Advancing Ecosystem Restoration with Rights-Based and Gender responsive Approaches: Reflections from the Subregional dialogue on biodiversity monitoring and reporting with a focus on ecosystem restoration (Target 2 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework)

As the global community works toward the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), ecosystem restoration stands out as a critical pathway to halting biodiversity loss and building resilient societies. Meenal Tatpati, Research and Policy Associate, Women4Biodiversity was invited to attend the recent Subregional dialogue on biodiversity monitoring and reporting with a focus on ecosystem restoration (Target 2 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), co-organised by Secretariat of the Convention, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Centre for Biodiversity with the support of the AIM4NatuRe (Accelerating Innovative Monitoring for Nature Restoration) at Bangkok from the 2nd to the 5th of September 2025.

The dialogue focused on building Party (particularly CBD national focal points and SBSTTA focal points of Brunei Darussalam, India, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and VietNam) and sub-regional Technical and Scientific Cooperation support centre (Asia and Oceania) capacities’ to implement and report on the KM-GBF, with a particular emphasis on Target 2: Restore 30% of all Degraded Ecosystems. It included technical sessions on monitoring framework indicators for Target 2 monitoring, geospatial tools, and data indicators to measure success towards Target 2 implementation; country exchanges on restoration baselines and national reporting, and group exercises to draft action plans for the seventh national reports, while also strengthening regional cooperation and technical support. Representatives of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities and relevant organisations including women’s organisations and youth from these countries were also invited.

The report captures key highlights, challenges, and opportunities as observed through the lens of Women4Biodiversity, with a strong emphasis on gender equality, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPs and LCs), and inclusive governance.

Target 2 of the KM-GBF calls for the restoration of at least 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030, spanning terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and marine systems. One of the meeting’s earliest takeaways was that no Party currently feels fully prepared to report on restoration in the Seventh National Report. This signals both a challenge and an opportunity that countries must urgently strengthen data collection systems, monitoring frameworks, and participatory approaches that reflect the diversity of ecosystems and stakeholders. As Jamal Annagylyjova of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat highlighted, the inconclusive results of Aichi Target 15 due to high data uncertainty underscore why Target 2 must be approached differently. A roadmap for 2023 is already in place to help countries build capacity, with Technical and Scientific Committees (TSCs) expected to play a crucial role in mobilising stakeholders. The recognition by the Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity’s of the fact that restoration is not merely a technical exercise but also a social, cultural, and political process resonated strongly with Women4Biodiversity’s perspective.

Frameworks and Tools: From Indicators to Global Atlases

The meeting featured several presentations on monitoring systems and frameworks. Presentations were made to introduce country representatives to the Food and Agriculture (FAO)-led platform for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration called the Framework for Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring (FERM), which provides a standardised approach for reporting restoration across multiple KM-GBF targets, including Target 2. FAO, as custodian of several KMGBF indicators, highlighted the urgent need for countries to align their monitoring systems to global frameworks.

Kieran Mooney from the CBD Secretariat explained the latest technical updates adopted at COP16, introducing a suite of indicators for the monitoring framework including 28 headline, 16 binary, 54 component, and 120 complementary. These are designed to capture restoration outcomes across ecological and social dimensions. An online reporting tool, currently under development will support Parties in submitting national data.

Further, the Global Ecosystems Atlas was also introduced which provides a typology of ecosystems, enabling national-level classification and harmonisation across borders. This ensures, for instance, that ecosystems spanning multiple countries are mapped consistently.

However, discussions also revealed concerns: Indigenous Peoples’ and local community (IPLC) lands are not directly mapped, raising questions about how tenure rights, customary land use, and Indigenous knowledge can be integrated. Women4Biodiversity notes that without such integration, restoration risks overlooking the very communities who are the custodians of ecosystems.

Country Experiences: Opportunities and Gaps

Participants from across South East and South Asia shared their national approaches, highlighting both innovations and persistent challenges.

• India: With over 2.7 lakh Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs) and 142 indicators, India has mobilised an impressive governance framework. Yet challenges remain in coordinating among 30 line ministries and departments, and in securing resources to harmonise national data with global methods.
• Thailand: For the first time, official documents used the term ;Indigenous Peoples’ rather than ‘ethnic groups’ in their NBSAP,  signaling a shift toward recognition of IPLCs in monitoring and reporting.
• Philippines: Restoration has often been equated with tree planting, raising concerns about how restoration is defined. Efforts are underway to distinguish between genuine ecosystem restoration and plantation expansion.
• Brunei Darussalam: While the country is still developing its monitoring framework, the country faces difficulties in aligning its national biodiversity policy with KM-GBF needs and targets.
• Singapore: As a highly urban nation, monitoring relies on localised site-based approaches, managed under a flat governance structure led by the National Parks Board.

Common across countries were challenges of data gaps, resource constraints, and weak inter-agency coordination. Many governments noted that while land cover data may exist, much of it remains locked within government repositories, inaccessible for analysis or public use.

Restoration Outcomes and Standards

George Gann of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) emphasised the importance of moving beyond simplistic metrics like ‘number of trees planted’ and instead deliver Restoration across four outcomes including,

• Biodiversity conservation
• Connectivity of ecosystems
• Ecosystem functions and services
• Ecosystem integrity

SER’s five-star system of restoration standards was presented as a guiding framework, offering a continuum that distinguishes between rehabilitation and ecological restoration. Participants discussed the risks of narrowly focusing on ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration without addressing biodiversity or community needs. Women4Biodiversity believes that these standards need to ensure that women, youth, and IPLCs are engaged not just as beneficiaries but as equal decision-makers in designing restoration outcomes.

Data, Autonomy, and Community-Led Restoration

The meeting underscored the political nature of data. Presentations by Alice C. Hughes (GEO BON) and others emphasised that while vast amounts of biodiversity data exist, much of it is inaccessible or siloed. Community-based data platforms, such as LandMark Map, offer alternatives by mapping Indigenous and community lands. Yet concerns remain about data sovereignty, many IPLCs are reluctant to share information about their territories for fear of external appropriation or misrepresentation.

For Women4Biodiversity, this discussion was pivotal. Restoration under Target 2 cannot be divorced from Target 22, which ensures participation, justice, and access to information. Land tenure and recognition of community rights are foundational for restoration success. Tools like LandMark provide opportunities for bottom-up data sharing but must be safeguarded by strong protections for community autonomy.

Regional Cooperation and Action Planning

The RESULT Asia-Pacific Initiative, presented by FAO, highlighted regional ambitions to restore at least 100 million hectares of degraded lands by 2030, building on commitments from the UN Decade on Restoration. Action planning sessions at the meeting called on countries to prioritise:

• Establishing baselines for degraded ecosystems.
• Improving data availability and interoperability.
• Integrating traditional and scientific knowledge.
• Building capacity for socio-economic and cultural considerations in restoration.

Women4Biodiversity notes that these priorities must be framed through a gender-responsive lens. Restoration is not only about ecological repair but also about transforming social systems to ensure equity. Women’s roles as seed keepers, forest guardians, and knowledge holders need recognition within monitoring frameworks, budgets, and policies.

Key Reflections from Women4Biodiversity

Attending the meeting, Women4Biodiversity drew several key reflections:

1. Defining Restoration Inclusively: Restoration must be understood beyond technical fixes and tree planting. It should encompass rehabilitation, ecological restoration, and Indigenous practices, ensuring ecosystems regain integrity while respecting cultural ties.
2. Bridging Knowledge Systems: Scientific frameworks like FERM and the Global Ecosystems Atlas are essential, but they must be complemented with IPLC and women’s knowledge to create a holistic monitoring system.
3. Data Justice and Autonomy: Discussions on data sovereignty reveal that communities need to retain control over how their territories are represented. Global and national frameworks must respect this autonomy.
4. Strengthening Participation: Countries like Thailand show progress by officially recognising Indigenous Peoples, but this needs to be institutionalised across the region. Women and youth, in particular, should be meaningfully engaged in restoration planning and reporting.
5. Sustained Financing and Capacity Building: Restoration is a long-term endeavor, often extending beyond funding cycles. Without secure financing, monitoring systems and restoration projects risk becoming fragmented or unsustainable.

Looking Ahead: Towards COP17 and Beyond

The meeting reaffirmed that ecosystem restoration is both a scientific and justice issue. While technical tools are advancing rapidly, the real test will be whether countries can integrate them with participatory governance that values community rights, gender equity, and inter-generational perspectives. As the UN CBD prepares for UN CBD COP17 and the 7th National Reports, there is a clear need to ensure that restoration data is not only scientifically rigorous but also socially inclusive.

Conclusion

The Sub-Regional Meeting on Target 2 highlighted the immense potential and challenges of advancing ecosystem restoration under the KM-GBF. From geospatial tools and registries to community-led mapping and gender-responsive planning, the discussions pointed to a future where restoration is both a technical and social imperative.

For Women4Biodiversity, the path forward is clear, restoration must restore ecosystems, rights, and relationships. Only by embedding equity, justice, and inclusivity at the heart of monitoring and reporting can Target 2 contribute meaningfully to a future where people and nature thrive together.