The Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is an impetus to get it right

Cooke, Bennett, and Jones (2019) raise valid concerns about the current state of the (in some ways) nascent field of ecological restoration. They are particularly concerned that monitoring for measurable restoration achievements (evidence-based science) has lagged behind other aspects of restoration practice. They suggest that a decade focused on restoration could lead to wasted resources, continued habitat destruction, and perceptions of conservation failure. They offer a series of proposals designed to improve learning and outcomes. We applaud Cooke et al. (2019) for these proposals, which are sound advice. However, we take exception to their pessimism and narrow view of restoration. We largely agree with Cooke et al. (2019) that the current success rate for restoration is often not as high as we might like. However, we disagree that the world is not ready for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. A Decade on Ecosystem Restoration can serve as the critical incentive to improve on the shortcomings of restoration practice highlighted by Cooke et al. (2019), establish more realistic goals regarding what gains we might achieve through restoration, and broaden the scope of restoration. There is a certain amount of puffery in the UN declaration that the Decade “aims to massively scale up the restoration of degraded and destroyed ecosystems as a proven measure to fight climate change, and enhance food security, water supply and biodiversity” (italics ours). This should not be taken to mean that we can simply apply current levels of knowledge and techniques. Nevertheless, as humans impact every corner of our planet, what choice to do we have but to engage in restoring nature? Protection efforts and restoration are critical partners in the conservation of nature. Conservation often focuses on protecting as much nature as possible under the threat of habitat loss and degradation. Restoration seeks to advance conservation by rebuilding nature (Figure 1). Opportunities to restore nature arise as humans increasingly impact nature. Increasing fractions of the world are past the stage where protecting intact natural systems is the primary mode of conservation and into one where restoring ecological composition, structure, and function provides the greatest hope for nature. Further, we need to broaden participation to include restoration ecology as part of a restorative culture (Cross, Nevill, Dixon, & Aronson, 2019). We focus on three, more hopeful, points: (a) although far from perfect, ecological restoration has made great headway as a science, with and sometimes without formal measures of evidence-based success; (b) partial restoration success is common and is not necessarily a failure; and (c) we ought not allow imperfections in knowledge and execution preclude what the planet needs, and that is serious dedication to restoring degraded systems. Cooke et al. (2019) suggest that restoration is as much an art as it is a science. We suggest that creative exploration (art) is at the heart of science. Art and science are both blends of judicious use of creativity, judgment, and experimentation to improve understanding. However, Received: 2 July 2019 Revised: 26 October 2019 Accepted: 28 October 2019