reducing deforestation case study

How to tackle the global deforestation crisis

Imagine if France, Germany, and Spain were completely blanketed in forests — and then all those trees were quickly chopped down. That’s nearly the amount of deforestation that occurred globally between 2001 and 2020, with profound consequences.

Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, producing between 6 and 17 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2009 study. Meanwhile, because trees also absorb carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere, they help keep the Earth cooler. And climate change aside, forests protect biodiversity.

“Climate change and biodiversity make this a global problem, not a local problem,” says MIT economist Ben Olken. “Deciding to cut down trees or not has huge implications for the world.”

But deforestation is often financially profitable, so it continues at a rapid rate. Researchers can now measure this trend closely: In the last quarter-century, satellite-based technology has led to a paradigm change in charting deforestation. New deforestation datasets, based on the Landsat satellites, for instance, track forest change since 2000 with resolution at 30 meters, while many other products now offer frequent imaging at close resolution.

“Part of this revolution in measurement is accuracy, and the other part is coverage,” says Clare Balboni, an assistant professor of economics at the London School of Economics (LSE). “On-site observation is very expensive and logistically challenging, and you’re talking about case studies. These satellite-based data sets just open up opportunities to see deforestation at scale, systematically, across the globe.”

Balboni and Olken have now helped write a new paper providing a road map for thinking about this crisis. The open-access article, “ The Economics of Tropical Deforestation ,” appears this month in the Annual Review of Economics . The co-authors are Balboni, a former MIT faculty member; Aaron Berman, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Economics; Robin Burgess, an LSE professor; and Olken, MIT’s Jane Berkowitz Carlton and Dennis William Carlton Professor of Microeconomics. Balboni and Olken have also conducted primary research in this area, along with Burgess.

So, how can the world tackle deforestation? It starts with understanding the problem.

Replacing forests with farms

Several decades ago, some thinkers, including the famous MIT economist Paul Samuelson in the 1970s, built models to study forests as a renewable resource; Samuelson calculated the “maximum sustained yield” at which a forest could be cleared while being regrown. These frameworks were designed to think about tree farms or the U.S. national forest system, where a fraction of trees would be cut each year, and then new trees would be grown over time to take their place.

But deforestation today, particularly in tropical areas, often looks very different, and forest regeneration is not common.

Indeed, as Balboni and Olken emphasize, deforestation is now rampant partly because the profits from chopping down trees come not just from timber, but from replacing forests with agriculture. In Brazil, deforestation has increased along with agricultural prices; in Indonesia, clearing trees accelerated as the global price of palm oil went up, leading companies to replace forests with palm tree orchards.

All this tree-clearing creates a familiar situation: The globally shared costs of climate change from deforestation are “externalities,” as economists say, imposed on everyone else by the people removing forest land. It is akin to a company that pollutes into a river, affecting the water quality of residents.

“Economics has changed the way it thinks about this over the last 50 years, and two things are central,” Olken says. “The relevance of global externalities is very important, and the conceptualization of alternate land uses is very important.” This also means traditional forest-management guidance about regrowth is not enough. With the economic dynamics in mind, which policies might work, and why?

The search for solutions

As Balboni and Olken note, economists often recommend “Pigouvian” taxes (named after the British economist Arthur Pigou) in these cases, levied against people imposing externalities on others. And yet, it can be hard to identify who is doing the deforesting.

Instead of taxing people for clearing forests, governments can pay people to keep forests intact. The UN uses Payments for Environmental Services (PES) as part of its REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) program. However, it is similarly tough to identify the optimal landowners to subsidize, and these payments may not match the quick cash-in of deforestation. A 2017 study in Uganda showed PES reduced deforestation somewhat; a 2022 study in Indonesia found no reduction; another 2022 study, in Brazil, showed again that some forest protection resulted.

“There’s mixed evidence from many of these [studies],” Balboni says. These policies, she notes, must reach people who would otherwise clear forests, and a key question is, “How can we assess their success compared to what would have happened anyway?”

Some places have tried cash transfer programs for larger populations. In Indonesia, a 2020 study found such subsidies reduced deforestation near villages by 30 percent. But in Mexico, a similar program meant more people could afford milk and meat, again creating demand for more agriculture and thus leading to more forest-clearing.

At this point, it might seem that laws simply banning deforestation in key areas would work best — indeed, about 16 percent of the world’s land overall is protected in some way. Yet the dynamics of protection are tricky. Even with protected areas in place, there is still “leakage” of deforestation into other regions. 

Still more approaches exist, including “nonstate agreements,” such as the Amazon Soy Moratorium in Brazil, in which grain traders pledged not to buy soy from deforested lands, and reduced deforestation without “leakage.”

Also, intriguingly, a 2008 policy change in the Brazilian Amazon made agricultural credit harder to obtain by requiring recipients to comply with environmental and land registration rules. The result? Deforestation dropped by up to 60 percent over nearly a decade. 

Politics and pulp

Overall, Balboni and Olken observe, beyond “externalities,” two major challenges exist. One, it is often unclear who holds property rights in forests. In these circumstances, deforestation seems to increase. Two, deforestation is subject to political battles.

For instance, as economist Bard Harstad of Stanford University has observed, environmental lobbying is asymmetric. Balboni and Olken write: “The conservationist lobby must pay the government in perpetuity … while the deforestation-oriented lobby need pay only once to deforest in the present.” And political instability leads to more deforestation because “the current administration places lower value on future conservation payments.”

Even so, national political measures can work. In the Amazon from 2001 to 2005, Brazilian deforestation rates were three to four times higher than on similar land across the border, but that imbalance vanished once the country passed conservation measures in 2006. However, deforestation ramped up again after a 2014 change in government. Looking at particular monitoring approaches, a study of Brazil’s satellite-based Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation (DETER), launched in 2004, suggests that a 50 percent annual increase in its use in municipalities created a 25 percent reduction in deforestation from 2006 to 2016.

How precisely politics matters may depend on the context. In a 2021 paper, Balboni and Olken (with three colleagues) found that deforestation actually decreased around elections in Indonesia. Conversely, in Brazil, one study found that deforestation rates were 8 to 10 percent higher where mayors were running for re-election between 2002 and 2012, suggesting incumbents had deforestation industry support.

“The research there is aiming to understand what the political economy drivers are,” Olken says, “with the idea that if you understand those things, reform in those countries is more likely.”

Looking ahead, Balboni and Olken also suggest that new research estimating the value of intact forest land intact could influence public debates. And while many scholars have studied deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia, fewer have examined the Democratic Republic of Congo, another deforestation leader, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Deforestation is an ongoing crisis. But thanks to satellites and many recent studies, experts know vastly more about the problem than they did a decade or two ago, and with an economics toolkit, can evaluate the incentives and dynamics at play.

“To the extent that there’s ambuiguity across different contexts with different findings, part of the point of our review piece is to draw out common themes — the important considerations in determining which policy levers can [work] in different circumstances,” Balboni says. “That’s a fast-evolving area. We don’t have all the answers, but part of the process is bringing together growing evidence about [everything] that affects how successful those choices can be.”

How to best halt and reverse deforestation? Largest study of its kind finds answers.

August 16, 2023, research doubles existing evidence and finds protected areas, payments for ecosystem services, indigenous-led management are proven to slow deforestation.

ARLINGTON, Va. (August 16, 2023) – New research from Conservation International offers the most robust understanding yet of which socio-economic, cultural, regulatory and environmental factors have the greatest impact on forests – for better and worse. The study, published today in Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , is the most comprehensive and quantitative of its kind to date that identifies dozens of factors driving deforestation and reforestation.

The study – authored by Jonah Busch of Conservation International and Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon of the University of British Columbia – distills the findings of 320 peer-reviewed studies published up to 2019. That’s more than twice the evidence included in the last comprehensive overview of this kind, published in 2017 by the same authors.

The findings are timely given the increased focus on the need to reduce deforestation and stabilize global temperatures. The new peer-reviewed study  – alongside existing Conservation International research that finds the world must reach zero emissions from the land sector by 2030 – can help guide conservation strategies and investments toward policies that are proven to work.

As international efforts to protect and conserve nature continue to gain ground on the world stage – as through the Global Biodiversity Framework’s 30x30 initiative and the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forests and Land Use, among others – researchers believe these findings can serve as a guide for leaders across the public, private and nonprofit sectors.

“World leaders have committed to fight climate change by halting and reversing deforestation by 2030. This new study can help guide policies and investment toward actions that support those goals and away from those that do not,” said Busch, lead author and the climate economics fellow at Conservation International’s Moore Center for Science.

What slows deforestation:

Protected areas of many types across many places consistently have lower deforestation. Additionally, when forested area is in Indigenous territory or managed by Indigenous peoples, rates of deforestation are consistently lower. The same is true when payments are made to forest communities or landowners who keep their trees standing, making the forest worth more intact than as timber or farmland. These payments place value on the services that intact forests provide – livelihood opportunities, clean water, rainfall for agriculture and their ability to store climate-warming carbon.

The study also found that rates of deforestation are generally lower in forests with commodity certification programs in place, such as shade-grown coffee and sustainably produced palm oil initiatives. Supply chain programs, in which companies commit to reducing deforestation from their operations, consistently help keep forests intact.

Finally, the study found that enforcement of laws that help protect forests, for example field inspections, fines and monitoring of protected areas, consistently reduce deforestation.

“Left standing, forests are one of our best allies in reducing emissions and cooling a rapidly warming planet,” said Busch. “We provide the strongest evidence yet that land rights for Indigenous communities are reducing deforestation.”

What accelerates deforestation:

The study identifies agriculture and livestock – with their high economic returns – as major drivers of deforestation.

As with the 2017 study, greater accessibility, including lower elevation and proximity to roads and cities, accelerates deforestation, as do greater population and greater wealth. A country’s openness to trade is associated with higher deforestation as well.

The study also analyzed a new variable for the first time in any review study – hotter temperature. It revealed that hotter temperatures are associated with higher deforestation. As this summer has seen global temperature records repeatedly shattered , this novel finding reveals that increased deforestation may be yet another unwelcome effect of global warming.

Several factors were found to have no measurable effect on the rate of deforestation. These included good governance, democracy, peace, land tenure rights and gender balance of the local populations, in addition to the area’s access to nearby water or rainfall.

“Some of these findings surprised us – either because they’d never been found in a peer-reviewed paper until now, or because they went against conventional wisdom,” said Busch. “For example, many people suppose that poorer people are driven to deforestation to meet subsistence needs, but over and over, evidence shows there's more deforestation in places where people are richer. And when you think about it, it makes sense: the richer you are, the more you’re able to buy machines or hire workers to clear trees.”

“In the face of climate change which renders our forests both more critical and vulnerable, a comprehensive study is our roadmap to effective conservation strategies. It is incumbent upon policy makers, corporations and conservation organizations to prioritize these and invest in sustainable practices as the planet's future health relies on translating this knowledge into action,” said Ferretti-Gallon, a forestry researcher at the University of British Columbia’s Asia Forest Research Center.

About Conservation International:  Conservation International protects nature for the benefit of humanity. Through science, policy, fieldwork and finance, we spotlight and secure the most important places in nature for the climate, for biodiversity and for people. With offices in 30 countries and projects in more than 100 countries, Conservation International partners with governments, companies, civil society, Indigenous peoples and local communities to help people and nature thrive together. Go to  Conservation.org  for more, and follow our work on  Conservation News ,  Facebook ,  Twitter ,  TikTok ,  Instagram  and  YouTube .

For the Press

• News & Events
• Eastern and Southern Africa
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Mediterranean
• Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
• North America
• South America
• West and Central Africa
• IUCN Academy
• IUCN Contributions for Nature
• IUCN Library
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species TM
• IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
• IUCN World Heritage Outlook
• IUCN Leaders Forum
• Protected Planet
• Union Portal (login required)
• IUCN Engage (login required)
• Commission portal (login required)

Data, analysis, convening and action.

• Open Project Portal
• SCIENCE-LED APPROACH
• INFORMING POLICY
• SUPPORTING CONSERVATION ACTION
• GEF AND GCF IMPLEMENTATION
• IUCN CONVENING
• IUCN ACADEMY

The world’s largest and most diverse environmental network.

CORE COMPONENTS

• Expert Commissions
• Secretariat and Director General
• IUCN Council

• IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
• REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
• CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
• IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

Get involved

First-of-its-kind study shows conservation interventions are critical to halting and reversing biodiversity loss

A new study in the scientific journal Science provides the strongest evidence to date that not only is environmental conservation successful, but that scaling conservation interventions up would be transformational for halting and reversing biodiversity loss, a crisis that leads to ecosystem collapse and a planet less able to support life. 

Predator management of two of Florida’s barrier islands, Cayo Costa and North Captiva, resulted in an immediate and substantial improvement in nesting success by loggerhead turtles 

Protected areas, including Marine Protected Areas, are one of the key conservation actions included in the meta-analysis

The findings of this first-ever comprehensive meta-analysis of the impact of conservation action, conceived and funded through the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) by the Global Environment Facility, are crucial as more than 44,000 species are documented as being at risk of extinction, with tremendous consequences for the ecosystems that stabilize the climate and that provide billions of people around the world with clean water, livelihoods, homes, and cultural preservation, among other ecosystem services. Governments recently adopted new global targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, making it even more critical to understand whether conservation interventions are working.

“If you look only at the trend of species declines, it would be easy to think that we’re failing to protect biodiversity, but you would not be looking at the full picture,” said Penny Langhammer, lead author of the study and executive vice president of Re:wild . “What we show with this paper is that conservation is, in fact, working to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It is clear that conservation must be prioritised and receive significant additional resources and political will globally, while we simultaneously address the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss, such as overconsumption and production.”

Although many papers look at individual conservation projects and interventions and their impact compared to no action taken, these papers have never been pulled into a single analysis to see how and whether conservation action is working overall. The co-authors conducted the first-ever meta-analysis of 186 studies, including 665 trials, that looked at the impact of a wide range of conservation interventions globally, and over time, compared to what would have happened without those interventions. The studies covered over a century of conservation action and evaluated actions targeting different levels of biodiversity – species, ecosystems and genetic diversity.

“For more than 75 years, IUCN has advanced the importance of sharing conservation practice globally,” said Dr Grethel Aguilar, IUCN Director General . “This paper has analysed conservation outcomes at a level as rigorous as in applied disciplines like medicine and engineering – showing genuine impact and thus guiding the transformative change needed to safeguard nature at scale around the world. It shows that nature conservation truly works, from the species to the ecosystem levels across all continents. This analysis, led by Re:wild in collaboration with many IUCN Members, Commission experts, and staff, stands to usher in a new era in conservation practice.”

From the establishment and management of protected areas, to the eradication and control of invasive species, to the sustainable management of ecosystems, to habitat loss reduction and restoration, the research finds that conservation actions improve the state of biodiversity or slow its decline the majority of the time (66% of the time) compared to no action taken at all. And when conservation interventions work, the paper’s co-authors found that they are highly effective.

For example:

• Predator management of two of Florida’s barrier islands, Cayo Costa and North Captiva, resulted in an immediate and substantial improvement in nesting success by loggerhead turtles and least terns, especially compared to other barrier islands where no predator management was applied.
• In the Congo Basin, deforestation was 74% lower in logging concessions under a Forest Management Plan (FMP) compared to concessions without an FMP.
• Protected areas and Indigenous lands were shown to significantly reduce both deforestation and fire in the Brazilian Amazon. Deforestation was 1.7 to 20 times higher along the outside of the reserve perimeters compared to inside, and fires occurred four to nine times more frequently.
• Supportive breeding boosted the natural population of Chinook salmon in the Salmon River basin of central Idaho with minimal negative impacts on the wild population. On average, fish taken into the hatchery produced 4.7 times more adult offspring and 1.3 times more adult grand-offspring than naturally reproducing fish.

" This paper is not only extremely important in providing robust evidence of the impact of conservation actions. It is also extremely timely in informing crucial international policy processes, including the establishment of a 20-year vision for IUCN, the development of an IPBES assessment of biodiversity monitoring, and the delivery of the action targets toward the outcome goals of the new Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework," Thomas Brooks, IUCN chief scientist and co-author of the study,  said.

“Our study shows that when conservation actions work, they really work. In other words, they often lead to outcomes for biodiversity that are not just a little bit better than doing nothing at all, but many times greater,” added  J a ke Bicknell, co-author of the paper and a conservation scientist at the University of Kent . “For instance, putting measures in place to boost the population size of an endangered species has seen their populations increase substantially. This effect has been mirrored across a large proportion of the case studies we've looked at.”

Even in the minority of cases where conservation actions did not succeed in protecting the species or ecosystems that they aimed to protect compared to taking no action, conservationists benefited from the knowledge gained and were able to refine their methods. For example, in India the physical removal of invasive algae caused the spread of the establishment of the algae elsewhere because the process broke the algae into many pieces. Conservationists are now able to implement a different, more successful, strategy to remove the algae.

This might also explain why the co-authors found a correlation between more recent conservation interventions and positive outcomes for biodiversity--conservation may be getting more effective over time. Other reasons for this correlation include an increase in funding and more targeted interventions.

In some other cases where the conservation action did not succeed in protecting the target biodiversity compared to no action at all, other native biodiversity benefitted unintentionally instead. For example, seahorse abundance was lower in protected sites because marine protected areas increase the abundance of seahorse predators, including octopus.

“It would be too easy to lose any sense of optimism in the face of ongoing biodiversity declines,” said study co-author and Associate Professor Joseph Bull, from the University of Oxford’s Department of Biology . “However, our results clearly show that there is room for hope. Conservation interventions seemed to be an improvement on inaction most of the time; and when they were not, the losses were comparatively limited."

According to previous studies, a comprehensive global conservation program would require an investment of between US$178 billion and US$524 billion, focused primarily in countries with particularly high levels of biodiversity. To put this in perspective, in 2022, global fossil fuel handouts--which are destructive to nature--were US$1 trillion. This is twice the highest amount needed annually to protect and restore the planet. Today US$121 billion is invested annually into conservation worldwide, and previous studies have found the cost:benefit ratio of an effective global program for the conservation of the wild is at least 1:100.

“With less than six years remaining to achieve ambitious biodiversity targets by 2030, there is a great sense of urgency for effective conservation action. We can take proven methods to conserve nature, such as protected areas, and scale them up for real conservation impact. This research clearly demonstrates that conservation actions are successful.  We just need to take them to scale,”  Madhu Rao, chair IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, said.

“Anyone involved in the field of conservation will have witnessed the power of nature to regenerate and grow, given a chance to do so. From fishery exclusion zones, to ecological restoration on land, and animal, fungi and plant recovery efforts, there are numerous examples of halting and reversing biodiversity declines. Langhammer and colleagues synthesize knowledge on the impact of conservation action, and demonstrate that evidence-based conservation efforts indeed work in the majority of cases, not just in a few hand-picked examples. Much more money is spent on destroying nature than on protection and recovery. The authors show that tipping the balance in favour of nature is likely to help us deliver the world's ambitious biodiversity conservation targets,”  Jon Paul Rodriguez, chair of the IUCN Species Survival Commission , added.

