COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT The 3 Billion Tree Planting Pledge For 2030 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS New EU Forest Strategy for 2030
Date: 2021-07-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, European forestry policy, adaptation to climate change, forest, forest conservation, forestry economics, sustainable forest management, wood industry, wooded area

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.7.2021  SWD(2021) 651 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT The 3 Billion Tree Planting Pledge For 2030 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  New EU Forest Strategy for 2030           {COM(2021) 572 final} - {SWD(2021) 652 final}  
 
 
Contents 

Introduction  _________________________________________________________ 3 

1.1. The pledge  __________________________________________________________ 3 
1.1.1. Part of the biodiversity strategy to 2030  _______________________________________ 3 
1.1.2. The 3 billion figure _________________________________________________________ 4 
1.1.3. Principle of additionality ____________________________________________________ 6 

1. 2. The benefits _________________________________________________________ 9 
1.2.1. Benefits for the climate _____________________________________________________ 9 
1.2.2. Benefits for the environment  _______________________________________________ 12 
1.2.3. Economic benefits ________________________________________________________ 17 
1.2.4. Health benefits ___________________________________________________________ 19 

The Commission’s role ________________________________________________ 20 

2.1. Setting the framework ________________________________________________ 21 
2.1.1. Guidelines _______________________________________________________________ 21 
2.1.2. Criteria _________________________________________________________________ 21 
2.1.3. Labels and partner organisations/projects _____________________________________ 21 

2.2. Enabling  ___________________________________________________________ 22 
2.2.1. Communication __________________________________________________________ 22 
2.2.2. Policy and technical support ________________________________________________ 22 
2.2.3. Knowledge platform  ______________________________________________________ 23 
2.2.4. Monitoring ______________________________________________________________ 27 

2.3. The starting point ____________________________________________________ 28 
2.3.1. Forest area ______________________________________________________________ 28 
2.3.2. Agroforestry _____________________________________________________________ 29 
2.3.3. Urban trees  _____________________________________________________________ 30 

Planting trees _______________________________________________________ 32 

3.1. Stakeholders in the tree planting process _________________________________ 32 
3.1.1. Initiators ________________________________________________________________ 32 
3.1.2. Intermediates ____________________________________________________________ 33 
3.1.3. Landowners  _____________________________________________________________ 33 
3.1.4. Nurseries  _______________________________________________________________ 35 
3.1.5. Surveyors _______________________________________________________________ 36 

3.2. How to plant trees ___________________________________________________ 36 
3.2.1. Long-term vision  _________________________________________________________ 36 
3.2.2. Natural expansion  ________________________________________________________ 38 

3.3. Where to plant trees  _________________________________________________ 39 
3.3.1. A healthy tree needs the right soil  ___________________________________________ 41 
3.3.2. Trees as parts of forests ____________________________________________________ 41 
3.3.3. Trees in agricultural areas __________________________________________________ 42 
3.3.4. Trees in cities ____________________________________________________________ 42 
3.3.5. Trees along infrastructures _________________________________________________ 42 
3.3.6. Do not plant in … _________________________________________________________ 42 

3.4. Which trees to plant __________________________________________________ 43 
3.4.1. Right species_____________________________________________________________ 43 
3.4.2. Right mix of tree species and their benefits ____________________________________ 45 

International commitments ____________________________________________ 47 

Annex 1: Cost estimates for tree planting _________________________________ 48 

1 

 
 
Annex 2: Existing pledges and organisations active in tree planting in the EU  ___ 51 

Annex 3: International initiatives  _______________________________________ 52 

An old proverb: 
“If you want to sit under a shade in your old age plant a tree now.” 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

The  European  Green  Deal  resets  the  Commission’s  commitment  to  tackling  climate  and 
environmental  challenges,  that  is  this  generation’s  defining  task  and  it  supports  a  far-
reaching  environmental  policy  agenda  with  an  overarching  nature.  It  is  our  duty  to  think 
about  the  younger  generations  and  the  type  of  world  they  will  inherit  over  the  coming 
decades.  We  cannot  continue  ‘business  as  usual’:  our  society  must  live  within  planetary 
boundaries, both now and in the future. We need to take care of nature and the extremely 
valuable  services  that  well-functioning  ecosystems  provide.  Healthy  forests  and  healthy 
trees can provide a very significant share of those ecosystem services1.  

Under  the  European  Green  Deal,  the  EU’s  biodiversity  strategy  for  2030  tackles  the 
protection  and  restoration  of  nature  by  making  a  number  of  specific  commitments  and 
targets. One of the commitments is the pledge to plant at least 3 billion additional trees in 
the EU by 2030, in full respect of ecological principles. The EU forest strategy will include 
a roadmap for action to achieve this commitment. 

This pledge will not solve the climate nor the biodiversity crisis on its own. We will also 
need  additional  global  or  European  planting  pledges  going  well  beyond  the  3  billion,  and 
other  ambitious  action  on  forests  and  tree  conservation,  environment  and  biodiversity 
protection  and  very  substantial  greenhouse  gas  emissions  reduction  in  other  sectors.  The 
effects of carbon sequestration will only materialise in the coming decades. But since trees 
take  decades  to  grow,  action  must  be  taken  now  to  achieve  the  additional  carbon 
sequestration  needed  in  the  future.  Planting  new  trees  is  not  an  alternative  to  preserving 
existing trees, but a complement to broader conservation action. This paper does not cover 
the additional needs and action on conservation. 

This  roadmap  sets  out  a  framework  to  equip  the  EU  to  reach  its  commitment  on  tree 
planting on the basis of the guiding principle: plant and grow the right tree in the right 
place, for the right purpose. 

This will ensure that planting is carried out in a way that produces a tangible and positive 
impact on the climate, the environment, the economy and the quality of life of EU citizens. 
But planting 3 billion additional trees will only generate positive impacts if the majority of 
those trees survive, reach maturity and thrive.  In some planting methods, only 10-20% of 
the saplings reach maturity, so this commitment means not only planting 3 billion additional 
trees, but also growing, nurturing and caring for the trees so that they reach maturity. 

1.1. The pledge 

1.1.1. Part of the biodiversity strategy to 2030 

Under the European Green Deal, the biodiversity strategy to 2030 tackles the protection and 
restoration of nature in the EU through a number of specific commitments and targets. One 
of those commitments is the pledge to plant at least 3 billion additional trees in the EU by 
2030. The Green Deal specifies that: 

1  

Ecosystems services - nature's contributions to people i.e. the contributions of ‘ecosystems’ to 
direct and indirect ‘benefits’ obtained in economic, social, cultural and other human activity.  
For more see Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services for the most updated 
list https://cices.eu/resources/ 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In addition to strictly protecting all remaining EU primary and old-growth forests, the EU 
must increase the quantity, quality and resilience of its forests […] 

To make this happen, the Commission will propose a dedicated EU forest strategy in 2021 
in  line  with  our  wider  biodiversity  and  climate  neutrality  ambitions.  It  will  include  a 
roadmap for planting at least 3 billion additional trees in the EU by 2030, in full respect 
of  ecological  principles.  This  will  create  substantial  job  opportunities  linked  to  the 
collecting  and  cultivating  of  seeds,  planting  seedlings,  and  ensuring  their  development. 
Tree planting is particularly beneficial in cities, while in rural areas it can work well with 
agroforestry, landscape features and increased carbon sequestration. 

The 3 billion trees target is also in synergy with other objectives of the biodiversity strategy, 
such as reaching the target to improve the conservation status of 30% of sites at EU level, 
with  regional  or  site-level  conservation  objectives  and  with  the  restoration  of  certain 
habitats  of  particular  value  for  wildlife  or  biodiversity.  The  Commission  will  propose 
legislation in 2021 to set legally binding EU nature restoration targets to restore degraded 
ecosystems.  It  will focus in  particular on  ecosystems  with  the highest  potential to  capture 
and store carbon and to prevent and reduce the impact of natural disasters. The Commission 
will  promote  tree  planting,  monitoring  and  conservation  to  help  reach  the  objective  of 
planting 3 billion additional trees by 2030. 

1.1.2. The 3 billion figure 

The Commission estimates that between 2010 and 2015, almost 300 million additional trees 
have grown in the EU each year (see Section 1.1.3). 

This  pledge  aims  to  roughly  double  the  forest  expansion  rate  in  the  EU  over  the  period 
2005-2020,  and  have  3  billion  additional  trees  by  2030  above  the  business-as-usual 
scenario.  This  includes  not  only  expanding  existing  forests,  but  also  planting  additional 
trees in urban and peri-urban areas, and focusing on agroforestry and trees on agricultural 
land.  

This pledge is ambitious but feasible. It supports the EU to get on the right track to climate 
neutrality by 2050, as proposed in the strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, 
competitive  and  climate-neutral  economy2,  endorsed  by  the  European  Council  and  the 
European Parliament in 2018, communicated to the UNFCCC in 20203 and legally binding, 
as  enshrined  in  the  European  Climate  Law.  It  will  also  help  halt  and  revert  the 
unprecedented loss of biodiversity across all EU Member States.  

Although the pledge specifies planting at least 3 billion additional trees by 2030, it is crucial 
to enable the trees to grow and mature. Given the effects of climate change, which mean 
that not all planted trees may survive, monitoring and replanting will be an essential aspect 
of  the  initiative  in  order  to  achieve  at  least  3  billion  additional  living  trees  by  2030. 

2  
3  

Communication ‘A Clean Planet for All’ COM(2018) 773. 
HR-03-06-2020 EU Submission on Long term strategy.pdf (unfccc.int) 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Therefore  a  long-term  plan  is  required  to  ensure  the  pledge  is  effective.  The  following 
sections of this paper expand on these aspects in greater detail. 

Tree  density,  i.e.  the  number  of  trees  planted  on  an  area  unit  or  the  space  between  tree 
trunks, is of key importance to estimate the total area required by the initiative.  

Tree  density  depends  on  the  species,  local-to-regional  geographic  and  bioclimatic 
conditions, land use and tree age. Older trees have a lower density than newly planted trees 
or  saplings.  Tree  density  may  decrease  artificially  by  thinning  to  create  more  space  for 
growth  or  naturally  at  different  growth  stages,  with  species  becoming  dominant  over  the 
trees’ lifetime. The planting of hedges also follows specific guidelines with several trees per 
metre  and,  depending  on  the  purpose,  possibly  in  parallel  rows.  The  current  spatial 
distribution  of  many  forest  tree  species  and  their  climatic  niches  are  depicted  in  the 
European Atlas of Forest Tree Species4. 

Planting costs are also linked to the number of saplings and to the preparation of the land. 
Cost estimates vary widely and depend on site conditions such as terrain, water availability 
and soil preparation but also maintenance costs for the first 15-20 years of growth. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

Assuming an average tree density of 1 000/1 500 trees/ha, 3 billion additional trees corresponds to 
2 to 3 million additional ha of forests/tree cover, or 200 000 to 300 000 additional ha per year over 
10 years. This would be equal to planting the equivalent of 1.3 to 1.9% of the EU forest area over 
the 10 years of the pledge. This corresponds to 2% of the 10 million ha of forests that are lost in 
the world every year (also due to EU consumption and production patterns, i.e. EU imports)5. 

This is certainly feasible, in particular considering that:  

  An additional total area of 77 million ha can be potentially covered by trees in the EU by 

restoring natural ecosystems6. 

  4.8 million hectares may become available from agricultural land being abandoned between 

2015 and 20307. 

  The cost is also feasible (see data provided in Annex 1).  

  EU countries are already taking action on tree planting (see Table 1).8 

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., de Rigo, D., Caudullo, G., Houston Durrant, T., Mauri, A. (Eds.), 2016. 
European Atlas of Forest Tree Species. Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-international-trade-inta/file-eu-driven-
global-deforestation   
Bastin,  J.F.,  de  Haulleville,  T.,  Maniatis,  D.,  Marchi,  G.,  Massaccesi,  E.,  Mollicone,  D., 
Pregagnoli  ,  C.,  ‘Tree  restoration  potential  in  the  European  Union’,  2020  p.22.  In  FISE, 
available  at:  https://forest.eea.europa.eu/data/connectors/eu-tree-restoration-in-european-union-
en.pdf/@@download/file 
Perpiña  Castillo,  C.,  Jacobs-Crisioni,  C.,  Diogo,  V.,  Lavalle,  C.,  ‘Modelling  agricultural  land 
abandonment in a fine spatial resolution multi-level land-use model: An application for the EU’, 
2021. 
Software, 
Environmental 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104946. 
https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/SoEF_2020.pdf p.48 

Modelling 

104946, 

136, 

Vol 

& 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 1: the country-specific targets on the maintenance, conservation and enhancement of 
biological  diversity in forests that are relevant for afforestation and tree planting 

Country 

Target 

Austria 

Increase in the forest area in regions with low forest cover until 2030 

Bulgaria 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Slovakia 

Spain 

2013-2020: Forestations of 2 000 ha bare forest lands  and afforestation of 2 500 
of an abandoned agricultural land and on land eroded or threatened by erosion 
Before the end of the 21st century, forested landscapes cover 20-25% of the total 
area 
Increase the total volume of growing stock  

The  principal  objective  of  the  Forestry  Programme  2014-2020  is  to  plant  an 
additional 44 000 ha of forests 
Afforestation of 30 000 ha according to the National Forestry Sector Department 
Programme for 2012-2020 
Develop a methodology for setting functional types and subsequent management 
optimisation of other land with tree cover (288 thousand ha) 
Nearly 4 million ha increase of forest area by 2032 

 

In France, 67.8 million forest seedlings were produced and sold between 2018 and 20199. In 
Finland, 168 million domestic seedlings were delivered for planting in 202010. 

1.1.3. Principle of additionality 

Additionality is a crucial principle for the pledge, as it means that the pledge is to  plant 3 
billion trees between 2020 and 2030 in addition to those that would be planted or grow 
anyway under a business-as-usual scenario. 

9 

10 

https://agriculture.gouv.fr/telecharger/109102?token=ccf4f3009ede3a09935181169732b6f4b0d
8b9f56d8bd185495feb264989c618  

http://statdb.luke.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/LUKE/LUKE__04%20Metsa__02%20Rakenne%20ja%2
0tuotanto__12%20Metsanhoito-%20ja%20metsanparannustyot__Siemen-
%20ja%20taimitilastot/12_Istutukseen_toimitetut_kotim_taimet.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rx
id=dc711a9e-de6d-454b-82c2-74ff79a3a5e0  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
‘Business-as-usual’ scenario 

The annual expansion of forests is on the decrease. The net area converted to forests is decreasing, 
therefore planting 3 billion additional trees is essential to help reverse this trend. 

Figure 1: Area of afforested land / deforested land (ha*1000)11 

Without  the  principle  of  additionality,  the  pledge  would  not  achieve  the  desired  impact. 
Current  trends  indicate  that  under  a  business-as-usual  scenario,  the  EU  would  have 
approximately 3 billion trees more in 2030 than it had in 2020. The purpose of the pledge 
is to top up that figure by another 3 billion trees.  

Only tree planting that is planned and implemented in line with the additionality principles 
below will be counted towards the pledge. 

Part A: cumulative conditions  

1.  Trees  planted  or  planting  committed  since  adoption  of  the  biodiversity  strategy  (May 

2020).  

2.  Trees planted following the guidelines on biodiversity-friendly afforestation developed by 
the  Commission  or  similar/equivalent  guidelines  on  biodiversity-friendly  afforestation 
existing in the Member States. 

3.  Trees that are not planted as a result of a legal obligation such as obligatory regeneration 
after  harvesting  or  obligatory  planting  of  trees  to  prevent  soil  erosion  or  landslides,  or 
replanting after fires or other disturbances. Trees planted due to legal obligations could be 
reported and accounted for outside the 3 billion pledge.  

4.  Trees  planted  and  not  to  be  harvested  for  several  decades  (to  be  mentioned  in  the 

declaration of honour, details below in Section 2.1.3)12. 

11  

12  

Sum of 2021 GHG inventories of EU Member States (1990-2019), CRF Table 4.1 for managed 
forest land conversions  following forest definitions for greenhouse  gas reporting as defined in 
National Inventory Reports. National Inventory Submissions 2021 | UNFCCC. 
To avoid short-rotation coppice and the counting of high numbers of young trees that will be cut 
in subsequent years.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Part B: in addition, the following will be counted: 

1.  Trees planted with the support of EU funds, provided they meet the conditions listed 
in  Part  A  above.  However,  trees  funded  by  the  common  agricultural  policy  must 
comply  at  least  with  the  conditions  set  in  Part  C  below.  They  will  be  counted  as 
additional  trees,  when  above  the  level  of  the  afforested  area  by  EU  funds  in  the 
previous programming period 

2.  Trees that grow from natural regeneration, in compliance with the conditions in Part 
A above, but in areas that have been newly set aside for this purpose in response to 
this initiative.  

3.  New trees detected through remote sensing imagery, provided that they exceed the 

baseline number of new trees in that country. 

Part C: conditions for counting trees in the framework of afforestation funded by the CAP 

1. 

the selection of species to be planted, of areas and of methods to be used shall avoid the 
inappropriate  afforestation  of  sensitive  habitats  such  as  peat  lands  and  wetlands  and 
negative  effects  on  areas  of  high  ecological  value  including  areas  under  high  natural 
value  farming.  On  sites  designated  as  Natura  2000  pursuant  to  Council  Directive 
92/43/EEC13  and  Directive  2009/147/EC14  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  only  afforestation  consistent  with  the  management  objectives  of  the  sites 
concerned  and  agreed  with  the  Member  State’s  authority  in  charge  of  implementing 
Natura 2000 shall be counted; 

2.  The selection of species, varieties, ecotypes and provenances of trees shall take account 
of  the  need  for  resilience  to  climate  change  and  to  natural  disasters  and  the  biotic, 
pedologic  and  hydrologic  condition  of  the  area  concerned,  as  well  as  of  the  potential 
invasive  character  of  the  species  under  local  conditions  as  defined  by  Member  States. 

3.  The operation shall consist of either: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the exclusive planting of ecologically adapted species and/or species resilient to 
climate  change  in  the  bio-geographical  area  concerned,  which  have  not  been 
found, through an assessment of impacts, to threaten biodiversity and ecosystem 
services, or to have a negative impact on human health; or  
a mix of tree species which includes either:  
— at least 10 % of broadleaved trees by area, or  
— a minimum of three tree species or varieties, with the least abundant making 
up at least 10 % of the area. 

4.  Planting of trees for short rotation coppicing, Christmas trees or fast growing trees for 

energy production shall not be counted. 

Not  every  single  tree  from  the  pledged  3  billion  must  literally  be  ‘planted’  by  humans. 
Forest  expansion clearly driven by forestry management decisions that enable tree growth 
from  natural  or  assisted  natural  regeneration  will  also  count  towards  the  pledge  (see  box 
above, part B.2).  

13  
14  

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. 
OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7. 

8 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
1. 2. The benefits 

1.2.1. Benefits for the climate 

To  stay  within  the  1.5°C  goal  of  the  Paris  Agreement,  it  will  not  be  sufficient  simply  to 
make  the  global  economy  carbon  neutral  by  2050.  All  pathways  presented  in  the  IPCC 
report15  assume  that  in  the  second  half  of  the  century,  the  world  will  need  to  generate 
negative emissions at a scale reaching even 12 Gt-CO2/year.  

Potential  negative  emissions  technologies  include  afforestation  and  reforestation,  land 
restoration and soil carbon sequestration. There is a widespread understanding that trees are 
a  nature-based  solution  for  efficient  cost-effective  way  of  absorbing  CO2  from  the 
atmosphere,  giving  us  some  time  to  develop  and  implement  innovative  technological 
solutions  for  emissions  reduction  objectives  in  other  sectors.  So  far  most  literature, 
including  the  IPCC  reports16,  identifies  afforestation  and  reforestation  as  prominent 
negative emissions technologies to be deployed at large scale. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

  Over  one  year,  on  average,  a  mature  tree  will  absorb  about  22 kg17  of  CO2  from  the 

atmosphere, and in exchange release oxygen. 

  The  IPCC  identified  the  global  potential  of  afforestation  and  reforestation    as  up  to  10.1 

GtCO2/year removal, although with potential trade-offs, e.g. with food security18 

 

In the EU, the total carbon stock in forests is estimated at approximately 20,000 MtC, with 
9,500 MtC in aboveground living biomass19. 

Figure 2: Approximate average net carbon sinks in the EU-27 during the period 2016-2018: forest 
land -360 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year (-Mt CO2e/yr) and HWPs (-40 Mt CO2e/yr), 
together offsetting -400 Mt CO2e/yr, i.e. about 10% of total EU GHG emissions20. 

15  

16  
17  
18  
19  
20  

IPCC,  2018:  Summary  for  Policymakers.  In  ‘Global  warming  of  1.5°C.  An  IPCC  Special 
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C’. 
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ and https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/forests-health-and-climate-change/key-facts/  
Summary for Policymakers — Special Report on Climate Change and Land (ipcc.ch) 
https://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2020-report/ 
Grassi, G., Fiorese, G., Pilli, R., Jonsson, K., Blujdea, V., Korosuo, A. and Vizzarri, M., Brief 
on the role of the forest-based bioeconomy in mitigating climate change through carbon storage 
and  material  substitution,  Sanchez  Lopez,  J.,  Jasinevičius,  G.  and  Avraamides,  M.  editor(s), 
European  Commission,  2021,  JRC124374.  JRC  Publications  Repository  -  Brief  on  the  role  of 
the forest-based bioeconomy in mitigating climate change through carbon storage and material 
substitution (europa.eu) 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Assuming  the  3  billion  trees  are  distributed  over  about  2  million  ha  within  the  next 
decade,  they  could  potentially  remove  from  the  atmosphere  approximately  4  million 
tonnes CO2 in 2030 and 15 million tonnes CO2 in 205021. This means that, for every ha of 
trees planted in the decade 2020-2030, we may expect a sink of about -4.5 t CO2 year-1 in 
the  decade  2030-2040  (i.e.  10  years  after  planting)  and  about  -7.8 t  CO2  year-1  in  the 
decade 2040-2050 (i.e. 20 years after planting). 

These effects,  however,  largely depend on the type of forest.  The EU pledge stresses that 
this  must  be  made  in  full  respect  of  ecological  principles.  Reforestation,  regeneration  and 
afforestation are therefore potentially an excellent win-win solution, provided this is carried 
out in ‘the right way’.  

To achieve the maximum benefits as above, the trees need to reach maturity, as indeed:  
Net carbon uptake from the atmosphere does not follow immediately after replanting, and 
disturbances due to planting may release soil carbon which may take several years or even 
decades  for  the  growing  trees  to  offset.  Maximum  uptake  will  be  in  the  middle  growth 
period  (20–60  years  depending  on  species,  location  and  local  conditions)  after  which  the 
rate of absorption starts to slow, although the amount of captured carbon (carbon stocks) 
continues to rise.22 

The  impact  of  forests  and  forest  cover  change  on  the  climate  is  broader  than  the 
biogeochemical effects produced by carbon sequestration and accumulation. In addition to 
removing  CO2  from  the  atmosphere,  forests  also  affect  the  climate  locally  and  regionally 
with  biophysical  processes23.  In  particular,  forests  have  a  lower  albedo  than  other  land 
surfaces, meaning they absorb more incoming solar radiation, leading to a potential surface 

21  

22  

23  

level 

collected 

(Somogyi 

at  European 

These preliminary estimates are based on the average of various modelling exercises (Reference 
scenario  from  IIASA,  see  Annex  I,  and  the  JRC).  For  the  JRC,  the  net  annual  increment  was 
attributed  to  young  forests  (less  then  40  years  old)  according  to  a  large  database  of  growth 
doi: 
curves 
https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0463-0010107,  Pilli  et  al.  Carbon  Balance  Manage  (2016)  doi: 
10.1186/s13021-016-0047-8).  The  resulting  total  annual  increment  was  further  converted  to 
annual carbon removals by assuming an average  wood density equal to 0.50 t m-3, an average 
biomass expansion factor equal to 1.2 and an average carbon content equal to 0.5. The resulting 
values do not account for carbon stock change on dead wood, litter and soil, since these pools 
are directly affected from the land use preceding the afforestation. 
European Academies Science Advisory Council (2018). Negative Emission Technologies: What 
Role in Meeting Paris Agreement Targets? EASAC Policy Report 35. 
Alkama,  R.  and  Cescatti,  A.:  Biophysical  climate  impacts  of  recent  changes  in  global  forest 
cover, Science, 351(6273), 600–604, doi:10.1126/science.aac8083, 2016. 

iForest 

(2008) 

al., 

et 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
warming  effect.  In  parallel  to  radiative  warming  triggered  by  albedo,  forests  cool  the 
climate by sustaining high evapotranspiration rates. During the growing season, the cooling 
effect  of  evapotranspiration  is  typically  greater  than  the  warming  effect  caused  by 
albedo2425. Evapotranspiration also helps regulate local rainfall, preventing extreme weather 
events26. 

The combined effect of albedo and evaporation provides a net local cooling effect following 
afforestation in the order of 0.3-0.5°C, depending on the specific area of land converted and 
the climate region27.The cooling effect  of new forest  cover is  even  greater in  warmer  and 
arid  EU  regions.  By  contrast,  in  cold  humid  climate  (e.g.  boreal/polar),  the  effect  of  new 
forest  cover  may  lead  to  local  warming  of  0.2-0.4°  C.  The  climate  impacts  of  new  forest 
cover have a clear seasonal pattern, with stronger cooling during the temperate summer and 
winter/spring warming in cold regions with abundant snow cover28. 

More  biodiverse  forests  also  bring  benefits  for  climate  adaptation,  being  more  resilient  to 
extreme weather events like droughts, pest outbreaks, storms and wildfires29. The recent EU 
climate  adaptation  strategy30  recognises  that  climate  change  will  trigger  major  shifts  in 
forests and that adaptation considerations must be integrated in the way they are managed. 
In  this  respect  reforestation  is  important  in  EU  areas  particularly  exposed  to  extreme 

24  

25  

26  

27  

28  

29  

30  

Bright,  R.  M.,  Davin,  E.,  O’Halloran,  T.,  Pongratz,  J.,  Zhao,  K.  and  Cescatti,  A.:  Local 
temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes, 
Nat. Clim.  Chang., 7(4), 296–302, doi:10.1038/nclimate3250, 2017;  Duveiller, G., Hooker, J. 
and  Cescatti,  A.:  A  dataset  mapping  the  potential  biophysical  effects  of  vegetation  cover 
change,  Sci.  Data,  5,  180014,  doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.14,  2018;  Duveiller,  G.,  Hooker,  J.  and 
Cescatti, A.: The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance, Nat. Commun., 
9(1), 679, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02810-8, 2018. 
Bright,  R.  M.,  Davin,  E.,  O’Halloran,  T.,  Pongratz,  J.,  Zhao,  K.  and  Cescatti,  A.:  Local 
temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes, 
Nat. Clim.  Chang., 7(4), 296–302, doi:10.1038/nclimate3250, 2017;  Duveiller, G., Hooker, J. 
and  Cescatti,  A.:  A  dataset  mapping  the  potential  biophysical  effects  of  vegetation  cover 
change,  Sci.  Data,  5,  180014,  doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.14,  2018;  Duveiller,  G.,  Hooker,  J.  and 
Cescatti, A.: The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance, Nat. Commun., 
9(1), 679, doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02810-8, 2018. 
Science for Environment Policy, Soil and Water: a larger-scale perspective. Thematic Issue 52. 
Issue produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication 
Unit,  UWE,  Bristol.  Available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy,  2015,  and 
Millán,  M.:  Extreme  hydrometeorological  events  and  climate  change  predictions  in  Europe, 
Journal  of  Hydrology,  518  206-224  DOI:  http://  dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.  jhydrol.2013.12.041, 
2014. 
Duveiller, G., Caporaso, L., Abad-Viñas, R., Perugini,  L., Grassi, G.,  Arneth, A. and Cescatti, 
A.: Local biophysical effects of land use and land cover change: towards an assessment tool for 
policy 
104382, 
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104382, 2020. 
Alkama,  R.  and  Cescatti,  A.:  Biophysical  climate  impacts  of  recent  changes  in  global  forest 
cover, Science, 351(6273), 600–604, doi:10.1126/science.aac8083, 2016. 
H. Pretzsch, G. Schütze & E. Uhl (2013) “Resistance of European tree species to drought stress 
in  mixed  versus  pure  forests:  evidence  of  stress  release  by  inter-speciﬁc  facilitation”.  Plant 
Biology 15 (2013) 483–495, doi:10.1111/j.1438-8677.2012.00670.x; Da Ponte, E.; Costafreda-
Aumedes,  S.  and  Vega-García,  C.  (2019)  “Lessons  learned  from  arson  wildfire  incidence  in 
reforestation 
229; 
natural 
https://doi.org/10.3390/f10030229 
Forging a climate-resilient Europe - the new EU strategy on adaptation to climate change, COM 
(2021) 82. 

Forests, 10(3), 

(August 

makers, 

Spain”. 

policy, 

2018), 

stands 

Land 

and 

use 

91 

in 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
weather events, such as the EU outermost regions, given the key role biodiversity protection 
plays in climate adaptation. 

Tree planting is not a silver bullet: it can contribute to the aim to achieve climate neutrality 
but it is only one way to mitigate climate change. Other measures to achieve this goal are 
needed  too,  such  as  forest  conservation  and  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  other 
sectors. Afforestation should take place where the risk of biodiversity loss is low and where 
sufficient  water  is  available  to  minimise  possible  trade‐offs  and  prevent  unintended 
consequences  to  water  security31.  The  planting  of  trees  should  not  lead  to  a  land-type 
change of habitats listed under the Habitats Directive32. 

1.2.2. Benefits for the environment 

Trees have many other advantages than carbon sequestration: they provide essential habitats 
for numerous species, nesting and hibernating opportunities (including for pollinators), and 
provide other critical ecosystem services such as water cycle regulation, soil protection and 
erosion control, oxygen release and air filtering. Trees provide additional benefits to water 
bodies  (e.g.  rivers,  aquifers),  including  stabilising  river  banks,  providing  aquatic  habitats 
and shelter, regulating surface and ground water flows, improving water quality by avoiding 
soil erosion, eliminating pollution by trapping or filtering water pollutants, thus resulting in 
better  water  quality,  avoiding  excessive  water  temperature,  thanks  to  shading,  which  can 
also reduce the impacts of eutrophication. Under certain conditions, trees can also promote 
aquifer  recharge  by  reducing  water  runoff.  This  also  helps  prevent  floods  and  mitigate 
droughts33 by retaining and storing excess rainwater34.  

Trees also have an important social value in terms of promoting recreation and wellbeing. 
All these advantages can in turn generate economic benefits by reducing the need for water 
treatment, or in soil and water bodies’ restoration techniques.  

Trees  in  forests  form  part  of  extremely  complex  ecosystems,  where  they  are  home  to 
around  80%  of  the  world’s  biodiversity35.  The  more  biodiverse  the  ecosystem,  the  more 
diverse the services and benefits it can provide (i.e. higher multifunctionality)36.  
HIGHLIGHTS  

  Europe  is  home  to  a  great  diversity  of  forest  habitats,  with  81  different  habitat  types 

identified under the Habitats Directive. 

  Planting  native  trees,  climate  adapted  species  and  varieties  in  full  respect  of  ecological 
principles  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  EU’s  431  threatened  autochthonous  tree 
species37. 

31  

32  
33  
34  
35  
36  

37  

Kai Schwärzel, Lulu Zhang, Luca Montanarella, Yanhui Wang, Ge Sun (2019), Global Change 
Biology, Volume 26, Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14875  
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm 
https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/forests-can-help-prevent-floods  
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/adaptation/ecosystemstorage.htm 
http://www.fao.org/publications/highlights-detail/en/c/1267161/  
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13378 
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2328  
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01062-1 
https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/RL-4-026-En.pdf European Red List 
of trees (161 sp threatened and 54 sp no data) 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Trees that are part of extensive silvopastoral systems38 greatly improve soil quality and 
the  capacity  of  soil  to  accumulate  carbon39.  This  enables  additional  plant  species  to  grow 
and enhances species richness, attracting more pollinators and wildlife. Such systems can 
also have a positive impact on cattle productivity40.  

Agroforestry  systems41  are  also  beneficial  to  soil  chemistry  and  prevent  erosion  while 
protecting  or  even  restoring  the  topsoil42.  It  is  estimated  that  such  systems  provide  up  to 
45%  more  benefits  for  biodiversity  and  up  to  65%  for  the  ecosystem  than  conventional 
production  systems43.  Agroforestry  systems  can  reduce  soil  erosion  by  an  order  of 
magnitude  in  areas  with  high  intensity  rainfall.  It  can  also  enhance  carbon  sinks  and 
potentially sequester between 0.09 and 7.29 t C ha−1 yr−1 while enhancing the environment 
in agricultural landscapes44. It is clear that the benefits of agroforestry systems are context-
dependent, as certain well-researched traditional species should be used to reach the targets 
of  this  plegde.  Overall,  agroforestry  sustains  biodiversity  and  improves  resilience  at  plot 
scale, thus it can also increase production and profitability45.  

Trees located on agricultural land (such as trees marking field margins, hedges and parts 
of  landscape  features)  are  very  important  in  reducing  habitat  fragmentation  (creating 
‘stepping stones’ for species), in facilitating gene flow and in reducing runoff to diminish 
soil erosion risk and act as wind breakers thus reducing wind erosion. They also improve 
agro-ecosystem  functionality.  Habitats  comprised  of  field  margins  are  usually  spared  the 
use  of  pesticides,  thus  the  invertebrate  fauna  is  richer  and  acts  as  a  food  source  for 
mammals and birds, which in turn attract larger predators. Additionally, field  margins can 
provide excellent nesting opportunities for birds46.  

38  

39  
40  
41  

42 

43  
44  

45  

46  

Silvopastoral  systems:  a  combination  of  trees  and  shrubs  with  forage  and  animal  production. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/651982/EPRS_BRI(2020)651982_
EN.pdf  
http://mr.crossref.org/iPage?doi=10.15446%2Facag.v67n4.70180 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00484-018-1638-8  
Agroforestry  is  a  collective  name  for  land-use  systems  and  technologies  where  woody 
perennials  (trees,  shrubs,  palms,  bamboos,  etc.)  are  deliberately  used  on  the  same  land-
management units as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or 
temporal  sequence.  […]  Agroforestry  can  also  be  defined  as  a  dynamic,  ecologically  based, 
natural resource  management system that,  through the integration of trees on farms and in the 
agricultural  landscape,  diversifies  and  sustains  production  for  increased  social,  economic  and 
environmental benefits for land users at all levels.  
http://www.fao.org/forestry/agroforestry/80338/en/  

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/651982/EPRS_BRI(2020)651982_
EN.pdf 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880916303097 
Kay  et  al.,  2019.  Agroforestry  creates  carbon  sinks  whilst  enhancing  the  environment  in 
agricultural landscapes in Europe. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.025 
https://wle.cgiar.org/project/agroforestry-biodiversity-and-other-ecosystem-services-central-
america-improved-productivity  
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880909001625 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Trees  planted  on  degraded,  abandoned  and  marginal  lands  also  yield  benefits  for 
biodiversity  (preserving  species  that  otherwise  would  risk  extinction),  water  purification, 
soil retention and soil stabilisation.47 

The pledge will contribute to the achievement of the target in the biodiversity strategy to achieve 
10% landscape features in EU agricultural land by 2030. 

Landscape  features  are  any  plant  or  decorative  element  in  a landscape plan,  including  trees, 
shrubs, flowers, ditches and streams, small ponds and small wetlands, stone walls and terraces. 
Trees as landscape features can be planted in the form of lines, groups, in isolation or used to 
mark field margins. 

The common agricultural policy already requires the maintenance of landscape features, and can 
also fund the creation of new features. 

Landscape features provide habitats for beneficial insects and other arthropods, birds and plants. 
Landscape  features  bring  benefits  for  natural  resources  (reducing  diffuse  pollution  by  nitrogen 
and  phosphorous  and  plant  protection  products,  preventing  soil  erosion  and  improving  water 
quality)  and  they  improve  soil  quality.  They  also  contribute  to  carbon  sequestration  and  to 
climate change adaptation.  

HIGHLIGHTS  

  According to last pan-European estimates of water erosion, over 5.2% of land in the EU 

suffers from severe erosion (10 tonnes per ha per year)48. 

  Planting trees can reduce soil erosion. Trees also provide shelter against the effects of rain 
and  wind,  which  further  protect  the  crops  and/or  the  soil49  and  farmers  can  supplement 
their income with tree-sourced products.  

  A  specific  feature  of  agroforestry  is its  synergy  effect,  which  results  in  up  to  40%  yield 
increase compared to traditional agriculture, while improving biodiversity, carbon storage, 
soil and water quality50.  

  Crop  and  tree  yields  produced  in  agroforestry  require  14  to  34%  less  land  or  fewer 

resources in terms of light, water and nutrients compared to monoculture51. 

  Agroforestry is particularly good for soil microbial diversity and improves  biodiversity. A 

47  

48  

49  

50 

51  

Navarro, L.M., Pereira, H.M. (2012) Rewilding Abandoned Landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems 
15, 900–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7  
Panagos, P., Ballabio, C., Scarpa, S., Borrelli, P., Lugato, E. and Montanarella, L., Soil related 
indicators  to  support  agro-environmental  policies,  EUR  30090  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-15645-1, doi:10.2760/889067 
Víctor  Hugo  Durán  Zuazo,  Carmen  Rocío  Rodríguez  Pleguezuelo.  Soil-erosion  and  runoff 
prevention  by  plant  covers.  A  review.  Agronomy  for  Sustainable  Development,  Springer 
Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 2008, 28 (1), pp.65-86. ffhal-00886458f  

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/651982/EPRS_BRI(2020)651982_
EN.pdf p.2 
Sollen-Norrlin,  M.,  Bahadur  Ghaley,  B.,  Laura  Jane  Rintoul  N.  (2020)  Agroforestry  Benefits 
and  Challenges  for  Adoption  in  Europe  and  Beyond,  Sustainability,  12,  7001,  p.2. 
doi:10.3390/su12177001. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
study in Brazil found a 14.6% increase in production related to the pollination benefits of 
near-farm forests52. 

Figure  3:  a  qualitative  assessment  of  the  ecosystem  services  provided  by  rewilding, 
afforestation, extensive agriculture and intensive agriculture in Europe53. 

Agroforestry systems  can increase resource  efficiency, enhance productivity, and improve 
the overall resilience of agro-ecosystems. The regenerative benefits provided go from farm 
to global level, as shown in Figure 454.  

52  
53  

54  

The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. 
Navarro,  L.M.,  Pereira,  H.M.  Rewilding  Abandoned  Landscapes  in  Europe.  Ecosystems  15, 
900–912 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321874299_EIP-
AGRI_Focus_Group_Agroforestry_introducing_woody_vegetation_into_specialised_crop_and
_livestock_systems_Final_Report  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure  4:  Examples  of  potential  benefits  from  introducing  agroforestry  in  the  agricultural 
landscape 

The benefits to the environment of planting trees in urban areas55 include a lessening in 
urban  climate  change  effects  (e.g.  urban  heat56),  mitigation  of  air  pollution  in  many 
instances, with the potential to preserve and enable a high level of biodiversity, especially 
local urban bird life57. Urban trees play key roles in areas with a high degree of urbanisation 
and few natural habitats58. Urban trees and woodland also contribute to the attractiveness of 
the  townscape  and  create  the  image  of  a  positive,  nature-oriented  city.  They  are  also 
complementary to  other  urban policies,  such as the promotion of zero-carbon and healthy 
mobility,  such  as  walking  and  biking,  and  support  the  goals  of  other  EU  Green  Deal 
initiatives such as the zero pollution action plan on soil, water and air59. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

  Amsterdam’s  200 000  trees  in  open  spaces  are  home  to  140  bird  species,  34  mammal 

species, and 6 frog and salamander species60. 

  Urban  forests  are  a  refuge  for  an  average  of  94%  of  native  bird  species  found  in  the 

surrounding area and about 20% of the world’s bird species are present in cities61. 

  Data  demonstrating  the  cooling  effect  provided  by  urban  trees62  from  Milan  (countering 
the heat island effect in the framework of the ForestaMi project to plant 3 million trees by 

55  
56  
57  
58  
59  
60  
61  
62  

C. Konijnendijk et al.  Urban Forests and Trees A Reference Book, SpringerLink: 2005, p. 81. 
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.2149  
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.2149 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866706000732?via%3Dihub  
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/zero-pollution-action-plan/communication_en.pdf  
http://www.fao.org/3/i6210e/i6210e.pdf  p. 63.  
http://www.fao.org/3/i6210e/i6210e.pdf  p. 63.  
https://www.journee-internationale-des-forets.fr/comprendre-le-role-des-arbres-pour-contrer-
les-ilots-de-chaleur-urbain  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2030)  indicate  that  they  lower  temperatures  by  2-8°C  in  cities63.  An  increase  of  tree 
canopy  cover  by  10%  reduces  surface  temperatures  on  average  by  1.4°C64.  Strategic 
placement of trees can diminish air conditioning by 30% and save 20-50% energy used for 
heating65. 

  A tree filters up to 450 litres of water daily. 

  Every year, a tree removes about 19 kg of pollutants from the air66. 

1.2.3. Economic benefits 

In addition to benefits for climate and the environment, tree planting also has benefits for 
our economies. 

The  whole  chain  of  tree  growing  –  planting,  nurseries,  etc.  –  provides  work  for  many 
people.  In  2011,  forest-based  industries  accounted  for  over  2  million  jobs  in  the  EU  and 
generated  turnover  in  excess  of  EUR  300  billion  for  the  EU  economy67.  On  average,  the 
forestry  activities  generate  162  euros  per  ha  of  forest68,  with  most  revenues  coming  from 
wood. Forests provide also numerous non-marketed services. In total, EU forests provided 
the  equivalent  of  more  than  512  euros  per  ha  in  2012,  considering  only  timber  provision, 
carbon sequestration, flood control, water purification and nature-based recreation69. 

Studies have shown that average house prices are up to 20% higher for properties associated 
with  mature  trees70  –  conversely  there  is  a  strong  correlation  between  poor  quality 
environments and deprived neighbourhoods. 
In  urban  areas,  trees  can  be  very  beneficial  for  the  economy71,  since  green  infrastructure 
developments  also  play  an  important  role  in  enabling  commercial  development.  In 
Liverpool, contribution to gross value added through increased profit, reduced costs, salary  

63  

64  
65  
66  
67  

68  
69  

70  
71  

for  Rural  Development 

-  Examples  of  Forestry 

From  ForestaMi  report:  https://forestami.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/report_2020.pdf  (but 
also http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-details/en/c/411348/) 
C. Konijnendijk et al.  Urban Forests and Trees A Reference Book, Springer: 2005, p.94. 
http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics/infographics-details/en/c/411348/  
https://www.eea.europa.eu/articles/forests-health-and-climate-change/key-facts  
The  European  Agricultural  Fund 
Projects8770.pdf (proder.pt) 
Forest area from Forest Europe 2020; gross value  added from Eurostat table NAMA_10_A64 
Vallecillo,  S.,  La  Notte,  A.,  Kakoulaki,  G.,  Kamberaj,  J.,  Robert,  N.,  Dottori,  F.,  Feyen,  L., 
Rega, C. and Maes, J. (2019) Ecosystem services accounting. Part II-Pilot accounts for crop and 
timber  provision,  global  climate  regulation  and  flood  control,  EUR  29731  EN,  Publications 
Office 
from 
Union, 
European 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC116334 
https://ecosystem-accounts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eu-supply-and-use-tables 
http://www.fao.org/3/i6210e/i6210e.pdf  
Every EUR 1 spent on planting trees yields EUR 2 of benefits according to Gregory McPherson, 
E.,  R.Simpson,  J.,  J.  Peper,  P.,  Xiao,  Q.,  Benefi  cost  analysis  of  Modesto’s  Municipal  Urban 
Forest, Journal of Arboriculture 25(5): September 1999, 235-248.  
For  more:  Ping  Song,  X.,  Yok  Tan,  P.,  Edwards,  P.  Richards,  R.  The  economic  benefits  and 
costs  of  trees  in  urban  forest  stewardship:  A  systematic  review,  Urban  Forestry  &  Urban 
Greening, Volume 29, 2018, 162-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.11.017. 

Luxembourg. 

Retrieved 

the 

of 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
has  reached  EUR  14.3  million,  and  contributed  EUR  19.9  million  to  improving  public 
health and mitigating pollution72.  

In Barcelona, trees and shrubs were found to have filtered 305.6 tonnes of pollutants from 
the  air,  which  from  an  economic  perspective  corresponded  to  a  EUR  1 115 908  value  a 
year. Trees were also estimated to sequester 5.422 tonnes of carbon, worth approximately 
EUR 412 000 a year73. In Torbay, the urban forest not only stores carbon worth an annual 
estimated value of EUR 1 584 000, but also provides EUR 1 789 900 in ecosystem services 
annually74. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

  The  value  of  current  forests  in  the  EU  based  on  a  set  of  five  ecosystem  services  they 
provide  is  EUR 512  per  ha  (timber,  carbon  sequestration,  flood  control,  water 
purification and recreation)75. 

  Gross  added  value  in  forestry  in  EU27  was  0.21%  of  total  gross  added  value;  still  in 
EU27  2018,  gross  added  value  in  the  forest-based  sector  (forestry,  manufacturing  of 
wood and cork products as well as pulp and paper) was 0.91% of the total gross added 
value.76 

  The  City  of  Orléans,  France,  provides  a  tool  (https://www.baremedelarbre.fr)  for 
estimating  the  value  of  an  urban  tree  based  on  the  ecosystem  services  provided.  This 
value averages between EUR 5 000 and 20 000  but can be as high as EUR 88,590 in the 
city centre77. 

  As  shown  in  Figure  5  below,  in  cities  the  effective  benefits  become  noticeable  after 

about 50 years, and continue to increase for another 150 years78. 

72  

73  
74  
75  

76  
77  

78  

Rogers  K.,  Andreucci  MB.,  Jones  N.,  Japelj  A.,  Vranic  P.  (2017)  The  Value  of  Valuing: 
Recognising the Benefits of the Urban Forest. In: Pearlmutter D. et al. (eds) The Urban Forest. 
Future City, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50280-9_21 p.291. 
Ibid, p.292. 
Ibid, p.293. 
https://ecosystem-accounts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eu-supply-and-use-tables;  This  value  is  the  EU 
average, and is much higher in the proximity of cities. It does not include ‘habitat and species 
maintenance’ ecosystem services. 
https://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2020/  p.166 
https://www.leparisien.fr/environnement/a-orleans-les-arbres-ont-desormais-un-prix-01-03-
2021-8426685.php  
https://www.treeconomics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GBU_Street-Tree-Cost-Benefit-
Analysis-2018.pd p.11 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
Figure 5: Tree benefit chart of a tree ideal conditions 

  Figure 6: Ecosystem service demand for a peri-urban forest in a Member State (Romania)79 

In  addition,  trees planted in  landscape features can provide habitats  for pollinators,  which 
have an annual direct contribution to crop production valued at EUR 4.7 billion80.  

The actual economic benefits of forestry, trees in cities and agroforestry, however, may be 
underestimated because multiple public ecosystem goods and services are not reported81. 

1.2.4. Health benefits 

The health of ecosystems mirrors not only the health of our planet but also human health. 
Soil  degradation  can  lead  to  chronic  micronutrient  deficiency,  malnutrition  and  food 
shortage (famine) while water and air pollution are responsible for numerous diseases and 
deaths82.  Trees  help  purify  water  and  regulate  its  cycle,  stabilise  soil  and  improve  soil 

79  

80  

81  
82  

Sevianu E, Maloş CV, Arghiuş V, Brişan N, Bǎdǎrǎu AS, Moga MC, Muntean L, Rǎulea A and 
Hartel T (2021) Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in Peri-Urban Forest Park 
Creation:  Experience  From  Eastern  Europe.  Front.  Environ.  Sci.  9:618217.  doi: 
10.3389/fenvs.2021.618217.  
Vysna, V., Maes, J., Petersen, J.E., La Notte, A., Vallecillo, S., Aizpurua, N., Ivits, E., Teller, 
A.,  Accounting  for ecosystems and their services in the European Union (INCA). Final  report 
from  phase  II  of  the  INCA  project  aiming  to  develop  a  pilot  for  an  integrated  system  of 
ecosystem  accounts  for  the  EU.  Statistical  report.  Publications  office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, 2021. p.46 
https://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2020/ p.166 

Lal, R. Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition. Food Sec. 1, 45–57 
(2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-009-0009-z ; 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
quality, clean the air while releasing oxygen and sequester carbon to reduce greenhouse gas 
concentration,  thus  mitigating  climate  change.  In  2018,  there  were  379 000  premature 
deaths linked to air pollution in the EU83. Tree planting would contribute to the targets set 
under the zero pollution action plan84. 

Moreover,  deforestation  and  forest  degradation  lead  to  encroachments  that  promote  the 
spread of diseases transmitted to humans by animals. An increase in Lyme disease risk was 
linked to reduced forest cover85. Restoring habitats by growing and planting trees will help 
protect humans (and livestock) from deadly pathogens86.  

The vital importance of outdoor activities is evident after the worldwide lockdowns. Many 
studies  have  demonstrated  how  forest-based  initiatives  have  a  more  beneficial  impact  on 
human  health  than  initiatives  in  urban  environments,  by  reducing  stress  and  promoting 
psychological  and  physical  rehabilitation87.  At  EU  level,  woodland  and  forest  ecosystems 
have  a  high  value  for  outdoor  recreation,  and  they  make  a  higher  contribution  to  human 
wellbeing than other types of ecosystems88.  

Planting trees in diverse ecosystems  also promotes a healthy diet (fruit of high nutritional 
value,  prebiotics,  improved  bioavailability).  It  contributes  to  the  accessibility  of  natural 
medicine and is beneficial for cultural, spiritual activities and mental health89. Effective use 
of our forests in promoting health has the potential to reduce public healthcare expenses90.  

THE COMMISSION’S ROLE 

Tree planting initiatives are, at least so far, very bottom-up and grassroots-led initiatives. It 
is essential to clarify the Commission’s and the EU’s role in this context.  

In this  roadmap, the Commission  sets  out  a number of  overall conditions and resources 
that can be used to make a success of individual projects, ensuring they are in line with EU 
guidelines, and allowing them to carry the label of the ‘EU 3 billion trees’ initiative.  

The EU should enable planting projects by providing sufficient funding. In addition, the 
EU should provide policy and technical support, develop a visual identity for the pledge 

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr67/en/ Human health under threat 
from ecosystem degradation 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2168  
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/zero-pollution-action-plan_en  
10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01260.x 
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/deforestation-leading-to-more-infectious-
diseases-in-humans  
Doimo I., Masiero M., Gatto P., Forest and Wellbeing: Bridging Medical and Forest Research 
for Eﬀective Forest-Based Initiatives, Forests 11: 791, 2020, doi:10.3390/f11080791 
Vallecillo  Rodriguez,  S.,  La  Notte,  A.,  Polce,  C.,  Zulian,  G.,  Alexandris,  N.,  Ferrini,  S.  and 
Maes, J., Ecosystem services accounting: Part I - Outdoor recreation and crop pollination , EUR 
29024  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  2018,  ISBN  978-92-79-
77333-4, doi:10.2760/619793, JRC110321, (p.31). 
FAO. 2020. Forests for human health and well-being – Strengthening the forest–health–nutrition 
nexus. Forestry Working Paper No. 18. Rome. 
Karjalainen E, Sarjala T, Ratio H. Promoting human health through forests: overview and major 
challenges. Environ Health Prev Med. 2010 Jan;15(1):1-8. doi: 10.1007/s12199-008-0069-2. 

83  
84  
85  
86  

87  

88  

89  

90  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
and boost communication on the subject, help build capacity and foster the exchange of 
best practice. 

Lastly, the Commission will set up a system to monitor progress in reaching the target, 
and create a ‘EU tree counter’ to visualise progress. 

2.1. Setting the framework 

2.1.1. Guidelines 

As announced in the biodiversity strategy for 2030, the Commission will develop, in close 
cooperation  with  Member  State  experts,  forestry  stakeholders  and  NGOs,  guidelines  on 
biodiversity-friendly  afforestation  and  reforestation  and  closer-to-nature-forestry 
practice.  In  terms  of  the  3  billion  trees  pledge,  the  guidelines  will  promote  planting  that 
maximises the benefits for biodiversity and for the climate. 

Guidelines  on  biodiversity-friendly  afforestation  and  reforestation  are  currently  under 
development in the Working Group Forest and Nature. They will also address agroforestry 
and trees located in agricultural areas, as well as for urban trees. 

These guidelines should be followed by all tree-planting initiatives that receive EU funds. 

2.1.2. Criteria 

In  order  to  count  towards  the  pledge,  tree-planting  initiatives  will  need  to  fulfil  the 
following conditions: 

  comply with the principle of additionality (see Subsection 1.1.3). 
  benefit  biodiversity  and  the  climate  in  line  with  the  do  no  significant  harm 

principle, in particular excluding the planting of invasive alien species91. 

  plant only native tree species, unless it can be demonstrated that they are no longer 

adapted to projected climatic and pedo-hydrological conditions.  

2.1.3. Labels and partner organisations/projects 

The EU will create a label that projects and monitoring systems that meet the above criteria 
can use to raise awareness. It will also create a counter tracking tree planting at EU level.  
Projects that meet these criteria are eligible for labelling, for the mention ‘contributes to the 
3 billion trees EU project’ and to receive a certificate. 

As it is not always possible to verify on the spot, the project promoter will be invited to sign 
a declaration of honour attesting that they meet the requirements. 

91  

Included  in  the  List  of  Invasive  Alien  Species  of  Union  concern.  The  selection  of  species, 
varieties,  ecotypes  and  provenances  of  trees  must  take  account  of  the  need  for  resilience  to 
climate  change  and  to  natural  disasters  and  the  biotic,  pedologic  and  hydrologic  condition,  as 
well as of the potential invasive character of the species as defined by Member States, given the 
local conditions in the area concerned. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.2. Enabling 

2.2.1. Communication 

The  pledge  is  an  initiative  designed  to  benefit  the  climate,  the  environment,  the  economy 
and public health. The Commission will be an enabler and will help encourage people and 
organisations  to  join  the  initiative  and  encourage  planting  projects  by  developing  a  brand 
for the pledge and by publicising it.   

Once the pledge brand and the guidelines are produced, the Commission will publicise the 
pledge via selected channels, targeting two different main stakeholder groups: (1) the EU 
general public and (2) tree planters/partner organisations. This will be developed in synergy 
with  other  Commission  awareness-raising  and  communication  initiatives,  notably  those 
related  to  the  European  Green  Deal,  the  Climate  Pact  end  the  Education  for  Climate 
Coalition.  

A range of tools will be used to raise awareness and promote communication, in particular 
press, media and social media.  

The Commission will also maintain a web presence for the pledge, by creating a dedicated 
webpage, hosted on DG Environment’s website. The purpose is to raise awareness and give 
users  practical  information  and  material:  key  policy  content,  an  interactive  map  with  an 
integrated  tree  planting  counter,  how  to  report  planting  and  practical  information  for 
partners and tree planters. This could include planting guidelines, a platform to share best 
practice  and knowledge, examples of specific planting initiatives, information  on capacity 
building and on how to access funding.  

The  pledge  initiative  will  run  from  2021  to  2030.  Over  this  period,  the  Commission  will 
continue  raising  awareness  and  communicating  at  different  key  moments  via  selected 
communication channels, tools and initiatives, to help the initiative reach its objective.  

2.2.2. Policy and technical support 

The Commission will provide policy support for the pledge through communication on the 
biodiversity  strategy  and  the  Green  Deal,  and  will  also  integrate  the  tree  planting 
initiative  into  existing  policies  and  instruments  (common  agricultural  policy  strategic 
plans, 
the  Urban  Greening  Platform,  Horizon  Europe  Missions,  etc.).  Relevant 
intergovernmental  cooperation  setups  such  as  the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU  and  its 
Thematic Partnerships92 as well as the Territorial Agenda 203093 could also be mobilised in 
this process. 

92  

93  

Through its actions, the Urban Agenda for the EU Thematic Partnership on Sustainable Use of 
Land and Nature-based Solutions has been promoting the liveable and compact city model and 
the mainstreaming of nature-based solutions as a tool to build sustainable, resilient and liveable 
urban spaces; https://futurium.ec.europa.eu/en/urban-agenda/sustainable-land-use 
The  Territorial  Agenda  underlines  the  importance  of  and  provides  orientation  for  strategic 
spatial  planning  and  calls  for  strengthening  the  territorial  dimension  of  sector  policies  at  all 
governance  levels.  It  emphasises  the  need  to  respond  to  the  increasing  pressure  concerning 
sustainable  development  and  climate  change  including  in  the  fields  concerning  the  loss  of 
biodiversity and land consumption. https://territorialagenda.eu/home.html 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
To garner the policy and technical support needed at Member State level, regular meetings 
are  held  with  national  representatives  via  the  working  group  ‘Forest  and  Nature’.  A 
Community  of  Users  liking  representatives  of  various  tree  planting  pledges  and  planting 
organisations will also be set up.  

2.2.3. Knowledge platform  

2.2.3.1. Financing  

From seedlings, to workforce costs for afforestation, ground preparations and planting work 
to  regular  monitoring  measures,  the  work  involved  in  tree  planting  will  require  ongoing, 
significant  investment.  Some  of  the  EU  funding  mechanisms  available  could  be  used  to 
finance or co-finance this work. The list overleaf provides an overview of some of the EU 
funding programmes that could be used; it is not exhaustive.  

Directly 
managed  EU 
funding 
programmes 

funding 

EU 
programmes 
under  shared 
management 

Project 
development 
assistance  

Financial 
institution 
instruments 

Support 
services 

-  LIFE 
-  Horizon 
Europe 

-  ERDF  
-  Interreg 
-  Cohesion Fund  
-  EAFRD 

-  Horizon 
Europe 
Project 
Development 
Assistance 

-  Natural 
Capital 
Financing 
Facility 

-  Technical 
Support 
Instrument 
-  European 

Investment 
Project Portal 

-  fi-compass 
-  EIAH 

Other  

National 
Funds and 
State aids  

LIFE 

LIFE is the EU’s funding programme for environmental and climate action. Tree planting 
has  been  funded  under  both  the  environment  and  the  climate  action  sub-programmes, 
depending on the focus  of the specific project.  The ‘Environment’ part of the programme 
covers  three  priority  areas:  environment  and  resource  efficiency;  nature  and  biodiversity; 
and environmental  governance  and information.  The ‘Climate Action’ part covers  climate 
change mitigation; climate change adaptation; and climate governance and information. The 
programme  is  open  to  public  bodies,  businesses  and  NGOs.  The  programme  is  due  to  be 
renewed for the 2021-2027 period, with a total budget of EUR 5.45 billion.  

Examples  of  ongoing  LIFE  projects  working  on  tree  planting  are:  LIFEterra,  LIFE  4  oak 
forests,  LIFE  Baccata.  It  is  also  very  useful  to  draw  on  previous  LIFE  projects  as  they 
provide experience on tree planting and on ex post monitoring of tree survival rates94.  

Horizon Europe 

Cluster 6 (Food, Bio-economy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment) under the 
Horizon Europe research and innovation funding programme will support the planting of 3 

94  

Examples  include  LIFE07/NAT/E/000735  “Corredores  para  la  conservación  del  oso  pardo 
cantábrico”  (January  2009-December  2011)  and  LIFE12/NAT/ES/000192  “Desfragmentación 
de hábitats para el oso pardo en la Cordillera Cantábrica” (August 2013- December 2016). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
billion  trees  by  improving  scientific  knowledge  on  restoration,  afforestation  and 
reforestation. 

Research  and  innovation  will  contribute  to  the  initiative  and  increase  its  impact  by 
improving practical knowledge on forest composition and forest management practices that 
support  the  objectives  on  climate  change  mitigation,  adaptation,  biodiversity  and 
bioeconomy of newly established or restored forest. The aim is to maximise synergies and 
minimise  trade-offs.  Experience  and  lessons  learned  from  ongoing  or  previous  funded 
research projects such as B4EST95 or MAIL96 could be used to build a knowledge base to 
underpin the initiative.  

By  capitalising  on  the  results  of  past  and  ongoing  EU-funded  research  projects  under 
Horizon  2020  (e.g.  AGFORWARD,  AFINET,  MIXED,  AGROMIX),  research  and 
innovation will also explore the potential of agroforestry systems and their contribution to 
sustainable food and feed / non-food biomass production. 

Cohesion policy funds 

The Cohesion Policy Funds are funds set up to implement the EU’s regional policy. They 
aim  to  reduce  regional  disparities  in  income,  wealth  and  opportunities.  Europe's  poorer 
regions receive most of the support, but all European regions are eligible for funding under 
the wide range of funds and programmes available. 

Member States can plan to use these funds through national partnership agreements, which 
are  then  implemented  through  regional  programmes,  including  at  sub-regional  and  city 
level.  They  can  also  uses  the  funds  to  finance  programmes  for  cross-border,  transnational 
and interregional cooperation, making use of the coordination and cooperation frameworks 
provided  by  the  EU  macro-regional  strategies  when  applicable97.  Tree  planting  could  be 
covered under the natural disaster risk reduction and restoration heading.  

A  minimum  8%  of  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  resources  in  each  Member 
State must be invested in priorities and projects selected by cities themselves and based on 
their own sustainable urban development strategies. This can include tree planting as part of 
a wider integrated development strategy in urban areas. 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 

Under the rural development programme, Member States can chose to allocate funds to 
support tree planting under the priority of restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems 
related to agriculture and forestry. This can include post-disaster restoration and enhancing 
ecosystems  in  agricultural  lands.  Afforestation  and  creation  of  woodland,  as  well  as  the 
establishment of agroforestry systems can also be supported. 

95  
96  
97  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773383  
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/823805  
The EU macro-regional strategies are cooperation frameworks for better coordination of actions 
and  funds  in  a  specific  transnational  geographical  area  (macro-region).  Key  features  of  the 
strategies are the cross-sectoral approach, multi-level governance and stakeholder involvement. 
For info: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/macro-regional-strategies/  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Carbon farming 
The  Farm  to  Fork  strategy announced  that,  by  the  third  quarter  of  2021,  the  Commission 
will launch a new EU carbon farming initiative to promote carbon sequestration as a new 
green business  model. The 2030 climate target  plan identified carbon  farming as  a tool to 
create direct incentives for farmers and forest managers to take climate action and thereby 
to help achieve the EU’s target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, 
compared to 1990 levels. The adaptation strategy also announced that the Commission will 
promote carbon farming for land-based carbon removals and create financial incentives to 
roll out nature-based solutions.  

Carbon farming incentives can cover a large range of activities, including activities that will 
contribute to achieve the forest strategy goals such as: 

restoring degraded forests 
improving the management of existing forests  

  planting new forests 
 
 
  supplying biomass for the production of long-lasting bio-based products  
  planting trees in agricultural land as part of sustainable agroforestry systems. 

