Seedlings Planted Is Not a Survival Rate

Have you ever read a company sustainability report and noticed it proudly states how many trees were planted, but never how many are still standing?

I have. More times than I can count.

That gap is not an accident. “Seedlings planted” is an easy number to report, and a flattering one. “Seedlings alive a year later” is a harder number. It’s also the honest one.

How big is the gap?

Bigger than most of us think.

In 2021, researchers reviewed the websites of organisations running tree-planting and reforestation projects. Only 18% mentioned monitoring at all. Only about 5% said they actually measured whether their planted trees survived.

Things have improved since then, but not by enough. A later study by the University of California, Santa Cruz, looked at 99 international organisations that promote and fund reforestation. Seventy percent now had monitoring plans. But only 41% reported data on tree survival. And 61% didn’t say how long their projects would be maintained, monitored or funded. Only 10% mentioned commitments lasting beyond 10 years.

So most organisations talk about monitoring. Fewer than half show us the results.

Why does this gap matter?

Because it lets planting become a photo opportunity instead of a commitment.

A company can fund ten thousand seedlings, publish the number, and never find out whether two thousand or eight thousand survived. Everyone feels good. The report looks great. Nothing is actually verified.

And we know young trees die in large numbers when nobody follows up. A review of 176 forest restoration sites in tropical and sub-tropical Asia found that, on average, 18% of planted saplings died within the first year, rising to 44% after five years. Those are averages from sites that were actually studied. What about the ones nobody checked?

When governments do check, the results can be sobering. In the Philippines, the state audit commission found that a national greening programme meant to plant 1.5 million hectares of forest had a survival rate of just 12% over its first five years.

A “trees planted” headline would never have told us that.

What does honest reporting look like?

Here at home, we have examples worth learning from.

Kenya’s Auditor-General has physically gone out to check seedlings planted under the national tree-growing programme. In Samburu’s Kirisia Forest, the audit found that about 60% of 30,000 indigenous seedlings had survived, with many lost after the water bowser broke down during a drought. In Chapalungu Forest in Bomet, 10,000 seedlings recorded 98% survival, though invasive shrubs were slowing their growth.

That’s what accountability looks like. Good news and bad news, side by side, checked by someone who didn’t plant the trees.

Then there are Kenya’s chiefs. Under the national climate programme, chiefs have mobilised more than two million people, planted over 114 million trees and reported a 60% seedling survival rate, all without external funding. When the programme was launched, chiefs were asked not only to plant but to monitor and report progress using standardised tools.

Sixty percent is not perfect. But that number is worth more than any “seedlings planted” headline, because someone bothered to measure it.

What does a credible tree-planting claim look like?

If a company, NGO or government agency tells you it’s planting trees, here’s what to look for:

• A survival target set before planting day. Not a number celebrated afterwards only if it happens to look good.
• A maintenance budget covering at least two to three years. Not just the planting event, the tents and the T-shirts.
• Species matched to the site by local foresters. Not whatever costs the least per seedling.
• Independent or third-party verification. Not self-reported totals from the people who want the credit.
• Public reporting at 6, 12 and 24 months, including the bad news. Especially the bad news.

The UC Santa Cruz researchers found that the organisations scoring highest on best practices were clear about what happens after the first two years, such as replanting sites that missed their survival targets. That’s the standard. A plan for failure, not just a press release for success.

So what can you do?

If you fund, report on or approve tree-planting projects, start with one question: what’s the survival number?

Ask it before you approve the budget for the next round. Ask it in the meeting. Ask it in the interview. Ask it in the comments section.

Because the trees can’t speak for themselves. Someone has to ask on their behalf.

And I’d love to celebrate the ones who get it right. Have you ever seen a company publish its actual survival rate, not just seedlings planted? Tag them. I’d like to highlight it.