L13- Forest and Landscape Restoration

Atmospheric CO2 at the middle of the pacific ocean:

• has increased dramatically→ size of global forests affect this- more CO2 is sucked up in summer

  

• caused by converting land to agriculture, degrading forests through selective logging, burning fossil fuels

Global temperature:

• dramatic increase

  

Paris Agreement (COP21):

• 2015 UN framework convention

• restrict future temp increase to 2 degrees, preferably 1.5 degrees

• emphasising the urgency to cut fossil fuel emissions, deploy solutions to remove CO2 from the atmosphere

Degraded lands:

• worlds resources institute assessment→ lots in Africa, overlap with seasonal savanah woodlands- debated

  

  → there is a vast area of land that is degraded

What is land degradation?

• overexploitation of natural resources, magnified by climate change and biodiversity loss

• UN convention to combat desertification

Impacts of land degradation:

• loss of landscape productivity and resilience to extreme events

• ecological, social, economic threats

  • 40% of intrastate conflicts over 60years are linked to natural resources

  • will displace 135million people

  • >70% of countries associate this with a national security risk

Pushing the FLR agenda:

• Bonn challenge→ restore 150million hectares of worlds deforested and degraded lands by 2020, 350mh by 2030

  • brings together lots of targets/agreements e.g. UN framework, convention on biological diversity, UN convention to combat desertification

  • benefit of restoring 150mh is more than $80 billion every year

  • worked with local people, committing areas

Bonn Challenge now:

• 210mh has been pledged, 19Gt of CO2, continuing

• commitments are primarily in the tropics:

• most commitments are in tropical and developing nations

• is this neocolonialism?→ western countries paying the global south to clean up damages they made

Bonn challenge in the UK:

• potential on converting old sheep pastures into forested areas in the UK:

  • increasing carbon price will turn growing trees very profitable

Key characteristics of FLR:

• local stakeholders are actively involved

• whole landscapes are restored→ conflicting interests

• balance of ecosystem services and good

What counts as FLR:

• range of activities to better human needs e.g. carbon sequestration

1. natural forest/habitat regeneration→ letting it grow naturally

2. multi-species silvicultural systems→ under-crop forested areas, trees growing over top

3. monoculture tree plantations→ deliver timber, pulpwood, firewood

Problems with restorations via tree plantations:

• may generate afforestation (establishing a forest where there is no recent tree cover) in savanahs→ lots of carbon is kept underground and is protected from fire

  

• there are less areas where there are real restoration opportunities:

  

Value for biodiversity→ natural forest regeneration, Columbian Andes study method:

• take away cows and people from isolated areas

• Columbian Andes, high species turnover up the slope, 75% has been deforested→ 75% has been given over to low-intensity cattle pasture

• study→ birds and dung beetles (good indicators of ecosystem health) in pasture, secondary forests, mature secondary forests

  

Value for biodiversity→ natural forest regeneration, Columbian Andes study results:

• lose half of dung beetles species richness and a third of bird species richness in pasture

• as the secondary forest recovers→ get same species richness as the primary forest

  

• secondary forests do have a similar community to primary forests:

  

• there are similar kinds of abundance in primary and secondary forests:

  

• are bringing back rare bird species:

  

→ natural restoration does recover biodiversity in Columbia

Value for biodiversity→ natural forest regeneration, Amazon study results:

• more mature secondary forests have higher biomass (are crossing red lines) are doing well in recovery of good species richness and community similarities to the primary forest

  

→ secondary forests can recover biodiversity levels to primary forests in decades

Value for biodiversity→ restorations via tree plantations:

• good for carbon sequestration

• grains for green program

Grains for green program:

• largest restoration program, paid rural households to re-establish forests on sloped croplands

  • grew 27.8mha of forest in 10 years

  • goals→ timber extraction, frjuits, reduce landslides, erosions and floodings, biodiversity is not an explicit goal

  • can do more than one activity in one space:

    

Grains for green program- biodiversity:

• mixed strategies improved bird species richness but not bees→ did better in croplands where there are more pollinator foods

• there are more specialist birds in mixed habitats but not bees:

• mixed FLR is not more expensive

→ is economically viable to do monocultures and mixed FLRs but does not have huge biodiversity gains

Natural regenerations vs tree plantations:

• for biodiversity, soil erosion and water yield→ NR is better

• carbon- neutral for both

• trees- both, benefits sway more to NR when harvesting timber

• timber→ pasture is better

  

  → NR delivers biodiversity, carbon, soil and water

  → plantations are needed for timber but not for the rest

  → where timber is not an explicit goal, should promote NR

How to promote FLR at massive scales:

• in Latin America, 36mha were naturally restored, are marginal, dry, steep high places- abandoning lands

• in areas that aren’t naturally abandoned, need governmental or inter-governmental investments

Types of governmental or inter-governmental investments:

• national programs

• REDD+

• unleashing the global markets

national programs:

• chinas GFGP

• Brazils atlantic forest restoration pact (Bonn challenge)

REDD+ e.g.

• cost of reforesting 1h of pasture, in Andes Columbian:

• spend 300 if not using carbon market

• point at which price meets cost of restoring pasture→

→ is very cheap

unleashing power of markets:

• getting businesses involved

• value is more than the activity that was happening before

• governments to create an incentive for positive FLR market actions

• markets are very big scale→ good as many ecosystem good and services need large areas and for connectivity

• businesses are going to charge for these services

• ability to alleviate poverty, generate jobs and deliver EGS economic value to society

• land tenure→ new policies need to let landholders engage

• Will FLRs improve livelihood or deepen inequalities?

negatives of using markets:

• are focusing too much on restoration

• need support to see best types of restoration

• need governance

• may undermine interests of local people e.g. don’t need carbon but want timber instead

strategies to combat negatives of using markets:

• economic mechanisms e.g. subsidise costs, loans, tax breaks

• investments in technology, education, infrastructure

• standards and certifications

• legal mechanisms

Summary:

• preventing >2 degrees will require negative emissions technology e.g. FLR

  • sucks carbon out and promotes ecosystem services

  • should focus on natural regeneration

• should unleash the power of the market

  • need more research on the negatives of this though