Why Survival Matters

---

My Sustainable Encounter with Apurva Bhandari

by Albert Schiller

The modern sustainability sector is often driven by the allure of large, easily digestible numbers. Metrics are the currency of progress, and in the world of reforestation, the dominant metric has long been the number of trees planted. This figure is simple, impressive, and provides a satisfying sense of immediate action. Apurva Bhandari’s professional philosophy challenges the seductive power of this metric. His work is built on the conviction that the sector’s obsession with the performance of planting has created a systemic failure of purpose. He argues for a radical shift in focus from the initial act to the final, tangible outcome, a doctrine where the only number that matters is the number of survivors.

The Performance of Hindsight

Bhandari's critique was born from direct, on-the-ground investigation. He witnessed the spectacle of mass tree-planting events, initiatives designed for media attention that generated impressive headlines and broke world records. These events were a spectacle of good intentions, creating a powerful public story of environmental action. The logic of these initiatives was built around a vanity metric. The number of saplings put in the ground is easy to count and market, providing a clear, quantifiable result for donors and a sense of immediate gratification for organizers. The system had become exceptionally good at the performance of environmentalism. It created a compelling narrative of progress, a story of millions of trees planted daily. This focus on the initial act, however, obscured a much more critical question: what happens after the event is over?

>99% Failure

The consequence of optimizing for this single, flawed metric was a systemic failure of purpose. Bhandari’s investigation revealed the grim outcome of these events. When he returned to the sites of these record-breaking showcases a year later, he discovered a near-total ecological failure. He found that "not even 1% trees are surviving." This figure was not just a logistical shortcoming. The empirical bottom line was that the entire operating philosophy of the sector was broken. When the goal is simply to get saplings in the ground, there is no built-in incentive to ensure their long-term survival. The very structure of the initiatives was designed for a short-term, visible win. The system excelled at generating a good story but failed in its core ecological mandate. It was a model that celebrated the start of a journey but had no mechanism or accountability for seeing it through to a meaningful destination.

Accountability 

Bhandari's solution was not an incremental improvement. It was a fundamental redefinition of the goal itself. He chose not to plant more trees faster. Instead, he introduced a new, non-negotiable metric: accountability. This led to his "Survival Rate Doctrine," a philosophy built on the conviction that the only number that matters is the number of trees that live. This doctrine represents a radical shift from a logic of performative action to long-term responsibility. It is more than a new Key Performance Indicator. It is a new ethical framework. The doctrine insists that the responsibility of planting a tree does not end when the shovel is polished. It extends for years, requiring a durable system of care and a commitment to the entire lifecycle of the organism. To enforce this, Bhandari turned to a tool he had mastered during his time away from his roots: technology. His model uses geotagging, satellite imagery, and transparent data platforms not as the primary product, but as the essential tools for building trust and verifying outcomes. He did not build a tech company that happens to plant trees. He built a reforestation company that uses technology to solve the sector's core accountability problem. This approach directly rejects the opaque, vanity-driven metrics that defined the industry.

So what can we take from his approach?

Questions for Audience

1. Bhandari’s "Survival Rate Doctrine" successfully realigned the metric with the mission in reforestation. How can leaders in other impact sectors, such as education or healthcare, identify and challenge their own "vanity metrics" to focus on more meaningful, long-term outcomes?

2. The blog highlights technology as the key tool for enforcing accountability. Are there situations where this level of technological verification is not possible or is prohibitively expensive? What are the non-technological methods for building a similar culture of accountability?