Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Antarctic Wildlife and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction

Recent assessments by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reveal alarming declines in key Antarctic species, notably the emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri), Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella), and southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina). These findings highlight the urgent need for global action to address climate change, directly linking to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Key Findings and Species Status

1. Emperor Penguin

   • Status change: From Near Threatened to Endangered on the IUCN Red List.
   • Population decline: Projected to halve by the 2080s; satellite data shows a 10% loss between 2009 and 2018 (~20,000 adults).
   • Main threat: Early break-up and loss of sea-ice habitat due to climate change.
   • Ecological role: Dependent on fast ice for breeding and moulting; vulnerable to habitat loss caused by rising temperatures.
   • SDG relevance: Highlights the critical need for urgent climate action (SDG 13) and conservation of marine ecosystems (SDG 14).

2. Antarctic Fur Seal

   • Status change: From Least Concern to Endangered.
   • Population decline: Over 50% decrease from approximately 2,187,000 mature seals in 1999 to 944,000 in 2025.
   • Primary causes: Climate change-induced ocean warming and sea-ice reduction pushing krill to deeper waters, reducing food availability.
   • Additional threats: Predation and competition with recovering baleen whale populations.
   • SDG relevance: Emphasizes the importance of sustainable ocean management (SDG 14) and climate mitigation efforts (SDG 13).

3. Southern Elephant Seal

   • Status change: From Least Concern to Vulnerable.
   • Cause of decline: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreaks since 2020, exacerbated by climate change.
   • Impact: High mortality rates in newborn pups and adult females; increased disease vulnerability linked to warming polar regions.
   • SDG relevance: Underlines the need for health monitoring of wildlife (SDG 15) and climate resilience strategies (SDG 13).

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 13 – Climate Action: The decline of Antarctic species due to climate-induced habitat loss and disease highlights the urgent need for global greenhouse gas emission reductions.
• SDG 14 – Life Below Water: Protecting marine biodiversity in Antarctica is crucial for maintaining ecosystem services and food security.
• SDG 15 – Life on Land: Conservation of terrestrial and marine species in polar regions supports biodiversity and ecosystem health.
• SDG 17 – Partnerships for the Goals: Calls for international cooperation, especially among Parties to the Antarctic Treaty, to enhance data collection and monitoring efforts.

Expert Statements

• Dr Grethel Aguilar, IUCN Director General: Emphasizes Antarctica’s irreplaceable role in climate stabilization and biodiversity conservation, urging action across all sectors.
• Martin Harper, CEO of BirdLife International: Warns that the emperor penguin’s endangered status is a stark indicator of accelerating extinction risks driven by climate change.
• Dr Philip Trathan, IUCN SSC Penguin Specialist Group: Identifies human-induced climate change as the primary threat to emperor penguins, highlighting their role as sentinel species.
• Dr Kit Kovacs, Co-Chair of IUCN SSC Pinniped Specialist Group: Calls for enhanced monitoring of Antarctic seals to better understand climate change impacts.
• Dr Kathleen Flower, Conservation International: Notes that the decline of penguins and seals reflects broader ecosystem degradation, emphasizing the need for climate-informed science and resources to prevent extinctions.

Recommendations

1. Implement urgent and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions globally to mitigate climate change impacts (SDG 13).
2. Enhance international collaboration under the Antarctic Treaty to improve monitoring and data collection on Antarctic species (SDG 17).
3. Increase funding and support for climate-informed scientific research to better understand and address species decline (SDG 15).
4. Promote conservation strategies that protect critical habitats such as sea-ice ecosystems vital for breeding and feeding (SDG 14).
5. Raise public awareness and engage all sectors of society to support sustainable development and biodiversity conservation efforts.

Conclusion

The recent IUCN Red List assessments serve as a critical warning regarding the vulnerability of Antarctic wildlife to climate change. The endangered status of the emperor penguin and Antarctic fur seal, along with the vulnerable status of the southern elephant seal, underscores the urgent need for coordinated global action aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals. Protecting Antarctica’s unique ecosystems is essential not only for biodiversity but also for global climate stability and human well-being.

For further details, the assessments are available on the IUCN Red List pre-publication page.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article focuses heavily on the impacts of climate change on Antarctic wildlife, particularly emperor penguins and seals, emphasizing the urgent need to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change mitigation.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The decline of marine species such as emperor penguins, Antarctic fur seals, and southern elephant seals due to changing sea-ice conditions and ocean temperatures relates directly to the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Although focused on marine and ice-dependent species, the article’s emphasis on biodiversity loss and species extinction risk connects to the broader goal of protecting, restoring, and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and halting biodiversity loss.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration.
   • Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and destructive fishing practices.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity, and protect endangered species.
   • Target 15.8: Introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress Towards the Identified Targets

1. Population Trends of Key Species
   • The article provides data on population declines of emperor penguins (population halving by 2080s, 10% loss between 2009-2018), Antarctic fur seals (over 50% decline from 1999 to 2025), and southern elephant seals (increased vulnerability due to disease).
   • These population trends serve as biological indicators of ecosystem health and the impact of climate change on biodiversity (relevant to SDG 14 and 15 targets).
2. Sea-Ice Extent and Duration
   • Record lows in sea-ice since 2016 and early break-up of fast ice are highlighted as critical factors affecting species survival, serving as environmental indicators linked to climate change impacts (relevant to SDG 13 and 14).
3. Incidence and Impact of Disease
   • The spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) affecting southern elephant seals is mentioned as an emerging threat exacerbated by climate change, indicating the need to monitor disease prevalence as an indicator of ecosystem vulnerability.
4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Decarbonization Efforts
   • While not quantified in the article, the call for urgent decarbonization implies the use of emissions data as an indicator for climate action progress (SDG 13).

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: iucn.org

Report on the Endangered Species Committee’s Exemption for Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Operations

Introduction

On March 31, 2026, the Endangered Species Committee, also known as the “God Squad” or “Extinction Committee,” granted an unprecedented exemption to all oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico from the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This marks the first such exemption in the 53-year history of the ESA.

Details of the Exemption

• The exemption removes legal protections for endangered marine species affected by oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico.
• The committee justified the exemption under the pretext of “national security,” despite no formal request from the oil and gas industry or federal agencies.
• The decision was made after only 32 minutes of discussion, bypassing the ESA’s mandated multistep public process and transparency requirements.

Impact on Endangered Species and Biodiversity

The exemption is expected to have severe consequences for numerous threatened and endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico, including:

1. Rice’s whale – The only endemic whale species in the United States, with a current population estimated at approximately 51 individuals following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
2. Sea turtles
3. Whooping cranes
4. Manatees

The removal of conservation measures such as safe vessel speed limits and whale monitoring is likely to increase mortality rates and push these species closer to extinction.

Legal and Environmental Advocacy Response

• The Center for Biological Diversity has condemned the exemption as illegal and amoral, pledging to amend its existing lawsuit to challenge the Defense Secretary’s national security determination and the committee’s decision.
• Government affairs director Brett Hartl emphasized public opposition to sacrificing endangered species for fossil fuel profits and criticized the political motivations behind the exemption.

Relevance to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This exemption directly undermines several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including:

• SDG 14: Life Below Water – By threatening marine biodiversity and weakening protections for endangered aquatic species, the exemption impedes efforts to sustainably manage and conserve ocean ecosystems.
• SDG 15: Life on Land – The impact on species such as whooping cranes and manatees affects terrestrial and coastal biodiversity conservation.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – Facilitating expanded fossil fuel extraction contradicts global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – The bypassing of legal procedures and lack of transparency challenge principles of good governance and rule of law.

Conclusion

The Endangered Species Committee’s exemption for oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico represents a significant setback for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. It threatens the survival of critically endangered species and contravenes key Sustainable Development Goals aimed at protecting life on Earth and promoting environmental stewardship. Legal challenges are underway to overturn this decision and restore essential protections for vulnerable marine and coastal ecosystems.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water – The article focuses on endangered marine species such as the Rice’s whale, sea turtles, and manatees in the Gulf of Mexico, highlighting threats from oil and gas operations and the exemption from the Endangered Species Act.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land – The mention of whooping cranes, a threatened species, connects to terrestrial biodiversity conservation.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action – The article indirectly relates to climate action by discussing fossil fuel industry impacts and environmental protection rollbacks.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article discusses legal and governance issues, including unlawful exemptions and bypassing public processes.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 14 Targets:
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.
   • Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and destructive fishing practices.
   • Target 14.5: Conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas.
2. SDG 15 Targets:
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats and halt the loss of biodiversity.
3. SDG 13 Targets:
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
4. SDG 16 Targets:
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. SDG 14 Indicators:
   • Indicator 14.2.1: Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches.
   • Indicator 14.4.1: Proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels.
   • Indicator 14.5.1: Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas.
   • Implied indicator: Population size of endangered marine species such as the Rice’s whale (noted as approximately 51 animals currently).
2. SDG 15 Indicators:
   • Indicator 15.5.1: Red List Index to monitor species extinction risk.
   • Implied indicator: Status and population trends of threatened species like whooping cranes.
3. SDG 16 Indicators:
   • Indicator 16.6.2: Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services (implied through public process transparency issues).
   • Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive (implied through bypassing public consultation).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: biologicaldiversity.org

Report on the Invasive Nile Monitor Lizard in South Florida and Its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction

The Nile monitor, a large semi-aquatic lizard native to the Nile River delta in Sub-Saharan Africa, has been increasingly disrupting the South Florida ecosystem as an invasive species since the 1980s. This report highlights the ecological challenges posed by the Nile monitor and emphasizes the relevance of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in addressing this environmental issue.

Background and Characteristics of the Nile Monitor

• Origin: Nile River delta, Sub-Saharan Africa
• Size: Can grow up to 6 feet in length
• Physical traits: Equipped with razor-sharp claws, olive green to black coloration with distinctive yellow V-shaped stripes
• Behavior: Very active, strong, aggressive, and difficult to handle
• Habitat: Semi-aquatic, often found near water, basking on rocks and branches, active during the day
• Diet: Generalist feeder consuming a wide variety of prey including crabs, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, eggs, and small mammals

Ecological Impact and Threats

1. Threat to Native Wildlife: The Nile monitor’s diverse diet and aggressive behavior threaten native and federally listed threatened species such as:
   • Sea turtles
   • Wading birds
   • Gopher tortoises
   • American crocodiles
   • Burrowing owls
2. Habitat Disruption: The lizard’s ability to thrive in South Florida’s humid climate and extensive canal systems facilitates its spread, especially in coastal mangroves and salt marshes.
3. High Reproduction Rate: This characteristic increases the risk of population growth and further ecological imbalance.

Management and Control Measures

• Current strategies focus on containing established populations and preventing new ones through recurring surveys and removals.
• The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has classified Nile monitors as a high priority nonnative species for removal.
• Legal status includes:
  • Inclusion in Florida’s Prohibited Nonnative Species List (April 2021)
  • Permitted humane euthanasia on private property with landowner consent
  • Restrictions on possession for research, educational exhibition, control, or eradication purposes

Geographical Distribution in Florida

• Established populations in Lee and Palm Beach Counties
• Multiple sightings in Broward County
• Ongoing monitoring in Miami-Dade County

Relevance to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Protecting aquatic ecosystems from invasive species like the Nile monitor helps maintain biodiversity and ecosystem health in freshwater and coastal habitats.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Controlling invasive species supports the conservation of terrestrial wildlife, including threatened and endangered species affected by the Nile monitor’s predation.
   • Maintaining ecosystem balance contributes to sustainable land use and biodiversity preservation.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Understanding how climate compatibility facilitates invasive species establishment informs adaptive management strategies under changing climate conditions.
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Regulating the pet trade to prevent intentional or accidental release of invasive species aligns with sustainable consumption practices.
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Collaboration among wildlife agencies, researchers, and the public is essential for effective invasive species management and ecosystem protection.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Nile monitor poses a significant threat to South Florida’s delicate ecosystems by preying on native species and potentially disrupting ecological balance. Early intervention and continuous management are critical to prevent irreversible damage. Aligning invasive species control efforts with the Sustainable Development Goals ensures a comprehensive approach to biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management.

Key Recommendations

• Enhance public awareness and education about the risks of releasing nonnative pets.
• Strengthen monitoring and rapid response systems to detect and remove Nile monitors promptly.
• Promote research on the ecological impacts of Nile monitors to inform management strategies.
• Foster partnerships between government agencies, academic institutions, and local communities.
• Integrate invasive species management into broader environmental and climate action policies.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article discusses the Nile monitor’s impact on aquatic and coastal ecosystems, including mangroves, salt marshes, and freshwater and saltwater habitats.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The invasive Nile monitor threatens native terrestrial wildlife, including threatened species such as sea turtles, wading birds, gopher tortoises, American crocodiles, and burrowing owls.
   • Focus on biodiversity conservation and control of invasive species.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Issues related to the pet trade and unintentional release of invasive species highlight the need for sustainable management and regulation.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article mentions the role of climate (humidity and temperature) in the establishment and survival of Nile monitors, implying the importance of understanding climate impacts on ecosystems.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • Target 15.8: Prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.4: Achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle.
   • Target 12.8: Ensure people have relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Population Monitoring of Nile Monitors
   • Recurring surveys and removals as mentioned by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) indicate monitoring the population size and distribution of the invasive species.
2. Impact on Native Species
   • Observations of predation on native threatened species (e.g., sea turtles, wading birds, gopher tortoises, American crocodiles, burrowing owls) can serve as indicators of ecological impact.
3. Regulation and Control Measures
   • Inclusion of Nile monitors in Florida’s Prohibited Nonnative Species List and restrictions on possession for research or control purposes indicate policy and regulatory indicators.
4. Habitat Suitability and Climate Data
   • Monitoring climate factors such as humidity and temperature that affect the habitat suitability for Nile monitors.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: yahoo.com

Global Initiative for Sustainable Management and Restoration of Agricultural Lands and Soils

Background and Urgency

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reports that 1.66 billion hectares of land worldwide are degraded due to human activities, with over 60% of this degradation occurring on agricultural land. Since 95% of global food production depends on healthy soil and land, restoring these degraded areas and adopting sustainable land management practices are critical to achieving food security and environmental sustainability.

Significance of Grasslands, Pasturelands, and Rangelands

Grasslands, pasturelands, and rangelands cover approximately 54% of the Earth’s land surface. These ecosystems provide essential services including:

• Carbon sequestration
• Biodiversity conservation
• Livelihood support for millions of people

However, these ecosystems face increasing threats: 13% of grasslands are degraded, and 34% exhibit reduced functionality due to pressures such as overgrazing, leading to soil erosion and decreased productivity.

Joint Development of the Global Report on Good Practices

In alignment with the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) COP16 Decision 19, which focuses on avoiding, reducing, and reversing land and soil degradation in agricultural lands, FAO and the United Nations Environment Programme-International Ecosystem Management Partnership (UNEP-IEMP), hosted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, have agreed to jointly develop the Global Report on Good Practices in Sustainable Management and Restoration of Agricultural Lands and Soils.

The report aims to highlight proven solutions that restore soil health and enhance the resilience of agri-food systems, directly supporting several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including:

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

Structure and Call for Submissions

The Global Report will be published in two volumes, each focusing on a major land use system. Currently, submissions are invited for Volume I, which concentrates on Rangelands, Pasturelands, and Grasslands. This volume will serve as a vital resource to scale up effective sustainable land management practices globally.

The report is scheduled to be presented at key international events such as UNCCD COP17 in Mongolia (August 2026) and other relevant forums, contributing to the global agenda on land degradation neutrality and ecosystem restoration.

Alignment with Global Frameworks and SDGs

This initiative supports multiple international frameworks and Sustainable Development Goals, including:

• UNCCD Land Degradation Neutrality Targets (SDG 15)
• UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021-2030 (SDG 13, SDG 15)
• Global Soil Partnership Action Framework 2022-2030 (SDG 2, SDG 15)
• International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists 2026 (SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 15)
• International Year of the Woman Farmer 2026 (SDG 5: Gender Equality)
• FAO Strategic Framework 2022-2031 focusing on better production, nutrition, environment, and life (SDG 2, SDG 3, SDG 12, SDG 15)
• FAO Conceptual Framework for Integrated Land and Water Resources Management (SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, SDG 15)
• UNEP Medium-Term Strategy 2026-2029 including land degradation neutrality (SDG 13, SDG 15)

Submission Guidelines for Good Practice Case Studies

FAO and UNEP-IEMP invite stakeholders to submit impactful good practice case studies that demonstrate successful approaches to managing and restoring rangelands, pasturelands, and grasslands. A “Good Practice” is defined as a field-tested approach implemented in a specific geographical area with measurable benefits sustained over at least three years.

Eligible Stakeholders

• Government agencies
• Research institutions
• Non-governmental organizations
• Pastoralist and farmer organizations
• Indigenous groups

Mandatory Selection Criteria

1. Geographically Defined: The practice must be implemented in a clearly identified area.
2. Applies Restoration Principles: Aligns with the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration core principles.
3. Delivers Measurable Benefits: Demonstrates positive outcomes related to land degradation neutrality, such as improved resilience, ecosystem health, food security, productivity, gender equality, economic viability, livelihoods, or cultural value.
4. Proven and Scalable: Shows documented success and potential for scaling or adaptation.
5. Creates Synergies: Contributes to at least two of the three Rio Conventions: UNCCD, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Submission Process

Case studies must be prepared in English using the official Case Study Template, which guides contributors to provide evidence aligned with the selection criteria. The template is available here.

Submission Deadline: 13 April 2026

Submission Email: Completed templates and any supporting materials should be sent to the designated email address provided by FAO and UNEP-IEMP.

Review and Selection

All submissions will undergo a transparent two-stage review process conducted by a multidisciplinary Expert Review Panel. The process includes:

• Eligibility check
• Detailed scoring based on the selection criteria

The panel will select at least ten top-ranking case studies representing diverse regions, ecosystems, and approaches for inclusion in the Global Report.

Contact Information

For inquiries related to the call for submissions, selection criteria, or the case study template, please contact:

• FAO: Dr. Rakotondramanga Soalandy ([email protected])
• UNEP-IEMP: Ms. Tatirose Vijitpan ([email protected])

Further details are available at the UNEP-IEMP website: More Information >>>

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed in the Article

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article emphasizes the importance of healthy soil and land for food production, noting that 95% of food production depends on these resources.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Grasslands and rangelands provide critical services such as carbon sequestration, which is directly linked to climate change mitigation.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The focus on restoring degraded land, sustainable management of agricultural lands, and protecting grasslands, pasturelands, and rangelands aligns with this goal.
4. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article mentions gender equality as one of the measurable benefits in the good practice case studies.
5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Promoting sustainable management practices and restoration of soils contributes to sustainable production systems.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified in the Article

1. SDG 2 – Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, help maintain ecosystems, and strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change.
2. SDG 13 – Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
3. SDG 15 – Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.
4. SDG 5 – Target 5.a: Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property.
5. SDG 12 – Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress

1. Land Degradation Neutrality Outcomes:
   • Resilience of ecosystems
   • Ecosystem health
   • Food security
   • Productivity of agricultural lands
   • Gender equality
   • Economic viability and livelihoods
   • Cultural value
2. Degradation and Functionality of Grasslands:
   • Percentage of grasslands degraded (e.g., 13% degraded, 34% reduced function)
   • Soil erosion rates
   • Carbon sequestration capacity
3. Implementation of Restoration Principles:
   • Application of UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration principles
   • Synergies with Rio Conventions (UNCCD, CBD, UNFCCC)

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: fao.org

DeForest Community Development Authority Initiates Affordable Housing Project: Yahara Crossing

Introduction

The DeForest Community Development Authority (CDA) has embarked on a significant initiative to develop new affordable housing through the Yahara Crossing project. This development represents a strategic effort to diversify the village’s housing stock and foster community development, aligning with key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Project Overview

The Yahara Crossing building project offers a unique opportunity to address affordable housing needs within the village of DeForest. The CDA is taking an active developer role to ensure the project meets community needs and sustainability standards.

Community Development and Capacity Building

Beyond housing construction, the project serves as a practical learning platform for elected officials and residents, enhancing their understanding of community development processes. This capacity building supports sustainable urban growth and inclusive community engagement.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Yahara Crossing promotes inclusive and sustainable urbanization by increasing affordable housing options.
   • The project supports resilient infrastructure development within the village.
2. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • Providing affordable housing contributes to reducing poverty by lowering living costs for vulnerable populations.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The diversification of housing stock aims to create equitable access to quality living spaces for all community members.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The CDA’s collaboration with local government and residents exemplifies effective partnerships to achieve sustainable development outcomes.

Project Visuals and Leadership

• Yahara Crossing Rendering: Visual representations illustrate the building’s scope and design from multiple angles, emphasizing sustainable architectural planning.
• Leadership: Alex Allon, Executive Director of the DeForest CDA, leads the initiative, ensuring alignment with community goals and sustainable development principles.

Conclusion

The Yahara Crossing project by the DeForest CDA exemplifies a comprehensive approach to sustainable community development through affordable housing. By integrating SDG principles, the initiative not only addresses immediate housing needs but also strengthens community capacity and fosters equitable, resilient urban growth.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article discusses the development of affordable housing and community development in the Village of DeForest, which aligns with SDG 11’s focus on making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
2. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • Affordable housing development contributes to reducing poverty by providing access to adequate housing for lower-income populations.
3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The involvement of the DeForest Community Development Authority (CDA) and receipt of grants indicates partnerships and mobilization of resources, which supports SDG 17.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.
   • Target 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management.
2. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • Target 1.4: Ensure that all men and women have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and property.
3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.3: Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources.
   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. For SDG 11 Targets:
   • Indicator 11.1.1: Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements, or inadequate housing.
   • Indicator 11.3.1: Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate.
   • The article implies measuring the increase in affordable housing units developed (e.g., Yahara Crossing building) and diversification of housing stock.
2. For SDG 1 Target:
   • Indicator 1.4.2: Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, with legally recognized documentation and who perceive their rights to land as secure.
   • Implied indicator: Number or proportion of people benefiting from affordable housing initiatives.
3. For SDG 17 Targets:
   • Indicator 17.3.1: Foreign direct investments, official development assistance, and South-South cooperation as a proportion of total domestic budget.
   • Indicator 17.17.1: Amount of United States dollars committed to public-private partnerships.
   • The article mentions grants received by the CDA, implying tracking of financial resources mobilized for housing development.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: hngnews.com

Report on the Center for Biological Diversity’s Petition to Update Wolf Management Regulations in Colorado

Introduction

The Center for Biological Diversity has submitted a formal rulemaking petition to Colorado Parks and Wildlife, urging updates to the regulations governing when wolves can be lethally controlled in the state. This initiative aligns with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Objectives of the Petition

1. Clarify nonlethal measures to reduce livestock-wolf conflicts before lethal control is authorized.
2. Ensure lethal control is a last resort, based on transparent and science-based decision-making.
3. Establish consistent standards for lethal control operations across state, federal, and private actors.

Emphasis on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• SDG 15 – Life on Land: The petition supports the protection of endangered wolves and promotes biodiversity conservation by advocating for nonlethal coexistence methods.
• SDG 12 – Responsible Consumption and Production: By encouraging nonlethal conflict minimization and proper livestock carcass management, the petition fosters sustainable agricultural practices.
• SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions: The petition calls for transparent, evidence-based decision-making processes and public trust in wildlife management policies.

Key Proposals in the Petition

• Nonlethal Coexistence Measures: Implementation of proven tools such as range riding, conflict specialists, site assessments, deterrents, and timely livestock carcass removal to reduce conflicts.
• Clear Documentation and Evidence: Requirement for written, evidence-based determinations prior to any lethal control actions, with predation evidence independent from compensation claims.
• Uniform Standards for Lethal Control: Establishment of consistent protocols for lethal control whether conducted by state, federal agencies, or approved livestock operators.

Context and Importance

The petition highlights the urgent need for reasonable protections for Colorado’s recovering wolf populations, especially following setbacks such as the blocked winter wolf releases during the previous administration. By promoting coexistence and minimizing lethal interventions, the petition supports sustainable wildlife management and rural livelihoods.

Next Steps

1. Colorado Parks and Wildlife will review the petition.
2. The agency will make a recommendation to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.
3. The Commission will make the final decision on whether to grant or deny the petition.

Conclusion

The Center for Biological Diversity’s petition represents a significant step toward integrating sustainable development principles into wildlife management. By emphasizing nonlethal conflict prevention and transparent governance, the petition aligns with global efforts to protect biodiversity, promote sustainable agriculture, and strengthen institutional accountability.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article focuses on wolf conservation and management, which directly relates to protecting terrestrial ecosystems and endangered species.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The emphasis on nonlethal coexistence measures and sustainable livestock management reflects responsible use of natural resources.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • While not explicitly mentioned, the protection of wildlife and ecosystems contributes to climate resilience and biodiversity conservation.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity, and protect endangered species.
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
   • Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

1. Indicators Related to SDG 15:
   • Number of endangered species protected (implied by the focus on Colorado’s protected endangered wolves).
   • Extent of implementation of nonlethal conflict minimization measures (e.g., range riding, deterrents, carcass management).
   • Number of lethal control operations authorized and conducted with evidence-based documentation.
2. Indicators Related to SDG 12:
   • Use of sustainable livestock management practices that reduce conflict with wildlife.
   • Compliance with updated regulations promoting nonlethal coexistence.
3. Indicators Related to SDG 13:
   • Measures of ecosystem resilience or recovery, indirectly supported by wolf population recovery and management.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: biologicaldiversity.org

Report on the Revocation of Vessel Speed Restrictions Protecting North Atlantic Right Whales

Introduction

The Trump administration announced plans to revoke vessel speed restrictions on the Atlantic coast designed to protect whales, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, from deadly ship strikes. This decision impacts key environmental conservation efforts aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Background of the Speed Restriction Rule

Implemented in 2008, the rule established a seasonal 10-knot speed limit for most vessels 65 feet or longer in designated “seasonal management areas” along the East Coast. These areas coincide with the right whale’s feeding, calving, and migratory patterns, overlapping with heavy vessel traffic.

• The speed limit significantly reduces the risk of vessel strikes on whales.
• “Dynamic management areas” are designated collision hotspots where voluntary speed reductions are requested but not always observed.

Impact on North Atlantic Right Whales

1. Only about 70 reproductively active female North Atlantic right whales remain.
2. The overall population has declined by approximately 20% over the past 25 years, with around 380 whales remaining.
3. Population decline accelerated around 2010 due to habitat shifts linked to climate change, increasing exposure to unprotected areas.

Concerns Regarding the Revocation

• The revocation plan proposes replacing speed limits with unproven technological solutions, which are not widely used and lack evidence as effective substitutes.
• Slowing vessels remains the only proven method to prevent fatal ship strikes on whales.
• Experts and environmental groups criticize the decision as a significant setback for whale conservation and biodiversity protection (SDG 15).

Calls for Strengthening Protections

The Center for Biological Diversity advocates for:

• Expanding seasonal management areas.
• Applying speed limits to smaller vessels.
• Making compliance mandatory in dynamic management areas.

These measures align with SDG 14 by promoting sustainable use of marine resources and protecting endangered species.

Recent Developments

In January 2025, NOAA Fisheries withdrew a proposed rule intended to strengthen protections, after delays since 2022. This withdrawal raises concerns about the commitment to marine conservation and climate adaptation strategies.

Conclusion

The revocation of vessel speed restrictions threatens the survival of the North Atlantic right whale and undermines progress toward achieving SDG 14 and SDG 13. Effective conservation measures, including enforced speed limits, are essential to safeguard marine biodiversity and support sustainable ocean ecosystems.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water – The article focuses on protecting the North Atlantic right whale, a marine species, from vessel strikes, which directly relates to conserving marine life and ecosystems.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action – The article mentions climate-related changes in the ocean affecting whale habitats, highlighting the need for climate adaptation measures.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land (indirectly) – While primarily about marine life, the broader theme of biodiversity protection aligns with SDG 15’s goal to protect terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 14 Targets:
   • Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, including from ships, to protect marine species such as the North Atlantic right whale.
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including mitigating vessel strikes on endangered whales.
2. SDG 13 Targets:
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies and strategies, as the article mentions the need to align vessel speed rules with climate-related ocean changes.
3. SDG 15 Targets:
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats and halt biodiversity loss, which includes protecting endangered species like the North Atlantic right whale.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Population size of North Atlantic right whales: The article states there are about 380 whales remaining, with only 70 reproductively active females, indicating population monitoring as a key indicator.
2. Number of vessel strikes on whales: The effectiveness of vessel speed restrictions can be measured by tracking incidents of ship strikes on whales.
3. Compliance rates with vessel speed limits: The article discusses voluntary and mandatory compliance in management areas, implying that measuring vessel adherence to speed limits is an indicator.
4. Extent and enforcement of seasonal management areas: The size and enforcement level of these areas can be tracked to assess protection coverage.
5. Changes in whale habitat range: The article mentions habitat shifts due to climate change, implying monitoring habitat distribution as an indicator.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: biologicaldiversity.org

Petition to Protect Barren Valley Collomia under the Endangered Species Act

Introduction

The Center for Biological Diversity has officially petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the Barren Valley collomia, a rare plant species, under the Endangered Species Act. This action aligns with the global commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 15: Life on Land, which emphasizes the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.

Species Overview

• Scientific and Physical Characteristics: The Barren Valley collomia is a small annual plant producing tiny blue-white flowers in late spring.
• Geographical Distribution: Historically found in limited sites across southeastern Oregon and northeastern Nevada.
• Current Status: Not observed in over a decade, with the last photographs dating back to 1983; however, experts believe the species persists.

Threats to Survival

The survival of the Barren Valley collomia is jeopardized by multiple environmental pressures, which directly relate to SDG 13: Climate Action, and SDG 15: Life on Land:

1. Climate Change: Altered weather patterns and temperature shifts threaten its arid steppe habitat.
2. Livestock Grazing: Grazing disrupts native vegetation and soil integrity.
3. Invasive Grasses and Wildfire: These factors degrade the ecosystem balance.
4. Pollution: Proximity to highways in Nevada exposes populations to pollution stress.

Habitat Description

The Barren Valley collomia inhabits rocky soil outcrops within the northeastern Great Basin, commonly found among sagebrush and juniper. These arid steppe ecosystems are fragile and vital for biodiversity conservation, reflecting the goals of SDG 15.

Conservation Importance and Legal Framework

• The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a critical legal instrument designed to protect both well-known and lesser-known species, such as the Barren Valley collomia.
• Under the ESA, 99% of protected species have survived, with many on the path to recovery, demonstrating the effectiveness of conservation policies aligned with SDG 15.
• The petition emphasizes the necessity of extending ESA protections to this species to prevent extinction and promote ecosystem resilience.

Call to Action

Gwendolyn McManus, associate scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, highlights the urgency of protecting the Barren Valley collomia, stating that the Endangered Species Act is the “single best tool to save life on Earth.” This call supports the broader international agenda to halt biodiversity loss and combat the extinction crisis, in line with SDG 15 and SDG 13.

Conclusion

The petition to safeguard the Barren Valley collomia under the Endangered Species Act represents a significant step toward fulfilling the Sustainable Development Goals related to biodiversity conservation and climate action. Protecting this species will contribute to preserving fragile ecosystems and promoting sustainable land management practices.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article focuses on protecting the Barren Valley collomia, a plant species at risk of extinction, which directly relates to conserving terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article mentions climate change as one of the threats pushing the species to the brink of extinction, linking the issue to climate action efforts.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. Under SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and protect threatened species.
2. Under SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Indicators related to SDG 15 Targets:
   • Number of threatened species protected under national legislation such as the Endangered Species Act.
   • Population trends of the Barren Valley collomia, including sightings and surveys (e.g., last sightings in 2008 in Nevada and 2014 in Oregon).
   • Extent of habitat degradation due to factors like livestock grazing, invasive species, wildfire, and pollution.
2. Indicators related to SDG 13 Target:
   • Assessment of climate change impacts on species survival and habitat conditions.
   • Implementation of adaptive measures to mitigate climate change effects on vulnerable species.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: biologicaldiversity.org

Triggered by intense rainfall from a climate-change-supercharged Mediterranean cyclone^⁠, the Libyan dam collapses released floodwater that deposited a portion of the city of Derna in the Mediterranean Sea, drowned thousands of people, displaced tens of thousands more, and has left nearly 300,000^⁠ children at increased risk of disease and malnutrition. Just as unprecedented fires, floods, and storms this year have introduced many people to the dangers of climate change, the immensity of the Derna tragedy has focused attention on the unappreciated risks that dams pose.

The dam-building industry was already in decline long before the Derna disaster. “Peak dams,” the moment when dam-building began to ebb, is now believed to have occurred at least a decade ago^⁠. “There will not be another ‘dam revolution’ to match the scale of the high-intensity dam construction experienced in the early to middle 20th century,” proclaimed a 2021 United Nations University study^⁠. It found that global construction of large dams fell from about 1,500 a year in the late 1970s to about 50 a year in 2020. In Africa, the continent with the highest remaining hydropower potential, a study^⁠ published in Science last month concluded that the decreasing cost of wind and solar energy will make hydroelectric dams non-competitive by 2030.

The increasing danger of dams stems in part from a simple fact: they are aging. Most of the world’s dams were built before 1985^⁠ and are either approaching or have passed the point when they need substantial repair, which is about 50 years old. Yet few are being repaired. In the U.S., where the average dam is 65 years old^⁠, the dangers have been well-documented for decades yet barely heeded. In 2021, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued an infrastructure “report card”^⁠ on which U.S. dams were given a grade of “D”— the same grade dams have received in every ASCE report card since the first in 1998^⁠.

A February 2023 study by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimated that rehabilitating 65,000 of the U.S.’s large- and medium-sized dams would cost $157.5 billion^⁠—a price tag that will continue^⁠ to mount as repair work is deferred. And a 2022 Associated Press analysis identified 2,200 U.S. dams that need repairs and would threaten downstream populations if they fail. State and federal funding for repairs has been increasing^⁠ but nowhere near the amount needed to ensure safety. Politicians once took delight in a new dam’s ribbon-cutting, but they have always shown far less interest in providing funding for the un-sexy job of dam maintenance.

In other countries, where government budgets are far more strained than in the U.S., the situation is much worse. In Libya, the failing dams’ weaknesses were well-known. A study^⁠ of the two dams published last year presciently warned that “immediate measures must be taken for regular maintenance… because in the event of a huge flood, the result will be disastrous” for downstream residents. One reason repairs didn’t take place is that Libya is still reeling from the 2014-2020 civil war and is plagued by two rival administrations. In fact, according to a report^⁠ last week in Foreign Policy, more than $2 million was allocated for maintenance of the two dams in 2012 and 2013, but no work ever took place. Libya is one of dozens of countries where dysfunction stymies dam maintenance.

Climate change also makes dam collapse more likely. The design of virtually all the world’s large dams was based on hydrological records that were often insufficient to begin with and certainly didn’t take climate change into account. Now, not only are those records out-of-date, but the huge variability that climate change has introduced into precipitation levels complicates all dam planning. By making both extended droughts and unprecedented floods more frequent, climate change has forced reductions and even stoppages of hydropower generation of some dams, while also subjecting many to floods bigger than they were designed to withstand. Floods presumed to occur once in 1,000 years may now happen once or twice a decade^⁠. On top of all this, as climate change intensifies, it will generate even bigger storms and floods.

The risk that dams pose to humans^⁠ can be partially offset by more carefully monitoring weather forecasts, releasing water behind dams if necessary^⁠, and installing warning systems that alert imperiled people of the need to evacuate. 

But the best way to eliminate the danger is to remove dams entirely. This is especially true for older dams, whose reservoirs become filled with sediment that displaces water and reduces their effectiveness as electricity generators and water storers—and removal often costs less than repairs. Yet dam removal is still in its infancy. Out of the U.S.’s several million dams^⁠ of all sizes, about 2,000^⁠ mostly small dams have been dismantled. Still, the movement is gaining momentum in the U.S. and Europe.

Removal’s greatest benefit is environmental: in returning rivers to free-flowing conditions, it reunites rivers with their floodplains, restores riparian habitat, improves water quality, and re-enables circulation of migrating fish.

Removal also reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The idea that dams are “clean” is a widespread misconception, still endlessly promoted by international dam builders and sometimes cited erroneously even by environmentalists. But reservoirs—particularly in tropical and sub-tropical regions—emit methane, sometimes copiously, mostly as a byproduct of decomposing plants and other organic matter near reservoir bottoms. A 2021 study in Global Biochemical Cycles found that the world’s reservoirs emit every year the equivalent of more than a gigaton of carbon dioxide—more greenhouse gas than Germany, the world’s sixth largest emitter.

As dams’ immense environmental damage has surfaced in recent decades, it has become apparent that dams and fossil fuels share many of the same attributes. For a time both delivered a bounty that transformed the world, while their environmental liabilities were hidden. They’re poster children for the seductive allures of technology and its transience—of top-down, growth-at-all-costs economic development and the illusion that humans are exempt from nature’s dominion. Now we measure their costs in bodies swept out to sea.

“They are shouldering all of the hopes of their species,” says Alison Greggor, an ecologist who led the reintroduction for the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, to the New York Times’ Catrin Einhorn. “They are the future.”

In the past, attempts to reintroduce ‘alalā to Hawaii’s Big Island during the 1990s and late 2010s did not turn out as well as scientists hoped. The crows were preyed upon by the Hawaiian hawk, or ʻio, its natural predator. With only about 110 Hawaiian crows remaining on Earth, conservationists built upon the lessons of those past reintroductions to try to secure hope for the species once more. On Maui, there are no ʻio, so the crows’ chance of survival is better.

“Conservation doesn’t happen overnight,” says Hannah Bailey, conservation program manager for the Hawaiian Endangered Birds Program at San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, to Scientific American’s Elizabeth Anne Brown. “We’re still learning, and so are the birds.”

Conservationists selected the Kīpahulu Forest Reserve for its semi-isolation and vegetation, an ideal space for the birds. Over the past several months, the five crows—three males and two females—have formed a close-knit group, a bond that scientists hope will enhance their chance of survival in the wild. The birds were also evaluated based on their foraging success and predator response.

ʻAlalā is a species of crow that is about the size of the carrion crow, though it is presently extinct in the wild. (The individuals in this photo are not among the five individuals involved in the pilot release on Maui.) San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance

With so few living individuals, ‘alalā is the most endangered species in the crow family. The threats to their survival range from habitat loss to predation and disease. Their population numbers have dwindled since the 1970s. Now, this collaboration between nonprofit, state and federal partners has brought the species back to its forest home.

In Hawaiian culture, ‘alalā are spirit guardians, or ‘aumakua, per Scientific American. They often appear in dreams or visions to warn people of danger and act as protectors.

For Keanini Aarona, an avian recovery specialist at Maui Bird Conservation Center, it holds a special significance to care for ‘alalā, according to a statement from the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance. “To me, and in my culture, the ‘alalā are like our ancestors—our kūpuna. The forest wouldn’t be there without these birds.”

There is a shared ecology among the forest and its animals, and the ‘alalā have historically been part of it. They are also highly intelligent and charismatic creatures. Research has shown the crows even know how to use tools like sticks to bring food out of crevices.

“When you are in the presence of an ‘alala, it is a humbling moment,” says biologist Jacqueline Gaudioso-Levita, coordinator for the ‘Alalā Recovery Project, to Ke Kalahea’s Daisy Stewart. “Their intelligence and uniqueness is very apparent.”

The previous reintroduction effort between 2016 and 2020 saw a total of 30 ‘alala reintroduced on the Big Island. Initially, it was a success. Most survived for the first year, but their numbers started to dwindle, and in 2020, conservationists returned the remaining birds to human care. The effort, however, was not in vain—it proved essential for informing this new phase on Maui.

Reintroduction projects always come with some type of risk. In this case, as Maui is not the bird’s native range, introducing them to the habitat involves a risk of ecological consequences. For this reason, researchers chose a site where there were few animals of great concern, like rare snails and forest birds, to minimize the potential damage, per the Washington Post’s Dino Grandoni.

“We didn’t want to risk native species on Maui just in pursuit of finding a better path for ‘alalā,” says Michelle Bogardus, a deputy field supervisor at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to the Washington Post. “We would not be doing this if we thought that this action was going to risk all of the other species that are also within our stewardship.”

On release day in early November, the five ‘alalā hesitantly made their way out of the aviary, where they had been acclimating for six weeks. The birds took their time, climbing atop the aviary first, then going from tree to tree. With time, they spread their wings and joined the forest.

It paid $44.4 million in a transaction that was finalized Oct. 15 and announced Nov. 29.

The Hilton Family Forest, as the parcel is known, is in Somerset and Franklin counties, according to a news release. The forest supports the local timber and maple sugar industries, and is a hub for recreational use, including hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling and ATV riding. It includes a segment of Maine's Interconnected Trail System.

The Conservation Fund said its goal with the deal is to safeguard wildlife habitat and its landscape connectivity, recreation access and economic benefits.

The fund is now working with the community to shape a permanent conservation solution.

“This land has long helped sustain the people of Jackman and Moose River and beyond, and it will continue to do so,” said Tom Duffus, fund’s vice president and Northeast representative based in Freeport. “The Conservation Fund is in the business of conservation — and we bought this land because we want to ensure it remains a working forest, supporting the local economy and community, all while maintaining the incredible habitats and recreation access that so many people enjoy.”

The organization said it targeted the forestland for acquisition when it faced possible conversion, subdivision and development.

The Hilton Land

The property is located along the Old Canada Road National Scenic Byway of Route 201 north of Jackman.

“The Hilton Land is a valued resource for the Jackman community,” said Kirstie Hale, Jackman’s town manager.

The land was on the market because the family decided after 70 years to sell, Duffus told Mainebiz.

The fund used capital from its Working Forests initiative, which includes some of the organization’s green bond funds.

Through the Working Forests initiative, when forestland becomes available, the fund can purchase “at-risk" forests, secure public and private funding to permanently protect them and resell the forests back to the private market, forever protected as working forests. 

Using the model, the fund has protected more than 1 million acres of working forests in 21 states.

Green bonds are an impact investment instrument. In 2019, the organization raised capital by issuing $150 million in taxable green bonds underwritten by Goldman Sachs. The 10-year bonds are a financing instrument dedicated to land conservation.

The property was marketed by LandVest, a real estae firm headquartered in Boston with multiple offices in Maine.

Features include a long-term, sustainably managed forest resource composed of natural hardwood and softwood types, with areas naturally well suited to regenerate and grow sugar maple and productive in maple sap, resulting in several commercial maple sugaring outfits operating on the property, according to marketing information.

“There are 10 commercial sugar producers working their sugar bushes and the balance of the forest will also continue to be managed sustainably,” said Duffus. “These activities are critical to the local economy and employment.”

The land contains populations of rare plant and animal species, including the golden eagle and peregrine falcon.

“Defining and implementing a sustainable, sensible conservation solution for the forest will take time, collaboration and financial support,” Duffus said. “We anticipate owning and managing this land for several years and eventually passing it, with permanent protections in place, to a private owner committed to advancing the forest’s conservation and economic benefits.”

The organization said it is working to raise funds to permanently safeguard the property and its benefits.

The amount to be raised is still to be determined. 

“We have about five to seven years to raise private funds to match Forest Legacy and other funds,” said Duffus.

Forest Legacy is a conservation program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service in partnership with state agencies to encourage the protection of privately owned forest lands through conservation easements or land purchases. Since its creation in 1990, Forest Legacy has conserved over 3 million acres of forestland and expanded across the country to 53 states and territories.

Safeguarding the land will like mean establishing a conservation easement, possibly through the Forest Legacy program, said Duffus. 

“This will keep the land in private ownership, open for traditional recreation access, managed sustainably and on the tax rolls as it is under our ownership,” he said.

If you ask Tim O'Connor, executive director of the National Christmas Tree Association, the answer is obvious.

"I think it's just a no-brainer that real Christmas trees are far superior for the environment," he said. "Let's just start with a product of nature versus a product that's made from oil."

Of course, O'Connor's organization represents Christmas tree farmers. Here's what studies and environmentalists say.

The studies

The most recent U.S. analysis of the issue is from 2018, when a life cycle assessment — measuring the environmental impact of real and fake trees over the course of production to disposal — was published. (It's worth noting that the study was done by a consulting firm contracted by the American Christmas Tree Association, which represents the artificial-tree industry.)

The analysis took into account things like the netting around real Christmas trees and the water used to keep them alive in homes, versus the plastic packaging tape used on fake-tree boxes and transportation from manufacturers in China.

It concluded that artificial trees have a more favorable effect on the environment if reused for at least five years.

It's worth noting, though, that with all these variables, the study says that transportation accounts for around 15% of total global warming potential for artificial Christmas trees and 10% to 12% for real ones. So if that tree farm or big-box store is a long drive away, it can really sway things.

"Neither a farm-grown tree or a faux tree has a superlarge environmental impact compared to some daily activities like commuting a long way in a gas-powered car," said Mac Harman, the CEO of Balsam Hill, which makes high-end fake trees and offers an eco-friendly line of trees made from recycled plastics and plant-based plastic. "One long commute could be about the impact of having a Christmas tree for a year."

Environmentalists, meanwhile, suggest studies shouldn't be the only evidence consumers take into account.

"Studies can really vary on anything depending on who's funding the study, what parameters they're looking at, which elements are the most important, or are they just looking at carbon impacts? Are they looking at other resource impacts? Are they considering extraction? Are they considering disposal?" said Darby Hoover of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

A man and child look at artificial Christmas trees on display at a Home Depot in Miami in 2021.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

An environmentalist's take

Several environmental groups have waded into the debate, and for many of them, real trees are the winner.

"For me, it's not just carbon," said Hoover. "One of the things about the artificial trees is that they're made of plastic almost entirely. And the by-far-most-common polymer used to make artificial trees is PVC, polyvinyl chloride, which is a particularly toxic form of plastic that's toxic in production, use and disposal."

It's worth noting the endgame for both options: If real trees end up in a landfill and don't break down, they're still storing all the carbon they absorbed in life. And if they're mulched, they're being reused for greener purposes. Most artificial trees aren't recyclable.

"If [people] want to do what's better for the environment, if they want to support a family farmer, if they want to have the kind of Christmas experience for their family that is authentic, that includes something from nature rather than something from plastic, it's a pretty simple decision to have a real Christmas tree," O'Connor of the real-Christmas-tree association said.

How to be tree-mendously green for Christmas

Want to take it a step further? Let's go back to the tree's roots — as in letting the tree keep its actual roots.

The official White House Christmas tree, a 20-foot Fraser fir, is seen at Cartner's Christmas Tree Farm in Newland, N.C., on Nov. 13.

Erik Verduzco/AP

"I think the best option is using a plant that's already in your life or that you want to purchase and have stay in your life," said Hoover. "So rather than buying a plant that's going to be cut down, why not repurpose a tree that's already on your property or a really fancy potted plant that's already in your home?"

And if your wilted snake plant isn't Christmassy enough for you, there's another option. There are companies that allow you to rent a live Christmas tree that returns to the nursery when the holidays are over.

And if you already have a fake tree, keep using it. Harman of Balsam Hill says he knows people who still have trees from his company's early days nearly two decades ago.

"It doesn't make business any easier for us selling more trees when they last so long, but it's certainly good for the environment," he said.

Here are five things you need to know about desertification and why the world needs to stop treating the planet like dirt to protect the productive land which supports life on Earth.

No life without land

It is perhaps to state the obvious, but without healthy land there can be no life. It feeds, clothes and shelters humanity.

© UNEP/Florian Fussstetter

A member of an indigenous group in the Amazon, in Brazil, works to reforest the land.

It provides jobs, sustains livelihoods and is the bedrock of local, national and global economies. It helps to regulate climate and is essential for biodiversity.

Despite its importance to life as we know it, up to 40 per cent of the world’s land is degraded, affecting around 3.2 billion people; that’s almost half of the global population.

From deforested mountains in Haiti, to the gradual disappearance of Lake Chad in the Sahel and the drying up of productive lands in Georgia in eastern Europe, land degradation affects all parts of the world.

It is not an exaggeration to say our very future is at stake if our land does not stay healthy.

Degraded land

Desertification, the process by which land is degraded in typically dry areas, results from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities, such as over-farming or deforestation.

100 million hectares (or one million square kilometres), that’s the size of a country like Egypt, of healthy and productive land is lost each year.

The soils on these lands which can take hundreds of years to form are being depleted, often by extreme weather.

Droughts are hitting harder and more often, three out of four people in the world are projected to face water scarcity by 2050.

Temperatures are increasing due to climate change further driving extreme weather events, including droughts and floods, adding to the challenge of keeping land productive.

Land loss and climate

There is clear evidence that land degradation is interconnected with broader environmental challenges like climate change.

© World Bank/Andrea Borgarello

A man looks across a desert in Mauritania.

Land ecosystems absorb one-third of human CO₂ emissions, the gas that is driving climate change. However, poor land management threatens this critical capacity, further compromising efforts to slow down the release of these harmful gasses.

Deforestation, which contributes to desertification, is on the rise, with only 60 per cent of the world's forests still intact, falling below what the UN calls the “safe target of 75 per cent.”

What needs to be done? – the ‘moonshot moment’

The good news is that humankind has the knowhow and power to bring land back to life, turning degradation into restoration.

Robust economies and resilient communities can be cultivated as the impacts of devastating droughts and destructive floods are tackled.

© UNCCD/Juan Pablo Zamora

A community in Mexico comes together to work on improving their lands.

Crucially, it is the people who depend on land who should have the biggest say in how decisions are made.

UNCCD says that to “deliver a moonshot moment for land,” 1.5 billion hectares of degraded lands need to be restored by 2030.

And this is happening already with farmers adopting new techniques in Burkina Faso, environmentalists in Uzbekistan planting trees to eliminate salt and dust emissions and activists protecting the Philippines capital, Manila, from extreme weather by regenerating natural barriers.

What can be achieved in Riyadh

Policy makers, experts, the private and civil society sectors as well as youth will come together in Riyadh with a series of goals, including:

• Accelerate restoration of degraded land by 2030 and beyond
• Boost resilience to intensifying droughts and sand and dust storms
• Restore soil health and scale up nature-positive food production
• Secure land rights and promote equity for sustainable land stewardship
• Ensure that land continues to provide climate and biodiversity solutions
• Unlock economic opportunities, including decent land-based jobs for youth

Millions are heading home from the holiday to face

snow and an Arctic blast

Countries aiming to achieve net-zero emissions will have to remove the remaining carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through carbon dioxide removal (CDR). However, current assessments of CDR options rarely consider socio-cultural or institutional aspects or set the CDR options in the specific context of their implementation. In this study, researchers conducted the first context-specific feasibility assessment of CDR options in Germany, considering six dimensions, including technological, economic, environmental, institutional, and social-cultural aspects. The study assessed 14 CDR options, including chemical carbon capture options, bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, and options to increase ecosystem carbon uptake. The study found that CDR options like cover crops or seagrass restoration face low implementation hurdles but have small CO₂ removal potentials, while options like woody-biomass combustion or mixed-feedstock biogas production have high CDR potentials but face large economic and institutional hurdles. The analysis aims to provide comprehensive information on CDR options for use in further research and as an effective decision support basis for a range of actors. While Germany has been one of the most forward-thinking countries on the topic, they have to significantly increase their efforts to achieve their goals on Carbon emissions by 2045. Options to do so include peatland rewetting, afforestation and seagrass restoration.

1 Introduction

For Germany to reach its national climate targets of achieving net zero emissions by 2045 significant emission reductions are required (KSG, 2021). According to Mengis et al. (2021) the carbon budget Germany is allowed to emit to not exceed the goal of the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, equals 6.25 Gt from 1 January 2022 until net-zero. However, avoided (∼645 Mt CO₂/year) and reduced (∼50 Mt CO₂/year) emissions alone will not be sufficient for achieving those targets and approximately 60 Mt CO₂ per year will need to be removed from the atmosphere through so-called carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods (Mengis et al., 2022). CDR options—classified by the capturing process—include biological, chemical, and hybrid options, which either aim to enhance ecosystem productivity and related carbon sinks, chemical uptake mechanisms combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS), or point-source carbon capture from bioenergy plants (Borchers et al., 2022; see Section 2 for details). For CDR options to make a contribution to the national net zero target in Germany, significant upscaling of CDR options would be required (Mengis et al., 2022). Currently, Germany mentions three CDR options in their climate law: peatland rewetting, afforestation and seagrass restoration (KSG, 2021). The estimated scale of carbon removals from land-use, land-use change and forestry options in Germany amounts to 3 to 41 Mt CO₂ per year by 2045 (see e.g., dena, 2021; Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne, 2021). The question of scale is a complex issue that can be considered on many levels, including, but not limited to natural resources availability, land-use patterns, technical maturity, or storage potentials (Borchers et al., 2022; Fridahl et al., 2020). Thus, understanding the feasibility of reaching a particular scale of CDR options within their national context is crucial (Thoni et al., 2020).

The feasibility of deploying CDR options varies widely, for example, they come at different technology readiness levels (TRLs), are characterized by different CO₂ removal potentials, and efficiencies, demand different types and amounts of resources, require variable investments, and generate different costs. They also impact the environment in different ways, and their public perception and legal framework for their deployment also vary. Selected aspects have been addressed in earlier CDR assessments (e.g., Dooley et al., 2020; Dow et al., 2015; Forster et al., 2020; Fuss et al., 2018; Honegger et al., 2021). When aiming for an extensive evaluation of CDR options, different aspects, for example, environmental, techno-economic, social, and institutional should be considered in conjunction. For this reason, we use a comprehensive assessment framework developed by Förster et al. (2022), which allows us to assess the feasibility of selected CDR options (Borchers et al., 2022) by identifying potential hurdles involved in CDR deployment (“effort for implementation”) and thereby also identifying potential “low-hanging-fruits” for possibly short-term implementation.

2 Methods

This assessment addresses the feasibility of CDR options for generating negative carbon emissions with the objective of achieving net-zero emissions in Germany. It includes CDR concepts that have been identified to be of relevance for achieving net-zero emissions in Germany by 2050 (Mengis et al., 2022) and are described in detail by Borchers et al. (2022). This assessment follows the framework developed by Förster et al. (2022) for assessing the feasibility of CDR options. The framework provides a comprehensive set of criteria and indicators together with a traffic light system for assessing the feasibility of CDR options related to environmental impacts and dependencies, their technological and economic requirements and consequences, social and institutional implications and the systemic contribution of CDR to climate change mitigation. Given the comprehensiveness of the addressed criteria and the diverse knowledge required for assessing the feasibility of CDR options, experts from multiple disciplines contributed to the assessment through the Net-Zero-2050 cluster of the Helmholtz Climate Initiative. This includes experts with knowledge of bioenergy with carbon capture (BECC), direct air carbon capture (DACC), enhanced rock weathering (ERW), geological carbon storage (S), and enhancing natural carbon sinks. Based on information from the literature and expert elicitation, the assessment was conducted in an iterative process using the indicators and traffic light system defined by the assessment framework (Förster et al., 2022). In total, the assessment and review process involved 24 experts with a background relevant for the CDR options including natural sciences (in particular related to physics, environment and climate), social science (in particular related to economics, policy and law) and interdisciplinary expertise in engineering, business management and sustainability. Where necessary, external experts were involved in the assessment (see Supporting Information S1 for further information). The CDR options used by Mengis et al. (2022) and described by Borchers et al. (2022) were jointly assessed by two groups of experts. The first group consisted of scientists with expertise in the respective disciplines of the dimension related to the feasibility of CDR options. The second group consisted of scientists with expertise in the development and application of the respective CDR option. In an iterative process, the two groups assessed the feasibility of CDR options for each of the respective dimensions. Thereby, the first group of disciplinary experts facilitated the assessment process for their respective dimension in order to ensure the consistency of the assessment process across the CDR concepts. The second group of CDR experts reviewed the ranking of each indicator according to the traffic light system, building on knowledge and literature including the CDR options described in Borchers et al. (2022). The BECC and DACC options were assessed separately from the component of the geological carbon storage (S). The reason for this differentiation is that there are multiple options for BECC and DACC that are applied and tested, while options for geological carbon storage (S) are limited within Germany. The fully combined BECCS and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) concepts have not been applied in Germany yet. This assessment approach ensured that the main components of CDR options were adequately addressed.

2.1 Selected CDR Options

Following the scoping of CDR options from Borchers et al. (2022), we here give only a short overview of the general features of 14 selected CDR options for Germany, with detailed information and description of the options to be found in the aforementioned publication. First, we include two DACC and one ERW CDR options, which use chemical processes to capture CO₂ out of the atmosphere. Furthermore, we include six bioenergy combined with carbon capture (BECC) options, which combine biological and chemical carbon capture and are therefore called hybrid options. To complete the BECC and DACC options, we added one concept for geological storage solutions for Germany, again based on Borchers et al. (2022). Finally, CDR options that capture CO₂ through photosynthetic processes and accumulate carbon in above or below-ground biomass are described in the biological carbon capture section, which incorporates three concepts that involve changes in agricultural practices, and two concepts of ecosystem restoration (peatlands and seagrass meadows).

2.1.1 Chemical CDR Options

DACC and storage is a method of filtering CO₂ from the ambient air in a two-step process: CO₂ capture and regeneration (Heß et al., 2020). In our study, we evaluated two types of application of DACC systems: (a) in a rather novel, small scale use in existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (DACC-HVAC; Dittmeyer et al., 2019), and (b) in more conventional, industrial-scale DACC farms. Since DACC options are energy-intensive processes, the technologies are most effective if supplied with carbon-emission-free energy.

ERW captures CO₂ through chemical reactions of atmospheric CO₂ with carbonate and silicate minerals spread on agricultural soils in the form of powdered limestone or silicate rocks (Beerling et al., 2020). This CDR option is an acceleration of the weathering process of silicate rocks that occurs in nature on geologic time scales (Archer, 2005; Walker et al., 1981). Carbon sequestered in soils is expected to eventually leach out and be transported to the sea.

2.1.2 Hybrid CDR Options—Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)

Bioenergy with CCS encompasses a wide range of technological options, all based on the same principle: First, CO₂ is captured from the atmosphere by plants as they grow, then the biomass is converted by combustion, fermentation, biomass gasification or pyrolysis into energy or energy carriers, for example, electricity, heat, biofuels. The CO₂ produced during these processes is chemically captured at the point source (i.e., the bioenergy plant) and can subsequently be stored in geological formations or long-life products. While BECCS is considered one of the most viable CDR options (Babin et al., 2021), there are still reservations regarding its potential impacts on land use and biodiversity (IPBES-IPCC, 2021), which is why the biomass source considered for BECCS options is of relevance. In the following, we will present six different applications of BECC, each to be combined with geological carbon storage.

Combustion of woody biomass for heat and power cogeneration (CHP) combined with carbon capture (BECC-WCom), repurposes previous coal-fired power plants to use woody biomass feedstock. The CO₂ released as the exhaust is then chemically captured and can be concentrated and transported to geological storage sites. This option allows for repurposing existing infrastructure, continued central power and heat provision and the use of technologies, which has already been demonstrated in other countries (e.g., in United Kingdom the example of Drax Group (2018) might be appealing given the impending coal phase-out in Germany (KVBG, 2020)).

The same woody biomass could be used for slow pyrolysis for biocoal production (BECC-WPyr) at around 500°C (Tripathi et al., 2016). To increase the CDR potential of this option, the biocoal can be used in soil applications, where the carbon is stored for centuries (assuming production temperatures that support a high stability of the biocoal). The gas generated during the pyrolysis as a by-product (Tripathi et al., 2016) which can be chemically filtered for CO₂ and further used for storage.

A third BECC option that uses woody biomass is gasification of biomass for biofuels production combined with carbon capture (BECC-WGas). In this concept, biomass is converted into syngas using dual fluidized bed technology. From synthesis gas liquid hydrocarbons are synthesized in the Fischer-Tropsch process. The by-produced heat is used to provide process heat and generate electrical power, covering the energy demand of the concept. The CO₂ emitted during the production process is captured and made available for storage. The provision of biofuels provides the opportunity for fossil CO₂ emission abatement, but here it is considered to be stored. The availability of sustainable lignocellulosic biomass limits the overall potential of wood-based BECC technologies, like woody biomass combustion, woody biomass pyrolysis, and woody biomass gasification, especially if importing biomass is not considered to be an option (Thrän & Schindler, 2021).

Another BECC option to consider is biogas production for the generation of heat and electricity combined with carbon capture. With the highest number of biogas plants in operation in Europe (∼9,000, FNR, 2020), it appears sensible to investigate this option as a potential technology for BECCS in Germany. In our study, we further distinguish three biogas-based options, each using different type of biomass: (a) A mixed biomass biogas plant based on 50% of waste and residues, 20% of cattle manure, and 30% of energy crops (BECC-MxBG; as described in Thrän, 2019). (b) The use of wet ecosystems like peatlands for paludiculture harvesting for biogas and bioenergy production combined with carbon capture (PalBG) (Wichtmann et al., 2015). (c) Macroalgae farming for bioenergy production with carbon capture (BECC-MABG) that uses “offshore rings” located in the German North Sea exclusive economic zone (Buck & Buchholz, 2004; Fernand et al., 2017) for cultivation of brown macroalgae. The biomass would be harvested once a year and transported to biogas plants close to the coast. For the latter two biogas-based BECC options, limitations are related to location, as BECCS in combination with macroalgae and paludiculture can preferentially be used in areas that provide respective biomass, that is, marine areas or rural areas with specific biophysical conditions.

2.1.3 Geological CO₂ Storage Solutions

According to the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR), deep saline aquifers and depleted gas fields are regarded as Germany's most relevant offshore and onshore solutions for storage.

Given the study's boundary conditions, we considered onshore CO₂ storage. To ensure permanent storage, CO₂ must be kept at depths >800 m in a supercritical state (IPCC, 2005). The injected CO₂ remains trapped in the reservoir through various mechanisms, which vary depending on the specific storage location, and support long-term secure and effective CO₂ storage (Kempka et al., 2014). Germany's Carbon Dioxide Storage Act (KSpG, 2012) currently prohibits underground CO₂ storage. However, the law has recently been evaluated, and lifting the existing limitations is being considered (Bundesregierung, 2022). An alternative for permanent CO₂ storage in Germany is transporting CO₂ abroad to large-scale offshore projects in the North Sea (e.g., in Norway, Denmark or the Netherlands).

2.1.4 Biological CDR Options

Practices that either restore or manage ecosystems aim to increase biological CO₂ capture and sequestration. Changing agricultural practices has a large potential to increase soil carbon sequestration. An example is the afforestation of croplands (agricAFF). This conversion increases the annual carbon sequestration of unproductive lands that currently hold winter crops. Soil carbon accrual can also be enhanced by improving crop rotations (agricCR) to crops with a higher humus balance (Kolbe, 2012). This involves increasing crop residues and favoring crop varieties with deep and dense root systems (Don et al., 2018; Kell, 2011). Finally, including cover crops (agricCC) in the cropping cycle can increase soil carbon (Poeplau & Don, 2015). In Germany, about 2.2 million ha of arable land are already cultivated with cover crops (DESTATIS, 2018; Griffiths et al., 2019). A further 2 million ha of arable land (for potatoes, sugar beet, summer cereals, and maize) could be suitable for intercropping.

Peatlands are wetland areas in which water-saturated conditions facilitate natural accumulation of thick layers of decayed organic matter (peat) (Joosten & Clarke, 2002; Rydin & Jeglum, 2013). More than 98% of organic soils in Germany (approximately 1.8 Mha) are drained mostly for agricultural use. That results in 43 Mt of CO₂ emissions each year (Tanneberger et al., 2021; Trepel et al., 2017). Hence recent efforts for peatland restoration were increased, since rewetting peatlands (PReW) offers the potential to increase carbon sequestration with additional benefits to the ecosystems.

Seagrass meadows are already mitigating emissions by absorbing CO₂ through photosynthesis and by trapping particulate organic matter from the water, which gets buried in the sediment. They occur on the tidal flats of the southeastern North Sea (mostly the dwarf seagrass Zostera noltii) and the German Baltic coast (sublittoral seagrasses, here Zostera marina). An expansion of seagrass meadows, induced by human intervention (like planting or seeding) (SeaGr) to enhance the seagrass area can contribute to enhanced carbon burial (Lange et al., 2022) with benefits to marine biodiversity.

2.2 Assessment Framework

The assessment of the CDR options for Germany follows the suggested framework by Förster et al. (2022) along six dimensions. In the following, we will give a short overview of the indicators considered in the environmental, technological, institutional, economic, societal and system utility dimensions (for an overview of the assessment framework and the respective evaluation scale, see Förster et al., 2022).

The environmental dimension assesses how the deployment of a CDR option could potentially affect the atmosphere and terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems. The impact variables are in line with commonly used impact assessment metrics (UBA, 2020). Effects on the atmosphere include emissions from changes in terrestrial and marine ecosystems, local climatic effects and noise. Effects of CRD deployment on terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems are assessed in terms of spatial demands and related trade-offs, effects on biodiversity and soils as well as effects on water quality and quantity.

The technological dimension assesses the potential for deployment and upscaling of CDR options based on technological performance. This includes the efficiency of a CDR option in particular in terms of energy use (net energy balance) and capacity for CO₂ removal (CO₂ reduction and removal efficiency per energy unit). Market maturity is determined by the TRL as well as the compatibility with existing infrastructure. Lastly, the compatibility with the future energy system is evaluated with respect to the CO₂ collecting effort and the ability to access low carbon energy carriers.

The economic dimension relates to costs of deploying CDR options, the effects this has on the domestic economy and possible barriers for CDR investments. Accordingly, the marginal cost for removing CO₂ from the atmosphere is included in the assessment of the market costs, that is, the business cost of a given CDR option at this point in time. As costs of a CDR option can change over time, this is likely to alter also their relative cost vis-à-vis other CDR options, which is considered by also assessing the dynamic cost efficiency. This is done by including future cost reductions due to technological enhancements, cost reductions per unit of CDR when upscaling the production (economies of scale), and the marketability of co-produced goods (indicating economies of scope). External effects of CDR options, that is, impacts on third-party actors that are not taken into account by the actor causing them (e.g., negative or positive impact on water quality) are also considered in the economic dimension but are assessed in the environmental dimension to avoid double consideration in the assessment. Another cost category analyzed is transaction costs related to CDR deployment (e.g., for market screening, access and transaction, insurance and meeting regulatory requirements). The assessment includes transaction costs occurring for regulators and for actors involved in deploying CDR measures. The effects on the domestic/regional economy are assessed in terms of additional domestic value and employment. Investment barriers to CDR options are assessed by the share of capital cost in total cost (capital intensity), the specificity of the investments, and the revenue risk.

The institutional dimension addresses the policy landscape in which CDR options have to operate, taking a political and legal perspective on the maturity of CDR options and the feasibility of deploying CDR within existing laws and regulations, administrative capacities and accounting frameworks. Political (and institutional) maturity assesses the CDR options' position in the policy cycle (e.g., agenda setting, adoption of legislation, policy evaluation). The political acceptability is assessed by public and policy support for CDR options within the political debate, governmental support for research of a specific CDR option, as well as by the level of recognition of the role of CDR climate strategies at national and regional scale. Legal and regulatory feasibility addresses possible legal conflicts related to CDR options. It may be assessed by potential conflicts with existing legal requirements, the CDR options' conformity with human rights, and various environmental and conservation laws, particularly with climate laws. The assessment also addresses the demand for additional regulatory effort. Finally, transparency and institutional capacity include the assessment of existing monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, the integration of CDR in national reporting of carbon emissions, and the integration of CDR in carbon markets. Beyond that, the institutional capacity is also assessed by the presence of capabilities for using adaptive and responsive approaches for governing the deployment of CDR technologies and whether the deployment of a CDR option requires additional administrative effort.

The social dimension assesses how CDR options are perceived by the public, the social context, associated costs or benefits in societal terms, the extent to which stakeholders are included and can participate in CDR deployment, as well as ethical implications. The public perception of CDR options evaluates the perceived risk of a CDR option, and the trust in institutions, as this has been shown to be a cause for resistance to technology deployment (Markusson et al., 2020; Waller et al., 2020; Winickoff & Mondou, 2017). The assessment of social co-benefits or costs includes potential impacts on health and employment. Inclusiveness and participation are found to increase public trust in technological projects and are assessed by the participation of the public during the planning and execution steps, the dialog on national and regional levels, and the transparency throughout the process. Ethical considerations are assessed by evaluation of the discursive legitimation, the CDR options' effect on intergenerational equity/justice, as well as regarding ethical reservations of resource use. The social context of CDR implementation is assessed by previous experiences with large-scale development projects and the corresponding local narrative.

The system utility dimension describes the potential of CDR options to remove emissions necessary to close the gap for achieving a net-zero CO₂ system in 2050. Taking factors like the availability of biomass and the number of bioenergy plants attainable for retrofitting (relevant for BECC), costs and access to renewable energy supply (relevant for DACC), and available area (relevant for biological options) into account, we attempted to estimate the CDR potential within the German context. CO₂ emissions avoidance potential is assessed by the amount of avoided current emissions to the system in the short and long term, respectively. Emissions potentially avoided in the future are not considered. For assessing the permanence of CO₂ storage of a CDR option the natural persistence of the respective storage reservoir is considered in terms of decades, centuries to millennia (including risks due to natural and human-caused disturbances). CDR options are also assessed for the possibility to measure and verify their contribution to removing and storing CO₂ as well as possible uncertainties involved in such estimates.

2.3 Evaluation Scales

To present the results in an easy-to-read way, we introduce a traffic light system (see Förster et al., 2022) to indicate the effort required to overcome hurdles for the deployment of the assessed CDR options. Green indicates that the implementation of a CDR option is likely to be possible under current conditions (high feasibility) involving no or few hurdles for implementation. Yellow means that there are hurdles of medium magnitude to the implementation that require additional effort to be overcome. Red indicates that the implementation of a CDR option is currently not feasible (low feasibility) with considerable hurdles for implementation. In addition, we indicate if an indicator was “not applicable” for certain CDR options (gray), or if insufficient or ambiguous data was found for the assessment (white).

3 Assessment of the Individual Dimensions

3.1 System Utility Assessment

We find that relative to the removal need based on estimates of remaining emissions between 32 and 70 Mt CO₂/year for Germany by mid-century (Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne, 2021; Mengis et al., 2022; UBA, 2021), seven out of 14 options are estimated to provide significant annual removal in the order of magnitude of 10% or more of remaining emissions (F1 is yellow or green, Figure 1). More specifically, our estimates for BECC-based CDR potentials range from 0.5 to 29.9 Mt CO₂/year, where paludiculture and macroalgae for biogas CHP (0.5 and 0.8 Mt CO₂/year, respectively) show the lowest removal potential, and mixed biomass for biogas CHP, wood biomass for pyrolysis for biochar production and woody biomass for combustion CHP (12.6, 14, 29.9 Mt CO₂/year, respectively) show the highest removal potential (Borchers et al., 2022; see Supporting Information S1 for details). If we assume that DACC in heat, ventilation and air-conditioning systems are installed in 15% of the largest buildings in Germany, the CO₂ capturing potential would amount to 15 Mt CO₂/year. If constrained by renewable energy supply by mid-century DACC-farms carbon removal potential would be limited to about 16 Mt CO₂/year (Kopernikus-Projekt Ariadne, 2021). All BECC and DACC options would have to be combined with geological storage for which the storage capacity in discontinued oil and gas fields amounts to an order of magnitude of 2.200 Mt CO₂ (Michael et al., 2011). In addition, saline aquifers on and off-shore could hold another 20,000 Mt CO₂ (Knopf & May 2017). Finally, the scaled potential of natural sink enhancement (NSE) CDR options in Germany was estimated to range from 0.1 to 6.3 Mt CO₂/year, where seagrass restoration and cover crops on agricultural soils show the lowest removal potential (0.1 and 1.7 Mt CO₂/year, respectively), and terrestrial enhanced weathering, and improved crop rotation on arable soils show the highest removal potential (4 and 6.3 Mt CO₂/year, respectively; Borchers et al., 2022; see Supporting Information S1 for details).

Some of these CDR options bring about the additional systemic effect of emissions avoidance (F2, Figure 1). This is true for almost all biomass- and biogas-based bioenergy CHP options, where fossil coal or gas can be replaced by biogenic fuels thereby reducing emissions for electricity and heat production (Borchers et al., 2022). For the rewetting of peatlands the systemic effect of emissions avoidance could be up to 43 Mt CO₂/year by 2050 (Tanneberger et al., 2021), which is found to be more relevant than the removal potential. Noteworthy is the opposite effect of emissions avoidance for the chemical carbon capture options, for which their high energy demand especially in the near term would likely cause an increase in fossil emissions (F2 is red, Figure 1).

Concerning the durability of carbon storage and risks by anthropogenic or natural perturbations (F3, Figure 1), the DACC and BECC options rely on geological storage, for which several thousands of years of storage with close to zero leakage and low natural risk of perturbations are found (Banks et al., 2021; Kempka et al., 2014). Noteworthy is the higher risk of anthropogenic recovery of the stored CO₂ for later usage, if depleted oil and gas fields were to be used for CO₂ storage. Both pyrolysis and gasification of biomass produce products, for which we assume storage, but which bear a risk of anthropogenic usage. For the CDR options that do not depend on geological storage, durability ranges from thousands of years for enhanced weathering and rewetted organic soils (Löschke & Schröder, 2019; Borchers et al., 2022, respectively), over centuries to millennia for the seagrass meadows (Borchers et al., 2022), to decades to centuries for different agricultural practices to increase top soil carbon (Dynarski et al., 2020; Mutegi et al., 2013; Poeplau & Don, 2015). CDR removal based on natural ecosystems is more prone to carbon storage disturbances (e.g., Fuss et al., 2018; Poeplau et al., 2011). Climate change impacts and anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., changes in the occurrence of pest infestations, forest fires and land use change) may alter carbon permanence. For seagrass meadows, carbon storage is sensitive to storm events, ocean warming, and seawater depth and quality. Hence the degradation of seagrass could lead to large losses in its function of storing carbon.

All CDR options seem to be monitorable in principle (see F4, Figure 1). For CO₂ storage in geological reservoirs, geophysical methods are widely employed to monitor possible leakages. For marine and terrestrial options increasing carbon stock, well-established measuring options for soil/sediment carbon stock changes exist. However, the uncertainty due to temporal and spatial variability within the carbon stocks reduced the overall accuracy with which CO₂ sequestration and therefore gross negative emissions can be reported.

3.2 Environmental Assessment

We find that for all biomass-based CDR options the indicator for area demand (A2.1) is key to determine environmental impacts: the higher the area demand for biomass production the more land use competition and environmental impacts are to be expected. This is in particular the case for the BECC option involving biomass combustion in power plants (WCom), which is expected to increase biomass demand and thereby area demand (A2.1 is red, Figure 1) to meet the combustion capacity. As a consequence, it is to be expected that WCom has negative environmental impacts in particular for biodiversity (A2.2; Birdsey et al., 2018; Schlesinger, 2018). In contrast, the BECC options of gasification of woody biomass to liquid fuel (WGas) and the pyrolysis of woody biomass for biochar production (WPyr) assume to be integrated in the current use of fuelwood without the need of increasing biomass production, likely causing no additional environmental impacts (A2.1 is yellow, Figure 1). The CDR concept of retrofitting available biogas plants with carbon capture technology (MxBG) includes the assumption that biomass use was to stay within current levels. However, competition for land and water (e.g., for irrigation) would persist and together with the use of fertilizers and pesticides, MxBG is expected to involve a range of negative environmental impacts (A2 and A3 are red, Figure 1). This concerns in particular negative impacts on water quality and biodiversity (e.g., Babin et al., 2021; Haakh, 2017; Kirschke et al., 2019; UBA, 2014).

CDR options involving changes in agricultural practices by introducing changing the land-use to forest (agricAFF), cover crops (agricCC) and adjusted crop rotation for enhancing soil carbon storage (agricCR) are expected to have a range of positive environmental effects by potentially enhancing biodiversity and water and soil quality (A2 and A3 mostly green, Figure 1; e.g., Thapa et al., 2018). In particular CDR options focusing on enhancing the carbon sink potential of ecosystems such as paludiculture for biogas and bioenergy production combined with carbon capture (BECC-PalBG), and the restoration of peatlands (PReW) or seagrass meadows (SeaG) are expected to have positive environmental impacts in particular for biodiversity, soil and water quality (A2.2, A3.1–A3.4 are green, Figure 1; e.g., Gaudig et al., 2014; Joosten et al., 2013; Reusch et al., 2021). This indicates that ecosystem-based CDR options are likely to create multiple benefits to the environment.

Synergies between CDR options could possibly be harnessed when combining CDR options involving ecosystem restoration with BECCS. Peatland restoration (PReW) combined with paludiculture for biogas and bioenergy production with carbon capture (BECC-PalBG) is an example, where ecosystems are restored and managed for enhancing soil carbon and biodiversity conservation, while at the same time also providing options for biomass production that can be used for BECCS. However, shortly after rewetting peatlands a peak in emissions of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide occurs (Tanneberger et al., 2021).

There are knowledge gaps and research needs in particular related to indirect environmental impacts related to indirect land use effects in the case of BECCS and indirect impacts from energy use in the case of DACCS.

