Ecological restoration is key to counteracting anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and to reducing disaster risk. However, there is limited knowledge of barriers hindering the wider implementation of restoration practices, despite high‐level political priority to halt the loss of biodiversity. In Europe, progress on ecological restoration has been slow and insufficient to meet international agreements and comply with European Union Nature Directives. We assessed European restoration experts' perceptions on barriers to restoration in Europe, and their relative importance, through a multiple expert consultation using a Delphi process. We found that experts share a common multi‐dimensional concept of ecological restoration. Experts identified a large number of barriers (33) to the advancement of ecological restoration in Europe. Major barriers pertained to the socio‐economic, not the environmental, domain. The three most important being insufficient funding, conflicting interests among different stakeholders, and low political priority given to restoration. Our results emphasize the need to increase political commitment at all levels, comply with existing nature laws, and optimize the use of financial resources by increasing funds for ecological restoration and eradicate environmentally harmful subsidies. The experts also call for the integration of ecological restoration into land‐use planning and facilitating stakeholders' collaboration. Our study identifies key barriers, discusses ways to overcome the main barriers to ER in Europe, and contributes knowledge to support the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the EU 2030 Restoration Plan in particular.

Despite a long-standing debate about the utility of species-centered conservation approaches (Roberge & Angelstam 2004), surrogate species remain popular by providing useful—or even necessary—“shortcuts” for successful conservation programs (Caro 2010). Flagship species, as one prime example of surrogates, are primarily intended to promote public awareness and to raise funds for conservation (Veríssimo et al. 2011). In contrast, the protection of umbrella species is expected to benefit a wide range of co-occurring species (Roberge & Angelstam 2004; Caro 2010). Accordingly, the main criteria for selecting flagships should be based on socio-cultural considerations, whereas umbrellas are principally chosen based on ecological criteria (Caro 2010; Veríssimo et al. 2011; see Table 1). Since these two concepts are often confused or mistakenly used interchangeably, Caro (2010, p. 248) coined the term "flagship umbrellas" for those species that explicitly integrate both functions. Indeed, Li and Pimm (2016) recently demonstrated that the classic flagship species, the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), can simultaneously act as an umbrella species, as its protection benefits many co-occurring endemic mammals, birds and amphibians. This challenges the often held views that: (i) the umbrella concept has to be abandoned as it is not efficiently working at local scales (Caro 2015); (ii) most flagship species are weak predictors for efficient reserve planning (Caro 2010); and (iii) ecosystem- or landscape-based conservation approaches should consequentially be favored over species-based approaches whenever feasible (Roberge & Angelstam 2004; Caro 2010). Further commotion in the discussion is the increasingly demanded paradigm shift in conservation strategies to specifically target hidden or neglected biodiversity for its intrinsic value and its contribution to ecosystem processes (Dougherty et al. 2016). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved