The manuscript uses a spatial prioritization framework based on integer linear programming to assess restoration opportunities in Colombia and analyze trade-offs between carbon storage and biodiversity conservation in the country. This manuscript is timely and potentially useful for forest restoration stakeholders, serving as a baseline to further include relevant information on implementation feasibility (including financing mechanisms and willingness of farmers to adopt restoration within their lands).

I have a few points to consider:

Figure 1: does purple refer to natural ecosystems besides forests? Please specify.
Please specify on the right panel if you refer to the proportion of available area per pixel.

How did the establishment cost vary geographically? Could you provide a raster on establishment costs?

Are all rasters used in this prioritization analysis freely available?

Please change the order of variables in lines 114 to 119 so they correspond with the order of variables in the algorithm.

Several species might depend on other ecosystems besides forests. This is briefly mentioned at the end of the discussion. Could you expand on the need to assess habitat restoration opportunities for non-forest-dependent species?

Could you expand the discussion on important ecosystems that need to be restored independent of their high biodiversity and carbon storage value? I imagine the results are biased towards lowland forests. Please explain this in the discussion.

Could you expand on policies/plans/next steps to implement restoration activities within the country based on this prioritization analysis?

How would the results of the analysis change if species with small distribution ranges or endangered are weighted more than other species?

The authors have readily addressed the several comments, and I consider that this version is now ready for publication