Is Ghana’s tree-planting exercise delivering real value?

By Edward Debrah, UK based Chartered Environmentalist and Sustainability Professional

The Green Ghana Initiative has, since 2021, become one of the most visible symbols of the country’s response to deforestation and climate change.

Each year, millions of trees are planted across forest reserves, farms, schools and public institutions, supported by strong political leadership and nationwide participation.

On the surface, the programme looks like a success, but visibility and volume do not automatically translate into impact. As Ghana grapples with climate risks, land degradation and pressure on natural resources, the critical question remains whether we are restoring depleted forests, or simply planting trees?

Positives about the programme

From an implementation standpoint, Green Ghana deserves credit. Between 2021 and 2024, over 50 million seedlings were planted nationwide, often exceeding annual targets. Unlike many past afforestation efforts, survival rates have improved, with estimates suggesting around 70–80% of planted trees are surviving, depending on location and year.

This improvement reflects better nursery practices, timing and early maintenance. It also shows that Ghana can mobilise institutions, communities and the private sector at scale when there is political will. That is no small achievement.

The Contradiction

Despite satellite data and independent assessments telling a less comfortable story, Ghana continues to lose forest cover, including within designated forest reserves. Illegal mining, logging, agricultural expansion and fires are still removing mature forests faster than new trees can replace them.

This creates a fundamental contradiction which suggests whether planting trees are beneficial than losing forests at the same time.

From an environmental perspective, this matters because mature forests provide far greater benefits than young plantations. They store more carbon, regulate water systems, protect soils and support biodiversity. Losing them undermines climate resilience and increases long-term economic costs through flooding, land degradation and reduced agricultural productivity.

Climate Benefits Potential

Tree planting is often presented as a climate solution, and rightly so, trees absorb carbon over time. Ghana’s restoration efforts have the potential to sequester millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide if trees are protected and allowed to mature.

However, potential is not the same as proof. Most carbon figures linked to Green Ghana are modelled estimates, not backed by a robust national measurement, reporting and verification system. At the same time, deforestation elsewhere releases stored carbon immediately, reducing net climate gains.

For a country seeking climate finance, carbon market participation and ESG aligned investment, this gap between ambition and verification poses a real risk.

Biodiversity, the quiet omission

Another issue rarely discussed is biodiversity. Much of the planting focuses on fast-growing exotic species such as teak and eucalyptus. While these species survive well and have commercial value, they often support limited wildlife and provide fewer ecosystem services than indigenous forests.

At present, success is measured largely by how many trees are planted, not by whether ecosystems are recovering. Without tracking biodiversity, soil health and water regulation, tree planting risks becoming a plantation exercise rather than true restoration.

The Role of Governance

Ultimately, the success or failure of Green Ghana will be decided not at planting ceremonies, but in what happens afterwards. Too newly planted areas remain vulnerable to illegal mining, logging, fires and land-use change. Weak enforcement and unclear land tenure continue to undermine long-term outcomes.

Where communities have clear incentives through agroforestry, benefit sharing and tenure security; trees are more likely to survive. This reinforces a simple truth; tree planting is not an event; it is long-term asset management.

The Bigger Picture

Green Ghana is not a failure. But it is also not yet transformational. Ghana is planting trees but still losing forests. Climate benefits are possible, but not yet proven. Economic and ecological value exists but is not fully secured.

The initiative could deliver real returns if focus is shifted

• from trees planted to forests protected.
• from annual targets to long-term outcomes.
• from visibility to verification.

Moving forward, we ought to ask ourselves;

• How many hectares of forest does Ghana lose each year compared to how many it restores?
• What is the net carbon benefit after deforestation is accounted for?
• Who is accountable when planted forests are destroyed?
• Are we restoring ecosystems, or just counting seedlings?

Until these questions are answered, Ghana risks planting trees while leaving its natural capital increasingly exposed.

The post Is Ghana’s tree-planting exercise delivering real value? appeared first on The Business & Financial Times.

Read Full Story