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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

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

News Feed
Wednesday, August 7, 2024

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.”

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.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

‘Bad deal for taxpayers’: huge losses from NSW forest logging, reports reveal

Former MP astonished that taxpayers are ‘literally paying’ to cut down forests sustaining koalas and greater gliders and providing clean drinking waterGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastTwo reports revealing the extent of financial losses from native forest logging in New South Wales raise questions about the economic viability of the industry.The state government’s forestry corporation “consistently made a loss” by paying contractors more for harvesting and haulage than it earned from delivery of timber to sawmills, a NSW Independent Pricing and Review Tribunal (Ipart) report found.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

Two reports revealing the extent of financial losses from native forest logging in New South Wales raise questions about the economic viability of the industry.The state government’s forestry corporation “consistently made a loss” by paying contractors more for harvesting and haulage than it earned from delivery of timber to sawmills, a NSW Independent Pricing and Review Tribunal (Ipart) report found.“[Forestry Corporation of NSW’s] delivery charge does not fully recover its native timber harvesting and haulage costs, including contract and administration costs, and has not done so for at least the last 10 years,” the report said.The tribunal recommended the state government review the long-term feasibility of native timber harvesting, noting the majority of wood supply agreements were due for renewal in 2028. It also suggested ways to improve cost recovery.Ipart’s findings followed the release of the state forestry corporation’s 2023-24 annual report, which disclosed a $29m loss for its native hardwood forest division in the past year, and losses totalling $72m since 2020-21.The corporation’s annual report said poor financial returns were linked to “operational challenges” and external factors such as extreme weather, regulatory changes such as protections for koalas and greater gliders, and legal injunctions by community groups.Graham Phelan, an economist with Frontier Economics who analysed NSW forestry’s financial status in 2023, said the Ipart report was a timely and valuable contribution in the context of nature policy and forestry reform in NSW which would encourage evidence-based decision-making.Phelan said public native forestry struggled financially, offering “poor returns to taxpayers at best”. “The government should look at the economic costs and benefits of the native forestry business in NSW and consider whether community welfare is served by continuing this practice.”Poor financial performance and environmental costs were among a “myriad of reasons” why governments in Victoria and Western Australia had decided to end native timber harvesting in their states, he said.There were also benefits associated with leaving native forests standing, such as carbon sequestration, erosion control, flood mitigation and tourism, Phelan added. For example, a Victorian government report valued those benefits at up to $12bn, compared with about $89m if harvested for timber and firewood.Public native forestry was a small segment of the NSW forestry sector, he said, alongside a much larger non-native softwood plantation business that served construction and cardboard markets.According to Ipart’s report, about 9% of timber harvested in Australia was native hardwood, and NSW was the second-largest producer of native timber logs after Tasmania.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionA forestry corporation spokesperson said the organisation managed nearly 2m hectares of public native forests on behalf of the NSW government, harvesting about 1% annually. Timber revenue “subsidised” management activities such as firefighting, pests, weeds, conservation and road access, which were only partly government funded.The corporation would undertake Ipart’s recommendations that related to managing prices and costs, the spokesperson said.Ipart’s review of native timber harvesting and haulage costs from 2019 to 2022 was yet to be published but has been provided to the NSW treasurer, Daniel Mookhey, and was released to the ABC under freedom of information laws.Guardian Australia has asked the NSW government for a response to Ipart’s findings.Justin Field from Forest Alliance NSW, a coalition of environmental and conservation groups, said native forestry was a “bad deal for taxpayers”.Field, formerly a member of the NSW legislative council, said it was astonishing that taxpayers were “literally paying” to cut down forests that sustained koalas and greater gliders and provided clean water for drinking.“This is just another piece of evidence to show that native forest logging in New South Wales is economically unviable. We know that it’s ecologically unsustainable, and we know that the forestry corporation has been losing money on its hardwood division for the last decade.”The report provided an opportunity for the state government to end native forest logging and shift towards an industry based on 100% sustainable plantations, he said.

