The increasing presence of lobbyists for coal, oil and gas at the global climate talks is raising concerns about the United Nations’ ability to adequately design policies aimed at phasing out fossil fuels.

The number of fossil fuel lobbyists at the United Nations annual climate summit has significantly increased over the past four years. In 2022, roughly 600 fossil fuel lobbyists attended the climate talks in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. One year later, at COP28 in 2023, that number quadrupled to more than 2,400 lobbyists. This year, there are more than 1,700 lobbyists registered for the ongoing summit in Baku, Azerbaijan.

After decades of debate, negotiators at COP28 in Dubai in 2023 approved a resolution calling for a transition away from fossil fuels. However, many observers are concerned that the large presence of lobbyists from the industry most responsible for climate change may undermine global efforts to effectively move toward cleaner energy and jeopardize the goal of keeping global temperature rise to 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit).

“Fossil fuel corporations and their representatives shouldn’t have a seat at the negotiating table where climate policy is being made,” says Kathy Mulvey of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit science advocacy organization.

UCS argues that allowing fossil fuel companies at climate talks is akin to “setting the cat loose among the pigeons.”

“As climate impacts become more severe, the world can’t afford to waste any more time [to reach the goal of] phasing out fossil fuels and funding a fast, equitable transition to clean energy,” Mulvey adds.

There are more fossil fuel lobbyists at COP29 than all the delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations combined (1,033). The industry’s presence dwarfs that of the most vulnerable communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis, according to an analysis from the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition.

“The fact that there were far more fossil fuel lobbyists than official representatives from scientific institutions, Indigenous communities and vulnerable nations reflects a systemic imbalance in COP representation,” states an open letter signed by Ban Ki-moon, former secretary-general of the United Nations, and more than 20 other top climate policy experts.

“The fossil fuel industry has long manipulated climate negotiations to protect its interests while our planet suffers,” says Dawda Cham, a climate change activist with HELP-Gambia, a grassroots organization based in Gambia in West Africa.

“It’s time to sever these ties and ensure that the voices of the Global South are amplified, not silenced. We must kick big polluters out of our climate conversations and make them pay!” Cham argues.

Banner image: by Devon Chandler via Pixabay (Public domain).

A new study conducted in Kenya is challenging the conventional wisdom that cattle are inherently bad for wildlife, reports Mongabay’s Ashoka Mukpo.

In contrast to previous research, the recent study found that a limited number of cattle — grazing illegally in one portion of Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR) — had a negligible effect on wildlife.

Indigenous Maasai in an area adjacent to the park called Talek, lack rangeland for their livestock, so they routinely slip into MMNR, where grazing is prohibited. Between 2018 and 2019, researchers collected dung samples from 60 sites in the reserve adjacent to Talek, returning to each site once a month to collect dung samples to determine what other animals had used the area. They also measured the quantity and quality of grass and soil at each location.

The researchers found that at the level of grazing extending 12 kilometers (7 miles) into MMNR, there was no decline in the quality or quantity of forage. Furthermore, they found no evidence that wildlife grazing there were affected by the presence of cattle.

“None of the wildlife showed a direct negative association with cattle,” said co-author Wenjing Xu, a postdoctoral researcher at the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre in Germany. “The only one might be buffalo, which had a very weak negative relationship.”

Assessing cattle’s impact on wildlife goes beyond ecological concerns. It also raises broader questions about land rights for the Maasai, who have herded cattle in the region for centuries.  In neighboring Tanzania, for example, Maasai pastoralists have been forcibly evicted from their land near Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Officials argue that with limited resources, cows compete with wildlife that tourists pay a lot of money to see.

“The big driver here is that tourists don’t like to see cows,” study co-author Bilal Butt told Mongabay’s Mukpo. Yet in community conservancies near MMNR, which also attract many tourists for wildlife viewing, Maasai pastoralists can graze their cattle rotationally to avoid overgrazing.

Some researchers aren’t convinced and caution against a shift in land management to allow large numbers of cattle in key conservation areas. Robert Buitenwerf, an assistant professor of biology at Denmark’s Aarhus University, pointed out that while some species can share space with cattle, large animals, like elephants and buffalo, need a large quantity of food and tend to avoid areas where cattle have grazed.

Xu, however, said their study could potentially reframe the way we think about cattle and conservation.

“Not just in East Africa, but across the world, pastoral communities are being undermined as a potential conservation partner. For me this is a first step to use the empirical, ecological method but root it in the political context,” she said.

This is a summary of “Can cattle and wildlife co-exist in the Maasai Mara? A controversial study says yes” by Ashoka Mukpo.

 Banner image:  Elephants in the Loita forest, near Maasai Mara National Reserve. Image by Stuart Butler.

Brazil will soon begin tracing individual cattle from birth to slaughter, aiming to make the sector 100% traceable by 2032, Agriculture and Livestock Minister Carlos Fávaro has indicated.

