A New Analysis Scrutinizes the Popular Forest Restoration Initiative in Africa: AFR100

The African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) is a major tech-backed campaign aimed at restoring at least 100 million hectares of land in Africa by 2030. The initiative, which counts the Bezos Earth Fund and Meta among its major funders, has gained significant attention for its ambitious goal to combat deforestation and promote sustainable forest management. However, a new analysis published in the journal Science raises concerns about the accuracy of the land identified for restoration and the potential harm to grasslands and savannas that may have been mislabeled as “forests” in need of help.

The analysis, conducted by researchers from the University of Liverpool, the University of Oxford, and Utrecht University, scrutinizes the AFR100 initiative and its approach to identifying land for restoration. The researchers used publicly available information on the AFR100 website and a database of restoration projects maintained by the environmental news organization Mongabay to compare the locations identified for restoration with biome maps commonly used to identify habitats.

The findings of the analysis are alarming. Nearly one-fifth of the total area set aside for restoration, approximately 25.9 million hectares, spreads across eight countries that naturally lack forest cover. These countries include Burkina Faso, Chad, Lesotho, Mali, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, and Gambia. Eighteen countries in total have committed to restoring an area greater than the amount of forest they should actually have, according to the analysis.

AFR100 disputes the new analysis, stating that Gambia is not currently included in the initiative and that the figure attributable to AFR100 countries is 21.9 million hectares. However, the researchers argue that their analysis is conservative, as grassland and savanna cover is likely underestimated in biome maps.

The researchers argue that conservation groups need to change the way they identify land for restoration. Relying on measures of tree cover by satellite is one issue, while a standard commonly used by conservationists that defines forests as areas with at least 10 percent tree canopy cover can wrongly categorize open areas with some trees, often savannas, as forest.

Both WRI and AFR100 responded to the analysis, stating that the authors should not equate all restoration projects with reforestation. They argue that a “vast majority” of restoration projects affiliated with AFR100 are actually agroforestry projects, which add trees to existing croplands to improve soil fertility, increase water retention, and reduce topsoil erosion. However, nearly 60 percent of agroforestry projects use non-native species, and the authors argue that increasing tree cover in non-forested systems is not ecological restoration.

The controversy surrounding the AFR100 initiative is not an isolated incident. The popularity of tree planting campaigns has sparked debates about their effectiveness and potential unintended consequences. For example, a 2019 study published in Science on the potential trees have to fight climate change led to a controversial World Economic Forum campaign to plant a trillion trees. Critics argue that the research inflated figures on the carbon sequestration potential of tree planting and that the campaigns could overshadow other conservation efforts.

Despite these concerns, major funders such as the Bezos Earth Fund and Meta have continued to support the AFR100 initiative. Emily Averna, Bezos Earth Fund’s land restoration program officer, stated that the partnership with AFR100 has helped find and fund over 150 locally led restoration efforts. Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

The debate over forest restoration and the potential harm to grasslands and savannas highlights the importance of accurate land identification and the need for a more nuanced approach to conservation. Trees are essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems, but the wrong placement of trees can have negative consequences. The lions, wildebeest, and zebra of the Serengeti, for example, require open grassland systems. Trees are great, but the problem is if we get too many in the wrong place, then we’ve got problems.

In conclusion, the new analysis of the AFR100 initiative raises important concerns about the accuracy of land identification for forest restoration and the potential harm to grasslands and savannas. The controversy surrounding the initiative underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to conservation and the importance of accurate land identification. Trees are essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems, but the wrong placement of trees can have negative consequences. Conservation groups need to change the way they identify land for restoration and adopt a more nuanced approach to forest restoration to ensure that we are making a positive impact on the environment.

The debate over forest restoration and the potential harm to grasslands and savannas is not a new one. The misidentification of land for restoration and the unintended consequences of tree planting campaigns have been a topic of concern for conservationists and scientists for decades. The AFR100 initiative is just the latest example of the challenges and complexities of forest restoration.

The analysis also highlights the importance of transparency and accuracy in conservation efforts. The public and funders need to be informed about the specific locations and types of restoration projects to ensure that resources are being used effectively and that the intended outcomes are being achieved. Conservation groups need to be transparent about their methods for identifying land for restoration and the potential consequences of their actions.

The debate over forest restoration and the potential harm to grasslands and savannas is a complex one, and there are no easy answers. However, by adopting a more nuanced approach to conservation and forest restoration, we can ensure that we are making a positive impact on the environment while minimizing unintended consequences. The lions, wildebeest, and zebra of the Serengeti, and the many other species and ecosystems around the world, depend on our ability to get it right.

The analysis also underscores the importance of collaboration and partnership between conservation groups, governments, and local communities. The AFR100 initiative is a collaborative effort between governments, international organizations, and private sector partners. By working together, we can ensure that resources are being used effectively and that the intended outcomes are being achieved. Local communities, who have a deep understanding of the land and its ecological needs, must be involved in the decision-making process to ensure that restoration efforts are sustainable and beneficial for all.

In conclusion, the new analysis of the AFR100 initiative raises important concerns about the accuracy of land identification for forest restoration and the potential harm to grasslands and savannas. The controversy surrounding the initiative underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to conservation and the importance of accurate land identification. Trees are essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems, but the wrong placement of trees can have negative consequences. Conservation groups need to change the way they identify land for restoration and adopt a more nuanced approach to forest restoration to ensure that we are making a positive impact on the environment. The debate over forest restoration and the potential harm to grasslands and savannas is a complex one, and there are no easy answers. However, by adopting a more nuanced approach to conservation and forest restoration, we can ensure that we are making a positive impact on the environment while minimizing unintended consequences. The lions, wildebeest, and zebra of the Serengeti, and the many other species and ecosystems around the world, depend on our ability to get it right.