Carbon farming could thus help create the financial incentives needed, for example to plant 
3 billion additional trees in the EU by 2030.  

To  make  carbon  farming  an  effective  business  model,  however,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
improve the advisory services for land managers and to  build a monitoring, reporting and 
verification system using the latest digital and satellite technologies. 

State aid 

The planting of trees can also be supported through national funding under the EU State aid 
rules.  Under  those  rules,  Member  States  may  grant  aid  for  two  types  measures  that    are 
particularly  relevant  for  the  planting  of  additional  trees  on  areas  not  yet  forested:  aid  for 
afforestation  and  creation  of  woodland,  and  aid  for  the  establishment,  regeneration  or 
renovation of agroforestry systems. Such aid measures may also include subsidies for costs 
related to forest maintenance. 

The EU State aid rules also allow Member States to subsidise the planting of trees in urban 
and peri-urban areas. 

The  current  State  aid  rules  for  forestry  are  under  revision.  Based  on  the  consultations 
carried out it seems that the new rules will maintain these funding possibilities or may even 
go beyond. The new rules are scheduled to take effect as from 1/1/2023. 

Private-sector financing 

It  will be essential to  involve the private sector to achieve the target  and to leverage the 
funds needed for planting and monitoring. 

There is a clear interest in the private sector to contribute to the pledge (banks and private 
fund  managers,  corporations,  green  bonds,  airlines,  energy  infrastructure  operators,  etc.). 
Banks  and  fund  managers  are  increasingly  setting  up  dedicated  branches  that  seek  green 
investment opportunities, where the revenue is in the image it portrays (CSR initiatives).  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In light of the significant hectares of EU land involved, operators of energy infrastructures 
could potentially be important partners for the 3 billion trees pledge. 

It will be essential to set clear conditions/requirements to avoid greenwashing practices (i.e. 
planting trees in  addition to other action, not instead of other action).  It should also make 
sure that consumption that negatively affects natural resources is not labelled as sustainable 
(air travel, SUVs, red meat, etc.), simply by carbon offsetting through tree planting. 

2.2.3.2. Best practice exchange and capacity building 

To foster knowledge sharing and enable new projects to emerge, the Commission will also 
provide a platform to exchange best practice. 

The Commission will also provide support and guidance to plan and implement projects, 
making  use  of  existing  instruments  and  initiatives  (see  Sections  2.2.3.1  and  2.2.3.3)  for 
efficient long-term planning, and secure the survival and protection of the planted trees over 
decades. 
To  contribute  and  provide  enabling  conditions  for  employment,  synergies  with  the  EU 
Solidarity Corps will be analysed to see how that initiative could contribute to the pledge. 

In  addition,  the  pledge  will  foster  the  emergence  of  new  digital  solutions  and  innovative 
start-ups (such as drones, remote sensing, websites for tree planting and citizen science98 in 
general). 

2.2.3.3. Links with the Climate Pact and the Education for Climate Coalition 

To avoid duplicating action on tree planting, the Commission will coordinate action taken 
under the 3 billion additional trees pledge with the commitments and action taken under the 
Climate Pact.  

The Pact will support local communities, organisations and individuals committed to new 
tree-planting  and  caring  initiatives,  for  instance  through  increased  visibility  and 
information99.  

The Pact will support (e.g. via the ambassadors) first-time pledgers and organise awards for 
best pledges. Both individuals and organisations will be encouraged to make a tree-related 
pledge through the Climate Pact website100. The Pact will also provide support in the form 
of consultancy hours to the best projects (pledges) to help them upscale or replicate. 

It will link up with EU-supported agricultural plans in Member States and a range of EU 
funds  (Cohesion  Funds,  LIFE  programme,  etc.)  and  platforms  (the  new  European  Urban 
Greening Platform announced as part of the biodiversity strategy).101 

98  

99  
100  
101  

“Citizen  science  is  a  broad  term,  covering  that  part  of  Open  Science  in  which  citizens  can 
participate in the scientific research process in different possible ways: as observers, as funders, 
in  identifying  images  or  analysing  data,  or  providing  data  themselves.  This  allows  for  the 
democratisation  of  science,  and  is  also  linked  to  stakeholders'  engagement  and  public 
participation.” Citizen science | Shaping Europe’s digital future (europa.eu) 
Communication ‘European Climate Pact’ COM(2020) 788 final, page11. 
https://europa.eu/climate-pact/pledges_en  
Ibid. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In response to the interest shown by the ‘pledgers’ and the questions received, a guide will 
be  produced  to  direct  people  to  relevant  (EU)  funding,  possibly  including  philanthropies 
(that could cover the co-financing needs).  
The  Pact  will  also  contribute  to  objectives  linked  to  agricultural  plans  -  the  common 
agricultural  policy  strategic  plans  -  operational  programmes  under  the  cohesion  policy, 
LIFE  programme  as  well  as  relevant  platforms  such  as  the  European  Urban  Greening 
Platform.  

Moreover,  the  Education  for  Climate  Coalition102  will  play  a  central  role  in  the 
Commission’s  aim  to  promote  the  education  communities’  contribution  to  the  green 
transition by valorizing concrete cooperation and actions taken on the ground. As part of the 
European  Education  Area,  the  Coalition  will  help  mobilise  pupils,  students,  teachers  and 
stakeholders and connecting them across local and national borders ‘to make a difference’ 
in their particular neighborhood and region.  

2.2.4. Monitoring  

2.2.4.1. The monitoring system 

The monitoring platform will be made available on the Forest Information System for 
Europe website103.  

The system will also include a link to the form to submit and report planting. This form will 
be  hosted  on  the  EEA  website  via  the  data-reporting  platform  Reportnet  3.0,  which  will 
enable the EEA to collect information and to feed it into the monitoring platform. To make 
sure that the submitted information is reliable, it will require users to submit a declaration of 
honour.  

2.2.4.2. The EU tree counter 

The EU tree counter will provide an estimated number of additional trees planted in the EU 
between May 2020 (adoption of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030) and the current day. 
This  information  will  be  made  available  on  the  Pledge  webpage.  Information  provided  in 
the counter should not  duplicate existing counters.  If other counters  already  exist, the EU 
counter  will  count  the  counters,  avoiding  double  counting.  Therefore,  it  will  link  up  with 
other counter systems, also to ensure that the EU tree counter only counts the trees planted 
in full respect of ecological principles and the principle of additionality. 

An area-based approach will complement tree counting in urban spaces and add to the total 
of 3 billion trees, using the equation number of trees = area * tree density. 

The  areas  may  be  extracted  from  existing  databases  or  detected  by  remote  sensing.  Such 
estimates  varies  by  tree  planting  scheme  (afforestation,  landscape  element,  agroforestry) 
and species, and may also require regional or local adjustments.  

For instance, afforested areas can be detected by satellite-based remote sensing. Recently, 
satellite-based  remote  sensing  products  have  been  released  to  map  small  woody  features, 
which can be used to detect landscape features such as hedges. 

102  
103  

https://education-for-climate.ec.europa.eu/_en  
https://forest.eea.europa.eu/  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.3. The starting point  

2.3.1. Forest area 

The  EU  accounts  for  approximately  5%  of  the  world’s  forests.  Contrary  to  the  trends  in 
many other parts of the world, the forested area of the EU increased at a steady pace of 0.3 
million ha per year from 2010-2015104 and 0.2 million ha per year from 2015-2020105.  

However, according to the European Environment Agency report State of Nature in the EU, 
31%  of  forest  habitats  do  not  have  a  good  conservation  status.  The  Forest  Europe  Report 
2020106  explains  that  ‘currently,  less  than  one  third  of  Europe′s  forests  are  uneven-aged, 
26% have only one tree species (mainly conifers), 52% have only two to three tree species, 
and only 6% of forests have six or more tree species (see Figure 7). (…) Forest habitats are 
especially affected by the removal of dead and dying trees as well as by broader land use 
changes, such as conversion to monocultures or other forest types’107. 

Figure 7: Forest area classified by number of tree species in the EU-27 in 2015108. 

Forest land by tree species composition in 2015 in EU-27

Area with number of 
tree species occurring: 
6+
6%

Area with number 
of tree species 
occurring: 4-5
16%

Area with number 
of tree species 
occurring: 1
26%

Area with number 
of tree species 
occurring: 2-3
52%

HIGHLIGHTS  

 

In 2020, forests covered 159 million ha in the EU-27, some 38%109 of total land area. 

  Forest coverage varies across the EU, ranging from 66% in Finland to 1.5% in Malta. 

104  

Camia,  A.,  Cazzaniga,  N.,  Pilli,  R.  and  Vacchiano,  G.,  Brief  on  forestry  biomass  production, 
Lusser,  M.,  Sanchez  Lopez,  J.,  Klinkenberg,  M.  and  Avraamides,  M.  editor(s),  Publications 
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-77232-0 (print),978-92-79-
77233-7 (pdf), doi:10.2760/59347 (online),10.2760/0848 (print), JRC109352. 
Forest Europe, 2020: State of Europe’s Forests 2020. 
Forest Europe, 2020: State of Europe’s Forests 2020. 
See Subsection 1.1.3. 

105  
106  
107  
108   Values for CY, DE, EL, IT, LU and MT in the forestland by number of tree  species occurring 

are not reported. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Forests,_forestry_and_logging  

109  

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Around 46%110of forest in the EU is composed of coniferous trees and 37% of broadleaved 

trees. Mixed stands cover 17% of the EU’s forest area. 

  Forest Europe reported the net forest area gain to be 0.2 million ha/year between 2015 and 

2020111. 

In addition to forests, trees outside the forests have also potential to significantly enhance 
greenery112 in Europe.  

2.3.2. Agroforestry 

8.8%  of  the  EU’s  utilised  agricultural  area  is  under  agroforestry.  Estimates  show  that 
Europe  has  the  potential  to  increase  to  almost  120  million  ha  for  new  and  regenerated 
agroforestry by 2030. Nevertheless, a more conservative approach should be taken, with the 
main  focus  being  on  agricultural  areas  that  have  suffered  most  from  environmental 
degradation and consequently have the lowest tree coverage. Given this priority, there is a 
potential  in  around  13  million  ha  of  agroforestry  that  could  contribute  about  3.13  billion 
trees113. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

  Table 2 shows the calculated ‘priority’ and ‘possible’ areas for agroforestry to be planted 
or regenerated before 2030. Planting density is based on a selective thinning rate of 3-4:1 
to reach final stocking114. 

Table  2:  ‘Priority’  and  ‘possible’  areas  for  agroforestry  to  be  planted  or  regenerated 
before 2030 

  61% of the potential for total natural canopy restoration in the EU is found in land that is 

currently used for agriculture115.  

110  
111  

112  

113  
114  

115  

https://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2020/ p. 31. 
For  further  information  on  forest  area  and  forest  cover  see  the  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document on stakeholder consultation and evidence base, accompanying the Communication on 
the EU Forest Strategy, SWD(2021) 652  
By  enhancing  greenery,  it  is  meant  to  increase  the  volume  of  vegetation,  the  extent  of  green 
spaces and the volume of overall tree cover. 
http://www.europeanagroforestry.eu/news/policybriefing2 p.4.  
http://www.europeanagroforestry.eu/news/policybriefing2 p.4.  
Note that the areas exclude the UK and Croatia.  An additional 100 000 trees could be included 
for Croatia under the ‘priority’ scenario. 
Bastin,  J.F.,  de  Haulleville,  T.,  Maniatis,  D.,  Marchi,  G.,  Massaccesi,  E.,  Mollicone,  D., 
Pregagnoli  ,  C.,  ‘Tree  restoration  potential  in  the  European  Union’,  2020  p.46.  In  FISE, 

29 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
  58% of the total restoration potential in agricultural land is located in five Member States: 

France, Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain116. 

2.3.3. Urban trees 
Urban forestry is commonly reported under the broader concept of green infrastructure. On 
average, green areas such as urban greens, private gardens and urban forests make up 40% 
of  the  land  covered  by  Europe's  cities117.  In  some  cases,  the  estimates  also  provide 
information on urban tree coverage. For example, in Vienna, over 8 000 ha or 18% of the 
area is covered with forests118, and for Copenhagen, Malmo and Oslo tree canopy cover is 
16.5%, 22.3%,119 and 28.8% respectively120. 

Over the last decade, however, urban areas have undergone significant  unsustainable land 
use  development,  which  have  resulted  in  increased  soil  sealing  (+1.46%),  more  dispersed 
settlements  (+11%),  an  increase  in  mixed  land  use  (+0.75%)  and  a  loss  of  peri-urban 
agroecosystems (-1.5 %). As a consequence, these changes have an effect on the structure 
of urban green spaces and their capacity to provide ecosystem services121, which for cities 
include erosion control, air purification and outdoor recreation122.  

HIGHLIGHTS  

  Table  3  gives  an  overview  of  urban  and  peri-urban  tree  cover  estimated  using  the  pan-
European  Forest  non-forest  map  (Pekkarinen  et  al.,  2008)  and  the  European  Urban 
Morphological Zones (Milego, 2007; Simon et al., 2010). The resolution of the analysis is 
100 m.  UPUG:  urban  and  peri-urban  greening;  UG:  urban  greening;  PUG:  peri-urban 
greening123. 

118  
119  

available  at:  https://forest.eea.europa.eu/data/connectors/eu-tree-restoration-in-european-union-
en.pdf/@@download/file 
Ibid,  p.52 

116  
117   Maes J, Zulian G, Günther S, Thijssen M, Raynal J, Enhancing Resilience Of Urban Ecosystems  
through  Green  Infrastructure.  Final  Report,  EUR  29630  EN;  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, doi:10.2760/689989, JRC115375. p.41 
https://efi.int/explore/city/archive  
https://urbantreecover.org/.  Also  see  Treepedia  for  more  tree  canopy  data  in  cities  across  the 
world: http://senseable.mit.edu/treepedia  
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/nov/05/green-streets-which-city-has-the-most-trees  

120  
121   Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Condé, S., Vallecillo, S., Barredo, J.I., Paracchini, M.L., Abdul 
Malak,  D.,  Trombetti,  M.,  Vigiak,  O.,  Zulian,  G.,  Addamo,  A.M.,  Grizzetti,  B.,  Somma,  F., 
Hagyo,  A.,  Vogt,  P.,  Polce,  C.,  Jones,  A.,  Carré,  A.,  Hauser,  R.,  EU  Ecosystem  Assessment: 
Summary  for  policymakers.  EUR  30599  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-30423-4, doi:10.2760/190829, JRC123783. p.54. 
La  Notte  A,  Vallecillo  S,  Polce  C,  Zulian  G,  Maes  J.  2017.  Implementing  an  EU  system  of 
accounting  for  ecosystems  and  their  services.  Initial  proposals  for  the  implementation  of 
ecosystem  services  accounts,  EUR  28681  EN;  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, doi:10.2760/214137, JRC107150. p.34. 
Casalegno, C., Urban and Peri-Urban Tree Cover in European Cities: Current Distribution and 
Future. 
Vulnerability  Under  Climate  Change 
https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/21324/InTech-
Urban_and_peri_urban_tree_cover_in_european_cities_current_distribution_and_future_vulner
ability_under_climate_change_scenarios.pdf  

p.98.  Available 

Scenarios, 

2011, 

122  

123  

at: 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
Table 3: An overview of urban and peri-urban tree cover 

  Artificial  areas124  have  the  potential  to  supply  4 064 000 ha,  which  would  translate  into 

2 197 million trees125.  

 

In the EU, 55% of the restoration potential in artificial surfaces is concentrated in Germany, 
France,  Italy  and  Poland.  Total  restoration  potential  represents  approximately  30%  of 
artificial  areas  and  the  first  10  countries  cover  more  than  80%  of  the  total  amount  of 
restoration potential126. 

