Reforestation - is it the answer?

 

“Nature-based solutions” are popular answers as a means of fighting climate change while protecting biodiversity. One technique is familiar: planting trees, the original “carbon capture hubs”. They absorb atmospheric CO2 while boosting wildlife habitats — critical to stemming biodiversity loss and protecting against flooding and soil erosion.

But experts say that reforestation, while essential, is far from a silver bullet against climate crises. Experts say nature-based solutions are important but not enough in themselves.  Trees take time to grow and, when trying to lock away carbon indefinitely, they remain vulnerable to logging, land clearance or wildfires fuelled by a deteriorating climate. Scientists worry too about the huge land and water requirements for this tree-planting tactic.

Two of the world’s biggest fossil-fuel producers, Russia and Saudi Arabia, have promised in recent weeks to go carbon neutral by 2060. Both Moscow and Riyadh plan to offset much of their carbon emissions from fossil fuels by planting millions of trees.  And they are not alone. Boris Johnson wants to make tree planting a priority.  Planting trees and expanding green spaces are not new ideas

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which coined the term, defines nature-based solutions as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems”. 

Protecting and expanding forests is central to this approach.

“Forests, and in particular tropical forests, absorb about a third of the greenhouse gases emitted every year,” explained Anne Larigauderie, executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which works with the UN on protecting biodiversity. “They could do much more if we stopped deforestation and invested more in forest management and the protection of these ecosystems.”

Mangrove restoration is often cited as a key example, as these unique ecosystems act as natural barriers against coastal erosion and flooding. 

Simply planting trees, though, isn't enough. 

For all the promise they hold, nature-based solutions should not be seen as a miracle cure for the climate. The natural world constantly shifts and evolves, and researchers must adapt accordingly. Planting along shores and waterways, for example, has its limits.

“While we’ve mastered the design methods for civil engineering based on mechanical and physical properties, the same isn’t true for plant engineering, which brings into play living materials whose properties are much harder to control,” said André Evette at France’s National Institute of Agronomic Research.

Friends of the Earth fear that nature-based solutions can “disguise climate-trashing business as usual”. 

“Under the guise of Nature Based Solutions, big business and governments continue to expand … industrial agriculture and fossil fuel extraction, while claiming to address their climate impacts through investment in activities such as mass tree planting,” Friends of the Earth wrote.

Larigauderie likewise also warns against putting too much stake in it.

“Nature will not be able to absorb a frantic increase in our consumption,” she cautioned. “The number one message is that we must reduce our energy consumption, and rethink our lifestyles and agriculture. Nature can do a lot for us, but we must also correct ourselves.”  

Why planting trees is no silver bullet against climate change (france24.com)