A Village in India Fights Female Infanticide and Deforestation

How a village leader changed the perception of women in India, one tree at a time.

Girls connecting with the trees in Piplantri. Photo provided by Piplantri Village.

Every time a baby girl is born in Piplantri, India, the village gathers together to plant 111 trees in her honor. The custom began a couple of years ago, when former village leader, Shyam Sundar Paliwal was forced to ponder the fleetingness of life after his daughter tragically passed away at a young age.

Piplantri and other villages in the area were facing two crises that greatly affected the quality and value of life. One issue was social: a high rate of female infanticide. Traditionally, female births were considered a burden on the family. The parents of a girl are expected to provide a dowry to her husband’s family, which can be a big financial undertaking. Additionally, daughters were married off well before the age of 18, before they could obtain an education. 

Piplantri and its surrounding villages faced environmental hardships as well. The villages in the Rajasthan area are suffering from deforestation with the increase of marble mining. 

Paliwal decided to confront these issues with a plan that can be broken down into three words: “Daughter, Water, Trees.” 

To counter the pessimism around the birth of a baby girl—and improve the lives of the daughter and her family—the village raises money for a “trust” every time a girl is born. The family is to contribute one third of the fund, which is set aside until the girl turns 20. This alleviates the problem of the financial burden of a dowry. 

In order for the family to receive the money, they must sign an affidavit agreeing not to marry their daughter until she is of the legal age of 18 and has received a proper education. 

To solve the deforestation problem, the village gets together to plant 111 trees in the girl’s honor. As a part of the contract, the family agrees to take care of those 111 trees. Hopefully the trees will help the spread of water along the land. 

And the scheme gets even better. The fruit trees being planted were beginning to attract a lot of termites. In order to prevent infestation, the villagers planted many aloe plants to protect the trees. The villagers can harvest and sell the aloe—which has incredible healing benefits—and make a profit, to even further improve their quality of life. 

Although Paliwal is no longer the leader of the village, the tradition continues. Now, teachers report that there are just as many girls enrolled in school as boys. And, the village is lush and green with the hundreds of trees planted. 

Other villages are following suit. The nearby village of Tasol is trying out Piplantri’s eco-feminist village model.

---

RELATED CONTENT:

---

ELIANA DOFT

Eliana loves to write, travel, and volunteer. She is especially excited by opportunities to combine these three passions through writing about social action travel experiences. She is an avid reader, a licensed scuba diver, and a self-proclaimed cold brew connoisseur. 

Restoring the Amazon Rainforest

Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest has hurt it immensely but reforestation efforts are working to restore its former glory.

Amazon Rainforest. Neil Palmer. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Deforestation is the process of destroying the tree cover in a forest, so technically it started when humans first started cutting down trees for fires and to build homes. However, the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s caused a massive jump in deforestation, with 177 million square miles of trees having been destroyed just by 1850. Though the issue has persisted, it is only in the last 70 years that people have realized it is a major environmental problem. Even today, around 25 million hectares of forest are being destroyed every year. The agricultural industry is the leading cause of deforestation as people destroy forest land for commercial farming, especially for livestock feeding, soy and palm oil. Other industries such as the textile industry, food industry, chemical and construction industries also benefit from the deforestation. Also, one method of deforestation is slashing and burning the trees, which harms the soil and makes it harder for plants to grow in the future. This affects not just the forest, but the farmers who take over the land because they are unable to grow crops for many years and need to keep cutting down more trees. 

One forest in particular that has continuously suffered from deforestation is the Amazon rainforest, the largest rainforest in the world. It spans across Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela, which covers around 40% of South America. The ecosystem of Amazon forest is incredibly diverse, with more species of plants and animals than any other terrestrial ecosystem in the entire world. With industrialization and the continuous deforestation, large sections of the rainforest have vanished.

However, many forest restoration efforts have happened in an attempt to save it. Forest restoration is a process to improve the health of a forest, though nothing will fully restore it to its original glory because of destroyed soil and invasive species of both plants and animals. The process aims to heal the destruction caused by deforestation as much as it can, but it isn’t as simple as people replanting the trees. The soil has to be improved, the wildlife must be protected and anyone who uses the land needs to use it sustainably. 

Vine in the Amazon Rainforest. Ben Sutherland. CC BY 2.0

In terms of the Amazon specifically, many efforts are starting to be made as people recognize the increasingly negative impact they have been causing on the rainforest. For example, in Colombia, a business in bioeconomy is gaining popularity. Forest schools such as the Amazonía Emprende - Escuela Bosque teach local communities to have sustainable business practices, and restore thousands of hectares of land within the next few years. Nature tourism is another method that people are using. It is a way for Indiginous communities to show and teach others about the rainforest, and raising awareness like this also helps improve the living conditions of the people. Another way Colombia is making efforts to preserve the rainforest is simply just growing food more sustainably. There are companies that grow plants in an eco-friendly way, and help families who make a living doing this. 

There are also programs such as the Amazon Sustainable Landscape Program (ASL), which aims to improve the overall management of landscape and ecosystem of the rainforest. The ASL combines efforts from many organizations, such as the World Bank, World Wildlife Fund, International Fund for Agricultural Development and more. With the ASL, these groups have a way to collaborate in a massive effort to restore the rainforest. Big organizations and communities working together is needed for large scale efforts like this to be truly effective in restorating the Amazon.

To Get Involved

There are many organizations trying to help rainforests. The Rainforest Action Network RAN) has a Protect an Acre program, similar to buy-an-acre programs that allow for people to buy an acre of forest land so it won’t be destroyed. The Amazonía Emprende school mentioned earlier educates people about sustainable business practices. The ASL wants to better the management of the Amazon.

To discover more about the Amazonía Emprende school, click here.

To discover more about the ASL and its goals, click here.

To discover more about the RAN and how to donate to them, click here.

---

RELATED CONTENT:

Amazon Deforestation, Already Rising, May Spike Under Bolsonaro

Only Local Amazonians Can Bring True Sustainable Development to Their Forest

TRIP: Help the Amazon Ranch Project

---

Katherine Lim

Katherine is an undergraduate student at Vassar College studying English literature and Italian. She loves both reading and writing, and she hopes to pursue both in the future. With a passion for travel and nature, she wants to experience more of the world and everything it has to offer.

Deforestation in Myanmar Amid Political Unrest

While deforestation has been a major issue in Myanmar for decades, recent data shows a surge in deforestation that could be linked  to the nation’s recent coup and ongoing internal conflict. 

Environment and Food Security in Myanmar. United Nations Development Programme. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

On February 1, a coup took place in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military, overthrew many democratically elected members of the National League for Democracy , the ruling party in Myanmar following the November 2020 general elections. After  the coup, the Tatmadaw enforced a year-long state of emergency, transferring power from the elected democratic authorities to the Commander-in-Chief of Defense Services Min Aung Hlaing. The military assumed control of the nation and invalidated the November vote on the premise that the elections were fraudulent; however, many question the legitimacy of this premise. Some believe that this reasoning was a cover for the Tatmadaw to step in because many members of its party lost in the election. 

Interestingly, the coup took place the day before the Parliament of Myanmar swore in the newly elected members from the November 2020 election, preventing the election. Unsurprisingly, residents did not welcome the control of the Tatmadaw with open arms—many protested the coup and experienced grave, and sometimes deadly, consequences. Citizens who spoke out against the Tatmadaw authorities were punished, as freedom of speech and the press are not guaranteed by law in Myanmar. Since the conflict began, over 900 civilians have been killed by military or police forces and at least 5,000 people have been arrested, charged or sentenced. Additionally, three prominent members of the NLD have died while under police custody in March.

 While this political situation in Myanmar is new, its environmental situation is not. When the nation achieved its independence from the British in 1948, Myanmar, previously known as Burma, had a landscape that was  70 percent forest. In 2014, there was around 48 percent forest cover, as the nation lost around 19 percent of its forests between 1990 and 2010. Although Myanmar’s deforestation rate is less than some of its neighbors, including Indonesia and Vietnam, deforestation is still a major concern in the region. Deforestation in Myanmar is often attributed to three major factors: unsustainable and illegal logging, unresolved land disputes and agricultural development. Despite deforestation, Myanmar has the largest tropical forest in mainland Southeast Asia that is home to more than 80 endemic species. Despite the size of Myanmar’s forests, only around six percent of its land is protected by law while the rest is susceptible to deforestation. 

 Myanmar’s Tanintharyi region exemplifies the consequences deforestation can have on Myanmar’s wildlife. Satellite data from the University of Maryland shows that deforestation is increasing in the nation, especially in the Mergui and Kawthoung districts of the Tanintharyi. According to UMD, Mergui and Kawthoung lost around 15 percent of their tree cover between 2001 and 2019, and recent data from UMD’s Global Analysis and Discovery lab suggest that this number may be higher in 2020 and beyond. 

Gurney’s pittas, small birds with a stubby tail, live in the area between Mergui and Kawthoung in the Tanintharyi. These birds were thought to be extinct until they were rediscovered in the 80s. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the Gurney’s pitta is a critically endangered species with only between 1,000 and 2,500 remaining in 2019, a drastic decline from the 10,300 to 17,000 that were alive 15 years earlier. Habitat loss is the reason behind this decline. 

 Gurney pitta. darwin_initiative. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Beyond threatening extinction for wildlife that has been around for decades, deforestation in Myanmar is also threatening the advancement of science in studying biodiversity. New species have recently been discovered in the Tanintharyi region. In 2015 and 2016, researchers discovered two species of geckos, genus Cyrtodactylus, that are known for their bent toes. In 2019, another group of researchers discovered an Asian rock gecko known as Cnemaspis tanintharyi. Some scientists are worried that continued deforestation in the Tanintharyi region could mean the extinction of undiscovered and recently discovered species, in addition to well-known species.

 Myanmar’s political climate has implications for its environmental situation. With Myanmar’s 70-year-long and ongoing internal conflict as well as the recent coup, displaced individuals have turned to its forests for support. Many have taken up farming in the Tanintharyi to make a living and others have sought refuge in surrounding forests—both of which have contributed to increased deforestation in the Tanintharyi region and the decline of unique, local species.

In addition to the environmental consequences of displacement, experts speculate that the coup has opened the nation to increased illegal deforestation as international oversight and trade partnerships deteriorate. With other nations increasing sanctions against Myanmar and refusing to cooperate with the country because of the coup, Myanmar is more susceptible to illegal deforestation and the selling of illegally obtained wood to foreign partners who neglect to question its legitimacy. Satellite data by Planet Labs, Google Earth and Global Forest Watch show that large patches of forest have been removed between January and April of this year. Despite this incriminating data, there is no clear evidence that directly links the recent deforestation to illegal activities conducted by the Tatmadaw.

