Ghana is restoring nature, but is nature recovering?

Included is an opinion feature told through the imagined voice of Auntie Mansa, a Ghanaian woman whose livelihood depends on the land.

“Aaah, my son, when the people come to our community, they tell us they have come to restore the land. They bring seedlings, take photographs, call us for meetings, and tell us that things will be better."

“Of course, we are happy. Who does not want good land, clean air, clean water, and enough food for the family? If the land is healthy, we can farm. If the water is clean, we can drink and do our work. If the trees grow well, the children coming after us will also benefit.But, my son, I have one small question. When the visitors leave, who will take care of the land? Who will water the seedlings when the rains delay? Who will protect them when animals start feeding on them? And if the land we depend on has been damaged by galamsey, how soon can we farm there again?I am not against planting trees. Not at all. But I also have children to feed today. I cannot tell them to wait twenty years because somebody has planted a tree.”

Auntie Mansa’s questions may sound simple, but they expose one of the most important challenges facing Ghana’s environmental restoration agenda. From degraded mining landscapes to threatened mangroves, Ghana has made important commitments to environmental restoration. Across Africa, governments, research institutions and development partners are investing in initiatives intended to restore ecosystems, strengthen climate resilience and improve livelihoods.

Yet a fundamental question remains: Are we restoring nature, or are we becoming better at reporting the activities we undertake in nature’s name?

The distinction matters, as a seedling planted is not necessarily a tree established, and a tree established does not necessarily mean a functioning ecosystem has recovered. An ecosystem showing signs of recovery does not automatically mean that the people living around it are better off. For Ghana, these are not merely academic questions. They concern the rivers we depend on, the land we farm, the wetlands that support fisheries and the livelihoods of communities bearing the consequences of environmental degradation.

Nature-based solutions offer a promising way forward. They involve protecting, sustainably managing, and restoring ecosystems to address societal challenges while benefiting biodiversity and human well-being. But what does this mean for ordinary people? Ghana has made progress, but what does the evidence tell us? Let us begin with what the country has achieved.

Ghana’s restoration achievements: What does the data tell us?

Ghana’s Landscape Restoration and Small-Scale Mining Project, launched in 2022, showed by October 2024 that it had restored 25,181 hectares of agricultural land and reached nearly 58,000 farmers across 26 districts in eight regions. The programme combines landscape restoration with agricultural support and efforts to address the environmental consequences of small-scale mining.

Ghana’s 2025 Voluntary National Review reported a cumulative 748,941.6 hectares under the Ghana Forest Plantation Strategy for 2017–2023. Of this reported area, 587,340.8 hectares, or 78.5%, were classified as trees on farms. These are significant implementation figures and deserve recognition. They suggest that restoration is being connected to agriculture and rural livelihoods and was not treated solely as a forestry activity.

But let us pause here. What do these figures tell us about the condition of the land today? How many planted trees survived? How much of the restored agricultural land remains productive? Have farmers experienced lasting improvements in soil fertility, water availability, and income? And what happens when project funding ends?

These questions do not diminish the reported achievements. They help us understand their real value.

Imagine a farmer who joins a restoration programme. She was part of the tree planters, attended the training sessions and followed the instructions. When the project ended, the vehicles drove away, the officers returned to their offices, and the farmer was left to manage the work alone. Two rainy seasons later, she found some seedlings dead, rains becoming less predictable, her own resources running low, and struggling to keep the remaining trees alive.

Can we still call the intervention a success simply because the seedlings were planted?

Auntie Mansa would probably put it differently. “My son, if you say you have restored the land, please come and show me the land. Do not only show me the photographs you took when we planted the trees.”

That is the kind of accountability Ghana needs.

2025–2026: Ghana is scaling up. Will the results last?

Ghana’s restoration agenda has gathered further momentum. Recent initiatives show growing interest in linking tree planting, coastal protection, water security and climate-resilient agriculture. The challenge is to ensure that this momentum translates into lasting ecological and social benefits.

Consider the Tree for Life Reforestation Initiative. A July 2026 government update reported that the 2025 programme had planted approximately 31 million seedlings across about 23,600 hectares of degraded landscapes. Seedling success rates ranged from 50 to 78% in the northern savannah zone and 65 to 85% in the High Forest Zone. A further target of planting 30 million seedlings was set for 2026.

These figures provide a useful starting point. But what exactly do the reported success rates measure, and at what point were they assessed? How many seedlings remain alive after successive dry seasons? How many will develop into established trees? And are the restored landscapes showing measurable improvements in biodiversity, soil condition and water regulation?

The initiative deserves recognition for its scale. Its lasting contribution, however, will depend on nurturing, protecting and monitoring the trees beyond the initial planting period.

The country’s coastal restoration agenda is also expanding. In November 2025, the Water Resources Commission convened a national dialogue on solutions for coastal protection, bringing together experts, policymakers and other stakeholders to explore more sustainable approaches to protecting vulnerable shorelines. In March 2026, the Forestry Commission signed an agreement with Terraformation to restore up to 6,000 hectares of mangroves in the Volta Region under the Keta Lagoon Blue Carbon Project. The agreement envisages planting 12 million native mangroves, with anticipated benefits for coastal resilience, biodiversity, employment and livelihoods.

The project is built on earlier restoration activity. Planting began in 2024 with more than 3.2 million mangroves planted across nearly 1,000 hectares by August 2025. These reported achievements are encouraging. However, further monitoring is needed to establish how many seedlings survive, whether the ecosystem is recovering, and whether communities experience lasting benefits.

Another coastal initiative led by ActionAid Ghana and its partners under the Improved Resilience of Coastal Communities Project is targeting approximately 410 hectares of degraded mangrove ecosystems across communities in the Volta and Greater Accra regions. By July 2026, the project had reported planting 95,300 mangrove seedlings in its first phase. Further inland, the Water Resources Commission reported in May 2026 that it was working with The Nature Conservancy and the Nature for Water Facility to expand watershed investment programmes. Initiatives for the White Volta and Black Volta basins are intended to connect ecosystem protection with water security and longer-term financing.

In September 2026, Ghana launched the seven-year Climate-Resilient Landscapes for Sustainable Livelihoods in Northern Ghana project, valued at US$63 million. The initiative aims to restore approximately 14,000 hectares across the North East, Upper East and Upper West regions while strengthening climate resilience and agricultural livelihoods.

These developments matter as they show that nature-based solutions are increasingly being connected to forestry, coastal protection, water management and climate-resilient agriculture. But we must distinguish between a target, an agreement, an activity completed and an outcome demonstrated. Each represents a different stage of implementation.

Auntie Mansa would have something to say about this. “If they say they will plant millions of trees, that is good news. If they say they will restore our mangroves and protect our water, we are happy. But please, do not stop at telling us what they plan to do. Come back and tell us what has happened. Are the trees growing? Is the water getting better? Are our farms becoming more productive? Are the people who live here finding better ways to earn a living?And when the project finishes, who will continue the work? We do not want to wake up one day and realise that the money has finished, the visitors have gone, and the land is still waiting for us to rescue it.”

Her questions capture the distinction Ghana must now confront. Announced targets, signed agreements, planted seedlings and hectares earmarked for restoration are important indicators of implementation. They are not by themselves proof that the promised ecological and social benefits have been achieved.

Keta Lagoon: Restoration must be measured against the wider ecosystem

Consider the Keta Lagoon Complex Ramsar Site along Ghana’s eastern coastline. In May 2023, the Ghana News Agency reported that six communities had restored 27 hectares of degraded land, including mangroves and woodlots, with approximately 84,000 seedlings planted. The initiative was linked to concerns about declining fisheries resources and the need to protect local livelihoods. This is encouraging. Mangroves provide habitat for wildlife, support fisheries, store carbon and contribute to coastal ecosystem stability. However, a peer-reviewed study published in 2021 documented substantial changes in land cover within the Keta Lagoon Complex between 1991 and 2020. Mangrove and dense vegetation accounted for 38.34% of the mapped area in 1991, compared with 27.12% in 2020.

The picture was not one of uninterrupted decline. The study documented both gains and losses in vegetation across different periods and land-cover categories. The overall 2020 share of mangrove and dense vegetation nevertheless remained below the 1991 level. This matters because ecosystems can experience local recovery while continuing to face broader pressures. A separate study published in 2025 identified fragmented institutional responsibilities, limited institutional capacity, and dependence on external funding as barriers to implementing wetland-based nature-based solutions effectively.

What should we make of this? The restoration of 27 hectares is a meaningful local achievement, but it must be understood within the context of the wider ecosystem. Planting seedlings in one location cannot by itself reverse degradation across an entire wetland.

Mangroves need suitable hydrological conditions, appropriate sediment environments, and protection from destructive pressures. Communities also need practical incentives and the authority to help safeguard restored areas.

For the woman who depends on the lagoon, the issue is not simply whether seedlings have been planted. She wants to know whether the ecosystem is recovering, whether fisheries can be sustained, and whether her livelihood will become more secure.

“Ei, if the trees are growing but our problems remain the same, then let us sit down and find out what is missing. We are not saying the work is useless. We are asking whether the work is giving us the results we were promised.”

Galamsey: Can nature repair what we have damaged?

The question becomes even more urgent when we turn to mining-affected landscapes. Illegal mining can remove fertile topsoil, disrupt soil structure, contaminate water, and leave land unsuitable for conventional agricultural production. In some locations, the damage is so severe that ordinary farming cannot resume without substantial intervention.

Can nature-based solutions help? Potentially, yes. But the approach must be scientifically appropriate to the damage. A study published in Advances in Bamboo Science investigated the growth and root development of Bambusa vulgaris on galamsey-degraded soil. The researchers found that combining biochar and poultry manure improved bamboo root density and average root diameter under the experimental conditions.

This offers a promising research direction. Appropriately selected plants, soil amendments, and other restoration techniques may help rehabilitate degraded land under suitable conditions. However, we must not overstate what the study demonstrates. Improved bamboo growth is not proof that contaminated mining land has been made safe, nor does a controlled experiment establish that the method will restore mining landscapes at scale.

Sites affected by mining require appropriate assessments of soil and water conditions. Near-real-time monitoring can help track changing environmental conditions and the progress of rehabilitation. It should complement field inspections, laboratory testing and assessments of contaminant risks.

Where contaminants pose risks to people, crops or ecosystems, remediation and exposure prevention must be addressed explicitly.

And here is where Auntie Mansa’s voice becomes important again. “My son, suppose you tell me the land is ready for farming. How do I know it is safe? If I plant cassava there, can my children eat it without danger? If the water looks clean, does that mean it is clean? Please, let somebody test it and explain the results to us.”

This is not a rejection of science. It is a demand for science that protects people. Restoration should not end when vegetation returns. It should establish whether the land is functioning, whether environmental risks have been addressed, and whether the community can safely benefit from it.

Africa has lessons for Ghana. Let us learn before we scale up.

Ghana does not need to learn every lesson through expensive mistakes of its own. Other African countries provide valuable evidence of what nature-based solutions can achieve, as well as the limitations we must take seriously.

In Niger, farmer-managed natural regeneration has enabled farmers to encourage trees to regenerate naturally within agricultural landscapes. Published research describes the approach as affecting approximately five to six million hectares. Farmers can benefit from trees that provide fuelwood, construction materials, food, and fodder while integrating tree management into existing farming systems. The principle is important: restoration does not always require planting new trees everywhere. In suitable landscapes, protecting existing vegetation and supporting natural regeneration may be more practical than starting from scratch.

For Ghanaian farmers, this raises a useful question: are we making the best use of the trees and natural vegetation that already exist on our farms?

Senegal’s experience with the Great Green Wall offers a different lesson. A 2025 study examining 36 planting parcels in northern Senegal found statistically significant greening trends in only two parcels, with just one showing greening beyond what rainfall changes would explain.

These findings do not establish that the Great Green Wall has failed as a whole. They show that implementation achievements and ecological outcomes are not the same thing. The study also identified economic and social benefits for communities, including employment and services, although these benefits were described as periodic and often short-lived.

That distinction is important. Employment and community services are valuable, but they should not be presented as substitutes for successful ecological restoration when restoration is the stated objective.

In Ethiopia, landscape restoration has demonstrated potential for vegetation recovery. Yet restrictions on grazing and access to natural resources can create difficulties for households that depend on those resources. The lesson is not that restoration is inherently harmful, but that ecological objectives must be balanced with community needs and the availability of alternative livelihoods.

Across these experiences, one message stands out. Successful nature-based solutions require ecological suitability, credible monitoring, long-term management, and meaningful community participation.

“If something works in Niger, why can we not learn from it? But, my son, will the same method work on our land? Have the scientists checked? Have the farmers tried it? And if it does not work, who will help us find another way?“And when an intervention succeeds or fails in our community, who can we hold responsible?”

These are precisely the questions that should guide the transfer of restoration approaches from one country to another.

What happens to people when the project ends?

This is perhaps the most important question of all. Environmental restoration is often discussed in terms of hectares, seedlings, carbon stocks and biodiversity indicators. These are important measurements. But the people who live with the consequences of environmental decisions must also be part of the assessment.

If a community is asked to protect a wetland, how will its members sustain their livelihoods? If farmers are encouraged to establish trees, what happens to the land they need for food production? If mining has destroyed their farmland, what support will help them rebuild their livelihoods while restoration takes place?

Women deserve particular attention because environmental degradation can affect the resources, agricultural activities, and local enterprises on which they depend. Young people also need meaningful opportunities to participate in restoration, monitoring, nursery enterprises, agroforestry and other viable green economic activities.

Participation should mean more than inviting people to meetings or asking them to plant seedlings. Communities should help identify priorities, select appropriate interventions, monitor results and determine how benefits are distributed. Their observations should inform decisions, while scientific assessments should help establish what is changing and why.

And when the project ends, the community should not be left holding responsibilities without the resources to fulfil them.

“My son, do not call us only when you need labour. Call us when you are planning. Call us when you are making decisions. Call us when you are checking whether the work has succeeded. We live here. We see the land every day.”

First, what survives and recovers? Restoration programmes should measure seedling survival, natural regeneration, vegetation condition, soil health, water quality and biodiversity, where relevant. Planting numbers and hectares covered are useful, but they cannot stand in for ecological recovery.

Second, who benefits? We must establish whether communities experience lasting improvements in livelihoods and whether women, young people, people with disabilities and vulnerable households share fairly in the benefits.

Third, what happens after project funding ends? Restoration requires maintenance, protection and monitoring. Long-term financing and local ownership must be considered from the beginning.

Fourth, are we restoring the right ecosystem in the right way? Wetlands, forests, agricultural landscapes and mining-degraded soils have different ecological requirements. A solution suitable for one environment may be inappropriate for another. Restoration must respond to the actual problem rather than follow a fashionable method.

Finally, who verifies the results? Research institutions, government agencies, development partners and implementing organisations should establish baselines, publish monitoring findings and assess whether observed improvements can reasonably be attributed to the interventions.