Location: Minamata, Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan

Period: First identified in 1956, with effects continuing for decades.

What Happened?

• The Chisso Corporation, a chemical company, discharged methylmercury, a highly toxic organic compound, into Minamata Bay and the Shiranui Sea as industrial wastewater from the 1930s to the late 1960s.

• This mercury accumulated in marine organisms like fish and shellfish.

How Did It Affect People?

• Local residents, who relied on fishing for their food and livelihood, consumed the contaminated seafood.

• This led to mercury poisoning, now known as Minamata disease.

Symptoms of Minamata Disease:

• Numbness in hands and feet

• Muscle weakness

• Loss of vision and hearing

• Damage to the central nervous system

• In severe cases: paralysis, coma, and death

• Congenital Minamata disease affected babies born to mothers who had been exposed.

Impact:

• Over 2,000 people were officially certified as victims, though the real number is likely much higher.

• Thousands of deaths and chronic health issues occurred.

• Severe social stigma and discrimination were faced by the victims.

Environmental and Legal Response:

• The Japanese government and Chisso were criticized for delayed response and negligence.

• Chisso was eventually forced to pay compensation to victims, but only after long legal and social battles.

• The case became a landmark in environmental justice and corporate accountability.

Environmental Significance:

• Highlighted the dangers of biomagnification—how toxins increase in concentration as they move up the food chain.

• Became a key example for environmental movement for the need for pollution control, corporate responsibility, and precautionary measures.

Due to poor safety standards, lack of proper maintenance, and insufficient emergency protocols, over 40 tons of MIC gas escaped into the atmosphere, spreading over nearby densely populated areas while people were asleep.

Effects of the Tragedy

1. Human Impact

• Immediate deaths: Around 3,000 people died within the first few days.

• Long-term deaths: Estimates suggest 15,000–25,000 people eventually died due to complications.

• Injuries: Over 500,000 people were affected, suffering from respiratory issues, eye irritation, skin problems, and long-term illnesses like cancer and birth defects.

• Psychological trauma: Survivors suffered from depression, anxiety, and PTSD for decades.

2. Environmental Damage

• The soil and groundwater around the factory became heavily contaminated.

• Toxic waste remains in the area even decades later, affecting drinking water and agriculture.

3. Economic and Social Consequences

• Many survivors became disabled and unable to work.

• Healthcare costs rose sharply due to long-term treatments.

• Trust in industrial safety declined sharply across India and globally.

• The area around the plant turned into a ghost town, with property values plummeting.

4. Legal and Political Impact

• Union Carbide paid $470 million in compensation in 1989, which was criticized as inadequate.

• Ongoing legal battles continue between Indian authorities, survivors, and Dow Chemical, which later acquired Union Carbide.

• It led to the creation of stronger environmental laws and industrial safety regulations in India.

The Montreal Protocol was widely adopted because:

• replacement chemicals (HFCs) could be produced

• there was a clear scientific issue of ozone depletion

• the public recognized and understood the risks.

In short, the Kyoto Protocol operationalizes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by committing industrialized countries and economies in transition to limit and reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions in accordance with agreed individual targets. The Convention itself only asks those countries to adopt policies and measures on mitigation and to report periodically.

The Kyoto Protocol is based on the principles and provisions of the Convention and follows its annex-based structure. It only binds developed countries, and places a heavier burden on them under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities”, because it recognizes that they are largely responsible for the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere.

In its Annex B, the Kyoto Protocol sets binding emission reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and economies in transition and the European Union. Overall, these targets add up to an average 5 per cent emission reduction compared to 1990 levels over the five year period 2008–2012 (the first commitment period).

12,000 barrels spilled; severe damage to marine ecosystems and human livelihoods.

Once the wolves were gone, their prey species, elk, increased greatly. There were so many elk that they overgrazed the trees. The park service started trapping and moving the elk and eventually killing them. In the late 1960s, elk-killing stopped and populations rose again.

With no wolves, coyote populations also increased and they prey on pronghorn antelope.

Much debate raged around reintroducing the grey wolf. Finally in 1995, 21 wolves were captured in Alberta, Canada and taken to Yellowstone. In 2020 there were 123 wolves in the park. As expected, since 1995 elk numbers have declined.

Wolves kill 22 elk per wolf per year. Elk have changed their behaviour and moved to less hospitable areas of the park, with less food. They have produced fewer offspring.

Wolves prey on coyotes too and outcompete them for other foods. Coyote numbers have declined and they have moved to steeper slopes where wolves cannot run as fast. Both wolves and coyotes eat each other’s pups.

Coyotes prey on foxes. With fewer coyotes, fox numbers have increased. Foxes prey on deer and hares, rodents and ground-nesting birds. With more foxes, there are fewer hares and young deer. Decreased populations of fox prey animals have led to changes in numbers of their food plants and insects.

Increased wolf populations have led to increased beaver populations, as elk have moved away from eating the willows which beavers rely on for winter food. More beavers build more dams, reducing run-off and erosion and creating ponds for fish habitat. Wolf carcasses provide food for scavengers such as ravens, wolverines, bald eagles and grizzly bears. Wolves also claim kills made by cougars so the cougars have moved back up the mountains.

This is a trophic cascade—a series of powerful indirect interactions that can control entire ecosystems. Trophic cascades occur when predators limit the density and/or behaviour of their prey and thereby enhance survival of the next lower trophic level.

Yellowstone offered a unique opportunity to observe the effect of reintroducing a key species. It is often the loss of a key species that changes an ecosystem.

There are alternating periods of abundant and scarce rainfall but the length and severity of droughts are increasing. In 1984-5, a massive drought caused famine and most livestock died. Before this, fairly good rainfall had led to overstocking—the number of animals exceeded the biocapacity of the region to provide water and pasture.

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, also known as UN Climate Change)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, also known as UN Biodiversity)

• United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

In 1972, Singapore’s government started the anti-natalist policy with the slogan “Stop at Two". It introduced a series of policies to encourage lower birth rates—these included:

• Establishing the Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB)

• Access to low-cost contraception creating family planning clinics and enabling easy access to these clinics

• Using media to promote smaller families free education for smaller families access to low-cost healthcare for smaller families promoting sterilisation.

Pro-natalist policies, 1987 onwards: “Have three or more if you can afford it”:-

The success of the “Stop at Two” policy meant that Singapore faced a shrinking population, and all the issues associated with an ageing population. So, in 1987, Singaporeans were actively encouraged to “Have three or more if you can afford it”. The strategies for this policy included:

• An increase in maternity leave to 12 weeks

• Maternity leave covered for the first four children

• Increase in child benefits to reduce concern about the costs of having children

• Government-sponsored dating agencies

• Government-subsidised childcare

• Discouraging sterilisation and abortion

• Family Planning and Population Board eliminated

• Parents with good education (usually degree level) get enhanced child benefits.

The lengthening and intensification of summers in the Aral Sea Basin due to climate change exacerbate several environmental challenges, particularly in western Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. 

First, prolonged heatwaves accelerate evaporation rates, hastening the depletion of already dwindling water resources. This not only fuels the shrinkage of the sea itself but also reduces the availability of freshwater for irrigation, agriculture, and domestic use.

The governments of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, where the lake is located, have taken proactive measures to address the environmental crisis caused by the shrinking of the Aral Sea, involving multiple stakeholders. The projects entail constructing dams, planting erosion-stopping vegetation such as saxaul shrubs over millions of hectares, establishing water diversion channels, and implementing water-saving technologies in agriculture to alleviate pressure on the sea’s inflowing rivers. 

For example, the 13-kilometer Kok-Aral dam has already facilitated a significant revival of fish stocks by increasing water volume in the North Aral, resulting in a nearly quarter expansion of the lake since its completion in 2005. Salinity also decreased, enabling a diverse range of fish species to thrive and leading to profound increases in fishing limits. The restoration also led to the return of rain clouds and potential changes in the region’s microclimate, offering hope to struggling farmers.

• Household water supply is intermittent and may be on for only 36 hours per week. In summer 2022, household taps ran dry for three weeks.

• Wealthier households buy water tanks which they put on their roofs and fill with bought water from private tankers.

• Poorer households cannot afford to buy water tanks or water.

• The population was 8 million in 2012, including more than 760,000 people registered with the UN as refugees. It is now estimated to exceed 11 million.

• All Jordan’s water sources are near borders, with infrastructure issues moving it to urban areas.

• The River Jordan is nearly dry.

• The Disi aquifer is being drained at roughly twice the rate at which it can be replenished naturally and now accounts for about 60% of the country’s water supply. Estimates are that at current extraction rates, it will be dry in 50 years.

• Jordan depends on winter rainfall which is not enough to meet demand (40% below normal).

• Jordan lacks natural lakes.

• Jordan is well below the absolute water scarcity threshold of 500 m? per person set by the UN.

• A desalination plant is being built but will not operate for years.

• Water for irrigation is reduced by 50% and crops with low water demand allowed.

Solutions:

• Public awareness campaigns on rainwater harvesting techniques, water storage and use are effective.

• The King Talal Dam created a reservoir across the Zarga River which stores winter rainwater. Water from the dam irrigates about 17,000 hectares.

• Reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation has increased.

• Grey water use has increased.

• A desalination plant takes water from the Dead Sea and supplies Amman.

• Funding from the EU, USA, Japan and Germany, as well as the World Bank and the UN, supports projects to increase water supply.

Overfishing:

Industrial-scale fishing with large trawlers and draggers led to unsustainable harvesting.

Foreign fleets (especially from Europe) also exploited the Grand Banks.

Bycatch and Juvenile Harvesting:

Non-target species and young cod were often caught and discarded, reducing reproduction rates.

Government Mismanagement:

Quotas were set too high, often ignoring scientific warnings about declining stocks.

Political and economic pressures overruled conservation advice.

Technological Advances:

Sonar, radar, and factory trawlers made fishing more efficient — and more destructive.

Environmental Factors:

Possible climate shifts (like colder waters) may have affected cod breeding patterns and food availability.

Impacts (Immediate effects):

Fishery Closure (1992):

The Canadian government declared a moratorium on northern cod fishing.

Mass Unemployment:

Over 30,000 people lost jobs — the largest industrial layoff in Canadian history.

Economic Collapse of Coastal Communities:

Many towns in Newfoundland and Labrador heavily relied on cod as their main source of income.

Ecosystem Disruption:

With cod gone, species like shrimp and crab flourished, altering the marine food web.

Consequences (Longer-term effects):

Cod Population Did Not Recover as Expected:

Even after decades, the cod stocks remain far below historic levels.

Cultural Displacement:

Generational fishing traditions were lost, impacting local identity and heritage.

Shift to Other Fisheries:

Communities turned to shrimp and crab fishing, which now dominate the local economy — but are also vulnerable.

Actions Taken (Response & Recovery Efforts):

1992 Moratorium:

Immediate halt on northern cod fishing to allow stocks to recover.

Compensation Programs:

The government provided short-term financial aid and retraining programs for displaced workers.

Marine Conservation & Quotas:

Stricter regulations and monitoring; marine protected areas were created in some zones.

Scientific Research:

Increased funding into cod population studies and ecosystem health.

Sustainable Fishing Promotion:

Emphasis on diversified, regulated fisheries with ecosystem based management.

~Courtesy of Advay Soni

IUU fishing, Overfishing

Overall, it failed due to unsustainable fishing

There have been four mass bleaching events on the GBR:

• 2016: Central third of the reef had severe bleaching; southern sector was less affected.

• 2017: Far north saw widespread severe bleaching with a 22% mortality rate; again the south was less severely affected.

• 2020: 1,036 reefs were surveyed and 60% had moderate to severe bleaching.

• 2022: The whole reef was hit—northern and central regions had extreme bleaching, while the south saw minor bleaching.

Climate change brings higher temperatures which escalate the frequency and intensity of severe weather events. Tropical cyclones generate high winds, heavy rain, huge waves and storm surges. The waves break over the corals, tear them up and reduce them to rubble. The waves also uproot mangrove trees. It can take the reef up to 10 years to recover from this sort of damage. But with climate change, the reef experiences up to 11 storms a year.

Higher water temperatures force marine species to migrate south towards cooler waters. This changes the dynamics of the entire ecosystem as competition shifts and food sources disappear. This impacts local coastal communities and tourism.

The media had sensationalised the commercial sealing without recognising the fact that subsistence sealing had been in place for centuries. The subsistence farmers eat the meat and occasionally sell the fur to supplement income in winter when fishing is bad. The outright ban in Europe means that this survival line has gone. Anti-sealing campaigns were highly detrimental to the traditional sealers, who even received death threats.

The WWF and Greenpeace pushed for a broader perspective and acknowledgment of the connection between sealing and the Inuit cultures of Newfoundland and Labrador. They petitioned for the introduction of sustainable quotas. Sealers and their families still risk violence for staying connected to their culture.

Aboriginal peoples recognized by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) are permitted to hunt whales so long as it is part of their indigenous culture. There are catch limits to ensure the conservation of whales and hunters must report the number of whales killed. This allows tracking of whale populations. Aboriginal whaling is under threat by commercial whalers and poachers who are taking whales in large quantities; this makes it hard to maintain population numbers. In some places, whale watching has replaced whaling.

There are only two remaining whaling communities in Indonesia, in the islands of Lembata and Solor. Religious taboos require that the whole whale is used. Half the whale stays in the village and the rest goes to local market for barter. They primarily hunt sperm whales. Dolphins, manta rays and turtles are also hunted along with some sharks.

Whale hunts are very traditional in style with bamboo spears. The boats are small wooden outriggers 10-12 m in length and about 2 m wide with a sail of woven palm fronds. The whales are killed by a harpooner jumping on top of the whale and driving the harpoon in by hand. This method suits their natural resources and their culture so in 1973 when the FAO tried to modernize the hunt it was completely unsuccessful.

Surveys by the WWF have confirmed that the current level of hunting is sustainable and the whale stock is not in danger.

Causes of River Thames Pollution

By the 13th century, water supplies were dirty due to the disposal of household refuse and sewage.

By the mid-1800s, the population of London reached 2.5 million. With this increase came more factories and flushing toilets so the volume of domestic and industrial waste flushed into the Thames increased.

Impacts of River Thames pollution

• Decreased water quality was linked to increased spread of disease such as cholera.

• Freshwater and saltwater species, including the fisheries, decreased. This meant the loss of sole, cod, herring, whitebait, sprat, salmon and eel catches.

• The summer of 1858 was unusually hot and the smell from the Thames was so bad that politicians and Queen Victoria complained about the problem.

• In 1878, a passenger steamer sank where the sewers emptied into the Thames and people died from ingesting the polluted water.

• In the 1960s, the smell from the Thames was again significant in warm weather.

Solutions to River Thames Pollution

• Newly established private water companies took water directly from the Thames and distributed it throughout London. So, in 1852 the Metropolis Water Act legislated the filtering of water through sand and shell filters.

• In 1859 a scheme by Joseph Bazalgette to pipe sewage away from London was started. Money was made available and 132 km of brick sewers and pumping stations were built. That sewer system still operates in the 21st century.

• “Bovril boats” were introduced to carry sewage sludge out to the Thames Estuary. These operated until 1998.

• Modern technologies are used to change sewage into fertiliser.

• In 1902, the Metropolitan Water Board was established to ensure the quality and cost of water was consistent.

• In 2015, the Thames Tideway Tunnel was started. The aim is to capture sewage from outflow pipes and redirect it to existing treatment facilities.

• In 2023, this tunnel was still due to open in 2025. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost rose to GBP 4.5 billion. The tunnel is 25 km long and should protect the River Thames from sewage for 100 years.

Results of River Thames Clean-up

Water quality has improved and there are now:

• 125 fish species and 400 invertebrate species.

• Salmon, grey seals and harbour porpoises.

• Keystone bird species such as herons, cormorants and Canadian and Egyptian geese.

• Bats, which had almost disappeared from the area.

Reindeer are not native to Alaska but their natural habitat is the Eurasian tundra. They eat lichen which was very abundant on St Matthew Island when the reindeer arrived. Lichen is a symbiotic combination of an alga and a fungus and is high in sugars. lt is a good food source for herbivores. The body mass of the reindeer became greater than that of wild herds elsewhere. Between 1944 and summer 1963 the reindeer numbers were recorded as having increased to 6,000.

But they ate all the lichen and most starved to death in the very severe winter of 1963-4. Numbers crashed to 42 in that winter. All but one of the survivors were female. Reindeer skeletons were everywhere.

Lichen is extremely slow-growing. There are no reindeer on St Matthew Island now. However, on a similar island (St Paul Island) about 400 reindeer survive even though they ate all the lichen there too. Their diet on St Paul Island is now grasses and grass roots.

It is thought that island ecosystems are not complex and therefore density-dependent factors did not operate as they would in a larger, more complex ecosystem. The drop in reindeer numbers was due to lack of food supply.

Normally, productivity in the oceans is quite low because of one of two limiting factors: light level and nutrient concentration.

• In the upper water levels, light intensity is high but nutrient levels are low and limit productivity. The available nutrients are taken in by phytoplankton. Organisms that are not eaten by some other organism, die and sink.

• The nutrients stored in these sinking organisms end up on the ocean bottom. The lower water layers are therefore nutrient rich. But the absence of light makes photosynthesis impossible.

West of the Peruvian coast, the prevailing eastern trade winds push the surface water westward. This water is replaced by cold, nutrient-rich water from the deep Humboldt Current, which originates in the Antarctic region and follows the South American coast to the north. The appearance of nutrient-rich water at the surface allows for high productivity, hence the high numbers of fish and their predators, the sea birds.

During El Niño events, the upwelling disappears and the fish and sea birds starve. At the same time, the Peruvian coastal plain is subject to severe storms, accompanied by excessive rainfall. This is caused by the warm, extremely moist air being forced upward by the Andes Mountains.

There are now around 89 bird species and about 335 species of invertebrate. The flora of Surtsey now includes moss, lichens and 60 species of vascular plant.

Human population (Mandurah): 91,300 (2011)

Vegetation: mainly scrub, woodland and Mediterranean forests

Native birds

• Baudin's black-cockatoo: critically endangered

• Carnaby's black-cockatoo: endangered

The rest of the birdlife is colourful, varied and not at

risk. It includes red-capped parrot, western rosella,

red-winged fairywren, western spinebill, western

thornbill, western yellow robin, white-breasted robin,

red-eared firetail, peregrine falcon, forest red-tailed

black-cockatoo, long-billed black-cockatoo.

Native Animals

• Numerous frogs

• Kangaroos

• Possums

• Various reptiles (snakes and lizards)

• Echidna

• Bandicoots

Conservation efforts

The community has an extensive local biodiversity strategy: Natural Area Planning in the Shire of Kalamunda. This can be accessed online. Community involvement is key and people are encouraged to:

• Maintain birdbaths especially during the dry season when drought can be an issue; small sticks or pebbles are included to help small animals climb out.

• Not feed wildlife because it is bad for the health of the wildlife and disturbs normal behaviours; it also encourages invasive species like galahs that outcompete the indigenous birds for nesting sites

• Enjoy the natural environment in parks, access to natural wetlands and woodlands.

• Conserve natural resources.

Conflicts between conservation and land use

The Mundaring, Kalamunda KBA has several land uses that could be seen to conflict with conservation and the maintenance of biodiversity. The dryland agriculture across much of the region requires irrigation—thus taking water away from the natural habitat areas.

Water supply in the area is mainly from groundwater; there are approximately 170,000 residential bores in the Perth area (individuals sinking wells or boreholes to access the groundwater). The increase in extraction from these groundwater sources is causing replenishment issues, exacerbated by climate change (low precipitation levels). This causes deficit in the natural environment and puts pressure on the wildlife. To try to combat this issue a groundwater replenishment scheme is being constructed to extend the extraction of recycled water, treat it to drinking water standards and pump it into the groundwater stores.

Other than that, the pressure of increased population means that residential areas are expanding and dryland agriculture and grazing take over more and more of the natural environment.

• 120 landowners signed voluntary pledges to change land management practices to protect howler monkey habitat.

• There is a sanctuary run by local women leaders which attracts international visitors.

• Guided nature hikes and a local museum bring in income.

• Small restaurants and B&Bs have been established.

• Howler monkey habitat is protected.

• Black howler monkey numbers have increased by thousands.

There was a view during colonization by the British empire that the Maasai way of life was not compatible with wildlife in the area and national parks were created with no consideration for local peoples. It is easier for authorities to regulate and know about a sedentary population who stay in one place (for example, farmers) than nomads. Also, land was privatized and rancher colonists moved in to displace the Maasai.

Parks and animal reserves have proliferated as governments encourage tourism, development and sedentary lifestyles in towns, and Maasai traditional lands have been taken from them.

The British and, after independence, the Kenyan governments valued wildlife for the income from tourism more than the indigenous Maasai. Various land exchanges moved the Maasai from their traditional grazing areas to smaller land areas which were not compatible with pastoralism. The belief was that the Maasai herds would overgraze to the detriment of wildlife.

The Serengeti with its iconic wildebeest herds was an area mostly lost to the Maasai and in the 1950s they were moved to the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) in Tanzania. Here is the highest concentration of wildlife on Earth when the annual migration of more than one million wildebeest, half a million gazelles and quarter of a million zebras come over from the Serengeti. It contains a high population of lions and cheetahs and is a refuge for elephants and black rhinos. While management plans were supposed to protect the Maasai, their lives became worse not better as the plans prioritized wild animals, and thus tourism income, not the Maasai.

The Maasai have practised pastoralism for at least 200 years and adjust their herd numbers in order to live sustainably. But various threats are damaging them and driving them to more poverty, not less. Recently, they have begun to organize their struggle for land rights. This has not happened earlier because the nature of their way of life means they have no single leader; nor is there any international advocate for their case.

The Issues:

• Scale of the tourism industry

• Lack of income from tourism to Maasai communities

• Cultural differences between various groups

• Lack of inclusion of Maasai in decision making

• Lack of communication between groups

• Land grabs by various groups

• Climate change causing droughts

• Increasing populations

Lemmings are predated on by owls, skuas, foxes and stoats. While owls, foxes and skuas have a varied diet, the stoats rely on eating lemmings. When the lemming population increases, there is more food for stoats and the stoat population increases with a time lag. This leads to increased predation so lemming populations fall, leaving the stoats with less food. As a result, stoat populations then fall after a time lag.

Succession begins with a bare surface of sand. Vegetation colonizes the sand. The pioneer plants tend to be low growing—why? They have fat fleshy leaves with a waxy coating and can survive being temporarily submerged.

Later, the predominant plant species is marram grass on the seaward side due to its ability to cope with the environmental conditions. Like the other grasses, it has leaves which are able to fold to reduce their surface area. The leaves are waxy to reduce transpiration and can be aligned to the wind direction. It incorporates silica into its cell structure to give the leaves extra strength and flexibility.

As a result of the humus from the previous stages, a sandy soil develops. This is able to support “pasture” grasses and bushes. Species such as hawthorn, elder, brambles and sea buckthorn (which has nitrogen-fixing root nodules so can thrive in nutrient-poor soil) are present. As the scrub develops, shorter species are shaded out.

The oldest dunes have forest. First pines and finally oak and ash woodland grow. This is the climax vegetation for the area. Henceforward, species diversity declines due to competition.

In every case, vegetation colonizes in a series of stages. The final stage is in dynamic equilibrium with its climatic environment and is known as climax vegetation for that climate. In the British Isles, this is temperate deciduous forest. As succession develops, there are increases in vegetation cover, soil depth and humus content, soil acidity, moisture content and sand stability.

• Established: 1986

• Surface area: 1,515,015 ha

• Located in south-east Alaska and made up of two areas: Glacier Bay and Admiralty Island.

• Retreating and advancing glaciers have shaped the landscape for about 20 million years.

• Since the last advance (200 years ago) the ice has retreated nearly 100 km.

Ecology

• Succession can be seen in this reserve.

• Pioneer plants are closest to the glacier: alder, cottonwood, lichens, moss, soapberry and willow.

• More mature forest (western hemlock and Sitka spruce) occurs further away.

• Admiralty Island has large stands of productive, mature temperate rainforest.

• Subtidal meadows, freshwater marshes and shrubland are found in both areas.

Socio-economics

• Humans have been around for approximately 10,000 years.

• Tlingits occupied the area in the 18th and 19th centuries—they were artistic people making Chilkat robes, basket weaving and totem poles.

• European settlers had sporadic settlements based on mining, logging, fishing and fur-trading.

• Human impact is limited so succession and recolonization can be studied.

• Heavy local involvement in development and review of management plans.

• Tourists arrive 80% on cruise ships; others hike, camp and kayak.

• Managed hunting and fishing are allowed.

• It is a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The emphasis on rural women is because it is the women who spend hours in the natural environment searching for food, water and firewood. With increased deforestation, the women had to travel further. This is a problem because they had less time to tend the crops and to look after the children.

On World Environment Day in 1977 seven seedlings were planted. Then the movement planted thousands of seedlings in long rows to form green belts of trees. Progress was not easy and there were efforts to suppress the movement between 1989 and 1999. The movement prevented construction in green spaces in Nairobi and protested against privatization of the Karura Forest. Private guards were hired to stop the protestors entering the forests which led to bloodshed as confrontations became violent.

These problems did not stop the movement and over 5,000 tree nurseries have been established. Hundreds of thousands of women are involved and maore than 51 million trees have been planted in Kenya. The movement is linked to sustainable development, peace and democracy. The project has broadened its efforts to include:

• Tree planting and watershed management

• Gender livelihood and advocacy

• Climate change

• Mainstream advocacy

The GBM is a "grassroots” environmental movement. Grassroots movements are started by citizens, often local, who advocate for change and understand local issues, context and culture.

Orange: Human-Caused Wildlife Disasters

Green: General Case Studies

Blue: Climate Agreements

Pink: Man-Made Disasters

Purple: Wildlife Sanctuaries / Nature Reserves

AHL Case Studies have been marked with "(HL)"

A brief internet search will shows that there are water bottling plants in many different countries. But without international standards, can we be sure that there are no contaminants in the bottled water?

In Indonesia, the area of land occupied by palm oil plantations has doubled in the last 10 years and is still increasing. According to Friends of the Earth, an NGO, demand for palm oil is the most significant cause of rainforest loss in Malaysia and Indonesia. Palm oil is high in saturated fats and semi solid at room temperature. It is extremely versatile and useful and is found in close to 50% of packaged products sold in supermarkets, including:

• Cooking oil and margarine processed foods: chocolate, bread, crisps, pizza

• Cosmetics (lipsticks), detergents and soaps (Sunlight Soap and Palmolive), shampoo.

• It is also used in lubricants, animal feeds and biofuel.

What do you use that contains palm oil?

Oil palm plantations provide employment and exports. Growing a few oil palms can bring an income for a subsistence farmer and large oil plantations and processing plants provide much-needed employment.

However, oil palm plantations often replace tropical rainforest and, in Malaysia and Indonesia, primary rainforest has been cleared for oil palm. Habitat for orang-utans, pygmy elephant and Sumatran rhino is lost. Often this forest is on peat bogs which are then drained and habitats lost.

To maintain the monoculture of oil palms, herbicides and pesticides are used on the plantations and these poison other animal species. Animals that were in the rainforest, such as elephants, move into the plantations seeking food and are killed as pests.

Are there solutions? Yes.

Palm oil can be produced more sustainably and there are certification schemes to try to ensure that deforestation and exploitation are not occurring when oil palm is the crop. But palm oil supplies 40% of the world’s vegetable oil demand, and it is so efficient at converting sunlight to oil that it needs less than 6% of the land used to produce all other vegetable oils. To get the same amount of alternative oils like soybean, coconut or sunflower oil, you would need between 4 and 10 times more land. This would just shift the problem to other parts of the world and threaten other habitats, species and communities.

Also, there are millions of smallholder farmers who depend on producing palm oil for their livelihoods. Boycotting palm oil is not the answer. More action is needed to tackle the issues and problems associated with palm oil.

The concept of carbon emissions trading evolved as part of the Kyoto Protocol. In this scheme, countries that go over their CO, emissions quota (set by international agencies) can buy carbon credits from countries that do not meet their quotas. In this way, global emissions limits are still met. The system is very complex to operate. It is difficult enough for an industry to monitor carbon emissions; it is even more difficult for a country.

The market that has grown up for trading carbon emission permits is volatile. The EU emissions trading scheme, for example, saw the value of carbon credits fall due to an overestimate of the allocation required when it started. The scheme does not encourage industries or countries to reduce their emissions: they can simply buy permission to continue emitting. Carbon emissions trading is an alternative to a carbon tax. Such a tax would be paid by organizations releasing carbon dioxide.

There are now voluntary schemes that allow individuals and companies to offset carbon emissions. If you book a plane ticket today, you may be asked if you want to pay to offset the carbon emissions produced by your flight. If you agree to this, the money should go to a company that invests it in a scheme that reduces carbon emissions (e.g. a renewable energy scheme such as wind turbines, tree planting or hydroelectric power generation). The market is increasing as environmentally aware individuals invest. But the money must be invested in a scheme that would not otherwise have happened. Just taking the money and planting trees that would have been planted anyway is not recapturing any more carbon dioxide.

Clearly, it would be better not to create the emissions in the first place—but sometimes it is unavoidable.

Some people have suggested personal carbon allowances (PCAs)—individual allowances for carbon emissions. A person who travels a lot or lives in an energy inefficient home would either need to change their lifestyle or buy “credits” on the open market from people who produce less carbon dioxide.

Edward Jenner created a vaccine to smallpox in 1796 having seen that milkmaids who contracted cowpox were then immune to smallpox.

The World Health Organization (WHO) launched a smallpox eradication programme in 1959 and, with international efforts of mass inoculation, smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980.

However, research for effective vaccines for smallpox continues in case itis ever used as a bioterror weapon. Samples of the virus are kept for research in secure labs, but could they ever fall into the hands of terrorists?

The boy had minor injuries. His parents were investigated by police but not charged. His mother was targeted by harassment on social media. Several celebrities criticized the shooting. Jane Goodall, a well-respected primatologist, said that although Harambe appeared to be protecting the child, he was so powerful that even with the best intentions, a swipe of his arm could have killed the boy.

In the wild, chimpanzees are widespread across equatorial Africa including north of the Congo River. Bonobos live only south of the Congo River in the Democratic Republic of Congo in a relatively small and remote habitat. Bonobos are the rarest apes in captivity and little studied.

DNA sequences in bonobos diverged from those in chimpanzees around two million years ago which is relatively recent in terms of speciation. Bonobos are therefore closely related to chimpanzees.

Bonobos:

• Males are less aggressive than chimpanzees and males and females are more playful.

• Female-dominant societies.

• Not observed to hunt cooperatively or use tools in the wild.

• Slender with pink lips.

Chimpanzees:

• Male-dominant societies.

• Aggression between groups can be lethal.

• Use tools.

• Hunt cooperatively.

• More robust bodies.

• Wider geographical range.

Water has become even scarcer in Afghanistan after decades of crisis caused by conflict, natural disasters, economic insecurity and climate change—including the worst drought in the last 27 years. About 8 out of every 10 Afghans drink unsafe water, and 93% of the country’s children live in areas with high water scarcity and vulnerability. 80% of drinking water in Afghanistan is polluted. Low rainfall, irregular use of groundwater and insufficient infrastructure in Afghan cities are among the main causes of drinking water pollution.

While Nepal has many water sources, its network and infrastructure are not able to meet supply or demand. In 2020, the region of the capital city Kathmandu met less than 20% of its local water needs. Of the eight rivers that flow through Kathmandu, not one is clean.

The rapid urbanization of Kathmandu is one key reason that water has become scarce in the country. The city also faced infrastructural setbacks due to the earthquake of 2015. About 2.6 million Nepalese do not have access to a WC and sanitation-related diseases remain a major problem.

Until the mid-20th century, the country’s only known source of water comprised several aquifers which were being depleted faster than they were refilled by rainwater. A low number of storms in the Arabian Peninsula led to the aquifers being depleted. This made Qatar’s water security problems in the second half of the 20th century even worse.

To address its water supply issues, Qatar constructed and expanded desalination plants, which supply 99% of the country’s water needs. It also collects 50% of all wastewater and treats nearly all of it. The treated water is used in agriculture and parks, injected into aquifers or stored in lagoons. The plants are expensive and consume a lot of energy during operation. They are not environmentally friendly. They are also vulnerable to natural crises and security conflicts.

Therefore, the Water Security Mega Reservoirs was started in 2015, to build large concrete reservoirs. The first phase will provide storage for seven days’ drinkable water at 2026 usage levels; the second phase will provide seven days’ drinkable water at 2036 usage levels. Only a very rich country such as Qatar can fund such a major project.

Safe drinking water situation in South America:

• In 2015, 95% of the population had access to a drinking water source. However, 34 million people still lack access.

• Coverage in rural areas is much poorer.

• Access has improved in both urban and rural areas but it is worse in rural areas than large urban areas.

• Access for the poor is worse than for the rich, and poor families cannot afford household water disinfection methods.

• Peru has the third best access to freshwater resources in South America.

• Only 87% of the population in Peru have access to chlorinated water.

• Access to safe drinking water for the wealthy is improving faster than for poorer people.

• 14% of the population drinks non-drinking water from rivers, springs and tankers.

• 85% of people in urban areas have access, compared with only 9% in rural areas.

• 77% of the water distributed in small cities is chlorinated.

• There is strong residential segregation by class and ethnicity, with impacts on water access and health.

Cork oak forests in the Mediterranean region have high biodiversity, second only to that of the Amazon rainforest. The bark is harvested by hand every nine years, without killing the trees. Unfortunately, as cork forests lose their value as natural capital to humans, they are cut down and the land used for other purposes.

It may be that cork will regain value as a resource as many counties are banning plastics more and more.

(AHL, diagram too)

Natural resource security and insecurity have profound, wide ranging impacts on socio-economic development, environmental degradation and geopolitical tensions and conflicts. In fact, geopolitics and natural resources are powerful allies in a quest for power and prosperity. The demand for lithium is likely to have some interesting consequences.

What is lithium?

Look at the properties of lithium shown below. Some of them seem to be pretty undesirable for a natural resource. Yet lithium is in very high demand because it is used in rechargeable batteries for phones, laptops, digital cameras and electric vehicles plus non-rechargeable batteries in heart pacemakers.

Many governments are trying to reduce their carbon footprint by increasing the use of electric vehicles, which are powered by lithium-ion batteries.

Properties of Lithium:

• Highly reactive and flammable

• Corrodes quickly

• Does not occur freely in nature

• Crystalline structure

• Highly soluble, so it is present in ocean water and can be obtained from brines

• Must be stored in a vacuum

• Least dense metal and solid element

The majority of the world’s lithium, also known as white

gold, comes from the Lithium Triangle (Figure). According to the US Geological Survey, this is an area of about 400,000 km? located in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. Investors are keen to collaborate with these countries to exploit the lithium. However, the financial gains are high so it can be difficult to gain rights to extract.

Economist Patricia Vasquez, in her book The Lithium Triangle: The Case for Post-Pandemic Optimism, outlines the opportunities this natural resource presents to Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. But it is not straightforward: the countries must decide whether to become leading producers of lithium (adding value by processing it themselves), or to simply export the raw material and allow other countries to make more money.

In Argentina, private mining companies now control lithium production. In 2022, Rio Tinto paid USD 825 million for the Rincon lithium project while Livent extended extraction in the Fenix lithium mine. This is not likely to favour the Argentine government’s plans to expand lithium mining and enter battery production.

Local governments have gone for short-term profit, not long-term improvement of the country’s economy.

Most of the lithium reserves in Chile are in Salar Flat of the Atacama and production levels are matching those of Australia. In a government referendum, the people of Chile were opposed to nationalisation of the mining industry. Internal politics aside, Chile will play some part in the global lithium battery market.

Bolivia is unlikely to feature highly in this resource exploitation because there is a lack of internal collaboration.

Until recently, humans could not exploit the resources of the Arctic on a large scale because the seas are frozen for all but a few months of the year and conditions are harsh. But there are mineral riches –– especially hydrocarbons — locked under the Arctic Ocean and surrounding land masses.

The world’s oil supply comes from many countries. Many countries would like a national source of cil, as they would then not be dependent on importing oil. Some 40% of oil comes from and is exported by OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries).

There are 12 oil-exporting countries whose economies rely on oil exports, and they control oil prices and supply. The USA produces more oil than any other country, then Saudi Arabia and then Russia. Remaining oil is dispersed across a number of other countries. The price of a barrel of crude oil varies greatly:

• For much of the 1990s it was around USD 30

• In 2008 and 2011 it was around USD 100

• In early 2023 it was just over USD 75

With climate change causing the Arctic to warm up, there are more ice-free days. High oil prices mean that reserves that were once uneconomic to extract are no longer so. Thus, the Arctic could be the next “goldmine”—or environmental disaster, depending on your environmental worldview. At 2008 prices, the estimated value of the Arctic’s minerals is USD 1.5-2 trillion. There are crude oil reserves under northwestern Siberia and Alberta, Canada. There is also oil right under the North Pole. Humans have the technology to extract this oil. So why not?

Who owns the Arctic?

There is no land at the North Pole: it is ice floating on water. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a state can claim a 200-nautical-mile (370 km) zone and beyond that up to 150 nautical miles (278 km) of rights on the seabed. A state with such a claim may fish or exploit the minerals exclusively in this zone and other countries may not. This distance is not measured from the border or edge of a country but from the edge of the continental shelf, which may be some distance away from the border of the country under the sea.

In August 2007, a Russian submarine expedition planted a Russian flag on the seabed at the North Pole, two miles under the Arctic ice cap. They claimed that the seabed under the pole, called the Lomonosov Ridge, is an extension of Russia’s continental shelf and thus Russian territory.

Six countries — Canada, Denmark, lceland, Norway, Russia and the USA — have Arctic Ocean coastlines and Denmark has sent its own scientific expeditions to study the opposite end of the Lomonosov Ridge to see if they can prove it is part of Greenland — a Danish territory.

The agreement is that:

• The area will be free of nuclear tests and nuclear waste; for peaceful purposes; a preserved environment; undisputed as a territory

• There will be prevention of marine pollution; cleaned-up sites; no commercial mineral extraction; sealing with annual limits

• Commercial whaling is now tightly regulated

Fishing is less of a success story. There is overfishing of many species because fishing is hard to regulate in the seas around Antarctica. This is causing a collapse of many penguin and seal populations.

The ice on Antarctica represents approximately 61% of all freshwater on Earth. If this melted, global sea level would rise by 70 m.

It appears that the ice is melting and some large ice sheets are calving (breaking up and slipping away from the land). Over three weeks in 2002, Larsen B—a huge ice shelf, over 3,000 km? and 220 m deep—broke up and floated out to sea. On 22 January 2023, a new iceberg broke away with an area of 1,550 km?. But in other areas, the ice is getting thicker.

• Transnational corporations (TNCs) control 66% of world trade, control 80% of foreign investment, and employ just 3% of the world’s labour force of 2.5 billion.

• Walmart may be bringing 38,000 people out of poverty per month in China.

Globalisation is the concept that every society on Earth is connected and unified into a single functioning entity. The connections are mostly economic but also allow the easy exchange of goods, services, information and knowledge.

Globalisation has been facilitated by new technologies, air travel and the communications revolution. The World Trade Organization (WTO) controls the rules of this global trade. Information is only an email, text, website or phone call away. Everyone can access the global market—as long as they are connected. Ebay, for example, allows someone in Europe to purchase goods from another individual in the USA.

Global trade is not new. The Ancient Greeks and Romans traded across their world. The Han dynasty in China traded across the Pacific Basin and India. European empires and the Islamic world traded via trade routes around the world. What is new is the speed and scale of the trade and the communication. Since the end of the Second World War, protectionism of markets has decreased and free trade has increased. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were set up in 1944. Since then, they have influenced development and world finance, including third world debt. Some think that globalization only leads to higher profits for TNCs. But there is evidence that poverty has decreased in countries with increased global contacts and economies, e.g. China. Ecologically, international agreements on global issues such as climate change or ozone depletion have tended to be easier to conclude with increased globalisation. There is a tendency for globalisation to westernise some countries.

Globalisation is not internationalism:

• Internationalism recognises and celebrates different cultures, languages, societies and traditions. It promotes the nation state as a unit.

• Globalisation sees the world as a single unit or system. It does not recognise the differences of internationalism. Globalisation is making individuals more aware of the global community, its similarities and its differences. Globalisation is both a positive and negative force. On the one hand, it can make us aware of the plight of others on the other side of the globe; on the other, it can make us aware of what one society has and we do not have.

Many, if not most, products are now traded on a global scale. They are part of what is referred to as the “global market” and minerals mined in South Africa or Australia are traded and shipped globally.

Here is the problem, as identified by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment in the National Plastics Plan 2021.

• In 2018-19, Australians used 3.5 million tonnes of plastics, including one million tonnes of single-use plastic and 70 billion pieces of “scrunchable” plastic as food wrappers.

• 60% of the plastic was imported and 85% ends up in landfill.

• Only 13% of the plastic is recycled.

• 130,000 tonnes of plastic leak into the oceans each year and plastic in the oceans is expected to outweigh fish by 2050.

• Plastic use is set to double by 2040.

Over-use of plastic must be addressed at all levels of production — design, use, recovery and reuse. It will require action and commitment from government, industry and consumers. To this end, in 2019 the Australian government set out the National Waste Policy Action Plan.

As of 2023, the following items are banned in the majority of Australian states if they are made from plastic:

• Lightweight plastic bags

• Drinking straws and drink stirrers

• Cutlery, plates and bowls

• Cotton bud sticks

• Polystyrene food and drink containers

• Microbeads

By 2026, some Australian states will ban:

• Heavyweight plastic bags

• Plastic bags for fruit and veg

• Plastic cups and lids

• Coffee cups containing plastic

• Plastic straws attached to juice boxes

• Plastic takeout containers

The Australian government is using legislation to deal with the over-use of plastic in Australia, but this is a worldwide problem.

The UNEP waorked with Clarendon Parish to introduce sustainable solutions to address water scarcity, sanitation issues and pollution issues, and to raise community awareness about environmental protection.

Measures taken included:

• Installation of rainwater harvesting systems, including installation of water tanks (to increase storage capacity) and gutters (to catch rainwater and divert it to the tanks)

• Installation of handwashing stations

• Wastewater reuse and greywater recycling

• Installation of water tanks to increase storage capacity

• Appropriate training about water safety

• Setting up a solar power system to pump water from the tanks (reducing carbon emissions).

After these measures, the people of Northern Clarendon are catching their own water through rainfall harvesting and this will help to solve the water stress issues.

Sustainability can be severely challenged by a single catastrophic event such as Typhoon Nock-ten, which hit the Philippines on Christmas Eve 2016. It killed 11 people and stranded 11,000 without electricity or food. A state of emergency was declared in some areas as 80% of the agricultural land was destroyed, crops were strewn across the landscape and farmers lost everything.

A young reality TV chef, Louise, went into action mode and rallied the villagers. The only option for them to survive was to grow their own food and they started asking for vegetable seeds which would grow quickly. However, this typhoon was not a one-off occurrence: they are common in the Philippines so there was a need for longer-term solutions to build resilience. There is also a strong community respect for the environment and an ethos to pull together.

Louise noticed that the cocoa trees were not affected by the storm. They are a high-income potential crop that is climate-resilient, grows quickly and is ready for harvest within two or three years. With this knowledge she initiated the Cacao Project with the aim of creating a holistic, sustainable food production system that would empower the farmers to build resilience into the system. It is stated that over 200 farmers have been trained in agroforestry techniques and they have planted cacao trees on 70 hectares of land.

Concrete

After water, humans use concrete mare than any other material. It is incredibly useful and versatile and is made from cement plus small stones and water. The Romans made concrete and their constructions (e.g. the Colosseum in Rome, Hadrian’s Wall in Britain) still exist. Portland cement, the most common type of cement, is made from limestone. It is a fine powder produced by heating limestone and clay minerals in a kiln to form clinker nodules which are ground up and a little gypsum (calcium sulfate) is added.

Cement is easy to transport as it is a dry powder. This can be mixed with water and small stones on site to make concrete, which then sets hard quickly in an exothermic (giving out heat) reaction. We add steel frameworks to concrete to make it rigid for homes and offices, skyscrapers and roads, dams, bridges and hospitals. It degrades very slowly, is waterproof and a brilliant building material. Look around and it is everywhere. It is said that the weight of concrete is more than that of all plants on Earth.

But there are issues with concrete.

• Concrete production is the most energy-intensive of all manufacturing industries. The production of 1m³ of concrete requires 2,775 MJ of energy.

• In all stages of production, concrete is said to be responsible for 4-8% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions and for 10% of industrial water use. Some 75% of this consumption of water is in water-stressed regions.

• Dust from concrete construction sites contains PM_2.5; and this leads to silicosis and other lung diseases.

• Sand used in concrete manufacture has to come from somewhere, e.g. beaches and river beds.

• Limestone for cement is quarried leaving landscapes with large holes and having lost biodiversity.

• Concreted areas do not absorb rainfall and run-off causes flooding.

In 2022 these countries produced the most concrete (in million metric tonnes):

• China- 2,100

• Vietnam- 120

• India- 370

• USA- 95

During the post-Second World War construction boom, Japan embraced concrete and now, according to ane estimate, there is 30 times as much concrete per m³ in Japan than in the USA.

In the USA after 1930, a lot of new infrastructure was built using concrete. For example, the Hoover Dam contains 3.3 million m³ of concrete.

China produces the most concrete now and uses half the world’s supply.

According to Transparency International, a watchdog group, the construction industry worldwide can be corrupt and there is a lot of bribery. The earthquakes in Syria and Turkey in 2023 resulted in many housing blocks collapsing, killing the occupants. It appears that poor building standards and lack of oversight meant buildings were constructed in violation of regulations.

What can be done?

• Use alternative building materials where possible, but be aware of their problems. For example, steel, asphalt and plasterboard use more energy than concrete in their construction. Wood is renewable but we are harvesting at unsustainable rates. Clay is used for building and more could be used in 3D printed houses.

• Maintain or reuse existing concrete structures to reduce the need for new concrete. When concrete buildings are taken down, most concrete goes to landfill or is crushed to make aggregate. But concrete slabs could be reused in new builds.

• Use alternative mixes for making cement and heat to a lower temperature to reduce the carbon footprint of production.

• Use alternative materials that are by-products of other industries instead of clinker; this can mean stronger and lighter concrete.

• Research ways to make lower carbon concrete,

such as:

1. Carbonation — adding carbon dioxide to concrete as it is made or cured helps to reduce carbon emissions

2. Embedding dye-sensitive solar cells in concrete allows for energy generation in the day and any excess can be stored in batteries

3. Storing potential energy in concrete blocks — energy is used to lift the blocks which are allowed to fall and rotate a motor when there is demand for electricity

4. Waterless concrete production using sulfur, not water

Key Facts:

• Steel is “iron with most of the carbon removed”.

• Iron constitutes about 5% of the Earth’s crust and is the fourth most abundant element in the crust.

• lron ore is mined in opencast mines; most of these are in China (23%), Australia (18%), and Brazil (18%). 98% of the iron ore mined is used to make steel.

• Converting iron ore to iron needs limestone, coke (from coal) and a lot of heat in a blast furnace.

• Steel represents around 95% of all metal produced, and 51% of global steel is used for construction.

• China is the biggest producer of steel by far, followed by the EU, Japan, USA and India.

• Steel use per capita increases annually.

• 6.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions derive from iron and steel production (IEA 2010).

• Iron and steel are the most recycled materials — globally, about 85% of steel in construction is recycled and 42% of crude steel is recycled material.

Steel, Concrete, or something else?

• Steel is stronger than concrete but reinforced concrete — with steel rods within the structure — is stronger still.

• But steel can rust, it conducts electricity and heat and it takes longer to make than concrete.

• Alternative building materials are straw bales, clay, bags of earth, plastic, wood, bricks, bamboo, cork and stone.

• The amount of oil here is huge. It is mined in open pits, destroying the vegetation.

• The oils held in sand or sandstone and is a heavy oil (bitumen) which is thick and hard to extract.

• The energy cost and water requirements of extraction are high. Toxic waste water is kept in tailing dams which take up more land.

Because the cost of extraction is higher than for other oils, the break-even point is reached only when oil prices are over USD 100 per barrel. This leads to boom and bust cycles in extraction.

Environmental issues include:

• Loss of ecosystems, soil erosion and fragmented wildlife habitats deformed aquatic life.

• Air and water pollution by heavy metals extracted with the oil.

• Water extraction from the Athabasca River reducing flow rates.

• GHG emissions greater than those of the conventional oil industry.

• Harm to the indigenous peoples of the region — their lands are ruined and they suffer illnesses including higher rates of cancers and heavy metal poisoning.

Brown bin (biological waste)

• Kitchen waste: old bread, egg shells, coffee powder and filters, food leftovers, tea leaves and tea filters.

• Fruit and vegetables: peels, apple cores, leaves, nutshells, fruit stones and pips, lettuce leaves.

• Garden waste: soil, hedge trimmings, leaves, grass clippings, weeds, dead flowers and twigs.

• Other: feathers, hair, kitchen towels, tissues, sawdust and straw.

Blue bin (paper)

• Envelopes, books, catalogues, illustrations, cartons, writing pads, brochures, writing paper, school books, washing detergent cartons without plastic, newspapers, paper boxes.

Yellow bin (plastics)

• Plastic bags, margarine tubs, milk sachets, plastic packaging trays for fruit and vegetables, bottle tops, detergent bottles, carrier bags, vacuum packaging, dishwashing liquid bottles.

Grey bin (household waste)

• Ash, wire, carbon paper, electrical appliances, bicycle tubes, photos, broken glass, bulbs, chewing gum, personal hygiene articles, nails, porcelain, rubber, plastic ties, broken mirrors, vacuum cleaner bags, street sweeping dirt, carpeting pieces, diapers, cigarette butts, miscellaneous waste.

Households that do not have a brown bin put their biological waste in a grey bin.

Swedish recycling history goes back quite some time. Households started sorting waste in the 1980s – first glass, then paper and cardboard followed suit. Plastic recycling got going in the 1990s and Sweden introduced recycling stations.

A recycling boost came with the 'producer responsibility' implemented in 1994. This made all businesses that produced, imported or in any other way put packaging material on the Swedish market responsible for its waste collection and recycling.

Then, in the early 2000s, Sweden banned the disposal of household waste through landfills as a way to encourage more environmentally responsible waste management. Since then, the country has improved its waste management through increased recycling and incineration of waste for energy recovery.

Today, the producer responsibility includes making products that are resource-efficient, easy to reuse and recycle, and free from harmful substances.

Everyone must separate their food waste – by law

A Swedish law from 2024 declares that everyone must separate their food waste – this goes for households and businesses alike. It's also manadatory for all of Swedens local authorities to provide separate collection of food waste.

This had already been done for years in many parts of the country, but it hadn't previously been regulated by law.

Food waste is a great source of energy and is used, among other things, as biogas – to replace fossil fuels.

Swedish circular thinking

One way forward in Swedish recycling is to increase reuse and repairs of consumer products. And over the years, the movement of sharing and reusing all kinds of things, clothes and furniture, has grown enormously.

Circular economy is an approach that involves using products that can be reused completely, a so-called cradle-to-cradle approach. Ever since 2018 Sweden has even had a special advisory group for circular economy, Delegationen för cirkulär ekonomi (link in Swedish), to help make circular economy a key part of government policy.

Examples of the Swedish recycling progress

• In 2017, the Swedish government reformed the tax system so that people could get cheaper repairs on used items.

• In 2024, textile recycling company Syre was launched. Syre focuses on textile-to-textile recycling of polyester and was co-founded by fashion company H&M and investment company Vargas Holding. From H&M's perspective, this initiative is expected to increase the company's share of textile-to-textile recycled polyester, as opposed to bottle-to-textile. Syre expects first sales in 2026 and worldwide production by 2032.

• Researchers are also working on finding other new clothing materials that are less damaging to the environment.

• Ecosystems: Tropical rainforest biome; includes river systems, floodplains (varzea), upland forests (terra firme), and mangroves.

• Species richness:

  • ~390 billion individual trees; ~16,000 species.

  • 2.5 million insect species, 2,200 fish species, 1,300 bird species, 430 mammal species, and 2,500 amphibian species.

• Key species:

  • Jaguar (top predator, indicator species).

  • Amazon river dolphin.

  • Brazil nut tree (keystone species, mutualistic with agouti and specific pollinators).

  • Harpy eagle, poison dart frogs, sloths.

• Endemic species:

  • Many amphibians and insects found nowhere else.

  • ~75% of plant species are endemic to the Amazon Basin.

• Ecosystem services: Carbon sequestration, climate regulation, water cycling, biodiversity reservoir.

2. Human Activities Impacting It

• Deforestation: For cattle ranching (≈60%), soy cultivation, and illegal logging.

• Agriculture: Slash-and-burn farming → soil degradation.

• Infrastructure: Road construction (e.g. Trans-Amazonian Highway) opens forest to exploitation.

• Mining: Gold, iron ore, and oil extraction → pollution and land clearance.

• Hydroelectric dams: Flood vast areas, disrupt river ecosystems (e.g. Belo Monte Dam).

• Urbanization: Expansion of settlements and cities like Manaus.

• Pollution: Mercury contamination from mining, oil spills, and agricultural runoff.

3. Environmental, Social, and Economic Consequences

• Environmental:

  • Biodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation.

  • Reduced carbon storage → contributes to climate change.

  • Altered regional rainfall patterns (“dieback” risk).

  • Soil erosion and nutrient loss.

• Social:

  • Indigenous communities displaced.

  • Loss of traditional knowledge and cultural heritage.

  • Conflict between indigenous groups, farmers, and corporations.

• Economic:

  • Short-term profits from logging, cattle, and soy exports.

  • Long-term losses in ecosystem services (e.g. water, tourism, climate regulation).

4. Conservation or Management Strategies

• Governmental initiatives:

  • Creation of protected areas (e.g. Amazon Region Protected Areas Program — ARPA).

  • Enforcement by IBAMA (Brazil’s environmental agency).

  • 2004–2012 deforestation action plan reduced deforestation by ~80%.

• NGO involvement:

  • WWF, Greenpeace, and Rainforest Alliance promoting sustainable forestry and certification schemes.

  • Indigenous land rights recognition (territorial demarcation).

• International cooperation:

  • REDD+ programs (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).

  • Norway–Brazil Amazon Fund (financial incentives for conservation).

• Community-based initiatives:

  • Agroforestry projects and sustainable extractivism (e.g. rubber tapping, Brazil nuts).

5. Evaluation of Success

• Effectiveness:

  • Deforestation slowed dramatically (2004–2012) but resurged in recent years due to weak enforcement and political changes.

  • Protected areas effective when properly monitored.

• Sustainability:

  • Mixed success — economic pressures from global demand remain high.

  • Some sustainable livelihoods (eco-tourism, agroforestry) show promise.

• Challenges:

  • Illegal logging, corruption, weak governance.

  • Poverty and demand for agricultural land.

  • Climate change and feedback loops (forest dieback risk).

• Overall:

  • Conservation measures are partly effective but require long-term political will, funding, and international cooperation.

• Ecosystems:

  • Mangrove forests, mudflats, freshwater and brackish wetlands.

  • Key sites: Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, Chek Jawa (Pulau Ubin), Kranji Marshes.

• Species richness:

  • 250 bird species, 200+ plant species, 50+ butterfly species.

  • Marine species in mudflats and mangroves (crabs, mudskippers, molluscs).

• Key species:

  • Smooth-coated otter (flagship species).

  • Mangrove horseshoe crab, monitor lizards, white-bellied sea eagle, stork-billed kingfisher.

  • Avicennia alba and Rhizophora spp. (key mangrove trees).

• Endemic/rare species:

  • Few endemics due to Singapore’s small size, but holds regionally threatened species.

  • Migratory species on the East Asian–Australasian Flyway use wetlands as vital stopovers.

• Ecosystem services:

  • Flood regulation, water filtration, carbon storage, recreation, biodiversity refuge.

2. Human Activities Impacting It

• Land-use change:

  • Rapid urbanization and industrialization since 1960s led to >90% mangrove loss.

  • Land reclamation for housing, ports, and industry.

  • Draining of wetlands for agriculture and urban expansion.

• Pollution:

  • Urban runoff, industrial effluents, and marine debris affecting coastal water quality.

• Infrastructure:

  • Coastal modifications (sea walls, reclamation) reduce tidal flows → alter salinity and habitats.

• Recreation pressure:

  • Tourism and recreation in reserves can disturb wildlife if not managed properly.

3. Environmental, Social, and Economic Consequences

• Environmental:

  • Severe loss of mangroves (from ~13% of Singapore’s area to <1%).

  • Decline in native biodiversity — especially wetland-dependent species.

  • Disrupted coastal processes and reduced natural flood buffering.

• Social:

  • Reduced access to natural spaces and ecosystem education opportunities (though partially restored via reserves).

  • Cultural value of wetlands diminished, though now regaining importance in eco-tourism and education.

• Economic:

  • Urban development contributed to Singapore’s economic growth.

  • Long-term costs: loss of ecosystem services (flood control, fisheries, carbon sequestration).

4. Conservation or Management Strategies

• Protected areas:

  • Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve (1993): 202 ha of mangrove, mudflat, and pond ecosystems.

  • Kranji Marshes (2016): managed freshwater wetland for biodiversity and flood control.

  • Chek Jawa Wetlands: saved from reclamation in 2001 after public protest; now managed for conservation and education.

• Government policies:

  • National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP).

  • “City in a Garden” initiative — integrates biodiversity into urban design.

  • Coastal protection master plan incorporating “nature-based solutions” (mangrove restoration, living shorelines).

• NGO/community involvement:

  • Nature Society (Singapore), WildSingapore, and volunteer groups monitor bird and crab populations.

  • Education programs increase public awareness and stewardship.

• Restoration:

  • Mangrove replanting in Lim Chu Kang and Sungei Buloh extension zones.

5. Evaluation of Success

• Effectiveness:

  • Biodiversity recovery observed — return of otters, migratory birds, and improved water quality.

  • Sungei Buloh is a Ramsar site since 2002 (international recognition).

• Sustainability:

  • Integration of wetlands into urban planning shows long-term potential.

  • However, continued land scarcity pressures conservation areas.

• Challenges:

  • Limited space for habitat expansion.

  • Pollution and climate change (sea-level rise) threaten low-lying coastal wetlands.

  • Balancing urban development with biodiversity conservation.

• Overall:

  • Conservation strategies are effective but spatially constrained.

  • Success depends on maintaining political will and public support for “living with nature” in a dense urban context.

• Location: Covers parts of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, and the Solomon Islands.

• Ecosystems: Coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds, and deep-sea ecosystems.

• Biodiversity significance:

  • Known as the “Amazon of the Seas.”

  • ~76% of the world’s coral species (over 600 species).

  • 2,000 species of reef fish.

  • High levels of endemism — many fish and coral species found nowhere else.

• Key species:

  • Hawksbill and green sea turtles.

  • Whale shark, manta ray, napoleon wrasse.

  • Giant clams and reef-building Acropora corals.

• Ecosystem services:

  • Fisheries (supporting ~120 million people).

  • Coastal protection, tourism, and carbon sequestration.

2. Human Activities Impacting It

• Overfishing:

  • Unsustainable fishing practices (blast fishing, cyanide fishing, trawling).

  • Targeting of high-value species (e.g. tuna, reef fish, sharks).

  • Bycatch from large-scale commercial fishing fleets.

• Resource exploitation:

  • Coral mining and collection for construction and souvenirs.

  • Coastal development (resorts, ports, urban expansion).

  • Mangrove clearing for aquaculture (especially shrimp farming).

• Pollution:

  • Agricultural runoff → eutrophication and coral stress.

  • Marine debris and plastic pollution.

• Climate change:

  • Coral bleaching events from rising sea surface temperatures.

  • Ocean acidification reduces coral calcification rates.

3. Environmental, Social, and Economic Consequences

• Environmental:

  • Coral degradation and reef collapse → biodiversity loss.

  • Decline in fish populations → trophic imbalance.

  • Loss of mangroves and seagrass → reduced nursery habitats.

• Social:

  • Coastal communities lose livelihood security (fishing-dependent).

  • Food insecurity as fish stocks decline.

  • Loss of cultural and traditional fishing practices.

• Economic:

  • Short-term gains from overexploitation versus long-term loss of fisheries productivity.

  • Tourism revenue at risk due to coral damage.

  • Increased vulnerability to storms and coastal erosion due to reef loss.

4. Conservation or Management Strategies

• Regional initiative:

  • Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF) — launched in 2009 by six member countries.

  • Focuses on ecosystem-based management, marine protected areas (MPAs), and sustainable fisheries.

• Marine Protected Areas:

  • Over 1,900 MPAs established, though enforcement varies.

  • Examples: Apo Reef (Philippines), Wakatobi National Park (Indonesia).

• Sustainable fishing programs:

  • Community-based fisheries management.

  • Promotion of sustainable tuna certification (MSC programs).

  • Ban on destructive fishing techniques.

• NGO and international support:

  • WWF, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy involved in coral restoration and awareness.

• Education and livelihood alternatives:

  • Ecotourism initiatives and aquaculture training for coastal communities.

5. Evaluation of Success

• Effectiveness:

  • CTI-CFF has raised global awareness and improved regional cooperation.

  • Some MPAs show increases in fish biomass and coral cover.

  • However, enforcement remains inconsistent and underfunded.

• Sustainability:

  • Long-term success depends on balancing livelihood needs with conservation.

  • Overfishing pressures remain high due to population growth and global seafood demand.

• Challenges:

  • Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

  • Limited resources for monitoring large marine areas.

  • Climate change impacts beyond local control (bleaching, acidification).

• Overall:

  • Moderate success: strong policy framework and regional cooperation, but local implementation gaps.

  • Future sustainability requires stronger governance, alternative livelihoods, and climate adaptation strategies.

• Ecosystem:

  • Freshwater river system originating from the Himalayas and flowing ~2,500 km to the Bay of Bengal.

  • Supports floodplains, wetlands, and deltaic ecosystems.

• Species richness:

  • ~140 fish species, 90+ amphibians, and diverse bird populations.

  • Crucial for aquatic and riparian biodiversity.

• Key species:

  • Ganges river dolphin (Platanista gangetica) — an endangered indicator species of water quality.

  • Gharial (long-snouted crocodilian) — critically endangered.

  • Smooth-coated otter, mahseer fish, mugger crocodile.

• Endemic species:

  • Ganges river dolphin is endemic to the river system.

  • Many freshwater fish species found only in the Indo-Gangetic basin.

• Ecosystem services:

  • Drinking and irrigation water, fisheries, transport, religious and cultural functions, and nutrient cycling.

2. Human Activities Impacting It

• Water pollution sources:

  • Domestic sewage: ~80% of total pollution load; untreated wastewater from cities along the river (Varanasi, Kanpur, Delhi).

  • Industrial effluents: tanneries, textile mills, chemical and paper industries discharge heavy metals (chromium, lead, arsenic).

  • Agricultural runoff: fertilizers and pesticides contribute to eutrophication.

  • Religious and cultural practices: immersion of idols, human and animal remains, and mass bathing add organic waste and pathogens.

• Overuse and diversion:

  • Dams and barrages (e.g., Farakka Barrage) reduce flow and dilute pollutants less effectively.

• Solid waste and plastics:

  • Urban areas contribute large volumes of solid waste directly to the river.

3. Environmental, Social, and Economic Consequences

• Environmental:

  • Severe water pollution: Biological oxygen demand (BOD) and coliform levels far above safe limits.

  • Decline in aquatic biodiversity (fish populations down ~50% in some areas).

  • Habitat fragmentation due to damming and low flows.

  • Oxygen depletion → fish kills and ecosystem collapse in some stretches.

• Social:

  • Unsafe drinking and bathing water for ~400 million people.

  • Public health crises: waterborne diseases (cholera, dysentery, hepatitis).

  • Religious importance clashes with pollution realities.

• Economic:

  • Fisheries decline → loss of livelihoods.

  • Costs of water treatment and health care.

  • Negative impact on tourism and agriculture.

4. Conservation or Management Strategies

• Governmental initiatives:

  • Ganga Action Plan (GAP) — launched in 1985 to reduce pollution; focused on sewage treatment, but poorly implemented.

  • National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) — established in 2009 for integrated basin management.

  • Namami Gange Programme (2014–present): flagship initiative under the Ministry of Jal Shakti.

    • Focus on sewage treatment plants, riverfront development, industrial effluent control, and biodiversity conservation.

• Legal protection:

  • Ganges river dolphin declared India’s National Aquatic Animal; protected under the Wildlife Protection Act.

  • Banning of single-use plastics and regulation of idol immersion.

• Community and NGO efforts:

  • Ganga Praharis — local volunteers monitoring pollution and biodiversity.

  • NGOs like WWF-India and Wildlife Institute of India (WII) support dolphin and gharial conservation.

• International cooperation:

  • Funding and technical support from the World Bank and UN agencies.

5. Evaluation of Success

• Effectiveness:

  • Namami Gange has made progress in infrastructure (new treatment plants, reduced industrial discharge in key cities).

  • However, pollution levels remain high, especially during religious festivals and dry seasons.

• Biodiversity response:

  • Some recovery of Ganges river dolphin populations in protected stretches (e.g., Vikramshila Dolphin Sanctuary).

  • Fish populations still declining due to pollution and dam barriers.

• Sustainability:

  • Long-term success depends on improving waste management and reducing cultural pollution.

  • Need for stricter enforcement and community participation.

• Challenges:

  • Rapid urbanization, population growth, and political pressures.

  • Limited public awareness and inconsistent funding.

• Overall:

  • Partial success: Infrastructure improving, but ecological health still poor.

  • Effective management requires integrating social, cultural, and ecological approaches.

• Ecosystem:

  • Located in the North Pacific Gyre between Hawaii and California.

  • Not a solid “island” of trash, but a vast zone (~1.6 million km²) with high concentrations of floating debris (microplastics and macroplastics).

• Marine life present:

  • Pelagic (open ocean) ecosystems — phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, sea turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals.

• Key species affected:

  • Laysan albatross — ingestion of plastic mistaken for food.

  • Green sea turtles, loggerhead turtles — entanglement and ingestion hazards.

  • Mahi-mahi, tuna, and other pelagic fish — ingest microplastics → bioaccumulation.

  • Zooplankton and filter feeders — microplastics alter feeding and energy transfer.

• Ecosystem services:

  • Supports global fisheries, carbon cycling, and nutrient distribution — now disrupted by pollution.

2. Human Activities Impacting It

• Pollution sources:

  • ~80% from land-based sources:

    • Mismanaged plastic waste from Asia and North America carried by rivers and wind.

  • ~20% from marine sources:

    • Lost fishing gear (“ghost nets”), cargo spillage, and ship waste.

• Types of pollution:

  • Microplastics (<5 mm) from degraded consumer plastics and synthetic textiles.

  • Macroplastics — bottles, nets, packaging materials.

  • Chemical pollution — plastics leach POPs (persistent organic pollutants) such as PCBs and DDT.

• Accumulation process:

  • Ocean gyres trap floating debris in circular current systems → plastics persist for decades due to low degradation rates.

3. Environmental, Social, and Economic Consequences

• Environmental:

  • Ingestion and entanglement → death and injury to marine life.

  • Microplastics absorbed by plankton → disrupt food webs.

  • Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of toxins in marine organisms.

  • Physical habitat alteration — “plastic reefs” providing artificial habitats that alter species composition.

  • Reduced photosynthesis and oxygen production in surface waters (microplastic shading and biofilm formation).

• Social:

  • Aesthetic pollution → affects tourism and public perception of oceans.

  • Health risks from microplastic ingestion in seafood.

• Economic:

  • Lost revenue for fisheries and tourism industries.

  • Costly cleanup operations and waste management challenges.

  • Damage to boats and marine equipment from entanglement with debris.

4. Conservation or Management Strategies

• International agreements:

  • MARPOL Convention (Annex V) — bans dumping of plastics from ships.

  • UN Environment Programme (UNEP) — global awareness and marine litter action plans.

  • G7 Ocean Plastics Charter (2018) — commitment to reduce plastic waste leakage.

• Clean-up initiatives:

  • The Ocean Cleanup Project — large-scale system using floating barriers to passively collect plastics from the gyre (launched 2018).

  • Fishing for Litter programs encourage fishers to bring marine debris back to shore.

• Prevention efforts:

  • National plastic bans (single-use plastics, microbeads).

  • Improved waste management and river clean-up programs in key contributing countries.

  • Circular economy initiatives promoting recycling and biodegradable materials.

• Education and awareness:

  • NGOs (e.g. Ocean Conservancy, 5 Gyres Institute) lead global beach clean-ups and data collection.

5. Evaluation of Success

• Effectiveness:

  • The Ocean Cleanup has removed hundreds of tonnes of plastic, but this is a fraction of the total (~80,000 tonnes).

  • Prevention efforts (bans, recycling) are slowing input rates in some countries but global plastic production continues to rise.

• Sustainability:

  • Cleanup projects are technologically innovative but costly and limited by scale.

  • Long-term sustainability depends more on reducing plastic at the source.

• Challenges:

  • Plastics break down into microplastics too small to collect efficiently.

  • Vast, remote area makes monitoring and cleanup difficult.

  • Weak enforcement of international agreements.

• Overall:

  • Partial success: Awareness and technology improving, but problem persists due to global waste mismanagement.

  • Real solutions require systemic change — global cooperation, reduced plastic use, and circular economy approaches.

• Ecosystems:

  • Tundra, sea ice ecosystems, polar desert, boreal forest (taiga margins).

  • Marine ecosystems: sea ice zones, continental shelves, and open Arctic Ocean.

• Species richness:

  • ~21,000 species — relatively low compared to tropical regions but highly specialized.

• Key species:

  • Polar bear — apex predator dependent on sea ice for hunting seals.

  • Arctic fox, caribou (reindeer), walrus, beluga whale, narwhal, seals, snowy owl.

  • Marine plankton and ice algae — base of Arctic food webs.

• Migratory species:

  • Millions of migratory birds breed in Arctic summers (e.g. Arctic tern, sandpipers).

  • Marine species (e.g. whales, fish) migrate seasonally following ice retreat.

• Ecosystem services:

  • Carbon storage (permafrost), climate regulation, fisheries, indigenous livelihoods, and global albedo effect.

2. Human Activities and Pressures

• Climate change (primary driver):

  • Arctic warming ~4× faster than the global average.

  • Sea ice extent declining ~13% per decade (since 1980).

  • Melting permafrost releasing methane (positive feedback loop).

• Resource exploitation:

  • Melting ice opens access to oil, gas, and minerals (e.g. Arctic Ocean drilling prospects).

  • Shipping routes (e.g. Northern Sea Route) increase disturbance and pollution.

• Pollution and contaminants:

  • Airborne pollutants and microplastics transported by wind and ocean currents.

  • Oil spills in cold conditions have long-term ecological impacts.

• Tourism and human expansion:

  • Growing Arctic tourism and infrastructure development increase stress on fragile ecosystems.

3. Environmental, Social, and Economic Consequences

• Environmental:

  • Shrinking sea ice → loss of critical habitat for ice-dependent species (polar bears, walruses, seals).

  • Northward shift of vegetation zones — tundra replaced by shrubs and boreal forest.

  • Changing ocean currents and food web dynamics.

  • Permafrost thaw → carbon and methane release, accelerating warming.

  • Increased coastal erosion and altered hydrology.

• Social:

  • Indigenous communities (Inuit, Saami, Nenets) lose traditional hunting grounds and food sources.

  • Cultural loss and health impacts from changing diets and relocation pressures.

• Economic:

  • New opportunities: shipping, fishing, and resource extraction.

  • But long-term costs: infrastructure damage (thawing ground), biodiversity loss, global climate impacts.

4. Conservation or Management Strategies

• International cooperation:

  • Arctic Council (1996): intergovernmental forum promoting sustainable development and environmental protection.

  • Paris Agreement (2015): global efforts to limit warming to <2°C.

• Protected areas and species conservation:

  • National parks (e.g. Svalbard, Greenland, Alaska) safeguard key habitats.

  • Polar bear agreements between Arctic nations for population monitoring.

  • Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) expanding in Arctic waters.

• Climate mitigation:

  • Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (international commitments).

  • Research into carbon capture and renewable energy in Arctic communities.

• Adaptation and community initiatives:

  • Indigenous-led conservation projects (e.g. Inuit co-management of wildlife).

  • Relocation programs for vulnerable villages (e.g. Shishmaref, Alaska).

  • Sustainable Arctic tourism guidelines (AECO, WWF Arctic Programme).

5. Evaluation of Success

• Effectiveness:

  • Local protection and community programs effective for certain species (e.g. polar bears stabilized in some regions).

  • However, large-scale climate-driven habitat loss continues to outpace conservation efforts.

• Sustainability:

  • Current strategies are not sufficient to counteract global warming trends.

  • Regional management helps, but the root cause (greenhouse gas emissions) is global.

• Challenges:

  • Political tension and resource competition (oil, shipping rights).

  • Limited enforcement in international waters.

  • Rapid pace of environmental change leaves species little time to adapt.

• Species migration and habitat shifts:

  • Northward migration of boreal species → increased competition.

  • Some species (e.g. polar bears, Arctic fox) unable to adapt fast enough → population decline.

  • Changing fish distributions (e.g. cod, capelin) affect entire food webs.

• Overall:

  • Partial success: Conservation is improving awareness and local adaptation, but global mitigation remains inadequate.

  • Long-term sustainability depends on urgent global emission reductions and protection of Arctic ecosystems.

• Location:

  • Southern tip of South Africa, mainly within the Western and Eastern Cape provinces.

  • Covers ~90,000 km².

• Ecosystem type:

  • Fynbos biome — Mediterranean climate (cool, wet winters; hot, dry summers).

  • Fire-adapted shrubland ecosystem with nutrient-poor soils.

• Biodiversity significance:

  • One of only six floral kingdoms in the world — smallest but richest per unit area.

  • ~9,000 plant species, ~70% endemic (found nowhere else).

• Key species:

  • Proteas, ericas (heaths), and restios — dominant plant families.

  • Cape sugarbird and orange-breasted sunbird (pollinators dependent on proteas).

  • Bontebok and Cape mountain zebra in remnant grasslands.

• Ecosystem services:

  • Water supply (mountain catchments), soil retention, ecotourism, carbon storage, and pollination.

2. Human Activities Impacting It

• Urbanization and agriculture:

  • Expansion of Cape Town and surrounding settlements.

  • Vineyards, orchards, and commercial agriculture → habitat fragmentation.

  • Irrigation and water extraction altering local hydrology.

• Invasive alien species:

  • Australian acacias, pines, and eucalyptus outcompete native fynbos plants.

  • Reduce water availability and increase fire intensity.

• Fire mismanagement:

  • Natural fire cycles (every 10–15 years) disrupted by human suppression or uncontrolled burns.

• Climate change:

  • Hotter, drier conditions → shifting vegetation zones upslope and southward.

  • Reduced winter rainfall threatens endemic plant survival.

• Pollution and land-use change:

  • Nutrient runoff and urban waste threaten freshwater and coastal systems.

3. Environmental, Social, and Economic Consequences

• Environmental:

  • Habitat fragmentation → loss of pollinators and reduced genetic diversity.

  • Water scarcity due to alien plants and climate change.

  • Soil erosion and desertification in overgrazed or cleared areas.

• Social:

  • Reduced water supply for Cape Town and agriculture.

  • Loss of ecosystem services that local communities depend on.

  • Cultural loss — fynbos landscape central to South African natural heritage.

• Economic:

  • Tourism industry (Cape floral tours, Table Mountain National Park) threatened by habitat degradation.

  • Control of invasive species and water management require high financial investment.

4. Conservation or Management Strategies

• Governmental initiatives:

  • Cape Action for People and the Environment (CAPE) — launched 2000, long-term strategy integrating conservation with socio-economic goals.

  • Working for Water Programme (since 1995): removes invasive alien plants while providing local employment.

  • Establishment of Cape Floristic Region Protected Areas (World Heritage Site, 2004) — network of eight protected zones including Table Mountain and Baviaanskloof.

• Protected areas and restoration:

  • Over 20% of region protected; focus on habitat connectivity and corridors.

  • Fire management and alien clearing programs.

• NGO involvement:

  • WWF South Africa and SANBI (South African National Biodiversity Institute) manage monitoring, education, and restoration.

• Community and ecotourism:

  • Involvement of local communities in conservation jobs.

  • Sustainable tourism initiatives supporting biodiversity-friendly livelihoods.

5. Evaluation of Success

• Effectiveness:

  • Significant areas now legally protected and invasive species control improving.

  • Ecotourism and conservation employment benefit local communities.

  • Biodiversity monitoring shows recovery of native species in restored areas.

• Sustainability:

  • Working for Water integrates conservation and social development — a model for sustainable management.

  • Long-term sustainability challenged by climate change and invasive species reinvasion.

• Challenges:

  • Limited funding for ongoing alien plant removal.

  • Climate change shifting habitat zones faster than restoration can keep up.

  • Urban expansion around Cape Town continues to fragment ecosystems.

• Overall:

  • Strong local and national success, but global threats (climate change) remain.

  • The CFR is a global example of balancing biodiversity conservation with human well-being.

The Amazon basin is a huge area (6.5 million km?) in nine countries, comprising 5% of the Earth’s land area. About 60% of the Amazon is in Brazil. This, the largest tropical rainforest on Earth, provides water for the region, regulates climate worldwide and provides habitats for many species.

What?

Clearance of the Amazon rainforest for cattle ranching causes deforestation on a huge scale. Brazil exports more beef than any other country—about 20% of global beef exports; there are 230 million head of cattle in Brazil and their main diet is grass. In the 1960s there were five million head of cattle.

Ranching accounts for 80% of deforestation in the Amazon basin and releases hundreds of millions of tonnes of GHGs. Agriculture is the second main cause of deforestation. Traditionally, “slash and burn” shifting agriculture cleared a small area by fire and planted a crop for a few years, then moved on as the soil nutrients were depleted. With a small population, the land recovered, forest regrew, and the process was sustainable. A Modern agribusiness—large-scale agro-industrial farming––is very different. Soy is the main crop—Brazil is the world’s biggest soy exporter but also grown are sugar cane and palm oil for biofuels, cotton and rice. Clearance for crops also occurs on the Cerrado—tropical savannah grassland.

How?

Forest is cleared by fire. Grazing density is low with less than one cow per hectare. Some workers were slave labour until 2008 when they were freed. More roads have allowed more clearance near them as transport becomes easier.

Why?

Cattle ranching and soy production in this area are very profitable because forest and Cerrado land is very cheap and there is a lot of it.

Global demand for soy is increasing as grain becomes more expensive or subsidies elsewhere distort the market. For example, US government subsidies for corn-based ethanol productp_n as a biofuel led US farmers to plant more corn and less soy. Then Brazilian farmers planted more soy as demand and price increased.

What Happens?

Deforestation, ranching and agriculture alter the ecosystem, climate and weather patterns and cause biodiversity and habitat loss.

Cattle ranches are at risk of fire, cause soil erosion and silt up rivers.

Crop production involves fertiliser use, pesticides and soil degradation.

What has been done?

In 2006, Greenpeace reported the links between deforestation in the Amazon, soy and meat (between 70% and 90% of the world's soybean crop is used as animal feed). The industry responded with a moratorium which said that companies would not buy soy from soy traders supplied by farmers who cleared the rainforest after 2008, used slave labour or threatened Indigenous Lands. From 2004 to 2012, the clearing of trees in the Amazon fell by 84%. Each year the moratarium was renewed and in 2016 it was renewed indefinitely.

However, farmers continue to clear the land for other crops and deforestation reached a 15-year high in 2021, possibly encouraged by political leadership at that time.

What can be done?

Intensifying farming of cattle and crops would use less land for more productivity. But monocultures have hazards, including more mechanisation in large fields with less labour required. Intensification requires more input and inorganic fertilisers have become far more expensive. Herbicides and insecticides used can damage aquatic life.

In Brazil, legislation could be used to limit the amount of any land holding that can be cleared of forest. Local governments should commit to reducing deforestation and GHG emissions, and act upon these commitments. They should also redirect investment to more sustainable use of forest products.

HICs could fund protection of the forests for LICs. Companies should not buy products resulting in deforestation. Individuals can boycott beef from deforested areas, eat less meat and aim to reduce carbon footprints.