---

RELATED CONTENT:

Uncertainty Reigns in Myanmar Amid Military Coup

VIDEO: Enchanted Myanmar

---

Mia Khatib 

Mia is a rising senior at Boston University majoring in journalism and minoring in international relations. As a Palestinian-American, Mia is passionate about amplifying the voices of marginalized communities and is interested in investigative and data-driven journalism. She hopes to start out as a breaking news reporter and one day earn a position as editor of a major publication.

Study Predicts African Great Apes Will Lose 94% of Their Territory

A new study about  the effects of climate change, land use and human population growth on African great apes found that they may lose up to 94% of their habitat by 2050. 

A mountain gorilla in Uganda. Rod Waddington. CC BY-SA 2.0 

Great apes are humanity’s closest relatives. They are also a highly endangered group of animals, and experts believe that this status will likely worsen in the coming years. A new study published in the journal Diversity and Distributions predicts that the combined pressures of climate change, human land use and human population growth will lead to immense territory losses for African great apes in the next 30 years. 

There are four types of great apes: gorillas, bonobos, orangutans, and chimpanzees. Africa is home to a number of species of great apes, including Cross River and Eastern and Western gorillas, as well as bonobos and chimpanzees. The situation for these species is already critical. All are listed as either endangered or critically endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Red List of Threatened Species, a comprehensive list detailing the conservation status of animals around the world. And, as wild areas are destroyed for timber, minerals and food; the human population expands; and climate change alters the land where great apes can comfortably live, experts warn that African great apes could lose a devastating portion of their range by 2050. 

The study was conducted by nearly 60 scientists from different research institutions, universities and conservation organizations. The scientists used data about African great ape populations from the IUCN database and then modelled the future effects of climate change, land use and human population growth. Using this data, the scientists analysed a best case scenario, where action is taken to protect the environment , and a worst case scenario where nothing is done. There is little difference in the two outcomes. Both result in massive range loss for African great apes, with 85% range loss by 2050 in the “best case” scenario and 94% by 2050 in the “worst case”. 

Half of this lost range will be territory inside national parks and other protected areas, the study predicts. Although these areas are safe from human land use, they will still be affected by climate change, which will make the habitat unsuitable for great apes. Most great ape species prefer to live in lowland habitats, but climate change will make them hotter and drier. In areas where there is no higher lands, apes will be left with nowhere to live. In areas where there are uplands, however, experts suggest that great apes will attempt to migrate upward, following the climate and vegetation they prefer. 

Yet, even apes that have the ability to migrate as their range decreases may not have enough time to do so. Apes reproduce slowly, have a low population density and require a very specific diet. All of these factors mean that apes are generally not efficient migrators compared to other species; to fully acclimate to a new habitat would take great ape species longer than the 30 years the study predicts they have left. 

The authors of the study urge that their findings be used to guide conservation efforts for African great apes in order to prevent irreversible population losses. Their findings suggest that the range loss can be mitigated through specific conservation efforts that focus on new and existing protected areas, as well as connecting habitats that are predicted to still be suitable for great apes in the future.

---

RELATED CONTENT:

VIDEO: Fighting the Desert with Gardens in Senegal

Guatemala’s ‘Forest Guardians’ Save their Homeland, Providing a Conservation Model for the World

PODCAST: Backpacking with a Purpose in Guatemala with Lauren Chu

---

Rachel Lynch

Rachel is a student at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, NY currently taking a semester off. She plans to study Writing and Child Development. Rachel loves to travel and is inspired by the places she’s been and everywhere she wants to go. She hopes to educate people on social justice issues and the history and culture of travel destinations through her writing.

VIDEO: Indonesia's Mentawai Tribe

To give Joshua Cowan’s film even deeper meaning, it’s important to understand context. Mentawai is an archipelago found off the west coast of Sumatra (Indonesia) consisting of approximately 70 islands and islets. The history of the people is often debated, but as early as 1954, under Indonesia’s goal of national unity and cultural adaptation, the National Government began introducing civilization programs designed to integrate the tribal groups into the social and cultural mainstream of the country. This, for native Mentawai, meant the eradication of Arat Sabulungan — the animist belief system that links the supernatural powers of ancestral spirits to the ecology of the rainforest — ; the forced surrender, burning and destruction of possessions used to facilitate cultural or ritual behavior; and their Sikerei (shamans) being disrobed, beaten, and forced into slave labor and imprisonment.

Under Pancasila — the official, foundational philosophical theory of Indonesia — the Indonesian state should be based on the Five Principles: Indonesian nationalism; Internationalism, or Humanism; Consent, or Democracy; Social prosperity; and Belief in One God. Based on the Indonesian notion ‘belief in one God’, there are officially only five religions recognized: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Which, for the Mentawai Islands, resulted in an immediate influx of missionaries and an increase in violence and pressure on the people to adopt change. In the end many chose Christianity due to its flexible views on the possession and consumption of pigs, which play an integral role in Mentawai history and culture.

By the late 1980’s loggers had devastated the forests of Sipora, North and South Pagai. In 1980, WWF (World Wildlife Fund) published a report entitled ‘Saving Siberut’ which, along with the support of other organizations – primarily UNESCO and Survival International – and other additional international interest, helped persuade the Indonesian government to cancel logging concessions and declare the forests of Siberut a biosphere reserve. With this, the people in the Mentawai found that they were once again free to practice their native cultural activities – at least in areas away from the villages.

However, by this point, and as it remains today, the number of Indigenous people still actively practicing the cultural customs, rituals and ceremonies of Arat Sabulungan had already been limited to a very small population of clans primarily located around the Sarereiket and Sakuddei regions in the south of Siberut Island.

