Publications > Blog

Thaís Andrade Ferreira Dória and Marcela Barbosa

 

When we think of ecological restoration, the most common image is that of trees being planted in a degraded area. Although this step is important, restoring an ecosystem goes far beyond planting trees or reestablishing the landscape’s vegetation cover. The major challenge is ensuring that these areas once again support biodiversity in all its complexity and the ecological processes that keep ecosystems functioning over time.

To achieve this, it is important to recognize that biodiversity is complex and multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a single ecological attribute. Since it is a multidimensional concept, we must consider that the components of biodiversity operate at multiple levels—from genes, populations, and species to communities, ecosystems, and landscapes—forming a broad network of ecological interactions and processes responsible for sustaining life.

In this context, a seemingly restored forest may not be sufficient to represent an ecologically intact ecosystem. For example, a restored area may have little functional connectivity or lack key species essential for performing ecological functions, such as seed dispersal and pollination. The area itself may even host many species, yet still have reduced functional diversity—that is, little variety in the ecological functions essential to the ecosystem’s balance. In other words, restoring vegetation does not mean restoring biodiversity.

Fortunately, a growing understanding of the multidimensional nature of biodiversity is transforming the way restored areas are assessed. Today, it is increasingly recognized that no single metric can capture all aspects of biodiversity. Traditionally used indicators—such as the number of species or the size of the restored area—remain relevant, but on their own, they are insufficient to capture the benefits of restoration for the ecological dimensions of biodiversity that go beyond these indicators.

With regard to these dimensions, biodiversity encompasses various attributes (such as composition, structure, function, and risk) that manifest themselves at different levels of organization (such as landscape, ecosystems/communities, species/populations, and genes). To understand whether a restored area is effectively recovering its biodiversity, it is necessary to observe how these attributes and levels behave.

 

 

Attributes
Composition	Which species and habitats are found? What is the identity/composition of these elements of biodiversity?
Structure	How is biodiversity organized in space and time within a given landscape?
Function	How do ecological processes and the flows of matter and energy occur? How do ecosystems function?
Risk	What threats affect species, habitats, and ecosystems? What is the conservation value of species, habitats, and ecosystems?
Levels of Organization
Landscape	How are species distributed across the landscape? Are habitats connected or fragmented?
Ecosystems/Communities	How are species organized to form ecological communities and different ecosystems?
Species/Populations	What are the abundance, demographic parameters, and conservation status of a given species?
Genes	Is there enough genetic diversity to adapt to environmental changes?

 

It is no coincidence that this multidimensionality helps explain why biodiversity restoration and compensation projects based on restoration actions have incorporated approaches that consider sets of metrics to assess biodiversity. Thus, rather than focusing on a single indicator, these approaches combine different metrics to try to capture a broader set of dimensions, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive and integrated understanding of biodiversity.

In Brazil, the International Institute for Sustainability (IIS) has been conducting studies focused on the creation, adaptation, and application of metrics that enable the assessment of multiple attributes and organizational levels of biodiversity in restored areas. The goal is to expand the capacity to monitor not only the presence of vegetation, but also ecological integrity, ecosystem functionality, and the risks associated with biodiversity loss.

More than just a technical or regulatory requirement, accurately measuring biodiversity has become a strategic necessity on a global scale. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework—adopted under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—has set ambitious targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. At the same time, international initiatives such as the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures) and the SBTN (Science Based Targets Network) have been guiding companies and institutions to recognize nature-related risks, set science-based targets, and incorporate biodiversity into decision-making, management, and corporate reporting processes.

In this context, restoring ecosystems requires going far beyond the visual recomposition of the landscape. The challenge, as has already been noted, is not limited to recovering vegetation and increasing vegetation cover, but to also understanding how to reduce risks to biodiversity, rebuild essential ecological relationships, and reestablish the regenerative capacity of natural environments.

This means recognizing that biodiversity is not a static state, but a dynamic system sustained by continuous interactions among species. These interactions promote and sustain habitat quality, ecological flows, and adaptive processes that are essential for ensuring ecosystems’ ability to respond to climate change and human pressures. Therefore, it is precisely biodiversity—expressed in its multiple dimensions, including species, functions, and ecological interactions—that strengthens, over time, the resilience of restored environments.