Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Brazilian State Law Overturns Soy Moratorium That Helped Curb Amazon Deforestation

News Feed
Friday, November 1, 2024

AGUA CLARA, Brazil (AP) — A historic agreement that's helped curb deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon for nearly two decades suffered a major blow after Mato Grosso, the country´s largest soybean-producing state, passed a law ending incentives for participating processing and trade companies.The law passed last week was designed to void the Soy Moratorium — a 2006 deal in reaction to a Greenpeace investigation that linked soy produced in illegally deforested areas to U.S. commodities giants Cargill, Bunge and ADM. Under pressure, the companies agreed at the time not to buy soy produced in areas cleared after 2006. The date was later revised to July 2008.Several studies in recent years have shown the moratorium contributed to the Amazon’s preservation. A 2020 study in the journal Nature Food found that the agreement, in combination with public policies, contributed to the steepest reduction of deforestation recorded in Brazil’s Amazon, between 2003 and 2016. Backed by soybean producers and most of Mato Grosso´s lawmakers and mayors, the new legislation cuts tax benefits to companies that participate in any agreement that imposes restrictions on expanding agricultural activities into areas that can be legally deforested. Governor Mauro Mendes signed the law Oct. 24. It goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, but regulations are pending.It states that only the illegally deforested area of a farm will be prevented from selling soy. In other words, if a 4,000-acre (1,618-hectare) property clears 200 acres (81 hectares) unlawfully, just the output from that specific area is blocked. Specialists warn that such refined monitoring is technically challenging, if not unfeasible.Under the moratorium, property with any post-2008 deforestation is forbidden altogether to sell its crops, regardless of whether the deforestation is legal.Supporters of the new state law have long claimed the moratorium´s 2008 limit is stricter than Brazilian legislation that allows the deforestation of up to 20% of a large rural property in the Amazon.“We will not rest as long as the moratorium harms even one producer," the Mato Grosso soy producers president Lucas Costa Beber said in a celebratory statement. "And until this agreement is extinct, the trading companies will not have a peaceful sleep." Environmental nonprofits and the entity representing leading soybean trade and processing companies have criticized Mato Grosso´s initiative.“The law is a setback,” said Bernardo Pires, sustainability director of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove), which supports the moratorium. “Companies committed to sustainability should receive twice as many benefits instead of losing them.”Abiove members, which include Cargill, Bunge and ADM, buy over 90% of Mato Grosso´s soy production. The state tax benefits amount to $308 million a year. Pires said the moratorium´s zero deforestation policy is a market demand. "Our European customers demand not to consume any products associated with deforestation,” he said.Cristiane Mazzetti, coordinator of the forests campaign at Greenpeace Brazil, said the law reveals a double standard among politicians connected to agribusiness, who in the Brazilian Congress seek to pass measures reducing environmental protection.The new law sparked mixed reactions within President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government, which has promised zero deforestation by 2030.André Lima, secretary of deforestation control at the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, said that although state governments have the right to choose which economic activities they want to support, it is unconstitutional to withdraw tax incentives from companies that have adopted sustainability and climate criteria aligned with Brazil’s deforestation reduction goals.“It also goes against the national tax reform guidelines, which have incorporated sustainable development as an important criterion for promoting more and new tax incentives for the green economy,” he told The Associated Press. Agriculture Minister Carlos Fávaro, however, praised the law. “The project (moratorium) is stricter than the law, and this creates legitimate dissatisfaction among producers,” he told reporters in an event last week.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

In 2006, environmental nonprofits and some of the world’s largest soybean traders came together in a landmark “soy moratorium” to stop the sale of soy grown on illegally deforested land in Brazil's Amazon

AGUA CLARA, Brazil (AP) — A historic agreement that's helped curb deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon for nearly two decades suffered a major blow after Mato Grosso, the country´s largest soybean-producing state, passed a law ending incentives for participating processing and trade companies.

The law passed last week was designed to void the Soy Moratorium — a 2006 deal in reaction to a Greenpeace investigation that linked soy produced in illegally deforested areas to U.S. commodities giants Cargill, Bunge and ADM. Under pressure, the companies agreed at the time not to buy soy produced in areas cleared after 2006. The date was later revised to July 2008.

Several studies in recent years have shown the moratorium contributed to the Amazon’s preservation. A 2020 study in the journal Nature Food found that the agreement, in combination with public policies, contributed to the steepest reduction of deforestation recorded in Brazil’s Amazon, between 2003 and 2016.

