Tag: climate change

Blog

Is the UNFCCC climate governance truly pluralist? Examining the Loss and Damage Fund

The UNFCCC has struggled to be effective in driving ambitious climate action due to several structural and procedural limitations. In the follow up to the Paris Agreement 2015, its reliance on consensus-based decision making has been impeded by divisions between developed and developing and small island nations due lack of inclusivity, lack of accountability, and use of technocratic dominant systems over Indigenous, traditional knowledge systems, etc. (Hermwille et. al., 2015; Kuyper et. al., 2018; Nautiyal and Kinsky, 2022). While the UNFCCC remains the central institution for global climate governance, the efficacy and inclusivity in its pluralistic governance processes are widely debated. Pluralism posits that power in stable democratic nations is dispersed across a variety of actors and not monopolized by more elite actors (Rengger, 2015). In global climate governance, pluralism refers to the coexistence and equality of engagement of diverse actors, systems, values and approaches to address negative impacts of climate change at the global level (Boyd, 2010; de Ridder et. al., 2023; Okereke et. al., 2009). This essay is about whether pluralism exists in practice in the UNFCCC framework of climate governance such that developing and small island countries have equality in participation of the management of the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF). To assess the legitimacy of inclusivity, the essays analyzes pluralism in the Mult-level Governance (MLG) framework of UNFCCC using document analysis and analysis of field observations undertaken by the authors during their participation in three consecutive Conference of Parties (COP) of UNFCCC.

The process of governance of climate change was introduced in 1992 at the UN Rio Summit. It was conceptualized as global governance organization comprising of a broad spectrum of actors working towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (Janicke and Martin, 2017; UN, 1992). It was during this summit that the concept of multi-level governance (MLG) was introduced. The UNFCCC later operationalized MLG as a framework to combat climate change, incorporating national, regional, and local governments, international organizations, the private sector, and civil society (UNICEF, 2020). Geels (2011) and Lundvall (2007) have emphasized the usefulness of MLG in analyzing socio-technical transitions, particularly when dealing with technologies, policies, and institutions. The Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015) exemplifies this approach when it achieved consensus of the signatory parties to the Agreement to agree upon goals, instruments, technologies, finance, and other tools of combating climate change by keeping the global temperature rise below 20C. The Paris Agreement was the first significant multilaterally created climate governance system. Nevertheless, questions persist regarding whether this multilevel structure genuinely empowers all actors, especially small island nations, or if global climate governance is a place for nation states to display their hegemony over other relatively weaker states who may have a seat on the table, but not a share in the pie.

Findings from our research show that UNFCCC’s climate governance process is determined by the extent to which a developed country is willing to bargain its hegemonic power. This hegemonic power is symbolically represented in relative share of developed nation member states vis-à-vis developing nation members in decision making; share of resources provided towards implementation of instruments; and ability to use the UNFCCC process to delay consensus and implementation. The higher the extent to which a developed country cedes power, the better is the chance of achieving pluralism in practice in the governance process. Even though the climate governance landscape exhibits the characteristics of pluralist governance via diversity of actors and multiplicity of initiatives, an actor can dismantle the process if it holds hegemony over other actors.

History and Development of the Loss and Damage Fund (LDF)

Since the first Conference of Parties (COP) in Berlin in 1995, COPs have served as platforms to review climate actions and negotiate global commitments. Climate finance emerged as a key mechanism under this multilevel governance framework. In 1990, the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) first proposed an international insurance pool to support nations vulnerable to sea-level rise. But the proposal was not accepted, and L&D was not mentioned at the Rio Summit in 1992 because developed countries were hesitant to address financial compensation and liabilities related to L&D (Beylier, 2024). It took over three decades and multiple COPs for this vision to materialize. Incidentally, the Paris Agreement did not contain a formal definition of L&D, which made the process more complex and harder to follow policy-wise, making “non-economic loss and damage (including loss of knowledge, social cohesion, identity, or cultural heritage)” hard to incorporate into the fund (Broberg and Romera, 2020). Nonetheless, there were notable milestones achieved by AOSIS including the establishment of the Green Climate Fund at COP16 in Cancun (2010), the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage in 2022 (Kattumuri et al. 2022), and finally, the LDF agreement at COP27, with operationalization put into effect in COP 29 (Beylier, 2024). These developments illustrate the delayed nature of climate finance negotiations that resulted from divergent vested interests that lead to non-binding negotiations.

