UN Standards of Practice for Ecosystem Restoration Comments

By Grace Edinger

Recently, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration published a draft of their Standards of Practice to guide restoration projects and processes moving forward. This document, meant to be widely applicable across sectors, geography, and restoration activities, aims to create a standardized set of best practices when designing, implementing, and assessing ecological restoration projects. EPIC’s Restoration Economy Center took this public comment period to respond directly to the UN, and have included our high-level thoughts in this blog piece.* 

Holistically, we applaud the immense effort it took to create a guide for high quality restoration projects. Among many other high points of the draft, we commend the significant emphasis put on evaluating project success and ensuring that target outcomes are determined during the design phase of project planning. 

We identified two major areas that, if altered, would better serve the global restoration audience. 

1] The document is laid out such that it is difficult to determine which recommendations and practices are most applicable to different kinds of projects. We recommend creating a system within the document to help users navigate the expansive principles and practices.

2] Project financing receives too little attention. We suggest expanding upon the idea that restoration can be invested in rather than needing to secure traditional funding (grants, traditional contracts, etc.) before work begins. Other aspects of this draft inherently support this already. 

*The Standards of Practice document is in draft form and has been circulated for public comment. Our thoughts herein represent a high-level view of our feedback given directly to the UN using their survey instrument. 

1] Applicability

Front and center, this document clearly states that it is meant to be widely applicable. Rightly so- the UN serves our global population. We agree that guidelines should be able to be used in a wide variety of situations. From the introduction:

“Standards of Practice to Guide the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration provides key recommendations for the entire restoration process that is applicable across all sectors, ecosystems, and regions, and to the broad array of ecosystem restoration activities under the UN Decade.

The standards of practice presented here were designed to be applicable to restoration projects in all types of degraded ecosystems, from landscapes to seascapes, including urban, production, cultural, semi-natural, and natural systems. In the context of these standards of practice, a restoration project includes activities undertaken to repair one or more degraded sites, regardless of the type of governance (e.g., restoration driven by local communities, NGOs, government agencies, private landowners, international organizations), resources (from low-cost to highly financed), or spatial scale (hectares over which activities occur).”

The introduction also mentions that some principles and recommendations might be more applicable than others depending on the project details and context. This also makes sense. A large-scale river restoration project, for example, has different needs than a single landowner’s small reforestation effort. But, the guidelines don't make it clear to a project manager or practitioner which recommendations are applicable to their individual situation. Taken as a whole, these recommendations are so extensive, they run the risk of jeopardizing timelines set forth by federal funding opportunities (e.g., ARPA, IIJA, IRA, etc.). We understand that is not the UN’s intention; however, without a way to easily navigate the document, one can imagine a small, locally-driven effort with limited capacity trying to implement these practices could get extremely overwhelmed, and abandon the guidelines entirely. 

We recommend instituting a system using symbols, colors, etc. that helps the reader easily navigate to the principles and practices that apply to their project’s needs. 

2] Financing 

There is a financing component referenced under the “Planning and Design” phase of the document, (SC12). As written in the draft, the majority of this section discusses the need to secure funding up front and outline financial assets (i.e., in-kind contributions, budgets, etc.). What it lacks is discussion of actual financing and the tremendous opportunity there is for investment in restoration projects. 

We advise adding a Practice and expanding SC12’s introduction paragraph by calling out explicitly the use of outcomes-based financing, also known as Pay for Success, and the benefits it can bring to restoration projects. 

Pay for Success (PFS) is a contract that is structured such that payment is based on successful delivery of outcomes (acres of stream restored, amount of nutrients reduced, etc.). From a public perspective, this allows the government to get fair prices from bidders on outcomes that matter to taxpayers. From a bidder perspective, it gives businesses and non-profits more opportunity to innovate in where and how they do the work as long as they deliver the agreed upon result. 

PFS also tends to create less paperwork. Removing the need to provide detailed invoices on a regular basis to receive payment, the restoration practitioners can turn a profit, pay back investors with interest, and keep projects moving more quickly. 

EPIC regularly writes about conservation finance and the ways contract structures can impact restoration project outcomes; resources are housed at restorationeconomy.org. 

Creating such a comprehensive playbook takes time, money, and expertise. We’re grateful that the UN has dubbed this decade the “UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration”, underscoring the importance of restoring damaged and degraded land- and seascapes, not just preserving pristine ones. 

To learn more about policy initiatives for restoration, and the need for innovation to meet our environmental goals, please visit our Restoration Economy Center’s website, restorationeconomy.org.