The announcement in late October comes amid growing international demand for transparency, especially as the EUDR, a new European Union regulation requiring proof that certain imported commodities aren’t adding to recent deforestation, is set to come into force at the end of 2025.

Earlier this year, in a document not yet made public, the Brazilian Roundtable on Sustainable Livestock, which includes NGOs and beef industry stakeholders, proposed mandatory individual cattle tracing to the agriculture ministry, environmental nonprofit Imaflora, a member of the roundtable, told Mongabay.

Fávaro stated that a tracing platform would be working by 2027, signaling that he’s likely adopt the proposal at least partially, although a formal plan hasn’t been announced yet.

“We are not running away from our responsibility,” he said. “It’s legitimate that people want to know the origin and how the animal was raised before reaching the consumer.”

Roughly 70% of Brazil’s beef is sold domestically. Europe accounts for 5% of exports, and China 45%. “The EU regulations set a trend, and while this isn’t the only pressure facing Brazil, the clear criteria drive change,” Marina Guyot, director of public policy at Imaflora, said by phone.

The relatively small volume of exports to Europe means only a handful of suppliers need to adjust to EUDR standards, making EU-compliant beef a premium product. This allows a few companies to serve the EU market without industry-wide changes.

But the push for traceability isn’t just coming from Europe. “The trade agreement between China and Brazil includes individual traceability for health monitoring. For now, the environment hasn’t been addressed. But once individual tracking is in place, it’s hard to justify excluding social and environmental monitoring.”

Between 2016 and 2020, Brazil’s beef exports increased by 60%, while cattle-led deforestation rose nearly lockstep, 61%, a recent analysis shows.

But tracing alone won’t solve the problem, Guyot said, warning that cutting small farmers out of the supply chain could leave thousands of rural poor without income and little ability to stop deforestation.

“Tracing beef will expose what’s been hidden under the rug. We’ve been concealing the problem in indirect supply chains, and everyone wants this to come to light,” she said.

“But exclusion, the most immediate and practical approach in business, doesn’t address the environmental issue. It only drives things into illegality, into parallel markets, without helping producers reach environment compliance.”

Informal beef markets mostly serve local consumers. But Brazil, the world’s top halal meat exporter, has also faced criticism over dubious sustainable halal certifications as it increases exports to Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Banner image: Roughly 43% of Brazil’s cattle is based in the Amazon, according to the national statistics agency. Image courtesy of Marcio Isensee e Sá/((o))eco.

A recent study found that collectors of seeds of native plant species in Brazil lack the legal framework needed to achieve the nation’s large-scale reforestation goal.

Last month, Brazil announced a reforestation plan for 12 million hectares (30 million acres) of degraded land over the next five years, an area half the size of the U.K. And while tons of seeds will be required to meet this goal, local seed networks say the collectors working on the ground are yet to see an increase in demand.

Brazil’s legislation doesn’t yet support a sustainable native seed market that can keep pace with its restoration goals, study lead author Rodrigo Dutra-Silva, an agent at Brazil’s federal environmental agency IBAMA, told Mongabay by phone.

Dutra-Silva and his colleagues looked at how collection of native species seeds is structured in countries such as Australia, Chile, Germany and the U.S., to propose a better framework for Brazil’s seed laws, identifying crucial bottlenecks and gaps.

“When we talk about demand, for example, the United States is the largest buyer of native seeds in the world. Why? Because they use them to restore public lands,” Dutra-Silva said. But there’s no stable demand in Brazil, he added, suggesting the country’s government could drive consistency by purchasing seeds to restore its conservation areas.

In Brazil, the seed collection market also functions through grassroots structures rather than formal government institutions, and suffers from poor legislation and lack of long-term support, the study found.

While some states offer temporary tax exemptions on seeds, there are no permanent or nationwide financial incentives such as tax cuts or subsidies to support the work of seed collectors, Claudia Araújo, a forest engineer and the socio-biodiversity coordinator of the Xingu Seed Network, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in a phone interview.

“I think there should be more support. The government creates some targeted projects, but accessing them is very difficult, especially considering our size. It should be less bureaucratic, with fewer barriers,” Araújo added.

Another bottleneck, the study found, is Brazil’s limited number of seed-testing labs. Only 11 labs across Brazil are currently accredited to test native seeds, which limits quality control and reliability for restoration purposes.

“Results can take up to six months, and by the time it comes out, seed viability may already have diminished,” Eduardo Malta, one of the leaders of Redário, a coalition of seed collector networks, told Mongabay by phone. Instead, he said, a wider selection of labs should be able to test native seeds. Malta was not involved in the study.

To meet reforestation goals, Brazil needs to build a legal structure to support seed collectors, including policy changes and reliable demand from government-backed projects, Dutra-Silva said.

Banner image: Goat’s eye seeds (Ormosia arborea), one of the native species collected by the Redário seed network. Image courtesy of Eduardo Malta/ISA.

