The Living Planet Report, coordinated by WWF and released in October 2024, shows a dramatic decline in monitored wildlife populations over the past 50 years. However, data from the report must be carefully analyzed as misinterpretation may lead to a “doom and gloom” picture of wildlife loss.

—

The Living Planet Index (LPI), a measure of the average changes in abundance of monitored wildlife populations, is the main metric produced from the WWF’ report’s 2024 Living Planet Report. The account of current population sizes is compared to those estimated at the year 1970, and relative change since then is reported as the LPI. 

The LPI is measured from close to 35,000 populations of vertebrate species.

What the Report Says

The report was updated with data for 3,000 new populations across 250 newly included species. Contrary to the 2022 report, LPI calculations in the latest study only include populations of native species.

The global 2024 LPI represents an average decrease of 73% in monitored populations compared to 1970 abundance. According to the report, this signifies that, on average, the size of monitored populations has decreased by 73% in the past 50 years (the 2024 report includes measurements up until 2020).

Regional and Habitat-Specific LPI

Findings of the report show that the LPI is different across geographic regions:

• North America: 39% decline
• Latin America and the Caribbean: 95% decline
• Europe and Central Asia: 35% decline
• Asia and the Pacific: 60% decline
• Africa: 76% decline

The LPI also varies depending on habitat type. The report presents monitored declines of 56% for marine populations, 69% for terrestrial populations, and most significantly 85% for freshwater populations.

Important Clarification on the LPI

The LPI is sometimes misquoted in news headlines, with claims of mass wildlife losses. While this trend of biodiversity loss is supported by other studies, the LPI does not actually represent biodiversity (species or populations) loss. 

Hannah Ritchie, a researcher for Our World in Data, makes the important distinction that the LPI “does not tell us anything about: the number of species lost, the number of populations or individuals that have been lost, the number or percentage of species or populations that are declining, or the number of extinctions.”  

When looked at in more detail, data from the Living Planet Report provides a less daunting picture for wildlife populations.

Issues With the LPI

The LPI only includes monitored species of vertebrates. But vertebrates make up only 5% of described animal species, and an even smaller portion of total life when plants and fungi are considered. This creates a large lack of true species representation.

Moreover, calculations of the LPI take into account things like relative population size (compared to other regions) and other inputs that lead to its final number. This creates a sensitivity to changes in already small populations. 

These issues have led to statements that the LPI is not reliable as a measure of population decline. 

An often more favored measure of biodiversity loss is the Red List Index. It shows global, regional, and taxonomic trends in extinction risk using data from the over 163,000 species assessed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, providing much more robust and representative information on biodiversity loss and subsequently declines in both species and populations.

Why the Report Is Still Important

When carefully considered, the Living Planet Report provides important information to researchers and decision-makers alike. For example, the 2024 update highlights diseases as a quickly emerging threat to monitored populations, another needed consideration for species conservation actions.

As the report focuses on vertebrate species, conservation groups dedicated to these species can find the LPI and its data useful to highlight areas or taxa that are suffering more significantly. The report also includes insightful case studies on many of the unique and threatened species included in its data. These case studies highlight some critically declining species, and also some species that have experienced increases in population size due to conservation actions. 

Like all scientific publications, the Living Planet Report has its strengths and weaknesses, while contributing important data to conservation when analyzed properly.

You might also like: 7 Solutions to Biodiversity Loss

The post The 2024 Living Planet Report: What Does it Show and Is it Accurate? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Part of the European Union’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the Nature Restoration Law is the latest bold and ambitious piece of environmental legislation passed by the bloc. Its aim is to reverse the loss of natural ecosystems. The law is the first of its kind, setting bloc-wide legally binding restoration targets that all member states must aim to meet.

—

The ongoing biodiversity crisis was again confirmed by the 2024 Living Planet Report. Global average population sizes of monitored vertebrate species have declined by 73% since 1970 (freshwater: -85%, terrestrial: -69%, marine: -56%). Habitat loss was found to be the number one driver of population declines. In the European Union (EU), 81% of habitats and 63% of protected species are considered to have a “poor” conservation status. 

The loss of species and habitats is devastating and critical actions are needed to reverse the loss of biodiversity on Earth. Through their Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the EU aims to do just that.

EU Regulation 2024/1991, better known as the Nature Restoration Law, was passed by the European Council in June 2024 and came into force two months later. This regulation will require all EU member states to draft and begin implementing national restoration plans by July 2026. This gives member states two years to plan, coordinate, and begin restoration efforts. 

Goals and Targets

The EU aims to restore 30% of degraded freshwater, terrestrial, and coastal habitats by 2030. This goal is increased to restoring 60% by 2040 and 90% by 2050. The law focuses specifically on habitats listed for protection under Annex I of the Habitats Directive. In their national restoration plans, each member state must also aim to meet these percentage targets within their country’s borders. Some habitat types, namely peatlands, have separate targets from the overall goal and are considered high-priority. 

Additional restoration targets include:

• Rewetting 25% of degraded peatlands by 2030;
• Restoring 25,000 kilometers (15,534 miles) of “free-flowing” rivers and floodplains through the removal of obsolete artificial barriers (dams, weirs, etc.);
• Ensuring no net loss of urban green spaces or tree coverage, and aim to increase these areas within cities after 2030;
• As a Union, plant at least 3 billion additional trees by 2030;
• Reverse the decline of pollinator populations.

Concerns From Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Sectors

Opposition was presented to the law when first proposed in 2022 and throughout the negotiation process in 2023 and 2024. The opposition was primarily from European farmers with members of the forestry and fisheries sectors also voicing their concerns. The farmer strikes that occurred across Europe in 2023 and early 2024 were partially in opposition to the strict environmental regulations being placed on the agricultural sector, including in the Nature Restoration Law. Protests led by member states in the Eastern bloc were strongly against the objective of peatland rewetting as they voiced that it would take away crop land. 

The forestry and fisheries sectors shared similar concerns that increased protections on land and new restoration efforts would limit economic output possible from these activities. 

You might also like: Europe’s Agricultural Future May Lie in Both Innovative and Ancient Farming Practices

Benefits For Biodiversity and the Climate

Restoring natural ecosystems was identified as a key priority in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Restoring degraded habitats, like peatlands and forests, contributes greatly to natural carbon sequestration. 

As the number one driver of biodiversity loss, reversing the loss of habitats will also allow for populations of wildlife and marine life to survive and likely recover. Human society as well will benefit from the restoration of natural areas. Habitats like mangroves and floodplains are incredibly effective at reducing damage from natural hazards like storms and flooding. The tandem of suitable habitat and soil biodiversity also provides services like nutrient cycling to agricultural lands that could actually benefit agriculture, rather than harm it.

Outlook

The EU’s Nature Restoration Law is hailed by many as one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation to date. It was designed to work in tandem with other EU legislation like the Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Climate Law, Water Framework Directive, and others. It will play a role in helping the EU meet its commitments to the Global Biodiversity Framework (specifically Target 2) as a signee of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

The detailed requirements for national restoration plans will hopefully promote effective planning and implementation of the law. Member states must include implementation timelines, funding sources and needs, as well as the anticipated benefits of all planned projects completed under the law. Progress reports are also required every six years after implementation of plans begins in 2026. 

At least “on paper,” the EU has set an example of powerful environmental action for the rest of the world to follow and continues to add on to its ambitious legislative array under the European Green Deal. Only time will tell if the bloc will be able to deliver on its commitments.

The post Explainer: All You Need to Know About the EU Nature Restoration Law appeared first on Earth.Org.

Since 1964, the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species has become the leading source for biodiversity information globally, providing a wealth of data on species conservation status, threats and decline, and needed action. In 2021, the IUCN introduced a new initiative – the Green Status of Species – to consider the impact of conservation actions and encourage efforts to reach beyond preventing extinction for more ambitious species recovery goals. 

—

The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species is much more than just a list. It is a powerful tool that provides details of extinction risk, ecology, distribution, threats, and ongoing and needed conservation actions for hundreds of thousands of animal, plant, and fungi species globally. 

As of the latest update, over 163,000 species have been assessed. Of these, over 45,300 (27.8%) are listed as Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered and thus considered threatened with extinction – including 41% of all amphibians, 37% of sharks and rays, 36% of reef building corals, 34% of conifers, 26% of mammals and 12% of birds.

You might also like: Sixth Mass Extinction of Wildlife Accelerating: Study

The Red List Index is used as an indicator in several international conservation initiatives, including the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Biodiversity Framework, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 15: Life on Land), the Convention on Migratory Species, and several other biodiversity-focused agreements. Assessments follow a rigorous scientific standard to ensure that the best and most up-to-date information is being used to inform future conservation action. Many nations also refer to the Red List when planning conservation actions and in the creation of National Red Lists.

The Green Status of Species

In 2021, the IUCN launched the Green Status of Species, a new part of Red List assessments that helps tell “a species’ full conservation story.” 

First, the Green Status of Species measures the extent of species recovery by considering three key aspects: 

• Is the species present throughout its entire historical range? 
• Is it viable (not threatened with extinction)? 
• Is it performing its ecological role in the ecosystem?

In addition to quantifying species recovery, the Green Status of Species also seeks to recognize the success of past conservation actions, highlight the importance of continuing action, and help set ambitious short and long-term conservation goals. These are measured through the Conservation Impact Metrics: 

• Conservation Legacy: What is the status of a species currently compared to an alternative scenario where no previous conservation actions (protected areas, legislative protections, etc.) has taken place.
• Conservation Gain: How can the recovery status of the species improve in the next ten years considering all currently planned and funded conservation to be implemented.
• Conservation Dependence: How would the recovery status of a species change in the next ten years if all currently implemented conservation was ceased. 
• Recovery Potential: Considering all feasible conservation actions that could be implemented in the next 100 years in an ideal scenario, what could the recovery status of a species be a century from now.

The Conservation Impact Metrics will help to better inform future conservation actions by shedding light on which past actions have contributed most to species recovery. As biodiversity contributes greatly to maintaining the ecosystem services – nature’s contributions to people – that billions rely upon for clean water, food, and natural hazard protection, the IUCN hopes to encourage conservationists to think beyond preventing extinction and move towards ensuring species populations reach abundant and ecologically functional sizes.

You might also like: What Are the Consequences of Biodiversity Loss? 

The post Green Status of Species: Pushing Conservation Ambitions Beyond Preventing Extinction appeared first on Earth.Org.

With deforestation still presenting global issues for climate change and biodiversity loss, the EU Deforestation Regulation aims to strengthen forest protection. With its full enforcement set to begin on December 30, 2024, the regulation includes strict and comprehensive requirements for a range of high-impact commodities. However, incomplete product coverage and increased compliance demands could have unintended impacts on forest conservation.

—

Regulation 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and Council of the European Union (EU) came into force on June 30, 2023, with a transitionary period of 18 months. This means that companies have until December 30, 2024 to ensure their products and supply chains comply with the requirements of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). All products set for placement in the EU market or being exported from the EU must comply with all EUDR requirements.

The EUDR will only apply to a limited number of commodities and their derivatives that are labeled as “high risk” for deforestation. These include cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soya, and wood. The main requirement of the EUDR is that commodities subject to its implementation are “deforestation-free.” Under the definition of the EUDR, deforestation specifically refers to the conversion of forest to agricultural land. Defined by item 13 in Article 6 of the regulation deforestation-free means: 

“(a) that the relevant products contain, have been fed with or have been made using, relevant commodities that were produced on land that has not been subject to deforestation after 31 December, 2020; and

(b) in the case of relevant products that contain or have been made using wood, that the wood has been harvested from the forest without inducing forest degradation after 31 December, 2020.” 

Further requirements of the EUDR stipulate that production of covered commodities must also comply with local law. Production must meet local requirements of land use rights, environmental protection, forest-specific policy, labor laws, and the Principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent as laid out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A statement of due diligence must also be provided, describing information and results of supply chain assessments carried out for a product. These requirements will apply to all products containing, or produced with, covered commodities. 

The responsibility to comply with the EUDR regulations falls onto the company that is placing a product in the EU market or is responsible for exporting a product from the EU, respectively. 

You might also like: 13 Major Companies Responsible for Deforestation

Strong Goals for Forest Conservation

The six commodities covered by the EUDR accounted for over 50% of total deforestation between 2001-2015, according to the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) 2024 Global Forest Review. Of the six commodities, cattle accounted for a significantly larger portion of deforestation than the others (~36% of total deforestation). These impacts are regionally variable, with deforestation linked to cattle and soya occurring almost entirely in South America and particularly in Brazil. Meanwhile, palm oil-linked deforestation was heavily focused in Southeast Asia’s Indonesia and Malaysia, which produce over 80% of the world’s palm oil. 

Limiting regulations to these six high-impact commodities was intended to allow regulators to concentrate efforts and resources where stricter protections are needed, while having the largest impact on global deforestation as possible.

A Deforestation report published in 2021 estimated that 30% of global deforestation occurred legally between 2013-2019. In countries with weaker environmental protection laws, larger amounts of deforestation may be considered “legal” under law but still have significant impacts on forest coverage. To combat this trend, the EUDR applies to both legal and illegal deforestation. This is a strengthening of market requirements from the EU’s Timber Regulation, which implemented similar regulations but only restricted products tied to illegal deforestation. 

You might also like: How Does Deforestation Affect the Environment?

Limits and Drawbacks

• “Leaky” Land Usage in Oil Crops

The EUDR only regulates one oil crop, palm oil and its numerous derivatives. Palm oil supplies 40% of the world’s vegetable oil and was also responsible for 25-30% of global deforestation between 2000-2016. While palm oil is the third-largest contributor to deforestation globally behind cattle and soya, only regulating deforestation from palm oil and not other oil crops may unintentionally lead to higher deforestation rates. 

Palm oil is preferred over other oil crops like sunflower, rapeseed (canola), and coconut because it produces yields 8-12 times higher than other vegetable oils. As the EUDR has extensive transparency and sustainability requirements, companies may be more willing to switch production towards an unregulated oil crop that has less requirements associated with enduring and documenting the sustainability of a product, leading to a “leak” in commodity-driven deforestation.