Backed by soybean producers and most of Mato Grosso´s lawmakers and mayors, the new legislation cuts tax benefits to companies that participate in any agreement that imposes restrictions on expanding agricultural activities into areas that can be legally deforested. Governor Mauro Mendes signed the law Oct. 24. It goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2025, but regulations are pending.

It states that only the illegally deforested area of a farm will be prevented from selling soy. In other words, if a 4,000-acre (1,618-hectare) property clears 200 acres (81 hectares) unlawfully, just the output from that specific area is blocked. Specialists warn that such refined monitoring is technically challenging, if not unfeasible.

Under the moratorium, property with any post-2008 deforestation is forbidden altogether to sell its crops, regardless of whether the deforestation is legal.

Supporters of the new state law have long claimed the moratorium´s 2008 limit is stricter than Brazilian legislation that allows the deforestation of up to 20% of a large rural property in the Amazon.

“We will not rest as long as the moratorium harms even one producer," the Mato Grosso soy producers president Lucas Costa Beber said in a celebratory statement. "And until this agreement is extinct, the trading companies will not have a peaceful sleep."

Environmental nonprofits and the entity representing leading soybean trade and processing companies have criticized Mato Grosso´s initiative.

“The law is a setback,” said Bernardo Pires, sustainability director of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove), which supports the moratorium. “Companies committed to sustainability should receive twice as many benefits instead of losing them.”

Abiove members, which include Cargill, Bunge and ADM, buy over 90% of Mato Grosso´s soy production. The state tax benefits amount to $308 million a year.

Pires said the moratorium´s zero deforestation policy is a market demand. "Our European customers demand not to consume any products associated with deforestation,” he said.

Cristiane Mazzetti, coordinator of the forests campaign at Greenpeace Brazil, said the law reveals a double standard among politicians connected to agribusiness, who in the Brazilian Congress seek to pass measures reducing environmental protection.

The new law sparked mixed reactions within President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government, which has promised zero deforestation by 2030.

André Lima, secretary of deforestation control at the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, said that although state governments have the right to choose which economic activities they want to support, it is unconstitutional to withdraw tax incentives from companies that have adopted sustainability and climate criteria aligned with Brazil’s deforestation reduction goals.

“It also goes against the national tax reform guidelines, which have incorporated sustainable development as an important criterion for promoting more and new tax incentives for the green economy,” he told The Associated Press.

Agriculture Minister Carlos Fávaro, however, praised the law. “The project (moratorium) is stricter than the law, and this creates legitimate dissatisfaction among producers,” he told reporters in an event last week.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

‘I can’t think of a place more pristine’: 133,000 hectares of Chilean Patagonia preserved after local fundraising

Exclusive: Ancient forests and turquoise rivers of the Cochamó Valley protected from logging, damming and developmentA wild valley in Chilean Patagonia has been preserved for future generations and protected from logging, damming and unbridled development after a remarkable fundraising effort by local groups, the Guardian can reveal.The 133,000 hectares (328,000 acres) of pristine wilderness in the Cochamó Valley was bought for $78m (£58m) after a grassroots campaign led by the NGO Puelo Patagonia, and the title to the wildlands was officially handed over to the Chilean nonprofit Fundación Conserva Puchegüín on 9 December. Continue reading...

