Deforestation is a widespread problem in the Andes Mountains of Peru. Reforestation is an important tool to increase the production of wood and as a means to promote conservation objectives. Since the 1960s, and promoted by government incentives, eucalyptus tree planting has expanded rapidly throughout the region. The benefits of eucalyptus are that it grows quickly, provides fuel for cooking and heating, and is a source of income and employment. Over the past three decades, there has been a shift toward pine plantations, supposedly as a higher-income and less-damaging alternative to eucalyptus. However, there are serious questions about the environmental impacts of both of these introduced species. More recently, the Peruvian government and NGOs have also been supporting reforestation with native tree species as a means to restore fragile and biodiverse Andean ecosystems. The purpose of this research is to critically examine the reforestation efforts in the Andean highlands near Cusco, Peru. The theoretical framework draws on political ecology to assess the ecological, political, economic, and organizational factors that influence the decision to plant trees and whether exotic or native species are chosen. Data for this paper is based on field research conducted in Peru. We interviewed representatives from three levels of the Peruvian government, two environmental NGOs, and businesses that sell and use wood. We also include a case study of an Indigenous agriculturalist community that has extensively reforested areas. The results highlight the dynamics between the various development actors, including the state, NGOs, industry, and rural communities. They reveal a tension between the goals of conservation and human livelihoods and the role of trade-offs. We conclude there is room for a variety of work done by different organizations in different places. We also emphasize that sustainability requires a community-centered approach to development that focuses on strong relationships and capacity building.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keese et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: