Professional certification in ecological restoration: improving the practice and the profession

Given increasing investments in ecological restoration around the globe, there is a need to develop standards of practice to improve professional training and encourage the highest quality of performance possible. Although professional certification is a mechanism for promoting and improving the profession, until now certification has not been available to individuals who practice ecological restoration. The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) is launching a professional certification program in early 2017. The program requires professional experience, a knowledge base in five broad subject areas, understanding of the foundations of the profession, and adherence to a code of ethics. The SER certification program will certify both practitioners (Certified Ecological Restoration Practitioners [CERPs]) and practitioners‐in‐training (Certified Ecological Restoration Practitioners‐in‐training [CERPITs]).     

Rays of Hope from the Ecological Restoration Alliance of Botanic Gardens,following its recent meeting in Amman,Jordan

In the spring of 2015, the Ecological Restoration Alliance (ERA) of Botanic Gardens held its fourth international meeting in Amman, Jordan, hosted by the Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan. Three regional working groups were launched, for the Middle East, East Africa, and Latin America, and new partnerships were forged to support ecological restoration initiatives led by botanic gardens in Jordan, Oman, and elsewhere. A one‐day public symposium, attended by over 100 people, was also held—the most significant public meeting on ecological restoration held to date in the Middle East. A communications strategy for regional outreach was agreed upon starting with the translation of several Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) foundation documents into Arabic. A peer‐reviewed translation of the SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration has already been produced by staff of the Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan and posted on the SER website. Further efforts will be made to promote public awareness in Jordan and regionally, in support of existing conservation and restoration programs, and to promote greater integration of ecological restoration programs in national and regional development schemes and government policies. Key action points were agreed upon to promote the practice of ecological restoration and the role of botanic gardens globally vis‐à‐vis policy makers and funders.     

Primed for Change: Developing Ecological Restoration for the 21st Century

Restoration is a young and swiftly developing field. It has been almost a decade since the inception of one of the field's foundational documents—the Society for Ecological Restoration International Primer on Ecological Restoration (Primer). Through a series of organized discussions, we assessed the Primer for its currency and relevance in the modern field of ecological restoration. We focused our assessment on the section entitled “The Nine Attributes of a Restored Ecosystem” and grouped each of the attributes into one of four categories: species composition, ecosystem function, ecosystem stability, and landscape context. We found that in the decade since the document's inception, the concepts, methods, goals, and thinking of ecological restoration have shifted significantly. We discuss each of the four categories in this light with the aim of offering comments and suggestions on options for updating the Primer. We also include a fifth category that we believe is increasingly acknowledged in ecological restoration: the human element. The Primer is an important document guiding the practice of restoration. We hope that this critical assessment contributes to its ongoing development and relevance and more generally to the development of restoration ecology, particularly in our current era of rapid environmental change.     

Promoting ecological restoration in France: issues and solutions

Ecological restoration has developed greatly over recent decades. Promoting harmonious relationships between scientists and practitioners, between restoration ecology and ecological restoration, is essential to improving restoration projects. These relationships are difficult to achieve at a global scale, although international action remains essential. Therefore, regional and national networks are attempting to take up the challenge. With several European countries planning to create their own network in the coming years, insights from current practice are helpful. Here, we (1) describe the context in which ecological restoration is developing in France and (2) present the French restoration network, Réseau d'Echanges et de Valorisation en Ecologie de la Restauration (REVER). Most public policies related to restoration in France are derived from European Union (EU) directives, such as those on water, ecological networks, biodiversity, and protected species and natural habitat. Restoration can also be undertaken through Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or subsequent to damage. Following the model of the International Society for Ecological Restoration, the French network for ecological restoration (REVER) aims at accompanying and promoting restoration by facilitating relationships between the various stakeholders: practitioners, scientists, site managers, etc. To encourage exchange of knowledge and experience, REVER manages a website, organizes workshops, and provides links with SER‐Europe and Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI). This article provides information that will be of interest to other countries trying to meet the Aichi targets of the convention on biological diversity: the restoration of 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020.     

On principles and standards in ecological restoration

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) has long debated how to define best practices. We argue that a principles‐first approach offers more flexibility for restoration practitioners than a standards‐based approach, is consistent with the developmental stage of restoration, and functions more effectively at a global level. However, the solution is not as simple as arguing that one approach to professional practice is sufficient. Principles and standards can and do operate effectively together, but only if they are coordinated in a transparent and systematic way. Effective professional guidance results when standards anchored by principles function in a way that is contextual and evolving. Without that clear relation to principles, the tendency to promote performance standards may lead to a narrowing of restoration practice and reduction in the potential to resolve very difficult and diverse ecological and environmental challenges. We offer recommendations on how the evolving project of restoration policy by SER and other agencies and organizations can remain open and flexible.     

The rise of the Brazilian Network for Ecological Restoration (REBRE): what Brazilian restorationists have learned from networking

As ecological restoration is gaining importance worldwide, researchers, practitioners, and interested people are beginning to self‐organize, in order to exchange knowledge and experiences in this growing area. Latin America has recently shown some examples, and the Brazilian Network for Ecological Restoration (REBRE) is one of them. Working on a nonhierarchical basis, its members, some of whom are important actors in the proposing and implementing of public policies, are able to freely express their doubts and share experiences, thereby contributing to legislative improvements, developing relevant restoration initiatives, and adopting novel approaches and paradigms. Through its three main communication platforms (website, Google Groups, and Facebook), REBRE has reached more than 2,300 members, and although a more equitable distribution through Brazilian regions should still be reached, it is gradually becoming stronger and more representative. In this scenario, REBRE will act with its branch organization, SOBRE (Brazilian Society for Ecological Restoration), to host the next Society for Ecological Restoration Conference, to be held in Brazil, in 2017, exchanging relevant experiences and welcoming restorationists from all over the world.     

What about cultural ecosystems? Opportunities for cultural considerations in the “International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration”

The Society for Ecological Restoration's 2016 (SER) “International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration” is a living document intended to guide restoration projects “anywhere in the world.” Given its intended global scope and in hopes of informing future editions, this document is critically assessed in light of the role people have played in ecosystems around the world. We argue that the Standards has an underlying nature–culture dichotomization that limits its applicability; in qualifying what it calls “cultural ecosystems” for rehabilitation, rather than restoration, the Standards privileges colonial visions of ecological restoration. We also discuss the Standards' representation of the ecological impacts and practices of indigenous groups. Whereas the Standards claims that preindustrial cultural ecosystems exist in states similar to unmodified areas, many historians, anthropologists, and paleoecologists would point out that preindustrial people sometimes had massive environmental impacts through agriculture, hydrological engineering, over‐hunting, living in dense urban environments, transporting species, burning on a scale capable of changing the climate, and other practices. Furthermore, the Standards does not discuss how the cultural goals of indigenous groups fit into the overall picture of ecological restoration. Future drafts of the Standards should more accurately frame the diverse roles people play in nature, and create global standards that account for the validity of cultural goals for ecological restoration.     

The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al.

In response to a critique by Higgs et al., this article clarifies the content and intent of the Society for Ecological Restoration's (SER) International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Higgs et al. expressed concern that the SER Standards are not sufficiently underpinned by principles and risk disenfranchising some practitioners by narrowing what qualifies as ecological restoration. To demonstrate that these concerns are unfounded, we discuss the policy context and principles on which the Standards are based, its organizational structure, the innovative and inclusive approach used for development, and highlight significant errata by Higgs et al.     

The evolution of Society for Ecological Restoration's principles and standards—counter‐response to Gann et al.

In response to our recent article (Higgs et al. 2018) in these pages, George Gann and his coauthors defended the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Standards, clarified several points, and introduced some new perspectives. We offer this counter‐response to address some of these perspectives. More than anything, our aims are in sharpening the field of restoration in a time of rapid scaling‐up of interest and effort, and support further constructive dialogue going forward. Our perspective remains that there is an important distinction needed between “Standards” and “Principles” that is largely unheeded by Gann et al. (2018). We encourage SER to consider in future iterations of its senior policy document to lean on principles first, and then to issue advice on standards that meet the needs of diverse conditions and social, economic, and political realities.     

