Tree planting has become a favored response to environmental loss. Governments, companies, and philanthropies announce large targets with reassuring round numbers. Forests, after all, store carbon, shelter wildlife, and support livelihoods. Yet the details matter. Planting the wrong species, or planting trees where forests did not exist, can undermine both biodiversity and climate goals.
That problem has become clearer as restoration pledges have multiplied. A 2019 commentary in Nature found that nearly half of the area pledged under the Bonn Challenge consisted of plantation-style monocultures. A 2024 study in Science showed that much land promised for reforestation in Africa was actually savanna, an ecosystem poorly suited to trees. Ambition, in other words, has often run ahead of ecological sense.
Paul Smith, secretary-general of Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI), says this pattern raised concerns as pledges grew larger. “It started to occur to us that there was potentially a problem here, particularly given the size of the pledges that were being made.” What was missing was a way to distinguish restoration that improved biodiversity from restoration that merely looked good on paper.
The Global Biodiversity Standard (TGBS) was created to fill that gap, reports Ruth Kamnitzer. Officially launched in 2024, it certifies forest and landscape restoration projects that can demonstrate measurable gains for biodiversity. Unlike many existing certification schemes, it focuses first on ecological outcomes and is designed to be affordable for small projects.
Certification under TGBS begins with evidence. Projects are assessed using satellite imagery and on-the-ground surveys, which examine plants, animals, and local governance. Sites are scored against eight criteria, including ecosystem integrity, protection, and stakeholder engagement. Results are reviewed by the TGBS secretariat, hosted by BGCI, and audited by an independent third party. Depending on performance, projects receive standard, advanced, or premium certification.
A defining feature of the system is its reliance on regional hubs, often botanic gardens or local biodiversity organizations. These hubs conduct field assessments and provide mentoring. David Bartholomew, TGBS’s project manager, says this avoids a consultant-heavy model and keeps costs down. “We didn’t want to use a top-down model where we were flying in international consultants.” Local experts, he adds, understand both species and social context.
That approach was tested in western Uganda, where the Jane Goodall Institute has been restoring a wildlife corridor linking the Budongo and Bugoma forests. The project, supported by the search engine Ecosia, became the first to achieve advanced certification. Surveys found increasing numbers of native plants and forest-dependent birds. They also highlighted how restoration and livelihoods were linked.“The same people who were degrading the forest were the same people used to establish the restoration,” says Said Mutegeki, an ecologist involved in the assessment.
For funders, the appeal lies less in the label than in the process. Antonia Burchard-Levine of Ecosia says certification offers assurance, but mentoring delivers the real value. Projects that fall short receive guidance rather than rejection.
As interest in restoration continues to grow, TGBS aims to expand cautiously. Its premise is straightforward: forests should be judged not by how many trees they contain, but by whether they support life, people included.
Header photo by Rhett Ayers Butler
Credits
