The term ‘restoration’ as used in the KM-GBF, including for Target 2, aligns with the term ecosystem restoration used by the CBD in the STAPER and as defined by the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (UN Restoration Decade). The UN Restoration Decade has formally defined ecosystem restoration in the launching report “Becoming Generation Restoration” as “the process of halting and reversing degradation, resulting in improved ecosystem services and recovered biodiversity. Ecosystem restoration encompasses a wide continuum of practices, depending on local conditions and societal choice” (UNEP, 2021).
The process of ecosystem restoration includes a wide array of types, approaches and activities that halt and reverse degradation along the restorative continuum (Fig. 2.1). It can occur in natural, semi-natural and production ecosystems, and from densely populated or developed urban and agricultural landscapes to high integrity landscapes in protected and conserved areas, including Indigenous Peoples’ lands and territories.2 However,
In order for an activity to be considered ecosystem restoration, it must result in a net gain for biodiversity, ecosystem health and integrity, and human well-being, including the sustainable production of goods and services (FAO et al., 2021).
It is also important that the potential for restoration is not used as a pretext for the destruction of natural ecosystems or the depletion of biodiversity (Gann et al., 2019). Recovery of ecosystem attributes (e.g. species composition, soil fertility) can be partial, nearly complete or complete (i.e. full recovery). See Box 2.1 for a review of several key concepts related to restoration including explanations of how they intersect and differ.
Note: The restorative continuum includes a range of activities and interventions that can reverse ecosystem degradation and landscape fragmentation, leading to enhanced biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity, and thus contribute to Target 2.
Source: Adapted from 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
a review of key concepts and their relationship with the objectives of the KM-GBF
This glossary considers the nuances of restoration by reviewing several key concepts related to restoration and explaining how they intersect and differ (adapted from CBD & SER, 2019).
Restoration — The term restoration, in the broad sense, is generally consistent with the definition of ecosystem restoration (below) but can also be used to refer to ecological restoration, Forest Landscape Restoration, or other even broader concepts, some of which have an even stronger emphasis on human well-being.
Ecosystem restoration — This is the process of halting and reversing degradation, resulting in improved ecosystem services and recovered biodiversity. Ecosystem restoration encompasses a wide continuum of practices, depending on local conditions and societal choice (UNEP, 2021; FAO et al., 2021). See also Principles for ecosystem restoration to guide the United Nations Decade 2021–2030 (FAO et al., 2021).
Ecological restoration — This is one part of a broad array of restorative management activities that are considered ecosystem restoration under the UN Restoration Decade (Fig. 3.2). Ecological restoration is broadly defined as the process of assisting in the recovery of an ecosystem that has been damaged, degraded or destroyed (adapted from Gann et al. (2019). It differs from other ecosystem restoration activities in that it aims to recover a natural ecosystem or landscape to the condition it would be in had degradation not occurred, while allowing for environmental change (such as increases in temperature or variation in precipitation patterns caused by climate change). Ecological restoration seeks to recover biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, while delivering ecosystem service and ensuring human well-being. The conservation and restoration of biodiversity is a primary outcome.
Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) — This term is defined by the UNCCD as “a state whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services to enhance food security remain stable, or increase, within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems.”
Rehabilitation — Rehabilitation entails management actions that reinstate attributes of some physical properties (e.g. soils, water) and a level of ecosystem functioning on degraded or transformed sites, along with a renewed and ongoing provision of a level of ecosystem services. Native biodiversity and ecosystem integrity are supported but actions do not achieve substantive recovery of a natural ecosystem.
Restoration ecology — This branch of ecological science provides concepts, models, methodologies and tools for the practice of ecological restoration. It also benefits from direct observation of, and participation in, restoration practice. (Gann et al., 2019)
Restorative continuum — This is the range of ecosystem restoration activities ordered based on the degree to which they recover biodiversity, ecosystem health and integrity, and human well-being. At one end of this continuum are management activities aimed at reducing societal impacts, such as runoff into urban streams, and mitigating threats such as contaminated soils. The other end of the continuum includes ecological restoration, which aims to both remove degradation and recover ecosystems to the condition they would be in had degradation not occurred, while allowing for environmental change. (Gann et al., 2019, Nelson et al., 2024)
Indigenous Peoples’ biocentric restoration — Indigenous Peoples’ biocentric and biocultural restoration are recognized as inclusive and rights-based, and grounded in the knowledge of territorial management of Indigenous Peoples. From a biocentric perspective, Indigenous Peoples place their cosmogony and belief systems, the environment, and biodiversity at the centre of their restoration practices, in both natural and semi-natural ecosystems. (Nelson et al., 2024).
Rewilding — This is the process of rebuilding a natural ecosystem, following major human disturbance. It entails restoring natural processes and the complete or near complete food web at all trophic levels as a self-sustaining and resilient ecosystem with biota that would have been present had the disturbance not occurred (Carver et al., 2021). Some consider rewilding to be a unique component of ecological restoration, while others consider it to be its own discipline.
Landscape and seascape approaches — These are integrated and holistic management frameworks that acknowledge the interconnectedness of ecosystems, requiring holistic strategies that consider ecological, social and economic factors. They address the complex mosaics of natural areas, managed ecosystems, communities, uses and infrastructures through an iterative and collaborative process in a consistent and locally sensitive manner, with the goal of restoring biodiversity, maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services, and supporting sustainable human activities (adapted from Bennet et al., 2022, Karimova & Lee 2022).
Forest (and) landscape restoration (FLR) — The Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration defines FLR as “a process that aims to regain ecological functionality and enhance human well-being in deforested or degraded landscapes. FLR is not an end in itself, but a means of regaining, improving, and maintaining vital ecological and social functions, in the long-term leading to more resilient and sustainable landscapes.” (Besseau et al., 2018) Many types of ecosystem restoration interventions are used to implement FLR, which aims to improve both ecological and social conditions across a mosaic of land uses. The same principles used for FLR could be deployed for riverscapes, seascapes and other areas dominated by inland waters or marine ecosystems.
Riverscape (as applied to restoration) — A riverscape is a spatially complex and hierarchically organized system of ecosystems within a river continuum that can be the target of restoration. It represents the mosaic of different habitat types and environmental gradients found in fluvial (river) systems. Dendritic (branching) networks connect these mosaics, resulting in distinctive spatial configurations and structures that set riverscapes apart from most terrestrial and other aquatic systems. A riverscape is a dynamic and interconnected network of habitats within a river that is critical for maintaining ecological balance, providing natural infrastructure and mitigating the effects of natural disasters (adapted from Brierley & Fryirs, 2022, Skidmore & Wheaton, 2022).
Seascape (as applied to restoration) — These large, multiple-use marine and coastal areas have been scientifically and strategically defined and managed using an integrated approach and emphasizing ecosystem-based management that takes into account ecological, social, cultural and economic factors in order to conserve and restore marine biodiversity and abundance, while also promoting human well-being. Robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks are necessary to support effective governance structures to achieve sustainable and adaptive seascapes that respect local cultures by requiring collaboration among a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local communities and the private sector (adapted from Atkinson et al., 2011, Murphy et al., 2021).
Sources:
UNEP. 2021. Becoming #GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem restoration for people, nature and climate. United Nations Environment Programme. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/4e57915f-a5a3-4867-a771-57cceb36230b/content
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
FAO, IUCN CEM & SER. 2021. Principles for ecosystem restoration to guide the United Nations Decade 2021–2030. Rome. https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/publications/principles-ecosystem-restoration-guide-united-nations-decade-2021-2030
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
Carver, S., Convery, I., Hawkins, S., Beyers, R., Eagle, A., Kun, Z., Van Maanen, E., Cao, Y., Fisher, M., Edwards, S. R., Nelson, C., Gann, G. D., Shurter, S., Aguilar, K., Andrade, A., Ripple, W. J., Davis, J., Sinclair, A., Bekoff, M., Noss, R., Foreman, D., Pettersson, H., Root-Bernstein, M., Svenning, J.-C., Taylor, P., Wynne-Jones, S., Featherstone, A. W., Fløjgaard, C., Stanley-Price, M., Navarro, L. M., Aykroyd, T., Parfitt, A., & Soulé, M. 2021. Guiding principles for rewilding. Conservation Biology; 35: 1882−1893. https://doi.org/10.1002/cobi.13730
Bennett, N. J., Dodge, M., Akre, T. S., Canty, S. W. J., Chiaravalloti, R., Dayer, A. A., Deichmann, J. L., Gill, D., McField, M., McNamara, J., Murphy, S. E., Nowakowski, A. J., & Songer, M. 2022. Social science for conservation in working landscapes and seascapes. Frontiers in Conservation Science Vol 3:954930. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074238
Karimova, P. G., & Lee, K. C. 2022. An integrated landscape–seascape approach in the making: Facilitating multi-stakeholder partnership for socio-ecological revitalisation in eastern coastal Taiwan (2016–2021). Sustainability 14,no. 7: 4238. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074238
Besseau, P., Graham, S., & Christophersen, T. (Eds.). 2018. Restoring forests and landscapes: The key to a sustainable future. Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration. https://www.iufro.org/publications/joint-publications/article/2018/08/28/restoring-forests-and-landscapes-the-key-to-a-sustainable-future/
Brierley, G., & Fryirs, K. 2022. Truths of the riverscape: Moving beyond command-and-control to geomorphologically informed nature-based river management. Geoscience Letters 9:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-022-00223-0
Skidmore, P., & Wheaton, J. 2022. Riverscapes as natural infrastructure: Meeting challenges of climate adaptation and ecosystem restoration. Anthropocene. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2022.100334
Atkinson S., Esters N., Farmer G., Lawrence K., McGilvray F. 2011. The Seascapes Guidebook: How to select, develop and implement seascapes. Conservation International. https://coraltriangleinitiative.org/sites/default/files/resources/CI_Seascapes_Guidebook_select_develop_implement_seascapes.pdf
Murphy, S. E., Farmer, G., Katz, L., Troëng, S., Henderson, S., Erdmann, M. V., Corrigan, C., Gold, B., Lavoie, C., Quesada, M., Díazgranados Cadelo, M. C., Guzmán Mora, A. G., Nunez, E., Montebon, A., Meo, S., Waqainabete-Tuisese, S., Dutra, G., Pereira, R., Mongdong, M., & Putra, K. S. 2021. Fifteen years of lessons from the Seascape approach: A framework for improving ocean management at scale. Conservation Science and Practice 3:e423. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.423
The restorative continuum highlights interconnections among different restoration types and activities, and recognizes that both the socioeconomic and ecological contexts of the restoration site inform the selection of the most appropriate restoration actions, with the aim of achieving the highest practicable ambition. As one moves from left to right on the continuum, outcomes for biodiversity, ecological integrity, and quantity and quality of ecosystem services from natural ecosystems increase. Because of the need to provide livelihoods and reduce poverty, significant restoration work is imperative on the left-hand side of the continuum in urban, rural and production landscapes. Note that ecological restoration, the restoration of natural ecosystems, can occur in urban, agricultural and industrial landscapes.
The restorative continuum includes four main categories of restorative activities:
1 Reduction of negative impacts, such as pollu- tion, use of invasive species, and unsustainable resource use and management;
2 Removal of contaminants, pollutants and other threats, often known as remediation;
3 Rehabilitation of ecosystem functions and ser- vices in highly modified areas such as former mining sites and degraded production ecosystems, which supports the recovery of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity; and
4 Ecological restoration, which aims to remove degradation and assists in recovering an ecosystem to the trajectory it would be on if degradation had not occurred, accounting for environmental shifts including climate change. Full recovery of natural ecosystems requires reaching a high integrity condition for six key ecological attributes: absence of threats, physical conditions, species composition, structural diversity, ecosystem function and external exchanges (Gann et al., 2019).
Different major types of restoration will yield different outcomes and benefits for people and nature (Gann et al., 2019, Leadley et al., 2022, Fig. 2.2, Fig. 2.3). Rehabilitation occurs when the primary outcome is the improvement of some physical properties (e.g. soils, water) and the ecosystem functions together with the provision of ecosystem services that also support biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Ecological restoration leads to the recovery of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. The reduction of negative environmental and social impacts, or pressures, and the remediation of contamination are also important to the extent that they assist directly or indirectly in the recovery of natural and production ecosystems, biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Individual sites, projects or programmes may utilize different types of restoration to achieve their intended outcomes. Importantly, the spatial extent of natural areas can only be increased through the ecological restoration of transformed or converted areas. However, all types of restoration are needed and highly valued, and they intersect and complement each other at the landscape and seascape scale. When choosing the type or types of restoration to implement, it is important to consider the highest level of impact that can be effectively achieved at that site, given societal goals.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Note: Within the context of the four major outcomes of Target 2, the two main restoration types, rehabilitation and ecological restoration, yield different outcomes. Rehabilitation results in enhanced ecosystem functions and services while supporting biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. At the same time, ecological restoration results in enhanced biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services, and ecosystem integrity. In both cases, connectivity is restored to the extent possible given landscape and seascape opportunities and limitations.
Source: Authors' own elaboration.
Approaches to restoration are often described as passive or active, with passive restoration being used to indicate projects primarily utilizing natural regeneration or recovery, and active restoration to indicate projects that reconstruct substrate conditions; utilize planting of trees or other vegetation; introduce or augment wildlife; modify vegetation through logging, thinning or grafting; or manipulate disturbance regimes such as fire and flooding. In practice, few projects are truly passive, and almost all do or should utilize some assistance. As such, restoration approaches occur along a gradient from few interventions other than the removal of sources of degradation, to various levels of assisted recovery, to the complete reconstruction of nearly all key ecosystem attributes (e.g. Gann et al., 2019; Atkinson and Bonser, 2020;, Chazdon et al., 2021). It is not unusual for multiple approaches to be used in a single project. Additionally, some approaches can be combined, such as through the practice of applied nucleation, where small patches of vegetation are planted (often trees) that attract dispersers and facilitate establishment of new recruits through natural regeneration, or where dominant 'ecosystem engineers' are utilized in the marine realm to facilitate natural recovery.
While meta-analyses have not shown that reconstruction projects increase the rate of recovery over natural regeneration, these results can be misleading, since different restoration approaches are rarely compared in the same system (Jones, 2018). Successful projects that rely on natural regeneration work best where conditions for recovery are highest (including both the environmental and socio-economic conditions). Therefore, projects on the reconstruction end of the spectrum are often deployed in areas with the lowest potential for natural recovery, such as following mining or in highly degraded urban or agricultural landscapes. Importantly, nearly all sites require some assistance to achieve the highest outcomes for biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, even in the best conditions. For example, sites that have high connectivity and robust ecosystem function may be missing key species that face barriers to dispersal, such as plants with large seeds. Wildlife, such as butterflies or birds, may not recover because required larval hosts or food sources are absent from the ecosystem under restoration. Epiphytes, key habitat for myriad species, have been shown to be very slow to recolonize restoration sites. Nevertheless, the general idea is to do the least amount of work needed and to focus efforts on supporting the natural recovery potential of species and ecosystems.
Rights-based approaches must also be considered when working with Indigenous Peoples as rights and knowledge holders. For example, the Indigenous Peoples’ biocentric restoration initiative is a holistic restorative approach based on Indigenous Peoples’ food and knowledge systems, culture, cosmogony and spiritual belief systems, which are interrelated and interconnected. This approach recognizes the collective and customary rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to a free, prior and informed consent. It also bases restoration on their collective work, involving communities and households in conservation and restoration activities.
The most appropriate method to use in a given location depends on a series of factors such as: degree of degradation or transformation; ecological context; landscape and seascape context; potential for recovery; and the desires, expectations and capabilities of the communities that take part in or are affected by the restoration. Based on conditions and overarching goals, Parties may prioritize different approaches in order to achieve certain objectives, such as the recovery of threatened biodiversity or the delivery of clean water. Ultimately, restoration types and approaches are best balanced to meet the dual needs of nature and human well-being. General guidance for prioritizing restoration approaches can be found in sections 3 and 6.1, and in the assessment sections of the STAPER and the UN Restoration Decade Standards of Practice (SOPs) (Nelson et al., 2024).
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