About this Guide
What are the objectives of this guide?
Initiatives like the Bonn Challenge, New York Declaration on Forests, Trillion Trees Initiative, Land Degradation Neutrality, AFR100, Initiative 20x20, and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, as well as many grassroots and community-led restoration movements, have inspired an uptick in restoration efforts over the past 10 years. The increase in restoration implementation has in turn inspired appetite among governments, academics, donors, the media, NGOs, local communities, and the public for more evidence to show progress.
However, based on our interviews, surveys, and informal interactions with restoration practitioners in Africa and Latin America over the course of several years, we learned that the actors tasked with measuring restoration progress struggle to know where to begin in developing and implementing a monitoring system. They need help in sorting through the functions and capabilities of the monitoring tools available to them, and in identifying the circumstances under which each tool should be used. In response, this guide meets three primary objectives:
Note that the tools and case studies featured in this guide focus on terrestrial – and most commonly, forest and landscape or tree-based– restoration monitoring. This guide solely focuses on monitoring restoration progress, not on planning or implementing restoration activities. For guidance on how to maximize improvements in ecosystem and human health via restoration, see the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ ten principles to guide the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. For detailed guidance on best practices for conducting restoration, see the Society for Ecological Restoration’s International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration.
Who is this guide for?
This guide is for audiences who are seeking to monitor restoration and need guidance on:
- where to begin and
- what tools and methodologies to consider in developing a monitoring system.
It is best suited for users who are at the stage of planning their restoration project or have just implemented their restoration project and are planning how to implement monitoring activities.
How were tools selected for inclusion in this guide?
In 2021, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) conducted a survey titled “Tools and technology mapping for ecosystem restoration monitoring” to better understand the breadth and depth of available tools for monitoring ecosystem restoration. The survey was distributed via the Task Force on Monitoring, convened by FAO in support of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. The goal of the survey was to catalog and map existing tools (or those under development) that support restoration monitoring.
The results of the survey aimed to build a catalog that could then inform discussions in the Tools & Innovations Workshop series—also convened by FAO—in 2021. Information on approximately 150 monitoring tools across all ecosystem types (terrestrial and aquatic) were cataloged by the end of the survey. This data collection exercise was supplemented with a workshop held in September 2021, where the authors reviewed and solicited additional information on data, methods, and tools for monitoring restoration. The full list of tools collected are listed here.
A “tool” is defined as a framework, application, web-based platform, or guidance document that performs a monitoring function in support of a restoration monitoring system, as defined in How to Monitor Restoration.
Due to the large number of tools that were collected in the FAO-led survey we needed to devise a strategy for narrowing the full list of tools into a subset that is most relevant to the goals and objectives of restoration monitoring defined in this guide. The decision criteria used to narrow down the list of tools are presented in the table below.
| 1 | Is it applicable in terrestrial ecosystems? |
| 2 | Is it current available and functioning (at least in prototype version)? |
| 3 | Is it relevant to restoration activities? |
| 4 | Can it be applied in multiple geographical contexts or locations without significant modification? |
| 5 | Does it perform at least one monitoring function? Functions are: (a) Support for indicator selection ; (b) Provision of data that can be used to track an indicator over time or set a baseline ; (c) Data collection ; (d) Data analysis or validation ; (e) Mechanism for reporting results |
Each of the 150 tools was assessed against these questions to see if it fit the scope of the guide. If the answer to all five questions was “yes”, the tool made the short list of tools to profile in the guide. If the answer to any one of these questions was “no”, the tool was excluded.
More explanation of each question in the decision criteria is below:
While monitoring all ecosystem types is important, initial review of the tools highlighted significant differences between how terrestrial and aquatic monitoring tools are applied ; there are few if any tools that operate in both ecosystem types. To help narrow the scope of this guide, we chose to focus only on terrestrial monitoring. Mangroves are considered terrestrial ecosystems and are included in the guide.
This question serves to filter out tools that are not far enough along in the development process as to be immediately available to the user.
This question serves to narrow down the list of tools to the ones that have a strong connection or applicability to restoration, as opposed to deforestation, land cover change, carbon markets, or similarly tangential applications.
The purpose of this question is to identify tools that are adaptable to different scenarios and can be adopted by a wide range of users. While tools that are tailored to a specific location or situation are useful within that context, the goal of this guide is to offer options and solutions that can be applied across a wide range of geographies or circumstances.
The purpose of this question is to align the tools with the definition of monitoring and essential steps for effective restoration monitoring, as presented in this guide. See How do I Monitor Restoration?
An initial application of this decision tree narrowed the list to 25 tools for review and inclusion in the guide. See here for a full list of the tools considered for inclusion in the guide and the subset of tools that met the decision tree criteria.
Why does the Restoration Monitoring Tools Guide include carbon accounting guidance and methodologies?
The 2024 update to the Restoration Monitoring Tools Guide expanded the ToolFinder to include both general guidance for monitoring carbon emissions or removals outside of a market context and carbon accounting methodologies that are used to generate carbon credits for trade in the voluntary carbon market (VCM).
The general carbon monitoring guidance and VCM methodologies added to the Guide relate to monitoring carbon emissions or removals from forest restoration activities at the project or site scale. Guidance and methodologies to monitor carbon emissions and reductions or generate carbon credits from forest restoration at a jurisdictional scale could be added later.
Many developers of forest restoration projects are interested in accessing carbon markets to finance restoration activities. The Guide was expanded to include carbon market methodologies that restoration project developers may be able to use for measuring, monitoring, and verifying the carbon removals.
The Guide focuses on VCM methodologies because these are likely to be most relevant and hold the greatest potential for restoration projects. Large-scale compliance market schemes, such as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), are endorsing VCM standards and methodologies. National or local scale compliance carbon markets may be relevant to some project developers in limited cases, but since the Guide prioritizes broadly applicable tools and methodologies, those specific cases are not included.
Key definitions:
- Carbon credits are tradeable units that represent one ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that were removed from or not emitted to the atmosphere due to the intervention associated with a specific activity, such as (in the case of the methodologies included in this Guide) a forest restoration project. GHG emissions are measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e).
- Carbon markets facilitate the trade of carbon credits between projects that generate credits and buyers interested in purchasing credits to offset their own emissions, invest in credits, or use credits to make other claims about how they are contributing to reducing the effects of climate change or protecting the environment.
- Carbon standard organizations are private entities, typically non-governmental organizations (NGOs), that certify and issue carbon credits based on approved carbon accounting methodologies. The two largest carbon standard organizations are Verra and Gold Standard.
- Carbon standards are carbon crediting programs managed by carbon standard organizations. A carbon standard organization may have one or multiple standards, and standards may have one or multiple approved carbon accounting methodologies that projects can follow to be able to issue carbon credits under that standard.
- Carbon accounting methodologies provide specific procedures for quantifying emission reductions and removals and generate carbon credits for given project and activity types. Methodologies are published by carbon standard organizations. Many carbon standards have methodologies that can be applied to issue carbon credits from forest restoration projects. Those methodologies may also have provisions to credit forest restoration activities for benefits beyond carbon, such as biodiversity protection or improved livelihoods for local communities. Projects must follow the methodologies approved under a chosen carbon standard to be registered and issued carbon credits.
Forest restoration activities can be used to generate carbon credits because activities such as reforestation, revegetation, and improving the health of forest ecosystems usually results in an increase in carbon stored in biomass and soils. Sometimes, forest restoration activities can also reduce emissions that would have occurred in the absence of the project, by improving management of vegetation and soils.
Forest restoration project developers can assess if they want to use carbon accounting methodologies to pursue certification under carbon market standards to be able to receive and sell credits. Carbon accounting methodologies from carbon standards are publicly available documents to which a project developer could refer when considering how to monitor the outcomes of forest restoration projects, even if they ultimately do not seek certification and credits. Project developers may also want to monitor and report on carbon outside of carbon crediting for reasons such as demonstrating progress to donors or other stakeholders.
There are three forest project types recognized by the major crediting standards:
- Afforestation / reforestation (A/R):These activities involve planting of new trees and / or restoration of degraded forests.
- Improved forest management (IFM):These activities involve the use of improved forest management techniques that increase carbon storage and / or reduce emissions. Some IFM activities do not fall under the umbrella of restoration. For example, extended rotation harvesting is an IFM activity that does not involve restoration. Other types of IFM activities, like rehabilitating previously logged or degraded forests, are considered restoration.
- Avoided deforestation (AD):These activities involve protection of standing forests that may otherwise be at risk for deforestation or degradation. Because these projects do not involve forest restoration, they are not within the scope of this Guide. For example, conservation projects which intend to preserve standing forests would not be considered restoration and are not covered within this guide.
You can learn more about these project types in the Voluntary Carbon Market Primer (Chapter 13) from Climate Focus. Other project types considered in this Guide include agricultural projects that involve tree planting or agroforestry and coastal restoration projects that aim to restore mangrove ecosystems. These project types are included because they involve trees or forests.
How were carbon monitoring guidance and methodologies selected for inclusion in the ToolFinder?
The ToolFinder includes both guidance for monitoring carbon emissions and reductions associated with forest restoration activities and VCM methodologies for monitoring emissions and reductions with the goal of generating carbon credits. General carbon frameworks or guidance can help project developers to monitor carbon but cannot be used to generate carbon credits and are from sources outside of the VCM. Carbon market methodologies are available from carbon standards and can be used to generate carbon credits.
Carbon market methodologies were subject to the following criteria:
| 1 | Is it applicable to forests (including mangroves) or trees? |
| 2 | Is it relevant to restoration or improved forest management activities? |
| 3 | Is it designed or managed by carbon crediting standards that are endorsed by ICROA? (see explanations here). |
More explanation of each question in the decision criteria is below:
-
Is it applicable to forests or trees?
While the authors recognize the importance of all carbon-crediting projects, this Guide focuses only on carbon-crediting methods related to forests and trees.
-
Is it relevant to restoration or improved forest management activities?
This question serves to filter out carbon frameworks or guidance that are not directly related to restoration (e.g., avoided deforestation) as restoration is the primary focus of this Guide. The primary project types included in this Guide are afforestation or reforestation (A/R) and improved forest management (IFM) (see definitions in the section “Why does the Restoration Monitoring Tools Guide include carbon accounting guidance and methodologies?”)
-
Is it designed or managed by carbon crediting standards that are endorsed by ICROA?
ICROA is a non-profit initiative by the International Emission Trading Association (IETA) that accredits and endorses carbon crediting programs. ICROA is widely recognized for defining best practices in carbon crediting. An ICROA endorsement is an indication that a carbon standard is of high quality and integrity. This question serves to filter out carbon methodologies designed or managed by carbon crediting standards that have not been thoroughly vetted or endorsed by ICROA.
General carbon frameworks or guidance were subject to the following criteria:
| 1 | Is it applicable to forests or trees? |
| 2 | Is it relevant to restoration or improved forest management activities? |
| 3 | Is it applicable to the project or entity scale? |
-
Is it applicable to forests or trees?
While the authors recognize the importance of all carbon projects, this Guide focuses only on carbon frameworks or guidance related to forests and trees.
-
Is it relevant to restoration or improved forest management activities?
This question serves to filter out carbon frameworks or guidance that are not directly related to restoration (e.g., avoided deforestation) as restoration is the primary focus of this guide. The primary project types included in this guide are afforestation or reforestation (A/R) and improved forest management (IFM) (see definitions in the previous section “Why does the Restoration Monitoring Tools Guide include carbon accounting guidance and methodologies?”).
-
Is it applicable to the project or entity scale?
This question serves to filter out carbon frameworks or guidance that are tailored to the national or jurisdictional scale, as this guidance is specifically intended for restoration monitoring at the project or site scale.
How do I use the ToolFinder?
The ToolFinder guides you through a series of questions to help you identify which tools are best suited to support your monitoring activity. The output of the ToolFinder is a short list of tools and descriptive information about each one based on how you answered the survey questions. You can then explore each tool further. As you navigate through the questions, the answer you selected for each question will display at the top of the page to help you keep track of your selections. Each question can only have one selected answer (i.e., you cannot select multiple answers for any one question) ; therefore, you will need to repeat the survey with a different answer if multiple answers apply to your monitoring situation.
The questions in the ToolFinder survey are oriented around your conceptual approach to the design of your monitoring activity. The first question is whether you intend to conduct monitoring independently using self-guided tools, or whether you want to work with an organization to receive guided support through every step of the monitoring process.
If you intend to conduct monitoring independently using self-guided tools, you are directed through a series of questions to help narrow down the monitoring functions you need the tool to perform. These functions are based on the essential steps for effective restoration monitoring as summarized in this How to Monitor Restoration guide. The ToolFinder output list is tailored to the functions you select.
If you are interested in guided monitoring support from an organization, the ToolFinder will output a list of the organizations and initiatives that provide full-service monitoring options.
The following schematic provides an overview of the ToolFinder survey questions.
More details and guidance on each survey question are below.
1) I would like to perform monitoring using self-guided tools.
Select this answer if you are looking for “out-of-the-box” tools that are available online with self-guided training materials.
a) I would like a tool to help me draw my project boundary.
Select this answer if you need guidance on how to delineate the boundary of the restoration project area that you plan to monitor.
b) I would like a tool that will help me select key indicators to monitor.
Select this answer if you need guidance on how to select which indicators and metrics to monitor based on your objectives and preferences.
c) I would like a tool to help me collect data for my indicators.
Select this answer if you know which indicators you want to monitor but need help identifying tools that will support data collection.
i) I would like to collect data for my indicators in the field.
Select this answer if you need a tool for collecting data at the restoration site (e.g., a mobile app).
ii) I would like to collect data for my indicators remotely.
Select this answer if you do not intend to physically go to the restoration site and need a tool that enables remote data collection using satellite imagery, existing datasets, or other desktop-based applications.
d) I need a tool that will help me report monitoring results to an audience.
Select this answer if you need a tool that serves as a communications platform for compiling the indicators and metrics into a visual, transparent, and accessible product that shares the monitoring results with your audience.
2) I would like to view service-providers who can guide me through all steps of the monitoring process.
Select this answer if you need hands-on, customized support or guidance to conduct your monitoring activity. The level of service varies from tool to tool, but they all require direct contact with the host organization to initiate the monitoring activity. These tools may be either free or fee based.
Contributors
Authors and Acknowledgements
The Restoration Monitoring Tools Guide is a collaboration between Climate Focus and World Resources Institute. Lead authors are Katie Reytar (WRI), Darby Levin (WRI), Jillian Gladstone (Climate Focus), and Melaina Dyck (Climate Focus). Citation: Reytar, K., Levin, D., Gladstone, J., and Dyck, M. 2023. Restoration Monitoring Tools Guide. Washington, DC. Climate Focus and WRI. The website is hosted by World Resources Institute.
The following individuals co-authored case studies that are featured in this guide: Stefano Ricci, Lauri Vesa, Carolina Gallo Granizo, Patrick Mugi, Rashed Jalal, Amit Ghosh, Yelena Finegold, Pierrick Rambaud, Pablo Martin, Matieu Henry, Julian Fox, Teopista Nakalema, Erik Lindquist, Brenda Anicia, Praise Atwiine, Edwin Beinomugisha, Enock Kaluuba, and Fidel Uwizeye (FAO) ; Leigh Ann Winowiecki, Tor-Gunnar Vagen, and Muhammad Ahmad (ICRAF) ; Elizabeth Tompkins and Renata Lozano (Rainforest Alliance) ; Felipe Samper, Roché Bhola, and Mercedes Hardjoprajitno (ACT-Suriname) ; Swati Hingorani, Muneeswaran Mariappan, and Carole Saint-Laurent (IUCN) ; Will Anderson and Dow Martin (WRI) ; Elise Harrigan and Monica Noon (Conservation International) ; and Stephen Emsley and Kathleen Buckingham (veritree).
The website was built by Ebizon with design support from Sara Cottle (Climate Focus).
We would like to extend special thanks to the funders of this guide, the Good Energies Foundation, the Climate and Land Use Alliance, and the Climate Solutions Partnership, a philanthropic collaboration between HSBC, WWF and the World Resources Institute.
We are grateful to the following individuals who provided reviews and suggestions on content for the guide: George Gann (SER) ; Robin Chazdon (University of the Sunshine Coast) ; Yoshihiko Aga (MAFF) ; Khalil Walji (ICRAF) ; Alyssa Barrett, Srishti Kochhar, Sarah Carter, Jonathan Baines, Suzanne Ozment, Rene Zamora, Maggie Gonzalez, Gregory Taff, Elise Mazur, Jefferson Ferreira, Dow Martin, John Brandt, Bernadette Arakwiye, and Will Anderson (WRI) ; Daniella Schweizer and Simeon Max (Restor) ; Ian Gunderson (WEF) ; Leigh Ann Winowiecki (ICRAF) ; Monica Noon (CI) ; Swati Hingorani (IUCN) ; Carolina Gallo Granizo and Yelena Finegold (FAO) ; Sophie Persey and Elizabeth Tompkins (RA) ; and Georg Hahn (Climate Focus).
We would like to thank the following individuals who tested a preliminary version of the website: Mike Chirwa (Winrock), Clement Adjorlo (AUDA-NEPAD), Kenset Rosales Riveiro (MARN), Gerardo Vergara (INFOR), Rodrigo Sagardia (Instituto Forestal de Chile), and Marioldy Sanchez Santivanez (AIDER).
We are grateful for the communications support provided by: Sara Cottle (Climate Focus) and Jerin Tan, Krista Karch, Christian Aldridge, Bill Dugan, Tea Tuur, and Nicole Sands (WRI).