When people think of tackling climate change, they often picture planting trees. While trees matter, some landscapes already hold carbon stores so vast that disturbing them could release more emissions than decades of reforestation could ever capture.
Scotland’s Flow Country peatlands are one of these places, storing approximately 400 million tonnes of carbon beneath their waterlogged mosses. At the same time, Brazil’s Atlantic Forest restoration zones are working toward an ambitious 15-million-hectare restoration target by 2050, aiming to remove fresh carbon from the atmosphere.
Together, they illustrate two ends of the climate action spectrum: protecting dense carbon stocks already in the ground and restoring ecosystems that act as living carbon pumps. Deciding whether to protect, manage, or restore is central to effective climate strategy. The sections below explain why legal recognition and financial models matter and how to use the Protect → Manage → Restore ladder to guide climate choices.
Key Facts at a Glance
- Flow Country, Scotland: Inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2024; covers approximately 187,000 hectares; stores ~400 million tonnes of carbon.
- UK Policy Update: England expanded its peat burning ban in 2025 to cover all peat deeper than 30 cm.
- Atlantic Forest, Brazil: Restoration Pact goal of 15 million hectares by 2050.
- Atlantic Forest Progress: ~113,000 hectares restored; ~740,000 hectares in recovery.
- Finance Proposal: Tropical Forests Forever Facility targets long-term protection.
- Funding Scale and Equity: USD 125 billion aim with ≥20% to Indigenous and local communities.
- Decision Ladder: Scientific consensus recommends prioritizing: Protect existing ecosystems → Manage degraded ones → Restore when durable outcomes are possible to maximize carbon efficiency and permanence.
Why Protection Comes First in Carbon-Dense Landscapes
Scotland’s Flow Country Peatlands: A Global Carbon Bank
Peatlands cover only about 3% of Earth’s surface, yet they hold roughly 30% of all soil carbon. That makes them more significant than the world’s forests combined in terms of storage. The Flow Country peatlands of northern Scotland are the most extensive blanket bog on the planet, recently recognized by UNESCO for their global importance.
Scientists estimate that these moss-dominated wetlands lock away approximately 400 million tonnes of carbon. Unlike forests, which sequester carbon year after year, peatlands are best understood as long-term carbon stores. Their role is not to grow fast but to keep millennia of stored carbon safely underground.
Disturbing peat through drainage, burning, or development flips the equation: instead of absorbing, peat soils oxidize and release their carbon rapidly into the atmosphere. Recognition and protection are not symbolic; they are the first line of defense against catastrophic emissions.
UNESCO Status as a Climate Signal
The UNESCO inscription in 2024 does more than honor natural heritage. It triggers stronger conservation frameworks, helps attract funding, and raises the political cost of damaging projects. International recognition also provides momentum for research partnerships and ecotourism opportunities. It strengthens community-based stewardship. Scotland’s elevation of the Flow Country onto the global stage has secured not just prestige but a safeguard for one of the planet’s largest carbon stores.
Managing What Exists: Turning Policy into Outcomes
The 2025 Deep-Peat Burning Ban
Legal protection is only as strong as its enforcement. In 2025, England introduced a comprehensive ban on burning peat where depth exceeds 30 cm, closing loopholes in earlier regulations. Burning peat for grouse moor management dries and degrades bogs and accelerates carbon loss, which is why the policy matters. The government prohibited burning on deep peat, moving from symbolic statements to measurable action.
These regulations operationalize the Manage step of the climate ladder. They demonstrate how existing ecosystems that are degraded or at risk can be stabilized through targeted rules, preventing further emissions while buying time for recovery.
The Peatland Code: Finance Meets Management
Alongside regulation, finance mechanisms channel resources into peatland restoration. The UK’s Peatland Code sets standards for verifying carbon savings when bogs are rewetted or restored. Under this system, landowners can generate Pending Issuance Units (PIUs). These later convert to Peatland Carbon Units (PCUs) once outcomes are verified. Buyers, from companies to local councils, can purchase these credits to support verified emission reductions.
The combined model blends enforcement with market signals. It rewards good management, makes restoration financially viable, and ensures that carbon benefits are documented. Together, policy bans and financial codes show how the middle rung of the ladder—manage—can turn vulnerable carbon stores back into stable climate assets.
When to Restore: Brazil’s Atlantic Forest at Scale
A Flagship Restoration Target
Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, known locally as the Mata Atlântica, once stretched along much of the country’s eastern coast. Centuries of agriculture, ranching, and urban growth left roughly 12% of this unique ecosystem standing. To address this loss, More than 300 organizations formed the Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in 2009, bringing together civil society, government, and business. The United Nations named the effort a World Restoration Flagship, highlighting its importance during the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. The Pact’s headline goal: restore 15 million hectares by 2050.
Progress on the Ground
Against the 15-million-hectare target, approximately 113,000 hectares are restored, and approximately 740,000 hectares are in recovery, establishing capacity to scale.
Although small relative to the total target, these figures represent a foundation of nurseries, technical expertise, and community programs that can scale. Restoration requires ensuring the right mix of native species, monitoring long-term survival, and integrating projects into local economies so that forests are not cleared again.
Policy Pathways and Feasibility
Brazil’s Forest Code, a law requiring landowners to maintain or restore native vegetation on a portion of their land, plays a central role in restoration enforcement. Analyses by groups such as IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis) suggest that full enforcement of the Forest Code could unlock millions of hectares of restoration.
Yet enforcement remains uneven, and landholder compliance varies. The 15 million hectare target is technically possible but dependent on stronger governance, funding, and monitoring.
Restoration as a Living Carbon Sink
Peatlands such as Scotland’s Flow Country are long-term carbon stores; the Atlantic Forest is an active carbon sink. Newly restored areas sequester CO₂ year after year, with estimates suggesting natural regeneration can capture between 9 to 19 tonnes of CO₂ per hectare per year in early decades. Restoration complements protection strategies: protecting peat avoids catastrophic emissions, while restoring forests pulls down greenhouse gases already in the air.
Paying for Permanence: Per-Hectare Conservation Payments
The Tropical Forests Forever Facility
One of the boldest financial proposals is the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF). Announced in 2024, it outlines a blended finance mechanism targeting USD 125 billion in long-term protection, with at least 20% directed to Indigenous and local communities. Instead of one-off donations or short-term grants, TFFF proposes fixed annual per-hectare conservation payments to governments and communities in exchange for keeping forests standing.
How the Payment and Penalty System Works
Under the proposed system, each conserved hectare would receive consistent payment over time, and if deforestation occurs, the payments stop and penalties apply. The payment–penalty design removes the incentive for short-term clearing by ensuring that standing forest has predictable financial value. Unlike voluntary carbon credits that depend on variable market prices, the TFFF fund seeks to establish a stable foundation for conservation funding.
The Role of Communities
The design allocates at least 20% of funds to Indigenous and local communities, who are often the most effective custodians of forests. The requirement acknowledges both the ethical and practical dimensions of conservation. Communities with secure funding are more likely to invest in sustainable livelihoods, education, and stewardship, creating a cycle where conservation becomes the rational economic choice.
Why This Matters for Restoration and Protection
The TFFF model extends beyond tropical forests. Across Brazil, Africa, and Asia, predictable conservation funding allows countries to plan long-term. Innovative finance is not about replacing restoration but about locking in permanence. Protection backed by enforcement and guaranteed payments ensures that restored forests remain intact for generations.
How to Use the Protect–Manage–Restore Decision Ladder
Protect → Manage → Restore
The simplest way to set climate and conservation priorities is to apply the three-step decision ladder endorsed by scientists:
Use the ladder to prioritize actions according to carbon efficiency and permanence. The sequence helps align near-term policy with durable outcomes.
- Protect ecosystems that remain intact.
- Manage those that are degraded but still functioning.
- Restore when areas are too damaged to recover on their own.
The structure prevents high-cost missteps and focuses investment where it delivers the largest gains. It also clarifies how individual support—donations, votes, and project choices—maps to system-level results.
Real-World Applications and Decision Examples
The hierarchy reflects both carbon efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Protecting an intact peatland or old-growth forest prevents enormous emissions at low cost. Managing degraded lands stabilizes vulnerable stores. Restoration remains vital but resource-intensive and uncertain, requiring years of follow-up and monitoring.
When Exceptions Apply
In some settings, restoration takes priority. Urban heat islands, heavily eroded farmland, or flood-prone regions may benefit from tree planting or wetland rebuilding even if protection elsewhere would deliver higher carbon savings. The ladder is not a rigid rule but a guiding principle balancing urgency, cost, and outcomes.
A Practical Guide for Readers
Use the ladder to guide everyday actions:
- Support campaigns that defend intact ecosystems and publish transparent monitoring reports.
- Back policies that improve land management—fire prevention, land-use enforcement, and risk reduction.
- When donating or investing, choose projects that restore with permanence, ensuring monitoring, diverse plantings, and community involvement.
Align Climate Actions with Science: Protect, Manage, Restore
Climate strategy gains clarity when actions follow evidence. Protecting carbon-rich landscapes such as Scotland’s Flow Country safeguards irreplaceable stores built over millennia, while targeted management, grounded in policy and finance, prevents further loss and stabilizes ecosystems.
Managing ecosystems through laws and financial mechanisms prevents further damage. Restoring forests such as Brazil’s Atlantic Forest restoration zones builds carbon engines that work for decades.
Applying the Protect–Manage–Restore ladder aligns policies, budgets, and personal choices with climate science and durability. The approach protects nature today and supports communities and ecosystems that can thrive for generations.
Key Questions on Peatlands, Forests, and Conservation Finance
How Do Peatlands Store More Carbon Than Forests?
Peatlands hold centuries of accumulated carbon underground. If disturbed, they release emissions faster than new forests can capture them.
Is Forest Restoration a Reliable Climate Solution?
Yes, when projects ensure species diversity, long-term monitoring, and legal protection against re-clearing. Otherwise, gains can be reversed.
How do Per-Hectare Conservation Payments Differ from Carbon Credits?
Carbon credits depend on market demand and fluctuating prices. Per-hectare payments, like those proposed by TFFF, provide steady funding tied directly to conservation outcomes.
What Makes Protect → Manage → Restore the Right Order?
Because it prioritizes efficiency. Protecting intact ecosystems avoids the largest emissions at the lowest cost, while restoration is slower and resource-intensive.
What Can I do to Back Protection, Management, and Restoration?
By supporting conservation funds, voting for strong environmental policies, and choosing verified restoration projects that involve local communities, individuals can help scale these approaches globally.
