NbS Triple Win Toolkit: Biodiversity Indicators in Context 32 Restoration vs. Recovery The focus of the indicator on the implementation of activities rather than on documented effects of these activities on ecosystems is primarily because of the timescale over which ecosystem attributes change. Although the early effects of restoration can occur within a few years, substantial recovery will typically take much longer. Furthermore, the speed of recovery will vary across ecosystems and depend on thepre-project state. Indicators based on documented recovery are therefore unlikely to be reportable for several years, and potentiallywill show the most important changes after projects have concluded.By contrast, indicators based on the implementation of restoration will be usable from earlier stages in projects. However, the disadvantageof focusing on activities is that these may not always translate intothe desired outcomes for a variety of reasons and that the effectsmay not be permanent. An important potential complement tothe restoration indicator proposed here would be a recovery indicator based on documented changes in ecosystem attributes. Discussion Point: Development of a complementary indicator to report the effects of ecological restoration on ecosystem attributes(e.g. ‘Area over which funding has resulted in ecosystem recovery’). Restoration vs. Avoided Impacts The proposed indicator focuses on restoring systems that have already been degraded, and so does not incorporate projects that maintain intact natural habitat. However, these projects potentially have important biodiversity benefits if the habitat would otherwise be degraded or destroyed. Avoided impacts are partially tackled through ICF KPI 8 ‘Number of hectares where deforestation has been avoided through ICF support’ although the indicator relates only to forests and does not have an express focus on the biodiversity benefits of avoided deforestation. One potential option might therefore be an indicator describing the area of natural habitat maintained at (for example) 4-stars or above on the SER scale. Discussion Point: Development of a complementary indicator to report on the maintenance of intact natural ecosystems that would otherwise have been degraded or destroyed. Communication The reported indicator (‘hectares under ecological restoration’) should be relatively straightforward to understand, and has parallels with other area-based KPIs (e.g. KPI 17). However, communications should be clear that the indicator represents the area over which restoration activities have been implemented, rather than the area over which recovery has occurred. The emphasis on ecological restoration should also be stressed in communication, because this is an important distinction from other forms of restoration or management that may be less beneficial for biodiversity. Lastly, the ability to disaggregate the indicator by ecosystem type would be helpful both for communication and for understanding contribution to habitat-specific indicators used by the CBD. Recommended indicator 2: Improvement in status of threatened species as a result of funding (see also method guide) Rationale The world is currently undergoing what many label an “extinction crisis”, with unprecedented levels of species loss as a direct result of human activity. The IPBES Global Assessment found that approximately 1 million animal and plant species are at risk of extinction, including 40% of amphibian species, an estimated 10% of insect species and 33% of reef-forming corals3. The average abundance of native species in all major biomes has decreased by over 20% since 1900, highlighting