Restoring and protecting the world’s forests is crucial if humanity is to stop the worst effects of climate breakdown and halt the extinction of rare species.
Researchers have been concerned, however, that actions to capture carbon, restore biodiversity and find ways to support the livelihoods of the people who live near and in the forests might be at odds.
This is a particular issue in many parts of the globe that have important forests, as the people living nearby often have precarious livelihoods that can be negatively affected if the land they use to survive is encroached on.
Now a new work led by Dr Trisha Gopalakrishna, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has found that, with careful thought, all three important outcomes can be delivered by setting up “integrated” plans, where all three goals are combined.
The research finds that the plans could deliver more than 80% of the benefits in all three areas at once and that socioeconomically disadvantaged groups would benefit disproportionately from this approach.
Gopalakrishna and her fellow researchers used a framework called Nature’s Contribution to People (NCP) to show how restoring nature and biodiversity can help communities to thrive if it is done carefully. They said it shows that there can be a holistic relationship between restoration and benefits to humanity that can include reducing socioeconomic inequality.
In India, where the mapping took place, 38%-41% of the people affected by integrated spatial plans for these forests belong to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.
The researchers generated maps of 3.88m hectares of possible forest restoration area, and found that integrated plans aimed at multiple goals rather than just one delivered on average 83.3% of climate crisis mitigation NCP, 89.9% of biodiversity value NCP and 93.9% of societal NCP compared with those delivered by single-objective plans.
It is vital to keep humanity in mind when designing conservation projects, said Gopalakrishna, and it can make the work more efficient. “In my opinion, environment/biodiversity and the requirements of local communities are compatible and there are many examples of both thriving in many different regions of the world, including India, and through time.
“However, environmental projects that disregard or undermine the needs of local communities can be harmful and are often unsuccessful in meeting their environmental objectives.
“Restoration projects sometimes have a narrow focus, which can lead to trade-offs. “For example, if you focus on carbon storage, you might plant particular tree species and fence the forests off to protect them. If you focus on biodiversity, you might manage forests for particular species, like the emblematic Bengal tiger or Asiatic elephant. If you focus on human livelihoods, you might plant species that provide housing materials and fuelwood for cooking.
“Unsurprisingly, our study shows that plans with one NCP in mind tend not to deliver the others. However, we were surprised and pleased to find that an ‘integrated’ plan can deliver all three remarkably efficiently.”
She said it was important to create a “multifunctional landscape” with trees that can store carbon, plants that can help human survival, and space for wildlife, so that “people and animals can thrive”.
The method has been adopted by the UN Development Programme, which has written a report on how integrated spatial planning is important. European conservationists INSPIRE are also using the method to understand protected area networks in Europe.
The researcher added that equality needs to be taken more into account when planning conservation projects and that the next frontier should be considering gender outcomes: “Generally, I do think societal needs and especially equity needs to be accounted for in all conservation and development projects, which is the biggest leap that this study makes.
“We actually show that integrated spatial plans provide societal benefits to a greater number of Indians who are socioeconomically challenged than the plans focused only on biodiversity or carbon. Also, all plans including the integrated spatial plan we examined provided almost the same benefits to Indian men and women.
“Understanding who gains and loses (ie equity and gender) should be the next frontier of policy and decision-making and project development, which I would say is a main takeaway from this study.”
