Protocol for Monitoring Tropical Forest
Restoration: Perspectives From the Atlantic
Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil
Ricardo A. G. Viani
, Karen D. Holl
, Aurelio Padovezi
Bernardo B. N. Strassburg
, Fabiano T. Farah
´cia C. Garcia
Rafael B. Chaves
, Ricardo R. Rodrigues
, and Pedro H. S. Brancalion
Monitoring protocols are needed to evaluate the millions of hectares of land that are being proposed for forest restoration in
the coming decades. Standardized proposals are critical to evaluate efficacy of restoration strategies, identify triggers for
corrective actions, compare results across projects, and generally learn from past projects to inform future restoration
efforts. We describe an iterative process, including over 200 stakeholders, to develop a protocol for monitoring Brazilian
Atlantic Forest restoration. We give an overview of the ecological, socioeconomic, and management criteria, indicators, and
metrics included in the protocol. Strengths of the protocol include the following: (a) testing and use across sites with a range
of ages, forest types, past land uses, restoration techniques, and implementing institutions; (b) participation by a broad range
of government, nongovernment, private, and academic institutions in the protocol development process; and (c) inclusion of
socioeconomic and management criteria. Next steps for facilitating the broad adoption of the protocol in the Atlantic Forest
region include providing in person and online training courses, establishing an online repository for storing and comparing
monitoring data, and developing smartphone applications to facilitate data collection. Although the protocol was developed
for the Atlantic Forest context and further refinements are needed, we think that the Atlantic Forest Pact monitoring
protocol may serve as a model to inform the development of similar protocols in other regions, which ultimately could be
integrated to produce a pantropical protocol for common use by several restoration forest programs worldwide.
ecological indicators, ecological restoration, large-scale restoration, restoration success, socioeconomic evaluation
Ambitious forest and landscape restoration targets, such
as the Bonn Challenge, Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and
New York Declaration on Forests (Suding et al., 2015),
demonstrate an unprecedented recognition of restoration
as a global priority for addressing biodiversity conserva-
tion and human well-being. International commitments
are being converted into large-scale on-the-ground restor-
ation projects, and many regional and national initiatives
are being implemented worldwide (Aguilar et al., 2015;
Bae, Joo, & Kim 2012). Ongoing monitoring is critical to
determine whether projects are achieving stated goals and
objectives and to identify problems to be addressed by
adaptive management interventions (Hobbs, Hallett,
Ehrlich, & Mooney, 2011). The large amounts of private
Departamento de Biotecnologia e Produc¸a
˜o Vegetal e Animal,
Universidade Federal de Sa
˜o Carlos, Araras, SP, Brazil
Department of Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz,
World Resources Institute, Sa
˜o Paulo, Brazil
International Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Bioflora Tecnologia da Restaurac¸a
˜o, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Centro de Cie
´gicas, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do
Sul, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil
Centro de Restaurac¸a
´gica, Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Estado
˜o Paulo, Sa
˜o Paulo, SP, Brazil
Departamento de Cie
´gicas, ESALQ—Universidade de Sa
Paulo, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Departamento de Cie
ˆncias Florestais, ESALQ—Universidade de Sa
Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Ricardo A. G. Viani, Departamento de Biotecnologia e Produc¸a
˜o Vegetal e
Animal, Universidade Federal de Sa
˜o Carlos, Rodovia Anhanguera, Km 174,
DBPVA, CCA-UFSCar, Araras-SP, CEP 13600-091, Brazil.
Received 8 December 2016; Accepted 25 January 2017
Tropical Conservation Science
Volume 10: 1–8
!The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0
License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further
permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
and public financial resources needed for such ambitious
restoration goals, estimated at US$18 billion per year
(Menz, Dixon, & Hobbs, 2013), require transparency,
up-to-date monitoring information, and adequate
reporting to communicate restoration outcomes
(Jørgensen et al., 2014). However, traditional restoration
monitoring approaches have been implemented at limited
temporal and spatial scales, often with minimal analysis
of data and application of results to inform subsequent
The use of high-resolution satellite images has allowed
unparalleled achievements in monitoring changes in
forest cover globally (Global Forest Watch, 2014;
Hansen et al., 2013), and shows promise to assess
restoration at large scales. Such technologies, however,
have been used more to date for assessing deforestation,
a discrete land use change that can be easily identified by
satellites, compared with reforestation, a gradual and less
predictable change that may take decades. Many eco-
logical filters must be overcome by restoration interven-
tions to allow the reestablishment of tree cover, which is
only a single component of forest restoration (Holl &
Aide, 2011; Suganuma & Durigan, 2015). Consequently,
on-the-ground, local monitoring assessments are still
essential to support decision-making in adaptive manage-
ment and to thoroughly assess restoration outcomes
(Wortley, Hero, & Howes, 2013). A key challenge is stan-
dardizing local monitoring assessments in the context of
large-scale and multistakeholder restoration programs.
