April 19, 2022 • 21 mins
In this bonus episode of About Sustainability…, André, Bob, Erin, and Simon briefly discussed people’s relationship with nature, from local communities that use natural resources in a low-impact way to large-scale efforts around the world to plant trees. This side conversation happened during our discussion on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Episode 3, linked below).
Despite their popularity, André cautioned that tree planting campaigns can be ineffective and even destructive to biodiversity in some cases. Nature-based solutions, including tree planting - like most things - require the right context. Otherwise, we may be doing more damage than good.
Helpful resources:
- Episode 3: Convention on Biological Diversity
- IGES’ CBD-COP15 Special Webpage
"About Sustainability..." is a podcast brought to you by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), an environmental policy think-tank based in Hayama, Japan. IGES experts are concerned with environmental and sustainability challenges. Everything shared on the podcast will be off-the-cuff discussion, and any viewpoints expressed are those held by the speaker at the time of recording. They are not necessarily official IGES positions.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Erin (00:08):
Hey there.
It's Erin Kawazu,one of the co-hosts
of About Sustainability...
, a podcast where we discussand draw attention to
contemporary issues and eventsrelevant to sustainability.
This podcast is an initiativeby staff at the Institute for
Global EnvironmentalStrategies (IGES).
Today, we want to share withyou a short side conversation
(00:31):
between André Mader,Bob McDonald, Simon Olsen and
me when we were talking aboutthe Convention on Biological
Diversity or CBD.
By the way, checkout that episode too,
if you haven't already.
Okay, so we need to keepplanting more trees if we want
to save the planet, right?
Or not.
It's often really hard to seethe forest for the trees,
(00:53):
but maybe we need to take astep back, actually, and see
beyond the forest first.
Let's get into it.
Simon (01:01):
I've just heard that- I think there's a lack of
definition or commonunderstanding of what
nature really means.
And there are some countriesthat are trying to introduce it
in order toreplace the environment.
For what reason?
I don't know.
But they aren't successful yetbecause I think because there
is no commondefinition of it- Political
Political definition.
André (01:22):
Right.
Okay.
So I don't know too muchabout that, but certainly the
word "nature",just like "biodiversity",
is open to interpretationto some extent.
Right.
So I mean, having grown up inSouth Africa, which is a
country- a verybiodiverse country,
first of all, and also acountry where there's still
relatively large amount of landthat's considered 'pristine' -
(01:44):
and I have to add the invertedcommas there, because no one
really knows what pristine is.
There's been there have beenpapers written on how even the
deepest recesses of the Amazonhave shown signs
of human habitation.
So it may bethat the forest there,
which is regarded as, you know,ancient forest, might not be so
ancient after all.
(02:05):
So is a very just an incrediblyinteresting but
incredibly complex topics.
An old professor of mine,I watched a YouTube video of
his the other day where he'stalking about or arguing
against the world'sobsession with forests.
And he's a grassland andsavannah expert and he's done
empirical research and alsoreviews showing that some of
(02:28):
the world's grasslands areolder than many of the
world's forests, and grasslandis often- grassland and
shrubland are often consideredto be kind of a degraded
state of nature.
But in some cases, they're- theyprecede the forests.
And the forests are also,in some cases, the result
of human habitation.
(02:50):
There's actually an amazing- inthat presentation, he shows a
map of the place where heworked - I think it's probably
East Africa considering thelandscape - but it's an aerial
view of a fairly sort of grey-brown landscape, which is
shrubland or grassland, and thenit's got these green
blotches all over the place.
(03:10):
It's taken at quite a height,so it's maybe an area about
fifty by fifty kilometres ormaybe a hundred by a hundred.
And then you zoom in,those dark patches
are forests, and if you zoom ineven more, you'll see a village
in the middle of each of those.
And the research thatwas done basically going back,
you know, using aerial photosand and other evidence,
(03:30):
and then also speaking to theoldest people in the villages,
they determined that basicallythose forests are manmade
forests - human-made foreststhat was savannah
or grassland before.
And it's difficult to kind of -to always know whether it would
be better if it was completelyprotected and people would just
pulled out of there.
But some of these- some ofthese SEPLS (socio-ecological
(03:54):
production landscape orseascape) have been SEPLS for
hundreds or thousandsof years, especially in Asia.
There are lots ofexamples of that, where we
don't even know what the placelooked like before they
were doing that.
And what we do know is thatwhen people pull out of some of
these places, like in Japan,where, you know, people are
moving to cities moreand more, the rural areas-
(04:14):
maybe that's reversing a bitnow with COVID- but typically
also in in parts of Europe,especially Eastern Europe,
rural areas are emptying outand that's leading to these
agricultural areas beingovertaken by natural vegetation.
And in many cases,that's actually a
reduction in biodiversity.
This kind of goes back to theforest argument a little bit.
(04:35):
The dominance of treesis not necessarily good
for biodiversity, and there areplenty of examples of that.
Another example is in easternand southern Africa, where the
fire regime or the grazingregime is being changed because
of human- usuallybecause of human interference,
especially with fire.
If the fire frequency andintensity has changed,
(04:57):
that's going to change theentire dynamics of the system.
And very often that leadsto an increase in tree cover.
So these landscapes that arenaturally or traditionally
savannah or grassland changedto tree landscapes covered
entirely by trees, and theyhave their own
suite of species, but veryoften, it's far less
(05:18):
biodiverse than the grasslandthat preceded it.
Simon (05:20):
You painted a picture of this aerial photo that showed
the grey brown grassland areawith some green dots.
And then you said as youzoom in, the green dots are
where people live.
But then in theEuropean example, you say when
people leave, it's reforested.
So what?
The forest comes nomatter what, with or
without people?
André (05:40):
It depends on the ecosystem entirely.
So in the African context,you're looking at- I'm just
thinking about someof the drivers.
I mean, this would requirestudies and probably studies
have been done.
But in theAfrican - East African,
Southern African - context,one thing that will increase
the cover of trees isreduction of fire.
(06:04):
So fire, typically speaking,favours grasses.
It also depends- it gets quitecomplex because frequent-
frequent cool fires will favourtrees because they don't kill
the trees, so they keep onburning the grass down.
But the trees can keep growingbecause they don't get killed
by the fire and less frequent,more intense fires or simply
(06:27):
less intense fires- oh sorry,more intense fires - may kill
the trees and then perpetuatethe grass cycle, which is more
the natural way of doing things.
And then another thing in theAfrican context might be that
people would be managing theway that the area is
grazed around them.
So they might have cattle thatgraze on grass but don't eat
(06:48):
trees so much.
In the meantime,they're keeping out or they're
hunting the wildlife that wouldnormally be there, that would
normally keep the treessuppressed- ah yeah, that would
normally keepthe trees suppressed.
So those are just two possibledrivers behind the forest
increasingaround human settlements.
They may even be planting trees.
That's another possibility.
Whereas in the European contextand Japanese context...
(07:11):
I don't really know, but Ithink that probably forest is
more the naturalstate of things.
And so- that's kindof why it comes back.
But the species that come backare not necessarily the ones
that were there thousands ofyears before, you know,
before people were there.
So yeah, in those landscapes,it might be a case of people,
(07:31):
for the sake of production,completely clearing large areas
of trees and plantingcrops and other things there.
But even though they're crops,they can be- they can be
beneficial to a lotof those animals.
So those arejust some possibilities.
There's not some sort ofa definitive answer, but just
to give you an ideaof how different things can be
(07:52):
in different places.
Simon (07:54):
But I guess the...
Thank you for theexplanation, André.
I remember that,being from Europe, I remember
in primary school we used tolearn that [400] or 500 years
ago a squirrel could jump fromtree to tree from the south of
Spain to thenorth of Scandinavia without
hitting the ground.
And that certainly wasn'tpossible when I was a kid.
(08:15):
And I don't think it'spossible now either.
But of course, a lot of what...
I mean, there's a lot ofagriculture in Europe and has
been a strong agriculturaltradition that, of course,
has influenced [this].
But you're saying that even-even a clear-cut land can be
more biodiversethan forested land.
But I guess it depends on howyou actually use the land and
(08:35):
what you do to the land.
André (08:36):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Absolutely.
Simon (08:38):
Intense agricultural systems - I mean, the way that
we have used them tend to takeaway from the biodiversity and
the species that can livehealthily on the land, right?
André (08:46):
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
It depends a lot.
So these SEPLS (these socio-ecological production
landscapes and seascapes) aretypically kind of low-intensity
and they're using sort ofsurrounded by by forest,
you know - they'll be forestnearby and then there'll be a
variety of crops.
They're not just doing one- ina monoculture (one thing).
(09:06):
They don't use much in the wayof pesticides and herbicides
and that kind of thing.
So there are various factorsthat contribute to that.
Erin (09:12):
I want to know more about how this might relate to the
"30 by 30" target, which is,you know, to protect 30% of
global lands and seas by 2030,and how this might relate
to local communities.
Right?
Because as we said, like,local communities have been
(09:34):
managing ecosystems sometimesfor hundreds of years.
So can you tell usa bit more about the potential
controversy?
