2.1 Area under restoration
2024-03-28 12:00:00 UTC
N/A
Headline indicator for 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.
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”.
In 2022, the Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM) was collaboratively developed and launched through the joint efforts of the UN Decade FAO-led Task Forces, as the monitoring framework of the UN Decade. The FERM consists of four components: a) a registry that harmonises and collects area-based data on ecosystem restoration projects and programs, by enabling interoperable data exchange with other platforms; b) a geoportal for visualising restoration areas on the map, in order to know where restoration is happening; c) a search engine to share restoration initiatives and good practices that are entered into the FERM registry or are part of the interoperable data exchange and d) a dashboard showing aggregated country-level restoration data from publicly available sources.
Globally, the estimation of degraded land varies from less than 1 billion to over 6 billion hectares (Gibbs and Salmon, 2015). In addition, 60 percent of world’s major marine ecosystems are estimated to be either degraded or unsustainably used (UNEP, 2011). Monitoring and transparent reporting on areas under restoration will reveal the global progress towards achieving the 30 percent global target.
Given that currently there is no global mechanism for collecting country reported area-based information on ecosystem restoration that spans all ecosystems, a working group was created to support the development of a methodology for area-based estimates, aiming at removing duplication of effort and ensuring alignment between the UN Decade progress reporting and GBF Target 2. In November 2023, the working group was transformed to a partnership supporting implementation and monitoring of ecosystem restoration (FAO, 2023), with the following partners: UNCCD, UNFCCC, UNEP, UNDP, UNEP-WCMC, the Ramsar Convention, IUCN, WRI, UN SEEA, Restor, SER, CIFOR-ICRAF, Conservation International, WWF and ICRI. The methodology proposes a workflow that contains five main activities: target setting, data compilation, reporting, monitoring, and capacity development. FAO will support in all the five activities. This metadata document focuses on data compilation and reporting.
Figure 1.Proposed workflow for Target 2 indicator.
According to CBD/COP/DEC/15/6, Parties will report the implementation of KM-GBF directly using CBD’s online reporting tool. This reporting, as well as the corresponding data collection and compilation process, is led by Parties. The reporting template is not yet available and FAO aims to work with CBD and AHTEG to develop a template for national reporting on Target 2 indicator in the online reporting tool.
In parallel, FAO is leading a data compilation effort that will integrate restoration data from various available data sources. The objective is to produce a default dataset on restoration that can contribute to the national processes, while providing more information and contextualizing restoration progress, beyond area-based estimate, such as the actor leading the restoration, activities, tenure, etc. Additionally, the FERM will allow the CBD national focal point to directly enter data on restoration initiatives and projects, with the ambition of creating a global map to showcase restoration areas (as polygons or points). In this way, FAO supports transparently monitoring and reporting to Target 2.
In addition to these definitions, please see the CBD glossary for related terms.
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 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.”
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).
Rehabilitation:
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.
Effective restoration:
Draft definition provided by SER: “Effective Restoration is standards-based restoration that results in net gain for biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, and/or human well-beingand is assessed against clear goals and objectives using measurable indicators. Different types of restoration will achieve different levels of outcomes for the key elements of Target 2: to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity”.
Effective restoration is defined as restoration that achieves and maintains the short, medium and long-term goals of restoration, that are explicitly defined and measurable.]
FAO will examine and compile restoration data from various available data sources to produce a default dataset on ecosystem restoration for countries. The default dataset contains area-based estimates that are aggregated from restoration initiatives and projects, as well as country directly reported tabular data from existing processes (see below a and b). This compilation process is supported by an interoperability framework that will enable data exchange and facilitate the harmonization of heterogeneous data. The default dataset is compilation of data reported from different sources but cannot be aggregated unless complete geospatial data and information matching the reporting parameters for Target 2 is available to avoid double-counting of areas under restoration. The default data is compiled by FAO to track progress in the scope of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.
Country reported tabular data:
Country level data aggregated from restoration initiatives and projects:
The following paragraphs show initiative and project level data parameters needed for calculating area under restoration and allow disaggregation. These parameters include information for directly deriving area under restoration and meeting disaggregation requirements, and additional parameters for ensuring the quality, consistency and transparency of the data reported. All these parameters are available in the FERM registry.
