Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Matters Arising
  • Published:

The risks of overstating the climate benefits of ecosystem restoration

Nature volume 609, pages E1–E3 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Matters Arising to this article was published on 07 September 2022

The Original Article was published on 14 October 2020

Arising from B. B. N. Strassburg et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9 (2020)

Preventing dangerous climate change and halting the global loss of biodiversity are considered crucial goals to ensure a sustainable future on Earth1,2. Strassburg et al.3 present a high-resolution method to identify optimal locations for ecosystem restoration globally for conserving biodiversity and increasing carbon sequestration. Their most prominently presented conclusion is that 30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution can be sequestered by restoring 15% of converted lands. Here we argue that this is an overly optimistic message that is partly based on inaccurate assumptions and that this creates unrealistic expectations for the contribution of restoration to the mitigation of climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Difference between converted land according to Strassburg et al.3 based on ESA CCI and according to FAO/HYDE.

Data availability

All input datasets are available from the references cited. The data generated for this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Code availability

MATLAB and R codes developed for and used in this analysis are available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014).

  2. IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

  3. Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. ESA CCI. Land Cover CCI Climate Research Data Package (2017); https://maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download.php

  6. Poulter, B. et al. Plant functional type classification for earth system models: results from the European Space Agency’s Land Cover Climate Change Initiative. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 2315–2328 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zomer, R. J. et al. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci. Rep. 6, 29987 (2016).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. IPCC. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 48–56 (2006).

  9. Friedlingstein, P., Allen, M., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P. & Seneviratne, S. I. Comment on “The global tree restoration potential”. Science 366, eaay8060 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bastin, J.-F. et al. Erratum for the Report: “The global tree restoration potential” by J.-F. Bastin, Y. Finegold, C. Garcia, D. Mollicone, M. Rezende, D. Routh, C. M. Zohner, T. W. Crowther and for the Technical Response “Response to Comments on ‘The global tree restoration potential’” by J.-F. Bastin, Y. Finegold, C. Garcia, N. Gellie, A. Lowe, D. Mollicone, M. Rezende, D. Routh, M. Sacande, B. Sparrow, C. M. Zohner, T. W. Crowther. Science 368, eabc8905 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Author Correction:Global priority areas forecosystem restoration. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05178-y (2022).

  13. KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Doelman, J. C. et al. Afforestation for climate change mitigation: potentials, risks and trade‐offs. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1576–1591 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Jonathan C. Doelman & Elke Stehfest

  2. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Jonathan C. Doelman

Authors
  1. Jonathan C. Doelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elke Stehfest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed to developing the ideas presented in this study and to writing this Comment. Both authors approved the final submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan C. Doelman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file includes Supplementary Fig. 1 and additional references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doelman, J.C., Stehfest, E. The risks of overstating the climate benefits of ecosystem restoration. Nature 609, E1–E3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04881-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04881-0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene