Guidance for Scientifically Implementing Integrated Conservation and Restoration of Mountains, Waters, Forests, Farmlands, Lakes, and Grasslands — An Interpretation of the Technical Logic Behind the “Guidelines for Ecological Protection and Restoration Projects of Mountains, Waters, Forests, Farmlands, Lakes, and Grasslands”

Recently, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Ministry of Ecology and Environment jointly issued the “Guidance on Ecological Protection and Restoration Projects for Mountains, Waters, Forests, Farmlands, Lakes, and Grasslands (Trial)” (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidance”). The Guidance thoroughly implements Xi Jinping’s Thought on Ecological Civilization. Drawing on a comprehensive review of the experiences and challenges from three batches of 25 pilot projects launched since 2016, it aligns closely with cutting-edge international and domestic concepts and relevant standards in ecological protection and restoration, thereby providing guidance for the scientific implementation of integrated conservation and restoration of mountains, waters, forests, farmlands, lakes, and grasslands. To understand and apply the technical rationale of the Guidance, it is essential to focus on the following key points:

I. Shift mindsets and conduct conservation and restoration in accordance with natural laws.

China’s ecological restoration efforts originated in the 1980s. In the early stages, these initiatives primarily focused on ecosystem reconstruction, leveraging human intervention to establish or enhance ecosystem development, with relatively narrow and singular restoration objectives and targets. Since the beginning of the 21st century—particularly following the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China—the core guiding principles of ecological restoration have shifted toward prioritizing conservation, emphasizing protection, and relying mainly on natural regeneration, all while safeguarding ecological security and fostering harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature. Nevertheless, the transition in practical conservation and restoration approaches remains lagging behind these conceptual shifts, as evidenced by such issues as overly narrow restoration goals that fail to reflect the ethos of a community of life; insufficient systemic integration, with inadequate linkages among individual sub‑projects; and an overreliance on engineering‑based measures.

To address the issues of limited scope and insufficient systemic integration in conservation and restoration efforts, the Guidelines explicitly state: “Taking into account the systemic nature and integrity of natural ecosystems, the project implementation area and scale shall be scientifically and rationally determined on the basis of relatively complete natural geographic units—such as river basins, lakes, and mountain ranges—while also aligning with administrative boundaries.” This necessitates that the objects of conservation and restoration under landscape‑water projects be conceived as an organic whole composed of interconnected and mutually interacting elements.

To enhance the scientific basis for selecting conservation and restoration measures, the Guidelines stipulate that “natural recovery shall be prioritized, with artificial restoration serving as a supplementary approach,” and emphasize that, “based on baseline surveys, identification and diagnosis of ecological issues, as well as conservation and restoration objectives and standards, each type of ecological conservation and restoration unit shall adopt a technology‑driven approach that prioritizes protection and conservation, natural recovery, assisted regeneration, or ecological reconstruction.” Specifically, measures emphasizing protection and conservation should be applied to representative natural ecosystems and to rare and endangered wild species and their habitats; for mildly degraded ecosystems with strong resilience, natural recovery should be the primary strategy; for moderately degraded ecosystems, assisted regeneration should be implemented in conjunction with natural recovery; and for severely degraded ecosystems, ecological reconstruction is required.

II. Distinguish Scales and Clarify Objectives at Different Levels

Unlike previous ecological conservation and restoration projects that focused on a single element or a single objective, the Ecological Conservation and Restoration Project for Mountains, Waters, Forests, Fields, Lakes, and Grasslands integrates the governance of diverse elements across a broader spatial scale.

To ensure effective alignment between the overarching objectives and the specific sub‑project goals, the Guidelines introduce the concept of scale. Scale refers to the spatial resolution and temporal granularity of the objects or processes under observation or study. The technical framework of the Guidelines delineates three hierarchical scales—regional (or watershed), ecosystem, and site—each addressing distinct issues at its respective level. At the regional (or watershed) scale, work focuses on identifying and diagnosing macro‑level challenges, formulating overall conservation and restoration targets, and defining the layout of conservation‑restoration units and sub‑projects. At the ecosystem scale, efforts are directed toward diagnosing ecological issues within individual conservation‑restoration units, developing corresponding detailed indicator systems and standards, and determining appropriate conservation‑restoration strategies and measures. Finally, at the site scale, the emphasis is on the construction design and implementation of sub‑projects.

