Search the archive.

With the exception of Antarctica, desertification affects every continent. According to the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), 36 million square miles of the world are currently affected by this. Land that is susceptible to desertification can become uninhabitable if not managed with sustainable environmental practices. The UNEP estimates that by the year 2045, 135 million people may be displaced due to this environmental crisis. Currently, 1 billion people live in areas vulnerable to desertification. Desertification in Africa Africa is the simple answer to the question: where is desertification happening? More specifically, desertification plays its largest role in the grasslands of East Africa, the Kalahari Desert and the Sahara Desert. These regions span over 65 percent of the land. In Ethiopia, 80 percent of the land is at risk of desertification. In addition, one-third of the continent is unsuitable for living due to climate changes. As Africa’s population continues to grow and desertification continues to be ignored, more of the land becomes arid and uninhabitable. This issue is particularly prevalent in Africa. This is due to the low soil fertility and bedrocks found across the continent.

.

Desertification is a global challenge consisting of ecological degradation of land and it has been on the United Nations' table since the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification of 1994. We have learned a great deal about the phenomenon and we have also had some success in tackling desertification. But, what is the cause and how can it be reversed? HOW CAN WE REDUCE DESERTIFICATION? The desertification phenomenon -which has now reached between 30 and 35 times the historical rate due to human activities- prospers in certain settings, therefore, one of the ways of reducing desertification is by avoiding them. Deforestation. One of the main causes of desertification is deforestation, as seen in Canada's boreal forest, Russia's boreal forest and Brazil's Amazon forest, among many others. Protecting these territories is imperative if we are to put an end to the phenomenon. Climate crisis.Climate change may, and tends to, increase the frequency and intensity of drought periods, which in turn leads to desertification. Preventing CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere will prevent future desertification. Inappropriate use of water. Overexploitation of aquifers destabilizes local water cycles, leading to desertification. France is currently approving the construction of mega reservoirs to extract water from below ground in a dry region; and Spain plans to legalize illegal wells that are drying out areas. Exactly the opposite of what is needed. Disorderly urban growth.Urban sprawl in areas has continued to increase since records began. The most recent review in 2020 revealed that urban "shanty towns" (informal spaces) have increased since 2014. Avoiding industrial fertilizers. One of the main causes of desertification in farming areas has been soil pollution due to synthetic fertilizers. The soil becomes saturated with residue from the fertilizers and prevents plants from growing. Even when the area is no longer farmed, it is still degraded. How can we reduce desertification? By stopping deforestation, decarbonizing the economy, preventing underground water from being extracted and not granting new licenses to occupy land for construction purposes. But this will not be enough, the damage caused also needs to be reversed. THIS IS HOW DESERTIFICATION CAN BE REVERSED Humans can reverse land desertification by restoring ecosystems through some of these methods: Mass reforestation. The African-led Great Green Wall initiative aims to restore over 100 million hectares by 2030 in the Sahel crossing 20 countries and stopping desertification. In China, another great green wall has been growing since 1978 in the north to stop the advance of the Gobi. It is the world's largest environmental project, which will be finished by 2050 and its results are already measurable. Planting stones and digging trenches. No, this is not a mistake. Depositing stones of various sizes in dry areas, prevents seeds from flying away and facilitates the formation of dew. Trenches retain rainwater and filter it into the subsoil. This is a very economical form of local restoration. A good example of this is the "half-moon" shaped trench in Sahel. Seed banks. Seed banks are a critical infrastructure for restoring ecosystems because these seeds will be required in order to achieve it. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway is the largest of its kind, although there are other smaller banks. Reintroduction of species. Sometimes, reversing local desertification can be achieved by introducing predators to regulate the presence of species that eat and destroy new shoots. In others, groups of species are better equipped to resist the drought, with some using the waste of others. Providing the soil with nutrients. Without getting into major geoengineering techniques, nutrients can be added to the soil through natural compost or guided grazing. One of the causes of soil degradation is the loss of basic elements. CAPTURING WATER FROM THE AIR, A 'TECHNOLOGICAL' SOLUTION TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION The atmosphere is full of water. Even in desert climates, the air contains water molecules and technology exists to capture it. Some of these technologies use coolers that require electricity (they can function with solar panels), but other models can function without electricity, such as the WarkaWater tower. With these devices, a natural spring can be created in the middle of practically any point on earth currently affected by drought, making it a tool to be taken into account in the fight against desertification. Despite this optimism, halting the advancing desertification or reversing it will depend in the medium term on whether we are capable of tackling challenges such as emitting CO₂ into the atmosphere. All the current reforestation efforts will be in vain if we continue to pollute the air and the oceans.

The extremely large scale nature of land degradation and desertification means that over recent decades, remote-sensing techniques have been applied widely as tools for evaluating spatial and temporal trends18,19,20. A diverse range of variables and indices extracted from different sensors or satellites, such as AVHRR (Advanced Very-High-Resolution Radiometer), AVHRR-GIMMS (Global Inventory Monitoring and Modelling System), MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer), NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) AVHRR or LANDSAT, amongst others, have been employed for assessing land degradation and desertification11,21,22,23,24. From these sources, large databases have been developed that relate to a plethora of vegetation and climate properties25,26, including the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)26,27,28, land cover changes29, leaf area index (LAI)30, land surface temperature (LST)30, multidisciplinary indices comprising LAI, albedo and evapotranspiration (ET)30,31, water use efficiency (WUE), net primary production (NPP)32, enhanced vegetation index (EVI)33, and rainfall and vegetation datasets34. Vegetation indices extracted from remote sensing data have been especially useful for monitoring changes in vegetation cover over time. Recent studies have reported the high efficiency of vegetation indices such as NDVI, NPP, LAI and EVI for evaluating the spatial and temporal changes across different scales35,36. These variables are commonly correlated with other climate parameters such as rainfall, temperature or evapotranspiration, which are useful for assessing and forecasting the potential for land degradation into the future24,34,35,36,37,38. Time-series trends in climate and vegetation indices and the relationships between them have been investigated by many authors26,38,39. For example, images from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) sensor have been used to examine the correspondence of vegetation trends with rainfall, while others have studied relationships between land-use changes and land surface temperature (LST)40. Evaluating relationships between vegetation dynamics and climate parameters is a proven powerful and efficient means to determine whether imminent climate change and unconstrained human activities pose a threat to food security and sustainable societies in rapidly developing regions of the world25,26,37.

Unfortunately, the United States faces deforestation at significant rates: In 2021 alone, it lost 4.22 million acres of forest, equivalent to 775 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. There are many root causes of deforestation. Here are five of the most prevalent causes of deforestation in the United States: Logging and timber industries: The demand for timber products drives extensive logging activities across the country, particularly in regions like the Pacific Northwest. The United States is one of the largest consumers and producers of timber globally, being the top global producer of industrial roundwood, wood pellets, and pulp for the paper industry. This contributes significantly to deforestation within its borders. It occurs most prevalently in Oregon, Washington, and Georgia. Agriculture and expansion of croplands: To meet the growing demand for food and biofuel production, vast areas of forests are cleared for agricultural production, including soy, corn, and palm oil production. This practice is prevalent in the Southeastern United States, where forests are converted into croplands. Between 1982 and 1997, approximately 55% of land that transitioned into agricultural use originated from forested areas. This shift reflected a continued conversion of land from less intensive uses, such as forests, to more agriculturally focused uses, including cropland and pasture. deforestation in the United States_corn fields in California agriculture plantation_visual 3Corn fields in California agricultural plantation. Urbanisation and infrastructure development: Rapid urban growth leads to the conversion of forests into residential areas, commercial spaces, and infrastructure projects, becoming a significant driver of deforestation. The construction of roads, highways, and industrial zones often involves clearing large swaths of forests, leading to habitat loss and fragmentation. Natural disasters and wildfires: While natural disturbances like hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires are part of the ecosystem, their frequency and intensity have increased due to climatic instability. These events can result in significant forest loss and hinder reforestation efforts. California has become the most wildfire-prone state in the US, while on the other coast, Florida is the state most affected by hurricanes. Illegal logging and unsustainable practices: Despite regulations, illegal deforestation activities persist, causing substantial damage to forests. Unsustainable practices, such as clear-cutting and selective logging, degrade forest ecosystems and contribute to deforestation leading to a loss of habitat for many wild animal species and environmental degradation.

Why do people clear forests? While there are many local factors, experts say the main reason is financial: forests are worth more dead than alive in monetary terms. In Brazil, large parts of the Amazon have been cleared for beef production. In Indonesia, forests and peatlands have been cleared and drained for oil palm plantations. In other areas, coffee, cocoa, bananas, pineapples, coca leaves and subsistence farming have driven land-clearing. Most deforestation hotspots are in tropical regions, which are also profitable areas for farming. “The largest factor is the expansion of agricultural industries: cattle ranching, soya bean farming and oil palm,” says Malhi. “A second factor is poverty. In many parts of Africa, such as Madagascar, where there is demographic pressure, a lot of poor, rural settlers are just looking to make a living on the frontier as populations increase. The same is true in parts of South America and south-east Asia.” Can we really stop deforestation? It will not be easy, but there are reasons to be hopeful. Alongside the commitment from world leaders in Glasgow at Cop26, it is hoped big producers and consumers of commodities linked to deforestation will sign up to eradicating them from the global supply chain. China – one of the world’s largest consumers – is taking deforestation more seriously and is looking at “greening” its supply chain. Elephants walk through an oil palm plantation and eat the trunks of felled old oil palm trees, Borneo, 2019. The planting of oil palm has led to enormous levels of deforestation which in turn has resulted in species decline. Elephants walk through an area cleared for an oil palm plantation in Borneo in 2019. Photograph: Chris J Ratcliffe/WWF-UK “We really need to start thinking about forest loss – especially tropical forest loss – in the same way people are now talking about coal,” says Frances Seymour, a forest and governance expert at the World Resources Institute (WRI). “There was a big celebration that China had committed to no longer financing new coal abroad. But we need to be looking for similar commitments from all countries to stop financing projects that lead to deforestation abroad.”

I remember being taught in elementary school about deforestation, and about all of the devastating effects that it has on the environment and on human civilization. The harmful nature of deforestation was always taken for granted—it was never truly proven to us. Personally, I still hold the belief that the clearing of our forests harms our planet in the long run, and is taking us further and further away from a sustainable world. My online deliberation showed me that not all people hold that viewpoint, however, so I would like to discuss different effects of deforestation, as well as why or why not they could be considered as harmful to the environment. Increase in Carbon Emissions The reduction of our forests greatly decreases the amount of carbon dioxide taken out from our atmosphere, increasing the overall greenhouse gasses and heating up our planet. While many initiatives have been taken to plant new trees to replace those that have been cut down, it takes many years before the new vegetation can grow to the size it once was, and therefore years until enough carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere. Additionally, it is difficult to regulate whether new trees are always planted, especially by individuals who clear the forest. Possible Counterpoints: Almost as much CO2 emission comes from forestry as industry. Some people argue that global warming does not exist, and therefore more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not have such a large effect. Eight arguments against global warming can be found here The scale at which deforestation is occurring is not large enough to have a large enough effect on carbon emissions to increase the global temperature. Effect on the Land Itself Deforestation exposed land to wind and water erosion, which degrades the top level of soil and renders the land useless for agricultural purposes. In a report written about soil degradation in Africa, deforestation is cited as one of the main causes. Additionally, poor farming practices such as overuse of the land or overgrazing further harm the soil, and prevent its further use in the future. Possible Counterpoints: The land that can no longer be used for farming can be used for infrastructure or building. Farmers can be taught better farming methods that prevent them from further harming the soil. Effects on Plant and Animal Life Our forests are home to a multitude of different species and creatures that have yet to be discovered. According to Richard Schultes, a professor at Harvard University, “The number of plants thoroughly examined for medicinal value range from less than 1% to about 10%. Half a percent (that is 0.5%) has given us 25% of all of our drugs. While it may be extrapolation, I would venture to guess that many of these undiscovered species also have uses in the medial field, and have the potential to increase our overall standard of living. Deforestation destroys many of the habits for these plants and animals, and prevents their use. Possible Counterpoints: Deforestation only affects the habitats of some plants and animals—it is not enough to be a cause for concern. You cannot assume that these plants and animals have any sort of use—it is also likely that they pose no benefit to us, and therefore destroying their habitats does not matter.

