No abstract

Many countries have adopted large-scale tree-planting programs as a climate mitigation strategy and to support local livelihoods. We evaluate a series of large-scale tree planting 23 programs using data collected from historical Landsat imagery in the state of Himachal Pradesh 24 in Northern India. Using this panel dataset, we use an event study design to estimate the 25 socioeconomic and biophysical impacts over decades of these programs. We find that tree plantings have not, on average, increased the proportion of forest canopy cover, and have modestly shifted forest composition away from the broadleaf varieties valued by local people.Further cross-sectional analysis, from a household livelihood survey, shows that tree planting supports little direct use by local people. We conclude that decades of expensive tree planting programs in this region have not proved effective. This result shows that large-scale tree planting may sometimes fail to achieve its climate mitigation and livelihood goals.3 MainMany countries have begun adopting large-scale tree-planting programs based on the potential of forests to absorb carbon and support local livelihoods 1-3 . As of 2015, the extent of 35 global tree cover from planted forests is estimated at 280 million hectares, and 12 million 36 hectares lie within India 4 . Despite the broad appeal of planting trees, some researchers and practitioners have raised concerns about potential negative impacts of large-scale tree-planting programs on vulnerable people and diverse ecosystems [5][6][7] . Restoration ecologists have cautioned 39 that tree planting should not be equated with forest restoration, but instead countries should 40 consider diverse restoration strategies in diverse ecosystems 7 . However, forest restoration commitments made under international agreements like the Bonn Challenge and UNFCCC Paris Accords demand nationally-coordinated efforts to achieve ambitious restoration targets at immense scale 8 . As a result, much of the current nationally-pledged restoration area is set aside 44 for large-scale tree planting 2,9 . For example, the Indian National Determined Contributions 45 (NDC) from the Paris Accords commits "To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion 46 tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030" 10 . Understanding the 47

Ecosystem restoration is an important means to address global sustainability challenges. However, scientific and policy discourse often overlooks the social processes that influence the equity and effectiveness of restoration interventions. In the present article, we outline how social processes that are critical to restoration equity and effectiveness can be better incorporated in restoration science and policy. Drawing from existing case studies, we show how projects that align with local people's preferences and are implemented through inclusive governance are more likely to lead to improved social, ecological, and environmental outcomes. To underscore the importance of social considerations in restoration, we overlay existing global restoration priority maps, population, and the Human Development Index (HDI) to show that approximately 1.4 billion people, disproportionately belonging to groups with low HDI, live in areas identified by previous studies as being of high restoration priority. We conclude with five action points for science and policy to promote equity-centered restoration.

Background: Forests provide an essential resource to the livelihoods of an estimated 20% of the global population. The contribution of forest ecosystems and forest-based resources to poverty reduction is increasingly emphasized in international policy discourse and conservation and development investments. However, evidence measuring the effect of forest-based activities on poverty outcomes remains scattered and unclear. Lack of systematic understanding of forest-poverty relationships, in turn, inhibits research, policymaking, and efficient financial resource allocation. Methods:To identify relevant studies for inclusion in this systematic map we searched six bibliographic databases, 15 organizational websites, eight systematic evidence syntheses (reviews and maps), and solicited information from key informants. Search results were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract, and full text levels, according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a predefined framework. Trends in the evidence, knowledge gaps and relatively well-researched sub-topics are reported in a narrative synthesis. Occurrence and extent of existing evidence about links between interventions and outcomes are presented in a visual heatmap. Data are available through the open access Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal (http://www.natur eandp eople evide nce.org). Results:A total of 242 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects of 14 forest-based intervention types on 11 poverty dimensions. The majority of the evidence base (72%) examined links between productivity-enhancement strategies (e.g. forest management, agroforestry, and habitat management) and monetary income and/or social capital outcomes. Other areas with high occurrence of articles include linkages between interventions involving governance, individual rights/empowerment or linked enterprises/livelihood alternatives with impacts on monetary income from direct sale of goods. A key knowledge gap was on the impacts of investment-based interventions (i.e. enhancing produced, human, and social capitals). Another was the impacts of forest-based interventions on financial capital (savings, debt), non-monetary benefits, and health. Conclusions:The evidence base on forest-based productive activities and poverty alleviation is growing but displays a number of biases in the distribution of articles on key linkages. Priorities for future systematic reviews and evaluations include in-depth examinations into the impacts of rights-based activities (e.g. governance, empowerment) on poverty dimensions; and productivity-enhancing activities on social capital. More comprehensive and robust evidence is needed to better understand the synergies and trade-offs among the different objectives of forest conservation and management and variation in outcomes for different social groups in different social-ecological contexts.

Citizens, governments, and donors are increasingly demanding better evidence on the eff ectiveness of development policies and programs. Eff orts to ensure such accountability in the forest sector confront the challenge that the results may take years, even decades, to materialize, while forest-related interventions usually last only a short period. Th is article reviews the broad interdisciplinary literature assessing forest conservation and management impacts on biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, and poverty alleviation in developing countries. It emphasizes the importance of indicators and identifi es disconnects between a rapidly growing body of research based on quasi-experimental designs and studies taking a more critical, ethnographic approach. Th e article also highlights a relative lack of attention on longer-term impacts in both of these areas of scholarship. We conclude by exploring research frontiers in the assessment of the impacts of forest-related interventions with long incubation periods, notably the development of predictive proxy indicators (PPIs).Ⅲ