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.

Editorial: County at a crosswords, a pushback on growth and other election takeaways

News Feed
Sunday, May 26, 2024

The May election was one in which dark money won – except when it didn’t. An election where voters tossed progressives – except when they kept them. An election reflecting taxpayer fatigue – except for the many money measures that passed.Try as we might to draw a neat narrative around the biggest Portland-area races on the ballot this spring, the only clear takeaway is that even Portland’s broadly liberal voting population is deeply conflicted about the direction to take at this moment in time.But the results offer a few glimpses into voters’ state of mind that are relevant not only for the November election, but beyond. Candidates, policymakers and elected officials should take note and prepare accordingly.Whither Multnomah County: Conventional wisdom suggests that Multnomah County residents want a significant shift from the policies pursued by former Chair Deborah Kafoury and current Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, particularly on homelessness and behavioral health. But the strong showing in the primary for Meghan Moyer and Shannon Singleton – two of the biggest progressives running for the county board with many of the same labor union, nonprofit and advocacy group endorsers – suggest that a large contingent of voters isn’t ready to make that break.Between now and November, voters should press the two candidates – as well as their opponents, Vadim Mozyrsky and Sam Adams – to keep up the pace in articulating the specific ideas, proposals and diagnoses of what’s going wrong. The candidates should act as if they are already on the board of commissioners and weigh in frequently on current agenda issues in front of the board – including Vega Pederson’s proposed budget; Multnomah County Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards’ push to create a 24-hour sobering center; the ongoing delay in ambulance response times; and the development of a “deflection” system for providing drug users with treatment as drug possession is recriminalized starting in September. Not only do voters deserve to know where candidates stand in advance of the November election, but whoever is elected should be well-steeped in the issues and ready to take charge in January when they join Vega Pederson, Brim-Edwards and newcomer Vince Jones-Dixon on the board.The limits of big money: In reality, there aren’t many limits on big money in Oregon elections these days. We saw how that plays out, most notably in the more than $3 million spent in blistering ads from Voters for a Responsive Government excoriating 3rd Congressional District candidate Susheela Jayapal for her time on the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. Still, Jayapal wasn’t the only one targeted by the huge sums of money flowing in support of – or against – several candidates.The question is: how effective was it? While Jayapal lost decisively to state legislator Maxine Dexter in the Democratic primary, a similar onslaught of scorching ads against Singleton, who served as the interim director of the beleaguered Joint Office of Homeless Services, did nothing to halt her first-place showing in the race for Multnomah County District 2 commissioner. And while a flurry of ads attempted to paint prosecutor Nathan Vasquez as a favorite of the pro-Trump crowd, Vasquez, who had his own deep-pocketed supporters weighing in, prevailed over incumbent Mike Schmidt.While there’s little the state can legally do to limit the amount of such “independent expenditures” by outside groups in elections, requirements to disclose donors can help shed some light on who is seeking to sway voters in state and local elections. Legislators earlier this year passed House Bill 4024 under threat of a stricter campaign finance ballot measure going to voters. While the disclosure requirements are not as expansive as reformers sought, they will still force greater transparency once they go in effect in 2027. The key, however, is for the public as well as the good government groups who have been pushing for these changes to track implementation and make sure it matches the intent.Pushback simmering on growth: North Plains’ residents overwhelming approval of a ballot measure to halt the Washington County city’s plan to expand its urban growth boundary isn’t the end of the story. But it’s the latest sign of Oregonians’ unease over making the significant changes necessary to support economic development and reverse the state’s crushing lack of housing.The ballot measure challenged plans that had long been in the works to grow North Plains, a community of about 3,300 with median household income of $102,000, not far from Oregon’s Silicon Forest. With Intel recently securing an $8.5 billion CHIPS Act grant and other Oregon semiconductor companies receiving millions in federal funds, North Plainsis well situated to house the industrial, commercial and residential growth that such investment will generate.But critics objected to the size of the 855-acre increase, contended that valuable farmland would be lost and successfully put what is essentially a land-use decision on the ballot. Despite efforts by legislators and Gov. Tina Kotek to halt the vote – rightly recognizing that such administrative decisions should be handled through the existing process that allows for public appeals – a judge cleared the way for the referendum to go on the ballot. The upshot is that absent a Plan B from North Plains, the city’s expansion could be tied up in courts for years.Ideally, this is the kind of appeal that should go directly to the Oregon Supreme Court once the circuit court hears the case. Settling the question of whether voters can rightfully refer administrative land-use decisions to the ballot is critical for cities’ basic planning and adherence to state law. And considering many Oregonians’ antipathy to growth – primarily if it’s in their community – the prospect of voters in other cities mobilizing to stop boundary changes or other development decisions by popular vote is a very real concern. Oregon depends enormously on income taxes to pay for basic public services and continuing economic strength is vital to the state’s future. At the same time, the state has been underbuilding housing for decades and our shortage of 140,000 units is driving up rents, home prices, homelessness and contributing to declines in state population.Oregonians understandably are protective of the state’s environmental, agricultural and scenic heritage. But if they want to ensure a more sustainable future where people have good-paying jobs, families have homes and schools are adequately funded, they can’t focus on just preserving the past.-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board Oregonian editorials Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung and John Maher. Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles. If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.

The May election offers a few glimpses into voters' conflicted state of mind about the direction of Multnomah County, the role of big money and growth, the editorial board writes.

The May election was one in which dark money won – except when it didn’t. An election where voters tossed progressives – except when they kept them. An election reflecting taxpayer fatigue – except for the many money measures that passed.

Try as we might to draw a neat narrative around the biggest Portland-area races on the ballot this spring, the only clear takeaway is that even Portland’s broadly liberal voting population is deeply conflicted about the direction to take at this moment in time.

But the results offer a few glimpses into voters’ state of mind that are relevant not only for the November election, but beyond. Candidates, policymakers and elected officials should take note and prepare accordingly.

Whither Multnomah County: Conventional wisdom suggests that Multnomah County residents want a significant shift from the policies pursued by former Chair Deborah Kafoury and current Chair Jessica Vega Pederson, particularly on homelessness and behavioral health. But the strong showing in the primary for Meghan Moyer and Shannon Singleton – two of the biggest progressives running for the county board with many of the same labor union, nonprofit and advocacy group endorsers – suggest that a large contingent of voters isn’t ready to make that break.

Between now and November, voters should press the two candidates – as well as their opponents, Vadim Mozyrsky and Sam Adams – to keep up the pace in articulating the specific ideas, proposals and diagnoses of what’s going wrong. The candidates should act as if they are already on the board of commissioners and weigh in frequently on current agenda issues in front of the board – including Vega Pederson’s proposed budget; Multnomah County Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards’ push to create a 24-hour sobering center; the ongoing delay in ambulance response times; and the development of a “deflection” system for providing drug users with treatment as drug possession is recriminalized starting in September. Not only do voters deserve to know where candidates stand in advance of the November election, but whoever is elected should be well-steeped in the issues and ready to take charge in January when they join Vega Pederson, Brim-Edwards and newcomer Vince Jones-Dixon on the board.

The limits of big money: In reality, there aren’t many limits on big money in Oregon elections these days. We saw how that plays out, most notably in the more than $3 million spent in blistering ads from Voters for a Responsive Government excoriating 3rd Congressional District candidate Susheela Jayapal for her time on the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners. Still, Jayapal wasn’t the only one targeted by the huge sums of money flowing in support of – or against – several candidates.

The question is: how effective was it? While Jayapal lost decisively to state legislator Maxine Dexter in the Democratic primary, a similar onslaught of scorching ads against Singleton, who served as the interim director of the beleaguered Joint Office of Homeless Services, did nothing to halt her first-place showing in the race for Multnomah County District 2 commissioner. And while a flurry of ads attempted to paint prosecutor Nathan Vasquez as a favorite of the pro-Trump crowd, Vasquez, who had his own deep-pocketed supporters weighing in, prevailed over incumbent Mike Schmidt.

While there’s little the state can legally do to limit the amount of such “independent expenditures” by outside groups in elections, requirements to disclose donors can help shed some light on who is seeking to sway voters in state and local elections. Legislators earlier this year passed House Bill 4024 under threat of a stricter campaign finance ballot measure going to voters. While the disclosure requirements are not as expansive as reformers sought, they will still force greater transparency once they go in effect in 2027. The key, however, is for the public as well as the good government groups who have been pushing for these changes to track implementation and make sure it matches the intent.