A wild valley in Chilean Patagonia has been preserved for future generations and protected from logging, damming and unbridled development after a remarkable fundraising effort by local groups, the Guardian can reveal.The 133,000 hectares (328,000 acres) of pristine wilderness in the Cochamó Valley was bought for $78m (£58m) after a grassroots campaign led by the NGO Puelo Patagonia, and the title to the wildlands was officially handed over to the Chilean nonprofit Fundación Conserva Puchegüín on 9 December.The now-protected ecosystem is 383 times the size of Manhattan’s Central Park, or 800 times as big as London’s Regent’s Park.The lush, forested Cochamó Valley is home to waterfalls, emerald green rivers, hummingbirds and condors. The ancient forests hold groves of alerce trees that sprouted about 1,000BC, four centuries before the rise of the Roman empire.The newly acquired lands hold 11% of the remaining alerce forests on Earth. Logged for their solid, water-resistant trunk, alerce wood was fashioned into ship masts and telephone poles.The thick reddish bark on the alerce tree allows it to survive forest fires, droughts and 11ft of annual rainfall. Photograph: Marcelo SalazarSparsely populated by a few remote homestead camps and rustic campgrounds, the Cochamó Valley is surrounded by 3,200ft (970 metre) granite cliffs that in 1997 lured climbers seeking the first ascent of rock faces on Cerro Trinidad.In 2012, rancher families and lone cowboys living in the valley joined forces with tour operators, NGOs, climbers, backpackers and explorers in vociferous opposition to a $400m hydroelectric plan that included 150-metre transmission towers, access roads and complete disruption of the rural way of life along the Manso River. The communities then worked together to stop a high-end vacation home development and plans to pave roads through the valley.“Our goal was to transform threats into opportunities,” said José Claro, the president of Puelo Patagonia.Claro described how one large-scale project after another was stymied by Puelo Patagonia and the local community working together.The conservation campaigns highlighted Cochamó’s importance as a biological corridor that could connect to the surrounding 1.6m hectares of protected lands in Chile and Argentina. A coalition of local and foreign NGOs known as Conserva Puchegüín then began recruiting donors to fund long-term conservation strategies.The valley receives over 3 metres of rain a year, making industrial agriculture virtually impossible. Cattle grazing is difficult as the mountain slopes are nearly vertical.Except for a few cave drawings attributed to native peoples from present-day Argentina who migrated along riverbanks, this corner of northern Patagonia reveals few signs of longstanding human habitation.These never-logged forests and free-flowing turquoise rivers are a field biologist’s paradise. The area teems with ferns the size of beach umbrellas. The undergrowth of native bamboo makes bushwhacking through this temperate rainforest nearly impossible, even with a machete.The dense underbrush prevents many larger mammals from migrating through the valley. Local species of deer known as pudu have adapted so they are rarely taller than 40cm.Chilean cowboys often lead pack horses into Cochamó Valley with saddles and sacks filled with food and supplies. Photograph: Valentina Thenoux“You think about those trees being cut down or the valley flooded. It’s just terrifying,” said Alex Taylor, the chief executive of Cox Enterprises, who was first introduced to Cochamó in early 2025 by fellow fly fisher Yvon Chouinard, the founder of the clothing company Patagonia.Taylor returned to Atlanta with an idea for the James M Cox Foundation to support the protection of the valley. The other trustees agreed and approved a $20m donation.“It’s almost like the spiritual centre of the universe from a forest biodiversity standpoint,” said Taylor. “I can’t think of a place more pristine.”Hikers and climbers who manage to reach the peaks inside Cochamó Valley are treated to a panoramic view of the many unclimbed peaks inside the future park. Photograph: Valentina ThenouxThe successful fundraising campaign to buy the land is the beginning of what is likely to be a decades-long project to conserve the homesteader way of life and the valley’s rich biodiversity.“How do we ensure that traditional living and practices that have been going on for the better part of a century or more don’t get disrupted?” said Alex Perry, the Latin America general manager for Patagonia, which has been funding local conservation groups in the Cochamó Valley for more than a decade and in 2024 donated $4m through the company’s non-profit owner, Holdfast Collective.“How do we make it so that this model is something that can be replicated and scaled and is attractive to the next generation?”While the 133,000 hectares may eventually be donated to the Chilean national park system, recently passed environmental legislation in Chile created a system that secures permanent protection of designated areas even when the land remains in private ownership.As the valley’s popularity surges among hikers, climbers and horseback riders, a limit of 15,000 visitors a year has been set. Reservations are now required and a master plan of hiking trails, base camps and horse stables is being developed with direct participation from the local communities.“The beauty of the Pucheguín project is that it’s coming with an endowment,” said Anne Deane, the president of the Freyja Foundation which helped fund land purchases in the valley and recruited additional funders including the Wyss Foundation. “Cochamó is only going to get more and more popular, so it’s very important that there is an operating budget to support it.”Using camera traps and through collaboration with residents, a survey of the area’s wildlife has begun. A small herd of Chile’s national symbol, the now-endangered huemul deer, was recently discovered.A pair of endangered huemul deer grazing in Cochamó Valley. Photograph: Benjamin ValenzuelaThere are no roads through the valley and electricity is generated house by house through solar or wind. The homes are often rough cabins set on riverbanks, allowing small motorboats to navigate up and down the Puelo River. Pack horses still haul in most food and supplies.The Cochamó conservation project was inspired by the landmark conservation efforts of Kris and Doug Tompkins, who abandoned successful leadership roles at the Patagonia and Esprit clothing companies respectively, moved to a remote cabin in Patagonia and dedicated 25 years and $300m to creating national parks in Chile and Argentina.By buying massive swathes of land and then negotiating with the Chilean government to expand its existing parks, the Tompkins conservation group – now known as Rewilding Chile – helped protect more than 5.7m hectares of wildlands.The path to becoming a park may be different in Cochamó. The measly budget allocated for national parks in Chile – highlighted by the recent deaths of five hikers in Torres del Paine national park – has convinced many conservation advocates to look at creating private parks that combine conservation with low impact commercial operations such as family farms or a solar-powered craft brewery.The plans for Cochamó are to place at least 80% in protected national park level status, while the remaining 20% will be zoned for multiple use, allowing locals to earn a living off tourism and traditional activities such as family farms and their small ranches.There are no roads through the valley and electricity is generated house by house through solar or wind. Photograph: Rodrigo MannsOn a recent hike through Cochamó, the connection between conservation and community was evident.A Chilean cowboy hauling a horse piled high with fruits, vegetables and canned food stopped to share news. His horse was pregnant. Rex, a neighbour’s dog, needed medicine. The remote bridge washed away by the floods was nearly rebuilt.Stopping to chat in the cool fern forest, the cowboy spoke with excitement about the German tourists he would that evening be guiding down the mountain, on a path that his father helped build and that his children might one day continue to use and preserve.

