Palomino R, Oliveira-Filho AT, Pennington RT. 2011. Neotropical seasonally dry forests: Diversity, endemism, and biogeography of woody plants. In: Dirzo R, Young HS, Mooney HA, Ceballos G, editors. Seasonally Dry Tropical Forests: Ecology and Conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press and Center for Resource Economics, pp 3–21. Google Scholar

  80. Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516. Google Scholar

  81. Llambí LD, Puentes Aguilar J, García-Núñez C. 2013. Spatial relations and population structure of a dominant tree along a treeline ecotone in the tropical Andes: Interactions at gradient and plant-neighbourhood scales. Plant Ecology & Diversity 6:343–353. Google Scholar

  82. Llambí LD, Smith J, Pereira N, Pereira AC, Valero F, Monasterio M, Dávila MV. 2005. Participatory planning for biodiversity conservation in the high tropical Andes: Are farmers interested?Mountain Research and Development 25(3):200–205. Google Scholar

  83. Locatelli B, Pavageau C, Pramova E, Di Gregorio M. 2015. Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 6(6):585–598.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.357Google Scholar

  84. López-Rodríguez MD. 2016. Science–Policy Interfaces in the Area of Environmental Governance: Empirical Tests for its Methodological Development [PhD thesis]. Almeria, Spain: University of Almeria. Google Scholar

  85. Lutz DA, Powell RL, Silman MR. 2013. Four decades of Andean timberline migration and implications for biodiversity loss with climate change. PLoS ONE 8(9):e74496. Google Scholar

  86. Mach KJ, Planton S, von Stechow C, editors. 2014. Annex II: Glossary. In: Pachauri RK, Meyer LA, editors. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp 117–130. Google Scholar

  87. Malhi Y, Silman M, Salinas N, Bush M, Meir P, Saatchi S. 2010. Introduction: Elevation gradients in the tropics: Laboratories for ecosystem ecology and global change research. Global Change Biology 16:3171–3175. Google Scholar

  88. Malizia A, Easdale TA, Grau HR. 2013. Rapid structural and compositional change in an old-growth subtropical forest: Using plant traits to identify probable drivers. PLoS ONE 8:e73546. Google Scholar

  89. Martinez-Alier J, Anguelovski I, Bond P, Del Bene D, Demaria F, Gerber J-F, Greyl L, Haas W, Healy H, Marín-Burgos V. 2014. Between activism and science: Grassroots concepts for sustainability coined by environmental justice organizations. Journal of Political Ecology 21(1):19–60. Google Scholar

  90. Mathez-Stiefel S-L, Ayquipa-Valenzuela J, Corrales-Quispe R, Rosales-Richard L, Valdivia-Díaz M. 2016. Identifying gender-sensitive agroforestry options: Methodological considerations from the field. Mountain Research and Development 36(4):417–430. Google Scholar

  91. Mathez-Stiefel S-L, Peralvo M, Báez S. 2017. Hacia la conservación y la gobernanza sostenible de los paisajes de bosques andinos: Una agenda de investigación. Quito, Ecuador: Programa Bosques Andinos de la Agencia Suiza para el Desarrollo y la Cooperación. Google Scholar

  92. Mathez-Stiefel S-L, Wymann von Dach S, Zimmermann A, Hurni H, Molden D. 2016. A mountain journal contributes to achieving Future Earth's vision. Poster presented by Mountain Research and Development at the Mountain Futures Conference, Kunming, China, 1–4 April 2016.  https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/102023; accessed on 20 August 2017. Google Scholar

  93. McArthur ED, Sanderson SC. 1999. Ecotones: Introduction, scale, and big sagebrush example. Forest Service ProceedingsRMRS-P-11(July):3–8. Google Scholar

  94. McGinnis MD, Ostrom E. 2014. Social–ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society 19(2):30. Google Scholar

  95. Meyer C, Kreft H, Guralnick R, Jetz W. 2015. Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions. Nature Communications 6:8221. Google Scholar

  96. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Google Scholar

  97. Moss T, Newig J. 2010. Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: Setting the stage for a broader debate. Environmental Management 46(1):1–6. Google Scholar

  98. Mulligan M. 2010. Modelling the tropics-wide extent and distribution of cloud forest and cloud forest loss, with implications for conservation priority. In: Bruijnzeel LA, Scatena LF, Hamilton LS, editors. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Science for Conservation and Management. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp 14–38. Google Scholar

  99. Munroe DK, van Berkel DB, Verburg PH, Olson JL. 2013. Alternative trajectories of land abandonment: Causes, consequences and research challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5:471–476. Google Scholar

  100. Murcia C, Guariguata MR, Andrade Á, Andrade GI, Aronson J, Escobar EM, Etter A, Moreno FH, Ramírez W, Montes E. 2016. Challenges and prospects for scaling-up ecological restoration to meet international commitments: Colombia as a case study. Conservation Letters 9(3):213–220. Google Scholar

  101. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858. Google Scholar

  102. Nadkarni N, Solano R. 2002. Potential effects of climate change on canopy communities in a tropical cloud forest: An experimental approach. Oecologia 131:580–586. Google Scholar

  103. Norris TB. 2014. Bridging the great divide: State, civil society, and “participatory” conservation mapping in a resource extraction zone. Applied Geography 54:262–274. Google Scholar

  104. Orsi F, Geneletti D, Newton AC. 2011. Towards a common set of criteria and indicators to identify forest restoration priorities: An expert panel-based approach. Ecological Indicators 11(2):337–347. Google Scholar

  105. Ortega-Andrade HM, Prieto-Torres DA, Gómez-Lora I, Lizcano DJ. 2015. Ecological and geographical analysis of the distribution of the mountain tapir (Tapirus pinchaque) in Ecuador: Importance of protected areas in future scenarios of global warming. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0121137. Google Scholar

  106. Padilla WR, García HJ. 2016. CIALCO: Alternative marketing channels. In:Bajo J, Escalona MJ, Giroux S, Hoffa-Dąbrowska P, Julián V, Novais P, Sánchez-Pi N, Unland R, Azambuja Silveira R, editors. Highlights of Practical Applications of Scalable Multi-agent Systems. The PAAMS Collection. Proceedings of the International Workshops of PAAMS 2016, Sevilla Spain. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp 313–321. Google Scholar

  107. Parraguez Vergara E, Barton JR. 2013. Poverty and dependency in indigenous rural livelihoods: Mapuche experiences in the Andean foothills of Chile. Journal of Agrarian Change 13:234–262. Google Scholar

  108. Parsons JJ. 1982. The northern Andean environment. Mountain Research and Development 2(3):253–262. Google Scholar

  109. Paulson S. 2003. Gendered practices and landscapes in the Andes: The shape of asymmetrical exchanges. Human Organization 62(3):242–254. Google Scholar

  110. Peralvo M, Bustamante M. 2015. CONDESAN: Promoting long-term monitoring at different scales to support natural resource governance in the Andean countries. Mountain Research and Development 35(1):90–92. Google Scholar

  111. Peralvo M, Cuesta F. 2014. Conversión de ecosistemas altoandinos: Vínculos entre patrones y procesos a múltiples escalas. In: Cuesta F, Sevink J, Llambí LD, De Bièvre B, Posner J, editors. Avances en Investigación para la Conservación de los Páramos Andinos. Lima, Peru: Consortium for the Sustainable Development of the Andean Ecoregion, pp 325–351. Google Scholar

  112. Pohl C, Krütli P, Stauffacher M. 2017. Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant. GAIA—Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 26(1):43–51. Google Scholar

  113. Ponce-Reyes R, Nicholson E, Baxter PWJ, Fuller RA, Possingham H. 2013. Extinction risk in cloud forest fragments under climate change and habitat loss. Diversity and Distributions 19:518–529. Google Scholar

  114. Postigo JC. 2014. Perception and resilience of Andean populations facing climate change. Journal of Ethnobiology 34(3):383–400. Google Scholar

  115. Postigo JC, Young KR, Crews KA. 2008. Change and continuity in a pastoralist community in the high Peruvian Andes. Human Ecology 36(4):535–551. Google Scholar

  116. Quintero M, Wunder S, Estrada RD. 2009. For services rendered? Modeling hydrology and livelihoods in Andean payments for environmental services schemes. Forest Ecology and Management 258(9):1871–1880. Google Scholar

  117. Raboin ML, Posner JL. 2012. Pine or pasture? Estimated costs and benefits of land use change in the Peruvian Andes. Mountain Research and Development 32:158–168. Google Scholar

  118. Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10):2417–2431. Google Scholar

  119. Rehm EM, Feeley KJ. 2013. Forest patches and the upward migration of timberline in the southern Peruvian Andes. Forest Ecology and Management 305:204–211. Google Scholar

  120. Rhoades RE. 2006. Development With Identity: Community, Culture and Sustainability in the Andes. Wallingford, United Kingdom. CABI Publishing. Google Scholar

  121. Rist S, Chiddambaranathan M, Escobar C, Wiesmann U, Zimmermann A. 2007. Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources. The role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies 23(1):23–37. Google Scholar

  122. Rist S, Mathez-Stiefel S-L, Bachmann F. 2009. Promoting Local Innovation (PLI): A tool for promoting local innovation and sustainable rural development. In: Christinck A, Gerster-Bentaya M, Hoffmann V, Lemma M, editors. Handbook for Rural Extension. Volume 2. Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers, pp 354–365. Google Scholar

  123. Rival L. 2003. The meanings of forest governance in Esmeraldas, Ecuador. Oxford Development Studies 31(4):479–501. Google Scholar

  124. Robledo C, Fischler M, Patino A. 2004. Increasing the resilience of hillside communities in Bolivia: Has vulnerability to climate change been reduced as a result of previous sustainable development cooperation?Mountain Research and Development 24(1):14–18. Google Scholar

  125. Salas Laines R. 2011. Género: Generando Cambios en el Bosque Andino. Lima, Peru: Ecobona-Intercooperation. Google Scholar

  126. Sarmiento FO, Frolich LM. 2002. Andean cloud forest tree lines: Naturalness, agriculture and the human dimension. Mountain Research and Development 22(3):278–287. Google Scholar

  127. Schlosberg D. 2004. Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics 13(3):517–540. Google Scholar

  128. Scholes R, Reyers B, Biggs R, Spierenburg M, Duriappah A. 2013. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social–ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(1):16–25. Google Scholar

  129. Schwarzkopf T, Riha SJ, Fahey TJ, Degloria S. 2011. Are cloud forest tree structure and environment related in the Venezuelan Andes?Austral Ecology 36(3):280–289. Google Scholar

  130. Shanee N, Shanee S, Horwich RH. 2015. Effectiveness of locally run conservation initiatives in north-east Peru. Oryx 49(2):239–247. Google Scholar

  131. Spracklen DV, Righelato R. 2016. Carbon storage and sequestration of re-growing montane forests in southern Ecuador. Forest Ecology and Management 364:139–144. Google Scholar

  132. Stadel CH. 2008. Vulnerability, resilience and adaptation: Rural development in the tropical Andes. Pirineos 163:15–36. Google Scholar

  133. Stanturf J, Kant P, Barnekow J, Mansourian S, Kleine ML, Graudal L, Madsen P. 2015. Forest Landscape Restoration as a Key Component of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Vienna, Austria: International Union of Forest Research Organizations. Google Scholar

  134. Steffen W, Sanderson RA, Tyson PD, Jäger J, Matson PA, Moore B III, Oldfield F, Richardson K, Schellnhuber HJ, Turner BL II, Wasson RJ. 2006. Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Google Scholar

  135. Sundqvist MK, Sanders NJ, Wardle DA. 2013. Community and ecosystem responses to elevational gradients: Processes, mechanism, and insights for global change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 44:261–280. Google Scholar

  136. Swift B, Arias V, Bass S, Chacón CM. 2004. Private lands conservation in Latin America: The need for enhanced legal tools and incentives. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 19:85. Google Scholar

  137. Tapia-Armijos MF, Homeier J, Espinosa CI, Leuschner C, de la Cruz M. 2015. Deforestation and forest fragmentation in south Ecuador since the 1970s—Losing a hotspot of biodiversity. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0133701. Google Scholar

  138. Thiele G, Devaux A, Iván Reinoso I, Pico H, Montesdeoca F, Pumisacho M, Andrade-Piedra J, Velasco C, Flores P, Esprella R, Thomann A, Manrique K, Doug Horton D . 2011. Multi-stakeholder platforms for linking small farmers to value chains: Evidence from the Andes. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(3):423–433. Google Scholar

