To plant or not to plant

Abstract

Reforestation has been widely touted as one of our most powerful tools in the fight against climate change. As the practice of restoring existing forests that have been damaged by anthropogenic and natural forces, it is easy to see why it is such an attractive proposition. As well as sequestering carbon, tree planting creates habitats for biodiversity and provides ecosystem services that are essential to rural livelihoods. But critics have cautioned against viewing reforestation as a ‘silver bullet’ for climate change mitigation. Inappropriate reforestation practices can do more harm than good; marred by low survivorship, reforestation can exacerbate human–wildlife conflicts and, in some scenarios, can increase CO₂ emissions. As the mixed outcomes of reforestation programmes emerge, it is clear that tree planting is not an easy-fix solution: it matters what trees you plant and when, where and how you plant them.

To better understand how restoration practices have been implemented, Forrest Fleischman and colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied detailed records of government-run tree-planting programmes in the Indian Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh — an ideal case study owing to its long history of large-scale forestation initiatives.