Forrest Fleischman Profile picture
Sep 16, 2020 22 tweets 7 min read Read on X
These days everyone seems to thinks that "planting trees" is an important solution to the climate crisis. They're mostly wrong, and in this paper we explain why. Instead of planting trees, we need to talk about people managing landscapes. 1/x academic.oup.com/bioscience/adv…
We highlight 10 pitfalls of tree planting, and discuss how a focus on people who manage landscapes will work. 2/x
The first pitfall is that it is ecosystems, not tree planting campaigns, that capture and store carbon. Tree planting campaigns have high failure rates, and many ecosystems with sparse tree cover store large amounts of carbon below the ground - e.g. see onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11… 3
The second pitfall is that protecting ecosystems, not planting trees, is the most cost effective natural climate solution. Tree planting campaigns divert funding from this low cost priority, and fail because they do not address the drivers of forest loss. 4/x
The main driver of forest loss is export-oriented commodity agriculture. There are a number of ways of addressing this problem, which are outlined very well here. ipbes.net/assessment-rep… 5/x
In order to protect carbon in ecosystems, we need to secure the property rights of people who have incentives to conserve that carbon - often indigenous or otherwise resource-dependent people in the global south. 6/x rightsandresources.org/publication/ur…
The third pitfall is that tree planting is often not necessary to restore ecosystems. In many situations, trees can grow naturally without anyone needing them to be planted, and planting the wrong trees in the wrong places can hinder regrowth 7/x apps.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publ…
When restoration does involve planting trees, it often works better to plant a small number of trees that target specific goals - such as establishing seed sources or making the new forest more economically valuable to local users, rather than a large-scale planting program. 8/x
The fourth pitfall is that tree plantations sequester less carbon, less securely, than naturally regenerated forests. Widely used plantation practices result in forests with little long-term carbon storage and emphasize species that increase fire risk 9/x nature.com/articles/d4158…
The fifth pitfall is that Tree plantations in grasslands, shrublands, and peatlands destroy biodiversity. For example global restoration plans would destroy the iconic African savannas, replacing them with large scale plantations. 10/x sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
The 6th pitfall is that trees can reduce water availability. Yes, trees improve ground and surface water recharge, but they also use alot of water, and the balance between these is complicated and can only be determined in a site specific fashion. 11/x science.sciencemag.org/content/310/57…
The 7th pitfall is that trees in the wrong places actually warm the atmosphere more than their carbon storage contributes to cooling. This is because trees are dark - so they absorb more heat than surfaces like snow or dry grass. 12/x nature.com/articles/ncomm…
The 8th pitfall is that perverse financial incentives lead to rushed planting and high tree mortality. Hardly a week passes where I don't read a story about a tree planting drive which was rushed for publicity and no allocation was made for maintenance. The trees are dead. 13/x
The 9th pitfall is that tree planting can threaten rural livelihoods. 300 million people live on land targeted for restoration, and many of them depend on subsistence agriculture or grazing animals - land uses that often conflict with restoration. 14/x doi.org/10.1038/s41559…
The 10th pitfall is that tree planting targets the global south to capture emissions from the global north, raising fundamental questions of environmental justice. If tree planting is beneficial or benign, there may be no problem... 15/x
But we show that tree planting has the potential to disrupt the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of the world's poorest people while also destroying biodiversity and undermining the provision of ecosystem services like water. 16/x
Is it fair for wealthy consumers to ask very poor people to sacrifice their livelihoods so we can continue to consume? 17/x
We suggest that instead of focusing on tree planting as a "natural climate solution" we need to focus on "people-centered climate solutions." This means supporting social systems that support people to conserve ecosystems. 18/x
Long term investments in tree growing require secure land tenure for rural and indigenous people, alongside incentives and access to investment capital. These are lacking for many in the global south, and should be a priority for those who care about restoration. 19/x
This new brief from @RightsResources lays out some of what needs to be done: rightsandresources.org/publication/ur…
We have a discipline called "restoration ecology" but restoring ecosystems requires intervening in social systems to change their relationships with the land. To that end, I propose the development of a new field of "restoration science" which blends social and biophysical. /end
I'd like to acknowledge my coauthors who are on twitter @jennifer_pow @shishirbasant @ProfEricColeman @this_is_divya @PKashwan (apologies if I missed someone) and feel free to DM me for full text.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Forrest Fleischman

Forrest Fleischman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ForrestFleisch1

Aug 19, 2022
I seem to be perpetually skeptical of claims made by more abstract thinkers that win-win solutions are around the corner. Perhaps this very abstract paper will help those abstract thinkers think about why win-win outcomes are less common than they think? doi.org/10.1038/s41893…
Also, I can only read the abstract as my University doesn't subscribe to this journal (too expensive they told me).
I would boycott publishing in a journal that is too expensive for my (gigantic) university to buy, but I've found that publishing in Nature branded journals brings you alot of attention from media, which can be useful at times.
Read 5 tweets
Jul 13, 2022
How do we decide where we should focus ecological restoration? A recent paper in @Nature by Strassburg et al. provided advice that mostly ignored people. We think this is wrong, and Nature has now (finally!) published our response. nature.com/articles/s4158…
Here is a video made by @hfischer_slu and @Focali_se summarizing the main arguments we (@ProfEricColeman @hfischer_slu @PKashwan @marion_pfeifer @vjramprasadrao @Claudiasayil Joe Veldman, and I) made
And here is reference to the paper we are criticizing although I should mention that @danbrockington, @rini_rants and @megcevans have taught me that this is just one of a large class of similar analyses that have become popular in recent years nature.com/articles/s4158…
Read 46 tweets
Jul 2, 2022
This week I'm attending a conference on "nature based climate solutions" and I'm thinking about what calling changes to agriculture, forestry, and other land uses "nature-based" tells us.
Leaving coal in the ground is clearly a "nature-based solution" as it involves humans doing nothing, just leaving the coal where nature put it.
Agriculture and forestry are all about humans actively managing the environment, and thus the actual modifications of these "nature-based" solutions is to change people's behavior.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 28, 2022
Forest restoration and forest-based carbon are alot more expensive than widely reported. There is tremendous waste. In this thread I will explain why, drawing on our new World Development paper, with some asides about program effectiveness and data transparency.
The bottom line - we estimate that about half of the money the Indian government spends on tree planting in India is just a complete waste. No better than digging holes in the ground and filling them in again.
The link in Pushpendra's tweet above provides free access for 50 days to the official published version, here is a fully open-access preprint (missing some very minor copy-edits and formatting) hdl.handle.net/11299/226512
Read 40 tweets
Nov 17, 2021
There is a pattern of deceptive practices wherein tree planting programs are presented to the public as some kind of unquestionable environmental good. Here is another example: propublica.org/article/the-ce…
As the reporting shows, the company makes expansive claims about its tree planting that turn out on closer examination to be inaccurate. You can't actually find out what trees are planted where. Its hard to believe that you can grow trees well for only $0.10 per tree.
In response to my quote that points to potential challenges for tree planting, the company falls back on "It’s scientifically proven that trees take carbon out of the atmosphere, and the more trees we plant today, the more sustainable our planet will be for decades to come"
Read 6 tweets
Oct 18, 2021
Maybe like me you are confused by how many principles there are for restoration. In this spreadsheet I identify 64 principles for restoration in 6 papers published in the last 2 years. No wonder I was confused! docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
There is substantial overlap - for example, several emphasize importance of protecting intact ecosystems & including stakeholders.
There are also striking conflicts - one principle is "make it pay" while another principle is "prioritize social and ecological benefits over financial returns"
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(