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.

Op-ed: Black lives matter in Africa's National Parks too

News Feed
Wednesday, August 7, 2024

About 7,400 miles away from my partners in Namibia, I sit at my desk, pen in hand and mouth agape. This isn’t the first time my colleagues have left me speechless. Through testimonies of children seeking revenge for their murdered fathers, families losing generations due to heartbreak, communities fractured, prospects of marriage dissolved and homes forever impacted, I thought I had heard it all. But during this particular conversation with Earle Sinvula Mudabeti and Sylvester Kabajani, board members of Namibian Lives Matter, I felt my heart settle in my stomach, as I grappled with the raw realities of militarized conservation. I kept questioning at what point did killing become a viable conservation strategy and to what extent conservationists are willing to keep marginalizing and exterminating Black people for biodiversity. To read a version of this story in Spanish click here. Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en español.Militarized conservation, which is the use of military-grade weapons, peoples, or enforcement tactics for biodiversity protection, was something I stumbled upon at the beginning of my graduate studies. Amidst the news articles, press releases and YouTube videos about wildlife non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funding militaries to save wildlife, I also found shattered families and communities – mostly Black and Indigenous – that conservation-induced violence had altered forever. Despite the good intentions behind this conservation strategy, at its core, conservation-motivated violence is a dehumanizing way to look at poachers. I believe that conservation rooted in care, for both people and wildlife, will be more successful than conservation predicated on violence. The case of the Chobe National ParkAs a multiracial Black woman, I am used to being perceived as an anomaly in the conservation field. Throughout my education, I have often been part of a small handful, or the sole person, in classrooms or conferences. Hearing “are you sure you’re supposed to be here?” and seeing widened eyes when I affirmed my belonging. This outcast feeling wasn’t surprising, nor new to me. What did surprise me was that being against the killing of innocent people for conservation was considered radical. I thought I was just being human. Militarized conservation consists of hyper-vigilant security strategies to protect biodiversity, often at the expense of local communities. It could mean the use of drones, such as in Nepal’s Chitwan National Park; increased policing in national parks or protected areas such as in Cambodia; or arming environmental agents with specialized weapons as is the case in Haiti. Conservation-motivated violence is a dehumanizing way to look at poachers. I started questioning this approach after learning about the deeply rooted contestation in southern Africa between the nations of Botswana and Namibia, where bullets and elephants rumbled the communities around Chobe National Park. This park boasts the largest concentration of elephants in Botswana and shares a border with Namibia and Zimbabwe. At any time, there can be more than 50,000 elephants moving in and out of the park, representing a huge opportunity for the global ivory trafficking industry. In response to this threat to Chobe’s elephants, Botswana informally implemented a “shoot-to-kill” policy in 2013, which authorized the Botswana Defense Force to kill suspected poachers. Clicking through stories on women and urban bushmeat trafficking, I came across an article detailing the death of a mother following the murders of her three sons, who were suspected of poaching in Chobe National Park. The Botswana Defense Force killed the three Namibian brothers – Tommy, Wamunyima and Martin Nchindo – and their Zambian cousin Sinvula Munyeme, while they were fishing on the Chobe River in 2020. Their murders lacked substantive evidence of them poaching.More than 15,000 Namibians mobilized and protested the Nchindo murders in 2020. These protests largely contributed to the creation of the Namibian Lives Matter movement, which, similar to the United States’ Black Lives Matter movement, reflects an active resistance to state violence against racially marginalized peoples.The Nchindo brothers are not the only Namibian victims of the shoot-to-kill policy. To date, Namibian Lives Matter attests that nearly 40 Namibians have been killed by the Botswana Defense Force since the 1990s, including a nine-year-old boy. Conservation violence reaches the families and communities of those killed or incarcerated. Indeed, losing the primary household provider makes families and communities more susceptible to poverty and food insecurity.Despite these violent conservation policies, poaching persists. A 2022 Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KaZa TFCA) Elephant Survey found that in Botswana, in comparison to the 2018 survey, elephant populations were stable, the elephant numbers had decreased by 25% in areas open to hunting and had increased by 28% in areas where hunting was banned. These findings suggest that elephants are moving into areas that they consider safer, which poses a bigger chance of retaliatory killings and human-wildlife conflict for communities. More than 15,000 Namibians mobilized and protested the Nchindo murders in 2020. These protests largely contributed to the creation of the Namibian Lives Matter movement.Instead of protecting the elephants, these efforts to curb poaching through executing and incarcerating poachers have more often resulted in further marginalizing the families left behind, as well as deterring local communities from participating in conservation efforts. In fact, as demonstrated by researchers in 2013, systemic barriers, such as poverty or lack of political voice, can prevent local communities from challenging unpopular conservation policies. “Militarization is the short-term solution,” wrote professor Rosaleen Duffy. And not only that: it can make us think we’re addressing the problem when we’re just perpetuating injustice under the guise of conservation.An uncomfortable viewpointBeing simultaneously anti-poaching and also anti-war has put me in a strange position. I am opposed to all forms of militarization, which means that I believe that people don’t have to die for wildlife to live.This stance has made me the target of criticism. Those who are in favor of militarized conservation efforts – from members of the general public to benefactors and donors, to non-governmental organizations, to national governments and even to other conservationists – push for militarized efforts because they believe it is the only possible response to the increase in poaching. Documentaries like “Virunga: Conservation is War” or “Akashinga: The Brave Ones,” have only glamorized this approach, helping its expansion globally. Being simultaneously anti-poaching and also anti-war has put me in a strange position. I am opposed to all forms of militarization, which means that I believe that people don’t have to die for wildlife to live.But others, like me, advocate for the recognition of poachers as people, with legitimate reasons as to why they chose to hunt illegally. Those who are poaching in the parks are often not the high profile wildlife traffickers or ivory kingpins, but are rather people who are hunting to either procure food for themselves and their families, or supplement their income. Researchers have found that the poaching rates of elephants is linked to local poverty levels, national corruption and ivory prices. Poverty, in essence, drives elephant poaching, with fewer elephants being poached in areas where communities have greater economic stability and health. Further, we believe that any conservation effort that requires violence to function only works to further marginalize communities that live alongside wildlife. It inadvertently uplifts the ideals of white supremacy because whiteness can exist and belong in wild spaces, while communities of color are classified as threats to conservation efforts. Infamously, while India’s Kaziranga National Park holds over two-thirds of the world’s Indian one-horned rhino population, Kaziranga achieved this success through deadly security measures. “The instruction is whenever you see the poachers or hunters, we should start our guns and hunt them,” a Kaziranga park guard shared with journalist Justin Rowlatt. In the case of the Nchindo brothers, the inquest revealed that a total of 32 bullets were fired at the men, who were found without weapons or elephant tusks. I read this as a testament to how militarized conservation disregards the very humanity of poachers. Moving past dehumanizing conservation strategiesConservation strategies that don’t care about local communities can increase poaching activities and an aversion to conservation entirely. I believe wildlife policies that are responsive to local people’s needs have a better chance to be sustainable, long-lasting and just.As a counter to violent conservation policies, Namibian Lives Matter and I, in partnership with the Cornell Institute for African Development, are establishing communal fisheries along the Zambezi River. Fish are life for the Zambezi people, and violent conservation policies infringe on their right to life by prohibiting their access to fish. Our project, through cultivating relationships with local tourist lodges and restaurants, provides an economic opportunity for fishermen and maintains traditional fishing practices. These efforts reflect a need for conservation to take a care-oriented approach that does not sacrifice one cause for another. We can cultivate conservation futures that benefit communities and address social inequality and environmental degradation. With the impending Biodiversity COP16, it is crucial for conversations to include communities in conservation planning, implementation and management to reflect their needs. The pursuit of care in conservation isn’t just a new strategy – it’s a way of thinking and doing that truly values and chooses life. This essay was produced through the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice fellowship, a partnership between Environmental Health News and Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Agents of Change empowers emerging leaders from historically excluded backgrounds in science and academia to reimagine solutions for a just and healthy planet.

About 7,400 miles away from my partners in Namibia, I sit at my desk, pen in hand and mouth agape. This isn’t the first time my colleagues have left me speechless. Through testimonies of children seeking revenge for their murdered fathers, families losing generations due to heartbreak, communities fractured, prospects of marriage dissolved and homes forever impacted, I thought I had heard it all. But during this particular conversation with Earle Sinvula Mudabeti and Sylvester Kabajani, board members of Namibian Lives Matter, I felt my heart settle in my stomach, as I grappled with the raw realities of militarized conservation. I kept questioning at what point did killing become a viable conservation strategy and to what extent conservationists are willing to keep marginalizing and exterminating Black people for biodiversity. To read a version of this story in Spanish click here. Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en español.Militarized conservation, which is the use of military-grade weapons, peoples, or enforcement tactics for biodiversity protection, was something I stumbled upon at the beginning of my graduate studies. Amidst the news articles, press releases and YouTube videos about wildlife non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funding militaries to save wildlife, I also found shattered families and communities – mostly Black and Indigenous – that conservation-induced violence had altered forever. Despite the good intentions behind this conservation strategy, at its core, conservation-motivated violence is a dehumanizing way to look at poachers. I believe that conservation rooted in care, for both people and wildlife, will be more successful than conservation predicated on violence. The case of the Chobe National ParkAs a multiracial Black woman, I am used to being perceived as an anomaly in the conservation field. Throughout my education, I have often been part of a small handful, or the sole person, in classrooms or conferences. Hearing “are you sure you’re supposed to be here?” and seeing widened eyes when I affirmed my belonging. This outcast feeling wasn’t surprising, nor new to me. What did surprise me was that being against the killing of innocent people for conservation was considered radical. I thought I was just being human. Militarized conservation consists of hyper-vigilant security strategies to protect biodiversity, often at the expense of local communities. It could mean the use of drones, such as in Nepal’s Chitwan National Park; increased policing in national parks or protected areas such as in Cambodia; or arming environmental agents with specialized weapons as is the case in Haiti. Conservation-motivated violence is a dehumanizing way to look at poachers. I started questioning this approach after learning about the deeply rooted contestation in southern Africa between the nations of Botswana and Namibia, where bullets and elephants rumbled the communities around Chobe National Park. This park boasts the largest concentration of elephants in Botswana and shares a border with Namibia and Zimbabwe. At any time, there can be more than 50,000 elephants moving in and out of the park, representing a huge opportunity for the global ivory trafficking industry. In response to this threat to Chobe’s elephants, Botswana informally implemented a “shoot-to-kill” policy in 2013, which authorized the Botswana Defense Force to kill suspected poachers. Clicking through stories on women and urban bushmeat trafficking, I came across an article detailing the death of a mother following the murders of her three sons, who were suspected of poaching in Chobe National Park. The Botswana Defense Force killed the three Namibian brothers – Tommy, Wamunyima and Martin Nchindo – and their Zambian cousin Sinvula Munyeme, while they were fishing on the Chobe River in 2020. Their murders lacked substantive evidence of them poaching.More than 15,000 Namibians mobilized and protested the Nchindo murders in 2020. These protests largely contributed to the creation of the Namibian Lives Matter movement, which, similar to the United States’ Black Lives Matter movement, reflects an active resistance to state violence against racially marginalized peoples.The Nchindo brothers are not the only Namibian victims of the shoot-to-kill policy. To date, Namibian Lives Matter attests that nearly 40 Namibians have been killed by the Botswana Defense Force since the 1990s, including a nine-year-old boy. Conservation violence reaches the families and communities of those killed or incarcerated. Indeed, losing the primary household provider makes families and communities more susceptible to poverty and food insecurity.Despite these violent conservation policies, poaching persists. A 2022 Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KaZa TFCA) Elephant Survey found that in Botswana, in comparison to the 2018 survey, elephant populations were stable, the elephant numbers had decreased by 25% in areas open to hunting and had increased by 28% in areas where hunting was banned. These findings suggest that elephants are moving into areas that they consider safer, which poses a bigger chance of retaliatory killings and human-wildlife conflict for communities. More than 15,000 Namibians mobilized and protested the Nchindo murders in 2020. These protests largely contributed to the creation of the Namibian Lives Matter movement.Instead of protecting the elephants, these efforts to curb poaching through executing and incarcerating poachers have more often resulted in further marginalizing the families left behind, as well as deterring local communities from participating in conservation efforts. In fact, as demonstrated by researchers in 2013, systemic barriers, such as poverty or lack of political voice, can prevent local communities from challenging unpopular conservation policies. “Militarization is the short-term solution,” wrote professor Rosaleen Duffy. And not only that: it can make us think we’re addressing the problem when we’re just perpetuating injustice under the guise of conservation.An uncomfortable viewpointBeing simultaneously anti-poaching and also anti-war has put me in a strange position. I am opposed to all forms of militarization, which means that I believe that people don’t have to die for wildlife to live.This stance has made me the target of criticism. Those who are in favor of militarized conservation efforts – from members of the general public to benefactors and donors, to non-governmental organizations, to national governments and even to other conservationists – push for militarized efforts because they believe it is the only possible response to the increase in poaching. Documentaries like “Virunga: Conservation is War” or “Akashinga: The Brave Ones,” have only glamorized this approach, helping its expansion globally. Being simultaneously anti-poaching and also anti-war has put me in a strange position. I am opposed to all forms of militarization, which means that I believe that people don’t have to die for wildlife to live.But others, like me, advocate for the recognition of poachers as people, with legitimate reasons as to why they chose to hunt illegally. Those who are poaching in the parks are often not the high profile wildlife traffickers or ivory kingpins, but are rather people who are hunting to either procure food for themselves and their families, or supplement their income. Researchers have found that the poaching rates of elephants is linked to local poverty levels, national corruption and ivory prices. Poverty, in essence, drives elephant poaching, with fewer elephants being poached in areas where communities have greater economic stability and health. Further, we believe that any conservation effort that requires violence to function only works to further marginalize communities that live alongside wildlife. It inadvertently uplifts the ideals of white supremacy because whiteness can exist and belong in wild spaces, while communities of color are classified as threats to conservation efforts. Infamously, while India’s Kaziranga National Park holds over two-thirds of the world’s Indian one-horned rhino population, Kaziranga achieved this success through deadly security measures. “The instruction is whenever you see the poachers or hunters, we should start our guns and hunt them,” a Kaziranga park guard shared with journalist Justin Rowlatt. In the case of the Nchindo brothers, the inquest revealed that a total of 32 bullets were fired at the men, who were found without weapons or elephant tusks. I read this as a testament to how militarized conservation disregards the very humanity of poachers. Moving past dehumanizing conservation strategiesConservation strategies that don’t care about local communities can increase poaching activities and an aversion to conservation entirely. I believe wildlife policies that are responsive to local people’s needs have a better chance to be sustainable, long-lasting and just.As a counter to violent conservation policies, Namibian Lives Matter and I, in partnership with the Cornell Institute for African Development, are establishing communal fisheries along the Zambezi River. Fish are life for the Zambezi people, and violent conservation policies infringe on their right to life by prohibiting their access to fish. Our project, through cultivating relationships with local tourist lodges and restaurants, provides an economic opportunity for fishermen and maintains traditional fishing practices. These efforts reflect a need for conservation to take a care-oriented approach that does not sacrifice one cause for another. We can cultivate conservation futures that benefit communities and address social inequality and environmental degradation. With the impending Biodiversity COP16, it is crucial for conversations to include communities in conservation planning, implementation and management to reflect their needs. The pursuit of care in conservation isn’t just a new strategy – it’s a way of thinking and doing that truly values and chooses life. This essay was produced through the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice fellowship, a partnership between Environmental Health News and Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Agents of Change empowers emerging leaders from historically excluded backgrounds in science and academia to reimagine solutions for a just and healthy planet.