COP29: Observations from the Field

Aritra Chakrabarty, and Alexis Tater, from Michigan Technological University (MTU) had the opportunity to attend COP 27, COP 28 and COP29. While Aritra was part of RINGO and represented MTU as an observer institution in COP 27 & 28, Alexis attended COP29, as part of her study on presence/absence of local indigenous knowledge in climate negotiations. Attending these COPs provided us with a clear understanding as to how negotiations happen at the global scale. We conducted firsthand participant observation of negotiations that happen behind closed doors. Behind each closed door is a political theater that illustrates the pluralistic process. As one moves from one negotiating room to another, you realize that the very existence of this pluralistic process is stalling the negotiation. Negotiated words become promises, which later turn into pledges, and finally result in a report -which thus far has not mentioned “accountability.” While each participatory nation of the Paris Agreement has a voice in the negotiation room, they are not equally weighted in decisions. Also, because the process gives equal chance to every nation, the process is stretched out, proceeding at a slow pace, made even slower when more powerful nations want to “review the motions of an agreement” again and again. The authors observed that the developed countries expressed their power by single-handedly elongating or stalling negotiation processes. Developing nations, and small island nations share the mutual frustration of these delays and on the lack of action on promises made at COPs. For example, the agreement on LDF was achieved in COP 27, 32 years after it was initiated in 1990 by AOSIS. Furthermore, although the COP29 website noted that “significant decisions towards the Fund’s full operationalization” were made, no concrete timelines for disbursement were announced (COP29AZ, 2024). UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres echoed similar concerns, stating that climate disasters disproportionately affect those least responsible and that the initial capitalization of $768 million for the LDF is far from adequate (United Nations, 2024).

Governance of L&D

The LDF is a piece of climate governance instrument made up of an aggregated set of rules, procedures, and precedents, decided upon by a committee using normative elements of negotiation. It reflects different conceptions of what climate finance is; what should do, and therefore does not have a single binding objective nor is binding on any of the nations that have pledged their resources (Nardin, 2000). The operationalization of the LDF exposes the governance gaps in the UNFCCC regime. In March 2025, the United States (U.S) pulled out from the management of the fund with immediate effect (Gastelumendi, 2025). This withdrawal was seen by many state and non-state actors as a major setback to the implementation of the LDF. However, analysis of the status report on the Fund shows that as out of the total $321.24 million received by the Fund as of March 2025, the pledged share of the U.S was only five percent ($17.56 million) which it has paid. On the other hand, the oil resource rich nation of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which had pledged $100 million has provided $25 million so far. The difference in the pledged and the received amount is enormous: $768.40 million pledged is more than two times of the received amount so far. Interestingly, out of the 26 nation states that have pledged to contribute to the LDF, the first and the third largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting nations are absent; both from the list of pledged nations to the committed resources as well as from the membership to the Board of the Fund. The membership of the Board responsible for the management of the Fund also shows a lack of equity in representation. Out of the 26 members, 12 are from developed countries; three from Asia-Pacific states; three from African states; three from Latin American and the Caribbean states; two from Small Island developing states; two from the least developed states; and one from a developing country that is not part of any the above groups. For the small island nations to have only two members, who initiated the conversation and discussion on a funding mechanism back in 1990 represents how hegemonic power makes it way in this pluralistic world of climate governance.

While the U.S exit from the LDF represents only 5% of the total received funds, it’s a symbolic power display that significantly undermines the Fund’s perceived legitimacy. From a pluralist perspective, this action reveals that while the governance framework may appear inclusive, actual influence is still disproportionately concentrated. The U.S exit signals other developed nations who have pledged to the Fund to also reconsider their economic contribution, as there’s no accountability attached with non-commitment. While the Paris Agreement has created universal participation, its mechanism for mitigation and adaption of polycentric framework suffers from higher ambition but low compliance (Falkner, 2016; Torstad, 2020). The process of non-binding voluntary pledges that can be compared and reviewed with the hope of ‘naming and shaming’ as a measure of accountability does not hold ground, as proved in this instance of the U.S exit from the LDF. According to a realist perspective, the voluntary commitment and pledge to the governance process can work if the member nation can gain dominance over other members through that process (Donelly, 2005).

Reimagining Global Climate Governance (GCG)

To make the LDF an effective and just instrument of global climate governance, true to its pluralist foundation, its design must prioritize principles of equitability, accountability, and sustainability (Gurung et. al., 2020). Gurung et. al. (2020) argue that funding arrangements should offer new and additional financial resources beyond existing mitigation and adaptation funds. This distinction is crucial for addressing the unique challenges posed by loss and damage, particularly in vulnerable regions. The success of the Fund lies in navigating these intricacies, aligning financial mechanisms with the dire needs of the most vulnerable, and fostering a collaborative, inclusive approach. The UNFCCC framework, through mechanisms like the LDF, aspires to pluralist governance by involving diverse actors. However, its current structure falls short of enabling genuine influence by small island nations. While these countries have a voice in negotiations, the lack of binding commitments and uneven power dynamics hinder substantive participation. To transform the LDF into an accountable and inclusive instrument, reforms must address these structural inequities and center the voices and knowledge systems of those most affected.

References

  • (UNFCCC), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015). Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
  • (UNFCCC), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2025). Fund for responding to Loss and Damage: Status of Resources. UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/FRLD_B.5_6_Status_of_resources_report_of_the_Trustee.pdf
  • Boyd, W. E. (2010). Climate Change, Fragmentation, and the Challenges of Global Environmental Law: Elements of a Post-Copenhagen Assemblage. International Environmental Law eJournal.
  • de Ridder, K., Schultz, F. C., & Pies, I. (2023). Procedural climate justice: Conceptualizing a polycentric solution to a global problem. Ecological Economics, 214, 107998. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107998
  • Donnelly, J. (2019). What Do We Mean by Realism? And How—And What—Does Realism Explain? In R. Belloni, V. Della Sala, & P. Viotti (Eds.), Fear and Uncertainty in Europe: The Return to Realism? (pp. 13-33). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91965-2_2
  • Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107-1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708
  • Gastelumendi, J. (2025). The US pullout from the climate loss and damage fund will prove costlier in the long run. Atlantic Council. Retrieved 04/25/2025 from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/us-pullout-from-the-climate-loss-and-damage-fund-will-prove-costlier/
  • Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24-40.
  • Gurung, P., Ojha, H., Naushin, N., Singh, P. M., Bhattarai, B., Banjade, P., Adhikari, A., Bartlett, C., Koran, G., & Camara, I. (2023). Designing loss and damage fund: Insights from vulnerable countries. In.
  • Hermwille, L., Wolfgang, O., E., O. H., & and Beuermann, C. (2017). UNFCCC before and after Paris – what’s necessary for an effective climate regime? Climate policy, 17(2), 150-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1115231
  • Jänicke, M. (2017). The Multi-level System of Global Climate Governance – the Model and its Current State. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(2), 108-121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1747
  • Kuyper, J., Schroeder, H., & Linnér, B.-O. (2018). The Evolution of the UNFCCC. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43(Volume 43, 2018), 343-368. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030119
  • Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool. Industry and innovation, 14(1), 95-119.
  • Nardin, T. (2000). International pluralism and the rule of law. Review of International Studies, 26(5), 095-110.
  • Nautiyal, S., & and Klinsky, S. (2022). The knowledge politics of capacity building for climate change at the UNFCCC. Climate policy, 22(5), 576-592. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2042176
  • Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H., & Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing Climate Governance Beyond the International Regime. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 58-78. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.1.58
  • Reid, M. G., Hamilton, C., Reid, S. K., Trousdale, W., Hill, C., Turner, N., Picard, C. R., Lamontagne, C., & Matthews, H. D. (2014). Indigenous Climate Change Adaptation Planning Using a Values-Focused Approach: A Case Study with the Gitga’at Nation. Journal of Ethnobiology, 34(3), 401-424. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-34.3.401
  • Rengger, N. (2015). Pluralism in International Relations Theory: Three Questions1. International Studies Perspectives, 16(1), 32-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12090
  • Tørstad, V. H. (2020). Participation, ambition and compliance: can the Paris Agreement solve the effectiveness trilemma? Environmental Politics, 29(5), 761-780. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1710322
  • United Nations (1993). Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. U. Nations. https://docs.un.org/en/A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1(vol.I)

Aritra Chakrabarty obtained his PhD from Michigan Technological University (MTU) in the Environment and Energy Policy (EEP) program in 2025. His research focuses on justice and equity in the renewable energy transition in the in the Global South. Apart from energy and environmental policy, Aritra also engages with climate governance as an issue through on ground interaction with stakeholders across geographies ranging from Europe, Latin America, and Asia. His participation at COP 27 & 28 of UNFCCC provided with on ground perspective of international relations in the context of climate change and how multi-level governance processes work. Aritra is well versed with international relations practices in the context of climate change and energy justice, and his past experience as a renewable energy sector consultant in South Asia, across both sides commercial grids and decentralized solutions gives him the leverage to understand stakeholder negotiations at multiple levels.

Alexis Belle Tater is a new Ph.D. student in Environmental and Energy Policy at Michigan Technological University. Her research focuses on Tribal sovereignty, ethical community engagement, and environmental justice. She is an active member in her community, leading campaigns and protests through Keweenaw Against the Oligarchy (which she founded), creating community spaces for organizing and for people to use their voices in a safe and constructive way. She is also an active leader in Keweenaw Youth for Climate Action, an action-based community and student organization working to urge university divestment from fossil fuels. Her work is rooted in her strong knowledge in and passions for socio-environmental justice and the belief that amplifying Indigenous voices and knowledges is crucial in the fight for climate justice.

Blog

Rising from the Ashes: Rural Communities in Portugal’s Fiery Landscapes

On June 17th, 2017, Ferraria de São João (hereafter Ferraria), a small-sized village in central Portugal remotely located at the top of a hill, was encircled by flames. The two available fire engines, one at each end of the village, were unable to refill with water at some point. There were no helicopters either. The tragedy, as the few residents would come to realise the morning after, was of a regional scale. Left to their own devices, the unprepared local population fought the flames by themselves with what they had at hand: garden hoses, water buckets, branches.

Wildfires are common in this region, but this time it was different. Indeed, 2017 was the worst wildfire year in Portugal’s recent history. A record area of over half a million hectares burned, leaving in its wake record damages and fatalities. Two unprecedented wildfire events, before (mid-June) and after (mid-October) the so-called critical fire period, were particularly disastrous, with over one hundred casualties and hundreds of injured people. These events were the first of a new kind recorded not only in Portugal, but also in Europe, in terms of extreme behaviour, intensity and impacts. In a way, Portugal was the “canary in the mine”, providing a stark warning of what the future holds for Mediterranean ecosystems.

A valley landscape with large burn patterns across the hillside.
Figure 1. Burnt landscape in the aftermath of the 2017 wildfires. Photo Credit: Feli García, via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The roots of the wildfire problem in Portugal, and across Southern Europe more generally, are deep and complex, entangling social, economic, ecological, and political factors, further exacerbated by climate change. These roots date back to the 1960s, when significant socioeconomic and land-use changes radically changed fire regimes.[1] Since then, wildfires have become larger, more frequent, and more destructive. In the wake of a rapid, albeit late, industrialisation process, most rural inland areas of northern and central Portugal witnessed a massive rural exodus that left behind increasingly depopulated and almost abandoned villages. As a result, former agricultural areas have been occupied by fire-prone shrublands and forests. Forest composition has also shifted, due to plantations of native maritime pines and, more recently, non-native eucalyptus trees – two fast-growing, fire-prone species. Adding to this, forest ownership in Portugal is overwhelmingly private. In northern and central Portugal, where wildfires are more frequent, properties are also highly fragmented and small-sized. The owners of many of these properties are unknown, as most properties therein have no official land registry title – an issue that is only now being tackled.

