When we talk about climate change and wildlife, most people think about the impact of climate change on animals. We see individual organisms struggling to find food and being pushed into new places and environments, with global consequences for species distribution and animal abundances. What many overlook is the other side of that relationship: Wildlife can help heal our climate. Wild animals help shape how ecosystems store carbon, move nutrients, recover from disturbance, and remain resilient as conditions change. That is the message behind the new Scientific Consensus on Wildlife and Climate, currently endorsed by more than 300 scientists from around the world, and counting. The consensus makes a simple but important point for climate policy: We should account for wild animals and their ecological roles when designing climate plans, because natural systems are incomplete without the species that help them function. Climate mitigation conversations typically focus on technology and infrastructure. More recently, we have become better at talking about forests, wetlands, seagrass, and other natural habitats that store carbon. All of those ecosystems matter, but we are sometimes missing an important piece: The animals living in and moving through those systems. Animals ranging from plankton to sperm whales (pictured) and everything in between move carbon from the ocean’s surface into the deep sea through a variety of processes. Image courtesy of The Dominica Sperm Whale Project. A 2023 paper in Nature Climate Change estimated that protecting and restoring wild animal populations and their ecological roles could increase carbon dioxide…This article was originally published on Mongabay

For decades, deforestation has been treated as the central problem. It’s measured in hectares lost, monitored through satellites, and addressed through conservation programs, carbon mechanisms, and development interventions. Yet despite billions of dollars invested, forests continue to decline. What if we have been diagnosing it wrong? Deforestation is not the disease. It is a symptom. The deeper problem is the erosion of governance over territory, over resources, and ultimately, over the future itself. To see this more clearly, it helps to begin not with global statistics, but with a people and place, like Namblong, in Indonesian Papua, an Indigenous territory spanning more than 52,000 hectares (128,500 acres) that’s governed by a tribe of 44 clans. Around 42,000 hectares (almost 104,000 acres) remain forested as a living landscape shaped by generations of customary governance. When oil palm concessions entered this territory with legal permits, a fundamental question emerged: Who decides the future of this forest? Is it the company holding the concession, the government that issued it, or the Indigenous community whose identity and survival are inseparable from the land? Deforestation outside of Manokwari, West Papua, Indonesia. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay. This question points to a broader reality. Across Indonesia, and much of the world, Indigenous territories have been systematically stripped of effective governance. They are treated as empty land available for extraction or intervention. Concessions are issued, projects are introduced, and external solutions are layered onto landscapes that already have their own systems of authority Even well-intentioned efforts often…This article was originally published on Mongabay