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.

Why the Forest Service is logging after Hurricane Helene — and why some say it’s a mistake

News Feed
Tuesday, April 15, 2025

In the months after Hurricane Helene leveled thousands of acres in Pisgah National Forest, John Beaudet and other volunteers cleared downed trees from the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Chopping them up and moving them aside was back-breaking work, but essential to ensuring safe passage for hikers. So he was dismayed to learn that a section of the trail in western North Carolina could remain closed for more than a year because the National Forest Service wants that timber left alone so logging companies can clear it. “Rather than cut those logs out of the trail and open the trail up, the U.S. Forest Service wanted to salvage those trees as timber,” said Beaudet, an avid hiker who lives near Erwin, Tennessee. Such operations, common after natural disasters like hurricanes and fires, are typically subjected to environmental review, and the government solicits feedback from the public. But when Beaudet tried to comment on the process, he found that was not an option. “For the army of volunteers that work so hard to clear the trail out, it’s kind of a kick in the shins,” he said. The Appalachian Trail Conservancy worked with the Forest Service and local hiking clubs to reroute the trail, but it does not have a timeline for completion for the salvage project, a point of uncertainty for hikers and trail advocates. Of the nearly 800,000 acres of trees that Helene downed, about 187,000 lie in national forests. Salvage logging is the Forest Service’s primary method of handling such a large disturbance. However, scientists and forest advocates have long questioned whether salvage logging, which brings its own ecological damage, is the best approach and believe it denies nature time to heal.  Others argue that such operations are motivated more by profit than safety or environmental concern, and often provide cover for taking healthy trees that still stand.  The fast-track approach to environmental review following Helene has many people concerned that the public isn’t being given any chance to inform the process. According to forest advocates who have been in communication with the Forest Service, the government reportedly plans to announce 15 salvage projects in western North Carolina, including some 2,300 acres in Pisgah alone. The agency did reach out to the state Fish and Wildfire Service and the historic preservation office for consultation, but did not detail what those communications entailed.  Such projects are meant to remove flammable dead trees, create “fuel breaks” where a fire can be halted or slowed, and promote ecosystem regeneration. James Melonas, the supervisor for national forests in North Carolina, said urgency is warranted due to an active and ongoing fire season creating a state of emergency. Beyond providing fuel for conflagrations like those that burned North Carolina last month, felled trees still block many roads.  “Really it’s about reducing that immediate fire risk,” he said. “We’re not really focused at this point on the kind of longer-term forest restoration, which will come.”  A drone photo taken on October 28, 2024, shows trees leveled by Hurricane Helene in Buncombe County, North Carolina. Ted Richardson / The Washington Post via Getty Images Timber salvage is a complex process that requires surveying immense tracts of land, much of it remote and occasionally treacherous, to determine the damage, its impact, and how best to clear it. A scientific assessment, which typically takes about six months, determines the environmental impact of the operation. After that, the environmental impact statement is subject to public comment, after which it is revised into a final version. Once all of that is done, bids are solicited. The cost varies with the scale of the project, any roads that must be built or improved, and other factors, but the baseline is 25 cents per cubic foot of lumber. Then, salvage begins. Such work is difficult and dangerous. “It’s brutal,” said Bryan Box, a timber cruiser involved in a Helene-related operation in Georgia. His job includes choosing trees for removal and estimating how many trees are hauled off for sale. Clearing them requires working with immense machinery in rugged, often steep, terrain. Accidents can be deadly, and crews toil far from help should anything go wrong. Salvaging is ecologically disruptive. It can cause erosion, introduce fire-prone invasive plants, alter natural habitat, and impact water quality. That is why it is, like other logging projects, regulated under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. A forester’s job, Box said, is to use those guidelines to mitigate risks while protecting any endangered species, archaeological sites, or rare habitat. Box has been involved in NEPA reviews around the country, and understands the scientific questions and ecological intricacies involved with salvage.  “The wildlife biologist comes in and says, ‘OK, here’s where our known hawk nests were prior to the storm,” he offered as an example. Or botanists might look for threatened plants like American ginseng. “They have to have language in the environmental impact statement going over that sort of biological analysis.” All of that information is presented in an environmental impact statement and published so the public can review it. Salvage logging isn’t necessarily profitable, and companies often see it as a chance to squeeze a few dollars out of wood that otherwise might be left to rot. A forest disturbance like a hurricane can devastate local timber markets by making wood suddenly abundant, driving down its value. It doesn’t help that downed trees are less valuable than freshly-cut trees. Box said timber companies sometimes take healthy trees along with the salvage to make more money.  “As long as it’s a targeted salvage project whose aim is simply to remove dead and downed wood, that’s a worthy goal,” said Will Harlan, of the Center for Biological Diversity, who signed a letter asking the Forest Service to allow the public to comment on the projects. “What we get worried about is when the project expands beyond salvage logging to include intact, healthy, mature forests that are nearby, being lumped into the project just to make money.” The Forest Service does have ways to prevent this. It requires a timber sale administrator to visit logging sites every 14 days to make sure everything is on the up and up. Ideally, these agency employees are “watching like hawks,” Box said. But in reality, there are often so many projects going on at once that an administrator might have over a dozen projects to oversee. And the agency, already stretched thin, may soon see further staffing cuts. It doesn’t help that there is currently little regulatory pressure from above to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act. Recently released federal directives for the Forest Service invoke the need for logging as a means for preventing fires and promoting biodiversity, and point towards streamlining NEPA and eradicating it where possible. Read Next Logging doesn’t prevent wildfires, but Trump is trying it anyway Ayurella Horn-Muller Some forest ecologists believe salvage is a flawed fire prevention strategy because removing so much timber can actually increase fire risk. Trees, even fallen ones, keep the ground moist and cool; without them, it dries out. “Big logs are creating shade and humidity and don’t dry out that well,” said Josh Kelly, a forest ecologist with conservation nonprofit MountainTrue. “They can actually slow a fire down.” He isn’t opposed to clearing down trees, “so long as salvage really is aimed at reducing wildfire risk and logging debris is dealt with after logging and either chipped or mulched or pulled away from roads. I just really wish there wasn’t this secrecy surrounding it.” Critics also argue that salvage logging does more harm than good and a damaged forest ought to be left to recover on its own, especially given the trauma it has already endured. “If you look at Webster’s dictionary, salvage is taking something of value from something that’s been destroyed,” said conservation biologist Dominick DelaSalla, an ardent opponent of the practice. Blowdowns are part of the natural cycles that create the diverse habitats needed to ensure forest health and diversity, he said. Those downed logs have greater value in nurturing life by cycling nutrients and creating habitat, two benefits that outweigh any financial gain gleaned from their harvest. Removing them, he said, can interrupt or alter the process of regrowth, especially when many forest types, like some in Appalachia, are fire-adapted. Rather than clearing downed trees and old growth, DelaSalla said fire mitigation should focus on creating fuel breaks, promoting fire safety education, fireproofing homes, and adopting zoning regulations that minimize further expansion into the wildland-urban interface. Kelly said while smaller twigs  downed by Helene may be linked to the fires that burned last month, and the downed trees littering Pisgah and other forests may not pose a threat until they’ve had a few years to dry out. Other factors post a far greater threat, he said. “The Southeast in general has been having a very active fire season due to global warming and weather,” he said. Last month was the lowest-humidity March on record for much of the region.   Ultimately, conservationists would prefer a stewardship-based approach to letting damaged forests regenerate at their own pace. That approach can conflict with the pressure to maintain public safety, the federal government’s interest in increasing logging, and the economic benefits recreation and tourism bring to communities. Such tensions will only increase as climate change brings more frequent, and more intense storms like Helene and the nation’s forests grow increasingly vulnerable.   “What we’re going to continue to see is probably increased rates of canopy turnover, increased mortality rates of the older trees, and a changing species composition and conditions,” said Kelly. “There won’t be an equilibrium until  the climate and weather reach an equilibrium.” Lilly Knoepp contributed reporting to this story. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why the Forest Service is logging after Hurricane Helene — and why some say it’s a mistake on Apr 15, 2025.

Volunteers, scientists, and hikers are asking for transparency in a process they say could prioritize profit over ecosystems

In the months after Hurricane Helene leveled thousands of acres in Pisgah National Forest, John Beaudet and other volunteers cleared downed trees from the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. Chopping them up and moving them aside was back-breaking work, but essential to ensuring safe passage for hikers. So he was dismayed to learn that a section of the trail in western North Carolina could remain closed for more than a year because the National Forest Service wants that timber left alone so logging companies can clear it.

“Rather than cut those logs out of the trail and open the trail up, the U.S. Forest Service wanted to salvage those trees as timber,” said Beaudet, an avid hiker who lives near Erwin, Tennessee. Such operations, common after natural disasters like hurricanes and fires, are typically subjected to environmental review, and the government solicits feedback from the public. But when Beaudet tried to comment on the process, he found that was not an option. “For the army of volunteers that work so hard to clear the trail out, it’s kind of a kick in the shins,” he said. The Appalachian Trail Conservancy worked with the Forest Service and local hiking clubs to reroute the trail, but it does not have a timeline for completion for the salvage project, a point of uncertainty for hikers and trail advocates.

Of the nearly 800,000 acres of trees that Helene downed, about 187,000 lie in national forests. Salvage logging is the Forest Service’s primary method of handling such a large disturbance. However, scientists and forest advocates have long questioned whether salvage logging, which brings its own ecological damage, is the best approach and believe it denies nature time to heal.  Others argue that such operations are motivated more by profit than safety or environmental concern, and often provide cover for taking healthy trees that still stand. 

The fast-track approach to environmental review following Helene has many people concerned that the public isn’t being given any chance to inform the process. According to forest advocates who have been in communication with the Forest Service, the government reportedly plans to announce 15 salvage projects in western North Carolina, including some 2,300 acres in Pisgah alone. The agency did reach out to the state Fish and Wildfire Service and the historic preservation office for consultation, but did not detail what those communications entailed. 

