#00113
Stopping new clearing doesn't bring back what's already gone. Restoration requires decade-long funding for maintenance and monitoring, but most relies on grants and CSR that track budget cycles rather than tree timelines — so projects stall, planted trees go unmaintained, and sur
Parent issue
#00034 Large-scale tropical deforestation driven mostly by illegal land clearing for agriculture and mining
Location
Description
Enforcement and supply-chain pressure slow new clearing but do nothing for forest already lost. Real restoration — not just seedlings in soil — is a multi-decade commitment: site preparation, planting or assisted natural regeneration, years of maintenance, protection from fire and re-clearing, and survival monitoring. The binding constraint is rarely the planting itself; it is funding that lasts as long as the trees need.
"Trees planted" is an input — easy to announce, hard to audit. The outcomes that matter — survival rate, additionality, biodiversity value, and permanence — are expensive to measure and frequently overstated. That gap feeds greenwashing and erodes trust in the whole restoration category.
A funding source that is (a) steady and long-horizon rather than episodic, (b) decoupled from grant and aid cycles, (c) structured to pay for maintenance and verification, not just planting — and (d) honest that restoration complements but never substitutes for halting ongoing clearing. Replanting elsewhere while a frontier keeps burning is an offset, not a halt.
Sub-issues
0Top solutions
1