From Photo Ops to Survival Rates: Activists Push to End ‘Tree Planting Theatre’

Planting a tree for the cameras is easy. Keeping it alive is the hard part—and environmentalists say Kenya has been mistaking the former for climate action.

A growing coalition of conservation groups is now calling for a ban on performative “tree planting days” by politicians, arguing that the spectacles consume public resources while delivering little ecological value. Their demand follows the release of an audit showing that nearly 60 percent of seedlings planted during the last National Tree Planting Day failed to survive, largely due to neglect after the launch events ended.

“We don’t need more ceremonies,” said a Green Belt Movement official familiar with the findings. “We need rangers, water, fencing, and accountability.”

The Audit That Changed the Conversation

According to the audit—compiled from county forestry reports and independent field checks—most seedling deaths were attributed to:

• Lack of post-planting care, including watering and mulching

• Grazing and trampling in unfenced areas

• Poor species-site matching, with seedlings planted in unsuitable soils or seasons

• No clear ownership, leaving trees without custodians once dignitaries departed

In many cases, seedlings were planted during peak dry spells to meet symbolic dates, virtually guaranteeing failure.

“The problem isn’t goodwill,” said an environmental policy analyst. “It’s incentives. Leaders are rewarded for numbers planted, not trees grown.”

‘Tree Planting Theatre’

Critics describe the current model as “tree planting theatre”—high-visibility events designed for headlines and social media, followed by months of silence. Counties report pressure to hit targets tied to events rather than ecosystems, while forestry officers say budgets rarely include maintenance.

Activists argue that this approach misleads the public, inflates national progress figures, and diverts funds from the unglamorous work that actually grows forests.

A Shift to ‘Tree Growing’

In response, conservationists are proposing a “Tree Growing” policy—a framework that would replace planting tallies with survival rates measured over 12–36 months. Under the proposal:

• Leaders would be evaluated on percentage survival, not seedlings planted

• Budgets would prioritise aftercare—watering, fencing, guards, and replacement

• Communities would be contracted as custodians, with performance-based pay

• Species selection would be ecology-first, matched to local conditions

“Digging holes is not conservation,” said the Green Belt Movement official. “Growing trees is.”

Counting What Matters

Kenya has committed to ambitious restoration targets as part of its climate and biodiversity pledges. Experts warn that failing to count survival risks undermining credibility with donors and international partners—and worse, losing time in a narrowing climate window.

“Every dead seedling is lost carbon capture, lost shade, lost habitat,” said a forestry researcher. “If 60 percent are dying, we’re kidding ourselves.”

Political Buy-In—or Pushback?

Some county leaders privately concede the system needs reform but caution that survival metrics demand longer timelines and harder accountability—less compatible with electoral cycles.

Environmentalists counter that climate resilience cannot be governed by photo ops.

“The forest doesn’t care who planted the tree,” said one activist. “It cares whether the tree lives.”

As pressure mounts, the debate is shifting from how many trees were planted to how many are standing. If adopted, the “Tree Growing” approach could mark a decisive turn—away from spectacle and toward stewardship.