# data[].attributes.body
Learn to be a soil steward

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
For scheduling reasons 2023 SSI session is cancelled. We will begin accepting applications for the 2024 session in December of 2023.

Gain an integrated perspective on soil ecology and biogeochemistry with world-renowned faculty to address critical questions using up-to- date field and laboratory analytical techniques and models. We will use an ecosystem approach to study grassland, agricultural and forest soils at the confluence of the Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains.

The Summer Soil Institute is designed for a broad range of participants including graduate students, postdoctoral scientists, environmental professionals, faculty, and K-12 teachers. Read about our past participants experiences.

Tuition: Tuition is $2,750 for students, $3,500 for non-students (academic, NGO, federal, K-12 teachers) and $5,000 for corporate participants. A limited number of scholarships are awarded on the basis of merit to partially support tuition costs.

Lodging: We have a block of rooms reserved at the Best Western University Inn, adjacent to the campus. The rates are as follows: room with 1 king bed is TBD per night + tax , and a room with 2 double beds is TBD per night + tax. If you share a room with another SSI participant, the split price for a room with 2 double beds is TBD + tax per night. If you choose to stay at the Best Western, indicate on your application by answering "Yes" to the question "Do you need accommodations?". Upon acceptance, we will follow-up with additional information and gather the details needed to arrange your stay at the hotel. You are also welcome to stay elsewhere if you choose.
Apply now for SSI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO For scheduling reasons 2023 SSI session is cancelled. We will begin accepting applications for the 2024 session in December of 2023. Gain an integrated perspective on soil ecology and biogeochemistry with world-renowned faculty to address critical questions using up-to- date field and laboratory analytical techniques and models.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Publications Archives - Moth - More than human rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here you can find publications from the MOTH Project team and our partners on a range of topics, ideas, tools, and strategies for MOTH rights and for advancing ways of being and doing that are more integrated with the more than human world.

# data[].attributes.headline
The importance of forests, fungi and respiring organisms in the global hydrologic cycle. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The importance of forests, fungi and respiring organisms in the global hydrologic cycle. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Toggle the table of contents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The theory of a biotic pump pertains to the importance of forests in the water cycle, specifically, in determining the levels of rainfall a region will receive. It states that an increased amount of evaporation or transpiration will cause a reduction in atmospheric pressure as clouds form, which will subsequently cause moist air to be drawn to regions where evapotranspiration is at its highest. In a desert this will correspond to the sea whereas in a forest, moist air from the sea will be drawn inland. The theory predicts two different types of coast to contentinental rainfall patterns, first in a forested area one can expect no decrease in rainfall as one moves inland in contrast to a deforested region where one observes an exponential decrease in annual rainfall. While current global climate models fit these patterns well, it is argued this is due to parametrization and not the veracity of the theories.[1]

This theory is in contradiction of the more traditional view that surface winds are solely a direct product of differences in surface heating and heat released from condensation.[2][3] The creators of the theory argue that phase changes in water play a greater role in atmospheric dynamics than currently acknowledged. Publication of the paper was preceded by an extended editorial debate at the publishing journal, based on highly critical peer reviews.[4]

The term biotic pump first appeared in a journal article in 2007[5] and was initially ignored and criticised. By 2022 the concept had been more widely articulated and linked to the importance of stopping deforestation, restoring the hydrological cycle and planetary cooling.

The term "biotic pump" infers a circulation system driven by biological processes. The biotic pump concept attributes forests and other forms of vegetation for creating atmospheric dynamics that cycle rainfall absorbed by trees back to the atmosphere for further cycling. Evapotranspiration in coastal forests creates low atmospheric pressure creating a suction effect to draw in water vapour from the ocean. Before the biotic pump was articulated trees were relegated to having a passive role in the water cycle.[6] By contrast those developing the biotic pump concept state that "forest and trees are prime regulators within the water, energy and carbon cycles."[7]

Atmospheric (or flying) rivers are phenomena related to the biotic pump. Originally called tropospheric rivers in 1992,[8] two years later Yong Zhu and Reginald Newall first used the term atmospheric rivers.[9] These aerial rivers distribute rain, enhanced by the biotic pump over large distances. The atmospheric river that flows over the Amazon travels south to provide the River Plate Basin with 50% of its rain.[6] China's north-western rivers receive more than 70% of their precipitation from Euro and Northern Asia.[10] By 2022, 30 years from the first mention of tropospheric rivers in a journal paper, the concept had become widely accepted[11], [12] and featured in back-stories to weather events.[13],[14]

The biotic pump concept is more recent. The first paper naming the biotic pump, authored by Anastassia Makarieva[15] and the late Victor Gorshov was published in 2007,[5] fifteen years after the first mention of tropospheric rivers. These Russian theoretical physicists worked from the Theoretical Physics Division of the Petersberg Nuclear Physics Institute. Dr. Makarieva spent time recreationally and professionally in Russia's northern forests, the largest expanse of trees on the planet.[16] She claims the conventional understanding that winds are driven by differences in air temperature does not fully explain the dynamics of wind, and came to understand that the pressure drop caused by water vapour turning into water was a more accurate model.[16] The 2007 paper was largely ignored but also criticised.[17] Further papers were published to develop the concept [18],[19] with Dr. Makarieva continuing to write prolifically on the subject[20] often with Brazilian scientist Antonio Nobre.[21][22]

The theory represents a paradigm shift away from a geo-mechanical view of climate dynamics[23] to include biology as a driver of climate. As such the theory as faced criticism from mainstream climate sciences. Fred Pearce attributes this as being partly cultural. "Science, as I know from forty years of reporting, can be surprisingly tribal. Makarieva and Gorshkov have been outsiders: theoretical physicists in a world of climate science, Russians in a field dominated by Western scientists, and, in Makarieva's case, a woman too".[16]

A 2022 article identifies four terrestrial moisture recycling hubs, the Amazon Basin, the Congo Rainforest, South Asia and the Indonesian Archipelago. In particular, the hydrological dynamics of the Amazon Basin are still unclear, but point to the veracity of the biotic pump hypothesis. The authors emphasise that these processes contribute to a "safe operating space for humanity".[24] Additionally, the biotic pump theory can help explain other natural occurrences around the world. For example, why rainforests such as the Amazon and Congo are able to maintain high rainfall while other unforested biomes decrease in rainfall, as you get further inland. [25]

The diagram in this section, from the Journal article Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world [7] outlines the hydrological dynamics that biotic pump drives.

1. The cycle begins when precipitation from the ocean is recycled through landscapes by cycles of precipitation and evapotranspiration. Through transpiration and condensation forests create low pressure that draw moist air from the ocean.[1][5]

2. Transpiration and evaporation cycle water back into the atmosphere alongside microbes and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Airborne microbes nucleate rain.[26]

3. Biologically induced air currents transport atmospheric moisture further inland.

4. By providing rainfall vegetation is able to survive and possibly flourish perpetuating forest cover. The forested areas have a more moderate climate through the provision of transpirational cooling and shade. Light penetrating through to the forest floor may be as little as 1% compared to cleared adjacent areas.[27] In areas where more cleared land is exposed conversion of radiant energy to sensible heat increases. Forested areas are significantly cooler than sparsely vegetated or bare earth.[28]

5. Trees harvest water by intercepting fog and humid air. Atmospheric humidity condenses on leaves and branches.[29] Biomimicry of this process happens with the use of fog nets.

6. Tree canopies slow the progression of rain to the soil surface and soften the impact. Additionally, through the provision of organic matter and the export of carbon through roots to the mycorrhizal network create soil carbon, enhancing soil structure for the infiltration and storage of water.

7. Soils with enhanced infiltration and storage rates mitigate flood impacts. This is further enhanced by forest cover protecting soil from erosion. Water infiltrated into the soil can help to replenish aquifers.

Of the estimated six trillion trees on the planet, roughly three trillion remain.[16] Along with other terrestrial and marine vegetation they photosynthesise sugars providing a foundational ingredient of life and growth. This process also produces oxygen and removes carbon dioxide from the air. Trees also provide food and timber, and foster biodiversity. The growing evidence of the biological influences of climate add a further benefit of trees. Forested lands provide ample water for human and animal life, especially in the aptly-named rainforest.

By contrast, drylands comprise approximately 41% of the earth's land area and are home to two billion people.[30] These are fragile ecosystems. Adverse weather patterns and pressure from human activity can quickly deplete water resources.

Revegetation projects are yielding evidence of how regenerating vegetation restores rainfall. Rajendra Singh, the Waterman of India led a movement that restored several rivers in Rhajastan increasing vegetation cover from 2% to 48%, cooling the region by 2 o Celsius, and increasing rainfall.[28],[31] Africa's Great Green Wall project was 15% complete in 2022. Modelling suggests that the completed wall may decrease average temperatures in the Sahel by as much as 1.5 o Celsius, but may raise temperatures in the hottest areas. Rainfall would increase, even doubling in some areas.[32] China also has a 4,500 km Great Green Wall project planted to stop the advancing Gobi Desert.

Alpha Lo coins the term, bio-rain corridor to describe a connected areas of forest maintain the flow of atmospheric moisture flows and precipitation.[33] Continued deforestation poses the risk of disrupting flows of atmospheric moisture. In 2022 there were processes being developed to model the biotic pump mechanism to determine the impact of deforestation and the impacts of discontinuity of forest on atmospheric moisture flows.[34]

David Ellison and co-authors propose a need for greater understanding of these dynamics "Forest-driven water and energy cycles are poorly integrated into regional, national, continental and global decision-making on climate change adaptation, mitigation, land use and water management. This constrains humanity's ability to protect our planet's climate and life-sustaining functions."[7]

1. ^ Sheil, Douglas; Murdiyarso, Daniel (2009-04-01). "How Forests Attract Rain: An Examination of a New Hypothesis". BioScience. 59 (4): 341-347. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.4.12. ISSN 0006-3568. S2CID 85905766.

2. ^ Bunyard, Peter Paul (2015-08-21). How the Biotic Pump links the hydrological and the rainforest to climate : ¿Is it for real? ¿How can we prove it?. Universidad Sergio Arboleda. doi:10.22518/9789588745886. ISBN 9789588745893.

3. ^

4. ^ Bunyard, Peter (2014). How the Biotic Pump Links the Hydrological and the Rainforest to Climate : ¿Is It for Real? ¿How Can We Prove It? https://repository.usergioarboleda.edu.co/handle/11232/397. Universidad Sergio Arboleda. ISBN 978-958-8745-89-3.

5. ^

6. ^ Newell, Reginald E.; Newell, Nicholas E.; Zhu, Yong; Scott, Courtney (1992-12-24). "Tropospheric rivers? - A pilot study". Geophysical Research Letters. 19 (24): 2401-2404. doi:10.1029/92GL02916.

7. ^ Zhu, Yong; Newell, Reginald E. (1994-09-01). "Atmospheric rivers and bombs". Geophysical Research Letters. 21 (18): 1999-2002. doi:10.1029/94GL01710.

8. ^ Zhao, Tongtiegang; Zhao, Jianshi; Hu, Hongchang; Ni, Guangheng (2016-03-01). "Source of atmospheric moisture and precipitation over China's major river basins". Frontiers of Earth Science. 10 (1): 159-170. doi:10.1007/s11707-015-0497-4. ISSN 2095-0209. S2CID 55778662.

9. ^ "'Atmospheric river' set to deliver intense rainfall in Westland, Buller". RNZ. 2022-11-02.

10. ^

11. ^ Pearce, Fred (2021). A trillion trees : how we can reforest our world. London. pp. 62-63. ISBN 978-1-78378-691-6. OCLC 1232226703.

12. ^ Meesters, A. G. C. A.; Dolman, A. J.; Bruijnzeel, L. A. (2009-01-16). "Comment on "Biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as driver of the hydrological cycle on land" by A. M. Makarieva and V. G. Gorshkov, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1013-1033, 2007". doi.org. doi:10.5194/hessd-6-401-2009.

13. ^ Makar'eva, A. M.; Gorshkov, V. G. (2008-12-01). "The forest biotic pump of river basins". Russian Journal of Ecology. 39 (7): 537-540. doi:10.1134/S1067413608070114. ISSN 1608-3334. S2CID 19418661.

14. ^ Makarieva, Anastassia M.; Gorshkov, Victor G. (2010-01-01). "The Biotic Pump: Condensation, atmospheric dynamics and climate". International Journal of Water. 5 (4): 365-385. doi:10.1504/IJW.2010.038729. ISSN 1465-6620.

15. ^

16. ^ Wunderling N, Wolf F, Tuinenburg OA, Staal A (November 2022). "Network motifs shape distinct functioning of Earth's moisture recycling hubs". Nature Communications. 13 (1): 6574. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34229-1. PMC 9630528. PMID 36323658.

17. ^ Sheil, Douglas (2018-03-20). "Forests, atmospheric water and an uncertain future: the new biology of the global water cycle". Forest Ecosystems. 5 (1): 19. doi:10.1186/s40663-018-0138-y. ISSN 2197-5620.

18. ^ Šantl-Temkiv T, Amato P, Casamayor EO, Lee PK, Pointing SB (July 2022). "Microbial ecology of the atmosphere". FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 46 (4). doi:10.1093/femsre/fuac009. PMC 9249623. PMID 35137064.

19. ^ Chazdon, R. L.; Fetcher, N. (1984), Medina, E.; Mooney, H. A.; Vázquez-Yánes, C. (eds.), "Light Environments of Tropical Forests", Physiological ecology of plants of the wet tropics: Proceedings of an International Symposium Held in Oxatepec and Los Tuxtlas, Mexico, June 29 to July 6, 1983, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 27-36, doi:10.1007/978-94-009-7299-5_4, ISBN 978-94-009-7299-5

20. ^ Bruce-Iri, Peter (2022). How plants cool and heal the climate : finding solutions close to home. Whangārei, New Zealand. ISBN 978-0-473-63353-0. OCLC 1349731259.

21. ^ "Africa's 'Great Green Wall' could have far-reaching climate effects". 2022-01-03.

22. ^

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Toggle the table of contents From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The theory of a biotic pump pertains to the importance of forests in the water cycle, specifically, in determining the levels of rainfall a region will receive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Understanding the Pyrogenic Carbon Cycle

# data[].attributes.subject
Understanding the Pyrogenic Carbon Cycle

# data[].attributes.headline
The Role of Non Native Species in Ecosystem Restoration

# data[].attributes.subject
The Role of Non Native Species in Ecosystem Restoration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Symposium: The Role of Non Native Species in Ecosystem Restoration

# data[].attributes.headline
Reversing drought and preventing flood and fire by changing our relationship with nature

# data[].attributes.subject
Reversing drought and preventing flood and fire by changing our relationship with nature

# data[].attributes.body
In this educational webinar, Dr. Elaine Ingham, Zach Weiss, and Ernst Götsch will be discussing how humanity's abuse of water and earth has created the cycles of flood, drought, and fire we are currently experiencing. Most importantly, they will discuss how we can solve these crises by changing our relationship with vegetation, soil, and water.

# data[].attributes.headline
Restoring Indigenous languages and names for our more than human kin.

# data[].attributes.subject
Restoring Indigenous languages and names for our more than human kin.

# data[].attributes.body
"It’s expected that 50 to 90 per cent of the world’s 7,000 languages will be lost by the end of the century, with research suggesting a loss of languages is linked to a loss of biodiversity. Plant medicine educator Joe Pitawanakwat has made teaching about medicine plants — and preserving their Anishinaabemowin names — his life work. He talks to Duncan McCue, who explores what Pitawanakwat’s work could mean for the planet. Back to the Land is a four-part series about people who are (re)connecting with nature and the outdoors."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Back to the Land

Reviving Indigenous languages could help tackle climate crisis: environmental experts

Posted: September 12, 2021

Joe Pitawanakwat is an Anishinaabe plant medicine teacher from Wiikwemkoong First Nation, on Manitoulin Island in Ontario. The knowledge he shares was passed down from his grandmother. (Andrew Nguyen/CBC)

It's expected that 50 to 90 per cent of the world's 7,000 languages will be lost by the end of the century, with research suggesting a loss of languages is linked to a loss of biodiversity. Plant medicine educator Joe Pitawanakwat has made teaching about medicine plants - and preserving their Anishinaabemowin names - his life work. He talks to Duncan McCue, who explores what Pitawanakwat's work could mean for the planet. Back to the Land is a four-part series about people who are (re)connecting with nature and the outdoors. 23:26

Joe Pitawanakwat is walking slowly along a forest path, but his mind is racing as he surveys the bounty of medicine plants before his eyes.

"There's jiichiigominaawashk." He points to a big stalk full of dangling white flowers, also known as tall white lettuce. "The plant has milk that we use to get rid of warts - jiichiigom," he said on CBC Radio's Back to the Land.

"This is one of my favourites, miskwaabiimagoons." He lightly touches the smooth-edged leaves of a plant called dogwood in English. "The dogwoods we use to help with arthritis."

One after another, the 30-year-old Anishinaabe from Wiikwemkoong First Nation in Ontario rhymes off the medicinal and food qualities of plants and trees. He cheerfully introduces himself to each plant, not in English but in Anishinaabemowin.

"Learning about plant medicine, you need to be able to address the plant by its name," Pitawanakwat said. "It's just respect, like a simple courtesy that you extend to every other person."
WATCH | Joe Pitawanakwat shares how traditional medicine plants are used:

Plant medicine educator Joe Pitawanakwat has made teaching about medicine plants - and preserving their Anishinaabemowin names - his life work. He takes Back to the Land host Duncan McCue on a walk through the woods to share how certain plants are used in Indigenous cultures. 8:14

He has spent years working tirelessly to learn about Anishinaabe- mshkiki, or plant medicine. But despite his deep well of traditional plant knowledge, English is his primary language - and he carries a small list of plants for which he does not know the traditional names.

"Not knowing the name of a plant haunts me," Pitawanakwat said.

A 2014 study estimates that roughly 30 per cent of both the world's languages and animal species have declined between 1970 and 2009. Some conservationists and climate scientists believe the key to protecting endangered plants and animals may lie in efforts to preserve Indigenous languages.

A red-legged grasshopper is perched in Red-osier Dogwood berries in the autumn. (Jennifer Bosvert/Shutterstock)

"As people have adapted culturally to living and surviving in all these different habitats, a tremendous amount of knowledge of flora and fauna ... is essentially encoded within the Indigenous language," said Jonathan Loh, a conservation biologist at the University of Kent in England.

"If a language starts to be lost, very often that knowledge is lost as well."

Dual extinction crisis

Loh started investigating the global connections between species diversity and language diversity several years ago.

"If you look at a map of the distribution of languages around the world and you compare it with maps that show the distribution of mammal species or bird species, you see an extraordinarily similar picture: The hot spots of linguistic diversity, in so many cases, coincide with hot spots of biological diversity," he said.

Jonathan Loh, who researches biological and cultural diversity at the University of Kent in Canterbury, England, says when languages are lost, so is knowledge of Indigenous flora and fauna. (Submitted by Jonathan Loh)

The pressures facing the world's plants and animals, such as globalization and increased consumption, often threaten languages as well, leading to what Loh calls a dual extinction crisis.

"They are both facing this critical threat: We're losing languages and species at an unprecedented rate."

That worries Deborah McGregor, an associate professor at York University in Toronto and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous environmental justice, who suggests that Indigenous languages contain world views that offer solutions to the climate crisis.

"Anishinaabemowin recognizes the land as living and - probably more startling to a lot of people - as having its own agency. It's embedded within our languages to recognize that the planet has a say and that it is trying to tell us something," said McGregor, a member of Whitefish River First Nation in Ontario.

"Climate change is the Earth trying to tell us what's happening to her."

Learning from grandma

Pitawanakwat's journey to becoming a keeper of traditional Anishinaabe plant knowledge began in an unlikely way: He was trying to woo a girl.

He would take her to visit his grandmother, Tackla Pheasant, who often entertained the lovebirds with stories about plants that her mother harvested in the woods and meadows of Mnidoo Mnising, or Manitoulin Island.

"My grandma was raised - and raised most of her kids - without access to a hospital," Pitawanakwat said. "So when it comes to sickness and injury, she had to know what medicine to use.

"We have hospitals and hospitals on wheels, and she raised her kids with plants!"

Pitawanakwat, left, is pictured with his grandmother, Tackla Pheasant. (Submitted by Joe Pitawanakwat)

The old woman began sending the young couple into the bush to retrieve Anishinaabe- mshkiki.

"I brought her leaves from, like, 30, 40 different species of trees, like a deck of cards. She knew every single one by name," Pitawanakwat said, adding that she hadn't spoken some Anishinaabemowin plant names out loud for decades.

English plant names sometimes eluded his grandmother, which made for a language barrier. Pitawanakwat spoke Anishinaabemowin as a child but shifted to English when he went to school.

Slowly, he discovered that the uses of plants are often woven into their Anishinaabemowin names. For example, the bark of wiigbimish, known as basswood in English, was traditionally used by Anishinaabe to make rope - wiigop.

"When you learn what the sounds mean and tease out what that is describing, you will understand utility, taste, locations," Pitawanakwat said. "That brings a very important context to everything."

When three of the treasured keepers of plant teachings at Wiikwemkoong First Nation died, Pitawanakwat dropped out of college to devote himself to learning from his grandmother. He understood how precious her plant knowledge was - and what was at stake if it was lost.

Kristy Pitawanakwat, Joe's wife, collects and cleans plants. (Submitted by Joe Pitawanakwat)

Reciprocal relationship with the Earth

Language loss is especially acute in the Americas and Australia, where hundreds of Indigenous languages are endangered. L inguists predict 50 to 90 per cent of the world's 7,000 languages may not be spoken by the end of this century.

The University of Kent's Loh said he believes efforts to protect the environment must go hand in hand with trying to protect cultural diversity.

"If we want to protect forests and manage them in a way that's sustainable into the future, I think conservationists should learn from the practices and knowledge of Indigenous peoples who've lived in the forests for thousands and thousands of years," he said.

"If we lose those cultures, we lose the understanding of ways in which those forests could be managed and protected."

Deborah McGregor, an associate professor at York University and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous environmental justice, suggests that Indigenous languages contain world views that offer solutions to the climate crisis. 'Climate change is the Earth trying to tell us what's happening to her,' says McGregor, a member of Whitefish River First Nation in Ontario. (Submitted by Deborah McGregor)

Declining language fluency is often accompanied by loss of traditional skills, such as hunting, fishing and medicinal use of plants. McGregor of York University maintains that revitalizing Indigenous languages helps promote an understanding of sustainability based on reciprocity rather than extraction.

"The language itself is nature based. So that's where you're going to learn about, 'OK, how do we ensure that the medicines are going to flourish? How do we ensure that the wildlife is going to have fresh water? That the fish are going to be taken care of?'" she said.

"Embedded within[Indigenous] language revitalization is ... the ecological knowledge that would enable people to have a respectful and reciprocal relationship with the Earth itself."

'Tending to the creator's garden'

Teaching about medicinal plants has become Pitawanakwat's life's work.

The courtship under his grandmother's tutelage led him to marry his girlfriend, Kristy. They started a small business in Peterborough, Ont., called Creator's Garden that offers workshops to First Nations about plant medicine - even when the pandemic forced him to teach online.

"Tending to the creator's garden, that is our job. That's what we learn about and teach about," Pitawanakwat said.

He acknowledges that Anishinaabemowin is an endangered language, with fewer and fewer fluent speakers. Still, he takes heart in tireless efforts by Anishinaabemowin teachers to keep the language alive.

"It's been my experience that the easiest way to learn about the language has always been outside, on the land," he said. "That's where it makes the most clear sense in every way. It's a perfect expression of this territory."

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Duncan McCue is host of CBC Radio One's Cross Country Checkup and a correspondent for CBC's The National. He reported from Vancouver for over 15 years, and is now based in Toronto. During a Knight Fellowship at Stanford University in 2011, he created a guide for journalists called Reporting in Indigenous Communities. Duncan is Anishinaabe, a member of the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation.

Back to the Land produced by Zoe Tennant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This plant medicine teacher is reclaiming Anishinaabe names for species. Why that could be good for the planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Back to the Land Posted: September 12, 2021 Joe Pitawanakwat is walking slowly along a forest path, but his mind is racing as he surveys the bounty of medicine plants before his eyes. "There's jiichiigominaawashk." He points to a big stalk full of dangling white flowers, also known as tall white lettuce.

# data[].attributes.body
Preforming phenomenal and vast ecological roles, our oaks help hold the web of life from the soil to the sky. Heres why.

# data[].attributes.body
Not just flora and fauna… but flora, fauna and FUNGA! (+ Protista and Monera of course, anyone have a good F word to work them in?… cause ya know, unfortunately modern day conservation initiatives need to be ‘catchy’)

Okay, let’s just start with the fungi. Small steps.

We, as all life on Earth, are reliant on fungi and their vast, dynamic and unfathomable ecological wizardry. They are the dazzling embodiment of interdependence and symbiosis, and without them, life as we know it would cease to exist.

It’s (been) time to get fungal biodiversity adopted into global conservation frameworks.

Click on the link to sign the statement and be a part of the world-wide movement to push this effort forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fungi make up one of life's kingdoms - as broad a category as "animals" or "plants" - and provide a key to understanding our planet. Yet fungi have received only a small fraction of the attention they deserve. The best estimate suggests that there are between 2.2 and 3.8 million species of fungi on Earth - as many as 10 times the estimated number of plant species - meaning that, at most, a mere 8 percent of all fungal species have been described. Of these, only 358 have had their conservation priority assessed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, compared with 76,000 species of animal and 44,000 species of plant. Fungi, in other words, represent a meagre 0.2 % of our global conservation priorities.

"Fungi, in other words, represent a meagre 0.2 % of our global conservation priorities".

Mushrooms are only the reproductive organs of fungi: for the most part, they live their lives as branching, fusing networks of tubular cells known as mycelium. If you teased apart the mycelium found in a teaspoon of healthy soil and laid it end to end, it could stretch anywhere from 100 metres to 10km. Mycelium is ecological connective tissue, a living seam by which much of life is stitched into relation. Mycelial networks wind through plant roots and shoots, animal bodies, sediments on the ocean floor, grasslands and forests. Of the carbon that is found in soils - which amounts to more than the amount of carbon found in plants and the atmosphere combined - a substantial proportion is bound up in tough organic compounds produced by fungi. More than 90 percent of plants depend on symbiotic fungi, which weave themselves between plant cells, supply plants with crucial nutrients and defend them from disease. These fungi are a more ancient part of planthood than leaves, flowers, fruit or even roots and lie at the base of the food webs that support much of life on Earth. Besides their foundational ecological importance, the chemical accomplishments of fungi have long shaped human life: bread, cheese, alcohol, soy sauce, penicillin, a host of powerful antiviral and anti-cancer compounds, cholesterol-lowering statins and immunosuppressant drugs that enable organ transplants, to name but a few. When fungi suffer, so do the ecosystems and the humans that depend on them.

"Mycelium is ecological connective tissue, a living seam by which much of life is stitched into relation".

There's a good reason why so much work goes into assessing the conservation status of different species: from the point of view of policymakers, if nothing is under threat, there's nothing to protect. But despite their minimal presence in our lists of endangered species, we know of many threats to fungi. Large swathes of the fungal kingdom are intimately associated with plants and so are killed off by the same activities, such as deforestation. Fungi are subject to additional disruptions, from ploughing to the overuse of fungicides and fertilisers. Of the grand total of six medicinal fungi that have had their conservation status assessed by the IUCN, one is listed as vulnerable due to overharvesting. Another species, found to have powerful activity against a range of viruses including herpes and flu, is listed as endangered, threatened with extinction by the destruction of the forests it inhabits.

This year, the global community is gathering to develop strategies, plans and commitments to stem the threats to food systems, the climate and biodiversity. In May, state leaders will meet to negotiate the Post-2020 Global Framework on Biodiversity, which will define what states and other actors need to do protect biodiversity for years to come. In September, global leaders will consider means to strengthen the global food system at the UN Food Systems Summit. In November, the world will reconvene to tackle the climate emergency at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26). These efforts will be incomplete - at best - if we continue to neglect fungi.

"Large swathes of the fungal kingdom are intimately associated with plants and so are killed off by the same activities, such as deforestation".

As things stand, most environmental legislation and international assemblies, together with many large international NGOs, refer to the conservation of flora (plants) and fauna (animals). Adding a third "F" - funga - to the list would write this neglected kingdom of life into conservation and agricultural policy frameworks and unlock crucial funding for mycological research, surveys and educational programmes. The opportunities to advance the protection of fungi this year are too precious to miss. We call on state leaders, civil society, scientists, and citizens of the world to seize them, and create legal protections for fungi under international, regional, and domestic law and policy, both to state the equal significance of fungi among the kingdoms of life and to help address the threats that jeopardise the ability of many fungal species to thrive and survive. We are unthinkable without fungi, yet seldom do we think about them. It is an ignorance we can't afford to sustain.
Add your name to this call to action to spur governments, policymakers, and changemakers to grant equal legal treatment and protections to fungi.
Signatories

Giuliana Furci (Executive Director, Fungi Foundation, Harvard University Associate, co-chair IUCN SSC Fungal Conservation Committee)
Statement Originator
Merlin Sheldrake (Biologist and author of Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds, & Shape Our Futures)
Statement Originator
César Rodríguez-Garavito (Codirector, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice & Climate Litigation Accelerator, New York University School of Law)
Statement Originator Jane Goodall Michael Pollan Donna Haraway Susan Rockefeller Andrea Wulf David Hibbett Kristine Tompkins Jon Paul Rodríguez (IUCN Species Survival Commission Chair) - Venezuela Enric Sala Dennis McKenna Roland Griffiths Wade Davis Nathalie Kelley Robin Moore David Zilber (Chr. Hansen Fermentation - Food Scientist) - Denmark (Re:wild - Vice President Communications and Marketing) - USA Andrew Weil (University of Arizona College of Medicine - Center Director) - USA Alan Rayner (Bath Bio Art - Former President of the British Mycological Society) -UK Simon McBurney (Complicité - Founder and Artistic Director) - UK Charles Foster Peter McCoy (Mycologos - Director) - USA David Boyd (University of British Columbia (Canada) - Professor, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment) Alexandre Antonelli (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew - Director of Science) - UK Martin Bidartondo Willy Mutunga Jonathan Leake Toby Kiers (SPUN: Society for the Protection of Underground Networks - Professor, VU Amsterdam) - Netherlands Colin Averill Ulf Buentgen Katie Field Florian Walder Marc-André Selosse Bryn Dentinger Alex Muñoz A. Elizabeth Arnold David Johnson Stefan Olsson Roy Halling Trevor Goward Brandon Matheny Sam Lee Jason Slot Carlos Urcelay Francisco Kuhar (National Scientific and Technical Research Council - Associate Researcher) - Argentina Matt Kasson James Dalling Eben Bayer Anicka Yi Laura Guzmán-Dávalos Rick Van de Poll (Northeast Mycological Federation - President) Gareth Wyn Griffith Martin Harper Roger Phillips (Publishing Author) - UK Susana C.Gonçalves(European Council for the Conservation of Fungi - Chair, IUCN SSC Fungal Conservation Committee - Member, Centre for Functional Ecology, University of Coimbra - Researcher) - Portugal (GBRSPB - Executive Director, Global Conservation) - UK (Wales Aberystwyth - University Professor) USA (University of Guadalajara Professor, Curator Mycology) - México (Anicka Yi Studio) - USA (Ecovative - CEO) - USA (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign- Professor of Tropical Forest Ecology) - UK (West Virginia University - Associate Professor) - USA (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba - Professor) - Argentina (Ohio State University - Associate Professor) - USA (The Nest Collective / Sam Lee Singer - Artistic Director) - UK (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee - Professor) - USA (Enlichened Consulting Ltd - Principal) - Canada (New York Botanical Garden - Curator Emeritus) - USA (Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University - Distinguished Professor) - China (University of Manchester - Professor) - UK (University of Arizona - Professor, School of Plant Sciences) - USA (National Geographic Pristine Seas - Director for Latin America) - Chile (Natural History Museum of Utah & School of Biological Sciences, University of Utah - Curator of Mycology & Associate Professor) -USA (Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (Paris) & University of Gdansk (Pologne) - Professor) - France (Agroscope - Researcher) - Schweiz (University of Sheffield - Professor of Plant-Soil Processes) - UK (Department of Geography, University of Cambridge - Professor of Environmental Systems Analysis) - UK (Society for the Protection of Underground Networks (SPUN) - Co-founder) - Switzerland (The University of Sheffield - Professor of Plant-Soil Interactions) - UK (Former Chief Justice of Kenya) - Kenya (Imperial College London - Professor) -UK (University of Oxford) - UK (Fungi Foundation - Board Member) - USA (University of British Columbia - Professor of Anthropology, BC Leadership Chair in Cultures and Ecosystems at Risk) - Canada (Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research - Director) - UK (McKenna Academy of Natural Philosophy - Principal Founder) - Canada (National Geographic Society - Explorer in Residence) - USA (CEO Tompkins Conservation - Co-Founder) - USA (Clark University - Professor ) - USA (Author of 'Invention of Nature. Alexander von Humboldt's New World') - UK (Filmmaker, Musings Magazine Founder) - USA (University of California Santa Cruz - Distinguished Professor Emerita) - USA (UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism - Professor) (The Jane Goodall Institute for Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation) - Founder United States
Gregory Mueller (Chicago Botanic Garden Chief Scientist & V.P. Science, and Chair IUCN SSC Fungal Conservation Committee) -USA

David Hawksworth (International Mycological Association - Honorary President) - UK

Cathie Aime (Purdue University - Professor) - USA

Donald Pfister (Harvard University - Professor) - USA

John Knox (Wake Forest University - Professor) - USA

Uta Paszkowski (University of Cambridge - Professor) - UK

Robert Macfarlane (University of Cambridge) - UK

Andrew Miller (Illinois Natural History Survey - Mycologist) - USA

Sharon A Cantrell (UAGM Gurabo) - Puerto Rico

HåkanWallander (Lunds Universitet - Professor) - Sweden

Lynne Boddy (Cardiff University - Professor of Microbial Ecology) - UK

Tim James (University of Michigan - Professor and Curator of Fungi) - USA

Susanna Hecht (Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA) - USA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FaunaFloraFunga: We work to achieve fungi legal protections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fungi are critical to human, ecosystem, and planetary well-being: it's time to include them within conservation frameworks. We are a growing community of scientists, educators, lovers of nature, artists, activists and curious citizens. Fauna Flora Funga is initiative sponsored by Fungi Foundat

# data[].attributes.headline
Managing California Black Oak for Tribal Ecocultural Restoration

# data[].attributes.subject
Managing California Black Oak for Tribal Ecocultural Restoration

# data[].attributes.body
Abstract: Many tribes in California and Oregon value California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) as a traditional source of food and other values. Over centuries or millennia, Native Americans learned that they could enhance production of desired resources by regularly igniting low-intensity surface fires in stands of black oak. Although black oak is likely to remain widespread in the future, a warming climate, increasingly dense forests, and altered fire regimes threaten the large, full-crowned mature trees that produce crops of high-quality acorns and provide cavities for many wildlife species. To examine the effects of different kinds of burns on tribal values including associated plants, fungi, and wildlife of special cultural significance, we reviewed and synthesized scientific studies of black oak in conjunction with interviews and workshops with tribal members who use the species and recall burning by their ancestors. We conducted two exploratory analyses to understand trends in large black oaks and potential tradeoffs regarding black oak restoration. Our findings identify opportunities for reintro- ducing low-intensity fire, in conjunction with thinning, to restore stands that are favorable for acorn gathering. We present examples of such projects and discuss how to overcome challenges in restoring the socioecological benefits of black oak ecosystems for tribes.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Does An Ecological Civilization Look Like?

# data[].attributes.subject
What Does An Ecological Civilization Look Like?

# data[].attributes.body
What does it really mean to 'live in harmony' with all of life? What does it take to bring ecological homeostasis back to our human-made environments?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a new, saner administration sets up shop in Washington, D.C., there are plenty of policy initiatives this country desperately needs. Beyond a national plan for the COVID-19 pandemic, progressives will strive to focus the administration's attention on challenges like fixing the broken health care system, grappling with systemic racial inequities, and a just transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

These are all critically important issues. But here's the rub: Even if the Democratic administration were resoundingly successful on all fronts, its initiatives would still be utterly insufficient to resolve the existential threat of climate breakdown and the devastation of our planet's life-support systems. That's because the multiple problems confronting us right now are symptoms of an even more profound problem: The underlying structure of a global economic and political system that is driving civilization toward a precipice.

Take a moment to peer beyond the day-to-day crises capturing our attention, and you quickly realize that the magnitude of the looming catastrophe makes our current political struggles, by comparison, look like arguing how to stack deck chairs on the Titanic.

The climate emergency we're facing is far worse than most people realize. While it was clearly an essential step for the United States to rejoin the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, the collective pledges on greenhouse gas emissions from that agreement are woefully insufficient. They would lead to a dangerous temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius this century-and many nations are failing to make even these targets. We are rapidly approaching-if we haven't already passed-climate tipping points with reinforcing feedback loops that would lead to an unrecognizable and terrifying world.

Even if the climate crisis were somehow brought under control, our current growth-oriented economic juggernaut will bring us face-to-face with a slew of further existential threats in future decades. As long as government policies emphasize growth in gross domestic product and transnational corporations relentlessly pursue shareholder returns, we will continue accelerating toward global catastrophe.

We're rapidly decimating the Earth's forests, animals, insects, fish, fresh water-even the topsoil we need to grow our crops. We've already transgressed four of the nine planetary boundaries that define humanity's safe operating space, and yet global GDP is expected to triple by 2060, with potentially calamitous consequences. In 2017, more than 15,000 scientists from 184 countries issued an ominous warning to humanity that time is running out: "Soon it will be too late," they wrote, "to shift course away from our failing trajectory."

We need to forge a new era for humanity-one that is defined, at its deepest level, by a transformation in the way we make sense of the world, and a concomitant revolution in our values, goals, and collective behavior. In short, we need to change the basis of our global civilization. We must move from a civilization based on wealth accumulation to one that is life-affirming: an ecological civilization.

A Life-Affirming Civilization

Without human disruption, ecosystems can thrive in rich abundance for millions of years, remaining resilient in the face of adversity. Clearly, there is much to learn from nature's wisdom about how to organize ourselves. Can we do so before it's too late?

This is the fundamental idea underlying an ecological civilization: using nature's own design principles to reimagine the basis of our civilization. Changing our civilization's operating system to one that naturally leads to life-affirming policies and practices rather than rampant extraction and devastation.

An ecological civilization is both a new and ancient idea. While the notion of structuring human society on an ecological basis might seem radical, Indigenous peoples around the world have organized themselves from time immemorial on life-affirming principles. When Lakota communities, on the land that is now the U.S., invoke Mitakuye Oyasin ("We are all related") in ceremony, they are referring not just to themselves but to all sentient beings. Buddhist, Taoist, and other philosophical and religious traditions have based much of their spiritual wisdom on the recognition of the deep interconnectedness of all things. And in modern times, a common thread linking progressive movements around the world is the commitment to a society that works for the flourishing of life, rather than against it.

6 Rules for Humans Rejoining the Natural World

A system's health depends on differentiation and integration. When this principle of natural ecology is applied to human society, we see it as affirmation of different groups-self-defined by ethnicity, gender, or any other delineation. Such as:* Community self-determination
* Indigenous rights
* Restorative justice
* Social equity for LGBTQ communities

Deciphering Nature's Design Principles

There is a secret formula hidden deep in nature's intelligence, which catalyzed each of life's great evolutionary leaps over billions of years and forms the basis of all ecosystems. It's captured in the simple but profound concept of mutually beneficial symbiosis: a relationship between two parties to which each contributes something the other lacks, and both gain as a result. With such symbiosis, there is no zero-sum game: The contributions of each party create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Whenever you go for a walk in the woods, eat a meal, or take a dip in the ocean, you're experiencing the miracle of nature's symbiosis. Plants transform sunlight into chemical energy that provides food for other creatures, whose waste then fertilizes the soil the plants rely on. Underground fungal networks contribute essential chemicals to trees in return for nutrients they can't make for themselves. Pollinators fertilize plants, which produce fruit and seeds that nourish animals as they carry them to new locations. In your own gut, trillions of bacteria receive nutrition from the food you enjoy, while reciprocating by producing enzymes you need for digestion.

In human society, symbiosis translates into foundational principles of fairness and justice, ensuring that the efforts and skills people contribute to society are rewarded equitably. In an ecological civilization, relationships between workers and employers, producers and consumers, humans and animals, would thus be based on each party gaining in value rather than one group exploiting the other.

Because of symbiosis, ecosystems can sustain themselves almost indefinitely. Energy from the sun flows seamlessly to all the constituent parts. The waste of one organism becomes the sustenance of another. Nature produces a continuous flow where nothing is squandered. Likewise, an ecological civilization, in contrast to our current society built on extracting resources and accumulating waste, would comprise a circular economy with efficient reuse of waste products embedded into processes from the outset.

Nature uses a fractal design with similar patterns repeating themselves at different scales. Fractals are everywhere in nature-you see them in the patterns of tree branches, coastlines, cloud formations, and the bronchial system in our lungs. Ecologies are themselves fractal, with the deep principles of self-organized behavior that perpetuate life shared by microscopic cells, organisms, species, ecosystems, and the entire living Earth. This form of organization is known as a holarchy, where each element-from cells on up-is a coherent entity in its own right, while also an integral component of something larger. In a holarchy, the health of the system as a whole requires the flourishing of each part. Each living system is interdependent on the vitality of all the other systems.

Every part of a system is in a harmonious relationship with the entire system. When this principle of natural ecology is applied to human society, we see it as competition and cooperation in balance and an equitable distribution of wealth and power. Such as:
* Global wealth tax
* Multibillionaires proscribed
* Abolition of offshore tax havens
* Legal support for co-ops and the commons

Based on this crucial precept, an ecological civilization would be designed on the core principle of fractal flourishing: the well-being of each person is fractally related to the health of the larger world. Individual health relies on societal health, which relies in turn on the health of the ecosystem in which it's embedded. Accordingly, from the ground up, it would foster individual dignity, providing the conditions for everyone to live in safety and self-determination, with universal access to adequate housing, competent health care, and quality education.

In the fractal design of an ecosystem, health arises not through homogeneity, but through each organism contributing to the whole by fulfilling its own unique potential. Correspondingly, an ecological civilization would celebrate diversity, recognizing that its overall health depended on different groups-self-defined by ethnicity, gender, or any other delineation-developing their own unique gifts to the greatest extent possible.

In a natural ecology, the type of exponential growth that characterizes our global economy could only occur if other variables were out of balance, and would inevitably lead to the catastrophic collapse of that population. The principle of balance would accordingly be crucial to an ecological civilization. Competition would be balanced by collaboration; disparities in income and wealth would remain within much narrower bands, and would fairly reflect the contributions people make to society. And crucially, growth would become just one part of a natural life cycle, slowing down once it reaches its healthy limits-leading to a steady-state, self-sustaining economy designed for well-being rather than consumption.

Above all, an ecological civilization would be based on the all-encompassing symbiosis between human society and the natural world. Human activity would be organized, not merely to avoid harm to the living Earth, but to actively regenerate and sustain its health.

An Ecological Civilization in Practice

The overriding objective of an ecological civilization would be to create the conditions for all humans to flourish as part of a thriving, living Earth. Currently, the success of political leaders is assessed largely by how much they increase their nation's GDP, which merely measures the rate at which society transforms nature and human activities into the monetary economy, regardless of the ensuing quality of life. A life-affirming society would, instead, emphasize growth in well-being, using measures like the Genuine Progress Indicator, which factors in qualitative components such as volunteer and household work, pollution, and crime.

For more than a century, most economic thinkers have recognized only two domains of economic activity: markets and government. The great political divide between capitalism and communism was structured accordingly, and even today the debate continues along similar lines. An ecological civilization would incorporate government spending and markets, but-as laid out by visionary economist Kate Raworth-would add two critical realms to this framework: households and the commons.

The small reflects the large, and the health of the whole system requires the flourishing of each part. When this principle of natural ecology is applied to human society, we see it as individual dignity and self-determination. Such as:
* Universal Basic Income
* Universal access to housing, health care, education
* Cities redesigned for walking
* Community interaction
* Education for life-fulfillment
* Cosmopolitanism

In particular, the commons would become a crucial part of economic activity. Historically, the commons referred to shared land that peasants accessed to graze livestock or grow crops. But more broadly, the commons refers to any source of sustenance and well-being that has not yet been appropriated by the state or private ownership: the air, water, sunshine, as well as human creations like language, cultural traditions, and scientific knowledge. It is virtually ignored in most economic discussion because, like household work, it doesn't fit into the classic model of the economy. But the global commons belongs to all of us, and in an ecological civilization, it would once again take its rightful place as a major provider of human welfare.

The overwhelming proportion of wealth available to modern humans is the result of the cumulative ingenuity and industriousness of prior generations going back to earliest times. However, as a consequence of centuries of genocide and slavery, systemic racism, extractive capitalism, and exploitation by the Global North, that wealth is highly unevenly distributed. Once we realize the vast benefits of the commons bequeathed to us by our ancestors-along with the egregiously uneven wealth distribution-it transforms our conception of wealth and value. Contrary to the widespread view that an entrepreneur who becomes a billionaire deserves his wealth, the reality is that whatever value he created is a pittance compared to the immense bank of prior knowledge and social practices-the commonwealth-that he took from. An ecological civilization, recognizing this, would fairly reward entrepreneurial activity, but severely curtail the right of anyone to accumulate multiple billions of dollars in wealth, no matter what their accomplishments.

Conversely, it is the moral birthright of every human to share in the vast commonwealth bestowed on us. This could effectively be achieved through a program of unconditional monthly cash disbursements to every person on the planet, creating a foundation for the dignity and security required for society's fractal flourishing. It would also begin to address the moral imperative to remedy the extreme exploitation and injustices visited upon Indigenous and Black communities worldwide-historically and to this day.

Research has shown repeatedly that such programs-known as Universal Basic Income-are remarkably effective in improving quality of life in communities around the world, in both the Global North and South. Programs consistently report reduction in crime, child mortality, malnutrition, truancy, teenage pregnancy, and alcohol consumption, along with increases in health, gender equality, school performance-and even entrepreneurial activity. Work is not something people try to avoid; on the contrary, purposive work is an integral part of human flourishing. Liberated by UBI from the daily necessity to sell their labor for survival, people would reinvest their time in crucial sectors of the economy-in households and commons-that naturally lead to life-affirming activity.

The transnational corporations that currently dominate every aspect of global society would be fundamentally reorganized, and made accountable to the communities they purportedly serve. Corporations above a certain size would only be permitted to operate with charters that required them to optimize social and environmental well-being along with shareholder returns. Currently, these triple bottom line charters are voluntary, and very few large corporations adopt them. If, however, they were compulsory-and strictly enforced by citizen panels comprising representatives of the communities and ecosystems covered in the company's scope of operations-it would immediately transform the intrinsic character of corporations, causing them to work for the benefit of humanity and the living Earth rather than for their demise.

In place of vast homogenized monocrops of industrial agriculture, food would be grown using principles of regenerative agriculture, leading to greater crop biodiversity, improved water and carbon efficiency, and the virtual elimination of synthetic fertilizer. Manufacturing would be structured around circular material flows, and locally owned cooperatives would become the default organizational structure. Technological innovation would still be encouraged, but would be prized for its effectiveness in enhancing symbiosis between people and with living systems, rather than minting billionaires.

Regenerative and sustainable flourishing into the long-term future. When this principle of natural ecology is applied to human society, we see it as economic growth halting once it reaches healthy limits. Such as:
* Steady-state economies
* A triple bottom line for corporations

Cities would be redesigned on ecological principles, with community gardens on every available piece of land, essential services within a 20-minute walk, and cars banned from city centers. The local community would be the basic building block of society, with face-to-face interaction regaining ascendance as a crucial part of human flourishing. Education would be re-envisioned, its goal transformed from preparing students for the corporate marketplace to cultivating in students the discernment and emotional maturity required to fulfill their life's purpose as valued members of society.

Local community life would be enriched by the global reach of the internet. Online networks with scale, such as Facebook, would be turned over to the commons, so that rather than manipulating users to maximize advertising dollars, the internet could become a vehicle for humanity to develop a planetary consciousness. Cosmopolitanism-an ancient Greek concept meaning "being a citizen of the world"-would be the defining characteristic of a global identity. It would celebrate diversity between cultures while recognizing the deep interdependence that binds all people into a single moral community with a shared destiny.

Governance would be transformed with local, regional, and global decisions made at the levels where their effects are felt most (known as subsidiarity). While much decision-making would devolve to lower levels, a stronger global governance would enforce rules on planetwide challenges such as the climate emergency and the sixth great extinction. A Rights of Nature declaration, recognizing the inalienable rights of ecosystems and natural entities to persist and thrive, would put the natural world on the same legal standing as humanity, with personhood given to ecosystems and high-functioning mammals, and the crime of ecocide-the destruction of ecosystems-prosecuted by a court with global jurisdiction.

Daring to Make It Possible

It doesn't take more than a glance at the daily headlines to realize how far we are from this vision of a society that fosters fractal flourishing. Yet, just like the underground fungal network that nourishes trees in a forest, innumerable pioneering organizations around the world are already laying the groundwork for virtually all the components of a life-affirming civilization.

In the United States, the visionary Climate Justice Alliance has laid out guidelines for a just transition from an extractive to a regenerative economy that incorporates deep democracy with ecological and societal well-being. A network of more than 70 grassroots and frontline movements, the Alliance works collectively for a just transition toward food sovereignty, energy democracy, and ecological regeneration.

Issues at the lowest level affect health at the top. When this principle of natural ecology is applied to human society, we see it as grassroots self-autonomy and deep democracy:
* Decision-making at the lowest possible levels
* Horizontalism
* Cooperatives

In Bolivia and Ecuador, traditional ecological principles of buen vivir and sumak kawsay ("good living") are written into the constitutions. While mechanisms for enforcement still need considerable strengthening, these principles establish a powerful alternative to extractive practices, offering a legal and ethical platform for legislation based on harmony-both with nature, and between humans.

In Europe, large-scale thriving cooperatives, such as the Mondragón Cooperative in Spain, demonstrate that it's possible for companies to prosper without utilizing a shareholder-based profit model. With roughly a hundred businesses and 80,000 worker-owners producing a wide range of industrial and consumer goods, Mondragón proves that it's possible to succeed while maintaining a people-focused, shared community of life-affirming values.

A new ecological worldview is spreading globally throughout cultural and religious institutions, establishing common ground with the heritage of traditional Indigenous knowledge. The core principles of an ecological civilization have already been laid out in the Earth Charter-an ethical framework launched in The Hague in 2000 and endorsed by more than 50,000 organizations and individuals worldwide. In 2015, Pope Francis shook the Catholic establishment by issuing his encyclical, Laudato Si', a masterpiece of ecological philosophy that demonstrates the deep interconnectedness of all life, and calls for a rejection of the individualist, neoliberal ethic.

Economists, scientists, and policymakers, recognizing the moral bankruptcy of the current economic model, are pooling resources to offer alternative frameworks. The Wellbeing Economy Alliance is an international collaboration of changemakers working to transform our economic system to one that promotes human and ecological well-being. The Global Commons Alliance is similarly developing an international platform for regenerating the Earth's natural systems. Organizations such as the Next System Project and the Global Citizens Initiative are laying down parameters for the political, economic, and social organization of an ecological civilization, and the P2P Foundation is building a commons-based infrastructure for societal change. Around the world, an international movement of transition towns is transforming communities from the grassroots up by nurturing a caring culture, reimagining ways to meet local needs, and crowdsourcing solutions.

Most importantly, a people's movement for life-affirming change is spreading globally. Led by young climate activists like Greta Thunberg, Vanessa Nakate, Mari Copeny, Xiye Bastida, Isra Hirsi, and others, millions of schoolchildren worldwide are rousing their parents' generation from its slumber. A month after Extinction Rebellion demonstrators closed down Central London in 2019, the U.K. Parliament announced a "climate emergency," which has now been declared by nearly 2,000 local and national jurisdictions worldwide, representing more than 12% of the global population. Meanwhile, the Stop Ecocide campaign to establish ecocide as a crime prosecutable under international law is making important strides, gaining serious consideration at the parliamentary level in France and Sweden, with a panel of legal experts convened to draft its definition.

Relationships that work for mutual benefit. When this principle of natural ecology is applied to human society, we see it as fairness and justice, regenerative economies, and circular energy flows. Such as:
* Measuring well-being instead of GDP
* Regenerative agriculture
* Permaculture principles
* Circular economies and manufacturing processes
* Rights of Nature and personhood for nonhumans

When we consider the immensity of the transformation needed, the odds of achieving an ecological civilization might seem daunting-but it's far from impossible. As our current civilization begins to unravel on account of its internal failings, the strands that kept it tightly wound also get loosened. Every year that we head closer to catastrophe-as greater climate-related disasters rear up, as the outrages of racial and economic injustice become even more egregious, and as life for most people becomes increasingly intolerable-the old narrative loses its hold on the collective consciousness. Waves of young people are looking for a new worldview-one that makes sense of the current unraveling, one that offers them a future they can believe in.

It's a bold idea to transform the very basis of our civilization to one that's life-affirming. But when the alternative is unthinkable, a vision of a flourishing future shines a light of hope that can become a self-fulfilling reality. Dare to imagine it. Dare to make it possible by the actions you take, both individually and collectively-and it might just happen sooner than you expect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does An Ecological Civilization Look Like?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a new, saner administration sets up shop in Washington, D.C., there are plenty of policy initiatives this country desperately needs. Beyond a national plan for the COVID-19 pandemic, progressives will strive to focus the administration's attention on challenges like fixing the broken health care system, grappling with systemic racial inequities, and a just transition from fossil fuels to renewables.

# data[].attributes.body
A “game changing” 20-year effort suggests that even severely depleted marine ecosystems can be brought back to life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Karen McGlathery used to swim in the coastal bays off Virginia's Eastern Shore, the water would quickly turn cloudy and brown as sediment swirled around her. Now, 25 years later, for as far as she can swim the water remains clear. The sediment is anchored in place by lush green seagrass meadows, teeming with fish, scallops and crustaceans. "It's like this beautiful underwater prairie," says McGlathery. "It's just gorgeous."

McGlathery, an environmental sciences professor at the University of Virginia, is part of a team running the largest seagrass restoration project in the world in these coastal bays - and one of the most successful. The two-decade-long project is a "blueprint for restoring and maintaining healthy ecosystems," according to a 2020 research , and proof that marine habitats can be brought back to life in a way that's self-sustaining.

In the 1930s, a wasting disease swept along the U.S. east coast, wiping out huge swaths of eelgrass. Where Virginia's coastal bays used to be carpeted in this species of seagrass, suddenly they were barren. "Everyone thought that eelgrass could never, ever get back," says Robert Orth, who was a marine biologist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS) until his retirement this year, "but nobody really started doing any kind of experiments to see."

That changed in the late 1990s with the discovery of some small patches of seagrass in the bay, the existence of which proved that conditions could once again support the plants.

Orth started with small-scale experiments, digging up adult seagrass from other areas and transplanting it into the bay. The seagrass survived, but the process wasn't scalable - restoring thousands of acres through transplanting would have been a huge logistical challenge. So, says Orth, "We said, well, why not try to launch a restoration program using seeds?"

In 2001, he started an effort to physically rebuild the ocean ecosystem, seed by seed. From a moving boat, he and his team scattered seeds across four bays: South, Cobb, Spider Crab and Hog Island. The seeds survived, growing into plants which, in turn, produced their own seeds. "Nature kind of took over," says Orth. "While we continue to put seeds in areas that don't have eelgrass, nature has been spreading eelgrass naturally."

Over the last 20 years, supported by an army of volunteers, the project team has sown nearly 75 million seeds . Around 9,000 acres of coastal bays are now blanketed with eelgrass, which has improved water quality , increased marine biodiversity and helped mitigate climate change by capturing and storing carbon.

The project is "game changing," says Carlos Duarte, a seagrass expert and marine science professor at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia, both in its sheer scale and the raft of long-term data it provides on the climate benefits of seagrass.

A decade ago, Duarte and Orth nicknamed seagrass " the ugly duckling " of environmental conservation, because so few cared about it. That's slowly changing as the huge benefits it offers are recognized. Despite covering less than 0.2 percent of the ocean, it is responsible for about 10 percent of the ocean's ability to store carbon. It provides a vital habitat for marine life, boosts commercial fishing, helps purify water, protects coastlines and even traps and stores microplastics .

But seagrass is also one of the most at-risk ecosystems , threatened by coastal development, nutrient runoff from agriculture and stormwater, and rising ocean temperatures.

"I like to say these grasses are sort of the canary in the coal mine," says Jill Bieri, the Virginia Coast reserve program director at The Nature Conservancy, who has been involved in the restoration for the past seven years. They will thrive if the water quality is good, and die off if it's not. It's a lesson for other coastal regions, says Chris Patrick, the VIMS professor who has taken over the project since Orth's retirement. "If you can fix the water quality issues, you can restore the grass very quickly, within a few decades."

Restoration projects around the world are looking to Virginia for lessons. Richard Unsworth, associate professor of biosciences at Swansea University, is leading the U.K.'s biggest seagrass restoration project in the waters of Dale Bay in Pembrokeshire, Wales. "We've been using their science as a yardstick," he says. So far he and his team have planted more than a million seeds, but his ambitions are bolder. "We want to apply the techniques that they're using [in Virginia] to rejuvenate the coastal seas of the U.K., at a similar scale if not bigger."

Back in Virginia's bays, the next phase of the project is to see if they can convert the carbon stored in the seagrass meadows into carbon credits to raise money for further restoration. That's where McGlathery's work feeds in ; the long-term research from the project has allowed her to calculate precise data about how much carbon the seagrass stores. The project is in the process of registering with Verra, a leading certifier of carbon credits. If successful, it will be the world's first verified seagrass carbon offset program.

In the meantime, the team is working towards restoring every one of the coastal bays to the way they were before the wasting disease claimed the eelgrass. The project, says Unsworth, "is demonstrating to the world that you can actually restore the oceans." While plenty of projects have restored coastal habitats such as mangroves and salt marshes, he adds, few have been able to restore the ecosystems that lie beneath the surface of the water. "It's quite fundamental what they achieved."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World's Largest Seagrass Project Proves "You Can Actually Restore the Oceans"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Karen McGlathery used to swim in the coastal bays off Virginia's Eastern Shore, the water would quickly turn cloudy and brown as sediment swirled around her. Now, 25 years later, for as far as she can swim the water remains clear.

# data[].attributes.headline
The history of fire in Californias Bioregions 

# data[].attributes.subject
The history of fire in Californias Bioregions 

# data[].attributes.body
Fire lives on these lands, as It has for millennia. How does fire influence Californias ecologies, ecological communities and ecological functions? How has fire lived in the lands of California historically? How can we come back into regenerative relationship with fire?

# data[].attributes.headline
THE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF FIRE IN CALIFORNIA’S BIOREGIONS

# data[].attributes.subject
THE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY OF FIRE IN CALIFORNIA’S BIOREGIONS

# data[].attributes.body
Necessary knowledge for the times. How does fire live on these lands? How has fire lived here historically? How can we be in better relationship with the element of fire in Californias bioregions?Understanding starts with information.

# data[].attributes.body
Because the Earth needs a good lawyer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization. We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people's health; to preserve magnificent places and wildlife; to advance clean energy; and to combat climate change. We are here because the earth needs a good lawyer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kew Gardens State of the World Plants & Fungi 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
Kew Gardens State of the World Plants & Fungi 2020

# data[].attributes.body
Plants and fungi are the building blocks of life on Earth, and have the potential to solve urgent problems that threaten human life... but these vital resources are being severely compromised by biodiversity loss. The report shows how we’re currently using plants and fungi, what useful properties we’re missing, and what we risk losing. Find out more in the full report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kew's State of the World's Plants and Fungi project provides assessments of our current knowledge of the diversity of plants and fungi on Earth, the global threats that they face, and the policies to safeguard them.

Produced in conjunction with an international scientific symposium, Kew's State of the World's Plants and Fungi sets an important international standard from which we can annually track trends in the global status of plant and fungal diversity.

Since 2016, we have published four reports which you can read below.

State of the World's Plants and Fungi 2020

Our fourth report in the State of the World's series combines plants and fungi for the first time.

It is also the first report that is accompanied by a full volume of expert-reviewed scientific publications in the New Phytologist Foundation's Open Access journal Plant, People, Planet.

Drawing upon the expertise of 210 contributors in 97 institutions across 42 countries, the report is an unparalleled collaborative effort which takes an in-depth look at how we can protect and sustainably use the world's plants and fungi for the benefit of people and the planet.

Now, more than ever before, we need to explore the solutions that plants and fungi could provide to the global challenges we face.

Download the State of the World's Plants and Fungi report (PDF)

State of the World's Plants 2016

The original State of the World's Plants report provided, for the first time, a baseline assessment of our knowledge on the diversity of plants on earth, the global threats these plants face, and the policies dealing with them.

Read the 2016 report on Kew's Research Repository

State of the World's Plants 2017

This is the second annual report in which we have scrutinised databases, published literature, policy documents, reports and satellite imagery to provide a synthesis of current knowledge on the world's plants.

Read the 2017 report on Kew's Research Repository

State of the World's Fungi 2018

Kew released the first ever State of the World's Fungi report revealing how important fungi are to all life on Earth.

Read the 2018 report on Kew's Research Repository

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kew's State of the World's Plants and Fungi project provides assessments of our current knowledge of the diversity of plants and fungi on Earth, the global threats that they face, and the policies to safeguard them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Didi Pershouse: The Great Work of Our Time

# data[].attributes.headline
How beavers became North America's best firefighter

# data[].attributes.subject
How beavers became North America's best firefighter

# data[].attributes.body
The ultimate ecosystem engineers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The American West is ablaze with fires fueled by climate change and a century of misguided fire suppression. In California, wildfire has blackened more than three million acres; in Oregon, a once-in-a-generation crisis has forced half a million people to flee their homes. All the while, one of our most valuable firefighting allies has remained overlooked: The beaver.

A new study concludes that, by building dams, forming ponds, and digging canals, beavers irrigate vast stream corridors and create fireproof refuges in which plants and animals can shelter. In some cases, the rodents' engineering can even stop fire in its tracks.

"It doesn't matter if there's a wildfire right next door," says study leader Emily Fairfax, an ecohydrologistat California State University Channel Islands. "Beaver-dammed areas are green and happy and healthy-looking."

For decades, scientists have recognized that the North American beaver, Castor canadensis, provides a litany of ecological benefits throughout its range from northern Mexico to Alaska. Beaver ponds and wetlands have been shown to filter out water pollution, support salmon, sequester carbon, and attenuate floods. Researchers have long suspected that these paddle-tailed architects offer yet another crucial service: slowing the spread of wildfire.

"It's really not complicated: water doesn't burn," says Joe Wheaton, a geomorphologist at Utah State University. After the Sharps Fire charred 65,000 acres in Idaho in 2018, for instance, Wheaton stumbled upon a lush pocket of green glistening within the burn zone-a beaver wetland that had withstood the flames. Yet no scientist had ever rigorously studied the phenomenon. ( See California's record blazes through the eyes of frontline firefighters.)

"Emily's study couldn't be more timely," says Wheaton, who wasn't involved in the research. "This points toward the importance of nature-based solutions and natural infrastructure, and gives us the science to back it up."

Inspired in part by Wheaton's observations, Fairfax and colleague Andrew Whittle chose major wildfires that had occurred since 2000 in five U.S. states-California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming-and scoured satellite images for nearby beaver dams and ponds. (Beaver infrastructure is so impressive that it's visible from space.)

Then, using a statistical measure of plant health, they calculated the lushness of the surrounding vegetation before, during, and after the fires. Unsurprisingly, thriving, well-watered plants tended to appear vivid green in the satellite photos, while dry plants looked comparatively brown. ( Read more about how wildfires get started-and how to stop them.)

A green, hydrated plant, of course, is also less flammable than a desiccated, crispy one. And that's what makes beaver ecosystems so fireproof. In beaver-dammed stream sections, Fairfax and Whittle found, vegetation remained more than three timeslusher as wildfire raced over the creek. Beavers had so thoroughly saturated their valleys that plants simply didn't ignite.

These lifeboats don't merely protect beavers themselves: A broad menagerie-including amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small mammals-likely hunker down in these beaver-built fire "refugia," Fairfax says. Although wildfire is a vital force that rejuvenates habitat for some creatures, like black-backed woodpeckers, it can devastate other animal populations.

Beaver habitat also protects domestic livestock and agricultural lands, adds Fairfax, whose study was published this month in Ecological Applications. "If you have a beaver wetland, your cows can take advantage of that refuge and fare better during wildfire than if you had to pack them out on trailers."

In addition, beavers may help an ecosystem recover from a wildfire.In northern Washington State, Alexa Whipple, the director of the Methow Beaver Project, found that beavers promoted the recovery of native species, like willow and aspen.

Beaverless streams, by contrast, were more likely to become colonized with invasive plants after a burn. Whipple also found that beaver ponds improved water quality by capturing the phosphorus-laden sediment that runs off torched hillsides. ( Learn how wildfires are increasing worldwide.)

"If we have a wetter landscape, we are going to resist fire and recover from it better," says Whipple, whose results haven't yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. "My hope is that wildfire can be the gateway for people to understand the whole suite of benefits that beavers offer."

Despite all the good that beavers do, thousands are killed every year for flooding roads, cutting down trees, and causing other damage to human property.Employing smarter, more humane policies-using nonlethal flood-prevention devices like " Beaver Deceivers," for example, and relocating trouble-making individuals instead of killing them-could heal our relationships with beavers and wildfire alike, Fairfax says.

"Strategically embracing beavers in local watersheds could provide reassurance that you have wet soils and wet plants around your town," Fairfax says. In fact, as her paper's title suggests, the U.S. Forest Service might want to consider a new animal mascot: Smokey the Beaver.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How beavers became North America's best firefighter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American West is ablaze with fires fueled by climate change and a century of misguided fire suppression. In California, wildfire has blackened more than three million acres; in Oregon, a once-in-a-generation crisis has forced half a million people to flee their homes.

# data[].attributes.headline
World Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Right of Mother Earth 

# data[].attributes.subject
World Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Right of Mother Earth 

# data[].attributes.body
Soil bioengineering is the term used to describe the use of plant material to arrest and prevent slope and streambank failure and erosion. The roots and stems serve as structural and mechanical elements in a slope protection system. Live cuttings and rooted plants are embedded in the ground in various arrays to serve as soil reinforcements, hydraulic drains and barriers to earth movement. Once established, this living material effectively controls a number of stabilization and erosion control problems by binding the soil with its root system and creating a natural vegetative cover. Bioengineered sites are self-repairing and have the advantage of blending with natural surroundings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ernst Seeds bioengineering products are dormant live material. If the material cannot be installed immediately when it arrives at the site, it must be properly stored. Place material out of direct sunlight in a cool, wet place, such as under straw or burlap. If packaged, open the pallets, boxes and plastic bags so the material can be thoroughly watered. Do not allow the material to dry out. Soaking before planting significantly increases survival and growth rate. Planting is best done during dormancy.

For best survivability, the material should be planted during the dormant season, November 1st-April 30th. We do not guarantee any of our bioengineering material from May 1st- October 31st.

Overseeding and mulching a completed bioengineered project with the appropriate seed mixes protects the soil surface from erosion while adding biodiversity to the site. The following mixes are excellent for this purpose: ERNMX-122 (FACW Wetland Meadow Mix), ERNMX-123 (Native Upland Wildlife Forage & Cover Meadow Mix), and ERNMX-138 (Wildlife Food & Shelter Mix).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bioengineering Materials | Ernst Conservation Seeds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ernst Seeds bioengineering products are dormant live material. If the material cannot be installed immediately when it arrives at the site, it must be properly stored. Place material out of direct sunlight in a cool, wet place, such as under straw or burlap.

# data[].attributes.body
"Still, those lands are being stolen and mismanaged by colonists who believe that their environmental and clean energy projects will be more effective than millennia of land stewardship by Indigenous Peoples."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The traditional fish weir on the Koeye River. Photo by Bryant DeRoy.

Around the time wildfires were blanketing Calgary in smoke last year, I attended a local leftist reading group. They were discussing the impacts of capitalism on natural disasters, agreeing that the wildfires were exacerbated by both global warming and by neoliberal austerity. But when I put forward that invasive, non-indigenous plant species including trees and industrially farmed crops added degrees of severity to the crisis, and that traditional Indigenous systems of land stewardship could help mitigate or prevent natural disasters, I was taken aback by the group's dismissive response. I was told by the main organizer that my approach to ecology was backwards-looking and idealized pre-capitalist societies, and that without an orientation to the future I risked venerating the stereotype of a "noble savage" in a "lost world."

At a time when Indigenous land defenders are fighting for cultural resurgence and the application of traditional knowledge to combat the climate crisis, they are often cast as the monolithic, mystical, degrowth opposition to the secular modernity of white leftists and their fully automated socialist future. In reality, solutions to ecological and social problems that were historically or are presently used by non-European cultures are compatible with modern technology, often in consensus with cutting-edge scientific findings, and more necessary than ever.

Still, those lands are being stolen and mismanaged by colonists who believe that their environmental and clean energy projects will be more effective than millennia of land stewardship by Indigenous Peoples.

Indigenous Peoples now make up less than five per cent of the world's population, but the lands they maintain hold 80 per cent of the planet's biodiversity. Protecting and restoring Indigenous Peoples' lands is the fastest and most readily available way to sequester carbon and mitigate the impacts of climate change, a result of the optimally efficient relationships between fungi, plants, animals, and people in a given bioregion, which Indigenous cultures have coded into their knowledge systems over millennia of human-environmental interactions.

Still, those lands are being stolen and mismanaged by colonists who believe that their environmental and clean energy projects - eco-tourism, national parks, and hydroelectric dams - will be more effective than millennia of land stewardship by Indigenous Peoples. Even when they haven't yet been invented or scaled-up, theoretical solutions like machines that suck carbon dioxide directly out of the air (which would, themselves, require absurd amounts of energy) are emphasized over habitat restoration.

A history of colonial ecology

The ecological problems we face have historical roots in the property law, agricultural strategies, and colonial expansion of Rome, which were also used by the British Empire on Turtle Island. The idea that we could build a truly fair and sustainable society using those foundational European institutions and environmental relations must be thrown out entirely. This makes many people, even the most anti-racist leftists, deeply uncomfortable, because it means we have to reorganize all aspects of life as we know it. Oil and gas, the industrial production of wheat and cattle, and commercial fishing have been sold to us as life-giving and necessary. People demand to know how we will power and feed the world any other way. The truth is that these industries have existed for fewer than 500 years, were established to help eradicate Indigenous nations, and contribute to rapid loss of soil nutrients, tanking biodiversity, proliferation of dangerous diseases, and climate catastrophe.

Contrary to popular belief, it was no coincidence that before the 19th century, the Great Plains were covered in millions of bison and edible plants. It was a carefully managed ecological region where Indigenous Peoples did routine controlled burns to influence bison movement, limit the number of trees, and replenish the soil with nutrients.

The idea that we could build a truly fair and sustainable society using those foundational European institutions and environmental relations must be thrown out entirely.

In the 16th century, settlers began importing cattle into what is now the U.S. Accompanying those cattle were seeds, found in their gastrointestinal tracts and in the hay they were fed during the journey. When coupled with the cattle's overgrazing, invasive Eurasian plants began beating out native grasses and plants while retaining less water and carbon in the soil. Concentrations of cattle increased throughout the 20th century, and instead of letting them graze, farmers began fattening them up in crowded pens called feedlots, which in turn increased the need to cultivate wheat, corn, and soy to feed the cows. Ancient, well-managed prairie was aggressively tilled for the first time, exposing the soil to the air. Some experts have argued that it resulted in a period of severe and destructive dust storms on the Prairies in the 1930s. Today, farmers help prevent this erosion and increase their crop yields with intensive irrigation from underground aquifers that are nearly bled dry - a practice that some studies estimate will leave millions on the Great Plains without water for crops, livestock, or human settlements within a century. Canada's largest crops - canola, wheat, and alfalfa - are invasive species farmed using fossil fuel-powered machinery and chemical fertilizers responsible for cyanobacteria blooms in Canada's freshwater lakes and surrounding oceans. When farmed as monoculture crops, they deplete the soil of nutrients and allow for the spread of pests and diseases.

Human interference like this has caused a dramatic decrease in wild salmon populations, with less than 10 per cent of historic populations returning to Pacific Northwest rivers and streams. In an attempt to buffer these losses in the market, commercial spawning and cultivation of fish has become more prevalent. But far from helping, fish farms are disease accelerators, making both wild populations of fish and humans more vulnerable to a host of pathogens while the industry focuses solely on streamlined production.

Like oil and gas, commercial wheat, beef, and salmon farming on Turtle Island are unsustainable extractive industries with product prices that do not match the real human and ecological cost.

To add insult to injury, Canada alone wastes 26 billion pounds of food that it produces each year, with over 30 per cent of that waste happening at the level of manufacturing and processing. The contributions of these industries to climate change and ecosystem disruption are so significant they cannot be ignored or dismissed as a necessary investment in civilization. Like oil and gas, commercial wheat, beef, and salmon farming on Turtle Island are unsustainable extractive industries with product prices that do not match the real human and ecological cost.

So why do we keep participating? There is a complex web of private property owners, industrial farmers, large-scale processors, and chemical companies, buttressed by the cold bureaucracy of the state, that has been allowed to control the narrative of what is good for us. Beer and burgers, elegant salmon dinners, and road trips are a source of visceral pleasure for people who might otherwise experience very little satisfaction in their daily lives. Industries and governments reinforce this attachment with propaganda that simulates a feeling of community by rebranding consumption as support for local economies. With these forms of consumption rooted in genocide and displacement of Indigenous Peoples, and with modern obstacles like global pandemics and ecological change undermining their viability, continuing any of these industrial activities without fundamental changes is unjustifiable. The question then becomes: how do we move forward?

Reviving Haíłzaqv fishing technologies

'Cúagilákv, whose English name is Jess Housty, is a citizen of the Haíɫzaqv (Heiltsuk) Nation and a resident of the island village of Bella Bella, a community situated in Haíɫzaqv homelands. These homelands stretch from the western edge of the mainland, where the land is one of complex forest systems and alpine lakes, through muskeg and coastal watersheds, out to the open Pacific Ocean. "We're forest people and ocean people, but we thrive in the spaces where they overlap," Jess explains.

Jess was home-schooled in her community, and "had lots of flexibility to take our learning out on the territory," she recalls. In her community, Yíṃás (Hereditary Chiefs) and elected chief and council members collaborate on decision-making, allowing the community to "exercise all the tools at our disposal to care for our homelands," Jess notes. The sharing of knowledge between generations is indispensable in the process of preserving and protecting their ancestral lands and waters, and Jess works with youth at the Koeye River Valley every year to connect them to the cultural and scientific legacy of thousands of years of Haíɫzaqv-environmental interactions.

"We're willing to wield science as a tool in our work because truly, our people were scientists," Jess tells me. "We had systems for organizing and transmitting knowledge. We developed practices, teachings, and laws based on our careful experimentation and observation, our code of ethics, our rigour, our intelligence, our drive to understand the world around us. We don't differentiate between 'our knowledge' and 'science.' We differentiate between frameworks: 'Haíɫzaqv science' and 'western science.'" There is no confusion in the community about which methods are most appropriate for Haíɫzaqv people or their territory. "We've seen decades of academics coming into our territory to earn degrees studying obscure things that have no practical application here. That doesn't happen anymore. We now have relationships with academic institutions that allow us to be an early point of contact for researchers in all fields who want to come into the territory. They're expected to develop projects that will advance our territorial governance and stewardship."

"We're willing to wield science as a tool in our work because truly, our people were scientists."

One such project is a traditional fish weir on the Koeye River, where scientists from Simon Fraser University's department of biological sciences, the University of British Columbia's department of statistics, and the Hakai Institute collect data about salmon health. The weir - a technology that's been used by IndigenousPeoples in the Pacific Northwest for over 5,000 years - is a set of wooden posts spanning the width of the river that guide salmon into a trap where they are tagged and then released to spawn upstream. Weirs have long been used by Indigenous fishers to track salmon populations and help make sure they weren't overfishing - until the late 1800s, when the Dominion of Canada banned Indigenous fishing technologies, under pressure from industrial fisheries which wanted to exploit salmon stocks without competition. Today, the revival of the weir allows scientists to monitor the salmon's movement through their tags and study the impact that variables like water temperature have on their populations. They've found that high water temperatures are associated with higher rates of death in migrating adult sockeye salmon - a crucial insight into how climate change will affect biodiversity and food security. A Haíɫzaqv-led non-profit, Qqs Projects Society, is a key partner on the project, and brings children to visit the weir, teaching them about their relationship with the salmon, the logic of traditional technologies, and the respect for life that is crucial to the continuation of their subsistence systems.

The traditional fish weir on the Koeye River. Photo by Bryant DeRoy.

The success of collaborative Haíɫzaqv-academic projects like these could be expanded were it not for limited resources, Jess explains. "When it comes to Nation-level work like financing our Guardians program or staffing our stewardship office, funding is always a challenge. Fighting through government funding and philanthropic dollars and own-source revenue to pull together a budget for critical work, that's a challenge every year."

The inherent value of traditional strategies can be misunderstood or completely excluded from profit- or growth-driven budgetary considerations. "The way the western world talks about Indigenous knowledge by and large does it a disservice," Jess says. "It's treated like a new-age novelty or a tokenistic box to check on a referral or consultation strategy. It's deeper than that. It's sacred, nuanced, organized, and rooted in deep relationships with the world around us. It's careful. It's observant. It's adaptive. It's not fodder for some generic inspirational Indian proverb meme. It's a living system by which many of us still organize our lives and map our identities."

Bringing back the bison

Joely BigEagle-Kequahtooway, whose spirit name is Umba Zitkana Ho Wash'tay, is Nakota/Cree/Saulteaux from White Bear First Nations, located in the southeast corner of the Moose Mountain area of Saskatchewan. Growing up in the urban centres of Regina and Saskatoon, she tells me, "I found the only connection to the land I could find," spending time in parks and stands of trees, where she would pretend to be alone exploring and picking fruit.

Joely on the land. Photo courtesy of Joely BigEagle-Kequahtooway.

In 2014, after getting degrees in mathematics and civil engineering, Joely was running a boutique selling hand-made Indigenous art when a local non-Indigenous bison rancher offered her a raw bison hide. "She hoped that instead of it being thrown away it could be of value to us," Joely recalls. "We never shared that we weren't skilled buffalo people, but we were excited to learn how to tan the hide. It wasn't as easy as we thought. We had to salt the hide while we waited to find teachers. It took almost a year and a Facebook post from one of our Sundance brothers who was hosting a deer hide tanning youth workshop in Manitoba. My husband packed up two buffalo hides - one to gift the teacher and one to learn to scrape."

Since then, "We've been learning how to tan buffalo hides and also to share as we learn," she says.

