Target 2 calls for at least 30 percent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine ecosystems to be under effective restoration by 2030. This is the global target.
The key elements of Target 2 are: 1) define the baseline, 2) set national targets, 3) define restoration outcomes, and 4) apply principles of effective restoration across all major ecosystem types (Fig. 3.1).
Note: The key elements of Target 2 are interrelated and can largely be considered sequential. The first steps are to define the baseline and then set national targets. Once those targets are set, consider the four key outcomes (biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity, and connectivity), and then design and implement effective restoration plans to achieve a balanced net gain for people and nature. Optimally, these steps are separated by major ecosystem types.
Source: Authors' own elaboration
In the context of the KM-GBF and Target 2, in line with the CBD COP Decision 15/5 (monitoring framework), the baseline for setting up the ambition of targets should be defined by a country taking into account historical trends, current status and future scenarios. The period 2011-2020 should be used to establish the baseline where data are available for monitoring and reporting purposes. The baseline is the spatial extent of degraded areas within a country at the end of the baseline period, disaggregated by major ecosystem type. The concept of degradation, however, is context-dependent (Annex A), and defining degradation and establishing baseline conditions was a major challenge in implementing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Table 3.2 describes key definitions of degradation that are of relevance to Target 2.
| Source | Definition of Degradation | Measure of Degradation |
|---|---|---|
| Red List of Ecosystems | Defines ecosystem degradation as the inverse of ecosystem integrity. Ecosystem integrity is defined as the degree to which an ecosystem's physical condition, composition, structure and function are intact | Ecosystem degradation — integrity |
| STAPER | A decline or loss of biodiversity or ecosystem functions, which is context-specific, referring to both the state of ecosystems and to ecosystem processes | Ecosystem degradation — integrity |
| System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA-EA) | The decrease in the value of an ecosystem asset over an accounting period that is associated with a decline in the condition of an ecosystem asset during that accounting period | Ecosystem degradation — condition |
| UNCCD, Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) and SDG indicator 15.3.1 | The loss of biological or economic productivity and complexity in agricultural, range or forest land due to processes arising from human activities, such as the erosion or deterioration of soil and the loss of natural vegetation *115 countries reported values of degraded land, and when combined with 52 national estimates generated by the UNCCD, resulted in an annual degradation rate of at least 100 million hectares (ha) between 2015 and 2019 | Land degradation — productivity and complexity |
| UN Restoration Decade SOPs | A persistent deterioration of ecosystem attributes (e.g. abiotic condition, species composition, ecosystem structure and function, external exchanges) relative to reference conditions, due to direct (e.g. unsustainable resource use, land use change, overexploitation, contamination) or indirect (e.g. climate change) human intervention, that affects the ecosystem’s capacity to provide benefits to people and nature | Ecosystem degradation — all aspects |
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Because degradation can take many forms and be measured in different ways, there are varying estimates on the amount of degraded habitat globally. However, estimates suggest that between 20 and 40 percent of the global land area alone could be considered degraded (UNCCD, 2022), affecting the well-being of at least 3.2 billion people (IPBES, 2018). Freshwater wetlands and other inland waters are particularly degraded, with about 23 percent of remaining wetlands reported to be in a highly degraded (‘poor’) state in 2020 (Simpson et al., 2021). Over 50 percent of rivers globally are estimated to be impaired or severely impaired (Feio, 2022). Marine ecosystems are also experiencing high rates of loss and degradation, particularly along coastlines and for critical fisheries. Estimates are that only 3 percent of the world’s oceans are not impacted by humans (Obura, 2021), and more than 40 percent have been strongly impacted (Halpern, 2008). This degradation has resulted in more than 1 million species of animals and plants being threatened with extinction, along with significant reductions in ecosystem functions and services (IPBES, 2019).
Because of the context-specific nature of degradation, it is important to understand the national circumstances surrounding degradation, drivers of degradation and what ecosystems are being degraded. Degradation and degradation drivers are also measured in different ways across different ecosystem types. This is true not only between natural and production ecosystems, but also between the major ecosystem types identified in Target 2: terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine. In the absence of a global standard, it is critical that policy-makers agree on a definition of and metrics for ‘degraded’ at the country or ecosystem level (Bell-James et al., 2024). Wherever possible, pre KM-GBF baseline conditions should be documented, making use of assessment methodologies such as in the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems or SDG Indicator 15.3.1, as appropriate (see also Section 6.1). In addition, it is important to acknowledge the concept of shifting baselines, where conditions have declined over long periods of time. Some ecosystems may be more degraded than commonly thought, and sometimes current observers view ecosystems as non-degraded that previous observers would view as degraded (Gann et al., 2019). In these cases, the description of accurate reference conditions may require careful analysis (Bell-James et al., 2024). It is important to incorporate Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives and Indigenous Peoples’ ecological knowledge when defining degradation and establishing baseline conditions, as they have a very deep knowledge and understanding of their land and territories and local environments.
© FAO
Target 2 calls for 30 percent of degraded ecosystems to be under restoration globally by 2030. However, each country should set a target for the spatial extent of degraded ecosystems to be placed under restoration within the country, as well as the total extent of each major ecosystem type to be targeted for restoration (see Section 6.1). While Target 2 is based on proportions of degraded major ecosystem types, countries are encouraged to select explicit numeric targets for the country as a whole, disaggregated for terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine ecosystems as appropriate, as well as targets for specific individual ecosystems (see Sections 6.1 and Box 7.1). Countries may also select linear targets, such as for river restoration. This would assist with the inclusion of other area-based commitments into Target 2 commitments and with Target 2 monitoring.
In some cases, a country may determine that one ecosystem type should be a priority for restoration over another. The assessment of restoration opportunities and priorities based on national circumstances could lead to smaller or larger contributions to the global target by a country, or for major ecosystem types within a country. While there is no requirement that the 30 percent be achieved uniformly across all major types, the concept of ecological representativeness would favour more uniform proportions of restoration across major ecosystem types. In practice, restoration may be concentrated where it is perceived to be more cost-effective or where enabling conditions are more favourable (see Case Study 3.1). Nevertheless, where practicable the full variety of relevant major natural ecosystem types should be included within national restoration targets, optimally aligning with the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (GET) (Keith et al., 2020, Sections 3.5, 7). Addressing within-ecosystem variation (including species, within-species, and seasonal variation) is also critical for biodiversity and ecosystem integrity outcomes.
© FAO
The Murray-Darling Basin is the largest river system in Australia. It is home to 16 internationally significant wetlands, at least 35 endangered bird species and over 120 different species of waterbirds.
Between 1997 and 2009, Australia was affected by one of the worst droughts in its recorded history. This highlighted that too much water was being extracted from the system and not enough remained to sustain river health and provide for critical human needs.
In response, the Australian Government established a legislative framework for managing the Basin in the national interest – the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The Plan is bringing the Basin environment back to a healthier and more sustainable level while continuing to support farming, industry and communities.
The plan sets limits on how much water can be taken from rivers and groundwater systems for towns, farms and other uses. The remaining water is available for government-led environmental watering activities to restore and maintain the health of rivers, wetlands and floodplains; to preserve biodiversity; and to improve conditions for native wildlife.
The Australian and state governments in the basin deliver water for the environment when and where it is needed to help ecosystems regenerate and thrive. The ecological responses to these activities are monitored and evaluated through on-ground monitoring, research and engagement in selected areas, as well as through basin-scale evaluations.
As a result, since 2009 over 16 000 gigalitres (GL) of water have been delivered to support river and wetland health in the basin. These restoration activities have occurred across more than 26 000 kilometres (km) of waterways, 420 000 hectares (ha) of lakes and floodplains, and 11 internationally significant Ramsar wetlands. They have helped flush more than 4 million tonnes (t) of salt out to sea.
This has buffered the basin’s flora and fauna through drought and helped species populations survive until better conditions return. Environmental watering also supports fish spawning and population growth, and major waterbird breeding events.
The Australian Government continues to work with state jurisdictions and organizations to manage the Murray-Darling Basin’s resources sustainably and deliver water to the environment to help unique ecosystems thrive.
The restoration of production ecosystems is also essential to reduce pressure on natural ecosystems and ensure or increase the flow of ecosystem functions and services. In addition to the intrinsic value of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity and connectivity, functions and services may include food supply, wood, fibre and other material products, clean and abundant water resources, natural movement of sediment, disaster prevention, increase in carbon stocks, and climate change adaptation and mitigation (see also IPBES (2019) and SEEA Metadata Fact Sheet for Headline indicator for Goal B, Services provided by ecosystems).
National targets should also recognize and support restoration efforts led by Indigenous Peoples, ensuring their governance systems and rights are respected and integrated into national strategies. Other key guidance for national target setting can be found in Sections 5 and 6.1 below.
The following outcomes are described in Target 2:
Enhanced biodiversity — Restoration aims to recover biodiversity at all levels including temporal variability, from landscapes and seascapes to ecosystems, communities, species, populations and genes. To prevent both global and local extinctions, special attention must be paid to rare and threatened species, reducing drivers of degradation, improving habitat provisioning and assisting the recovery of depleted populations.
Enhanced ecosystem functions and services — Restoration aims to recover the functions and processes that underpin ecosystems, from natural disturbance regimes to water and nutrient cycling, habitat provisioning, and recruitment and other attributes of resilience. These outcomes pertain to both natural and production ecosystems. It is important to note that restoration targets and plans should be developed to simultaneously achieve beneficial social outcomes, such as reducing poverty and increasing opportunities for high quality livelihoods. While these outcomes could be assumed to be included in ecosystem services, since they are not explicitly mentioned in the key outcomes for Target 2, they require specific attention when developing restoration targets and plans.
Enhanced ecological integrity — Restoration aims to recover the full range of attributes that make up ecosystems, from landforms and soils to water quantity, quality and timing, species composition and structure, and food webs and trophic interactions. Effective restoration also identifies and removes, reduces or mitigates the drivers of degradation that threaten ecosystem integrity in the present and future.
Enhanced ecological connectivity — Restoration aims to improve beneficial ecological connectivity of ecosystems under restoration with nearby ecosystems and across landscapes and seascapes. This includes landscape flows of increased movement of species, flows of water and other large-scale ecological processes; the improvement or provision of habitats for migratory or other mobile species; and improvement of gene flows critical for species survival, resilience and adaptability (see Case Study 3.2).
a case study of the Maya Forest Corridor, Belize
Jaguars (Panthera onca) are the third largest wild felid in the world and currently range from Argentina to Mexico. Over 20 years ago, the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México formed a group of jaguar experts to develop a comprehensive conservation plan for the species (Hilty et al., 2020). After identifying over 50 core jaguar populations (called Jaguar Conservation Units, or JCUs; Sanderson et al., 2002), a genetic assessment indicated that jaguars are a single species throughout their range (i.e. no subspecies; Eizirik et al., 2001).
The findings inspired Panthera’s Jaguar Corridor Initiative (Rabinowitz & Zeller 2010), which aims to maintain and restore physical and genetic connectivity across the entirety of the jaguar range (Figure 1). The Initiative modelled connectivity among JCUs and identified 182 corridors covering 4.5 million km². Sixty-seven percent of JCUs and 46 percent of all corridors were already under some level of protection. A set of criteria helped to prioritize JCUs and corridors, to further guide on-the-ground and range-wide conservation efforts by Panthera (www.panthera.org) and partners. The Jaguar 2030 Roadmap (https://www.internationaljaguarday.org/jaguar-conservation-roadmap; Jaguar 2030 Coordination Committee 2022) is the next chapter in this vision for range-wide jaguar conservation.
Notes: The Jaguar Corridor spans from northern Mexico through northern Argentina and includes core jaguar populations (called Jaguar Conservation Units or JCUS, dark green) and jaguar corridors (light green). The map was formalized in the Jaguar 2030 Roadmap, with updates from jaguar range country experts in 2021 (Jaguar 2030 Coordination Committee 2022).
Sources:
Hilty, J., Worboys, G. L., Keeley, A., Woodley, S., Lausche, B. J., Locke, H., Carr, M., Pulsford, I., Pittock, J., White, J. W., Theobald, D. M., Levine, J., Reuling, M., Watson, J. E. M., Ament, R., & Tabor, G. M. 2020. Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors. Best practice protected area guidelines series no. 30. IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-030-En.pdf
Sanderson, E.W., Redford, K.H., Chetkiewicz, C.-L.B., Medellin, R.A., Rabinowitz, A.R., Robinson, J.G. & Taber, A.B. 2002. Planning to save a species: the jaguar as a model. Conservation Biology, Pages 58–72, Volume 16, No. 1,. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00352.x
Eizirik, E., Kim, J.-H., Menotti-Raymond, M., Crawshaw JR., P.G., O’Brien, S.J. and Johnson, W.E. 2001. Phylogeography, population history and conservation genetics of jaguars (Panthera onca, Mammalia, Felidae). Molecular Ecology, 10: 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01144.x
Rabinowitz, A., & Zeller, K.A. 2010. A range-wide model of landscape connectivity and conservation for the jaguar, Panthera onca. Biological Conservation 143, 939–945.
A specific case of on-the-ground interventions includes a connectivity model developed for the Maya Forest in Belize. The model included known jaguar locations, habitat suitability of both jaguars and their prey, habitat availability, patch size and configuration, road density and human populations. Because drought, intensified by climate change, is a threat to the resilience of the region, an additional analysis identified areas of concern. The model predicted areas suitable for movement, pinch-points and barriers. One such pinch-point includes the now-protected Maya Forest Corridor, a 10 000 ha (7 km wide and 20 km long) strip of pine forest and wetland that connects a series of protected areas between the Selva Maya and Belize’s Maya Mountains. Model outputs such as these help to prioritize areas for conservation interventions to improve connectivity, including safeguarding forest cover, promoting sustainable and drought-resistant agroforestry activities, and reducing barriers to wildlife movement.
Spatial models are key tools for conservation and restoration planning because they help to prioritize areas for conservation planning, management and interventions. The jaguar connectivity models described above offer methods that may be further applied or adapted for range-wide conservation and restoration planning for other ‘umbrella’ species
While some individual restoration projects will help achieve all four restoration outcomes, many will not. For example, due to widespread fragmentation, not all projects that aim to restore natural ecosystems will enhance spatial ecological connectivity. Likewise, the restoration of production ecosystems may focus on attributes that enhance ecosystem functions and services, but biodiversity and ecosystem integrity should be supported, either on site or off site. To the extent practicable, opportunities to address multiple outcomes should be considered.
Restoration priorities should be set at the national, subnational and local levels to ensure that all four outcomes are reasonably balanced across the suite of activities implemented. Integrated spatial planning in line with the KM-GBF Target 1 could be a useful tool that will help to plan various restoration outcomes at the landscape or seascape scale.
© pexels
For purposes of the KM-GBF, effective restoration can be defined as standards-based restoration underpinned by agreed principles that results in appropriately balanced sustainable net gain that benefits and enhances biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and human well-being (Box 3.1).
As described in Section 1, the STAPER provides voluntary step-by-step guidance to support countries in the development and implementation of their NBSAPs. Although approved during the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 period, the STAPER is still relevant today. The STAPER established principles for ecosystem restoration related to the CBD process and described four main groups of key activities that could be undertaken by Parties in collaboration with other relevant actors:
a assessment of opportunities for ecosystem restoration;
b improving the institutional enabling environment for ecosystem restoration;
c planning and implementation of ecosystem restoration activities; and
d monitoring, evaluation, feedback and disseminating results.
These four main groups of activities were broken down into 24 steps that were further supported in the STAPER Companion, produced with the support of the Forest Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (FERI) of the Republic of Korea (CBD and SER, 2019). The STAPER Companion is hosted by the FERI website with case studies and additional guidance, and links to the Restoration Resource Center hosted by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER). In 2022, the STAPER was also used as a key document in the development of a Massive Open Online Course on Ecosystem Restoration hosted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the CBD.
Also released at COP 13 was the first version of SER’s Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration, which were updated in 2019 (SER Standards; Gann et al., 2019). The SER Standards provide voluntary guidance on the restoration of natural and semi-natural landscapes. They introduced the restorative continuum (Fig. 2.1), and include eight Principles for ecological restoration, standards of practice for ecological restoration projects and other key guidance. These principles and standards, and those for the UN Restoration Decade described below, align with the Conservation Standards, which are widely used by conservation practitioners and policymakers worldwide.
The UN Restoration Decade, through its Best Practices Task Force, developed Principles (FAO et al., 2022, Fig 3.4b) and SOPs (Nelson et al., 2024) for ecosystem restoration. The UN Restoration Decade SOPs are linked to the 10 Principles, and are based on five major components (assessment, planning and design, implementation, ongoing management and monitoring and evaluation), 45 subcomponents and dozens of individual practices.
Biome and sector-based standards and guidelines are being released on a regular basis (Section 6, Annex E). While global principles and standards are needed for global and national planning, biome and sector-based standards are extremely useful at the landscape, seascape and project scale.
Sources:
CBD & SER. 2019. A companion to the short-term action plan on ecosystem restoration - resources, case studies, and biodiversity considerations in the context of restoration science and practice. CBD Secretariat and Society for Ecological Restoration. https://www.cbd-feri.org/staper
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
Nelson, C.R., Hallett, J.G., Romero Montoya, A.E., Andrade, A., Besacier, C., Boerger, V., Bouazza, K., Chazdon, R., Cohen-Shacham, E., Danano, D., Diederichsen, A., Fernandez, Y., Gann, G.D., Gonzales, E.K., Gruca,M., Guariguata, M.R., Gutierrez, V., Hancock, B., Innecken, P., Katz, S.M., McCormick, R., Moraes, L.F.D., Murcia, C., Nagabhatla, N., Pouaty Nzembialela, D., Rosado-May, F.J., Shaw, K., Swiderska, K., Vasseur, L., Venkataraman, R., Walder, B., Wang, Z., & Weidlich, E.W.A. 2024. Standards of practice to guide ecosystem restoration – A contribution to the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021-2030. FAO, SER, IUCN CEM, Rome, Washington D.C. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc9106en
FAO & UNEP. 2022. Global indicators for monitoring ecosystem restoration – A contribution to the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Rome. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/8c813ba8-377a-4c30-965f-42a62a9dd492/content
A site, landscape or seascape can be considered under effective restoration beginning with the implementation of restoration activities through ongoing management and monitoring and evaluation, including adaptive management. Effective restoration is a multi-faceted process that must include assessment, planning, implementation, ongoing management, and monitoring and evaluation processes. It should balance the needs and expectations of stakeholders, including the types of ecosystem services they require or expect, the distribution of human populations, the type of infrastructure present or planned, and the types and distributions of natural and production ecosystems in the landscape. Effective restoration should also uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their land and territories, ensuring their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is obtained for any restoration activities, as appropriate.
Different types of restoration will achieve different outcomes for Target 2 (Section 2.1). Optimal outcomes, however, are often attained by the integration of these restoration types in a landscape or seascape to (i) directly restore biodiversity and natural ecosystems in locations where that is possible and desirable and (ii) increase ecosystem functions and services; reduce impacts on the ecosystems that support biodiversity; and increase the flow of benefits to biodiversity and natural ecosystems, either on site or off site. Box 3.2 provides attributes of effective restoration for the two major types of restoration that contribute to Target 2, rehabilitation and ecological restoration.
Effective rehabilitation projects:
Example: An oil spill causes significant damage to offshore oyster reefs. The oyster reefs are a production ecosystem, parts of which are leased to private entities for the purpose of regular harvesting of native oysters, and other parts for seeding new oysters to the privately leased plots. To recover from the damage caused by the oil spill, the oyster seeding habitat is rebuilt by adding cultch material (crushed limestone, concrete or oyster shell) to the public sections. This method is an accepted practice in this region, and restoring the oyster seeding habitat also benefits other native species. The project is monitored for the success of oyster establishment, and this monitoring is considered when future cultch deposition projects are planned and implemented. This project is effective rehabilitation since it repairs ecosystem function (oyster establishment) in a manner that also benefits native biodiversity and ecological integrity.
