This section outlines the essential components to operationalizing restoration to meet national commitments and KM-GBF Target 2. The following major groups of activities and steps, modified from the STAPER and UN Restoration Decade Principles and SOPs, may be implemented as appropriate. The groups of activities and steps are also supported by briefs from restoration policy, science and practice, as well as additional resources, guidelines and tools. The major groups are: assessment of opportunities for ecosystem restoration (6.1); improving the institutional enabling environment for ecosystem restoration (6.2); planning, implementation, and ongoing management of ecosystem restoration activities (6.3); and, monitoring, evaluation, feedback and sharing results (6.4). This section includes case studies and lessons learned from multi-actor and multi-scale initiatives, including discussions of trade-offs and challenges in planning, implementing and monitoring restoration. References are provided as examples only.
The assessment phase of restoration planning offers an opportunity to consider and prioritize degraded ecosystems for restoration action; engage Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and other relevant stakeholders and rights and knowledge holders; consider gender balance; and assess the potential of restoration as a tool for addressing a wide variety of ecological and social issues. Effective approaches to assessment and planning can help prevent challenges at later stages of implementation or ongoing management, while simultaneously enhancing restoration opportunities. The following steps may be taken as appropriate.
| Considerations in the context of restoration policy, science and practice | See also |
|---|---|
| Avoid unintentional damage to natural ecosystems. The use of proactive regulations, legal protections and restoration guidance (e.g. CBD, 2016; Brancalion and Chazdon, 2017; Gann et al., 2019; Di Sacco et al., 2021) are needed to prevent unintended ecosystem destruction, such as the afforestation of biodiverse grasslands in terrestrial or coastal ecosystems (Veldman et al., 2015). While global maps and tools are useful at coarse scale, assessments of restoration opportunities should always be scaled down appropriately to national, subnational or local levels, drawing on expert knowledge. | Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: A.1 |
| Assess common stakeholder expectations for long-term ecosystem restoration initiatives. Establishing shared goals and expectations among stakeholders may ensure long-term ecosystem restoration outcomes. A unified, cost-effective vision strengthens adaptive approaches, diversity and participation in ecosystem restoration strategies (Mansourian, 2021; Frietsch et al., 2023; Mansourian et al., 2024). | Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: A.2 Annex E: A.3 |
| Account for all potential benefits of restoration. Consider multiple restoration benefits to support complementary commitments, targets and goals by quantifying potential benefits including biodiversity, ecosystem services, and social and economic impacts, and encouraging policy support and community involvement (Alexander et al., 2016; Nelson et al., 2024). Document the importance of biodiversity to nature’s contributions to people to help inform the management of biodiversity in social-ecological systems (Bianco et al., 2024). | Section 2. Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: A.2 Annex E: A.4 Annex E: A.5 |
| Identify optimal restoration locations and types on the landscape. Identifying optimal restoration sites and types helps improve biodiversity recovery, the enhancement of ecosystem functions and services, and ecological connectivity. Resources to guide strategic planning include: ecological connectivity guidance (IUCN-WCPA, 2023), landscape-scale prioritization models (Silva et al., 2023), Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (Wang et al., 2023), analyses of trade offs between native and plantation forests (Hua et al., 2022), applying the Red List of Ecosystems to ecosystem restoration (Valderrábano et al., 2021), marine connectivity ‘Rules of Thumb’ (Lausche et al., 2021), global prioritization models (Strassburg et al., 2020), ROOT (Beatty et al., 2018), strategies for restoration in agricultural landscapes (Rey Benayas and Bullock 2012), and Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM). | Annex E: A.1 Annex E: A.2 |
Improving the enabling institutional framework for ecosystem restoration is a key step leading to successful implementation and ongoing management.
This includes providing a clear and stable legal basis for restoration; legal, economic and social incentives and appropriate planning mechanisms; and fostering cross-sectoral collaboration to promote restoration and minimize ecosystem degradation while reducing poverty and improving livelihoods (see Case Study 6.1). In addition, policies should include biodiversity as a required objective starting in the restoration design phase (e.g. in rehabilitation projects), rather than assuming biodiversity will benefit from ecosystem restoration projects. The improvement in enabling conditions, including policies and measures that promote long-term progress and foster replication and scaling up, is also included in Principle 10 of the UN Restoration Decade Principles. The following steps may be taken as appropriate:
through policy support in India
Agroforestry, broadly defined as the intentional integration of trees with agricultural crops and/or animals, is a key strategy for productive ecosystem and biodiversity conservation. Successful uptake of agroforestry practices, however, requires enabling environments that guarantee rights to trees and land, provide farmers with investments, and facilitate marketing agroforestry products.
India has a long history of agroforestry as a traditional land management system and has been heavily involved in agroforestry research for at least 50 years. Recognizing the structural issues to scaling-up and maximizing the benefits of agroforestry in the country, the Government of India developed an intersectoral National Agroforestry Policy in 2014. The policy’s goals are to increase productivity through agroforestry and to meet the increasing demand for timber, food and non-timber forest products, while improving the livelihoods of rural farming populations, ensuring food security and protecting ecosystems.
As one of the aims under the National Agroforestry Policy, India has recently launched the Greening and Restoration of Wasteland with Agroforestry (GROW) initiative. Today, agroforestry is being practised on more than 28.43 million ha in India, while the area under ‘wastelands’ is 55.76 million ha. In this context, wastelands are defined as degraded lands that can be brought under vegetative cover with reasonable effort and which are currently underutilized. The initiative recognizes the potential to convert degraded areas into productive and sustainable use through agroforestry. This is also a key strategy to meet its national goals to restore 26 million hectares of degraded land by 2030 and to increase national tree cover by 33 percent. As part of GROW, NITI Aayog, a public policy think tank of the Government of India, has developed an open-access GIS platform to assess the suitability of agroforestry in different categories of ‘wastelands’ and have introduced an Agroforestry Suitability Index (ASI) for national-level prioritisation. The GROW platform is intended to enhance government actors’ implementation of agroforestry initiatives.
The existence of strong policy support for agroforestry in the country has triggered new investments, initiatives and technologies to assist the widespread adoption of agroforestry. India’s National Agroforestry Policy also paved the way for other countries that have now developed their own agroforestry policies or strategies, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, The Gambia, Kenya, Nepal, Rwanda, South Africa and the United States of America; Nepal’s (2019) national policy was founded on India’s experience. Developing national policies and strategies is a key pathway for creating enabling environments and sustainably scaling up agroforestry in a way that meets national and international targets, including for ecosystem restoration.
Relevant links:
| Considerations in the context of restoration policy, science and practice | See also |
|---|---|
| Ensure a policy environment that enables and incentivizes restoration An enabling policy environment, including through intersectoral policy coordination, is important for achieving restoration objectives and goals over the long term (FAO et al., 2021). All relevant governance instruments (laws, regulations, policies, strategies and plans) should be mapped, adapted where appropriate, and integrated in the planning and implementation of projects, programmes and initiatives. The SDG process can inform enabling conditions for restoration. National policy integration, subnational initiatives, and education can affect and be affected by multiple goals, requiring an in-depth analysis of how one area may affect another to guide restoration and SDG implementation strategies (Hickman et al., 2024). | Section 5 Annex C Annex E: B.1 |
| Improve legal tools for restoration To date, the precise legal obligation of many restoration commitments has not been clear (Telesetsky et al., 2017; Cliquet et al., 2021; Mendes et al., 2022; European Parliament and Council, 2024). However, the UN Restoration Decade and the KM-GBF provide opportunities for countries to advance the development of substantive and qualitative legal obligations for conducting restoration activities at the international, national, and subnational levels. Legal tools that can be used to upscale restoration include a regulatory mix of rules, principles, and standards (Cliquet et al., 2021). Legal frameworks at the international (e.g., the European Union Nature Restoration Law see Box 6.1) and national levels can take advantage of existing and emerging law to facilitate ecosystem restoration (Akhtar-Khavari and Richardson, 2017). Where absent or poorly developed, the improvement of legal frameworks is essential to upscaling restoration. | Section 5.2; Annex E: B.1 |
| Refer to principles and standards for guidance on enabling conditions The UN Restoration Decade Principles (Principle 10; FAO et al., 2021) and the UN Restoration Decade SOPs (Nelson et al., 2024) elaborate on a wide variety of enabling conditions for restoration, including governance, finance, coordination actions among institutions, sectors and stakeholders, capacity development, and knowledge co-generation and sharing. Significant guidance on respecting Indigenous Peoples as rights and knowledge holders are included in the UN Restoration Decade SOPs. | Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: B.1 |
| Support standards-based restoration to deliver effective restoration Provide policy and legal support for the use of standards and certification in restoration, whether mandatory or voluntary, including practitioner and project certification as tools to lower risk, increase quality of outcomes, and improve capacity. | Section 3.4 Annex E: C.2 |
| Finance and resource mobilisation Securing sufficient financial resources for all components of restoration is essential for successful outcomes (WRI 2017, Nelson et al., 2024). To do this, it is often critical to create partnerships and mobilize diverse sources of funding, including international (e.g., GEF, World Bank), regional (e.g., European Union), national, subnational and private (e.g., private philanthropy, corporate). Where feasible and appropriate, opportunities may be explored to mobilize finance through the sale of products and services that result from restoration activities (e.g., Payments for Ecosystem Services, carbon credits, biodiversity credits) and facilitating access to markets for such products and services. Some NGOs offer tools or facilitate restoration financing. | Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: B.2 |
| Enable continuous learning and capacity development opportunities Systematic capacity development and the need to mainstream restoration knowledge in education and natural resource management programmes at all levels, as outlined in the UN Decade Capacity, Knowledge and Learning Action Plan, enables all parts of society to engage in ecosystem restoration. An e-learning and assessment tool based on this Resource Guide contributes to the capacity development on Target 2. | Section 7.1 Annex E: B.3 |
| Create sustainable demand Increase demand for products from natural ecosystems under restoration, such as rewetted peatlands, to change from degradation based agriculture to sustainable agriculture (e.g., paludiculture). Support supply chain standards and certifications that encourage restorative and regenerative practices in production ecosystems (e.g., Union for Ethical Biotrade Regenerative Programme). | Annex E: B.2 Annex E: C.2 |
| Safeguarding Ensure ecological and social safeguards for payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, and other benefits-sharing mechanisms. | Annex C Annex E: B.2 |
| Compensatory restoration Ensure projects that destroy, damage or degrade natural ecosystems or native biodiversity, including projects that employ biodiversity offsets or credits, follow the Mitigation Hierarchy, where firstly environmental impacts are avoided; then impacts that cannot be avoided are minimized; when impacts occur rehabilitation or restoration takes place first on site; finally, any residual negative impacts are offset. The Mitigation Hierarchy should be implemented diligently and thoroughly. It is critical that its implementation should remain in the right order, avoiding offsetting before restoration, to prevent justifying further biodiversity loss (Jones et al., 2022; Young et al., 2022; Treweek et al., 2023). The aim is at least no net loss and net gain or Nature Positive outcomes whenever possible, taking leakage into account. | Annex E: Global Resources |
| Support and incentivize restoration on private lands Financial incentives and other support systems, including robust legal frameworks, need to be explored and connected with market mechanisms to increase restoration participation on a large-scale. Government support can encourage private landowners to conserve and restore degraded landscape, as shown by the European Networks for Private Land Conservation (ENPLC) and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Restoration efforts may also benefit from regulation by law. For example, Brazil’s Native Vegetation Protection Law or Forest Code requires rural property owners to participate in restoration and conservation (Lopes et al., 2023). | Annex E: B.2 |
| Invest in restoration infrastructure and the restoration economy National and subnational investments in restoration infrastructure (e.g., workforce training, creating incentives to acquire and share equipment and technology) can play a key role in scaling restoration. | Annex E: B.3 |
| Develop globally standardized rapid assessment tools The development of globally standardized rapid assessment methods (e.g., score of gains and losses, or traffic light systems) to assist ecosystem restoration policy design would provide regulators and permitters with the appropriate knowledge and methods to prevent degradation and to identify appropriate locations and scale for restoration, especially for marine ecosystems. Existing datasets and methodologies can be leveraged to expand ecosystem databases on restoration efforts, supported by scientific and the socioeconomic data necessary for prioritising targets, planning, impact assessments, and monitoring outcomes. | Section 3.1 Annex E: A.1 |
The Kenya forest and landscape (FLR) monitoring framework was developed to harmonize and coordinate reporting on landscape restoration efforts in the country and to bolster support to the government in reporting of its national, regional, and global restoration commitments. The monitoring framework was developed through a multi stakeholder consultative process led by the members of the Restoration Monitoring Technical Working Group with feedback drawn through a series of meetings, workshops, at subnational level (county) engagement forums and a national validation event. The Technical Working Group on Monitoring was chaired by the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Forests, but engaged a number of other ministries and NGO actors in support of achieving its Terms of Reference. The resultant monitoring framework outlines 30 indicators and 45 sub-indicators for restoration monitoring considering both process or action indicators and impact indicators, exploring relevant tools and next steps to operationalize the framework. The framework has been endorsed and is included in Kenya’s new National Ecosystem and Landscape Restoration Strategy 2024. The operationalization of the framework for use at local levels is underway, through county level engagement workshops, cross walking county forest and landscape restoration plans with the national framework to better understand information flow and indicators alignment for more coherent restoration monitoring.
Note: Kenya Landscape Restoration Monitoring technical working group and Restoration Monitoring Framework are funded by UK PACT Project and led by ICRAF.
Relevant links:
Link to framework: https://apps.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/2022039.pdf
Link to county level work: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/albert-mwangeka-536b0069_africanwildlifefoundation-fcdo-landscaperestoration-activity-7224055082596589568-ClVR?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
© FAO
The European Union Nature Restoration Law (NRL), adopted in June 2024 combines an overarching restoration objective for the long-term recovery of nature in the EU’s land and sea areas, including inland waters, with binding restoration targets for specific habitats and species. These measures should cover at least 20 percent of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and ultimately all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. While the 2030 target is lower than the KM-GBF agreed restoration target, the longer-term objective for the NRL goes beyond the Target 2. The NRL represents a paradigm shift in the global approach to ecological and ecosystem restoration by creating a proactive obligation to restore ecosystems, decoupled from continued degradation. While no single law can achieve all necessary enabling conditions for restoration, the NRL provides an important model for how parties can create enabling conditions that either obligate or incentivize delivery of the restoration objectives outlined in Target 2.
Restoration projects and programmes should be planned and implemented based on the assessment process and considering the institutional enabling frameworks that exist or are in process of being revised or created at the national and subnational level. As identified in the UN Restoration Decade SOPs, there are three cross-cutting components to consider when planning, implementing, or conducting ongoing management of restoration projects: 1) broad engagement of stakeholders and rights holders in all aspect of the restoration process, in particular Indigenous Peoples; 2) regular and inclusive information sharing; and 3) adaptive management informed by sound monitoring and evaluation throughout all aspects of projects and programmes. In addition, the SOPs describe 13 subcomponents for planning and design, 11 for implementation, and 5 for ongoing management, each containing valuable guidance for best practice. For ecological restoration, the SER Standards contain extensive guidance on eight principles that underpin ecological restoration, SOPs for planning and implementing ecological restoration, and information on key topics including developing reference models, choosing restoration approaches, and selecting seeds and other propagules for restoration. As identified by the STAPER, capacity-building for stakeholders, including legal and legislative support for the rights of women and Indigenous Peoples and local communities and other rights and knowledge holders, is often required. The following steps may be taken as appropriate.
© FAO
| Considerations in the context of restoration policy, science and practise | See also |
|---|---|
| Standards and guidelines Global, national, and ecosystem-specific standards guide ecosystem restoration planning, implementation, and monitoring, including specific guidelines for many ecosystem types and the improvement of practices through case studies and place-based knowledge and resources. | Section 3.4 Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: C.1 Annex E: C.2 Annex E: C.3 |
| Multiple restoration types across habitats and land uses Multiple restoration types across habitats and land uses Ecological restoration and rehabilitation can be used side by side to restore natural ecosystems alongside production ecosystems, such as agroforestry systems in terrestrial ecosystems. Indigenous Peoples’ food generation sustainable practices can combine elements of both. Similarly, restoration can occur across diverse ecosystems to support both biodiversity and livelihoods, such as cross-habitat facilitation restoration in marine areas (Vozzo et al., 2023). | Section 2 Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: A.1 Annex E: C.1 Annex E. C.2 Annex E: C.3 |
| Reference ecosystems and reference models Ecological restoration is informed by natural reference ecosystem targets, and planning and project design are guided by reference models, which integrate diverse data on natural biotic and abiotic conditions, historical conditions, and current and future predicted environmental change (e.g. climate change) in order to set goals and monitor progress (Gann et al., 2019; Durbecq et al., 2020; Toma et al., 2023; Nelson et al., 2024). Big data tools on species distributions (e.g., GBIF) and ecological variables (e.g., Restor) can be very useful but must be paired with ground truthing and local knowledge. | Section 6.1 Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: A.1 Annex E: C.1 |
| Baseline data collection The collection of pre-restoration baseline data for restoration projects is critical for impact assessment and future planning (Gann et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2024). | Section 7.1 Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: C.1 Annex E: D.1 |
| Species interactions Species interactions, such as pollination, seed dispersal, and predation, play a critical role in ecosystem restoration, ensuring biodiversity, ecological balance and resilience. | Annex E: C.1 Annex E: C.4 |
| Genetic diversity of plants and other essential materials Ensuring genetic diversity and securing locally adapted native plant and animal materials are crucial for successful ecological restoration, enhancing ecosystem resilience, and achieving biodiversity conservation and sustainable development objectives. This is true for both native plants and animals for ecological restoration and agricultural livestock and crops. | Annex E: C.1 Annex E: C.4 |
| Enhance ecological connectivity Enhance ecological connectivity through the dual approach of ‘Restore to Connect, Connect to Restore’. Ecological corridors and networks are critical for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, ecosystem function and climate resilience (IUCN-WCPA 2023). | Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: A.1 Annex E: C.1 |
| Plant and animal supply In most parts of the world, there are challenges and bottlenecks that must be overcome in the availability, production, and access to native seeds and other propagules required for restoration, including threatened species and agricultural crops. Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and small businesses can be engaged in the supply of seeds and other propagules to elevate local economic support and secure high biodiversity supply (Padovezi et al., 2024). Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge in their role as custodians of genetic diversity must be respected, for example, in the case of many native seeds and species of flora and fauna. | Annex E: C.3 |
| Workforce training Ecosystem restoration creates significant employment and contributes to sustainable economic economies. It is important to develop restoration-focused job training and supply chains that benefit local economies and strengthen the ecological restoration sector (BenDor et al., 2023). Training and standards of practice for the workforce are critical for maximising these benefits, promoting sustainable development and ecological recovery in countries (e.g. Brazil, Brancalion et al., 2022) and on a global scale (Nelson et al., 2017). | Annex E: B.3 Annex E: C.1 |
| Project certification and verification Project certification and verification can help reduce risk and enhance restoration outcomes assessment, crucial for policy and stakeholder engagement. Incorporating traditional knowledge and community involvement improves success rates, urging a shift towards cost-effective, long-term ecological and socio-economic goals. | Annex E: C.2 |
© FAO
Mexico, a country known for its high biological and cultural diversity, faces significant challenges in restoring its diverse ecosystems, with more than two thirds of its continental territory classified as environmentally degraded. Efforts to address degradation and biodiversity loss have been implemented by government agencies, local communities, NGOs and academic institutions. However, challenges remain to address and recover biodiversity and ecosystem services. Furthermore, dispersed and fragmented data, limited access to systematized information, and a lack of coordination among stakeholders continue to hinder effective decisions and resource allocation.
To overcome these challenges, Mexico developed the National Information System for Environmental Restoration (SNIRA), a digital platform that consolidates information about restoration projects in the country. SNIRA integrates data from projects using diverse restoration approaches, such as natural regeneration, ecological restoration, and rehabilitation, implemented by government agencies, academic institutions, civil society, indigenous groups, and local communities. Thus, promoting transparency and collaboration, and allowing users to share best practices and lessons learned.
To date, information from over 600 projects across various ecosystems, including forests, rivers, islands, coastal, and marine areas, has been included. Of the 365 projects with spatial reference, more than half (54 percent) are located within priority areas for restoration, conservation, or bioclimatic corridors. This information can help identify gaps, prioritize future efforts, and assess whether interventions are meeting their intended ecological and social objectives.
Providing access to detailed data, including socio-ecological benefits and barriers to restoration, enhances stakeholders' capacity to plan and implement restoration activities. Strengthening community involvement and stewardship is also crucial for sustaining long-term restoration efforts. Sharing restoration data through interoperable frameworks between organisations will be important for attracting further funding and bridging the gap between restoration knowledge and action to meet national and international restoration commitments.
Note: Refer to the disclaimer on page ii for the names and boundaries used in this map.
Note: Refer to the disclaimer on page ii for the names and boundaries used in this map.
© FAO
Restoration monitoring occurs at multiple scales, from the national and subnational scale to the programme and project scale. At the national level, reporting on Target 2 will focus on the headline indicator Area Under Restoration, and it is critical that a functioning national monitoring system is in place (see Section 7). At the project level, monitoring should begin during the earliest phases of project development to obtain baseline data that will enable ecosystem conditions and socio-economic effects to be measured against agreed-upon goals and objectives. Effective monitoring benefits from establishing baselines, developing statistically robust protocols for data collection and assessment, identifying ecological, social and economic indicators, and setting clear and measurable objectives based on the selected indicators prior to the initiation of restoration activities. In addition, when appropriate, engaging Indigenous Peoples in monitoring and evaluation processes is crucial to incorporate their perspectives and traditional knowledge to ensure that practices are culturally appropriate and meet their needs and those of their lands and territories. The UN Restoration Decade SOPs describe 11 subcomponents for monitoring and evaluation, each containing valuable guidance for best practice. The following steps may be taken as appropriate.
© FAO
Source: Authors' own elaboration.
| Considerations in the context of restoration policy, science and practise | See also |
|---|---|
| Monitoring different major ecosystem types The three major ecosystem types identified in Target 2 (terrestrial, inland waters and coastal and marine) each require different techniques and approaches to monitoring. In addition, monitoring programmes should choose indicators relevant to tracking progress for the agreed project goals and objectives and to the scale of the project location. | Section 3.5 Section 7.1 Annex E: D.1 |
| Monitoring different restoration types and approaches Different types of restoration result in different types of outcomes, thus it is important to document the type of restoration when monitoring (i.e. ecological restoration versus rehabilitation). Also, it is helpful to record what restoration approaches are being used for the project, (e.g. natural regeneration, assisted natural regeneration, reconstruction or intensively assisted natural regeneration), to contribute to meta-data analyses of costs and outcomes. More projects are needed that compare multiple restoration approaches in the same system to determine which works better and is most cost effective. | Section 3.5 Section 7.1 Annex E: D.1 Annex E: D.4 |
| Restoration timescales and recovery debt Recovery of ecosystems requires time (e.g. often decades or more). Regular monitoring, including over the long term, is needed to enable continuous improvement and to contribute to knowledge generation. The lag time between the initiation of restoration and the recovery of biodiversity and ecosystem functions has been described as the recovery debt (e.g. Rey Benayas et al., 2009, Moreno-Mateos et al., 2017). | Annex E: D.4 |
| Interoperability It is important to have open data access wherever possible, strong data synthesis, and to share knowledge across platforms and at different scales to advance restoration science as well as to support evidence-based decision-making for ecosystem restoration practices (Ladouceur et al., 2021, Gann et al., 2022). Interoperability systems are critical for collecting information on small projects at the community and local level and aggregating them into national and global datasets, which can be used both for global restoration monitoring and meta-analyses. The Framework on Ecosystem Monitoring (the FERM) is designed to be interoperable, accepting data from frameworks such as Aurora and the Restoration Project Information Sharing Framework (ISF) (see Section 7.3). Collecting data from Indigenous Peoples must observe their free, prior and informed consent and be respectful of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to knowledge and data sovereignty. | Section 7.4 Annex E: D.4 Annex E: D.6 |
| Monitoring protocols Many monitoring methods have been developed for specific ecosystems, geographic areas, or to address particular questions. These may facilitate the monitoring of ecosystem restoration and the sharing of monitoring data. One of the central opportunities and challenges of contemporary restoration monitoring is how to appropriately utilize monitoring across vast scales and technologies, from remote sensing to traditional field survey methods, to emerging technologies and the use of big data. | Annex E: D.4 |
