Rather than benefiting the environment, large-scale tree planting may do the opposite, two new studies have found.
One paper says that financial incentives to plant trees can backfire and reduce biodiversity with little impact on carbon emissions.
A separate project found that the amount of carbon that new forests can absorb may be overestimated.
The key message from both papers is that planting trees is not a simple climate solution.
Over the past few years, the idea of planting trees as a low cost, high impact solution to climate change has really taken hold.
Previous studies have indicated that trees have enormous potential to soak up and store carbon, and many countries have established tree planting campaigns as a key element of their plans to tackle climate change.
In the UK, promises by the political parties to plant ever larger numbers of trees were a feature of last year’s general election.
In the US, even President Donald Trump has rowed in behind the Trillion Trees Campaign.
Legislation to support the idea has been introduced into the US Congress.
Another major tree planting initiative is called the Bonn Challenge.
Countries are being urged to restore 350 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2030.
So far, around 40 nations have endorsed the idea.
But scientists have urged caution against the headlong rush to plant new forests.
They point to the fact that in the Bonn Challenge nearly 80% of the commitments made to date involve planting monoculture plantations or a limited mix of trees that produce specific products such as fruit or rubber.
The authors of this new study have looked closely at the financial incentives given to private landowners to plant trees.
These payments are seen as a key element of increasing the number of trees significantly.
The study looked at the example of Chile, where a decree subsidising tree planting ran from 1974 to 2012, and was widely seen as a globally influential afforestation policy.
The law subsidised 75% of the costs of planting new forests.
While it was intended not to apply to existing forests, lax enforcement and budgetary limitations meant that some landowners simply replaced native forests with more profitable new tree plantations.
Their study found the subsidy scheme expanded the area covered by trees, but decreased the area of native forest.
The authors point out that since Chile’s native forests are rich in biodiversity and store large amounts of carbon, the subsidy scheme failed to increase the carbon stores and accelerated biodiversity loss.
“If policies to incentivise tree plantations are poorly designed or poorly enforced, there is a high risk of not only wasting public money but also releasing more carbon and losing biodiversity,” said co-author Prof Eric Lambin, from Stanford University.
“That’s the exact opposite of what these policies are aiming for.”
A second study set out to examine how much carbon a newly planted forest would be able to absorb from the atmosphere.
Up until now, many scientists have calculated the amount of carbon that trees can pull down from the air using a fixed ratio.
Suspecting that this ratio would depend on local conditions, the researchers looked at northern China, which has seen intensive tree planting by the government because of climate change but also in an effort to reduce dust from the Gobi desert.
Looking at 11,000 soil samples taken from afforested plots, the scientists found that in carbon poor soils, adding new trees did increase the density of organic carbon.
But where soils were already rich in carbon, adding new trees decreased this density.
The authors say that previous assumptions about how much organic carbon can be fixed by planting new trees is likely an overestimate.
“We hope that people can understand that afforestation practices are not one single thing,” said Dr Anping Chen, from Colorado State University and a lead author on the study.
“Afforestation involves many technical details and balances of different parts, and it cannot solve all our climate problems.”
- Former Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation, Dr Akoto Osei dies aged 64
- Akufo-Addo swears in 3 new members of Electoral Commission
- AFCON 2023Q: Chris Hughton opens Black Stars camp with 8 players
- ECG disconnects power to Ho Airport, GRA and KFC over debt
- ECG recovers GH¢18.5m out of GH¢46.9m from 3 state institutions
- Akufo-Addo’s promises have turned out to be scam – Asiedu Nketia
- Fella Makafui reacts after Twitter user accuses her of ‘sleeping’ with Medikal’s ex-manager
- ‘Western Togoland’: 5 secessionists handed 5 years in jail each
- Ludacris hangs out with Sarkodie in Ghana, fans speculate new music
- Pregnant woman fills potholes on Obuasi road
- Slut Boy Billy: a rap prodigy breaking norms, making strides
- Why the Tema Motorway is a death trap
- Peter Obi kicks off legal challenge to Nigeria election result
- Dr Akoto Osei’s death a shock to the whole nation – Speaker
- Gwyneth Paltrow expected to appear in court over ski crash case
- John Mahama files nomination to contest NDC flagbearer race
- Overborrowing is one of Akufo-Addo’s biggest mistakes – Prof Adei
- Davido is back with new album ‘Timeless’, set for March 31
- GALARY: Best pictures from Black Stars training at Accra Sports Stadium on Monday
- Female farmers less likely to leave crop residues to decompose – KNUST research
- Drivers in Kumasi speed on weekends – Research reveals
- Implement existing laws to protect consumer – CUTS urges regulators
- Ghana’s “investment hub” agenda demands an open-minded tax administration
- Investors in government securities must be protected – Dr Adu Anane tells regulators
- Ayorkor Botchwey cuts sod for construction of Foreign Ministry annex