  139. Thomas DSG, Twyman C. 2005. Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environmental Change Part A 15:115–124. Google Scholar

  140. Tovar C, Arnillas CA, Cuesta F, Buytaert W. 2013. Diverging responses of tropical Andean biomes under future climate conditions. PLoS ONE 8(5):e63634. Google Scholar

  141. United Nations General Assembly. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. New York, NY: United Nations. Google Scholar

  142. Urrutia R, Vuille, M. 2009. Climate change projections for the tropical Andes using a regional climate model: Temperature and precipitation simulations for the end of the 21st century. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 114(D2):D02108. Google Scholar

  143. Valdivia C, Seth A, Gilles JL, García M, Jiménez E, Cusicanqui J, Yucra E. 2010. Adapting to climate change in Andean ecosystems: Landscapes, capitals, and perceptions shaping rural livelihood strategies and linking knowledge systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(4):818–834. Google Scholar

  144. Vargas O. 2008. Estrategia para la Restauración Ecológica del Bosque Altoandino (El Caso de la Reserva Forestal Municipal de Cogua, Cundinamarca). 2nd edition. Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Google Scholar

  145. Voss J-P, Bauknecht D. 2006. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar

  146. Vuille M, Franquist E, Garreaud R, Casimiro L, Sven W, Cáceres B. 2015. Impact of the global warming hiatus on Andean temperature. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 120(9):3745–3757. Google Scholar

  147. WCED [World Commission on Environment and Development]. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

  148. Werner FA, Homeier J. 2015. Is tropical montane forest heterogeneity promoted by a resource-driven feedback cycle? Evidence from nutrient relations, herbivory and litter decomposition along a topographical gradient. Functional Ecology 29:430–440. Google Scholar

  149. Werner FA, Homeier J, Gradstein SR. 2005. Diversity of vascular epiphytes on isolated remnant trees in the montane forest belt of southern Ecuador. Ecotropica 11:21–40. Google Scholar

  150. Wiesmann U, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Joye D, Pohl C, Zemp E . 2008. Enhancing transdisciplinary research: A synthesis in fifteen propositions. In:Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E, editors. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer, pp 431–439. Google Scholar

  151. Wilson SJ, Rhemtulla JM. 2016. Acceleration and novelty: Community restoration speeds recovery and transforms species composition in Andean cloud forest. Ecological Applications 26(1):203–218. Google Scholar

  152. Young KR. 2009. Andean land use and biodiversity: Humanized landscapes in a time of change. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 96:492–507. Google Scholar

  153. Young KR, León B. 2007. Tree-line changes along the Andes: Implications of spatial patterns and dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362:263–272. Google Scholar

  154. Young KR, Lipton JK. 2006. Adaptive governance and climate change in the tropical highlands of western South America. Climatic Change 78:63–102. Google Scholar

  155. Zimmerer KS. 2010. Woodlands and agrobiodiversity in irrigation landscapes amidst global change: Bolivia, 1990–2002. The Professional Geographer 62(3):335–356. Google Scholar

  156. Zimmerer KS, Bell MG. 2015. Time for change: The legacy of a Euro-Andean model of landscape versus the need for landscape connectivity. Landscape and Urban Planning 139:104–116. Google Scholar

  157. Zinngrebe Y. 2016. Learning from local knowledge in Peru—Ideas for more effective biodiversity conservation. Journal for Nature Conservation 32:10–21. Google Scholar

Appendices

Supplemental material

TABLE S1 Experts who helped develop the AFL research agenda.

Found at DOI:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00093.S1 (55 KB PDF).

© 2017 Mathez-Stiefel et al. This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please credit the authors and the full source.
Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel, Manuel Peralvo, Selene Báez, Stephan Rist, Wouter Buytaert, Francisco Cuesta, Belén Fadrique, Kenneth J. Feeley, Aaron A. P. Groth, Jürgen Homeier, Luis D. Llambí, Bruno Locatelli, Maria Fernanda López Sandoval, Agustina Malizia, and Kenneth R. Young "Research Priorities for the Conservation and Sustainable Governance of Andean Forest Landscapes," Mountain Research and Development 37(3), 323-339, (1 August 2017). https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00093.1
Received: 1 June 2017; Accepted: 1 July 2017; Published: 1 August 2017
JOURNAL ARTICLE
17 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top