Recent studies show India has warmed about 1.5 times the global average over the past two decades. The country has witnessed some of its hottest winters over the past few years and has a disproportionately high representation in the list of the world’s hottest cities. The alarming heatwaves it has been experiencing with the climate crisis playing out need concrete steps — including planting trees to absorb carbon, counter the heat island effect in cities, and strengthen ecosystems against climate chaos.
Yet, the implementation of tree-planting initiatives in the country are increasingly reduced to a numbers-driven exercise. The Delhi government recently announced a drive to plant 70 lakh trees in the national capital. Uttar Pradesh’s Mega Plantation Drive aims to plant 35 crore saplings, even as a record five crore were planted on World Environment Day (June 5). Assam’s Amrit Briksha Andolan targeted planting of one crore saplings in one day, and the Green Bengaluru initiative saw 15 lakh saplings planted on June 27. Ahmedabad’s Five Million Trees drive had an eponymous target.
Such initiatives are celebrated for their staggering scale but tend to overlook crucial factors, such as species suitability, local microclimates, and, most importantly, post-planting care. As a result, much of the effort remains seasonal (concentrated during the monsoon) and confined to symbolic, one-day events. Without long-term care, the ecological benefits of these initiatives will remain largely unrealised.
India’s tree-planting push has been vigorous, neatly dovetailing with global climate commitments and the country’s own net-zero ambitions. The estimated 2.29 billion tonnes of carbon sequestered since 2005 bring the country close to its 2030 target. The figures look encouraging on paper but mask a widening gap between reported progress and ecological reality. This creates a growing gap between reported progress and real outcomes, and raises serious doubts about the durability and credibility of these green claims.
{{/usCountry}}India’s tree-planting push has been vigorous, neatly dovetailing with global climate commitments and the country’s own net-zero ambitions. The estimated 2.29 billion tonnes of carbon sequestered since 2005 bring the country close to its 2030 target. The figures look encouraging on paper but mask a widening gap between reported progress and ecological reality. This creates a growing gap between reported progress and real outcomes, and raises serious doubts about the durability and credibility of these green claims.
{{/usCountry}}The scale of such drives hides a survival deficit. For example, the ministry of statistics and programme implementation (Mospi) records show 434 crore seedlings planted on public and forest lands between 2013 and 2016. Even under conservative assumptions — 30% being forest species and a 50% survival rate — this translates to roughly 65 crore established trees, or around 1,630 km² of potential new tree cover per year. That is far smaller than the headline planting figures suggest. Field assessments and court observations have also repeatedly questioned the durability of many plantations.
The gap between trees planted and trees that survive reveals a major weakness in India’s afforestation efforts. Survival rates vary widely by species, site, and aftercare; field reports often place these in a broad range of 50-80%, depending on local conditions. While states like Uttar Pradesh boast impressive official figures (e.g., 86.67% survival for saplings planted between 2021 and 2025) — Telangana is another state that reports similar success — such success often fails to reflect the national scenario. The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged this issue in the context of compensatory afforestation, demanding meaningful and monitored growth rather than bureaucratic tokenism.
Poor site selection is a major factor affecting plantation survival. This is followed by poor post-planting care due to under-funding or post-event indifference. Poor-quality saplings and weak monitoring further aggravate the matter. There is little heed paid to geotagging, survival audits, or public reporting. The climate crisis has also emerged as a new threat affecting survival.
The success of any tree-planting initiative is typically measured by survival rates over time — metrics usually tied to the performance of the associated individual or organisation. Historically, the responsibility for these programmes rested solely with the forest department since the inception of Van Mahotsav in 1950.
In recent years, this mandate has expanded to other civic and state departments. Yet, the fundamental irony remains the same: Maintenance rarely receives the same funding and attention as planting.
A critical examination of these issues demands a shift from measuring performance to fixing accountability. While external factors influence performance, the accountability for failed reforestation lies within a fractured system. It begins at the top, with leaders launching “mega-planting” drives that ignore ecological science, and administrators who sanitise ground realities to satisfy the leaders. Additionally, planting programmes are further jeopardised by procedural delays and misplaced priorities across a majority of states, which slow fund releases and undermine timely support.
Plans matter only when they are properly implemented. Sloppy execution, whether due to human or external factors, acts as the final catalyst that turns systemic instability into a total failure. To ensure the success of future greening initiatives, multi-tiered accountability needs to be brought in.
In a politically-driven system like India’s, afforestation requires both political restraint and political courage. On the one hand, we must exercise restraint by avoiding over-ambitious drives without pre-allocated budgets for maintenance and care. On the other hand, we must show courage by treating afforestation as a long-term, accountable programme, rather than a seasonal photo opportunity.
If India is serious about its climate commitments, urban heat mitigation, and its Net Zero by 2070 pledge, it must stop treating tree planting as a cosmetic exercise. At this juncture, funding must follow the tree through years of care, not just stop on the day of planting. Only then can our forests survive the headlines and protect our communities from the worsening heatwaves on the horizon.
Mohan Chandra Pargaien is former chief wildlife warden and advisor, SCCL Hyderabad, Telangana. The views expressed are personal