Since August 2017, over 740,000 Rohingya refugees have fled atrocities and violence in Myanmar to Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. There are now one million Rohingya refugees in Cox's Bazar, comprising about 30 percent of the population. This increase, coupled with immediate needs for fuelwood and shelter, has diminished livelihoods due to deforestation and loss of access to land; soil and slope erosion; fuelwood scarcity and associated risks to safety of people collecting fuelwood; increased encroachment and forest degradation; declining water quality, groundwater reserve depletion, and air pollution; decreasing soil quality; and climate vulnerability. To restore cleared forest areas, and improve human and environmental wellbeing, international actors must work with the Government of Bangladesh to implement a long-term forest landscape restoration (FLR) plan for Cox's Bazar. This paper provides a number of recommendations which work towards this goal, focused on: improving efficiency and impact of reforestation investments; improving seedling survival and benefits inside and outside camps; improving disaster resilience and nutrition inside camps; and increasing ecological and social benefits out of camps.
The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. We explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 y since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being, advancing the fundamental interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services, and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: (i) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being; (ii) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and (iii) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.
Although intentional use of fires to transform land has decreased globally (1, 2), particularly among highly capitalized countries through regulatory and market-oriented approaches and moral suasion, regulatory strategies have been less effective in southern and eastern Asia (see table S21). Some densely populated agricultural regions in China and India buck the global trend, showing increases in agricultural fires (2). This is particularly true in northwestern India, where rice residue burning makes a substantial contribution to air pollution and short-lived climate pollutants (3, 4). Regulations are in place to reduce agricultural fires, but burning continues because of uncertainty regarding policy implementation and regarding access and returns to alternative technologies. With the field burning season soon upon us, we synthesize emerging evidence on alternatives to burning, clarify the business case for alternative practices, identify remaining uncertainties, and discuss approaches to increase their widespread adoption. Often, there are difficult trade-offs between environmental improvement and profitable economic opportunities. The case of crop residue management in northwestern India does not appear to fit this pattern and provides lessons that may be useful elsewhere. Some of the least healthy air in the world is in India (5), where polluted air is the second-highest health risk factor (6). Seasonal smog imposes enormous costs, such as major transportation disruptions and the closure of 4000 schools in Delhi in November 2017 (7). The risks peak during October and November with the burning of rice crop residues in agricultural areas (8, 9). During this period, crop residue burning contributes to major particulate pollution in Delhi and northern India (9–11). Eighty percent of agriculture in northwestern India's Indo-Gangetic plains is based on a rice-wheat cropping system (∼4.1 million ha). Concerns over groundwater withdrawals have led to a planting cycle that allows the rice crop to benefit from monsoon rains. This cycle creates a short period (∼10 to 20 days) to harvest rice, manage rice crop residue, and plant wheat. Many of the 2.5 million farmers in northwestern India prepare for wheat planting by burning an estimated 23 million metric tons of rice residue in their fields (12). India's national government recognizes both the air pollution risks and the crucial role of crop residue burning. Despite federal and state regulations since 2014 and related advisories and bans, directives against burning have been only partially enforced. The reluctance to enforce existing policies arises, in part, from the belief that profitable alternatives to burning crop residue do not exist. Any alternative to crop residue burning must be feasible, affordable, and capable of scaling to adoption by thousands of farmers. Burning could be avoided by changing the overall cropping system (e.g., growing different crops) or by adopting different rice-wheat management practices. The focus to date has been on these latter options, which we include in the scope of this study. After mechanical harvesting of rice, farmers in northwestern India have different options for sowing wheat. All options include some combination of rice residue treatments (mulching by cutting and on-field distribution, baling and removal from the field, incorporation by tilling into the field, and on-field burning), land preparation (no additional preparation, rotavate, disc and tine harrow, and plank), and seeding of wheat (using Happy Seeders, conventional seeders, other zero-till seeders, and rotaseeders). Not all combinations of these options are regularly used in northwestern India, and we focus on 10 combinations that are commonly practiced or are viewed as potentially scalable (fig. S1). The majority of farmers currently choose to burn rice straw, plow fields, and sow wheat using conventional seeders. Given variation in practices, we evaluate the public and private costs and benefits and potential scalability of 10 alternative farming options, three of which result in residue burning.