The paper also argues that there must be more investment specifically in the effective management of protected areas, which remain the cornerstone for many conservation actions. Consistent with other studies, this study finds that protected areas work very well on the whole. And what other studies have shown is that when protected areas are not working, it is typically the result of a lack of effective management and adequate resourcing. Protected areas will be even more effective at reducing biodiversity loss if they are well-resourced and well-managed.

Moving forward, the study’s co-authors call for more and rigorous studies that look at the impact of conservation action versus inaction for a wider range of conservation interventions, such as those that look at the effectiveness of pollution control, climate change adaptation, and the sustainable use of species, and in more countries.

Additional quotes:

Piero Genovesi, ISPRA, co-author and chair, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group “Species and ecosystems are facing a dramatic crisis, and the Biodiversity Plan of the United Nations is an urgent global call to action. This paper shows that eradication, control and management of invasive alien species have the largest impact in terms of conservation, and can help reverse the current trends of biodiversity loss, potentially saving hundreds of species from extinction. It is essential that governments and donors support the struggle against invasive alien species if we want to meet the agreed biodiversity targets by 2030.”

Stephen Woodley, co-author, ecologist and vice chair for science and biodiversity, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas “The world hope that conservation action can work to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.  This paper demonstrates that a range of conservation actions are highly effective. We just need to do more of them.”

Stuart Butchart, co-author and chief scientist, BirdLife International “Recognising that the loss and degradation of nature is having consequences for societies worldwide, governments recently adopted a suite of goals and targets for biodiversity conservation. This new analysis is the best evidence to date that conservation interventions make a difference, slowing the loss of species’ populations and habitats and enabling them to recover. It provides strong support for scaling up investments in nature in order to meet the commitments that countries have signed up to.”

Jamie Carr, co-author and researcher in climate change and biodiversity governance, Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity, University of York, UK “This work represents a huge effort on the part of many conservation professionals, all of whom are committed to reversing the loss of the world's biodiversity. It is encouraging to find that the past work of other conservationists has had a positive impact on nature, and I sincerely hope that our findings inspire those working now and in the future to ramp up their efforts."

Mike Hoffmann, co-author and head of wildlife recovery, Zoological Society of London “The major advance of this study is its sheer weight of evidence. We can point to specific examples, such as how captive breeding and reintroductions have facilitated the return of scimitar-horned oryx to the wild in Chad, but these can feel a bit exceptional. This study draws on more than 650 published cases to show that conservation wins are not rare. Conservation mostly works—unfortunately, it is also mostly significantly under-resourced.”

Gernot Segelbacher, co-author, professor and co-chair of Conservation Genetic Specialist Group, University Freiburg “Conservation matters! While we so often hear about species declining or going extinct, this study shows that we can make a difference.”

Related content

Carleton was decades ahead of the times. Today we pursue his concepts repackaged in different…

Against the backdrop of the ongoing fourth global coral bleaching event, the International Union…

Paro, Bhutan - On the occasion of Earth Day 2024, the Royal Government of Bhutan is hosting the…

Sign up for an IUCN newsletter

• Deforestation
• Going Green
• Reforestation
• Privacy Policy

Deforestation: Case Studies

Deforestation is putting our planet at risk, as the following case studies exemplify. It is responsible for at least 10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions 1 and wipes out 137 species of plants, animals and insects every day 2 . The deplorable practice degenerates soil, losing half of the world’s topsoil over the past 150 years. 3 Deforestation also leads to drought by reducing the amount of water in the atmosphere. 4

Since the 1950s, deforestation has accelerated significantly, particularly in the tropics. 5 This is primarily due to rapid population growth and a resultant increase in demand for food and resources. 6 Agriculture drives about 80 per cent of deforestation today, as land is cleared for livestock, growing animal feed or other crops. 7 The below deforestation case studies of Brazil’s Amazon rainforest and the Congo Basin provide further insights into modern deforestation. 

Deforestation case study: Brazil

Nearly two-thirds of the Amazon rainforest – the largest rainforest in the world – is within Brazil’s national borders. 8 Any examination of deforestation case studies would be incomplete without considering tree felling in Brazil. 

History of deforestation in Brazil

Humans first discovered the Amazon rainforest about 13,000 years ago. But, it was the arrival of Europeans in the late 15th century that spurred the conversion of the forest into farmland. Nevertheless, the sheer size of the Amazon meant that the rainforest remained largely intact until the early 20th century. It was in the latter half of the 20th century that things began to change. 9

Industrial activities and large-scale agriculture began to eat away the southern and eastern fringes of the Amazon, from the 1950s onwards. 10 Deforestation in Brazil received a significant boost in 1964 when a military dictatorship took power and declared the jungle a security risk. 11 By the 1970s, the government was running television ads encouraging land conversion, provoking millions to migrate north into the forest. 12 Settlements replaced trees, and infrastructure began to develop. Wealthy tycoons subsequently bought the land for cattle ranches or vast fields of soy. 13

By the turn of the 21st century, more than 75 per cent of deforestation in the Amazon was for cattle ranching. But, environmentalists and Indigenous groups drew international attention to the devastation caused and succeeded in curtailing it by 2004. Between 2004 and the early 2010s, annual forest cover loss in Brazil reduced by about 80 per cent. The decline is attributed to “increased law enforcement, satellite monitoring, pressure from environmentalists, private and public sector initiatives, new protected areas, and macroeconomic trends”. 14  

Brazil’s deforestation of the Amazon rainforest since 2010

Unfortunately, however, efforts to curtail deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon have stalled since 2012. 15 Tree felling and land conversion have been trending upwards ever since. The economic incentive for chopping the rainforest down has overcome the environmental benefits of leaving it standing. 16 Political movements and lax government legislation have leveraged this to their advantage. President Jair Bolsonaro won the 2018 election with a promise to open up the Amazon to business. 17 Since his inauguration, the rate of deforestation has leapt by as much as 92 per cent. 18

However, there is still hope for the Amazon rainforest. Bolsonaro’s principal international ally was US President Trump. Now that environmentally-conscious Joe Biden has replaced him in the White House, international pressure regarding deforestation will increase heavily. 19 Biden has made this clear with a promise of USD $20 billion to protect the Amazon. 20

The impact of continued deforestation in Brazil

For its three million plant and animal species and one million Indigenous inhabitants, it is imperative that Amazonian deforestation is massively and immediately reduced. 21 As much as 17 per cent of the Amazon has been lost already. 22 If this proportion increases to over 20 per cent, a tipping point will be reached. 23 This will irreversibly break the water cycle, and at least half of the remaining forest will become savannah. 24

Impact on climate change

Losing the Amazon would also mean losing the fight against climate change. Despite the rampant deforestation in recent years, the remaining Amazon rainforest still absorbs between 5 to 10 per cent of all human CO2 emissions. 25 Cutting trees down increases anthropogenic emissions. When felled, burned or left to rot, trees release sequestered carbon. 26 A combination of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preserving existing forests is crucial to preventing dangerous levels of global warming. 27  

Deforestation case study: The Congo Basin

The Congo Basin is the second-largest rainforest in the world. 28 It has been described as the ‘second lungs’ of the Earth because of how much carbon dioxide it absorbs and how much oxygen it produces. 29 But, just as the world’s first lungs – the Amazon – is being destroyed by humans, the Congo’s rainforest is also suffering heavy casualties. 30

60 per cent of the Congo Basin is located within the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). 31 The DRC is one of the world’s largest and poorest countries, though it has immense economic resources. 32 Natural resources have fuelled an ongoing war that has affected all the neighbouring countries and claimed as many as six million lives. 33 The resultant instability combined with corruption and poor governance have led to an ever-increasing rate of deforestation within the DRC’s borders. 34

Deforestation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Compared to the Amazon and Southeast Asia, deforestation in the Congo Basin has been low over the past few decades. 35 Nevertheless, great swathes of primary forest have been lost. Between 2000 and 2014, an area of forest larger than Bangladesh was destroyed. 36 From 2015 until 2019, 6.37 million hectares of tree cover was razed. 37 In 2019 alone, 475,000 hectares of primary forest disappeared, placing the DRC second only to Brazil for total deforestation that year. 38 Should the current rate of deforestation continue, all primary forest in the Congo Basin will be gone by the end of the century. 39

Drivers of deforestation in the DRC’s Congo Basin

Over the past 20 years, the biggest drivers of deforestation in the DRC has been small-scale subsistence agriculture. Clearing trees for charcoal and fuelwood, urban expansion and mining have also contributed to deforestation. Industrial logging is the most common cause of forest degradation. It opens up deeper areas of the forest to commercial hunting. There has been at least a 60 per cent drop in the region’s forest elephant populations over the past decade due to hunting and poaching. 40  

Between 2000 and 2014, small-scale farming contributed to about 90 per cent of the DRC’s deforestation. This trend has not changed in recent years. The majority of small-scale forest clearing is conducted with simple axes by people with no other livelihood options. The region’s political instability and ongoing conflict are therefore inciting the unsustainable rate of deforestation within the Congo Basin. 41

In future, however, industrial logging and land conversion to large-scale agriculture will pose the greatest threats to the Congo rainforest. 42 There are fears that demand for palm oil, rubber and sugar production will promote a massive increase in deforestation. 43 The DRC’s population is also predicted to grow to almost 200 million people by 2050. 44 This increase will threaten the remaining rainforest further, as they try to earn a living in a country deprived of opportunities. 45

The impact of deforestation in the Congo Basin

80 million people depend upon the Congo Basin for their existence. It provides food, charcoal, firewood, medicinal plants, and materials for building and other purposes. But, this rainforest also indirectly supports people across the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Like all forests, it is instrumental in regulating rainfall, which can affect precipitation hundreds of miles away. The Congo Basin is a primary source of rainfall for the Sahel region, doubling the amount of rainfall in the air that passes over it. 46

The importance of the Congo Basin’s ability to increase precipitation cannot be understated. Areas such as the Horn of Africa are becoming increasingly dry. Drought in Ethiopia and Somalia has put millions of people on emergency food and water rations in recent years. Destroying the DRC’s rainforest would create the largest humanitarian crisis on Earth. 47  

It would also be devastating for biodiversity. The Congo Basin shelters some 10,000 animal species and more than 600 tree species. 48 They play a hugely important role in the forest, which has consequences for the entire planet. For instance, elephants, gorillas, and other large herbivores keep the density of small trees very low through predation. 49 This results in a high density of tall trees in the Congo rainforest. 50 Larger trees store more carbon and therefore help to prevent global warming by removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. 51  

Preserve our forests

Preserving the Amazon and Congo Basin rainforests is vital for tackling climate change, as these deforestation case studies demonstrate. We must prioritise protecting and enhancing our existing trees if we are to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C, as recommended by the IPCC. 52

• Rainforest Alliance. (2018). What is the Relationship Between Deforestation And Climate Change? [online] Available at: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/relationship-between-deforestation-climate-change.
• www.worldanimalfoundation.com. (n.d.). Deforestation: Clearing The Path For Wildlife Extinctions. [online] Available at: https://www.worldanimalfoundation.com/advocate/wild-earth/params/post/1278141/deforestation-clearing-the-path-for-wildlife-extinctions#:~:text=Seventy%20percent%20of%20the%20Earth.
• World Wildlife Fund. (2000). Soil Erosion and Degradation | Threats | WWF. [online] Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation.
• Butler, R.A. (2001). The impact of deforestation. [online] Mongabay. Available at: https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-consequences-of-deforestation.html.
• The Classroom | Empowering Students in Their College Journey. (2009). The History of Deforestation. [online] Available at: https://www.theclassroom.com/the-history-of-deforestation-13636286.html.
• Greenpeace USA. (n.d.). Agribusiness & Deforestation. [online] Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/forests/issues/agribusiness/.
• Yale.edu. (2015). The Amazon Basin Forest | Global Forest Atlas. [online] Available at: https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/region/amazon.
• Time. (2019). The Amazon Rain Forest Is Nearly Gone. We Went to the Front Lines to See If It Could Be Saved. [online] Available at: https://time.com/amazon-rainforest-disappearing/.
• Butler, R. (2020). Amazon Destruction. [online] Mongabay.com. Available at: https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html.
• the Guardian. (2020). Amazon deforestation surges to 12-year high under Bolsonaro. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/01/amazon-deforestation-surges-to-12-year-high-under-bolsonaro.
• Earth Innovation Institute. (2020). Joe Biden offers $20 billion to protect Amazon forests. [online] Available at: https://earthinnovation.org/2020/03/joe-biden-offers-20-billion-to-protect-amazon-forests/.
• Brazil’s Amazon: Deforestation “surges to 12-year high.” (2020). BBC News. [online] 30 Nov. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-55130304.
• Carbon Brief. (2020). Guest post: Could climate change and deforestation spark Amazon “dieback”? [online] Available at: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-could-climate-change-and-deforestation-spark-amazon-dieback.
• Union of Concerned Scientists (2012). Tropical Deforestation and Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists. [online] www.ucsusa.org. Available at: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/tropical-deforestation-and-global-warming#:~:text=When%20trees%20are%20cut%20down.
• Milman, O. (2018). Scientists say halting deforestation “just as urgent” as reducing emissions. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/04/climate-change-deforestation-global-warming-report.
• Bergen, M. (2019). Congo Basin Deforestation Threatens Food and Water Supplies Throughout Africa. [online] World Resources Institute. Available at: https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/07/congo-basin-deforestation-threatens-food-and-water-supplies-throughout-africa.
• www.esa.int. (n.d.). Earth from Space: “Second lungs of the Earth.” [online] Available at: https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Earth_from_Space_Second_lungs_of_the_Earth [Accessed 26 Feb. 2021].
• Erickson-Davis, M. (2018). Congo Basin rainforest may be gone by 2100, study finds. [online] Mongabay Environmental News. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2018/11/congo-basin-rainforest-may-be-gone-by-2100-study-finds/.
• Mongabay Environmental News. (2020). Poor governance fuels “horrible dynamic” of deforestation in DRC. [online] Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2020/12/poor-governance-fuels-horrible-dynamic-of-deforestation-in-drc/ [Accessed 26 Feb. 2021].
• DR Congo country profile. (2019). BBC News. [online] 10 Jan. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13283212.
• Butler, R.A. (2001). Congo Deforestation. [online] Mongabay. Available at: https://rainforests.mongabay.com/congo/deforestation.html.
• Mongabay Environmental News. (2020). Poor governance fuels “horrible dynamic” of deforestation in DRC. [online] Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2020/12/poor-governance-fuels-horrible-dynamic-of-deforestation-in-drc/.
• Butler, R. (2020). The Congo Rainforest. [online] Mongabay.com. Available at: https://rainforests.mongabay.com/congo/.
• Editor, B.W., Environment (n.d.). Large trees are carbon-storing giants. www.thetimes.co.uk. [online] Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/large-trees-are-more-valuable-carbon-stores-than-was-thought-k8hnggzs8#:~:text=The%20world [Accessed 26 Feb. 2021].
• IPCC (2018). Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 oC. [online] Ipcc.ch. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/.

Related posts:

• Top 10 Facts about Deforestation
• Deforestation Debate
• When a Tree Falls It Makes More Than a Sound
• What is Deforestation?

Related Posts

10 Facts About Deforestation in 2021

The following facts about deforestation in 2021 show that our planet is in a precarious position. We must leave our...

Where Is Deforestation Happening in 2021?

To combat climate change, it is important to know where deforestation is happening in 2021. Deforestation currently accounts for at...

The History of Deforestation: The Past and Origins

In many ways, the history of deforestation is the same as the history of agriculture. When humans began to farm...

The Economic Impact of Deforestation

Deforestation is the permanent removal of forests. Agriculture usually replaces the woodland.Youmatter (2020). Deforestation - What Is It? What Are...

Silviculture and Timber Production

Over the past decade, millions of trees have been dying at a frightening pace across the US and Canada. Some...

How Does Planting Trees Affect Climate Change?

While climate change can be a politically controversial topic, tree planting rarely is. Planting trees and climate change are directly...

10 Causes of Deforestation: The Roots of Forest Degradation

How Much CO2 Does a Tree Absorb?

The Effect of Oil Sands Tailings Ponds on Climate Change

• Privacy & Policy

© 2020 Climate Transform

Privacy Overview

Sustainable Landscapes

Forest landscape restoration, protected & conserved areas, forest sector transformation & valuation, forests & climate, deforestation- and conversion-free supply chains & governance.

• Case Studies
• #Connect2Forests
• Terms & Conditions

Case studies

Lessons from practitioners on conserving forests for nature and people.

Insights from WWF experts on solutions to safeguard forests.

Stories of people and places behind WWF's forest conservation work around the world.

Explore our work through the eyes of our people and partners.

wwf approach

Livestock farmers lead the way in implementing sustainable land use practices and reducing deforestation in peru, how argentina could emerge as a leader in mainstreaming beef free from deforestation, using wood forensic science to deter corruption and illegality in the timber trade, community-based forest monitoring in colombia, brazil's amazon soy moratorium, share your experience.

Replication of successful approaches and learning lessons from other forest practitioners can make conservation work more impactful. Take a few minutes to capture and share your experience and tips.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Perspective article, lessons from project-scale reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: a case study in northern lao people’s democratic republic.

• 1 Faculty of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa, Japan
• 2 International Cooperation Group, Japan Forest Technology Association, Tokyo, Japan
• 3 Department of Forest Vegetation, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan
• 4 Biodiversity and Forest Area, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan

The reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) framework has been implemented over the past decade, and has led to a restructuring of forest governance systems in host countries. In the case of Lao People’s Democratic Republic, which is promoting REDD+, activities have been implemented at project, sub-national, and national scales. Project-scale REDD+ is assumed to be compatible with small-scale forestry, and usually targets local people to enhance participatory forest management through technology transfer. Such projects were also supported by foreign governments under bilateral cooperation or by private funding. In the case of sub-national- or national-scale REDD+, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic government aims to develop a system of forest monitoring, as well as related structures required by international REDD+ entities. These activities are supported by substantial funding from multilateral organizations. Lessons learned from project-scale REDD+ in northern Lao People’s Democratic Republic showed a gap in expectations among different donors and recipients regarding how to implement REDD+, in particular how to reduce dependency on forest resources in rural areas, and how to estimate and account for greenhouse gas emissions reductions with consistent methodologies at different scales. Such differences are related to the attitudes of local people toward participation, and those of the private entities that fund projects and ground-based activities. In future REDD+ schemes, the structural network or structural social capital among project-, sub- national-, and national-scale activities should be reconsidered to enhance the continued participation of stakeholders and make use of their accumulated experience and knowledge of small-scale forestry management.