Such projects are meant to remove flammable dead trees, create “fuel breaks” where a fire can be halted or slowed, and promote ecosystem regeneration. James Melonas, the supervisor for national forests in North Carolina, said urgency is warranted due to an active and ongoing fire season creating a state of emergency. Beyond providing fuel for conflagrations like those that burned North Carolina last month, felled trees still block many roads. 

“Really it’s about reducing that immediate fire risk,” he said. “We’re not really focused at this point on the kind of longer-term forest restoration, which will come.” 

An aerial photo shows acres of trees in the Elk Mountains felled by Hurricane Helene.
A drone photo taken on October 28, 2024, shows trees leveled by Hurricane Helene in Buncombe County, North Carolina. Ted Richardson / The Washington Post via Getty Images

Timber salvage is a complex process that requires surveying immense tracts of land, much of it remote and occasionally treacherous, to determine the damage, its impact, and how best to clear it. A scientific assessment, which typically takes about six months, determines the environmental impact of the operation. After that, the environmental impact statement is subject to public comment, after which it is revised into a final version. Once all of that is done, bids are solicited. The cost varies with the scale of the project, any roads that must be built or improved, and other factors, but the baseline is 25 cents per cubic foot of lumber. Then, salvage begins.

Such work is difficult and dangerous. “It’s brutal,” said Bryan Box, a timber cruiser involved in a Helene-related operation in Georgia. His job includes choosing trees for removal and estimating how many trees are hauled off for sale. Clearing them requires working with immense machinery in rugged, often steep, terrain. Accidents can be deadly, and crews toil far from help should anything go wrong.

Salvaging is ecologically disruptive. It can cause erosion, introduce fire-prone invasive plants, alter natural habitat, and impact water quality. That is why it is, like other logging projects, regulated under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. A forester’s job, Box said, is to use those guidelines to mitigate risks while protecting any endangered species, archaeological sites, or rare habitat. Box has been involved in NEPA reviews around the country, and understands the scientific questions and ecological intricacies involved with salvage. 

“The wildlife biologist comes in and says, ‘OK, here’s where our known hawk nests were prior to the storm,” he offered as an example. Or botanists might look for threatened plants like American ginseng. “They have to have language in the environmental impact statement going over that sort of biological analysis.” All of that information is presented in an environmental impact statement and published so the public can review it.

Salvage logging isn’t necessarily profitable, and companies often see it as a chance to squeeze a few dollars out of wood that otherwise might be left to rot. A forest disturbance like a hurricane can devastate local timber markets by making wood suddenly abundant, driving down its value. It doesn’t help that downed trees are less valuable than freshly-cut trees. Box said timber companies sometimes take healthy trees along with the salvage to make more money. 

“As long as it’s a targeted salvage project whose aim is simply to remove dead and downed wood, that’s a worthy goal,” said Will Harlan, of the Center for Biological Diversity, who signed a letter asking the Forest Service to allow the public to comment on the projects. “What we get worried about is when the project expands beyond salvage logging to include intact, healthy, mature forests that are nearby, being lumped into the project just to make money.”

The Forest Service does have ways to prevent this. It requires a timber sale administrator to visit logging sites every 14 days to make sure everything is on the up and up. Ideally, these agency employees are “watching like hawks,” Box said. But in reality, there are often so many projects going on at once that an administrator might have over a dozen projects to oversee. And the agency, already stretched thin, may soon see further staffing cuts.

It doesn’t help that there is currently little regulatory pressure from above to enforce the National Environmental Policy Act. Recently released federal directives for the Forest Service invoke the need for logging as a means for preventing fires and promoting biodiversity, and point towards streamlining NEPA and eradicating it where possible.

Some forest ecologists believe salvage is a flawed fire prevention strategy because removing so much timber can actually increase fire risk. Trees, even fallen ones, keep the ground moist and cool; without them, it dries out. “Big logs are creating shade and humidity and don’t dry out that well,” said Josh Kelly, a forest ecologist with conservation nonprofit MountainTrue. “They can actually slow a fire down.” He isn’t opposed to clearing down trees, “so long as salvage really is aimed at reducing wildfire risk and logging debris is dealt with after logging and either chipped or mulched or pulled away from roads. I just really wish there wasn’t this secrecy surrounding it.”

Critics also argue that salvage logging does more harm than good and a damaged forest ought to be left to recover on its own, especially given the trauma it has already endured. “If you look at Webster’s dictionary, salvage is taking something of value from something that’s been destroyed,” said conservation biologist Dominick DelaSalla, an ardent opponent of the practice.

Blowdowns are part of the natural cycles that create the diverse habitats needed to ensure forest health and diversity, he said. Those downed logs have greater value in nurturing life by cycling nutrients and creating habitat, two benefits that outweigh any financial gain gleaned from their harvest. Removing them, he said, can interrupt or alter the process of regrowth, especially when many forest types, like some in Appalachia, are fire-adapted. Rather than clearing downed trees and old growth, DelaSalla said fire mitigation should focus on creating fuel breaks, promoting fire safety education, fireproofing homes, and adopting zoning regulations that minimize further expansion into the wildland-urban interface.

Kelly said while smaller twigs  downed by Helene may be linked to the fires that burned last month, and the downed trees littering Pisgah and other forests may not pose a threat until they’ve had a few years to dry out. Other factors post a far greater threat, he said. “The Southeast in general has been having a very active fire season due to global warming and weather,” he said. Last month was the lowest-humidity March on record for much of the region.  

Ultimately, conservationists would prefer a stewardship-based approach to letting damaged forests regenerate at their own pace. That approach can conflict with the pressure to maintain public safety, the federal government’s interest in increasing logging, and the economic benefits recreation and tourism bring to communities. Such tensions will only increase as climate change brings more frequent, and more intense storms like Helene and the nation’s forests grow increasingly vulnerable. 

 “What we’re going to continue to see is probably increased rates of canopy turnover, increased mortality rates of the older trees, and a changing species composition and conditions,” said Kelly. “There won’t be an equilibrium until  the climate and weather reach an equilibrium.”

Lilly Knoepp contributed reporting to this story.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why the Forest Service is logging after Hurricane Helene — and why some say it’s a mistake on Apr 15, 2025.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Portland City Council moves to reject controversial PGE Forest Park transmission project

The Portland City Council moved Thursday to reject a PGE transmission upgrade project in Forest Park that would require the utility to clearcut more than 370 trees on about 5 acres in the park.

The Portland City Council moved Thursday to reject a Portland General Electric transmission upgrade project in Forest Park that would require the utility to clearcut more than 370 trees on about 5 acres in the park. The decision Thursday night – described as “tentative” until a final vote on May 7 – came after councilors considered appeals by the Forest Park Conservancy and Forest Park Neighborhood Association to overturn a city of Portland hearings officer approval in March of PGE’s proposal. The vote followed five hours of presentations and public testimony and directs city attorneys to write an ordinance to grant the appeals and overturn the hearings officer’s decision. PGE can appeal to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. PGE wants to rewire a 1970s transmission line and add a second line in the utility’s existing right-of-way and said the upgrade will address an increase in the region’s energy demand and prevent rolling blackouts in North and Northwest Portland. A report from Portland’s Permitting and Development Office in January recommended that the hearings officer turn down PGE’s project due to non-compliance with environmental standards and the city’s Forest Park management plan. But hearings officer Marisha Childs last month went against those recommendations, agreeing with PGE about the need for the project and finding that routing through Forest Park “is the least environmentally detrimental option” of all the alternatives PGE analyzed. The two groups that filed the appeals said PGE failed to meet city approval criteria and that project would set a precedent for further development in the park. PGE’s proposal had touched off a months-long clash between the utility and opponents who seek to protect the trees in the 5,200-acre park because they provide valuable habitat for countless wildlife species and climate benefits to all city residents. More than 3,000 people filed testimony about the project, including over 1,000 who sent in comments ahead of the appeals hearing, with the vast majority against the upgrade. Several hundred protesters gathered at City Hall before the hearing. They held cardboard cutouts of trees, animals and insects and signs that read “Save Forest Park,” “No more ecocide” and “You have to be nuts to destroy Forest Park.” A protester at Portland City Hall holds a sign opposing PGE's transmission upgrade project in Forest Park ahead of a City Council appeals hearing. Beth Nakamura“It’s important to have more energy transmission infrastructure, power lines and responsive grids, yet this is one of the situations where it is very clear there is no ambiguity. PGE can build this project elsewhere in order to keep the lights on,” Damon Motz-Storey, the Sierra Club Oregon chapter’s director, told the crowd. “These trees have been standing since before we even had electricity in homes.”Motz-Storey then led the rally in a chant: “Listen to the people and the trees, not PGE.” Protesters and park advocates filled the council chambers and two overflow rooms, testifying one after another that the PGE project runs counter to the city’s plan to sustain an old-growth forest in Forest Park and asking for the council to save the trees and protect the park. Protesters at Portland City Hall listen as the City Council considers the appeals on PGE's controversial Forest Park transmission project. Beth Nakamura“This project is unacceptable to us and the community and the critters and plants that depend on us to say no to cutting trees, building roads, bulldozing, filling in wetlands and streams and saying this is good for climate resilience,” said Scott Fogarty, executive director with Forest Park Conservancy, the group that filed one of the appeals. The conservancy formed to maintain trails and restore native habitat in the park. Fogarty said PGE’s proposed plan to offset losses from the upgrade does not address cutting down 100-year-old trees and the benefits they bring. The mitigation proposal includes planting Oregon white oak seedlings near the project area, seeding the transmission corridor and access road edges with a pollinator-friendly native seed mix and paying a fee to the city to remove invasive species in the park. He also said the upgrade would pave the way for city approval of future phases of the project in Forest Park and lead to more tree removal. PGE has said those future phases could affect another 15 acres of the park. “Is 5 acres acceptable? Is 20 acres acceptable? Where do we draw the line?” Fogarty asked the council members. “One could argue losing just one 100-year-old tree is unacceptable, let alone 5 acres. In the age of climate resilience, this project flies in the face of retaining carbon suckers in a region that is seeing increased impacts from climate change, including potential fire danger.” PGE argued before the council that the project area is neither old nor ancient forest and that the maintenance of existing transmission lines is key to preserving blackout-free electricity. A proposal by Portland General Electric to cut more than 370 trees in Forest Park to upgrade transmission lines has spurred opposition. The utility and renewable energy proponents say the upgrades are needed to address transmission bottlenecks and fulfill state clean energy mandates.courtesy of Portland General Electric“Alleviating this choke point is important because our experts predict that as early as 2028 there is the risk of outages during times of peak demand,” said Randy Franks, a senior project manager for PGE. “Think about the hottest part of the day, during an ongoing heat wave, with no fans and no air conditioning.”Franks said the more than 20 alternatives PGE examined were not practical, would require the utility to take property through eminent domain, would take too much time or cost too much – and could lead to similar or even greater negative impacts to trees and wildlife outside the park. He said the city’s Forest Park management plan acknowledges the existence of utility corridors and the need to maintain and upgrade them over time and that doing so will help reduce global warming.“If we are serious about combating climate change, we simply have to improve the grid, keep it reliable and increase transmission capacity,” Franks said. Only a handful of people testified in favor of PGE’s plans. “Utilities around the country, including ours, are facing the most rapid load increases in a generation and concomitant reliability challenges. At the same time, our state is laboring to remove from the grid the coal and gas plants that are fueling climate change locally,” said Angus Duncan, the former chair of the Northwest Conservation and Power Planning Council, a group tasked with developing and maintaining a regional power plan. “We need to rebuild the power system to exclude fossil generation.” Council members Angelita Morillo and Steve Novick questioned the assertion that PGE’s proposal would help combat climate change. Novick also asked why PGE did not provide more evidence as to why the transmission upgrades are needed by 2028, not at a later date. Other councilors said they did not feel PGE had proved an alternative outside the park was unfeasible and did not present a compelling mitigation plan. And most of the 12 council members said they disagreed with PGE and the hearings officer that the proposal meets the parameters of the park’s management plan. “Ultimately, I think what has been proposed is probably the best option in the park,” said Councilor Eric Zimmerman. But, he said, nothing in PGE’s proposal showed that the council should overrule the Forest Park management plan. “I don’t think the standard has been met to not follow that plan,” Zimmerman said.Council President Elana Pirtle-Guiney agreed. “If an alternative (to the project) exists, we should not be granting an exception,” she said. Councilor Dan Ryan said the decision will likely be one of many to pit the needs for clean electricity against those of protecting the environment. “Portland will be having more and more tough decisions that include extremely difficult trade-offs. This is just where we are in managing the climate crisis,” Ryan said. “I think PGE worked really hard to find the best option and yet we all want a different option.” That’s because, he added, he – like other Portlanders – loves the park and its trees. “Forest Park is a cathedral,” Ryan said. “And maybe it’s Holy Week and I’m just treating this in a very spiritual way, but it’s just really difficult for me to think I could take a vote that would on the appearance be about deforesting Forest Park during this sacred week.” — Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

