LONDON, 20 August, 2020 – There is one straightforward way to reduce greenhouse gases: by taking better care of the world’s natural forests.
European and US scientists think they may have settled a complex argument about how to restore a natural forest so that it absorbs more carbon. Don’t just leave nature to regenerate in the way she knows best. Get into the woodland and manage, and plant.
Researchers from 13 universities and research institutions report in the journal Science that they carefully mapped and then studied a stretch of tropical forest in Sabah, in Malaysian Borneo: a forest that had been heavily logged more than 30 years ago, and converted to plantation, and then finally protected from further damage. The mapping techniques recorded where, and how much, above-ground carbon was concentrated, across thousands of hectares.
Faster Recovery
The researchers report that those reaches of forest left to regenerate without human help recovered by as much as 2.9 tonnes of above-ground carbon per hectare each year. But those areas of forest that were helped a little, by what the scientists call “active restoration”, did even better.
Humans entered the regenerating forests and cut back the lianas – the climbing plants that flourish in degraded forests and compete with saplings – to help seedlings flourish. They also weeded where appropriate and enriched the mix of new plants with native seedlings.
Where this happened, the forest recovered 50% faster and carbon storage above-ground per hectare was measured at between 2.9 tonnes per hectare and 4.4 tonnes.
The lesson to be drawn is that where a natural forest may be thought fully restored after 60 years, active restoration could make it happen in 40 years.
Restoration helps previously over-used forests not only to recover carbon, but also to become ecologically sound and diverse again”
—Christopher Philipson, Swiss Federal Technology Institute
The research demonstrates two things. The first is that forests can and will restore themselves: opportunistic plants will colonise open space and provide cover for those species best adapted to long-term survival in that climate and habitat. Nature will decide what conservationists call “the climax vegetation” of any natural forest. The second is that nature can indeed benefit from selective human help.
“This active restoration encourages naturally diverse forest, and is therefore much more beneficial for biodiversity than monocultures or plantation forests,” said Christopher Philipson, of the Swiss Federal Technology Institute known as ETH Zurich.
“In this way restoration helps previously over-used forests not only to recover carbon, but also to become ecologically sound and diverse again.”
There will be arguments about the finding. One is that what might be a good solution in south-east Asia might not be the best answer for the Congo or parts of the Amazon: as humans degrade the forest, they may also affect the local climate in ways that favour some native species rather than others. That is, it might never be possible to restore a forest to what it had been before the forester’s axe arrived.
Restoration’s Pricetag
There is a second argument: restoration work costs money. How much economic sense it makes depends on what value scientists, politicians and economists put on the carbon that is sequestered as a consequence, and what price humanity pays for that same carbon in the form of additional greenhouse gas that will raise global temperatures, alter rainfall patterns and trigger potentially catastrophic climate change.
What worth do forests have to local populations, and what is the value set on the world’s wildernesses as global natural capital?
“Not long ago we treated degraded tropical forests as lost causes,” said a co-author, Greg Asner of Arizona State University.
“Our new findings, combined with those of other researchers around the world, strongly suggest that restoring tropical forests is a viable and highly scalable solution to regaining lost carbon stocks on land.” – Climate News Network
Montane Peatland, Polblue Swamp, Barrington Tops National Park by Doug Beckers (CC BY-SA 2.0).
By Gustaf Hugelius, Senior Lecturer, Physical Geography, Stockholm University, World Economic Forum published in collaboration with The Conversation (Public License).
Peatlands count for just a few percent of the world’s land, but crucially store almost one-quarter of soil carbon.
They play a vital role in regulating the climate, but they’re under threat.
A new study from Stockholm University has shown that rising temperatures will mean peatlands will soon start emitting more carbon than they store.
Researchers found that by limiting global warming, the worst could be avoided.
Peatlands cover just a few percent of the global land area but they store almost one-quarter of all soil carbon and so play a crucial role in regulating the climate. My colleagues and I have just produced the most accurate map yet of the world’s peatlands – their depth, and how much greenhouse gas they have stored. We found that global warming will soon mean that these peatlands start emitting more carbon than they store.
Peatlands form in areas where waterlogged conditions slow down the decomposition of plant material and peat accumulates. This accumulation of carbon-rich plant remains has been especially strong in northern tundra and taiga areas where they have helped cool the global climate for more than 10,000 years. Now, large areas of perennially frozen (permafrost) peatlands are thawing, causing them to rapidly release the freeze-locked carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and methane.
Geoscientists have studied peatlands for a long time. They’ve looked at why some areas have peat but others don’t and they’ve looked at how peatlands work as natural archives through which we can reconstruct what the climate and vegetation was like in the past (or even what human life was life: many well-preserved ancient humans have been found in peat bogs).
Scientists have also long recognised that peatlands are important parts of the global carbon cycle and the climate. When plants grow they absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere and as this material accumulates in the peat, there is less carbon in the atmosphere and therefore the climate will cool in the long-term.
With all this knowledge about how important northern peatlands are, it is perhaps surprising to learn that, until recently, there was no comprehensive map of their depth and how much carbon they store. That is why I led an international group of researchers who put together such a map, which we can use to estimate how the peatlands will respond to global warming. Our work is now published in the journal PNAS.
Peatland data and properties north of 23°N latitude. (A) Estimated areal coverage (in percentage) of peatlands based on the national soil inventory maps and SoilGrids250m. (B) Estimated areal coverage (in percentage) of permafrost in mapped peatlands based on the national soil inventory maps and SoilGrids250m, including a maximum threshold for permafrost at MAAT +1 °C (use the same legend as in A). (C) Spatial distribution of peat core sites with peat depth data (n = 7,111) and peat organic C storage (n = 782) over a map of biome distributions (biomes adapted from ref. 32). Sites with peat N stock data (n = 105) are not shown in the map (see Dataset S6), but are predominantly located in boreal forest and tundra biomes. (D) Sites with peat organic C storage data, with the size of site symbols proportional to measured peat organic C storage, over a map of permafrost zonation (33). (E) Estimated total peatland C storage and (F) permafrost peatland C storage. Source: Gustaf Hugelius, et al., PNAS (CC BY 4.0).
Peatlands are surprisingly difficult to map as their growth is connected to many different local factors, such as how water drains in the landscape. This meant we had to gather more than 7,000 field observations and use new statistical models based on machine learning to create the maps.
We found that peatlands cover approximately 3.7 million square kilometres. If it were a country, “Peatland” would be slightly larger than India. These peatlands also store approximately 415 gigatons (billion tons) of carbon – as much as is stored in all the world’s forests and trees together.
Almost half of this northern peatland carbon is presently in permafrost, ground that is frozen all year round. But, as the world warms and permafrost thaws, it causes peatlands to collapse and completely changes how they relate to greenhouse gases. Areas that once cooled the atmosphere by storing carbon would instead release more of both CO₂ and methane than they stored. We found that the thaw projected from future global warming will cause releases of greenhouse gas that overshadow and reverse the carbon dioxide sink of all northern peatlands for several hundred years. The exact timing of this switch is still highly uncertain, but it is likely to happen in the later half of this century.
There are regions of very extensive permafrost peatlands in Western Siberia and around Hudson Bay in Canada. These unique environments and ecosystems will be fundamentally changed as the permafrost thaws, and their characteristic mix of frozen peat mounds and small lakes will be replaced by extensive areas of wet fens.
Sampling peatland in Siberia. Gustaf Hugelius, Author provided.
These changes will cause more CO₂ and methane to be released into the atmosphere as the previously frozen peat becomes available for microbes that degrade it. The thaw will also lead to large losses of peat into rivers and streams, which will influence both the food chains and biochemistry of inland waters and the Arctic Ocean.
These new finding further reinforce how urgent it is to rapidly reduce our emissions, as the only way to stop permafrost thaw is to limit global warming. There are no geoengineering solutions that can be deployed in these vast and remote areas. Our results clearly show that more limited global warming of 1.5℃-2℃ would be much less damaging than our current trajectories of 3℃-4℃ degrees or above.
For International Orangutan Day, Mongabay spoke with Leif Cocks, founder and president of The Orangutan Project, which seeks to protect the endangered orange-haired primates and their rapidly disappearing habitats in Southeast Asia.
All three species of orangutans — Sumatran (Pongo abelii), Bornean (P. pygmaeus) and Tapanuli (P. tapanuliensis) are one step away from extinction.
Deforestation is the biggest threat the primates face, and at the moment most conservation efforts have only been able to slow forest loss, not turn the tide around, Leif told Mongabay.
Oil palm plantations replacing primary rainforests is a major problem in Malaysia and Indonesia, but Cocks says simply banning these plantations is not the answer; instead, he advocates for replacing exploitative production systems with those that recognize the services that these forests provide to the local communities and building on that.
To some humans, the idea of treating an orangutan as a person is absurd. For Leif Cocks, spending billions of dollars to find life on Mars while living beings are driven to extinction on Earth is what is truly incomprehensible.
Cocks, the founder and president of The Orangutan Project, spoke to Mongabay ahead of International Orangutan Day on Aug. 19. From his time as a zookeeper in Perth to his years mingling with the orange-haired primates in Indonesia’s rainforests, his belief in their sentience has only deepened. In 2015, he took the stand at an Argentinian court to support treating an orangutan named Sandra as a person. The court agreed, recognizing Sandra’s rights to life, freedom and to be kept safe from harm.
However, for Sandra’s peers in the wild, their very right to exist remains in jeopardy. All three species of orangutans — Sumatran (Pongo abelii), Bornean (P. pygmaeus) and Tapanuli (P. tapanuliensis) — are critically endangered, or just one step away from extinction. There are fewer than 800 Tapanuli orangutans in the world, found in an area about the size of Los Angeles.
Orangutan in Malay means “person of the forest.” But the forests they call home in Southeast Asia are being hacked down incessantly. Bornean orangutans are native to the island of Borneo, which is divided between Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. Sumatran and Tapanuli orangutans live on the neighboring Indonesian island of Sumatra. In 2019, 324,000 hectares (801,000 acres) of primary forest was destroyed in Indonesia, much of it cleared to make way for palm plantations. Deforestation is the biggest threat the primates face, Leif told Mongabay.
Baby orangutans are frequently kidnapped to be sold as pets. In the process, many are orphaned, depriving them of a necessary initiation into the wild. The mother-child bond is a pillar of orangutan society. Young ones spend three to four years learning the ropes from their mother. Like humans, orangutans are known to be self-aware, able to recognize their own face in a mirror. Where they outdo humans is in their ability to move their legs like humans can only move their arms. They also sport opposable thumbs on their feet that allow them to latch onto branches in a signature spread-eagled fashion. They are true acrobats of the treetops, where they spend most of their time, nesting in beds of branches and leaves, safe from predators like mighty tigers, lithe leopards and slithery crocodiles that still roam the rainforests of the Greater Sunda Islands.
Below are excerpts from a conversation with Cocks, condensed and edited for clarity.
Mongabay: Do you remember the first time you came across an orangutan?
Leif Cocks: I was brought up in Southeast Asia and spent my early years in Hong Kong. Back in the ’60s, it was common for wild animals to be kept as pets in Asia, I remember seeing people with pet orangutans. But the first time I got to know orangutans in a deeper sense was while working with 15 of them at a zoo in Perth.
From my perspective, orangutans are persons, self-aware beings with feelings, hopes and aspirations for the future, anxieties about the past. Apart from it being an environmental and economic catastrophe that we are destroying their rainforest home, they deserve not to be killed and destroyed and driven to extinction in the most horrific ways we can imagine. It became my life’s work to save them.
What do you think the relationship between humans and orangutans should be? How can the interests of both be served?
Both interests would be best served if all orangutans live free in wild and secure habitats. The best situation for orangutans is also the best-case scenario for us because the rainforest mitigates global warming, creates rain and provides regular water supply and environmental services that allow agriculture to prosper. By preserving orangutans and their rainforest home, we not only do what is the best thing for them, but we also provide the best sustainable future, both environmentally and economically, for the local communities and the entire planet.
What are the biggest threats to the survival of orangutans today?
It is unsustainable agricultural practice that is the biggest challenge that orangutans face. There are other significant factors too. But the disappearance of habitat, the permanent conversion of their rainforest home into unsustainable monocultures is the biggest problem. Illegal logging and illegal poaching are significant too, but once the rainforest is gone, it’s gone. There’s no hope for recovery.
Do you believe that oil palm plantations are viewed with the same skepticism by local people as they are by some Western observers?
It is probably about education and a sense of understanding. Because all monocultures are unsustainable by their very nature. Monocultures will destroy the environment that they’re in. That’s just science. They are very good at doing two things: squeezing the profit from many years into a few short years before they destroy the habitat, and reducing the profit from the many to the few.
Polyculture and agriculture, which includes mixed plantations with natural vegetation, can be sustainable, and provide maximum long-term income to the maximum number of people. We have a choice. Do we want a few people to get very rich quickly? Or do we want agriculture that supports economies that maximize sustainable profit for the maximum number of people?
Forest cleared to make way for a palm oil plantation in Indonesia. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay
You have spoken about how we are passing on the true cost of production to people who can’t afford to pay for this kind of economic activity. Why do you say that?
For example, if there’s a rainforest and the local community is making a living off the rainforest. They gain timber products, and their economy is based on the rainforest. But it’s also doing other things, what we call the environmental services. The rainforest is like a big sponge; when it rains, the water is absorbed, and when it’s not raining the water is let go. In a rainforest, you have rivers that flow year-round despite rainfall being intermittent.