Introduction

Among climate change countermeasures in the land-use sector, afforestation or reforestation (A/R) projects were promoted as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol ( Murdiyarso et al., 2008 ; Thomas et al., 2010 ). Subsequently, under the 2015 Paris Agreement, a framework for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+) was widely expected to mitigate climate change ( Hein et al., 2018 ). Both approaches aimed to address either greenhouse gas (GHG) removal or emissions reduction targets in the land-use sector in developing countries. The A/R CDM operates at the project scale and focuses on relatively small-scale projects. Although REDD+ is supposed to be promoted at the national scale under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it also appeals to a “voluntary market,” and thus can be implemented by private enterprises at the project scale.

Because private enterprises are the proponents of A/R CDM projects, it is expected that private funds will be invested, and thus project implementation using public funds, that is, official development assistance (ODA), is excluded from the program ( UNFCCC, 2001 ). However, in relation to REDD+, the application of both multilateral and bilateral public funding, including ODA and private enterprise funding, is important, and the 26th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP26) in 2021 decided that such a design was to be encouraged in an effort to address climate change ( UNFCCC, 2021 ). However, it has been pointed out that existing methods for using private funds for implementing REDD+ under the UNFCCC are inadequate, and it remains unclear whether a synergistic relationship exists between the public and private sectors ( Streck, 2020 ). In other words, under the UNFCCC, REDD+ programs at the national scale do not currently have a mechanism in place to include private sector participation.

Prior to the Paris Agreement ( UNFCCC, 2016 ), a report prepared by the Meridian Institute ( Streck et al., 2009 ) emphasized the importance of maintaining a balance of investments in REDD+ based on the characteristics (e.g., forest cover ratio or human resources) of each developing country in the early stage of REDD+-related negotiations. The notion of a phased approach, which consists of both establishing readiness using public funds and, subsequently, full implementation using private funds, has been suggested. The full implementation of REDD+ at the national scale under the UNFCCC was expected to be similar to the CDM, and was not always envisioned as a program solely for private funds and/or small-scale projects. However, while REDD+ under the UNFCCC is led by the government entities managing the GHG account at the national scale, private enterprises that manage low-carbon international supply chains or are interested in carbon credits have a motivation to implement REDD+ with evidence of their contributions used for the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Science Based Targets initiative, or other GHG management schemes or contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ( Ehara et al., 2019 ). Thus, the primary concern of the private sector is related to how to design project-based REDD+ within or alongside national-scale REDD+ in developing countries.

Therefore, this perspective examined Lao People’s Democratic Republic (hereinafter Lao PDR) as a host country for sub-national- and national-scale REDD+ under the UNFCCC and the World Bank, as well as project-scale REDD+ supported by private enterprises and had accumulated many lessons in this field. Two conclusions were reached regarding future REDD+ implementation. First, REDD+ should be promoted in parallel with a participatory approach involving local people (i.e., small-scale forestry). Second, future REDD+ schemes should involve both the public and private sectors in support of the SDGs.

Progress of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation readiness and implementation in Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Lao PDR is classified as a least developed country, and the contribution of the agricultural sector (including forestry and logging) to the country’s gross domestic product was approximately 16.5% in 2020 ( Lao Statistics Bureau, 2021 ). Thus, the land-use sector is highly dependent on natural resources, especially in the northern mountain regions, where shifting cultivation is the main form of livelihood, and its expansion has been identified as a driver of deforestation and forest degradation. Therefore, the sustainable use of forest resources has become a major concern from the viewpoint of maintaining a balance between forest conservation and the improvement of people’s livelihoods. Lao PDR has been among the preferred recipient countries since the early stages of REDD+, and has received steady support from the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Readiness Fund since 2007 and from the FCPF Carbon Fund since 2016. Projects are also underway as a result of bilateral cooperation with Japan, Germany, and other countries, and significant amounts of ODA have been invested in the country’s forestry program ( Government of Lao PDR, 2016 ). At the same time, project-scale REDD+ activities have been implemented using private funding from foreign countries for the purpose of creating carbon credits. As of 2021, two projects registered by the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) had been implemented ( VERRA, 2022 ), and the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) that was agreed between Lao PDR and Japan is also expected to lead to the issuance of carbon credits ( JCM, 2022 ; Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) activities in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. National-scale REDD+ activities have been introduced under the Green Climate Fund (GCF), sub-national-scale REDD+ programs in the six northern provinces have been developed under the World Bank’s forest carbon partnership facility (FCPF) Readiness Fund and Carbon Fund, and project-scale REDD+ activities including technical support and projects aimed at creating carbon credits have been implemented by the joint crediting mechanism (JCM) and the verified carbon standard (VCS), with REDD+ activities at various scales overlapping in some provinces.

The direct recipients of public funds are governments at each level, which often results in a delay of several years before local people receive ground-based support and public funds to implement activities (e.g., the introduction of alternative livelihoods to shifting cultivation) because of budget coordination issues relating to the central government. In the case of Lao PDR, funds from the FCPF Carbon Fund were to be invested in projects aimed at achieving future benefits for local people ( Government of Lao PDR, 2020 ), yet it has been more than 10 years since the REDD+ initiative commenced after receiving support from the World Bank.

The question is whether the two streams can achieve synergistic effects in relation to climate change mitigation and the achievement of the SDGs. As a result of REDD+ readiness being promoted at the national scale in Lao PDR, specific outcomes such as a national forest monitoring system, a safeguard information system, and an analysis of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation have been achieved, but no program is currently utilizing these outcomes in project-scale REDD+ activities. Thus, funds related to REDD+ activities at the national scale are not being used to support ground-based activities. Furthermore, from the perspective of local people and their collaborators at ground level, outcomes from the national-scale REDD+ programs are not aligned with ground-based activities. Although training of local people is necessary to reduce deforestation, forest degradation, and excessive dependence on forest resources through the introduction of alternative livelihoods, the number of trainers who were qualified to carry out this training remained insufficient in 2021, more than 10 years after the commencement of the REDD+ initiative.

Outcomes of project-scale reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation activities in northern Lao People’s Democratic Republic

A project-scale REDD+ activity in Phonxay District, Luang Prabang Province in northern Lao PDR, which covers approximately 30,000 ha, aimed at reducing pressure on forest resources and promoting rural development. It sought to do this by introducing alternative livelihoods for local people and conducting appropriate training, and the locals were supportive ( Hiratsuka et al., 2021b ). The project was led by private Japanese organizations with support from the Japanese government, in collaboration with the National Agriculture and Forestry Institute of Lao PDR and the District Agriculture and Forestry Office of the target site. The project was conducted from 2013 to 2018, with a budget sufficient to provide materials and conduct training for local participants.

Based on an evaluation of carbon stock changes (conversions from living biomass in different years) at the target site compared with those at a neighboring site, the project showed positive results ( Hiratsuka et al., 2021b ). In addition, the livelihoods (income generation) of local people improved significantly during the project period ( Hiratsuka et al., 2021b ). In other words, the project can be seen as a successful project-scale REDD+ activity in terms of both GHG emissions reductions (SDG 13, “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” and SDG 15, “Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss”) and socioeconomic progress (SDG 1, “End poverty in all its forms everywhere”), with outcomes benefiting the local people’s livelihoods.

From the viewpoint of participating private enterprises, it is important that their funding provides direct support for ground-based activities, because private enterprises are often reluctant to provide support for local people via governments because of corruption ( Miah and Aturo, 2021 ). In addition, accumulated experience in small-scale forestry projects suggests that the design of REDD+ projects based on small-scale activities involving local people should be tailored for each site based on characteristics such as forest cover type and ratio, and the capabilities of various ethnic groups. In this case, there were two ethnic groups in the area, the Khmu and the Hmong, whose capabilities differed significantly ( Hiratsuka et al., 2021a ; Kobayashi et al., 2022 ). Thus, the project design needed to accommodate these differences in terms of activities, and to consider cultural differences in relation to capabilities and land-use. Addressing social safeguards while implementing REDD+ activities was also a consideration ( Sarmiento Barletti et al., 2021 ). The process of preparing and developing procedures for REDD+ projects is an important consideration for the private sector when deciding whether to invest in REDD+ because it affects the costs/benefits analysis in relation to their investment ( Sheng, 2020 ), as well as risk assessment ( Ehara et al., 2019 ).

Regarding the estimation of GHG emissions reductions, this project applied similar methods to those used by the A/R CDM, and significant costs were involved in procuring and analyzing high-resolution satellite images. From an investment perspective, the carbon credits that could potentially be claimed are estimated to be substantial. However, given current trends and a carbon credit price of only US$5 per Mg assumed by the FCPF Carbon Fund and the GCF, it will be difficult to promote further REDD+ activities based on the company’s current budget. The abovementioned REDD + project under the JCM was not implemented following this project, and has come to be seen as a scheme that does not provide sufficient incentives for the participation of private enterprises in projects that emphasize small-scale forestry.

Utilization of the effectiveness of small-scale forestry in reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

As mentioned above, small-scale forestry allows REDD+ projects to be designed based on local land-use characteristics and people’s capabilities. This is a key advantage of participatory forest management, and significantly affects the sustainability and robustness of projects. With regard to the bottom-up participatory forest management system that has been emphasized since 1990, a growing number of studies have shown that community-based forest management is a useful approach ( Gilmour, 2016 ), especially in cases such as Lao PDR where various ethnic groups have a stake in both current and future forest management ( Hashiguchi et al., 2021 ; Hiratsuka et al., 2021a ; Nambiar, 2021 ). Small-scale forestry is important for forest dwellers, and forest conservation projects that neglect this approach are unlikely to be particularly effective ( Newton et al., 2015 ). Centrally developed forest management policies do not always reflect local conditions and lifestyles ( Hashiguchi et al., 2016 ). However, the small-scale forestry approach is not always consistent with REDD+, which is often based on the top-down approach favored by governments.

In an effort to consider local land-use systems and bottom-up approaches to REDD+, the UNFCCC is careful to respect the sovereignty of each country, although not each individual village, and tends not to become involved in domestic concerns in developing countries. For example, it emphasizes the importance of introducing safeguards, but does not intervene in the selection of specific measures ( Rey Christen et al., 2020 ). Thus, the current situation is dependent on each country’s way of thinking and ability to implement specific policies at the national level. However, in relation to ground-based activities supported by the private sector, the core concern is the local response to various issues ( Paudel et al., 2018 ).

Elsewhere in the world, REDD+ projects have supported collaborative approaches allowing relevant local knowledge and experience to be gradually accumulated through the implementation and integration of both top-down and bottom-up approaches. For instance, a REDD+ scheme in South America, the Amazon Fund, has received approximately US$1.4 billion over 12 years, and the Amazon Fund Guidance Committee (COFA) consists of representatives from the federal government, state governments, and the public, with each sector having been allocated a budget across a total of 102 projects up to 2020 ( Amazon Fund, 2021 ). Such a collaborative approach should be able to consider both top-down and bottom-up perspectives when assessing the characteristics of each REDD+ site. In the future, if a REDD+ liaison conference similar to the Amazon Fund’s COFA were to be held involving government and public representatives in REDD+ host countries, the lessons learned by businesses involved in REDD+ projects could be shared in a transparent way, and it is likely that international funds (both public and private) would respond favorably. Building on the experience of the Amazon Fund ( van der Hoff et al., 2018 ; Correa et al., 2019 ), and looking to the future, it is considered essential to create a “roundtable for dialogue” enabling the exchange of information, experience, and knowledge between national-scale and project-scale REDD+ programs (i.e., enhancing the structural network or structural social capital between each scale of REDD+), which will also support SDG 17, “Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2. Proposed future roundtable involving national-scale and project-scale reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) stakeholders.

Public–private partnerships based on accumulated experience and knowledge

As a party to the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement, Lao PDR is required to submit nationally determined contributions as evidence of its efforts to counter climate change at the national scale, and national accounting is part of this process. This reporting is compatible with the sub-national- or national-scale efforts supported by the World Bank. However, it will be difficult to include the carbon credits from project-based initiatives involving private enterprises in the land-use sector because of concerns regarding double estimation and/or double accounting of GHG emissions reductions ( Streck et al., 2017 ). Thus, these issues should be addressed not only by technical means, but also by communication of GHG estimations among the various proponents at the different scales. In addition to the abovementioned REDD+-related technical outcomes, more than 50 countries submitted national forest reference emission levels and/or forest reference levels at the national or sub-national level to the UNFCCC on 19 January 2022. Thus, numerous REDD+ host countries have established robust GHG estimation methods for their land-use sectors under the UNFCCC, which is a significant advance from the approach under the A/R CDM, both in Lao PDR and globally. Again, effective use of technology in estimating GHG emissions reductions (e.g., satellite imaging) will enhance the effectiveness of funding by reducing costs ( Dargusch et al., 2010 ), especially in cases where the outcomes are shared across projects.

Looking to the future, there is an urgent need for increased collaboration between the public and private sectors with a view to strengthening the social and professional bridges between the sectors (i.e., bridging social capital). The accumulated experience obtained from REDD+ implementation at various scales in other countries should be helpful in this regard ( Pinsky et al., 2019 ). While the private sector faces challenges addressing various technical issues, the public sector has accumulated experience and knowledge regarding ground-based activities aimed at reducing dependence on forest resources. Therefore, it is essential to introduce a roundtable for dialogue to facilitate the exchange of information, experience, and knowledge with the aim of addressing these technical issues and coordinating the efforts of both the public and private sectors toward achieving SDG 17.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

MH and MY initially conceptualized this study. HH and MT helped with diagram design and helped to improve the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work was financially supported by JSPS KAKEN HI Grant Number: 21H03677.

Acknowledgments

We received valuable comments from Bounithiphonh Chaloun and Phongoudome Chanhsamone (National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute, Lao PDR).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Amazon Fund (2021). Amazon Fund activity report 2020. Available online at: http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/export/sites/default/en/.galleries/documentos/rafa/RAFA_2020_en.pdf (accessed January 22, 2022).

Google Scholar

Correa, J., van der Hoff, R., and Rajão, R. (2019). Amazon fund 10 years later: Lessons from the world’s largest REDD+ program. Forests 10:272. doi: 10.3390/f10030272

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dargusch, P., Lawrence, K., and Herbohn, J. (2010). A small-scale forestry perspective on constraints to including REDD in international carbon markets. Small Scale For. 9, 485–499. doi: 10.1007/s11842-010-9141-z

Ehara, M., Samejima, H., Yamanoshita, M., Asada, Y., Shogaki, Y., Yano, M., et al. (2019). REDD+ engagement types preferred by Japanese private firms: The challenges and opportunities in relation to private sector participation. For. Policy Econ. 106:101945. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.06.002

Gilmour, D. (2016). Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO forestry paper (176). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Government of Lao PDR (2016). Forest carbon partnership facility (FCPF) carbon fund emission reductions program idea note (ER-PIN). Available online at: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/country/lao-pdr (accessed January 22, 2022).

Government of Lao PDR (2020). Governance, forest landscapes and livelihoods – northern Laos. Available online at: http://dof.maf.gov.la/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Lao-PDR-Advanced-Benefit-Sharing-Plan.pdf (accessed January 22, 2022).

Hashiguchi, H., Pulhin, J. M., Dizon, J. T., and Camacho, L. D. (2016). Impacts of community-based forest management policies implemented by a local forest institution: A case study from Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines. Small Scale For. 15, 335–355. doi: 10.1007/s11842-016-9324-3

Hashiguchi, H., Toda, M., Chew, W., and Hiratsuka, M. (2021). Ethnicity as a factor influencing sustainable forest resource management: A case study of a village in Taunggyi district in Myanmar’s shan state”. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 690:012060. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/690/1/012060

Hein, J., Guarin, A., Frommé, E., and Pauw, P. (2018). Deforestation and the Paris climate agreement: An assessment of REDD+ in the national climate action plans. For. Policy Econ. 90, 7–11. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.005

Hiratsuka, M., Bounithiphonh, C., Sichanthongthip, P., Toda, M., Kobayashi, N., Hashiguchi, H., et al. (2021b). Impacts of REDD+ activities on reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in northern Lao people’s democratic republic. J. For. Res. 26, 278–286. doi: 10.1080/13416979.2021.1902070

Hiratsuka, M., Bounithiphonh, C., Sichanthongthip, P., Furuta, T., Suzuki, K., Kobayashi, N., et al. (2021a). Variations in village-level performances related to reducing deforestation and forest degradation associated with a REDD+ project in northern Lao people’s democratic republic. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23, 2762–2784. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00701-5

JCM (2022). Laos-Japan page. Available online at: https://www.jcm.go.jp/la-jp (accessed January 22, 2022).

Kobayashi, N., Bounithiphonh, C., Sichanthongthip, P., Phongoudome, C., and Hiratsuka, M. (2022). Acceptance of new land-use activities by Hmong and Khmu ethnic groups: A case study in northern Lao people’s democratic republic. Forests 13:8. doi: 10.3390/f13010008

Lao Statistics Bureau (2021). Statistical yearbook 2020. Vientiane: Government of Lao PDR.

Miah, M. D., and Aturo, M. (2021). Perspectives on REDD+ finances from donor to the developing countries: Experience from Japan. Geol. Ecol. Landsc. 1–11. doi: 10.1080/24749508.2021.1923289

Murdiyarso, D., van Noordwijk, M., Puntodewo, A., Widayati, A., and Lusiana, B. (2008). District-scale prioritization for A/R CDM project activities in Indonesia in line with sustainable development objectives. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 126, 59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.008

Nambiar, E. S. (2021). Small forest growers in tropical landscapes should be embraced as partners for green-growth: Increase wood supply, restore land, reduce poverty, and mitigate climate change. Trees For. People 6:100154. doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100154

Newton, P., Schaap, B., Fournier, M., Cornwall, M., Rosenbach, D. W., DeBoer, J., et al. (2015). Community forest management and REDD+. For. Policy Econ. 56, 27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.008

Paudel, N. S., Adhikary, A., Mbairamadji, J., and Nguyen, T. Q. (2018). Small-scale forest enterprise development in Nepal: Overview, issues and challenges. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Pinsky, V. C., Kruglianskas, I., and Victor, D. G. (2019). Experimentalist governance in climate finance: The case of REDD+ in Brazil. Clim. Policy 19, 725–738. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1571474

Rey Christen, D., García Espinosa, M., Reumann, A., and Puri, J. (2020). Results based payments for REDD+ under the green climate fund: Lessons learned on social, environmental and governance safeguards. Forests 11:1350. doi: 10.3390/f11121350

Sarmiento Barletti, J., Larson, A., Lofts, K., and Frechette, A. (2021). Safeguards at a glance: Supporting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities in REDD+ and other forest-based initiatives. Bogor: CIFOR-ICRAF.

Sheng, J. (2020). Private sector participation and incentive coordination of actors in REDD+. For. Policy Econ. 118:102262. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102262

Streck, C. (2020). Who owns REDD+? carbon markets, carbon rights and entitlements to REDD+ finance. Forests 11:959. doi: 10.3390/f11090959

Streck, C., Gomez-Echeverri, L., Gutman, P., Loisel, C., and Werksman, J. (2009). REDD+ institutional options assessment: Developing an efficient, effective, and equitable institutional framework for REDD+ under the UNFCCC. Washington, DC: Meridian Institute.

Streck, C., Howard, A., Rajão, R., Dahl-Jorgensen, A., Bodnar, P., Lesnick, M., et al. (2017). Options for enhancing REDD+ collaboration in the context of article 6 of the Paris agreement. Washington, DC: Meridian Institute.

Thomas, S., Dargusch, P., Harrison, S., and Herbohn, J. (2010). Why are there so few afforestation and reforestation clean development mechanism projects? Land Use Policy 27, 880–887. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.12.002

UNFCCC (2001). Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism as defined in article 12 of the Kyoto protocol (Report no. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2). Available online at: https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/pdf/17cp7.pdf (accessed January 22, 2022).

UNFCCC (2016). Adoption of the Paris agreement (Report no. FCCC/CP/2015/10/ Add.1). Available online at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10a01.pdf (accessed January 22, 2022).

UNFCCC (2021). Glasgow climate pact (Report no. Under arrangement). Available online at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cop26_auv_2f_cover_decision.pdf (accessed January 22, 2022).

van der Hoff, R., Rajão, R., and Leroy, P. (2018). Clashing interpretations of REDD+ “results” in the Amazon Fund. Clim. Change 150, 433–445. doi: 10.1007/s10584-018-2288-x

VERRA (2022). Verified carbon standard. Available online at: https://registry.verra.org/app/search/VCS/Registered (accessed January 22, 2022).

Keywords : carbon stock change, alternative livelihood, participatory forest management, social capital, sustainable development goals

Citation: Hiratsuka M, Hashiguchi H, Toda M and Yamanoshita MY (2022) Lessons from project-scale reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: A case study in northern Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Front. For. Glob. Change 5:869212. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.869212

Received: 04 February 2022; Accepted: 26 September 2022; Published: 12 October 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Hiratsuka, Hashiguchi, Toda and Yamanoshita. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Motoshi Hiratsuka, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Understanding How Small-Scale Forestry Helps to Achieve UN Sustainable Development Goals

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 01 September 2021

How deregulation, drought and increasing fire impact Amazonian biodiversity

• Xiao Feng   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4638-3927 1   na1 ,
• Cory Merow 2   na1 ,
• Zhihua Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0086-5659 3   na1 ,
• Daniel S. Park   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2783-530X 4 , 5   na1 ,
• Patrick R. Roehrdanz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4047-5011 6   na1 ,
• Brian Maitner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2118-9880 2   na1 ,
• Erica A. Newman 7 , 8   na1 ,
• Brad L. Boyle 7 , 9 ,
• Aaron Lien 8 , 10 ,
• Joseph R. Burger 7 , 8 , 11 ,
• Mathias M. Pires 12 ,
• Paulo M. Brando   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8952-7025 13 , 14 , 15 ,
• Mark B. Bush   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6894-8613 16 ,
• Crystal N. H. McMichael   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1064-1499 17 ,
• Danilo M. Neves 18 ,
• Efthymios I. Nikolopoulos 19 ,
• Scott R. Saleska 7 ,
• Lee Hannah 6 ,
• David D. Breshears   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6601-0058 10 ,
• Tom P. Evans   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4591-1011 20 ,
• José R. Soto 10 ,
• Kacey C. Ernst 21 &
• Brian J. Enquist 7 , 22   na1  

Nature volume  597 ,  pages 516–521 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

16k Accesses

61 Citations

665 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Biodiversity
• Biogeography

Biodiversity contributes to the ecological and climatic stability of the Amazon Basin 1 , 2 , but is increasingly threatened by deforestation and fire 3 , 4 . Here we quantify these impacts over the past two decades using remote-sensing estimates of fire and deforestation and comprehensive range estimates of 11,514 plant species and 3,079 vertebrate species in the Amazon. Deforestation has led to large amounts of habitat loss, and fires further exacerbate this already substantial impact on Amazonian biodiversity. Since 2001, 103,079–189,755 km 2 of Amazon rainforest has been impacted by fires, potentially impacting the ranges of 77.3–85.2% of species that are listed as threatened in this region 5 . The impacts of fire on the ranges of species in Amazonia could be as high as 64%, and greater impacts are typically associated with species that have restricted ranges. We find close associations between forest policy, fire-impacted forest area and their potential impacts on biodiversity. In Brazil, forest policies that were initiated in the mid-2000s corresponded to reduced rates of burning. However, relaxed enforcement of these policies in 2019 has seemingly begun to reverse this trend: approximately 4,253–10,343 km 2 of forest has been impacted by fire, leading to some of the most severe potential impacts on biodiversity since 2009. These results highlight the critical role of policy enforcement in the preservation of biodiversity in the Amazon.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Ghost roads and the destruction of Asia-Pacific tropical forests

FSC-certified forest management benefits large mammals compared to non-FSC

Hotspots of biogeochemical activity linked to aridity and plant traits across global drylands

Data availability.

The plant occurrences from the BIEN database are accessible using the RBIEN package ( https://github.com/bmaitner/RBIEN ). The climatic data are accessible from http://worldclim.org and the soil data are available from http://soilgrids.org . MODIS active fire and burned area products are available at http://modis-fire.umd.edu . The MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields data are publicly available from https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod44bv006/ . The annual forest loss layers are available from http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest . The plant range maps are accessible at https://github.com/shandongfx/paper_Amazon_biodiversity_2021 . The vertebrate range maps are available from https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/spatial-data-download . The SPEI data are available from SPEI Global Drought Monitor ( https://spei.csic.es/map ).

Code availability

The code to process the remote-sensing data is available at https://github.com/shandongfx/paper_Amazon_biodiversity_2021 .

Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96 , 1463–1468 (1999).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Oliver, T. H. et al. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30 , 673–684 (2015).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Barlow, J., Berenguer, E., Carmenta, R. & França, F. Clarifying Amazonia’s burning crisis. Glob. Change Biol. 9 , 1 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Brando, P. M. et al. The gathering firestorm in southern Amazonia. Sci. Adv. 6 , eaay1632 (2020).

IUCN. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species version 6.2 . https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (2019).

Flores, M. et al. WWF’s Living Amazon Initiative (Grambs Corporación Gráfica, 2010).

Hubbell, S. P. et al. How many tree species are there in the Amazon and how many of them will go extinct? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 Suppl. 1 , 11498–11504 (2008).

Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Filho, B. S.- & Merry, F. Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 363 , 1737–1746 (2008).

Article   Google Scholar  

Rankin-de-Mérona, J. M. et al. Preliminary results of a large-scale tree inventory of upland rain forest in the Central Amazon. Acta Amazon. 22 , 493–534 (1992).

Sakschewski, B. et al. Resilience of Amazon forests emerges from plant trait diversity. Nat. Clim. Change 6 , 1032–1036 (2016).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Poorter, L. et al. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530 , 211–214 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Beisner, B. E., Haydon, D. T. & Cuddington, K. Alternative stable states in ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1 , 376–382 (2003).

Lovejoy, T. E. & Nobre, C. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 4 , eaat2340 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Veldman, J. W. Clarifying the confusion: old-growth savannahs and tropical ecosystem degradation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 371 , (2016).

Arruda, D., Candido, H. G. & Fonseca, R. Amazon fires threaten Brazil’s agribusiness. Science 365 , 1387 (2019).

Article   ADS   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ter Steege, H. et al. Estimating the global conservation status of more than 15,000 Amazonian tree species. Sci. Adv. 1 , e1500936 (2015).

Gomes, V. H. F., Vieira, I. C. G., Salomão, R. P. & ter Steege, H. Amazonian tree species threatened by deforestation and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 547–553 (2019).

Brando, P. et al. Amazon wildfires: scenes from a foreseeable disaster. Flora 268 , 151609 (2020).

Balch, J. K. et al. The susceptibility of southeastern Amazon forests to fire: insights from a large-scale burn experiment. Bioscience 65 , 893–905 (2015).

Barlow, J. et al. The critical importance of considering fire in REDD+ programs. Biol. Conserv. 154 , 1–8 (2012).

Cochrane, M. A. & Schulze, M. D. Fire as a recurrent event in tropical forests of the eastern Amazon: effects on forest structure, biomass, and species composition. Biotropica 31 , 2–16 (1999).

Brando, P. M. et al. Prolonged tropical forest degradation due to compounding disturbances: Implications for CO 2 and H 2 O fluxes. Glob. Change Biol. 25 , 2855–2868 (2019).

Barlow, J. & Peres, C. A. Fire-mediated dieback and compositional cascade in an Amazonian forest. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 363 , 1787–1794 (2008).

Cochrane, M. Tropical Fire Ecology: Climate Change, Land Use and Ecosystem Dynamics (Springer, 2010).

Uhl, C. & Kauffman, J. B. Deforestation, fire susceptibility, and potential tree responses to fire in the eastern Amazon. Ecology 71 , 437–449 (1990).

Cochrane, M. A. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421 , 913–919 (2003).

Cochrane, M. A. & Laurance, W. F. Synergisms among fire, land use, and climate change in the Amazon. Ambio 37 , 522–527 (2008).

Nepstad, D. C. et al. Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398 , 505–508 (1999).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Aragão, L. E. O. C. et al. 21st Century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat. Commun. 9 , 536 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Nepstad, D. et al. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344 , 1118–1123 (2014).

Hope, M. The Brazilian development agenda driving Amazon devastation. Lancet Planet. Health 3 , e409–e411 (2019).

Brown, J. H. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am. Nat. 124 , 255–279 (1984).

Barnagaud, J.-Y. et al. Ecological traits influence the phylogenetic structure of bird species co-occurrences worldwide. Ecol. Lett. 17 , 811–820 (2014).

Šímová, I. et al. Spatial patterns and climate relationships of major plant traits in the New World differ between woody and herbaceous species. J. Biogeogr. 45 , 895–916 (2018).

Enquist, B. J. et al. The commonness of rarity: Global and future distribution of rarity across land plants. Sci. Adv. 5 , eaaz0414 (2019).

May, P. H., Gebara, M. F., de Barcellos, L. M., Rizek, M. B. & Millikan, B. The Context of REDD+ in Brazil: Drivers, Agents, and Institutions, 3rd edition, https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006338 (Center for International Forestry Research, 2016).

Neves, D. M., Dexter, K. G., Baker, T. R., Coelho de Souza, F. & Oliveira-Filho, A. T. Evolutionary diversity in tropical tree communities peaks at intermediate precipitation. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1188 (2020).

Cadotte, M. W., Cardinale, B. J. & Oakley, T. H. Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 17012–17017 (2008).

Hopkins, M. J. G. Modelling the known and unknown plant biodiversity of the Amazon Basin. J. Biogeogr. 34 , 1400–1411 (2007).

Wilson, E. O. in Biodiversity (eds Wilson E. O. & Peter F. M.) Ch. 1 (National Academies Press, 1988).

Brooks, T. M. et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 16 , 909–923 (2002).

Gibbs, H. K. et al. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347 , 377–378 (2015).

Alix-Garcia, J. & Gibbs, H. K. Forest conservation effects of Brazil’s zero deforestation cattle agreements undermined by leakage. Glob. Environ. Change 47 , 201–217 (2017).

Escobar, H. There’s no doubt that Brazil’s fires are linked to deforestation, scientists say. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz2689 (2019).

Amazon fires: Brazil sends army to help tackle blazes. BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49452789 (24 August 2019).

Marengo, J. A., Tomasella, J., Soares, W. R., Alves, L. M. & Nobre, C. A. Extreme climatic events in the Amazon basin. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 107 , 73–85 (2012).

Malhi, Y. et al. Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 20610–20615 (2009).

Swann, A. L. S. et al. Continental-scale consequences of tree die-offs in North America: identifying where forest loss matters most. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 055014 (2018).

McCoy, T. Amazon fires dropped unexpectedly in September, after summer spike. Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/amazon-fires-dropped-unexpectedly-in-september-after-spiking-over-the-summer/2019/10/02/4ddc0026-e516-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html (2 October 2019).

Moutinho, P., Guerra, R. & Azevedo-Ramos, C. Achieving zero deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: what is missing? Elementa 4 , 000125 (2016).

Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51 , 933–938 (2001).

Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342 , 850–853 (2013).

Giglio, L., Schroeder, W. & Justice, C. O. The collection 6 MODIS active fire detection algorithm and fire products. Remote Sens. Environ. 178 , 31–41 (2016).

Giglio, L. MODIS Collection 6 Active Fire Product User’s Guide Revision A (Univ. Maryland, 2015).

Barlow, J., Lagan, B. O. & Peres, C. A. Morphological correlates of fire-induced tree mortality in a central Amazonian forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 19 , 291–299 (2003).

Brando, P. M. et al. Fire-induced tree mortality in a neotropical forest: the roles of bark traits, tree size, wood density and fire behavior. Glob. Change Biol. 18 , 630–641 (2012).

Gibbs, H. K. et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 , 16732–16737 (2010).

Barlow, J. & Peres, C. in Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests (eds. Laurance, W. F. & Peres, C. A.) 225–240 (Univ. Chicago Press, 2006).

Barlow, J. et al. Wildfires in bamboo-dominated Amazonian forest: impacts on above-ground biomass and biodiversity. PLoS ONE 7 , e33373 (2012).

Gerwing, J. J. Degradation of forests through logging and fire in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manage. 157 , 131–141 (2002).

Brando, P. M. et al. Abrupt increases in Amazonian tree mortality due to drought-fire interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 6347–6352 (2014).

Barlow, J. & Peres, C. A. Avifaunal responses to single and recurrent wildfires in Amazonian forests. Ecol. Appl. 14 , 1358–1373 (2004).

Paolucci, L. N., Schoereder, J. H., Brando, P. M. & Andersen, A. N. Fire-induced forest transition to derived savannas: cascading effects on ant communities. Biol. Conserv. 214 , 295–302 (2017).

Roy, D. P. & Kumar, S. S. Multi-year MODIS active fire type classification over the Brazilian Tropical Moist Forest Biome. Int. J. Digital Earth 10 , 54–84 (2017).

Giglio, L., Schroeder, W., Hall, J. V. & Justice, C. O. MODIS Collection 6 Active Fire Product User’s Guide Revision B (Univ. Maryland, 2018).

Barriopedro, D., Fischer, E. M., Luterbacher, J., Trigo, R. M. & García-Herrera, R. The hot summer of 2010: redrawing the temperature record map of Europe. Science 332 , 220–224 (2011).

Chen, Y. et al. Forecasting fire season severity in South America using sea surface temperature anomalies. Science 334 , 787–791 (2011).

Giglio, L. et al. Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products. Biogeosciences 7 , 1171–1186 (2010).

Justice, C. O. et al. The MODIS fire products. Remote Sens. Environ. 83 , 244–262 (2002).

Giglio, L., Boschetti, L., Roy, D. P., Humber, M. L. & Justice, C. O. The Collection 6 MODIS burned area mapping algorithm and product. Remote Sens. Environ. 217 , 72–85 (2018).

Nóbrega, C. C., Brando, P. M., Silvério, D. V., Maracahipes, L. & de Marco, P. Effects of experimental fires on the phylogenetic and functional diversity of woody species in a neotropical forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 450 , 117497 (2019).

Alencar, A., Nepstad, D. & Diaz, M. C. V. Forest understory fire in the Brazilian Amazon in ENSO and Non-ENSO years: area burned and committed carbon emissions. Earth Interact. 10 , 1–17 (2006).

Siegert, F., Ruecker, G., Hinrichs, A. & Hoffmann, A. A. Increased damage from fires in logged forests during droughts caused by El Niño. Nature 414 , 437–440 (2001).

Cochrane, M. A. & Laurance, W. F. Fire as a large-scale edge effect in Amazonian forests. J. Trop. Ecol. 18 , 311–325 (2002).

Ray, D., Nepstad, D. & Moutinho, P. Micrometeorological and canopy controls of fire susceptibility in a forested Amazon landscape. Ecol. Appl. 15 , 1664–1678 (2005).

Silvério, D. V. et al. Fire, fragmentation, and windstorms: a recipe for tropical forest degradation. J. Ecol. 107 , 656–667 (2019).

Guisan, A. & Zimmermann, N. E. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Modell. 135 , 147–186 (2000).

Fegraus, E. Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring Network (TEAM Network). Biodivers. Ecol. 4 , 287–287 (2012).

Peet, R. K., Lee, M. T., Jennings, M. D. & Faber-Langendoen, D. VegBank: a permanent, open-access archive for vegetation plot data. Biodivers. Ecol. 4 , 233–241 (2012).

DeWalt, S. J., Bourdy, G., Chavez de Michel, L. R. & Quenevo, C. Ethnobotany of the Tacana: quantitative inventories of two permanent plots of Northwestern Bolivia. Econ. Bot. 53 , 237–260 (1999).

USDA Forest Service. Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/ (2013).

Wiser, S. K., Bellingham, P. J. & Burrows, L. E. Managing biodiversity information: development of New Zealand’s National Vegetation Survey databank. N. Z. J. Ecol. 25 , 1–17 (2001).

Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. CTFS-ForestGEO: a worldwide network monitoring forests in an era of global change. Glob. Change Biol. 21 , 528–549 (2015).

Enquist, B. & Boyle, B. SALVIAS – the SALVIAS vegetation inventory database. Biodivers. Ecol. 4 , 288 (2012).

GBIF.org. GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.yubndf (2018).

Dauby, G. et al. RAINBIO: a mega-database of tropical African vascular plants distributions. PhytoKeys 74 , 1–18 (2016).

Arellano, G. et al. A standard protocol for woody plant inventories and soil characterisation using temporary 0.1-ha plots in tropical forests. J. Trop. For. Sci. 28 , 508–516 (2016).

O’Connell, B. M. et al. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and User Guide for Phase 2 (version 6.1), https://doi.org/10.2737/fs-fiadb-p2-6.1 (USDA Forest Service, 2016).

Oliveira-Filho, A. T. NeoTropTree, Flora arbórea da Região Neotropical: Um Banco de Dados Envolvendo Biogeografia, Diversidade e Conservação, http://www.neotroptree.info (Univ. Federal de Minas Gerais, 2017).

Peet, R. K., Lee, M. T., Jennings, M. D. & Faber-Langendoen, D. VegBank: The Vegetation Plot Archive of the Ecological Society of America , http://vegbank.org (accessed 2013).

Boyle, B. et al. The taxonomic name resolution service: an online tool for automated standardization of plant names. BMC Bioinf. 14 , 16 (2013).

Goldsmith, G. R. et al. Plant-O-Matic: a dynamic and mobile guide to all plants of the Americas. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7 , 960–965 (2016).