Almost six months into his second spell as president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has begun to rein in the rampant destruction of the Amazon that was let loose by his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro. But his efforts to save the rainforest could be scuppered by a right-wing Congress, experts say. The first significant reduction in forest clearing came in April, when Amazon deforestation fell 68 per cent compared with the same month last year. May saw a smaller drop of 10 per cent, according to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research. Overall, the first five months of the year have seen a 31 per cent drop in deforestation in comparison with those months in 2022. Between 2019 and 2022, Bolsonaro publicly encouraged development in the Amazon, watered down environmental protections and gutted ministries responsible for conserving the rainforest. During his presidency, the amount of Amazon forest lost increased 59.5 per cent on the previous four years. Since taking office in January, Lula has restored funding for environmental protection and reappointed officials in key positions. From January to May, the environment agency Ibama imposed commercial embargoes on 2255 farms on illegally deforested land and served 2 billion reals ($406 million) in fines for environmental crimes — up 160 per cent on the average yearly sanctions during Bolsonaro’s term. Deforestation alerts – which occur when satellites detect changes in forest cover – began to decline shortly after enforcement efforts were ramped up, says Suely Araújo at Brazil’s Climate Observatory. Earlier this month, Lula outlined a long-term plan to implement his pledge of ending illegal deforestation by 2030. He promised that intelligence agencies would do more to track down environmental crime and a new registry would be set up to monitor the management of forests that are most important to slowing climate change. Brazil has also rebuilt relationships with international partners and revived the Amazon Fund, which has received donations worth hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments. A committee in the Senate is currently working on a plan that would allow Brazil to profit from protecting tropical forests by selling carbon credits to other nations. “Lula’s plan to fight climate change could be the most ambitious in the world as it combines ways to combat deforestation while also providing livelihoods for those who clear forests,” says Erika Berenguer at the University of Oxford. Lula aims to take back half of the protected lands being illegally exploited for logging, farming, mining and other activities, but it will take time to dismantle the armed gangs who expanded their control of the rainforest under Bolsonaro, says Araújo. “The problem is, the situation with environmental crime in the Amazon is much more complex to face than the one that existed two decades ago,” she says.

Reviving America’s strategic position in the world in the wake of President Donald Trump will require a foreign policy that both firmly embraces democratic values and systematically pushes back against authoritarian competitors such as Russia and China. The Trump presidency has already severely undercut the United States’ global standing, causing immense harm to the nation’s strategic position, credibility, and moral authority. Allies are losing faith in American leadership while illiberal regimes are growing in number, stature, and audacity. Trump’s rise reflects a pre-existing deterioration in the vitality of democratic systems, a global phenomenon which his presidency has now turned into a crisis. The damage cannot be reversed simply by electing a different president or reverting to previous foreign policy approaches. Instead, the United States must adopt bold new policies to regain the advantage in great power competition and help vulnerable democracies, including its own, resist authoritarian influence and strengthen a growing global democratic community. This report explains why a democratic values-based foreign policy is the right choice for the United States on both a strategic and moral level. It also offers specific policy recommendations as a roadmap for how the next administration could pursue a democratic values-based foreign policy. Today, democracy is under strain in America and threatened across the globe. The spread of democratic governance, which for decades seemed all but inevitable, has stalled and now faces serious setbacks. Across the democratic world, ordinary people have lost trust in their institutions of government and delivered stunning rebukes to their political establishments. These setbacks have also emboldened authoritarian regimes. Russia, China, and other illiberal states have sought to exploit the openness of democratic societies for their geopolitical advantage and have put forward an alternative autocratic model for politics and economic development that undermines liberal democratic values. America’s enduring security, prosperity, and strength depend on the survival and success of democracy—both at home and abroad—as well as on the resilience of institutions, rules, and norms that protect the liberal democratic values on which the United States’ global standing is built. Yet at the very moment when liberal democracy faces its greatest ideological challenge since the Cold War, President Trump has chosen to reject America’s historic role as leader of the world’s democracies. He has treated democratic allies as ideological foes and murderous dictators as respected friends and equals while stoking nativist and isolationist impulses among the American people. President Trump has also systematically denigrated democratic values and norms at home through unprecedented attacks on the press, the independent judiciary, and law enforcement, as well as political purges of civil servants.1 While U.S. democratic institutions have shown resilience in the face of his challenges, it is already clear that some of the damage Trump does will outlast his presidency. The critical question today is whether the United States after Trump will summon the resolve to lead, protect, and expand the world’s democracies or stand by and suffer the consequences as autocracy and illiberalism crack the foundations of the American-led global system. Advancing a values-based foreign policy after Trump will inevitably invite a vigorous debate over how—or even whether—values should factor into U.S. foreign policy. Critics will likely point to America’s prior foreign policy errors and shortcomings, for example, the use of democracy promotion aims to justify misguided foreign policies such as the invasion of Iraq; the broader U.S. failure to promote democracy in the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring; and Cold War-era support for dictators who sided against the Soviet Union. Critics may also point to the urgency of domestic challenges relative to foreign policy ones or fear of U.S. overextension abroad to argue that a values-based foreign policy is unwise or simply not possible. This report takes these critiques seriously. However, in reflecting on the stakes for U.S. leadership, present and future, it arrives at the conclusion that an American foreign policy shorn of American values would ultimately deliver less security and prosperity at home, while making U.S. leadership in the world less sustainable and impactful. This report asserts that an approach that embraces America’s core democratic values will allow the United States to compete more effectively with authoritarian powers such as China and Russia and will deliver better results for the country in the long haul. To address setbacks abroad, the United States will need to pursue a new foreign policy that systematically puts liberal democratic values at the center of its engagement with the world. This will require more than just lip service. It will entail a meaningful, sustained shift in how the United States conducts its foreign relations, launched with quick and decisive action and sustained with persistence and strategic vision. A democratic values-based foreign policy strategy is rooted in faith in democratic self-government, not just as being better than all the alternatives but also as a value in and of itself. Such a foreign policy will also advance U.S. national interests. America’s presence as a prosperous, multi-ethnic, free democratic society poses a challenge to autocrats through the model it sets. Instead of taking this power for granted, it is time for America to cultivate it. At the heart of such an effort should be a realignment of American foreign policy to meet the challenge posed by resurgent illiberalism. This can be done by forging stronger cooperation among democratic states, including in the defense of democracies under assault and the expansion of the global democratic space. In both the short- and long-term, the United States will need to take the following steps: Restore democratic values and norms at home. Work with democratic allies to design and implement a counter-authoritarian playbook to push back against the encroachment on and abuse of the open systems of democratic states. Build stronger international networks of democracies to create a global democratic bulwark. Privilege U.S. relationships with democracies, and reflect this in U.S. policy decisions and spending. Strengthen international support mechanisms for populations nonviolently mobilizing for democracy around the world, while more systematically pressuring countries to uphold human rights and adhere to international law. Reorienting U.S. foreign policy toward a values-based approach will require policymakers to take the long view, recognize the intrinsic strength of democratic governance, and acknowledge that the best way to advance democracy worldwide is through the example set by successful democracies. Critically, it will also require U.S. leaders to heed the lessons of history by recognizing that the most effective way to promote and sustain democracy is supporting and encouraging democratic institutions and movements, rather than employing coercive measures. The United States has numerous tools to vigorously defend its values and advance democracy without seeking to impose it using force. Some may fear that a values-based foreign policy would come at the expense of traditional U.S. interests. But that critique misdiagnoses and underestimates the geopolitical challenge to U.S. interests that a rising illiberal tide presents. American interests will be far more difficult to secure if liberal democracy is supplanted as the pre-eminent and most sought-after political system. There will inevitably be times when U.S. interests will necessitate partnering with nondemocratic regimes. Still, a principled but pragmatic approach can do both: cooperate selectively with such regimes on matters of vital national interest while also recognizing that the greatest strategic gains to U.S. security and prosperity will rest on the success of other democracies and that America’s staying power and strategic resilience will depend on investing in them. The challenge: A democracy crisis at home and abroad For most of the past 50 years, the world has witnessed the dramatic spread of democratic governance throughout the globe. Between 1970 and 2010, the number of democratic states nearly tripled, with transitions to democracy stretching from the southern cone of South America to West Africa, Southeast Asia, and the former Soviet bloc.2 By 2000, more than half the world’s population lived under a democratic government for the first time in recorded history.3 This democratic wave brought a host of political and social rights to hundreds of millions of people and coincided with a historic decline in the incidence of interstate wars.4 The ascendance of democracy globally and the emergence of an increasingly robust set of international rules and institutions fostered a prevailing assumption that a more democratic world was here to stay: Democratic states would prosper and more autocratic states would transition to democracy. But this optimism about democracy has waned due to a number of varying and reinforcing trends. First, democracies have experienced setbacks. Many countries once held up as examples of democratic progress—such as Poland, Turkey, and Venezuela—have experienced a deterioration in rule of law and electoral competitiveness.5 In other countries, such as Thailand and Egypt, democratically elected governments were overthrown by force. Meanwhile, across the Middle East, the democratic promise of the Arab Spring faltered in the face of violent repression. During this same period, illiberal and insular populist movements became resurgent in many established democracies, weakening international cooperation among democratic states and imperiling many of the achievements of the postwar era. These movements occurred most notably in the European Union, where a Center for American Progress and American Enterprise Institute study found that “in the past decade, such parties have moved from the margins of Europe’s political landscape to its core.”6 A key feature of this illiberal resurgence has been elected leaders’ use of strongman tactics to undermine democratic institutions and norms. In Turkey, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has gained increasing control over the political, economic, and military aspects of the Turkish state.7 In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has used xenophobic rhetoric and crony capitalism to erode political checks and balances and consolidate power.8 Poland’s current leaders and others have followed Orbán’s playbook, attacking the independence of the country’s media and judiciary and campaigning on an exclusionary vison of Polish society.9 President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, meanwhile, has flaunted his disdain for the rule of law and human rights as he pursues a campaign of mass violence against drug users and dealers, which has included state sponsorship of extrajudicial killings.10 In all of these cases, attacks on democratic institutions and norms have been carried out by democratically elected leaders themselves.11 Even in the United States, President Donald Trump is showing signs of authoritarian envy, regularly criticizing the media, the judiciary, and law enforcement, while openly admiring some of the world’s most brutal dictators. As Trump said of Kim Jong Un, who rules over a totalitarian dictatorship where people are thrown into labor camps for criticizing the government: “He’s the head of the country, and I mean he’s the strong head. … Don’t let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”12 These trends do not mean in any way that democracy is a lost cause or that the global tilt toward illiberalism is irreversible. Demand for democratic change and greater civil and political rights remains a potent force that transcends culture and geography, as recent events in countries as diverse as Burkina Faso, Armenia, and Malaysia illustrate.13 But these positive developments do not negate the democratic backsliding that has occurred elsewhere. Across the world, democracy faces an uncertain future. Second, confidence in democratic politics has waned, even in states with long traditions of representative government. In the past two decades, democracies have struggled to deliver economic results for their people. Even democracies that have experienced rapid growth have too often seen it disproportionally benefit small elites or specific regions, while causing significant disruption elsewhere in society.14 The Great Recession of 2008 and years of painfully slow recovery helped fuel a sharp decline in trust in government institutions across the democratic world.15 Stagnation and deepening inequality, coupled with demographic change and political dysfunction, have created fertile ground for distrust, division, and demagoguery that illiberal populist parties have exploited. These groups draw on xenophobic and racist messaging but also resentment at economic stagnation and elite capture of supposedly democratic institutions. In some cases, they have also made both subtle and overt appeals to authoritarian modes of governance.16 The United States has not been immune to this democratic malaise. Americans today distrust their government in greater numbers than at any point in modern U.S. history, including the height of the Vietnam War and during the Watergate scandal.17 Two of the most significant drivers of distrust have been the rise of unfettered special interest spending to distort U.S. politics and the political paralysis that has arisen from the growth of counter-majoritarian practices such as gerrymandering and abuse of the legislative filibuster.18 These problems have fed a widespread perception that the U.S. political system no longer represents the interests of ordinary Americans nor does it address grave challenges such as inequality, racial injustice, and opioid addiction. Such failures, compounded by foreign policy failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, have contributed to a profound loss of faith in American institutions that Donald Trump effectively channeled in his bid for the presidency. Third, illiberal and authoritarian regimes have sought to encourage and exploit the crisis of confidence in democratic states in order to weaken them from within, assert the superiority of their own models, and attack the foundations of the post-Cold War geopolitical order. Of these revisionist states, Russia has been the most overt and aggressive in its challenge to liberal democracy. Despite a stagnating economy and shrinking population, Moscow has launched ambitious measures to reestablish a sphere of influence in nearby countries, fueled right- and left-wing populist movements across Europe and North America, and sowed confusion and discord among the democratic citizenries of EU states and NATO members, including America.19 The tools it has deployed in this campaign include disinformation operations using both traditional and social media; targeted use of corruption to cultivate political proxies; cyberespionage aimed at influencing electoral outcomes; covert funding of insurgent political movements; and exploitation of neighbors’ energy insecurity.20 Together, Russian tactics constitute a new authoritarian playbook to which the United States and other democratic powers have yet to develop an effective response.21 If Russia has been the boldest challenger, the most serious long-term external threat to democratic governance comes from China. Beijing has been—and will almost certainly remain—an essential partner of the United States in solving major global challenges, from climate change to nonproliferation. But as China amasses power, too often it has put its newfound capabilities and immense resources behind a model of political and economic development and interstate cooperation that neither requires nor encourages liberal democratic values.22 In fact, China’s full-throated assertion of narrow national interests in areas such as internet governance, free speech, trade, and human rights often actively undermines democratic values.23 China has also sought to use economic coercion to undermine U.S. security alliances and partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region and erode cohesion among EU member states.24 Meanwhile, Beijing has used its economic and growing military might to immunize itself from the consequences of flouting long-standing international principles such as freedom of navigation.25 Tragically, these developments coincide with President Trump’s abandonment of America’s commitments to global leadership, including the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Fourth, the institutions, rules, and norms that underpin the liberal international order have not lived up to expectations, providing space for illiberal and undemocratic states to seize the advantage. The global and regional organizations established since World War II were built to protect and encourage liberal values, including universal human rights and rules-based international conduct. But these institutions largely reflect the world of 1945 and have not been adequately updated to recognize the massive shifts in global economic and political power. Today, many of these institutions are losing the capacity to perform their basic missions because of inherent structural flaws, outdated mechanisms, and deliberate efforts by world powers to undermine or circumvent them. The U.N. Security Council is rarely able to meaningfully respond to gross abuses of human rights or even outright aggression.26 The United States and other democracies face growing challenges in upholding international rules or solving big problems such as chemical weapons use in Syria, ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, China’s violations of international law in the South China Sea, and Russia’s use of gray-zone tactics in Ukraine. The World Trade Organization has likewise struggled to address abuses of its trade rules by states such as China.27 Without more effective and coordinated efforts to push back against these abuses and transgressions, authoritarian governments will continue to probe the boundaries of international rules and norms in ways contrary to both U.S. values and interests. Fifth, economic globalization has exposed autocratic systems to democratic values, but it has also exposed democratic systems to autocratic influence. As the globalization of the world economy accelerated in the 1990s, experts assumed that integration would result in a more liberal future.28 Authoritarian states, once closed, would be opened up and exposed to the practices and values of liberal democratic states. Gradually, these autocratic states would begin to take on more liberal characteristics, accelerating the trend toward greater democratization. But globalization has proved to be a two-way street. Liberal states have also been exposed to the influence of authoritarian states. Foreign investment from autocratic regimes has served as a vehicle to influence their recipients, most notably in the form of Russian cultivation of political actors across Eastern Europe.29 The corrupt and uncompetitive inducements of autocrats have at times proved a more attractive path than more transparent business and investment practices favored by democracies.30 The immense wealth concentration in autocratic states—and liberal ones as well—has spawned a complex transnational network of illicit finance that has distorted both developed and developing economies.31 Lastly, the Trump administration is now undermining the democratic values and international rules the United States has traditionally sought to uphold. Although the challenges facing global democracy have been building for many years, they have accelerated since 2016 in part because of the policies and rhetoric of the current occupant of the Oval Office. In a remarkably short period of time, President Trump has taken dramatic steps to abandon America’s long-standing moral leadership in the world. President Trump’s first secretary of state publicly declared that the United States would not prioritize human rights.32 The Trump administration has vigorously attacked America’s democratic allies while showing an affinity for autocrats and dictators.33 On an almost daily basis, the president makes clear his disregard for many long-standing norms of American government, such as separation of personal and public interests and respect for the autonomy of the judiciary and law enforcement. While in the past American foreign policy has been prone to charges of hypocrisy—such as claiming to uphold democracy while backing autocrats—the Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of concern for democratic values. This sharp shift in America’s approach to the world under President Trump has been immensely destabilizing in ways that are only beginning to become clear.34 The answer: A democratic values-based foreign policy Donald Trump is hardly the only skeptic of a democratic values-based foreign policy. A range of policymakers and scholars of foreign policy, including some progressives, have argued that the United States should de-prioritize the promotion of democratic values in its foreign policy. Some make the argument that the United States needs to take a more hardheaded and transactional approach to advance its security and economic interests. However, this report argues that not only are these false choices but that the United States should see democratic values as a U.S. comparative advantage—and not a weakness—in global competition. America’s liberal democratic values have been key to building, enhancing, and sustaining America’s geopolitical power. With the global backsliding of democracy and the rise of alternative authoritarian models, it is ever more urgent to rediscover the power of core American values to secure U.S. interests in the long term. A democratic values-based foreign policy is worth pursuing for three key reasons. First, it will advance long-term U.S. economic and security interests abroad and create a safer and more prosperous world. Compared with authoritarian regimes, democracies are less likely to go to war against each other, less likely to ally against the United States, less likely to sponsor terrorism, less likely to experience famine or produce refugees, and more likely to adopt market economies and form economic partnerships with other democracies.35 Since liberal democracies tend to share values rooted in rule of law, fair competition, and transparency, they are natural partners in promoting the stable, prosperous, open, and peaceful international environment that the United States ought to cultivate through its foreign policy. It is true that the process of democratization can be long and uneven and can sometimes produce destabilizing and aggressive state behavior. However, mature and established democracies are more stable, peaceful, and prosperous, and more full-fledged democracies mean more economic and security benefits for the United States.36 Furthermore, the global system of democratic alliances, institutions, and norms the United States helped create and lead after World War II has improved material conditions and brought peace and prosperity to hundreds of millions of people across the world. Bolstering that democratic system and the democratic values that underpin it will ensure that future generations can also enjoy the fruits of democracy and a liberal world. Second, this kind of foreign policy will help secure an American advantage in great power competition by advancing a compelling alternative and strengthening the global democratic bulwark. Although the challenge posed by illiberal regimes today has evolved since the Cold War, there are still lessons to be drawn from that era. One of the most significant factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union was the powerful example and contrast set by flourishing democratic societies in the United States and Europe. Today, one of America’s greatest strategic assets is its global network of democratic allies and partners. The power of that democratic network, even underutilized as it is today, stands in stark contrast to what today’s illiberal and authoritarian regimes can offer: namely, political order purchased at the cost of extreme corruption, xenophobia, oligarchy, and arbitrary use of state power. To succeed, any approach to countering the authoritarian playbook must present a compelling alternative. This means that the United States, alongside its democratic allies and partners, must demonstrate that liberal democracy represents the best path to deliver inclusive prosperity, rule of law, and a just and equal society to a country’s citizens.

Minsky based his argument for the job guarantee on his moral foundation. In his opus magnum, Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, he writes that “[e]conomic policy must reflect an ideological vision; it must be inspired by the ideals of a good society” (Minsky 2008b, 9). Minsky believed that something was fundamentally wrong with our capitalist economies. He was not a revolutionary in a Marxist sense, but clearly a leftist in US academia. His main academic influences, aside from John Maynard Keynes, were institutionalist economists at the University of Chicago at a time when economics was taught as “part of the study of society, where economic history, political science, sociology, anthropology and economics were part of an integrated sequence aimed at understanding modern society” (Minsky 1988, 172). In a short paper about May Day in 1986, Minsky provided a good summary of his moral approach: “The essential radical view is that work is a good thing, and that chronic mass unemployment is a flaw of the economic order, not a flaw of the unemployed. Work is a public good, for only if work is available does a human achieve the dignity and self-respect that makes a person a good citizen” (Minsky 1986, 4). On a societal level he believed that “if the economy provides basic security and a sense of personal worth for all—because work is available for all—many social problems will recede to manageable proportions” (Minsky 2008b, 3). Minsky’s moral arguments for the reduction of poverty and inequality revolved around the themes of dignity and self-respect, social justice, civil standards of an open liberal society, democracy, and social cohesion. Minsky was critical of welfare, especially of unemployment benefits for people willing to work, both from the perspective of the recipients and from the perspective of the state. The state, Minsky argued, chooses welfare over other policies because it seems cheaper: “Welfare, in the form of aid to families with dependent children, exists because it is the cheapest way, short of a policy to let them die, of taking care of the population in want. Foster homes, orphanages, and guaranteed work for parents are all more expensive. Full 5 employment is the civilized and humane way of getting rid of welfare as we have known it…” (Minsky 1996, 365). The New Deal’s work programs inspired his alternative approach to full employment policies. In his notes for a workshop held on “Ethics and Capitalism” at the Levy Institute in November 1994, he wrote, “An ethical foundation of the New Deal version of State Capitalism. A: No one will starve in America. B: A dole is anathema: a bad thing. A and B imply WPA, NYA, CCC3 as the foundation stones of macroeconomic policy” (Minsky 1994a). In an article coauthored with Institute President Dimitri B. Papadimitriou in the same year he states both “an abhorrence of the dole and the importance of income from work as supporting the dignity of individuals” as the main motivation for a job program. He claimed that “[t]he first aim of an employing America program should be to assure that every American has a job which pays at least the minimum wage” (Papadimitriou and Minsky 1994, 24). The theme of dignity also appears in his earlier writings when he discusses relative and absolute poverty. Minsky uses a negative frame of the perception of the “dole” to juxtapose it with a positive frame of income derived from work: “Part of the poverty problem in the United States centers around the social and personal reaction to how income is received. The welfare recipient can be poor, even if welfare standards are adequate, if cash income derived from welfare is personally and socially demeaning” (Minsky 2013, 63). Dignity is derived from earning income through productive work, which increases a person’s self-worth and ability to support their family. Minsky did not write much about dignity at the workplace itself (e.g., dignified labor standards). Minsky wrote several contributions relating to job guarantee policies when he was working with labor economists on social policy during the Kennedy/Johnson era in the 1960s. He considered the Kennedy/Johnson administration’s War on Poverty as failing since the policies did not focus on job creation. He believed that “the single most important step toward ending poverty in 3 The Works Progress Administration (WPA), the National Youth Administration (NYA), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were public work programs created by the US federal government as part of the second New Deal in the 1930s. 6 America would be the achieving and sustaining of tight full employment. […] [T]here is no better cure for poverty than family income, especially family income earned on a job” (Minsky 2013, 3). During that time, he framed the need for social policy as necessary “to assure domestic peace and tranquility” (Minsky 2013, 28). Minsky claimed that an antipoverty strategy based on unemployment benefits would be socially unsustainable, as those receiving it are dependent on the dole: “[T]he creation of a large class of social remittance men and women is not conducive to either social cohesion or domestic tranquility” (Minsky 2013, 29–30). He returned to this line of thinking in Stabilizing an Unstable Economy: “Compensation for work performed should be the major source of income for all. Permanent dependence on expanding systems of transfer payments that have not been earned is demeaning to the recipient and destructive of the social fabric. Social justice and individual liberty demand interventions to create an economy of opportunity in which everyone, except the severely handicapped, earns his or her way through the exchange of income for work. Full employment is a social as well as an economic good” (Minsky 2008b, 10). He went so far as to state that welfare payment schemes can be a threat to democracy: “A full employment economy is supportive of democracy whereas an economy based on transfer payments supports resentment” (Minsky 1996, 368).

First, the Cold War mentality. We thought we were going to die, blown up by the Russians. Or by two crazy officers firing a missile. None of that happened. COVID-19 is far worse than nuclear annihilation, because it has killed millions of people worldwide. In 2021, more Americans died of the coronavirus than Japanese died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki — combined. Still, we’ve never been terrified of COVID-19 the way we were afraid of those atomic bombs. I’m not sure why.

Deforestation is a critical issue that destroys ecosystems, encourages poverty and accelerates climate change. Producing oxygen that all people and wildlife depend on, forests cover nearly a third of the planet’s landmass. Along with being home to many of the most endangered and threatened animals in the world, they provide fresh water, food, medicine, clothing and shelter to 1.6 billion people. However, almost 50 football field-sized areas of forest are lost – every year, every month? The answer is every minute. Ruined by agriculture, ranching, development and logging, the forest is being lost at a catastrophic rate that jeopardizes not only dependent animals and people, but also the entire planet. Forests are critical in mitigating climate change because they soak up carbon dioxide; their destruction is responsible for about 15 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, illegal logging bypasses timber regulation by harvesting protected species, more than is permitted, and from protected areas. In some areas, it is more prevalent than legal logging. Illegal logging lowers the price of timber worldwide, deprives governments of necessary tax revenues and hurts business for law-abiding logging companies. Though the destruction of the planet’s most valuable forests is detrimental enough, illegal logging also causes human rights violations. When logging companies try to find new sources of timber, they often repress the poor communities who depend on the forests. Deforestation destroys the homes and livelihoods of millions, leading to situations like in Brazil, where poor people must find alternative work at remote soy plantations where they are abused and forced to labor under inhumane conditions at gunpoint. Because black market timber sells at a much lower price, children are exploited into near-slave labor in order to squeeze out profit. Even without logging companies, the deforestation and poverty are locked in a harmful relationship. Of the 1.3 billion people worldwide who live in extreme poverty on less than $1.25 a day, forests directly contribute to 90 percent their livelihoods. To survive, some of these people clear the land for subsistence agriculture, chopping down even protected forests to grow food for their families. Others cut down trees for illegal timber, which sells for a fraction of the wood’s true value. The pittance they earn from these harmful endeavors keeps them mired in extreme poverty. Though many of the poor recognize the destructive nature of their practices, the choice between feeding their families today and protecting the land for future generations is an obvious one. Haiti, which has one of the world’s rates of child mortality, is a compelling study in the direct connection between deforestation and quality of life. Rampant deforestation has caused infertile farmland, famine, massive erosion and frequent flash floods, all of which spread sickness and disease. Children already suffer from malnutrition due to famine, but their vulnerable immune systems are further trodden by recurrent flash floods that sweep sewage, garbage and corpses into their villages, creating constant highly unsanitary living conditions. Additionally, just a day of rain on Haiti’s treeless, brown mountains causes mudslides that bury thousands during the rainy season. The damage can be clearly seen from space – satellite photos show still existing lush forests in the Dominican Republic, but next door, Haiti is a bare, dull landscape. “Deforestation and poverty are very closely linked,” said Clémentine Lalande, Haiti head of investments for Yunus Social Business. “It has been clearly identified in various studies as one of the main causes of poverty here, leading to degraded soil, decreasing agricultural yields, water scarcity, decreasing farming income, and potentially malnutrition, in particular in rural areas.”

Ocean acidification occurs when the ocean absorbs CO2, lowering the water’s pH level and making it more acidic. Deforestation, along with other human activities such as industrial agriculture and the burning of fossil fuels, accelerates this problem. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration, the ocean absorbs around 30% of all atmospheric CO2. As levels of atmospheric CO2 rise, so do levels in the ocean, resulting in further ocean acidification. Just like the oceans, forests act as a carbon sink, with trees absorbing and storing atmospheric carbon. Deforestation forces our oceans to take on more of the strain of excess greenhouse gases. Ocean acidification harms ocean biodiversity and ecosystems. When water becomes more acidic, it can actually dissolve the shells and skeletons of organisms like oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. The negative effects of this reverberate through the entire ecosystem, as bigger fish rely on these calcified organisms for food. If deforestation and other human activities continue to drive ocean acidification, the chemistry of the entire ocean may be altered forever.

Forests are home to thousands of unique flora and fauna that can’t be found in any other ecosystem. Because they house such a diverse variety of life, the destruction of forests can have a devastating impact on the earth’s biodiversity. Habitat loss The earth has lost an estimated 80 million hectares of forest since 1990, as industries clear forested land for farming, grazing, mining, drilling, and urbanization. This number doesn’t just represent fallen trees—it represents the decimation of millions of animals’ habitats. In fact, habitat loss is among the greatest dangers to plant and animal species worldwide, and agriculture is “the major cause.” When animals lose their habitats, they lose the shelter they need for continued survival. Researchers have observed the decline of entire species’ populations in response to deforestation-driven habitat loss. Wildlife extinction Rainforests are home to an estimated 50% of life on land. The FAO reports that forests offer habitat to 80% of the world’s amphibious species, 75% of bird species, and 68% of mammal species. The habitat loss associated with deforestation doesn’t kill animals directly—instead, their populations die out slowly as “their breeding rates fall and competition for food becomes even more intense.” The habitat destruction caused by deforestation drives 135 plant, animal, and insect species to extinction every day. That’s 50,000 species per year, lost forever.

Soil Erosion The roots of trees stabilize soil and keep it in place. Removing trees loosens the soil and leaves it exposed to damaging rains and wind. Removing trees on a mass scale through deforestation significantly speeds up soil erosion. Researchers examined the impacts of deforestation on loess, a soil layer of dust and silt that’s rich in minerals. They found that a combination of agriculture, cattle ranching, and demand for wood drove deforestation on the loess in northeastern Iran, increasing the loss of soil and nutrients. Developing countries pay an especially harsh price for soil erosion, especially when they lose topsoil, the nutrient-rich layer of soil that is essential for growing crops. The Island of Java in Indonesia lost 770 metric tons of topsoil per year in the late 1980s as a direct result of deforestation. Farmers in the region lost out on an estimated 1.5 million tons of rice, which had the potential to fulfill the nutritional needs of almost 15 million people. These farmers, and the local populations they work to feed, experienced firsthand how detrimental deforestation can be to human life. Climate change Trees balance the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) levels as the gas cycles through the atmosphere and into the oceans, soil, and other living organisms. Cutting down trees releases their stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. And, when we don’t replant the fallen trees, we lose out on their continued removal of excess carbon from the atmosphere. This leads to the excess carbon emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect and accelerate climate change. Removing trees on a mass scale through deforestation takes away one of the most important buffers we have against climate change. If we put an end to deforestation, our annual greenhouse gas emissions would drop by 10%. This action could prove crucial in the fight against climate change, with climate scientists estimating we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% in the next decade to mitigate the crisis at hand. Floods Trees help to control flooding. Their roots hold soil firm in heavy rains, and the trees themselves absorb some of the rainwater. Their absence can cause disastrous floods.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates that nearly 25% of the global population relies on forests for their livelihoods, including many of the world’s poorest communities. The world’s Indigenous populations suffer some of the worst impacts of forest destruction, with deforestation displacing entire Indigenous communities. In the Amazon regions of Brazil, deforestation is forcing thousands of Indigenous people off their own land. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro stripped protections for these communities entirely, allowing big industries to encroach even further on forested land. Bolsonaro also removed power from agencies meant to safeguard their rights, pushing Indigenous Brazilians to come together and fight the threat of deforestation on their own.

The full history of humanity covers at least 200,000 years. While we have scarce records for most of these 2,000 centuries, there is a key lesson we can draw from the sheer length of our past. The chance of human extinction from natural catastrophes of any kind must have been very low for most of this time – or we would not have made it so far. But could these risks have changed? Might the past provide false comfort?

Our population now is a thousand times greater than it was for most of human history, so there are vastly more opportunities for new human diseases to originate. And our farming practices have created vast numbers of animals living in unhealthy conditions within close proximity to humans. This increases the risk, as many major diseases originate in animals before crossing over to humans. Examples include HIV (chimpanzees), Ebola (bats), Sars (probably civets or bats) and influenza (usually pigs or birds). We do not yet know where Covid-19 came from, though it is very similar to coronaviruses found in bats and pangolins. Evidence suggests that diseases are crossing over into human populations from animals at an increasing rate.

When humans destroy their forest habitats, animals and insects seek shelter in the populous villages surrounding forests. Animal migration into human territory leads to an unprecedented amount of contact between humans and wildlife that’s not only unnatural but dangerous. This is because animals can spread pathogens to humans. These pathogens cause illnesses known as zoonotic diseases. "Zoonotic Diseases: Disease Transmitted from Animals to Humans"). A 2021 report from the Harvard School of Public Health cautioned that, in order to prevent the spread of zoonotic disease, we must change our agricultural practices and protect our forests. Sadly, zoonotic diseases are already more prevalent in areas experiencing deforestation. Mosquitos spread malaria to humans, and mosquito populations flourish when biodiversity drops. A 2020 study found that “deforestation is associated with increased malaria prevalence, suggesting that in some cases forest conservation might belong in a portfolio of anti-malarial interventions.” A 2019 case study in Indonesian villages further solidified the connection between malaria and deforestation: researchers found that a 1% loss in forest cover increased the incidence of malaria by 10%. Malaria is not the only zoonotic disease that arises from deforestation. A 2017 study linked outbreaks of ebola in Central and West Africa to the recent loss of forests, citing “more frequent contact between infected wild animals and humans” as a probable cause. Though its origins are still unclear, scientists have hypothesized that the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV2, jumped from animals to humans. Our immune systems can’t handle these new, emerging pathogens, leading to the rampant spread of infectious disease that can grow into a global pandemic. The FAO warns that “habitat loss due to forest area change and the expansions of human populations to forest areas” increases the risk of wildlife spreading disease to humans. If we want to avoid future pandemics caused by the spread of zoonotic disease, we must protect habitats from deforestation.

Forests provide surrounding communities with clean drinking water, food, and jobs. Indigenous peoples harvest food and medicine directly from plant species in the forest, or cultivate crops in the fertile soil. When companies cut down forests, these communities lose resources to cultivate the food they need to survive, pushing them into food insecurity. Hundreds of millions of people rely on tropical forests for food, and the highest concentrations of food insecure populations live in regions with tropical forests. Deforestation perpetuates another vicious cycle when it comes to food insecurity. Industrial agriculture companies convert forests into land for cattle grazing, palm oil, and soy production in order to feed growing populations of city-dwellers. This process destroys the biodiversity and fertility of the land, making it unsustainable for feeding populations in the long-term. As the FAO stated in a recent report, “forest degradation can be a threat to food security but also a product of efforts to obtain it—the costs of degradation need to be weighed against the value obtained.” In order to produce more food, the industrial agriculture industry is clearing forests—which, in turn, further exacerbates world hunger.

And this beautiful butterfly is still declining. With the monarch population well below the threshold at which government scientists predict the migration could collapse, in March 2020 the Center and more than 100 other groups called on Congress to significantly increase funding to $100 million per year to help conserve monarch butterflies and their habitat. Monarchs' decline is a harbinger of widespread environmental change. The plummeting population of this familiar butterfly, along with the decline of many other butterflies and bees, threatens the wellbeing of people as well, because the food security of humans is dependent on the ecological services that pollinators provide. History shows a tragic record of the unexpected decline of abundant and widespread species. Complacency and false-positive assumptions about the resiliency of once-common species can have tragic consequences when we don’t take timely action to safeguard their populations.

Earlier this month, Lincoln Brower, Dan Slayback, Robert Simmon, and Isabel Ramirez published NASA photos showing deforestation within the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. At the time of publication, we (Monarch Watch) were in Mexico buying recovered tags as part of our program to assess the dynamics of the monarch migration. We visited four monarch colonies and witnessed first-hand the impact of deforestation. The rapid degradation of monarch habitats in both Mexico and the United States is now too compelling to ignore. We must act. In this communication, I’ll summarize my views on the effects of habitat loss in Mexico and the United States and will reflect on what needs to be done to conserve the monarch migration. Impact of Deforestation on Monarchs Deforestation is already contributing to the mortality of overwintering monarchs. In the winter of 2006-2007 a small monarch colony formed at a site known locally as Aseradero on the northwest aspect of Cerro Pelon, one of the most deforested areas in the region. The trees at this location were relatively small (4-10 meters) and offered little protection from winds and cold weather. A large proportion of the monarchs died at this site when the temperature dropped below freezing in January 2007. No surviving monarchs were present when we visited this location in March 2007 (see “New Tree Nursery Near Cerro Pelon”). The degradation of the forest surrounding the Aseradero colony can be seen in satellite photos of the area (see monarchwatch.org/mx/aseradero.jpg). This year at Cerro Pelon, the El Capulin colony formed in a relatively degraded forest near the top of a ridge. Monarch colonies typically move during the winter and tend to progress down southwesterly-facing slopes. In this case, the monarchs moved progressively down-slope to the northwest across a badly degraded area and settled in the Las Canoas arroyo where we saw them on the 6th of March. There is one large tree in the arroyo and it was covered with monarchs (see monarchwatch.org/mx/capulin.jpg and monarchwatch.org/mx/capulin-tree.jpg). The surrounding trees were also covered with monarchs but there was little in the way of canopy to protect the butterflies from freezing temperatures. I was shocked to see how exposed this colony was at this time but now realize that it has been exposed through most of the winter, resulting in the death of millions of monarchs. Typically, 10-20% of the monarchs at each colony die of various causes during the winter, though rainfall followed by freezing temperatures can be devastating as it was in January of 2002 and January and February of 2004. Excessive mortality due to exposure throughout the winter is not the norm for monarch colonies. Evidence of greater mortality for the El Capulin colony this year comes from eyewitness accounts and is also reflected in the number of tag recoveries. In years without catastrophic mortality due to winter storms, we recover an average of twenty-two tags from the residents of communities on Cerro Pelon. The tags are usually found on dead butterflies beneath the clusters and the numbers recovered from most of the colonies appear to be proportional to the overwintering mortality. Ninety-two tags were recovered at Cerro Pelon this season – more than four times the typical rate of recovery. Deforestation The rate of deforestation in the Monarch Biosphere Reserve exceeds the rate of natural forest replacement and the current efforts at reforestation. It is simply not sustainable and must be reduced. Estimates of the rate of deforestation vary depending on the time period, the authorities involved, and perhaps the methodologies used to make the estimates. Nevertheless, it is clear that the average annual rate of deforestation (2-5%) is devastating the monarch overwintering habitat and destroying the forests that sustain the water supplies supporting the people in the region. Nearly all of the old growth forests with >200 year-old oyamel fir trees are gone from the monarch reserve and for decades monarchs have overwintered in areas with trees ranging from 40 to 80 years of age. In the last two years, possibly due to the lack of more mature forests, monarchs have attempted to overwinter at three sites at which most of the trees were less than 15 years old. Such forests do not protect the monarchs from periodic freezes and monarch mortality is known to have been high at two of these sites.