Reforestation is often presented as a simple climate solution: plant more trees, absorb more carbon, and help restore damaged ecosystems. In practice, the quality of a reforestation project depends on far more than the number of seedlings planted.

In a recent Net Zero Compare conversation, Karol Kaczmarek spoke with Hank Dearden, Founder and Executive Director of ForestPlanet, a nonprofit organization that supports large-scale reforestation by funding experienced local planting partners. Dearden’s perspective is practical and direct. ForestPlanet does not position itself as a formal carbon-credit developer. Its work is focused on getting trees planted through local organizations that understand the land, the species, the nurseries, and the communities involved.

For businesses, sustainability teams, and ESG leaders, the discussion raised an important point: tree planting can be useful, but only when companies understand what they are funding, what outcomes are realistic, and what environmental claims they can responsibly make.

🎥 Watch the Full Interview: The full Net Zero Compare interview with Hank Dearden provides additional context on how ForestPlanet approaches reforestation, project selection, local partnerships, and corporate participation. The discussion is especially useful for companies considering tree planting as part of a broader sustainability or marketing initiative. Dearden explains why reforestation should not be reduced to a simple tree count, and why local economics, land use, and project design matter. Readers who want more nuance around cost, monitoring, mangrove restoration, and responsible claims can watch the full conversation below.

ForestPlanet’s Model: Funding Local Planting Partners

ForestPlanet was founded in 2017 with a model that differs from a conventional tree-planting contractor. The organization does not try to run every project itself. Instead, it identifies local tree-planting partners that already have the technical knowledge, nurseries, community relationships, and field experience needed to plant at scale.

Dearden described ForestPlanet’s role as connecting funding with groups that already know what they are doing. His background is in engineering, technical sales, marketing, and business development, not forestry science. That has shaped the organization’s approach. ForestPlanet raises awareness and funding, evaluates potential partners, and then supports local organizations that can carry out the actual planting.

The model is intentionally flexible. Rather than choosing countries first, Dearden looks for credible programs. The key question is not whether a project is in one region or another, but whether the local organization has the capacity, track record, nursery infrastructure, and community support to make the planting work.

This is an important distinction for companies evaluating reforestation opportunities. A project should not be assessed only by geography or by the promised number of trees. The practical capacity of the implementing partner matters.

Why Nurseries Matter

One of the recurring themes in the conversation was the importance of nurseries. Dearden emphasized that successful planting usually does not begin with placing seeds directly into open ground. It begins with well-run nurseries that can produce healthy seedlings suited to local conditions.

A nursery determines whether seedlings have a realistic chance of survival after they are moved into the field. Soil mix, species selection, timing, seedling health, and “outplanting” conditions all affect results. In many locations, planting at the beginning of the rainy season can make a major difference.

For businesses, this means a credible reforestation partner should be able to explain where the seedlings come from, how they are grown, how long they remain in the nursery, when they are planted, and why those choices fit the local ecosystem. The nursery is not a minor operational detail. It is one of the foundations of the project.

The Right Trees in the Right Place

Dearden repeatedly returned to a practical principle: tree planting only makes sense when the right trees are planted in the right place, at the right time, and for the right reason. That means the purpose of each project matters. A mangrove restoration project has different objectives from an agroforestry project that provides fruiting trees to smallholder farmers. A hillside restoration project designed to protect water resources has different risks from a coastal project intended to restore marine nursery habitats.

ForestPlanet asks what Dearden calls the practical “so what” question. Why are these trees being planted? What problem are they intended to solve? Who benefits? What local pressures caused the original degradation? What will prevent the same destruction from happening again? This is where many simplistic tree-planting claims fall short. Planting trees is not automatically meaningful if the underlying causes of deforestation remain unchanged.

