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).

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

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.

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.

https://twitter.com/_PushpendraRana/status/1497216292734246914

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.

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.

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…

https://twitter.com/ForrestFleisch1/status/1450109674947182593

There is substantial overlap - for example, several emphasize importance of protecting intact ecosystems & including stakeholders.

I spent the weekend troubled by this editorial in Science. I agree with some of the main messages: Restoration has great potential to improve human well-being while caring for the planet. BUT I'm troubled by what isn't said. science.org/doi/full/10.11… Restoration often involves difficult tradeoffs. The editorial makes it seem like its just win-win, but often land that is restored used to be agricultural land, or is used in some other way by people, or there are tradeoffs between ecological goals.

In the last week I've started to receive inquiries from people running tree planting programs wanting my help. I am suggesting that they shut down their programs. Here I will explain why: Some context: A couple weeks ago a team I am a part of published a paper demonstrating the failure of long-term planting programs in India nature.com/articles/s4189… or ungated: conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/hand…

India has attempted large scale forest restoration for decades. We have just published one of the first systematic evaluations of these efforts. We find that decades of tree planting have had almost no impact on forest canopy cover or rural livelihoods. A Thread. These results are pretty disappointing: These plantations failed to achieve their goals. This failure also raises questions about the aims of global restoration and tree planting initiatives: Can they deliver on their ambitions plans?

2 pieces of advice for writing academic cover letters: (1) your cover letter (and any accompanying statements) is an essay about your accomplishments & agenda. It should have a clear thesis statement & each paragraph should contain a specific piece of supporting information We all tend to write these things chronologically, or to list off things we've done, but letters that shine instead describe a research (or teaching, or diversity) agenda that is specific, focused, and can be broken down into subcomponents that provide evidence.

@reddmonitor has a great post summarizing a number of recent articles about "plant for the planet," which raise a host of interesting questions about the potential for tree planting & forest restoration to serve lofty goals. redd-monitor.org/2021/01/11/pla… I got involved in this because I've done fieldwork in the area where Plant for the Planet's Mexican forests are. I was last there in 2015, so around the same time Plant for the Planet got started there. I can't report direct observations.

When the lofty goals of forest landscape restoration are put into practice, the rhetoric is replaced by a focus on planting trees, often in places where they don't belong. link.springer.com/article/10.100… I've had a bunch of arguments with FLR advocates about this. Mostly, they boil down to a believe on the part of FLR advocates that their complex science-based prescriptions will be translated into careful on-the-ground action.

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