Sparing grasslands: Map misinterpreted

Abstract

LETTERSOchre star losing its second arm to wasting disease.

A lesson unlearned? Underestimating tree cover in drylands biases global restoration maps

“…It should be emphasized that neither study 1 or study 2 advocate targeting drylands for inappropriate restoration, and both recognize the negative consequences of inappropriate restoration in drylands (Bastin, Finegold, Garcia, Gellie, et al, 2019; Laestadius, Maginnis, et al, 2015). Nonetheless, each map emphasized arid biomes as restoration opportunities for similar methodological reasons.…”

“…To address this criticism, Laestadius, Maginnis, et al (2015) clarified that the AFRLO was not designed to advocate for afforestation, ecologically inappropriate tree planting, or the replacement of natural ecosystems. However, the AFLRO was used to inspire many national forest restoration pledges to the global Bonn Challenge, including from arid countries (Laestadius, Buckingham, Maginnis, & Saint‐Laurent, 2015).…”

Grassy biomes: An inconvenient reality for large‐scale forest restoration? A comment on the essay by Chazdon and Laestadius

“…For example, in response to Veldman et al (2015b) and Bond (2016), Laestadius et al (2015, p. 1210) and DeWitt et al (2016, p. 1036) wrote: “FLR does not call for increasing tree cover beyond what would be ecologically appropriate for a particular location, and should not cause any loss or conversion of natural forests, grasslands, or other ecosystems.” Unfortunately, such assurances provide no safeguard against the entrenched interests of forestry bureaucrats and timber companies who plant trees, often under the guise of restoration, without regard to ecological histories or cultural values (Fleischman, 2014; Andersson et al, 2016). We thus urge Chazdon and Laestadius to seriously consider the risks of misapplied forest restoration efforts (e.g., water shortages; Cao et al, 2011) and ask that their WRI and IUCN colleagues (Laestadius et al, 2015; DeWitt et al, 2016) either revise, or take off‐line, their flawed map of forest restoration opportunities (WRI, 2014). More generally, we encourage scientists and environmental policymakers to better acknowledge the conservation values of tropical savannas (e.g., Searchinger et al, 2015) and to work with us to incorporate grasslands and fire, alongside forests, in conservation and restoration efforts (Overbeck et al, 2015; Veldman, 2016).…”

“…With regard to pragmatism and evidence, we are concerned that Chazdon and Laestadius, along with their colleagues at the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN; i.e., Laestadius et al, 2015 ;DeWitt et al, 2016 ), continue to overestimate the amount of deforested and degraded forest land that is suitable for reforestation. Chazdon andLaestadius (2016 , p. 1869) write "Over 2 billion hectares (7,722,043 square miles) of dysfunctional land (former forest and mixed woodland) provide opportunities for forest landscape restoration ( Laestadius et al, 2011 )."…”

With Power Comes Responsibility – A Rangelands Perspective on Forest Landscape Restoration

“…The disingenuous response has been that the maps are not to be seen as prescriptive of what needs to be done, but rather what is possible in the absence of human disturbance. Their proponents argue that they need to be interpreted with caution, and that they merely provide large scale guidance that needs to be followed up with finerscale planning, which is the responsibility of each country or region (Laestadius et al, 2015;Chazdon and Laestadius, 2017;Bastin et al, 2019b). However, if an area is mapped as "deforested" or "degraded" by experts, and at the same time there is pressure to pledge "ambitious" targets toward the Bonn Challenge and related initiatives (with strong positive publicity and promises of funding for countries that pledge large areas toward the targets), then how is one to interpret such maps?…”