No abstract

Many countries have adopted large-scale tree-planting programs as a climate mitigation strategy and to support local livelihoods. We evaluate a series of large-scale tree planting 23 programs using data collected from historical Landsat imagery in the state of Himachal Pradesh 24 in Northern India. Using this panel dataset, we use an event study design to estimate the 25 socioeconomic and biophysical impacts over decades of these programs. We find that tree plantings have not, on average, increased the proportion of forest canopy cover, and have modestly shifted forest composition away from the broadleaf varieties valued by local people.Further cross-sectional analysis, from a household livelihood survey, shows that tree planting supports little direct use by local people. We conclude that decades of expensive tree planting programs in this region have not proved effective. This result shows that large-scale tree planting may sometimes fail to achieve its climate mitigation and livelihood goals.3 MainMany countries have begun adopting large-scale tree-planting programs based on the potential of forests to absorb carbon and support local livelihoods 1-3 . As of 2015, the extent of 35 global tree cover from planted forests is estimated at 280 million hectares, and 12 million 36 hectares lie within India 4 . Despite the broad appeal of planting trees, some researchers and practitioners have raised concerns about potential negative impacts of large-scale tree-planting programs on vulnerable people and diverse ecosystems [5][6][7] . Restoration ecologists have cautioned 39 that tree planting should not be equated with forest restoration, but instead countries should 40 consider diverse restoration strategies in diverse ecosystems 7 . However, forest restoration commitments made under international agreements like the Bonn Challenge and UNFCCC Paris Accords demand nationally-coordinated efforts to achieve ambitious restoration targets at immense scale 8 . As a result, much of the current nationally-pledged restoration area is set aside 44 for large-scale tree planting 2,9 . For example, the Indian National Determined Contributions 45 (NDC) from the Paris Accords commits "To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion 46 tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030" 10 . Understanding the 47

The maps and analysis of "Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration," produced by Strassburg et al. 1 , should not be used by policymakers in their current form, due to the risk of displacing marginalized people, compromising food security, and undermining democratic processes. Strassburg et al.'s analysis was based on normative choices to value (i.e., optimize) relationships among biodiversity potential, carbon storage potential, and cost effectiveness, without consideration for the well-being and rights of people who live in areas identified as restoration priorities, nor the implementation costs of changing land use. While it may be informative to map the joint distribution of biodiversity, carbon, and commodity prices, the absence of important socio-economic values obscures both the costs and benefits to the indigenous, forest-dependent, and rural people who are directly affected by restoration interventions. We pose three cautionary questions that we believe must be answered before the maps produced by Strassburg et al. are used by decision-makers to motivate and implement restoration-promoting land-use policies.Question 1: Who lives in places identified as restoration priorities?