Tree planting is often employed by corporations attempting to offset the environmental degradation they cause and governments as a solution to mitigate the impacts of climate change. However, large-scale reforestation operations can have harmful socio-economic impacts on local communities when they fail to take into account traditional uses of their selected sites of operation. Therefore, the effectiveness of planting new trees alone as a tool in combating the climate crisis should be called into question.
2021 marked the beginning of the UN’s “Decade on Ecosystem Restoration”, which aims to “prevent, halt and reverse the degradation of ecosystems on every continent and in every ocean.” So far, this period has been marked by a simplistic tendency to turn to tree planting as a way of offsetting the process of climate change. A tree’s ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere and store it in it’s biomass and the soil, as well as the relatively low cost of planting trees, make reforestation an attractive option. However, conservationists are urging policymakers and corporations to use caution when implementing planting projects as their first line of defense.
One of the most striking examples of tree planting harming local communities can be seen in the Rio Tinto Ilmenite mine offset project in Madagascar. In 2004, Rio Tinto, a Fortune 500 metals and mining company, made a bold commitment to improving the environment promising to deliver a net positive impact on biodiversity to justify their intervention on the land. The company decided to pursue the construction of a mine in Fort Dauphin, Madagascar, despite potentially destroying around 1650 hectares of rare and unique littoral forest. However, they created three offset sites in which they promised to restore the traditional forests. Rio Tinto’s reforestation projects threatened villagers’ traditional livelihoods by restricting their access to the traditional forests from which they practiced subsistence agriculture and other vital activities. Villagers reported NGOs showing a lack of respect and regard for their situation, as well as the use of deplorable tactics to ensure their compliance. Local people were not compensated for their land, and the company’s promise to help villagers find alternative ways to grow their food was unmet. Locals were largely excluded from employment in reforestation, and any employment they were hired for was temporary.
While studies of the socio-economic impacts of tree-planting remain limited, tree plantations are typically characterized by high-density monocultures of foreign species aimed at meeting commercial demands and seen as an alternative to the exploitation of natural forests. While corporations may promise to provide jobs to local communities, plantation agriculture often favours migrant workers over residents due to their greater acceptance of exploitative, precarious contracts. Although it can be argued that tree planting initiatives tend to have a positive impact on economies, studies on reforestation initiatives in Vietnam demonstrate that individuals who were already better off financially benefited the most from such initiatives, exacerbating inequality. Discrepancies were observed in which individuals received social benefits from these initiatives, notably in the case of ethnic minorities, women and the poor benefitting the least. In this case, the use of fast-growing species foreign to the land without consideration of more complex environmental issues failed to improve the situation and failed to address the drivers of forest loss overall.
In terms of environmental impacts, the Bonn challenge is one such initiative that aims to bring 350 million hectares of degraded landscapes into restoration by 2030. Approximately 40 nations currently endorse the idea, while close to 80% of these commitments relate to the planting of monoculture or a limited mix of trees, which does little to account for the loss of biodiversity concerning ecologists. Trees grow slowly, and are extremely vulnerable to threats in their early years, running the risk that a quarter of a newly-planted forest will die before reaching maturity. While some aspects of the precise movement of carbon within trees remain a mystery to us, we do know that as forests grow older, carbon flows become more balanced. However, as trees die and are left to decay, the carbon stored within them is released back into the atmosphere.
Large-scale monoculture operations run the risk of high death rates, leaving diseased landscapes where new forests were supposed to live. Many of these tree-planting operations lack proper monitoring and follow-ups to ensure the health of the trees, and failure to consider the sustainability of such projects could leave forests in a worse position than before, especially in cases where ancient growth has been cleared out to create space for reforestation. This harm was illustrated in Chile, where a decree issued in 1974 subsidizing tree planting led some landowners to replace native forests with more profitable new plantations, leading to an area more densely covered by trees but with a decreased amount of ancient growth which is rich in biodiversity and stores large amounts of carbon. A study found that in carbon poor solids, planting new trees increased the density of organic carbon. Some conservationists have posited that the amount of carbon that can be offset by planting new trees is likely an overestimate.
While trees are a vital weapon in combating the climate crisis, tree-planting operations disrupt customary land use, create harmful clearing of natural forests, plant monocultures and employ exploitative labor contracts without regard to local communities produce more harm than good.
Tree-planting initiatives should consider local input to create a more socially and ecologically engaged approach to climate change. Before considering an area “protected” and restricting use of the trees, research should be conducted to determine the current use of that space and consider the implications of restricting access to locals. In addition, consent of local communities needs be gained and alternatives for subsistence should be built, rather than simply restricting local’s access to a space and failing to consider how that community will survive.
When planning a tree-planting initiative, sustainability should be the main goal while prioritizing ecologically focused restoration and collective benefits. Biodiversity should be valued over the planting over monocultures to ensure the most healthy forest growth. The trees planted should reflect the particular needs and conditions of the location in which they’re being planted. In addition, local communities should be offered positions to work in tree-planting as well as planning of such projects, and receive fair pay. Finally, tree-planting should be implemented in tandem with measures to reduce a company or government’s carbon footprint in other ways rather than as a band aid solution to the climate crisis.
Trees are a vital part of the preservation of the environment and old-growth forests should be preserved at all costs. Planting new trees can be a fantastic way to soak up excess carbon in the environment, when done with careful consideration and planning. Tree Planting alone will not solve the climate crisis, nor does it’s implementation give actors impunity from any environmental harm they may cause. The best way to ensure ethical and effective tree planting is through collaboration with local communities and ecological experts.
Edited by Aakanksha Mathur
Katie is in her first year at McGill, pursuing a double major in Psychology and Political Science. She is particularly interested in topics of feminist and environmental issues as well as sustainable development.