Presentation short abstract

An examination of eight major governmental afforestation schemes and programs using three remotely sensed datasets show varied impacts on tree cover in India. Without the combination of the three different datasets, we risk seeing an incomplete picture due to the limitations of datasets considered.

Presentation long abstract

Expanding tree cover outside forests is central to India’s climate and restoration goals, yet the effectiveness of public programs driving these efforts remains uncertain. We examined eight major government schemes aimed at promoting trees on farmlands and other non-forest lands, linking program funding (2013–2019) with observed tree cover change (2017–2023) across three complementary datasets: the Forest Survey of India (FSI), MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields, and the Brandt et al. (2024) high-resolution individual tree maps. Results reveal that world's first official agroforestry policy, the Sub-Mission on Agroforestry (SMAF), is consistently associated with gains in tree cover on agricultural lands. However, several other large programs—including those for afforestation, agricultural development, and compensatory planting—show weak or negative relationships with tree cover outside forests. These patterns suggest that program design and targeting, rather than funding volume alone, determine success. Our findings underscore policy priorities such as better alignment of agricultural and forestry incentives to support on-farm trees, improved transparency in program implementation and monitoring, and greater public access to fine-scale expenditure data to enable evaluation of outcomes. Furthermore, our study reveals the limitations of using only a single remotely sensed dataset to understand the impact of policies, which a combination of datasets reveals in different social contexts and spatial scales. As India and other countries expand tree-planting investments under climate and biodiversity commitments, evidence from this study highlights the need to move from funding inputs to verifying outcomes, ensuring that tree-based interventions contribute effectively to both ecological restoration and rural livelihoods.