Forests
Agriculture
Food

They survived wildfires. But something else is killing Greece’s iconic fir forests

In the Peloponnese mountains, the usually hardy trees are turning brown even where fires haven’t reached. Experts are raising the alarm on a complex crisisIn the southern Peloponnese, the Greek fir is a towering presence. The deep green, slow-growing conifers have long defined the region’s high-altitude forests, thriving in the mountains and rocky soils. For generations they have been one of the country’s hardier species, unusually capable of withstanding drought, insects and the wildfires that periodically sweep through Mediterranean ecosystems. These Greek forests have lived with fire for as long as anyone can remember.So when Dimitrios Avtzis, a senior researcher at the Forest Research Institute (FRI) of Elgo-Dimitra, was dispatched to document the aftermath of a spring blaze in the region, nothing about the assignment seemed exceptional. He had walked into countless burnt landscapes, tracking the expected pockets of mortality, as well as the trees that survived their scorching. Continue reading...

In the southern Peloponnese, the Greek fir is a towering presence. The deep green, slow-growing conifers have long defined the region’s high-altitude forests, thriving in the mountains and rocky soils. For generations they have been one of the country’s hardier species, unusually capable of withstanding drought, insects and the wildfires that periodically sweep through Mediterranean ecosystems. These Greek forests have lived with fire for as long as anyone can remember.So when Dimitrios Avtzis, a senior researcher at the Forest Research Institute (FRI) of Elgo-Dimitra, was dispatched to document the aftermath of a spring blaze in the region, nothing about the assignment seemed exceptional. He had walked into countless burnt landscapes, tracking the expected pockets of mortality, as well as the trees that survived their scorching.Hardy slow-growing conifers usually thrive in the Peloponnese mountains.This time, however, something felt wrong almost immediately. The scale was off. As Avtzis and his colleagues moved deeper into the trees, the familiar sights of a post-fire forest gave way to something far more unsettling.The scale of the damage was profound“There were hundreds upon hundreds of hectares worth of lost trees,” he says – not just those lost in the fire itself, but large patches dead and dying among the green, where the flames had not reached them.In the Peloponnese mountains, whole stretches of green forest are turning orange, as the long-lived fir trees dry up and die. The level of destruction was so far beyond what Avtzis had seen in previous years, it forced him to immediately contact the environment ministry and raise the alarm.“The scale of the damage was profound,” he says.Researchers found ‘hundreds upon hundreds of hectares worth of lost trees’.Researchers across Greece and central Europe have warned for years that climate breakdown will push local ecosystems into unfamiliar territory. Wildfires are not new: according to data from the Global Forest Watch, between 2001 and 2024, Greece lost 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) of trees to fires.But fires are not the only thing killing trees, and the forces shaping wildfire aftermath have shifted dramatically in the past five years. What Avtzis saw was the result of multiple pressures stacking on top of one another, each amplified by the climate crisis.The first is severe, prolonged drought, now a defining feature of Greece’s climate. The dryness is compounded by a steady decline in winter snow. A study by the Institute for Environmental Research and Sustainable Development and the National Observatory of Athens found that between 1991 and 2020, Greece lost an average of 1.5 days of snow cover a year, eroding one of the country’s most important sources of slow-release moisture.Prolonged droughts and reduced snow fall are among the causes of the forest die-off. Then comes the biological fallout. Drought-degraded soils and shrinking groundwater leave fir trees weakened, creating an opening for insects. “We know that severe drought weakens the trees,” Avtzis says. “But when we looked more closely at what was happening, we found bark beetles had taken advantage. They were attacking the trees.”Bark beetles – particularly those in the Scolytinae subfamily – have emerged as a growing threat to Greece’s already stressed forests over the past two years.Their name is owed to the fact that the insects bore beneath the outer bark, cutting into the systems trees rely on to transport water and nutrients. Once they establish themselves inside drought-stressed firs, their numbers can rise rapidly. “When a population reaches outbreak levels,” Avtzis says, “it becomes extremely difficult to bring it back under control.”The phenomenon is not confined to Greece. Bark beetle outbreaks have become a wider European concern, Avtzis says, mirroring patterns seen elsewhere on the continent. “Southern Europe may be more vulnerable,” he says, “but we’re observing similar dynamics in countries like Spain.”The implication is concerning – indicating that the drivers behind the Peloponnese die-offs are not local anomalies, but symptoms of a broader ecological shift.Yet amid the accelerating pressures of the climate crisis, there are cautious notes of optimism. Nikos Markos, a forest climatologist at FRI, points to the regenerative capacity of Mediterranean ecosystems. “Post-fire regeneration can be quite satisfactory,” he says, “even in some areas of the Peloponnese.”Forest recovery after fires is slow and uneven. Recovery, however, is slow and uneven. “It is not something we can see in the first year,” Markos adds. “It may take four or five years.”Avtzis is pragmatic when he speaks about what it will take to protect Greece’s highland forests. “I’m going to be realistic,” he says. “The government and the ministries have to take the initiative and mobilise the necessary funding to confront this problem.”Some steps, he notes, were already beginning by the time he had submitted his report on the Peloponnese. “They contacted the major regional forest services and asked how much funding was needed,” he says. “What really matters now is whether those plans are actually put into action.”Asked whether Greece’s shifting meteorological patterns are likely to keep accelerating, and whether that poses an existential risk for southern Europe’s forests, Avtzis pauses. “There is no time to be pessimistic,” he says. “But we have a lot of work to do.”The tools, he says, already exist. “We have the knowledge. We have the scientists. Now, we need to start going out and talking about this,” he says. “Because what we’re seeing now is only going to become more frequent and more intense.”Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow the biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield in the Guardian app for more nature coverageThe climate crisis will make extreme weather events more frequent for Europe’s forests.

