OPINION ARTICLE Restoring Ecosystems Around the Mediterranean Basin: Beyond the Frontiers of Ecological Science C. Khater, 1,2 V. Raevel, 3 J. Sallantin, 4 J. D. Thompson, 3 M. Hamze, 5 and A. Martin 3,6 Abstract Based on concrete examples gathered from the Mediter- ranean region, this article shows why restoration ecol- ogy around the Mediterranean Basin must go beyond ecological science to embrace a contrasting local vision which integrates social and political realities. By taking into account the growing gap between the northern and southern/eastern shores of the Mediterranean, we propose the adoption of a double agenda for restoration around the Mediterranean to overcome the fact that restoration objectives are often jeopardized by political decisions ini- tially aimed to promote conservation and lack of avail- able technical means (even when appropriate scientific and political means are secured), and to enhance local actions with lasting impacts on the ecosystems. Our discussion illustrates how current ecological problems have become extremely complex and how the success of restoration projects depends on effective social interactions. Here, the simple juxtaposition of disciplines is no longer sufficient. We suggest going beyond existing ecological and socioeco- nomic frontiers to fill three main gaps. To fill the “design gap” it is important from the outset to promote a full debate for correct definition of the project’s objectives and success indicators. Second, to fill the “implementation gap” ecological restoration science should be linked to infor- mation technology and cognition science to develop tools adapted for ecological debate. Third, to fill the “evaluation gap” aesthetic, social, cultural, and economic indicators should be defined during the debate process. Key words: debate techniques, information science, Lebanon, restoration, social sciences. Introduction As a contribution to an ongoing general debate in the field of ecological restoration, Miller and Hobbs (2007) asked the question: “Habitat restoration—do we know what we’re doing?” They came to the simple conclusion that no we do “not really” know and that it is unlikely that we could produce a set of recommendations which can be generalized. Likewise, Kondolf et al. (2007) discussed the lessons to be learned from 20 years of river restoration in California. Again, their answer was disappointing in that they indicate that we can learn almost nothing because monitoring data are too scattered and heterogeneous and that in most cases it is impossible to establish criteria to evaluate success. It has even been argued by some authors that science is of “little use” in ecological restoration projects. For instance, Cabin 1 Center for Remote Sensing, National Council for Scientific Research, BP 11-8281, Riad el Solh, Beirut, Lebanon 2 Address correspondence to C. Khater, email ckhater@cnrs.edu.lb 3 UMR 5175 Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, CNRS, 1919 route de Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cedex 5, France 4 LIRMM Laboratoire d’Informatique, de Robotique et de Micro-´ electronique de Montpellier UM2 & CNRS, 161 rue ADA, 34392 Montpellier, France 5 National Council for Scientific Research, Zahia Salman Street, BP 11-8281, Riad el Solh, Beirut, Lebanon 6 Universit´ e de Montpellier 2, Place Eugene Bataillon, 34000 Montpellier, France  2011 Society for Ecological Restoration International doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00827.x (2007, p. 3) states clearly that “science alone could never resolve ... [certain]... kinds of critically important issues.” In a more forward looking paper, Temperton (2007) outlined two major shifts in thinking for restoration ecology to develop in the coming years. The first involves more interaction among practitioners and academics, in which ecology as a science plays a role in the transfer of knowledge. The second involves the need for interdisciplinary projects integrating ecological and social sciences. With specific focus on the Mediterranean region, two recent reviews have stressed how and which ecological concepts should guide restoration programs (Valladares & Gianoli 2007; M´ endez et al. 2008). They confirm that despite long-standing research efforts, ecological science has yielded few practical guidelines for restoration in a Mediterranean setting. Absent from both of these papers however are the socioeconomic, cul- tural, and land-use changes that dominate the current Mediter- ranean scene and the likelihood of success of any restora- tion project. Natural ecosystems in the Mediterranean Basin are under tremendous pressure from demographic growth, expected tourist flows and land development which are caus- ing widespread destruction and fragmentation of seminatural habitats (Benoit & Comeau 2005). Over the 25 coming years, this basin is expected to host an additional 100 million inhab- itants, creating increased pressure on resources and on natural ecosystems. As a result, in this hot spot of plant biodiversity JANUARY 2012 Restoration Ecology Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 1–6 1