Why is linking green credits to tree survival and canopy cover more effective than simply counting planted trees?

The government’s decision to link green credits to tree survival and canopy cover, rather than just the number of trees planted, reflects a shift towards more meaningful environmental action. This approach focuses on the long-term health and ecological impact of afforestation efforts, ensuring that initiatives contribute truly to ecosystem restoration.

• Ensures Actual Environmental Benefits: Surviving trees and increased canopy cover contribute to carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and microclimate regulation, while simply planting trees does not guarantee these outcomes.
• Discourages Superficial Compliance: Counting only planted trees can encourage mass plantation drives without proper care, leading to high mortality rates and wasted resources.
• Promotes Maintenance and Care: Linking credits to survival incentivizes agencies and individuals to nurture saplings, protect them from grazing, diseases, and ensure adequate watering.
• Improves Forest Quality: Canopy cover is a direct indicator of forest health and density, which supports richer biodiversity and better ecosystem services compared to sparse or failed plantations.
• Reduces Greenwashing: It prevents organizations from claiming environmental benefits by simply showing numbers, ensuring that reported achievements reflect real ecological gains.
• Encourages Selection of Native Species: Survival-based credits push for planting species adapted to local conditions, which are more likely to thrive and support local wildlife.