Forests
Government
Water

LA tree enthusiast shares her love for the city’s canopy: ‘Something we took for granted’

Stephanie Carrie gives tours and educates Angelenos on the importance of the urban forest – and how to improve itOn a recent Sunday morning, 25 Angelenos gathered under a large rusty leaf fig tree for a walking tree tour in a local Culver City park that was also playing host to an outdoor tai chi class as well as a group of yogis.As we walked past Chinese elm trees, coast live oaks and Brazilian pepper trees, Stephanie Carrie shared the history of the city’s celebrated palm trees with a rapt audience. Many of today’s trees, planted in the 1930s, are approaching the end of their lives – and while they have become symbols of the city, they also guzzle water, fueling calls to replace them with drought-resistant trees. Continue reading...

On a recent Sunday morning, 25 Angelenos gathered under a large rusty leaf fig tree for a walking tree tour in a local Culver City park that was also playing host to an outdoor tai chi class as well as a group of yogis.As we walked past Chinese elm trees, coast live oaks and Brazilian pepper trees, Stephanie Carrie shared the history of the city’s celebrated palm trees with a rapt audience. Many of today’s trees, planted in the 1930s, are approaching the end of their lives – and while they have become symbols of the city, they also guzzle water, fueling calls to replace them with drought-resistant trees.“The most important thing about LA is our natural environment and our community, and the best way to provide for that community is different types of trees that will give back and protect us moving into the future,” said Carrie.She’s not a professional photographer or an arborist, but Carrie and her popular Instagram account, Trees of LA (@treesofla), help people identify some of the 700,000 street trees that make up the world’s most diverse urban forest. Offline, the New Zealand-born, southern California-raised creator hosts a variety of city tree tours that educate attendees about environmental sustainability, canopy inequality and the countless benefits of paying attention to the trees around us.Trees featured on the Trees of LA Instagram account. Photograph: Instagram account, Trees of LA“It’s so joyful to take something that started on a screen and bring it into the real world,” said Carrie, who uses her storytelling background as an actor and screenwriter to engage followers. “Living in urban environments isn’t a natural situation for human beings, so we’re kind of reconnecting to something we took for granted when we did not live in urban environments.”There are nearly 1,000 kinds of street trees in Los Angeles. Some local favorites include the flowering jacaranda, which turn places like Pasadena, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica into seas of purple in the late spring. Saucer magnolia trees in West Los Angeles and Westwood produce large pink and white blossoms in the winter, while gold medallion trees bloom vivid clusters of yellow flowers that are seen throughout the city in late spring and into summer.The trees most associated with LA are, of course, its palms. They were first brought to California in the 18th century by Spanish missionaries who wanted to use the fronds in religious services. Real estate developers later imported more to help sell the city as an exotic tropical paradise. Then, before the 1932 Olympics, 25,000 were planted to beautify streets and an additional 40,000 were added as part of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration project.The palm trees planted in the 1930s are now considered “senior citizens”; an invasive insect, the red palm weevil, has already killed others. Along with using vast amounts of groundwater, the palms are prone to disease and don’t offer shade. As they die off, environmentalists say other species should take their place, though it would alter the image of a city known for caring deeply about its appearance.While Carrie supports diversifying LA’s canopy – the trees that offer shade across a city – she believes it would be ideal to keep palms in a few locations to celebrate their place in the city’s history.For years, Carrie, like numerous other city residents, suffered from a phenomenon known as “tree blindness”, and hadn’t paid much