Forests
Crisis
Mountains

How the Trump administration is fast-tracking logging in Illinois’ only national forest

Facing pressure to increase timber harvests, the Forest Service is sidestepping rigorous environmental reviews and limiting public participation.

When the Forest Service approved the sale of nearly 70 acres for commercial logging in southern Illinois’ Shawnee National Forest in late 2024, Sam Stearns was furious. The Shawnee is the only national forest in the state, and one of the smallest in the nation. The agency initially billed the so-called McCormick Oak-Hickory Restoration Project timber sale as a “thinning” operation to remove older trees and make room for younger saplings. Logging operations contribute to habitat loss, and Stearns found the Forest Service’s justification lacking. “Never in the history of this planet has a forest been logged back to health,” said the 71-year-old Stearns. Stearns, who is the founder of the preservation group Friends of Bell Smith Spring, planned to oppose the sale. He began keeping an eye out for the agency’s public comment period, which provided residents like him an opportunity to voice their concerns. For months, he and other local environmentalists scoured the web and local newspapers for mentions of the sale to prepare for the comment period, but the McCormick Project never turned up.   It would turn out that the Forest Service advertised the project under a completely different name. The sale was titled “V-Plow,” and by the time advocates realized it, they were already a week into the project’s three-week comment period. In the past, advocates said comment periods for logging operations lasted as long as 45 days. Court documents would later reveal that the agency initially didn’t receive any bids. It eventually awarded the contract to an interested buyer in Kentucky in June 2025.  The following month, Stearns and other environmentalists sued the agency to block the plan. They cited the presence of endangered bats and potential impacts to a nearby national natural landmark and alleged that the Forest Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Earlier this fall, a federal judge temporarily blocked the project before allowing the logging to proceed. The case is still pending, and a spokesperson for the Forest Service declined to comment due to the ongoing litigation. The legal battle is part of a broader clash between fast-tracking projects and ensuring environmental reviews as required by federal law. NEPA mandates that federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of projects, but it includes a provision for “categorical exclusions” that let agencies bypass full reviews and limit public participation for minor proposals. “This can be a legitimate process, for instance, when used for routine things where the impacts are minimal and well established, like campsite or trail maintenance,” said Garrett Rose, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Unfortunately, this administration has been working to aggressively expand the exemptions available to [the Forest Service], and minimize disclosure of projects impacted by categorical exclusions.” In 2023, the Biden administration attempted to use these shortcuts to speed up permitting for projects like renewable energy and broadband internet. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump began pressing the Forest Service to fast-track timber harvests on public lands. In one executive order, he directed the Forest Service to adopt categorical exclusions developed by other agencies to “reduce unnecessarily lengthy processes.” That means, for example, the Forest Service could use categorical exclusions developed by the Department of Agriculture’s rural development agency for wastewater treatment plants or transmission lines, according to Rose. The order also instructed the Forest Service to develop new exclusions for “thinning” projects related to wildfire mitigation. Advocates fear the agency is applying categorical exclusions more widely than before for logging projects to comply with Trump’s directive. Local watchdog groups across the country are scrambling to make sure the public has a chance to provide input when logging and oil and gas extraction are approved on public lands. Ryan Talbott, a conservation advocate with Wildearth Guardians in the Pacific Northwest, said the Forest Service recently cited categorical exclusions developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority to approve a logging project in Mount Hood National Forest, which excused it from the standard robust public comment process. The agency also utilized the same categorical exclusion to move a project forward in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. “This all comes back to Trump’s timber executive order,” Talbott said. “They’re looking for every possible avenue to expedite timber production.”  In Indiana, environmentalists recently scored a rare victory against the Forest Service. In September, a federal judge stopped a logging project in the Hoosier National Forest, siding with local advocates who argued the agency’s plan violated NEPA. The ruling found that the Forest Service did not properly weigh the environmental impacts of a proposal to log 4,000 acres and clearcut 4,000 more, among other actions, within Indiana’s only national forest.   In Illinois, however, Stearns’ lawsuit is still ongoing. A Kentucky logging crew harvested about half of the nearly 70-acre timber sale in late August before temporarily halting in early September due to Stearns’ lawsuit. The loggers have yet to finish the job.  Standing at a distance from the cut hillsides in late November, Stearns said the Forest Service is bad at a lot of things, but they’re good at one thing: cutting down trees.  “Even if they were getting a premium price for this wood, which I know they’re not, those trees would be much more valuable standing, contributing to the health of an ecosystem, than they’ll ever be cut like that,” he said.  Editor’s note: The Natural Resources Defense Council is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How the Trump administration is fast-tracking logging in Illinois’ only national forest on Dec 16, 2025.

Forests
Agriculture
Energy

Australia has new laws to protect nature. Do they signal an end to native forest logging?

What do Australia’s new nature laws mean for native forests? The reforms closed a loophole that stopped legal scrutiny of logging. But we need the full detail.

