Tree planting can backfire
The Unexpected Problems with Mass Tree-Planting Campaigns
Tree-planting projects sound like an easy solution – but they often fail, and sometimes even make things worse for the environment. Let's explore a better approach.
In November 2019, Turkey launched an ambitious program called "Breath for the Future". Volunteers fanned out across the country, setting a Guinness World Record by planting a staggering 303,150 seedlings in just one hour. The goal, as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared, was to create a greener, more vibrant Turkey.
Sadly, the success was short-lived. Within three months, up to 90% of the saplings had died. Experts blame poor timing and a lack of rainfall, highlighting that good intentions alone aren't enough to ensure trees thrive.
Gaining Popularity in no time
Tree-planting has gained immense popularity in recent decades. It seems ideal for battling everything from climate change to biodiversity loss. Corporations, celebrities, and politicians champion tree planting – after all, trees provide so many benefits: they absorb carbon, offer habitat to wildlife, and add beauty to the landscape. It's the ultimate feel-good solution, right?
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Many of these vast campaigns falter, and in some cases, do more damage than good.
Researchers studying decades of Indian reforestation efforts (published in the journal Nature), found little evidence that planting trees delivered meaningful climate benefits or aided local communities. This in-depth study reveals a common thread in failed tree-planting initiatives: the focus on ambitious targets often neglects the ongoing care needed and ignores the factors that caused the deforestation in the first place.
Experts emphasize that rather than just planting enormous numbers of trees, we need a sustainable approach. This means: prioritizing long-term growth, protecting diverse ecosystems beyond just forests, and empowering the local people who are best suited to care for these revitalized areas.
The Obsession with Planting a Trillion Trees
Since the 1990s, tree-planting organizations have exploded in number. There are multiple global campaigns with the awe-inspiring goal of planting a trillion trees, notably the World Economic Forum's initiative launched in 2020.
It's difficult to say exactly when this obsession started. Some point to the 2011 Bonn Challenge and its goal of restoring millions of hectares of land. Others cite a controversial 2019 Science paper that served as a catalyst for the trillion tree movement.
The authors of that Science paper claimed planting new trees is "our most effective climate change solution to date", even suggesting the planet has room for nearly a billion hectares of new forest cover. While heavily critiqued by many scientists, the core idea lingers – the false promise that we can simply plant our way out of the climate crisis and reverse biodiversity loss. It's a tempting notion, far easier for corporations and governments to endorse than actually reducing emissions.
Where Tree-Planting Can Work
Ultimately, tree-planting projects have the highest chance of succeeding when they tackle the root causes of deforestation or environmental damage. This requires understanding the complex relationship between local communities and their surroundings, and ensuring those communities directly benefit from the conservation work.
"When people lack access to basic food and livelihood options, no amount of tree-planting will outweigh that immediate need," said Karen Holl, a restoration expert with the University of California Santa Cruz.
For example, in many regions, families still depend on wood-burning stoves for cooking and heat. This creates a consistent demand for firewood, putting pressure on forests. In Kenya, the responsibility for gathering firewood traditionally falls to women, and they can spend hours every day engaged in this task. Sometimes, well-intentioned tree-planting efforts end up making life harder for women by establishing new plantations far from their villages, increasing the burden rather than relieving it.
Choice of Forestation
Additionally, selecting the right kinds of trees is crucial. Let's consider Brazil's Atlantic Forest, a biodiversity hotspot reduced to a mere 7% of its original extent. Here, restoration requires a focus on native species vital to the ecosystem, rather than planting vast areas with single, commercially-useful varieties. This often means finding, nurturing, and planting rarer plant species which may have more particular needs for success.
It's also important to remember that there's no single solution that fits every situation. Sometimes, the best strategy is to help nature heal itself. Known as "assisted natural regeneration", this involves addressing the issues that led to deforestation (like grazing or invasive species), possibly dispersing seeds of native plants, and then allowing natural processes to take over.
Beyond the Trees
We love trees, and that makes sense. But that intense focus can sometimes obscure the truth: nature is a complex web, not just a collection of trees.
Forests are undoubtedly essential, and many restoration projects have the best intentions. However, prioritizing trees while ignoring other vital ecosystems can backfire. Grasslands, for example, are often overlooked or mistakenly seen as blank canvases for reforestation efforts.
This has harmful consequences. Grasslands store an incredible amount of the world's carbon, primarily held within their vast root systems and dense soil. Disturbing these grasslands to plant trees actually releases that carbon into the atmosphere, while also destroying unique biodiversity.
Rather than hyper-focusing on trees, we need to adopt a more holistic approach - restoring all the interconnected ecosystems that together create a thriving planet. This means protecting wetlands, revitalizing degraded peatlands, supporting sustainable grasslands, and of course, fostering healthy forests.
Success Depends on Local Communities
So, if massive tree-planting isn't the answer, what is? Experts say true, sustainable restoration depends on supporting local communities. People living on the land, especially Indigenous groups, understand it best.
"We need to focus on making people's lives better," said Forrest Fleischman, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who studies restoration efforts. "Ultimately, the people who depend on nature will be the ones who champion it."
Fleischman's work provides a sobering example. His research in northern India, published in Nature, examined decades of government-led tree-planting programs, totaling hundreds of millions of seedlings. The results were shocking: hardly any impact on forest cover and an even a negative change in the types of trees growing, diminishing the resources available to locals. What went wrong? A mix of factors, likely including poor seedling quality, unsuitable planting locations, and damage done by grazing animals that were excluded from the planted areas.
Lesson to be learned
The lesson: even well-funded reforestation attempts can fail if they don't consider the realities of local communities. The disconnect between intentions and results highlights why simply planting trees isn't nearly enough.
Elsewhere, tree-planting campaigns have caused outright harm. In Mexico, a well-intentioned government initiative called Sembrando Vida (Sowing Life) offers payments to farmers to plant trees. The problem? Some farmers have started clearing existing forest to make room for the subsidized trees, causing a net loss of forest cover.
Similar issues arose in Pakistan, where a government tree-planting program inadvertently displaced a nomadic group called the Gujjars. Traditionally, the Gujjars rent access to winter grazing lands, but many landowners, tempted by tree-planting incentives, have replaced those grasslands. The Gujjars lose access to essential resources, their traditional way of life threatened by a program trying to do good.
The problem with viewing restoration solely through the lens of tree numbers is that it ignores the complex human relationships with nature.
Image Credit - Grow Billion Trees
A Success Story
It's important to emphasize that restoring ecosystems is entirely achievable – and it's getting better. The Pontal do Paranapanema region in Brazil provides hope. For over 35 years, a non-profit has partnered with locals to plant 2.7 million native trees. The focus isn't just on numbers but ensuring the new trees provide things the community needs – fruits, building materials, and even seedlings they can sell for income. These new forests now connect once-isolated fragments, benefiting the endangered black lion tamarin monkey. It's the kind of win-win-win scenario we need.
At the core of successful projects like this is a focus on people. Recognizing that local communities have the knowledge and the greatest stake in seeing these efforts succeed is crucial.
The Misleading Message
That focus is often drowned out by flashy headlines about planting trillions of trees. A now-infamous Science paper from 2019 helped kickstart this frenzy, claiming trees were THE most effective tool against climate change. Even the lead author, Thomas Crowther, now admits the paper's message was oversimplified. He's become a vocal critic of the "trillion trees" obsession, emphasizing that massive planting campaigns do little if they don't address the root causes of the climate crisis.
Trees provide countless benefits for our planet. They absolutely play a part in fighting climate change. But they are not a magic bullet, and poorly planned campaigns focused solely on planting distract us from the most vital job – drastically reducing emissions.
The Trouble with “Net-Zero” Pledges
The excitement around massive tree-planting efforts often ties into a bigger trend: companies and even countries touting "net-zero" climate pledges. The concept sounds good on paper – the idea that by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal (like tree planting), the net impact is zero.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Too many of these "net-zero" plans rely heavily on planting trees to offset continued fossil fuel use, often without any guarantee that the trees planted will actually survive and thrive, or that the land will be protected in the long term. It becomes a tempting loophole – keep polluting now, and vaguely promise to plant trees at some uncertain point in the future.
Experts warn this is a dangerous path. "We should never plant trees as a means of getting ourselves off the hook when it comes to fossil fuel reductions," said Robin Chazdon, a restoration ecologist with the University of the Sunshine Coast.
The problem is two-fold. First, trees take time. A newly planted seedling absorbs just a small fraction of carbon compared to an established forest. It can take decades for the benefits to reach their potential. This doesn't align with the timeline we need to address the climate crisis – the most critical need is rapid emission reductions right now.
Second, there's simply not enough space. Some "net-zero" plans rely on the idea of planting trees on an area larger than all the available arable land on Earth. This isn't feasible – we need that land for food and cannot simply displace farmers and rural communities.
While there's an important place for trees and restoration in fighting climate change, the hard truth is that it cannot substitute for urgently slashing emissions at their source.
The Right Way to Restore Forests
So, what does successful restoration look like? It's a long game. Many projects funded by "trillion tree" initiatives set a woefully short timeline for monitoring - perhaps two years at most. But experts stress that's not long enough to see the kind of carbon storage and biodiversity gains we need.
Additionally, we need to address the issues that led to the environmental degradation in the first place. This often means providing alternatives or support to local communities. If people lack access to fuel for basic needs, offering them seedlings won't stop them from cutting down the existing forest.
"Planting trees might not even be the right intervention," emphasizes Fleischman. "The intervention might be offering a substitute for firewood, or figuring out ways to provide different income opportunities."
That's where working with those who know the land intimately becomes essential. In places where deforestation is driven by unsustainable agriculture or the needs of marginalized communities, simply planting trees may make the problem worse.
What about closer to home?
You might wonder if this concern over massive campaigns applies to the smaller-scale tree-planting efforts common in Europe or North America. While those projects generally come with fewer risks, the core principles hold true. Success depends on factors like thoughtful tree species selection, a long-term maintenance plan, and ensuring it doesn't negatively impact other parts of the ecosystem.
Sometimes, the most effective approach is letting nature bounce back on its own, perhaps with a bit of human help to remove barriers and get the process started. It's always best to consult with local experts familiar with your particular ecosystem and its needs.
A Call for Action
The allure of tree planting is undeniable. It feels empowering to do something tangible in the face of complex environmental problems. But if those well-intentioned actions cause more harm than good, we haven't truly helped.
That's not to say planting trees is never the answer. Trees have their place and provide many benefits – when done right. However, real, long-lasting success in restoring our planet depends on a much more thoughtful, comprehensive approach. We need to:
Prioritize protecting existing, intact ecosystems
Old-growth forests, pristine grasslands, and untouched wetlands provide immense value, both for carbon storage and biodiversity. These natural powerhouses should be our first line of defense.
Focus on restoring diverse environments, not just forests
True restoration embraces the entire mosaic of ecosystems that create a thriving planet. This means taking care of wetlands, peatlands, grasslands, alongside forests.
Partner with and empower local communities
Often, the people living closest to the land have the most profound understanding of it. They are best positioned to safeguard restoration efforts over the long term, ensuring the land remains protected and that the project truly benefits the community.
Demand real action to reduce emissions
Tree-planting cannot compensate for continued reliance on fossil fuels. "Net-zero" pledges that rely on massive tree-planting as an offset should be viewed with skepticism – the priority must be slashing emissions at the source.
Look for ways to get involved on a local level
Find organizations and experts in your area focused on restoring native ecosystems. Even planting a few suitable trees in your backyard with a long-term care plan or supporting local environmental initiatives can make a difference.
The problem with viewing trees as a miracle, ready-to-deploy climate solution is that it obscures the hard reality: there is no easy fix. Fighting climate change, reversing biodiversity loss, and fostering a healthy planet requires a fundamental shift in how we produce, consume, and interact with our environment.
That change won't happen by simply planting trees. It depends on informed citizens demanding better, supporting sustainable actions, and refusing to fall for the illusion of shortcuts. We need a restoration revolution rooted in science, driven by local knowledge, and focused on creating a future where both people and the planet can thrive.
