‘Rows’ instead of real forests: what do reforestation reports hide?

What is modern reforestation? How is it carried out? And how can we measure its real benefits for nature?

These questions are rarely asked by people. Due to generally accepted norms of reforestation, society has serious distortions in perception and understanding of what a true self-regulating biological forest system actually is.

In fact, planting forests in straight rows only began in the past 20th century, mainly in Europe and the USSR. The large-scale destruction of forests in the 19th century led to a need for restoration, which is why governments began mass creation of artificial forests using agricultural methods.

Forests were planted with single species, sticking seedlings into the ground in straight rows. Such trees are convenient to plant, they grow quickly in monoculture, and are also easy to maintain and cut down later!

In other words, this is specifically plantation forestry.

Over many years of fighting for nature, I have had to visit numerous times both old forest plantings and young ones where seedlings were planted literally just recently. I have practically studied reforestation methods and assessed the state of the work being carried out! This includes both state reforestation and the reforestation undertaken by organizations.

The fact is that the responsibility for restoring forests after logging was shifted to forest leaseholders engaged in timber harvesting, according to the new Forest Code of the Russian Federation from 2006.

Yes, you understood it correctly—“they made the cunning fox restore the chicken population in the henhouse.”

Today, mostly state authorities and private organizations are planting forests in Russia.

And almost all modern “reforestation” is a sector for “laundering” huge amounts of money, while planting forests in “rows” does not solve the problem of destroyed forests and, moreover, can threaten real wild ecosystems.

I understand that these things are scary, especially for those who always believed that planting forests in rows was saving nature. But unfortunately, the latest scientific data, as well as my own practical observations in dozens of expeditions, show that plantations of artificial forests are a dangerous practice capable of threatening real ancient forests.

That’s how it turns out that wild forests are being replaced by artificial ones! I already wrote earlier that according to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), from 1990 to 2020 about 420 million hectares of forest were lost in the world. Of these, irreversible losses amount to approximately 178 million hectares.

The UN also provided data that from 1990 to 2020, between 30 and 60 million hectares of forests were restored artificially. Whereas all other forests were either not restored or were recorded as “assistance to natural regeneration.” This “assistance,” in simple terms, is when a few trees are left in the clear-cut area, and in theory this should help forests to continue recovering on their own.

There is also an international initiative in the world called the “Bonn Challenge” — according to their plans they intend to restore 350 million hectares of forests by 2030. But it is already becoming clear, including from many global experts, that this is simply a “PR campaign” aimed at obviously unattainable goals.

To date, the scale of the declared plans of both governments and private funds almost always exceeds the actual results many times over. It is also interesting that often such plans are part of media campaigns that allow shifting society’s attention from forest destruction to their restoration.

The vast majority of people hear that forests are being destroyed and immediately see advertisements from politicians, say, about the ambitious “Bonn Challenge” initiative—so the average person begins to think that everything is fine, and more forests will be restored than were cut down anyway.

REFORESTATION

Actual reforestation, which is carried out by countries, usually comes down to the following main problems:

• Monocultures are almost always planted, that is, one type of the cheapest seedling. An artificial system that imitates real wild forests in terms of biological diversity and ecosystem value! Simply put: cutting down a million hectares of ancient forests with the highest biodiversity and then planting pine or spruce in rows in their place has nothing to do with nature conservation.

  
  

• In their reports, which governments submit to international organizations, there are usually figures on how much money was allocated for reforestation. At the same time, there is no monitoring of the actual survival rate of the seedlings—though this needs to be done even after 3 years, after 5, and 7 years. Until the seedlings become a real young forest!

  
  

• Officials use budget funds to purchase seedlings at obviously inflated prices under tenders, and they also artificially increase the number of planted seedlings on paper. And who will check it? Go and count how many forests were actually planted somewhere in distant clear-cut areas. That’s what local officials take advantage of!

  
  
• There is also no full-fledged control over which sites are actually planted and what the survival rate of the seedlings is. Formally “the plan is fulfilled,” the money is distributed into pockets, and the results exist only on paper!

In general, probably almost all reforestation that exists today is no more than a formality. Equipment is rented, driven into the forest, and one-time plantings of the cheapest seedlings with a closed root system are carried out! Further care for them—watering, protection from pests and forest fires—is almost never provided. As a result, most of the seedlings (and in some cases almost all) die in the first 1-2 years.

