Metadata Factsheet

1. Indicator name

2.2 Area under restoration

2. Date of metadata update  

2023-06-01 12:00:00 UTC

3. Goals and Targets addressed

3a. Goal

N/A

3. Target

Target 2: Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of areas of degraded terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal ecosystems are under effective restoration, in order to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity.

4. Rationale

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), as co-lead of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (“UN Decade”) and lead of the Task Force on Monitoring (“the Task Force”) follows the request and mandate given by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to report on the status of ecosystem restoration in its eighty-first session (resolution A/RES/73/284 from March 2019): “The General Assembly, (…) 7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its eighty-first session on the status of the implementation of the present resolution, including its contribution to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”.

The Task Force brings together hundreds of technical experts from over 100 organizations tasked with collaboratively developing a monitoring framework for the UN Decade. The monitoring framework for the UN Decade intends to support monitoring and reporting of the progress and achievements of ecosystem restoration for the UN Decade (2021–2030). The framework was subsequently created and named the Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM). A description of the Task Force can be found here: TF link.

Through an extensive consultative and analytical process, a set of 20 headline indicators were identified from existing formal country data collection processes. The report on headline indicators (FAO and UNEP, 2022), was launched at the XV World Forestry Congress in May 2022. From the analysis of existing country data collection processes, it was clear that there are currently no indicators that can be used as the basis for area-based assessment of restoration. Given this, a working group was created to support development of a methodology for area-based estimates for UN Decade progress reporting and for Target 2. The FERM registry was launched at the XV World Forestry Congress to harmonise and collect area-based data on ecosystem restoration projects and programs, and enable interoperable data exchange with other platforms (https://ferm.fao.org/). The FERM data visualisation geoportal has been developed to visualise progress and provide indicators and data to help practitioners to monitor ecosystem restoration (https://data.apps.fao.org/ferm/).

FAO support to monitoring Target 2 removes duplication of effort and ensures alignment between the monitoring of the UN Decade and CBD Target 2.

As of November 2022, FAO, in collaboration with the Task Force on Monitoring and the working group on Target 2, have developed a draft methodology for monitoring and reporting area under restoration as described below. The methodology is applicable for reporting progress under the UN Decade, and can be disaggregated to provide data for Target 2. With this approach, a single data compilation and validation exercise for area under restoration can support monitoring and reporting requirements for several needs (CBD and UN Decade). It is planned that the methodology and indicator will be finalized in 2024 prior to COP 16. A draft methodology is available here.

5. Definitions, concepts and classifications

5a. Definition

a) Ecosystem:

Within the article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (UN, 1992), ecosystem is defined as:

“Dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit.”

b) Degraded ecosystem:

No definition was found from the CBD or other conventions, it is defined by Dunster and Dunster (1996) as:

“An ecosystem where, due to any process or activity, the viability of ecosystem functions and processes, and hence biodiversity, have been removed or lessened.”

A similar but more frequently used term is degraded land. There are various definitions of land degradation. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) defines it as:

“The reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of rain fed cropland, irrigated cropland, or range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from a combination of pressures, including land use and management practices.

This definition was adopted by, and is used by, the 196 countries that are Party to the UNCCD for reporting on SDG Indicator 15.3.1.

c) Ecosystem restoration:

Within the UN Decade, ecosystem restoration is defined 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).

Within the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, ecosystem restoration is described as follows (CBD, 2021):

“Restoration may include: (a) restoring converted areas back to natural states; (b) improving the ecological integrity of degraded natural areas; and (c) rehabilitating converted and degraded areas (e.g. degraded agricultural lands) to improve both productivity and integrity.”

d) Ecological restoration:

Ecological restoration is a type of ecosystem restoration. According to CBD (2016), it is defined as:

“The process of managing or assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed as a means of sustaining ecosystem resilience and conserving biodiversity.”

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines ecological restoration as:

The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. (Ecosystem restoration is sometimes used inter-changeably with ecological restoration, but ecological restoration always addresses biodiversity conservation and ecological integrity, whereas some approaches to ecosystem restoration may focus solely on the delivery of ecosystem services.) (Gann et al., 2019).

