READING TIME: 5 MINS
In recent years, restoration has become a global rallying cry. Countries, companies, and climate initiatives are committing billions of trees, millions of hectares, and vast promises for “nature-based solutions.” Yet, not all restoration is equal, and in some cases, poorly designed restoration initiatives are causing more ecological damage than doing nothing at all.
​
A recently published (2025) study in Nature Communications (Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation) underscores something conservation practitioners have known for decades: biodiversity outcomes depend on context, ecological history, and landscape-specific decisions. Global “hotspots” for tree planting are not places to plant wherever possible, they are places where restoration, when done right, can deliver disproportionate climate and biodiversity gains. The difference between success and failure lies not in how many trees go into the ground, but in how well restoration is planned, monitored, and adapted over time.
The Problem: A World Obsessed With Planting, Not Restoring.​
Well-intentioned restoration efforts can unintentionally accelerate biodiversity loss. Simplistic, low-cost tree planting projects, especially of exotic or non-native species, or of monocultures, can undermine ecosystems, threaten species, alter hydrology, and displace community livelihoods.​ The aforementioned article echoes this warning. Of the areas identified as suitable for high-impact restoration, over one-third are biodiverse grasslands, scrublands, or savannahs - not forests. Planting trees in these ecosystems can destroy their ecological character. In coastal areas, indiscriminate mangrove planting in mudflats, seagrass beds, or non-historic zones can similarly disrupt natural processes.
This is why responsible organisations must shift mindsets from “We want to plant trees” to “We want to protect, restore, and reconnect ecosystems.” At EcoNiche, this shift is at the heart of our work. Whether supporting mangrove restoration, agroforestry, coastal wetland recovery, or regenerative community land-use systems, we emphasise something simple but transformative: restoration is not planting, it is repairing relationships.
​
In mangrove ecosystems, for example, the most successful restoration projects begin long before any sapling is planted. They start with questions such as:
​
-
Where should restoration occur? Only in places where mangroves historically existed, and where the causes of degradation can be reversed.
-
What conditions are needed for success? Hydrology, freshwater flow, tidal exchange, sediment dynamics, land tenure, access, and ecological reference sites all matter. Restoration succeeds when it works with ecological processes, not against them.
-
Why restore this ecosystem? Clear goals and success criteria guide decisions and prevent tokenistic, photo-op plantations.
Avoiding the Dangerous Logic of “Compensatory Destruction”.
​
A growing concern across India, and globally, is the use of restoration to justify ecological damage. These days, development projects often propose offset plantations or translocations to compensate for the destruction of old-growth forests, coral reefs, or island ecosystems. This “restoration-as-compensation” narrative is flawed and dangerous. You cannot replace an intact ecosystem with a newly planted one. Not ecologically. Not culturally. Not hydrologically. Not for biodiversity. Restoration is inherently uncertain, long-term, and complex. It must never be used to legitimise harmful development.
​
This is where the relatively newly formed Global Biodiversity Standard (TGBS) offers transformative value. It is amongst the most scientifically rigorous, globally applicable, site-based standard for assessing biodiversity uplift across restoration, tree planting, and agroforestry initiatives.​ TGBS strengthens restoration by grounding it in evidence-based design and planning, using ecological reference models, native species composition, and integrity baselines to ensure interventions are ecologically appropriate. It measures progress through more than 20 independently verified indicators that capture changes in species diversity, ecosystem structure and function, and social benefits. The assessment process is led by regional hubs and local biodiversity experts who understand the socio-ecological realities of their landscapes, ensuring culturally and ecologically informed evaluations. TGBS is also aligned with major global frameworks, including the Global Biodiversity Framework, the Paris Agreement, the Bonn Challenge, and the UN Decade on Restoration, embedding restoration within internationally recognised goals.
EcoNiche has 2 certified TGBS Assessors on our team.
Why This Matters for India and the Global South.
​
Many of the world’s most promising restoration hotspots overlap with landscapes across India, including coastal wetlands, mangrove deltas, agroforestry mosaics, and community-managed systems where EcoNiche works. These regions offer enormous potential for climate mitigation, biodiversity recovery, resilience, and livelihoods, but only if restoration is designed and implemented responsibly. Tools like the Global Biodiversity Standard (TGBS) can help India avoid the pitfalls of plantations and ensure that restoration drives climate resilience, ecological integrity, social equity, and long-term ecosystem function. In a context where development pressures are high and land is scarce, rigour, accountability, and community participation are no longer optional, they are foundational.
​
Responsible restoration, as reinforced by both global science and EcoNiche’s field experience, begins with protecting intact ecosystems before attempting to restore degraded ones. It means restoring only where conditions are ecologically appropriate, planning with communities rather than around them, and prioritising ecosystem processes instead of quick wins. It requires monitoring for learning, aligning efforts with national and global biodiversity commitments, and resisting the increasingly common practice of using restoration to compensate for ecologically destructive development. At its core, restoration must be grounded in justice, co-creation, and a deep understanding of socio-ecological relationships.
​
We are at a crucial moment. The world is directing unprecedented resources toward restoration, yet without strong standards and governance, we risk creating a global illusion of “greenness” that masks ongoing ecological loss. Restoration can meaningfully shift climate and biodiversity trajectories, but only when guided by science, context, and humility. Ultimately, if restoration is to be a true force for ecological and community resilience, not a convenient banner under which ecosystems are erased, we must hold ourselves to higher standards.
Restoration is not planting; it is healing. And healing requires care, intention, and integrity.