Spain’s forests grew 63% since 1960, defying desertification fears

Spain gains forest while narratives claim it burns

The image of Spain turning into a desert clashes with the data. According to FAO and MITECO (Ministry for Ecological Transition) reports, Spain's forest surface has grown 63% since 1960, reaching 27-28 million hectares, or 55% of the territory. Rural abandonment, depopulation, and the end of charcoal production have allowed scrubland to close in naturally. The issue is not a shortage of trees, but what kind of trees, where they are, and the consequences.

From grandfather's firewood to closed canopy

Family memory can be misleading. Some recall grandparents walking 20 kilometers with a donkey to bring back 100 kilos of firewood: if they had to walk so far, it was because nothing remained nearby. In the Pyrenees and pre-Pyrenees of Huesca, comparing early 20th-century photos with current ones shows forest mass multiplied by five or ten times. Areas with only scattered trees are now dense forests where no rock is visible.

The CNIG (National Geographic Information Center) photo archive allows verification village by village using orthophotos from the American flights of 1956-57. In southeastern Madrid, barren lands and wheat fields then look similar to today: trees exist only where municipalities planted parks. In the Madrid mountains, however, reforestation is evident. This phenomenon is not uniform, and treating it as such is an error.

The growing 63% is not always a forest

Here begins the interesting debate. Much of this gained surface is shrubland, repopulated pine forests, or eucalyptus plantations for paper pulp. Critics call it "monoculture with sticks": it does not retain water, stop erosion, cool the soil, and burns easily. Accumulation of vegetation fuel in abandoned hills explains fiercer, harder-to-control fires, especially in northwestern Iberia.

ICONA (former National Institute for Conservation of Nature) conducted experiments that often failed: Aleppo and stone pines in Burgos or Soria, Austrian pines in Guadalajara. Forty years later, some plantations barely reach one meter high if they survived. The lesson is uncomfortable: planting is not reforesting.

Should we reforest or leave the land alone?

Proposals to repopulate roadsides, boundaries, and abandoned farms with native species sound good until examining the soil. Parts of southeastern Madrid have gypsum toxic to most tree species. In Bardenas Reales, the current semi-desert is largely human-made: shepherds wintering there since the High Middle Ages, burning shrubs for pasture, and cutting holm oaks for firewood and charcoal over centuries. There were no firs or huge oaks justifying tales of lost forests.

The ecological counterargument is serious: these "desert" areas host specialized fauna and flora that would not survive under tree shade. Poorly planned reforestation can create another desert, with one species killing others. Planting requires structured, nutrient-rich soils that simply do not exist here.

Goats, vultures, and other imbalances

Abandoned hills also unbalance wildlife. Some argue goats are excessive: humans have been their main predator for 13,000 years, and neither genets nor bears regulate populations as assumed. Conversely, griffon vultures have multiplied unchecked: over 18,000 pairs counted in 2018 and rising, lacking predators, long-lived and social, occupying nests of Egyptian vultures and bearded vultures, causing issues for aircraft and roads.

What burns does not return the same

Some mountains were pine forests and are now low scrub and broom after repeated fires. These slopes feed entire towns' watersheds, yet planned repopulation never arrived. Here, the debate is not ideological: soil washes away with every storm.

Is large-scale repopulation worthwhile, or should we stop managing hills as mere scenery?