Five Reasons Why You Should Listen Out for ‘Nature Tech’ This Year

Photo Credit: Forbes, This Start-Up Wants To Make Reforestation More High-Tech. Andrew Wight.

Whether’s it’s watching David Attenborough’s latest Perfect Planet films or using high-tech VR to experience the Amazon, many of us are familiar with experiencing the natural world through technology. We are, however, much less familiar with understanding the many emerging ways in which technology can and should help us protect, restore and more sustainably manage our natural resources.

At Nature4Climate (N4C), we are excited by the emergence of what we are calling ‘nature tech’ – a term that encompasses the application of modern technology to help enable, accelerate and scale-up nature’s ability to combat climate change and deliver a range of other benefits for people and the planet.

Left to its own devices, nature has been providing benefits to humankind since the beginning of time. Unfortunately, in far too many places, nature is under threat and we now know that proactive steps need to be taken care for our natural ecosystems. These actions are known, collectively, as nature-based solutions (NbS), which are defined by IUCN as ‘actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits’. A sub-section of NbS are natural climate solutions that are focused specifically on climate mitigation and adaptation.

In the midst of a global health crisis, the collapse of biodiversity, and a warming climate, the need for NbS has never been greater. But despite their potential, NbS still face a number of barriers. They require government policies and incentives; they require community support and engagement; and they require private sector understanding and investment, both in the corporate and finance sectors.

These are all areas that N4C, and many others, are working on. But it is also clear that, like most things, NbS can be greatly aided by innovative technology. Many see nature and technology as polar opposites, and by extension believe that “natural” and “technological” solutions to global crises exist in conflict. We believe the opposite, and so this year we will be turning our attention to ‘nature tech’ – technology that can accelerate the deployment of NbS at scale.

Defining ‘nature tech’

The notion of ‘cleantech’ has existed for more than a decade, and is synonymous with eco-innovation, encompassing high-tech companies that create environmental added value. In its 2020 report, the Cleantech Group estimated that more than $7.4 billion had been raised by its top 100 companies from investors spanning 45 countries – and the whole sector has been estimated to be worth about $4 trillion. Cleantech is defined as ‘new technology and related business models that offer competitive returns for investors and customers while providing solutions to global challenges’.

To date, definitions of cleantech have mostly covered companies that focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency, recycling, supply chain efficiencies, etc., with emerging trends in what is known as ‘ag tech’. At N4C, we believe there is huge potential for the growth of companies that apply technology advances – whether that’s satellite monitoring, drone technology, AI, genomic sequencing, block chain etc – for the benefit of nature and the climate.

So, how do we define ‘nature tech’? In its broadest sense, it is high-tech applications that enable, accelerate and scale-up NbS. N4C is currently conducting a landscape-mapping and scoping exercise and will release a more precise definition during the CogX festival in June in the UK. But based on our initial assessment, we believe it covers the following areas, albeit not exclusively:

Emerging trends

The number of the companies that embody this trend are still relatively few compared to the numbers reported by the Cleantech Group, but it is increasing. For example, Pachama has attracted attention and funding for its combination of machine learning and satellite monitoring to protect forests by connecting them to global carbon markets. In Canada, Flash Forest has pioneered a high-tech approach that can speed up reforestation by 10 times. Moja global is developing open-source software to improve accuracy and lower the cost of developing a system to measure emissions from forestry, agriculture and other land uses. Finnish company Carbo Culture focuses on high-tech biochar solutions to enhance carbon sequestration in soils, while NatureMetrics uses cutting-edge genetic techniques to monitor biodiversity. Tech can also give us an insight into a previously obscure and hidden world. We have long relied on systems like TRASE to look at supply chain transparency and the cause and effect of commodity production and trade, and this technology is rapidly improving.

There are also initiatives focused on building support and funding for these companies: the Techstars Sustainability Accelerator was launched in partnership with The Nature Conservancy to accelerate investment in start-ups looking to help solve food, water and climate challenges. In December 2020, the Sustaintech Xcelerator was launched by DBS, Google, the World Bank and others to support climate innovators who are developing solutions that increase confidence in NbS.

