Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

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

Avocados are a ‘green gold’ export for Mexico, but growing them is harming forests and waters

News Feed
Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Consumers' love for avocados in the United States seems to know no bounds. From 2001 through 2020, consumption of this fruit laden with healthy fats tripled nationwide, rising to over 8 pounds per person yearly. On average, 90% of those avocados are grown in the southwest Mexican state of Michoacán. As with other foods that have become trendy, such as acai berries, or widely used, such as palm oil, intensive avocado production is causing significant environmental damage. My research on 20th-century Latin American environmental history examines how the transnational movement of people, foods and agricultural technologies has changed rural landscapes in Latin America. Currently, I'm writing a book on the development of a global avocado industry centered in Michoacán, the world's largest avocado-growing region. Michoacán has a large Indigenous population and an economy based on agriculture, fishing and ranching. CrazyPhunk/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA My research shows that raising avocados is economically beneficial in the short term for farmers, which in Latin America typically means medium-sized operators and agribusinesses. It also helps growers – people in rural areas who grow subsistence crops. Over time, though, every serving of avocado toast takes a toll on Michoacán's land, forests and water supply. Rural growers, who lack the resources of large-scale farmers, feel those impacts most keenly.   The environmental effects of monoculture Michoacán is the only place on earth that grows avocados year-round, thanks to its temperate climate, abundant rainfall and deep, porous volcanic soils that are rich in potassium, a vital plant nutrient. Even under favorable conditions, however, monocultures are never environmentally sustainable. Introducing homogeneous, high-yielding plant varieties leads growers to abandon native crops. This makes the local ecosystem more vulnerable to threats such as pest infestations and reduces food options. It also erodes fertile soils and increases use of agrochemicals. Monoculture also can drive deforestation. Mexican officials estimate that avocado production spurred the clearance of 2,900 to 24,700 acres of forests per year from 2010 through 2020. And it's resource intensive: Avocado trees consume four to five times more water than Michoacán's native pines, jeopardizing water resources for human consumption. Avocados generate billions of dollars in export revenue for Mexico, but growing them imposes heavy costs at home.   Bred in California Avocados have been a part of the Mexican diet since ancient Mesoamerica, but the Hass – the most popular variety worldwide today – was bred in modern California. In the late 19th century, scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture embarked on a mission to collect and send home samples of food plants from around the world. The goal was to adapt and grow these plants in the United States, reducing the need for food imports. Collecting plant genetic material from Latin America and imposing quarantines on avocados from Mexico starting in 1914 provided vital support for the development of a U.S. avocado industry. Farmers in California and Florida bred multiple strains from the material that USDA explorers collected. But U.S. consumers in the early 1900s weren't familiar with this new food and hesitated to buy avocados of various textures, sizes and colors. In response, farmers began selecting plants that grew avocados with small seeds, abundant flesh, hard skin, a creamy texture – and, most importantly, high yields. According to industry lore, Rudolph Hass, a postman and amateur horticulturalist in Southern California, stumbled on a new variety in the late 1920s while trying to propagate a variety called Rideout. Within several decades, the Hass became the dominant avocado grown in California. By the 1950s, Mexican farmers who had connections with U.S. brokers had introduced the Hass south of the border.   How the Hass changed Michoacán In the early 1960s, Michoacano cantaloupe farmers acquired lands to expand their production by growing avocados. Soon they focused on exclusively producing the Hass. Many local Indigenous Purhépecha people, along with non-Indigenous campesinos, or country farmers, rented or sold land to the emerging avocado farmer class. In the 1980s, campesinos began to grow the fruit too. This was an expensive, long-term undertaking: It took four years for the trees to produce marketable avocados, but growers had to buy the trees, clear land for them and provide water, fertilizer and pesticides to help them grow. Cantaloupe farmers could afford to invest capital for four years with no cash return. Campesinos had to rely on loans or remittances from family members abroad to develop avocado orchards. As production expanded, agrochemical distributors, tree nurseries and packing houses sprouted on Purhépecha lands, clearing native pine trees and eroding the fertile soils. Mexico passed a law in 2003 that prohibited clearing forests for commercial agriculture, but by this time campesinos in Michoacán were already growing Hass avocados on a large scale.   The guacamole wars: NAFTA and avocados After the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, California avocado farmers lobbied to maintain a quarantine that the USDA had imposed on Mexican avocado trees in 1914 because of an alleged plague. After three years of drought in California and testing of Michoacán orchards for pests, Mexico began shipping Hass avocados to the U.S. in 1997. However, the only region the USDA certified to send avocados to the United States was Michoacán. Mexico had to allow the USDA to station agents in Michoacán to verify that certified orchards fulfilled agreed conditions to minimize the risks of plant diseases. Companies such as Calavo, a California-based produce distributor, began to buy, pack and ship avocados grown in Michoacán to U.S. customers. In the process, they became major competitors for California avocado farmers.   Beyond monoculture Today, avocados are one of the most-regulated exports from Mexico. However, these rules do little to address the industry's environmental impacts. Farmers in Michoacán continue to clear woodlands, spray agrochemicals, exhaust aquifers and buy Purhépecha communal property, converting it to smaller, privately owned lots. Rising profits have spurred violence and corruption as some local authorities collude with organized crime groups to expand the market. In 2022, the U.S. briefly suspended Mexican avocado imports after a U.S. plant safety inspector in Michoacán received a threatening phone call. Visiting Michoacán on Feb. 26, 2024, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar pledged that the U.S. would modify its protocol to block imports of avocados grown in illegal orchards. However, this won't restore local ecosystems. As I see it, expecting small-scale growers to protect the environment, after the ecology and economy of Michoacán has been radically altered in the name of free markets and development, puts responsibility in the wrong place. And boycotting Mexican avocados likely would simply lead growers to look for other markets. Diversifying agriculture in the region and reforesting Michoacán could help to restore the Sierra Purhepecha's ecology and protect the rural economy. One Indigenous community there is successfully growing peaches and lemons for the domestic market and avocados for the international market, while also planting native pines on their communal lands. This is a potential model for other farmers, although it would be hard to replicate without state support. In my view, importing avocados from different areas of Mexico and the world to reduce the Hass market share may be the most effective environmental protection strategy. In 2022, the USDA approved imports of avocados grown in the Mexican state of Jalisco. This is a start, but Jalisco will follow Michoacán's trajectory unless the U.S. finds more sources and promotes more avocado types. As U.S. eaters' tastes become more adventurous, sampling avocados of different sizes, shapes, textures, tastes and origins could become a decision that's both epicurean and environmentally conscious. Viridiana Hernández Fernández, Assistant Professor of Latin American Environmental History, University of Iowa This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

