Search

Many nations are struggling to reduce deforestation, despite having extensive environmental protection laws in place and commitments to international agreements that address the biodiversity and climate crises. We developed a novel framework to quantify the extent to which contemporary deforestation is being captured under national and subnational laws. We then applied this framework to northern Australia as a case study, a development and deforestation hotspot with ecosystems of global significance. First, deforestation may be compliant under all relevant legislation, either through assessment and approval or because of exemptions in the legislation. Second, deforestation may be compliant under at least one relevant law, but not all. Third, there may be no evidence of deforestation assessment or exemption from assessment, despite their apparent requirement, which could mean the deforestation is potentially noncompliant. Finally, deforestation may occur in an area or under circumstances that are beyond the intended scope of any relevant legislation. All deforestation that we analyzed was hypothetically covered by one or more laws. However, 65% of deforestation was potentially noncompliant with at least one law. Because multiple laws could be relevant to a given clearing event, the majority of clearing was still compliant with at least one law, but of these events, only a small proportion was explicitly approved (19%). The remaining were permitted under various exemptions. Of all the legislation we analyzed, most of the exempt clearing occurred under one subnational law and most potentially noncompliant clearing occurred under one national law. Our results showed that even a nation with a suite of mature environmental protection laws is falling well short of achieving international commitments regarding deforestation. Our framework can be used to pinpoint the pathways of policy change required for nations to align local laws with these international accords., (© 2024 The Author(s). Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.)

For over 40 years, biotechnology and genetic engineering (GE) have been used in the development of medicines and biologic agents important in protecting and augmenting human health and have been met with broad public acceptance in the health care arena. GE has also been used to improve and develop plants important to agriculture and forestry, but in these areas, it has often encountered intense opposition that has prevented or delayed the introduction of potentially useful plants. Much of the opposition to GE's application in agriculture and forestry may be driven by concerns that GE plants will serve primarily to encourage the domination of the food and wood products industries by monopolistic corporations or will be disruptive to the environment. But to conflate genetic modifications intended to promote healthy ecosystems or preserve threatened species with GE projects aimed at benefiting corporate agriculture and forestry is misleading and illogical. Further, the pervasive human disruption and damage to forest ecosystems makes it prudent to bring the best that science can offer to the protection and restoration of critical woodland denizens and broader ecosystem health. The notion that minimal human intervention in the forest environment may be the best approach ignores humanity's responsibility to help manage and protect some of the very places that have been most damaged by human intrusion. GE intended to improve forest health should be afforded the same consideration, acceptance, and support as GE intended to improve human health. These efforts should include the use of GE technology such as carefully developed transgenic trees to cure ongoing forest pathogenesis, such as the chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica), which threatens to drive the American chestnut (Castanea dentata) to extinction., (© 2020 Society for Conservation Biology.)

The human communities and ecosystems of island and coastal southeast Africa face significant and linked ecological threats. Socioecological conditions of concern to communities, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and researchers include declining agricultural productivity, deforestation, introductions of non-native flora and fauna, coastal erosion and sedimentation, damage to marine environments, illegal fishing, overfishing, waste pollution, salinization of freshwater supplies, and rising energy demands, among others. Human-environment challenges are connected to longer, often ignored, histories of social and ecological dynamics in the region. We argue that these challenges are more effectively understood and addressed within a longer-term historical ecology framework. We reviewed cases from Madagascar, coastal Kenya, and the Zanzibar Archipelago of fisheries, deforestation, and management of human waste to encourage increased engagement among historical ecologists, conservation scientists, and policy makers. These case studies demonstrate that by widening the types and time depths of data sets we used to investigate and address current socioecological challenges, our interpretations of their causes and strategies for their mitigation varied significantly., (© 2018 Society for Conservation Biology.)