The Case Against Planting Trees: Why Policy Should Target Land Tenure, Not Saplings

Stop celebrating tree planting. It’s the wrong priority for forest conservation policy. The real wins come from securing land rights and enforcing supply-chain rules. Here’s why.

Why is tree planting the wrong focus?

Every politician loves a photo op with a shovel. But planting trees without addressing the drivers of deforestation is like bailing water out of a sinking boat while ignoring the hole. The numbers show the hole is still there. Net forest loss fell from 10.7 million hectares per year in the 1990s to 4.12 million hectares per year in 2015–2025 (FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025). That’s progress. But gross deforestation still hit 10.9 million hectares per year in that same decade. And forest expansion—the “planting” side—actually slowed, from 9.88 million hectares per year in 2000–2015 to 6.78 million hectares per year in 2015–2025 (FAO Newsroom: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025). So we’re planting less while still cutting a lot. The problem isn’t a shortage of saplings. It’s that the policies driving land conversion remain untouched.

Where does deforestation actually happen?

More than 96 percent of deforestation occurs in the tropics (WRI Global Forest Review: 2023 tree cover loss). That’s where policy should focus. And it’s not evenly spread. Five countries—Russia, Brazil, Canada, the United States, and China—hold 54 percent of the world’s forests (FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025). So a handful of governments could tip the scales. But the drivers are local: agriculture, fires, and weak enforcement. In 2024, fires overtook agriculture as the leading cause of tropical primary forest loss for the first time on record, accounting for nearly 50 percent of the loss (WRI: Global Forest Loss Shatters Records in 2024). That’s not a tree-planting problem. That’s a land-management and fire-policy problem.

What policies actually work?

Two things: secure land rights and hard supply-chain rules. First, land rights. Scientists using satellite and ground-based data in the Amazon found far less deforestation in territories managed by Indigenous peoples than in parks and other protected areas (NASA Earth Observatory: Tropical Deforestation). That’s not sentiment—that’s evidence. Indigenous lands work because the people who live there have skin in the game. Policy should fund and enforce those rights, not just draw lines on a map. Second, supply-chain rules. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requires operators and traders placing covered products on the EU market to prove they are deforestation-free, legally produced, and covered by a due diligence statement (EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR)). It covers seven commodities: cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil, coffee, and rubber. That’s how you change behavior—by making the market demand legality. The EUDR alone aims to cut at least 32 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year linked to EU consumption of those commodities. That’s real impact, not a photo op.

But what about restoration pledges?

Pledges are fine if they’re enforced. The Bonn Challenge aims to restore 350 million hectares by 2030, and more than 210 million hectares have been pledged since 2011 (IUCN Bonn Challenge press release). But a pledge is not a hectare. The Great Green Wall aims to restore 100 million hectares, sequester 250 million tonnes of carbon, and create 10 million green jobs by 2030 (UNCCD Great Green Wall Initiative). More than USD 14 billion has been raised. Good. But without land tenure, those trees may not survive. And planting the wrong trees in the wrong places can do more harm than good. Policy should prioritize letting forests regenerate naturally—naturally regenerating forests make up 92 percent of total forest area (FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025). That’s the cheap, proven way to restore.

What’s the single most important thing to remember?

If you care about forests, stop funding tree planting as your first move. Fund land rights and enforce supply-chain laws. That’s where the leverage is. A hectare of forest saved is worth ten hectares planted—because the saved hectare already holds carbon, biodiversity, and community livelihoods. The evidence is clear: Indigenous-managed lands outperform protected areas, and regulations like the EUDR change corporate behavior. Push your representatives to prioritize those over another sapling giveaway.

Sources

• FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 - https://www.un-redd.org/post/global-deforestation-slows-forests-remain-under-pressure-fao-report-shows
• FAO Newsroom: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025 - https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/global-deforestation-slows--but-forests-remain-under-pressure--fao-report-shows/en
• WRI Global Forest Review: 2023 tree cover loss - https://gfr.wri.org/global-tree-cover-loss-data-2023
• WRI: Global Forest Loss Shatters Records in 2024 - https://www.wri.org/news/release-global-forest-loss-shatters-records-2024-fueled-massive-fires
• EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) - https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/forests/deforestation/regulation-deforestation-free-products_en
• IUCN Bonn Challenge press release - https://iucn.org/press-release/202511/germany-and-iucn-celebrate-15-years-bonn-challenge-worlds-largest-restoration