In particular for biomass-based CDR options environmental impacts are site-specific and dependent on local conditions and the type of management practices applied. For this assessment, we assume that the applied CDR options would follow sustainable management practices that are in line with environmental regulations (e.g., not exceeding thresholds for the use of pesticides and fertilizers or avoiding leakage of chemical substances of technical appliances). However, already current land management practices come with significant environmental impacts and related negative impacts are therefore likely to continue to persist, as it is the case, for example, for the leakage of nitrogen to water bodies (Kirschke et al., 2019; UBA, 2014). As environmental conditions differ locally, the environmental impacts of CDR measures will have to be reassessed at site-level when moving from national feasibility studies to local scale implementation. The presented assessment using the traffic-light system indicates trends in environmental impacts that can be expected from CDR implementation. These will have to be complemented with site-based assessments in order to understand the location specific implications.

3.3 Technological Assessment

The energy requirement differs significantly between the CDR approaches (B1, Figure 2). Chemical CDR options are most energy consuming, as they must cover their energy demand by external supplies (e.g., Fasihi et al., 2019; Heß et al., 2020; Moosdorf et al., 2014). Although the carbon capture processes for both BECC and DACC are energy intensive, part of the heat and/or power production in bioenergy plants may be used on site to cover the demands of energy generation and CO₂ capture processes, so that no additional energy input is needed. Furthermore, DACC comes with higher effort for CO₂ capture than BECC, as almost its whole energy demand is related to the capture process, whereas in case of BECC only a part of produced energy is used for CO₂ capture—from 15% to 33%, depending on the option: 15% for gasification (WGas), 20% for biogas options (**BG), 24% for biomass combustion (WCom), and 33% for pyrolysis (WPry) (e.g., Thrän et al., 2020). If combined with CO₂ storage, the technology efficiency of BECCS and DACCS will further decrease, as there is energy demand associated with geological storage as well (e.g., Wiese & Nimtz, 2019). In comparison, biological CDR options have a very low energy demand, mainly needed for the initial implementation of the CDR option (e.g., Smith, 2016). Additionally, they do not have energy needs for capture and storage of carbon as those take place via natural processes (e.g., photosynthesis).

Biological CDR options also present the highest degree of maturity (B2 is green, Figure 2), as they are already deployed on different scales. Also, most of the BECC options are technically mature (B2 mostly green, Figure 2) and may build on already established bioenergy and infrastructure (Thrän et al., 2020). However, in case of macroalgae and paludiculture based BECC, the infrastructure for biomass supply would still need to be substantially developed (e.g., rewetting peatlands, launching offshore rings for macroalgae farming) (B3 is yellow/light red, Figure 2; e.g., Buck & Buchholz, 2004). Further development effort is also needed for DACC options to enhance their cumulative CO₂ capture capacity (B2 is light green and light red, Figure 2). There are 19 DACC pilot plants in operation in other countries (e.g., in Iceland and the US; IEA, 2021), but only few small low-temperature-DACC modules (as necessary for DACC-HVAC) tested in laboratories, which makes this option ready for deployment within a decade or later (Dittmeyer et al., 2019; Heß et al., 2020). ERW have been tested in a few field studies, however, achieved mixed results indicate a need for further investigations (Andrews & Taylor, 2019; Löschke & Schröder, 2019).

Additionally, BECC and DACC need the integration of the carbon storage elements (see GEOSTOR, Figure 2), whether it be domestically or abroad. In Germany, many elements of storage infrastructure would still need to be developed, including determining the storage sites and construction of injection wells, preparation of the monitoring system around the storage location, and establishing CO₂ collection networks to deliver CO₂ to storage sites (B3, B4.1 are red, Figure 2).

3.4 Economic Assessment

The business or market cost of CDR options can be a first indication of their value and is usually expressed as cost per unit of carbon removed (Fridahl et al., 2020). Marginal CO₂ removal costs tend to be lower for biological options (C1.1 are mostly green in Figure 2), sometimes even negative costs are indicated, as in the case for cover crops (Fuss et al., 2018). Peatland rewetting is assumed to involve relatively low costs (Couwenberg & Michaelis, 2015), while afforestation of croplands shows a very wide range in cost estimates (Fuss et al., 2018). However, the marginal removal costs of biological options are highly side specific and thus cannot simply be transferred to the German context. Furthermore, ecosystem-based CDR options often require scarce land resources, with the exception of agricCC, which means that they tend to have high opportunity costs (see C1.2 mostly red, Figure 2). Similar considerations also translate to biomass-based hybrid options. In general, chemical and hybrid options are characterized by comparably higher marginal removal costs (Beerling et al., 2020; Heß et al., 2020; IEAGHG, 2013; Kearns et al., 2021; Strefler et al., 2018) as they rely on technological equipment and recurring costs for inputs (energy, feedstock etc.). Due to the hypothetical nature of some of the analyzed CDR options and/or incomplete, ambiguous or lacking information on their market costs in general, for the specific (technological) setting of the CDR options, or for the German context, it reveals to be difficult to give definite estimates on the marginal removal costs for a number of CDR options (C1.1 are mostly white for tech CDR options, Figure 2). However, the notion “no data” should not automatically be interpreted as there being no data at all on the cost of the respective CDR option (see details in Supporting Information S1).

In the evaluated CDR options, cost reduction potential by technological progress seems to be limited (C2.1 is red and yellow, Figure 2). In case of BECC higher potential is seen for CO₂ capture, rather than the bioenergy generation, as the latter is delivered by mature technologies (e.g., combustion, pyrolysis). Moreover, part of the cost may also be covered by revenues coming from sales of jointly produced goods, for example, heat and electricity produced by BECC (C2.3 yellow for BECC, Figure 2). For DACC options, cost reductions of scaling up operations (economies of scale) are expected to be quite significant, since mass production of installations is likely to reduce its cost (Heß et al., 2020). In comparison, such aspects of technological progress and economies of scale are expected to have less potential for reducing costs in biological options.

Private transactions costs, for example, for using relevant markets, setting up necessary contracts and complying with regulations, tend to be moderate to high for most of the CDR options (see C3.2, Figure 2). For chemical and hybrid options transaction costs for the erection of plants as well as for establishing supply chains/markets for inputs and outputs play a major role. For biological options often the high number of actors involved drives the transaction costs if new regulations have to be complied with and new markets need to be used, which is partially caused by the scattered ownership of private forest and agricultural land in Germany. The same applies for example, to decentralized DACC in HVAC systems which includes a high number of actors when applied on a larger scale as well as a larger number of relevant regulations.

The potential for increases in domestic value added provided by the deployment of the CDR options seems rather limited. This is due to little value added potential in general (as e.g., in the case of cover crops or the management of (existing) seagrass meadows) or the fact that the manufacturing and/or installation of equipment is (partially) done by companies from abroad (which might apply e.g., for DACC and BECC options).

An important barrier to investments in the CDR options can be caused by the expectation of a high amount of sunk costs in case the investment fails. This risk increases with the capital intensity of the CDR option (i.e., the overall costs of the CDR measure involves a high share of capital cost), the specificity of the investment (i.e., the financial loss when assets would be applied for other purposes than the envisaged CDR option) as well as with the risks of the expected revenues. Due to low investment needs, biological options tend to possess a rather low capital intensity while hybrid and chemical options that require the erection of technical facilities come along with rather high capital intensity. However, as DACC appliances show high operating cost (due to their high energy consumption) their capital intensity tends to be lower compared to BECC options. Meanwhile, they show a very high specificity of investment, since the technical facilities can barely be used for other purposes and hence would be a stranded investment if DACC turns out to have no economic viability. The same applies to the equipment of existing bioenergy plants with carbon capturing facilities. Biomass-to-liquid plants could switch to the production of other gases for industrial use which makes their investment less specific than those of other BECC options. Since for biological options the carbon is often fixed in (marketable) biomass, selling off the biomass if the CDR case fails remains an option and reduces the specificity of the investment.

The assessment of the revenue risk is challenged by the fact that many of the CDR options do not generate CDR related revenues (as e.g., seagrass meadows) or are not established yet. Thus, the institutional setting of a potential revenue scheme is unclear by now (e.g., DACC or ERW). This puts a high revenue risk on such options from today's perspective. The revenue risk is lower for options that are remunerated for climate protection contributions by a fixed payment scheme such as the EU's common agricultural policy (which applies to afforestation of croplands (agricAFF) and cover crops (agricCC)). BECC options are assessed to have a moderate revenue risk, as technology-related risks are rather low due to the high maturity of these technologies. However, BECC revenues partially are dependent on the development of the EU emissions trading system, which has shown a high volatility in the past and is subject to political discretion, thereby putting a certain risk on the revenues of these facilities. In the case of macroalgae as a feedstock the revenue risk can be assumed to be higher since failing algae yields in Germany (e.g., due to pests or technical challenges) can barely be substituted as established markets are missing.

3.5 Institutional Assessment

In general, institutional arrangements, policies, and laws are more developed for established measures considered as CDR options. For example, land use practices involving paludiculture for biogas and bioenergy production combined with carbon capture (BECC-PalBG), afforestation (agricAFF), enhancing soil carbon sequestration through peatland rewetting (PReW) and cover crops (agricCC) are already practiced and implemented today. These options are also characterized by greater acceptance in the policy debate (E2.1), conformity with existing regulations concerning human rights (E3.2), environmental laws (E3.3) and climate laws (E3.4). Hence, the regulatory effort related to these CDR options is comparatively low (E3.5) (see Figure 3).

However, this is not the case for CDR options involving carbon capture and storage (CCS). BECCS and DACS options consist of multiple components with BECCS including land use for biomass production, bioenergy generation and DACCS requiring technologies for air capture and ultimately technologies for CCS. Different institutional arrangements apply for each of these components. Accordingly, these more complex CDR options require a diversity of institutional arrangements that can pose hurdles to CDR implementation.

In the case of BECCS, the components of bioenergy generation are already well established. Hence the current policy landscape and institutional arrangements facilitate the implementation of the bioenergy component of BECCS. However, this is not the case for the carbon storage (S) component. For example, the federal states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein have completely excluded carbon dioxide storage for their territories (Deutscher Bundestag, 2018). The reason is that carbon storage is highly contested in the public and policy debate in Germany (E2.1), with policies and institutional arrangements currently not supporting the implementation of carbon storage. Hence, the geological storage of carbon (GEOSTOR, Figure 3) is rather in an early stage of the policy cycle (E1.1). This is also true for DACCS: while the technologies for DAC are being tested, the CCS component is restricted by the lack of implementation options for carbon storage. Accordingly, the CCS component of BECCS and DACCS is currently limiting the application of these CDR options in Germany. This is reflected in the German National Climate Strategy, which indicates that the potential for CCS options should be examined but it does, however, not explicitly call for the implementation of BECCS and DACCS options (BMUB, 2016) (E2.3). Nevertheless, all CDR options are currently assessed through government-supported research (E2.2).

The same applies to the Monitoring Reporting and Verification (MRV) systems for CDR options (E4.1). While components of MRV systems exist for land-use related CDR options (paludiculture-based biogas CHP—PalBG, afforestation of croplands—agricAFF, peatland rewetting—PReW), there is no MRV system for BECCS and DACCS options. Hence these options are also not integrated into the carbon market (E4.3).

Knowledge gaps exist in particular with a view to those CDR approaches which are in an early stage of development such as ERW or seagrass restoration (SeaG) (Figure 3). Empirical research on other technologies whose results can be used for extrapolation is largely missing. In addition, the institutional aspects are difficult to quantify and the assessment remains tentative.

3.6 Social Assessment

Assessment of the social criteria is challenging, as societal dimensions affected by the different CDR options are subject to diverging definitions and inherent heterogeneity. The public perception of CDR approaches for instance results from different perspectives of stakeholders as that can be classified as individuals, households, industries and economic sectors, or the government. Individual perspectives are shaped by different preferences and circumstances and are furthermore dynamic and can change out of intrinsic or external motivators. In most cases, policy shapes the framework in which the different CDR concepts are presented, but diverging preferences about or exposure to concepts, knowledge or availability (from a technological or economic side) influences perception, acceptance, participation, and contexts the options can be assessed in.

As a result, the assessment is often lacking data or providing ambiguous information about CDR options. This applies especially to the social context (D5), where, due to the different TRLs, assessment of previous experience or local narratives is not available, although it is stated that for example, acceptance of technology options increases if there is exposure and past experience (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). Acceptance, which can be understood as a consequence of successfully considering the social dimension (Figure 3), is crucial for successful implementation of options. For inclusiveness/participation, data is sparse and ambiguous for for example, paludiculture-based biogas CHP (PalBG), where national dialogues exist. Still, transparency is high only for the biomass part, but low for carbon capture, which leads to the category classified as medium (D3.3 yellow). Also, participation is, as it is a key measure to foster acceptance (Stadelmann-Steffen & Dermont, 2021), difficult to assess due to data availability and implementation status.

As for the hybrid and chemical solutions co-benefits can be found for gasification and paludiculture-based options regarding health and economic co-benefits for employment through increased business opportunities. This is also the case for macroalgae-based biogas CHP (MABG), ERW, and geological carbon storage (GEOSTOR). Employment co-benefits can also help in lowering societal barriers to acceptance, but ambiguous or economically detrimental effects from losing jobs, often indicating a structural change, can societally affect options negatively. Perceived risk for hybrid options and for storage options is also rather high, which is partly mirrored in issues with ethical considerations. This applies especially for geological storage, where social reservations are high, possibly due to no exposure and lacking knowledge and transparency. Looking at BECC options, there exist considerable barriers, as uncertainty regarding the effects, which are often paired with significant negative actions (e.g., competition for land use among options and natural resources in general), harm acceptance. Ethical resource use is the major issue here, as treating hybrid CDR options as a mitigation deterrence shifts the mitigation burden away from other sectors (Carton et al., 2020). For DACC, the resource use can compromise energy security, which is also an ethical concern that as a last consequence, affects acceptance negatively.

Regarding tendencies of the assessment of the options, the social dimension of biological options involving NSE is overall more positive than for hybrid or chemical options, where no clear-cut picture can be made. Health as a co-benefit of the options, meaning additional recreational use or better air or water quality often goes hand in hand with options also posing lower perceived risk. This applies for example, to afforestation (agricAFF) or restoration of seagrass meadows (SeaG). CDR options like these are also rated better considering ethical matters of intergenerational equity (D4.2) or through discursive legitimation (D4.1). This is something that applies to most nature-based solutions, as they are societally less invasive, so acceptance is granted easier. Among the hybrid options, paludiculture- and macroalgae-based biogas CHP (PalBG and MABG) are the ones with the overall most positive outlook, as co-benefits and inclusiveness increase the feasibility of the social dimension. However, such options for more ecosystem-based solutions also require land, which can lead to land use conflicts and lower acceptance by certain land user groups. Tampering with nature is socially frowned upon, which can be an additional reason for barriers in acceptance (Wolske et al., 2019).

4 Cross-Dimensional Assessment of CDR Options for Germany—Insights Into Hurdles, Opportunities, and Research Needs

The extent to which emissions are reduced and avoided in the coming years and decades strongly determines the amount of annual CO₂ removal that is necessary to reach net-zero CO2 by mid-century (Mengis et al., 2022; Merfort et al., 2023; UBA, 2020). And while the implementation of CDR options is already part of the national climate strategy in Germany (KSG, 2021), currently CDR options considered in Germany's climate protection law remain limited. This is undoubtedly related to considerable knowledge gaps on the implications of CDR implementation and upscaling (BMUB, 2016). In an attempt to fill some of the knowledge gaps, we present here a holistic assessment of 14 CDR options in Germany, pointing to possible opportunities (green in the evaluation matrix), hurdles (red) as well as research needs (blank) (see Figure 4). Selecting relevant CDR options for Germany, we aimed to provide insights into their possible implementation, yet acknowledging that the local (sub-national) contexts of implementation can differ greatly (Rhoden et al., 2021).

For BECCS options, we found that the CDR potential within Germany is significant, reaching up to 60% of Germany's residual emissions if combined (assuming residual emissions of 60 Mt CO₂/yr, Mengis et al., 2022). Furthermore, owing to the heat and energy provision these concepts would allow for further emissions avoidance by displacing fossil emissions. Most bioenergy concepts have a comparably high TRL, with the exception of marine- and paludiculture-biomass feedstock options, which require further on-site development and testing. Concerning the infrastructure compatibility, we found low hurdles for implementation, especially for the biogas concepts as the existing infrastructure in Germany could be retrofitted with CO₂ capture units, lowering the initial investment costs. However, the upscaling of related technology and infrastructure will require time and resources.

Environmental impacts of BECCS options are mainly related to resource demand. Where the demand for land, the type and intensity of land use involved, and the quantity of biomass or energy the upscaling of the CDR technology requires, would determine such impacts. Small-scale solutions within the current regime of biomass use from forests, would likely not increase environmental impacts of current biomass use. However, biomass production involving intensive agricultural land uses (e.g., growing bioenergy crops) for bioenergy generation, would have detrimental environmental effects from the use of fertilizers and pesticides. In particular, biodiversity, soil and water quality are impacted, which means external costs might be associated with these options. What is more, an increase in biomass demand poses the risk of causing indirect land use change effects within and outside Germany, as it would increase area demand for biomass production that might displace other land uses like food production or nature conservation. This would negatively impact the enjoyment of certain rights such as the right to food and water, as well as the right to property (Mayer, 2019).

A major caveat of the assessment is the inability to account for resource competition between the different CDR options. While some of the options could be implemented simultaneously without having obvious mutual interference, others might compete for the same resources. This is true for some of the BECC concepts that rely on wood as a feedstock, and it especially applies to the competition for land—a resource that is extremely scarce in densely populated Germany. Such resource competition not only means that not all of the CDR options might be applicable to their entire theoretical potential but also that there may accrue price effects from resource competition by the different CDR options that are not considered when estimating future costs of the CDR options separately.

For the DACCS options we identified a significant carbon removal potential in the order of magnitude of Germany's residual emissions. Its high scalability provides the possibility for economies of scale for DACC options. However, this potential is constrained by external factors, which in turn impact the feasibility within other dimensions. In contrast to bioenergy-based CDR options, technology readiness is lower for chemical CDR options, including ERW. While the technology for DACC and ERW exists and is being implemented in pilot sites, investments required for upscaling these technologies and the high energy demand are considerable hurdles. Energy supply plays an important role in particular for big DACC farms with typical size of approximately 1 Mt CO₂/year. If deployed at large scale (tens to hundreds of farms), associated energy demand, preferably coming from low-carbon sources, could possibly outnumber supply. For DACC, the direct environmental impacts from the technical installations are considered low as their spatial demand is low. However, the main environmental impact from DACC will be determined again by their high energy demand and the type of energy source used. Environmental impacts are expected from the additional energy needs that come with impacts on air and water quality and water demand.