McFadden, I. R. et al. Temperature shapes opposing latitudinal gradients of plant taxonomic and phylogenetic β diversity. Ecol. Lett. 22 , 1126–1135 (2019).

Enquist, B. J., Condit, R., Peet, R. K., Schildhauer, M. & Thiers, B. M. Cyberinfrastructure for an integrated botanical information network to investigate the ecological impacts of global climate change on plant biodiversity. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2615v2 (2016).

Maitner, B. S. et al. The BIEN R package: A tool to access the Botanical Information and Ecology Network (BIEN) database. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9 , 373–379 (2017).

Phillips, S. J. & Dudik, M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31 , 161–175 (2008).

Merow, C. & Silander, J. A. A comparison of Maxlike and Maxent for modelling species distributions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5 , 215–225 (2014).

Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B. & Anderson, R. P. spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38 , 541–545 (2015).

Grubbs, F. E. Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. Ann. Math. Statist. 21 , 27–58 (1950).

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Komsta, L. outliers: Tests for outliers. R package v.0.14 (2011).

Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37 , 4302–4315 (2017).

Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25 , 1965–1978 (2005).

Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology (Wiley, 1974).

Friedman, J., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. glmnet: Lasso and elastic-net regularized generalized linear models. R package v.4.0-2 (2020).

Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 190 , 231–259 (2006).

Drake, J. M. Range bagging: a new method for ecological niche modelling from presence-only data. J. R. Soc. Interface 12 , 20150086 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cardoso, D. et al. Amazon plant diversity revealed by a taxonomically verified species list. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 10695–10700 (2017).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Warton, D. I. & Shepherd, L. C. Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo-absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology. Ann. Appl. Stat. 4 , 1383–1402 (2010).

MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Renner, I. W. et al. Point process models for presence-only analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6 , 366–379 (2015).

Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67 , 534–545 (2017).

Roberts, D. R. et al. Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. Ecography 40 , 913–929 (2016).

Phillips, S. J. Transferability, sample selection bias and background data in presence-only modelling: a response to Peterson et al . (2007). Ecography 31 , 272–278 (2008).

Merow, C., Smith, M. J. & Silander, J. A. Jr. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36 , 1058–1069 (2013).

Qiao, H. et al. An evaluation of transferability of ecological niche models. Ecography 42 , 521–534 (2019).

Peterson, A. T., Papeş, M. & Soberón, J. Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecol. Modell. 213 , 63–72 (2008).

Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43 , 1223–1232 (2006).

Jung, M. et al. Areas of global importance for terrestrial biodiversity, carbon, and water. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.021444 (2020).

Carlson, C. J. et al. Climate change will drive novel cross-species viral transmission. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.24.918755 (2020).

BirdLife International. IUCN Red List for Birds http://www.birdlife.org (2019).

Brooks, T. M. et al. Measuring terrestrial area of habitat (AOH) and its utility for the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 , 977–986 (2019).

de Area Leão Pereira, E. J., de Santana Ribeiro, L. C., da Silva Freitas, L. F. & de Barros Pereira, H. B. Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest. Land Use Policy 92 , 104491 (2020).

Garcia, R. T. After Brazil’s summer of fire, the militarization of the Amazon remains. Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/19/militarization-amazon-legacy-brazil-forest-fire-bolsonaro/ (19 November 2019).

Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S. & López-Moreno, J. I. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. J. Clim. 23 , 1696–1718 (2010).

Feldpausch, T. R. et al. Amazon forest response to repeated droughts. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 30 , 964–982 (2016).

Marin, P.-G., Julio, C. J., Arturo, R.-T. D. & Jose, V.-N. D. Drought and spatiotemporal variability of forest fires across Mexico. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 28 , 25–37 (2018).

Adams, H. D. et al. Temperature sensitivity of drought-induced tree mortality portends increased regional die-off under global-change-type drought. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 7063–7066 (2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the herbaria that contributed data to this work: HA, FCO, MFU, UNEX, VDB, ASDM, BPI, BRI, CLF, L, LPB, AD, TAES, FEN, FHO, A, ANSM, BCMEX, RB, TRH, AAH, ACOR, AJOU, UI, AK, ALCB, AKPM, EA, AAU, ALU, AMES, AMNH, AMO, ANA, GH, ARAN, ARM, AS, CICY, ASU, BAI, AUT, B, BA, BAA, BAB, BACP, BAF, BAL, COCA, BARC, BBS, BC, BCN, BCRU, BEREA, BG, BH, BIO, BISH, SEV, BLA, BM, MJG, BOL, CVRD, BOLV, BONN, BOUM, BR, BREM, BRLU, BSB, BUT, C, CAMU, CAN, CANB, CAS, CAY, CBG, CBM, CEN, CEPEC, CESJ, CHR, ENCB, CHRB, CIIDIR, CIMI, CLEMS, COA, COAH, COFC, CP, COL, COLO, CONC, CORD, CPAP, CPUN, CR, CRAI, FURB, CU, CRP, CS, CSU, CTES, CTESN, CUZ, DAO, HB, DAV, DLF, DNA, DS, DUKE, DUSS, E, HUA, EAC, ECU, EIF, EIU, GI, GLM, GMNHJ, K, GOET, GUA, EKY, EMMA, HUAZ, ERA, ESA, F, FAA, FAU, UVIC, FI, GZU, H, FLAS, FLOR, HCIB, FR, FTG, FUEL, G, GB, GDA, HPL, GENT, GEO, HUAA, HUJ, CGE, HAL, HAM, IAC, HAMAB, HAS, HAST, IB, HASU, HBG, IBUG, HBR, IEB, HGI, HIP, IBGE, ICEL, ICN, ILL, SF, NWOSU, HO, HRCB, HRP, HSS, HU, HUAL, HUEFS, HUEM, HUSA, HUT, IAA, HYO, IAN, ILLS, IPRN, FCQ, ABH, BAFC, BBB, INPA, IPA, BO, NAS, INB, INEGI, INM, MW, EAN, IZTA, ISKW, ISC, GAT, IBSC, UCSB, ISU, IZAC, JBAG, JE, SD, JUA, JYV, KIEL, ECON, TOYA, MPN, USF, TALL, RELC, CATA, AQP, KMN, KMNH, KOR, KPM, KSTC, LAGU, UESC, GRA, IBK, KTU, KU, PSU, KYO, LA, LOMA, SUU, UNITEC, NAC, IEA, LAE, LAF, GMDRC, LCR, LD, LE, LEB, LI, LIL, LINN, AV, HUCP, MBML, FAUC, CNH, MACF, CATIE, LTB, LISI, LISU, MEXU, LL, LOJA, LP, LPAG, MGC, LPD, LPS, IRVC, MICH, JOTR, LSU, LBG, WOLL, LTR, MNHN, CDBI, LYJB, LISC, MOL, DBG, AWH, NH, HSC, LMS, MELU, NZFRI, M, MA, UU, UBT, CSUSB, MAF, MAK, MB, KUN, MARY, MASS, MBK, MBM, UCSC, UCS, JBGP, OBI, BESA, LSUM, FULD, MCNS, ICESI, MEL, MEN, TUB, MERL, CGMS, FSU, MG, HIB, TRT, BABY, ETH, YAMA, SCFS, SACT, ER, JCT, JROH, SBBG, SAV, PDD, MIN, SJSU, MISS, PAMP, MNHM, SDSU, BOTU, MPU, MSB, MSC, CANU, SFV, RSA, CNS, JEPS, BKF, MSUN, CIB, VIT, MU, MUB, MVFA, SLPM, MVFQ, PGM, MVJB, MVM, MY, PASA, N, HGM, TAM, BOON, MHA, MARS, COI, CMM, NA, NCSC, ND, NU, NE, NHM, NHMC, NHT, UFMA, NLH, UFRJ, UFRN, UFS, ULS, UNL, US, NMNL, USP, NMR, NMSU, XAL, NSW, ZMT, BRIT, MO, NCU, NY, TEX, U, UNCC, NUM, O, OCLA, CHSC, LINC, CHAS, ODU, OKL, OKLA, CDA, OS, OSA, OSC, OSH, OULU, OXF, P, PACA, PAR, UPS, PE, PEL, SGO, PEUFR, PH, PKDC, SI, PMA, POM, PORT, PR, PRC, TRA, PRE, PY, QMEX, QCA, TROM, QCNE, QRS, UH, R, REG, RFA, RIOC, RM, RNG, RYU, S, SALA, SANT, SAPS, SASK, SBT, SEL, SING, SIU, SJRP, SMDB, SNM, SOM, SP, SRFA, SPF, STL, STU, SUVA, SVG, SZU, TAI, TAIF, TAMU, TAN, TEF, TENN, TEPB, TI, TKPM, TNS, TO, TU, TULS, UADY, UAM, UAS, UB, UC, UCR, UEC, UFG, UFMT, UFP, UGDA, UJAT, ULM, UME, UMO, UNA, UNM, UNR, UNSL, UPCB, UPNA, USAS, USJ, USM, USNC, USZ, UT, UTC, UTEP, UV, VAL, VEN, VMSL, VT, W, WAG, WII, WELT, WIS, WMNH, WS, WTU, WU, Z, ZSS, ZT, CUVC, AAS, AFS, BHCB, CHAM, FM, PERTH and SAN. X.F., D.S.P., E.A.N., A.L. and J.R.B. were supported by the University of Arizona Bridging Biodiversity and Conservation Science program. Z.L. was supported by NSFC (41922006) and K. C. Wong Education Foundation. The BIEN working group was supported by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a centre funded by NSF EF-0553768 at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the State of California. Additional support for the BIEN working group was provided by iPlant/Cyverse via NSF DBI-0735191. B.J.E., B.M. and C.M. were supported by NSF ABI-1565118. B.J.E. and C.M. were supported by NSF ABI-1565118 and NSF HDR-1934790. B.J.E., L.H. and P.R.R. were supported by the Global Environment Facility SPARC project grant (GEF-5810). D.D.B. was supported in part by NSF DEB-1824796 and NSF DEB-1550686. S.R.S. was supported by NSF DEB-1754803. X.F. and A.L. were partly supported by NSF DEB-1824796. B.J.E. and D.M.N. were supported by NSF DEB-1556651. M.M.P. is supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant 2019/25478-7. D.M.N. was supported by Instituto Serrapilheira/Brazil (Serra-1912-32082). E.I.N. was supported by NSF HDR-1934712. We thank L. López-Hoffman and L. Baldwin for constructive comments.

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Xiao Feng, Cory Merow, Zhihua Liu, Daniel S. Park, Patrick R. Roehrdanz, Brian Maitner, Erica A. Newman, Brian J. Enquist

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Geography, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Eversource Energy Center and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

Cory Merow & Brian Maitner

CAS Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Management, Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenyang, China

Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Daniel S. Park

Purdue Center for Plant Biology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

The Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA

Patrick R. Roehrdanz & Lee Hannah

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Erica A. Newman, Brad L. Boyle, Joseph R. Burger, Scott R. Saleska & Brian J. Enquist

Arizona Institutes for Resilience, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Erica A. Newman, Aaron Lien & Joseph R. Burger

Hardner & Gullison Associates, Amherst, NH, USA

Brad L. Boyle

School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Aaron Lien, David D. Breshears & José R. Soto

Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

Joseph R. Burger

Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

Mathias M. Pires

Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

Paulo M. Brando

Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, USA

Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM), Brasilia, Brazil

Insitute for Global Ecology, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA

Mark B. Bush

Department of Ecosystem and Landscape Dynamics, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Crystal N. H. McMichael

Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Danilo M. Neves

Department of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA

Efthymios I. Nikolopoulos

School of Geography, Development and Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Tom P. Evans

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

Kacey C. Ernst

The Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA

Brian J. Enquist

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

X.F. conceived the idea, which was refined by discussion with D.S.P., C.M., B.M., P.R.R., E.A.N., B.L.B., A.L., J.R.B., D.D.B., J.R.S., K.C.E. and B.J.E.; X.F. and Z.L. processed the remote-sensing data; C.M., X.F., B.M., B.L.B., D.S.P. and B.J.E. conducted the analyses of plant data; P.R.R., C.M., B.M., X.F. and D.S.P. conducted the analyses of vertebrate data; X.F., C.M., S.R.S. and E.A.N. processed the drought data; D.S.P., X.F., C.M., P.R.R. and B.M. designed the illustrations with help from B.J.E., D.D.B., K.C.E. and E.A.N.; E.A.N., X.F., and D.S.P. conducted the statistical analyses with help from B.J.E.; X.F., B.J.E., B.M., A.L., J.R.B., D.S.P., C.M., E.A.N., Z.L. and P.R.R. wrote the original draft; all authors contributed to interpreting the results and the editing of manuscript drafts. B.J.E., C.M., K.C.E. and D.D.B. led to the acquisition of the financial support for the project. X.F., C.M., B.M., D.S.P., P.R.R., Z.L., E.A.N. and B.J.E. contributed equally to data, analyses and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao Feng .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 fire-impacted forest and forest loss in the amazon basin..

a – h , Visualization of fire-impacted forest ( a , b ), forest loss without fire ( c , d ), fire-impacted forest with forest loss ( e , f ), and fire-impacted forest without forest loss ( g , h ) in the Amazon Basin based on MODIS burned area (left panels) and active fire (right panels). Data in a – d are resampled from the 500m (MODIS burned area) or 1 km (MODIS active fire) to 10 km resolution using mean function and thresholded at 0.01 to illustrate the temporal dynamics. Black represents non-forested areas masked out from this study. The cumulative fire-impacted forest is classified into two categories: fire-impacted forest with forest loss ( e , f ) and fire-impacted forest without forest loss ( g , h ). Data in e – h are resampled to 10 km using mean function to illustrate the cumulative percentages of impacts.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Scatter plot of species’ range impacted by fire.

Scatter plot of species’ range size in Amazon forest (x-axis) and percentage of total range impacted by fire (red) and forest loss without fire (black) up to 2019 for plants (left panel) and vertebrates (right panel).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Density plot of species’ cumulative range impacted by fire.

Density plot of species’ cumulative range impacted by fire. The different colours represent years 2001-2019. The x-axis is log10 transformed.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Summary of forest impacts in the Amazon Basin.

Areas of forest impact in the Amazon Basin estimated from MODIS burned area (top) and MODIS active fire (bottom).

Extended Data Fig. 5 Cumulative impacts on biodiversity in the Amazon Basin.

Cumulative effects of forest loss without fire on biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest. In the left panels, the black and grey shading represent the cumulative forest loss without fire based on MODIS burned area and MODIS active fire, respectively. Coloured areas represent the lower and upper bounds of cumulative numbers of a , plant and c , vertebrate species’ ranges impacted. Right panels depict the relationships between the cumulative forest loss without fire (based on MODIS burned area) and cumulative number of b , plant and d , vertebrate species. Coloured lines represent predicted values of an ordinary least squares linear regression and grey bands define the two-sided 95% confidence interval (two-sided, p values = 0.00). The silhouette of the tree is from http://phylopic.org/ ; silhouette of the monkey is courtesy of Mathias M. Pires.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Fire-impacted forest in Brazil.

Newly fire-impacted forest in Brazil (based on MODIS active fire). a shows the area of fire-impacted forest not explained by drought conditions. Different colours represent years from different policy regimes: pre-regulations in light red (mean value in dark red), regulation in grey (mean value in black dashed line), and 2019 in blue. The y-axis represents the difference between actual area and area predicted by drought conditions calibrated by data from regulation years ( Methods ). A positive value on the y-axis represents more area than expected, using the regulation years as a baseline. b shows a scatter plot of newly fire-impacted forest in Brazil and drought conditions (SPEI); The lines represent the ordinary least squares linear regression between fire-impacted forest and drought conditions for pre-regulation (red) and regulation (black) respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Fire-impacted forest in different countries.

The contribution (0–1) of different countries to the newly fire-impacted forest each year based on MODIS active fire (top) and MODIS burned area (bottom).

Extended Data Figure 8 Impacts of fire on forest and biodiversity in Brazil.

a , Newly fire-impacted forest, b , new range impact on plants and c , new range impacts on vertebrate species in Brazil each year (based on MODIS active fire) that are not predicted by drought conditions. The colours represent three policy regimes: pre-regulation in red, regulation in grey and 2019 in blue. The y-axis represents the difference between actual value (area or range impacted by fire) and the values predicted by drought conditions calibrated by data from regulation years ( Methods ). A positive value on the y-axis represents more area or range impacted by fire than the expectation using the regulation years as a baseline. The dotted lines represent a smooth curve fitted to the values based on the loess method.

Supplementary information

‘supplementary discussion’ and ‘this file contains the supplementary discussion’, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Feng, X., Merow, C., Liu, Z. et al. How deregulation, drought and increasing fire impact Amazonian biodiversity. Nature 597 , 516–521 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03876-7

Download citation

Received : 22 November 2019

Accepted : 04 August 2021

Published : 01 September 2021

Issue Date : 23 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03876-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Variation of floristic diversity, community composition, endemism, and conservation status of tree species in tropical rainforests of sri lanka across a wide altitudinal gradient.

• Nimalka Sanjeewani
• Dilum Samarasinghe
• Janendra De Costa

Scientific Reports (2024)

Assessing changes in global fire regimes

• Sayedeh Sara Sayedi
• Benjamin W. Abbott
• Anne-Laure Daniau

Fire Ecology (2024)

The role of high-biodiversity regions in preserving Nature’s Contributions to People

• Marta Cimatti
• Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer
• Moreno Di Marco

Nature Sustainability (2023)

Forest conservation in Indigenous territories and protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon

• Yuanwei Qin
• Xiangming Xiao
• Philip Martin Fearnside

Pressed for space

Nature Plants (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Ensuring a healthy habitat | Business and Marketing
• Deforestation: Conserving Wildlife, Addressing Pollution
• Smuggling and Conserving Wildlife: The Illegal Wildlife Trade
• Trafficking: Conserving Wildlife Through the Fight Against Illegal Wildlife Trade
• Fishing for Conservation: Addressing Habitat Degradation of Wildlife
• Preventing Spread of Invasive Species: Conservation’s Wildlife Priority
• Wildlife Aid Finance: Conserving the Balance
• Impact Assessment and Evaluation: Wildlife Aid Finance Conservation
• Protecting Habitats: Conserving Wildlife Amid Climate Change

Reducing Deforestation: Conserving Wildlife, Climate Change, and Beyond

Deforestation, the process of clearing or removing forests for various purposes such as agriculture and urbanization, has emerged as a major global concern. The destruction of these vital ecosystems not only leads to the loss of biodiversity but also exacerbates climate change and poses significant challenges to sustainable development. For instance, consider the case of the Amazon rainforest, often referred to as the “lungs of the Earth.” Its immense size and rich biodiversity make it a critical ecosystem in regulating global climate patterns. However, rampant deforestation threatens this delicate balance by releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The implications of deforestation extend far beyond environmental concerns alone. Conserving wildlife is one crucial aspect that necessitates urgent action against deforestation. Forests serve as habitats for countless species, many of which are unique and endangered. Destruction of their natural habitat directly impacts their survival, leading to population decline and potential extinctions. Additionally, deforestation disrupts ecological relationships within forest ecosystems, causing cascading effects on other organisms dependent on them. Therefore, addressing deforestation becomes imperative not just from an environmental perspective but also in preserving the intricate web of life that exists within these biodiverse regions.