Activities that would not be considered effective rehabilitation include those that:
Example: A project plants several thousand tree seedlings with various soil and water treatments to determine the best combination for carbon sequestration. This project takes place in a semi-arid and sparsely vegetated shrub- and grassland landscape. They find that a non-native Eucalyptus species offers advantages over native species. Eucalyptus is then planted in large plantations with high inputs of irrigation and soil amendments. This project is not effective rehabilitation even though it provides an ecosystem service (carbon sequestration). It does not benefit native biodiversity or integrity, it introduces a potentially invasive species, and it relies on modifying the native soils and diverting water to a great extent.
Effective ecological restoration projects:
Example: A river with a watershed of 2 000 km2 is drastically altered as part of a large-scale project to create productive agricultural land. The river is channelized and disconnected from its floodplain. Three decades later, these alterations are reversed, with the intention of restoring native biodiversity and ecological integrity. The work successfully reinstates the river’s natural flooding cycle, which supports the return of many native species while improving livelihoods and engaging stakeholders. A large part of the watershed is made into a new protected area with ongoing support to protect and maintain the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the watershed. This project is designed and implemented based on reference models developed from historic and contemporary information, including data from reference sites. This project is effective ecological restoration because it addresses the causes of degradation with appropriate treatment; is informed by an appropriate native reference model; and includes a primary focus on the benefits to native biodiversity and ecological integrity, while also improving human well-being.
Activities that would not be considered effective ecological restoration include those that:
Example: A former mine site is regraded; treated with soil amendments; and reseeded with a mix of native grasses, shrubs, and trees. The species selected are based on several neighbouring temperate woodland reference sites. The primary goal of this project is to restore biodiversity and ecological integrity to the sites. The site is left without being monitored for more than a decade. Then it is discovered that the site is still in a degraded and grass-dominated state instead of recovering the typical characteristics of the woodland target state. This was caused by a combination of insufficient initial seeding rates of woody plant species and the illegal harvesting of the woody plant species that grew. This project is not effective ecological restoration because it failed to implement monitoring and ongoing management plans, even though it used a native reference ecosystem as a model and aimed to support native biodiversity and ecological integrity.
©CIFOR-ICRAF
Source: FAO. 2021. The white/wiphala paper on indigenous peoples’ food systems. FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3462ba89-ea23-4d49-a3bf-e64bdcc83613/content
Target 2 identifies three major ecosystem types, each with special considerations for restoration: terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine. In addition, the restoration of transformed production ecosystems is essential to maintaining the provision of ecosystem services required for human well-being (Section 2.1, Fig. 2.3). Many natural and semi-natural ecosystems are also production ecosystems, thus combining features of more than one group. However, assessing, planning, implementing and monitoring restoration in these different ecosystem types to achieve the Target 2 objectives represents a challenge. For example, the communities of policymakers, practitioners and scientists working in these different ecosystem types may not typically work together. In addition, those working on ecological restoration in degraded natural ecosystems are often isolated from those working on rehabilitation in production landscapes. Best practice would be to integrate restoration across these types through spatial planning (Target 1) that also considers and integrates restoration in protected areas, OECMs and Indigenous Territories (Target 3) and in landscapes, watersheds or seascapes being utilized for agriculture, forestry, fisheries and other production uses (Target 10).
