'It is a gesture that says, "I believe you. You believe me".'
đ Silas Siakor, prize-winning Liberian expert, on innovating forest protection.
đ In this post:
From the editorâs desk
Insight: Silas Siakor
Highlight: solutions & changemakers
PS. From the global soundtrack
FROM THE EDITORâS DESK
WorldWise readersâ
This post is dedicated to moves for positive change. Our featured interview, which foregrounds an approach to incentivise forest protection being pioneered in Liberia, is followed by a curation of recent stories that highlight solutions and changemakers working on some of the global issues we cover in these pages. Letâs get straight to it.
Anita
INSIGHT | views & analysis
Step one: cut the red tape, get to the benefits fast.
Silas Siakor is best known for work that earned him the Goldman Environmental Prize for Africa in 2006. At personal risk, he had gathered and released evidence that former Liberian President Charles Taylor used profits from illegal logging to pay for a brutal 14-year civil war. He presented the evidence to the UN Security Council, which then banned Liberian timber exports.
The work, and the recognition, didnât stop there. After Taylor was removed from power, he collaborated with Liberiaâs government to establish timber regulations and empower indigenous forest communities, founding the inaugural Forest Peopleâs Congress. Siakor has been working on natural resource governance issues in Liberia for a little over two decades now, currently as project manager with IDL-Integrated Development and Learning.
In this conversationâedited for length as clarity as usualâhe argues for a fresh approach to conservation that helps communities to protect forest against extractive industries, outlining how it works and touching on links with the rush for Africaâs critical minerals.
AM: Letâs start with an introduction to your work in Liberia these days.
SS: Currently, I work on a programme [Payment for Stewardship] that weâve designed over the last three years, [which] we started implementing a year ago with funding from Irish Aid. The idea is basically to bring communities into the fold to help address climate change: forest communities in rural Liberia, those that have been able to establish their land rights. We help them to organise, set up their own governance institutions. And when they do that, we enter into a formal agreement with them. Under that agreement, we provide $1.50 per hectare of forest that they keep standing per year. That [money] goes directly in cash to the communities, and they decide what type of development intervention they would like to finance.
Additionally, we invest an additional $1 per hectare in the villages that are closest to the forest, and this goes for livelihood developmentâso for those that directly rely on the forest for basic things, we provide livelihood support, some agriculture interventions, some market access and some small grants to start their own businesses. Thereâs a whole basket of interventions funded by that dollar, but they decide what type of intervention to fund.
AM: How did you arrive at this model?
SS: Versions of it are being implemented in different parts of the world. Some two decades ago, we started having conversations about avoiding deforestation. [Then] we talked about reducing deforestation and forest degradation. Then we went on to REDD+ [a UN programme designed to offer financial incentives for protecting forest ecosystems], planting additional trees to integrate with the existing natural forest. Liberia has had a little over a decade of really trying to meet the requirements to get resource-based payments for REDD+, but that has not happened. On the other hand, the logging industry has failed miserably with communities. So we said, [letâs] take a step back and try to figure [it] out: are there other ways in which we could incentivise local communities that own forest to keep that forest standing?
âWhen you create all these bureaucraciesâall these structures, all the layers [of] requirements that forest owners have to meet in order to benefitânobody gets there easily.â
We looked at different models, and thatâs how we came [up] with this particular scheme. It really taps [into] different ideas. But the beauty of it is that we have learned that when you create all these bureaucraciesâall these structures, all the layers [of] requirements that forest owners have to meet in order to benefitânobody gets there easily. It takes years and years and years. And so we are saying, what if we put the benefits up front and let the community work towards achieving greater results down the road? Not starting with the results.
The commitment is the first [step]. We reach an agreement. Upon signing that agreement, the community receives the year-one payment. But all other payments after that [are] contingent on keeping that designated forest standing; [payment] in any other year after that is resource-based, but the start-off [payment] is basically a goodwill gesture that [says], âI believe you. You believe me. I put [a] dollar 50 cents on the table. If that forest is still there 12 months from now, you get another dollar, 50 cents for the subsequent yearâ.
AM: Are there other places where that has been tried and worked?
SS: REDD+ has been tried in different versions, in different countries, but of course, with a whole range of different challenges. We have implemented this now for a little over a year. We started with two communities. Now there are fiveâsix communities in that basket, covering a little over 50,000 hectares. And the reaction has been extremely positive. Now we have a situation in which other communities are queueing up to be a part of that scheme. So we do see a lot of potential. The investment we made in the livelihood interventions, we see it having [a] very positive impact at the household level.
AM: That particular approach of making the payment upfrontâis that something that you are aware of being done somewhere else?
SS: This is something that we pioneered. We havenât seen this same model elsewhere in terms of trusting the communities by making the upfront payment. What we have seen in other places is: we come in, we do all the carbon measurement, we check the trees, we check the biodiversity, we see that it meets ABC requirements before we engage with you. And oftentimes that takes two, three years, if it materialises. It just takes so much of the community peopleâs time. And at the end of the day, the resource that goes into that, it oftentimes doesnât reach the community in a way that impacts them significantly. A lot of that is caught up in overheadsâinternational consultancy salaries and all of thatâand very little of the money gets to the ground.
âIt will be their own conservation agenda, because they have committed to keeping the trees standing.â
Our approach is basically, how do we get that money to the people, to where it matters? For example, in this scheme, at least 50% of the budget goes directly to the community in cash, and then another 20% is delivered in kind through livelihood development support. So approximately 70â75% of the cash ends in the community, not salaries and overheads.
We started off by keep[ing] trees standing. Now we want to take it to another level, where we look at the biodiversity significance of the forestâso not just the trees, but the health of the forest overall. Weâre going to be doing that in the context of community-led conservation. It will be their own conservation agenda, because they have committed to keeping the trees standing.
AM: So the community see the proof, the concrete income coming in to begin with, and that fosters trust about the programme. It kind of incentivises them.
SS: Yeah. One of the elements of the livelihood development interventions [is] informal saving groups: you put in a little bit of money at the end of every week for rainy days; at the end of six months [or] a year, you come back together [and] you redistribute. Now you receive [the savings] in bulk, you can invest it either in [a] business, or changing your house or making another investment in your familyâs welfare during the course of the year. If you have a family emergency or thereâs a financial difficulty, you are able to go into the scheme and take a loan at very low interest. In these areas [where we work] there are no banks, no financial services. So that provides a really good way of helping people to create a culture of saving and lending and paying back.
But what we also do is look for business opportunities within their community. Because if you are able to get an income, and you are able to save at the end of every week. We start with a loanâwe call it a revolving grant. That will start with $200 per household, and then you have up to three or four months to put that back into the basket for your neighbour to be able to take [it] and start their own intervention as well. When you have paid back in full the $200, you then become qualified to receive up to $500, [and] then up to $750âthatâs the maximum you receive under that scheme.
The structure is built on trust. Typically there will be 25â30 persons in one group. The first five persons qualify for the $200, [and] until theyâve paid back all of that money in full, no other person will be able to access the basket. So there is a kind of social pressureânot a very aggressive recovery, but you are reminded the next time you see your neighbour [that they are] waiting for you to put that money back in order for them to access it.
In the last cycle that weâve done, we were able to pay out a little over $90,000, [with] about 80â85% recovery of that money. And now we are in the cycle two, from March 2026 to March 2027. The basket has a total of $150,000, [potentially] reaching a lot of people.
AM: And how long do you think itâs going to be until you see results in terms of forest protection?
SS: Right now, we think about it in three phases. The first phase, this engagement phase, is basically building trust with the communities, being clear about the forest [area secured] under the scheme, the roles and responsibilities of ourselves and the communities.
What we are now doing is setting out an open challenge to traditional conservation organisations and saying to them, these forest areas are quite strategic. We selected them in a way that they are surrounding the National Park. They are found in the corridors linking different protected areas. So we [say to them], letâs do a full biodiversity assessment of these areas, [to] understand the health, the quality of the forest and biodiversity relevance, and letâs build a conservation programme that has the communities at the forefront. That is the next phase.
Iâve [said] to conservation organisations, âYou struggle to engage with communities. You come across a lot of resistance. Now we have opened that door for you. You can now come in so that we work together.â We are hoping that they will pick up that challenge.
AM: Letâs talk a little bit about the critical minerals issue. You were involved in the Forest Trends report that came out recently, which documents unreported profits from that trade and lays out impacts on communities as well. Can you tell me a little bit about how that issue is coming into the work that you just described?
SS: There are two levels of that. One is mining by big multinationals. And then there is artisanal mining by local, small-scale miners, basically using shovels and diggersâbut that has dramatically changed because it now involves heavy machinery. Their impacts are being felt very differently.
In terms of the revenue stream more tied to multinational mining companies, we challenged the government to look a bit more closely and figure out what exactly is happening. Because Liberia is part of the [global] Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, all the mining companies have to report whatever they pay the government in terms of revenue, in terms of taxes. Because they are exporting internationally, trade data is [also] being collected about how much iron or gold is being exported, for example. [Countries] keep very good data about how much they are importing through formal channels.
When we looked at the data, just for this study, the gap was $2.7 billionâthatâs the gap between what [the] government of Liberia tracked as exports, and what the importing countries reported as imports. How does $2.7 billion vanish into thin air? It is not just a simple accounting error. Something has to be happening here, and we are being very careful not to make any accusations, but we are saying the numbers speak for themselves. Something is wrongâyou need to investigate.
âBecause the government is literally absent in these areas, the communities are now having to step in to say, âthis is our protected forest, because we are getting an income for this areaâ.â
Thatâs the economic side. Then you have the environmental side. Gold mining is proven to be a very environmentally damaging activity. For example, [for] one of the companies heavily involved in gold mining thereâs a lot of reports of chemical spills in their areas, water pollution, entire villages having to relocate, fish dying in the streams. The artisanal miners now using machinery, they dig it everywhere in the forestâevery riverbed, every stream, anywhere [where] there is a deposit of gold. They just go in there, no environmental impact assessment, no social impact assessment.
Communities are coming into clash with them because they are so poorly regulated. They are now beginning to say, âYou can stay there [a particular region], you can do your mining, but you cannot go on this sideâthis area is restricted, protectedâ. Because the government is literally absent in these areas, the communities are now having to step in to say, âthis is our protected forest, because we are getting an income for this areaâ.
AM: As you know, the critical minerals rush has become prominent in environmental conversations, and on the other hand a lot of countries are doing deals for extraction. Last month we saw the first OECD forum on this topic in Turkey. Is this significant?
SS: Well, just looking back 10â12 years ago, there was quite a meaningful conversation about mining in Africa, and a lot of commitments from African governments about ways in which mining could be done to benefit the [continent] economically, to reduce the environmental footprint, and make sure human rights are respected. Those commitments were laid out in the African Mining Vision. Unfortunately, Iâm not quite sure if any current government even remembers was [is] in the African Mining Vision. And I think it is sad. As an African, someone who [is] really proud to be from this part of the world, I find it really hurtful when I have to request external support in order to [keep] our governments in check.
So we expect developed countries to begin to really say to governments, âif you donât get your act together, we are going to make sure that we put in additional restrictionsâ. I donât see that happening easily because Western governments need these minerals.
But I do think we are at a point where civil society needs to get together much more strongly and make these demands on the politicians. Politicians and business leaders in the developed world need to be true to their word when they say, âWe are going to work with African governments in partnership thatâs mutually beneficial, and that is not exploitativeâ. Because until now, that is what we see. The big corporations come to Africa, they make a lot of promises, saying âwe would like to be partners in developmentâ, but in reality, they just suck out so much from the continent.
âWe still feel thereâs benefit in staying engaged in those spaces and making our voices heard. But we are not naĂŻve to the fact that on their own, they are not going to change anything.â
I can give you a very quick example. [Multinational steel company] ArcelorMittal came to Liberia in 2005âthatâs about 20 years ago. They entered into a binding agreement with the government. The government has a stake in the company but does not receive any dividends, because the company claims to be operating almost always at a loss. So the 25% stake we have in the company does not deliver cash for the government. The companyâs agreement came up for renegotiation a year ago, and some in government said, âYou know what? You say to us, this business has not been profitable for 20 years, so maybe we need to give it to another personâ. And the company said, âno, no, we still want to operateâ. So how do you insist a business has been a loss for you for 20 years, but you are unwilling to let it go. Now they are saying [they] will commit to putting $5 million a year into competitive development [up from a $3 million promise in 2005]. If you are operating at a loss, where is the $5 million going to come from?
These are predatory corporations, but they come here under the cloak of coming from OECD countries where environmental regulations are tougher and human rights due diligence is a big requirement. But when it comes to Africa, none of that applies. And I think the world needs to do better.
AM: Given what youâve described, do you see this OECD forum as a positive step, or an empty gesture?
SS: In Africa, we say âyou donât throw the baby out with the bathwaterâ. We have a situation where our governments are doing very badly in terms of managing our natural resources. So as much as the OECD and other global frameworks are not delivering the promises on which they were founded, we still do see some value. We still feel thereâs benefit in staying engaged in those spaces and making our voices heard. But we are not naĂŻve to the fact that on their own, they are not going to change anything. We need to keep the pressure in those global spaces, but we also need to keep pressure on our governments. Hopefully together, they will trigger some changes.
đ Learn more about the Payment for Stewardship programme and the Forest Trends report.
đ¸ YOUR SUPPORT MATTERS
As always, a big thank you for supporting this project.
The newsletter is the product of years of experience across sectors, plus hours of reading, curation and writing. If you find it useful and have the means, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for just ÂŁ1.5 a week to help keep it sustainable and free for all.
GLOBAL BRIEFING | around the world
Seeking solutions
đ§đˇ The Brazilian Amazon Is the Next Battery Frontier - Bloomberg | Clean energy projects across the rainforest are reducing the need to burn diesel and bringing 24/7 power for refrigeration:
Brazil has the cleanest national grid among G20 countries, thanks to abundant hydropower, much of it originating in the Amazon. But many Amazonian communities arenât connected to the grid. In remote areas with no roads, transmission lines are difficult to build and maintain. Instead, they depend on polluting diesel fuel for electricity. Now, solar panels and lithium batteries are beginning to transform the region, supplementing or replacing diesel altogether.
đ Renewable Power Reaches an Inflection Point - World Politics Review | For the first time, renewable power sources met all the worldâs new electricity demand in 2025, according to analysis by the think tank Ember.
đ¨đł đ¤ Can Chinaâs Great Green Wall shape efforts to keep the worldâs deserts at bay? - Nature | Grand anti-desertification schemes often fail when trees die and funding dries up. Lilin Zheng and colleagues say one project has broken the mould:
By 2100, half of Earthâs land area is expected to be dryland, with five billion inhabitants. To meet this challenge, many countries have set up large programmes to combat desertification. [But] green-wall projects across Africa, India and the Gulf states have struggled to reap benefits.
Over the past few decades, we have tracked desertification and efforts to combat it across China, Africa and beyond. In our view, countries across the world could benefit from adopting aspects of Chinaâs strategy to keep more of the desert at bay.
đŽđł đĽ Bidarâs hidden water system: How a 600-year-old network eases todayâs water crisis - DW | The revival of Karez tunnels, built centuries ago to sustain Bidar through dry summers, shows how historic engineering can help address present-day water shortages.
đŽđłđ¤ Mahakumbh 2025 holds lessons in solving Indiaâs waste crisis - Eco-Business | The Indian government should take a leaf out of the Mahakumbh playbook, argue Animesh Ghosh, Debraj Bhattacharjee and Naman Dubey:
Mahakumbh 2025 made headlines last year as the largest human gathering on Earth. Hosting nearly 660 million people over six weeks, this spectacle of faith, tradition, and collective belief also revealed a striking paradox. In a country grappling with chronic urban waste crises, this fleeting megacity managed what Indian cities struggle to achieve: efficient, large-scale waste management. What can Indiaâs cities learn from this temporary, yet highly effective, sanitation model?
đłđľ In Nepalâs plains, traditional bins help keep food safe from heat, floods - Mongabay | Indigenous communities use earthen storage bins (dehari) to store grains and seeds safely, relying on traditional knowledge:
Made from locally available materials such as clay, husk and dung, the bins naturally regulate temperature and moisture, helping protect crops from extreme heat, pests and seasonal flooding without electricity. While durable and effective, dehari have limitations such as vulnerability to moisture, pests and floods requiring careful placement, regular monitoring and adaptation to changing climate conditions.
Changemakers in the spotlight
đ¨đ´ As global 30Ă30 goal lags, Colombia shows how progress can be made - Mongabay | Colombia, one of the worldâs most biodiverse countries, has protected and conserved 47% of marine and 26% of terrestrial areas. This has been achieved through new and expanded public and private conservation measures, including the Heritage Colombia âproject for finance permanenceâ initiative.
đ UN Advisory Board names 20 city leaders in zero waste - UNEP | The initiative highlights cities demonstrating ambitious and innovative approaches to reducing waste, advancing circular economy solutions, and building more sustainable, resilient, and inclusive urban systems.
đ Meet the 2026 Goldman Environmental Prize Winners - Mongabay | Three highlights:
Theonila Roka Matbob, from Papua New Guinea, became lead complainant in a human rights complaint by 156 community members against Rio Tinto in 2020. That same year she won a seat in the Bougainville legislature. Four years later, the company signed a memorandum of understanding with the Bougainville government formally acknowledging the mineâs harms and committing to remediation.
Yuvelis Morales Blanco, from Colombia, became a target when she began to oppose Ecopetrolâs proposed KalĂŠ and Platero pilot fracking projects. In early 2022, after armed men appeared at her home, she sought asylum in Franceâa high-profile exile that helped elevate fracking as an issue in Colombiaâs 2022 presidential elections, leading to a suspension of Ecopetrolâs contracts by the countryâs new president.
Iroro Tanshi from Nigeria, co-executive director of the Small Mammal Conservation Organization, spent years building a community-integrated wildfire prevention programme. Working with 16 villages, she helped communities draft forest laws with financial penalties for illegal burning, and installed weather stations to generate daily fire-risk assessments.
PLUS | in other editions
PS.
Thank you.
WorldWise is read across 82 countriesâit remains independent thanks to the support of subscribers like you, and to the rest of my nomadic work-life. Sign up | Browse archive | Sponsor an issue
Created and edited by Anita Makriâjournalist/writer, producer and editorial adviser covering global development and science in society. I also help selected organisations with compatible values to strengthen their media work. LinkedIn | Instagram | Email