Building long-term restoration commitment by landscape networking, both among people and in nature
Young individual of White-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos), born in one of the first restored areas. Photo: Petra Sjödin
Scaling up restoration from one time measures in individual forest stands to actual improved ecological functionality at the landscape level almost always means that more people will be affected and must be involved. More people means more interests, desires and conditions that must be reconciled in order to achieve the goal. However, more people involved can also be a strength by creating a sense of community belonging, possibilities for exchange of experience and knowledge, as well as increased understanding of both the landscape perspective, beyond the individual participant's land or mandate, and the varied conditions other participants are working within.
In this example of good practice, we describe how collaboration in a regional network has created long-term commitment and clear ecological effects on the ground for the critically endangered white-backed woodpecker in Västerbotten county, Sweden. Based on this example, we describe both success factors and possible risks and pitfalls, as well as providing examples of other similar landscape-based initiatives in Sweden.
Context:
White-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) is one of the most threatened species in Sweden. It needs landscapes with a high share of deciduous dominated forest, with high amount of dead deciduous wood in different decay stages. This naturally occurs as first successional stage after forest fires, in swamp forests, costal- and riparian forests, as well as successional stages on abandoned farmland. However, today old, deciduous dominated forests are rare in the forested landscape in Sweden, mainly due to effective suppression of forest fires and strong focus on conifers in common forestry.
From being almost extinct from Sweden, today the coastland of Västerbotten County is the most important breeding area in Sweden with 12 out of ca 20 pairs (2023) with a population mainly originating from natural influx from Finland. One of the factors behind the successful comeback of the species in the region is a loosely organized initiative and network of landowners and organizations that has been going on since approximately 2017. The core aim of the initiative is to increase the amount of suitable habitat for the White-backed woodpecker. Today several actors are involved, from the national and regional bird organizations, regional authorities as the County Administrative Board, the Swedish Forest Agency, to landowners and forest managers such as municipalities, and the major forestry companies. From 2017 up until 2025, the initiative has resulted in hundreds of ha of restored forest for the White-backed woodpecker and during this time, the numbers of known individuals, as well as successful breeding, has steadily increased.
Problem Description:
The main problem in this specific case is of course the lack of deciduous dominated forests, but the more practical problems that is addressed with this practice are:
Lack of resourses and possibilities among forest owners to performe landscape analyses and work actively at landscape level - Connectivity between core areas of different habitat is a key factor for ecological functionality in a landscape. Therefore, it is most ecologically efficient when restoration is based on a landscape perspective. However, in many landscapes, the forests are owned by many different owners. The involvment of the owners are of uttermost importance for successful forest restoration, however, normally they are restricted to work only on their own land and have little or no resources to perform and directly utilize the kind of landscape analyses that are needed for efficient landscape restoration.
Isolation among ecologists working for large forest owners - In many landscapes in Sweden, much of the forest is owned by large forest companies, municipalities, the church or energy companies. Typically, these actors have a lot of people hired for managing their land and forests for timber production, but much fewer, often only one or a handful, employed to work actively with biodiversity issues. Thus, within their own organization, these individuals are rather “lonely” to handle a broad spectrum of issues related to biodiversity and restoration.
Need for channels for sharing knowledge and practical experience - Forest restoration practice is constantly developing, but the experience and knowledge are seldom published in an easy-to-assimilate and searchable way (at least not until it has become widespread and commonly used). Therefore, it might be hard for an ecologist or conservation officer to know “how-to-do” and best/good restoration practice.
Implementation Steps:
The White-Backed Woodpecker-network in Västerbotten are acting at the regional level, engaging mainly nature conservation officers from forest companies and other large forest owners in the region, authorities, municipalities and NGOs. On a larger scale, the network is part of the national conservation work for the White-Backed Woodpecker, including several different national-wide plans, projects and initiatives, such as the National Action Plan for the species and conservation programs run by Bird Life Sweden and Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. This connection to the large source of knowledge and experience has been important for the success of the network.
Other elements or practices that we think is important for the function and success of the network are:
Base the work on landscape analyses, geographical information and maps - By basing the work on maps, it is easier for the participants, especially landowning participants, to see where and how restoration actions on their land contributes to the larger picture. Having a landscape approach, with formulated purpose, aims and goals, also makes it easier to communicate with other stakeholders within the landscape.
Meet regularly within the network, online or in-person, and try to meet at least once a year in the field. At the same time, be respectful with each other’s time and workload and do not have too many meetings. Make sure the meetings are meaningful for all participants. Have smaller meetings for specific topics that do not concern the whole network, but make sure to reconnect to the rest of the group to avoid mistrust.
Keep the engagement in the network on a voluntary basis, with no binding obligations, neither when it comes to participation in meetings or preforming measures. Each participant is responsible for doing measures and other actions on their land or within their mandate. Respect that different participants are working under different conditions. It might be more difficult for some than others to implement measures, for various reasons, such as difficulty gaining internal support, finances, etc. Encourage what is being done! The most important thing should be participation and an welcoming and open atmosphere.
Use the network for both restoration and capacity building - Make sure the meetings and engagement in the network is not only about creating as much restored area as possible, but also to build knowledge, trust and collaboration among the participants. It is a good idea to invite different kinds of experts to the meetings.
Start on a small scale and gradually expand the network - Start the network with a few really commited individuals and by doing restoration actions in a few small areas that can work as easily accessible examples. This gives time to those organisations and individual stakeholders that are prone to hesitate a bit before engaging in a project, to eventually join when they feel ready. It also gives time to successively find financing for restoration actions over time. Showcase any progress as much as possible, and make sure to credit the ones involved.
Have patient, it might take time until any actual restoration measures can take place, and even longer before you see any ecological effect. However, working on a long-term basis within the same landscape makes it easier to build trust among the participating organisations/individuals and towards other stakeholders and public in the area.
Replicability:
YES, the practice has been tested and replicated in multiple contexts and scales and therefore, can be easily transferred and/or adapted to other initiatives with similar goals.This kind of networking around a common ecological conservation issue has been implemented at least twice in northern Sweden, once to connect and develop the work for promoting pollinators in northern Sweden and once to handle the issue of scabies in arctic foxes. The later network later became wider, topic-wise.
Similar networks for collaboration for of White-backed woodpeckers conservation exists in several other regions in Sweden.
A related way of working, called Naturbruksdialog, has also been developed and tested by the SLU and the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland. The aim with this method is to enhance and encurage sustainable land use within a landscape, by structured dialoge between private landowners and other actors within a landscape, based on the specific characteristis of the place and the landscape.
Key Success Factors:
Success factor #1: A common goal
Successful collaboration within the network is favoured by a clear and common topic and goal that all participants are engaged and interested in. It is also favourable if there are clear key players to engage with initially. In this case the common topic and interest was to create suitable habitat for the woodpecker. This was shared among, e.g., authorities, NGOs and forest companies and the key players was bothe authorities, NGOs and forest owners and/or managers in areas that had shown to be important key habitat or having high restoration potential for the species in performed landscape analysis.
Success factor #2: Funding and coordination
It is favourable if someone, organisation/individual has the funding and mandate to initiate and run/coordinate the network. In this case the County administrative Board of Västerbotten had the assignment and some funding to coordinate the regional implementation of the national action plans for threatened species, including the White-backed woodpecker.
Success factor #3: Time
If there is time to be patient chances for success increase…
Success factor #4: Fast ecological response
In the specific case of White backed woodpeckers in Västerbotten county, Sweden, one important success factor was the immediate ecological response in the beginning of the initiative, with a breeding couple of White-backed woodpeckers in one of the restored stands, already one year after the measures were taken.
Common Constraints:
Constraint #1 The network risks to collaps or fade away if the funding or the assignment ends for the coordinating organisation/individual or that the need (for collaboration) disappears.
Constraint #2 The management of a network might be highly person-dependent. This kind of networks works well if they consists of engaged and motivated individuals that can share responisibilities, but with a high share of unengaged people, or if coordination is changed to a less engaged person, the network might fade away.
Constraint #3 High personnel turnover within involved organisations might lead to less engagement and interest, resulting in a weakened network.
Positive Impacts:
- Increased connectivity
- Increased population density and diversity of rare species
By working in a network structure at landscape scale, it is easier to get an overview of the whole landscape and thus to focus the measures at places where it is most needed to strengthen the connectivity within the landscape. In the specific example presented here, it has been successful to work in a network structure to increase population density of the rare species White backed woodpecker.
Negative Impacts:
- Reduced timber quality or quantity
- Active Restoration
- Planning & Upscaling
- Social & Stakeholder
- Landowners & Practitioners
- Planners & Implementers
- Boreal
- Sweden
- Economic
- 3400