Carbon Sequestration in Natural Forests vs. Monoculture Plantations

We recently saw a report from NASA that suggested the world is getting greener, however, this finding obscures the fact that much of this greenery is actually plantations and other forms of monoculture. Palm oil plantations have a particularly egregious footprint. This point was underscored by the devastating Indonesian fires in 2015.

Cultured forests do not support the kind of biodiversity we see in old growth forests. Massive mono cultures should not be confused with forest restoration. According a ScienceDaily article, "almost half (45%) of the vast areas that countries have pledged are set to become plantations of commercial trees, a move which will seriously reduce expected carbon uptake and prevent agreements to curb climate change being met."

If we want to seriously combat climate change and meet our emissions reduction goals we will need to restore forests. An intact forest removes 16 times more carbon from the atmosphere than a monoculture plantation.

The study titled, Regenerate natural forests to store carbon, recommends that the definition of 'forest restoration' exclude monoculture plantations, and they further propose three additional ways to increase carbon capture from today's forest restoration schemes:

Increase the proportion of land being regenerated to natural forest
Prioritise restoration in Amazonia, Borneo and the Congo Basin, which support very high biomass forest compared to drier regions
Build on existing carbon stocks by targeting degraded forests for natural regeneration; and fourth, once natural forest is restored, protect it