Standardized protocols are critical to ensure compar-
ability of local monitoring efforts across regional and
even global scales (Holl, & Cairns, 2002). Restoration
projects vary widely in their goals, making it critical to
clearly define both general goals and specific, measurable,
time-limited objectives in order to select monitoring indi-
cators that evaluate restoration success. Many ecological
indicators are used to evaluate forest restoration (Orsi,
Genelettia, & Newtonb, 2011; Wortley et al., 2013), and
each of them can be measured using a variety of methods
and sampling designs (Reyers et al., 2013; Ruiz-Jaen &
Aide, 2005). Consequently, if monitoring protocols
are not integrated from the outset, their results often
are not comparable. This limits the ability to evaluate
the overall success of large-scale restoration programs,
to compare effectiveness of different restoration methods,
and to establish reference values for specific ecosystem
A restoration monitoring protocol consists of a group
of indicators selected for restoration assessment based on
ecosystem and socioeconomic characteristics and project
goals, and technical guidance for measuring such indica-
tors (Block, Franklin, Ward, Ganey, & White, 2001).
To be most useful, monitoring protocols should be
designed to be used across sites employing different
restoration methods after a range of degradation scen-
arios and at varying successional stages of recovery.
Monitoring methods must be cost effective and repeat-
able by different people (Holl, & Cairns, 2002).
Additionally, reference values should be collected from
multiple sites or literature sources, given natural vari-
ation, and should be tailored to the ecosystem type and
successional stage that is targeted for specific projects
Although forest restoration monitoring protocols
have been developed for some regions and ecosystems
(e.g., Elliott, Blaskesley, & Hardwick, 2013; Savage,
Derr, Schumann, & Abrams, 2005), they usually focus
on a narrow suite of ecological parameters and do not
include management and socioeconomic indicators (Le,
Smith, Herbohn, & Harrison, 2012; Wortley et al., 2013).
In addition, there are few published studies reporting fail-
ure of projects and underlying reasons (Gonza
Tabacchi, Masip, & Poulin, 2015; Le et al., 2012), so
monitoring can identify problems and save money in
Here, we present the perspectives of the monitoring
protocol developed by the Atlantic Forest Restoration
Pact (Pacto) in Brazil, a national coalition with the goal
of promoting the restoration of 15 million ha of the
Atlantic Forest by 2050 (Calmon et al., 2011). The
Pacto is a multistakeholder initiative formed by 267 insti-
tutions, including nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), private companies, governments, and research
institutions, launched in 2009 to foster large-scale forest
restoration in the biome (Brancalion, Viani, Calmon,
Carrascosa, & Rodrigues, 2013). One main goal of the
Pacto was to develop a common monitoring protocol to
standardize monitoring efforts. We describe the protocol
and the development process, as well as review the
strengths and weaknesses. We think that the Pacto moni-
toring protocol may serve as a model for the development
of similar protocols in other regions, which ultimately
could be integrated to produce a pantropical protocol
for use by restoration forest programs worldwide.
Protocol Development History
After the Pacto launch in 2009, the coalition prioritized
developing a common monitoring protocol to (a) collect
more data about the restoration projects registered and
provide better accountability for Pacto supporters;
(b) identify general barriers and common needs for
Atlantic Forest restoration projects; (c) inform corrective
actions in ongoing restoration projects and enhance
success of future ones; and (d) standardize restoration
monitoring, thereby reducing the work of member insti-
tutions, enabling comparison of results, and defining ref-
erence values. The aim was to establish a protocol
2Tropical Conservation Science
applicable to all forest restoration projects and programs
in the Atlantic Forest, regardless of their age, restoration
technique, or region. The group was committed to
developing a multifaceted monitoring protocol, given
that restoration success depends not only on ecological
but appropriate socioeconomic and management
A 2-day workshop was held in 2011 to prepare,
discuss, and validate a first version of the protocol; 70
members from 53 Brazilian and 2 international institu-
tions, including 27 NGOs, 13 governmental organiza-
tions, 8 private companies, and 7 research institutions
participated. The protocol was reviewed by a working
group based on discussions at the meeting and widely
distributed in August 2011.