Local Economics Can Protect the Trees

A major insight from the conversation was that long-term survival often depends on local economic incentives. Dearden argued that ecological restoration and local economic benefit cannot be separated. If local communities benefit from keeping trees alive, the trees have a better chance of surviving. If communities receive no benefit, or if they face immediate economic pressure to cut trees for fuel, land, or income, the project is far more fragile.

ForestPlanet evaluates how projects connect ecological goals with local livelihoods. In one example, Dearden discussed mangrove restoration in fishing communities where fish populations had declined sharply. Mangroves are important because their root systems support marine life, including species at the bottom of the food chain. Restoring mangroves can therefore support both ecological recovery and local fishing livelihoods.

He also described the use of beehives in mature mangrove areas. Honey production can create income for local families, while giving them a direct economic reason to protect the trees. In his view, these are not secondary benefits. They are central to whether the restoration effort will last. For companies, this is a useful due diligence point. A reforestation proposal should clearly explain how local communities and landholders benefit from protecting the trees over time.

Mangrove Restoration and the Role of Carbon Markets

ForestPlanet has supported mangrove planting in Tanzania, where Dearden said hundreds of thousands of trees have already been planted, with the potential for millions more. Mangroves are particularly important because they support coastal ecosystems, help protect shorelines, and can store significant amounts of carbon.

However, Dearden was careful to separate tree planting from formal carbon-credit claims. ForestPlanet’s projects may sequester carbon, but the organization does not currently present its standard model as a rigorous carbon-credit program. It does not promise companies verified carbon credits unless a project goes through the required methodology, registration, monitoring, and verification process.

That distinction matters. Many companies want to support reforestation because of climate benefits, but not every reforestation project is a carbon offset. Funding trees is not the same as purchasing verified carbon credits.

Dearden sees a potential role for carbon developers in scaling some projects, especially where ForestPlanet has already helped demonstrate that local planting can work. In that sense, early philanthropic or corporate funding can help reduce practical risk before larger carbon-finance structures enter the project.

For sustainability teams, the takeaway is clear: ask whether a project is a restoration contribution, a marketing initiative, a community-support project, a biodiversity project, or a verified carbon-credit project. These categories can overlap, but they are not the same.

Survival Rates, Monitoring, and Expectations

One of the main criticisms of corporate tree-planting campaigns is that they often report how many trees were planted without clearly reporting how many survived. Dearden addressed this directly. ForestPlanet’s basic model is low-cost and focused on planting. If a company wants multi-year maintenance, detailed monitoring, or third-party verification, that increases the cost. He was clear that businesses need to understand what they are buying.

At the same time, he argued that well-designed projects can reduce monitoring and maintenance risks because local incentives support survival. For example, farmers who receive productive fruit or coffee trees have a direct interest in keeping them alive. Communities that depend on mangroves for fisheries or honey production have a reason to protect restored areas.

For mangrove projects, Dearden said survival can be strong when seedlings are healthy and planted in the right tidal conditions. He also noted that satellite visibility can become possible after trees reach a certain size, but this is not immediate.

The practical message for businesses is that reporting should match the type of project and the level of funding. Companies should ask what evidence is available, what evidence is not included, and what additional verification would cost.

What Evidence Can Companies Expect?

ForestPlanet can provide companies with information such as project location, species, planting context, field photographs, videos, and site visit evidence. Dearden also discussed the possibility of working with separate in-country verification organizations where appropriate.

However, the level of documentation depends on the project design and budget. A low-cost planting contribution cannot reasonably be expected to include the same level of measurement, reporting, and verification as a formal carbon-credit project.

This is an important point for procurement and ESG teams. If the company needs auditable data for regulatory reporting or formal carbon accounting, it should confirm that the project can provide that level of evidence before committing funds.

If the company’s objective is broader environmental contribution, community support, or brand storytelling, the evidence requirements may be different. But even then, companies should avoid vague claims and should understand the limits of the reporting.

The Cost Per Tree Needs Context

ForestPlanet is known for supporting tree planting at a low average cost per tree. Dearden explained that this is possible partly because many projects operate in developing economies where local labor costs are far lower than in Western markets. He described this as a form of economic arbitrage, where a Western dollar can go much further in the field.