Pushback simmering on growth: North Plains’ residents overwhelming approval of a ballot measure to halt the Washington County city’s plan to expand its urban growth boundary isn’t the end of the story. But it’s the latest sign of Oregonians’ unease over making the significant changes necessary to support economic development and reverse the state’s crushing lack of housing.

The ballot measure challenged plans that had long been in the works to grow North Plains, a community of about 3,300 with median household income of $102,000, not far from Oregon’s Silicon Forest. With Intel recently securing an $8.5 billion CHIPS Act grant and other Oregon semiconductor companies receiving millions in federal funds, North Plains

is well situated to house the industrial, commercial and residential growth that such investment will generate.

But critics objected to the size of the 855-acre increase, contended that valuable farmland would be lost and successfully put what is essentially a land-use decision on the ballot. Despite efforts by legislators and Gov. Tina Kotek to halt the vote – rightly recognizing that such administrative decisions should be handled through the existing process that allows for public appeals – a judge cleared the way for the referendum to go on the ballot. The upshot is that absent a Plan B from North Plains, the city’s expansion could be tied up in courts for years.

Ideally, this is the kind of appeal that should go directly to the Oregon Supreme Court once the circuit court hears the case. Settling the question of whether voters can rightfully refer administrative land-use decisions to the ballot is critical for cities’ basic planning and adherence to state law. And considering many Oregonians’ antipathy to growth – primarily if it’s in their community – the prospect of voters in other cities mobilizing to stop boundary changes or other development decisions by popular vote is a very real concern. Oregon depends enormously on income taxes to pay for basic public services and continuing economic strength is vital to the state’s future. At the same time, the state has been underbuilding housing for decades and our shortage of 140,000 units is driving up rents, home prices, homelessness and contributing to declines in state population.

Oregonians understandably are protective of the state’s environmental, agricultural and scenic heritage. But if they want to ensure a more sustainable future where people have good-paying jobs, families have homes and schools are adequately funded, they can’t focus on just preserving the past.

-The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board

Oregonian editorials

Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung and John Maher.

Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles.

If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung, opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Brazilian State Law Overturns Soy Moratorium That Helped Curb Amazon Deforestation

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

Costa Rica Expands Forest Protection with New Biodiversity Program

In the United Nations Conference on Biodiversity (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, the Costa Rican delegation organized a side event to announce a new biodiversity-focused Payment for Environmental Services program called “PES Biodiversity Plus.” Costa Rica also reaffirmed its commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, often described as the “Paris Agreement for Nature.” After years of PES, Costa Rica expanded the program this week […] The post Costa Rica Expands Forest Protection with New Biodiversity Program appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

In the United Nations Conference on Biodiversity (COP16) in Cali, Colombia, the Costa Rican delegation organized a side event to announce a new biodiversity-focused Payment for Environmental Services program called “PES Biodiversity Plus.” Costa Rica also reaffirmed its commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, often described as the “Paris Agreement for Nature.” After years of PES, Costa Rica expanded the program this week to prioritize biodiversity conservation through a competitive financial mechanism that supports private forest landowners and enhances biodiversity protection across the nation. This approach, called PSA-Biodiversity Plus, is managed by agencies within Costa Rica’s Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), including the Commission for Biodiversity Management, the National Forest Finance Fund (Fonafifo), and the National System of Conservation Areas (Sinac). “This mechanism not only prevents biodiversity loss but also supports equitable benefit-sharing from genetic resources. Including genetic resources as a variable for prioritization supports private owners and strengthens biodiversity,” explained Franz Tattenbach, Minister of Environment and Energy. During the meeting, Costa Rica’s efforts to achieve Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Framework were highlighted, aiming for at least 30% conservation of terrestrial, inland water, marine, and coastal areas. “We acknowledge the global environmental crisis—biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution. Costa Rica’s commitment to the Kunming-Montreal Framework focuses on advancing its mission and targets. During the implementation phase, actions addressing each of these crises will be clear,” stated Eugenia Arguedas, Focal Point of COP16. Costa Rica showcased efforts to combat deforestation, increase forest cover, and balance productive developmentwith greenhouse gas emission reduction through efficient, profitable, and low-emission agricultural practices. The Costa Rican team discussed how deforestation, marine and landscape governance, and conservation are interconnected and crucial to sustainable development. Costa Rica has successfully decoupled agricultural production from deforestation through three impactful initiatives: significant investment in REDD+ financial mechanisms to prioritize forest use over marginal agricultural practices, expanded Payment for Environmental Services (PES) investments, and the inclusion of privately owned forest reserves. These actions have led to a 38% increase in sustainably managed forest cover. Additionally, Costa Rica reports a positive balance between mature forest loss and forest regeneration, showcasing the country’s commitment to sustainable land management. The post Costa Rica Expands Forest Protection with New Biodiversity Program appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

CalMatters honored with 9 awards celebrating our “unsung hero” and journalism from commentary to investigative

CalMatters journalists are lauded for their work — from hard-charging investigations to broad projects like Digital Democracy.

In summary CalMatters journalists are lauded for their work — from hard-charging investigations to broad projects like Digital Democracy. CalMatters is being honored with nine Northern California journalism awards, including for best investigative, explanatory, health and environmental reporting. The organization also garnered three photojournalism awards and its first-ever honors for commentary.Additionally, Senior Director of Product Sapna Satagopan was named an “unsung hero” — a distinction that celebrates someone “whose contribution to journalism usually happens behind the scenes and is often overlooked.” The awards, announced Wednesday, were given by the Society of Professional Journalists’  Northern California chapter. They’ll  be given out, and judges’ comments released, at the chapter’s Nov. 15 awards banquet. Satagopan was cited as a “visionary leader” behind CalMatters’ Digital Democracy tool, Recall Voter Guide, newsletters and explainers. She also founded Xyza: News for Kids, a subscription news platform for young readers. “I am so grateful to be honored for my work that connects critical news and information with the people of California,” Satagopan said. “I love the opportunity we are provided in journalism product design to make a difference in the world, to empower people, to hold leaders accountable, and to ultimately improve the community.” The commentary award goes to CalMatters’ California Voices Editor Yousef Baig for his piece “From ‘train to nowhere’ to Fresno’s dream: What high-speed rail means for the Central Valley.” “My main goal with this piece was to flip the conversation on high-speed rail so readers could hear from people who live and work in the Central Valley. This kind of approach is at the heart of the Voices mission. For that to be recognized, it’s incredibly gratifying” Baig said. Here are CalMatters other award wins, in the print/online large division: INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING: Nigel Duara and Jeremia Kimelman for the three-part series “Locked up and Dying” about jail deaths in California. EXPLANATORY JOURNALISM: Lauren Hepler for “California’s Unemployment Crash” — part 1, part 2 and part 3.  ENVIRONMENT REPORTING: Rachel Becker for “The world’s largest dam demolition has begun. Can the dammed Klamath River finally find salvation?” HEALTH REPORTING: Kristen Hwang, Ana B. Ibarra and Erica Yee for “No Deliveries,” a series on maternity ward closures around California. PHOTOJOURNALISM (breaking news): Jules Hotz  for a photo of a pro-Palestinian protester being arrested after being surrounded by police officers at the University of Southern California. PHOTOJOURNALISM (photo essay): Larry Valenzuela, who is also a Catchlight fellow,  for “‘Go to the people’: Street medicine teams bring health care to the unhoused.” PHOTOJOURNALISM (single image): Jules Hotz for a photo of Screen Actors Guild members and Writers Guild of America members picketing at the Amazon Culver Studios in Culver City.  And, CalMatters contributor Alastair Bland won science reporting honors for his Bay Nature piece on California’s bull kelp forests. Here’s the full list of NorCal SPJ’s 2024 winners from newspapers, online news sites, radio and television stations across Northern California.

215 million hectares of forest – an area bigger than Mexico – could grow back by itself, if we can just leave it alone

It’s vital we find cost-effective ways to get and keep more trees in the ground. Our research looked at where natural regeneration is likely to be successful due to environmental conditions.

Gustavo Frazao/ShutterstockAbout 215 million hectares of land – an area bigger than Mexico – could be reforested naturally and without costly manual planting, our new research shows. This would allow us to offset around 23.4 gigatonnes of global carbon emissions over the next three decades. That’s about 50 years worth of Australia’s carbon emissions (assuming 2023 emission rates continue). Extensive and effective forest restoration is crucial to mitigating climate change and conserving biodiversity. It’s vital we find cost-effective ways to get and keep more trees in the ground. One way to do this is just to let forests grow back by themselves. However, this isn’t possible in all deforested lands, as certain environmental conditions are needed for this approach to work. Our research identified land where this approach had strong potential. Allowing forests to grow back naturally in deforested areas, such as this degraded land in Brazil, could be more cost-effective than manual reforestation projects. Author provided The benefits of natural regeneration Globally, 65% of original tropical forest extent has been lost to make way for human development such as agriculture, roads, and urbanisation. Deforestation has contributed to climate change and biodiversity loss. We’ve also lost a worrying amount of what researchers call “ecosystem services”, meaning the benefits people derive from nature, such as clean water. Forest restoration is an important strategy for reversing the damage. Our paper, published in the journal Nature, looked at where natural regeneration is likely to be successful due to the surrounding environmental conditions. Natural regeneration is important because it is sometimes better than manual tree planting, which includes the costs of saplings, manual labour, fertilisation and maintenance. Using manual techniques in degraded landscapes can be expensive. It can also be less effective in terms of native biodiversity recovery and keeping water systems functioning well. Natural regeneration is a less costly alternative. That means allowing forests to grow back on their own or with carefully planned human intervention. For example, natural reforestation may cost between $US12 and $3,880 per hectare. By contrast, active regeneration methods in the tropics would cost between $105 and $25,830 per hectare. Natural regeneration restoration methods often have better long-term success and biodiversity outcomes than full manual tree-planting. Studies have found that biodiversity “success” – meaning richer biodiversity and more species – can be up to 56% higher when natural regeneration approaches were used (rather than manual planting projects). It’s vital we find cost-effective ways to get and keep more trees in the ground. Richard Whitcombe/Shutterstock Where might natural reforestation projects succeed? Until now, it’s not always been clear how to predict areas where natural regeneration is most likely to occur. That’s made it hard to do large-scale natural regeneration projects. Our research addresses this gap. We identified the best areas to roll out natural approaches in the tropics. We focused on tropical forested regions because they are particularly important. Their biodiversity is unparalleled and they provide vast economic, cultural, and recreational services to people. They also grow much faster than other forest types, and many large tropical forests have already been cleared and degraded. Factors that make a forest likely to regenerate naturally include: the amount of surrounding forest distance to existing forest and soil organic carbon content This suggests areas with higher levels of landscape degradation and intensive land uses would be less likely to regenerate naturally. We found suitable environmental conditions for natural regeneration occur across: 98 million hectares in the Neotropics (which includes many areas in South and Central America) 90 million hectares in the Indomalayan tropics (which includes many areas in Southeast Asia, Malaysia, and India) 25.5 million hectares in the continent of Africa Up to 52% of this natural regeneration could occur in just five countries: Brazil, Indonesia, China, Mexico, and Colombia. This suggests these countries would be excellent candidates for large scale natural regeneration projects. We also found that 29 other countries have at least one million hectares each that could be naturally reforested. We identified 400,000 hectares of deforested lands with potential for natural forest regeneration in the Australian tropics. Fixing forests will also improve biodiversity. Martin Prochazkacz/Shutterstock The world has committed to fixing forests The world has committed to ambitious forest restoration targets in order to substantially increase the area of forest ecosystems by 2050. These commitments include the Bonn Challenge, which aims to restore 350 million hectares by 2030. Another is Target 2 of the recently adopted Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for 30% of the area of degraded ecosystems to be restored by 2030. Achieving these targets, especially for nations with emerging economies, will not be possible using active restoration techniques alone. This due to cost and feasibility constraints. To assist with this global task, we have made our dataset publicly available and free to use. Local communities at the centre Encouraging natural regeneration remains a major challenge, particularly on privately held and communally managed land because it can mean reduced land available for other uses. Providing local people with training and support to grow, harvest and market products sourced from naturally regenerating forests is also crucial. This could help keep young naturally regenerating forests standing and growing. This income could supplement or replace payments landowners and local people currently receive to look after land and prevent it from being deforested. Payment-based approaches are not always sustainable in the long term. Currently, many forests are controlled and managed by central or national governments. Giving local and Indigenous communities control over their forests would help encourage restoration that meets local needs. However, this requires appropriate technical support and monitoring. Importantly, our analysis does not define where restoration activities should or should not occur. We only show where natural forest regeneration is possible or more likely to succeed. We echo calls to ensure restoration occurs as equitably as possible, and foregrounds the needs of local people. Forest restoration should be as equitable as possible, and foreground the needs of local people. WNDR Worlds/Shutterstock Let’s give it a chance Natural forest regeneration presents an opportunity to restore vast areas of forest cheaply and effectively. It can help mitigate the effects of climate change and help countries meet their emissions reduction targets. Other benefits include conserving biodiversity, regulating water resources, reducing erosion, and making ecosystems more resilient. Recognising the massive regeneration capacity of tropical forests is key. It’s also crucial it occurs alongside protecting intact forests, and reducing deforestation. Robin Chazdon is the global co-director of the Assisted Natural Regeneration Alliance. She is a senior fellow with the World Resources Institute's Global Restoration Initiative.Brooke Williams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Brazil Fines Meatpacking Companies, Including Giant JBS, for Buying Illegally Raised Cattle

Brazil's environmental agency levied $64 million in fines against 23 meatpacking and their suppliers companies for buying and selling cattle raised illegally on deforested land in the Amazon

Brasilia, BRAZIL (AP) — Brazil's environmental agency has levied $64 million in fines against 23 meatpacking companies and their suppliers for buying and selling cattle raised illegally on deforested land in the Amazon.The operation, dubbed Cold Meat 2, launched last week. It tracked 18,000 head of cattle raised in 100 square miles (260 square kilometers) of pasture that has been banned for commercial use due to illegal deforestation. The agents also apprehended 8,854 head of cattle found inside the restricted areas. News of the fines began emerging over the weekend.Cattle raising is the main driver of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, with 90% of the total area cleared between 1985 and 2023 converted to pasture. That represents a total of 227,800 square miles (590,000 square kilometers), slightly larger than France. As a result, 14% of the Amazon is covered by grazing land, according to MapBiomas, a network of nongovernmental organizations that monitors land use. “We are inspecting the production chain to hold offenders accountable for acquiring products from deforestation and to ensure that crime does not pay,” Jair Schmitt, chief of environmental protection at Brazil’s federal environmental agency, known as Ibama, told The Associated Press.Among those fined was JBS, the world's largest meat-packing company. JBS has applied to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange, a move that has faced opposition from some U.S. lawmakers and environmental nonprofits. It's not clear when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may make a decision on JBS' bid.The JBS fine was $108,000 for purchasing 1,231 head of cattle, the fifth largest penalty among the fined companies.The operation followed three months of investigation by Ibama's intelligence unit and is the latest episode linking JBS to illegal deforestation. In December, AP revealed that it is facing lawsuits for allegedly purchasing cattle raised illegally in Jaci-Parana, a protected area in the Brazilian Amazon. In a statement, JBS denied buying cattle from embargoed areas and said it had already submitted documents to Ibama demonstrating their legal origin. However, the company declined to comment on the Jaci-Parana’s case despite repeated requests for clarification from AP since it published the story.“JBS has maintained its Responsible Procurement Policy for 15 years and has a geospatial monitoring system in place to ensure that the company does not purchase animals from farms involved in illegal deforestation, encroachment on Indigenous lands or conservation areas that are under embargo by Ibama,” read the statement. Agropam, a meatpacker in Boca do Acre city, received the largest fine, $493,000, for buying 5,624 head of cattle from illegal areas. The company, which operates under the name of Frizam, sells beef only for Brazil's internal market. A message requesting comment was not returned.The other top companies targeted were Mafrico, Frigol and 163 Beef. Mafrico and Frigo did not respond to requests for comment left by phone and on their websites. Contact information for 163 Beef was not immediately available, as numbers on its Facebook page were disconnected.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

Suggested Viewing

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.