About 7,400 miles away from my partners in Namibia, I sit at my desk, pen in hand and mouth agape.


This isn’t the first time my colleagues have left me speechless. Through testimonies of children seeking revenge for their murdered fathers, families losing generations due to heartbreak, communities fractured, prospects of marriage dissolved and homes forever impacted, I thought I had heard it all. But during this particular conversation with Earle Sinvula Mudabeti and Sylvester Kabajani, board members of Namibian Lives Matter, I felt my heart settle in my stomach, as I grappled with the raw realities of militarized conservation. I kept questioning at what point did killing become a viable conservation strategy and to what extent conservationists are willing to keep marginalizing and exterminating Black people for biodiversity.

To read a version of this story in Spanish click here. Haz clic aquí para leer este reportaje en español.

Militarized conservation, which is the use of military-grade weapons, peoples, or enforcement tactics for biodiversity protection, was something I stumbled upon at the beginning of my graduate studies. Amidst the news articles, press releases and YouTube videos about wildlife non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funding militaries to save wildlife, I also found shattered families and communities – mostly Black and Indigenous – that conservation-induced violence had altered forever.

Despite the good intentions behind this conservation strategy, at its core, conservation-motivated violence is a dehumanizing way to look at poachers. I believe that conservation rooted in care, for both people and wildlife, will be more successful than conservation predicated on violence.

The case of the Chobe National Park


As a multiracial Black woman, I am used to being perceived as an anomaly in the conservation field. Throughout my education, I have often been part of a small handful, or the sole person, in classrooms or conferences. Hearing “are you sure you’re supposed to be here?” and seeing widened eyes when I affirmed my belonging. This outcast feeling wasn’t surprising, nor new to me.

What did surprise me was that being against the killing of innocent people for conservation was considered radical. I thought I was just being human.

Militarized conservation consists of hyper-vigilant security strategies to protect biodiversity, often at the expense of local communities. It could mean the use of drones, such as in Nepal’s Chitwan National Park; increased policing in national parks or protected areas such as in Cambodia; or arming environmental agents with specialized weapons as is the case in Haiti.

Conservation-motivated violence is a dehumanizing way to look at poachers.

I started questioning this approach after learning about the deeply rooted contestation in southern Africa between the nations of Botswana and Namibia, where bullets and elephants rumbled the communities around Chobe National Park.

