Forests, Not Farms: How OFP is Solving the Monoculture Problem

By the age of 10, most students of science have learned the fundamentals of photosynthesis: when trees “breathe,” they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Often, this lesson is combined in tandem with the idea that the occurrence of tree breath is quite a good thing, since it keeps the planet from warming up. This lesson formulates an understanding of trees as air conditioners for the earth, an idea we at OFP are more than happy to perpetuate.

However, kids know that trees are more than tools for planetary thermoregulation. Their drawings depict canopies populated with arboreal species. Owls peak out from bore holes while squirrels build nests in the branches. The child’s imagination captures a more holistic view of trees, one which emphasizes their role as homes for a diversity of creatures. When taken together, the “trees as air conditioners” and “trees as homes” perspective constitute a rather compelling existential case for their protection.

The interrelationship between climate change and biodiversity loss is often referred to as a “twin threat” by the scientific community. According to the US forest service, forests account for 92% of global terrestrial biomass. In other words, most of the carbon-based life on land lives in forests. Large-scale deforestation is eliminating the terrestrial world’s most important carbon sink and leading to feedback loops of warming. Deforestation also leaves organisms dependent on forest cover without a place to live, leading to species extirpation and extinction. This correlation has led many to the reasonable conclusion that more forests = a healthier climate = healthier ecosystems.

But that’s not necessarily true. It is important to note that biodiversity thrives in a healthy forest, not necessarily a collection of trees. In fact, massive monocultures of trees can be harmful to global biodiversity protection goals. As the world scrambles to plant a billion trees over the next decade, quality alongside quantity will be of paramount importance. We must support a systematic definition of reforestation and conservation that recognizes the unique importance of in-tact, mature forests.

Reforestation is outlined as a clean-development mechanism (CDM) by the United Nations. A well-managed forest under the CDM has the following characteristics:

● Benefit local, regional, and national economies

● Generate environmental benefits in the form of carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and other ecosystem services

● Improve community health and project sustainability through the equitable flow of project benefits

Routinely harvesting and replanting of a forest disrupts the complex web of life that sustains a healthy ecosystem. Mature forests offer unique ecosystem services derived from their well-developed channels of mycorrhizal fungi that collectively improve the health and productivity of the tree stands. They host healthy communities of plants, insects, and mammals, who participate in self-regulating chains of pollination, food production, and decomposition. Removing and replanting a forest obliterates these interactions and sets the entire system back to stage one. A recent study conducted by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences found that diverse plantings outperform monocrops in each of the following areas.

Tree growth: Trees grow healthier, faster, and denser in sustainably managed forests.

Carbon storage: Trees grown using the best reforestation techniques can store as much as 40 times more carbon than a monoculture that is reharvested every decade.

Berry production and food for wildlife: Many trees do not begin to produce fruits until their second decade of life.

Occurrence of dead wood: Dead wood provides habitat for a plethora of species, from ants and termites to fungus and bacteria.

Biological diversity: Beyond the obvious benefits of a long-standing home for wildlife, old growth forests are also more resilient to natural disasters such as wildfires that would otherwise displace great numbers of species.

Many of the world’s most ambitious reforestation projects have employed the monoculture method to boost tree-planting numbers. The Bonn Challenge is an international effort to reforest 350 million hectares of land by 2030. It has received support from governments who have collectively pledged to plant 210.12 million hectares of trees as of the time of publishing. They far exceeded their goal of 150 million hectares by 2020, which led to a great deal of media attention and effort from corporations.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh decided to take a look into whether or not these ambitious goals were achieving their carbon sequestration goals. They looked at Bonn Challenge projects in 43 different countries, and uncovered what has become something of a scandal in the reforestation community. Roughly ⅔ of the Bonn Challenge’s total “reforested area” were being used as tree farms for cash crops. Many of these operations plant fast-growing trees such as eucalyptus or poplar in order to regularly harvest them for paper production or other raw material uses. The problem with this practice is not that it doesn’t work. Indeed, agroforestry and timber extraction are wonderful ways to increase yields and income for farmers and their communities. However, a forest that turns over every decade cannot sustain a healthy community of wildlife, and it’s potential for carbon sequestration is greatly mitigated.

The problem, according to research leads Simon Lewis and Charlotte Wheeler, is that “Policymakers are misinterpreting the term forest restoration [and] misleading the public.” By forwarding a reductionist definition of reforestation, they are able to achieve the illusion of climate action without having to do the leg work of building a sustainable ecosystem.

The OFP solution

OFP empowers the global forest restoration community by giving stakeholders a transparent view into the forest projects they invest in. OFP requires that projects submit regular minimum data uploads: what kinds of trees they are planting, how much those trees are growing, that sort of thing. But the platform also allows for supplemental uploads, so investors looking for specific, verified reforestation projects can identify which projects meet their particular goals. The lists below outlines the different required data uploads, along with some examples of potential optional uploads.

Required Project Data

• Duration of Project (Start Date, End Date)
• Satellite canopy data
• Data Upload Frequency
• Drone monitoring data
• Scope of Project (Number of Trees / surface area )
• On-the-ground sensor data
• Location of Project (Country, Region)
• Species Type
• Coordinates of Location
• Pictures/photos upload (w/ option for repeated picture upload) /GPS coordinates

Optional Project Data Integration

• Soil health measurements
• Sustainable forestry certifications
• Connected Organizations
• Community Participation Details
• Any other measurable inputs

OFP is different from other projects that attempt to track forest growth on blockchain ledgers. Many projects make a good faith effort by collecting forest data by the tree. This would be a good idea were it not for The Problem of Evil. Where there is money, there is corruption, and unfortunately the reforestation industry is no different. Bad actors are incentivized to feign the practice of healthy reforestation, thereby accessing funds set aside for restoration without putting in the hard work of planting and protecting a diverse community. By pegging their data uploads to individual trees, misguided blockchain projects are setting themselves up for exploitation by greenwashing tree farms and cash crop operations. (OFP harbors no resentment towards tree farms and cash crop operations, that’s just not reforestation.)

Project funders need to know more about what kinds of operations they are supporting, not just the total number of trees. Our supplemental data upload process ensures that those projects who “put in work” will be recognized for doing so. Diversity breeds resiliency, as ecologists know, and this is especially true when it comes to forest data security and usability.

OFP helps people build systems

There are a lot of ways to leverage the influx of money being put towards solving climate change mitigation via forest restoration. It is the responsibility of recipients of these funds to keep in mind the big picture goal: establishing long-term, sustainable carbon sinks.

At the end of the day, we all know that a forest is much more than a collection of trees. The complex web of interactions that characterize a healthy forest provide a sustainable economic and ecological foundation for communities around the world. To reduce reforestation to a quantifiable amount of trees is more than bad science; it’s misleading and fraudulent. OFP circumvents these problems by requiring transparent data uploads that tell the whole story, not just what projects want you to see.