Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about. In the US for example, almost all of our historical savanna has been replaced by forests. The upper midwest used

Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about. In the US for example, almost all of our historical savanna has been replaced by forests. The upper midwest used to be mostly oak savana biome but since the advent of afforestation those areas, mostly regrow as forest. This shift seems most related to eradication of native species which were able to maintain a system at certain level of ecological succession. So maybe without wolves, bison, passenger pigeons, (maybe even mastodon) these ecosystems aren't able to regrow and we instead get a much less biodiverse forest. There is some suspicion this has been the case for several hundred years as oral history from native American tribes suggests they at one time overhunted these resources and afterwards took an active hand in managing some of these ecosystems. However since the native Americans never cleared these areas they may have been in a better position to maintain them (mostly via controlled fires) whereas modern Americans are often starting with farm fields. Anyways yes, afforestation is happening at good clip but much of it is plantation and a lot of the afforested areas were never previously forest. The same is true in other countries from what I have seen. Even India has massive afforestation but most is agroforestry. A lot still remains to be seen. It's possible that these forests don't make sense as carbon sinks. Savana systems for local agriculture could be more efficient at mitigating carbon emissions. Nearly a third of land is now used for grazing worldwide and much of the output is shipped internationally. Like many other systems in nature and otherwise, it's very complex. So I'm not so sure the 90's era practice of reducing deforestation to simple arithmetic is constructive in an era where scientific community is pushing to maximize carbon sinks.