In Somalia, trees are often discussed in the language of absence. They appear in conversations about drought, deforestation, charcoal production, and land degradation, serving primarily as markers of ecological decline rather than as elements of economic or institutional design. This framing is not misplaced. Large parts of the country face recurrent drought cycles, advancing desertification, and declining biomass, placing increasing pressure on rural livelihoods and natural systems. By some estimates, more than 60 per cent of Somalia's land is affected by degradation, while tree cover remains among the lowest in the Horn of Africa. The drivers of this decline are well understood: prolonged conflict, weak land governance, unsustainable charcoal production, and the expansion of low-productivity land use systems. What is less frequently examined, however, is how these dynamics intersect with economic policy and state capability. To treat trees solely as an environmental deficit is to miss a more consequential question: what if afforestation were understood not as a remedial activity, but as a strategic instrument of economic policy and institutional development? This shift in perspective is not semantic. It alters the entire logic of intervention. Under the prevailing view, tree planting is something that is done in response to crisis—an activity tied to humanitarian cycles, donor funding windows, and short-term environmental recovery. It is episodic, externally driven, and rarely sustained. Under a strategic framing, however, afforestation becomes something fundamentally different: a system that can be designed, financed, and scaled as part of a broader national development trajectory. The distinction matters because it determines not only the scale of ambition, but the structure of action. Countries that have successfully expanded afforestation efforts have not done so by treating trees as isolated environmental inputs. They have embedded them within systems of land governance, labour mobilisation, and long-term planning. The question for Somalia is whether it will continue to approach afforestation as a series of interventions, or begin to treat it as a domain of strategy. Afforestation as climate infrastructure Globally, afforestation has undergone a quiet but significant transformation. It is no longer confined to the domain of environmental restoration. It is increasingly understood as a form of climate infrastructure—an asset class that intersects with carbon markets, rural development, and resilience-building. This transformation reflects a broader shift in how climate action is conceptualised. Nature-based solutions are no longer peripheral; they are central to both mitigation and adaptation strategies. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, nature-based solutions could deliver up to one-third of the emission reductions required by 2030, with afforestation and reforestation playing a central role. Forests, in this context, are valued not only for their ecological functions, but for their capacity to generate measurable outcomes—carbon sequestration, soil stabilisation, water retention—that can be integrated into financial and policy systems. In carbon markets alone, afforestation and reforestation projects have emerged as one of the most scalable categories of nature-based investment, with voluntary carbon markets projected to grow into a multi-billion-dollar sector over the coming decade. The implication is that trees, when organised at scale, are not simply biological entities. They are components of a system that links ecology to economy. This is why large-scale afforestation programmes in countries such as Ethiopia and China have been structured not as environmental campaigns, but as state-led initiatives embedded within national planning frameworks. Their significance lies less in the number of trees planted than in the institutional arrangements that make planting at scale possible. For Somalia, this distinction is decisive. The country does not lack awareness of environmental degradation. What it lacks is a framework capable of translating that awareness into structured, sustained action. Without such a framework, afforestation remains limited to small-scale efforts that, while valuable, do not accumulate into systemic change. The finance constraint The limits of the current approach become particularly visible when viewed through the lens of climate finance. Afforestation sits at the intersection of one of the most rapidly expanding domains in the global economy. Global climate finance flows now exceed $1.3 trillion annually, yet fragile and conflict-affected states continue to receive only a marginal share. Nature-based solutions are increasingly prioritised within international funding frameworks, offering pathways for countries to access resources for both mitigation and adaptation. However, participation in this domain is not automatic. It is structured around a set of requirements that extend beyond environmental need. Access to climate finance requires the ability to define land-use strategies, establish credible baselines, and develop systems for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). It requires institutions that can design programmes, manage funds, and demonstrate measurable outcomes over time. In practical terms, afforestation projects must be translated into investment-ready proposals that meet the standards of global financing mechanisms. In this sense, climate finance operates less as a redistributive mechanism and more as a system of conditional access. It rewards not only vulnerability, but preparedness. Countries that are able to translate environmental challenges into structured, financeable programmes are able to attract resources. Those that cannot remain at the margins, regardless of the severity of their needs. Somalia's position reflects this dynamic. Despite its acute environmental vulnerability, its engagement with climate finance remains limited and fragmented. Current climate-related inflows are estimated in the hundreds of millions annually—far below the scale required to address structural environmental challenges. Afforestation initiatives exist, but they are not embedded within a system that can operate at scale, attract sustained investment, or generate long-term economic value. As a result, the country participates in climate finance not as a strategic actor, but as a recipient of isolated interventions. From projects to systems The central challenge, therefore, is not the absence of activity, but the absence of structure. Afforestation in Somalia is characterised by projects—discrete, time-bound efforts that rarely extend beyond their immediate objectives. What is missing is a programme: a system capable of organising these efforts within a coherent national framework. Moving from projects to programme entails more than coordination. It requires a reconfiguration of how afforestation is conceived, governed, and financed. At the most basic level, it involves defining a national land-use framework that identifies priority areas for afforestation based on ecological, economic, and social criteria. Even a modest programme targeting one million hectares over a decade—less than a fraction of degraded land—would represent a transformative shift in scale and ambition. The economic implications of such a shift are significant. Afforestation in dryland contexts typically ranges between $300 and $1,000 per hectare, depending on species, survival rates, and management systems. At scale, this implies a multi-hundred-million-dollar investment programme—well within the range of climate finance instruments, but only if structured appropriately. Equally important is the question of institutional alignment. Afforestation cuts across multiple domains—environment, agriculture, water, and planning. Without a mechanism to coordinate these domains, efforts remain fragmented. A national programme would need to establish clear roles, responsibilities, and channels of coordination, ensuring that afforestation is not treated as a peripheral activity, but as an integrated component of development planning. The technical dimension is no less significant. Participation in climate finance requires systems for measurement, reporting, and verification that can translate ecological outcomes into quantifiable metrics. Without these systems, afforestation cannot be effectively linked to financial instruments such as carbon markets or results-based financing mechanisms. Finally, there is the question of sustainability. Afforestation cannot be sustained through external inputs alone. It must be embedded within local economic systems, creating incentives for communities to maintain and expand tree cover over time. This requires moving beyond a model of tree planting to one of ecosystem management, where trees are integrated into livelihoods rather than imposed upon them. An economic proposition When viewed through this lens, afforestation ceases to be an environmental cost. It becomes an economic proposition. Properly structured, it has the potential to stabilise agricultural systems, reduce vulnerability to climate shocks, and generate employment at scale. In comparable dryland contexts, afforestation and land restoration programmes have been shown to generate substantial rural employment, particularly in early phases of land preparation and planting. Even conservative estimates suggest that a national programme could translate into tens of thousands of seasonal and semi-permanent jobs, particularly in rural areas where economic opportunities remain limited. Beyond employment, the long-term economic benefits are equally significant. Improved soil quality, reduced erosion, and enhanced water retention can increase agricultural productivity, while carbon sequestration creates potential entry points into global carbon markets. While carbon revenues alone are unlikely to finance large-scale programmes, they can provide an important supplementary income stream when integrated into a broader financing model. This is not to suggest that afforestation is a simple solution. It is a complex undertaking, requiring long-term commitment, institutional capacity, and sustained investment. But it is precisely this complexity that gives it strategic value. It sits at the intersection of multiple policy domains, offering a point of convergence between environmental restoration, economic development, and financial strategy. As Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, has argued, the central challenge in climate policy is not only the mobilisation of finance, but its effective use. The same principle applies to afforestation. The existence of degraded land does not, in itself, generate investment. It must be translated into structured programmes that align with the expectations of a global system increasingly oriented around performance and accountability. A question of direction For Somalia, the choice is not whether to plant trees. That is already a necessity. The choice is whether afforestation will remain a peripheral activity, or evolve into a strategic domain of development. This is ultimately a question of institutional direction. If trees continue to be treated as an environmental afterthought, afforestation efforts will remain limited in both scale and impact. If, however, they are recognised as a form of climate infrastructure—integral to economic planning, resilience-building, and financial strategy—they can begin to reshape the country's development trajectory. The challenge, then, is not simply to plant trees. It is to build the system within which trees can generate value—to move from scattered interventions to structured programmes, from external dependence to internal capability, and from environmental necessity to economic strategy. To move from scarcity to strategy is to recognise that afforestation is not only about restoring landscapes, but about constructing the institutional architecture through which those landscapes can be sustained and monetised. Eng. Ahmed Giumale is the Executive Director of the Green Finance & Development Institute.