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

What Cancún’s Tourists Don’t See Is a Sprawling Concrete Jungle

The rapid expansion of Cancún since the 1970s has created a vastly unequal city, with overpopulated neighborhoods deprived of public space propping up the city's lavish tourist districts.

This story originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.The wide mowed lawns and leafy trees, the sports fields shining under their illuminated lights, the bouncy castles in the children’s play areas—especially the bouncy castles—are what Celia Pérez Godínez envies. These are the trappings of the wealthy neighborhood she travels to every day as a domestic worker in Cancún. Pérez envies the rich.She tells me this sitting on a rotten wooden bench one August afternoon, her 7-year-old son getting his scooter stuck on the broken path here many miles away in the north of the city, in a tiny park. Full of garbage and wild vegetation, it’s a short distance from where Pérez lives, close to the city outskirts. As we talk, a homeless person in the background shouts and laughs as if at a joke only he understands.Pérez is a 33-year-old single mother from San Marcos, Guatemala. She migrated in 2013 to Cancún, Mexico’s over-promoted and hugely popular tourist destination. She rarely has enough time and money to go to the beach and cannot find green areas or decent, safe public spaces for her son to play, having to make do with the few parks, like this, that are available. This is not the life she expected. “You hear that Cancún is wonderful, but when you get here … it’s a disappointment.”At 54 years old, Cancún is the youngest city in Mexico. It was designed from scratch in the 1970s as a new holiday destination in the country. In this respect, it’s been a wild success. But as an urban project, it is a failure. Designed for 200,000 people, the population of its urban sprawl now exceeds 1 million. Before, much of this area was jungle; today there are hundreds of hotels. Accelerated real-estate development has bitten into the surrounding vegetation year after year.This growth has been an environmental nightmare but also a social one, giving vastly unequal benefits to the city’s richer and poorer inhabitants. According to recent research by Christine McCoy, an academic at the University of the Caribbean, most people in Cancún live without the minimum green areas or public spaces needed for proper recreation, leisure, rest, or socializing. This is especially true in those regions where the most vulnerable live.Click play to see Cancún’s urban development from 1984 to 2022. This inequality has evolved despite Cancún’s rapid expansion consuming huge amounts of green space. Between 2001 and 2021, the surrounding region lost at least 30,000 hectares of jungle, according to data from Mexico’s National Forestry Commission. On the land ripped from the jungle there are now residential and hotel projects. And according to data seen by WIRED, plenty more developents are on the way. At the federal level, since 2018 the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources has received 40 requests for further land use change in the area. If approved, 650 more hectares of jungle will disappear.Data obtained through freedom of information shows what urban development projects have been processed over this period, these ranging from 2,247 tiny, popular housing units on the one hand to a 20-story, 429-room all-inclusive luxury hotel. Crucially, none of these include applications for public parks or green areas to be developed or improved, in a city that is already bursting at the seams, having exceeded its tourist carrying capacity for more than a decade.

Judge in Brazil Orders Slaughterhouses to Pay for Amazon Reforestation

A court in the Brazilian state of Rondonia has found two beef slaughterhouses guilty of buying cattle out of what is supposed to be a protected area in the Brazilian Amazon, which is illegal

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — A judge in the Brazilian state of Rondonia has found two beef slaughterhouses guilty of buying cattle from a protected area of former rainforest in the Amazon. The companies Distriboi and Frigon, along with three cattle ranchers, were ordered to pay compensation for causing environmental damage, according to the decision issued Wednesday. Cattle raising drives Amazon deforestation. The defendants may appeal.It is the first decision in several dozen lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in environmental damages from the slaughterhouses for allegedly trading in cattle raised illegally in a protected area known as Jaci-Parana, which was rainforest but is now mostly converted to pasture. Four slaughterhouses are among the many parties charged, including JBS SA, which bills itself as the world’s largest protein producer. The court has not decided on the cases involving JBS.Brazilian law forbids commercial cattle inside a protected area, yet some 210,000 head are being grazed inside Jaci-Parana, according to the state animal division. With almost 80% of its forest destroyed, it ranks as the most ravaged conservation unit in the Brazilian Amazon. A court filing pegs damages in the reserve at some $1 billion.The lawsuits are based on transfer documents first reported by the Associated Press that show cattle going directly from protected areas to slaughterhouses. The documents were filled out by the illegal ranchers themselves. Part of the decision is a collective penalty of $453,000 against the five defendants, who are linked to one farm. The money will be used to reforest 232 hectares (573 acres) of what is now pasture there.“When a slaughterhouse, whether by negligence or intent, buys and resells products from invaded and illegally deforested reserves, it is clear that it is directly benefiting from these illegal activities,” according to part of the original complaint which Judge Inês Moreira da Costa sustained in her ruling. “In such cases, there is an undeniable connection between the company’s actions and the environmental damage caused by the illegal exploitation.”Frigon and Distriboi did not respond to questions sent by email. In a filing, Frigon argued the state of Rondonia allowed ranchers to sell the cattle and said there is no relation between buying beef cattle and deforestation. In filings, Distriboi also denies any wrongdoing.JBS also did not reply to a request for comment.Rondonia, on the border with Bolivia, is the most badly deforested state in the Brazilian Amazon. In the past few weeks, most cities have been covered by thick smoke from wildfires, a sign of rampant deforestation. The situation is so dire that its main airport in Porto Velho was closed for seven consecutive days.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - July 2024

Industry push to earn carbon credits from Australia’s native forests would be a blow for nature and the climate

Australia cannot risk any further declines in its biodiversity resulting from harvesting native forests, or actions that bring further risks to its emissions-reduction goal.

ShutterstockAustralia’s forestry industry raised eyebrows this month when it released plans to remove trees from native forests, potentially including national parks, and claim carbon credits in the process. Forestry Australia, the industry body behind the plan, claims it would make ecosystems more resilient and help tackle climate change. But decades of research findings clearly suggest the proposal, if accepted, will have the opposite effect. Scientific evidence shows some proposed practices make forests more fire-prone and undermine forest healthy. And the carbon released when cutting down and processing trees would undercut any climate benefits of the plan. Australia cannot risk any further declines in its biodiversity resulting from harvesting native forests, or actions that bring further risks to its emissions-reduction goal. On this basis, the Forestry Australia proposal should be rejected. Understanding Australia’s carbon credit scheme Under a federal government scheme, people and businesses can undertake projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or store carbon, in exchange for financial rewards known as carbon credits. Projects can include changing the way vegetation is managed, so it removes and stores more carbon from the atmosphere. The government has invited proposals for new ways to generate carbon credits under the policy. Forestry Australia’s proposal involves a number of activities conducted in national parks, state forests and on private land. In return for conducting these activities, land managers – such as government agencies and private landowners – would be granted carbon credits. One part of the method involves “adaptive harvesting”. Forestry Australia says the approach would reduce carbon emissions and improve carbon storage in forests “while allowing for a level of ongoing supply of wood products”. Adaptive harvesting purports to reduce environmental impacts but still produce wood products. Techniques can include delaying logging until trees are older, resting areas from harvesting and minimising areas cleared for roads and log landings. The proposal also involves “forest thinning”, or removing trees. In a statement to The Conversation, Forestry Australia’s acting president William Jackson said thinning involves “selectively reducing the number of trees to enable the healthy trees to grow”. Forestry Australia says it has not proposed timber production from national parks. However, it did not say what would happen to trees cut down in thinning operations, including whether they would be sold or left on the forest floor. Forestry Australia has also proposed to change the way harvested wood is used, so it stores carbon for longer. So, instead of harvesting low-grade logs used for woodchips and paper, it would harvest more valuable logs to be made into longer-lived timber products, such as roof trusses and floorboards. However, plantation forests already produce about 90% of logs harvested in Australia, raising questions over the demand for native forest logs. The plan involves harvesting more valuable logs to be made into longer-lived timber products such as roof trusses. Shutterstock Logging does not make forests resilient Announcing Forestry Australia’s proposal, its president Michelle Freeman said forests were “more resilient if they are actively managed”. But several adaptive harvesting practices are scientifically shown to harm native forests. For example, analyses following the 2009 wildfires and after the 2019-2020 wildfires show thinning generally makes forests more fire-prone. Foresters have themselves highlighted this problem. And the heavy equipment used to log forests disturbs and degrades soil and the understorey. What’s more, young trees – the usual targets of thinning – provide understorey habitat for many species, including endangered mammals, such as Leadbeater’s Possum and many species of birds. And thinning undermines a forest’s ability to withstand other threats, such as climate change. A big climate risk Forestry Australia’s proposal is problematic if Australia hopes to achieve its emissions-reduction target of 43% by 2030, based on 2005 levels. First, logging releases carbon stored in trees and soil. So, even if some carbon was stored under the plan – through activities such as regeneration – this would be undermined by carbon released when removing trees. Second, there is a risk carbon credits may be granted for activities and emission reductions that would have happened anyway. Take the proposal to provide carbon credits for adaptive harvesting. Most of these activities, such as forest regeneration, are already required by regulation and forestry codes of practice. And in the case of the proposal to conduct regeneration activities after bushfires, forests will regenerate naturally if they are left alone. A similar issue arises if forest managers are offered carbon credits to encourage timber to be turned into long-lived wood products. These products are more lucrative than, say, woodchips. So the financial incentive to create them already exists – and there’s a good chance suitable logs would have been used for these products regardless of whether carbon credits were offered. What’s more, the average life of these longer-lived timber products is still far less than the standing trees. Rules under Australia’s carbon credit scheme are meant to prevent credits being given for activities that would have occurred anyway. However, serious concerns have been raised over the effectiveness of these rules. The answer is clear Australia’s native forest logging industry has long been in decline and operates at a financial loss in most states. Adding to the industry’s demise, Victoria and Western Australia have called an end to logging in public native forests and southeast Queensland is reportedly set to follow. The flailing, damaging native forest logging industry is on the way out and plantations already provide almost all our sawn wood supply. Propping up the industry via a badly designed carbon credit method does not make economic or climate sense. In response to the points raised in this article, Forestry Australia’s acting president William Jackson provided the following statement. It has been edited for brevity. Adaptive harvesting practices are proposed only for state forests and private native forests, within areas where timber harvesting is expressly permitted and regulated under state-based legislation. Thinning is conducted for ecological reasons, cultural values or fire management or other reasons. Forestry Australia disagrees with the view that thinning makes forests more fire prone. The inclusion of thinning in native forests in the method is supported by clear evidence from Australian and international research showing that thinning of forests, when combined with prescribed burning to reduce fuel hazards, can significantly reduce wildfire risks and impacts in dry forests. Not all forests are in the condition to regenerate naturally due to the impacts of climate change, invasive species and wildfire. The method encourages active and adaptive management to assist in restoring the health and resilience of these forests. This method would maximise carbon market opportunities to more landowners, from state government agencies managing state forests and national parks, as well as community groups, not-for-profits, private landowners and First Nations Peoples. David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Government, the Victorian Government, and the Australian Research Council. He is a Councillor with the Biodiversity Council and a member of Birds Australia. Brendan Mackey receives funding from the Australian Government. His is a volunteer board member of the Great Eastern Ranges Ltd. Heather Keith receives funding from the Australian Government and is a member of the Environmental Economic Accounts and Environmental Indicators Technical Advisory Panel.

Forest Service orders Arrowhead bottled water company to shut down California pipeline

The Forest Service told bottled water company BlueTriton Brands to stop piping water out of a California national forest. The company is suing to challenge the decision.

In a decision that could end a years-long battle over commercial extraction of water from public lands, the U.S. Forest Service has ordered the company that sells Arrowhead bottled water to shut down its pipeline that collects water from springs in the San Bernardino Mountains. The Forest Service notified BlueTriton Brands in a letter last month, saying its application for a new permit has been denied.District Ranger Michael Nobles wrote in the July 26 letter that the company “must cease operations” in the San Bernardino National Forest and submit a plan for removing all its pipes and equipment from federal land.The company has challenged the denial in court.Environmental activists praised the decision.“It’s a huge victory after 10 years,” said Amanda Frye, an activist who has campaigned against the taking of water from the forest. “I’m hoping that we can restore Strawberry Creek, have its springs flowing again, and get the habitat back.”She and other opponents say BlueTriton‘s operation has dramatically reduced creek flow and is causing significant environmental harm.The Forest Service announced the decision one month after a local environmental group, Save Our Forest Assn., filed a lawsuit arguing the agency was illegally allowing the company to continue operating under a permit that was past its expiration date.The company has denied that its use of water is harming the environment and has argued it should be allowed to continue piping water from the national forest.BlueTriton Brands and its predecessors “have continuously operated under a series of special use permits for nearly a century,” the company said in an email.“This denial has no legal merit, is unsupported by the facts, and negatively impacts the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians,” the company said, adding that the tribe uses a portion of the water that passes through the pipeline and relies on that water for firefighting needs.Representatives of the tribe did not respond to a request for comment.If the Forest Service decision stands, it would prevent the company from using the namesake source of its brand, Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water.The springs in the mountains north of San Bernardino, which have been a source for bottled water for generations, are named after an arrowhead-shaped natural rock formation on the mountainside.State officials have said that the first facilities to divert water in the Strawberry Creek watershed were built in 1929, and the system expanded over the years as additional boreholes were drilled into the mountainside.At the base of the mountain and near the company’s water pipeline stands the long-closed Arrowhead Springs hotel property, which the San Manuel tribe bought in 2016. The company has said that under a decades-old agreement, a portion of the water that flows through the 4.5-mile pipeline goes to the Arrowhead Springs property, and a portion of the water is delivered to a roadside tank and hauled on trucks to a bottling plant.The Forest Service has been charging a permit fee of $2,500 per year. There has been no charge for the water.Controversy over the issue erupted when the Desert Sun reported in 2015 that the Forest Service was allowing Nestlé to siphon water using a permit that listed 1988 as the expiration date.The Forest Service then began a review of the permit, and in 2018 granted a new permit for up to five years. The revelations about Nestlé piping water from the forest sparked an outpouring of opposition and prompted several complaints to California regulators questioning the company’s water rights claims, which led to a lengthy investigation by state water regulators.BlueTriton Brands took over the bottled water business in 2021 when Nestlé’s North American bottled water division was purchased by private-equity firm One Rock Capital Partners and investment firm Metropoulos & Co. (Last month, BlueTriton and Primo Water Corp. announced plans to merge and form a new company.)State officials determined last year that the company has been unlawfully diverting much of the water without valid water rights — agreeing with Frye and others, who had questioned the company’s claims and presented historical documents. The State Water Resources Control Board voted to order the company to halt its “unauthorized diversions” of water. But BlueTriton Brands sued to challenge that decision, arguing the process was rife with problems.In the July Forest Service letter, Nobles said the company was repeatedly asked to provide “additional information necessary to assure compliance with BlueTriton’s existing permit” but that the requests were “consistently left unanswered.”Nobles said that under the regulations, he may consider whether the water used exceeds the “needs of forest resources.”He also said that while the company had said in its application that the water would go for bottled water, its reports showed that 94% to 98% of the amount of water diverted monthly was delivered to the old hotel property for “undisclosed purposes,” and that “for months BlueTriton has indicated it has bottled none of the water taken,” while also significantly increasing the volumes extracted.“This increase represents significantly more water than has ever been delivered previously,” Nobles wrote. “The hotel and conference facility on the property is not operating, and there is no explanation of where the millions of gallons of water per month are going.”He said the decision is final and cannot be appealed.Nobles ordered the company to “stop use of the BlueTriton pipeline” within seven days “by severing or blocking the pipe at each tunnel or borehole” at a dozen sites; to remove the locks on its equipment; and to submit a plan within three months for removing all of its infrastructure.Forest Service officials did not respond to an email requesting comments about the decision.BlueTriton’s spokesperson said the Forest Service has agreed to a “temporary 30-day stay for the sole purpose of supplying the needs of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, including for fire prevention.”“We will continue to operate in compliance with all state and federal laws while we explore legal and regulatory options,” the spokesperson said.The company argues in the lawsuit that the Forest Service has violated federal law with a decision that is “arbitrary and capricious.”BlueTriton said studies by its scientific consultants have found that the taking of water “has not negatively affected the Strawberry Canyon environment.”Records show about 319 acre-feet, or 104 million gallons, flowed through the company’s pipes in 2023.In the rugged canyon downhill from the springs, Strawberry Creek has continued flowing in recent years. But when Frye has hiked along the creek, she has found that its western fork, located downhill from the boreholes, is just a trickle, forming a series of puddles among the bushes and trees.“Our goal was to get that water back in the creek and protect the forest,” Frye said. “The proof will be when the pipes and all that infrastructure is taken out and it’s restored. But I think we’re nearing the end.”

More than half of NSW’s forests and woodlands are gone as ongoing logging increases extinction risks, study shows

Shifting from native forest logging to sustainable plantations will help protect these essential forests and the many threatened species that depend on them.

Since European colonisation, 29 million hectares (54%) of the forests and woodlands that once existed in New South Wales have been destroyed. A further 9 million ha have been degraded in the past two centuries. This amounts to more than 60% of the state’s forest estate. We will never know the full impacts this rampant clearing and degradation have had on the state’s wildlife and plants. But it is now possible to put into perspective the impacts of logging practices in the past two decades on species that have already suffered enormous loss. Cutting down native vegetation for timber destroys habitat for forest-dependent species. Our research, published today, has found ongoing logging in NSW affects the habitat of at least 150 species considered at risk of extinction, due mostly to historical deforestation and degradation. Thirteen of these species are listed as critically endangered. This means there is a 20% probability of extinction in ten years (or five generations, whichever is longer) without urgent conservation action. The bare and highly disturbed areas created by logging also increase risks of erosion, fire and invasion by non-native species. Other states and countries ban native forest logging Despite these impacts, Australia still logs native forests. Many countries have now banned native forest logging. They have recognised the enormous impact of intact forests on biodiversity and climate change, and rely entirely on plantations for wood production. New Zealand, for example, banned native forest logging two decades ago, in 2002. In Australia, South Australia has protected native forests since the 1870s. The ACT banned logging in the 1980s. As of 2024, Western Australia and Victoria have ended their native forest logging operations (except logging for fire breaks, salvage logging after windstorms, and logging on private land). The reasons are clear: native forestry is unpopular and unprofitable, contributes heavily to climate change and is a major cause of species decline. Yet government-owned logging operations in NSW, Tasmania and Queensland continue to erode their remaining forest estates. Logging impacts on habitats and species add up The current practice of impact assessment means logging activities are evaluated individually, without looking at the broader history of land management. On their own, small areas of logging might seem insignificant. However, logging these small areas can add up to a much larger long-term habitat loss. To assess what logging today means in terms of impacts on species, we need to assess how much habitat has been lost or degraded over long time periods. We used historical loss and degradation as a baseline to evaluate recent logging events (from 2000 to 2022) across NSW. We found continued logging is having impacts on 150 threatened species. Forty-three of these species now have 50% or less of their intact habitat remaining in NSW. They include the three brothers wattle, regent parrot and growling grass frog. Two species, Sloane’s froglet and Glenugie karaka, have less than 10% of intact habitat remaining. Some species’ distributions had high overlaps with recent logging. They include the floodplain rustyhood (75% overlap with logging), Orara boronia (26%), Hakea archaeoides (24%), long-footed potoroo (14%), southern mainland long-nosed potoroo (12%) and southern brown bandicoot (9%). Species with the most distribution by area that overlapped with logging included koala (400,000 ha), south-eastern glossy black-cockatoo (370,000 ha) and spot-tailed quoll (southeast mainland population, 310,000 ha). Our research shows the importance of a historical perspective. Almost all the forest-dependent species we assessed have suffered terribly from land clearing and fires over the past two centuries. They now survive in small parts of their natural range. Logging this remaining habitat is forcing many of these species into an extinction vortex. Environmental impact assessments and decisions about land use (such as converting land into conservation zones, solar farms or logging areas) must consider the historical legacies of logging for these species. Sloane’s froglet has been hit hard by logging and less than 10% of its habitat remains intact. How can we retain our remaining forest estate? Australia is a signatory to many international conservation goals. For instance, the Global Biodiversity Framework aims to “ensure urgent management actions to halt human-induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species”. The Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration committed us to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. Logging native forests stands in stark contrast to these undertakings. In Australia, the states regulate forestry and, strangely, own the forestry business themselves. However, the Commonwealth has the power to intervene and halt native forest logging. With the federal government in the throes of reforming nature laws and an election coming up, the choice is simple: lock in extinction by continuing rampant logging, or lock in species recovery by working with land managers to secure the future of these species. Australia has a chequered recent history when it comes to protecting its environment. We have one of the highest mammal extinction rates in the world and the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions of all OECD member countries. We are also the only developed nation identified as a deforestation hotspot. Native forests are essential for carbon sequestration, biodiversity and the cultural wellbeing of First Nations and local communities. An easy win for all these interests is within our reach. Shifting from native forest logging to sustainable plantations will help protect these essential forests while still meeting wood demands. Michelle Ward has received funding from The Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth National Environmental Science Program. She was Science and Research Lead at WWF-Australia and is currently on a Technical Advisory Panel for a project run by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Victorian Government, the Australian Government and the Ian Potter Foundation. He is a member of the Biodiversity Council and Birds Australia. James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia's Department of Environment and Water, Queensland's Depart of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on scientific committees for Subak Australia and BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland Government's Land Restoration Fund's Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

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.