Restoring degraded ecosystems is not simply about bringing back trees and vegetation. It is about rebuilding the natural systems that sustain water, food, livelihoods and resilient communities.

For many rural communities, the health of the surrounding landscape is inseparable from the health of the household.

A degraded riverbank can mean more than the loss of trees. It can mean eroded farmland, declining soil fertility, unreliable water, reduced agricultural productivity and greater pressure on household incomes. When wetlands deteriorate, forests disappear or soils lose their capacity to retain water, the consequences eventually reach farms, markets, kitchens and family livelihoods.

This is why ecosystem restoration should not be viewed as an environmental activity standing apart from agriculture and rural development. It is increasingly a question of how communities can secure the ecological foundations upon which food production and livelihoods depend.

Recent analysis by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reinforces this connection. Its 2026 policy brief, Agrifood Systems in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, analysed 78 revised or updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and found that agrifood systems are deeply embedded in national biodiversity action. All 78 NBSAPs analysed included agrifood-related targets and actions, while agrifood-related actions accounted for 36 percent of all actions identified in the analysis.
The message is clear: nature, food and livelihoods cannot be planned for in isolation.

The landscape is part of the food system

Food does not begin at the market. It begins in the soil, in the availability of water, in pollination, in the diversity of crops and livestock, in forests and wetlands, and in the ecological processes that make productive landscapes possible.

Farmers depend on these systems every day, whether or not they are described as biodiversity services.

A healthy catchment can help regulate water flows. Vegetation along rivers can reduce erosion and help protect riverbanks. Healthy soils can support agricultural productivity. Trees can contribute to shade, organic matter, habitat and diversified farm production. Biodiversity can support pollinators and natural pest regulation. Forests and other natural ecosystems can provide resources and services that rural households depend upon.

When these systems deteriorate, agricultural production can become increasingly vulnerable.

FAO’s analysis reflects this interdependence. It notes that agrifood systems both depend on biodiversity and influence it, while biodiversity loss can have consequences for food security, nutrition and livelihoods. The organisation has also emphasised that biodiversity is a foundation of sustainable agricultural production and food security.

This changes the question we should be asking about restoration.

Instead of asking only, “How many trees have been planted?”, we should also ask: Are riverbanks recovering? Is soil being protected? Is water becoming more secure? Are farms becoming more resilient? Are communities gaining sustainable livelihood opportunities? Is biodiversity returning to productive landscapes?

These questions move restoration from an activity-based approach towards an outcomes-based approach.

Restoration is about rebuilding ecological functions

Tree planting is often one of the most visible forms of restoration. It is easy to count, photograph and communicate. But a planted tree is not, by itself, an ecosystem restored.

Restoration requires attention to the ecological functions that have been weakened or lost.

That may mean restoring vegetation along a degraded river. It may involve stabilising eroded riverbanks, protecting water sources, improving soil management, establishing agroforestry systems, conserving indigenous species or strengthening community management of natural resources.

It can also involve supporting farmers to adopt biodiversity-friendly practices that allow agricultural production and ecosystem conservation to reinforce one another.

The FAO analysis found that restoration practices and biodiversity-friendly practices were among the most common agrifood-related actions appearing in national biodiversity plans, each identified in 92 percent of the NBSAPs analysed. Sustainable forest management appeared in 86 percent, while ecosystem-based adaptation and nature-based solutions appeared in 73 percent. Soil management was included in 66 percent of the plans.

This is significant.

It suggests that restoration is increasingly being recognised not simply as a conservation measure, but as part of a broader strategy for making landscapes more productive, sustainable and resilient.

Water is where restoration meets food security

For rural communities, few links are more immediate than the relationship between ecosystems and water.

Agriculture depends on water. Livestock depend on water. Household activities depend on water. Small businesses depend on water. Yet the availability and quality of water are strongly influenced by how landscapes are managed.

When riverbanks are cleared, soils exposed and catchments degraded, rainfall can contribute to erosion and sedimentation rather than supporting healthy landscapes. When natural vegetation is lost, the capacity of ecosystems to regulate water can also be weakened.

This is why riparian restoration matters beyond the river itself.

Restoring a river corridor can help protect the ecological integrity of the waterway while creating a wider buffer between agricultural activity and sensitive aquatic ecosystems. Where restoration is linked to appropriate land management, it can contribute to reducing erosion, protecting soils and strengthening the resilience of farming communities.

In this sense, restoring a river is also an investment in the landscape around it.

A practical example from Tharaka Nithi

The experience of ACEECA’s Restoration of Degraded Riparian Ecosystems in Tharaka Nithi County illustrates this broader understanding of restoration.

Implemented along the Gituma and Muthangacwa rivers, the initiative has brought together ecosystem restoration, community mobilisation, tree and bamboo planting, erosion control, environmental education and farmer capacity building.

The project has worked across more than 10 kilometres of riverbanks, supported community tree nurseries, established erosion-control infrastructure and engaged farmers and community groups in restoration activities. More than 10,000 trees and bamboo have been planted, while monitoring has also been used to assess survival and restoration progress.

What is important about this experience is not simply the number of seedlings put into the ground.

The deeper value lies in the connection between the river, the farm and the household.

Where erosion threatens productive land, restoring vegetation and strengthening riverbank protection can help address an environmental problem that is also an agricultural concern.

Where communities participate in nurseries and tree growing, restoration can become linked to local skills, ownership and future access to planting material.

Where farmers receive training on agroforestry and sustainable land management, conservation can become part of how food is produced rather than an activity occurring somewhere outside the farm.

And where local institutions and community groups participate in planning and implementation, restoration has a greater opportunity to become a sustained community responsibility rather than a short-term project intervention.

This is the type of integrated thinking that can turn restoration from a campaign into a long-term development process.

From restoration to resilient livelihoods

Rural livelihoods are often diversified.

A household may depend on crop production, livestock, casual employment, small businesses, forest products or other natural resources at different times of the year.

This means that ecosystem degradation can affect households through several pathways at once.

Reduced soil productivity can affect harvests. Water insecurity can increase the time and resources required to meet household needs. Loss of vegetation can reduce access to certain natural resources. Climate shocks can compound these pressures.

Restoration, therefore, should be designed with livelihood realities in mind.

This does not mean that every restoration project must become an income-generating programme. Rather, it means that environmental interventions should recognise the economic systems within which communities live.

A restoration initiative that protects a river but leaves farmers without viable alternatives to environmentally damaging practices may struggle to sustain its gains.

By contrast, approaches that combine ecological restoration with farmer training, sustainable production, community nurseries, agroforestry, local governance and access to appropriate markets can create stronger conditions for long-term stewardship.

The FAO analysis points towards this broader systems approach. It found that national biodiversity plans commonly include actions covering production practices, ecosystem and landscape management, value chains, governance, technical cooperation and investment. It also highlights value-chain and market development as a major area of action, appearing in 79 percent of the NBSAPs analysed.

The implication is important: restoring nature and strengthening livelihoods should not be treated as competing objectives.

When appropriately designed, they can support each other.

Food systems must become part of biodiversity action

For years, biodiversity conservation has often been associated primarily with protected areas, forests and wildlife.

These remain critically important.

But biodiversity does not stop at the boundary of a protected area.

It exists in agricultural landscapes, soils, wetlands, farms, grazing systems, forests, rivers and the genetic diversity of crops and livestock.

This is why the integration of agrifood systems into biodiversity planning matters.

FAO’s analysis found that agrifood-related actions collectively contribute to all 23 targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It also found that 63 percent of national biodiversity targets analysed were implemented through one or more agrifood-related actions.

This is a powerful indication of how closely biodiversity and food systems are connected.

It also creates an opportunity for governments, development organisations, farmers’ organisations, researchers and communities to rethink how environmental and agricultural programmes are designed.

