Estimates of carbon sequestration for timber trees is well documented, while fruit trees are understudied. The few existing estimates indicate that fruit trees and fertiliser management on them, can substantially sequester carbon in coffee monocultures, albeit unlikely to the same extent as timber trees. A carbon investor may thus favour timber. In this light, as programs for planting billions and trillion trees are launched “to save the climate”, a wide range of gender, social, justice and environmental concerns are voiced. To challenge the mitigation perspective, we contrasted two hypothetical tree planting strategies: a mitigation (carbon finance) perspective and a livelihoods-centred (local) perspective and explored what a rapid, gender and social inclusion-oriented livelihoods perspective could bring to the process of tree selection. The survey documents indigenous knowledge of trees’ potential (dis)benefits in coffee agroforestry systems among 106 female and male arabica-growers in northwest Vietnam. The results display many similarities between women and men in term of perceived benefits from trees. Women and men prioritized trees based on their economic benefits, impacts on coffee production and improved soil fertility. However, in determining the preferred species, women considered more factors, including consequences for pest and disease (on host tree or coffee), microclimate regulation and shade provision. These findings resemble those by others from the same region and demonstrate that consulting both women and men can result in a more diverse shortlist of potential trees for agroforestry/afforestation that reflect both genders’ economic and labour contributions to the household. Furthermore, tree planting projects would benefit from seeking collaboration for bundled ecosystem services, rather than merely from carbon finance. Conversely, carbon investors can rely on farmers’ preferences and rest assured that they also contribute to sequestering carbon.