Protecting Your Nature Investment: Why Reducing Ecosystem Pressures Must Come First

Nature restoration is getting increasingly challenging with climate change

Companies investing in nature restoration to meet sustainability goals may not realize that climate change has fundamentally altered what 'successful' restoration actually means. These projects are designed to help companies become nature-positive, strengthen the ecosystem services they depend on, and contribute to global targets like restoring 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030. But the major goal—returning ecosystems to a "natural" state—has become far more complex in recent years than most companies understand

As temperatures rise and precipitation patterns shift due to climate change, historical references for natural ecosystems no longer represent their likely future state. This leads to uncertainty regarding whether nature restoration efforts will succeed over time. As Archer et al. 2025 describe, this reality has left restoration science itself in flux: what should we consider a “natural” endpoint for nature restoration? 

In the face of climate change, numerous possibilities exist for restoration projects. These include identifying project-level climate change risks, choosing species for the restoration protection based on their expected responses to climate change, ensuring ecological connectivity, and monitoring results from conservation efforts to respond flexibly to future changes. Additional  techniques include “assisted migration,” the human-assisted movement of plant or animal species to more suitable habitats outside their current range, and  focusing on conserving a high diversity of genes and species within an area, as biodiversity has been shown to increase ecosystem resilience to climate change.  However, the degree of success for any of these options remains unclear.

Reduce restoration risk with this simple, critical step

With companies aiming for major investments in nature restoration projects, the uncertainty about the viability of these projects might seem paralyzing. But instead, it can be clarifying. While restoration science evolves to meet climate realities, companies have a clear and immediate role that doesn't require waiting for scientific consensus: reducing the pressures they place on ecosystems. Companies don't need to become restoration scientists—they need to become ecosystem stress relievers. By removing the pressures they create, they enable scientists to focus on the ecological challenges rather than battling human-caused damage. This also helps maintain the ecosystem services on which the company depends, thereby reducing corporate financial risk. 

“Companies don’t need to become restoration scientists—they need to become ecosystem stress relievers.”

Addressing ecosystem pressures first, such as reducing or eliminating pollution, removing invasive species, or reducing water use, can reduce strain on an ecosystem. When a stressful event does inevitably occur, the ecosystem is more likely to withstand or recover from the event because it experiences fewer stressors. 

Two examples illustrate how removing human pressures creates this resilience advantage:

Enabling coral reefs to fight climate change by reducing pollution emissions

Consider a coral reef facing both local pollution from agricultural runoff containing excess nutrients and rising ocean temperatures as a result of climate change. This coral reef will be less resilient than one dealing with temperature stress alone. The nutrient pollution promotes algae growth that competes with corals for space and light, weakening the coral community. When a marine heatwave hits, these already-stressed corals are more likely to bleach and die because they lack the energy reserves and healthy symbiotic relationships needed to survive the temperature spike.

However, if the nutrient pollution is reduced beforehand, the corals enter the heatwave in better condition—with stronger symbiotic algae partnerships, better energy reserves, and less competition from harmful algae. This gives them a much better chance of surviving the temperature stress and recovering afterward. 

Local forests provide more than wood

This concept applies to ecosystems in any location, though the stressors will be unique. Consider a forest facing both contaminated runoff from mining operations and increased wildfire risk from climate change. Mining runoff contains heavy metals and acidic water that contaminate forest soils. When drought and extreme heat create fire conditions, these contaminated forests are more vulnerable because toxic soil chemistry weakens tree root systems. However, if mining runoff is prevented through proper waste containment, trees enter fire season with healthy soil chemistry that supports robust root systems. This gives the forest a much better chance of surviving wildfire and regenerating naturally afterward.

In both cases, the principle remains the same: healthy ecosystems that aren't fighting multiple battles simultaneously have far better odds of surviving climate disruption. This is why corporate nature risk assessment takes into account both the current state of nature, and the specific pressures that a company is placing on the environment.

Reduce ecosystem pressures to reduce risk to your restoration initiatives

The most effective corporate nature strategies start not with restoration planning, but with pressure reduction. By becoming ecosystem stress relievers first, companies create the conditions where both current business operations and future restoration investments can succeed. In an uncertain climate future, reducing the pressures you control today isn't just good environmental stewardship—it's the foundation that protects the ecosystem services your business depends on while maximizing the return on any restoration investments you make.