Publication
Defining biodiverse reforestation: Why it matters for climate change mitigation and biodiversity
Publisher:
Wiley
Date:
20-09-2022
DOI:
10.1002/PPP3.10329
Abstract: Mixed species plantings present an attractive alternative to monoculture reforestation through their added benefits to bio ersity. Yet there is ambiguity in the use of the term ‘bio ersity’ in carbon and bio ersity markets, which may create perverse outcomes when designing schemes and projects. Here, we review how the concept of bio ersity is defined and applied in reforestation projects, and restoration more broadly. Improved transparency around the use of the term bio ersity is urgently needed to provide rigour in emerging market mechanisms, which seek to benefit the environment and people. Reforestation to capture and store atmospheric carbon is increasingly ch ioned as a climate change mitigation policy response. Reforestation plantings have the potential to provide conservation co‐benefits when erse mixtures of native species are planted, and there are growing attempts to monetise bio ersity benefits from carbon reforestation projects, particularly within emerging carbon markets. But what is meant by ‘bio erse’ across different stakeholders and groups implementing and overseeing these projects and how do these perceptions compare with long‐standing scientific definitions? Here, we discuss approaches to, and definitions of, bio ersity in the context of reforestation for carbon sequestration. Our aim is to review how the concept of bio ersity is defined and applied among stakeholders (e.g., governments, carbon certifiers and farmers) and rights holders (i.e., First Nations people) engaging in reforestation, and to identify best‐practice methods for restoring bio ersity in these projects. We find that some stakeholders have a vague understanding of ersity across varying levels of biological organisation (genes to ecosystems). While most understand that bio ersity underpins ecosystem functions and services, many stakeholders may not appreciate the difficulties of restoring bio ersity akin to reference ecosystems. Consequently, bio ersity goals are rarely explicit, and project goals may never be achieved because the levels of restored bio ersity are inadequate to support functional ecosystems and desired ecosystem services. We suggest there is significant value in integrating bio ersity objectives into reforestation projects and setting specific restoration goals with transparent reporting outcomes will pave the way for ensuring reforestation projects have meaningful outcomes for bio ersity, and legitimate incentive payments for bio ersity and natural capital accounting.