---

Raeann Mason

Raeann is an avid traveler, digital storyteller and guide writer. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mass Comm & Media Studies from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism & Mass Communication. Passionate about a/effective journalism and cultural exchange, she is an advocate of international solidarity and people's liberation. As the founder of ROAM + WRITE and EIC of Monarch Magazine, Raeann hopes to reshape the culture of travel and hospitality to be ethically sound and sustainable.

The Amazon Rainforest Was and Still Is On Fire

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the dangers that threaten the Amazon rainforest

The Amazon rainforest during “fire season.” diversityphotos. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

There are a multitude of dangers ranging from climate change to human destruction that threaten the fragility of the Amazon rainforest. The destruction of the Amazon is largely attributed to consumerism and the extraction of natural resources. Without the existence of the Amazon, the world loses a crucial contender in the fight against climate change along with the likely deaths of many Indignenous people and already endangered species.

Reports from Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research recorded 2,248 fires last month, a 13-year high and a 20% increase over the norm. Last year around this time, there were about 1,880 fires. However, the worst is likely yet to come as burnings in the Amazon tend to increase until September, the end of “fire season.” 

In 2019, the greatest destruction of the fires correlated with the peak of fire season. The increase in the number of fires was likely fueled by President Jair Bolsonaro’s decision to decrease the fines for environmental violations. It gave more leeway for commercial groups and loggers to disregard regulations that help preserve the Amazon. Bolsonaro has been nicknamed “Captain Chainsaw” for his policies that prioritize development over conservation. In an interview, Bolsonaro stated that “the Amazon belongs to Brazil,” so it can do as it wishes with it. As a result, it was estimated last year that every minute, a portion of the Amazon equal to the size of a soccer field was lost due to deforestation. 

The process of deforestation results from loggers trying to clear land as quickly as possible. That includes the use of chainsaws to cut down lumber for manufacturing and development. Then, farmers burn the downed trees that remain to make room for crops and pastures. Fire season, then,is the mark of when farmers begin to set these fires. It is important to acknowledge this is not a new practice, but an unending cycle of extracting from the land without replenishing it. 

Another sign of deforestation in the Amazon. rosamariavidal. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

A similar phenomenon is occurring this year due to the lack of authority in the Amazon. Just as with last year, many of the fires started so far have been due to illegal loggers. For instance, in the first four months of 2020, deforestation rose by 55% due to a lack of governmental enforcement as Brazil’s attention focused on combating COVID-19.

The spread of COVID-19 also caused many activists and field agents to pull out of the region. As a consequence of the lack of protection by field agents and thin numbers of police, loggers and miners have been able to overtake the Amazon. To show the magnitude of this problem, April’s extent of deforestation was 64% higher than that in April 2019. 

Due to international outcry last year over the fires, President Bolsonaro was forced to deploy enforcement to help monitor the fires and enforce regulations. Most new enforcement agents were unable to be deployed for this year’s fire season, though, due to COVID-19. And to make matters worse, the authority of troops currently in the Amazon expired on June 10, so there is currently no one monitoring fire conditions. 

Eva Ashbaugh

is a Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies double major at the University of Pittsburgh. As a political science major concentrating on International Relations, she is passionate about human rights, foreign policy, and fighting for equality. She hopes to one day travel and help educate people to make the world a better place.

The Lungs of the Earth are Burning

 The Amazon Rainforest is currently burning and has been for weeks, while little to no coverage has been given to the immediate and dire situation. 

Fire. Cullan Smith. Unsplash.

The Amazon is on fire and has been for a little over a month. According to the World Wildlife Fund, “40,000 different types of plants” are estimated to have been affected by the fires raging in the Amazon. The Amazon fires have been burning for a while now, but coverage on the fires has been little to none. Now, though, through the outcry on social media, attention has been brought and countries across the globe are pitching in, trying to do their part in reversing and stopping the fires. 

According to a NY Times article, “Hours after leaders of some of the world’s wealthiest countries pledged more than $22 million to help combat fires in the Amazon rainforest, Brazil’s government angrily rejected the offer, in effect telling the other nations to mind their own business — only to later lay out potential terms for the aid’s acceptance and then, on Tuesday evening, accepting some aid from Britain.”

Denying the aid could prove detrimental to the people and animals living in the Amazon forest. According to a CNN video, Daniel Aristizabel, a member of the Amazon Conservation team, states that the fires are affecting tons of the wildlife in the Amazon, stating “if you lose one species, you cause a chain reaction”. This “chain reaction” can cause a major shift in our ecosystem and possibly put many animals on the endangered species list. 

Being far-removed from the fires makes it difficult to understand the scope and how big of areas the fires are covering. In an ABC video, Andres Ruzo from National Geographic Explorer and Conservationist and also the Director of the Boiling River Project states that “we could be losing, in certain areas, as much as 3 soccer fields of jungle every single minute”. The rate at which the Amazon is burning is huge and will have an impact on ourselves. To put the size in perspective, CNN reporter also adds that the amount of land burning is equivalent to “two thirds the size of the contenential United States”. The Amazon Rainforest has often been called the lungs of the Earth but now they are clogged with smoke. 

Senior VP of Forests, WWF, Kerry Cesareo, states “we have seen a dramatic increase in deforestation in the Amazon, recently, and it is driven by humans and this is happening in part due to demand for food and other resources from the forests and exacerbated by the decline and enforcement of laws”. The apparent need for land for farming is the reason behind the fires. A great need for profit and resources are killing the Earth’s lungs.

If you would like to contribute to the efforts of saving the Amazon rainforest, you can donate to Protect and Acre Fund at https://act.ran.org/page/11127/donate/1 which “has distributed more than one million dollars in grants to more than 150 frontline communities, indigenous-led organizations, and allies, helping their efforts to secure protection for millions of acres of traditional territory in forests around the world.” You can also reduce your wood, paper, and beef consumption as those are the top reasons deforestation is currently happening to the Amazon. 

OLIVIA HAMMOND is an undergraduate at Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts. She studies Creative Writing, with minors in Sociology/Anthropology and Marketing. She has travelled to seven different countries, most recently studying abroad this past summer in the Netherlands. She has a passion for words, traveling, and learning in any form. 

Restoring Tropical Forests Isn’t Meaningful if Those Forests Only Stand For 10 or 20 years

Tropical forests globally are being lost at a rate of 61,000 square miles a year. And despite conservation efforts, the global rate of loss is accelerating. In 2016 it reached a 15-year high, with 114,000 square miles cleared.

At the same time, many countries are pledging to restore large swaths of forests. The Bonn Challenge, a global initiative launched in 2011, calls for national commitments to restore 580,000 square miles of the world’s deforested and degraded land by 2020. In 2014 the New York Declaration on Forests increased this goal to 1.35 million square miles, an area about twice the size of Alaska, by 2030.

Ecological restoration is a process of helping damaged ecosystems recover. It produces many benefits for both wildlife and people – for example, better habitat, erosion control, cleaner drinking water and jobs.

That’s why the Bonn Challenge is so exciting for geographers and ecologists like us. It brings restoration into the center of global discussions about combating climate change, preventing species extinctions and improve farmers’ lives. It connects governments, organizations, companies and communities, and is catalyzing substantial investments in forest restoration.

However, a closer look shows that a struggle remains to fully realize the Bonn Challenge vision. Some reforestation efforts provide only limited benefits, and studies have shown that maintaining these forests for decades is critical to maximize the economic and ecological benefits of establishing them.

Reforestation project in northern Costa Rica: a plantation of native trees with valuable wood. Matthew Fagan, CC BY-ND

Putting trees back on the land

So far, 48 nations and 10 states and companies have made Bonn Challenge commitments to restore 363,000 square miles by 2020 and another 294,000 square miles by 2030. The United States and a Pakistani province have already fulfilled their commitments, restoring a total of 67,000 square miles.

Restoring forests poses political and economic challenges for national governments. Letting forests grow back inevitably means pulling land out of farming. Natural forest regeneration mainly occurs where farmers have abandoned poor quality land, or where governments discourage poor farming practices – for example, near wetlands or on steep slopes. Opportunities for natural regeneration elsewhere are limited.

As a result, much forest landscape restoration under the Bonn Challenge focuses on improving existing landscapes using trees. Restoration activities may include creating timber or fruit plantations; agroforestry, or planting rows of trees in and around agricultural fields; and silviculture, or improving the condition of degraded forests.

The U.N. Decade of Ecosystem Restoration seeks to restore some 5 billion acres of deforested and degraded landscapes and seascapes between 2021 and 2030.

One early success, the “Billion Tree Tsunami” in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, has exceeded its 350,000-hectare pledge through a combination of protecting forest regeneration and planting trees. Similarly, Rwanda has restored 700,000 of the 2 million hectares it pledged, primarily through agroforestry and reforesting erosion-prone areas, and created thousands of green jobs.

Green deserts

However, these “restored forests” are often poor replacements for natural habitat. For animals dwelling in tropical forests, agroforestry and tree plantations can look more like green deserts than forests.

Many tropical forest wildlife species are only found in mature tropical forests and cannot survive in open agroforests, monoculture tree plantations or young natural regeneration. Truly restoring tropical forest habitat takes a diversity of forest species, and time.

Nonetheless, these working “forests” do have ecological value for some species, and can spare remaining natural forests from axes, fire and plows. In addition, scientists have estimated that restored forests could sequester up to 16 percent of the carbon needed to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while generating some US$84 billion in assets such as timber and erosion control.

Restored, but for how long?

Benefits for wildlife and Earth’s climate from forest restoration accrue over decades. However, many forests are unlikely to remain protected for this long.

In a 2018 study we showed that forests that naturally regenerated in Costa Rica between 1947 and 2014 had only a 50 percent chance of enduring for 20 years. Most places where forests regrew were subsequently re-cleared for farming. Twenty years represents about a quarter of the time needed for forest carbon stocks to fully recover, and less than one-fifth of the time required for many forest-dwelling plants and animals to return.

Unfortunately, 20 years may be more than most new forests get. Studies in Brazil and Peru show that regenerating forests there are re-cleared even faster, often after just a few years.

This problem is not limited to natural forests. Agroforests worldwide are under pressure. For example, until recent decades, coffee and cocoa farmers in the tropics raised their crops in agroforests under a shady canopy of trees, which mimicked the way these plants grow in nature and maximized their health. Today, however, many of them grow their crops in the sun. This method can improve yield, but requires pesticides and fertilizer to compensate for added stress on the plants.

And although timber plantations sequester additional carbon with every harvest and replanting, their replanting is dependent on shifting market demand for wood. Once they are harvested after six to 14 years of growth, tropical timber plantations can be abandoned as a bad investment and replaced with higher-yielding row crops or pasture.

Solid foundations for recovery

If the Bonn Challenge is to achieve its goals, nations will have to find ways of converting short-term restoration pledges into long-term ecosystem recovery. This may require tightening the rules.

