Monitoring of rainforest restoration is predominantly short‐term and focused on forest structure in Australia's Wet Tropics

Abstract Introduction Forest restoration is increasing worldwide, driven by global initiatives and climate policy, yet the speed and scale of current efforts raise important questions about evaluating success. In tropical forests, restoration outcomes are inherently multidimensional and prolonged with structural attributes such as canopy closure recovering more rapidly than biodiversity, creating a temporal decoupling that complicates evaluation. This challenge is amplified as market‐based mechanisms increasingly underpin large‐scale restoration, demanding credible and ecologically meaningful monitoring. Objectives To understand the metrics tropical forest restoration organizations use to assess ecosystem recovery and evaluate how well current monitoring practice aligns with restoration goals. Methods We surveyed 25 organizations involved in tropical forest restoration in Australia's Wet Tropics, assessing monitoring intensity, duration, indicators used, restoration goals, and perceived capacity constraints. Results Nearly all organizations (96%) conducted some form of monitoring, but intensity and duration varied. Most organizations focused on plant survival and canopy closure within the first few years of planting, ceasing monitoring once canopy closure or funder requirements were met. Yet their highest ranked goals were biodiversity conservation, habitat connectivity, and threatened species habitat—attributes poorly captured by structural indicators alone. More intensive monitoring, including vegetation and faunal surveys, was largely confined to nature market investors and land conservation trusts. Although 80% of participants indicated that monitoring was a moderate to very high funding priority, current practice reflects capacity constraints rather than lack of commitment. Conclusions These findings reveal a fundamental misalignment between restoration goals and monitoring practice, identify key capacity gaps, and highlight priorities needed to support practitioners in an era of expanding nature‐positive markets.