2.3.4. Existing pledges 

Tree planting is an excellent way to involve the general public in biodiversity and climate-
friendly initiatives that help improve our living conditions and help save the planet. The EU 
pledge is one of a myriad pledges being made worldwide by the private  sector and public 
authorities as a response to climate change and the biodiversity crisis.  

Examples of existing tree planting pledges in the EU vary from projects covering different 
geographical areas, such as LIFE TERRA project with the aim to plant 500 million trees by 
2025,  to  others  focusing  on  regional  aims,  such  as  Flanders  with  10 000  hectares  of  new 
forests by 2030, Wallonia with the target to reach 1 million trees, and others still shedding 
light  on urban  areas  like ForestaMi  (Milan), which aims  to  plant 3 million trees  by 2030. 
Smaller  scale  grassroots  initiatives  are  also  being  created  in  the  form  of  green  belt 
initiatives,  such  as  the  1 000  trees  project  around  the  schools  in  Sofia,  or  food  forest 
projects like the initiative in the Rijnvliet neighbourhood in Utrecht127.  

124   Artificial areas encompass urban, industrial, commercial and transport infrastructures. 
125  

Bastin,  J.F.,  de  Haulleville,  T.,  Maniatis,  D.,  Marchi,  G.,  Massaccesi,  E.,  Mollicone,  D., 
Pregagnoli  ,  C.,  ‘Tree  restoration  potential  in  the  European  Union’,  2020  p.46.  In  FISE, 
available  at:  https://forest.eea.europa.eu/data/connectors/eu-tree-restoration-in-european-union-
en.pdf/@@download/file 
Ibid, p. 50. 
For  more on existing pledges, ranging  from ongoing specific projects to political programmes 
and enabling instruments, please see Annex 2.  

126  
127  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Achieving the 3 billion additional trees  by 2030 also  means drawing on  existing enabling 
mechanisms,  not  only  from  the  European  Commission,  but  also  from  grassroot 
organisations. From communication projects to financial support (e.g. EUR 8 million for 
tree  planting  in  Vienna,  or  subsidies  for  individual  action  in  Amsterdam),  to  mobilising 
tree planters (volunteers planted 42 000 trees in Algarve), there are many different types of 
enabling and supporting action to promote.  

PLANTING TREES 

3.1. Stakeholders in the tree planting process 

Tree  planting  requires  successful  cooperation  between  a  range  of  stakeholders:  project 
initiators, intermediates, nurseries, landowners and surveyors128.  

Public 
administrations

Private 
companies

Initiators

Civil society

Intermediates

Land owners, 
farmers

Individuals and 
consumers

Specialised organisations

Companies active in the offsetting business

Companies providing seedlings

Foresters provindg the seeds

Nurseries

Farmers

Landowners

Foresters

Surveyors

Public authorities

Land owners

Citizen science

NGOs

Academia

Private 
companies

Public 
authorities

3.1.1. Initiators 

Project  initiators  begin  the  tree  planting  process  by  creating  the  idea  or  scheme.  The  list 
below gives a preliminary analysis of typical initiators and their motivations: 

  Public administrations  

o  Comply with legislation on nature restoration 
o  Greening cities 
o  Compensating greenhouse gases 
o  Disaster prevention (e.g. against floods) or post-disaster repair (storms, fires) 
o  Combating desertification 
o  Post-COVID-19 recovery measures (new jobs) 

128   Di Sacco, A., Hardwick, K.A., Blakesley, D., Brancalion, P.H.S., Breman, E., Cecilio Rebola, 
L.,  Chomba,  S.,  Dixon,  K.,  Elliott,  S.,  Ruyonga,  G.,  Shaw,  K.,  Smith,  P.,  Smith,  R.J.  and 
Antonelli,  A.  (2021),  Ten  golden  rules  for  reforestation  to  optimize  carbon  sequestration, 
biodiversity  recovery  and 
livelihood  benefits.  Glob.  Change  Biol.,  27:  1328-1348. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Private companies and corporations 

o  Corporate responsibility  
o  Compensating greenhouse gases  
o  Legal obligations to restore sites after closure of activities 
o  Protection of biodiversity  
o  Combating climate change 
o  Increasing social engagement 

  Civil society organisations 
o  Awareness raising 
o  Advocacy for climate action  
o  Mobilising people for climate action  
o  Leading by example 
  Land owners and farmers 

o  Increasing forest areas for commercial purposes 
o  Diversifying agricultural activity with agroforestry 
o  Erosion and desertification control 
o  Additional revenue source 

  Individuals and consumers 

o  Reducing carbon footprint and compensating for greenhouse gases (for instance 

in air travel) 

o  Increasing the liveability of their area 
o  Take tangible action for the good of the planet 

Although for students, schoolchildren, politicians, companies, etc. planting trees is a great 
communication and civil society engagement tool, most of the 3 billion trees will have to 
be planted by forest professionals, with  the  involvement of local authorities  and local 
communities,  ensuring  that  the  trees  planted  survive  and  thrive,  and  that  there  will  be 
continuity.  

3.1.2. Intermediates 

In some cases, the initiators can plant the trees themselves in their own land or directly in 
contact  with  the  landowners.  However,  very  often  the  initiators  hire  the  services  of 
specialised  organisations.  Sometimes  these  intermediaries  also  do  the  planting  themselves 
or  they  outsource  the  job  of  physical  planting.  Intermediaries  run  local  projects  or  are 
connected to other organisations (especially at international level).  

Several of these companies were active for years in the offsetting business (mainly related 
to the compliance market), selling CO2 removal credits from their projects to businesses and 
individuals.  However,  not  all  offsetting  companies  commit  to  tree  planting,  due  to  the 
difficult  objective  of  monitoring  the  planted  trees  over  the  long  term,  especially  at 
international  level.  Trees  must  exist  safely  for  over  50  years  before  the  CO2  savings  can 
count  as  permanent  –  a  timeframe  that  few  private  companies  can  guarantee  today.  The 
motivation of these companies stems from the business opportunities potentially linked with 
environmental  concerns,  concerns  of  rural  development  or  social  inclusion  –  as  well  as 
social responsibility and reputation. 

3.1.3. Landowners 

Landowners are crucial as they provide the physical  space to  plant the trees. They  can be 
private  or  public  landowners  who  provide  the  land  to  plant  the  trees,  in  agricultural  land, 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
urban areas, marginal land, forest land, or along grey infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.). 
Therefore urban planners as well as farmers and foresters are key players.  

Map 1: Proportion in private (left) and public (right) forest ownership in Europe129 

Currently,  there  are  around  16  million  private  and  public  forest  owners  in  Europe.  About 
60%  of  the  forest  area  is  privately  owned  and  40%  is  publicly  owned130.  The  numbers, 
however,  differ  greatly  from  one  country  to  another  due  to  different  historical,  legal  and 
social circumstances that should be considered in logistics.  

Good cooperation is encouraged as landowners should receive support for planting trees.  

129  

130  

Pulla, P., Schuck, A., Verkerk, P. J., Lasserre, B., Marchetti, M. and Green, T. 2013. 
Mapping  the  distribution  of  forest  ownership  in  Europe.  EFI  Technical  Report  88.  92  p. 
Available 
https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-
bank/2018/private_forest_ownership_map_of_europe_april_2013.pdf 
https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication- 
bank/2018/public_forest_ownership_map_of_europe_april_2013.pdf 
https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-bank/2021/K2A%20-
%20Forest%20Question%202.pdf  

at: 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Initiators, intermediaries and landowners may face the following barriers: 

Initiators

Intermediates

Landowners

• Lack of funding and incentives to 

change

• Lack of available space
• Lack of knowledge
• Lack of trust that the trees will be 
planted and grown in the long term
• Lack of resources, both human and 

financial, to ensure continuity

• Lack of funding and lack of initiators
• Lack of available space
• Lack of knowledge
• Lack of seedlings
• Lack of available work force
• Lack of coordination (e.g. challenges 

with distribution of seedlings)

• Cultural barriers and risk  and change 

aversion

• Opportunity costs 
• Lack of knowledge

3.1.4. Nurseries 

Tree planting requires seedlings/saplings, and their availability very much depends on seed 
availability,  on  market  demand,  and  on  meticulous,  long-term  planning.  Planting  native 
species or species that are not regarded as commercially profitable but have environmental 
benefits will require changes on the supply side and incentives to promote and support this 
new approach.  

National  legislation  on  plant  genetic  material  should  be  improved.  The  Commission  is 
carrying  out  a  study  to  look  at  options  to  update  EU  legislation  governing  the  production 
and marketing of plant reproductive material,  as  requested by the Council on the basis of 
Article 241 TFEU. The aim is to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of plant 
genetic material.  

HIGHLIGHTS 

  Approximately 900 million seedlings are produced every year in the EU131.  

  30% more could be produced, provided that seed availability is not hampered132. 

Specific  (and  local)  contracts  with  tree  nurseries133  are  needed  to  provide  the  expected 
quantity of trees, especially species from dry/warm regions that depend on the availability 
of seeds, which in turn might be a challenge.  

The sector is also crucial for the preservation of genetic diversity within and  between tree 
species, which is a key objective. This sector, if not sufficiently developed, can become a 
bottleneck  for  this  initiative,  as  already  happened  in  Italy  where  the  lack  of  seedlings 
hampered the achievement of regional pledges.  

The potential of this initiative to create jobs is very high. Although automation is likely to 
take  over  the  grading  of  plants  over  the  coming  years,  it  is  rather  a  long-term  vision. 
Currently, all plants are graded by hand and any expansion of nurseries requires significant 
increase  in  seasonal  labour.  Conversely,  the  lack  of  work  force  and  full-time  labour  may 
undermine the success of the pledge.  

131  
132  
133  

Initial estimations provided by the European NurseryStock Association.  
Ibid.  
European  associations  of  tree  nurseries:  European  NurseryStock  Association  and  European 
Forestry Nursery Association. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Other  potential  challenges  include  increasing  pests  and  diseases  and  a  lack  of  capital  for 
investment  to  expand  nurseries,  especially  until  the  planting  plans  are  clear  and 
confirmed134. 

3.1.5. Surveyors 

Monitoring  is  what  makes  the  difference  between  tree  planting  and  tree  growing.  It  also 
distinguishes  between  genuine  projects  and  greenwashing.  Monitoring  is  essential  for  the 
credibility of the 3 billion trees commitment.  

In  some  cases,  this  can  be  assessed  directly  by  the  organisation  in  charge  of  planting.  In 
cities,  monitoring  will  be  easy.  However,  the  larger  the  scale,  the  more  difficult  the 
monitoring process. 

Individual  trees  can  be  tracked  by  GPS  coordinates,  which  collect  information  both  on  a 
large  scale  (and  cost  free)  on  the  ground  and  enables  (anyone)  to  go  back  and  check. 
Several projects draw on citizen science, i.e. individual citizens using their cell phones (take 
a picture and transmit the position) to track tree growth.  

Some of the planted trees may not survive. It will be important that the funding for planting 
also covers up to five/ten years of monitoring and the replanting of trees that do not survive. 
Monitoring over the long term should also include forested areas, since many trees will not 
grow due to natural competition or necessary thinning.  

In  any  case,  it  will  be  necessary  to  involve  a  wide  range  of  groups  to  make  a  success  of 
surveying and monitoring. 

3.2. How to plant trees 

3.2.1. Long-term vision 

Long-term vision is necessary in order for the pledge to be meaningful. Tree planters must 
become  tree  growers,  enabling  the  trees  to  survive,  thrive  and  reach  maturity.  The 
pledge, implicitly, is not only about planting but also about nurturing, which requires long-
term planning and funding. It  is  important  for the monitoring not  to  be restricted to  the 
planted species, but to extend to the whole area in order to take action where necessary to 
ensure the long-term development of the planted trees. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

  Figure  8  shows  how  regular  replanting  of  urban  trees  before they  reach  10  years  of age 
will not provide more than 20% of their potential value  – so it is better to plant one tree 
well than to plant 5 trees poorly135 (y-axis represents years).             

134  

There are many challenges related to the type of material recommended in different regions and 
biotypes,  and  how  more  seeds  can  be  harvested  and  nurseries  can  provide  the  plants  needed. 
Many of these challenges will be covered in the results of the activities carried out as part of the 
upcoming work in the project HORIZON-CL6-2021-BIODIV-01-15: Protection and sustainable 
management  of  forest  genetic  resources  of  high  interest  for  biodiversity,  climate  change 
adaptation, and forest reproductive materials. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 8: Value of tree benefits over the years 

  The survival of planted trees136 depends on many factors, such as the planting method, the 
selected species, the soil chemistry and microbial biomass, the weather, management and 
follow-up. The survival rate can vary from 20%-100%137.  

  For the most common species in the EU, assuming standard methods and a correct follow-

up, the survival rate in forests is estimated to be 13%-55%138.  

 

In urban areas, the survival rate of planted trees is on average 54%139.  

  This  implies  that,  without  the  right  follow-up  or  maintenance,  more  trees  need  to  be 

planted in order to achieve the target of 3 billion additional trees by 2030. 

  The  survival  rate  should  be  assessed,  especially  when  running  planting  operations  on 
degraded  land.  Improved  shrub  and  tree  seedling  survival  was  achieved  even  in  drier 
climatic  conditions  by  using  the  low-cost,  water  efficient  ‘cocoon’  system  developed  as 
part of the LIFE09 ENV/ES/000447 (Green Deserts) and LIFE15 CCA/ES/000125 (Green 
Link) projects. 

135  

136  

https://www.treeconomics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GBU_Street-Tree-Cost-Benefit-
Analysis-2018.pdf p.8. 
LIFE monitoring report from two projects in Spain dating back to 2007 and 2012, in particular 
LIFE07 NAT/E/000735 and LIFE12 NAT/ES/000192. 
LIFE07 purchased 90 ha forest and planted 15 000 chestnut and cherry trees; LIFE12 23.9 ha, 
17  abandoned  plots  and  95,000  seedlings  were  planted.  16 953  autochthonous  fruit  trees  of 
different species were planted on 23.9 ha in 17 abandoned agricultural plots acquired within the 
framework  of  the  project on  the  southern  side  of  the  inter-population  corridor.  In  this  project, 
78 289 native trees and shrubs were also planted in public utility forests or expropriated areas. 
Thus in total almost 100 000 trees and shrubs were planted. The survival rate in some cases is as 
low as 40-50% but in most situations it reached 80%. 

137   Dūmiņš,  Kārlis  and  D.  Lazdiņa,  Forest  regeneration  quality  –  factors  affecting  first  year 
survival  of  planted  trees,  Conference  Research  for  Rural  Development,  2018,  p.57. 
doi:10.22616/rrd.24.2018.008.  

138   Gary Kerr, Hamish Mackintosh, Long-Term Survival of Saplings during the Transformation to 

Continuous Cover, Forests 2012, 3, p.792. doi:10.3390/f3030787. 

139   David  N  Skinner,  Planting  Success  Rates-Standard  Trees,  Arboriculture  Research  Note  66,  
https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/files/4e/4e5f2a54-f016-408a-b520-

1986, 
1b965f175924.pdf  

p.3 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
 
To  maximise  the  chances  of  survival  for  a  planted  tree,  it  is  crucial  to  involve  local 
communities and to work with the private sector. Planting should also be in line with local 
management  plans  that  specify  the  needs,  the  planting  actions  to  take,  the  financing  and 
including relevant constraints (e.g. factoring in social and environmental issues; landscape 
preservation and stakeholder consultation).  

As a general rule, but especially for forest plantations, it is important to carry out tree care 
work in the early years of the trees' life to limit competition from other species. This work is 
indispensable  and  must  be  included  (and  funded)  in  the  early  stages  of  projects.  There  is 
also  a  need  to  strengthen  and  support  training  for  public  and  private-sector  bodies. 
Technical  support  could  be  provided  through  agricultural  and  forestry  advisory  bodies  as 
well as by dedicated structures in urban areas e.g. city green department. This work should 
be in line with the Commission’s role and enabling mechanisms in the pledge initiative (see 
Section 2).  

3.2.2. Natural expansion 

Natural  expansion  and  tree  regeneration  are  natural  processes,  but  providing  support  and 
enhancement  by  creating  suitable  conditions  for  these  processes  to  take  place  may  be  an 
economically attractive nature-based solution. Natural regeneration alone does not count as 
(active) planting, but nature can be the ‘planter’ if we create or enable the right conditions. 

Therefore, although the pledge does take an active approach, this could  be complemented 
by  encouraging  tree  growth  from  assisted  natural  regeneration,  when  it  is  possible  to 
demonstrate that seed establishment and growth are a consequence of human-mediation or 
facilitation140, going beyond the business-as-usual scenario. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

  The  SPONFOREST  Project141  assessed  how  spontaneous  forests  establish  and  what 
characteristics they show. According to the findings of this project, spontaneously established 
forest  expansion  in  Europe  (which  has  seen  an  increase  of  17  million  ha  over  the  past  25 
years) could represent a significant share of the EU’s forest cover by 2100. 

 

In 2015142, about 63% of the total forest area in the EU originated from natural regeneration 
or  natural  expansion,  33%  from  afforestation  and  regeneration  by  planting  and/or  seeding, 
and 4% from coppice sprouting. 

  Table 4: Forest area by stand origin types, by region, 2015143 

140  
141  
142  
143  

http://www.fao.org/3/ca4191en/CA4191EN.pdf 
https://agrar.uni-hohenheim.de/organisation/projekt/era-net-biodiversa-project-sponforest  
https://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2020/ p.114. 
Ibid. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  The  proportion  of  natural  regeneration  and  expansion  is  slightly  increasing  in  all  European 

regions, except in north Europe, where regeneration by planting is most common144. 

The advantages of spontaneous forests are manifold. Part of the natural ecosystem dynamic, 
new  forests  can  quickly  and  efficiently  accumulate  biodiversity  (tree  genetic  diversity, 
insects, endophytes, small mammals, birds); they imply genetic recombination, and this can 
catalyse  adaptation  to  climate  change  (spontaneous  forests  have  genetic  selection  and 
adaptation built-in). At the same time, spontaneous forests might, under certain conditions, 
be negatively perceived or give rise to new threats (e.g. fires) that need to be assessed.  

3.3. Where to plant trees 

Land is a finite resource and subject to competition for use. Therefore, the land chosen for 
planting  must  be  suitable.  The  conversion  of  land  with  a  high-value  for  climate  or 
biodiversity must be avoided, as should pressure on agricultural land, except in the case of 
agroforestry, where trees are part of the production system. 

Another  important  issue  is  ensuring  connectivity  benefits;  afforestation  should  be  carried 
out at landscape level in order to strengthen connectivity with natural or semi-natural areas 
(forests, agricultural landscape). Land planning is also essential for the proper functioning 
of forest, agroforestry and urban forest ecosystems to connect habitats in space and time, in 
particular through green infrastructure and ecological corridors. Forest aesthetics are often 
neglected  in  policy  and  legislation,  but  this  too has  a  high  cultural  and  spiritual  value  for 
citizens and in passing their inheritance to future generations. 

With  these  issues  in  mind,  it  is  important  to  set  up  good  governance  that  enables  close 
collaboration between the public and the authorities at various levels of the administration 
and government (e.g. local, municipality, agglomeration, regional and national level). 

HIGHLIGHTS 

  A  study  carried  out  in  2020  for  DG  Environment145  estimated  the  total  potential  for  tree 
restoration in the EU (restoration denoting additional trees planted or naturally regenerated 

144  
145  

https://foresteurope.org/state-europes-forests-2020/ p.114. 
Bastin,  J.F.,  de  Haulleville,  T.,  Maniatis,  D.,  Marchi,  G.,  Massaccesi,  E.,  Mollicone,  D., 
Pregagnoli  ,  C.,  ‘Tree  restoration  potential  in  the  European  Union’,  2020  p.60.  In  FISE, 
available  at:  https://forest.eea.europa.eu/data/connectors/eu-tree-restoration-in-european-union-
en.pdf/@@download/file 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                           
and  adult  trees,  meaning  trees  with  a  diameter  at  chest  height  of  at  least  10 cm)  to  be  59 
million ha, corresponding to 36 billion trees.  

  8  million  ha  consist  of  abandoned  land,  corresponding  to  about  6  billion  trees.  Up  to  4.8 
million ha of agricultural land could effectively become abandoned over the period 2015 to 
2030146. 

  Figure 9: The 10 golden rules for successful restoration147 

Irrespective  of  these  estimates  (which  should  be  further  developed),  and  factoring  in  the 
potential of agroforestry and urban/peri-urban areas, it can be concluded that overall the 
EU has sufficient land to fulfil the 3 billion trees pledge. The main question is rather to 
choose  the  land  that  is  suitable  to  support  trees  and  whether  it  is  ecologically 

146  

Carolina Perpiña Castillo, Chris Jacobs-Crisioni, Vasco Diogo, Carlo Lavalle (2021) Modelling 
agricultural  land  abandonment  in  a  fine  spatial  resolution  multi-level  land-use  model:  An 
Software,Volume 
application 
136,104946,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104946. 

Environmental  Modelling  & 

EU, 

the 

for 

147   Alice Di Sacco, Kate  A.  Hardwick, David Blakesley, Pedro H. S.  Brancalion, Elinor Breman, 
Loic Cecilio Rebola, Susan Chomba, Kingsley Dixon, Stephen Elliott, Godfrey Ruyonga, Kirsty 
Shaw,  Paul  Smith,  Rhian  J.  Smith,  Alexandre  Antonelli  (2021)  Ten  golden  rules  for 
reforestation  to  optimize  carbon  sequestration,  biodiversity  recovery  and  livelihood  benefits. 
Global Change Biology Volume27, Issue7. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
meaningful.  Wetlands,  peatlands,  permanent  grassland,  high  carbon  or  biodiversity  land 
should be avoided. Albedo effect should also be taken into consideration, where relevant. 

Concerning  carbon  stocks,  afforestation  on  former  cropland  leads  to  an  increase  in  soil 
organic  carbon,  thus  contributing  to  carbon  sequestration.  However,  afforestation  on 
pastures  and  natural  grasslands  lead  to  no  significant  changes  identified  in  soil  organic 
carbon,  so  these  areas  should  be  avoided.  Furthermore,  the  species  of  tree  chosen  is 
important, with broadleaved forests generating the highest soil organic carbon increase and 
coniferous forests resulting in the same soil organic carbon as the former land use148. 

3.3.1. A healthy tree needs the right soil 

The soil and the tree work very closely together in tandem: they feed on each other, adapt to 
each other and in some cases suffer together. For the tree to grow old and healthy, it needs a 
healthy soil. Therefore, the soil properties must be carefully analysed in order to select the 
tree  species  with  the  highest  chances  of  surviving,  and/or  for  preparing  the  right  soil 
conditions for the target species.  

To ensure seeds germinate and/or seedlings survive, the following soil characteristics must 
be  assessed  and/or  improved  according  to  each  species’  requirements:  soil  oxygen, 
nutrients,  organic  matter,  pH,  moisture  capacity,  available  root-able  soil  volume  and  the 
degree of compactness. Some of the most important nutrients for tree growth are Nitrogen, 
Phosphorus,  Potassium  and  Calcium.  Soil  organic  carbon  is  used  as  an  indicator  of 
biological  activity  in  soil.  Earthworm  species  abundance  and  composition  is  also  an 
indicator of soil quality149. 

Trees generally require non-compacted, well aerated and moist soil with good drainage. To 
thrive,  tree  roots  need  to  obtain  all  essential  elements  from  the  soil  that  they  require  for 
healthy  growth  and  for  nutrient  uptake  and  resilience,  root-associated  fungi  inoculation  is 
recommended.  These  soil  conditions  are  often  unavailable  in  urban  areas  and  should  be 
improved. 

As  an  example  of  the  circular  economy,  municipal  bio-waste  compost  can  be  used  to 
improve the soil for urban trees150. 

3.3.2. Trees as parts of forests 

This  category  includes  trees  in  forest  restoration  schemes  and  in  the  regeneration  of 
degraded forests, rather than trees planted in new forests. The effect is the same: growing 
new  trees.  However,  the  trees  planted  in  this  category  will  only  count  for  the  3  billion 
pledge  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  trees  are  additional  to  those  that  would  have  grown 
anyway. 

148  

149  
150  

Laganière,  J.,  Angers,  D.A.,  Paré,  D.,  2010.  Carbon  accumulation  in  agricultural  soils  after 
afforestation: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 16, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2009.01930.x  
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-14636-7_16  
https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/planting-trees-correctly/ 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.3.3. Trees in agricultural areas 

The  potential  in  agricultural  target  areas  is  in  agroforestry  and  silvopastures,  and  in 
landscape  features.  The  3  billion  additional  trees  target  is  thus  complementary  with  the 
target for high biodiversity landscape features. Abandoned land, estimated at 4.8 million ha 
by 2030 in the EU151, also has tree planting potential, if it is not land that is already home to 
high levels of biodiversity.  

3.3.4. Trees in cities 
These are trees in urban and peri-urban areas152: street trees, trees in parks and open spaces, 
trees  on  private  property  and  in  green  buildings.  Green  roofs  and  urban  gardens  together 
with  initiatives  to  replace  tiles  with  plants,  bushes  and  trees153  also  play  a  growing  and 
important role in greening the cities. Although the pledge is about trees, it could also be a 
stimulus  to  create  other  types  of  green  areas,  such  as  the  smaller  plant/grass  species 
typically used in green roofs.  

3.3.5. Trees along infrastructures  

Mindful of the necessary safety precautions, trees can be integrated in transport and energy 
infrastructure such as median strips between roads and pavements, along the roads or train 
lines,  canal  banks  to  further  sequester  carbon,  reduce  noise  and  help  curb  the  negative 
effects of air pollution, while also providing shade and habitat heterogeneity. 

If safety concerns allow, trees can be incorporated in infrastructure projects. For example, 
green bridges or tunnels (eco ducts), also known as wildlife crossings, (re)connect habitats, 
reduce  damage  on  habitat  fragmentation  and  allow  wildlife  to  move  while  enhancing  the 
possibility  of  gene  migration154.  These  crossings  are  important  for  reducing  collisions 
between vehicles and animals, thus reducing property damage, injuries and saving lives155 . 

Overall, studies show that planting trees to create greenways along transport infrastructure 
edges act  as a barrier for population  exposure to pollutants, they have aesthetic value and 
play  a  positive  role  in  increasing  biodiversity.  There  are  also  downsides  associated  with 
roadside  vegetation  such  as  reduced  visibility  for  drivers,  increased  water  demand  or 
possible debris156. 

3.3.6. Do not plant in …  

Trees should not be planted in areas rich in biodiversity such as high nature value farmlands 
or  landscapes.  Mires,  bogs,  fens,  wetlands,  peatlands,  grassland  should  not  be 
transformed  into  forests.  Planting  trees  in  habitats  that  are  classified  as  threatened  on  the 

151  

152  
153  

154  
155  

156  

Perpiña  Castillo,  C.,  Jacobs-Crisioni,C.,  Diogo,  V.,  Lavalle,  C.  2021.  Modelling  agricultural 
land abandonment in a fine spatial resolution multi-level land-use model: An application for the 
EU,  Environmental  Modelling  &  Software,  Volume  136,  2021,  104946,  ISSN  1364-8152, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104946. 
http://www.fao.org/zhc/detail-events/en/c/454543/  
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-01-05/how-dutch-cities-are-creating-more-
green-space  
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2013.1705  
 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/wildlife-overpasses-underpasses-make-
animals-people-safer  
https://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/27895 
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2013_mcpherson006_baldauf.pdf 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
European Red List of Habitats should be avoided unless action is taken for the purpose of 
habitat  restoration.  Planting  trees  in  habitats  that  are  home  to  relict  or  endemic  species 
should be carried out with caution after a careful assessment and only with native species. 

Any  process  that  involves  substantial  ground  disturbance  could  potentially  damage 
archaeological  remains  buried  near 
identified  for 
archaeological conservation should be ploughed, ripped or scarified to enable tree planting. 
Forestry and archaeology guidelines should then be  developed, in consultation with a wide 
range of interested parties, to outline best practice for forest managers and operators158. 

the  surface157.  Thus,  no  area 

Trees should not be planted in areas that are a vital component for completing the life cycle 
of a threatened species (e.g. migration routes, breeding grounds, hibernation quarters) if this 
will have a negative impact on the species. Similarly, trees should not be planted in areas 
where their growth could contribute to local species’ extinctions.  

Afforestation of primary, ancient grassland ecosystems have destructive effects similar to 
deforestation. Similarly, closed-canopy forest is not suited for semi-natural grasslands and 
anthropogenic heathlands whose local biodiversity is adapted to open spaces159. 

3.4. Which trees to plant 

3.4.1. Right species 

Although this section touches upon the principle of the right tree, at the right place with the 
right purpose, the information is not exhaustive and more detailed guidelines (as indicated 
in the sections above) are to be developed and disseminated. Each tree species has its own 
requirements  in  terms  of  soil  type,  pH,  climate,  water,  etc.  Therefore,  understanding  and 
working  with  the  environmental  specifics  of  each  tree  species  is  crucial  in  the  decision-
making  process.  The  choices  of  tree  species,  location  and  purpose/functionality  must  be 
thoroughly considered. 

Informed decisions must be made when choosing the right tree species for planting160. The 
following are examples of species that are not right (invasive, etc.) for planting schemes.  

  The  genus  to  which  the  Princess  tree  (Paulownia  tomentosa)161  belongs  is 
considered invasive  as  it grows  rapidly (in disturbed natural  areas)  and shades out 
and outcompetes native plant species for resources.  

157  

158  
159  

https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/historic-environment-
resources/archaeological-preservation-during-woodland-expansion/archaeology-and-new-
woodland-establishment/ 
https://www.forestryfocus.ie/social-environmental-aspects/cultural-heritage/archaeology/ 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7120db75-6118-11eb-8146-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-188533857 

160   We 

recommend 

consulting 

databases 

(such 

as 

http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=440) 

161   Anjozian,  Lisa-Natalie,  "Nature  in  a  Name:  Paulownia  tomentosa—Exotic  Tree,  Native 

Problem" (2010), JFSP Briefs. 32. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/jfspbriefs/32  
See 
European 
https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/easin 

Species 

EASIN 

Alien 

also 

- 

Information 

Network: 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  The  black  locust  (Robinia  pseudoacacia)  is  also  an  invasive  species  that  expands 
aggressively in disturbed areas, modifying soil chemistry and outcompeting natural 
vegetation for resources such as pollinators162.  

  Planting eucalyptus trees in the proximity of agricultural crops will have a negative 
impact  on  crop  yield  due  to  released  allelochemicals  that  interfere  with  the 
establishment of native plant species, also causing soil degradation and biodiversity 
loss163.  Eucalyptus  foliage  also  releases  highly  flammable  volatile  oils  that  may 
enhance  fire  behaviour.  A  2012  study164  shows  that  eucalyptus  stands  present  the 
highest fire proneness followed by softwoods (i.e. pine species). 

3.4.1.1.  Conservation of forest genetic resources in the EU and neighbouring regions 

This  aspect  is  key  to  ensure  that  the  EU  has  a  wide-enough  source  of  high-quality  seed 
collection adapted to new climatic conditions. 

The key to resilient ecosystems in the context of climate change is planting and growing a 
diverse range of trees with diverse genetic constituents that allow for natural selection of the 
most suitable individual. To achieve this, mixed-species forest plantations are much better 
suited than single-specie plantations. The right tree species requires the right seed source. It 
is  important  to  ensure  quality  seeds  are  available  in  the  quantities  needed,  hence  the 
conservation of key forest areas for forest genetic resources is essential.  

3.4.1.2.   Projecting range of major tree species in Europe 

Several studies project global warming to shift the boundaries of vegetation zones and tree 
ranges  northwards  and  upwards165.  Considering  these  shifts  already  today  is  important  in 
order  to  select  and  plant  tree  species  and  ecotypes  that  are  suited  for,  and  will  withstand, 
expected future climatic conditions.  

Figure 10 illustrates this point by showing, based on a modelling study, the climate induced 
shifts  in  potential  tree  ranges  which  may  occur  under  a  moderate  warming  scenario  by 
2100.  Under  this  scenario,  Norway  spruce  would  be  restricted  by  2100  to  the  higher 
elevations in central Europe and to areas in northern Sweden, Finland and Norway, losing 
its ranges to more drought-adapted species such as oaks. For broadleaves such as oak and 
beech,  the  model  projected  a  range  shift  from  today’s  ranges  in  Western  Europe  (France, 
Netherlands,  Germany)  and  the  lower  elevations  in  central  and  Eastern  Europe  more  to 
Central, Northern and North Eastern Europe. 

162  
163  

https://ias.biodiversity.be/species/show/15  
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112714001492 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223206745_Allelopathic_effects_of_eucalyptus_and_t
he_establishment_of_mixed_stands_of_eucalyptus_and_native_species 

164   Garcia-Gonzalo et al, 2012, Modelling wildfire risk in pure and mixed forest stands in Portugal. 

165  

Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 2012 Vol.183 No.11/12 pp.238-248 ref.49. 
See for instance: T. Hickler et al. (2012) Projecting the future distribution of European potential 
natural  vegetation  zones  with  a  generalised,  tree  species-based  dynamic  vegetation  model.  In: 
Global  Ecology  and  Biogeography,  21,  50–63  /  Samuel  Hoffmann,  Severin  D.  H.  Irl  &  Carl 
Beierkuhnlein  (2019)  Predicted  climate  shifts  within  terrestrial  protected  areas  worldwide. 
Nature Communications vol 10 N° 4787 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 10: Potential range of major tree species in Europe under a moderate warming scenario in 

Climate normal period 1950–2000 

Moderate warming scenario 2070–2100 

2070-2100 (right) compared to the 1950–2000 period (left)166 

3.4.2. Right mix of tree species and their benefits 

Multifunctionality. The right tree for the right purpose: good for climate and biodiversity. 
The  initiative  must  deliver  results  for  both  policy  agendas  –  action  on  climate  change 
adaptation and mitigation and ensuring the good conservation status of habitat and species 
as well as the maintenance of typical habitat species. Some trees can be both very good for 
climate,  biodiversity  and  provide  economic  benefits  (e.g.  agroforestry).  Monocultures  for 
commercial  purposes  should  not  count  towards  the  pledge.  The  use  of  non-native  species 
should also be excluded, unless it can be demonstrated that:  

i. 

ii. 

the  use  of  the  forest  reproductive  material  leads  to  favourable  and  appropriate 
ecosystem conditions (such as climate, soil criteria, and vegetation zone, forest fire 
resilience);  
the  native  species  currently  present  on  the  site  are  no  longer  adapted  to  projected 
climatic  and  pedo-hydrological  conditions.  For  non-native  species,  preference 
should be given to species from the same or adjacent biogeographic region.  

Listed invasive alien species should never be used. 

HIGHLIGHTS  

  Habitat  heterogeneity,  including  trees  as  landscape  features,  supports  significantly  more 

native biodiversity than monocultures. 

166  

Source: Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D., Schelhaas, MJ. et al. Climate change may cause severe 
loss  in  the  economic  value  of  European  forest  land.  Nature  Clim  Change3,  203–207  (2013). 
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1687  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
   
 
Figure 8: Linkages between habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity167  

  Replacing  monocultures  with  mixed-species  stands.  Ecosystem  service  implications  of 

two commercial forest alternatives in Sweden. RR stands for reduced risk. 

Figure  12:  Spruce  monocultures  vs.  spruce-birch  mixtures:  positive  and  negative 
outcomes168 

For forest restoration or large-scale abandoned-land afforestation, it is essential to establish 
the  type  of  silviculture  from  the  start.  Closer-to-nature  forest  management  should  be 
encouraged.  

167  
168  

Bundesamt, F.U., & Landschaft, W. U. Umwelt in der Schweiz 1997. Berna, Buwal. 
Felton, A., Nilsson, U., Sonesson, J. et al. (2016). Replacing monocultures with mixed-species 
stands: Ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. Ambio 
45, 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0749-2 

46 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS  

The EU pledge to plant 3 billion additional trees by 2030 fits in the global context, where 
several  initiatives  have  been  launched  to  afforest  and/or  restore  several  hundred  million 
hectares of deforested and degraded land, such as: 

  The Bonn Challenge, which plans to restore 350 million hectares by 2030. 
  The FAO’s Forest Landscape Restoration Mechanism. 

Several related initiatives contribute to the Bonn Challenge: 
  The New York Declaration on Forests, which aims to restore 150 million hectares of 
degraded landscapes and forestlands by 2020 and significantly increase the rate of 
global restoration thereafter. 

  The  African  Forest  Landscape  Restoration  Initiative  (AFR  100),  an  effort  to  bring 

100 million hectares of land in Africa into restoration by 2030. 

  The 20x20 initiative: is a country-led effort that aims to change the dynamics of land 
degradation in Latin America and the Caribbean by bringing 20 million hectares of 
land into restoration by 2020.  

  The  Great  Green  Wall:  with  the  ambition  of  restoring  100  million  hectares  of 

currently degraded land by 2030. 

  The Trillion Tree Platform of the World Economic Forum (1t.org). 

All these initiatives169 are an integral part of the broader policy agenda for sustainable 
development, biodiversity and climate-proofing. 

The Commission will continue strengthening cooperation on policies and actions as part 
of  current  initiatives  underway  on  afforestation,  forest  and  land  restoration  at 
international  level,  including  with  the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organisation,  in  order  to 
share best practice and to participate in global action on forest and land restoration.  

169  

For more international tree planting pledges and initiatives, see Annex 3. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 1: COST ESTIMATES FOR TREE PLANTING 

Calculations  in  this  annex  estimate  the  costs  for  planting  3  billion  trees  by  artificial 
regeneration  (afforestation).  Cost  estimates  for  soil  preparation,  planting  and  maintenance 
costs  for  the  first  15-20  years  are  based  on  an  existing  study170,  scaled  to  all  EU  Member 
States. Estimations were made for a density of 1 500 trees per hectare, requiring two Mio ha 
of land, with a price of 0.52 EUR/seedling. Costs correspond to year 2020, and assumptions 
on  the  species  or  leaf  type,  biogeographic  conditions  or  local  circumstances  were  not 
included. 

In practice, costs estimates may vary widely and depend on site conditions such as terrain and 
access,  water  availability,  appropriate  species  selection,  soil  conditions  and  means  for 
preparation and maintenance. The estimates shown in the following tables are approximations 
where conditions for planting and tree growth are good. These cost estimates are lower than 
EU average costs of 4 000 EUR/ha under the CAP171. Under specific circumstances cost can 
increase up to and even beyond 10 000 EUR/ha172. 

Member State 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czechia 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 

Soil 
preparation
173  
[EUR] 
650 
512 
455 
493 
650 
447 
463 
400 
499 
564 
526 
612 
439 
536 
659 
409 
387 
510 

Minimum  
for planting 
& thinning174 
[EUR] 
1 016 
1 080 
382 
575 
687 
575 
998 
571 
1 067 
1 019 
940 
680 
487 
808 
862 
561 
505 
1 064 

Maximum 
for planting 
& thinning175 
[EUR] 
2 084 
1 483 
537 
809 
1 321 
809 
1 366 
782 
1 501 
2 093 
1 929 
1 396 
667 
1 139 
1 770 
768 
691 
1 498 

Total 
average 
minimum, 
[Euro/ha] 
2 446 
2 373 
1 618 
1 849 
2 118 
1 802 
2 242 
1 752 
2 346 
2 364 
2 246 
2 072 
1 707 
2 124 
2 301 
1 751 
1 673 
2 355 

Total 
average 
maximum, 
[Euro/ha] 
3 514 
2 775 
1 773 
2 083 
2 752 
2 036 
2 610 
1 962 
2 780 
3 437 
3 235 
2 789 
1 887 
2 455 
3 209 
1 957 
1 859 
2 789 

171  

170   Di Fulvio, F., Forsell, N., Lindroos, O., Korosuo, A., Gusti, M. Spatially explicit assessment of 
roundwood and logging residues availability and costs for the EU28 (2016) 31 (7), pp. 691-707. 
SWD(2019) 389 final. Planned area 569,234ha for a total public expenditure of EUR 2,263 Mio 
for M8.1 afforestation/creation of woodland in the period 2014-2020. 
study-forestry-measures-ruraldev_sept2017_en.pdf (europa.eu), Table 37 
Soil preparation for afforestation: the ground ripping before planting. Di Fulvio, 2021, personal 
communication.  
Planting + 1 soil fine cleaning + 1 pre-commercial thinning. 
Planting + 2 soil fine cleanings + 2 pre-commercial thinnings. 

174  
175  

172  
173  

48 

 
 
 
                                                           
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 

463 
421 
497 
463 
470 
566 
528 
527 

988 
453 
579 
398 
563 
682 
722 
1 248 

1 350 
637 
816 
816 
792 
1 400 
1 483 
1 757 

781 
2 232 
1 654 
1 856 
1 642 
1 814 
2 029 
2 031 
2 555 

781 
2 594 
1 838 
2 093 
2 060 
2 043 
2 747 
2 791 
3 064 

The LULUCF Reference scenario176 for the period 2020 to 2030 served as business-as-usual, 
on top of which an additional land conversion to forest land was modelled. The table below 
shows  the  Member  States’  specific  potential  for  this  land  conversion  to  meet  the  EU-wide 
area  of  2  million  hectares  of  additional  forest  land  by  2030.  The  model  could  not  allocate 
additional  forest  land  in  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland  and  Portugal.  The 
overall cost estimates were calculated by the per hectare costs from the table above and a flat 
rate of 4,000 EUR/ha. 

Member State 

Area 
[ha] 

Average min 
[EURO] 

Average max 
[EURO] 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 

103 253 
23 434 
102 583 
0 
0 
16 166 
18 038 
13 394 
163 720 
810 194 
83 884 
5 899 
45 597 
28 711 
99 515 
15 556 
25 776 
0 
0 
11 532 
0 
0 
54 762 

252 571 727 
55 615 882 
165 935 335 
0 
0 
29 127 874 
40 443 561 
23 464 337 
384 121 049 
1 915 226 193 
188 428 434 
12 224 916 
77 838 466 
60 996 299 
229 029 134 
27 236 419 
43 115 899 
0 
0 
25 736 228 
0 
0 
89 893 389 

362 851 488 
65 041 202 
181 869 385 
0 
0 
32 915 123 
47 079 205 
26 282 280 
455 210 583 
2 784 936 780 
271 397 754 
16 449 847 
86 025 744 
70 496 988 
319 383 374 
30 450 101 
47 910 870 
0 
0 
29 918 222 
0 
0 
112 802 552 

Average for   
4 000 Euro/ha 
[EURO] 
413 012 446 
93 736 828 
410 330 811 
0 
0 
64 663 318 
72 152 263 
53 576 019 
654 878 093 
3 240 777 437 
335 537 657 
23 595 049 
182 388 181 
114 843 587 
398 059 741 
62 225 771 
103 102 177 
0 
0 
46 128 187 
0 
0 
219 049 531 

176  

The  LULUCF  Reference  scenario  is  based  on  GLOBIOM  and  G4M.  See  also:  EU  Reference 
Scenario 2020 publication. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
EU-27 

6 906 
16 107 
87 524 
267 449 
2 000 000 

12 528 850 
32 677 101 
177 746 197 
683 448 081 
4 527 405 372 

14 107 924 
44 248 828 
244 289 008 
819 572 607 
6 063 239 867 

27 622 316 
64 428 490 
350 097 746 
1 069 794 351 
8 000 000 000 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: EXISTING PLEDGES AND ORGANISATIONS ACTIVE IN TREE PLANTING IN THE EU 

Not  all  of  the  pledges  and  organisations  listed  below  necessarily  meet  at  this  stage  the 
criteria  needed  to  qualify  for  the  3  billion  trees  pledge.  They  are  given  as  examples  for 
inspiration, but not all necessarily as practices that to be followed in the light of the pledge.  

A pledge and/or organisation 
active in tree planting 

Targeted numbers 

Location 

LIFE TERRA 

500 million trees by 2025 

1 tree per inhabitant project 
in Czechia 

ForestaMI  
Lurgaia Fundazioa 
Foundation 

10 million trees within 5 years   

3 million trees by 2030 – project 
Creating a new 153 ha of mixed oak 
grove forest in Basque Country 

Bosteller  

KilometroVerdeParma  

Reforest'Action 

10 000 hectares of additional forest 
by 2030 

200 000 trees by 2030 
No specific targets, organisation is 
actively involved in tree planting 
action 

'Yes we plant' tree planting 
project  

1 million trees 

Reforest Mallorca project  

40 000 trees in two years  

The City of Copenhagen tree 
policy and respective actions 

100 000 trees by 2025 

 “One more tree” project 

60 million trees by 2030  

Political target by the mayor 
to green the city of Paris 

Political target by the mayor 
to plant trees in and around 
urban areas 

Political target to plant trees 
in Bretagne 

Political target to plant trees 
in Bavaria 
Political target to plant trees 
by French Minister of 
Agriculture 

170 000 trees 

10 000 trees  

5 million trees by 2025  

30 million trees political target 

50 million trees  

Across the EU 

Czechia 

Milan (Italy) 

Undabaso, UNESCO 
Biosphere Reserve  of 
Urdaibai, Basque 
Country (Spain) 
Flanders (Belgium) 

Parma (Italy) 

Across the EU and 
beyond 

Wallonia Region 
(Belgium) 

Mallorca (Spain) 

Copenhagen (Denmark) 

Italy 

Paris (France) 

Sankt Pölten (Austria) 

Bretagne (France) 

Bavaria (Germany) 

France  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3: INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVES 
International initiatives177: 

  The Trillion Tree Campaign - Plant-for-the-Planet (NGO): target to plant 1 trillion / 
13.6  billion  trees  to  mitigate  climate  change  and  promote  prosperity  in  the  global 
south.  

  Eden  Reforestation  Program  -  Eden  Reforestation  (NGO):  target  to  plant  ≥500 
million trees per year by 2025 (since 2004 planted 319 million) in order to provide 
fair  wage  employment  to  impoverished  villagers  as  agents  of  global  forest 
restoration. 

  WeForest Forest and Landscape Restoration Program - WeForest (NGO): no target 
stated,  but  aimed  to  plant  23  million  trees  from  2009-2019  to  mitigate  climate 
change,  conserve  and  restore  biodiversity,  and  generate 
local 
communities. 

income  for 

  OneTreePlanted (NGO): no target stated, but aimed to plant 2.5 million trees from 
2014  to  2018  in  order  to  improve  the  climate,  protect  biodiversity,  watershed 
protection, forest management, and achieve other associated benefits. 

  Team  Trees  –  YouTuber  Jimmy  Donaldson  in  collaboration  with  the  Arbor  Day 

Foundation: target to plant 21.8 million trees.  

  One Billion Trees Programme - New Zealand Government: 1 billion trees targeted 
by 2028 (already planted 149 million) to transform New Zealand's forests in a way 
that improves the environment, social outcomes, and economic performance in the 
region. 

  Green  Legacy  Program  -  Ethiopia  Government:  target  to  plant  4  billion  trees  to 

increase forest cover in the country. 

177   All  of  the  other  initiatives  were  taken  from  Supplementary  Materials  for  the  article  on  Tree 
the  Supplementary  Materials: 
solution.  Link 

planting 
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2020/05/06/368.6491.580.DC1/aba8232_Holl_
SM.pdf . To the article itself:Tree planting is not a simple solution | Science (sciencemag.org) 

simple 

not 

to 

is 

a 

52