Now the global market for carbon credits is also actively “pumped” — simply put, “carbon credits.” There is a very powerful opportunity for “money laundering” there! Various projects, funds and organizations, as well as private individuals, sell carbon credits, allegedly in exchange for planting forests and thus offsetting carbon emissions. In such schemes, real forests do not take root, but on paper everything is “planted,” and companies that bought these “carbon credits” offset their emissions into the atmosphere.

It all comes down to the fact that modern reforestation is usually accompanied by beautiful reports and presentations, whereas in reality the planting was carried out partially, and often only on paper.

In 2019–2021, many Russian organizations and activists, including still independent media at that time, published materials that in a number of Russian regions, after destructive forest fires, reforestation work was carried out. It turned out that the seedling survival rate was only 10–15%. And the actual figures for dead seedlings reached 95%.

I know that many people who believe in the need to plant forests in rows to save nature will look skeptically at unofficial sources of data on the actual death of seedlings.

Therefore, let’s look at data from government agencies. Even officially, according to the report of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, figures were announced that when restoring forests, only the fact of planted seedlings is taken into account, while up to 90% of them die. That is completely unhidden official information!

I will publish the official document of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation.

File Download the Audit Chamber report 3,2 МБ

I’ll provide a full quote from the document:

“When calculating the area of restored forests, only the planting of seedlings is taken into account. In fact, after that, up to 90% of the seedlings die. In order for most of the planted trees to survive, agrotechnical care is needed, which requires additional human and financial resources.”

It is also worth citing the comment of the Chair of the Commission on Ecology and Environmental Protection of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, Elena Sharoikina:

“It is necessary to revise the target indicators. We must take into account the number of grown trees, not planted seedlings. We should calculate the percentage of restored forest at least 15 years after planting.”

Now imagine the real scale of “forest banditry” and the FICTITIOUSNESS of practically any modern reforestation: both on the part of the state (where there is at least some oversight) and on the part of organizations that first cut down real wild forests and then plant trees.

The goal of officials today is to “utilize” the funds for planting, report on the “hectares of planted forests,” and forget about it. No one is interested in the real result.

Logging companies pursue the same goals.

Engaging in reforestation is one of the most profitable areas, which is practically impossible to verify! Yet you can draw up any reports. Meanwhile, money can be skimmed off at all stages of the work.

WAS THE FOREST EVEN PLANTED?

In my opinion, based on personal experience, real restoration almost does not exist anywhere in the world today! And the initiatives that are carried out more or less sincerely and honestly are so insignificant that they do not even slow down the expanding scale of forest destruction each year.

To distinguish real initiatives from fictitious reforestation, a transparent monitoring period of at least 3-7 years is important. If it doesn’t exist, then there is no real reforestation!

Regarding global reforestation—I want to return to the beginning of my material.

According to data collected by the UN from reports provided by states, from 1990 to 2020 people have “utilized” about 420 million hectares of forests. Of these, confirmed final losses (these forests no longer exist on the planet) amount to 178 million hectares.

Meanwhile, there remain about 242 million hectares on paper, as per documents provided by the countries themselves. Artificial reforestation accounts for 30 to 60 million hectares of forests, so almost 200 million hectares of forests are either in the program of “assistance to natural regeneration” or the forest recovered on its own without human assistance.

In other words, people actually planted up to 60 million hectares of forests, of which up to 90% (according to the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation) and up to 95% (according to independent estimates) of the seedlings die.

And here one should wonder: was the forest really restored at all?

IS THERE ANY BENEFIT TO NATURE?

Now to the most important point.

Remember one phrase, which is generally key to any question about forest restoration: “NATURE DOES NOT PLANT TREES IN ROWS.”

If nature needed the forest to grow in straight rows, it would undoubtedly do so. But in natural forests, trees grow in groups of different ages and numerous species—this creates a mosaic structure with huge biodiversity: understory, shrubs, herbs, mosses, and lichens.

With “industrial” planting, one or two species are usually chosen (for example, pine, larch, or spruce) and planted in straight rows. Everyone who does this is well aware that the lack of different age layers and wide species diversity reduces resistance to pests, diseases, and climate anomalies.

The multilayer structure of the forest (from tall upper layers to ground mosses and detritus) ensures higher moisture retention, i.e., when the soil holds water and dries out less. Also, thanks to different microclimatic zones, forests can protect themselves from the rapid spread of fire during wildfires! “Row-planted” forests do not have such functions.

Monocultures, i.e., uniform types of trees, which humans restore, cannot properly filter and purify the air. Such processes occur not only with the participation of coniferous or deciduous species, but also with the understory, shrubs, and numerous organisms.

When the forest is planted “in rows,” the structure becomes single-layered, and it has far fewer niches for wild flora and fauna, meaning its ecological value plummets.

Many things are not even known by ministers and all sorts of “heads” of relevant agencies.

For example, rows of uniformly planted trees form corridors for wind, and wind is one of the key factors in the rapid spread of fire. Hence, we see increasing scales of forest fires! Moreover, in the case of coniferous species (pine, spruce), in the absence of proper understory and moist moss, the flame can spread along the rows at an incredible speed.

In natural forests, where the complexity of ecosystems has formed over thousands of years, there are often areas with deciduous species (birch, aspen, alder) or simply wet glades, streams, swamps—they create barriers for fire.

“Row” planted forests adapt poorly to natural conditions; they have a very vulnerable root system. Along linear plantings, pests move ideally, and infection outbreaks appear—if even one seedling gets infected, it infects the entire forest in a chain reaction.

I ask readers also to note that the information I have voiced is my personal experience of studying forests from one end of Russia to the other! We have conducted dozens of major expeditions and, on the ground, using practical methods, evaluated the condition of taiga regions.

We also need to mention biotic regulation of the climate—according to the Concept put forward by our Russian physicist scientists Viktor G. Gorshkov and Anastasia M. Makarieva.

A real, full-fledged forest ensures continuous evaporation of moisture (transpiration), creates powerful flows of water vapor that contribute to precipitation formation. It also regulates atmospheric pressure, thereby influencing the distribution of rain and overall humidity at least on a regional level. If we talk about even more complex processes—natural forests are also part of the chain of interaction with soil microorganisms involved in the carbon and nitrogen cycles.

Artificial “rows” of monocultures are incapable of providing such functions. Therefore, even fully and honestly restored forests are not real forests.

When only one tree species (or just a couple) is planted, dozens and hundreds of bird, insect, mammal, moss, and fungus species that are tied to a wild, complex environment disappear (or never settle).

Soil depletion also accelerates, especially if coniferous monoculture has been planted.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

First and most importantly — it is necessary to LEGISLATIVELY PROHIBIT the destruction and any exploitation of the last tracts of real ancient forests. That is, humanity’s task is not to “cut down and then restore” forests, but to avoid destroying what has been forming for thousands of years! Place primary natural ecosystems under strict protection.

That is why I propose the Concept of territories of complete ecological tranquility (TETS) — to designate such areas of forest as forced WILDLIFE REFUGES.

There also need to be government projects to grow forests for human needs on already degraded or abandoned agricultural land. Such successful practices already exist in the world; they just don’t interest corporations! Why grow something and wait if you can go and destroy what has already grown and can bring immediate profit “here and now”?

Along with growing forests, it is possible and necessary to develop technologies for reusing wood.

And we also need to create fundamentally new approaches to restoring lost forests. But not by planting “straight rows,”—instead by getting as close as possible to natural biological processes! Such developments already exist, there are scientific assessments, but there is no large-scale practical application.

As for “rows,” let’s create them for flowerbeds and in our gardens, for flowers and various garden crops. But not for wildlife!

I believe that the real work that everyone—from society to governments—should be doing today is to protect the last natural ecosystems of the Earth! Because while “reforestation to replace destroyed forests” is being advertised, in the real world the final destruction of the last wildlife refuges is happening!

My proposal is to urgently designate natural ecosystems at the federal level as large-scale territories of complete ecological tranquility.

• Read the material about how many forests have been destroyed by people over the past 30 years
• Learn about the Concept of territories of complete ecological tranquility (TETS)

© ПАВЕЛ ПАШКОВ