Reforms to Australia’s nature laws have passed federal parliament. A longstanding exemption that meant federal environment laws did not apply to native logging has finally been removed from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Native forest logging will now be subject to national environmental standards – legally binding rules supposed to set clear goals for environmental protection. This should be a win for the environment, and some have celebrated it as an end to native forest logging in Australia. But the reality is such celebrations are premature. We don’t have all the details of the new standards, or know how they will be enforced and monitored. Business as usual? Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt has told the forestry industry, including in Tasmania, that native forest operations will continue as usual. In an interview with ABC Radio Hobart, he said the changes keep day-to-day forestry approvals with the state government, but introduce stronger federal oversight. If that is the case, the logging of habitat for endangered species, such as the swift parrot, will continue, pushing these species closer to extinction. The Tasmanian government has shown no signs of willingness to change its current approach. And if “business as usual” logging persists, the environment reforms will fall far short of what Australia’s forests – and their plants and animals – need. Uncertain standards We don’t yet know what the national forestry standards will contain. But the draft standards for some threatened and endangered forest species aren’t enough to arrest ongoing declines, based on drafts I’ve seen that are yet to be publicly released. Crucially, we can’t meet the habitat requirements for many forest-dependent species by simply replanting previously cleared land. This is because the trees in replanted forests won’t be mature for several hundred years. Many forest-dwelling species live in holes and hollows that occur only in mature trees. In other words, allowing loggers to “offset” the forests they damage by replanting other areas is broadly impossible. This reinforces longstanding concerns about the limitations of biodiversity offsets as a way to conserve endangered forests and animals. Swift parrots are fast-flying migratory parrots. They are critically endangered, partly because the forests they nest in are being logged. Thirdsilencenature/Flickr, CC BY-ND Industry pushback Parts of the forest industry are already seeking to rebrand damaging practices such as mechanical thinning (the removal of large numbers of trees), as forms of so-called “active management” to create healthy forests. The Australian government’s Timber Fibre Strategy makes extensive reference to the use of “active management”. However, the scientific evidence shows the opposite: such activities can degrade forest structure (by removing key understorey vegetation), facilitate the invasion of weed species, and undermine the ecological integrity of forests. Different forests Australia has a vast range of different forest types, and many support a variety of animals and plants threatened by forestry operations. Effective national standards therefore need to be detailed and sophisticated to deal with such complexity. This will take considerable time to design. And it’s possible each species and forest type will need a different set of standards. These will need to account not only for the direct impacts of logging – such as the death of animals when their habitat trees are felled – but also indirect impacts. For example, logging can increase fire risk, promote the spread of weeds and feral animals into disturbed areas, and trigger long-term changes in vegetation structure. Developing national standards is only part of the challenge. Implementing them will demand significant new resources, as well as robust monitoring to ensure governments and logging contractors actually stick to the rules. Better recovery Many of Australia’s threatened species don’t have up-to-date recovery plans that will guide the best way to prevent their extinction. And when plans do exist, there is often a lack of resourcing to put them into action. Without substantial investment, many plants and animals will fall between the cracks, and these new environmental standards will not deliver the change so desperately needed. They must be matched with careful monitoring of species in forests and properly-funded plans for their recovery. A simple solution There is a straightforward way to avoid the ecological, administrative, and financial problems created by native forest logging – stop it altogether. The evidence shows ending native forest logging would deliver significant benefits for biodiversity, forest ecosystems, and reduce fire risks. It also would benefit government finances because taxpayers would no longer need to subsidise an economically unviable industry that currently loses large amounts of money. The environment law reforms are to be welcomed. But the devil will be in the detail as to whether hopes for better environmental outcomes and improved forest conservation are realised. David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Government, NSW Government and the Victorian Government. He is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council and a Member of Birdlife Australia, the Ecological Society of Australia, and the Australian Mammal Society. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, Fellow of the American Academy of Science, Fellow of the Ecological Society of America, and Fellow of Royal Zoological Society of NSW.

Forests
Nature
Business

Mischievous Hands': Indonesians Blame Deforestation for Devastating Floods

By Ananda TeresiaSOUTH TAPANULI, Indonesia, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Indonesian Reliwati Siregar gestured angrily at deforestation around her home on the...

