Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s claim that it planted more than 50 lakh trees in 126 days has turned a headline achievement into a larger question about how the city measures urban greening. The reported planting drive, conducted under the Mission Five Million Trees campaign, included four lakh saplings on estate reserve and parking plots that may eventually be sold or developed. It also raised concerns about whether the city’s plantation programme is measuring trees that survive and mature, or simply saplings placed in the ground.
According to a report by Gujarat Samachar – Ahmedabad, the municipal corporation began the campaign on 5 June and declared it complete on 8 October. The stated target was to plant 50 lakh trees during the monsoon period, compared with the city’s usual annual increase of around 10 lakh trees. The reported total means an average of nearly 40,000 trees a day over 126 days.
That pace is central to the controversy. A large planting number can indicate mobilisation across departments, institutions and public land. But it does not, by itself, establish how many saplings survive, whether they have adequate space and water, or whether the land on which they are planted will remain available for them to grow. In a city where land is continuously reorganised for roads, parking, estates, public facilities and real estate, the location of planting is as important as the number planted.
The report says four lakh saplings were placed on estate reserve and parking plots. The corporation has described these as boundary plantations, but the same plots may be sold or used for development in the future. If that happens, trees planted there could be removed. This creates a direct conflict between two municipal functions: increasing the city’s green cover and retaining land for future public or urban uses.
The issue is not only whether a tree is eventually cut. It is also whether a plantation target counts land that has no long-term protection. A sapling planted on a temporary or developable site may help the corporation meet an annual target, but it cannot offer the same environmental value as a tree planted in land secured for long-term green use. Without a clear distinction between permanent plantation sites, temporary sites and trees planted as boundary cover, the public cannot assess the durability of the achievement.
The report also cites former officials of the municipal gardens department as saying that 55% to 60% of planted trees burn or die every year because of inadequate maintenance. If that estimate is applied to the current campaign, the survival challenge could be substantially larger than the planting headline suggests. The source report does not provide a post-plantation audit of the latest 50-lakh drive, so the eventual survival rate cannot yet be established. But the reported mortality figure makes maintenance a central measure of performance rather than a secondary operational detail.
Planting and maintenance are different administrative tasks. Planting can be concentrated into a campaign period, particularly during the monsoon. Maintenance requires repeated watering, protection from traffic and animals, replacement of dead saplings, monitoring and coordination with the agency responsible for the land. A plantation programme that reports only the first activity risks rewarding the easiest stage of the process while leaving the harder and longer stage less visible.
The spatial distribution reported by the corporation also complicates the headline. The South Zone accounted for the highest number, at 11.50 lakh trees, while the Central Zone recorded the lowest, at 41,000. The source does not establish whether this difference reflects land availability, population, existing tree cover, ward-level need or the location of large open plots. Those missing details matter because a city’s greening needs are not identical across zones. Areas with dense construction, limited open space and greater exposure to heat may require a different plantation strategy from areas with large reserve plots.
A plantation count can therefore conceal a distribution problem. If large numbers are concentrated on vacant government, reserve or estate land, the programme may be administratively efficient but less visible in neighbourhoods where residents experience heat, dust and limited shade. The report says that the scale of the claimed plantation was not readily visible to ordinary citizens. That observation points to a gap between a citywide administrative total and the everyday experience of public space.
The Bhadaj plantation adds another dimension. The report says a programme was held on a gauchar plot in Bhadaj, with the chief minister participating, and that 1.01 lakh trees were planted across 85,000 square metres. This works out to less than one square metre per tree on average. The report further says there was not even one metre between two trees in parts of the site.
The source raises two related questions about this site. First, if the land is used as grazing land, what space will remain for animals after the trees grow? Second, if the average area per planted tree is so limited, how will the trees develop? The source does not provide the species, planting design, intended mature canopy or management plan, so it is not possible to determine from the report whether all the saplings can survive. However, the density described makes plantation design and land-use compatibility essential parts of the public record.
Gauchar land is not simply vacant land waiting for a new use. The report identifies it as land associated with grazing, which means its urban value includes supporting livestock and livelihoods as well as providing open space. Converting or heavily planting such land without explaining the continuing use available to animals can create a conflict between environmental goals and the needs of communities dependent on the land. The central issue is not whether trees are beneficial in principle, but whether the selected site can support both the plantation and its existing function.
This is also where municipal coordination becomes important. The gardens department may be responsible for planting, while estate authorities control reserve plots, parking land or sites intended for future sale. Land-use decisions may involve other municipal departments or public agencies. Unless planting plans are matched with long-term ownership, protection and maintenance responsibilities, the programme can produce trees without producing secure urban green infrastructure.
The Mission Five Million Trees campaign shows the strength of a target-driven approach: it gives the corporation a clear number, a defined period and a public completion date. But the same structure can create pressure to prioritise quantity. The more ambitious the target, the greater the need for transparent definitions. The city needs to distinguish between saplings planted, saplings surviving after one year, trees surviving after several years, trees protected from future construction and trees contributing to accessible neighbourhood shade.
The evidence supplied in the report does not establish how AMC counted the 50 lakh trees, whether duplicate or replacement planting was excluded, how survival will be audited, or how many of the sites are permanently protected. It also does not provide a public map of the plantations, species-wise details or zone-level survival data. These are not minor technical matters. They determine whether the campaign represents a durable increase in urban vegetation or a short-term planting exercise.
The larger urban question is whether Ahmedabad’s greening policy is being designed around trees as living infrastructure or around plantation as an annual event. Living infrastructure needs space, water, maintenance, protection and time. It must remain compatible with roads, parking, public land, grazing, development plans and neighbourhood use. A tree that survives for years and provides shade has a different civic value from a sapling that is planted on a site later cleared for construction.
AMC’s reported achievement should therefore be read as a starting point rather than a completed environmental outcome. The 50-lakh figure confirms the scale of the campaign, but the report leaves the most consequential measures unresolved: how many trees will survive, where they are planted, which sites are secure, and how the city will manage conflicts with future land use. The next meaningful milestone will be a transparent survival and site audit, particularly for the four lakh saplings on estate and parking plots and the densely planted Bhadaj gauchar site.