Some 44% of the world’s warm-water, reef-building coral species are facing risk of extinction, according to the latest update by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This is a significant increase compared to the last assessment in 2008, when a third were considered threatened.

The latest assessment covers all known coral species that build colorful reefs in shallow, warm waters. In a statement, the IUCN said of the 892 coral species reassessed recently, at least 340 were found to be threatened. These include 56 species categorized as vulnerable, 251 as endangered and 33 as critically endangered. 

The IUCN also took into consideration that some coral species classified as data deficient (DD) could be at risk of extinction, according to an emailed statement from the IUCN’s Coral Specialist Group that referenced a newly published FAQ. “This [44%] is a mid-point figure within a range from 38% threatened species (if all DD species are not threatened) to 51% threatened species (if all DD species are threatened),” the group, which led the coral assessment, said in the statement.

Among species whose conservation status worsened from vulnerable to critically endangered is the saffron coral (Porites sverdrupi), found in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Considered to have a “narrow thermal tolerance,” its population has declined by more than 90% since the 1990s due to hurricanes and bleaching events. The Chagos brain coral (Ctenella chagius), found in the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, also saw its status decline from endangered to critically endangered. While it was common in the 1970s, its population crashed twice in the last three decades due to bleaching and reduction of habitat.

An assessment of cold-water corals found in deeper waters, which comprise more than half of known coral species, is still ongoing. Cold-water corals are at risk from threats such as bottom trawling, oil and gas drilling, laying of undersea cables, and the prospect of deep-sea mining.

“Healthy ecosystems like coral reefs are essential for human livelihoods — providing food, stabilising coastlines, and storing carbon. The protection of our biodiversity is not only vital for our well-being but crucial for our survival,” IUCN director-general Grethel Aguilar said in the statement.

She called for “bold, decisive action to cut greenhouse gas emissions … to secure a sustainable future for humanity.” 

Beth Polidoro, coordinator of the IUCN’s Coral Red List Authority, added that both greenhouse gas emissions and local threats should be addressed for the survival of coral reefs.

“By acting now, we can slow the pace of ocean warming and broaden the window of opportunity for corals to potentially adapt and survive in the long term,” Polidoro said in the statement.

The IUCN’s Coral Specialist Group noted that more research is needed to look into how corals can adapt to warmer waters.

Banner image of clownfish and coral reef in Indonesia, by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

The European Parliament approved a move to postpone a watered-down version of its anti-deforestation law, with implementation pushed back 12 months to the end of 2025.

The Nov. 14 vote to delay the European Union Deforestation Regulation, or the EUDR, by a year was approved with a clear majority of 58%, with 371 votes in favor, 240 against and 30 abstentions. It drew mass support from the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the far right.

Earlier in the day, an amendment introducing a “no-risk” category into the law was also approved, allowing the EU to decide in which countries the law will be enforced.

The vague proposed criteria in the approved law suggest labeling countries as “no-risk” if they show a net increase in forest cover, even if the forest increase comes from expanding monoculture plantations like oil palm or eucalyptus for paper and pulp, said Trase, a platform that analyzes supply chains. Such monoculture commodities are frequently a driver of deforestation in some regions and devastating for biodiversity.

Now, the EUDR will likely no longer apply to countries such as EU member states, the United States, Russia, China, Bangladesh and Vietnam, raising serious concerns about geopolitical interference in the law’s applicability.

“It’s a dark day for Europe’s environmental credentials,” Julian Oram, policy director at nonprofit Mighty Earth, wrote in an email statement. “The inclusion of a new ‘no risk’ category will allow many countries to be considered risk-free, even if deforestation, degradation and illegal practices are still occurring.”

The EUDR originally required companies to prove that products, such as timber, beef, palm oil, cocoa and soy, are not tied to land deforested after Dec. 31, 2020.

The U.K.-based nonprofit Earthsight added to criticism saying that the no-risk criteria were arbitrary, suggesting they were crafted to appease Europe’s powerful agriculture and forestry lobbies.

“The amendments create a dangerous loophole that could open the floodgates for products produced in high-risk countries to be laundered through no-risk countries,” Earthsight’s policy lead, Fyfe Strachan, wrote in a statement.

“Regarding deforestation, there is virtually no ‘no-risk’ country in the world. … The EPP and far right just invented a bunch of them, dramatically changing the content of the EUDR,” said Michal Wiezik, an EU representative of Slovakia in the centrist Renew Europe party.

However, the regulation will still apply to a smaller handful of commodity-producing nations, whose sense of injustice may be exacerbated with the new rules. Developing nations criticized the EUDR as a “unilateral,” “punitive” and “discriminatory” regulation that unfairly targets their economies.

Indonesia accused the EU of “regulatory imperialism” while a Brazilian minister said Europe is “overstepping on sovereignty.”

Banner image: Clearing for an oil palm plantation in Indonesia. Image by Rhett Butler.