̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - deforestation

Cambridge on World Environment Day 2024

plc32 — Wed, 05 Jun 2024 06:01:21 +0000

This year's World Environment Day focus is on land restoration. So we spoke with three Cambridge researchers working on reviving landscapes, boosting biodiversity, and collaborating with communities to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Companies’ ‘deforestation-free’ supply chain pledges have barely impacted forest clearance in the Amazon

jg533 — Fri, 28 Oct 2022 08:13:38 +0000

Corporate pledges not to buy soybeans produced on land deforested after 2006 have reduced tree clearance in the Brazilian Amazon by just 1.6% between 2006 and 2015.

This equates to a protected area of 2,300 km2 in the Amazon rainforest: barely the size of Oxfordshire.

̽��ֱ��findings, made by tracing traders’ soy supplies back to their source, are published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters. ̽��ֱ��work involved a team from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, Boston ̽��ֱ��, ETH Zurich and New York ̽��ֱ��.

̽��ֱ��researchers also discovered that in the Cerrado, Brazil’s tropical savannah, zero-deforestation commitments have not been adopted effectively - leaving over 50% of soy-suitable forests and their biodiversity without protection.

Brazil has the largest remaining tropical forests on the planet, but these are being rapidly cleared to rear cattle and grow crops including soybean. Demand for soy is surging around the world, and an estimated 4,800 km2 of rainforest is cleared each year to grow soybeans.

̽��ֱ��majority of soy is consumed indirectly by humans: soybean is widely used as feed for factory-farmed chickens, pigs, fish and cattle. It also accounts for around 27% of global vegetable oil production, and as a complete protein source it often forms a key part of vegetarian and vegan diets.

By 2021, at least 94 companies had adopted zero-deforestation commitments – pledging to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains. But the study revealed that many of these commitments are not put into practice.

And the researchers say that adoption of zero-deforestation commitments is lagging among small and medium sized food companies.

“Zero-deforestation pledges are a great first step, but they need to be implemented to have an effect on forests – and right now it’s mainly the bigger companies that have the resources to do this,” said Professor Rachael Garrett, Moran Professor of Conservation and Development at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, a joint senior author of the report.

She added: “If soybean traders actually implemented their global commitments for zero-deforestation production, current levels of forest clearance in Brazil could be reduced by around 40 percent.”

Deforestation is the second largest contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions after fossil fuel use. It also causes the loss of diverse animal and plant life, threatens the livelihoods of indigenous groups, and increases inequality and conflict.

̽��ֱ��researchers say that the supply chains of other food products including cattle, oil palm and cocoa supply chains are more complex than soy, making them even more difficult to monitor.

“If supply chain policies intend to contribute to the task of tackling deforestation in Brazil, it’s crucial to expand zero-deforestation supply chain policies beyond soy,” said Garrett, who is also Professor of Environmental Policy at ETH Zurich.

A ‘soy moratorium’ was the first voluntary zero-deforestation commitment in the tropics – by signing it, companies agreed not to buy soybeans produced on land deforested after 2006. But while the commitment was implemented in the Brazilian Amazon, most Brazilian soy is produced in the Cerrado – which is rich in biodiversity.

̽��ֱ��researchers say their findings suggest private sector efforts are not enough to halt deforestation: supportive political leadership is also vital to conservation efforts.

“Supply chain governance should not be a substitute for state-led forest policies, which are critical to enable zero deforestation monitoring and enforcement, have better potential to cover different crops, land users, and regions,” said Garrett.

In 2021, the COP26 Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use committed to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. It was signed by over 100 countries, representing 85% of global forests.

This research was funded by the US National Science Foundation, NASA Land-Cover and Land-Use Change Program, and US Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Reference

Gollnow, F, Cammelli F, Carlson, KM, and Garrett, RD. ‘Gaps in Adoption and Implementation Limit the Current and Potential Effectiveness of Zero-Deforestation Supply Chain Policies for Soy.’ October 2022, Environmental Research Letters. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac97f6

READ MORE in Garrett's piece for ̽��ֱ��Conversation: Zero deforestation in the Amazon is now possible - here's what needs to happen

More companies must make and implement zero-deforestation supply chain commitments in order to significantly reduce deforestation and protect diverse ecosystems, say researchers.

Zero-deforestation pledges are a great first step, but they need to be implemented to have an effect on forests.

Rachael Garrett

An area of the Amazon rainforest cleared for soya production

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical

New report assesses global anti-deforestation measures

sc604 — Wed, 04 May 2022 08:30:00 +0000

A major scientific assessment, published by the Global Forest Expert Panels (GFEP) Programme, led by the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), has evaluated the world’s progress on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

̽��ֱ��report analyses the past 10 years of REDD+ implementation – a global action plan to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation primarily in tropical and sub-tropical regions – with respect to forest governance, carbon measurements and effects on biodiversity and livelihoods. ̽��ֱ��findings are presented during World Forestry Congress week, taking place this week in Seoul.

One major conclusion is that while REDD+ has provided a convenient umbrella for many forest and land use related activities aimed at reducing deforestation and forest degradation – and associated greenhouse gas emissions – the interlinkages and complexities of relationships between forests, land use and climate are profound.

̽��ֱ��report, which aims to inform ongoing policy discussions on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, comes at a pivotal time: Human-induced climate change and increases in extreme weather events are impacting nature and people faster and more severely than had been expected 20 years ago.

However, there is still a chance to reverse this trend and avoid further global warming, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This requires drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2, most of which stem from burning fossil fuels.

Forests also play an important role in the global carbon cycle: they absorb carbon as they grow and emit carbon when they are destroyed. Every year nearly one-third of the global carbon emissions produced by humans can be absorbed by forests, yet deforestation and forest degradation are responsible for up to 10% of the annual man-made CO2 emissions.

In addition, interest in forests as a ‘nature-based solution’ has probably never been higher and the number of initiatives aimed at conserving, sustainably managing and restoring forests has increased considerably.

“This report is being launched at a very important moment, and feeds directly into international discussions on climate change and biodiversity,” said lead author Professor Bhaskar Vira, Head of Cambridge’s Department of Geography. “There is an urgent focus on the role of land use and forests as part of our transitions towards a net zero future, and on the contributions that forests can make to biodiversity and livelihoods.

“REDD+ will only be effective if we learn the lessons from existing efforts and interventions in the forest sector, and the challenges they have faced. This report offers key insights into the ways in which new and innovative sources of funding and finance should be organised and governed to ensure equitable and sustainable future pathways that benefit all, especially the Indigenous Peoples and local communities who live in and around forests.”

In addition to promoting forest protection and carbon sink enhancement, a key focus of REDD+ is to move the scope of interventions beyond climate impacts towards an integrated view of climate, biodiversity and livelihoods. REDD+ can deliver numerous environmental benefits, including reduced soil erosion, enhanced water quality and quantity, and increased resilience to drought and floods. It can potentially deliver important biodiversity benefits, although the availability of up-to-date biodiversity data remains a major challenge.

“Such benefits have significant economic importance and may increase both the value of REDD+ programs and people’s willingness to engage with them. However, in the implementation of REDD+, greater attention to biodiversity and livelihood outcomes is needed,” said lead author and IUFRO President John Parrotta of the USDA Forest Service.

Evidence from social evaluations of REDD+ interventions indicates that, where direct and indirect benefits are clearly visible to local stakeholders, and have been delivered, community engagement is strong and projects have achieved positive carbon and social outcomes, at least in the short term. Furthermore, explicit attention to rights and tenure issues provides more transparent mechanisms for the reporting and monitoring of environmental and social co-benefits, as well as better, more equitable outcomes, particularly for more vulnerable communities.

Case studies from Indonesia show that insecure tenure can exacerbate distrust between resource users and the government, and can keep local people from further participating in REDD+ activities. Evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean suggests that deforestation is lower in areas where Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ collective land rights are recognised.

“Since 2012, implementation of REDD+ has advanced considerably in many countries but ultimately it is REDD+ governance that determines its performance. Yet, governance is distributed across a complex landscape of institutions with different sources of authority and power dynamics that influence its outcomes,” said GFEP Programme Coordinator Christoph Wildburger.

REDD+ is being applied in a wide diversity of contexts with an equally wide diversity of governance strategies, which are changing over time. Brazil, for example, was initially a leading global source of deforestation, then a world leader in reducing deforestation, and is now experiencing rising deforestation once again. While Brazil’s federal government has played a key role in these swings in deforestation rates, a number of Brazilian states are pursuing their own REDD+ initiatives with positive outcomes. Ghana, a relatively small country where deforestation has been strongly linked to the production of cocoa for export, is pursuing the ‘world’s first commodity-driven’ REDD+ strategy with private sector investments in ‘climate smart cocoa’. Both Brazil and Ghana illustrate the important role that actors other than national governments may play in shaping REDD+, such as sub-national state actors or private companies trading in forest risk commodities like cocoa.

Adapted from an IUFRO press release.

Comprehensive scientific report shows progress and effects on climate, nature and people.

REDD+ will only be effective if we learn the lessons from existing efforts and interventions in the forest sector, and the challenges they have faced.

Bhaskar Vira

crustmania

Deforestation

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Cambridge-built carbon credit marketplace will support reforestation

sc604 — Wed, 10 Nov 2021 11:58:35 +0000

̽��ֱ��Cambridge Centre for Carbon Credits (4C) - based in the Department of Computer Science and Technology, and the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute - has two primary goals: to support students and researchers in the relevant areas of computer science, environmental science, and economics; and to create a decentralised marketplace where purchasers of carbon credits can confidently and directly fund trusted nature-based projects.

̽��ֱ��Centre will build its decentralised marketplace on the energy-efficient Tezos blockchain because it operates sustainably and allows third parties to verify all transactions, in line with the Centre’s vision to support a sustainable future through technology. ̽��ֱ��goal of the marketplace is to exponentially increase the number of real nature-based conservation and restoration projects by channelling funding towards them via market-based instruments.

Nature-based solutions, particularly forests, have a vital role to play in mitigating the worst effects of climate change. Pressure is mounting from governments and the public to rapidly roll out a global programme of well-executed nature-based solutions (NbS) to sequester several gigatons of carbon each year and protect biodiversity. However, current NbS projects are hampered by chronic underfunding.

“Current accreditation systems that measure and report the value of carbon and related benefits like biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction rendered by NbS are costly, slow and inaccurate,” said Centre Director Dr Anil Madhavapeddy. “These systems have undermined trust in NbS carbon credits. What is needed is a decentralised marketplace where purchasers of carbon credits can confidently and directly fund trusted nature-based projects. And that’s the gap the Centre is aiming to fill.”

̽��ֱ��Centre will support 12 PhD students and postdoctoral fellows, and investment to prototype a scalable, trusted NbS marketplace. Researchers funded from the Centre will come from the Departments of Computer Science and Technology, Zoology, and Plant Sciences, as well as from the Centre for Doctoral Training in Artificial Intelligence for the study of Environment Risk.

Professor David Coomes, Director of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, said: “Conservation strategies are increasingly broadening to include large datasets, remote sensing technologies and computational approaches. ̽��ֱ��Centre for Carbon Credits is a ground-breaking initiative that will bring together computer scientists and conservation scientists in a new way.”

Andrew Balmford, Professor of Zoology, said: “ ̽��ֱ��recent announcement at COP26 of the new commitment to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030 demonstrates the crucial role forests play in carbon capture and the health of our planet. ̽��ֱ��new Centre has a significant role to play in supporting crucial research to develop new, trusted mechanisms to support reforestation projects.”

Speaking on the collaborative nature of the Centre, Professor Ann Copestake, Head of the Department of Computer Science and Technology, said: “In the last few years, we’ve been expanding our emphasis on the use of computer science techniques and technologies to help address the climate emergency and the crisis in biodiversity. We are delighted to be bringing our research strengths together with the expertise in environmental science across the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge. We hope the work resulting from this interdisciplinary collaboration will lay the foundation for tangible solutions to some of the environmental challenges facing the world.”

A new Cambridge centre will bring together computer scientists and conservation scientists to build a trusted marketplace for carbon credits and support global reforestation efforts, the first initiative of its kind in the UK.

What's needed is a decentralised marketplace where purchasers of carbon credits can confidently and directly fund trusted nature-based projects. And that’s the gap the Centre is aiming to fill

Anil Madhavapeddy

kazuend via Unsplash

View of forest

Yes

Cambridge researchers lead policy briefing on Nature-based Solutions for the climate and biodiversity crises

Anonymous — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:38:29 +0000

Nature-based Solutions (NbS) – solutions to societal challenges that involve working with nature – are such a solution. Examples include tree planting to sequester atmospheric carbon and restoring coastal habitats to mitigate floods.

Now, a group of researchers led by Professor David Coomes and Rogelio Luque-Lora from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, have published a policy briefing outlining the underlying concepts of NbS as well a list of strategies and policy recommendations to take NbS to their full potential, in advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference which will be held in Glasgow later this year.

̽��ֱ��briefing has been produced in association with the COP26 Universities Network, a group of UK-based universities and research institutes, including the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and Cambridge Zero.

As explained by the authors, Nature-based Solutions can deliver both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation involves reducing the degree of climate change: planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide, for example. Adaptation is about reducing communities’ exposure and vulnerability to the negative effects of climate change, by providing flood protection, for example. And by enhancing biodiversity, NbS can also boost the resilience of ecosystems to changing climate conditions.

Nature-based Solutions often work by protecting existing ecosystems, which prevents further release of carbon into the atmosphere and safeguards the biological diversity attached to those ecosystems. They can also work by restoring habitats which have previously been degraded, improving the ability of these habitats to sequester carbon and host biodiversity. Both these strategies also have the potential to enhance the provision of ecosystem services, including water filtration and soil retention.

Other strategies include the sustainable management of working landscapes, such as agricultural land, and the creation of new habitats. ̽��ֱ��latter has also been referred to as ‘green engineering’ or ‘green infrastructure’, and can contribute to societal adaptation to climate change by cooling and cleaning the air in cities and providing physical and mental health benefits.

In the UK, NbS can support job creation and livelihoods, and can play a key role in ‘building back better’ after COVID-19 and can be more cost-effectively deployed than non-NbS approaches to mitigation and adaptation.

There is also scope for the UK use its presidency of COP26 to promote effective and fair NbS across the globe. In this context, the authors recommends that the UK promotes a broad range of NbS that go beyond the present emphasis on tree planting. In fact, while the authors acknowledge that commercial forestry plantations can be necessary to meet societal demand for timber and wood pulp, they caution that the promotion of afforestation with non-native species can have detrimental effects on biodiversity, for example when they replace species-rich grassland ecosystems. They can also lead to the release of carbon into the atmosphere, if carbon-rich habitats such as peatland are replaced by the shallower soils of plantations.

̽��ֱ��authors warn, too, that NbS can never be a substitute to the urgent and thorough decarbonisation of the economy. NbS can only contribute to meeting international climate targets if they act as a complement to the main task of transitioning away from fossil fuels. There is a risk that NbS could be used to justify ‘business as usual’, by conveying the illusion that emissions are being compensated for by deploying NbS.

NbS are most effective when they are strategically deployed to minimise trade-offs and deliver simultaneous wins. For example, restoring upland peat in the UK can help to protect communities from flooding and soil erosion while also storing carbon, providing recreational space and natural habitat for wildlife with negligible loss of agricultural potential on the national scale. In contrast, replacing highly productive agricultural land with natural habitats could make the UK more dependent on food imports.

Also, crucially, local communities must be involved in every stage of the planning and implementation processes. This is essential to ensure that local people do not overwhelmingly bear any costs associated with NbS, that they receive a just share of the benefits, and that they support the projects in the medium and long terms.

“I am excited by the opportunities that COP26 will provide to make the most of the potential of NbS to deliver climate change mitigation while benefitting biodiversity and livelihoods,” said Coomes.

Adapted from a story published on the UCCRI website.

As societies face the triple challenge of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, protecting remaining biodiversity and improving human wellbeing, there are calls to end siloed thinking and design solutions that address these problems simultaneously.

Rob Barnes under licence from AGEDI

Mangrove ready to be planted

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

‘Keep it local’ approach to protecting the rainforest can be more effective than government schemes

sc604 — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:00:00 +0000

Researchers from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, the ̽��ֱ�� of East Anglia (UEA) and the Peruvian Ministry of Environment assessed the effectiveness of different approaches to conservation in the Peruvian Amazon between 2006 and 2011. They found that while all were effective at protecting the rainforest compared with non-protected areas of land, the areas protected by local and indigenous communities were on average more effective than those protected by the government.

However, the effectiveness of the conservation strategies also depended on what non-protected areas they were compared to, and the land use restrictions in place in the non-protected land. Future assessments of the impacts of different conservation strategies should therefore pay closer attention to land use restrictions in place in non-protected lands. ̽��ֱ��results are reported in the journal Scientific Reports.

Although the Amazon rainforest and its unique biodiversity are rapidly disappearing, little is still known about which protection mechanisms make a difference and how different conservation strategies compare.

̽��ֱ��study looked at areas protected by the national government, indigenous communities or civil society and the private sector are, compared to non-protected areas and land destined for timber and mineral extraction. ̽��ֱ��researchers assessed each approach for how well it was able to curtail deforestation, defined as total forest cover loss, and forest degradation, defined as other human-induced disturbances, such as selective logging, logging tracks and fire.

̽��ֱ��researchers combined remote sensing data with environmental and socio-economic datasets to assess each approach, and controlled for other factors that are expected to affect deforestation and forest degradation.

“Our results that these diverse types of protected areas were effective at reducing deforestation and forest degradation compared to non-protected areas are very encouraging,” said lead author Dr Judith Schleicher, from Cambridge’s Department of Geography. ̽��ֱ��larger reduction in deforestation and forest degradation in areas led by indigenous communities and grassroots groups suggests that local ownership and support for protecting the Peruvian Amazon can be a particularly effective approach.

“Policy makers must focus on a more diverse set of mechanisms for protecting the rapidly disappearing tropical forests,” said Schleicher. “Our analysis shows that local stewardship of the forest can be very effective at curtailing forest degradation and conversion in the Peruvian Amazon. Local conservation initiatives deserve more political, financial and legal support than they currently receive.”

“Our analysis shows that there is no single way of protecting tropical forests, and multiple approaches are required to stem the relentless tide of forest conversion and degradation,” said co-author Professor Carlos Peres from UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences.

̽��ֱ��research was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council, the Cambridge Political Economy Society, Cambridge Philosophical Society, St John’s College, and the Department of Geography.

Reference:
Judith Schleicher et al. ‘Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon.’ Scientific Reports (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-10736-w

Conservation initiatives led by local and indigenous groups can be just as effective as schemes led by government, according to new research. In some cases in the Amazon rainforest, grassroots initiatives can be even more effective at protecting this vital ecosystem. This is particularly important due to widespread political resistance to hand over control over forests and other natural resources to local communities.

Policy makers must focus on a more diverse set of mechanisms for protecting the rapidly disappearing tropical forests.

Judith Schleicher

Anna & Michal

In Peruvian Amazon Rainforest

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Road planning 'trade off' could boost food production while helping protect tropical forests

fpjl2 — Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:04:57 +0000

Conservation scientists have used layers of data on biodiversity, climate, transport and crop yields to construct a colour-coded mapping system that shows where new road-building projects should go to be most beneficial for food production, at the same time as being least destructive to the environment.

̽��ֱ��hope is that this "trade-off" strategy might guide governments, investors and developers to focus on road expansions that make the most difference for current agricultural areas, rather than projects that threaten to open up significant natural habitats for conversion to farmland.

As a proof of concept, scientists applied their technique to a specific sub-region: the Greater Mekong in Southeast Asia - one of the most biologically important parts of the planet, and a place that has lost almost a third of its tropical forest since the 1970s.

They found a number of current road proposals in Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia have potential for massive habitat conversion with little benefit for populations and food security. They also found areas where new roads could increase food production and connectivity with limited environmental cost.

Researchers from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, UK, the Kunming Institute of Botany and the World Agroforestry Centre in China say their study, published today in PLOS Biology, is an attempt to explore a more "conciliatory approach" in the hope of starting greater dialogue between developers and conservation experts.

They call on organisations such as the newly established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as well as Asian Development Bank to use such analyses when considering investment in future road expansion projects in the Mekong region - an area undergoing rapid development.

"It is estimated that by 2050 we will build 25 million km of new road lanes, the majority of which will be in the developing world," says Andrew Balmford, Professor of Conservation Science at Cambridge.

"Conservationists can to appear to oppose nearly all new infrastructure, while developers and their financial backers are often fairly mute on the environmental impact of their proposals. This can lead to a breakdown in communication."

" ̽��ֱ��Mekong region is home to some of the world's most valuable tropical forests. It's also a region in which a lot of roads are going to be built, and blanket opposition by the conservation community is unlikely to stop this," says Prof Jianchu Xu from the Kunming Institute of Botany in China.

"Studies like ours help pinpoint the projects we should oppose most loudly, while transparently showing the reasons why and providing alternatives where environmental costs are lower and development benefits are greater.

"Conservationists need to be active voices in infrastructure development, and I think these approaches have the potential to change the tone of the conversation."

̽��ֱ��Greater Mekong encompasses Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar and the Yunnan Province of China. It is home to around 20,000 plant species, 2000 types of land vertebrates and 850 species of freshwater fish. Much of this biodiversity is found nowhere else on the planet.

̽��ֱ��saola, for example, is a mammal resembling a small antelope that was only discovered in 1992, and is so rare it is known as the "Asian unicorn". ̽��ֱ��region's vast forests also act as critical carbon 'sinks', absorbing greenhouse gases.

̽��ֱ��Greater Mekong is also home to over 320 million people, and habitat loss has been accelerating. Between 1973 and 2009, an estimated 31% of the region's natural forest disappeared. Alongside this there is widespread poverty; food insecurity and malnutrition remain major challenges.

̽��ֱ��researchers created the new framework for road planning in the Mekong by analysing various data sources: including crop yield gaps across the region, travel times between population hubs, range maps for birds and mammals, and biomass carbon stocks in soil and vegetation.

By combining this data into composite layers, the team were able to map them over the region and reduce the results to a simple green-to-purple colour scale comparing food production benefits to environmental costs.

In areas such as Myanmar's Ayeyarwady Delta, new roads could substantially boost food production through improved transport links for getting produce to market, lowering waste and increasing access to new technologies. This would come at a relatively limited environmental cost, as much of the area has been converted to agriculture, yet crop yields remain low.

However, researchers warn that planned projects in other areas with extensive forests, such as in northern Laos and western Yunnan in China, could devastate vital ecosystems with little gain for food production.

"If new roads are deployed strategically, and deliberately target already-cleared areas with poor transport connectivity, this could attract agricultural growth that might otherwise spread elsewhere," says Prof Xu.

For Balmford, this is perhaps the crux of the argument, and something he has long been vocal about: "By increasing the crop yield of current agricultural networks, there is hope that food needs can be met while containing the expansion of farming and so sparing natural habitats from destruction. ̽��ֱ��location of infrastructure, and roads in particular, will play a major role in this."

However, the researchers caution that the channeling of roads into less damaging, more rewarding areas will have to go hand-in-hand with strengthening protection for globally significant habitats such as the remaining forests of the Mekong.

Scientists hope a new approach to planning road infrastructure that could increase crop yield in the Greater Mekong region while limiting environmental destruction will open dialogues between developers and the conservation community.

Conservationists can to appear to oppose nearly all new infrastructure, while developers and their financial backers are often fairly mute on the environmental impact of their proposals. This can lead to a breakdown in communication

Andrew Balmford

Jianchu Xu & Biaoyun Huai

A highway cuts across the Yunnan Province of Southwest China, part of the Greater Mekong.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

‘Traditional authority’ linked to rates of deforestation in Africa

fpjl2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:43:49 +0000

̽��ֱ��first study to link precolonial African leadership and current levels of deforestation has shown a strong correlation between areas with historic leadership structures more susceptible to corruption and higher rates of forest loss today.

̽��ֱ��study suggests that a “legal pluralism” exists across large parts of Africa where many local leaders continue to hold sway over natural resources through precolonial “traditional authority”; old power often not recognised by the state.

By using satellite image data from 2000 to 2012 and analysing it in combination with historical anthropological data, researchers found a relationship between high deforestation and precolonial succession rules of ‘social standing’: village heads appointed through wealth or status rather than for example hereditary lineage or democratic election.

Those areas with ‘social standing’ leaderships in precolonial times have approximately 50% more deforestation than the average rate of forest loss for Africa over this period.

Leaders who draw on traditional authority are often vested with resource control rights by local communities, regardless of whether the state recognises these rights. ̽��ֱ��study’s authors say that those local leaders who can claim power through their own influence – or ‘social standing’ – are more likely to use natural resources to leverage short-term economic gains.

̽��ֱ��research team, from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Department of Land Economy and its Centre for Development Studies, cite cases of loggers providing gifts such as motorcycles and paying traditional leaders to secure ‘logging permits’, despite the leaders having no state authority to grant them.

They say the findings suggest that conservationists need to go beyond state law and engage with local leaders who, despite having no apparent authority, may have a vital influence over Africa’s shrinking forests and biodiversity. ̽��ֱ��study has been published in the Journal of Land Use Policy.

“This work highlights the importance of legal pluralism in relation to deforestation in Africa, and should encourage those who want to conserve Africa’s remaining forests to look below the surface of state law to where resource use decisions are actually made: at the local level by leaders who often have little or no state authority,” said Dr Shaun Larcom who conducted the study with Cambridge colleagues Dr Terry van Gevelt and Dr Aiora Zabala.

“While such a shift in focus undoubtedly increases the complexity of research and of the policy agenda, it may actually be necessary if we want to make meaningful inroads into deforestation in Africa and the rest of the developing world,” he said.

While most of Africa’s remaining forests are protected, owned and managed by the state, rapid deforestation continues, despite ongoing international efforts aimed at state capacity building and reducing official corruption.

Over the period from 2000 to 2012 Africa lost approximately 18 million hectares of its forests. However, when these losses are broken up into ethnic boundaries that existed prior to European colonisation, the rate of deforestation varies considerably in relation to the type of local governance structure formerly in place, says study co-author Dr Zabala.

“African countries are among the ones with fastest acceleration of deforestation worldwide. Complex governance legacies pose a major challenge for the implementation of policies to address forest loss,” Zabala said.

̽��ֱ��most common precolonial leadership structure was hereditary succession. Other structures used as base cases for the analysis were local leaders elected from above and those elected democratically.

But it was the analysis of leadership appointment through social standing that proved most distinctive, with 0.8 percentage points more deforestation compared to base cases. Compared to an average loss of 1.6 percentage points over the same period, this suggests that these regions have around 50% higher than average deforestation rates.

Social standing is “appointment by age, seniority, influence, wealth or social status”, says Dr van Gevelt. “In practice, this means that those with the most power can claim local leadership, and consequently secure further control over local natural resources,” he said. Ethnic groups where these practices occurred in precolonial times include the Kabre people of Benin and the Isoko people of Nigeria.

̽��ֱ��researchers suggest that there are likely to be more ownership disputes in these areas, where the legitimacy of local leaders is weaker and more ‘up for grabs’ than in an hereditary power structure, for example. Leaders from ‘social standing’ areas may grant logging access to forests to raise funds for what Larcom describes as “patrimonial largesse”: the need to give generously to the local community in order to retain social standing, and consequently leadership.

“Acknowledging the reality of legal pluralism – where both the state and non-state authorities, often with different sources of authority, compete in the same regulatory space – and the importance of non-state regulators, both as a force for good and harm in relation to deforestation in Africa, might be the missing link needed for halting large scale deforestation in Africa,” added Larcom.

“In addition to focusing on state corruption, those wishing to halt rapid deforestation also need to focus on non-state corruption.”

New analysis reveals a strong correlation between precolonial institutions in Africa and current levels of deforestation. Researchers suggest that many of these structures still operate at a local level, controlling and exploiting natural resources under the radar of the state, and that such legacies of governance pose a major challenge for implementing conservation policies.

Acknowledging the reality of legal pluralism [...] and the importance of non-state regulators, both as a force for good and harm in relation to deforestation in Africa, might be the missing link needed for halting large scale deforestation in Africa

Shaun Larcom

jbdodane

Rougier Gabon

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommerical