Deforestation in Spain dates back to ancient cultures, starting from the final period of the Stone Age with the expansion of agriculture. Throughout the centuries, Spain was drastically deforested but it was not until the 20th century that the urgent need for forest protection and regeneration was properly tackled by the government. By 1982, nearly 3 million hectares of previously barren lands had been reforested. However, too many of these reforestation efforts have chosen non-native pines and eucalyptus as the species to be planted – which can increase the risk of forest fires and, in turn, desertification. 

—

The History of Deforestation in Spain 

According to a popular legend dating back to the 1st Century, the Greek geographer Strabo described the Iberian Peninsula (where Spain is located) as so lush that a squirrel could cross it from South to North (“from Gibraltar to the Pyrenees”) by jumping from one tree to the other without touching the ground – which would be impossible today. Although the claim is contested and it seems that Strabo never said such a thing, the truth is that since the expansion of agriculture during the Neolithic Period (10000–4500 BC), the Spanish landscape has been greatly deforested. This section, largely based on this paper by María Valbuena-Carabaña et. al., will offer a glimpse into how this happened. 

Deforestation in the Iberian Peninsula began centuries before Spain had its name. The factors responsible were wars and invasions; cultivation; fires followed by grazing; and industry and mines. The first to suffer were coastal pine forests along the Mediterranean shores: as the most available sources of timber and pitch (resin) for shipbuilding, they were hugely affected by the expansion of commercial sea routes. By the beginning of the Christian Era (the period beginning with the year of Christ’s birth), only remote mountain forests were safe, since transporting the timber was incredibly difficult back then. 

With the expansion of agriculture, forests were transformed into cultivated and grazing areas, resulting in significant changes in the landscape. The first farmers used recurrent fires to clear the forest vegetation. This gave a selective advantage to species adapted to natural fires, and led to, for example, the replacement of the local Maritime pinewoods by Evergreen oaks. As Eastern Mediterranean cultures such as the Romans started colonising the area, the agricultural strain on the ecosystem only grew. 

During the Bronze and Iron Ages (3300 to 1200 BC and 1200 to 600 B.C., respectively) mining became popular. As warfare became more important, the use of metal for mainly military use led to a constant demand for charcoal. Mining built on the depletion of forests that was started by agriculture, creating both direct and indirect impacts on forests. Even so, during the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the start of the Early Middle Ages (late 5th and early 6th century AD), there was still a considerable amount of woodland in the peninsula. 

From 711 to 756 AD, Arabic culture took over the Iberian Peninsula. During this time, their advanced irrigation techniques allowed for an improved use of the land, and the geographer El Idrisi described a region where woodlands provided vital resources, praised the timber quality and regretted deforestation in Spain. However, the Christian Reconquest (which lasted from 722 to 1492 AD), was fatal for the land: as every part of the Iberian Peninsula was at some point the border between the Moor and Christian Kingdoms, malicious tree cutting and fires drastically diminished the forests that formerly covered the area. By the 13th century, the Christian Kingdoms had almost completed their expansion all the way to the south of the peninsula. They exploited vast, forested and depopulated areas through cattle herding (mainly sheep). This linked the Spanish economy to the worldwide trade of wool, which led to even more drastic deforestation. 

Featured image by: Wikimedia Commons

Vague and Failed Deforestation Regulations in Spain

It was in  the 13th and 14th century that the Castilian government finally recognised the importance of forests in the rural economy, and developed strict regulations aimed at conserving the resources. Ironically, however, because the cattle sector was protected by the crown, it continued to thrive (merino fine wool trade was bringing increased economic profits). 

Then, as members of the Bourbon dynasty aimed to protect the commercial routes between mainland Spain and the Spanish colonies in America, the importance of the Spanish Navy grew along with the interest for timber. Two Forest Ordinances passed in 1748, with the main objective of forbidding the cutting of trees marked by and for the Navy. This permitted the Navy to cut more trees than they required, to keep the best and largest, and to pointlessly ruin forests because of lack of knowledge and care. The Ordinances were restrictive and unfair, and as peasants refused to accept them, illegal deforestation in Spain became common. 

Afterwards, during the first part of the 19th century, liberal and absolutist regimes alternated in power, and the forest policies varied with each political shift. By the mid-19th century,  the demand for Spanish wool fell, and in 1855, a critical event happened: the Minister of Finance, Pascual Madoz, promoted the disentailment law, basically putting public forests on sale.  In 1859, a catalogue that classified public forests was completed, permitting the sale of 10,872 woods covering around 3.4 million hectares. Thankfully, the few existing forest engineers managed to add a clause which excluded forests whose sale was considered not appropriate by the government. They were able to keep a total of 19,774 forests (6.76 million hectares), from being privatised.

Between 1855 and 1924,  260,000 private landowners obtained 5.2 million hectares (more than 10% of Spain’s area). In about a century, nearly 18.5 million hectares of land were privatised. Unfortunately (although perhaps predictably) the process failed to accomplish the expected conservation results: many private forests were turned to pastures or arable land for instant profit.

You might also like: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About

Reforestation Programmes in Spain

By the 20th century, deforestation in Spain had drastically altered its landscapes and regeneration was urgent. Between 1901 and 1939, reforestation was promoted for water management purposes, as well as to prevent landslides. Regions that were reforested during this time are established forests today, distributed across Spain, from the Pyrenees to the Mediterranean coast. 

A great example of how reforestations transformed the landscape during this period is Sierra de Espuña (Murcia, Spain). By the end of the 19th century, it was desert-like, deprived of vegetation and would suffer from destructive floods. But by 1917, following the reforestation campaign, it was a green area teamed with biodiversity richness, and it was included in the Catalogue of National Parks. 

Featured image: Meencantamurcia.es

During the dictatorship (1940-1975) that followed the Spanish Civil War, there was an ambitious reforestation plan, as it was considered an appropriate solution for unemployment. The General Plan for the Reforestation of Spain, published in 1939, recognised the rising productivity of forests over time and aimed to conserve and restore all terrains suitable for reforestation. This led to the  reforestation of 2.9 million hectares (11.34% of the Spanish forest surface). 

Since 1984, Spain has undergone many social and institutional changes, in addition to joining the European Union. During this time, a good initiative was the common agricultural policy, which provided financial assistance to landowners who planted trees in cultivated land. However, there have been no consistent criteria to assign new forested areas, making statistics hard to interpret and leading to conflictive data. For instance, some statistics indicate that Spain had gained 33% in forest area between 1990 and 2020.  However, other sources show a 46% decrease in annually reforested land. 

In addition, while almost every regional government has approved a Forest Plan that complies with the EU Forestry Strategies and the Habitat directive, a lack of coordination among administrations has failed to achieve a more integrated strategy towards reforestation. 

Forest Fires and Danger of Desertification

Although the reforestation efforts described above have generally had a positive effect, there’s a few issues with the way in which the Spanish have reforested the land. To start with, the species that were mostly used were (often non-native) pines and eucalyptus. Without taking into account the historical transformation of natural ecosystems, this reforestation effort could be problematic. As explained by Moya Navarro et. al., “the Iberian Peninsula cannot be simply filled with trees. In the diversity of Iberian ecosystems we find many valuable but non-forested ecosystems, which are worthy of maintaining, conserving and improving. They provide biodiversity that would be degraded by introducing species that are not adapted to these areas, as would be the case of woodland or changing this type of vegetation.” They go on to point out that planting trees wherever and however is not a good idea. Rather, “a good starting point would be to begin to properly manage the existing forests, instead of thinking of planting new ones in every treeless area”. 

Proper management of existing forests is indeed urgent, as one fifth of the land in Spain is currently at risk of turning into deserts, and 31.5% is already affected by desertification. This is due to an increased rate of forest fires, caused partly by a higher average temperature and less rainfall.  Fires destroy the topsoil, provoking erosion and ultimately desertification. 

If reforestation is not done correctly, it increases the risk of “mega” forest fires. This is because if all the trees and plants are the same age, the same size, and grow more densely together, dead wood and organic matter accumulate, creating ideal kindling for fire, and letting it spread further. 

Therefore, as stated by Valbuena-Carabaña et. al., “plant conservation strategies should take into consideration the degree of alteration our ecosystems have suffered and the historical causes of such modifications”. This is important to understand before taking part in citizen efforts which, although driven by good intentions, often lack scientific criteria and can thus put the environment at risk. 

To help with forest management, European countries have reintroduced the bison, which is considered a keystone species, meaning ​​it plays a distinct ecological role in shaping the landscape it inhabits. The bison helps create bare soil patches, which allows pioneer plants to move in. It also disperses nutrients and seeds across the territory. In Spain, private landowners have started reintroducing the bison to enclosed National Parks and private lands, as a more sustainable approach to land management and nature and species conservation.

Although deforestation in Spain and society’s use of natural resources has deeply impacted the country’s landscape , a lot of it has been successfully reforested in the last century. Today, Spain is the third country in Europe with the most forest cover (18.4 million hectares, about 36.7% of the country). In fact, Enrique Segovia, the director of WWF Spain, goes back to Strabo’s famous squirrel and claims that it could now cross Spain from North to South, but only on the west. 

Featured image: Fundación Aquae

Segovia goes on to point out that some trees (Sabinares specifically) might be too far apart for a squirrel. However, as noted above, this should not lead to planting more trees between them, as understanding the landscapes (along with the historical changes they have been through) is vital for successful conservation. If Spain manages to refine their approach to restoration in this way, they could even be a model for other countries that wish to make large scale reforestation efforts.

You might also like: Replanting Monoculture Plantations Are Not Reforestation Projects

Featured image by: Pixabay

The post Deforestation in Spain appeared first on Earth.Org.

Tosqueras are artificial lakes in Argentina that look like the perfect spot for a hot summer-day dip, but they are in fact responsible for at least 20 deaths since the year 2000. They are the outcome of huge cavities in the ground dug by construction companies seeking to extract a material known as “tosca”, which is of vital importance for construction. These cavities are then abandoned: they are not signalled, fenced or guarded, and they are slowly filled with rain and groundwater. With freezing strong currents, swampy soil, algae and different kinds of junk at the bottom, they become death traps. Here’s why they require prompt attention from the government and how you can help. 

—

Why Are Tosqueras So Dangerous?

Tosqueras are the result of mining operations: as stated above, they are created by construction companies digging into the ground to obtain a material known as “tosca”. This is a reddish-coloured soil that is in great demand; because of its high resistance, it serves as a base for large constructions. It is used for buildings, roads, highways, and large-scale public projects.

A lack of official data leads to contradicting information: some sources say that the cavities are between five to 25 metres deep, while others give a range of 12 to 15, and some even claiming that they can be as deep as 50 metres. In any case, the cavities are slowly filled with rain and groundwater, and trenches of different depths lead to big differences in temperature – which in turn give rise to strong currents, as explained by Gustavo Cano, President of the Institute of Science and Technology for Regional Development. On the other hand, as noted by Leonardo Silva (senior assistant at the Fire Department in the city of Pilar), the bottom of these artificial lakes is usually full of  junk such as car remains, and sometimes there is also algae, both of which can bring about deathly entanglements. In addition, the swampy soil can resemble quicksand.

The tosqueras are especially dangerous during the summer, as people see birds, lush green surroundings and clear water, it seems the perfect landscape for anyone that wants to cool off in the heat. Incidentally, since 2010, Argentina has consistently registered some of the warmest years in history, making people in poor neighbourhoods more vulnerable as they have nowhere else to go for a swim. “Tosqueras are pools for the poor, reminding us of how the the map of poverty coincides with the map of environmental degradation,” says the mother of Lautaro Aguirre Mora, an 18-year-old that drowned in one of them in 2014. People from a wide range of ages have died swimming or fishing, although again, there is no official nationwide data. Therefore, it is not known exactly how many tosqueras are abandoned nor how many deaths they have caused. 

Tosqueras Are An Environmental Liability  

These tosqueras are an environmental liability, as they were generated by human activity that has ceased over time, and after progressive deterioration, they currently represent a risk to the environment and the quality of life of the people around them.

In 1995, Argentina enacted a law to regulate mining activity. This law stipulates that companies that exploit natural areas are responsible for their rehabilitation in the event of environmental damage. While this legally prevents the creation of more tosqueras, there are still two problems: firstly, most tosqueras were made before the law was imposed (as this mining activity peaked in the early 90s, when there was no legislation around it); and secondly, the sad reality is that construction companies fail to comply with the law in different ways.

In an article for the collective newspaper El Tiempo Argentino, Manuel Alfieri claims that in the district of La Matanza, authoritative order 10.424 states that: “the premises destined to this type of exploitation must have barbed wire perimeter and signs indicating the activity (…) In addition, there must be 24-hour surveillance personnel”. However, Alfieri argues, the law is not complied with or enforced: “We have denounced countless times the lack of effective controls, which have resulted in dozens of deaths in La Matanza and surrounding municipalities, without getting any kind of response,” said Gustavo Bogado, a resident of Catán who for years has been demanding for the state to pay attention to the issue. 

In addition, a legal loophole of sorts allows companies to avoid responsibility: the National Mining Code specifies that mining activity is public, transferring obligations of its control to each provincial state. However, land owners own the mineral resources in their land, and so they are directly responsible for what happens in it. However, once the tosqueras are abandoned, the owners disappear and the land is left vacant, so no one is seemingly responsible (neither the state nor the former owner) for the contamination that is generated.

You might also like: Plastic and Other Environmental Pollution in the Great Lakes

What Can Be Done About It (And What Is Being Done Already)

The threat that tosqueras pose to poverty-stricken areas and the lack of official data around the issue highlight the need for prompt attention from the government. Luckily, there is plenty that can be done, and various initiatives have already made a big difference or show great potential.  

