Initiatives such as the ELSP have enabled a suite of large-scale ecological restoration projects across Europe. Prior to selecting the first projects for funding, BTO worked closely with the team at ELSP to develop a monitoring framework to capture the most appropriate indicators of success across a range of biological, environmental and social/cultural ambitions. Six years on, this paper evaluates the success of that framework across 14 projects using Cairngorms Connect in Scotland as a case study.

The framework advocates measuring progress towards improved natural capital (species and habitats), ecosystem services, and socioeconomic measures such as improved livelihoods. Importantly, indicators need to be both short-term to demonstrate progress to funders, communities and other stakeholders, and long-term to move towards more sustainable natural ecological processes.

The evaluation outlines the clear benefits of allowing flexibility in the selection of a few well-chosen indicators, as well as wider understanding of the broader benefits important to large multi-stakeholder ecological restoration projects. The authors are keen for this framework to inform monitoring guidance in the restoration and rewilding sector, contributing to the growing evidence base for assessing restoration and helping align aims for nature with the socioeconomic and cultural ambitions of local communities.

Successful large-scale ecosystem restoration projects are central to achieving ambitious global and regional restoration targets, but evidence on outcomes is scarce. We developed a novel framework for monitoring landscape and seascape restoration, refined through learnings from 14 large-scale restoration projects in Europe over 6 years. The framework captures changes at two timescales: short-term indicators assess progress towards project management or funding period outcomes while long-term indicators measure progress towards the ultimate vision for restored landscapes. It encompasses natural capital, ecosystem service, and socioeconomic dimensions, but allows projects flexibility to select context-specific indicators. We provide recommendations on the framework's application and illustrate its use in a large-scale restoration project in Scotland. The framework encouraged projects to select new indicators, particularly of social outcomes, widening their understanding. Other learnings highlighted misalignment between ecosystem restoration timescales and funding cycles, the need for flexibility, and the value of focusing on a few well-chosen indicators.