Environmental Restoration of Intervention Sites

Outcome

% of humanitarian intervention sites restored to similar or better environmental conditions than before use

This indicator measures the extent to which sites used for humanitarian operations (e.g., temporary settlements, distribution points, service delivery sites, construction sites, storage / compounds) are cleaned up and rehabilitated so that they are left in similar or better environmental condition than before use. It focuses on practical restoration activities in locations where humanitarian activities have caused or contributed to environmental degradation.

Determine the indicator value using the following methodology:

 

1) Define what counts as an “intervention site” and list them:

     - specify the types of sites included (e.g., settlement / camp areas, communal facilities, distribution points, drilling/pumping sites, construction sites, warehouses / compounds)

     - prepare a list of all relevant sites (with location / site codes)

 

2) Document the “before use” environmental condition: Because “similar or better” requires a reference point, record a light baseline for each site using methods that are feasible in humanitarian settings:

     - rapid observation checklist + geotagged photos; and/or

     - brief site sketch / GIS point / polygon; and/or

     - short notes from local authorities / landowner / community members on pre-use condition.

Keep the baseline focused on visible, high-risk impacts that are realistic to restore (e.g., presence of waste, damaged vegetation/ground cover, soil disturbance / erosion hotspots, blocked drainage, signs of contamination).

 

3) Define what “restored” means for your sites: Set a small set of “minimum restoration criteria” that are credible but achievable, based on the site type and main impacts created. For example:

   - waste and debris removed and disposed / treated through an agreed pathway (including hazardous waste if relevant)

   - temporary structures/materials removed (or handed over with agreement), and the area left safe

   - sanitation / WASH infrastructure safely decommissioned (e.g., pits / tanks closed, slab removed / secured where required; no open hazards)

   - ground/surface stabilised (e.g., backfilling, levelling, erosion control) and drainage restored (no blocked channels / standing water caused by the intervention)

   - re-vegetation or reforestation where appropriate and feasible (often small, targeted measures such as grassing exposed soil or planting locally appropriate species)

Use a “minimum standard + context additions” approach: apply the minimum set to all sites, and add site-specific criteria only where the intervention created that impact.

 

4) Verify restoration at (or after) site closure: Use simple, auditable verification sources (as feasible):

   - observation reports / post-intervention monitoring reports with photos

   - sign-off notes from landowner / local authority / community representatives (where appropriate)

   - GIS maps or updated site maps showing restored areas

   - waste removal receipts if available (especially for hazardous waste)

 

5) Classify each site: For each site on your list, classify it as one of the following:

   - restored: the site required restoration and the minimum restoration criteria were met (verified)

   - restoration not required: the site was used in a way that did not cause (or contribute to) environmental degradation requiring restoration, based on verification (e.g., observation report / photos)

   - not restored: restoration was required but the minimum criteria were not met and/or could not be verified

 

6) To calculate the indicator value:

   - count the number of sites classified as “restored”

   - divide this number by the total number of intervention sites included in the assessment which required restoration due to the impact of humanitarian activities

   - multiply the result by 100 to express it as a percentage

Only sites classified as “Restored” or “Not restored” are included in the indicator calculation.

The data can be disaggregated by:

   - site type (e.g., settlement / camp, distribution site, facility (re)construction site, water point, warehouse/compound)

   - site status / restoration category (restored, not restored, restoration not required – the last category is reported for transparency, even if excluded from the calculation)

   - restoration package type (e.g., waste clean-up; decommissioning; surface stabilisation; re-vegetation)

   - administrative area / site size category (if relevant)

1) Exclude sites where restoration is not required. Sites that did not require restoration because humanitarian activities did not cause or contribute to environmental degradation should be excluded from both the numerator and denominator. Including them would likely skew the results upward and reduce comparability—for example, if 7 out of 10 sites did not require restoration and only 1 of the remaining 3 sites was restored, an “all sites” calculation would report 80%, which can be misleading.

 

2) Define “similar or better” in practical and realistic terms: Use a small, context-appropriate set of minimum restoration criteria linked to the impacts actually caused by the intervention. Avoid definitions that require detailed ecological surveys unless time and resources allow.

 

3) Plan for restoration early: Environmental restoration is most effective and cost-efficient when considered during site selection and design and planned as part of site closure or handover, rather than treated as a stand-alone activity at the end of the intervention.

 

4) Prioritise harm reduction: Focus first on measures that address the most immediate environmental and safety risks (e.g., hazardous waste, open pits, blocked drainage). Only once these are addressed, implement additional restoration measures as relevant to the impacts caused (e.g., surface stabilisation, re-vegetation, or reforestation).

 

5) Document limitations: Where full restoration is not feasible due to time, funding, access, or security constraints, document the reasons clearly and report sites transparently as “Not restored”.

 

6) This indicator is used by DG ECHO as one of its Key Outcome Indicators.