Leandro Varela, president of the NGO Nuevo Ambiente, admits that refilling the cavities with soil is not really an option, as this would create a cavity somewhere else. However, he proposes to “think of packages of recycled garbage that could be used as cavity fillers.” He also highlights the importance of at least marking the area as high-risk, which he calls “a minimal investment” for the private company and/or the state. 

Understandably, people whose personal lives have been directly impacted have also decided to take a stand. Ninfa Mora, mother of the aforementioned victim in 2014, organised protests every third Sunday of the month; met with local and municipal authorities; and found support in social organisations until her claim was taken seriously. It wasn’t until late 2021, when the authorities started fencing the tosquera in which her son drowned in – after two more people had also drowned in it. It was also because of Ninfa Mora and her relentless fight that more platforms and news outlets covered the issue. At a recent protest, Mora thanked the journalist Augustina Grasso, who was only a student when Mora’s son drowned, but has supported her and her fight for justice ever since.

In fact, in August 2021, Grasso created the hashtag #bastademuertesportosqueras (no more deaths due to tosqueras) and launched an initiative that aims to create a national registry of all the tosqueras and their victims. This is, on the one hand, to honour the lives lost, and on the other, to “gather data that helps shape solutions” (Grasso). The initiative consists of a digital form in which people can fill out the details about any tosquera: the location; what it looks like; whether people live nearby; whether people have died; how many and their names, if any; who the land belongs to; and what the best possible solution might be (a fence, filling it up, making a public park out of it). This is part of a larger campaign set in motion by Grasso alongside sociologists, environmental lawyers, activists, and other journalists.

Image by: Escritura Crónica

The campaign demands the following:

• An updated registry and warning signs for these sites.
• A study of what to do in each case: with proper care, they could become safe green areas with biodiversity protection.
• A plaque that commemorates the victims of the tosqueras. 
• The official recognition of the inactive tosqueras as an environmental liability, regardless of the years that have passed since they were created. 
• That the companies that exploited these areas be made responsible for the rehabilitation of these spaces. 

The campaign also drew up a petition on Change.org for the public to put pressure on Argentinian authorities, which you can sign here. 

Featured image by: Facundo Lo Duca/RT

The post Tosqueras: The Deadly Lakes in Argentina That Require Prompt Attention appeared first on Earth.Org.

Founded in 2017, Rutopia is a digital platform that connects travellers with local hosts – which are rural, indigenous communities all across Mexico willing to share the natural paradise that is their land. When booking with Rutopia, travellers have access to safe, off-the-beaten-path experiences that help conserve Mexico’s cultural and natural heritage; generate income for indigenous communities and have a positive impact on the environment through regenerative tourism. In an interview with Earth.org, Rutopia’s co-founder Sebastián Muñoz explained the importance of regenerative ecotourism and how all of this is made possible. 

—

What is the Difference Between “Sustainable” and “Regenerative Tourism”?

When a company or an industry is sustainable, it means that it can sustain itself forever, without provoking any social or environmental degradation. I believe that all companies today should be sustainable – although this is, of course, not the case. When it comes to tourism specifically, there is often a high level of collateral degradation. In Mexico for example, this type of tourism has pushed people from indigenous communities to move to more “touristic” areas. 

When we founded Rutopia, we not only refused to be a part of this degradation process, but we also wanted to help restore the environment and communities around us. This is the aim of regenerative tourism: to have a positive environmental and cultural impact in communities. 

Featured image: Rutopia

Community-based Tourism Refers to Tourism Experiences Hosted and Managed by Local Communities, Generating Direct Economic Benefits and are Sustainable and Responsible. Does Rutopia Ensure itself to be Community-based? 

At Rutopia, one of the most important guidelines is that the people we work with should own the land in which the touristic project will take place. This means that we would never work with travel agencies external to the people and the place. In addition, the communities are always the ones to develop and own the touristic project they offer, so we adhere to helping them out with only marketing and booking. In this way, our ambition is that rural communities in Mexico have the opportunity to keep up with commercial travel agencies and achieve a sustainable income. 

We have worked with private groups within communities and with co-ops. Co-ops are very resilient but also slower, since there needs to be a consensus for every decision. Private groups are more agile to work with: they are often entrepreneur families or individuals who want to share their environment and culture in different ways. In any case, our guideline is that they have to own at least part of the land that tourists will visit, as this will increase our environmental impact. 

How Does Your Impact Model Work?

To cover expenses and to keep acquiring new local allies (Rutohubs, see below), we charge a markup of 15% to 25% over the cost of the experience. This will ensure sustainability of the model and long term benefits for our partners.

Rutohubs refer to the rural communities that we work with (e.g. El Almacén, Oaxaca; El Triunfo, Chiapas; El 20 de Noviembre, Campeche). However, it is important to note that they are really our local allies, as the communities do not have any kind of exclusivity contract with us. We collaborate with them and see them as a crucial part of our team. 

They charge as much as they consider reasonable and we add a markup to that total,  all of which is charged to the traveller. We are very transparent about this, so tourists understand that they are paying an extra percentage to cover what Rutopia offers: a personalised, easy-to-book, safe trip. Finally, the online channels and retailers refer to other platforms that advertise our trips. I do feel it important to  emphasise that there is a difference between a commission and a markup: neither Rutopia nor the other online retailers take any percentage out of the amount that the indigenous communities wish to receive. 

When a traveller wants to book a trip for 12 days, for example, we fit in as many communitary projects within that time frame as we can. Many families do not want to stay in huts, and would rather stay at hotels and travel to where the indigenous groups live. Perhaps they want to see Mexico City, or areas such as Tulum, where you cannot find indigenous communities. When this happens, we create a trip with mixed experiences,  striving towards having most of the money reach indigenous communities. 

Do You Have Any Influence on How Rural Communities Spend Their Earnings?

This was our intention at the beginning, but we realised that every community has different needs, and we are in no place to tell them what they should spend their earned money on – if we did, this would entail a sense of superiority on our part. What we eventually want to do is have a capacitation centre where communities can learn, if they are interested, better ways of protecting the environment and managing their earnings. 

Featured image: Rutopia

What is More Important For You: the Environmental or the Social Impact? 

When we founded Rutopia, my motivation was perhaps slightly more geared towards having a positive social and cultural impact, but they really go hand in hand. This is where the concept of regenerative tourism is so crucial, as it helps with both natural and cultural restoration. 

Indigenous culture in Mexico has been marginalised and oppressed for centuries, and so certain traditions and languages have disappeared. When tourists show interest in these aspects, indigenous communities have a chance to revalue them. As an example, indigenous people in the mountain range of Oaxaca (southeast of Mexico) are once again teaching the indigenous language mixtec to the younger generations. With Rutopia, travellers have the chance to be immersed in indigenous communities, and so they learn about their culture and traditional practices – such as woodcarving, small-scale fishing, harvesting, and making jewellery with local materials, among others. Doing this respectfully and without folklorisation leads to not only the conservation but also the restoration of cultural heritage for these communities. 

Now, from an environmental perspective, ecotourism incites communities to protect the environment. Let’s see how this works: when indigenous people do not see value in the land that they own and live in, they will cut down trees in order to have space for cattle instead, or sowing. This happens only because they reckon that these activities will bring them more income than keeping the ecosystem in its current natural state. However, with regenerative tourism, the people will see the value in the ecosystem as it is: they will want to protect the forest or jungle that they live in, as they see it as attractive for tourists and now a viable source of income. This leads to a virtuous cycle: when people take care of the ecosystems around them, the ecosystems will in turn take care of them. 

The post How a Digital Platform is Promoting Regenerative Tourism in Mexico appeared first on Earth.Org.

Climate change in Central America is severely affecting the lives of people in different ways, and is pushing many of them to leave their homes. These countries are being deeply affected by both sudden-onset and gradual disasters, as the region is among the most vulnerable to climate change in the world – despite producing less than 1% of the global carbon emissions. Here’s how climate change is affecting Central American countries, the role it plays around the migration crisis in Central America, and what we can do about it. 

—

How Is Climate Change Affecting Central America? 

Central America exhibits various characteristics of high vulnerability to climate change. As mentioned above, it is affected by both gradual and sudden-onset disasters. Slow-onset disasters refer to droughts or sea-level rise (these develop more gradually and do not emerge from a single event, as explained by The Climate Reality Project); while sudden-onset disasters include wildfires, floods, hurricanes and volcanic eruptions, among others.

When it comes to gradual processes such as rising sea levels, Central America is particularly vulnerable as it is a narrow strip of land with sea on either side and bridges two continents together (North and South America). Having  coastlines with  lowland areas means that any small increase of sea levels can have detrimental effects such as flooding, destructive erosion, agricultural contamination with salt, and lost coastal habitats. These circumstances also threaten services such as internet access. 

The region is also exposed to hurricanes. While these are provoked by a natural increase of temperature  in the oceans (which is not directly related to climate change), studies have found that hurricanes and cyclones are in fact becoming more intense and destructive due to the climate crisis. In November 2020, hurricanes Eta and Iota caused extensive damage in Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Panama. These disasters were only  two weeks apart from each other.

On the other hand, droughts and heavy rain can destroy farmers’ crops, which are dependent on seasonal rainfall to grow. This particularly affects the Central American Dry Corridor, a tropical dry forest region that earned its name long ago, despite the droughts having only become more severe in the past few decades. It extends along the Pacific Coast from southern Mexico through Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama; and most of the population’s livelihood and ability to feed their families depends on grain crops. This is problematic, as when the rain comes it is heavier than ever and runs right off the parched soil without being absorbed, creating a vicious cycle of extremes that threatens the people who live there. 

In April 2019, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP) warned that “prolonged droughts and heavy rain have destroyed more than half of the maize and bean crops of the subsistence farmers along the Central American Dry Corridor, leaving them without food reserves and affecting their food security.” Central American governments estimated that 2.2 million people suffered crop losses, and 1.4 million people were left without an adequate amount of food.

Featured image: fundacionaquae.org

As noted by the International Organization for Migration, natural hazards turn into disasters when individuals and communities lack the resilience to withstand the impacts. All of the above is made even more acute by the fact that as of January 2020, according to IndexMundi statistics, the percentage of people living in poverty was 59% in Guatemala, 33% in El Salvador, 30% in Nicaragua and Honduras, 23% in Panama and 22% in Costa Rica (it is worth mentioning that this information was based on surveys, and the definition of poverty can vary from nation to nation). 

In a general sense, however, because of poor governance and corruption, there is little funding for relief whenever a natural disaster or crisis strikes Central America. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the worsening of these circumstances, pushing another 2 million people below the poverty line. By May of 2021, close to 8 million people were in urgent need of food assistance because of drought and COVID-19 shocks (World Food Program USA compiled the stories of some of these people, which can be found here).

You might also like: 5 Facts About Climate Migrants

The Migration Crisis in Central America

As circumstances worsen, the impact of climate change in Central America is driving people away from their homes. Sudden-onset disasters such as wildfires, floods or hurricanes mostly lead to internal migration, which can be temporary. This is because sometimes, as mentioned by Ileana-Sînziana Pușcaș from the International Organization for Migration, relocating is the only way for people to put distance between themselves and the (perhaps anticipated) catastrophes. Meanwhile, slow-onset disasters lead to cross-border movement that is more permanent, with the main destination countries being Mexico, Belize, Costa Rica and Panama, as stated by the Migration Data Portal. The migration crisis in Central America also saw many people head north towards the United States, as was the case of the migrant caravan in 2018. 

A Honduran caravan leaving the country. Image by: Wikimedia Commons

In these cases, as mentioned by Robert Albro, researcher at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University, the focus on violence eclipses the big picture: people are relocating because of food insecurity. “Migrants don’t often specifically mention ‘climate change’ as a motivating factor for leaving because the concept is so abstract and long-term,” Albro said, “but the main reason they are moving is because they don’t have anything to eat.”

Of course, food insecurity does add onto other prevailing factors such as extreme poverty, gang violence and insufficient government support, among others. As a result, given their already vulnerable and precarious conditions, people are more likely to consider relocating, even if it entails risking their lives. In this way, migration becomes an attempt to adapt to a new situation. 

In September and October 2020, there were around 500,000 people from the Northern Triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) seeking asylum in the United States, and around 300,000 were internally displaced. Since 2014, about 75% of people trying to cross the southern border of the US are Central Americans: many of them are families with children or unaccompanied minors. 

What We Can Do 

First of all, recognising climate change as a crucial factor to the migration crisis in Central America is of the utmost importance. Rules surrounding the rights of refugees were created in the aftermath of World War II, and their original purpose was to protect people who were facing prosecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political beliefs or social group. Therefore, those relocating because of climate change are not included, and because of this they have barely any chance to qualify as refugees. In order for this to change, we must recognise that people are moving away from climate-affected areas to survive, not because they want to.

In this way, human mobility and migration can be regarded as an adaptation strategy to new circumstances, meaning that it is also crucial to observe climate patterns to be prepared and to create relocation plans when necessary. Nevertheless, root causes must also be addressed so that people can keep their homes and land. 

The Biden Administration issued an executive order to address the causes of migration and to “provide safe and orderly processing of asylum seekers at the United States border”. The United Nations has also developed an Environment Programme that aims to make use of the existing ecosystems in an area to solve its own social and environmental problems. This entails, for instance, the restoration of forests (so that water can be absorbed better) and the optimisation of water systems to make them more efficient and sustainable.  Other solutions proposed include the creation of forest nurseries and the promotion of renewable energies to help mitigate the effects of climate change. These solutions need to be promoted among local governments, and farmers must receive wider access to financial support. Additionally, local programmes that tackle food insecurity could aid local groups. 

Initiatives like these can indeed take years to show results, but they are fortunately underway. One thing, however, is for sure: international help is needed, and a crucial step to solving the climate crisis is to address inequality across the world – this is the only way to successfully strive for the necessary global response. If you wish to help refugee families from Central America, for example, you can donate here to The UN Refugee Agency. 

The post Climate Change is Causing a Migration Crisis in Central America appeared first on Earth.Org.

Drought in Mexico have a long history: the country’s location and climate have always made it vulnerable to very dry periods. Despite how recurrent these are, 2021 has brought one of the most intense and devastating droughts in decades. We’ll be looking at the national history of droughts, the causes and consequences of today’s situation, and whether water is actually lacking, or whether it is simply being mismanaged. 

—

A History of Drought in Mexico

Centuries ago, Mesoamerican people strategically settled in fertile land with frequent rain. Many of their social organisation efforts, knowledge of exact and applied sciences and religious beliefs were focused on reducing the dangers of inevitable droughts and rough weather. When the Spanish colonised the territory, they destroyed most (if not all) of the knowledge that these societies had gathered about nature. In addition, the Spanish got rid of the economic organisation that, by being intimately related to work, water and land, sustained society. 

By the 17th century, there had been a radical change: a self-sustaining economy in which communities rarely exchanged products had quickly turned into an economy that prioritised cities over rural areas and exploited natural resources.

Of course, the Spanish noticed the climate cycles as well. Due to devastating floods in Mexico City, for instance, a drainage structure was built in order to remove lakes and rivers from the area.  This period was also not exempt from droughts: a preliminary study quoted by Enrique Florescano registers 88 droughts between 1521 and 1821. Throughout those years, indigenous people and farmers remained a side-lined minority, and by the time Mexico was independent, the new government did not improve their circumstances nor challenged the industrialisation process that was well underway. 

Since then, farmers, indigenous people, peasants and the working class were disproportionately affected by drought in Mexico. As a result, the country has slowly reduced its possibilities of being self-sufficient: every drought destabilises the farming sector, making the country more dependent on foreign agriculture – today, Mexico imports more than 50% of the food that the population consumes.  In addition, many of the crisis effects that could already be seen centuries ago are still present now: hunger, migration, epidemics and social unrest, among others. 

Featured image: NASA

What Is the Situation Today?

As of April 2021, nearly 85% of  Mexico is dangerously dry, and dams throughout the Mexican territory have reached exceptionally low levels. The National Water Commission (CONAGUA) states that 1 295 municipalities are experiencing drought conditions, especially in the north, while some states in the south registered an average temperature between 33 and 36 degrees Celsius during March,  April and May. These circumstances have led to 6,224 wildfires between January and June of 2021 (in comparison, 2020 had 5,551 wildfires throughout the whole year). With these numbers, Mexico is the second most water-stressed country (which means that water demand is higher than water availability) in all Latin America.

Let us look at some of the consequences of such an intense drought in Mexico. Firstly, a drought can provoke a food crisis. In 2011, the Rarámuri community in the north of Mexico was highly affected by that year’s drought: countless corn crops that were destined for auto consumption were lost, and hospitals were full of people with severe malnutrition. A national initiative of food donations helped the community in the short-term, but longer-term measures were also necessary, to ensure that more water could be retained (since about 95% of the rain water in the area evaporates quickly). With this in mind,  a collaboration between Oxfam and the Tarahumara Foundation built hydraulic structures in the shape of dams, and other communities have been able to replicate this system. This shows that solutions are both very possible and incredibly necessary.

Secondly, farmers struggle to grow enough greens to feed cattle. The president of the Regional Farmers’ Union in Coahuila says there have been reports of cows dying of starvation, which also happened in the droughts of 1996 and 2011. In addition, a drought affects crops in general, leading to a lower production, more imports and thus higher prices of produce.

In addition, experiencing a drought in Mexico can lead to social water conflicts. In 2020, farmers took control of the dam La Boquilla in the northern Mexican state of Chihuahua. This dam is strategic for the relationship between Mexico and the US: according to a treaty signed in 1944, Mexico and the US share the water from their border rivers (Colorado river and Rio Grande). More specifically, the treaty states that Mexico should deliver 2 200 million squared cubes of water to the US every five years. Since La Boquilla is one of the main hydraulic systems in northern Mexico, it plays a key role in the process of collecting the water and sending it to the US. Farmers and protesters know this, and they argued that their harvests would suffer if the water was sent up north. Mexican President López Obrador in turn claimed that these farmers had been manipulated by his political opponents. López Obrador believed there was enough water for the farmers even if the contract with the US was fulfilled and, after months of escalating tensions, he sent the national guard to fight the protesters. This confrontation led to the death of two agricultural producers, several people were injured, and 17 protesters were detained. 

This is only one example of the multi-layered social conflicts that can be caused by a water crisis.

You might also like: Coinciding Droughts and Heatwaves To Become More Common

Is There Really Not Enough Water?

As previously mentioned, Mexico’s climate and localisation make it especially vulnerable to droughts, and surviving dry periods is mostly possible by accumulating water during the rainy months (June to September). Apart from the yearly cycle, there are drier or rainier periods that can last up to 15 years, and perhaps counterintuitively, the amount of rain is currently increasing compared to 20 years ago. Therefore, the amount of water raining upon Mexico should last through the drier months.

However, the government’s stance towards nature has barely changed in the last 600 years  (since the Spanish colonisation). Through the years, actions such as deforestation, the extension of urban areas, and the transformation of forests into fields have worsened the land’s ability to retain water (without vegetation, water does not go into the soil and evaporates faster – which leads to drier soils and more frequent wildfires). In addition, complex hydraulic constructions such as the Cutzamala system are inefficient and, while they transport water to highly populated areas, they extract water from other regions, making water less accessible for local communities.

It is also important to note that multinational corporations extract a very high amount of water from Mexican territory. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Danone, Nestlé, Bimbo and a few other companies extract around 133 000 million litres of water every year in order to produce their products – and in fact, this figure might be even higher, as the National Water Commission does not have the budget to closely and rigorously supervise their activities. 

Specifically, Coca-Cola consumes water from all 32 states of Mexico, and it extracts more than 55 000 million  litres of water a year. It has made use of very aggressive marketing throughout the country to ensure the loyalty of consumers, taking advantage of people who do not have access to drinking water. In 2007, Coca-Cola pledged to “replace every drop of water we use in our beverages and their production to achieve balance in communities and in nature with the water we use.” The idea was to make Coke’s operations “water neutral” by 2020. However, this investigation by The Type Investigations explains all the problems that came after that pledge and how far it was from the truth. Coca-Cola has attempted to greenwash its image for years. 

As they try to defend  themselves, Coca-Cola and other companies argue that the water crisis in Mexico can be traced back to the inefficiency and lack of a national infrastructure, however, they do not attest to the intensive extraction that they practice. They abuse the fact that Mexican authorities (the National Water Commission and the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, specifically) do not have the capacity to oversee their practices. 

Featured image: James O’Brien / The Verge

This goes back to the Law of National Water, which was implemented in late 1992 and completely changed the allocation of groundwater. As explained in the book Mexico City’s Water Supply: Improving the Outlook for Sustainability, prior to this law “any provider of potable water had to simply apply for a well permit and one would be granted. Now, the applicant must go out and purchase other users’ permit rights.” If implemented properly, this law should regulate the extraction of water in highly exploited areas by limiting the availability of permits. However, it made it possible to purchase water rights in the first place, and so ultimately created a market that led to water being privatised and over exploited. 

Since around 2012, civil and academic organisations in Mexico have been seeking to reform the Law of National Water by insisting on the urgency of a  General Law of Water, which would protect the water in certain towns and communities and thus guarantee equal access to water for everyone. Experts agree on the fact that Mexico is violating human rights by allowing companies to have unlimited access to hydric resources, while many communities do not count on the common good that is water.  

In this line of reasoning, Judith Domínguez, researcher at El Colegio de México (College of Mexico) pointedly states that the water crisis is “actually a managing and governance crisis.” This leads to the clear conclusion that if well protected, stored, managed and distributed, there would be enough water to last through the dry months, even for the driest states.

Possible Solutions and Initiatives

All is not lost yet,  and plenty of steps could be taken to make the situation better. A good place to start would be  the previously mentioned General Law of Water that would declare water a human right and would prevent water from being extracted by private companies  in such large amounts.

We must also acknowledge the role that is being played by multinational companies, the Mexican government itself and government organisations such as the National Water Commission and the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources, who should be overseeing exactly how much water is being extracted and for what purposes. 

Finally, in order to distribute the water fairly across the country, it is necessary to rethink old infrastructures and systems that are simply not efficient anymore. As noted by Benjamín Martínez López, researcher at the Center for Atmospheric Sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico must invest in “research into developing technology and prevention plans in order to avoid the lack of water […]. It is vital to understand how the water system works so that we can be prepared.” He adds that the water from rainy months would be enough if it was well stored – in this sense, it is also helpful to create and be aware of initiatives (such as this rainwater harvesting programme) to take care of the water that is available to us.

Featured image by: Unsplash

The post Scorching Drought in Mexico: Is There Really Not Enough Water? appeared first on Earth.Org.