– Quarratul Ain Ifrah
Every year, the Plant The Future campaign is held on the school grounds. The debris and weeds of last year’s campaign are cleared, and a new set of saplings are planted by the chief guests and the headmaster—students, teachers, and cameras all cheer aloud. The bright green banner hangs on the school walls for a month. The saplings live for a week.
Plantation campaigns very similar to this take place all over the country and the world. Huge events, rallies, and social media trends are set up. But despite their spirited intentions, they all meet the same sad end.
New habits, however, do arise. As trees, plantations, or the environment gain more public attention, business companies use it as a form of marketization. They advertise, “We plant a tree for every purchase!” while continuing to emit toxic waste and use harmful chemicals in their products. Politicians plant for publicity during election time. Real estate developers plant trees to fulfill environmental clearance requirements or to fill fancy brochures with decorative non-native species. Celebrities are not far behind; and above them all are the huge crore-wise budgets of the governments.
But tokenism is not the only reason why plantation drives fail. Trees need years of watering, pruning, and protection— which they obviously do not receive.
India is one of the largest fundraisers and supporters of plantation projects in the world. The 66 million trees planted in a day in 2017 was the largest ever planned campaign, broken only by Ethiopia in 2019, who planted 350 million trees in a day. Interestingly, both countries gained but little result from the records. The survival rates of planted saplings in some regions of India fall as low as 35%. More than half of the saplings never grow into trees due to lack of maintenance.
If the plantation drives are limited only to planting and not growing trees, how can actual benefits be expected from them? If simultaneous deforestation, use of fuels, fertilizers, and every form of anti-climate activity are being hidden behind the green curtain of soon-to-die saplings, then who are we fooling?
Also, even if such maintenance is provided, a percentage of saplings still continue to die due to the improper climate and unsuitable regions chosen for the given plant. Most campaigns favor eucalyptus or neem trees because they are cheap and quick to plant and grow. They seem to bring faster “success,” but these plants—those that manage to survive—ruin the biodiversity, soil health, and groundwater of the region.
Non-native trees planted in wetlands and grasslands pose a threat to the existing plant species, which are first cleared away to make way for urbanized colonies, and then unscientific efforts are made to “save the environment.” The Prosopis Juliflora or ganda bawal in the grasslands of Kutch invaded 40% of the biodiversity and even affected the wild bee population in the area. Similar afforestation efforts in Ranibennur Wildlife Sanctuary led to the local extinction of the Ardeotis nigriceps, a bird that relied on open grasslands for nesting.
The bottom line, then, is that plantations and afforestation are not about sowing millions of cloned saplings all over the country. It is a science and must be maintained scientifically and sincerely. It is not a publicity stunt, nor a justification for greater environmental harms. If we do not want our healthy environmental spirit to deteriorate, we must turn to more effective means of saving the environment—not the loudest.
The government, NGOs, and other fundraisers must plan their drives with the ecosystem in focus, not their own institution. And once they succeed in doing so, it is the responsibility of the community to tend to and maintain these plants, for a greener and healthier future world.