SOUTH TAPANULI, Indonesia, Dec 2 (Reuters) - Indonesian Reliwati Siregar gestured angrily at deforestation around her home on the island of Sumatra, where landslides and floods brought by a tropical storm killed more than 700 people in its deadliest disaster since a cataclysmic tsunami in 2004."Mischievous hands cut down trees ... they don't care about the forests, and now we're paying the price," Siregar said at a temporary shelter near her home in Tapanuli, the worst-hit area, with about a quarter of the death toll, government data shows.The landslides buried homes and crippled rescue and relief efforts, while floodwaters washed ashore dozens of logs, Siregar said."The rain did cause the flood, but it's impossible for it to sweep away this much wood," the 62-year-old added, her voice rising in disgust. "Those raindrops do not cause wood to fall."Environmental experts and regional leaders said the tropical storm in the Malacca Strait that hit Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand last week, killing more than 800 people, was just one of many worsened by climate change.But deforestation in Sumatra led to a disproportionately deadly toll, they said.  "Yes, there were cyclonic factors, but if our forests were well-preserved ... it would not have been this terrible," Gus Irawan Pasaribu, a local government leader in Tapanuli, told Reuters by telephone.Pasaribu said he had already protested to the forestry ministry over licences issued for the use of forest area for projects, but it ignored his pleas.Indonesia's forestry and environment ministries did not reply to Reuters requests for comment.Media said the attorney general's office is leading a task force to check if illegal activities contributed to the disaster, and that the environment ministry would query eight companies in industries such as logging, mining and palm plantations, after logs washed ashore in some areas of Sumatra.They did not identify the companies or projects.Masinton Pasaribu, another local government official in Tapanuli, blamed the clearing of natural forests to make way for palm plantations, which yield palm oil, one of Indonesia's main exports.Authorities in the archipelago, home to many dense tropical forests, have looked to reverse some of the destruction but lean heavily on its vast natural resources to fuel economic growth.Monitoring group Global Forest Watch says North Sumatra lost 1.6 million hectares of tree cover over the period from 2001 to 2024, or the equivalent of 28% of the tree-covered area.From 2001 to 2024, Sumatra as a whole has lost 4.4 million hectares (11 million acres) of forest, an area bigger than Switzerland, said David Gaveau, founder of deforestation monitor Nusantara Atlas."This is the island of Indonesia that has had the most deforestation," he said, adding that global warming was the biggest factor in the deadly floods, though deforestation had a secondary role.Environment-focused group JATAM said its analysis of satellite imagery showed construction for the China-funded 510MW Batang Toru hydropower plant, planned to begin operating in 2026, contributed to the destruction."This situation can no longer be explained merely by the narrative of 'extreme weather,' but must be understood as a direct consequence of upstream ecosystem and watershed destruction by extractive industries," it said in a statement.Reuters could not reach North Sumatra Hydro Energy, which runs the plant, to seek comment. Its parent, China's SDIC Power Holdings, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Another environment-focused non-government group, Walhi, sought revocation of a government permits for the hydropower plant in a 2018 lawsuit in a state administrative court, but the court rejected the suit in 2019, media say."This disaster was caused not only by natural factors but also ecological factors, namely mismanagement of natural resources by the government," Walhi said.JATAM said legal permits to convert forests into extraction zones covered about 54,000 hectares (133,000 acres), a majority of them for mining.Among the permit holders is PT Agincourt Resources, which operates the Martabe gold mine in the Batang Toru ecosystem.In a statement to Reuters it said making a direct link between the floods and the mine's operations was "a premature and inaccurate conclusion". Instead, it pointed to extreme weather, the overflowing river, and a blockage of logs at one point in its course."Usually just a few ... but now, there's more than ever," said Yusneli, 43, a resident of the West Sumatran city of Padang, who goes by one name, as she described the alarm caused by the number of logs washing ashore. (Reporting by Yudhistira in Tapanuli, Ananda Teresia, Fransiska Nangoy, Stanley Widianto, Zahra Matarani and Heru Asprihanto in Jakarta and Johan Purnomo, Willy Kurniawan and Aidil Ichlas in Padang; Writing by Gibran Peshimam; Editing by Josh Smith and Clarence Fernandez)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Forests
Climate
Government

Suggested Viewing

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests
Chemicals
Climate

The Story of a Forest

In 2004, a generation of activists arose in South Florida, carrying the passion of direct action groups like Earth First. and the deep analysis of the global justice movement that had swept the country in the preceding years. These activists sought local issues that exemplified the threats of corporate globalization. They stumbled upon a plan from biotech industry giants acting in collusion with the administration of then-Governor Jeb Bush to clear a vast swath of land in the Northeast Everglades of Florida to accommodate The Scripps Biotech Research Institute - And it was on. Over the next ten years, endless county zoning meetings were counter-balanced by dozens of civil disobedience arrests and a near-constant flow of news headlines about the battle: lawsuits, scandal, corruption, tree sits, endangered species, pranks, blockades, and a roller coaster of incremental victories followed by devastating losses for years on end. THE STORY OF A FOREST captures it all in a 1/2 hour documentary about the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition (PBCEC) and Everglades Earth First!'s (EEF!) ten-plus year campaign to stop the Scripps Biotech development, with a focus on protecting biodiversity in the Briger forest and the Florida wetlands.

Activism
Forests
Business

The Big Green

Jeanne's last cutting tree site has been destroyed by environmental activists. While she tries to save some equipment, she ends up stuck on the first branch of a 30 meters high, centuries-old tree. Her only hope: to climb higher to find some network and call for help.‍

Forests
Technology
Fiction

Dipsas Speaks

Dipsas Speaks is a poetic reflection on the human-wildlife conflict in the Andean Amazon cloud forest of Ecuador, one of the most biodiverse places on the planet. Dipsas klebbai, a snake, observes changes in her world. 100% wildlife cast.

Forests
Conservation
Animals

Among Giants

Among Giants begins three years into the McKay tree-sit- a response to Green Diamond Resource Company’s clearcutting of redwood forests. Atop his tiny platform a hundred feet up in the ancient redwood canopy, Farmer must battle the elements and avoid isolation as he fights for a sustainable future. The film uses a restrained verite style that reflects the pace of life in the tree village. As Farmer outlasts a vicious storm, counts the rings on a felled tree, and trumps through a recent clear cut, the film asks questions about what it means to follow one’s beliefs and make a difference in the world.

Forests
Activism
Nature

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.