# LMU Munich: 73% of afforestation carbon removal potential lies in countries with medium-to-high barriers

- Published: 2026-11-05 23:57 UTC
- Section: Planet › Climate
- Tags: afforestation, reforestation, carbon dioxide removal, socioeconomic constraints, poverty and food insecurity, land tenure, planted forests, tree-planting pledges, LMU Munich
- URL: https://realtech.media/news/rt-02f43e787589631e29ff14c9_lmu_munich_73/

**A review of 200 studies and 78 models links poverty, hunger and insecure land tenure to how much planted forest stands today. The data show associations, not causes.**

![LMU Munich: 73% of afforestation carbon removal potential lies in countries with medium-to-high barriers](https://sgzwpqqelzmajkcubgkl.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/rt-media/2026/11/84f40f8d7e74c8b5.jpg)
*Earth.com*

A team led by Wenkai Bao at the Department of Geography, LMU Munich, with co-author Julia Pongratz (also of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology), examined how socioeconomic constraints relate to existing afforestation and reforestation. The study, published in One Earth, combined an assessment of 200 studies with 78 models. About 73% of the biophysical carbon removal potential of new forests lies in countries facing medium-to-high socioeconomic constraints [1].

## What limits planted forests

The authors extracted ten recurring barriers from published case studies of tree-planting projects. They then tested which of them best explained, country by country, how much planted forest stands today. Five economic factors accounted for about 69% of the combined importance of the ten barriers. Poverty ranked first with a quarter of the total, and food insecurity second with a fifth [1].

The cost of planting, the size of the forestry workforce and the state of forest roads followed. Insecure land tenure and weak governance accounted for about 11% and 10%. Forest policy on its own scored 4%, and more policies did not reliably mean more forest. The link with poverty appeared only above a high threshold: beyond it, higher poverty was associated with less standing planted forest.

The models used four measures of existing planted forests, including total area and the share of suitable land that had been planted. Of the 78 models, 27 explained at least half of the variation between countries, and the team worked with those. Results held when datasets were swapped and when commercial plantations were excluded. Replacing the tree-specific measures with GDP per person or the Human Development Index made the models considerably worse.

## Where potential and constraints coincide

When the constraint scores were laid over maps of where new forests could remove the most carbon, about 70% of the highest-potential hotspots also fell in medium-to-high-constraint countries. Europe has few constraints and little room for new forest, while the tropics hold most of the room and most of the constraints [1].

The ten countries with the largest tree-planting pledges account for nearly 90% of pledged area. Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Colombia face high constraints, mainly poverty. India falls in the medium tier mainly because of food insecurity, and limited forest-road infrastructure is the main barrier in Canada. Vietnam has relatively high poverty but secure land tenure and has kept a large planted area; the authors suggest tenure made the difference.

The authors note limits. The models find patterns, not causes, and were built on forests planted mostly for timber and conservation. Success was measured as planted forest still standing, not as carbon stored, wildlife returned or livelihoods improved. The overlay shows where risks and potential coincide, not how much removal will fail.

## Sources

1. [One Earth](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2026.101872)
2. [Earth.com](https://www.earth.com/animals/planting-billions-of-trees-is-harder-than-climate-pledges-make-it-sound)

---

Source: RealTech, realtech.media — https://realtech.media/news/rt-02f43e787589631e29ff14c9_lmu_munich_73/