Recently, I came across an insightful article by Rhett Butler, the founder of Mongabay, that struck a chord. He highlighted a crucial truth: while global afforestation efforts are booming, biodiversity is not necessarily recovering alongside. Forest cover may be increasing, but ecosystems are not bouncing back in all their complexity and richness. It is a quiet crisis hidden behind green numbers.
This thought lingered in my mind, especially when I received an email a few days ago from the team at NEOM, the 1.5 million-hectare ecological restoration project in Saudi Arabia. They had seen the video of the Indian striped hyena we raised and reintroduced back to her natural habitat, and were seeking inputs on hyenas, their ecological role, behaviour, and the best practices around their potential reintroduction. The query was a simple one, but it reflected something deeper. NEOM is not just planting trees. They are actively and deliberately working on reintroducing fauna alongside flora, investing in rebuilding ecological relationships, not just landscapes.
Globally too, similar efforts are gaining ground. The Atlantic Forest Restoration Pact in Brazil, Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative in North America, Rewilding Europe, and Mozambique’s Gorongosa Restoration Project are all examples where ecological restoration is being viewed more holistically. These projects acknowledge that without fauna, forests may grow, but ecosystems will not function.
In a recent conversation I had with Ian Redmond, a globally renowned conservationist, he shared a powerful example that illustrates this point. He spoke about how elephants, often called ecosystem engineers, provide crucial ecosystem services that can even be measured in economic terms. A few years ago, an Italian biologist studied two forest areas in the Congo Basin, one where elephants had been wiped out by poachers and one where elephant populations remained intact. The study found that the area with elephants had seven percent more above-ground biomass than the area without them. When you consider that the Congo Basin stores gigatons of carbon, that seven percent difference is significant, not just for biodiversity but even in terms of carbon markets and climate regulation. It is a reminder that animal presence does not just complete ecosystems; it sustains them, even in ways measurable by economic and climate metrics.
Back here in India, we have been focused for years on increasing forest cover. Our official reports celebrate large-scale plantation drives, but the biodiversity crisis continues. The recent destruction of over 400 acres of native forest at Kancha Gachibowli in Telangana, for instance, highlighted how easily ecologically important habitats can be wiped out in the name of development. This area, home to over 450 documented species including rare and endemic wildlife, was bulldozed despite public and expert opposition, a stark reminder of how vulnerable our biodiversity remains.
Yet, there are positive stories too. The reintroduction of barasingha in Kanha Tiger Reserve, successful gharial conservation in Chambal, and focused efforts to revive populations of hog deer and vultures in various pockets of India show us what is possible when wildlife recovery is made a priority.
At RESQ CT, our philosophy has always been rooted in one key principle: keeping wildlife wild. Over the years, we have worked with thousands of wild animals, most of whom arrived at our centres as victims of human-related causes, such as accidental injuries, urban conflict, or displacement. Our primary goal has never been to keep them in captivity but to rehabilitate, restore, and release them back to their natural habitats.
This approach has shown us firsthand how powerful faunal reintroduction can be. Through our post-release monitoring, we have observed many cases where animals, whether a wolf, hyena, or lesser-known species like rusty-spotted cats, have successfully reintegrated into the wild, reclaiming their space in the ecosystem. This not only contributes to population recovery but also revives ecological functions like seed dispersal, predation, scavenging, and pest control.
Moreover, these efforts have created a ripple effect beyond wildlife. Every rescue and every release becomes an opportunity to engage local communities, build awareness, and foster coexistence. Community members who once viewed certain species with fear or hostility now participate in their release, learn about their ecological roles, and become allies in their protection. This built awareness and participation are crucial for long-term conservation success.
Of course, the idea of actively reintroducing fauna is not without its counterarguments. Many experts will rightly point out the ecological risks and complexities involved: habitat readiness, prey base availability, disease risk, and the potential for increased human-wildlife conflict. There is also the argument that if habitats are protected and allowed to regenerate, wildlife will naturally return over time. These are valid concerns that call for caution and careful scientific planning.
But perhaps the path forward lies not in choosing one approach over the other, but in integrating both. Imagine if, along with measuring the number of saplings planted, we also measured how many native species were successfully restored to their landscapes. Imagine if afforestation projects across India included well-researched, phased plans to reintroduce not just trees, but the animals, birds, and reptiles that bring forests to life.
Restoration is not about painting landscapes green. It is about rebuilding the full, complex web of life. Faunal reintroduction, when done thoughtfully and responsibly, can be one of the most powerful tools we have to accelerate ecosystem recovery, enhance climate resilience, and rebuild community relationships with wildlife.
India, with its vast biodiversity and centuries of coexistence with wildlife, has the opportunity to lead a different kind of restoration movement, one that looks beyond trees and focuses on life itself.