This switch could have negative impacts on conservation and on regional economies. If companies switch towards other oil crops, it could potentially lead to an increase in deforestation as a significantly greater amount of land would be needed to match the same yields achieved with palm oil. 

Different oil crops have different growing requirements. For example, rapeseed is more adapted to Mediterranean and temperate regions compared to palm oil, which is limited to the tropics. A potential switch to other oil crops as a result of incomplete commodity coverage may result in regional economies like Indo-Malaysia being heavily weakened from decreased usage from EUDR regulated palm oil. 

This potential trend is less likely to occur for the other five covered commodities as they are unique in their products; cattle (beef and dairy), soya (vegetarian meat alternatives), cocoa (chocolate), as well as coffee and wood.

• Impacts on Smallholders

Agricultural smallholders (those owning less than 10 hectares) only own 25% of agricultural land and produce roughly 30% of crops globally. In developing countries, smallholders are often indigenous and local peoples. Many indigenous communities struggle with gaining legal land ownership rights due to lack of resources. This and other challenges in proving land ownership may create issues for smallholders in complying with EUDR regulations. 

While the companies in charge of importing and exporting products through the EU market are ultimately responsible for ensuring sustainable production, the documentation process is often spread to primary and secondary producers by larger corporations. This means that, in order to meet the documentation standards and legal production requirements of the EUDR, smallholders will need significant support and more capacity. 

Some policy analysts are concerned that the increased burden on smallholders may lead to an increased commercialization of commodity agriculture. This would have a significant impact on available opportunities of sustainable and viable income for indigenous communities without increased support.

You might also like: The Silent Cry of the Forest: How Deforestation Impacts Indigenous Communities

Outlook

The EU Deforestation Regulation is set to enter full enforcement at the end of 2024. Covering six of the agricultural commodities with the highest risk of deforestation, the EUDR has the potential to create significant improvements in forest conservation. The requirement of products and their derivatives to be deforestation-free and that production must comply with relevant local legislation creates a strong framework for forest protection in the EU, one of the globe’s biggest economic markets. 

The new comprehensive regulation will likely require increased support for smallholders and indigenous communities to be able to comply and maintain important sources of income. While focused on the most impactful commodities, incomplete application to all agricultural goods may lead to a ‘leak’ in deforestation to other oil crops besides palm oil not covered by the EUDR. 

Through proper and thorough implementation, the EUDR has the potential to set the standard for sustainable commodity production and to raise the standards of producing country legislation along with it.

Featured image: Marcelo Perez del Carpio/Climate Visuals Countdown.

The post Explainer: All You Need to Know About the EU Deforestation Regulation  appeared first on Earth.Org.

For 40 years, the chevron deference doctrine has granted federal agencies the power to provide expert opinion on how bills in the US should be interpreted. The Supreme Court decision on Friday to overturn this ruling could have disastrous consequences for federal ability to provide expert perspective on and enforce environmental protections.

—

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

The 1984 US court case was over the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of the definition for “stationary source” enacted through the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. NRDC argued that the interpretation was too broad and allowed for unpermitted alterations within industrial plants. The case was taken up by the US Supreme Court which ruled in favor of the EPA. While this ruling was at the time in favor of less strict regulations, it set an important precedent, called the “chevron deference” for future environmental policy cases. The court ruled that if the intention of Congress is clear within a bill, it must be followed by both courts and federal agencies. However, if the bill is deemed to have multiple possible interpretations, courts must defer judgment to the expert opinion of the agency responsible for enforcement of the bill, as long as the interpretation is deemed reasonable.

The Cases Challenging the Doctrine

In early 2024, in some of its first hearings of the new year, the Supreme Court heard arguments from two related cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, both regarding the requirement of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for fishing vessels to pay for the fees of on-board monitoring personnel. These monitoring personnel are required on commercial fishing boats to ensure that catch limits and other laws protecting fish stocks and marine resources are followed. This rule by the NMFS was part of their enforcement of the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In both cases, the plaintiff has asked the Supreme Court through appeal processes to reduce or eliminate the chevron doctrine as they view it as an overreach of power by federal agencies.

What Does This Mean for Environmental Policy?

The overturning of the chevron doctrine now means that federal court judges are able to provide their own interpretation of laws, that will then become the enforced definitions and decisions of federal acts. Environmental NGOs fear that this will allow for biased, non-expert rulings to weaken and prevent critical application of public policy, especially related to environmental protection. This could mean that foundational legislation like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act could all be at risk of significant weakening under court systems and legislative sessions that favor industrial activity, leaving no room or ability for experts within federal agencies like the EPA to create and enforce rules they deem necessary to protect public health and natural resources.

You might also like: The Most Important Climate Litigation Cases of 2024 and Why They Matter

The post US Supreme Court Overturns Critically Important Ruling for Environmental Protection Enforcement appeared first on Earth.Org.

The 4th Session of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-4) to develop an international instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, concluded on April 29, 2024. While some work was accomplished, the session’s talks ignored calls to reduce plastic production, a move that numerous NGOs call a huge misstep.

—

Developments from INC-4

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted Resolution 5/14, agreeing to adopt a legally binding global plastics treaty by the end of 2024. Since then, four Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) sessions have been held, with the most recent – INC-4 in Ottawa, Canada – ending on April 29, 2024. 

INC-4 saw the completion of some work, including developing a list of products and chemicals of concern, and standard design requirements to improve recycling capabilities. However, despite calls by several nations, talks did not address the need to reduce production of primary plastic polymers (new plastics). This was likely due to the influence of nearly 200 fossil fuel lobbyists present at the talks, a 37% increase from INC-3. 

“The INC has once again failed to ask the most fundamental question to the success of the future treaty: how do we tackle the unsustainable production of plastics?” said Jacob Kean-Hammerson, ocean campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency.

“If we continue to ignore the calls of progressive countries and allow blocker countries to hold the talks hostage, we will fail to reach our shared ambition of ending plastic pollution.”

Plastic Crisis

400 million tonnes of new plastic are produced annually. More than 8 million tonnes end up in the oceans each year, resulting in an estimated 100,000 deaths of marine life. 

Additionally, plastics are impacting human health, through ingestion of microplastic-contaminated water and food, leading to endocrine disruption, insulin resistance, and in some cases even cancer. A 2023 study revealed that a staggering 171 trillion plastic particles – equivalent to about 2.3 million tonnes – were floating in the ocean by 2019

Learn More: 8 Shocking Plastic Pollution Statistics to Know About

Despite increasing efforts globally, only 9% of plastics are recycled. This is due to complexities in recycling plastic products created from numerous types of polymers and lack of proper infrastructure. Almost all new plastic is manufactured through the burning of fossil fuels, contributing to 3.4% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, almost as much as the entire aviation industry’s emissions. Plastic production is projected to more than double by 2050, increasing its GHG emissions and contributing even more to global climate change. 

What’s Next for the Global Plastic Treaty Talks?

On the final day of INC-4, 28 nations – including Australia, Austria, Nigeria, and the Philippines – launched the Bridge to Busan: Declaration on Primary Plastic Polymers, a declaration reaffirming that a global treaty truly focused on plastic pollution must address production. Intersessional work is planned before INC-5 in Busan, Korea in November. However, the text of the treaty draft cannot be edited, leaving many doubting that negotiations will end with a signable treaty by the end of the year following the discouraging outcome of INC-4.

“The world is burning, and member states are wasting time and opportunity. We saw some progress… However, compromises were made on the outcome which disregarded plastic production cuts, further distancing us from reaching a treaty that science requires, and justice demands,” said Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Plastics Campaign Lead at Greenpeace USA.

You might also like: 6 Policies and Innovations Tackling Plastic Pollution

Another aspect that is seemingly missing from talks on a global plastics treaty is the discussion on holding polluting companies accountable for existing waste. Studies of branded plastic pollution have shown that only 60 companies are responsible for over half of the world’s plastic pollution. In addition to requiring companies to cut down on plastic production, it may be just as important to require polluting companies to finance clean-up operations of the waste they created.

Featured image: Ministry of Environment – Rwanda/Flickr

The post INC-4 Provides Limited Progress Towards a Global Plastics Treaty appeared first on Earth.Org.

The Scimitar-horned Oryx (Oryx dammah) was once found throughout the northern and southern ranges of the Sahara Desert. But decades of hunting and other practices have decimated populations, until the the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified the species as ‘extinct in the wild’ in 2000. Eight years following the first reintroductions of the species in a protected range in Chad, the species has been downlisted to ‘Endangered’ in the most recent IUCN Red List update. 

—

A Desert Antelope

The Scimitar-horned Oryx is one of the species of desert antelope that once roamed the Sahara Desert in Africa, along with Dama Gazelle (Nanger dama) and the Addax (Addax nasomaculatus). The Oryx is a well-adapted desert species, able to survive on little water and withstand internal body temperatures as high as 46C (115F). A key phenotypic trait of the Oryx is their thin, pointed horns that curve backwards and can grow to several feet in length. Naturally found in the arid landscape of the Sahara, this species eats grasses and the few fruits of flowering plants found in the desert, which are also their main source of water. 

In 2000, the species was listed as “Extinct in the Wild” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a consequence of several anthropogenic threats. The disappearance of the species across its native range can be heavily attributed to overhunting for meat and their horns during a time of unrest within Chad in the 1970s-1980s, as well as overgrazing of their food sources by growing livestock herds. The last wild individuals were seen in the 1980s, though the species’ conservation status was only updated 20 years later. 

You may also like: 5 Biggest Environmental Issues In Africa In 2024

Global Collaboration Drives Species Recovery

The recovery story of the Oryx is one that highlights how powerful global collaboration efforts can successfully aid conservation of species. 

Since the 1960s, the Oryx has been under human care in zoos and private herds, creating a suitable genetically variable population to begin a captive breeding program. In 2009, an idea was created to reintroduce the Oryx back into a region of its historical range. Three years later, during a stakeholder meeting in Chad, Abu Dhabi’s Environmental Agency (EAD), the government of Chad, and Sahara Conservation reached an agreement to work towards reintroduction. 

Sahara Conservation, an NGO dedicated to mammal conservation in Africa, worked closely with the Chadian government to improve management of the game reserve and increase protections and enforcements of wildlife laws in the country. Funding and habitat research was supported by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) to determine a region within the Oryx’s historical range that offered the best chances of success based on availability of suitable habitat. 

The breeding program began in 2013. To establish the initial population in Abu-Dhabi that would be the basis for the reintroduction herd, the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland conducted genetic testing to ensure genetic diversity between individuals. This was important to prevent a possible future genetic “bottleneck” of the species that could harm its chances of establishing a wild population.

Three years later, 21 Oryx were transported from the breeding population in Abu-Dhabi to the game reserve in Chad to be reintroduced in their native range, marking an incredibly important step in the species’ recovery. Since then, 285 Oryx have been released into the wild and now a wild population of over 600 individuals exists in the arid grasslands of Chad. The Smithsonian National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute led post-release tracking and monitoring. At their SCBI facility in Front Royal, Virginia they tested different tracking methods on a captive population to ensure that collars remained functional and did not interfere with daily actions of individuals. 

More on the Topic: Breeding Programmes For Endangered Species: Do They Really Help?

The collaboration achieved to help the Scimitar-horned Oryx is a glowing example of the global power of the conservation community. A connection of multiple governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from across the globe came together to save this species. 

The downlisting reflects a “genuine” change in conservation status that represents a real increase in population over time. The Scimitar-horned Oryx is one of the first ever species classified as extinct in the wild to be downlisted on the IUCN Red List, an incredible accomplishment for all those involved in the reintroduction. 

As of the most recent update to the Red List in December 2023, there are 84 species that are classified as “extinct in the wild,” including the Guam kingfisher and the Polynesian tree snail. 

Prioritizing global cooperation is key to protect and reestablish threatened and disappearing species. As this success story shows, sometimes unexpected partnerships are the ones that can create the most positive change and leave a lasting impact for conservation.

You might also like: 10 of the World’s Most Endangered Animals in 2024

The post Scimitar-horned Oryx: A Story of Global Conservation Success appeared first on Earth.Org.

Palm oil is the most used edible oil source in the world, found in around 50% of everyday products. Highly complex supply chains and lack of transparency foster illegal and unsustainable practices of clear-cutting forests that continue to contribute to deforestation in one of the planet’s most biodiverse ecosystems. How can palm oil consumption be made more sustainable and what are some tips for conscious consumers to lessen their environmental impact through buying power?

—

What Is Palm Oil?

Palm oil is a globally used edible oil with unique properties that makes it highly versatile. It is partially solid at room temperature, its high melting point makes it a great frying oil, it is odorless and colorless as well as resistant to oxidation, acting as a great preservative for foods to extend shelf life. Palm oil is found in everything from processed foods like peanut butter and pastry products to hygiene products like lipstick and shampoos. Originally native to West Africa, oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) is now mainly grown in Indonesia and Malaysia, which produce over 85% of the world’s crude palm oil supply. 

Palm Oil and Deforestation

The traditional and still most commonly used method of growing oil palm trees is to clear cut tropical forests to make way for plantations and processing mills. This multi-level impactful practice destroys habitat, increases human-wildlife conflicts, and contributes to human-driven climate change.

Habitat Destruction

Palm oil has been the main driver of deforestation in Southeast Asia for decades. Since the 1960s, the island of Borneo has lost roughly 60% of its forests. 

Deforestation from the expanding palm oil industry peaked between 2000-2016 when it accounted for 25-30% of annual global deforestation. Rates of deforestation have been slowly but steadily decreasing in the past several years. However, a 2023 article on the issue has highlighted that related deforestation in Indonesia has begun climbing again after a decade of decrease. 

Forest clearing threatens numerous species threatened with extinction. Including all three species of orangutans, Sumatran Rhinos, Sumatran Tigers, and countless others.

Human-Wildlife Conflicts

As forests are cleared, animals lose habitat and their sources of food. This often leads to animals needing to cross palm oil plantations to reach other patches of forest. As the oil palm fruits are edible, orangutans, elephants, and other fruit eating mammals will often be injured or killed by plantation workers to protect the crop. 

Human-Driven Climate Change

Palm oil related deforestation contributes on average 2-4% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. A large issue with forest clearing for palm oil is that it is mainly done so on peatlands, a type of wetland habitat that is extremely efficient at storing carbon. It is estimated that peatlands store twice as much carbon in the forests globally. 

To grow on peat, they must be logged and drained, releasing an estimated 438 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. This is equivalent to the same amount of CO2 released annually by vehicle traffic in all of the European Union (EU).

Continued Deforestation and Illegal Clearing

Unfortunately, the complexity of the palm oil market and lack of oversight and enforcement makes achieving sustainability a difficult challenge. While corporations like Nestle, PepsiCo, Unilever and others that combine to own hundreds of brands of everyday products all have set Commitments to No Deforestation, No Peat and No Exploitation (NDPE), many of them are failing to meet these commitments and are still sourcing palm oil from illegal operations. 

More on the topic: Palm Oil Deforestation: Origins, Environmental Degradation and Solutions

Complexity of the Palm Oil Market

Palm oil is not only widely used but also very hidden in products. There are over 200 names for palm oil and its derivatives that are used in ingredients lists on packaging.

The wide presence of palm oil in products globally is only the tip of the iceberg of how complex the palm oil industry is. In Indonesia alone, there are over 1,500 registered palm oil firms. This includes large production companies that own numerous plantations, processing mills, and distribution centers, as well as small stakeholders. Corporations that own numerous brands of products and distribute across the globe often have very complex supply chains for palm oil. For example, Unilever, a corporation that owns brands like Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Dove hygiene, Lipton tea, and numerous others, lists over 1,600 individual palm oil plantations and close to 200 oil refinery plants in their supply chain reports. With a highly complex system of companies for cultivation, refining, distribution, and product creation, the palm oil market is incredibly intertwined.

Making Palm Oil Sustainable

In an attempt to bring transparency and accountability to the palm oil industry, efforts have been made to trace and certify palm oil as sustainable. In 2004, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was created with the goal of making the palm oil industry more sustainable. As the global leader in palm oil sustainability work, the RSPO uses a detailed certification process to ensure companies are using sustainably sourced palm oil across their entire supply chain, from growing to distribution. 

The proportion of the palm oil industry certified as sustainable has remained stagnant at around 20% for the past several years, bringing pushback against the idea of Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO). Weaknesses in the RSPO certification scheme have been found as principal violations exist in supply chains that are certified by the RSPO. Critics of the system also state the RSPO is slow to punish members for violations and that the review process is not detailed enough. 

Efforts to make sense of the complexity of the palm oil market should be better supported. Now that the CSPO standards are becoming more rigorous, sustainable practices and accountability will be better promoted.

More on the topic: ​​Should We Avoid Palm Oil? 

A Fair and Just Market

Small stakeholders (owning less than 100 hectares) make up 40-50% of the palm oil industry. These small stakeholders are often outcompeted when trying to reach international markets and can be negatively affected by policies meant to increase sustainability. This is often because they lack the financial and support resources to achieve CSPO certification. 

For example, the EU’s new Deforestation Regulation may result in increased costs and operational burden for small stakeholders to be able to comply with EU requirements. This could lead to larger producers taking a larger size of the market and harming the livelihoods of often indigenous groups relying on small stakeholder palm oil cultivation for their families. The RSPO has recently brought more support to small stakeholders through its Smallholder Support Fund to mitigate these impacts as much as possible. 

Sustainable Purchasing and Consumption

Even though current practices are highly unsustainable, palm oil is likely here to stay. Its yield per tonne is 8-12 times higher than that of other edible oils like sunflower, canola, or coconut oil. This means that producing the same amount of oil would require 8 to 12 times more land, drastically increasing habitat conversion and loss of the planet’s best climate mitigation tool – forests. There are tools and tips for conscious consumers to lessen their environmental impact when it comes to palm oil.

You might also like: Certified Sustainable Palm Oil and Alternatives for the Future

Tip #1: Buy all natural products

Sweet and processed products like chocolate and peanut butter often have palm oil in them to keep texture and as a preservative. However, a lot of these items do not need palm oil in them. Look for darker chocolate varieties that more often do not use palm oil. All-natural peanut butter can be more expensive, but if you have the ability to, purchase peanut butter made of 100% peanuts. A lot of other types of food products often have options that are more natural and do not have the need to use palm oil.

Tip #2: Check the sustainability of products.

The Palm Oil Scan app created by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) and Cheyenne Mountain Zoo allows you to search for products or simply scan the barcode of an item to check if it is RSPO certified and what its sustainability rating is. Other tools like the WWF Palm Oil Buyers Scorecard can be used as well.

Look for logos of certification schemes to know that the product is using Certified Sustainable palm oil. You can also research the company’s sustainability record yourself, a quick Google search can usually show numerous stories on a company’s sustainability commitments and any recent violations, if any.

The Good News

Consumer pressure surrounding palm oil, like in many other environmentally harmful industries, is driving companies to adopt more sustainable practices like cutting ties with deforestation associated producers. Mindful consumption and increased attention to the devastation unsustainable palm oil production creates can create a continued movement towards sustainability and the protection of wildlife, people, and the climate. 

You might also like: How Does Cocoa Farming Cause Deforestation?

The post The Challenges of Sustainable Palm Oil Production and Consumption appeared first on Earth.Org.

In November 2023, Heirloom Carbon Technologies, a US-based climate company, unveiled its direct air capture facility in Tracy, California. The plant will remove up to 1,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere annually. While early in operation, the facility and its technology represent exciting advancements in the field of carbon capture, a critical part to preventing passing the 1.5C global warming threshold. 

—

Carbon Capture and Storage

Direct air capture (DAC) is a rapidly developing field and is one of three main methods for carbon capture, usage, and storage (CCS or CCUS). The two more established CCS methods are pre-combustion and post-combustion capture. 

Pre-combustion capture separates carbon dioxide from a refined gas mixture prior to its combustion and use for energy production. Pre-combustion capture is more expensive than post-combustion capture and is harder to retrofit existing plants, however, it produces a more concentrated stream of CO2 and prevents carbon dioxide combustion pollutants from being released. Post-combustion carbon capture involves capturing CO2 from flue gas, also called “Stack” or exhaust gas, before it exits a plant and is released to the atmosphere. Post-combustion capture technology is much easier to retrofit to existing plants, though the recovery of CO2 is much more inefficient and requires higher energy inputs to achieve storage. 

You might also like: Explainer: What Is Carbon Capture and Sequestration?

Direct Air Capture

Direct air capture (DAC) removes CO2 from the atmosphere, compared to pre- and post-combustion, which prevents its release, and makes it available for storage or reuse. DAC often uses chemically absorbent materials for CO2. However, these often have significantly high costs, anywhere from $7,000 to $100,000 per metric tonne, according to an operational report from Heirloom. 

Heirloom’s California plant uses a natural process that uses limestone, calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and recurring cycles of heating and carbonation to achieve cost effective atmospheric carbon dioxide capture, resulting in significantly lower costs for absorbent material. Limestone can be purchased for as low as $10 per tonne.

The flowchart above shows how calcium carbonate in limestone can be reused in a naturally occurring cyclical pattern, reducing the need for new material, and greatly reducing waste from the process. 

Heirloom’s new process has accelerated carbonization of Ca(OH)₂ from the literature benchmark of two weeks down to three days. Heirloom’s facility also uses modularity, or separated units of CO2 collection stacks, allowing for extraction to continue even if a unit experiences a disruption or difficulty. 

Heirloom has partnered with another climate startup, CarbonCure Technologies, to store the CO2 extracted in its facility in long-term infrastructure materials like concrete. The new facility is also carbon negative, as the facility itself and the kiln used in heating are running off of 100% renewable energy. 

The current average cost for carbon capture credits is between US$600-$1,000 per tonne. Heirloom is aiming for their carbon credits to cost only $100 by 2035, supported by recent investments into direct air capture from subsidies and tax credits through the US government.

You might also like: 3 Carbon Capture Technologies We Must Scale Up to Meet Net Zero

The Future of Direct Air Capture

Following investments that came as part of the 2023 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the US Department of Energy announced funding for two DAC facilities capable of removing 1 million tonnes of CO2 annually. This removal capacity would be 1,000 times higher than Heirloom’s California facility and represents the removal capacity that will be needed at several more facilities across the globe by mid-century to meet current climate goals. 

While investment into DAC is important to achieve project scaling and substantial increases in extraction capacity worldwide, direct air capture and other carbon capture technologies alone will not deliver the net zero carbon future we need. Global decarbonization and drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions is still the main way to reach a more sustainable system. DAC alone would not be able to compensate for the rising amount of greenhouse gas emissions. 

There are also concerns with some of the funding and storage aspects of DAC. Without strong policies to regulate the use of carbon removal credits, some conservationists fear that rather than lower their emissions, emitting companies will just buy removal credits to “offset” their emissions, which achieves little to no progress towards translational shifts of net zero operations. 

There are also fears over the long-term geologic impacts of injecting extracted CO2 into geologic reserves underground for sequestration. With more development DAC, however, can be a highly impactful assisting technology that could turn back the greenhouse gas “timetable,” and reduce global atmospheric CO₂ levels, once net zero has been reached. Advancements in direct air capture represent how ingenuity and dedication above all, are the strongest tools we have in the fight against climate change and its impacts.

You might also like: Is Carbon Offset a Form of Greenwashing?

The post A Look at America’s First Direct Air Capture Facility appeared first on Earth.Org.