The cost structure also depends on what is included. A low per-tree cost may cover seed collection, nursery work, seedling preparation, and planting. It may not include multi-year care, formal third-party verification, detailed carbon accounting, or extensive field audits.

This does not automatically make a low-cost project weak. It means the buyer must understand the scope. A basic planting model can be efficient, but it should not be confused with a fully monitored restoration program or a verified carbon-credit project.

For companies, the question should not simply be “how much per tree?” A better set of questions would include:

What does the price include?
What does it exclude?
Who plants the trees?
Where do the seedlings come from?
Who owns the land?
Who benefits locally?
What happens if trees fail?
What reporting is available?
What claims can the company responsibly make?

Corporate Claims: Keep Them Simple and Accurate

The discussion became especially practical when it turned to corporate claims. Dearden advised companies to be cautious about using terms such as carbon neutralization, offsetting, climate positive, or even sustainability unless they are prepared to substantiate those claims.

His advice was to keep the message simple. If a company funds tree planting, it can say it helped plant trees, where they were planted, what species were involved, and what local purpose the project supports. It should avoid implying verified carbon impact unless the project has gone through a formal carbon-credit process.

This is highly relevant as regulators, customers, and media increasingly scrutinize environmental claims. Businesses may want to communicate positive action, but broad climate claims can create risk if they are not backed by appropriate evidence. The safest path is to describe the actual activity clearly and avoid overstating the result.

Reforestation Is Not a Substitute for Emissions Reduction

For Net Zero Compare’s audience, one of the central questions is how tree planting fits alongside Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions reduction. Dearden approached this from a marketing and practical implementation perspective rather than a formal carbon accounting perspective. His view was that companies should not confuse a simple tree-planting initiative with the work required to meet formal net-zero or emissions-reduction commitments.

That distinction is important. If a company has made public climate commitments, especially if it is subject to investor, customer, or regulatory scrutiny, it still needs to reduce emissions across its operations and value chain. Tree planting can support broader environmental or community goals, but it should not be treated as a shortcut around decarbonization. For sustainability teams, the practical framing is this: reforestation may be part of a broader sustainability portfolio, but it should sit alongside emissions reduction, not replace it.

A Practical Due Diligence Checklist

Dearden’s advice for companies was grounded in basic supplier evaluation. Businesses should ask the same kinds of questions they would ask before choosing any important partner.

Who is behind the project?
What is their track record?
Where does the money go?
Who owns the land?
Who benefits from the project?
What trees are being planted, and why?
Where are the nurseries?
How are seedlings grown?
What local pressures caused deforestation or degradation?
What prevents the same thing from happening again?
What evidence will the company receive?
What claims can be made responsibly?
What would additional monitoring or verification cost?

The most important warning sign is not necessarily marketing involvement. Dearden’s view is that marketing outcomes can still be credible if real money funds real planting. The problem is when marketing claims outrun the actual project evidence. A credible reforestation partner should be willing to explain both the strengths and limitations of the project.

Conclusion: Tree Planting Can Help, But Credibility Depends on Details

The conversation with Hank Dearden made one point clear: credible reforestation is not just about counting trees. The number of seedlings planted matters, but it is only one part of the story. Businesses also need to understand species selection, nursery quality, land ownership, local incentives, survival conditions, reporting, verification, cost structure, and responsible claims.

For companies, the practical lesson is to be specific. Support projects that can explain why the trees are being planted, who benefits, how the work is carried out, and what evidence is available. Avoid treating tree planting as a verified carbon offset unless the project has gone through the necessary carbon-credit process. And do not use reforestation as a substitute for direct emissions reduction.

Done well, tree planting can support ecosystems, local livelihoods, water resources, biodiversity, and long-term resilience. Done poorly, it can become little more than a marketing number. The difference is in the details.