Metadata Factsheet

3. Goals and Targets addressed

3a. Goal

N/A

3. Target

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.

5. Definitions, concepts and classifications

5a. Definition

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.]

5b. Method of computation

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:

• The default dataset contains country reported tabular data on restoration area from MEAs and existing reporting mechanisms that collect data on restoration. The tabular values of ecosystem restoration from multiple sources may overlap and may contain additional information on the type of ecosystems under restoration, restoration objectives, and other parameters. For example, the Global Forest Resource Assessment (FRA) collects country reported area of forests (ha) with main objective "Conservation of biodiversity" and has included the area of forests under restoration (ha) in its next reporting cycle. The default data will compile data from multiple sources, such as FRA, LDN, country reporting to regional restoration targets such as AFR100, and cannot be further aggregated because of potential overlapping. The default dataset will list all the reported areas under restoration by data source.

Country level data aggregated from restoration initiatives and projects:

• Restoration initiatives and projects are long- or short-term efforts aimed at achieving specific restoration goals and objectives in defined geographic locations. Area under restoration may also be estimated by summing up the area of individual restoration initiatives and projects, removing duplications and overlapping areas (i.e. an area should not be counted more than once). This requires collecting initiative and project level data, using a bottom-up approach. The default dataset also contains national scale data aggregated from initiatives and projects, by each data source. It is not possible to further aggregate data from different sources because of potential double counting (for example, an area may be reported in multiple databases). FAO is leading an effort to identify and reduce double-counting by promoting project level interoperability across different platforms and databases. The Project Information Sharing Framework (Gann et al., 2022) provides a useful framework for interoperability between initiative and project level databases.

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:

1. Committed area to restore includes pledges, targets or commitments and 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, it should be included in the reporting process, when possible. Data type: tabular.

1. Area under restoration and 3. Ecosystem describe the extent and the ecosystem where restoration is happening. Restoration areas are geospatially explicit points or polygons. The reporting shall include both the area under restoration in appropriate units (e.g., number of hectares of forests, number of kilometers of rivers), and the ecosystem(s) being restored. At the project or initiative scale, both the current ecosystem and the target ecosystem can be reported, in order to understand and monitor transitions. When an area contains multiple ecosystems, the corresponding area under restoration should be disaggregated by ecosystem, to enable aggregation of areas by ecosystem. Ecosystems should be reported using national ecosystems, and the Ecosystem Functional Groups (EFGs) of the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.1 (Keith et al., 2022), to which the national/local ecosystem type has been cross-walked. Reporting by EFG is recommended by AHTEG and will be decided by Parties at SBSTTA in May 2024. Guidelines and tools for cross-walking existing national ecosystem classifications to the EFGs of the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology are currently under development, along with cross-walks with other classifications (e.g. IPCC land use categories). Guidance on using the EFGs and related national ecosystems will be integrated into the metadata once developed.

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:

1. Restoration areas identified as points or administrative units, i.e., restoration areas 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.

1. Restoration areas identified as polygons, representing delineation of restoration areas. For quality assurance and control, the polygon area is calculated and can be compared to the reported tabular value. Note that delineation of areas under restoration is needed for calculating the component indicator of Target 2: maintenance and restoration of connectivity of natural ecosystems.

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.

1. Restoration status will provide an indication of whether the restoration area can be counted towards a reporting period. The reference period of the GBF is 2011-2020 (CBD/COP/DEC/15/5.2), therefore, only restoration areas that are under restoration within this reference period and up to the end of the GBF, 2030, should be counted and reported. Restoration initiatives may start before the reference period, and either the restoration activities must be within the reference period or there monitoring and actions to ensure there is no degradation of the ecosystem within the area under restoration. 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.

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.

1. 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: croplands, forest plantations, 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

1. Primary aim of restoration. Possible values are: enhance biodiversity, enhance ecosystem functions and services, improve ecological integrity, improve enhance connectivity. Data type: descriptive.

1. Restoration activity, sometimes called intervention, describes what is being implemented on the ground in order to achieve restoration goals and objectives. Activities in the FERM registry are adapted from the Glossary of restoration interventions of the TEER initiative (FAO, 2022a). They are divided into two main categories (biophysical and enabling) and secondary categories according to the IPBES report (IPBES, 2018). The full list of activities is available here: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/forest-l... Data type: descriptive.

1. Lead entity and 9. Tenure status provide information on the entity (both the name and the type of organization) leading the restoration effort and legal tenure status of the area under restoration. Indigenous and Traditional Territories (ITT) is included as a tenure type to facilitate disaggregation. When a restoration initiative or project is planned on Indigenous and Traditional Territories, it is recommended to respect people’s rights and obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to ensure adherence to the UN Decade principles (FAO, IUCN CEM & SER, 2021) and the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) (FAO, 2022b). 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.

5c. Data collection method

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.

5d. Accessibility of methodology

The methodology is not currently published in a peer-reviewed location.

5e. Data sources

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

5f. Availability and release calendar

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.

5g. Time series

Expected availability: 2021-2030

First update: Seventh National Report (NR7) in 2026

5h. Data providers

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.

5i. Data compilers

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.

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. 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:

Global/ regional scale indicator can be disaggregated to national level: No

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

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

No

10. Data reporter

10a. Organisation

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

10b. Contact person(s)

Julian.Fox@fao.org