"Over time, though, every serving of avocado toast takes a toll on Michoacán's land, forests and water supply"

Consumers' love for avocados in the United States seems to know no bounds. From 2001 through 2020, consumption of this fruit laden with healthy fats tripled nationwide, rising to over 8 pounds per person yearly.

On average, 90% of those avocados are grown in the southwest Mexican state of Michoacán. As with other foods that have become trendy, such as acai berries, or widely used, such as palm oil, intensive avocado production is causing significant environmental damage.

My research on 20th-century Latin American environmental history examines how the transnational movement of people, foods and agricultural technologies has changed rural landscapes in Latin America. Currently, I'm writing a book on the development of a global avocado industry centered in Michoacán, the world's largest avocado-growing region.

Map of Mexico with the state of Michoacán highlighted

Michoacán has a large Indigenous population and an economy based on agriculture, fishing and ranching. CrazyPhunk/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

My research shows that raising avocados is economically beneficial in the short term for farmers, which in Latin America typically means medium-sized operators and agribusinesses. It also helps growers – people in rural areas who grow subsistence crops. Over time, though, every serving of avocado toast takes a toll on Michoacán's land, forests and water supply. Rural growers, who lack the resources of large-scale farmers, feel those impacts most keenly.

 

The environmental effects of monoculture

Michoacán is the only place on earth that grows avocados year-round, thanks to its temperate climate, abundant rainfall and deep, porous volcanic soils that are rich in potassium, a vital plant nutrient. Even under favorable conditions, however, monocultures are never environmentally sustainable.

Introducing homogeneous, high-yielding plant varieties leads growers to abandon native crops. This makes the local ecosystem more vulnerable to threats such as pest infestations and reduces food options. It also erodes fertile soils and increases use of agrochemicals.

Monoculture also can drive deforestation. Mexican officials estimate that avocado production spurred the clearance of 2,900 to 24,700 acres of forests per year from 2010 through 2020. And it's resource intensive: Avocado trees consume four to five times more water than Michoacán's native pines, jeopardizing water resources for human consumption.

Avocados generate billions of dollars in export revenue for Mexico, but growing them imposes heavy costs at home.

 

Bred in California

Avocados have been a part of the Mexican diet since ancient Mesoamerica, but the Hass – the most popular variety worldwide today – was bred in modern California.

In the late 19th century, scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture embarked on a mission to collect and send home samples of food plants from around the world. The goal was to adapt and grow these plants in the United States, reducing the need for food imports.

Collecting plant genetic material from Latin America and imposing quarantines on avocados from Mexico starting in 1914 provided vital support for the development of a U.S. avocado industry. Farmers in California and Florida bred multiple strains from the material that USDA explorers collected. But U.S. consumers in the early 1900s weren't familiar with this new food and hesitated to buy avocados of various textures, sizes and colors.

In response, farmers began selecting plants that grew avocados with small seeds, abundant flesh, hard skin, a creamy texture – and, most importantly, high yields. According to industry lore, Rudolph Hass, a postman and amateur horticulturalist in Southern California, stumbled on a new variety in the late 1920s while trying to propagate a variety called Rideout.

Within several decades, the Hass became the dominant avocado grown in California. By the 1950s, Mexican farmers who had connections with U.S. brokers had introduced the Hass south of the border.

 

How the Hass changed Michoacán

In the early 1960s, Michoacano cantaloupe farmers acquired lands to expand their production by growing avocados. Soon they focused on exclusively producing the Hass.

Many local Indigenous Purhépecha people, along with non-Indigenous campesinos, or country farmers, rented or sold land to the emerging avocado farmer class. In the 1980s, campesinos began to grow the fruit too. This was an expensive, long-term undertaking: It took four years for the trees to produce marketable avocados, but growers had to buy the trees, clear land for them and provide water, fertilizer and pesticides to help them grow.

Cantaloupe farmers could afford to invest capital for four years with no cash return. Campesinos had to rely on loans or remittances from family members abroad to develop avocado orchards.

As production expanded, agrochemical distributors, tree nurseries and packing houses sprouted on Purhépecha lands, clearing native pine trees and eroding the fertile soils. Mexico passed a law in 2003 that prohibited clearing forests for commercial agriculture, but by this time campesinos in Michoacán were already growing Hass avocados on a large scale.

 

The guacamole wars: NAFTA and avocados

After the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, California avocado farmers lobbied to maintain a quarantine that the USDA had imposed on Mexican avocado trees in 1914 because of an alleged plague. After three years of drought in California and testing of Michoacán orchards for pests, Mexico began shipping Hass avocados to the U.S. in 1997.

However, the only region the USDA certified to send avocados to the United States was Michoacán. Mexico had to allow the USDA to station agents in Michoacán to verify that certified orchards fulfilled agreed conditions to minimize the risks of plant diseases.

Companies such as Calavo, a California-based produce distributor, began to buy, pack and ship avocados grown in Michoacán to U.S. customers. In the process, they became major competitors for California avocado farmers.

 

Beyond monoculture

Today, avocados are one of the most-regulated exports from Mexico. However, these rules do little to address the industry's environmental impacts.

Farmers in Michoacán continue to clear woodlands, spray agrochemicals, exhaust aquifers and buy Purhépecha communal property, converting it to smaller, privately owned lots. Rising profits have spurred violence and corruption as some local authorities collude with organized crime groups to expand the market.

In 2022, the U.S. briefly suspended Mexican avocado imports after a U.S. plant safety inspector in Michoacán received a threatening phone call.

Visiting Michoacán on Feb. 26, 2024, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar pledged that the U.S. would modify its protocol to block imports of avocados grown in illegal orchards. However, this won't restore local ecosystems.

As I see it, expecting small-scale growers to protect the environment, after the ecology and economy of Michoacán has been radically altered in the name of free markets and development, puts responsibility in the wrong place. And boycotting Mexican avocados likely would simply lead growers to look for other markets.

Diversifying agriculture in the region and reforesting Michoacán could help to restore the Sierra Purhepecha's ecology and protect the rural economy. One Indigenous community there is successfully growing peaches and lemons for the domestic market and avocados for the international market, while also planting native pines on their communal lands. This is a potential model for other farmers, although it would be hard to replicate without state support.

In my view, importing avocados from different areas of Mexico and the world to reduce the Hass market share may be the most effective environmental protection strategy. In 2022, the USDA approved imports of avocados grown in the Mexican state of Jalisco. This is a start, but Jalisco will follow Michoacán's trajectory unless the U.S. finds more sources and promotes more avocado types.

As U.S. eaters' tastes become more adventurous, sampling avocados of different sizes, shapes, textures, tastes and origins could become a decision that's both epicurean and environmentally conscious.

Viridiana Hernández Fernández, Assistant Professor of Latin American Environmental History, University of Iowa

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Costa Rica Mandates Mangrove Restoration at RIU Guanacaste Hotel

Costa Rica’s Environmental Administrative Tribunal has issued a directive for the RIU Guanacaste hotel complex to repair mangrove and forest areas harmed during its construction in Playa Matapalo, Guanacaste. This decision wraps up a dispute that has dragged on for over 15 years, holding the developers accountable for altering sensitive coastal ecosystems. The tribunal’s ruling, […] The post Costa Rica Mandates Mangrove Restoration at RIU Guanacaste Hotel appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica’s Environmental Administrative Tribunal has issued a directive for the RIU Guanacaste hotel complex to repair mangrove and forest areas harmed during its construction in Playa Matapalo, Guanacaste. This decision wraps up a dispute that has dragged on for over 15 years, holding the developers accountable for altering sensitive coastal ecosystems. The tribunal’s ruling, numbered 1403-2025, pins responsibility on SE Costa Rica Hotelera de Guanacaste S.A., the property owner, and Yitzak Investments S.A., which handled the site’s groundwork. Inspectors found clear evidence of mangrove loss and other harms in the public maritime zone along Matapalo beach in Carrillo. Back in 2007, the area featured intact mangroves and tree cover in the public zone. By 2009, changes were stark: two wooded sections totaling 6,994 square meters and 5,960 square meters were impacted, an 8,233-square-meter mangrove patch was wiped out through filling and material dumping, and an unnamed stream’s path was shifted, damaging its protected buffer. The court linked these issues directly to debris from the RIU project’s building phase. Mangroves shield coasts from erosion, nurture marine life, and store carbon effectively. Local groups have pointed out that such losses weaken the bay’s health to favor one major tourism venture. To fix this, the tribunal requires the companies to revert the site to its prior state. They must submit a detailed technical plan within 30 business days, outlining fill removal and mangrove revival, backed by expert input and a timeline. The National System of Conservation Areas must approve it, with full work done in three years and yearly updates sent to the tribunal. Separately, the ruling calls for a plan to clear structures from the stream’s bed and restore its flow and buffer. No financial penalty applies here, as the court deemed it unfit for this scenario. RIU Hotels & Resorts responded to inquiries from us in the media, noting the ruling’s arrival but emphasizing its non-final status. The chain plans to pursue all legal options to contest it, claiming the project held all required permits and expecting a thorough review to clarify events. Given that tribunal outcomes can lead to further agency steps or court appeals, this matter may linger in the system even as restoration deadlines approach. The case traces to 2009, when residents and advocates reported filling, tree removal, and water changes. Organizations like Confraternidad Guanacasteca pushed through delays, with Constitutional Court interventions urging timely resolution. Critics say holdups let the development solidify, complicating fixes. Now, the verdict sets a benchmark for similar coastal clashes, though enforcement remains key. This outcome signals broader lessons for coastal growth in Costa Rica. It stresses that mangroves and public zones cannot be sacrificed for projects promising employment and revenue. Firms face not only halts to harm but active ecosystem repairs under supervision. It also exposes institutional slowdowns, where community persistence proved essential. For those in Guanacaste’s tourism scene, the decision underscores hidden stories of land and resource conflicts behind beachfront appeal. Over the coming years, focus shifts to on-site progress: clearing fills, fixing water flows, replanting, and official checks to ensure real change. After prolonged advocacy and interim steps, the court has confirmed what was noted long ago: the Matapalo mangrove suffered, and recovery is due. The post Costa Rica Mandates Mangrove Restoration at RIU Guanacaste Hotel appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

How a former Forest Service employee changed the future of housing in California

One April night eight years ago, two tech leaders sat down with a former Forest Service employee at Terroir, a natural wine bar in San Francisco. Then they started sketching out a plan that would eventually reshape California’s housing policy. Landmark housing reforms that passed in the state in 2025, one that allows more housing to be built near transit stops, and another curbing the use of environmental law to block new housing—and which many believed would never succeed—can be traced back to that night, five bottles of wine, and crucial backing from Silicon Valley executives. An unlikely new leader Brian Hanlon, the Forest Service employee, was an unlikely leader for a new housing movement. Hanlon moved to the Bay Area in 2010 after dropping out of a Ph.D. program, and got a job managing grant paperwork for USFS. He wasn’t planning to work on housing; he considered becoming a winemaker. But he soon saw the impact of California’s housing policy directly. When he first arrived in the area, apartments were still relatively affordable. Within a year, he saw demand spike: every open house he visited had 20 to 30 people competing for the same apartment. Over the next couple of years, as rents in the city continued to rise, Hanlon got involved with rental advocacy groups, but quickly saw the limitations. He felt advocates weren’t engaging with what he saw as a basic problem: restrictive policy made it too difficult to build housing, and the shortage of housing—not just landlords trying to extract higher rents from renters—was what was driving up prices. “Even then, I was like, ‘It’s not landlord greed.’ There aren’t enough homes. Landlords are just as greedy in Houston, Texas, or wherever else,” he says. “I kind of got excommunicated from that movement because I believed in more housing.” A friend introduced him to Sonia Trauss, a math teacher who had started advocating for new housing development at planning meetings—a YIMBY (“yes in my backyard”) counterpart to the resistance to new construction that was common in San Francisco, which is commonly characterized as NIMBY (“not in my backyard”). This resistance came largely from two separate, but sometimes aligned, groups: first, homeowners who believe new constructions of apartments around their homes will lower the resale value, obstruct their views, and otherwise affect “the neighborhood character”; and second, advocates for low-income tenants who believe that the new construction pushed by the YIMBY movement in gentrifying working-class neighborhoods will accelerate the damaging process of pricing out long-time residents. The first group is more powerful politically at the state level, but at the start of Hanlon and Trauss’s advocacy in San Francisco, many of the fights were with the second, leading to vitriolic conflict in the city (and online). Trauss faced intense criticism for comparing tenant advocates to Trump voters during a speech at hearing. And in one incident, Hanlon was at a public film screening about the eviction crisis, talking with a resident who was fighting a plan to demolish his apartment building, when an activist forced him out of the event, screaming “Get the fuck out!” As the conflicts continued in San Francisco, Hanlon decided he needed to do more than tackle one planning meeting—and one building—at a time. After he and Trauss secured some funding, they founded a nonprofit, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, and filed a lawsuit against a Bay Area suburb for not building enough housing. They lost the suit, and Hanlon realized that they needed to change direction. “I was like, alright, well, we’re going to fail as a nonprofit if we don’t change the law,” he says. Rewriting the law With help from a likeminded developer he’d met, Hanlon brought together a group of land-use attorneys, planners, and other developers and explained why the lawsuit had failed and how he wanted the law to change so cities would have to allow more construction. Hanlon copied the existing law into Microsoft Word, rewrote it based on feedback from the group, and then gave it to a lawyer to draft a real version of a potential bill. Then he started heading to Sacramento, meeting with anyone who’d talk. A lawyer from the Building Industry Association told him that he was wasting his time. “I’m like, alright, thanks for your feedback,” he says. “And then I just kept going.” At the time, he had little money and few connections. At a housing conference, he entered a contest to meet the new chair of the state’s Department of Housing Development—the competition involved guessing the number of Monopoly houses in a giant jar. “I remembered a little bit of middle school geometry or something, and I just looked at the jar and did the right math and guessed the right number of houses,” he says. He won a lunch with Ben Metcalf, the new chair, and peppered him with questions about housing reform in the state. Meanwhile, he was starting to make more connections in the tech industry. Trauss had already gotten some support from tech CEOs like Yelp’s Jeremy Stoppleman, who saw that the housing shortage could hurt their industry since it was so hard for employees to find a place to live. Like others, he’d read a viral article in TechCrunch from Kim-Mai Cutler explaining how housing policy restricted development. “That story really helped put everything in perspective—like, oh, this is actually by design,” Stoppleman says. “[It was] many years of decisions to specifically constrain housing production, density, and growth. That created a real point of frustration as a person leading a business with thousands of employees here in the Bay Area.” Hanlon met Zack Rosen, CEO of the WebOps platform Pantheon, on Twitter. “I got in a fight with him on the internet,” Rosen says. “I got into one of those things where it was back and forth, back and forth, and by the third time, I’m like, man, I don’t know what I’m talking about.” He suggested to Hanlon that they meet up for coffee, and they became friends. Rosen, too, wanted to invest in a solution to the housing crisis. “The tech industry didn’t create these terrible housing policies, they predate us,” Rosen says. “However, the success of our industry and these terrible housing policies are a train wreck. The net effect of that train wreck is immiseration for the state of California—you know, teachers teaching [while] homeless in San Francisco. I mean, it’s insane. So for me, it was like, look, the tech industry has a special responsibility to help solve it.” A few weeks later, Hanlon ran into Rosen in Sacramento, along with Nat Friedman—the former CEO of Github, now head of Meta’s Superintelligence Labs, who had come to Sacramento to talk about housing with an assemblymember. They started walking through the capital building, and knocked on the door of the governor’s office, where they managed to wrangle a meeting with staffers on the fly. Policymakers wanted to act, but the issue was complex, and they needed help understanding what laws could truly help. On the drive back home, Rosen started thinking about partnering with Hanlon. Making a bet on a new startup nonprofit They stayed in touch, and nearly a year later, Rosen, Friedman, and Hanlon met at the wine bar to talk about the potential for a new nonprofit. They talked for hours, closing out the bar. Hanlon pitched them on the vision of a new housing advocacy organization for the state that would work on new policy, build coalitions and a grassroots movement, and massively scale up homebuilding. At the time, Hanlon was still working on a shoestring budget, helping shepherd a housing bill called SB 167—based on what he’d drafted earlier—through the committee process. “Imagine all that we could do if I had a real team and a real budget?” he said. They didn’t know exactly how the new organization would work. “We ended up with more questions than answers,” says Rosen. “But we had a direction. We had a strategy.” They were sold on the idea. “It was reminiscent to me of the beginnings of a great startup,” he says. “It just felt like hey, here’s this obvious idea. No one’s doing it. Is it possible to do? Absolutely. Is it incredibly difficult to do? Absolutely. Let’s go do it.” Within a couple of months, they had raised hundreds of thousands for the project. Hanlon resigned from his previous nonprofit with Trauss. Rosen joined the new organization, California YIMBY, as a cofounder. It’s something that probably only would have happened in San Francisco. “I don’t think I ever would have raised this sort of philanthropic capital just given my profile—I’m some guy who was working for the Forest Service and moved to the Mission because I was really into wine, fixed gear bikes, and shows,” Hanlon says. “That doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to make a big bet on to try to rebuild the built environment of the world’s fourth largest economy.” But his vision resonated with them, and with friends of Friedman’s who gave to the new nonprofit. “Brian’s a mile a minute—very fast on his feet, very thoughtful, had clearly done tons of research, knew his stuff,” says Stoppleman. “It was a really unique strategy that he was laying out. For me, it’s exciting to meet people at that stage when they’re just getting going. Obviously brilliant, lots of energy, a lot of passion, probably some naivete. There is a parallel, 100%, to the startup world.” The tech leaders who put in money also were willing to try something new. “I don’t mean to just make a paean to enlightened tech leaders, but I will say, San Francisco’s entrepreneurial tech leaders don’t treat the status quo or entrenched power as immutable reality,” says Hanlon. “They treat it as problems to be solved and building a new future. And that’s rare and uncommon….I think there’s this real sense that we’re not on this Earth for very long, it’s good and right to work quickly to solve your problems. And also, that failure isn’t the worst thing. The worst thing is not trying, or trying and not being ambitious.” Sweeping changes in policy After the nonprofit was founded in 2017—as a 501(c)(4) organization, so it’s allowed to lobby full time—it led advocacy for SB 167, a bill that made it harder for cities to fail to comply with state laws designed to force cities to approve more housing. The organization also fought for new laws that make it easier to build ADUs and “missing middle” housing like duplexes. But the biggest victories, after earlier failed attempts, came this year. First, the state passed a set of laws that reform CEQA, the California’s environmental law, which has sometimes been used as a method to stop development. Some housing now has a faster review process under the law. When the nonprofit first began working on CEQA reform, they were told that it was impossible. This fall, the state also passed SB 79, a law that legalizes large apartment buildings near major transit stops throughout the state—even when local laws restrict density or height. That can help significantly shrink the state’s housing shortage. In L.A., alone, by one estimate, it will eventually zone for 1.46 million new housing units. Along with CEQA reform, it was something they’d first talked about at the wine bar. “That was really was got Nat and Zack excited that night,” Hanlon says. Earlier attempts to pass the law, including a bill introduced in 2018, helped change the conversation about housing. Academics had long argued for more housing near transit, but this type of policy was new. “That’s the first bill, to my knowledge, that had actually been commensurate with the scale of the problem to actually solve it,” Hanlon says. It died quickly in committee, but got people talking in other cities. In New York City, the planning office held a meeting to discuss it. Other advocacy groups in other states started considered new changes to state policy. The latest version of the bill barely passed. It’s likely the only bill in the history of the state, Hanlon says, to become law after “rolling” the first two policy committee chairs, meaning it passed over their objections. The bill had to make it through nine votes, and then the governor’s vote. At each step, it barely made it. “This was incredibly, incredibly hard fought.” Still, he says, despite fierce opposition to the bill, including citizen protests and formal opposition from dozens of city councils, the debate was less heated than it had been in the past. Previous bills had faced widespread, statewide activism in large town halls and protests—many of which were organized by Livable California, a group of homeowners founded by a former oil executive that fights zoning changes and regulations that would make it easier to build apartemts—along with a deluge of op-eds and even a study with false data that argued that Los Angeles could meet its housing needs with vacant apartments. Now, the ideas behind the YIMBY have now become more mainstream. Policymakers have largely accepted the idea that the housing shortage is a supply problem, and that policy has held back development. “YIMBY benefits from being correct,” says Rosen. “It’s real. It’s substantive. It’s right. It also benefits from taking what should be an obscure issue like zoning, and turning it into something that’s real and personal for people—housing. And that was clear from the beginning.” When the YIMBY movement started to take off, “what wasn’t clear was how you would translate that movement that was getting attention into change of government that would enable a boom in housing,” he says. “There’s a huge leap between those things. We’ve got a long list of modern-day political movements that capture attention and don’t deliver the outcome. it’s not that any of the work of translating attention in a movement into outcomes is like rocket science. But it’s tremendously difficult work. And it’s very deliberate kind of work, very strategic work. It’s very stage sequenced. To me, it feels like kind of like scaling a company.” The work isn’t done. The next big battle, Hanlon says, is the steep fees that local governments impose on new developments, which can make building infeasible even when other barriers are taken away. But 2025 has “absolutely been a breakthrough year,” says Rosen. “We have a lot left to do. But I don’t know that there’s going to be a political lift that heavy.”