Before colonization, an estimated 30 million bison roamed Turtle Island, but by the end of the 19th century their numbers dwindled to fewer than 1,000 thanks to colonial policies and hunting by settlers. "The majority of Indigenous people have forgotten their connection to our ancestral animal," Joely says. "Most have never eaten buffalo, seen a buffalo up close, smelled one. Almost all have never scraped the fat and meat off one to tan it." In 2015, she co-founded the Buffalo People Arts Institute (BPAI), a non-profit whose mission is to "bring back the buffalo emotionally, mentally, spiritually and physically," including by running workshops on bison hide tanning.

"We aligned ourselves to the similar mission of the Buffalo Treaty that was established in 2014 with Dr. Leroy Little Bear at the helm," she explains. The treaty, signed by nations and tribes on both sides of the 49th parallel, committed to restoring the bison in their homelands.

"When the buffalo return, new species return, ecosystems return that were dormant. They can survive on their own with little intervention, in comparison to cattle."

The legacy of colonialism and its style of private land management is still an obstacle in reintroducing bison to their ancestral habitats. Cattle ranchers vehemently oppose expanding bison ranches, arguing that bison may pass diseases to cattle herds. But both Indigenous and settler sciences affirm the benefits of bison for both habitat restoration and human health. "When the buffalo return, new species return, ecosystems return that were dormant. They can survive on their own with little intervention, in comparison to cattle," Joely tells me.

"They are the better, leaner, more nutritious meat for our bodies when paired with root vegetables and fruits/berries of the land," she explains. "Part of our work is feeding people buffalo at community feasts and getting them used to eating it again. Our diets, historically, were changed from buffalo, vegetables, and fruit from the land to pork, salt, sugar, and flour. There is no wonder why diabetes consumes our communities."

Joely scrapes an animal hide. Photo courtesy of Joely BigEagle-Kequahtooway.

"I hope that my First Nation considers creating a environment for the buffalo to live on," she says. But in order to reintroduce bison on a large scale, she believes "we will need all types of assistance from many different levels of private, corporate, and governmental organizations."

"Looking back does not mean we need to stop our Indigenous cultures from growing," she adds. "I support solar and wind power. I support modern technologies. There has to be a way to come together as Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures to join methodologies and practices for the health and well-being of future generations."

Restoring WSÁNEĆ protocols

ŚW̱,XELOSELWET ŦE NE SNÁ, whose English name is Tiffany Joseph, lives part time in the village of STOLȻEȽ (Friday Harbor on San Juan Island, Washington) in the rain-shadowed homelands of W̱SÁNEĆ. ŚW̱,XELOSELWET means "camera lady" - living up to her name, Tiffany studied independent filmmaking, and makes films to help her communities preserve and share their knowledge.

Tiffany has been working in SṈIDȻEȽ, which is the village where the first W̱SÁNEĆ person came from the sky. "His name was SȽEMEW̱ and he came down with the rain. We call rain SȽEMEW̱, so we as W̱SÁNEĆ people are descendants of the rain." The village is filled with cedars, Douglas firs, grand firs, and the June plums that are the first to flower in the spring, and in the middle of it all are the remnants of the abandoned cement factory that was built on the territory without permission, and a trail that used to be a road. At the end of the trail you can see SX̱OX̱IYEM, which means "deep still water," a place that the many marine ecologists who have come to assess the impact of the cement factory call Willis Point. "Whatever runs off into the inlet stays there for a really long time," Tiffany explains.

"We've dealt with contaminated soil, and are often removing large cement chunks, abandoned car parts, mattress springs, and other household items from the sites."

Along with other youth and community members, Tiffany works on the SṈIDȻEȽ Resiliency Project, removing invasive plants such as blackberry and English ivy from the garden that was formerly a limestone quarry for cement production. "We've dealt with contaminated soil, and are often removing large cement chunks, abandoned car parts, mattress springs, and other household items from the sites," she says. Environmental restoration helps reduce runoff into the inlet, and a collaboration with the SeaChange Marine Conservation project saw large pebbles and sand placed along the shoreline to mitigate erosion. But the obstacles are less about the difficulty of removing contaminated soil and invasive plants and instead more about changing colonial mindsets.

"In 2015, I was asked to lead 'ethnobotanical walks,'" she recalls. "I cringed, because I didn't want to talk about how all these plants were 'used.' It felt out of alignment with the teachings I'd been given, that any knowledge of our culture is best learned from our family, and when it's not available through our family, then we must reach out to Elders in our nations," she tells me. "The learning is done through observing, listening, and following, and it would take time and mentorship."

The walks she led through the village "eventually became more and more rooted in our W̱SÁNEĆ worldview and history of plants, land, water, sky, and animals as 'beings' and our relatives," she explains. "In our protocols we talk to plants, sing to them, pray to them, and ask permission to harvest them, so I teach people to do the same. I also take time to see how the land relates to the water. In SṈIDȻEȽ, there's lots of Oregon grape within the forest, and near the shore is a lot of shell midden. Oregon grape is a W̱SÁNEĆ medicine for shellfish poisoning, so if W̱SÁNEĆ people can ever harvest shellfish again in SṈIDȻEȽ, it's good to have the medicine close by."

"In our protocols we talk to plants, sing to them, pray to them, and ask permission to harvest them, so I teach people to do the same."

"What I haven't had the privilege to do with my own two hands, I try to record in order to share with my community, or for future generations," she notes. She gives the example of the community's marine life garden project. Community members build gardens on the beaches to reseed clams and to teach W̱SÁNEĆ children knowledge and skills about "this way of life that our grandparents' generation and older lived," says Tiffany. Last year, she interviewed the Elders, knowledge carriers, and clam gardeners for a video to share with the W̱SÁNEĆ people and Parks Canada. The results of the gardens are easy to see. "The clams that were in these beaches before the project started were black, and now many have turned white," she notes.

In contrast to stereotypes of Indigenous Peoples as hunter-gatherers, oral histories and research prove that Indigenous Peoples in the Pacific Northwest have been farming clams for over 1,000 years - constructing stone terraces and stacking sediments in the tidal column to perfect clam-growing conditions and harvesting selectively to feed large numbers of people without decimating the clam population. Even so, the myth that Indigenous Peoples were solely foragers, not farmers, was leveraged by colonial governments to justify stripping Indigenous nations of their land base.

"Be strong enough to let the land govern you"

The destruction wrought by colonization cannot be undone, but we can recover from it. Tiffany explains that one must "be strong enough to let the land govern you." In this sense, "Land Back" is not just the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of First Nations, but a reminder that "the land is sovereign and the land is what you should obey," she says. It is a call for us all to take responsibility in maintaining a meaningful relationship of reciprocity with the land.

We could use our technological advancements and industrial scale, guided by Indigenous knowledge, to reintroduce the bison herds onto the Prairies at the same time that we install wind turbines to power the cultivation of food that nourishes people with minimal land use or waste. We can rapidly reforest areas that were clear cut for industrial agriculture or pipelines, and revive animal populations in traditional food forests. We can use low-carbon infrastructure to cultivate mollusks that clean polluted waters, feed people, and create habitat for other species all at the same time. We can create new social norms and cultural institutions that centre children, the elderly, and our interdependence with life on Earth.

In this sense, "Land Back" is not just the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of First Nations, but a reminder that "the land is sovereign and the land is what you should obey."

Our current problems are the result of a number of historical conditions being realized, and are not a fundamental manifestation of our nature, evolutionary trajectory, or destiny. Designing a society that makes happy humans with healthy bodies and minds in resilient ecosystems does not involve "going back" to any ideal period of history, but it does require us recognizing that Indigenous knowledge and ecological stewardship are and will continue to be successful; that ecosystems have regulating functions that are better at preventing pandemics and responding to climate change than present human technology; and that the legacy of industrial agriculture, capitalism, and its exploitation of people and the planet should no longer be the standard that shapes our vision of progress.

Reviving and scaling up Indigenous ecological practices is one crucial tool in the broader project of defending land, Jess reminds me, and she stresses that traditional systems are not relics of the past. "Whether we're fertilizing wild berry orchards with the guts from our food fish and calculating how many branches full of herring roe we need to leave in the water to hatch - or negotiating policies, enacting Haíɫzaqv-led management strategies, and locking down federal buildings to assert our sovereignty - we're here. It's applied. It's real."

"Everyone benefits from the work we do - not just our community. In protecting the ecological gem of our territory - its biodiversity, its spiritual value - we're benefitting everyone," she says. "But at the end of the day, it's our own community who's fighting to make sure we can keep doing what we're doing."

Jade Delisle is a science educator and community organizer with a background in justice sciences and cultural ecology. Her family is Métis and she's passionate about creating an anticolonial future.

Tags: ecology environment food sovereignty indigenous indigenous women land

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Around the time wildfires were blanketing Calgary in smoke last year, I attended a local leftist reading group. They were discussing the impacts of capitalism on natural disasters, agreeing that the wildfires were exacerbated by both global warming and by neoliberal austerity.

# data[].attributes.body
As initiator, catalyst and enabler of large-scale and long-term restoration initiatives, Commonland is on a mission to transform degraded landscapes into thriving ecosystems and communities based on sound business cases and aligned with international policies and guidelines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The world's landscapes and ecosystems are degrading at an unprecedented pace. It's in our common interest to build resilient landscapes, restore healthy ecosystems and create regenerative businesses for generations to come.

Now more than ever, the world needs viable solutions based on social and ecological needs, science and entrepreneurship. For this to happen, we need a practical holistic approach that everybody understands.

4 Returns: a holistic and practical framework that acts as the common language of global landscape restoration.

4 Returns is a science-based framework that is proven in practice. Developed in close collaboration with leading scientific institutes, business schools, farmers and experts, 4 Returns transforms degraded ecosystems by focusing on 4 key returns over the course of a single generation (20 years).

Giving people hope and a sense of purpose.

Bringing back jobs, business activity, education and security.

Restoring biodiversity, soil, water quality and capturing carbon.

Realising long-term sustainable profit.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settings ACCEPT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world's landscapes and ecosystems are degrading at an unprecedented pace. It's in our common interest to build resilient landscapes, restore healthy ecosystems and create regenerative businesses for generations to come. Now more than ever, the world needs viable solutions based on social and ecological needs, science and entrepreneurship.

# data[].attributes.body
The Healthy Soil Webinars will address what soil really is, what soil health looks like, and particularly how this relates to erosion, sediment accumulation, water conservation in the soil, and getting plants to grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hosted via Zoom
#1: Defining and Measuring Healthy Upland Soil
Wednesday August 12, 11:30 am - 1:00 pm MT
#2: Restoring Soil Health in Degraded Uplands
Wednesday August 26, 12:00 noon - 1:30 pm MT
#3: Restoring Soil Health in Fields Affected by Sediment
Wednesday September 9, 12:00 noon - 1:30 pm MT
#4: Maintaining Soil Health in Fields with Native Soil
Wednesday September 23, 12:00 noon - 1:30 pm MT

The Healthy Soil Webinars will address what soil really is, what soil health looks like, and particularly how this relates to erosion, sediment accumulation, water conservation in the soil, and getting plants to grow. We will look at the relationships between the surface and soil ecology. The webinars will identify local soil conditions and how to improve them, for example in support of erosion control on degraded areas, farming in sediment areas, and farming in places without sediment. Participants will learn more about indicators of soil health below and above-ground, erosion and sedimentation features, how plants are connected through fungal networks, how the soil microbiome accumulates carbon, soil texture and soil alkalinity and to what extent the soil system stores water. Each webinar stands on its own. However, because each webinar builds on the previous one, they form a series. Presented by Jan-Willem Jansens of Ecotone Landscape Planning, with support from Embudo Valley Library & Community Center, New Mexico Department of Agriculture's Soil Health Program, and the Quivira Coalition.

If you have any questions, please contact Adrienne at rosenberg.adrienne@gmail.com or at 901.603.9496.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Healthy Soil Webinars - Quivira Coalition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1: Defining and Measuring Healthy Upland Soil Wednesday August 12, 11:30 am - 1:00 pm MT #2: Restoring Soil Health in Degraded Uplands Wednesday August 26, 12:00 noon - 1:30 pm MT #3: Restoring Soil Health in Fields Affected by Sediment Wednesday September 9, 12:00 noon - 1:30 pm MT

# data[].attributes.headline
What should you do with your land after a wildfire?

# data[].attributes.subject
What should you do with your land after a wildfire?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What should you do with your land after a wildfire?

The CNPS Fire Recovery Guide addresses that question in an easy-to-use booklet. The new statewide guide is a collaborative effort between CNPS, dozens of partner organizations, and scientists across the state. Sections include:

Frequently asked questions about wildfire in California

A post-fire checklist for property owners

A decision-flow diagram for post-fire conditions

Erosion control recommendations

Tips for tree care and landscaping after fire

Defensible space updates, and

An overview of California's most fire-prone habitats

The "new normal" of intense fire seasons requires us to be informed and aware of how fires start, how they spread, and what to do to care for our land and the biodiversity we steward. This guide will help anyone who wants to make their property and their communities safer and more resilient.
Download your free copy of the Fire Recovery Guide here.
Additional resources:

Fremontia Vol. 47, No. 2
California Fires: Challenges and Proposed Solutions
In this issue:

Reestablishing Balance Between People, Plants, and Fire in California

Nexus Between Wildfire, Climate Change, and Population Growth in California

Why are so Many Structures Burning in California?

Wildfires and Forest Resilience: The Case for Ecological Forestry in the Sierra Nevada

Looking For Multi-Benefit Solutions: An Interview with Caitlin Cornwall

Download your free copy of the fire Fremontia issue here.
Restoring Fire
Chris Paulus on decades of fire suppression and how agencies are returning fire to Sierra Nevada habitat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fire Recovery Guide - California Native Plant Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What should you do with your land after a wildfire? The CNPS Fire Recovery Guide addresses that question in an easy-to-use booklet. The new statewide guide is a collaborative effort between CNPS, dozens of partner organizations, and scientists across the state.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, seaweed. In a process known as biosorption, seaweed gives promising potential for absorbing complex concoctions of heavy metal contaminants from water.

# data[].attributes.body
Incredible insights to bringing healthy water cycles back to acidifying landscapes on a bioregional scale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Recently, I met Neal Spackman, an American whose company Regenerative Resources works to reverse desertification and restore productive ecologies in watershed basins and coastlines in countries around the world. His first big project was in Saudi Arabia where his team did a demonstration project over 10 years to reverse a destructive cycle of barren drought and occasional devastating floods into a productive agroforestry savannah. You can watch his video about it here.

The landscape they started with was desolate and completely unproductive. But it had once been a fertile place covered with big trees. Here in North America, we have not yet gotten to that extreme point and we tend to be myopic about the trajectory we are on. We are indeed on a destructive path which will only be accelerated by climate change. In the southwestern US, agricultural production is not possible without irrigation. Water is being sucked up from the water table and drained from great rivers to irrigate crops without those water sources being replenished.

The growing of annual commodity crops in large scale production has never required irrigation. But farmers are beginning to suffer from climate instability and unpredictable rainfalls. The government of Saskatchewan has just announced a 4 billion dollar investment to bring irrigation water from Lake Diefenbaker in northern Saskatchewan to irrigate 120,000 acres of land.

Methods such as the ones used to rehydrate deserts would be far more sustainable and cost-effective than creating engineered solutions which will only lead to delaying the process of desertification. Irrigation without restoring the capacity of the land to hold water is a temporary fix. In Neal Spackman's video, they used irrigation in the early years to establish some trees in a barren desert where there is maybe 60mm of rain per year and temperatures often reach 50 degrees C in the summer. In 2016 they pulled out the irrigation because they wanted to create an ecology which could adapt to the climate without costly intervention. Ironically, a drought followed the shutdown of irrigation and for 31 months there was no rainfall at all. Some of the vegetation died off during the drought, but not most of it. The hardier and best-adapted species survived and today the landscape is functional without irrigation. It showed that this model could be scaled cost-effectively to large desertified areas.
Methods for Hydrating a Landscape
How do you hydrate a landscape to make it resilient? The first and most basic step is to regenerate the soil with the methods of regenerative agriculture. The basics are: avoid soil disturbance, keep the soil covered with vegetation, reduce or avoid chemicals which kill soil life. Adding trees and other perennial, deep-rooted crops, managing grazing animals, and making sure soil is not compacted is the next level.

Finally, you need to think about the extremes of rainfall patterns possible in your geography and plan how to manage water so that you can put every drop to your advantage. If there is too much water, how can you capture and store it for when there is not enough? Reservoirs and ponds can store excess water until it is needed. The flow of water which runs down a slope can be slowed and made to permeate into the soil through careful landscape management. This way the fertility stays on the land rather than washing away and polluting our precious waterways.

We are still a ways from barren desert here in North America, but the harsh realities of climate change are threatening our food systems. Weather extremes are accelerating and we would be wise to take actions now to prevent the worst. After all, today's deserts were once fertile regions which were badly managed!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hydrating the Landscape - Régénération Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recently, I met Neal Spackman, an American whose company Regenerative Resources works to reverse desertification and restore productive ecologies in watershed basins and coastlines in countries around the world. His first big project was in Saudi Arabia where his team did a demonstration project over 10 years to reverse a destructive cycle of barren drought ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Living in a Fire Ecology: How to be in right relationship with fire

# data[].attributes.subject
Living in a Fire Ecology: How to be in right relationship with fire

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fire Ecology Resources | Permaculture Skills Center

# data[].attributes.body
Milan's Bosco Verticale, a pair of residential high-rises designed by Stefano Boeri with greenery designed to suck pollution out of the air.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These skyscrapers suck pollution from the air

# data[].attributes.headline
Regenerative Architecture: A Pathway Beyond Sustainability

# data[].attributes.subject
Regenerative Architecture: A Pathway Beyond Sustainability

# data[].attributes.body
Natural building, living structures and regenerative design  taken to a whole new level by integrating biomimicry, science, welfare and anthropology in a residential project where they demonstrate how ecology can conjoin with comfort and luxury.

# data[].attributes.body
"The path towards regenerative economies that serve diverse regenerative cultures under the unique conditions of their bioregions is made by walking it. There is no destination sustainability that we will arrive at to live happily ever after. We have to live the inquiry itself, by holding answers and solutions more lightly, experimenting with them at local and regional scales where we can respond to the effects of our actions in a more agile way, and understanding solutions as temporary means to ask better questions rather than the other way around.

Nobody really knows what the New Normal will be. We have to ‘sit in the mess for a while’ and use this time to get more comfortable with uncertainty and more humble in acceptance of the limits of our knowing. Regenerative cultures are cultures of constant inquiry into appropriate participation in the nested complexity that human and planetary health depend upon. In cooperative inquiry we can move from arguing about perspectives to understanding our diversity of perspectives as a source of creative potential."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The path towards regenerative economies is made by walking it

[First published as the 'Keynote' article in the July/August edition 2020 of Resurgence & Ecologist]

Since the beginning of the global Coronavirus pandemic, there has been widespread agreement on the desire - and necessity - not to return to 'normal' once lockdown is eased. To co-create a New Normal, we have to start by admitting how deeply dysfunctional and murderous the Old Normal actually was.

Article from this edition

The World Health Organisation estimates that 42 million people die each year "as a result of (outdoor) ambient air pollution" and 850,000 people die every year due to lack of access to good water, sanitation and hygiene. For me personally, the heightened empathy I felt listening to reports of exhausted doctors and nurses during the pandemic allowed me to feel the tragedy of what has been going on for decades in a new way.

In 2019 Greta Thunberg, Fridays For Futures and Extinction Rebellion brought the conversation about the dangers of cataclysmic climate change into many households around the world. In the first half of 2020, as a result of Covid-19, most of humanity had a direct experience of how interconnected and interdependent we all are and how fragile our globalised world is.

Profound and rapid change is no longer a subject of hypothetical conversations full of arguments between visionary and conservative voices. It has become an embodied experience for many of us, while we came to value the work of nurses, medics, teachers, truck drivers, local farmers, and other 'essential workers' in new ways.

Billions of people were taken by surprise as they saw how quickly things can change. Maybe even more so by the fact that we can collaborate to achieve almost unimaginable transformative responses when we are challenged to do so. Covid 19 is forcing us to mobilise in unprecedented ways and we are doing so as one global species facing a calamity that we can only solve collaboratively - for all equally - or we will not solve it at all!

Does that sound familiar? The same holds for the climate crisis, only that what is at stake there is the future of our species and much of life on Earth. The systemic repercussions triggered by Covid 19 might become the catalyst for the transformation of the human presence and impact on Earth that climate change should have been but was too diffuse of a systemic threat for our species to come together in an effective way.

We need transformation

After more than 25 years of the United Nations process on Climate Change, it has taken a pandemic to shift the playing field enough to make a transformative response possible. Incremental changes will not suffice: we need a transformative response. I feel renewed hope that we are capable of such a response. It will be just in time before the window of opportunity to avoid cataclysmic climate change closes on our species.

The cascading effects triggered by the pandemic will continue to present us with partial systems failures and breakdown over the coming months and years. This will continue to reveal outdated habits, structures and behaviours which are no longer adequate ways of participating in the nested complexity and unpredictable dynamics of life in the 21st Century.

There are three aspects and two types of resilience. Type 1 resilience is based on:

i) persistence in the face of disruption and

ii) adaptation in response to disruption to recover the old status quo.

Type 2 resilience is based on:

iii) a (r)evolutionary or transformative response.

Our reaction to this pandemic and even more so to climate change will have to be a Type 2 resilience response at the scale of communities, bioregions and nations. We do not want to bounce back to the old system but transform outdated patterns and bounce beyond into a regenerative pathway (see above).

Without the pandemic the untouchable dogma of the 'economic growth imperative' would have made the 26th UN Conference on Climate Change this year in Glasgow another uphill struggle. Now the rank and influence of the fossil fuel and industrial lobbies has somewhat shifted. They will be little less able to influence the political process with their mantra "we can't afford to endanger the economy". Now that many of those lobbyists are cueing up to ask for government support and tax payers money.

The evidence is clear that upstream from climate change, cascading ecosystems collapse, biodiversity loss, and obscene levels of inequalities with devastating social, environmental and health impacts lies the dysfunctional degenerative economic system we are supposed to protect from collapsing. Never before have we faced a more urgent necessity and more timely opportunity to redesign our economic system. The time has come to change the playing field within which companies operate and the rules they operate by in services to people and planet.

Resilience around the world

The work of Kate Raworth and John Fullerton is already influencing cities and regions around the world to actively explore how to create regenerative economies. There are more than a dozen regional regenerative economy initiatives in the Capital Institute's global 'Regenerative Communities Network', including the excellent Bioregional Learning Centre in Devon bioregion.org.uk. The city of Amsterdam has adopted the 'doughnut' as a central element of its regional development plan and the new Doughnut Economy Action Lab DEAL is engaging with local initiatives around the world.

Over the past four years I had the privilege of consulting on an initiative of the Commonwealth Secretariat that led to the creation of Common Earth. The organisation supports capacity building for regenerative development across the 54 member nations of the Commonwealth. Costa Rica, as a non Commonwealth member, has recently joined the initiative to help pioneer a National Regenerative Development Roadmapping Process.

Through my role as a judge on the Lush Spring Prize for Social and Ecological Regeneration, I got to know of hundreds of initiatives around the world that are already actively regenerating local and regional ecosystems, communities and economies.

E.F. Schumacher wrote in his book on economics as if people mattered "perhaps we cannot raise the winds, but each of us can put up a sail, so when the wind comes we can catch it." During the recent AGM of Ecolise - a European network for community-led initiatives on climate change and sustainability - I reminded community activists from all European member states of this advice. For nearly 50 years we have been putting up sails. The flotilla of transformative change is ready, and the wind is here!

In their 'post' Covid-19 response, national and local governments around the world will have to spend unprecedented sums of money in support of their citizens, communities and businesses. Herein lies an opportunity for transformation, if we ensure that we spend that money wisely.

Building capacity to respond to future pandemics and disruptions can be achieved through the same measures as a transformational response to the 'climate emergency'. The restructuring of governance systems in favour of subsidiarity that enables widespread participation of citizens and communities is an important enabler in this.

A transformative response would aim to increase community resilience through increased re-regionalisation of production and consumption. This would include the creation of strong local and regional food systems adopting regenerative agriculture and agroforestry as catalysts of widespread ecosystem restoration. Investment in decentralised renewable energy systems and improved zero-emissions public transport infrastructure would further contribute to the revitalisation of regional economies.

At the beginning of the 'UN Decade onEcosystems Restoration' the political commitment to 're-wilding' as the most effective way to halt cascading ecosystems collapse and improve planetary health is growing. The regeneration of local soils, forests, and waterways is not only an effective carbon drawdown strategy, but a pathway to regionally focussed circular biomaterials economies that can support such efforts while improving bioregional resilience.

The Chinese-American filmmaker John Liu has documented large scale ecosystems restoration projects around the world and helped to create a rapidly growing global movement and capacity building process called Ecosystems Restorations Camps.

The work of the Dutch 'Commonland Foundation' commonland.com with its "four returns, three landscapes, 20 years" approach is already demonstrating in Australia, South Africa, Spain and the Netherlands how landscape scale regeneration is possible. Their long-term systemic approach to regeneration is to create collaboration at the landscape scale that brings together diverse land-owners and a cross-sector alliance through the 'return of inspiration.' Through a shared commitment to bioregional ecosystems restoration they create the conditions for social and ecological returns. Over the longer term these will lead to regional economic returns.

At the Global Landscapes Forum last September the '1000 landscapes for 1 Billion People' initiative of a broad alliance of organisations set an ambitious regeneration target for 2030.

Cultures of constant inquiry

The path towards regenerative economies that serve diverse regenerative cultures under the unique conditions of their bioregions is made by walking it. There is no destination sustainability that we will arrive at to live happily ever after. We have to live the inquiry itself, by holding answers and solutions more lightly, experimenting with them at local and regional scales where we can respond to the effects of our actions in a more agile way, and understanding solutions as temporary means to ask better questions rather than the other way around.

Nobody really knows what the New Normal will be. We have to 'sit in the mess for a while' and use this time to get more comfortable with uncertainty and more humble in acceptance of the limits of our knowing. Regenerative cultures are cultures of constant inquiry into appropriate participation in the nested complexity that human and planetary health depend upon. In cooperative inquiry we can move from arguing about perspectives to understanding our diversity of perspectives as a source of creative potential.

We don't have to agree on everything before we can cooperate to regenerate ecosystems health, community cohesion and global solidarity, since all our future now depends upon this common ground. Clearly the New Normal will not come about through technological change only. Beyond simply changing what we do and how we do it, this transformative decade will be about changing how we are - as a change in being, not just in doing.

The experiences people had during the lockdown are already triggering profound changes in worldview and values systems. In this phase where the systemic domino effects of Covid 19 are still unfolding, let us pause and listen. Let us take this opportunity to ask deeper questions rather than rush to solution implementation and problem solving too quickly. Let us focus on the potential that lies in co-creating a New Normal in community, informed by the bio-cultural uniqueness of the places we are now invited to re-inhabit bioregion by bioregion.

We are invited back into the community of life. We are called into humility and audacity at the same time. As Gerald Midgely, professor for systems science at the University of Hull, pointed out so succinctly "everything is an intervention." We cannot but change the world, each and every one of us. Everything we think, say and do has causal agency. The organising ideas that structure our experience of reality literally matter.

Education for regenerative cultures is about the life-long process of enabling and building the capacity of everyone to express their unique potential to serve their community and the planet and in the process serve themselves. This is a life-long process of learning in community patterned by place. The role of cultural institutions, theatres, museums, galleries, music and art in the creation of diverse place-sourced regenerative cultures will be critical in the transformation ahead.

Deeper knowing

Our future depends not just on a re-inhabitation of our bioregions but also a re-indigenization of our way of being. What does it mean to belong to place as a healthy expression of that place? We are coming home to a deeper knowing. Our bioregional indigenous ancestors always knew that we belong to the land rather than the land belonging to us.

The ancient Sanskrit word 'Seva' सेवा is most commonly translated as 'service' in the sense of 'being in service to a larger whole' and 'giving more than one takes'. It is strongly resonant with the aim to nurture "co-evolving mutuality" (Haggard & Mang, 2016) which describes succinctly what working regeneratively aims to support.

It is in our enlightened self-interest to work regeneratively in service to all life as a constantly transforming and evolving planetary process. Our measure of success is the emergence of health and wellbeing at local, regional and global scales. To do so we have to develop and maintain the capacity of individuals and communities to manifest their unique potential, to respond to change, and to participate appropriately in nested complexity.

There is a caveat even to the popular call to move from ego to eco. We are in danger of denying the importance of self-care. Only by also caring for self can we effectively and over the long-term care for our human community and the community of life. The healthy way to integrate the dynamic polarity of 'being for oneself' and 'being as part of a larger whole' is to unleash the potential created by this polarity in service to life.

Most ancient wisdom cultures and indigenous guidance from around the world holds that important decisions should always consider three questions:

-
This article was first published by Resurgence & Ecologist in July, 2020:
-

If you like the post, please clap AND remember that you can clap up to 50 times if you like it a lot ;-)!

Daniel Christian Wahl - Catalyzing transformative innovation in the face of converging crises, advising on regenerative whole systems design, regenerative leadership, and education for regenerative development and bioregional regeneration.

Author of the internationally acclaimed book Designing Regenerative Cultures
Please consider supporting my ongoing work by becoming a patron:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First published as the 'Keynote' article in the July/August edition 2020 of Resurgence & Ecologist] Since the beginning of the global Coronavirus pandemic, there has been widespread agreement on the desire - and necessity - not to return to 'normal' once lockdown is eased.

# data[].attributes.body
iss the Ground is a 501(c)3 increasing societal awareness about the extraordinary benefits of healthy soil. We educate millions of people across the globe and provide pathways for everyone to participate in the movement. Through our Leadership and Farmlandprograms we directly support farmers and their adoption of regenerative agriculture and cultivate leaders who can implement change at a community level and within the key sectors of business, policy, media, and education. We also create inspiring media, strong partnerships, and shift policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kiss the Ground | Soil Health Solutions | Join the Movement!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kiss the Ground inspires participation in the regenerative agriculture movement. Learn more about our movement, and how to combat climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
The Growing Club gathers diverse individuals and communities together to nourish the common well being of people and our planet. We work holistically to revive the tradition of ecological integration by reawakening the power of people’s hands to weave humanity into nature’s web of generosity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
def. sarvodaya

A Sanskrit term coined by Gandhi combining sarva (all) and udaya (rise),
meaning the upliftment of all

WHO WE ARE

Sarvodaya Institute, based in Los Angeles, was founded in 2010 by the farming Kumar Family to nourish the common well-being of people and planet.

Since then, Farmers Rishi, Manju, and Arthi have been working to restore people's faith in soil & gardens, as well as humanity's role in Earth-care.

Learn and explore with us as we recognize ourselves as soil, and our concrete cities as Nature. Come meet us at our popular nursery, watch a few of our educational & how-to videos, or take a tour of one of our three ecological demonstration gardens.

Support our work by becoming a Monthly Member.

Become a Member

Monthly Member's Gardening Lesson and Q&A

Join us twice a month on Tuesday evening for a LIVE gardening lesson and Q+A with Farmer Rishi and Zero Waste Farmer.

This is a Member's Only event that we do for those who support our work.

Learning something new every month and get your burning gardening questions answered! We are here for our members to help get you started caring for soil and growing food for your family at home!

2nd Wednesday of every month at 5:30pm PST

Become a Member

SARVODAYA FARMS & NURSERY

Come join us at our well-reknowned urban farm & nursery in Pomona, CA for educational events, workshops, and trainings.

While you're there, check out the exotic fruit trees, perennial vegetables, and medicinal herbs available at our Nursery You can also purchase online and pickup at the farm. Your purchase supports our work!

Shop Plants Now

Join us for our monthly Farm Workout!

**** FARM WORKOUTS ARE POSTPONED FOR CORONAVIRUS QUARANTINE****
Roll up your sleeves and put on your garden gloves because the soil is waiting! Once a month, Sarvodaya Institute hosts a Farm Workout Day to teach & engage the community in gardening and regenerative agricultural practices. During a Farm Workout, students will be mulching, weeding, pruning and learning about how regenerative agriculture has a direct effect on our gut health as well as the health of the planet. Help keep the plants and crops healthy while getting a natur-al workout!

Upcoming Dates: TBA

Register Now

The Growing Home

The Growing Home is our suburban home demonstration site located in Diamond Bar, CA (suburb of Los Angeles). Formerly
a standard tract home with green grass, The Growing Home is now an ecologically-designed natural habitat that grows thousands of pounds of food for humans & wildlife, converts green waste into healthy soil, cleanses urban air pollution, harvests rainwater, and regulates its own temperature.

Learn More

Sarvodaya Farms & Nursery

Sarvodaya Farms & Nursery is our urban farm demonstration site located in Pomona, CA. Sarvodaya Farms shows how blighted urban lots can be converted into productive, beautiful mini-farms that grow healthy, organic food for the local
community, while also cleansing the air, reducing run-off pollution, providing green gathering space, and serving as urban centers of connection with Nature.

Learn More

The Growing Commons

Our latest demonstration site is a holistically designed orchard at the Claremont Friends Quaker Meeting. The Growing Commons was developed using ecological design principles and features to create a rich, food producing ecosystem. Highlights include rooftop and curbside water harvesting, California native plants, drought resilient fruit trees, mulching, and soil regeneration. This project is still under development, so look out for workshops hosted at this
location.

Learn More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Working towards the upliftment of all. Join our community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Sanskrit term coined by Gandhi combining sarva (all) and udaya (rise),meaning the upliftment of all Sarvodaya Institute, based in Los Angeles, was founded in 2010 by the farming Kumar Family to nourish the common well-being of people and planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jane Goodall on What It Means To Be Human 

# data[].attributes.subject
Jane Goodall on What It Means To Be Human 

# data[].attributes.body
Jane Goodall’s early research studying chimpanzees helped shape the self-understanding of our species and recalled modern Western science to the fact that we are a part of nature, not separate from it. From her decades studying chimpanzees in the Gombe forest to her more recent years attending to human poverty and misunderstanding, she reflects on the moral and spiritual convictions that have driven her, and what she is teaching and still learning about what it means to be human.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Krista Tippett, host: Several years ago I moderated a gathering on an island off Istanbul that included the primatologist Jane Goodall. I knew about her epic early years studying chimpanzees in the wild, at first without even a college degree. The science she proceeded to do also ended up shaping the self-understanding of our species. She recalled modern western science to the fact that we are a part of nature not separate from it. But what I'd never gleaned from all I'd read about her across the years - yet saw powerfully when we met - is how fully she had, mid-career, given her life's work over to a new passion. Humanity had become a threat to its own kin in the natural world. With the same careful, empathic eye she trained on the entire ecosystem of the Gombe forest, she began to do her part to tend to the human pain and misunderstanding that led to her beloved chimpanzees' suffering. This hour, on a Zoom line in a world in pandemic, we explore the moral and spiritual convictions that have driven this extraordinary woman - what she is teaching and still learning about what it means to be human.

[ music: "Seven League Boots" by Zoë Keating]

Jane Goodall: I believe that a trick of this development of the intellect, which is so startling, really, was the fact that we developed this way of communicating. So I can tell you things you don't know. You can tell me things I don't know. We can teach children about things that aren't present. And all that has enabled us to ask questions, like, Who am I? Why am I here? And I believe, part of being human is a questioning, a curiosity, a trying to find answers, but an understanding that there are some answers that, at least on this planet, this life, this life-form, we will not be able to answer.

Tippett: I'm Krista Tippett and this is On Being.

Jane Goodall spoke with me from Bournemouth England, in the home where she spent part of her childhood living with her mother and her beloved grandmother whom she called Danny. Both feature largely in her many books and stories.

Tippett: So I want to start where I always start, which is, if I ask you about the spiritual background of your childhood, of your earliest life, however you understand that word now, where does that memory take you?

Goodall: Well, I certainly wouldn't have thought of anything spiritual, when I was a child. You know, my grandfather was a Congregational minister; I never met him, but mum, my sister, and I came to live in this house, where I am now, with my grandmother and mum's two sisters.

Tippett: So was he the husband of Danny? Was he that grandfather, of your grandmother you called Danny?

Goodall: That's right. He was the husband of Danny. And I wish I'd met him, because he sounds completely wonderful, but I didn't. And so we sometimes went to church; we weren't particularly religious. And I loved to spend most of my time outside, in the garden. It was pre-television, pre-laptops, pre-cellphones and all of that. And so we had books and imagination and nature. So I learned a lot from nature. And I was outside, and I loved climbing trees. I had one special tree, which I'm looking at right now, Beech, and I spent hours and hours and hours up Beech, feeling close to the sky and the birds. And I suppose that was the closest to some kind of spiritual feeling of nature that I had, although I wouldn't have thought of it as that, at that time.

Tippett: You've said that you really feel like you loved animals and loved nature, I think, from the womb onwards.

Goodall: From the womb onwards, yes. When I was one-and-a-half. [ laughs] My first serious observation of animals was four-and-a-half, when I waited four hours to see a hen lay an egg. And I have to say, it was my supportive mother, I think, who's enabled me to do what I've done, because she didn't know where I was. I was hiding in a henhouse, waiting, because nobody would tell me where the hole was, where the egg came out.

Tippett: And it wasn't logical, was it. It was a logical observation, that it didn't make sense. It wasn't obvious.

Goodall: Not really. So I saw a hen go into a henhouse, where they slept at night, and the nest boxes were round the edge, and I thought, ah, she must be going to lay an egg. So I crawled after her, which was a big mistake. She flew out with squawks of fear, and so, in my little four-and-a-half-year-old mind, I must have thought, well, no hen will lay an egg here. There were, I think, five other henhouses. And so I went into an empty one and waited. And apparently, I waited about four hours. And they'd even called the police; they were all searching for me. We'd gone up for a holiday, onto this farm. And my mother must've been really nervous. You can imagine, your little four-year-old girl is gone.

Tippett: Has disappeared.

Goodall: But when she saw me rushing towards the house, she saw my shining eyes and sat down to hear the wonderful story of how a hen lays an egg.

And the reason I love that story is, isn't that the making of a little scientist? The curiosity; asking questions; not getting the right answer; deciding to find out for yourself; making a mistake; not giving up; learning patience. And a different mother - "How dare you go off without telling us; don't you dare do it again" - might have crushed that early scientific curiosity. And I might not have done what I've done.

Tippett: Yeah. It strikes me, there's another story that you tell - so let me just say, so we're speaking in 2020, 60 years after you first went to the Gombe Stream Chimpanzee Reserve in Tanganyika, which is now Tanzania, July, 1960. I was born in that year, 1960, a few months after you went to Gombe. And I'm so aware that what you began to see and study and turn into scientific observation there, really transformed the world I grew up learning about.

I was also struck - like the story you just told, about watching the hen laying the egg, the stories about you taking worms to bed as a child, or your love of your dog, Rusty - there's another story that struck me when I was reading - [In Reason for Hope] your mother was with you for a while in the early part of the study; she went back to England; you were first alone, and how you were walking around, naming the aspects of the forest: "Good morning, Peak ... Hello, Stream ... Oh, Wind, for Heaven's sake, calm down."

And then, of course, that echoes stories that are so alive in our culture, and even the ones that influenced you, The Dolittles [Doctor Dolittle], Tarzan, [ The] Wind in the Willows. I think, as a parent, children - and adults in the presence of children - see aspects of the natural world as animate and alive, and they give things names; that the human imagination has always inclined this way. So there's one way in which, as I read the sweep of your story, I understand that one thing you did is, you helped substantiate an intuitive understanding and bond that human beings have. You put data to the truth such stories carried.

Goodall: Well, when I first went to Gombe, nobody else had studied chimpanzees in the wild - uncharted territory. And, of course, the first problem was that the chimps ran away as soon as they saw me. They'd never seen anything like this white ape before. And it was very wonderful, at that time, that my mother was there. The reason she was there is because the British authorities - Tanganyika was the last outpost of the crumbling British empire, back then, and they wouldn't take responsibility for me coming on my own. They said I'd have to bring someone with me. So, she volunteered. And so she was there to boost my morale in those early days, because I'd get back, dejected the chimps had run away again, and she was pointing out that on this peak that I discovered - I used my binoculars - and she said, "You know, you're learning how the chimpanzees make beds at night, bending the branches over. You're learning how they sometimes travel alone and sometimes in small groups and, sometimes, in big, excited gatherings. You're learning the foods that they eat and the calls that they make. So you're learning more than you think." And I was really sad that she left just two weeks before that breakthrough observation, when the one chimp who had just begun to lose his fear, darling David Greybeard, I saw him using and making tools to fish for termites.

And that was the turning point. That was what enabled my mentor, Louis Leakey, to go to the National Geographic Society, and they agreed to fund the research when the six months' money ran out. Six months' money came from an American philanthropist: I'm grateful to him still. And they sent Hugo van Lawick to take photographs and make film; he became my first husband. And it was his photographs and film in the Geographic magazines and documentaries that forced science to believe what I was saying, because before that, many of them had said, "Well, why should we believe what she says? She hasn't been to college. [ indistinct]. She's just a girl." But when they saw Hugo's film, then they had to believe.

Tippett: When they saw what you saw. But I do think it's worth underlining, because it's so hard for people now to imagine, that as late as the latter half of the 20th century, human beings thought that we were the only creatures who made tools.

Goodall: That's what western science believed. If somebody at that time had gone to the pygmies in the rainforest in Congo, they could've told you; I've sat and talked to them. They've watched it. It was man, the toolmaker. It was Osmond Hill who defined us thus. And so it was a shock, I think, to the scientific world.

And when I finally was made to go to Cambridge University, by Louis Leakey - he said I needed a degree; he wouldn't always be around to get money -

Tippett: And, also, you were the eighth person in the history of Cambridge to come in - you came in to do graduate work, without an undergraduate degree, which was almost unheard of.

Goodall: Yes, I did. He said there was no time for that.

I was greeted with scientists who said, "Well, you've done your study wrong. You shouldn't have named the chimpanzees; they should've had numbers. That's science. And you can't talk about personality, mind capable of problem-solving, or emotions," because they would be unique to us.

But the dog you mentioned, Rusty, he taught me when I was child that that certainly wasn't true: we're not the only beings on the planet with personalities, minds, and emotions; and we are part of, and not separate from, the rest of the animal kingdom. I was actually taught, and it's in the textbooks, that the difference between us and all other animals is one of kind.

Tippett: That's such an important distinction for you, and would you elaborate on what you mean, why it's so important that there isn't a difference "in kind"? "In kind," what does that word hold?

Goodall: Well, the opposite of it is "degree" - the difference is degree. In other words, following Darwin's theory of evolution, the species gradually evolved, and we're just one of the species. And so I just could not believe that the scientists were saying that. And talk to many of the religions - talk to the Buddhists and talk to the Indigenous people - they believe that we're part of the animal kingdom. They believe animals are our brothers and sisters.

Tippett: Right

Goodall: Arrogant western science. And I think it probably stems from religion - God made man; God made man different; and God made man to have dominion over the birds and the animals and the fish and so on. But that is a wrong translation. I've got Hebrew friends, and the original Hebrew word, which I do not remember, but I've written it down in one of my books - it's more like "steward," not dominion.

Tippett: Right, the dominion. But that point of view, that way of thinking and seeing, also penetrated Western science. It seems to me that the significance of your work, in the self-understanding of our species - there are so many ways to talk about it, but, also, these observations reconnected us - as you said, that we are part of the animal kingdom; that we are part of nature, not just in our bodies. Here's another way you say it - that there's social and emotional continuity with the natural world; that we're creatures, [ laughs] rather than all the other creatures being creatures, as another way people talk about, I think, those Genesis stories.

Goodall: Well, it's just very arrogant. Very arrogant to think that way. Do you know, some people still do. The other thing which is very dangerous about science - I was told at Cambridge that you have to be absolutely objective, and you must not have empathy with your subject. And to me, that, right from the beginning, was so wrong, because when I was watching a chimpanzee family, for example, and one of the young ones did something a little strange, and so, because I was empathetic towards them, I thought, Well, if they were human, they'd do it because of ... whatever; and that gives you a platform. And you can stand on that platform and then try to analyze what you've seen in a scientific way.

But it's the empathy that gives - it's that intuition, that aha moment, which you wouldn't get if you didn't have empathy, I don't think. And also, the cold, scientific approach, I believe, has led to a lot of suffering on this planet.

Tippett: I mean, you also experienced, because, I think, you were open, because you were seeing, observing, you also experienced empathy on the part of the chimpanzees you were studying. There's that moment with David Greybeard that you've described, about offering him a piece of fruit, which he did not take. But he took your hand, instead.

Goodall: No, he dropped it and then gently squeezed my fingers, which is how chimpanzees reassure each other.

Tippett: Which you understood as him sensing your motivation, and honoring it.

Goodall: Well, the thing was, we totally understood each other, in a language that clearly predated human spoken language, a language of - the gestural and postural languages. They're almost the same - holding hands, patting one another, kissing, embracing - our gestures when we communicate nonverbally are virtually the same as the chimpanzees. We also swagger and shake our fists, and male chimpanzees sometimes remind me of a number of human male politicians, I have to say. They swagger, and they bristle and try to look big and important, and intimidate by bunching their lips in a furious scowl. I'll leave it there. [ laughs]

[ music: "Confectionary" by Blue Dot Studios]

Tippett: I'm Krista Tippett, and this is On Being. Today, exploring what it means to be human with the legendary primatologist Jane Goodall.

[ music: "Cloudcover" by Blue Dot Studios]

Tippett: [ laughs] So 1960, you went to Gombe. You began to write. Your work became well-known, as you said, in many ways. You've described 1986. 1986, you helped to organize a conference of primatologists in Chicago, around chimpanzee behavior in different environments. And you actually describe that, not just as a turning point but, in some places, as a "Road to Damascus" moment. Could you tell that story, what happened to you there?

Goodall: Yes, well, by that time, by 1986, I had my Ph.D., I'd built up a research station, and, best of all, I could spend hours alone in the rainforest. And that's where I felt that deep, spiritual connection to the natural world and, also, came to understand the interconnectedness of all living things in this tapestry of life, where each species, no matter how insignificant, plays probably a vital role in the whole pattern. And I imagined continuing in that way, well, for the rest of my life. Why not?

And then we organized - it was when I published that big book, The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, and it had all my scientific observations, but it also had all the stories, because a story an anecdote can be a very carefully recorded observation. It's an anecdote because you only see it once, but those anecdotes are sometimes the key to unlocking a puzzle. They're terribly important. And a collection of anecdotes, stories, has been very, very important in my research.

Anyway, there I am, arranging to bring I think there were six other study sites, back then, and we invited scientists from each and, also, a few from noninvasive, captive research, like big zoo groups, for example.

But we had one session on conservation and one session on conditions in some captive situations. And both were utterly shocking. I mean, I knew there was deforestation going on; I was totally unaware of the extent of it, and that's way back when, in 1986 - chimpanzee numbers decreasing, the rise of the bushmeat trade as the commercial hunting of wild animals for food, the live animal hunting - shooting mothers so that you can sell their babies locally, as pets, or trade them overseas. And that was a huge shock. And then, the captivity situation, that was even worse, seeing our closest relatives, who can live up to - well, more than 60 years, in five foot by five foot medical research labs, surrounded by iron bars, totally alone, nothing to do, just because their bodies are so like ours that we share 98.6 percent of our DNA. So I didn't make a decision. I just knew, when I left, I'd gained so much from the chimpanzees, I had to try and do something to help.

That's why I call it my Damascus moment. I went as a scientist, and I left as a - I suppose you'd call me an activist, or something like that. Just happened. I knew I had to do something.

Tippett: It's quite astonishing to me, too, though, that the next move you made, really, was very similar to the approach you took, the skills you had learned and cultivated in studying in Gombe. Seeing the plight of chimpanzees then led you, in fact, to be an activist in terms of the plight of human beings, that led to forests disappearing and to these kinds of atrocities perpetrated on these animals, on our kin.

I believe that the title of your book, In the Shadow of Man, in 1971, was that chimpanzees live in the shadow of man, as we had evolved to overshadow them with our powers of thought and speech. But what you also then picked up was how we had evolved and become a threat to the natural world from which we emerged and with which we remained in kinship.

Goodall: Yes, absolutely, and it's a big puzzle. The biggest difference between us, chimps, and other animals is the explosive development of our intellect. So, because science is now acknowledging that animals are not the machines they once thought, there's a huge flurry of information, really exciting, about animal intelligence. It ranges from chimpanzees using computers in clever ways, and elephants with their very close social bonds and strong relationships between herd members, and crows, who turn out to be able to actually use and make tools, and pigs - they're as intelligent as dogs, more intelligent than some. And now we know the octopus is highly intelligent, and we know trees communicate with each other.

Tippett: Exactly - plant life, the intelligence of plants.

Goodall: So here we are, with this intellect that's enabled us to do something very different from all the animal successes, and that's design a rocket, for example, that went up to Mars, and a rocket that's been crawling around, taking photos for us to see. So at one time people thought, maybe we can live on Mars. Well, we now know that's not possible. And bizarre, isn't it, that the most intellectual creature, surely, that's ever lived on the planet, is destroying its only home. And I always believe it's because there's a disconnect between that clever, clever brain and human heart, love and compassion. I truly believe, only when head and heart work in harmony can we attain our true human potential.

Tippett: Yeah. But again, that empathic scientific eye that you brought, in Gombe, of wondering how you might behave in that situation, when you flew over Gombe in a small plane, that was another moment that shaped the approach you took to doing your part with our species. [ laughs]

Goodall: I've always believed that if you want to really understand and to be able to talk to people about something, that you'd need firsthand experience, which is why I forced myself into the medical research labs and began a long, long struggle, but which finally - success. But ...

Tippett: To stop research on chimpanzees.

Goodall: Yes, and maybe I should divert a little bit here, just to say that in dealing with these people in the labs, a lot of animal rights people stopped talking to me. They said, "How can you sit down with them?" If you don't sit down and talk to people, how can you expect they're going to change? So I also had previously learnt the value of, don't be confrontational. So I told them stories, because I don't believe that people change because they're bullied. I believe people change because they change from within. So I didn't blame them for what they were doing, I just gave stories and showed pictures of the Gombe chimps lazing around and grooming and playing and swinging through the trees. Then, in their minds, they'd probably never even seen that before. So, that's how I dealt with them.

But then, yes, going to Africa to learn firsthand about why were chimpanzees disappearing, what was going on, and learning a great deal about it; but even as I was learning about the chimps, I was learning about the crippling poverty of so many people, living in and around chimp habitat.

Tippett: It's like you looked at the ecosystem that gave rise to poverty and that gave rise to this distorted relationship to the land, which had these ripple effects on the chimpanzees and the other great apes, and that you started stitching an ecosystem back together again.

Goodall: Well, they did. That's the point.

Tippett: They did. So they were your partners. You listened to them, I think, and let them lead.

Goodall: They have become our partners. they depend on the forest, protecting it isn't just for the wildlife, it's for their own future.

[ music: "Cloudcover" by Blue Dot Studios]

Tippett: After a short break, more with Jane Goodall. You can always listen again, and hear the unedited version of every show we do on the On Being podcast feed - wherever podcasts are found.

Tippett: I'm Krista Tippett, and this is On Being. Today I'm with the primatologist Jane Goodall. She's been widely interviewed and chronicled in this year of pandemic - 60 years on from when she first went to the Gombe forest in what is now Tanzania and transformed the understanding of western science and culture about the closest kin to humanity. We're exploring what she's learned- and is still teaching - about our species. She's been talking about her more recent adventures which took her out of the forest. First advocating in the human habitat of research laboratories towards ending experimentation on great apes; and then into a unique method of holistic community-based conservation around Gombe, called Tacare. Three decades ago, she also founded the Roots & Shoots movement, with the inspiration of 12 teenagers on her porch in Tanzania. It's now in nearly 100 countries.

Tippett: Did Roots & Shoots emerge out of Tacare?

Goodall: No, Roots & Shoots emerged because Tacare was expensive to operate. We were already starting in some other African countries. And so I was going around the world, gradually further and further around the world, talking to people about the problems in Africa and the reasons for them, and hoping to raise, certainly awareness, but maybe some money. And I kept meeting young people - this was in 1990 - young people who seemed to have lost hope. I'm talking mostly about university students, some high school. And they were mostly just apathetic, but some were depressed, really depressed, and some were angry. And when I asked them why they felt that way, they all said more or less the same. And that's in Asia, in North and South America, in Europe - and by then I hadn't gone to the Middle East, but I know they say the same there now - "because," they said, "you've compromised our future, and there's nothing we can do about it."

So you've heard that saying, "We haven't inherited this planet from our ancestors, we've borrowed it from our children"? But we haven't borrowed, we've stolen. And we're still stealing, today.

Tippett: These themes are as alive now, more alive.

Would you - all of the nuance of the title, of the name, Roots & Shoots, I think also really speaks to the philosophy of this. Would you just describe that?

Goodall: I'd love to. I've already said how I love trees. I think, probably, my very favorite individual tree has to be Beech, in my garden. And when Beech began to grow, over 100 years ago, actually, it was from a pretty tiny seed. And if I had picked it up at that time, it would've seemed so small and weak, a little growing shoot and a few little roots. And yet, there is what I call magic. It's a life force in that little seed, so powerful that, to reach the water that the tree will need, those little roots can work through rocks and, eventually, push them aside. And that little shoot, to reach the sunlight which the tree will need for photosynthesis, can work its way through cracks in a brick wall and eventually knock it down. And so we see the bricks and the walls as all the problems, social and environmental, that we have inflicted on the planet. So it's a message of hope: hundreds and thousands of young people around the world can break through and can make this a better world. And we've got members in kindergarten, university, and everything in between. And it's my greatest reason for hope, because everywhere I go, these young people are telling me, showing me, shining eyes, what they're doing and what they've been doing, what they plan to do, to make the world better.

Tippett: In your book, Reason for Hope, you use the language of moral evolution and, even, spiritual evolution, as your hope for our species. And I wonder what that means, for you, and how do you think about the contours of that challenge? That was in 1999, that you wrote that book - 20 years on, in a changed place and in a strange, strange time.

Goodall: Yes, well, I think that, during this time, we've seen a very big move towards more moral behavior, greater understanding. And you can just trace it very clearly in our attitude to animals around the world, the growth of these organizations that are protecting animals from cruelty; and then, on the other hand, you've got a proliferation of organizations trying to help human victims of domestic violence, and orphans, and refugees, and migrants. So we're getting there, but some people are much further advanced than others.

Tippett: Well, I think that's something that you became aware of in your study of chimpanzees over time and that you've always been aware of in the human condition, is our capacity for great empathy and play and creativity and intelligence and, also, cruelty and atrocity.

Goodall: OK, I was shocked to find chimpanzees have this dark, aggressive side, like us. It made them more like us than I thought they were, which is a pretty sad statement to have to make. But I think only humans are capable of true evil, because a chimpanzee will kill, but it is a spur of the moment. It's an emotion, It's an emotional response to a situation, whereas we can sit down, far away from an intended victim, and in cold blood plan out the most brutal forms of torture. That's the difference. And that's our intellect, that has enabled us to think in those terms.

Tippett: There's irony, that you have spent these years, these decades now, since that Damascus experience of, as you say, when you realized that you became not just a scientist, but an activist, and you needed to be working with human beings in changing our relationship to the natural world. There's just this inverse - the stories, the early stories in your early writing, and the films, there's almost this dreamlike quality to the fact that you, this young Englishwoman without a college degree, and who had always wanted to go to Africa and always loved animals, that you were able, and you were able to go work with Louis Leakey and become a scientist and be in this extraordinary place, where you were so at home. And then you have ended up, as part of the calling to that same purpose, spending most of your time outside that forest - not now, in the middle of the pandemic, but spending a lot of time in airplanes and on the road. You've asked this question in writing: "What if I had known that ... my efforts would keep me more or less permanently on the road? ... Would I have been strong enough, committed enough, to start out along such a hard road?"

But I sense that you still feel that the answer to that is, yes.

Goodall: I think so; I look back over my life and see all these turning points, when I could have done this or I needn't have done it - I think I've made the right decisions. There was all these different, little things that happened: meeting Louis Leakey, and him taking me to Olduvai and seeing how I reacted to rhinos and lions, and deciding I was the person he'd been looking for.

But it all goes back to having this amazing mother, mum let me go, alone on a boat, to Africa. It wasn't done, in those days. Yes, young men did the world tour. But it wasn't like students today go off and have experiences, backpacking. It was totally different.

And the other thing she did, which I think helped to make me who I am, after the war - you can imagine that during the war, the sound of a German voice sent chills up one's spine. We hated the Nazis, and we hated Hitler. And yet, after the war, when my uncle went out to Germany - it was the English sector; he headed it up - and he found a German couple with three children, who wanted somebody to come and teach the children good English, and mum let me go. And she let me go because, afterward she told me, just because of Hitler and the Nazis doesn't mean Germans are bad people. She wanted me to see for myself that we are, beyond all else, human beings. And circumstances and culture and nationality change the way we behave. But inside it all, we're human.

I think that was a very good lesson for me to learn.

Tippett: I think it's such an important lesson to put in front of our species now, because the challenges are great, the existential challenge of what it means to be human, in this century.

Goodall: Amazingly, although I don't think I imagined it to start with, but Roots & Shoots has developed a very strong ethical set of moral values. And I've found, increasingly, that those I call the alumni, who were part of Roots & Shoots at school or college, they hang onto those values. Like in China, people come up to me and say, "But of course, I care about the environment. I was in Roots & Shoots in primary school." I come in all their schoolbooks, it's interesting, isn't it? So we have a huge group of young people in China who are passionate about the environment and protecting animals and all the rest of it.

Tippett: And again, it's so important to hear that story, which is a story of things that are happening, but it contrasts with big, sweeping generalizations that get made.

I mean, I think also we tend to turn - especially in a moment where people are so fearful in their bodies, which is very hard for us to behave at our best when we're so fearful in our bodies, so confronted with uncertainty. But we turn these great challenges before us into big fights. And I just - this is a passage from Reason for Hope, and you said this a minute ago, but I don't think it can be emphasized too much, if we think about what's before us, in terms of how do we completely rearrange our relationship with the natural world; how do we remake the world around what has surfaced in this pandemic, of what is simply unsustainable and inhumane? And I think of you in Gombe, going in to be present to a mysterious kin of humanity and observing, and what you learned about approaching the other. And here's something you wrote in Reason for Hope: "It is my task to try to change their attitudes in this matter; they will not listen if I raise my voice and point an accusing finger. Instead they will become angry and hostile. And that will be the end of the dialogue. Real change will only come from within; laws and regulations are useful, but sadly easy to flout. So I keep the anger - which of course I feel - as hidden and controlled as possible. I try to reach gently into their hearts."

There's that heart word again.

Goodall: Yeah. Well, it's lucky, isn't it. I always wanted to write. I've loved writing, and I think I was given it on purpose, gifts. And one gift was a healthy body - not too many 86-year-olds can do what I was doing before the pandemic, and I'm working even harder now than on a tour, I have to say. [ indistinct] from morning till night, my voice is getting hoarse ... podcasts and video messages to send people, and emails. It doesn't stop. But

So the healthy body is one, but, also, the gift of communication. Writing and speaking is a gift. Do you work at it? Yes, of course. But, nevertheless, it was a gift that I discovered when I was so terrified to give my first ever lecture, which was to 5,000 people in what's now dark, Constitution Hall, for Geographic, in Washington, D.C. I was terrified. And for the first, I swear, three or four minutes, I don't think I breathed, although people said they didn't notice it. And then, suddenly, there I was, 5,000 people, and it was like something came, this gift; like, yes, I want to share with them. I think it's a wonderful thing, to share.

Something like that. [ laughs]

Tippett: You've often quoted this line that your grandmother, Danny, conveyed to you, a biblical mantra: "As thy days, so shall thy strength be." Is that something that's with you now?

Goodall: Absolutely, definitely. And you know, I made my grandmother what we call a "bible box": it was six little matchboxes glued together, so it was like a little chest with drawers that pulled out with a paperclip. I read every single chapter of the Bible. It took about three months, I think, and it was a secret; it was for her Christmas present. And I wrote out the text on one side and where it came from in the Bible on the other. And so I was setting off on one of my endless tours, and Judy was seeing me off, my sister. And she said, "Oh, have a text before you go." So I pulled out a text, which read, "He who has once set his hand to the ploughshare and turneth back is not fit for the kingdom of heaven." So Judy said, "OK, off you go." Do you know, I've had that before two other tours? I got exactly the same? [ indistinct] And, just last week, when I was moaning about how busy I am, she said, "Oh, have a text," and it came up. We both nearly - I think we were speechless. [ laughs] Nobody else in the house has ever had that one. So, you see? My duty lies clear before me. [ laughs]

Tippett: [ laughs] I think so. I think that we all owe you a debt of gratitude for accepting the adventures, and the sacrifices and the hard work that come with them.

If I just asked you, in closing - it's a huge question, but I'm curious about how you might just start answering it, today - how your sense of what it means to be human keeps evolving; what it means to be human.

Goodall: What it means to be human - I am prosaic. I know that we're part of a natural progression of life-forms; that we're not - in many ways, we are so much a part of the animal kingdom. And then, what's differentiated us is this intellect - it was some point earlier, you talked about our intelligence. But we're not really a very intelligent species, are we, when we destroy our home. But it's our intellect that enables us [ indistinct].

Anyway, so I think - not everyone agrees with me, but I believe that a trick of this development of the intellect, which is so startling, really, was the fact that we developed this way of communicating - speaking. So I can tell you things you don't know. You can tell me things I don't know. We can teach children about things that aren't present. And all that has enabled us to ask questions, like, Who am I? Why am I here? What is the purpose of it all? Is there a purpose? Is there a spiritual guiding force out there? And I believe, part of being human is a questioning, a curiosity, a trying to find answers, but an understanding that there are some answers that, at least on this planet, this life, this life-form, we will not be able to answer. And I get kind of peeved when scientists will say, "But we know how the universe started. It started with the Big Bang." Oh. Yes, but, sorry, but [ laughs] what led to the Big Bang, please?

And you know what's fascinating? More and more highly intellectual people - philosophers of science, physicists, and so on - are all - and Francis Collins, he started off as an agnostic and then, when he began unraveling the human genome, he changed completely and became a believer. [Editor's note: Francis Collins became a believer prior to his work on the Human Genome Project.] And all of these great brains have said, there is no way that what's happened is just chance. So what that intelligence behind the universe is - what it is, who it is; probably, what it is - I haven't the faintest idea, but I'm absolutely sure that there is something. And seeking for that something is part of being human.

Tippett: Well, Jane Goodall, thank you so much. It's a real honor to speak with you, and a pleasure. I was very glad, as I was getting ready for this, that I'd been in your presence, physically, those years ago, because I can imagine you. And thank you for all the gifts you've given to all of us.

Goodall: Well, thank you. I've loved talking to you, and I was just going to press my video - have you got a video to press, so I can see you?

Tippett: Oh, I don't, actually. I only have sound. [ laughs]

Goodall: There you are.

Tippett: I'm sorry. I'm sad about that. But maybe, in this strange world we inhabit, we will physically be in the same place again, one of these days.

Goodall: Well, I don't really see why not.

Tippett: Good, I'm glad to hear you say that. [ laughs]

Goodall: And by the way, you can see me, I can't see you, but there's Rusty. See? There he is, special, special dog. And here is mum. Two key people in my life, and David Greybeard - David Greybeard was up here, but I don't know where he's gone; he's gone walkies.

Tippett: [ laughs] But he's in the house.

Goodall: Well, it was great talking to you.

Tippett: Thank you so much.

[ music: "Pecan Grove" by Blue Dot Studios]

Jane Goodall is the founder of the Jane Goodall Institute, which has a presence in more than 30 countries. She has been the subject of many films and documentaries, including "Jane Goodall: The Hope." And her books include In the Shadow of Man and Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey.

Special thanks this week to Sumanth Prabhaker and Orion magazine for making this conversation with Jane Goodall possible. An edited version of it will appear at Orion magazine online in the fall.

The On Being Project is Chris Heagle, Lily Percy, Laurén Dørdal, Erin Colasacco, Kristin Lin, Eddie Gonzalez, Lilian Vo, Lucas Johnson, Suzette Burley, Zack Rose, Serri Graslie, Colleen Scheck, Christiane Wartell, Julie Siple, Gretchen Honnold, and Jhaleh Akhavan

The On Being Project is located on Dakota land. Our lovely theme music is provided and composed by Zoë Keating. And the last voice that you hear singing at the end of our show is Cameron Kinghorn.

On Being is an independent production of The On Being Project. It is distributed to public radio stations by WNYC Studios. I created this show at American Public Media.

Our funding partners include:

The Fetzer Institute, helping to build the spiritual foundation for a loving world. Find them at fetzer.org.

Kalliopeia Foundation. Dedicated to reconnecting ecology, culture, and spirituality. Supporting organizations and initiatives that uphold a sacred relationship with life on Earth. Learn more at kalliopeia.org.

Humanity United, advancing human dignity at home and around the world. Find out more at humanityunited.org, part of the Omidyar Group.

The Osprey Foundation - a catalyst for empowered, healthy, and fulfilled lives.

And the Lilly Endowment, an Indianapolis-based, private family foundation dedicated to its founders' interests in religion, community development, and education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jane Goodall on What It Means to Be Human

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Krista Tippett, host: Several years ago I moderated a gathering on an island off Istanbul that included the primatologist Jane Goodall. I knew about her epic early years studying chimpanzees in the wild, at first without even a college degree. The science she proceeded to do also ended up shaping the self-understanding of our species.

# data[].attributes.headline
Keynote - Dr. Vandana Shiva, Soil Not Oil International Conference 2017

# data[].attributes.subject
Keynote - Dr. Vandana Shiva, Soil Not Oil International Conference 2017

# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Vandana Shiva, Author of Soil Not Oil speaking at the conference celebrates her contribution and leadership in the global movement for environmental justice to heal the earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keynote  - Dr. Vandana Shiva, Soil Not Oil International Conference 2017

# data[].attributes.body
A library of archived webinars hosted by USDA National Agroforestry Center (NAC) partners related to agroforestry practices and related issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many organizations use webinars to provide training, share information, and promote agroforestry. Use the table below to review archived webinars hosted by USDA National Agroforestry Partners (NAC) partners related to agroforestry practices and related issues.

# data[].attributes.body
SIERRA SEEDS  inspires mindful eaters, lovers of life, hopeful humans who love beauty and story of food and nourishment feel inspired, engaged and reflective and inspired to make change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We guide and mentor curious, engaged, receptive, creative, intuitive, solutions-oriented, innovative heart-centered humans who are making change in their community food/seed systems through a multitude of pathways.

I invite you to explore working with us, as we reseed the landscape and imagine a more beautiful world for our children and descendants. Together, we will cultivate a unique pathway that supports you to truly thrive.

Join our signature online mentorship course, which is a good place to start if you want to learn more about my body of work with seeds and seed literacy.

Rowen offers her consulting and strategic visioning and leadership training services to both communities and organizations wishing to build programs and projects that focus on food and seed sovereignty rooted in cultural values of interdependence, healing, integrity, compassion, and dignified resurgence.

Seeding Change is a new creative incubator group leadership/mentorship circle for informed eaters, visionaries, seedkeepers, emerging food justice leaders and lovers of life, guided by Rowen White of Sierra Seeds and Indigenous Seedkeepers Network who want to continue to nourish their growing edges and capacities to sow seeds of hope and action into the world.

Join us as we gather in retreats and immersions that center nourishing connection for all conscious and mindful eaters, lovers of life, guardians of life, storytellers, activists, and those who carry a new vision of Earth stewardship for future generations. Practical and integrative knowledge that will deepen your understanding of the cycles of life.

An international keynote speaker, Rowen White is well known for her combination of heart-centered storytelling and sharing her deeply inspirational vision of the future of foodways that honors the role of cultural memory rooted in an indigenous ecology of interconnected relations.

Learn more about our farm residency program, where our beautiful land hosts you to be in creative sanctuary to tend to the projects and endeavors in your life that could be nourished and supportive by the life-giving seed energy that flourishes here on this hillside. This is a unique experience, different from a farm internship program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We guide and mentor curious, engaged, receptive, creative, intuitive, solutions-oriented, innovative heart-centered humans who are making change in their community food/seed systems through a multitude of pathways. I invite you to explore working with us, as we reseed the landscape and imagine a more beautiful world for our children and descendants.

# data[].attributes.body
A forest planted by humans, then left to nature’s own devices, typically takes at least 100 years to mature. But what if we could make the process happen ten times faster? In this short talk, eco-entrepreneur (and TED Fellow) Shubhendu Sharma explains how to create a mini-forest ecosystem anywhere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shubhendu Sharma: How to grow a tiny forest anywhere

# data[].attributes.headline
The Biotic pump~ forests are the green heart of Earth. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Biotic pump~ forests are the green heart of Earth. 

# data[].attributes.body
A controversial Russian theory claims forests don’t just make rain—they make wind, too.

“With their ability to soak up carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, the world’s great forests are often referred to as the planet’s lungs"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every summer, as the days get long, Anastassia Makarieva leaves her lab in St. Petersburg for a vacation in the vast forests of northern Russia. The nuclear physicist camps on the shores of the White Sea, amid spruce and pine, and kayaks along the region's wide rivers, taking notes on nature and the weather. "The forests are a big part of my inner life," she says. In the 25 years she has made her annual pilgrimage north, they have become a big part of her professional life, too.

For more than a decade, Makarieva has championed a theory, developed with Victor Gorshkov, her mentor and colleague at the Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), on how Russia's boreal forests, the largest expanse of trees on Earth, regulate the climate of northern Asia. It is simple physics with far-reaching consequences, describing how water vapor exhaled by trees drives winds: winds that cross the continent, taking moist air from Europe, through Siberia, and on into Mongolia and China; winds that deliver rains that keep the giant rivers of eastern Siberia flowing; winds that water China's northern plain, the breadbasket of the most populous nation on Earth.

With their ability to soak up carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, the world's great forests are often referred to as the planet's lungs. But Makarieva and Gorshkov, who died last year, say they are its beating heart, too. "Forests are complex self-sustaining rainmaking systems, and the major driver of atmospheric circulation on Earth," Makarieva says. They recycle vast amounts of moisture into the air and, in the process, also whip up winds that pump that water around the world. The first part of that idea-forests as rainmakers-originated with other scientists and is increasingly appreciated by water resource managers in a world of rampant deforestation. But the second part, a theory Makarieva calls the biotic pump, is far more controversial.

The theoretical foundation of the work has been published, albeit in lesser known journals, and Makarieva has received support from a small coterie of colleagues. But the biotic pump has faced a head wind of criticism, especially from climate modelers, some of whom say its effects are negligible and dismiss the idea completely. The dispute has made Makarieva an outsider: a theoretical physicist in a world of modelers, a Russian in a field led by Western scientists, and a woman in a field dominated by men.

Yet, if correct, the idea could help explain why, despite their distance from the oceans, the remote interiors of forested continents receive as much rain as the coasts-and why the interiors of unforested continents tend to be arid. It also implies that forests from the Russian taiga to the Amazon rainforest don't just grow where the weather is right. They also make the weather. "All I have learned so far suggests to me that the biotic pump is correct," says Douglas Sheil, a forest ecologist at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. With the future of the world's forests in doubt, "Even if we thought the theory had only a small chance of being true, it would be profoundly important to know one way or the other."

Many meteorology textbooks still teach a caricature of the water cycle, with ocean evaporation responsible for most of the atmospheric moisture that condenses in clouds and falls as rain. The picture ignores the role of vegetation and, in particular, trees, which act like giant water fountains. Their roots capture water from the soil for photosynthesis, and microscopic pores in leaves release unused water as vapor into the air. The process, the arboreal equivalent of sweating, is known as transpiration. In this way, a single mature tree can release hundreds of liters of water a day. With its foliage offering abundant surface area for the exchange, a forest can often deliver more moisture to the air than evaporation from a water body of the same size.

Rain parades

So-called flying rivers are prevailing winds that pick up water vapor exhaled by forests and deliver rains to distant water basins. A controversial theory suggests forests themselves drive the winds (bottom).

The importance of this recycled moisture for nourishing rains was largely disregarded until 1979, when Brazilian meteorologist Eneas Salati reported studies of the isotopic composition of rainwater sampled from the Amazon Basin. Water recycled by transpiration contains more molecules with the heavy oxygen-18 isotope than water evaporated from the ocean. Salati used this fact to show that half of the rainfall over the Amazon came from the transpiration of the forest itself.

By this time, meteorologists were tracking an atmospheric jet above the forest, at a height of about 1.5 kilometers. Known as the South American Low-Level Jet, the winds blow east to west across the Amazon, about as fast as a racing bike, before the Andes Mountains divert them south. Salati and others surmised the jet carried much of the transpired moisture, and dubbed it a "flying river." The Amazon flying river is now reckoned to carry as much water as the giant terrestrial river below it, says Antonio Nobre, a climate researcher at Brazil's National Institute for Space Research.

For some years, flying rivers were thought to be limited to the Amazon. In the 1990s, Hubert Savenije, a hydrologist at the Delft University of Technology, began to study moisture recycling in West Africa. Using a hydrological model based on weather data, he found that, as one moved inland from the coast, the proportion of the rainfall that came from forests grew, reaching 90% in the interior. The finding helped explain why the interior Sahel region became dryer as coastal forests disappeared over the past half-century.

One of Savenije's students, Ruud van der Ent, took the idea further, creating a global model of airborne moisture flow. He combined observational data on rainfall, humidity, wind speed, and temperature with theoretical estimates of evaporation and transpiration to create the first model of moisture flow at scales larger than river basins.

In 2010, van der Ent and his colleagues reported the model's conclusion: Globally, 40% of all precipitation comes from the land rather than the ocean. Often it is more. The Amazon's flying river provides 70% of the rain falling in the Río de la Plata Basin, which stretches across southeastern South America. Van der Ent was most surprised to find that China gets 80% of its water from the west, mostly Atlantic moisture recycled by the boreal forests of Scandinavia and Russia. The journey involves several stages-cycles of transpiration followed by downwind rain and subsequent transpiration-and takes 6 months or more. "It contradicted previous knowledge that you learn in high school," he says. "China is next to an ocean, the Pacific, yet most of its rainfall is moisture recycled from land far to the west."

If Makarieva is correct, the forests supply not just the moisture, but the winds that carry it.

For a quarter-century, she worked with Gorshkov, initially as his pupil, at PNPI-part of Russia's foremost civil and military nuclear research agency, the Kurchatov Institute. They were mavericks from the start, studying ecology in a place full of physicists who use neutron beams from nuclear reactors to study materials. As theorists, she says, they had "exceptional freedom of research and thought," pursuing atmospheric physics wherever it took them. "Victor taught me: Do not be afraid of anything," she says.

In 2007, in Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, they first outlined their vision for the biotic pump. It was provocative from the outset because it contradicted a longstanding tenet of meteorology: that winds are driven largely by the differential heating of the atmosphere. When warm air rises, it lowers the air pressure below it, in effect creating space at the surface into which air moves. In summer, for example, land surfaces tend to heat faster and draw in moist breezes from the cooler ocean.

Makarieva and Gorshkov argued that a second process can sometimes dominate. When water vapor from forests condenses into clouds, a gas becomes a liquid that occupies less volume. That reduces air pressure, and draws in air horizontally from areas with less condensation. In practice, it means condensation above coastal forests turbocharges sea breezes, sucking moist air inland where it will eventually condense and fall as rain. If the forests continue inland, the cycle can continue, maintaining moist winds for thousands of kilometers.

The theory inverts traditional thinking: It is not atmospheric circulation that drives the hydrological cycle, but the hydrological cycle that drives the mass circulation of air.

Sheil, who became a supporter of the theory more than a decade ago, thinks of it as an embellishment of the flying river idea. "They are not mutually exclusive," he says. "The pump offers an explanation of the power of the rivers." He says the biotic pump could explain the "cold Amazon paradox." From January to June, when the Amazon Basin is colder than the ocean, strong winds blow from the Atlantic to the Amazon-the opposite of what would be expected if they resulted from differential heating. Nobre, another early acolyte, enthuses: "They don't start with data, they start with first principles."

Even those who doubt the theory agree that forest loss can have far-reaching climatic consequences. Many scientists have argued that deforestation thousands of years ago was to blame for desertification in the Australian Outback and West Africa. The fear is that future deforestation could dry up other regions, for example, tipping parts of the Amazon rainforest to savanna. Agricultural regions of China, the African Sahel, and the Argentine Pampas are also at risk, says Patrick Keys, an atmospheric chemist at Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

In 2018, Keys and his colleagues used a model, similar to van der Ent's, to track the sources of rainfall for 29 global megacities. He found that 19 were highly dependent on distant forests for much of their water supply, including Karachi, Pakistan; Wuhan and Shanghai, China; and New Delhi and Kolkata, India. "Even small changes in precipitation arising from upwind land-use change could have big impacts on the fragility of urban water supplies," he says.

Some modeling even suggests that by removing a moisture source, deforestation could alter weather patterns beyond the paths of flying rivers. Just as El Niño, a shift in currents and winds in the tropical Pacific Ocean, is known to influence weather in faraway places through "teleconnections," so, too, could Amazon deforestation diminish rainfall in the U.S. Midwest and snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, says Roni Avissar, a climatologist at the University of Miami who has modeled such teleconnections. Far-fetched? "Not at all," he says. "We know El Niño can do this, because unlike deforestation, it recurs and we can see the pattern. Both are caused by small changes in temperature and moisture that project into the atmosphere."

Lan Wang-Erlandsson, who researches interactions between land, water, and climate at Stockholm University, says it's time for water resource managers to shift their focus from water and land use within a river basin to land-use changes occurring outside it. "We need new international hydrological agreements to maintain the forests of source regions," she says.

We need new international hydrological agreements to maintain the forests of source regions.

Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Stockholm University

Two years ago, at a meeting of the United Nations Forum on Forests, a high-level policy group on which all governments sit, David Ellison, a land researcher at the University of Bern, presented a case in point: a study showing that as much as 40% of the total rainfall in the Ethiopian highlands, the main source of the Nile, is provided by moisture recycled from the forests of the Congo Basin. Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia are negotiating a long-overdue deal on sharing the waters of the Nile. But such an agreement would be worthless if deforestation in the Congo Basin, far from those three nations, dries up the moisture source, Ellison suggested. "Interactions between forests and water have been almost entirely ignored in the management of global freshwater resources."

The biotic pump would raise the stakes even further, with its suggestion that forest loss alters not just moisture sources, but also wind patterns. The theory, if correct, would have "crucial implications for planetary air circulation patterns," Ellison warns, especially those that take moist air inland to continental interiors.

The theory's supportersare a minority. In 2010, Makarieva, Gorshkov, Sheil, Nobre, and Bai-Lian Li, an ecologist at the University of California, Riverside, submitted what was meant to be a landmark description of the biotic pump to Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, a major journal with open peer review. Titled "Where Do Winds Come From?" the paper faced a barrage of criticism online, and it took the journal many months to find two scientists willing to review it. Isaac Held, a meteorologist at Princeton University's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, finally volunteered-and recommended rejection. "This is not a mysterious effect," he says. "It is small and included in some atmospheric models." Critics said the expansion of air from heat released when water vapor condenses counteracts the space-creating effect of condensation. But Makarieva says the two effects are spatially separate, with the warming effect happening aloft, and the pressure drop of condensation occurring closer to the surface, where it generates the biotic wind.

The other reviewer was Judith Curry, then an atmospheric physicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has long had concerns about the atmospheric dynamics at the core of climate models. She felt it was important to publish the paper and says the standoff was "very bad for climate science, which badly needs an infusion from hard-core physicists." After 3 years of debate, the journal's editor overruled Held's recommendation and published the paper, saying it was published "not as an endorsement" but "to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory [that] may lead to disproof or validation."

Since then, there has been neither validation nor disproof, but largely a standoff. Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at Columbia University, says, "It's simply nonsense." The authors' responses to criticisms were "really just mathematics that gave no one any confidence that there was any point in continuing the dialogue." Jose Marengo, a meteorologist in Brazil and head of the National Centre for Monitoring and Warning of Natural Disasters, says: "I think the pump exists, but it's very theoretical right now. The climate model community hasn't embraced it, but the Russians are the best theoreticians in the world, so we need proper field experiments to test it." Yet no one, including Makarieva, has yet proposed clearly what such a test might look like.

For her part, Makarieva is building on the theory, arguing in a series of recent papers that the same mechanism can affect tropical cyclones, which are driven by the heat released when moisture condenses over the ocean. In a 2017 paper in Atmospheric Research, she and her colleagues proposed that biotic pumps set up by the forests on land draw moisture-rich air away from the cyclone nurseries. This, she says, might explain why cyclones rarely form in the South Atlantic Ocean: The Amazon and Congo rainforests between them draw so much moisture away that there is too little left to fuel hurricanes.

Kerry Emanuel, a leading hurricane researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says the proposed effects "while not negligible are very small." He prefers other explanations for the lack of South Atlantic hurricanes, such as the region's cool waters, which send less moisture into the air, and its strong shearing winds, which disrupt cyclone formation. Makarieva is equally dismissive of the traditionalists, saying some of the existing theories for hurricane intensity "conflict with the laws of thermodynamics." She has another paper on the topic under peer review at the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. "We are concerned that, despite the editor's encouragement, our work will get rejected once again," she says.

Even if Makarieva's ideas are fringy in the West, they are taking root in Russia. Last year, the government began a public dialogue to revise its forestry laws. Aside from strictly protected areas, Russian forests are open to commercial exploitation, but the government and the Federal Forestry Agency are considering a new designation of "climate protection forests." "Some representatives of our forest department got impressed by the biotic pump and want to introduce a new category," she says. The idea has the backing of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Being part of a consensus rather than the perennial outsider marks a change, Makarieva says.

This summer, the coronavirus lockdown put the kibosh on her annual trip to the northern forests. Back in St. Petersburg, she has settled down to respond to yet another round of objections to her work from anonymous peer reviewers. She insists the pump theory will ultimately prevail. "There is a natural inertia in science," she says. With a dark Russian humor, she invokes the words of the legendary German physicist Max Planck, who is said to have once remarked that science "advances one funeral at a time."

doi:10.1126/science.abd3856

Fred Pearce is a journalist in London.

More from News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A controversial Russian theory claims forests don't just make rain-they make wind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every summer, as the days get long, Anastassia Makarieva leaves her lab in St. Petersburg for a vacation in the vast forests of northern Russia. The nuclear physicist camps on the shores of the White Sea, amid spruce and pine, and kayaks along the region's wide rivers, taking notes on nature and the weather.

# data[].attributes.body
This group combines science with experience to transform rivers by giving people the confidence to act, as well as respecting Aboriginal communities and their knowledge about land, waters, and community.

# data[].attributes.headline
Urban River Restoration: Bringing Nature Back to Cities 

# data[].attributes.subject
Urban River Restoration: Bringing Nature Back to Cities 

# data[].attributes.body
Publication by Colorado State University giving an overview of the benefits of urban river restoration, as well as providing case studies of successful project.

# data[].attributes.headline
Urban River Restoration and Planning in Latin America: A systematic review

# data[].attributes.subject
Urban River Restoration and Planning in Latin America: A systematic review

# data[].attributes.body
A systematic review covering a broad range of successful restoration projects across Latin America, and the benefits they have conferred on their communities.

# data[].attributes.headline
European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR)

# data[].attributes.subject
European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR)

# data[].attributes.body
A network of organizations building capacity for ecological river restoration across European countries, both urban and rural. Their website is full of excellent information in their “River Restoration” section.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ECRR is considered internationally to be the key network to promote and build capacity for ecological river restoration across Europe, supporting the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the UNECE Water Convention, the Convention on Biodiversity, as well as national policies. See here ECRR's submission to the EC's WFD Fitness Check.

The ECRR is the authoritative voice on river restoration in Europe.

The ECRR is respected by the EU, governments, and the wider river restoration community in greater Europe, backed by its formal national network of members. The ECRR maintains this position by making the most out of the active involvement of its partners, members and contacts. The ECRR is an independent association, free to voice opinions, irrespective of the interests of partners and supporters. See here ECRR's Position Paper.
This makes ECCR: "The network for best practice river restoration in greater Europe" with the following purposes:

A mission to encourage and support ecological river restoration throughout greater Europe, through a European network consisting of national and topic centres, organisations, institutions and individual subscribers. See ECRR's Members Network.

Connecting people and organizations working on river restoration. The network consists of about 2000 contacts (organisations and individuals), is represented in 12 European countries by a national centre, and works together closely with a number of Key Partners.

Supporting development of best practices of river restoration and disseminating information on ecological river restoration: for instance via the RiverWiki Platformfor case studies from all over Europe.

River restoration experts in Europe use the knowledge and contacts in the ECRR network to achieve maximum succes.
Through ECRR's activities, we exchange knowledge from one to another country, establish cross border and professional contacts and influence decision making. Our insights, case studies and technical information broaden perspectives of reseachers, NGO's, praticioners and policy makers. See for this amongst other documentation RESTORE Project Layman's Report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ECRR is considered internationally to be the key network to promote and build capacity for ecological river restoration across Europe, supporting the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, Floods Directive and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the UNECE Water Convention, the Convention on Biodiversity, as well as national policies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Qinglong River: River Restoration Project in China

# data[].attributes.subject
Qinglong River: River Restoration Project in China

# data[].attributes.body
A project aimed at restoring an urban river to a more natural state for the benefit of wildlife and people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Qinglong River: River Restoration Project in China

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In order to fulfil requirements of Water Resource Bureau of Lijiang, Yunnan Province, to restore Qinglong River, three main aspects are considered: flood control, ecological upgrade and recreational and tourism needs. EBP assisted Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute to carry out this conceptual design for the Qinglong River Restoration Project.

# data[].attributes.headline
Urban Natural Assets for Africa: Rivers for Life

# data[].attributes.subject
Urban Natural Assets for Africa: Rivers for Life

# data[].attributes.body
This cutting edge project is designed to support the daily challenges that local governments in Africa experience around protecting and revitalising their urban natural assets, in particular their river systems. It aims to integrate nature-based solutions into land use planning for increased resilience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Urban Natural Assets for Africa: Rivers for Life

This cutting edge project is designed to support the daily challenges that local governments in Africa experience around protecting and revitalising their urban natural assets, in particular their river systems. It aims to integrate nature-based solutions into land use planning for increased resilience.

This project is funded by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), through SwedBio at the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

UNA Rivers aims to:
Mainstream biodiversity and nature-based solutions into land use planning and decision-making processes

Increase awareness of ecosystem services through capacity building

Mobilise project activities through alignment with international policies and processes (such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals)

Improve co-ordination between key stakeholders to work together towards integrating biodiversity into land use planning

Connect local communities with nature to encourage appreciation, cultural activation and enhance human well-being

Implement community-based projects along urban river systems to improve river restoration and revitalisation, and improve human well-being and livelihood creation

All project activities intent to transform the city landscape. The project aims to play a role in the process of transformation by effectively challenging dynamics that created the challenges in the first place. This project places emphasis on ensuring effective processes for sustainable change as well as on producing tangible products.

Mainstreaming nature into African cities land use planning

More case studies to follow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Urban Natural Assets for Africa: Rivers for Life - ICLEI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center, together with project partners SwedBio and the Stockholm Resilience Centre, have designed a cutting edge project-Urban Natural Assets for Africa (UNA)-to support the local implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to conserve and protect nature in cities in sub-Sahara Africa.

# data[].attributes.headline
Biomatrix Water- Restoring Urban Waterways

# data[].attributes.subject
Biomatrix Water- Restoring Urban Waterways

# data[].attributes.body
Biomatrix Water is an ecological technology company that integrates ecology, engineering, and biomimicry to design innovative and effective solutions to problems of water pollution and habitat degradation. They are internationally recognized for their work in creating habitats and improving biodiversity through waterscape design that combines beauty, natural water quality management, and wastewater treatment solutions to bring water to life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bringing Water To Life. By integrating ecology and engineering we deliver solutions which build on the power of nature to revitalise the waterscape.

# data[].attributes.headline
Challenging the White Narrative of Conversation

# data[].attributes.subject
Challenging the White Narrative of Conversation

# data[].attributes.body
What the History Books dont tell us. Conservation and Environmentalism in America is fundamentally rooted in racism, and it continues to be perpetuated to this day, especially in the National Park and Forest Services. How do we decolonize our notion of the outdoors and create more egalitarian systems of  land access based in reparation and equality?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Challenging the White Narrative of Conservation - Melanin Base Camp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maybe it's time to stop worshipping Muir, Pinchot, Roosevelt, Wilson and Grant, and to start listening to Black and Indigenous environmental leaders.

# data[].attributes.headline
Goulden Thurston Wetland Restoration Project in the Slocan Valley, BC

# data[].attributes.subject
Goulden Thurston Wetland Restoration Project in the Slocan Valley, BC

# data[].attributes.body
In 2019, the Slocan River Streamkeepers implemented a wetland restoration project on private land in the Slocan Valley, BC. The goal was to restore the wetland habitat and re-vegetate the site with native species to enhance functionality and attract a diversity of wildlife species. This project will provide habitat for a diversity of species including western toads, Columbia spotted frogs, western painted turtles, as well as bats, birds and invertebrates such as dragonfly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Goulden Thurston Wetland Restoration Project in the Slocan Valley, BC

# data[].attributes.body
A collection of amazing infographics all about Urban rainwater catchment & harvesting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Milkwood: permaculture courses, skills + stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here's a funky little guide for getting started with DIY urban rainwater harvesting projects...

This fine little guide was made by Joe Linton (aka LA Creek Freak) to accompany a workshop he did in 2008.

It's a great little primer for explaining the sheer scope of projects that you can do in an urban (or otherwise) environment to harvest rainwater and get things growing.

The guide draws heavily from Brad Landcaster's excellent books Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands I + II which lay out many, many strategies for creating lushness, shade, and food in the suburbs, using the resources at hand.

Here's the full guide - also check out Joe's blog LA Creek Freak for lots of inspiration on urban DIY growing projects, urban waterway daylighting, restoration and more.
If you'd like to get skilled up in these sorts of DIY design strategies for urban renewal, they'll covered (extensively) in our Urban Permaculture Design Certificate.
And if you're interested in urban water harvesting strategies, check out these links for more good ideas:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Intro to Urban Rainwater Harvesting - Milkwood: permaculture courses, skills + stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here's a funky little guide for getting started with DIY urban rainwater harvesting projects... This fine little guide was made by Joe Linton (aka LA Creek Freak) to accompany a workshop he did in 2008. It's a great little primer for explaining the sheer scope of projects that you can do in an urban (or otherwise) environment to harvest rainwater and get things growing.

# data[].attributes.body
Sucker for snags.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In forest ecology, a snag refers to a standing, dead or dying tree, often missing a top or most of the smaller branches. In freshwater ecology it refers to trees, branches, and other pieces of naturally occurring wood found sunken in rivers and streams; it is also known as coarse woody debris. When used in manufacturing, especially in Scandinavia, they are often called "dead wood" and in Finland "kelo wood".

Snags are an important structural component in forest communities, making up 10-20% of all trees present in old-growth tropical, temperate, and boreal forests. Snags and downed coarse woody debris represent a large portion of the woody biomass in a healthy forest.

In temperate forests, snags provide critical habitat for more than 100 species of bird and mammal, and snags are often called 'wildlife trees' by foresters. Dead, decaying wood supports a rich community of decomposers like bacteria and fungi, insects, and other invertebrates. These organisms and their consumers, along with the structural complexity of cavities, hollows, and broken tops make snags important habitat for birds, bats, and small mammals, which in turn feed larger mammalian predators.

Snags are optimal habitat for primary cavity nesters such as woodpeckers which create the majority of cavities used by secondary cavity users in forest ecosystems. Woodpeckers excavate cavities for more than 80 other species and the health of their populations relies on snags. Most snag-dependent birds and mammals are insectivorous and represent a major portion of the insectivorous forest fauna, and are important factors in controlling forest insect populations. There are many instances in which birds reduced outbreak populations of forest insects, such as woodpeckers affecting outbreaks of southern hardwood borers and Engelmann spruce beetles.

Snag creation occurs naturally as trees die due to old age, disease, drought, or wildfire. A snag undergoes a series of changes from the time the tree dies until final collapse, and each stage in the decay process has particular value to certain wildlife species. Snag persistence depends on two factors, the size of the stem, and the durability of the wood of the species concerned. The snags of some large conifers, such as Giant Sequoia and Coast Redwood on the Pacific Coast of North America, and the Alerce of Patagonia, can remain intact for 100 years or more, becoming progressively shorter with age, while other snags with rapidly decaying wood, such as aspen and birch, break up and collapse in 2-10 years.

Snag Forests, or Complex Early Seral Forests, are ecosystems that occupy potentially forested sites after a stand-replacement disturbance and before re-establishment of a closed-forest canopy. They are generated by natural disturbances such as wildfire or insect outbreaks that reset ecological succession processes and follow a pathway that is influenced by biological legacies (e.g., large live trees and snags downed logs, seed banks, resprout tissue, fungi, and other live and dead biomass) that were not removed during the initial disturbance.

Water hunting birds like the osprey or kingfishers can be found near water, perched in a snag tree, or feeding upon their fish catch.

In freshwater ecology in Australia and the United States, the term snag is used to refer to the trees, branches and other pieces of naturally occurring wood found in a sunken form in rivers and streams. Such snags have been identified as being critical for shelter and as spawning sites for fish, and are one of the few hard substrates available for biofilm growth supporting aquatic invertebrates in lowland rivers flowing through alluvial flood plains. Snags are important as sites for biofilm growth and for shelter and feeding of aquatic invertebrates in both lowland and upland rivers and streams.

In Australia, the role of freshwater snags has been largely ignored until recently, and more than one million snags have been removed from the Murray-Darling basin. Large tracts of the lowland reaches of the Murray-Darling system are now devoid of the snags that native fish like Murray cod require for shelter and breeding. The damage such wholesale snag removal has caused is enormous but difficult to quantify, however some quantification attempts have been made.

Most snags in these systems are river red gum snags. As the dense wood of river red gum is almost impervious to rot it is thought that some of the river red gum snags removed in past decades may have been several thousand years old.

Also known as deadheads, partially submerged snags posed hazards to early riverboat navigation and commerce. If hit, snags punctured the wooden hulls used in the 19th century and early 20th century. Snags were, in fact, the most commonly encountered hazard, especially in the early years of steamboat travel. In the United States, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operated " snagboats" such as the in the Puget Sound of Washington State and the Montgomery in the rivers of Alabama to pull out and clear snags.[citation needed ] Starting in 1824, there were successful efforts to remove snags from the Mississippi and its tributaries. By 1835, a lieutenant reported to the Chief of Engineers that steamboat travel had become much safer, but by the mid-1840s the appropriations for snag removal dried up and snags re-accumulated until after the Civil War.

"Dead wood" products

In Scandinavia and Finland snags, invariably pine trees, known in Finnish as kelo and in Swedish as torraka, are collected for the production of different objects, from furniture to entire log houses. Commercial enterprises market them abroad as "dead wood" or in Finland as "kelo wood". They have been especially prized for their silver-grey weathered surface in the manufacture of vernacular or national romantic products. The suppliers of "dead wood" emphasise its age: the wood has developed with dehydration in the dry coldness of the subarctic zones, the tree having stopped growing after some 300-400 years, and the tree has remained upright for another few hundred years. "Dead wood" logs are easier to transport and handle than normal logs due to their lightness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In forest ecology, a snag refers to a standing, dead or dying tree, often missing a top or most of the smaller branches. In freshwater ecology it refers to trees, branches, and other pieces of naturally occurring wood found sunken in rivers and streams; it is also known as coarse woody debris.

# data[].attributes.headline
Seaweed in livestock feed could dramatically reduce their carbon hoof print 

# data[].attributes.subject
Seaweed in livestock feed could dramatically reduce their carbon hoof print 

# data[].attributes.body
A diet supplemented with red algae could lessen the staggering amount of methane (a greenhouse gas that largely contributes to the greenhouse gas effect and the warming climate) emitted by cows and sheep, if we can just figure out how to grow enough of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a wooden barn on the edge of campus at the University of California, Davis, cattle line up at their assigned feed slots to snatch mouthfuls of alfalfa hay.

This past spring, several of these Holstein dairy cows participated in a study to test a promising path to reducing methane emissions from livestock, a huge source of the greenhouse gases driving climate change. By adding a small amount of seaweed to the animals' feed, researchers found, they could cut the cows' methane production by nearly 60%.

Each year, livestock production pumps out greenhouse gases with the equivalent warming effect of more than 7 gigatons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same global impact as the transportation industry. Nearly 40% of that is produced during digestion: cattle, goats, and sheep belch and pass methane, a highly potent, albeit relatively short-lived, greenhouse gas.

If the reductions achieved in the UC Davis study could be applied across the worldwide livestock industry, it would eliminate nearly 2 gigatons of those emissions annually-about a quarter of United States' total climate pollution each year.

Ermias Kebreab, an animal science professor at UC Davis who leads the work, is preparing to undertake a more ambitious study in the months ahead, evaluating whether smaller amounts of a more potent form of seaweed can cut methane emissions even further. Meanwhile, some businesses have begun to explore what could be the harder challenge: growing it on a massive scale.

"Very, very high reductions"

The problem is the digestive process of cattle and other ruminants, known as enteric fermentation. Microbes in their digestive tracts break down and extract energy from the carbohydrates in fibrous grasses. But the same process also generates hydrogen, which a separate set of microorganisms feed on, producing methane.

About 95% of the gas escapes through the mouth and nostrils, while the rest exits in the other direction.

Researchers have explored a number of potential paths to lowering livestock emissions, including selective breeding (some animals are less gaseous than others), vaccines, microbiome transfers, various dietary supplements, and more efficient feeds-all with varying results, says Dan Blaustein-Rejto, senior agriculture analyst with the Breakthrough Institute, a research center focusing on technological solutions to environmental problems.

But there's growing momentum behind the seaweed approach, thanks to almost shockingly effective results in initial scientific studies. In 2014, Australian researchers found that low doses of a red algae known as Asparagopsis taxiformis virtually eliminated methane production in lab experiments. Field trials with live sheep cut emissions as much as 80%, while the UC Davis experiment, the first on live cattle, showed a 58% reduction on average when a related seaweed made up 1% of their diet.

More milk and meat

Kebreab grew up in Eritrea, an East African country on the coast of the Red Sea that struggles with recurrent droughts and famines. The continual shortage of milk or meat inspired him to study livestock, in the hope of finding sustainable ways to produce more of both.

UC Davis professor Ermias Kebreab hand-feeds a cow on campus.

Kebreab first began researching the methane problem more than a decade ago. But the recent work on seaweed was prompted, in part, by California's passage of a law in 2016 that called for reducing the state's methane emissions by 40%. That's placed real pressure on businesses to find effective and affordable ways of doing so, particularly among the Central Valley's cattle and dairy farmers. The statute focuses primarily on the related but smaller problem of reducing methane from livestock manure-for which there are some available means to make and measure progress. But cutting emissions from cow burps would also count toward meeting that mandate.

"As soon as SB-1383 came online, the interest level increased hugely-and it's concentrated in California," Kebreab says.

One negative side effect in the initial UC Davis study is that the cattle did decrease the amount they were consuming each day. That's a big deal, since the more the cows eat, the more milk or meat they produce. Kebreab suspects the issue was simply taste: seaweed is very salty. The researchers ultimately mixed it with molasses to help the medicine go down.

But crucially, in the initial study, they used a form of seaweed that's not as potent as the red algae employed in the initial Australian lab experiments. Kebreab intends to use that strain in the follow-up trial, and he believes it could cut more emissions even at a lower dose.

In the months ahead, Kebreab will oversee a six-month experiment with 24 beef cattle. He plans to closely evaluate whether the effect on methane persists at the same level over a longer time period, as well as whether the supplement affects health, weight, and the quality of the meat.

Theoretically, as long as cattle don't notice the taste (or get used to it), the seaweed should help them put on weight. Blocking methane production should mean that more of the consumed carbohydrates get directed to the task of building tissue. If so, farmers could see an economic return on the up-front cost of this supplement-though it may or may not be the most cost-effective option for packing on weight.

But there's another concern: how to get the 200 kilograms of red seaweed they need for the study. It has yet to be produced on a commercial scale, and doing so could prove tricky.

Getting to scale

Australis Aquaculture, a producer of ocean-farmed Asian sea bass based in Greenfield, Massachusetts, is attempting to find a way through a research project in Vietnam, dubbed Greener Grazing.

The red algae grows naturally in the wild, but it will take a heavy human hand to produce it at the speed and scale necessary to serve even a fraction of the global livestock industry. And so far, the seaweed has resisted attempts to get it to reproduce, says Josh Goldman, the company's founder.

Huynh Thi Khanh at work in Greener Grazing's seed bank.

Greener Grazing and its collaborators are pursuing several paths to solve the problem. If they crack it, the company will move to the next step of attempting to grow seaweed off the coast of Vietnam. The plants would be placed within the type of plastic tube netting used to grow oysters, and suspended a few feet underwater-just deep enough to be protected from waves, but close enough to the sun for photosynthesis to drive growth.

Meanwhile, DSM, the giant Dutch conglomerate, is working on a synthetic additive for the cows. A paper its researchers coauthored found that a methane inhibitor known as 3-nitrooxypropanol, or 3NOP, cut emissions by 30% in lactating Holsteins. The study noted that milk production wasn't affected during the 12-week experiment, and as a bonus, the "spared methane energy" helped generate tissue, resulting in higher body weights.

DSM Nutritional Products reportedly hopes to commercialize the animal feed and has already applied for US Food and Drug Administration approval to sell it in the United States.

While the reductions aren't nearly as dramatic as those seen in the early tests of seaweed, a large company with existing manufacturing plants and distribution channels could potentially scale up production faster and drive down costs further than the aquaculture approach, Kebreab says.

DSM didn't respond to an inquiry from MIT Technology Review.

Beyond California

Kebreab is collaborating with Joan Salwen, a Stanford fellow who founded Elm Innovations, a social venture working to raise money for seaweed research efforts and collaborate with the livestock industry.

Salwen readily acknowledges that more research needs to be done on the health effects of the seaweed-on livestock and humans alike-and that it's still unclear whether these strains can be scaled up in an economically feasible way. Moreover, earning returns on the product in a state like California, where farmers face regulatory mandates, will be quite different from selling it in poor parts of the world that also contribute to methane emissions.

But if all goes well, Salwen hopes, early markets fostered by strong climate policies could help expand production and drive down costs elsewhere.

Walking back from the barn, Kebreab mentions that venture capitalists have been visiting the campus to learn more about the research and opportunities. He's been eager to share, given the amount of investment that would be required to get a red seaweed industry off the ground.

"The more money you have, the quicker we can get it to market," he says.

But Kebreab himself doesn't have any entrepreneurial ambitions.

"I just like working with the animals," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seaweed could make cows burp less methane and cut their carbon hoofprint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a wooden barn on the edge of campus at the University of California, Davis, cattle line up at their assigned feed slots to snatch mouthfuls of alfalfa hay. This past spring, several of these Holstein dairy cows participated in a study to test a promising path to reducing methane emissions from livestock, a huge...

# data[].attributes.headline
How to Restore the Earth Starting in Your Own Yard!

# data[].attributes.subject
How to Restore the Earth Starting in Your Own Yard!

# data[].attributes.body
There are so many ways we can begin the restoration process beginning with our own spaces! It all starts at Zone 0.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Restore the Earth Starting in Your Own Yard!

# data[].attributes.body
The Native Plant Network is devoted to the sharing of information on how to propagate native plants of North America (US, Canada, Mexico and the Pacific Islands).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Native Plant Network is devoted to the sharing of information on how to propagate native plants of North America (US, Canada, Mexico and the Pacific Islands).

To search the database, enter the search criteria to the right and then click the Search button. For best results, start fairly broad (so enter text in only a couple of fields) and narrow your search if that returns too many results. The search results will be show below.

To submit updates or additions to the database of species you successfully grow, use the Add/Edit Protocols link to learn more about becoming a propagator or to login and start adding and editing your protocols.

Database Entries

30 items displayed of 3138 total.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Native Plant Network is devoted to the sharing of information on how to propagate native plants of North America (US, Canada, Mexico and the Pacific Islands). To search the database, enter the search criteria to the right and then click the Search button.

# data[].attributes.body
It's is essential to work with local native plants in any bioregional restoration effort.
This is a comprehensive list of California active plants from California Native Plant Society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Calscape - Restore Nature One Garden at a Time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About Calscape Contact Calscape Planting Guide Nurseries My Plant Lists Butterflies

# data[].attributes.headline
SEED PROPAGATION Of Native California Plants

# data[].attributes.subject
SEED PROPAGATION Of Native California Plants

# data[].attributes.body
An amazing, detailed guide to working with native California plants from seed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CNPS thanks Santa Barbara Botanical Garden for generously allowing us to share this information. If you would like to purchase the full booklet, you can do so Here.

SEED PROPAGATION

Of Native California Plants
Dara E. Emery
Plant Breeder
Santa Barbara Botanical Garden

Published by
Santa Barbara Botanical Garden

This easy-to-use reference is designed for the increasing numbers of serious home gardeners, commercial nursery professionals, and members of the professional horticultural and botanical communities who want to propagate the native flora of California. Such information is vital if we are to meet the challenges of limited water for our landscapes, revegetation of our open space, and the preservation of endangered species. We hope that you will find this book a useful addition to your gardening library.

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Seed Collection and Storage

3. Seed Dormancy and Treatments

4. Seed Propagation

5. Recommended Seed Treatments for Some Native California Plants

1. Preface

Seed Propagation of Native California Plants was originally published as one of a series of leaflets by Santa Barbara Botanic Garden over (50) years ago (Leaflet #10, February 1964). Although long out of print, the leaflet is still in demand. Over the last twenty years the interest in and use of native California plants has increased, as has the knowledge of their seed morphology and physiology. This revised and greatly expanded edition of Seed Propagation of Native California Plants incorporates the additional knowledge and experience gained by this author and other re searchers in propagating native California plants from seed.
The greatest advances in seed germination research have been made in the use of chemical treatments to break seed dormancy. Sulphuric acid is still the only chemical treatment used at the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. However, a number of chemical treatments are included in this publication, mainly to indicate direction and potential.

Dara E. Emery (1922-1992) is recognized as one of the foremost experts on the propagation of California's native plants. Mr. Emery joined the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden in 1950 as its first horticulturist and in that capacity he was responsible for growing the thousands of plants propagated annually for the Garden. Mr. Emery learned to successfully grow all types of California natives and this book is based on the results of over 20 years of his experimentations with these plants. In addition to his propagation studies, Mr. Emery initiated a native plant selection and breeding program at the Garden and more than a dozen new cultivars have been introduced into the nursery trade as a result of his work. Mr. Emery is widely acknowledged for his contribution to the advancement of native plant horticulture throughout California.

2. Introduction

California has a diverse flora that is widely used in cultivation. California native plants were successfully introduced into European gardens over 100 years ago from collections of botanical explorers visiting the west coast of North America. In recent years there has been a steadily increasing interest in the use of native plants in California gardens. They offer great landscaping possibilities, are relatively disease and pest free, and often have low maintenance requirements.

Currently, a diverse array of native species is available from at least some wholesale growers, but any one retailer is apt to stock only a few. Many species that are desirable for cultivation are best grown from seeds and often these require special germination procedures. This book is, therefore, designed as a guide to the seed propagation of California native plants. The first part consists of comments on methods used in collecting and propagating such plants from seeds. It includes descriptive information on different pre-sowing treatments and seed germination temperatures; some seeds have very narrow limits of tolerance. There is also a section on general methods for propagating annual wildflowers from seeds. The major part of this publication is a list of suggested pre-sowing treatments for seeds of over 900 species and varieties of California native plants.

I am taking this opportunity to acknowledge and to thank our recent director, Ralph Philbrick, for his help and suggestions; our editor, Mary Carroll, for her help and patience in the preparation of this manuscript; Carol Bornstein and Dennis Odion for reading the manuscript; our librarian, Nancy Hawver, who obtained most of the references used; our taxonomist, Steve Junak, for checking the nomenclature; our computer operator, Lilla Burgess, for her typing and patience with the many changes necessary; our production editor, Laura Baldwin, for designing and producing the final book; and others who made suggestions.

The Santa Barbara Botanic Garden is a private, non-profit educational and scientific institution dedicated to the study, display and conservation of the native flora of California and the California Floristic Province. Located on 65 acres in the foothills above Santa Barbara, the Garden is a living museum that offers visitors a glimpse of plant communities through out the state. In addition to serving the community as a distinctive educational, botanical, and horticultural resource, the Botanic Garden is a delightful place to experience nature firsthand. For information on programs, membership, general information or orders of this publication write to Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, 1212 Mission Canyon Road, Santa Barbara, California 93105, or call (805) 682-4726.

3. Seed Collection and Storage

Seeds of native California species are not always easy to obtain; but seeds of a number of species, particularly annuals, can be purchased from seed companies and seed collectors. Still others are occasionally available from botanic gardens throughout the state. Often, however, it is necessary for the propagator to collect them himself. Seeds should be harvested only from healthy plants showing no sign or the least sign of disease or insect damage. All drying seeds must be protected from birds and rodents.

Seeds that are wind dispersed or borne in fruits that, upon drying, dehisce (or discharge) must be harvested when slightly green or immature; they can then be dried in loosely covered containers. Lupine (Lupinus) and poppy (Eschscholzia) are examples of plants that discharge their seeds at maturity and therefore must be harvested just before fully ripe. California lilac (Ceanothus) capsules must also be picked when slightly green and dried in a screen-covered container at day temperatures of 85° to 100°F. If dried at much lower temperatures, the capsules may not open, and then they must be thrashed by pounding with a heavy object in order to separate the seeds and chaff. It is important to note that seeds found to contain milky or gelatinous substances are too immature to harvest.

Fleshy fruits such as those from nightshade (Solanum), barberry (Mahonia), and gooseberry (Ribes) should be crushed, and the mashed pulp containing the seeds should be spread in a thin layer on paper to dry. The seeds and pulp can then be readily separated. Another method is to add water to the mashed pulp and seeds, preferably in a tall container. After standing for a day or two, the seeds and pulp will separate.

If seeds are to be stored for future use, thorough drying is necessary to prevent mold and to insure reasonable longevity. With a few exceptions, noted below, the harvested seeds or fruits should be placed in a warm ( 85°-100°F day temperature), dry place for several weeks. They should be protected from dew during this period. After being cleaned, the seeds should be placed in appropriately sized envelopes or bags (labeled with name and date) and placed in a sealed container with several crystals of a moth larvicide for a day or two to kill any seed-eating insects or their eggs.

The longevity of seeds of California native plants is highly variable and depends upon the species. Willow (Salix) and poplar (Populus) seeds are extremely short-lived. They remain viable for only a few hours. They die in the wild, unless they are dispersed promptly to a moist substrate like a stream bank. Species of oak (Quercus), buckeye (Aesculus), chinquapin (Chrysolepis), hazelnut (Corylus), maple (Acer), and snowdrop bush (Styrax) also have short-lived seeds that must be sown before they dry out, usually a month or so after harvesting . Conversely, some lupine (Lupinus) seeds have given fair germination after 30 years of storage at room conditions. Short-lived seeds should be sown as soon as they have been harvested and cleaned. If they must be held over from fall harvest for spring sowing, they should be stored under cold, moist conditions (see cold stratification).

Moderate to long-lived seeds are best stored in cold, dry conditions such as in the refrigerator in a closed container to which a packet of desiccant s been added. Packets of desiccant are obtainable at a pharmacy. Seeds of most species, unless known to be long-lived (those with impermeable seed coats), can be stored two or three years in a cool, dry room; however, if stored as suggested in a refrigerator, they will remain viable for several additional years.

4. Seed Dormancy and Treatments

Germination is the resumption of active growth of the seed's embryo. It requires moisture, proper temperature, and oxygen. The time necessary for complete germination varies with the species. Seeds of most annual wildflowers germinate with no difficulty in one to two weeks. Seeds of many longer-lived plants take three to six weeks; however, some take up to several years to germinate under natural conditions. Since slow and sporadic germination is usually the result of some form of seed dormancy, treatment to break the dormancy just prior to sowing are often used.

In general, there are two types of seed dormancy: seed coat dormancy and internal dormancy. Seeds with seed coat dormancy usually have a seed coat that is impermeable to oxygen and /or water. Occasionally the dormancy is caused by an inhibiting chemical in the epidermis or adjacent interior membranes. Under natural conditions these seeds remain on or in the ground without germinating until they have weathered sufficiently to allow penetration of water, exchange of gases, or neutralization of inhibiting chemicals. Seeds of some species germinate only after being subjected to fire. The length of time involved - it can be several years or more depends upon the species and the environmental conditions. Seed coat dormancy is common in California lilac (Ceanothus), manzanita (Arctostaphylos), sumac (Rhys), and many members of the legume family. If seeds of such plants are harvested when slightly green or immature and sown immediately before they dry out, germination problems may be reduced; however, once the seeds have dried out, the dormancy factor is present and must be counteracted to obtain prompt germination. Methods of breaking seed coat dormancy include scarification, hot water, dry heat, fire, charate, acid and other chemicals, mulch, water, cold and warm stratification, and light. For a detailed article on water-impermeable seeds (seed coat dormancy), see Rolston (1978).

Internal dormancy is a general term encompassing a number of physiological conditions that delay germination. Not all of these conditions are fully understood or easy to counteract. The most common one is called after-ripening. Seeds that require an after-ripening period, even though harvested when mature, germinate poorly or not at all until they have been subjected to moisture and either high or low temperatures or both in sequence; sometimes, however, a period of dry storage is sufficient to break dormancy. As might be expected, internal dormancy is most often found among species that grow in the high mountains or deserts. For the montane species, a moist cold period is required, simulating a cold winter.

For some desert seeds a few weeks of dry storage at over 100°F, simulating summer desert heat, is necessary; then the seeds will germinate at lower temperatures. The more common method for breaking internal dormancy is cold stratification. In some cases, the use of chemicals can be substituted for part or all of the stratification requirement.

Multiple dormancy factors also occur. In one general type there is seed coat dormancy plus internal dormancy. Seeds with this dormancy combination must be treated for the impermeable seed coat first, then for internal dormancy. In another type there are two or more distinct internal dormancy factors, which unlock sequentially at different temperatures. One group requires warm temperatures first for a small amount of primary root growth, then cold to break shoot bud dormancy, then warm again to initiate shoot growth and complete germination. Another group needs cold temperatures first to break primary root dormancy, then warm to initiate a small amount of root growth, then cold again to break shoot bud dormancy, then warm again to initiate shoot growth and complete germination. In the wild, seedlings of plants with these dormancy types would not appear until the first or second spring after the seeds had matured and dropped from the parent plant. For a detailed discussion of dormancy and germination in nature, see Gutterman (1980-1981). A general summary of practical methods for breaking seed dormancy is outlined in the next few pages. Recommendations for appropriate seed treatments of specific plant species are included in the ( CNPS Calscape plant pages).

Scarification

Mechanical scarification can be accomplished by rupturing the seed coats with sandpaper, a file, a pin, or a knife. Even a vise can be used to squeeze seeds along the suture until they crack open. Care must be taken not to injure the embryo. It may be necessary to open a couple of seeds to see where the embryo is located in relation to the micropyle, the former point of attachment to the fruit. Large seeds like those of the bush lupine (Lupinus) are easily scarified with a knife; the hot water treatment is easier for small seeds.

Hot Water

For small to medium-sized seeds or large quantities of seeds, the hot water treatment is more practical than scarification. For this treatment seeds should be dropped into about six times their volume of 180°- 200°F water (rain water is desirable if it is near neutral in pH) . They should be left to cool and soak in the water for 12 to 24 hours, after which they are ready for sowing. The container used for this treatment should not be made of aluminum as it may be toxic to the seeds. Also softened water should not be used since the amount and ratio of salts may be toxic to the seeds. Another and more drastic hot water treatment is sometimes used for especially thick or hard-coated seeds. For this treatment, the seeds should be placed in vigorously boiling water for a specific length of time depending on the species, then immediately removed from the boiling water and cooled in cold water. With both hot water treatments, the seeds should be sown promptly and not stored again.

Dry Heat

Oven or dry heat is not often recommended, and the temperatures required are more suitable to an incubator than a kitchen oven. For this seed coat treatment the seeds should be placed in shallow containers in a preheated incubator or oven. The specific temperature and duration depend on the species. After the treatment, the seeds should be cooled immediately and sown.

Where the temperature suggested is between 180°- 212°F, it is possible that the hot water treatment of the same temperature and for the same length of time would give comparable results.

Charate

The char from burned plant stems has been shown to be a good neutralizer of germination inhibitors in the seeds of several herbaceous species associated with chaparral fires (Keeley & Keeley 1982). These authors report that of the fire-followers tested [snapdragon (Antirrhinum), pincushion flower (Chaenacti), whispering bells (Emmenanthe), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum), and Phacelia species], all had greatly enhanced germination with the addition of a small amount of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) charate to the sown seeds.

Charate can be prepared by burning chamise stems of 3/8th inch or less in diameter with a propane torch until they are blackened through and then grinding the charred stems in a Wiley mill to produce a uniform powder.

The Keeley's applied 0.154 ounces of charate to each petri dish of 20 to 50 seeds. Charate made from woody species other than chamise gave different degrees of germination enhancement for different species (Keeley & Keeley 1982). Baking the stems (500°F for 10 minutes or 347°F for 30 minutes) instead of treating with a blowtorch may give comparable results. In some cases, seeds heated in an oven for short periods and then treated with charate showed further enhanced germination, sometimes synergistically.

In the family Hydrophyllaceae there are many fire-following species with seeds that are difficult to germinate. These include whispering bells (Emmenanthe), yerba santa (Eriodictyon), Eucrypta, Phacelia, and poodle dog bush (Turricula). Whispering bells and species of Phacelia have been tested with charate, and in each case, germination has been enhanced.

Fire

Seeds of some genera have tough, thick seed coats and germinate most satisfactorily when subjected to the heat of fire. For this treatment the seeds should be sown in the fall in a slightly moist medium but not watered. A layer of dry pine needles or excelsior, four to six inches deep, should be placed over the top of the seedbed. A few small pieces of wadded paper will help to ignite the material. One or two strips of aluminum foil placed over the exposed edges of the wood container will prevent it from burning; plastic containers should not be used. After the seedbed has cooled following burning, it should be thoroughly watered and then treated as any other batch of sown seeds. Since the small flash fire produced by this treatment is quite hot, this method should be used outdoors in the open, away from combustible material, and on a calm day.

The seeded container should be left outdoors for germination, since seeds of many plants also have internal dormancy factors and therefore need a cold, moist period for germination. Even using this treatment, manzanita (Arctostaphylos) seeds require a minimum of two months to germinate. If the seeds are sown and treated in mid-October and no germination has occurred by June, the seedbed can be dried out for the remainder of the summer. Watering should be resumed in the fall when the weather begins to cool. Some germination may occur as late as the following spring.

This fire treatment is not exact, and the results obtained may not be consistent because the amount and duration of heat actually reaching the seeds is governed by several variable factors.

Acid

Acid treatments are often used to break down especially thick impermeable seed coats. Since seeds placed in concentrated sulfuric acid (H2 S04) will become charcoal in time, the temperature of the acid and the length of time the seeds are soaked are very important. The acid should be used at room temperature for a period of a few minutes to several hours depending on the species. The seeds should be immersed in acid in a glass, china, or earthenware container, and should be stirred occasionally with a glass rod; however, too much stirring will cause the acid to heat undesirably. The seeds must be removed from the acid just before any acid penetrates the seed coats. When the allotted time is finished, the seeds should be removed promptly and washed thoroughly in several changes of water to neutralize completely all remaining acid. For some species the duration of the acid bath depends on the specific batch of seeds and can only be determined empirically. After treatment and a thorough washing, the seeds may be sown or dried and stored for several months.

Since sulfuric acid is caustic and dangerous to handle, its use is recommended only for those familiar with the use of caustic chemicals. In lieu of the acid treatment for seeds with thick coats, such as manzanita (Arctostaphylos), the fire or mulch treatments can be used. With thinner-coated seeds, hot water or scarification is satisfactory.

Other Chemicals

About (70) years ago researchers in various agencies and private industry began experimenting with chemicals to neutralize dormancy conditions present in seeds. Results have shown that inhibiting chemicals can be pre sent in one or more parts of the seed; other dormancy-causing factors (i.e., immature embryos or impermeable seed coats) may also be present in a given seed.

Three chemicals that have proven very helpful in breaking certain types of dormancy are gibberellic acid (GA3), potassium nitrate, and thiourea. The aqueous solutions of these chemicals should be used at room temperature. The concentration and length of treatment depends on the species to be treated. Seeds soaked in GA3 or thiourea should be stirred occasionally and not rinsed afterwards, unless specified, but sown immediately. After this soaking they can also be air-dried and stored for short periods and then sown or given a subsequent treatment. The no-rinse afterwards also applies to the use of potassium nitrate and hydrogen peroxide, other chemicals occasionally recommended as aids to germination. Great care should be taken in working with these chemicals as some are poisonous. Due to their toxic or poisonous nature, some are difficult to obtain; however, in nearly all cases there is an alternate method of seed treatment noted. The main advantages of these chemicals are speed, ease of use, and unaltered physical condition of the seeds following treatment.

Mulch

The mulch treatment hastens the microbial breakdown or softening of the seed coats. It is a slow method but is what often occurs in the wild. For this treatment, f ill a six- to eight-inch deep container half full with seedbed medium. Then the sown seeds should be covered with a mulch of wood shavings (not redwood or cedar). A one-inch thick layer of old composted shavings is best; but if not available, a three-inch layer of fresh shavings is satisfactory. If fresh shavings are to be used, they should be soaked a few hours in a bucket of water first and mixed with a compost starter of microbial inoculant (see Germination Media section). Neither the seeds nor the medium should be treated with a fungicide. If this treatment is initiated in early spring or early summer and if the shavings are kept moist all summer, germination will require three to four months or longer, depending on the species. This mulching technique also works well in a ground bed; however, transplanting may be a bit more difficult.

Water

For the occasional species whose seed coats contain a readily water soluble, germination-inhibiting chemical, this substance can be removed by soaking the seeds in tap water or by leaching the seeds in slowly running tap water for various lengths of time just prior to sowing. The length of time depends on the species. With the water bath, changing the water every 12 to 24 hours will hasten this leaching process. Softened water should not be used for this treatment.

Cold Stratification

Cold stratification for seeds with internal dormancy simulates cold winter conditions. For small quantities of seeds, mix at a ratio of 1:3 or more with moist peat moss or moist vermiculite, place in a tightly sealed polyethylene bag or glass jar, and store in the refrigerator at a temperature of 35°- 41°F. With a few species, freezing the seeds at 28 - 32°F is required.

For bulk seeds, soak in water for a few hours first, then place wet in a sealed container. In either case, the seeds must be kept moist during the entire length of the treatment. This will require periodic checking and the addition of water if necessary. Another reason for periodically checking the stratifying seeds is to see if they have started to germinate. If, for example, a California-lilac (Ceanothus) species has a three-month cold stratification recommendation, it should be visually checked for germination a couple of weeks prior to the end of the third month. If any white root tips are visible, the whole batch should be sown immediately. The longer the radicals are when the seeds are sown, the greater the probability of damage and the greater the mortality rate is apt to be. If the stratification period is inadvertently lengthened, it is usually not detrimental, pro viding the radicals are still very short or not yet showing.

In contrast, to cut the stratification period short by even a few days could be harmful if no radicals are visible. By prematurely discontinuing stratification, primary dormancy may not be broken. Consequently, a secondary dormancy may be induced which is more difficult to break than the original dormancy. If one must err, do it on the long side.

The cold stratification period necessary to break dormancy may last from a few days to several months, depending upon the species, with one to three months being the most common. After stratification, the seeds should be sown promptly before they have a chance to dry out.

Warm Stratification

The exposure of seeds to moist, warm conditions at room temperature (65°F) or above is called warm stratification. Sometimes this treatment is necessary for seeds with internal dormancy to facilitate after-ripening of the embryos, in which case it is followed by cold stratification. Occasionally it is used in lieu of the acid treatment for seed coat dormancy. It also may be an intermediate stage in a multiple dormancy treatment. For warm stratification the seeds should be mixed with moist peat moss or moist vermiculite and sealed in a polyethylene bag or a glass jar. Possible places for warm stratification include desk tops, kitchen cupboards, the top of a refrigerator, or perhaps near the furnace-anywhere that stays warm night and day for the prescribed period of time.

Photochemical Dormancy

Seeds of some species are light-sensitive and must receive light during germination. The intensity and duration of the light, as received by seed photoreceptors, interact with the available moisture and temperature to control germination. When light and temperature are each partially inhibitory, the effect can be synergistic. The first 36 to 72 hours of germination is the critical period. Photochemical dormancy is most pronounced in freshly harvested seeds and usually disappears naturally with age. For further information on photochemical dormancy, see Cruden (1974).

When germinating seeds indoors in order to break photochemical dormancy, a cool, white fluorescent light source of 75-125 foot candles (750-1250 lux) for eight hours per day can be used (Association of Official Seed Analysts 1981).

Seeds that require light should not be covered when sown but merely watered-in. A covering of glass or plastic over the container will help to maintain a saturated atmosphere around the seeds. A few species must be kept in darkness during the first part of the germination period.

Germination Temperatures

Though not really a form of dormancy, undesirable temperatures used for germination can be partially or completely inhibitory. Temperature requirements for the germination of seeds of most native California species will be met if the seeds are sown at the proper time of year (see the following section). The range of temperatures required by the seeds of a few species, primarily those of the desert and mountain regions, can be very narrow and specific. If seeds of these plants are sown at the wrong time of year or if temperatures in the area where the seeds are sown are not within the narrow limits for the species, no germination, or at best very poor germination, will occur. For coastal Southern California growers, the greatest problem is encountered with seeds that require high temperatures or wide diurnal temperature fluctuations.

If the recommended daily high-low temperatures are not present naturally, artificial means must be used to produce them, or the propagator will have to be content with poor germination. Where these specific and unusual diurnal temperature fluctuations are necessary, they are noted in the table for the species involved.

5. Seed Propagation

Time to Sow Seeds

At the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden most seeds are sown in small containers in the lath house. When stratification is necessary, it is done prior to the sowing date. Seeds of annuals are sown in late October, herbaceous perennials by July 15, and shrubs and trees by the middle of March. There are several exceptions to the above: seeds of live-forever (Dudleya), buckwheat (Eriogonum), and alum-root (Heuchera) are sown by July l; bush monkeyflower (Diplacus) species are sown in early July with herbaceous perennials; seeds of sea-dahlia (Coreopsis maritima) are sown by September 1for late fall, winter, and early spring flowers; lupine (Lupinus) species seeds, including both bush and herbaceous perennial types, are sown by October 10 for planting out from three-inch pots in late fall for spring flowers; and seeds of Iris, manzanita (Arctostaphylos), and bush poppy (Dendromecon) are sown by October 15. Seeds of desert shrubs and cacti are sown by July 1 in the glasshouse with a minimum temperature of 60°- 65°F; our outdoor night temperatures are too low at this time of year for satisfactory germination. With the above schedule, germination and growing temperatures are favorable; and the timing, in most cases, will produce plants of sufficient size to be ready for late fall planting, when the winter rainy period usually commences.

Germination Media

There are many suitable media for germinating seeds, and the majority of the California native species have no unusual requirements. A satisfactory general purpose seedbed medium is composed of equal parts of garden loam, builders sand or river sand (not beach sand as it contains too many soluble salts), and moist peat moss, thoroughly mixed together. The soil and sand should be sifted through a sieve of 1/8th inch mesh; the peat moss, through either a 1/4th or 1/2inch mesh screen. Since dry peat moss, as it comes from the bale, absorbs water very slowly, it should be soaked for several hours before use or soaked for a few minutes with constant agitation. The excess moisture should be squeezed out before use. Once peat moss has been wet, it is usually easily remoistened.

To prevent unnecessary seedling losses due to soil-borne diseases and pests, all mixes containing soil or leaf mold should be pasteurized before use by heating to 140°F for 30 minutes to kill insects, their eggs and larvae, and most pathogenic fungi and bacteria. At much above this temperature, beneficial soil microorganisms start to die off. Sterilization requires 180°F for 30 minutes; this temperature kills most organisms and is usually not desirable.

For pasteurization, moistened soil mix should be placed in a shallow pan in an oven at low heat. The temperature of the mix should be raised and held at 140°F, or a little above, for 30 minutes. If the soil mix is not pasteurized or sterilized, young seedlings, particularly very small ones, are likely to succumb to damping-off fungi. In lieu of pasteurization, seeds can be dusted with a fungicide such as "Cooke's Fungicide" or a similar material that specifies on the label that it kills damping-off fungi. Alternatively after sowing, the seedbed can be watered thoroughly with such a fungicide.

A relatively new approach to the problem of pathogenic organisms in containers is the addition to the medium of a beneficial microbial inoculant; this material can be used in place of pasteurization or a fungicide. Even in a sterilized mix its use is beneficial. These microbes have an effect on the soil analogous to the immune system in animals; the beneficial microorganisms, if added in quantity, tend to isolate and neutralize the pathogens. At the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, in containers smaller than one-gallon, we use a soil-less medium with a microbial inoculant available locally from Material Science Company. There are, no doubt, other similar products available.

Alternatives to media containing soil are the soil-less mixes such as peat moss and perlite (equal parts), vermiculite ( medium or fine, depending on the seed size), or a packaged potting mix. These do not need pasteurization or a microbial inoculant, though the latter is beneficial in a soil-less mix also. When using a medium composed of peat moss, perlite, and /or vermiculite, all of the necessary elements for plant growth must be added since these components are nutrient-free. One way to provide required nutrients is to use a dilute solution of a water-soluble, complete fertilizer with each watering.

To further prevent contamination by pathogenic organisms, used porous containers such as clay pots and wood containers should be cleaned of all foreign material, such as old mix and roots, then soaked 30 minutes or longer in a 1:18 solution of household bleach before re-use. Used plastic containers need to be soaked only for a few minutes. It is important also that the top of the potting bench and all tools, such as trowels, sifters, and wood blocks, be rinsed periodically in a bleach solution or similar sterilant and then kept off the ground to avoid contamination.

Seed Sowing

Good seed germination depends largely on proper preparation of the seedbed, depth to which seeds are covered, maintenance of uniform moisture and appropriate temperatures, and, of course, viable seeds. To prepare the seedbed, a container with drainage holes is filled to slightly overflowing with a well-mixed moist medium. The medium is then leveled to the top of the container or about 1/3rd inch below the lip, firmed lightly and uniformly with a flat-surfaced board or large-surfaced object, and watered thoroughly. After watering, the surface of the medium should still be level.

The seeds should be sown in rows about 1.5 inches apart or broadcast evenly on the surface. The sown seeds should then be covered. Milled sphagnum moss (sphagnum moss put through a .25 inch mesh sieve) is very good for this purpose as its slight acidity helps to discourage damping off. Washed sand or seedbed mix may also be used as a seed cover. After the seeds have been sown and covered, the container should be lightly sprinkled again with a fine spray of water and placed in a sheltered location out of direct sunlight. A beneficial microbial inoculant can be used for these waterings and also for the initial moistening. The depth of sowing or thickness of the seed covering is especially important as seeds sown too deeply will not produce seedlings. Such seeds may start to germinate, but the developing shoots will die before reaching the light at the surface of the seedbed. A general rule is to cover a seed to a depth equal to one to two times its smallest diameter.

Very fine seeds, such as those of alum root (Heuchera), bush-anemone (Carpenteria), or monkeyflower (Mimulus and Diplacus), should be covered just slightly with milled sphagnum moss or watered-in without a covering. It is desirable to label each seeded container with the name of the species and the date sown.

For protection against rodents, snails, birds, and drying out, the container should then be enclosed in a polyethylene bag or covered with a piece of polyethylene film, with a single sheet of newspaper on top to prevent heat build-up. During the germination period, the surface of the medium must be kept moist. As the seeds start to germinate, the newspaper and plastic should be removed; better results may be obtained by leaving very small seedlings completely enclosed in plastic until germination is complete. However, the plastic should not touch the seed leaves. If the weather is unusually hot and dry, it is best to acclimatize very small seedlings gradually by poking a few holes in the plastic each day or two and then removing the plastic entirely. A glass cover can be used instead of plastic. Germination for most species takes one to four weeks.

Transplanting

Seedlings should be spotted-off or transplanted into flats, trays, or small pots (liners) as soon as they are large enough to handle. Species with large seed leaves, such as sugar bush ( Rhus ovata), should be spotted-off to liners at the two-leaf stage, but those with very small seed leaves, such as monkeyflower ( Mimulus and Diplacus species), should not be transplanted until the six- or eight-leaf stage. Since seedlings are bare-rooted in spotting off, care must be taken to protect the tender roots from drying out and from excessive breakage; also when handling, care must be taken not to crush the fragile stems. Young plants in seed flats are sometimes spaced very close together and can be difficult to separate. To facilitate separation, a small group of seedlings may be lifted out with a putty knife or a fork and dropped to the potting bench from a height of three to four inches. Seedlings should be planted at the same depth that they were in the seed flat, or slightly lower. The medium can be the same as that used for germination and must always be moist when used. Again, a soil medium should be pasteurized with heat or moistened with a microbial inoculant.

The young seedlings should be transplanted a second time when their roots begin to fill the soil mass in the container. Annuals should be moved directly into the open ground at this time. Herbaceous perennial seedlings may be planted out also, but receive less setback and have a better chance if they are transplanted to four-inch pots first and later moved to the open ground. Shrub and tree seedlings should be spotted-off from the seedbed to three inch pots, then to one-gallon cans, and finally to the garden. It may be more appropriate for trees to be moved from one-gallon to five-gallon containers and then to the garden. The five-gallon stage normally takes one or two growing seasons.

Seeds of tap-rooted tree species should be individually sown in deep containers such as quart milk cartons. If the bottom of the container is removed and the container set on hardware cloth covered with one thickness of newspaper or a screen and placed three to six inches above the ground, the tap roots will prune themselves, because the root tips will die when they reach dry air. Seedlings can be root pruned manually by snipping no more than 1/16th - 1/8th inch off the tip of the root; the thumb nail does a fine job. Another method of handling the seeds of tap-rooted species, particularly those of oaks, is to place the seeds in a polyethylene bag containing moist peat moss. Kept at room temperature, the primary roots will soon become visible. When a seed has a visible root, it should be removed from the bag, root-pruned as noted above, and planted. Again, the recommended planting sequence is from a quart milk carton or a one-gallon can to the field, or from a quart milk carton to a five-gallon can and to the field. Four by 14-inch plastic pots (2.5-inch diameter bottom hole) set on hardware cloth are excellent for propagation of tap-rooted species.

The seeds can be sown directly; the seedlings can be grown for a season and then planted out without any transplanting at all. This size container is much more appropriate than a one-gallon can for tap-rooted tree species. Slightly shorter containers would be necessary if plants in five-gallon containers are required. Regardless of how the tap-rooted species are handled, it is imperative to transplant their seedlings before the roots circle the container, particularly at the liner stage (3" pot). Generally speaking, pot-bound trees and shrubs become culls instead of beautiful mature specimen plants.

Although the same medium used for the seed flats and liners can be used for one-gallon or larger containers, a coarser mix is also satisfactory. A light, well-drained, pasteurized, or microbial-inoculated mix of sandy loam and peat moss or wood shavings serves quite well. If the soil is too coarse, it should be sifted through a ½ inch mesh screen. Care should be taken not to overwater newly potted or canned plants. In regions away from the immediate coast, some protection from full summer sun is needed for container plants. This protection can be critical during occasional heat waves when root systems of container-grown plants can become overheated, killing the plants. Thirty percent shade saran is adequate.

Most native plants respond well to light applications of commercial fertilizer and will require some fertilization while in containers.

Field Sowing of Annual Wildflowers

Although seeds of California wildflowers can be started in flats like those for bedding plants, better results are usually obtained by sowing them directly on the open ground, or with very small-seeded types, several seeds to a three-inch peat or paper pot. The seedlings, when large enough, can be thinned and later planted out in the garden with practically no root disturbance. For field sowing, the moistened soil should be cultivated and leveled, the seeds broadcast, and the area kept moist throughout the germination period. In the case of large-seeded species such as sea-dahlia (Coreopsis maritima) and some lupines (Lupinus), the seeds should be raked in lightly after sowing and before watering. If a mixture of large and small seeds is used, the large seeds should be separated out, sown and lightly raked in, then the small seeds broadcast on top. Following this procedure, the seeds can be sown as late as early December with good results.

For large areas where no seedbed preparation is made, the seeds should be broadcast just before the first rains in the fall. This enables the wildflower seeds to germinate with and to compete with any annual vegetation. A few of the tougher annuals like California poppy (Eschscholzia califomica), tidy tips (Layia platyglossa), and Clarkia may give good results when sown under these conditions; however, wildflower seed germination is always better in a well-prepared seedbed.

6. Recommended Seed Treatments for Some Native California Plants

The (seed treatments integrated into the CNPS Calscape plant pages) is a compilation of the original publication published in 1964 plus information from records of subsequent propagation at the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and also additional data from other sources.

It should be emphasized that the suggested seed treatments are not necessarily the only ones that will prove satisfactory. For problem species (those whose seeds are difficult to germinate), there may be more than one treatment listed. For example, if you refer to Ceanothus cuneatus (buck brush) in the table, two treatments are listed. "Hot water and three months stratification" results in significantly better germination than the chemical treatment but leaves the seeds in an unusable condition if they are to be sown with mechanical equipment. After stratification, the seeds are rather soft and moist, some radicals may be showing, and the seeds should not be dried out before sowing. With the chemical treatment, no germination will have started; the seeds can be dried out before sowing, need not be sown immediately, and can be sown with mechanical equipment. The chemical treatment also has the advantage of being quicker, even though a lower percentage of germination usually results.

Stratification, as used in these recommendations, refers to cold stratification unless stated otherwise; diurnal fluctuation refers to temperature. Scarification, if practical, can be substituted for the hot water treatment. The seeds of the majority of the native species germinate promptly without pretreatment. Since this is true of most annuals, only those annuals known to require special treatment and for which a satisfactory treatment is known are included in this table. Dormancy is highly variable, sometimes even in seeds from the same plant harvested in the same year, hence an entry like that for incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens ) 1-2 months stratification; no treatment may give good germination." For more information on the variability aspect of seed dormancy, see Gutterman (1980-1981). Some seeds germinate without pretreatment if they are sown when fresh (as soon as ripe, or even when slightly green), but become dormant as they dry out; in such cases, stored seeds require treatment while fresh seeds do not. Some seeds of other species may normally have low viability.

Since seeds are living protoplasm and subject to many environmental variables, the seed treatments suggested here may not always give consistent results, particularly for different seed batches harvested from different localities. The recommendations will, however, serve as a guide for the plant propagator. If a particular problem species or perhaps even the genus is not listed here, for possible direction, see Atwater (1980). Plant nomenclature follows Munz and Keck (1973), and Munz (1974) with selected changes in Kartesz and Kartesz (1980).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CNPS thanks Santa Barbara Botanical Garden for generously allowing us to share this information. If you would like to purchase the full booklet, you can do so Here. Dara E.

# data[].attributes.body
Helping project developers organizations and practitioners match with funders and vice versa to implement large scale reforestation initiatives.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reforestation Initiatives, the Informed Way. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Reforestation Initiatives, the Informed Way. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Peru, coffee farmers are growing trees to protect the Amazon rainforest. Photo by One Tree Planted and AIDER.

Everyone is talking about trees. In January, the World Economic Forum founded the Trillion Trees initiative (1t.org), an effort to protect and grow enough trees to fight climate change and build healthy rural landscapes and economies. Around the same time, major private companies made their own pledges to grow hundreds of millions of trees.

This new momentum came after a disastrous year for the world's trees. In 2019, the world lost 11.9 million hectares of tree cover in the tropics, the rough equivalent of 4 billion trees - an area the size of Honduras or the state of Pennsylvania.

The Trillion Trees initiative joins the existing, locally-led movement to restore degraded landscapes. Projects led by governments, NGOs and farmers have transformed large swaths of land in countries from Niger (where farmers have regreened 5 million hectares to little public recognition) to the United States (where the Forest Service has restored tens of millions of hectares of public land).

At the same time, funders have trouble finding trusted partners who can grow trees responsibly and on a large scale. Investors often don't have accurate information about the local markets where tree growers operate. And when they do connect with growers, funders' lack of on-the-ground experience can lead them to impose uninformed restrictions on projects and to push for an unsustainably low price per tree.

Poor Planning Leads to Failed Tree Planting

That's partially why some high-profile tree-planting campaigns, which were poorly thought out and ignored the concerns of local people and experts, have failed spectacularly. Last year in Turkey, a government campaign planted 11 million saplings in one day, only to have 90% quickly die after no one invested in their care.

This kind of failure is not new. In Kenya in the 1970s, the mesquite tree was introduced to combat desertification, provide firewood and feed livestock. Kenya's environment was too favorable, and the mesquite grew so aggressively that it out-competed native plants and devastated grazing land, harming the farmers and herders it was meant to help.

These failures are real, but they distract from the reasons why people grow trees, which bring tangible benefits to people near and far.

A Global Movement of Landscape Restoration Experts

Youth groups are growing trees in Kenya's Makueni County to protect and restore the landscape. Photo by Peter Irungu/WRI

Trees and other nature-based solutions help communities adapt to climate change and can provide up to 37% of the annual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed by 2030. Trees and forests stop erosion in its tracks, regulate water supplies, keep the soil fertile and boost crop yields. And for every $1 invested in tree restoration, people can earn up to $30 in direct benefits. Trees are key economic assets for people who build their livelihoods on the timber, fruit and other products that they provide.

That's why businesses, NGOs and government agencies, especially in emerging economies, are looking for funding to invest in growing trees. In Africa, Malawi has developed a Youth Forest Restoration Programme which creates a path toward rural development and jobs. In Latin America, El Salvador spearheaded a UN resolution to declare 2021-2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and designed a first-of-its-kind sustainability index for restoration.

Many of these leaders have decades of experience and in-depth local knowledge. They grow trees the right way. They start with engaging local people, choose the right trees for the right places, build collaborative strategies that restore entire landscapes and economies, and nurture trees and measure progress. But these tree growers have no centralized place to contact and educate funders or build lasting partnerships to scale up their work.

Matching Investors to People Successfully Growing Trees

AIDER helps cocoa farmers in Peru grow trees on their farms, boosting their yields and protecting forests. Photo by Natasha Ferrari/WRI

That's where TerraMatch comes in. Backed by years of WRI research, TerraMatch is an online platform and mobile app that combines new excitement from the private sector with expertise from the global movement to restore degraded and deforested land.

Project developers around the world post detailed project plans, vetted by WRI, onto the TerraMatch platform. Each project pitch includes the species of trees involved, the historical survival rate of the project's trees and the tree-grower's method of restoration. Project developers explain the true costs of not just planting a tree, but growing it - including preparing the site, maintaining trees for years after planting and measuring progress over time.

Funders post offers of their own, explaining what kinds of projects they hope to fund and how much money they can offer. Then, both parties search using TerraMatch's algorithm and match.

Projects Realizing a Trillion Trees

With the TerraMatch approach, WRI has since 2018 moved more than $2 million from funders to project developers in nine countries. That includes AIDER, an NGO in Peru that has protected and restored more than 1.1 million hectares of forest in the Amazon. AIDER was looking for funding to expand its program to protect the biodiverse Tambopata National Reserve with a ring of sustainable and productive farms full of trees. Over three years, funder One Tree Planted has helped AIDER start growing more than 300,000 trees, transforming the lives of papaya and cocoa farmers while fighting climate change.

In Rwanda, grassroots organization ARCOS - a network of women-led cooperatives - received funding in 2018 to grow more than 40,000 trees to boost farmers' crop yields and build food security. They are now scaling up their work to protect the threatened Gishwati Forest.

And since 2019, funding for over 25,000 trees grown by Ghana's Environmental Protection Agency has begun to revitalize the Tongo Hills to fight erosion and protect water sources. Through its Youth in Agriculture and Afforestation Program, Ghana can turn future funding into sustainable economic opportunities for the country's young people.

Scaling Up the Tree and Landscape Restoration Economy

Governments, companies and communities have worked for a decade through the Bonn Challenge, and regional alliances AFR100 in Africa and Initiative 20x20 in Latin America and the Caribbean. Through this global movement to restore land, thousands of people are growing trees that will last. But they need funding to continue their work.

To support those goals, the Trillion Trees initiative has made an impressive commitment to restore land by growing trees. To avoid repeating past failures, and to build on existing successful projects, investors need to partner with local experts and ensure that these trees grow for decades. TerraMatch is one way that corporate leaders can create long-term partnerships and sustainably support entrepreneurs who are building the global landscape restoration economy.
We are calling on all tree-growers and funders to join TerraMatch and begin connecting. To get involved, head over to TerraMatch.org to apply for an account or to our public project page to get into the details. TerraMatch is available in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Connecting the People Growing a Trillion Trees the Right Way

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Everyone is talking about trees. In January, the World Economic Forum founded the Trillion Trees initiative (1t.org), an effort to protect and grow enough trees to fight climate change and build healthy rural landscapes and economies. Around the same time, major private companies made their own pledges to grow hundreds of millions of trees.

# data[].attributes.headline
Effective role of indigenous microorganisms for sustainable environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Effective role of indigenous microorganisms for sustainable environment

# data[].attributes.body
Indigenous microorganisms (IMOs) are a group of innate microbial consortium that inhabits the soil and the surfaces of all living things inside and outside which have the potentiality in biodegradation, bioremediation, bioleaching, biocomposting, nitrogen fixation, improving soil fertility.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Environmental protection has the foremost importance in the present day life of mankind. Scientists have been researching for technologies naturally available for enhancement of agriculture, management of agricultural waste, etc. Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO's)-based technology is one such great technology which is applied in the eastern part of world for the extraction of minerals, enhancement of agriculture and waste management. Indigenous microorganisms are a group of innate microbial consortium that inhabits the soil and the surfaces of all living things inside and outside which have the potentiality in biodegradation, bioleaching, biocomposting, nitrogen fixation, improving soil fertility and as well in the production of plant growth hormones. Without these microbes, the life will be wretched and melancholic on this lively planet for the survival of human race. That is why, environmental restoration and safeguarding target via the indigenous microbes in a native manner to turn out the good-for-nothing and useless waste into productive bioresources is the primary concern of this review. Based on the collection sites, the process of collection and isolation methods are different as they may vary from place to place. Ultimately, in this way to a meaningful and significant extent, we can bridge the gap between the horrifying environmental distress and the hostile activities that have been constantly provoked by human kind-by getting these indigenous microorganisms into action.

Keywords: Indigenous microorganisms, Biodegradation, Bioleaching, Biocomposting, Natural farming, Biofertilizer, Bioremediation

Introduction

The uniqueness of microorganisms and their often unpredictable nature and biosynthetic capabilities, given a specific set of environmental and cultural conditions, have made them likely candidates for solving particularly difficult problems in life sciences and other fields as well. The responsible use of indigenous microorganisms to get economic, social and environmental benefits is inherently attractive and determines a spectacular evolution of research from traditional technologies to modern techniques to provide an efficient way to protect environment and new methods of environmental monitoring (Cai et al. 2013). Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other agricultural inputs derived from fossil fuels have increased agricultural production, yet the growing awareness and concern over their adverse effects on soil productivity and environmental quality cannot be ignored. The high cost of these products, the difficulties of meeting demand for them, and their harmful environmental legacy have encouraged scientists to develop alternative strategies to raise productivity, with microbes playing a central role in these efforts (Vaxevanidou et al. 2015). One application is the use of soil microbes as bioinoculants for supplying nutrients and/or stimulating plant growth. Some rhizospheric microbes are known to synthesize plant growth promoters, siderophores and antibiotics, as well as aiding phosphorous uptake. The last 50 years have seen quick steps made in our appreciation of the diversity of environmental microbes and their possible benefits to sustainable agriculture and production. The advent of powerful new methodologies in microbial genetics, molecular biology and biotechnology has only quickened the pace of developments (Patil et al. 2014).

The dynamic part played by microbes in sustaining our planet's ecosystems only adds urgency to this enquiry. Culture-dependent microbes already contribute much to human life, yet the latent potential of vast numbers of uncultured-and thus untouched-microbes, is enormous (Patil et al. 2014). Culture-independent metagenomic approaches employed in a variety of natural habitats have alerted us to the sheer diversity of these microbes and resulted in the characterization of novel genes and gene products. Several new antibiotics and biocatalysts have been discovered among environmental genomes and some products have already been commercialized. Meanwhile, dozens of industrial products currently formulated in large quantities from petrochemicals, such as ethanol, butanol, organic acids and amino acids, are equally obtainable through microbial fermentation (Dong et al. 2011). This review illustrates recent progresses in our understanding of the role of indigenous microbes in sustainable environment (Fig. ).

Biodegradation of hydrocarbons

Role of indigenous microorganisms in remediation of contaminated soils

Degradation of organic compound by indigenous microbes without any artificial enhancement is termed as an "intrinsic bioremediation" and this is one of the best remedial actions for soil contamination. Generally, biodegradation means mineralisation of organic constituents to the soluble inorganic compounds or to transform organic constituents to other soluble organic compounds. In the process of biodegradation of an organic compound, a wide variety of microbial enzymes are involved in transforming both artificial and natural hydrocarbons into intermediate compounds which may be less or equally hazardous than the parental compounds. As biodegradation is a step-wise process, the intermediate compounds are converted into carbon dioxide, water and inorganic compounds which can be readily soluble. Under aerobic conditions, many organic compounds are completely oxidised into soluble inorganic compounds and oxygen acts as a terminal electron acceptor, whereas in anaerobic metabolism the organic compounds are incompletely oxidised into simple organic acids, methane and hydrogen gas as the by-products. Unlike in aerobic metabolism, nitrate, sulphate and bicarbonate act as the terminal acceptors, and the rate of degradation is usually limited by the inherent reaction rate of the active microorganisms.

At a given site, many factors affect the rate of biodegradation process, which are soil moisture, soil pH, availability of oxygen, availability of nutrients, contaminant concentration, and presence of suitable microbes. At higher rates, many hydrocarbons are readily degradable through aerobic metabolism, and only few hydrocarbons are biodegradable through anaerobic metabolism at lower rates. Indigenous microorganisms are inhabited by aquatic as well as oil-bearing deep sub-surface environments (Magot et al. 2000). Oxygen is the key factor that plays a crucial role in the biodegradative process. In relation to this, Aitken et al. ( 2004, 2008) reported that anaerobic degradation, particularly in methanogenesis, might be the main crude oil biodegradation process in reservoirs. The investigations held by Cai et al. ( 2013) showed that aerobic indigenous microorganisms also play a role in degrading the petroleum oils. In order to test the efficacy of oxygen/(aerobic microbes) using GC-MS analysis under water flooding wells of Dagang oil fields (oil reservoirs), the reporters initiated the study by partially activating the microbiota via flooding the water channels into oil reservoirs and observed that 99.0 % of n-alkanes and 43.03-99.9 % of Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were degraded besides the change in biomarkers to their corresponding ratios, whereas the aerobic culture lasted for 90 days. The metabolite compounds like naphthenic acid, unsaturated fatty acids, aromatic carboxylic acid, alcohols, aldehydes and ketones were separated and identified from aerobic culture. The pathways of alkanes and aromatics were proposed suggests that oxidation of hydrocarbon to organic acid is an important process in the aerobic biodegradation of petroleum.

Indigenous microorganisms as a biofertilizer

Indigenous microorganisms do not contain a single culture of beneficial microorganisms but a mixture of different beneficial microorganisms; it is a village of good bacteria that are living together in harmony with the rest of nature. The term "indigenous microorganisms" refers to a group of beneficial microbes that are native to the area, thus the name indigenous (locally existing, or not imported); EMs or effective microorganisms on the other hand is a laboratory-cultured mixture of microorganisms. The main difference that divides these two ideas is that IMOs are naturally made, while EMs are man-made, but these two are very much the same with one another in all aspects. IMO-based Technology was actually developed and introduced by Dr. ChouHankyu in 1960s. He employed this technology in natural farms and observed amazing improvements in soil structure and plant health, as the soil upon IMO application regains its loaminess, tilth, structure and even the natural farmer friends, the earthworms, come into droves. Natural farming with IMO Technology is a distinctive approach in organic farming and it has been practised in more than 30 countries in their home gardens and also on a commercial scale. This technology was ritually followed by farmers of Korea, Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Congo, Tanzania, Vietnam, Philippines, and Mongolia. Mr. Chou formulated and fine-tuned these practices and trained over 18,000 people at the Janong Natural Farming institute, south Korea. Later, the other scientist Dr. Hoonpark when in South Korea doing missionary work noticed the commercial piggeries and poultry farms with virtually no stinking smell up on IMO's usage. This made him to bring IMO Technology to Hawaii. Dr. ChouHankyu has designed and introduced a new eco-friendly farming technology called Indigenous Microorganism technology which is beneficial to the farmers to develop sustainable agriculture and crop production (Cho and Koyama 1997). He developed this technology by the number of experiments conducted in his field studies. Finally, he concludes that natural farming is more advantageous over chemical farming. The techniques and methods employed by Chou are simple, practical, reliable, and economical.

Indigenous microorganisms are a group of innate microbial consortium that inhabits the soil and the surfaces of all living things inside and out which have the potentiality in biodegradation, nitrogen fixation, improving soil fertility, phosphate solubilisers and plant growth promoters (Umi Kalsom and Sariah 2006). Without these microbes, the life will be wretched and melancholic on this lively planet for the survival of human race. That is why, environmental restoration and safeguarding target via the indigenous microbes in a native manner to turn out the good for nothing and useless waste into productive bioresources is the primary concern of this review.

Indigenous microorganisms play an important role by protecting the normal host from invasion by microorganisms with a greater potential for causing disease. They compete with the pathogens for essential nutrients and for receptors on host cells by producing bacteriocins and other inhibitory substances, making the environment inimical to colonization by pathogens. They are the important component of world biodiversity (Sadi et al. 2006). These microorganisms increase the availability of nutrients to host plants (Vessey 2003) and increase the water-holding capacity, making the plants to have sufficient (or) enough water all the time. It improves the aeration to the plant roots such that exchange of gases takes place effectively and prevents soil erosion. Based on the collection sites, the process of collection and isolation methods are different as they may vary from place to place. Many environmental factors affect the rate of biodegradation potential and this involves both physical and chemical factors such as temperature, pH, organic matter, oxygen availability, availability of nutrients and so on. Indigenous microorganisms in each stage of composting were isolated and screened for the abilities to solubilise phosphate and produce indole-3-acetic acid (IAA). The potential microorganisms were selected for development of biofertilizer. The modified "Natural Farming" composting method is a simple, cheap, and fast method used to produce EFB compost that contains beneficial microorganisms with the potential to be developed into biofertilizer. Phua et al. ( 2011) particularly studied on the isolated indigenous microorganisms which may enhance plant growth through N2 fixation using the 15 N isotopic tracer technique, solubilise insoluble inorganic phosphate compounds or hydrolyse organic phosphate to inorganic P or stimulate plant growth through hormonal actions such as IAA production. Combination of microbial strains could be a good multifunctional biofertilizer for sustainable agriculture. The result derived from the IAA test showed that two isolates were IAA producers and six isolates produced clear zones on phosphate agar plates indicating phosphate-solubilising activity. Agro-waste management and enhancement of biodiversity are the approaches towards sustainability (Shukor 2009; Ong 2009).

Han et al. ( 2006) also showed that the combined treatment of Bacillus megaterium var. phosphaticum and B. mucilaginosus increased the availability of phosphorus and potassium in soil, and thus increasing the uptake and plant growth of pepper and cucumber. Sarma et al. ( 2009) reported that a combination of bioinocculents, namely, two Fluorescent pseudomonas strains, increased Vigna mungo yield by 300 % in comparison to the control crop. These results indicated that a combination of beneficial microorganisms might increase the nutritional assimilation of plant and total nitrogen in soil.

IMOs create the optimum and favourable environment to improve and maintain soil flora and soil fauna as well as the other microorganisms which in turn support the quality life of higher plants and animals including the human. Soil particles are lumped in aggregates and fostered to provide air and water retention, which in turn creates a good habitat for other symbiotic microbes. The IMOs are eco-friendly, environmentally safe and healthy with potential to create hunger-free environment. Better quality crops and livestock are assured due to the absence of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides as inputs.

Bioleaching of heavy metals by indigenous microorganisms

For decades, concerned companies and local authorities have demonstrated interest in managing water from metallurgical and mining areas. After processing of mineral ores in metallurgical industries, the residual metals in effluent water would cause a substantial loss in revenue for metallurgical companies. Secondly, in view of environmental safety, these metals are potential pollutants of the water system. According to the South African National Standard (2005), an excess of calcium and iron in water could cause aesthetic or operational problems, while excess of magnesium in water could cause aesthetic and health problems. The process of removal of metals from the solutions through the physico-chemical techniques is called chemical leaching and if this process occurs through microorganisms, it is called bioleaching which can be done by indigenous, exogenous and genetically manipulated microorganisms. Compared to costly physico-chemical techniques, the biological techniques are found to be cheap and eco-friendly (Kefala et al. 1999; Cohen 2006; Alluri et al. 2007). Generally, metal removal efficiency greatly depends on the affinity between the metal and the microbial cell wall, and this can be achieved using indigenous microorganism isolated around mine areas.

Attempts are made at laboratory scale to remediate the high concentration of calcium, iron and magnesium in surface waters from metallurgical areas, using indigenous strains of Shewanella sp, Bacillus subtilis sp and Brevundimonas sp, which revealed variable abilities of these microorganisms in the removal process. Living and non-living biomass of all these strains will be tested for their effectiveness to clean out Ca, Mg and Fe predominant in surface water around mining areas in Nigel.

The inherent abilities of microorganisms are suitable for the removal of metals from solutions (Beveridge and Murray 1976; Langley and Beveridge 1999; Nies 1999). These abilities have been identified as passive or active for accumulation and biosorption, respectively, (Brandl and Faramarzi 2006). Indigenous strains are more suitable to overcome the challenges such as high concentration of metals, acidic conditions as they had adapted to conditions in situ. Bacillus strains have been widely used in the removal of metals (Pb, Cd, Cu, Ni, Co, Mn, Cr, Zn) from wastewaters (Philip and Venkobachar 2001; Srinath et al. 2003; Kim et al. 2007).