The SER primer and climate change

The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration provides a succinct introduction to, and overview of, the rapidly growing field of ecological restoration. The Primer was issued initially in 2002 by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) and reissued verbatim 2 years later in a more attractive format ( http://www.ser.org/resources;resources-detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-ecological-restoration ). A SER committee recently began deliberations to update the Primer, and much discussion is underway. As two of the Primer's principal authors, we were invited to share our views on how the Primer can be advantageously revised in the light of any changes or new insights since 2002. In particular, we were asked how the Primer might be modified to reflect the ways that ecological restoration address conservation issues raised by climate change and other rapid environmental shifts and global changes. We also touch on questions relating to the benefits of ecological restoration to human society, as this is an area where the Primer needs sharper focus. We have structured the following in a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ format to highlight issues raised in the recent literature and to focus attention on other issues that merit consideration in the Primer revision process.     

A world of possibilities: six restoration strategies to support the United Nation's Decade on Ecosystem Restoration

Ecological restoration is practiced worldwide as a direct response to the degradation and destruction of ecosystems. In addition to its ecological impact it has enormous potential to improve population health, socioeconomic well‐being, and the integrity of diverse national and ethnic cultures. In recognition of the critical role of restoration in ecosystem health, the United Nations (UN) declared 2021–2030 as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. We propose six practical strategies to strengthen the effectiveness and amplify the work of ecological restoration to meet the aspirations of the Decade: (1) incorporate holistic actions, including working at effective scale; (2) include traditional ecological knowledge (TEK); (3) collaborate with allied movements and organizations; (4) advance and apply soil microbiome science and technology; (5) provide training and capacity‐building opportunities for communities and practitioners; and (6) study and show the relationships between ecosystem health and human health. We offer these in the hope of identifying possible leverage points and pathways for collaborative action among interdisciplinary groups already committed to act and support the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Collectively, these six strategies work synergistically to improve human health and also the health of the ecosystems on which we all depend, and can be the basis for a global restorative culture.     

International principles and standards for native seeds in ecological restoration

The growing demand for native seeds in ecological restoration and rehabilitation, whether for mining, forest, or ecosystem restoration, has resulted in a major global industry in the sourcing, supply, and sale of native seeds. However, there are no international guidance documents for ensuring that native seeds have the same standards of quality assurance that are regular practice in the crop and horticultural industries. Using the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration as a foundation document, we provide for the first time a synthesis of general practices in the native seed supply chain to derive the Principles and Standards for Native Seeds in Ecological Restoration (“Standards”). These practices and the underpinning science provide the basis for developing quality measures and guidance statements that are adaptable at the local, biome, or national scale. Importantly, these Standards define what is considered native seed in ecological restoration and highlight the differences between native seeds versus seeds of improved genetics. Seed testing approaches are provided within a logical framework that outline the many different dormancy states in native seed that can confound restoration outcomes. A “pro‐forma” template for a production label is included as a practical tool that can be customized for local needs and to standardize reporting to end‐users on the level of seed quality and germinability to be expected in a native seed batch. These Standards are not intended to be mandatory; however, the guidance statements provide the foundation upon which regulatory approaches can be developed by constituencies and jurisdictions.     

Insights from a Cross‐Disciplinary Seminar: 10 Pivotal Papers for Ecological Restoration

Restoration ecology is a deepening and diversifying field with current research incorporating multiple disciplines and infusing long‐standing ideas with fresh perspectives. We present a list of 10 recent pivotal papers exemplifying new directions in ecological restoration that were selected by students in a cross‐disciplinary graduate seminar at the University of California, Berkeley. We highlight research that applies ecological theory to improve restoration practice in the context of global change (e.g. climate modeling, evaluation of novel ecosystems) and discuss remaining knowledge gaps. We also discuss papers that recognize the social context of restoration and the coupled nature of social and ecological systems, ranging from the incorporation of cultural values and Traditional Ecological Knowledge into restoration, to the consideration of the broader impacts of markets on restoration practices. In addition, we include perspectives that focus on improving communication between social and natural scientists as well as between scientists and practitioners, developing effective ecological monitoring, and applying more integrated, whole‐landscape approaches to restoration. We conclude with insights on recurrent themes in the papers regarding planning restoration in human‐modified landscapes, application of ecological theory, improvements to restoration practice, and the social contexts of restoration. We share lessons from our cross‐disciplinary endeavor, and invite further discussion on the future directions of restoration ecology through contributions to our seminar blog site http://restecology.blogspot.com .     

Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty‐first century

Forty years ago, ecological restoration was conceptualized through a natural science lens. Today, ecological restoration has evolved into a social and scientific concept. The duality of ecological restoration is acknowledged in guidance documents on the subject but is not apparent in its definition. Current definitions reflect our views about what ecological restoration does but not why we do it. This viewpoint does not give appropriate credit to contributions from social sciences, nor does it provide compelling goals for people with different motivating rationales to engage in or support restoration. In this study, I give a concise history of the conceptualization and definition of ecological restoration, and I propose an alternative definition and corresponding viewpoint on restoration goal‐setting to meet twenty‐first century scientific and public inquiry.     

Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured?

The criteria of restoration success should be clearly established to evaluate restoration projects. Recently, the Society of Ecological Restoration International (SER) has produced a Primer that includes ecosystem attributes that should be considered when evaluating restoration success. To determine how restoration success has been evaluated in restoration projects, we reviewed articles published in Restoration Ecology (Vols. 1[1]–11[4]). Specifically, we addressed the following questions: (1) what measures of ecosystem attributes are assessed and (2) how are these measures used to determine restoration success. No study has measured all the SER Primer attributes, but most studies did include at least one measure in each of three general categories of the ecosystem attributes: diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological processes. Most of the reviewed studies are using multiple measures to evaluate restoration success, but we would encourage future projects to include: (1) at least two variables within each of the three ecosystem attributes that clearly related to ecosystem functioning and (2) at least two reference sites to capture the variation that exist in ecosystems.     

Do We Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration

Over the last decade, several research and opinion pieces have challenged the tenets of restoration ecology but a lack of centralized data has impeded assessment of how scientific developments relate to on‐the‐ground restoration. In response, the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) launched the Global Restoration Network (GRN) to catalog worldwide restoration efforts. We reviewed over 200 GRN projects to identify the goals governing restoration and the frequency with which they are measured. We used the SER Primer on Ecological Restoration to frame our analysis, categorizing goals by SER's attributes of restored ecosystems. We developed additional attributes to characterize goals not encompassed by the SER‐defined attributes. Nearly all projects included goals related to ecosystem form, namely similarity to reference conditions and the presence of indigenous species, and these goals were frequently measured. Most projects included goals related to ecosystem function, and many highlighted interactions between abiotic and biotic factors by either modifying abiotic conditions to support focal species or manipulating species to achieve desired ecosystem functions. Few projects had goals related to ecosystem stability, whereas the majority of projects had goals related to social values. Although less frequently measured, social goals were described as important for long‐term project success. In conclusion, science and practice frequently aligned on goals related to ecosystem composition and function, but scientific guidelines on resilience and self‐sustainability appear insufficient to guide practice. In contrast, the common inclusion of goals for human well‐being indicates that, if intended to advise practice, restoration guidelines should give direction on social goals.     

Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism has the potential to provide the developing nations with significant funding for forest restoration activities that contribute to climate change mitigation, sustainable management, and carbon‐stock enhancement. In order to stimulate and inform discussion on the role of ecological restoration within REDD+, we outline opportunities for and challenges to using science‐based restoration projects and programs to meet REDD+ goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon in forest ecosystems. Now that the REDD+ mechanism, which is not yet operational, has expanded beyond a sole focus on activities that affect carbon budgets to also include those that enhance ecosystem services and deliver other co‐benefits to biodiversity and communities, forest restoration could play an increasingly important role. However, in many nations, there is a lack of practical tools and guidance for implementing effective restoration projects and programs that will sequester carbon and at the same time improve the integrity and resilience of forest ecosystems. Restoration scientists and practitioners should continue to engage with potential REDD+ donors and recipients to ensure that funding is targeted at projects and programs with ecologically sound designs.     