Natural ecosystems are subject to pressure from human activities, and the main direct and indirect drivers of their degradation vary according to major ecosystem type. Many drivers of degradation also endanger human groups, including Indigenous Peoples, whose territories suffer from the direct and indirect impact of degradation (Riget et al., 2019). The main direct drivers of degradation in terrestrial, inland water and coastal ecosystems are the expansion of crop and grazing lands into natural ecosystems; unsustainable agricultural, aquaculture and forestry practices; overharvesting; and urban expansion, infrastructure development and extractive industries in specific areas (IPBES, 2018, Convention on Wetlands, 2021). Pollution (e.g. toxic chemicals and other contaminants), direct exploitation (eg. use of water for human activities), and climate change (e.g. warming temperatures) are also major drivers of degradation in inland water and coastal ecosystems. In marine ecosystems, direct exploitation such as overexploitation of fisheries, land-sea change linked to events like the destruction of coral and shellfish reefs, and climate change (e.g. warming temperatures) are major drivers of degradation. Loss of natural ecosystems through transformation, coupled with degradation of the remaining natural ecosystems, is the leading cause of biodiversity loss across all major natural biomes. However, invasive alien species and climate change are expected to increasingly drive losses in biodiversity (IPBES, 2018, Pereira et al., 2024). Ecosystems affected by degradation include terrestrial forests; mangroves; savannas; grasslands; rivers; lakes and other wetlands including peatlands, marine shelfs and coral reefs, and production ecosystems such as croplands and rangelands. Ecosystems in the arctic at high latitudes and elevations are especially affected by degradation exacerbated by climate change. Indigenous Peoples’ territories are particularly vulnerable to drivers of degradation, highlighting the need for their active involvement and leadership in restoration efforts to ensure the protection and recovery of these critical ecosystems.
Several ecosystem typologies and classifications have been proposed at the global level (e.g. IUCN GET, FAO Land Cover Classification System) and could be used to improve the effectiveness of restoration at the country level. This could help countries plan, implement and monitor restoration at the highest degree of precision practicable. In some cases, this may be at the biome or functional group level as described by the GET, a comprehensive classification framework for Earth’s ecosystems that integrates functional and compositional features. Finer scales, however, are recommended, such as spatially explicit nationally defined ecosystem typologies, or subnational or local ecosystem classification systems. Preferably, countries can align their nationally defined ecosystem types with GET ecosystem functional groups, and aggregate subnational and local ecosystem classification systems into national and GET classification systems (see Case Study 3.3, Section 7).
Currently, Vietnam does not have a comprehensive, systematic, unified, consistent and detailed ecosystem classification system. This has led to difficulties in research, monitoring and policy development for biodiversity conservation and restoration. A recent study conducted in 2024 aimed to identify ecosystem types across Vietnam by functional group and at the provincial scale using the new IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (GET). Through this approach, 60 ecosystem functional groups were identified, including 45 natural ecosystem functional groups and 15 transformed ecosystem functional groups. By applying this classification system in Quang Ninh Province, located in the northeast region of Vietnam, the study recorded 44 out of 60 ecosystem functional groups. The study shows the high level of ecosystem diversity in this country. However, the high level of diversity also poses a challenge in attempting to subdivide the ecosystem functional groups into more detailed levels. Below the level of ecosystem functional groups (level 3), Vietnam has not yet developed a system to classify ecosystems into more detailed levels (levels 4 to 6). Currently, Vietnamese scientists often use the forest classification system with nine basic forest ecosystems (Trung, 1999) or four main forest types as in the Circular No. 33/2018/TT-BNNPTN issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development. For wetland ecosystems, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment's Circular dated 31 August 2020 has identified 26 types of wetlands in Vietnam. This wetland classification system follows the classification system of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Based on the functional group analysis, the study further showed that most of Vietnam’s terrestrial ecosystems suffer from at least one form of degradation, spanning from low to high levels, with high fragmentation and weak connectivity, most severely being felt in inland aquatic ecosystems. More effort is needed to undertake the classification of Vietnam's ecosystems beyond level 3, with active capacity development and training required to classify and identify the conservation status of ecosystems moving forward. Although a novel approach, it provides an important basis for countries such as Vietnam to target and implement effective ecosystem restoration activities in line with the ambitious targets of the KM-GBF.
Source: Trung, T.V. 1999. Tropical forest ecosystems in Vietnam. Science and Technology Publishing House.
The three major ecosystem types have both common (e.g. diversity of threats) and unique (e.g. composition, function) attributes, which should be considered when planning and implementing restoration. In addition, there are significant differences in the state of knowledge associated with these ecosystems and their restoration. Fig. 3.3 provides a collation of some differences that exist in terms of both opportunities and challenges for delivery of Target 2 objectives across differing major ecosystem types. Finally, restoration in production ecosystems has its own unique attributes and considerations.
Notes: An earlier draft was produced by the Inland Waters and Coastal and Marine Group during the workshop Developing a Roadmap for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 2. Items in green are areas for which knowledge and strengths exist, or for which notable progress has been accomplished; pink indicates areas with significant unknowns or challenges, while yellow is a mix of the two.
Source: Authors' own elaboration.
Coastal and marine ecosystems — There is a large, and somewhat complex, international legal framework for conserving and sustainably using marine biodiversity, which includes instruments such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the CBD and the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands. This international framework provides a strong basis for not only protecting marine ecosystems from damage, but also restoring marine ecosystems that have been degraded. However, working in marine and coastal areas can be complicated by several factors. The greater the horizontal and vertical distance (i.e. the deep sea) from land, the more difficult it is to engage communities and the public in all aspects of restoration. This distance also limits accessibility, which results in less available information about marine ecosystem conditions, restoration needs and restoration opportunities as compared to both inland waters and terrestrial systems. Area measurements are complex in marine environments, creating challenges for applying and measuring the 30 percent target. Extensive development and modifications of coastlines make work in coastal areas challenging, although these areas may also be highly regulated. The fluidity and connectivity of marine systems creates unique opportunities and challenges for restoration (e.g. propagules travel much farther and can support restoration, but so do contaminants).
Degradation threats include overfishing; coral bleaching; shellfish die off; kelp deforestation; chemical contamination; plastic pollution; and water quality, quantity and temperature changes.
© FAO
Inland waters — Inland waters include lakes, wetlands, riverscapes, peatlands, groundwater and other aquatic systems within terrestrial areas. While they can include saline and brackish waters, in the CBD context inland waters largely refers to freshwater. Although Ramsar estimates that wetlands are the most threatened major ecosystem type globally, distinguishing between specific kinds of wetlands remains a major challenge. Like marine ecosystems, inland waters often fall under common jurisdiction, which creates significant challenges and add complexity to planning, funding and implementing restoration. Furthermore, the diversity of standards levels among countries, in terms of water bodies’ quality assessment, represents an additional difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of inland water restoration. The linear nature of some inland waters must be taken into consideration when defining and achieving area-based targets. Degradation and ecosystem integrity can be measured through changes in ecological attributes, including ecological connectivity, species richness (e.g. presence or abundance of key species, diversity of relevant species groups), and physical and chemical water conditions (e.g. water availability and quality), as well as shifts in timing. While much is known about restoration in inland waters, data sharing and availability can be comparatively lower than for some terrestrial ecosystems, such as forests. Moreover, the case of groundwater is particularly problematic, as some countries know little about its extent and condition. Land-use change is a significant driver of degradation. Other threats include chemical contamination; water quality, quantity and temperature changes; impediments to flow (e.g. dams), and overharvesting (e.g. for irrigation) and overuse.
© FAO
Terrestrial — While terrestrial restoration is often considered to be the major ecosystem type with the most knowledge, inputs, and activities, that knowledge is inconsistent across terrestrial ecosystems. Forest ecosystems generally receive the most attention, including research and data availability. However, terrestrial ecosystems are incredibly diverse and require many different approaches and activities. The need for rehabilitation on extraction sites (i.e. mines) and production lands is also extensive in the terrestrial realm
Key threats include land use change, deforestation, desertification, fire, drought, overgrazing, extensive agriculture, chemical and toxic pollution, and invasive species.
Production — While opportunities for restoration in production landscapes is extensive, this is an area that needs more work. The rehabilitation of agricultural land and soil is needed as well as the ecological restoration of production ecosystems based on native and semi-natural ecosystems from native forests managed for wood production, to rangelands utilizing native grasslands, to semi-natural hayfields, to fisheries in inlands waters and marine ecosystems. Opportunities for rehabilitation include agroforestry systems and other agroecological systems based on regenerative and sustainable principles. Threats include urbanization and other land use change, loss of soil quality, pollution and invasive species.
© 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