Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions

Fleischman, Forrest; Basant, Shishir; Chhatre, Ashwini; Coleman, Eric A.; Fischer, Harry W.; Gupta, Divya; Güneralp, Burak; Kashwan, Prakash; Khatri, Dil; Muscarella, Robert; Powers, Jennifer S.; Ramprasad, Vijay; Rana, Pushpendra; Solorzano, Claudia Rodriguez; Veldman, Joseph W.

doi:10.1093/biosci/biaa094

Cited by 82 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cleared areas are not a viable alternative because of socioeconomic and ecological constraints of converting productive lands back to forests. If policymakers wish to promote forest restoration through tree planting, then the underlying social and ecological processes that led to forest degradation in the first place needs to be addressed 3,5,6 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Large scale tree planting is widely proposed as a central element of global climate mitigation efforts, based on the potential of new trees to absorb carbon and support local livelihoods [1][2][3][4] . Despite this broad appeal, some researchers and practitioners have raised concerns about potential negative impacts of large-scale tree planting projects on vulnerable people and forest ecosystems [5][6][7] . Others question whether forest restoration projects will achieve their ambitious goals in the face of such challenges 3,[8][9][10] .…”

Section: Mainmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For outcomes, , we examine two types of land cover changes: forest density and species composition. Change in density can affect biodiversity and carbon storage 5 . Species composition estimates the usefulness of tree species for local people: broadleaf trees provide more value as firewood and fodder for domestic animals, while needleleaf species are less valuable for those purposes [33][34][35][36] .…”

Section: Figure 2 Cumulative Number Of Active Tree Plantationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Decades of tree planting in Northern India had little effect on forest density and rural livelihoods

Coleman

Schultz

Ramprasad³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Myriad scholars, policymakers, and practitioners advocate tree planting as a climate mitigation strategy and to support local livelihoods. But, is the broad appeal of tree planting supported by evidence? We report estimated impacts from decades of tree planting in Northern India. We find that tree plantings have not, on average, increased the proportion of dense forest cover, and have modestly shifted species composition away from the broadleaf varieties valued by local people. Supplementary analysis from household livelihood surveys show that, in contrast to narratives of forest dependent people being supported by tree planting, there are few direct users of these plantations and their dependence is low. We conclude that decades of expensive tree planting programs have not proved effective.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mainmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 2 Cumulative Number Of Active Tree Plantationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decades of tree planting in Northern India had little effect on forest density and rural livelihoods

Coleman

Schultz

Ramprasad³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This effect was partly mirrored in the NbS literature, where several authors pointed to knowledge gaps in analyzing their efficacy or miscommunication around the applicability of particular solutions. Tree‐planting, for example, viewed as a critical NbS or NCS for mitigation, was critiqued by some papers under review as ineffective, particularly in the form of plantations or monocultures (Fleischman et al, 2020; Seddon et al, 2021).…”

Section: Framing “Natural Solutions”mentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing “nature‐based” solutions to climate change

Osaka

Bellamy

Castree

2021

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, there has been a growth in scholarship on “nature‐based solutions” and “natural climate solutions” to climate change. A variety of actors have argued that these natural solutions—variously involving the protection, conservation, restoration, management, enhancement, or imitation of natural ecosystems—can play a crucial role in both mitigating and adapting to climate change. What is more, by virtue of their label, natural solutions promise to be particularly attractive to the public and policymakers and have received significant media and scholarly attention. But what is natural is also social: people, acting in various social groups, can selectively emphasize or deemphasize certain characteristics of climate solutions to make them seem more or less natural. The framing of particular solutions as “natural” or “unnatural” has far‐reaching implications for climate policy, but has thus far been overlooked. Here, we undertake a critical review of the ways in which natural solutions to climate change have been framed and examine the normative and practical implications of this framing. We review what counts (and what does not count) as a natural solution, and find that those labeled natural are routinely framed under technical and social appraisal criteria as being more beneficial, cost effective, mature, and democratic than ostensibly artificial counterparts. And yet we show that, under greater scrutiny, the natural framing obscures the reality that natural solutions can be just as risky, expensive, immature, and technocratic. We conclude by reflecting on the dangers of narrowing the range of solutions considered natural and indeed, of selecting solutions through recourse to “nature” at all. Rather, climate solutions must be evaluated in terms of their specific qualities, against a far broader range of framings. This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

show abstract

“…The politicians in India think that announcement of commitments, formulating a policy, and planting trees is the end of all the issues (Fleischman et al 2020). In various states in India, it has been performed by planting millions of saplings in 1 day or half a billion in a year as a political stunt (Adlakha 2020).…”

Section: Political Challengementioning

confidence: 99%

Ecosystem restoration: challenges and opportunities for India

Singh

Tewari

2021

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ninety-six million hectares of degraded land, unprecedented loss of biodiversity, and extreme climatic events are the key ecological challenges for India. Offering livelihood opportunities to millions of workers who migrated to their villages and recovery from economic crisis due to covid-19 pandemic have emerged as the biggest socioeconomic challenges for the country. A framework of different policies and strategies are in place to overcome these ecological and socioeconomic challenges. But they are loosely interconnected with independent aims and involvement of different governments' institutions and departments. This article, therefore, here briefs challenges and shows how aiming at ecosystem restoration and biodiversity conservation through these policies can provide a cost-effective, efficient, and sustainable way for India to overcome its ecological and socioeconomic challenges.

show abstract

Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions

Cited by 82 publications

References 8 publications

Decades of tree planting in Northern India had little effect on forest density and rural livelihoods

Decades of tree planting in Northern India had little effect on forest density and rural livelihoods

Framing “nature‐based” solutions to climate change

Ecosystem restoration: challenges and opportunities for India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About