Revealed: world’s largest meat company may break Amazon deforestation pledges again

Brazilian ranchers in Pará and Rondônia say JBS can not achieve stated goal of deforestation-free cattleBibles, bullets and beef: Amazon cowboy culture at odds with Brazil’s climate goalsThe life and death of a ‘laundered’ cow in the Amazon rainforestThe world’s largest meat company, JBS, looks set to break its Amazon rainforest protection promises again, according to frontline workers.Beef production is the primary driver of deforestation, as trees are cleared to raise cattle, and scientists warn this is pushing the Amazon close to a tipping point that would accelerate its shift from a carbon sink into a carbon emitter. JBS, the Brazil-headquartered multinational that dominates the Brazilian cattle market, promised to address this with a commitment to clean up its beef supply chain in the region by the end of 2025. Continue reading...

The world’s largest meat company, JBS, looks set to break its Amazon rainforest protection promises again, according to frontline workers.Beef production is the primary driver of deforestation, as trees are cleared to raise cattle, and scientists warn this is pushing the Amazon close to a tipping point that would accelerate its shift from a carbon sink into a carbon emitter. JBS, the Brazil-headquartered multinational that dominates the Brazilian cattle market, promised to address this with a commitment to clean up its beef supply chain in the region by the end of 2025.In a project to understand the barriers to progress on Amazon deforestation, a team of journalists from the Guardian, Unearthed and Repórter Brasil interviewed more than 35 people, including ranchers and ranching union leaders who represent thousands of farms in the states of Pará and Rondônia. The investigation found widespread disbelief that JBS would be able to complete the groundwork and hit its deforestation targets.“They certainly have the will to do it, just as we have the will to do it,” said one rancher. But the goal that all the cattle they bought would be deforestation-free was unreachable, he said. “They say this is going to be implemented. I’d say straight away: that’s impossible.” The problem of illegal cattle laundering would also not be resolved in time, said many, while another interviewee said land ownership issues meant quite simply that the deadline was “impossible”.JBS told the Guardian that it contested the conclusions. “Drawing inferences and conclusions from a limited sample of 30 farmers while disregarding that JBS has over 40,000 registered suppliers is entirely irresponsible,” the company said in a statement. It said that “while the sector-wide challenges are significant and larger than any one company can solve on its own, we believe JBS has an in-depth and robust series of integrated policies, systems, and investments that are making a material and positive impact on reducing deforestation risks.”To hit its targets, JBS needs to register all its direct and indirect suppliers and ensure none of the meat it buys from the Amazon is from cattle that has grazed on deforested land. It has established a network of “green offices” to provide free consultation to ranchers on how to comply with the three- to six-month process of regularisation, which involves drawing up a plan to plant more trees, withdrawing from contested territory, or making other environmental remediations. Then details will go into the JBS database, which continually monitors farms using artificial intelligence, and owners will be contacted if they fail to meet their obligations. In Pará, the company is also working with the state government on an ear-tagging scheme that would track the state’s entire herd of 26 million cattle by 2026.The Pará state governor, Helder Barbalho, who has supported the traceability plan, expects JBS to meet its deadline, but he acknowledged there had been resistance and that small farmers in particular would need more support. He said the Bezos Earth Fund had committed 143m reais to this task: “We are still mobilising resources so that we can finance this policy that is very important for us to present to livestock farmers.”But ranchers and rancher unions interviewed by the Guardian and its partners said that technical hurdles and uncertainties over land ownership – many ranches were created by invading public land – stood no chance of resolution by the company’s self-imposed deadline.Adelosmar Antonio Orio, known as Ticão, who works for the Tucumaã-Ourilaãndia Union of Rural Producers, said the logistical challenges, such as ranchers needing special equipment including ear trackers and satellite internet systems, would make the scheme impossible to complete before the year-end deadline. “Not even they [JBS] know how this traceability is going to be implemented,” he said. Others argued that new small- and medium-sized producers were being asked to bear most of the burden of the new system and that JBS and the government had not done enough to explain the new tracking system and provide the technological support needed to make it work.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy 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 promotionThe thorny subject of land ownership would also be impossible to resolve, argued many, including Cristina Malcher, the president of the Commission of Women in Agribusiness, a national advocacy body for women in agriculture. “The deadline of 2025 is impossible to meet, because if you don’t know who owns the land, then you don’t have environmental regularity,” Malcher told the Guardian.Ticão agreed. “By the end of the year, we need to resolve all the land problems, all the environmental problems.” Could it be done in time? “Definitely not,” he said. His union colleagues expressed similar disbelief that the deadline could be met.The investigation also spoke to indirect suppliers who openly admitted to using middlemen to clean up the environmental record of their livestock, a practice known as cattle laundering. Several producers predicted that a new tracing system would lead to new loopholes, such as slaughtering the cattle elsewhere and then selling the meat – rather than live cattle – at a low price to JBS.JBS has not mapped its entire supply chain, due under its deforestation commitments by the end of this year. But the company said: “JBS has already enrolled the equivalent of over 80% of its annual cattle purchases on to a blockchain-enabled, web-based transparent farming livestock platform.”JBS has previously been linked to deforestation on a number of occasions, and the New York attorney general, Letitia James, filed a lawsuit last year accusing the company of misleading consumers with its climate goals in an effort to increase sales. A bipartisan group of 15 US senators urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to reject JBS’s application for a share listing. “Dozens of journalistic and NGO reports have shown that JBS is linked to more destruction of forests and other ecosystems than any other company in Brazil,” they wrote in an open letter.JBS told the Guardian: “The challenges of addressing illegal deforestation on cattle operations that span millions of farms across hundreds of thousands of square kilometresare significant.” It detailed its response, which includes zero tolerance for deforestation sourcing policy, state-of-the-art supply chain monitoring, free technical assistance for producers to help regularise their farms, and the JBS Fund for the Amazon, which finances projects focused on the sustainable development of the Amazon biome.The company also said: “JBS works with farmers, ranchers and partners across the food system to develop solutions that support a growing global population while optimising resources and reducing agriculture’s environmental impact. Cattle raising in the Amazon is undergoing a sectoral transformation, and one company cannot solve all the industry’s challenges.”

Monteverde Fights Gentrification to Preserve Community

In the Tilarán Mountains, Monteverde, Costa Rica is known for its biodiversity and ecotourism. However, rising rents and land prices are driving gentrification, forcing many local residents to commute from nearby areas for work as living costs exceed their budgets. Ecotourism drives Monteverde’s economy, attracting over 200,000 visitors each year to its cloud forests and […] The post Monteverde Fights Gentrification to Preserve Community appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

