Approximately 55% of the global population lives in urban areas. When designing and implementing future cityscapes, urban planners must address the aspirations and concerns of residents, such as environmental sustainability, equity, affordability, and public health. Smart cities assist in streamlining urban planning endeavours via their integrated, responsive smart tech systems connected to the Internet of Things. Real-time data from people, devices, and infrastructure in these cities are analysed to enhance sustainable resource usage, city services and operations, and overall liveability.

—

Urban Planning and Smart Cities

Urban planning is the planning of cities for the future. It is a holistic, interdisciplinary field whose practitioners consult with residents, listen to their needs, and, based on this feedback, draft and implement landscapes and buildings wherein people will live, work, and play. The goal is to actualise local aspirations into material reality using the built environment (and greenfield land).

Over half the global population currently resides in urban areas. This worldwide proportion is estimated to reach nearly 70% by 2050 due to rural-urban drift. Many regions have already exceeded this percentage. For example, Australian statistics from 2021 show that 86% of residents live in urban and suburban areas. And in some locales, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Kuwait, the population is 100% urban. 

Around the world, people are increasingly drawn to metropolises because they seek a higher quality of life and more opportunities. Larger towns usually offer greater work and education options, better facilities and utilities (such as healthcare, schooling, transport, entertainment, and recreation), and other conveniences that may not be available in rural areas. 

Nevertheless, as with most things in life, there are both pros and cons to city life and the growing number of urbanites. Potential struggles include housing affordability, crowding, economic and social inequalities, crime, competition, homelessness, mental illness, and urban stress. An expanding urban populace also leads to increased resource needs, waste, traffic, and pollution. 

While the concept of sustainable, green urbanism has a history stretching back to “the ‘garden’ cities of the 1900s and the ‘ecological’ cities of the 1970s”, interest in green cities has soared in the 21st century. 

Numerous, pervasive environmental problems are forecast to impact virtually everyone in the future, so the motives driving city sustainability are pretty straightforward. In addition, eco-anxiety is increasing among the world’s youth. One study reveals that around 60% of young people around the globe are “very or extremely worried” (and over 80% are “at least moderately worried”) about climate change. So, urban landscapes – where many of these future adults will live – must be planned to be both prosperous and healthily sustainable. The importance of liveable urban regions is emphasised by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the New Urban Agenda, and the Healthy Cities Movement. For instance, SDG 11 seeks to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” 

Much of this responsibility falls on urban planners. Experts in ekistics (the science of human settlements), city planners draw on their expertise in civil engineering, architecture, social sciences, and public administration to tackle issues raised by urban dwellers, present the most feasible solutions to governing bodies, and shape the most habitable cityscapes of tomorrow. It is not a simple endeavour to balance increasing urban density with both liveability and sustainability. However, countries like Singapore have managed to mediate the demands of a high-density, 100% urban landscape while maintaining a high Human Development Index (HDI). 

Many questions need to be addressed. What infrastructure and policies are necessary for an urban area to meet the (sometimes conflicting) needs for economic growth, housing affordability, biodiversity and heritage conservation, public health and safety, and social justice and equity? How can resources, the transport system, and waste management best be systematised in urban areas? How will all these systems work together in a harmonious, sustainable, resilient ecosystem, with clean air, renewable energy, and continuous access to necessary resources? How can we ensure that the planet and cities inherited by future generations are as liveable as possible? Sustainable smart cities are one possibility.

You might also like: How Sustainable Cities like Singapore Succeed in Green Urban Development

Smart Cities and Liveability

What makes a city smart? The first component is the widespread incorporation of millions of smart devices and technologies (connected to the Internet of Things – IoT) which produce scores of both stored and real-time data. “Real-time” refers to the instantaneous delivery of this info to users, meaning that data are available immediately, rather than being stored and accessed later. IoT devices are defined as products “that are a combination of product, application, analytics and the Internet/networking.” As you can imagine, the category now encompasses an enormous array of devices and systems.

You might also like: What is A Smart City?

If you live in a more developed urban region, think of the number of smart devices (your phone and so on) and sensors in your home or workplace. Then expand that to include all the smart tech used by every person, home, building, infrastructure, resource, and service in your street, neighbourhood, and city. There are now billions of IoT devices around the world. Each moment of the day and night, these technologies receive, record, and transmit an unthinkable amount of information, much of which is available to users straight away. The individual is now connected to every other facet of society, such as corporations and government, like never before in history. If harnessed wisely, these smart devices and services can drastically improve residents’ quality of life.

This leads to the second component of a high-functioning smart city. This other crucial part revolves around governments effectively monitoring, using, and responding to this sea of data and user feedback to boost liveability and resource efficiency for citizens. So, a successful smart city relies not only on the installation of these systems but also on the efforts of administrative and corporate bodies to use them for the public good. The adoption of these strategies and tools is only a means to an end – to better serve the community. 

As a 2018 McKinsey Global Institute report reminds us, the point of becoming a smart city is to “respond more effectively and dynamically to the needs and desires of residents … to optimize the infrastructure, resources, and spaces they share.” The authors also comment that “Asian megacities, with their young populations of digital natives and big urban problems to solve” are rapidly transforming thanks to their “exceptionally high adoption” of smart tech. 

They identify eight key domains where smart cities are making great strides. These broad areas are listed below, with some smart technology examples as taken from the report.

• Mobility: Real-time public transport updates, smart parking, demand-based microtransit, e-hailing, congestion pricing, predictive maintenance of transportation infrastructure, and real-time road navigations.
• Security: Smart surveillance, home security systems, crowd management, emergency response optimisation, real-time crime mapping, and data-driven building inspections.
• Healthcare: Data-based public health interventions (such as sanitisation and child care), infectious disease surveillance, telemedicine, and remote patient monitoring.
• Energy: Dynamic electricity pricing, smart streetlights, home energy automation systems, and distribution automation systems.
• Water: Water quality monitoring, water consumption tracking, and smart irrigation.
• Waste: Optimisation of waste collection systems, and digital tracking and payment of waste disposal.
• Economic Development and Housing: Digital land-use and building permitting, business licensing, personalised education, digital business tax filing, and peer-to-peer accommodation platforms.
• Engagement and Community: Digital citizen services, local civic engagement applications, and local connection platforms.

The widespread implementation of smart devices enables governing authorities and citizens to collaborate and exchange data in innovative, progressive ways. In the future, we are likely to see more such services and systems integrated into urban development plans.

You might also like: 4 Commonly-Used Smart City Technologies

Successful Urban Planning in Densely Populated Areas

As previously mentioned, the global number of urbanites is expected to nearly touch 70% by 2050. How can urban planners best achieve high HDI scores in densely populated cities? Singapore is one success story; it is often cited as a model for this kind of development. According to a 2013 report by the Urban Land Institute and Singapore’s Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC), a “people-first” approach is necessary, one that “weaves together the physical, economic, social and environmental aspects of urban living.” You can read their 10 principles here (and more recent publications by the CLC are available here). Some guidance includes: 

• Building green, low-energy infrastructure and transportation systems
• Facilitating future-proofed, innovative developments with flexibility and long-term growth in mind.
• Fostering “3P” (people, public, private) partnerships and initiatives.
• Implementing mixed-use, affordable spaces which maximise the utility of even small places.
• Breaking up urban density with a variety of green areas, and bringing nature closer to people (becoming “A City in a Garden”).
• Promoting and celebrating diversity and inclusivity.
• Allowing the community to become “the eyes on the street” to increase security and safety.

Final Thoughts

Although today’s youth and future generations may face many ecological and social crises, there is much hope that humanity’s unlimited ingenuity – as evidenced by smart tech and the planning and development of sophisticated, interconnected, resilient, and adaptable urban environments – will help shield us from the worst impacts of climate change and environmental destruction.

This article was first published on August 11, 2022

You might also like: Top 7 Smart Cities in the World

The post How Urban Planning and Smart Cities Can Help in the Fight Against Climate Change appeared first on Earth.Org.

For tens of thousands of years, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia have sustainably cultivated, managed, and conserved the continent’s lands, waterways, and seas. Their profound connection with and respect for Country remind us of the intricate interrelations between humans and the ecosystems of which we are part. Thankfully, through First Peoples’ ecological collectives and Indigenous Protected Areas, this traditional wisdom is appreciatively centred and applied in contemporary Australia.

—

Disclaimer: This article avoids the designations “Indigenous Australians/Peoples” because, according to Reconciliation Australia, some individuals may perceive these terms as offensive. Moreover, the Torres Strait is also known as Zenadh Kes. And, with consideration for the “nothing about us without us” sentiment, we would like to clarify that the author of this article is not a member of these communities.

First Nations Australians and Their Connection to Country

In Australia, the terms “First Nations,” “First Peoples,” “Aboriginal Australians,” and “Indigenous Australians” are used for convenience to refer to a wide range of distinct peoples, with living cultures and diverse languages. 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are estimated to have arrived on the continent between 50,000 and 65,000 years ago. For tens of thousands of years, their reciprocal, sustainable relationships with nature, or Country, has valued their varied ancestral lands, waterways, and seas. 

But the concept of Country extends beyond physical, tangible places. It includes belief systems, symbolism, and spirituality. Country is all lifeforms, including “people, plants and animals … seasons, stories and creation spirits.” Similarly, Dreaming or Dreamtime describes a spiritual link to “everything around us and beyond us.”

Further, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Country is seen as a person, too. Like human life, it is alive and deserves protection. 

Regarding ecological management and conservation, just as Land provides for people, people in turn manage and preserve Land. This view of nature – of which we are part, and which supports and sustains us – reminds us of the fundamental interconnectedness and interdependence of biodiversity and ecosystems. We are a piece of the natural whole.

In the words of Ambelin Kwaymullina, from her book Living on Stolen Land: “Human beings / might not speak the language / of other forms of life / might not know / their law / all their culture-ways / but this does not mean / those ways do not exist / or that other life / is not family.”

The identities of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are tied with their Country, culture, and community. Welcome to Country writes that “caring for Country” encompasses all activities in Aboriginal terrestrial and marine regions that seek to encourage ecological, spiritual, and human wellbeing.

You might also like: Daintree Rainforest: World’s Oldest Rainforest Returns to Australian Aboriginal People

First Peoples’ Land Cultivation and Fire-Stick Farming

It is a popular notion that diverse indigenous peoples, prior to colonisation or modernisation, always lived in mutual harmony with nature. But this certainly does not mean they never modified or managed the natural environment.

In the Australian context, prior to European arrivals, First Nations peoples controlled and maintained the continent’s landscapes (and plants and animals) through wide-ranging practices. These agricultural and other land cultivation activities were sustainable and contributed towards healthy ecosystems. Practices included:

• Growing and harvesting onions, yams, macadamia nuts, and fruits
• Creating reserves of grain and flour
• Raising dingoes, emus, cassowaries, and possums
• Building fish traps, ponds, channels, and weirs (e.g., to harvest eels)
• Establishing grasslands
• Fire-stick farming

To this day, First Peoples continue to engage in fire-stick farming, also known as fire farming, cultural burning, or cool burning. Although combining “fire” and “Australian bush” might seem concerning, fire has always been central to rejuvenating the continent’s bushland. Over millennia, First Nations peoples have developed sophisticated fire management techniques, such as fire-stick farming.

The process involves using sticks (or matchsticks) to light small, controlled fires during the cool, early dry season – between March and July. These fires remove the underbrush, creating a patchy land mosaic with fire breaks. So, fire farming helps prevent the vegetation build-up that, left unchecked, fuels the hot, uncontrolled bushfires that rage during summer. And cultural burning not only reduces these uncontrolled bushfires but their associated carbon emissions. 

Further, as night dew cools the fires, ideal times to set these fires are nights and early mornings. Hence the alternate name cool burning. First Australians have long adapted their techniques to suit a particular region’s conditions. For instance, they considered the ecosystem’s habitats, moisture levels, soils, and vegetation. Doing so allowed them to control how, when, and where to appropriately light these slow-burning, cool fires.

Along with preventing blazing, hot wildfires, cultural burning serves other purposes, according to the Watarrka Foundation. These include:

• Renewing local flora
• Protecting the tree canopy
• Safeguarding native animals
• Encouraging seed germination
• Provisioning of organic medicinal relief to animals (such as “wallabies and birds who bathe in cool ash to cleanse themselves” of lice)
• Restoring kinship to Land
• Sharing of traditional knowledge intergenerationally

Fire-stick farming has ecological, societal, and spiritual benefits. It also offers modern economic benefits, such as lowered carbon emissions. Remembering the 2019-2020 Black Summer bushfires, during which 6.2% of New South Wales was burnt, we can see why traditional cool burning is so crucial. The City of Sydney has thus partnered with the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation, a not-for-profit run by First Nations peoples that provides carbon farming services.

Beyond cultural burning, First Peoples have traditionally harnessed fire for other reasons. This resource from the University of Melbourne cites motives such as taming “thick and prickly” vegetation, attracting wild animals to hunt, facilitating the growth of vegetation, and developing “useful food plants, [and] for cooking, warmth, signalling and spiritual reasons.”

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) in Australia

An essential element of reconciliation is acknowledging the deep connection that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have with Country. They have conserved, cared for, and managed the continent’s landscapes and seas for time immemorial. First Nations peoples have literal millennia of knowledge, passed down intergenerationally, about how to properly conserve Country.

These facts illustrate the importance of Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs). An Indigenous Protected Area is an Australian land and/or sea region safeguarded by Traditional Owners, via a voluntary agreement with the Commonwealth Government. The IPA program was established by the government back in 1997. 

As of 2023, there are now 81 dedicated Indigenous Protected Areas, covering over 87 million hectares. This means they represent a size larger than the state of New South Wales. Also, IPAs comprise roughly 45-50% of Australia’s National Reserve System, which is “the network of protected areas – including National Parks – that stretches across Australia.” First Peoples rangers funded by the government manage activities in around 70% of IPAs.