Most crucially, BECCS and DACCS options would need to be combined with new CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure to provide negative emissions. Now, within the German context, geological storage is a highly contested topic among the public and within climate policy debates. Engaging the public in a debate on CDR and using approaches for the co-creation of respective projects may generate more acceptance. In addition, laws are currently restricting underground CO₂ storage at pilot-scale sites with no new storage sites being proposed at the moment (KSpG, 2012). Geological CO₂ storage might be less contested by the public if considered outside of Germany. Currently, the lack of public acceptance as well as regulation prohibiting the implementation of geological storage within German territory, pose a substantial hurdle for BECCS and DACCS implementation. Furthermore, if these hurdles were to be overcome, the need for expanding CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure is likely to cause additional delays in deployment. This also poses a risk for sunk cost due to the specific nature of the investment which might translate into investment restraint. Such delays negatively impact the short-term deployment of the CDR options with most “high-tech” options likely to require five to 10 years for achieving market readiness. Given the expected cumulative contributions by BECCS and DACCS to CDR until 2050, any delay in implementation is increasing their expected contribution over time. Furthermore, we identified a high risk of anthropogenic disturbance related to carbon capture methods involving products like bio-coal, biofuels, or synthetic fuels with lower permanence as compared to geological storage for carbon removal. Environmental impacts of geological storage are partially uncertain, as they are strongly related to risks associated with underground storage, like leakage from wellbores or hydraulic fracturing of caprocks and contamination of drinking water due to pressure buildup in the storage reservoir (Kelemen et al., 2019). From a societal point of view, the possibility for large-scale CDR deployment like BECCS and DACCS options poses a risk for mitigation deterrence (e.g., Bellamy et al., 2021; Grant et al., 2021; McLaren, 2020).

For ecosystem-based CDR options in the German context, we find one option (improved crop rotation—agricCR) with the potential to cover 10% of the remaining emissions (assuming residual emissions of 60 Mt CO₂/yr, Mengis et al., 2022), but most struggle to reach significant CDR potentials. This is not surprising given the area and hence upscaling limitations within Germany. Due to their area demand, competition over land-use and related opportunity costs can be a considerable hurdle. Again, a major challenge of the evaluation scheme is that the separate assessment of the CDR options cannot account for resource competition between the different CDR options. Furthermore, several ecosystem-based CDR options (afforestation of croplands—agricAFF, cover crops—agricCC and seagrass restoration—SeaG) were assessed to have a high risk related to climate change impacts as well as natural and human-caused disturbances, which enhance the uncertainties in the permanence of carbon storage in ecosystems.

Nevertheless, ecosystem-based CDR options (such as peatlands rewetting -PReW, changes in agricultural management of cover crops—agricCC, etc.) are already practiced, while others are awaiting routine use (seagrass restoration—SeaG). The analyzed ecosystem-based CDR options are already established, commercialized options (e.g., afforestation, agricultural practices, peatland rewetting) that can be upscaled within relatively short-term.

The market-readiness is likely linked to the fact that ecosystem-based CDR options have been seen as favorable compared to “high-tech” CDR options, as they are often perceived as less invasive or even beneficial in their nature. The environment assessment supports this, as ecosystem-based CDR options are found to have a low environmental impact and even improve some environmental indicators (e.g., biodiversity, soil and water quality) surrounding local areas of their implementation. However, competition for land can be a key constraint for ecosystem-based CDR options and ensuring that these options provide additional benefits is likely to be critical for their acceptance and economic viability.

4.1 Limitations of the Study

This analysis provides a first comprehensive assessment of selected CDR options for Germany across multiple thematic areas and disciplines. However, the focus of the study comes with inherent limitations, which we would like to point to in this section.

First, given the rather coarse assessment scale of the traffic light system, this analysis often provides qualitative information on general trends related to the feasibility of CDR options within the German context. As the analysis is in part based on expert judgments, subjective views and biases cannot be excluded, and might deviate from other relevant stakeholder perspectives. Furthermore, as environmental conditions differ between sites, locally specific assessments could identify regional differences in the feasibility of CDR options. Therefore, site-specific assessments (e.g., as part of environmental impact assessments) are needed for better understanding the location specific implications. Locally more specific assessments of CDR options within a particular local context (e.g., pilot sites) might lead to different conclusions.

The comparability of the selected CDR options' assessment is limited due to the differences in the implementation scales with respect to their annual removal rate. While the maximum removal scale for each option was chosen, the fact that the annual rates vary substantially impacts among others the options environmental assessment for example, with respect to area demand and its associated impacts. Beyond that, a thorough assessment of the socio-political and legislative dimension would benefit from the development of context-specific implementation scenarios, including information on relevant actors, stakeholders and impacted communities.

Finally, the selected options are not a comprehensive list of possible CDR options for Germany, but was chosen based on the available CDR option portfolio from Borchers et al. (2022). In particular marine-based CDR options are under-represented in this exercise.

5 Outlook—Lessons Learned

The direct environmental impacts of CDR options can be anticipated based on information already available for the different land management practices related to biomass production. However, for future assessments it is critical to address potential indirect environmental impacts across regional and global scales in particular when upscaling CDR measures.

In terms of technological maturity of analyzed CDR options, biological options represent the highest readiness for a near-term upscaling. Some of the BECC options are also technically ready but face legal constraints and lack of infrastructure for CO₂ transportation and geological storage in Germany. DACC concepts additionally involve a high renewable energy demand, which is expected to be accessible only in the longer term.

With respect to the cost of CDR options, our analyses show that non-market costs like transaction costs and opportunity costs related to the implementation of CDR measures pose an important barrier to many of the CDR options. Their potential “invisibility” compared to market costs (e.g., for energy, labor, feedstocks and other inputs) bears the risk of being overlooked in the evaluation of CDR options. Therefore, (political) decision-makers should be aware of this potential evaluation bias and make sure that these non-market costs are carefully considered as well.

Public acceptance is a key aspect for successful implementation of CDR options. However, the assessment of social impacts of CDR options is difficult due to their heterogeneity, uncertainty, as well as largely missing data. The heterogeneity of the social dimension originates from the multiformity of the “public,” which includes different stakeholders with diverse preferences and experiences: citizens, industries, government. In politics, re-election matters, which is only possible, if concerns of the citizens are heard, which is also likely to influence decision-making on upscaling CDR options. Industry also has interest in favorable economic conditions, which might not align with the preferences of citizens. Hence politics plays an important role in shaping the framework for the implementation of CDR options.

Investigating support within the policy landscape, determining transparency and governance requirements and assessing the legal and regulatory feasibility of CDR options need to be addressed. For many CDR approaches this is more complex as they are at an early stage of development and there is uncertainty on how they will work in practice, at what scale they will operate and where they will get their energy from. Therefore, there remain important factors that could lead to conflicts with other policy goals. Potential future conflicts will hence depend on many other unforeseeable variables and will be difficult to predict. The law, however, usually responds reactively to social issues and conflicts that have gained a certain structure and clearly require legislative intervention. While guidance on future conflicts can at best be provided by extrapolating from similar cases and past experience, this could carry a potential for errors.

In total, about 5–15 Mt CO₂/year could potentially be removed through ecosystem-based CDR measures, 15–20 Mt CO₂/year by chemical capturing CDR options and 20–40 Mt CO₂/year by BECCS CDR options by 2050 within the German context. Determining the short- and long-term CDR potential, as well as the avoided emissions potential of the CDR options, is a challenging part of their assessment, due to many assumptions related to their deployment. However, compared to the overall German CO₂ emissions in 2020 of 644 Mt CO₂, it becomes clear that the removal potential is still found to be relatively small and underlines the need for fast and effective emission reduction measures. While challenging, it is necessary to distinguish between removed and avoided emissions since the effects on the carbon accounting in the context of net-zero CO₂ are very different. This distinction, together with separation of natural from anthropogenic sinks, allows for clearer communication of the net removal potential of CDR options and should be picked up by any national reporting system when implementing CDR.

Acknowledgments

The Helmholtz-Climate-Initiative (HI-CAM) is funded by the Helmholtz Associations Initiative and Networking Fund. The authors are responsible for the content of this publication. N.M. is funded under the Emmy Noether scheme by the German Research Foundation “FOOTPRINTS—From carbOn remOval To achieving the PaRIs agreemeNt's goal: Temperature Stabilisation” (ME 5746/1-1). NM thanks Christeena Babu for help with references and SI formating. MB, JF, DT are also grateful for funding provided by the BMBF Grant 01LS2107A (BioNet). We would like to thank anonymous external experts who assessed the social criteria based on their expertise by filling out a survey with queries about the social criteria and indicators. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Hungry like the fox

Climate change is starving out the iconic Arctic foxes of Scandinavia, so Norway is giving them dog food – and facing dilemmas that will be increasingly common in a warming world

PHOTOGRAPHY BY LISI NIESNER

REPORTING BY GLORIA DICKIE AND LISI NIESNER

REUTERS

OPPDAL, NORWAY

PUBLISHED APRIL 7, 2024

One by one, the crate doors swing open and five Arctic foxes bound off into the snowy landscape.

But in the wilds of southern Norway, the newly freed foxes may struggle to find enough to eat, as the effects of climate change make the foxes’ traditional rodent prey more scarce.

In Hardangervidda National Park, where the foxes have been released, there hasn’t been a good lemming year since 2021, conservationists say.

That’s why scientists breeding the foxes in captivity are also maintaining more than 30 feeding stations across the alpine wilderness stocked with dog kibble – a rare and controversial step in conservation circles.

“If the food is not there for them, what do you do?” said conservation biologist Craig Jackson of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, which is managing the fox program on behalf of the country’s environment agency.

Arctic foxes runs off into Hardangervidda National Park on Feb. 8. Conservation biologist Craig Jackson, far left, manages a program to breed the animals in captivity.

COURTESY OF CRAIG JACKSON VIA REUTERS

That question will become increasingly urgent as climate change and habitat loss push thousands of the world’s species to the edge of survival, disrupting food chains and leaving some animals to starve.

While some scientists say it’s inevitable that we’ll need more feeding programs to prevent extinctions, others question whether it makes sense to support animals in landscapes that can no longer sustain them.

As part of the state-sponsored program to restore Arctic foxes, Norway has been feeding the population for nearly 20 years, at an annual cost of around 3.1-million kroner ($391,000) and it has no plans to stop any time soon.

Since 2006, the program has helped to boost the fox population from as few as 40 in Norway, Finland, and Sweden, to around 550 across Scandinavia today.

With feeding programs, “the hope is that you can perhaps get a species over a critical threshold,” said wildlife biologist Andrew Derocher at the University of Alberta, who has worked in Arctic Norway but is not involved in the fox program. But with the foxes’ Arctic habitat now warming roughly four times faster than the rest of the world, he said: “I’m not sure we’re going to get to that point.”

Pups play in their enclosure and receive parasite medication at the research station near Oppdal last July, after the spring breeding season got off to a shaky start. Of the eight pairs of foxes at the station, only four females gave birth and two lost their litters.

Through the winter, the station’s staff feed the foxes frozen meat and leave caches of dried dog food in the wild. Normally, foxes would hunt lemmings in the colder months, but the rodents have been scarcer than usual recently.

Feeding animals to ensure a population survives – known as “supplementary feeding” – can be contentious. Most instances are temporary, providing food for a few years to help newly released or relocated animals adapt, such as the Iberian lynx in Spain during the 2000s. In other cases, governments might assist animals in acute peril, such as Florida’s decision to feed romaine lettuce to starving manatees from 2021 to 2023 after agrochemical pollution wiped out their supply of seagrass.

There are some exceptions. Mongolia’s government, for example, has been putting out pellets containing wheat, corn, turnip and carrots for critically endangered Gobi brown bears since 1985. But for predators living close to human communities, that can be risky. Bears are known to change their behaviour and can associate people with food, said Croatian biologist Djuro Huber, who has advised European governments on the feeding of large carnivores.

Feeding wild animals can also propagate diseases among the population, as animals cluster around feeding stations where pathogens can spread.

For each fox it releases into the wild, Norway has spent the equivalent of $50,000.

Bjorn Rangbru, a senior adviser on threatened species with the Norwegian Environment Agency, said the supplementary feeding – together with the breeding program – was crucial in raising the numbers of Arctic foxes in the wild. “Without these conservation measures, the Arctic fox would surely have become extinct in Norway.”

The government has so far spent 180-million kroner ($23-million) on the program, or about $50,000 for every released fox. Some of those foxes have crossed the Swedish border. After Norwegian scientists released 37 foxes near the Finnish border from 2021 to 2022, Finland saw its first Arctic fox litter born in the wild since 1996.

But the program is not even halfway to the goal of around 2,000 wild foxes across Scandinavia, which scientists say is the population size needed to be able to withstand low rodent years naturally.

A diagram helps the station keep track of the mating pairs. Arctic foxes reach sexual maturity when they are nine to 10 months old, and can live up to three or four years in the wild. 

This fox is being shipped 500 kilometres south to be set free. Two other pups will remain at the station for breeding purposes. The scientists say they have far to go before the foxes can be considered saved. 

To eagle-proof the enclosure, Mr. Jackson and colleague Kristine Ulvund set up a network of bamboo sticks and ropes. Like the foxes they prey on, golden eagles were once badly depopulated by hunting, but bounced back after Norway made them legally protected in 1968.

Arctic foxes are not the only species in trouble in the Far North. Polar bears are fast losing their hunting habitat as Arctic sea ice melts away. Migrating caribou sometimes arrive in summer pastures only to find that they missed the plant green-up because of a warmer-than-usual spring.

The foxes had been driven to near extinction across Scandinavia by hunters seeking their winter-white fur, before they gained some reprieve in hunting bans and protections introduced in the 1920s and 1930s.

The Arctic fox has since emerged as a symbol of the Far North. It is featured in the logos for both the Arctic Council and Swedish outdoor brand Fjallraven.

In Finnish Lapland, the Northern Lights are called revontulet, which means “fox fires.” Legend says the lights were ignited by the great fox spirit sweeping its tail against the snow and spraying it up into the night sky.

But as rodent populations have fallen away, Arctic foxes have struggled to recover on their own. And it’s been a particularly tough year for the captive breeding program. Normally, Mr. Jackson and fellow project leader Kristine Ulvund would have had about 20 pups to release. But of the eight breeding pairs in captivity, only four females gave birth last spring – two of which then lost their entire litters.

Nine pups were ultimately raised in the outdoor fenced enclosure near Oppdal, a remote site some 400 kilometres north of Oslo. Two pups were kept to be part of future breeding efforts. Then, golden eagles snatched another two just weeks before their Feb. 8 release, leaving only five.

For the foxes let loose in Hardangervidda National Park, the challenge is to find food for winter and avoid any predators in the process.

Surviving in the wilderness can be tough. While the wild population now stands at around 300 in Norway, the scientists have bred and released nearly 470 foxes since the program’s start. Foxes only live three to four years in the wild.

Aside from dodging predators, the foxes need to hunt enough lemmings to make it through the long winters.

Climate change is making this tough, as warming temperatures cause precipitation to fall more often as rain instead of snow. When that rain freezes, it can block the lemmings from burrowing into dens for their own warmth and reproduction.

The rodents’ once-reliable population cycles – which saw numbers of the rodents swell and fall in regular three- to five-year intervals – have become unpredictable and population peaks are lower.

The foxes seem to prefer to hunt for themselves. “We’ll see them passing the feeding stations with mouths full of rodents,” Ms. Ulvund said – the rodents presumably being juicier and tastier than dry dog kibble.

'We need to get the populations up to a sustainable level before we stop feeding them,' Ms. Ulvund says of the fox breeding program.

The scientists said the foxes still only breed really well when there is a peak in the rodent population. But a 2020 study in the Journal of Wildlife Management found that foxes in dens located near the feeding stations were more likely to successfully breed than those located farther away.

“We need to get the populations up to a sustainable level before we stop feeding them,” said Ms. Ulvund.

At the current growth rate, scientists said it could take another 25 years to reach the program’s goal of 2,000 Arctic foxes running free through Scandinavia – provided the foxes’ bellies are kept full.

“We’ve come a long way,” said Ms. Ulvund. “But I still think we have some way to go before we can say that we’ve really saved the species.”

The Birth of Wild Idea

Wild Idea Buffalo Co. isn't just another meat company; it's a reflection of a profound commitment to ethical ranching and the revitalization of our ecosystems. The story began when Dan O'Brien, the founder of Wild Idea Buffalo, introduced 100% grass-fed, grass-finished buffalo meat to a local restaurant.

The aim was clear: create a product that not only satisfied the taste buds but also upheld the principles of sustainability, humane treatment and overall environmental well-being.

A Unique Approach to Buffalo Ranching

Wild Idea Buffalo Co. isn't your typical commercial meat production facility. It's a place where the well-being of the buffalo takes center stage.

The innovative "field harvest" process allows buffalo to be humanely and respectfully harvested directly in their native habitat. This approach ensures that the animals don't experience the stress and fear associated with traditional slaughter methods, leading to better-quality meat and a more humane process.

Certified Humane and Regenerative Agriculture

One of the core values at Wild Idea Buffalo Co. is to be different – and they've certainly succeeded. The ranch holds certifications in humane treatment, organic practices and regenerative agriculture.

These distinctions showcase a commitment to responsible animal husbandry and the restoration of our environment.

A Focus on Soil Health

Wild Idea Buffalo Co.'s primary emphasis is on soil health. They understand that healthy soil is the foundation for a flourishing ecosystem.

By practicing large landscape grazing and maintaining a hands-off approach, Wild Idea Buffalo Co. ensures the vitality of the soil, which, in turn, promotes the growth of diverse grasses essential for both buffalo and the environment.

Mobile Harvesting Unit

A key innovation at Wild Idea Buffalo Co. is the mobile harvesting unit, a concept that's been in place for over 30 years. This 53-foot semi-trailer with a tractor is the heart of the operation, allowing for humane, in-field harvesting.

The mobile unit sets Wild Idea Buffalo Co. apart and is at the core of their commitment to a less stressful, more ethical approach to buffalo ranching.

Sustainable Availability

Wild Idea Buffalo Co.'s products are available online, making them accessible to a broader audience. Additionally, their presence in health food stores and local markets allows consumers to support sustainable practices and enjoy high-quality buffalo meat without compromising their values.

Revitalizing the Ecosystem

The unique approach to buffalo ranching at Wild Idea Buffalo Co. isn't just about producing delicious meat; it's also about restoring and maintaining the natural balance of the land. By running buffalo, rather than cattle, they're working towards replicating the historical role that these majestic creatures played in the ecosystem.

Nowadays, these grounds are mowed just twice a year, and haven’t been doused with pesticides or rodenticides since 2018, which was when this 157-acre stretch of land stopped being the San Geronimo Golf Course, and began a journey toward becoming wild, or at least wilder, once again.

A small number of shuttered golf courses around the country have been bought by land trusts, municipalities and nonprofit groups and transformed into nature preserves, parks and wetlands. Among them are sites in Detroit, Pennsylvania, Colorado, the Finger Lakes of upstate New York, and at least four in California.

During a recent tour of the land, which sits low in San Geronimo Valley, less than an hour’s drive north of San Francisco, Mr. Rodriguez motioned to rolling hills that serve as habitat for wildlife, including hawks that were wheeling overhead. “On either side, you have public lands,” he said. “This was the missing link.”

The restoration of the San Geronimo land is still underway. Floodplains will be reconnected, and a fish barrier has been removed, allowing access to more robust migratory and breeding grounds for endangered coho salmon and threatened steelhead trout. Trails are planned that would skirt sensitive habitat, making the land a publicly accessible ecological life raft, starkly different from its time as a golf course.

“It’s a great place, and it’s beautiful,” said Charles Esposito, 76, a retiree who was enjoying a recent stroll. “I love it.”

In recent years, the golf industry has taken steps to lighten its environmental toll in places by using less water, sowing pollinator-friendly plants and decreasing pesticide and fertilizer use.

Yet the resources and chemicals needed for pristine emerald turf have made the sport an environmentalists’ bête noire. America’s roughly 16,000 golf courses use 1.5 billion gallons of water a day, according to the United States Golf Association, and are collectively treated with 100,000 tons of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium a year.

The United States has more golf courses than McDonald’s locations and also has more than any other country, accounting for about 42 percent of all courses worldwide, according to the National Golf Foundation.

That oversupply, coupled with development pressures, has led more golf courses to close than to open since 2006. A return to nature, or a version of it, is still relatively rarity for former golf courses, most of which end up in the hands of commercial or residential developers, according to the National Golf Foundation. One recent example was a former 36-hole golf facility in New Hampshire that Target bought for nearly $122 million in 2023 to build a new distribution center.

For a golf course to be turned into a public green space, an unlikely set of stars need to align. There has to be a willing seller, and, crucially, a conservation-minded buyer who can afford to not just purchase the land but to restore it. According to Eric Bosman, an urban planner with the design and planning firm Kimley-Horne, 28 former courses were transformed into public green spaces between 2010 and October 2022.

But the number appears to be slowly growing. In 2023, the former Cedar View Golf course, on the eastern shore of Cayuga Lake in upstate New York, was bought by the Finger Lakes Land Trust. Another nonprofit, the West Lake Art Conservation Center, plans to transform some 230 acres of the shuttered Lakeview Golf & Country Club in Owasco into a nature preserve.

Though rewilding a golf course may disappoint players, it can bring big benefits to animals, plants and people.

A few hundred miles south of San Geronimo, on a stretch of land owned by the University of California, Santa Barbara, the 64-acre spread that once housed the Ocean Meadows Golf Course is now an estuary surrounded by grasslands, salt marsh and islands of coastal sage scrub.

The previous owner had envisioned selling the course to a housing developer, but was thwarted by the 2008 recession, according to Lisa Stratton, director of ecosystem management for the university’s Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration, which manages the land. People at the school enlisted help from the Trust for Public Land, which bought the property for $7 million in 2013 and donated it to the university.

The extensive restoration of the Santa Barbara site took years and was funded through $16 million in local, state and federal grants. It included relocating 350,000 cubic yards of soil that the golf course developers had taken from nearby mesas and pushed atop wetlands to create the course decades ago. The rehabilitated wetlands now reduce flooding risks and guard against sea-level rise, Dr. Stratton said. The change also meant that nearby homes were no longer in a federal flood zone. Without golf balls whizzing overhead, the land has become habitat for migratory shorebirds, among them black-necked stilts, greater yellowlegs and sandpipers, and has even drawn the secretive American bittern. Newly installed underground rock structures provide habitat for rabbits, ground squirrels, mice and burrowing owls.

Two federally endangered plants, the Ventura marsh milkvetch and salt marsh birds beak, have also been established on the site, part of an effort to move some plants north as their natural habitats grow too warm. Students from the university have been involved with the restoration work and have tracked hundreds of animal species.

The public has embraced the property, too. This past October, members of the Chumash tribe performed a cultural burn on part of the grassland, and the site draws birders and kids on bikes, who use its pathways to get to school.

“What we’ve learned is how important these areas are for people; that emotionally and psychologically they need them,” said Dr. Stratton.

But the transformations are not always seamless. After the Trust for Public Land bought the San Geronimo site, it planned to sell it to Marin County. But a group of local golf advocates successfully sued to block the county’s purchase, saying that an environmental analysis wasn’t completed. They also advanced a ballot measure to limit what the county could do with the land. It was defeated, with some 70 percent of voters in San Geronimo opting for the rewilding to proceed.

Though restoration was delayed, conservation easements were secured for the bulk of the site, preventing future development, and a new plan was developed for Marin County to acquire the land. The county intends to pay the Trust for Public Land $4.9 million for a parcel where the clubhouse stands, and build a firehouse there, according to Dennis Rodoni, the county supervisor. The Trust for Public Land then plans to transfer ownership of the remaining 130-odd open acres to the county.

In Palm Springs, some neighbors of the former Mesquite Golf & Country Club resisted plans to restore that land to a natural state, saying they preferred the vista provided by a manicured 18-hole championship course.

“We once had a very nice view that looked out on the golf course to the mountains,” said Don Olness, who serves on the board of the homeowner’s association of an adjoining condo development. But since the Oswit Land Trust bought the golf course for $9 million in 2022, the area has filled with weeds, dead trees and fallen branches, he said. “It’s basically an unkempt area,” Mr. Olness said.

Citing a lease agreement with the golf course owners, the homeowners’ association has sued to temporarily stop any changes made by the land trust, which bought the course with a donation from Brad Prescott, a philanthropist, and renamed it the Prescott Preserve.

Jane Garrison, the land trust’s founder and executive director, said the pending lawsuit is preventing the trust from accessing a multimillion dollar grant needed to properly restore the land. But of the trust’s five properties, the Prescott Preserve has quickly become the most popular.

The trust removed poison from the course’s maintenance shed, along with poison and gopher traps throughout the site, Ms. Garrison said. She and colleagues came across dead rabbits and owls and an exam confirmed that one ground squirrel had died after consuming rodenticide, which makes predators such as coyotes and bobcats susceptible to mange.

“When you remove all the poison and stop that cycle, you give those species a chance to recover,” Ms. Garrison said.

Though the restoration is just beginning, wildflowers and plants have already reappeared, she said. About 100 native trees, including desert willows, ironwoods and mesquite, were donated by a local nursery and planted. The trust decided to maintain on-site ponds with recycled water because climate change has made it difficult for wildlife to find water.

The group hopes to acquire more golf courses in Palm Springs, which, despite being in a desert, is home to many courses. “When the land is gone, it’s gone forever, once they build condos,” Ms. Garrison. “But when you save it, it’s saved forever. You can’t put a price tag on that.”

In the early 20th century, Bangkok was crowded with foreign expats, but there were no places where people could learn about Thai and Southeast Asian civilization.

Thai and foreign scholars in Bangkok at that time founded 'The Siam Society' in 1904 with a mission to promote knowledge of Thailand's culture, history, arts, and natural sciences and those of neighboring countries. The Society’s activities are guided by its motto: “Knowledge Gives Rise to Friendship.” 

From then to now, almost 120 years, the Siam Society has continued the same mission by expanding the scope of works to evolve with the members' new subjects of interest. Our major activities and services include publishing two journals, The Journal of the Siam Society (JSS) and the Natural History Bulletin (NHBSS), conducting lecture and study trip programs, and conducting cultural exchange programs.

The Siam Society library was recognized as an “Outstanding Specialist Library” by the Thai Library Association in 2014, it opens for both members and non-members. We also own a Northern Thai House Museum called Kamthieng House, which represents one of the finest traditional buildings with low-carbon cultural heritage and tells the story of the Northern Thai people's way of life. The museum will be closed from the end of this year to October 2024 for a major restoration. 

Apart from the knowledge exchange programs, The Siam Society also works on cultural heritage advocacy through the Siamese Heritage Trust section which I am in charge of. We raise public awareness of cultural heritage issues through panel discussions, partnerships with media, proposing the revision of outdated cultural heritage laws, and campaigning for the review of some inappropriate projects that will have negative impacts on cultural heritage/landscapes.  

Learn more about the Siam Society Under Royal Patronage at https://thesiamsociety.org/

2. Tell us about how you personally got involved with this organization and your work at this organization

My first visit to the Siam Society was around 2010, when a friend invited me to listen to classical music there. I was impressed by its tranquil atmosphere in the heart of Bangkok city and I learned more about what the Siam Society is doing and found we share the same core values. I looked for opportunities to do something at the Siam Society.

Soon after I received my MA in Cultural Management program in 2011 from Chulalongkorn University, I got good news from my professor that The Siam Society Under Royal Patronage was opening a new section for cultural heritage protection. I did not hesitate to apply for this job, and I am sure to be working happily with the civil society organization as it will be more dynamic and challenging.

I love to work on protecting 'cultural heritage' because it contains people's memories, good and bad, inside.

It contains knowledge of people in the past and stories that they were facing, and it provides room for connections between people of yesterday and tomorrow. Protecting cultural heritage is protecting social history, knowledge, and people's memories. 

My section, Siamese Heritage Trust, realized that Thailand’s cultural heritage often faces threats from neglect, lack of funding, commercial encroachment, and inefficient management. The Siamese Heritage Trust aims to raise the visibility of cultural heritage management as a national issue of general public interest. We highlight issues and problems, both tangible and intangible, and generate ideas on how heritage management can be improved. Our scope of interest covers the entire kingdom, focusing on vernacular and community culture and cultural landscapes.

Siam Heritage Trust focuses its work on four areas: knowledge, education, advocacy, and networking. Programmes under these four areas include public conferences, lectures, study trips, seminars, publications, media opinion pieces, workshops, and training courses. Some of our ongoing projects include publishing 'Heritage Matters' monthly column in cooperation with Bangkok Post and The Standard and developing the 'Siamese Heritage Trust Knowledge Hub', a database of heritage partners in Thailand. The founding of the section has made The Siam Society a leader in cultural heritage protection in Thailand. 

Please read more about it here.

However, my current role also covers monitoring SEACHA's activities, namely its Cha-Time monthly talk, and its role in addressing 'Cultural Wisdom' for Climate Action as SEACHA Secretariat. Therefore, whenever opportunities come, I will bring this subject to new audiences and invite them to become our supporters or partners. I also see the necessity of incorporating the cultural wisdom for climate actions into Siamese Heritage Trust's working context in the coming year. 

3. Which countries does Siam Society operate in

We have only one office in Bangkok, but our scope of work covers Southeast Asian countries and more.

We are open to new collaborations with new like-minded partners in SEA and other regions. 

4. Which organizations does Siam Society collaborate with

We have partners around the world. You can find some of them on this webpage. 

To be included on this webpage are Climate Heritage Network, International National Trusts Organisation, Petra National Trust, Europa Nostra, and Julie's Bicycle. 

5. Thailand, with its breathtaking natural beauty, ornate temples, ruins of ancient kingdoms, and tropical landscapes, is a land of art, culture, and beauty.  Tell us about the elements that shaped Thailand's art and culture.

Thailand's rich tapestry of art and culture is a harmonious interplay of various elements deeply rooted in its climate, belief systems, social structure, and shared culture with its neighboring countries. 

In this tropical climate, our ancestors tried wrong and right ways over and over again to adapt themselves until they could stay well in this climate, and it became our culture, our way of life. Characterized by distinct wet and dry seasons, the climate has not only influenced agricultural practices but has also shaped the artistic endeavors of the Thai people. Traditional art forms often depict the vibrant flora and fauna unique to the region, showcasing a profound connection between the artistic heritage and the natural surroundings.

Thai culture, deeply influenced by Theravada Buddhism, contributes significantly to the ornate temples and ruins of ancient kingdoms that dot the landscape. The belief systems play a pivotal role in Thai art's meticulous craftsmanship and intricate details, reflecting the Tri-bhumi cosmology.

Thai art is not a standalone creation but rather a mosaic woven with influences from various neighboring kingdoms and cultures, from Khmer, Indian, Chinese, and European sources. This amalgamation of diverse elements has given rise to a unique and distinctive artistic tradition that reflects the richness of Thailand's historical and cultural connections with its neighbors and beyond.

The social structure of Thailand, historically marked by a monarchy and a hierarchical society, has influenced the patronage of the arts. Royal support has been instrumental in preserving and promoting traditional arts and crafts. 

In essence, Thailand's art and culture are a testament to the symbiotic relationship between its climate, belief systems, social structure, and shared culture and they are in the good hands of Thailand's cultural authority to preserve and promote the study of them. 

However, Thailand has not only beautiful temples and ancient monuments but also living communities of people of different beliefs and cultures.

They are the caretaker of uncountable valuable vernacular traditions and built heritages that are vulnerable to the encroachment of land development. Siamese Heritage Trust is promoting the betterment of Cultural Heritage Management that focuses on the vernacular heritage.

6. Tell us about the Siam Society’s programming as part of SEACHA for Culture at COP28

The Siam Society is the Co-Chair of the working committee on 'Culture for Climate Change' alongside SEACHA, Petra National Trust, and Climate Heritage Network.

Ms. Moe Moe Lwin is the representative from The Siam Society /SEACHA as the Co-Chair. We promote the Call to Action campaign to Thailand and Southeast Asian audiences. We invite non-state parties to support the Call to Action. We informed our cultural authority to be prepared for the newly created GFCBCA and the first-ever cultural ministerial meeting at COP.

We act as event organizers, fundraisers, and program coordinators for the side events. 

7. Tell us about the Siam Society’s collaboration with Climate Heritage Network

We have been a member of the Climate Heritage Network for several years. We have been trying to join some of the working group meetings.

However, because of the time difference, we did not participate with CHN's working group meetings as much as we would like to. 

The engagement with COP28 opens up the way we can really work together for the first time. Thanks to Mr. Andrew Potts, who attended our Conference on "Cultural Wisdom for Climate Action: The Southeast Asian Contribution" in January this year. Thanks for his trust that we are the right network to work with to bring SEA cultural voices to COP28. 

8.  Tell us about Siam Society’s collaboration with Petra Institute

This is also the first time that we have collaborated with Petra National Trust. 

I do believe that working together on such an important project will lead us to fruitful and uncountable collaborations in the future.

9.  Anything else you would like to add

Personally, I have a special interest in intangible culture, such as belief and traditional practices.

Recently, I have an article published in the Journal of the Siam Society on "Community Forests as Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Community Forest Act of 2019" Vol. 110 no.1 (2022). You can read the article here.

I also would like to promote a book, which is a proceedings of The Siam Society/SEACHA Conference on "Cultural Wisdom for Climate Action: The Southeast Asian Contribution," conducted on 12-14 January 2023.

Just scan the QR Code, and you will find good articles telling how cultural wisdom can be used as a tool for climate actions.

10.  How can people reach you

LinkedIn
Jarunee@thesiamsociety.org

Union Farms of Africa (UFA) is an Agro innovation group of cooperatives specialized in maize and cassava, plantains and livestock production, transformation, marketing, distribution, and international linkages. The Union Farms of Africa's vision for the agriculture sector is to ensure food and nutrition security across Africa and to pursue economic growth, social capital development, including the empowerment of youth and women in agricultural activities, while reducing the process of environmental degradation. Its mission is to reduce poverty, increase livelihood, employment through a resilience-based and market-driven approach in pursuit of a countrywide strategy towards climate smart and organic agriculture and supporting value chains and markets development, introducing appropriate policy and technology.

UFA is focused on sustainable farming across Africa, where we bring together partnerships across the value chain to ensure that every component of agriculture value chain is sustained in our project as we plan to replicate the success and proof of concept in Cameroun to other parts of Africa to ensure food security is achieved and sustained using organic inputs. Union Farms of Africa (UFA) is a cooperative using AI to solve food insecurity in Africa. UFA produces high-yielding planting materials and creates markets for its farmers. AI helps UFA monitor crops, predict events, and increase production.

Which services does your organization offer for climate-smart and organic agriculture?

• Regenerative Smart Climate resilience farming
• Agribusiness Training, Consulting, Coaching and International linkages
• Agricultural drone related service
• Organic seed multiplication
• Organic Fertilizer production and Biogas
• Waste recycling

Which countries in Africa does your organization operate in?

Cameroon, Chad, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda, Niger, Nigeria, Kenya, Angola and South Africa.

Does your organization collaborate with the United Nations?

No looking forward to starting collaboration.

What is your programming for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28)?

To connect with partners to can provide rural farmers with renewable energy, crop insurance, green financing, carbon credit trading and AI for African Food System. We want to show showcase our indigenous organic value chains from 10 UFA Members countries in Africa and encourage Africa diaspora to invest in agriculture.

How can businesses and individuals get involved with your organization?

WhatsApp: +237677753273
Email: ufainfoventre@gmail.com
Website: www.unionfarmsofafrica.org

Trainees of UFA Farmers Business School (Females)

GIZ visit to UFA Hybrid Maize Demonstration Farm

A Cross Section of Processed Maize Items

The mushrooms are harvested in a 55,600-hectare (137,400-acre) buffer zone surrounding the national park during the height of the Southern African country’s wet season, from November to April. After harvesting, the fungi are cleaned, dried, and transported by road to Maputo, the capital, more than 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) away. There, they’re packaged and sold under the trade name Supa Mama.

This is the first time that native Mozambican mushrooms have been commercialized in the country.

Gilé covers an area of 286,100 hectares (707,000 acres), much of this covered in miombo woodlands that include tree species, like those from the Brachystegia genus, whose roots host mycorrhizal fungi. These underground networks help the trees absorb nutrients and moisture, and announce their presence in the form of diverse fruiting bodies above the ground: mushrooms.

Providing an economic incentive to protect the trees could be key to leaving them standing while promoting the wild mushroom harvest, says Alessandro Fusari, the Mozambique project manager for the François Sommer Foundation–International Foundation for Wildlife Management (FFS-IGF), an organization that co-manages Gilé with Mozambique’s National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC).

Communities living around Gilé harvest at least 46 species of mushroom for local consumption. These include eyukuli, the trumpet-shaped khaduve (Lactifluus edulis), and the broad-capped namapele (Lactarius densifolius). So far, a total of five species are being harvested and packed for commercial sale under the project.

“Slowly, the community, especially the women, are learning that keeping the trees standing means having a bigger production of mushrooms,” Fusari tells Mongabay. “Since they’re starting to see commercial results, more and more avoid cutting trees.”

The project, which is supported by the French Development Agency, is in its third year, meaning the team doesn’t yet have the hard data to determine its success. But, Fusari says, the reduction in tree cutting “is a clear trend that is happening.”

Mushroom harvesting around Gilé is typically done by women while out doing other tasks, such as gathering firewood. The mushroom project works with 900 or so members of 30 women’s groups drawn from communities living in the national park’s buffer zone.

Gilé National Park is home to animals that include buffalo, wildebeest, sable, waterbuck, and around 50 elephants. Many of these animals were reintroduced from other areas to rebuild the wildlife wiped out during Mozambique’s 1977-1992 civil war.

The work is ongoing. The park will soon receive another 200 buffalo from Marromeu National Reserve, 350 km (217 mi) to the southwest, to bolster its current population of 150.

While the park’s intact miombo woodlands provide suitable habitat for these animals, shifting agriculture—with farmers working plots until the soil is exhausted, then abandoning them to clear new fields—in the buffer zone along its northern, eastern, and southern boundaries is devastating the trees.

Mushroom harvesting, even for commercial gain, won’t solve that problem alone, Roelens says. Mushrooms are seasonal, and yields can vary dramatically from one year to the next.

“Food security is based on agricultural production, and not on nontimber forest products,” he says.

But giving commercial value to something normally only collected for subsistence is part of a wider program to promote sustainable agriculture.

“That’s part of the strategy: to make the forest more valuable and preserved; it’s a key step in that direction,” Roelens says. Honey is also produced in the buffer zone, and FFS-IGF is piloting a project to raise an indigenous species of snail—the koropa (Achatina fulica)—for sale to local buyers.

The switch in status from partial game reserve to full national park does, however, affect the collection of non-timber forest products like these from across the landscape. When it was still a reserve, community members were allowed inside to harvest mushrooms and honey. Its designation as a national park means that, by law, the area is now out of bounds for anything but tourism and research.

Fusari says there may be a workaround.

His organization plans to have a new management plan for the park ready by year-end, which he hopes will reopen access.

“In this management plan, we will try to insert the possibility to use some nontimber forest products in a sustainable way in certain zones of the park,” he says.

The teams collecting mushrooms have already been trained in sustainable harvesting methods. For instance, they cut rather than pull the mushrooms from the ground, to avoid damaging the mycelium, or root-like structure, beneath the surface; they brush the dirt off the mushrooms wherever they pick them, to leave as many spores there as possible; and the women carry their harvest home in open baskets, to allow spore dispersal along the way.

Meanwhile, research is ongoing to determine the diversity of Gilé’s fungi, and to match local names with species recognized by science.

Nitidae is currently working to include Gilé’s edible mushrooms on an inventory of African tropical species curated by experts at Belgium’s Meise Botanic Garden. So far, 16 have been entered into the database—the first such records from Mozambique.

By Ryan Truscott.

Triggered by intense rainfall from a climate-change-supercharged Mediterranean cyclone^⁠, the Libyan dam collapses released floodwater that deposited a portion of the city of Derna in the Mediterranean Sea, drowned thousands of people, displaced tens of thousands more, and has left nearly 300,000^⁠ children at increased risk of disease and malnutrition. Just as unprecedented fires, floods, and storms this year have introduced many people to the dangers of climate change, the immensity of the Derna tragedy has focused attention on the unappreciated risks that dams pose.

The dam-building industry was already in decline long before the Derna disaster. “Peak dams,” the moment when dam-building began to ebb, is now believed to have occurred at least a decade ago^⁠. “There will not be another ‘dam revolution’ to match the scale of the high-intensity dam construction experienced in the early to middle 20th century,” proclaimed a 2021 United Nations University study^⁠. It found that global construction of large dams fell from about 1,500 a year in the late 1970s to about 50 a year in 2020. In Africa, the continent with the highest remaining hydropower potential, a study^⁠ published in Science last month concluded that the decreasing cost of wind and solar energy will make hydroelectric dams non-competitive by 2030.

The increasing danger of dams stems in part from a simple fact: they are aging. Most of the world’s dams were built before 1985^⁠ and are either approaching or have passed the point when they need substantial repair, which is about 50 years old. Yet few are being repaired. In the U.S., where the average dam is 65 years old^⁠, the dangers have been well-documented for decades yet barely heeded. In 2021, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued an infrastructure “report card”^⁠ on which U.S. dams were given a grade of “D”— the same grade dams have received in every ASCE report card since the first in 1998^⁠.

A February 2023 study by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimated that rehabilitating 65,000 of the U.S.’s large- and medium-sized dams would cost $157.5 billion^⁠—a price tag that will continue^⁠ to mount as repair work is deferred. And a 2022 Associated Press analysis identified 2,200 U.S. dams that need repairs and would threaten downstream populations if they fail. State and federal funding for repairs has been increasing^⁠ but nowhere near the amount needed to ensure safety. Politicians once took delight in a new dam’s ribbon-cutting, but they have always shown far less interest in providing funding for the un-sexy job of dam maintenance.

In other countries, where government budgets are far more strained than in the U.S., the situation is much worse. In Libya, the failing dams’ weaknesses were well-known. A study^⁠ of the two dams published last year presciently warned that “immediate measures must be taken for regular maintenance… because in the event of a huge flood, the result will be disastrous” for downstream residents. One reason repairs didn’t take place is that Libya is still reeling from the 2014-2020 civil war and is plagued by two rival administrations. In fact, according to a report^⁠ last week in Foreign Policy, more than $2 million was allocated for maintenance of the two dams in 2012 and 2013, but no work ever took place. Libya is one of dozens of countries where dysfunction stymies dam maintenance.

Climate change also makes dam collapse more likely. The design of virtually all the world’s large dams was based on hydrological records that were often insufficient to begin with and certainly didn’t take climate change into account. Now, not only are those records out-of-date, but the huge variability that climate change has introduced into precipitation levels complicates all dam planning. By making both extended droughts and unprecedented floods more frequent, climate change has forced reductions and even stoppages of hydropower generation of some dams, while also subjecting many to floods bigger than they were designed to withstand. Floods presumed to occur once in 1,000 years may now happen once or twice a decade^⁠. On top of all this, as climate change intensifies, it will generate even bigger storms and floods.

The risk that dams pose to humans^⁠ can be partially offset by more carefully monitoring weather forecasts, releasing water behind dams if necessary^⁠, and installing warning systems that alert imperiled people of the need to evacuate. 

But the best way to eliminate the danger is to remove dams entirely. This is especially true for older dams, whose reservoirs become filled with sediment that displaces water and reduces their effectiveness as electricity generators and water storers—and removal often costs less than repairs. Yet dam removal is still in its infancy. Out of the U.S.’s several million dams^⁠ of all sizes, about 2,000^⁠ mostly small dams have been dismantled. Still, the movement is gaining momentum in the U.S. and Europe.

Removal’s greatest benefit is environmental: in returning rivers to free-flowing conditions, it reunites rivers with their floodplains, restores riparian habitat, improves water quality, and re-enables circulation of migrating fish.

Removal also reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The idea that dams are “clean” is a widespread misconception, still endlessly promoted by international dam builders and sometimes cited erroneously even by environmentalists. But reservoirs—particularly in tropical and sub-tropical regions—emit methane, sometimes copiously, mostly as a byproduct of decomposing plants and other organic matter near reservoir bottoms. A 2021 study in Global Biochemical Cycles found that the world’s reservoirs emit every year the equivalent of more than a gigaton of carbon dioxide—more greenhouse gas than Germany, the world’s sixth largest emitter.

As dams’ immense environmental damage has surfaced in recent decades, it has become apparent that dams and fossil fuels share many of the same attributes. For a time both delivered a bounty that transformed the world, while their environmental liabilities were hidden. They’re poster children for the seductive allures of technology and its transience—of top-down, growth-at-all-costs economic development and the illusion that humans are exempt from nature’s dominion. Now we measure their costs in bodies swept out to sea.

"Humans are inextricably dependent on biodiversity for survival," said Justin Nowakowski, SERC conservation biologist and lead author of the study. "It provides food, fuel, fiber and other ecosystem services that we depend on for life."

Class Struggles

Nowakowski's team captured data for over 1,000 species spanning every continent except Antarctica. They gathered their information from two databases: Living Planet and BioTIME, which contain biodiversity studies compiled from all over the world. The authors examined how 2,239 vertebrate populations fared over time, both inside and outside protected areas. To control for confounding variables, the authors took care that protected versus unprotected sites were as similar as possible in other respects.

On average, vertebrates declined 0.4% per year inside protected areas -- nearly five times more slowly than vertebrates outside protected areas (1.8% per year).

"Protected areas take us from a situation in which biodiversity is not-so-slowly ebbing away, to one where populations are at least close to stable," said Luke Frishkoff, coauthor and assistant professor of biology at the University of Texas at Arlington. "They buy us much-needed time to figure out how to reverse the biodiversity crisis." At these rates, Frishkoff added, populations outside protected areas could see their numbers cut in half in just 40 years. Meanwhile, it would take 170 years for a population in a protected area to undergo the same fate.

Some vertebrate classes benefited more than others. Amphibians and birds inside protected lands enjoyed the biggest reprieves. The authors suspect this is because those classes face some of the biggest threats on the outside. For example, wetland birds are frequent victims of habitat loss. Amphibians, meanwhile, are dying in droves from the chytrid fungus while battling habitat loss and climate change. Their smaller sizes may contribute as well.

"Amphibians typically have fairly small home ranges, and they're also really sensitive to small changes in the environment," said coauthor Jessica Deichmann, an ecologist with the Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation. "So, with amphibians living within protected areas, you're really able to protect more of the habitat that they're utilizing than you are with, say, a mammal that has a really large home range."

However, conversion of land nearby to agriculture or development diminished the benefits of protected areas, and climate change is compounding the problem. Reptiles were found to be especially vulnerable to climate change, even within protected areas. Amphibians suffered more from nearby land conversion. This makes connections between protected areas even more critical to conservation, the authors pointed out -- especially as climate change continues to take its toll.

"Protected areas are tied to a specific place," Nowakowski said. "But species are on the move….We need to design protected areas that are connected and account for this reality."

Protectionist Politics

This study validates the importance of the United Nations' work to protect biodiversity. At the United Nations Biodiversity Conference last December, nearly 200 nations pledged to counter rapid extinctions by protecting 30% of Earth's land and water by 2030. The "30 by 30" commitment created a rush to establish more protected areas. But merely addressing the amount of protected land is not enough according to many conservation experts. It is vital to confirm that protected areas are meeting their primary goal: conserving biodiversity within those areas.

Countries can comply with 30 by 30 by creating 'paper parks' [parks that exist on maps but are largely ineffective]," Deichmann said. "But that will not achieve the desired outcomes of 30 by 30. This study helps us better understand how we can actually achieve 30 by 30, through the creation of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures."

To work well, the data show that protected areas need one more crucial ingredient: a stable, effective government. When the authors ran their analyses, good governance had just as powerful an impact for vertebrates as living in a protected area.

Nations with effective governments often see better enforcement of environmental laws. Corruption-free governments are also less likely to misappropriate conservation money -- and are therefore more likely to get international conservation money in the first place. Government transparency can help with community empowerment as well, according to coauthor Carlos Muñoz Brenes, a social scientist with Conservation International. When local communities have a voice in conservation laws, including about protected lands, those protections frequently work better.

But protected areas alone are not enough. Conservation scientists increasingly recognize that Earth needs a portfolio of approaches to safeguard biodiversity, especially in the face of rapid environmental changes.

"There are mechanisms that are more flexible, that could contribute to protecting those biodiversity values and ecosystem values outside protected areas," Muñoz Brenes said.

As an example, Muñoz Brenes pointed to "payment for ecosystem services" programs. Costa Rica, where Muñoz Brenes was born, has run such a program since 1996. Under the program, funded by a national gas tax, landowners near protected areas receive a payment from the government to preserve forests on their property.

"We have been able to reverse deforestation in Costa Rica, and a great deal thanks to this program," Muñoz Brenes said. "But not only that, we have been able to increase forest cover through this mechanism outside protected areas." Other flexible measures include biological corridors and Indigenous-led protected areas that limit but do not entirely restrict human activity.

LONDON -- A lion has been spotted in Chad's Sena Oura National Park for the first time in almost two decades.

A team of conservationists from the Chadian government and the New York City-based nonprofit Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) released an image on Thursday showing what they described as "a beautiful lioness, in her prime and clearly in great health." The photo was taken on Feb. 22 by a camera trap in Chad's Sena Oura National Park, where lions haven't been seen since 2004, according to the WCS.

t was unclear from the image whether the lioness was alone. Unlike other big cat species, lions -- especially females -- typically live in family units called "prides."

"Our team believes there are more lions out there," WCS spokesperson Stephen Sautner told ABC News.Overall, lions are classified as "vulnerable" on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List. Lions in West and Central Africa are considered "critically endangered," with populations declining by about 66% since the early 1990s. They are genetically distinct from the more robust lion populations in East and Southern Africa, according to the WCS.

Lions are technically considered extinct in Chad's Sena Oura National Park, a protected area of about 182,000 acres that's adjacent to Cameroon's much larger Bouba N'djida National Park, where the big cats "are now increasing and appear to be recolonizing parts of their former range including Sena Oura," according to the WCS.

"The region saw a period of ruthless, organized poaching more than a decade ago, but has since benefitted from a very strong commitment to conservation by the governments of both Cameroon and Chad," the WCS said in a press release. "This has produced better protection of the national parks and wildlife populations are now starting to recover."

The research, led by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) and Conservation International, sheds light on the critical role of effective governance and supports the United Nations’ “30 by 30” initiative.

The findings also emphasize the need for a multifaceted approach to conservation that goes beyond protected areas alone.

Conservation and protected lands

Human activities have dramatically escalated the natural extinction rate of vertebrates, increasing it by 22 times. This rapid loss of biodiversity destabilizes food webs and endangers essential ecological services such as crop pollination, healthy diets, and disease control.

“Humans are inextricably dependent on biodiversity for survival,” says Justin Nowakowski, SERC conservation biologist and lead author of the study. “It provides food, fuel, fiber and other ecosystem services that we depend on for life.”

How the study was conducted

The study involved meticulous data collection for over 1,000 species from every continent, excluding Antarctica, leveraging data from the Living Planet and BioTIME databases.

Nowakowski’s team studied 2,239 vertebrate populations, comparing the states of species within and outside protected areas. The research revealed that vertebrates inside protected areas are declining at a rate of 0.4% per year, nearly five times more slowly than those in unprotected areas (1.8% per year).

The significance of protected lands

Protected areas offer a refuge where biodiversity is closer to stability. “They buy us much-needed time to figure out how to reverse the biodiversity crisis,” stated Luke Frishkoff, coauthor and assistant professor of biology at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Frishkoff further noted that populations outside protected areas could halve in 40 years, while those inside would take 170 years to face a similar fate.

Impact on different species

The study found that certain vertebrate classes, notably amphibians and birds, benefitted more within protected lands. This is likely due to the severe threats they face outside, including habitat loss, climate change, and diseases like the chytrid fungus affecting amphibians.

“Amphibians typically have fairly small home ranges, and they’re also really sensitive to small changes in the environment,” said Jessica Deichmann, coauthor and ecologist with the Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation.

Challenges and external factors

However, the conversion of nearby land for agriculture and development along with climate change continue to undermine the efficacy of protected areas. The research team made sure to highlight the urgent need for interconnected protected zones and adaptive strategies that align with the ecological fluidity, as species are constantly moving.

The findings also reaffirm the UN’s commitment made last December, where nearly 200 nations pledged to protect 30% of Earth’s land and water by 2030. This ambitious roadmap is called the “30 by 30” initiative.

While this commitment has fueled a surge in establishing protected lands, the study cautions against mere compliance through ‘paper parks’ and emphasizes actual biodiversity conservation within these regions.

In addition, effective governance emerged as a crucial factor in successful conservation efforts. Nations with transparent and corruption-free governments are often more efficient in enforcing environmental laws, managing conservation funds and involving local communities in conservation laws.

Beyond protected lands

Conservation experts are advocating for diverse strategies to conserve biodiversity. Examples include “payment for ecosystem services” programs, such as the one in Costa Rica, which incentivizes landowners to preserve forests. These innovative models, along with biological corridors and Indigenous-led protected areas, offer flexible and effective alternatives to traditional conservation approaches.

In summary, the study by SERC and Conservation International illustrates the pivotal role of protected areas in biodiversity conservation, but also emphasizes the necessity for comprehensive strategies that encompass effective governance, community involvement, and innovative conservation models.

By adopting such holistic approaches, humanity can hope to curb the ongoing biodiversity crisis and ensure the survival and thriving of myriad species on Earth.

The full study was published in the journal Nature.

The referendum will give voters the chance to decide whether oil companies can continue to drill in one of the most biodiverse places on the planet, the Yasuní National Park, home to the last uncontacted indigenous communities in Ecuador.

The park encompasses around one million hectares at the meeting point of the Amazon, the Andes and the Equator. Just one hectare of Yasuní land supposedly contains more animal species than the whole of Europe and more tree species than exist in all of North America.

But underneath the land lies Ecuador’s largest reserve of crude oil.

“We are leading the world in tackling climate change by bypassing politicians and democratizing environmental decisions,” said Pedro Bermo, the spokesman for Yasunidos, an environmental collective who pushed for the referendum.

It’s been a decade-long battle that began when former President Rafael Correa boldly proposed that the international community give Ecuador $3.6 billion to leave Yasuní undisturbed. But the world wasn’t as generous as Correa expected. In 2016, the Ecuadorian state oil company began drilling in Block 43 – around 0.01% of the National Park – which today produces more than 55,000 barrels a day, amounting to around 12% of Ecuador’s oil production.

A continuous crusade of relentless campaigning and a successful petition eventually made its mark – in May, the country’s constitutional court authorized the vote to be included on the ballot of the upcoming election.

It’s a decision that will likely be instrumental to the future of Ecuador’s economy. Supporters who want to continue drilling believe the loss of employment opportunities would be disastrous.

“The backers of the request for crude to remain underground made it ten years ago when there wasn’t anything. 10 years later we find ourselves with 55,000 barrels per day, that’s 20 million barrels per year,” Energy Minister Fernando Santos told local radio.

“At $60 a barrel that’s $1.2 billion,” he added. “It could cause huge damage to the country,” he said, referring to economic damage and denying there has been environmental harm.

Alberto Acosta-Burneo, an economist and editor of the Weekly Analysis bulletin, said Ecuador would be “shooting itself in the foot” if it shut down drilling. In a video posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, he said that without cutting consumption all it would mean is another country selling Ecuador fuel.

“This election has two faces,” explained Bermo.

“On one hand we have the violence, the candidates, parties, and the same political mafias that governed Ecuador without significant changes.

“On the other hand, the referendum is the contrary – a citizen campaign full of hope, joy, art, activism and a lot of collective work to save this place. We are very optimistic.”

Among those campaigning to stop the drilling is Helena Gualinga, an indigenous rights advocate who hails from a remote village in the Ecuadorian Amazon – home of the Kichwa Sarayaku community.

ditor of the Weekly Analysis bulletin, said Ecuador would be “shooting itself in the foot” if it shut down drilling. In a video posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, he said that without cutting consumption all it would mean is another country selling Ecuador fuel.

But ‘yes’ campaigners have ideas to fill the gap, from the promotion of eco-tourism and the electrification of public transport to eliminating tax exemptions. They claim that cutting the subsidies to the richest 10% of the country would generate four times more than what is obtained extracting oil from Yasuní.

“This referendum presents a huge opportunity for us to create change in a tangible way,” she told CNN.

For Gualinga, the most crucial part of the referendum is that if Yasunidos wins, the state oil company will have a one-year deadline to wrap up its operations in Block 43.

She explained that some oil companies have left areas in the Amazon without properly shutting down operations and restoring the area.

“This sentence would mean they have to do that.”

Those who wish to continue drilling in the area argue that meeting the one-year deadline to dismantle operations would be impossible.

The referendum comes as the world faces blistering temperatures, with scientists declaring July as the hottest month on record, and the Amazon approaching what studies are suggesting is a critical tipping point that could have severe implications in the fight to tackle climate change.

And according to Antonia Juhasz, a Senior Researcher on Fossil Fuels at Human Rights Watch, it’s time for Ecuador to transition to a post-oil era. Ecuador’s GDP from oil has dropped significantly from around 18% in 2008, to just over 6% in 2021.

She believes the benefits of protecting the Amazon outweigh the benefits of maintaining dependence on oil, particularly considering the cost of regular oil spills and the consequences of worsening the climate crisis.

“The Amazon is worth more intact than in pieces, as are its people,” she said.

 “We are off to a good start. We now call for further pledges from countries and from other sources so that the first projects under the new fund can be launched next year,” said David Cooper, acting executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

Representatives from 185 countries were present at the meeting. The fund is set up within the Global Environment Facility (GEF) — a mechanism established under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The fund's creation comes after more than 190 countries signed a pact at the Montreal COP15 summit in December 2022 to protect nature and reverse decades of environmental damage which threatens biodiversity.

That pact's objective was to raise US$ 30 billion annually in conservation aid for developing countries, securing 30% of the planet as a protected zone and bringing an end to extinction of threatened species caused by human activity.

The GBFF will allocate 20% of its collection towards indigenous-led initiatives to conserve biodiversity. It will also prioritize island states which are most vulnerable and among the world's least developed nations.

The United Nations called for contributions to help meet its US$ 30 billion goal for the year.

Speaking of the GBFF, campaign group Avaaz said the US$ 160 million raised was not enough startup money and that another US$40 million was required to make the fund operational by the end of 2023.

It urged governments, including that of Japan and the United States to “put money on the table.”

“The time for half-measures has passed,” Avaaz director Oscar Soria said. “Surely donors can come up with the paltry US$ 40 million” needed to get the fund up and running.