Specifically:
In the FERM Registry, area under restoration will be a single tabular value (reported) or a pair of values (reported and calculated), depending on how restoration areas are identified, discussed below:
The delineation of the location of areas under restoration is strongly recommended. Geospatial locations provide higher detail about the ecosystem and facilitate the monitoring and adaptive management practices in the restoration sites. The spatial location will facilitate the calculation of connectivity metrics and biophysical characteristics of the restoration areas. The spatial location allows the identification of the areas under restoration within other areas such as protected areas (PA) and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) and thus informs whether there is overlap and the contribution to other GBF targets such as targets 1 and 3. Additionally, sharing spatial information can assist with the quality assessment and control and assist identifying overlapping areas under restoration and potential double counting, where the same area can be repeated when using several platforms that collect spatial information. Finally, the spatial location is important for transparently sharing good restoration practices.
Areas with the status “in progress” and “post-completion” will be reported as “area under restoration”.
Different approaches are available to evaluate the degree of recovery of an ecosystem or the success of restoration, such as the Five-Star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel (Gann et al., 2019) or the IUCN Green Status of Ecosystems, which is currently under development. Data type: descriptive.
Data collected using a bottom-up approach contains more details and can contribute to better monitoring of the restoration initiatives, therefore, countries are encouraged to build their own databases to collect initiative and project level data and align their national databases to the methodology in their national data compilation processes. The FERM also provides a restoration initiative database and invites country focal points to enter data on restoration initiatives and projects directly in the FERM registry. It is important to develop quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures to make sure that only complete and relevant data is included in the estimates.
In support of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, engaging stakeholders from across society, and in support of country led reporting on progress on Target 2, FAO has developed the FERM Registry that harmonises and collects area-based data on ecosystem restoration projects and programs, by enabling interoperable data exchange with other platforms. The FERM Registry provides a database for collecting the parameters for reporting on Target 2 (Table 1) at the initiative and project scale. The FERM Registry also provides an interoperability framework to work with other platforms for data compilation and will provide aggregated data by country, by data source, called the default dataset. The default dataset is disaggregated by data source because there is overlap and duplication in restoration areas that cannot be identified. The default dataset cannot be simply aggregated due to potential duplication of restoration area across different data sources.
Country focal points for the GBF will be invited to review the parameters identified in the metadata and utilize the FERM registry itself or adopt the parameters in national data compilation of restoration initiatives and projects. Countries also can report progress on target 2 aggregated at the national scale directly to CBD.
The methodology is not currently published in a peer-reviewed location.
Table 1 is a summary of the data parameters and examples of data sources. The primary platforms and reporting mechanisms that are collecting information on restoration areas identified, include the Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Restor, IUCN 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.
Data sources are classified as either non-official sources (e.g. data produced by non-government organizations or from scientific literature) or official sources (e.g. country or officially reported MEA data). The working group will analyze each data source to extract the tabular estimates of area under restoration (ha).
Table 1. Summary of data parameters and example sources.
* Required field
The indicator is currently in development. The methodology is expected to be finalized in 2024 by the Ad hoc Technical Expert Group and FAO. The methodology will be periodically reassessed and updated. The national reports will provide data on Target 2 in 2026 and 2029.
Expected availability: 2021-2030
First update: Seventh National Report (NR7) in 2026
The data are sourced from in-country agencies, thus leveraging in-country resources and ongoing programs. Other data may be obtained from conservation organizations, scientific societies, national and public repositories (e.g., example data sources in Table 1), citizen scientists, and the contributions of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and traditional knowledge holders.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is responsible for maintenance of the methodology and tools for use. The compilation of data and reporting is performed by in-country agencies.
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.
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. Missing values will not be imputed or otherwise estimated.
Scale of application: Global, Regional, National
Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation:
Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to
national level: No
National data is collated to form global indicator: Yes
The scale of indicator 2.0.1 is national and can be aggregated globally.
6d.1 Description of the methodology
6d.2 Additional methodological details
6d.3 Description of the mechanism for collecting data from countries
The mechanism for collecting data from countries is currently under development.
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.
No
The indicator can be disaggregated by Ecosystem Functional Groups from the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology, where data are available.
Further disaggregations include by type of restoration, and tenure, in particular on Indigenous Territories, or PAs/OECMs.
Disaggregation by restoration activity can also support reporting on target 6 (invasive species) and target 7 (pollution) – see list of restoration actions here: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/forest-l...
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).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
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. (2023). Partnership supporting implementation and monitoring of ecosystem restoration: ROADMAP FOR THE GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK TARGET 2. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cc6821en/cc6821en.pdf
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/s41586-022-05318-4Sewell 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.
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
UNGA. (2019). Resolution A/RES/73/284. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N19/...
Figure 2. Comparison between ecological restoration and rehabilitation.
Source: Future Earth and GEO BON, 2022.
2.1 Area under restoration
2024-03-28 12:00:00 UTC
N/A
Headline indicator for 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.
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”.
In 2022, the Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM) was collaboratively developed and launched through the joint efforts of the UN Decade FAO-led Task Forces, as the monitoring framework of the UN Decade. The FERM consists of four components: a) a registry that harmonises and collects area-based data on ecosystem restoration projects and programs, by enabling interoperable data exchange with other platforms; b) a geoportal for visualising restoration areas on the map, in order to know where restoration is happening; c) a search engine to share restoration initiatives and good practices that are entered into the FERM registry or are part of the interoperable data exchange and d) a dashboard showing aggregated country-level restoration data from publicly available sources.
Globally, the estimation of degraded land varies from less than 1 billion to over 6 billion hectares (Gibbs and Salmon, 2015). In addition, 60 percent of world’s major marine ecosystems are estimated to be either degraded or unsustainably used (UNEP, 2011). Monitoring and transparent reporting on areas under restoration will reveal the global progress towards achieving the 30 percent global target.
Given that currently there is no global mechanism for collecting country reported area-based information on ecosystem restoration that spans all ecosystems, a working group was created to support the development of a methodology for area-based estimates, aiming at removing duplication of effort and ensuring alignment between the UN Decade progress reporting and GBF Target 2. In November 2023, the working group was transformed to a partnership supporting implementation and monitoring of ecosystem restoration (FAO, 2023), with the following partners: UNCCD, UNFCCC, UNEP, UNDP, UNEP-WCMC, the Ramsar Convention, IUCN, WRI, UN SEEA, Restor, SER, CIFOR-ICRAF, Conservation International, WWF and ICRI. The methodology proposes a workflow that contains five main activities: target setting, data compilation, reporting, monitoring, and capacity development. FAO will support in all the five activities. This metadata document focuses on data compilation and reporting.
Figure 1.Proposed workflow for Target 2 indicator.
According to CBD/COP/DEC/15/6, Parties will report the implementation of KM-GBF directly using CBD’s online reporting tool. This reporting, as well as the corresponding data collection and compilation process, is led by Parties. The reporting template is not yet available and FAO aims to work with CBD and AHTEG to develop a template for national reporting on Target 2 indicator in the online reporting tool.
In parallel, FAO is leading a data compilation effort that will integrate restoration data from various available data sources. The objective is to produce a default dataset on restoration that can contribute to the national processes, while providing more information and contextualizing restoration progress, beyond area-based estimate, such as the actor leading the restoration, activities, tenure, etc. Additionally, the FERM will allow the CBD national focal point to directly enter data on restoration initiatives and projects, with the ambition of creating a global map to showcase restoration areas (as polygons or points). In this way, FAO supports transparently monitoring and reporting to Target 2.
In addition to these definitions, please see the CBD glossary for related terms.
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 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.”
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).
Rehabilitation:
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.
Effective restoration:
Draft definition provided by SER: “Effective Restoration is standards-based restoration that results in net gain for biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, and/or human well-beingand is assessed against clear goals and objectives using measurable indicators. Different types of restoration will achieve different levels of outcomes for the key elements of Target 2: to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, ecological integrity and connectivity”.
Effective restoration is defined as restoration that achieves and maintains the short, medium and long-term goals of restoration, that are explicitly defined and measurable.]
FAO will examine and compile restoration data from various available data sources to produce a default dataset on ecosystem restoration for countries. The default dataset contains area-based estimates that are aggregated from restoration initiatives and projects, as well as country directly reported tabular data from existing processes (see below a and b). This compilation process is supported by an interoperability framework that will enable data exchange and facilitate the harmonization of heterogeneous data. The default dataset is compilation of data reported from different sources but cannot be aggregated unless complete geospatial data and information matching the reporting parameters for Target 2 is available to avoid double-counting of areas under restoration. The default data is compiled by FAO to track progress in the scope of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.
Country reported tabular data:
Country level data aggregated from restoration initiatives and projects:
The following paragraphs show initiative and project level data parameters needed for calculating area under restoration and allow disaggregation. These parameters include information for directly deriving area under restoration and meeting disaggregation requirements, and additional parameters for ensuring the quality, consistency and transparency of the data reported. All these parameters are available in the FERM registry.