André (09:42):
The controversy behind that was the concern that some
countries - you know, the moreautocratic regimes who might
want to fulfill the obligationsor the commitments to the CBD
by getting to 30 by 30 -are may be doing that at the
expense of communities.
Long story short.
Simon (09:59):
Yeah, in fact, some civil society people from
Pakistan and Philippinesrepresenting indigenous people
- that's exactlywhat they mentioned.
We're supposed to report on SDG15 ([Life on Land]) and
they say, you know,there's so much going on.
The government is...
First of all,the government is redefining
plantation as "forest".
That's one thing.
(10:20):
And then the other thing isthat they are kicking out- they
are basically using IndigenousPeoples and Local
Communities' land, kicking thosepeople out and
saying this is now protectedland and this will count as our
reforest- as our netpositive forest gain.
But basically, those people areleft at the sidelines.
André (10:37):
So yeah, I mean, there's plenty of
history to recall.
And this is in South Africa,in my my home country: some of
the national parks famouslybecame national parks by
kicking people off the land,you know, in days when there
was no accountability for doingthat kind of thing.
So yeah, it's a...
It is a bit of a tricky one.
(10:58):
Maybe the OECM ([othereffective area-based
conservation measures]) concepthas a lot of potential
here because, you know,if countries- and I need to
understand it a little bitbetter perhaps- but if
countries know that they cancontribute to their target
simply by saying that this landis being well managed,
you know, in some wayor another, even if they've got
nothing to dowith the management themselves
as government, that could havea really beneficial effect.
(11:20):
It might encourage them tosupport people who are using
the land in a sustainable way,you know, so maybe there's...
Yeah, I'm curious aboutthe concept, and I have been
quite skeptical about it, to behonest, so far, but I
think that it could beused in a good way.
Um...
But can I just kind of commenton that plantation example that
(11:41):
you mentioned?
That...
goes back to this wholeobsession with trees thing.
And the professor of mine that Imentioned has spoken out about
this quite vociferously in thepast as well - you know,
the whole, there's been kind ofa global trend towards tree
planting in recent years,and without really
(12:03):
going beyond that.
You know, I think most peopledon't know enough about ecology
to know that it's notenough to just plant a tree.
It has to be the right tree inthe right place in order for
the tree a) to survive and b)to not harm the landscape.
And that might not sound soimportant until you multiply it
(12:25):
by a million or a billion or atrillion trees, which are the
figures that people aretalking about now.
So there are some...
Several examplesaround the world.
The big oneis in Pakistan, actually.
Another one [is] in China.
But there are plentyworldwide, where a
lot of greenwashing has beendone in the name of tree
planting without anyconsideration for what the
(12:49):
impacts on the landscape are.
And there was an infamous paperrecently - I forget which..
It was in a big journal,I forget which one - But
looking at the potential ofearth for tree planting and
they did sort of a very roughlevel / rough scale map of the
world - I don'tknow if they actually showed
(13:10):
it graphically, but they spokeabout which parts of the world
could be planted withtrees in order to help
reach climate targets.
And then it turned out thatmany of those areas, apart from
being communal lands, were alsoplaces that had never been
forest in the past, and werenot supposed to be forests.
So, on the one hand- asI said, on the one hand,
this forest might not survive,which is a big factor
in tree planting.
A lot of it isjust a waste of time because
(13:31):
they didn't survive.
And then probably the moredamaging possibility is that
those trees just takeover and they can reduce
biodiversity drastically.
You know, you can go- you candecrease the number of species
in orders of magnitude- byorders of magnitude by doing
that kind of thing.
Simon (13:48):
But-
André (13:49):
And plantation is- sorry just to add - plantation is the
most extreme example of that.
That's kind of theform that tree planting
initiatives often take,rather than trying to reforest
and create [an] ecosystem.
Simon (14:01):
So thank you, Andre, for explaining this.
I understand it a littlebit better, but it seems
to me that...
I'm thinking [of] climatechange objectives like, we need
to find the best, most naturalway perhaps to capture and
store carbon - which Iguess are trees.
But then that goes against someof the the needs we have on
the biodiversity side.
(14:21):
So where do you- where do youfind a balance between those
objectives?
André (14:26):
Yeah, well, so one thing to mention is that the amount
of carbon stored in soil isfour or five times more than
the amount that you couldpossibly- even if you planted
every inch of the earthwith trees, you would not be
able to reach the level that isalready stored in the soil.
So preventing the permafrostfrom thawing is far more
(14:49):
important than storingcarbon in trees.
And another thing is thattrees are, you know, as soon as
carbon is tied up in a tree,the tree can't be used
for anything else.
So that's one thing.
It's sort of a minor issue,but in some cases,
it is an issue.
But the other thing is that,just as the permafrost- just as
the thawing of the permafrostwill release huge amounts of
(15:12):
carbon and methane, you know,from the especially the
northern regions of the world,in the same way,
a single fire, you know,will release all the carbon
that's stored in treesand to some extent underground
as well, because fires gounderground to burn
roots and rootstock.
So, yeah.
So trees are part ofthe solution, but not
(15:33):
the main solution.
And then, of course, also theoceans sequester, more carbon
than than the forests do.
So, yeah.
So it's tricky.
Simon (15:41):
It's tricky.
Bob (15:44):
There was recently a big YouTube project for planting a
million trees, I think it was.
Do you know anything about that?
André (15:52):
I don't know about the particular one, but they're
really all over the place.
And the million is tinycompared to what's being done
in many parts ofthe world at the moment.
They're usually in the billionsthese days - the
really major ones.
But there was a very, kind of,high-profile young professor
in the UK, whowas pushing the tree planting
(16:12):
thing quite strongly.
And a lot of the- he wasraising the ire of a lot of
other scientists who weresaying what I've just said now-
you know,all the considerations.
And he's changed histune quite drastically.
He's like...
He's sort of corrected what hesaid before, and he's now kind
of trying to push inthe opposite direction.
And there aresome governments, I think,
(16:33):
that are doing the same thing.
They're recognising that thisis not as simple as planting a
bunch of trees.
Simon (16:38):
Sorry.
What?
André, what is theopposite direction then,
to planting lots of trees?
Is that to not plant any treesat all or I mean, if we-
Erin (16:46):
I guess is just to be more careful, right?
André (16:48):
Yeah.
Just to be- to, you know,to be more careful.
So that would involve,I mean, planting trees where
trees belong, first of all,and then planting trees,
not just planting trees,but also maintaining trees,
which is the difficult part.
I remember a very famous SouthAfrican botanist telling me
that- these things differhugely depending
(17:11):
on the rainfall.
This kind of thing is so mucheasier where there's a lot of
rainfall than it is when...
Even if you're planting dry-adapted trees, it's much more
difficult to make them take indry areas than it is
in wet areas.
But he was saying that in...
At least in thesort of semi-arid parts of
South Africa, if you planta tree, even if it's a,
(17:33):
you know, sort of a three-metre-tall tree you planted - which
is a lot of effort, right?
to plant trees of that size atany number - He said
that the herbivores,the browsers, will go directly
for those trees.
And as far as he knew atthe time, there was no kind of
scientific reason for that.
But he reckons that there'ssomething about being raised in
(17:54):
nursery conditions of maizethat makes the leaves more
succulent or whatever.
But that's a bit of an aside.
But I've also heard thattypically about the success
rate or the survival rate oftrees beyond a couple of years
is about 10% in thesetree planting initiatives.
Simon (18:10):
That's low.
André (18:11):
Again, that depends a lot on the climate, and wet
areas are going to bea lot higher than dry areas.
Even in wet areas, the successrate is not so high.
Unless, of course, you plantan invasive species, which is
going to haveits own consequences.
Bob (18:26):
One thing is- related to you are saying why herbivores
go straight for these newlyplanted big trees.
I've also heard that wood foruse in building things -rees
that come from natural forestslike dense forests are a
lot stronger, a lotbetter wood, more dense than
(18:46):
wood that grew up planted inrows without as much
competition for sunlight,because they grow more slowly
when they grow in aforest like that.
So that could be onereason for that.
But that wasn'treally a question.
The question I had was onsomething you said earlier,
which was that, once you plantthe trees, you can't use
(19:06):
them for anything.
André (19:09):
Mm hmm.
Bob (19:10):
I was- I thought that trees kind of captured carbon.
And then if you- if you cutthat wood down and replaced it
with another tree,that new tree would
start capturing carbon, maybe atnot the same rate,
but I didn't think that,like, using the tree to build a
house would thenrelease that carbon.
Am I wrong about that?
André (19:28):
No, you're right, actually.
So I should have saidthat more carefully.
So as long as the- as long asthe wood doesn't rot or burn,
then it remains captured.
So eventually, it could be- itcould be a couple of hundred
years - some houses,some wooden houses are as
old as that.
And there's some other waysthat you could use wood
usefully without it eitherrotting or burning,
(19:52):
but eventually, it's going tohappen and eventually that
carbon is going to be releasedone way or another.
And so everything is about kindof flux and change over time,
I guess,including the permafrost.
It's just a caseof the time scales and
managing those timescales.
Yeah.
So, so I guess the- you couldtechnically be growing trees
(20:12):
and then harvesting the woodand using it not for firewood,
but for building, for example,and then replacing the tree.
And that willcontinue sequestering carbon.
So there's no net loss ofcarbon until that wood is,
as I said, either burned orrots in some way.
Bob (20:31):
Thank you for listening to About Sustainability..
.
Please subscribe at podcast.iges.jp or search
for About Sustainability...
wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of choice or reachout on Twitter at IGES_EN.
(20:54):
About Sustainability...
is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the time ofrecording and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly,and we hope you'll join
us next time.
Hey there.
It's Erin Kawazu,one of the co-hosts
of About Sustainability...
, a podcast where we discussand draw attention to
contemporary issues and eventsrelevant to sustainability.
This podcast is an initiativeby staff at the Institute for
Global EnvironmentalStrategies (IGES).
Today, we want to share withyou a short side conversation
(00:31):
between André Mader,Bob McDonald, Simon Olsen and
me when we were talking aboutthe Convention on Biological
Diversity or CBD.
By the way, checkout that episode too,
if you haven't already.
Okay, so we need to keepplanting more trees if we want
to save the planet, right?
Or not.
It's often really hard to seethe forest for the trees,
(00:53):
but maybe we need to take astep back, actually, and see
beyond the forest first.
Let's get into it.
Simon (01:01):
I've just heard that- I think there's a lack of
definition or commonunderstanding of what
nature really means.
And there are some countriesthat are trying to introduce it
in order toreplace the environment.
For what reason?
I don't know.
But they aren't successful yetbecause I think because there
is no commondefinition of it- Political
Political definition.
André (01:22):
Right.
Okay.
So I don't know too muchabout that, but certainly the
word "nature",just like "biodiversity",
is open to interpretationto some extent.
Right.
So I mean, having grown up inSouth Africa, which is a
country- a verybiodiverse country,
first of all, and also acountry where there's still
relatively large amount of landthat's considered 'pristine' -
(01:44):
and I have to add the invertedcommas there, because no one
really knows what pristine is.
There's been there have beenpapers written on how even the
deepest recesses of the Amazonhave shown signs
of human habitation.
So it may bethat the forest there,
which is regarded as, you know,ancient forest, might not be so
ancient after all.
(02:05):
So is a very just an incrediblyinteresting but
incredibly complex topics.
An old professor of mine,I watched a YouTube video of
his the other day where he'stalking about or arguing
against the world'sobsession with forests.
And he's a grassland andsavannah expert and he's done
empirical research and alsoreviews showing that some of
(02:28):
the world's grasslands areolder than many of the
world's forests, and grasslandis often- grassland and
shrubland are often consideredto be kind of a degraded
state of nature.
But in some cases, they're- theyprecede the forests.
And the forests are also,in some cases, the result
of human habitation.
(02:50):
There's actually an amazing- inthat presentation, he shows a
map of the place where heworked - I think it's probably
East Africa considering thelandscape - but it's an aerial
view of a fairly sort of grey-brown landscape, which is
shrubland or grassland, and thenit's got these green
blotches all over the place.
(03:10):
It's taken at quite a height,so it's maybe an area about
fifty by fifty kilometres ormaybe a hundred by a hundred.
And then you zoom in,those dark patches
are forests, and if you zoom ineven more, you'll see a village
in the middle of each of those.
And the research thatwas done basically going back,
you know, using aerial photosand and other evidence,
(03:30):
and then also speaking to theoldest people in the villages,
they determined that basicallythose forests are manmade
forests - human-made foreststhat was savannah
or grassland before.
And it's difficult to kind of -to always know whether it would
be better if it was completelyprotected and people would just
pulled out of there.
But some of these- some ofthese SEPLS (socio-ecological
(03:54):
production landscape orseascape) have been SEPLS for
hundreds or thousandsof years, especially in Asia.
There are lots ofexamples of that, where we
don't even know what the placelooked like before they
were doing that.
And what we do know is thatwhen people pull out of some of
these places, like in Japan,where, you know, people are
moving to cities moreand more, the rural areas-
(04:14):
maybe that's reversing a bitnow with COVID- but typically
also in in parts of Europe,especially Eastern Europe,
rural areas are emptying outand that's leading to these
agricultural areas beingovertaken by natural vegetation.
And in many cases,that's actually a
reduction in biodiversity.
This kind of goes back to theforest argument a little bit.
(04:35):
The dominance of treesis not necessarily good
for biodiversity, and there areplenty of examples of that.
Another example is in easternand southern Africa, where the
fire regime or the grazingregime is being changed because
of human- usuallybecause of human interference,
especially with fire.
If the fire frequency andintensity has changed,
(04:57):
that's going to change theentire dynamics of the system.
And very often that leadsto an increase in tree cover.
So these landscapes that arenaturally or traditionally
savannah or grassland changedto tree landscapes covered
entirely by trees, and theyhave their own
suite of species, but veryoften, it's far less
(05:18):
biodiverse than the grasslandthat preceded it.
Simon (05:20):
You painted a picture of this aerial photo that showed
the grey brown grassland areawith some green dots.
And then you said as youzoom in, the green dots are
where people live.
But then in theEuropean example, you say when
people leave, it's reforested.
So what?
The forest comes nomatter what, with or
without people?
André (05:40):
It depends on the ecosystem entirely.
So in the African context,you're looking at- I'm just
thinking about someof the drivers.
I mean, this would requirestudies and probably studies
have been done.
But in theAfrican - East African,
Southern African - context,one thing that will increase
the cover of trees isreduction of fire.
(06:04):
So fire, typically speaking,favours grasses.
It also depends- it gets quitecomplex because frequent-
frequent cool fires will favourtrees because they don't kill
the trees, so they keep onburning the grass down.
But the trees can keep growingbecause they don't get killed
by the fire and less frequent,more intense fires or simply
(06:27):
less intense fires- oh sorry,more intense fires - may kill
the trees and then perpetuatethe grass cycle, which is more
the natural way of doing things.
And then another thing in theAfrican context might be that
people would be managing theway that the area is
grazed around them.
So they might have cattle thatgraze on grass but don't eat
(06:48):
trees so much.
In the meantime,they're keeping out or they're
hunting the wildlife that wouldnormally be there, that would
normally keep the treessuppressed- ah yeah, that would
normally keepthe trees suppressed.
So those are just two possibledrivers behind the forest
increasingaround human settlements.
They may even be planting trees.
That's another possibility.
Whereas in the European contextand Japanese context...
(07:11):
I don't really know, but Ithink that probably forest is
more the naturalstate of things.
And so- that's kindof why it comes back.
But the species that come backare not necessarily the ones
that were there thousands ofyears before, you know,
before people were there.
So yeah, in those landscapes,it might be a case of people,
(07:31):
for the sake of production,completely clearing large areas
of trees and plantingcrops and other things there.
But even though they're crops,they can be- they can be
beneficial to a lotof those animals.
So those arejust some possibilities.
There's not some sort ofa definitive answer, but just
to give you an ideaof how different things can be
(07:52):
in different places.
Simon (07:54):
But I guess the...
Thank you for theexplanation, André.
I remember that,being from Europe, I remember
in primary school we used tolearn that [400] or 500 years
ago a squirrel could jump fromtree to tree from the south of
Spain to thenorth of Scandinavia without
hitting the ground.
And that certainly wasn'tpossible when I was a kid.
(08:15):
And I don't think it'spossible now either.
But of course, a lot of what...
I mean, there's a lot ofagriculture in Europe and has
been a strong agriculturaltradition that, of course,
has influenced [this].
But you're saying that even-even a clear-cut land can be
more biodiversethan forested land.
But I guess it depends on howyou actually use the land and
(08:35):
what you do to the land.
André (08:36):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Absolutely.
Simon (08:38):
Intense agricultural systems - I mean, the way that
we have used them tend to takeaway from the biodiversity and
the species that can livehealthily on the land, right?
André (08:46):
Yeah, yeah, that's right.
It depends a lot.
So these SEPLS (these socio-ecological production
landscapes and seascapes) aretypically kind of low-intensity
and they're using sort ofsurrounded by by forest,
you know - they'll be forestnearby and then there'll be a
variety of crops.
They're not just doing one- ina monoculture (one thing).
(09:06):
They don't use much in the wayof pesticides and herbicides
and that kind of thing.
So there are various factorsthat contribute to that.
Erin (09:12):
I want to know more about how this might relate to the
"30 by 30" target, which is,you know, to protect 30% of
global lands and seas by 2030,and how this might relate
to local communities.
Right?
Because as we said, like,local communities have been
(09:34):
managing ecosystems sometimesfor hundreds of years.
So can you tell usa bit more about the potential
controversy?
André (09:42):
The controversy behind that was the concern that some
countries - you know, the moreautocratic regimes who might
want to fulfill the obligationsor the commitments to the CBD
by getting to 30 by 30 -are may be doing that at the
expense of communities.
Long story short.
Simon (09:59):
Yeah, in fact, some civil society people from
Pakistan and Philippinesrepresenting indigenous people
- that's exactlywhat they mentioned.
We're supposed to report on SDG15 ([Life on Land]) and
they say, you know,there's so much going on.
The government is...
First of all,the government is redefining
plantation as "forest".
That's one thing.
(10:20):
And then the other thing isthat they are kicking out- they
are basically using IndigenousPeoples and Local
Communities' land, kicking thosepeople out and
saying this is now protectedland and this will count as our
reforest- as our netpositive forest gain.
But basically, those people areleft at the sidelines.
André (10:37):
So yeah, I mean, there's plenty of
history to recall.
And this is in South Africa,in my my home country: some of
the national parks famouslybecame national parks by
kicking people off the land,you know, in days when there
was no accountability for doingthat kind of thing.
So yeah, it's a...
It is a bit of a tricky one.
(10:58):
Maybe the OECM ([othereffective area-based
conservation measures]) concepthas a lot of potential
here because, you know,if countries- and I need to
understand it a little bitbetter perhaps- but if
countries know that they cancontribute to their target
simply by saying that this landis being well managed,
you know, in some wayor another, even if they've got
nothing to dowith the management themselves
as government, that could havea really beneficial effect.
(11:20):
It might encourage them tosupport people who are using
the land in a sustainable way,you know, so maybe there's...
Yeah, I'm curious aboutthe concept, and I have been
quite skeptical about it, to behonest, so far, but I
think that it could beused in a good way.
Um...
But can I just kind of commenton that plantation example that
(11:41):
you mentioned?
That...
goes back to this wholeobsession with trees thing.
And the professor of mine that Imentioned has spoken out about
this quite vociferously in thepast as well - you know,
the whole, there's been kind ofa global trend towards tree
planting in recent years,and without really
(12:03):
going beyond that.
You know, I think most peopledon't know enough about ecology
to know that it's notenough to just plant a tree.
It has to be the right tree inthe right place in order for
the tree a) to survive and b)to not harm the landscape.
And that might not sound soimportant until you multiply it
(12:25):
by a million or a billion or atrillion trees, which are the
figures that people aretalking about now.
So there are some...
Several examplesaround the world.
The big oneis in Pakistan, actually.
Another one [is] in China.
But there are plentyworldwide, where a
lot of greenwashing has beendone in the name of tree
planting without anyconsideration for what the
(12:49):
impacts on the landscape are.
And there was an infamous paperrecently - I forget which..
It was in a big journal,I forget which one - But
looking at the potential ofearth for tree planting and
they did sort of a very roughlevel / rough scale map of the
world - I don'tknow if they actually showed
(13:10):
it graphically, but they spokeabout which parts of the world
could be planted withtrees in order to help
reach climate targets.
And then it turned out thatmany of those areas, apart from
being communal lands, were alsoplaces that had never been
forest in the past, and werenot supposed to be forests.
So, on the one hand- asI said, on the one hand,
this forest might not survive,which is a big factor
in tree planting.
A lot of it isjust a waste of time because
(13:31):
they didn't survive.
And then probably the moredamaging possibility is that
those trees just takeover and they can reduce
biodiversity drastically.
You know, you can go- you candecrease the number of species
in orders of magnitude- byorders of magnitude by doing
that kind of thing.
Simon (13:48):
But-
André (13:49):
And plantation is- sorry just to add - plantation is the
most extreme example of that.
That's kind of theform that tree planting
initiatives often take,rather than trying to reforest
and create [an] ecosystem.
Simon (14:01):
So thank you, Andre, for explaining this.
I understand it a littlebit better, but it seems
to me that...
I'm thinking [of] climatechange objectives like, we need
to find the best, most naturalway perhaps to capture and
store carbon - which Iguess are trees.
But then that goes against someof the the needs we have on
the biodiversity side.
(14:21):
So where do you- where do youfind a balance between those
objectives?
André (14:26):
Yeah, well, so one thing to mention is that the amount
of carbon stored in soil isfour or five times more than
the amount that you couldpossibly- even if you planted
every inch of the earthwith trees, you would not be
able to reach the level that isalready stored in the soil.
So preventing the permafrostfrom thawing is far more
(14:49):
important than storingcarbon in trees.
And another thing is thattrees are, you know, as soon as
carbon is tied up in a tree,the tree can't be used
for anything else.
So that's one thing.
It's sort of a minor issue,but in some cases,
it is an issue.
But the other thing is that,just as the permafrost- just as
the thawing of the permafrostwill release huge amounts of
(15:12):
carbon and methane, you know,from the especially the
northern regions of the world,in the same way,
a single fire, you know,will release all the carbon
that's stored in treesand to some extent underground
as well, because fires gounderground to burn
roots and rootstock.
So, yeah.
So trees are part ofthe solution, but not
(15:33):
the main solution.
And then, of course, also theoceans sequester, more carbon
than than the forests do.