In the Tilarán Mountains, Monteverde, Costa Rica is known for its biodiversity and ecotourism. However, rising rents and land prices are driving gentrification, forcing many local residents to commute from nearby areas for work as living costs exceed their budgets. Ecotourism drives Monteverde’s economy, attracting over 200,000 visitors each year to its cloud forests and reserves. The high demand for land has prompted some locals to sell to foreign investors, who build hotels and tour businesses. This has intensified gentrification, with homes often converted into Airbnbs, reducing affordable housing options. “We’re not immune to gentrification,” Monteverde Mayor Yeudy Ramírez said. “We’re focusing on empowering our community by supporting local entrepreneurs and encouraging residents to start businesses instead of selling their land.” The municipality backs local entrepreneurs through training and resources. The National Learning Institute (INA) provides English language courses to prepare residents for tourism jobs, while the Emprende Rural program offers funding and advice to rural producers and business owners. These initiatives aim to create diverse income sources and reduce land sales. “We want the local farmer or small business owner to say, ‘I’ll develop my property with community support rather than sell it cheaply to a foreigner,’” Ramírez said. The Monteverde Community Fund supports these efforts with project management and grant-writing courses for local organizations. Programs like the Monteverde Summit connect nonprofits to promote sustainable development, and the “Hecho en Monteverde” certification highlights locally made, eco-friendly products. Ramírez said Monteverde opposes large foreign companies building major projects. “We prefer foreign partners who work with locals, not control our economy,” he said. This approach aligns with the community’s goal of preserving its identity, as noted in recent reports on Monteverde’s resistance to gentrification. The Monteverde Commission for Climate Change Resilience (CORCLIMA), led by Katy VanDusen, promotes sustainable practices and certifies businesses meeting environmental standards. This helps ensure tourism benefits the community while protecting the environment.Monteverde is addressing environmental and infrastructure needs. The Monteverde Environmental Technology Park (PTAM), run by the Santa Elena ASADA and municipal council, processes over six tons of organic waste weekly from businesses, creating eco-friendly fertilizer. In 2020, the region composted 333 tons of its 450-ton organic waste output, cutting landfill use. The municipality is also upgrading unpaved access roads, which have limited tourist traffic but challenge locals. Improved roads aim to enhance connectivity while supporting controlled tourism growth. Despite gentrification pressures, Monteverde’s community remains committed to its roots. From the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve to cooperatives like CASEM, which supports female artisans, locals are channeling tourism revenue into conservation and development. These efforts reflect a focus on sustainable growth that prioritizes residents. Ramírez and Monteverde’s residents continue to work toward a future where the area remains a home for its people, not just a destination for tourists. The post Monteverde Fights Gentrification to Preserve Community appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Allowing forests to regrow and regenerate is a great way to restore habitat

New research found regrowth in Queensland provided valuable habitat after 15 years, on average, with some species benefiting from trees as young as 3 years of age.

Cynthia A Jackson, ShutterstockQueensland is widely known as the land clearing capital of Australia. But what’s not so well known is many of the cleared trees can grow back naturally. The latest state government figures show regrowth across more than 7.6 million hectares in Queensland in 2020-21. These trees, though young, still provide valuable habitat for many threatened species – as long as they’re not bulldozed again. Our new research explored the benefits of regrowth for 30 threatened animal species in Queensland. We found regrown forests and woodlands provided valuable habitat and food for species after an average of 15 years. Some species were likely to benefit from trees as young as three years. This presents an opportunity for governments to support landowners and encourage them to retain more regrowing forest and woodland, especially where it can provide much-needed habitat for wildlife. But it’s a challenge because there is strong pressure to clear regrowth, largely to maintain pasture. Clearing of regrowth woodlands in Queensland. Martin Taylor When do young forests and woodlands become valuable habitat? We focused on threatened animal species that depend on forests and woodlands, and occur in regions with substantial regrowth. We wanted to find out which species use regrowth, and how old the trees need to be. But there’s not much survey data available on threatened species living in naturally regenerated forest and woodlands. To elicit this information we asked almost 50 experts to complete a detailed questionnaire and attend a workshop. We found 15 years was the average minimum age at which regrowth became useful to threatened species. But the full range was 3-68 years, depending on factors such as what a species eats, how it moves through the landscape and whether it needs tree hollows for shelter or breeding. For example, one threatened bird (the squatter pigeon) could use woodlands as young as three years old. Koalas benefited from regrowth as young as nine years old. Some species, such as the greater glider, need much older forests. This is because they require large tree hollows to shelter in during the day, and large trees to feed on and move between at night. So young forests shouldn’t be seen as an alternative to protecting old forests. We need both. The squatter pigeon could benefit from just three years of regrowth. Imogen Warren, Shutterstock Understanding the extent of habitat loss We also estimated the proportion of each species’ current habitat that comprises regrowth, using satellite data and publicly available data. For some species, we found regrowth made up almost a third of their potential habitat in Queensland. On average, it was 18%. However, nearly three-quarters of the habitat lost in Queensland since 2018 was regrowth forests and woodlands. So while the loss of older, “remnant” vegetation is more damaging per unit area, the regrowth habitat is being lost on a bigger scale. Our research suggests retaining more regrowth could be an easy and cost-effective way to help save threatened species. In contrast, tree planting is time-consuming and expensive. What’s more, only 10% of our native plants are readily available as seeds for sale. This, combined with more extreme weather such as prolonged droughts, often causes restoration projects to fail. Encouraging landholders to retain regrowth The fact that habitat can regrow naturally in parts of Queensland is a huge bonus. But farmers also need to maintain productivity, which can decrease if there’s too much regrowth. So, how do we help these landowners retain more regrowth? One way is to provide incentives. For example, government-funded biodiversity stewardship schemes provide payments to cover the costs of managing the vegetation – such as fencing off habitat and managing weeds – as well as compensation for loss of agricultural production. Targeting areas of regrowth with high habitat values could be a way for such schemes to benefit wildlife. Alternatively, market-based schemes allow landowners to generate biodiversity or carbon “credits” by keeping more trees on their property. Then, businesses (or governments) buy these credits. For example, some big emitters in Australia have to purchase carbon credits to “offset” their own emissions. However, Australia’s carbon market has been accused of issuing “low integrity” carbon credits. This means the carbon credits were paid for projects that may not have captured and stored the amount of carbon they were supposed to. To make sure these markets work, robust methods are needed – and until now, there hasn’t been one that worked to retain regrowth. Trees are good for the land, air and sea In February, the Queensland government released a method by which landholders could generate carbon credits by agreeing not to clear their regrowing woodlands and forests. The new carbon method provides a promising opportunity to allow landowners to diversify their farm income. In addition, tree cover brings direct, on-farm benefits such as more shade and shelter for livestock, natural pest control and better soil health. At a landscape level, greater tree cover can improve local climate regulation, reduce sediment run-off to the Great Barrier Reef and reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. Ideally, Australia’s carbon and biodiversity markets would work alongside sufficient government funding for nature recovery, which needs to increase to at least 1% (currently it’s around 0.1%). Meanwhile, our research has shown embracing natural regeneration potential in Queensland will have benefits for a range of threatened species too. We acknowledge our research coauthors, Jeremy Simmonds (2rog Consulting), Michelle Ward (Griffith University) and Teresa Eyre (Queensland Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation). Hannah Thomas received an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship with a $10,000 top-up from WWF-Australia. She is an early-career leader with the Biodiversity Council.Martine Maron has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, and the federal government's National Environmental Science Program, and has advised both state and federal government on conservation policy. She is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, a councillor with the Biodiversity Council, and leads the IUCN's thematic group on Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation under the Commission on Ecosystem Management. She currently sits on the Protect and Enhance advisory panel to the NSW Natural Resources Commission.

Tree Rings Bear Witness to Illegal Gold Mining Operations in the Amazon, New Study Finds

Mercury concentrations in fig trees could provide useful information about mining activity in the rainforest over time

Tree Rings Bear Witness to Illegal Gold Mining Operations in the Amazon, New Study Finds Mercury concentrations in fig trees could provide useful information about mining activity in the rainforest over time An aerial view of dredges at an illegal gold mining area in the Amazon region of Peru. Ernesto Benavides / AFP via Getty Images Gold mining has ramped up across the Amazon rainforest in recent years, leaving devastated landscapes behind. Small-scale—and usually illegal—mining operations dredge the mineral from subsoil or river sediment. Then, to separate the gold, miners will pour liquid mercury into the soil, forming a hard coating around the coveted mineral. Then, they’ll burn off the mercury to get pure gold. This process unleashes toxic mercury into the air, making small-scale gold mining worldwide responsible for nearly two-fifths of the planet’s mercury pollution. While these operations provide an important source of income to many locals, they also poison the surrounding environment and negatively impact people’s health. That mercury also finds its way into trees, according to a study published in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science last week. Tracking the mercury content in tree rings, the research suggests, can offer insight into mining operations over time. “We could potentially see whether mining is starting to ramp up,” says Jacqueline Gerson, an environmental engineer at Cornell University and the study’s lead author, to James Dinneen at New Scientist. Gerson and her team took core samples from the trunks of fig trees (Ficus insipida) at five sites in the Peruvian Amazon. Three of those sites were located within about 3.1 miles of towns with known mining activity, while the other two were far from any activity. Research assistants took cores from fig trees in the Peruvian Amazon to study their rings. Fernanda Machicao Mercury levels were highest in the samples collected near mining operations and lower near the more isolated towns. The levels found in the trunks reflected higher atmospheric mercury concentrations, which in that area can be readily linked to gold mining, Gerson says in a statement. The results also show that mercury concentrations rose after 2000, likely because that’s when gold mining activities started to ramp up in those towns, per the statement. “You can start to go back and see: How did it change when the mining came?” says study co-author Luis Fernandez, executive director of Wake Forest University’s Center for Amazonian Scientific Innovation, to New Scientist. “We’re starting to see that it changed a lot.” Other studies have also used tree rings to track mercury levels, but not in gold-mining regions of the tropics. “While the technique itself is not new,” Gerson adds in another statement, “we wanted to test its application in places where it’s really hard to put out monitors for atmospheric concentrations, because they’re costly and require energy or need to be changed a lot.” Mercury monitors for remote areas can cost up to $100 each, so studying tree rings is a much cheaper option. The study authors suggest their findings could be helpful to the United Nations’ Minamata Convention on Mercury, an international treaty to protect humans and the environment from the negative effects of the metal. Using tree rings can allow for regional monitoring efforts beyond the Amazon, says Gerson in a statement. Fernandez tells New Scientist that his research consortium, the Center for Amazonian Scientific Innovation, which focuses on rainforest restoration and mercury pollution, has had its funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) terminated. He calls that decision counter-productive. “Artisanal gold mining is something that threatens borders,” he says. “It corrupts societies. It is a global source of mercury pollution.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

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.