Exploring the potential of food forestry to assist in ecological restoration in North America and beyond

Food forests—edible, perennial, polyculture systems—are of increasing interest in North America and the United Kingdom, as reflected in projects ranging from urban food initiatives to integrated conservation and restoration planning. To examine emerging food forestry (FF) against the backdrop of ecological restoration (ER), we conducted semi‐structured interviews with eight experts each from the fields of FF and ER in conjunction with observations of food forests in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Using content analysis, our study builds a FF model that encompasses the underlying goals of emerging FF—forest function; diversity of yields; education and culture sharing; healthy habitats for people and other species; and sustainability. We argue that FF has potential as an urban restoration tool in terms of enhancing the multifunctionality of heterogeneous landscapes undergoing significant changes. This will require meaningful consideration of ethical issues (e.g. commodification of nature), landscape contexts, ecological integrity, integration of historical knowledge, and resilience for interdependent, dynamic social and ecological systems. Moreover, systematic, long‐term monitoring of different types of food forests will be crucial in order to mindfully apply FF in ER. This research provides one of the first in‐depth analyses of how emerging FF might contribute to restoration in the time of the Anthropocene, especially outside traditional tropic regions where most FF has been practiced.  

On principles and standards in ecological restoration

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) has long debated how to define best practices. We argue that a principles‐first approach offers more flexibility for restoration practitioners than a standards‐based approach, is consistent with the developmental stage of restoration, and functions more effectively at a global level. However, the solution is not as simple as arguing that one approach to professional practice is sufficient. Principles and standards can and do operate effectively together, but only if they are coordinated in a transparent and systematic way. Effective professional guidance results when standards anchored by principles function in a way that is contextual and evolving. Without that clear relation to principles, the tendency to promote performance standards may lead to a narrowing of restoration practice and reduction in the potential to resolve very difficult and diverse ecological and environmental challenges. We offer recommendations on how the evolving project of restoration policy by SER and other agencies and organizations can remain open and flexible.  

The evolution of Society for Ecological Restoration's principles and standards—counter‐response to Gann et al.

In response to our recent article (Higgs et al. 2018) in these pages, George Gann and his coauthors defended the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Standards, clarified several points, and introduced some new perspectives. We offer this counter‐response to address some of these perspectives. More than anything, our aims are in sharpening the field of restoration in a time of rapid scaling‐up of interest and effort, and support further constructive dialogue going forward. Our perspective remains that there is an important distinction needed between “Standards” and “Principles” that is largely unheeded by Gann et al. (2018). We encourage SER to consider in future iterations of its senior policy document to lean on principles first, and then to issue advice on standards that meet the needs of diverse conditions and social, economic, and political realities.