Some countries have pledged to protect unrealistically large areas. For example, Rwanda committed to restore 77 percent of its national territory, and Costa Rica and Nicaragua pledged to restore 20 percent of their territories apiece. Another flaw is that the Bonn Challenge does not prevent countries from deforesting some areas even as they are restoring others.

It will be impossible to track overall progress without an international commitment to monitor and sustain restoration successes. International organizations need to invest in satellite and local monitoring networks. We also believe they should consider how large international investmentsin sectors such as agriculture, mining and infrastructure drive forest loss and regrowth.

Countries like Indonesia that may be considering a Bonn Challenge pledge should be encouraged to focus on long-term impacts. Instead of restoring 10,000 square miles of one-year-old forest by 2020, why not restore 5,000 square miles of 100-year-old forest by 2120? Countries like Costa Rica that have already pledged can lock in those gains by protecting regrown forests.

The U.N. General Assembly recently approved a resolution designating 2021 to 2030 as the U.N. Decade of Ecosystem Restoration. We hope this step will help motivate nations to keep their promises and invest in restoring Earth’s deforested and degraded ecosystems.

MATTHEW FAGAN is an assistant Professor of Geography and Environmental Systems at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

LEIGHTON REID is a faculty associate at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

MARGARET BUCK HOLLAND is an associate Professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION

Development and Deforestation Threatens Peru’s Indigenous Tribes

When we think of civilization, we think in Western terms: skyscrapers, factories, and automobiles.  But as we progress, there is a growing need to live in tune with the natural world. While our affinity for the environments may seem relatively new, some civilizations have lived in such a  way for centuries. The forests of Peru are home to 15 “uncontacted” tribes, groups who live in voluntary isolation and reject all connections to the outside world. However, the reverse is not true. Industrialization and deforestation threaten to take large pieces of territory from these indigenous peoples.

In December of 2017, the Congress of the Republic of Peru approved the construction of a road that would run along 172 miles of Peru’s eastern border with Brazil before connecting with the Interoceanic Highway, a 1600 mile stretch that links the two countries. The road was pitched as a way to jumpstart the economy in an area of Peru that was cut off from tourism and trade, but activists are worried. Clearing a way for the road would decimate 4 national parks and violate 5 protected areas belonging to the indigenous tribes.  Activists also predict that the road will be a catalyst for more development, both legal and illegal. Drug traffickers are always looking for new opportunities to expand, and a road through the Amazon would provide just that.

Some smaller encounters are equally devastating to relations between the outside world and the indigenous tribes of the Peruvian forest.  In April 2018, Sebastian Woodroffe, a Canadian scientist who traveled to Peru to study hallucinogenic medicine, was killed in an apparent lynching after he was accused of killing  81-year-old Olivia Arévalo, a local shaman to the tribal village of Victoria Gracia. Authorities launched an investigation after videos surfaced on social media of Woodroffe being dragged along the jungle floor by assailants. They later exhumed Woodroffe’s body from an unmarked grave. The incident has proven to be disastrous to public perception of the tribes.

When asked why they choose to remain isolated, members of these tribes often point to encounters their people had with colonists in the past and the violence and disease that resulted. Today, history seems to be repeating itself as modern society reaches further into an untouched and irreplaceable ecosystem.

JONATHAN ROBINSON is an intern at CATALYST. He is a travel enthusiast always adding new people, places, experiences to his story. He hopes to use writing as a means to connect with others like himself. 

Amazon Deforestation, Already Rising, May Spike Under Bolsonaro

Over the past 25 years that I have been conducting environmental research in the Amazon, I have witnessed the the ongoing destruction of the world’s biggest rainforest. Twenty percent of it has been deforested by now – an area larger than Texas.

I therefore grew hopeful when environmental policies began to take effect at the turn of the millennium, and the rate of deforestation dropped from nearly 11,000 square miles per year to less than 2,000over the decade following 2004.

But a new political climate in Brazil, which set in even before President Jair Bolsonaro took office in January 2019, has led to a recent increase in the pace of rainforest felling. And Bolsonaro, a former army officer, made Amazonian development a core campaign pledge.

The Tapajos River, downstream from where a dam could be built. Robert T. Walker, CC BY-SA

Damming the Tapajós

At stake is what becomes of the region around the Tapajós River, one of the Amazon’s largest tributaries and home to about 14,000 Munduruku tribal people. The Munduruku have until now successfully slowed down and seemingly halted many efforts to turn the Tapajós into the “Mississippi of Brazil.”

The Tapajós River is the Amazon’s last undammed clearwater tributary. The basin that surrounds it is roughly equal to 15 percent of the Brazilian Amazon region and about the size of France. This remote area has a great deal of biodiversity, and its trees store large quantities of carbon.

Because the Amazon rainforest absorbs a lot of the carbon emitted through the burning of fossil fuels, climate scientists consider its preservation key to preventing an uptick in the pace of global warming.

Brazil is planning to build a series of big new hydroelectric dams and webs of waterways, rail lines, ports and roads that can overcome logistical obstacles standing in the way of exporting commodities and other goods.

The government did suspend plans to build an 8,000-megawatt dam at the heart of this sprawling project in 2016. At the time, it cited the “unviability of the project given the indigenous component” and stated it would stop building big dams in 2018, before Bolsanaro took office.

Yet many observers remain very concerned about how Bolsonaro’s presidency will affect the Munduruku and the rainforest they protect. Groups like International Rivers – a nonprofit dedicated to the “protection of rivers and the rights of communities that depend on them” – are not about to declare victory.

