I can plant a hundred trees, keep them up for a year, and find a hundred tree stumps in two. I genuinely would like to know where on the spectrum this is:
- This is a fools' errand
- This requires constant upkeep and detailed construction
- This requires mild upkeep
- This is self-sustaining, can be done with a shovel + seeds, and once started, is self-sustaining, with the forest turning the Sahara green
It is designed by researchers who have been studying this for a while. At least for the near term the upkeep is worth it because people who previously no had prospects can now grow enough food to live on. You have to keep it up, but keeping it up means you can eat so the constant upkeep shouldn't be a problem so long as you are healthy. (culture or something is needed to deal with those who because of age or injury are not able to keep it up)
The real question is if in 50 years - as the current people use the fact that they have food and some extra invest in education for their kids, and so the kids move away to better city jobs. Those that remain likely love agriculture, but will be looking for ways use tractors to do the hard jobs. This doesn't seem to scale to large tractor operations. Those researchers thus need to look ahead to what follows this in 50 years.
This requires constant upkeep. The goal is to structure it so the local community is incentivized to invest that upkeep, but it's not just gonna happen all by itself. The goal is indeed a self-sustaining ecosystem, but one with human participation. If you want more detail, a good keyword is "Farmed Managed Natural Regeneration"
That keyword also makes it pretty clear it's more than a shovel and some seeds :)
And, fwiw, your request made me look at the thegreatgreenwall.org, and... good god. It is one of the lowest-information sites I've seen in a while. You could spend hours on there and learn nothing. https://thegreatgreenwall.org/science-and-the-ggw is as far as I can tell the only concrete part of this piece.
And that site makes it again abundantly clear that this is a very large scale project. The difference from the Qattara Sea project is that it actually managed to gin up multinational corporation, and that it takes a long term lens (as opposed to "IDK, let's flood this, rest's gonna work out" of the various seaflooding projects). And, most importantly, because it integrates the local communities in the project.
The last part matters because any such project is far from "fire and forget", and you need a strong local stake in any such project for it to succeed.
1) One pointing to the linked promo video designed to give feel-good vibes, claiming that's a citation. (fnordpiglet)
2) One without citations, just claiming this was designed by "researchers" and I should take that on the double-authority (bluGill)
3) And yours, which is helpful and points to an actual set of citations!
Thank you for that!
Footnote: There was a point in history when slashdot, and then reddit, were populated by intelligent discussions. At some point, there was a cliff. I enjoy HN, but I feel like we're heading for that cliff. I've seen this dynamic more and more. There are good people like you still left here, but the signal-to-noise ratio is dropping....
All indications are this is supported by serious research from universities. Though I will agree that if you want to go deeper than a conversation level you will need to find who. I would assume the the researchers are writing most of this up in language others than English. In fact if you found a lot of information in English I would be very concerned as the people doing this do not speak English. They may publish some in English as well, but if the majority isn't in the local language (which might be translated or not) there is a problem.
Speculation is very unhelpful, as are uncited claims. It's just not.
FYI: Your assumption is wrong. The language used for instruction in most universities in ECOWAS is either English or French, and mostly English. If you're talking about the research, or anything vaguely like leadership, all people doing this will speak primarily English as the lingua franca.
The related problem is that e.g. Nigerian English or Ghanian English isn't the same as British or American, and academic journals do discriminate on this sort of thing, very explicitly.
The citation is the video linked to that you’re commenting on. This isn’t tree planting greenwashing. This is engineered and planned, but it involves local people tending the land and turning it into continuously productive soil for profit. Greenwashing tree planting fails because it’s untended unplanned work. In this video they go through all the steps they take, including analyzing contours and building the water retention berms along them, the phasing of the work from basic planting to trees with crops interspersed etc. It’s really worth watching it.
I can plant a hundred trees, keep them up for a year, and find a hundred tree stumps in two. I genuinely would like to know where on the spectrum this is:
- This is a fools' errand
- This requires constant upkeep and detailed construction
- This requires mild upkeep
- This is self-sustaining, can be done with a shovel + seeds, and once started, is self-sustaining, with the forest turning the Sahara green