Restoration for whom and by whom? Contrasting narratives across COP30 arenas highlight the challenges of integrated implementation

Joice Ferreira, Beatriz Abreu, Davison Assis, Samantha Anunciação, Anderlany Aragão dos Santos , José Corrêa-Neto, Emilie Coudel, Fernando Elias, Aline Fernandes, Alexander C. Lees, Leonardo S. Miranda, Rayssa Yuki Murakami-Lima, Sâmia Nunes, Mariana Piva, Divino Vicente Silverio, Lis Stegmann, Jos Barlow

Ecological restoration is central to global climate and biodiversity agendas, yet translating international commitments into inclusive and effective implementation remains challenging. UN climate conferences provide important arenas where these priorities are negotiated. We examined how forest restoration was framed across different arenas at the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the UNFCCC, held in Belém, Brazilian Amazon, in 2025, and assessed differences in restoration narratives and stakeholder roles. Our team of 17 researchers attended 50 of the 125 identified restoration-related events across five COP30 arenas, systematically documenting and classifying dominant restoration narratives and the roles attributed to different stakeholders. Restoration narratives differed markedly across arenas. The Blue Zone emphasized finance, investment risk reduction, and large-scale restoration, primarily portraying Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities as beneficiaries or implementation partners. The Green Zone focused on legal commitments, technical feasibility, innovation, and monitoring, while recognizing broader stakeholder participation. The People’s COP emphasized territorial rights, food systems, and community-led restoration, positioning local actors as protagonists. The AgriZone combined technological and financial approaches with socially grounded perspectives. Interactions among actors advocating different restoration approaches were limited. Restoration narratives at COP30 reflected distinct priorities and conceptions of stakeholder roles, with limited opportunities for interaction across arenas. These differences highlight the need for restoration governance processes that connect financial and technical priorities with community-defined goals, territorial rights, and locally grounded restoration practices.