One April night eight years ago, two tech leaders sat down with a former Forest Service employee at Terroir, a natural wine bar in San Francisco. Then they started sketching out a plan that would eventually reshape California’s housing policy. Landmark housing reforms that passed in the state in 2025, one that allows more housing to be built near transit stops, and another curbing the use of environmental law to block new housing—and which many believed would never succeed—can be traced back to that night, five bottles of wine, and crucial backing from Silicon Valley executives. An unlikely new leader Brian Hanlon, the Forest Service employee, was an unlikely leader for a new housing movement. Hanlon moved to the Bay Area in 2010 after dropping out of a Ph.D. program, and got a job managing grant paperwork for USFS. He wasn’t planning to work on housing; he considered becoming a winemaker. But he soon saw the impact of California’s housing policy directly. When he first arrived in the area, apartments were still relatively affordable. Within a year, he saw demand spike: every open house he visited had 20 to 30 people competing for the same apartment. Over the next couple of years, as rents in the city continued to rise, Hanlon got involved with rental advocacy groups, but quickly saw the limitations. He felt advocates weren’t engaging with what he saw as a basic problem: restrictive policy made it too difficult to build housing, and the shortage of housing—not just landlords trying to extract higher rents from renters—was what was driving up prices. “Even then, I was like, ‘It’s not landlord greed.’ There aren’t enough homes. Landlords are just as greedy in Houston, Texas, or wherever else,” he says. “I kind of got excommunicated from that movement because I believed in more housing.” A friend introduced him to Sonia Trauss, a math teacher who had started advocating for new housing development at planning meetings—a YIMBY (“yes in my backyard”) counterpart to the resistance to new construction that was common in San Francisco, which is commonly characterized as NIMBY (“not in my backyard”). This resistance came largely from two separate, but sometimes aligned, groups: first, homeowners who believe new constructions of apartments around their homes will lower the resale value, obstruct their views, and otherwise affect “the neighborhood character”; and second, advocates for low-income tenants who believe that the new construction pushed by the YIMBY movement in gentrifying working-class neighborhoods will accelerate the damaging process of pricing out long-time residents. The first group is more powerful politically at the state level, but at the start of Hanlon and Trauss’s advocacy in San Francisco, many of the fights were with the second, leading to vitriolic conflict in the city (and online). Trauss faced intense criticism for comparing tenant advocates to Trump voters during a speech at hearing. And in one incident, Hanlon was at a public film screening about the eviction crisis, talking with a resident who was fighting a plan to demolish his apartment building, when an activist forced him out of the event, screaming “Get the fuck out!” As the conflicts continued in San Francisco, Hanlon decided he needed to do more than tackle one planning meeting—and one building—at a time. After he and Trauss secured some funding, they founded a nonprofit, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, and filed a lawsuit against a Bay Area suburb for not building enough housing. They lost the suit, and Hanlon realized that they needed to change direction. “I was like, alright, well, we’re going to fail as a nonprofit if we don’t change the law,” he says. Rewriting the law With help from a likeminded developer he’d met, Hanlon brought together a group of land-use attorneys, planners, and other developers and explained why the lawsuit had failed and how he wanted the law to change so cities would have to allow more construction. Hanlon copied the existing law into Microsoft Word, rewrote it based on feedback from the group, and then gave it to a lawyer to draft a real version of a potential bill. Then he started heading to Sacramento, meeting with anyone who’d talk. A lawyer from the Building Industry Association told him that he was wasting his time. “I’m like, alright, thanks for your feedback,” he says. “And then I just kept going.” At the time, he had little money and few connections. At a housing conference, he entered a contest to meet the new chair of the state’s Department of Housing Development—the competition involved guessing the number of Monopoly houses in a giant jar. “I remembered a little bit of middle school geometry or something, and I just looked at the jar and did the right math and guessed the right number of houses,” he says. He won a lunch with Ben Metcalf, the new chair, and peppered him with questions about housing reform in the state. Meanwhile, he was starting to make more connections in the tech industry. Trauss had already gotten some support from tech CEOs like Yelp’s Jeremy Stoppleman, who saw that the housing shortage could hurt their industry since it was so hard for employees to find a place to live. Like others, he’d read a viral article in TechCrunch from Kim-Mai Cutler explaining how housing policy restricted development. “That story really helped put everything in perspective—like, oh, this is actually by design,” Stoppleman says. “[It was] many years of decisions to specifically constrain housing production, density, and growth. That created a real point of frustration as a person leading a business with thousands of employees here in the Bay Area.” Hanlon met Zack Rosen, CEO of the WebOps platform Pantheon, on Twitter. “I got in a fight with him on the internet,” Rosen says. “I got into one of those things where it was back and forth, back and forth, and by the third time, I’m like, man, I don’t know what I’m talking about.” He suggested to Hanlon that they meet up for coffee, and they became friends. Rosen, too, wanted to invest in a solution to the housing crisis. “The tech industry didn’t create these terrible housing policies, they predate us,” Rosen says. “However, the success of our industry and these terrible housing policies are a train wreck. The net effect of that train wreck is immiseration for the state of California—you know, teachers teaching [while] homeless in San Francisco. I mean, it’s insane. So for me, it was like, look, the tech industry has a special responsibility to help solve it.” A few weeks later, Hanlon ran into Rosen in Sacramento, along with Nat Friedman—the former CEO of Github, now head of Meta’s Superintelligence Labs, who had come to Sacramento to talk about housing with an assemblymember. They started walking through the capital building, and knocked on the door of the governor’s office, where they managed to wrangle a meeting with staffers on the fly. Policymakers wanted to act, but the issue was complex, and they needed help understanding what laws could truly help. On the drive back home, Rosen started thinking about partnering with Hanlon. Making a bet on a new startup nonprofit They stayed in touch, and