South American gambit

Brazil’s Amazon development plans are part of a broader gambit that includes all the South American nations. First conceived in 2000, the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America is designed to build a continental economy through new infrastructure that provides electricity for industrialization and facilitates trade and transportation.

Known widely by its Spanish and Portuguese abbreviations as IIRSA, this initiative is turning the Amazon, 60 percent of which is located on Brazilian territory, into a source of hydropower and a transportation hub connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It will become easier to ship Brazilian soybeans to global markets, and manufacturing will expand, stimulating population growth in the Amazon.

The blueprint for this bid to develop the Amazon, which also includes portions of Peru, Bolivia and six other countries, calls for building more than 600 dams, 12,400 miles of waterways, about 1.2 million miles of roads, a transcontinental railway and a system of ports, much of it in the tropical wilderness.

New wave of development

Bolsonaro has not yet confronted the Munduruku or taken concrete actions to keep his promises about developing the Amazon. But he has taken steps that point in this direction with the officials he has selected for key posts. He has also transferred responsibilities for demarcating indigenous lands from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Agriculture, which an agricultural lobbyist is running.

The new Brazilian president’s plans for the Amazon come on the heels of decades of deforestation following the construction of roads and hydropower facilities during the 1960s and 1970s. This initial wave of construction opened the sparsely populated region to an influx of newcomers, and contributed to the destruction of about a fifth of the forest over four decades.

A complex of dams, roads and commercial waterways could turn the remote Tapajos River basin into a South American trading hub in the heart of the Amazon rainforest. Michael P. Waylen/University of Florida, CC BY-SA

Then came a wave of stronger environmental policies – such as the stricter enforcement of logging laws, the expansion of protected areas and the voluntary decision by soybean farmers to refrain from clearing the forest – which lowered Brazil’s Amazon deforestation rate after 2000. It seemed to me and others that a new era of Amazonian conservation had dawned.

But that was before I understood the full implications of the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of South America.

This plan is far more ambitious than earlier infrastructure projects which were completed by the end of the 1970s, and I believe that it could wreak even more destruction.

Should all of its components be built, the new transportation and energy infrastructure would be likely to spark a new wave of deforestation that I fear could have disastrous impacts on the indigenous communities living in the region. The new projects need only to repeat what the earlier projects did. This would bring total deforestation to 40 percent.

Climate scientists such as Carlos Nobre worry that this magnitude of forest loss would push the Amazon to a “tipping point” and undermine the process of rainfall recycling, which replenishes the Amazon’s supply of water. The outcome would be a drier climate in the Amazon, which has already begun to experience droughts, and the transformation of the forest into savanna. Indigenous people would suffer, and the Amazon’s biodiversity would disappear.

A massive increase in the pace of Amazonian deforestation could bring about climatic changes in both South and North America. Scientists predict that precipitation would decline in many areas of the Americas, including the southeastern part of South America and the Mississippi River Valley. The whole world would suffer from reduced agricultural production in these two regions, which are important global suppliers of agricultural commodities like corn and soybeans.

Attacking the Amazon

To be sure, some of this construction is already underway in Brazil, particularly for hydropower. So far, 140 dams have either been built or are under construction, notably the Belo Monte Dam on the Xingu River and the Santo Antônio and Jirau dams on the Madeira Rivers. And Bolsonaro’s predecessors had downsized some of the Amazon’s protected areas to facilitate development.

These protected tracts of land cover 43 percent of the Brazilian Amazon and are essential to maintaining biodiversity and sequestering carbon.

When Bolsonaro addressed world leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland for the first time, he promised to protect the environment in his country – which he called “a paradise.”

I remain skeptical, however, given that he seems to be staffing his government in preparation for construction projects that could devastate the Amazon, reducing its biodiversity and destroying its ecological and cultural treasures.

ROBERT T. WALKER is the Professor of Latin American Studies at the University of Florida.

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION

Can Genetic Engineering Save Disappearing Forests?

Compared to gene-edited babies in China and ambitious projects to rescue woolly mammoths from extinction, biotech trees might sound pretty tame.

But releasing genetically engineered trees into forests to counter threats to forest health represents a new frontier in biotechnology. Even as the techniques of molecular biology have advanced, humans have not yet released a genetically engineered plant that is intended to spread and persist in an unmanaged environment. Biotech trees – genetically engineered or gene-edited – offer just that possibility.

One thing is clear: The threats facing our forests are many, and the health of these ecosystems is getting worse. A 2012 assessment by the U.S. Forest Service estimated that nearly 7 percent of forests nationwide are in danger of losing at least a quarter of their tree vegetation by 2027. This estimate may not sound too worrisome, but it is 40 percent higher than the previous estimate made just six years earlier.

In 2018, at the request of several U.S. federal agencies and the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine formed a committee to “examine the potential use of biotechnology to mitigate threats to forest tree health.” Experts, including me, a social scientist focused on emerging biotechnologies, were asked to “identify the ecological, ethical, and social implications of deploying biotechnology in forests, and develop a research agenda to address knowledge gaps.”

Our committee members came from universities, federal agencies and NGOs and represented a range of disciplines: molecular biology, economics, forest ecology, law, tree breeding, ethics, population genetics and sociology. All of these perspectives were important for considering the many aspects and challenges of using biotechnology to improve forest health.

More than 80 million acres are at risk of losing at least 25 percent of tree vegetation between 2013 and 2027 due to insects and diseases. Krist et al. (2014), CC BY-SA

A Crisis in US forests

Climate change is just the tip of the iceberg. Forests face higher temperatures and droughts and more pests. As goods and people move around the globe, even more insects and pathogens hitchhike into our forests.

The emerald ash borer is destroying ash trees in 31 states. Herman Wong HM/Shutterstock.com

The emerald ash borer feeds on ash trees, damaging and eventually killing them. K Steve Cope/Shutterstock.com

We focused on four case studies to illustrate the breadth of forest threats. The emerald ash borer arrived from Asia and causes severe mortality in five species of ash trees. First detected on U.S. soil in 2002, it had spread to 31 states as of May 2018. Whitebark pine, a keystone and foundational species in high elevations of the U.S. and Canada, is under attack by the native mountain pine beetle and an introduced fungus. Over half of whitebark pine in the northern U.S. and Canada have died.

Poplar trees are important to riparian ecosystems as well as for the forest products industry. A native fungal pathogen, Septoria musiva, has begun moving west, attacking natural populations of black cottonwood in Pacific Northwest forests and intensively cultivated hybrid poplar in Ontario. And the infamous chestnut blight, a fungus accidentally introduced from Asia to North America in the late 1800s, wiped out billions of American chestnut trees.

Can biotech come to the rescue? Should it?

It’s complicated

Although there are many potential applications of biotechnology in forests, such as genetically engineering insect pests to suppress their populations, we focused specifically on biotech trees that could resist pests and pathogens. Through genetic engineering, for example, researchers could insert genes, from a similar or unrelated species, that help a tree tolerate or fight an insect or fungus.

It’s tempting to assume that the buzz and enthusiasm for gene editing will guarantee quick, easy and cheap solutions to these problems. But making a biotech tree will not be easy. Trees are large and long-lived, which means that research to test the durability and stability of an introduced trait will be expensive and take decades or longer. We also don’t know nearly as much about the complex and enormous genomes of trees, compared to lab favorites such as fruit flies and the mustard plant, Arabidopsis.

In addition, because trees need to survive over time and adapt to changing environments, it is essential to preserve and incorporate their existing genetic diversity into any “new” tree. Through evolutionary processes, tree populations already have many important adaptations to varied threats, and losing those could be disastrous. So even the fanciest biotech tree will ultimately depend on a thoughtful and deliberate breeding program to ensure long-term survival. For these reasons, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee recommends increasing investment not just in biotechnology research, but also in tree breeding, forest ecology and population genetics.

Oversight challenges

The committee found that the U.S. Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, which distributes federal oversight of biotechnology products among agencies such as EPA, USDA and FDA, is not fully prepared to consider the introduction of a biotech tree to improve forest health.

Most obviously, regulators have always required containment of pollen and seeds during biotech field trials to avoid the escape of genetic material. For example, the biotech chestnut was not allowed to flower to ensure that transgenic pollen wouldn’t blow across the landscape during field trials. But if biotech trees are intended to spread their new traits, via seeds and pollen, to introduce pest resistance across landscapes, then studies of wild reproduction will be necessary. These are not currently allowed until a biotech tree is fully deregulated.

The family of James and Caroline Shelton poses by a large dead chestnut tree in Tremont Falls, Tennessee, circa 1920. Great Smoky Mountains National Park Library, CC BY-SA

Another shortcoming of the current framework is that some biotech trees may not require any special review at all. The USDA, for example, was asked to consider a loblolly pine that was genetically engineered for greater wood density. But because USDA’s regulatory authority stems from its oversight of plant pest risks, it decided that it did not have any regulatory authority over that biotech tree. Similar questions remain regarding organisms whose genes are edited using new tools such as CRISPR.

The committee noted that U.S. regulations fail to promote a comprehensive consideration of forest health. Although the National Environmental Policy Act sometimes helps, some risks and many potential benefits are unlikely to be evaluated. This is the case for biotech trees as well as other tools to counter pests and pathogens, such as tree breeding, pesticides and site management practices.

How do you measure the value of a forest?

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report suggests an “ecosystem services” framework for considering the various ways that trees and forests provide value to humans. These range from extraction of forest products to the use of forests for recreation to the ecological services a forest provides – water purification, species protection and carbon storage.

The committee also acknowledged that some ways of valuing the forest do not fit into the ecosystem services framework. For example, if forests are seen by some to have “intrinsic value,” then they have value in and of themselves, apart from the way humans value them and perhaps implying a kind of moral obligation to protect and respect them. Issues of “wildness” and “naturalness” also surface.

Chestnuts lying on the ground in autumn near a chestnut tree. Peter Wollinga/Shutterstock.com

Wild nature?

Paradoxically, a biotech tree could increase and decrease wildness. If wildness depends upon a lack of human intervention, then a biotech tree will reduce the wildness of a forest. But perhaps so would a conventionally bred, hybrid tree that was deliberately introduced into an ecosystem.

Which would reduce wildness more – the introduction of a biotech tree or the eradication of an important tree species? There are no right or wrong answers to these questions, but they remind us of the complexity of decisions to use technology to enhance “nature.”

This complexity points to a key recommendation of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report: dialogue among experts, stakeholders and communities about how to value forests, assess the risks and potential benefits of biotech, and understand complex public responses to any potential interventions, including those involving biotechnology. These processes need to be respectful, deliberative, transparent and inclusive.

Such processes, such as a 2018 stakeholder workshop on the biotech chestnut, will not erase conflict or even guarantee consensus, but they have the potential to create insight and understanding that can feed into democratic decisions that are informed by expert knowledge and public values.

JASON A DELBORNE is an Associate Professor of Science, Policy, and Society in the Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION