- Despite a panoply of projects — from tree-planting drives to agroforestry schemes — a new study finds that much of what’s happening in the name of “forest restoration” in the Congo Basin may not be restoring forests at all, but largely focused on growing nonnative, commodity species.
- The research found nearly two-thirds of projects favored planting exotic species over native ones, primarily because they grow more quickly, require less care, and their seeds are easier to source.
- It also noted a lack of ecological monitoring, with few initiatives tracking tree survival rates, soil recovery or carbon storage, and most lasting less than five years — far too short to measure real ecological impact.
- Beyond agroforestry and fuelwood plantations, the study calls for approaches that promote natural regeneration, restore native biodiversity and reconnect fragmented habitats.
The Congo Basin, the world’s largest tropical rainforest after the Amazon, is under mounting pressure. The Congo’s vast green canopy, stretching across six countries and storing more carbon than the Amazon, is vanishing at an alarming rate — losing an average of 1.79 million hectares (4.42 million acres) per year between 2015 and 2019. The key drivers are well known: small-scale slash-and-burn agriculture, logging for fuelwood, and weak land governance.
In response, some governments, international donors and NGOs have turned to reforestation projects as a cornerstone of the region’s climate and biodiversity strategies. But despite a panoply of projects — from tree-planting drives to agroforestry schemes — newly published research suggests that much of what’s happening in the name of “forest restoration” may not be restoring forests at all — but largely focused on nonnative, commodity species.
The study analyzed 64 publications covering 26 initiatives in five countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Cameroon, Gabon, Rwanda, and the Central African Republic. The findings paint a complex picture of progress over the last two decades — one where the rhetoric of “restoration” often outpaces the reality on the ground.
On paper, Central African governments have made major commitments to the Congo Basin. Under the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) and the Bonn Challenge, governments pledged to restore 25% of degraded land by this year. International donors, including the European Union, World Bank, as well as the French, German, Danish and U.K. development agencies, have poured millions of dollars into reforestation and agroforestry programs in the region.
The study shows that most of the deployed initiatives have mobilized local farmers and communities to plant trees, often combining them with crops or fuelwood production. But agroforestry systems, particularly those using fast-growing exotic species like acacia and eucalyptus, dominate the landscape — not native forest replanting. That doesn’t mean these systems serve no purpose.
“Economic motivation is the main driver,” Adrien Peroches, lead author of the new study and an engineer with France-based Agrarian Systems Consulting, tells Mongabay. “Reforestation efforts could help to produce timber, which could potentially reduce pressure on certain natural forests, particularly in areas where demand from large cities is high, such as Kinshasa [in the DRC] and the Great Lakes region.”
Across the DRC, Cameroon and Rwanda, smallholder farmers are blending tree planting with income-generating activities. They’re cultivating acacia trees for charcoal and firewood, Grevillea trees for timber, and shade trees for cacao and coffee plantations. These systems, the study notes, can stabilize soils, provide sustainable fuelwood, and improve household resilience in degraded rural areas.
Some locally driven examples stand out. In Cameroon’s Grassfields region, farmers have long integrated native and exotic trees into their farms, while in the country’s dense forests, smallholders are adopting assisted natural regeneration (ANR), a practice that allows forests to regrow naturally with minimal intervention, all without external funding. These spontaneous local efforts, the study found, are among the few truly socially sustainable practices, as they build on existing knowledge and social norms.
Inadequate consideration of locals
Yet beneath these promising stories lies a stark reality: most initiatives are not restoring forests, but simply planting trees for production. They’re also not always attuned to locals’ needs.
“The real impact of initiatives appears to be low due to a lack of consideration for local populations and their constraints and wishes,” Peroches says. “Most projects are top-down and struggle to accommodate the range of statuses that may exist within communities.” He notes the current inadequacy of monitoring planted trees as well as their survival rates.
The review also found that nearly two-thirds of projects favored exotic species over native ones, primarily because they grow more quickly, require less care, and their seeds are easier to source. These choices make economic sense for short-term goals, but do little to restore biodiversity or ecosystem function.
Even more troubling is the lack of ecological monitoring. Few initiatives track survival rates, soil recovery or carbon storage. Most last less than five years — far too short to measure real ecological impact. The absence of standardized frameworks, such as those promoted under AFR100, makes it nearly impossible to evaluate whether restoration goals are being met.
“The study is based on the available literature. As it does not provide information on projects that have not published their results, it is not exhaustive,” Peroches says, adding that the study also doesn’t cover state-led or private initiatives, such as the BaCaSi plantation project run by French oil and gas major TotalEnergies. “The low level of information sharing on survival rates makes it difficult to obtain reliable information on the future of the plantations.”
Geographically, the research reveals another imbalance: restoration efforts are concentrated in just four hotspots — the periphery of Kinshasa in the DRC, Cameroon’s Grassfields and its dense forest area, and the Great Lakes area straddling eastern DRC and Rwanda. Vast stretches of the Congo Basin, including the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon’s interior, remain largely untouched by restoration programs.
This uneven distribution reflects a broader trend. The study confirms that restoration initiatives tend to cluster in areas that are already degraded or easily accessible, leaving intact forests vulnerable to continued deforestation and degradation.
The missing link
Perhaps the most striking finding of the review is the superficial involvement of local people.