Why is this emerging trend important? We believe that there are five good reasons for nature-tech – the bridge between the worlds of technology and nature – to be strengthened and invested in.

  1. Nature tech has a vital role to play in accelerating the deployment of nature-based solutions, at a time when speed is of the essence. We cannot reach the goals of the Paris Agreement without large-scale deployment of natural climate solutions by 2030. It can also help us map, measure and deploy NBS at the right places at the right time.
  2. Equally important are the jobs that can be created. This includes all the livelihoods supported by nature-positive investments, such as sustainable food production and reforestation efforts, as well as creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs to build nature tech businesses that may not currently exist.
  3. Technology also enables the democratization of opportunity. Ideas can come from anywhere, and a bottom-up revolution in nature-based solutions is possible in every country, facilitated by accessible technology such as mobile phones and platforms such as the World Economic Forum’s UpLink that connects projects on the ground to experts and investors.
  4. Transparency and accountability are especially critical in the race to net zero, particular for nature’s place in that race. This is where technology can play an outsized role, to help solve many of the existential hurdles that nature-based solutions to climate have faced – around monitoring, measuring, verifying and reporting.
  5. And last but never least, finance. Nature-based solutions are much in need of investment, attracting less than 10% of current public climate finance. Technology can help derisk projects and play an important role in both creating a marketplace and attracting finance, by reducing transaction costs, enhancing supply chain transparency, and looking into past and future models and trends.

Instead of just using technology to experience nature – a poor substitute for the real thing – N4C believes tech can be a huge force for unlocking the potential of nature-based solutions. It’s time to bridge the worlds of nature and technology. We live at a moment of extreme urgency with a need for innovation, solutions and using the best tools that the modern world can give us. Nature Tech is just beginning. We think it’s the next big thing, the next big investment opportunity, the next revolution in thinking and solutions.

“Tech is a tool; it’s up to us how we use it. Nature now needs tech support too.”

Lucy Almond is the Director and Chair of Nature4Climate.

The United States of Fire

Laura Spellman, a “hot shot” firefighter, uses a drip torch to burn vegetation as part of efforts to contain a 2018 wildfire in Mendocino National Forest, Calif. Photo Credit: Cecilio Ricardo / U.S. Forest Service.

When the Creek Fire roared to life near Shaver Lake, Calif., last September, it chewed through the area’s overgrown, sickly forests, belching smoke and spitting out blackened, matchstick trunks.

But in forests owned by the electrical utility Southern California Edison, the Creek’s famished roar turned to a purr. The wildfire licked over the landscape, charring mature trees but not killing them. There simply wasn’t enough fuel — dense, dry shrubs and drought-stricken trees — to feed the fire to excess.

This was in large part thanks to John Mount, a retired California Edison forester. In 1979, Mount quietly began setting controlled burns on the utility’s land surrounding Shaver Lake. His fires cleared overgrown brush and weeded out small and unhealthy trees. At the time, this flew in the face of conventional forestry practice, which, for a century, had labored to extinguish all fires as quickly as possible.

Mount discovered setting moderate fires protects and rejuvenates the land, and prevents intense wildfire. Credit: John Mount.

As a forestry student, the stance had made no sense to Mount. California’s forests thrived before modern wildfire control. “I simply asked myself a question,” Mount said. “If lightning has been starting fires for millennia, why are we putting them out?” Mount discovered for himself what North America’s native peoples had known for centuries: Setting moderate fires protects and rejuvenates the land, and prevents intense, dangerous wildfire.

Now, after a record-busting fire season that scorched 4 million acres in California alone, it’s clear that our forests are starving for “good” fire — not just in the West, but across the country.

The gargantuan scale of the problem means that restoring flames to fire-famished forests won’t be easy or quick. With money and manpower, though, it can be done. “I’m more hopeful today than I’ve been for a while,” says Brittany Dyer, American Forests’ California state director. “Everyone is angry at the state of our forests. And once you get to anger, you get change.”

