In the run-up to COP28, the urgency intensifies for the world to address the ongoing climate crisis. Although activities in the Global North herald the climate crisis for the most part, some nations in the Global South also contribute to a host of environmental issues like air and plastic pollution. Here are the top 4 environmental issues in the Philippines and the government’s approach to curtailing them. 

—

4 Biggest Environmental Issues in the Philippines in 2024

1. Air Pollution

Over the course of the year, air pollution has become particularly problematic in the Philippines. Going by World Health Organization’s (WHO) health and environment scorecard, the country records an annual mean of 24 micrograms per cubic metre (µg/m³) for fine particulate matter, significantly surpassing the recommended maximum level of 5 µg/m³. For the most part, air pollution in the Philippines stems from the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil. Considering that 53% of the population is without access to clean fuels and technology for cooking, this is bound to further exacerbate air quality in the long run. 

Air pollution in the Philippines is also caused by vehicular emissions, particularly in areas like Metro Manila. In 2022, other recorded surges in air pollution outside Metro Manila include the San Fernando City Station in Pampanga, Antipolo City Station, Biñan City Station, Puerto Princesa City Station, and the Davao City Station. 

According to William Cuñado, Environmental Management Bureau Director at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), lifting Covid-19 restrictions particularly deteriorated air quality in Metro Manila. For the most part, this was due to an acute surge in the number of vehicles on the street, which had fallen to 10% in the country’s National Capital Region during the lockdown period. 

Another factor was the prevalent use of firecrackers during new year celebrations. Given that the particulate matter (PM10) in firecrackers contains a mixture of carbon, sulfur, and other fine particles that pose a danger to public health, the DENR affirmed its commitment to controlling air pollution spikes of this nature. However, for this approach to be successful, it would require local government units to enforce the available Executive Order 28 on the controlled use of firecrackers. 

On another note, although the government introduced the Clean Air Act of 1999, groups like Greenpeace Philippines and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) point out its outdated nature in the international community. For this reason, there have been pressing calls for the government to update its standards to meet the reality of air pollution in the country. 

You might also like: Billionaire Finances ‘World’s Largest Project’ to Boost Solar in Philippines

2. Plastic Pollution

Among the environmental issues in the Philippines is also plastic pollution, a particularly severe problem for the country. Evident by the World Bank’s use of the word ‘staggering’ to describe the situation in the Philippines, an insufficient waste management system, coupled with a high dependence on single-use plastics set the scene for the country’s annual generation of 2.7 million tons of plastic waste.   

Much like any rapidly developing country, the Philippines faces unsustainable plastic consumption due to an inefficient recycling system. Estimates show that the country loses around US$890 million to unrecycled plastic products. However, despite the considerable scale of plastic pollution in the Philippines, residents of the country and some companies have been at the forefront of recycling efforts so far. For instance, companies like Infinity Eight Trading and Marketing Corporation buy plastic waste from scrap dealers, turn them into pellets, and resell them as raw materials to remake food cartons and bottles. 

While critics trace the Philippines’ plastic pollution problem to the poor enforcement of laws, the government, nonetheless, introduced its Extended Producer Responsibility Act (EPRA) in 2022. With this new law in play, companies are mandated to create EPR programs for plastic waste reduction, recovery, and diversion. Accordingly, by 2028, companies are expected to have achieved an 80% offset or recovery of their plastic product footprint. 

You might also like: 3 Lessons from Waste Management Solutions from Around the World

3. Marine Pollution

As the third-largest contributor to marine plastics, marine pollution accounts for one of the most pressing environmental issues in the Philippines. Considering that the country generates over 2 million tons of plastic waste every year, the World Bank reports that an estimated 20% of this waste ends up in the sea. Depicting the state of marine pollution in the Philippines, Theresa Lazaro, the country’s Foreign Affairs Undersecretary, cited reports that “there would be more plastics than fish by 2050, while oceans would be overheated and acidified if people fail to act now”. For this reason, marine pollution also endangers biodiversity in the Philippines.

In recent years, the government has initiated various measures to curb marine pollution in the country. One of them is the Philippine Port Authority’s signed agreement with the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Philippines to address marine pollution around ports. Through this agreement, the objective is to achieve a 50% reduction in plastic waste leakage in the Port of Cagayan de Oro, the Port of Batangas, and the Manila North Port. 

Another response to marine pollution in the Philippines is the government’s implementation of a National Plan of Action on Marine Litter. Envisioned to achieve zero waste in Philippine waters by 2040, the plan seeks to set a wide range of policies into motion, ranging from public-private partnerships to an improvement of public awareness about marine pollution. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the approach’s rationale has to do with a recognition that most of the marine plastics polluting the sea are traceable to land-based sources, such as an improper waste disposal system. For this reason, an integrated effort that also curbs land-based plastic pollution while also educating the public on waste management practices is envisioned to be more effective. 

While the government envisions the aforementioned EPR law as a step in the right direction, there are many other factors that need to be considered. For instance, much like earlier efforts to curb plastic and air pollution in the Philippines, a significant level of commitment will be a crucial determinant of its effectiveness. 

4. Sea Level Rise

Floods have been recurrent in the Philippines in 2022. On Christmas day alone, erratic rains trigger devastating flooding in Northern Mindanao and the Vasayas region that killed at least 51 people.  

This comes at the back of the country topping this year’s World Risk Index, which assesses sea level rise (a cause of coastal flooding) as one of its indicators. In line with the problem, Earth.Org’s projection shows that residents of the country’s capital city, Manila, will be displaced by 2100 if the current trend continues. At the moment, Manila is already subsiding at 20 millimetres per year, surpassing the mean sea level rise almost tenfold. 

You might also like: Flooding Will Hit Asia the Hardest- Report

So far, mitigation efforts have not been very successful. Nonetheless, in 2022, the DENR announced a plan to install infrastructures like floodgates, pumping stations, box culverts, and additional drainage connection systems. This was in addition to declogging operations carried out across drainage canals in Manila. Accordingly, DENR also plans to particularly focus on the city’s low-lying areas to abate coastal flooding. 

Flood mitigation may be crucial to the Philippines’ strategy on sea level rise, however, there are concerns that the government’s approach fails to consider its long-term threat. For the most part, this is due to solutions such as the decision to wall off the coast only partially. Although the several gaps in the seawall were necessary to provide fishing boats access to the bay, however, Vonne Villanueva, disaster risk reduction and management officer in the City of Navota, said the coastline may have to be closed to truly protect the city from rising sea levels. 

Featured image by Henry Donati/Department for International Development (Flickr)

If you enjoyed reading about the environmental issues in the Philippines, you might also like: 5 Biggest Environmental Issues in India in 2024

• Instagram
• Twitter
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• YouTube

The post 4 Biggest Environmental Issues in the Philippines in 2024 appeared first on Earth.Org.

Carbon offsetting is a broadly debated topic today. While it can contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases, is carbon offset a form of greenwashing, too? 