Metal removal

Metals are removed from the solutions through passive biosorption and active bioaccumulation. In biosorption, an anionic group (amino acids, hydroxyl, phosphate, etc.) on the bacterial cell membrane binds to the positively charged metal in solution where no energy is required during this process. Whereas in bioaccumulation, the metal is sequestered through the bacterial membrane into the cytoplasm of the cell; during this process, microorganisms use energy (ATP hydrolysis) to catalyse the reaction.

Bioleaching of heavy metals from sewage sludge using indigenous iron-oxidising microorganisms

Due to rapid population increase in the world, generation of potentially contaminated heavy metals is expected to be more in the sewage sludge than in the metropolitan cities. Prior to land application, traditional chemical methods such as EDTA extraction and acid treatment have been suggested for solubilisation of heavy metals from the sludge, but EDTA showed low removal efficiencies for Fe, Ni and Cr(Jenkins et al. 1981). The high cost and large consumption of chemical agents have made chemical methods unattractive. To overcome these problems, heavy metals in sewage sludge are removed through bioleaching process, the recently emerged strategy which is economical, easy operation, and non- hazardous to products (Babel and del Mundo Dacera 2006; Pathak et al. 2009). The experimental batch system studies by Xiang et al. ( 2000) showed that the isolated indigenous iron-oxidising bacteria have more ability in reducing the heavy metals from anaerobically digested sewage sludge from the Yuen Long wastewater treatment plant, HongKong. In this study, to maintain low pH and to accelerate the solubilisation of Cr, Cu, Zn, Ni and Pb, FeSo ₄ is added along with the isolated indigenous microorganisms. After 16 days of bioleaching, more than 80 % of Cu, Zn, Ni and Cd are removed as compared with that of the control. Similarly, Wen et al. ( 2013) studies on leaching kinetics show that solubilisation of heavy metals or removal efficiency is more by the indigenous iron-oxidising bacteria than without using indigenous microorganisms in the control ones which were collected from the Fuzhou Jingshan sewage water plant. In this study, after isolation of bacteria from the sludge, they were enriched by Wen et al. ( 2013) medium for three generations before the use of inoculum for bioleaching experiment (Ren et al. 2009). Solid concentration, pH, inoculum concentration, and FeSo ₄ effectively influence the bioleaching of metals. Effectiveness depends upon the metal species because of their different bindings in sludge; removal of Zn from the sludge was dominated by chemical leaching, while the removal of Cu, Pb and Cr was dominated by bioleaching (Wen et al. 2013).

The two species Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans have a great significance in bioleaching process (Tyagi et al. 1993; Chan et al. 2003). Here iron-based bioleaching is considered to be superior to sulphur-based bioleaching due to sludge acidification and heavy metal solubilisation in sulphur-based bioleaching (Wong and Gu 2008). To leach successfully, ammonium ferrous sulphate and ferrous sulphate are used to enrich the indigenous iron-oxidising microorganisms in sludge with a neutral pH (Pathak et al. 2009). Metal removal from dewatered metal plating sludge using A. ferrooxidans indicates that pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), sulphate production, pulp density and agitation time were all important parameters in bioleaching (Bayat and Sari 2010).

Bioremediation of oil spills

Oil spills are treated as a widespread problem that poses a great threat to any ecosystem. Bioremediation has emerged as the best strategy for combating oil spills and can be enhanced by the following two complementary approaches: bioaugmentation and biostimulation. In bio augmentation, the addition of oil-degrading bacteria boosts biodegradation rates, whereas in biostimulation, the growth of indigenous hydrocarbon degraders is stimulated by the addition of nutrients (mainly N and P) or other growth-limiting nutrients (Nikolopoulou and Kalogerakis 2010). Crude oil is composed of a wide range of different compounds, which makes it difficult for the indigenous population to cope with this broad variety of substrates, and hence oil-degrading microorganisms could be added to supplement the indigenous population (Leahy and Colwell 1990). There is increasing evidence that the best approach for overcoming these barriers is the use of microorganisms from the polluted area. A new concept in bioaugmentation, known as "autochthonous bioaugmentation" (ABA), has been proposed by Ueno et al. (Ueno et al. 2007) and is defined as a bioaugmentation technology that exclusively uses microorganisms indigenous to the sites (soil, sand, and water) slated for decontamination. The success of oil spill bioremediation depends on the establishment and maintenance of physical, chemical and biological conditions that favour enhanced oil biodegradation rates in the marine environment. Through Biostimulation, the growth of indigenous oil degraders is stimulated by the addition of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) or other growth-limiting co-substrates and/or by alterations in environmental conditions (e.g., surf-washing, oxygen addition by plant growth, etc.). The document issued by the Natural Biodegradation as a Remedial Action Option Interim Guidance (1994) illustrated the capabilities of an acclimated indigenous microbial consortium sampled from a pristine environment in the presence or absence of other rate-limiting factors (i.e., nutrients and biosurfactants) (biostimulation) as a potential strategy for the successful remediation of polluted marine environments ( http://www.dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/rr/rr515.pdf). Effectiveness of autochthonous bioaugmentation together with biostimulation versus biostimulation- only strategies for the successful remediation of polluted marine environments.

Many reports show that ozonation is effective in removing contaminants such as polyhydrocarbons in diesel-contaminated soils. (Hus and Masten 1997; Lim et al. 2002; Stehr et al. 2001; Sung and Huang 2002). As ozone has strong oxidising activity, it reacts with organic compounds to form oxidised products which are more or water soluble and bioavailable than parental compounds leading to a better biodegradation (Legube et al. 1981; Gilbert 1983). There are some reports given previously about the external introduction of microorganisms into ozonated soil (Nam and Kukor 2000; Stehr et al. 2001). But this external inoculation does not show promising result and caused a rapid decline of cell number and/or activity of inoculated cells (Van Veen et al. 1997). Therefore, employing already-acclimatised indigenous microorganisms could be an alternative to achieve successful remediation. Based on these ideas, (Ahn et al. 2005) developed the Pre-Ozonation and subsequent bioremediation technology for better degradation of polyhydrocarbons in the contaminated soils. Prolonged ozonation of diesel-contaminated soils for 0-900 min not only decreases the pH but also the viable indigenous bacterial concentrations. So, to increase the microbial number, the ozonated soils are incubated for 9 weeks and monitored by conventional culture-based methods (Plate count and Phenanthrene spray plate assay) and non-culture-based molecular methods (direct soil DNA extraction and catabolic gene probing). All taken together, this study is the first to monitor the potential of indigenous microorganisms to degrade pH in Ozonated soil.

Bioremediation of 2,4-D in soils using nanoparticles Fe₃O₄ and indigenous microbes

Fang et al. ( 2012) studied the degradation kinetics of 2,4-D in soils by Fe ₃O ₄ nanoparticles and indigenous microbes. In this study, the degradation efficiency of 2,4-D was investigated in three different treatments: indigenous microbes, Fe ₃O ₄ nanoparticles, or combined use of Fe ₃O ₄ nanoparticles and indigenous microbes. The results indicated that the combined use of Fe ₃O ₄ nanoparticles and indigenous microbes led to greater mineralisation of 2,4-D to its degradation products, 2,4-DCP,chlorophenol (2-CP, 4-CP) and phenol, than the treatments with Fe ₃O ₄ nanoparticles or indigenous microbes alone, and is more advantageous in remediation of soil contaminated with herbicides.

Arsenic mitigation

Arsenic (As) is a notorious toxic metalloid which is of geogenic and anthropogenic origin. It is prevalent in many regions of the world (Mandal and Suzuki 2002; Tripathi et al. 2007). Generally, inorganic arsenic species are believed to be more toxic than organic forms to living organisms, including humans and other animals (Goessler 2002; Meharg and Hartley‐Whitaker 2002). Microbes developed various intrinsic As tolerance mechanism to sustain in the adverse environmental conditions. Metal-resistant bacteria often have genes located on plasmids. Genetic system named ars operon is the main functional unit for As resistance (Mukhopadhyay and Rosen 2002). The toxicity of different arsenic species was often reported to vary in an order of arsenite > arsenate > mono-methylarsonate (MMA) > dimethylarsinate (DMA) (Penrose and Woolson 1974; Sturgeon et al. 1989).

Bioremediation of As by microorganisms has been widely hailed because of its cost-effective process and eco-friendly in nature (Valls and Lorenzo 2002). Conversion of metalloids to their volatile derivatives by organisms is a well-known phenomenon in nature (Challenger 1945). During arsenic volatilization, some species of fungi and bacteria methylate inorganic As species to relatively less-toxic volatile methylarsenicals (Rodriguez et al. 1999; Cernansky et al. 2009).

The investigations by Majumder et al. ( 2013) shows that the indigenous bacterial isolates AMT-08 and AGH-09 showed higher As volatilizing capacity under aerobic conditions; ADP-18 volatilized maximum As under anaerobic conditions, while AMT-04 performed well in both conditions. The bacterial strains isolated from arsenic-contaminated soils have shown much higher resistance to As volatalization than those isolated from soil, gold mines, and geothermal effluents in the related researches throughout world (Saltikov and Olson 2002; Simeonova et al. 2004). AMT-08 has been found most successful in managing the removal of the metalloid from soil throughout the entire incubation period; it removes 10 % (in 30 days) and 16 % (in 60 days) As when supplemented with farm yard manure. The strain AMT-08 has an increased As volatilizing ability with exogenous nutrients (farm yard manure) and successful exploitation of these hyper-tolerant isolates may deliver an eco-friendly tool for As mitigation within manageable expenditure as compared to the genetically engineered ones.

The bacterial strains under the present investigation were isolated from anaerobic soil environment (submerged paddy soil) which is predominated by AsIII over AsV and hence showed much higher tolerance to AsIII as compared to findings from related research established as a model microorganism for bioremediation of arsenic and one of the most arsenic-resistant microorganisms (400 mM for AsV and 60 mM for AsIII) described to date (Mateos et al. 2010).

Role of indigenous microorganisms in natural farming

Natural farming is the propagation of mycorrhizae, by adding specific inputs during the nutritive cycle of the plant. Mycorrhizae are "fungus roots" which act as an interface between plants and soil. They grow into the roots, increasing the root system many thousands of times over. They act symbiotically and convert the complex substrates to simpler ones. Miles of fungal filaments can be present in an ounce of healthy soil. Mycorrhizal inoculation of soil increases the accumulation of carbon by depositing glomalin, which in turn increases soil structure by binding organic matter to mineral particles in the soil. Natural farming with IMO is a distinctive approach to organic farming practised successfully in more than 30 countries, in home gardens and on a commercial scale. Amazing improvements have been seen in soil structure and plant health, as upon application of indigenous microorganisms in natural farming the soil regains its loaminess, tilth and structure, and the earthworms come in droves. Mr Cho formulated and fine-tuned these practices for 40 years and has trained over 18,000 people at the Janong Natural Farming Institute (janonglove.com), and the dedicated work of Dr. Hoon Park brought Natural Farming to Hawaii. Dr. Park was in South Korea doing missionary work and noticed commercial piggeries with virtually no smell that were using Natural Farming methods. Mr. Cho has spread Natural Farming worldwide and planted the trees in Gobi Desert, Mongolia but had failed three times earlier, under the harsh wind and with only few inches of rainfall a year. With Natural Farming methods, the trees had a 97 percent survival rate and are now 20 feet tall. Corn and barnyard grasses have been planted for livestock feed, and wells have been dug. Watermelon farming now provides a stable income to farmers there also. As he learned more about these practices, he realized that they could help eliminate hunger and poverty in extremely poor parts of the world.

Cultivation of indigenous microorganisms

IMO-1-Cultured in a simple wooden box of rice;

IMO-2-Mixed with brown sugar and stored in a crock;

IMO-3-Further propagated on rice bran or wheat mill run;

IMO-4-Mixed with clay soil/ant hill soil;

The result is then mixed with compost, added to potting soil, or spread on beds before planting. The entire process takes three to 4 weeks. Other inputs and sprays are made from fermented plant juices, made from the tips of growing plants mixed with brown sugar. There are also recipes for water-soluble calcium made from eggshells, fish amino acid made from fish waste, lactic acid bacteria and insect attractants made from rice wine. There is also water-soluble calcium phosphate made from animal bones which are used according to the nutritive/growth cycle of the plants. The fish amino acids are simply fresh fish waste, de-boned and packed into a container with brown sugar and fermented for a few months. The pigs' excrement is so odourless, clean and dry, that you literally do not even have to clean it out. The benefits of using the Natural Farming methods include the following:

The inputs are made from natural materials, which are not only safe for the environment, but actually invigorate and rehabilitate the ecology.

Biocomposting by indigenous microorganisms

Agro-industrial wastes have become a major problem in terms of disposal because most farmers dispose them through burning. This inexpensive method of crop residue disposal is practised in many parts of the world to clear the excess residue from land for faster crop rotation, control undesirable weeds, pests and diseases and to return some nutrient to the soil. Open burning emits a large amount of harmful air pollutants (particles and inorganic and organic gases), which have severe impact on human health, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Korenaga et al. 2001) and the danger of soil erosion due to repeated burning (Kahlon and Dass 1987). In addition, disposal in water bodies (for example, river or lake) may contribute to a decrease in water quality. Because of these concerns, there is a need to find efficient alternatives for agro-industrial waste management. Many alternatives for the disposal of these residues have been proposed, composting being one of the most attractive on account of its low environmental impact and cost (Bustamante et al. 2008; Canet et al. 2008; Lu et al. 2009) as well as its capacity for generating a valuable product used for increasing soil fertility (Weber et al. 2007) or as a growing medium in agriculture and horticulture (Perez‐Murcia et al. 2005). To manage Paddy husk and Corn Stalk residues through composting, a study was conducted by Hanim et al. ( 2012) to determine the physical and chemical properties of different composts and humic acid extracted from the final product. For this study, they took paddy husk, corn stalk and kitchen waste with different concentrations as the substrate (organic source) and to this they added the IMO compost in six different treatments i.e. T ₁ to T ₆.and the results showed that IMO compost from Corn stalk had better quality (chemical characteristics) compared to that of paddy husk.

Summary and conclusion

Currently, environmental sustainability is a contemporary issue that receives plenty of attention from the research scientists. This is a result of the amount of research going into assessing the impact that human activity can have on the environment. Although the long-term implications of this serious issue are not yet fully understood, it is generally agreed that the risk is high enough to merit an immediate response. As stated earlier, indigenous microorganisms-based technology is one such important technology and these organisms inhabit the soil with the abilities of biodegradation, bioleaching, biocomposting, nitrogen fixation, improving soil fertility and as well in the production of plant growth hormones. In addition, these are large group of naturally occurring and often unknown or ill-defined microorganisms that interact favourably in soils and with plants to render beneficial effects which are sometimes difficult to predict. Indigenous microorganisms usually denote specific mixed cultures of known, beneficial microorganisms that are being used effectively as microbial inoculants that could exist naturally in soil or added as microbial inoculants to soil where they can improve soil quality, enhance crop production and create a more sustainable agriculture and environment. IMOs coexist and are physiologically compatible and mutually complementary, and if the initial inoculum density is sufficiently high, there is a high probability that these microorganisms will become established in the soil and will be effective as an associative group, whereby such positive interactions would continue. If so, then it is also highly probable that they will exercise considerable control over the indigenous soil microflora in due course. Still lot of constructive research is required to make use of IMOs in sustainable environment.

Acknowledgments

Authors are very much thankful to Department of Virology, Sri Venkateswara University for providing necessary facilities to implement IMO research.

References

Beveridge TJ, Murray RG. Uptake and retention of metals by cell walls of [[Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol. 1976;127:1502-1518. PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

Cho HK, Koyama A (1997) Korean natural farming: indigenous microorganisms and vital power of crop/livestock. Korean Natural Farming

Goessler W, Kuehenelt D (2002) Analytical methods for the determination of arsenic and arsenic compounds in the environment. In: William T, Frankenberger Jr William (eds) CRC Press, pp 27-50

Kim SU, Cheong YH, Seo DC, Hur JS, Heo JS, Cho JS. Characterisation of heavy metal tolerance and biosorption capacity of bacterium strain CPB4 ([Bacillus spp.) Water SciTechnol J Int Asso Water Pollut Res. 2007;55:105-111. doi: 10.2166/wst.2007.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Langley S, Beveridge TJ. Effect of O-side-chain-lipopolysaccharide chemistry on metal binding. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65:489-498. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

Leahy JG, Colwell RR. Microbial degradation of hydrocarbons in the environment. Microbiol Rev. 1990;54:305-315. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

Mukhopadhyay R, Rosen BP. Arsenate reductases in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Environ Health Persp. 2002;110:745. doi: 10.1289/ehp.02110s5745. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Nikolopoulou M, Kalogerakis N. Biostimulation strategies for enhanced bioremediation of marine oil spills including chronic pollution. In: Timmis KN, editor. Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. pp. 2521-2529. [Google Scholar]

Ong HK (2009) Agro-waste management: Approaches towards sustainability. In: 2nd National Conference on Agro-environment 2009 Johor Bahru, Johor, pp 73-81

Patil SS, Adetutu EM, Rochow J, Mitchell JG, Ball AS. Sustainable remediation: electrochemically assisted microbial dechlorination of tetrachloroethene-contaminated groundwater. Microb Biotechnol. 2014;7(1):54-63. doi: 10.1111/1751-7915.12089. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Ren WX, Li PJ, Zheng L, Fan SX, Verhozina VA. Effects of dissolved low molecular weight organic acids on oxidation of ferrous iron by [Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans. J Hazard Mater. 2009;162:17-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.05.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Sadi T, Jeffey LSH, Rahim N, Rashdi AA, Nejis NA, Hassan R (2006) Bio prospecting and management of microorganisms. National conference on agro biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization, pp 129-130

Saltikov C, Olson B. Homology of [[Escherichia coli R773 arsA, arsB, and arsC genes in arsenic-resistant bacteria isolated from raw sewage and arsenic-enriched creek waters. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68:280-288. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.1.280-288.2002. PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Sarma MVRK, Saharan KPA, Bisaria VS, Sahai VS. Application of fluorescent pseudomonads inoculant formulations on [Vigna mungo through field trial. World Acad Sci Eng Technol. 2009;3(3):699-700. Google Scholar]

Shukor AAR (2009) Quality agro-environment: the key to productive and sustainable agriculture. In: 2nd National Conference on Agro-environment 2009, Johor Bahru, Johor. pp 3-8

Umi KMS, Sariah M (2006) Utilization of microbes for sustainable agriculture in Malaysia: current status. Bio prospecting and management of microorganisms. National Conference on Agro biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization, pp 27-29

Van Veen JA, van Overbeek LS, van Elsas JD. Fate and activity of microorganisms introduced into soil. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997;61:121-135. [[PMC free article] [PubMed] Google Scholar]

Wong JWC, Gu XY. Optimization of Fe[²⁺/solids content ratio for a novel sludge heavy metal bioleaching process. Water Sci Technol. 2008;57:445-450. doi: 10.2166/wst.2008.028. [PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effective role of indigenous microorganisms for sustainable environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmental protection has the foremost importance in the present day life of mankind. Scientists have been researching for technologies naturally available for enhancement of agriculture, management of agricultural waste, etc. Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO's)-based technology is one such great technology which is applied in the eastern part of world for the extraction of minerals, enhancement of agriculture and waste management.

# data[].attributes.body
Grants supporting coastal and marine sustainability initiatives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2014 we decided to take restorative ocean farming on the road. GreenWave was born, designed to train the next generation of ocean farmers; Thimble Island Ocean Farm now serves as GreenWave's Floating Classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
Seaweed is the fastest growing biomass in the world. Seaweed farming addresses many of the challenges we face today, without the use of land, fertilizer, or freshwater. It reduces ocean acidification, promotes marine biodiversity, and absorbs vast quantities of CO2.

Seaweed is also a highly valuable end product. It is a nutritious food source for both people and animals and can be used as an environmentally friendly alternative to petroleum-based fertilisers and plastics. It is a unique untapped resource, and the goal of the Seaweed Company is to unlock the potential of this wondrous resource to benefit people and planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Seaweed can play a significant role in creating this reality combining unique biological, technological, and financial expertise to implement regenerative CO2-reducing concepts, products, and applications all over the globe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Seaweed Company - Capturing the value of seaweed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seaweed can play a significant role in creating this reality combining unique biological, technological, and financial expertise to implement regenerative CO2-reducing concepts, products, and applications all over the globe.

# data[].attributes.body
Sequestering carbon, increasing nutrient upwelling, providing food and habitat for marine organisms and regenerating oceanic livelihoods for costal communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global warming has heated the ocean surface so much that the natural cycle known as 'upwelling' - where offshore winds circulate the seas and bring nutrient-rich cold waters from deep below -...

# data[].attributes.headline
UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY LAND RESTORATION TRAINING PROGRAMME (ICELAND)

# data[].attributes.subject
UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY LAND RESTORATION TRAINING PROGRAMME (ICELAND)

# data[].attributes.body
The United Nations University Land Restoration Training Programme (UNU-LRT) provides a postgraduate training for specialists from the developing countries in the broad field of restoration of degraded land and sustainable land management, and aims at assisting developing countries in capacity development within this field.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United Nations University Land Restoration Training Programme (UNU-LRT) provides a postgraduate training for specialists from the developing countries in the broad field of restoration of degraded land and sustainable land management, and aims at assisting developing countries in capacity development within this field.

The programme was founded in 2007 by the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA), in partnership with the Agricultural University of Iceland (AUI), and the Soil Conservation Service of Iceland (SCSI) as a part of the government's development co-operation efforts.

An agreement of cooperation between the United Nations University (UNU), the Government of Iceland, SCSI and AUI was signed by all parties in February 2010.

The main activity of the UNU-LRT programme is an annual six-month training programme in Iceland on land restoration and sustainable land management. The first 12 weeks of the training focus on course work (both introductory courses and specialized training), practical training and field trips. In the latter 12 weeks of the programme, each Fellow works on an individual project which provides specialization with reference to the academic and practical background and needs of the individual Fellow and their workplace.

The UNU-LRT programme is built on the knowledge and expertise gained within Iceland, which faced severe land degradation problems in the beginning of the 20th century. Nationally concerted efforts for over 100 years, aimed at halting soil erosion and restoring lost and degraded woodlands, has created much knowledge and experience which is of great relevance to a number of countries in all parts of the world.

The main activity of the UNU-LRT programme is an annual six-month training programme in Iceland on land restoration and sustainable land management. The first 12 weeks of the training programme focus on course work (both introductory courses and specialized training), practical training and field trips.

The courses focus on degradation and desertification, land restoration, and sustainable land management. Environmental governance is taught, which includes land management planning and personal skill development.

In the latter 12 weeks of the programme, each fellow works on an individual project which provides specialization with reference to the academic and practical background and needs of the individual fellow and their workplace.
See UNU-LRT website & photo credits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
United Nations University Land Restoration Training Programme (Iceland)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United Nations University Land Restoration Training Programme (UNU-LRT) provides a postgraduate training for specialists from the developing countries in the broad field of restoration of degraded land and sustainable land management, and aims at assisting developing countries in capacity development within this field.

# data[].attributes.body
A great resource for anyone using poplar or willow in riparian restoration and/or remediation of toxic sites.

# data[].attributes.body
The infographic above illustrates the importance of natural infrastructure in securing the lasting health of watersheds that supply clean water. A healthy natural infrastructure improves water security through the presence of trees with strong root systems that prevent erosion and a lush forest floor that helps absorb and filter water. Degraded lands lack those natural systems, and are more likely to be affected by flooding and fires, which lead to more pollution and runoff in our rivers, lakes and streams.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Idea Behind POTICO: Palm Oil In Indonesia

# data[].attributes.subject
The Idea Behind POTICO: Palm Oil In Indonesia

# data[].attributes.body
Palm oil is Indonesia’s top exported commodity and has become a key economic drivers for the country. However, it has also been often associated with the loss of Indonesia's valuable forests. WRI’s initiative on forests and landscapes in Indonesia (also known as Project POTICO) uses novel mapping techniques and community engagement to help shift palm oil development from forested to already-degraded lands. Forests, communities, and businesses can all benefit from this more efficient use of land and natural resources.

# data[].attributes.headline
Scaling Up Regreening to Restore Degraded Land: Six Steps to Success

# data[].attributes.subject
Scaling Up Regreening to Restore Degraded Land: Six Steps to Success

# data[].attributes.headline
AFR100: Africa Restoring 100 Million Hectares of Deforested and Degraded Land by 2030

# data[].attributes.subject
AFR100: Africa Restoring 100 Million Hectares of Deforested and Degraded Land by 2030

# data[].attributes.body
This infographic is based on data from The World Resources Institutes AFR100 (the African Restoration Initiative) project. AFR100 is a country-led effort to bring 100 million hectares of land in Africa into restoration by 2030. AFR100 seeks to realize the benefits that trees can provide in African landscapes, thereby contributing to improved soil fertility and food security, improved availability and quality of water resources, reduced desertification, increased biodiversity, creation of green jobs, economic growth, and increased capacity for climate change resilience, adaptation and mitigation. In Africa, restoration will also improve livelihoods for thousands of people.

# data[].attributes.body
WRI is a global research organization that spans more than 60 countries, with offices in the United States, China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and more. Our more than 1,000 experts and staff work closely with leaders to turn big ideas into action to sustain our natural resources—the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being. Our work focuses on seven critical issues at the intersection of environment and development: climate, energy, food, forests, water, cities and the ocean.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
World Resources Institute (WRI) is a global research organization that spans more than 60 countries, with international offices in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United States, regional offices in Ethiopia (for Africa) and the Netherlands (for Europe), and program offices in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Our more than 1,000 experts and staff turn big ideas into action at the nexus of environment, economic opportunity and human well-being.

Our Challenge

Natural resources are at the foundation of economic opportunity and human well-being. But today, we are depleting Earth's resources at rates that are not sustainable, endangering economies and people's lives. People depend on clean water, fertile land, healthy forests and a stable climate. Livable cities and clean energy are essential for a sustainable planet. We must address these urgent, global challenges this decade.

Our Vision

We envision an equitable and prosperous planet driven by the wise management of natural resources. We aspire to create a world where the actions of government, business and communities combine to eliminate poverty and sustain the natural environment for all people.

Our Approach

In working to achieve global change at scale, we apply a threefold approach that is WRI's hallmark:

Count It

We start with data, creating user-friendly information systems, protocols and standards. We conduct independent, unbiased research to analyze relationships and design solutions, and communicate our findings in a compelling manner.

Change It

We work with leaders of cities, companies and countries to achieve change, testing our ideas in complex, messy, real-world situations. We set clear objectives and hold ourselves accountable.

Scale It

We identify and overcome barriers to change so that proven solutions spread quickly and widely. We work with coalitions of remarkable leaders who transform business sectors, societies and economies, nationally and globally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
World Resources Institute (WRI) is a global research organization that spans more than 60 countries, with international offices in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United States, regional offices in Ethiopia (for Africa) and the Netherlands (for Europe), and program offices in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Regenerative (R)evolution: reclaiming humanity’s oneness with nature

# data[].attributes.subject
Regenerative (R)evolution: reclaiming humanity’s oneness with nature

# data[].attributes.body
Life Creates Conditions Conducive to Life

# data[].attributes.headline
The Regenerative Design Framework (adapted from Bill Reed, 2007)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Regenerative Design Framework (adapted from Bill Reed, 2007)

# data[].attributes.headline
Restoring forests: regeneration and ecosystem function for the future

# data[].attributes.subject
Restoring forests: regeneration and ecosystem function for the future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Conventions and policies for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation state the need for increased protection, restoration and climate change adaptation of forests. Much degraded land may be targeted for large-scale forest restoration, yet challenges include costs, a shortage of regeneration material and the need for restored forests to serve as a resource for communities. To ensure ecosystem function for the future, forest restoration programs must: (1) learn from the past; (2) integrate ecological knowledge; (3) advance regeneration techniques and systems; (4) overcome biotic and abiotic disturbances and (5) adapt for future forest landscapes. Historical forest conditions, while site-specific, may help to identify the processes that leave long-term legacies in current forests and to understand tree migration biology/population dynamics and their relationship with climate change. Ecological theory around plant-plant interactions has shown the importance of negative (competition) and positive (facilitation) interactions for restoration, which will become more relevant with increasing drought due to climate change. Selective animal browsing influences plant-plant interactions and challenges restoration efforts to establish species-rich forests; an integrated approach is needed to simultaneously manage ungulate populations, landscape carrying capacity and browse-tolerant regeneration. A deeper understanding of limiting factors that affect plant establishment will facilitate nursery and site preparation systems to overcome inherent restoration challenges. Severe anthropogenic disturbances connected to global change have created unprecedented pressure on forests, necessitating novel ecological engineering, genetic conservation of tree species and landscape-level approaches that focus on creating functional ecosystems in a cost-effective manner.

Need for forest restoration programs, and purpose of the congress

Forests around the globe provide a wide variety of ecosystem services. International conventions and national policies for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation state the need for increased forest protection, forest restoration and adaptation of forest management to climate change. However, global forest cover continues to decline. According to the last Forest Resources Assessment, the world's forest area decreased by ca 3% between 1990 and 2015 (FAO 2018). Against this background, forest restoration activities have become increasingly common around the world and regeneration of trees is often a key component in these projects. Much degraded land may be targeted for forest restoration. In an analysis from 2011, the World Resource Institute suggested that ca 2 billion hectares of land is suitable for different kinds of forest restoration (Minnemayer et al. 2011; Silva et al. 2019).

Several global, regional and national organizations have set targets during the last decade for large-scale forest landscape restoration. For example, the Great Green Wall of the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative in Africa aim to surround the region with vegetation, and China alone aims to plant 6.7 million hectares of forest per year (Cernansky 2018). The Bonn Challenge, started in 2011, aims to have 150 million hectares of degraded land in process of restoration by 2020, and 350 million hectares by 2030 according to the New York Declaration of 2014. Additionally, the UN REDD + program is attempting to encourage restoration of forests by creating a market value for the carbon stored therein (Jacobs et al. 2015). The United Nations recently recognized the critical role of ecosystem restoration as a tool for improving environmental conditions and enhancing human communities by designating 2021-2030 the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (UN 2019). Restoration ambitions are high, and these initiatives have received much support from countries and organizations around the world.

Successful large-scale restoration faces many challenges. First, the costs of achieving restoration are often high. A conservative estimate of 2000 $USD per hectare means that at least 700 billion $USD is required to restore 350 million hectares by 2030. This represents a significant barrier for scaling up restoration worldwide and there is a risk that the interest from policymakers will wane over time as the costs and difficulties becomes apparent (Löf 2017). Restoration costs vary depending on methods used, from lower-cost alternatives using natural regeneration with native tree species to higher-cost approaches for active restoration using site preparation and planting. Recently, there has been a debate regarding advantages, disadvantages and the degree of success with these approaches (e.g. Crouzeilles et al. 2017; Meli et al. 2017; Reid et al. 2018) but no one-size-fits all solution regarding methods for restoration exists. Instead a broad palette of methods adapted to the local context needs to be utilized to accomplish the ambitious targets. Normally, costs for restoration increase with the degree of degradation of an ecosystem (Stanturf et al. 2001; Chazdon 2008) (Fig. 1). Thus, if appropriate seed sources are available, natural regeneration with native tree species may represent a cost-effective option that may be applied across large areas. In other cases, when no such seed sources exist or when sites are too harsh, active restoration using planting (sometimes with non-natives) is the only option to establish forests (Jacobs et al. 2015).

A model for restoration, degradation and costs (adapted from Stanturf et al. 2001). The state of the forest condition ranges from natural to degraded (x-axis) and levels of ecosystem function (left y-axis) change in response to disturbance along a solid line (f1-f2). Cost of forest restoration (right y-axis) follows the dashed line (c1-c2). The costs increase with degree of degradation, e.g. higher costs using artificial regeneration (direct seeding, and especially high costs during planting) when less mother trees are available during afforestation and mine reclamation. When the degree of degradation is lower, i.e. when scattered trees and near-natural forests are left; restoration can rely on low-cost natural regeneration

Second, an important obstacle for successful active restoration is often a shortage of regeneration material (Cernansky 2018). Restoration projects involve the re-establishment of native tree species, but there is often little knowledge about how, where and when to obtain genetic material (species and provenances) with desired properties for the sites under restoration, and how to collect, store and pretreat seeds followed by cost-efficient cultivation of the seedlings in nurseries. In addition, we have little experience with establishing such regeneration; efficient regeneration systems currently exist for only a few tree species, mostly for use in industrial plantations and these techniques are not always suited for restoration programs (Löf et al. 2012). In addition, climate change raises questions about where different tree species may thrive in the future. Assisted migration, i.e. the human-assisted movement of plants or animals to more climatically suitable habitats, may be one way forward (Stanturf et al. 2014a, b; Dumroese et al. 2015). Much knowledge in this field is, however, still missing. The same can be said about how climate change will alter relationships among trees, insects and various diseases.

A third major constraint for successful cost-effective restoration in the long term is that the restored forests needs to be a positive resource for the local and regional communities. Thus, forest restoration success depends much on people and their ability to utilize restored forests in different ways. The mounting demands from a growing human population increase the already huge pressure on the world's natural resources. If society's needs are not considered, the risk is that public interest to protect forests in a sustainable way will be insufficient. Multiple-use forestry, such as with multi-purpose mixed forest systems and agroforestry systems that provide food and other benefits for people, is therefore important. In addition, increasing evidence suggests that integrating exotic commercial tree species with native ones can support biodiversity, the environment and local economies. One such approach is the new generation plantation (NGP) Platform that was launched in 2007 (Silva et al. 2019). This concept aims to complement timber production with effective maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems, and simultaneously contribute to socio-economic development and climate change mitigation (Fig. 2). Plantations, with a current share of ca 7% of total global forests, can help to reduce pressure on natural forests (FAO 2010) as they contribute to ca 33% of global demand for industrial round wood, a demand that is predicted to increase (Silva et al. 2019). The NGP concept is one way to, at least partly, meet these growing demands.

Example of a new generation plantations initiative by Veracel in Bahia, Brazil where a degraded rain forest dominated landscape ( a) can be restored with native tree species forming ecological corridors of rain forest in-between highly productive eucalyptus plantations ( b) (Copyright Stora Enso)

In September 2011, we held the 1st IUFRO Restoring Forests Congress in Madrid, Spain to address recent advances in forest restoration techniques and theory. Selected papers from this symposium were published in New Forests (vol. 43, Issues 5-6). The 2nd IUFRO Restoring Forests Congress occurred in October 2014 in Indiana, USA and the corresponding Special Issue of this symposium was published in New Forests (vol. 46, Issues 5-6). To continue to communicate and advance upon emerging issues and themes in forest restoration, we held the 3rd IUFRO Restoring Forests Congress on 12-14 September 2017 in Lund, Sweden. The symposium was organized by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Estonian University of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen and Purdue University, as well as IUFRO Divisions 1.01.00 (Temperate and Boreal Silviculture), 1.06.00 (Restoration of Degraded Sites), 2.01.15 (Whole Plant Physiology), and 1.01.06 (Ecology and Silviculture of Oak). A total of 109 scientists, representing 31 countries in five continents attended the Congress, which included 12 invited seminars, 38 offered oral presentations and 46 poster presentations. Field tours to Söderåsens National Park and Herrevads Monastery area highlighted ongoing research and management programs to promote forest restoration of broadleaves. The overall theme of the 3 rd Congress was Restoring Forests- Regeneration and Ecosystem Function for the Future. The Congress was arranged according to the following five topics/sessions and within each topic, several key issues emerged (see below-Focal topics of the congress): (1) learning from the past; (2) ecological knowledge supporting forest restoration; (3) advances in restoration and regeneration techniques and systems; (4) forest restoration following biotic and abiotic disturbances; and (5) restoring forest landscapes for the future. The purpose of this international congress was to support this process by knowledge sharing and communication of the state-of-the-art in the research field of regeneration and forest restoration ecology.

Focal topics of the congress

The Congress was arranged according to the following centralized topics, and within each topic, several key issues emerged.

Learning from the past

Scientists in restoration ecology continue to debate the usefulness of historical ecosystem conditions as targets and reference for practical restoration (e.g. Harris et al. 2006; Corlett 2016). An ecosystem condition is a response to past land use and past climate; restoring ecosystems is unlikely to be easy or even possible, especially under a rapidly changing climate. Even though historical conditions may, however, not always be useful as targets, research into long-term forest dynamics can support forest restoration in many ways. During this session, Richard Bradshaw listed three topics of major importance for restoration (Löf 2017). First, past historical forest conditions are often site-specific. Human pressure on forests may have varied much between sites and landscapes and, thus, restoration practitioners must be aware of this when defining any restoration targets. Second, through studies of the past we may identify the processes that leave long-term legacies in current forests (Johnstone et al. 2016; Jõgiste et al. 2017). Human impact through forest management and land-use patterns strongly influence current forest dynamics (Giesecke et al. 2017). For example, past forest fire regimes have been greatly altered by human activity; humans first greatly increased fire frequency and subsequently almost eradicated fire in parts of the world, therefore possibly influencing the fire regime to an extent that may be unprecedented for millennia (Krawchuk et al. 2009; Bradshaw and Sykes 2014). Similarities exist for past browsing and grazing regimes by both domestic animals and wild ungulates. Finally, understanding tree migration biology and population dynamics and their relationship with climate change is important. It can be very expensive for restoration practitioners trying to resist natural trends in forest dynamics. Restoration strategies should therefore look forward to solve future needs of society, but their success will be enhanced by looking backwards on information about the outcomes of past human impact, climate dynamics and forest response.

Ecological knowledge supporting forest restoration

During the last two decades, ecological theory concerning plant-plant interactions has developed with potential for great implications for cost-effective restoration (Löf 2017). In particular, it has been stressed that negative (competition) and positive (facilitation) interactions co-exist to a larger degree than previously thought (e.g. Bruno et al. 2003). Earlier, there was a strong focus on negative interactions, and still the most common vegetation management techniques during regeneration and restoration are measures that reduce competition from non-desired vegetation. Examples of such measures include prescribed fire, herbicides and mechanical site preparation. Concepts, such as the stress-gradient-hypothesis (e.g. Bertness and Callaway 1994; He et al. 2013) and nurse-plants (e.g. Gómez-Aparicio 2009) have, however, the potential to guide restoration toward methods that improve seedling survival and growth while simultaneously keeping restoration costs low. The former concept states that facilitation relative to competition increases in importance with the degree of abiotic and biotic stress, and the latter that one plant species can facilitate growth and development of another species. In addition, managing plant-plant interactions for restoration will be particularly relevant in scenarios of increasing drought due to climate change, with potential for an increasing role of facilitation to secure regeneration. However, these concepts have so far most frequently been applied to restoration in dry land ecosystems dominated by perennial herbs or shrubs (Gómez-Aparicio et al. 2004). Knowledge is still lacking for forest ecosystems where vegetation dynamics are more complex, i.e. temperate or tropical regions. To succeed, it is not only necessary to select good combinations of nurse- and target-tree species with complementary species traits, but also to manage plant densities and community composition as plant cover and competition increase with time.

Direct or indirect biotic interactions involving herbivores may also play a fundamental role for cost-effective forest restoration. High deer populations in Europe and North America, for example, pose one of the greatest challenges to the forest regeneration of many plant species, which further affects species composition, forest structure and function (e.g. Côté et al. 2004). Selective ungulate browsing influences plant-plant interactions to such an extent that browse-tolerant or less palatable tree species often are favored and, thus, challenge restoration efforts to establish more species-rich forests (Kuijper et al. 2010; Metslaid et al. 2013). Physical or chemical protection of regeneration by fences, repellents or individual tree shelters is usually effective, but the costs of establishing, maintaining and removing these measures are high. Low-cost strategies may include providing physical protection for the target trees by using dense natural regeneration, direct seeding of species that are more browse tolerant or using nurse trees/shrubs. Ungulate impact can also be lessened by reducing the populations (by hunting), increasing the forest landscape carrying capacity (more food for the deer) or combining these two approaches. In addition, fodder crops of grasses, herbs or woody species, may be established to release browsing pressure from more desired species on restoration sites; and supplementary feeding might be an option if this food improves nutrition of the ungulate (Felton et al. 2016). However, it may be difficult to translate new research findings about low-cost browsing-tolerant regeneration alternatives to restoration practice. An integrated approach is needed that simultaneously manages populations of deer, landscape carrying capacity and browsing-tolerant regeneration, which requires good cooperation among various stakeholders.

Advances in restoration and regeneration techniques and systems

Forest restoration and regeneration practices must continuously adapt to meet changing needs of society, human and natural disturbances, policies, markets, technologies and climate (Wagner et al. 2018). Much of the past science in this area emphasized reforestation following timber harvest for industrial purposes, but an increasing focus on restoration of harsh, degraded environments demands new seedling production and planting techniques (Oliet and Jacobs 2012). Improved understanding of biotic and abiotic factors that affect ecophysiology of plant establishment is required to overcome inherent challenges on restoration sites. Nursery systems aim to produce high quality, stress resistant planting stock that will withstand stresses following field establishment (Haase and Davis 2017). Stocktypes, fertilization or irrigation regimes and hardening practices can be manipulated in the nursery to tailor morphological and physiological seedling attributes to optimize performance under the conditions of a given outplanting site (Grossnickle and El-Kassaby 2015; Dumroese et al. 2016). Seedling size is positively correlated with plant content of nitrogen and carbohydrates and seedlings may remobilize these stored reserves in order to resist environmental stresses on the planting site (Villar-Salvador et al. 2015; Uscola et al. 2015). Thus, while a shift away from planting older and larger seedlings toward younger and smaller seedlings has occurred in some boreal regions (Löf 2017), the opposite trend prevails for restoration under harsh, dry site conditions, such as in Mediterranean regions (Villar-Salvador et al. 2012).

Site preparation is often necessary on restoration sites to ensure natural or artificial regeneration success, with requirements often dependent upon severity of prior disturbance. For instance, severe landscape disturbance associated with mine reclamation may require novel innovations in geomorphic restoration and site reconstruction (MacDonald et al. 2015; Zapico et al. 2018) to ensure functioning soil. Technological advances of mechanical site preparation have improved the efficiency of control of site limiting factors (i.e. target vegetation, compaction, mounding), costs, environmental impact and worker safety (Löf et al. 2012; Löf 2017). Continued enhancements in application of field fertilization, soil amendments and tree shelters (Earnshaw et al. 2016; Löf 2017; Oliet et al. 2019) will further promote regeneration and restoration success. While fencing is generally effective against ungulate damage, the high cost of installation and maintenance limits its practical use. Thus, continued evaluation of alternatives such tree shelters, nurse plants and silvicultural planting schemes that account for browse risk (Owings et al. 2017; Burney and Jacobs 2018; Maltoni et al. 2019) will help to ensure cost-effective restoration.

Forest restoration following biotic and abiotic disturbances

Disturbances are an essential part of forest ecosystems. Ecological processes that lead to stand structural complexity are in fact dependent upon natural disturbances (Löf 2017), which may include windthrow, forest fire and pest or disease outbreaks. Although the economics of fiber production is the main driver of management in commercial forests, there are opportunities to use alternative forestry methods, such as retention trees, variable density thinning and prescribed burning that mimic natural disturbances to promote heterogeneous forest stand structure and biodiversity (Puettmann et al. 2016; Löf 2017). Degradation and loss of forests due to anthropogenic disturbances, however, have resulted in a significant reduction of forest biodiversity and the need for restoration of millions of hectares of degraded forests worldwide (Lindenmayer 2019). In degraded environments, such as with grazing lands, abandoned crop lands or following severe wildfire, structural elements and sources of microsite diversity are often limited (Cortina et al. 2011), adding to restoration challenges. Mining sites are particularly difficult to restore to functioning forest ecosystems because of the need for massive landscape-level reconstruction of soils, hydrology and biota, as well as the associated forest fragmentation, erosion and disposal of mine tailing wastes (Stanturf et al. 2014a, b; Macdonald et al. 2015).

Simultaneously, global change, including an exponential increase in the introduction of invasive species and a rapidly shifting climate puts unprecedented pressure on forests (Martín et al. 2013; Dumroese et al. 2015). The number of threatened and endangered forest tree species continues to rise, and the practical restoration of such species is complex due to the need for effective integration of technology, ecology and society (Jacobs et al. 2013). Thus, the genetic conservation of tree species has become an urgent global necessity as this provides the essential basis for the adaptation and resilience of tree species to environmental stress and change (Potter et al. 2017). While knowledge of historical species range distributions can help to guide restoration targets (Dalgleish et al. 2015), shifts in frost hardiness zones, drought severity indices and presence or absence of species competitors will drive species regional adaptiveness in the future. We are still in the infancy of navigating these dynamic and critical issues that will have long-lasting consequences for success of forest restoration programs.

Restoring forest landscapes of the future

In addition to goals for mitigating climate change and improving local economies, restoration provides great hope that biodiversity losses can be minimized and sometimes reversed. However, there is a polarized debate among conservation, forest management and restoration in relation to, e.g. non-native species and novel ecosystems, but also any need for continued management (Hobbs 2013). This debate will proceed even though all disciplines will be transformed in order to address rapid climate change both from theoretical- and practical perspectives (e.g. Colloff et al. 2017; Spathelf et al. 2018). The traditional use of past ecosystems as targets and criteria for success will probably be replaced over time by an increased orientation towards an uncertain future. Conflicts are sometimes rooted in discrepancies regarding definitions of concepts, and in other cases concepts are context-dependent (Corlett 2016). For example, retention approaches at final harvest, whereby individual trees, tree patches and dead wood are left on a site with a primary aim to promote biodiversity (Löf 2017), were introduced a few decades ago on several continents. Retention can be seen as a conservation action, as natural forest elements are saved for the future (in a forest landscape previously not much affected by humans). But it can also be seen as restoration because it creates structurally richer stands (in a forest landscape that has been homogenized by human operations, i.e. clearcutting and plantation forestry). Other practices, such as forest enrichment by underplanting, contribute to enhance structural complexity of managed forests yet their effectiveness is dependent upon choice of thinning intensity and underplanted species attributes (Gavinet et al. 2016; Lesko and Jacobs 2018; Lu et al. 2018). Because several disciplines are involved in the discussion, any attempts to formulate a universal definition of restoration will continue to generate discussion (Mansourian 2018; Stanturf et al. 2014a, b).

Large areas require forest restoration and so landscape-level approaches that focus on functional ecosystems, rather than historical conditions in small areas, may be most cost-effective (Stanturf et al. 2014a, b; Perring et al. 2015). In addition, a need to broaden the scope of forest restoration, from the site and stand level to the landscape level, is often required (Gustafson et al. 2018). Otherwise it will be difficult to accommodate diverse objectives from multiple owners and incorporate livelihood needs. The concept of New Generation Plantations (Silva et al. 2019) is one promising way forward, but such multi-purpose approaches create new challenges for research and management. While our understanding of mixed forest systems has increased over the last decades, the formulation of silvicultural and restoration guidelines for practical management of more complex forest stands and landscapes is lacking in many cases (Coll et al. 2018). Thus, despite ambitious goals and governmental funding initiatives for restoration including native tree species, such stands may not receive timely thinning treatments for sustained timber production or sustained compositional diversity.

Brief presentation of special issue content

A total of 12 original research or review articles covering a wide range of issues in forest restoration are included in this Special Issue and some of these are highlighted here. In accordance with his inaugural address from the Congress, Luis Neves Silva describes the potential for new generation plantations (NGP) to conserve natural forests and biodiversity, while also providing timber and helping to mitigate climate change (Silva et al. 2019). Approximately 11.1 million hectares of land are being managed as NGP, which results in economic return while contributing positively to ecosystems and socio-economic development. David Lindenmayer's inaugural address detailed how the case study of Eucalyptus regnans in southeastern Australia can be applied toward four guiding principles that strategically help to conserve biodiversity and accomplish effective forest restoration. These general principles focus on key species and their habitats, attributes of stand structure, landscape heterogeneity and ecological processes (Lindenmayer 2019).

Addressing the theme of Ecological Knowledge Supporting Forest Restoration, Merlin et al. ( 2019) report results of an experiment conducted in the boreal forests of northern Alberta, Canada on a site that was heavily reconstructed following oil sands mining. They demonstrated the importance of physical and chemical properties of the reconstructed soils as determinants of the performance of planted boreal tree species and how limiting factors to seedling performance may vary by species and shift over time. It is well known that granivorous rodents are a major threat to successful regeneration of broadleaves. To help identify control mechanisms, Villalobos et al. ( 2019) demonstrated that repellents may help to reduce predation of oak acorns and beech nuts by voles. Meta-analyses provide an important tool to identify generalized trends across research studies globally. In seedling quality and field performance research, however, about one-third of publications cannot be used for such purposes due a lack of methodological details and statistical results. Andivia et al. ( 2019) present guidelines for improving article presentation so that future research can be more readily incorporated into such meta-analyses.

Oliet et al. ( 2019) contributed toward the session on Advances in Restoration and Regeneration Techniques and Systems. Tree shelters are commonly used as a means to improve survival of planted seedlings in Mediterranean restoration systems, but the eco-physiological mechanisms for species differences are not well understood. By examining solid versus mesh wall tubes that vary in light transmissivity, they concluded that microclimatic factors may primarily drive responses.

Juan A. Martín delivered an invited presentation to launch the session titled Forest Restoration Following Biotic and Abiotic Disturbances. Through traditional hybridization and selection of native clones, significant progress has been made toward restoration of European elms that were devastated by Dutch elm disease (Martín et al. 2019). The researchers recognized the importance of improving knowledge in elm ecology and society's acceptance of disease resistant hybrid elms in order for such species restoration to be successful, similar to the case of American chestnut in the US (Jacobs et al. 2013). As also presented in this session, Anderson et al. ( 2019) describe accumulation of soil organic matter under re-vegetation treatments following oil sands reclamation in northern Alberta, Canada. They linked treatment differences to varying macro-faunal activity and suggested that planting of aspen would result in more rapid carbon sequestration through soil organic matter accumulation. Berg et al. ( 2019) studied advance regeneration responses in forest gaps over a 20-year period following hurricane disturbance in the central Appalachian Mountains region of the US. They observed strong temporal variation in tree survival associated with distance from gap center, with survivorship increasing from gap center to forest edge during the first half of the study, and the opposite trend by the end of the experiment.

Contributing to the theme of Restoring Forest Landscapes of the Future, Riccioli et al. ( 2019) evaluated the willingness to pay for restoration management to maintain the recreational values of forests. Forest users preferred the use of management leading to high forests versus natural evolution, suggesting the increasing importance of recreational value toward motivating forest restoration in the future.

In conclusion, we recognized the importance of continued commitment to multidisciplinary, global collaboration in forest restoration research. Regular gatherings through symposia were identified as an instrumental tool in exchange of experiences and research information, and it was decided that the 4th IUFRO Restoring Forests would be held during 2020 in Chile.

References

1. Colloff MJ, Lavorel S, van Kerkoff LE, Wyborn CA, Fazey I, Gorddard R, Mace GM, Foden WB, Dunlop M, Prentice C, Crowley J, Leadley P, Degeorges P (2017) Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world. Conserv Biol 31:1008-1017

PubMed Google Scholar

2. Earnshaw KM, Baribault TW, Jacobs DF (2016) Alternative field fertilization techniques to promote restoration of leguminous Acacia koa on contrasting tropical sites. For Ecol Manag 376:126-134

Google Scholar

3. FAO (2010) Planted forests in sustainable forest management: A statement of principles. Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome

4. FAO (2018) The state of the world's forests 2018-forest pathways to sustainable development. Rome. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

5. Felton AM, Felton A, Raubenheimer D, Simpson SJ, Krizsan SJ, Hedwall P-O, Stolter C (2016) The nutritional balancing act of a large herbivore: an experiment with captive moose ( Alces alces L). PLoS ONE 11:e0150870

6. Gavinet J, Prevosto B, Fernandez C (2016) Introducing resprouters to enhance Mediterranean forest resilience: importance of functional traits to select species according to a gradient of pine density. J Appl Ecol 53:1735-1745

CAS Google Scholar

7. He Q, Bertness MD, Altieri AW (2013) Global shifts towards positive species interactions with increasing environmental stress. Ecol Lett 16:695-706

PubMed Google Scholar

8. Jacobs DF, Dalgleish HJ, Nelson CD (2013) A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants: the effective model of American chestnut ( Castanea dentata) reintroduction. New Phytol 197:378-393

PubMed Google Scholar

9. Löf M (Ed.) (2017) Program and book of abstracts of the IUFRO 3 rd restoring forest: regeneration and ecosystem function for the future. Lund, Sweden 12-14 September 2017. Report 51. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Alnarp, pp 109. ISBN-978-91-576-9517-9

10. Maltoni A, Mariotti B, Tani A, Martini S, Jacobs DF, Tognetti R (2019) Natural regeneration of Pinus pinaster facilitates Quercus ilex survival and growth under severe deer browsing pressure. For Ecol Manag 432:356-364

Google Scholar

11. Meli P, Holl KD, Rey Benayas JM, Jones HP, Jones PC, Montoya D, Mateos DM (2017) A global review of past land use, climate, and active vs. passive restoration effects on forest recovery. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171368

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

12. Metslaid M, Palli T, Randveer T, Sims A, Jõgiste K, Stanturf JA (2013) The condition of Scots pine stands in Lahemaa National Park, Estonia 25 years after browsing by moose ( Alces alces). Boreal Environ Res 18:25-34

Google Scholar

13. Minnemayer S, Laestadius L, Sizer N, Saint-Laurent C, Popapov P (2011) A world of opportunity. World Resource Institute, Report, Washington, DC

14. UN (2019) Press release New UN decade on ecosystem restoration offers unparalleled opportunity for job creation, food security and addressing climate change. Accessed 2019-03-15 at https://www.unenvironment.org

15. Uscola M, Salifu KF, Oliet JA, Jacobs DF (2015) An exponential fertilization dose response model to promote restoration of the Mediterranean oak Quercus ilex. New For 46:795-812

Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to all authors of this Special Issue of the 3rd IUFRO Restoring Forests Congress, and for support from The Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development, EFINORD-SNS Nordic Network of Forest Regeneration, and grant IUT21-4 from the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research. We appreciate constructive comments from three reviewers on this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

1. Southern Swedish Forest Research Center, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 230 53, Alnarp, Sweden

Magnus Löf & Johanna Witzell

2. Forest and Landscape College, University of Copenhagen, Fredensborg, 3480, Copenhagen, Denmark

Palle Madsen

3. Institute of Forestry and Rural Engineering, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 510 06, Tartu, Estonia

Marek Metslaid

4. Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, 1431, Ås, Norway

Marek Metslaid

5. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Hardwood Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907-2061, USA

Douglass F. Jacobs

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magnus Löf.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Download citation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Restoring forests: regeneration and ecosystem function for the future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conventions and policies for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation state the need for increased protection, restoration and climate change adaptation of forests. Much degraded land may be targeted for large-scale forest restoration, yet challenges include costs, a shortage of regeneration material and the need for restored forests to serve as a resource for communities.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it possible to create a regenerative economic system based on cooperation rather than competition?

How can lessons from ecology - like symbiosis, circular no-waste systems and whole-systems optimization - inform the redesign of our economic and monetary systems?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"To make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological offense or the disadvantage of anyone." - R. Buckminster Fuller

Much of our day-to-day behaviour and cultural activity is structurally determined by our monetary and economic systems. Their redesign is a crucial enabler of the transition towards a regenerative culture. To transform our economic system(s) at every scale is an audacious salutogenic [health generating] design intervention, yet it is the only way we can effect changes deeply enough to avoid the collapse of civilization and further damage to ecosystems and the biosphere.
Q: Is it possible to create a regenerative economic system based on cooperation rather than competition? Q How can lessons from ecology - like symbiosis, circular no-waste systems and whole-systems optimization - inform the redesign of our economic and monetary systems?
In line with Buckminster Fuller's central design intention, we have to ask ourselves: does our current economic and monetary system work for 100% of humanity without ecological offence and disadvantage to anyone? Clearly it does not! We need new economic rules and fundamental structural changes that incentivize regenerative and collaborative relationships. The redesigned system will need to discourage the kind of pathological behaviour patterns our current culturally dominant narrative of separation, supported by neo-Darwinian biology and neo-classical economics, justifies and rewards.

John Fullerton and team at the Capital Institute have started an exploration into what Regenerative Capitalism or a regenerative economy might look like.

As human beings, we are in our very nature compassionate and collaborative, but our current monetary and economic systems are based on the narrative of separation that creates and encourages competition. For too long, we have told a story about nature 'red in tooth and claw' and excused the worst of human behaviour as natural. Scarcity is primarily a mindset and lack of collaboration not a biophysical reality! Competition creates scarcity, which in turn is used to justify competitive behaviour (a vicious circle).

The natural limits of bioproductivity and healthy ecosystems functions don't create scarcity as such. Collaboration can turn these natural planetary limits into enabling constraints to create abundance for all within healthy ecosystems and a healthy biosphere. Collaboration creates shared abundance, which in turn invites more collaboration (a virtuous circle). We choose which world we want to bring forth together!

Hazle Henderson offered a useful Mapping of the Global Transition to the Solar Age

Our economic systems have to be redesigned to enable rather than inhibit vital changes towards improved whole-systems health. The healthier the whole system is, the more abundance is generated by healthy ecosystems functions. Our current monetary system generates money out of nowhere based on debt (every time anyone takes out a loan). Differential interest for lending and borrowing, along with compound interest, further drive a system that is not only set up as a win-lose game, but also requires continuous economic growth to keep going.

Furthermore, this system depends on continuous extraction of natural resources, turning them into (privatized) economic assets while externalizing the ecological and social costs. This is a structurally unsustainable system.

Rather than creating a medium of exchange and a store of value that incentivizes appropriate participation in the life-sustaining processes of the biosphere, we have created a monetary and economic system that drives the systematic exploitation and destruction of healthy ecosystem functioning. In addition, this badly designed system makes us compete rather than collaborate with one another. Our profoundly unsustainable monetary and economic systems lie at the root of many of the converging crises around us. They reinforce a self-fulfilling prophecy of competition and scarcity. A regenerative culture will only emerge if we address these necessary and fundamental structural changes.

Here is a link to David Korton's article on The Great Turing from Empire to Community

On his website Peak Prosperity, Chris Martenson, a former Fortune 300 executive, provides an excellent crash course using a series of short video presentations exploring the interconnected forces of our structurally dysfunctional economic system. The economic growth phase of the global economy is nearing its systemic (structural) end. I recommend this resource to everyone willing to invest four hours in gaining a better understanding of why economic and cultural transformation is inevitable and urgently needed. Like an ecosystem reaching maturity, our economic systems need to shift from quantitative towards qualitative growth by revitalizing local and regional economies through the prosperity that comes from collaboration and community resilience.

The word 'regenerative' in ' regenerative cultures' refers - in part - to a culture's ability to regenerate and transform itself in response to change. Most importantly it refers to a culture's ability to maintain and regenerate healthy ecosystems functions as the basis of true wealth and wellbeing. If we finally understand that our current monetary and economic systems are not fit for purpose, we can initiate structural changes that will create conditions for life as a whole, including all of humanity, to thrive.

The founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, said in the run-up to the 2012 forum that "capitalism, in its current form, no longer fits the world around us [...] a global transformation is urgently needed" (Economic Times, 2012). In Chapter 5 we explored how design keeps on designing, how there is a self-reinforcing feedback between our worldview and designs that reinforces the way we see the world. We need to break out of this vicious circle of bad economic design decisions - they reinforce a perspective of scarcity, separation and competition that drives ecological and social degradation. Human beings designed this system and human beings can redesign it to serve people and planet.

Nothing about our current economic system is inevitable or unchangeable. Remember, economics is at best a 'management system' and at its worst a dangerous ideology. Unlike biology and ecology, economics is not a science. We created our current economic system and we can redesign it, based on ecological insights, to better serve our common purpose: promoting the health and wellbeing of humanity and the community of life.

Wendell Berry's 17 Rules for Sustainable Community

To redesign economics from the ground up challenges us to design new monetary systems, trade policies and financial institutions, as well as scale-linked local living economies and regionally based circular bio-economies supported by global collaboration and resource- and information-sharing.

The structural failure of the current system is no longer a provocative hypothesis of a few thought-leaders. The World Bank, the United Nations, the world's financial institutions, many political leaders and most importantly a groundswell of increasingly informed global citizens, have all recognized the dysfunctionality of the current economic and monetary system.

We are challenged to redesign the plane we are on in mid-flight. The necessity of ' Horizon 1 ' - to keep the lights on and people fed and in jobs - is driving many people in leadership roles to react to short-term electoral and economic cycles with little room to manoeuvre, rather than to initiate transformative change with the long-term benefit of humanity and life in mind. This structural lock-in drives 'business as usual'.

Here are just some of the key faults in the current monetary and economic system:

'money as debt created out of nowhere' drives extreme inequality and sets 'competition' as the rule

compound interest on loans and deposits creates an economic time-bomb that drives the perverse necessity for exponential growth and unbridled consumption, structurally establishing a win-lose rather than a win-win-win 'playing field'

inappropriate and misguided measures of economic success like GDP divert our attention from creating systemic health and wellbeing (caring about qualities) to economic throughput (caring about quantities)

anachronistic subsidies and international trade policies established under the economic stranglehold of big lobbies favour the wrong kind of industries and energy sources

current trade rules favour financial gains for the shareholders of multinational corporations yet sabotage local and regional production and consumption (to the detriment of most of humanity's 5 billion poor and of ecosystems functions)

tax systems that are set up to tax work rather than resource-use structurally increase inequity and drive environmental and social degradation

value creation is based on an exploitative system of extraction, production and consumption that externalizes the social and ecological costs of (and damage caused by) degrading our resource base and causing dangerous climate change

the flow of investments and subsidies is not supporting salutogenic and regenerative activities and technologies, as would be the case if value creation was based on healthy ecosystems functions and regeneration

Economic and monetary systems as they stand are structurally dysfunctional and at best serve a few (for a while). Under no circumstances will they deliver a healthy, meaningful and happy life for all. On a crowded planet with failing ecosystems we have to learn that out-competing others while destroying the planetary life-support systems is not an evolutionary success strategy. Win-lose games in the long run turn into lose-lose games.

Here is and interview with Michel Bauwnes on the role of P2P-Economic in reshaping our world.

Starting with the systemic leverage points mentioned above, we can transform our global economy and strengthen resilient regional and local economies as the foundations of thriving, diverse, regenerative cultures. If we want to create healthy economies that protect rather than destroy local ecosystems, we will need to rewrite international trade rules in ways that include the social and ecological costs of production and consumption, as well as trade.

We need to protect local economies from 'cheap' imports made possible by hidden subsidies, externalizing true costs, and outsourcing production ( exploiting international inequality). Re-localizing and re-regionalizing economics - while maintaining international collaboration and fair trade - creates jobs and community resilience. It supports an economics of positive social and ecological impact.

Neo-classical economic dogma would call this 'protectionism' and oppose it because 'we need deregulation instead of regulation to ensure the free-market'. What a pervasive myth this so-called free-market is proving to be! In a conditioned knee-jerk response, many intelligent people will defend an ideal (the free market) that simply does not exist. Kenny Ausubel, co-founder of Bioneers, hit the nail on the head:

"The world is suffering from the perverse incentives of 'unnatural capitalism'. When people say 'free market', I ask if free is a verb. We don't have a free market, but a highly managed and often monopolized market. [...] we have banks and companies that are 'too big to fail,' but in truth are too big not to fail. The resulting extremes of concentration of wealth and political power are very bad for business and the economy (not to mention the environment, human rights, and democracy). One result is that small companies can't advance too far against the big players with their legions of lawyers and Capitol Hill lobbyists, when in truth it's small and medium-sized companies that provide the majority of jobs as well as innovation." - Kenny Ausubel in Harman (2013: 77)

The transformation of our economic system is already under way. Social, cultural, ecological and economic innovators around the world are already offering and exploring a plethora of alternatives. Our socio-economic systems are being reinvented from the ground up.

In Money and Sustainability - The Missing Link, Bernard Lietaer and his colleagues (2012) explore a variety of ways in which complementary regional currencies can be designed to address the problems created by our current monetary system. We have already started to ask different questions about the purpose and objectives of economics and money:
Q How can we reinvent our economic system to cure its current structural dysfunctionality and create an economy that is in service of all people and the planet? Q What kind of monetary systems would serve us at what scale? Q Can we design a full-reserve currency based on bioproductive capacity, biodiversity and the healthy functioning of ecosystems? Q What would circular bio-economies look like and how do we effectively create them, and at what scale? Q What kind of economic system would help us to optimize resource sharing and (biologically regenerative) resource creation locally, regionally and globally? Q What would an 'economy for the common good', an 'economics of happiness' and a 'sacred economics' look like in our community and how do we co-create them? Q How can new rules in economics facilitate a fair sharing of, and a common responsibility for, the global commons? Q How do we create monetary and economic systems where value is ultimately based on healthy ecosystem functioning and where ecological and social regeneration are structurally incentivized? Q How can ecological literacy and learning from the rest of nature help us to redesign a more fitting economic system for a regenerative culture?
I cannot do these important questions justice here. But I will highlight some of the excellent work of people who - to my mind - hold a piece of the puzzle. All these approaches are based on the important ecological insight that regenerative systems in nature are collaborative. Effective resource-sharing in natural systems is based on collaboration in circular patterns of resource use and regeneration.

Creating a healthy economic system requires us to meet humanity's needs within the limits of the planet's annual bioproductivity and to do so while attempting to regenerate the bioproductive capacity of damaged ecosystems everywhere. Willem Ferwerda, Executive Fellow at the Rotterdam School of Management and special advisor to the IUCN, explains why the restoration of damaged ecosystems is an economic imperative:

"Ecosystems form the basis of all wealth creation. Ecosystem services flow from natural capital and are an investor's primary asset. [...] Ecosystems provide societies with soil fertility, food, water, shelter, goods and services, medicines, stability, pleasure, knowledge and leisure. [...] Today 60 per cent of the services provided by ecosystems are threatened. Economic activities aimed at achieving short-term wealth are destroying ecosystems worldwide and thus economies' primary asset. Restoring damaged ecosystems is essential if we are to secure the livelihoods of future generations." - Willem Ferwerda (2012: 13)

[... the book continues with a chapter on Creating Circulare Economies. This excerpt from Designing Regenerative Cultures, published by Triarchy Press in 2016, opens many more questions than it anwers. So does the rest of the book, as the way to create diverse regenerative cultures that are elegantly adapted to the bio-cultural uniqueness of the places they inhabit has to be by living the questions together. There are no silver bullet pathways to a regenenerative human impact on earth.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"To make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest possible time through spontaneous cooperation without ecological offense or the disadvantage of anyone." - R. Buckminster Fuller Much of our day-to-day behaviour and cultural activity is structurally determined by our monetary and economic systems. Their redesign is a crucial enabler of the transition towards a regenerative culture.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Regeneration of Nature: An Alternative to Ecological Restoration

# data[].attributes.subject
The Regeneration of Nature: An Alternative to Ecological Restoration

# data[].attributes.body
*PLEASE GO TOT THE WEB PAGE AND DOWNLOAD THE FREE BOOK*

The Regeneration of Nature: an alternative to ecological restoration is an exploration of the human response to alterations society has imposed on natural ecosystems. Ecological restoration is the dominant response to these degraded systems that has emerged within Western, empirical thought. Restoration as it is characteristically practiced in the United States attempts to reverse human impact by returning an ecosystem to an earlier state of existence; its so called pre-disturbance condition. However, I argue that ecological restoration does not adequately address degraded ecosystems dominating today's landscape primarily because it excludes humans as an integrated part of ecosystems and it ignores the dynamic characteristics of nature. Despite the dichotomy embedded in the restoration view, humans and nature are best understood as interdependent. Therefore, those working on urban environmental issues must develop integrated solutions in which both society and nature benefit without creating negative impacts on each other.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You are here

Summary:

The Regeneration of Nature: an alternative to ecological restoration is an exploration of the human response to alterations society has imposed on natural ecosystems. Ecological restoration is the dominant response to these degraded systems that has emerged within Western, empirical thought. Restoration as it is characteristically practiced in the United States attempts to reverse human impact by returning an ecosystem to an earlier state of existence; its so called pre-disturbance condition. However, I argue that ecological restoration does not adequately address degraded ecosystems dominating today's landscape primarily because it excludes humans as an integrated part of ecosystems and it ignores the dynamic characteristics of nature. Despite the dichotomy embedded in the restoration view, humans and nature are best understood as interdependent. Therefore, those working on urban environmental issues must develop integrated solutions in which both society and nature benefit without creating negative impacts on each other. In The Regeneration of Nature: an alternative to ecological restoration , I show how the connections between science, society, and nature can be recognized as an integrated view to establish a new paradigm for positive change within communities, both natural and human. The new paradigm, which I entitle ecological regeneration, extends the interdisciplinary style of environmental research as it calls for the development, adoption, and dissemination of a truly integrated and dynamic socio-ecological model to replace the static and reductionist view that prevails within the ecological restoration model. Where restoration treats the human and natural environments as mutually exclusive, regeneration recognizes the necessity of integrating human built systems within nature and nature within built systems. By examining conceptual and practical problems within ecological restoration, my goal is to offer an ecological regeneration framework leading to theoretically better solutions with respect to society's impact on natural ecosystems. The vision I offer here of regenerating nature within the built environment is intended to help fellow scientists, non-scientists, and the general public pursue an environmentally accountable and socially responsible prospect.

Title:

The regeneration of nature: An alternative to ecological restoration.

Name(s):

Hindle, Tobin
Florida Atlantic University, Degree grantor
Fiore, Robin N., Thesis advisor

Type of Resource:

text

Genre:

Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation

Issuance:

monographic

Date Issued:

Publisher:

Florida Atlantic University

Place of Publication:

Boca Raton, Fla.

Physical Form:

application/pdf

Extent:

245 p.

Language(s):

English

Summary:

The Regeneration of Nature: an alternative to ecological restoration is an exploration of the human response to alterations society has imposed on natural ecosystems. Ecological restoration is the dominant response to these degraded systems that has emerged within Western, empirical thought. Restoration as it is characteristically practiced in the United States attempts to reverse human impact by returning an ecosystem to an earlier state of existence; its so called pre-disturbance condition. However, I argue that ecological restoration does not adequately address degraded ecosystems dominating today's landscape primarily because it excludes humans as an integrated part of ecosystems and it ignores the dynamic characteristics of nature. Despite the dichotomy embedded in the restoration view, humans and nature are best understood as interdependent. Therefore, those working on urban environmental issues must develop integrated solutions in which both society and nature benefit without creating negative impacts on each other. In The Regeneration of Nature: an alternative to ecological restoration , I show how the connections between science, society, and nature can be recognized as an integrated view to establish a new paradigm for positive change within communities, both natural and human. The new paradigm, which I entitle ecological regeneration, extends the interdisciplinary style of environmental research as it calls for the development, adoption, and dissemination of a truly integrated and dynamic socio-ecological model to replace the static and reductionist view that prevails within the ecological restoration model. Where restoration treats the human and natural environments as mutually exclusive, regeneration recognizes the necessity of integrating human built systems within nature and nature within built systems. By examining conceptual and practical problems within ecological restoration, my goal is to offer an ecological regeneration framework leading to theoretically better solutions with respect to society's impact on natural ecosystems. The vision I offer here of regenerating nature within the built environment is intended to help fellow scientists, non-scientists, and the general public pursue an environmentally accountable and socially responsible prospect.

Identifier:

9780542750083 (isbn), 12232 (digitool), FADT12232 (IID), fau:9139 (fedora)

Collection:

FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

Note(s):

Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters
Thesis (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2006.

Subject(s):

Nature--Effect of human beings on
Extinction (Biology)
Biological diversity conservation
United States--Environmental policy
Ecosystem management
Ecological assessment (Biology)
Biodiversity

Held by:

Florida Atlantic University Libraries

Persistent Link to This Record:

http://purl.flvc.org/fcla/dt/12232

Sublocation:

Digital Library

Use and Reproduction:

Copyright © is held by the author, with permission granted to Florida Atlantic University to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Use and Reproduction:

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

Host Institution:

FAU

Is Part of Series:

Florida Atlantic University Digital Library Collections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summary: The Regeneration of Nature: an alternative to ecological restoration is an exploration of the human response to alterations society has imposed on natural ecosystems. Ecological restoration is the dominant response to these degraded systems that has emerged within Western, empirical thought.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests.

# data[].attributes.subject
Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests.

# data[].attributes.body
A fascinating meta-analysis addressing the question: is active restoration the best approach to achieve ecological restoration success (the return to a reference condition, that is, old-growth forest) when compared to natural regeneration in tropical forests?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is active restoration the best approach to achieve ecological restoration success (the return to a reference condition, that is, old-growth forest) when compared to natural regeneration in tropical forests? Our meta-analysis of 133 studies demonstrated that natural regeneration surpasses active restoration in achieving tropical forest restoration success for all three biodiversity groups (plants, birds, and invertebrates) and five measures of vegetation structure (cover, density, litter, biomass, and height) tested.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is Permaculture and why is it important?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is Permaculture and why is it important?

# data[].attributes.body
Wise words from some badass women in permaculture.

# data[].attributes.headline
Discover Permaculture with Geoff Lawton 

# data[].attributes.subject
Discover Permaculture with Geoff Lawton 

# data[].attributes.body
A set of videos that provide a wealth of information from one of Permaculutre's biggest proponents, Geoff Lawton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
permaculture design education ethics principles garden urban organic home backyard living farming self-sufficiency off-grid survivalism "healthy living" nutr...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our mission is to inspire people to care for each other and the earth through permaculture design, education and demonstration. Geoff Lawton is a world-renow...

# data[].attributes.body
All things Permaculture based in Ecuador

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
· © 2020 Designed with the Vida Verde Permacultura · Powered by · Customizr theme ·

# data[].attributes.headline
Wouter van Eck: Basic Food Forest Principles

# data[].attributes.subject
Wouter van Eck: Basic Food Forest Principles

# data[].attributes.body
Wouter van Eck describes how Food Forests work on his farm in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Take this inspiring walk with him to see how we could adapt perennial polycultures and natural structures into our farming and daily lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wouter van Eck: Basic Food Forest Principles

# data[].attributes.body
The Den Bosch Food Forest is a one hectare food forest in the Netherlands, with 200 edible plants. Surrounded by intensive industrial farms that are steadily degrading their landscapes, this food forest is doing the opposite, continuously regenerating the land that it is growing on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Den Food Bosch | Echt ecologische voedselproductie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Den Food Bosch is een experimenteel voedselbos in Sint-Michielsgestel waarbij een natuurlijk bosecosysteem wordt nagebootst.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Permaculture Student with Matt Powers

# data[].attributes.subject
The Permaculture Student with Matt Powers

# data[].attributes.body
Matt is an author, educator, permaculture wizard, ecosystem restorer in the most holistic sense, and all around amazing human being. Learn more about his numerous books, multitudinous offerings and course, The Permaculture Student Online, here!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The Permaculture Student series is a landmark in the evolution of human-ecological relationships, and this latest installment raises the bar even higher than the last. Visually compelling, intellectually enriching, and endlessly motivating, this book will enhance the resilience of people of all age groups and backgrounds for decades to come. Whether you are new to permaculture or well-seeped in its principles, The Permaculture Student 2 condenses a wealth of information into an easily digestible and thoroughly engaging format that is sure to give any reader new points of reference and insight.
I highly recommend it."

- Peter McCoy, Radical Mycology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn Permaculture with teacher, plant breeder, seed saver, gardener, and author Matt Powers. Books, online courses, videos, & more!

# data[].attributes.headline
The potentials and limitations of tree plantings as a climate solution

# data[].attributes.subject
The potentials and limitations of tree plantings as a climate solution

# data[].attributes.body
To better understand the role of tree plantings as a climate solution, this paper examines the benefits and limitations of tree planting as a climate solution based on comments from reviewers and current scientific evidence. Highlighted is the complex role tree planting plays in addressing climate change and how focusing too heavily on planting trees can distract from other important climate solutions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2020, the World Economic Forum launched an initiative to plant one trillion trees to tackle climate change. Similar initiatives can be found across the world, yet the international conversation on tree plantings as a solution to reducing CO ₂ emissions in the atmosphere and mitigating the rise in global surface temperature is mixed, with judgments ranging from helpful to harmful. For example, an article in The Guardian says tree planting "has mind-blowing potential" to tackle climate change, whereas an article in Slate says it won't stop climate change and may "do more harm than good."

To better understand the role of tree plantings as a climate solution, Climate Feedback reached out to scientific experts in the field. In this Insight article, we examine the benefits and limitations of tree planting as a climate solution based on comments from reviewers and current scientific evidence. We highlight the complex role tree planting plays in addressing climate change and how focusing too heavily on planting trees can distract from other important climate solutions.

Overall, the ten scientists who provided comments emphasized that the most important climate solution is reducing greenhouse gas emissions[1]. They also highlighted that avoiding deforestation is a cheaper and more effective climate solution than planting new forests (see figure below)[2,3,4]. "First and foremost, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation are far and away the best climate solutions," said William Anderegg, Assistant Professor at the University of Utah.
Figure-An assessment of cost-effective natural climate solution strategies in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. While all pathways demonstrated positive benefits, protecting forests, peatlands, and mangroves provided twice the climate mitigation potential as reforestation. From Griscom et al. (2020)[3].
Although tree planting is a potentially powerful tool in addressing climate change, it is not a panacea. "Tackling climate change is like building a house, we need every tool in the toolbox," said Susan Cook-Patton, Forest Restoration Scientist at The Nature Conservancy. "Tree planting is like a screwdriver. Useful tool? Absolutely! Can you build a house with a screwdriver alone? Absolutely not."

The benefits and limitations of tree planting as a climate solution vary considerably depending on geographic region, local ecology, social context, planting approach, and a multitude of other factors[4,5]. Although scientists are beginning to unravel the trade-offs of planting trees as a climate solution, the net climate effects are not fully understood yet.

Despite this complexity, scientists who provided comments agreed that the focus on tree planting can be a distraction from other important climate solutions and natural carbon sinks. "There's no possible way that we can plant our way out of climate change," said Anderegg.

The benefits of planting trees

Planting trees in areas that were previously forested (reforestation) and in areas with no prior tree cover (afforestation) are two relatively cheap and readily available solutions to help mitigate the effects of climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions[6]. Trees actively remove carbon from the atmosphere as they grow and can store this carbon for long periods of time[7]. As a result, forests generally function as a carbon sink and are currently estimated to absorb 4.0 billion tons of CO ₂ per year[8].

Along with carbon sequestration, trees support biodiversity, stabilize soil, prevent flooding, enhance habitat connectivity, and increase resilience to climate impacts[2,4,5]. In urban areas, trees can provide additional benefits. "Trees have exceptional powers against climate threats, not so much through the absorption of CO ₂, which is extremely limited in comparison to the emissions of a city, but by cooling the air during heat waves, absorbing part of the pollutants and fine dust, and reducing the outflow of surface waters," said Giorgio Vacchiano, Assistant Professor at the Università di Milano.

For example, trees have been shown to reduce average land surface temperature in temperate, arid, and tropical regions (see figure below)[9,10].
Figure-Changes in land and air surface temperature as a result of changes in forest cover from 2003 to 2012 in four different regions around the world (A). In temperate, arid, and tropical regions, afforestation reduced mean air and land surface temperatures (blue shaded region in B and dark red lines in C and D). From Alkama et al. (2016)[10].
Reforestation and afforestation efforts also have the potential to serve as a sustainable source of food and income for local communities if these efforts are implemented appropriately[4,8,11,12]. "Biodiversity, water infiltration, drought resistance and other factors should be considered in tree planting efforts, as well as its influence on the local community," said Sara Vicca, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Antwerp.

