Land 2022, 11, 1747. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101747 www.mdpi.com/journal/land Article Forest Landscape Restoration Legislation and Policy: A Canadian Perspective Nicolas Mansuy 1, *, Hyejin Hwang 2 , Ritikaa Gupta 3 , Christa Mooney 3 , Barbara Kishchuk 4 and Eric Higgs 5 1 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320 122 Street, Edmonton, AB T6H 3S5, Canada 2 Environment and Climate Change Canada, 351, boul. Saint-Joseph, Gatineau, QC K1A 0H3, Canada 3 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4, Canada 4 Science Consultation Services, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, 2155 College Avenue, Regina, SK S4P 4V5, Canada 5 School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, David Turpin Building, B243, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada * Correspondence: nicolas.mansuy@canada.ca; Tel.: +1-587-334-5611 Abstract: Restoring degraded ecosystems is an urgent policy priority to regain ecological integrity, advance sustainable land use management, and mitigate climate change. This study examined cur- rent legislation and policies supporting forest landscape restoration (FLR) in Canada to assess its capacity to advance restoration planning and efforts. First, a literature review was performed to assess the policy dimension of FLR globally and across Canada. Then, a Canada-wide policy scan using national databases was conducted. While published research on ecological restoration has increased exponentially in Canada and globally since the early 1990s, our results showed that the policy dimensions of FLR remain largely under documented in the scientific literature, despite their key role in implementing effective restoration measures on the ground. Our analyses have identi- fied over 200 policy instruments and show that Canada has developed science-based FLR policies and best practices driven by five main types of land use and extraction activities: (1) mining and oil and gas activities; (2) sustainable forest management; (3) environmental impact assessment; (4) pro- tected areas and parks; and (5) protection and conservation of species at risk. Moreover, FLR policies have been recently added to the national climate change mitigation agenda as part of the nature- based solutions and the net-zero emission strategy. Although a pioneer in restoration, we argue that Canada can take a more targeted and proactive approach in advancing its restoration agenda in order to cope with a changing climate and increased societal demands for ecosystem services and Indigenous rights. Considering the multifunctional values of the landscape, the science–policy in- terface is critical to transform policy aspirations into realizable and quantifiable targets in con- junction with other land-use objectives and values. Keywords: climate change; cumulative effects; ecological restoration; Indigenous Peoples; nature-based solutions; novel ecosystem 1. Introduction Land degradation—defined as a persistent loss of ecosystem services and ecological integrity—is escalating globally. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Bio- diversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reported that degradation of the Earth’s lands and waters through human activities is negatively impacting the well-being of at least 3.2 billion people and costing more than 10% of the global annual gross domestic product (GDP) through loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services [1]. Ecosystem degradation is also a major contributor to climate change, with deforestation alone contributing about 10% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions [2]. Citation: Mansuy, N.; Hwang, H.; Gupta, R.; Mooney, C.; Kishchuk, B.; Higgs, E. Forest Landscape Restoration Legislation and Policy: A Canadian Perspective. Land 2022, 11, 1747. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land11101747 Academic Editors: Jorge Mongil-Manso, Joaquín Navarro Hevia and Ilan Stavi Received: 19 August 2022 Accepted: 26 September 2022 Published: 9 October 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- tral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu- tional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Li- censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and con- ditions of the Creative Commons At- tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre- ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).