Ecological restoration, Nature-based Solutions (NbS), and the ecosystem approach (EcAp) are closely connected concepts, but they should not be treated as interchangeable. Although they share a common recognition of the importance of healthy ecosystems and of the relationship between nature and human well-being, they differ in their objectives, scope, and modes of implementation.

Three definitions are useful for framing this relationship.

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines ecological restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of a native ecosystem that has been degraded,damaged, or destroyed” (SER, 2026).

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in Decision V/6, describes the ecosystem approach as a “strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way”. The CBD further identifies the ecosystem approach as an integrating framework for implementing the Convention’s objectives, emphasizing the ecological, economic and social dimensions of ecosystem management.

Finally, in 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) adopted the first multilaterally agreed definition of Nature-based Solutions. Under Resolution 5/5, NbS are defined as “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience and biodiversity benefits”.

I will demonstrate that the ecosystem approach and Nature-based Solutions are largely synergistic and complementary frameworks. By contrast, although Nature-based Solutions and ecological restoration are closely intertwined and may sometimes overlap, they pursue different primary objectives and operate within different conceptual and practical frameworks.

The ecosystem approach as a framework conducive to Nature-based Solutions

There are strong conceptual and practical links between the ecosystem approach and Nature-based Solutions. As Cohen-Shacham et al. suggested in 2019, the ecosystem approach can be understood as one of the frameworks that helped create the conditions for the emergence and subsequent development of the NbS concept.

The ecosystem approach is grounded in the recognition that human well-being is intrinsically connected to the functioning of ecosystems. It requires land, water and living resources to be managed in an integrated manner, while taking into account ecological processes as well as economic and social considerations. Human societies are therefore not external to ecosystems but form an integral part of them. Nature-based Solutions broadly build upon this same paradigm, but place greater emphasis on the capacity of ecosystems to address specific societal challenges. Rather than focusing primarily on the dependence of human societies upon functioning ecosystems, NbS highlight the deliberate use of nature as part of the response to challenges such as climate change, water insecurity, disaster risks, food security or human health. In this sense, NbS translate an important premise of the ecosystem approach into a more explicitly problem-oriented framework: healthy ecosystems can simultaneously support biodiversity and provide solutions to societal challenges.

The two concepts also converge in their implementation principles. The Malawi Principles associated with the ecosystem approach and the standards developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for Nature-based Solutions share a number of fundamental requirements. These include the importance of selecting an appropriate scale of governance, ensuring the meaningful participation of relevant stakeholders, integrating economic considerations, relying on scientific knowledge, and applying adaptive management in the face of uncertainty and ecological change. This convergence is not merely theoretical. The CBD itself characterizes the ecosystem approach as an overall methodological framework for policy-making and planning, while stressing that ecosystem management is a social process involving different communities and interests. The approach therefore provides a governance architecture within which more specific forms of intervention can be developed.

Nevertheless, an important distinction remains. The ecosystem approach is primarily a framework for the integrated management of the environment and its resources. Nature-based Solutions, by contrast, are deliberately framed around the capacity of ecosystems to address societal challenges. Their ambition consequently extends beyond environmental management in a narrow sense and incorporates a stronger socio-economic dimension. The purpose of an NbS is not simply to manage an ecosystem sustainably, but to use the protection, restoration or sustainable management of ecosystems as part of a response to a particular societal problem. This difference is reflected in their respective levels of abstraction. The ecosystem approach establishes a general framework for management and decision-making. An NbS is generally a concrete intervention or set of interventions designed to address a particular challenge in a particular context.

The literature directly connecting the two concepts remains relatively limited (see P. N Carvalho et al., 2022;  C. Nesshöver et al., 2017). Nevertheless, existing work suggests that the governance and management conditions promoted by the ecosystem approach can facilitate the successful implementation of NbS. An ecosystem-based management framework that recognizes ecological interdependencies, integrates different interests and operates at an appropriate scale can help identify opportunities for nature-based interventions and improve their effectiveness. In this respect, the ecosystem approach can be seen as an enabling framework for Nature-based Solutions. By recognizing the intrinsic importance of ecological processes and requiring an understanding of complex interactions within ecosystems, it creates conditions in which nature-based responses can be identified and supported. Its emphasis on integrated, participatory and adaptive governance may likewise contribute to the long-term success and scalability of NbS (L. Loft et al., 2015; N. Frantzeskaki, 2019; European Environmental Agency, 2023).The relationship can therefore be characterized as complementary rather than hierarchical. The ecosystem approach does not constitute a Nature-based Solution in itself. Rather, it can provide the governance and decision-making framework within which NbS can be designed, implemented and monitored.

The risk of conflating Nature-based Solutions and ecological restoration

The relationship between Nature-based Solutions and ecological restoration is more complex. NbS are increasingly presented as an umbrella concept encompassing a broad range of approaches, including ecological restoration, ecological engineering, green infrastructure, ecosystem-based adaptation, ecosystem-based mitigation and ecosystem-based approaches to disaster risk reduction (IUCN, French Committee, 2019). Conservation measures may also qualify as NbS where they meet the relevant conditions (O. N. Lipka et al., 2023). The 2022 UNEA definition itself expressly includes the protection, conservation, restoration, sustainable use and management of ecosystems.

Ecological restoration consequently occupies an important and transversal position within the NbS framework. This is particularly apparent in landscapes and seascapes subject to intense anthropogenic pressure where ecosystems may first need to be restored before they can effectively perform the functions on which an NbS relies. This is especially visible in coastal and marine environments. In the Mediterranean for example, ecosystem-based adaptation frequently involves the restoration of degraded habitats, even where restoration is not the central objective of the project. Seagrass restoration, the recovery of coastal habitats and the restoration of Posidonia oceanica meadows can contribute simultaneously to biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, coastal protection and the provision of ecosystem services (A. Addamo et al., 2023; M. Snoussi, H. Nibani, 2025). Ecological restoration is also becoming increasingly important in the management of Mediterranean marine and coastal protected areas (C. Pergent-Martini et al., “Guidelines for Posidonia oceanica restoration”, 2024; Oceanogami, MedPAN, “User-friendly note on the EU Nature Restoration Law”, 2025).

The transversal role played by restoration within NbS creates, however, a potential conceptual and legal difficulty. If restoration is systematically presented as one component of the broader NbS umbrella, there is a risk that the specific identity and regulatory significance of ecological restoration may become less visible. This risk is particularly relevant as NbS gain political recognition and access to emerging biodiversity and climate finance mechanisms. The relationship should therefore not be understood as one in which NbS simply absorb ecological restoration.

Ecological restoration and Nature-based Solutions have different starting points

The fundamental distinction lies in their respective primary objectives. Ecological restoration is primarily concerned with ecological recovery. Its purpose is to assist the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed, with biodiversity, ecological integrity, ecosystem structure and ecological functioning constituting central objectives. Nature-based Solutions, by contrast, are defined by their capacity to address societal challenges through the protection, restoration or sustainable management of ecosystems, while simultaneously generating benefits for biodiversity, resilience, ecosystem services and human well-being. In ecological restoration, the ecosystem is primarily the object of recovery. In an NbS, the ecosystem is also part of the means through which a societal challenge is addressed.

This distinction has consequences for how projects are designed and evaluated. Ecological restoration has historically been more closely associated with conservation institutions, ecological expertise and public authorities (K. A. Waylen et al., 2024). NbS tend to involve a broader range of actors because their objectives extend to social and economic concerns. Similarly, restoration may rely on both passive and active approaches, whereas NbS may place greater emphasis on active interventions where these are necessary to secure tangible benefits for society (K. A. Waylen et al., 2024). The indicators used to evaluate the two approaches may also differ. Ecological restoration is generally assessed through ecological, biophysical and hydrological parameters, whereas the evaluation of an NbS will additionally consider socio-economic outcomes, ecosystem services, resilience and human well-being (K. A. Waylen et al., 2024).

Yet these distinctions should not be overstated. They do not mean that ecological restoration produces only ecological benefits, nor that NbS are necessarily separate from restoration practice. Indeed, even a restoration project undertaken in a remote area, with no immediate agricultural, recreational or protective function, may generate benefits for society. Restoring a degraded ecosystem can contribute to carbon storage and climate regulation, preserve biodiversity, maintain ecological processes and strengthen the resilience of ecosystems upon which human societies ultimately depend. These benefits may be indirect, delayed or difficult to quantify, but they nevertheless demonstrate that the interests of ecosystems and societies cannot always be neatly separated. This is particularly important because the distinction between ecological and societal benefits should not be interpreted as implying that nature and human societies are two independent entities. The ecosystem approach itself rejects such a separation by recognizing human beings as an integral component of ecosystems.

Towards mutually supportive legal frameworks

This distinction between NbS and ecological restoration matters increasingly in international environmental law. As NbS become more prominent in international biodiversity, climate and sustainable development policies, it should not result in the dilution of restoration as an autonomous concept, particularly where restoration carries its own ecological objectives, scientific standards and legal implications. A more appropriate approach would be to develop international legal frameworks that recognize the complementarity of the two concepts while preserving their respective identities. This could involve, first, strengthening the international legal recognition of ecological restoration through a more authoritative and contemporary definition at the level of the United Nations General Assembly. Second, greater coherence could be sought between the legal and policy frameworks governing Nature-based Solutions, biodiversity and climate action. In particular, closer alignment between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change could help ensure that restoration and NbS are not treated as competing policy instruments, but rather as mutually reinforcing approaches. The objective should ultimately be neither to subordinate restoration to NbS nor to isolate restoration from the broader NbS agenda. It should be to ensure that the growing recognition of Nature-based Solutions strengthens, rather than obscures, the role of ecological restoration.

Sources

E. Cohen-Shacham et al., « Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions », Environmental Science and Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.014

P. N Carvalho et al., « Nature-based solutions addressing the water-energy-food nexus: Review of theoretical concepts and urban case studies », Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130652
C. Nesshöver et al., « The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective », Science of the Total Environment, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106

L. Loft et al., « Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities », Ecosystem Services, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.002

N. Frantzeskaki, « Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities », Environmental Science and Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.033

O. N. Lipka et al., « Protected Areas as Nature-Based Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation », Environmental Science Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.3390/ecas2023-15659

A. Addamo et al., « Towards an ecosystem-based approach in marine ecosystem accounting. Seagrass ecosystems in the Mediterranean Sea: from diversity to restoration« , Publications Office of the European Union, doi:10.2760/612075

M. Snoussi, H. Nibani, « Nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based
adaptation in the Mediterranean Incorporating insights from two regional trainings in Montenegro and Morocco GEF MedProgramme SCCF Project », R. Degron (dir.)

K. A. Waylen et al., « Nature-based solutions and restoration are intertwined but not identical: Highlighting implications for societies and ecosystems », Nature-Based Solutions, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbsj.2024.100116