In the world of forestry research, a recent review has shed light on a critical issue: the neglect of communities and livelihoods tied to forests in the face of global climate policy. Published by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), the review underscores a fundamental disconnect between the priorities of high-income nations and the needs of those directly impacted by forest resources.

The literature in forestry policy, particularly in the domain of social sciences, has been increasingly dominated by discussions centered around climate change mitigation and finance. This trend, as identified by the IUFRO review, reflects what the authors describe as the ‘financialization’ and ‘climatization’ of forest policy discourse. High-income countries, driven by their climate targets and carbon offset initiatives, have largely shaped the research agenda, often to the exclusion of the people who inhabit and rely on forests for their livelihoods.

Forests, touted as vital tools for carbon sequestration and climate adaptation, have become focal points for climate finance, particularly through mechanisms like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). However, while these initiatives promise significant climate benefits and financial incentives, they often fall short in addressing the economic and social well-being of local forest communities.

One of the primary criticisms highlighted by the review is the lack of emphasis on community-focused forestry policies. Forest conservation efforts, the authors argue, are less likely to succeed if they disregard the perspectives and needs of those intimately connected with forest landscapes. This critique challenges governments, research networks, and funding agencies to adopt a more inclusive and holistic approach to forestry science and policy.

The dominance of climate-centric forestry studies can be attributed to the increasing integration of forests into global climate agendas, accelerated by commitments under the Paris Agreement. Forests offer an attractive avenue for achieving carbon targets with minimal behavioral changes from high-income nations. Consequently, international agreements and funding mechanisms have prioritized forest-related climate initiatives, often sidelining broader ecological and social dimensions.

The scientific community plays a pivotal role in supporting forest agreements and initiatives like REDD+. Researchers contribute by developing methodologies to measure carbon storage and verifying compliance with climate commitments. However, the review cautions against the singular focus on carbon sequestration metrics, urging a more nuanced exploration of forest governance, biodiversity conservation, and local knowledge systems.

Notably, Indigenous and local knowledge, integral to biodiversity conservation, receive inadequate attention in the current forestry discourse. The unique contributions of these communities to forest stewardship and ecological resilience are underrepresented in scientific literature and policy deliberations. Similarly, studies on emerging ecotourism schemes, which hold potential for sustainable development, remain peripheral to the mainstream forestry research agenda.

Furthermore, the review highlights the disjointed nature of international forest governance frameworks. While bodies like the UN Convention on Biological Diversity emphasize a broader set of research disciplines and acknowledge the importance of benefiting local communities, coordination between biodiversity and climate conventions remains limited. This lack of synergy undermines the holistic approach needed for effective forest management and conservation.

To address these shortcomings, the review calls for greater collaboration across scientific disciplines and international bodies. It advocates for a shared research agenda that transcends climate-centric perspectives, encompassing broader socio-economic considerations and local community engagement. This interdisciplinary approach would bridge the gap between biodiversity and climate agendas, ensuring more inclusive and impactful forest policies.

In response to these findings, researchers, policymakers, and funders are urged to recalibrate their priorities towards a people-centric approach to forestry science. This entails redirecting research efforts to encompass diverse stakeholder perspectives, particularly those from forest-dependent communities, and fostering genuine partnerships that prioritize local knowledge and socio-economic well-being.

Ultimately, the fate of Earth’s forests hinges not only on their capacity for carbon sequestration but on their ability to sustain and empower the lives of millions worldwide. By embracing a more inclusive and community-driven approach, the forestry research community can unlock the full potential of forests as engines of sustainable development and guardians of biodiversity, ensuring that no one is left behind in the quest for a greener future.