Moreover, reducing deforestation can significantly contribute to addressing climate change at a global scale Moreover, reducing deforestation can significantly contribute to addressing climate change at a global scale by mitigating the release of greenhouse gases. Forests act as carbon sinks, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and storing it in their biomass. When forests are cleared or burned, this stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. By preserving existing forests and implementing sustainable land-use practices, we can help reduce these emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Furthermore, deforestation has socio-economic implications that cannot be ignored. Many communities around the world depend on forests for their livelihoods, including indigenous peoples who have traditional knowledge and cultural connections with these ecosystems. Deforestation not only threatens their way of life but also disrupts local economies that rely on forest resources such as timber, non-timber forest products, and ecotourism. Finding alternative sources of income and promoting sustainable forest management can support these communities while ensuring the long-term health of forest ecosystems.

In summary, addressing deforestation is crucial for various reasons. It helps conserve biodiversity, maintain ecological balance, mitigate climate change, protect vulnerable communities’ livelihoods, and promote sustainable development. Through concerted efforts at both national and international levels, we can work towards reversing the trend of deforestation and safeguarding our planet’s invaluable forests for future generations.

Drivers of Deforestation

Deforestation, the permanent removal of trees from a forested area, is driven by various factors that have both local and global implications. One example illustrating the devastating consequences of deforestation can be seen in the case study of the Amazon rainforest. The rapid expansion of agricultural activities has led to extensive deforestation in this region, resulting in irreversible damage to one of the most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth.

Multiple drivers contribute to the alarming rate of deforestation worldwide. Firstly, economic incentives play a significant role. As developing countries strive for economic growth and poverty alleviation, they often prioritize industries such as logging, mining, and agriculture over environmental conservation. Profit-driven enterprises exploit natural resources without considering long-term sustainability or alternative approaches.

Secondly, population growth exacerbates the pressure on forests. Rising demands for food, housing, and infrastructure lead to increased land conversion for human settlements and agricultural purposes. Subsistence farming practices also contribute significantly to deforestation when small-scale farmers clear land for their livelihoods.

Thirdly, weak governance and ineffective enforcement mechanisms hinder efforts to combat deforestation effectively. Inadequate legislation and corruption allow illegal logging operations to thrive while undermining conservation initiatives. Insufficient monitoring systems fail to detect and deter unlawful activities promptly.

Lastly, there are socio-cultural factors influencing deforestation patterns. Traditional beliefs linked with cultural practices may drive communities towards unsustainable resource extraction methods or encourage clearing land for cultural rituals or ceremonies.

To evoke an emotional response in our audience:

• Loss of habitat : With every hectare lost due to deforestation, countless species lose their homes.
• Climate change impact : Trees act as carbon sinks; their removal contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.
• Irreversible damage : Once destroyed, it takes decades or even centuries for forests to recover fully.
• Displacement of indigenous communities : Indigenous peoples who depend on forests face displacement when their lands are cleared for other purposes.

In light of these drivers, it is crucial to address deforestation urgently through sustainable practices and effective policies that balance economic development with environmental preservation. This requires collaborative efforts between governments, local communities, industries, and international organizations to mitigate the negative impacts on both wildlife and climate.

Without a doubt, deforestation has profound effects on biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide. In the subsequent section about “Impacts of Deforestation on Biodiversity,” we will delve into the specific consequences faced by Earth’s diverse array of species due to widespread forest destruction.

Impacts of Deforestation on Biodiversity

Section: Impacts of Deforestation on Biodiversity

Deforestation has profound impacts on biodiversity, leading to the loss of countless plant and animal species. To illustrate these consequences, let us consider the hypothetical case study of a tropical rainforest in South America. This region is home to diverse wildlife including jaguars, macaws, and various primate species.

The destruction of this rainforest would have devastating effects on its unique ecosystem. As trees are felled and habitats fragmented, many animal species dependent on the forest for food, shelter, and reproduction will suffer. The jaguar, an apex predator in this area, would lose its prey base as deforestation diminishes the availability of suitable hunting grounds. Similarly, parrots like macaws heavily rely on specific tree species for nesting sites and feeding sources; their populations would decline significantly if these essential resources disappeared.

The impacts of deforestation extend beyond individual species’ survival; they encompass entire ecosystems. When forests are destroyed or degraded, intricate ecological relationships among plants and animals become disrupted. These connections include pollination networks involving bees and butterflies that ensure successful seed dispersal and regeneration processes for forest growth.

Considered together, the following bullet points present a snapshot of how deforestation affects biodiversity:

• Loss of habitat leads to decreased population sizes.
• Reduction in food sources disrupts food chains.
• Fragmentation limits gene flow between isolated populations.
• Disruption of ecological interactions impairs overall ecosystem function.

To further emphasize the magnitude of deforestation’s impact on biodiversity, we can examine the table below highlighting some key examples:

| Species Affected | Ecological Role | Threatened Status | |——————|—————-.|——————| | Jaguar | Apex Predator | Vulnerable | | Macaw | Seed Disperser | Endangered | | Spider Monkey | Seed Consumer | Critically Endangered |

As highlighted above, numerous charismatic species face increased risk of extinction due to deforestation, jeopardizing the stability and resilience of entire ecosystems.

In light of these consequences, it is evident that urgent action is required to mitigate the impacts of deforestation on biodiversity. In the subsequent section about “Economic Incentives for Forest Conservation,” we will explore potential strategies aimed at curbing this destructive practice while also considering socio-economic factors.

Economic Incentives for Forest Conservation

Impacts of Deforestation on Biodiversity have far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the realm of ecology. The loss of forest cover not only threatens numerous species but also disrupts vital ecosystem processes, exacerbates climate change, and compromises human well-being. To address these multifaceted challenges, it is crucial to explore economic incentives for forest conservation.

One hypothetical example vividly illustrates the interconnectedness between deforestation, biodiversity loss, and climate change. Consider a region in Southeast Asia where vast tracts of primary rainforest are cleared to make way for palm oil plantations. As a result, iconic species such as orangutans and tigers face habitat destruction and population decline. Moreover, the carbon stored within these forests is released into the atmosphere through burning or decomposition, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.

To emphasize the urgency of conserving forests and wildlife, the following bullet points highlight some key implications:

• Loss of biodiversity: Deforestation leads to a reduction in species richness and can cause irreversible extinction.
• Disruption of ecological balance: Forest ecosystems provide essential services such as pollination, nutrient cycling, and water regulation; their degradation affects these critical functions.
• Climate change exacerbation: Forests act as carbon sinks by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Their removal intensifies global warming.
• Socioeconomic impacts: Many communities rely on forests for livelihoods such as timber extraction or ecotourism; deforestation can lead to poverty and social conflicts.

Furthermore, consider this table showcasing notable examples:

Recognizing these profound repercussions necessitates exploring economic incentives for forest conservation. The next section will elucidate potential strategies, such as payment for ecosystem services and market-based approaches that have shown promise in mitigating deforestation rates while benefiting local communities.

Transitioning into the subsequent section on Sustainable Agriculture Practices, it becomes evident that addressing deforestation is closely linked to transforming agricultural practices towards sustainability. By adopting environmentally-friendly farming methods, we can mitigate the pressure on forests and protect biodiversity while ensuring food security for future generations.

Sustainable Agriculture Practices

By adopting methods that prioritize both productivity and environmental conservation, agricultural activities can coexist harmoniously with forests, ensuring long-term benefits for wildlife preservation, climate change mitigation, and beyond.

One notable example is agroforestry, which integrates trees into farming systems to create biodiversity-rich landscapes while maintaining crop yields. This approach not only reduces pressure on existing forested areas but also provides valuable ecosystem services such as habitat for pollinators and natural pest control. For instance, a case study conducted in Brazil demonstrated how incorporating coffee plants within shade trees reduced soil erosion by 78% compared to conventional open-field cultivation. Such positive outcomes highlight the potential of sustainable agriculture practices in addressing deforestation challenges globally.

To further emphasize the significance of sustainable agriculture practices in combating deforestation, consider the following bullet points:

• Conservation tillage techniques minimize soil disturbance and help retain organic matter.
• Precision farming technologies optimize resource use efficiency and reduce chemical inputs.
• Crop rotation increases soil fertility while mitigating disease outbreaks.
• Water management strategies like drip irrigation minimize water wastage.

The table below presents an overview of these sustainable agriculture practices along with their respective benefits:

By implementing these sustainable agriculture practices at scale, we have an opportunity to address deforestation comprehensively while enhancing food security and promoting rural development. Moreover, combining economic incentives with these environmentally friendly approaches creates a win-win situation for farmers and policymakers alike. As we move forward towards more holistic solutions, community-based forest management emerges as a promising next step in our journey.

The integration of sustainable agriculture practices with economic incentives paves the way for exploring community-based forest management. By actively involving local communities in decision-making processes and empowering them as stewards of their forests, we can foster long-term sustainability and strengthen conservation efforts at the grassroots level.

Community-Based Forest Management

Conservation Initiatives: Protecting Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

In addition to implementing sustainable agricultural practices, conservation efforts play a crucial role in reducing deforestation. By focusing on the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, these initiatives contribute significantly towards mitigating climate change impacts. For instance, let us consider the case study of an organization working diligently to protect endangered wildlife species in a tropical rainforest.

To comprehend the significance of such conservation projects, it is important to recognize their broader implications. The following bullet points illustrate some key aspects:

• Preserving biodiversity: Conservation initiatives help safeguard diverse plant and animal species, ensuring their habitats remain intact.
• Maintaining ecological balance: Healthy ecosystems provide essential services like pollination, water purification, and carbon sequestration.
• Enhancing resilience: Protected areas act as refuges for vulnerable species threatened by habitat loss or changing climatic conditions.
• Supporting local communities: These projects often involve collaboration with indigenous communities, promoting sustainability and cultural preservation.

To better visualize the outcomes of these efforts, we can refer to the table below outlining the positive effects of conservation initiatives:

By actively engaging in conservation initiatives that protect both wildlife and critical ecosystem services, we create a more sustainable future. This next section will explore technological innovations designed to monitor deforestation levels effectively and support ongoing conservation efforts. Through advancements in remote sensing technology and data analysis techniques, monitoring systems have become increasingly accurate and efficient.

Transitioning into the subsequent section on “Technological Innovations for Monitoring Deforestation,” we delve into the realm of cutting-edge tools and techniques that aid in combating deforestation more effectively.

Technological Innovations for Monitoring Deforestation

Transition from the previous section H2:

Building upon the success of community-based forest management, technological innovations have emerged as powerful tools for monitoring deforestation. By harnessing the potential of technology, we can gain a deeper understanding of deforestation patterns and develop more effective strategies to combat this pressing issue.

To illustrate the impact of technological innovations on monitoring deforestation, let us consider an example scenario in the Amazon rainforest. In this hypothetical case study, a team of researchers implemented satellite-based remote sensing techniques combined with machine learning algorithms to detect changes in forest cover over time. This approach allowed them to identify areas experiencing significant deforestation rates and prioritize conservation efforts accordingly.

One notable advantage of utilizing technology in monitoring deforestation is its ability to provide real-time data on forest loss. This immediacy allows environmental organizations, governments, and local communities to respond swiftly and implement targeted interventions to prevent further degradation. Moreover, advanced mapping technologies enable stakeholders to visualize spatial patterns of deforestation accurately, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of where protection measures are most urgently needed.

To evoke an emotional response regarding the consequences of deforestation and highlight the urgency of addressing this issue collectively, here are some key points:

• Massive loss of biodiversity: Every minute, countless species face extinction due to habitat destruction caused by deforestation.
• Disruption of ecosystem services: Forests play a crucial role in regulating climate through carbon sequestration and maintaining water cycles. Their depletion significantly impacts global climate stability and increases vulnerability to natural disasters.
• Threats to indigenous communities: Indigenous peoples rely heavily on forests for their livelihoods and cultural practices. Deforestation threatens their rights, traditions, and overall well-being.
• Loss of medicinal resources: Many pharmaceutical drugs originate from plants found in tropical rainforests. With ongoing deforestation, these valuable resources could be lost forever.

The following table emphasizes the alarming extent of deforestation worldwide:

In conclusion, technological innovations provide us with invaluable tools to monitor and address deforestation effectively. By combining remote sensing techniques with advanced data analysis methods, we can gain valuable insights into the extent of forest loss and prioritize conservation efforts accordingly. It is imperative that society continues to invest in these technologies while fostering collective action to protect our forests for future generations.

Related posts:

• Climate Change and Wildlife Conservation: A Comprehensive Overview
• Managing Invasive Species: Conserving Wildlife and Climate Change
• Mitigating Pollution: Conserving Wildlife in the Context of Climate Change
• Promoting Sustainable Agriculture: Conserving Wildlife in the Context of Climate Change

About Author

Comments are closed.

Carbon Offsets to Reduce Deforestation Are Significantly Overestimating Their Impact, a New Study Finds

A study in six countries across three continents finds that most carbon offsets aimed at avoiding deforestation are failing to keep forests standing or cut atmospheric greenhouse gases..

Share this article

Carbon Credit Market Seizes On a New Opportunity: Plugging Oil and Gas Wells

Carbon Removal Projects Leap Forward With New Offset Deal. Will They Actually Help the Climate?

Corporate Pledges to Fight Climate Change Are Falling Way Short. America’s Culture War Isn’t Helping

Carbon offset projects claiming to curb deforestation are significantly overestimating their impact, according to a new study published in Science on Thursday. 

Sold as a way to lessen the impact of greenhouse gas emissions by allowing polluters or consumers to purchase offsets or credits that allow them to keep emitting in return for funding projects that decrease emissions elsewhere, offsets have become a high-profile model for corporate climate action.  

But a systematic evaluation of 26 carbon offset projects that claim to slow the rate of potential deforestation in six countries on three continents, found that the vast majority of projects did not actually slow deforestation, and those that did were significantly less effective than they claimed.

“The main message is that relying on [carbon offset] certification is not enough,” said the study’s lead author, Thales West, an interdisciplinary ecologist and assistant professor at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and a fellow at Cambridge’s Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resources. “If you rely 100 percent on offsets, you probably will not do anything positive in terms of mitigating climate change.”

We’re hiring!

Please take a look at the new openings in our newsroom.

The study focuses on voluntary REDD+, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation projects. These are standalone projects that operate independently in the voluntary carbon offset market, outside of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s REDD+ framework for national and subnational projects. The authors call for “urgent revisions” to the certification methods used to attribute avoided deforestation to these projects, pointing out major flaws in current practice. 

Over the past few decades , carbon offsets have become increasingly ubiquitous, particularly in higher-income countries, where consumers can assuage their climate guilt by paying a little extra for a flight ticket or a rental car, with the understanding that their additional payment will go towards supporting a tree farm, for example. Big, high-emitting companies like Delta , JetBlue , Disney , General Motors and Shell have all bought and sold huge amounts of carbon offsets in the name of climate action. It’s an attractive business model for companies looking to “go green” without significant changes in their operations: purchase some carbon offsets to cancel out your emissions. Or, at least, appear to.

Ever since carbon offsets hit the market, there’s been significant debate over whether or not they’re an effective model for climate mitigation. The Cambridge study illustrates a basic problem: many carbon offsets aimed at reducing deforestation are not nearly as effective as they claim to be. And in a lot of cases, they may not be doing anything at all.

Julia Jones, a Ph.D. conservation scientist at Bangor University focused on conservation impact evaluation, said the study’s unique methods make it especially compelling and set it apart from other research in the field.

“ Their study is definitely the largest in scope and using pretty much the most robust methods at the moment,” said Jones, who was not involved in the study. 

The study looked at 26 projects in six countries: Cambodia, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Peru, Tanzania and Zambia. Researchers found that only eight of the 26 projects selling offsets showed any evidence of reducing deforestation, and even those that did failed to achieve the extent of reductions that the projects claimed. 

Only 18 of the 26 projects had sufficient publicly available information to determine the number of offsets they were projected to produce. From project implementation until 2020, those 18 projects were expected to generate up to 89 million carbon offsets to be sold in the global carbon market. But researchers estimate that only 5.4 million of the 89 million, or 6.1 percent, would be associated with actual carbon emission reductions.

West said companies that are buying and selling carbon offsets that have been certified by third party entities may not be aware that they’re misleading their customers—they might simply trust that the certification is legitimate. But the processes used to evaluate the projects’ effectiveness for certification are deeply flawed, he said. 

Most projects look at historical deforestation within a region to forecast a baseline deforestation rate, or the amount of deforestation that would have happened without the project’s intervention, West said. The problem is, it’s all based on hypotheticals. 

“They’re not really doing good science,” he said.

West and his colleagues took a different approach. They created a weighted average of regions that are similar to the project area but don’t house any projects, and used that as a “synthetic control.” Then, they compared deforestation in the synthetic control areas with the project areas during the period of time that the project was active. If projects are successfully reducing deforestation, then those project areas should exhibit less deforestation than the synthetic controls. Instead, West and his colleagues found that usually wasn’t the case. 

Jones emphasized that the takeaway from the study is that there needs to be increased investment in effective projects for deforestation reduction, not a disinvestment in forest protection. The voluntary carbon market has become a crucial source of funding for forest conservation initiatives, she said, and this funding needs to continue.

“We simply cannot tackle climate change without stopping both tropical forest deforestation and forest degradation now,” Jones said. “It’s a real urgent priority.”

Still, Jones added that overall, carbon offsets have a limited capacity for tackling climate change. Drastically reducing emissions is imperative for climate mitigation, while carbon offsets can have the negative impact of giving people moral license to continue business-as-usual emissions, she said, with companies problematically claiming “net zero” emissions based on carbon offset programs while continuing to emit greenhouse gasses.

Reducing deforestation is critical for combating climate change, as is reducing emissions, so a model that trades one for the other won’t be wholly effective, Jones said. Offsetting does not reduce the need for urgent climate actions like the minimization of emissions, forest restoration and remediation, and conservation, she said.

“[Carbon] offsetting can only ever be for those final, unavoidable emissions or the unavoidable biodiversity loss,” Jones said. 

Alistair Jump, a Ph.D. global change ecologist at the University of Stirling with a focus on climate change, said that although there are some impactful local projects funded by carbon offsets, he has low-confidence in the efficacy of most projects and is highly skeptical of the carbon offset model overall. 