Originally, IPAs were based on native land tenure; however, their scope was broadened to be based on Country. This means Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have increased governance and planning power over “land and sea areas over which they have limited legal rights, including over existing national parks and marine parks.” Thus, IPAs allow First Australians to manage and conserve both terrestrial and ocean territories, ensuring the protection of the continent’s unique biodiversity, including its rich animal and plant life.

First Nations’ Environmental Initiatives in Australia

Along with Indigenous Protected Areas, organisations, movements, and indigenous corporations led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are also crucial for maintaining ecological stability. The following are a few of the environmental, climate justice, and land management collectives run by First Australians.

The Arafura Swamp Rangers Corporation was founded in 2013 to represent a network of eight ranger groups who collectively care for 14,000 square kilometres of north-east Arnhem Land. Together, they represent the interests of the Yolngu and Bi peoples of the Northern Territory. The Arafura Swamp, also known as Gurruwiling, has been listed as a Key Biodiversity Area. The rangers care for Country through numerous activities, such as managing fires and sea Country, protecting threatened species, and mapping and archiving.

Firesticks Alliance Indigenous Corporation is an initiative and community of practice centred around fire-stick burning. The alliance was established to keep alive and share traditional understandings, connect communities, record cultural wisdom, and provide training and on-the-ground planning. 

As just one example, the Firesticks Alliance has sought to identify the goals and values inherent to cultural burning, finding that responses covered “natural, spiritual, economic, educational and social domains and encompass[ed] values that are both similar and different from mainstream environmental management.”

The Our Islands Our Home campaign, led by the Torres Strait 8, seeks to reverse the effects of climate inaction for the Torres Strait Islands. Rising sea levels, coral bleaching, and land erosion already threaten homes, sacred and cultural sites, burial grounds, and freshwater reserves in the territory. 

The campaign’s five demands include, among others, 100% renewable energy for Zenadh Kes, a quick transition from fossil fuels, and programmes for locals to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Seed Indigenous Youth Climate Network is the first climate action movement for First Australians youth. It was founded with the awareness that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are at the forefront of climate change, and that the world’s younger populations will be most affected by the climate crisis. The network is by and for First Nations youth only. Seed’s mission is to create a just future with renewable energy and strong cultures.

Final Thoughts

First Nations environmental management in contemporary Australia has been cited as a model from which other countries can learn. Collectively, these strategies comprise both First Peoples’ initiatives and movements, and government–First Nations collaborations, such as Indigenous Protected Areas (spanning 50% of the continent’s protected land). 

With tacit and explicit ecological wisdom passed down for millennia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a wealth of invaluable knowledge to share about sustainable land and sea conservation.

This article was first published on March 24, 2023

You might also like: Indigenous People Are Essential for Preventing Biodiversity Loss. They Mustn’t Be Sidelined.

The post How First Peoples Land Management Is Helping Conservation in Australia appeared first on Earth.Org.

The world’s roughly 250 owl species, belonging to the order Strigiformes, can be found in every continent except Antarctica. Not only are they widespread globally, but these adaptable birds of prey also inhabit diverse biomes, including deserts, prairies, woodlands, rainforests, Arctic tundra, snow-capped mountains, and wetlands. Despite the versatility of owls, several owl species are currently listed as endangered on the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), due to ongoing threats to their habitats. In this article, we explore six of the most endangered owl species in 2023.

—

6 Endangered Owl Species In 2023

1. Congo Bay-owl

In 2016, the IUCN assessed the Congo Bay-owl (Phodilus prigoginei) as endangered. This barn owl species occupies high-altitude grasslands and rainforests in the Democratic Republic of Congo, specifically, in the eastern South Kivu province. Reports have come primarily from the Itombwe Mountains region. However, despite their name, these owls may possibly be found in neighbouring Burundi and Rwanda, too. They might also inhabit the Nyungwe Forest adjacent to the Itombwe Mountains.

Being bay owls (genus Phodilus), Congo Bay-owls are likely smaller than other barn owls, with facial discs in a U- or V-shape. But they are highly elusive and are rarely seen. In fact, the species is so evasive that according to Edge of Existence, only two confirmed sightings, both of female members, have been documented in the last few decades: one in 1951 and the other in 1996. There was a potential sighting in 1974.

The Red List states that around 3,000 to 10,000 Congo Bay-owls are extant in the wild, but their elusiveness makes accurate estimates difficult. Threats to the Itombwe Mountains – and thus, to the Congo Bay-owl – include forest clearing, logging, and mining. Because of this ongoing habitat destruction, the IUCN suspects the owl species’ numbers are in decline. 

2. Forest Owlet

The Forest Owlet (Athene blewitti), endemic to central Indian forests, was classified as endangered in 2018. The species belongs to the Athene genus of owls, also called Little Owls. It was a lost/missing species for over a century – between the years 1884–1997 – presumed to be extinct until its rediscovery in 1997.

The Forest Owlet is small in size, only 23 centimetres. It is recognisable by its light cream underside and fairly large beak and skull. Unlike the Congo Bay-owl, Forest Owlet sightings have been increasing over the last decade or so. Based on these recent observations, including those in new sites, the Red List has increased its population estimate from 250 to between 250–1,000 individuals, across various locales in India.

Nevertheless, the owl species is still endangered and faces several existential threats. These include habitat destruction, loss, and degradation due to logging, forest fires, and irrigation dams.

3. Blakiston’s Fish Owl

Blakiston’s Fish Owl (Ketupa blakistoni or Bubo blakistoni) received its endangered status from the IUCN in 2016. Endemic to Northeast Asia’s forests and inland wetlands (in Northeast China, Hokkaido, and eastern Siberia), it is the largest extant owl species. By contrast with the little Forest Owlet (23 centimetres), the Blakiston’s Fish Owl can reach up to 72 centimetres in length.

Its appearance is somewhat similar to the Eurasian Eagle-owl (Bubo bubo) but the latter has thick, black chest streaks and erect ear tufts. Previously, the Blakiston’s Fish Owl also belonged to the Bubo genus (Latin for “owl”), encompassing horned, eagle, and snowy owls – and some of the world’s heftiest owl species. However, it was reclassified into the Ketupa owl genus, with other fish owls.

Fish owls, as the name suggests, are a subgroup of eagle owls that hunt fish along with small mammals. Although Ketupa originally contained only three fish owl members, more owls later broadened the genus (including others from the Bubo genus).

According to the Red List, there are around 140 Blakiston’s Fish Owls in Japan, and an estimated 250–400 in the Siberian territory of Primorye. The IUCN’s best guess for total living individuals ranges from 1,500 to 3,750. As the species relies on “clean, stocked, relatively undisturbed waterways,” its numbers are likely to continue declining.

4. Moheli Scops-owl

The scops owls belong to the Otus genus and are found only in the Old World. Otus encompasses 59 different species and is therefore the biggest owl genus. Given the many scops owl varieties, their conservation statuses range from “Least Concern” through to “Critically Endangered.”

The scarce Moheli Scops-owl (Otus moheliensis) has been listed as endangered since 2017. Its name is derived from the Moheli island of the Comoro Islands (Comoros), near Madagascar, to which the species is endemic.

This small owl, about 22 centimetres in length, has a brown colour morph and a reddish-brown one and is often described as being very vocal. Several sources indicate that the Moheli Scops-owl’s range is just one sole mountain in Moheli’s centre.

The raptor’s limited habitat and endangered state mean that there are likely only around 260 mature adults presently living on the island. Numbers are presumed to be decreasing based on the loss of quality habitats caused by deforestation.

5. Seychelles Scops-owl

A second rare, endangered scops owl is the Seychelles Scops-owl (Otus insularis). Listed as critically endangered in 2020, its numbers hover around just 250 extant individuals, as with the Moheli Scops-owl. Another similarity the Seychelles Scops-owl shares with its Moheli relative is its restriction to the Mahe island in the Seychelles. More accurately, the owl is limited to the Morne Seychellois National Park.

Previously, the bird’s range covered most of the Seychelles islands. However, mass deforestation, urban development, and the introduction of invasive species and predators saw reduced numbers. Also referred to as the Bare-legged Scops-owl, this little owl once featured on Seychellois souvenir stamps. 

Other critically endangered scops owls include the Siau Scops-owl (Otus siaoensis) and the Annobon Scops-owl (Otus feae).

6. Pernambuco Pygmy-owl

On the “Critically Endangered” list since 2019, the incredibly scarce Pernambuco Pygmy-owl (Glaucidium mooreorum) is another miniature owl on the cusp of extinction – if not already extinct. This pygmy owl is even tinier than the aforementioned Forest Owlet and scops owls, with a reported length of just 13 centimetres. 

The species was first described only back in 2002, following the examination of some skins and recorded vocalisations. Extant individuals have not been observed since 2001.

Edge of Extinction writes that the Pernambuco Pygmy-owl, if it still exists, is now limited to the 4.8 square kilometres of the Reserva Biologica de Saltinho, a biological reserve. However, several park surveys by ornithologists and rangers have failed to locate a single individual in over 20 years. If Pernambuco Pygmy-owls still survive, there are likely fewer than 50. As is often the case, their decline was brought about by habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation.

Featured image: Takashi Muramatsu/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

You might also like: 10 of the World’s Most Endangered Species in 2023

The post 6 Endangered Owl Species In 2023 appeared first on Earth.Org.

The climate crisis is underscoring pre-existing global inequities. Often, the most disadvantaged are left with little voice, being spoken for rather than listened to or championed. While privileged individuals in wealthy areas can be much-needed allies, it is essential to centre the opinions and wishes of those most impacted by climate change and its effects.

—

The history of humanity is a history of injustice. Racist colonisation and imperialism. Extreme capitalism. Ecological destruction. Across the planet, the consequences are still felt to this minute. People – particularly, those most impacted – deserve to be furious about, and to criticise, the horrific past injustices that have arisen from and contributed to the inequitable systems with which we still live. And it is important to learn from the past to move forward in the most just and fair manner possible.

But, as much as we wish we could, nobody can change the past. We can only work with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. 

Even for the most informed and educated among us (which in itself is a type of privilege), it is not exactly simple or straightforward to conceptualise, execute, and maintain 100% equitable solutions that benefit each and every person – and creature – on Earth equally.

The world has witnessed disastrous attempts at this. Looking back at history, one could argue that the entire 20th century was a terrifying “social experiment” demonstrating why communism and other currents of thought prevailing during that time, while being idealistic theories, simply do not work as intended in practice. 

In any case, often, it is educated people in rich countries and regions with the highest HDI (“human development index”) scores who speak on behalf of those most hegemonised by humanity’s history of injustices. Including when speaking about the current climate crisis. Somewhat ironically, these well-meaning people are typically the ones who have benefited the most from history and the status quo.

Undoubtedly, those holding privileged positions of power and wealth can be much-needed allies. But, as previously mentioned, good intentions can slide into speaking for the world’s most disenfranchised and marginalised, rather than listening to and championing them.

Or, as exemplified by a Karl Marx quote, included at the beginning of Edward Said’s Orientalism: “They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented.” Relatedly, communism was a theory popularised by the intellectual bourgeoisie, not the proletariat whose interests they felt the need to represent.

The point of this piece is not to (dis)favour any political or economic system. Extreme capitalism, as currently and historically experienced around the world, has only intensified pre-existing inequalities.

As many know, the climate crisis is also a social crisis, underscoring and exacerbating obvious inequities. Not just in who is most impacted by environmental disasters but in whose voice carries the most weight. 

While environmental, grassroots non-profits are serving the world’s most disadvantaged (often in the “Global South” or Indigenous communities), and doing fantastic work, the founders and board members of these organisations (especially the larger ones) usually come from positions of relative privilege and power.

Empowering people is not simply powerful people helping the less fortunate. Everyone has power. But humanity’s – aforementioned, well-documented, and rightfully well-criticised – history of injustices has resulted in a world order and societal structures where only certain forms of power are valued and listened to.

We know that even the most progressive human communities will never be perfect. There are as many nuanced views on how best to improve a community as there are people living in it.

Factors Contributing to Climate Crisis Marginalisation

Like the mental health realm is shifting towards centring lived experience, we should amplify the voices and experiential realities of those bearing the worst brunt of the climate crisis. Those who typically face multiple and/or intensified forms of adversity, discrimination, and exploitation due to their intersecting roles, attributes, and identities, e.g., based on a combination of the following factors:

• Location
• Nationality
• Socioeconomic status
• Migrant status
• Race
• Ethnicity
• Sex
• Education level
• Disability
• Age
• Religion
• Sexuality, etc.

A 2021 Earth.Org article titled “How Marginalised Groups Are Disproportionately Affected by Climate Change” outlines how economic, global, racial, and generational disparities influence which populations within which areas are particularly at risk of experiencing climate change’s most severe effects.

Many vulnerable nations and populations are found in the Global South. And, generally speaking, most “developing countries” are disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis. Africa in particular is unfairly hit, especially when we consider that it contributes the least to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, Africa and South America each emit just 3-4% of the global share. Even the entirety of enormous Asia, home to China, India, and many other highly populated nations – both developed and developing – and 60% of the world’s population, contributes only 53%.

Per capita carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from fossil fuels and industry. Land use change is not included. Image by Our World in Data.

Disadvantaged populations within poorer areas, such as those found in Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, the Pacific, and South America, along with producing fewer greenhouse gases per capita, are also far less equipped to deal with the ramifications of environmental issues and disasters. 

The World Economic Forum writes that the 74 lowest-income countries emit just one-tenth of emissions, “but they will be most affected by the effects of climate change.”

Another marginalising factor is gender. UN Women has called the intersection of two worldwide issues, gender inequality and the climate crisis, “one of the greatest challenges of our times.”

Due to structural inequalities, women and girls around the world have fewer human and legal rights, and less access to virtually all resources. These include land, natural resources, education, information, funding, public participation and decision-making processes, healthcare, and relief assistance.

You might also like: How the Climate Justice Movement Could Solve Global Gender Inequalities

80% of those displaced by the climate crisis are female. Globally, women are more likely than males to experience poverty. They are also likelier to face domestic violence – exacerbated by stress-inducing situations, such as those brought about by climate change. And, compared to men, women rely more on at-risk natural resources for their livelihoods (while at the same time being less likely to own these resources). 

On top of these realities, women are typically the ones occupying caregiving roles within their households, looking after children and the elderly – two other vulnerable populations. 

And as brought up in this piece, ecological hardships are multiplied for women who are poor, disabled, Indigenous, and otherwise marginalised and disadvantaged.

Final Thoughts

To move forward with the most equitable climate solutions, it is important to learn from historical and ongoing injustices. And diverse voices are essential for healthy democracies. But respecting the request for “nothing about us without us,” in terms of decision-making, requires us to listen to the opinions and ambitions of those with lived experience, including that of climate change’s worst impacts. Doing so can help us rectify the social inequities and injustices that the world’s environmental crisis has so far highlighted.

You might also like: What is Climate Justice and Why Is It Important?

The post Listening to Those Most Impacted by Climate Change appeared first on Earth.Org.

How does human connection with nature influence our health and wellbeing? In what ways does an individual’s psychological relationship to their environment shape their conservation attitudes and behaviours? A 2023 systematic review published in Biological Conservation seeks to answer these questions.

—

The review, titled “Psychological and Physical Connections With Nature Improve Both Human Well-Being and Nature Conservation”, covers 16 pertinent meta-analyses on these topics. This breadth allowed the authors to examine results from 832 independent studies. Thus, their summary is likely the most comprehensive one to date, focussing on the links between nature connectedness, human wellbeing, and environmental preservation. 

However, the research has some limitations. It is worth noting that the 832 studies were overwhelmingly carried out among North American (42%), European (28%), and Asian (25%) populations. Oceania and South America made up just 3% of studies, and there were none in Africa. Moreover, 80% of respondents were adults.

Physical and Psychological Connection With Nature and Human Wellbeing

As explained in the Biological Conservation article, “physical connection” is taken to mean physical contact with nature (aka nature contact). On the other hand, “psychological connection” is a little different, referring to “the extent to which people see themselves as part of nature.” It is also frequently deemed “human–nature connectedness” (HNC).

The systemic review illustrates that, perhaps as expected, nature contact enhances people’s health and wellbeing. The 832 studies included diverse physical connections such as mindfulness-based nature interventions, outdoor activities, natural sounds, and gardening. For those interested in bettering their health, the article mentions that the greatest subjective wellbeing was achieved via “natural sounds with a higher species richness” and nature-based mindfulness.

Maybe the fact that nature contact improves human wellness is unsurprising. We all know the physical health advantages of exercise, fresh air, and sunlight. And time spent in green and blue spaces has long been shown to improve mental health, for example, by lowering stress and negative emotions and boosting mood and cognition. These understandings underlie nature therapy, aka eco-therapy. Importantly, positive nature connectedness/relatedness – one’s subjective sense of relationship with the natural environment – is associated with wellbeing in the hedonic (pleasure) and eudaimonic (meaning) realms. 

But why else is physically experiencing nature important? Because doing so strengthens an individual’s psychological link to the environment. According to the authors’ aforementioned definition of psychological connection, this means people are more likely to view themselves as part of the wider natural whole.

Relatedly, over the last 60 years or so, industrialised, Westernised societies have seen several paradigm shifts (and overlaps) in perceptions and attitudes underpinning conservation efforts. 

The 2014 piece “Whose conservation?” by Georgina Mace discusses these four frameworks:

1. Nature for itself (1960s to present): protecting nature from people.
2. Nature despite people (1980s to present): restoring environments degraded and destroyed by humans.
3. Nature for people (2000 to present): emphasising nature’s crucial role for people.
4. People and nature (2010s to present): focussing on the reciprocally beneficial relations between humans and other life.

Whether the latest development is ecocentric/biospheric (valuing nature for its own sake) or anthropocentric (valuing nature for the benefits it provides humans) is up for debate. In either case, it probably doesn’t matter as much. It could be argued that, “since ecosystems constitute the ‘life-support system’ for humans, anthropocentrism can and should be a powerful motivation for environmental protection.” Even if an individual’s worldview is anthropocentric rather than ecocentric, it is still in their best interests to conserve their habitat.

Experience of Nature (EoN) and Pro-Environmental Behaviours and Attitudes

Additional benefits complement the health advantages people derive from nature contact. An important one, as highlighted in the 2023 review, is that a person’s psychological perception that they are part of nature leads to pro-conservation beliefs and actions. Nature connection has been found to be “strongly and robustly” related to pro-environmental behaviour, including observed behaviour, self-reports, and behavioural intentions. For instance, nature relatedness is positively correlated with conservation volunteering.

Further, this 2022 piece on human “experience of nature” (EoN) illustrates that these experiences affect “human values and attitudes by reinforcing individuals’ psychological and emotional connection with nature.” Those with the highest EoN levels tend to demonstrate the greatest pro-conservation behaviours while having stronger environmental identities.

Unfortunately, research also suggests that human EoN has been declining globally. There is even a term for the phenomenon: The “extinction of experience”. Lowered EoN is probably caused by loss of opportunity – evidenced by mass urbanisation, reduced greenery in metro areas, and deforestation – combined with loss of orientation, meaning people’s decreased desire to engage with nature and their subsequent loss of emotional affinity with it.

Suggestions from the systemic review to combat these trends include:

• Greening urban areas and schools
• Increased biodiversity (in particular, acoustic biodiversity and landscape wilderness)
• Nature-based mindfulness

Final Thoughts

Overall, understanding and acting on these links – between nature contact, psychological connection to the environment, and pro-conservation attitudes and behaviours – will help societies attain their sustainability targets. The wellbeing, societal, and ecological advantages of nature relatedness have already attracted much interest in the research literature across multiple disciplines and in the public policy arena.

You might also like: The Remarkable Benefits of Biodiversity

The post Human Connection With Nature Improves Wellbeing and Pro-Environmental Behaviours: Study appeared first on Earth.Org.

The Anthropocene refers to humanity’s most recent and ecologically destructive period – perhaps starting around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Although the term hasn’t been officially adopted by The International Union of Geological Sciences, many specialists agree that we are currently in the Sixth Mass Extinction. While Homo sapiens is the only species capable of disrupting the entire planet’s biosphere, it is also the only one resourceful enough to prevent further rapid declines in biological diversity. This article looks at five major effects of biodiversity loss – and why humans should care. But before discussing the impacts of losing this natural, vital variety, it is helpful to first appreciate the full scope of biodiversity.

—

The Convention on Biological Diversity – a part of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – defines biological diversity as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.”

In other words, biodiversity broadly covers the variations found in genes, species, habitats, ecosystems, and ecological processes, and the interconnections between these forms of diversity. Also, larger areas are likely to have a wider range of distinct habitats (more ecological niches), encouraging greater species richness.

5 Major Effects of Biodiversity Loss

1. Impacts on Ecosystem Stability and Services

Like asset diversification in economics, biological diversification also provides insurance,

but against environmental fluctuations and volatility. A 2015 Science article indicates that “a given decrease in plant species numbers [led] to a quantitatively similar decrease in ecosystem stability regardless of which driver caused the biodiversity loss.” For those of us who are not biologists or ecologists, this basically suggests that biodiversity loss results in less stable, less resilient ecosystems.

In addition, the loss of biological diversity threatens essential ecological functions, the ones upon which human life depends. 

Biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships are generally positive. So, it seems safe to say that biodiversity loss reduces the effective functioning of ecosystems, also affecting their services.

Ecosystem services are the numerous, life-sustaining benefits that humans derive from thriving ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment divides these benefits into four categories: 

1. Provisioning services: Tangible resources directly extracted from nature, such as food, water, wood, oils, minerals, plants, and medicine.
2. Regulating services: Modulation of natural phenomena to make them safe and useful for humans and other lifeforms. For example, air and soil quality maintenance, water purification, crop pollination, carbon storage, and climate control.
3. Cultural services: Non-material, intrinsic benefits that humans have always attained from nature, including “contribut[ion] to the development and cultural advancement of people.”
4. Supporting services: The most fundamental services, being the provision of liveable habitats for diverse lifeforms, and the creation and maintenance of genetic diversity.

Not only does biodiversity loss impact individual species, but it also alters their symbiotic interrelations with other species and their habitats. In turn, ecosystem functions and aforementioned services are disrupted, with widespread consequences for humans and other life on Earth.

2. Accelerated Extinction of Species

Many experts agree that the Sixth Mass Extinction is underway. Species numbers continue to disappear because of anthropogenic climate change, habitat destruction, overexploitation and over-harvest, pollution, and introduction of invasive species. Compared with the natural extinction rate (if humans weren’t around), the current one is around 1,000 to 10,000 times higher.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) writes that the climate crisis is disrupting the survival of all the threatened species on its Red List. As of March 2023, out of its 150,300 assessed lifeforms, about 42,100 – over a quarter – are uncomfortably close to extinction. This number of (currently assessed) threatened species comprises:

• 41% of amphibians
• 69% of cycads
• 37% of rays and sharks
• 36% of reef corals
• 34% of conifers
• 28% of selected crustaceans
• 27% of mammals
• 21% of reptiles
• 13% of birds

Also – related to the above association between biodiversity and ecosystem stability – extinction cascades are more likely “when other species are not present to fill the ‘gap’ created by the loss of a species.” Biodiversity decline fuels further biodiversity decline. This is another effect. In response, the IUCN has established a global Reverse the Red movement, seeking to empower diverse actors to reverse biodiversity loss.

You might also like: 10 of the World’s Most Endangered Animals in 2023

3. Increased Zoonotic Disease Transmission to Humans

A zoonotic disease, or zoonosis, is an infectious disease in humans that originates from pathogen transmission via non-human animals. These pathogens (viruses, bacteria, parasites, prions, etc.) are contracted in many ways. Examples include direct contact, indirect contact (from the environment), food consumption, drinking water, and insects and ticks.

The transmission process itself is called “zoonotic spillover.” In fact, the origins of around 60-75% of human infectious diseases can be traced back to zoonotic spillover. Such diseases encompass monkeypox, Covid-19, AIDS, Ebola, Lyme disease, dengue fever, and Zika.

According to a 2020 Biodiversity and Conservation article, “the intensifying emergence of infectious pathogens has many underlying reasons, all driven by the growing anthropogenic impact on nature.”

Human population growth has led, for instance, to increased land clearing for establishing croplands and pastures – a main source of biodiversity loss. People working in these regions are more likely to come into direct or indirect contact with wild animals and livestock, and their pathogens. Land clearance also creates space for more transportation links from rural and remote regions to densely populated urban areas. Thus, the spread of zoonotic diseases is sped up. 

Naturally, habitat loss affects non-human species, including those carrying pathogens. One consequence is that many wild animals are advancing closer to human communities, leading to higher disease transmission and human–wildlife conflict.

You might also like: ​​What’s the Link Between Climate Change and Disease Outbreaks

4. More Conflict Between Humans and Wildlife

Related to the last point, human-wildlife conflict is any negative interaction between people and wild animals. It covers crop and property damage, physical injury, and even loss of human life. The tension is a significant issue for sustainable development efforts

A research article focussing on Ethiopia identifies biodiversity loss as heightening inter-species conflict between humans and wildlife. Major friction sources are agricultural expansion, human settlements, overgrazing by livestock, deforestation, and poaching. The authors mention that deforestation in and around Bale Mountains National Park occurs to expand human communities. But, with less vegetation in these areas, the feeding, nesting, and mating sites of wild animals are disrupted. So, human-wildlife conflict arises.

Regarding land conversion, “agro-pastoral habitats constitute the most widespread anthropogenic biome, covering 38% of Earth’s ice-free land.” Unfortunately, agricultural expansion is also the single greatest threat to biodiversity. Many species adapt to the ubiquitous habitat loss by foraging and hunting in these croplands and pastures. As a result, agropastoralist communities face threats from wild animals, especially larger ones. Sometimes they engage in retaliatory hunting, further endangering wildlife.

5. Threatened Food Security and Medicinal Resources

As brought up in a UNEP report titled Food Systems Impact on Biodiversity, people naturally desire to cultivate land for the mass production of cheap food. We need to eat to survive, and it only seems fair to offer everyone food at affordable prices.

But, as the report highlights, the costs associated with unviable agricultural practices don’t just vanish. Instead, they are transferred to the very land and environment from which the food comes.

Ironically, food security will be hard hit if unsustainable agricultural and farming practices continue. Agricultural expansion has already eroded large swathes of land, affecting soil, insect, plant, and mammal biodiversity. However, all forms of biodiversity, such as microbial, horticultural crop, and animal biological diversity, are crucial for long-term, sustainable food production.

Moreover, for millennia people have turned to nature for medicinal resources. The current rates of biodiversity loss impact not just traditional medicine, but modern pharmaceuticals and drug innovations, too. Remember that biodiversity “provides a vital link to critically expand the molecular diversity necessary for successful drug discovery efforts in the future.”

Conclusion

Current life on Earth is the result of around four billion years of evolution. We live on the only planet known to have the perfect conditions for creating and sustaining life – not just human life, but that of all the diverse lifeforms making up the biosphere. However, anthropogenic biodiversity loss, across multiple trophic levels, is causing devastating ramifications for both non-human animals and humans.

You might also like: The Remarkable Benefits of Biodiversity

The post 5 Concerning Effects of Biodiversity Loss appeared first on Earth.Org.

Borneo is home to some of the planet’s most ancient rainforests, containing concentrated numbers of diverse and endemic species. Unfortunately, decades of logging, land clearing, and agricultural conversion mean that only 50% of this rainforest still remains. Despite the disastrous consequences of deforestation in Borneo, including habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, conservation efforts of numerous parties active on the Southeast Asian island give us hope for the island’s irreplaceable rainforests and species.

—

Deforestation in Borneo

Although dense rainforests once blanketed Borneo’s entirety, deforestation has laid claim to increasing amounts of the island and contributed to the endangerment of species dependent on its forests. These threats are certainly not unique to the region. A 2020 study indicates that 50% of the Bornean rainforest was lost between 1973 and 2015. To recognise why this is so devastating, it is essential to understand why the giant Southeast Asian island is so important.

Maritime Southeast Asia comprises three of the world’s 17 megadiverse countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Borneo is split between Indonesia (about 73%), the two Malaysian states of Sarawak and Sabah to the north (around 26%), and tiny Brunei, surrounded by Sarawak. Its remarkable lowland rainforests are the planet’s second-oldest rainforest ecosystem, clocking in at around 140 million years old – second only to the Daintree, and twice as ancient as the Amazon.

Borneo contains the highest levels of Southeast Asian plant and mammal species richness.

As with all megadiverse regions, the territory boasts a stunning array of diverse and endemic fauna and flora. Researchers have identified Borneo as containing “the highest levels of [Southeast] Asian plant and mammal species richness.” Native mammals include the Bornean clouded leopard, Borneo bay cat, Borneo sun bear, pygmy elephant, Borneo rhinoceros, and the Bornean banteng, with endemic primates featuring the orangutan (found only in Borneo and Sumatra), the southern grey gibbon, and the proboscis monkey. Unique plants include the Rafflesia arnoldii, producing the world’s largest flowers. In addition to its impressive number of distinctive species, it is also one of Southeast Asia’s major evolutionary hotspots.

You might also like: Top 10 Critically Endangered Species in Asia in 2022

Deforestation and Palm Oil in Borneo

Deforestation leads to three of the worst threats to biodiversity: habitat loss, land degradation, and habitat fragmentation. 

The world’s rainforests are logged, burned, and cleared for agricultural conversion (to establish palm oil plantations, for instance). The clearing of trees and their root systems, affecting soil structure and fertility, is a main contributor to eroded and degraded soil. Another threat to species globally is habitat fragmentation. Their habitats become fragmented through human land transformation, creating smaller, more isolated fragments.

A Science Advances article details how “all aspects of fragmentation – reduced fragment area, increased isolation, and increased edge – [have] degrading effects on a disparate set of core ecosystem functions.” In addition to this habitat destruction, other threats to Borneo’s mammals include hunting and wildlife trade.

Regarding agricultural output, Malaysia and Indonesia supply about 87% of the world’s palm oil. Derived from oil palm trees (Elaeis guineensis) – native to West Africa and introduced to Southeast Asia in the 1800s – palm oil is a multipurpose vegetable oil. It is involved in the manufacture of everything from processed foods to personal care and cleaning products. Further, Palm Oil Investigations and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimate that the oil and its derivatives are found in 50% of supermarket products consumers use on a daily basis. It’s also employed as an alternative biofuel.

You might also like: Palm Oil Deforestation: Origins, Environmental Degradation and Solutions

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the world has seen a steady rise in palm oil production over the last few decades. Annual supply increased by nearly 50 million tonnes from 1995 (15.2 million per annum) to 2015 (62.6 million per annum). Related to these statistics, between 2000 and 2018, roughly 39% of Bornean tropical forests were converted into palm oil plantations. In fact, with 8.2 million hectares of plantations, Borneo produces the most palm oil of any world region. More rainforest land is cleared for cultivating timber, rubber, pulpwood, and acacia (the fire-resistant acacia is native to Australia but has been introduced to Borneo).

Undeniably, the high global demand for palm oil has degraded, fragmented, and destroyed habitats for the island’s species and residents. But it is important to note that palm oil has also lifted hundreds of thousands of Borneans out of poverty. While native communities have co-existed with the rainforests for millennia, subsisting in mutual harmony, “this way of life is dying,” as Emma Maxwell writes in a piece on the truth of Borneo’s plantations. Despite these changes, nature, generally speaking, still holds both cultural and spiritual significance for indigenous peoples around the world, such as the Dayaks of Borneo.

In a 2013 study among Bornean villagers, small-scale land clearing was viewed more positively than mass deforestation (such as for palm oil and acacia cultivation). Opinions about the latter were more context dependent. The conflicting desires for both economic growth and ecological sustainability – is there ever a simple solution?

You might also like: The Conservation Organisation Working to Restore the Borneo Rainforest One Tree at a Time

Current Rainforest Loss and Conservation Efforts on Borneo

In the mid-1980s, around 75% of the Bornean rainforest was still untouched. Currently, only half of the island’s original forest still remains. As mentioned previously, according to a Frontiers paper titled “Impacts of Four Decades of Forest Loss on Vertebrate Functional Habitat on Borneo”, 50% of the territory’s rainforests were lost during the years 1973–2015.

Forty years is a long time. And there is hope that deforestation will decline. It was mostly during the 1980s and 1990s that Borneo’s rainforests were levelled at astonishing rates (for example, Kalimantan lost 56% of its protected rainforest between 1985 and 2001). Moreover, according to a 2018 report by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFR), since the year 2000, many Bornean agricultural plantations were established on land cleared before 2000. The researchers suggest that, in 2017, rainforest clearing specifically for plantation expansion – as well as agricultural conversion more generally – was at its lowest since 2003. Lastly, the CIFR report also indicates that while rainforest loss for any purpose peaked in 2016, the next year saw a sharp decline.

Although the situation is not as dire as during the 1980s or 1990s, NGOs including the WWF warn that logging, land clearing, and plantation expansion are still ongoing issues for Borneo, as they are for many tropical regions. Meanwhile, various not-for-profits and initiatives are pushing to conserve and restore the island’s ancient rainforests.

To protect its species, the WWF has established a Heart of Borneo programme. The initiative – commenced in 2007 via a joint declaration between the organisation and the Indonesian, Malaysian, and Bruneian governments – seeks to create protected areas and enhance sustainable forest management in Borneo’s core; the island is one of WWF’s focus areas, containing five priority species.

You might also like: The Orangutan Project Celebrates International Women’s Day by Recognising Borneo’s First Women Ranger Teams

For many endemic cat and primate species, Borneo’s peatland swamp forests are crucial habitats. The International Tropical Peatlands Center works throughout Southeast Asia, the Congo Basin, and Peru, including in Borneo, to sustainably conserve and manage peat-swamp forests.

Another conservation organisation active on the island is the Borneo Nature Foundation (BNF), founded in 1999. Many of deforestation’s worst effects can be reversed through reforestation, the replanting of trees. Reforesting, also in Borneo’s peatland swamps, is one of many efforts undertaken by the non-profit. They also conduct field research and surveys to identify forests with cultural significance and High Conservation Value, thus safeguarding these habitats for both wildlife and local communities. BNF also engages in fire-fighting and fire prevention to further conserve Borneo’s ancient rainforests. In addition to their forest protection efforts, they conduct scientific research into the island’s fauna and flora – including orangutans, other primates, and wild cats. The non-profit also runs community development and environmental education in Borneo.

Likewise, The Borneo Project works with local communities, training indigenous activists to demarcate their ancestral land, thereby preventing the conversion of this territory into plantations. Similar to the BNF, their mission is to conserve and protect the island’s habitats for people and wildlife alike, whilst defending human rights. And a recent Earth.Org article spotlights The Orangutan Project, a charity operating for over 20 years to save the unique Bornean primate.

However, conservation efforts face threats of their own. Perhaps it comes as little surprise, but the “continuous flow of large amounts of capital into deforestation” is a major one. 

According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN drafted their Principles for Responsible Banking – whose current signatories make up nearly half the world’s banks – with the hopes of achieving some systemic change. The goal is to nudge these institutions into alignment with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. A second threat confronting sustainability initiatives takes the form of local governments (secretly) granting agricultural conversion concessions to companies. This occurred between the Sarawak government and Radiant Lagoon in 2018. Public protests arose in response, resulting in the cessation of clearing.

In summary, thanks to the numerous ongoing conservation efforts of diverse parties, Borneo’s ancient rainforests and unique species will be protected, preserved, and restored for generations to come.

You might also like: State of the World Forests 2022: Why Swifter Action Is Needed to Halt Deforestation

The post What Causes Deforestation in Borneo and How Do We Stop It? appeared first on Earth.Org.

It can be tricky for biological conservationists to determine if the last surviving individuals of a species are still around in the wild. Therefore, we may wonder: is the species truly extinct or would they be better described as “lost”? And how would we define a “lost species” and go about rediscovering them? 

—

A recent paper published in Animal Conservation provides the first assessment of just how many terrestrial vertebrates  – mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles –  can be classed as “lost taxa.” The term is used to describe species that have not been “reliably observed in >50 years yet are not declared extinct.” After consulting the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List and salient literature, the authors identified 562 such species. These numbers include 130 mammals, 38 birds, 137 amphibians, and 257 reptiles. Other sources indicate that, globally, there are over 2,200 missing organisms, unobserved by humans for decades.

This study highlights the importance of focusing on lost species as a distinct group whose conservation status is unclear. The authors identify specific regions with elevated rates of lost taxa, where future surveys should ideally be focused. For instance, over 90% of the world’s missing species are confined to the tropics. And as predicted by the authors, megadiverse countries (holding the greatest range of biodiversity) were found to be missing the most taxa, with Indonesia, Mexico, and Brazil being the top three. The paper emphasises the importance of funding for targeted fieldwork aimed at either (1) rediscovering these species or (2) definitively classing them as no longer extant. 

But how exactly do biological conservationists decide upon a conservation status, such as extinction? Several factors can complicate the classification. For instance, some life forms are very rare or reclusive by nature. And if the usual habitat of an organism is particularly inaccessible, dangerous, or remote for humans, it is not uncommon for these creatures to go many years without being witnessed by anyone. These difficulties, among others, mean that numerous species once deemed extinct have ended up being rediscovered “decades or even centuries after an individual was last conclusively reported.” Only in rare cases do zoologists know precisely when the last remaining member of a taxon passes away.  

So, how – as of 2022 – does the IUCN’s Red List classify a species as extinct? A consensus must be reached that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the final taxon member has died. To reach this determination, exhaustive surveys undertaken in the species’ usual or expected habitat (over its historic range) at proper times must fail to locate any individual. Consideration must also be paid to life cycle and form. It is important to adhere to strict guidelines before ruling a species extinct, as you don’t want to abandon a species too soon. Interestingly, in the past, the proposed criterion for extinction was simply that the creature hadn’t been seen in 50 years or more. Now, this paper uses the 50-year benchmark to identify missing species. Other sources, however, use different time ranges to classify a species as lost, e.g., 10 years or longer. 

Fieldwork surveys dedicated to these lost taxa are recommended. The study also suggests greater use of the Red List’s “last seen” data to aid fieldworkers and conservationists. As of now, this data is only required for species categorised as either Extinct, Extinct in the Wild, or Critically Endangered. Thus, the “last seen” information was available for less than 15% of the 562 lost life forms. Other recommendations include broader and more consistent use of the “Possibly Extinct” marker by the IUCN.

The conducting, funding, and dissemination of fieldwork-driven research are imperative to biodiversity efforts. Unfortunately, publications in conservation science journals that are derived from empirical field investigations have decreased by 20% from the 1980s to the present. The paper’s authors advocate for reversing this downward trend to develop greater insights into species lost. And a proposed “Latimerian knowledge shortfall” could be handy in recording and keeping track of these taxa. 

The authors of the study, as cited in Science Daily, have said that “while theoretical estimates of ongoing ‘extinction rates’ are fine and good, looking hard for actual species seems better.” They hope that their study will inspire conservationists to focus on these lost species. In particular, the researchers advocate for survey efforts concentrated in the “hotspots” they’ve identified – megadiverse countries with the most missing creatures.

You might also like: 10 Australian Extinct Animals That Came Back from the Dead

How might we best ideate appropriate policies and practices to combat an increasing number of species becoming lost, endangered, or extinct? And when focusing on lost taxa? According to wildlife conservation non-profit Re:wild, there is “no one-size-fits-all solution to the interrelated crises of wildlife extinctions, climate change and pandemics.” The group stresses that, to implement the most effective and practical conservation policies, all vested parties must agree upon context-specific solutions. These parties, including conservation organisations, government, and local and indigenous communities, must collaborate and mutually agree upon feasible strategies. 

Lost species have disappeared in widely varying regions and countries; myriad factors must be taken into consideration. For instance, the local socio-economic and political landscape, science-based evidence, local resources, current biodiversity threats, and “whether the species or place already has a champion” should be acknowledged. As with the study’s authors, Re:wild also emphasises the importance of decision-making based on science (preferably, extensive fieldwork). Thus, dedicated empirical surveys must be undertaken in the hotspots to determine the true conservation status of lost taxa. 

In consultation with relevant groups and representatives, Re:wild has ideated appropriate approaches to solving numerous environmental concerns, such as lost taxa. These solutions include science-based policy-making and decision-making (as discussed earlier). They draw upon this empirical data to deepen their knowledge of global biodiversity and how to sustain it. These findings also inform their prioritisation of conservation efforts. Another suggested solution is remote area exploration, which helps in pinpointing where exactly their efforts will yield the greatest results for “imperiled species and places.” Additionally, the non-profit also engages in numerous other strategies, such as rapid rescue, which involves responding to and remedying arising conservation threats that require immediate action. 

Although the Anthropocene era, also known as the sixth mass extinction event, is resulting in the extinction or endangerment of numerous creatures, there is still hope for those better deemed “lost” than extinct. For instance, Re:wild celebrates eight rediscovered species on the page Lost Species Found. Their list includes the silver-backed chevrotain (missing for 28 years) and the Fernandina giant tortoise (missing for 113 years). Despite being unobserved by human eyes for decades, many lost species may have surviving members still extant in the wild today.

Featured image: Takahē, a flightless bird thought to be extinct was found again in 1948. Photo by: Tomas Sobek/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

The post Lost Species: Unseen but Not Extinct? appeared first on Earth.Org.