Learning from scientific literature: Can indicators for measuring success be standardized in “on the ground” restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Primer identifies key ecosystem attributes for evaluating restoration outcome. Broad attribute categories could be necessary due to the large variety of restoration projects, but could make overall evaluations and assessments challenging and might hamper the development of sound and successful restoration. In this study we carry out a systematic review of scientific papers addressing evaluation of restoration outcome. We include 104 studies published after 2010 from Europe or North America, representing different types of restoration projects in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. We explore the main ecological and socioeconomic attributes used to evaluate restoration outcome, and related indicators and specific methods applied to measure this, in relation to ecosystem and type of restoration project. We identify a wide range of indicators within each attribute, and show that very different methods are employed to measure them. This complexity reduces the opportunity for meaningful comparison and standardization of evaluation of restoration outcome, within and between ecosystems. Socioeconomic indicators are rarely used to evaluate restoration outcome, and studies including both ecological and socioeconomic indicators are nearly absent. Based on our findings we discuss whether standardization and streamlining of indicators is useful to improve the evaluation of “on the ground” restoration, or if this is not appropriate given the diversity of goals and ecosystems involved. Species‐specific traits are used in many projects and should be considered as an addition to the original SER attributes. Furthermore, we discuss the potential for restoration evaluation that encompasses not only assessment of ecological but also socioeconomic indicators.     

Ecological restoration of farmland: progress and prospects

Sustainable agricultural practices in conjunction with ecological restoration methods can reduce the detrimental effects of agriculture. The Society for Ecological Restoration International has produced generic guidelines for conceiving, organizing, conducting and assessing ecological restoration projects. Additionally, there are now good conceptual frameworks, guidelines and practical methods for developing ecological restoration programmes that are based on sound ecological principles and supported by empirical evidence and modelling approaches. Restoration methods must also be technically achievable and socially acceptable and spread over a range of locations. It is important to reconcile differences between methods that favour conservation and those that favour economic returns, to ensure that conservation efforts are beneficial for both landowners and biodiversity. One option for this type of mutual benefit is the use of agri-environmental schemes to provide financial incentives to landholders in exchange for providing conservation services and other benefits. However, further work is required to define and measure the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes. The broader potential for ecological restoration to improve the sustainability of agricultural production while conserving biodiversity in farmscapes and reducing external costs is high, but there is still much to learn, particularly for the most efficient use of agri-environmental schemes to change land use practice.     

Measuring and monitoring restored ecosystems: can remote sensing be applied to the ecological recovery wheel to inform restoration success?

The commencement of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration has highlighted the urgent need to improve restoration science and fast-track ecological outcomes. The application of remote sensing for monitoring purposes has increased over the past two decades providing a variety of image datasets and derived products suitable to map and measure ecosystem properties (e.g. vegetation species, community composition, and structural dimensions such as height and cover). However, the operational use of remote sensing data and derived products for ecosystem restoration monitoring in research, industry, and government has been relatively limited and underutilized. In this paper, we use the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) ecological recovery wheel (ERW) to assess the current capacity of drone-airborne-satellite remote sensing datasets to measure each of the SER's recommended attributes and sub-attributes for terrestrial restoration projects. Based on our combined expertise in the areas of ecological monitoring and remote sensing, a total of 11 out of 18 sub-attributes received the highest feasibility score and show strong potential for remote sensing assessments; while sub-attributes such as gene flows, all trophic levels and chemical and physical substrates have a reduced capacity for monitoring. We argue that in the coming decade, ecologists can combine remote sensing with the ERW to monitor restoration recovery and reference ecosystems for improved restoration outcomes at the local, regional, and landscape scales. The ERW approach can be adapted as a monitoring framework for projects to utilize the benefits of remote sensing and inform management through scalable, operational, and meaningful outcomes.