III. Survey the Current Situation and Clarify the Regional Ecological Baseline Conditions

In response to issues such as unclear ecological baselines, overly ambitious or somewhat arbitrary target-setting in certain ecological conservation and restoration projects, the Guidelines designate baseline surveys as the first step in the technical framework for conservation and restoration. The Guidelines stipulate that survey content should encompass “the ecological functional zoning of the project area, its natural ecological (geographic) conditions, and its socio‑economic circumstances.” With respect to scope and depth, the requirements are as follows: “The survey scope should be tailored to different scales and gradients—such as the regional or watershed level—and the level of detail should meet or exceed the relevant standards for similar projects; the compilation of basic survey maps and data must comply with the requirements of natural resource assessments and related specialized and professional surveys.” At the regional (or watershed) scale, attention should be paid to the spatial pattern of ecological areas, with clear identification of the types, numbers, and distributions of ecosystem components. At the ecosystem scale, emphasis should be placed on the community‑level characteristics that constitute the ecosystem, specifying the composition of flora and fauna, habitat quality, and the distribution of key species. If the project area includes protected areas, the boundaries and designated subjects of those areas must also be clearly defined. In addition to assessing the condition of natural ecosystems, the survey should evaluate the threats facing these systems, identify the principal stressors—particularly those associated with human activities such as pollution, mining, grazing, agricultural or urban development, and invasive alien species—and characterize their intensity and spatial distribution.

IV. Diagnosing Issues to Enhance the Targeted Nature of Conservation and Restoration

Only by tracing the root causes and systematically sorting out potential hazards and risks, and by accurately identifying and diagnosing ecological issues, can we ensure that ecological conservation and restoration measures are appropriately targeted. Drawing on relevant international standards, the Guidelines introduce the concept of a reference ecosystem, stipulating: “Based on the historical state of the degraded ecosystem or the conditions of similar ecosystems in the surrounding area, one or more local native ecosystems or comparable ecosystems with similar environmental and natural‑ecological characteristics shall be designated as the reference ecosystem.”

The purpose of conducting a problem diagnosis based on the baseline survey is to identify the discrepancies between the current condition of the conservation and restoration target and that of the reference ecosystem, as well as the underlying causes of the principal ecological issues, thereby enabling the more scientifically informed formulation of conservation and restoration objectives and strategies. With regard to this diagnostic process, the Guidelines stipulate: “At the ecosystem scale, in comparison with the attributes of the reference ecosystem—covering natural geographic conditions, species composition, ecosystem structure, and ecosystem functions—and its ecological stressors, systematically assess and analyze the objects requiring conservation, preservation, and restoration, along with their current status, and evaluate the severity and urgency of key ecological problems.”

V. Integrate short-term and long-term objectives, and establish a tiered, phased target system.

Ecological conservation and restoration projects cannot be accomplished overnight; the recovery of degraded ecosystems is a long-term process. Yet project implementation and evaluation must be carried out within a short time frame. Therefore, the establishment of conservation and restoration objectives should integrate both near-term and long-term goals. In light of this, the Guidelines stipulate: “Based on different scales, administrative levels, and threshold values for limiting factors, set overarching and specific ecological conservation and restoration targets, define corresponding standards, and propose tiered, phased binding and indicative indicators to ensure that objectives are quantified. In accordance with performance‑management requirements, establish performance indicators with specified timeframes.”

Specifically, the regional (or watershed) scale corresponds to the scope of project implementation and should articulate overarching objectives centered on the region’s dominant ecological functions. The Guidelines stipulate that “overall conservation and restoration goals shall be formulated by addressing the mitigation of ecological stressors, optimization of landscape patterns, enhancement of ecological connectivity, and improvement of ecosystem quality, with specific indicators for ecological protection and restoration established for the implementation period.” The ecosystem scale corresponds to conservation and restoration units and should set medium- to long-term guiding indicators for ecosystem recovery. The Guidelines specify that “based on the key attributes of reference ecosystems, conservation and restoration targets and standards shall be defined across physical environmental conditions, species composition, ecosystem structure, ecosystem functions, and ecological stressors.” The site scale corresponds to individual sub‑projects and should establish binding indicators for the duration of the project. The Guidelines further state that “for the various measures implemented in each conservation and restoration unit, specific indicators shall be developed in alignment with the ecosystem‑scale objectives and standards, taking into account the practical realities of the project.” The overarching objectives, binding indicators, and guiding indicators at different scales must be effectively coordinated, with lower‑scale targets consistent with the requirements of higher‑scale frameworks.

VI. Division into Units, with Clarification of the Project’s Spatial Layout and Temporal Sequence

To bridge the gap between regional (or watershed‑scale) engineering planning and ecosystem‑scale engineering design, the Guidelines stipulate: “Based on the results of baseline surveys, problem identification and analysis, and the established conservation and restoration objectives, conservation and restoration units shall be delineated.” In principle, these units are defined according to ecosystem types; additionally, species of rare and endangered wild flora and fauna and their critical habitats, natural landmarks of special significance, World Natural and Cultural Heritage sites, scenic areas, forest parks, geoparks, wetland parks, glacier parks, grassland parks, desert parks, aquatic genetic resource protection zones, and drinking water source protection zones may also be designated as conservation units.