Destruction of their habitat is the greatest threat facing these great apes, according to Cocks. Image courtesy: The Orangutan Project.
You take the rainforest away, and you put a palm oil plantation there, you have a flood that destroys the village, and then you have droughts that destroy crops. It increases the temperature in the local area, which can lead to more crops failing. The rainforest harbors predators that keep pest species under control. So all these environmental services that the rainforest provided are taken away, and the profits go to the person who put the plantation there. In the big picture, destruction of rainforest causes more global warming than all the transport systems in the world combined. It’s passing a financial cost to future generations. So, what they’ve done is they have passed the true cost to the powerless.
Orangutan on a tree. Photo by Dawn Armfield on Unsplash.
How does The Orangutan Project protect orangutans and their habitats?
It is a multifaceted project with many partners. Our vision is to save up to eight complete ecosystems of the right type, shape and size of rainforest where orangutans can survive with the other megafauna like tigers, tapirs, monkeys and elephants, survive the extinction crisis. We are supporting companies and foundations to get the land and manage it and piece together functioning ecosystems.
We’re also working with the local communities to develop the agricultural systems that I mentioned before like dragon’s blood, a dye derived from vines that grow underneath the rainforest canopy, vanilla production and honey production. These are a couple of examples of agricultural systems that can be created under the rainforest canopy with the local communities. We have shown that within seven to 10 years, we can leave these viable, functioning ecosystems not only environmentally sustainable but economically self-sufficient. The local communities get wealthy and prosper. And there’s enough surplus money to pay for the protection and security of the ecosystem.
Is there a successful approach that you would like to highlight either from within your organization or from outside?
The first thing I have to say is simplistic solutions are great for marketing and fundraising, but they don’t really work in the real world. Let’s say we say “let’s ban palm oil.” That seems good. Like you see a rainforest, and then it disappears, and a palm oil plantation is now there. So the logical conclusion would be if we stopped palm oil, we will stop the rainforest from disappearing. But it doesn’t really address the issue. The person destroying the forest isn’t a palm oil person; he is a person seeking to make money. The trees are worth a lot of money. They’ll destroy the rainforest just for the value of the trees, and there is more than one unsustainable form of monoculture that can replace the rainforest.
So let’s say you weren’t allowed to plant palm, you can put paper on it, you could put a rubber plantation there, you can put a coconut plantation there. You may not make as much money, but it is still profitable, still worth destroying the rainforest. If you address one commodity, you’re not going to make a meaningful change because you’re not really affecting the driver.
People want me to say, “look, this community education program achieved great things,” or “the rangers have achieved great things.” But to have a meaningful impact, it’s always a lot of different things in the right dosage, with many partners putting their skills together.
If somebody wanted to look for examples where this multisectoral approach is working, where should they look?
In general, at least for orangutans, it is hard to pick out, because we’re losing at the moment. Even the well-run projects are reducing habitat loss. So in the next 10 years, we are really in the process of having to go from reducing the rate of destruction to stopping it and expanding reforestation and protection. Some people are doing some fantastic work, but once you look into it, they’re still losing, they’re just losing less. We really haven’t turned that around.
Do you have a wish list of three things that you’d want done immediately to be able to save the orangutans and their habitats?
I think one is funding, that seems to be the most limiting factor. Not enough money to do the work. Number two is removing special interests from political decision-making. This is not unique to Indonesia and Malaysia and the orangutan world. Businesses donate and influence a government to make decisions that benefit them at the expense of decisions that may benefit the entire community or country.
The third would be developing economic systems where the true cost of production can’t be passed on to the powerless. So the costs of environmental services that are lost in rainforest destruction are paid by taxes, or given to the local community, which have lost those services.
Has COVID-19 made it more challenging to do the work you do?
In the short term, it has devastated our funding. Because as people lose their jobs and feel threatened, they are less giving. People have taken the opportunity at the moment to increase poaching, increase illegal logging. The immediate short-term effect is reducing our ability to affect change from lack of money and increasing the pressure on the forests.
The long-term effect is now unknown because there’s lots of special interest groups who are trying to make the COVID-19 recovery about benefiting a few and keeping the old status quo going. But there is also at the same time a movement for a “green recovery,” this opportunity to build a better, fairer world and a sustainable world for our grandchildren. Whether we are going to go down the dark road, increasingly right-wing, increasingly nationalist, selling off more opportunities to exploitative industries, or do we move to a fairer world and a greener world? That’s the greatest challenge of our time.
Malavika Vyawahare is a staff writer for Mongabay. Find her on Twitter: @MalavikaVy
FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.