Specifically:
In the FERM Registry, area under restoration will be a single tabular value (reported) or a pair of values (reported and calculated), depending on how restoration areas are identified, discussed below:
The delineation of the location of areas under restoration is strongly recommended. Geospatial locations provide higher detail about the ecosystem and facilitate the monitoring and adaptive management practices in the restoration sites. The spatial location will facilitate the calculation of connectivity metrics and biophysical characteristics of the restoration areas. The spatial location allows the identification of the areas under restoration within other areas such as protected areas (PA) and Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) and thus informs whether there is overlap and the contribution to other GBF targets such as targets 1 and 3. Additionally, sharing spatial information can assist with the quality assessment and control and assist identifying overlapping areas under restoration and potential double counting, where the same area can be repeated when using several platforms that collect spatial information. Finally, the spatial location is important for transparently sharing good restoration practices.
Areas with the status “in progress” and “post-completion” will be reported as “area under restoration”.
Different approaches are available to evaluate the degree of recovery of an ecosystem or the success of restoration, such as the Five-Star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel (Gann et al., 2019) or the IUCN Green Status of Ecosystems, which is currently under development. Data type: descriptive.
Data collected using a bottom-up approach contains more details and can contribute to better monitoring of the restoration initiatives, therefore, countries are encouraged to build their own databases to collect initiative and project level data and align their national databases to the methodology in their national data compilation processes. The FERM also provides a restoration initiative database and invites country focal points to enter data on restoration initiatives and projects directly in the FERM registry. It is important to develop quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures to make sure that only complete and relevant data is included in the estimates.
In support of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, engaging stakeholders from across society, and in support of country led reporting on progress on Target 2, FAO has developed the FERM Registry that harmonises and collects area-based data on ecosystem restoration projects and programs, by enabling interoperable data exchange with other platforms. The FERM Registry provides a database for collecting the parameters for reporting on Target 2 (Table 1) at the initiative and project scale. The FERM Registry also provides an interoperability framework to work with other platforms for data compilation and will provide aggregated data by country, by data source, called the default dataset. The default dataset is disaggregated by data source because there is overlap and duplication in restoration areas that cannot be identified. The default dataset cannot be simply aggregated due to potential duplication of restoration area across different data sources.
Country focal points for the GBF will be invited to review the parameters identified in the metadata and utilize the FERM registry itself or adopt the parameters in national data compilation of restoration initiatives and projects. Countries also can report progress on target 2 aggregated at the national scale directly to CBD.
The methodology is not currently published in a peer-reviewed location.
Table 1 is a summary of the data parameters and examples of data sources. The primary platforms and reporting mechanisms that are collecting information on restoration areas identified, include the Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Restor, IUCN 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.
Data sources are classified as either non-official sources (e.g. data produced by non-government organizations or from scientific literature) or official sources (e.g. country or officially reported MEA data). The working group will analyze each data source to extract the tabular estimates of area under restoration (ha).
Table 1. Summary of data parameters and example sources.
* Required field
The indicator is currently in development. The methodology is expected to be finalized in 2024 by the Ad hoc Technical Expert Group and FAO. The methodology will be periodically reassessed and updated. The national reports will provide data on Target 2 in 2026 and 2029.
Expected availability: 2021-2030
First update: Seventh National Report (NR7) in 2026
The data are sourced from in-country agencies, thus leveraging in-country resources and ongoing programs. Other data may be obtained from conservation organizations, scientific societies, national and public repositories (e.g., example data sources in Table 1), citizen scientists, and the contributions of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and traditional knowledge holders.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is responsible for maintenance of the methodology and tools for use. The compilation of data and reporting is performed by in-country agencies.
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.
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. Missing values will not be imputed or otherwise estimated.
Scale of application: Global, Regional, National
Scale of data disaggregation/aggregation:
Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to
national level: No
National data is collated to form global indicator: Yes
The scale of indicator 2.0.1 is national and can be aggregated globally.
6d.1 Description of the methodology
6d.2 Additional methodological details
6d.3 Description of the mechanism for collecting data from countries
The mechanism for collecting data from countries is currently under development.
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.
No
The indicator can be disaggregated by Ecosystem Functional Groups from the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology, where data are available.
Further disaggregations include by type of restoration, and tenure, in particular on Indigenous Territories, or PAs/OECMs.
Disaggregation by restoration activity can also support reporting on target 6 (invasive species) and target 7 (pollution) – see list of restoration actions here: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/forest-l...
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).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
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. (2023). Partnership supporting implementation and monitoring of ecosystem restoration: ROADMAP FOR THE GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK TARGET 2. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cc6821en/cc6821en.pdf
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/s41586-022-05318-4Sewell 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.
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
UNGA. (2019). Resolution A/RES/73/284. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N19/...
Figure 2. Comparison between ecological restoration and rehabilitation.
Source: Future Earth and GEO BON, 2022.
Feedback: 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.