This version was field tested across different regions of
the Atlantic Forest. A large dataset of selected ecological
indicators, including data from over 1,000 ha of sites
undergoing restoration and 1,315 monitoring plots, was
gathered in a partnership between the University of Sa
Paulo, private companies, and NGOs. The dataset was
used to estimate monitoring labor requirement and costs,
as well as to model protocol sampling effort. In addition,
the full protocol was pilot tested on selected projects.
In March 2013, a second 2-day workshop focused on
learning from the field-testing and discussing changes to
improve the protocol. This workshop included participa-
tion of 27 government, private, NGO, and academic insti-
tutions from several Brazilian states, all of whom were
directly involved in monitoring forest restoration.
Products of the workshop were (a) a simpler and easier-
to-apply version protocol and (b) a list of recommenda-
tions to facilitate widespread use of the protocol. Both
products were developed because the earlier version was
not widely adopted, presumably due to its complexity
and low practicality for restoration managers given the
resources and time required to implement it.
Recommendations for improvement ranged from sim-
plifying methods to reformulating protocol layout and
communication tools with practitioners.
The most recent Pacto monitoring protocol was adopted
in 2013 and it is available for download in Portuguese
and English (http://www.pactomataatlantica.org.br/pub-
licacoes). The protocol is hierarchically structured into
principles (ecological, socioeconomic, and management),
criteria, indicators, and metrics (Table 1), which is an
adaptation from environmental certification protocols.
Within each principle, there are ‘‘criteria’’ (e.g., forest
structure, vegetation composition) each of which are
assessed by groups of ‘‘indicators.’’ ‘‘Metrics’’ are the
methods for measuring or evaluating an indicator.
A criterion may have several indicators, and there may
be multiple metrics for evaluating a specific indicator
(Table 1). Overall, the protocol has 19 criteria
(Table 1), 41 indicators, and 74 metrics. Ecological
criteria are evaluated for individual restoration projects,
whereas socioeconomic and management criteria are
evaluated for restoration programs (i.e., multiple restor-
ation projects within a watershed or region implemented
by a given institution or group).
The Ecological Principle presumes that forest restoration
must reestablish ecological processes with native species
and ensure the self-sustainability of restored ecosystems.
The Ecological Principle was divided into two recovery
phases because (a) most of the money spent on restor-
ation projects in the Atlantic Forest, and arguably in
most forest restoration initiatives, is focused on establish-
ing a canopy cover, so it is important early on to evaluate
success toward this endpoint and take corrective actions,
if needed; (b) assessing other ecological indicators
(e.g., biomass accumulation, shrub, and tree seedling
regeneration) is more appropriate once an initial
canopy cover is established. Although the protocol
distinguishes two monitoring phases, simultaneous moni-
toring of metrics from both phases can be done any time
during a restoration project, if desired.
Phase I is focused on the successful development of
tree cover, and, based on experience, Pacto members
agreed 70% is the minimum canopy cover level needed
to reduce cover of invasive grasses and facilitate tree
establishment. Phase I is composed of four criteria (vege-
tation structure, vegetation composition, edaphic, and
degradation factors) with 11 indicators and 12 metrics.
Canopy cover is the main indicator and the only one that
must be assessed. In cases where the 70% canopy cover
target has not yet been achieved, measuring a set of indi-
cators, such as ground cover by invasive or hyperabun-
dant herbaceous species, soil compaction, and incidence
of herbivory by leaf-cutting ants, is recommended to
identify which barriers most strongly limit recovery.
Once the 70% canopy cover is reached, monitoring
moves to Phase II, which focuses on ecological trajectory.
Phase II has two criteria, tree structure in different size
classes, including recruits, and composition (Table 1).
The protocol includes details on recommended sampling
intensity, how to collect and verify each indicator, work-
sheet templates, and a glossary. The Pacto members
decided to focus on vegetation attributes because most
Atlantic Forest restoration projects are targeted at
restoring forest cover, and plant regeneration can indicate
ecological processes mediated by fauna, such as seed dis-
persal (Ribeiro et al., 2015).
Viani et al. 3
Success or failure of forest restoration projects depend
also on a number of socioeconomic considerations such
as stakeholder involvement, economic costs and benefits,
and labor conditions. These considerations motivated the
inclusion of a Socioeconomic Principle, which is orga-
nized as 7 criteria (Table 1), 15 indicators, and 29 metrics,
aimed at capturing information related to the financial
fluxes involved in the project, as well as effects on the
workers and the local community. Data on restoration
program costs, revenues, incentives, and sources of fund-
ing are useful to understand the economic viability of
projects and to better illustrate economic benefits.
These benefits can accrue to the landowners (e.g.,
income from products or services generated by the pro-
ject), but also to the wider society (e.g., job creation and
poverty reduction). Information on the working condi-
tions is crucial to avoid the proliferation of projects
with inappropriate workforce conditions (e.g., lack of
labor security or health risks). Finally, indicators on the
relationship between the project and the surrounding
communities are central to assess whether a participatory
approach is being followed, which is not only ethically
appropriate but essential to the long-term project
Data for the Socioeconomic Principle are collected
using semi-structured interviews of stakeholders, partici-
pant observation, and document analysis. The general
recommendation is to evaluate forest restoration pro-
grams every 3 years.
Prior to the protocol, many Pacto members observed a
lack of planning and documentation of projects, which
resulted in restoration failure and a lost opportunity to
learn from past mistakes. Thus, the Management
Principle was developed with a set of 6 criteria
(Table 1), 9 indicators, and 26 metrics to document the
existence of information and records regarding preimple-
mentation planning, socioenvironmental diagnosis,
selection and implementation of restoration techniques,
as well as lists of regional and planted species, data and
photographic records, mapping, periodical reports, and
other information to assist in understanding possible
causes of restoration success or failure. The application
of the Management Principle can identify gaps in the
various planning and implementation activities that are
likely to lead to an unsuccessful restoration program and
enable project leaders to communicate their successful
Management Principle data are collected in the same
way as described for the Socioeconomic Principle.
Additionally, the protocol suggests writing a brief project
report summarizing the monitoring data and highlighting
the most relevant positive and negative points related to
management and socioeconomic impacts.
Protocol Strengths and Limitations
The Pacto monitoring protocol represents a potential
starting point for developing tropical forest monitoring
protocols for other regions. To that end, we review the
strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned from the
process, recognizing that there will necessarily be
improvements and refinements to tailor subsequent
protocols to specific project goals and forest types. The
protocol was developed for and pilot tested in Atlantic
Forest restoration sites that include a range of ages, forest
types, past land uses, restoration techniques, and imple-
menting institutions, enhancing the likelihood that it will
be useful in other tropical forest regions.
A strong point is that the protocol was collectively
constructed by regional, national, and international col-
laborators and therefore, the protocol is not restricted to
the vision and opinion of a single person, sector, or
institution. Instead, many stakeholders involved with
forest restoration, including policy makers, practitioners,
managers, and scientific institutions provided input.
Restoration is a multidisciplinary area with science and
practice demands (DellaSala et al., 2003), and the inclu-
sion of different points of view is important to ensure
effective large-scale ecological and restoration monitor-
ing (Lindenmayer & Likens, 2010). Moreover, inclusion
of a range of stakeholders throughout the process is crit-
ical to ‘‘buy in,’’ so the protocol is actually used.
Another benefit is the development of a large suite of
metrics, which offers practitioners a view of the whole
forest restoration process and the possibility of selecting
the appropriate indicators depending on their objectives
and goals. If a primary goal is restoring biodiversity then
indicators of species richness may be selected, whereas to
evaluate carbon sequestration, basal area is a more
appropriate metric. Most of the ecological metrics focus
on vegetation structure, arguably the most common goal
of forest restoration projects. Additional indicators and
metrics would need to be developed for substantially dif-
ferent project goals, such as efforts targeted to restore
individual species or certain guilds of fauna.
Although we consider the range of metrics as a
strength, we recognize that guidance may be needed to
help the user select specific indicators and metrics for
their specific goals and objectives. Monitoring budgets
are often limited so it is critical to carefully select the
most efficient set of metrics to evaluate whether specific
objectives are being achieved (Holl & Cairns, 2002). As
an example, Sa
˜o Paulo State developed a protocol to
evaluate restoration success in mandatory and public-
funded restoration projects which requires only three
4Tropical Conservation Science
Table 1. Principles, Criteria, and Examples of Indicators for the Forest Restoration Monitoring Protocol Established by the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact.
