Environmental policy
Guidelines for integrating ecosystem restoration targets into national climate strategies to leverage co-benefits for carbon and biodiversity outcomes.
This article explains how nations can embed ecosystem restoration targets into climate strategies, unlocking synergistic gains for carbon storage, biodiversity recovery, livelihoods, and resilient economies while aligning with international agreements and local needs.
August 07, 2025 - 3 min Read
Ecosystem restoration represents a powerful complement to conventional decarbonization as countries design climate strategies for the coming decades. By explicitly incorporating restoration targets, policymakers can quantify not only how much carbon is removed, but also how biodiversity rebounds, soil health improves, and water cycles stabilize across landscapes. The approach requires clear baselines, ambitious yet achievable milestones, and transparent monitoring. It invites cross-sector collaboration among agriculture, forestry, urban planning, and conservation agencies, ensuring restoration actions align with agricultural productivity, disaster risk reduction, and rural development goals. With thoughtful design, restoration becomes a central pillar rather than a distant add-on to climate policy.
When restoration targets are integrated, climate plans gain resilience through diversified risk management. Restored wetlands buffer floods; restored forests stabilize hillsides; and rehabilitated degraded landscapes reduce erosion. These natural defenses translate into lower adaptation costs and more stable infrastructure budgets. In addition, restoration activities can be sequenced to create jobs and stimulate local markets, particularly in rural or marginalized regions. The co-benefits extend to improved air quality, pollination services for crops, and reduced heat island effects in cities. To realize these advantages, governments must invest in capacity building, partner with local communities, and commit to open reporting on progress and outcomes.
Targets must align with biodiversity goals, climate plans, and social equity.
A practical starting point is to set national restoration baselines that reflect the most degraded ecosystems and the most strategic locations for carbon and biodiversity gains. Baselines help ensure that restoration efforts are measurable, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating real progress over time. Countries should define indicators that capture carbon sequestration, soil organic matter, species richness, and ecosystem services such as water regulation. These indicators must be collected consistently using standardized protocols, enabling comparisons across regions and over successive budgets. When baselines are clear, funding decisions become straightforward and accountability improves at every administrative level.
Policymakers should design restoration targets that are scalable and adaptable to local conditions. Landscape heterogeneity means different ecosystems respond uniquely to restoration practices; what works in a peatland may differ from what succeeds in an alpine meadow. Therefore, strategies should combine site-specific actions with larger regional plans, ensuring coherence across governance layers. Financing models might blend grant funding, performance-based payments, and public-private partnerships to sustain restoration timelines. In parallel, risk management must consider uncertainties from climate variability, pest pressures, and land tenure complexities, building in contingency buffers to protect long-term outcomes.
Restoration targets should be embedded in Nationally Determined Contributions and plans.
Aligning restoration with biodiversity objectives requires careful prioritization of keystone habitats and threatened species. Assigning high-value areas for protection alongside restoration can accelerate species recovery and maintain ecological networks. In practice, this means mapping habitat corridors, safeguarding refugia, and ensuring connectivity across landscapes. Socioeconomic considerations are essential, as communities relying on land for livelihoods must share ownership of the restoration process. Participatory planning processes, traditional knowledge incorporation, and fair benefit-sharing arrangements ensure local buy-in and reduce conflicts. With these elements, restoration becomes a pathway to resilient societies and vibrant natural heritage.
Integrating restoration into climate action also hinges on transparent governance and independent verification. Regular reporting on restoration progress, outcomes, and unintended consequences builds trust with citizens and international partners. National strategies should include third-party audits, remote sensing data, and community-led monitoring where feasible. The governance framework must specify who is responsible for maintenance, how funding is allocated, and how adaptive management will respond to new information or shifts in land use. Ultimately, credibility rests on demonstrable, verifiable improvements in carbon stock, biodiversity indices, and ecosystem services.
Monitoring, financing, and governance structures must support ongoing restoration.
Embedding restoration into national climate commitments reinforces the message that climate action is holistic, not solely about emissions reductions. Restoration targets can be harmonized with Nationally Determined Contributions to signal intent and attract international support, including finance and technical assistance. This alignment helps trillions of dollars in climate-related investments deliver synergistic results—carbon storage enhanced by healthier forests, peatlands, and mangroves, alongside biodiversity gains and improved resilience. Strategic communications around this alignment emphasize co-benefits for communities, such as job creation, safer reservoirs, and sustainable land management practices, which in turn bolster public support for ambitious policy packages.
To operationalize alignment, governments should integrate restoration milestones into sectoral plans, from energy and transport to agriculture and urban development. For example, rural development programs can include incentives for reforestation and soil restoration that also support climate resilience. Urban planning can incorporate green infrastructure, permeable surfaces, and pocket wetlands to reduce heat and flood risk while providing biodiversity habitat. This cross-cutting integration ensures that restoration is not peripheral but central to development trajectories, improving outcomes across multiple sectors and enhancing the overall effectiveness of climate strategies.
Restoration-centric climate strategies emphasize resilience, equity, and adaptability.
Robust monitoring systems are indispensable for tracking restoration outcomes and adjusting actions as needed. Technologies such as satellite imagery, drones, and field-based surveys provide timely data on forest canopy, wetland extent, soil health, and species presence. A feedback loop links monitoring results to policy adjustments, ensuring targets reflect evolving ecological realities and community needs. Financing should be predictable and long-term, recognizing that restoration often requires years before benefits peak. Blended funding—public resources, concessional finance, and private capital—can bridge early-stage costs while sustaining maintenance and monitoring. Transparent financial tracking reinforces accountability and public trust.
Governance arrangements must clearly delineate responsibilities across agencies, from environmental ministries to forestry services and agricultural departments. Inter-ministerial coordination reduces duplication and expands leverage for grants and technical support. Local governments play a crucial role in implementation, enabling community engagement and ensuring that restoration aligns with land tenure rights and cultural values. Capacity-building programs for field technicians, community leaders, and land managers help sustain momentum and improve outcomes. By embedding accountability at multiple levels, restoration initiatives become durable features of climate policy rather than short-term projects.
The equity dimension of restoration is critical. Policies must ensure that marginalized communities benefit from restoration gains, whether through employment, revenue-sharing, or access to ecosystem services. Equity considerations also demand that displaced or land-poor households receive land-use options that support restoration while sustaining livelihoods. This focus prevents exacerbating existing inequalities and strengthens social legitimacy for climate action. By prioritizing inclusive processes, governments can mobilize broad-based support and reduce resistances that often derail long-term projects.
Finally, ecosystem restoration as a climate strategy offers a powerful narrative for action that resonates across diverse audiences. It links carbon accounting with tangible habitat recovery, water security, and food system resilience. When designed with careful baselines, robust monitoring, and strong governance, restoration targets amplify climate outcomes while delivering co-benefits that people can see and feel. The result is a more durable, equitable, and nature-positive path to achieving national and global climate objectives, while honoring commitments to conserve the living systems we rely on daily.