| Role of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge Indigenous Peoples must be considered as holders of their knowledge. By including Indigenous researchers and highlighting the role of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge systems in addressing restoration monitoring, restoration monitoring can be improved. | Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: D.2 |
| Choosing project monitoring indicators Restoration project monitoring indicators are chosen to track restoration implementation, effectiveness, and impact (Gann et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2024). Optimally, the indicators chosen and the data collection methods used allow for interoperability and the sharing and aggregation of data. WRI and FAO have collaborated on the development of Aurora, a tool that “aims to help stakeholders develop a monitoring system tailored to their needs by identifying indicators and metrics to monitor progress toward their set goals.” Through a global consultation process, the ISF identified 17 headline indicators and 44 core and secondary indicators, including biophysical and socioeconomic variables, that are recommended for integration into restoration project monitoring programmes (Table 6.1). For ecological restoration projects, the SER 5-star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel are recommended for tracking the recovery of natural ecosystems (Figure 6.2). SER has also developed a Social Benefits Wheel that tracks socioeconomic and cultural change from restoration projects (Gann et al., 2019). Table 6.2 aligns the ISF with the SER 5-star System to provide samples of indicators that can be used to track the change in ecological attributes from restoration projects. | Section 7.3 Annex E: Global Resources Annex E: D.4 |
| Emerging and big data technologies There are a large number of emerging and big data technologies that can be deployed for restoration project monitoring, including eDNA, omics, stable isotopes, bioacoustics, remote sensing, and mobile apps. Emerging data analyses are also available, including novel statistical methods, artificial intelligence, and dense time series analysis. It is critical to match these technologies with the monitoring questions being asked, as well as technological and financial appropriateness. | Annex E: D.3 Annex E: D.4 Annex E: D.5 |
| Statistical challenges and best practices Ecological systems are naturally highly variable, from time to time and from place to place. This variability leads to particular challenges in detecting change and therefore in designing efficient and effective monitoring protocols. Where sampling is expensive, having the resources to collect sufficient data to detect change is another major challenge. Best practices include setting the expectation that collecting monitoring data may be slow or difficult, working with an experienced ecological statistician when planning monitoring programmes, and incorporating information sources that are inexpensive or even free to collect over large areas over the long-term, e.g. remotely-sensed data, where possible. | Annex E: D.3 |
| Participatory and innovative techniques for monitoring Efficient monitoring that incorporates community participation and stakeholder and rights and knowledge holder collaboration connects local and global restoration efforts. Techniques such as remote sensing by drones, setting up photo points, and utilising easy to use survey applications can improve monitoring while lowering costs. Similarly, by involving the public and local communities and employing basic and reliable data collection techniques, participatory science can provide insight and supplement professionals in ecosystem restoration monitoring. Participatory science can be supported by a variety of mobile apps, such as the Cornell Lab Merlin app that identifies birds from calls and photos, and iNaturalist. | Annex E: D.2 |
to improve wildlife abundance and diversity
Coral reefs, saltmarshes, mangroves, and seagrass habitats are in decline globally, affecting the animals that rely on them for survival.
A meta-analysis of marine restoration projects around the world aimed to identify if marine restoration projects assisted in the recovery of animal populations at inshore sites. 160 case studies of restoration projects at coral reefs, oyster reefs, saltmarshes, and seagrass habitats were reviewed. On average, biodiversity at restoration sites was 61 percent more abundant and 35 percent more diverse than in unrestored, degraded sites. These metrics were also compared to those at natural reference sites.
At restoration sites in coral reefs, animal communities were on average 165 percent more diverse and animal populations were 220 percent more abundant relative to degraded sites. The study found that there were some strong positive trends for populations, highlighting the benefits restoration can provide. This is especially valuable since a core goal of reef restoration is often to enhance fish biomass and ecosystem functionality, thus suggesting that such efforts can have a positive impact, even at small scales.
Five thousand data points from 160 peer review studies on coastal restoration projects were coded by descriptor, publication details, study locations, and restoration techniques, with a temporal distribution between 1990 and 2020. Saltmarshes, mangroves, seagrasses, macroalgae, coral and shellfish reefs were on average monitored over four years, with 34 percent of studies (54 out of 160) monitored at sites across multiple years.
Although outcomes were highly variable, marine restoration benefits included greater environmental awareness, enhanced education opportunities and increased employment in tourism and fisheries sectors. When applied appropriately, this case study can inform restoration planning and implementation, and provide evidence to support implementation of restoration projects.
Source: Sievers, M., Connolly, R. M., Finlayson, K. A., Kitchingman, M. E., Ostrowski, A., Pearson, R. M., Turschwell, M. P., Adame, M. F., Bugnot, A. B., Ditria, E., Hale, R., Silliman, B. R., Swearer, S. E., Valdez, S. R., & Brown, C. J. (2024). Enhanced but highly variable biodiversity outcomes from coastal restoration: A global synthesis. One Earth, 7(4), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.02.013
| UN Decade Principles | ISF Headline Indicator |
|---|---|
| PRINCIPLE 1: Ecosystem restoration contributes to the UN sustainable development goals and the goals of the Rio Conventions. | Contributions to global commitments Officially recognized contribution to national or regional commitments. Extent of restoration Extent of area undergoing restoration. Also aligns with Principle 4 |
| PRINCIPLE 2: Ecosystem restoration promotes inclusive and participatory governance, social fairness and equity from the start and throughout the process and outcomes. | Stakeholders engaged Types and diversity of stakeholders engaged. Stakeholder engagement activities Types of stakeholder engagement activities implemented. Also aligns with Principle 8. |
| PRINCIPLE 3: Ecosystem restoration includes a continuum of restorative activities. | Categories of ecosystem restoration activities and approaches utilized Major categories of restoration activities used in the restoration project or programme (i.e. reducing societal impacts, remediation, rehabilitation, ecological restoration, other). A sub-indicator tracking categories or approaches to rehabilitation and ecological restoration is recommended for those projects. |
| PRINCIPLE 4: Ecosystem restoration aims to achieve the highest level of recovery for biodiversity, ecosystem health and integrity, and human well-being. | Biodiversity target status Changes in biodiversity target status from pre-project baseline toward measurable project goals, accounting for leakage. Ecosystem integrity Change in ecosystem integrity status from pre-project baseline toward measurable project goals, accounting for leakage. This is a composite indicator — see Core and Secondary indicators to right. Social-economic benefits Change in delivery and sustainability of social-economic benefits from restoration from pre-project baseline toward measurable project goals, accounting for leakage. Also aligns with Principle 7. This is a composite indicator — see Core and Secondary indicators to right. Carbon sequestration Estimated change in sequestered aboveground carbon, soil organic carbon, and blue carbon equivalents from pre-project baseline toward measurable project goals, accounting for leakage. Also aligns with Principle 7. |
| PRINCIPLE 5: Ecosystem restoration addresses the direct and indirect causes of ecosystem degradation. | Degradation causes Trends in ecosystem degradation causes (or drivers) from pre-project baseline toward measurable project goals. |
| PRINCIPLE 6: Ecosystem restoration incorporates all types of knowledge and promotes their exchange and integration throughout the process. | Knowledge and experience Capacity and diversity of technical expertise and experience applied to restoration project. Capacity building, skills, and knowledge development Change in levels of capacity, skills, and knowledge from pre-project baseline toward measurable project goals, including those needed for planning, implementation, and monitoring. Also aligns with Principle 8. |
| PRINCIPLE 7: Ecosystem restoration is based on well-defined short-, medium- and long-term ecological, cultural and socio-economic objectives and goals. | Goals and objectives Specific, relevant, and measurable goals and objectives, and timelines are included in restoration plan and used to measure effectiveness (e.g., following SMART criteria). |
| PRINCIPLE 8: Ecosystem restoration is tailored to the local ecological, cultural and socio-economic contexts, while considering the larger landscape or seascape. | Landscape/seascape scale planning Landscape or seascape scale considerations that align with local project planning. |
| PRINCIPLE 9: Ecosystem restoration includes monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management throughout and beyond the lifetime of the project or programme. | Monitoring effectiveness Elements of effective monitoring included in the plan and implemented. Adaptive management Key lessons learned, adaptive management processes, and mid-course corrections taken to address unforeseen challenges and improve outcomes. Also aligns with Principle 6. |
| PRINCIPLE 10: Ecosystem restoration is enabled by policies and measures that promote its long-term progress, fostering replication and scaling-up. | Enabling governance conditions Changes in enabling governance policies, mechanisms, and institutional conditions at the national and subnational levels from pre-project baseline toward measurable project goals. |
Source: Gann, G. D., Walder, B., Gladstone, J., Manirajah, S. M., & Roe, S. 2022. Restoration project information sharing framework. Society for Ecological Restoration and Climate Focus. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ser.org/resource/resmgr/publications/restoration-project-informat.pdf
Source: Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson, J., Hallett, J. G., Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M. R., Liu, J., Hua, F., Echeverría, C., Gonzales, E., Shaw, N., Decleer, K., & Dixon, K. W. 2019. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology 27(S1): S1–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035
© FAO
| Biophysical Monitoring Indicators | General Indicators (used in multiple ecosystems) from the SER 5-star System | |
|---|---|---|
| (drawn from the ISF Indicators) | Sub attributes | Examples of Evidence |
| Biodiversity Target Status (H) | Desirable plants, fungi, and lichens Desirable animals Rare and threatened species Provenance, genetic diversity, and genetic resilience | • Number of desirable indicator and keystone species • Number of protected or threatened species • Cover, density, or other measures of abundance • Demographic or genetic viability of rare or threatened species • Sex ratio • Translocated species provenance and diversity |
| Ecosystem integrity (H) | All vegetation strata All trophic levels Spatial mosaic Habitat and interactions | • Number, structure, growth form, and complexity of strata present • Appropriate microclimates present • Leaf area index • Species cover (by layer where applicable) • Diameter and height class distributions • Complexity, balance, and interactions of trophic levels • Soil or substrate microbiome • Spatial distribution of features • Patch history, size, and the ecotones between them • Habitat provision • Host plants for pollinators, frugivores, and nesting species • Occurrence of ecosystem engineers • Coarse debris and litter • Habitat quality indices • Constructed habitat features |
| Substrate - physical | • Similarity to the landforms in the surrounding landscape • Macro and micro variability measures • Water or wind erosion (e.g., erosion rills, gullies, piping, sediment movement or loss) • Soil compaction, roughness, development and characteristics • % bare ground • Soil roughness • Surface resistance to disturbance • Bulk density • Hydraulic conductivity • Particle size and erodibility • Biocrusts • Substrate biota • Substrate deposition or loss rates • Aggregate stability • Water infiltration | |
| Substrate - chemical | •pH • Salinity • Macronutrients and micronutrients • Heavy metals • Rates of litter mass change • Soil nutrient availability • Electrical conductivity • Radiation levels • Other edaphic factors | |
| Water chemo-physical | • Depth to water table • Water infiltration of soil/substrate • Water holding capacity • Changes to streamflow or channel flow • Water temperature • Turbidity • Total dissolved solids • Groundwater chemistry • Wave energy • Seston and/or Chlorophyll a concentrations • Dissolved oxygen • Peat humification • Precipitation • Evapotranspiration | |
| Over-utilization | Harvesting rates of species • Grazing rates • Damage to vegetation • Species composition • Hydrological modifications across landscape • Water harvesting • Mining impacts • Off-road vehicle use or damage • Road density • Degree of fragmentation | |
| Native species richness (C) Native species abundance (C) | Desirable plants, fungi, and lichens Desirable animals | • Species richness and evenness • Number of desirable indicator species • Number of protected or threatened species • Cover or other measures of abundance • Functional diversity • Species call counts • Condition indices of keystone species |
| Invasive species (C) | No undesirable species Invasive species | • Threat of invasive species (e.g. nearby invasive crop, plantation, or garden species) • Presence of invasive species onsite • Relative richness of invasive versus native species • Relative cover or abundance of invasive species • Richness, cover, or frequency of other undesirable native species above and below ground |
| Ecosystem recovery (S) | Resilience/recruitment | • Resilience to disturbance • Capability for self-replacement • Species reproduction and recruitment • Presence of different successional groups |
| Presence of contaminants (S) | Contamination | • Contamination from animal/livestock operations • Industrial production facilities • Mining impacts • Oil and gas production facilities • Agricultural nutrients and chemicals • Urban pollution • Air pollution • Dumping of debris • Acid, alkali, or salt production |
| Reproduction and dispersal mechanisms (S) | Habitat links Intraspecific gene flows Resilience/recruitment | • Capability for self-replacement (growth rates, seedbanks, seedling recruitment over multiple generations) • Species reproduction and recruitment (flowering, seed production, provision of seedbanks) |
| Ecosystem productivity (S) | Productivity, cycling | • Productivity (e.g., photosynthesis and growth) • Demographics |
| Disturbance regimes (S) | Other disturbance drivers | • Characteristics of natural disturbance regimes • Spatial disturbance properties • Temporal disturbance properties |
| Carbon sequestration (H) | Productivity, cycling | • Carbon cycling and carbon budget • Net primary production • Carbon sequestration rate • Woody biomass • Dissolved inorganic carbon • Particulate organic carbon • Carbon flux |
| Climate change adaptation/disaster risk reduction (C) | Resilience/recruitment | • Resilience to disturbance • Presence of different successional groups |
| Beneficial connectivity of native ecosystems (C) | Landscape flows Habitat links Intraspecific gene flows Resilience/recruitment | • Beneficial exchanges or flows with the surrounding environment • Rate and quality of surface and groundwater flows • Migrations and other movements of organisms • Positive genetic flows of characteristic species • Genetic connectivity (e.g., genomic data) • Pollinator travel distance • Gene flow distance and dynamics • Connections with nearby remnant native vegetation • Vegetation or wildlife corridors • Habitat buffers • Landscape level habitat patch mosaics, spatial area, history, and integrity • Persistence and recovery of surrounding ecosystems |
| Degradation Causes (H) Degradation Processes (S) | Invasive species Over-utilization Contamination Other degradation drivers | • Unbalanced disturbance regimes (e.g., inappropriate fire intervals or intensity, flooding, streambank erosion or deposition, herbivory) • Spatial disturbance properties • Temporal disturbance properties • Disease prevalence and intensity |
Note: This table represents the ISF biophysical indicators mapped against the ecosystem sub-attributes used by the SER 5-star System with suggested examples of evidence that could be used to design restoration monitoring programmes
H = Headline, C = Core, S = Secondary
Sources: adapted from Gann, G. D., Walder, B., Gladstone, J., Manirajah, S. M., & Roe, S. 2022. Restoration project information sharing framework. Society for Ecological Restoration and Climate Focus. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ser.org/resource/resmgr/publications/restoration-project-informat.pdf; and Gann, G.D., Mosyaftiani, A., Bartholomew, D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Young, R., Dixon, K.W. 2024. Five-star System sub-attribute Table, V1.0, for SER's International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration. https://www.ser.org/page/Standards-Tools
© FAO
Required citation:
FAO, SCBD & SER. 2024. Delivering restoration outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being – Resource guide to Target 2 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Rome, Montreal, Canada and Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2925en
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) or Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO, SCBD or SER in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
ISBN 978-92-5-139246-1 [FAO]
© FAO, SCBD and SER, 2024
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO, SCBD or SER endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO, SCBD and SER logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons license. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) nor Society for Ecological Restoration (SER). FAO,SCBD and SER are not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the authoritative edition.”
Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request and publications@cbd.int and info@ser.org. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org, publications@cbd.int and info@ser.org.
Cover photographs: ©Unsplash/Birger Strahl; ©Unsplash/Curioso Photography ©Unsplash/Qui Nguyen ©Pexels/Quang Nguyen