So, yeah.
So it's tricky.
Simon (15:41):
It's tricky.
Bob (15:44):
There was recently a big YouTube project for planting a
million trees, I think it was.
Do you know anything about that?
André (15:52):
I don't know about the particular one, but they're
really all over the place.
And the million is tinycompared to what's being done
in many parts ofthe world at the moment.
They're usually in the billionsthese days - the
really major ones.
But there was a very, kind of,high-profile young professor
in the UK, whowas pushing the tree planting
(16:12):
thing quite strongly.
And a lot of the- he wasraising the ire of a lot of
other scientists who weresaying what I've just said now-
you know,all the considerations.
And he's changed histune quite drastically.
He's like...
He's sort of corrected what hesaid before, and he's now kind
of trying to push inthe opposite direction.
And there aresome governments, I think,
(16:33):
that are doing the same thing.
They're recognising that thisis not as simple as planting a
bunch of trees.
Simon (16:38):
Sorry.
What?
André, what is theopposite direction then,
to planting lots of trees?
Is that to not plant any treesat all or I mean, if we-
Erin (16:46):
I guess is just to be more careful, right?
André (16:48):
Yeah.
Just to be- to, you know,to be more careful.
So that would involve,I mean, planting trees where
trees belong, first of all,and then planting trees,
not just planting trees,but also maintaining trees,
which is the difficult part.
I remember a very famous SouthAfrican botanist telling me
that- these things differhugely depending
(17:11):
on the rainfall.
This kind of thing is so mucheasier where there's a lot of
rainfall than it is when...
Even if you're planting dry-adapted trees, it's much more
difficult to make them take indry areas than it is
in wet areas.
But he was saying that in...
At least in thesort of semi-arid parts of
South Africa, if you planta tree, even if it's a,
(17:33):
you know, sort of a three-metre-tall tree you planted - which
is a lot of effort, right?
to plant trees of that size atany number - He said
that the herbivores,the browsers, will go directly
for those trees.
And as far as he knew atthe time, there was no kind of
scientific reason for that.
But he reckons that there'ssomething about being raised in
(17:54):
nursery conditions of maizethat makes the leaves more
succulent or whatever.
But that's a bit of an aside.
But I've also heard thattypically about the success
rate or the survival rate oftrees beyond a couple of years
is about 10% in thesetree planting initiatives.
Simon (18:10):
That's low.
André (18:11):
Again, that depends a lot on the climate, and wet
areas are going to bea lot higher than dry areas.
Even in wet areas, the successrate is not so high.
Unless, of course, you plantan invasive species, which is
going to haveits own consequences.
Bob (18:26):
One thing is- related to you are saying why herbivores
go straight for these newlyplanted big trees.
I've also heard that wood foruse in building things -rees
that come from natural forestslike dense forests are a
lot stronger, a lotbetter wood, more dense than
(18:46):
wood that grew up planted inrows without as much
competition for sunlight,because they grow more slowly
when they grow in aforest like that.
So that could be onereason for that.
But that wasn'treally a question.
The question I had was onsomething you said earlier,
which was that, once you plantthe trees, you can't use
(19:06):
them for anything.
André (19:09):
Mm hmm.
Bob (19:10):
I was- I thought that trees kind of captured carbon.
And then if you- if you cutthat wood down and replaced it
with another tree,that new tree would
start capturing carbon, maybe atnot the same rate,
but I didn't think that,like, using the tree to build a
house would thenrelease that carbon.
Am I wrong about that?
André (19:28):
No, you're right, actually.
So I should have saidthat more carefully.
So as long as the- as long asthe wood doesn't rot or burn,
then it remains captured.
So eventually, it could be- itcould be a couple of hundred
years - some houses,some wooden houses are as
old as that.
And there's some other waysthat you could use wood
usefully without it eitherrotting or burning,
(19:52):
but eventually, it's going tohappen and eventually that
carbon is going to be releasedone way or another.
And so everything is about kindof flux and change over time,
I guess,including the permafrost.
It's just a caseof the time scales and
managing those timescales.
Yeah.
So, so I guess the- you couldtechnically be growing trees
(20:12):
and then harvesting the woodand using it not for firewood,
but for building, for example,and then replacing the tree.
And that willcontinue sequestering carbon.
So there's no net loss ofcarbon until that wood is,
as I said, either burned orrots in some way.
Bob (20:31):
Thank you for listening to About Sustainability..
.
Please subscribe at podcast.iges.jp or search
for About Sustainability...
wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of choice or reachout on Twitter at IGES_EN.
(20:54):
About Sustainability...
is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the time ofrecording and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly,and we hope you'll join
us next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!