While nearly all projects claim to work “with communities,” the researchers found that cooperation is often symbolic. In many cases, farmers are paid to plant or tend trees on their own plots — activities that end when funding runs out. Few projects engage communities in the design phase or grant them meaningful control over decision-making.
“Only a few articles or reports mentioned a process to obtain the prior consent of participants, as well as land arrangements or a benefit-sharing plan to ensure the sustainability of the initiative,” the researchers write.
This top-down approach stems in part from the priorities of international donors, who often demand quick, measurable results — numbers of trees planted, hectares covered, etc. — rather than long-term social or ecological outcomes. But it also reflects enduring power imbalances. Land tenure remains precarious across much of Central Africa, where customary rights often overlap with state ownership. Without secure land and tree tenure, farmers have little incentive to invest in restoration for the long term, the authors argue.
The study found that very few projects included formal agreements defining land rights, benefit sharing or tree ownership. And while “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC) is often cited, it’s usually applied collectively and superficially, rather than at the level of individual landholders.
The result is a cycle of dependency: communities plant trees when paid to do so, but rarely continue once the project ends.
“The majority of the initiatives were based on a high level of intervention rather than the empowerment of planters for sustainable tree planting,” says co-author study Adeline Fayolle, a specialist in the ecology of Central African tropical forests at French research institute CIRAD.
From symbolic to substantive collaboration
To make restoration truly sustainable, the researchers argue for a fundamental shift in how projects are conceived and managed.
First, initiatives should start with a thorough understanding of local farming systems, land-use dynamics and resource governance — what agronomist Hubert Cochet calls a “systemic diagnosis.” This kind of participatory landscape analysis has already been tested in parts of the DRC and could help tailor interventions to real social and ecological contexts.
Second, donors and project managers need to move beyond token consultations and toward genuine partnerships with communities. That means obtaining individual consent, negotiating shared goals, and formalizing roles, rights and benefits through written contracts.
Moreover, Peroches posits that a better understanding of the diversity of stakeholders can be achieved by using tools from the social sciences, as well as by examining the diversity of existing agricultural systems and their dynamics.
“Rather than arriving in communities with preconceived solutions, co-develop planting models with the beneficiaries,” he says. He also says organizations should increase project timelines to at least 10 years.
Finally, the authors argue that the region’s restoration movement must diversify. Beyond agroforestry and fuelwood plantations, there’s a need for approaches that promote natural regeneration, restore native biodiversity and reconnect fragmented habitats. Such strategies may not yield immediate economic returns, but are crucial for the Congo Basin’s long-term resilience, both for its biodiversity and its capacity for carbon storage.
Nkemndem Agendia Demianus, a remote-sensing expert and natural resource management consultant based in Buea, Cameroon, who wasn’t part of the study, says the findings are robust and align with well-known trends in the region: restoration initiatives are few, geographically uneven, and heavily donor-driven. He adds that current reforestation efforts in the region appear fragmented and often driven by short-term economic motivations rather than long-term ecological recovery.
“Most initiatives struggle with low tree survival rates, limited species diversity, and minimal integration of ecological metrics,” Demianus says.
To enhance collaboration with local communities, he suggests restoration projects must shift toward genuine co-creation and participatory planning: involving local people at the earliest stage in choosing species, defining restoration sites, and selecting land management systems that align with their needs and cultural practices. “It is also important to value and scale the spontaneous agroforestry and assisted natural regeneration practices already used by local communities, rather than imposing external techniques,” he says, adding that long-term partnerships spanning eight to 15 years are needed to build trust, ensure continuity after funding is spent, and support genuine community ownership of restoration outcomes.
According to Demianus, though the study’s main limitations stem from the scarcity of documentation as well as the omission of some key diagnostics reviews like World Resource Institute reports, these gaps don’t invalidate its insights.
He notes that one important observation is the region’s heavy dependence on exotic species systems, especially acacia, which, although economically beneficial, could generate ecological trade-offs over time. “This study underscores the need for a Central African Restoration Observatory to coordinate data, strengthen monitoring, and support learning across countries,” Demianus says.
Besides capturing both the promise and the paradox of Central Africa’s restoration efforts, the study shows that, in many ways, the region has made remarkable progress. Communities that once depended on clearing forests are now planting trees, driven by a growing awareness of environmental change and new livelihood opportunities.
Yet the transition is incomplete. As Peroches concludes, the concept of restoration in general and the commitments made, particularly within the framework of the Bonn Challenge and AFR100, are more idealistic than practical.
“It is a way for states and NGOs to raise funds from climate change initiatives — a kind of ‘environmental rent,’” he says.
He adds the concept of restoration was initially developed by conservationists to improve the living conditions of local populations. “However, genuine interest in local populations remains secondary. It is important to consider ‘compromises’ between human expectations and environmental needs in areas occupied by humans.”
Banner image: Forest elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis) inhabit the dense rainforests of Central Africa. Image by Matt Muir via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 4.0).
Citation:
Peroches, A., Dubiez, E., Fayolle, A., Koutika, L., Mapenzi, N., Vermeulen, C., … Lescuyer, G. (2025). From tree fellers to planters: A systematic review of forest restoration initiatives involving local populations in Central Africa. Small-scale Forestry, 24(1-2), 1-34. doi:10.1007/s11842-025-09586-6
Credits