Principles Criteria Example of indicators
Ecological Phase I
<70% of canopy cover)
1—Forest structure Canopy cover
and invasive herbaceous species
2—Tree and shrub species composition Density and composition of invasive tree species.
3—Edaphic Soil chemical and physical properties and infor-
mation on soil compaction and conservation.
4—Degradation factors Fire occurrences, domestic animals grazing within
restoration sites and leaf-cutting ants attacks.
70% of canopy cover)
1—Forest Structure Density of small (0.5 m-height; CBH <15 cm)
and large (CBH 15 cm) woody plants and
basal area of trees with CBH 15 cm.
2—Species composition Numbers of native and invasive woody species.
Socioeconomic 1—Work and/or income from the restoration areas Generation of jobs and level of investment in the
2—Revenues and financial incentives associated with
Payment of environmental services (PES), tax
incentives, commercialization of timber and
3—Source of resources for restoration Investigation of resources invested in the restor-
4—Job opportunities, training and other services to
Hiring of labor and income generation for local
5—Well-being of workers in forest restoration Securing benefits to worker health and respon-
sibility for ensuring compliance with the
appropriate sanitary and environmental
6—Ensure appropriate work safety conditions Availability of personal protective equipment
(PPE) for workers.
7—Relationship of the program with the surrounding
Participation of communities and local stake-
holders. Environmental education actions.
Management 1—Planning and documenting program execution Information and records of socioenvironmental
diagnosis, regional, and planted (if this is the
case) species lists, program implementation
schedule and budget, mapping and photos of
2—Partnership with the rural property owner con-
cerning the execution of forest restoration activities
Partnership agreement with the landowner.
3—Technical ability of the restoration practitioners Qualification of managers and the technical team.
ecological indicators from the Pacto protocol: (a) native
vegetation ground cover; (b) density of native plants
spontaneously regenerating; and (c) number of spontan-
eously regenerating native plant species (Chaves,
Durigan, Brancalion, & Aronson, 2015).
We recognize that the protocol lacks trigger points
(e.g., specific target values to be achieved by a certain
time) that if not reached require additional management
actions. The only specific target value is 70% of canopy
cover, which is the threshold to move from ecological
monitoring Phase I to II. Trigger points are critical to
the adaptive management cycle and to ensure that cor-
rective actions are taken if restoration targets are not
being achieved (Holl & Cairns, 2002). That said, trigger
points will vary depending on project objectives and the
forest type and, therefore, are problematic to specify in a
general protocol. For example, based on their experience
in Thailand, Elliott et al. (2013) recommend a target of
3,100 woody stems ha
for all tropical forest restoration
projects, a target that is quite different from those of
many forest restoration projects in Latin America.
Likewise, the 70% forest cover threshold separating
Phase I and II of the Ecological Principle would likely
need to be modified if applied in a different region.
Another strong point of the Pacto protocol is the possi-
bility of frequent updating based on learning through its
application by stakeholders. We contend that such a cycle
of learning should be incorporated in any similar regional
monitoring efforts to best adapt protocols to local eco-
systems and user needs. For the Pacto protocol, this test-
ing and learning was incorporated between the first and
second workshops, and we anticipate further periodic
workshops will be organized when more data and feed-
back become available from practitioner use.
Although there have been calls to include socioeco-
nomic factors in restoration planning and assessment
(DellaSala et al., 2003; Brancalion, Viani, Strassburg, &
Rodrigues, 2012), to date evaluation of restoration suc-
cess has focused on ecological attributes (Wortley et al.,
2013). Thus, the inclusion of Socioeconomic and
Management principles is noteworthy. We acknowledge
that these principles are less well developed and tested
than the Ecological Principle, given that there was more
prior experience with and technical capacity on ecological
criteria and metrics. We anticipate that over time, the
socioeconomic and management metrics will be a focus
of improvements to the protocol.
Efforts are underway to improve the implementation of
the protocol in the Atlantic Forest, which also provide
insight for applying a revised version in other regions. We
prioritized the next issues to be addressed based on stake-
holder inputs at the second workshop. First, it is
Table 1. Continued
Principles Criteria Example of indicators
4—Restoration monitoring Existence of a monitoring follow-up protocol
used to evaluate restoration results.
5—Communication Flow of external and internal information
between management, practitioners, and
6—Technological and methodological innovations Usage, discovery, or establishment of any suc-
cessful technological or methodological
Note. All the indicators and details on how to collect their data are described in the Protocol (available at Pacto website). CBH: stem circumference at 1.3 m.
Canopy cover is the mandatory indicator in this phase and the others are suggestions to investigate filters enabling forest community to reach a desirable forest cover.
In cases where the owner is not directly responsible for program execution.
6Tropical Conservation Science
necessary to provide training for restoration stakeholders
on use of the protocol. Hence, training courses are being
offered throughout the region, and an online tutorial
video, that will be freely available and include detailed
training modules, is being prepared in partnership with
the Environmental Leadership and Training Initiative
Second, an online database is being developed to
provide restoration practitioners with an easy-to-use,
web-based GIS platform where monitoring data from
individual projects can be loaded. To incentivize Pacto
members to upload their data, there are plans to deliver
an automatic feedback report, which will include com-
parisons of individual project values for the most com-
monly collected quantitative indicators (e.g., canopy
cover, tree density, tree richness) with values for other
similarly aged restoration projects in that region and
vegetation type. In addition, the report will suggest gen-
eral management actions when values are lower than
expected for some of those indicators. This system is
essential to generate regional reference variables for the
most important ecological indicators, a step necessary for
defining trigger points for corrective actions. Finally,
members requested applications (apps) to facilitate data
collection. The initial goal is to create an app to load
ecological data collected in the field directly into smart-
phones and tablets, thus reducing field and office work.
We see extensive potential for the Pacto protocol to be
used more widely both regionally and globally. Seventeen
Brazilian States are within the Atlantic Forest, and their
governments will need monitoring protocols to evaluate
success of their ambitious restoration goals (Soares-Filho
et al., 2014). Following on the Sa
˜o Paulo State example
(Chaves el al., 2015), other states could take advantage of
the previous multistakeholder approach and officially
adopt a version of the Pacto protocol tailored to their
needs. Although the Pacto monitoring protocol was
designed for the Atlantic Forest, the participatory process
through which it was developed may make it a starting
point to develop related forest restoration monitoring
protocols throughout the globe in order to face the
coming challenge of large-scale forest restoration
(Suding et al., 2015). Regardless, we are certain that the
lessons learned through the experience of developing the
protocol will be informative to others involved in a simi-
Implications for Conservation
A forest restoration monitoring protocol with ecological,
socioeconomic, and management indicators is available
for monitoring Brazilian Atlantic Forest restoration pro-
jects, and can serve as a starting point for developing
forest restoration monitoring protocols in other regions
of the world. The regular use of the Atlantic Forest
Restoration Pact monitoring protocol will provide a
large amount of data for defining regional reference
values for the most important indicators and for improv-
ing restoration efforts, and their benefits, including con-
servation. The integration among restoration
stakeholders (scientists, policy-makers, practitioners,
managers, environmental, and private bodies) is essential
for developing and implementing an effective monitoring
We thank all the institutions that participated in the 2011 and 2013
workshops to discuss the Pacto monitoring protocol.
Declaration of Conflicting of Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Ricardo A.
G. Viani, Fabiano T. Farah, Ricardo R. Rodrigues, and Pedro H. S.
Brancalion are supported by Grant #2013/50718-5, Sa
Research Foundation (FAPESP).
Aguilar, M., Sierra, J., Ramirez, W., Vargas, O., Calle, Z., Vargas,
W., ...Barrera Catan
˜o, J. I. (2015). Toward a post-conflict
Colombia: Restoring to the future. Restoration Ecology,23,
Bae, J. S., Joo, R. W., & Kim, Y. S. (2012). Forest transition in
South Korea: Reality, path and drivers. Land Use Policy,29,
Block, W. M., Franklin, A. B., Ward, Jr. J. P., Ganey, J. L., &
White, G. C. (2001). Design and implementation of monitoring
studies to evaluate the success of ecological restoration on wild-
life. Restoration Ecology,9, 293–303.
Brancalion, P. H. S., Viani, R. A. G., Calmon, M., Carrascosa, H.,
& Rodrigues, R. R. (2013). How to organize a large-scale eco-
logical restoration program? The framework developed by the
Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil. Journal of
Sustainable Forestry,32, 728–744.
Brancalion, P. H. S., Viani, R. A. G., Strassburg, B. B. N., &
Rodrigues, R. R. (2012). Finding the money for tropical forest
restoration. Unasylva,63, 41–50.
Calmon, M., Brancalion, P. H. S., Paese, A., Aronson, J., Castro, P.,
Silva, S. C., ...Rodrigues, R. R. (2011). Emerging threats and
opportunities for biodiversity conservation and ecological res-
toration in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Restoration Ecology,
Chaves, R. B., Durigan, G., Brancalion, P. H. S., & Aronson, J.
(2015). On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restor-
ation projects success: New perspectives from Sa
˜o Paulo state
(Brazil). Restoration Ecology,23, 754–759.
DellaSala, D. A., Martin, A., Spivak, R., Schulke, T., Bird, B.,
Criley, M., ...Aplet, G. (2003). A citizen’s call for ecological
Viani et al. 7
forest restoration: Forest restoration principles and criteria.
Ecological Restoration,21, 14–23.
Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2000). Defining the limits of restoration: The need
for realistic goals. Restoration Ecology,8, 2–9.
Elliott, S., Blakesley, D., & Hardwick, K. (2013). Restoring trop-
ical forests: A practical guide. London, England: Kew
Global Forest Watch. (2014). World Resource Institute. Retrieved
Gonza´lez, E., Sher, A. A., Tabacchi, E., Masip, A., & Poulin, M.
(2015). Restoration of riparian vegetation: A global review of
implementation and evaluation approaches in the international,
peer-reviewed literature. Journal of Environmental
Hansen, M., Potapov, P., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.,
Tyukavina, A., ...Loveland, T. (2013). High-resolution global
maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science,342, 850–853.
Hobbs, R. J., Hallett, L. M., Ehrlich, P. R., & Mooney, H. A.
(2011). Intervention ecology: Applying ecological science in
the twenty-first century. Bioscience,61, 442–450.
Holl, K. D., & Aide, T. M. (2011). When and where to actively
restore ecosystems? Forest Ecology and Management,261,
Holl, K. D., & Cairns, J. (2002). Monitoring and appraisal. In: M.
R. Perrow, & A. J. Davy (Eds.). Handbook of ecological res-
toration (pp. 411–432). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
Jørgensen, D., Nilsson, C., Hof, A. R., Hasselquist, E. M., Baker,
S., Chapin, III F. S., ...Meyerson, L. A. (2014). Policy lan-
guage in restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology,22, 1–4.
Le, H. D., Smith, C., Herbohn, J., & Harrison, S. (2012). More than
just trees: Assessing reforestation success in tropical developing
countries. Journal of Rural Studies,28, 5–19.
Lindenmayer, D. B., & Likens, G. E. (2010). The science and
application of ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation,
Menz, M. H. M., Dixon, K. W., & Hobbs, R. J. (2013). Hurdles and
opportunities for landscape-scale restoration. Science,
Orsi, F., Genelettia, D., & Newtonb, A. C. (2011). Towards a
common set of criteria and indicators to identify forest restor-
ation priorities: An expert panel-based approach. Ecological
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G. S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A.
P., & Polasky, S. (2013). Getting the measure of ecosystem
services: A social–ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment,11, 268–273.
Ribeiro, R. S., Montoya, D., Furtado, R., Memmott, J., Pizo, M. A.,
& Rodrigues, R. R. (2015). The restoration of tropical seed
dispersal networks. Restoration Ecology,23, 852–860.
Ruiz-Jaen, M. C., & Aide, T. M. (2005). Vegetation structure, spe-
cies diversity, and ecosystem processes as measures of restor-
ation success. Forest Ecology and Management,218, 159–173.
Savage, M., Derr, T., Schumann, M., & Abrams, J. (2005).
Monitoring handbook four: Monitoring ecological effects. The
Multiparty Monitoring Handbook Series. Flagstaff, AZ:
Ecological Restoration Institute/NAU.
Soares-Filho, B., Raja
˜o, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W.,
Coe, M., ...Alencar, A. B. (2014). Cracking Brazil’s forest
code. Science,344, 363–364.
Suganuma, M. S., & Durigan, G. (2015). Indicators of restoration
success in riparian tropical forests using multiple reference eco-
systems. Restoration Ecology,23, 238–251.
Suding, K., Higgs, E., Palmer, M., Callicott, J. B., Anderson, C. B.,
Baker, M., ...Larson, B. M. (2015). Committing to ecological
restoration. Science,348, 638–640.
Wortley, L., Hero, J. M., & Howes, M. (2013). Evaluating eco-
logical restoration success: A review of the literature.
Restoration Ecology,5, 537–543.
8Tropical Conservation Science