Financing ecosystem restoration.

The global community has outlined ambitious ecosystem restoration targets. Yet implementation is slow, and a lack of funding is a key barrier to upscaling restoration activities. Most restoration projects are funded by public institutions and recent high-level initiatives have emphasised the need to scale private finance in restoration. Private finance can be channelled into restoration through various financial mechanisms but is held back by a lack of return-making investment opportunities. Various institutions have now been created to commodify previously non-market ecosystem services and make them investable, most prominently voluntary carbon markets and biodiversity compliance market-like mechanisms, such as biodiversity-offsetting systems targeting the achievement of 'no net loss' of biodiversity for a given regulated sector. However, attracting private finance into restoration comes with risks, as private finance objectives in restoration often are misaligned with wider social and ecological objectives. Private finance mechanisms to date have tended to underinvest in monitoring and impact evaluation mechanisms and to favour investments in cost-effective nature-based solutions such as plantation monocultures over naturally regenerated ecosystems. Many technological and institutional solutions have been proposed, but these cannot mitigate all risks. Therefore, scaling of ecosystem restoration through market-like mechanisms requires substantial fundamental investments in governance and civil society oversight to ensure that ecological integrity and social equity is safeguarded. Here, we outline the high-level policy landscape driving restoration finance and explore the roles and potential of both public and private investment in restoration. We explain how some common mechanisms for drawing private investment into restoration work in practice. Then, we discuss some of the shortcomings of past private finance initiatives for ecosystem restoration and highlight essential lessons for how to safeguard the ecological and social outcomes of private investments in ecosystem restoration.

Incentives and barriers to private finance for forest and landscape restoration.

Increased private finance can accelerate forest and landscape restoration globally. Here we conduct semi-structured interviews with asset managers, corporations and restoration finance experts to examine incentives and barriers to private restoration finance. Next, we assess what type of restoration projects and regions appeal to different private funders and how current financial barriers can be overcome. We show that market incentives for corporations include meeting net-emission-reduction commitments, impact and sustainable branding opportunities, and promotion of sustainability in supply chains. Conversely, asset managers face stronger barriers to investing in restoration as it is deemed a high-risk, unknown investment with low profitability. We find that investment finance biases towards restoration projects in low-risk areas and corporate finance towards areas with business presence. Both private finance types tend to omit projects focusing on natural regeneration. Through expanded and diversified markets for restoration benefits, strong public policy support and new financial instruments, private finance for restoration can be scaled for a wider variety of restoration projects in more diverse geographical contexts.

How Social Considerations Improve the Equity and Effectiveness of Ecosystem Restoration.

Ecosystem restoration is an important means to address global sustainability challenges. However, scientific and policy discourse often overlooks the social processes that influence the equity and effectiveness of restoration interventions. In the present article, we outline how social processes that are critical to restoration equity and effectiveness can be better incorporated in restoration science and policy. Drawing from existing case studies, we show how projects that align with local people's preferences and are implemented through inclusive governance are more likely to lead to improved social, ecological, and environmental outcomes. To underscore the importance of social considerations in restoration, we overlay existing global restoration priority maps, population, and the Human Development Index (HDI) to show that approximately 1.4 billion people, disproportionately belonging to groups with low HDI, live in areas identified by previous studies as being of high restoration priority. We conclude with five action points for science and policy to promote equity-centered restoration.