Salt la conținutul principal

Cookie settings

We use cookies to ensure the basic functionalities of the website and to enhance your online experience. You can configure and accept the use of the cookies, and modify your consent options, at any time.

Esențiale

Preferințe

Analize și statistici

Marketing

Close pollination

Care este rezumatul sau concluzia acestei dezbateri?

🌱 Can restoration be profitable without becoming extractive again?

Avatar: Dezbatere oficială Dezbatere oficială

Ecosystem restoration needs funding to scale. But when profit enters, so does the risk of repeating extractive logics.

Where is the line?

🚦 Positions

🔴 Profit drives extraction
Economic pressure leads to shortcuts and ecological compromise.

🟡 Profit is necessary but risky
Viability is needed, but requires strong governance and safeguards.

🟢 Profit can enable regeneration
Well-designed models can align incentives with ecological outcomes.

❓ Your contribution

In your experience, when does restoration stop being regenerative and start becoming extractive?

🔍 Share with us:

  • Cases (projects, territories, companies)

  • Data or indicators (ecological, financial, social)

  • Models that worked — or failed

  • Trade-offs you’ve encountered

🔥 Bring real examples. Challenge assumptions. Help define what responsible restoration looks like.

Choose a position (🔴 🟡 🟢), share a concrete example from your context, and explain what happened, what worked (or failed), and why. Keep it simple and grounded:

  • What was the situation?

  • Who was involved?

  • What were the trade-offs?

  • What did you learn?

👉 Example: In Greece, a reforestation project funded through carbon credits focused on fast-growing species to meet targets quickly. While economically efficient, it reduced biodiversity and increased water stress, raising questions about long-term ecological impact.

Comentariu

Confirmare

Please log in

Parola este prea scurtă.