A forest of eucalyptus trees, with a pile of felled trees in the foreground.
Figure 2. Eucalyptus plantation in Portugal. Photo Credit: Global Forest Coalition (used with permission)

The eucalyptus is a controversial species in Portugal, where it is currently the most common tree. Native to Australia, it was introduced to Portugal in the 1850s, but it was only by the mid-20th century that it became a protagonist, often a vilified one, in the history of Portuguese forests and wildfires. Since then, the area it occupies has rapidly and steadily expanded to feed the booming paper pulp industry, not without protest, creating extensive monocultures, many of which un/mismanaged. Currently, Portugal has the largest land area planted with eucalyptus in Europe and, in relative terms, in the world. It is not only through planting that this species spreads, though. The eucalyptus thrives and takes hold with fire. In other words, wildfires encourage their natural regeneration. As many private properties are left unmanaged or abandoned, eucalyptus trees grow ‘wildly’, rendering landscapes increasingly flammable.

Like most villages in the region, the surroundings of Ferraria were almost exclusively occupied by eucalyptus, all of which burned down in 2017. Closer to the village, however, the flames eventually stopped in a 200-year-old stand of cork oaks, a heritage bequeathed by the ancestors that saved many houses.

A small village with white houses and tiled roofs sits below a burned hillside. The trees around the village are green, while the hillside is brown and blackened.
Figure 3. The village of Ferraria de São João after the 2017 wildfires, surrounded by cork oaks and, further afield, burnt eucalyptus trees. Photo Credit: Nuno Antunes/Revelamos (used with permission).

After experiencing the wildfires, and inspired by the oaks, the residents realised that something had to change. One week after the wildfires, the Residents’ Association promoted the first of over 20 community meetings with residents and forest owners to discuss what could be done to protect the village from future wildfires. Through a continuous participatory process of discussion and collective decision-making, the unanimous solution arrived at was the creation of a ‘village protection zone’ (VPZ): a 100-metres strip around the village collectively managed, where eucalyptus trees were replaced with more fire-resistant native trees.

The limits of the VPZ were collectively planned and mapped, as were the intervention areas therein. Given that the plots within the VPZ are mostly private, landowners’ consent was needed. The challenge was to identify them, as there was no land registry and many landowners are absentees. Yet, with the help of the residents, the Association was able to identify over 250 plots, mostly with less than 1 hectare, and their respective owners (around 80). Provided with the owners’ consent, the Association registered their lands and started removing eucalyptus trees in a designated area within the VPZ. Afterwards, over 1,000 native trees were planted. The areas and species to plant were also collectively chosen and mapped: fruit trees closer to the village; cork oaks and oaks further away. These plantations were made possible with the help of several volunteers from all over the country, taking advantage of the wave of solidarity that followed the catastrophic wildfires.

Figure 4. The Village Protection Zone of Ferraria, with the different intervention areas. Source: Associação de Moradores da Ferraria de São João (used with permission)

This pioneering and innovative initiative became an example at the national level, to be replicated in other villages, as has already happened in the neighbouring village of Casal de São Simão. These villages were two case studies in a research we conducted on local communities’ responses to the 2017 wildfires in Portugal,[2] as part of a larger interdisciplinary project on wildfire mitigation and adaptation in the country (People&Fire[3]).

With global temperatures on the rise and a projected increase of extreme wildfires due to climatic and land-use changes, to which Mediterranean ecosystems are particularly vulnerable, pressures mount to find ways to learn to coexist with wildfires. In a context of dwindling, aging population and widespread land abandonment, such as Southern Europe, what might this mean? What happened in Ferraria provides some answers. For the residents, it meant being proactive and restoring native landscapes through a bottom-up, participatory process that involved the whole community. The damaged, fiery landscapes of the present are not only “our disaster”, but also “our weedy hope”.[4]

[1] For a summary of these changes, see: Lourenço, L. (2018) Forest fires in continental Portugal: Result of profound alterations in society and territorial consequences. Méditerranée 130; Moreira, F. et al. (2011) Landscape–wildfire interactions in Southern Europe: Implications for landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management 92(10): 2389–2402.

[2] This research focused on ten initiatives that were implemented in one of the most seriously hit regions in 2017 (Pinhal Interior) by local communities, local associations and/or local governments. Drawing upon qualitative research methods (surveys of local government presidents, document analysis, and semi-structured interviews), it explored the underpinning motivations, actions undertaken, opportunities, and challenges.

[3] “People&Fire: Reducing Risk, Living with Risk” is a research project funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT–Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, I.P. (PCIF/AGT/0136/2017), between 2019 and 2022. It is carried out at the University of Lisbon (School of Agriculture, Institute of Social Sciences, and Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning) and is coordinated by Professor José Lima Santos. The aim of the project is to develop a new analytical framework to support people-centred policies through changing practices and choices at the policy, collective, and individual levels.

[4] Gan, E., Tsing, A., Swanson, H., & Bubandt, N. (2017). Introduction: Haunted landscapes of the Anthropocene. In A. L. Tsing, H. Swanson, E. Gan, & N. Bubandt (Eds.), Arts of living on a damaged planet: Ghosts of the Anthropocene (pp. G1–G14). University of Minnesota Press.

Filipa Soares is a researcher at the Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa. Originally trained as an anthropologist, she holds a DPhil (PhD) in Environmental Geography from the University of Oxford. She has done research in Portugal and the UK on various topics, such as the politics and histories of wildlife conservation, including rewilding, and forest management and human-environment relations. Email: filipafs@gmail.com

Luísa Schmidt is a sociologist and Principal Researcher at the Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa. In Portugal, she pioneered environmental sociology research and outreach. She coordinates OBSERVA–Environment, Territory and Society Observatory and co-founded (2009) the PhD on “Climate Change and Sustainable Development Policies”.

Ana Delicado is a Research Fellow at the Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa. Trained as a sociologist, she works mainly in social studies of science and technology. She has done research on environmental risks, energy technologies, public engagement with science, among other topics. She teaches at the PhD Programme in Climate Change and Sustainable Development and at the Master in Scientific Culture and Science Dissemination.

Blog

Marshall Urban Firestorm: On the Paradox of Greening America’s Suburbia

The Fire

On December 30th, 2021, the Marshall Fire broke out in suburban communities south-east of the idyllic city of Boulder, Colorado, located at the foot of the Rocky Mountains in the United States. Within hours, the fire burned roughly 1,000 homes down to their foundations. It was deemed an “urban fire storm” by climate scientist and Boulder local Daniel Swain.

Read More “Marshall Urban Firestorm: On the Paradox of Greening America’s Suburbia”

Blog

Fireways: Entanglements of Fire, People, and Environment in the Coconino National Forest, USA

“My forest is dying,” he said as we drove northwest on highway 180 through the Coconino National Forest. I looked out the truck window at the many brown and gray lifeless trees among the green and I asked if that wasn’t normal for summer. Billy, a seasonal wildland firefighter, said no, there were many more brown trees this year in July than previous years. It was a visual sign of what environmental scientists call forest morality. A warning that the Coconino National Forest could be reaching a tipping point.

Figure 1. A dead tree in the Coconino National Forest. Photo by author.

“Fireways” evokes the complex interactions between fire and humans. Each year the Coconino National Forest burns; each year it grows back. Yet an impact of anthropogenic climate change is drought, drying out the trees and leaving them less likely to return after fires that burn hotter and more frequently. Fire management policies have also affected the life of the forest, with an emphasis on suppression leaving the forest at risk from more intense blazes. This is the “fire paradox” of contemporary fire ecology, in which ever increasingly bigger blazes are caused by a combination of suppression policy and climate change, with each problem compounding the other. 

Figure 2. A forest fire burns on a mountain near Williams, Arizona. Photo by author.

More intense, frequent, and complex fires burn each year over longer fire seasons, with so-called “megafires” occurring over the past thirty years. The Indigenous people of the area, such as the Apache, practiced controlled burning to manage the forest. This practice has been taken up by the “good fire” movement, which advocates regular lighting of controlled burns to reduce fuel. Less fuel in the form of brush and dead trees means that intense fires and megafires are less likely.

Figure 3. A forest fire on the Colorado Plateau. Photo by author.

In Arizona, fire seasons are a regular part of the climatological cycle in a fire-adapted ecosystem. The Coconino National Forest covers a large part of Northern Arizona. It is the largest contiguous ponderosa pine forest in the world. Each year during the fire season from May-July, large forest fires burn. The predominant cause of forest fires is lightning. Fire season ends when the monsoon rains come, usually in August-September.

Figure 4. Monsoon rain clouds over Flagstaff, Arizona. Photo by author.

Forest fires in Arizona have gotten worse. In recent years, monsoons have been weaker, and the fire season is prolonged by a few days. Some years, the rainfall is so insignificant that local people call it a “nonsoon” year. Other years, intense bursts of sudden rainfall causes flash floods. The fires strip the land of trees and vegetation, which along with soil erosion, leaves the surrounding communities vulnerable to mudslides. In June 2021, monsoon rains caused flooding and mudslides through the site of the burn scar from the Museum Fire of 2019. Video captured flood waters sweeping away a Toyota Prius as mud and brown water coursed through neighborhoods close to downtown.

Figure 5. Flooding in the Rio de Flag wash in Flagstaff, Arizona. Photo by author.

Ponderosa pine trees make up much of the tree growth in the Coconino National Forest. Ponderosas do not grow at higher temperatures. As the average temperature rises due to anthropogenic climate change, the ponderosas recede. Fire is necessary for tree reproduction in the forest, clearing the grasses and scrub so the larger trees can grow in the regenerated soils. Ponderosas have a thick, fire-resistant bark. The low-intensity fires of 100-years ago burned the grasses but did not reach the lower branches of the tall ponderosas.

Figure 6. A ponderosa pine tree. Photo by author.

Now more intense fires are burning entire tree stands. Ponderosas only reproduce via seeds, which only scatter a certain distance from a parent tree. If a whole stand burns, it is much harder for the seeds to regrow. Literature from tree surveys show that the forest is close to its tipping point, after which the annual fires will destroy so many trees they will be unable to grow back.

The US Forest Service is responsible for fire management in the Coconino National Forest. In recent years, they have begun to light more controlled burns to reduce the fuel in the forest and decrease the intensity of forest fires. The aim is to reinstate a fire regime that encourages the dispersal of seeds and renewal of soils that promote forest health. However, local people complain about controlled burns, perceiving them as dangerous, reducing air quality due to smoke, and increasing closures of the forest for recreational use.

Local people and visitors use the forest extensively for hiking, camping, and outdoor sports. Recently, the Forest Service has tried to limit use of the forest around the Verde Valley area by restricting camping to approved campsites only. There are perennial problems with trash left in the forest by campers and stray sparks from campfires and cigarettes igniting forest fires. However, the Forest Service also encourages recreational use of the forest, such as by leasing land to a ski resort on the San Francisco Peaks. This is one of the sacred mountains to the Diné people (Navajo), many of whom object to the presence of a ski resort. Historically, the Forest Service has also been responsible for opening large tracts of the forest to logging.

Figure 7. Remains of a campsite in the Coconino National Forest near Flagstaff. Photo by author.

As fires burn tree stands that are unable to regrow, the forest is turned to grassland. In the process, what was a carbon sink becomes a carbon source. The fire paradox of anthropogenic climate change and management policies of suppression are creating wildfires of such magnitude that will ultimately bring abrupt ecological change to the forest.

Figure 8. Dead and living trees surround Red Mountain in the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. Photo by author.

Susannah Crockford is a lecturer in anthropology at the University of Exeter, UK. Her research interests cover the ethnographic study of ecology, religion, and medicine, with field sites in the southern and midwestern US and northern Europe. She has been visiting Northern Arizona for fieldwork since 2012. Her first monograph was published in May 2021 by the Class 200 list of the University of Chicago Press, titled Ripples of the Universe: Spirituality in Sedona, Arizona. Her next book will be an ethnography of climate change. Follow on Twitter: @suscrockford. 

