Send message to Author

Short abstract:

Large-scale forestation is considered either a climate mitigation opportunity or a threat for grassy ecosystems. Various disciplinary approaches and related scientific gaze (distant or close) and a geopolitics of natural sciences shape different valuations of forest and non-forest ecosystems.

Long abstract:

Recent scientific publications, policy discussions and public outreach articles deal with large-scale forestation in Africa either as an opportunity for climate mitigation or as a threat for grassy ecosystems. In 2019, researchers mostly based in Europe published an article in the prestigious journal Science, featuring a map of the “global tree restoration potential”, suggesting that large areas of sub-Saharan Africa were available for “tree restoration” (Bastin et al. 2019). Against such calls for urgent and massive carbon-related afforestation policies, recent publications by natural scientists warn against the afforestation of peatlands, grassy ecosystems and savannas, deemed detrimental to biodiversity and even to carbon sequestration capacity. South African scientists published a comment to Bastin et al., arguing that savannas are not suitable sites for forestation (Veldman et al. 2019). Moreover one of the authors further added in a media interview that “the impacts on our natural ecosystems in Africa would be devastating”. Whereas remote sensing specialists tend to support massive deforestation in Africa, ecologists tend to warn against it. This suggests two hypotheses. First, the position for or against forestation is related to disciplinary approaches and the scientific gaze (distant or close) that they entail. Second, there is a geopolitics to forestation-related sciences that shapes the ways in which different scientific communities from different parts of the world value forest and non-forest ecosystems. This paper is based on document analysis and semi-directive interviews with scientists.