Opinion: "Our urban forest is vanishing—how private tree removal permits are accelerating its decline"

‍Editor’s note: This opinion editorial was originally published in Het Parool in January 2025. This version has been translated into English.‍

Every year, thousands of trees on private land in Amsterdam are felled, often without good reason. According to ecological engineer Nadina Galle, this deforestation undermines the fragile urban forest that benefits all Amsterdammers.

‍"The tree will be cut down tomorrow," read the message from my downstairs neighbor. I was shocked and felt powerless.

The more than 100-year-old ash tree behind our house in the Schinkelbuurt neighborhood of Amsterdam had to go due to a "possible" case of ash dieback. A well-known arborist provided a second opinion and reassured me: the tree could easily last another forty or fifty years.

But the removal permit had already been granted, and the objection period had passed. The next day, the tree was gone.

It was an imposing ash tree. We live on the fourth floor and looked out onto its leaves, which changed with the seasons. It provided shade in the summer and morning birdsong, which my 100-year-old downstairs neighbor, who has lived here for 75 years, enjoyed even more than I did.

That sound is now gone.

Urban nature provides 'microdoses' of health

Seeing a tree through a window, hearing birds, taking a short walk—these small moments reduce stress and strengthen the immune system.

I, like 200 others in our housing block, got my daily microdose from that tree.

Easy to cut down

Amsterdam has about a million trees, 300,000 of which are managed by the municipality. The trees on private land—in gardens and on school campuses—form part of our urban forest along with municipal trees. But the trees on private land are particularly vulnerable: even healthy ones can be easily felled with a permit.

"But aren't all trees protected?" a colleague asked.

Yes, but unless you actively follow permit announcements, you won’t know when a removal request has been submitted.

Once a permit is granted, objecting is almost impossible.

In Amsterdam, 4,000 monumental trees are protected, but more than 5,000 trees on private land are felled annually. In 2022 and 2023, 96% and 92% of removal applications were approved, respectively.

Not every tree poses an immediate risk. Stress, pollution, and disease can make trees dangerous, but that does not justify the speed at which permits—often without a clear reason—are issued.

Trees can be protected preventatively by granting them monumental status, but this requires the cooperation of the landowner. The numbers show that every tree on private land is vulnerable and potentially at risk.

A paradox

Amsterdam is globally recognized as one of the first green cities, systematically planting trees along canals and streets as early as the 16th century. This innovative mindset persists: the city leads in tree management with techniques such as LiDAR for detailed analysis, sensors for efficient irrigation, and complex tree transplantation.

To celebrate Amsterdam’s 750th anniversary, 750 new trees are being planted. Yet at the same time, thousands of mature trees on private land are lost each year, and the municipality has increasingly less space to plant new ones.

This raises the question: should we really celebrate new plantings if so many mature trees are being removed?

This paradox highlights the gap between ambitious green plans for public spaces and the ongoing deforestation of private land.

We are not just losing individual trees; we are losing entire green spaces within the city. Between 2003 and 2018, more than 11% of green space inside the A10 Ring Road disappeared. In the following five years, another 2% was lost. It seems as if the Public Space and Environmental Permitting departments are working at cross-purposes.

A paved garden

To compensate for our ash tree, the 'Boomverordening' (Tree Ordinance) required twelve new trees to be replanted. However, these trees do not have to be planted in the same garden; the municipality can place them elsewhere. If replanting is not possible, landowners must contribute to a tree fund. In theory, this sounds reasonable, but in practice, private landowners rarely contribute.

And what is the value of such a fund when there is increasingly less space for new trees?

Three years later, no replacement tree has been planted. Our neighbors paved their garden, and no new tree will be coming. The replanting obligation and the tree fund are failing. In 2017, due to cables, pipelines, and a lack of cooperation, only a few thousand of the planned 50,000 trees in the Western Docklands were actually replanted. Planting trees in industrial zones is as absurd as offsetting CO₂ emissions with forests in Africa—the benefits of trees are greatest when they are close to people.

Injustice

Old trees are irreplaceable; it takes decades for young trees to provide the same value. Why aren’t we fighting for what we already have?

Arguing over a tree may seem trivial, but it represents a fundamental injustice. If a tree stands on your land, are you really its owner? For the few years you live there, you cut down a tree that took a hundred years to grow.

"We're not nature barbarians," my neighbor said after the tree was felled. But this is not just about loving nature—it’s about our survival.

‍

This is a submitted opinion piece written by Nadina Galle. She is a Dutch-Canadian ecological engineer and the author of THE NATURE OF OUR CITIES, which was translated as De natuur van onze steden and published in September. Opinion pieces are submitted by readers and do not reflect the views of Het Parool's editorial team.