Instead of asking whether an intervention is primarily environmental or agricultural, we can ask: What ecological and livelihood outcomes can this intervention deliver together?

The importance of soil

One of the less visible dimensions of restoration is soil.

Healthy soils are fundamental to agricultural production, yet soil degradation can happen gradually, often without the dramatic visual signals associated with deforestation.

Erosion, declining organic matter, compaction and poor land management can gradually reduce the productivity and resilience of agricultural land.

Restoration therefore needs to extend below the surface.

Measures such as maintaining vegetation cover, reducing erosion, integrating trees appropriately into farming systems, protecting riparian areas and promoting sustainable soil management can contribute to healthier productive landscapes.

FAO’s analysis identifies soil management among the commonly included agrifood actions in national biodiversity strategies, reinforcing the importance of treating soils as part of the biodiversity–food security relationship.

For farmers, this is not an abstract biodiversity objective.

It is about whether land can continue supporting production over time.

Agroforestry can connect conservation and production

Agroforestry offers another example of how restoration and livelihoods can intersect.

Trees integrated into appropriate agricultural landscapes can contribute to diversified production systems while supporting ecological functions.

However, the choice of species, location and management practices matters. Restoration should be based on ecological suitability and community needs rather than simply maximising the number of seedlings planted.

In the FAO analysis, agroforestry appeared in 52 percent of the NBSAPs examined.

This demonstrates growing recognition of agroforestry as one of the approaches through which biodiversity, production and landscape resilience can be connected.

For Kenya, this is particularly relevant in rural landscapes where farming, water resources, forests and settlement patterns are closely interconnected.

Communities must be at the centre

There is another lesson that restoration projects cannot afford to overlook: ecosystems are managed by people.

Communities living around rivers, forests, farms and wetlands often have detailed knowledge of their landscapes. They understand seasonal changes, local species, water sources, land-use pressures and the practical realities of conservation.

Their participation should therefore go beyond attendance at project activities.

Communities should have meaningful roles in identifying problems, setting priorities, implementing restoration, monitoring results and determining how restored resources will be managed.

FAO’s analysis highlights participatory planning and decision-making as an important enabling action, appearing in 88 percent of the NBSAPs analysed. It also identifies traditional knowledge in 62 percent of plans and equal rights and access to land and natural resources in 42 percent.

The unevenness of these figures is a reminder that participation and equity cannot be assumed. They need to be deliberately built into programmes and policies.

Restoration that excludes the people who depend on a landscape is unlikely to deliver lasting results.

Measuring what restoration actually changes

A second shift is needed: from measuring activities to measuring outcomes. Counting seedlings is useful. But it is not enough.

A serious restoration programme should also ask whether planted trees survive, whether vegetation cover improves, whether erosion declines, whether riverbanks stabilise, whether water resources are better protected, whether biodiversity indicators improve and whether communities experience meaningful benefits.

This is where monitoring, evaluation, research and learning become essential.

FAO’s policy analysis calls for national targets and actions to be measurable and supported by robust data, monitoring systems and institutional capacity. It also highlights the importance of data for decision-making, extension and advisory services, spatial prioritisation and delivery capacity.

For organisations working at community level, this principle can be applied practically.

A restored landscape should tell a story through evidence. How many trees survived? How much riverbank was stabilised? What happened to soil erosion? How has community participation changed? What practices have farmers adopted? What livelihood opportunities have emerged? What ecological changes can be observed over time?

These questions help shift restoration from a one-off intervention towards adaptive, evidence-based management.

Restoration needs investment, not only enthusiasm

Many environmental initiatives begin with strong community commitment but face a familiar challenge: limited resources for long-term maintenance, monitoring and scale.

Restoration takes time.

A seedling planted today may require years of protection before its ecological contribution becomes significant. A degraded riverbank may need repeated interventions. Changes in soil health and agricultural productivity may not appear within a single project cycle.

This makes financing critical.

The FAO analysis found that 70 percent of NBSAPs included actions related to mobilising finance or scaling investment. At the same time, the policy brief emphasises the need to align priorities with budgets, institutions and implementation capacity.
For Kenya and other countries facing climate and biodiversity pressures, this means restoration should increasingly be treated as an investment in resilience. It is an investment in productive land. It is An investment in water security. It is An investment in food systems. It is An investment in rural economies.

And, ultimately, an investment in the capacity of communities to withstand environmental and economic shocks.

What this means for Kenya

Kenya’s environmental challenges are often discussed through separate lenses: climate change, food insecurity, water scarcity, land degradation, biodiversity loss and rural poverty.

On the ground, however, these issues rarely arrive separately.

A farmer experiencing unreliable rainfall may also be dealing with declining soil fertility.

A community living along a degraded river may simultaneously be facing erosion, reduced water availability and declining agricultural productivity.

A household affected by climate variability may become more dependent on natural resources precisely when those resources are under increasing pressure.

This interconnectedness calls for equally integrated solutions.

Ecosystem restoration should therefore be connected to agricultural extension, water-resource management, climate adaptation, livelihood development, biodiversity conservation and local governance.

This does not mean making every programme do everything. It means ensuring that interventions are designed with the wider landscape in mind.

Five principles for restoration that delivers more

As organisations, governments and communities invest in ecosystem restoration, five principles can help strengthen the connection between environmental recovery and livelihoods.

1. Restore ecosystems, not just tree numbers

Tree planting should be understood as one component of restoration. Site suitability, species selection, survival, biodiversity, soil, water and long-term management should receive equal attention.

2. Design around the landscape

Riverbanks, farms, forests, wetlands and grazing areas are interconnected. Restoration planning should consider these relationships rather than treating ecosystems as isolated project sites.

3. Put farmers and communities at the centre

Local knowledge and community ownership are essential for sustaining restoration beyond project funding cycles.

4. Measure ecological and livelihood outcomes

Monitoring should move beyond activity counts to assess survival, ecosystem recovery, resilience, agricultural outcomes, participation and livelihood effects.

5. Align restoration with policy and investment

Restoration should be reflected in agricultural, climate, biodiversity, water and development plans, with clear responsibilities, adequate financing and measurable targets.

These principles are consistent with the broader direction identified by FAO: integrating agrifood commitments into sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, strengthening coordination and resources, and scaling priority actions such as ecosystem restoration and biodiversity-friendly practices.

From planting trees to restoring possibilities

The real measure of ecosystem restoration is not only what happens to the landscape.

It is also what becomes possible for the people who depend on that landscape.

A healthier river can support a healthier catchment.

A healthier catchment can support more secure water resources.

Healthier soils can support more resilient agriculture.

More resilient agriculture can strengthen household food security.

More secure food systems can reduce vulnerability.

And communities that see tangible value in healthy ecosystems are more likely to become long-term stewards of them.

This is why the conversation about restoration needs to move beyond the number of trees planted.

Trees matter.

But trees are part of a larger system.

The objective is to restore the ecological processes that sustain life and livelihoods — and to ensure that communities are able to participate in, benefit from and sustain that restoration.

The FAO’s latest analysis provides an important policy signal: agrifood systems are already central to national biodiversity action, with restoration, biodiversity-friendly practices, sustainable land management and other approaches increasingly recognised as part of the pathway towards more resilient food systems.

For organisations such as ACEECA, working alongside communities to restore degraded landscapes, the opportunity is to take this thinking from policy to practice.

The future of restoration should not be measured only in seedlings.

It should be measured in healthier ecosystems, more secure water, stronger soils, resilient food systems and communities better equipped to sustain their livelihoods.

That is what it means to move beyond tree planting.

---

Source

This article draws on the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) policy brief, Agrifood Systems in National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (2026), which analyses how agrifood systems are reflected in 78 revised or updated National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans.

The FAO’s accompanying analysis similarly highlights the central role of agrifood systems in national biodiversity action and the need to move from commitments towards measurable implementation.