The CBD Secretariat and SER have provided a glossary to help distinguish different versions of restoration and explain how they intersect (CBD Secretariat and SER, 2019).

e) Rehabilitation:

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines rehabilitation as:

Management actions that aim to reinstate a level of ecosystem functioning on degraded sites, where the goal is renewed and ongoing provision of ecosystem services rather than the biodiversity and integrity of a designated native reference ecosystem (Gann et al., 2019).

Rehabilitation is a type of ecosystem restoration. Ecosystem rehabilitation is focused on restoring and improving functions within transformed ecosystems, while ecological restoration is focused on restoration to a natural state.

f) Effective restoration:

There currently is not definition for effective restoration, this will be established with the finalized methodology of Target 2.

g) Ecological connectivity:

The Convention on Migratory Species (2020) defines ecological connectivity as:

“The unimpeded movement of species and the flow of natural processes that sustain life on Earth

h) Ecological integrity:

Within the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2021), ecological integrity is described as follows:

“An ecosystem is generally understood to have (ecological) integrity when its dominant ecological characteristics (e.g. elements of composition, structure, function, and ecological processes) occur within their natural ranges of variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations.”

Ecological integrity is an essential element in Goal A, and is also addressed in Target 1, Target 2 and Target 12. Parties to the CBD are also working to adopt a consistent and accurate method to define, measure and operationalize it.

5b. Method of computation

At the moment, there is no mechanism for collecting area-based information on ecosystem restoration. FAO and key partners from the Monitoring Task Force of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration have defined a draft methodology for data collection, compilation, and reporting. The proposed workflow consists of four main elements: data compilation, country validation, reporting and capacity development, as illustrated in Figure 1. The workflow will be used to estimate area under restoration for reporting to both CBD Target 2 and the UN Decade.

The primary platforms and reporting mechanisms for collecting information on restoration areas identified by the Working Group, include the Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Restor, Restoration Barometer, UNCCD’s Performance Review and Assessment of the Implementation System (PRAIS), World Database for Protected Areas (WDPA), the Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA), International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), Ramsar, UNFCCC and other REDD+ reporting mechanisms.

The Task Force will work with platform developers to harmonize the data collected by each platform and work towards collecting the data parameters for reporting on areas under restoration. The Project Information Sharing Framework from the Global Restoration Observatory (GRO) (Gann et al., 2022) provides a useful framework for interoperability between platforms. The goal of interoperability between the key restoration platforms is to enable the exchange and integration of data from different sources, to have an API that will share data seamlessly between platforms, reducing duplication of effort, reporting burden, and the likelihood of double counting of restoration areas.

Restoration initiatives, led by public entities, private sector, civil society and individuals can share area based data and additional parameters for reporting area under restoration through any of the key identified platforms. FAO will compile data from the key platforms and harmonize the data through the FERM registry so long as data providers, be they national institutions or private sector, have consented to share those data with the UN Decade. Spatially explicit area information is strongly recommended; as such, information will be used to transparently share the areas under restoration, restoration commitments and areas successfully restored, as well as calculate the connectivity metrics between ecosystems. The additional parameters will assist in avoiding double counting and providing disaggregated estimates for different reporting mechanisms. A quality assurance quality control (QA/QC) procedure in the FERM registry will be defined to include only complete and relevant data in the estimate and avoid double counting, as much as possible.

FAO, jointly with the Task Force and the CBD secretariat, will rely on the CBD national focal point or country representatives to complete the data validation and reporting for Target 2 and UN Decade area-based estimates. The country representatives will be presented with a pre-compiled form in the FERM registry, based on the data compilation from the various platforms. Countries will have the opportunity to modify the information in the FERM registry, add areas under restoration from national databases, validate the pre-compiled data, and define which information is shared through the FERM platform. Additionally, countries that have unassisted natural restoration that is not being overseen by a particular entity will be invited to record the area of restoration through the FERM registry. This process is referred to as country validation.

There will be capacity development opportunities for collecting geospatial information on restoration areas and activities and entering data to the FERM registry. Support will be provided to UN Decade Flagships, Global Environment Facility (GEF) projects, and additional funding is in the process of being secured to expand capacity development efforts.

Depending on the data source, the compiled data by ecosystem is classified into tiers before the country validation process to facilitate transparent communication of where the data originates from and if it has already undergone prior country validation to avoid the duplication of validation efforts. The tier classification will be applied to the data sources for the country validation and only officially validated data will be published in the FERM platform. The tiers for the data sources are defined as:

  • Tier 1: Estimated data from non-official sources (e.g. produced by non-government organizations or from scientific literature).
  • Tier 2: Estimated data from official sources (e.g. produced by custodian agencies).
  • Tier 3: Country data. Country directly reported data.

For the country validation process the data will be aggregated at the national scale by ecosystem, when possible. Possible validation outcomes are: a) country validates as country data; b) approval of publishing the data as estimated data; c) rejection of publishing the estimated data; d) non-response - data reported as estimated data. Validated statistics, aggregated from data validated as country data or estimated data on areas under restoration will be reported to the CBD and in the annual reporting mechanism of the UN Decade.

The data parameters for area under restoration include information for directly deriving relevant information on area under restoration and additional parameters for ensuring the quality, consistency and transparency of the data reported. Table 1 outlines the data parameters recommended for reporting area under restoration under three broad groups: area, status, and additional information. Area is used to measure the extent of restoration and ecosystem being restored for aggregation and disaggregation. Status provides an indication of whether an area being reported can be counted towards a reporting period. Additional information helps identify potential duplicates from multiple platforms. It is also used for filtering restoration initiatives and areas for different reporting processes.

Specifically:

1. Committed area to restore includes pledges, targets or commitments by country or conventions. Commitments can be reported as time-bounded absolute values with units, e.g., to restore 500 hectares by 2030. This parameter will not be counted as area under restoration but will serve as a reference to monitor restoration progress. Therefore, they should be included in the reporting process, when possible. Data type: tabular.

2. Area under restoration and 3. Ecosystem describes the area where restoration is happening. It will be reported by ecosystem and by country. There are two data types, tabular and spatially explicit data, and are described as the following:

  1. Tabular
  • Tabular value is the estimate of ecosystem restoration by ecosystem in the appropriate units (e.g., number of hectares of forests, number of kilometers of rivers). It can be compiled from global or regional reporting processes for country validation or directly reported by national focal points. Ecosystems can be reported using the UN Decade ecosystems, the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0 (Keith et al., 2022) or country specified ecosystems. Disaggregation by ecosystems may or may not be available, depending on the data sources.

2. Spatially explicit (Spatially explicit information on restoration areas is encouraged but not a requirement.)

  • Point or administrative data: Areas under restoration can be associated to a coordinate that is within the area or the administrative unit where the activities are taking place. In the FERM registry a point location or administrative boundary (using administrative level 1 or 2) shall be provided as a minimum requirement for a restoration initiative. Additional tabular data will be required for the area under restoration by ecosystem, consistent with the reporting ecosystem classification system and by country. The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology map will be provided as the default dataset of the ecosystems that intersect with the coordinate or administrative boundaries. The default ecosystems can be confirmed or modified to report using the UN Decade ecosystems, the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0 (Keith et al., 2022) or country specified ecosystems.
  • Delineation of areas under restoration: If spatially explicit information of a restoration initiative is provided in the FERM registry and represents the entirety of the area under restoration (i.e. polygons of the areas are provided), by default, the restoration area by ecosystem and by country is calculated based on the polygons. The area under restoration can be modified as a tabular input if the calculated areas do not align with the total area under restoration. The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology map will be provided as the default dataset of the ecosystems that intersect with the polygons. The default ecosystems can be confirmed or modified to report using the UN Decade ecosystems, the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0 (Keith et al., 2022) or country specified ecosystems.
  • Delineation of areas under restoration is required for calculating the component indicator on ecosystem connectivity.

A global ecosystem dataset is used as default data to make the map overlay that covers aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Available global ecosystem maps were evaluated (Annex 1) and the outcome of the analysis found the most detailed and complete information is provided by the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0 (Keith et al., 2022). The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0 is the outcome of critical review and input by an extensive international network of ecosystem scientists, containing profiles for 25 biomes and 108 ecosystem functional groups (EFGs). Biomes will be used for disaggregation by ecosystems for reporting. Data type: tabular or spatially explicit.

4. Restoration status will provide an indication of whether the restoration area can be counted towards a reporting period. Restoration status is broken down into four components and an area specifies one of the components to represent its status. Each restoration status is characterized by a temporal component, which includes the start year of the restoration activities and end year, if applicable. Information on the start and end years will be compared to the reference period (2011-2020) (CBD/COP/DEC/15/5.2) and reporting periods for CBD reporting and UN Decade reporting. This will also enable reporting to multiple conventions by sub-setting the data by year. Temporal components might be difficult to define for areas with unassisted natural restoration and further instructions will need to be provided. The restoration status is characterized by three phases, in preparation, in progress and post-completion monitoring, described as the following:

  • In preparation: enabling environment, funds committed, area gazetted for restoration, activities have not yet begun, and impacts of restoration may not yet be measurable.
  • In progress: ongoing restoration activities and depending on the time that the activities have been ongoing, impacts may start to be measurable.
  • Post-completion monitoring: restoration activities completed and efforts in place to monitor the restoration results. It is acknowledged that an area will not be restored as soon as activities are completed, therefore, post-completion assessments on the restoration status shall be made periodically. The four possible values are:
    • restored
    • under restoration
    • degrading or degraded
    • unknown - no longer being monitored

Areas that are considered “in preparation” will count towards the area committed to restore. Areas with the status “in progress” and “post-completion monitoring-under restoration” will be reported as “under restoration”. An area can be considered to be “restored” when all key ecological attributes resemble those of the natural ecosystem reference that is the target of restoration, thus requiring high ecological integrity (Gann et al., 2019). For successfully restored areas, it is encouraged to continue monitoring and assessing the status periodically. Efforts should be made to prevent new degradation and maintain the restored status. They will be reported as “area restored” as long as the status remains restored. Data type: descriptive.

5. Type of restoration. The possible values are ecological restoration and rehabilitation. This can be determined by analyzing the current and target ecosystem (natural or transformed). Examples of transformed ecosystems are: farmlands, forest plantation, urban ecosystems. As a useful rule of thumb, if the target ecosystem is natural, the restoration will be ecological restoration. If the target ecosystem is transformed, the restoration will be rehabilitation (see Figure 2). Target 2 includes both ecological restoration and rehabilitation. Data type: descriptive.

6. Restoration activity describes what is being implemented on the ground in order to achieve restoration objectives. Activities are adapted from the Glossary of restoration interventions of the TEER initiative. They are divided into two main categories (biophysical and enabling) and secondary categories according to the IPBES report (IPBES, 2018). Implementing enabling activities often corresponds to the preparation stage. Data type: descriptive.

7. Lead entity and 8. Tenure status provide information on the entity leading the restoration effort and legal status of the area under restoration. Information on tenure status should include documentation of Free and Prior Consent (FPIC) to ensure that people’s rights are respected in the process of restoration and adherence to the UN Decade principles (FAO, IUCN CEM & SER, 2021) as well as the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) (FAO, 2022). Data type: descriptive.

Additional parameters are being developed for area of degraded ecosystems and other effectiveness parameters, such as restoration plans.

To calculate the coverage using spatially explicit data, UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2021) provides a methodology. Overlapping areas in the spatially explicit data where the restoration status corresponds to under restoration will be counted only once to calculate the coverage of the spatially explicit data for the total area under restoration.

5c. Data collection method

The indicator for monitoring the extent of restoration shall leverage platforms for monitoring the progress of the UN Decade, and to the extent possible, build on existing frameworks and well-established processes. The Monitoring Task Force has identified data sources through which data will be collected. FAO will be compiling data and publishing in the FERM platform after validation. Data of restoration initiatives can also be entered directly into the FERM registry.

5d. Accessibility of methodology

The methodology is not currently published in a peer-reviewed location. A guidance and methodology document is being drafted by FAO and CBD (available here) and will be published b during 2023. This will be the contribution to the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group, which will finalize the methodology in 2024. Once compiled and available, the underlying data will be aggregated and published through the FERM platform, and using this underlying data, the methodology can be repeated by other scientists or agencies to obtain the same overall result.

The methodology can be used at national, regional scales and global.

5e. Data sources

Table 1 is a summary of the data parameters and examples of data sources with corresponding tiers (tiers are defined in Section 5b). The working group will analyze each data source to extract the tabular estimates of area under restoration (ha). Tabular estimates form the basis of reporting and can be strengthened by countries as they develop capacity to report using spatially explicit data on area under restoration. Spatially explicit data compilation includes data directly entered into the FERM registry, global reporting frameworks and restoration platforms that collect spatial information. It is required for calculating a component indicator on ecosystem connectivity.

Table 1. Summary of data parameters and example sources.

Group

Data parameter

Data type

Data source examples: official data (Tier 2 & 3)

Data source examples: unofficial data (Tier 1)

Area

Committed area to restore (ha)

Tabular

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), Bonn Challenge, Ramsar Convention, Global Restoration Commitments database (Sewell et al., 2020)

UN Decade Hub

Nature Commitments

Area under restoration (ha)*

Tabular

Sustainable Development Goals Indicators Database , Forest Resources Assessment (FRA), UNCCD Performance Review and Implementation System (PRAIS), REDD+ reportinge,g,, UNFCCC Forest Reference Levels (FRL) and Biannual Update Reports (BUR), Architecture for REDD+ Transactions (ART), Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest finance (LEAF), The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)

Spatially explicit

Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM), World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) , Performance Review and Implementation System (PRAIS)

International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), Global Mangrove Alliance, Restor, Society for Ecological Restoration - Restoration Resource Center

Ecosystem

Descriptive

UN Decade Ecosystems

Spatially explicit

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Ecosystem Typology 2.0 (biomes)

Status

Restoration status

Descriptive

Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM) , World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), Restoration Barometer

Additional information

Type of restoration

Descriptive

Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM)

Activity

Descriptive

Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM), The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration (TEER), World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT)

Lead entity

Descriptive

Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM)

Tenure status

Descriptive

Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM)

* Required field

5f. Availability and release calendar

The indicator is currently in development. The formulation of the target was agreed at COP 15 in December 2022 and in parallel the draft guidance and methodology document was made available within the same time frame. The methodology will be finalized in 2024 by the Ad hoc Technical Expert Group. The indicator compilation exercise will be updated on a yearly basis with national reports in for official reporting in 2026 and 2029.

5g. Time series

Expected availability: 2021-2030

First update: Seventh National Report (NR7) in 2026

5h. Data providers

See Table 1 in 5e. Data sources.

5i. Data compilers

FAO will be compiling data from different sources.

5j. Gaps in data coverage

The data compiling will take place in a step-wise approach and aim for completeness in terms of coverage by ecosystem and by country.

For country-level tabular data on area under restoration, disaggregation by ecosystems may or may not be available depending on the data sources.

5k. Treatment of missing values

FAO will be compiling data from existing processes and platforms. Each custodian agency and platform has its own methodology of treating missing values. Therefore, no further estimates will be made by FAO. After the compilation, estimates will be produced and provided for countries to validate. Missing values will not be imputed or otherwise estimated.

6. Scale

6a. Scale of use

Scale of application: Global, Regional, National

Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation: data is compiled at the national scale and is then aggregated to the regional and global scales.

Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to national level:

National data is collated to form global indicator: Yes

6b. National/regional indicator production 

The scale of indicator 2.0.1 is national and can be aggregated globally.

6c. Sources of differences between global and national figures

6d. Regional and global estimates & data collection for global monitoring

6d.1 Description of the methodology

6d.2 Additional methodological details

6d.3 Description of the mechanism for collecting data from countries

Depending on the data source, the compiled data by ecosystem is classified into tiers before the country validation process to facilitate transparent communication of where the data originates from and if it has already undergone prior country validation to avoid the duplication of validation efforts. The tier classification will be applied to the data sources for the country validation and only officially validated data will be published in the FERM platform as the estimates for Target 2. The tiers for the data sources are defined as:

  • Tier 1: Estimated data from non-official sources (e.g. produced by non-government organizations or from scientific literature).
  • Tier 2: Estimated data from official sources (e.g. produced by custodian agencies).
  • Tier 3: Country data. Country directly reported data.

For the country validation process the data will be aggregated at the national scale by ecosystem, when possible. Possible validation outcomes are: a) country validates as country data; b) approval of publishing the data as estimated data; c) rejection of publishing the estimated data; d) non-response - data reported as estimated data. Validated statistics, aggregated from data validated as country data or estimated data on areas under restoration will be reported to the CBD and in the annual reporting mechanism of the UN Decade.

7. Other MEAs, processes and organisations

7a. Other MEA and processes

The indicator itself is not used in other MEAs or processes. However, data are compiled from existing MEAs and processes. For details please refer to Table 1.

7b. Biodiversity Indicator Partnership

Yes

8. Disaggregation

The indicator will be able to disaggregate by country and by ecosystems. The IUCN global ecosystem typology map allows disaggregation by ecosystem. Functional biomes from the ecosystem typology are used for disaggregation.

It is also possible to disaggregate by additional parameters listed in Table 1, such as by restoration status (area under restoration and area restored).

9. Related goals, targets and indicators

Target 2 is related to various goals and targets, including Goal A (ecological restoration and restoring converted ecosystems), Goal B (Restoration of ecosystem functions and services), Target 1 (spatial planning) and Target 3 (implementing protected areas).

10. Data reporter

10a. Organisation

FAO

10b. Contact person(s)

Julian.Fox@fao.org

11. References

CBD Secretariat and SER. (2019). A companion to the Short-Term Action Plan on Ecosystem Restoration - Resources, cases studies, and biodiversity considerations in the context of restoration science and practice. Montreal, Canada.CMS. (2020). UNEP/CMS/Resolution 12.26 (Rev.COP13). Available at: https://www.cms.int/aquatic-warbler/sites/default/...

Dunster J. and Dunster K. (1996). Dictionary of natural resources management. University of British Columbia University Press. Vancouver, BC, 363 pp. + xv.

FAO. 2022. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. First revision. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/i2801ehttps://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/en...FAO, IUCN CEM & SER. (2021). Principles for ecosystem restoration to guide the United Nations Decade 2021–2030. Rome, FAO.

Future Earth and GEO BON. (2022). Ecosystem restoration in the Global Biodiversity Framework: A focus on land degradation and terrestrial ecosystem restoration. Available at: https://geobon.org/science-briefs/

Gann, G.D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C.R., Jonson J., ... & Dixon, K.W. (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology. 27 (S1): S1-S46., 27(S1), S1-S46.

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. Washington, D.C.

IPBES. (2018). The IPBES assessment report on land degradation and restoration. Montanarella, L., Scholes, R., and Brainich, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 744 pages.Keith, D.A., Ferrer-Paris, J.R., Nicholson, E., … & Kingsford, R.T. (2022). A function-based typology for Earth’s ecosystems. Nature 610, 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05318-4

Sewell A., van der Esch S. and Löwenhardt H. (2020). Goals and Commitments for the Restoration Decade: A global overview of countries’ restoration commitments under the Rio Conventions and other pledges. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague.

UN. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf

UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. (2021). Calculating protected area and OECM coverage. 7 [Online]. Available at: . https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/resources/calcu.... Accessed 6 June 2023.

UNGA. (2019). Resolution A/RES/73/284. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N19/060/16/PDF/N1906016.pdf?OpenElement

12. Graphs and diagrams

Figure 1. Proposed workflow for reporting area under restoration. The flowchart shows the possible pathways to follow from setting national restoration area targets, data collection and compilation through the FERM as well as national scale, data validation and reportingthe area estimates. National estimates of areas under restoration are reported under the Global Biodiversity Framework and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.

Source: Author.

Figure 2. Comparison between ecological restoration and rehabilitation.

Source: Future Earth and GEO BON, 2022.

Back to top

Feedback: The information on this site is provided to the best of our current knowledge and may be used to aid discussions on indicators for the post-2020 framework. UNEP-WCMC is keen to ensure that our data is accurate and up to date. We welcome any feedback on the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the information on this site. If you see any errors or missing information, please get in touch get in touch.