[removed]

It is, though it's really important to note that forest replanting (or, really, any other kind of restoration) is not a holistic fix to habitat destruction. It's important, but also pales in comparison to pre-destruction habitat. Saving established habitat is incredibly important.

Each time you scour a habitat, you risk losing a proportion of it's most sensitive species semi-permanently or permanently. Some groups of organisms are very slow-growing and slow spreading, exhibit very limited mobility, or can only establish in the presence of multiple other species with which they are symbiotic. Truly rare and endangered species often fall into this camp, and habitat destruction may drastically reduce the likelihood of their re-establishment.

Conversely, habitat regeneration promotes the re-establishment of low-sensitivity common species first and foremost. forest planting initiatives mostly cater to only a subset of those low-sensitivity species, often one or two dozen woody species, at best, with little to no regard for rare or herbaceous plants (beyond, possibly, a basic seed mix with no guarantees of establishment, that often includes meadow species rather than forest species). Other kingdoms of life (like animals or fungi) at almost ignored. Regenerated forests have potential to slowly incorporate mature and old growth forest species elements if they occur near to such mature systems, but on an increasingly fragmented world landscape, this is also fraught with problems.

As a result, truly rich habitats remain in decline, and certainly this does not help with the decline of rare species. forest planting and restoration are important but imperfect fixes, and it's always important to prioritize existing features.

I think grasslands development flies more under the radar. Here in colorado people call it “empty space”