On June 27, 2026, Bengaluru attempted to set a Guinness World Record for planting the highest number of saplings in a 12 hour period – 15 lakh saplings were planted across 240 acres to create highly dense “oxygen parks” in a landscape that is ill-suited for high tree cover and is already water stressed. Such tree-planting feats are not uncommon, whether they are motivated by environmental or social causes. Planting trees is widely considered a priority for mitigating and adapting to climate change, conserving biodiversity and supporting local livelihoods, yet tree planting programs often fail to achieve their goals. This has been especially true in India, where tree planting programs often not only fail to increase tree cover, but also fail to support climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods. India has spent vast amounts of money on planting trees since at least 1980 to increase forest cover. Yet, independent evaluations have shown that the results of these efforts are disappointing, in that they not only produce limited shifts in forest cover, but also harm people. For example, in Odisha and Himachal Pradesh (HP), people’s farms and homes have been cleared to make space for restoration and in HP pastoralists have lost access to grazing and traditional migratory routes. Tree cover is the wrong targetIndia’s tree planting programs, much like Bengaluru’s tree plantation drive, have often focused on tree cover as an absolute goal and metric, rather than restoration of ecosystem function, recovery of biodiversity or livelihood support. This trend seems to be increasing with India’s new Green Credit scheme and emerging carbon and biodiversity markets. This can lead to negative consequences for people and nature. Tree planting programs often favour a small number of species, often those which are easy to propagate, grow quickly and/or have commercial value. These species are often less useful for supporting local livelihoods or biodiversity and often have lower long-term carbon absorption and storage potential. Furthermore, trees are often being planted in landscapes that are naturally savannas or grasslands, leading to significant ecological degradation and loss of habitat for iconic Indian species such as blackbuck and the great Indian bustard. To remedy these shortcomings, we suggest a shift away from “green cover” and towards policies that focus on identifying multidimensional goals for landscapes that address trade-offs between livelihoods, carbon storage and biodiversity protection. Pathways of change which can lead to achieving those goals need to be identified by understanding the root causes of forest loss and ecosystem degradation and developing programs that address those causes, planting trees only when necessary. To understand how tree planting-focused programs can fit better into this multidimensional conversation, we focus on three crucial factors: what is planted, why it is planted and where it is planted?What is planted: The role of species choice in success or failure of tree plantingAn analysis of 174 pantropical tree planting organisations shows that when local people plant trees on private or commonly owned land, they almost always focus on the direct value of those trees, planting trees on farms that have commercial value, planting trees around homes that provide shade and food.The same study found that cacao (Theobroma cacao), teak (Tectona grandis), moringa (Moringa oleifera), mango (Mangifera indica) and coffee (Coffea arabica) were the most commonly planted species across the tropics, indicating that biodiversity recovery and long-term carbon sequestration have not been a focus of tree planting efforts. This emphasis on livelihoods instead of biodiversity comes with its trade-offs, as these species cannot provide the same multidimensional benefits that a native forest species could. With the recent developments in biodiversity and carbon markets, this preference could change, as more recent research shows. For example, when farmers in southern India were asked to plant trees for climate and biodiversity benefits, they required compensation or incentives that would not be necessary if they were planting trees only to support their livelihoods. People also plant trees for the indirect benefits they receive, such as preventing soil erosion or fixing nitrogen in the soil, as recent evidence, predominantly from Europe, suggests. In South Asia, trees in home gardens, agroforests or alley cropping often provide direct income or material benefits to landholders in the form of firewood, fodder, edible fruits and other products. However, the preference for tree species, whether in nearby forests or in their backyards, also depends on how people use those species. For example, in Rajasthan, poor rural people preferred forests with trees that produced food, fodder and medicinal plants, while local elites preferred commercial timber species. Why it is planted: The primary objective(s) in tree plantingOur recent research on eight tree planting policies and programs in India found that only one of eight programs significantly increased tree cover outside forests.Given what we know about what people like to plant, it is not surprising that the program that successfully increased tree cover, the Sub-mission for Agroforestry (SMAF), was one that assisted farmers in the uptake of agroforestry and silvopastures on their private lands. Afforestation programs that focused on achieving general increases in tree cover, such as the flagship Green India Mission (GIM) and the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA), on the other hand, yielded no increase in tree cover outside forests. This suggests that a focus on planting to achieve tree cover gains may not be effective. Our positive findings about the SMAF illustrates a potentially effective approach for fostering trees outside of forests: focusing on trees that benefit people. Natural forests typically have greater biodiversity and carbon benefits than the utilitarian trees people plant on their farms. However, the benefits local people receive from natural forests are often less direct. As a result, programs such as the SMAF, which focus on trees on private land that directly benefit people, might be the most effective method to increase both livelihood benefits and tree cover. However, increasing tree cover of native forests is more complex and requires policies that focus on the drivers of forest degradation and loss, which vary regionally across India. In India, there has been an overwhelming focus on regenerating forests through tree planting. Yet, research from elsewhere in the world demonstrates that natural regeneration is often more cost effective and this is likely to be true in many parts of India as well. For example, recent research from central India, where forest degradation has been associated with fuelwood and non-timber forest product (NTFP) collection, found that subsidising cooking gas can be a highly effective forest restoration technique that does not require planting trees, but instead allows a forest to naturally regenerate.In Nepal and some parts of India, strong community-based forest management institutions have also contributed to forest regeneration. Nevertheless, this kind of passive restoration can fail when there are hindrances to forest regeneration, such as the proliferation of invasive species, lack of seed rain or overgrazing by cattle. In such cases, continuous management or removal of invasive shrubs to allow space for native vegetation to regenerate is required. For example, in the Anamalais, active restoration through selective tree species planting and weed removal in forest fragments increased their similarity to benchmark protected forests in the Anamalai tiger reserve, compared to passively restored forest fragments. Where it is planted: Location and unintended consequencesMany programs that foster trees on farms instead of forests assume that if people have access to trees on their farms, they will use forest trees less, contributing to forest conservation and restoration. Emerging evidence from around the world shows that this assumption may be flawed: different trees in different places serve different purposes for different people. For example, some of our recent collaborative research in Costa Rica shows that urban parks are dominated by large evergreen trees, which keep people cool, while fencerows and conservation areas have higher tree density. Fencerows also have a higher proportion of edible fruits as compared to conservation areas and urban parks, clearly indicating people’s preferences for useful trees that cannot be compared to native species-rich conservation areas. The second major assumption of tree planting programs is that tree planting is additive (i.e., tree planting efforts will increase tree cover) and does not lead to leakage (i.e., higher tree cover in one place will not lead to lower tree cover elsewhere). However, this is not always the case, especially in the case of government-led tree planting programmes and policies. In China, flagship governmental programmes such as the National Forest Protection Programme and the Green-For-Grain programme involved expenditure in the billions to increase tree cover. But a recent study found that these programs created incentives for people to clear existing forests in order to receive funding to establish plantations. Similar results have been seen in Mexico’s Sembrando Vida, where assistance to farmers for planting trees on their land seems to have sometimes led to more land clearing so farmers can devote more acres to planting. Even if these negative impacts are not experienced locally, they may be exported to locations farther away or even to another country – impacts that prior research has not focused on. An eye to the futureProgrammes that more effectively support restored ecosystems and provide win-win outcomes for people and nature are possible, but require a shift in perspective. Rather than focusing on area targets for certain kinds of land cover, policymakers should focus on designing programmes that empower local people with the ability to improve their lives through improving nature around them. Researchers can support such programs by focusing on understanding when there are synergies and trade-offs between trees and other ecosystem elements across the landscape.Thus, tree planting should be treated as one tool within a broader approach to ecological restoration.Pooja Choksi is an ecologist and founder of the Mumbai-based environmental consultancy, Ficus Research Consulting. Her most recent research focuses on understanding the biodiversity outcomes of ecological restoration efforts and the environmental impact of tree planting efforts and restoration policies. She holds a PhD in Ecology from Columbia University and Master of Environmental Management from Yale University. Forrest Fleischman is an associate professor of environmental and natural resource policy at the University of Minnesota in Minnesota, USA. Much of his recent research has focused on the social science of human created ecosystems – especially those created through ecological restoration, but also include urban environments. He has a PhD in public policy from Indiana University and Master of Science from Stanford University.Note: An earlier version of the piece had mistakenly reversed the order of the authors’ names.