Tree Planting Initiatives: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Humans worldwide have been planting trees for a long time, mainly for timber and other agricultural products.

As early as 1100 BCE, China created a forest service to replant trees cut down for timber. During the Roman Empire, Cato the Elder planted conifers specifically to produce the timber needed for shipbuilding, a practice that persisted in the future for centuries.

In addition, evidence has mounted that indigenous populations of the Amazonia planted domesticated tree species, helping shape the (seemingly “untouched”) rainforest that was later “discovered” by Europeans.

As noted above, small- and large-scale tree-planting initiatives have grown exponentially over the past few decades. Because of this, we don’t intend this as an exhaustive list of initiatives and organizations dedicated to planting trees.

Instead, this list represents a sampling of some notable organizations. By reviewing relevant efforts, we can set a foundation for analyzing current trends, research, and the benefits and drawbacks of tree planting projects as a whole. 

These tree-planting initiatives include: 

• Tree Planting Nonprofits: These organizations often set a specific donation amount that plants one tree, and may work as partners with brands and corporations to plant trees in conjunction with products sold.

• Broader Conservation Organizations: Some of these projects focus solely on planting trees, while others include reforestation as a part of their overall efforts.

• Tree Planting Platforms: These platforms generally collect and track tree planting efforts worldwide, sometimes allowing contributions through their platform.

• Tree Planting Pledges: These are often made by specific nations or communities. Some are part of larger initiatives like the WED’s One Trillion Trees Campaign, while others are independent pledges. 

Later, we’ll share a case study of one of the most ecologically successful tree-planting programs, and some failed tree-planting campaigns whose outcomes did not match their goals. 

Despite highlighting these failed outcomes, we firmly believe every effort listed here, and every organization or effort to plant trees, is doing so with good intentions, even in situations where their outcomes are not promising. We also believe that most organizations whose outcomes are falling short are looking for ways to do better in subsequent efforts. 

Through creating this guide, we hope to offer concrete guidance to brands and corporations considering a tree planting initiative, helping them avoid common pitfalls and develop a plan that benefits both their company and the planet.

Source: Shutterstock

No sustainability efforts exist in a vacuum, so it is important to evaluate tree planting as part of the bigger picture. Here, we outline some important issues, common shortfalls, and potential benefits that all brands must consider before launching a tree-planting initiative.

Tree Planting Initiatives May Be Seen As “Greenwashing” or an Easy Way Out

Whether deserved or not, tree-planting initiatives have become subject to more skepticism from consumers.

One reason is that because tree planting is one form of carbon offset, some brands make grandiose or completely misleading claims about their program’s positive impact or carbon neutrality.

Other brands will promote their tree planting as the sole or core strategy they have taken on to be a conscious, sustainable company.

Suppose you see situations where a brand has not been thoughtful about the sustainability of its raw materials, fabrics, packaging choices, or other essential parts of its business. Despite these shortcomings, they are incredibly vocal about their tree-planting efforts. In that case, it is entirely possible that greenwashing is at play. Unfortunately, many brands fall into this category.

On the other hand, we believe that brands that make conscious, often difficult, decisions across their business to support sustainability and then thoughtfully adopt tree-planting schemes to support their goals should be lauded for these efforts.

Tree Planting Can Make Brands Lazy About The Rest of Their Impact

Similarly, well-meaning brands can adopt reforestation efforts as part of their sustainability strategy and then inadvertently lose steam to invest in other - more impactful - efforts.

As with all things related to sustainability, we can’t be satisfied to do “just one thing” and then stop if we will avoid climate change's most drastic and disastrous impacts.

Instead, tree planting must be part of a broader effort to mitigate negative impacts and promote positive improvements. 

Reforestation and Forest Restoration Are Not the Same 

Some initiatives mistakenly equate “Reforestation” with “Forest Restoration.”  

On the surface, these seem like the same concept. But in reality, reforestation projects often fail to accomplish the more impactful goal of restoration.  

Reforestation is a term used to describe planting trees to restock depleted or clear-cut forests. For example, producing a monoculture plantation or a diverse forest ecosystem is considered reforestation. However, planting many monocultural trees (mainly if these trees are non-native species) does nothing to restore the original ecosystem. 

Forest restoration describes efforts to conserve a healthy forest region or return a depleted forest region to its historical state. For example, designating an area as protected from further logging and then working to plant a curated variety of natural species to create a diverse and thriving ecosystem. 

In general, we believe the goal of tree planting should be to restore forests and regions to their natural state - rather than simply increasing tree cover. 

The Number of Trees Planted Should Be Part of The Process, Not the Sole Outcome 

Initiatives that focus on the number of trees planted for a set amount of money are good for fundraising, publicity, and the likeability of elected officials.  

But, if they aren’t executed intentionally, these initiatives aren’t necessarily great for the planet. Focusing on success being “X trees planted” glosses over many details that can ultimately create a meaningful reforestation project. 

As with all things related to sustainability, our obsession with simplifying things and looking for silver bullets does a significant disservice to our planet and climate activists. 

The number of trees that went into the ground is far less important than how many trees have lived for 1+ years or 20+ years - or what kind of impact the tree planting has had on biodiversity, local cultures, wildlife, soils, and water. Considering (and designing for) these less flashy but more impactful metrics will help create tree-planting initiatives that do more good. 

Choosing the Correct Types of Trees Is Critical

Source: Shutterstock

It is disheartening to learn how many tree-planting efforts have led to massive swaths of land covered with commercial, non-native species in the name of “fighting climate change.” 

Yes, these trees store carbon. In many cases, they may also create an economic benefit (because they are trees that can produce timber and other marketable products). Unfortunately, these large artificial forests do nothing to restore and support the land and its wildlife at a deeper level. Instead, they create a sterile, lifeless environment that further erodes biodiversity.  

When researchers from University College London and the University of Edinburgh evaluated worldwide government commitments around tree planting, 45 percent involved “planting vast monocultures of trees as profitable enterprises.”

This is both a massive oversight and a devastating missed opportunity. After all, around 60,000 tree species live today, a third of which are threatened with extinction. Tree planting efforts, however, only plant a minuscule subset of these species. 

Instead of planting large numbers of a single type of tree species or even choosing a random assortment of trees, brands should research the native species most needed in an area and then curate a variety of plants that support a robust ecosystem. 

Our Seed Library is Painfully Limited, So Planting Thoughtfully Requires Dedication 

A significant hurdle to planting a diverse set of trees is the lack of supply at local seed banks, which tend to be dominated by popular commercial species.  

The right groups address this issue by paying local community members to collect seeds of native trees from nearby forests. They then study those trees and their seeds and make thoughtful research-based decisions on what trees to plant, how many to grow, and how to organize them on a tract of land for the best long-term outcome.  

This dedication takes resources, and sourcing better seeds may require brands to invest more time and money. Because of this, the cost to end consumers may also need to increase. For example, instead of costing customers $1 to plant common commercial varieties, the cost per tree may be higher - but the improved outcome will be well worth it. 

Trees Aren’t The Right Investment Across All Types of Lands and Regions 

In some cases, tree planting initiatives say they are creating “reforestation” in areas where there have never actually been any natural forests.

In fact, tree planting occurs on savannas and grasslands in some instances, disrupting some of our world’s most important carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots.

For example, the savannas of Africa are being threatened by large-scale afforestation campaigns that lead to profit for the companies running them. These campaigns have devastating consequences for all wildlife, including elephants, which are natural forces of change within savanna ecosystems.

Planting trees where there have been none also increases the risk of wildfire. Large-scale tree planting efforts in China and Brazil have wreaked havoc on grassland ecosystems because they were considered degraded and became reforestation areas, leading to wildfires that grew far beyond historic levels.

Nature Often Knows Better Than Humans

In some ways, humans don’t have a clue. In many situations, the best thing we can do would be to fence off large areas of land near native forests or grasslands and let those areas return to their natural state on their own.  

This method, called natural regeneration, is cheaper and more effective than reforesting in many cases. Because natural regeneration requires little human intervention, it is usually much less expensive than tree planting. 

In some areas, natural regeneration may be insufficient. In these cases, programs can pursue “assisted natural regeneration” by planting a small number of trees targeted to specific goals instead of simply maximizing the number of trees planted. 

Tree Planting May Create an Unequal Distribution of Responsibilities 

Most carbon emissions come from industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere.  

Large-scale tree planting efforts are prioritized in the southern hemisphere. This highlights one of the significant issues of the climate movement - that more economically prosperous nations demand efforts and sacrifices from poorer countries that they themselves aren’t willing to make.  

These demands can stifle economic development. Similarly, this unequal distribution related to tree planting means that countries in the southern hemisphere cannot use the land for economically beneficial activities if tree planting efforts have come underway. 

Focusing On Financial Incentives Can Lead to Terrible Execution For the Planet 

At the highest level, focusing on “planting trees for a certain amount of money” or “planting trees because a water bottle is sold” will incentivize all tree-planting organizations to maximize the number of trees planted, often at the expense of other critical concerns. 

Because many companies exist to turn a profit, this single-minded focus is what their funders and customers are demanding from them. This is the broadest and most common example of perverse financial incentives.  

However, government policies also have other regrettable incentives. For instance, in Wales, farmers are given financial incentives to plant trees. However, to receive subsidies, they only need to ensure that 25 percent of what they produce are native species.  

In some schemes, farmers are paid to plant trees with no policy about what they can’t do. For example, there are no mandates that they can’t destroy native forests to plant new-growth trees. These conflicting incentives may lead individuals and companies alike to pay more attention to financial growth than actual impact on the planet.  

To avoid this shortsightedness, brands should regularly audit their goals, progress, and motivations and take steps to ensure that their focus remains on sustainability. 

When Companies Don’t Invest In Properly Evaluating Complex Factors, They Make Poor Decisions 

For example, tree planting groups assume trees improve ground and surface water retention.  

The reality is that, in certain situations, forests deplete groundwater and can cause rivers to dry up.  

For example, suppose a group focuses on planting trees to improve a region’s water resources. In that case, experts need to be engaged who can conduct a detailed regional evaluation to determine how the planting of tree species being considered would impact the local water cycle. 

Many factors are at play in planning any tree-planting initiative, and brands should seek expert guidance to ensure they are creating a positive outcome.

China’s Grain for Green Program

Source: U.S. National Science Foundation

A review of this program shows quite a few benefits, and some significant failures reforestation efforts can learn from.

In the late 1990s, China experienced a series of catastrophic floods that killed thousands of citizens. After this, the Chinese government instituted the Grain For Green Program to prevent flooding by reducing soil erosion. Individuals were given financial incentives, resources, and training on how to plant trees in degraded land most susceptible to deterioration that would lead to flooding.

Since 2000, tree cover in China has increased from 20% to 23% of the nation’s landmass. Studies have found that soil erosion has significantly decreased, trees provide food and other household resources, and carbon storage in soil has likely increased.

Unfortunately, studies have also shown that organizations converted most farmlands into monocrop tree plantations of bamboo, eucalyptus, or Japanese cedar.

During these decades of planting, native forests in China declined by 6.6%.

According to one study, Tree Plantations Displacing Native Forests: The nature and drivers of apparent forest recovery on former croplands in Southwestern China from 2000 to 2015, “instead of truly recovering forested landscapes and generating concomitant environmental benefits, the region’s apparent forest recovery has effectively displaced native forests, including those that could have naturally regenerated on land freed up from agriculture,” Hua and co-authors write.

The Chinese government has worked to reverse some of these terrible consequences, but destroying native forests is not an act that this government can rectify quickly.

Eucalyptus

Source: Unsplash

While this is not a specific, single case study, the pitfalls of eucalyptus are an essential lesson for any entity focused on tree planting to understand.

Eucalyptus is a tree that is native to Australia and the broader region. The plant contains a strong poison, which koalas have evolved to tolerate. It is an excellent source of fuel, timber, fabric, and carbon sequestration. Because of these benefits, the tree has been planted in Africa and South America for reforestation efforts.

Across the continents, rows of eucalyptus grow where biodiverse and carbon-rich forests and savannas once stood. Unfortunately, these trees provide minimal resources for wildlife, are water hogs, and create an environment more susceptible to wildfires.

Despite these lessons, today, many tree planting initiatives worldwide continue to plant eucalyptus instead of other, more suitable types of trees.

Mexico

Studies have found that the Mexican government’s reforestation campaign, which cost $3.4 billion, caused deforestation.

The initiative, Sembrando Vida (Sowing Life), paid farmers to plant trees on their land. Unfortunately, these perverse financial incentives led many farmers to clear native forestland and put new seedlings into the ground.

The World Resources Institute estimated that almost 73,000 hectares of forest were lost in 2019 due to this initiative.

Northern India

Over the last 50 years, India has spent extensive resources planting trees.

Unfortunately, satellite imagery and interviews with hundreds of households in Northern India revealed that the hundreds of millions of seedlings planted did not prove effective in increasing the amount of dense tree cover.

Additionally, the reforestation efforts led to a shift in the types of trees planted in the region, with far fewer “useful” trees that the locals need for animal fodder or firewood.

Researchers hypothesize that several factors likely led to these efforts’ dramatic and embarrassing failure: the trees likely died quickly because farmers planted them in the wrong habitat, and animals probably destroyed some seedlings.

Pakistan’s Billion Tree Tsunami

This government tree-planting initiative started in 2014 and was executed without consideration of the needs of tribal cultures.

It has since been blamed for the erosion of the livelihoods of the Gujjars. This nomadic group has historically rented pasture from landowners but has found that these landowners now have tree plantations instead of grazing land.

Turkey’s Breath for the Future Initiative

On November 11, 2019, Turkey planted 11 million trees nationwide.

One city set a world record that day for the most trees planted in a single location. Unfortunately, by March, almost 90% of these saplings were dead, according to the Guardian reported, mainly due to lack of rainfall.

Black Lion Tamarin. Source: Shutterstock

According to Mongabay, one of the most successful examples of context-specific reforestation is the Black Lion Tamarin Conservation Program, led by researchers at the Institute for Ecological Research (known by its Portuguese acronym IPÊ).

In Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, the black lion tamarin was listed as critically endangered in the 1970s, when there were just 100 individuals left in the world.

This reforestation and conservation program restored a 1,000-hectare forest corridor between two important remaining regions of the Atlantic Forest, allowing the black lion tamarin population to replenish to 1,800 individuals in 2008.

In executing these efforts, the IPE engaged rural community members deeply, resulting in a lasting positive impact on these communities and the local forests.

According to IPE, “Farmers gained knowledge, income and food security, and developed a sense of ownership and shared responsibility for protecting wildlife, conserving forest fragments and restoring forests.”

Source: Unsplash

There is no doubt that reforestation and, more importantly, true forest restoration have a critical role in reversing climate change.

Not only that, but we also recognize that Tree Planting Initiatives are an effective marketing tool for many brands looking to engage customers in their eco-efforts - even if the trees planted don’t represent the most impactful part of those efforts.

Your customers may not understand the significance of your investments in certified organic cotton t-shirts, 100% recycled boxes, or algae printing ink. Still, they can quickly see and engage with the more tangible outcome of your One Tree Planted for Every T-Shirt Sold campaign. Ideally, this can be a gateway to introduce them to broader and more nuanced sustainability initiatives.

We hope the insights shared above help clarify that tree planting initiatives are often complex, should not be viewed as a cure-all to climate issues, and can be disastrous when executed poorly - but can also be a meaningful tool for change.

With this in mind, here are some tips for thoughtfully navigating this space.

1. Before investing in a Tree Planting Campaign, invest the needed resources to ensure that none of your existing fabric or natural fibers come from old-growth, ancient, or endangered forests.

This graph shows the most critical and efficient step we - governments, citizens, consumers, and companies - can take to support “forest restoration” is to stop cutting down old and second-growth trees to make the products and packaging we use.

Source: Forest Carbon Coalition

If you haven’t taken these steps yet, we strongly encourage you to do so before beginning to invest your budget and marketing resources into tree-planting campaigns. Otherwise, any tree you plant will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to the damage of harvesting from old-growth and endangered forests.

2. Consider supporting programs and organizations working to keep existing forests standing.

For many brands, this can be a more effective step than simply planting new trees.

For example, the Great Bear Rainforest carbon offset project supports First Nations in keeping this Ancient and Endangered Forest intact while developing a conservation economy that benefits the region’s Indigenous communities.

This project comes highly recommended by Canopy Planet, one of the world’s leading advocates and protectors of ancient and endangered forests.

Programs like this can help you achieve 1% For the Planet goals, can be part of your public marketing campaign, and can likely have a more significant positive impact than general tree planting might. 

3. If and when you jump into tree planting efforts, vet your program partners thoroughly and learn how they are responding to the many recent lessons of failed reforestation initiatives.

We love forests! We recognize that after the first step of protecting the intact forests that remain on our planet, the next step of forest restoration is a crucial strategy for sequestering carbon, addressing biodiversity loss, and supporting water and soil health.

Look for tree planting programs certified to the Gold Standard or Verified Carbon Standard. In addition, the Society for Ecological Restoration has published International Principles & Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration that you can use to evaluate projects.

Mongabay has also launched an in-depth set of resources to help brands and individuals find transparent and solid reforestation programs to support, such as the Mongabay Transparency Tool.

Finally, if you already have a tree-planting partner you are working with, take time to learn about their results. Don’t just ask how many trees have been planted.  

Instead, ask questions like: 

(1) What types of trees have been planted with my donations, and where have they been planted?  

(2) How long has tree planting been happening in these regions, and what is the broader forest restoration impact?  

(3) What third-party researchers have reviewed your tree-planting efforts, and what conclusions have they found?  

(4) Many restoration efforts ultimately cause more harm than good. What steps can we take to ensure our funding does not perpetuate these issues? 

By evaluating tree-planting practices thoroughly and executing projects thoughtfully, brands can create tree-planting initiatives that benefit both people and the planet.