Native Flames

This 1905 photo from the southern rim of the Grand Canyon shows the parklike conditions once common in western forests. Photo Credit: U.S. Geological Survey.

The first Europeans to arrive in North America found a land of seemingly divine abundance: a profusion of nut trees and berry bushes, grassy clearings swarming with deer, parklike woodlands that you could drive a wagon through. It wasn’t providence they should have thanked, but native people.

For millennia, tribes across North America used fire as a tool to favor useful plants and animals. Fire regenerates bushes that produce food, dye, medicine and materials for baskets and tools. It aids oaks, and other trees that grow edible nuts, and opens up grazing areas for game animals. Ron Goode, the chairman of California’s North Fork Mono Tribe and an advocate for the restoration of tribal burning, explains: “The forest is a garden, and the native people took care of it.”

In the wildfire-prone landscapes of the western U.S., burning was also a matter of safety. It helped to prevent wildfires from encroaching on villages and kept extensive trail networks open as evacuation routes. People and wildlife used these trails when it was time to flee. “Lion has her kids, bear has her kids, deer has her kids,” Goode says. “Better hope no one is hungry.”

Tribes burned throughout the year, setting many small fires that added up in a big way. In California, an estimated 4.5 to 12% of the state’s land burned before Europeans arrived. Tribes burned around 2% of this total, or roughly 2 million acres, according to Goode. Now, in stark contrast, California burns somewhere between 50,000 and 125,000 acres a year.

The result of all that burning was a profoundly different landscape from the one we see today. Compared to today’s overcrowded forests, “the basal distance between trees was huge,” Goode says. “You might be talking 50 feet.” Burning created a rich patchwork of oak savannahs, meadows and pine-dotted slopes. Fire-adapted species flourished: not only oaks, but also sequoias, Ponderosas and other hardy conifers. Frequent, low-level fire also favored big, mature trees, which are more flame-proof than little ones. “It was well-documented that a ‘small’ tree was 6 feet in diameter,” Goode says.

Tribes set fires in all corners of the country, even in the East’s wet, fire-resistant woodlands. Many eastern forests that are now dim, dense thickets of trees and tangling underbrush were, for centuries, open, park-like spaces, with a far greater dominance of flame-resistant, food- bearing trees: American chestnuts, which are now functionally extinct due to disease, along with oaks and hickories.

Starved of fire, eastern oak-hickory forests are being outcompeted by northern hardwood species that grow profusely in ample rain and rich soil. This is bad news for nut-loving wildlife, as well as for communities that want to protect their forests for the future. Oaks and hickories are “better situated than northern hardwoods with dealing with a changing climate,” says Bill Zipse, a supervising forester with the New Jersey Forest Service. By letting less-resilient trees like beech and sugar maple overrun forests, “you might be setting yourself up with something more fragile now than what you started with.”

Flame Wars

Wildlands firefighters set “backburns” to control the 2020 Pine Gulch Fire, the second-largest wildfire in Colorado history. Credit: Kyle Miller, Wyoming Hotshots / U.S. Forest Service.

At first, Europeans didn’t snuff out all fire. Many colonizers actually adopted tribal burning methods, after seeing the good it did for the land. In the early days of the United States Forest Service, foresters debated whether total fire suppression was the goal, or if the “Indian way” of light burning should be.

The Great Fire of 1910 scorched all debate, along with 3 million acres in Idaho and Montana. This mammoth conflagration stunned the country and cemented the Forest Service’s zero-tolerance approach to wildfire. From then on out, all wildfire had to go, as soon as possible. In 1935, the agency institutionalized its infamous “10 a.m. policy” — the practice of put- ting out a wildfire the morning after its initial report. A decade later, Smokey Bear cemented the idea that forest fires are wasteful, even immoral.

Deprived of tribal burning, forests started to go haywire. The diverse mosaic of habitats that moderate burns once maintained turned to uniform sweeps of rangy, same-aged trees. Moist forests grew denser, wetter and less likely to burn. Dry forests, conversely, grew more likely to burn — not with your everyday “good” fire, but in tree-torching infernos. As Western forests racked up a deep “fire debt,” they grew cramped and unhealthy. Overcrowded trees competed for water, sunlight and nutrients, and succumbed to drought and bark beetle outbreaks that past forests had been able to withstand.

In California, the few advocates for controlled burning fought a current of entrenched belief.

“My mom even at one point burned a couple of times, and she got in trouble for it,” Goode recalls. “The fire people showed up, the sheriffs showed up. They all wanted to arrest her.” As for Mount, during his brief stint with the Forest Service before California Edison, he was “chastised quite soundly” for suggesting that fire could be good.

The legacy of over a century of fire famine — and decades of climate inaction — is now inescapable. Since 2014, drought and beetles alone have killed a staggering 162 million trees in California’s national forests. Fire seasons have grown longer, costlier and more severe. Last year’s record-breaking infernos in California, Colorado and Oregon underscored the apocalyptic cost of ignoring forest health. “The wildfires were not unforeseen or accidental,” says Dyer, of American Forests. “It was a bomb that was ready to go off.”

Florida on Fire

With 1.5 to 2.5 million acres of controlled burns a year, Florida’s fire culture sets itself apart. Photo Credit: Carlton Ward Jr. / The Nature Conservancy.

Hope for our fire-hungry forests might, of all places, come from Florida, a state more famous for spring break than land stewardship. But with 1.5 to 2.5 million acres of controlled burns a year, the Sunshine State might be better distinguished as the Flame State.

Here, for many landowners, burning is considered as much a right as life, liberty and happiness. “Some of the best, intuitive, artistic fire professionals I’ve ever met were private landowners who learned the art of fire from their families,” says Zachary Prusak, the Florida fire manager for The Nature Conservancy.

Prusak, who grew up in Daytona Beach smelling smoke from controlled burns, has worked with prescribed fire for 33 years. He’s had plenty of time to reflect on what sets Florida apart, fire-wise. The biggest difference, he suspects, is that state residents simply never stopped burning. The Seminole Tribe has been burning uninterrupted for centuries. Cattle families, some of which have ranched the same land for five generations, are vocal proponents of fire, which regenerates grass for grazing.

Florida’s love affair with fire translates at the legislative level as well. The Great Fire of 1910, and the policies that came after, were blips on the radar. Following severe wildfires in 1998, the state amended its laws to make prescribed fire easier, not harder. Now, people can’t be held liable for damages or injuries from a controlled burn unless proven “grossly negligent.” In addition, a culture of collaboration — a necessity, given Florida’s densely packed population — makes it easier to work across agencies, and across public and private lands.

Of course, nothing is perfect. Even with the statewide enthusiasm for firelighting, Florida’s landscapes are still hungry for more. Sandhill habitats and longleaf pine forests need to be sated with fire every two to three years, or run the risk of withering away. “To use an Alice in Wonderland metaphor, we are the Red Queen. We’re trying to run as fast as we can just to stay in the same place,” Prusak says. “We need to do more.”

Back to the Burn

The aftermath of a “good” fire: burned underbrush, unscathed trees. Photo Credit: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Florida is one of fire’s biggest fans, but it isn’t alone. Many other states, tribes and private entities have progressive mindsets and policies when it comes to controlled burning. New Jersey, for example, passed legislation in 2019 making it easier for private landowners to burn. The state’s Forest Fire Service boasts dedicated fire wardens, who manage both fire suppression and prescribed burns. “I don’t even see that in most western states, let alone most eastern states,” says Zipse, of the N.J. Forest Service. “That’s kind of a luxury.”

Ironically, the places that would most benefit from firelighting have historically been the most averse to it. Across the West, communities and regulators have long balked at controlled burns, and for understandable reasons. Smoke is a nuisance, and downright dangerous to people with lung conditions such as asthma. There’s always the risk, though remote, that a burn could spin out of control and hurt people or structures.

Attitudes can change, though, and fast. In Shaver Lake, John Mount overcame any initial resistance with good old public outreach. “That meant going to coffee shops every morning,” he says. “I would stop off and have a beer in the after- noon. I went to every Lion’s Club meeting, every Women’s Club meeting. They very quickly understood that having to put up with a little smoke … that I was really protecting their homes.”

In the wake of the 2020 wildfires, more communities are clamoring for prescribed fire and other fuel reduction work. Culture is less of a barrier now than scale: Western wildlands are vast, and massive slices are federally owned. Forty percent of land in Colorado is federal. That number jumps to 50% in California and Oregon, and 60% in Idaho.

For forests that depend on regular fire to stay healthy, this isn’t great news. The U.S. Forest Service and other federal land agencies are chronically understaffed and underfunded, and tend to be more risk-averse and less nimble when it comes to prescribed fire. Even as the merits of “good” fire have come into laser focus, the use of prescribed fire on western lands flatlined — and in some cases decreased — over the last decade. Perhaps not surprisingly, the only national agency that has significantly increased prescribed fire is the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Money and manpower are major hurdles. In California, for example, a whopping 20 million acres need to burn before forests and other habitats stabilize. Prescribed fire alone costs around $200 an acre — but because so many forests in California are too overgrown to burn without raging out of control, they first need to be thinned of excess brush and trees, to the tune of roughly $1,500 an acre. Environmental permits can cost as much as the on-the-ground work itself. “You’re looking at a price tag of potentially billions of dollars,” Dyer says.

Those pricey permits don’t necessarily translate to action. In Oregon, 1.3 million acres of federal land are permitted for prescribed fire, but are languishing without funds or foresters to do the work. Burn crews can be vanishingly scarce, and the complexity of coordinating with a mishmash of local, state and national agencies means that these crews are often unavailable during the narrow, unpredictable weather windows when it’s safe to burn.

Still, some promising changes are on the horizon. “A fire season like this kind of coalesces our attention,” says Courtney Schultz, a wildfire policy expert at the University of Colorado. “I do think there’s some good momentum around prescribed fire.” She cited the National Prescribed Fire Act of 2020, which would provide $300 million a year for federal agencies to set prescribed fires, $10 million for burns in areas at high risk of severe wildfire, and a cash incentive to any local or state government conducting burns bigger than 100,000 acres.

More money is on the way. In 2018, American Forests helped to pass the “Fire Funding Fix,” which secured stable funding for wildfire fighting, without cannibalizing money from other federal programs that benefit forests. In August, California announced it will begin using fire and other fuel-reduction methods on 1 million acres of land each year by 2025.

At the same time, a recent cultural shift towards “shared stewardship” is enhancing collaboration between federal and state agencies, nonprofits, tribes and other groups. This enables identifying the most at-risk forests on a landscape scale, rather than ownership-by-ownership, and using science to prioritize where to send money, expertise and manpower. American Forests is supporting this shift by convening meetings, providing research and advancing policies that align with shared stewardship.

Our forests are going to burn, one way or another. The climate crisis is fueling early springs, deep droughts and withering temperatures, guaranteeing ever-bigger, hotter wildfires. If we want to stave off devastating flames — which decimate forests, watersheds, homes and wildlife — we have to cut carbon emissions in half in the next decade, all while taking sweeping action to restore forest health. Firelighting alone won’t solve our forest woes, but it’s a big part of the solution. “We have to make friends with fire,” Dyer says. “Without it, the whole system will collapse.”

Allison Guy is American Forests’ senior manager of communications for American ReLeaf program.

Seeing the Forest for the Seedlings: Challenges and Opportunities in the Effort to Reforest America

Bareroot hardwood nursery.

You never know when a casual conversation over lunch is going to change your life, nor can you appreciate just how much these life-changing moments will shape your future. These pivotal events only become obvious with the passage of time and the perspective it provides.

In college, I knew I wanted to spend my career working in forests, but like many college students, I struggled to put my finger on exactly what I wanted to do. I knew that I was interested in a job where I could focus primarily on protecting and managing our nation’s beautiful forests, having developed an affinity for the woods during summers at Girl Scout camp. Just before my senior year, my summer job supervisor suggested to me over lunch that I might like working in a tree nursery. Little did I know then that I would spend the next 30 years working with nurseries and seedlings. I often tell people, “if a tree is taller than I am, it’s out of my jurisdiction!”

Conifer seedling in a container nursery.

When walking through a beautiful, mature forest, it is sometimes easy to forget that every single one of those trees began as a tiny seedling. In their youth, tree seedlings are just as vulnerable as newborn babies. They need to be grown from high-quality seed, cultivated with care, and protected from pests and pathogens. Tree nurseries, and the workers who plant and maintain tree seedlings, help ensure that tree seedlings get a good start in life.

The need for tree nurseries and skilled workers has been heightened by a recent surge in interest around reforestation. Americans are increasingly recognizing the myriad benefits provided by healthy forests. Trees help prevent soil erosion and improve water quality. They provide habitat for wildlife and spaces for outdoor recreation. They support good-paying jobs and produce wood products. Efforts to address climate change have led to growing recognition of forests’ potential to sequester large amounts of carbon. This growing appreciation for the role of trees in maintaining healthy ecosystems and economies has led to calls for planting billions of new trees on formerly forested lands.

Even as demand for tree seedlings rises, however, these efforts are limited by a capacity to produce and plant them. Many state and federal nurseries have closed in recent decades, leading to a reduction in seedling availability, especially for small forest landowners. This gradual decline of U.S. nursery capacity has left us ill-equipped to respond to the call to reforest America.

A new study by The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Forest Service, American Forests, universities, and businesses outlines the sobering challenges we face in meeting the ambition to reforest our lands. Not only do we need to increase nursery production, but we need to expand seed collection and storage, and increase our capacity to plant seedlings in the field and care for them during their first few years after planting. In other words, every aspect of the “reforestation pipeline” must be functional at the necessary capacity to meet reforestation goals.

Actions needed to address challenges within the reforestation pipeline in order to implement an ambitious reforestation scenario.

To reforest 64 million acres of U.S. land by 2040, we need to produce at least 3 billion seedlings a year – far exceeding the 1.3 billion seedlings currently produced by U.S. nurseries. Increasing nursery capacity could mean incentivizing existing nurseries to expand, or encouraging them to form innovative partnerships with other types of nurseries to utilize excess capacity.

We also need to make sure we’re planting the right trees in the right places. To do so, we need to collect and store seeds from a diversity of forest species and geographic locations to ensure we have the appropriate species and genetic sources for the range of reforestation sites across the country. Trees must be genetically adapted to the climate where they are planted – trees adapted to coastal environments have little chance to thrive in harsher mountainous areas even if they are the same species. These steps help safeguard our ecosystems and increase the chance that trees survive and thrive until maturity.

Planting 3 billion trees each year – and providing the care needed to ensure they survive – is going to require skilled forest workers. Recruitment, job training, and grant programs can help us build the national workforce we need to collect seeds, staff nurseries, plant trees, and shepherd them through the growing process.

Popular tree planting campaigns often understate the complexity of growing a tree and ensuring its survival. A successful national tree planting strategy will require a massive effort to identify land appropriate for tree planting, increase nursery capacity, produce high-quality seedlings and develop a modern “tree army” of skilled workers. It will also require strong partnerships between government agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses, and private landowners.

Thirty years ago, I made the fateful decision to pursue a career working with nurseries, and I have never regretted it. Our efforts to reforest our country are at a similar crossroads. If we take steps now to build an integrated and smoothly functioning “reforestation pipeline,” future Americans may look back at 2021 as a pivotal inflection point in our efforts to create a more robustly forested America.

Diane L. Haase is the Western Nursery Specialist at the USDA Forest Service.