What Is Rio Synergy?
The climate crisis, nature loss and land degradation are interconnected consequences of the same transformation. As land degrades, its capacity to store carbon declines. As ecosystems are damaged, the water cycle weakens, while climate change accelerates the process. Addressing these three issues together is therefore becoming increasingly important. The three crises share common roots. Yet, at the international level, they have been negotiated at three separate tables for more than thirty years. COP31 Antalya brings this separation into focus through one of its ten official action areas, Rio Synergy.
In this article, we take a closer look at the concept of Rio Synergy, why the three conventions took separate paths and how this issue reached the COP31 agenda. Enjoy reading!
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, is considered one of the founding moments of environmental diplomacy. The Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity were opened for signature in Rio. The Convention to Combat Desertification was adopted in 1994 following negotiations prompted by Agenda 21, which was adopted in Rio.
The conventions grew from a shared historical foundation and then followed separate institutional paths. Countries prepare different national plans for climate, biodiversity and land, while implementation often falls under the responsibility of different institutions.
On the biodiversity front, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, set a target of effectively conserving and managing at least 30 percent of terrestrial and inland water areas and of marine and coastal areas by 2030. National contributions under the climate regime and land targets under the desertification convention also affect these same places. When the plans are not connected, progress in one area can create new pressures in another.
Click here to learn more about biodiversity.
The cost of this separation becomes clear in concrete examples. Large single species plantations established without considering local ecology and the water budget may store carbon, but they can reduce habitat diversity and put pressure on water resources. It is therefore necessary to measure ecosystem health, soil and long term carbon storage together, instead of tracking only the number of trees planted.
A similar tension appears in energy and land use. A facility planned to provide low-carbon energy can create new risks if its location is not assessed in terms of river systems, habitat integrity and local livelihoods. Rather than serving as a label that automatically approves every project, synergy offers a planning method that makes these trade offs visible before decisions are made.
Different institutions may establish separate datasets, project files and reporting systems for the same basin. This fragmentation can increase preparation costs, create inconsistencies between data and delay recognition of how policies affect one another. Shared baseline data and jointly designed indicators help resources be used more consistently. Even so, the legal obligations of each convention must be maintained: synergy should not blur institutional responsibilities.
Solutions that respond to all three crises at once already exist, with nature based solutions among the most prominent. Restoring coastal wetlands is a good example. These areas store carbon, reduce the impacts of storms and floods, provide breeding grounds for fish populations and slow salinization. A single intervention serves the goals of all three conventions.
Restoring rangelands, applying agroecological farming practices and developing urban green infrastructure produce similar effects. The second pillar of synergy lies in measurement and reporting. Bringing the documents that countries prepare separately for the three conventions together under a shared strategy both reduces the bureaucratic burden and helps prevent policies from working against one another.
The barriers to synergy are real, too. The three conventions have different definitions, reporting schedules and verification methods. A forest’s value in carbon accounting cannot be expressed using the same measure as its value in biodiversity accounting. Establishing a common language requires technical work, and that work is still at an early stage. Nevertheless, the search for shared indicators provides a foundation for the three fields to learn from one another.
You can also read our article on how nature-based solutions prepare cities for climate change.
The issue gained particular prominence in 2026. The 17th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification met in Ulaanbaatar on 17–28 August 2026. The conference connected land restoration, drought resilience and sustainable land management with the global implementation agenda. The Ulaanbaatar Declaration also emphasized local leadership and stronger alignment among the three Rio Conventions.
That meeting is followed by COP17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, to be held in Yerevan in October, and climate COP31, to be held in Antalya in November. The value of this process will become clear less through the creation of a new working group than through practical efforts showing how existing national plans and funding flows can support one another.
The designation of Rio Synergy as one of COP31’s ten action areas shows that it has become part of the official agenda of Türkiye’s presidency. The COP31 plan highlights coordination among climate, biodiversity and efforts to combat desertification; pilot projects on fires and restoration; protection of carbon sinks; land management; and consideration of biodiversity in adaptation plans. How this framework will be reflected in negotiated decisions and field programmes will be watched in Antalya.
The reason the discussion on synergy is gathering pace now is clear. As climate policies move into implementation, contradictions between plans become visible on the ground. When a country’s emissions reduction plan and its decisions on land use, water strategy or conservation targets pull in different directions, both nature and local communities bear the cost. Joint assessment makes it possible to address these contradictions at the decision-making stage instead of trying to correct them after investments have been made.
Rio Synergy has particular relevance for Türkiye. The Mediterranean basin is one of the hotspots of climate change. Rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, drought, wildfire risk, soil moisture and coastal ecosystems are all linked in the same chain of risks. Türkiye’s agriculture, water resources, forests and tourism economy depend on different links in that chain. Coordinating climate adaptation with land and biodiversity plans is therefore directly a matter of development.
Türkiye is a party to all three Rio Conventions. Its experience in afforestation, erosion control, basin management and protected areas provides an important knowledge base for joint planning. The contribution of this experience cannot be measured by the number of activities alone. Outcomes such as how land restoration affects carbon storage capacity, whether species selection is compatible with the water budget, and how rangeland management contributes to biodiversity need to be monitored using transparent methods.
In Türkiye, climate, biodiversity and land issues fall under the responsibility of different institutions. While this structure is understandable in itself, it creates a need for coordination in practice. Afforestation in a basin must be planned alongside its water budget, agricultural support alongside soil conservation targets, and energy investments alongside habitat maps. This is where the concept of synergy takes on a concrete meaning.
Tourism is one of the sectors at the intersection of all three conventions. It is connected to climate through energy use and transport emissions, to biodiversity through visitor pressure on natural areas, and to land through water use and coastal development.
When a destination’s sustainability plan manages these three dimensions separately, important connections may be overlooked. The effects of an investment that reduces the carbon footprint on coastal ecosystems and the water budget must also be considered. This is why approaches that address energy, cultural heritage, water use and the local economy together are gaining prominence. SENTRUM project activities in Küçükköy, Birgi and Göynük aim to address energy practices, local development and destination management within the same framework.
Rio Synergy may seem like a bureaucratic issue at first glance. The idea behind it is quite concrete: climate, biodiversity and healthy land are parts of the same system. The value of the discussion in Antalya will be measured by whether this recognition changes decision-making processes, rather than whether it produces a new slogan. Synergy will take shape on the ground when shared data, compatible indicators, jointly designed investments and the participation of local communities in decision-making are put into practice.