New terms have proliferated as international focus on forest condition surged because of the role forests play in climate change mitigation and adaptation. From umbrella concepts (e.g., forestation, nature-based solutions, and ecosystem restoration) to specific methods (e.g., forest landscape restoration, rewilding, and assisted migration), nuanced terms target different beginning conditions (non-forest, harvested, deforested, or degraded forest) and desired future conditions (forest cover, self-sustaining systems, ecological integrity). Human well-being may or may not be a relevant objective. Quality forest reproductive material is critical for the success of large-scale planting to meet current policy objectives and future needs as climate warming and increased intensity and frequency of extreme events add to reforestation backlogs embodied in the new terminology and attitudes toward forest management.

Deforestation in Ghana has led to a forest loss of almost 20% from 9,924,000 ha in 1990 to 7,986,000 ha today. To restore degraded lands, Forest Landscape Restoration has become a critical approach globally. This study was conducted in Ghana focusing on the examples of two forest landscape restoration projects in the Pamu Berekum Forest Reserve: 10-year-old mixed-stands of two to four native tree species and an exotic species stands, including Triplochiton scleroxylon, Terminalia ivorensis, Ceiba pentandra, Nauclea diderrichii and Cedrela odorata at Pamu Berekum 1 and 4-year-old Tectona grandis and 2-year-old Gmelina arborea monoculture stands at Pamu Berekum 2. Estimates of productivity in the restored forests are described, as well as the effects of the restoration on provision of ecosystem service and benefits obtained by local communities. Stand productivity was assessed as mean annual increment of diameter and height, biomass production, and standing volume. For ecosystem services, carbon stocks were calculated for the restored forests; other ecological benefits, as well as financial benefits, were obtained through interviews with fringe communities. The results indicate that FLR can be implemented successfully using different models provided that local communities are involved during the planning and implementation of interventions. When all stands were projected to 10 years, results show higher productivity in T. grandis (331.77 m3 ha-1) and G. arborea stands (1,785.99 m3ha-1) compared to mixed stand (160.41 m3 ha-1). The Gmelina arborea stand was more productive and had higher carbon stocks (1,350.10 Mg ha-1) relative to the T. grandis stand (159.89 Mg ha-1). Both restoration projects were found to deliver important benefits and ecosystem services at the local and national levels, including direct and indirect benefits. The results provide an example for forest/environmental managers on how FLR might be implemented to create multiple benefits at different levels from local communities to the national level. Thus, these results may be useful for guiding successful restoration activities within the context of the ongoing global Forest Landscape Restoration efforts.