—

Carbon offsetting has emerged as a divisive concept in recent years as the world seeks solutions to climate change. While some parties claim that carbon offsetting fulfils this function, others see it as a form of greenwashing – convincing consumers that a company’s products or services are more ecologically friendly than they are in reality.

What Is Carbon Offsetting?

Carbon offsetting is a process through which companies or individuals compensate for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by investing in an equivalent removal of such emissions from the atmosphere. This offsetting occurs through projects like reforestation, renewable energy, methane combustion/collection, and energy conservation.

The rationale behind these projects is for companies to gain carbon credits by either avoiding the release of emissions, removing existing GHG from the atmosphere, or reducing GHG emissions. Companies or countries then use these credits to compensate for their emissions. A company or a country earns one carbon credit with an equivalent removal or reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by a tonne. 

The Problem With Carbon Offset Programmes

A reliance on carbon offset without the needed emissions reduction is detrimental to meeting net-zero pledges. Carbon offset projects can reduce carbon or increase carbon storage when done right. However, these projects are short-term solutions as they fail to decisively address leading sources of carbon emissions such as fossil fuel usage. International non-governmental organisations like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and World Wildlife Fund-UK have also criticised carbon offset projects, arguing that these projects encourage a culture of climate pollution.  

Carbon offsets that rely on land use in developing countries run the danger of transferring the burden of reducing emissions from wealthier countries to those already feeling the impact of the climate crisis. For example, large-scale tree plantation can exacerbate soil degradation or pose biosecurity risks like cross-contaminations, which endanger the envisioned environmental benefits. 

How Could Carbon Offsetting Be Considered a Form of Greenwashing?

Greenwashing occurs in this case when companies fail to prioritise in-house emissions reduction, double-count carbon credits, or invest in non-verified credits. These acts are greenwashing because they deceive the public into thinking such companies are committed to reducing carbon emissions. 

1. When a company fails to prioritise the reduction of in-house emissions

When a company does not prioritise in-house emissions reduction, the significance of its carbon offset programmes is therefore called into question. This act can be considered greenwashing because the company only offsets a fraction of its emissions. Furthermore, suppose the carbon offset project is temporary. In that case, it loses its relevance because the once-sequestered GHG is released into the atmosphere. An example of this scenario is Virgin Atlantic’s Oddar Meanchey program to offset carbon through afforestation projects in Cambodia. Fern revealed that the continuing deforestation acts reversed emissions that the trees once balanced out through the program. 

2. When carbon credits are double-counted

Greenwashing also occurs when a company’s trade reduction is counted twice — once by the company offsetting its emissions and again by the project’s host country when reporting its nationally determined contributions or climate target. This double-count is contradictory and considered greenwashing because, in reality, only one reduction occurred, yet it is counted twice.

3. When a company invests in projects with no additionality

If they are to be effective, carbon offset projects must not generate credits from emission reduction or removal programmes that would have occurred regardless of the company’s investment. When this happens, the project has no real additionality in lowering emissions. For example, MIT Technology Review and ProPublica uncovered how The Massachusetts Audubon Society received carbon credits for conserving forests that were never in danger of being cut down; and when companies like Shell, Phillips 66, and the Southern California Gas Company bought these credits as part of their carbon offset programme, they failed to offset their emissions due to this crucial factor. 

Solution to Greenwashing in Carbon Offset Projects

Though carbon offsetting can be beneficial, its susceptibility to varying degrees of greenwashing negates its impact. To address carbon offset greenwashing, consumers should:

1. Be cautious of companies engaging in carbon offset programs without a corresponding avoidance or reduction of their greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing carbon emissions should always be a priority, irrespective of carbon offsets. 
2. Hold companies accountable for their carbon offset projects. Consumers can sustain this sense of accountability by verifying carbon offset projects’ additionality and permanence. 
3. Monitor other crucial criteria in carbon offset programs, such as their transparency, registration in an offset registry, and maintenance of a clearly defined protocol.
4. Be observant when companies use vague languages which could be false. For example, the Advertising Standards Authority banned a Ryanair advert in 2020 claiming to be ‘Europe’s …. Lowest Emissions Airline’ without substantiating evidence.

You might also like: The Pros and Cons of Carbon Offsetting

The post Is Carbon Offset a Form of Greenwashing? appeared first on Earth.Org.

A clean energy transition is not an easy task for many African nations. Country-specific narratives are crucial to a comprehensive understanding of energy transition in the continent. Here are some of the obstacles that South Africa faces along the way.

—

South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership

South Africa’s energy transition revolves around its ambitious Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP). Primarily, the Partnership seeks to hasten the decarbonisation of its economy in fulfilment of Nationally Determined Contribution emission goals. This is borne out of a realisation that 77% of South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions emerge from ‘dirty’ energy sources like coal. For this reason, three priority areas are identified in the Plan – the energy sector, electric vehicles, and green hydrogen. 

South Africa’s JETP emphasises a ‘just’ transition to cleaner sources of energy. As found on the website of the Presidential Climate Commission, the transition “must be fair and perceived to be fair”. So, an effective transition is envisioned to not only provide new and better jobs but to also eradicate poverty and ensure social justice. 

However, transitioning to clean energy sources is not so simple in South Africa. Here are 3 challenges to South Africa’s clean energy transition plans:

1. Climate financing

Financing has been one of the main roadblocks to South Africa’s plan. Although COP26 yielded an $8.5 billion pledge by the US and EU countries – including Germany, France, and the UK – negotiations have not been without issues. For instance, South Africa wants a greater proportion of grant money to support its $95 billion energy transition plan, wary of the detrimental nature of loans on the country’s existing debt. 

Yet, the country recently announced loan agreements with Germany and France. Although each country tabled €300 million (US$310 million) – which is repayable over 20 years and is perceived by many to be on favorable grounds – Daniel Mminele, head of the Presidential Climate Finance Task Team, stresses that climate adaptation in the Global South should not come at the cost of climate-related debt. Similarly, South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa emphasises the need for Global North countries to take on the financial cost of the shift.  

“Our continent only contributed 1% of the damage that’s been done to the climate, and we believe that the more industrialized countries that are more developed need to live up to the commitment that they have made,” Ramaphosa said at COP27.

Thus, climate financing remains a contentious issue for the Global South’s energy transition plans. Whereas one group argues that the global south gets loans on favorable terms that are unobtainable elsewhere, another remains steadfast, arguing for the need for more grant-based climate financing.

You might also like: South Africa Considers Burning Heavy Fuel Oil to Ease Record Load-Shedding Levels

2. Shutting down a majority black-owned coal industry

Another issue has to do with the governing African National Congress’s wariness to damage the country’s coal industry, given its status as one of the few sectors that are black-majority owned. For this reason, environmental analysts are concerned about the sincerity of the country’s energy transition plans. Although the state-owned power company, Eskom, plans to phase out almost half of its coal-dependent power in the subsequent 13 years, South Africa continues to invest in industries that are dependent on coal to generate electricity.  

