I've got a lot of feelings about this topic! I am a huge tree hugger, it's literally my job, but people need to realize that trees are NOT a panacea for everything. Not every open space is meant to be a forest, there are many other ecosystems! There is so much press around these 'plant a million tree' projects, but so little thought is actually put into the planting. Is this a place suitable for trees? Is anyone going to maintain these trees, or are they using all the money on planting only for half of them to die? I can speak from experience that funders only want to fund the planting portion, never the maintenance, and it's very frustrating trying to convince them that you need to put money towards keeping the trees ALIVE, otherwise it's all for naught.
Also, I do feel that their role in carbon capture is being...a bit overstated. Yes, they do capture carbon and can help offset climate change, but it is going to take decades for them to get large enough to make an impact and we need to do something NOW. Planting a new forest is not going to offset the damage from removing an old growth forest, it's just not. I think trees have a ton of benefits and are a public good when planted in the right place in the right way, but these mass reforestation campaigns with little care put into them are not the way to do it IMO.
Great post, thank you! In James Hansen’s CSAS Note.2024.02.14.pdf, he mentions the seriousness of the planet getting darker, lower albedo. Excess afforestation accounts for some of that. There are other climax-species systems besides forests; a savanna can be the natural climax ecosystem for certain areas, on which the other flora/fauna depend. Can you think of one successful ecosystem human-tampering project without unintended consequences? Not to mention frequent misguided _intended_ consequences, frequently the result of Big Philanthropy gestures.
There is a deep flaw in the Science paper, which is that the authors assume some static ratio of forest to savanna to grassland. This is a false picture. The boundaries between these ecosystems is fluid, set by constantly changing precipitation (which is in part regulated by canopy cover) and land use. Nations should be free to decide how to allocate management to different needs.
Thanks for this comment. I'm not sure that the authors do assume a "static ration of forest to savanna to grassland". As far as I can tell (from reading the paper) they don't say anything about whether the ratio is static or whether it varies over time. Obviously it will change over time.
The key point of the paper is that areas that are currently grassland and savanna are threatened with tree planting schemes. As the authors write, “Across Africa, vast areas of nonforest are threatened by inappropriate restoration in the form of tree planting.”
Are you really saying that nations should be free to destroy grasslands and savannas (that are often used by local communities for farmland and herding) by covering the land with trees - particularly when the funding for these tree planting schemes is coming from the German government, IUCN, the UN, the FAO, the Global Environmental Facility, and NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, as well as Bezos Earth Fund and Meta?
Given that the margins between savanna and forest are constantly shifting, and that climate change is both increasing drought and rainfall around the world, I think decisions about tree planting should be made by local communities to meet their needs. The authors' statement that woody "encroachment" threatens non-forest communities indicates that they do not appreciate the constantly shifting landscape mosaics of much of Africa.
I am not new to this - I have spent the last 20 years working on restoration of the rare woodland pasture ecosystem of the Bluegrass, where there is adequate rainfall for forests but an open woodland habitat was created by fire and bison (see Kimmerer, 2015 Venerable Trees). And I have worked in tropical forests in need of restoration.
The problem with the large tree planting schemes, and the problem with the commentary in Science, is that both try to create generalized solutions to local problems. Africans have a long history of managing their lands for the most beneficial use for them. Aid agencies should provide resources, including $, to aid these efforts but should not dictate land use at local levels.
The current trend in the change in this 'ratio' (driven by climate change) is towards more savannah and less forest - so the (re)afforestation efforts are even more wrong.
I've got a lot of feelings about this topic! I am a huge tree hugger, it's literally my job, but people need to realize that trees are NOT a panacea for everything. Not every open space is meant to be a forest, there are many other ecosystems! There is so much press around these 'plant a million tree' projects, but so little thought is actually put into the planting. Is this a place suitable for trees? Is anyone going to maintain these trees, or are they using all the money on planting only for half of them to die? I can speak from experience that funders only want to fund the planting portion, never the maintenance, and it's very frustrating trying to convince them that you need to put money towards keeping the trees ALIVE, otherwise it's all for naught.
Also, I do feel that their role in carbon capture is being...a bit overstated. Yes, they do capture carbon and can help offset climate change, but it is going to take decades for them to get large enough to make an impact and we need to do something NOW. Planting a new forest is not going to offset the damage from removing an old growth forest, it's just not. I think trees have a ton of benefits and are a public good when planted in the right place in the right way, but these mass reforestation campaigns with little care put into them are not the way to do it IMO.
Great post, thank you! In James Hansen’s CSAS Note.2024.02.14.pdf, he mentions the seriousness of the planet getting darker, lower albedo. Excess afforestation accounts for some of that. There are other climax-species systems besides forests; a savanna can be the natural climax ecosystem for certain areas, on which the other flora/fauna depend. Can you think of one successful ecosystem human-tampering project without unintended consequences? Not to mention frequent misguided _intended_ consequences, frequently the result of Big Philanthropy gestures.
There is a deep flaw in the Science paper, which is that the authors assume some static ratio of forest to savanna to grassland. This is a false picture. The boundaries between these ecosystems is fluid, set by constantly changing precipitation (which is in part regulated by canopy cover) and land use. Nations should be free to decide how to allocate management to different needs.
Thanks for this comment. I'm not sure that the authors do assume a "static ration of forest to savanna to grassland". As far as I can tell (from reading the paper) they don't say anything about whether the ratio is static or whether it varies over time. Obviously it will change over time.
The key point of the paper is that areas that are currently grassland and savanna are threatened with tree planting schemes. As the authors write, “Across Africa, vast areas of nonforest are threatened by inappropriate restoration in the form of tree planting.”
Are you really saying that nations should be free to destroy grasslands and savannas (that are often used by local communities for farmland and herding) by covering the land with trees - particularly when the funding for these tree planting schemes is coming from the German government, IUCN, the UN, the FAO, the Global Environmental Facility, and NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy, as well as Bezos Earth Fund and Meta?
Given that the margins between savanna and forest are constantly shifting, and that climate change is both increasing drought and rainfall around the world, I think decisions about tree planting should be made by local communities to meet their needs. The authors' statement that woody "encroachment" threatens non-forest communities indicates that they do not appreciate the constantly shifting landscape mosaics of much of Africa.
I am not new to this - I have spent the last 20 years working on restoration of the rare woodland pasture ecosystem of the Bluegrass, where there is adequate rainfall for forests but an open woodland habitat was created by fire and bison (see Kimmerer, 2015 Venerable Trees). And I have worked in tropical forests in need of restoration.
The problem with the large tree planting schemes, and the problem with the commentary in Science, is that both try to create generalized solutions to local problems. Africans have a long history of managing their lands for the most beneficial use for them. Aid agencies should provide resources, including $, to aid these efforts but should not dictate land use at local levels.
The current trend in the change in this 'ratio' (driven by climate change) is towards more savannah and less forest - so the (re)afforestation efforts are even more wrong.