Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-4 (section)

===== Restoration and protection of terrestrial ecosystems =====

<div id="h4-11-siblings" class="h4-siblings"></div>

Restoration of terrestrial landscapes can be a direct outcome of development pathways, and can be critical to achieving a variety of SDGs (especially 1, 2, 6, 8, 13, 15) ( [[#Vergara--2016|Vergara et al. 2016]] ; [[#Lapola--2018|Lapola et al. 2018]] ) although it also presents risks and can have trade-offs with other SDGs ( [[#Cao--2010|Cao et al. 2010]] ; [[#Dooley--2018|Dooley and Kartha 2018]] ). Landscape restoration is nearly always a mitigation action, and can also provide adaptive capacity. While policy in Brazil has tended to focus on the Amazon as a carbon sink, the mitigation co-benefits of ecosystem-based adaptation actions have been highlighted in the literature ( [[#Locatelli--2011|Locatelli et al. 2011]] ; [[#Di%20Gregorio--2016|Di Gregorio et al. 2016]] ). A study of potential restoration of degraded lands in Latin America ( [[#Vergara--2016|Vergara et al. 2016]] ) indicates that substantial benefits for mitigation, adaptation, and economic development accrue after several years, underscoring a reliance on deliberate development choices. In agricultural contexts, restoration is a development choice that can enhance adaptive and mitigative capacity via impact on farmer livelihoods.

Preventing degradation of landscapes can support both mitigation and adaptation ( [[#IPCC--2019|IPCC 2019]] ). Restoration of ecosystems is associated with improved water filtration, groundwater recharge and flood control and multiple other ecosystem services ( [[#Ouyang--2016|Ouyang et al. 2016]] ).

Restoration projects must be designed with care. There can be trade-offs in addition to the synergies noted above ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.6.4.3|Section 7.6.4.3]] ). Restorations may be unsuccessful if not considered in their socio-economic context ( [[#Lengefeld--2020|Lengefeld et al. 2020]] ; [[#Iftekhar--2017|Iftekhar et al. 2017]] ; [[#Jellinek--2019|Jellinek et al. 2019]] ). Restoration projects for mitigation purposes can be more effective if done with adaptation in mind ( [[#Gray--2011|Gray et al. 2011]] ) as a changing climate may render some mitigation actions biophysically infeasible (Arneth et al. 2021). Landscape restoration projects intended for CDR may underperform due to future release of stored carbon, or deferral of storage until after irreversible climate change effects (e.g. extinctions) ( [[#Dooley--2018|Dooley and Kartha 2018]] ).

Afforestation plans have received substantial attention as a climate mitigation action, with ongoing unresolved debate on the feasibility and trade-offs of such plans. Such afforestation programs can fail for biophysical reasons ( [[#Fleischman--2020|Fleischman et al. 2020]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4.2.2|Section 7.4.2.2]] ) but also lack of consideration of socioeconomic and development contexts ( [[#Fleischman--2020|Fleischman et al. 2020]] ).

<div id="4.4.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="risks-and-uncertainties"></span>