The World Is Restoring Nature at Record Scale: So Why Is the 2030 Target Still at Risk?

A landmark UN assessment reveals that 252 million hectares of ecosystems are undergoing restoration across 149 countries, creating more than one million green jobs. Yet progress remains dangerously uneven, with freshwater and marine ecosystems lagging behind and annual restoration investment needing to rise from $64 billion to $296 billion by 2030, exposing a widening gap between global biodiversity ambitions and the resources required to achieve them.

The world is restoring ecosystems on an unprecedented documented scale, with 252 million hectares undergoing recovery efforts across 149 countries and more than one million green jobs created. However, the widening divide between terrestrial progress and neglected aquatic ecosystems, alongside a massive financing shortfall, raises questions about whether global restoration ambitions can be achieved by 2030.

A global recovery drive exposes the limits of restoration progress

Nature restoration has emerged as a significant international development undertaking, extending beyond conservation projects into employment, food security and economic resilience. A United Nations assessment documents 252 million hectares of ecosystems under restoration across 149 countries, representing the largest recorded global effort of its kind. However, the scale of current activity contrasts sharply with the environmental recovery still required under international biodiversity commitments.

The findings, published in Nature's comeback – scaling ecosystem restoration for people and planet, come midway through the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, running from 2021 to 2030. Countries have collectively committed to restoring approximately one billion hectares, while the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework calls for at least 30% of degraded terrestrial, freshwater, marine and coastal ecosystems to be under effective restoration by 2030.

The key challenge is no longer simply attracting international commitments but translating them into measurable ecological outcomes. Restoration programmes are expanding across governments, businesses, cities and communities, supported by a partnership network exceeding 300 organizations. Yet reported restoration activity does not automatically establish that damaged ecosystems have recovered their biodiversity, ecological functions or capacity to withstand future degradation.

Regional differences further complicate assessments of progress. Asia accounts for 192.2 million hectares under restoration, followed by Africa with 36.3 million hectares and Europe with 9.1 million hectares. North and Central America report 5.8 million hectares, South America 5.4 million and Oceania 3.2 million, illustrating substantial differences in documented activity.

China alone reports 127.4 million hectares of terrestrial restoration, with considerable activity also recorded in Mongolia and Kazakhstan. However, these figures cannot reliably determine which countries are performing better. Differences in geographical scale, restoration coverage and monitoring capabilities mean that reported hectares capture activity more directly than the quality or durability of environmental recovery.

Rivers and oceans reveal the weakest link in global biodiversity efforts

The most pronounced imbalance lies between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Land restoration has progressed to nearly half the global target for placing 30% of degraded terrestrial ecosystems under restoration. Freshwater, marine and coastal environments, meanwhile, remain substantially less represented in documented recovery efforts despite experiencing particularly rapid degradation.

Only 11 million hectares of freshwater ecosystems across 62 countries are reported under restoration. Marine and coastal ecosystems account for just 5.7 million hectares across 46 countries. These figures expose a considerable implementation gap within international biodiversity commitments, which require restoration across interconnected environmental systems rather than concentrating predominantly on terrestrial landscapes.

Progress is nevertheless emerging in wetland management. The proportion of Parties reporting implemented wetland restoration or rehabilitation programmes has risen from 8% to 54% since 2022. Although this indicates broader engagement, the expansion of reported programmes does not establish whether restoration interventions have achieved sustained improvements in ecosystem conditions.

Incomplete monitoring presents another obstacle. Limited reporting may underestimate aquatic restoration activity, making it difficult to distinguish genuine implementation gaps from deficiencies in national data collection. More comprehensive reporting would allow governments to identify neglected ecosystems, assess intervention effectiveness and evaluate whether financial commitments are reaching areas experiencing the greatest environmental pressures.

The ecological stakes extend considerably beyond restoring degraded landscapes. Research highlighted in the UN assessment suggests that restoring 15% of global priority areas could capture and store an amount equivalent to 30% of carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution while helping avoid 60% of species extinctions. These estimates illustrate potential benefits, not outcomes already achieved.

Documented restoration initiatives have contributed to species recovery involving mountain gorillas in East Africa, jaguars in Brazil, snow leopards in Kyrgyzstan and Ganges River dolphins in India. Such examples demonstrate what targeted interventions can accomplish, while leaving unresolved whether similar outcomes can be delivered consistently across ecosystems facing different environmental and institutional conditions.

The $296 billion question: Can restoration become an economic system?

Financing now represents one of the clearest constraints on global restoration ambitions. Annual investment must rise from approximately US$64 billion to US$296 billion by 2030, an increase of US$232 billion. Meeting this requirement would mean mobilizing more than four times current annual financing while ensuring expenditures deliver lasting ecological recovery rather than temporary improvements.

Investment requirements vary substantially across restoration activities. Agroforestry accounts for an estimated US$87 billion annually, followed by restorative reforestation at US$52 billion, peatland restoration at US$44 billion and seagrass restoration at US$28 billion. These differences underscore the need for financing approaches responsive to distinct ecological requirements rather than treating restoration as a uniform intervention.

Employment offers another dimension of the economic case. Existing restoration activities have generated more than one million green jobs, while expanded investment could support an estimated 32 million additional jobs worldwide by 2030. However, this projection remains conditional on restoration expansion and financing, rather than representing employment already secured.

The UN's proposed transition toward restoration economies reflects the recognition that isolated projects cannot sustain environmental recovery indefinitely. Integrating ecosystem management with livelihoods, agricultural production and natural-resource governance could support longer-term investment. Yet the relationship between ecological outcomes and economic benefits depends on implementation arrangements capable of maintaining both.

Community rights introduce an equally important consideration. Secure land tenure, meaningful participation and respect for Indigenous Peoples' knowledge and leadership are identified as essential to durable restoration. Without these safeguards, expanding restoration coverage alone cannot establish whether interventions generate equitable benefits or remain sustainable beyond individual funding cycles.

Preventing further degradation is also inseparable from restoring damaged ecosystems. Governments face the challenge of strengthening monitoring, protecting existing natural systems and maintaining recovery after 2030. Continuing environmental damage could undermine gains achieved through restoration spending, weakening both ecological returns and the economic rationale for larger investments.