Judge tree-planting projects by the forest that grows years later, not by how many trees were planted
Steps to make it happen
- Groups that plant trees set a goal for what kind of forest they want after a number of years, not for how many trees they plant.
- Projects mainly plant a mix of the many kinds of trees that naturally grow in that place.
- After 5, 10, and 20 years, people check how many trees survived and which animals and insects came back.
- People who live nearby help check the results, and the results are made public for anyone to see.
- Funders do not pay everything when the trees are planted, but pay in parts each time the forest is confirmed to be growing.
- Rows of a single kind of tree do not count as success in bringing a forest back.
- Protecting trees that grow back on their own counts as success, just like planting does.
- Caring for the forest long after planting becomes the normal thing to do.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal changes how success is counted for all tree-planting and forest-restoration projects paid for by governments, international organizations, companies, donor groups, and others. Before a project starts, the funders and the group carrying it out decide what kind of forest they are aiming for, several years to several decades ahead. They set the goal using measures such as the share of trees that survive, the number of tree species, the plants covering the ground, and the birds and insects that return. The trees to be planted are mainly several species that originally grew in the area. A stand made of just one kind of tree brought in from elsewhere may be accepted as a stand for timber or fuel, but it does not count as bringing a forest back. Checks take place at milestones such as 5, 10, and 20 years, and they involve a checker who is separate from the people running the project, along with the residents who live there. Remote observation, such as satellite images, is combined with interviews and surveys on the ground. Money is not paid in full when the trees are planted. It is paid in parts, matched to the check at each milestone. If damage happens that the people carrying out the project could not prevent, such as a wildfire or a major disaster, an exception allows replanting or a revision of the goals. Methods that protect and help trees growing naturally from stumps or seeds are also treated as success, using the same yardstick as planting.
BenefitsMoney goes to forests that survive and bring wildlife back
When success is measured by the forest that actually grows, planting is no longer the end of the job, and time and money can go into watering, clearing weeds, and patrolling after planting. Less is wasted on seedlings that die, and the same money can be expected to bring a forest back more reliably. Planting a mix of local trees makes it easier for many forest creatures, such as birds, insects, and mushrooms, to return, and it strengthens the forest's work of preventing landslides and storing water. When residents take part in the checks, local people come to watch over the forest as their own concern, and caretaker roles and jobs are created. If protecting natural regrowth is accepted, some places can be restored widely and cheaply, without the cost of raising and carrying seedlings. In addition, because what actually grew is made public instead of a contest over how numbers are presented, people who donate and people who pay taxes can compare which efforts truly work and choose among them.
DrawbacksIt takes effort and time, and projects may shrink
Watching a forest for decades takes skilled people and money. As a result, less money may be left for the area that gets planted. Paying in parts after the work is done can be a heavy burden for local groups and residents with little money on hand, and it may mean that only large organizations can take part. The climate crisis is urgent, so people who think we should first plant a large number of trees quickly will argue that a strict yardstick drains the energy from these efforts. Also, in many regions a stand of one fast-growing tree supports people's lives through timber, fuel, and income, so refusing to count it as success could be criticized as making light of the reality of poor regions. Methods for measuring how much wildlife has returned are not yet settled, and forests look different from place to place, so it is not easy to build common standards. There is also a worry that results will change depending on the judgment of whoever does the checking, or that producing paperwork will become the goal.
Learn the background
Efforts to bring forests back have raised great hopes around the world, both as a way to fight climate change and as a way to protect wildlife. Goals and slogans like "hundreds of millions of trees planted" are easy to understand, and they have drawn many donations and a lot of public money. But there are reports from many places of planted seedlings dying within a few years, and of nobody caring for the trees after planting. Also, when a single fast-growing kind of tree is planted over a wide area, the land may look green, but many of the animals and insects that lived in the original forest do not return, and water may run short or wildfires may spread more easily. People also point out the worry that planting trees on land that was originally grassland or wetland can destroy a different kind of nature. The number of trees planted is easy to count, but whether a forest has truly come back cannot be known until many years have passed. Because of this gap in time, competing on numbers suits those who want quick results, and the effort to see a forest all the way to maturity tends to be put off.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes