How and why companies invest in reforestation in Russia

Every year the problem of forest replacement becomes more acute. Forests are not only a source of wood, but also one of the most important absorbers of greenhouse gases to achieve carbon neutrality in Russia. In governing documents, for example, in the national project “Ecology,” forest restoration is proclaimed a key goal. However, government and corporate resources are not yet able to fully compensate for natural losses.

Contradictions in assessing the scale of the problem

Russian forests “by default” are in a difficult situation. Huge areas of forests are located at a distance from settlements, which makes it difficult to monitor and implement fire prevention measures. Data on the state of the forest fund from various departments differ, and experts prefer to be guided by the most conservative estimates from the Audit Chamber. A significant amount of information for the analysis does not allow the publication of annual results, and the latest current data dates back to 2022. According to auditor Sergei Mamedov, the rate of forest restoration has increased, and by the end of 2022, 93.6% of the area of forest plantations killed and cut down in 2019 has been restored. This is 31.8 percentage points more than in 2016.

Despite such positive dynamics, the area of annual forest disposal exceeds the volume of reforestation. Currently, the total area of forests requiring restoration is 35.4 million hectares. A more optimistic dynamics is voiced by the federal project “Ecology,” whose purpose is to ensure the balance of forest disposal and reproduction in the ratio of 100% by 2024. According to the project, the indicator has already been achieved and exceeded: in 2021, 2022 and 2023, the area of the planted forest exceeded the area of the forest that was eliminated as a result of forest fires. In 2024, reforestation and afforestation in Russia was carried out on an area of 1.4 million hectares. In just 5 years, the area of reforestation and afforestation in the country amounted to 6.3 million hectares. At the same time, in 2023, reforestation was completed by 1.4 million hectares, which is 6.7% more than last year, and afforestation was carried out by 5.1 thousand hectares, which is 102% of the annual plan.

Conservative dynamics from the Audit Chamber and optimistic indicators from the federal project “Ecology” cover different time periods. Therefore, we admit that the results of the analysis of various divisions do not contradict each other – from 2021, the dynamics can indeed be positive. However, many experts agree that when fixing the achievement of a balance in the reproduction and disposal of forests, not all burnt and damaged forests could be taken into account due to the difference in the methods of collecting and analyzing data on the actual state of the forest fund.

Reforestation as a commitment

Forest conservation is one of the tasks of the national development goal of the Russian Federation “environmental well-being” for the period up to 2030 and for the future until 2036. Domestic business is actively investing in reforestation and afforestation projects, but the motives for implementing such initiatives are radically different. “Investments” in tree planting are mandatory for loggers and companies that cut down forests for the implementation of infrastructure projects – from laying a road to mining: a business is obliged to make up for the loss of the forest fund by carrying out the so-called “compensatory reforestation” in accordance with article 63.1 of the Forest Code of the RF.

Large industrial holdings – oil and gas, metallurgical, woodworking and others – spend tens and hundreds of millions of rubles a year on compensatory reforestation. Therefore, in 2020, Titan Group planned to invest more than 90 million rubles in reforestation, planting 2.5 million seedlings. LPK-group “Sveza” in 2025 allocated about 61 million rubles for the protection and restoration of forests. According to our estimates, mid-level companies usually invest several million in forest restoration (about 5-20 million rubles per year), while the budgets of the largest market participants can amount to hundreds of millions. The oil company Lukoil buys pine, ash, spruce seedlings and carries out mandatory planting in the felled areas. Over the past three years, their compensatory planting has affected more than 6,000 hectares of forest (mainly in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area), and 8.8 million trees have been planted. Gazprom Neft and Roslesinforg plan to restore over 10,000 hectares annually until 2033. Large investments usually combine compensatory planting (according to the law), scientific selection of tree species and control over agricultural technology.

Voluntary reforestation

However, not all organizations spend their own budgets on forest restoration, fulfilling obligations. In recent years, the number of companies planting trees on a voluntary initiative has been growing. Businesses perceive reforestation projects as a tool to offset their carbon footprint and conserve biodiversity. Such projects are especially relevant for non-production brands, which, for objective reasons, cannot invest in the environmental friendliness of industrial equipment and technological lines, since they are simply absent from the perimeter. Reforestation is becoming an understandable, measurable and effective environmental initiative. The initiators focus not only on direct planting, but also on calculating the climatic effect, however, only a few projects fall into the Register of Carbon Units – due to the complexity and high cost of preparing project documentation. As a rule, companies are limited to basic calculations based on reference values and typical growth models, but even such mathematics in many cases allows to estimate the climatic effect with an acceptable error.

The lack of a legal framework for implementing voluntary reforestation projects not registered as climate projects opens up opportunities for conscious and unconscious greenwashing. Often, companies declare the restoration of forests under the auspices of their own brand, when the planting itself has already been financed from the federal or regional budgets, and the company’s employees perform exclusively the role of volunteers, without increasing the real area of the forest fund. To curb such manipulations, the Green Initiative Standard for Sustainable Reforestation and Afforestation Projects, registered with Rosstandart, was developed. The Green Initiative sets the basic quality standards for voluntary forest planting projects: companies that have been certified according to this standard confirm the real environmental friendliness of their reforestation initiatives.

Voluntary planting of forests outside the framework of legislative obligations is not just an environmental project, but also a reputation-building tool for responsible business. Unlike technological modernization, reforestation is an understandable activity for most consumers and public media. Thanks to a combination of real efficiency and ease of perception of targets, more and more brands are striving to plant their own forests in reserves and national parks, where their participation is especially necessary.

Mistakes, misconceptions and pitfalls

Sometimes environmental forest planting initiatives fail to deliver the desired result for brands, failing because of a formal approach. Here are the most common error scenarios.

Scale error. The giant company plants a symbolic “green alley” (for example, 100 trees) and loudly declares the salvation of the environment. The clear dissonance between the real size of the business and the small contribution raises accusations of greenwashing. The amount of compensation for the carbon footprint from such a landing is incomparable with the size of the carbon footprint of the business.
Incorrect location selection. Planting trees in areas where the forest would recover by itself does not help, but only disrupts the ecosystem. Even worse is working on lands without protection, where planting can be destroyed by economic activity.
Lack of transparency. “We planted a million trees”: without a report on the place, breeds and subsequent care, such words are an empty phrase. The lack of clear monitoring and open reporting turns into greenwashing. Modern environmental services allow to assign a digital passport to each tree, fixing the planting place and survival rate.

Yes, some large companies seek to avoid these mistakes: for example, in Lukoil projects, they work in advance on soil preparation and long-term planting care, and SIBUR selects tree species with the maximum potential for CO₂ absorption and taking into account the climatic nuances of the regions.

How corporate investments are distributed

As part of corporate environmental programs, funds are invested in different directions.

Direct planting as part of compensatory reforestation in the regions of felling. As a rule, such projects are implemented by resource companies and pulp and paper mills. Thus, the Ilim Group (the largest company in the Russian pulp and paper industry) in the Arkhangelsk and Irkutsk regions annually carries out compensatory reforestation in the felled areas, planting millions of coniferous trees in cooperation with regional forestries. Planting is carried out as part of forest reproduction obligations.
Voluntary forest restoration initiatives. Today, brands not only implement forest restoration projects of their own free will, but also “embed” forest planting in their own positioning or client path: the Fitstars Forest project provides tree planting for users’ online workouts, and the Gulliver brand has developed an eco-collection of clothes, planting pines and oaks for each wardrobe item sold.
Nursery support. Purchase of seeds, growing seedlings in forest nurseries and supplying them with planting material. Many companies invest in their own nurseries to provide the required number of seedlings (for example, Titan planned to grow up to 1 million young pines and spruces).
Environmental education and employee engagement. Organizing volunteer events, seminars and competitions helps create a culture of caring for forests. Thus, more than 1000 representatives of the company took part in the project of JSC “Russian Post” called “Postal Forest.”

Bottom line: big business directs significant funds to landings and related projects, medium-sized corporations – to typical promotions and local landings. However, a formal approach instead of a well-thought-out plan minimizes the effect of such investments.

Government investment in reforestation

The state invests in reforestation through federal and regional programs. Within the framework of the national project “Ecology” there is a federal project “Preservation of Forests.” On behalf of the authorities for these purposes until 2030 it is planned to allocate over 71 billion rubles. (this is more than 70% higher than the funding of the previous five years). The current dynamics is positive: from 2021, more forests are planted than are lost, and according to Rosleskhoz calculations, only in 2024 1.4 million hectares of reforestation were planned on the target, which will bring the total result for 2020-2025 to 7.8 million hectares of new forest.

Federal budget money goes to the regions in the form of subventions for the volume of planned work. So, for example, in 2019, the Kursk region allocated 38.4 million rubles for the regional project “Preservation of Forests” (including 19.4 million to expand the planting area). Similar programs work in all wooded regions, and in many regions, annual restoration plans are 100% implemented. Full restoration of lost forests is a key goal of the national project, and official statistics even note an overfulfillment of this indicator.

At the same time, experts point to a shortage of personnel and means of care in forestry. Forestry and forestry enterprises are in dire need of specialists and equipment. For example, in the Kirov region in January 2024, 86 foresters were not enough, and one forester was forced to “lead” about 8.5 thousand ha (4 times the national average load). Such a personnel shortage reduces greatly the effectiveness of the planting, because without regular care and control of natural growth, the new forest with a high probability may not take root.

Obviously, re-planting, agrotechnical care, fire-fighting arrangement and other measures will require significant investments, and the expert community calls for a gradual increase in funding for the industry as the national project is implemented.

Cooperation between the state, business and eco-services

Corporate investment is not a substitute for public investment, but its cumulative effect is important and necessary. Business impact can be scaled through joint initiatives and partnerships. The state can provide tax incentives or include companies in government projects, motivating them to increase their contribution to offset their emissions and damage. Environmental expert organizations such as Save the Forest serve as this link between business, volunteers and forestry. They help to plan plantings competently, choose scientifically based locations and ensure the transparency of projects. For example, in “Save the Forest” we assign each planted tree a digital passport with coordinates and photos, eliminating distrust of statistics and suppressing greenwashing. Such eco-services also combine the efforts of companies: the client finances the planting of forests in the region and receives a report on the results. This increases the attraction of small and medium-sized businesses that are not able to organize such initiatives from scratch.

In addition, companies involve their employees and partners in forest restoration, popularizing such actions and adding media coverage. At the same time, the state is expanding its infrastructure: nurseries are being built, forest fire equipment is being purchased (by 2030, more than 1.7 thousand units promised) and the regulatory framework is being updated (including amendments to the Forest Code for forest climatic projects). The joint work of business and the state, strengthened by the help of modern eco-services, is the only way to achieve the stated goals of reforestation in Russia.

Conclusion

Forest restoration in Russia is a multifaceted and expensive task that requires concerted action. The state forms the regulatory and financial framework, sets the rules and pace, and companies contribute additional resources. However, these efforts are not enough without competent planning and transparent consideration of the results. Reforestation should not be a one-time PR action, but a systemic investment with clear metrics and a scientific approach.

It is necessary to scale up business participation: expand forest climatic mechanisms, encourage volunteer and partner programs, introduce digital planting accounting services. The state, in turn, must provide sufficient budgets for the care of new forests and support for the personnel of forest services. Only in the tandem “business + state + eco-services” it is possible to achieve full reproduction of the forest fund, preserve ecosystems and compensate for any climatic damage.