attention to the urban forest around her. It wasn’t until 2016, when she took maternity leave with her first child, that she started taking regular walks in a local park and had an epiphany.Stephanie Carrie looking up in a canyon live oak in Idyllwild, California. Photograph: Matt Wyatt“When I started to notice and focus my attention on a tree and the details of that tree, my brain was just filled with what felt like incredibly positive chemicals,” said Carrie. “It really felt like a meditation. My anxiety went away and I was truly in the moment.”It’s proven that spending time around trees helps us reduce stress, lower blood pressure and screen out noise pollution. Experts say that looking at trees, or simply watching leaves blow in the wind, helps replenish our cognitive reserve, the brain’s ability to solve problems and deal with challenges (especially important for those of us who stare at screens all day.) Studies have found that hospital patients who can see trees from their beds recover faster than those who can’t see them.Trees are not only good for our mental and physical health, but they often serve as a first line of defense against air pollution and combating heat, making them key to fighting the climate crisis around the globe.City trees reduce energy usage, shade our streets and homes, and minimize the “heat island effect”, common in cities where roads, buildings and other infrastructure absorb and re-emit heat at higher levels compared to forests and bodies of water. Trees clean our air, store carbon, serve as a wildlife habitat and soak up storm water, which reduces runoff and soil erosion.Stephanie Carrie during a tree tour in Carlson Park in Culver City, California. Photograph: Matt WyattBut decades of environmental injustice means that while Los Angeles’ average canopy cover is 21%, South Los Angeles’ is 13% – and only 5% in some parts of the region. The city of Los Angeles’ Green New Deal was designed to increase trees primarily in low-income communities disproportionately affected by the climate crisis. It set out to plant 90,000 trees by the end of 2021, but the pandemic and other challenges slowed planting rates; by 2022, only 65,000 trees had been planted.TreePeople, an environmental non-profit, has identified 28 climate-resilient tree species for Los Angeles’ urban forest and advocates for increasing their presence in the canopy. Trees such as weeping bottle brush, silverleaf oak and rosewood offer serious cooling benefits, use little water, are resistant to major pests and diseases, and reduce air pollution – all key attributes for an environment facing increased heat and long-term drought.A new study authored by the University of Southern California and the South LA Tree Coalition found that while people were aware of the real harms caused by tree inequity and the role trees play in cooling neighborhoods, they were also concerned about the ways tree planting intersects with homelessness and gentrification, since the arrival of new trees can be associated with rising rents. “It’s important to work with communities rather than just coming in and having strangers planting a bunch of trees,” said Carrie.Experts say that messaging about trees being critical infrastructure for communities needs to be clearer, and that people must also plant trees on their own property since residences make up a large majority of plantable space in the city (the narrow planter strips that run along streets are typically occupied by utility lines both above and below ground).By sharing their love of trees, Carrie and other like-minded tree content creators are helping to spread that message to people all over the world, and connecting with one another.When she traveled to Mexico City in 2022, Carrie spent the day looking at trees with Francisco Arjona of Árboles de la CDMX. She’s also met up in real life with Paul Wood, author of London Is a Forest, who runs the Street Tree account, to gaze at trees in London, and is friendly with the creators of Trees of Delhi, Trees of Barcelona and Trees of Cambridge, among many others.“There’s a special bond between people who are trying to photograph trees during the perfect time of day so we can bring the majesty of that day to a tiny square on Instagram and share with people,” said Carrie. “It’s almost like a beautiful language of love.”

Forests
Water
Climate

Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest

Beef and soybean agriculture are carving up this massive forest, which spans four countries and has some of the world’s highest deforestation rates. The post Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest appeared first on The Revelator.

The Place: The Gran Chaco covers 303,782 square miles spanning Paraguay, Bolivia, Argentina, and Brazil. It is the second-largest natural forest in Latin America and has experienced some of the highest levels of deforestation on Earth. Why it matters: The Gran Chaco is home to 25 different Indigenous communities at risk of displacement from their ancestral lands by deforestation and land conversion, leaving them with nowhere else to go. Its great variety of ecosystems are also home to endemic, endangered, and threatened plants and wildlife, including around 3,400 species of plants, 150 mammals, and 500 bird species. Several IUCN Red List species, such as jaguars, peccaries, solitary eagles, giant anteaters, and lowland tapirs, are facing habitat loss within the Paraguayan Chaco, as land use change poses an increased threat to their survival. A Gran Chaco resident. Photo: Quadriz The threat: The rapid forest loss within the Gran Chaco is primarily driven by the expansion of commercial agriculture, particularly beef and soybean production, with Paraguay emerging as a top 10 exporter of these commodities. Contributing to this trend are the largely private ownership of the majority of the Paraguayan Chaco and a legal framework that allows up to 75% of privately owned forest land to be deforested for agricultural purposes. Agricultural fields seen from the air, carving up the Gran Chaco. Photo: Quadriz My place in this place: I have been working as country manager of Quadriz Paraguay since February 2021. As a nature lover, I have a particular fascination with the Chaco, as a wildly unique haven of biodiversity and a vital carbon sink that is often overlooked internationally. I have experienced the joy of conservation work. Seeing the beauty of my country and the animals we share it with has been a privilege that has fueled my dedication to the protection of the forest for generations to come. Who’s protecting it now: In response to this crisis, initiatives like the Corazón Verde del Chaco (Green Heart of the Chaco) project, developed by my organization Quadriz, are working to protect native forests and provide safe havens for wildlife. This project safeguards 124 square miles (32,000 hectares) of Gran Chaco forest and offers landowners an economic alternative to commercial agriculture through carbon credits. What this place needs: To conserve the Gran Chaco for future generations and prevent further biodiversity loss, we need to support a constructive dialogue between landowners and impact investors. By raising awareness and increasing understanding of the environmental, ecological and economic value of the Chaco, we can boost conservation efforts. Formal recognition of the very real threat facing the unique ecology of the Gran Chaco has provided the foundations for research and pilot programs. Now ongoing collaboration and awareness are required. Lessons from the fight: My work with Quadriz has taught me that both public policy and carbon policy frameworks are effective instruments to prevent deforestation and biodiversity loss. But speed and scale are limiting factors. To overcome these we need partnerships that channel climate finance to ensure immediate forest conservation actions that generate multiple benefits for the community. Another important lesson is to celebrate and share the images we have been able to capture of jaguars, snakes, birds, and the landscape’s natural beauty to convey what a truly spectacular place the Paraguayan Chaco is and underscore the importance of our work to protect it. Follow the fight: We regularly share news and updates on our project’s progress, conservation updates and snapshots of our work on our website, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Scroll down to find our “Republish” button Previously in The Revelator: Protect This Place: Saving India’s Shola Sky Islands The post Protect This Place: Latin America’s Gran Chaco Forest appeared first on The Revelator.

Forests
Agriculture
Climate

Brazilian Beef and Leather Companies Fall Short in Tackling Deforestation, a Study Finds

The next United Nations climate conference will be held in Belem, the capital of an Amazon region where widespread deforestation has turned the surrounding rainforest from a vital carbon sink into a significant carbon source

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — The next United Nations climate conference, COP30, will be held in Belem, the capital of an Amazon region where widespread deforestation mainly driven by cattle farming has turned the surrounding rainforest from a vital carbon sink into a significant carbon source. Now a new report concludes around 80% of Brazil’s leading beef and cow leather companies and their financiers have made no commitments to stop deforestation.The study, released Wednesday by the environmental nonprofit group Global Canopy, highlights the country´s 175 most influential beef and leather companies and financial institutions that have supported them with $100 billion. This amount is one-third of the annual funding that wealthy nations pledged to provide for climate finance in developing countries during COP29 last month in Baku, Azerbaijan.“Although cattle is the single most influential commodity for deforestation and linked greenhouse gas emissions, the report ... reveals a picture of staggering inaction from corporates and financial institutions alike in Brazilian supply chains,” the study said. The record is poor even among companies that commit to halting deforestation, such as JBS, according to the report. The giant meatpacker is one of the few to make such commitments and one of only two to have a system for tracing cattle all the way to the production unit. Yet the report ranks the company as the most likely to be buying cattle and cow leather from recently deforested land.This assessment of deforestation risk is based on the number of cattle bought from ranchers in each Brazilian municipality and its deforestation rate. Meatpackers buying from high-deforestation areas are more likely to source from recently cleared land than those buying from low-deforestation areas. The methodology was created by Do Pasto ao Prato, an independent Brazilian consumer app that aims to increase transparency in the livestock sector."Commitments are critical as one of the first steps a company takes to address deforestation," Emma Thomson, one of the coauthors, told The Associated Press. “But it has to be followed by effective implementation and by monitoring suppliers and indirect suppliers for compliance with those standards. It has to have effective traceability mechanisms and transparent reporting on the progress that is — or isn´t — being made.”Besides JBS, the report lists three processing companies with units based in Para state as likely to be buying cattle and cow leather from recently deforested land: Mercurio, Mafrinorte and Frigol. In a written response, JBS said the study's methodology provides a simplistic and inaccurate assessment of deforestation risk, ignoring factors such as corporate policies, sustainable procurement systems and exclusion of noncompliant suppliers. The company said that since 2009 it has maintained a system to ensure suppliers meet socio-environmental criteria. “The companies that have made significant progress in their controls end up being criticized, and their transparency is used not as an incentive but as a penalty,” it said.Mercurio, Mafrinorte and Frigol didn´t reply to requests for comment.Global Canopy´s report was funded by the Bezos Earth Fund. Do Pasto ao Prato is financed by Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative.The state of Para harbors Brazil´s second largest cattle herd, with 25 million animals — and 35% of its territory is cleared, an area slightly smaller than Syria. As a result, it ranks first in greenhouse gas emissions among Brazilian states. A landmark study published in the journal Nature in 2021 found that the eastern Amazon, where Para is located, has ceased to function as a carbon sink, or absorber, for the Earth, due to widespread deforestation and climate change.Niki Mardas, executive director of Global Canopy, said there will be an update to Wednesday's baseline report in the runup to COP30 next November, when all eyes will be on the Amazon. “This isn't a fixed picture. This is a call to action.”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 - Sept. 2024

Forests
Climate
Nature

Maps reveal parts of protected Tasmanian native forest that could be open to logging, environmentalists say

Mapping based on documents released under right-to-information laws show proposed areas include habitats for 37 threatened speciesGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastEnvironmentalists have released what they say are the first maps of nearly 40,000 hectares of protected Tasmanian native forests that the state government plans to open to logging in what critics have described as “political point scoring”.They suggest significant parts of the state’s north-east around the Ben Lomond national park and near the town of Scottsdale could be made available to the forestry industry if the Liberal government wins support for the changes in parliament. A smaller area of forest could be opened up in the north-west between Smithton and Wynyard.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

Environmentalists have released what they say are the first maps of nearly 40,000 hectares of protected Tasmanian native forests that the state government plans to open to logging in what critics have described as “political point scoring”.They suggest significant parts of the state’s north-east around the Ben Lomond national park and near the town of Scottsdale could be made available to the forestry industry if the Liberal government wins support for the changes in parliament. A smaller area of forest could be opened up in the north-west between Smithton and Wynyard.The premier, Jeremy Rockliff, announced in February that a re-elected Liberal government would allow logging in 27 areas that have been protected since a “peace deal” was struck between the timber industry, conservation groups and unions in 2012 in an effort to end the decades-long conflict known as the “Tasmanian forest wars”.The policy to expand logging of native forests puts Tasmania at odds with Victoria and Western Australia, which banned the practice this year. It prompted accusations the Liberals would accelerate environmental damage. A forest lobby group argued Rockliff was treating the industry as a political football.Orange areas of the map are 39,000 hectares of forest that could be opened for logging under changes proposed by the Tasmanian government. Black areas are listed as ‘future potential production forest’ areas that the government says is a ‘wood bank’ and could be logged in future. Illustration: The Wilderness SocietyTen months on, the state government is yet to reveal which forests could be logged. The Wilderness Society mapped the proposed zones based on documents released under right-to-information laws last week that describe what has been included and excluded.The organisation says it includes forests that could be habitat for 37 threatened species, including the masked owl, wedge-tailed eagle and multiple types of quoll. The combined area is about 60 times larger than the Melbourne CBD.Guardian Australia asked the government if the maps were correct. The business, industry and resources minister, Eric Abetz, did not directly answer, but said the government had “clearly communicated” its policy was to open up to 40,000 hectares of forest to industry and it had “received a mandate to deliver on this commitment”.The Liberals won 14 out of 35 lower house seats at the March election and retained power with the support of crossbench MPs, who promised support on confidence and supply bills.Abetz said work was under way to prepare the information needed to win parliamentary approval to convert the protected areas into logging coupes. He said the forestry act required that environmental and heritage values of the land be considered and “balanced against the economic opportunities”.Alice Hardinge, the Wilderness Society’s Tasmanian campaigns manager, said the reserves should be protected from logging as promised. She said Australian taxpayers had already paid $121m in transition packages for workers affected by a reduction in logging in the state.“These forests, which communities fought so hard to protect and which contain such rich ecological and First Nations cultural significance, must be permanently protected, not handed over to loggers for political point scoring,” Hardinge said.The Liberals have promised to open up additional forests to logging since claiming power in 2014, designating 356,000 hectares of protected forest as a “wood bank” or “future potential production forest”. Those areas have not been logged in the decade since, and timber business leaders have warned attempts to fell trees in some areas could reignite protests and market campaigns that would damage the industry.As reported by the ABC, a right-to-information request by BirdLife Australia last week revealed the government had asked the state-owned forestry agency (formerly known as Forestry Tasmania, rebadged as Sustainable Timber Tasmania) in late 2021 if it wanted expanded access to native forests.The agency responded in March 2022 with a list of 27 areas, including more than 6,000 hectares that it acknowledged were “old growth” forest with “negligible” past disturbance. The forests are mostly eucalyptus – stringy bark, gum-top stringy bark and swamp gum. About 88% of trees in a 18,000 hectare area proposed for logging was estimated to be more than 80 years in age, and the agency conceded some of the land was “unsurveyed or poorly surveyed”.The government policy followed projections suggesting a drop in available native forest timber for sawmills after 2027. Nearly 90% of the timber produced in Australia comes from plantations.Abetz said environmentalists had an “ideological opposition to native forestry”, and their lobbying led to Labor governments shutting down native forestry in Victoria and WA. He said if Australians did not produce the hardwood timber it needed it would import more from native forests in the US, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Solomon Islands and South America.“Tasmanians can have confidence that the relevant environmental and cultural values will be identified and carefully managed before any forestry operations occur,” Abetz said.

Forests
Government
Conservation

Suggested Viewing

Among Giants

Among Giants begins three years into the McKay tree-sit- a response to Green Diamond Resource Company’s clearcutting of redwood forests. Atop his tiny platform a hundred feet up in the ancient redwood canopy, Farmer must battle the elements and avoid isolation as he fights for a sustainable future. The film uses a restrained verite style that reflects the pace of life in the tree village. As Farmer outlasts a vicious storm, counts the rings on a felled tree, and trumps through a recent clear cut, the film asks questions about what it means to follow one’s beliefs and make a difference in the world.

Forests
Activism
Nature

LEAVES

An academic woman in Texas becomes concerned when a massive red oak in her backyard seems to be ailing, though she isn’t sure why it bothers her so much. At the same time, in her small cottage, her attention to her work is distracted by news reports she sees and hears. They tell in graphic terms of the out-of-control forest fires up and down the West Coast. Her attention is further pulled in the direction of other stories about the worsening conditions of the world’s rainforests which she discovers are disappearing at the astounding rate of 200,000 acres a day. Suddenly such stories are all she seems to hear and see on the radio or television or on her computer. But when she hears/sees a science report about how trees actually communicate with each other, she begins to realize there may be a connection between her tree and what she is learning from the news. She begins to recall a strong connection she herself has with that tree and allows that connection to regrow…..

Pollution
Forests
Inspirational

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests
Chemicals
Climate

The Story of a Forest

In 2004, a generation of activists arose in South Florida, carrying the passion of direct action groups like Earth First. and the deep analysis of the global justice movement that had swept the country in the preceding years. These activists sought local issues that exemplified the threats of corporate globalization. They stumbled upon a plan from biotech industry giants acting in collusion with the administration of then-Governor Jeb Bush to clear a vast swath of land in the Northeast Everglades of Florida to accommodate The Scripps Biotech Research Institute - And it was on. Over the next ten years, endless county zoning meetings were counter-balanced by dozens of civil disobedience arrests and a near-constant flow of news headlines about the battle: lawsuits, scandal, corruption, tree sits, endangered species, pranks, blockades, and a roller coaster of incremental victories followed by devastating losses for years on end. THE STORY OF A FOREST captures it all in a 1/2 hour documentary about the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition (PBCEC) and Everglades Earth First!'s (EEF!) ten-plus year campaign to stop the Scripps Biotech development, with a focus on protecting biodiversity in the Briger forest and the Florida wetlands.

Activism
Forests
Business

Foresters

Some teenagers kidnap a kid in the forest and take him to their boss in a cottage.

Forests
Fiction
Youth

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.