As the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration begins, there remains insufficient emphasis on the human and social dimensions of restoration. The potential that restoration holds for achieving both ecological and social goals can only be met through a shift toward people‐centered restoration strategies. Toward this end, this paper synthesizes critical insights from a special issue on “Restoration for whom, by whom” to propose actionable ways to center humans and social dimensions in ecosystem restoration, with the aim of generating fair and sustainable initiatives. These rules respond to a relative silence on socio‐political issues in di Sacco et al.'s “Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits” on socio‐political issues and offer complementary guidance to their piece. Arranged roughly in order from pre‐intervention, design/initiation, implementation, through the monitoring, evaluation and learning phases, the 10 people‐centered rules are: (1) Recognize diversity and interrelations among stakeholders and rightsholders'; (2) Actively engage communities as agents of change; (3) Address socio‐historical contexts; (4) Unpack and strengthen resource tenure for marginalized groups; (5) Advance equity across its multiple dimensions and scales; (6) Generate multiple benefits; (7) Promote an equitable distribution of costs, risks, and benefits; (8) Draw on different types of evidence and knowledge; (9) Question dominant discourses; and (10) Practice inclusive and holistic monitoring, evaluation, and learning. We contend that restoration initiatives are only tenable when the issues raised in these rules are respectfully addressed.

Increasing tree cover in agricultural lands can contribute to achieving global and national restoration goals, more so in the drylands where trees play a key role in enhancing both ecosystem and livelihood resilience of the communities that depend on them. Despite this, drylands are characterized by low tree survival especially for tree species preferred by local communities. We conducted a study in arid and semi-arid areas of Kenya and Ethiopia with 1773 households to assess how different tree planting and management practices influence seedling survival. Using on-farm planned comparisons, farmers experimented and compared tree survival under different planting and management practices as well as under varying socioeconomic and biophysical contexts in the two countries. Seedling survival was monitored at least six months after planting. Results show that watering, manure application, seedling protection by fencing and planting in a small hole (30 cm diameter and 45 cm depth) had a significant effect on tree seedling survival in Kenya, while in Ethiopia, mulching, watering and planting niche were significant to tree survival. Household socioeconomics and farms’ biophysical characteristics such as farm size, education level of the household head, land tenure, age of the household head had significant effects on seedling survival in both Ethiopia and Kenya while presence of soil erosion on the farm had a significant effect in Kenya. Soil quality ranking was positively correlated with tree survival in Ethiopia, regardless of species assessed. Current findings have confirmed effects of context specific variables some involving intrahousehold socioeconomic status such education level of the household head, and farm size that influence survival.

Sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI) has the potential to increase food security without detrimental effects on ecosystem services. However, adoption of SAI practices across sub-Saharan Africa has not reached transformational numbers to date. It is often hampered by lack of context-specific practices, sub-optimal understanding of tradeoffs and synergies among stakeholders, and lack of approaches that bring diverse evidence sources together with stakeholders to collectively tackle complex problems. In this study, we asked three interconnected questions: (i) What is the accessibility and use of evidence for SAI decision making; (ii) What tools could enhance access and interaction with evidence for tradeoff analysis; and (iii) Which stakeholders must be included? This study employed a range of research and engagement methods including surveys, stakeholder analysis, participatory trade-off assessments and co-design of decision dashboards to better support evidence-based decision making in Zambia, Tanzania and Ethiopia. At the inception, SAI evidence was accessible and used by less than half of the decision makers across the three countries and online dashboards hold promise to enhance access. Many of the stakeholders working on SAI were not collaborating and tradeoff analysis was an under-utilized tool. Structured engagement across multiple stakeholder groups with evidence is critical.

Healthy soil is critical for ecosystem restoration, climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity conservation, water cycling, farmer livelihoods, and food and nutrition security. Despite its importance, soil health has often been overlooked, but momentum is growing as evidenced by recent high‐level initiatives such as the Nairobi Declaration as part of the Africa Fertiliser and Soil Health Action Plan and the European Union Soil Mission: A Soil Deal for Europe. The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration was launched on 5 June 2021 to galvanise local, national and global action to restore degraded ecosystems. In the same year, the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) initiated a call for coalitions of action to champion integrated, systemic approaches to transform food systems. The Coalition of Action 4 Soil Health (CA4SH) was launched to bring soil health into focus with participation across sectors and scales to ultimately raise awareness about this critical ecosystem that we depend on, but which is being degraded at unprecedented rates. Since 2021, CA4SH has grown to include nearly 200 members (as of January 2025) representing the public and private sectors, research institutions, non‐governmental organisations, farmer organisations and cooperatives, individuals, youth‐led organisations, and indigenous organisations to mention some. The initiative has also had a strong focus on gender equity and social inclusion (GESI) in soil and landscape restoration. The Coalition promotes soil as a unifier across a diverse set of stakeholders, building partnerships to overcome critical economic, technical and institutional barriers to the adoption and scaling of healthy soil practices. Furthermore, CA4SH facilitates evidence‐based policy and practice action for the scaling of restoration practices that improve soil health. The Private Sector Guiding Group, launched as part of the UNFSS, developed a call to action to support increased investments in healthy soil, and continues to support the actions of the Coalition. Its four working groups focus on communication, soil health monitoring and implementation, policy, and financial investment. In the first three years since its launch, the Coalition has engaged in multinational dialogues and contributed to the adoption of soil health in the outcomes from the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) through the Koronivia joint work on agriculture (now the Sharm El‐Sheikh Declaration), the UNFCCC COP28 UAE Declaration on Food Systems and Agriculture, the UNCCD COP16 Riyadh Action Agenda and also launched the Soil Health Resolution. Leveraging on the enabling policy environment, the Coalition catalyses public and private sector action with outcomes for economic returns and growth, productivity and rural livelihoods, climate and nature. The positioning of the Coalition in the current global environmental transition is pivotal to drive the multifaceted benefits that soil health improvement offers to food systems transformation and global adaptation to and mitigation of climate change.

Understanding which trees farmers prefer, what determines their survival and enhancing farmer knowledge of tree management is key to increasing tree cover in agricultural landscapes. This article presents data on tree seedling survival under different tree planting and management practices in Kenya and Ethiopia. Data were collected from 1600 households across three Counties in Kenya and 173 households across four Woredas in Ethiopia, using a structured questionnaire which was administered through the Open Data Kit. Data on seedling survival were collected at least six months after tree seedlings were planted. To understand how planting and management practices influence tree planting across the different socioeconomic and biophysical contexts, both household level and individual tree level data were collected. Household level data included socio-economic and biophysical characteristics of the households while tree specific data included when the tree seedling was planted, where it was planted, the management practices employed and whether surviving. The datasets described in this article help understand which options confer the best chance survival for the planted seedlings and in which socio-economic and biophysical contexts they are most successful.