While Ramaphosa has often discussed South Africa’s commitment to a clean energy transition, there are observable divisions in the country’s stance. For example, Gwede Mantashe, Minister of Mineral Resources, maintains the continued importance of coal to South Africa’s energy mix for the foreseeable future. The Financial Times also reports the opposition mustered by coal companies, mineworkers, and mafia-like syndicates that have invaded parts of the industry.

Considering the above, South Africa’s clean energy transition plan must contend with a crucial win from its apartheid past, given that many of the white-owned coal conglomerates passed on to black ownership after the apartheid regime. Although some community members are protesting the country’s coal exploration, due to its adverse effects on grazing lands, South Africa remains a prime example of how challenging it will be for the global south to transition to clean and renewable energy.

3. Catering to the jobs at risk due to a clean energy transition

The scale of South Africa’s coal industry can be better understood by examining its contributions to gainful employment. Considering South Africa’s status as the most industrialised African country and the fact that 80% of the country’s electricity is coal-generated, it should come as no surprise that the coal industry is a major source of employment opportunities. In 2020, coal was South Africa’s third largest employer in the mining industry, with 89,548 people directly employed. In 2021 alone, the employment statistic stands at almost 93,000. 

Transitioning to clean energy could cost many of these workers their jobs. As much as 55,000 jobs will be at risk if Eskom, South Africa’s public utility company, follows through with its plan to shut down nine power stations by 2035. By 2050, the number of jobs at risk will increase to 102,000. 

While South Africa’s JETP acknowledges a need to cater to the coal workers and communities directly affected by a clean energy transition, investments are sorely needed to meet up with the country’s $89 billion dollars target for an effective Plan that leaves no one behind.

 You might also like: Water Crisis in South Africa: Causes, Effects, And Solutions

The post 3 Challenges to South Africa’s Clean Energy Transition appeared first on Earth.Org.

Despite an increasing commitment to protect our planet’s forests, critics highlight the insufficiency of these efforts and the need for swifter actions if we are to end deforestation by 2030. Three world forests – the Brazilian Amazon, Congo Basin, and the Bolivian Amazon – have been central to the deforestation problem. On International Day of Forests 2023 and in the face of mounting pressure, we review how these fared in 2022 and discuss why swift action to halt deforestation is more crucial than ever.

—

The 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27), held in November 2022, heralded a significant step to curtail global deforestation as twenty-six countries accounting for nearly 35% of the world forests launched the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership (FCLP). This was in addition to increasing the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) coalition’s financial commitment to $1.5 billion. In total, public and private donors have further committed US$4.5 billion since COP26 to stop deforestation.

While these developments signal an intensified effort to restore our forests, they fall short of the global target to end deforestation by 2030 set by more than 100 world leaders, representing 85% of the world’s forests, at Glasgow’s climate summit in 2021. According to the Forest Declaration Platform, finances “will need to dramatically increase – by up to 200 times – to meet 2030 goals”.

Moreover, the recently published Forest Declaration Assessment suggested that, despite slower forest destruction rates throughout 2021, the world is not on track to meet the vital goal set out by the Deforestation Pledge.

In order to better understand where we are today in terms of slowing down forest loss worldwide, we take a look at the state of the world forests in 2022 by focusing on three major deforestation spots: the Brazilian Amazon, the Congo Basin, and the Bolivian Amazon.

State of the World Forests in 2022

1. Brazilian Amazon

In the first half of 2022, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon declined, as reported by the government. However, while forest loss fell by 11% compared to the previous year, it was still much higher than in any other year between 2009 and 2020. In September, Amazon deforestation reached new record levels for the month, with a total coverage loss equivalent to 1,455 square kilometres (562 square miles). Satellite images from the Brazilian space research agency INPE showed that 2022 rates of deforestation in the Amazon also hit a record high for the first nine months of the year. Since January, an area 11 times the size of New York City was cleared.

Between May and October 2022, the Monitoring of the Andean Project (MAAP), also detected 704 major fires in the Brazilian Amazon. Although 71% of these fires were in recently deforested areas, MAAP further recorded 100 cases in which standing forests were burnt. 

The Amazon rainforest covers land across nine countries including Colombia and Peru, but around 60% of it lies within Brazil. Despite efforts to protect forest land, legal deforestation is still rampant, and about a third of global tropical deforestation occurs in Brazil’s Amazon forest, amounting to 1.5 million hectares each year. 

According to critics, leadership has been a crucial contributor to deforestation in Brazil. For example, an analysis of annual data from Climate Observatory, a network of environmental groups, revealed that in the four years of former President Jair Bolsonaro’s leadership, deforestation surged by 60%, compared to the preceding four years. Since satellite monitoring commenced in 1998, this would be the highest rise in deforestation under a single presidential administration. 

“If [President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva] wants to decrease forest destruction by 2023, he must have zero tolerance for environmental crime from Day One of his administration. That includes holding accountable those who sabotaged environmental governance in the country while in office over the past four years,” said Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the Climate Observatory. 

In a move reflecting this line of thought, President Lula recently appointed Marina Silva, a well-known Amazon activist, as his environment minister. Given that she had previously served in the same position during Lula’s first presidential term in 2003, overseeing the creation of conservation areas in the rainforest, there is a growing optimism of swifter responses to the deforestation problem.

You might also like: Anthropogenic-Driven Amazon Forest Degradation Occurring ‘Much Faster’ Than Previously Thought: Study

2. Congo Basin

Known as the “lungs of Africa”, the Congo Basin is the world’s second-largest tropical rainforest, spanning six countries (Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and the Republic of the Congo). Despite the Basin’s capacity to absorb 1.5% of the world’s annual carbon emissions, the World Economic Forum revealed that it could be completely gone in 80 years due to deforestation. While two of the six Congo Basin countries (the Republic of the Congo and Gabon) reduced their deforestation rate in 2021 by 30% and 28% respectively, however, the overall level of deforestation in the region increased by 5%. 

In recognition of the Congo Basin’s importance, governments alongside partners like the Central African Forest Initiative, PROGREEN, and REDD+ have introduced multiple initiatives to combat deforestation in the region. However, there is more to be done, given the multiple drivers of deforestation in the area. 

Antoine Tabu, African Wildlife Foundation’s DRC Country Coordinator echoed this, saying: “First, there is over-exploitation of wildlife species and natural resources: overfishing, deforestation, poaching, and artisanal mining in protected areas. On top of that, there is water, soil, and air pollution, and the introduction of invasive exotic species. The presence of transhumant herders in search of grazing pressures habitats as well.”

Women have been at the forefront of DRC’s reforestation efforts through a DR Congo Women for Forests project. So far, they have planted over 100,000 trees and are actively campaigning to stop illegal timber harvesting in the DRC’s Itombwe Rainforest. But we are still far from addressing the climate change threat. Considering that the Congo Basin is the world’s largest carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than the Amazon, it is critical to address the multifaceted factors driving forest loss in the region in 2023. 

3. Bolivian Amazon

In 2021, Global Forest Watch placed Bolivia third in the world for primary forest loss, behind Brazil and the DRC. But there is another dynamic to deforestation in Bolivia in 2022 as a study uncovered its role in the destruction of archaeological archives. Once considered to be pristine wilderness, a growing number of archaeologists are uncovering earthworks in the Amazon basin predating Christopher Columbus’ arrival in the Americas. However, there seems to be a race between archaeologists’ attempts to understand the complexities of these societies and the growth of Bolivia’s agribusiness sector, resulting in the destruction of these monuments. 

Given the intricate linkage of deforestation in Bolivia to the country’s growing agribusiness in 2022, critics are also pointing out how the country’s success comes at a high environmental cost. For example, the Bolivian government’s plan to extend its 4 million hectares of cultivated land to 13 million hectares has allowed for fewer illegal deforestation fines, a move that could likely increase forest loss. 

With that said, MAAP also detected 151 major fires in the Bolivian Amazon in 2022. However, much like in the Brazilian Amazon, this was a tale of two parts. First, there were those restricted to recently deforested areas (26,400 hectares) for new soy plantations. Then, in September, the country experienced significant human-caused forest fires (standing forests), burning around 110,000 hectares in Santa Cruz alone. However, the forest fires in 2022 were not as intense as the two previous years, MAAP said.

Final Remarks

Although critics are quite pessimistic about the current pace of world forest restoration efforts, there were some decisive wins in 2022. In addition to the FCLP and an expansion of the LEAF’s financial commitment, another game-changer was the European Union’s announcement of a new law to address global deforestation. Given the intricate linkage between deforestation and agriculture, this crucial legislation would ensure that commercial products in its territory are not derived from deforestation actors. Considering that the Amazon and Congo Basin are notorious deforestation spots for aggressive agribusinesses, this law, pending its adoption, is bound to be a significant stride in protecting the world forests.

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

The post Why Swifter Action Is Needed to Save the World Forests appeared first on Earth.Org.

Despite an increasing commitment to protect the world’s forests, critics highlight the insufficiency of these efforts and the need for swifter actions if we are to end deforestation by 2030. Three hot spots – the Brazilian Amazon, Congo Basin, and the Bolivian Amazon – have been central to the deforestation problem. In the face of mounting pressure, it is crucial to review the state of deforestation in 2022 and the efficacy of current policies in slowing down global forest loss.

—

The 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27), held in November 2022, heralded a significant step to curtail global deforestation as twenty-six countries accounting for nearly 35% of the world’s forests launched the Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership (FCLP). This was in addition to increasing the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) coalition’s financial commitment to $1.5 billion. In total, public and private donors have further committed US$4.5 billion since COP26 to stop deforestation.

While these developments signal an intensified effort to restore our forests, they fall short of the global target to end deforestation by 2030 set by more than 100 world leaders, representing 85% of the world’s forests, at Glasgow’s climate summit in 2021. According to the Forest Declaration Platform, finances “will need to dramatically increase – by up to 200 times – to meet 2030 goals”.

Moreover, the recently published Forest Declaration Assessment suggested that, despite slower forest destruction rates throughout 2021, the world is not on track to meet the vital goal set out by the Deforestation Pledge.

In order to better understand where we are today in terms of slowing down forest loss worldwide, we take a look at the state of global deforestation in 2022 by focusing on three major fronts: the Brazilian Amazon, the Congo Basin, and the Bolivian Amazon.

Deforestation in 2022: State of the World’s Major Forests

1. Brazilian Amazon

In the first half of 2022, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon declined, as reported by the government. However, while forest loss fell by 11% compared to the previous year, it was still much higher than in any other year between 2009 and 2020. In September, Amazon deforestation reached new record levels for the month, with a total coverage loss equivalent to 1,455 square kilometres (562 square miles). Satellite images from the Brazilian space research agency INPE showed that 2022 rates of deforestation in the Amazon also hit a record high for the first nine months of the year. Since January, an area 11 times the size of New York City was cleared.

Between May and October 2022, the Monitoring of the Andean Project (MAAP), also detected 704 major fires in the Brazilian Amazon. Although 71% of these fires were in recently deforested areas, MAAP further recorded 100 cases in which standing forests were burnt. 

According to critics, leadership has been a crucial contributor to deforestation in Brazil. For example, an analysis of annual data from Climate Observatory, a network of environmental groups, revealed that in the four years of former President Jair Bolsonaro’s leadership, deforestation surged by 60%, compared to the preceding four years. Since satellite monitoring commenced in 1998, this would be the highest rise in deforestation under a single presidential administration. 

“If [President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva] wants to decrease forest destruction by 2023, he must have zero tolerance for environmental crime from Day One of his administration. That includes holding accountable those who sabotaged environmental governance in the country while in office over the past four years,” said Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the Climate Observatory. 

In a move reflecting this line of thought, President Lula recently appointed Marina Silva, a well-known Amazon activist, as his environment minister. Given that she had previously served in the same position during Lula’s first presidential term in 2003, overseeing the creation of conservation areas in the rainforest, there is a growing optimism of swifter responses to the deforestation problem.

You might also like: Anthropogenic-Driven Amazon Forest Degradation Occurring ‘Much Faster’ Than Previously Thought: Study

2. Congo Basin

In the Congo Basin, the problem of deforestation is multifaceted and needs urgent solutions. While the Congo Basin, known as the “lungs of Africa”, is the world’s second-largest tropical rainforest, spanning six countries, and with a capacity to absorb 1.5% of the world’s annual carbon emissions, it could be completely gone in 80 years due to deforestation, according to the World Economic Forum.

In recognition of the Congo Basin’s importance, governments alongside partners like the Central African Forest Initiative, PROGREEN, and REDD+ have introduced multiple initiatives to combat deforestation in the region. However, there is more to be done, given the multiple drivers of deforestation in the area. 

Antoine Tabu, African Wildlife Foundation’s DRC Country Coordinator echoed this, saying: “First, there is over-exploitation of wildlife species and natural resources: overfishing, deforestation, poaching, and artisanal mining in protected areas. On top of that, there is water, soil, and air pollution, and the introduction of invasive exotic species. The presence of transhumant herders in search of grazing pressures habitats as well.”

Women have been at the forefront of DRC’s reforestation efforts through a DR Congo Women for Forests project. So far, they have planted over 100,000 trees and are actively campaigning to stop illegal timber harvesting in the DRC’s Itombwe Rainforest. But we are still far from addressing the climate change threat. Considering that the Congo Basin is the world’s largest carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than the Amazon, it is critical to address the multifaceted factors driving forest loss in the region in 2023. 

3. Bolivian Amazon

In 2021, Global Forest Watch placed Bolivia third in the world for primary forest loss, behind Brazil and the DRC. But there is another dynamic to deforestation in Bolivia in 2022 as a study uncovered its role in the destruction of archaeological archives. Once considered to be pristine wilderness, a growing number of archaeologists are uncovering earthworks in the Amazon basin predating Christopher Columbus’ arrival in the Americas. However, there seems to be a race between archaeologists’ attempts to understand the complexities of these societies and the growth of Bolivia’s agribusiness sector, resulting in the destruction of these monuments. 

Given the intricate linkage of deforestation in Bolivia to the country’s growing agribusiness in 2022, critics are also pointing out how the country’s success comes at a high environmental cost. For example, the Bolivian government’s plan to extend its 4 million hectares of cultivated land to 13 million hectares has allowed for fewer illegal deforestation fines, a move that could likely increase forest loss. 

With that said, MAAP also detected 151 major fires in the Bolivian Amazon in 2022. However, much like in the Brazilian Amazon, this was a tale of two parts. First, there were those restricted to recently deforested areas (26,400 hectares) for new soy plantations. Then, in September, the country experienced significant human-caused forest fires (standing forests), burning around 110,000 hectares in Santa Cruz alone. However, the forest fires in 2022 were not as intense as the two previous years, MAAP said.

Can We Halt Deforestation?

Although critics are quite pessimistic about the current pace of forest restoration efforts, there were some decisive wins in 2022. In addition to the FCLP and an expansion of the LEAF’s financial commitment, another game-changer was the European Union’s announcement of a new law to address global deforestation. Given the intricate linkage between deforestation and agriculture, this crucial legislation would ensure that commercial products in its territory are not derived from deforestation actors. Considering that the Amazon and Congo Basin are notorious deforestation spots for aggressive agribusinesses, this law, pending its adoption, is bound to be a significant stride in protecting the world’s forests.

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

The post Global Deforestation in 2022: Can the World Reach the Global Deforestation Pledge? appeared first on Earth.Org.

On November 20, the FIFA World Cup 2022 commences in Qatar. Over the course of a month, 32 teams will represent their countries in what is arguably the “holy grail” of footballing tournaments.  While the tournament’s latest instalment will be the most compact one in its 92-year history, meaning that air travel would be unnecessary once it kicks off, critics argue that this ‘win’ pales in comparison to the environmental costs. Here are some of the environmental issues surrounding Qatar 2022.

—

3 Environmental Issues Related to Qatar 2022

1. Desalination

The principal environmental issue surrounding this year’s World Cup arises from Qatar’s heavy reliance on desalination – a process of removing dissolved mineral salts from water to make it fresh for agricultural purposes and human consumption. While this sounds eco-friendly, certain factors complicate the “greenness” of this approach.

Considering the dominant use of fossil fuels for desalination, carbon emission becomes an unavoidable environmental consequence. Also known to be a notorious polluter of the marine system, desalination releases brine – a high-concentration solution of salt water – into the sea. For this reason, not only does desalination endanger coral reefs, but it also harms smaller marine organisms. Additionally, due to the high-pressure system associated with the process, small marine organisms run the risk of getting sucked in and colliding with the intake pipe screens, causing severe injury and death. 

The World Cup’s use of 8 stadiums and 130 training grounds further aggravates the pressure on desalination due to the huge water demands. Qatar is expected to increase its water supply by 10% during this period. According to a Reuter report, at least 10,000 liters of desalinated water would be required daily to water each turf. Given the current water shortage in Qatar, critics argue the unjustifiable nature of this additional strain. 

Although Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are exploring solar-powered desalination as an eco-friendly alternative, reports indicate that it is not yet viable. So, the use of fossil fuels for desalination remains dominant.  

2. Carbon Neutrality Claims

Another problem has to do with FIFA’s carbon neutrality claims. Carbon Market Watch (CMW), an environmental lobby group that has worked with institutions like the European Union to track carbon emissions, tagged FIFA’s claims as misleading. In a report published on the group’s website, CMW criticised the credibility of a new carbon certification standard devised specifically for the tournament, questioning its independence. 

“It would be great to see the climate impact of FIFA World Cups being drastically reduced,” said Gilles Dufrasne, lead on global carbon markets at Carbon Market Watch. “But the carbon-neutrality claim that is being made is simply not credible.”

“Despite a lack of transparency, the evidence suggests that the emissions from this World Cup will be considerably higher than expected by the organizers,” he added, “and the carbon credits being purchased to offset these emissions are unlikely to have a sufficiently positive impact on the climate.” 

Julien Jreissati of Greenpeace Middle East similarly accused the organisers of “window dressing”, referring to net-zero emissions claims as “greenwashing”.

On their part, FIFA and the Supreme Committee disagreed with CMW’s assessment. ‘It is speculative and inaccurate to draw conclusions on the SC’s commitment to deliver the world’s first carbon-neutral FIFA World Cup,’ a representative of the Supreme Committee for Delivery & Legacy informed Sportsmail. 

The representative further stated that ’emissions that will be unavoidable while preparing for and hosting the tournament will be offset through investing in internationally recognised and certified carbon credits. The SC’s decision to transparently and proactively offset carbon emissions in a responsible manner should be recognised, rather than criticised.’ Nevertheless, critics point out that the organisers’ estimations lean on the conservative side, consequently lowballing the actual emissions attributable to the World Cup.

You might also like: What Is Greenwashing and How to Avoid It?

3. Justifying the Post-World Cup Legacy of the New Stadiums 

CMW’s report further questioned the legacy of World Cup stadiums, given Qatar’s relatively small population and compact geographical space. Out of the eight stadiums, which cost $6.5 billion, seven are brand new, with the eighth one significantly rebuilt. Moreover, six of the seven new stadiums are permanent, with one —Stadium 974— being demountable.  Altogether, the post-tournament stadiums have a combined capacity of 155,500, a sizeable reduction from its 380,000 world cup capacity. 

Yet, Daily Mail reports that the country’s most successful football team, Al-Sadd, playing in the Qatar Stars League, averages 1,500 home attendance in Doha. Al-Rayyan, the second team for attendance, averages 708 in-person supporters. Given this relatively low football demand, critics argue that the environmental cost of constructing these stadiums is unjustifiable. 

According to reports, constructing the new stadiums accounts for only 5.5% of the World Cup emissions. The organisers allocated 438 kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalent to the temporary stadium and only 206 kilotons to six permanent ones. CMW criticised the logic behind this figure, given that the six permanent stadiums have an emission statistic way below the temporary one. The environmental group explained this “seemingly illogical” outcome by shedding light on the accounting methodology involved.  

First, emissions from the six new stadiums were divided into two categories— construction of temporary seats, and construction of the stadiums (excluding the temporary seats). Whereas the former accounted for 202 kilotons, the latter made up only 4.5 kilotons. Moreover, while the second category was dependent on the timeline of stadium use during the World Cup and two FIFA Club World Cups in 2019 and 2020, no specific detail was provided on how 4.5 kilotons were computed.

Nevertheless, CMW’s estimates show that emissions from these six stadiums should be 1.62 megatons. This is almost eight times as high as the reported figure (206 kilotons). In addition to the temporary one, CMW places the total emissions arising from constructing 7 new stadiums at 2.06 megatons. For this reason and more, the stadiums’ legacy remains overshadowed by the environmental price paid.  

Final Remarks

Amid these tense debates about the environmental cost of Qatar 2022, concerns over human rights violations, anti-LGBTQ claims, and labour laws have also dominated the scene leading up to the tournament. While FIFA often downplayed the reality of these concerns, Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s former president, admitted that handing the hosting duty to Qatar was a “bad choice” and a “mistake” arising from “political pressure.” 

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons

You might also like: Climate Change in the Middle East Poses Major Threat to Human Life and Economy: IMF

The post Qatar 2022: The Environmental Cost of the FIFA World Cup appeared first on Earth.Org.

Deforestation is a global problem, and its ramifications for climate change are undeniable. As a country with an acute level of deforestation, the Nigerian government has set up policies to address the problem. However despite the policies introduced, deforestation in Nigeria persists. 

—

Over the years, deforestation has posed a consistent threat to biodiversity in Nigeria. According to the revised statistics by the The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), between 2000 and 2005, Nigeria had the highest level of deforestation in the world, as 55.7% of the country’s primary forests were lost. In 2020, the country lost 97.8 kilohectares of natural forest, which equated to 59.5 metric ton of CO2 emissions. Substantiating this grim situation, the Nigerian Conservation Foundation (NCF) reported that Nigeria had lost 96% of its original forests because of deforestation.

Due to the alarming rate of deforestation in the country, the Nigerian government has introduced policies to tackle this problem, such as the national forest policies of 1988 and 2006. Also, the federal government granted paramilitary status to the National Parks Service (NPS) to bolster the service’s actions against poaching and trespasses. However, many of these policies have not been a resounding success. 

That is why in 2021, Nigeria launched the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) strategy towards reducing the problem of deforestation in the country with the support of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of the World Bank, the United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD) programme,  as well as technical assistance from other bodies such as the FAO; the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The strategy seeks to curb climate change by bringing an end to the destruction of forests while promoting sustainable forest management. 

With the Nigerian government’s pledge at COP26 to end deforestation by 2030, it becomes increasingly relevant to assess policies that have worked remarkably well for countries tackling deforestation. Based on this interest, Costa Rica’s PES scheme is analysed in this piece.  

What is Costa Rica’s Payments for Environmental Services Programme (PES)?

By 1987, deforestation had resulted in a loss of nearly half of Costa Rica’s forest cover. However, due to interventions led by the country’s government, Costa Rica became the foremost tropical country to tackle deforestation. 

How did the country instigate this remarkable turnaround? First, the government criminalised cutting down trees without prior approval from the relevant authorities. In addition, the government introduced the Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Programme to reward local communities for protecting the forests.

The PES model provides landowners with financial incentives over five or 10-year contracts when they utilise forest-management and sustainable land-use techniques. With an investment totalling USD$524 million in the PES, more than 18,000 families benefited from this programme from 1997 to 2019. Also, according to the International Institute for Environment and Development, more than one million hectares of forests have been covered by this scheme since 1997. 

Why Has the PES Been Successful?

In the view of the Environment for Development (EfD), Costa Rica’s success is partly due to a commitment of the government to get underway with desired plans and to experiment. 

On another note, Costa Rica’s PES scheme maintains a clear institutional framework that specifies the necessary network of collaboration instrumental to the scheme’s operation. For Costa Rica, the government centred this framework around the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications. By consolidating the necessary authority under a single ministry, the government addressed the possibility of different units working without synergy.

According to FONAFIFO, CONAFOR and the Ministry of Environment, the more complicated the relevant contract and its accompanying regulations are, the more difficult it is to ensure that the beneficiaries completely understand and agree to the contractual rights and duties. Costa Rica recognised this perspective and made it necessary for the PES programme participants to work with a regente forestal (forest agent), a private technical professional hired to handle the programme’s paperwork and execute the project. In addition to these, as an aspect of the monitoring plan, the regente must also prepare project status reports. 

Furthermore, the PES programme provides clear and enforceable sanctions for situations wherein the participants do not comply with the regulations. The government implements the contractual sanctions to inspire compliance with the programme in addition to a fraud deterrence function. Specifically, the Procedures Manual for the PES programme supports the idea that if a project does not comply with the contract, the Forest Law, and other regulatory requirements (including the Procedures Manual which is enacted by the National Forest Finance Fund (FONAFIFO) and the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), these institutions are authorised to launch the relevant administrative and legal action, even to recover already-disbursed resources.

Challenges Facing Policies Against Deforestation in Nigeria

According to the Federal Ministry of Environment Abuja, the weak institutional ability to effectively execute sustainable forest management policies and practices contributes to Nigeria’s forest resources decline. Also, most of the states in the country lack the forest resource data needed to construct or update forest management plans. In the same vein, The New Humanitarian reported the government’s dire challenge to address the underlying factors facilitating deforestation in Nigeria, such as weak regulations and an absence of policy support.

However, despite the challenges identified above, it is essential to point out that the government has taken some decisive actions over the years towards tackling deforestation. In 2009, Nigeria started networking with the United Nations REDD Programme (UN-REDD), maintaining similar goals as Costa Rica’s PES model. By 2010, Nigeria became a partner and established a commitment to help mitigate climate change by fostering enhanced levels of forest conservation and the sustainable livelihood of communities.

Through this partnership, Nigeria commenced a demo programme in Cross River State, wherein over 50% of the high tropical forests left in Nigeria are located. The government referred to the programme as a Community Based REDD+ Programme (CBR+) that would foster biodiversity conservation, forest management, and alternative sustainable energy. The programme has assisted over 300 families in 21 communities through the years. Furthermore, the CBR+ Programme’s outcomes contributed to Nigeria’s national REDD+ initiative that the government launched in 2021.

However, despite the benefit of the CBR+ Programme in laying the groundwork for the anticipated national REDD+ initiative, The Republic criticised the programme, backed by Global Forest Watch’s data which reported a deforestation peak period as of 2014 in Cross River, despite the state-wide anti-logging ban. This was partly attributed to the corrupt practises of the anti-deforestation task force, which periodically aided the illegal network of criminal loggers. In addition, The Republic argued that the REDD+ initiative ignored the deforestation undertaken by parties to facilitate industrial plantations and farms across Cross River, despite its adverse impact on the state.

Lessons to Learn From the PES Policy?

Going by the Global Forest Watch statistics, Nigeria lost 1.04 millihectares of tree cover between 2001 and 2020, representing a 10% decline from 2000. Costa Rica, on the other hand, lost 253kha of tree cover between 2001 and 2020, a 6.5% decline since 2000. Although tree cover loss does not directly equate to deforestation, it does represent a component of its causal factors. Therefore, it might be insightful to examine aspects of Costa Rica’s policy option against deforestation that could be replicated in Nigeria.

In a report prepared by the FONAFIFO, CONAFOR and Ministry of Environment, similarities were established between the REDD+ initiative and PES and Conservation Incentive Programmes. The similarities revolve around fostering sustainable forest management by incentivising or rewarding forest managers/owners. Therefore, the Nigerian government could benefit from modelling specific aspects of Costa Rica’s PES scheme in the country’s continuous attempt to tackle deforestation. 

Specifically, the replication could be in providing a clear institutional framework because many of Nigeria’s challenges could be associated with this aspect. In the past, Nigeria has implemented national forest policies in 1988 and 2006. However, these policies largely failed to hinder deforestation in the country. According to The Partnership for African Social and Governance Research (PASGR), the policy failures of the Nigerian government can be attributed to a poor policy implementation culture.

For example, a clear institutional framework could encourage synergy among the parties executing policies against deforestation by acknowledging a necessary network of collaboration. In the past, policies concerning deforestation have been weakened by a lack of coordinated efforts, such as the 1988 forest policy, which failed in its objective to expand the country’s forest estate from 10% to 20%. 

Also, although some state governments have implemented legislation to monitor and regulate forest reserves, the continued high pace of deforestation implies that overall control has been ineffective. According to Nigeria’s 1999 constitution, which grants local governments and states joint jurisdiction over natural resource development, the forestry sector is controlled at the federal, state, and local government levels. Therefore, duties, power, and resources are divided among the three levels. However, there is a lack of clarity in these groups’ separate responsibilities (because there are 36 state forestry agencies and the potential presence of ministries of forests in some states), which ends up contributing to a lack of coordinated effort.

Featured image by: jbdodane/Flickr

The post Challenges Facing Policies Against Deforestation in Nigeria appeared first on Earth.Org.

Plastic pollution is a pervasive problem in Nigeria that endangers humans, wildlife and causes recurrent floods. Therefore, various stakeholders must take concrete steps to curb this problem and the attendant danger that it poses to climate security.

—

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), Nigeria has the largest economy in Africa and is often alluded by the public to be the ‘Giant of Africa’. But what’s also growing large in Nigeria is the use of plastic and the subsequent waste from it.  People consume more than 60 million sachet water bags daily in Nigeria, which are not often adequately disposed of. Therefore, it comes to no surprise that frequent use of plastic bags and the wild popularity of sachet water – due to unequal access to hygienic drinking water – account for the 2.5 million tonnes of plastic waste generated in Nigeria every year. The concern for plastic waste is highly relevant when considered within the context of its impact on climate change. Hence, if the world is to achieve climate security, the onus rests on each country to tackle the plastic pollution epidemic.

How Does Plastic Pollution Affect Humans?

Plastic pollution affects the air quality in Nigeria when people burn plastic as a waste management strategy. As a result, these burnt plastics release harmful toxins, which cause environmental and health concerns. 

On another note, the fright over floods is a constant worry for Nigerians, particularly in Lagos, because of poor plastic waste management practices. Drains often end up blocked, leading to widespread floods that disrupt lives and destroy properties.

Additionally, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), microplastics often find their way into tap water and other sorts of drinks ingested by humans. The acute usage of chemical materials in producing these plastic containers, which can cause cancer, poses a threat to human health in Nigeria.

 Problems Plastic Pollution Creates for Wildlife

The aquatic wildlife in Nigeria is gravely affected by the plague of plastic pollution. People often dump plastic materials in rivers, and this act contaminates the water bodies. Consequently, the threat against marine biodiversity in the country is heightened because marine animals often mistakenly ingest these plastics, leading to deaths.  

According to the IUCN, the disposal of plastic waste in rivers and oceans threatens marine biodiversity. These plastics serve as carriers for the transportation of invasive marine species into aquatic wildlife. 

On a similar note, toxic contaminants have been showcased by studies to reside on plastic debris. When this debris is ingested by marine wildlife, the entire food chain can be adversely affected by the transmission of these toxic contaminants to terrestrial wildlife that preys on marine wildlife. 

Challenges in Reducing Plastic Use in Nigeria

One of the biggest challenges to reducing plastic use in Nigeria is the popularity of sachet water and consumers’ improper disposal of the used plastic sachets and other forms of waste. In recognition of this challenge, state governments have introduced initiatives such as the Lagos Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) to help tackle the volume of plastic waste across the states in the country. 

However, despite the benefits of these government initiatives, there is an urgent need to also address the challenges preceding waste disposal. In addition to consumers’ negative attitude towards waste disposal (such as the burning of plastic waste), these challenges encompass insufficient governmental will for change, shortage of necessary waste management infrastructure, and businesses’ acute usage of plastic for packaging purposes.

Solutions for Plastic Pollution

On January 27 2021, the WEF announced the Nigerian government’s decision to join Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership. This decision represents a significant step in the right direction towards eliminating plastic pollution in Nigeria. Through the partnership, leading policymakers, civil society organisations, and business leaders will unite towards the formulation of a national action plan to prevent subsequent plastic pollution. However, despite the envisioned benefit of this partnership, the country needs additional actions to be taken urgently.

Concerning the wild popularity of sachet water and its consequent contribution to the plastic pollution level in the country, a recommendation was made by a study to introduce a deposit-refund system. Through this approach, the aim would be to discourage improper disposal of water sachets in the country. In  Germany,  this system has been implemented, which helped curb plastic pollution. According to Thomas Fischer, head of circular economy at NGO Environmental Action Germany (DUH), “Before 2003, some 3 billion disposable beverage containers were dumped in the environment every year.” However, Germany presently maintains a return rate above 98%.

Targeted programmes could be encouraged to tackle plastic pollution, particularly those linked to oceans. Specifically, the recommendation calls for programmes aimed at the improvement of people’s waste disposal behaviour. Stakeholders in the plastic recycling sectors have emphasised the importance of positive consumer behaviour towards waste disposal if the problem of plastic pollution is to be resolved in the country. 

Another policy that stakeholders could explore within the context of Nigeria includes plastic bans (particularly single-use ones). This single-use ban has become particularly popular amongst EU member states, in line with a commitment to halt the use of disposable plastics contributing to almost 70% of Europe’s marine litter. Although Nigeria’s House of Representatives passed a plastic ban bill in 2019, it is yet to be passed into law. Therefore, there is a greater need for political will regarding the bill. The ban of single-use plastic by the government could also be a crucial step for the introduction of a multiuse packaging for sachet water.

The use of plastic waste as green technology for paving roads is another innovative solution that would be highly beneficial in Nigeria due to the country’s relatively dreadful roadways. It is essential to point out that plastic roads are not sub-standard to asphalt ones and can be cheaper and long-lasting. Therefore, directing plastic waste to resolve another critical problem in the country would prove to be highly efficient.

What Do We as a Society Need to Do to Help Reduce Our Plastic Pollution?

Societal members are crucial to tackling plastic pollution in Nigeria. If everyone avoids the indiscriminate disposal of plastic waste and makes choices to reduce their plastic footprint, the end to the bane of plastic pollution would undoubtedly be in sight. 

On the other hand, when citizens are less than cooperative in curbing plastic pollution, it becomes impossible for the government, plastic recycling companies, and other stakeholders to address this pervasive problem. 

Featured image by: John Peltier/Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The post Solution for Plastic Pollution in Nigeria: A Collective Responsibility appeared first on Earth.Org.

Deforestation is a problem in today’s society and hinders the achievement of climate security. However, all hope is not lost and there are solutions to deforestation as indigenous and local communities have been safeguarding the planet from climate catastrophe.

—

The world’s forests are dying. As the clocks tick, and years pass by, inaction only brings the world closer to a climate catastrophe. Despite the instrumental role played by forests in the sustenance of a liveable climate, it is somewhat ironic that the greatest threat to forests is no one else but mankind.

Although the situation is certainly bleak, all hope is not lost. Deep in the forests reside one of humanity’s saviours in the struggle against deforestation:  indigenous and local communities. Indeed, over the years, indigenous and local communities have grown into their role as gatekeepers of a greener society and play a key role in implementing solutions to deforestation. 

How Does Deforestation Affect the Environment?

According to the United Nations, deforestation and its attendant consequence of desertification wreak havoc on the climate and the world’s clamour for sustainable development.  

Based on the statistics from the University of Maryland published on Global Forest Watch, the tropics lost 12.2 million hectares of tree cover in 2020, which are particularly significant for biodiversity and carbon storage. The ensuing carbon emissions (2.64 Gt CO2) from this loss are comparable to the annual emissions of 570 million automobiles.

Aside from its contribution to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, deforestation also removes the potential to absorb extant carbon dioxide. In relation to emission rates, the World Resources Institute revealed that if tropical deforestation had been a country, it would be ranked third in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, after China and the United States.

Who are the Indigenous and Local Communities?

Indigenous and local communities play crucial roles in providing solutions to deforestation by maintaining Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs).  Indigenous-managed lands, which account for around 28% of the world’s land surface, contain some of the most biologically intact forests and several biodiversity hotspots. The Wayúu people of Columbia represent some of the indigenous groups managing the world’s forest whose role has been crucial in the considerable mitigation of deforestation in the area.

Why is Deforestation Lower in Indigenous and Local Communities?

Why do forests do better when left in the care of indigenous and local communities? The FAO has attributed the situation to the influence exerted by traditional knowledge, cultural factors and recognised collective property rights and usufruct rights.

Regarding traditional knowledge, the FAO has revealed how indigenous and local communities utilise systems of production that are less damaging to the ecosystem of forests. In addition, indigenous people utilise forestry management strategies (such as assisted forest regeneration, selective harvesting and reforesting, and tree growth assistance inside existing forests), which have been acknowledged as cost-effective strategies to cut carbon emissions.

Certainly, the production systems identified above have significant ramifications for forest conservation when considered in the context of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay, wherein mechanised soybean and grain production systems have been identified as a major direct source of deforestation. Amongst the Tsimane people of Bolivia, research has revealed that Tsimane communities with higher traditional ecological knowledge protect their forests more effectively than those without the knowledge. Naturally, a deduction can be made concerning the suitability of indigenous groups to provide adequate care to the forests while maximising their potentials. 

On another note, the facilitation of indigenous people’s collective land property rights has also been shown to preserve indigenous and tribal peoples’ territory, thereby serving as an instrumental strategy to safeguard forests. This notion has been backed by a study of eleven Latin American nations, wherein land sparing was highly promoted by increasing the forests managed or owned by indigenous people.

How to Stop Deforestation

Although the role played by traditional knowledge/cultural factors and recognised collective properties/usufruct rights has been widely acknowledged, certain challenges hamper indigenous communities from fully harnessing these factors as gatekeepers of a greener world. These challenges revolve around rising risks of invasion by external actors, and programmes forced on indigenous groups.

However, despite the above challenges, glimmers of hope are observable. In the past months, the world has been uniting in its recognition of indigenous and rural areas as crucial actors for the mitigation of climate change. During the COP26 UN climate summit, a historic pledge (worth $19.2 billion) was made by 100 countries to end deforestation by 2030, and a substantial part of this fund is to be allocated towards supporting indigenous communities.

With a crucial pledge made at the COP26, in the face of surmounting challenges and pressure from external actors, indigenous communities must forge ahead in their role as the gatekeepers of a greener society. Essentially, the world has awoken from its deep slumber to the dire situation of the world’s forests and the position of indigenous communities as centrepieces.

As one of the possible solutions to deforestation, traditional cultures and knowledge of indigenous communities should be strongly reaffirmed in the society; an approach that has been enshrined by the United Nations for protection against man-made disasters. In order to bring this to realisation, there is a greater need for NGOs and international organisations to provide platforms for indigenous communities to share their knowledge and experiences.

In a similar direction, indigenous communities’ voices should be heard as engaged stakeholders endangered by deforestation, in addition to the priceless traditional wisdom they can give towards addressing the problem. As the ‘gatekeepers’, why should indigenous communities not get sufficient ‘seats’ at the table when debating the optimum strategies to curb deforestation? This is in line with earlier reflections concerning the array of forest management strategies utilised by indigenous communities being cost-effective in reducing carbon emissions. 

On another note, the provision of smartphones and satellite data to indigenous tribes can drastically reduce deforestation, as revealed in the Peruvian Amazon rainforest. With mounting pressures by external actors on forests, additional resources could be crucial for indigenous communities to function more efficiently in protecting the forests.

According to the FAO, addressing the political pressures on forests is also one of few but vital solutions to deforestation, because of politicians’ aim to revitalise national economies by spreading agricultural and extractive activities to indigenous forests. Therefore, improved legal representation can be vital for indigenous communities to weather the political storm associated with obtaining collective property rights and ensuring that these rights are honoured by the associated governments.

Moving Forward

Although deforestation is still a problem today, considerable progress is being made. New forests are being created through deliberate efforts or natural expansion. As a result, from the 1990s to 2010-2020, the net loss of forest area dropped considerably from 7.8 million hectares annually to 4.7 million hectares. 

On the other hand, between 1990 and 2020, the global forest area shrank by 178 million hectares in absolute terms. Therefore, the net loss of forest area is less than the rate of deforestation. Therefore, as the clock ticks, it is important for the world to take inspiration from the progress that has been made so far in order to renew efforts to save the forests. 

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

 Featured image by: Axel Fassio/CIFOR/Flickr

The post Solutions to Deforestation: Indigenous Communities as Gatekeepers of a Greener Society appeared first on Earth.Org.