Restoration Central
Restoration that reaches people, and restoration that does not
Restoration is now one of the largest bets in climate and nature finance. The record of who it reaches is thinner than the money behind it. This page gathers what the evidence shows, and what it does not yet see.
What the record shows
Findings from published studies
- Decades of tree planting in northern India had limited effects on forest canopy cover and on rural livelihoods.1
- Restoration prioritization must be informed by the marginalized people who live in the places chosen.2
- Afforestation on grazing land made pastoralists in the Indian Himalaya more vulnerable.3
- Wasteful spending in tree-planting programmes is predictable in advance.4
- Restoration that delivers for both forests and people is associated with empowered local governance sustained over long periods.5
- Across 314 forest commons in 15 tropical countries, a formal community association and local rule-making are consistent predictors of good outcomes.6
- Attention to social considerations improves both the equity and the effectiveness of restoration.7
What we test
The tail of a restoration programme
Whose land was planted, who chose the species, who lost access to grazing, fodder or fuelwood, who was paid, and whether the benefit reached the households that depend most on the forest. A programme can succeed on average and fail at its tail. We test both. What we do →
Working papers
Tailwinds
- Whose Rules? Which Forest? Why community rule-making predicts carbon on average but subsistence at the tail (2026-05)
- Forthcoming. The missing layer in Kangra's forest commons: plantation records, satellite canopy data and household surveys, read together.
- Forthcoming. Restoration and carbon finance, followed to the people at the end of the chain.
Page last reviewed 15 October 2026.
- Coleman, Schultz, Ramprasad et al. 2021. Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nature Sustainability. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00761-z.
- Fleischman, Coleman, Fischer, Kashwan, Pfeifer, Ramprasad et al. 2022. Restoration prioritization must be informed by marginalized people. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04733-x.
- Ramprasad, Joglekar and Fleischman 2020. Plantations and pastoralists. Ecology and Society. doi:10.5751/es-11810-250401.
- Rana, Fleischman, Ramprasad and Lee 2022. Predicting wasteful spending in tree planting programs in Indian Himalaya. World Development. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105864.
- Fischer et al. 2025. Forest restoration for environment and well-being is associated with empowered local governance over long time scales. Environmental Research Letters. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/adf1b8.
- Fischer, Chhatre, Duddu, Pradhan and Agrawal 2023. Community forest governance and synergies among carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods. Nature Climate Change. doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01863-6.
- Löfqvist et al. 2022. How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration. BioScience. doi:10.1093/biosci/biac099.