nearly a year later, Rosen, Friedman, and Hanlon met at the wine bar to talk about the potential for a new nonprofit. They talked for hours, closing out the bar. Hanlon pitched them on the vision of a new housing advocacy organization for the state that would work on new policy, build coalitions and a grassroots movement, and massively scale up homebuilding. At the time, Hanlon was still working on a shoestring budget, helping shepherd a housing bill called SB 167—based on what he’d drafted earlier—through the committee process. “Imagine all that we could do if I had a real team and a real budget?” he said. They didn’t know exactly how the new organization would work. “We ended up with more questions than answers,” says Rosen. “But we had a direction. We had a strategy.” They were sold on the idea. “It was reminiscent to me of the beginnings of a great startup,” he says. “It just felt like hey, here’s this obvious idea. No one’s doing it. Is it possible to do? Absolutely. Is it incredibly difficult to do? Absolutely. Let’s go do it.” Within a couple of months, they had raised hundreds of thousands for the project. Hanlon resigned from his previous nonprofit with Trauss. Rosen joined the new organization, California YIMBY, as a cofounder. It’s something that probably only would have happened in San Francisco. “I don’t think I ever would have raised this sort of philanthropic capital just given my profile—I’m some guy who was working for the Forest Service and moved to the Mission because I was really into wine, fixed gear bikes, and shows,” Hanlon says. “That doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to make a big bet on to try to rebuild the built environment of the world’s fourth largest economy.” But his vision resonated with them, and with friends of Friedman’s who gave to the new nonprofit. “Brian’s a mile a minute—very fast on his feet, very thoughtful, had clearly done tons of research, knew his stuff,” says Stoppleman. “It was a really unique strategy that he was laying out. For me, it’s exciting to meet people at that stage when they’re just getting going. Obviously brilliant, lots of energy, a lot of passion, probably some naivete. There is a parallel, 100%, to the startup world.” The tech leaders who put in money also were willing to try something new. “I don’t mean to just make a paean to enlightened tech leaders, but I will say, San Francisco’s entrepreneurial tech leaders don’t treat the status quo or entrenched power as immutable reality,” says Hanlon. “They treat it as problems to be solved and building a new future. And that’s rare and uncommon….I think there’s this real sense that we’re not on this Earth for very long, it’s good and right to work quickly to solve your problems. And also, that failure isn’t the worst thing. The worst thing is not trying, or trying and not being ambitious.” Sweeping changes in policy After the nonprofit was founded in 2017—as a 501(c)(4) organization, so it’s allowed to lobby full time—it led advocacy for SB 167, a bill that made it harder for cities to fail to comply with state laws designed to force cities to approve more housing. The organization also fought for new laws that make it easier to build ADUs and “missing middle” housing like duplexes. But the biggest victories, after earlier failed attempts, came this year. First, the state passed a set of laws that reform CEQA, the California’s environmental law, which has sometimes been used as a method to stop development. Some housing now has a faster review process under the law. When the nonprofit first began working on CEQA reform, they were told that it was impossible. This fall, the state also passed SB 79, a law that legalizes large apartment buildings near major transit stops throughout the state—even when local laws restrict density or height. That can help significantly shrink the state’s housing shortage. In L.A., alone, by one estimate, it will eventually zone for 1.46 million new housing units. Along with CEQA reform, it was something they’d first talked about at the wine bar. “That was really was got Nat and Zack excited that night,” Hanlon says. Earlier attempts to pass the law, including a bill introduced in 2018, helped change the conversation about housing. Academics had long argued for more housing near transit, but this type of policy was new. “That’s the first bill, to my knowledge, that had actually been commensurate with the scale of the problem to actually solve it,” Hanlon says. It died quickly in committee, but got people talking in other cities. In New York City, the planning office held a meeting to discuss it. Other advocacy groups in other states started considered new changes to state policy. The latest version of the bill barely passed. It’s likely the only bill in the history of the state, Hanlon says, to become law after “rolling” the first two policy committee chairs, meaning it passed over their objections. The bill had to make it through nine votes, and then the governor’s vote. At each step, it barely made it. “This was incredibly, incredibly hard fought.” Still, he says, despite fierce opposition to the bill, including citizen protests and formal opposition from dozens of city councils, the debate was less heated than it had been in the past. Previous bills had faced widespread, statewide activism in large town halls and protests—many of which were organized by Livable California, a group of homeowners founded by a former oil executive that fights zoning changes and regulations that would make it easier to build apartemts—along with a deluge of op-eds and even a study with false data that argued that Los Angeles could meet its housing needs with vacant apartments. Now, the ideas behind the YIMBY have now become more mainstream. Policymakers have largely accepted the idea that the housing shortage is a supply problem, and that policy has held back development. “YIMBY benefits from being correct,” says Rosen. “It’s real. It’s substantive. It’s right. It also benefits from taking what should be an obscure issue like zoning, and turning it into something that’s real and personal for people—housing. And that was clear from the beginning.” When the YIMBY movement started to take off, “what wasn’t clear was how you would translate that movement that was getting attention into change of government that would enable a boom in housing,” he says. “There’s a huge leap between those things. We’ve got a long list of modern-day political movements that capture attention and don’t deliver the outcome. it’s not that any of the work of translating attention in a movement into outcomes is like rocket science. But it’s tremendously difficult work. And it’s very deliberate kind of work, very strategic work. It’s very stage sequenced. To me, it feels like kind of like scaling a company.” The work isn’t done. The next big battle, Hanlon says, is the steep fees that local governments impose on new developments, which can make building infeasible even when other barriers are taken away. But 2025 has “absolutely been a breakthrough year,” says Rosen. “We have a lot left to do. But I don’t know that there’s going to be a political lift that heavy.”

You think you’ve seen a big tree? Why we can no longer recognize a real forest

Environmental educator Ross Reid, also known as Nerdy About Nature, explains why we don't understand the scale of true old-growth forests.

Stand in awe before a towering Douglas fir in an Oregon forest, and you might believe you’re experiencing the majesty of old growth. But according to environmental educator Ross Reid, what most of us consider impressive forest landscapes are merely shadows of what once existed. In an archived episode of the Peak Northwest podcast, Reid, who is known for his presence on social media as “Nerdy About Nature,” explains why our perception of forests has been fundamentally altered by what we’ve lost.“It’s this concept known as shifting baseline syndrome where we’re limited in what we think is normal based on our experiences,” Reid said on the podcast. “The people who are living in this part of the world a hundred years ago had a radically different perception of the forest around them versus the one we have now.”Generative AI was used to summarize a recent episode of the Peak Northwest podcast. This story was reviewed and edited by The Oregonian/OregonLive.This psychological phenomenon, where each generation accepts a more diminished version of nature as “normal,” has profound implications for conservation efforts, Reid said. If we can’t recognize what we’ve lost, how can we work to protect or restore it?Bushwhacking through the rain forest of the Devil's Staircase Wilderness, one of Oregon's last true old-growth forests, in the Coast Range.Jamie Hale/The OregonianReid offered tangible examples of the differences between second-growth and old-growth forests that go beyond just tree size. “Pit mound topography is a concept in an old growth forest where you have bigger, older trees falling over naturally ... and you end up with a really undulating bit of terrain,” Reid said. “A lot of the forests we have in the Pacific Northwest, especially the second growth ones, you walk around, it’s fairly easy to walk off trail because it’s all kind of flat.”Throughout the episode, Reid explained how old-growth forests create unique habitats that are impossible to replicate in younger stands. For instance, bears in British Columbia rely on hollowed-out cavities in old Western red cedar trees for denning — structures that take centuries to form.A towering western redcedar tree is the highlight of the Rockaway Beach Old Growth Cedar Preserve on the north Oregon coast.Jamie Hale/The OregonianThe conversation reveals how industrial forestry has not just changed how forests look, but fundamentally altered their ecological function. Second-growth forests managed for timber production lack the structural complexity, genetic diversity, and ecological relationships that develop in forests allowed to mature naturally over centuries, Reid said.For anyone who loves hiking through Pacific Northwest forests, the interview offers a new lens through which to view familiar landscapes. Reid challenges listeners to look beyond their initial impressions of big trees and green canopies to recognize the subtler signs of ecological complexity that distinguish truly ancient forests from their younger counterparts.Listen to the full episode here: Subscribe to The Oregonian/OregonLive’s travel and outdoors podcast Peak Northwest on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or anywhere else you listen to podcasts. Hosts Jamie Hale and Chiara Profenna take you to some of the greatest destinations in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest. Check out more Peak Northwest episodes below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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