“The ultimate thing that we need to be doing here is keeping fossil fuels in the ground,” Jump said.

Andreas Kontoleon, a Ph.D. lead researcher on the Cambridge study, said he’s not ideologically opposed to carbon offsets, but said they need to be more accurately monitored. 

The researchers are “raising the alarm that we need to fix this market,” Kontoleon said, adding that the study echoes other research from the past few years that points toward a need for tightened protocols on carbon offset project certification.

A preprint of the study earlier this year, included in an investigation into carbon offsets published by The Guardian, garnered criticism from the carbon offset industry, including the world’s leading carbon offset certifier, Verra. In response to The Guardian , the nonprofit questioned the use of “synthetic controls” and claimed studies were miscalculating the impact of REDD+ projects.

Jones said that critiques of the synthetic control method reflect an incomplete understanding of the science, noting that this approach offers more information about deforestation for analysis than the typical “ex ante” method, which relies on hypothetical forecasts rather than actual observed data.

West said that the research team did find one piece of industry feedback valuable: Verra criticized the study’s use of a particular University of Maryland dataset mapping annual global deforestation from 2001 to 2020. In 2011, the University of Maryland improved its data collection methods, and Verra argued that the authors should have accounted for this change in methodology.

In response, West said he and his team investigated the data to account for the 2011 methods change, and removed a few control areas that may have been impacted, though he said the data removed was not necessarily problematic.

West said this change did not impact the study’s results and instead strengthened the conclusion that these carbon offset projects were not as effective as they claimed.

“We basically gave the projects all the chances we could for them to work but, still, even taking that approach, they still didn’t work,” West said. 

In a statement responding to the updated paper, Verra said it welcomes scientific insights but maintains its original critiques of the study.

“Our initial analysis of this version indicates that, despite some minor changes, the overall methodology, results and conclusions are the same—and, therefore, the significant concerns we flagged earlier this year still hold,” the statement read.

Verra said, however, that it recognizes the need for improvements and is working on a new consolidated REDD+ methodology, to be released later this year.

Arun Agrawal, a Ph.D. political scientist at the University of Michigan who studies international development and environmental conservation, said the study was very well done, but argued that the researchers’ conclusions were limited and did not sufficiently address impacts on local and Indigenous communities located near deforestation avoidance projects. 

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Agrawal, who was not involved in the study, said the researchers’ conclusion—that more rigorous methodologies are needed to assess deforestation avoidance from carbon offset programs worldwide—is accurate. But he said that the whole REDD+ structure and offset model needs to be questioned more deeply. 

“I believe carbon offset projects such as REDD+ are fundamentally misguided,” Agrawal said. 

Agrawal said most of these projects fail to give adequate ownership to the Indigenous communities that have rights to these forested lands. At the end of the paper, the authors recommended increased attention to local communities. Agrawal said recognition of the impacts on local communities is only the first step. He argued that REDD+ projects aimed at preserving forests cannot succeed unless Indigenous groups and local communities are equally involved in analysis, implementation and decision making processes about mitigation projects. 

Agrawal also pointed to a lack of permanent sequestration as one major problem with deforestation reduction projects linked to carbon offsets and said that many projects tokenize Indigenous communities, failing to achieve meaningful involvement despite the demonstrated efficacy of Indigenous communities in land management and conservation efforts. 

“There is extensive research that documents how efforts that recognize community rights and that recognize the control of indigenous groups over their lands have sequestered carbon even without offset projects,” Agrawal said.

Keerti Gopal

Reporter, activism.

Keerti Gopal is a New York City-based reporter covering activism and grassroots mobilization in the climate movement. She is a National Geographic Explorer and has completed fellowships with Fulbright, the Solutions Journalism Network, and The Lever.

• [email protected]

Newsletters

We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web's top headlines deliver the full story, for free.

• Inside Clean Energy
• Today's Climate
• Breaking News
• I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy .

By Keaton Peters

By Nicholas Kusnetz

By Kristoffer Tigue

Most popular.

Biochar Is ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’ for Sequestering Carbon and Combating Climate Change

By lindsey byman.

Sinking Coastal Lands Will Exacerbate the Flooding from Sea Level Rise in 24 US Cities, New Research Shows

By moriah mcdonald.

Virginia Seeks Millions of Dollars in Federal Funds Aimed at Reducing Pollution and Electrifying Transportation and Buildings

By jake bolster, q&a: thousands of american climate corps jobs are now open. what will the new program look like.

Short answer: A lot like FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps, one of the New Deal’s most popular programs, which put millions to work—but much more diverse.

Interview by Aynsley O’Neill, Living on Earth

Nixon Advisers’ Climate Research Plan: Another Lost Chance on the Road to Crisis

Power plant pollution targeted in sweeping actions by biden administration.

Keep Environmental Journalism Alive

ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

How effective are policies in reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture?

All countries now have policies, but not all work as intended. some drive trade-offs or lead to spillover impacts elsewhere, but there are many examples of successful stories..

Agriculture is a difficult problem to solve. It feeds 8 billion people but is also one of the world’s most environmentally damaging sectors. It’s the leading driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss, land use, freshwater withdrawals, and water pollution.

The world will need effective governmental policies — called agro-environmental policies — and innovations in sustainable food technologies if we want to reduce these impacts while feeding 9 or 10 billion people .

You might think, then, that the obvious thing to do is to have more and more policies focused on reducing its environmental impacts. But this assumes that all policies are effective and don’t impose trade-offs with food production or socioeconomic outcomes. This is not always the case.

Sri Lanka is a particularly dramatic case showing how rash and poorly designed policies can lead to tragic consequences. In mid-2021, the government abruptly banned the import of chemical fertilizers. On an agri-environmental policy scorecard, this might have looked good. Fertilizer use — which can cause pollution — plummeted.

But it caused dramatic losses in the country’s food supplies. Rice production fell by almost 40% from 2021 to 2022. The production of key export crops, such as tea and rubber, also fell significantly. The country spiraled into an economic crisis. While this crisis is not entirely the result of its fertilizer ban — the import ban was partly in response to economic problems — it made things worse. 1

The lack of planning or foresight made this policy so damaging. Farmers had no time to find nutrient alternatives or learn how to optimize organic production. It illustrates clearly that just because a country has a policy in place doesn’t mean it produces good outcomes.

I’ve written previously about how different national priorities are when it comes to food production. Farmers in most low-income countries don’t have access to fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, or other vital inputs, and their yields suffer as a result. In middle- and high-income countries, farmers often overuse fertilizers and pesticides, causing lots of water pollution.

Effective policies must consider trade-offs and priorities, not just in terms of national outcomes but also the global environmental and socioeconomic impacts.

In this article, I look at global data on agricultural policies, some success stories, and what policymakers need to consider to prevent environmental damage from being offshored to other countries.

How are national agri-environmental policies distributed across the world?

Agri-environmental policies can target a range of outcomes: fertilizers, pesticides, soil health, forests, and biodiversity, to name a few. They can also be enacted in different ways: as legislation, regulation, payment schemes, or monitoring frameworks.

David Wuepper and his colleagues collected data on agri-environmental policies in 200 countries from 1960 to 2022. This database was published in a new paper in Nature Food . 2

Unsurprisingly, the number of policies has increased over time, with the majority coming into action in the 2000s and 2010s.

In the map below, we see the number of policies by country. 3 Countries in the European Union tend to have the largest number of policies. Countries across Sub-Saharan Africa and some parts of Asia have far fewer. Most countries in the EU have more than 90 policies, compared to less than 20 across most of Africa.

The number of policies doesn’t tell us how strictly they’re enforced. A single well-implemented policy could be far more effective than 10 poor ones.

To account for this, the researchers developed an intensity-weighted metric. This weighs the number of policies by the levels of policy stringency and enforcement in a country and the levels of corruption they face.

This intensity-weighted metric is shown in the map below. The overall distribution is similar, which is not surprising. If anything, adjusting for intensity widens the gap between countries. That’s because the metrics are positively correlated, according to the researchers: countries with more policies also tend to have stronger enforcement and lower levels of corruption.

Richer countries tend to have more agri-environmental policies

Both metrics — the number and intensity of policies — tend to be higher in richer countries. The chart below shows the number of policies measured against gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.

Most countries with large numbers of policies have a high average income. But being rich doesn’t guarantee that a country will put many policies in place. Some — such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain — have only a handful. You might think this is because their agricultural sector is small: farming makes up just a few percent of their GDP . But this is also true for most European countries. In the United Kingdom and Germany, it’s less than 1%. In France and Italy, less than 2%.

It’s worth noting that richer countries also tend to use more inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, which are some of the most regulated parts of agriculture. It makes sense that they would have more targets and legislation to reduce it.

The European Union and the United States use about five times as much fertilizer per hectare as the African average. Within Africa, many countries use much less than this — as little as a few kilograms per hectare. Some lower-income countries use almost no fertilizers or pesticides and have little to regulate. This is shown in the chart below.

Are policies effective in reducing environmental impacts?

We’ll discuss some policy “failures” later. But let’s first examine some clear examples of policies that have effectively achieved their goals.

Countries across Europe have implemented policies to reduce fertilizer use. Many have been successful. As I mentioned earlier, a blanket ban on fertilizers, or even reduction policies in countries where farmers use very little, is likely detrimental. This is not the case in Europe: many farmers still overapply fertilizers, often with little benefit to yields.

In the chart below, you can see the change in total fertilizer consumption since 1990. 4 Fertilizer use dropped steeply in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s due to reforms in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Consumption dropped by at least one-third, with some countries seeing over 40% reductions. That’s despite most countries having seen an increase or maintenance of crop yields over the same period.

China has also managed to turn the tide on fertilizer use. As you can see in the chart below, fertilizer consumption was growing rapidly from the 1960s to the early 2000s. But it peaked around 2015 and is now falling.

China has focused on using fertilizers more efficiently. To achieve this, it introduced various subsidy programs for farmers. The result has been a reduction in nutrient inputs while yields continued to increase . Various scientific papers expect that these policies and the reduction of subsidies played a pivotal role. 5

In 2015, China also introduced a “zero-growth pesticide policy” to reduce the overconsumption of pesticides. Again — as you can see from the chart below — it has achieved its goal. What’s impressive is how quickly this happened: use fell immediately, and in less than five years, it has seen an impressive drop. Various monitoring programs across the country have already noticed a reduction in the concentration of pesticides in rivers. 6

I’ve picked only a few examples, but other cross-country studies find that environmental policies and practices matter. Researchers David Wuepper, Fiona Tang, and Robert Finger find that a third of the differences in pesticide pollution risk between countries can be attributed to their agricultural policies. 7

When looking at the number and stringency of policies, they find that more than 40% of the differences in soil erosion rates across country borders can be explained by differences in policies. 2 Policies also explain many differences in forest loss and restoration rates. 8

Agri-environmental policies do matter. They can make the difference between unsustainable versus efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides, cut rates of soil erosion, and transform countries from net losers to net gainers of forest.

On the other hand, poorly designed policies can backfire when they don’t consider trade-offs with other environmental or socioeconomic problems.

Agri-environmental policies can have spillover impacts to other countries

Earlier, we saw the damaging effects of Sri Lanka's abrupt ban on chemical fertilizers. That’s just one example of where policy design — or lack thereof — can go wrong.

Policies can have negative impacts in a few ways. First, they might not consider trade-offs with other environmental issues. As David Wuepper and colleagues note in their study on pesticide reductions, promoting organic farming does lower the risk of pesticide pollution but can also reduce crop yields. 7 That means farmers must use more land or displace food production to other countries that might use even more pesticides.

That brings us to the second point: policies in one country can have negative impacts that spill over to others.

In a study published in Nature Communications , researchers looked at what would happen to greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture if England and Wales went fully organic. 9 Domestic emissions would fall; in this regard, it would be a policy “win”. But there would also be a significant shortfall in food supplies, requiring the two countries to import more food from elsewhere. When these agricultural emissions are included, total emissions would increase . What appears to be a “win” when only considering England and Wales is, in fact, a “loss” for the world — and climate — as a whole.

You can imagine similar examples for measures such as land use or forestry. Countries could reduce their farmland area and increase their forest cover while driving more land use and forest loss in other countries. And it’s not just about environmental spillovers: poor policies can also impact food prices, access, and security. Researchers note, for example, that a rise in organic farming in rich countries could raise food prices for consumers in poorer ones. 10

If national policies can have global consequences, policymakers need to look at global data

Environmental impacts are mostly offshored when there are large differences in policies across countries. The European Union or the United States can’t offshore deforestation to Brazil if the latter has a zero-deforestation mandate. The United Kingdom can’t displace water pollution to India if it has tight controls on fertilizer and pesticide runoff. If every country had strict environmental policies, it would be hard for any country to offshore its burden elsewhere. The problem is that — as we saw earlier — there are vast differences in the number and enforcement of policies between countries.

What can richer countries — with stricter domestic policies — do to prevent their impacts from “leaking” elsewhere?

First, they can’t force other countries to adopt the same policies. In some cases, they would cause a lot of harm. Restricting fertilizer and pesticide use for farmers who can only afford small amounts can ruin their harvests and livelihoods for very little environmental benefit.

What they can do is measure the full impact of their policies and account for any spillovers to other countries. Researchers already do this for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from fossil fuels: they estimate “ consumption-based emissions ” which adjust for the CO 2 embedded in the goods and services they import. This tells us how much of their emissions are being offshored and whether they are reducing their emissions when this is considered.

This is harder for metrics such as deforestation, land use, fertilizer, or pesticide consumption, but many organizations are making progress. Trase Earth , for example, uses trade and geospatial data to map deforestation in the supply chains of products such as beef, palm oil, soy, and cocoa. Countries and companies can then see where their products are coming from and whether they’ve increased the risk of deforestation.

Some countries are starting to implement policies that tackle international impacts. In 2018, for example, France launched its National Strategy against Imported Deforestation , which commits it to ending the imports of unsustainable products by 2030. Next year, the EU will ban the sale of seven imported commodities — beef, soy, palm oil, wood, cocoa, coffee, and rubber — if grown on recently deforested land. Even then, the total impacts are not straightforward: this could reduce environmental pressures but negatively impact smallholder farmers in other countries if they lose some of their export markets.

Effective commitments – that provide support for farmers who need to adapt to new policies – will be crucial to ensure that countries are not only improving the environment at home, but also contributing to more sustainable practices for the world as a whole.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Max Roser, Edouard Mathieu and David Wuepper for their valuable feedback and comments on this article.

Samarakoon, L. P. (2024). What broke the pearl of the Indian ocean? The causes of the Sri Lankan economic crisis and its policy implications. Journal of Financial Stability.

Wuepper, D., Wiebecke, I., Meier, L., Vogelsanger, S., Bramato, S., Fürholz, A., & Finger, R. (2024). Agri-environmental policies from 1960 to 2022. Nature Food.

Policies implemented by the European Union are also included in national totals for EU countries.

Official governmental statistics — for example, in the UK — confirm the same reduction in fertilizer use.

Yang, Y., Li, Z., & Jin, M. (2022). How do chemical fertilizer reduction policies work?—Empirical evidence from rural China. Frontiers in Environmental Science.

Van Wesenbeeck, C. F. A., Keyzer, M. A., Van Veen, W. C. M., & Qiu, H. (2021). Can China's overuse of fertilizer be reduced without threatening food security and farm incomes?. Agricultural Systems.

Fan, P., Mishra, A. K., Feng, S., & Su, M. (2023). The effect of agricultural subsidies on chemical fertilizer use: Evidence from a new policy in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, 118423.

Guo, Z., Ouyang, W., Chen, M., Tulcan, R. X. S., Wang, L., Lin, C., & He, M. (2023). Increasing precipitation deteriorates the progress of pesticide reduction policy in the vulnerable watershed. In npj Clean Water .

Wuepper, D., Tang, F. H., & Finger, R. (2023). National leverage points to reduce global pesticide pollution. Global Environmental Change.

Wuepper, D., Crowther, T., Lauber, T., Routh, D., Le Clec'h, S., Garrett, R. D., & Börner, J. (2024). Public policies and global forest conservation: Empirical evidence from national borders. Global Environmental Change.

Smith, L. G., Kirk, G. J., Jones, P. J., & Williams, A. G. (2019). The greenhouse gas impacts of converting food production in England and Wales to organic methods. Nature Communications.

Mérel, P., Qin, Z., & Sexton, R. J. (2023). Policy-induced expansion of organic farmland: implications for food prices and welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics.

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

5 ways sustainable forestry can support climate action, development and biodiversity

Sustainable forestry can catalyse climate action. Image:  Timberland Investment Group

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Charlotte Kaiser

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} SDG 15: Life on Land is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, sdg 15: life on land.

• Sustainable forestry can catalyze climate action through reforestation and sustainable management of working forests.
• By increasing demand for sustainably produced forest products, we can incentivize reforestation on a meaningful scale.
• Innovative financing models could combine commercial forestry with the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems.

Envisioning a climate-stable future requires a dual strategy as far as the world’s forests are concerned: protecting and restoring natural forests for all of their ecological and climate benefits while also sustainably managing working forests to drive the global transformation to a sustainable, circular bioeconomy.

Many are uncomfortable at the thought of cutting down a tree. While wood is a useful material, people don't like the idea that it should be harvested from a forest. In a 2017 study commissioned by the North American Forest Partnership, nearly four out of five respondents thought wood was a renewable material; however, fewer than one in five associated the forest sector with sustainability.

That’s an unfortunate misconception and in our current era of climate disasters, it’s becoming a dangerous one. The reality is that sustainable forestry and forest products can help us save the planet from ourselves. Here are five ways how.

Have you read?

Why companies must invest in innovative solutions for forest conservation and restoration, why forest restoration needs a 100-year plan and indigenous multi-gen leadership, 1. investing in reforestation.

The forest sector holds both the responsibility and opportunity to advance some of the solutions the world needs to minimize waste and ensure nature thrives – putting it on the frontline of climate action.

Firstly, forestry’s carbon footprint is already quite low compared with other industries and increasing demand for sustainably produced forest products can drive reforestation at meaningful scales, delivering significant climate benefits. A durable market for sustainable wood products creates economic support for landowners to plant trees, manage the growing forests and replant new trees as they are harvested. Research has shown that when forest product prices rise in the United States, landowners plant more trees.

There is often public concern that increasing demand for forest products drives deforestation of natural forests, yet the opposite is often true. Most deforestation is driven by conversion to agriculture . Driving up the economic value of sustainable working forests is a proven way to prevent the conversion of forests to alternative forms of land use. Research has also found that forests managed for sustained timber production can be more resistant to deforestation, from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Guatemala .

Of course, a small share of deforestation results from the demand for forest products. To address this, producers and consumers of these products must make and adhere to firm commitments to deforestation-free operations and supply chains.

2. Investing in natural forest restoration

Given its close relationship with nature, the forest sector is crucial in contributing to regenerating and restoring nature globally through management practices that meaningfully improve the health and resilience of ecosystems, species and people.

Driven by the growing demand among investors for greater climate and nature impact and high-quality nature-based carbon credits, companies, NGOs and communities are innovating new approaches that link financing for commercial forestry with efforts to protect and restore natural ecosystems. These efforts include restoring peatland and wetlands, reintroducing native and endangered tree species on degraded lands, creating wildlife corridors and enhancing soil carbon stocks.

For example, the Timberland Investment Group, where I work, with Conservation International’s support , is undertaking a $1 billion strategy to invest in properties in Latin America that have been previously deforested to protect and restore natural forest on half the land acquired under the strategy and establish sustainably managed commercial tree farms on the other half.

3. Supporting Indigenous peoples and local communities

The traditional territories of Indigenous and local communities cover a quarter of the Earth’s lands but contain 80% of Earth’s remaining biodiversity . It is estimated that nearly 200 million Indigenous people depend on forests for their livelihoods. Support for sustainable forest products can direct capital into Indigenous-managed landscapes while supporting livelihoods that represent an alternative to expanding the agricultural frontier.

There are a growing number of examples of this strategy’s success, including the work being supported by the Nature Conservancy within the Moomba community in Zambia, which has won the right to sustainably harvest and profit from its forest resources.

4. Reducing pressure on intact forests and their biodiversity

Deforestation is a critical threat to biodiversity, and protecting our existing forests is one of the best ways to preserve the world’s remaining forest ecosystems.

Planted forests comprise only 7% of the world’s forest area but provide almost half its commercial timber. Sustainable management of these planted forests can help meet the growing demand for renewable materials while reducing pressure on natural forests and their rich biodiversity.

5. Reducing the carbon footprint of construction

The forest sector is well-positioned to grow the circular bioeconomy using wood from sustainable working forests as a renewable material. Turning sustainably harvested trees into long-lived wood products like mass timber can substitute for carbon-intensive concrete and steel and turn new buildings' walls, floors and ceilings into carbon vaults that persist for decades or longer.

A recent study suggests that widespread adoption of mass timber worldwide could, by 2100, reduce annual global emissions by an amount equivalent to nearly half the total emissions of the entire United States. Scaling up this alternative economic model requires deliberate and collaborative action along the entire forest products value chain and within the broader operating environment.

In short, the forest sector lies at the heart of the needed transition to a low-carbon, circular bioeconomy due to the ability of working forests and sustainable forest products to capture and store carbon; to reduce pressure on intact ecosystems and the species that call them home; to support equitable development across rural landscapes; and provide new funding models for natural restoration at large scales.

Indeed, in the right circumstances, cutting down trees – and replanting them – can deliver all these benefits and more.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Nature and Biodiversity .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Electric vehicles are key to the energy transition - but the switch must be sustainable. Here's why

Lisa Donahue and Vance Scott

April 28, 2024

What is Arbor Day and why is it important?

April 24, 2024

The green skills gap: Educational reform in favour of renewable energy is now urgent

Roman Vakulchuk

4 lessons from the renewables playbook for today’s clean infrastructure boom

Jennifer Holmgren

April 23, 2024

Global forest restoration goals can be achieved with youth-led ecopreneurship

Agustin Rosello, Anali Bustos, Fernando Morales de Rueda, Jennifer Hong and Paula Sarigumba

The planet’s outlook is in our hands. Which future will we incentivize?

Carlos Correa

April 22, 2024

share this!

April 25, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

First-of-its-kind study shows that conservation actions are effective at halting and reversing biodiversity loss

A study published April 25, in the journal Science provides the strongest evidence to date that not only is nature conservation successful, but that scaling conservation interventions up would be transformational for halting and reversing biodiversity loss—a crisis that can lead to ecosystem collapses and a planet less able to support life—and reducing the effects of climate change.

The findings of this first-ever comprehensive meta-analysis of the impact of conservation action are crucial as more than 44,000 species are documented as being at risk of extinction , with tremendous consequences for the ecosystems that stabilize the climate and that provide billions of people around the world with clean water, livelihoods, homes, and cultural preservation, among other ecosystem services.

Governments recently adopted new global targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, making it even more critical to understand whether conservation interventions are working.

"If you look only at the trend of species declines, it would be easy to think that we're failing to protect biodiversity, but you would not be looking at the full picture," said Penny Langhammer, lead author of the study and executive vice president of Re:wild.

"What we show with this paper is that conservation is, in fact, working to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It is clear that conservation must be prioritized and receive significant additional resources and political support globally, while we simultaneously address the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss, such as unsustainable consumption and production."

Although many studies look at individual conservation projects and interventions and their impact compared with no action taken, these papers have never been pulled into a single analysis to see how and whether conservation action is working overall.

The co-authors conducted the first-ever meta-analysis of 186 studies, including 665 trials, that looked at the impact of a wide range of conservation interventions globally, and over time, compared to what would have happened without those interventions. The studies covered over a century of conservation action and evaluated actions targeting different levels of biodiversity—species, ecosystems and genetic diversity.

The meta-analysis found that conservation actions—including the establishment and management of protected areas, the eradication and control of invasive species, the sustainable management of ecosystems, habitat loss reduction and restoration—improved the state of biodiversity or slowed its decline in the majority of cases (66%) compared with no action taken at all. And when conservation interventions work, the paper's co-authors found that they are highly effective.

For example:

• Management of invasive and problematic native predators on two of Florida's barrier islands, Cayo Costa and North Captiva, resulted in an immediate and substantial improvement in nesting success by loggerhead turtles and least terns, especially compared with other barrier islands where no predator management was applied.
• In the Congo Basin, deforestation was 74% lower in logging concessions under a Forest Management Plan (FMP) compared with concessions without an FMP.
• Protected areas and Indigenous lands were shown to significantly reduce both deforestation rate and fire density in the Brazilian Amazon. Deforestation was 1.7 to 20 times higher and human-caused fires occurred four to nine times more frequently outside the reserve perimeters compared with inside.
• Captive breeding and release boosted the natural population of Chinook salmon in the Salmon River basin of central Idaho with minimal negative impacts on the wild population. On average, fish taken into the hatchery produced 4.7 times more adult offspring and 1.3 times more adult second generation offspring than naturally reproducing fish.

"Our study shows that when conservation actions work, they really work. In other words, they often lead to outcomes for biodiversity that are not just a little bit better than doing nothing at all, but many times greater," said Jake Bicknell, co-author of the paper and a conservation scientist at DICE, University of Kent.

"For instance, putting measures in place to boost the population size of an endangered species has often seen their numbers increase substantially. This effect has been mirrored across a large proportion of the case studies we looked at."

Even in the minority of cases where conservation actions did not succeed in recovering or slowing the decline of the species or ecosystems that they were targeting compared with taking no action, conservationists benefited from the knowledge gained and were able to refine their methods. For example, in India the physical removal of invasive algae caused the spread of the algae elsewhere because the process broke the algae into many pieces, enabling their dispersal. Conservationists could now implement a different strategy to remove the algae that is more likely to be successful.

This might also explain why the co-authors found a correlation between more recent conservation interventions and positive outcomes for biodiversity—conservation is likely getting more effective over time. Other potential reasons for this correlation include an increase in funding and more targeted interventions.

In some other cases where the conservation action did not succeed in benefiting the target biodiversity compared with no action at all, other native species benefited unintentionally instead. For example, seahorse abundance was lower in protected sites because marine protected areas increase the abundance of seahorse predators, including octopus.

"It would be too easy to lose any sense of optimism in the face of ongoing biodiversity declines," said study co-author and Associate Professor Joseph Bull, from the University of Oxford's department of biology. "However, our results clearly show that there is room for hope. Conservation interventions seemed to be an improvement on inaction most of the time; and when they were not, the losses were comparatively limited."

More than half of the world's GDP, almost $44 trillion , is moderately or highly dependent on nature.

According to previous studies, a comprehensive global conservation program would require an investment of between US$178 billion and US$524 billion , focused primarily in countries with particularly high levels of biodiversity. To put this in perspective, in 2022, global fossil fuel handouts—which are destructive to nature—were US$7 trillion .

This is 13 times the highest amount needed annually to protect and restore the planet. Today more than US$121 billion is invested annually into conservation worldwide , and previous studies have found the cost-benefit ratio of an effective global program for the conservation of the wild is at least 1:100 .

"Conservation action works—this is what the science clearly shows us," said Claude Gascon, co-author and director of strategy and operations at the Global Environment Facility.

"It is also evident that to ensure that positive effects last, we need to invest more in nature and continue doing so in a sustained way. This study comes at a critical time where the world has agreed on ambitious and needed global biodiversity targets that will require conservation action at an entirely new scale. Achieving this is not only possible, it is well within our grasp as long as it is appropriately prioritized."

The paper also argues that there must be more investment specifically in the effective management of protected areas, which remain the cornerstone for many conservation actions. Consistent with other studies, this study finds that protected areas work very well on the whole. And what other studies have shown is that when protected areas are not working, it is typically the result of a lack of effective management and adequate resourcing. Protected areas will be even more effective at reducing biodiversity loss if they are well-resourced and well-managed.

Moving forward, the study's co-authors call for more and rigorous studies that look at the impact of conservation action versus inaction for a wider range of conservation interventions, such as those that look at the effectiveness of pollution control, climate change adaptation, and the sustainable use of species, and in more countries.

"For more than 75 years, IUCN has advanced the importance of sharing conservation practice globally," said Grethel Aguilar, IUCN director general.

"This paper has analyzed conservation outcomes at a level as rigorous as in applied disciplines like medicine and engineering—showing genuine impact and thus guiding the transformative change needed to safeguard nature at scale around the world. It shows that nature conservation truly works, from the species to the ecosystem levels across all continents. This analysis, led by Re:wild in collaboration with many IUCN Members, Commission experts, and staff, stands to usher in a new era in conservation practice."

Journal information: Science

Provided by Re:wild

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Global study shows a third more insects come out after dark

22 hours ago

Cicada-palooza! Billions of bugs to blanket America

Apr 27, 2024

Getting dynamic information from static snapshots

Ancient Maya blessed their ballcourts: Researchers find evidence of ceremonial offerings in Mexico

Optical barcodes expand range of high-resolution sensor

Apr 26, 2024

Ridesourcing platforms thrive on socio-economic inequality, say researchers

Did Vesuvius bury the home of the first Roman emperor?

Florida dolphin found with highly pathogenic avian flu: Report

A new way to study and help prevent landslides

New algorithm cuts through 'noisy' data to better predict tipping points

Relevant physicsforums posts, is 5 milliamps at 240 volts dangerous.

3 hours ago

The Cass Report (UK)

Apr 24, 2024

Major Evolution in Action

Apr 22, 2024

If theres a 15% probability each month of getting a woman pregnant...

Apr 19, 2024

Can four legged animals drink from beneath their feet?

Apr 15, 2024

Mold in Plastic Water Bottles? What does it eat?

Apr 14, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Scientist explores sufficiency as an overlooked strategy for protecting biodiversity

Apr 2, 2024

More for less: A smarter way to protect biodiversity

Mar 6, 2024

Over half of threatened species require targeted recovery actions

Jul 18, 2022

New study offers hope that conservation can help nature adapt to climate change

May 19, 2022

Q&A: How can Canada best meet its commitment to protecting 30% of its land by 2030?

Nov 24, 2023

Conservationists propose 'global conservation basic income' to safeguard biodiversity

May 18, 2023

Recommended for you

Cichlid fishes' curiosity promotes biodiversity: How exploratory behavior aids in ecological adaptation

Apr 25, 2024

New dataset sheds light on relationship of far-red sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence to canopy-level photosynthesis

Targeted culling of starfish found to help Great Barrier Reef maintain or increase cover

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

• About Global MIT
• MIT’s Global Strategy
• Report by the MIT China Strategy Group
• Our Programs
• Faculty, Staff, and Scholars
• Visiting Delegations
• News & Stories

How to tackle the global deforestation crisis

Imagine if France, Germany, and Spain were completely blanketed in forests — and then all those trees were quickly chopped down. That’s nearly the amount of deforestation that occurred globally between 2001 and 2020, with profound consequences.

Deforestation is a major contributor to climate change, producing between 6 and 17 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2009 study. Meanwhile, because trees also absorb carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere, they help keep the Earth cooler. And climate change aside, forests protect biodiversity.

“Climate change and biodiversity make this a global problem, not a local problem,” says MIT economist Ben Olken. “Deciding to cut down trees or not has huge implications for the world.”

But deforestation is often financially profitable, so it continues at a rapid rate. Researchers can now measure this trend closely: In the last quarter-century, satellite-based technology has led to a paradigm change in charting deforestation. New deforestation datasets, based on the Landsat satellites, for instance, track forest change since 2000 with resolution at 30 meters, while many other products now offer frequent imaging at close resolution.

“Part of this revolution in measurement is accuracy, and the other part is coverage,” says Clare Balboni, an assistant professor of economics at the London School of Economics (LSE). “On-site observation is very expensive and logistically challenging, and you’re talking about case studies. These satellite-based data sets just open up opportunities to see deforestation at scale, systematically, across the globe.”

Balboni and Olken have now helped write a new paper providing a road map for thinking about this crisis. The open-access article, “ The Economics of Tropical Deforestation ,” appears this month in the Annual Review of Economics . The co-authors are Balboni, a former MIT faculty member; Aaron Berman, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Economics; Robin Burgess, an LSE professor; and Olken, MIT’s Jane Berkowitz Carlton and Dennis William Carlton Professor of Microeconomics. Balboni and Olken have also conducted primary research in this area, along with Burgess.

So, how can the world tackle deforestation? It starts with understanding the problem.

Replacing forests with farms

Several decades ago, some thinkers, including the famous MIT economist Paul Samuelson in the 1970s, built models to study forests as a renewable resource; Samuelson calculated the “maximum sustained yield” at which a forest could be cleared while being regrown. These frameworks were designed to think about tree farms or the U.S. national forest system, where a fraction of trees would be cut each year, and then new trees would be grown over time to take their place.

But deforestation today, particularly in tropical areas, often looks very different, and forest regeneration is not common.

Indeed, as Balboni and Olken emphasize, deforestation is now rampant partly because the profits from chopping down trees come not just from timber, but from replacing forests with agriculture. In Brazil, deforestation has increased along with agricultural prices; in Indonesia, clearing trees accelerated as the global price of palm oil went up, leading companies to replace forests with palm tree orchards.

All this tree-clearing creates a familiar situation: The globally shared costs of climate change from deforestation are “externalities,” as economists say, imposed on everyone else by the people removing forest land. It is akin to a company that pollutes into a river, affecting the water quality of residents.

“Economics has changed the way it thinks about this over the last 50 years, and two things are central,” Olken says. “The relevance of global externalities is very important, and the conceptualization of alternate land uses is very important.” This also means traditional forest-management guidance about regrowth is not enough. With the economic dynamics in mind, which policies might work, and why?

The search for solutions

As Balboni and Olken note, economists often recommend “Pigouvian” taxes (named after the British economist Arthur Pigou) in these cases, levied against people imposing externalities on others. And yet, it can be hard to identify who is doing the deforesting.

Instead of taxing people for clearing forests, governments can pay people to keep forests intact. The UN uses Payments for Environmental Services (PES) as part of its REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) program. However, it is similarly tough to identify the optimal landowners to subsidize, and these payments may not match the quick cash-in of deforestation. A 2017 study in Uganda showed PES reduced deforestation somewhat; a 2022 study in Indonesia found no reduction; another 2022 study, in Brazil, showed again that some forest protection resulted.

“There’s mixed evidence from many of these [studies],” Balboni says. These policies, she notes, must reach people who would otherwise clear forests, and a key question is, “How can we assess their success compared to what would have happened anyway?”

Some places have tried cash transfer programs for larger populations. In Indonesia, a 2020 study found such subsidies reduced deforestation near villages by 30 percent. But in Mexico, a similar program meant more people could afford milk and meat, again creating demand for more agriculture and thus leading to more forest-clearing.

At this point, it might seem that laws simply banning deforestation in key areas would work best — indeed, about 16 percent of the world’s land overall is protected in some way. Yet the dynamics of protection are tricky. Even with protected areas in place, there is still “leakage” of deforestation into other regions.

Still more approaches exist, including “nonstate agreements,” such as the Amazon Soy Moratorium in Brazil, in which grain traders pledged not to buy soy from deforested lands, and reduced deforestation without “leakage.”

Also, intriguingly, a 2008 policy change in the Brazilian Amazon made agricultural credit harder to obtain by requiring recipients to comply with environmental and land registration rules. The result? Deforestation dropped by up to 60 percent over nearly a decade.

Politics and pulp

Overall, Balboni and Olken observe, beyond “externalities,” two major challenges exist. One, it is often unclear who holds property rights in forests. In these circumstances, deforestation seems to increase. Two, deforestation is subject to political battles.

For instance, as economist Bard Harstad of Stanford University has observed, environmental lobbying is asymmetric. Balboni and Olken write: “The conservationist lobby must pay the government in perpetuity … while the deforestation-oriented lobby need pay only once to deforest in the present.” And political instability leads to more deforestation because “the current administration places lower value on future conservation payments.”

Even so, national political measures can work. In the Amazon from 2001 to 2005, Brazilian deforestation rates were three to four times higher than on similar land across the border, but that imbalance vanished once the country passed conservation measures in 2006. However, deforestation ramped up again after a 2014 change in government. Looking at particular monitoring approaches, a study of Brazil’s satellite-based Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation (DETER), launched in 2004, suggests that a 50 percent annual increase in its use in municipalities created a 25 percent reduction in deforestation from 2006 to 2016.

How precisely politics matters may depend on the context. In a 2021 paper, Balboni and Olken (with three colleagues) found that deforestation actually decreased around elections in Indonesia. Conversely, in Brazil, one study found that deforestation rates were 8 to 10 percent higher where mayors were running for re-election between 2002 and 2012, suggesting incumbents had deforestation industry support.

“The research there is aiming to understand what the political economy drivers are,” Olken says, “with the idea that if you understand those things, reform in those countries is more likely.”

Looking ahead, Balboni and Olken also suggest that new research estimating the value of intact forest land intact could influence public debates. And while many scholars have studied deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia, fewer have examined the Democratic Republic of Congo, another deforestation leader, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Deforestation is an ongoing crisis. But thanks to satellites and many recent studies, experts know vastly more about the problem than they did a decade or two ago, and with an economics toolkit, can evaluate the incentives and dynamics at play.

“To the extent that there’s ambuiguity across different contexts with different findings, part of the point of our review piece is to draw out common themes — the important considerations in determining which policy levers can [work] in different circumstances,” Balboni says. “That’s a fast-evolving area. We don’t have all the answers, but part of the process is bringing together growing evidence about [everything] that affects how successful those choices can be.”