Restoration

We are missing information on the restoration outcomes, effectives and trensd. This comes from the fact that restoration actions are applied by difefrent parties, in different scale, for different objectives. In many case they are not even called restoration - but sustainable development, greening , climate adaptations, improvment of social structures and wellbeeing  etc. We estimate that most likel 2/3 or more of actions that are in fact contributing to restoring bioiversity, restoring ecosystem functoning or restoring ecosystem services (selected functions of ecosystem) are not easy to detect - because they are not caaled or classified as such, and they may happen in an unusual sectors.

The next problem is that great majority of the restoration actions is not monitored - these are not only small initaieves that are not even recorded on the local or regional level - but even a larger initiaties are not documented in a reliable manner. Sometimes there is a monitoring of an effort (related to the obligatory monitoeing of e.g. how the fund were spent), but a hard data of the phisical results are non existant. Very few project have eg monitoring of pre - and post restoration - which was established before hand and includes some standarised parameters . There are no overviews thus of how much restoration is going on, in what ecosystems (taking place and what are the ontentions to achieve), with what results. This make it virtually impossible to make an large scale evaluation. When information about the fact of restoration is present - its difficult to find a realiable monitoring data to evaluate how successful it is - so to measure it it in a quantitative way and use the parameters that can say something about the rate of processes or trends in ecoystem processes (anythng that can be lined with ecosystem functions and services). A problem here is often that the measurments are relatively expensive - require field data , or lab analyses or involvement of the specialists. This increases the costs of the monitoring. It should be however noted that in many cases if the budget for moniting and research is reserved as a fraction of the budget of entire project (2% or 5% , maybe even 10%) -  it usually results in a large improvments of the results , sometimes helps to actually adjust the approach, avoid fauilure or even reduce the overall costs (by eg skipping part of the project that seems not to be working). This is only possible if adaptative managment is used (formulate goal - choose methods, apply, monitor, evaluate, adjuste, reformulate the goal etc) . If data are collected in a comprihensive and coherent way - this ontribute to development of knowledge and knowledge - based restoration, which results in betere and cheeper  outcomes.   

Quite often the recent and present knowldge  is not used, and application or monitoring is done by non-specialists. This results in try- and - error restoration , instead of knowledge-based solutions; in narrow - minded sectoral thinking and not interdisciplinary and open approach ( offering cheaper, nature friendly solutions or providing more then one benefit ).  Deploying the knowledge and using the existing expertise would give an opportunity to a large leap forward. This requires an open, curious and flexible mind for governers, funders, practitioners, researchers, anybody involved really - accepting that what we 'did always' is possibly not the best option (sometimes it still is, or just removing degradation factor and doing noting is the best option) and daring to take risks, daring to make mistakes and most of it  - daring to learn form or mistakes. 

A realted issue is, that even if such information is present , it covers very short time after restoration -  mostly between 1 to 3 years (overlaps with commonly required 'showing succes' regulations or with period of phd study). A long term monitoring data (5 - 10 yr or more) of restoration projects are hardly present - and , at least for some ecosystems, are depending on enthusiasm of volunteers. This is strikng as for the most ecosystems, the manipulation doen by restoration can only be epected to make a difference after several years (and the time depends on the ecosystem). As a rule , for ecosystem that I work with (wetlands and peatlands, groundwater dependent ecosystems), the time of 5-10 yr is minimum to actuall be able to judge about the restoration outcomes. This comes from varous ecological and phisical processes and can not not be speed up.  

A follow up managment is often forgoten in restoration projects - in many cases its not foreseen in the project and the outcomes of restoration may higly depend on long, conseuent, adaptive follow-up care (sometimes 'intensive care') . this is however not includede in the one-time application plan. There are no means or no commitments for it. There we come bace to the soical issues.

Another issue is that even if an evaluation go of the biodiversity (or biodiversity prospect ) is possible - the monitoring is often set up with the focus only on nature or productivity isses and rarly includes a multiple parameters - that woudl be needed to evaluate multiple ecosstem functions. Even less often we see studies that show a combination of biological - phisical aspects, social aspects (including helth and well beeing ) and economical aspects . This type of studies are often done in different context and set up so combining such data is impossible.

Data easly found in literature or in a few existing sectoral overviews tends to be biased. Of course - reserachers are eager to publish positive results , thats what is in a way 'preffered' and priced (by getting your srtical publised or getting the next funding). Also organisations, founders and goverments are interested to show the success stories, and stress the positive results. The promotion material should not be mistaken for monitoring results and base for evaluations (note - there is nothing wrong with good PR).  This ends up with a great successes case studeis - and general siliance about half- half results or failures. From the point of researcher - this does not give a good base for evaluation of restoration on a meta-level. Also the acknowleding of the negative results and actually exploring the reasons is the only way to learn from it and help to improve a=or understand better what we are doing.

Last but not least - we need to be aware of the scale of the project and the ongoing processe which define the context of the restoration. In most of the cases in Europe we have a highly modified landscapes (sometimes for centuries) - partially or highly degraded ecosystems (eg inensivelly used ) . The degradation factors and threats are not canceled and continue to work - as they are processes taking place on larger scale and in long time (eg. air pollution, eutrophication, acidification, decline n biodiversity, increasing preassure form invasive species, continous drainage of land, climate change,   etc etc ) . when a restoration takes place in the context of such landscape and its a restoration on a limited scale - it will still be higly impacted by the degradation proceses. This may lead to a failure of the project or that it does not work the way it was desired (not fully optimal ). Most of the ecosystems are placed and functioning in a matrix of relationships (ecoloigcal processes) in a landscape context. Valleys are connected with the uplands through water cycling , erosion upland will couse sedimentation in the deeps, acidification causes leaching of elements to groundwater etc. Restoration site should not be seen as independent object. Monitoring shoudl somehow take this int account.

all this comments are based on my work in the field of rsearch Restoration Ecology and several projects which evaluates the policy- relevant aspects , Agata Klimkowska, PhD.

see eg. publications Klimkowska et al, or  Promotion of ecosystem restoration in the context of the EU biodiversity Strategy to 2020, final report

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/strategy/target2/index_en.htm