Blog

Desalination and the Political (Blue) Economy of Climate Adaptation

Figure 1. Inside the largest seawater desalination plant in United States that produces 50 million gallon per day, located in Carlsbad, CA. Image © Brian F. O’Neill (2019).

A Blue Revolution?

Seawater desalination, the industrial production of drinking water from the ocean, is a practice of increasingly intense interest to thirsty cities across the globe. And why not? It promises the ability to provide a reliable water source that is (seemingly) invulnerable to climate change. What is more, the market is responding, with a global estimated value of roughly $18 billion[1] (c.f., Swyngedouw and Williams 2016). And there is significant expected growth, up to $32 billion (that’s about half the estimated size of the wind industry),[2] in the next four years.

Read More “Desalination and the Political (Blue) Economy of Climate Adaptation”

Blog

Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation

The latest Environment and Society featured article is now available! This month’s article—”Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation: Perspectives from a Century of Water Resources Development”—comes from Volume 1 (2010). In their articles, Clive Agnew and Philip Woodhouse identify parallels between the problem of adaptive management presented by climate change and an earlier “global water crisis.” The article explores how adaptive strategies have successively emphasized three different principles, based on science, economics, and politics/institutions

Visit the featured article page to download your copy of the article today before it’s gone! A new article is featured every month.

Read More “Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation”

Blog

The Social Life of Blame in the Anthropocene

The latest Environment and Society featured article is now available! This month’s article—”The Social Life of Blame in the Anthropocene”—comes from Volume 6 (2015). In his article, Peter Rudiak-Gould shows how life in the Anthropocene reconfigures blame in four ways—it invites ubiquitous blame, ubiquitous blamelessness, selective blame, and partial blame—and reviews case studies from around the world, investigating which climate change blame narratives actors select, why, and with what consequences

Visit the featured article page to download your copy of the article today before it’s gone! A new article is featured every month.

Read More “The Social Life of Blame in the Anthropocene”

Blog

Adaptation—Genuine and Spurious

The latest Environment and Society featured article is now available! This month’s article—”Adaptation—Genuine and Spurious: Demystifying Adaptation Processes in Relation to Climate Change”—comes from Volume 1 (2010). In their article, Thomas F. Thornton and Nadia Manasfi critically examine the concept of human adaptation by dividing it into eight fundamental processes and viewing each in a broad cultural, ecological, and evolutionary context. They focus their assessment especially on northern indigenous peoples, who exist at the edges of present-day climate governance frameworks but at the center of increasingly acute climate stress.

Visit the featured article page to download your copy of the article today before it’s gone! A new article is featured every month.

Read More “Adaptation—Genuine and Spurious”

Blog

New Featured Article!: “Climate Changing Small Islands”

The latest Environment and Society featured article is now available! This month’s article, “Climate Changing Small Islands: Considering Social Science and the Production of Island Vulnerability and Opportunity,” comes from Volume 1 (2010). In her article, Amelia Moore argues that climate change has influenced the way in which small island nations are viewed and understood by the international climate community.

Visit the featured article page to download your copy of the article today before it’s gone! A new article is featured every month.

Read More “New Featured Article!: “Climate Changing Small Islands””

Blog

The Afterlife of Coal

This post was presented as part of a series recognizing Earth Day, Saturday, April 22, 2017. It is being re-featured on the blog in 2021 as part of the Themed Collection: Pollution & Toxicity.

Coal mining communities in Appalachia have been framed as both victims and villains within the discourses of our emerging Trumpian late industrial narrative. Indeed, the US presidential election of Donald Trump has enacted an existential ratcheting up of the vitriolic moral divisions between “coastal elites” and “flyovers,” unhinged from the banality of previous circulations of those essentialist stereotypes. But a closer look past these inscriptions may reveal a different reality about the relationship between Appalachian coal mining communities and the environments in which they live, one that points to a more distributed agentive collusion between coal mining families, coal, and the toxins that augment the life of the matter within broader Appalachian ecosystems.

Read More “The Afterlife of Coal”