This park boasts the largest concentration of elephants in Botswana and shares a border with Namibia and Zimbabwe. At any time, there can be more than 50,000 elephants moving in and out of the park, representing a huge opportunity for the global ivory trafficking industry. In response to this threat to Chobe’s elephants, Botswana informally implemented a “shoot-to-kill” policy in 2013, which authorized the Botswana Defense Force to kill suspected poachers.

Clicking through stories on women and urban bushmeat trafficking, I came across an article detailing the death of a mother following the murders of her three sons, who were suspected of poaching in Chobe National Park. The Botswana Defense Force killed the three Namibian brothers – Tommy, Wamunyima and Martin Nchindo – and their Zambian cousin Sinvula Munyeme, while they were fishing on the Chobe River in 2020. Their murders lacked substantive evidence of them poaching.


Africa poachers

More than 15,000 Namibians mobilized and protested the Nchindo murders in 2020. These protests largely contributed to the creation of the Namibian Lives Matter movement, which, similar to the United States’ Black Lives Matter movement, reflects an active resistance to state violence against racially marginalized peoples.

The Nchindo brothers are not the only Namibian victims of the shoot-to-kill policy. To date, Namibian Lives Matter attests that nearly 40 Namibians have been killed by the Botswana Defense Force since the 1990s, including a nine-year-old boy. Conservation violence reaches the families and communities of those killed or incarcerated. Indeed, losing the primary household provider makes families and communities more susceptible to poverty and food insecurity.

Despite these violent conservation policies, poaching persists. A 2022 Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KaZa TFCA) Elephant Survey found that in Botswana, in comparison to the 2018 survey, elephant populations were stable, the elephant numbers had decreased by 25% in areas open to hunting and had increased by 28% in areas where hunting was banned. These findings suggest that elephants are moving into areas that they consider safer, which poses a bigger chance of retaliatory killings and human-wildlife conflict for communities.

More than 15,000 Namibians mobilized and protested the Nchindo murders in 2020. These protests largely contributed to the creation of the Namibian Lives Matter movement.

Instead of protecting the elephants, these efforts to curb poaching through executing and incarcerating poachers have more often resulted in further marginalizing the families left behind, as well as deterring local communities from participating in conservation efforts. In fact, as demonstrated by researchers in 2013, systemic barriers, such as poverty or lack of political voice, can prevent local communities from challenging unpopular conservation policies. “Militarization is the short-term solution,” wrote professor Rosaleen Duffy. And not only that: it can make us think we’re addressing the problem when we’re just perpetuating injustice under the guise of conservation.

An uncomfortable viewpoint


Being simultaneously anti-poaching and also anti-war has put me in a strange position. I am opposed to all forms of militarization, which means that I believe that people don’t have to die for wildlife to live.

This stance has made me the target of criticism.

Those who are in favor of militarized conservation efforts – from members of the general public to benefactors and donors, to non-governmental organizations, to national governments and even to other conservationists – push for militarized efforts because they believe it is the only possible response to the increase in poaching. Documentaries like “Virunga: Conservation is Waror “Akashinga: The Brave Ones,” have only glamorized this approach, helping its expansion globally.

Being simultaneously anti-poaching and also anti-war has put me in a strange position. I am opposed to all forms of militarization, which means that I believe that people don’t have to die for wildlife to live.

But others, like me, advocate for the recognition of poachers as people, with legitimate reasons as to why they chose to hunt illegally. Those who are poaching in the parks are often not the high profile wildlife traffickers or ivory kingpins, but are rather people who are hunting to either procure food for themselves and their families, or supplement their income. Researchers have found that the poaching rates of elephants is linked to local poverty levels, national corruption and ivory prices. Poverty, in essence, drives elephant poaching, with fewer elephants being poached in areas where communities have greater economic stability and health.

Further, we believe that any conservation effort that requires violence to function only works to further marginalize communities that live alongside wildlife. It inadvertently uplifts the ideals of white supremacy because whiteness can exist and belong in wild spaces, while communities of color are classified as threats to conservation efforts.

Infamously, while India’s Kaziranga National Park holds over two-thirds of the world’s Indian one-horned rhino population, Kaziranga achieved this success through deadly security measures. “The instruction is whenever you see the poachers or hunters, we should start our guns and hunt them,” a Kaziranga park guard shared with journalist Justin Rowlatt. In the case of the Nchindo brothers, the inquest revealed that a total of 32 bullets were fired at the men, who were found without weapons or elephant tusks. I read this as a testament to how militarized conservation disregards the very humanity of poachers.

Moving past dehumanizing conservation strategies


africa justice

Conservation strategies that don’t care about local communities can increase poaching activities and an aversion to conservation entirely. I believe wildlife policies that are responsive to local people’s needs have a better chance to be sustainable, long-lasting and just.

As a counter to violent conservation policies, Namibian Lives Matter and I, in partnership with the Cornell Institute for African Development, are establishing communal fisheries along the Zambezi River. Fish are life for the Zambezi people, and violent conservation policies infringe on their right to life by prohibiting their access to fish.

Our project, through cultivating relationships with local tourist lodges and restaurants, provides an economic opportunity for fishermen and maintains traditional fishing practices. These efforts reflect a need for conservation to take a care-oriented approach that does not sacrifice one cause for another.

We can cultivate conservation futures that benefit communities and address social inequality and environmental degradation. With the impending Biodiversity COP16, it is crucial for conversations to include communities in conservation planning, implementation and management to reflect their needs. The pursuit of care in conservation isn’t just a new strategy – it’s a way of thinking and doing that truly values and chooses life.


This essay was produced through the Agents of Change in Environmental Justice fellowship, a partnership between Environmental Health News and Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Agents of Change empowers emerging leaders from historically excluded backgrounds in science and academia to reimagine solutions for a just and healthy planet.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

‘All the birds returned’: How China led the way in water and soil conservation

The Loess plateau was the most eroded place on Earth until China took action and reversed decades of damage from grazing and farmingIt was one of China’s most ambitious environmental endeavours ever.The Loess plateau, an area spanning more than 245,000 sq miles (640,000 sq km) across three provinces and parts of four others, supports about 100 million people. By the end of the 20th century, however, this land, once fertile and productive, was considered the most eroded place on Earth, according to a documentary by the ecologist John D Liu. Continue reading...