The nexus between the ecosystem scale and the site scale lies in the deployment of sub‑projects. The Guidelines stipulate: “In accordance with principles of connectivity and synergy, and based on the established overarching objectives as well as the specific goals, indicators, and standards for the protection and restoration of each component, engineering works shall be spatially planned and sub‑projects shall be arranged to address key ecological issues.” Specifically, sub‑project deployment is considered from two perspectives: space and time. Spatially, projects should be prioritized at critical nodes within the ecological network, in areas most severely degraded, and where protection and restoration are most urgently needed. Temporally, sub‑project sequencing should give primary consideration to the following factors: first, flood control, water storage, disaster prevention, and pollution remediation measures—aimed at ensuring safety—should be implemented ahead of or concurrently with other interventions; second, in light of the urgency and severity of ecological challenges, source‑control, process‑blocking, and end‑of‑pipe treatment should be carried out in a prioritized order that safeguards flood and geological safety while enhancing ecological functions.

VII. Tailor approaches to local conditions and rationally select conservation and restoration models and measures.

According to the “International Principles and Standards for Ecological Restoration” published by the International Society for Ecological Restoration, conservation‑restoration approaches should be determined based on the degree of ecosystem degradation. To this end, the Guidelines stipulate: “Drawing on baseline surveys, identification and diagnosis of ecological issues, as well as ecological conservation and restoration objectives and standards, each type of ecological conservation‑restoration unit shall adopt a conservation‑restoration technical approach primarily focused on protection and conservation, natural regeneration, assisted regeneration, or ecological reconstruction.” Specifically, for representative natural ecosystems and for rare and endangered wild species and their habitats, measures such as establishing nature reserves, removing stressors, and constructing ecological corridors should be implemented to safeguard ecosystem integrity, enhance ecosystem quality, and conserve biodiversity. For mildly degraded ecosystems with strong resilience, management actions aimed at eliminating stressors should be prioritized to facilitate natural recovery. For moderately degraded ecosystems, in conjunction with natural recovery and after addressing stressors, moderate‑intensity human‑assisted interventions—such as improving the physical environment and removing species that drive ecosystem degradation—should be employed to guide and promote gradual ecosystem restoration. For severely degraded ecosystems, ecological reconstruction should be undertaken, building on the elimination of stressors and focusing on landscape reshaping, habitat reconfiguration, restoration of vegetation and faunal communities, and the reorganization of biodiversity.

From a technical standpoint, each sub‑project may offer multiple specific measures to achieve its conservation and restoration objectives, necessitating practitioners to select the most appropriate options. To this end, the Guidelines stipulate: “Conduct an analysis of the ecological suitability, priority, and timing of measure implementation. Perform a comprehensive assessment across ecological and environmental impacts and risks, economic and technical feasibility, and social acceptability; where feasible, carry out simulation and predictive modeling of restoration approaches to identify and prioritize the most effective ecological conservation and restoration measures and technologies.”

VIII. Dynamic Monitoring, Risk Assessment, and Adaptive Management

Conducting routine monitoring of ecosystems is not only a prerequisite for subsequent performance evaluation and effectiveness assessment, but also provides the foundational data for long-term ecological observation. To this end, the Guidelines stipulate: “Employ remote sensing, automated monitoring, field surveys, public interviews, and other methods to carry out dynamic monitoring throughout the entire lifecycle of ecological conservation and restoration projects, as well as ecological risk assessments,” and further specify that, in accordance with “ecological restoration goals and standards, three-tiered monitoring and assessment components and indicators shall be established at regional (or watershed), ecosystem, and site scales and levels.”

Given the inherent uncertainty of ecosystem succession, adaptive management is a key component of landscape‑water projects. The Guidelines set forth specific provisions regarding the methods and timing for adjusting measures: “Following an assessment and in accordance with the principles of controllable outcomes and risks, and drawing on existing practices, protective and restorative measures, as well as the spatial layout and temporal sequencing of sub‑projects that may lead to deviations from ecological conservation and restoration objectives or cause new damage to ecosystems, shall be adjusted and revised after undergoing the prescribed approval procedures. For projects and measures that are technologically mature, pose manageable risks, and yield effective results, timely implementation is required to avoid missed opportunities and escalating restoration costs; for those whose long-term effects are difficult to predict following evaluation, further research and experimentation should be intensified, and implementation should be deferred.”