[ad_1]
Restoring forests is vital to stopping climate change, but it costs money and there is more than one way to do it.
So which way is better for the climate, and more cost-effective, in a given place? That’s what a new study explores — and it could have huge implications for countries trying to meet their climate goals.
The study, published today in Nature Climate Change, compares two widely used reforestation methods.
The first is tree plantations, which is what it sounds like: planting trees and harvesting them later, with some of the carbon from the harvested trees being stored in building materials. The second is “natural regeneration” — a fancy way of saying “leave the forest alone and let it regrow naturally.”
The cash flow of plantation forestry is easy to understand: you sell the wood, you make money, you plant more trees. In contrast, revenue streams for natural regeneration rely largely on the sale of carbon credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere — although, unlike wood, carbon is less well-priced.
So which one offers the best climate and the best value for money?
The answer depends on where, says Jonah Busch, a former Friedman Science Fellow at Conservation International and lead author of the paper.
“What we found is that there is no clear winner between the two,” Busch said. “There is a time and a place for both types of reforestation, and if you were to reforest the world only with plantations, or if you were to reforest the world only with natural regeneration, you would miss out on the climate benefit.”
A matter of balance
Busch and fellow researchers mapped nearly 140 low- and middle-income countries where large-scale reforestation is possible. They gathered new data on which common plantation tree species are best suited to planting in different places, as well as the “opportunity costs” of growing crops or raising livestock instead of planting trees. At the same time, researchers looked at the costs and benefits of natural regeneration, weighing the costs of implementation against different scenarios of the carbon revenues that such forests could generate.
The country-by-country maps the researchers produced — the first of their kind — can help governments gauge where each reforestation method could be more cost-effective in slowing climate change. Each method, they found, is more cost-effective in about half the places. Busch hopes the data will help policymakers make informed decisions about balancing costs, revenues, climate commitments and more.
“This research can help them determine the best mix of plantations and natural regeneration to achieve reforestation goals. What this research says is that the mix should probably be more natural regeneration than it is now.”
The study also found that reforestation is less expensive to implement than previously thought, which is good news for efforts to combat climate change.
“Our research shows that the costs of reforestation based on hundreds of actual projects are much lower than previously estimated, and therefore should be a larger part of the mix of climate change mitigation efforts, including national climate pledges,” Busch said.
Busch cautions that when it comes to deciding what type of reforestation to do where, climate and cost are just two pieces of a larger puzzle. People would do well to consider the other significant co-benefits that forests generate, including livelihoods; wildlife habitat; freshwater provision and filtration; sources of food and income for local communities; and more.
Read further:
Bruno Vander Velde is the managing director of content at Conservation International. Want to read more stories like this? Sign up for email updates. Also consider supporting our critical work.
[ad_2]
Source link
Discover more from Mission LiFE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.