It was one of China’s most ambitious environmental endeavours ever.The Loess plateau, an area spanning more than 245,000 sq miles (640,000 sq km) across three provinces and parts of four others, supports about 100 million people. By the end of the 20th century, however, this land, once fertile and productive, was considered the most eroded place on Earth, according to a documentary by the ecologist John D Liu.Generations of farmers had cleared and cultivated the land, slowly breaking down the soil and destroying the cover. Every year, the dust from the plain jammed the Yellow River with silt (this is how the river gets its name), sending plumes of loess, a fine wind-blown sediment, across Chinese cities – including to the capital, Beijing.And so in 1999 the Chinese government took drastic emergency action with the launch of Grain to Green, a pilot project backed by World Bank funding, to regreen the plateau and reverse the damage done by overgrazing and overcultivation of the once forested hillsides that would become what the bank described in 2004 as “the largest and most successful water and soil conservancy project in the world” (pdf).Eroded valleys and terracing in Loess plateau, Gansu, before the conservation project began. Photograph: Universal Images Group/GettyThe primary focus was to restore agricultural production and incomes in the plateau, but the dust storms descending on already polluted cities, “making people cough even more”, also became a driver, says Peter Bridgewater, an honorary professor at the Australian National University’s Centre for Heritage and Museum Studies.World Bank participants spent more than three years designing the project, working with experts as well as communities, officials and farmers on how to overturn the longstanding but unsustainable grazing and herding of livestock. Tree-cutting, planting on hillsides and uncurbed sheep and goat grazing were banned. The sustainable practices demonstrated in some small villages were scaled up.The project was extraordinarily ambitious, and was powered through by China’s authoritarian system. “If you want major change, the Chinese system is well adapted to making major change,” says Bridgewater wryly.There were grain and cash subsidies for people converting farmland to grassland, economic forest or protected ecological forest. There were tax subsidies and benefits to offset farming losses, long-term land use contracts and conversion to more sustainable farming including orchards and nuts, and widespread tree-planting employment programmes.By 2016, China had converted more than 11,500 sq miles of rain-fed cropland to forest or grassland – a 25% increase in vegetative cover in a decade, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change. Other studies showed large reductions in erosion and positive changes in plant productivity.“When the environment improved, all the birds returned. The forest has developed its ecological system naturally,” the forestry worker Yan Rufeng told the state-run news channel CGTN.Terraces on the Loess plateau covered with layers of green wheat seedlings and dotted with golden rape flowers in Yuncheng, Shanxi province. Photograph: CFoto/Future Publishing/GettyIt wasn’t straightforward, however. There was some community resistance, particularly to demands to plant trees on farming land. “What about the next generation? They can’t eat trees,” said one man interviewed for Liu’s documentary.In the early years there also appeared to be a correlation between the project and a sudden drop in grain yield. Over the years, officials would debate whether the programme was harming China’s food security, although studies found there to be several factors at play, and that yields later improved.In hindsight, the early methods employed to regreen the dusty hills were also problematic. “There was a lot of mass tree planting – not necessarily natives – and in plantation format, in other words, monocultural stands,” says Bridgewater.Mass-species planting eventually began to replace the monoculture plantations, helping to increase wildlife, but there were also issues with water management, with the burgeoning tree cover and agriculture taking more and more water out of the Yellow River system.“It’s looking like there is a point at which the revegetation will become too successful in that it actually then swings the water balance of the landscape, reducing the potential for water to go into the rivers and be available for human use,” says Bridgewater.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“So this is another element that was not really thought about at the start, because the aim wasn’t ‘let’s stabilise the system’. But it’s a good lesson as to how all these interconnecting factors need to be thought about very carefully before you launch into these things.”Eroded terraces on the Loess plateau, Shaanxi province, in 2007. Photograph: China Span Keren Su/Sunset/Rex/ShutterstockA big factor in the success and demands of the programme was and remains the changing climate. The plateau sits in a transition zone between arid and semi-humid climates. The varied natural factors of the region, combined with unsustainable human activity, had contributed to the fragility of the plateau, a 2021 study found. “At the same time, the climate in this region has shown warming and wetting, particularly in the south in which precipitation increased by 20-50 mm from 2000 to 2014.”The climate around the Loess plateau is changing, which means what existed, or even thrived, several decades ago can’t necessarily be put back, says Bridgewater. “But we can produce something, a system that will produce ecosystem services at a better range and a better quality and more regularly than the systems that we’ve destabilised.”An aerival view of Loess plateau terraces after wheat harvest in Yuncheng, Shanxi province, in June. Photograph: NurPhoto/GettyBridgewater adds: “Given the speed of climate change, and not just climate but hydrology and all the other associated global changes, we need to be thinking about what we want. What we want out of our ecosystems are actually services.“We need to think actually in multi-dimensions … to develop a whole new way of thinking as to how we manage the landscape. And in a way, the whole Loess plateau project is a good example of that, [even if] that wasn’t the way of thinking at the start.”Lu FuChin, a former farmer, told the official state news outlet Xinhua that the programme had boosted local employment. “I used to cut trees for firewood, but now I grow them instead,” said the 52-year-old forestry worker. “It used to be that people had to go far for work, but now they can find employment by the Yellow River. As the environment is improving, I believe the villagers’ lives will become more prosperous too.”Additional research by Jason Tzu Kuan Lu

Democratic Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona Dies of Complications From Cancer Treatment

Democratic U.S. Rep. Raúl M

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona, who championed environmental protection during his 12 terms in Congress, died Thursday of complications from cancer treatments, his office said.Grijalva, who was 77, had risen to chair the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee and was the top Democrat on the committee until earlier this year. He had been absent from Congress as he underwent cancer treatment in recent months. Grijalva’s office said in a statement, “From permanently protecting the Grand Canyon for future generations to strengthening the Affordable Care Act, his proudest moments in Congress have always been guided by community voices.”Grijalva, the son of a Mexican immigrant, was first elected to the House in 2002. Known as a liberal leader, he led the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 2008 and dedicated much of his career to working on environmental causes on the Natural Resources Committee. He stepped down from that position this year, after announcing that he planned to retire rather than run for reelection in 2026.During his time in Congress, Grijalva championed protections for endangered species and wilderness areas, as well as stronger regulations on the oil and natural gas industries. He played a key role in writing the National Landscape Conservation System Act and the Federal Lands Restoration Act, which were passed and signed by President Barack Obama.Grijalva had announced in April last year that he had been diagnosed with cancer, but would be able to continue his work. He also sought reelection and won easily in the blue-leaning district.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Long Island Wildfires Began With Backyard S’mores, Police Say

The wildfires began accidentally when someone in Suffolk County tried to light a fire to make s’mores, officials said. They were fully contained by Monday.

The wildfires that broke out on Long Island Saturday afternoon and spread over hundreds of acres appeared to be accidental, caused by a failed attempt to make s’mores in a backyard, local officials said on Monday.The preliminary determination came after detectives with the Suffolk County Police Department conducted an investigation into the cause of the fires, interviewing 911 callers and using drones and helicopters to determine whether arson had played a role.What started as a backyard fire in Manorville, near Sunrise Highway on Long Island’s South Shore, became several blazes as strong winds contributed to the embers’ spread, officials said at a news conference on Monday. The fires were under control by Sunday morning and were 100 percent contained on Monday, said Amanda Lefton, the acting commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Kevin Catalina, the Suffolk County police commissioner, said that around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, a person in Manorville was trying to make s’mores but was initially unable to light a fire because of the wind. The person used cardboard to light the fire, he said, and soon the backyard area went up in flames.That fire was put out within an hour, the commissioner said, but a few hours later, another fire was reported less than a quarter mile southeast of the initial fire. “The wind was blowing very strongly from the northwest, so that path makes perfect sense,” he said, adding that two additional fires were reported later.“It is believed that the embers from each fire traveled and continuously started more fires,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

US lost a fifth of its butterflies within two decades

However the researchers say butterflies may be able to recover if urgent conservation measures are taken.

US lost a fifth of its butterflies within two decades Maddie MolloyBBC Climate & ScienceJack CochranThe Danaus eresimus, commonly known as the soldier butterfly, is among the 20 butterfly species experiencing the steepest declineButterfly populations in the US shrank by more than a fifth within the space of two decades, according to a new study.Numbers fell by 22% between 2000 and 2020, according to research by Binghamton University in New York.A third of species saw serious decline, with some, like Julia's Skipper, losing more than 90% of their populations.However, the researchers say butterflies may be able to recover if urgent conservation measures are taken.The study published in the journal Science measured butterfly "abundance" - the number of individuals of a species within a specific area. It analysed 12.6 million butterfly sightings from 76,000 surveys across 35 monitoring programmes.This included data from citizen science programmes like the North American Butterfly Association's Fourth of July counts.Using statistical models, they estimated population trends for 342 species.The results showed that 33% were in significant decline, with many exhibiting extreme losses - 107 species declined by more than 50%."While the results aligned with global trends, seeing the extent of the decline at such a large spatial scale was sobering," said Prof Eliza Grames, an assistant professor of biological sciences at Binghamton University.Randy BodkinsThe West Virginia White (Pieris virginiensis) - a woodland butterfly - has declined in abundance by more than 98%Some of the most affected species include the Florida white, Hermes copper, tailed orange, Mitchell's satyr, and West Virginia white, all of which have declined in abundance by more than 98% within the US.The West Coast lady, once a common backyard butterfly, has declined by 80%, raising alarm as even this highly adaptable species struggled."That's alarming because it suggests even common butterflies aren't safe," Prof Grames said.Habitat loss, pesticides, and climate change are key causes of this decline, according to the researchers.Butterflies are crucial pollinators, supporting plants and crops. Experts say their decline could disrupt food production and entire ecosystems.They also serve as indicators of environmental health - when butterfly numbers fall, it signals trouble for other species.Southwest US most affectedSpecies are declining most severely in the US Southwest, one of the hottest and driest regions, researchers say. They believe drought may be a major contributor to these losses."Drought is a double threat - it harms butterflies directly and also affects their food and host plants," Prof Grames explained.The results could help drive important conservation efforts, such as prioritising species for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species and Endangered Species Act protection.Despite the decline, there is hope for recovery."Butterflies can recover quickly because they have short generation times. Small actions like planting wildflowers, reducing pesticide use, or even leaving part of a backyard unmowed can significantly improve their chances," Prof Grames said.She also stressed the need for government action."Insects are fundamental to life on earth, and we need conservation actions and policies that support insects."

Prep for spring with Oregon gardening workshops on pruning, beekeeping and more

Learn about conservation and wildlife or order native plants with one of these late winter events

Events are free unless noted. Please email calendar submissions at least three weeks in advance to events@oregonian.com.ONGOINGMetro Parks and Nature Winter 2025: Various times and locations through March 15. Connect with nature this winter and learn more about wildlife, explore a new hobby or volunteer in your community. Individuals, families and groups are welcome to register for a guided class, walk, stewardship activity or hands-on experience at a Metro park or natural area. Free to $6 registration at oregonmetro.gov/calendar or 503-220-2782; oregonmetro.gov/GuidedActivities.Portland Rose Society Pruning Demonstrations: 11:30 a.m.-2 p.m. (demo at noon) various dates and locations through March 23. Representatives from the Portland Rose Society will be demonstrating how and when to cut back different classes of roses, including hybrid teas, floribundas and shrubs. The society will also offer free pruner sharpening and soil pH testing. Visit portlandrosesociety.org, call 503-201-7847 or email bboehne@gmail.com.Spring Native Plant Sale: Order through March 30 from a selection of more than 115 species of native plants to be picked up in April or May at choice locations. sparrowhawknativeplants.com.East Multnomah Soil & Water Conservation District free webinars: Discover how to care for land in ways that benefit people, water and wildlife. From stormwater solutions to biochar to water conservation, these workshops will help you save time, money and energy. Register at emswcd.org/workshops-and-events/upcoming-workshops.Greater Portland Iris Society meeting: 7 p.m. first Tuesday of the month in March, April, September, October and November. Enjoy discussions of irises with guest speakers. Ainsworth House, 19130 Lot Whitcomb Drive, Oregon City; greaterportlandirissociety.org.Walk With a Friend at Tualatin Hills Nature Park: 9 a.m. first Wednesday and third Sunday of the month. Take a guided walk and learn about the plants, wildlife and history of the park. Tualatin Hills Nature Park, 15655 S.W. Millikan Way, Beaverton; thprd.org.Happy Valley Garden Club monthly meeting: 9 a.m.-noon second Tuesday of the month. Happy Valley Baptist Church, 14095 S.E. King Road, Happy Valley.Canby Garden Club monthly meeting: 1 p.m. second Tuesday of the month. Canby Public Library, 220 N.E. Second St.; canbygardenclub.com.Ikebana for Every Season: 1-3 p.m. second Tuesday of the month. Become knowledgeable about basic concepts, techniques, tools, equipment and care for ikebana. $50 includes instruction, plant material and containers to practice with. The Resource Center, 219 S. Main Ave., Gresham; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.Portland Dahlia Society monthly meeting: 7 p.m. second Tuesday of the month February through November. Take part in a discussion of seasonal topics. Oaks Park Dance Pavilion, 7805 S.E. Oaks Park Way; portlanddahlia.com.Oregon Fuchsia Society monthly meeting: 7 p.m. third Tuesday of the month. Western Seminary (Bueermann Hall), 5511 S.E. Hawthorne Blvd.; oregonfuchsiasociety.com.Estacada Garden Club monthly meeting: 1-3 p.m. second Thursday of the month. Estacada Public Library, 825 N.W. Wade St.The Art of Bonsai: 1-3 p.m. third Thursday and third Saturday of the month. Instructor Mark Vossbrink will guide you through the creation of a bonsai project. $40 includes instruction, plant, container, soil and all materials. The Resource Center, 219 S. Main Ave., Gresham; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5Introduction to Residential Beekeeping: 6:30-8 p.m. Learn about the differences between beekeeping in a rural versus urban setting, types of bees, flow hives and more. Gresham Japanese Garden, 219 S. Main Ave., Gresham; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.THURSDAY, MARCH 6Wildlife and Water Friendly Garden Series: (online with an option for in-person screenings) noon-1 p.m. The Clackamas Community College Environmental Learning Center is hosting free weekly workshops with industry professionals that will discuss gardening for wildlife and water quality, with a theme on climate resilience and impacts of climate change on wildlife. bit.ly/ELCgardenseries2025.Introduction to the Aesthetic Pruning Approach: (online via Zoom) 6-8 p.m. Instructor Maryann Lewis will discuss how to apply the aesthetic pruning approach to trees and shrubs, including how to assess plant material, identifying the role they play and developing a pruning plan to achieve your goals. $30; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.FRIDAY, MARCH 7Lane County Home & Garden Show: Noon-9 p.m. March 7, 10 a.m.-8 p.m. March 8 and 10 a.m.-5 p.m. March 9. Explore, shop and compare more than 300 exhibits featuring experts and new products and services for homes, gardens and yards. $5 or free with three cans of food; Lane Events Center, 796 W. 13th Ave., Eugene; EugeneHomeShow.com.TUESDAY, MARCH 11Webinar: Journey Down the Clackamas: Thermal Habitat Across Time and Space: 6-7:30 p.m. Join a virtual seminar series about the watershed and its natural resources. Register at clackamasriver.org; email Dakota@ClackamasRiver.org.SATURDAY, MARCH 15Garden Discovery Day: 9 a.m.-noon. Join the Clackamas County Master Gardener Association for in-person workshops, discussions, demonstrations, free soil testing and more. Milwaukie Community Center, 5440 S.E. Kellogg Creek Drive; clackamascountymastergardeners.org.Blueberry Pruning: 11 a.m.-1 p.m. Learn best practices for pruning blueberry plants with guided instruction and hands-on practice. Sliding scale starts at $40; registration required at homeorchardeducationcenter.org; Home Orchard Education Center Community Orchard, 19600 Molalla Ave., Oregon City; email info@homeorchardeducationcenter.org.TUESDAY, MARCH 18Pruning Small Fruits: 11 a.m.-1 p.m. This session will cover best practices for pruning small fruiting shrubs, including how to encourage growth and abundant harvests. Sliding scale starts at $40; registration required at homeorchardeducationcenter.org; Home Orchard Education Center Community Orchard, 19600 Molalla Ave., Oregon City; email info@homeorchardeducationcenter.org.WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19Weed Wranglin' Workshop: 6-7:30 p.m. Join this workshop and jump into some tips to help get those pesky weeds under control. Metzger Park, 8400 S.W. Hemlock St.; tualatinswcd.org.FRIDAY, MARCH 21Deepwood Plant Sale & Horticultural Tours: 9 a.m.-3 p.m. March 21-22. Shop a variety of Oregon native and companion plants, pottery, botanical art and more. Deepwood Museum & Gardens, 1116 Mission Street S.E., Salem; DeepwoodMuseum.org.Plant Spirit Journey: 6:30 p.m. Take part in a plant sit and learn about practical uses of seasonal species. From $25; Hedgerow Herb Co., 811 E. Burnside St., Suite 116; hedgerowherbco.com.SATURDAY, MARCH 22Tree School Clackamas: Opens at 7:15 a.m. Attend any of 73 classes covering forestry and tree grower topics key to the support of successful management of small woodlands. Participants will learn about forest management, tools and techniques, wildfire preparedness, marketing and business, forest health, wildlife habitat, weed management, forest fungi and more. $70 Clackamas County resident, $85 out of county, $35 ages 14-18 with adult; registration required at beav.es/tree-school-clackamas; Clackamas Community College, 19600 Molalla Ave., Oregon City.Grow Your Own Kiwifruit: It’s Easier Than You Think Workshop: 10-11:30 a.m. Join the WSU Extension Clark County Master Gardener program for an experiential workshop on getting started on your own growing adventure at a kiwi demonstration site in Vancouver. $10 registration at eventbrite.com; visit extension.wsu.edu, call 564-397-5738 or email Erika.d.johnson@wsu.edu.Gardening With Pacific Northwest Native Plants: 10 a.m.-noon. Join the Washington County Master Gardener Association to learn about native plants that thrive in the region, how to naturescape in support of wildlife and pollinators, and consider the possibilities the Backyard Habitat Certification Program offers through its customized yard assessment. PCC Rock Creek (Building 4, Room 103), 17705 N.W. Springville Road; washingtoncountymastergardeners.org.TUESDAY, MARCH 25Growing and Caring for Blueberries: 6-7:30 p.m. This seminar will review the main parts of a blueberry plant, soil conditions, how and when to fertilize, varieties, harvest times and more. Gresham Japanese Garden, 219 S. Main Ave., Gresham; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.SATURDAY, MARCH 29Yamhill County Master Gardeners and OSU Spring into Gardening: 8:45 a.m.-4 p.m. Sign up for gardening classes on flowers, healthy gardens and climate resilience, talk to garden experts, enter the annual raffle and more. $40, add lunch for $17; Linfield University, Keck Science Center, 356 Linfield Ave., McMinnville; register at YCMGA.org.Perennials: How to Choose, Plant and Maintain for Year-round Flowers: 10 a.m.-noon. This class will provide an overview on types of perennials, how to best care for them in terms of planting, pruning, fertilizing, pest control and maintenance, plus tips to extend blooming time for year-round color. PCC Rock Creek (Building 7, Room 105), 17705 N.W. Springville Road; washingtoncountymastergardeners.org.SATURDAY, APRIL 5Soil School 2025: 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m. This event offers eight sessions led by experts discussing how improving soil health improves plant, garden and habitat health. $35 registration includes breakfast and lunch; Portland Community College, Rock Creek Event Center, 17705 N.W. Springville Road; wmswcd.org.SATURDAY, APRIL 12Top-working Fruit Trees: 11 a.m.-1 p.m. Top-working is a term used to describe the process of adding new varieties to an existing tree. This hands-on workshop will teach you about grafting tools, compatibility and methods for top-working. Sliding scale starts at $30; registration required at homeorchardeducationcenter.org; Home Orchard Education Center Community Orchard, 19600 Molalla Ave., Oregon City; email info@homeorchardeducationcenter.org.SATURDAY, APRIL 19Earth Day Trash Cleanup: 10 a.m.-noon. Volunteer and help with trash cleanup on a Clackamas River Basin Council restoration site. Beebe Island (exact location TBD); register at clackamasriver.org; email Dakota@ClackamasRiver.org.SATURDAY, APRIL 26Pub Talk: Mussels & Macroinvertebrates: 5:30-7:30 p.m. Learn about and discuss mussels, macroinvertebrates (bugs) and freshwater ecology. Ruzzo’s Retreat, 15252 OR-224, Damascus; register at clackamasriver.org; email Dakota@ClackamasRiver.org.SATURDAY, MAY 3Gardenfest Plant Sale 2025: 9 a.m.-1 p.m. Choose from more than 5,000 plants selected for the Pacific Northwest, including natives, perennials, shrubs, vegetables, houseplants and more. PCC Rock Creek, 17705 N.W. Springville Road; washingtoncountymastergardeners.org.Spring Candling and Maintenance on Pines: 1-3 p.m. Instructor Laura Dufala will candle, needle and prune pines while discussing the whys and hows of the process. $45; Gresham Japanese Garden, 219 S. Main Ave., Gresham; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.SATURDAY, MAY 17Creating Pollinator Habitat for Your Garden and Home: 10-11:30 a.m. Learn how to preserve and protect certain types of native butterflies and the best ways to provide valuable nectar to all pollinators including bees, moths and hummingbirds. Gresham Japanese Garden, 219 S. Main Ave., Gresham; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.Gathering in the Garden: Celebrating Gardening and the Appreciation of Community Green Spaces: 10 a.m.-2 p.m. Enjoy live music and a silent auction while shopping for organic tomato starts, shrubs, plants, garden art, ceramics, accessories and more. Children can learn how to pot plants, and the Portland Rose Society will sharpen hand pruners for free. Eastmoreland Garden, Southeast 27th Avenue and Bybee Boulevard; eastmorelandpdx.org.Work Party: Garlic Mustard Pull: 1:30-3:30 p.m. Grab your favorite hand tool and head out to a springtime work party to help pull invasive and noxious garlic mustard. Milo McIver State Park, 24401 S. Entrance Road, Estacada; register at clackamasriver.org; email Dakota@ClackamasRiver.org.SUNDAY, MAY 18Pub Talk: An Invader Among Us — The Emerald Ash Borer: 5:30-7:30 p.m. Take part in an evening of learning and discussion on invasive insects including the emerald ash borer. Oregon City Brewing, 1401 Washington St., Oregon City; register at clackamasriver.org; email Dakota@ClackamasRiver.org.SATURDAY, MAY 31Pruning Flowering Shrubs: 1-2:30 p.m. Learn the basic cuts through a hands-on demonstration of pruning rhododendrons and azaleas. Garden Director Jim Card will speak about flowering shrubs and when and how to prune. Gresham Japanese Garden, 219 S. Main Ave., Gresham; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.SATURDAY, JUNE 7Propagating Broadleaf Shrubs: 1-3 p.m. Learn how to successfully propagate deciduous and evergreen plants and other suitable woody plants from cuttings. Instructor Norm Jacobs will explain plant physiology as it pertains to propagation, selection of containers and soil mixes, and the role of rooting compounds. $55 includes all materials; Gresham Japanese Garden, 219 S. Main Ave., Gresham; GreshamJapaneseGarden.org.-- Corey SheldonStay in the loop. Sign up to receive a weekly newsletter and join the conversation at the Homes & Gardens of the Northwest on Facebook

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.