The limitations of planting trees

While there are many benefits to planting trees as a climate solution, there are several limitations as well. Tree planting can only offset a fraction of the carbon emitted by humans each year. "Global fossil fuel emissions totaled about 9.5 Gt C per year from 2009-2018, while Earth's land ecosystems (i.e., forests, grasslands) sequestered about 3.2 Gt C per year from the atmosphere[13]," said Logan Berner, Assistant Research Professor at Northern Arizona University. "Thus, burning fossil fuels emitted about three times as much carbon each year as was taken up by all of Earth's land ecosystems!"

In addition, the process of carbon sequestration is slow and not a guarantee over the long term. "Trees only capture carbon as long as they are alive," said Valerie Trouet, Associate Professor at the University of Arizona. "As soon as a tree dies, all the tree planting and carbon capture efforts have been for naught, unless the wood (in which the carbon has been captured) is used for other long-term storage uses, such as construction."

Carbon can also be released from trees that are lost due to fires, droughts, floods, pest outbreaks, and land conversion[2,8,14]. "As temperatures rise and precipitation patterns change, large areas are becoming unsuitable habitat for trees due to direct water stress and indirectly through fires and insect outbreaks," said Karen Holl, Professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Forests also saturate in their ability to sequester carbon[7,15]. "The biggest limitation is that carbon uptake by trees cannot be sustained [forever]-forests can only take up so much carbon before they saturate and provide no further uptake," said Erle Ellis, Professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Finally, reforestation and afforestation efforts often favor single-species plantings over restoring native forests, which can lead to the global spread of monocultures and invasive tree species[12,16,17]. As described in Seddon et al. (2019), "pledges tend to focus more on the extent rather than the quality of forest to be protected, afforested, or reforested. The approach encourages the establishment of monoculture plantations of fast growing species, including exotics."[16]

As a result, some tree planting efforts can replace native ecosystems and reduce biodiversity. "A large body of literature shows that even the best planned restoration projects rarely fully recover the biodiversity of intact forest," as described in Holl et al. (2020)[4].

Reforestation and afforestation can also negatively impact local communities if they remove land available for food production, reduce water supply, increase social inequity, or displace people from the land[4,8,16,18].

The climate effects of tree plantings depend on context

"It all comes down to planting the right trees in the right place in the right way," said Cook-Patton.

Estimates of carbon sequestration from tree plantings can vary by a factor of 10 depending on which tree species are planted, tree age, the amount of land reforested, how long the trees remain on the land, and where they are planted[2,4,6,18].

Trees also have an array of biophysical effects on the environment, including lowering albedo, emitting volatile compounds and methane, altering the roughness of the landscape, and increasing evapotranspiration[19-22]. "Tree planting in temperate and tropical ecosystems will likely lead to overall cooling since the effects of carbon sequestration outweigh the effects of lower surface albedo; however, this is not the case in boreal forests," said Berner. Specifically, in boreal regions, planting trees can increase warming because forests reflect less sunlight than the snow-covered landscapes they replace (i.e. lower albedo)[22].

Trees also alter the roughness of the landscape, which affects the amount of energy and water transferred to the atmosphere[20,22]. As described in Anderson et al. (2010), "Tropical forests have high rates of transpiration that contribute to cloud formation, considerably reducing both surface temperatures and the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface."[22] The biophysical effects of trees vary depending on location and forest type, shaping the overall climate impact of tree plantings(see figure below)[21,22].
Figure-An assessment of the biogeochemical (carbon storage and carbon exchange) and biophysical (net radiation - R and latent heat flux - LE) climate services provided by 18 natural and agricultural ecoregions across the Americas. Biogeochemical (first column) and biophysical (second column) effects were estimated by comparing changes in surface energy relative to a bare-ground baseline if vegetation was cleared over 50 years. The third column combines the biogeochemical and biophysical changes to estimate overall climate regulation values (CRVs). Natural forests in tropical and temperate regions have the greatest net positive effect on climate regulation. From Anderson-Teixeira et al. (2012)[21].
Tree planting and restoration efforts must also be designed, implemented, and monitored effectively over time. "Whether a forest is managed or not is more important than whether a forest is planted or naturally regenerated," said Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Associate Professor at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Long-term commitments to protecting, monitoring, and managing reforested lands are important determinants of how effective tree plantings are as a climate solution[4,8,20]. "People often focus on the biophysical issues of tree planting but social issues are equally important. If tree planting efforts are going to have the desired impacts over the long-term then stakeholders need to be engaged in the efforts or the trees will be re-cleared," said Holl.

Tree planting can distract from other climate solutions

Scientists agreed that the focus on tree planting as a climate solution has the potential to distract from other important approaches, especially the reduction of fossil fuels and avoiding deforestation. "Solving climate change is not about how to reengineer the biosphere with more forests to take up industrial carbon pollution. The problem is how to end industrial carbon emissions, which are the primary cause of climate change," said Ellis.

"Tree planting can be a distraction, particularly when people view it as a simple solution. We have to make rapid and dramatic changes to our behavior and infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Planting trees can be a small piece of the effort but it is not a silver bullet. People perceive it as a cheap and easy way to address climate change and it is much more complicated than it seems," said Holl.

Scientists also emphasized that tree planting is only one aspect of reforestation. Although planting trees may be essential in degraded sites, it is not always necessary. "In places where there are seed sources, nearby forest patches, good growing conditions, a forest can grow back perfectly well on its own without tree planting and at a fraction of the cost and effort," said Cook-Patton.

Conserving other natural carbon storage ecosystems, such as wetlands and peatlands, is another climate solution that can be overshadowed by discussions of tree plantings. For example, peatlands hold 25% of the world's carbon but only cover 2-3% of its land area[16]. "It would make no sense to drain peatland to plant forests-this would cause a massive loss of carbon. Instead re-wetting of peatland and flooding old wetlands can have huge positive carbon and biodiversity effects," said Mark Maslin, Professor at the University College London.

While tree planting can assist in climate mitigation if done carefully, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation are the most important climate solutions. The complex benefits and limitations of tree plantings depend on geographic region, local ecology, social context, planting approach, and a variety of other factors. Because of this, scientists are still working to fully understand the net climate effects of tree plantings.

1. Are the claims that tree planting is among the best climate solutions scientifically accurate?

First, planting trees is not going to solve the problem of climate change if we don't reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As temperatures rise and precipitation patterns change, large areas are becoming unsuitable habitat for trees due to direct water stress and indirectly through fires and insect outbreaks. Moreover, some existing forests are slowing in their capacity to uptake carbon.

Second, it is important to protect existing forests first. Existing forests, rain forests in particular, store large amounts of carbon both above- and below-ground. As a restoration ecologist who has spent over 25 years studying how to restore forests, I know that it is nearly impossible to restore exactly what was there before, and it makes much more ecological and economic sense to protect existing forests so that should be the priority. Yet, large scale forest clearing continues worldwide. For example, in the U.S. the Trump administration is proposing to allow logging in the Tongass National Forest, at the same time that they have expressed support for the Trillion Trees Act. Temperate rain forests store huge amounts of carbon. Likewise, in Brazil there are extensive efforts to restore the Atlantic forest ecosystem in southeastern Brazil at the same time that deforestation and forest fires have increased substantially in the Amazon in the past couple of years. Efforts should focus on reducing the drivers of deforestation and enforcing existing legislation that protects forest.

Third, it is important to distinguish between tree planting and increasing tree cover or forest cover. Many forests are able to recover on their own if degrading factors are removed, so often it is not necessary to plant trees[17]. Allowing for natural recovery should be the first option for restoring forests, as it is more ecologically and economically sound. If it is necessary to plant trees either due to slow recovery or for socioeconomic reasons then the focus should be on restoring tree cover over the long-term. Many of these large-scale planting schemes focus on the number of trees put in the ground without considering who is going to care for and monitor the trees and whether the social conditions are in place for the trees to not be cleared. This has led to many massive tree planting failures. It also means that the cost of planting trees is substantially underestimated. The cost needs to include not only growing the seedling, digging the hole and planting the tree, but management such as clearing competitive vegetation and monitoring the outcomes of tree planting over the longer term.

Afforestation, forest management, forest conservation all come with considerable benefits (could be cheap, community-based, enhance welfare, enhance wealth) and it is beyond doubt that under the right conditions afforestation, forest management, forest conservation can all sequester carbon (under the current environmental conditions). Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether carbon sequestration in forests is sufficient for mitigating climate change.

Mark Maslin, Professor, University College London:
Many of these articles are well meaning but they are misleading. The magic number of 1 trillion trees is always mentioned which is about 900m hectares of new forest which is about the size of the whole of the USA. One study in Science suggested this could store 205 billion tonnes but this has been shown to be incorrect as they left out key parts of the calculation. The most recent reliable estimate from the IPCC suggests that new forests could store on average an extra 57 billion tonnes of carbon by the end of the century. This is still a huge number - but in 2019 we emitted over 11 billion tonnes of carbon - so planting an area the size of the USA with trees would take out just 6 years of pollution. So the best climate solution is to stop burning fossil fuels completely. So tree planting is useful and essential but not the best climate solution by a long way.

Susan Cook-Patton, Forest Restoration Scientist, The Nature Conservancy:
The very most important thing is to reduce fossil fuel emissions! After that, there is no single "best" climate solution. Climate change is a complicated and global problem and to address that problem, we need a diversity of solutions. I would also argue that we need to think about protecting forests first. It's a lot cheaper and more effective to keep the carbon in the forest than it is to try to regrow that carbon later. Improving management of working lands is also a promising option.

However, restoring trees to where they historically occurred is a powerful natural climate solution, because trees are great at absorbing lots of carbon from the atmosphere and storing it for long periods of time. Note that I said "restoring trees" rather than planting trees, because there are lots of ways to restore trees to the landscape. In places where there are seed sources, nearby forest patches, good growing conditions, a forest can grow back perfectly well on its own without tree planting and at a fraction of the cost and effort. Tree planting is going to be more expensive and more time-consuming than letting forests naturally regrow, but may be absolutely essential in degraded sites that are far from seed sources. Other ways to restore tree cover include setting up agroforestry systems (e.g., silvopasture) or establishing plantations, and these approaches can help optimize human livelihoods and carbon capture. The best approach is going to depend on local context. First, what does the local community want from the landscape and second, what are the best and lowest cost mechanisms for restoring trees while meeting the needs of the local community?

My current preferred analogy is that tackling climate change is like building a house. We need every tool in the toolbox. Tree planting is like a screwdriver. Useful tool? Absolutely! Can you build a house with a screwdriver alone? Absolutely not.

Giorgio Vacchiano, Assistant Professor, Università di Milano:
According to the best available science, "nature-based solutions", which include planting trees, managing existing forests in a "climatically intelligent" way, stopping tropical deforestation, conserving wetlands and peatlands, and practicing Conservative agriculture could help us achieve 30% of the climatic mitigation required by 2030 to contain heating at the end of the century within 2°C compared to the pre-industrial era[2]. The mere expansion of forests in all available areas (excluding agricultural, urban and highly biodiverse ones such as savannas) could guarantee, through additional photosynthesis, an additional sequestration of over 10 billion tons of CO ₂ per year[5,11]. A contribution which is not sufficient on its own, but which cannot be dispensed with if the goal of the Paris agreements is to be achieved.

However, this contribution is not obvious. First of all, to realize this potential it is necessary to plant "the right trees in the right place", and to ensure the new forests care and protection from drought and fires, especially in the early years. Science today knows well the best techniques for creating resistant, resilient and functional forests, which are capable of self-sustaining ecologically once they reach maturity.

Secondly, there are some situations in which planting trees could trigger opposite consequences to those desired. They are the so-called "biophysical effects". Trees and forests have other ways, besides photosynthesis, to change the local climate. Trees can change albedo, or a color change of the earth's surface, from white (snowy areas without trees) or dark (tropical deforested soils) to green (new areas with trees). In the first case, corresponding to the arctic and boreal areas, a darker surface color would result in heating, for the same phenomenon that we experience when we enter a dark car on a hot August day. The greater evaporation of water by new trees can favor the formation of clouds (cooling effect), but also increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, a natural greenhouse gas (heating effect). The increase in surface roughness favors the dispersion of heat by turbulence (cooling effect). The production of methane, a greenhouse gas, by forests in tropical wetlands such as mangroves (heating effect), and the emission of volatile organic compounds can favor the formation of clouds (cooling effect).

As can be seen, some of these biophysical effects have contrasting effects. To obtain a precise estimate, scientists use bio-physical models of the Earth's climate, with which they try to reproduce the effects of an increase or decrease in forests and their consequences on the climate. However, the little research conducted so far has yielded conflicting results on their overall effect - an extremely active debate. This uncertainty is crucial, because according to the IPCC, there is a high probability that biophysical effects on a local scale are more important than those caused by photosynthesis.

In reality, the net climate balance depends on the geographical area where the new forests are planted, the species used, and the soil moisture. According to the models considered by the IPCC, an increase in forests in the tropics would cause both global and local cooling (2.5 °C less in the Sahel, 1.2 less in China, and up to 8 degrees less in western Sahara).

Contrary to what emerged from earlier studies[23], according to the special report of the IPCC, in Europe and North America a cooling effect is possible as a result of forest expansion, except in the most arid areas, where there is not enough water to evaporate and the "darkening" effect would be prevalent[5,11]. According to some researchers, the heat waves of 2003 and 2010 in Europe would have been much weaker in the event of large-scale afforestation. The only area where the two effects compensate each other seems to be the boreal-arctic one where, due to the albedo effect, the planting of new forests would have a climate effect three times less effective than in tropical areas[9].

According to the most recent studies, considering both the biophysical effects and photosynthesis, the afforestation of 800 million hectares worldwide would result in a decrease in temperature of 1 degree in temperate regions and 2.5 in the boreal ones[24].

But there is a third point, the most important. The cities of the world are suffering the most severe consequences of climate change: summer heat waves, intense and sudden rainfall, the deterioration of air quality. And trees have exceptional powers against these threats. Not so much through the absorption of CO ₂, which is extremely limited in comparison to the emissions of a city, but by facilitating the adaptation of citizens. Cooling the air during heat waves, absorbing part of the pollutants and fine dust, reducing the outflow of surface waters. In summary, improving the health and well-being of citizens in a "highly likely" way - as the IPCC report on Climate Change and Land also concludes[5,11].

Sara Vicca, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Antwerp:
The best climate solutions are those that lead to quick reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. This requires in the first place a fast phasing out of fossil fuel emissions (which are responsible for some 85% of CO ₂ emissions or 70-75% of greenhouse gas emissions). That really needs to be priority number 1 for climate action. Without reducing emissions, we cannot tackle climate change.

Another important source of emissions is deforestation, which should also be halted asap, not only for climate reasons, but also, for example, for biodiversity reasons.

But, conventional mitigation (emission reductions) alone will not suffice and we will most likely also need to actively remove CO ₂ from the atmosphere if we are to limit warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius. Tree planting has been put forward as one way to do this; reforestation and afforestation is one of those so-called negative emission technologies that has been suggested for active CO ₂ removal from the atmosphere. Trees take up carbon as they grow, and can store some of that carbon for a long time (in wood and in soil). It is one of the easier techniques with estimated C sequestration potential up to ~4 Gt CO ₂ y-1, at least in the short term[8]. In the long term, this rate cannot be maintained because the land that can be planted is not endless.

An important caveat of tree planting for C sequestration is that the permanence of this C storage cannot be guaranteed. For example, a new land owner might decide to cut the forest and thereby undo the C sequestration, and more importantly, climate change poses an increasing threat to these C reservoirs: more frequent and extreme heatwaves and droughts for example reduce forest C uptake and increase the chance for forest fires.

Besides afforestation and reforestation, some other technologies have also been proposed for active removal of CO ₂ from the atmosphere. These include improved management of agricultural soils, the use of biochar, enhanced weathering, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and direct air capture. Most of these techniques are not yet available at scale and they all have their own pros and cons, including potentially high costs, competition for land and biodiversity impacts.

As recently stated by Holl et al. (2020), tree planting is not a simple solution. Many factors need to be taken into account![4] "Well-planned tree-planting projects are an important component of global efforts to improve ecological and human well-being. But tree planting becomes problematic when it is promoted as a simple, silver bullet solution and overshadows other actions that have greater potential for addressing the drivers of specific environmental problems, such as taking bold and rapid steps to reduce deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions."[4]

and

"Reforestation projects can be an important component of ensuring the well-being of the planet in coming decades, but only if they are tailored to the local socioecological context and consider potential trade-offs. To achieve the desired outcomes, tree-planting efforts must be integrated as one piece of a multifaceted approach to address complex environmental problems; be carefully planned to consider where and how to most effectively realize specific project goals; and include a long-term commitment to land protection, management, and funding."[4]
From Minx et al. (2018)[7]. 2. Various articles express concerns about planting trees to address climate change, including limited effectiveness of trees as carbon sinks, planting non-native tree species, or planting monocultures. Other articles describe how trees can trap heat (low albedo) and release volatile chemicals that stick to aerosols. Do these concerns influence the role of tree plantings as a climate solution?
The figure below gives an overview of the negative emission technologies that are currently being considered/developed and indicates their current readiness level as well as various pros and cons.

Logan Berner, Assistant Research Professor, Northern Arizona University:
The effects of tree planting on albedo are an important consideration. Tree planting in temperate and tropical ecosystems will likely lead to overall cooling since the effects of carbon sequestration outweigh the effects of lower surface albedo; however, this is not the case in boreal forests. This great figure from Anderson-Teixeira et al. (2012) highlights how the biogeochemical (i.e., carbon) effects stack up against biophysical effects (e.g., albedo, evaporation) across ecosystems in the Americas(see figure above)[21].
Susan Cook-Patton, Forest Restoration Scientist, The Nature Conservancy:
From Canadell and Raupach (2008) in Science: "Although sequestering carbon in forests is good for the climate, forests also affect biophysical properties of the land surface such as sunlight reflectivity (albedo) and evaporation, with further implications for radiative forcing of climate. Climate models suggest that large reforestation programs in boreal regions would have limited climate benefits because of the substitution of bright snow-dominated regions for dark forest canopies. Conversely, the climate benefits of reforestation in the tropics are enhanced by positive biophysical changes such as cloud formation, which further reflects sunlight. These patterns of full radiative forcing reinforce the large potential of tropical regions in climate mitigation, discourage major land use changes in boreal regions, and suggest avoiding large albedo changes in temperate regions to maximize the climate benefits of carbon sequestration."[14]

It all comes down to planting the right trees in the right place in the right way. Trees in places with high snow cover may have net negative (bad) climate impacts because of albedo, but there are lots of places in the world where that's not an issue! Native trees and diverse tree communities are going to support higher levels of biodiversity. The concerns you raise are real, but those can be solved with better project planning.

This is why we emphasize that it is important how and where tree planting is done, as those impacts depend on the location, the species planted, and who is involved in the project. Our more recent paper discusses these issues in more detail. People plant trees for many different reasons, of which carbon is only one. It is critical that tree planting projects clearly state their goals, choose appropriate methods and locations to achieve those goals, and then monitor whether they have achieved those goals.

Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Associate Professor, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam:
Substantial land-based carbon sequestration through afforestation, forest management, forest conservation requires vast amounts of land and interferes with other land uses as well as with other processes than solely C-sequestration. Given the state of knowledge, it is scientifically dishonest to study and report, for example, the impact of large-scale afforestation in semi-arid regions without considering its impact on groundwater and river discharge. The same applies to studies that leave out albedo, roughness, transpiration, volatile chemicals. There is a strong theoretical basis and an increasing observational basis that these properties/processes should be accounted for if the forest sector wants to make climate-related claims. Another way of looking at this issue is that most of the research this far should have concluded that "afforestation, forest management, forest conservation can offset CO ₂ emissions but their net climate effects are yet to be determined".

Mark Maslin, Professor, University College London:
Tree planting or reforestation is used as a general catch all term - what people really mean is rewilding - restoring the most appropriate ecosystem to each area. For example it would make no sense to drain peatland to plant forests - this would cause a massive loss of carbon. Instead re-wetting of peatland and flooding old wetlands can have huge positive carbon and biodiversity effects. But there are large areas of the world which had trees and we can replant them and they will thrive because they should naturally be there. Humans have cut down half the trees on the planet, three trillion of them, since the beginning of agriculture - so we know the Earth can support a lot more trees. Forests also have very positive effects from stabilising soils, stabilising the local rainfall, preventing floods, ameliorating heatwaves and preserving biodiversity. But again it has to be the right tree species in the right place.

- Plant fast-growing, but short-lived trees or long-lived, but slow-growing trees?

- Plant trees that are adapted to the current climate or to a future climate (if they are long-lived)?

- What to do to protect the forests from forest fires, insect outbreaks, etc., which will all nullify the carbon sequestration history of a forest.

- What to do with the wood after a tree has lived its life? Long-term wood use (e.g., in construction) can keep the carbon sequestered for a long time after the trees die.
3. How much carbon is sequestered by planted trees? How does this compare to carbon sequestered by existing forests?
- In that context: focus tree planting on trees that are useful for construction (often slow-growing)?

Logan Berner, Assistant Research Professor, Northern Arizona University:
I'm not sure at a global scale, but a recent study focused on Oregon provides some insight into this question. Law et al. (2018) found that forests in Oregon currently store ~3,036 Tg C and that a combination of afforestation and reforestation could increase carbon storage by ~409 Tg C (+13%) by 2100[25]. "Reforestation, afforestation, lengthened harvest cycles on private lands, and restricting harvest on public lands increase NECB [net ecosystem carbon balance] 56% by 2100, with the latter two actions contributing the most."[25]

Susan Cook-Patton, Forest Restoration Scientist, The Nature Conservancy:
Carbon sequestered by planted trees varies by where you are in the world, what has been planted, and how old those trees are. As I mentioned above, it's usually cheaper and more effective to keep carbon in existing forests than it is to recapture that carbon.

Sara Vicca, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Antwerp:
I don't have numbers for this at hand, but C sequestration in trees/forests depends strongly on the conditions (climate, soil, species). And it is also important to take into account the destination of the soil in the absence of tree planting. For example, replacing a biodiverse grassland or wetland, which can have very high soil carbon stocks, would be very problematic and could release large amounts of CO ₂.
4. What is the importance of tree planting relative to other climate solutions? Is tree planting a distraction?
Carbon sequestration is an important ecosystem service of trees and forests, but the amount of C that a tree can store is perhaps not the best reason to plant it. Biodiversity, water infiltration, drought resistance and other factors should be considered, as well as its influence on the local community (e.g. competition for land with food production is an important risk).

Susan Cook-Patton, Forest Restoration Scientist, The Nature Conservancy:
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most important (from fossil fuels, from the land sector). But as I said above, restoring tree cover represents a powerful tool for tackling the climate crisis rather than a panacea. Tree planting will be an essential tool in some places, letting forest grow back is another valuable one, as well as all the other natural climate solutions.

Karen Holl, Professor, University of California, Santa Cruz:
Tree planting can be a distraction, particularly when people view it as a simple solution. One of the most concerning videos I have seen was the one put out by Youtuber Mr. Beast about tree planting. It so oversimplifies tree planting and there's no clear reason why the trees are being planted. People donate to causes like that and think that "now I have done my part to reduce climate change." We have to make rapid and dramatic changes to our behavior and infrastructure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Planting trees can be a small piece of the effort but it is not a silver bullet. People perceive it as a cheap and easy way to address climate change and it is much more complicated than it seems.

If the focus of the debate is climate change, tree planting is a distraction from solving the climate problem. Since the 1970s, our greenhouse gas emissions have increased so much that it is questionable if tree planting will even buy us any time. This does not imply that the forestry sector has no responsibilities to take in mitigating climate change. The most important responsibility is without doubt to stop deforestation (not only in Brazil and Indonesia). Other countries could take their responsibility through forest management or when the environmental conditions are right through afforestation.

If the focus of the debate are socio-economic and/or environmental problems in general, tree planting could be a nice solution for several often related problems, e.g., water quality, erosion control, missing school because children need to walk half a day to gather firewood, etc.).
5. Are there any issues with how this topic has typically been presented in news stories?
Sara Vicca, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Antwerp:
Yes, this is a great risk. Human activities currently emit ~ 40 Gt CO ₂ per year. Tree planting could sequester around 4 GtCO ₂ per year and high estimates go up to 7Gt CO ₂ per year. Obviously, tree planting can never compensate for current CO ₂ emissions. None of the negative emission technologies that are currently at the table (under development) could. Even if we combine the potential C sequestration of all these negative emission technologies (many of which are still under development, several are (very) costly, and some are mutually exclusive), we would not reach the high level of current emissions.

William Anderegg, Associate Professor, University of Utah:
I worry that a lot of news stories haven't included or grappled with the huge challenges and issues that tree planting/reforestation needs to address before it is a useful and major climate solution. We have a paper in press at Science that highlights the major climate risks that reforestation projects face.
From Holl et al. (2020)[4].
Logan Berner, Assistant Research Professor, Northern Arizona University:
Tree planting can reduce surface temperatures, especially in arid, temperature, and tropical environments(see figure above)[10]. In urban areas this can reduce cooling costs and potential impacts of heat waves on vulnerable populations. Two examples: In the UK, "Computer modelling showed tree planting could reduce maximum surface temperature by between 0.5 °C and 2.3 °C. The highest reductions occurred in housing types with the lowest tree cover, but in no housing type could new tree planting keep temperatures to current levels even to the 2020s."[27] In the US, "Our simulations suggest that a single 25-ft tall tree can reduce annual heating and cooling costs of a typical residence by 8 to 12 percent ($10-25). Assuming annual savings of $10 per household, a nationwide residential tree planting program could eventually save about $1 billion each year."[28] Another important co-benefit is the potential for tree planting to increase habitat connectivity.

REFERENCES

1 - Lewis et al. (2019) Comment on "The global tree restoration potential." Science.

2 - Griscom et al. (2017) Natural climate solutions. PNAS.

3 - Griscom et al. (2020) National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.

4 - Holl et al. (2020) Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science.

5 - IPCC (2019) Summary for policymakers. In Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.

6 - Korner (2017) A matter of tree longevity. Science.

7 - Minx et al. (2018) Negative emissions-Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environmental Research Letters.

8 - Smith et al. (2019) Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annual Review of Environment and Resources.

9 - Arora et al. (2011) Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nature Geoscience.

10 - Alkama et al. (2016) Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science.

11 - Jia et al. (2019) Land-climate interactions. In: Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.

12 - Seddon et al. (2020) Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.

13 - Friedlingstein et al. (2019) Global carbon budget 2019. Earth System Science Data.

14 - Canadell et al. (2008) Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science.

15 - Nabuurs et al. (2013) First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nature Climate Change.

16 - Seddon et al. (2019) Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nature Climate Change.

17 - Chazdon et al. (2019) Restoring forests as a means to many ends. Science.

18 - Fuss et al. (2018) Negative emissions-Part 2: Costs, potentials and side-effects. Environmental Research Letters.

19 - Mykleby et al. (2017) Quantifying the trade-off between carbon sequestration and albedo in midlatitude and high-latitude North American forests. Geophysical Research Letters.

20 - Luyssaert et al. (2018) Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature.

21 - Anderson-Teixeira et al. (2012) Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas. Nature Climate Change.

22 - Anderson et al. (2010) Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection. Front Ecol Environ.

23 - Bala et al. (2007) Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. PNAS.

24 - Sonntag et al. (2018) Quantifying and comparing effects of climate engineering methods on the Earth system. Earth's Future.

25 - Law et al. (2018) Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. PNAS.

26 - Pacala et al. (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science.

27 - Hall et al. (2012) The potential of tree planting to climate-proof high density residential areas in Manchester, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning.

28 - McPherson et al. (1993) Energy conservation potential of urban tree planting. Journal of Arboriculture.

UPDATES

12 June 2020: This post was updated with minor edits to improve clarity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The potentials and limitations of tree plantings as a climate solution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
the international conversation on tree plantings as a solution to reducing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere and mitigating the rise in global surface temperature is mixed, with judgments ranging from helpful to harmful.

# data[].attributes.body
Earth-centric eco-cultural values for a post-growth world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
REINDIGENISING THE FUTURE • Earth-centric eco-cultural values for a post-growth world

# data[].attributes.headline
Restoring Degraded Land To Benefit People and Planet

# data[].attributes.subject
Restoring Degraded Land To Benefit People and Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Restoring Degraded Land To Benefit People and Planet

# data[].attributes.body
In this conversation, Tom Goreau - one of the world's leading scientists actively working on marine regeneration - first sets the context and suggests some key reasons why we need to engage in geo-therapy rather than geo-engineering to regenerate marines ecosystems and restore ocean and planetary health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marine Regeneration - with Tom Goreau (hosted by Daniel Wahl)

# data[].attributes.body
The Roy’s Pools Fish Passage and Floodplain Restoration Project involves removing the highest priority fish barrier in central California, creating and restoring approximately 5 acres of creek habitat with the construction of 0.25-mile long floodplain corridors along the former San Geronimo golf course property.

The project will provide year-round access to critical habitat for salmon, create valuable floodplain corridors for terrestrial wildlife movement, greatly increase the amount of trees for nesting birds, and will replace a failing pedestrian bridge with a new prefabricated bridge, linking trails and providing fish viewing over a wider, more complex and stable creek channel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Restoring Roy's Pools - An Online Presentation by SPAWN

# data[].attributes.body
Video reporters of the initiative What if we change followed  the work of local communities and organizations in India, Bolivia, Mali and Bonaire for two years. This documentary is compiled from over 1000 video stories they produced for the interactive platform whatifwechange.org. It shows both the challenges AND the solutions when it comes to offering nearly 7 billion people a healthy life on earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What if we change - documentary on ecosystem restoration

# data[].attributes.headline
Longleaf Pine Land Stewardship Project | Florida Ecosystem Restoration

# data[].attributes.subject
Longleaf Pine Land Stewardship Project | Florida Ecosystem Restoration

# data[].attributes.body
Tall Timbers is the home of fire ecology, and has worked for over fifty years to promote prescribed fire, research the wildlife of the Fire Forest, and operate as one of the nation's leading land trusts. They've permanently protected and helped manage hundreds of thousands of acres, right in the heart of the longleaf pine's range.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Longleaf Pine Land Stewardship Project | Florida Ecosystem Restoration

# data[].attributes.body
Livestream pilot focusing on specific ecological restoration happening globally and in 23 Ecosystem Restoration Camps and needed on a planetary scale.

# data[].attributes.body
CoRenewal (formerly known as Amazon MycoRenewal Project) is a 501c-3 nonprofit organization dedicated to providing education and research in ecosystem restoration, health and healing, and sustainable community dynamics. CoRenewal is organized exclusively to conduct these activities: facilitate research, development, and implementation of solutions supporting ecosystem resilience; evaluate and ameliorate the impacts of environmental quality on individual and community health; engage in education, career-building, and research-oriented programs pertaining to ecology and sustainable community development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An online community for people interested in learning more about the role of Fungi in Fire Ecology, post-fire ecological regeneration, post-fire mycoremediation of toxins, and related topics. Our goal is to learn more about fire and fungal ecology, as well as connect with others and build capacity to implement regenerative practices to mitigate catastrophic wildfire. Our reading materials will be stored in Google Drive, and will include many articles published in scientific journals that are not typically available to the public. Each week we'll have a different article to read during the week, and will meet on Zoom for 1hr each week. Participants will have the opportunity to sign up for a date to summarize the article for the Zoom session, and lead a discussion with the group. In addition, we will invite guest speakers to share their insights and speak about their experiences for special Zoom sessions. T he information gathered will be open source; it may be used to advance and apply for new CoRenewal projects, and may be used by any individual or organization.

Timing: We will meet on Zoom Thursdays 4-5pm PST April 16-June 4. We may continue the group for longer.

$20-$100 sliding scale suggested donation to cover administrative costs and support CoRenewal's work.

This online MycoRenewal Course will provide participants with a comprehensive introduction to the diverse and dynamic world of Mycology; from fungal biology, to cultivation techniques, fungi for food and medicine, and how to use fungi to regenerate degraded ecosystems. In this course, CoRenewal hopes to cultivate and reinforce a worldwide mycelial network of people from various backgrounds to come together in mutually beneficial relationships with one another and the natural world.Our list of inspiring and innovative teachers includes: Mia Maltz PhD, Leila Darwish, Willoughby Arevalo, Danielle Stevenson, Maya Elson, Brendan O'Brien, Taylor Bright and Jacquelyn Burmeister

Beginner and Intermediate Mycologists welcome!
Read the Teacher Bios here
Session 1: Introduction to Fungal Biology and MycoRenewal
Session 2: Fire and Water: Post-fire Fungi and Mycofiltration
Session 3: Fungi for food and medicine
Session 4: Mycoremediation
Session 5: Environmental Justice and Bioremediation
​Session 6: Applying MycoRenewal Skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An online community for people interested in learning more about the role of Fungi in Fire Ecology, post-fire ecological regeneration, post-fire mycoremediation of toxins, and related topics. Our goal is to learn more about fire and fungal ecology, as well as connect with others and build capacity to implement regenerative practices to mitigate catastrophic wildfire.

# data[].attributes.body
The restorative continuum includes a range of activities and interventions that can improve environmental conditions and reverse ecosystem degradation and landscape fragmentation. The continuum highlights interconnections among these different activities, and recognizes that the specific characteristics of the locality slated for restorative actions dictates the activities best suited for different landscape units. As one moves from left to right on the continuum, both ecological health and biodiversity outcomes, and quality and quantity of ecosystem services increase.

# data[].attributes.headline
Eight Principles Underpinning Ecological Restoration 

# data[].attributes.subject
Eight Principles Underpinning Ecological Restoration 

# data[].attributes.headline
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration.

# data[].attributes.subject
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration.

# data[].attributes.body
The second edition of the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) presents a robust framework for restoration projects to achieve intended goals, while addressing challenges including effective design and implementation, accounting for complex ecosystem dynamics (especially in the context of climate change), and navigating trade‐offs associated with land management priorities and decisions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author contributions: GDG, TM, BW coordinated production of the document and solicited reviews of the first edition and subsequent drafts. GDG, TM, BW, JA, CRN, JJ, JGH, CE, MRG, JL, FH, CE, EG, and KWD wrote sections of the text. JGH edited and revised the document. NS and KD clarified sections of the text.

Coordinating Editor: Valter Amaral

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) is an international non‐profit organization with members in 70 countries. SER advances the science, practice and policy of ecological restoration to sustain biodiversity, improve resilience in a changing climate, and re‐establish an ecologically healthy relationship between nature and culture. SER is a dynamic global network, linking researchers, practitioners, land managers, community leaders and decision‐makers to restore ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. Via its members, publications, conferences, policy work, and outreach, SER defines and delivers excellence in the field of ecological restoration.

Document development . International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) was developed through consultation with professionals within the Society for Ecological Restoration and their peers in the global scientific and conservation communities. The first edition was launched in 2016 at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Cancún, Mexico. This event brought together key stakeholders from across the international policy arena, many of whom had been instrumental in driving the global initiatives to implement large‐scale environmental restoration programs. Because the Standards were written as a living document to be modified and expanded through consultation and use by stakeholders, the launch included an open invitation for stakeholder input, to both improve the document and promote broad use. Subsequently, over a multi‐year consultation period, SER invited input and review from a diverse spectrum of people and organizations contributing to ecological restoration. Key stakeholders contacted for comment included the secretariats of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) including its Science‐Policy Interface, Global Environment Facility, the World Bank, and members of the Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR). In 2017, SER partnered with the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management to deliver an invited Forum on Biodiversity and Global Forest Restoration at which the SER Standards were reviewed (SER and IUCN‐CEM 2018). SER also organized a symposium on the SER Standards and an open Knowledge Café at the 2017 SER World Conference on Ecological Restoration. Additional input was received at other events, including the 9 th Ecosystem Services Partnership World Conference in Shenzhen, China in 2017. To capture the perspectives of the SER community, SER invited online feedback via its website and sent an online survey to SER members, affiliates, and stakeholders. SER has also considered and responded to feedback from published critiques in its journal, Restoration Ecology .

All comments received during the consultative review process were considered in the revision process. The second edition of the Standards was approved by the SER Science and Policy Committee, and the SER Board of Directors on 18 June 2019. As with the first edition, this version will be revised and improved as the discipline evolves through science, practice, and adaptive management.

The Standards are compatible with and expand on the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013) and complement the REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES 2012), and other conservation standards and guidelines.

Contributors . Levi Wickwire provided assistance during document development. Karen Keenleyside contributed content to the original version. Andre Clewell's inspiration and ideas led to the attributes list and circle template (Fig. 4; Appendix 2), Kayri Havens assisted with adapting Appendix 1 on selection of seeds and other propagules, and Craig Beatty contributed to Section 4, Part 3 on global restoration initiatives. We thank the following translators of the first edition: Claudia Concha, Marcela Bustamante and Cristian Echeverría (Spanish); Ricardo Cesar (Portuguese); Narayana Bhat (Arabic); Jaeyong Choi (Korean); Junguo Liu (Chinese); and, Jean‐François Alignan, Julie Braschi, Élise Buisson, Jacqueline Buisson, Manon Hess, Renaud Jaunatre, Maxime Le Roy, Sandra Malaval, and Réseau d'Échanges et de Valorisation en Écologie de la Restauration (REVER) (French).

Reviewers . Many international experts provided suggestions for development of the second edition. We acknowledge many here, but may have unintentionally missed some individuals. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the reviewers. Sasha Alexander, Mariam Akhtar‐Schuster, Craig Beatty, María Consuelo de Bonfil, Karma Bouazza, Elise Buisson, Andre Clewell, Jordi Cortina, Donald Falk, Marco Fioratti, Scott Hemmerling, Richard Hobbs, Karen Holl, Berit Köhler, Nik Lopoukhine, Graciela Metternicht, Luiz Fernando Moraes, Stephen Murphy, Michael Perring, David Polster, Karel Prach, Anne Tolvanen, Alan Unwin, Ramesh Venkataraman, Steve Whisenant, Andrew Whitley, and Shira Yoffe provided critical reviews. The published manuscript greatly benefited from peer review by Karel Prach, Vicky Temperton, and Joy Zedler. Their assistance, dedication, and timeliness in reviewing the manuscript was unparalleled.

Participants at the SER and IUCN‐CEM Forum on Biodiversity and Global Forest Restoration, Iguassu Falls, Brazil, 2017 helped clarify the scope and context of the SER Standards: Angela Andrade, James Aronson, Rafael Avila, Brigitte Baptiste, Rubens de Miranda Benini, Rachel Biderman, Blaise Bodin, Consuelo Bonfil, Magda Bou Dagher Kharrat, MiHee Cho, Youngtae Choi, Jordi Cortina, Kingsley Dixon, Giselda Durigan, Cristian Echeverría, Steve Edwards, George Gann, Manuel R. Guariguata, Yoly Gutierrez, James Hallett, Ric Hauer, Karen Holl, Fangyuan Hua, Paola Isaacs, Justin Jonson, Won‐Seok Kang, Agnieszka Latawiec, Harvey Locke, James McBreen, Tein McDonald, Paula Meli, Jean Paul Metzger, Miguel A. Moraes, Ciro Moura, Cara Nelson, Margaret O'Connell, Aurelio Padovezi, Hernán Saavedra, Catalina Santamaria, Gerardo Segura Warnholtz, Kirsty Shaw, Nancy Shaw, Bernardo Strassburg, Evert Thomas, José Marcelo, Alan Unwin, Liette Vasseur, Joseph Veldman, Bethanie Walder, and Jorge Watanabe.

Participants at the Knowledge Café on the International Standards, 2017 SER World Conference on Ecological Restoration, Iguassu Falls, Brazil included Mitch Aide, Rafael Carlos Ávila‐Santa Cruz, Suresh Babu, Blaise Bodin, Craig Beatty, Steve Edwards, George Gann, Angelita Gómez, Emily Gonzales, Justin Jonson, Marion Karmann, Tein McDonald, Cara Nelson, Antonio Ordorica, Claudia Padilla, Liliane Parany, David Polster, Catalina Santamaria, Bethanie Walder, Andrew Whitley, Paddy Woodworth, and Gustavo Zuleta.

Feedback on the published first edition . Valuable comments were received from Constance Bersok, Kris Boody, Zoe Brocklehurst, Elise Buisson, Peter Cale, David Carr, Michael Rawson Clark, Andre Clewell, Adam Cross, Maria del Sugeyrol Villa Ramirez, Rory Denovan, Giselda Durigan, Rolf Gersonde, Emily Gonzales, Diane Haase, Ismael Hernández Valencia, Eric Higgs, Sean King, Beatriz Maruri‐Aguilar, Rob Monico, Michael Morrison, Stephen Murphy, Tom Nedland, J.T. Netherland, Samira Omar, David Ostergren, Glenn Palmgren, Jim Palus, Aviva Patel, David Polster, Jack Putz, Danielle Romiti, George H. Russell, David Sabaj‐Stahl, Raj Shekhar Singh, Nicky Strahl, Tobe Query, Edith Tobe, Michael Toohill, Daniel Vallauri, Jorge Watanabe, Jeff Weiss, William Zawacki, and Paul Zedler. Cassandra Rosa compiled detailed notes and reviewed comments from >100 respondents of the SER survey on the Standards.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ecological restoration, when implemented effectively and sustainably, contributes to protecting biodiversity; improving human health and wellbeing; increasing food and water security; delivering goods, services, and economic prosperity; and supporting climate change mitigation, resilience, and adaptation. It is a solutions‐based approach that engages communities, scientists, policymakers, and land managers to repair ecological damage and rebuild a healthier relationship between people and the rest of nature. When combined with conservation and sustainable use, ecological restoration is the link needed to move local, regional, and global environmental conditions from a state of continued degradation, to one of net positive improvement. The second edition of the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) presents a robust framework for restoration projects to achieve intended goals, while addressing challenges including effective design and implementation, accounting for complex ecosystem dynamics (especially in the context of climate change), and navigating trade‐offs associated with land management priorities and decisions.

The Standards establish eight principles that underpin ecological restoration. Principles 1 and 2 articulate important foundations that guide ecological restoration: effectively engaging a wide range of stakeholders, and fully utilizing available scientific, traditional, and local knowledge, respectively. Principles 3 and 4 summarize the central approach to ecological restoration, by highlighting ecologically appropriate reference ecosystems as the target of restoration and clarifying the imperative for restoration activities to support ecosystem recovery processes. Principle 5 underscores the use of measurable indicators to assess progress toward restoration objectives. Principle 6 lays out the mandate for ecological restoration to seek the highest attainable recovery. Tools are provided to identify the levels of recovery aspired to and to track progress. Principle 7 highlights the importance of restoration at large spatial scales for cumulative gains. Finally, ecological restoration is one of several approaches that address damage to ecosystems and Principle 8 clarifies its relationships to allied approaches on a "Restorative Continuum".

The Standards highlight the role of ecological restoration in connecting social, community, productivity, and sustainability goals. The Standards also provide recommended performance measures for restorative activities for industries, communities, and governments to consider. In addition, the Standards enhance the list of practices and actions that guide practitioners in planning, implementation, and monitoring activities. The leading practices and guidance include discussion on appropriate approaches to site assessment and identification of reference ecosystems, different restoration approaches including natural regeneration, consideration of genetic diversity under climate change, and the role of ecological restoration in global restoration initiatives. This edition also includes an expanded glossary of restoration terminology. SER and its international partners produced the Standards for adoption by communities, industries, governments, educators, and land managers to improve ecological restoration practice across all sectors and in all ecosystems, terrestrial and aquatic. The Standards support development of ecological restoration plans, contracts, consent conditions, and monitoring and auditing criteria. Generic in nature, the Standards framework can be adapted to particular ecosystems, biomes, or landscapes; individual countries; or traditional cultures. The Standards are aspirational and provide tools that are intended to improve outcomes, promote best practices, and deliver net global environmental and social benefits. As the world enters the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030), the Standards provide a blueprint for ensuring ecological restoration achieves its full potential in delivering social and environmental equity and, ultimately, economic benefits and outcomes.
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION6

Ecological Restoration as a Means of Improving Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing and Its Role in Broader Global Initiatives6

Need for Principles and Standards6

Background6

What's New in This Version?7

Key Definitions and Terms7

Underpinnings Assumptions7

SECTION 2 - EIGHT PRINCIPLES THAT UNDERPIN ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION8

Principle 1. Ecological Restoration Engages Stakeholders8

Principle 2. Ecological Restoration Draws on Many Types of Knowledge9

Principle 3. Ecological Restoration Practice Is Informed by Native Reference Ecosystems, while Considering Environmental Change11

Principle 4. Ecological Restoration Supports Ecosystem Recovery Processes14

Principle 5. Ecosystem Recovery Is Assessed against Clear Goals and Objectives, Using Measurable Indicators15

Principle 6. Ecological Restoration Seeks the Highest Level of Recovery Attainable17

Principle 7. Ecological Restoration Gains Cumulative Value when Applied at Large Scales18

Principle 8. Ecological Restoration Is Part of a Continuum of Restorative Activities21

SECTION 3 - STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS23

SECTION 4 - LEADING PRACTICES28

Part 1. Developing Reference Models for Ecological Restoration28

Part 2. Identifying Appropriate Ecological Restoration Approaches29

Part 3. The Role of Ecological Restoration in Global Restoration Initiatives31

SECTION 5-GLOSSARY OF TERMS33

APPENDIX 1. SELECTION OF SEEDS AND OTHER PROPAGULES FOR RESTORATION41

Genetic Considerations for Sourcing Seeds or other Propagules41

Propagule Sourcing and Climate Change42

Tools and Future Directions42

Restoring Connectivity and Assisting Migration44

APPENDIX 2. BLANK PROJECT EVALUATION TEMPLATES (FOR PRACTITIONER USE)45

Section 1-Introduction

The International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) provide a guide to practitioners, operational personnel, students, planners, managers, regulators, policymakers, funders, and implementing agencies involved in restoring degraded ecosystems across the world-whether terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, or marine. They place ecological restoration into a global context, including its role in recovering biodiversity and improving human wellbeing 1 in times of rapid global change.

Ecological Restoration as a Means of Improving Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing and Its Role in Broader Global Initiatives

Humanity recognizes the planet's native ecosystems as having irreplaceable ecological, societal, and economic value. In addition to their intrinsic value , such as biodiversity and spiritual or aesthetic importance, healthy native ecosystems assure the flow of ecosystem services . These services include: provision of clean water and air, healthy soils, culturally important artifacts, and the food, fiber, fuel, and medicines essential for human health, wellbeing, and livelihoods. Native ecosystems can also reduce the effects of natural disasters and mitigate accelerated climate change. Ecosystem degradation, damage, and destruction (hereafter, collectively referred to as degradation ) diminish the biodiversity, functioning, and resilience of ecosystems, which in turn negatively affects the resilience and sustainability of social-ecological systems . Although protecting remaining native ecosystems is critical to conserving the world's natural and cultural heritage, protection alone is insufficient, given past and current degradation. To respond to current global environmental challenges and to sustain the flow of ecosystem services and goods essential for human wellbeing, global society must secure a net gain in the extent and functioning of native ecosystems by investing not only in environmental protection, but also in environmental repair including ecological restoration . This repair must be implemented at multiple scales to achieve measurable effects worldwide.

Awareness of the need for environmental repair is growing, resulting in a global escalation of ecological restoration and related efforts (see also Section 4, Part 3). For example, the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 call for restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems (Goal 14) and terrestrial ecosystems (Goal 15) that have been degraded to " protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss ." The Convention on Biological Diversity ( 2016) calls for the " restoration of degraded natural and semi‐natural ecosystems, including in urban environments, as a contribution to reversing the loss of biodiversity, recovering connectivity, improving ecosystem resilience, enhancing the provision of ecosystem services, mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change, combating desertification and land degradation, and improving human well‐being while reducing environmental risks and scarcities ." And, the United Nations General Assembly has declared 2021-2030 the "Decade on Ecosystem Restoration." The concept of restoration in many of these initiatives and agreements is very broad and includes many approaches to ecosystem management and nature‐based solutions , all of which are valuable. The Standards address the relationship between ecological restoration and other ecosystem management and nature‐based solutions, and clarify the specific role of ecological restoration in contributing to the goals of conserving biodiversity and improving human wellbeing worldwide.

Need for Principles and Standards

Repairing degraded ecosystems is a complex task requiring significant time, resources, and knowledge. Ecological restoration contributes in substantial ways to protecting biodiversity and human wellbeing, but many restoration projects and programs, however well intentioned, have underperformed. The Standards recognize that appropriate design; good planning and implementation; sufficient knowledge, skill, effort and resources; understanding of specific social contexts and risks; appropriate stakeholder involvement; and adequate monitoring for adaptive management will contribute to improved outcomes. Application of principles and standards can increase effectiveness of ecological restoration efforts by establishing criteria for technical implementation across different ecosystem types. They also provide a framework that engages stakeholders and respects socio‐cultural realities and needs, which can be applied to both mandatory (i.e. required as part of consent conditions) and non‐mandatory restoration (i.e. the voluntary repair of damage). These criteria can improve ecological restoration outcomes, whether used to guide agencies, companies, or individuals engaged in planning, implementation, and monitoring; to guide regulators in developing agreements for mandatory restoration and evaluating whether those agreements have been met; or to guide policymakers in designing, supporting, funding, and evaluating restoration projects at any scale. Thus, the use of clear and carefully considered principles and standards underpinning ecological restoration can reduce the risk of unintended damage to ecosystems and native biodiversity, and help to develop high‐quality projects and programs amenable to monitoring and assessment.

Background

This document expands upon and joins SER's collection of foundation documents including the SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration (SER 2004), Guidelines for Developing and Managing Restoration Projects (Clewell et al. 2005), Ecological Restoration-a Means of Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Livelihoods (Gann & Lamb 2006), and Ecological Restoration for Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices (Keenleyside et al. 2012). It also utilizes SER's Code of Ethics (SER 2013) and specifically draws on material and models in the two editions of National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia (McDonald et al. 2016a, 2018). Several books were influential including Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier (Van Andel & Aronson 2012), Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values and Structure of an Emerging Profession (Clewell & Aronson 2013), Foundations of Restoration Ecology (Palmer et al. 2016), Routledge Handbook of Ecological and Environmental Restoration (Allison & Murphy 2017), and Management of Ecological Rehabilitation Projects (Liu & Clewell 2017). We have drawn content from the editorial Ecosystem Restoration is Now a Global Priority (Aronson & Alexander 2013), and the policy documents Ecosystem Restoration: Short‐term Action Plan of the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity 2016), Partnering with Nature: The Case for Natural Regeneration in Forest and Landscape Restoration (Chazdon et al. 2017), and Restoring Forests and Landscapes: The Key to a Sustainable Future by the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR; Besseau et al. 2018). Works published in SER's journal Restoration Ecology , book series on The Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration (Island Press), and Restoration Resource Center, as well as many other documents have informed development of this edition. While Sections 1 through 3 are mostly free of references for brevity's sake, Section 4 (Leading Practices), Appendix 1, and Supplement S1 include citations.

What Is New in This Version?

To better address the diverse roles people play in restoration and how the goals of Indigenous groups fit into the overall picture of ecological restoration, we have reorganized the Principles to better incorporate social‐economic and cultural factors that can greatly affect outcomes of restoration. Principle 1 expands on social goals and includes a "Social Benefits Wheel" tool to help convey social targets and goals of a project.

Principles and Key Concepts are merged into a single section on Principles. A compilation of historical documents used to synthesize the Principles is provided in Supplement S1. Scaling‐up ecological restoration and the relationship between ecological restoration and allied activities included in Section 4 of the first edition are incorporated into Principles 7 and 8 in this version.

Key topics related to reference models and restoration approaches are included in a new section on Leading Practices (Section 4), which also considers integration of ecological restoration into global restoration initiatives. We added a technical appendix on sourcing of seeds and other propagules for restoration.

Key Definitions and Terms

SER defines ecological restoration as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is distinct from restoration ecology , the science that supports the practice of ecological restoration, and from other forms of environmental repair in seeking to assist recovery of native ecosystems and ecosystem integrity . Ecological restoration aims to move a degraded ecosystem to a trajectory of recovery that allows adaptation to local and global changes, as well as persistence and evolution of its component species.

Ecological restoration is commonly used to describe both the process and the outcome sought for an ecosystem, but the Standards reserve the term restoration for the activity undertaken and recovery for the outcome sought or achieved. The Standards define ecological restoration as any activity with the goal of achieving substantial ecosystem recovery relative to an appropriate reference model , regardless of the time required to achieve recovery. Reference models used for ecological restoration projects are informed by native ecosystems , including many traditional cultural ecosystems (see Principle 3).

Ecological restoration projects or programs include one or more targets that identify the native ecosystem to be restored (as informed by the reference model), and project goals that establish the level of recovery sought. Full recovery is defined as the state or condition whereby, following restoration, all key ecosystem attributes closely resemble those of the reference model. These attributes include absence of threats, species composition, community structure, physical conditions, ecosystem function, and external exchanges. Where lower levels of recovery are planned or occur due to resource, technical, environmental, or social constraints, recovery is referred to as partial recovery . An ecological restoration project or program should aspire to substantial recovery of the native biota and ecosystem functions (contrast with rehabilitation below). When full recovery is the goal, an important benchmark is when the ecosystem demonstrates self‐organization . At this stage, if unexpected barriers or lack of particular species or processes take recovery off course, further restoration actions may be required to ensure that the trajectory ultimately continues toward full recovery. Once fully recovered, any ongoing activities (e.g. to maintain disturbance regimes ) would be considered ecosystem maintenance or management. Specific activities, such as prescribed fire or the control of invasive species, may be used in both restoration and maintenance phases of a project.

The goal of rehabilitation projects is not native ecosystem recovery, but rather reinstating a level of ecosystem functioning for renewed and ongoing provision of ecosystem services potentially derived from nonnative ecosystems as well. Rehabilitation is one of many restorative activities aligned along a continuum that includes ecological restoration and its allied and complementary activities, all of which contribute to improving ecosystem integrity and social-ecological resilience (see Principle 8).

Underpinning Assumptions

A few assumptions about the role of ecological restoration underpin the Standards. First, restoration of most native ecosystems is a challenging process, and substantial recovery usually requires long periods of time. Consequently, many ecological restoration projects are still far from achieving the levels of biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and delivery of services of intact ecosystems. Thus, while compensation may be mandated as a result of ecosystem loss or degradation, the potential for ecological restoration should never be invoked as a justification for destroying or damaging existing native ecosystems or for unsustainable use . Similarly, any potential to translocate rare species should not be used to justify destruction of existing intact habitat. Where compensation is mandated, however, the level of compensation should be far in excess of the estimated ecosystem loss or degradation, and care should be exercised to ensure offsets do not cause additional degradation.

Second, the Standards clarify the use of a native reference ecosystem as a model for the ecosystem being restored. The reference model, derived from multiple sources of information, aims to characterize the condition of the ecosystem as it would be had it not been degraded, adjusted as necessary to accommodate changed or predicted change in biotic or environmental conditions (e.g. climate change). The Standards also make clear that appropriate reference models for ecological restoration are not based on immobilizing an ecological community at some past point in time, but rather increasing potential for native species and communities to recover and continue to reassemble, adapt, and evolve .

Finally, ecological restoration is part of a larger set of ecosystem management practices designed to conserve and, where appropriate, sustainably utilize native ecosystems. These practices range from regenerative agriculture, fisheries, and forestry to ecological engineering, including those invoked in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, and by Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) projects and a multitude of local and regional programs. As such, ecological restoration complements other conservation activities and nature‐based solutions and vice versa.

Section 2-Eight Principles that Underpin Ecological Restoration

The following Principles provide a framework to explain, define, guide, and measure the activities and outcomes of ecological restoration practice (Fig. 1). They represent a distillation of principles and concepts presented in SER foundational documents, scientific literature, and practitioner experience (Appendix S1).

Principle 1. Ecological Restoration Engages Stakeholders

Ecological restoration is undertaken for many reasons including to recover ecosystem integrity and to satisfy personal, cultural, social‐economic, and ecological values. This combination of ecological and social benefits can lead to improved social-ecological resilience . Humans benefit from a closer and reciprocal engagement with nature. Participating in restoration projects can be transformative, for example, when children involved in restoration projects develop personal ownership over restoration sites, or when community volunteers seek new career or vocational paths in restoration practice or science. Communities located within or near degraded ecosystems may gain health and other benefits from restoration that improves the quality of air, land, water, and habitats for native species. Indigenous peoples and local communities (both rural and urban) benefit where restoration reinforces nature‐based cultures, practices, and livelihoods (e.g. subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering). In addition, restoration can provide short‐term and long‐term employment opportunities for local stakeholders , creating positive ecological and economic feedback loops.

Stakeholders can make or break a project. Recognizing the expectations and interests of stakeholders and directly involving them is key to ensuring that both nature and society mutually benefit. Stakeholders can help prioritize distribution of restoration actions across the landscape, set project goals (including desired level of recovery), contribute knowledge about ecological conditions and successional patterns to improve development of reference models, and engage in participatory monitoring . Additionally, stakeholders can provide political and financial support for long‐term project sustainability, as well as moderating conflicts or disagreements that may arise. Recognition of diverse forms of property ownership and management (e.g. government, private, communal), land tenure, and social organization is essential to accomplish these goals. Managers of restoration projects should, therefore, genuinely and actively engage with those who live or work within or near restoration sites, and those who have a stake in the project's ecological values and natural capital (including ecosystem services). Ideally, this engagement should occur at the conceptual phase or well ahead of project initiation, so stakeholders can help define the vision, targets, goals, objectives, and methods of implementation and monitoring. Engagement should continue throughout the project to help meet social expectations, build capacity and a sense of ownership, and maintain support and input. Collaboratively building dialogue and trust among all stakeholders fosters respect for different viewpoints and knowledge types and maintains interest and commitment during all phases of the project. Such collaboration can lead to more rapid and effective local decision‐making, particularly when participatory or collaborative monitoring approaches are implemented.

Collaborating with local communities, including Indigenous communities, nonprofit citizen groups, and citizen scientists, to develop restoration plans can increase community investment in restoration. Youth and women, particularly in under served communities, can become powerful ambassadors. Such community engagement may bring social justice and human ecology components to a project, and can help leverage funding.

Social and human wellbeing goals, including those that reinstate or reinforce ecosystems services, must be identified alongside ecological goals during the planning stage of a restoration project (see Principle 5, Principle 7, and Section 4, Part 3). Guidance for identifying appropriate goals to improve both social and environmental outcomes in social-ecological systems is provided in a range of documents (e.g. Lynam et al. 2007; Keenleyside et al. 2012; REDD+ SES 2012; Conservation Measures Partnership 2013). Example templates for communicating progress toward social goals are provided in Table 1 and Fig. 2. These templates can be adapted to suit the social goals of any project.

Attribute

★

★★

★★★

★★★★

★★★★★

Principle 2. Ecological Restoration Draws on Many Types of Knowledge

The practice of ecological restoration requires a high degree of ecological knowledge that can be drawn from practitioner experience, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Local Ecological Knowledge (Box 1), and scientific discovery . These forms of knowledge are the product of observation, experimentation, and trial and error, whether formal or informal. The best available knowledge should inform the design and implementation of ecological restoration, and contribute to adaptive management (Principle 5), whereby the results of restoration treatments can indicate the need to modify management approaches.

Box 1. Traditional ecological knowledge and its relevance to ecological restoration.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is defined as knowledge and practice passed on from generation to generation and informed by strong cultural memories, sensitivity to change, and values that include reciprocity. Examples of TEK land‐care include using prescribed fire and seasonal flooding to modify vegetation, and conserving ecosystem engineers (e.g. beavers and elephants) or apex predators (e.g. wolves and lions) to improve habitat for other species and in turn, food resources for humans. These processes function within the range of natural variability for an ecosystem. Indigenous people have used such practices over millennia to increase ecosystem productivity of food, raw materials for medicine, and ceremonial items. TEK involves reciprocity-sharing and restraint sustained by spiritual beliefs that regard plants and animals as human kin. TEK practices increase biodiversity and improve ecological resilience by creating fine‐grained, landscape mosaics. TEK observations are qualitative and long‐term. Observers are often people engaged in subsistence practices including hunting, fishing, and gathering. Their survival is linked to the health of the land. Most importantly, TEK is inseparable from a culture's spiritual and social fabric. In the Indigenous worldview, it takes all of what it means to be human-body, mind, heart, and spirit-to understand something ecologically. Consequently, TEK offers important ecological insights, but also a web of knowledge that includes values that can help restore ecosystems.

Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) is defined as local, place‐based knowledge of the land and its processes applied by humans to create more productive lands and healthier ecosystems, increasing biodiversity and improving ecosystem resilience. LEK is prevalent in places where Indigenous people do not have a presence and in which knowledge of Indigenous practices has been lost. Widespread in Europe, for example, LEK includes pre‐Industrial Era farming, water management, and subsistence hunting practices. In some places, both LEK and TEK can function together, although they may come from different cultural paradigms.

By incorporating TEK or LEK in ecological restoration, practitioners can rapidly identify and assess species and their suitability, successional processes and stages, and key species interactions. Further, TEK and LEK can help to define native reference ecosystems and catalyze restoration by allowing application of cultural practices such as prescribed fire, rotational grazing, and water management. Ecological restoration strategies that incorporate formal science, TEK, and LEK may be particularly effective in repairing degraded ecosystems.

Practitioner knowledge is derived from experience in repairing ecosystems, and from information from a spectrum of disciplines (e.g. restoration ecology, agronomy and seed production, forestry, horticulture, botany, wildlife science, zoology, hydrology, soil science, engineering, landscape design, conservation biology, and natural resource management). Additionally, LEK and TEK experts, who are typically members of a local community, can provide extensive and detailed information about sites and ecosystems drawn from their long‐term relationships and connections to these sites. When integrated into restoration projects, these multiple forms of knowledge provide opportunities to improve restoration outcomes for ecological, social, and cultural benefits.

Scientific knowledge is generated through the process of systematic measurement and hypothesis testing. Restoration‐relevant scientific knowledge comes from basic and applied research within a wide range of disciplines from economics to the social, physical, and biological sciences including the sub‐disciplines of restoration ecology, conservation biology, conservation genetics, and landscape ecology. While such knowledge provides information essential to design and implement ecological restoration projects, there are significant gaps in understanding of the efficacy (extent that goals and objectives are achieved) and effects (biotic and abiotic responses to management treatments) of many restoration activities, ecological responses to climate change, and improving climate readiness (see also Principle 3 and Appendix 1). Scientific research can contribute to closing these gaps. In addition, scientific assessments of ecological restoration practice can address essential ecological questions, such as how ecosystems assemble and function, as well as social-ecological questions. Generating new scientific knowledge may not be necessary or realistic in all ecological restoration projects, but should always be considered, especially when little is known about treatment efficacy or where restoration interventions are extreme or highly risky (e.g. ecosystem reconstruction after mining).

Practitioner‐researcher collaborations can enhance scientific endeavors by allowing for powerful experimental designs and improved ability to make inferences from assessments. Such research can increase innovation and provide additional guidance for management. Focused research can help practitioners overcome otherwise intractable problems (e.g. harsh substrate conditions, low reproduction rates, and inadequate supply and quality of germplasm; see Appendix 1). Additionally, the results can be shared and help to lower costs of other projects. Practitioners and local‐knowledge experts can play an important role in large‐scale research projects by providing access to projects, identifying bottlenecks in capacity and gaps in information, and contributing logistical expertise.

Sharing practical and scientific knowledge is key to implementing restoration efficiently and effectively, and to achieving restoration at scale. An important way to advance the science and practice of large‐scale ecological restoration is to develop and promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation among and within countries (see also Section 4, Part 3). Experience and expertise sharing, co‐financing, and co‐development of new knowledge for more effective policy and practice should be encouraged among regions, and south-south cooperation is especially important for knowledge sharing in developing and newly industrialized countries.

Availability of scientific data on the efficacy and effects of restoration treatments should be determined at the project proposal stage. Where technical challenges arise during a mandatory restoration project, targeted research should be undertaken to identify alternative restoration interventions within reasonable time frames. If such research still fails to provide solutions, alternative approaches to satisfying legal requirements should be planned.

Lack of progress toward restoration objectives does not mean that restoration is not technically, practically, or economically feasible in the future. Lack of knowledge and technical competency may be overcome through adaptive management, linked to focused, outcome‐based monitoring. However, in mandatory restoration (e.g. mining sector), knowledge and capacity should be acquired ahead of the project to ensure that legal agreements can be fulfilled.

Principle 3. Ecological Restoration Practice Is Informed by Native Reference Ecosystems, while Considering Environmental Change

Ecological restoration requires identifying the native ecosystem to be restored and developing reference models for planning and communicating a shared vision of project targets and goals. Reference models should be based on specific real‐world ecosystems that are the targets of conservation and restoration activities (e.g. boreal forest, freshwater marsh, coral reef). Optimally the reference model describes the approximate condition the site would be in had degradation not occurred. This condition is not necessarily the same as the historic state, as it accounts for the inherent capacity of ecosystems to change in response to changing conditions. In some instances, the impacts of rapid environmental changes and the capacity for adaptation to these changes may warrant consideration of adjusted or alternative models (see also Boxes 2 & 3 and Section 4, Part 1).

Box 2. Reference ecosystems and climate change.

Continuous change in climate over millennia, centuries, and decades is an important characteristic of our planet. Although this backdrop of environmental change is constant, anthropogenically induced climate change has increased the pace of change in many ecosystems worldwide. While these changes are generally recognized as undesirable and require urgent action by society, anticipated changes are likely to be irreversible for the foreseeable future. This means that, alongside working to improve potential for restoration and other actions to slow climate change, climate change needs to be recognized as part of the current environmental background condition to which many species will either adapt or go extinct.

Climate change necessitates target‐setting informed by ongoing research on related anticipated effects on species and ecosystems. While uncertainty exists, we know that species turnover and community reassembly under climate change will result in large shifts in entire ecosystems in many geographic areas (e.g. many marine, coastal, alpine, and cool‐temperate communities), although in some climatically buffered ecosystems changes may be minimal. As climate changes, climatic envelopes for individual species will shift spatially. This means for a given ecosystem, some species will be lost, while others may survive due to plasticity or ability to adapt to changes in environmental conditions, and still others will newly arrive.

Land degradation, particularly fragmentation, exacerbates climate‐change effects on many species and ecological communities, both by isolating populations, which adversely affects genetic diversity and adaptation potential, and by limiting opportunities for species to disperse or migrate to climate‐suitable habitats. Because of this, there is a need for management interventions that optimize genetic diversity and potential for populations to adapt, to prevent extirpations from current habitat areas, and that promote migration to new areas. Options include retaining and augmenting genetically diverse populations of existing native floral and faunal species, and ensuring that these populations exist in configurations that increase linkages and improve gene flow where appropriate to boost adaptability to changed conditions (see Appendix 1).

Box 3. What about cases where there has been insurmountable environmental change?

Project managers may adopt alternative native ecosystems as targets for areas that are affected by substantial and insurmountable environmental change. Alternative ecosystems would be expected to occur under the changed conditions. Examples of conversion include sites where: (1) hydrology has shifted irreversibly from saline to freshwater (e.g. due to changing stream flows), freshwater to saline (e.g. due to sea level rise), or mesic to arid (e.g. due to lowering water tables or complete dry‐downs of rivers or lakes); (2) stormwater has produced intermittent streams; and (3) nutrients have been added to soils and cannot be removed without extreme effort or resources. An alternative reference ecosystem may also be chosen when traditional fire regimes or other ecosystem functions have been irreversibly altered.

Deciding when an alternative reference ecosystem is appropriate is dependent on local conditions and the case for irreversibility, and requires skilled ecological judgment (Fig. 3). More than one alternative reference ecosystem may be appropriate, for example, in urban and highly modified agricultural areas, and careful selection is necessary to match the local social-ecological situation. Additionally, appearance of a site may not be a reliable indicator of restoration potential. In many cases where restoration was assumed by some to be impossible, recovery was achieved after application of skilled and informed approaches. Where potential for recovery is in doubt, but recovery is highly desirable, a standard approach is to conduct trial treatments on a small area for a sufficient period to determine efficacy. Trial treatments are best designed as collaborations between scientists and practitioners, and can help inform the appropriate choice of an ecosystem to use as the basis for developing the reference model.

Reference models are developed using multiple sources of information. Best practice is to build empirical models based on information on specific ecosystem attributes obtained from multiple modern analogs or reference sites . These sites are environmentally and ecologically similar to the project site, but optimally have experienced little or minimal degradation (but see Box 4). Information on past and current conditions at the site as well as consultation with stakeholders can assist in developing reference models, especially where nondegraded local reference sites are unavailable. This information is usually collected during the site assessment or baseline inventory phase of the project (Principle 5)

Box 4. The importance of baselines.

In ecological restoration, the word baseline is used in two very different ways. In the Standards, baseline refers to the condition of a site at the beginning of the restoration process. In other contexts, baseline describes an ecosystem prior to degradation (e.g. as used by the Convention on Biological Diversity). The latter usage also applies to the concept of shifting (or declining) baselines that describe how some ecosystems may be more degraded than previously thought, or when current observers view ecosystems as nondegraded that previous observers would view as degraded. The idea of shifting baselines has been particularly well studied in marine ecosystems and fisheries. In the context of the Standards, the concept of shifting baselines must be considered when using reference sites to develop a reference model for ecological restoration, as a reference site may be perceived as nondegraded or minimally degraded, but may be missing important species or functions. Failure to consider that reference sites may be diminished could result in less accurate reference models.

In addition, this problem is important for mandatory restoration programs, as agencies may aim for lower standards based on erroneous ideas of what constitutes a nondegraded ecosystem. This may be of importance for biodiversity offset programs, which, if poorly designed, may contribute to continued degradation and loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that even if full recovery of an ecosystem is possible, net losses of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning may continue over long time periods until full recovery can be attained. Consequently, ecological restoration programs, whether mandatory or voluntary, should strive to do more than seems necessary to secure overall net gains of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Reference sites may be rare in regions that have few protected areas. In those situations, previously damaged sites that have had varying amounts of time for natural recovery (e.g. new protected areas, archeological sites, fenced military sites, or demilitarized zones) may indicate the trajectory of recovery of the ecosystem following a specified type of damage. Reference conditions may need to be inferred from the least‐disturbed portions of the site, combined with successional models, historical data, and models of future change

Importantly, reference models should be based on the specific ecosystem attributes to be recovered, and account for both ecological complexity and temporal change (i.e. the successional or equilibrium dynamics of the ecosystem; see Section 4, Part 1 for discussion of these concepts). Six key ecosystem attributes (Table 2) can be used to describe the reference ecosystem. Together these six attributes contribute to overall ecosystem integrity, which arises from properties of diversity, complexity, and resilience inherent in functional native ecosystems. Given the large range of ecosystem types for which ecological restoration is needed, these attribute categories are broad rather than prescriptive.

Attribute

Description

Absence of threats

Direct threats to the ecosystem such as overutilization, contamination, or invasive species are absent

Physical conditions

Environmental conditions (including the physical and chemical conditions of soil and water, and topography) required to sustain the target ecosystem are present

Species composition

Native species characteristic of the appropriate reference ecosystem are present, whereas undesirable species are absent

Structural diversity

Appropriate diversity of key structural components, including demographic stages, trophic levels, vegetation strata and spatial habitat diversity are present

Ecosystem function

Appropriate levels of growth and productivity, nutrient cycling, decomposition, species interactions, and rates of disturbance

External exchanges

The ecosystem is appropriately integrated into its larger landscape or aquatic context through abiotic and biotic flows and exchanges

Reference models should not be used to immobilize an ecosystem at a specific point in time. An inherent property of ecosystems is that they change over time as a result of internal (e.g. changes in population growth rates) and external factors (e.g. physical disturbances). Reference models should be developed with an explicit focus on understanding temporal dynamics to develop feasible and relevant restoration designs that allow local species to recover, adapt, evolve, and reassemble.

Multiple reference models may be needed for a restoration project. First, large project sites or those with varied topography are likely to include a mosaic of ecosystems and their ecotones. Second, multiple or sequential references may be needed to reflect ecosystem dynamics or anticipated changes over time. Sites in successional ecosystems may be in the early phases of successional development immediately after treatment and later advance to other successional stages 2. For ecosystems with complex equilibrium dynamics, multiple successional pathways may exist and multiple models may be necessary to attempt to describe different possible restoration outcomes. Such alternative states can result from changes in population densities or in environmental drivers or both in combination. Additionally, reference models may need adjustment over time based on results of project monitoring.

Traditional Cultural Ecosystems

Most ecosystems worldwide have been shaped by human utilization, to provide food, fiber, medicines, or culturally important artifacts (e.g. totems, spiritually significant tools). The traditional cultural ecosystems concept acknowledges that ecosystems are not just assemblages of organisms, but reflect co‐evolution of plants, animals, and humans in response to past environmental conditions. The extent to which native ecosystems are the result of human modification is variable and often unclear; but it is well understood that extensive modifications have occurred and been maintained by traditional practices that are similar to natural disturbances. For example, the existence of grassy openings found within forests is often attributed to burning by Indigenous peoples. Where such human‐utilized grassland ecosystems exhibit species and biophysical characteristics similar to those occurring in natural fire‐maintained savannas and grasslands, such human‐utilized areas should be considered native ecosystems. In these areas supporting native biodiversity, traditional management practices should be encouraged as a necessary part of ecosystem integrity. In fact, in some ecosystems, lack of traditional management (e.g. lack of traditional burning, grazing, harvesting, planting, seasonal flooding) drives degradation. Similarly, many of the ancient coppiced woodlands and unfertilized species‐rich hay meadows of Europe, and other ancient, human‐modified ecosystems in the Mediterranean region and the Sahel are examples of native ecosystems and appropriate reference models for ecological restoration. In the European Union legal context, these are referred to as semi‐natural ecosystems (not cultural ecosystems), and include chalk grasslands, wet and dry heathlands, woodland pastures, seasonal mountain pastures, grazed salt marshes, Mediterranean shrublands and dehesas, and mesotrophic fish ponds.

Because of complex social-ecological histories in traditional cultural ecosystems, multiple complementary ecosystems may function as references for ecological restoration. In some cases, the restoration target may be an early successional stage of an ecosystem, which will be maintained through traditional management. Ancient or modern cultural ecosystems that are composed primarily of nonnative species, utilize artificial inputs (e.g. fertilizers), or are structurally or functionally distinct from regional native ecosystems (e.g. formal botanical gardens) are not appropriate reference models for ecological restoration as defined here.

Principle 4. Ecological Restoration Supports Ecosystem Recovery Processes

Ecological restoration actions are designed to assist natural processes of recovery that ultimately are carried out by the effects of time on physical processes and the responses and interactions of the biota throughout their life cycles. Restoration activities focus on reinstating components and conditions suitable for these processes to recommence and support recovery of ecosystem attributes, including capacity for self‐organization and for ecosystem resilience to future stresses. These activities are planned and implemented based on the reference model (Principle 3), and agreed project targets, goals, and objectives (Principle 5).

The most reliable and cost‐effective way to kick‐start restoration is to harness the potential of remnant species (e.g. plants, animals, microorganisms) to regenerate (i.e. to colonize or expand from in situ components), but degraded ecosystems often require substantial intervention to compensate for lost natural recovery potential (see also Section 4, Part 2). An assessment is needed prior to planning appropriate treatments to determine the: (1) potential for regeneration after removal of the causes of degradation and (2) need to reinstate missing biotic and abiotic elements. This assessment should be informed by knowledge of the functional traits (particularly recovery mechanisms) of individual species likely to occur on or colonize the site, and predicted propagule flows and stores. Where knowledge gaps exist, tests of the recovery response in smaller areas is useful prior to application to larger ones. Restoration interventions focused in areas with high natural recovery potential could be prioritized to free resources later for areas requiring more intensive activities (see Section 4, Part 2).

Restoration can lead to unexpected results. Practitioners must be prepared to undertake additional treatments or engage in research to overcome barriers or limitations to natural recovery. Restoration actions designed to stimulate native species recovery, for example, may also stimulate a response from undesirable species present in the propagule bank, often requiring multiple follow‐up interventions to achieve project goals.

Principle 5. Ecosystem Recovery Is Assessed against Clear Goals and Objectives, Using Measurable Indicators

In the planning phase of restoration projects, the project scope, vision, targets, goals, and objectives are identified, along with specific indicators to measure progress. Both ecological and social attributes of the project should be included (Box 5). Indicators can then be used to monitor progress over time, applying adaptive management approaches (Box 6). Adequate resources for monitoring must be allocated if effective monitoring is to take place.

Box 5. Hierarchy of terms commonly used in project planning*

* The Scope is the broad geographic or thematic focus of a project.

* The Vision is a general summary of the desired condition one is trying to achieve through the work of the project. A good vision is relatively general, visionary (inspiring), and brief.

* The Targets identify the native ecosystems to be restored at a site as informed by the reference model, along with any social outcomes or constraints expected of the project.

* Goals are formal statements of the medium to long‐term desired ecological or social condition , including the level of recovery sought. Goals must be clearly linked to targets, measurable, time‐limited , and specific .

* Objectives are formal statements of the interim outcomes along the trajectory of recovery. Objectives must be clearly linked to targets and goals, and be measurable, time‐limited , and specific .

* Indicators are specific, quantifiable measures of attributes that directly connect longer‐term goals and shorter‐term objectives. Ecological indicators are variables that are measured to assess changes in the physical (e.g. turbidity units), chemical (e.g. nutrient concentration), or biotic (e.g. species abundance) ecosystem attributes as guided by the reference model. Social-ecological or cultural indicators measure changes in human wellbeing such as participation in traditional practices, governance, language and education.

*Terms used here, with some adaptations, are based on those of the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013).

Box 6. Monitoring and adaptive management.

Monitoring restoration projects is essential to each of the following goals:

Generating social learning. Participatory monitoring engages stakeholders in the collection and analysis of data gathered from restoration activities. This partnership approach can lead to improved collaborative decision‐making and strengthen stakeholder capacity and empowerment. Successful participatory monitoring addresses the questions and needs of stakeholders in a timely way. Methods are agreed upon collectively, are easy‐to‐use, and encourage social learning while building learning networks. As such, participatory monitoring is often more beneficial when it draws from information sources and methods of assessing reliability that are relevant for the stakeholders, rather than conventional scientific approaches.

Answering specific questions. Monitoring can be used to answer specific questions that improve understanding of ecological restoration and inform restoration decisions. Both require appropriately collected data and an effective experimental design that addresses the monitoring questions being asked. For instance, to determine the extent that project areas are recovering, best practice is to compare the restoration site to the reference model developed from pre‐selected reference sites or information. This design, however, will not provide information on whether or not the treatments are responsible for causing the effect. To determine the extent that restoration interventions are having an effect, data must be collected before and after treatment on both control and treated sites (Before‐After‐Control‐Impact or BACI experimental design). Such formal monitoring can resolve issues about new treatments or the return of organisms or processes when data are collected under an appropriate experimental design. Rigorous recording of specific restoration treatments and other conditions that might affect the results is also needed. Standard practice in such situations is for the initiator of the research to develop partnerships among scientists, practitioners, and the local community, to ensure that the project receives an appropriate level of scientific and practical advice and assistance to optimize its success and relevance.

Applying adaptive management. This form of "learning by doing" is a systematic approach for improving the practice of restoration. Adaptive management is not "trial and error." Properly applied, adaptive management improves our understanding of restoration by: (1) allowing stakeholders to explore alternative ways to meet restoration objectives; (2) predicting the outcomes of alternatives based on the current state of knowledge; (3) implementing one or more of these alternatives; (4) monitoring to learn about the impacts of restorative actions; and then (5) using the results to update knowledge and adjust restoration practices. Adaptive management can and should be the standard approach for any ecological restoration project, irrespective of how well‐resourced that project may be. Fully implementing an adaptive management approach requires timely monitoring and evaluation of results, as well as funding for ongoing restoration.

A basic process necessary to identify whether restoration actions are working or need to be modified is to inspect the site routinely, and record observations of species responses (e.g. growth rates, flowering, regeneration, and absence or presence of weeds, pests, and disease). Formal sampling can involve a range of soil, water, vegetation, and animal sampling techniques. Design of monitoring schemes should occur at the planning stage of the project to ensure that the project's goals, objectives and their selected indicators are measurable, that the monitoring layout and scheduling aligns well, and that there are clear triggers for action if objectives are not met. If desired and appropriate, formal experiments can be designed, observing the conventions of sample size, replication, and the use of untreated controls to interpret results.

Providing evidence to stakeholders. Time‐series photography provides visual evidence to stakeholders and regulators that goals are being met (i.e. securing images of the site from the same photo point locations, prior to and following treatment to show changes over time). At small sites, fixed photo‐points can be established on the ground, whereas for larger sites, remote‐sensing imagery may be more efficient. Because such imagery only provides visualization of changes occurring, well‐funded projects (particularly those under regulatory controls) are usually expected to undertake formal quantitative monitoring. This is based on a monitoring plan that identifies, among other things, monitoring questions, sampling design, timeframes, specific data collection instructions, who is responsible, the planned analysis, and frameworks for response and communication to regulators, funding bodies, or other stakeholders.

Ecological targets, goals, and objectives will be strongly informed by a site assessment or baseline inventory. This assessment describes the state of the degraded site and informs both the identification of the reference model (Principle 3), and the degree of recovery required to approximate the reference condition. The baseline inventory describes current biotic and abiotic elements of the site, including its compositional, structural, and functional attributes, as well as external threats and subsidies. The inventory process is a key initial step to understand what is desirable and possible at a degraded site in terms of restoration targets, goals, objectives, and indicators. The inventory is used subsequently to detect changes over time relative to the baseline condition.

Assessments of progress toward the ecological target should include indicators for each of the six key ecosystem attributes of the reference ecosystem (Box 7). The project's ecological goals should address the degree of recovery sought for each attribute, with specific and measurable indicators to assess the site condition prior to project initiation. The same indicators are also monitored after project implementation to evaluate whether restoration actions are meeting the project's ecological goals and objectives. To evaluate progress, each restoration objective must clearly articulate: (1) the indicators that will be measured (e.g. percentage canopy cover of native plants); (2) desired outcome (e.g. increase, decrease, maintain); (3) desired magnitude of effect (e.g. 40% increase); and (4) time frame (e.g. 5 years). For projects where full recovery may be possible and is desirable, the ecological target will align with the reference model. When only partial recovery is anticipated, however, the target and reference model will not fully align. For example, the target ecosystem may lack some species or include nonnative surrogates or invaders, or the ecological targets may be modified to meet social targets.

Box 7. Hypothetical planning example including integrated ecological and social goals.

Scope: Two 5‐ha Garry oak woodlands connected by an open meadow and a lake in the Southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada.

Current condition: Grazing and fragmentation have resulted in a decline in the diversity of woodland birds and altered vegetative composition in two Garry oak woodland remnants. These two woodlands, connected by an overgrazed meadow, contain 30% native and 50% nonnative cover of herbaceous and woody plant species. The remaining 20% cover is bare ground. The lake has a high Escherichia coli count from leachates from grazed soils. Floating water plants increase following rain events, which lead to occasional fish kills.

Vision: The return of healthy ecosystems cared for and enjoyed by the residents of the islands, resulting in renewed social cohesion and opportunities for sustainable ecosystem management.

Ecological Targets: Restored Garry oak woodlands (wooded) and meadows (semi‐open) with mature oak trees underlain with carpets of spring wildflowers. The local Indigenous community keeps the meadows clear of underbrush, to cultivate camas. The bulbs of this blue wildflower provide an important source of food. The open water lake is the habitat for rainbow trout, smallmouth bass and pumpkin‐seed sunfish. A wetland serves as a transition from the lake to the shore. River otters swim among the yellow pond lilies, and red‐winged blackbirds balance on cattails.

Goals (ecological and social):

1. Reduced active sedimentation and E. coli count in waterways to within health department standards for swimming within 5 years;

2. Reduced eutrophication, with the adult lake trout population exceeding 20 catches per unit effort within 5 years;

3. Neighbors comprise 80% of volunteers in a stewardship program within 5 years;

4. Two bird species, absent for 10 years, prior to the beginning of the project, return to breed at the site within 10 years;

5. Renewed social cohesion within the community, as evidenced by 50% improvement of place compared to baseline levels within 10 years;

6. Garry oak woodland with >90% of the native plant species of the reference model within 15 years; and,

7. Herbaceous matrix between the remnants recovered with 80% of the native plant species characteristic of the reference model for Garry oak meadow within 15 years.

Objectives (ecological and social) as measured by specific indicators:

1. Cessation of livestock grazing within 1 year;

2. Abundance of nonnative plants reduced to <25% cover within 2 years;

3. At least 25 volunteers join a stewardship program with neighbors comprising >50% of the membership within 2 years;

4. Rates of recruitment of two or more native woody species increase by 10% within 5 years in both woodland remnants;

5. Native woody plant density increases to at least 100 stems/ha of trees and 100 stems/ha of shrubs within 3 years;

6. Native species richness within the meadow increases to at least 6 grass and 10 forb species/10 m² within 5 years; and

7. Field visits by local school children increases by 50% within 5 years.

*Note that these numbers are all hypothetical examples and not a guide.

Social goals vary widely among projects and arise from a variety of social considerations (see Principle 1). After meaningful consultation with stakeholders, social goals should be identified in the project plan including descriptions of the rationale for any trade‐offs between ecological and social costs and benefits. Project reports can then recognize and highlight the benefits to society and to ecosystems that may flow from the project.

Principle 6. Ecological Restoration Seeks the Highest Level of Recovery Attainable

An ecological restoration project adopts the goal of achieving the highest level of recovery possible, relative to the six attributes of the reference ecosystem. Recovery, whether full or partial, takes time and may be slow. Thus, managers should adopt a policy of continuous improvement informed by sound monitoring. Such a policy can allow managers to continually upgrade and build on project goals to advance initial recovery toward progressively higher outcomes. One approach for designing projects and tracking progress over time is use of the Five‐Star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel.

Five‐Star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel

The Five‐star System (Tables 3 & 4) and the Ecological Recovery Wheel (Fig. 4) are provided as tools to help managers, practitioners, and regulatory authorities establish, visualize, and communicate the level of recovery aspired to and to progressively evaluate and track the degree of native ecosystem recovery over time relative to the reference model. These tools also provide a means to report changes from the baseline condition relative to the reference.

Number of stars

Summary of recovery outcome

★

Ongoing deterioration prevented. Substrates remediated (physically and chemically). Some level of native biota present; future recruitment niches not negated by biotic or abiotic characteristics. Future improvements for all attributes planned and future site management secured

★★

Threats from adjacent areas starting to be managed or mitigated. Site has a small subset of characteristic native species and low threat from undesirable species onsite. Improved connectivity arranged with adjacent property holders

★★★

Adjacent threats being managed or mitigated and very low threat from undesirable species onsite. A moderate subset of characteristic native species is established and there is some evidence of ecosystem function commencing. Improved connectivity at the landscape scale is in evidence

★★★★

A substantial subset of characteristic biota present (representing all species groupings), providing evidence of developing community structure and of ecosystem processes. Improved connectivity established and surrounding threats being managed or mitigated

★★★★★

Establishment of a characteristic assemblage of biota to a point where structural and trophic complexity to a level of very high similarity to the reference ecosystem is likely to develop with minimal further restoration interventions. Appropriate cross‐boundary flows are enabled and commencing and resilience is restored with return of appropriate disturbance regimes. Long‐term management arrangements in place

Attribute

★

★★

★★★

★★★★

★★★★★

Importantly, the Five‐star System focuses on ecological measurements, rather than social ones; it is not intended as a tool to evaluate the progress of a restoration project against its social goals (see Principle 1). Rather, managers are encouraged to use the Five‐star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel to illustrate their project's ecological targets and goals relative to the six key attributes and to provide a monitoring framework. The idea is to aim high and show progress over time, even if full recovery is not initially possible or something less than full recovery is the goal.

Notes for Interpreting the Five‐star System

A number of responses are provided to frequently asked questions:

Since being described in McDonald et al. (2016a), the Five‐star System and companion Ecological Recovery Wheel have been increasingly adapted and utilized by practitioners and scientists in a wide variety of ecosystems around the world (e.g. rivers in the United Kingdom, coral reefs in Mexico, forests and woodlands in Australia).

Evaluation using the Five‐star System must be site‐ and scale‐specific. The Five‐star System was developed for implementation at the site level, but can be applied at the program level by separately evaluating sites using the Five‐star System and then aggregating data from multiple sites to display degree of recovery (average, minimum, maximum) for larger programs.

Indicators described in Tables 3 and 4 are generic and should be interpreted more specifically by managers to suit their specific ecosystem or project, whether terrestrial or aquatic.

The Five‐star System can be used as a framework for interpreting either quantitative or qualitative monitoring. The stars can be readily quantified using many monitoring systems and statistical approaches, e.g. using response ratios (ratio of the mean value of a variable at the restoration site compared to that of the reference model), which are commonly employed by scientists and practitioners to measure restoration outcomes. Regardless of whether qualitative or quantitative approaches are used, it is imperative to explicitly specify the level of detail and degree of formality of the monitoring from which conclusions are drawn. This means that the Ecological Recovery Wheel or an evaluation table should not be used as evidence of restoration progress without also citing the monitoring data on which it is based.

Each restoration project attribute does not necessarily start at a zero or one‐star ranking. This is because the ranking is with respect to similarity to (or differences from) the reference model, with respect to a set of measurable indicators relevant to the sub‐attributes. Sites including remnant biota and unaltered substrates will start at higher rankings, whereas sites with impaired substrates or missing biota will start at lower rankings. Whatever the entry point of a project, the aim will be to assist the ecosystem to progress along the trajectory of recovery insofar as possible. A zero‐star score would be noted in written reports or as a zero in spreadsheets and represented by an empty cell in the Ecological Recovery Wheel.

By adding additional colors or patterns, or creating sequential Recovery Wheels, the user can show the baseline condition, proposed end condition, and conditions at multiple points during the recovery process.

The Five‐star System is not meant to evaluate the individual performance of practitioners or the value of projects. Some projects, because of site constraints, cannot aspire to five stars.

Principle 7. Ecological Restoration Gains Cumulative Value when Applied at Large Scales

Every ecological restoration project can have beneficial outcomes regardless of size, including increasing numbers and population sizes of depleted species, reducing populations of invasive species and other threats, and improving ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling. However, many ecological processes function at landscape, watershed, and regional scales (e.g. gene flow, colonization, predation, ecological disturbances). Degradation occurring at larger scales can overwhelm smaller restoration efforts. For example, species with large minimum habitat requirements or that require greater trophic complexity may not be accommodated in small projects. To counter climate change, substantially increasing the rate of carbon sequestration by greater production of plant and animal biomass (including biomass in soils) is urgently needed. Likewise, water security (in terms of quality, quantity and flows) is most effectively achieved by working at the landscape scale and linking terrestrial and aquatic systems. Thus, some ecological restoration projects must be conducted at large scales (e.g. hundreds or thousands of hectares) to provide desired environmental and ecological benefits. Additionally, planning and prioritizing site‐level activities are necessary as part of integrated landscape planning efforts (see Section 4, Part 3). Landscape‐scale planning can help avoid situations in which productive uses of an ecological restoration site (e.g. agriculture or forestry) are simply relocated to other areas causing additional degradation. Planning ecological restoration at larger scales must ensure that ecological restoration efforts result in net‐positive landscape change.

Challenges and Potential Solutions

Increasing the scope of ecological restoration can bring some economies of scale, but can also increase the risk of over‐extending financial, institutional, and infrastructural resources, particularly where ecosystem responses to treatments are unpredictable. Social challenges include identifying all relevant stakeholders and their specific needs and interests, and achieving agreement among stakeholders with competing interests, especially where political institutions are weak, or where strong economic and power inequalities exist among landowners. A mechanism such as participatory land use planning needs to be in place for dealing with such disagreements. For scale‐sensitive and time‐sensitive issues, treatments are usually tested at a small scale prior to broader application. In some cases, investing in gradual improvements at larger scales (e.g. to control threats such as invasive species or non‐point pollution), may achieve greater results than more intense work at smaller scales or over shorter periods of time. Increased scale of a restoration project confers an advantage, however, only where it represents an increase in the scale at which benefits (e.g. increased abundance of native species, decreased pest species abundance, or increased carbon sequestration) are improved. For this reason, and to avoid undervaluing smaller projects that may be of high ecological importance (e.g. the restoration of small fens), scale should be evaluated only as a multiplier of the other values achieved. A range of potential co‐benefits should be considered when predicting whether a project is likely to make a difference at larger scales (Table 5). Furthermore, larger‐scale functions can be enhanced via increased beneficial connectivity (e.g. wildlife corridors), including linkages to adjacent sites undergoing restorative interventions (Principle 8; Section 4, Part 3). It is important to note that cumulative value may only be achieved in the long term, meaning that those initially investing in restoration may not directly benefit.

Characteristic

Examples

Strategic location and timeliness

Restoration projects deploy strategies that make the most of scarce resources and known leverage points for effective restoration. Projects are prioritized in terms of: (1) goals with greater urgency or that accelerate the achievement of other goals; and (2) areas with greater recovery potential.

Extinction risk reduction

Projects have added value when they help recover threatened populations, species, or ecosystems. This work is guided by formal listings in place in many countries, usually linked to or consistent with International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red Lists.

Threat pervasiveness

Projects addressing large‐scale or pervasive threats can influence areas well beyond the project site. For example, projects that achieve substantial carbon sequestration, reduce contamination into waterways, or control pest plants or animals, improve outcomes locally and contribute to improved outcomes elsewhere.

Security of institutional support

Large‐scale projects need long‐term security to ensure that benefits resulting from resources invested will persist over time. Formal protection of the site through legal tenure arrangements is ideal, as is ensuring that long‐term political and economic commitments are made by the site's major public and private stakeholder institutions at local, regional, or national scales.

One mechanism to scale‐up ecological restoration is to ensure that projects are strategically integrated within larger restoration programs that contain multiple projects involving not only restoration, but also other restorative activities carried out in different landscape units, with varying partners changing over time. These may consist of many restoration project sites that are functionally and physically linked. A large‐scale ecological restoration program is typically coordinated by a coalition of government agencies, nonprofits, botanical gardens, and other allies, and involves large, complex planning processes. Examples include the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) in the USA, and the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil, both coalitions of governmental agencies, private sector, NGOs, and research institutions. Very large restoration sites and projects may create challenges for selecting targets and for developing reference models due to lack of comparable reference sites (see Section 4, Part 1) or to their complexity, although new tools such as LiDAR may help overcome the latter challenges in some landscapes.

Principle 8. Ecological Restoration Is Part of a Continuum of Restorative Activities

As ecosystem degradation continues globally, many countries and communities are adopting policies and measures designed to conserve biodiversity, recover ecological integrity and resilience, improve the quality and quantity of ecosystem services, and transform the way societies interact with nature. Ecological restoration is one of a range or family of restorative activities that can be conceived of as a continuum, wherein the degree of distinction between one type of activity to another is quite minimal, but from the most basic action to the most advanced, the distinction is quite significant. A restorative activity is one that directly or indirectly supports or attains the recovery of ecosystem attributes that have been lost or degraded. Conceptually, the restorative continuum (e.g. as depicted in Fig. 5) offers a holistic approach to repairing the world's ecosystems, enabling practitioners to apply the most appropriate and effective treatment given the ecological, social, and financial conditions (both opportunities and constraints). The restorative continuum provides a context for understanding how different activities relate to each other, while also helping identify practices best suited to a particular context. The continuum includes four major categories of restorative practices: (1) reduced societal impacts (i.e. in actions that reduce impacts through less damaging ways to consume and utilize ecosystem services across all sectors (Box 8)); (2) remediation (i.e. of polluted and contaminated sites); (3) rehabilitation (i.e. of areas including those used for production or human settlement; Box 9); and (4) ecological restoration . Reduced societal impacts, remediation, and rehabilitation practices are restorative to the extent that they reduce causes and ongoing effects of degradation, enhance potential for ecosystem recovery, and promote a transition to sustainability. As such they are also considered allied activities to ecological restoration. Some projects or programs may cover more than one category, particularly those carried out within larger frameworks, such as nature‐based solutions (including green infrastructure ), and Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR). These frameworks often incorporate one or more allied activities alongside ecological restoration. To be considered restorative, project or landscape level efforts must result in a net‐positive effect on environmental conditions. For example, activities that do not or will not improve current environmental conditions or those that cause harm (e.g. afforestation of native grasslands causing a net loss for biodiversity) do not qualify as restorative.

Box 8. Reduced impacts.

In the context of global environmental degradation, there is an urgent need to find ways to reduce adverse environmental impacts that flow from the way societies extract, produce, market, consume, and dispose of ecosystem goods. On the production side, increasing regulation in many regions of the world is resulting in more ecologically informed farming, forestry, fisheries, and mining methodologies. These activities have potential to reduce negative impacts of pollution and contamination, fragmentation of intact ecosystems, further clearing of native ecosystems, overharvesting, and the spread of invasive species. On the consumption side, a combination of regulation and increasing social expectation is changing some manufacturing practices and social behaviors, particularly in urban areas where more than half of the world's population now consumes goods and services at increasing rates per capita. While solutions can be evasive and greenwashing common, activities that genuinely aim to mitigate or attain a net reduction in human impacts (and thus improve potential for ecosystem recovery) can be considered allied to ecological restoration and clearly part of the restorative continuum.

Box 9. Rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation is a generic term used for ecological repair activities that aim to restore ecosystem functioning rather than the biodiversity and integrity of a designated native reference ecosystem. Rehabilitation activities are well suited to a broad range of land and water management sectors where substantial native ecosystem recovery is not possible or desirable due to competing and legitimate human needs. When rehabilitation is used for mined lands or post‐industrial sites, it is sometimes called reclamation. The progress of ecological recovery for many rehabilitation projects can be tracked using the Five‐star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel, where improvements in one or more ecosystem attributes can be demonstrated. To use the recovery wheel for demonstrating progress toward rehabilitation, the outer perimeter of the wheel would be desired values of the key ecosystem attributes, rather than values of these attributes from the native ecosystem reference model. Under the concept of "continuous improvement" (see Principle 6), rehabilitation projects achieving some improvements in ecological conditions can later be targeted for ecological restoration. For instance, where revegetation of a degraded rangeland, or post‐mine site, with a mix of native and nonnative plant species and native microsymbionts has resulted in improved soil function, restoration plans can be developed that include harvesting nonnative species and replacing them with native species as well as taking other actions to assist the system to recovering to the condition it would have been in if degradation had not occurred. In some cases where soil has been stabilized with nonnative species, native species can be added (or helped to recover spontaneously) and nonnative species removed to ultimately assist the recovery of a native ecosystem.

Ecological restoration and allied activities can be viewed as an integrated whole within a broad sustainability paradigm (see Section 4, Part 3), rather than as disconnected or competing activities. Restorative activities are cumulatively beneficial, improving outcomes from one level to the next. The conceptual frameworks and best practices of ecological restoration conveyed in these Standards can inspire and inform many actions that can be deployed to improve the overall health and resilience of the environment.

Conceptualizing management actions by means of this continuum (along with having an understanding of ecological restoration principles and standards) should assist governments, industries, and communities in achieving integrated "net gain" improvements in condition that will accelerate positive change at larger scales (Principle 7). Recommendations of performance measures for restorative activities across a range of industry, government, and community sectors or contexts are in Table 6. Regardless of the sector or context, it is beneficial to adopt practices of continuous improvement, and prioritize implementation of ecological restoration as the restorative activity of choice, wherever feasible. Where ecological restoration is inappropriate or not viable (e.g. where remediation or reducing societal impacts may be the only option), restorative work should aim for the highest possible recovery level. As with ecological restoration, small and ongoing improvements can be cumulative at larger scales for allied activities.

Sector or context

Restorative activity and recommended performance standard

Forestry

Native forest restoration for biodiversity conservation: Ecological restoration to a five‐star level

Native forestry: Ecological restoration to a four‐ to five‐star level (between logging cycles)

Reforestation adjacent to native ecosystems: Ecological restoration to the highest aspirational level practicable but at least a three‐star level

Reforestation primarily for ecosystem services: Rehabilitation to a minimum two‐ to three‐star level for the ecosystem function attribute, or at least sustainable utilization (between logging cycles) with no deleterious effect on native ecosystems, preferably with added ecological benefits

Agriculture and production horticulture

Native ecosystems with potential for full recovery : Ecological restoration ideally to a five‐star level

Recovery of agricultural productivity/ecological agriculture adjacent to native ecosystems : Ecological restoration to the highest aspirational level practicable but at least a three‐star level

Native ecosystems with potential for only partial recovery : Ecological restoration to the highest aspirational level practicable but minimum of a two‐ to three‐star level for at least the biological attributes

Recovery of agricultural capacity for ecosystem services : Rehabilitation to a minimum two‐star level for the ecosystem function attribute or at least sustainable utilization with no deleterious effect on native ecosystems, preferably with added ecological benefits

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas drilling sites

When intact or near‐intact native ecosystems are impacted (native ecosystems with potential for full recovery): Ecological restoration to a five‐star level

When degraded native ecosystems are impacted (native ecosystems with potential for only partial recovery): Ecological restoration to the highest aspirational level practicable, that is three‐star level or higher

Impacts on already converted (reallocated) landscape units with low potential for native recovery: Rehabilitation to one to two stars for the ecosystem function attribute or at least sustainable utilization with no deleterious effect on native ecosystems, preferably with added ecological benefits

Section 3-Standards of Practice for Planning and Implementing Ecological Restoration Projects

The following lists specific standard practices used in: (1) planning and design; (2) implementation; (3) monitoring and evaluation; and (4) maintaining ecological restoration projects after completion, particularly where professional staff or contractors are engaged. These Standards of Practice fully incorporate SER's Code of Ethics (SER 2013). They are adaptable to the size, complexity, degree of degradation, regulatory status, and budget of any project, but not all steps will be possible for all projects. The steps described in the standards are not always sequential. For instance, the standards include monitoring after implementation, because the bulk of the monitoring effort may occur post‐treatment; however, activities critical to monitoring must begin before project initiation, because of the need to design monitoring plans, develop budgets and secure funding, and collect pre‐treatment data prior to implementation of restoration treatments.

Planning and design

1.1 Stakeholder engagement . Meaningful, informed, reciprocal engagement is undertaken preferably at the initial planning stage of a restoration project with all key stakeholders (including the land or water owners or managers, industry interests, neighbors, and local community and Indigenous stakeholders) and continues throughout the duration of a project. Engagement ideally includes training local people to provide committed, long‐term monitoring and collaborative knowledge generation and dissemination. Key steps are to:

1.1.1 Include a schedule for stakeholder engagement throughout project lifespan. Where possible, participatory planning and restoration plan co‐design are implemented, and local community capacity building and training are included (See tool: The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation).

1.1.2 Perform due diligence to ensure that stakeholder rights, including land tenure, are understood and respected throughout the restoration process.

1.2 Context assessment . Plans and stakeholder engagement are informed by local and regional conservation and sustainability goals and priorities, and spatial planning and:

1.2.1 Include diagrams or maps of the project in relation to its surrounding landscape or aquatic environment;

1.2.2 Identify ways to improve beneficial connectivity between habitats at the restoration site, and increase beneficial external ecological exchanges with other native ecosystems to improve landscape‐level flows and processes, including colonization and gene flow between sites; and,

1.2.3 Specify strategies to ensure continuity of future management to align and integrate the project with management of nearby native ecosystems and productive landscapes.

1.3 Assessment of security of site tenure and scheduling of post‐treatment maintenance . Evidence of potential for long‐term conservation management of the site is required before investing in restoration. Restoration plans should thus:

1.3.1 Identify site‐tenure security to enable long‐term restoration and allow appropriate ongoing access for monitoring and management; and,

1.3.2 Identify plan for site maintenance after project completion to ensure that the site does not regress into a degraded state.

1.4 Baseline inventory . The baseline inventory documents the causes, intensity, and extent of degradation, and describes the effects of degradation on the biota and physical environment relative to the six ecosystem attributes. Accordingly, plans should:

1.4.1
Identify native, ruderal, and nonnative species persisting on the site, particularly threatened species or communities and invasive species;

1.4.2
Record status of current abiotic conditions (through photographs and other means) including dimensions, configuration, and physical and chemical condition of streams, water bodies, water column, land surfaces, soils, or any other material elements, relative to prior or changing conditions;

1.4.3
Detect type and degree of drivers and threats that have caused degradation on the site and ways to eliminate, mitigate, or adapt to them (for a standard Threats Taxonomy, see the Open Standards Threats Classification). This includes assessment of:

Historical, current, and anticipated impacts within and external to the site (e.g. over‐utilization, sedimentation, fragmentation, pest plants and animals, hydrological impacts, contamination, altered disturbance regimes) and ways to manage, remove, or adapt to them;

Description of needs for genetic diversity supplementation for species reduced to non‐viable populations due to fragmentation (see Section 4, Part 3); and,

Current and anticipated effects of climate change (e.g. temperature, rainfall, sea level, marine acidity) on species and genotypes with respect to likely future viability.

1.4.4 Identify the relative capacity of the biota on site or external to the site to commence and continue recovery with or without assistance. This includes undertaking an inventory that includes:

1.5 Native reference ecosystem(s) and reference models . Plans identify target native reference ecosystems and an appropriate reference model (Principle 3; Section 4 Part 1) based on multiple indicators of the six key ecosystem attributes (Table 2; Fig. 4) at a suitable number of reference sites. In some cases, descriptions of intact ecosystems may be available from previous assessments or models or environmental agency guidelines. Specifically, plans:

1.5.1 Document substrate characteristics (biotic or abiotic, aquatic or terrestrial);

1.5.2 List major characteristic species (representing all plant‐growth forms and functional groups of micro‐ and macrofauna, including pioneer and threatened species);

1.5.3 Identify the ecosystem's functional attributes, including nutrient cycles, characteristic disturbance and flow regimes, successional pathways, plant-animal interactions, ecosystem exchanges, and any disturbance‐dependence of component species;

1.5.4 Note any ecological mosaics that require use of multiple reference ecosystems on a site.

1.5.5 In cases where extant ecosystems are being disturbed and then restored, preexisting intact ecosystems must be mapped in detail prior to site disturbance;

1.5.6 Assess habitat needs of focal biota (including any faunal minimum ranges and responses to degradation pressures and restoration treatments).

1.6 Vision, targets, goals and objectives . Clear and measurable goals and objectives are needed to identify the most appropriate actions, ensure that all project participants have a common understanding of the project, and measure progress (see Monitoring below). Plans must clearly state:

1.6.1 Project vision and ecological and social targets, including a description of the site and the native ecosystem to be restored;

1.6.2 Ecological and social goals including level of ecological recovery sought (i.e. condition or state of the ecosystem attributes to be achieved). In full recovery cases, this will fully align with the reference model, whereas in partial recovery cases this will include elements that deviate from the reference to some degree. Ecological goals should quantify, where possible, degree of the reference ecosystem attributes to be attained. The social goals must be explicit and realistic, considering the time frame and social capital available in the area.

1.6.3 Objectives are the changes and immediate outcomes needed to achieve the target and goals relative to any distinct spatial areas within the site. Objectives are stated in terms of measurable and quantifiable indicators to identify whether or not the project is reaching its objectives within identified time frames. In addition to indicators, objectives should include specific actions, quantities, and time frames.

1.7 Restoration treatment prescriptions . Plans contain clearly stated treatment prescriptions for each distinct restoration area, describing what, where, and by whom treatments will be undertaken, and their order or priority. Where knowledge or experience is lacking, adaptive management or targeted research that informs appropriate prescriptions will be necessary. If there is uncertainty, the Precautionary Principle should be applied in a manner that reduces environmental risk. Plans should:

1.7.1 Describe actions to be undertaken to eliminate and mitigate, or adapt to causal problems; and,

1.7.2 Identify and justify specific restoration approaches, descriptions of specific treatments for each restoration area, and prioritization of actions. Depending on the condition of the site, this includes identification of:

Amendments to the shape, configuration, chemistry, or other physical condition of abiotic elements to render them amenable to the recovery of target biota and ecosystem structure and functions;

Effective and ecologically appropriate strategies and techniques to control undesirable species to protect desirable species, their habitats, and the site;

Ecologically appropriate methods to facilitate regeneration or achieve reintroduction of any missing species;

Ecologically appropriate strategies to address circumstances where the ideal species or genetic stock is not immediately available (e.g. leaving gaps for in‐fill reintroductions in subsequent seasons); and,

Appropriate species selection, genetic sourcing, and procurement of biota to be reintroduced (see Appendix 1).

1.8 Analyzing logistics . Analysis of potential for resourcing the project and of likely risks is required before undertaking a restoration plan. To address practical constraints and opportunities including plans:

1.8.1 Identify funding, labor (including appropriate skill level), and other resources that will enable appropriate treatments (including follow‐up treatments and monitoring), until the site reaches a stabilized condition;

1.8.2 Undertake a full risk assessment and identify a risk‐management strategy for the project, particularly including contingency arrangements for unexpected changes in environmental conditions, financing, or human resourcing;

1.8.3 Develop a project timetable and rationale for the duration of the project (e.g. using a schedule planning chart);

1.8.4
Identify ways to maintain commitment to the project's targets, goals, and objectives over the life of the project, including political and financial support; and,

1.8.5
Obtain permissions and permits, and address legal constraints applying to the site and the project, including land‐tenure and ownership claims.

1.9 Establishing process for project review . Plans include a schedule and time frame to:

1.9.1 Carry out stakeholder and independent peer review as required; and,

1.9.2 Implement plan review in light of new knowledge, changing environmental conditions, and lessons learned.

Implementation The implementation phase may be short or long, depending on the project and circumstances. During the implementation phase, restoration projects are managed to:

2.1 Protect the site from damage . No further or lasting damage is caused by the restoration works to any natural resources or elements of the terrestrial or aquatic area impacted by the project, including physical damage (e.g. clearing, burying topsoil, trampling), chemical contamination (e.g. over‐fertilizing, pesticide spills) or biological contamination (e.g. introduction of invasive species including undesirable pathogens).

2.2 Engage appropriate participants . Treatments are interpreted and carried out responsibly, effectively, and efficiently by, or under the supervision of, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced people. Wherever possible, stakeholders and community members are invited to participate in project implementation. Where possible, use of sustainable materials and processes are incorporated into restoration projects.

2.3 Incorporate natural processes . All treatments are undertaken in a manner that is responsive to natural processes, and that fosters and protects potential for natural and assisted recovery. Primary treatments including substrate and hydrological amendments, pest animal and plant control, application of specific recovery activities, and biotic reintroductions adequately followed up by secondary treatments as required. Because the recovery period may be long (e.g. growth of riparian vegetation), interim treatments to reduce adverse effects (e.g. nutrient influxes and sediment inflows into streams) should be planned for and implemented. Appropriate aftercare is provided to any plantings or animal stock.

2.4 Respond to changes occurring on site . Adaptive management is applied, informed by the results of monitoring. This includes both corrective changes of direction to adapt to unexpected ecosystem responses and additional work as needed. In some cases, additional or new research may be required to overcome particular restoration impediments.

2.5 Ensure compliance . All projects exercise full compliance with work, health, and safety legislation. All laws, regulations, and permits that apply to the project, including those related to soil, air, water, oceans, heritage, species and ecosystem conservation, are in place.

2.6 Communicate with stakeholders . All project operatives communicate regularly with key stakeholders (preferably through a communications plan, integrated with any stakeholder engagement and citizen‐science activities) to keep stakeholders appraised of progress and optimally engaged. Communication should also meet funding body requirements.

Monitoring, Documentation, Evaluation, and Reporting Ecological restoration projects adopt the principle of observing, recording, and monitoring treatments and responses to determine whether a project is on track to meeting targets, goals, and objectives, or needs adjustment. Projects are regularly assessed, with progress analyzed to adjust treatments as required (i.e. using an adaptive‐management framework). Collaborations are fostered between researchers, local‐knowledge experts, practitioners, and citizen‐scientists, especially where treatments are innovative or being applied at a large scale. Monitoring needs are reassessed throughout the project and resources reallocated or expanded accordingly.

3.1 Monitoring design . Monitoring to evaluate restoration outcomes begins at the planning stage by developing a monitoring plan to identify treatment effectiveness (See also Boxes 5 & 6). This plan includes specific questions to be addressed through monitoring, sampling design for collecting baseline, implementation, and post‐treatment data, procedures for documenting and archiving collected data, plans for data analysis, and plans for communicating results to adapt management strategies on site and inform stakeholders of lessons learned.

3.1.1 Monitoring is geared to specific targets and measurable goals and objectives identified at the start of the project. Once indicators are determined, baseline data are collected and milestones determined to gauge whether the rate of progress is on track. Additionally, "trigger points" along that path can be helpful; if the data reach a trigger, then corrective actions may be needed.

3.1.2 Monitoring methods should be appropriate to the goals of the project. Whenever possible, methods should be easy‐to‐use, and implemented through participatory processes. When formal quantitative sampling is needed, the sampling design must include a sufficiently large sample size to enable statistical analyses and inferences. In all cases the methods should be detailed enough to be repeatable in future years.

3.1.3 Project managers should be mindful that monitoring is essential to determine whether goals are met and also to provide learning opportunities. Involving stakeholders in project design and data collection and analysis helps improve collaborative decision‐making, provides a sense of ownership and engagement, motivates stakeholders to maintain longer‐term interest, and strengthens stakeholder capacity and empowerment. Any monitoring system must have built‐in opportunities for learning and adaptation.

3.2
Keeping records . Adequate and secure records of all project data, including documents related to planning, implementation, monitoring, and reporting are maintained to inform adaptive management and enable future evaluation of responses to treatments. All treatment data, including details of restoration activities, number of work session and costs, along with all evaluation monitoring records are maintained for future reference. Provenance data should include location (preferably GPS‐derived) and description of donor and receiving sites or populations. Documentation should include reference to collection protocols, date of acquisition, identification procedures, and collector/propagator's name. Additionally:

3.2.1
Consideration should be given to having data be open‐access, or adding results to open access repositories such as SER's Restoration Resource Center or other national or international databases; and,

3.2.2
Managers should archive data using secure storage. Metadata describing the contents of each dataset should be included.

3.3
Evaluating outcomes . Evaluation of the outcomes of the work is carried out, with progress assessed against project targets, goals, and objectives. This requires use of an evaluation tool (e.g. the Five‐star System presented in this document; the Audit Tool of the Open Standards among others or conventional ecological evaluation methods).

3.4
Reporting to interested parties . Reporting involves preparing and disseminating progress reports that detail evaluation results for key stakeholders and broader interest groups (e.g. in newsletters and scientific journals) to convey outputs and outcomes as they become available.

3.4.1
Reporting should convey the information accurately and accessibly, customized to the audience; and,

3.4.2
Reporting should specify the level and details of monitoring upon which any evaluation of progress has been based.

Post‐Implementation Maintenance

Section 4-Leading Practices

Part 1. Developing Reference Models for Ecological Restoration

The practice of ecological restoration involves removing or limiting sources of degradation and assisting the ecosystem in recovering, insofar as possible, to the condition it would be in had degradation not occurred, while also accounting for anticipated change. This requires a model to predict that condition, called a reference model (Principle 3), which is constructed empirically from multiple reference sites and theoretically based on best available information. This model should account for multiple ecosystem attributes and their variation within the target ecosystem, as well as overall ecosystem complexity and dynamics (i.e. changes over time). Each of these considerations is important for establishing project goals that accurately reflect an appropriate target ecosystem. In some cases, it may be necessary to identify multiple reference models, for example, for native ecosystems that have non‐equilibrium dynamics (Suding & Gross 2006) or alternative reference models where irreversible change has occurred or is anticipated. In practice, the process of building a reference model and the model's reliability will vary based on both project resources and the availability of relevant ecological information. Information may be readily available or collectable for some native ecosystems (e.g. forested areas of western North America where LiDAR data allow for creation of reference models at landscape scales; Wiggins et al. 2019), where for others reference sites and data may be scarce (e.g. threatened coastal forest ecosystems of Chile for which only a few small patches of forest remain; Echeverria et al. 2006). In most instances, stakeholders and project managers will have to navigate gaps in available information and or resources using professional judgment. In all cases, the best available information should be combined with solid investigative work (Swetnam et al. 1999) to develop optimal model(s) for predicting system condition had degradation not occurred.

Construction of reference models ideally incorporates a broad set of ecosystem attributes, including absence of threats, species composition, community structure, physical conditions, ecosystem function, and external exchanges (Principle 3). Some of these attributes, such as community structure (i.e. architecture with respect to vegetation strata, trophic levels, and spatial patterns) and species composition (i.e. types of species present) are relatively straightforward to assess, whereas others, such as ecosystem functions, are more complex, but equally important. Organisms interact with their environment and other organisms in complex ways that result in flows of energy, nutrients, water, and other materials, referred to as ecosystem functions. In addition to supporting ecological integrity, ecosystem functions provide the services required for life (e.g. food, fiber, water, medicines) and their inclusion in reference models is essential. Further, the physical attributes of ecosystems and ecological subsidies (e.g. seed propagules) that flow across ecosystems are important to consider in developing references, as they are the context in which species interactions occur.

Incorporating Historical and Future Change

Ecosystems respond to changing environmental conditions, which adds complexity to ecological restoration and other types of ecosystem management. To account for temporal change, the reference model is conceived as the condition the target ecosystem would be in had degradation not occurred, while anticipating future change. It does not represent a condition in the past. Historical information may be useful in the construction of reference models, especially if modern reference sites are unavailable. When using historical data to develop reference models, however, consideration should always be given to the degree of background environmental change that has occurred (e.g. changes in temperature, precipitation, and soils) or is anticipated to occur (e.g. climate change), and the extent to which the reference model should be adjusted to account for these changes (see also Box 2 and Appendix 1).

Ecosystem change is driven by factors that are external to the ecosystem, such as climate, but also through successional processes and many types of ecosystems exhibit multiple successional stages. Because of this, successional stage of the restoration site must be considered when selecting reference sites. For example, late‐successional ecosystems (e.g. 1,000‐year‐old forests) are likely unsuitable reference sites for the initial phases of restoration of early‐successional forest stands, although they are useful for informing the multi‐phase, long‐term reference model, and setting long‐range project goals. In addition, for some sites there may be multiple potential outcomes of succession, based on chance events such as natural disturbances or order of arrival of species (Chase 2003). Rather than assuming that the system will always follow a single successional trajectory, it may be useful to develop a set of reference models for multiple potential trajectories. Incorporating equilibrium dynamics into reference models clearly makes restoration planning more complex but will facilitate project success by giving managers a more informed perspective on suitable project outcomes or, when one of multiple potential stable states is desired, helping managers avoid feedbacks that would drive the system in unintended directions (e.g. managing the order of species introductions or removing species that are likely to push the system in the unintended direction; Suding & Gross 2006).

Reference Sites and Other Sources of Information

Because no two sites are identical, best practice is to use multiple reference sites and other information to develop the reference model. Inventory of one site will capture only a fraction of the species pool and be unlikely to represent the average condition of the target ecosystem. Ecosystems that are highly heterogeneous will require more reference sites than those that are more homogeneous. Due to the high degree of land alteration globally, however, many ecosystems may not have an adequate number of reference sites and practitioners may need to rely on successional models and other sources of information as detailed below.

Other information sources key for developing reference models include traditional and local ecological knowledge (TEK and LEK; e.g. Zedler & Stevens 2018), and databases and tools that characterize ecosystem properties (e.g. soil descriptions, rare species distributions). If only a few species are identifiable from these indirect sources of evidence, an ecologist familiar with the natural history of the region can frequently ascertain the estimated condition of the ecosystems if degradation had not occurred and deduce species compositions. Implementation plans can be prepared from descriptions of existing examples of those same ecosystems.

Adequate investment in developing a reference model is an important consideration in project planning and budgeting. The quality of the reference model will vary among projects, based on project resources and available sites and information. Stakeholders and project managers should aspire to create the best model possible given project constraints. Note that in some jurisdictions, reference models may have already been developed for some ecosystems.

Part 2. Identifying Appropriate Ecological Restoration Approaches

For millions of years, natural recovery processes have been autogenically repairing naturally disturbed sites in both terrestrial and aquatic environments (e.g. volcanos, landslides, glaciation, asteroid impacts, sea level changes, tsunamis, riverbank erosion; e.g. Matthews 1999). While the sequential patterns of recovery (i.e. succession) differ among ecosystems, all native species are likely to have evolved some capacity to recover after natural disturbances or stresses to which they have adapted (Holling 1973; Westman 1978). By understanding how recovery processes operate in cases of natural disturbances, strategies for the restoration of human‐caused degradation can be developed (Cairns Jr et al. 1977; Chazdon 2014). Correctly assessing the capacity of individual species to regenerate at a specific site facilitates selection of appropriate approaches and treatments, thus enabling efficient use of financial resources and other restoration inputs (McDonald 2000; Martínez‐Ramos et al. 2016).

A first step in defining effective restoration strategies is to identify the constraints (sometimes referred to as "filters" or "barriers") preventing ecosystem recovery (Hobbs & Norton 2004; Hulvey & Aigner 2014). Constraints will of course include the anthropogenic causes of degradation, but also the consequences of these, such as unsuitable substrates, absence of niches, altered niches, lack of resources, herbivory, competition, lack of propagule availability, or absence of cues to break seed dormancy. By addressing the constraints that prevent recovery without introducing new ones, natural processes that have been operating over evolutionary time can be reinstated to assist the recovery of the disturbed site (e.g. revegetation from stored propagules; McDonald 2000; Prach & Hobbs 2008).

Natural regeneration , sometimes referred to as "passive" restoration, is often the most cost‐effective approach when natural recovery potential is high. Where potential for natural regeneration is absent or low, however, it is usually necessary to reestablish or increase organisms or depleted populations through more active means, such as assisted regeneration or reconstruction , sometimes referred to as "active" restoration. All three of these approaches use natural recovery processes and require ongoing adaptive management until recovery is attained.

1. Natural (or spontaneous) regeneration. Where damage is relatively low and topsoil retained, or where sufficient time frames and nearby populations exist to allow recolonization, plants and animals may be able to recover after cessation of certain types of degradation (Prach et al. 2014; Chazdon & Guariguata 2016). This may include removal of contamination, inappropriate grazing, over‐fishing, restriction of water flows, and inappropriate fire regimes. Animal species may be able to recolonize the site if there is sufficient habitat connectivity, and plant species may recover through resprouting or germination from remnant soil seed banks or seeds that naturally disperse from nearby sites (Grubb & Hopkins 1986; Powers et al. 2009). In some cases, natural regeneration can also be used even in heavily disturbed sites, such as abandoned quarries and mines, although this will likely be a long‐term process (Prach & Hobbs 2008).

2. Assisted regeneration. Restoration at sites of intermediate or greater degradation requires removal of the causes of degradation and active interventions to correct abiotic and biotic damage and trigger biotic recovery (e.g. by mimicking natural disturbances or by providing key resources). Examples of abiotic interventions include: actively remediating substrate chemical or physical conditions; building habitat features such as shellfish reefs (O'Beirn et al. 2000); reshaping watercourses (Jordan & Arrington 2014) and landforms (Prach & Hobbs 2008); reinstating environmental flows and fish passage in estuaries and rivers (Kareiva et al. 2000); applying artificial disturbances to break seed dormancy (Mitchell et al. 2008); and, installing habitat features such as hollow logs, rocks, woody debris piles, soil microniches, and perch trees (Elgar et al. 2014; Castillo‐Escrivà et al. 2019). Examples of biotic interventions include: controlling invasive species (Saunders & Norton 2001; Chazdon et al. 2017); supplementary reintroduction of species that cannot migrate into the restoration area without assistance (e.g. rewilding of animals or reintroduction of tree species with very large seeds); and, the augmentation or reinforcement of depleted populations of species where genetic diversity is insufficient (see also Appendix 1).

3. Reconstruction. Where damage is high, not only do all causes of degradation need to be removed or reversed and all biotic and abiotic damage corrected to suit the identified native reference ecosystem, but also all or a major proportion of its desirable biota need to be reintroduced wherever possible (Bradshaw 1983; Seddon et al. 2004). The biota can then interact with abiotic components to drive further recovery of ecosystem attributes. In some cases where sequential recovery is a characteristic of the ecosystem or is needed (e.g. to help recovery of soils), earlier successional species may need to be reintroduced earlier than later successional species (Temperton et al. 2004). In ecosystems that do not exhibit these successional patterns, however, all species may need to be introduced from the outset (e.g. Rokich 2016).

A mosaic of the three approaches may be warranted and mapped where there are different degrees of degradation across a site, or as a technique to increase efficiency and lower costs (Bradshaw 1983; Walker 2011), especially at larger scales. That is, some parts of a site may require a natural regeneration approach, others may require an assisted regeneration approach, and still other areas may require a reconstruction approach, or combinations as appropriate. One combined approach is applied nucleation , which involves planting small patches of vegetation (often trees) that attract dispersers and facilitate establishment of new recruits, expanding the forested area over time. Applied nucleation has shown promise in restoring landfills (Corbin et al. 2016), Mediterranean woodlands (Rey Benayas et al. 2008), tropical forests (Corbin & Holl 2012; Holl et al. 2017), and other ecosystems. Deciding on an appropriate approach or combination may not be self‐evident. Knowledge and experience are important in assessing the degree of natural regeneration potential present, and whether that potential may respond to particular forms of assistance (and in a timely way). Where specific knowledge is unavailable, an adaptive management approach to understanding the effectiveness of different types of regeneration is appropriate (e.g. allowing a couple of years to assess the rate of natural regeneration prior to deciding the best approach; Holl et al. 2018). Responding to site conditions in this way will ensure optimal levels of similarity between the restoration outcome and conditions defined by the reference model.

Part 3. The Role of Ecological Restoration in Global Restoration Initiatives

Within the last 30 years, ecological restoration has grown from implementation at the small‐patch scale to a primary strategy for conserving biodiversity and improving human wellbeing across large landscapes. When the vision of restoration exceeds small‐patch scales, the goals and approaches of restoration must be scaled up (Principle 7). Landscape patterns (spatial relationships of ecosystem types) and landscape‐level processes (e.g. water flow, erosion, nutrient fluxes, land‐use changes) are important attributes to consider (Holl et al. 2003). At large scales, the greater diversity of ecosystems, stakeholders, and land uses create competing goals, but may also precipitate common solutions. Consequently, restoration at this scale must focus on providing multiple, complementary, and integrated benefits for ecosystems and stakeholders.

Global Restoration Initiatives

Growing awareness of the need for environmental and socio‐cultural repair has led to a global ramping up of ecological restoration and allied restorative activities (Introduction, Principle 7). However, land degradation has continued mostly unabated, and the need to both avoid and counter the effects of this degradation is increasingly more urgent. Toward this end, several large‐scale restoration initiatives and agreements have been launched at the global scale that promote a wide range of ecosystem management and nature‐based solutions (Box 10). Within many of these initiatives and agreements restoration is broadly defined (e.g. Forest Landscape Restoration) and includes all activities along the restorative continuum (Principle 8). These initiatives largely focus on improving the ecological health and productivity of landscapes to support the current and future wellbeing of people, protect biodiversity, reduce disaster risk, and mitigate and adapt to climate change. For some initiatives, restoration is seen as a method to improve access to and sustainability of natural resources. Others recognize the potential of restoration to catalyze rural economies, provide jobs and income, and improve food and water security, among other objectives. These outcomes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, when fair access to and sustainable use of natural resources is an outcome of large‐scale restoration programs, several other global objectives are also achieved.

Box 10. Global restoration initiatives

* United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 call for the restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems (Goal 14), as well as forests and other ecosystems that have been degraded (Goal 15). On March 1, 2019 in support of a broad range of the SDGs and many of the initiatives below, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2021-2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Global Landscapes Forum (GLF), and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), among others, are expected to lead implementation and knowledge exchange programs for the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.

* The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has a target of restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020 to mitigate the impacts of climate change and to combat desertification (Aichi Biodiversity Target 15), and views ecological restoration as key to delivering essential ecosystem services (Aichi Biodiversity Target 14). The CBD has adopted a Short‐Term Action Plan on Ecosystem Restoration (CBD 2016), and restoration is expected to play an even larger role as the current biodiversity targets expire and are revised for the post‐2020 biodiversity framework. The CBD (2018) also encourages Parties to further strengthen their efforts "... to identify regions, ecosystems and components of biodiversity that are or will become vulnerable to climate change ... to promote ecosystem restoration and sustainable management post‐restoration."

* The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) promotes land restoration and rehabilitation as part of the UNCCD strategic framework 2018-2030, and specifically to achieve Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN; Orr et al. 2017), wherein, "the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security remain stable or increase within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems" (UNCCD 2017). Current drylands and future drylands under climate change will be highly vulnerable, requiring a stronger collaboration across the three Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD, United Nations Framework Convention Climate Change [UNFCCC]) on how to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation with the support of sustainable land management practices, while considering the special mandates of each Convention (Akhtar‐Schuster et al. 2017; Chasek et al. 2019).

* The Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) promotes "land restoration", including activities such as restoring agricultural productivity, adopting agricultural best practices, and other sustainable utilization activities. The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( https://www.ipbes.net/global‐assessment‐biodiversity‐ecosystem‐services) reports that about 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history. Loss of biodiversity is shown to be not only an environmental issue, but also a developmental, economic, security, social, and moral issue. Restoration and land‐based climate change mitigation actions are viewed as key elements of the transformative change needed to avert mass extinctions and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services.

* The largest and most diverse initiative for large‐scale restoration is the Bonn Challenge, launched by the Government of Germany and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and later endorsed and extended by the New York Declaration on Forests (Goal 5). This global effort seeks to bring 150 million hectares of deforested and degraded land into restoration by 2020 and 350 million hectares by 2030. The Bonn Challenge has galvanized high‐level national and subnational commitments from 58 governments and land managers, totaling over 170 million hectares, to assess opportunities for, and implement restorative activities using the Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) approach.

* In support of the Bonn Challenge, several regional initiatives help bring countries together to share commitments, knowledge, tools, and capacities regarding FLR. In Latin America this includes the 20 × 20 initiative, which seeks to bring into restoration 20 million hectares of degraded land by 2020. Similarly, The African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) is a country‐led effort to bring into restoration 100 million hectares of degraded land by 2030. Both 20 × 20 and AFR100 have exceeded their commitment goals. The 17 countries supporting the Bonn Challenge through 20 × 20 have committed 50 million hectares and the 28 countries supporting AFR100 have committed 113 million hectares to date. In addition to these initiatives, there are budding regional platforms emerging in the Caucuses and Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia, and many other large‐scale commitments to FLR throughout the rest of the world at both the national and subnational scale.

* Additional restorative activities are proposed or promoted as part of REDD+ (Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) projects at national and sub‐national levels, as part of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the UNFCCC, by the Global Landscapes Forum, and across thousands of projects at local, regional, and national scales throughout the world.

Landscape Restoration Approaches

Many large‐scale restoration initiatives include opportunities to employ landscape restoration approaches. Landscape restoration involves practices based on the principles of both landscape ecology and landscape sustainability science (LSS; Frazier et al. 2019), in which a "landscape" is seen as a social-ecological system. LSS focuses on improving the dynamic relationship between ecosystem services and human wellbeing in changing social, economic, and environmental conditions. Consistent with the definition of landscape sustainability (Wu 2013), landscape restoration can be defined as a planned process that seeks to recover landscape‐level ecological integrity and the capacity of a landscape to provide long‐term, landscape‐specific ecosystem services essential for improving human wellbeing. Accordingly, landscape restoration involves both ecological and social targets and goals (Principle 1). Additional approaches to large‐scale restoration include the concept of Sustainable Multifunctional Landscapes , which are "landscapes created and managed to integrate human production and landscape use into the ecological fabric of a landscape maintaining critical ecosystem function, service flows and biodiversity retention" (O'Farrell & Anderson 2010).

Conducting landscape restoration activities requires an in‐depth understanding of landscape composition, structure, and function, and the link between ecological integrity and meeting human needs (Wu 2013). These landscape attributes vary from those that are considered for ecological restoration at the site‐level (composition, structure, function, at the ecosystem or community level, as well as lower levels [species, genes] of the biological hierarchy; Principle 7). Landscape restoration involves considerations at levels of the biological hierarchy above the ecosystem scale and an explicit consideration of the types and proportions of ecosystems within the landscape, the spatial organization of the units, and the link between landscape composition, structure and functions. Restoring functions, flows of energy, nutrients, and other subsidies through the landscape may be equally as important as restoring composition and structure in some cases, especially for the delivery of particular ecosystem services. For example, restoring hydrological processes and water movement among ecosystems is critical for stream‐flow regulation, which is one of the ecosystem services that often drives interest in restoration.

Governments are often involved in landscape restoration programs with coalitions of local administrations and stakeholder groups. Stakeholder engagement platforms are built for several important reasons, including to develop a sense of responsibility for the landscape and to emphasize how different stakeholders view the potential of restoration and its costs and benefits. However, unless stakeholder‐driven processes are consistent with the concepts of landscape sustainability science, key trade‐offs between stakeholder‐desired services, biodiversity, and ecological integrity may not be considered and landscapes may be further degraded. Managing tradeoffs to maximize landscape sustainability is critical, as the long‐term effectiveness of national restoration programs requires consideration of the needs of future generations, and options for enhancing future sustainability under climate change.

Decision‐support tools can help define and map degradation, set restoration objectives, discern trade‐offs and synergies among potential restoration actions or approaches, and identify restoration opportunities (IUCN and WRI 2014; Hanson et al. 2015; Chazdon & Guariguata 2018; Evans & Guariguata 2019). Further, integrating biodiversity information, species‐distribution modeling, and habitat‐suitability modeling at landscape scales can identify areas where ecological restoration may reduce threats to species or actively restore their populations or habitat (Beatty et al. 2018). Moreover, economic analyses and scenarios based on ecosystem service supply and biodiversity benefits can contribute to understanding the cost‐effectiveness and total costs of specific restoration actions in particular areas. Additional decision‐support tools are critically needed, however, for assessing delivery of selected ecosystem services, tradeoffs between ecological and social outcomes, and social‐economic outcomes such as livelihoods and food security (Beatty et al. 2018).

One important way to advance the science, practice, and policy of landscape restoration is to develop and promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation among and within countries. A bibliometric analysis shows a significant increase in publications on ecological restoration in developing countries (e.g. China and Brazil between 1988 and 2017; Guan et al. 2019). Experience and expertise sharing, co‐financing, and co‐developing new knowledge for more effective policy and practice should be encouraged among regions (Liu et al. 2019), and south-south cooperation is equally important for knowledge sharing in developing and newly industrialized countries (Liu et al. 2017).

Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR), the main approach behind the Bonn Challenge and other global restoration initiatives, has increased awareness of the need for restoration and allied restorative activities at the landscape scale. However, the activities implemented under Forest Landscape Restoration are not necessarily equivalent to ecological restoration-a situation that has contributed to confusion about restoration as a concept. Although FLR is defined as "a process that aims to regain ecological functioning and enhance human well‐being in deforested or degraded landscapes" (Besseau et al. 2018), ecological restoration is only one of many activities in FLR. In fact, FLR programs comprise a range of activities aligning with the "Restorative Continuum" described in Principle 8 (i.e.reduced impacts, remediation, rehabilitation, ecological restoration), including the conservation of existing protected areas and increasing sustainability in areas of primary economic production. Importantly, FLR does not necessarily place a higher value on one type of activity within the continuum than another. Ecological restoration, for instance, is not viewed as an inherently better option than conservation agriculture or agroforestry. However, many FLR practitioners view ecological restoration as a key component of every FLR project. These practitioners recognize that areas primarily devoted to economic production, especially degraded agricultural landscapes, have enormous social, economic, and ecological needs for intervention. Application of an integrated, holistic approach to conserve and repair ecosystems is most likely to achieve direct improvements in human wellbeing effectively and equitably, an approach similar to that of the UNCCD's Landscape Degradation Neutrality program. The selection of activities within FLR, however, is based on many factors, including how the action mitigates degradation as well as how it may support stakeholder‐defined objectives (e.g. climate resilience, food and water security, biodiversity conservation). FLR has been interpreted in different ways (Mansourian 2018) leading to different constructs of FLR (e.g. safeguarding biodiversity, reducing land degradation, supporting sustainable timber production). Transparency and clear communication, along with flexibility to implement a diversity of restoration activities in a landscape, are thus key to successful implementation.

Broad political support exists for FLR and the Bonn Challenge, which are important implementation mechanisms for the Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD, UNFCCC), as well as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national, continental, and regional initiatives. FLR has allowed countries and other actors to view ecosystem and landscape repair through the many different social, economic, and ecological lenses it provides. FLR has already made significant contributions to the Aichi Targets (Beatty et al. 2018). In addition, engagement of high‐level policymakers at Bonn Challenge Ministerial events has resulted in support for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030). Concern that FLR be restorative, and not create perverse incentives and collateral damage, have led to development of FLR Principles that call for restoration for multiple functions together, and maintenance and enhancement of native ecosystems (Box 11).

Box 11. FLR principles.

The members of the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration have re‐articulated and strengthened a streamlined set of long‐held FLR principles below (Besseau et al. 2018).

* Focus on landscapes-FLR takes place within and across entire landscapes, not individual sites, representing mosaics of interacting land uses and management practices under various tenure and governance systems. It is at this scale that ecological, social and economic priorities can be balanced.

* Engage stakeholders and support participatory governance-FLR actively engages stakeholders at different scales, including vulnerable groups, in planning and decision‐making regarding land use, restoration goals and strategies, implementation methods, benefit sharing, monitoring and review processes.

* Restore multiple functions for multiple benefits-FLR interventions aim to restore multiple ecological, social and economic functions across a landscape and generate a range of ecosystem goods and services that benefit multiple stakeholder groups.

* Maintain and enhance natural ecosystems within landscapes-FLR does not lead to the conversion or destruction of natural forests or other ecosystems. It enhances the conservation, recovery, and sustainable management of forests and other ecosystems.

* Tailor to the local context using a variety of approaches-FLR uses a variety of approaches that are adapted to the local social, cultural, economic and ecological values, needs, and landscape history. It draws on latest science and best practice, and traditional and indigenous knowledge, and applies that information in the context of local capacities and existing or new governance structures.

* Manage adaptively for long‐term resilience-FLR seeks to enhance the resilience of the landscape and its stakeholders over the medium and long‐term. Restoration approaches should enhance species and genetic diversity and be adjusted over time to reflect changes in climate and other environmental conditions, knowledge, capacities, stakeholder needs, and societal values. As restoration progresses, information from monitoring activities, research, and stakeholder guidance should be integrated into management plans.

Conclusion

The world is entering an era of ecological restoration with governments across the globe making impressive commitments to restore degraded lands and landscapes through a wide range of restorative activities including ecological restoration at both the ecosystem and landscape scale. Ecological restoration is increasingly recognized as a critical tool for mitigating and adapting to the effects of environmental disasters and the impacts of climate change. It supports a process that improves human wellbeing at individual, community, and national levels. When implemented effectively, ecological restoration can achieve profound ecosystem services benefits, ranging from the most basic needs like improving food and water security, to reducing the spread of disease, and improving individual physical, emotional, and mental health. Ecological restoration must also be integrated with conservation and sustainable production. Restoration can help us move, globally, from centuries of cumulative environmental damage, to land degradation neutrality (Box 10), and eventually to net ecological improvement. Ecological restoration therefore promises a net gain in extent and functioning of native ecosystems, together with the delivery of critical human wellbeing benefits. Achieving this requires the support of stakeholders everywhere, and a global commitment to and investment in all types of restorative activities. This investment must be based on a strong, defensible, and understandable scientific foundation, as outlined within these restoration principles and standards.

Glossary of Terms

This glossary is adapted and expanded from McDonald et al. ( 2016a, 2016b).

Abiotic : Non‐living materials and conditions within a given ecosystem, including rock, or aqueous substrate, the atmosphere, weather and climate, topographic relief and aspect, the nutrient regime, hydrological regime, fire regime, and salinity regime.

Activity: See Restoration activities , Restorative activities .

Adaptive management : An ongoing process for improving management policies and practices by applying knowledge learned through the assessment of previously employed policies and practices to future projects and programs. It is the practice of revisiting management decisions and revising them in light of new information.

Afforestation : The process of introducing forest in an area where forest did not formerly exist in the historical past.

Allied activities : Restorative practices (including environmental improvement, remediation, and rehabilitation) that reduce the causes and ongoing effects of degradation and enhance potential for ecosystem recovery.

Applied nucleation : A strategy that uses the establishment of small patches of vegetation (often trees or shrubs) or populations of animals (e.g. corals, oysters) to serve as focal areas for ecosystem recovery by enhancing colonization.

Approach (to restoration) : The generic category of treatment (e.g. natural or assisted regeneration, reconstruction).

Assisted regeneration : An approach to restoration that focuses on actively triggering any natural regeneration capacity of biota remaining on site or nearby as distinct from reintroducing the biota to the site or leaving a site to regenerate. While this approach is typically applied to sites of low to intermediate degradation, even some very highly degraded sites have proven capable of assisted regeneration given appropriate treatment and sufficient time frames. Interventions include removal of pest organisms, reapplying ecological disturbance regimes and installation of resources to prompt colonization.

Attributes : See Key ecosystem attributes .

Augment, Augmentation (of depleted populations) : (also known as enhancement, enrichment, replenishment, or restocking) adding seeds or individuals of a population to the same population, with the aim of increasing population size or genetic diversity and thereby improving viability; re‐creating a recently extirpated population with individuals propagated from that population. In common practice, populations are often augmented with material from other nearby populations, not just the same population.

Barriers (to recovery): Factors impeding recovery of an ecosystem attribute.

Baseline condition : The condition of the restoration site immediately prior to the initiation of ecological restoration activities.

Baseline inventory : An assessment of current biotic and abiotic elements of a site prior to ecological restoration, including its compositional, structural, and functional attributes. The inventory is implemented at the commencement of the restoration planning stage, along with the development of a reference model, to inform planning including restoration goals, measurable objectives, and treatment prescriptions.

Biodiversity : The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.

Carbon sequestration : The capture and long‐term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide (typically in biomass accumulation by way of photosynthesis, vegetation growth and soil organic matter buildup). This may occur naturally or be the result of actions to reduce the impacts of climate change.

Climate envelope : The climatic range in which the populations of a species are distributed. With climate change, the geographic locations of such envelopes are likely to shift.

Climate readiness : Refers to a circumstance where restored genetic material has been selected, on the basis of climate science and genetics, to improve a species' likelihood of persisting under anticipated climate change.

Cycling (ecological): The transfer (between parts of an ecosystem) of resources such as water, carbon, nitrogen, and other elements that are fundamental to all other ecosystem functions.

Damage (to ecosystem): An acute and obvious deleterious impact on an ecosystem.

Degradation (of an ecosystem): A level of deleterious human impact to ecosystems that results in the loss of biodiversity and simplification or disruption in their composition, structure, and functioning, and generally leads to a reduction in the flow of ecosystem services.

Desirable species : Species from the reference ecosystem (or sometimes nonnative nurse plants) that will enable the native ecosystem to recover. The corollary of desirable species is undesirable species, which are often but not exclusively nonnative species.

Destruction (of an ecosystem): When degradation or damage removes all macroscopic life, and commonly ruins the physical environment of an ecosystem.

Disturbance regime : The pattern, frequency, timing, or occurrence of disturbance events that are characteristic of an ecosystem over a period of time.

Ecological restoration : The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. (Ecosystem restoration is sometimes used interchangeably 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.)

Ecological restoration program : A larger composite of many restoration projects.

Ecological restoration project : Any organized effort undertaken to achieve substantial recovery of a native ecosystem, from the planning stage through implementation and monitoring. A project may require multiple agreements or funding cycles. A project may also be one of many projects in a long‐term restoration program.

Ecosystem : Assemblage of biotic and abiotic components in water bodies or on land in which the components interact to form complex food webs, nutrient cycles, and energy flows. The term ecosystem is used in the Standards to describe an ecological assemblage of any size or scale.

Ecosystem attributes: See Key ecosystem attributes .

Ecosystem integrity : The ability of an ecosystem to support and sustain characteristic ecological functioning and biodiversity (i.e. species composition and community structure). Ecological integrity can be measured as the extent that a community of native organisms is maintained.

Ecosystem maintenance : Ongoing activities, applied after full or partial recovery, intended to counteract processes of ecological degradation to sustain the attributes of an ecosystem. Higher ongoing maintenance is likely to be required at restored sites where higher levels of threats continue, compared to sites where threats have been controlled.

Ecosystem management : A management approach that relies on the integration of scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term.

Ecosystem resilience : The degree, manner and pace of recovery of ecosystem properties after natural or human disturbance. In plant and animal communities this property is highly dependent on adaptations by individual species to disturbances or stresses experienced during the species' evolution. See also Social‐ecological resilience .

Ecosystem services : The direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing. They include production of clean soil, water, and air; moderation of climate and disease; nutrient cycling and pollination; provisioning of a range of goods useful to humans; and potential for the satisfaction of aesthetic, recreation, and other human values. These are commonly referred to as supporting, regulation, provisioning, and cultural services. Restoration goals may specifically refer to the reinstatement of particular ecosystem services or amelioration of the quality and flow of one or more services.

External exchanges : The two‐way flows that occur between ecological units within the landscape or aquatic environment including flows of energy, water, fire, genetic material, organisms, and propagules. Exchanges are facilitated by habitat linkages.

Five‐star system : A tool used to identify the level of recovery aspired to by a restoration or rehabilitation project, and to progressively evaluate and track the degree of native ecosystem recovery over time relative to the reference model. This tool also provides a means to report changes from the baseline condition relative to the reference. (Note: this system refers only to the recovery outcomes and not the restoration activities used to attain them.)

Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) : A process that aims to regain ecological functioning and enhance human wellbeing in deforested or degraded landscapes, and which can incorporate one or more allied activities alongside ecological restoration. FLR should not cause collateral damage to biodeversity.

Full recovery : The state whereby all ecosystem attributes closely resemble those of the reference ecosystem (model). It is preceded by the ecosystem exhibiting self‐organization that leads to the full resolution and maturity of ecosystem attributes. At the point of self‐organization, the restoration phase could be considered complete and management shifts to a maintenance phase.

Functional traits : Morphological, biochemical, physiological, structural, phenological, or behavioral characteristics that are expressed in phenotypes of individual organisms and are considered relevant to the response of such organisms to the environment or their effects on ecosystem properties.

Functions (of an ecosystem): The workings of an ecosystem arising from interactions and relationships between biota and abiotic elements. This includes ecosystem processes such as primary production, decomposition, nutrient cycling and transpiration and properties such as competition and resilience.

Gene flow : Exchange of genetic material between individual organisms that maintains the genetic diversity of a species' population. In nature, gene flow can be limited by lack of dispersal vectors and by topographic barriers such as mountains and rivers. In fragmented landscapes it can be limited by the separation of remnant habitats. Gene flow between introduced and native populations can have negative impacts, such inbreeding depression.

Germplasm : The various regenerative materials of plants and animals (e.g. embryos, seeds, vegetative materials) that provide a source of genetic material for future populations.

Green infrastructure : A network of natural or seminatural features (e.g. wetlands, healthy soils, and forest ecosystems, snowpack) that can help increase ecosystem services.

Inbreeding depression : The reduced biological fitness in a given population as a result of inbreeding, or breeding of related individuals.

Indicators ( of recovery): Characteristics of an ecosystem that can be used for measuring the progress toward restoration goals or objectives at a particular site (e.g. measures of presence/absence and quality of biotic or abiotic components of the ecosystem).

Intrinsic value (of ecosystems and biodiversity): The value that an entity has in itself, for what it is, or as an end. The contrasting type of value is instrumental value. Instrumental value is the value that something has as a means to a desired or valued end.

Key ecosystem attributes: Broad categories developed for restoration standards to assist practitioners with evaluating the degree to which biotic and abiotic properties and functions of an ecosystem are recovering. In this document six categories are identified: absence of threats, physical conditions, species composition, structural diversity, ecosystem function, and external exchanges. From the attainment of these attributes emerge complexity, self‐organization, resilience, and sustainability.

Landscape flows : Exchanges that occur at a level larger than individual ecosystems or sites (including within aquatic environments) and including flows of energy, water, fire, and genetic material. Exchanges are facilitated by habitat linkages.

Landscape restoration : A planned process that seeks to recover landscape‐level ecological integrity and the capacity of a landscape to provide long‐term, landscape‐specific ecosystem services essential for improving human wellbeing.

Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) : Knowledge, practices, and beliefs regarding ecological relationships that are gained through extensive personal observation of and interaction with local ecosystems, and shared among local resource users.

Local provenance area or zone : A propagule collection area within which propagule transfer is thought to likely conserve locally adapted traits.

Management (of an ecosystem): A broad categorization that can include maintenance and repair of ecosystems (including restoration).

Mandatory restoration : Restoration that is required (mandated) by government, court of law, or statutory authority, which may include some types of biodiversity offsets. In some parts of the world, mandatory restoration is included in compensatory mitigation programs.

Native ecosystem : An ecosystem comprising organisms that are known to have evolved locally or have recently migrated from neighboring localities due to changing environmental conditions including climate change. In certain circumstances, traditional cultural ecosystems or semi‐natural ecosystems are considered to be native ecosystems. Presence of nonnative species or the expansion of ruderal species in native ecosystems are forms of degradation.

Native species: Taxa considered to have their origins in a given region or that have arrived there without recent (direct or indirect) transport by humans. Among ecologists, debate exists over how precisely to define this concept.

Natural capital : Stocks of natural resources that are renewable (ecosystems, organisms), nonrenewable (petroleum, coal, minerals, etc.), replenishable (the atmosphere, potable water, fertile soils), and cultivated (landraces, heritage crops, and the know‐how attached to them), and from which flow ecosystem services.

Natural recovery potential : Capacity of ecosystem attributes to return to a site through natural regeneration. Degree of this potential in a degraded ecosystem will depend on the extent and duration of the impact and whether the impact resembles those to which the ecosystem's species have adapted over evolutionary time frames. Natural recovery potential needs to be present for application of natural regeneration or assisted regeneration approaches to ecological restoration.

Natural regeneration : Germination, birth, or other recruitment of biota including plants, animals and microbiota, that does not involve human intervention, whether arising from colonization, dispersal, or in situ processes.

Natural (or spontaneous) regeneration approach : Ecological restoration that relies only on increases in individuals following removal of causes of degradation, as distinct from an assisted regeneration approach .

Nature‐based solutions : Actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human wellbeing and biodiversity benefits.

Outbreeding depression : When offspring from crosses between individuals from different populations have lower fitness than progeny from crosses between individuals from the same population.

Over‐utilization : Any form of harvesting or exploitation of an ecosystem beyond its capacity to regenerate those resources. Examples include over‐fishing, over‐clearing, over‐grazing, and over‐burning.

Partial recovery : The state whereby some recovery has occurred, but not all ecosystem attributes closely resemble those of the reference model.

Participatory monitoring : A system that involves stakeholders from multiple levels in project design and the collection and analysis of data gathered from a given management activity that leads to improved collaborative decision‐making.

Practitioner : An individual who applies practical skills and knowledge to plan, implement and monitor ecological restoration tasks at project sites.

Productivity : The rate of generation of biomass from the growth and reproduction of plants and animals.

Propagule : Any material that functions in propagating an organism. Propagules are produced by plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms.

Reclamation : The process of making severely degraded land (e.g. former mine sites or wastelands) fit for cultivation or a state suitable for some human use. Also used to describe the formation of productive land from the sea.

Reconstruction approach : A restoration approach where arrival of the appropriate biota is entirely or almost entirely dependent upon human agency as they cannot regenerate or recolonize within feasible time frames, even after expert assisted regeneration interventions.

Recovery : The process by which an ecosystem regains its composition, structure and function relative to the levels identified for the reference ecosystem. In restoration, recovery usually is assisted by restoration activities-and recovery can be described as partial or full.

Recruitment : Production of a subsequent generation of organisms. This is measured not by numbers of new organisms alone (e.g. not every hatchling or seedling) but by the number that develop as independent individuals in the population.

Reference ecosystem : A representation of a native ecosystem that is the target of ecological restoration (as distinct from a reference site ). A reference ecosystem usually represents a nondegraded version of the ecosystem complete with its flora, fauna, and other biota, abiotic elements, functions, processes, and successional states that might have existed on the restoration site had degradation not occurred, and adjusted to accommodate changed or predicted environmental conditions

Reference model : A model that indicates the expected condition that the restoration site would have been in had it not been degraded (with respect to flora, fauna and other biota, abiotic elements, functions, processes, and successional states). This condition is not the historic condition, but rather reflects background and predicted changes in environmental conditions

Reference site : An extant intact site that has attributes and a successional phase similar to the restoration project site and that is used to inform the reference model. Ideally the reference model would include information from multiple reference sites

Regeneration: See Natural regeneration , a ssisted regeneration .

Rehabilitation : 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.

Reinforcement : The intentional movement and release of an organism into an existing population of conspecifics. Reinforcement aims to enhance population viability, for instance by increasing population size, by increasing genetic diversity, or by increasing the representation of specific demographic groups or stages. This definition is very similar to and sometimes treated as synonymous with augmentation .

Reintroduction : Returning biota to an area where it previously occurred.

Remediation : A management activity, such as the removal or detoxification of contaminates or excess nutrients from soil and water, that aims to remove sources of degradation.

Resilience : See Ecosystem resilience and Social-ecological resilience .

Restoration : See Ecological restoration .

Restoration ecology : The branch of ecological science that provides concepts, models, methodologies and tools for the practice of ecological restoration. It also benefits from direct observation of and participation in restoration practice.

Restoration activities : Any action, intervention, or treatment intended to promote the recovery of an ecosystem or component of an ecosystem, such as soil and substrate amendments, control of invasive species, habitat conditioning, species reintroductions and population reinforcements.

Restorative activities : Activities (including ecological restoration) that reduce degradation or improve conditions for the partial or full recovery of ecosystems. These are sometimes described as a "family" of inter‐related restorative activities.

Restorative continuum : A spectrum of activities that directly or indirectly support or attain at least some recovery of ecosystem attributes that have been lost or impaired. The restorative continuum includes four major categories of restorative activities that each include a further six categories of activities as explained in Principle 8.

Revegetation : Establishment, by any means, of plants on sites (including terrestrial, freshwater, and marine areas) that may or may not involve local or native species.

Rewilding : The planned reintroduction of a plant or animal species and especially a keystone species or apex predator (such as the gray wolf or lynx) into a habitat from which it has disappeared (as from hunting or habitat destruction) in an effort to increase biodiversity and restore the health of an ecosystem.

Scientific discovery : Knowledge obtained from a structured, logical approach, based on systematic observation, measurement, and the formulation, testing, and modification of ideas (hypotheses).

Seed transfer zone : A defined geographic area within which seeds are predicted to be able to be moved without adverse fitness effects.

Selfing : Self‐fertilization; self‐pollination.

Semi‐natural ecosystem : In the European Union (EU) legal context, biodiverse ecological assemblages created by human activities (e.g. grazed or mowed alpine meadows). They have evolved under traditional agricultural, pastoral, or other human activities that can be centuries old and depend on traditional management for their characteristic composition, structure, and function. These ecosystems are highly valued for their biodiversity and ecosystem services, and can be a reference for ecological restoration. Examples include alpine and lowland meadows, heathlands, chalk grasslands, coppice forests, wood pastures, and grazing marshes. They differ from "cultural ecosystems," as defined by the EU, created to provide ecosystem services, but that result in degraded ecosystems with lower biodiversity values. Examples include arable fields, species‐poor agricultural grasslands, mineral extraction areas, and urban landscapes with city parks. They are not appropriate as a reference for ecological restoration, but can be the starting point for ecological restoration or rehabilitation. In this sense, semi‐natural ecosystem has roughly the same meaning as high quality traditional cultural ecosystem in the Standards.

Self‐organizing : A state whereby all the necessary elements are present, and the ecosystem's attributes can continue to develop toward the appropriate reference state without outside assistance. Self‐organization is evidenced by patterns and processes such as growth, reproduction, ratios between producers, herbivores, and predators and niche differentiation, relative to characteristics of the reference ecosystem. It does not readily apply to the restoration of traditional cultural ecosystems.

Site : Discrete area or location. Can occur at different scales but is generally at the patch or property scale (i.e. smaller than a landscape).

South-south cooperation : A broad framework for collaboration among countries of the Southern Hemisphere in the political, economic, social, cultural, environmental, and technical domains. Involving two or more developing countries, it can take place on a bilateral, regional, subregional, or interregional basis.

Social-ecological resilience : The capacity of a complex social-ecological system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change such that it retains similar function, structure, identity, and feedbacks. It is a measure of the extent to which a complex social-ecological system can adapt and persist in the face of threats and stresses.

Social-ecological system : Complex, integrated and linked systems of people and nature, emphasizing that humans are a part of nature.

Spatial patterning : The spatial structure of ecosystem components (in vertical or horizontal plane) that arises due to differences in substrate, topography, hydrology, vegetation, disturbance regimes, or other factors.

Species : Used here as a generic term to represent a species or infraspecific taxon, even if not formally described by science.

Stakeholders : The people and organizations who are involved in or affected by an action or policy and can be directly or indirectly included in the decision‐making process; in environmental and conservation planning, stakeholders typically include government representatives, businesses, scientists, landowners, and local users of natural resources.

Stratum, strata : Vegetation layer or layers in an ecosystem; often referring to vertical layering such as trees, shrubs and herbaceous layers.

Substrate : The soil, sand, rock, shell, debris or other medium where organisms grow and ecosystems develop.

Substantial recovery : The level of recovery aimed for if a project is to be called an ecological restoration project. This level of recovery cannot be tightly linked to a particular recovery metric (although a mid‐point recovery level, would be a reasonable minimum criterion) because the value of a restoration project can be influenced by the ecological importance of the ecosystem and the scale of the project.

Succession (ecological): The process or pattern of replacement or development of an ecosystem after disturbance.

Sustainable multifunctional landscapes : Landscapes created and managed to integrate human production and landscape use into the ecological fabric of a landscape maintaining critical ecosystem function, service flows and biodiversity retention.

Target : The specific ecological and social outcomes sought at the end of the project, including the native ecosystem to be restored.

Threat : A factor potentially or already causing degradation, damage or destruction.

Threshold (ecological): A point at which a small change in environmental or biophysical conditions causes a shift in an ecosystem to a different ecological state. Once one or more ecological thresholds have been crossed, an ecosystem may not easily return to its previous state or trajectory without major human interventions, or at all if the threshold is irreversible.

Traditional cultural ecosystems : Ecosystems that have developed under the joint influence of natural processes and human‐imposed organization to provide composition, structure, and functioning more useful to human exploitation. Those considered high quality examples of native ecosystems can function as reference models for ecological restoration, whereas others converted primarily to nonnative species or are otherwise degraded do not function as reference models for ecological restoration. See also Semi‐natural ecosystem .

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) : Knowledge and practices learned from experience and observation, and passed from generation to generation informed by strong cultural memories, sensitivity to change, and values that include reciprocity.

Trajectory (ecological): A course or pathway of an ecosystem's condition (i.e. structure and function) over time. It may entail degradation, stasis, adaptation to changing environmental conditions, or response to ecological restoration - ideally leading to recovery of lost integrity and resilience.

Translocation : The intentional transporting (by humans) of organisms to a different part of a given landscape or aquatic environment or to more distant areas. The purpose is generally to conserve an endangered species, subspecies or population.

Trophic levels : Stages in food webs (e.g. producers, herbivores, predators, and decomposers).

Wellbeing : A context‐and situation‐dependent state of humans, comprising basic material for a good life, freedom and choice, health, good social relations and security.

Acknowledgments

M.R.G. acknowledges funding from the CGIAR Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry. J.L. acknowledges the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41625001) and the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. XDA20060402). K.W.D. received funding from the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre for Mine Site Restoration (project number ICI150100041). The Society for Ecological Restoration received funding support for graphics design and development from Temper of the Times Foundation.

1 Terms in boldface are defined in the Glossary section.

2 In contrast, ecosystems that do not exhibit successional phases will not require sequential references-e.g. the hyper‐diverse Cape Floral Kingdom of southern Africa and the Southwest Australian biodiversity hotspots that contain old, stable, ecosystems developed on infertile substrates.

3 For plants, we refer to seeds as the primary propagules used in restoration, but sometimes seeds are not used. Some plants produce very few seeds and are propagated more often by cuttings, divisions, or micropropagation. While the genetic principles regarding provenancing are similar regardless of propagule type, it is important to remember that genetic diversity is limited when vegetative propagation methods are used and this might affect a population's ability to respond to future adaptive challenges. This general principle is also true for some animals, such as corals, or fungi, where pieces of individuals or colonies are used as propagules in place of spores, eggs, or other modes of sexual reproduction.

Appendix 1

Selection of seeds and other propagules for restoration

This appendix is adapted and expanded from McDonald et al. (2016a). While there are many considerations to be made when deciding on the selection of plant seeds and other propagules (e.g. vegetative material, spores, eggs, live young) for restoration projects, genetic considerations can be paramount to ensure the resulting populations successfully reproduce and persist. These considerations are particularly important in fragmented landscapes, especially under climate change.

Genetic considerations for sourcing seeds or other propagules

Restoration practitioners have widely adopted the concept of confining propagule collection to a local provenance area or seed‐transfer zone to ensure that propagules selected for restoration are locally adapted. However, the protocol of only collecting propagules very close to the restoration site is now considered an inappropriate interpretation of local provenance, as geographic distance may not be a good measure of ecological differences among sites. That is, many practitioners now understand that the degree of local adaptation varies by species, population, and habitat (Gibson et al. 2016), and a "local" genotype may occur over narrow or broad areas (i.e. from 10s to 100s of km ²), depending on the species and its biology. For example, annual plants that are highly selfing with gravity‐dispersed seed and historically occurring in discrete, isolated populations are predicted to have more restricted local ranges than plants with wind, water, or animal‐dispersed seed, especially those that have experienced recent range expansion (Hufford & Mazer 2003; Broadhurst et al. 2008). Furthermore, in a largely degraded landscape, small fragments are at risk of elevated inbreeding when populations drop below species‐specific threshold numbers. Because inbreeding depression may reduce the function and adaptation of populations, it is generally best to collect propagules from larger, higher‐density populations. This means that in fragmented landscapes where populations are smaller, less dense and more isolated, collecting propagules from wider distances and multiple sources (and potentially multiplying them in production areas) may be necessary to capture sufficient genetic diversity and sufficient propagules to rebuild functional, resilient communities.

When sourcing propagules more widely, one must consider the risks of outbreeding depression . Although not as common as inbreeding depression , it can occur when species from genetically divergent populations are crossed. In some cases, fitness loss is due to a loss of local adaptation. If the parents are adapted to different conditions, the resulting offspring may be poorly adapted to either parental site. In other cases, co‐adapted gene complexes can be broken up, resulting in fitness loss (Rogers & Montalvo 2004). Outbreeding depression can be particularly severe in plants when populations of different ploidy (the number of chromosomes in the cells) are combined in restorations or in seed‐production areas. Ploidy differences are relatively common in both Poaceae and Asteraceae-two families used widely in restoration (Kramer et al. 2018) and populations with differing ploidy levels can be found in close proximity (Gibson et al. 2017). Because populations of different ploidy should not be mixed in nursery production or restoration, testing via flow cytometry may be required to determine a population's ploidy levels prior to mixing, if a mixing strategy is desired. Outbreeding depression in animals has not been as widely identified as in plants, but it exists (e.g. Sagvik et al. 2005; Huff et al. 2011).

Propagule sourcing and climate change

The climate range in which a species currently exists is known as its climate "niche" or "envelope." As the climate changes, this climate envelope is likely to uncouple from a species' current range and, where conditions become hotter, may move further poleward or to higher elevations. Climate envelopes may also be affected by changes in rainfall with areas becoming drier or wetter. However, because precipitation is likely to change in less predictable ways than temperature, it is likely that the displacement of climate envelopes will be more complex. These changes may also affect individual populations of a species at differential rates.

Although many species have endured climate changes in the past, the rate of current climate change, as well as fragmentation and anthropogenic barriers to migration, are unprecedented and challenge species survival. We cannot precisely predict the type and scale of risks that ecosystems face because only a small proportion of species have been individually studied. We know that some species or populations may be lost from their current locations, with some becoming locally or regionally extinct due to barriers to migration and other factors. Others will colonize new areas, altering local species assemblages. Some may have sufficient "adaptive plasticity" to persist as climates change, as has been demonstrated from translocation experiments. That is, an individual plant may be able to adjust its form by mechanisms such as reducing its leaf size, increasing leaf thickness or altering flowering and emergence times. Animals may alter feeding choices (e.g. omnivorous bear species switching foods to plants more resilient to climate change). Generalist species of fauna will generally survive climate change better than specialist species. In most cases, persistence may depend on a species' capacity for adaptation, which in turn depends on the size and genetic diversity of individual populations.

Many factors will influence a species' ability to adapt to new conditions or to migrate, including patterns of gene flow, geographic distribution of the species, the heterogeneity of the habitat and climate where the species occurs, and other biotic and abiotic factors, including whether the species is an early successional or late successional species. Species of flora or fauna that have large populations, high genetic diversity, long‐distance gene flow, and naturally high reproductive and dispersal capabilities may have a higher chance of adapting or migrating as their climate envelope moves. Conversely, species or populations with less genetic diversity and low dispersal capabilities that occur in isolated patches or that have become isolated through anthropogenic disturbance may be less able to adapt or migrate in response to climate change.

Landscape history also plays a role in the likelihood of adaptation. For example, for some highly biodiverse "old, climatically buffered infertile" landscapes (or "OCBILs" sensu Hopper 2009), there is every likelihood that species have resisted climate impacts from multiple climate shifts without glaciation. As a result, species have persisted on these landscapes over geological time through adaptation to moisture and temperature fluctuations. Therefore, in OCBILs such as much of Australia and southern Africa, species exhibit a high level of pre‐adaptation to climate swings. Extinction and local extirpation of species in OCIBIL landscapes are more often due to fragmentation and habitat loss. In contrast, in temperate regions many species are adapted to long‐distance migration, such as occurred following deglaciation.

Tools and Future Directions

Protocols for the selection of propagules to enhance a species' adaptive potential in restoration projects are being developed. Restoration activities to enhance adaptive potential may be unnecessary in large, intact habitats because of high connectivity among populations. Actions to assist genetic adaptation will likely be beneficial for fragmented landscapes or those likely to become fragmented due to climate change. Although the local gene pool will play a major role in adaptation, it may be prudent to include some germplasm of the same species from a predicted "future climate"-that is, a region with a climate similar to that predicted for the area being restored. Suggestions for sourcing plant seeds either conservatively or when a more expansive approach is appropriate are provided in Table A1. Researchers are encouraged to design protocols for trials or formal experiments integrated into low‐risk restoration settings.

More conservative/local propagule sourcing

Species characteristics

More relaxed/longer distance propagule sourcing

Habitat characteristics

Tools are available to help restoration planners undertake climate readiness analysis at the planning stage. First, restoration practitioners are encouraged to seek predictions of climate‐change effects on ecosystems where they work. Second, practitioners are encouraged to seek further information and collaborate with researchers to gain a better understanding of predicted responses of species to fragmentation and climate change and to identify the relative risks of options relating to the deliberate movement of genetic material in restoration projects. For plants, common‐garden studies are key to understanding the risks and benefits of plant‐material movement. Third, web‐based tools are becoming increasingly accessible in some countries for identifying whether the species, or population, currently occurring near the restoration site will still be suited to climates predicted to occur at the site in the future. In North America, the Seedlot Selection Tool ( https://seedlotselectiontool.org/sst/) is proving very useful for plants, and in Australia, the Atlas of Living Australia website ( www.ala.org.au) can help practitioners identify the natural geographic range of a species and whether it may have potential to tolerate the conditions predicted to occur under climate change scenarios, which themselves are mapped on the website www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au (see Booth et al. 2012).

Many restoration projects are already sourcing plant seeds from more distant provenances, often with climate change in mind. Proposed propagule sourcing strategies to build climate‐readiness into restoration through ensuring genetic diversity include: relaxed local provenancing (Kaye 2001); composite provenancing (Broadhurst et al. 2008); admixture provenancing (Breed et al. 2013); predictive provenancing (e.g. Crowe & Parker 2008); and climate‐adjusted provenancing (Prober et al. 2015; Fig. A1). Descriptions of each strategy along with the benefits, risks, and most appropriate uses are in Table A2. Application of any such strategy should be undertaken only when justified, supported by sound science within a risk‐management framework that considers the potential negative effects of inbreeding and outbreeding depression. It should also include long‐term monitoring (i.e. at least a decade) to record lessons to be shared with both practitioners and scientists.

Propagule sourcing type

Definition

Benefits

Risks

Best Used When

Strict local provenancing

Using propagule only from the site where restoration is occurring or populations within normal gene flow distance

Little risk of maladaptation (at least short term)

Narrow genetic base

Possible inbreeding

Genetic drift

Lack of adaptive potential

Disturbance is minimal

Large local population present at or adjacent to restoration

Predicted distribution change is low

Relaxed local provenancing

Mixing propagules from geographically close populations with a focus on matching environment of source and recipient sites

Little risk of maladaptation (at least short term)

Avoids inbreeding

Increases adaptive potential

Composite provenancing

Mixing propagules from populations of close and intermediate distance (or environmental match) to mimic long distance gene flow

Disturbance is minimal

Fragmentation is high

Predicted distribution change is moderate

Admixture provenancing

Mixing propagules from many populations of varying distances throughout the range of the species

Highest adaptive potential

Largest risk of maladaptation

Outbreeding depression

Possibly invasive genotypes

Predictive provenancing

Using genotypes adapted to predicted conditions (e.g. 2050 climate projections) based on models and transplant experiments

Deals best with changing conditions, if predictions are correct

Practitioners designing planting lists need to bear in mind, however, that it is impossible to be certain of the changes that will occur. Different species and populations will respond to climate change in different ways and currently there is no reliable or easy way to predict this. Furthermore, temperature and rainfall are not the only important predictors. A range of physical (e.g. substrates) and biological factors (e.g. dispersal)-which themselves may or may not be affected by a changing climate-can also have important roles in influencing the distribution of a species. While some caution will always be required, an empirical approach of testing different provenancing approaches in many areas around the world will help determine best practices. Every restoration project can be an experiment if good records are maintained and results are monitored and shared. Such an approach could improve restoration practices in the future.

Restoring Connectivity and Assisting Migration

Appendix 2

Blank project evaluation templates (for practitioner use)

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 24

Dominic McAfee, Ian M. McLeod, Lisa Boström‐Einarsson, Chris L. Gillies, The value and opportunity of restoring Australia's lost rock oyster reefs, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13125, 2, (304-314), 28,

Maxime Tisserant, Philippe Janssen, André Evette, Eduardo González, Paul Cavaillé, Monique Poulin, Diversity and succession of riparian plant communities along riverbanks bioengineered for erosion control: a case study in the foothills of the Alps and the Jura Mountains, Ecological Engineering, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105880, (105880), 152,

James G. Hallett, Samira A. S. Omar, Restoration ecology of arid lands (RE‐AL), Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13214, S1, (A3-A4), 28,

Marianne Evju, Dagmar Hagen, Magni O. Kyrkjeeide, Berit Köhler, Learning from scientific literature: Can indicators for measuring success be standardized in "on the ground" restoration?, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13149, 3, (519-531), 28,

Pedro León‐Lobos, Marcela A. Bustamante‐Sánchez, Cara R. Nelson, Diego Alarcón, Rodrigo Hasbún, Michael Way, Hugh W. Pritchard, Juan J. Armesto, Lack of adequate seed supply is a major bottleneck for effective ecosystem restoration in Chile: friendly amendment to Bannister et al. (2018), Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13113, 2, (277-281), 28,

What is the value of wild animal welfare for restoration ecology?, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13114, 2, (267-270), 28,

Mark R. Bachmann, The role of historical sources in the restoration of Long Swamp, Discovery Bay, Victoria, Ecological Management & Restoration, 10.1111/emr.12401, 1, (14-25), 21,

David Moreno-Mateos, Antton Alberdi, Elly Morriën, Wim H. van der Putten, Asun Rodríguez-Uña, Daniel Montoya, The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 10.1038/s41559-020-1154-1,

Feeding the Future with the Past: Incorporating Local Ecological Knowledge in River Restoration, Resources, 10.3390/resources9040047, 4, (47), 9,

Mangrove Rehabilitation and Restoration as Experimental Adaptive Management, Frontiers in Marine Science, 10.3389/fmars.2020.00327, 7,

Sophie L. Cross, Michael D. Craig, Sean Tomlinson, Kingsley W. Dixon, Philip W. Bateman, Using monitors to monitor ecological restoration: Presence may not indicate persistence, Austral Ecology, 10.1111/aec.12905, 0, 0,

Hansol Lee, Ji Hong An, Hyun Chul Shin, Chang Seok Lee, Assessment of Restoration Effects and Invasive Potential Based on Vegetation Dynamics of Pitch Pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) Plantation in Korea, Forests, 10.3390/f11050568, 5, (568), 11,

Foreword: International Standards for Native Seeds in Ecological Restoration, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13173, 0, 0,

Teresa Mexia, Cristina Antunes, Alice Nunes, António Mira, Ana I. Correia, Artur Serrano, Otília Correia, Beyond the green: assessing quarry restoration success through plant and beetle communities, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13122, 0, 0,

José Ricardo Pires Adelino, Larissa Corsini Calsavara, Guilherme Willrich, Gabriel Lima Medina Rosa, Marcos Robalinho Lima, Luiz dos Anjos, Ecosystem functions of birds as a tool to track restoration efficiency in Brazil, Ornithology Research, 10.1007/s43388-020-00008-z,

Chaowei Zhou, Bojie Fu, Xiaofeng Wang, Lichang Yin, Xiaoming Feng, The regional impact of ecological restoration in the arid steppe on dust reduction over the metropolitan area in Northeastern China, Environmental Science & Technology, 10.1021/acs.est.0c00017,

Robin L. Chazdon, Victoria Gutierrez, Pedro H. S. Brancalion, Lars Laestadius, Manuel R. Guariguata, Co-Creating Conceptual and Working Frameworks for Implementing Forest and Landscape Restoration Based on Core Principles, Forests, 10.3390/f11060706, 6, (706), 11,

Truman P. Young, Mark W. Schwartz, The Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is an impetus to get it right, Conservation Science and Practice, 10.1111/csp2.145, 12, 1,

We have a long way to go if we want to realize the promise of the "Decade on Ecosystem Restoration", Conservation Science and Practice, 10.1111/csp2.129, 12, 1,

Multi-Sensor UAV Tracking of Individual Seedlings and Seedling Communities at Millimetre Accuracy, Drones, 10.3390/drones3040081, 4, (81), 3,

Restoration Ecology - Message to authors, reviewers, editorial board

During this time of mass disruption, be advised that we appreciate there will be a slower pace for all. Restoration Ecology understands that reviews and decisions may be delayed; responses from authors may be delayed. There are no consequences for delays. We ask all to be patient. The EIC and Managing Editor work remotely as is (in different countries) so we already work from 'home'.

We are attempting to add this message to our communications (not as easy because the Editors don't have total editing rights) and reduce the normal reminder emails to reflect this uncertain time. If you receive our normal email correspondence reminding you of deadlines, we are waiving these and asking only that you let us know, if possible, of delays exceeding a month.

Stephen Murphy, EIC

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) is an international non‐profit organization with members in 70 countries. SER advances the science, practice and policy of ecological restoration to sustain biodiversity, improve resilience in a changing climate, and re‐establish an ecologically healthy relationship between nature and culture. SER is a dynamic global network, linking researchers, practitioners, land managers, community leaders and decision‐makers to restore ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. Via its members, publications, conferences, policy work, and outreach, SER defines and delivers excellence in the field of ecological restoration.

Document development . International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) was developed through consultation with professionals within the Society for Ecological Restoration and their peers in the global scientific and conservation communities. The first edition was launched in 2016 at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Cancún, Mexico. This event brought together key stakeholders from across the international policy arena, many of whom had been instrumental in driving the global initiatives to implement large‐scale environmental restoration programs. Because the Standards were written as a living document to be modified and expanded through consultation and use by stakeholders, the launch included an open invitation for stakeholder input, to both improve the document and promote broad use. Subsequently, over a multi‐year consultation period, SER invited input and review from a diverse spectrum of people and organizations contributing to ecological restoration. Key stakeholders contacted for comment included the secretariats of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) including its Science‐Policy Interface, Global Environment Facility, the World Bank, and members of the Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR). In 2017, SER partnered with the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management to deliver an invited Forum on Biodiversity and Global Forest Restoration at which the SER Standards were reviewed (SER and IUCN‐CEM 2018). SER also organized a symposium on the SER Standards and an open Knowledge Café at the 2017 SER World Conference on Ecological Restoration. Additional input was received at other events, including the 9 th Ecosystem Services Partnership World Conference in Shenzhen, China in 2017. To capture the perspectives of the SER community, SER invited online feedback via its website and sent an online survey to SER members, affiliates, and stakeholders. SER has also considered and responded to feedback from published critiques in its journal, Restoration Ecology .

All comments received during the consultative review process were considered in the revision process. The second edition of the Standards was approved by the SER Science and Policy Committee, and the SER Board of Directors on 18 June 2019. As with the first edition, this version will be revised and improved as the discipline evolves through science, practice, and adaptive management.

The Standards are compatible with and expand on the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013) and complement the REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES 2012), and other conservation standards and guidelines.

Contributors . Levi Wickwire provided assistance during document development. Karen Keenleyside contributed content to the original version. Andre Clewell's inspiration and ideas led to the attributes list and circle template (Fig. 4; Appendix 2), Kayri Havens assisted with adapting Appendix 1 on selection of seeds and other propagules, and Craig Beatty contributed to Section 4, Part 3 on global restoration initiatives. We thank the following translators of the first edition: Claudia Concha, Marcela Bustamante and Cristian Echeverría (Spanish); Ricardo Cesar (Portuguese); Narayana Bhat (Arabic); Jaeyong Choi (Korean); Junguo Liu (Chinese); and, Jean‐François Alignan, Julie Braschi, Élise Buisson, Jacqueline Buisson, Manon Hess, Renaud Jaunatre, Maxime Le Roy, Sandra Malaval, and Réseau d'Échanges et de Valorisation en Écologie de la Restauration (REVER) (French).

Reviewers . Many international experts provided suggestions for development of the second edition. We acknowledge many here, but may have unintentionally missed some individuals. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the reviewers. Sasha Alexander, Mariam Akhtar‐Schuster, Craig Beatty, María Consuelo de Bonfil, Karma Bouazza, Elise Buisson, Andre Clewell, Jordi Cortina, Donald Falk, Marco Fioratti, Scott Hemmerling, Richard Hobbs, Karen Holl, Berit Köhler, Nik Lopoukhine, Graciela Metternicht, Luiz Fernando Moraes, Stephen Murphy, Michael Perring, David Polster, Karel Prach, Anne Tolvanen, Alan Unwin, Ramesh Venkataraman, Steve Whisenant, Andrew Whitley, and Shira Yoffe provided critical reviews. The published manuscript greatly benefited from peer review by Karel Prach, Vicky Temperton, and Joy Zedler. Their assistance, dedication, and timeliness in reviewing the manuscript was unparalleled.

Participants at the SER and IUCN‐CEM Forum on Biodiversity and Global Forest Restoration, Iguassu Falls, Brazil, 2017 helped clarify the scope and context of the SER Standards: Angela Andrade, James Aronson, Rafael Avila, Brigitte Baptiste, Rubens de Miranda Benini, Rachel Biderman, Blaise Bodin, Consuelo Bonfil, Magda Bou Dagher Kharrat, MiHee Cho, Youngtae Choi, Jordi Cortina, Kingsley Dixon, Giselda Durigan, Cristian Echeverría, Steve Edwards, George Gann, Manuel R. Guariguata, Yoly Gutierrez, James Hallett, Ric Hauer, Karen Holl, Fangyuan Hua, Paola Isaacs, Justin Jonson, Won‐Seok Kang, Agnieszka Latawiec, Harvey Locke, James McBreen, Tein McDonald, Paula Meli, Jean Paul Metzger, Miguel A. Moraes, Ciro Moura, Cara Nelson, Margaret O'Connell, Aurelio Padovezi, Hernán Saavedra, Catalina Santamaria, Gerardo Segura Warnholtz, Kirsty Shaw, Nancy Shaw, Bernardo Strassburg, Evert Thomas, José Marcelo, Alan Unwin, Liette Vasseur, Joseph Veldman, Bethanie Walder, and Jorge Watanabe.

Participants at the Knowledge Café on the International Standards, 2017 SER World Conference on Ecological Restoration, Iguassu Falls, Brazil included Mitch Aide, Rafael Carlos Ávila‐Santa Cruz, Suresh Babu, Blaise Bodin, Craig Beatty, Steve Edwards, George Gann, Angelita Gómez, Emily Gonzales, Justin Jonson, Marion Karmann, Tein McDonald, Cara Nelson, Antonio Ordorica, Claudia Padilla, Liliane Parany, David Polster, Catalina Santamaria, Bethanie Walder, Andrew Whitley, Paddy Woodworth, and Gustavo Zuleta.

Feedback on the published first edition . Valuable comments were received from Constance Bersok, Kris Boody, Zoe Brocklehurst, Elise Buisson, Peter Cale, David Carr, Michael Rawson Clark, Andre Clewell, Adam Cross, Maria del Sugeyrol Villa Ramirez, Rory Denovan, Giselda Durigan, Rolf Gersonde, Emily Gonzales, Diane Haase, Ismael Hernández Valencia, Eric Higgs, Sean King, Beatriz Maruri‐Aguilar, Rob Monico, Michael Morrison, Stephen Murphy, Tom Nedland, J.T. Netherland, Samira Omar, David Ostergren, Glenn Palmgren, Jim Palus, Aviva Patel, David Polster, Jack Putz, Danielle Romiti, George H. Russell, David Sabaj‐Stahl, Raj Shekhar Singh, Nicky Strahl, Tobe Query, Edith Tobe, Michael Toohill, Daniel Vallauri, Jorge Watanabe, Jeff Weiss, William Zawacki, and Paul Zedler. Cassandra Rosa compiled detailed notes and reviewed comments from >100 respondents of the SER survey on the Standards.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ecological restoration, when implemented effectively and sustainably, contributes to protecting biodiversity; improving human health and wellbeing; increasing food and water security; delivering goods, services, and economic prosperity; and supporting climate change mitigation, resilience, and adaptation. It is a solutions‐based approach that engages communities, scientists, policymakers, and land managers to repair ecological damage and rebuild a healthier relationship between people and the rest of nature. When combined with conservation and sustainable use, ecological restoration is the link needed to move local, regional, and global environmental conditions from a state of continued degradation, to one of net positive improvement. The second edition of the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) presents a robust framework for restoration projects to achieve intended goals, while addressing challenges including effective design and implementation, accounting for complex ecosystem dynamics (especially in the context of climate change), and navigating trade‐offs associated with land management priorities and decisions.

The Standards establish eight principles that underpin ecological restoration. Principles 1 and 2 articulate important foundations that guide ecological restoration: effectively engaging a wide range of stakeholders, and fully utilizing available scientific, traditional, and local knowledge, respectively. Principles 3 and 4 summarize the central approach to ecological restoration, by highlighting ecologically appropriate reference ecosystems as the target of restoration and clarifying the imperative for restoration activities to support ecosystem recovery processes. Principle 5 underscores the use of measurable indicators to assess progress toward restoration objectives. Principle 6 lays out the mandate for ecological restoration to seek the highest attainable recovery. Tools are provided to identify the levels of recovery aspired to and to track progress. Principle 7 highlights the importance of restoration at large spatial scales for cumulative gains. Finally, ecological restoration is one of several approaches that address damage to ecosystems and Principle 8 clarifies its relationships to allied approaches on a "Restorative Continuum".

The Standards highlight the role of ecological restoration in connecting social, community, productivity, and sustainability goals. The Standards also provide recommended performance measures for restorative activities for industries, communities, and governments to consider. In addition, the Standards enhance the list of practices and actions that guide practitioners in planning, implementation, and monitoring activities. The leading practices and guidance include discussion on appropriate approaches to site assessment and identification of reference ecosystems, different restoration approaches including natural regeneration, consideration of genetic diversity under climate change, and the role of ecological restoration in global restoration initiatives. This edition also includes an expanded glossary of restoration terminology. SER and its international partners produced the Standards for adoption by communities, industries, governments, educators, and land managers to improve ecological restoration practice across all sectors and in all ecosystems, terrestrial and aquatic. The Standards support development of ecological restoration plans, contracts, consent conditions, and monitoring and auditing criteria. Generic in nature, the Standards framework can be adapted to particular ecosystems, biomes, or landscapes; individual countries; or traditional cultures. The Standards are aspirational and provide tools that are intended to improve outcomes, promote best practices, and deliver net global environmental and social benefits. As the world enters the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030), the Standards provide a blueprint for ensuring ecological restoration achieves its full potential in delivering social and environmental equity and, ultimately, economic benefits and outcomes.
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION6

Ecological Restoration as a Means of Improving Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing and Its Role in Broader Global Initiatives6

Need for Principles and Standards6

Background6

What's New in This Version?7

Key Definitions and Terms7

Underpinnings Assumptions7

SECTION 2 - EIGHT PRINCIPLES THAT UNDERPIN ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION8

Principle 1. Ecological Restoration Engages Stakeholders8

Principle 2. Ecological Restoration Draws on Many Types of Knowledge9

Principle 3. Ecological Restoration Practice Is Informed by Native Reference Ecosystems, while Considering Environmental Change11

Principle 4. Ecological Restoration Supports Ecosystem Recovery Processes14

Principle 5. Ecosystem Recovery Is Assessed against Clear Goals and Objectives, Using Measurable Indicators15

Principle 6. Ecological Restoration Seeks the Highest Level of Recovery Attainable17

Principle 7. Ecological Restoration Gains Cumulative Value when Applied at Large Scales18

Principle 8. Ecological Restoration Is Part of a Continuum of Restorative Activities21

SECTION 3 - STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS23

SECTION 4 - LEADING PRACTICES28

Part 1. Developing Reference Models for Ecological Restoration28

Part 2. Identifying Appropriate Ecological Restoration Approaches29

Part 3. The Role of Ecological Restoration in Global Restoration Initiatives31

SECTION 5-GLOSSARY OF TERMS33

APPENDIX 1. SELECTION OF SEEDS AND OTHER PROPAGULES FOR RESTORATION41

Genetic Considerations for Sourcing Seeds or other Propagules41

Propagule Sourcing and Climate Change42

Tools and Future Directions42

Restoring Connectivity and Assisting Migration44

APPENDIX 2. BLANK PROJECT EVALUATION TEMPLATES (FOR PRACTITIONER USE)45

Section 1-Introduction

The International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) provide a guide to practitioners, operational personnel, students, planners, managers, regulators, policymakers, funders, and implementing agencies involved in restoring degraded ecosystems across the world-whether terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, or marine. They place ecological restoration into a global context, including its role in recovering biodiversity and improving human wellbeing 1 in times of rapid global change.

Ecological Restoration as a Means of Improving Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing and Its Role in Broader Global Initiatives

Humanity recognizes the planet's native ecosystems as having irreplaceable ecological, societal, and economic value. In addition to their intrinsic value , such as biodiversity and spiritual or aesthetic importance, healthy native ecosystems assure the flow of ecosystem services . These services include: provision of clean water and air, healthy soils, culturally important artifacts, and the food, fiber, fuel, and medicines essential for human health, wellbeing, and livelihoods. Native ecosystems can also reduce the effects of natural disasters and mitigate accelerated climate change. Ecosystem degradation, damage, and destruction (hereafter, collectively referred to as degradation ) diminish the biodiversity, functioning, and resilience of ecosystems, which in turn negatively affects the resilience and sustainability of social-ecological systems . Although protecting remaining native ecosystems is critical to conserving the world's natural and cultural heritage, protection alone is insufficient, given past and current degradation. To respond to current global environmental challenges and to sustain the flow of ecosystem services and goods essential for human wellbeing, global society must secure a net gain in the extent and functioning of native ecosystems by investing not only in environmental protection, but also in environmental repair including ecological restoration . This repair must be implemented at multiple scales to achieve measurable effects worldwide.

Awareness of the need for environmental repair is growing, resulting in a global escalation of ecological restoration and related efforts (see also Section 4, Part 3). For example, the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 call for restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems (Goal 14) and terrestrial ecosystems (Goal 15) that have been degraded to " protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss ." The Convention on Biological Diversity ( 2016) calls for the " restoration of degraded natural and semi‐natural ecosystems, including in urban environments, as a contribution to reversing the loss of biodiversity, recovering connectivity, improving ecosystem resilience, enhancing the provision of ecosystem services, mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change, combating desertification and land degradation, and improving human well‐being while reducing environmental risks and scarcities ." And, the United Nations General Assembly has declared 2021-2030 the "Decade on Ecosystem Restoration." The concept of restoration in many of these initiatives and agreements is very broad and includes many approaches to ecosystem management and nature‐based solutions , all of which are valuable. The Standards address the relationship between ecological restoration and other ecosystem management and nature‐based solutions, and clarify the specific role of ecological restoration in contributing to the goals of conserving biodiversity and improving human wellbeing worldwide.

Need for Principles and Standards

Repairing degraded ecosystems is a complex task requiring significant time, resources, and knowledge. Ecological restoration contributes in substantial ways to protecting biodiversity and human wellbeing, but many restoration projects and programs, however well intentioned, have underperformed. The Standards recognize that appropriate design; good planning and implementation; sufficient knowledge, skill, effort and resources; understanding of specific social contexts and risks; appropriate stakeholder involvement; and adequate monitoring for adaptive management will contribute to improved outcomes. Application of principles and standards can increase effectiveness of ecological restoration efforts by establishing criteria for technical implementation across different ecosystem types. They also provide a framework that engages stakeholders and respects socio‐cultural realities and needs, which can be applied to both mandatory (i.e. required as part of consent conditions) and non‐mandatory restoration (i.e. the voluntary repair of damage). These criteria can improve ecological restoration outcomes, whether used to guide agencies, companies, or individuals engaged in planning, implementation, and monitoring; to guide regulators in developing agreements for mandatory restoration and evaluating whether those agreements have been met; or to guide policymakers in designing, supporting, funding, and evaluating restoration projects at any scale. Thus, the use of clear and carefully considered principles and standards underpinning ecological restoration can reduce the risk of unintended damage to ecosystems and native biodiversity, and help to develop high‐quality projects and programs amenable to monitoring and assessment.

Background

This document expands upon and joins SER's collection of foundation documents including the SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration (SER 2004), Guidelines for Developing and Managing Restoration Projects (Clewell et al. 2005), Ecological Restoration-a Means of Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Livelihoods (Gann & Lamb 2006), and Ecological Restoration for Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices (Keenleyside et al. 2012). It also utilizes SER's Code of Ethics (SER 2013) and specifically draws on material and models in the two editions of National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia (McDonald et al. 2016a, 2018). Several books were influential including Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier (Van Andel & Aronson 2012), Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values and Structure of an Emerging Profession (Clewell & Aronson 2013), Foundations of Restoration Ecology (Palmer et al. 2016), Routledge Handbook of Ecological and Environmental Restoration (Allison & Murphy 2017), and Management of Ecological Rehabilitation Projects (Liu & Clewell 2017). We have drawn content from the editorial Ecosystem Restoration is Now a Global Priority (Aronson & Alexander 2013), and the policy documents Ecosystem Restoration: Short‐term Action Plan of the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity 2016), Partnering with Nature: The Case for Natural Regeneration in Forest and Landscape Restoration (Chazdon et al. 2017), and Restoring Forests and Landscapes: The Key to a Sustainable Future by the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR; Besseau et al. 2018). Works published in SER's journal Restoration Ecology , book series on The Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration (Island Press), and Restoration Resource Center, as well as many other documents have informed development of this edition. While Sections 1 through 3 are mostly free of references for brevity's sake, Section 4 (Leading Practices), Appendix 1, and Supplement S1 include citations.

What Is New in This Version?

To better address the diverse roles people play in restoration and how the goals of Indigenous groups fit into the overall picture of ecological restoration, we have reorganized the Principles to better incorporate social‐economic and cultural factors that can greatly affect outcomes of restoration. Principle 1 expands on social goals and includes a "Social Benefits Wheel" tool to help convey social targets and goals of a project.

Principles and Key Concepts are merged into a single section on Principles. A compilation of historical documents used to synthesize the Principles is provided in Supplement S1. Scaling‐up ecological restoration and the relationship between ecological restoration and allied activities included in Section 4 of the first edition are incorporated into Principles 7 and 8 in this version.

Key topics related to reference models and restoration approaches are included in a new section on Leading Practices (Section 4), which also considers integration of ecological restoration into global restoration initiatives. We added a technical appendix on sourcing of seeds and other propagules for restoration.

Key Definitions and Terms

SER defines ecological restoration as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is distinct from restoration ecology , the science that supports the practice of ecological restoration, and from other forms of environmental repair in seeking to assist recovery of native ecosystems and ecosystem integrity . Ecological restoration aims to move a degraded ecosystem to a trajectory of recovery that allows adaptation to local and global changes, as well as persistence and evolution of its component species.

Ecological restoration is commonly used to describe both the process and the outcome sought for an ecosystem, but the Standards reserve the term restoration for the activity undertaken and recovery for the outcome sought or achieved. The Standards define ecological restoration as any activity with the goal of achieving substantial ecosystem recovery relative to an appropriate reference model , regardless of the time required to achieve recovery. Reference models used for ecological restoration projects are informed by native ecosystems , including many traditional cultural ecosystems (see Principle 3).

Ecological restoration projects or programs include one or more targets that identify the native ecosystem to be restored (as informed by the reference model), and project goals that establish the level of recovery sought. Full recovery is defined as the state or condition whereby, following restoration, all key ecosystem attributes closely resemble those of the reference model. These attributes include absence of threats, species composition, community structure, physical conditions, ecosystem function, and external exchanges. Where lower levels of recovery are planned or occur due to resource, technical, environmental, or social constraints, recovery is referred to as partial recovery . An ecological restoration project or program should aspire to substantial recovery of the native biota and ecosystem functions (contrast with rehabilitation below). When full recovery is the goal, an important benchmark is when the ecosystem demonstrates self‐organization . At this stage, if unexpected barriers or lack of particular species or processes take recovery off course, further restoration actions may be required to ensure that the trajectory ultimately continues toward full recovery. Once fully recovered, any ongoing activities (e.g. to maintain disturbance regimes ) would be considered ecosystem maintenance or management. Specific activities, such as prescribed fire or the control of invasive species, may be used in both restoration and maintenance phases of a project.

The goal of rehabilitation projects is not native ecosystem recovery, but rather reinstating a level of ecosystem functioning for renewed and ongoing provision of ecosystem services potentially derived from nonnative ecosystems as well. Rehabilitation is one of many restorative activities aligned along a continuum that includes ecological restoration and its allied and complementary activities, all of which contribute to improving ecosystem integrity and social-ecological resilience (see Principle 8).

Underpinning Assumptions

A few assumptions about the role of ecological restoration underpin the Standards. First, restoration of most native ecosystems is a challenging process, and substantial recovery usually requires long periods of time. Consequently, many ecological restoration projects are still far from achieving the levels of biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and delivery of services of intact ecosystems. Thus, while compensation may be mandated as a result of ecosystem loss or degradation, the potential for ecological restoration should never be invoked as a justification for destroying or damaging existing native ecosystems or for unsustainable use . Similarly, any potential to translocate rare species should not be used to justify destruction of existing intact habitat. Where compensation is mandated, however, the level of compensation should be far in excess of the estimated ecosystem loss or degradation, and care should be exercised to ensure offsets do not cause additional degradation.

Second, the Standards clarify the use of a native reference ecosystem as a model for the ecosystem being restored. The reference model, derived from multiple sources of information, aims to characterize the condition of the ecosystem as it would be had it not been degraded, adjusted as necessary to accommodate changed or predicted change in biotic or environmental conditions (e.g. climate change). The Standards also make clear that appropriate reference models for ecological restoration are not based on immobilizing an ecological community at some past point in time, but rather increasing potential for native species and communities to recover and continue to reassemble, adapt, and evolve .

Finally, ecological restoration is part of a larger set of ecosystem management practices designed to conserve and, where appropriate, sustainably utilize native ecosystems. These practices range from regenerative agriculture, fisheries, and forestry to ecological engineering, including those invoked in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, and by Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) projects and a multitude of local and regional programs. As such, ecological restoration complements other conservation activities and nature‐based solutions and vice versa.

Section 2-Eight Principles that Underpin Ecological Restoration

The following Principles provide a framework to explain, define, guide, and measure the activities and outcomes of ecological restoration practice (Fig. 1). They represent a distillation of principles and concepts presented in SER foundational documents, scientific literature, and practitioner experience (Appendix S1).

Principle 1. Ecological Restoration Engages Stakeholders

Ecological restoration is undertaken for many reasons including to recover ecosystem integrity and to satisfy personal, cultural, social‐economic, and ecological values. This combination of ecological and social benefits can lead to improved social-ecological resilience . Humans benefit from a closer and reciprocal engagement with nature. Participating in restoration projects can be transformative, for example, when children involved in restoration projects develop personal ownership over restoration sites, or when community volunteers seek new career or vocational paths in restoration practice or science. Communities located within or near degraded ecosystems may gain health and other benefits from restoration that improves the quality of air, land, water, and habitats for native species. Indigenous peoples and local communities (both rural and urban) benefit where restoration reinforces nature‐based cultures, practices, and livelihoods (e.g. subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering). In addition, restoration can provide short‐term and long‐term employment opportunities for local stakeholders , creating positive ecological and economic feedback loops.

Stakeholders can make or break a project. Recognizing the expectations and interests of stakeholders and directly involving them is key to ensuring that both nature and society mutually benefit. Stakeholders can help prioritize distribution of restoration actions across the landscape, set project goals (including desired level of recovery), contribute knowledge about ecological conditions and successional patterns to improve development of reference models, and engage in participatory monitoring . Additionally, stakeholders can provide political and financial support for long‐term project sustainability, as well as moderating conflicts or disagreements that may arise. Recognition of diverse forms of property ownership and management (e.g. government, private, communal), land tenure, and social organization is essential to accomplish these goals. Managers of restoration projects should, therefore, genuinely and actively engage with those who live or work within or near restoration sites, and those who have a stake in the project's ecological values and natural capital (including ecosystem services). Ideally, this engagement should occur at the conceptual phase or well ahead of project initiation, so stakeholders can help define the vision, targets, goals, objectives, and methods of implementation and monitoring. Engagement should continue throughout the project to help meet social expectations, build capacity and a sense of ownership, and maintain support and input. Collaboratively building dialogue and trust among all stakeholders fosters respect for different viewpoints and knowledge types and maintains interest and commitment during all phases of the project. Such collaboration can lead to more rapid and effective local decision‐making, particularly when participatory or collaborative monitoring approaches are implemented.

Collaborating with local communities, including Indigenous communities, nonprofit citizen groups, and citizen scientists, to develop restoration plans can increase community investment in restoration. Youth and women, particularly in under served communities, can become powerful ambassadors. Such community engagement may bring social justice and human ecology components to a project, and can help leverage funding.

Social and human wellbeing goals, including those that reinstate or reinforce ecosystems services, must be identified alongside ecological goals during the planning stage of a restoration project (see Principle 5, Principle 7, and Section 4, Part 3). Guidance for identifying appropriate goals to improve both social and environmental outcomes in social-ecological systems is provided in a range of documents (e.g. Lynam et al. 2007; Keenleyside et al. 2012; REDD+ SES 2012; Conservation Measures Partnership 2013). Example templates for communicating progress toward social goals are provided in Table 1 and Fig. 2. These templates can be adapted to suit the social goals of any project.

Attribute

★

★★

★★★

★★★★

★★★★★

Principle 2. Ecological Restoration Draws on Many Types of Knowledge

The practice of ecological restoration requires a high degree of ecological knowledge that can be drawn from practitioner experience, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Local Ecological Knowledge (Box 1), and scientific discovery . These forms of knowledge are the product of observation, experimentation, and trial and error, whether formal or informal. The best available knowledge should inform the design and implementation of ecological restoration, and contribute to adaptive management (Principle 5), whereby the results of restoration treatments can indicate the need to modify management approaches.

Box 1. Traditional ecological knowledge and its relevance to ecological restoration.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) is defined as knowledge and practice passed on from generation to generation and informed by strong cultural memories, sensitivity to change, and values that include reciprocity. Examples of TEK land‐care include using prescribed fire and seasonal flooding to modify vegetation, and conserving ecosystem engineers (e.g. beavers and elephants) or apex predators (e.g. wolves and lions) to improve habitat for other species and in turn, food resources for humans. These processes function within the range of natural variability for an ecosystem. Indigenous people have used such practices over millennia to increase ecosystem productivity of food, raw materials for medicine, and ceremonial items. TEK involves reciprocity-sharing and restraint sustained by spiritual beliefs that regard plants and animals as human kin. TEK practices increase biodiversity and improve ecological resilience by creating fine‐grained, landscape mosaics. TEK observations are qualitative and long‐term. Observers are often people engaged in subsistence practices including hunting, fishing, and gathering. Their survival is linked to the health of the land. Most importantly, TEK is inseparable from a culture's spiritual and social fabric. In the Indigenous worldview, it takes all of what it means to be human-body, mind, heart, and spirit-to understand something ecologically. Consequently, TEK offers important ecological insights, but also a web of knowledge that includes values that can help restore ecosystems.

Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) is defined as local, place‐based knowledge of the land and its processes applied by humans to create more productive lands and healthier ecosystems, increasing biodiversity and improving ecosystem resilience. LEK is prevalent in places where Indigenous people do not have a presence and in which knowledge of Indigenous practices has been lost. Widespread in Europe, for example, LEK includes pre‐Industrial Era farming, water management, and subsistence hunting practices. In some places, both LEK and TEK can function together, although they may come from different cultural paradigms.

By incorporating TEK or LEK in ecological restoration, practitioners can rapidly identify and assess species and their suitability, successional processes and stages, and key species interactions. Further, TEK and LEK can help to define native reference ecosystems and catalyze restoration by allowing application of cultural practices such as prescribed fire, rotational grazing, and water management. Ecological restoration strategies that incorporate formal science, TEK, and LEK may be particularly effective in repairing degraded ecosystems.

Practitioner knowledge is derived from experience in repairing ecosystems, and from information from a spectrum of disciplines (e.g. restoration ecology, agronomy and seed production, forestry, horticulture, botany, wildlife science, zoology, hydrology, soil science, engineering, landscape design, conservation biology, and natural resource management). Additionally, LEK and TEK experts, who are typically members of a local community, can provide extensive and detailed information about sites and ecosystems drawn from their long‐term relationships and connections to these sites. When integrated into restoration projects, these multiple forms of knowledge provide opportunities to improve restoration outcomes for ecological, social, and cultural benefits.

Scientific knowledge is generated through the process of systematic measurement and hypothesis testing. Restoration‐relevant scientific knowledge comes from basic and applied research within a wide range of disciplines from economics to the social, physical, and biological sciences including the sub‐disciplines of restoration ecology, conservation biology, conservation genetics, and landscape ecology. While such knowledge provides information essential to design and implement ecological restoration projects, there are significant gaps in understanding of the efficacy (extent that goals and objectives are achieved) and effects (biotic and abiotic responses to management treatments) of many restoration activities, ecological responses to climate change, and improving climate readiness (see also Principle 3 and Appendix 1). Scientific research can contribute to closing these gaps. In addition, scientific assessments of ecological restoration practice can address essential ecological questions, such as how ecosystems assemble and function, as well as social-ecological questions. Generating new scientific knowledge may not be necessary or realistic in all ecological restoration projects, but should always be considered, especially when little is known about treatment efficacy or where restoration interventions are extreme or highly risky (e.g. ecosystem reconstruction after mining).

Practitioner‐researcher collaborations can enhance scientific endeavors by allowing for powerful experimental designs and improved ability to make inferences from assessments. Such research can increase innovation and provide additional guidance for management. Focused research can help practitioners overcome otherwise intractable problems (e.g. harsh substrate conditions, low reproduction rates, and inadequate supply and quality of germplasm; see Appendix 1). Additionally, the results can be shared and help to lower costs of other projects. Practitioners and local‐knowledge experts can play an important role in large‐scale research projects by providing access to projects, identifying bottlenecks in capacity and gaps in information, and contributing logistical expertise.

Sharing practical and scientific knowledge is key to implementing restoration efficiently and effectively, and to achieving restoration at scale. An important way to advance the science and practice of large‐scale ecological restoration is to develop and promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation among and within countries (see also Section 4, Part 3). Experience and expertise sharing, co‐financing, and co‐development of new knowledge for more effective policy and practice should be encouraged among regions, and south-south cooperation is especially important for knowledge sharing in developing and newly industrialized countries.

Availability of scientific data on the efficacy and effects of restoration treatments should be determined at the project proposal stage. Where technical challenges arise during a mandatory restoration project, targeted research should be undertaken to identify alternative restoration interventions within reasonable time frames. If such research still fails to provide solutions, alternative approaches to satisfying legal requirements should be planned.

Lack of progress toward restoration objectives does not mean that restoration is not technically, practically, or economically feasible in the future. Lack of knowledge and technical competency may be overcome through adaptive management, linked to focused, outcome‐based monitoring. However, in mandatory restoration (e.g. mining sector), knowledge and capacity should be acquired ahead of the project to ensure that legal agreements can be fulfilled.

Principle 3. Ecological Restoration Practice Is Informed by Native Reference Ecosystems, while Considering Environmental Change

Ecological restoration requires identifying the native ecosystem to be restored and developing reference models for planning and communicating a shared vision of project targets and goals. Reference models should be based on specific real‐world ecosystems that are the targets of conservation and restoration activities (e.g. boreal forest, freshwater marsh, coral reef). Optimally the reference model describes the approximate condition the site would be in had degradation not occurred. This condition is not necessarily the same as the historic state, as it accounts for the inherent capacity of ecosystems to change in response to changing conditions. In some instances, the impacts of rapid environmental changes and the capacity for adaptation to these changes may warrant consideration of adjusted or alternative models (see also Boxes 2 & 3 and Section 4, Part 1).

Box 2. Reference ecosystems and climate change.

Continuous change in climate over millennia, centuries, and decades is an important characteristic of our planet. Although this backdrop of environmental change is constant, anthropogenically induced climate change has increased the pace of change in many ecosystems worldwide. While these changes are generally recognized as undesirable and require urgent action by society, anticipated changes are likely to be irreversible for the foreseeable future. This means that, alongside working to improve potential for restoration and other actions to slow climate change, climate change needs to be recognized as part of the current environmental background condition to which many species will either adapt or go extinct.

Climate change necessitates target‐setting informed by ongoing research on related anticipated effects on species and ecosystems. While uncertainty exists, we know that species turnover and community reassembly under climate change will result in large shifts in entire ecosystems in many geographic areas (e.g. many marine, coastal, alpine, and cool‐temperate communities), although in some climatically buffered ecosystems changes may be minimal. As climate changes, climatic envelopes for individual species will shift spatially. This means for a given ecosystem, some species will be lost, while others may survive due to plasticity or ability to adapt to changes in environmental conditions, and still others will newly arrive.

Land degradation, particularly fragmentation, exacerbates climate‐change effects on many species and ecological communities, both by isolating populations, which adversely affects genetic diversity and adaptation potential, and by limiting opportunities for species to disperse or migrate to climate‐suitable habitats. Because of this, there is a need for management interventions that optimize genetic diversity and potential for populations to adapt, to prevent extirpations from current habitat areas, and that promote migration to new areas. Options include retaining and augmenting genetically diverse populations of existing native floral and faunal species, and ensuring that these populations exist in configurations that increase linkages and improve gene flow where appropriate to boost adaptability to changed conditions (see Appendix 1).

Box 3. What about cases where there has been insurmountable environmental change?

Project managers may adopt alternative native ecosystems as targets for areas that are affected by substantial and insurmountable environmental change. Alternative ecosystems would be expected to occur under the changed conditions. Examples of conversion include sites where: (1) hydrology has shifted irreversibly from saline to freshwater (e.g. due to changing stream flows), freshwater to saline (e.g. due to sea level rise), or mesic to arid (e.g. due to lowering water tables or complete dry‐downs of rivers or lakes); (2) stormwater has produced intermittent streams; and (3) nutrients have been added to soils and cannot be removed without extreme effort or resources. An alternative reference ecosystem may also be chosen when traditional fire regimes or other ecosystem functions have been irreversibly altered.

Deciding when an alternative reference ecosystem is appropriate is dependent on local conditions and the case for irreversibility, and requires skilled ecological judgment (Fig. 3). More than one alternative reference ecosystem may be appropriate, for example, in urban and highly modified agricultural areas, and careful selection is necessary to match the local social-ecological situation. Additionally, appearance of a site may not be a reliable indicator of restoration potential. In many cases where restoration was assumed by some to be impossible, recovery was achieved after application of skilled and informed approaches. Where potential for recovery is in doubt, but recovery is highly desirable, a standard approach is to conduct trial treatments on a small area for a sufficient period to determine efficacy. Trial treatments are best designed as collaborations between scientists and practitioners, and can help inform the appropriate choice of an ecosystem to use as the basis for developing the reference model.

Reference models are developed using multiple sources of information. Best practice is to build empirical models based on information on specific ecosystem attributes obtained from multiple modern analogs or reference sites . These sites are environmentally and ecologically similar to the project site, but optimally have experienced little or minimal degradation (but see Box 4). Information on past and current conditions at the site as well as consultation with stakeholders can assist in developing reference models, especially where nondegraded local reference sites are unavailable. This information is usually collected during the site assessment or baseline inventory phase of the project (Principle 5)

Box 4. The importance of baselines.

In ecological restoration, the word baseline is used in two very different ways. In the Standards, baseline refers to the condition of a site at the beginning of the restoration process. In other contexts, baseline describes an ecosystem prior to degradation (e.g. as used by the Convention on Biological Diversity). The latter usage also applies to the concept of shifting (or declining) baselines that describe how some ecosystems may be more degraded than previously thought, or when current observers view ecosystems as nondegraded that previous observers would view as degraded. The idea of shifting baselines has been particularly well studied in marine ecosystems and fisheries. In the context of the Standards, the concept of shifting baselines must be considered when using reference sites to develop a reference model for ecological restoration, as a reference site may be perceived as nondegraded or minimally degraded, but may be missing important species or functions. Failure to consider that reference sites may be diminished could result in less accurate reference models.

In addition, this problem is important for mandatory restoration programs, as agencies may aim for lower standards based on erroneous ideas of what constitutes a nondegraded ecosystem. This may be of importance for biodiversity offset programs, which, if poorly designed, may contribute to continued degradation and loss of biodiversity. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that even if full recovery of an ecosystem is possible, net losses of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning may continue over long time periods until full recovery can be attained. Consequently, ecological restoration programs, whether mandatory or voluntary, should strive to do more than seems necessary to secure overall net gains of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Reference sites may be rare in regions that have few protected areas. In those situations, previously damaged sites that have had varying amounts of time for natural recovery (e.g. new protected areas, archeological sites, fenced military sites, or demilitarized zones) may indicate the trajectory of recovery of the ecosystem following a specified type of damage. Reference conditions may need to be inferred from the least‐disturbed portions of the site, combined with successional models, historical data, and models of future change

Importantly, reference models should be based on the specific ecosystem attributes to be recovered, and account for both ecological complexity and temporal change (i.e. the successional or equilibrium dynamics of the ecosystem; see Section 4, Part 1 for discussion of these concepts). Six key ecosystem attributes (Table 2) can be used to describe the reference ecosystem. Together these six attributes contribute to overall ecosystem integrity, which arises from properties of diversity, complexity, and resilience inherent in functional native ecosystems. Given the large range of ecosystem types for which ecological restoration is needed, these attribute categories are broad rather than prescriptive.

Attribute

Description

Absence of threats

Direct threats to the ecosystem such as overutilization, contamination, or invasive species are absent

Physical conditions

Environmental conditions (including the physical and chemical conditions of soil and water, and topography) required to sustain the target ecosystem are present

Species composition

Native species characteristic of the appropriate reference ecosystem are present, whereas undesirable species are absent

Structural diversity

Appropriate diversity of key structural components, including demographic stages, trophic levels, vegetation strata and spatial habitat diversity are present

Ecosystem function

Appropriate levels of growth and productivity, nutrient cycling, decomposition, species interactions, and rates of disturbance

External exchanges

The ecosystem is appropriately integrated into its larger landscape or aquatic context through abiotic and biotic flows and exchanges

Reference models should not be used to immobilize an ecosystem at a specific point in time. An inherent property of ecosystems is that they change over time as a result of internal (e.g. changes in population growth rates) and external factors (e.g. physical disturbances). Reference models should be developed with an explicit focus on understanding temporal dynamics to develop feasible and relevant restoration designs that allow local species to recover, adapt, evolve, and reassemble.

Multiple reference models may be needed for a restoration project. First, large project sites or those with varied topography are likely to include a mosaic of ecosystems and their ecotones. Second, multiple or sequential references may be needed to reflect ecosystem dynamics or anticipated changes over time. Sites in successional ecosystems may be in the early phases of successional development immediately after treatment and later advance to other successional stages 2. For ecosystems with complex equilibrium dynamics, multiple successional pathways may exist and multiple models may be necessary to attempt to describe different possible restoration outcomes. Such alternative states can result from changes in population densities or in environmental drivers or both in combination. Additionally, reference models may need adjustment over time based on results of project monitoring.

Traditional Cultural Ecosystems

Most ecosystems worldwide have been shaped by human utilization, to provide food, fiber, medicines, or culturally important artifacts (e.g. totems, spiritually significant tools). The traditional cultural ecosystems concept acknowledges that ecosystems are not just assemblages of organisms, but reflect co‐evolution of plants, animals, and humans in response to past environmental conditions. The extent to which native ecosystems are the result of human modification is variable and often unclear; but it is well understood that extensive modifications have occurred and been maintained by traditional practices that are similar to natural disturbances. For example, the existence of grassy openings found within forests is often attributed to burning by Indigenous peoples. Where such human‐utilized grassland ecosystems exhibit species and biophysical characteristics similar to those occurring in natural fire‐maintained savannas and grasslands, such human‐utilized areas should be considered native ecosystems. In these areas supporting native biodiversity, traditional management practices should be encouraged as a necessary part of ecosystem integrity. In fact, in some ecosystems, lack of traditional management (e.g. lack of traditional burning, grazing, harvesting, planting, seasonal flooding) drives degradation. Similarly, many of the ancient coppiced woodlands and unfertilized species‐rich hay meadows of Europe, and other ancient, human‐modified ecosystems in the Mediterranean region and the Sahel are examples of native ecosystems and appropriate reference models for ecological restoration. In the European Union legal context, these are referred to as semi‐natural ecosystems (not cultural ecosystems), and include chalk grasslands, wet and dry heathlands, woodland pastures, seasonal mountain pastures, grazed salt marshes, Mediterranean shrublands and dehesas, and mesotrophic fish ponds.

Because of complex social-ecological histories in traditional cultural ecosystems, multiple complementary ecosystems may function as references for ecological restoration. In some cases, the restoration target may be an early successional stage of an ecosystem, which will be maintained through traditional management. Ancient or modern cultural ecosystems that are composed primarily of nonnative species, utilize artificial inputs (e.g. fertilizers), or are structurally or functionally distinct from regional native ecosystems (e.g. formal botanical gardens) are not appropriate reference models for ecological restoration as defined here.

Principle 4. Ecological Restoration Supports Ecosystem Recovery Processes

Ecological restoration actions are designed to assist natural processes of recovery that ultimately are carried out by the effects of time on physical processes and the responses and interactions of the biota throughout their life cycles. Restoration activities focus on reinstating components and conditions suitable for these processes to recommence and support recovery of ecosystem attributes, including capacity for self‐organization and for ecosystem resilience to future stresses. These activities are planned and implemented based on the reference model (Principle 3), and agreed project targets, goals, and objectives (Principle 5).

The most reliable and cost‐effective way to kick‐start restoration is to harness the potential of remnant species (e.g. plants, animals, microorganisms) to regenerate (i.e. to colonize or expand from in situ components), but degraded ecosystems often require substantial intervention to compensate for lost natural recovery potential (see also Section 4, Part 2). An assessment is needed prior to planning appropriate treatments to determine the: (1) potential for regeneration after removal of the causes of degradation and (2) need to reinstate missing biotic and abiotic elements. This assessment should be informed by knowledge of the functional traits (particularly recovery mechanisms) of individual species likely to occur on or colonize the site, and predicted propagule flows and stores. Where knowledge gaps exist, tests of the recovery response in smaller areas is useful prior to application to larger ones. Restoration interventions focused in areas with high natural recovery potential could be prioritized to free resources later for areas requiring more intensive activities (see Section 4, Part 2).

Restoration can lead to unexpected results. Practitioners must be prepared to undertake additional treatments or engage in research to overcome barriers or limitations to natural recovery. Restoration actions designed to stimulate native species recovery, for example, may also stimulate a response from undesirable species present in the propagule bank, often requiring multiple follow‐up interventions to achieve project goals.

Principle 5. Ecosystem Recovery Is Assessed against Clear Goals and Objectives, Using Measurable Indicators

In the planning phase of restoration projects, the project scope, vision, targets, goals, and objectives are identified, along with specific indicators to measure progress. Both ecological and social attributes of the project should be included (Box 5). Indicators can then be used to monitor progress over time, applying adaptive management approaches (Box 6). Adequate resources for monitoring must be allocated if effective monitoring is to take place.

Box 5. Hierarchy of terms commonly used in project planning*

* The Scope is the broad geographic or thematic focus of a project.

* The Vision is a general summary of the desired condition one is trying to achieve through the work of the project. A good vision is relatively general, visionary (inspiring), and brief.

* The Targets identify the native ecosystems to be restored at a site as informed by the reference model, along with any social outcomes or constraints expected of the project.

* Goals are formal statements of the medium to long‐term desired ecological or social condition , including the level of recovery sought. Goals must be clearly linked to targets, measurable, time‐limited , and specific .

* Objectives are formal statements of the interim outcomes along the trajectory of recovery. Objectives must be clearly linked to targets and goals, and be measurable, time‐limited , and specific .

* Indicators are specific, quantifiable measures of attributes that directly connect longer‐term goals and shorter‐term objectives. Ecological indicators are variables that are measured to assess changes in the physical (e.g. turbidity units), chemical (e.g. nutrient concentration), or biotic (e.g. species abundance) ecosystem attributes as guided by the reference model. Social-ecological or cultural indicators measure changes in human wellbeing such as participation in traditional practices, governance, language and education.

*Terms used here, with some adaptations, are based on those of the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013).

Box 6. Monitoring and adaptive management.

Monitoring restoration projects is essential to each of the following goals:

Generating social learning. Participatory monitoring engages stakeholders in the collection and analysis of data gathered from restoration activities. This partnership approach can lead to improved collaborative decision‐making and strengthen stakeholder capacity and empowerment. Successful participatory monitoring addresses the questions and needs of stakeholders in a timely way. Methods are agreed upon collectively, are easy‐to‐use, and encourage social learning while building learning networks. As such, participatory monitoring is often more beneficial when it draws from information sources and methods of assessing reliability that are relevant for the stakeholders, rather than conventional scientific approaches.

Answering specific questions. Monitoring can be used to answer specific questions that improve understanding of ecological restoration and inform restoration decisions. Both require appropriately collected data and an effective experimental design that addresses the monitoring questions being asked. For instance, to determine the extent that project areas are recovering, best practice is to compare the restoration site to the reference model developed from pre‐selected reference sites or information. This design, however, will not provide information on whether or not the treatments are responsible for causing the effect. To determine the extent that restoration interventions are having an effect, data must be collected before and after treatment on both control and treated sites (Before‐After‐Control‐Impact or BACI experimental design). Such formal monitoring can resolve issues about new treatments or the return of organisms or processes when data are collected under an appropriate experimental design. Rigorous recording of specific restoration treatments and other conditions that might affect the results is also needed. Standard practice in such situations is for the initiator of the research to develop partnerships among scientists, practitioners, and the local community, to ensure that the project receives an appropriate level of scientific and practical advice and assistance to optimize its success and relevance.

Applying adaptive management. This form of "learning by doing" is a systematic approach for improving the practice of restoration. Adaptive management is not "trial and error." Properly applied, adaptive management improves our understanding of restoration by: (1) allowing stakeholders to explore alternative ways to meet restoration objectives; (2) predicting the outcomes of alternatives based on the current state of knowledge; (3) implementing one or more of these alternatives; (4) monitoring to learn about the impacts of restorative actions; and then (5) using the results to update knowledge and adjust restoration practices. Adaptive management can and should be the standard approach for any ecological restoration project, irrespective of how well‐resourced that project may be. Fully implementing an adaptive management approach requires timely monitoring and evaluation of results, as well as funding for ongoing restoration.

A basic process necessary to identify whether restoration actions are working or need to be modified is to inspect the site routinely, and record observations of species responses (e.g. growth rates, flowering, regeneration, and absence or presence of weeds, pests, and disease). Formal sampling can involve a range of soil, water, vegetation, and animal sampling techniques. Design of monitoring schemes should occur at the planning stage of the project to ensure that the project's goals, objectives and their selected indicators are measurable, that the monitoring layout and scheduling aligns well, and that there are clear triggers for action if objectives are not met. If desired and appropriate, formal experiments can be designed, observing the conventions of sample size, replication, and the use of untreated controls to interpret results.

Providing evidence to stakeholders. Time‐series photography provides visual evidence to stakeholders and regulators that goals are being met (i.e. securing images of the site from the same photo point locations, prior to and following treatment to show changes over time). At small sites, fixed photo‐points can be established on the ground, whereas for larger sites, remote‐sensing imagery may be more efficient. Because such imagery only provides visualization of changes occurring, well‐funded projects (particularly those under regulatory controls) are usually expected to undertake formal quantitative monitoring. This is based on a monitoring plan that identifies, among other things, monitoring questions, sampling design, timeframes, specific data collection instructions, who is responsible, the planned analysis, and frameworks for response and communication to regulators, funding bodies, or other stakeholders.

Ecological targets, goals, and objectives will be strongly informed by a site assessment or baseline inventory. This assessment describes the state of the degraded site and informs both the identification of the reference model (Principle 3), and the degree of recovery required to approximate the reference condition. The baseline inventory describes current biotic and abiotic elements of the site, including its compositional, structural, and functional attributes, as well as external threats and subsidies. The inventory process is a key initial step to understand what is desirable and possible at a degraded site in terms of restoration targets, goals, objectives, and indicators. The inventory is used subsequently to detect changes over time relative to the baseline condition.

Assessments of progress toward the ecological target should include indicators for each of the six key ecosystem attributes of the reference ecosystem (Box 7). The project's ecological goals should address the degree of recovery sought for each attribute, with specific and measurable indicators to assess the site condition prior to project initiation. The same indicators are also monitored after project implementation to evaluate whether restoration actions are meeting the project's ecological goals and objectives. To evaluate progress, each restoration objective must clearly articulate: (1) the indicators that will be measured (e.g. percentage canopy cover of native plants); (2) desired outcome (e.g. increase, decrease, maintain); (3) desired magnitude of effect (e.g. 40% increase); and (4) time frame (e.g. 5 years). For projects where full recovery may be possible and is desirable, the ecological target will align with the reference model. When only partial recovery is anticipated, however, the target and reference model will not fully align. For example, the target ecosystem may lack some species or include nonnative surrogates or invaders, or the ecological targets may be modified to meet social targets.

Box 7. Hypothetical planning example including integrated ecological and social goals.

Scope: Two 5‐ha Garry oak woodlands connected by an open meadow and a lake in the Southern Gulf Islands, British Columbia, Canada.

Current condition: Grazing and fragmentation have resulted in a decline in the diversity of woodland birds and altered vegetative composition in two Garry oak woodland remnants. These two woodlands, connected by an overgrazed meadow, contain 30% native and 50% nonnative cover of herbaceous and woody plant species. The remaining 20% cover is bare ground. The lake has a high Escherichia coli count from leachates from grazed soils. Floating water plants increase following rain events, which lead to occasional fish kills.

Vision: The return of healthy ecosystems cared for and enjoyed by the residents of the islands, resulting in renewed social cohesion and opportunities for sustainable ecosystem management.

Ecological Targets: Restored Garry oak woodlands (wooded) and meadows (semi‐open) with mature oak trees underlain with carpets of spring wildflowers. The local Indigenous community keeps the meadows clear of underbrush, to cultivate camas. The bulbs of this blue wildflower provide an important source of food. The open water lake is the habitat for rainbow trout, smallmouth bass and pumpkin‐seed sunfish. A wetland serves as a transition from the lake to the shore. River otters swim among the yellow pond lilies, and red‐winged blackbirds balance on cattails.

Goals (ecological and social):

1. Reduced active sedimentation and E. coli count in waterways to within health department standards for swimming within 5 years;

2. Reduced eutrophication, with the adult lake trout population exceeding 20 catches per unit effort within 5 years;

3. Neighbors comprise 80% of volunteers in a stewardship program within 5 years;

4. Two bird species, absent for 10 years, prior to the beginning of the project, return to breed at the site within 10 years;

5. Renewed social cohesion within the community, as evidenced by 50% improvement of place compared to baseline levels within 10 years;

6. Garry oak woodland with >90% of the native plant species of the reference model within 15 years; and,

7. Herbaceous matrix between the remnants recovered with 80% of the native plant species characteristic of the reference model for Garry oak meadow within 15 years.

Objectives (ecological and social) as measured by specific indicators:

1. Cessation of livestock grazing within 1 year;

2. Abundance of nonnative plants reduced to <25% cover within 2 years;

3. At least 25 volunteers join a stewardship program with neighbors comprising >50% of the membership within 2 years;

4. Rates of recruitment of two or more native woody species increase by 10% within 5 years in both woodland remnants;

5. Native woody plant density increases to at least 100 stems/ha of trees and 100 stems/ha of shrubs within 3 years;

6. Native species richness within the meadow increases to at least 6 grass and 10 forb species/10 m² within 5 years; and

7. Field visits by local school children increases by 50% within 5 years.

*Note that these numbers are all hypothetical examples and not a guide.

Social goals vary widely among projects and arise from a variety of social considerations (see Principle 1). After meaningful consultation with stakeholders, social goals should be identified in the project plan including descriptions of the rationale for any trade‐offs between ecological and social costs and benefits. Project reports can then recognize and highlight the benefits to society and to ecosystems that may flow from the project.

Principle 6. Ecological Restoration Seeks the Highest Level of Recovery Attainable

An ecological restoration project adopts the goal of achieving the highest level of recovery possible, relative to the six attributes of the reference ecosystem. Recovery, whether full or partial, takes time and may be slow. Thus, managers should adopt a policy of continuous improvement informed by sound monitoring. Such a policy can allow managers to continually upgrade and build on project goals to advance initial recovery toward progressively higher outcomes. One approach for designing projects and tracking progress over time is use of the Five‐Star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel.

Five‐Star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel

The Five‐star System (Tables 3 & 4) and the Ecological Recovery Wheel (Fig. 4) are provided as tools to help managers, practitioners, and regulatory authorities establish, visualize, and communicate the level of recovery aspired to and to progressively evaluate and track the degree of native ecosystem recovery over time relative to the reference model. These tools also provide a means to report changes from the baseline condition relative to the reference.

Number of stars

Summary of recovery outcome

★

Ongoing deterioration prevented. Substrates remediated (physically and chemically). Some level of native biota present; future recruitment niches not negated by biotic or abiotic characteristics. Future improvements for all attributes planned and future site management secured

★★

Threats from adjacent areas starting to be managed or mitigated. Site has a small subset of characteristic native species and low threat from undesirable species onsite. Improved connectivity arranged with adjacent property holders

★★★

Adjacent threats being managed or mitigated and very low threat from undesirable species onsite. A moderate subset of characteristic native species is established and there is some evidence of ecosystem function commencing. Improved connectivity at the landscape scale is in evidence

★★★★

A substantial subset of characteristic biota present (representing all species groupings), providing evidence of developing community structure and of ecosystem processes. Improved connectivity established and surrounding threats being managed or mitigated

★★★★★

Establishment of a characteristic assemblage of biota to a point where structural and trophic complexity to a level of very high similarity to the reference ecosystem is likely to develop with minimal further restoration interventions. Appropriate cross‐boundary flows are enabled and commencing and resilience is restored with return of appropriate disturbance regimes. Long‐term management arrangements in place

Attribute

★

★★

★★★

★★★★

★★★★★

Importantly, the Five‐star System focuses on ecological measurements, rather than social ones; it is not intended as a tool to evaluate the progress of a restoration project against its social goals (see Principle 1). Rather, managers are encouraged to use the Five‐star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel to illustrate their project's ecological targets and goals relative to the six key attributes and to provide a monitoring framework. The idea is to aim high and show progress over time, even if full recovery is not initially possible or something less than full recovery is the goal.

Notes for Interpreting the Five‐star System

A number of responses are provided to frequently asked questions:

Since being described in McDonald et al. (2016a), the Five‐star System and companion Ecological Recovery Wheel have been increasingly adapted and utilized by practitioners and scientists in a wide variety of ecosystems around the world (e.g. rivers in the United Kingdom, coral reefs in Mexico, forests and woodlands in Australia).

Evaluation using the Five‐star System must be site‐ and scale‐specific. The Five‐star System was developed for implementation at the site level, but can be applied at the program level by separately evaluating sites using the Five‐star System and then aggregating data from multiple sites to display degree of recovery (average, minimum, maximum) for larger programs.

Indicators described in Tables 3 and 4 are generic and should be interpreted more specifically by managers to suit their specific ecosystem or project, whether terrestrial or aquatic.

The Five‐star System can be used as a framework for interpreting either quantitative or qualitative monitoring. The stars can be readily quantified using many monitoring systems and statistical approaches, e.g. using response ratios (ratio of the mean value of a variable at the restoration site compared to that of the reference model), which are commonly employed by scientists and practitioners to measure restoration outcomes. Regardless of whether qualitative or quantitative approaches are used, it is imperative to explicitly specify the level of detail and degree of formality of the monitoring from which conclusions are drawn. This means that the Ecological Recovery Wheel or an evaluation table should not be used as evidence of restoration progress without also citing the monitoring data on which it is based.

Each restoration project attribute does not necessarily start at a zero or one‐star ranking. This is because the ranking is with respect to similarity to (or differences from) the reference model, with respect to a set of measurable indicators relevant to the sub‐attributes. Sites including remnant biota and unaltered substrates will start at higher rankings, whereas sites with impaired substrates or missing biota will start at lower rankings. Whatever the entry point of a project, the aim will be to assist the ecosystem to progress along the trajectory of recovery insofar as possible. A zero‐star score would be noted in written reports or as a zero in spreadsheets and represented by an empty cell in the Ecological Recovery Wheel.

By adding additional colors or patterns, or creating sequential Recovery Wheels, the user can show the baseline condition, proposed end condition, and conditions at multiple points during the recovery process.

The Five‐star System is not meant to evaluate the individual performance of practitioners or the value of projects. Some projects, because of site constraints, cannot aspire to five stars.

Principle 7. Ecological Restoration Gains Cumulative Value when Applied at Large Scales

Every ecological restoration project can have beneficial outcomes regardless of size, including increasing numbers and population sizes of depleted species, reducing populations of invasive species and other threats, and improving ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling. However, many ecological processes function at landscape, watershed, and regional scales (e.g. gene flow, colonization, predation, ecological disturbances). Degradation occurring at larger scales can overwhelm smaller restoration efforts. For example, species with large minimum habitat requirements or that require greater trophic complexity may not be accommodated in small projects. To counter climate change, substantially increasing the rate of carbon sequestration by greater production of plant and animal biomass (including biomass in soils) is urgently needed. Likewise, water security (in terms of quality, quantity and flows) is most effectively achieved by working at the landscape scale and linking terrestrial and aquatic systems. Thus, some ecological restoration projects must be conducted at large scales (e.g. hundreds or thousands of hectares) to provide desired environmental and ecological benefits. Additionally, planning and prioritizing site‐level activities are necessary as part of integrated landscape planning efforts (see Section 4, Part 3). Landscape‐scale planning can help avoid situations in which productive uses of an ecological restoration site (e.g. agriculture or forestry) are simply relocated to other areas causing additional degradation. Planning ecological restoration at larger scales must ensure that ecological restoration efforts result in net‐positive landscape change.

Challenges and Potential Solutions

Increasing the scope of ecological restoration can bring some economies of scale, but can also increase the risk of over‐extending financial, institutional, and infrastructural resources, particularly where ecosystem responses to treatments are unpredictable. Social challenges include identifying all relevant stakeholders and their specific needs and interests, and achieving agreement among stakeholders with competing interests, especially where political institutions are weak, or where strong economic and power inequalities exist among landowners. A mechanism such as participatory land use planning needs to be in place for dealing with such disagreements. For scale‐sensitive and time‐sensitive issues, treatments are usually tested at a small scale prior to broader application. In some cases, investing in gradual improvements at larger scales (e.g. to control threats such as invasive species or non‐point pollution), may achieve greater results than more intense work at smaller scales or over shorter periods of time. Increased scale of a restoration project confers an advantage, however, only where it represents an increase in the scale at which benefits (e.g. increased abundance of native species, decreased pest species abundance, or increased carbon sequestration) are improved. For this reason, and to avoid undervaluing smaller projects that may be of high ecological importance (e.g. the restoration of small fens), scale should be evaluated only as a multiplier of the other values achieved. A range of potential co‐benefits should be considered when predicting whether a project is likely to make a difference at larger scales (Table 5). Furthermore, larger‐scale functions can be enhanced via increased beneficial connectivity (e.g. wildlife corridors), including linkages to adjacent sites undergoing restorative interventions (Principle 8; Section 4, Part 3). It is important to note that cumulative value may only be achieved in the long term, meaning that those initially investing in restoration may not directly benefit.

Characteristic

Examples

Strategic location and timeliness

Restoration projects deploy strategies that make the most of scarce resources and known leverage points for effective restoration. Projects are prioritized in terms of: (1) goals with greater urgency or that accelerate the achievement of other goals; and (2) areas with greater recovery potential.

Extinction risk reduction

Projects have added value when they help recover threatened populations, species, or ecosystems. This work is guided by formal listings in place in many countries, usually linked to or consistent with International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red Lists.

Threat pervasiveness

Projects addressing large‐scale or pervasive threats can influence areas well beyond the project site. For example, projects that achieve substantial carbon sequestration, reduce contamination into waterways, or control pest plants or animals, improve outcomes locally and contribute to improved outcomes elsewhere.

Security of institutional support

Large‐scale projects need long‐term security to ensure that benefits resulting from resources invested will persist over time. Formal protection of the site through legal tenure arrangements is ideal, as is ensuring that long‐term political and economic commitments are made by the site's major public and private stakeholder institutions at local, regional, or national scales.

One mechanism to scale‐up ecological restoration is to ensure that projects are strategically integrated within larger restoration programs that contain multiple projects involving not only restoration, but also other restorative activities carried out in different landscape units, with varying partners changing over time. These may consist of many restoration project sites that are functionally and physically linked. A large‐scale ecological restoration program is typically coordinated by a coalition of government agencies, nonprofits, botanical gardens, and other allies, and involves large, complex planning processes. Examples include the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) in the USA, and the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil, both coalitions of governmental agencies, private sector, NGOs, and research institutions. Very large restoration sites and projects may create challenges for selecting targets and for developing reference models due to lack of comparable reference sites (see Section 4, Part 1) or to their complexity, although new tools such as LiDAR may help overcome the latter challenges in some landscapes.

Principle 8. Ecological Restoration Is Part of a Continuum of Restorative Activities

As ecosystem degradation continues globally, many countries and communities are adopting policies and measures designed to conserve biodiversity, recover ecological integrity and resilience, improve the quality and quantity of ecosystem services, and transform the way societies interact with nature. Ecological restoration is one of a range or family of restorative activities that can be conceived of as a continuum, wherein the degree of distinction between one type of activity to another is quite minimal, but from the most basic action to the most advanced, the distinction is quite significant. A restorative activity is one that directly or indirectly supports or attains the recovery of ecosystem attributes that have been lost or degraded. Conceptually, the restorative continuum (e.g. as depicted in Fig. 5) offers a holistic approach to repairing the world's ecosystems, enabling practitioners to apply the most appropriate and effective treatment given the ecological, social, and financial conditions (both opportunities and constraints). The restorative continuum provides a context for understanding how different activities relate to each other, while also helping identify practices best suited to a particular context. The continuum includes four major categories of restorative practices: (1) reduced societal impacts (i.e. in actions that reduce impacts through less damaging ways to consume and utilize ecosystem services across all sectors (Box 8)); (2) remediation (i.e. of polluted and contaminated sites); (3) rehabilitation (i.e. of areas including those used for production or human settlement; Box 9); and (4) ecological restoration . Reduced societal impacts, remediation, and rehabilitation practices are restorative to the extent that they reduce causes and ongoing effects of degradation, enhance potential for ecosystem recovery, and promote a transition to sustainability. As such they are also considered allied activities to ecological restoration. Some projects or programs may cover more than one category, particularly those carried out within larger frameworks, such as nature‐based solutions (including green infrastructure ), and Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR). These frameworks often incorporate one or more allied activities alongside ecological restoration. To be considered restorative, project or landscape level efforts must result in a net‐positive effect on environmental conditions. For example, activities that do not or will not improve current environmental conditions or those that cause harm (e.g. afforestation of native grasslands causing a net loss for biodiversity) do not qualify as restorative.

Box 8. Reduced impacts.

In the context of global environmental degradation, there is an urgent need to find ways to reduce adverse environmental impacts that flow from the way societies extract, produce, market, consume, and dispose of ecosystem goods. On the production side, increasing regulation in many regions of the world is resulting in more ecologically informed farming, forestry, fisheries, and mining methodologies. These activities have potential to reduce negative impacts of pollution and contamination, fragmentation of intact ecosystems, further clearing of native ecosystems, overharvesting, and the spread of invasive species. On the consumption side, a combination of regulation and increasing social expectation is changing some manufacturing practices and social behaviors, particularly in urban areas where more than half of the world's population now consumes goods and services at increasing rates per capita. While solutions can be evasive and greenwashing common, activities that genuinely aim to mitigate or attain a net reduction in human impacts (and thus improve potential for ecosystem recovery) can be considered allied to ecological restoration and clearly part of the restorative continuum.

Box 9. Rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation is a generic term used for ecological repair activities that aim to restore ecosystem functioning rather than the biodiversity and integrity of a designated native reference ecosystem. Rehabilitation activities are well suited to a broad range of land and water management sectors where substantial native ecosystem recovery is not possible or desirable due to competing and legitimate human needs. When rehabilitation is used for mined lands or post‐industrial sites, it is sometimes called reclamation. The progress of ecological recovery for many rehabilitation projects can be tracked using the Five‐star System and Ecological Recovery Wheel, where improvements in one or more ecosystem attributes can be demonstrated. To use the recovery wheel for demonstrating progress toward rehabilitation, the outer perimeter of the wheel would be desired values of the key ecosystem attributes, rather than values of these attributes from the native ecosystem reference model. Under the concept of "continuous improvement" (see Principle 6), rehabilitation projects achieving some improvements in ecological conditions can later be targeted for ecological restoration. For instance, where revegetation of a degraded rangeland, or post‐mine site, with a mix of native and nonnative plant species and native microsymbionts has resulted in improved soil function, restoration plans can be developed that include harvesting nonnative species and replacing them with native species as well as taking other actions to assist the system to recovering to the condition it would have been in if degradation had not occurred. In some cases where soil has been stabilized with nonnative species, native species can be added (or helped to recover spontaneously) and nonnative species removed to ultimately assist the recovery of a native ecosystem.

Ecological restoration and allied activities can be viewed as an integrated whole within a broad sustainability paradigm (see Section 4, Part 3), rather than as disconnected or competing activities. Restorative activities are cumulatively beneficial, improving outcomes from one level to the next. The conceptual frameworks and best practices of ecological restoration conveyed in these Standards can inspire and inform many actions that can be deployed to improve the overall health and resilience of the environment.

Conceptualizing management actions by means of this continuum (along with having an understanding of ecological restoration principles and standards) should assist governments, industries, and communities in achieving integrated "net gain" improvements in condition that will accelerate positive change at larger scales (Principle 7). Recommendations of performance measures for restorative activities across a range of industry, government, and community sectors or contexts are in Table 6. Regardless of the sector or context, it is beneficial to adopt practices of continuous improvement, and prioritize implementation of ecological restoration as the restorative activity of choice, wherever feasible. Where ecological restoration is inappropriate or not viable (e.g. where remediation or reducing societal impacts may be the only option), restorative work should aim for the highest possible recovery level. As with ecological restoration, small and ongoing improvements can be cumulative at larger scales for allied activities.

Sector or context

Restorative activity and recommended performance standard

Forestry

Native forest restoration for biodiversity conservation: Ecological restoration to a five‐star level

Native forestry: Ecological restoration to a four‐ to five‐star level (between logging cycles)

Reforestation adjacent to native ecosystems: Ecological restoration to the highest aspirational level practicable but at least a three‐star level

Reforestation primarily for ecosystem services: Rehabilitation to a minimum two‐ to three‐star level for the ecosystem function attribute, or at least sustainable utilization (between logging cycles) with no deleterious effect on native ecosystems, preferably with added ecological benefits

Agriculture and production horticulture

Native ecosystems with potential for full recovery : Ecological restoration ideally to a five‐star level

Recovery of agricultural productivity/ecological agriculture adjacent to native ecosystems : Ecological restoration to the highest aspirational level practicable but at least a three‐star level

Native ecosystems with potential for only partial recovery : Ecological restoration to the highest aspirational level practicable but minimum of a two‐ to three‐star level for at least the biological attributes

Recovery of agricultural capacity for ecosystem services : Rehabilitation to a minimum two‐star level for the ecosystem function attribute or at least sustainable utilization with no deleterious effect on native ecosystems, preferably with added ecological benefits

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas drilling sites

When intact or near‐intact native ecosystems are impacted (native ecosystems with potential for full recovery): Ecological restoration to a five‐star level

When degraded native ecosystems are impacted (native ecosystems with potential for only partial recovery): Ecological restoration to the highest aspirational level practicable, that is three‐star level or higher

Impacts on already converted (reallocated) landscape units with low potential for native recovery: Rehabilitation to one to two stars for the ecosystem function attribute or at least sustainable utilization with no deleterious effect on native ecosystems, preferably with added ecological benefits

Section 3-Standards of Practice for Planning and Implementing Ecological Restoration Projects

The following lists specific standard practices used in: (1) planning and design; (2) implementation; (3) monitoring and evaluation; and (4) maintaining ecological restoration projects after completion, particularly where professional staff or contractors are engaged. These Standards of Practice fully incorporate SER's Code of Ethics (SER 2013). They are adaptable to the size, complexity, degree of degradation, regulatory status, and budget of any project, but not all steps will be possible for all projects. The steps described in the standards are not always sequential. For instance, the standards include monitoring after implementation, because the bulk of the monitoring effort may occur post‐treatment; however, activities critical to monitoring must begin before project initiation, because of the need to design monitoring plans, develop budgets and secure funding, and collect pre‐treatment data prior to implementation of restoration treatments.

Planning and design

1.1 Stakeholder engagement . Meaningful, informed, reciprocal engagement is undertaken preferably at the initial planning stage of a restoration project with all key stakeholders (including the land or water owners or managers, industry interests, neighbors, and local community and Indigenous stakeholders) and continues throughout the duration of a project. Engagement ideally includes training local people to provide committed, long‐term monitoring and collaborative knowledge generation and dissemination. Key steps are to:

1.1.1 Include a schedule for stakeholder engagement throughout project lifespan. Where possible, participatory planning and restoration plan co‐design are implemented, and local community capacity building and training are included (See tool: The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation).

1.1.2 Perform due diligence to ensure that stakeholder rights, including land tenure, are understood and respected throughout the restoration process.

1.2 Context assessment . Plans and stakeholder engagement are informed by local and regional conservation and sustainability goals and priorities, and spatial planning and:

1.2.1 Include diagrams or maps of the project in relation to its surrounding landscape or aquatic environment;

1.2.2 Identify ways to improve beneficial connectivity between habitats at the restoration site, and increase beneficial external ecological exchanges with other native ecosystems to improve landscape‐level flows and processes, including colonization and gene flow between sites; and,

1.2.3 Specify strategies to ensure continuity of future management to align and integrate the project with management of nearby native ecosystems and productive landscapes.

1.3 Assessment of security of site tenure and scheduling of post‐treatment maintenance . Evidence of potential for long‐term conservation management of the site is required before investing in restoration. Restoration plans should thus:

1.3.1 Identify site‐tenure security to enable long‐term restoration and allow appropriate ongoing access for monitoring and management; and,

1.3.2 Identify plan for site maintenance after project completion to ensure that the site does not regress into a degraded state.

1.4 Baseline inventory . The baseline inventory documents the causes, intensity, and extent of degradation, and describes the effects of degradation on the biota and physical environment relative to the six ecosystem attributes. Accordingly, plans should:

1.4.1
Identify native, ruderal, and nonnative species persisting on the site, particularly threatened species or communities and invasive species;

1.4.2
Record status of current abiotic conditions (through photographs and other means) including dimensions, configuration, and physical and chemical condition of streams, water bodies, water column, land surfaces, soils, or any other material elements, relative to prior or changing conditions;

1.4.3
Detect type and degree of drivers and threats that have caused degradation on the site and ways to eliminate, mitigate, or adapt to them (for a standard Threats Taxonomy, see the Open Standards Threats Classification). This includes assessment of:

Historical, current, and anticipated impacts within and external to the site (e.g. over‐utilization, sedimentation, fragmentation, pest plants and animals, hydrological impacts, contamination, altered disturbance regimes) and ways to manage, remove, or adapt to them;

Description of needs for genetic diversity supplementation for species reduced to non‐viable populations due to fragmentation (see Section 4, Part 3); and,

Current and anticipated effects of climate change (e.g. temperature, rainfall, sea level, marine acidity) on species and genotypes with respect to likely future viability.

1.4.4 Identify the relative capacity of the biota on site or external to the site to commence and continue recovery with or without assistance. This includes undertaking an inventory that includes:

1.5 Native reference ecosystem(s) and reference models . Plans identify target native reference ecosystems and an appropriate reference model (Principle 3; Section 4 Part 1) based on multiple indicators of the six key ecosystem attributes (Table 2; Fig. 4) at a suitable number of reference sites. In some cases, descriptions of intact ecosystems may be available from previous assessments or models or environmental agency guidelines. Specifically, plans:

1.5.1 Document substrate characteristics (biotic or abiotic, aquatic or terrestrial);

1.5.2 List major characteristic species (representing all plant‐growth forms and functional groups of micro‐ and macrofauna, including pioneer and threatened species);

1.5.3 Identify the ecosystem's functional attributes, including nutrient cycles, characteristic disturbance and flow regimes, successional pathways, plant-animal interactions, ecosystem exchanges, and any disturbance‐dependence of component species;

1.5.4 Note any ecological mosaics that require use of multiple reference ecosystems on a site.

1.5.5 In cases where extant ecosystems are being disturbed and then restored, preexisting intact ecosystems must be mapped in detail prior to site disturbance;

1.5.6 Assess habitat needs of focal biota (including any faunal minimum ranges and responses to degradation pressures and restoration treatments).

1.6 Vision, targets, goals and objectives . Clear and measurable goals and objectives are needed to identify the most appropriate actions, ensure that all project participants have a common understanding of the project, and measure progress (see Monitoring below). Plans must clearly state:

1.6.1 Project vision and ecological and social targets, including a description of the site and the native ecosystem to be restored;

1.6.2 Ecological and social goals including level of ecological recovery sought (i.e. condition or state of the ecosystem attributes to be achieved). In full recovery cases, this will fully align with the reference model, whereas in partial recovery cases this will include elements that deviate from the reference to some degree. Ecological goals should quantify, where possible, degree of the reference ecosystem attributes to be attained. The social goals must be explicit and realistic, considering the time frame and social capital available in the area.

1.6.3 Objectives are the changes and immediate outcomes needed to achieve the target and goals relative to any distinct spatial areas within the site. Objectives are stated in terms of measurable and quantifiable indicators to identify whether or not the project is reaching its objectives within identified time frames. In addition to indicators, objectives should include specific actions, quantities, and time frames.

1.7 Restoration treatment prescriptions . Plans contain clearly stated treatment prescriptions for each distinct restoration area, describing what, where, and by whom treatments will be undertaken, and their order or priority. Where knowledge or experience is lacking, adaptive management or targeted research that informs appropriate prescriptions will be necessary. If there is uncertainty, the Precautionary Principle should be applied in a manner that reduces environmental risk. Plans should:

1.7.1 Describe actions to be undertaken to eliminate and mitigate, or adapt to causal problems; and,

1.7.2 Identify and justify specific restoration approaches, descriptions of specific treatments for each restoration area, and prioritization of actions. Depending on the condition of the site, this includes identification of:

Amendments to the shape, configuration, chemistry, or other physical condition of abiotic elements to render them amenable to the recovery of target biota and ecosystem structure and functions;

Effective and ecologically appropriate strategies and techniques to control undesirable species to protect desirable species, their habitats, and the site;

Ecologically appropriate methods to facilitate regeneration or achieve reintroduction of any missing species;

Ecologically appropriate strategies to address circumstances where the ideal species or genetic stock is not immediately available (e.g. leaving gaps for in‐fill reintroductions in subsequent seasons); and,

Appropriate species selection, genetic sourcing, and procurement of biota to be reintroduced (see Appendix 1).

1.8 Analyzing logistics . Analysis of potential for resourcing the project and of likely risks is required before undertaking a restoration plan. To address practical constraints and opportunities including plans:

1.8.1 Identify funding, labor (including appropriate skill level), and other resources that will enable appropriate treatments (including follow‐up treatments and monitoring), until the site reaches a stabilized condition;

1.8.2 Undertake a full risk assessment and identify a risk‐management strategy for the project, particularly including contingency arrangements for unexpected changes in environmental conditions, financing, or human resourcing;

1.8.3 Develop a project timetable and rationale for the duration of the project (e.g. using a schedule planning chart);

1.8.4
Identify ways to maintain commitment to the project's targets, goals, and objectives over the life of the project, including political and financial support; and,

1.8.5
Obtain permissions and permits, and address legal constraints applying to the site and the project, including land‐tenure and ownership claims.

1.9 Establishing process for project review . Plans include a schedule and time frame to:

1.9.1 Carry out stakeholder and independent peer review as required; and,

1.9.2 Implement plan review in light of new knowledge, changing environmental conditions, and lessons learned.

Implementation The implementation phase may be short or long, depending on the project and circumstances. During the implementation phase, restoration projects are managed to:

2.1 Protect the site from damage . No further or lasting damage is caused by the restoration works to any natural resources or elements of the terrestrial or aquatic area impacted by the project, including physical damage (e.g. clearing, burying topsoil, trampling), chemical contamination (e.g. over‐fertilizing, pesticide spills) or biological contamination (e.g. introduction of invasive species including undesirable pathogens).

2.2 Engage appropriate participants . Treatments are interpreted and carried out responsibly, effectively, and efficiently by, or under the supervision of, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced people. Wherever possible, stakeholders and community members are invited to participate in project implementation. Where possible, use of sustainable materials and processes are incorporated into restoration projects.

2.3 Incorporate natural processes . All treatments are undertaken in a manner that is responsive to natural processes, and that fosters and protects potential for natural and assisted recovery. Primary treatments including substrate and hydrological amendments, pest animal and plant control, application of specific recovery activities, and biotic reintroductions adequately followed up by secondary treatments as required. Because the recovery period may be long (e.g. growth of riparian vegetation), interim treatments to reduce adverse effects (e.g. nutrient influxes and sediment inflows into streams) should be planned for and implemented. Appropriate aftercare is provided to any plantings or animal stock.

2.4 Respond to changes occurring on site . Adaptive management is applied, informed by the results of monitoring. This includes both corrective changes of direction to adapt to unexpected ecosystem responses and additional work as needed. In some cases, additional or new research may be required to overcome particular restoration impediments.

2.5 Ensure compliance . All projects exercise full compliance with work, health, and safety legislation. All laws, regulations, and permits that apply to the project, including those related to soil, air, water, oceans, heritage, species and ecosystem conservation, are in place.

2.6 Communicate with stakeholders . All project operatives communicate regularly with key stakeholders (preferably through a communications plan, integrated with any stakeholder engagement and citizen‐science activities) to keep stakeholders appraised of progress and optimally engaged. Communication should also meet funding body requirements.

Monitoring, Documentation, Evaluation, and Reporting Ecological restoration projects adopt the principle of observing, recording, and monitoring treatments and responses to determine whether a project is on track to meeting targets, goals, and objectives, or needs adjustment. Projects are regularly assessed, with progress analyzed to adjust treatments as required (i.e. using an adaptive‐management framework). Collaborations are fostered between researchers, local‐knowledge experts, practitioners, and citizen‐scientists, especially where treatments are innovative or being applied at a large scale. Monitoring needs are reassessed throughout the project and resources reallocated or expanded accordingly.

3.1 Monitoring design . Monitoring to evaluate restoration outcomes begins at the planning stage by developing a monitoring plan to identify treatment effectiveness (See also Boxes 5 & 6). This plan includes specific questions to be addressed through monitoring, sampling design for collecting baseline, implementation, and post‐treatment data, procedures for documenting and archiving collected data, plans for data analysis, and plans for communicating results to adapt management strategies on site and inform stakeholders of lessons learned.

3.1.1 Monitoring is geared to specific targets and measurable goals and objectives identified at the start of the project. Once indicators are determined, baseline data are collected and milestones determined to gauge whether the rate of progress is on track. Additionally, "trigger points" along that path can be helpful; if the data reach a trigger, then corrective actions may be needed.

3.1.2 Monitoring methods should be appropriate to the goals of the project. Whenever possible, methods should be easy‐to‐use, and implemented through participatory processes. When formal quantitative sampling is needed, the sampling design must include a sufficiently large sample size to enable statistical analyses and inferences. In all cases the methods should be detailed enough to be repeatable in future years.

3.1.3 Project managers should be mindful that monitoring is essential to determine whether goals are met and also to provide learning opportunities. Involving stakeholders in project design and data collection and analysis helps improve collaborative decision‐making, provides a sense of ownership and engagement, motivates stakeholders to maintain longer‐term interest, and strengthens stakeholder capacity and empowerment. Any monitoring system must have built‐in opportunities for learning and adaptation.

3.2
Keeping records . Adequate and secure records of all project data, including documents related to planning, implementation, monitoring, and reporting are maintained to inform adaptive management and enable future evaluation of responses to treatments. All treatment data, including details of restoration activities, number of work session and costs, along with all evaluation monitoring records are maintained for future reference. Provenance data should include location (preferably GPS‐derived) and description of donor and receiving sites or populations. Documentation should include reference to collection protocols, date of acquisition, identification procedures, and collector/propagator's name. Additionally:

3.2.1
Consideration should be given to having data be open‐access, or adding results to open access repositories such as SER's Restoration Resource Center or other national or international databases; and,

3.2.2
Managers should archive data using secure storage. Metadata describing the contents of each dataset should be included.

3.3
Evaluating outcomes . Evaluation of the outcomes of the work is carried out, with progress assessed against project targets, goals, and objectives. This requires use of an evaluation tool (e.g. the Five‐star System presented in this document; the Audit Tool of the Open Standards among others or conventional ecological evaluation methods).

3.4
Reporting to interested parties . Reporting involves preparing and disseminating progress reports that detail evaluation results for key stakeholders and broader interest groups (e.g. in newsletters and scientific journals) to convey outputs and outcomes as they become available.

3.4.1
Reporting should convey the information accurately and accessibly, customized to the audience; and,

3.4.2
Reporting should specify the level and details of monitoring upon which any evaluation of progress has been based.

Post‐Implementation Maintenance

Section 4-Leading Practices

Part 1. Developing Reference Models for Ecological Restoration

The practice of ecological restoration involves removing or limiting sources of degradation and assisting the ecosystem in recovering, insofar as possible, to the condition it would be in had degradation not occurred, while also accounting for anticipated change. This requires a model to predict that condition, called a reference model (Principle 3), which is constructed empirically from multiple reference sites and theoretically based on best available information. This model should account for multiple ecosystem attributes and their variation within the target ecosystem, as well as overall ecosystem complexity and dynamics (i.e. changes over time). Each of these considerations is important for establishing project goals that accurately reflect an appropriate target ecosystem. In some cases, it may be necessary to identify multiple reference models, for example, for native ecosystems that have non‐equilibrium dynamics (Suding & Gross 2006) or alternative reference models where irreversible change has occurred or is anticipated. In practice, the process of building a reference model and the model's reliability will vary based on both project resources and the availability of relevant ecological information. Information may be readily available or collectable for some native ecosystems (e.g. forested areas of western North America where LiDAR data allow for creation of reference models at landscape scales; Wiggins et al. 2019), where for others reference sites and data may be scarce (e.g. threatened coastal forest ecosystems of Chile for which only a few small patches of forest remain; Echeverria et al. 2006). In most instances, stakeholders and project managers will have to navigate gaps in available information and or resources using professional judgment. In all cases, the best available information should be combined with solid investigative work (Swetnam et al. 1999) to develop optimal model(s) for predicting system condition had degradation not occurred.

Construction of reference models ideally incorporates a broad set of ecosystem attributes, including absence of threats, species composition, community structure, physical conditions, ecosystem function, and external exchanges (Principle 3). Some of these attributes, such as community structure (i.e. architecture with respect to vegetation strata, trophic levels, and spatial patterns) and species composition (i.e. types of species present) are relatively straightforward to assess, whereas others, such as ecosystem functions, are more complex, but equally important. Organisms interact with their environment and other organisms in complex ways that result in flows of energy, nutrients, water, and other materials, referred to as ecosystem functions. In addition to supporting ecological integrity, ecosystem functions provide the services required for life (e.g. food, fiber, water, medicines) and their inclusion in reference models is essential. Further, the physical attributes of ecosystems and ecological subsidies (e.g. seed propagules) that flow across ecosystems are important to consider in developing references, as they are the context in which species interactions occur.

Incorporating Historical and Future Change

Ecosystems respond to changing environmental conditions, which adds complexity to ecological restoration and other types of ecosystem management. To account for temporal change, the reference model is conceived as the condition the target ecosystem would be in had degradation not occurred, while anticipating future change. It does not represent a condition in the past. Historical information may be useful in the construction of reference models, especially if modern reference sites are unavailable. When using historical data to develop reference models, however, consideration should always be given to the degree of background environmental change that has occurred (e.g. changes in temperature, precipitation, and soils) or is anticipated to occur (e.g. climate change), and the extent to which the reference model should be adjusted to account for these changes (see also Box 2 and Appendix 1).

Ecosystem change is driven by factors that are external to the ecosystem, such as climate, but also through successional processes and many types of ecosystems exhibit multiple successional stages. Because of this, successional stage of the restoration site must be considered when selecting reference sites. For example, late‐successional ecosystems (e.g. 1,000‐year‐old forests) are likely unsuitable reference sites for the initial phases of restoration of early‐successional forest stands, although they are useful for informing the multi‐phase, long‐term reference model, and setting long‐range project goals. In addition, for some sites there may be multiple potential outcomes of succession, based on chance events such as natural disturbances or order of arrival of species (Chase 2003). Rather than assuming that the system will always follow a single successional trajectory, it may be useful to develop a set of reference models for multiple potential trajectories. Incorporating equilibrium dynamics into reference models clearly makes restoration planning more complex but will facilitate project success by giving managers a more informed perspective on suitable project outcomes or, when one of multiple potential stable states is desired, helping managers avoid feedbacks that would drive the system in unintended directions (e.g. managing the order of species introductions or removing species that are likely to push the system in the unintended direction; Suding & Gross 2006).

Reference Sites and Other Sources of Information

Because no two sites are identical, best practice is to use multiple reference sites and other information to develop the reference model. Inventory of one site will capture only a fraction of the species pool and be unlikely to represent the average condition of the target ecosystem. Ecosystems that are highly heterogeneous will require more reference sites than those that are more homogeneous. Due to the high degree of land alteration globally, however, many ecosystems may not have an adequate number of reference sites and practitioners may need to rely on successional models and other sources of information as detailed below.

Other information sources key for developing reference models include traditional and local ecological knowledge (TEK and LEK; e.g. Zedler & Stevens 2018), and databases and tools that characterize ecosystem properties (e.g. soil descriptions, rare species distributions). If only a few species are identifiable from these indirect sources of evidence, an ecologist familiar with the natural history of the region can frequently ascertain the estimated condition of the ecosystems if degradation had not occurred and deduce species compositions. Implementation plans can be prepared from descriptions of existing examples of those same ecosystems.

Adequate investment in developing a reference model is an important consideration in project planning and budgeting. The quality of the reference model will vary among projects, based on project resources and available sites and information. Stakeholders and project managers should aspire to create the best model possible given project constraints. Note that in some jurisdictions, reference models may have already been developed for some ecosystems.

Part 2. Identifying Appropriate Ecological Restoration Approaches

For millions of years, natural recovery processes have been autogenically repairing naturally disturbed sites in both terrestrial and aquatic environments (e.g. volcanos, landslides, glaciation, asteroid impacts, sea level changes, tsunamis, riverbank erosion; e.g. Matthews 1999). While the sequential patterns of recovery (i.e. succession) differ among ecosystems, all native species are likely to have evolved some capacity to recover after natural disturbances or stresses to which they have adapted (Holling 1973; Westman 1978). By understanding how recovery processes operate in cases of natural disturbances, strategies for the restoration of human‐caused degradation can be developed (Cairns Jr et al. 1977; Chazdon 2014). Correctly assessing the capacity of individual species to regenerate at a specific site facilitates selection of appropriate approaches and treatments, thus enabling efficient use of financial resources and other restoration inputs (McDonald 2000; Martínez‐Ramos et al. 2016).

A first step in defining effective restoration strategies is to identify the constraints (sometimes referred to as "filters" or "barriers") preventing ecosystem recovery (Hobbs & Norton 2004; Hulvey & Aigner 2014). Constraints will of course include the anthropogenic causes of degradation, but also the consequences of these, such as unsuitable substrates, absence of niches, altered niches, lack of resources, herbivory, competition, lack of propagule availability, or absence of cues to break seed dormancy. By addressing the constraints that prevent recovery without introducing new ones, natural processes that have been operating over evolutionary time can be reinstated to assist the recovery of the disturbed site (e.g. revegetation from stored propagules; McDonald 2000; Prach & Hobbs 2008).

Natural regeneration , sometimes referred to as "passive" restoration, is often the most cost‐effective approach when natural recovery potential is high. Where potential for natural regeneration is absent or low, however, it is usually necessary to reestablish or increase organisms or depleted populations through more active means, such as assisted regeneration or reconstruction , sometimes referred to as "active" restoration. All three of these approaches use natural recovery processes and require ongoing adaptive management until recovery is attained.

1. Natural (or spontaneous) regeneration. Where damage is relatively low and topsoil retained, or where sufficient time frames and nearby populations exist to allow recolonization, plants and animals may be able to recover after cessation of certain types of degradation (Prach et al. 2014; Chazdon & Guariguata 2016). This may include removal of contamination, inappropriate grazing, over‐fishing, restriction of water flows, and inappropriate fire regimes. Animal species may be able to recolonize the site if there is sufficient habitat connectivity, and plant species may recover through resprouting or germination from remnant soil seed banks or seeds that naturally disperse from nearby sites (Grubb & Hopkins 1986; Powers et al. 2009). In some cases, natural regeneration can also be used even in heavily disturbed sites, such as abandoned quarries and mines, although this will likely be a long‐term process (Prach & Hobbs 2008).

2. Assisted regeneration. Restoration at sites of intermediate or greater degradation requires removal of the causes of degradation and active interventions to correct abiotic and biotic damage and trigger biotic recovery (e.g. by mimicking natural disturbances or by providing key resources). Examples of abiotic interventions include: actively remediating substrate chemical or physical conditions; building habitat features such as shellfish reefs (O'Beirn et al. 2000); reshaping watercourses (Jordan & Arrington 2014) and landforms (Prach & Hobbs 2008); reinstating environmental flows and fish passage in estuaries and rivers (Kareiva et al. 2000); applying artificial disturbances to break seed dormancy (Mitchell et al. 2008); and, installing habitat features such as hollow logs, rocks, woody debris piles, soil microniches, and perch trees (Elgar et al. 2014; Castillo‐Escrivà et al. 2019). Examples of biotic interventions include: controlling invasive species (Saunders & Norton 2001; Chazdon et al. 2017); supplementary reintroduction of species that cannot migrate into the restoration area without assistance (e.g. rewilding of animals or reintroduction of tree species with very large seeds); and, the augmentation or reinforcement of depleted populations of species where genetic diversity is insufficient (see also Appendix 1).

3. Reconstruction. Where damage is high, not only do all causes of degradation need to be removed or reversed and all biotic and abiotic damage corrected to suit the identified native reference ecosystem, but also all or a major proportion of its desirable biota need to be reintroduced wherever possible (Bradshaw 1983; Seddon et al. 2004). The biota can then interact with abiotic components to drive further recovery of ecosystem attributes. In some cases where sequential recovery is a characteristic of the ecosystem or is needed (e.g. to help recovery of soils), earlier successional species may need to be reintroduced earlier than later successional species (Temperton et al. 2004). In ecosystems that do not exhibit these successional patterns, however, all species may need to be introduced from the outset (e.g. Rokich 2016).

A mosaic of the three approaches may be warranted and mapped where there are different degrees of degradation across a site, or as a technique to increase efficiency and lower costs (Bradshaw 1983; Walker 2011), especially at larger scales. That is, some parts of a site may require a natural regeneration approach, others may require an assisted regeneration approach, and still other areas may require a reconstruction approach, or combinations as appropriate. One combined approach is applied nucleation , which involves planting small patches of vegetation (often trees) that attract dispersers and facilitate establishment of new recruits, expanding the forested area over time. Applied nucleation has shown promise in restoring landfills (Corbin et al. 2016), Mediterranean woodlands (Rey Benayas et al. 2008), tropical forests (Corbin & Holl 2012; Holl et al. 2017), and other ecosystems. Deciding on an appropriate approach or combination may not be self‐evident. Knowledge and experience are important in assessing the degree of natural regeneration potential present, and whether that potential may respond to particular forms of assistance (and in a timely way). Where specific knowledge is unavailable, an adaptive management approach to understanding the effectiveness of different types of regeneration is appropriate (e.g. allowing a couple of years to assess the rate of natural regeneration prior to deciding the best approach; Holl et al. 2018). Responding to site conditions in this way will ensure optimal levels of similarity between the restoration outcome and conditions defined by the reference model.

Part 3. The Role of Ecological Restoration in Global Restoration Initiatives

Within the last 30 years, ecological restoration has grown from implementation at the small‐patch scale to a primary strategy for conserving biodiversity and improving human wellbeing across large landscapes. When the vision of restoration exceeds small‐patch scales, the goals and approaches of restoration must be scaled up (Principle 7). Landscape patterns (spatial relationships of ecosystem types) and landscape‐level processes (e.g. water flow, erosion, nutrient fluxes, land‐use changes) are important attributes to consider (Holl et al. 2003). At large scales, the greater diversity of ecosystems, stakeholders, and land uses create competing goals, but may also precipitate common solutions. Consequently, restoration at this scale must focus on providing multiple, complementary, and integrated benefits for ecosystems and stakeholders.

Global Restoration Initiatives

Growing awareness of the need for environmental and socio‐cultural repair has led to a global ramping up of ecological restoration and allied restorative activities (Introduction, Principle 7). However, land degradation has continued mostly unabated, and the need to both avoid and counter the effects of this degradation is increasingly more urgent. Toward this end, several large‐scale restoration initiatives and agreements have been launched at the global scale that promote a wide range of ecosystem management and nature‐based solutions (Box 10). Within many of these initiatives and agreements restoration is broadly defined (e.g. Forest Landscape Restoration) and includes all activities along the restorative continuum (Principle 8). These initiatives largely focus on improving the ecological health and productivity of landscapes to support the current and future wellbeing of people, protect biodiversity, reduce disaster risk, and mitigate and adapt to climate change. For some initiatives, restoration is seen as a method to improve access to and sustainability of natural resources. Others recognize the potential of restoration to catalyze rural economies, provide jobs and income, and improve food and water security, among other objectives. These outcomes are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, when fair access to and sustainable use of natural resources is an outcome of large‐scale restoration programs, several other global objectives are also achieved.

Box 10. Global restoration initiatives

* United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 call for the restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems (Goal 14), as well as forests and other ecosystems that have been degraded (Goal 15). On March 1, 2019 in support of a broad range of the SDGs and many of the initiatives below, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2021-2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Global Landscapes Forum (GLF), and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), among others, are expected to lead implementation and knowledge exchange programs for the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.

* The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has a target of restoring 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020 to mitigate the impacts of climate change and to combat desertification (Aichi Biodiversity Target 15), and views ecological restoration as key to delivering essential ecosystem services (Aichi Biodiversity Target 14). The CBD has adopted a Short‐Term Action Plan on Ecosystem Restoration (CBD 2016), and restoration is expected to play an even larger role as the current biodiversity targets expire and are revised for the post‐2020 biodiversity framework. The CBD (2018) also encourages Parties to further strengthen their efforts "... to identify regions, ecosystems and components of biodiversity that are or will become vulnerable to climate change ... to promote ecosystem restoration and sustainable management post‐restoration."

* The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) promotes land restoration and rehabilitation as part of the UNCCD strategic framework 2018-2030, and specifically to achieve Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN; Orr et al. 2017), wherein, "the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security remain stable or increase within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems" (UNCCD 2017). Current drylands and future drylands under climate change will be highly vulnerable, requiring a stronger collaboration across the three Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD, United Nations Framework Convention Climate Change [UNFCCC]) on how to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation with the support of sustainable land management practices, while considering the special mandates of each Convention (Akhtar‐Schuster et al. 2017; Chasek et al. 2019).

* The Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) promotes "land restoration", including activities such as restoring agricultural productivity, adopting agricultural best practices, and other sustainable utilization activities. The IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( https://www.ipbes.net/global‐assessment‐biodiversity‐ecosystem‐services) reports that about 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history. Loss of biodiversity is shown to be not only an environmental issue, but also a developmental, economic, security, social, and moral issue. Restoration and land‐based climate change mitigation actions are viewed as key elements of the transformative change needed to avert mass extinctions and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services.

* The largest and most diverse initiative for large‐scale restoration is the Bonn Challenge, launched by the Government of Germany and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and later endorsed and extended by the New York Declaration on Forests (Goal 5). This global effort seeks to bring 150 million hectares of deforested and degraded land into restoration by 2020 and 350 million hectares by 2030. The Bonn Challenge has galvanized high‐level national and subnational commitments from 58 governments and land managers, totaling over 170 million hectares, to assess opportunities for, and implement restorative activities using the Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) approach.

* In support of the Bonn Challenge, several regional initiatives help bring countries together to share commitments, knowledge, tools, and capacities regarding FLR. In Latin America this includes the 20 × 20 initiative, which seeks to bring into restoration 20 million hectares of degraded land by 2020. Similarly, The African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) is a country‐led effort to bring into restoration 100 million hectares of degraded land by 2030. Both 20 × 20 and AFR100 have exceeded their commitment goals. The 17 countries supporting the Bonn Challenge through 20 × 20 have committed 50 million hectares and the 28 countries supporting AFR100 have committed 113 million hectares to date. In addition to these initiatives, there are budding regional platforms emerging in the Caucuses and Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia, and many other large‐scale commitments to FLR throughout the rest of the world at both the national and subnational scale.

* Additional restorative activities are proposed or promoted as part of REDD+ (Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) projects at national and sub‐national levels, as part of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the UNFCCC, by the Global Landscapes Forum, and across thousands of projects at local, regional, and national scales throughout the world.

Landscape Restoration Approaches

Many large‐scale restoration initiatives include opportunities to employ landscape restoration approaches. Landscape restoration involves practices based on the principles of both landscape ecology and landscape sustainability science (LSS; Frazier et al. 2019), in which a "landscape" is seen as a social-ecological system. LSS focuses on improving the dynamic relationship between ecosystem services and human wellbeing in changing social, economic, and environmental conditions. Consistent with the definition of landscape sustainability (Wu 2013), landscape restoration can be defined as a planned process that seeks to recover landscape‐level ecological integrity and the capacity of a landscape to provide long‐term, landscape‐specific ecosystem services essential for improving human wellbeing. Accordingly, landscape restoration involves both ecological and social targets and goals (Principle 1). Additional approaches to large‐scale restoration include the concept of Sustainable Multifunctional Landscapes , which are "landscapes created and managed to integrate human production and landscape use into the ecological fabric of a landscape maintaining critical ecosystem function, service flows and biodiversity retention" (O'Farrell & Anderson 2010).

Conducting landscape restoration activities requires an in‐depth understanding of landscape composition, structure, and function, and the link between ecological integrity and meeting human needs (Wu 2013). These landscape attributes vary from those that are considered for ecological restoration at the site‐level (composition, structure, function, at the ecosystem or community level, as well as lower levels [species, genes] of the biological hierarchy; Principle 7). Landscape restoration involves considerations at levels of the biological hierarchy above the ecosystem scale and an explicit consideration of the types and proportions of ecosystems within the landscape, the spatial organization of the units, and the link between landscape composition, structure and functions. Restoring functions, flows of energy, nutrients, and other subsidies through the landscape may be equally as important as restoring composition and structure in some cases, especially for the delivery of particular ecosystem services. For example, restoring hydrological processes and water movement among ecosystems is critical for stream‐flow regulation, which is one of the ecosystem services that often drives interest in restoration.

Governments are often involved in landscape restoration programs with coalitions of local administrations and stakeholder groups. Stakeholder engagement platforms are built for several important reasons, including to develop a sense of responsibility for the landscape and to emphasize how different stakeholders view the potential of restoration and its costs and benefits. However, unless stakeholder‐driven processes are consistent with the concepts of landscape sustainability science, key trade‐offs between stakeholder‐desired services, biodiversity, and ecological integrity may not be considered and landscapes may be further degraded. Managing tradeoffs to maximize landscape sustainability is critical, as the long‐term effectiveness of national restoration programs requires consideration of the needs of future generations, and options for enhancing future sustainability under climate change.

Decision‐support tools can help define and map degradation, set restoration objectives, discern trade‐offs and synergies among potential restoration actions or approaches, and identify restoration opportunities (IUCN and WRI 2014; Hanson et al. 2015; Chazdon & Guariguata 2018; Evans & Guariguata 2019). Further, integrating biodiversity information, species‐distribution modeling, and habitat‐suitability modeling at landscape scales can identify areas where ecological restoration may reduce threats to species or actively restore their populations or habitat (Beatty et al. 2018). Moreover, economic analyses and scenarios based on ecosystem service supply and biodiversity benefits can contribute to understanding the cost‐effectiveness and total costs of specific restoration actions in particular areas. Additional decision‐support tools are critically needed, however, for assessing delivery of selected ecosystem services, tradeoffs between ecological and social outcomes, and social‐economic outcomes such as livelihoods and food security (Beatty et al. 2018).

One important way to advance the science, practice, and policy of landscape restoration is to develop and promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation among and within countries. A bibliometric analysis shows a significant increase in publications on ecological restoration in developing countries (e.g. China and Brazil between 1988 and 2017; Guan et al. 2019). Experience and expertise sharing, co‐financing, and co‐developing new knowledge for more effective policy and practice should be encouraged among regions (Liu et al. 2019), and south-south cooperation is equally important for knowledge sharing in developing and newly industrialized countries (Liu et al. 2017).

Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR), the main approach behind the Bonn Challenge and other global restoration initiatives, has increased awareness of the need for restoration and allied restorative activities at the landscape scale. However, the activities implemented under Forest Landscape Restoration are not necessarily equivalent to ecological restoration-a situation that has contributed to confusion about restoration as a concept. Although FLR is defined as "a process that aims to regain ecological functioning and enhance human well‐being in deforested or degraded landscapes" (Besseau et al. 2018), ecological restoration is only one of many activities in FLR. In fact, FLR programs comprise a range of activities aligning with the "Restorative Continuum" described in Principle 8 (i.e.reduced impacts, remediation, rehabilitation, ecological restoration), including the conservation of existing protected areas and increasing sustainability in areas of primary economic production. Importantly, FLR does not necessarily place a higher value on one type of activity within the continuum than another. Ecological restoration, for instance, is not viewed as an inherently better option than conservation agriculture or agroforestry. However, many FLR practitioners view ecological restoration as a key component of every FLR project. These practitioners recognize that areas primarily devoted to economic production, especially degraded agricultural landscapes, have enormous social, economic, and ecological needs for intervention. Application of an integrated, holistic approach to conserve and repair ecosystems is most likely to achieve direct improvements in human wellbeing effectively and equitably, an approach similar to that of the UNCCD's Landscape Degradation Neutrality program. The selection of activities within FLR, however, is based on many factors, including how the action mitigates degradation as well as how it may support stakeholder‐defined objectives (e.g. climate resilience, food and water security, biodiversity conservation). FLR has been interpreted in different ways (Mansourian 2018) leading to different constructs of FLR (e.g. safeguarding biodiversity, reducing land degradation, supporting sustainable timber production). Transparency and clear communication, along with flexibility to implement a diversity of restoration activities in a landscape, are thus key to successful implementation.

Broad political support exists for FLR and the Bonn Challenge, which are important implementation mechanisms for the Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD, UNFCCC), as well as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and many national, continental, and regional initiatives. FLR has allowed countries and other actors to view ecosystem and landscape repair through the many different social, economic, and ecological lenses it provides. FLR has already made significant contributions to the Aichi Targets (Beatty et al. 2018). In addition, engagement of high‐level policymakers at Bonn Challenge Ministerial events has resulted in support for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030). Concern that FLR be restorative, and not create perverse incentives and collateral damage, have led to development of FLR Principles that call for restoration for multiple functions together, and maintenance and enhancement of native ecosystems (Box 11).

Box 11. FLR principles.

The members of the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration have re‐articulated and strengthened a streamlined set of long‐held FLR principles below (Besseau et al. 2018).

* Focus on landscapes-FLR takes place within and across entire landscapes, not individual sites, representing mosaics of interacting land uses and management practices under various tenure and governance systems. It is at this scale that ecological, social and economic priorities can be balanced.

* Engage stakeholders and support participatory governance-FLR actively engages stakeholders at different scales, including vulnerable groups, in planning and decision‐making regarding land use, restoration goals and strategies, implementation methods, benefit sharing, monitoring and review processes.

* Restore multiple functions for multiple benefits-FLR interventions aim to restore multiple ecological, social and economic functions across a landscape and generate a range of ecosystem goods and services that benefit multiple stakeholder groups.

* Maintain and enhance natural ecosystems within landscapes-FLR does not lead to the conversion or destruction of natural forests or other ecosystems. It enhances the conservation, recovery, and sustainable management of forests and other ecosystems.

* Tailor to the local context using a variety of approaches-FLR uses a variety of approaches that are adapted to the local social, cultural, economic and ecological values, needs, and landscape history. It draws on latest science and best practice, and traditional and indigenous knowledge, and applies that information in the context of local capacities and existing or new governance structures.

* Manage adaptively for long‐term resilience-FLR seeks to enhance the resilience of the landscape and its stakeholders over the medium and long‐term. Restoration approaches should enhance species and genetic diversity and be adjusted over time to reflect changes in climate and other environmental conditions, knowledge, capacities, stakeholder needs, and societal values. As restoration progresses, information from monitoring activities, research, and stakeholder guidance should be integrated into management plans.

Conclusion

The world is entering an era of ecological restoration with governments across the globe making impressive commitments to restore degraded lands and landscapes through a wide range of restorative activities including ecological restoration at both the ecosystem and landscape scale. Ecological restoration is increasingly recognized as a critical tool for mitigating and adapting to the effects of environmental disasters and the impacts of climate change. It supports a process that improves human wellbeing at individual, community, and national levels. When implemented effectively, ecological restoration can achieve profound ecosystem services benefits, ranging from the most basic needs like improving food and water security, to reducing the spread of disease, and improving individual physical, emotional, and mental health. Ecological restoration must also be integrated with conservation and sustainable production. Restoration can help us move, globally, from centuries of cumulative environmental damage, to land degradation neutrality (Box 10), and eventually to net ecological improvement. Ecological restoration therefore promises a net gain in extent and functioning of native ecosystems, together with the delivery of critical human wellbeing benefits. Achieving this requires the support of stakeholders everywhere, and a global commitment to and investment in all types of restorative activities. This investment must be based on a strong, defensible, and understandable scientific foundation, as outlined within these restoration principles and standards.

Glossary of Terms

This glossary is adapted and expanded from McDonald et al. ( 2016a, 2016b).

Abiotic : Non‐living materials and conditions within a given ecosystem, including rock, or aqueous substrate, the atmosphere, weather and climate, topographic relief and aspect, the nutrient regime, hydrological regime, fire regime, and salinity regime.

Activity: See Restoration activities , Restorative activities .

Adaptive management : An ongoing process for improving management policies and practices by applying knowledge learned through the assessment of previously employed policies and practices to future projects and programs. It is the practice of revisiting management decisions and revising them in light of new information.

Afforestation : The process of introducing forest in an area where forest did not formerly exist in the historical past.

Allied activities : Restorative practices (including environmental improvement, remediation, and rehabilitation) that reduce the causes and ongoing effects of degradation and enhance potential for ecosystem recovery.

Applied nucleation : A strategy that uses the establishment of small patches of vegetation (often trees or shrubs) or populations of animals (e.g. corals, oysters) to serve as focal areas for ecosystem recovery by enhancing colonization.

Approach (to restoration) : The generic category of treatment (e.g. natural or assisted regeneration, reconstruction).

Assisted regeneration : An approach to restoration that focuses on actively triggering any natural regeneration capacity of biota remaining on site or nearby as distinct from reintroducing the biota to the site or leaving a site to regenerate. While this approach is typically applied to sites of low to intermediate degradation, even some very highly degraded sites have proven capable of assisted regeneration given appropriate treatment and sufficient time frames. Interventions include removal of pest organisms, reapplying ecological disturbance regimes and installation of resources to prompt colonization.

Attributes : See Key ecosystem attributes .

Augment, Augmentation (of depleted populations) : (also known as enhancement, enrichment, replenishment, or restocking) adding seeds or individuals of a population to the same population, with the aim of increasing population size or genetic diversity and thereby improving viability; re‐creating a recently extirpated population with individuals propagated from that population. In common practice, populations are often augmented with material from other nearby populations, not just the same population.

Barriers (to recovery): Factors impeding recovery of an ecosystem attribute.

Baseline condition : The condition of the restoration site immediately prior to the initiation of ecological restoration activities.

Baseline inventory : An assessment of current biotic and abiotic elements of a site prior to ecological restoration, including its compositional, structural, and functional attributes. The inventory is implemented at the commencement of the restoration planning stage, along with the development of a reference model, to inform planning including restoration goals, measurable objectives, and treatment prescriptions.

Biodiversity : The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.

Carbon sequestration : The capture and long‐term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide (typically in biomass accumulation by way of photosynthesis, vegetation growth and soil organic matter buildup). This may occur naturally or be the result of actions to reduce the impacts of climate change.

Climate envelope : The climatic range in which the populations of a species are distributed. With climate change, the geographic locations of such envelopes are likely to shift.

Climate readiness : Refers to a circumstance where restored genetic material has been selected, on the basis of climate science and genetics, to improve a species' likelihood of persisting under anticipated climate change.

Cycling (ecological): The transfer (between parts of an ecosystem) of resources such as water, carbon, nitrogen, and other elements that are fundamental to all other ecosystem functions.

Damage (to ecosystem): An acute and obvious deleterious impact on an ecosystem.

Degradation (of an ecosystem): A level of deleterious human impact to ecosystems that results in the loss of biodiversity and simplification or disruption in their composition, structure, and functioning, and generally leads to a reduction in the flow of ecosystem services.

Desirable species : Species from the reference ecosystem (or sometimes nonnative nurse plants) that will enable the native ecosystem to recover. The corollary of desirable species is undesirable species, which are often but not exclusively nonnative species.

Destruction (of an ecosystem): When degradation or damage removes all macroscopic life, and commonly ruins the physical environment of an ecosystem.

Disturbance regime : The pattern, frequency, timing, or occurrence of disturbance events that are characteristic of an ecosystem over a period of time.

Ecological restoration : The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. (Ecosystem restoration is sometimes used interchangeably 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.)

Ecological restoration program : A larger composite of many restoration projects.

Ecological restoration project : Any organized effort undertaken to achieve substantial recovery of a native ecosystem, from the planning stage through implementation and monitoring. A project may require multiple agreements or funding cycles. A project may also be one of many projects in a long‐term restoration program.

Ecosystem : Assemblage of biotic and abiotic components in water bodies or on land in which the components interact to form complex food webs, nutrient cycles, and energy flows. The term ecosystem is used in the Standards to describe an ecological assemblage of any size or scale.

Ecosystem attributes: See Key ecosystem attributes .

Ecosystem integrity : The ability of an ecosystem to support and sustain characteristic ecological functioning and biodiversity (i.e. species composition and community structure). Ecological integrity can be measured as the extent that a community of native organisms is maintained.

Ecosystem maintenance : Ongoing activities, applied after full or partial recovery, intended to counteract processes of ecological degradation to sustain the attributes of an ecosystem. Higher ongoing maintenance is likely to be required at restored sites where higher levels of threats continue, compared to sites where threats have been controlled.

Ecosystem management : A management approach that relies on the integration of scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term.

Ecosystem resilience : The degree, manner and pace of recovery of ecosystem properties after natural or human disturbance. In plant and animal communities this property is highly dependent on adaptations by individual species to disturbances or stresses experienced during the species' evolution. See also Social‐ecological resilience .

Ecosystem services : The direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human wellbeing. They include production of clean soil, water, and air; moderation of climate and disease; nutrient cycling and pollination; provisioning of a range of goods useful to humans; and potential for the satisfaction of aesthetic, recreation, and other human values. These are commonly referred to as supporting, regulation, provisioning, and cultural services. Restoration goals may specifically refer to the reinstatement of particular ecosystem services or amelioration of the quality and flow of one or more services.

External exchanges : The two‐way flows that occur between ecological units within the landscape or aquatic environment including flows of energy, water, fire, genetic material, organisms, and propagules. Exchanges are facilitated by habitat linkages.

Five‐star system : A tool used to identify the level of recovery aspired to by a restoration or rehabilitation project, and to progressively evaluate and track the degree of native ecosystem recovery over time relative to the reference model. This tool also provides a means to report changes from the baseline condition relative to the reference. (Note: this system refers only to the recovery outcomes and not the restoration activities used to attain them.)

Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) : A process that aims to regain ecological functioning and enhance human wellbeing in deforested or degraded landscapes, and which can incorporate one or more allied activities alongside ecological restoration. FLR should not cause collateral damage to biodeversity.

Full recovery : The state whereby all ecosystem attributes closely resemble those of the reference ecosystem (model). It is preceded by the ecosystem exhibiting self‐organization that leads to the full resolution and maturity of ecosystem attributes. At the point of self‐organization, the restoration phase could be considered complete and management shifts to a maintenance phase.

Functional traits : Morphological, biochemical, physiological, structural, phenological, or behavioral characteristics that are expressed in phenotypes of individual organisms and are considered relevant to the response of such organisms to the environment or their effects on ecosystem properties.

Functions (of an ecosystem): The workings of an ecosystem arising from interactions and relationships between biota and abiotic elements. This includes ecosystem processes such as primary production, decomposition, nutrient cycling and transpiration and properties such as competition and resilience.

Gene flow : Exchange of genetic material between individual organisms that maintains the genetic diversity of a species' population. In nature, gene flow can be limited by lack of dispersal vectors and by topographic barriers such as mountains and rivers. In fragmented landscapes it can be limited by the separation of remnant habitats. Gene flow between introduced and native populations can have negative impacts, such inbreeding depression.

Germplasm : The various regenerative materials of plants and animals (e.g. embryos, seeds, vegetative materials) that provide a source of genetic material for future populations.

Green infrastructure : A network of natural or seminatural features (e.g. wetlands, healthy soils, and forest ecosystems, snowpack) that can help increase ecosystem services.

Inbreeding depression : The reduced biological fitness in a given population as a result of inbreeding, or breeding of related individuals.

Indicators ( of recovery): Characteristics of an ecosystem that can be used for measuring the progress toward restoration goals or objectives at a particular site (e.g. measures of presence/absence and quality of biotic or abiotic components of the ecosystem).

Intrinsic value (of ecosystems and biodiversity): The value that an entity has in itself, for what it is, or as an end. The contrasting type of value is instrumental value. Instrumental value is the value that something has as a means to a desired or valued end.

Key ecosystem attributes: Broad categories developed for restoration standards to assist practitioners with evaluating the degree to which biotic and abiotic properties and functions of an ecosystem are recovering. In this document six categories are identified: absence of threats, physical conditions, species composition, structural diversity, ecosystem function, and external exchanges. From the attainment of these attributes emerge complexity, self‐organization, resilience, and sustainability.

Landscape flows : Exchanges that occur at a level larger than individual ecosystems or sites (including within aquatic environments) and including flows of energy, water, fire, and genetic material. Exchanges are facilitated by habitat linkages.

Landscape restoration : A planned process that seeks to recover landscape‐level ecological integrity and the capacity of a landscape to provide long‐term, landscape‐specific ecosystem services essential for improving human wellbeing.

Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) : Knowledge, practices, and beliefs regarding ecological relationships that are gained through extensive personal observation of and interaction with local ecosystems, and shared among local resource users.

Local provenance area or zone : A propagule collection area within which propagule transfer is thought to likely conserve locally adapted traits.

Management (of an ecosystem): A broad categorization that can include maintenance and repair of ecosystems (including restoration).

Mandatory restoration : Restoration that is required (mandated) by government, court of law, or statutory authority, which may include some types of biodiversity offsets. In some parts of the world, mandatory restoration is included in compensatory mitigation programs.

Native ecosystem : An ecosystem comprising organisms that are known to have evolved locally or have recently migrated from neighboring localities due to changing environmental conditions including climate change. In certain circumstances, traditional cultural ecosystems or semi‐natural ecosystems are considered to be native ecosystems. Presence of nonnative species or the expansion of ruderal species in native ecosystems are forms of degradation.

Native species: Taxa considered to have their origins in a given region or that have arrived there without recent (direct or indirect) transport by humans. Among ecologists, debate exists over how precisely to define this concept.

Natural capital : Stocks of natural resources that are renewable (ecosystems, organisms), nonrenewable (petroleum, coal, minerals, etc.), replenishable (the atmosphere, potable water, fertile soils), and cultivated (landraces, heritage crops, and the know‐how attached to them), and from which flow ecosystem services.

Natural recovery potential : Capacity of ecosystem attributes to return to a site through natural regeneration. Degree of this potential in a degraded ecosystem will depend on the extent and duration of the impact and whether the impact resembles those to which the ecosystem's species have adapted over evolutionary time frames. Natural recovery potential needs to be present for application of natural regeneration or assisted regeneration approaches to ecological restoration.

Natural regeneration : Germination, birth, or other recruitment of biota including plants, animals and microbiota, that does not involve human intervention, whether arising from colonization, dispersal, or in situ processes.

Natural (or spontaneous) regeneration approach : Ecological restoration that relies only on increases in individuals following removal of causes of degradation, as distinct from an assisted regeneration approach .

Nature‐based solutions : Actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human wellbeing and biodiversity benefits.

Outbreeding depression : When offspring from crosses between individuals from different populations have lower fitness than progeny from crosses between individuals from the same population.

Over‐utilization : Any form of harvesting or exploitation of an ecosystem beyond its capacity to regenerate those resources. Examples include over‐fishing, over‐clearing, over‐grazing, and over‐burning.

Partial recovery : The state whereby some recovery has occurred, but not all ecosystem attributes closely resemble those of the reference model.

Participatory monitoring : A system that involves stakeholders from multiple levels in project design and the collection and analysis of data gathered from a given management activity that leads to improved collaborative decision‐making.

Practitioner : An individual who applies practical skills and knowledge to plan, implement and monitor ecological restoration tasks at project sites.

Productivity : The rate of generation of biomass from the growth and reproduction of plants and animals.

Propagule : Any material that functions in propagating an organism. Propagules are produced by plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms.

Reclamation : The process of making severely degraded land (e.g. former mine sites or wastelands) fit for cultivation or a state suitable for some human use. Also used to describe the formation of productive land from the sea.

Reconstruction approach : A restoration approach where arrival of the appropriate biota is entirely or almost entirely dependent upon human agency as they cannot regenerate or recolonize within feasible time frames, even after expert assisted regeneration interventions.

Recovery : The process by which an ecosystem regains its composition, structure and function relative to the levels identified for the reference ecosystem. In restoration, recovery usually is assisted by restoration activities-and recovery can be described as partial or full.

Recruitment : Production of a subsequent generation of organisms. This is measured not by numbers of new organisms alone (e.g. not every hatchling or seedling) but by the number that develop as independent individuals in the population.

Reference ecosystem : A representation of a native ecosystem that is the target of ecological restoration (as distinct from a reference site ). A reference ecosystem usually represents a nondegraded version of the ecosystem complete with its flora, fauna, and other biota, abiotic elements, functions, processes, and successional states that might have existed on the restoration site had degradation not occurred, and adjusted to accommodate changed or predicted environmental conditions

Reference model : A model that indicates the expected condition that the restoration site would have been in had it not been degraded (with respect to flora, fauna and other biota, abiotic elements, functions, processes, and successional states). This condition is not the historic condition, but rather reflects background and predicted changes in environmental conditions

Reference site : An extant intact site that has attributes and a successional phase similar to the restoration project site and that is used to inform the reference model. Ideally the reference model would include information from multiple reference sites

Regeneration: See Natural regeneration , a ssisted regeneration .

Rehabilitation : 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.

Reinforcement : The intentional movement and release of an organism into an existing population of conspecifics. Reinforcement aims to enhance population viability, for instance by increasing population size, by increasing genetic diversity, or by increasing the representation of specific demographic groups or stages. This definition is very similar to and sometimes treated as synonymous with augmentation .

Reintroduction : Returning biota to an area where it previously occurred.

Remediation : A management activity, such as the removal or detoxification of contaminates or excess nutrients from soil and water, that aims to remove sources of degradation.

Resilience : See Ecosystem resilience and Social-ecological resilience .

Restoration : See Ecological restoration .

Restoration ecology : The branch of ecological science that provides concepts, models, methodologies and tools for the practice of ecological restoration. It also benefits from direct observation of and participation in restoration practice.

Restoration activities : Any action, intervention, or treatment intended to promote the recovery of an ecosystem or component of an ecosystem, such as soil and substrate amendments, control of invasive species, habitat conditioning, species reintroductions and population reinforcements.

Restorative activities : Activities (including ecological restoration) that reduce degradation or improve conditions for the partial or full recovery of ecosystems. These are sometimes described as a "family" of inter‐related restorative activities.

Restorative continuum : A spectrum of activities that directly or indirectly support or attain at least some recovery of ecosystem attributes that have been lost or impaired. The restorative continuum includes four major categories of restorative activities that each include a further six categories of activities as explained in Principle 8.

Revegetation : Establishment, by any means, of plants on sites (including terrestrial, freshwater, and marine areas) that may or may not involve local or native species.

Rewilding : The planned reintroduction of a plant or animal species and especially a keystone species or apex predator (such as the gray wolf or lynx) into a habitat from which it has disappeared (as from hunting or habitat destruction) in an effort to increase biodiversity and restore the health of an ecosystem.

Scientific discovery : Knowledge obtained from a structured, logical approach, based on systematic observation, measurement, and the formulation, testing, and modification of ideas (hypotheses).

Seed transfer zone : A defined geographic area within which seeds are predicted to be able to be moved without adverse fitness effects.

Selfing : Self‐fertilization; self‐pollination.

Semi‐natural ecosystem : In the European Union (EU) legal context, biodiverse ecological assemblages created by human activities (e.g. grazed or mowed alpine meadows). They have evolved under traditional agricultural, pastoral, or other human activities that can be centuries old and depend on traditional management for their characteristic composition, structure, and function. These ecosystems are highly valued for their biodiversity and ecosystem services, and can be a reference for ecological restoration. Examples include alpine and lowland meadows, heathlands, chalk grasslands, coppice forests, wood pastures, and grazing marshes. They differ from "cultural ecosystems," as defined by the EU, created to provide ecosystem services, but that result in degraded ecosystems with lower biodiversity values. Examples include arable fields, species‐poor agricultural grasslands, mineral extraction areas, and urban landscapes with city parks. They are not appropriate as a reference for ecological restoration, but can be the starting point for ecological restoration or rehabilitation. In this sense, semi‐natural ecosystem has roughly the same meaning as high quality traditional cultural ecosystem in the Standards.

Self‐organizing : A state whereby all the necessary elements are present, and the ecosystem's attributes can continue to develop toward the appropriate reference state without outside assistance. Self‐organization is evidenced by patterns and processes such as growth, reproduction, ratios between producers, herbivores, and predators and niche differentiation, relative to characteristics of the reference ecosystem. It does not readily apply to the restoration of traditional cultural ecosystems.

Site : Discrete area or location. Can occur at different scales but is generally at the patch or property scale (i.e. smaller than a landscape).

South-south cooperation : A broad framework for collaboration among countries of the Southern Hemisphere in the political, economic, social, cultural, environmental, and technical domains. Involving two or more developing countries, it can take place on a bilateral, regional, subregional, or interregional basis.

Social-ecological resilience : The capacity of a complex social-ecological system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change such that it retains similar function, structure, identity, and feedbacks. It is a measure of the extent to which a complex social-ecological system can adapt and persist in the face of threats and stresses.

Social-ecological system : Complex, integrated and linked systems of people and nature, emphasizing that humans are a part of nature.

Spatial patterning : The spatial structure of ecosystem components (in vertical or horizontal plane) that arises due to differences in substrate, topography, hydrology, vegetation, disturbance regimes, or other factors.

Species : Used here as a generic term to represent a species or infraspecific taxon, even if not formally described by science.

Stakeholders : The people and organizations who are involved in or affected by an action or policy and can be directly or indirectly included in the decision‐making process; in environmental and conservation planning, stakeholders typically include government representatives, businesses, scientists, landowners, and local users of natural resources.

Stratum, strata : Vegetation layer or layers in an ecosystem; often referring to vertical layering such as trees, shrubs and herbaceous layers.

Substrate : The soil, sand, rock, shell, debris or other medium where organisms grow and ecosystems develop.

Substantial recovery : The level of recovery aimed for if a project is to be called an ecological restoration project. This level of recovery cannot be tightly linked to a particular recovery metric (although a mid‐point recovery level, would be a reasonable minimum criterion) because the value of a restoration project can be influenced by the ecological importance of the ecosystem and the scale of the project.

Succession (ecological): The process or pattern of replacement or development of an ecosystem after disturbance.

Sustainable multifunctional landscapes : Landscapes created and managed to integrate human production and landscape use into the ecological fabric of a landscape maintaining critical ecosystem function, service flows and biodiversity retention.

Target : The specific ecological and social outcomes sought at the end of the project, including the native ecosystem to be restored.

Threat : A factor potentially or already causing degradation, damage or destruction.

Threshold (ecological): A point at which a small change in environmental or biophysical conditions causes a shift in an ecosystem to a different ecological state. Once one or more ecological thresholds have been crossed, an ecosystem may not easily return to its previous state or trajectory without major human interventions, or at all if the threshold is irreversible.

Traditional cultural ecosystems : Ecosystems that have developed under the joint influence of natural processes and human‐imposed organization to provide composition, structure, and functioning more useful to human exploitation. Those considered high quality examples of native ecosystems can function as reference models for ecological restoration, whereas others converted primarily to nonnative species or are otherwise degraded do not function as reference models for ecological restoration. See also Semi‐natural ecosystem .

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) : Knowledge and practices learned from experience and observation, and passed from generation to generation informed by strong cultural memories, sensitivity to change, and values that include reciprocity.

Trajectory (ecological): A course or pathway of an ecosystem's condition (i.e. structure and function) over time. It may entail degradation, stasis, adaptation to changing environmental conditions, or response to ecological restoration - ideally leading to recovery of lost integrity and resilience.

Translocation : The intentional transporting (by humans) of organisms to a different part of a given landscape or aquatic environment or to more distant areas. The purpose is generally to conserve an endangered species, subspecies or population.

Trophic levels : Stages in food webs (e.g. producers, herbivores, predators, and decomposers).

Wellbeing : A context‐and situation‐dependent state of humans, comprising basic material for a good life, freedom and choice, health, good social relations and security.

Acknowledgments

M.R.G. acknowledges funding from the CGIAR Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry. J.L. acknowledges the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41625001) and the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (grant no. XDA20060402). K.W.D. received funding from the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre for Mine Site Restoration (project number ICI150100041). The Society for Ecological Restoration received funding support for graphics design and development from Temper of the Times Foundation.

1 Terms in boldface are defined in the Glossary section.

2 In contrast, ecosystems that do not exhibit successional phases will not require sequential references-e.g. the hyper‐diverse Cape Floral Kingdom of southern Africa and the Southwest Australian biodiversity hotspots that contain old, stable, ecosystems developed on infertile substrates.

3 For plants, we refer to seeds as the primary propagules used in restoration, but sometimes seeds are not used. Some plants produce very few seeds and are propagated more often by cuttings, divisions, or micropropagation. While the genetic principles regarding provenancing are similar regardless of propagule type, it is important to remember that genetic diversity is limited when vegetative propagation methods are used and this might affect a population's ability to respond to future adaptive challenges. This general principle is also true for some animals, such as corals, or fungi, where pieces of individuals or colonies are used as propagules in place of spores, eggs, or other modes of sexual reproduction.

Appendix 1

Selection of seeds and other propagules for restoration

This appendix is adapted and expanded from McDonald et al. (2016a). While there are many considerations to be made when deciding on the selection of plant seeds and other propagules (e.g. vegetative material, spores, eggs, live young) for restoration projects, genetic considerations can be paramount to ensure the resulting populations successfully reproduce and persist. These considerations are particularly important in fragmented landscapes, especially under climate change.

Genetic considerations for sourcing seeds or other propagules

Restoration practitioners have widely adopted the concept of confining propagule collection to a local provenance area or seed‐transfer zone to ensure that propagules selected for restoration are locally adapted. However, the protocol of only collecting propagules very close to the restoration site is now considered an inappropriate interpretation of local provenance, as geographic distance may not be a good measure of ecological differences among sites. That is, many practitioners now understand that the degree of local adaptation varies by species, population, and habitat (Gibson et al. 2016), and a "local" genotype may occur over narrow or broad areas (i.e. from 10s to 100s of km ²), depending on the species and its biology. For example, annual plants that are highly selfing with gravity‐dispersed seed and historically occurring in discrete, isolated populations are predicted to have more restricted local ranges than plants with wind, water, or animal‐dispersed seed, especially those that have experienced recent range expansion (Hufford & Mazer 2003; Broadhurst et al. 2008). Furthermore, in a largely degraded landscape, small fragments are at risk of elevated inbreeding when populations drop below species‐specific threshold numbers. Because inbreeding depression may reduce the function and adaptation of populations, it is generally best to collect propagules from larger, higher‐density populations. This means that in fragmented landscapes where populations are smaller, less dense and more isolated, collecting propagules from wider distances and multiple sources (and potentially multiplying them in production areas) may be necessary to capture sufficient genetic diversity and sufficient propagules to rebuild functional, resilient communities.

When sourcing propagules more widely, one must consider the risks of outbreeding depression . Although not as common as inbreeding depression , it can occur when species from genetically divergent populations are crossed. In some cases, fitness loss is due to a loss of local adaptation. If the parents are adapted to different conditions, the resulting offspring may be poorly adapted to either parental site. In other cases, co‐adapted gene complexes can be broken up, resulting in fitness loss (Rogers & Montalvo 2004). Outbreeding depression can be particularly severe in plants when populations of different ploidy (the number of chromosomes in the cells) are combined in restorations or in seed‐production areas. Ploidy differences are relatively common in both Poaceae and Asteraceae-two families used widely in restoration (Kramer et al. 2018) and populations with differing ploidy levels can be found in close proximity (Gibson et al. 2017). Because populations of different ploidy should not be mixed in nursery production or restoration, testing via flow cytometry may be required to determine a population's ploidy levels prior to mixing, if a mixing strategy is desired. Outbreeding depression in animals has not been as widely identified as in plants, but it exists (e.g. Sagvik et al. 2005; Huff et al. 2011).

Propagule sourcing and climate change

The climate range in which a species currently exists is known as its climate "niche" or "envelope." As the climate changes, this climate envelope is likely to uncouple from a species' current range and, where conditions become hotter, may move further poleward or to higher elevations. Climate envelopes may also be affected by changes in rainfall with areas becoming drier or wetter. However, because precipitation is likely to change in less predictable ways than temperature, it is likely that the displacement of climate envelopes will be more complex. These changes may also affect individual populations of a species at differential rates.

Although many species have endured climate changes in the past, the rate of current climate change, as well as fragmentation and anthropogenic barriers to migration, are unprecedented and challenge species survival. We cannot precisely predict the type and scale of risks that ecosystems face because only a small proportion of species have been individually studied. We know that some species or populations may be lost from their current locations, with some becoming locally or regionally extinct due to barriers to migration and other factors. Others will colonize new areas, altering local species assemblages. Some may have sufficient "adaptive plasticity" to persist as climates change, as has been demonstrated from translocation experiments. That is, an individual plant may be able to adjust its form by mechanisms such as reducing its leaf size, increasing leaf thickness or altering flowering and emergence times. Animals may alter feeding choices (e.g. omnivorous bear species switching foods to plants more resilient to climate change). Generalist species of fauna will generally survive climate change better than specialist species. In most cases, persistence may depend on a species' capacity for adaptation, which in turn depends on the size and genetic diversity of individual populations.

Many factors will influence a species' ability to adapt to new conditions or to migrate, including patterns of gene flow, geographic distribution of the species, the heterogeneity of the habitat and climate where the species occurs, and other biotic and abiotic factors, including whether the species is an early successional or late successional species. Species of flora or fauna that have large populations, high genetic diversity, long‐distance gene flow, and naturally high reproductive and dispersal capabilities may have a higher chance of adapting or migrating as their climate envelope moves. Conversely, species or populations with less genetic diversity and low dispersal capabilities that occur in isolated patches or that have become isolated through anthropogenic disturbance may be less able to adapt or migrate in response to climate change.

Landscape history also plays a role in the likelihood of adaptation. For example, for some highly biodiverse "old, climatically buffered infertile" landscapes (or "OCBILs" sensu Hopper 2009), there is every likelihood that species have resisted climate impacts from multiple climate shifts without glaciation. As a result, species have persisted on these landscapes over geological time through adaptation to moisture and temperature fluctuations. Therefore, in OCBILs such as much of Australia and southern Africa, species exhibit a high level of pre‐adaptation to climate swings. Extinction and local extirpation of species in OCIBIL landscapes are more often due to fragmentation and habitat loss. In contrast, in temperate regions many species are adapted to long‐distance migration, such as occurred following deglaciation.

Tools and Future Directions

Protocols for the selection of propagules to enhance a species' adaptive potential in restoration projects are being developed. Restoration activities to enhance adaptive potential may be unnecessary in large, intact habitats because of high connectivity among populations. Actions to assist genetic adaptation will likely be beneficial for fragmented landscapes or those likely to become fragmented due to climate change. Although the local gene pool will play a major role in adaptation, it may be prudent to include some germplasm of the same species from a predicted "future climate"-that is, a region with a climate similar to that predicted for the area being restored. Suggestions for sourcing plant seeds either conservatively or when a more expansive approach is appropriate are provided in Table A1. Researchers are encouraged to design protocols for trials or formal experiments integrated into low‐risk restoration settings.

More conservative/local propagule sourcing

Species characteristics

More relaxed/longer distance propagule sourcing

Habitat characteristics

Tools are available to help restoration planners undertake climate readiness analysis at the planning stage. First, restoration practitioners are encouraged to seek predictions of climate‐change effects on ecosystems where they work. Second, practitioners are encouraged to seek further information and collaborate with researchers to gain a better understanding of predicted responses of species to fragmentation and climate change and to identify the relative risks of options relating to the deliberate movement of genetic material in restoration projects. For plants, common‐garden studies are key to understanding the risks and benefits of plant‐material movement. Third, web‐based tools are becoming increasingly accessible in some countries for identifying whether the species, or population, currently occurring near the restoration site will still be suited to climates predicted to occur at the site in the future. In North America, the Seedlot Selection Tool ( https://seedlotselectiontool.org/sst/) is proving very useful for plants, and in Australia, the Atlas of Living Australia website ( www.ala.org.au) can help practitioners identify the natural geographic range of a species and whether it may have potential to tolerate the conditions predicted to occur under climate change scenarios, which themselves are mapped on the website www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au (see Booth et al. 2012).

Many restoration projects are already sourcing plant seeds from more distant provenances, often with climate change in mind. Proposed propagule sourcing strategies to build climate‐readiness into restoration through ensuring genetic diversity include: relaxed local provenancing (Kaye 2001); composite provenancing (Broadhurst et al. 2008); admixture provenancing (Breed et al. 2013); predictive provenancing (e.g. Crowe & Parker 2008); and climate‐adjusted provenancing (Prober et al. 2015; Fig. A1). Descriptions of each strategy along with the benefits, risks, and most appropriate uses are in Table A2. Application of any such strategy should be undertaken only when justified, supported by sound science within a risk‐management framework that considers the potential negative effects of inbreeding and outbreeding depression. It should also include long‐term monitoring (i.e. at least a decade) to record lessons to be shared with both practitioners and scientists.

Propagule sourcing type

Definition

Benefits

Risks

Best Used When

Strict local provenancing

Using propagule only from the site where restoration is occurring or populations within normal gene flow distance

Little risk of maladaptation (at least short term)

Narrow genetic base

Possible inbreeding

Genetic drift

Lack of adaptive potential

Disturbance is minimal

Large local population present at or adjacent to restoration

Predicted distribution change is low

Relaxed local provenancing

Mixing propagules from geographically close populations with a focus on matching environment of source and recipient sites

Little risk of maladaptation (at least short term)

Avoids inbreeding

Increases adaptive potential

Composite provenancing

Mixing propagules from populations of close and intermediate distance (or environmental match) to mimic long distance gene flow

Disturbance is minimal

Fragmentation is high

Predicted distribution change is moderate

Admixture provenancing

Mixing propagules from many populations of varying distances throughout the range of the species

Highest adaptive potential

Largest risk of maladaptation

Outbreeding depression

Possibly invasive genotypes

Predictive provenancing

Using genotypes adapted to predicted conditions (e.g. 2050 climate projections) based on models and transplant experiments

Deals best with changing conditions, if predictions are correct

Practitioners designing planting lists need to bear in mind, however, that it is impossible to be certain of the changes that will occur. Different species and populations will respond to climate change in different ways and currently there is no reliable or easy way to predict this. Furthermore, temperature and rainfall are not the only important predictors. A range of physical (e.g. substrates) and biological factors (e.g. dispersal)-which themselves may or may not be affected by a changing climate-can also have important roles in influencing the distribution of a species. While some caution will always be required, an empirical approach of testing different provenancing approaches in many areas around the world will help determine best practices. Every restoration project can be an experiment if good records are maintained and results are monitored and shared. Such an approach could improve restoration practices in the future.

Restoring Connectivity and Assisting Migration

Appendix 2

Blank project evaluation templates (for practitioner use)

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 24

Dominic McAfee, Ian M. McLeod, Lisa Boström‐Einarsson, Chris L. Gillies, The value and opportunity of restoring Australia's lost rock oyster reefs, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13125, 2, (304-314), 28,

Maxime Tisserant, Philippe Janssen, André Evette, Eduardo González, Paul Cavaillé, Monique Poulin, Diversity and succession of riparian plant communities along riverbanks bioengineered for erosion control: a case study in the foothills of the Alps and the Jura Mountains, Ecological Engineering, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105880, (105880), 152,

James G. Hallett, Samira A. S. Omar, Restoration ecology of arid lands (RE‐AL), Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13214, S1, (A3-A4), 28,

Marianne Evju, Dagmar Hagen, Magni O. Kyrkjeeide, Berit Köhler, Learning from scientific literature: Can indicators for measuring success be standardized in "on the ground" restoration?, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13149, 3, (519-531), 28,

Pedro León‐Lobos, Marcela A. Bustamante‐Sánchez, Cara R. Nelson, Diego Alarcón, Rodrigo Hasbún, Michael Way, Hugh W. Pritchard, Juan J. Armesto, Lack of adequate seed supply is a major bottleneck for effective ecosystem restoration in Chile: friendly amendment to Bannister et al. (2018), Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13113, 2, (277-281), 28,

What is the value of wild animal welfare for restoration ecology?, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13114, 2, (267-270), 28,

Mark R. Bachmann, The role of historical sources in the restoration of Long Swamp, Discovery Bay, Victoria, Ecological Management & Restoration, 10.1111/emr.12401, 1, (14-25), 21,

David Moreno-Mateos, Antton Alberdi, Elly Morriën, Wim H. van der Putten, Asun Rodríguez-Uña, Daniel Montoya, The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 10.1038/s41559-020-1154-1,

Feeding the Future with the Past: Incorporating Local Ecological Knowledge in River Restoration, Resources, 10.3390/resources9040047, 4, (47), 9,

Mangrove Rehabilitation and Restoration as Experimental Adaptive Management, Frontiers in Marine Science, 10.3389/fmars.2020.00327, 7,

Sophie L. Cross, Michael D. Craig, Sean Tomlinson, Kingsley W. Dixon, Philip W. Bateman, Using monitors to monitor ecological restoration: Presence may not indicate persistence, Austral Ecology, 10.1111/aec.12905, 0, 0,

Hansol Lee, Ji Hong An, Hyun Chul Shin, Chang Seok Lee, Assessment of Restoration Effects and Invasive Potential Based on Vegetation Dynamics of Pitch Pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) Plantation in Korea, Forests, 10.3390/f11050568, 5, (568), 11,

Foreword: International Standards for Native Seeds in Ecological Restoration, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13173, 0, 0,

Teresa Mexia, Cristina Antunes, Alice Nunes, António Mira, Ana I. Correia, Artur Serrano, Otília Correia, Beyond the green: assessing quarry restoration success through plant and beetle communities, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.13122, 0, 0,

José Ricardo Pires Adelino, Larissa Corsini Calsavara, Guilherme Willrich, Gabriel Lima Medina Rosa, Marcos Robalinho Lima, Luiz dos Anjos, Ecosystem functions of birds as a tool to track restoration efficiency in Brazil, Ornithology Research, 10.1007/s43388-020-00008-z,

Chaowei Zhou, Bojie Fu, Xiaofeng Wang, Lichang Yin, Xiaoming Feng, The regional impact of ecological restoration in the arid steppe on dust reduction over the metropolitan area in Northeastern China, Environmental Science & Technology, 10.1021/acs.est.0c00017,

Robin L. Chazdon, Victoria Gutierrez, Pedro H. S. Brancalion, Lars Laestadius, Manuel R. Guariguata, Co-Creating Conceptual and Working Frameworks for Implementing Forest and Landscape Restoration Based on Core Principles, Forests, 10.3390/f11060706, 6, (706), 11,

Truman P. Young, Mark W. Schwartz, The Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is an impetus to get it right, Conservation Science and Practice, 10.1111/csp2.145, 12, 1,

We have a long way to go if we want to realize the promise of the "Decade on Ecosystem Restoration", Conservation Science and Practice, 10.1111/csp2.129, 12, 1,

Multi-Sensor UAV Tracking of Individual Seedlings and Seedling Communities at Millimetre Accuracy, Drones, 10.3390/drones3040081, 4, (81), 3,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author contributions: GDG, TM, BW coordinated production of the document and solicited reviews of the first edition and subsequent drafts. GDG, TM, BW, JA, CRN, JJ, JGH, CE, MRG, JL, FH, CE, EG, and KWD wrote sections of the text. JGH edited and revised the document. NS and KD clarified sections of the text.